This is a modern-English version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Fairbanks, Erastus" to "Fens": Volume 10, Slice 2, originally written by Various. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


Transcriber’s note: A few typographical errors have been corrected. They appear in the text like this, and the explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is moved over the marked passage. Sections in Greek will yield a transliteration when the pointer is moved over them, and words using diacritic characters in the Latin Extended Additional block, which may not display in some fonts or browsers, will display an unaccented version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in other EB volumes will be made available when the respective volumes are introduced online.
 

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

 

VOLUME X SLICE II

Fairbanks, Erastus to Fens


 

Articles in This Slice

Articles in This Section

FAIRBANKS, ERASTUS FASCIA
FAIRFAX, EDWARD FASCINATION
FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, FERDINANDO FAIRFAX FASCINE
FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, THOMAS FAIRFAX FASHION
FAIRFIELD (Connecticut, U.S.A.) FASHODA
FAIRFIELD (Iowa, U.S.A.) FAST AND LOOSE
FAIRHAVEN FASTI
FAIRHOLT, FREDERICK WILLIAM FASTING
FAIRMONT FASTOLF, SIR JOHN
FAIR OAKS FAT
FAIRŪZĀBĀDĪ FATALISM
FAIRY FATE
FAIRY RING FATEHPUR
FAITHFULL, EMILY FATEHPUR SIKRI
FAITH HEALING FATHER
FAITHORNE, WILLIAM FATHERS OF THE CHURCH
FAIZABAD FATHOM
FAJARDO FATIMITES
FAKHR UD-DĪN RĀZI FAUBOURG
FAKIR FAUCES
FALAISE FAUCHER, LÉONARD JOSEPH
FALASHAS FAUCHET, CLAUDE
FALCÃO, CHRISTOVÃO DE SOUSA FAUCHET, CLAUDE
FALCK, ANTON REINHARD FAUCIT, HELENA SAVILLE
FALCÓN FAUJAS DE SAINT-FOND, BARTHÉLEMY
FALCON FAULT
FALCONE, ANIELLO FAUNA
FALCONER, HUGH FAUNTLEROY, HENRY
FALCONER, WILLIAM FAUNUS
FALCONET, ÉTIENNE MAURICE FAURE, FRANÇOIS FÉLIX
FALCONRY FAURÉ, GABRIEL
FALDSTOOL FAURIEL, CLAUDE CHARLES
FALERII FAUST
FALERIO FAUSTINA, ANNIA GALERIA
FALGUIÈRE, JEAN ALEXANDRE JOSEPH FAVARA
FALIERO, MARINO FAVART, CHARLES SIMON
FALISCI FAVERSHAM
FALK, JOHANN DANIEL FAVORINUS
FALK, PAUL LUDWIG ADALBERT FAVRAS, THOMAS DE MAHY
FALKE, JOHANN FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB FAVRE, JEAN ALPHONSE
FALKIRK FAVRE, JULES CLAUDE GABRIEL
FALKLAND, LUCIUS CARY FAVUS
FALKLAND (burgh of Scotland) FAWCETT, HENRY
FALKLAND ISLANDS FAWCETT, JOHN
FALLACY FAWKES, FRANCIS
FALLIÈRES, CLÉMENT ARMAND FAWKES, GUY
FALL-LINE FÁY, ANDRÁS
FALLMERAYER, JAKOB PHILIPP FAYAL
FALLOPIUS, GABRIELLO FAYETTEVILLE (Arkansas, U.S.A.)
FALLOUX, FRÉDÉRIC ALFRED PIERRE FAYETTEVILLE (North Carolina, U.S.A.)
FALLOW FAYRER, SIR JOSEPH
FALLOW-DEER FAYUM
FALL RIVER FAZOGLI
FALMOUTH FEA, CARLO
FALSE POINT FEARNE, CHARLES
FALSE PRETENCES FEASTS AND FESTIVALS
FALTICHENI FEATHER
FALUN FEATHERSTONE
FAMA FEATLEY DANIEL
FAMAGUSTA FEBRONIANISM
FAMILIAR FEBRUARY
FAMILISTS FEBVRE, ALEXANDRE FRÉDÉRIC
FAMILY FÉCAMP
FAMINE FECHNER, GUSTAV THEODOR
FAN FECHTER, CHARLES ALBERT
FANCY FECKENHAM, JOHN
FANG FEDCHENKO, ALEXIS PAVLOVICH
FANO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FANSHAWE, SIR RICHARD FEDERALIST PARTY
FANTAN FEDERICI, CAMILLO
FANTASIA FEE
FANTI, MANFREDO FEHLING, HERMANN VON
FANTI FEHMARN
FANTIN-LATOUR, IGNACE HENRI JEAN THÉODORE FEHMIC COURTS
FANUM FORTUNAE FEHRBELLIN
FAN VAULT FEIJÓO Y MONTENEGRO, BENITO JERÓNIMO
FARADAY, MICHAEL FEITH, RHIJNVIS
FARAH (river of Afghanistan) FEJÉR, GYORGY
FARAH (town of Afghanistan) FELANITX
FARAZDAQ FELDKIRCH
FARCE FÉLIBIEN, ANDRÉ
FAREHAM FELIX (five popes)
FAREL, GUILLAUME FELIX (bishop from Burgundy)
FAREY, JOHN FELIX (Spanish bishop)
FARGO, WILLIAM GEORGE FELIX (of Valois)
FARGO FELIX, ANTONIUS
FARIA Y SOUSA, MANUEL DE FÉLIX, LIA
FARIBAULT FELIXSTOWE
FARIDKOT FELL, JOHN
FARIDPUR FELL
FARĪD UD-DĪN ‘ATTĀR FELLAH
FARINA, SALVATORE FELLENBERG, PHILIPP EMANUEL VON
FARINATO, PAOLO FELLER, FRANÇOIS XAVIER DE
FARINELLI FELLING
FARINGDON FELLOE
FARINI, LUIGI CARLO FELLOW
FARM FELLOWS, SIR CHARLES
FARM BUILDINGS FELO DE SE
FARMER, RICHARD FELONY
FARMERS’ MOVEMENT FELSITE
FARNABY, THOMAS FELSPAR
FARNBOROUGH, THOMAS ERSKINE MAY FELSTED
FARNBOROUGH FELT
FARNE ISLANDS FELTHAM, OWEN
FARNESE FELTON, CORNELIUS CONWAY
FARNESE, ALEXANDER FELTON, JOHN
FARNESE, ELIZABETH FELTRE, MORTO DA
FARNHAM FELTRE
FARNWORTH FELUCCA
FARO (town of Portugal) FEMALE
FARO (game of cards) FEMERELL
FARQUHAR, GEORGE FENCING
FARR, WILLIAM FENDER
FARRAGUT, DAVID GLASGOW FÉNELON, BERTRAND DE SALIGNAC
FARRANT, RICHARD FÉNELON, FRANÇOIS DE SALIGNAC DE LA MOTHE
FARRAR, FREDERIC WILLIAM FENESTELLA
FARREN, ELIZABETH FENESTRATION
FARREN, WILLIAM FENIANS
FARRER, THOMAS HENRY FARRER FENNEL
FARRIER, and FARRIERY FENNER, DUDLEY
FARS FENNY STRATFORD
FARTHING FENRIR
FARTHINGALE FENS
FASCES  

130

130

FAIRBANKS, ERASTUS (1792-1864), American manufacturer, was born in Brimfield, Massachusetts, on the 28th of October 1792. He studied law but abandoned it for mercantile pursuits, finally settling in St Johnsbury, Vermont, where in 1824 he formed a partnership with his brother Thaddeus for the manufacture of stoves and ploughs. Subsequently the scales invented by Thaddeus were manufactured extensively. Erastus was a member of the state legislature in 1836-1838, and governor of Vermont in 1852-1853 and 1860-1861, during his second term rendering valuable aid in the equipment and despatch of troops in the early days of the Civil War. His son Horace (1820-1888) became president of E. & T. Fairbanks & Co. in 1874, and was governor of Vermont from 1876 to 1878.

FAIRBANKS, ERASTUS (1792-1864), American manufacturer, was born in Brimfield, Massachusetts, on October 28, 1792. He studied law but switched to business, ultimately settling in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, where in 1824 he partnered with his brother Thaddeus to create stoves and plows. Later, they produced Thaddeus's scales on a large scale. Erastus served in the state legislature from 1836 to 1838 and was governor of Vermont in 1852-1853 and again in 1860-1861, during his second term providing critical support for equipping and sending troops in the early days of the Civil War. His son Horace (1820-1888) became president of E. & T. Fairbanks & Co. in 1874 and served as governor of Vermont from 1876 to 1878.

His brother, Thaddeus Fairbanks (1796-1886), inventor, was born at Brimfield, Massachusetts, on the 17th of January 1796. He early manifested a genius for mechanics and designed the models from which he and his brother manufactured stoves and ploughs at St Johnsbury. In 1826 he patented a cast-iron plough which was extensively used. The growing of hemp was an important industry in the vicinity of St Johnsbury, and in 1831 Fairbanks invented a hemp-dressing machine. By the old contrivances then in use, the weighing of loads of hemp-straw was tedious and difficult, and in 1831 Fairbanks invented his famous compound-lever platform scale, which marked a great advance in the construction of machines for weighing bulky and heavy objects. He subsequently obtained more than fifty patents for improvements or innovations in scales and in machinery used in their manufacture, the last being granted on his ninetieth birthday. His firm, eventually known as E. & T. Fairbanks & Co., went into the manufacture of scales of all sizes, in which these inventions were utilized. He, with his brothers, Erastus and Joseph P., founded the St Johnsbury Academy. He died at St Johnsbury on the 12th of April 1886.

His brother, Thaddeus Fairbanks (1796-1886), inventor, was born in Brimfield, Massachusetts, on January 17, 1796. He showed a talent for mechanics from a young age and created the designs that he and his brother used to manufacture stoves and plows in St. Johnsbury. In 1826, he patented a cast-iron plow that was widely used. The cultivation of hemp was a significant industry around St. Johnsbury, and in 1831, Fairbanks invented a hemp-dressing machine. The old methods for weighing loads of hemp straw were laborious and challenging, so in 1831, Fairbanks developed his well-known compound-lever platform scale, which represented a significant advancement in the design of machines for weighing heavy and bulky items. He later received over fifty patents for improvements or innovations in scales and the machinery used to create them, with the last one granted on his ninetieth birthday. His company, which became known as E. & T. Fairbanks & Co., began producing scales of all sizes, incorporating these inventions. He, along with his brothers Erastus and Joseph P., founded the St. Johnsbury Academy. He passed away in St. Johnsbury on April 12, 1886.

The latter’s son Henry, born in 1830 at St Johnsbury, Vermont, graduated at Dartmouth College in 1853 and at Andover Theological Seminary in 1857, and was professor of natural philosophy at Dartmouth from 1859 to 1865 and of natural history from 1865 to 1868. In the following year he patented a grain-scale and thenceforth devoted himself to the scale manufacturing business of his family. Altogether he obtained more than thirty patents for mechanical devices.

The son of the latter, Henry, was born in 1830 in St Johnsbury, Vermont. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1853 and from Andover Theological Seminary in 1857. He served as a professor of natural philosophy at Dartmouth from 1859 to 1865 and then taught natural history from 1865 to 1868. The following year, he patented a grain scale and then focused on the scale manufacturing business of his family. In total, he secured more than thirty patents for mechanical devices.


FAIRFAX, EDWARD (c. 1580-1635), English poet, translator of Tasso, was born at Leeds, the second son of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton (father of the 1st Baron Fairfax of Cameron). His legitimacy has been called in question, and the date of his birth has not been ascertained. He is said to have been only about twenty years of age when he published his translation of the Gerusalemme Liberala, which would place his birth about the year 1580. He preferred a life of study and retirement to the military service in which his brothers were distinguished. He married a sister of Walter Laycock, chief alnager of the northern counties, and lived on a small estate at Fewston, Yorkshire. There his time was spent in his literary pursuits, and in the education of his children and those of his elder brother, Sir Thomas Fairfax, afterwards baron of Cameron. His translation appeared in 1600,—Godfrey of Bulloigne, or the Recoverie of Jerusalem, done into English heroicall Verse by Edw. Fairefax, Gent., and was dedicated to the queen. It was enthusiastically received. In the same year in which it was published extracts from it were printed in England’s Parnassus. Edward Phillips, the nephew of Milton, in his Theatrum Poetarum, warmly eulogized the translation. Edmund Waller said he was indebted to it for the harmony of his numbers. It is said that it was King James’s favourite English poem, and that Charles I. entertained himself in prison with its pages. Fairfax employed the same number of lines and stanzas as his original, but within the limits of each stanza he allowed himself the greatest liberty. Other translators may give a more literal version, but Fairfax alone seizes upon the poetical and chivalrous character of the poem. He presented, says Mr Courthope, “an idea of the chivalrous past of Europe, as seen through the medium of Catholic orthodoxy and classical humanism.” The sweetness and melody of many passages are scarcely excelled even by Spenser. Fairfax made no other appeal to the public. He wrote, however, a series of eclogues, twelve in number, the fourth of which was published, by permission of the family, in Mrs Cooper’s Muses’ Library (1737). Another of the eclogues and a Discourse on Witchcraft, as it was acted in the Family of Mr Edward Fairfax of Fuystone in the county of York in 1621, edited from the original copy by Lord Houghton, appeared in the Miscellanies of the Philobiblon Society (1858-1859). Fairfax was a firm believer in witchcraft. He fancied that two of his children had been bewitched, and he had the poor wretches whom he accused brought to trial, but without obtaining a conviction. Fairfax died at Fewston and was buried there on the 27th of January 1635.

FAIRFAX, EDWARD (c. 1580-1635), English poet and translator of Tasso, was born in Leeds as the second son of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton (father of the 1st Baron Fairfax of Cameron). His legitimacy has been questioned, and the exact date of his birth is unclear. It's said he was only around twenty when he published his translation of the Gerusalemme Liberala, suggesting he was born around 1580. He chose a life of study and seclusion over the military service that his brothers excelled in. He married the sister of Walter Laycock, the chief alnager of the northern counties, and lived on a small estate in Fewston, Yorkshire. There, he focused on his literary work and the education of his children and those of his older brother, Sir Thomas Fairfax, later the baron of Cameron. His translation was published in 1600 as Godfrey of Bulloigne, or the Recoverie of Jerusalem, done into English heroicall Verse by Edw. Fairefax, Gent., and was dedicated to the queen. It received enthusiastic praise. That same year, excerpts were printed in England’s Parnassus. Edward Phillips, Milton’s nephew, praised the translation in his Theatrum Poetarum. Edmund Waller credited it with influencing the rhythm of his poetry. It is said that King James favored it as his favorite English poem, and that Charles I entertained himself with it while imprisoned. Fairfax used the same number of lines and stanzas as the original, but he allowed himself considerable freedom within each stanza. Other translators may offer a more direct translation, but Fairfax uniquely captures the poem's poetic and chivalric essence. He provided, according to Mr. Courthope, “an idea of the chivalrous past of Europe, as viewed through the lens of Catholic orthodoxy and classical humanism.” The sweetness and musicality of many passages are rivaled only by Spenser. Fairfax did not seek further public attention, but he did write a series of twelve eclogues, of which the fourth was published with the family's permission in Mrs. Cooper’s Muses’ Library (1737). Another eclogue and a Discourse on Witchcraft, as it was acted in the Family of Mr. Edward Fairfax of Fuystone in the county of York in 1621, edited from the original by Lord Houghton, appeared in the Miscellanies of the Philobiblon Society (1858-1859). Fairfax strongly believed in witchcraft. He believed that two of his children had been bewitched and had the accused brought to trial, but failed to secure any convictions. Fairfax died in Fewston and was buried there on January 27, 1635.


FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, FERDINANDO FAIRFAX, 2nd Baron (1584-1648), English parliamentary general, was a son of Thomas Fairfax of Denton (1560-1640), who in 1627 was 131 created Baron Fairfax of Cameron in the peerage of Scotland. Born on the 29th of March 1584, he obtained his military education in the Netherlands, and was member of parliament for Boroughbridge during the six parliaments which met between 1614 and 1629 and also during the Short Parliament of 1640. In May 1640 he succeeded his father as Baron Fairfax, but being a Scottish peer he sat in the English House of Commons as one of the representatives of Yorkshire during the Long Parliament from 1640 until his death; he took the side of the parliament, but held moderate views and desired to maintain the peace. In the first Scottish war Fairfax had commanded a regiment in the king’s army; then on the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642 he was made commander of the parliamentary forces in Yorkshire, with Newcastle as his opponent. Hostilities began after the repudiation of a treaty of neutrality entered into by Fairfax with the Royalists. At first he met with no success. He was driven from York, where he was besieging the Royalists, to Selby; then in 1643 to Leeds; and after beating off an attack at that place he was totally defeated on the 30th of June at Adwalton Moor. He escaped to Hull, which he successfully defended against Newcastle from the 2nd of September till the 11th of October, and by means of a brilliant sally caused the siege to be raised. Fairfax was victorious at Selby on the 11th of April 1644, and joining the Scots besieged York, after which he was present at Marston Moor, where he commanded the infantry and was routed. He was subsequently, in July, made governor of York and charged with the further reduction of the county. In December he took the town of Pontefract, but failed to secure the castle. He resigned his command on the passing of the Self-denying Ordinance, but remained a member of the committee for the government of Yorkshire, and was appointed, on the 24th of July 1645, steward of the manor of Pontefract. He died from an accident on the 14th of March 1648 and was buried at Bolton Percy. He was twice married, and by his first wife, Mary, daughter of Edmund Sheffield, 3rd Lord Sheffield (afterwards 1st earl of Mulgrave), he had six daughters and two sons, Thomas, who succeeded him as 3rd baron, and Charles, a colonel of horse, who was killed at Marston Moor. During his command in Yorkshire, Fairfax engaged in a paper war with Newcastle, and wrote The Answer of Ferdinando, Lord Fairfax, to a Declaration of William, earl of Newcastle (1642; printed in Rushworth, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 139); he also published A Letter from ... Lord Fairfax to ... Robert, Earl of Essex (1643), describing the victorious sally at Hull.

FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, FERDINANDO FAIRFAX, 2nd Baron (1584-1648), was an English parliamentary general and the son of Thomas Fairfax of Denton (1560-1640), who was made Baron Fairfax of Cameron in the Scottish peerage in 1627. Born on March 29, 1584, he received his military education in the Netherlands and served as a member of parliament for Boroughbridge during the six parliaments held between 1614 and 1629, as well as during the Short Parliament of 1640. In May 1640, he inherited his father’s title as Baron Fairfax, but since he was a Scottish peer, he sat in the English House of Commons as one of the representatives of Yorkshire during the Long Parliament from 1640 until his death. He supported the parliament but had moderate views and aimed to maintain peace. During the first Scottish war, Fairfax commanded a regiment in the king’s army; when the Civil War broke out in 1642, he became the commander of the parliamentary forces in Yorkshire, with Newcastle as his opponent. Conflict began after he rejected a neutrality treaty with the Royalists. Initially, he had no success, being pushed from York, where he was laying siege to the Royalists, to Selby, then to Leeds. After successfully defending Leeds from an attack, he was completely defeated on June 30 at Adwalton Moor. He fled to Hull, which he defended against Newcastle from September 2 to October 11, and through a brilliant counterattack, forced the siege to end. Fairfax won at Selby on April 11, 1644, and, after joining forces with the Scots, besieged York. He was then at Marston Moor, commanding the infantry, where he faced defeat. Later, in July, he became governor of York and was tasked with further reducing the county. In December, he captured the town of Pontefract but failed to take the castle. He resigned his command following the Self-denying Ordinance but remained on the committee governing Yorkshire and was appointed steward of the manor of Pontefract on July 24, 1645. He died from an accident on March 14, 1648, and was buried at Bolton Percy. He was twice married; his first wife, Mary, the daughter of Edmund Sheffield, 3rd Lord Sheffield (later 1st Earl of Mulgrave), bore him six daughters and two sons, Thomas, who became the 3rd Baron, and Charles, a cavalry colonel who was killed at Marston Moor. While in command in Yorkshire, Fairfax engaged in a paper war with Newcastle, writing The Answer of Ferdinando, Lord Fairfax, to a Declaration of William, Earl of Newcastle (1642; printed in Rushworth, pt. iii. vol. ii. p. 139) and published A Letter from ... Lord Fairfax to ... Robert, Earl of Essex (1643), detailing his victorious sortie at Hull.


FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, THOMAS FAIRFAX, 3rd Baron (1612-1671), parliamentary general and commander-in-chief during the English Civil War, the eldest son of the 2nd lord, was born at Denton, near Otley, Yorkshire, on the 17th of January 1612. He studied at St John’s College, Cambridge (1626-1629), and then proceeded to Holland to serve as a volunteer with the English army in the Low Countries under Sir Horace (Lord) Vere. This connexion led to one still closer; in the summer of 1637 Fairfax married Anne Vere, the daughter of the general.

FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, THOMAS FAIRFAX, 3rd Baron (1612-1671), was a general for Parliament and commander-in-chief during the English Civil War. He was the eldest son of the 2nd lord and was born in Denton, near Otley, Yorkshire, on January 17, 1612. He studied at St John’s College, Cambridge (1626-1629), and then went to Holland to join the English army in the Low Countries as a volunteer under Sir Horace (Lord) Vere. This connection led to an even closer one; in the summer of 1637, Fairfax married Anne Vere, the general's daughter.

The Fairfaxes, father and son, though serving at first under Charles I. (Thomas commanded a troop of horse, and was knighted by the king in 1640), were opposed to the arbitrary prerogative of the crown, and Sir Thomas declared that “his judgment was for the parliament as the king and kingdom’s great and safest council.” When Charles endeavoured to raise a guard for his own person at York, intending it, as the event afterwards proved, to form the nucleus of an army, Fairfax was employed to present a petition to his sovereign, entreating him to hearken to the voice of his parliament, and to discontinue the raising of troops. This was at a great meeting of the freeholders and farmers of Yorkshire convened by the king on Heworth Moor near York. Charles evaded receiving the petition, pressing his horse forward, but Fairfax followed him and placed the petition on the pommel of the king’s saddle. The incident is typical of the times and of the actors in the scene. War broke out, Lord Fairfax was appointed general of the Parliamentary forces in the north, and his son, Sir Thomas, was made lieutenant-general of the horse under him. Both father and son distinguished themselves in the campaigns in Yorkshire (see Great Rebellion). Sometimes severely defeated, more often successful, and always energetic, prudent and resourceful, they contrived to keep up the struggle until the crisis of 1644, when York was held by the marquess of Newcastle against the combined forces of the English Parliamentarians and the Scots, and Prince Rupert hastened with all available forces to its relief. A gathering of eager national forces within a few square miles of ground naturally led to a battle, and Marston Moor (q.v.) was decisive of the struggle in the north. The younger Fairfax bore himself with the greatest gallantry in the battle, and though severely wounded managed to join Cromwell and the victorious cavalry on the other wing. One of his brothers, Colonel Charles Fairfax, was killed in the action. But the marquess of Newcastle fled the kingdom, and the Royalists abandoned all hope of retrieving their affairs. The city of York was taken, and nearly the whole north submitted to the parliament.

The Fairfaxes, father and son, initially served under Charles I. (Thomas led a troop of horse and was knighted by the king in 1640) but opposed the king’s arbitrary rule. Sir Thomas stated that “he believed in Parliament as the king and kingdom’s greatest and safest council.” When Charles tried to raise a guard for his personal protection in York, which later turned out to be the foundation of an army, Fairfax was sent to deliver a petition to his king, urging him to listen to Parliament and stop raising troops. This occurred during a large meeting of freeholders and farmers from Yorkshire that the king convened on Heworth Moor near York. Charles avoided accepting the petition and pushed his horse forward, but Fairfax followed him and placed the petition on the pommel of the king’s saddle. This incident reflects the nature of the times and the characters involved. War ensued; Lord Fairfax became the general of the Parliamentary forces in the north, and his son, Sir Thomas, was appointed lieutenant-general of the horse under him. Both father and son made a name for themselves in the campaigns in Yorkshire (see Great Rebellion). They faced significant defeats at times, but more often were successful, showing energy, caution, and resourcefulness as they kept fighting until the crisis of 1644. During this time, York was held by the Marquess of Newcastle against the combined forces of the English Parliamentarians and the Scots, while Prince Rupert rushed to its aid with all available forces. With eager national forces converging in a small area, a battle was inevitable, and Marston Moor (q.v.) became a pivotal point in the northern struggle. The younger Fairfax showed incredible bravery during the battle, and although he was severely wounded, he managed to reach Cromwell and the victorious cavalry on the opposite flank. One of his brothers, Colonel Charles Fairfax, was killed in the fight. However, the Marquess of Newcastle fled the kingdom, and the Royalists lost all hope of regaining control. The city of York was captured, and nearly all of the north submitted to Parliament.

In the south and west of England, however, the Royalist cause was still active. The war had lasted two years, and the nation began to complain of the contributions that were exacted, and the excesses that were committed by the military. Dissatisfaction was expressed with the military commanders, and, as a preliminary step to reform, the Self-denying Ordinance was passed. This involved the removal of the earl of Essex from the supreme command, and the reconstruction of the armed forces of the parliament. Sir Thomas Fairfax was selected as the new lord general with Cromwell as his lieutenant-general and cavalry commander, and after a short preliminary campaign the “New Model” justified its existence, and “the rebels’ new brutish general,” as the king called him, his capacity as commander-in-chief in the decisive victory of Naseby (q.v.). The king fled to Wales. Fairfax besieged Leicester, and was successful at Taunton, Bridgwater and Bristol. The whole west was soon reduced.

In the south and west of England, however, the Royalist cause was still going strong. The war had been going on for two years, and people across the nation started to complain about the taxes they were forced to pay and the abuses committed by the military. There was growing dissatisfaction with the military leaders, and as a first step toward reform, the Self-denying Ordinance was enacted. This meant the removal of the Earl of Essex from overall command and a reshaping of the Parliament's armed forces. Sir Thomas Fairfax was chosen as the new lord general, with Cromwell serving as his lieutenant-general and cavalry commander. After a brief initial campaign, the “New Model” proved its worth, and “the rebels’ new brutish general,” as the king referred to him, demonstrated his skills as commander-in-chief with a decisive victory at Naseby (q.v.). The king fled to Wales. Fairfax besieged Leicester and achieved victories in Taunton, Bridgwater, and Bristol. Soon, the entire west was under control.

Fairfax arrived in London on the 12th of November 1645. In his progress towards the capital he was accompanied by applauding crowds. Complimentary speeches and thanks were presented to him by both houses of parliament, along with a jewel of great value set with diamonds, and a sum of money. The king had returned from Wales and established himself at Oxford, where there was a strong garrison, but, ever vacillating, he withdrew secretly, and proceeded to Newark to throw himself into the arms of the Scots. Oxford capitulated, and by the end of September 1646 Charles had neither army nor garrison in England. In January 1647 he was delivered up by the Scots to the commissioners of parliament. Fairfax met the king beyond Nottingham, and accompanied him during the journey to Holmby, treating him with the utmost consideration in every way. “The general,” said Charles, “is a man of honour, and keeps his word which he had pledged to me.” With the collapse of the Royalist cause came a confused period of negotiations between the parliament and the king, between the king and the Scots, and between the Presbyterians and the Independents in and out of parliament. In these negotiations the New Model Army soon began to take a most active part. The lord general was placed in the unpleasant position of intermediary between his own officers and parliament. To the grievances, usual in armies of that time, concerning arrears of pay and indemnity for acts committed on duty, there was quickly added the political propaganda of the Independents, and in July the person of the king was seized by Joyce, a subaltern of cavalry—an act which sufficiently demonstrated the hopelessness of controlling the army by its articles of war. It had, in fact, become the most formidable political party in the realm, and pressed straight on to the overthrow of parliament and the punishment of Charles. Fairfax was more at home in the field than at the head of a political committee, and, finding events too strong for him, he sought to resign his commission as commander-in-chief. He was, however, persuaded to retain it. He thus remained the titular chief of the army party, and with the greater part of its objects 132 he was in complete, sometimes most active, sympathy. Shortly before the outbreak of the second Civil War, Fairfax succeeded his father in the barony and in the office of governor of Hull; In the field against the English Royalists in 1648 he displayed his former energy and skill, and his operations culminated in the successful siege of Colchester, after the surrender of which place he approved the execution of the Royalist leaders Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle, holding that these officers had broken their parole. At the same time Cromwell’s great victory of Preston crushed the Scots, and the Independents became practically all-powerful.

Fairfax arrived in London on November 12, 1645. As he made his way to the capital, he was greeted by cheering crowds. Both houses of parliament presented him with complimentary speeches and thanks, along with a valuable jewel set with diamonds and a sum of money. The king had returned from Wales and established himself at Oxford, where a strong garrison was stationed. However, he soon wavered again and secretly withdrew, heading to Newark to seek refuge with the Scots. Oxford surrendered, and by the end of September 1646, Charles had neither army nor garrison in England. In January 1647, the Scots handed him over to the parliament commissioners. Fairfax met the king just outside Nottingham and accompanied him on the journey to Holmby, treating him with the utmost respect in every way. “The general,” said Charles, “is a man of honor and keeps his word to me.” With the collapse of the Royalist cause came a chaotic period of negotiations between the parliament and the king, the king and the Scots, and between the Presbyterians and the Independents inside and outside parliament. The New Model Army soon became very involved in these negotiations. The lord general found himself in an awkward position as a middleman between his own officers and parliament. Along with the usual grievances of armies at that time—like pay arrears and compensation for actions taken while on duty—political propaganda from the Independents quickly emerged. In July, a cavalry subaltern named Joyce seized the king, clearly showing how difficult it was to control the army based on its articles of war. The army had, in fact, become the most powerful political party in the realm, pushing directly for the overthrow of parliament and the punishment of Charles. Fairfax was more comfortable in the field than leading a political committee, and feeling overwhelmed by events, he sought to resign as commander-in-chief. However, he was persuaded to keep his position. He then remained the nominal leader of the army faction and was in complete, often very active, agreement with most of its goals. Shortly before the second Civil War broke out, Fairfax succeeded his father in the barony and as governor of Hull. In the field against the English Royalists in 1648, he displayed his previous energy and skill, and his efforts culminated in the successful siege of Colchester. After its surrender, he approved the execution of the Royalist leaders Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle, believing that these officers had broken their parole. Meanwhile, Cromwell’s significant victory at Preston defeated the Scots, and the Independents essentially gained complete power.

Milton, in a sonnet written during the siege of Colchester, called upon the lord general to settle the kingdom, but the crisis was now at hand. Fairfax was in agreement with Cromwell and the army leaders in demanding the punishment of Charles, and he was still the effective head of the army. He approved, if he did not take an active part in, Pride’s Purge (December 6th, 1648), but on the last and gravest of the questions at issue he set himself in deliberate and open opposition to the policy of the officers. He was placed at the head of the judges who were to try the king, and attended the preliminary sitting of the court. Then, convinced at last that the king’s death was intended, he refused to act. In calling over the court, when the crier pronounced the name of Fairfax, a lady in the gallery called out “that the Lord Fairfax was not there in person, that he would never sit among them, and that they did him wrong to name him as a commissioner.” This was Lady Fairfax, who could not forbear, as Whitelocke says, to exclaim aloud against the proceedings of the High Court of Justice. His last service as commander-in-chief was the suppression of the Leveller mutiny at Burford in May 1649. He had given his adhesion to the new order of things, and had been reappointed lord general. But he merely administered the affairs of the army, and when in 1650 the Scots had declared for Charles II., and the council of state resolved to send an army to Scotland in order to prevent an invasion of England, Fairfax resigned his commission. Cromwell was appointed his successor, “captain-general and commander-in-chief of all the forces raised or to be raised by authority of parliament within the commonwealth of England.” Fairfax received a pension of £5000 a year, and lived in retirement at his Yorkshire home of Nunappleton till after the death of the Protector. The troubles of the later Commonwealth recalled Lord Fairfax to political activity, and for the last time his appearance in arms helped to shape the future of the country, when Monk invited him to assist in the operations about to be undertaken against Lambert’s army. In December 1659 he appeared at the head of a body of Yorkshire gentlemen, and such was the influence of Fairfax’s name and reputation that 1200 horse quitted Lambert’s colours and joined him. This was speedily followed by the breaking up of all Lambert’s forces, and that day secured the restoration of the monarchy. A “free” parliament was called; Fairfax was elected member for Yorkshire, and was put at the head of the commission appointed by the House of Commons to wait upon Charles II. at the Hague and urge his speedy return. Of course the “merry monarch, scandalous and poor,” was glad to obey the summons, and Fairfax provided the horse on which Charles rode at his coronation. The remaining eleven years of the life of Lord Fairfax were spent in retirement at his seat in Yorkshire. He must, like Milton, have been sorely grieved and shocked by the scenes that followed—the brutal indignities offered to the remains of his companions in arms, Cromwell and Ireton, the sacrifice of Sir Harry Vane, the neglect or desecration of all that was great, noble or graceful in England, and the flood of immorality which, flowing from Whitehall, sapped the foundations of the national strength and honour. Lord Fairfax died at Nunappleton on the 12th of November 1671, and was buried at Bilborough, near York. As a soldier he was exact and methodical in planning, in the heat of battle “so highly transported that scarce any one durst speak a word to him” (Whitelocke), chivalrous and punctilious in his dealings with his own men and the enemy. Honour and conscientiousness were equally the characteristics of his private and public character. But his modesty and distrust of his powers made him less effectual as a statesman than as a soldier, and above all he is placed at a disadvantage by being both in war and peace overshadowed by his associate Cromwell.

Milton, in a sonnet he wrote during the siege of Colchester, called on the lord general to stabilize the kingdom, but the crisis was imminent. Fairfax agreed with Cromwell and the army leaders in demanding punishment for Charles, and he was still effectively the top commander of the army. He supported, if not actively participated in, Pride’s Purge (December 6th, 1648), but on the last and most serious issue at hand, he openly opposed the officers' policy. He was appointed as the head of the judges tasked with trying the king and attended the initial court session. Then, finally convinced that the king's execution was intended, he refused to participate. When the court was called, and the crier announced Fairfax's name, a lady in the gallery shouted that the Lord Fairfax was not present, that he would never sit among them, and that it was wrong to name him as a commissioner. This was Lady Fairfax, who, according to Whitelocke, could not help but express her outrage at the proceedings of the High Court of Justice. His last act as commander-in-chief was quelling the Leveller mutiny at Burford in May 1649. He had accepted the new order and had been reappointed lord general. However, he only managed the army's affairs, and when in 1650 the Scots declared for Charles II, and the council of state decided to send an army to Scotland to prevent an invasion of England, Fairfax resigned his commission. Cromwell was named his successor, “captain-general and commander-in-chief of all the forces raised or to be raised by authority of parliament within the commonwealth of England.” Fairfax received a pension of £5000 a year and lived in peace at his Yorkshire home of Nunappleton until after the Protector's death. The troubles of the later Commonwealth drew Lord Fairfax back into political life, and one last time, his return to arms helped shape the future of the country when Monk invited him to assist in the operations against Lambert’s army. In December 1659, he appeared at the head of a group of Yorkshire gentlemen, and Fairfax’s name and reputation were so influential that 1200 horsemen left Lambert’s colors to join him. This was quickly followed by the disbanding of all Lambert's forces, securing the restoration of the monarchy that day. A “free” parliament was called; Fairfax was elected a member for Yorkshire and appointed head of the commission by the House of Commons to meet Charles II at the Hague and urge his quick return. Naturally, the “merry monarch, scandalous and poor,” was eager to comply, and Fairfax provided the horse upon which Charles rode at his coronation. Lord Fairfax spent the remaining eleven years of his life in retirement at his seat in Yorkshire. Like Milton, he must have been deeply saddened and shocked by the events that followed—the brutal disrespect shown to the remains of his fellow soldiers, Cromwell and Ireton, the sacrifice of Sir Harry Vane, the neglect or desecration of everything great, noble, or graceful in England, and the widespread immorality that flowed from Whitehall, undermining the nation's strength and honor. Lord Fairfax died at Nunappleton on November 12, 1671, and was buried at Bilborough, near York. As a soldier, he was precise and methodical in planning, and during battle, “so highly transported that scarcely anyone dared to speak to him” (Whitelocke), chivalrous and careful in his dealings with his own men and the enemy. Integrity and conscientiousness characterized both his private and public life. However, his modesty and lack of confidence in his abilities diminished his effectiveness as a statesman compared to being a soldier, and ultimately, he was overshadowed by his associate Cromwell both in war and in peace.

Lord Fairfax had a taste for literature. He translated some of the Psalms, and wrote poems on solitude, the Christian warfare, the shortness of life, &c. During the last year or two of his life he wrote two Memorials which have been published—one on the northern actions in which he was engaged in 1642-1644, and the other on some events in his tenure of the chief command. At York and at Oxford he endeavoured to save the libraries from pillage, and he enriched the Bodleian with some valuable MSS. His only daughter, Mary Fairfax, was married to George Villiers, the profligate duke of Buckingham of Charles II.’s court.

Lord Fairfax had a passion for literature. He translated some of the Psalms and wrote poems about solitude, the struggles of faith, the brevity of life, and more. In the last year or two of his life, he wrote two Memorials that have been published—one about the northern battles he participated in from 1642 to 1644, and the other covering events during his time as the chief commander. In York and Oxford, he tried to protect the libraries from being looted and added some valuable manuscripts to the Bodleian. His only daughter, Mary Fairfax, married George Villiers, the notorious Duke of Buckingham at the court of Charles II.

His correspondence, edited by G.W. Johnson, was published in 1848-1849 in four volumes (see note thereon in Dict. Nat. Biogr., s.v.), and a life of him by Clements R. Markham in 1870. See also S.R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War (1893).

His letters, edited by G.W. Johnson, were published in 1848-1849 in four volumes (see note there in Dict. Nat. Biogr., s.v.), and Clements R. Markham wrote a biography of him in 1870. Also check out S.R. Gardiner's History of the Great Civil War (1893).

His descendant Thomas, 6th baron (1692-1782), inherited from his mother, the heiress of Thomas, 2nd Baron Culpepper, large estates in Virginia, U.S.A., and having sold Denton Hall and his Yorkshire estates he retired there about 1746, dying a bachelor. He was a friend of George Washington. Thomas found his cousin William Fairfax settled in Virginia, and made him his agent, and Bryan (1737-1802), the son of William Fairfax, eventually inherited the title, becoming 8th baron in 1793. His claim was admitted by the House of Lords in 1800. But it was practically dropped by the American family, until, shortly before the coronation of Edward VII., the successor in title was discovered in Albert Kirby Fairfax (b. 1870), a descendant of the 8th baron, who was an American citizen. In November 1908 Albert’s claim to the title as 12th baron was allowed by the House of Lords.

His descendant Thomas, 6th baron (1692-1782), inherited large estates in Virginia, U.S.A., from his mother, the heiress of Thomas, 2nd Baron Culpepper. After selling Denton Hall and his Yorkshire estates, he retired there around 1746 and died a bachelor. He was a friend of George Washington. Thomas found his cousin William Fairfax living in Virginia and made him his agent. Bryan (1737-1802), the son of William Fairfax, eventually inherited the title, becoming 8th baron in 1793. His claim was recognized by the House of Lords in 1800. However, it was largely ignored by the American family until just before the coronation of Edward VII when the next titleholder was found in Albert Kirby Fairfax (b. 1870), a descendant of the 8th baron who was an American citizen. In November 1908, Albert’s claim to the title as 12th baron was accepted by the House of Lords.


FAIRFIELD, a township in Fairfield county, Connecticut, U.S.A., near Long Island Sound, adjoining Bridgeport on the E. and Westport on the W. Pop. (1890) 3868; (1900) 4489 (1041 being foreign-born); (1910) 6134. It is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway. The principal villages of the township are Fairfield, Southport, Greenfield Hill and Stratfield. The beautiful scenery and fine sea air attract to the township a considerable number of summer visitors. The township has the well-equipped Pequot and Fairfield memorial libraries (the former in the village of Southport, the latter in the village of Fairfield), the Fairfield fresh air home (which cares for between one and two hundred poor children of New York during each summer season), and the Gould home for self-supporting women. The Fairfield Historical Society has a museum of antiquities and a collection of genealogical and historical works. Among Fairfield’s manufactures are chemicals, wire and rubber goods. Truck-gardening is an important industry of the township. In the Pequot Swamp within the present Fairfield a force of Pequot Indians was badly defeated in 1637 by some whites, among whom was Roger Ludlow, who, attracted by the country, founded the settlement in 1639 and gave it its present name in 1645. Within its original limits were included what are now the townships of Redding (separated, 1767), Weston (1787) and Easton (formed from part of Weston in 1845), and parts of the present Westport and Bridgeport. During the colonial period Fairfield was a place of considerable importance, but subsequently it was greatly outstripped by Bridgeport, to which, in 1870, a portion of it was annexed. On the 8th of July 1779 Fairfield was burned by the British and Hessians under Governor William Tryon. Among the prominent men who have lived in Fairfield are Roger Sherman, the first President Dwight of Yale (who described Fairfield in his Travels and in his poem Greenfield Hill), Chancellor James Kent, and Joseph Earle Sheffield.

FAIRFIELD, is a township in Fairfield County, Connecticut, U.S.A., located near Long Island Sound, next to Bridgeport to the east and Westport to the west. Population: (1890) 3,868; (1900) 4,489 (1,041 of whom were foreign-born); (1910) 6,134. It’s served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway. The main villages in the township are Fairfield, Southport, Greenfield Hill, and Stratfield. The beautiful scenery and fresh sea air draw many summer visitors to the area. The township features well-equipped Pequot and Fairfield memorial libraries (the former in Southport and the latter in Fairfield), the Fairfield fresh air home (which cares for between one and two hundred underprivileged children from New York each summer), and the Gould home for self-supporting women. The Fairfield Historical Society has a museum of antiquities and a collection of genealogical and historical works. Fairfield produces chemicals, wire, and rubber goods. Truck gardening is a significant industry in the township. In Pequot Swamp, a group of Pequot Indians was severely defeated in 1637 by some settlers, including Roger Ludlow, who, drawn to the area, founded the settlement in 1639 and named it in 1645. Originally, it included what are now the townships of Redding (separated in 1767), Weston (1787), and Easton (established from part of Weston in 1845), as well as parts of present-day Westport and Bridgeport. During the colonial era, Fairfield was quite significant, but later it was overshadowed by Bridgeport, which annexed part of it in 1870. On July 8, 1779, Fairfield was burned by British and Hessian troops under Governor William Tryon. Notable residents of Fairfield include Roger Sherman, the first President Dwight of Yale (who mentioned Fairfield in his Travels and in his poem Greenfield Hill), Chancellor James Kent, and Joseph Earle Sheffield.

See Frank S. Child, An Old New England Town, Sketches of Life, Scenery and Character (New York, 1895); and Mrs E.H. Schenck, History of Fairfield (2 vols., New York, 1889-1905).

See Frank S. Child, An Old New England Town, Sketches of Life, Scenery and Character (New York, 1895); and Mrs. E.H. Schenck, History of Fairfield (2 vols., New York, 1889-1905).


FAIRFIELD, a city and the county-seat of Jefferson county, Iowa, U.S.A., about 51 m. W. by N. of Burlington. Pop. (1890) 3391; (1900) 4689, of whom 206 were foreign-born and 54 were 133 negroes; (1905) 5009; (1910) 4970. Area, about 2.25 sq. m. Fairfield is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railways. The city is in a blue grass country, in which much live stock is bred; and it is an important market for draft horses. It is the seat of Parsons College (Presbyterian, coeducational, 1875), endowed by Lewis Baldwin Parsons, Sr. (1798-1855), a merchant of Buffalo, N.Y. The college offers classical, philosophical and scientific courses, and has a school of music and an academic department; in 1907-1908 it had 19 instructors and 257 students, of whom 93 were in the college and 97 were in the school of music. Fairfield has a Carnegie library (1892), and a museum with a collection of laces. Immediately E. of the city is an attractive Chautauqua Park, of 30 acres, with an auditorium capable of seating about 4000 persons; and there is an annual Chautauqua assembly. The principal manufactures of Fairfield are farm waggons, farming implements, drain-tile, malleable iron, cotton gloves and mittens and cotton garments. The municipality owns its waterworks and an electric-lighting plant. Fairfield was settled in 1839; was incorporated as a town in 1847; and was first chartered as a city in the same year.

FAIRFIELD, is a city and the county seat of Jefferson County, Iowa, U.S.A., about 51 miles west-northwest of Burlington. Population: (1890) 3,391; (1900) 4,689, including 206 foreign-born residents and 54 African Americans; (1905) 5,009; (1910) 4,970. Area: about 2.25 square miles. Fairfield is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railroads. The city is located in a bluegrass region where a lot of livestock is raised, and it serves as a significant market for draft horses. It is home to Parsons College (Presbyterian, coeducational, established in 1875), which was funded by Lewis Baldwin Parsons, Sr. (1798-1855), a merchant from Buffalo, N.Y. The college offers courses in the classics, philosophy, and science, and has a music school and an academic department; in 1907-1908, it had 19 instructors and 257 students, with 93 enrolled in the college and 97 in the music school. Fairfield features a Carnegie library (1892) and a museum with a collection of laces. Just east of the city is a beautiful Chautauqua Park, spanning 30 acres, with an auditorium that seats about 4,000 people; there is also an annual Chautauqua assembly. The main products manufactured in Fairfield include farm wagons, farming tools, drain tile, malleable iron, cotton gloves and mittens, and cotton clothing. The city owns its waterworks and an electric lighting system. Fairfield was settled in 1839, incorporated as a town in 1847, and first chartered as a city in the same year.

See Charles H. Fletcher, Jefferson County, Iowa: Centennial History (Fairfield, 1876).

See Charles H. Fletcher, Jefferson County, Iowa: Centennial History (Fairfield, 1876).


FAIRHAVEN, a township in Bristol county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., on New Bedford Harbor, opposite New Bedford. Pop. (1890) 2919; (1900) 3567 (599 being foreign-born); (1905, state census) 4235; (1910) 5122. Area, about 13 sq. m. Fairhaven is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway and by electric railway to Mattapoisett and Marion, and is connected with New Bedford by two bridges, by electric railway, and by the New York, New Haven & Hartford ferry line. The principal village is Fairhaven; others are Oxford, Naskatucket and Sconticut Neck. As a summer resort Fairhaven is widely known. Among the principal buildings are the following, presented to the township by Henry H. Rogers (1840-1909), a native of Fairhaven and a large stockholder and long vice-president of the Standard Oil Co.; the town hall, a memorial of Mrs Rogers, the Rogers public schools; the Millicent public library (17,500 vols. in 1908), a memorial to his daughter; and a fine granite memorial church (Unitarian) with parish house, a memorial to his mother; and there is also a public park, of 13 acres, the gift of Mr Rogers. From 1830 to 1857 the inhabitants of Fairhaven were chiefly engaged in whaling, and the fishing interests are still important. Among manufactures are tacks, nails, iron goods, loom-cranks, glass, yachts and boats, and shoes.

FAIRHAVEN, is a township in Bristol County, Massachusetts, U.S.A., located on New Bedford Harbor, directly across from New Bedford. Population: (1890) 2,919; (1900) 3,567 (599 being foreign-born); (1905, state census) 4,235; (1910) 5,122. Area: about 13 sq. miles. Fairhaven is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway and by an electric railway to Mattapoisett and Marion. It is also connected to New Bedford by two bridges, an electric railway, and the New York, New Haven & Hartford ferry line. The main village is Fairhaven; other communities include Oxford, Naskatucket, and Sconticut Neck. Fairhaven is well-known as a summer resort. Among the notable buildings are those donated to the township by Henry H. Rogers (1840-1909), a Fairhaven native, major stockholder, and long-time vice-president of the Standard Oil Co. These include the town hall, a memorial to Mrs. Rogers, the Rogers public schools, the Millicent public library (17,500 volumes in 1908), a tribute to his daughter, and a beautiful granite memorial church (Unitarian) with a parish house, honoring his mother; there is also a public park of 13 acres, donated by Mr. Rogers. From 1830 to 1857, Fairhaven's residents mainly worked in whaling, and fishing continues to be significant. Key manufactured goods include tacks, nails, iron products, loom cranks, glass, yachts and boats, and shoes.

Fairhaven, originally a part of New Bedford, was incorporated as a separate township in 1812. On the 5th of September 1778 a fleet and armed force under Earl Grey, sent to punish New Bedford and what is now Fairhaven for their activity in privateering, burned the shipping and destroyed much of New Bedford. The troops then marched to the head of the Acushnet river, and down the east bank to Sconticut Neck, where they camped till the 7th of September, when they re-embarked, having meanwhile dismantled a small fort, built during the early days of the war, on the east side of the river at the entrance to the harbour. On the evening of the 8th of September a landing force from the fleet, which had begun to set fire to Fairhaven, was driven off by a body of about 150 minute-men commanded by Major Israel Fearing; and on the following day the fleet departed. The fort was at once rebuilt and was named Fort Fearing, but as early as 1784 it had become known as Fort Phoenix; it was one of the strongest defences on the New England coast during the war of 1812. The township of Acushnet was formed from the northern part of Fairhaven in 1860.

Fairhaven, which was originally part of New Bedford, became its own township in 1812. On September 5, 1778, a fleet and armed force led by Earl Grey, sent to punish New Bedford and what is now Fairhaven for their privateering activities, burned the shipping and destroyed much of New Bedford. The troops then marched to the head of the Acushnet River and down the east bank to Sconticut Neck, where they camped until September 7, when they re-embarked after dismantling a small fort that had been built during the early days of the war on the east side of the river at the entrance to the harbor. On the evening of September 8, a landing force from the fleet, which had started to set fire to Fairhaven, was driven off by about 150 minutemen led by Major Israel Fearing, and the fleet left the following day. The fort was immediately rebuilt and named Fort Fearing, but by 1784, it was commonly known as Fort Phoenix; it became one of the strongest defenses on the New England coast during the War of 1812. The township of Acushnet was created from the northern part of Fairhaven in 1860.

See James L. Gillingham and others, A Brief History of the Town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts (Fairhaven, 1903).

See James L. Gillingham et al., A Brief History of the Town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts (Fairhaven, 1903).


FAIRHOLT, FREDERICK WILLIAM (1814-1866), English antiquary and wood engraver, was born in London in 1814. His father, who was of a German family (the name was originally Fahrholz), was a tobacco manufacturer, and for some years Fairholt himself was employed in the business. For a time he was a drawing-master, afterwards a scene-painter, and in 1835 he became assistant to S. Sly, the wood engraver. Some pen and ink copies made by him of figures from Hogarth’s plates led to his being employed by Charles Knight on several of his illustrated publications. His first published literary work was a contribution to Hone’s Year-Book in 1831. His life was one of almost uninterrupted quiet labour, carried on until within a few days of death. Several works on civic pageantry and some collections of ancient unpublished songs and dialogues were edited by him for the Percy Society in 1842. In 1844 he was elected fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. He published an edition of the dramatic works of Lyly in 1856. His principal independent works are Tobacco, its History, and Association (1859); Gog and Magog (1860); Up the Nile and Home Again (1862); many articles and serials contributed to the Art Journal, some of which were afterwards separately published, as Costume in England (1846); Dictionary of Terms in Art (1854). These works are illustrated by numerous cuts, drawn on the wood by his own hand. His pencil was also employed in illustrating Evans’s Coins of the Ancient Britons, Madden’s Jewish Coinage, Halliwell’s folio Shakespeare and his Sir John Maundeville, Roach Smith’s Richborough, the Miscellanea Graphica of Lord Londesborough, and many other works. He died on the 3rd of April 1866. His books relating to Shakespeare were bequeathed to the library at Stratford-on-Avon; those on civic pageantry (between 200 and 300 volumes) to the Society of Antiquaries; his old prints and works on costume to the British Museum; his general library he desired to be sold and the proceeds devoted to the Literary Fund.

FAIRHOLT, FREDERICK WILLIAM (1814-1866), English antiquarian and wood engraver, was born in London in 1814. His father, who was from a German family (the name was originally Fahrholz), was a tobacco manufacturer, and for a few years, Fairholt worked in the family business. He spent some time as a drawing teacher, then became a scene painter, and in 1835, he became an assistant to S. Sly, a wood engraver. Some ink sketches he made of figures from Hogarth’s plates led to his work with Charles Knight on several illustrated publications. His first published literary work was a piece for Hone’s Year-Book in 1831. His life was mostly a consistent pattern of quiet work, continuing right up until just days before his death. He edited several works on civic pageantry and collections of ancient unpublished songs and dialogues for the Percy Society in 1842. In 1844, he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. He published an edition of the dramatic works of Lyly in 1856. His main independent works include Tobacco, its History, and Association (1859); Gog and Magog (1860); Up the Nile and Home Again (1862); and many articles and series contributed to the Art Journal, some of which were later published separately, like Costume in England (1846) and Dictionary of Terms in Art (1854). These works are illustrated with numerous cuts, drawn on wood by him. He also illustrated Evans’s Coins of the Ancient Britons, Madden’s Jewish Coinage, Halliwell’s folio Shakespeare and his Sir John Maundeville, Roach Smith’s Richborough, Lord Londesborough’s Miscellanea Graphica, and many other works. He died on April 3, 1866. His books related to Shakespeare were left to the library at Stratford-on-Avon; those on civic pageantry (around 200 to 300 volumes) went to the Society of Antiquaries; his old prints and works on costume were given to the British Museum; he wished for his general library to be sold, with the proceeds donated to the Literary Fund.


FAIRMONT, a city and the county-seat of Marion county, West Virginia, U.S.A., on both sides of the Monongahela river, about 75 m. S.E. of Wheeling. Pop. (1890) 1023; (1900) 5655, of whom 283 were negroes and 182 foreign-born; (1910) 9711. It is served by the Baltimore & Ohio railway. Among its manufactures are glass, machinery, flour and furniture, and it is an important shipping point for coal mined in the vicinity. The city is the seat of one of the West Virginia state normal schools. Fairmont was laid out as Middletown in 1819, became the county-seat of the newly established Marion county in 1842, received its present name about 1844, and was chartered as a city in 1899.

FAIRMONT, is a city and the county seat of Marion County, West Virginia, U.S.A., located on both sides of the Monongahela River, about 75 miles southeast of Wheeling. Population: (1890) 1,023; (1900) 5,655, including 283 Black residents and 182 foreign-born individuals; (1910) 9,711. It is served by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Its industries include glass, machinery, flour, and furniture, and it is a key shipping hub for coal mined in the area. The city hosts one of West Virginia's state normal schools. Fairmont was originally laid out as Middletown in 1819, became the county seat of the newly formed Marion County in 1842, adopted its current name around 1844, and was officially chartered as a city in 1899.


FAIR OAKS, a station on a branch of the Southern railway, 6 m. E. of Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A. It is noted as the site of one of the battles of the Civil War, fought on the 31st of May and the 1st of June 1862, between the Union (Army of the Potomac) under General G.B. McClellan and the Confederate forces (Army of Northern Virginia) commanded by General J.E. Johnston. The attack of the Confederates was made at a moment when the river Chickahominy divided the Federal army into two unequal parts, and was, moreover, swollen to such a degree as to endanger the bridges. General Johnston stationed part of his troops along the river to prevent the Federals sending aid to the smaller force south of it, upon which the Confederate attack, commanded by General Longstreet, was directed. Many accidents, due to the inexperience of the staff officers and to the difficulty of the ground, hindered the development of Longstreet’s attack, but the Federals were gradually driven back with a loss of ten guns, though at the last moment reinforcements managed to cross the river and re-establish the line of defence. At the close of the day Johnston was severely wounded, and General G.W. Smith succeeded to the command. The battle was renewed on the 1st of June but not fought out. At the close of the action General R.E. Lee took over the command of the Confederates, which he held till the final surrender in April 1865. So far as the victory lay with either side, it was with the Union army, for the Confederates failed to achieve their purpose of destroying the almost isolated left wing of McClellan’s army, and after the battle they withdrew into the lines of Richmond. The Union losses were 5031 in killed, wounded and missing; those of the Confederates were 6134. The battle is sometimes known as the battle of Seven Pines.

FAIR OAKS, is a station on a branch of the Southern railway, located 6 miles east of Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A. It’s well-known as the site of one of the battles of the Civil War, which took place on May 31 and June 1, 1862, between the Union Army of the Potomac, led by General G.B. McClellan, and the Confederate forces of the Army of Northern Virginia, commanded by General J.E. Johnston. The Confederates launched their attack when the Chickahominy River had split the Federal army into two unequal parts and had risen to a level that threatened the bridges. General Johnston positioned part of his troops along the river to stop the Federals from sending help to the smaller force on the south side, which was the target of the Confederate attack led by General Longstreet. Several mishaps, due to the inexperience of the staff officers and the challenging terrain, slowed down Longstreet’s assault, but the Federals were gradually pushed back, losing ten guns, although reinforcements managed to cross the river at the last moment and re-establish the defensive line. By the end of the day, Johnston had been seriously wounded, and General G.W. Smith took over command. The battle resumed on June 1 but wasn’t fully fought out. At the end of the skirmish, General R.E. Lee assumed command of the Confederates, a position he held until the final surrender in April 1865. In terms of victory, it was more favorable for the Union army, as the Confederates did not succeed in their goal of destroying the nearly isolated left wing of McClellan’s forces, and they retreated to the defenses of Richmond afterward. The Union suffered 5,031 casualties, including killed, wounded, and missing, while the Confederates had 6,134. The battle is sometimes referred to as the battle of Seven Pines.


FAIRŪZĀBĀDĪ Ābū-ṭ-Ṭāhir ibn Ibrahīm Majd ud-Dīn ul-Fairūzābādī] (1329-1414), Arabian lexicographer, was born at Kārazīn near Shiraz. His student days were spent in Shiraz, Wāsiṭ, Bagdad and Damascus. He taught for ten years in 134 Jerusalem, and afterwards travelled in western Asia and Egypt. In 1368 he settled in Mecca, where he remained for fifteen years. He next visited India and spent some time in Delhi, then remained in Mecca another ten years. The following three years were spent in Bagdad, in Shiraz (where he was received by Timur), and in Ta’iz. In 1395 he was appointed chief cadi (qadi) of Yemen, married a daughter of the sultan, and died at Zabīd in 1414. During this last period of his life he converted his house at Mecca into a school of Mālikite law and established three teachers in it. He wrote a huge lexicographical work of 60 or 100 volumes uniting the dictionaries of Ibn Sīda, a Spanish philologist (d. 1066), and of Sajānī (d. 1252). A digest of or an extract from this last work is his famous dictionary al-Qāmūs (“the Ocean”), which has been published in Egypt, Constantinople and India, has been translated into Turkish and Persian, and has itself been the basis of several later dictionaries.

FAIRŪZĀBĀDĪ Abū-ṭ-Ṭāhir ibn Ibrahīm Majd ud-Dīn ul-Fairūzābādī (1329-1414), an Arabian lexicographer, was born in Kārazīn near Shiraz. He spent his student years in Shiraz, Wāsiṭ, Baghdad, and Damascus. He taught for ten years in 134 Jerusalem, and later traveled through western Asia and Egypt. In 1368, he settled in Mecca, where he lived for fifteen years. He then visited India and stayed some time in Delhi before returning to Mecca for another ten years. The next three years were spent in Baghdad, in Shiraz (where he was welcomed by Timur), and in Ta’iz. In 1395, he was appointed chief cadi (qadi) of Yemen, married a daughter of the sultan, and passed away in Zabīd in 1414. During the latter part of his life, he converted his house in Mecca into a school of Mālikite law and established three teachers there. He authored an extensive lexicographical work of 60 to 100 volumes, combining the dictionaries of Ibn Sīda, a Spanish philologist (d. 1066), and Sajānī (d. 1252). A summary or extract from this last work is his well-known dictionary al-Qāmūs (“the Ocean”), which has been published in Egypt, Constantinople, and India, translated into Turkish and Persian, and has itself served as the foundation for several later dictionaries.

(G. W. T.)

FAIRY (Fr. fée, faerie; Prov. fada; Sp. hada; Ital. fata; med. Lat. fatare, to enchant, from Lat. fatum, fate, destiny), the common term for a supposed race of supernatural beings who magically intermeddle in human affairs. Of all the minor creatures of mythology the fairies are the most beautiful, the most numerous, the most memorable in literature. Like all organic growths, whether of nature or of the fancy, they are not the immediate product of one country or of one time; they have a pedigree, and the question of their ancestry and affiliation is one of wide bearing. But mixture and connexion of races have in this as in many other cases so changed the original folk-product that it is difficult to disengage and separate the different strains that have gone to the making or moulding of the result as we have it.

FAIRY (Fr. fée, faerie; Prov. fada; Sp. hada; Ital. fata; med. Lat. fatare, to enchant, from Lat. fatum, fate, destiny), the general term for a supposed race of supernatural beings who magically interfere in human affairs. Among all the minor creatures in mythology, fairies are the most beautiful, the most numerous, and the most memorable in literature. Like all organic developments, whether from nature or imagination, they are not the direct product of a single country or time; they have a lineage, and understanding their ancestry and connections is significant. However, the mixing and intertwining of races have, in this case and many others, altered the original folk product so much that it is challenging to distinguish and separate the various influences that have contributed to what we see today.

It is not in literature, however ancient, that we must look for the early forms of the fairy belief. Many of Homer’s heroes have fairy lemans, called nymphs, fairies taken up into a higher region of poetry and religion; and the fairy leman is notable in the story of Athamas and his cloud bride Nephelē, but this character is as familiar to the unpoetical Eskimo, and to the Red Indians, with their bird-bride and beaver-bride (see A. Lang’s Custom and Myth, “The Story of Cupid and Psyche”). The Gandharvas of Sanskrit poetry are also fairies.

It’s not in literature, no matter how old, that we need to search for the early forms of fairy belief. Many of Homer’s heroes have fairy lovers, called nymphs, which are fairies elevated into a higher realm of poetry and religion. The fairy lover is also significant in the story of Athamas and his cloud bride Nephelē, but this character is just as familiar to the unpoetic Eskimo and to the Native Americans, with their bird-brides and beaver-brides (see A. Lang’s Custom and Myth, “The Story of Cupid and Psyche”). The Gandharvas of Sanskrit poetry are also fairies.

One of the most interesting facts about fairies is the wide distribution and long persistence of the belief in them. They are the chief factor in surviving Irish superstition. Here they dwell in the “raths,” old earth-forts, or earthen bases of later palisaded dwellings of the Norman period, and in the subterranean houses, common also in Scotland. They are an organized people, often called “the army,” and their life corresponds to human life in all particulars. They carry off children, leaving changeling substitutes, transport men and women into fairyland, and are generally the causes of all mysterious phenomena. Whirls of dust are caused by the fairy marching army, as by the being called Kutchi in the Dieri tribe of Australia. In 1907, in northern Ireland, a farmer’s house was troubled with flying stones (see Poltergeist). The neighbours said that the fairies caused the phenomenon, as the man had swept his chimney with a bough of holly, and the holly is “a gentle tree,” dear to the fairies. The fairy changeling belief also exists in some districts of Argyll, and a fairy boy dwelt long in a small farm-house in Glencoe, now unoccupied.

One of the most fascinating things about fairies is how widely spread and long-lasting the belief in them is. They play a major role in the survival of Irish superstitions. Here, they live in "raths," which are old earth-forts or the earthen foundations of later fortified homes from the Norman period, as well as in underground houses, which are also common in Scotland. They are an organized group, often referred to as "the army," and their lives mirror human existence in every way. They abduct children, replacing them with changelings, transport people to fairyland, and are generally behind all mysterious events. Dust whirlwinds are caused by the fairy marching army, similar to the being called Kutchi in the Dieri tribe of Australia. In 1907, in Northern Ireland, a farmer's house experienced flying stones (see Poltergeist). The neighbors claimed the fairies were responsible for this because the man had swept his chimney with a holly branch, and holly is considered "a gentle tree," cherished by the fairies. The belief in fairy changelings is also present in some areas of Argyll, and a fairy boy lived for a long time in a small farmhouse in Glencoe, which is now vacant.

In Ireland and the west Highlands neolithic arrow-heads and flint chips are still fairy weapons. They are dipped in water, which is given to ailing cattle and human beings as a sovereign remedy for diseases. The writer knows of “a little lassie in green” who is a fairy and, according to the percipients, haunts the banks of the Mukomar pool on the Lochy. In Glencoe is a fairy hill where the fairy music, vocal and instrumental, is heard in still weather. In the Highlands, however, there is much more interest in second sight than in fairies, while in Ireland the reverse is the case. The best book on Celtic fairy lore is still that of the minister of Aberfoyle, the Rev. Mr Kirk (ob. 1692). His work on The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies, left in MS. and incomplete (the remainder is in the Laing MSS., Edinburgh University library), was published (a hundred copies) in 1815 by Sir Walter Scott, and in the Bibliothèque de Carabas (Lang) there is a French translation. Mr Kirk is said (though his tomb exists) to have been carried away by fairies. He appeared to a friend and said that he would come again, when the friend must throw a dirk over his shoulder and he would return to this world. The friend, however, lost his nerve and did not throw the dirk. In the same way a woman reappeared to her husband in Glencoe in the last generation, but he was wooing another lass and did not make any effort to recover his wife. His character was therefore lost in the glen.

In Ireland and the west Highlands, neolithic arrowheads and flint chips are still considered fairy tools. They are dipped in water, which is given to sick cattle and people as a powerful remedy for diseases. The writer knows of “a little girl in green” who is a fairy and, according to those who have seen her, haunts the banks of the Mukomar pool on the Lochy. In Glencoe, there's a fairy hill where fairy music, both vocal and instrumental, is heard on calm days. However, in the Highlands, people are much more interested in second sight than in fairies, while in Ireland, it's the opposite. The best book on Celtic fairy lore is still that of the Aberfoyle minister, Rev. Mr. Kirk (ob. 1692). His work on The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies, which was left as a manuscript and unfinished (the remainder is in the Laing MSS, Edinburgh University library), was published (a hundred copies) in 1815 by Sir Walter Scott, and there’s a French translation in the Bibliothèque de Carabas (Lang). Mr. Kirk is said to have been taken away by fairies, although his tomb exists. He appeared to a friend and said he would return again, and when that happened, the friend should throw a dirk over his shoulder to bring him back to this world. However, the friend lost his nerve and didn't throw the dirk. Similarly, a woman reappeared to her husband in Glencoe in the last generation, but he was pursuing another girl and didn’t try to get his wife back. As a result, his spirit was lost in the glen.

It is clear that in many respects fairyland corresponds to the pre-Christian abode of the dead. Like Persephone when carried to Hades, or Wainamoïnen in the Hades of the Finns (Manala), a living human being must not eat in fairyland; if he does, he dwells there for ever. Tamlane in the ballad, however, was “fat and fair of flesh,” yet was rescued by Janet: probably he had not abstained from fairy food. He was to be given as the kane to Hell, which shows a distinction between the beliefs in hell and in the place of fairies.

It’s clear that in many ways, fairyland is similar to the pre-Christian afterlife. Just like Persephone was taken to Hades, or Wainamoïnen in the Finnish version of Hades (Manala), a living person must not eat in fairyland; if they do, they will stay there forever. Tamlane in the ballad, however, was “fat and fair of flesh,” yet he was saved by Janet: likely, he hadn’t avoided fairy food. He was meant to be given as the kane to Hell, which highlights a difference between the beliefs in Hell and in the realm of fairies.

It is a not uncommon theory that the fairies survive in legend from prehistoric memories of a pigmy people dwelling in the subterranean earth-houses, but the contents of these do not indicate an age prior to the close of the Roman occupation of Britain; nor are pigmy bones common in neolithic sepulchres. The “people of peace” (Daoine Shie) of Ireland and Scotland are usually of ordinary stature, indeed not to be recognized as varying from mankind except by their proceedings (see J. Curtin, Irish Folk-tales).

It’s a common theory that fairies originate from ancient memories of a small people living in underground homes, but the evidence doesn’t suggest an era before the end of the Roman occupation of Britain, nor are small human bones found in Neolithic burial sites. The “people of peace” (Daoine Shie) in Ireland and Scotland are generally of average height and can’t really be seen as different from humans except for their behaviors (see J. Curtin, Irish Folk-tales).

The belief in a species of lady fairies, deathly to their human lovers, was found by R.L. Stevenson to be as common in Samoa (see Island Nights’ Entertainments) as in Strathfinlas or on the banks of Loch Awe. In New Caledonia a native friend of J.J. Atkinson (author of Primal Law) told him that he had met and caressed the girl of his heart in the forest, that she had vanished and must have been a fairy. He therefore would die in three days, which (Mr Atkinson informs the writer) he punctually did. The Greek sirens of Homer are clearly a form of these deadly fairies, as the Nereids and Oreads and Naiads are fairies of wells, mountains and the sea. The fairy women who come to the births of children and foretell their fortunes (Fata, Moerae, ancient Egyptian Hathors, Fées, Dominae Fatales), with their spindles, are refractions of the human “spae-women” (in the Scots term) who attend at birth and derive omens of the child’s future from various signs. The custom is common among several savage races, and these women, represented in the spiritual world by Fata, bequeath to us the French fée, in the sense of fairy. Perrault also uses fée for anything that has magical quality; “the key was fée,” had mana, or wakan, savage words for the supposed “power,” or ether, which works magic or is the vehicle of magical influences.

The belief in a type of lady fairy, who is deadly to their human lovers, was found by R.L. Stevenson to be as common in Samoa (see Island Nights’ Entertainments) as in Strathfinlas or along the shores of Loch Awe. In New Caledonia, a native friend of J.J. Atkinson (author of Primal Law) told him that he had met and embraced the girl of his dreams in the forest, but she vanished and must have been a fairy. He believed he would die in three days, which (Mr. Atkinson tells the writer) he indeed did. The Greek sirens of Homer are obviously a version of these deadly fairies, just as the Nereids, Oreads, and Naiads are fairies of wells, mountains, and the sea. The fairy women who attend childbirth and predict the children's futures (Fata, Moerae, ancient Egyptian Hathors, Fées, Dominae Fatales), with their spindles, are reflections of the human “spae-women” (in Scots terminology) who assist at birth and interpret various signs to predict the child's future. This tradition is common among several tribal groups, and these women, represented in the spiritual world by Fata, have given rise to the French fée, meaning fairy. Perrault also uses fée for anything with a magical quality; “the key was fée,” meaning it had mana or wakan, tribal terms for the supposed “power” or ether that creates magic or serves as the medium for magical influences.

Though the fairy belief is universally human, the nearest analogy to the shape which it takes in Scotland and Ireland—the “pixies” of south-western England—is to be found in Jān or Jinnis of the Arabs, Moors and people of Palestine. In stories which have passed through a literary medium, like The Arabian Nights, the geni or Jān do not so much resemble our fairies as they do in the popular superstitions of the East, orally collected. The Jān are now a subterranean commonwealth, now they reside in ruinous places, like the fairies in the Irish raths. Like the fairies they go about in whirls of dust, or the dust-whirls themselves are Jān. They carry off men and women “to their own herd,” in the phrase of Mr Kirk, and are kind to mortals who are kind to them. They chiefly differ from our fairies in their greater tendency to wear animal forms; though, like the fairies, when they choose to appear in human shape they are not to be distinguished from men and women of mortal mould. Like the fairies everywhere they have amours with mortals, such as that of the Queen of Faery with Thomas of Ercildoune. The herb rue is potent against them, as in British folk-lore, and a man long captive among the Jān escaped from them by observing their avoidance of rue, and by plucking two handfuls 135 thereof. They, like the British brownies (a kind of domesticated fairy), are the causes of strange disappearances of things. To preserve houses from their influences, rue, that “herb of grace,” is kept in the apartments, and the name of Allah is constantly invoked. If this is omitted, things are stolen by the Jān.

Though belief in fairies is a universally human trait, the closest comparison to the form it takes in Scotland and Ireland—the “pixies” of south-western England—can be found in Jān or Jinnis from Arab, Moorish, and Palestinian cultures. In stories that have been shared through literature, like The Arabian Nights, the geni or Jān resemble our fairies less than they do in the popular oral superstitions of the East. The Jān may be found underground, in ruined places, much like the fairies in Irish raths. Like fairies, they appear in swirling dust, or the dust whirls themselves are Jān. They take men and women “to their own herd,” as Mr. Kirk puts it, and are friendly to those who are kind to them. They mainly differ from our fairies in their greater tendency to take on animal forms; yet, like fairies, when they choose to appear in human form, they are indistinguishable from ordinary people. Like fairies everywhere, they have romantic encounters with mortals, such as the relationship between the Queen of Faery and Thomas of Ercildoune. The herb rue is effective against them, similar to British folklore, and a man who was held captive by the Jān managed to escape by noticing their avoidance of rue and by picking two handfuls of it. They, like British brownies (a type of domesticated fairy), are responsible for the mysterious disappearance of objects. To protect homes from their influence, rue, known as the “herb of grace,” is kept in the rooms, and the name of Allah is frequently invoked. If this is neglected, items are taken by the Jān.

They often bear animal names, and it is dangerous to call a cat or dog without pointing at the animal, for a Jinni of the same name may be present and may take advantage of the invocation. A man, in fun, called to a goat to escort his wife on a walk: he did not point at the goat, and the wife disappeared. A Jinni had carried her off, and her husband had to seek her at the court of the Jān. Euphemistically they are addressed as mubārakin, “blessed ones,” as we say “the good folk” or “the people of peace.” As our fairies give gold which changes into withered leaves, the Jān give onion peels which turn into gold. Like our fairies the Jān can apply an ointment, kohl, to human eyes, after which the person so favoured can see Jān, or fairies, which are invisible to other mortals, and can see treasure wherever it may be concealed (see Folk-lore of the Holy Land, by J.E. Hanauer, 1907).

They often have animal names, and it’s risky to call a cat or dog without pointing at the animal, because a Jinni with the same name might be nearby and could respond to the call. A man, jokingly, called for a goat to take his wife for a walk: he didn’t point at the goat, and his wife vanished. A Jinni had taken her away, and her husband had to search for her in the court of the Jān. They are politely referred to as mubārakin, “blessed ones,” similar to how we say “the good folk” or “the people of peace.” Just as our fairies give gold that turns into withered leaves, the Jān give onion peels that turn into gold. Like our fairies, the Jān can apply an ointment, kohl, to human eyes, allowing the person who receives it to see Jān or fairies that are invisible to others and to spot treasures wherever they’re hidden (see Folk-lore of the Holy Land, by J.E. Hanauer, 1907).

It is plain that fairies and Jān are practically identical, a curious proof of the uniformity of the working of imagination in peoples widely separated in race and religion. Fairies naturally won their way into the poetry of the middle ages. They take lovers from among men, and are often described as of delicate, unearthly, ravishing beauty. The enjoyment of their charms is, however, generally qualified by some restriction or compact, the breaking of which is the cause of calamity to the lover and all his race, as in the notable tale of Melusine. This fay by enchantment built the castle of Lusignan for her husband. It was her nature to take every week the form of a serpent from the waist below. The hebdomadal transformation being once, contrary to compact, witnessed by her husband, she left him with much wailing, and was said to return and give warning by her appearance and great shrieks whenever one of the race of Lusignan was about to die. At the birth of Ogier le Danois six fairies attend, five of whom give good gifts, which the sixth overrides with a restriction. Gervaise of Tilbury, writing early in the 13th century, has in his Otia Imperialia a chapter, De lamiis et nocturnis larvis, where he gives it out, as proved by individuals beyond all exception, that men have been lovers of beings of this kind whom they call Fadas, and who did in case of infidelity or infringement of secrecy inflict terrible punishment—the loss of goods and even of life. There seems little in the characteristics of these fairies of romance to distinguish them from human beings, except their supernatural knowledge and power. They are not often represented as diminutive in stature, and seem to be subject to such human passions as love, jealousy, envy and revenge. To this class belong the fairies of Boiardo, Ariosto and Spenser.

It's clear that fairies and Jān are practically the same, which interestingly shows how the imagination works similarly in cultures that are far apart in race and religion. Fairies naturally made their way into medieval poetry. They take lovers from among men and are often described as having delicate, otherworldly, breathtaking beauty. However, enjoying their charms typically comes with some kind of restriction or agreement, and breaking this leads to disaster for the lover and his entire lineage, as seen in the well-known tale of Melusine. This fairy, through enchantment, built the castle of Lusignan for her husband. Each week, she had to transform into a serpent from the waist down. When her husband saw this transformation one time, against their agreement, she left him, crying, and was said to return to warn of impending death in the Lusignan family with her appearance and loud wails. At the birth of Ogier le Danois, six fairies were present, five of whom offered gifts, but the sixth added a restriction. Gervaise of Tilbury, writing in the early 13th century, includes in his Otia Imperialia a chapter, De lamiis et nocturnis larvis, where he asserts, based on unimpeachable reports, that men have been lovers of beings they call Fadas, who punish infidelity or breach of secrecy with severe penalties — loss of possessions and even lives. There seems to be little in the traits of these fairies in romance that sets them apart from humans, except for their supernatural knowledge and abilities. They aren’t usually depicted as small in size and appear to experience human emotions such as love, jealousy, envy, and revenge. The fairies from Boiardo, Ariosto, and Spenser belong to this group.

There is no good modern book on the fairy belief in general. Keightley’s Fairy Mythology is full of interesting matter; Rhys’s Celtic Mythology is especially copious about Welsh fairies, which are practically identical with those of Ireland and Scotland. The works of Mr Jeremiah Curtin and Dr Douglas Hyde are useful for Ireland; for Scotland, Kirk’s Secret Commonwealth has already been quoted. Scott’s dissertation on fairies in The Border Minstrelsy is rich in lore, though necessarily Scott had not the wide field of comparative study opened by more recent researches. There is a full description of French fairies of the 15th century in the evidence of Jeanne d’Arc at her trial (1431) in Quicherat’s Procès de Jeanne d’Arc, vol. i. pp. 67, 68, 187, 209, 212, vol. ii. pp. 390, 404, 450.

There isn't a good modern book on fairy beliefs in general. Keightley’s Fairy Mythology has a lot of fascinating information; Rhys’s Celtic Mythology has plenty of details about Welsh fairies, which are almost identical to those in Ireland and Scotland. The works of Mr. Jeremiah Curtin and Dr. Douglas Hyde are helpful for Ireland; for Scotland, Kirk’s Secret Commonwealth has already been referenced. Scott’s essay on fairies in The Border Minstrelsy is rich in stories, but understandably, Scott didn’t have the extensive comparative studies available from more recent research. There is a detailed description of 15th-century French fairies in the testimony of Jeanne d’Arc at her trial (1431) in Quicherat’s Procès de Jeanne d’Arc, vol. i. pp. 67, 68, 187, 209, 212, vol. ii. pp. 390, 404, 450.

(A. L.)

FAIRY RING, the popular name for the circular patches of a dark green colour that are to be seen occasionally on permanent grass-land, either lawn or meadow, on which the fairies were supposed to hold their midnight revels. They mark the area of growth of some fungus, starting from a centre of one or more plants. The mycelium produced from the spores dropped by the fungus or from the “spawn” in the soil, radiates outwards, and each year’s successive crop of fungi rises from the new growth round the circle. The rich colour of the grass is due to the fertilizing quality of the decaying fungi, which are peculiarly rich in nitrogenous substances. The most complete and symmetrical grass rings are formed by Marasmius orcades, the fairy ring champignon, but the mushroom and many other species occasionally form rings, both on grass-lands and in woods. Observations were made on a ring in a pine-wood for a period of nine years, and it was calculated that it increased from centre to circumference about 8½ in. each year. The fungus was never found growing within the circle during the time the ring was under observation, the decaying vegetation necessary for its growth having become exhausted.

FAIRY RING, is the common name for the circular patches of dark green that occasionally appear on permanent grass areas, whether it's a lawn or meadow, where fairies were thought to hold their midnight parties. These patches indicate the growth area of a type of fungus that starts from the center of one or more plants. The mycelium produced from the spores dropped by the fungus or from the “spawn” in the soil spreads outward, and each year, a new group of fungi grows from the fresh growth around the circle. The rich green color of the grass is due to the fertilizing effect of the decomposing fungi, which are particularly high in nitrogenous compounds. The most complete and symmetrical grass circles are formed by Marasmius orcades, known as the fairy ring mushroom, but mushrooms and various other species also occasionally create rings, both in grassy areas and woods. Observations were conducted on a ring in a pine forest over nine years, and it was determined that it expanded from the center to the outer edge by approximately 8½ inches each year. The fungus was never found growing within the circle during the observation period because the decaying plant matter needed for its growth had been used up.


FAITHFULL, EMILY (1835-1895), English philanthropist, was the youngest daughter of the Rev. Ferdinand Faithfull, and was born at Headley Rectory, Surrey, in 1835. She took a great interest in the conditions of working-women, and with the object of extending their sphere of labour, which was then painfully limited, in 1860 she set up in London a printing establishment for women. The “Victoria Press,” as it was called, soon obtained quite a reputation for its excellent work, and Miss Faithfull was shortly afterwards appointed printer and publisher in ordinary to Queen Victoria. In 1863 she began the publication of a monthly organ, The Victoria Magazine, in which for eighteen years she continuously and earnestly advocated the claims of women to remunerative employment. In 1868 she published a novel, Change upon Change. She also appeared as a lecturer, and with the object of furthering the interests of her sex, lectured widely and successfully both in England and the United States, which latter she visited in 1872 and 1882. In 1888 she was awarded a civil list pension of £50. She died in Manchester on the 31st of May 1895.

FAITHFULL, EMILY (1835-1895), English philanthropist, was the youngest daughter of Rev. Ferdinand Faithfull and was born at Headley Rectory, Surrey, in 1835. She was very interested in the conditions of working women, and to expand their limited opportunities, she established a printing business for women in London in 1860. The “Victoria Press,” as it was called, quickly gained a reputation for its high-quality work, and shortly after, Miss Faithfull was appointed as the printer and publisher to Queen Victoria. In 1863, she began publishing a monthly magazine, The Victoria Magazine, in which she passionately advocated for women’s rights to fair employment for eighteen years. In 1868, she published a novel, Change upon Change. She also became a lecturer and worked to promote women’s interests, speaking widely and successfully in both England and the United States, visiting the latter in 1872 and 1882. In 1888, she received a civil list pension of £50. She died in Manchester on May 31, 1895.


FAITH HEALING, a form of “mind cure,” characterized by the doctrine that while pain and disease really exist, they may be neutralized and dispelled by faith in Divine power; the doctrine known as Christian Science (q.v.) holds, however, that pain is only an illusion and seeks to cure the patient by instilling into him this belief. In the Christian Church the tradition of faith healing dates from the earliest days of Christianity; upon the miracles of the New Testament follow cases of healing, first by the Apostles, then by their successors; but faith healing proper is gradually, from the 3rd century onwards, transformed into trust in relics, though faith cures still occur sporadically in later times. Catherine of Siena is said to have saved Father Matthew from dying of the plague, but in this case it is rather the healer than the healed who was strong in faith. With the Reformation faith healing proper reappears among the Moravians and Waldenses, who, like the Peculiar People of our own day, put their trust in prayer and anointing with oil. In the 16th century we find faith cures recorded of Luther and other reformers, in the next century of the Baptists, Quakers and other Puritan sects, and in the 18th century the faith healing of the Methodists in this country was paralleled by Pietism in Germany, which drew into its ranks so distinguished a man of science as Stahl (1660-1734). In the 19th century Prince Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst, canon of Grosswardein, was a famous healer on the continent; the Mormons and Irvingites were prominent among English-speaking peoples; in the last quarter of the 19th century faith healing became popular in London, and Bethshan homes were opened in 1881, and since then it has found many adherents in England.

FAITH HEALING, is a type of “mind cure” that believes pain and illness really exist, but that they can be neutralized and removed through faith in Divine power. However, the doctrine of Christian Science (q.v.) argues that pain is just an illusion and aims to heal the patient by instilling this belief. The tradition of faith healing in the Christian Church goes back to the early days of Christianity; the miracles of the New Testament include healing cases first performed by the Apostles and then their successors. However, starting in the 3rd century, faith healing gradually shifted to trust in relics, although instances of faith cures continued to happen sporadically later on. Catherine of Siena is said to have saved Father Matthew from dying of the plague, but in this instance, it was more the healer’s strong faith than the healed person's. With the Reformation, faith healing reemerged among the Moravians and Waldenses, who, like the Peculiar People today, relied on prayer and anointing with oil. In the 16th century, we see accounts of faith cures involving Luther and other reformers, and in the following century among Baptists, Quakers, and other Puritan sects. In the 18th century, Methodist faith healing in this country coincided with Pietism in Germany, which included notable figures like the scientist Stahl (1660-1734). In the 19th century, Prince Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst, a canon of Grosswardein, became a well-known healer in Europe; the Mormons and Irvingites were also prominent among English speakers. In the last quarter of the 19th century, faith healing gained popularity in London, leading to the opening of Bethshan homes in 1881, and since then, it has attracted many followers in England.

Under faith healing in a wider sense may be included (1) the cures in the temples of Aesculapius and other deities in the ancient world; (2) the practice of touching for the king’s evil, in vogue from the 11th to the 18th century; (3) the cures of Valentine Greatrakes, the “Stroker” (1629-1683); and (4) the miracles of Lourdes, and other resorts of pilgrims, among which may be mentioned St Winifred’s Well in Flintshire, Treves with its Holy Coat, the grave of the Jansenist F. de Paris in the 18th century, the little town of Kevelaer from 1641 onwards, the tombs of St Louis, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena and others.

Under faith healing in a broader sense can be included (1) the healings in the temples of Aesculapius and other gods in the ancient world; (2) the practice of touching for the king’s evil, popular from the 11th to the 18th century; (3) the cures by Valentine Greatrakes, the “Stroker” (1629-1683); and (4) the miracles of Lourdes, along with other pilgrimage sites, such as St Winifred’s Well in Flintshire, Treves with its Holy Coat, the grave of the Jansenist F. de Paris in the 18th century, the small town of Kevelaer from 1641 onwards, and the tombs of St Louis, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, and others.

An animistic theory of disease was held by Pastor J. Ch. Blumhardt, Dorothea Trudel, Boltzius and other European faith healers. Used in this sense faith healing is indistinguishable from much of savage leech-craft, which seeks to cure disease by expelling the evil spirit in some portion of the body. Although 136 it is usually present, faith in the medicine man is not essential for the efficacy of the method. The same may be said of the lineal descendant of savage medicine—the magical leech-craft of European folk-lore; cures for toothache, warts, &c., act in spite of the disbelief of the sufferer; how far incredulity on the part of the healer would result in failure is an open question.

An animistic theory of disease was held by Pastor J. Ch. Blumhardt, Dorothea Trudel, Boltzius, and other European faith healers. In this sense, faith healing is no different from much of primitive leech-craft, which aims to heal by driving out the evil spirit from a part of the body. Even though faith in the healer is often present, it isn’t necessary for the method to work. The same can be said for the direct descendant of primitive medicine—the magical leech-craft of European folklore; cures for toothaches, warts, etc., work regardless of the patient's disbelief; it remains unclear how the healer's skepticism might affect the outcome.

From the psychological point of view all these different kinds of faith healing, as indeed all kinds of mind cure, including those of Christian Science and hypnotism, depend on suggestion (q.v.). In faith healing proper not only are powerful direct suggestions used, but the religious atmosphere and the auto-suggestions of the patient co-operate, especially where the cures take place during a period of religious revival or at other times when large assemblies and strong emotions are found. The suggestibility of large crowds is markedly greater than that of individuals, and to this and the greater faith must be attributed the greater success of the fashionable places of pilgrimage.

From a psychological perspective, all these different forms of faith healing, as well as other types of mind cure, including Christian Science and hypnosis, rely on suggestion (q.v.). In true faith healing, not only are strong direct suggestions employed, but the religious environment and the patient’s self-suggestions also play a role, especially when the healing occurs during times of religious revival or at other gatherings filled with strong emotions. The suggestibility of large crowds is significantly higher than that of individuals, and this, along with the stronger faith, can explain the greater effectiveness of popular pilgrimage sites.

See A.T. Myers and F.W.H. Myers in Proc. Soc. Psychical Research, ix. 160-209, on the miracles of Lourdes, with bibliography; A. Feilding, Faith Healing and Christian Science; O. Stoll, Suggestion und Hypnotismus in der Völkerpsychologie; article “Greatrakes” in Dict. Nat. Biog.

See A.T. Myers and F.W.H. Myers in Proc. Soc. Psychical Research, ix. 160-209, about the miracles of Lourdes, with a bibliography; A. Feilding, Faith Healing and Christian Science; O. Stoll, Suggestion und Hypnotismus in der Völkerpsychologie; article “Greatrakes” in Dict. Nat. Biog.

(N. W. T.)

FAITHORNE, WILLIAM (1626 or 1627-1691), English painter and engraver, was born in London and was apprenticed to Robert Peake, a painter and printseller, who received the honour of knighthood from Charles I. On the outbreak of the Civil War he accompanied his master into the king’s service, and being made prisoner at Basinghouse, he was confined for some time to Aldersgate, where, however, he was permitted to follow his profession of engraver, and among other portraits did a small one of the first Villiers, duke of Buckingham. At the earnest solicitation of his friends he very soon regained his liberty, but only on condition of retiring to France. There he was so fortunate as to receive instruction from Robert Nanteuil. He was permitted to return to England about 1650, and took up a shop near Temple Bar, where, besides his work as an engraver, he carried on a large business as a printseller. In 1680 he gave up his shop and retired to a house in Blackfriars, occupying himself chiefly in painting portraits from the life in crayons, although still occasionally engaged in engraving. It is said that his life was shortened by the misfortunes, dissipation, and early death of his son William. Faithorne is especially famous as a portrait engraver, and among those on whom he exercised his art were a large number of eminent persons, including Sir Henry Spelman, Oliver Cromwell, Henry Somerset, the marquis of Worcester, John Milton, Queen Catherine, Prince Rupert, Cardinal Richelieu, Sir Thomas Fairfax, Thomas Hobbes, Richard Hooker, Robert second earl of Essex, and Charles I. All his works are remarkable for their combination of freedom and strength with softness and delicacy, and his crayon paintings unite to these the additional quality of clear and brilliant colouring. He is the author of a work on engraving (1622).

FAITHORNE, WILLIAM (1626 or 1627-1691), was an English painter and engraver born in London. He was apprenticed to Robert Peake, a painter and printseller who was knighted by Charles I. When the Civil War began, he joined his master in the king’s service, but was captured at Basinghouse and held for a while at Aldersgate. While there, he was allowed to continue his work as an engraver and created a small portrait of the first Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. At the urgent request of his friends, he quickly regained his freedom but had to agree to go into exile in France. In France, he was fortunate to study under Robert Nanteuil. He returned to England around 1650 and opened a shop near Temple Bar, where, in addition to his engraving work, he sold prints. In 1680, he closed his shop and moved to a house in Blackfriars, mainly focusing on painting life portraits in crayons, though he still occasionally did engraving. His life is said to have been cut short by the hardships, struggles, and the early death of his son William. Faithorne is particularly known as a portrait engraver, having worked with many notable figures like Sir Henry Spelman, Oliver Cromwell, Henry Somerset, the Marquis of Worcester, John Milton, Queen Catherine, Prince Rupert, Cardinal Richelieu, Sir Thomas Fairfax, Thomas Hobbes, Richard Hooker, Robert, the second Earl of Essex, and Charles I. His works are distinguished by their blend of freedom and strength with softness and delicacy, and his crayon paintings also feature clear and brilliant colors. He authored a book on engraving in 1622.

His son William (1656-1686), mezzotint engraver, at an early age gave promise of attaining great excellence, but became idle and dissipated, and involved his father in money difficulties. Among persons of note whose portraits he engraved are Charles II., Mary princess of Orange, Queen Anne when princess of Denmark, and Charles XII. of Sweden.

His son William (1656-1686), a mezzotint engraver, showed early signs of talent and potential, but he became lazy and reckless, which led to financial troubles for his father. He created portraits of several notable figures, including Charles II, Mary, Princess of Orange, Queen Anne when she was Princess of Denmark, and Charles XII of Sweden.

The best account of the Faithornes is that contained in Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting. A life of Faithorne the elder is preserved in the British Museum among the papers of Mr Bayford, librarian to Lord Oxford, and an intimate friend of Faithorne.

The best account of the Faithornes is in Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting. A biography of Faithorne the elder is kept in the British Museum among the papers of Mr. Bayford, the librarian for Lord Oxford and a close friend of Faithorne.


FAIZABAD, a town of Afghanistan, capital of the province of Badakshan, situated on the Kokcha river. In 1821 it was destroyed by Murad Beg of Kunduz, and the inhabitants removed to Kunduz. But since Badakshan was annexed by Abdur Rahman, the town has recovered its former importance, and is now a considerable place of trade. It is the chief cantonment for eastern Afghanistan and the Pamir region, and is protected by a fort built in 1904.

FAIZABAD, is a town in Afghanistan, the capital of Badakshan province, located along the Kokcha river. In 1821, it was destroyed by Murad Beg from Kunduz, and the residents were moved to Kunduz. However, since Badakshan was annexed by Abdur Rahman, the town has regained its former significance and is now an important trading hub. It serves as the main military base for eastern Afghanistan and the Pamir region, protected by a fort built in 1904.


FAJARDO, a district and town on the E. coast of Porto Rico, belonging to the department of Humacao. Pop. (1899) of the district, 16,782; and of the town, 3414. The district is highly fertile and is well watered, owing in great measure to its abundant rainfall. Sugar production is its principal industry, but some attention is also given to the growing of oranges and pineapples. The town, which was founded in 1774, is a busy commercial centre standing 1¼ m. from a large and well-sheltered bay, at the entrance to which is the cape called Cabeza de San Juan. It is the market town for a number of small islands off the E. coast, some of which produce cattle for export.

FAJARDO, is a district and town on the east coast of Puerto Rico, part of the Humacao department. The district had a population of 16,782 in 1899, while the town had 3,414 residents. The area is very fertile and has plenty of water, mainly due to its high rainfall. Sugar production is the main industry, but there’s also some focus on growing oranges and pineapples. The town, founded in 1774, is a busy commercial hub located about 1¼ miles from a large, well-sheltered bay, at the entrance of which lies the cape called Cabeza de San Juan. It serves as the market town for several small islands off the east coast, some of which raise cattle for export.


FAKHR UD-DĪN RĀZI (1149-1209), Arabian historian and theologian, was the son of a preacher, himself a writer, and was born at Rai (Rei, Rhagae), near Tehran, where he received his earliest training. Here and at Marāgha, whither he followed his teacher Majd ud-Dīn ul-Jilī, he studied philosophy and theology. He was a Shaf‘ite in law and a follower of Ash‘arī (q.v.) in theology, and became renowned as a defender of orthodoxy. During a journey in Khwarizm and Mawara’l-nahr he preached both in Persian and Arabic against the sects of Islam. After this tour he returned to his native city, but settled later in Herat, where he died. His dogmatic positions may be seen from his work Kitāb ul-Muḥassal, which is analysed by Schmölders in his Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes (Paris, 1842). Extracts from his History of the Dynasties were published by Jourdain in the Fundgruben des Orients (vol. v.), and by D.R. Heinzius (St Petersburg, 1828). His greatest work is the Mafātiḥ ul-Ghaib (“The Keys of Mystery”), an extensive commentary on the Koran published at Cairo (8 vols., 1890) and elsewhere; it is specially full in its exposition of Ash‘arite theology and its use of early and late Mu’tazilite writings.

FAKHR UD-DĪN RĀZI (1149-1209), an Arabian historian and theologian, was the son of a preacher and a writer. He was born in Rai (Rei, Rhagae), near Tehran, where he received his early education. There and in Marāgha, where he followed his teacher Majd ud-Dīn ul-Jilī, he studied philosophy and theology. He identified as a Shaf‘ite in law and followed Ash‘arī (q.v.) in theology, gaining recognition as a defender of orthodox beliefs. During a trip through Khwarizm and Mawara’l-nahr, he preached in both Persian and Arabic against various Islamic sects. After this journey, he returned to his hometown but later settled in Herat, where he passed away. His doctrinal positions can be found in his work Kitāb ul-Muḥassal, which Schmölders examines in his Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes (Paris, 1842). Excerpts from his History of the Dynasties were published by Jourdain in the Fundgruben des Orients (vol. v.) and by D.R. Heinzius (St Petersburg, 1828). His most significant work is the Mafātiḥ ul-Ghaib (“The Keys of Mystery”), an extensive commentary on the Koran published in Cairo (8 vols., 1890) and elsewhere; it is particularly rich in its exposition of Ash‘arite theology and incorporates early and late Mu’tazilite writings.

For an account of his life see F. Wüstenfeld’s Geschichte der arabischen Ärzte, No. 200 (Göttingen, 1840); for a list of his works cf. C. Brockelmann’s Gesch. der arabischen Literatur, vol. 1 (Weimar, 1898), pp. 506 ff. An account of his teaching is given by M. Schreiner in the Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft (vol. 52, pp. 505 ff.).

For a biography, check out F. Wüstenfeld’s Geschichte der arabischen Ärzte, No. 200 (Göttingen, 1840); for a list of his works, see C. Brockelmann’s Gesch. der arabischen Literatur, vol. 1 (Weimar, 1898), pp. 506 ff. M. Schreiner provides insights into his teaching in the Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft (vol. 52, pp. 505 ff.).

(G. W. T.)

FAKIR (from Arabic faqīr, “poor”), a term equivalent to Dervish (q.v.) or Mahommedan religious mendicant, but which has come to be specially applied to the Hindu devotees and ascetics of India. There are two classes of these Indian Fakirs, (1) the religious orders, and (2) the nomad rogues who infest the country. The ascetic orders resemble the Franciscans of Christianity. The bulk lead really excellent lives in monasteries, which are centres of education and poor-relief; while others go out to visit the poor as Gurus or teachers. Strict celibacy is not enforced among them. These orders are of very ancient date, owing their establishment to the ancient Hindu rule, followed by the Buddhists, that each “twice-born” man should lead in the woods the life of an ascetic. The second class of Fakirs are simply disreputable beggars who wander round extorting, under the guise of religion, alms from the charitable and practising on the superstitions of the villagers. As a rule they make no real pretence of leading a religious life. They are said to number nearly a million. Many of them are known as “Jogi,” and lay claim to miraculous powers which they declare have become theirs by the practice of abstinence and extreme austerities. The tortures which some of these wretches will inflict upon themselves are almost incredible. They will hold their arms over their heads until the muscles atrophy, will keep their fists clenched till the nails grow through the palms, will lie on beds of nails, cut and stab themselves, drag, week after week, enormous chains loaded with masses of iron, or hang themselves before a fire near enough to scorch. Most of them are inexpressibly filthy and verminous. Among the filthiest are the Aghoris, who preserve the ancient cannibal ritual of the followers of Siva, eat filth, and use a human skull as a drinking-vessel. Formerly the fakirs were always nude and smeared with ashes; but now they are compelled to wear some pretence of clothing. The natives do not really respect these wandering friars, but they dread their curses.

FAKIR (from Arabic faqīr, “poor”), a term equivalent to Dervish (q.v.) or Muslim religious beggar, but which has come to be specifically applied to the Hindu devotees and ascetics of India. There are two types of these Indian Fakirs: (1) the religious orders and (2) the nomadic con artists who roam the country. The ascetic orders resemble the Franciscans of Christianity. Most lead genuinely good lives in monasteries that serve as centers for education and helping the poor, while others go out to serve the needy as Gurus or teachers. Strict celibacy isn’t enforced among them. These orders are very old, stemming from the ancient Hindu rule, followed by Buddhists, that each “twice-born” man should live the life of an ascetic in the woods. The second type of Fakirs are just disreputable beggars who wander around extorting money, pretending to be religious, from the charitable while exploiting the superstitions of villagers. Generally, they don’t really pretend to lead a religious life. They are said to number nearly a million. Many of them are known as “Jogi,” claiming to have miraculous powers obtained through strict abstinence and extreme self-denial. The suffering some of these individuals inflict on themselves is almost unbelievable. They will hold their arms above their heads until the muscles atrophy, keep their fists clenched until their nails grow through their palms, lie on beds of nails, cut and stab themselves, drag heavy chains loaded with iron week after week, or hang themselves near a fire until they get scorched. Most of them are incredibly filthy and covered in insects. Among the dirtiest are the Aghoris, who maintain the ancient cannibal rituals of the followers of Siva, eat waste, and use a human skull as a drinking cup. In the past, fakirs were always nude and smeared with ashes; now they are forced to wear some form of clothing. The locals do not truly respect these wandering friars, but they fear their curses.

See John Campbell Oman, The Mystics, Ascetics and Saints of India (1903), and Indian Census Reports.

See John Campbell Oman, The Mystics, Ascetics and Saints of India (1903), and Indian Census Reports.


FALAISE, a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Calvados, on the right bank of the Ante, 19 m. S. by E. of Caen by road. Pop. (1906) 137 6215. The principal object of interest is the castle, now partly in ruins, but formerly the seat of the dukes of Normandy and the birthplace of William the Conqueror. It is situated on a lofty crag overlooking the town, and consists of a square mass defended by towers and flanked by a small donjon and a lofty tower added by the English in the 15th century; the rest of the castle dates chiefly from the 12th century. Near the castle, in the Place de la Trinité, is an equestrian statue in bronze of William the Conqueror, to whom the town owed its prosperity. The churches of La Trinité and St Gervais combine the Gothic and Renaissance styles of architecture, and St Gervais also includes Romanesque workmanship. A street passes by way of a tunnel beneath the choir of La Trinité. Falaise has populous suburbs, one of which, Guibray, is celebrated for its annual fair for horses, cattle and wool, which has been held in August since the 11th century. The town is the seat of a subprefecture and has tribunals of first instance and commerce, a chamber of arts and manufacture, a board of trade-arbitrators and a communal college. Tanning and important manufactures of hosiery are carried on.

FALAISE, is a town in northwestern France, serving as the capital of an arrondissement in the Calvados department, located on the right bank of the Ante River, 19 miles southeast of Caen by road. Population (1906) 137 6215. The main point of interest is the castle, which is now partially in ruins but was once the residence of the dukes of Normandy and the birthplace of William the Conqueror. It sits on a high cliff overlooking the town and features a square structure defended by towers, along with a small donjon and a tall tower added by the English in the 15th century; the majority of the castle dates back to the 12th century. Close to the castle, in the Place de la Trinité, there is a bronze equestrian statue of William the Conqueror, who brought prosperity to the town. The churches of La Trinité and St Gervais blend Gothic and Renaissance architectural styles, with St Gervais also showcasing Romanesque craftsmanship. A street runs beneath the choir of La Trinité through a tunnel. Falaise has busy suburbs, one of which, Guibray, is famous for its annual horse, cattle, and wool fair, held in August since the 11th century. The town is the seat of a subprefecture and hosts courts of first instance and commerce, a chamber of arts and manufacturing, a board of trade arbitrators, and a communal college. Tanning and significant hosiery manufacturing are carried out here.

From 1417, when after a siege of forty-seven days it succumbed to Henry V., king of England, till 1450, when it was retaken by the French, Falaise was in the hands of the English.

From 1417, when it fell to Henry V, king of England, after a siege that lasted forty-seven days, until 1450, when it was recaptured by the French, Falaise was under English control.


FALASHAS (i.e. exiles; Ethiopic falas, a stranger), or “Jews of Abyssinia,” a tribe of Hamitic stock, akin to Galla, Somali and Beja, though they profess the Jewish religion. They claim to be descended from the ten tribes banished from the Holy Land. Another tradition assigns them as ancestor Menelek, Solomon’s alleged son by the queen of Sheba. There is little or no physical difference between them and the typical Abyssinians, except perhaps that their eyes are a little more oblique; and they may certainly be regarded as Hamitic. It is uncertain when they became Jews: one account suggests in Solomon’s time; another, at the Babylonian captivity; a third, during the 1st century of the Christian era. That one of the earlier dates is correct seems probable from the fact that the Falashas know nothing of either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, make no use of phylacteries (tefillin), and observe neither the feast of Purim nor the dedication of the temple. They possess—not in Hebrew, of which they are altogether ignorant, but in Ethiopic (or Geez)—the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament; a volume of extracts from the Pentateuch, with comments given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai; the Te-e-sa-sa Sanbat, or laws of the Sabbath; the Ardit, a book of secrets revealed to twelve saints, which is used as a charm against disease; lives of Abraham, Moses, &c.; and a translation of Josephus called Sana Aihud. A copy of the Orit or Mosaic law is kept in the holy of holies in every synagogue. Various pagan observances are mingled in their ritual: every newly-built house is considered uninhabitable till the blood of a sheep or fowl has been spilt in it; a woman guilty of a breach of chastity has to undergo purification by leaping into a flaming fire; the Sabbath has been deified, and, as the goddess Sanbat, receives adoration and sacrifice and is said to have ten thousand times ten thousand angels to wait on her commands. There is a monastic system, introduced it is said in the 4th century A.D. by Aba Zebra, a pious man who retired from the world and lived in the cave of Hoharewa, in the province of Armatshoho. The monks must prepare all their food with their own hands, and no lay person, male or female, may enter their houses. Celibacy is not practised by the priests, but they are not allowed to marry a second time, and no one is admitted into the order who has eaten bread with a Christian, or is the son or grandson of a man thus contaminated. Belief in the evil eye or shadow is universal, and spirit-raisers, soothsayers and rain-doctors are in repute. Education is in the hands of the monks and priests, and is confined to boys. Fasts, obligatory on all above seven years of age, are held on every Monday and Thursday, on every new moon, and at the passover (the 21st or 22nd of April). The annual festivals are the passover, the harvest feast, the Baala Mazalat or feast of tabernacles (during which, however, no booths are built), the day of covenant or assembly and Abraham’s day. It is believed that after death the soul remains in a place of darkness till the third day, when the first sacrifice for the dead is offered; prayers are read in the synagogue for the repose of the departed, and for seven days a formal lament takes place every morning in his house. No coffins are used, and a stone vault is built over the corpse so that it may not come into direct contact with the earth.

FALASHAS (i.e. exiles; Ethiopic falas, a stranger), or “Jews of Abyssinia,” are a group of Hamitic origin, related to the Galla, Somali, and Beja, but they practice the Jewish faith. They claim descent from the ten tribes exiled from the Holy Land. Another story traces their ancestry to Menelek, who is said to be Solomon’s son by the queen of Sheba. There is little to no physical difference between them and typical Abyssinians, except possibly that their eyes are slightly more oblique; they can certainly be considered Hamitic. It’s unclear when they became Jews: one account suggests it happened during Solomon’s time, another during the Babylonian captivity, and a third during the 1st century of the Christian era. It seems likely that one of the earlier dates is correct since the Falashas have no knowledge of the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, do not use phylacteries (tefillin), and do not observe either the feast of Purim or the dedication of the temple. They possess, not in Hebrew, which they are completely ignorant of, but in Ethiopic (or Geez), the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament; a collection of excerpts from the Pentateuch, which includes comments given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai; the Te-e-sa-sa Sanbat, or laws of the Sabbath; the Ardit, a book of secrets revealed to twelve saints, used as a charm against illness; biographies of Abraham, Moses, etc.; and a translation of Josephus called Sana Aihud. A copy of the Orit or Mosaic law is kept in the holy of holies in every synagogue. Their rituals include various pagan practices: every newly built house is considered unfit for living until the blood of a sheep or bird has been spilled in it; a woman who has committed adultery must purify herself by jumping into a fire; the Sabbath is worshipped as a goddess, Sanbat, receiving adoration and sacrifice, and is believed to have ten thousand angels at her service. There is a monastic system, reportedly introduced in the 4th century CE by Aba Zebra, a devout individual who withdrew from society to live in the cave of Hoharewa, in the province of Armatshoho. Monks must prepare all their food themselves, and no layperson, male or female, is allowed in their residences. Priests are not required to be celibate, but they cannot remarry after the death of a spouse, and no one can join the order if they have shared a meal with a Christian or are the child or grandchild of someone who has. Belief in the evil eye is widespread, and practitioners like spirit-raisers, soothsayers, and rain-doctors are respected. Education is provided by monks and priests and is limited to boys. Fasts are mandatory for everyone over seven years old, occurring every Monday and Thursday, at each new moon, and during Passover (April 21st or 22nd). The annual festivals include Passover, the harvest festival, the Baala Mazalat or feast of tabernacles (though no booths are constructed during this time), the covenant day or assembly, and Abraham’s day. It is believed that after death, the soul remains in darkness until the third day, when the first sacrifice for the deceased is offered; prayers for the rest of the departed are recited in the synagogue, and for seven days, formal mourning occurs every morning at the deceased's home. No coffins are used, and a stone vault is built over the body to prevent direct contact with the earth.

The Falashas are an industrious people, living for the most part in villages of their own, or, if they settle in a Christian or Mahommedan town, occupying a separate quarter. They had their own kings, who, they pretend, were descended from David, from the 10th century until 1800, when the royal race became extinct, and they then became subject to the Abyssinian kingdom of Tigré. They do not mix with the Abyssinians, and never marry women of alien religions. They are even forbidden to enter the houses of Christians, and from such a pollution have to be purified before entering their own houses. Polygamy is not practised; early marriages are rare, and their morals are generally better than those of their Christian masters. Unlike most Jews, they have no liking for trade, but are skilled in agriculture, in the manufacture of pottery, ironware and cloth, and are good masons. Their numbers are variously estimated at from one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand.

The Falashas are a hardworking people, mostly living in their own villages or, if they reside in a Christian or Muslim town, in a separate neighborhood. They had their own kings, who claimed to be descendants of David, ruling from the 10th century until 1800 when the royal line died out, after which they came under the Abyssinian kingdom of Tigré. They don’t mix with the Abyssinians and never marry women from different religions. They are even prohibited from entering the homes of Christians, and before returning to their own homes, they must undergo a purification process to avoid contamination. Polygamy is not practiced; early marriages are uncommon, and their morals are generally better than those of their Christian rulers. Unlike most Jews, they aren't inclined toward trade but are skilled in agriculture, pottery, ironworking, and fabric making, and they excel in masonry. Their population is estimated to be between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand.

Bibliography.—M. Flad, Zwölf Jahre in Abyssinia (Basel, 1869), and his Falashas of Abyssinia, translated from the German by S.P. Goodhart (London, 1869); H.A. Stern, Wanderings among the Falashas in Abyssinia (London, 1862); Joseph Halévy, Travels in Abyssinia (trans. London, 1878); Morais, “The Falashas” in Penn Monthly (Philadelphia, 1880); Cyrus Adler, “Bibliography of the Falashas” in American Hebrew (16th of March 1894); Lewin, “Ein verlassener Bruderstamm,” in Bloch’s Wochenschrift (7th February 1902), p. 85; J. Faitlovitch, Notes d’un voyage chez les Falachas (Paris, 1905).

Bibliography.—M. Flad, Zwölf Jahre in Abyssinia (Basel, 1869), and his Falashas of Abyssinia, translated from the German by S.P. Goodhart (London, 1869); H.A. Stern, Wanderings among the Falashas in Abyssinia (London, 1862); Joseph Halévy, Travels in Abyssinia (trans. London, 1878); Morais, “The Falashas” in Penn Monthly (Philadelphia, 1880); Cyrus Adler, “Bibliography of the Falashas” in American Hebrew (16th of March 1894); Lewin, “Ein verlassener Bruderstamm,” in Bloch’s Wochenschrift (7th February 1902), p. 85; J. Faitlovitch, Notes d’un voyage chez les Falachas (Paris, 1905).


FALCÃO, CHRISTOVÃO DE SOUSA (? 1512-1557), Portuguese poet, came of a noble family settled at Portalegre in the Alemtejo, which had originated with John Falcon or Falconet, one of the Englishmen who went to Portugal in 1386 in the suite of Philippa of Lancaster. His father, João Vaz de Almada Falcão, was an upright public servant who had held the captaincy of Elmina on the West African coast, but died, as he had lived, a poor man. There is a tradition that in boyhood Christovão fell in love with a beautiful child and rich heiress, D. Maria Brandão, and in 1526 married her clandestinely, but parental opposition prevented the ratification of the marriage. Family pride, it is said, drove the father of Christovão to keep his son under strict surveillance in his own house for five years, while the lady’s parents, objecting to the youth’s small means, put her into the Cistercian convent of Lorvão, and there endeavoured to wean her heart from him by the accusation that he coveted her fortune more than her person. Their arguments and the promise of a good match ultimately prevailed, and in 1534 D. Maria left the convent to marry D. Luis de Silva, captain of Tangier, while the broken-hearted Christovão told his sad story in some beautiful lyrics and particularly in the eclogue Chrisfal. He had been the disciple and friend of the poets Bernardim Ribeiro and Sá de Miranda, and when his great disappointment came, Falcão laid aside poetry and entered on a diplomatic career. There is documentary evidence that he was employed at the Portuguese embassy in Rome in 1542, but he soon returned to Portugal, and we find him at court again in 1548 and 1551. The date of his death, as of his birth, is uncertain. Such is the story accepted by Dr Theophilo Braga, the historian of Portuguese literature, but Senhor Guimarães shows that the first part is doubtful, and, putting aside the testimony of a contemporary and grave writer, Diogo do Couto, he even denies the title of poet to Christovão Falcão, arguing from internal and other evidence that Chrisfal is the work of Bernardim Ribeiro; his destructive criticism is, however, stronger than his constructive work. The eclogue, with its 104 verses, is the very poem of saudade, and its simple, direct language and chaste and tender feeling, enshrined in exquisitely sounding verses, has won for its author lasting fame and a unique position in Portuguese literature. Its influence on later poets has been very considerable, and Camoens used several of the verses as proverbs.

FALCÃO, CHRISTOVÃO DE SOUSA (? 1512-1557), a Portuguese poet, came from a noble family based in Portalegre in the Alentejo. His lineage traces back to John Falcon or Falconet, one of the Englishmen who traveled to Portugal in 1386 with Philippa of Lancaster. His father, João Vaz de Almada Falcão, was an honorable public servant who served as the captain of Elmina on the West African coast but lived and died a poor man. There’s a legend that when he was young, Christovão fell in love with a beautiful and wealthy heiress, D. Maria Brandão, and in 1526, they secretly married. However, their parents opposed the marriage, preventing it from being recognized. According to tradition, Christovão’s father confined him under strict watch in their home for five years, while D. Maria’s parents sent her to the Cistercian convent of Lorvão, trying to turn her heart away from him by claiming he was more interested in her wealth than in her. Their reasoning and the promise of a better match ultimately won her over, and in 1534, D. Maria left the convent to marry D. Luis de Silva, captain of Tangier. Heartbroken, Christovão expressed his sorrow in beautiful lyrics, particularly in the eclogue Chrisfal. He had been a student and friend of poets Bernardim Ribeiro and Sá de Miranda, but after his significant disappointment, Falcão put poetry aside and pursued a career in diplomacy. Records show he was involved with the Portuguese embassy in Rome in 1542, but he soon returned to Portugal, and by 1548 and 1551, he was back at court. The exact dates of his birth and death remain uncertain. This narrative is accepted by Dr. Theophilo Braga, a historian of Portuguese literature, but Senhor Guimarães raises doubts about the first part and, aside from the testimony of the contemporary and respected writer Diogo do Couto, even disputes Christovão Falcão's title as a poet, arguing that Chrisfal was actually written by Bernardim Ribeiro. Still, his harsh critique outweighs his constructive contributions. The eclogue, with its 104 verses, is the epitome of saudade, and its straightforward, sincere language and pure, gentle emotion, presented in beautifully crafted verses, have granted Falcão lasting recognition and a unique place in Portuguese literature. Its impact on later poets has been significant, and Camoens adapted several lines into proverbs.

The poetical works of Christovão Falcão were published anonymously, owing, it is supposed, to their personal nature and allusions, 138 and, in part or in whole, they have been often reprinted. There is a modern critical edition of Chrisfal and a Carta (letter) by A. Epiphanio da Silva Dias under the title Obras de Christovão Falcão (Oporto, 1893), and one of the Cantigas and Esparsas by the same scholar appeared in the Revista Lusitana, vol. 4, pp. 142-179 (Lisbon, 1896), under the name Fragmento de um Cancioneiro do Seculo XVI. See Bernardim Ribeiro e o Bucolismo, by Dr T. Braga (Oporto, 1897), and Bernardim Ribeiro (O Poeta Crisfal), by Delfim Guimarães (Lisbon, 1908).

The poetic works of Christovão Falcão were published anonymously, likely due to their personal themes and references, 138 and they have often been reprinted, either in part or in full. There is a modern critical edition of Chrisfal and a Carta (letter) by A. Epiphanio da Silva Dias titled Obras de Christovão Falcão (Oporto, 1893). Additionally, one of the Cantigas and Esparsas by the same scholar was published in the Revista Lusitana, vol. 4, pp. 142-179 (Lisbon, 1896), under the name Fragmento de um Cancioneiro do Seculo XVI. For more information, see Bernardim Ribeiro e o Bucolismo, by Dr T. Braga (Oporto, 1897), and Bernardim Ribeiro (O Poeta Crisfal), by Delfim Guimarães (Lisbon, 1908).

(E. Pr.)

FALCK, ANTON REINHARD (1777-1843), Dutch statesman, was born at Utrecht on the 19th of March 1777. He studied at the university of Leiden, and entered the Dutch diplomatic service, being appointed to the legation at Madrid. Under King Louis Napoleon he was secretary-general for foreign affairs, but resigned office on the annexation of the Batavian republic to France. He took a leading part in the revolt of 1813 against French domination, and had a considerable share in the organization of the new kingdom of the Netherlands. As minister of education under William I. he reorganized the universities of Ghent, Louvain and Liége and the Royal Academy of Brussels. Side by side with his activities in education he directed the departments of trade and the colonies. Falck was called in Holland the king’s good genius, but William I. presently tired of his counsels and he was superseded by Van Maanen. He was ambassador in London when the disturbances of 1830 convinced him of the necessity of the separation of Belgium from Holland. He consequently resigned his post and lived in close retirement until 1839, when he became the first Dutch minister at the Belgian court. He died at Brussels on the 16th of March 1843. Besides some historical works he left a correspondence of considerable political interest, printed in Brieven van A.R. Falck, 1795-1843 (2nd ed. The Hague, 1861), and Ambtsbrieven van A.R. Falck (ibid. 1878).

FALCK, ANTON REINHARD (1777-1843), Dutch politician, was born in Utrecht on March 19, 1777. He studied at Leiden University and joined the Dutch diplomatic service, where he was assigned to the legation in Madrid. Under King Louis Napoleon, he served as the secretary-general for foreign affairs but resigned when the Batavian Republic was annexed by France. He played a significant role in the 1813 uprising against French rule and contributed greatly to establishing the new kingdom of the Netherlands. As the minister of education under William I, he restructured the universities of Ghent, Louvain, and Liège, as well as the Royal Academy of Brussels. Alongside his work in education, he oversaw the departments of trade and the colonies. Falck was known in Holland as the king’s good genius, but William I eventually grew tired of his advice and replaced him with Van Maanen. He was the ambassador in London when the upheavals of 1830 made him realize the need for Belgium to separate from Holland. He subsequently resigned and lived in relative obscurity until 1839 when he became the first Dutch minister at the Belgian court. He died in Brussels on March 16, 1843. In addition to several historical works, he left behind a correspondence of significant political interest, published in Brieven van A.R. Falck, 1795-1843 (2nd ed. The Hague, 1861), and Ambtsbrieven van A.R. Falck (ibid. 1878).


FALCÓN, the most northern state of Venezuela, with an extensive coast line on the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Venezuela. Pop. (1905 est.) 173,968. It lies between the Caribbean on the N. and the state of Lara on the S., with Zulia and the Gulf of Venezuela on the W. Its surface is much broken by irregular ranges of low mountains, and extensive areas on the coast are sandy plains and tropical swamps. The climate is hot, but, being tempered by the trade winds, is not considered unhealthy except in the swampy districts. The state is sparsely settled and has no large towns, its capital, Coro, being important chiefly because of its history, and as the entrepôt for an extensive inland district. The only port in the state is La Vela de Coro, on a small bay of the same name, 7 m. E. of the capital, with which it is connected by railway.

FALCÓN, is the northernmost state of Venezuela, featuring a long coastline along the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Venezuela. Population (1905 estimate): 173,968. It is situated between the Caribbean to the north and the state of Lara to the south, with Zulia and the Gulf of Venezuela to the west. The landscape is quite rugged, with irregular low mountain ranges and large sandy plains and tropical swamps along the coast. The climate is hot, but the trade winds provide some relief, making it generally healthy except in swampy areas. The state has a sparse population and lacks large towns; its capital, Coro, is primarily significant for its historical importance and serves as a hub for a large inland region. The only port in the state is La Vela de Coro, located in a small bay of the same name, 7 miles east of the capital, which is connected to it by railway.


FALCON (Lat. Falco;1 Fr. Faucon; Teutonic, Falk or Valken), a word now restricted to the high-couraged and long-winged birds of prey which take their quarry as it moves; but formerly it had a very different meaning, being by the naturalists of the 18th and even of the 19th century extended to a great number of birds comprised in the genus Falco of Linnaeus and writers of his day,2 while, on the other hand, by falconers, it was, and still is, technically limited to the female of the birds employed by them in their vocation (see Falconry), whether “long-winged” and therefore “noble,” or “short-winged” and “ignoble.”

FALCON (Lat. Falco;1 Fr. Faucon; Teutonic, Falk or Valken), a term now used specifically for the high-flying and long-winged birds of prey that catch their prey in motion; however, it used to have a much broader meaning. Naturalists from the 18th and even the 19th century applied it to many birds classified within the genus Falco by Linnaeus and other writers of that time,2 while falconers have always used it, and continue to use it, specifically for the female birds they train for this purpose (see Falconry), whether they are “long-winged” and thus “noble,” or “short-winged” and “ignoble.”

According to modern usage, the majority of the falcons, in the sense first given, may be separated into five very distinct groups: (1) the falcons pure and simple (Falco proper); (2) the large northern falcons (Hierofalco, Cuvier); (3) the “desert falcons” (Gennaea, Kaup); (4) the merlins (Aesalon, Kaup); and (5) the hobbies (Hypotriorchis, Boie). A sixth group, the kestrels (Tinnunculus, Vieillot), is often added. This, however, appears to have been justifiably reckoned a distinct genus.

According to current usage, most falcons can be divided into five very distinct groups: (1) the true falcons (Falco proper); (2) the large northern falcons (Hierofalco, Cuvier); (3) the “desert falcons” (Gennaea, Kaup); (4) the merlins (Aesalon, Kaup); and (5) the hobbies (Hypotriorchis, Boie). A sixth group, the kestrels (Tinnunculus, Vieillot), is often included. However, this seems to be rightly considered a separate genus.

Fig. 1.—Peregrine Falcon.

The typical falcon is by common consent allowed to be that almost cosmopolitan species to which unfortunately the English epithet “peregrine” (i.e. strange or wandering) has been attached. It is the Falco peregrinus of Tunstall (1771) and of most recent ornithologists, though some prefer the specific name communis applied by J.F. Gmelin a few years later (1788) to a bird which, if his diagnosis be correct, could not have been a true falcon at all, since it had yellow irides—a colour never met with in the eyes of any bird now called by naturalists a “falcon.” This species inhabits suitable localities throughout the greater part of the globe, though examples from North America have by some received specific recognition as F. anatum (the “duck-hawk”), and those from Australia have been described as distinct under the name of F. melanogenys. Here, as in so many other cases, it is almost impossible to decide as to which forms should, and which should not, be accounted merely local races. In size not surpassing a raven, this falcon (fig. 1) is perhaps the most powerful bird of prey for its bulk that flies, and its courage is not less than its power. It is the species, in Europe, most commonly trained for the sport of hawking (see Falconry). Volumes have been written upon it, and to attempt a complete account of it is, within the limits now available, impossible. The plumage of the adult is generally blackish-blue above, and white, with a more or less deep cream-coloured tinge, beneath—the lower parts, except the chin and throat, being barred transversely with black, while a black patch extends from the bill to the ear-coverts, and descends on either side beneath the mandible. The young have the upper parts deep blackish-brown, and the lower white, more or less strongly tinged with ochraceous-brown, and striped longitudinally with blackish-brown. From Port Kennedy, the most northern part of the American continent, to Tasmania, and from the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk to Mendoza in the Argentine territory, there is scarcely a country in which this falcon has not been found. Specimens have been received from the Cape of Good Hope, and it is only a question of the technical differentiation of species whether it does not extend to Cape Horn. Fearless as it is, and adapting itself to almost every circumstance, it will form its eyry equally on the sea-washed cliffs, the craggy mountains, or (though more rarely) the drier spots of a marsh in the northern hemisphere, as on trees (says H. Schlegel) in the forests of Java or the waterless ravines of Australia. In the United Kingdom it was formerly very common, and hardly a high rock from the Shetlands to the Isle of Wight 139 but had a pair as its tenants. But the British gamekeeper has long held the mistaken faith that it is his worst foe, and the number of pairs now allowed to rear their brood unmolested in the British Islands is very small. Yet its utility to the game-preserver, by destroying every one of his most precious wards that shows any sign of infirmity, can hardly be questioned by reason, and G.E. Freeman (Falconry) has earnestly urged its claims to protection.3 Nearly allied to this falcon are several species, such as F. barbarus of Mauretania, F. minor of South Africa, the Asiatic F. babylonicus, F. peregrinator of India (the shaheen), and perhaps F. cassini of South America, with some others.

The typical falcon is generally agreed to be that almost worldwide species to which, unfortunately, the English name “peregrine” (meaning strange or wandering) has been given. It is the Falco peregrinus identified by Tunstall (1771) and most recent ornithologists, although some prefer the specific name communis given by J.F. Gmelin a few years later (1788) for a bird that, if his description is correct, could not have been a true falcon at all since it had yellow irises—a color not found in the eyes of any bird now recognized by naturalists as a “falcon.” This species lives in suitable areas all over the world, although some examples from North America have been specifically identified as F. anatum (the “duck-hawk”), and those from Australia have been classified as distinct under the name F. melanogenys. Here, as in many other cases, it is nearly impossible to determine which forms should be considered merely local variations. Not exceeding the size of a raven, this falcon (fig. 1) is perhaps the most powerful bird of prey for its size that flies, and its courage is equal to its strength. It is the species most commonly trained for the sport of hawking in Europe (see Falconry). Many volumes have been written about it, and attempting a complete account is, within the available limits, impossible. The plumage of the adult is typically blackish-blue on top and white, with a cream-colored tint below—the lower parts, except for the chin and throat, are transversely barred with black, while a black patch stretches from the bill to the ear-coverts and extends down either side beneath the mandible. The young birds have deep blackish-brown upper parts, and white lower parts, more or less tinged with ochraceous-brown and striped longitudinally with blackish-brown. From Port Kennedy, the northernmost point of the American continent, to Tasmania, and from the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk to Mendoza in Argentina, there is hardly a country where this falcon has not been found. Specimens have been collected from the Cape of Good Hope, and it is only a matter of technical differentiation whether it doesn't reach Cape Horn. Fearless and adaptable to almost any situation, it will make its nest equally on sea-washed cliffs, craggy mountains, or (though less frequently) the drier areas of a marsh in the northern hemisphere, as well as in trees (according to H. Schlegel) in the forests of Java or the dry ravines of Australia. In the United Kingdom, it was once very common, and hardly a high rock from the Shetlands to the Isle of Wight didn’t have a pair nesting there. However, British gamekeepers have long mistakenly believed it to be their worst enemy, and the number of pairs allowed to raise their young unbothered in the British Islands is now very small. Yet its benefit to the gamekeeper, by eliminating every one of his prized game that shows any signs of weakness, is hard to dispute, and G.E. Freeman (Falconry) has strongly advocated for its protection. 3 Closely related to this falcon are several species, such as F. barbarus from Mauretania, F. minor from South Africa, the Asiatic F. babylonicus, F. peregrinator from India (the shaheen), and perhaps F. cassini from South America, among others.

Next to the typical falcons comes a group known as the “great northern” falcons (Hierofalco). Of these the most remarkable is the gyrfalcon (F. gyrfalco), whose home is in the Scandinavian mountains, though the young are yearly visitants to the plains of Holland and Germany. In plumage it very much resembles F. peregrinus, but its flanks have generally a bluer tinge, and its superiority in size is at once manifest. Nearly allied to it is the Icelander (F. islandus), which externally differs in its paler colouring and in almost entirely wanting the black mandibular patch. Its proportions, however, differ a good deal, its body being elongated. Its country is shown by its name, but it also inhabits south Greenland, and not unfrequently makes its way to the British Islands. Very close to this comes the Greenland falcon (F. candicans), a native of north Greenland, and perhaps of other countries within the Arctic Circle. Like the last, the Greenland falcon from time to time occurs in the United Kingdom, but it is always to be distinguished by wearing a plumage in which at every age the prevailing colour is pure white. In north-eastern America these birds are replaced by a kindred form (F. labradorus), first detected by Audubon and subsequently recognized by Dresser (Orn. Miscell. i. 135). It is at once distinguished by its very dark colouring, the lower parts being occasionally almost as deeply tinted at all ages as the upper.

Next to the typical falcons is a group known as the “great northern” falcons (Hierofalco). The most remarkable of these is the gyrfalcon (F. gyrfalco), which makes its home in the Scandinavian mountains, although the young ones visit the plains of Holland and Germany each year. In terms of plumage, it closely resembles F. peregrinus, but its flanks usually have a bluer tint, and its larger size is immediately obvious. Closely related to it is the Icelander (F. islandus), which differs externally with its lighter coloring and almost entirely lacks the black patch on its mandibles. However, its proportions vary quite a bit, with its body being elongated. Its name indicates its native country, but it also lives in southern Greenland and frequently travels to the British Islands. Very similar to this is the Greenland falcon (F. candicans), which originates from northern Greenland and possibly other areas within the Arctic Circle. Like the previous one, the Greenland falcon occasionally appears in the United Kingdom but can always be recognized by its plumage, which is predominantly pure white at every stage of its life. In northeastern America, these birds are replaced by a related species (F. labradorus), first identified by Audubon and later recognized by Dresser (Orn. Miscell. i. 135). It is easily distinguished by its very dark coloring, with the lower parts sometimes being nearly as dark at all ages as the upper parts.

All the birds hitherto named possess one character in common. The darker markings of their plumage are longitudinal before the first real moult takes place, and for ever afterwards are transverse. In other words, when young the markings are in the form of stripes, when old in the form of bars. The variation of tint is very great, especially in F. peregrinus; but the experience of falconers, whose business it is to keep their birds in the very highest condition, shows that a falcon of either of these groups if light-coloured in youth is light-coloured when adult, and if dark when young is also dark when old-age, after the first moult, making no difference in the complexion of the bird. The next group is that of the so-called “desert falcons” (Gennaea), wherein the difference just indicated does not obtain, for long as the bird may live and often as it may moult, the original style of markings never gives way to any other. Foremost among these are to be considered the lanner and the saker (commonly termed F. lanarius and F. sacer), both well known in the palmy days of falconry, but only since about 1845 readmitted to full recognition. Both of these birds belong properly to south-eastern Europe, North Africa and south-western Asia. They are, for their bulk, less powerful than the members of the preceding group, and though they may be trained to high flights are naturally captors of humbler game. The precise number of species is very doubtful, but among the many candidates for recognition are especially to be named the lugger (F. jugger) of India, and the prairie falcon (F. mexicanus) of the western plains of North America.

All the birds mentioned so far have one thing in common. The darker markings on their feathers run lengthwise before the first real molt, and from then on, they run crosswise. In other words, when they’re young, the markings look like stripes, and when they’re older, they look like bars. The color variation is quite significant, especially in F. peregrinus; however, falconers, who specialize in keeping their birds in top shape, have found that a falcon from either group that’s light-colored as a juvenile will be light-colored as an adult, and if it’s dark when young, it will also be dark when older, after the first molt, resulting in no change in the bird's coloration. The next group is known as the “desert falcons” (Gennaea), where the previously mentioned color changes don’t occur; no matter how long the bird lives or how often it molts, its original markings remain the same. The most notable among these are the lanner and the saker (commonly called F. lanarius and F. sacer), which were well-known during the height of falconry but were only fully acknowledged again around 1845. Both of these birds are primarily found in southeastern Europe, North Africa, and southwestern Asia. They are, relative to their size, less powerful than those in the previous group, and while they can be trained for impressive flights, they typically hunt less challenging prey. The exact number of species is uncertain, but notable candidates for recognition include the lugger (F. jugger) from India and the prairie falcon (F. mexicanus) from the western plains of North America.

The systematist finds it hard to decide in what group he should place two somewhat large Australian species (F. hypoleucus and F. subniger), both of which are rare in collections—the latter especially.

The systematist struggles to determine which group to classify two relatively large Australian species (F. hypoleucus and F. subniger), both of which are uncommon in collections—the latter in particular.

Fig. 2.—Merlin.

A small but very beautiful group comes next—the merlins4 (Aesalon of some writers, Lithofalco of others). The European merlin (F. aesalon) is perhaps the boldest of the Accipitres, not hesitating to attack birds of twice its own size, and even on occasion threatening human beings. Yet it readily becomes tame, if not affectionate, when reclaimed, and its ordinary prey consists of the smaller Passeres. Its “pinion of glossy blue” has become almost proverbial, and a deep ruddy blush suffuses its lower parts; but these are characteristic only of the male—the female maintaining very nearly the sober brown plumage she wore when as a nestling she left her lowly cradle in the heather. Very close to this bird comes the pigeon-hawk (F. columbarius) of North America—so close, indeed, that none but an expert ornithologist can detect the difference. The turumti of Anglo-Indians (F. chicquera), and its representative from southern Africa (F. ruficollis), also belong to this group, but they are considerably larger than either of the former.

A small but very beautiful group comes next—the merlins4 (Aesalon for some writers, Lithofalco for others). The European merlin (F. aesalon) is probably the boldest of the Accipitres, not hesitating to attack birds twice its own size, and sometimes even threatening humans. However, it can easily become tame, if not affectionate, when raised, and its usual prey consists of smaller Passeres. Its “pinion of glossy blue” has become almost legendary, and a deep reddish blush covers its lower parts; but these features are characteristic only of the male—the female keeps a plain brown plumage similar to what she had when she left her humble nest in the heather as a chick. Very close to this bird is the pigeon-hawk (F. columbarius) of North America— so close, in fact, that only an expert ornithologist can tell them apart. The turumti of Anglo-Indians (F. chicquera), and its counterpart from southern Africa (F. ruficollis), also belong to this group, but they are significantly larger than either of the former.

Fig. 3.—Hobby.

Lastly, the Hobbies (Hypotriorchis) comprise a greater number of forms—though how many seems to be doubtful. They are in life at once recognizable by their bold upstanding position, and at any time by their long wings. The type of this group is the English hobby (F. subbuteo), a bird of great power of flight, chiefly shown in the capture of insects, which form its 140 ordinary food. It is a summer visitant to most parts of Europe, including the British Islands, and is most wantonly and needlessly destroyed by gamekeepers. A second European species of the group is the beautiful F. eleonorae, which hardly comes farther north than the countries bordering the Mediterranean, and, though in some places abundant, is an extremely local bird. The largest species of this section seems to be the Neotropical F. femoralis, for F. diroleucus though often ranked here, is now supposed to belong to the group of typical falcons.

Lastly, the Hobbies (Hypotriorchis) include a larger number of types—though the exact count is uncertain. They are easily recognizable by their striking upright posture and their long wings. The main species in this group is the English hobby (F. subbuteo), a bird known for its incredible flying skills, particularly when catching insects, which make up its usual diet. It visits most parts of Europe, including the British Islands, during the summer, but is often unnecessarily destroyed by gamekeepers. Another European species in this group is the stunning F. eleonorae, which rarely travels farther north than the Mediterranean countries and, while abundant in some areas, is quite a local bird. The largest species in this category appears to be the Neotropical F. femoralis, since F. diroleucus, although frequently classified here, is now believed to belong to the typical falcons group.

(A. N.)

1 Unknown to classical writers, the earliest use of this word is said to be by Servius Honoratus (circa A.D. 390-480) in his notes on Aen. x. 145. It seems possibly to be the Latinized form of the Teutonic Falk, though falx is commonly accounted its root.

1 Unknown to classical writers, the earliest use of this word is said to be by Servius Honoratus (circa CE 390-480) in his notes on Aen. x. 145. It seems likely to be the Latinized version of the Teutonic Falk, although falx is typically considered its root.

2 The nomenclature of nearly all the older writers on this point is extremely confused. What many of them, even so lately as Pennant’s time, termed the “gentle falcon” is certainly the bird we now call the goshawk (i.e. goose-hawk), which name itself may have been transferred to the Astur palumbarius of modern ornithologists, from one of the long-winged birds of prey.

2 The terminology used by almost all the older writers on this subject is really mixed up. What many of them, even as recently as Pennant’s time, referred to as the “gentle falcon” is definitely the bird we now call the goshawk (i.e. goose-hawk), which name might have been switched to the Astur palumbarius that modern ornithologists recognize, from one of the long-winged birds of prey.

3 It is not to be inferred, as many writers have done, that falcons habitually prey upon birds in which disease has made any serious progress. Such birds meet their fate from the less noble Accipitres or predatory animals of many kinds. But when a bird is first affected by any disorder, its power of taking care of itself is at once impaired, and hence in the majority of cases it may become an easy victim under circumstances which would enable a perfectly sound bird to escape from the attack even of a falcon.

3 It's a misconception, as many writers have suggested, that falcons usually go after birds that are seriously ill. Those birds typically fall prey to less noble Accipitres or various other predators. However, when a bird first gets sick, its ability to defend itself is immediately weakened, making it an easy target in situations where a healthy bird would easily escape even from a falcon's attack.

4 French, Émérillon; Icelandic, Smirill.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ French, *Émérillon*; Icelandic, *Smirill*.


FALCONE, ANIELLO (1600-1665), Italian battle-painter, was the son of a tradesman, and was born in Naples. He showed his artistic tendency at an early age, received some instruction from a relative, and then studied under Ribera (Lo Spagnoletto), of whom he ranks as the most eminent pupil. Besides battle-pictures, large and small, taken from biblical as well as secular history, he painted various religious subjects, which, however, count for little in his general reputation. He became, as a battle-painter, almost as celebrated as Borgognone (Courtois), and was named “L’Oracolo delle Battaglie.” His works have animation, variety, truth to nature, and careful colour. Falcone was bold, generous, used to arms, and an excellent fencer. In the insurrection of Masaniello (1647) he resolved to be bloodily avenged for the death, at the hands of two Spaniards, of a nephew and of a pupil in the school of art which he had established in Naples. He and many of his scholars, including Salvator Rosa and Carlo Coppola, formed an armed band named the Compagnia della Morte (“Company of Death”; see Rosa, Salvator). They scoured the streets by day, exulting in slaughter; at night they were painters again, and handled the brush with impetuous zeal. Peace being restored, they had to decamp. Falcone and Rosa made off to Rome; here Borgognone noticed the works of Falcone, and became his friend, and a French gentleman induced him to go to France, where Louis XIV. became one of his patrons. Ultimately Colbert obtained permission for the painter to return to Naples, and there he died in 1665. Two of his battle-pieces are to be seen in the Louvre and in the Naples museum; he painted a portrait of Masaniello, and engraved a few plates. Among his principal scholars, besides Rosa and Coppola (whose works are sometimes ascribed to Falcone himself), were Domenico Gargiuolo (named Micco Spadaro), Paolo Porpora and Andrea di Lione.

FALCONE, ANIELLO (1600-1665), Italian battle painter, was the son of a tradesman and was born in Naples. He showed artistic talent at an early age, received some guidance from a relative, and then studied under Ribera (Lo Spagnoletto), of whom he is considered the most distinguished pupil. In addition to battle paintings, both large and small, drawn from biblical and historical events, he created various religious works, which, however, have little impact on his overall reputation. As a battle painter, he became almost as well-known as Borgognone (Courtois) and was called “L’Oracolo delle Battaglie.” His works are characterized by energy, variety, realism, and meticulous use of color. Falcone was bold, generous, skilled with weapons, and an excellent fencer. During the Masaniello insurrection (1647), he sought bloody revenge for the deaths of a nephew and a pupil at the hands of two Spaniards, both of whom were part of the art school he had established in Naples. He and many of his students, including Salvator Rosa and Carlo Coppola, formed an armed group called the Compagnia della Morte (“Company of Death”; see Rosa, Salvator). They roamed the streets during the day, reveling in violence; at night, they became painters again, wielding their brushes with fervor. When peace was restored, they had to flee. Falcone and Rosa escaped to Rome, where Borgognone noticed Falcone's works and became his friend. A French gentleman encouraged him to go to France, where Louis XIV became one of his patrons. Eventually, Colbert secured permission for the painter to return to Naples, where he died in 1665. Two of his battle paintings can be seen in the Louvre and in the Naples museum; he painted a portrait of Masaniello and created a few engravings. Among his key students, besides Rosa and Coppola (whose works are sometimes mistakenly attributed to Falcone himself), were Domenico Gargiuolo (known as Micco Spadaro), Paolo Porpora, and Andrea di Lione.


FALCONER, HUGH (1808-1865), British palaeontologist and botanist, descended from an old Scottish family, was born at Forres on the 29th of February 1808. In 1826 he graduated at Aberdeen, where he manifested a taste for the study of natural history. He afterwards studied medicine in the university of Edinburgh, taking the degree of M.D. in 1829; during this period he zealously attended the botanical classes of Prof. R. Graham (1786-1845), and those on geology by Prof. R. Jameson. Proceeding to India in 1830 as assistant-surgeon on the Bengal establishment of the East India Company, he made on his arrival an examination of the fossil bones from Ava in the possession of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and his description of the collection, published soon afterwards, gave him a recognized position among the scientists of India. Early in 1831 he was appointed to the army station at Meerut, in the Northwestern Provinces, but in the same year he was asked to officiate as superintendent of the botanic garden of Saharanpur, during the ill-health and absence of Dr J.F. Royle; and in 1832 he succeeded to this post. He was thus placed in a district that proved to be rich in palaeontological remains; and he set to work to investigate its natural history and geology. In 1834 he published a geological description of the Siwalik hills, in the Tertiary strata of which he had in 1831 discovered bones of crocodiles, tortoises and other animals; and subsequently, with conjoint labourers, he brought to light a sub-tropical fossil fauna of unexampled extent and richness, including remains of Mastodon, the colossal ruminant Sivatherium, and the enormous tortoise Colossochelys Atlas. For these valuable discoveries he and Captain (afterwards Sir Proby T.) Cautley (1802-1871) received in 1837 the Wollaston medal in duplicate from the Geological Society of London. In 1834 Falconer was appointed to inquire into the fitness of India for the growth of the tea-plant, and it was on his recommendation that it was introduced into that country.

FALCONER, HUGH (1808-1865), a British paleontologist and botanist from an old Scottish family, was born in Forres on February 29, 1808. He graduated from Aberdeen in 1826, where he showed a strong interest in natural history. Later, he studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh, earning his M.D. in 1829. During this time, he enthusiastically attended botanical classes taught by Prof. R. Graham (1786-1845) and geology classes by Prof. R. Jameson. In 1830, he went to India as an assistant-surgeon for the Bengal establishment of the East India Company. Upon arrival, he examined fossil bones from Ava that were held by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and his subsequent description of the collection established his reputation among India's scientists. In early 1831, he was assigned to the army station in Meerut, in the Northwestern Provinces, but later that same year, he was asked to serve as the acting superintendent of the botanic garden in Saharanpur due to the sickness and absence of Dr. J.F. Royle; by 1832, he officially took over the position. This placed him in an area rich in paleontological remains, prompting him to investigate its natural history and geology. In 1834, he published a geological description of the Siwalik hills, where in 1831 he had discovered bones of crocodiles, tortoises, and other animals within the Tertiary strata. He later partnered with colleagues to uncover a vast and diverse subtropical fossil fauna that included remains of Mastodon, the giant ruminant Sivatherium, and the enormous tortoise Colossochelys Atlas. For these significant discoveries, he and Captain (later Sir Proby T.) Cautley (1802-1871) were awarded the Wollaston medal in duplicate by the Geological Society of London in 1837. In 1834, Falconer was tasked with assessing India's suitability for tea cultivation, and based on his recommendations, tea was introduced to the country.

He was compelled by illness to leave India in 1842, and during his stay in England he occupied himself with the classification and arrangement of the Indian fossils presented to the British Museum and East India House, chiefly by himself and Sir Proby T. Cautley. He then set to work to edit the great memoir by Cautley and himself, entitled Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis, of which Part I. text was issued in 1846, and a series of 107 plates during the years 1846-1849. Unfortunately the work, owing partly to Dr Falconer’s absence from England and partly to ill-health, was never completed. He was elected F.R.S. in 1845. In 1847 he was appointed superintendent of the Calcutta botanical garden, and professor of botany in the medical college; and on entering on his duties in the following year he was at once employed by the Indian government and the Agricultural and Horticultural Society as their adviser on all matters connected with the vegetable products of India. He prepared an important report on the teak forests of Tenasserim, and this was the means of saving them from destruction by reckless felling; and through his recommendation the cultivation of the cinchona bark was introduced into the Indian empire. Being compelled by the state of his health to leave India in 1855, he spent the remainder of his life chiefly in examining fossil species in England and the Continent corresponding to those which he had discovered in India, notably the species of mastodon, elephant and rhinoceros; he also described some new mammalia from the Purbeck strata, and he reported on the bone-caves of Sicily, Gibraltar, Gower and Brixham. In the course of his researches he became interested in the question of the antiquity of the human race, and actually commenced a work on “Primeval Man,” which, however, he did not live to finish. He died on the 31st of January 1865. Shortly after his death a committee was formed for the promotion of a “Falconer Memorial.” This took the shape of a marble bust, which was placed in the rooms of the Royal Society of London, and of a Falconer scholarship of the annual value of £100, open for competition to graduates in science or medicine of the university of Edinburgh.

He had to leave India due to illness in 1842, and while he was in England, he focused on organizing and classifying the Indian fossils that were presented to the British Museum and East India House, mainly by himself and Sir Proby T. Cautley. He then started editing the major memoir co-authored with Cautley, titled Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis, with Part I. of the text published in 1846, and a series of 107 plates released from 1846 to 1849. Unfortunately, the work was never finished, partly due to Dr. Falconer’s absence from England and partly due to his poor health. He was elected F.R.S. in 1845. In 1847, he became the superintendent of the Calcutta botanical garden and a botany professor at the medical college. When he began his duties the following year, the Indian government and the Agricultural and Horticultural Society quickly hired him as their consultant on issues related to India’s plant products. He prepared an important report on the teak forests of Tenasserim, which helped save them from being destroyed by careless logging; through his recommendations, the cultivation of cinchona bark was introduced into the Indian empire. Due to his health issues, he had to leave India in 1855 and spent the rest of his life mainly studying fossil species in England and Europe that corresponded to those he had found in India, particularly species of mastodon, elephant, and rhinoceros; he also described new mammal species from the Purbeck strata and reported on the bone caves in Sicily, Gibraltar, Gower, and Brixham. During his research, he became interested in the history of the human race and even started a work titled “Primeval Man,” which he unfortunately didn’t live to complete. He died on January 31, 1865. Shortly after his death, a committee was formed to promote a “Falconer Memorial.” This took the form of a marble bust that was placed in the rooms of the Royal Society of London, along with a Falconer scholarship worth £100 annually, open for competition for graduates in science or medicine from the University of Edinburgh.

Dr Falconer’s botanical notes, with 450 coloured drawings of Kashmir and Indian plants, have been deposited in the library at Kew Gardens, and his Palaeontological Memoirs and Notes, comprising all his papers read before learned societies, have been edited, with a biographical sketch, by Charles Murchison, M.D. (London, 1868). Many reminiscences of Dr Falconer, and a portrait of him, were published by his niece, Grace, Lady Prestwich, in her Essays descriptive and biographical (1901).

Dr. Falconer’s botanical notes, which include 450 colored illustrations of plants from Kashmir and India, are now housed in the library at Kew Gardens. His Palaeontological Memoirs and Notes, which contain all of his papers presented to learned societies, were edited by Charles Murchison, M.D. (London, 1868), along with a biographical sketch. Many memories of Dr. Falconer, as well as a portrait of him, were published by his niece, Grace, Lady Prestwich, in her Essays descriptive and biographical (1901).


FALCONER, WILLIAM (1732-1760), British poet, was born in Edinburgh on the 11th of February 1732. His father was a wig-maker, and carried on business in one of the small shops with wooden fronts at the Netherbow Port, an antique castellated structure which remained till 1764, dividing High Street from the Canongate. The old man became bankrupt, then tried business as a grocer, and finally died in extreme poverty. William, the son, having received a scanty education, was put to sea. He served on board a Leith merchant vessel, and in his eighteenth year obtained the appointment of second mate of the “Britannia,” a vessel employed in the Levant trade, and sailed from Alexandria for Venice. The “Britannia” was overtaken by a dreadful storm off Cape Colonna and was wrecked, only three of the crew being saved. Falconer was happily one of the three, and the incidents of the voyage and its disastrous termination formed the subject of his poem of The Shipwreck (1762). Meanwhile, on his return to England, Falconer, in his nineteenth year, printed at Edinburgh an elegy on Frederick, prince of Wales, and afterwards contributed short pieces to the Gentleman’s Magazine. Some of these descriptive and lyrical effusions possess merit. The fine naval song of “The Storm” (“Cease, rude Boreas”), reputed to be by George Alexander Stevens, the dramatic writer and lecturer, has been ascribed to Falconer, but apparently on no authority. The duke of York, to whom The Shipwreck had been dedicated, advised Falconer 141 to enter the royal navy, and before the end of 1762 the poet-sailor was rated as a midshipman on board the “Royal George.” But as this ship was paid off at the peace of 1763, Falconer received an appointment as purser of the “Glory” frigate, a situation which he held until that vessel was laid up on ordinary at Chatham. In 1764 he published a new and enlarged edition of The Shipwreck, and in the same year a rhymed political tirade against John Wilkes and Charles Churchill, entitled The Demagogue. In 1769 appeared his Universal Marine Dictionary, in which retreat is defined as a French manœuvre, “not properly a term of the British marine.” While engaged on this dictionary, J. Murray, a bookseller in Fleet Street, father of Byron’s munificent publisher and correspondent, wished him to join him as a partner in business. The poet declined the offer, and became purser of the “Aurora” frigate, which had been commissioned to carry out to India certain supervisors or superintendents of the East India Company. Besides his nomination as purser, Falconer was promised the post of private secretary to the commissioners. Before sailing he published a third edition of his Shipwreck, which had again undergone “correction,” but not improvement. The poet sailed in the “Aurora” from Spithead on the 20th of September 1769. The vessel arrived safely at the Cape of Good Hope, and left on the 27th of December. She was never more heard of, having, as is supposed, foundered at sea. The Shipwreck, the poem with which Falconer’s name is connected, had a great reputation at one time, but the fine passages which pleased the earlier critics have not saved it from general oblivion.

FALCONER, WILLIAM (1732-1760), British poet, was born in Edinburgh on February 11, 1732. His father was a wig-maker who operated a small shop with a wooden front at the Netherbow Port, an old castle-like structure that remained until 1764, separating High Street from the Canongate. The old man went bankrupt, then tried working as a grocer, and ultimately died in extreme poverty. William, his son, who had a limited education, went to sea. He worked on a Leith merchant vessel, and by the time he was eighteen, he became the second mate on the “Britannia,” a ship involved in Levant trade, sailing from Alexandria to Venice. The “Britannia” encountered a terrible storm off Cape Colonna and was wrecked, with only three crew members surviving. Luckily, Falconer was one of the three, and the events of the voyage and its tragic end inspired his poem The Shipwreck (1762). Meanwhile, upon returning to England, Falconer, at nineteen, printed an elegy in Edinburgh for Frederick, prince of Wales, and later contributed short pieces to the Gentleman’s Magazine. Some of these descriptive and lyrical works are noteworthy. The popular naval song “The Storm” (“Cease, rude Boreas”), which was believed to be written by George Alexander Stevens, has also been attributed to Falconer, but there seems to be no solid evidence for this. The Duke of York, to whom The Shipwreck was dedicated, encouraged Falconer to join the royal navy, and by the end of 1762, the poet-sailor was rated as a midshipman on the “Royal George.” However, since this ship was decommissioned at the peace in 1763, Falconer was appointed purser on the “Glory” frigate, a position he held until the ship was laid up at Chatham. In 1764, he published a new and expanded edition of The Shipwreck, and that same year he released a rhymed political criticism of John Wilkes and Charles Churchill, titled The Demagogue. In 1769, he published his Universal Marine Dictionary, which defined retreat as a French maneuver, “not really a term of the British navy.” While working on this dictionary, J. Murray, a bookseller in Fleet Street and the father of Byron's generous publisher and correspondent, offered him a partnership in his business. The poet declined the offer and took the position of purser on the “Aurora” frigate, which had been commissioned to transport certain supervisors for the East India Company to India. In addition to being purser, Falconer was assured the role of private secretary to the commissioners. Before sailing, he published a third edition of his Shipwreck, which had again been “corrected,” but not improved. The poet set sail on the “Aurora” from Spithead on September 20, 1769. The ship arrived safely at the Cape of Good Hope and departed on December 27. It was never heard from again, and it is assumed that it sank at sea. The Shipwreck, the poem most closely associated with Falconer, enjoyed considerable fame at one point, but the notable passages that impressed earlier critics have not spared it from being largely forgotten.

See his Poetical Works in the “Aldine Edition” (1836), with a life by J. Mitford.

See his Poetical Works in the "Aldine Edition" (1836), with a biography by J. Mitford.


FALCONET, ÉTIENNE MAURICE (1716-1791), French sculptor, was born in Paris. His parents were poor, and he was at first apprenticed to a carpenter, but some of his clay-figures, with the making of which he occupied his leisure hours, attracted the notice of the sculptor Lemoine, who made him his pupil. He found time to study Greek and Latin, and also wrote several brochures on art. His artistic productions are characterized by the same defects as his writings, for though manifesting considerable cleverness and some power of imagination, they display in many cases a false and fantastic taste, the result, most probably, of an excessive striving after originality. One of his most successful statues was one of Milo of Crotona, which secured his admission to the membership of the Academy of Fine Arts in 1754. At the invitation of the empress Catherine he went in 1766 to St Petersburg, where he executed a colossal statue of Peter the Great in bronze. In 1788 he became director of the French Academy of Painting. Many of Falconet’s works, being placed in churches, were destroyed at the time of the French Revolution. His “Nymphe descendant au bain” is in the Louvre.

FALCONET, ÉTIENNE MAURICE (1716-1791), was a French sculptor born in Paris. His family was poor, and he originally trained as a carpenter, but some of his clay figures, which he made during his free time, caught the attention of the sculptor Lemoine, who took him on as a student. He found time to study Greek and Latin and also wrote several brochures on art. His artistic works have the same flaws as his writings; while they show notable skill and some imaginative power, many cases reflect a false and fantastical taste, likely a result of an excessive quest for originality. One of his most successful statues was of Milo of Crotona, which earned him membership in the Academy of Fine Arts in 1754. At the request of Empress Catherine, he traveled to St. Petersburg in 1766, where he created a colossal bronze statue of Peter the Great. In 1788, he became director of the French Academy of Painting. Many of Falconet's works, located in churches, were destroyed during the French Revolution. His “Nymphe descendant au bain” is in the Louvre.

Among his writings are Reflexions sur la sculpture (Paris, 1768), and Observations sur la statue de Marc-Aurèle (Paris, 1771). The whole were collected under the title of Œuvres littéraires (6 vols., Lausanne, 1781-1782; 3 vols., Paris, 1787).

Among his writings are Reflexions sur la sculpture (Paris, 1768) and Observations sur la statue de Marc-Aurèle (Paris, 1771). They were all compiled under the title Œuvres littéraires (6 vols., Lausanne, 1781-1782; 3 vols., Paris, 1787).


FALCONRY (Fr. fauconnerie, from Late Lat. falco, falcon), the art of employing falcons and hawks in the chase, often termed Hawking. Falconry was for many ages one of the principal sports of the richer classes, and, since many more efficacious methods and appliances for the capture of game undoubtedly existed, it is probable that it has always been carried on as a pure sport. The antiquity of falconry is very great. There appears to be little doubt that it was practised in Asia at a very remote period, for which we have the concurrent testimony of various Chinese and Japanese works, some of the latter being most quaintly and yet spiritedly illustrated. It appears to have been known in China some 2000 years B.C., and the records of a king Wen Wang, who reigned over a province of that country 689 B.C., prove that the art was at that time in very high favour. In Japan it appears to have been known at least 600 years B.C., and probably at an equally early date in India, Arabia, Persia and Syria. Sir A.H. Layard, in his Nineveh and Babylon, considered that in a bas-relief found by him in the ruins of Khorsabad “there appeared to be a falconer bearing a hawk on his wrist,” from which it would appear to have been known there some 1700 years B.C. In all the above-mentioned countries of Asia it is practised at the present day.

FALCONRY (Fr. fauconnerie, from Late Lat. falco, falcon), the skill of using falcons and hawks for hunting, often called Hawking. For many centuries, falconry was one of the main sports of the wealthy, and since there were certainly more effective ways and tools for capturing game, it's likely that it has always been practiced purely as a sport. Falconry has a very long history. It's widely accepted that it was practiced in Asia a very long time ago, supported by various Chinese and Japanese texts, some of which feature unique and lively illustrations. It seems to have been known in China around 2000 years BCE, and records from King Wen Wang, who ruled a province there around 689 BCE, show that the art was very popular at that time. In Japan, it seems to have been known at least 600 years BCE, and likely in India, Arabia, Persia, and Syria at a similarly early date. Sir A.H. Layard, in his Nineveh and Babylon, noted that a bas-relief he discovered in the ruins of Khorsabad “appeared to show a falconer holding a hawk on his wrist,” suggesting it was known there around 1700 years BCE Falconry is still practiced today in all the Asian countries mentioned above.

Little is known of the early history of falconry in Africa, but from very ancient Egyptian carvings and drawings it seems to have been known there many ages ago. It was probably also in vogue in the countries of Morocco, Oran, Algiers, Tunis and Egypt, at the same time as in Europe. The older writers on falconry, English and continental, often mention Barbary and Tunisian falcons. It is still practised in Egypt.

Little is known about the early history of falconry in Africa, but ancient Egyptian carvings and drawings suggest it was practiced there many ages ago. It likely existed in Morocco, Oran, Algiers, Tunis, and Egypt around the same time as it did in Europe. Older writers on falconry, both English and continental, often reference Barbary and Tunisian falcons. It is still practiced in Egypt.

Perhaps the oldest records of falconry in Europe are supplied by the writings of Pliny, Aristotle and Martial. Although their notices of the sport are slight and somewhat vague, yet they are quite sufficient to show clearly that it was practised in their days—between the years 384 B.C. and A.D. 40. It was probably introduced into England from the continent about A.D. 860, and from that time down to the middle of the 17th century falconry was followed with an ardour that perhaps no English sport has ever called forth, not even fox-hunting. Stringent laws and enactments, notably in the reigns of William the Conqueror, Edward III., Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, were passed from time to time in its interest. Falcons and hawks were allotted to degrees and orders of men according to rank and station—for instance, to the emperor the eagle and vulture, to royalty the jerfalcons, to an earl the peregrine, to a yeoman the goshawk, to a priest the sparrow-hawk, and to a knave or servant the useless kestrel. The writings of Shakespeare furnish ample testimony to the high and universal estimation in which it was held in his days. About the middle of the 17th century falconry began to decline in England, to revive somewhat at the Restoration. It never, however, completely recovered its former favour, a variety of causes operating against it, such as enclosure of waste lands, agricultural improvements, and the introduction of fire-arms into the sporting field, till it fell, as a national sport, almost into oblivion. Yet it has never been even temporarily extinct, and it is successfully practised even at the present day.

Perhaps the oldest records of falconry in Europe come from the writings of Pliny, Aristotle, and Martial. Although their mentions of the sport are brief and somewhat unclear, they clearly show that it was practiced in their time—between 384 B.C. and A.D. 40. It was likely introduced to England from the continent around A.D. 860, and from then until the mid-17th century, falconry was pursued with a passion that perhaps no other English sport has inspired, not even fox-hunting. Strict laws and regulations were enacted from time to time during the reigns of William the Conqueror, Edward III, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth, all in its interest. Falcons and hawks were allocated to different ranks and classes of people based on their status— for example, the emperor received the eagle and vulture, royalty got the jerfalcons, an earl had the peregrine, a yeoman possessed the goshawk, a priest was given the sparrow-hawk, and a servant or knave received the lesser kestrel. The works of Shakespeare provide ample evidence of the high regard in which falconry was held during his time. Around the mid-17th century, falconry began to decline in England, with a slight revival at the Restoration. However, it never fully regained its former popularity due to various factors like the enclosure of common lands, agricultural advancements, and the introduction of firearms into hunting, eventually slipping into near oblivion as a national sport. Still, it has never been entirely extinct and is actively practiced even today.

In Europe the game or “quarry” at which hawks are flown consists of grouse (confined to the British Isles), black-game, pheasants, partridges, quails, landrails, ducks, teal, woodcocks, snipes, herons, rooks, crows, gulls, magpies, jays, blackbirds, thrushes, larks, hares and rabbits. In former days geese, cranes, kites, ravens and bustards were also flown at. Old German works make much mention of the use of the Iceland falcon for taking the great bustard, a flight scarcely alluded to by English writers. In Asia the list of quarry is longer, and, in addition to all the foregoing, or their Asiatic representatives, various kinds of bustards, sand grouse, storks, ibises, spoonbills, pea-fowl, jungle-fowl, kites, vultures and gazelles are captured by trained hawks. In Mongolia and Chinese Tartary, and among the nomad tribes of central Asia, the sport still flourishes; and though some late accounts are not satisfactory either to the falconer or the naturalist, yet they leave no doubt that a species of eagle is still trained in those regions to take large game, as antelopes and wolves. Mr Atkinson, in his account of his travels in the country of the Amur, makes particular mention of the sport, as does also Mr Shaw in his work on Yarkand; and in a letter from the Yarkand embassy, under Mr Forsyth, C.B., dated Camp near Yarkand, Nov. 27, 1873, the following passage occurs:—“Hawking appears also to be a favourite amusement, the golden eagle taking the place of the falcon or hawk. This novel sport seemed very successful.” It is questionable whether the bird here spoken of is the golden eagle. In Africa gazelles are taken, and also partridges and wild-fowl.

In Europe, the game or “quarry” that hawks are trained to hunt includes grouse (limited to the British Isles), black game, pheasants, partridges, quails, landrails, ducks, teal, woodcocks, snipes, herons, rooks, crows, gulls, magpies, jays, blackbirds, thrushes, larks, hares, and rabbits. In the past, geese, cranes, kites, ravens, and bustards were also hunted. Old German texts frequently mention the use of the Iceland falcon for hunting the great bustard, a pursuit rarely mentioned by English authors. In Asia, the list of quarry is even longer, and in addition to all the aforementioned species or their Asian counterparts, various kinds of bustards, sand grouse, storks, ibises, spoonbills, peafowl, jungle fowl, kites, vultures, and gazelles are captured by trained hawks. In Mongolia, Chinese Tartary, and among the nomadic tribes of Central Asia, the sport continues to thrive; and although some recent accounts do not satisfy either falconers or naturalists, they confirm that a species of eagle is still trained in those areas to hunt large game, such as antelopes and wolves. Mr. Atkinson, in his travel account from the Amur region, notably discusses this sport, as does Mr. Shaw in his book on Yarkand. In a letter from the Yarkand embassy, under Mr. Forsyth, C.B., dated Camp near Yarkand, Nov. 27, 1873, it states: “Hawking appears also to be a favorite pastime, with the golden eagle taking the place of the falcon or hawk. This unusual sport seemed very successful.” It's debatable whether the bird mentioned here is indeed the golden eagle. In Africa, gazelles are hunted, along with partridges and wildfowl.

The hawks used in England are the three great northern falcons, viz. the Greenland, Iceland and Norway falcons, the peregrine falcon, the hobby, the merlin, the goshawk and the sparrow-hawk. In former days the saker, the lanner and the Barbary or Tunisian falcon were also employed. (See Falcon.)

The hawks used in England include the three major northern falcons: the Greenland, Iceland, and Norway falcons, along with the peregrine falcon, the hobby, the merlin, the goshawk, and the sparrow-hawk. In the past, the saker, the lanner, and the Barbary or Tunisian falcon were also used. (See Falcon.)

Of the foregoing the easiest to keep, most efficient in the field, and most suitable for general use are the peregrine falcon and the goshawk.

Of the options mentioned, the easiest to maintain, most effective in the field, and best for general use are the peregrine falcon and the goshawk.

In all hawks, the female is larger and more powerful than the male.

In all hawks, the female is bigger and stronger than the male.

142

142

Hawks are divided by falconers all over the world into two great classes. The first class comprises “falcons,” i.e. “long-winged hawks,” or “hawks of the lure,” distinguished by Eastern falconers as “dark-eyed hawks.” In these the wings are pointed, the second feather in the wing is the longest, and the iris is of a deep, dark-brown hue. Merlins must, however, be excepted; and here it would seem that the Eastern distinction is the better, for though merlins are much more falcons than they are hawks, they differ from falcons in having the third feather in the wing the longest, while they are certainly “dark-eyed hawks.”

Hawks are classified by falconers worldwide into two main categories. The first category includes “falcons,” meaning “long-winged hawks” or “hawks of the lure,” which Eastern falconers refer to as “dark-eyed hawks.” In these birds, the wings are pointed, the second feather in the wing is the longest, and the iris is a deep, dark brown color. However, merlins are an exception; in this case, the Eastern classification seems more accurate, as merlins are definitely more falcons than hawks. They differ from true falcons by having the third feather in the wing as the longest, yet they are certainly classified as “dark-eyed hawks.”

The second class is that of “hawks,” i.e. “short-winged hawks,” or “hawks of the fist,” called by Eastern falconers “yellow (or rose) eyed hawks.” In these the wings are rounded, the fourth feather is the longest in the wing, and the iris is yellow, orange or deep-orange.

The second class is that of “hawks,” i.e. “short-winged hawks,” or “hawks of the fist,” referred to by Eastern falconers as “yellow (or rose) eyed hawks.” In these birds, the wings are rounded, the fourth feather is the longest in the wing, and the iris is yellow, orange, or deep-orange.

The following glossary of the principal terms used in falconry may assist the reader in perusing this notice of the practice of the art. Useless or obsolete terms are omitted:—

The following glossary of the key terms used in falconry may help the reader in understanding this overview of the practice. Unnecessary or outdated terms are left out:—

Austringan.—A falconer.

Austringan.—A bird of prey trainer.

Bate.—A hawk is said to “bate” when she flutters off from the fist, perch or block, whether from wildness, or for exercise, or in the attempt to chase.

Bate.—A hawk is said to "bate" when she flutters off from the fist, perch, or block, whether due to being wild, for exercise, or in an attempt to hunt.

Bewits.—Straps of leather by which the bells are fastened to a hawk’s legs.

Bewits.—Leather straps that are used to attach bells to a hawk’s legs.

Bind.—A hawk is said to “bind” when she seizes a bird in the air and clings to it.

Bind.—A hawk is said to “bind” when she grabs a bird in the air and holds onto it.

Block.—The conical piece of wood, of the form of an inverted flower-pot, used for hawks to sit upon; for a peregrine it should be about 10 to 12 in. high, 5 to 6 in diameter at top, and 8 to 9 in diameter at base.

Block.—The conical wooden piece, shaped like an upside-down flower pot, is used for hawks to perch on; for a peregrine, it should be about 10 to 12 inches high, 5 to 6 inches in diameter at the top, and 8 to 9 inches in diameter at the base.

Brail.—A thong of soft leather used to secure, when desirable, the wing of a hawk. It has a slit to admit the pinion joint, and the ends are tied together.

Brail.—A strap made of soft leather used to secure the wing of a hawk when needed. It has a slit to fit the pinion joint, and the ends are tied together.

Cadge.—The wooden frame on which hawks, when numerous, are carried to the field.

Cadge.—The wooden frame used to transport multiple hawks to the field.

Cadger.—The person who carries the cadge.

Cadger.—The person who carries the load.

Calling off.—Luring a hawk (see Lure) from the hand of an assistant.

Calling off.—Attracting a hawk (see Lure) from the hand of a helper.

Carry.—A hawk is said to “carry” when she flies away with the quarry on the approach of the falconer.

Carry.—A hawk is said to “carry” when she flies away with the prey as the falconer approaches.

Cast.—Two hawks which may be used for flying together are called a “cast,” not necessarily a pair.

Cast.—Two hawks that can be flown together are referred to as a “cast,” not necessarily a pair.

Casting.—The oblong or egg-shaped ball, consisting of feathers, bones, &c., which all hawks (and insectivorous birds) throw up after the nutritious part of their food has been digested. Also the fur or feathers given them to assist the process.

Casting.—The oval or egg-shaped pellet, made up of feathers, bones, etc., that all hawks (and insect-eating birds) regurgitate after they have digested the nutritious part of their meal. It also includes the fur or feathers provided to help with the process.

Cere.—The naked wax-like skin above the beak.

Cere.—The smooth, waxy skin located above the beak.

Check.—A hawk is said to fly at “check” when she flies at a bird other than the intended object of pursuit.

Check.—A hawk is said to be in “check” when it targets a bird that isn’t the one it was originally trying to catch.

Clutching.—Taking the quarry in the feet as the short-winged hawks do. Falcons occasionally “clutch.”

Clutching.—Grabbing the prey with their feet like the short-winged hawks do. Falcons sometimes "clutch."

Come to.—A hawk is said to “come to” when she begins to get tame.

Come to.—A hawk is said to “come to” when she starts to become tame.

Coping.—Cutting the beak or talons of a hawk.

Coping.—Trimming the beak or claws of a hawk.

Crab.—To fight.

Crab.—To box.

Creance.—A long line or string.

Creance.—A long line or cord.

Crop, to put away.—A hawk is said to “put away her crop” when the food passes out of the crop into the stomach.

Crop, to put away.—A hawk is said to “put away her crop” when the food moves from the crop into the stomach.

Deck feathers.—The two centre tail-feathers.

Deck feathers.—The two center tail feathers.

Eyas.—A hawk which has been brought up from the nest (nyas, from Fr. niais).

Eyas.—A hawk that has been raised from the nest (nyas, from Fr. niais).

Eyry.—The nest of a hawk.

Eyrie.—The nest of a hawk.

Foot.—A hawk is said to “foot” well or to be a “good footer” when she is successful in killing. Many hawks are very fine fliers without being “good footers.”

Foot.—A hawk is said to “foot” well or to be a “good footer” when it successfully captures its prey. Many hawks are impressive fliers without being “good footers.”

Frounce.—A disease in the mouth and throat of hawks.

Frounce.—An illness that affects the mouth and throat of hawks.

Get in.—To go up to a hawk when she has killed her quarry.

Get in.—To approach a hawk after she has caught her prey.

Hack.—The state of partial liberty in which young hawks must always at first be kept.

Hack.—The state of limited freedom in which young hawks must always initially be kept.

Haggard.—A wild-caught hawk in the adult plumage.

Haggard.—A wild-caught hawk in adult feathers.

Hood.—(See fig.)

Hood.—(See image.)

Hoodshy.—A hawk is said to be “hoodshy” when she is afraid of, or resists, having her hood put on.

Hoodshy.—A hawk is described as “hoodshy” when she's scared of, or refuses, to have her hood put on.

Hunger trace.—A mark, and a defect, in the tail feathers, denoting a weak point; generally due to temporary starvation as a nestling.

Hunger trace.—A mark and a flaw in the tail feathers indicating a weak spot; usually caused by temporary starvation during the nestling stage.

Imping.—The process of mending broken feathers is called “imping.” (See fig.)

Imping.—The process of fixing broken feathers is called “imping.” (See fig.)

Imping needle.—A piece of tough soft iron wire from about 1½ to 2½ in. long, rough filed so as to be three-sided and tapering from the middle to the ends. (See fig.)

Imping needle.—A piece of tough, soft iron wire that’s about 1½ to 2½ inches long, rough filed to create a three-sided shape that tapers from the middle to the ends. (See fig.)

Intermewed.—A hawk moulted in confinement is said to be “intermewed.”

Intermewed.—A hawk that has shed its feathers while in captivity is referred to as “intermewed.”

Jack.—Mate of the merlin.

Jack.—Friend of the merlin.

Jerkin.—Mate of the jerfalcon.

Jerkin.—Partner of the jerfalcon.

Jesses.—Strips of light but very tough leather, some 6 to 8 in. long, which always remain on a hawk’s legs—one on each leg. (See fig.)

Jesses.—Strips of lightweight but very strong leather, about 6 to 8 inches long, that always stay attached to a hawk’s legs—one on each leg. (See fig.)

Jonk.—To sleep.

Jonk.—To take a nap.

Leash.—A strong leathern thong, some 2½ or 3 ft. long, with a knot or button at one end, used to secure a hawk. (See fig.)

Leash.—A sturdy leather strap, about 2½ or 3 feet long, with a knot or button at one end, used to attach a hawk. (See fig.)

Lure.—The instrument used for calling long-winged hawks—a dead pigeon, or an artificial lure made of leather and feathers or wings of birds, tied to a string, with meat attached to it.

Lure.—The tool used to attract long-winged hawks—a dead pigeon, or a fake lure made of leather and bird feathers or wings, connected to a string, with meat attached to it.

Mail.—The breast feathers.

Mail.—The chest feathers.

Make hawk.—A hawk is called a “make hawk” when, as a thoroughly trained and steady hawk, she is flown with young ones to teach them their work.

Make hawk.—A hawk is referred to as a “make hawk” when, as a well-trained and reliable hawk, she is flown with young ones to teach them their tasks.

Man a hawk.—To tame a hawk and accustom her to strangers.

Tame a hawk.—To train a hawk and get her used to unfamiliar people.

Implements used in Falconry.

1. Hood.

Hooded sweatshirt.

2. Back view of hood, showing braces a, a, b, b; by drawing the braces b, b, the hood, now open, is closed.

2. Back view of the hood, showing braces a, a, b, b; by pulling the braces b, b, the hood, which is now open, closes.

3. Rufter hood.

Rooftop tent.

4. Imping-needle.

4. Imping needle.

5. Jess; d is the space for the hawk’s leg; the point and slit a, a are brought round the leg, and passed through slit b, after which the point c and slit c, and also the whole remaining length of jess, are pulled through slits a and b; c is the slit to which the upper ring of swivel is attached.

5. Jess; d is the space for the hawk's leg; the point and slits a, a are wrapped around the leg and passed through slit b. After that, the point c and slit c, along with the entire remaining length of jess, are pulled through slits a and b. c is the slit where the upper ring of the swivel is attached.

6. Hawk’s leg with bell a, bewit b, jess c.

6. Hawk’s leg with bell a, bewit b, jess c.

7. Jesses, swivel and leash.

7. Jesses, swivel, and lead.

8. Portion of first wing-feather of male peregrine falcon, “tiercel,” half natural size, in process of imping; a, the living hawk’s feather; b, piece supplied from another tiercel, with the imping needle c pushed half its length into it and ready to be pushed home into the living bird’s feather.

8. Part of the first wing feather of a male peregrine falcon, known as a “tiercel,” at half natural size, during the imping process; a, the feather from the living hawk; b, a piece taken from another tiercel, with the imping needle c inserted halfway into it and ready to be pushed fully into the feather of the living bird.

Mantle.—A hawk is said to “mantle” when she stretches out a leg and a wing simultaneously, a common action of hawks when at ease; also when she spreads out her wings and feathers to hide any quarry or food she may have seized from another hawk, or from man. In the last case it is a fault.

Mantle.—A hawk is said to “mantle” when she stretches out a leg and a wing at the same time, which is something hawks often do when they're relaxed. It's also when she spreads out her wings and feathers to cover any prey or food she's taken from another hawk or from a human. In that last situation, it's considered a mistake.

Mew.—A hawk is said to “mew” when she moults. The place where a hawk was kept to moult was in olden times called her “mew.” Buildings where establishments of hawks were kept were called “mews.”

Mew.—A hawk is said to “mew” when it sheds its feathers. The place where a hawk was kept to molt in the past was called its “mew.” Buildings where hawks were kept were referred to as “mews.”

Musket.—Male of the sparrow-hawk.

Musket.—Male sparrowhawk.

Mutes (mutings).—Excrement of hawk.

Mutes (mutings).—Hawk droppings.

Pannel.—The stomach of a hawk, corresponding with the gizzard of a fowl, is called her pannel. In it the casting is formed.

Pannel.—The stomach of a hawk, similar to the gizzard of a bird, is called its pannel. This is where the casting is formed.

Passage.—The line herons take over a tract of country on their way to and from the heronry when procuring food in the breeding season.

Passage.—The path herons follow across an area as they travel to and from the heronry while searching for food during the breeding season.

Passage hawks.—Hawks captured when on their passage or migration.

Passage hawks.—Hawks that are caught during their migration or traveling.

Pelt.—The dead body of any quarry the hawk has killed.

Pelt.—The dead body of any prey the hawk has caught.

Pitch.—The height to which a hawk, when waiting for game to be flushed, rises in the air.

Pitch.—The altitude a hawk reaches while waiting for prey to be startled.

143

143

Plume.—A hawk is said to “plume” a bird when she pulls off the feathers.

Plume.—A hawk is said to “plume” a bird when it pulls off the feathers.

Point.—A hawk “makes her point” when she rises in the air over the spot where quarry has saved itself from capture by dashing into a hedge, or has otherwise secreted itself.

Point.—A hawk "makes her point" when she soars in the air above the spot where her prey has escaped capture by darting into a bush or has hidden itself in some other way.

Pounces.—A hawk’s claws.

Pounces.—A hawk's talons.

Pull through the hood.—A hawk is said to pull through the hood when she eats with it on.

Pull through the hood.—A hawk is said to pull through the hood when it eats with it on.

Put in.—A bird is said to “put in” when it saves itself from the hawk by dashing into covert or other place of security.

Put in.—A bird is said to “put in” when it saves itself from the hawk by rushing into cover or another safe place.

Quarry.—The bird or beast flown at.

Quarry.—The animal or bird being hunted.

Rake out.—A hawk is said to “rake out” when she flies, while “waiting on” (see Wait on), too far and wide from her master.

Rake out.—A hawk is described as “raking out” when she flies, while “waiting on” (see Wait on), too far and wide from her handler.

Ramage.—Wild.

Ramage.—Untamed.

Red hawk.—Hawks of the first year, in the young plumage, are called “red hawks.”

Red hawk.—Hawks in their first year, with their young feathers, are called “red hawks.”

Ringing.—A bird is said to “ring” when it rises spirally in the air.

Ringing.—A bird is said to “ring” when it ascends in a spiral pattern in the air.

Rufter hood.—An easy fitting hood, not, however, convenient for hooding and unhooding—used only for hawks when first captured. (See fig.)

Rufter hood.—A simple fitting hood, but not very practical for putting on and taking off—used only for hawks when they are first caught. (See fig.)

Sails.—The wings of a hawk.

Sails.—The wings of a hawk.

Seeling.—Closing the eyes by a fine thread drawn through the lid of each eye, the threads being then twisted together above the head—a practice long disused in England.

Seeling.—Closing the eyes with a thin thread pulled through the lid of each eye, then twisting the threads together above the head—a practice that has been out of use in England for a long time.

Serving a hawk.—Driving out quarry which has taken refuge, or has “put in.”

Serving a hawk.—Flushing out prey that has taken shelter or has "hidden."

Stoop.—The hawk’s rapid plunge upon the quarry.

Stoop.—The hawk’s quick dive towards its prey.

Take the air.—A bird is said to “take the air” when it seeks to escape by trying to rise higher than the falcon.

Take the air.—A bird is said to “take the air” when it tries to escape by flying higher than the falcon.

Tiercel.—The male of various falcons, particularly of the peregrine, also tarcell, tassell or tercel; the term is also applied to the male of the goshawk.

Tiercel.—The male of several types of falcons, especially the peregrine, also known as tarcell, tassell, or tercel; this term is also used for the male goshawk.

Trussing.—A hawk is said to “truss” a bird when she catches it in the air, and comes to the ground with it in her talons: this term is not applied to large quarry. (See Bind.)

Trussing.—A hawk is said to “truss” a bird when it catches it in the air and comes down with it in its talons: this term is not used for larger prey. (See Bind.)

Varvels.—Small rings, generally of silver, fastened to the end of the jesses, and engraved with the owner’s name.

Varvels.—Small rings, usually made of silver, attached to the end of the jesses, and engraved with the owner's name.

Wait on.—A hawk is said to “wait on” when she flies above her master waiting till game is sprung.

Wait on.—A hawk is said to “wait on” when it soars above its handler, waiting for the game to be flushed out.

Weathering.—Hawks are “weathered” by being placed unhooded in the open air. Passage hawks which are not sufficiently reclaimed to be left out by themselves unhooded on blocks are “weathered” by being put out for an hour or two under the falconer’s eye.

Weathering.—Hawks are "weathered" by being placed outside without their hoods. Passage hawks that aren't tame enough to be left alone unhooded on the perches are "weathered" by being put out for an hour or two under the supervision of the falconer.

Yarak.—An Eastern term, generally applied to short-winged hawks. When a hawk is keen, and in hunting condition, she is said to be “in yarak.”

Yarak.—An Eastern term, usually used for short-winged hawks. When a hawk is sharp and ready to hunt, she is said to be “in yarak.”

The training of hawks affords much scope for judgment, experience and skill on the part of the falconer, who must carefully observe the temper and disposition as well as the constitution of each bird. It is through the appetite principally that hawks, like most wild animals, are tamed; but to fit them for use in the field much patience, gentleness and care must be used. Slovenly taming necessitates starving, and low condition and weakness are the result. The aim of the falconer must be to have his hawks always keen, and the appetite when they are brought into the field should be such as would induce the bird in a state of nature to put forth its full powers to obtain its food, with, as near as possible, a corresponding condition as to flesh. The following is an outline of the process of training hawks, beginning with the management of a wild-caught peregrine falcon. When first taken, a rufter hood should be put on her head, and she must be furnished with jesses, swivel, leash and bell. A thick glove or rather gauntlet must be worn on the left hand (Eastern falconers always carry a hawk on the right), and she must be carried about as much as possible, late into the night, every day, being constantly stroked with a bird’s wing or feather, very lightly at first. At night she should be tied to a perch in a room with the window darkened, so that no light can enter in the morning. The perch should be a padded pole placed across the room, about 4½ ft. from the ground, with a canvas screen underneath. She will easily be induced to feed in most cases by drawing a piece of beefsteak over her feet, brushing her legs at the time with a wing, and now and then, as she snaps, slipping a morsel into her mouth. Care must be taken to make a peculiar sound with the lips or tongue, or to use a low whistle as she is in the act of swallowing; she will very soon learn to associate this sound with feeding, and it will be found that directly she hears it, she will gripe with her talons, and bend down to feel for food. When the falconer perceives this and other signs of her “coming to,” that she no longer starts at the voice or touch, and steps quietly up from the perch when the hand is placed under her feet, it will be time to change her rufter hood for the ordinary hood. This latter should be very carefully chosen—an easy fitting one, in which the braces draw closely and yet easily and without jerking. An old one previously worn is to be recommended. The hawk should be taken into a very dark room—one absolutely dark is best—and the change should be made if possible in total darkness. After this she must be brought to feed with her hood off; at first she must be fed every day in a darkened room, a gleam of light being admitted. The first day, the hawk having seized the food and begun to pull at it freely, the hood must be gently slipped off, and after she has eaten a moderate quantity, it must be replaced as slowly and gently as possible, and she should be allowed to finish her meal through the hood. Next day the hood may be twice removed, and so on; day by day the practice should be continued, and more light gradually admitted, until the hawk will feed freely in broad daylight, and suffer the hood to be taken off and replaced without opposition. Next she must be accustomed to see and feed in the presence of strangers and dogs, &c. A good plan is to carry her in the streets of a town at night, at first where the gas-light is not strong, and where persons passing by are few, unhooding and hooding her from time to time, but not letting her get frightened. Up to this time she should be fed on lean beefsteak with no castings, but as soon as she is tolerably tame and submits well to the hood, she must occasionally be fed with pigeons and other birds. This should be done not later than 3 or 4 P.M., and when she is placed on her perch for the night in the dark room, she must be unhooded and left so, of course being carefully tied up. The falconer should enter the room about 7 or 8 A.M. next day, admitting as little light as possible, or using a candle. He should first observe if she has thrown her casting; if so, he will at once take her to the fist, giving her a bite of food, and re-hood her. If her casting is not thrown it is better for him to retire, leaving the room quite dark, and come in again later. She must now be taught to know the voice—the shout that is used to call her in the field—and to jump to the fist for food, the voice being used every time she is fed. When she comes freely to the fist she must be made acquainted with the lure. Kneeling down with the hawk on his fist, and gently unhooding her, the falconer casts out a lure, which may be either a dead pigeon or an artificial lure garnished with beefsteak tied to a string, to a distance of a couple or three feet in front of her. When she jumps down to it, she should be allowed to eat a little on it—the voice being used—the while receiving morsels from the falconer’s hand; and before her meal is finished she must be taken off to the hand, being induced to forsake the lure for the hand by a tempting piece of meat. This treatment will help to check her inclination hereafter to carry her quarry. This lesson is to be continued till the falcon feeds very boldly on the lure on the ground, in the falconer’s presence—till she will suffer him to walk round her while she is feeding. All this time she will have been held by the leash only, but in the next step a strong, but light creance must be made fast to the leash, and an assistant holding the hawk should unhood her, as the falconer, standing at a distance of 5 to 10 yds., calls her by shouting and casting out the lure. Gradually day after day the distance is increased, till the hawk will come 30 yds. or so without hesitation; then she may be trusted to fly to the lure at liberty, and by degrees from any distance, say 1000 yds. This accomplished, she should learn to stoop at the lure. Instead of allowing the hawk to seize upon it as she comes up, the falconer should snatch the lure away and let her pass by, and immediately put it out that she may readily seize it when she turns round to look for it. This should be done at first only once, and then progressively until she will stoop backwards and forwards at the lure as often as desired. Next she should be entered at her quarry. Should she be intended for rooks or herons, two or three of these birds should be procured. One should be given her from the hand, then one should be released close to her, and a third at a considerable distance. If she take these keenly, she may be flown at a wild bird. Care must, however, be taken to 144 let her have every possible advantage in her first flights—wind and weather, and the position of the quarry with regard to the surrounding country, must be considered.

The training of hawks requires a lot of judgment, experience, and skill from the falconer, who needs to closely observe the temperament, personality, and health of each bird. Hawks, like many wild animals, are mainly tamed through their appetite; however, preparing them for fieldwork requires a lot of patience, gentleness, and care. Poor training leads to starvation, resulting in low energy and weakness. The falconer’s goal should be to ensure that his hawks are always eager to hunt, and their hunger when taken into the field should encourage them to use their full abilities to get food, ideally with a corresponding condition of fitness. Here’s an outline of how to train hawks, starting with a wild-caught peregrine falcon. When first captured, put a rufter hood on her head, and equip her with jesses, a swivel, a leash, and a bell. Wear a thick glove or gauntlet on your left hand (Eastern falconers typically carry a hawk on the right), and carry her around as often as possible, late into the night, gently stroking her with a bird's wing or feather, starting lightly. At night, secure her to a perch in a room with darkened windows, preventing any light from entering in the morning. The perch should be a padded pole placed about 4½ feet off the ground, with a canvas screen underneath. It's usually easy to get her to eat by rubbing a piece of beefsteak over her feet while lightly brushing her legs with a wing, and occasionally as she snaps, slipping a piece into her mouth. Make sure to create a unique sound with your lips or tongue, or use a low whistle while she swallows; she will soon connect this sound with feeding, and when she hears it, she will grasp with her talons and bend down to feel for food. When the falconer notices signs that she is beginning to acclimate, such as no longer flinching at his voice or touch, and getting calmly off the perch when he places his hand under her feet, it’s time to replace her rufter hood with a regular hood. The new hood should be chosen carefully—one that fits well but can be tightened easily without jerking. An old hood can be helpful. The hawk should be taken into a completely dark room to make the change if possible. After this, she must be fed with the hood off; at first, she should be fed daily in a dim room with a small amount of light. On the first day, once she grabs the food and starts pulling at it, gently remove the hood. After she eats a reasonable amount, replace the hood as slowly and gently as possible, allowing her to finish her meal while still covered. The next day, the hood can be taken off twice, and so forth; continue this practice daily, gradually introducing more light until the hawk can feed freely in bright daylight and allow the hood to be taken off and put back on without resistance. Next, she should be trained to eat in front of strangers and dogs, etc. A good strategy is to walk her in the streets of a town at night, starting where the gaslight is dim and there aren’t many people passing by, unhood her and re-hood her occasionally without allowing her to get scared. Up to this point, she should be fed lean beefsteak without any castings, but once she is relatively tame and accepts the hood well, she should occasionally be fed pigeons and other birds. This should happen no later than 3 or 4 PM, and when she is settled on her perch in the dark room for the night, she must be unhooded and left that way, carefully tied up of course. The falconer should enter the room around 7 or 8 A.M. the next day, letting in as little light as possible or using a candle. He should first check if she has cast off her droppings; if so, he will take her to his fist, give her a piece of food, and re-hood her. If she hasn’t cast, it’s better for him to leave, keeping the room completely dark, and return later. She now needs to learn to recognize his voice—the call used to get her attention in the field—and to jump to his fist for food, with that voice used every time she is fed. Once she comes readily to the fist, she should be introduced to the lure. Kneeling with the hawk on his fist, the falconer gently removes the hood and throws out a lure, which could be a dead pigeon or an artificial lure with pieces of beefsteak tied to a string, a couple or three feet away from her. When she jumps for it, allow her to eat a little before encouraging her to take morsels from the falconer’s hand. Before she finishes her meal, take her off the lure and entice her back to your hand with a tempting piece of meat. This approach will help minimize her future tendency to carry away her catch. This lesson should continue until she boldly feeds on the lure on the ground while the falconer is present—until she allows him to walk around her while she is eating. During this time, she will have been held only by the leash, but the next step requires a strong yet lightweight creance to be attached to the leash, and while an assistant holds the hawk, she should be unhooded as the falconer calls her from a distance of 5 to 10 yards and throws out the lure. Gradually, over days, increase the distance until the hawk will come from around 30 yards without hesitation; then she can be trusted to fly freely to the lure, eventually from distances up to 1000 yards. Once this is accomplished, she should learn to dive at the lure. Instead of letting her grab it as she approaches, the falconer should swiftly pull the lure away, letting her pass by, and immediately extend it again so she can easily grab it when she turns back around. Initially, this should only be done once, then progressively repeat until she can dive backwards and forwards at the lure as often as required. Afterward, it's time to introduce her to her quarry. If she’s intended for hunting rooks or herons, obtain two or three of these birds. Offer one to her from the hand, then release one close to her, and a third at a considerable distance. If she pursues these enthusiastically, she may be flown at a wild bird. However, it’s essential to ensure she has every possible advantage in her first hunts—consider the wind, weather, and her position in relation to the terrain around the quarry.

Young hawks, on being received by the falconer before they can fly, must be put into a sheltered place, such as an outhouse or shed. Their basket or hamper should be filled with straw. A hamper is best, with the lid so placed as to form a platform for the young hawks to come out upon to feed. This should be fastened to a beam or prop a few feet from the ground. The young hawks must be most plentifully fed on the best fresh food obtainable—good beefsteak and fresh-killed birds; the falconer when feeding them should use his voice as in luring. As they grow old enough they will come out, and perch about the roof of their shed, by degrees extending their flights to neighbouring buildings or trees, never failing to come at feeding time to the place where they are fed. Soon they will be continually on the wing, playing or fighting with one another, and later the falconer will observe them chasing other birds, as pigeons and rooks, which may be passing by. As soon as one fails to come for a meal, it must be at once caught with a bow net or a snare the first time it comes back, or it will be lost. It must be borne in mind that the longer hawks can be left at hack the better they are likely to be for use in the field—those hawks being always the best which have preyed a few times for themselves before being caught. Of course there is great risk of losing hawks when they begin to prey for themselves. When a hawk is so caught she is said to be “taken up” from hack. She will not require a rufter hood, but a good deal of the management described for the passage falcon will be necessary. She must be carefully tamed and broken to the hood in the same manner, and so taught to know the lure; but, as might be expected, very much less difficulty will be experienced. As soon as the eyas knows the lure sufficiently well to come to it sharp and straight from a distance, she must be taught to “wait on.” This is effected by letting the hawk loose in an open place, such as a down. It will be found that she will circle round the falconer looking for the lure she has been accustomed to see—perhaps mount a little in the air, and advantage must be taken of a favourable moment when the hawk is at a little height, her head being turned in towards the falconer, to let go a pigeon which she can easily catch. When the hawk has taken two or three pigeons in this way, and mounts immediately in expectation, in short, begins to wait on, she should see no more pigeons, but be tried at game as soon as possible. Young peregrines should be flown at grouse first in preference to partridges, not only because the season commences earlier, but because, grouse being the heavier birds, they are not so much tempted to “carry” as with partridges.

Young hawks, when received by the falconer before they can fly, need to be placed in a sheltered area, like a shed or outbuilding. Their basket or hamper should be lined with straw. A hamper is preferred, with the lid positioned to create a platform for the young hawks to come out and eat. This should be secured to a beam or support a few feet off the ground. The young hawks should be generously fed with the best fresh food available—like good beefsteak and fresh-killed birds; the falconer should use his voice to lure them while feeding. As they grow older, they will begin to come out and perch on the roof of their shed, gradually extending their flights to nearby buildings or trees, while always returning to the feeding spot at mealtime. Soon, they will be flying around continuously, playing or fighting with each other, and later the falconer will notice them chasing after other birds, like pigeons and rooks, that fly by. If one of them doesn’t show up for a meal, it must be caught with a bow net or snare the first time it returns, or it risks being lost. It’s important to remember that the longer hawks can be left to fend for themselves, the better they will be for field use—those hawks that have hunted for themselves a few times before being caught are always the best. However, there’s a significant risk of losing hawks when they begin hunting independently. When a hawk is caught in this way, she is said to be “taken up” from hack. She won’t need a rufter hood, but the management described for the passage falcon will still be necessary. She must be carefully tamed and trained to the hood in the same way, and taught to recognize the lure; but, as expected, it will be much easier. Once the eyas knows the lure well enough to come to it quickly and directly from a distance, she must be taught to "wait on." This is done by releasing the hawk in an open area, like a field. You’ll find that she will circle around the falconer, looking for the lure she has been trained to recognize—perhaps even flying a little higher, and at the right moment when she’s a bit elevated and facing the falconer, you can release a pigeon she can easily catch. After the hawk has caught two or three pigeons in this way, and starts to mount in anticipation—essentially learning to wait on—she shouldn’t see anymore pigeons but should be tested with game as soon as possible. Young peregrines should be trained on grouse first instead of partridges, not only because the season starts earlier but also because grouse are heavier birds, making them less likely to “carry” than partridges.

The training of the great northern falcons, as well as that of merlins and hobbies, is conducted much on the above principles, but the jerfalcons (gerfalcons or gyrfalcons) will seldom wait on well, and merlins will not do it at all.

The training of the great northern falcons, along with merlins and hobbies, follows similar principles, but the jerfalcons (gerfalcons or gyrfalcons) rarely wait on well, and merlins won’t do it at all.

The training of short-winged hawks is a simpler process. They must, like falcons, be provided with jesses, swivel, leash and bell. In these hawks a bell is sometimes fastened to the tail. Sparrow-hawks can, however, scarcely carry a bell big enough to be of any service. The hood is seldom used for short-winged hawks—never in the field. They must be made as tame as possible by carriage on the fist and the society of man, and taught to come to the fist freely when required—at first to jump to it in a room, and then out of doors. When the goshawk comes freely and without hesitation from short distances, she ought to be called from long distances from the hand of an assistant, but not oftener than twice in each meal, until she will come at least 1000 yds., on each occasion being well rewarded with some food she likes very much, as a fresh-killed bird, warm. When she does this freely, and endures the presence of strangers, dogs, &c., a few bagged rabbits should be given to her, and she will be ready to take the field. Some accustom the goshawk to the use of the lure, for the purpose of taking her if she will not come to the fist in the field when she has taken stand in a tree after being baulked of her quarry, but it ought not to be necessary to use it.

Training short-winged hawks is a simpler process. They need, like falcons, to have jesses, a swivel, a leash, and a bell. Sometimes, a bell is attached to the tail of these hawks. However, sparrow-hawks can hardly carry a bell large enough to be useful. The hood is rarely used for short-winged hawks—never in the field. They must be made as tame as possible by being carried on the fist and spending time with humans, and they should be taught to come to the fist freely when needed—first by jumping to it indoors and then outdoors. When the goshawk comes to the fist easily from short distances, she should be called from farther away by an assistant, but not more than twice during each meal, until she can come from at least 1000 yards. Each time, she should be rewarded with some food she really enjoys, like a fresh-killed, warm bird. Once she does this willingly and tolerates the presence of strangers, dogs, etc., a few bagged rabbits should be given to her, and she will be ready to hunt. Some people train the goshawk to respond to the lure in case she won't return to the fist in the field after missing her quarry while perched in a tree, but it's generally not necessary to use it.

Falcons or long-winged hawks are either “flown out of the hood,” i.e. unhooded and slipped when the quarry is in sight, or they are made to “wait on” till game is flushed. Herons and rooks are always taken by the former method. Passage hawks are generally employed for flying at these birds, though sometimes good eyases are quite equal to the work. For heron-hawking a well-stocked heronry is in the first place necessary. Next an open country which can be ridden over—over which herons are in the constant habit of passing to and from their heronry on their fishing excursions, or making their “passage.” A heron found at his feeding-place at a brook or pond affords no sport whatever. If there be little water any peregrine falcon that will go straight at him will seize him soon after he rises. It is sometimes advisable to fly a young falcon at a heron so found, but it should not be repeated. If there be much water the heron will neither show sport nor be captured. It is quite a different affair when he is sighted winging his way at a height in the air over an open tract of country free from water. Though he has no chance whatever of competing with a falcon in straightforward flight, the heron has large concave wings, a very light body proportionately, and air-cells in his bones, and can rise with astonishing rapidity, more perpendicularly, or, in other words, in smaller rings, than the falcon can, with very little effort. As soon as he sees the approach of the falcon, which he usually does almost directly she is cast off, he makes play for the upper regions. Then the falcon commences to climb too to get above him, but in a very different style. She makes very large circles or rings, travelling at a high rate of speed, due to her strength and weight and power of flying, till she rises above the heron. Then she makes her attack by stooping with great force at the quarry, sometimes falling so far below it as the blow is evaded that she cannot spring up to the proper pitch for the next stoop, and has to make another ring to regain her lost command over the heron, which is ever rising, and so on—the “field” meanwhile galloping down wind in the direction the flight is taking till she seizes the heron aloft, “binds” to him, and both come down together. Absurd stories have been told and pictures drawn of the heron receiving the falcon on its beak in the air. It is, however, well known to all practical falconers that the heron has no power or inclination to fight with a falcon in the air; so long as he is flying he seeks safety solely from his wings. When on the ground, however, should the falcon be deficient in skill or strength, or have been mutilated by the coping of her beak and talons, as was sometimes formerly done in Holland with a view to saving the heron’s life, the heron may use his dagger-like bill with dangerous effect, though it is very rare for a falcon to be injured. It is never safe to fly the goshawk at a heron of any description. Short-winged hawks do not immediately kill their quarry as falcons do, nor do they seem to know where the life lies, and seldom shift their hold once taken even to defend themselves; and they are therefore easily stabbed by a heron. Rooks are flown in the same manner as herons, but the flight is generally inferior. Although rooks fly very well, they seek shelter in trees or bushes as soon as possible.

Falcons, or long-winged hawks, are either "flown out of the hood," meaning they are unhooded and released when the prey is in sight, or they are made to "wait on" until the game is flushed. Herons and rooks are always hunted using the first method. Passage hawks are usually used for chasing these birds, although sometimes good eyases can handle the job just as well. To hunt herons, a well-stocked heronry is essential. Next, you need open land that can be traversed—land over which herons frequently travel to and from their heronry during fishing trips, or making their "passage." A heron found at a feeding spot in a brook or pond offers no excitement at all. If there isn’t much water, a peregrine falcon that flies straight at it will catch it soon after it takes off. It can be helpful to fly a young falcon at a heron found this way, but it shouldn’t be done often. If there is a lot of water, the heron won’t put on a show nor will it be caught. It’s a whole different situation when a heron is seen flying high in the air over open land free from water. Although it can’t compete with the falcon in a direct flight, the heron has large, curved wings, a relatively light body, and air cells in its bones, allowing it to gain height with surprising speed, rising more vertically, or in smaller circles, than a falcon can, with little effort. As soon as the heron notices the approaching falcon, which it usually does right after being released, it starts to climb higher. The falcon begins to climb as well to get above it but does so in a different manner. It makes wide circles, flying quickly thanks to its strength and weight, until it rises above the heron. Then, it attacks by diving powerfully at the prey, sometimes dropping so low during the plunge that it can’t regain the right height for the next dive and has to make another circle to regain control over the heron, which is continually ascending. Meanwhile, the “field” chases downwind in the direction of the flight until the falcon catches the heron in the air, “binds” to it, and both come down together. Ridiculous stories have been told and images created of the heron catching the falcon on its beak while flying. However, all practical falconers know that the heron has no ability or desire to fight a falcon in the air; as long as it’s flying, it relies solely on its wings for safety. When on the ground, though, if the falcon lacks skill or strength, or has been damaged by having its beak and talons clipped—something that was sometimes done in Holland to spare the heron’s life—the heron may use its dagger-like beak with serious effect, though it’s very rare for a falcon to get hurt. It is never safe to use a goshawk against any kind of heron. Short-winged hawks do not immediately kill their prey like falcons do, nor do they seem to know where to grip to keep the prey from escaping, and they rarely change their hold to defend themselves, making them vulnerable to being stabbed by a heron. Rooks are hunted in the same way as herons, but the flights aren’t generally as good. Although rooks can fly well, they quickly seek shelter in trees or bushes as soon as they can.

For game-hawking eyases are generally used, though undoubtedly passage or wild-caught hawks are to be preferred. The best game hawks we have seen have been passage hawks, but there are difficulties attending the use of them. It may perhaps be fairly said that it is easy to make all passage hawks “wait on” in grand style, but until they have got over a season or two they are very liable to be lost. Among the advantages attending the use of eyases are the following: they are easier to obtain and to train and keep; they also moult far better and quicker than passage hawks, while if lost in the field they will often go home by themselves, or remain about the spot where they were liberated. Experience, and, we must add, some good fortune also, are requisite to make eyases good for waiting on for game. Slight mistakes on the part of the falconer, false points from dogs, or bad luck in serving, will cause a young hawk to acquire bad habits, such as sitting down on the ground, taking stand in a tree, raking out wide, skimming the ground, or lazily flying about at no height. A good game hawk in proper 145 flying order goes up at once to a good pitch in the air—the higher she flies the better—and follows her master from field to field, always ready for a stoop when the quarry is sprung. Hawks that have been successfully broken and judiciously worked become wonderfully clever, and soon learn to regulate their flight by the movements of their master. Eyases were not held in esteem by the old falconers, and it is evident from their writings that these hawks have been very much better understood and managed in the 19th century than in the middle ages. It is probable that the old falconers procured their passage and wild-caught hawks with such facility, having at the same time more scope for their use in days when quarry was more abundant and there was more waste land than there now is, that they did not find it necessary to trouble themselves about eyases. Here may be quoted a few lines from one of the best of the old writers, which may be taken as giving a fair account of the estimation in which eyases were generally held, and from which it is evident that the old falconers did not understand flying hawks at hack. Simon Latham, writing in 1633, says of eyases:

For hunting, young hawks are typically used, although it's clear that wild-caught or passage hawks are preferable. The best game hawks we've seen have been passage hawks, but there are challenges in using them. It's fair to say that while it's easy to train all passage hawks to "wait on" in style, they are at a high risk of being lost until they have completed a season or two. The advantages of using young hawks include that they are easier to acquire, train, and care for; they also molt much better and faster than passage hawks. If they get lost in the field, they often find their way home or stay near where they were released. Experience, along with a bit of luck, is required to make young hawks good for hunting. Small mistakes by the falconer, false signals from the dogs, or bad luck during a hunt can lead a young hawk to develop bad habits, like sitting on the ground, perching in a tree, wandering off, flying too low, or lazily flying without much height. A good game hawk in optimal flying condition promptly ascends to a high position in the air—the higher she flies, the better—and follows her owner from field to field, always ready to dive when the prey is spotted. Hawks that are properly trained and worked with become incredibly smart and quickly learn to adjust their flight based on their owner's movements. Young hawks weren't valued by older falconers, and it's clear from their writings that these hawks were much better understood and managed in the 19th century than during the Middle Ages. It's likely that older falconers easily obtained their passage and wild-caught hawks and had more opportunities to use them back when there was more game available and more open land than there is now, making them less concerned with young hawks. Here are a few lines from one of the most respected old writers, which reflect the general attitude toward young hawks and show that older falconers did not grasp the concept of flying hawks at hack. Simon Latham, writing in 1633, says of young hawks:

They will be verie easily brought to familiaritie with the man, not in the house only, but also abroad, hooded or unhooded; nay, many of them will be more gentle and quiet when unhooded than when hooded, for if a man doe but stirre or speake in their hearing, they will crie and bate as though they did desire to see the man. Likewise some of them being unhooded, when they see the man will cowre and crie, shewing thereby their exceeding fondness and fawning love towards him....

They will quickly become familiar with the man, not just at home but also outside, whether they’re wearing a hood or not; in fact, many of them are gentler and calmer when unhooded than when hooded, because if a man moves or speaks nearby, they will cry and fuss as if they want to see him. Similarly, some of them, when unhooded and seeing the man, will crouch and cry, showing their deep affection and loving devotion to him...

... These kind of hawks be all (for the most part) taken out of the nest while verie young, even in the downe, from whence they are put into a close house, whereas they be alwaies fed and familiarly brought up by the man, untill they bee able to flie, when as the summer approaching verie suddenly they are continued and trained up in the same, the weather being alwaies warm and temperate; thus they are still inured to familiaritie with the man, not knowing from whence besides to fetch their relief or sustenance. When the summer is ended they bee commonly put up into a house again, or else kept in some warm place, for they cannot endure the cold wind to blow upon them.... But leaving to speak of these kind of scratching hawks that I never did love should come too neere my fingers, and to return unto the faire conditioned haggard faulcon....

... These types of hawks are mostly taken from their nests when they are very young, even in their down feathers. They are kept in a close space where they are always fed and raised by a person until they are able to fly. As summer approaches, they are frequently trained, benefiting from the warm and mild weather. This way, they become accustomed to their handler, not knowing where else to find food or sustenance. When summer ends, they are usually placed back in a house or kept in a warm area, as they cannot withstand cold winds. But I’ll stop discussing these scratching hawks that I never liked getting too close to my fingers, and return to the beautifully conditioned haggard falcon....

The author here describes with accuracy the condition of unhacked eyases, which no modern falconer would trouble himself to keep. Many English falconers in modern times have had eyases which have killed grouse, ducks and other quarry in a style almost equalling that of passage hawks. Rooks also have been most successfully flown, and some herons on passage have been taken by eyases. No sport is to be had at game without hawks that wait on well. Moors, downs, open country where the hedges are low and weak are best suited to game hawking. Pointers or setters may be used to find game, or the hawk may be let go on coming to the ground where game is known to lie, and suffered, if an experienced one, to “wait on” till game is flushed. However, the best plan with most hawks, young ones especially, is to use a dog, and to let the hawk go when the dog points, and to flush the birds as soon as the hawk is at her pitch. It is not by any means necessary that the hawk should be near the birds when they rise, provided she is at a good height, and that she is watching; she will come at once with a rush out of the air at great speed, and either cut one down with the stoop, or the bird will save itself by putting in, when every exertion must be made, especially if the hawk be young and inexperienced, to “serve” her as soon as possible by driving out the bird again while she waits overhead. If this be successfully done she is nearly certain to kill it at the second flight. Perhaps falcons are best for grouse and tiercels for partridges.

The author accurately describes the condition of untamed eyases, which no modern falconer would bother to keep. Many contemporary English falconers have had eyases that have hunted grouse, ducks, and other game almost as effectively as passage hawks. Rooks have also been flown with great success, and some herons during migration have been caught by eyases. There’s no sport to be had in game hunting without hawks that are well-positioned. Moorlands, downs, and open areas with low, weak hedges are best for game hawking. Pointers or setters can be used to find game, or the hawk can be released when it’s known that the game is on the ground, allowed, if experienced, to “wait on” until the game is flushed. However, the best approach with most hawks, especially young ones, is to use a dog, letting the hawk go when the dog points, and flushing the birds as soon as the hawk is at her height. It’s not essential for the hawk to be near the birds when they fly, as long as she’s at a good height and watching; she will dive down with speed and either catch one with the stoop, or the bird will escape by hiding, leading to an effort to "serve" her quickly by driving the bird out again while she waits overhead. If done successfully, she’s almost guaranteed to catch it on the second attempt. Falcons are likely the best choice for grouse, while tiercels are better for partridges.

Magpies afford much sport. Only tiercels should be used for hunting magpies. A field is necessary—at the very least 4 or 5 runners to beat the magpie out, and perhaps the presence of a horseman is an advantage. Of course in open flight a magpie would be almost immediately caught by a tiercel peregrine, and there would be no sport, but the magpie makes up for his want of power of wing by his cunning and shiftiness; and he is, moreover, never to be found except where he has shelter under his lee for security from a passing peregrine. Once in a hedge or tree he is perfectly safe from the wild falcon, but the case is otherwise when the falconer approaches with his trained tiercel, perhaps a cast of tiercels, waiting on in the air, with some active runners in his field. Then driven from hedge to hedge, from one kind of shelter to another, stooped at every instant when he shows himself ever so little away from cover by the watchful tiercels overhead, his egg-stealing days are brought to an end by a fatal stroke—sometimes not before the field is pretty well exhausted with running and shouting. The magpie always manœuvres towards some thick wood, from which it is the aim of the field to cut him off. At first hawks must be flown in easy country, but when they understand their work well they will kill magpies in very enclosed country—with a smart active field a magpie may even be pushed through a small wood. Magpie hawking affords excellent exercise, not only for those who run to serve the hawks, but for the hawks also; they get a great deal of flying, and learn to hunt in company with men—any number of people may be present. Blackbirds may be hunted with tiercels in the same way. Woodcock afford capital sport where the country is tolerably open. It will generally be found that after a hawk has made one stoop at a woodcock, the cock will at first try to escape by taking the air, and will show a very fine flight. When beaten in the air it will try to get back to covert again, but when once a hawk has outflown a woodcock, he is pretty sure to kill it. Hawks seem to pursue woodcock with great keenness; something in the flight of the cock tempts them to exertion. The laziest and most useless hawks—hawks that will scarcely follow a slow pigeon—will do their best at woodcock, and will very soon, if the sport is continued, be improved in their style of flying. Snipe may be killed by first-class tiercels in favourable localities. Wild duck and teal are only to be flown at when they can be found in small pools or brooks at a distance from much water—where the fowl can be suddenly flushed by men or dogs while the falcon is flying at her pitch overhead. For duck, falcons should be used; tiercels will kill teal well.

Magpies provide a lot of excitement. Only male falcons should be used for hunting magpies. A field is needed—at least 4 or 5 runners to flush the magpie out, and having a horseman around can be helpful. Of course, in open flight, a magpie would easily be caught by a male peregrine, which wouldn’t be interesting, but the magpie compensates for its lack of flying power with cleverness and agility; plus, it’s only found where it has some shelter to protect it from a passing peregrine. Once it’s in a hedge or a tree, it’s completely safe from the wild falcon, but that changes when the falconer approaches with his trained male falcons, maybe even a group of them, and some active runners in the field. Then, driven from hedge to hedge, jumping from one type of shelter to another, the magpie is swooped at every moment it shows itself even a little away from cover by the alert falcons overhead. Its egg-stealing days come to an end with a fatal blow—sometimes not before the field is pretty tired from running and shouting. The magpie always tries to maneuver toward some thick woods, which is where the field aims to cut it off. At first, hawks need to be flown in open areas, but once they get the hang of their job, they can kill magpies in heavily wooded areas—with a smart, active field, a magpie can even be pushed through a small wood. Magpie hawking offers great exercise, not just for those who run to support the hawks, but also for the hawks themselves; they get lots of flying in and learn to hunt alongside humans—any number of people can join in. Blackbirds can also be hunted with male falcons in the same way. Woodcock provide excellent sport where the land is fairly open. Typically, after a hawk has made one dive at a woodcock, the bird will initially try to escape by taking to the air, displaying a really impressive flight. When they’re outmatched in the air, they’ll try to get back to cover again, but once a hawk has outflown a woodcock, it’s pretty likely to catch it. Hawks seem to chase woodcock with a lot of enthusiasm; something about the woodcock's flight drives them to exert themselves. Even the laziest, least useful hawks—those that barely follow a slow pigeon—will do their best when it comes to woodcock, and if the sport continues, they'll quickly improve their flying style. Snipe can be taken down by top male falcons in good spots. Wild ducks and teal should only be pursued when they’re found in small pools or brooks away from larger bodies of water—where the birds can be suddenly flushed by people or dogs while the falcon is flying overhead. For duck, falcons should be used; male falcons can hunt teal effectively.

The merlin is used for flying at larks, and there does not seem to be any other use to which this pretty little falcon may fairly be put. It is very active, but far from being, as some authors have stated, the swiftest of all hawks. Its flight is greatly inferior in speed and power to that of the peregrine. Perhaps its diminutive size, causing it to be soon lost to view, and a limited acquaintance with the flight of the wild peregrine falcon, have led to the mistake.

The merlin is used for hunting larks, and there doesn’t seem to be any other purpose for this pretty little falcon. It is very active, but it is definitely not, as some authors have claimed, the fastest of all hawks. Its flight is much slower and weaker compared to that of the peregrine. Maybe its small size, which makes it easy to lose sight of, along with a limited experience with the flight of the wild peregrine falcon, has contributed to this misunderstanding.

The hobby is far swifter than the merlin, but cannot be said to be efficient in the field; it may be trained to wait on beautifully, and will sometimes take larks; it is very much given to the fault of “carrying.”

The hobby is much faster than the merlin, but it can’t really be considered efficient in the field; it can be trained to wait elegantly and will occasionally catch larks; however, it often has the flaw of “carrying.”

The three great northern falcons are not easy to procure in proper condition for training. They are very difficult to break to the hood and to manage in the field. They are flown, like the peregrine, at herons and rooks, and in former days were used for kites and hares. Their style of flight is magnificent; they are considerably swifter than the peregrine, and are a most deadly “footers.” They seem, however, to lack somewhat of the spirit and dash of the peregrine.

The three great northern falcons are hard to find in good condition for training. They are really challenging to get used to the hood and to handle in the field. They are flown, like the peregrine, at herons and rooks, and in the past, they were used for kites and hares. Their flying style is amazing; they are significantly faster than the peregrine and are very deadly on the ground. However, they seem to lack a bit of the spirit and excitement of the peregrine.

For the short-winged hawks an open country is not required; indeed they may be flown in a wood. Goshawks are flown at hares, rabbits, pheasants, partridges and wild-fowl. Only very strong females are able to take hares; rabbits are easy quarry for any female goshawk, and a little too strong for the male. A good female goshawk may kill from 10 to 15 rabbits in a day, or more. For pheasants the male is to be preferred, certainly for partridges; either sex will take duck and teal, but the falconer must get close to them before they are flushed, or the goshawk will stand a poor chance of killing. Rabbit hawking may be practised by ferreting, and flying the hawk as the rabbits bolt, but care must be taken or the hawk will kill the ferret. Where rabbits sit out on grass or in turnip fields, a goshawk may be used with success, even in a wood when the holes are not too near. From various causes it is impossible, or nearly so, to have goshawks in England in the perfection to which 146 they are brought in the East. In India, for instance, there is a far greater variety of quarry suited to them, and wild birds are much more approachable; moreover, there are advantages for training which do not exist in England. Unmolested—and scarcely noticed except perhaps by others of his calling or tastes—the Eastern falconer carries his hawk by day and night in the crowded bazaars, till the bird becomes perfectly indifferent to men, horses, dogs, carriages, and, in short, becomes as tame as the domestic animals.

For short-winged hawks, open spaces aren't necessary; they can actually be flown in a forest. Goshawks are used for hunting hares, rabbits, pheasants, partridges, and wildfowl. Only very strong females can catch hares; rabbits are relatively easy prey for any female goshawk, but they’re a bit too challenging for males. A good female goshawk can kill 10 to 15 rabbits in a day or more. Males are preferred for pheasants and definitely for partridges; either gender will catch ducks and teal, but the falconer needs to get close before they are flushed, otherwise the goshawk has a poor chance of getting a kill. Rabbit hunting can be done by ferreting and flying the hawk as the rabbits bolt, but caution is needed so the hawk doesn't attack the ferret. When rabbits are out in the grass or in turnip fields, a goshawk can be quite effective, even in woods if the holes aren’t too close together. For various reasons, it’s almost impossible to have goshawks in England at the same level of skill that they achieve in the East. In places like India, there’s a much wider variety of suitable prey and wild birds are easier to approach; plus, there are training advantages that aren’t available in England. Undisturbed—and hardly noticed except maybe by others with similar interests—the Eastern falconer carries his hawk day and night through crowded bazaars, until the bird becomes completely indifferent to people, horses, dogs, carriages, and essentially becomes as tame as domestic animals.

The management of sparrow-hawks is much the same as that of goshawks, but they are far more delicate than the latter. They are flown in England at blackbirds, thrushes and other small birds; good ones will take partridges well till the birds get too wild and strong with the advancing season. In the East large numbers of quail are taken with sparrow-hawks.

The management of sparrowhawks is quite similar to that of goshawks, but they are much more delicate than the latter. In England, they are used to hunt blackbirds, thrushes, and other small birds; good ones will successfully catch partridges until the birds become too wild and strong as the season progresses. In the East, a large number of quail are hunted with sparrowhawks.

It is of course important that hawks from which work in the field is expected should be kept in the highest health, and they must be carefully fed; no bad or tainted meat must on any account be given to them—at any rate to hawks of the species used in England. Peregrines and the great northern falcons are best kept on beefsteak, with a frequent change in the shape of fresh-killed pigeons and other birds. The smaller falcons, the merlin and the hobby, require a great number of small birds to keep them in good health for any length of time. Goshawks should be fed like peregrines, but rats and rabbits are very good as change of food for them. The sparrow-hawk, like the small falcons, requires small birds. All hawks require castings frequently. It is true that hawks will exist, and often appear to thrive, on good food without castings, but the seeds of probable injury to their health are being sown the whole time they are so kept. If there is difficulty in procuring birds, and it is more convenient to feed the hawks on beefsteak, they should frequently get the wings and heads and necks of game and poultry. In addition to the castings which they swallow, tearing these is good exercise for them, and biting the bones prevents the beaks from overgrowing. Most hawks, peregrines especially, require the bath. The end of a cask, sawn off to give a depth of about 6 in., makes a very good bath. Peregrines which are used for waiting on require a bath at least twice a week. If this be neglected, they will not wait long before going off in search of water to bathe, however hungry they may be.

It’s really important that hawks expected to work in the field are kept in top health, and they need to be fed carefully; no bad or spoiled meat should ever be given to them—especially the hawks used in England. Peregrines and the great northern falcons do best on beef steak, with regular changes to fresh-killed pigeons and other birds. The smaller falcons, like the merlin and the hobby, need a lot of small birds to stay healthy over time. Goshawks should be fed like peregrines, but rats and rabbits are great options for variety. The sparrow-hawk, like the smaller falcons, needs small birds as well. All hawks need to cast frequently. While it’s true that hawks can survive and even seem to do well on good food without casting, they risk harm to their health the entire time they are kept that way. If it's hard to find birds and it’s easier to feed the hawks beef steak, they should often get the wings, heads, and necks of game and poultry. Besides the castings they consume, tearing these parts is good exercise for them, and chewing on bones helps prevent their beaks from overgrowing. Most hawks, especially peregrines, need to bathe. The end of a cask, cut off to create a depth of about 6 inches, makes an excellent bath. Peregrines that are used for waiting need a bath at least twice a week. If this isn’t done, they won't hesitate to search for water to bathe in, no matter how hungry they are.

The most agreeable and the best way, where practicable, of keeping hawks is to have them on blocks on the lawn. Each hawk’s block should stand in a circular bed of sand—about 8 ft. in diameter; this will be found very convenient for keeping them clean. Goshawks are generally placed on bow perches, which ought not to be more than 8 or 9 in. high at the highest part of the arc. It will be several months before passage or wild-caught falcons can be kept out of doors; they must be fastened to a perch in a darkened room, hooded, but by degrees as they get thoroughly tame may be brought to sit on the lawn. In England (especially in the south) peregrines, the northern falcons and goshawks may be kept out of doors all day and night in a sheltered situation. In very wild boisterous weather, or in snow or sharp frost, it will be advisable to move them to the shelter of a shed, the floor of which should be laid with sand to a depth of 3 or 4 in. Merlins and hobbies are too tender to be kept much out of doors. An eastern aspect is to be preferred—all birds enjoy the morning sun, and it is very beneficial to them. The more hawks confined to blocks out of doors see of persons, dogs, horses, &c., moving about the better, but of course only when there is no danger of their being frightened or molested, or of food being given to them by strangers. Those who have only seen wretched ill-fed hawks in cages as in zoological gardens or menageries, pining for exercise, with battered plumage, torn shoulders and bleeding ceres, from dashing against their prison bars, and overgrown beaks from never getting bones to break, can have little idea of the beautiful and striking-looking birds to be seen pluming their feathers and stretching their wings at their ease at their blocks on the falconer’s lawn, watching with their large bright keen eyes everything that moves in the sky and everywhere else within the limits of their view. Contrary to the prevailing notion, hawks show a good deal of attachment when they have been properly handled. It is true that by hunger they are in a great measure tamed and controlled, and the same may be said of all undomesticated and many domesticated animals. And instinct prompts all wild creatures when away from man’s control to return to their former shyness, but hawks certainly retain their tameness for a long time, and their memory is remarkably retentive. Wild-caught hawks have been retaken, either by their coming to the lure or upon quarry, from 2 to 7 days after they had been lost, and eyases after 3 weeks. As one instance of retentiveness of memory displayed by hawks we may mention the case of a wild-caught falcon which was recaptured after being at liberty more than 3 years, still bearing the jesses which were cut short close to the leg at the time she was released; in five days she was flying at the lure again at liberty, and was found to retain the peculiar ways and habits she was observed to have in her former existence as a trained hawk. It is useless to bring a hawk into the field unless she has a keen appetite; if she has not, she will neither hunt effectually nor follow her master. Even wild-caught falcons, however, may sometimes be seen so attached to their owner that, when sitting on their blocks on a lawn with food in their crops, they will on his coming out of the house bate hard to get to him, till he either go up to them and allow them to jump up to his hand or withdraw from their sight. Goshawks are also known to evince attachment to their owner. Another prevailing error regarding hawks is that they are supposed to be lazy birds, requiring the stimulus of hunger to stir them to action. The reverse is the truth; they are birds of very active habits, and exceedingly restless, and the notion of their being lazy has been propagated by those who have seen little or nothing of hawks in their wild state. The wild falcon requires an immense deal of exercise, and to be in wind, in order to exert the speed and power of flight necessary to capture her prey when hungry; and to this end instinct prompts her to spend hours daily on the wing, soaring and playing about in the air in all weathers, often chasing birds merely for play or exercise. Sometimes she takes a siesta when much gorged, but unless she fills her crop late in the evening she is soon moving again—before half her crop is put over. Goshawks and sparrow-hawks, too, habitually soar in the air at about 9 or 10 A.M., and remain aloft a considerable time, but these birds are not of such active habits as the falcons. The frequent bating of thoroughly tame hawks from their blocks, even when not hungry or frightened, proves their restlessness and impatience of repose. So does the wretched condition of the caged falcon (before alluded to), while the really lazy buzzards and kites, which do not in a wild state depend on activity or power of wing for their sustenance, maintain themselves for years, even during confinement if properly fed, in good case and plumage. Such being the habits of the falcon in a state of nature, the falconer should endeavour to give the hawks under his care as much flying as possible, and he should avoid the very common mistake of keeping too many hawks. In this case a favoured few are sure to get all the work, and the others, possibly equally good if they had fair play, are spoiled for want of exercise.

The most effective and enjoyable way to keep hawks, when possible, is to have them on blocks on the lawn. Each hawk's block should be set in a circular bed of sand about 8 feet in diameter; this makes it easy to keep them clean. Goshawks are usually placed on bow perches that should not be more than 8 or 9 inches high at the tallest point. It will take several months for passage or wild-caught falcons to be kept outdoors; they need to be secured to a perch in a dark room, hooded, but gradually, as they become more tame, they can be brought to sit on the lawn. In England (especially in the south), peregrines, northern falcons, and goshawks can be kept outside all day and night in a sheltered area. In really bad weather, or during snow or intense frost, it's best to move them into a shed with a sand-covered floor that’s 3 to 4 inches deep. Merlins and hobbies are too delicate to stay outside for long. An eastern exposure is preferable—all birds enjoy the morning sun, and it’s very beneficial for them. The more hawks that are confined to blocks outdoors see people, dogs, horses, etc., moving around, the better, but this should only happen when there’s no risk of them being scared or disturbed, or of strangers feeding them. Those who have only seen poorly treated hawks in cages, like in zoos or menageries, suffering from lack of exercise, with damaged feathers, torn shoulders, and bleeding ceres from crashing against bars, and overgrown beaks from not getting bones to break, can hardly imagine the beautiful and striking birds that are seen preening their feathers and stretching their wings comfortably on the falconer’s lawn, watching everything that moves in the sky and all around them. Contrary to popular belief, hawks can be quite affectionate when handled properly. It’s true that hunger plays a big role in taming and controlling them, just like it does with all undomesticated and many domesticated animals. Instinct drives wild creatures, when away from human influence, to revert to their natural shyness, but hawks indeed maintain their tameness for a long time, and their memories are notably good. Wild-caught hawks have been recaptured, either by coming to the lure or upon quarry, from 2 to 7 days after being lost, and eyases (young hawks) after 3 weeks. One example of a hawk's impressive memory is a wild-caught falcon that was recaptured after being free for over 3 years, still wearing the jesses that were cut short close to her leg when she was released; in just five days, she was flying at the lure again and was found to have retained the particular behaviors she showed when she was a trained hawk. There’s no point in bringing a hawk into the field unless she has a strong appetite; if she doesn’t, she won’t hunt effectively or follow her owner. Even wild-caught falcons can sometimes be so attached to their owners that, when sitting on their blocks on the lawn with food in their crops, they will flap eagerly to get to them when the owner comes out, until he either approaches them to let them hop onto his hand or leaves their sight. Goshawks are also known to show attachment to their owners. Another common misconception about hawks is that they are considered lazy birds, needing the incentive of hunger to motivate them to act. The truth is quite the opposite; they are very active and restless birds, and the idea of them being lazy has been spread by those who have observed little or nothing of hawks in their natural state. The wild falcon requires a great deal of exercise and to be in the wind to utilize the speed and power of flight necessary to catch her prey when hungry; instinct leads her to spend hours every day in the air, soaring and playing in all weather, often chasing birds just for fun or exercise. Sometimes she takes a nap when she's very full, but unless she fills her crop late in the evening, she’ll soon be moving again—before half of her crop is digested. Goshawks and sparrow-hawks also typically soar in the air around 9 or 10 AM and stay up for a considerable time, but these birds aren’t as active as falcons. The frequent flapping of fully tamed hawks from their blocks, even when they are neither hungry nor scared, demonstrates their restlessness and impatience to move. This is also evident in the poor condition of the caged falcon mentioned earlier, while the truly lazy buzzards and kites, which do not depend on activity or flight for their survival in the wild, can stay in good shape and plumage for years, even in captivity, if fed properly. Given these natural habits of the falcon, the falconer should strive to allow the hawks in his care as much flying as possible and should avoid the common mistake of keeping too many hawks. In such cases, a few favorites are certain to get all the attention, while others, who might be just as good if given a fair chance, are neglected due to lack of exercise.

The larger hawks may be kept in health and working order for several years—15 or 20—barring accidents. The writer has known peregrines, shaheens and goshawks to reach ages between 15 and 20 years. Goshawks, however, never fly well after 4 or 5 seasons, when they will no longer take difficult quarry; they may be used at rabbits as long as they live. Shaheens may be seen in the East at an advanced age, killing wild-fowl beautifully. The shaheen is a falcon of the peregrine type, which does not travel, like the peregrine, all over the world. It appears that the jerfalcons also may be worked to a good age. Old Simon Latham tells us of these birds—“I myself have known one of them an excellent Hearnor (killer of herons), and to continue her goodnesse very near twentie yeeres, or full out that time.”

The larger hawks can stay healthy and active for several years—15 to 20—unless there are accidents. I've seen peregrines, shaheens, and goshawks live between 15 and 20 years. However, goshawks don't fly as well after 4 or 5 seasons, when they can't hunt difficult prey anymore; they can still hunt rabbits for the rest of their lives. Shaheens can be seen in the East at an older age, successfully hunting wildfowl. The shaheen is a type of falcon similar to the peregrine, but it doesn’t travel as widely as the peregrine does. It seems that jerfalcons can also be worked effectively into old age. Old Simon Latham mentions these birds: "I myself have known one of them to be an excellent Hearnor (killer of herons), and to maintain her excellent skills for nearly twenty years, or even a full twenty."

Authorities.—Schlegel’s Traité de fauconnerie contains a very large list of works on falconry in the languages of all the principal countries of the Old World. Bibliotheca accipitraria, by J.E. 147 Harting (1891), gives a complete bibliography. See Coursing and Falconry in the Badminton Library; and The Art and Practice of Hawking, by E.B. Michell (1900), the best modern book on the subject. Perhaps the most useful of the old works are The Booke of Faulconrie or Hawking, by George Turberville (1575), and The Faulcon’s Lure and Cure, by Simon Latham (1633).

Authorities.—Schlegel’s Traité de fauconnerie includes a comprehensive list of works on falconry in the languages of all the major countries in the Old World. Bibliotheca accipitraria, by J.E. Harting (1891), provides a complete bibliography. Check out Coursing and Falconry in the Badminton Library; and The Art and Practice of Hawking, by E.B. Michell (1900), which is the best modern book on the topic. Probably the most useful of the older works are The Booke of Faulconrie or Hawking, by George Turberville (1575), and The Faulcon’s Lure and Cure, by Simon Latham (1633).

(E. D. R.)

FALDSTOOL (from the O.H. Ger. falden or falten, to fold, and stuol, Mod. Ger. Stuhl, a stool; from the medieval Latin faldistolium is derived, through the old form faudesteuil, the Mod. Fr. fauteuil), properly a folding seat for the use of a bishop when not occupying the throne in his own cathedral, or when officiating in a cathedral or church other than his own; hence any movable folding stool used for kneeling in divine service. The small desk or stand from which the Litany is read is sometimes called a faldstool, and a similar stool is provided for the use of the sovereign at his coronation.

FALDSTOOL (from the O.H. Ger. falden or falten, meaning to fold, and stuol, Mod. Ger. Stuhl, meaning a stool; derived from the medieval Latin faldistolium, through the old form faudesteuil, to the Mod. Fr. fauteuil), is essentially a folding seat used by a bishop when he is not on the throne in his own cathedral or when he is officiating in a cathedral or church that isn’t his own. Therefore, it refers to any movable folding stool used for kneeling during religious services. The small desk or stand from which the Litany is read is sometimes called a faldstool, and a similar stool is provided for the sovereign during his coronation.


FALERII [mod. Cività Castellana (q.v.)], one of the twelve chief cities of Etruria, situated about 1 m. W. of the ancient Via Flaminia,1 32 m. N. of Rome. According to the legend, it was of Argive origin; and Strabo’s assertion that the population, the Falisci (q.v.), were of a different race from the Etruscans is proved by the language of the earliest inscriptions which have been found here. Wars between Rome and the Falisci appear to have been frequent. To one of the first of them belongs the story of the schoolmaster who wished to betray his boys to Camillus; the latter refused his offer, and the inhabitants thereupon surrendered the city. At the end of the First Punic War, the Falisci rose in rebellion, but were soon conquered (241 B.C.) and lost half their territory. Zonaras (viii. 18) tells us that the ancient city, built upon a precipitous hill, was destroyed and another built on a more accessible site on the plain. The description of the two sites agrees well with the usual theory that the original city occupied the site of the present Cività Castellana, and that the ruins of Falleri (as the place is now called) are those of the Roman town which was thus transferred 3 m. to the north-west. After this time Falerii hardly appears in history. It became a colony (Junonia Faliscorum) perhaps under Augustus, though according to the inscriptions apparently not until the time of Gallienus. There were bishops of Falerii up till 1033, when the desertion of the place in favour of the present site began, and the last mention of it dates from A.D. 1064.

FALERII [mod. Civita Castellana (q.v.)], one of the twelve main cities of Etruria, located about 1 mile west of the ancient Via Flaminia, 32 miles north of Rome. According to legend, it originated from Argive settlers; and Strabo’s claim that the population, the Falisci (q.v.), were from a different racial background than the Etruscans is supported by the language of the earliest inscriptions found here. Conflicts between Rome and the Falisci seemed to occur frequently. One of the earliest conflicts features the story of a schoolmaster who tried to betray his students to Camillus; the latter declined the offer, and as a result, the locals surrendered the city. After the First Punic War, the Falisci rebelled but were quickly defeated (241 B.C.) and lost half of their territory. Zonaras (viii. 18) mentions that the ancient city, which was built on a steep hill, was destroyed, and a new city was established on a flatter site in the plain. The descriptions of the two locations support the common belief that the original city was where modern Civita Castellana is, and that the ruins of Falleri (as it is now called) are those of the Roman town that was subsequently moved 3 miles to the northwest. After this period, Falerii hardly appears in historical records. It became a colony (Junonia Faliscorum) possibly under Augustus, though inscriptions suggest it wasn’t until the time of Gallienus. Bishops of Falerii existed until 1033, when the abandonment of the site in favor of the current location began, and the last reference to it dates from CE 1064.

The site of the original Falerii is a plateau, about 1100 yds. by 400, not higher than the surrounding country (475 ft.) but separated from it by gorges over 200 ft. in depth, and only connected with it on the western side, which was strongly fortified with a mound and ditch; the rest of the city was defended by walls constructed of rectangular blocks of tufa, of which some remains still exist. Remains of a temple were found at Lo Scasato, at the highest point of the ancient town, in 1888, and others have been excavated in the outskirts. The attribution of one of these to Juno Quiritis is uncertain. These buildings were of wood, with fine decorations of coloured terra-cotta (Notizie degli scavi, 1887, p. 92; 1888, p. 414). Numerous tombs hewn in the rock are visible on all sides of the town, and important discoveries have been made in them; many objects, both from the temples and from the tombs, are in the Museo di Villa Giulia at Rome. Similar finds have also been made at Calcata, 6 m. S., and Corchiano, 5 m. N.W. The site of the Roman Falerii is now entirely abandoned. It lay upon a road which may have been (see H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, ii. 361) the Via Annia, a by-road of the Via Cassia; this road approached it from the south passing through Nepet, while its prolongation to the north certainly bore the name Via Amerina. The circuit of the city is about 2250 yds., its shape roughly triangular, and the walls are a remarkably fine and well-preserved specimen of Roman military architecture. They are constructed of rectangular blocks of tufa two Roman ft. in height; the walls themselves reach in places a height of 56 ft. and are 7 to 9 ft. thick. There were about 80 towers, some 50 of which are still preserved. Two of the gates also, of which there were eight, are noteworthy. Of the buildings within the walls hardly anything is preserved above ground, though the forum and theatre (as also the amphitheatre, the arena of which measured 180 by 108 ft. outside the walls) were all excavated in the 19th century. Almost the only edifice now standing is the 12th-century abbey church of S. Maria. Recent excavations have shown that the plan of the whole city could easily be recovered, though the buildings have suffered considerable devastation (Notizie degli scavi, 1903, 14).

The original site of Falerii is a plateau, about 1100 yards by 400, not higher than the surrounding area (475 ft.) but separated from it by gorges that are over 200 ft. deep, only connected on the western side, which was heavily fortified with a mound and ditch. The rest of the city was protected by walls made of rectangular blocks of tufa, some of which still remain. Remains of a temple were discovered at Lo Scasato, at the highest point of the ancient town, in 1888, and others have been excavated on the outskirts. It's uncertain whether one of these belongs to Juno Quiritis. These buildings were made of wood, decorated beautifully with colored terra-cotta (Notizie degli scavi, 1887, p. 92; 1888, p. 414). Numerous tombs carved into the rock are visible all around the town, and significant discoveries have been made in them; many objects from both the temples and the tombs are displayed in the Museo di Villa Giulia in Rome. Similar finds have also been discovered at Calcata, 6 miles to the south, and Corchiano, 5 miles to the northwest. The site of Roman Falerii is now completely deserted. It was located on a road that might have been (see H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, ii. 361) the Via Annia, a side road of the Via Cassia; this road approached from the south passing through Nepet, while its extension to the north was certainly called Via Amerina. The city's circuit is about 2250 yards, its shape roughly triangular, and the walls are a remarkably fine and well-preserved example of Roman military architecture. They are built from rectangular blocks of tufa two Roman feet high; in some places, the walls reach a height of 56 ft. and are 7 to 9 ft. thick. There were about 80 towers, of which approximately 50 still stand. Two of the gates, out of eight in total, are noteworthy. Very little of the buildings within the walls remains above ground, though the forum and theater (as well as the amphitheater, with an arena measuring 180 by 108 ft. outside the walls) were all excavated in the 19th century. Almost the only structure still standing is the 12th-century abbey church of S. Maria. Recent excavations have indicated that the layout of the entire city could easily be reconstructed, although the buildings have suffered significant damage (Notizie degli scavi, 1903, 14).

See G. Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria (London, 1883), i. 97; for philology and ethnology see Falisci.

See G. Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria (London, 1883), i. 97; for linguistics and cultural studies see Falisci.

(T. As.)

1 The Roman town lay 3 m. farther N.W. on the Via Annia. The Via Flaminia, which did not traverse the Etruscan city, had two post-stations near it, Aquaviva, some 2½ m. S.E., and Aequum Faliscum, 4½ m. N.N.E.; the latter is very possibly identical with the Etruscan site which G. Dennis (Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, London, 1883, i. 121) identified with Fescennium (q.v.). See O. Cuntz in Jahreshefte des österr. arch. Inst. ii. (1899), 87.

1 The Roman town was located 3 miles further northwest on the Via Annia. The Via Flaminia, which didn't go through the Etruscan city, had two post stations nearby: Aquaviva, about 2.5 miles southeast, and Aequum Faliscum, 4.5 miles north-northeast. The latter is very likely the same as the Etruscan site that G. Dennis (Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, London, 1883, i. 121) identified with Fescennium (q.v.). See O. Cuntz in Jahreshefte des österr. arch. Inst. ii. (1899), 87.


FALERIO (mod. Falerone), an ancient town of Picenum, Italy, about 10 m. S.E. of Urbs Salvia. We know almost nothing of the place except from inscriptions, from which, and from the remains of its buildings, it appears to have been of some importance. It was probably founded as a colony by Augustus after his victory at Actium. A question arose in the time of Domitian between the inhabitants of Falerio and Firmum as to land which had been taken out of the territory of the latter (which was recolonized by the triumvirs), and, though not distributed to the new settlers, had not been given back again to the people of Firmum. The emperor, by a rescript, a copy of which in bronze was found at Falerio, decided in favour of the people of Falerio, that the occupiers of this land should remain in possession of it (Th. Mommsen in Corp. Inscr. Latin. ix., Berlin, 1883, No. 5, 420). Considerable remains of a theatre in concrete faced with brickwork, erected, according to an inscription, in 43 B.C., and 161 ft. in diameter, were excavated in 1838 and are still visible; and an amphitheatre, less well preserved, also exists, the arena of which measures about 180 by 150 ft. Between the two is a water reservoir (called Bagno della Regina) connected with remains of baths.

FALERIO (mod. Falerone), an ancient town in Picenum, Italy, located about 10 miles southeast of Urbs Salvia. We know very little about the place except from inscriptions, which, along with the remains of its buildings, suggest it was somewhat significant. It was likely founded as a colony by Augustus after his victory at Actium. During the time of Domitian, a dispute arose between the inhabitants of Falerio and Firmum regarding land that had been taken from Firmum’s territory (which was recolonized by the triumvirs). Although this land had not been redistributed to new settlers, it also had not been returned to the people of Firmum. The emperor issued a decree, a bronze copy of which was found in Falerio, ruling in favor of the people of Falerio, stating that the current occupants could retain possession of the land (Th. Mommsen in Corp. Inscr. Latin. ix., Berlin, 1883, No. 5, 420). Significant remains of a theater built of concrete and faced with brick, constructed according to an inscription in 43 B.C., and measuring 161 feet in diameter, were excavated in 1838 and are still visible; there is also an amphitheater, which is less well preserved, with an arena that measures about 180 by 150 feet. Between the two is a water reservoir (called Bagno della Regina) connected to the remains of baths.

See G. de Minicis in Giornale Arcadico, lv. (1832), 160 seq.; Annali dell’ Istituto (1839), 5 seq.

See G. de Minicis in Giornale Arcadico, lv. (1832), 160 seq.; Annali dell’ Istituto (1839), 5 seq.

(T. As.)

FALGUIÈRE, JEAN ALEXANDRE JOSEPH (1831-1900), French sculptor and painter, was born at Toulouse. A pupil of the École des Beaux Arts he won the Prix de Rome in 1859; he was awarded the medal of honour at the Salon in 1868 and was appointed officer of the Legion of Honour in 1878. His first bronze statue of importance was the “Victor of the Cock-Fight” (1864), and “Tarcisus the Christian Boy-Martyr” followed in 1867; both are now in the Luxembourg Museum. His more important monuments are those to Admiral Courbet (1890) at Abbeville and the famous “Joan of Arc.” Among more ideal work are “Eve” (1880), “Diana” (1882 and 1891), “Woman and Peacock,” and “The Poet,” astride his Pegasus spreading wings for flight. His “Triumph of the Republic” (1881-1886), a vast quadriga for the Arc de Triomphe, Paris, is perhaps more amazingly full of life than others of his works, all of which reveal this quality of vitality in superlative degree. To these works should be added his monuments to “Cardinal Lavigerie” and “General de La Fayette” (the latter in Washington), and his statues of “Lamartine” (1876) and “St Vincent de Paul” (1879), as well as the “Balzac,” which he executed for the Société des gens de lettres on the rejection of that by Rodin; and the busts of “Carolus-Duran” and “Coquelin cadet” (1896).

FALGUIÈRE, JEAN ALEXANDRE JOSEPH (1831-1900), French sculptor and painter, was born in Toulouse. A student at the École des Beaux Arts, he won the Prix de Rome in 1859; he received the medal of honor at the Salon in 1868 and was appointed officer of the Legion of Honor in 1878. His first significant bronze statue was the “Victor of the Cock-Fight” (1864), followed by “Tarcisus the Christian Boy-Martyr” in 1867; both are now in the Luxembourg Museum. His more notable monuments include those for Admiral Courbet (1890) in Abbeville and the famous “Joan of Arc.” Among his ideal works are “Eve” (1880), “Diana” (1882 and 1891), “Woman and Peacock,” and “The Poet,” who is perched on his Pegasus, ready to take flight. His “Triumph of the Republic” (1881-1886), a grand quadriga for the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, is perhaps even more vibrantly alive than his other works, all of which display this remarkable vitality. Additionally, he created monuments for “Cardinal Lavigerie” and “General de La Fayette” (the latter in Washington), along with statues of “Lamartine” (1876) and “St Vincent de Paul” (1879), as well as the “Balzac,” which he made for the Société des gens de lettres after Rodin’s was rejected; he also created the busts of “Carolus-Duran” and “Coquelin cadet” (1896).

Falguière was a painter as well as a sculptor, but somewhat inferior in merit. He displays a fine sense of colour and tone, added to the qualities of life and vigour that he instils into his plastic work. His “Wrestlers” (1875) and “Fan and Dagger” (1882; a defiant Spanish woman) are in the Luxembourg, and other pictures of importance are “The Beheading of St John the Baptist” (1877), “The Sphinx” (1883), “Acis and Galatea” (1885), “Old Woman and Child” (1886) and “In the Bull Slaughter-House.” He became a member of the Institute (Académie des Beaux-Arts) in 1882. He died in 1900.

Falguière was both a painter and a sculptor, though he was somewhat lesser in skill. He had a great sense of color and tone, along with a liveliness and energy that he infused into his sculptural work. His pieces “Wrestlers” (1875) and “Fan and Dagger” (1882; featuring a defiant Spanish woman) are housed in the Luxembourg, and other significant works include “The Beheading of St John the Baptist” (1877), “The Sphinx” (1883), “Acis and Galatea” (1885), “Old Woman and Child” (1886), and “In the Bull Slaughter-House.” He became a member of the Institute (Académie des Beaux-Arts) in 1882. He passed away in 1900.

See Léonce Bénédite, Alexandre Falguière, Librairie de l’art (Paris).

See Léonce Bénédite, Alexandre Falguière, Librairie de l’art (Paris).

148

148


FALIERO (or Falier), MARINO (1279-1355), doge of Venice, belonged to one of the oldest and most illustrious Venetian families and had served the republic with distinction in various capacities. In 1346 he commanded the Venetian land forces at the siege of Zara, where he was attacked by the Hungarians under King Louis the Great and totally defeated them; this victory led to the surrender of the city. In September 1354, while absent on a mission to Pope Innocent IV. at Avignon, Faliero was elected doge, an honour which apparently he had not sought. His reign began, as it was to end, in disaster, for very soon after his election the Venetian fleet was completely destroyed by the Genoese off the island of Sapienza, while plague and a declining commerce aggravated the situation. Although a capable commander and a good statesman, Faliero possessed a violent temper, and after his election developed great ambition. The constitutional restrictions of the ducal power, which had been further curtailed just before his election, and the insolence of the nobility aroused in him a desire to free himself from all control, and the discontent of the arsenal hands at their treatment by the nobles offered him his opportunity. In concert with a sea-captain named Bertuccio Ixarella (who had received a blow from the noble Giovanni Dandolo), Filippo Calendario, a stonemason, and others, a plot was laid to murder the chief patricians on the 15th of April and proclaim Faliero prince of Venice. But there was much ferment in the city and disorders broke out before the appointed time; some of the conspirators having made revelations, the Council of Ten proceeded to arrest the ringleaders and to place armed guards all over the town. Several of the conspirators were condemned to death and others to various terms of imprisonment. The doge’s complicity having been discovered, he was himself arrested; at the trial he confessed everything and was condemned and executed on the 17th of April 1355.

FALIERO (or Falier), MARINO (1279-1355), doge of Venice, came from one of the oldest and most notable Venetian families and had served the republic with distinction in various roles. In 1346, he led the Venetian land forces during the siege of Zara, where he was attacked by the Hungarians under King Louis the Great and completely defeated them; this victory resulted in the city's surrender. In September 1354, while he was away on a mission to Pope Innocent IV in Avignon, Faliero was elected doge, an honor he apparently had not sought. His rule began, as it ultimately ended, in disaster, as shortly after his election, the Venetian fleet was utterly destroyed by the Genoese off the island of Sapienza, while the plague and declining trade made things worse. Although he was a capable commander and a good statesman, Faliero had a violent temper and developed great ambition after his election. The constitutional limits on ducal power, which had been further reduced just before his election, along with the arrogance of the nobility, ignited his desire to free himself from all constraints, and the discontent of the workers at the arsenal over their treatment by the nobles provided him with his chance. Alongside a sea captain named Bertuccio Ixarella (who had been insulted by the noble Giovanni Dandolo), Filippo Calendario, a stonemason, and others, he plotted to assassinate the leading patricians on April 15 and declare Faliero the prince of Venice. However, there was significant unrest in the city, and disturbances broke out before the planned date; some of the conspirators disclosed their plans, prompting the Council of Ten to arrest the ringleaders and deploy armed guards throughout the town. Several conspirators were sentenced to death, and others received various prison terms. When Faliero's involvement was discovered, he was arrested; during the trial, he confessed everything and was sentenced to death, being executed on April 17, 1355.

The story of the insult written by Michele Steno on the doge’s chair is a legend of which no record is found in any contemporary authority. The motives of Faliero are not altogether clear, as his past record, even in the judgment of the poet Petrarch, showed him as a wise, clear-headed man of no unusual ambition. But possibly the attitude of the aristocracy and the example offered by the tyrants of neighbouring cities may have induced him to attempt a similar policy. The only result of the plot was to consolidate the power of the Council of Ten.

The story about the insult that Michele Steno wrote on the doge’s chair is a legend with no records from any contemporary sources. Faliero's reasons aren't entirely clear; even the poet Petrarch viewed his past as that of a wise, level-headed man with no extraordinary ambition. However, the attitude of the aristocracy and the examples set by tyrants in nearby cities might have pushed him to try a similar approach. The only outcome of the conspiracy was to strengthen the power of the Council of Ten.

Bibliography.—An account of Marino Faliero’s reign is given in S. Romanin’s Storia documentata di Venezia, lib. ix. cap. ii. (Venice, 1855); M. Sanudo, Le Vite dei Dogi in new edition of Muratori fasc, 3, 4, 5 (Citta di Castello, 1900). For special works see V. Lazzerini’s “Genealogia d. M. Faliero” in the Archivio Veneto of 1892; “M. Faliero avanti il Dogado,” ibid. (1893), and his exhaustive study “M. Faliero, la Congiura,” ibid. (1897). The most recent essay on the subject is contained in Horatio Brown’s Studies in Venetian History (London, 1907), wherein all the authorities are set forth.

References.—An account of Marino Faliero’s reign is provided in S. Romanin’s Storia documentata di Venezia, book ix, chapter ii. (Venice, 1855); M. Sanudo, Le Vite dei Dogi in the new edition of Muratori fasc, 3, 4, 5 (Citta di Castello, 1900). For specialized works, see V. Lazzerini’s “Genealogia di M. Faliero” in the Archivio Veneto of 1892; “M. Faliero avanti il Dogado,” ibid. (1893), and his extensive study “M. Faliero, la Congiura,” ibid. (1897). The most recent essay on the topic can be found in Horatio Brown’s Studies in Venetian History (London, 1907), where all the sources are detailed.

(L. V.*)

FALISCI, a tribe of Sabine origin or connexions, but speaking a dialect closely akin to Latin, who inhabited the town of Falerii (q.v.), as well as a considerable tract of the surrounding country, probably reaching as far south as to include the small town of Capena. But at the beginning of the historical period, i.e. from the beginning of the 5th century B.C., and no doubt earlier, the dominant element in the town was Etruscan; and all through the wars of the following centuries the town was counted a member, and sometimes a leading member, of the Etruscan league (cf. Livy iv. 23, v. 17, vii. 17).

FALISCI, a tribe with Sabine roots, but speaking a dialect closely related to Latin, inhabited the town of Falerii (q.v.) and a large area of the surrounding countryside, likely reaching as far south as the small town of Capena. However, at the start of the historical period, specifically from the beginning of the 5th century B.C., and probably even earlier, the dominant group in the town was Etruscan. Throughout the wars of the following centuries, the town was considered a member, and at times a leading member, of the Etruscan league (cf. Livy iv. 23, v. 17, vii. 17).

In spite of the Etruscan domination, the Faliscans preserved many traces of their Italic origin, such as the worship of the deities Juno Quiritis (Ovid, Fasti, vi. 49) and Feronia (Livy xxvi. n), the cult of Dis Soranus by the Hirpi or fire-leaping priests on Mount Soracte (Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 2, 19; Servius, ad Aen. xi. 785, 787), above all their language. This is preserved for us in some 36 short inscriptions, dating from the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., and is written in a peculiar alphabet derived from the Etruscan, and written from right to left, but showing some traces of the influence of the Latin alphabet. Its most characteristic signs are—

In spite of Etruscan rule, the Faliscans kept many signs of their Italic roots, such as the worship of deities like Juno Quiritis (Ovid, Fasti, vi. 49) and Feronia (Livy xxvi. n), the cult of Dis Soranus practiced by the Hirpi, or fire-jumping priests on Mount Soracte (Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 2, 19; Servius, ad Aen. xi. 785, 787), and especially their language. This language is preserved in about 36 short inscriptions from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, written in a unique alphabet derived from Etruscan, which runs from right to left but also shows some influence from the Latin alphabet. Its most distinctive signs are—

As a specimen of the dialect may be quoted the words written round the edge of a picture on a patera, the genuineness of which is established by the fact that they were written before the glaze was put on: “foied vino pipafo, era carefo,” i.e. in Latin “hodie vinum bibam, cras carebo” (R.S. Conway, Italic Dialects, p. 312, b). This shows some of the phonetic characteristics of the Faliscan dialect, viz.:—

As an example of the dialect, we can reference the words inscribed around the edge of a picture on a dish, which is confirmed to be authentic because they were written before the glaze was applied: “foied vino pipafo, era carefo,” i.e. in Latin “hodie vinum bibam, cras carebo” (R.S. Conway, Italic Dialects, p. 312, b). This illustrates some of the phonetic features of the Faliscan dialect, namely:—

1. The retention of medial f which in Latin became b;

1. The preservation of the middle f which changed to b in Latin;

2. The representation of an initial Ind.-Eur. gh by,f (foied, contrast Latin hodie);

2. The representation of an initial Indo-European gh by,f (foied, contrast Latin hodie);

3. The palatalization of d + consonant i into some sound denoted merely by i-the central sound of foied,.from fo-diëd;

3. The palatalization of d + consonant i into a sound represented simply by i-the central sound of foied, from fo-diëd;

4. The loss of final s, at all events before certain following sounds (cra beside Latin crās);

4. The loss of the final 's', in any case before certain following sounds (cra next to Latin crās);

Other characteristics, appearing elsewhere, are:

Other characteristics, found elsewhere, are:

5. The retention of the velars (Fal. cuando = Latin quando; contrast Umbrian pan(n)u);

5. The keeping of the velar sounds (Fal. cuando = Latin quando; compare Umbrian pan(n)u);

6. The assimilation of some final consonants to the initial letter of the next word: “pretod de zenatuo sententiad” (Conway, lib. cit. 321), i.e. “praetor de senatus sententia” (zenatuo for senaiuos., an archaic genitive). For further details see Conway, ib. pp. 370 if., especially pp. 384-385, where the relation of the names Falisci, Falerii to the local hero Halaesus (e.g. Ovid, Fasti, iv. 73) is discussed, and where reason is given for thinking that the change of initial f (from an original bh or dh) into an initial h was a genuine mark of Faliscan dialect.

6. The blending of some final consonants with the first letter of the following word: “pretod de zenatuo sententiad” (Conway, lib. cit. 321), i.e. “praetor de senatus sententia” (zenatuo for senaiuos, an outdated genitive). For more details, see Conway, ib. pp. 370 ff., especially pp. 384-385, where the connection of the names Falisci, Falerii to the local hero Halaesus (e.g. Ovid, Fasti, iv. 73) is discussed, and where reasons are given for believing that the change of initial f (from an original bh or dh) into an initial h was a true characteristic of the Faliscan dialect.

It seems probable that the dialect lasted on, though being gradually permeated with Latin, till at least 150 B.C.

It seems likely that the dialect continued to exist, though gradually influenced by Latin, until at least 150 BCE

In addition to the remains found in the graves (see Falerii), which belong mainly to the period of Etruscan domination and give ample evidence of material prosperity and refinement, the earlier strata have yielded more primitive remains from the Italic epoch. A large number of inscriptions consisting mainly of proper names may be regarded as Etruscan rather than Faliscan, and they have been disregarded in the account of the dialect just given. It should perhaps be mentioned that there was a town Feronia in Sardinia, named probably after their native goddess by Faliscan settlers, from some of whom we have a votive inscription found at S. Maria di Falleri(Conway, ib. p. 335).

In addition to the remains found in the graves (see Falerii), which are primarily from the Etruscan period and show clear signs of material wealth and sophistication, the earlier layers have revealed more primitive remains from the Italic era. Many of the inscriptions, mostly consisting of proper names, can be considered Etruscan rather than Faliscan, and they have been overlooked in the description of the dialect provided earlier. It’s worth noting that there was a town called Feronia in Sardinia, likely named after their local goddess by Faliscan settlers, some of whom are referenced in a votive inscription found at S. Maria di Falleri (Conway, ib. p. 335).

Further information may be sought from W. Deecke, Die Falisker (a useful but somewhat uncritical collection of the evidence accessible in 1888); E. Bormann, in C.I.L. xi. pp. 465 ff., and Conway, op. cit.

Further information can be found in W. Deecke, Die Falisker (a helpful but somewhat uncritical compilation of the evidence available in 1888); E. Bormann, in C.I.L. xi. pp. 465 ff., and Conway, op. cit.

(R. S. C.)

FALK, JOHANN DANIEL (1768-1826), German author and philanthropist, was born at Danzig on the 28th of October 1768, After attending the gymnasium of his native town, he entered the university of Halle with the view of studying theology, but preferring a non-professional life, gave up his theological studies and went to live at Weimar. There he published a volume of satires which procured him the notice and friendship of Wieland, and admission into literary circles. After the battle of Jena, Falk, on the recommendation of Wieland, was appointed to a civil post under the French official authorities and rendered his townsmen such good service that the duke of Weimar created him a counsellor of legation. In 1813 he established a society for friends in necessity (Gesellschaft der Freunde in der Not), and about the same time founded an institute for the care and education of neglected and orphan children, which, in 1820, was taken over by the state and still exists as the Falksches Institut. The first literary efforts of Falk took the form chiefly of satirical poetry, and gave promise of greater future excellence than was ever completely fulfilled; his later pieces, directed more against individuals than the general vices and defects of society, gradually degenerated in quality. In 1806 Falk founded a critical journal under the title of Elysium und Tartarus. He also contributed largely to contemporary journals. He enjoyed the acquaintance and intimate friendship of Goethe, and his account of their intercourse was posthumously published under the title Goethe aus näherem persönlichen Umgange dargestellt (1832) (English by S. Austin). Falk died on the 14th of February 1826.

FALK, JOHANN DANIEL (1768-1826), a German author and philanthropist, was born in Danzig on October 28, 1768. After attending the high school in his hometown, he enrolled at the University of Halle to study theology. However, preferring a life outside of a profession, he abandoned his theological studies and moved to Weimar. There, he published a collection of satirical works that gained him the attention and friendship of Wieland, allowing him to enter literary circles. After the battle of Jena, Falk, on Wieland's recommendation, was appointed to a civil position under the French authorities and provided such valuable service to his townspeople that the Duke of Weimar made him a counselor of legation. In 1813, he established a society for friends in need (Gesellschaft der Freunde in der Not) and around the same time founded an institute to care for and educate neglected and orphaned children, which was taken over by the state in 1820 and still operates today as the Falksches Institut. Falk's early literary work mostly consisted of satirical poetry, showing promise of greater excellence that was never fully realized; his later pieces, which focused more on individuals than on the broader vices and flaws of society, gradually declined in quality. In 1806, Falk launched a critical journal titled Elysium und Tartarus. He also contributed significantly to contemporary journals. He had a close acquaintance and friendship with Goethe, and his account of their relationship was published posthumously under the title Goethe aus näherem persönlichen Umgange dargestellt (1832) (translated to English by S. Austin). Falk passed away on February 14, 1826.

Falk’s Satirische Werke appeared in 7 vols. (1817 and 1826); his Auserlesene Schriften (3 vols., 1819). See Johannes Falk: Erinnerungsblatter aus Briefen und Tagebüchern, gesammelt von dessen Tochter Rosalie Falk (1868); Heinzelmann, Johannes Falk und die Gesellschaft der Freunde in der Not (1879); A. Stein, J. Falk (1881); S. Schultze, Falk und Goethe (1900).

Falk's Satirical Works was published in 7 volumes (1817 and 1826); his Selected Writings (3 volumes, 1819). See Johannes Falk: Memoirs from Letters and Diaries, collected by his daughter Rosalie Falk (1868); Heinzelmann, Johannes Falk and the Society of Friends in Distress (1879); A. Stein, J. Falk (1881); S. Schultze, Falk and Goethe (1900).

149

149


FALK, PAUL LUDWIG ADALBERT (1827-1900), German politician, was born at Matschkau, Silesia, on the 10th of August 1827. In 1847 he entered the Prussian state service, and in 1853 became public prosecutor at Lyck. In 1858 he was elected a deputy, joining the Old Liberal party. In 1868 he became a privy-councillor in the ministry of justice. In 1872 he was made minister of education, and in connexion with Bismarck’s policy of the Kultur-kampf he was responsible for the famous May Laws against the Catholics (see Germany: History). In 1879 his position became untenable, owing to the death of Pius IX. and the change of German policy with regard to the Vatican, and he resigned his office, but retained his seat in the Reichstag till 1882. He was then made president of the supreme court of justice at Hamm, where he died in 1900.

FALK, PAUL LUDWIG ADALBERT (1827-1900), a German politician, was born in Matschkau, Silesia, on August 10, 1827. In 1847, he joined the Prussian state service, and in 1853, he became a public prosecutor in Lyck. In 1858, he was elected as a deputy, aligning with the Old Liberal party. By 1868, he was appointed a privy-councillor in the ministry of justice. In 1872, he became the minister of education and, in connection with Bismarck’s Kulturkampf policy, he was responsible for the well-known May Laws against Catholics (see Germany: History). In 1879, his position became untenable due to the death of Pius IX and the shift in German policy regarding the Vatican, leading to his resignation, although he kept his Reichstag seat until 1882. He was later appointed president of the supreme court of justice in Hamm, where he passed away in 1900.


FALKE, JOHANN FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB (1823-1876), German historian, was born at Ratzeburg on the 20th of April 1823. Entering the university of Erlangen in 1843, he soon began to devote his attention to the history of the German language and literature, and in 1848 went to Munich, where he remained five years, and diligently availed himself of the use of the government library for the purpose of prosecuting his historical studies. In 1856 he was appointed secretary of the German museum at Nuremberg, and in 1859 keeper of the manuscripts. With the aid of the manuscript collections in the museum he now turned his attention chiefly to political history, and, with Johann H. Müller, established an historical journal under the name of Zeitschrift für deutsche Kulturgeschichte (4 vols., Nuremberg, 1856-1859). To this journal he contributed a history of German taxation and commerce. On the latter subject he published separately Geschichte des deutschen Handels (2 vols., Leipzig, 1850-1860) and Die Hansa als deutsche See- und Handelsmacht (Berlin, 1862). In 1862 he was appointed secretary of the state archives at Dresden, and, a little later, keeper. He there began the study of Saxon history, still devoting his attention chiefly to the history of commerce and economy, and published Die Geschichte des Kurfürsten August von Sachsen in volkswirthschaftlicher Beziehung (Leipzig, 1868) and Geschichte des deutschen Zollwesens (Leipzig, 1869). He died at Dresden on the 2nd of March 1876.

FALKE, JOHANN FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB (1823-1876), German historian, was born in Ratzeburg on April 20, 1823. He started attending the University of Erlangen in 1843 and quickly focused his studies on the history of the German language and literature. In 1848, he moved to Munich, where he spent five years using the government library to further his historical research. In 1856, he became the secretary of the German Museum in Nuremberg and was appointed keeper of the manuscripts in 1859. Utilizing the manuscript collections at the museum, he shifted his focus primarily to political history and, together with Johann H. Müller, founded a historical journal called Zeitschrift für deutsche Kulturgeschichte (4 volumes, Nuremberg, 1856-1859). He contributed a piece on the history of German taxation and commerce to this journal. On that topic, he also published Geschichte des deutschen Handels (2 volumes, Leipzig, 1850-1860) and Die Hansa als deutsche See- und Handelsmacht (Berlin, 1862). In 1862, he was appointed secretary of the state archives in Dresden and soon became the keeper. There, he began studying Saxon history, while continuing to focus on the history of commerce and economy, publishing Die Geschichte des Kurfürsten August von Sachsen in volkswirthschaftlicher Beziehung (Leipzig, 1868) and Geschichte des deutschen Zollwesens (Leipzig, 1869). He passed away in Dresden on March 2, 1876.


FALKIRK, a municipal and police burgh of Stirlingshire, Scotland. Pop. (1891) 19,769; (1901) 29,280. It is situated on high ground overlooking the fertile Carse of Falkirk, 11 m. S.E. of Stirling, and about midway between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Grangemouth, its port, lies 3 m. to the N.E., and the Forth & Clyde Canal passes to the north, and the Union Canal to the south of the town. Falkirk now comprises the suburbs of Laurieston (E.), Grahamston and Bainsford (N.), and Camelon (W.). The principal structures include the burgh and county buildings, town hall, the Dollar free library and Camelon fever hospital. The present church, with a steeple 146 ft. high, dates only from 1811. In the churchyard are buried Sir John Graham, Sir John Stewart who fell in the battle of 1298, and Sir Robert Munro and his brother, Dr Duncan Munro, killed in the battle of 1746. The town is under the control of a council with provost and bailies, and combines with Airdrie, Hamilton, Lanark and Linlithgow (the Falkirk group of burghs) to return a member to parliament. The district is rich in coal and iron, which supply the predominant industries, Falkirk being the chief seat of the light casting trade in Scotland; but tanning, flour-milling, brewing, distilling and the manufacture of explosives (Nobel’s) and chemicals are also carried on. Trysts or sales of cattle, sheep and horses are held thrice a year (August, September and October) on Stenhousemuir, 3 m. N.W. They were transferred hither from Crieff in 1770, and were formerly the most important in the kingdom, but have to a great extent been replaced by the local weekly auction marts. Carron, 2 m. N.N.W., is famous for the iron-works established in 1760 by Dr John Roebuck (1718-1794), whose advising engineers were successively John Smeaton and James Watt. The short iron guns of large calibre designed by General Robert Melville, and first cast in 1779, were called carronades from this their place of manufacture.

FALKIRK is a municipal and police burgh in Stirlingshire, Scotland. Population (1891) 19,769; (1901) 29,280. It's located on elevated ground overlooking the fertile Carse of Falkirk, 11 miles southeast of Stirling, and roughly halfway between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Grangemouth, its port, is 3 miles to the northeast, and the Forth & Clyde Canal runs to the north, while the Union Canal runs to the south of the town. Falkirk includes the suburbs of Laurieston (east), Grahamston and Bainsford (north), and Camelon (west). Key buildings in the area include the burgh and county offices, the town hall, the Dollar free library, and the Camelon fever hospital. The current church, which has a steeple standing 146 feet tall, was built in 1811. The churchyard is the final resting place of Sir John Graham, Sir John Stewart, who fell in the battle of 1298, and Sir Robert Munro along with his brother, Dr. Duncan Munro, who were killed in the battle of 1746. The town is governed by a council with a provost and bailies, and it collaborates with Airdrie, Hamilton, Lanark, and Linlithgow (known as the Falkirk group of burghs) to elect a member to Parliament. This district is rich in coal and iron, which fuel its main industries, with Falkirk being the primary center for the light casting trade in Scotland; however, it also engages in tanning, flour milling, brewing, distilling, and the production of explosives (Nobel's) and chemicals. Sales of cattle, sheep, and horses are held three times a year (August, September, and October) at Stenhousemuir, 3 miles northwest. These markets were moved from Crieff in 1770 and were once the most significant in the kingdom, although they have largely been replaced by local weekly auction markets. Carron, located 2 miles north-northwest, is renowned for the ironworks established in 1760 by Dr. John Roebuck (1718-1794), whose engineering advisors included John Smeaton and James Watt. The short iron cannons of large caliber, designed by General Robert Melville and first produced in 1779, were named carronades after this manufacturing site.

Falkirk is a town of considerable antiquity. Its original name was the Gaelic Eaglais breac, “church of speckled or mottled stone,” which Simeon of Durham (fl. 1130) transliterated as Egglesbreth. By the end of the 13th century appears the form Faukirke (the present local pronunciation), which is merely a translation of the Gaelic fau or faw, meaning “dun,” “pale red.” The first church was built by Malcolm Canmore (d. 1093). Falkirk was made a burgh of barony in 1600 and a burgh of regality in 1646, but on the forfeiture of the earl of Linlithgow in 1715, its superiority was vested in the crown. Callender House, immediately to the S., was the seat of the earl and his ancestors. The mansion was visited by Queen Mary, captured by Cromwell, and occupied by Generals Monk and Hawley. The wall of Antoninus ran through, the grounds, and the district is rich in Roman remains, Camelon, about 2 m. W., being the site of a Roman settlement; Merchiston Hall, to the N.W., was the birthplace of Admiral Sir Charles Napier. The eastern suburb of Laurieston was first called Langtoune, then Merchistown, and received its present name after Sir Lawrence Dundas of Kerse, who had promoted its welfare. At Polmont, farther east, which gives the title of baron to the duke of Hamilton, is the school of Blair Lodge, besides coal-mines and other industries.

Falkirk is a town with a rich history. Its original name was the Gaelic Eaglais breac, meaning “church of speckled or mottled stone,” which Simeon of Durham (fl. 1130) transliterated as Egglesbreth. By the end of the 13th century, it was referred to as Faukirke (which is how locals pronounce it now), a translation of the Gaelic fau or faw, meaning “dun” or “pale red.” The first church was built by Malcolm Canmore (d. 1093). Falkirk became a burgh of barony in 1600 and then a burgh of regality in 1646, but after the earl of Linlithgow forfeited his title in 1715, it came under crown control. Callender House, located just south, was the residence of the earl and his ancestors. The mansion was visited by Queen Mary, captured by Cromwell, and occupied by Generals Monk and Hawley. The wall of Antoninus ran through the grounds, and the area is rich in Roman history, with Camelon, about 2 miles west, being the site of a Roman settlement; Merchiston Hall, to the northwest, was the birthplace of Admiral Sir Charles Napier. The eastern suburb of Laurieston was initially called Langtoune, then Merchistown, and got its current name after Sir Lawrence Dundas of Kerse, who supported its development. In Polmont, further east, which grants the title of baron to the duke of Hamilton, there is the school of Blair Lodge, along with coal mines and other industries.

Batttles of Falkirk.—The battle of the 22nd of July 1298 was fought between the forces of King Edward I. of England and those of the Scottish national party under Sir William Wallace. The latter, after long baffling the king’s attempts to bring him to battle, had taken up a strong position south of the town behind a morass. They were formed in four deep and close masses (“schiltrons”) of pikemen, the light troops screening the front and flanks and a body of men-at-arms standing in reserve. It was perhaps hoped that the English cavalry would plunge into the morass, for no serious precautions were taken as to the flanks, but in any case Wallace desired no more than to receive an attack at the halt, trusting wholly to his massed pikes. The English right wing first appeared, tried the morass in vain, and then set out to turn it by a long détour; the main battle under the king halted in front of it, while the left wing under Antony Bec, bishop of Durham, was able to reach the head of the marsh without much delay. Once on the enemy’s side of the obstacle the bishop halted to wait for Edward, who was now following him, but his undisciplined barons, shouting “’Tis not for thee, bishop, to teach us war. Go say mass!” drove off the Scottish archers and men-at-arms and charged the nearest square of pikes, which repulsed them with heavy losses. On the other flank the right wing, its flank march completed, charged with the same result. But Edward, who had now joined the bishop with the centre or “main battle,” peremptorily ordered the cavalry to stand fast, and, taught by his experience in the Welsh wars, brought up his archers. The longbow here scored its first victory in a pitched battle. Before long gaps appeared in the close ranks of pike heads, and after sufficient preparation Edward again launched his men-at-arms to the charge. The shaken masses then gave way one after the other, and the Scots fled in all directions.

Battles of Falkirk.—The battle on July 22, 1298, was fought between the forces of King Edward I of England and the Scottish national party led by Sir William Wallace. After outsmarting the king's attempts to engage him for a long time, Wallace had taken a strong position south of the town behind a marsh. His troops were arranged in four close formations ("schiltrons") of pikemen, with light troops protecting the front and flanks, and a group of men-at-arms held in reserve. It was possibly hoped that the English cavalry would charge into the marsh, as no serious precautions were made regarding the flanks; however, Wallace was only looking to withstand an attack at a standstill, relying entirely on his packed pikes. The English right wing was the first to advance, testing the marsh in vain before attempting to maneuver around it; the main battle led by the king paused before the marsh, while the left wing under Antony Bec, bishop of Durham, managed to reach the edge of the marsh without much trouble. Once across the obstacle, the bishop paused to wait for Edward, who was following him, but his unruly barons shouted, “It’s not for you, bishop, to teach us warfare. Go say mass!” They drove off the Scottish archers and men-at-arms and charged the nearest square of pikes, which pushed them back with heavy losses. On the other flank, the right wing also charged after completing its maneuver, resulting in the same outcome. But Edward, who had joined the bishop at the center or “main battle,” urgently ordered the cavalry to hold their position, and, having learned from his experience in the Welsh wars, he brought up his archers. Here, the longbow achieved its first victory in a major battle. Soon, gaps appeared in the dense ranks of pike heads, and after adequate preparation, Edward launched his men-at-arms into a charge again. One by one, the shaken formations began to break apart, and the Scots fled in all directions.

The second battle of Falkirk, fought on the 17th of January 1746 between the Highlanders under Prince Charles and the British forces under General Hawley, resulted in the defeat of the latter. It is remarkable only for the bad conduct of the British dragoons and the steadiness of the infantry. Hawley retreated to Linlithgow, leaving all his baggage, 700 prisoners and seven guns in the enemy’s hands.

The second battle of Falkirk, fought on January 17, 1746, between the Highlanders led by Prince Charles and the British forces under General Hawley, ended in the defeat of the latter. It is notable mainly for the poor performance of the British dragoons and the solid reliability of the infantry. Hawley retreated to Linlithgow, abandoning all his baggage, 700 prisoners, and seven guns to the enemy.


FALKLAND, LUCIUS CARY, 2nd Viscount (c. 1610-1643), son of Sir Henry Cary, afterwards 1st Viscount Falkland (d. 1633), a member of an ancient Devonshire family, who was lord deputy of Ireland from 1622 to 1629, and of Elizabeth (1585-1639), only daughter of Sir Lawrence Tanfield, chief baron of the exchequer, was born either in 1609 or 1610, and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin. In 1625 he inherited from his grandfather the manors of Great Tew and Burford in Oxfordshire, and, about the age of 21, married Lettice, daughter of Sir Richard Morrison, of Tooley Park in Leicestershire. Involved in a quarrel with his father, whom he failed to propitiate by 150 offering to hand over to him his estate, he left England to take service in the Dutch army, but soon returned. In 1633, by the death of his father, he became Viscount Falkland. His mother had embraced the Roman Catholic faith, to which it was now sought to attract Falkland himself, but his studies and reflections led him, under the influence of Chillingworth, to the interpretation of religious problems rather by reason than by tradition or authority. At Great Tew he enjoyed a short but happy period of study, and he assembled round him many gifted and learned men, whom the near neighbourhood of the university and his own brilliant qualities attracted to his house. He was the friend of Hales and Chillingworth, was celebrated by Jonson, Suckling, Cowley and Waller in verse, and in prose by Clarendon, who is eloquent in describing the virtues and genius of the “incomparable” Falkland, and draws a delightful picture of his society and hospitality.

Falkland, Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount (c. 1610-1643), son of Sir Henry Cary, later 1st Viscount Falkland (d. 1633), from an old Devonshire family, who served as lord deputy of Ireland from 1622 to 1629, and of Elizabeth (1585-1639), the only daughter of Sir Lawrence Tanfield, chief baron of the exchequer, was born in either 1609 or 1610 and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin. In 1625 he inherited the manors of Great Tew and Burford in Oxfordshire from his grandfather and, around the age of 21, married Lettice, the daughter of Sir Richard Morrison, of Tooley Park in Leicestershire. After a disagreement with his father, whom he couldn’t reconcile with by 150 offering to hand over his estate, he left England to serve in the Dutch army but returned shortly after. In 1633, following his father's death, he became Viscount Falkland. His mother had converted to Roman Catholicism, which was now being encouraged for Falkland himself, but his studies and thoughts, influenced by Chillingworth, led him to approach religious issues more through reason than tradition or authority. At Great Tew, he enjoyed a brief but happy period of study, gathering many talented and educated individuals around him, drawn by the nearby university and his own exceptional qualities. He was friends with Hales and Chillingworth, celebrated in verse by Jonson, Suckling, Cowley, and Waller, and praised in prose by Clarendon, who eloquently describes the virtues and brilliance of the “incomparable” Falkland and paints a delightful picture of his social gatherings and hospitality.

Falkland’s intellectual pleasures, however, were soon interrupted by war and politics. He felt it his duty to take part on the king’s side as a volunteer under Essex in the campaign of 1639 against the Scots. In 1640 he was returned for Newport in the Isle of Wight to the Short and Long Parliaments, and took an active part on the side of the opposition. He spoke against the exaction of shipmoney on the 7th of December 1640, denouncing the servile conduct of Lord Keeper Finch and the judges.1 He supported the prosecution of Strafford, at the same time endeavouring on more than one occasion to moderate the measures of the Commons in the interests of justice, and voted for the third reading of the attainder on the 21st of April 1641. On the great question of the church he urged, in the debate of the 8th of February 1641, that the interference of the clergy in secular matters, the encroachments in jurisdiction of the spiritual courts, and the imposition by authority of unnecessary ceremonies, should be prohibited. On the other hand, though he denied that episcopacy existed jure divino, he was opposed to its abolition; fearing the establishment of the Presbyterian system, which in Scotland had proved equally tyrannical. Triennial parliaments would be sufficient to control the bishops, if they meditated any further attacks upon the national liberties, and he urged that “where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” Even Hampden still believed that a compromise with the episcopal principle was possible, and assured Falkland that if the bill taken up to the Lords on the 1st of May 1641, excluding the bishops from the Lords and the clergy from secular offices, were passed, “there would be nothing more attempted to the prejudice of the church.” Accordingly the bill was supported by Falkland. The times, however, were not favourable to compromise. The bill was lost in the Lords, and on the 27th of May the Root and Branch Bill, for the total abolition of episcopacy, was introduced in the House of Commons. This measure Falkland opposed, as well as the second bill for excluding the bishops, introduced on the 21st of October. In the discussion on the Grand Remonstrance he took the part of the bishops and the Arminians. He was now opposed to the whole policy of the opposition, and, being reproached by Hampden with his change of attitude, replied “that he had formerly been persuaded by that worthy gentleman to believe many things which he had since found to be untrue, and therefore he had changed his opinion in many particulars as well as to things as to persons.”2

Falkland's love for intellectual pursuits was soon interrupted by war and politics. He felt it was his duty to volunteer on the king’s side alongside Essex in the 1639 campaign against the Scots. In 1640, he was elected to represent Newport in the Isle of Wight in both the Short and Long Parliaments, and he actively opposed the ruling party. He spoke out against the collection of ship money on December 7, 1640, condemning the subservient actions of Lord Keeper Finch and the judges.1 He supported the prosecution of Strafford but also tried several times to soften the Commons' measures in favor of justice, voting for the third reading of the attainder on April 21, 1641. On the significant issue of the church, he argued during the debate on February 8, 1641, that the clergy should not interfere in secular matters, that the spiritual courts should not overstep their jurisdiction, and that unnecessary ceremonies imposed by authority should be banned. However, although he denied that episcopacy existed jure divino, he opposed its abolition, fearing the establishment of a Presbyterian system that had proven just as oppressive in Scotland. He believed that triennial parliaments would be enough to keep the bishops in check if they planned any further invasions on national liberties, asserting that “where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” Even Hampden still thought a compromise with the episcopal principle was possible and assured Falkland that if the bill brought to the Lords on May 1, 1641, to exclude bishops from the Lords and clergy from secular positions were passed, “there would be nothing more attempted to the prejudice of the church.” Therefore, Falkland supported the bill. However, the circumstances were not conducive to compromise. The bill failed in the Lords, and on May 27, the Root and Branch Bill, proposing the complete abolition of episcopacy, was introduced in the House of Commons. Falkland opposed this measure, as well as the second bill for excluding bishops, introduced on October 21. During the discussion on the Grand Remonstrance, he defended the bishops and Arminians. He was now against the entire policy of the opposition and, when Hampden criticized him for changing his stance, he responded, “that he had formerly been persuaded by that worthy gentleman to believe many things which he had since found to be untrue, and therefore he had changed his opinion in many particulars as well as to things as to persons.”2

On the 1st of January 1642, immediately before the attempted arrest of the five members, of which, however, he was not cognizant, he was offered by the king the secretaryship of state, and was persuaded by Hyde to accept it, thus becoming involved directly in the king’s policy, though evidently possessing little influence in his counsels. He was one of the peers who signed the protestation against making war, at York on the 15th of June 1642. On the 5th of September he carried Charles’s overtures for peace to the parliament, when he informed the leaders of the opposition that the king consented to a thorough reformation of religion. The secret correspondence connected with the Waller plot passed through his hands. He was present with the king at Edgehill and at the siege of Gloucester. By this time the hopelessness of the situation had completely overwhelmed him. The aims and principles of neither party in the conflict could satisfy a man of Falkland’s high ideals and intellectual vision. His royalism could not suffer the substitution, as the controlling power in the state, of a parliament for the monarchy, nor his conservatism the revolutionary changes in church and state now insisted upon by the opposite faction. The fatal character and policy of the king, the most incapable of men and yet the man upon whom all depended, must have been by now thoroughly understood by Falkland. Compromise had long been out of the question. The victory of either side could only bring misery; and the prolongation of the war was a prospect equally unhappy. Nor could Falkland find any support or consolation in his own inward convictions or principles. His ideals and hopes were now destroyed, and he had no definite political convictions such as inspired and strengthened Stratford and Pym. In fact his sensitive nature shrank from contact with the practical politics of the day and prevented his rise to the place of a leader or a statesman. Clarendon has recorded his final relapse into despair. “Sitting amongst his friends, often, after a deep silence and frequent sighs (he) would with a shrill and sad accent ingeminate the word Peace, Peace, and would passionately profess that the very agony of the war, and the view of the calamities and desolation the kingdom did and must endure, took his sleep from him and would shortly break his heart.” At Gloucester he had in vain exposed himself to risks. On the morning of the battle of Newbury, on the 20th of September 1643, he declared to his friends, who would have dissuaded him from taking part in the fight, that “he was weary of the times and foresaw much misery to his own Country and did believe he should be out of it ere night.”3 He served during the engagement as a volunteer under Sir John Byron, and, riding alone at a gap in a hedge commanded by the enemy’s fire, was immediately killed.

On January 1, 1642, right before the attempted arrest of the five members, which he was unaware of, the king offered him the position of secretary of state. Hyde convinced him to accept it, pulling him directly into the king’s policies, even though he had little sway in decision-making. He was one of the peers who signed the protest against going to war at York on June 15, 1642. On September 5, he conveyed the king’s peace proposals to parliament, informing the opposition leaders that the king was open to a complete reformation of religion. The secret correspondence related to the Waller plot went through him. He was with the king at Edgehill and during the siege of Gloucester. By this point, the hopelessness of the situation had completely taken over him. The goals and ideals of neither side in the conflict could satisfy someone like Falkland, who had high ideals and strong intellectual vision. His royalism couldn't accept parliament taking the monarchy's place as the main governing force, nor could his conservatism accept the drastic changes in church and state that the opposing faction demanded. Falkland must have fully understood the king's fatal character and misguided policies, as he was the most incompetent man yet the one upon whom everything depended. Compromise had long been impossible. The victory of either side promised only misery, and the ongoing war seemed equally bleak. Falkland couldn't find any support or solace in his own beliefs or principles. His ideals and hopes were shattered, leaving him without clear political convictions like those that inspired and strengthened Stratford and Pym. In fact, his sensitive nature kept him from engaging with the practical politics of the day, preventing him from rising as a leader or statesman. Clarendon noted his final descent into despair: “Sitting among his friends, often after a long silence and frequent sighs, he would repeatedly say the word Peace, Peace, passionately expressing that the agony of the war and the sight of the calamities and devastation the kingdom was suffering and would continue to endure kept him from sleeping and were about to break his heart.” At Gloucester, he had risked his life in vain. On the morning of the Battle of Newbury, September 20, 1643, he told his friends, who tried to persuade him not to fight, that “he was tired of the times and foresaw much suffering for his country and believed he would be free of it by night.”3 He fought as a volunteer under Sir John Byron and, riding alone into an enemy’s line through a gap in a hedge, was promptly killed.

His death took place at the early age of 33, which should be borne in mind in every estimate of his career and character. He was succeeded in the title by his eldest son Lucius, 3rd Viscount Falkland, his male descent becoming extinct in the person of Anthony, 5th viscount, in 1694, when the viscounty passed to Lucius Henry (1687-1730), a descendant of the first viscount, and the present peer is his direct descendant.

His death occurred at the young age of 33, which should be considered in any assessment of his career and character. He was succeeded in the title by his eldest son Lucius, 3rd Viscount Falkland. His male lineage ended with Anthony, the 5th viscount, in 1694, when the viscounty transferred to Lucius Henry (1687-1730), a descendant of the first viscount, and the current peer is his direct descendant.

Falkland wrote a Discourse of Infallibility, published in 1646 (Thomason Tracts, E 361 [1]), reprinted in 1650, in 1651 (E 634 [1]) ed. by Triplet with replies, and in 1660 with the addition of two discourses on episcopacy by Falkland. This is a work of some importance in theological controversy, the general argument being that “to those who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures God will either give his grace for assistance to find the truth or his pardon if they miss it. And then this supposed necessity of an infallible guide (with the supposed damnation for the want of it) fall together to the ground.” Also A Letter ... 30 Sept. 1642 concerning the late conflict before Worcester (1642); and Poems, in which he shows himself a follower of Ben Jonson, edited by A.B. Grosart in Miscellanies of the Fuller Worthies Library, vol. iii. (1871).

Falkland wrote a Discourse of Infallibility, published in 1646 (Thomason Tracts, E 361 [1]), reprinted in 1650 and 1651 (E 634 [1]) edited by Triplet with responses, and in 1660 with the addition of two discourses on episcopacy by Falkland. This is a significant work in theological debates, with the main argument being that “to those who use their reason in interpreting the Scriptures, God will provide either his grace to help them find the truth or his forgiveness if they don’t. Therefore, the supposed need for an infallible guide (along with the supposed damnation for not having one) collapses together.” Also, A Letter ... 30 Sept. 1642 concerning the late conflict before Worcester (1642); and Poems, where he demonstrates his influence from Ben Jonson, edited by A.B. Grosart in Miscellanies of the Fuller Worthies Library, vol. iii. (1871).

The chief interest in Falkland does not lie in his writings or in the incidents of his career, but in his character and the distinction of his intellectual position, in his isolation from his contemporaries seeking reformation in the inward and spiritual life of the church and state and not in its outward and material form, and as the leader and chief of rationalism in an age dominated by violent intolerance and narrow dogmatism. His personal appearance, according to Clarendon, was insignificant, “in no degree attractive or promising. His stature was low and smaller than most men; his motion not graceful ... but that little person and small stature was quickly found to contain a great heart ... all mankind could not but admire and love him.”4

The main interest in Falkland isn't about his writings or the events of his life, but rather his character and the uniqueness of his intellectual standing. He was isolated from his peers who were focused on reforming the inner and spiritual aspects of the church and state rather than its external and material aspects, and he was the leader and pioneer of rationalism in a time marked by intense intolerance and narrow-minded beliefs. According to Clarendon, his appearance was unremarkable, "in no way attractive or promising." He was shorter and smaller than most men and didn’t move gracefully... but that small person and stature soon revealed a great heart... and everyone couldn’t help but admire and love him. 4

Authorities.—There is a Life and Times by J.A.R. Marriott (1907); see also S.R. Gardiner’s Hist, of England; Hist. of the Civil War; the same author’s article in the Dict. of Nat. Biography 151 and references there given; Clarendon’s Hist. of the Rebellion, passim and esp. vii. 217-234; Clarendon’s Life; Rational Theology ... in the 17th Century, by John Tulloch (1874), i. 76; Life of Lady Falkland from a MS. in the imperial library at Lille (1861); Life of the same by Lady Georgiana Fullerton (1883); Jonson’s Ode Pindaric to the memory and friendship of ... Sir Lucius Cary and Sir Henry Morrison; W.J. Courthope, History of English Poetry (1903), iii. 291; Life of Falkland, by W.H. Trale in the Englishman’s Library, vol. 22 (1842); D. Lloyd, Memoires (1668), 331; and the Life of Falkland, by Lady M.T. Lewis in Lives of the Friends ... of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, vol. i. p. 3. John Duncan’s account of Lettice, Lady Falkland, was edited in 1908 by M.F. Howard.

Officials.—There is a Life and Times by J.A.R. Marriott (1907); see also S.R. Gardiner’s Hist. of England; Hist. of the Civil War; the same author’s article in the Dict. of Nat. Biography 151 and references there given; Clarendon’s Hist. of the Rebellion, passim and esp. vii. 217-234; Clarendon’s Life; Rational Theology ... in the 17th Century, by John Tulloch (1874), i. 76; Life of Lady Falkland from a MS. in the imperial library at Lille (1861); Life of the same by Lady Georgiana Fullerton (1883); Jonson’s Ode Pindaric to the memory and friendship of ... Sir Lucius Cary and Sir Henry Morrison; W.J. Courthope, History of English Poetry (1903), iii. 291; Life of Falkland, by W.H. Trale in the Englishman’s Library, vol. 22 (1842); D. Lloyd, Memoires (1668), 331; and the Life of Falkland, by Lady M.T. Lewis in Lives of the Friends ... of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, vol. i. p. 3. John Duncan’s account of Lettice, Lady Falkland, was edited in 1908 by M.F. Howard.

(P. C. Y.)

1 His speeches are in the Thomason Tracts, E 196 (9), (26), (36).

1 His speeches are in the Thomason Tracts, E 196 (9), (26), (36).

2 Clarendon’s Hist. iv. 94, note.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Clarendon’s History vol. 4, p. 94, note.

3 Whitelocke, p. 73.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Whitelocke, p. 73.

4 Life, i. 37.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Life, p. 37.


FALKLAND, a royal and police burgh of Fifeshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 809. It is situated at the northern base of the hill of East Lomond (1471 ft. high), 2½ m. from Falkland Road station (with which there is communication by ’bus), on the North British railway company’s main line to Dundee, 21 m. N. of Edinburgh as the crow flies. It is an old-world-looking place, many of the ancient houses still standing. Its industries are chiefly concerned with the weaving of linen and the brewing of ale, for which it was once specially noted; and it has few public buildings save the town hall. The palace of the Stuarts, however—more beautiful than Holyrood and quite as romantic—lends the spot its fame and charm. The older edifice that occupied this site was a hunting-tower of the Macduffs, earls of Fife, and was transferred with the earldom in 1371 to Robert Stewart, earl of Fife and Menteith, afterwards duke of Albany, second son of Robert II. Because of his father’s long illness and the incapacity of Robert III., his brother Albany was during many years virtual ruler of Scotland, and, in the hope of securing the crown, caused the heir-apparent—David, duke of Rothesay—to be conveyed to the castle by force and there starved to death, in 1402. The conversion of the Thane’s tower into the existing palace was begun by James III. and completed in 1538. The western part had two round towers, similar to those at Holyrood, which were also built by James V., and the southern elevation was ornamented with niches and statues, giving it a close resemblance to the Perpendicular style of the semi-ecclesiastical architecture of England. The palace soon became the favourite summer residence of the Stuarts. From it James V. when a boy fled to Stirling by night from the custody of the earl of Angus, and in it he died in 1542.

Falkland a royal and police burgh of Fifeshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 809. It is located at the northern base of East Lomond hill (1471 ft. high), 2½ miles from Falkland Road station (which is accessible by bus), on the North British railway company’s main line to Dundee, 21 miles north of Edinburgh in a straight line. It has an old-world charm, with many ancient houses still standing. Its industries mainly focus on linen weaving and ale brewing, for which it was once particularly famous; it has few public buildings apart from the town hall. However, the palace of the Stuarts—more beautiful than Holyrood and just as romantic—gives the place its fame and appeal. The older structure that stood here was a hunting tower of the Macduff family, earls of Fife, which was transferred along with the earldom in 1371 to Robert Stewart, earl of Fife and Menteith, who later became duke of Albany, the second son of Robert II. Due to his father’s long illness and the incapacity of Robert III., his brother Albany effectively ruled Scotland for many years and, in a bid to secure the crown, forcibly brought the heir-apparent—David, duke of Rothesay—to the castle and starved him to death in 1402. The transformation of the Thane’s tower into the current palace was started by James III. and finished in 1538. The western section featured two round towers, similar to those at Holyrood, also built by James V., and the southern facade was decorated with niches and statues, resembling the Perpendicular style of semi-ecclesiastical architecture in England. The palace quickly became the preferred summer residence of the Stuarts. From there, James V., as a boy, secretly fled to Stirling at night from the custody of the earl of Angus, and he died there in 1542.

Here, too, Queen Mary spent some of her happiest days, playing the country girl in its parks and woods. When the court was held at Falkland the Green was the daily scene of revelry and dance, and “To be Falkland bred” was a proverb that then came into vogue to designate a courtier. James VI. delighted in the palace and especially in the deer. He upset the schemes of the Gowrie conspirators by escaping from Falkland to St Andrews, and it was while His Majesty was residing in the palace that the fifth earl of Bothwell, in 1592, attempted to kidnap him. In September 1596 an intensely dramatic interview took place in the palace between the king and Andrew Melville and other Presbyterian ministers sent by the general assembly at Cupar to remonstrate with him on allowing the Roman Catholic lords to return to Scotland. In 1654 the eastern wing was accidentally destroyed by fire, during its tenancy by the soldiers of Cromwell, by whose orders the fine old oaks in the park were cut down for the building of a fort at Perth. Even in its neglected state the mansion impressed Defoe, who declared the Scottish kings owned more palaces than their English brothers. In 1715 Rob Roy garrisoned the palace and failed not to levy dues on the burgh and neighbourhood. Signs of decay were more evident when Thomas Carlyle saw it, for he likened it to “a black old bit of coffin or protrusive shin-bone striking through the soil of the dead past.” But a munificent protector at length appeared in the person of the third marquess of Bute, who acquired the estate and buildings in 1888, and forthwith undertook the restoration of the palace.

Here, too, Queen Mary had some of her happiest days, enjoying life as a country girl in the parks and woods. When the court was held at Falkland, the Green was the daily spot for celebrations and dancing, and “To be Falkland bred” became a saying used to refer to a courtier. James VI. loved the palace, especially the deer. He foiled the plans of the Gowrie conspirators by escaping from Falkland to St Andrews, and it was while he was staying at the palace that the fifth earl of Bothwell attempted to kidnap him in 1592. In September 1596, a highly dramatic meeting occurred at the palace between the king and Andrew Melville along with other Presbyterian ministers who were sent by the general assembly in Cupar to confront him about allowing the Roman Catholic lords to return to Scotland. In 1654, the eastern wing was accidentally destroyed by fire while it was occupied by Cromwell's soldiers, who also ordered the cutting down of the beautiful old oaks in the park to build a fort in Perth. Even in its neglected condition, the mansion impressed Defoe, who noted that Scottish kings owned more palaces than their English counterparts. In 1715, Rob Roy took over the palace and collected dues from the burgh and surrounding areas. Signs of decline were even more apparent when Thomas Carlyle saw it, as he compared it to “a black old bit of coffin or protrusive shin-bone striking through the soil of the dead past.” But eventually, a generous benefactor appeared in the form of the third marquess of Bute, who bought the estate and buildings in 1888 and immediately began restoring the palace.

Falkland became a royal burgh in 1458 and its charter was renewed in 1595, and before the earlier date it had been a seat of the Templars. It gives the title of viscount to the English family of Cary, the patent having been granted in 1620 by James VI. The town’s most distinguished native was Richard Cameron, the Covenanter. His house—a three-storeyed structure with yellow harled front and thatched roof—still stands on the south side of the square in the main street. The Hackstons of Rathillet also had a house in Falkland.

Falkland became a royal burgh in 1458, and its charter was renewed in 1595. Before that, it had been home to the Templars. It grants the title of viscount to the English family of Cary, with the patent granted in 1620 by James VI. The town’s most notable native was Richard Cameron, the Covenanter. His house—a three-story building with a yellow harled front and a thatched roof—still stands on the south side of the square on the main street. The Hackstons of Rathillet also had a house in Falkland.


FALKLAND ISLANDS (Fr. Malouines; Span. Malvinas), a group of islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, belonging to Britain, and lying about 250 m. E. of the nearest point in the mainland of South America, between 51° and 53° S., and 57° 40′ and 61° 25′ W. With the uninhabited dependency of South Georgia Island, to the E.S.E., they form the most southerly colony of the British empire. The islands, inclusive of rocks and reefs, exceed 100 in number and have a total area of 6500 sq. m.; but only two are of considerable size; the largest of these, East Falkland, is 95 m. in extreme length, with an average width of 40 m., and the smaller, West Falkland, is 80 m. long and about 25 m. wide. The area of East Falkland is about 3000 sq. m., and that of West Falkland 2300. Most of the others are mere islets, the largest 16 m. long by 8 m. wide. The two principal islands are separated by Falkland Sound, a narrow strait from 18 to 2½ m. in width, running nearly N.E. and S.W. The general appearance of the islands is not unlike that of one of the outer Hebrides. The general colouring, a faded brown, is somewhat dreary, but the mountain heights and promontories of the west display some grandeur of outline. The coast-line of both main islands is deeply indented and many of the bays and inlets form secure and well-protected harbours, some of which, however, are difficult of access to sailing ships.

Falkland Islands (Fr. Malouines; Span. Malvinas), a group of islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, belong to Britain and are located about 250 miles east of the nearest point on the South American mainland, between 51° and 53° S., and 57° 40′ and 61° 25′ W. Along with the uninhabited dependency of South Georgia Island to the east-southeast, they form the southernmost colony of the British Empire. The islands, including rocks and reefs, number over 100 and cover a total area of 6,500 square miles; however, only two are significantly large. The largest, East Falkland, measures 95 miles in length and has an average width of 40 miles, while the smaller, West Falkland, is 80 miles long and about 25 miles wide. East Falkland covers about 3,000 square miles, and West Falkland spans 2,300 square miles. Most of the other islands are tiny islets, the largest measuring 16 miles long by 8 miles wide. The two main islands are separated by Falkland Sound, a narrow strait ranging from 18 to 2.5 miles wide, running nearly northeast to southwest. The general appearance of the islands resembles that of some of the outer Hebrides. The overall color, a faded brown, is somewhat bleak, but the mountain heights and cliffs in the west have a majestic outline. The coastlines of both main islands are deeply indented, and many bays and inlets create secure, well-protected harbors, although some of these are hard to reach for sailing ships.

East Falkland is almost bisected by two deep fjords, Choiseul and Brenton Sounds, which leave the northern and southern portions connected only by an isthmus a mile and a half wide. The northern portion is hilly, and is crossed by a rugged range, the Wickham Heights, running east and west, and rising in some places to a height of nearly 2000 ft. The remainder of the island consists chiefly of low undulating ground, a mixture of pasture and morass, with many shallow freshwater tarns, and small streams running in the valleys. Two fine inlets, Berkeley Sound and Port William, run far into the land at the north-eastern extremity of the island. Port Louis, formerly the seat of government, is at the head of Berkeley Sound, but the anchorage there having been found rather too exposed, about the year 1844 a town was laid out, and the necessary public buildings were erected on Stanley Harbour, a sheltered recess within Port William. West Falkland is more hilly near the east island; the principal mountain range, the Hornby Hills, runs north and south parallel with Falkland Sound. Mount Adam, the highest hill in the islands, is 2315 ft. high.

East Falkland is almost divided by two deep fjords, Choiseul and Brenton Sounds, which connect the northern and southern parts solely by a narrow isthmus that is a mile and a half wide. The northern part is hilly and features a rugged range, the Wickham Heights, stretching east to west and rising to nearly 2000 ft in some areas. The rest of the island mainly consists of low, rolling land, a mix of pasture and swamp, with numerous shallow freshwater ponds and small streams flowing through the valleys. Two beautiful inlets, Berkeley Sound and Port William, extend deep into the land at the northeastern tip of the island. Port Louis, which used to be the government seat, is located at the head of Berkeley Sound, but since the anchorage there was deemed too exposed, a town was established around 1844 and essential public buildings were constructed at Stanley Harbour, a sheltered bay within Port William. West Falkland is hillier near the east side of the island; the main mountain range, the Hornby Hills, runs north and south parallel to Falkland Sound. Mount Adam, the tallest hill in the islands, stands at 2315 ft high.

The little town of Stanley is built along the south shore of Stanley harbour and stretches a short way up the slope; it has a population of little more than 900. The houses, mostly white with coloured roofs, are generally built of wood and iron, and have glazed porches, gay with fuchsias and pelargoniums. Government House, grey, stone-built and slated, calls to mind a manse in Shetland or Orkney. The government barrack is a rather imposing structure in the middle of the town, as is the cathedral church to the east, built of stone and buttressed with brick. Next to Stanley the most important place on East Falkland is Darwin on Choiseul Sound—a village of Scottish shepherds and a station of the Falkland Island Company.

The small town of Stanley is located along the south shore of Stanley Harbour and extends a bit up the slope; it has a population of just over 900. The houses, mostly white with colorful roofs, are usually constructed from wood and iron, featuring glazed porches adorned with fuchsias and pelargoniums. Government House, grey, made of stone and with a slate roof, resembles a manse found in Shetland or Orkney. The government barracks is a notable building in the center of town, as is the cathedral church to the east, which is made of stone and supported with brick buttresses. Next to Stanley, the most significant place on East Falkland is Darwin on Choiseul Sound—a village of Scottish shepherds and a station for the Falkland Island Company.

The Falkland Islands consist entirely, so far as is known, of the older Palaeozoic rocks, Lower Devonian or Upper Silurian, slightly metamorphosed and a good deal crumpled and distorted, in the low grounds clay slate and soft sandstone, and on the ridges hardened sandstone passing into the conspicuous white quartzites. There do not seem to be any minerals of value, and the rocks are not such as to indicate any probability of their discovery. Galena is found in small quantity, and in some places it contains a large percentage of silver. The dark bituminous layers of clay slate, which occur intercalated among the quartzites, have led, here as elsewhere, to the hope of coming upon a seam of coal, but it is contrary to experience that coal of any value should be found in rocks of that age.

The Falkland Islands are made up entirely, as far as we know, of older Paleozoic rocks, either Lower Devonian or Upper Silurian. These rocks are slightly metamorphosed and significantly crumpled and distorted. In the low areas, there’s clay slate and soft sandstone, while on the ridges, there’s hardened sandstone that transitions into striking white quartzites. There don’t seem to be any valuable minerals, and the rocks don’t suggest any chance of discovering them. Galena is found in small amounts, and in some spots, it has a high silver content. The dark bituminous layers of clay slate, which are interspersed among the quartzites, have led to hopes of finding a coal seam, but experience shows that coal of any value is unlikely to be found in rocks of that age.

152

152

Many of the valleys in the Falklands are occupied by pale glistening masses which at a little distance much resemble small glaciers. Examined more closely these are found to be vast accumulations of blocks of quartzite, irregular in form, but having a tendency to a rude diamond shape, from 2 to 20 ft. in length, and half as much in width, and of a thickness corresponding with that of the quartzite ridges on the hills above. The blocks are angular, and rest irregularly one upon another, supported in all positions by the angles and edges of those beneath. The whole mass looks as if it were, as it is, slowly sliding down the valley to the sea. These “stone runs” are looked upon with great wonder by the shifting population of the Falklands, and they are shown to visitors with many strange speculations as to their mode of formation. Their origin is attributed by some to the moraine formation of former glaciers. Another out of many theories1 is that the hard beds of quartzite are denuded by the disintegration of the softer layers. Their support being removed they break away in the direction of natural joints, and the fragments fall down the slope upon the vegetable soil. This soil is spongy, and, undergoing alternate contraction and expansion from being alternately comparatively dry and saturated with moisture, allows the heavy blocks to slip down by their own weight into the valley, where they become piled up, the valley stream afterwards removing the soil from among and over them.

Many of the valleys in the Falklands are filled with pale, glimmering masses that, from a distance, look a lot like small glaciers. When you take a closer look, you’ll see they are actually huge piles of quartzite blocks, irregularly shaped but often resembling rough diamonds, ranging from 2 to 20 feet long and about half as wide, with a thickness similar to the quartzite ridges on the hills above. The blocks are angular and sit unevenly on top of one another, supported in various positions by the angles and edges of those below. The whole mass appears as if it is, as it is, slowly sliding down the valley toward the sea. These "stone runs" are viewed with great curiosity by the shifting population of the Falklands, and they are often shown to visitors with many strange theories about how they formed. Some people believe they originated from the moraine left by ancient glaciers. Another one of the many theories is that the hard quartzite layers erode due to the breakdown of the softer layers. When their support is removed, they break along natural joints and the fragments slide down the slope onto the vegetable soil. This soil is spongy and experiences cycles of drying and soaking up moisture, which allows the heavy blocks to slip down under their own weight into the valley, where they pile up, while the valley stream later washes the soil from around and over them.

The Falkland Islands correspond very nearly in latitude in the southern hemisphere with London in the northern, but the climatic influences are very different. The temperature is equable, the average of the two midsummer months being about 47° Fahr., and that of the two midwinter months 37° Fahr. The extreme frosts and heats of the English climate are unknown, but occasional heavy snow-falls occur, and the sea in shallow inlets is covered with a thin coating of ice. The sky is almost constantly overcast, and rain falls, mostly in a drizzle and in frequent showers, on about 250 days in the year. The rainfall is not great, only about 20 in., but the mean humidity for the year is 80, saturation being 100. November is considered the only dry month. The prevalent winds from the west, south-west and south blow continuously, at times approaching the force of a hurricane. “A region more exposed to storms both in summer and winter it would be difficult to mention” (Fitzroy, Voyages of “Adventure” and “Beagle,” ii. 228). The fragments of many wrecks emphasize the dangers of navigation, which are increased by the absence of beacons, the only lighthouse being that maintained by the Board of Trade on Cape Pembroke near the principal settlement. Kelp is a natural danger-signal, and the sunken rock, “Uranie,” is reputed to be the only one not buoyed by the giant seaweed.

The Falkland Islands are located at a similar latitude in the southern hemisphere as London is in the northern, but the climate is very different. The temperatures are mild, with an average of about 47°F during the two months of summer and 37°F during the two months of winter. The extreme cold and heat typical of the English climate don't occur here, but there are occasional heavy snowfalls, and shallow inlets might have a thin layer of ice on them. The sky is mostly overcast, and rain falls—mostly in light drizzles and frequent showers—on about 250 days each year. The total rainfall isn't very high, only about 20 inches, but the average humidity for the year is 80%, with saturation at 100%. November is seen as the only dry month. Prevailing winds come from the west, southwest, and south, blowing continuously and sometimes reaching hurricane force. “It would be hard to find a region more exposed to storms both in summer and winter” (Fitzroy, Voyages of “Adventure” and “Beagle,” ii. 228). The remains of many shipwrecks highlight the navigation dangers, which are worsened by the lack of beacons; the only lighthouse is maintained by the Board of Trade at Cape Pembroke near the main settlement. Kelp acts as a natural warning signal, and the underwater rock known as “Uranie” is said to be the only one not marked by the giant seaweed.

Of aboriginal human inhabitants there is no trace in the Falklands, and the land fauna is very scanty. A small wolf, the loup-renard of de Bougainville, is extinct, the last having been seen about 1875 on the West Falkland. Some herds of cattle and horses run wild; but these were, of course, introduced, as were also the wild hogs, the numerous rabbits and the less common hares. All these have greatly declined in numbers, being profitably replaced by sheep. Land-birds are few in kind, and are mostly strays from South America. They include, however, the snipe and military starling, which on account of its scarlet breast is locally known as the robin. Sea-birds are abundant, and, probably from the islands having been comparatively lately peopled, they are singularly tame. Gulls and amphibious birds abound in large variety; three kinds of penguin have their rookeries and breed here, migrating yearly for some months to the South American mainland. Stray specimens of the great king penguin have been observed, and there are also mollymauks (a kind of albatross), Cape pigeons and many carrion birds. Kelp and upland geese abound, the latter being edible; and their shooting affords some sport.

There are no signs of original human inhabitants in the Falklands, and the land animals are quite limited. A small wolf, the loup-renard mentioned by de Bougainville, is extinct, with the last one spotted around 1875 on West Falkland. Some herds of cattle and horses roam freely, but these were introduced, along with wild hogs, numerous rabbits, and less common hares. All of these have significantly decreased in number, as they have been largely replaced by sheep. There are few kinds of land birds, mostly strays from South America. However, they include the snipe and military starling, which is locally called the robin due to its scarlet breast. Sea birds are plentiful, and because the islands were populated relatively recently, they are unusually tame. Gulls and various amphibious birds are abundant; three types of penguin have their breeding grounds here, migrating annually to the South American mainland for a few months. Occasionally, stray individuals of the great king penguin have been seen, along with mollymauks (a kind of albatross), Cape pigeons, and many scavenger birds. Kelp and upland geese are plentiful, with the latter being edible, and hunting them provides some entertainment.

The Falkland Islands form essentially a part of Patagonia, with which they are connected by an elevated submarine plateau, and their flora is much the same as that of Antarctic South America. The trees which form dense forest and scrub in southern Patagonia and in Fuegia are absent, and one of the largest plants on the islands is a gigantic woolly ragweed (Senecio candicans) which attains in some places a height of 3 to 4 ft. A half-shrubby veronica (V. decussata) is found in some parts, and has also received cultivation. The greater part of the “camp” (the open country) is formed of peat, which in some places is of great age and depth, and at the bottom of the bed very dense and bituminous. The peat is different in character from that of northern Europe: cellular plants enter but little into its composition, and it is formed almost entirely of the roots and stems of Empetrum rubrum, a variety of the common crow-berry of the Scottish hills with red berries, called by the Falklanders the “diddle-dee” berry; of Myrtus nummularia, a little creeping myrtle whose leaves are used by the shepherds as a substitute for tea; of Caltha appendiculata, a dwarf species of marsh-marigold; and of some sedges and sedge-like plants, such as Astelia pumila, Gaimardia australis and Bostkovia grandiflora. Peat is largely used as fuel, coal being obtained only at a cost of £3 a ton.

The Falkland Islands are basically part of Patagonia, connected by an underwater plateau, and their vegetation is very similar to that of Antarctic South America. The trees that create dense forests and scrub in southern Patagonia and Fuegia are missing here, and one of the biggest plants on the islands is a giant woolly ragweed (Senecio candicans) that can grow to 3 to 4 feet tall in some areas. A half-shrubby veronica (V. decussata) can be found in certain spots and is also cultivated. Most of the “camp” (the open land) consists of peat, which in some areas is quite old and deep, with dense, bituminous layers at the bottom. The peat is different from that in northern Europe: it contains very few cellular plants and is mostly made up of the roots and stems of Empetrum rubrum, a type of common crowberry from the Scottish hills with red berries, called the “diddle-dee” berry by the Falklanders; Myrtus nummularia, a small creeping myrtle whose leaves are used by shepherds as a tea substitute; Caltha appendiculata, a dwarf marsh-marigold species; and some sedges and similar plants, such as Astelia pumila, Gaimardia australis, and Bostkovia grandiflora. Peat is commonly used as fuel, as coal costs about £3 a ton.

Two vegetable products, the “balsam bog” (Bolar glebaria) and the “tussock grass” (Dactylis caespitosa) have been objects of curiosity and interest ever since the first accounts of the islands were given. The first is a huge mass of a bright green colour, living to a great age, and when dead becoming of a grey and stony appearance. When cut open, it displays an infinity of tiny leaf-buds and stems, and at intervals there exudes from it an aromatic resin, which from its astringent properties is used by the shepherds as a vulnerary, but has not been converted to any commercial purpose. The “tussock grass” is a wonderful and most valuable natural production, which, owing to the introduction of stock, has become extinct in the two main islands, but still flourishes elsewhere in the group. It is a reed-like grass, which grows in dense tufts from 6 to 10 ft. high from stool-like root-crowns. It forms excellent fodder for cattle, and is regularly gathered for that purpose. It is of beautiful appearance, and the almost tropical profusion of its growth may have led to the early erroneous reports of the densely-wooded nature of these islands.

Two plant products, the “balsam bog” (Bolar glebaria) and the “tussock grass” (Dactylis caespitosa), have intrigued people ever since the first accounts of the islands were published. The first is a large mass that is bright green and can live for many years, but when it dies, it takes on a grey and rocky look. When sliced open, it reveals countless tiny leaf buds and stems, and at intervals, it oozes an aromatic resin. Because of its astringent properties, shepherds use it as a remedy for wounds, but it hasn’t been turned into a commercial product. The “tussock grass” is an amazing and highly valuable natural resource, which has gone extinct in the two main islands due to the introduction of livestock but continues to thrive in other parts of the archipelago. It’s a reed-like grass that grows in thick clumps, reaching heights of 6 to 10 feet from stumpy root crowns. It serves as excellent feed for cattle and is regularly harvested for that purpose. It looks beautiful, and the almost tropical abundance of its growth may have contributed to early misconceptions about the islands being heavily forested.

The population slightly exceeds 2000. The large majority of the inhabitants live in the East Island, and the predominating element is Scottish—Scottish shepherds having superseded the South American Gauchos. In 1867 there were no settlers on the west island, and the government issued a proclamation offering leases of grazing stations on very moderate terms. In 1868 all the available land was occupied. These lands are fairly healthy, the principal drawback being the virulent form assumed by simple epidemic maladies. The occupation of the inhabitants is almost entirely pastoral, and the principal industry is sheep-farming. Wool forms by far the largest export, and tallow, hides, bones and frozen mutton are also exported. Trade is carried on almost entirely with the United Kingdom; the approximate annual value of exports is £120,000, and of imports a little more than half that sum. The Falkland Islands Company, having its headquarters at Stanley and an important station in the camp at Darwin, carries on an extensive business in sheep-farming and the dependent industries, and in the general import trade. The development of this undertaking necessitated the establishment of stores and workshops at Stanley, and ships can be repaired and provided in every way; a matter of importance since not a few vessels, after suffering injury during heavy weather off Cape Horn, call on the Falklands in distress. The maintenance of the requisite plant and the high wages current render such repairs somewhat costly. A former trade in oil and sealskin has decayed, owing to the smaller number of whales and seals remaining about the islands. Communications are maintained on horseback and by water, and there are no roads except at Stanley. There is a monthly mail to and from England, the passage occupying about four weeks.

The population is just over 2000. Most people live on East Island, and the predominant group is Scottish—Scottish shepherds have replaced the South American Gauchos. In 1867, there were no settlers on the West Island, and the government announced a deal offering leases for grazing land at very reasonable rates. By 1868, all the available land was taken. These lands are fairly healthy, with the main drawback being the severe forms of common diseases. The main occupation of the residents is almost entirely pastoral, and the key industry is sheep farming. Wool is by far the largest export, and tallow, hides, bones, and frozen mutton are also shipped out. Trade is mostly with the United Kingdom; the estimated annual value of exports is £120,000, while imports are just over half that amount. The Falkland Islands Company, headquartered in Stanley and with a significant station in Darwin, engages in extensive sheep farming and related industries, as well as general import trade. Developing this operation led to the establishment of stores and workshops in Stanley, where ships can be repaired and serviced; this is significant since many vessels, after experiencing damage in rough weather off Cape Horn, come to the Falklands for help. Maintaining the necessary facilities and the high wages means such repairs can be quite expensive. A previous trade in oil and sealskin has declined due to the reduced numbers of whales and seals around the islands. Communication is mainly done on horseback and by water, with no roads except in Stanley. There is monthly mail service to and from England, which takes about four weeks to arrive.

The Falkland Islands are a crown colony, with a governor and executive and legislative councils. The legislative council 153 consists of the governor and three official and two unofficial nominated members, and the executive of the same, with the exception that there is only one unofficial member. The colony is self-supporting, the revenue being largely derived from the drink duties, and there is no public debt. The Falklands are the seat of a colonial bishop. Education is compulsory. The government maintains schools and travelling teachers; the Falkland Islands Company also maintains a school at Darwin, and there is one for those of the Roman Catholic faith in Stanley. There is also on Keppel Island a Protestant missionary settlement for the training in agriculture of imported Fuegians. Stanley was for some years a naval station, but ceased to be so in 1904.

The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, governed by a governor along with executive and legislative councils. The legislative council consists of the governor, three official members, and two unofficial nominated members. The executive council has the same members, but only one unofficial member. The colony is self-supporting, with most revenue coming from drink taxes, and it has no public debt. The Falklands have a colonial bishop. Education is mandatory, and the government provides schools and traveling teachers. The Falkland Islands Company also runs a school in Darwin, and there's one for Roman Catholic students in Stanley. Additionally, there's a Protestant missionary settlement on Keppel Island focused on training imported Fuegians in agriculture. Stanley was a naval station for several years but stopped being one in 1904.

The Falkland Islands were first seen, by Davis in the year 1592, and Sir Richard Hawkins sailed along their north shore in 1594. The claims of Amerigo Vespucci to a previous discovery are doubtful. In 1598 Sebald de Wert, a Dutchman, visited them, and called them the Sebald Islands, a name which they bear on some Dutch maps. Captain Strong sailed through between the two principal islands in 1690, landed upon one of them, and called the passage Falkland Sound, and from this the group afterwards took its English name. In 1764 the French explorer De Bougainville took possession of the islands on behalf of his country, and established a colony at Port Louis on Berkeley Sound. But in 1767 France ceded the islands to Spain, De Bougainville being employed as intermediary. Meanwhile in 1765 Commodore Byron had taken possession on the part of England on the ground of prior discovery, and had formed a settlement at Port Egmont on the small island of Saunders. The Spanish and English settlers remained in ignorance, real or assumed, of each other’s presence until 1769-1770, when Byron’s action was nearly the cause of a war between England and Spain, both countries having armed fleets to contest the barren sovereignty. In 1771, however, Spain yielded the islands to Great Britain by convention. As they had not been actually colonized by England, the republic of Buenos Aires claimed the group in 1820, and subsequently entered into a dispute with the United States of America concerning the rights to the products of these islands. On the representations of Great Britain the Buenos Aireans withdrew, and the British flag was once more hoisted at Port Louis in 1833, and since that time the Falkland Islands have been a regular British colony.

The Falkland Islands were first spotted by Davis in 1592, and Sir Richard Hawkins sailed along their northern coast in 1594. The claims made by Amerigo Vespucci about discovering them first are questionable. In 1598, a Dutchman named Sebald de Wert visited the islands and named them the Sebald Islands, a name that appears on some Dutch maps. Captain Strong passed between the two main islands in 1690, landed on one of them, and named the passage Falkland Sound, from which the group later got its English name. In 1764, French explorer De Bougainville took possession of the islands for France and established a colony at Port Louis on Berkeley Sound. However, in 1767, France ceded the islands to Spain, with De Bougainville acting as the intermediary. Meanwhile, in 1765, Commodore Byron claimed ownership for England based on prior discovery and set up a settlement at Port Egmont on the small island of Saunders. The Spanish and English settlers remained unaware, whether genuinely or not, of each other’s presence until 1769-1770, when Byron’s actions nearly sparked a war between England and Spain, with both countries dispatching armed fleets to challenge each other's claim. In 1771, Spain, however, relinquished the islands to Great Britain through a convention. Since they hadn't been officially colonized by England, the republic of Buenos Aires claimed the islands in 1820 and later disputed with the United States over rights to the islands' resources. Based on Great Britain's representations, the Buenos Aireans withdrew, and the British flag was raised again at Port Louis in 1833, after which the Falkland Islands became a regular British colony.

In 1845 Mr S. Lafone, a wealthy cattle and hide merchant on the river Plate, obtained from government a grant of the southern portion of the island, a peninsula 600,000 acres in extent, and possession of all the wild cattle on the island for a period of six years, for a payment of £10,000 down, and £20,000 in ten years from January 1, 1852. In 1851 Mr Lafone’s interest in Lafonia, as the peninsula came to be called, was purchased for £30,000 by the Falkland Islands Company, which had been incorporated by charter in the same year.

In 1845, Mr. S. Lafone, a wealthy cattle and hide trader on the River Plate, received a government grant for the southern part of the island, a peninsula covering 600,000 acres, along with all the wild cattle on the island for six years. He paid £10,000 upfront and agreed to pay another £20,000 ten years later, starting January 1, 1852. In 1851, the Falkland Islands Company, which had been chartered that same year, bought Mr. Lafone's interest in Lafonia, as the peninsula was called, for £30,000.

See Pernety, Journal historique d’une voyage faite aux îles Malouines en 1763 et 1764 (Berlin, 1767); S. Johnson, Thoughts on the late Transactions respecting Falkland’s Islands (1771); L.A. de Bougainville, Voyage autour du monde (1771); T. Falkner, Description of Patagonia and the Falkland Islands (1774); B. Penrose, Account of the last Expedition to Port Egmont in the Falkland Islands (1775); Observations on the Forcible Occupation of Malvinas by the British Government in 1833 (Buenos Ayres, 1833); Reclamacion del Gobierno de las provincias Unidas de la Plata contra el de S.M. Britanica sobre la soverania y possesion de las Islas Malvinas (London, 1841); Fitzroy, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. “Adventure” and “Beagle” (1839); Darwin, Voyage of a Naturalist round the World (1845); S.B. Sullivan, Description of the Falkland Islands (1849); W. Hadfield, Brazil, the Falkland Islands, &c. (1854); W. Parker Snow, Two Years’ Cruise off the Tierra del Fuego, the Falkland Islands, &c. (1857); Sir C. Wyville Thomson, Voyage of the “Challenger” (1877); C.P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. ii. “The West Indies” (Oxford, 1890); Colonial Reports Annual; MS. Sloane, 3295.

See Pernety, Journal historique d’une voyage faite aux îles Malouines en 1763 et 1764 (Berlin, 1767); S. Johnson, Thoughts on the late Transactions respecting Falkland’s Islands (1771); L.A. de Bougainville, Voyage autour du monde (1771); T. Falkner, Description of Patagonia and the Falkland Islands (1774); B. Penrose, Account of the last Expedition to Port Egmont in the Falkland Islands (1775); Observations on the Forcible Occupation of Malvinas by the British Government in 1833 (Buenos Ayres, 1833); Reclamacion del Gobierno de las provincias Unidas de la Plata contra el de S.M. Britanica sobre la soverania y possesion de las Islas Malvinas (London, 1841); Fitzroy, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. “Adventure” and “Beagle” (1839); Darwin, Voyage of a Naturalist round the World (1845); S.B. Sullivan, Description of the Falkland Islands (1849); W. Hadfield, Brazil, the Falkland Islands, &c. (1854); W. Parker Snow, Two Years’ Cruise off the Tierra del Fuego, the Falkland Islands, &c. (1857); Sir C. Wyville Thomson, Voyage of the “Challenger” (1877); C.P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. ii. “The West Indies” (Oxford, 1890); Colonial Reports Annual; MS. Sloane, 3295.


1 See B Stechele, in Münchener geographische Studien, xx.(1906), and Geographical Journal (December 1907).

1 See B Stechele, in Münchener geographische Studien, xx.(1906), and Geographical Journal (December 1907).


FALLACY (Lat. fall-ax, apt to mislead), the term given generally to any mistaken statement used in argument; in Logic, technically, an argument which violates the laws of correct demonstration. An argument may be fallacious in matter (i.e. misstatement of facts), in wording (i.e. wrong use of words), or in the process of inference. Fallacies have, therefore, been classified as: I. Material, II. Verbal, III. Logical Of Formal; II. and III. are often included under the general description Logical, and in scholastic phraseology, following Aristotle, are called fallacies in dictione or in voce, as opposed to material fallacies in re or extra dictionem.

FALLACY (Lat. fall-ax, likely to mislead), this term refers generally to any mistaken statement used in an argument. In logic, it specifically describes an argument that breaks the rules of proper demonstration. An argument can be fallacious in matter (i.e. misrepresentation of facts), in wording (i.e. incorrect use of words), or in the process of inference. Therefore, fallacies have been categorized as: I. Material, II. Verbal, III. Logical Of Formal; II. and III. are often grouped together under the broader term Logical, and in scholastic terminology, following Aristotle, are referred to as fallacies in dictione or in voce, as opposed to material fallacies in re or extra dictionem.

I. Material.—The classification widely adopted by modern logicians and based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows:—(1) Fallacy of Accident, i.e. arguing erroneously from a general rule to a particular case, without proper regard to particular conditions which vitiate the application of the general rule; e.g. if manhood suffrage be the law, arguing that a criminal or a lunatic must, therefore, have a vote; (2) Converse Fallacy of Accident, i.e. arguing from a special case to a general rule; (3) Irrelevant Conclusion, or Ignoratio Elenchi, wherein, instead of proving the fact in dispute, the arguer seeks to gain his point by diverting attention to some extraneous fact (as in the legal story of “No case. Abuse the plaintiff’s attorney”). Under this head come the so-called argumentum (a) ad hominem, (b) ad populum, (c) ad baculum, (d) ad verecundiam, common in platform oratory, in which the speaker obscures the real issue by appealing to his audience on the grounds of (a) purely personal considerations, (b) popular sentiment, (c) fear, (d) conventional propriety. This fallacy has been illustrated by ethical or theological arguments wherein the fear of punishment is subtly substituted for abstract right as the sanction of moral obligation. (4) Petitio principii (begging the question) or Circulus in probando (arguing in a circle), which consists in demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion. Jeremy Bentham points out that this fallacy may lurk in a single word, especially in an epithet, e.g. if a measure were condemned simply on the ground that it is alleged to be “un-English”; (5) Fallacy of the Consequent, really a species of (3), wherein a conclusion is drawn from premises which do not really support it; (6) Fallacy of False Cause, or Non Sequitur (“it does not follow”), wherein one thing is incorrectly assumed as the cause of another, as when the ancients attributed a public calamity to a meteorological phenomenon; (7) Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum), wherein several questions are improperly grouped in the form of one, and a direct categorical answer is demanded, e.g. if a prosecuting counsel asked the prisoner “What time was it when you met this man?” with the intention of eliciting the tacit admission that such a meeting had taken place.

I. Material.—The classification commonly used by modern logicians, based on Aristotle's work, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows:—(1) Fallacy of Accident, meaning arguing incorrectly from a general rule to a specific case, without considering particular conditions that affect the application of the general rule; e.g. if universal manhood suffrage is the law, arguing that a criminal or a person with mental illness must therefore have a vote; (2) Converse Fallacy of Accident, meaning arguing from a specific case to a general rule; (3) Irrelevant Conclusion, or Ignoratio Elenchi, where, instead of proving the fact under debate, the arguer tries to win their point by diverting attention to some unrelated fact (as in the legal saying, “No case. Abuse the plaintiff’s attorney”). Under this category are the so-called arguments (a) ad hominem, (b) ad populum, (c) ad baculum, (d) ad verecundiam, which are common in public speaking, where the speaker obscures the main issue by appealing to the audience based on (a) purely personal reasons, (b) popular opinion, (c) fear, (d) social norms. This fallacy is illustrated by ethical or theological arguments where the fear of punishment is subtly used as a substitute for abstract principles of right as the basis for moral obligation. (4) Petitio principii (begging the question) or Circulus in probando (arguing in a circle), which involves demonstrating a conclusion using premises that assume that conclusion. Jeremy Bentham notes that this fallacy can be hidden in a single word, especially in an epithet, e.g. if a measure is condemned solely because it is said to be “un-English”; (5) Fallacy of the Consequent, essentially a type of (3), where a conclusion is drawn from premises that don’t actually support it; (6) Fallacy of False Cause, or Non Sequitur (“it does not follow”), where one event is wrongly assumed to be the cause of another, similar to when the ancients blamed a public disaster on a weather event; (7) Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum), where multiple questions are wrongly combined into one, and a straightforward yes or no answer is demanded, e.g. if a prosecuting attorney asked the defendant, “What time was it when you met this man?” intending to imply an admission that such a meeting actually occurred.

II. Verbal Fallacies are those in which a false conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows. (1) Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms (“All fair things are honourable; This woman is fair; therefore this woman is honourable,” the second “fair” being in reference to complexion). (2) Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure, e.g. of the position of the adverb “only” in careless writers (“He only said that,” in which sentence, as experience shows, the adverb has been intended to qualify any one of the other three words). (3) Composition, a species of (1), which results from the confused use of collective terms (“The angles of a triangle are less than two right angles” might refer to the angles separately or added together). (4) Division, the converse of the preceding, which consists in employing the middle term distributively in the minor and collectively in the major premise. (5) Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence (“He is a fairly good pianist,” according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner’s progress, or an expert’s depreciation of a popular hero, or it may imply that the person in question is a deplorable violinist). (6) Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.

II. Verbal Fallacies are cases where a false conclusion comes from using words incorrectly or ambiguously. They can generally be categorized as follows. (1) Equivocation involves using the same word with different meanings, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term is used in one sense in the major premise and another in the minor, resulting in four terms instead of three (“All fair things are honorable; This woman is fair; therefore this woman is honorable,” where the second “fair” refers to appearance). (2) Amphibology arises from ambiguous grammatical structure, e.g. the placement of the adverb “only” in careless writing (“He only said that,” in which the adverb could have been meant to modify any one of the other three words). (3) Composition, a type of (1), results from the confused use of collective terms (“The angles of a triangle are less than two right angles” may refer to the angles individually or when added together). (4) Division, the opposite of the previous one, involves using the middle term distributively in the minor premise and collectively in the major premise. (5) Accent occurs only in spoken language and involves emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence (“He is a fairly good pianist,” depending on which word is emphasized, could suggest praise of a beginner’s skill, a criticism from an expert about a popular figure, or imply that the person is a terrible violinist). (6) Figure of Speech refers to the confusion between the metaphorical and literal meanings of a word or phrase.

III. The purely Logical or Formal fallacies consist in the violation of the formal rules of the Syllogism (q.v.). They are 154 (a) fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio terminorum); (b) of Undistributed Middle; (c) of Illicit process of the major or the minor term; (d) of Negative Premises.

III. The purely Logical or Formal fallacies happen when the formal rules of the Syllogism (q.v.) are broken. They are 154 (a) fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio terminorum); (b) of Undistributed Middle; (c) of Illicit process of the major or the minor term; (d) of Negative Premises.

Of other classifications of Fallacies in general the most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J.S. Mill. Bacon (Novum organum, Aph. i. 33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone (see Bacon, Francis). With these should be compared the Offendicula of Roger Bacon, contained in the Opus maius, pt. i. (see Bacon, Roger). J.S. Mill discussed the subject in book v. of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham’s Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks.

Of the various classifications of fallacies, the most well-known are those by Francis Bacon and J.S. Mill. Bacon (Novum organum, Aph. i. 33, 38 sqq.) categorized fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which highlight the different types of errors the human mind is susceptible to (see Bacon, Francis). This should be compared to the Offendicula by Roger Bacon, found in the Opus maius, pt. i. (see Bacon, Roger). J.S. Mill addressed the topic in book v. of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham’s Book of Fallacies (1824) offers valuable insights.

See Rd. Whateley’s Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847); A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other text-books. See also article Logic, and for fallacies of Induction, see Induction.

See Rd. Whateley’s Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847); A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883), and other textbooks. Also, check the article Logic, and for fallacies of Induction, see Induction.


FALLIÈRES, CLÉMENT ARMAND (1841-  ), president of the French republic, was born at Mézin in the department of Lot-et-Garonne, where his father was clerk of the peace. He studied law and became an advocate at Nérac, beginning his public career there as municipal councillor (1868), afterwards mayor (1871), and as councillor-general of the department of Lot-et-Garonne (1871). Being an ardent Republican, he lost this position in May 1873 upon the fall of Thiers, but in February 1876 was elected deputy for Nérac. In the chamber he sat with the Republican Left, signed the protestation of the 18th of May 1877, and was re-elected in October by his constituency. In 1880 he became under-secretary of state in the department of the interior in the Jules Ferry ministry (May 1880 to November 1881). From the 7th of August 1882 to the 20th of February 1883 he was minister of the interior, and for a month (from the 29th of January 1883) was premier. His ministry had to face the question of the expulsion of the pretenders to the throne of France, owing to the proclamation by Prince Jérome Napoleon (January 1883), and M. Fallières, who was ill at the time, was not able to face the storm of opposition, and resigned when the senate rejected his project. In the following November, however, he was chosen as minister of public instruction by Jules Ferry, and carried out various reforms in the school system. He resigned with the ministry in March 1885. Again becoming minister of the interior in the Rouvier cabinet in May 1887, he exchanged his portfolio in December for that of justice. He returned to the ministry of the interior in February 1889, and finally took the department of justice from March 1890 to February 1892. In June 1890 his department (Lot-et-Garonne) elected him to the senate by 417 votes to 23. There M. Fallières remained somewhat apart from party struggles, although maintaining his influence among the Republicans. In March 1899 he was elected president of the senate, and retained that position until January 1906, when he was chosen by a union of the groups of the Left in both chambers as candidate for the presidency of the republic. He was elected on the first ballot by 449 votes against 371 for his opponent, Paul Doumer.

FALLIÈRES, CLÉMENT ARMAND (1841-  ), president of the French republic, was born in Mézin in the Lot-et-Garonne department, where his father worked as a clerk of the peace. He studied law and became a lawyer in Nérac, starting his public career there as a municipal councilor (1868), later becoming mayor (1871), and then a general councilor for the Lot-et-Garonne department (1871). A passionate Republican, he lost his position in May 1873 when Thiers was overthrown, but he was elected as a deputy for Nérac in February 1876. In the chamber, he aligned with the Republican Left, signed the protest against the events of May 18, 1877, and was re-elected in October by his constituents. In 1880, he became under-secretary of state in the Ministry of the Interior under Jules Ferry (May 1880 to November 1881). From August 7, 1882, to February 20, 1883, he served as Minister of the Interior, and for one month (starting January 29, 1883), he was Prime Minister. His administration confronted the issue of expelling the pretenders to the French throne following Prince Jérome Napoleon's proclamation (January 1883), and M. Fallières, who was unwell at the time, couldn't handle the backlash and resigned after the Senate rejected his proposal. However, in the following November, he was appointed Minister of Public Instruction by Jules Ferry, and implemented several reforms in the education system. He resigned with the cabinet in March 1885. He became Minister of the Interior again in the Rouvier government in May 1887, and in December, he swapped his role for that of Minister of Justice. He returned to the Ministry of the Interior in February 1889, and finally held the Justice portfolio from March 1890 to February 1892. In June 1890, his department (Lot-et-Garonne) elected him to the Senate with 417 votes against 23. There, M. Fallières distanced himself somewhat from party conflicts while still maintaining his influence among the Republicans. In March 1899, he was elected president of the Senate, holding that position until January 1906, when he was nominated by a coalition of leftist groups from both chambers for the presidency of the republic. He was elected on the first ballot with 449 votes against 371 for his opponent, Paul Doumer.


FALL-LINE, in American geology, a line marking the junction between the hard rocks of the Appalachian Mountains and the softer deposits of the coastal plain. The pre-Cambrian and metamorphic rocks of the mountain mass form a continuous ledge parallel to the east coast, where they are subject to denudation and form a series of “falls” and rapids in the river courses all along this line. The relief of the land below the falls is very slight, and this low country rarely rises to a height of 200 ft., so that the rivers are navigable up to the falls, while the falls themselves are a valuable source of power. A line of cities may be traced upon the map whose position will thus be readily understood in relation to the economic importance of the fall-line. They are Trenton on the Delaware, Philadelphia on the Schuylkill, Georgetown on the Potomac, Richmond on the James, and Augusta on the Savannah. It will be readily understood that the softer and more recent rocks of the coastal plain have been more easily washed away, while the harder rocks of the mountains, owing to differential denudation, are left standing high above them, and that the trend of the edge of this great lenticular mass of ancient rock is roughly parallel to that of the Appalachian system.

FALL-LINE, in American geology, is a line that marks the boundary between the tough rock formations of the Appalachian Mountains and the softer deposits found in the coastal plain. The pre-Cambrian and metamorphic rocks of the mountain range create a continuous ledge that runs parallel to the east coast, where they undergo erosion and create a series of “falls” and rapids along the river courses all along this line. The land below the falls is mostly flat, rarely exceeding 200 feet in elevation, which allows rivers to be navigable up to the falls, while the falls themselves provide a significant source of power. A line of cities can be seen on the map that highlights their positions in relation to the economic significance of the fall-line. These cities include Trenton on the Delaware, Philadelphia on the Schuylkill, Georgetown on the Potomac, Richmond on the James, and Augusta on the Savannah. It's clear that the softer and younger rocks of the coastal plain have eroded more easily, while the tougher rocks of the mountains remain standing high above them due to uneven erosion, and the edge of this large, lens-shaped mass of ancient rock aligns roughly parallel to the Appalachian system.


FALLMERAYER, JAKOB PHILIPP (1790-1861), German traveller and historical investigator, best known for his opinions in regard to the ethnology of the modern Greeks, was born, the son of a poor peasant, at Tschötsch, near Brixen in Tirol, on the 10th of December 1790. In 1809 he absconded from the cathedral choir school at Brixen and made his way to Salzburg, where he supported himself by private teaching while he studied theology, the Semitic languages, and history. After a year’s study he sought to assure to himself the peace and quiet necessary for a student’s life by entering the abbey of Kremsmünster, but difficulties put in his way by the Bavarian officials prevented the accomplishment of this intention. At the university of Landshut, to which he removed in 1812, he first applied himself to jurisprudence, but soon devoted his attention exclusively to history and philology. His immediate necessities were provided for by a rich patron. During the Napoleonic wars he joined the Bavarian infantry as a subaltern in 1813, fought at Hanau (30th October 1813), and served throughout the campaign in France. He remained in the army of occupation on the banks of the Rhine until Waterloo, when he spent six months at Orleans as adjutant to General von Spreti. Two years of garrison life at Lindau on Lake Constance after the peace were spent in the study of modern Greek, Persian and Turkish.

FALLMERAYER, JAKOB PHILIPP (1790-1861), a German traveler and historian, is best known for his views on the ethnology of modern Greeks. He was born on December 10, 1790, to a poor peasant family in Tschötsch, near Brixen in Tirol. In 1809, he ran away from the cathedral choir school in Brixen and made his way to Salzburg, where he supported himself by teaching privately while studying theology, Semitic languages, and history. After a year of study, he hoped to find the peace and quiet necessary for student life by entering the abbey of Kremsmünster, but faced obstacles from Bavarian officials that prevented him from doing so. He then transferred to the University of Landshut in 1812, where he initially focused on law but soon dedicated himself entirely to history and philology. A wealthy patron helped cover his immediate expenses. During the Napoleonic Wars, he joined the Bavarian infantry as an officer in 1813, fought at Hanau on October 30, 1813, and served throughout the campaign in France. He stayed in the occupation army along the Rhine until Waterloo and spent six months in Orleans as an adjutant to General von Spreti. After the peace, he spent two years in garrison life at Lindau on Lake Constance studying modern Greek, Persian, and Turkish.

Resigning his commission in 1818, he was successively engaged as teacher in the gymnasium at Augsburg and in the progymnasium and lyceum at Landshut. In 1827 he won the gold medal offered by the university of Copenhagen with his Geschichte des Kaisertums von Trapezunt, based on patient investigation of Greek and oriental MSS. at Venice and Vienna. The strictures on priestcraft contained in the preface to this book gave offence to the authorities, and his position was not improved by the liberal views expressed in his Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 1830-1836, 2 pts.). The three years from 1831 to 1834 he spent in travel with the Russian count Ostermann Tolstoy, visiting Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Rhodes, Constantinople, Greece and Naples. On his return he was elected in 1835 a member of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, but he soon after left the country again on account of political troubles, and spent the greater part of the next four years in travel, spending the winter of 1839-1840 with Count Tolstoy at Geneva. Constantinople, Trebizond, Athos, Macedonia, Thessaly and Greece were visited by him during 1840-1841; and after some years’ residence in Munich he returned in 1847 to the East, and travelled in Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor. The authorities continued to regard him with suspicion, and university students were forbidden to attend the lectures he delivered at Munich. He entered, however, into friendly relations with the crown prince Maximilian, but this intimacy was destroyed by the events following on 1848. At that period he was appointed professor of history in the Munich University, and made a member of the national congress at Frankfort-on-Main. He there joined the left or opposition party, and in the following year he accompanied the rump-parliament to Stuttgart, a course of action which led to his expulsion from his professorate. During the winter of 1849-1850 he was an exile in Switzerland, but the amnesty of April 1850 enabled him to return to Munich. He died on the 26th of April 1861.

Resigning his commission in 1818, he was later employed as a teacher at the gymnasium in Augsburg and at the progymnasium and lyceum in Landshut. In 1827, he won the gold medal from the University of Copenhagen for his Geschichte des Kaisertums von Trapezunt, which was based on thorough research of Greek and Eastern manuscripts in Venice and Vienna. The criticisms of priestcraft in the book's preface offended the authorities, and his situation wasn’t helped by the progressive views expressed in his Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 1830-1836, 2 pts.). From 1831 to 1834, he traveled with Russian Count Ostermann Tolstoy, visiting Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Rhodes, Constantinople, Greece, and Naples. Upon his return in 1835, he was elected a member of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, but he soon left the country again due to political issues and spent most of the next four years traveling, spending the winter of 1839-1840 with Count Tolstoy in Geneva. He visited Constantinople, Trebizond, Athos, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Greece between 1840 and 1841; after a few years in Munich, he returned to the East in 1847 and traveled through Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The authorities continued to view him with suspicion, and university students were banned from attending his lectures in Munich. However, he developed a friendship with Crown Prince Maximilian, but this relationship was strained by the events following 1848. During that time, he was appointed professor of history at Munich University and became a member of the national congress in Frankfurt. There, he joined the left or opposition party, and the following year, he accompanied the rump parliament to Stuttgart, which resulted in his removal from his professorship. During the winter of 1849-1850, he was an exile in Switzerland, but the amnesty in April 1850 allowed him to return to Munich. He passed away on April 26, 1861.

His contributions to the medieval history of Greece are of great value, and though his theory that the Greeks of the present day are of Albanian and Slav descent, with hardly a drop of true Greek blood in their veins, has not been accepted in its entirety by other investigators, it has served to modify the opinions of even his greatest opponents. A criticism of his views will be found in Hopf’s Geschichte Griechenlands (reprinted from Ersch and Gruber’s Encykl.) and in Finlay’s History of Greece in the Middle Ages. Another theory which he propounded and defended with great vigour was that the capture of Constantinople by Russia was inevitable, and would lead to the absorption by the Russian empire of the whole of the Balkan and Grecian 155 peninsula; and that this extended empire would constitute a standing menace to the western Germanic nations. These views he expressed in a series of brilliant articles in German journals. His most important contribution to learning remains his history of the empire of Trebizond. Prior to his discovery of the chronicle of Michael Panaretos, covering the dominion of Alexus Comnenus and his successors from 1204 to 1426, the history of this medieval empire was practically unknown.

His contributions to the medieval history of Greece are highly valuable. Although his theory suggesting that modern Greeks are primarily of Albanian and Slavic descent, with little true Greek blood, hasn’t been fully accepted by other researchers, it has influenced even his biggest critics. A critique of his views can be found in Hopf’s Geschichte Griechenlands (reprinted from Ersch and Gruber’s Encykl.) and in Finlay’s History of Greece in the Middle Ages. Another theory he vigorously defended was that Russia’s capture of Constantinople was inevitable and would result in the Russian empire absorbing the entire Balkan and Greek peninsula. He argued that this expanded empire would pose a constant threat to the western Germanic nations. He shared these ideas in a series of insightful articles in German journals. His most significant contribution to scholarship remains his history of the empire of Trebizond. Before he discovered the chronicle of Michael Panaretos, which detailed the rule of Alexus Comnenus and his successors from 1204 to 1426, the history of this medieval empire was largely unknown.

His works are—Geschichte des Kaiserthums Trapezunt (Munich, 1827-1848); Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1830-1836); Über die Entstehung der Neugriechen (Stuttgart, 1835); “Originalfragmente, Chroniken, u.s.w., zur Geschichte des K. Trapezunts” (Munich, 1843), in Abhandl. der hist. Classe der K. Bayerisch. Akad. v. Wiss.; Fragmente aus dem Orient (Stuttgart, 1845); Denkschrift über Golgotha und das heilige Grab (Munich, 1852), and Das Todte Meer (1853)—both of which had appeared in the Abhandlungen of the Academy; Das albanesische Element in Griechenland, iii. parts, in the Abhandl. for 1860-1866. After his death there appeared at Leipzig in 1861, under the editorship of G.M. Thomas, three volumes of Gesammelte Werke, containing Neue Fragmente aus dem Orient, Kritische Versuche, and Studien und Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben. A sketch of his life will also be found in L. Steub, Herbsttage in Tyrol (Munich, 1867).

His works include—Geschichte des Kaiserthums Trapezunt (Munich, 1827-1848); Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1830-1836); Über die Entstehung der Neugriechen (Stuttgart, 1835); “Originalfragmente, Chroniken, u.s.w., zur Geschichte des K. Trapezunts” (Munich, 1843), in Abhandl. der hist. Classe der K. Bayerisch. Akad. v. Wiss.; Fragmente aus dem Orient (Stuttgart, 1845); Denkschrift über Golgotha und das heilige Grab (Munich, 1852), and Das Todte Meer (1853)—both of which were published in the Abhandlungen of the Academy; Das albanesische Element in Griechenland, iii. parts, in the Abhandl. for 1860-1866. After his death, three volumes of Gesammelte Werke, edited by G.M. Thomas, were published in Leipzig in 1861, containing Neue Fragmente aus dem Orient, Kritische Versuche, and Studien und Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben. A sketch of his life can also be found in L. Steub, Herbsttage in Tyrol (Munich, 1867).


FALLOPIUS (or Fallopio), GABRIELLO (1523-1562), Italian anatomist, was born about 1523 at Modena, where he became a canon of the cathedral. He studied medicine at Ferrara, and, after a European tour, became teacher of anatomy in that city. He thence removed to Pisa, and from Pisa, at the instance of Cosmo I., grand-duke of Tuscany, to Padua, where, besides the chairs of anatomy and surgery and of botany, he held the office of superintendent of the new botanical garden. He died at Padua on the 9th of October 1562. Only one treatise by Fallopius appeared during his lifetime, namely the Observationes anatomicae (Venice, 1561). His collected works, Opera genuina omnia, were published at Venice in 1584. (See Anatomy.)

FALLOPIUS (or Fallopian), GABRIELLO (1523-1562), an Italian anatomist, was born around 1523 in Modena, where he became a canon of the cathedral. He studied medicine at Ferrara and, after traveling across Europe, became a teacher of anatomy in that city. He then moved to Pisa, and from Pisa, at the request of Cosmo I., Grand Duke of Tuscany, to Padua, where, in addition to teaching anatomy, surgery, and botany, he served as the superintendent of the new botanical garden. He died in Padua on October 9, 1562. Only one of Fallopius's works was published during his lifetime, which was the Observationes anatomicae (Venice, 1561). His collected works, Opera genuina omnia, were published in Venice in 1584. (See Anatomy.)


FALLOUX, FRÉDÉRIC ALFRED PIERRE, Comte de (1811-1886), French politician and author, was born at Angers on the 11th of May 1811. His father had been ennobled by Charles X., and Falloux began his career as a Legitimist and clerical journalist under the influence of Mme Swetchine. In 1846 he entered the legislature as deputy for Maine-et-Loire, and with many other ultra-Catholics he gave real or pretended support to the revolution of 1848. Louis Napoleon made him minister of education in 1849, but disagreements with the president led to his resignation within a year. He had nevertheless secured the passage of the Loi Falloux (March 15, 1850) for the organization of primary and secondary education. This law provided that the clergy and members of ecclesiastical orders, male and female, might exercise the profession of teaching without producing any further qualification. This exemption was extended even to priests who taught in secondary schools, where a university degree was exacted from lay teachers. The primary schools were put under the management of the curés. Falloux was elected to the French Academy in 1856. His failure to secure re-election to the legislature in 1866, 1869, 1870 and 1871 was due to the opposition of the stricter Legitimists, who viewed with suspicion his attempts to reconcile the Orleans princes with Henri, comte de Chambord. In spite of his failure to enter the National Assembly his influence was very great, and was increased by the intimacy of his personal relations with Thiers. But in 1872 he offended both sections of the monarchical party at a conference arranged in the hope of effecting a fusion between the partisans of the comte de Chambord and of the Orleans princes, divided on the vexed question of the flag. He suggested that the comte de Chambord might recede from his position with dignity at the desire of the National Assembly, and not content with this encroachment on royalist principles, he insinuated the possibility of a transitional stage with the duc d’Aumale as president of the republic. His disgrace was so complete that he was excommunicated by the bishop of Angers in 1876. He died on the 16th of January 1886.

FALLOUX, FREDERIC ALFRED PIERRE, Count of (1811-1886), French politician and author, was born in Angers on May 11, 1811. His father was given noble status by Charles X., and Falloux began his career as a Legitimist and clerical journalist influenced by Mme Swetchine. In 1846, he entered the legislature as a deputy for Maine-et-Loire, and along with many other ultra-Catholics, he either genuinely or feigned support for the revolution of 1848. Louis Napoleon appointed him as the minister of education in 1849, but disagreements with the president led to his resignation within a year. He successfully passed the Loi Falloux (March 15, 1850) for organizing primary and secondary education. This law allowed clergy and members of religious orders, both male and female, to teach without needing further qualifications. This exemption even included priests teaching in secondary schools, where non-clerical teachers were required to have a university degree. Primary schools were managed by the curés. Falloux was elected to the French Academy in 1856. His failure to get re-elected to the legislature in 1866, 1869, 1870, and 1871 was due to the opposition from stricter Legitimists, who viewed his attempts to reconcile the Orleans princes with Henri, comte de Chambord, with skepticism. Despite not entering the National Assembly, his influence remained significant, boosted by his close personal relations with Thiers. However, in 1872 he upset both factions of the monarchical party at a conference aimed at merging the supporters of comte de Chambord and the Orleans princes, who were divided over the contentious flag issue. He suggested that comte de Chambord could gracefully step back from his stance at the request of the National Assembly, and went further to hint at a transitional phase with the duc d’Aumale as president of the republic. His disgrace was so severe that he was excommunicated by the bishop of Angers in 1876. He died on January 16, 1886.

Of his numerous works the best known are his Histoire de Louis XVI (1840); Histoire de Saint Pie (1845); De la contre-revolution (1876); and the posthumous Mémoires d’un royaliste (2 vols., 1888).

Of his many works, the most famous are his Histoire de Louis XVI (1840); Histoire de Saint Pie (1845); De la contre-revolution (1876); and the posthumous Mémoires d’un royaliste (2 vols., 1888).


FALLOW, land ploughed and tilled, but left unsown, usually for a year, in order, on the one hand, to disintegrate, aërate and free it from weeds, and, on the other, to allow it to recuperate. The word was probably early confused with “fallow” (from O. Eng. fealu, probably cognate with Gr. πολιός, grey), of a pale-brown or yellow colour, often applied to soil left unfilled and unsown, but chiefly seen in the name of the “fallow deer.” The true derivation is from the O. Eng. fealga, only found in the plural, a harrow, and the ultimate origin is a Teutonic root meaning “to plough,” cf. the German falgen. The recognition that continuous growing of wheat on the same area of land robs the soil of its fertility was universal among ancient peoples, and the practice of “fallowing” or resting the soil is as old as agriculture itself. The “Sabbath rest” ordered to be given every seventh year to the land by the Mosaic law is a classical instance of the “fallow.” Improvements in crop rotations and manuring have diminished the necessity of the “bare fallow,” which is uneconomical because the land is left unproductive, and because the nitrates in the soil unintercepted by the roots of plants are washed away in the drainage waters. At the present time bare fallowing is, in general, only advisable on stiff soils and in dry climates. A “green fallow” is land planted with turnips, potatoes or some similar crop in rows, the space between which may be cleared of weeds by hoeing. The “bastard fallow” is a modification of the bare fallow, effected by the growth of rye, vetches, or some other rapidly growing crop, sown in autumn and fed off in spring, the land then undergoing the processes of ploughing, grubbing and harrowing usual in the bare fallow.

FALLOW, land that has been plowed and tilled but left unsown, usually for a year, in order to break down the soil, aerate it, and remove weeds, while also allowing it to recover. The term was likely confused early on with “fallow” (from O. Eng. fealu, probably related to Gr. gray, meaning grey), which describes a pale-brown or yellow color, often used for soil that is left unfilled and unsown, but mainly recognized in the context of “fallow deer.” The correct origin comes from the O. Eng. fealga, found only in plural, meaning a harrow, with the ultimate source being a Teutonic root meaning “to plough,” similar to the German falgen. Ancient cultures universally recognized that continuously growing wheat on the same land depletes the soil's fertility, and the practice of “fallowing” or resting the soil is as old as agriculture itself. An example of this “fallow” practice is the “Sabbath rest” mandated by Mosaic law to be given to the land every seventh year. Advances in crop rotation and fertilization have reduced the need for “bare fallow,” which is unproductive because the land is left idle and the nitrates in the soil, not absorbed by plant roots, are washed away in drainage. Nowadays, bare fallowing is generally recommended only for tough soils and dry climates. A “green fallow” involves planting turnips, potatoes, or similar crops in rows, with the spaces between them cleared of weeds by hoeing. The “bastard fallow” is a variation of the bare fallow, achieved by sowing rye, vetches, or other fast-growing crops in the autumn and grazing them in the spring, after which the usual processes of plowing, grubbing, and harrowing for bare fallow are applied.


FALLOW-DEER (that is, Dun Deer, in contradistinction to the red deer, Cervus [Dama] dama), a medium-sized representative of the family Cervidae, characterized by its expanded or palmated antlers, which generally have no bez-tine, rather long tail (black above and white below), and a coat spotted with white in summer but uniformly coloured in winter. The shoulder height is about 3 ft. The species is semi-domesticated in British parks, and occurs wild in western Asia, North Africa, the south of Europe and Sardinia. In prehistoric times it occurred throughout northern and central Europe. One park-breed has no spots. Bucks and does live apart except during the pairing-season; and the doe produces one or two, and sometimes three fawns at a birth. These deer are particularly fond of horse-chestnuts, which the stags are said to endeavour to procure by striking at the branches with their antlers. The Persian fallow-deer (C. [D.] mesopotamicus), a native of the mountains of Luristan, is larger than the typical species, and has a brighter coat, differing in some details of colouring. The antlers have the trez-tine near the small brow-tine, and the palmation beginning near the former. Here may be mentioned the gigantic fossil deer commonly known as the Irish elk, which is perhaps a giant type of fallow-deer, and if so should be known as Cervus (Dama) giganteus. If a distinct type, its title should be C. (Megaceros) giganteus. This deer inhabited Ireland, Great Britain, central and northern Europe, and western Asia in Pleistocene and prehistoric times; and must have stood 6 ft. high at the shoulder. The antlers are greatly palmated and of enormous size, fine specimens measuring as much as 11 ft. between the tips.

Fallow deer (which means Dunn Deer, in contrast to red deer, Cervus [Dama] dama), is a medium-sized member of the family Cervidae. It is characterized by its wide or palm-shaped antlers, which generally lack bez-tines, a relatively long tail (black on top and white underneath), and a coat that is spotted with white in summer but is solid-colored in winter. The shoulder height is about 3 feet. This species is semi-domesticated in British parks and can be found in the wild in western Asia, North Africa, southern Europe, and Sardinia. In prehistoric times, it was found throughout northern and central Europe. One park-bred variety has no spots. Bucks and does typically live separately, except during the breeding season, and the doe usually gives birth to one or two, and sometimes three, fawns at a time. These deer particularly enjoy horse-chestnuts, and the stags are said to try to reach them by hitting the branches with their antlers. The Persian fallow-deer (C. [D.] mesopotamicus), native to the mountains of Luristan, is larger than the typical species and has a brighter coat with some differences in coloration details. Its antlers feature the trez-tine near the small brow-tine, with palmation starting near the former. It’s worth mentioning the gigantic fossil deer commonly known as the Irish elk, which may be a giant version of the fallow-deer and, if so, should be referred to as Cervus (Dama) giganteus. If it is a distinct type, it should be called C. (Megaceros) giganteus. This deer lived in Ireland, Great Britain, central and northern Europe, and western Asia during the Pleistocene and prehistoric times, and it must have stood about 6 feet tall at the shoulder. Its antlers are highly palmated and can be extremely large, with impressive specimens measuring up to 11 feet across at the tips.


FALL RIVER, a city of Bristol county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., situated on Mount Hope Bay, at the mouth of the Taunton river, 49 m. S. of Boston. Pop. (1890) 74,398; (1900) 104,863; (estimated, 1906) 105,942;1 (1910 census) 119,295. It is the third city in size of the commonwealth. Of the population in 1900, 50,042, or 47.7%, were foreign-born, 90,244 were of foreign parentage (i.e. either one or both parents were foreign), and of these 81,721 had both foreign father and foreign mother. Of the foreign-born, 20,172 were French Canadians, 2329 were English Canadians, 12,268 were from England, 1045 were from Scotland, 7317 were from Ireland, 2805 were from Portugal, and 1095 were from Russia, various other countries being represented by smaller 156 numbers. Fall River is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway, and has good steamer connexions with Providence, Newport and New York, notably by the “Fall River Line,” which is much used, in connexion with the N.Y., N.H. & H. railway, by travellers between New York and Boston. The harbour is large, deep and easy of access. The city lies on a plateau and on slopes that rise rather steeply from the river, and is irregularly laid out. Granite underlying the city furnishes excellent building material; among the principal buildings are the state armoury, the county court house, the B.M.C. Durfee high school, the custom house, Notre Dame College, the church of Notre Dame, the church of St Anne, the Central Congregational church and the public library. The commonwealth aids in maintaining a textile school (the Bradford Durfee textile school), opened in 1904. The city library contained in 1908 about 78,500 volumes. There is considerable commerce, but it is as a manufacturing centre that Fall River is best known. Above the city, on the plateau, about 2 m. from the bay, are the Watuppa Lakes, 7 m. long and on an average three-fourths of a mile wide, and from them runs the Fall (Quequechan) river, with a constant flow and descending near its mouth through 127 ft. in less than half a mile. The conjunction of water transportation and water power is thus remarkable, and accounts in great part for the city’s rapid growth. The waters of the North Watuppa Lake (which is fed by springs and drains out a very small area) are also exceptionally pure and furnish an excellent water-supply. The Fall river runs directly through the city (passing beneath the city hall), and along its banks are long rows of cotton mills; formerly many of these were run by water power, and their wheels were placed directly in the stream bed, but steam power is now used almost exclusively. According to the special census of manufactures of 1905, the value of all factory products for the calendar year 1904 was $43,473,105, of which amount $35,442,581, or 81.5%, consisted of cotton goods and dyeing and finishing, making Fall River the largest producer of cotton goods among American cities.2 A large hat manufactory (the Marshall Brothers’ factory) furnishes the United States army with hats. Until forced by the competition of mills in the Southern states to direct attention to finer products, the cotton manufacturers of Fall River devoted themselves almost exclusively to the making of print cloth, in which respect the city was long distinguished from Lawrence and Lowell, whose products were more varied and of higher grade. The number of spindles increased from 265,328 in 1865 to 1,269,043 in 1875, 3,000,000 in 1900, and to about 3,500,000 in 1906. Excellent drainage and sewerage systems contribute to the city’s health. The birth-rate was in 1900 the highest (38.75) of any city in the country of above 30,000 inhabitants (three of the four next highest being Massachusetts towns). The social conditions and labour problems of Fall River have long been exceptional. The mills supplement the public schools in the mingling of races and the work for Americanization, and labour disturbances, for which Fall River was once conspicuous, have become less frequent and less bitter, the great strike of 1904-1905—perhaps the greatest in the history of the textile industry in the United States—being marked by little or no violence. Fall River has become a “city of homes,” and tenements are giving way to dwellings for one or two families. The lists of the city’s corporation stockholders show more than 10,000 names. The municipal police is controlled (as nowhere else in the state save in Boston) by a state board; this arrangement is generally regarded as having worked for better order. Lowell was about three times as large as Fall River in 1850, and Lawrence was larger until after 1870. Fall River was originally a part of Freetown; it was incorporated as a township in 1803 (being known as “Troy” in 1804-1834), and was chartered as a city in 1854. In 1861 it was increased by certain territory secured from Rhode Island, the city having spread across the state boundary and become subject to a divided jurisdiction. In 1902 the city received a new charter. Its manufactures amounted to little before the War of 1812. A disastrous fire occurred in 1843 (loss above $500,000). In 1904 Fall River became the see of the Roman Catholic diocese of that name.

FALL RIVER, a city in Bristol County, Massachusetts, U.S.A., located on Mount Hope Bay, at the mouth of the Taunton River, 49 miles south of Boston. Population (1890) 74,398; (1900) 104,863; (estimated, 1906) 105,942;1 (1910 census) 119,295. It is the third largest city in the state. In 1900, of the population, 50,042, or 47.7%, were foreign-born, and 90,244 were of foreign parentage (i.e. either one or both parents were foreign), with 81,721 having both a foreign father and a foreign mother. Of the foreign-born, 20,172 were French Canadians, 2,329 were English Canadians, 12,268 were from England, 1,045 were from Scotland, 7,317 were from Ireland, 2,805 were from Portugal, and 1,095 were from Russia, with various other countries represented by smaller 156 numbers. Fall River is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway, and has good steamboat connections with Providence, Newport, and New York, especially via the “Fall River Line,” which is heavily used by travelers between New York and Boston, in connection with the N.Y., N.H. & H. railway. The harbor is large, deep, and easily accessible. The city is situated on a plateau and on slopes that rise steeply from the river, and is laid out irregularly. The granite beneath the city provides excellent building material; among the major buildings are the state armory, the county courthouse, the B.M.C. Durfee high school, the custom house, Notre Dame College, the church of Notre Dame, the church of St. Anne, the Central Congregational Church, and the public library. The state supports a textile school (the Bradford Durfee textile school), which opened in 1904. The city library held around 78,500 volumes in 1908. There is significant commerce, but Fall River is primarily known as a manufacturing hub. Above the city, on the plateau, about 2 miles from the bay, are the Watuppa Lakes, 7 miles long and averaging three-fourths of a mile wide, with the Fall (Quequechan) River flowing from them, constantly flowing and descending nearly 127 feet in less than half a mile. The combination of water transportation and water power is remarkable and largely accounts for the city’s rapid growth. The waters of the North Watuppa Lake (fed by springs and draining a very small area) are also exceptionally pure and provide an excellent water supply. The Fall River runs directly through the city (passing beneath the city hall), and along its banks are rows of cotton mills; many of these were originally run by water power, with their wheels placed directly in the stream bed, but now steam power is used almost exclusively. According to the special census of manufacturing from 1905, the value of all factory products for the calendar year 1904 was $43,473,105, of which $35,442,581, or 81.5%, were cotton goods and dyeing and finishing, making Fall River the largest producer of cotton goods among American cities.2 A large hat manufacturing company (the Marshall Brothers’ factory) supplies the United States Army with hats. Before being forced to compete with mills in the Southern states and shift their focus to higher-end products, the cotton manufacturers of Fall River primarily produced print cloth, distinguishing the city from Lawrence and Lowell, whose products were more varied and of a higher quality. The number of spindles grew from 265,328 in 1865 to 1,269,043 in 1875, 3,000,000 in 1900, and around 3,500,000 in 1906. Excellent drainage and sewer systems contribute to the city’s health. The birth rate in 1900 was the highest (38.75) among any city in the country with over 30,000 residents (three of the four next highest being Massachusetts towns). The social conditions and labor issues in Fall River have long been unique. The mills complement the public schools in integrating different races and work towards Americanization, and labor disputes, which Fall River was once known for, have become less frequent and less intense, with the massive strike of 1904-1905—perhaps the largest in the history of the textile industry in the United States—being marked by little or no violence. Fall River has transformed into a “city of homes,” and tenements are being replaced by houses for one or two families. The city’s corporate stockholders list over 10,000 names. The municipal police are managed (as in no other place in the state except Boston) by a state board; this system is generally seen as having improved order. Lowell was about three times larger than Fall River in 1850, and Lawrence was larger until after 1870. Fall River was initially part of Freetown; it was incorporated as a township in 1803 (known as “Troy” from 1804-1834), and was chartered as a city in 1854. In 1861 it expanded by incorporating certain territory from Rhode Island, as the city had spread across the state line and faced divided jurisdiction. In 1902, the city received a new charter. Its manufacturing base was minimal before the War of 1812. A major fire occurred in 1843 (causing damage exceeding $500,000). In 1904, Fall River became the see of the Roman Catholic diocese of that name.

See H.H. Earl, Centennial History of Fall River ... 1656-1876 (New York, 1877); and the report of Carroll D. Wright on Fall River, Lowell and Lawrence, in 13th annual report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor (1882), which, however, was regarded as unjust and partial by the manufacturers of Fall River.

See H.H. Earl, Centennial History of Fall River ... 1656-1876 (New York, 1877); and the report of Carroll D. Wright on Fall River, Lowell and Lawrence, in the 13th annual report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor (1882), which, however, was seen as unfair and biased by the manufacturers of Fall River.


1 The small increase between 1900 and 1906 was due in large part to the emigration of many of the inhabitants during the great strike of 1904-1905.

1 The slight increase between 1900 and 1906 was largely because many residents left during the major strike of 1904-1905.

2 The above figures do not show adequately the full importance of Fall River as a cotton manufacturing centre, for during six months of the census year the great strike was in progress; this strike, caused by a reduction in wages, lasted from the 25th of July 1904 to the 18th of January 1905.

2 The figures above don't fully capture the significance of Fall River as a cotton manufacturing hub, since during six months of the census year, a major strike was happening; this strike, triggered by a wage cut, lasted from July 25, 1904, to January 18, 1905.


FALMOUTH, a municipal and contributary parliamentary borough and seaport of Cornwall, England, 306 m. W.S.W. of London, on a branch of the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 11,789. It is finely situated on the west shore of the largest of the many estuaries which open upon the south coast of the county. This is entered by several streams, of which the largest is the Fal. Falmouth harbour lies within Pendennis Point, which shelters the estuary from the more open Falmouth Bay. The Penryn river, coming in from the north-west, forms one of several shallow, winding arms of the estuary, the main channel of which is known as Carrick Roads. To the east Pendennis Castle stands on its lofty promontory, while on the opposite side of the roads the picturesque inlet of the Porthcuel river opens between Castle Point on the north, with St Mawes’ Castle, and St Anthony Head and Zoze Point on the south. The shores of the estuary as a rule slope sharply up to about 250 ft., and are beautifully wooded. The entrance is 1 m. across, and the roads form one of the best refuges for shipping on the south coast, being accessible at all times by the largest vessels. Among the principal buildings and institutions in Falmouth are the town hall, market-house, hall of the Cornwall Polytechnic Society, a meteorological and magnetic observatory, and a submarine mining establishment. The Royal Cornwall Yacht Club has its headquarters here, and in the annual regatta the principal prize is a cup given by the prince of Wales as duke of Cornwall. Engineering, shipbuilding, brewing and the manufacture of manure are carried on, and there are oyster and trawl fisheries, especially for pilchard. The inner harbour, under the jurisdiction partly of commissioners and partly of a dock company, is enclosed between two breakwaters, of which the eastern has 23 ft. of water at lowest tides alongside. The area of the harbour is 42 acres, with nearly 700 lineal yards of quayage. There are two graving docks, and repairing yards. Grain, timber, coal and guano and other manures are imported, and granite, china clay, copper ore, ropes and fish exported. Falmouth is also in favour as a watering-place. The parliamentary borough of Penryn and Falmouth returns one member. The municipal borough is under a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 790 acres.

Falmouth, is a municipal and contributory parliamentary borough and seaport in Cornwall, England, 306 miles west-southwest of London, located on a branch of the Great Western railway. Population (1901) was 11,789. It is beautifully situated on the west shore of the largest of the many estuaries that open onto the south coast of the county, which is fed by several streams, the largest being the Fal. Falmouth harbour lies within Pendennis Point, which protects the estuary from the more open Falmouth Bay. The Penryn river, coming in from the northwest, forms one of several shallow, winding arms of the estuary, with the main channel known as Carrick Roads. To the east, Pendennis Castle stands on its high promontory, while across the roads the scenic inlet of the Porthcuel river opens between Castle Point in the north, featuring St Mawes’ Castle, and St Anthony Head and Zoze Point in the south. The shores of the estuary generally slope steeply up to about 250 feet and are beautifully wooded. The entrance is 1 mile wide, and the roads offer one of the best havens for shipping on the south coast, accessible at all times to the largest vessels. Key buildings and institutions in Falmouth include the town hall, market house, hall of the Cornwall Polytechnic Society, a meteorological and magnetic observatory, and a submarine mining facility. The Royal Cornwall Yacht Club is headquartered here, and during the annual regatta, the main prize is a cup awarded by the prince of Wales as duke of Cornwall. Industries such as engineering, shipbuilding, brewing, and manure manufacturing are active, alongside oyster and trawl fisheries, particularly for pilchard. The inner harbour, governed partly by commissioners and partly by a dock company, is enclosed between two breakwaters, with the eastern one having 23 feet of water at low tide alongside. The harbour covers an area of 42 acres and features nearly 700 linear yards of quayage. There are two dry docks and repair yards. Imports include grain, timber, coal, and guano and other fertilizers, while exports consist of granite, china clay, copper ore, ropes, and fish. Falmouth is also popular as a seaside resort. The parliamentary borough of Penryn and Falmouth returns one member. The municipal borough is run by a mayor, four aldermen, and twelve councillors. Area: 790 acres.

Falmouth (Falemuth) as a haven and port has had a place in the maritime history of Cornwall from very early times. The site of the town, which is comparatively modern, was formerly known as Smithick and Pennycomequick and formed part of the manor of Arwenack held by the family of Killigrew. The corporations of Penryn, Truro and Helston opposed the undertaking, but the lords in council, to whom the matter was referred, decided in Killigrew’s favour. In 1652 the House of Commons considered that it would be advantageous to the Commonwealth to grant a Thursday market to Smithick. This market was confirmed to Sir Peter Killigrew in 1660 together with two fairs, on the 30th of October and the 27th of July, and also a ferry between Smithick and Flushing. By the charter of incorporation granted in the following year the name was changed to Falmouth, and a mayor, recorder, 7 aldermen and 12 burgesses constituted a common council with the usual rights and privileges. Three years later an act creating the borough a separate ecclesiastical parish empowered the mayor and aldermen to assess all buildings within the town at the rate of sixteen pence in the pound for the support of the rector. This rector’s rate occasioned much ill-feeling in modern times, and by act of parliament in 1896 was taken over by the corporation, and provision made for its eventual extinction. The disfranchisement of Penryn, which 157 had long been a subject of debate in the House of Commons, was settled in 1832, by uniting Penryn with Falmouth for parliamentary purposes and assigning two members to the united boroughs. By the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, the number of members was reduced to one. The fairs granted in 1660 are no longer held, and a Saturday market has superseded the chartered market. In the 17th and 18th centuries Falmouth grew in importance owing to its being a station of the Packet Service for the conveyance of mails.

Falmouth has been a notable harbor and port in Cornwall's maritime history since early times. The town, which is relatively modern, was previously known as Smithick and Pennycomequick and was part of the Arwenack manor owned by the Killigrew family. The corporations of Penryn, Truro, and Helston opposed the plan, but the lords in council, to whom the issue was submitted, ruled in favor of Killigrew. In 1652, the House of Commons decided that granting a Thursday market to Smithick would benefit the Commonwealth. This market was confirmed to Sir Peter Killigrew in 1660, along with two fairs on October 30th and July 27th, as well as a ferry service between Smithick and Flushing. The following year, a charter of incorporation changed the name to Falmouth, establishing a common council consisting of a mayor, recorder, seven aldermen, and twelve burgesses with standard rights and privileges. Three years later, an act made the borough a separate ecclesiastical parish, allowing the mayor and aldermen to levy a tax of sixteen pence per pound on all buildings in the town to support the rector. This rector's tax generated significant resentment in later years, and by an act of parliament in 1896, it was taken over by the corporation with plans for its eventual abolition. The long-debated disfranchisement of Penryn in the House of Commons was resolved in 1832, uniting Penryn with Falmouth for parliamentary representation and assigning two members to the combined boroughs. By the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, the number of members was reduced to one. The fairs granted in 1660 are no longer held, and a Saturday market has replaced the chartered market. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Falmouth's significance increased as a station for the Packet Service for mail delivery.


FALSE POINT, a landlocked harbour in the Cuttack district of Bengal, India. It was reported by the famine commissioners in 1867 to be the best harbour on the coast of India from the Hugli to Bombay. It derives its name from the circumstance that vessels proceeding up the Bay of Bengal frequently mistook it for Point Palmyras, a degree farther north. The anchorage is safe, roomy and completely landlocked, but large vessels are obliged to lie out at some distance from its mouth in an exposed roadstead. The capabilities of False Point as a harbour remained long unknown, and it was only in 1860 that the port was opened. It was rapidly developed, owing to the construction of the Orissa canals. Two navigable channels lead inland across the Mahanadi delta, and connect the port with Cuttack city. The trade of False Point is chiefly with other Indian harbours, but a large export trade in rice and oil-seeds has sprung up with Mauritius, the French colonies and France. False Point is now a regular port of call for Anglo-Indian coasting steamers. Its capabilities were first appreciated during the Orissa famine of 1866, when it afforded almost the only means by which supplies of rice could be thrown into the province. A lighthouse is situated a little to the south of the anchorage, on the point which screens it from the southern monsoon.

FALSE POINT, is a landlocked harbor in the Cuttack district of Bengal, India. The famine commissioners reported in 1867 that it was the best harbor along the Indian coast from Hugli to Bombay. It got its name because ships heading up the Bay of Bengal often confused it with Point Palmyras, which is a degree farther north. The anchorage is safe, spacious, and completely landlocked, but large vessels have to anchor some distance away in an exposed roadstead. For a long time, the potential of False Point as a harbor was unknown, and it wasn't until 1860 that the port was opened. It quickly developed due to the construction of the Orissa canals. There are two navigable channels that lead inland through the Mahanadi delta, connecting the port with Cuttack city. The trade at False Point is mainly with other Indian harbors, but a significant export trade in rice and oilseeds has developed with Mauritius, the French colonies, and France. False Point is now a regular stop for Anglo-Indian coasting steamers. Its importance was first recognized during the Orissa famine of 1866 when it provided almost the only way to transport rice supplies into the province. There is a lighthouse located just south of the anchorage, on the point that protects it from the southern monsoon.


FALSE PRETENCES, in English law, the obtaining from any other person by any false pretence any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to defraud. It is an indictable misdemeanour under the Larceny Act of 1861. The broad distinction between this offence and larceny is that in the former the owner intends to part with his property, in the latter he does not. This offence dates as a statutory crime practically from 1756. At common law the only remedy originally available for an owner who had been deprived of his goods by fraud was an indictment for the crime of cheating, or a civil action for deceit. These remedies were insufficient to cover all cases where money or other properties had been obtained by false pretences, and the offence was first partially created by a statute of Henry VIII. (1541), which enacted that if any person should falsely and deceitfully obtain any money, goods, &c., by means of any false token or counterfeit letter made in any other man’s name, the offender should suffer any punishment other than death, at the discretion of the judge. The scope of the offence was enlarged to include practically all false pretences by the act of 1756, the provisions of which were embodied in the Larceny Act 1861.

False pretenses, in English law, refers to obtaining any item, money, or valuable security from someone else through dishonest means, with the intent to defraud. It is a serious offense under the Larceny Act of 1861. The main difference between this offense and larceny is that in false pretences, the owner intends to give up their property, whereas in larceny, they do not. This offense has been recognized as a statutory crime since around 1756. Originally, the only legal recourse for someone who lost their belongings to fraud was to prosecute for cheating or file a civil suit for deceit. These options were not sufficient to address all situations where money or other assets were wrongfully obtained through deceit, leading to the introduction of a statute by Henry VIII in 1541. This law stated that if anyone were to fraudulently acquire money or goods using false tokens or forged letters in someone else's name, they would face any punishment—except death—determined by the judge. The definition of the offense was broadened to include nearly all forms of false pretences by the act of 1756, and these provisions were later included in the Larceny Act of 1861.

The principal points to notice are that the pretence must be a false pretence of some existing fact, made for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to part with his property (e.g. it was held not to be a false pretence to promise to pay for goods on delivery), and it may be by either words or conduct. The property, too, must have been actually obtained by the false pretence. The owner must be induced by the pretence to make over the absolute and immediate ownership of the goods, otherwise it is “larceny by means of a trick.” It is not always easy, however, to draw a distinction between the various classes of offences. In the case where a man goes into a restaurant and orders a meal, and, after consuming it, says that he has no means of paying for it, it was usual to convict for obtaining food by false pretences. But R. v. Jones, 1898, L.R. 1 Q.B. 119 decided that it is neither larceny nor false pretences, but an offence under the Debtors Act 1869, of obtaining credit by fraud. (See also Cheating; Fraud; Larceny.)

The main points to note are that the deception must be a false claim about an existing fact, made to persuade the prosecutor to give up their property (e.g., it was determined that promising to pay for goods upon delivery is not considered a false claim), and it can be expressed through either words or actions. The property must also have been actually acquired through the false claim. The owner must be tricked into transferring the complete and immediate ownership of the goods; otherwise, it falls under “larceny by means of a trick.” However, it isn't always straightforward to differentiate between the different types of offenses. For instance, if someone goes to a restaurant, orders a meal, and then claims they have no way to pay for it after eating, it was typically viewed as obtaining food by false pretenses. But in the case of R. v. Jones, 1898, L.R. 1 Q.B. 119, it was ruled that this is neither larceny nor false pretenses, but rather an offense under the Debtors Act 1869, involving obtaining credit through fraud. (See also Cheating; Fraud; Larceny.)

United States.—American statutes on this subject are mainly copied from the English statutes, and the courts there in a general way follow the English interpretations. The statutes of each state must be consulted. There is no Federal statute, though there are Federal laws providing penalties for false personation of the lawful owner of public stocks, &c., or of persons entitled to pensions, prize money, &c. (U.S. Rev. Stats. § 5435), or the false making of any order purporting to be a money order (id. § 5463).

United States.—American laws on this topic are mostly based on English laws, and the courts generally follow English interpretations. It's important to check the statutes of each state. There is no Federal law specifically on this matter, but there are Federal laws that impose penalties for impersonating the rightful owner of public stocks, etc., or for impersonating individuals entitled to pensions, prize money, etc. (U.S. Rev. Stats. § 5435), as well as for creating any order that falsely claims to be a money order (id. § 5463).

In Arizona, obtaining money or property by falsely personating another is punishable as for larceny (Penal Code, 1901, § 479). Obtaining credit by false pretences as to wealth and mercantile character is punishable by six months’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding three times the value of the money or property obtained (id. § 481).

In Arizona, getting money or property by pretending to be someone else is treated the same as theft (Penal Code, 1901, § 479). Getting credit through lies about your wealth and business reputation can lead to six months in jail and a fine up to three times the amount of the money or property you gained (id. § 481).

In Illinois, whoever by any false representation or writing signed by him, of his own respectability, wealth or mercantile correspondence or connexions, obtains credit and thereby defrauds any person of money, goods, chattels or any valuable thing, or who procures another to make a false report of his honesty, wealth, &c., shall return the money, goods, &c., and be fined and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year (Crim. Code, 1903, ch. xxxviii. §§ 96, 97). Obtaining money or property by bogus cheques, the “confidence game” (Dorr v. People, 1907, § 228, Ill. 216), or “three card monte,” sleight of hand, fortune-telling, &c., is punishable by imprisonment for from one to ten years (id. §§ 98, 100). Obtaining goods from warehouse, mill or wharf by fraudulent receipt wrongly stating amount of goods deposited—by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years (id. § 124). Fraudulent use of railroad passes is a misdemeanour (id. 125a).

In Illinois, anyone who uses false statements or documents signed by them, claiming to be reputable, wealthy, or well-connected, to gain credit and defraud someone of money, goods, possessions, or anything of value, or who gets someone else to falsely report about their honesty or wealth, must return the money or goods and can be fined and imprisoned for up to one year (Crim. Code, 1903, ch. xxxviii. §§ 96, 97). Getting money or property through fake checks, the “confidence game” (Dorr v. People, 1907, § 228, Ill. 216), or scams like “three card monte,” sleight of hand, fortune-telling, etc., can result in imprisonment for one to ten years (id. §§ 98, 100). Fraudulently obtaining goods from a warehouse, mill, or wharf by providing a false receipt about the amount of goods deposited can lead to imprisonment for between one and ten years (id. § 124). Misusing railroad passes is considered a misdemeanor (id. 125a).

In Massachusetts it is simple larceny to obtain by false pretences the money or personal chattel of another (Rev. Laws, 1902, ch. ccviii. § 26). Obtaining by a false pretence with intent to defraud the signature of a person to a written instrument, the false making whereof would be forgery, is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison or by fine (id. § 27).

In Massachusetts, it is considered simple theft to acquire someone else's money or personal property through deception (Rev. Laws, 1902, ch. ccviii. § 26). Getting someone to sign a written document under false pretenses with the intent to defraud, where falsifying that document would be considered forgery, can result in imprisonment in a state prison or a fine (id. § 27).

In New York, obtaining property by false pretences, felonious breach of trust and embezzlement are included in the term “larceny” (Penal Code, § 528; Paul v. Dumar, 106 N.Y. 508; People v. Tattlekan, 1907, 104 N.Y. Suppl. 805), but the methods of proof required to establish each crime remain as before the code. Obtaining lodging and food on credit at hotel or lodging house with intent to defraud is a misdemeanour (Pen. Code, § 382). Purchase of property by false pretences as to person’s means or ability to pay is not criminal when in writing signed by the party to be charged (Pen. Code, § 544).

In New York, getting property through deception, serious breach of trust, and embezzlement are all considered "larceny" (Penal Code, § 528; Paul v. Dumar, 106 N.Y. 508; People v. Tattlekan, 1907, 104 N.Y. Suppl. 805), but the ways to prove each crime are the same as they were before the code. Getting a place to stay and meals on credit at a hotel or boarding house with the intent to scam is a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 382). Buying property by lying about a person's finances or ability to pay is not a crime if it's in writing and signed by the person being charged (Pen. Code, § 544).


FALTICHENI (Faltiçenĭ), the capital of the department of Suceava, Rumania, situated on a small right-hand tributary of the Sereth, among the hills of north-west Moldavia, and 2 m. S.E. of the frontier of Bukovina. Pop. (1900) 9643, about half being Jews. A branch railway runs for 15 m. to join the main line between Czernowitz in Bukovina, and Galatz. The Suceava department (named after Suceava or Suciava, its former capital, now Suczawa in Bukowina) is densely forested; its considerable timber trade centres in Falticheni. For five weeks, from the 20th July onwards, Russians and Austro-Hungarians, as well as Rumans, attend the fair which is held at Falticheni, chiefly for the sale of horses, carriages and cattle.

FALTICHENI (Faltiçenĭ), the capital of Suceava County, Romania, is located on a small right-hand tributary of the Sereth River, nestled among the hills of north-west Moldavia, just 2 miles southeast of the Bukovina border. In 1900, the population was 9,643, with about half being Jews. A branch railway extends for 15 miles to connect with the main line between Czernowitz in Bukovina and Galatz. The Suceava County (named after its former capital, Suceava or Suciava, now Suczawa in Bukovina) is heavily forested, and its significant timber trade is centered in Falticheni. For five weeks starting from July 20th, Russians, Austro-Hungarians, and Romanians gather at the fair held in Falticheni, primarily to buy and sell horses, carriages, and cattle.


FALUN, a town of Sweden, capital of the district (län) of Kopparberg, 153 m. N.W. of Stockholm by rail. Pop. (1900) 9606. It is situated in a bare and rocky country near the western shore of lake Runn. Here are the oldest and most celebrated copper mines in Europe. Their produce has gradually decreased since the 17th century, and is now unimportant, but sulphate of copper, iron pyrites, and some gold, silver, sulphur and sulphuric acid, and red ochre are also produced. The mines belong to the Kopparberg Mining Company (Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags Aktiebolag, formerly Kopparbergslagen). This is the oldest industrial corporation in Sweden, and perhaps the oldest still existing in the world; it is known to have been established before 1347. Since its reorganization as a joint-stock company in 1890 many of the shares have been held by the crown, philanthropic institutions and other public bodies. The company also owns iron mines, limestone and quartz quarries, large iron-works at Domnarfvet and elsewhere, a great extent of forests and 158 saw-mills, and besides the output of the copper mines it produces manufactured iron and steel, timber, wood-pulp, bricks and charcoal. Falun has also railway rolling-stock factories. There are museums of mineralogy and geology, a lower school of mining, model room and scientific library. The so-called “Gothenburg System” of municipal control over the sale of spirits was actually devised at Falun as early as 1850.

FALUN, a town in Sweden, is the capital of the district (län) of Kopparberg, located 153 km N.W. of Stockholm by train. Population (1900) was 9606. It sits in a rugged and rocky area near the western shore of Lake Runn. Here are the oldest and most famous copper mines in Europe. Their production has gradually declined since the 17th century and is now minimal, but copper sulfate, iron pyrites, and some gold, silver, sulfur, sulfuric acid, and red ochre are also produced. The mines are owned by the Kopparberg Mining Company (Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags Aktiebolag, formerly Kopparbergslagen). This is the oldest industrial corporation in Sweden, and possibly the oldest still operating in the world; it is known to have been established before 1347. Since its reorganization as a joint-stock company in 1890, many of the shares have been held by the crown, charitable institutions, and other public entities. The company also owns iron mines, limestone and quartz quarries, large ironworks in Domnarfvet and elsewhere, extensive forests, and sawmills, as well as producing manufactured iron and steel, timber, wood pulp, bricks, and charcoal from its copper mines. Falun is also home to railway rolling-stock factories. There are museums of mineralogy and geology, a lower school of mining, a model room, and a scientific library. The so-called “Gothenburg System” of municipal control over the sale of spirits was actually created in Falun as early as 1850.


FAMA (Gr. Φήμη, Ὄσσα), in classical mythology, the personification of Rumour. The Homeric equivalent Ossa (Iliad, ii. 93) is represented as the messenger of Zeus, who spreads reports with the rapidity of a conflagration. Homer does not personify Pheme, which is merely a presage drawn from human utterances, whereas Ossa (until later times) is associated with the idea of divine origin. A more definite character is given to Pheme by Hesiod (Works and Days, 764), who calls her a goddess; in Sophocles (Oed. Tyr. 158) she is the immortal daughter of golden Hope and is styled by the orator Aeschines (Contra Timarchum, § 128) one of the mightiest of goddesses. According to Pausanias (i. 17. 1) there was a temple of Pheme at Athens, and at Smyrna (ib. ix. 11, 7), whose inhabitants were especially fond of seeking the aid of divination, there was a sanctuary of Cledones (sounds or rumours supposed to convey omens).

FAMA (Gr. Fame, Ossa), in classical mythology, represents the personification of Rumor. The Homeric equivalent Ossa (Iliad, ii. 93) is portrayed as Zeus's messenger, spreading news as quickly as wildfire. Homer does not specifically personify Pheme, which is just a sign derived from what people say, while Ossa (until later periods) is linked to the idea of divine origin. Hesiod gives Pheme a clearer identity in Works and Days (764), referring to her as a goddess; in Sophocles' Oed. Tyr. (158), she is described as the immortal daughter of golden Hope, and the orator Aeschines notes in Contra Timarchum (§ 128) that she is one of the most powerful goddesses. According to Pausanias (i. 17. 1), there was a temple dedicated to Pheme in Athens, and at Smyrna (ib. ix. 11, 7), where the locals were particularly interested in divination, there was a sanctuary for Cledones (sounds or rumors believed to carry omens).

There does not seem to have been any cult of Fama among the Romans, by whom she was regarded merely as “a figure of poetical religion.” The Temple of Fame and Omen (Pheme and Cledon) mentioned by Plutarch (Moralia, p. 319) is due to a confusion with Aius Locutius, the divinity who warned the Romans of the coming attack of the Gauls. There are well-known descriptions of Fame in Virgil (Aeneid, iv. 173) and Ovid (Metam. xii. 39); see also Valerius Flaccus (ii. 116), Statius (Thebais, iii. 425). An unfavourable idea gradually became attached to the name; thus Ennius speaks of Fama as the personification of “evil” reputation and the opposite of Gloria (cp. the adjective famosus, which is not used in a good sense till the post-Augustan age). Chaucer in his House of Fame is obviously imitating Virgil and Ovid, although he is also indebted to Dante’s Divina Commedia.

There doesn't seem to have been any cult of Fama among the Romans, who viewed her simply as "a figure of poetic religion." The Temple of Fame and Omen (Pheme and Cledon) mentioned by Plutarch (Moralia, p. 319) is a result of confusion with Aius Locutius, the deity who warned the Romans of the impending attack by the Gauls. There are famous descriptions of Fame in Virgil (Aeneid, iv. 173) and Ovid (Metam. xii. 39); see also Valerius Flaccus (ii. 116) and Statius (Thebais, iii. 425). A negative connotation gradually became associated with the name; for instance, Ennius describes Fama as the embodiment of "evil" reputation and the opposite of Gloria (note the adjective famosus, which isn't used in a positive sense until the post-Augustan era). Chaucer's House of Fame clearly draws inspiration from Virgil and Ovid, though he also owes a debt to Dante’s Divina Commedia.


FAMAGUSTA (Gr. Ammochostos), a town and harbour on the east cost of Cyprus, 2½ m. S. of the ruins of Salamis. The population in 1901 was 818, nearly all being Moslems who live within the walls of the fortress; the Christian population has migrated to a suburb called Varosia (pop. 2948). The foundation of Salamis (q.v.) was ascribed to Teucer: it was probably the most important town in early Cyprus. The revolt of the Jews under Trajan, and earthquakes in the time of Constantius and Constantine the Great helped in turn to destroy it. It was restored by Fl. Constantius II. (A.D. 337-361) as Constantia. Another town a little to the south, built by Ptolemy Philadelphus in 274 B.C., and called Arsinoe in honour of his sister, received the refugees driven from Constantia by the Arabs under Mu’awiyah, became the seat of the orthodox archbishopric, and was eventually known as Famagusta. It received a large accession of population at the fall of Acre in 1291; was annexed by the Genoese in 1376; reunited to the throne of Cyprus in 1464; and surrendered, after an investment of nearly a year, to the Turks in 1571. The fortifications, remodelled by the Venetians after 1489, the castle, the grand cathedral church of St Nicolas, and the remains of the palace and many other churches make Famagusta a place of unique interest. Acts ii. and v. of Shakespeare’s Othello pass there. In 1903 measures were taken to develop the fine natural harbour of Famagusta. Basins were dredged to give depths of 15 and 24 ft. respectively at ordinary low tides, and commodious jetties and quays were constructed.

Famagusta (Gr. Ammochostos) is a town and harbor on the east coast of Cyprus, 2½ miles south of the ruins of Salamis. In 1901, the population was 818, almost all being Muslims who lived within the fortress walls; the Christian population had moved to a suburb called Varosia (pop. 2,948). The foundation of Salamis (q.v.) is attributed to Teucer and was likely the most significant town in early Cyprus. It was damaged by the Jewish revolt under Trajan, as well as earthquakes during the reigns of Constantius and Constantine the Great. Fl. Constantius II. (A.D. 337-361) later restored it and renamed it Constantia. A little further south, another town built by Ptolemy Philadelphus in 274 BCE, named Arsinoe in honor of his sister, took in refugees driven from Constantia by the Arabs under Mu’awiyah, became the seat of the Orthodox archbishopric, and eventually became known as Famagusta. Its population grew significantly after the fall of Acre in 1291, it was annexed by the Genoese in 1376, reunited with the throne of Cyprus in 1464, and surrendered to the Turks in 1571 after nearly a year of siege. The fortifications were remodeled by the Venetians after 1489, along with the castle, the grand cathedral of St. Nicholas, and the remains of the palace and many other churches, making Famagusta a uniquely interesting place. Acts ii. and v. of Shakespeare’s Othello take place there. In 1903, efforts were made to develop the beautiful natural harbor of Famagusta. Basins were dredged to create depths of 15 and 24 feet respectively at ordinary low tides, and spacious jetties and quays were constructed.


FAMILIAR (through the Fr. familier, from Lat. familiaris, of or belonging to the familia, family), an adjective, properly meaning belonging to the family or household, but in this sense the word is rare. The more usual meanings are: friendly, intimate, well known; and from its application to the easy relations of intimate friends the term may be used in an invidious sense of “free and easy” conduct on the part of any one not justified by any close relationship, friendship or intimacy. “Familiar” is, however, also used as a substantive, especially of the spirit or demon which attended on a wizard or magician, and was summoned to execute his master’s wishes. The idea underlies the notion of the Christian guardian angel and of the Roman genius natalis (see Demonology; Witchcraft). In the Roman Church the term is applied to persons attached to the household of the pope or of bishops. These must actually do some domestic service. They are supported by their patron, and enjoy privileges which in the case of the papal familiars are considerable. “Familiars of the Holy Office” were lay officers of the Inquisition, whose functions were chiefly those of police, in making arrests, &c., of persons charged.

Familiar (from the French familier, and Latin familiaris, meaning related to the familia, or family), is an adjective that originally meant belonging to the family or household, though this usage is rare today. More common meanings include: friendly, intimate, or well known; and because it refers to the comfortable interactions of close friends, it can also carry a negative connotation of someone being overly casual without a legitimate close relationship or intimacy. “Familiar” can also be a noun, particularly referring to the spirit or demon that accompanied a wizard or magician, called upon to fulfill their master's commands. This idea connects to the concept of the Christian guardian angel and the Roman genius natalis (see Demonology; Witchcraft). In the Roman Church, the term is used for people attached to the pope's or bishops' households, who are required to perform some domestic duties. They are financially supported by their patron and have certain privileges, which, in the case of papal familiars, can be significant. "Familiars of the Holy Office" referred to lay officers of the Inquisition, whose primary roles involved police work like making arrests, etc., of individuals accused.


FAMILISTS, a term of English origin (later adopted in other languages) to denote the members of the Familia Caritatis (Hus der Lieften; Huis der Liefde; Haus der Liebe; “Family of Love”), founded by Hendrik Niclaes (born on the 9th or 10th of January 1501 or 1502, probably at Münster; died after 1570, not later than 1581, probably in 1580). His calling was that of a merchant, in which he and his son Franz prospered, becoming ultimately wealthy. Not till 1540 did he appear in the character of one divinely endowed with “the spirit of the true love of Jesus Christ.” For twenty years (1540-1560) Emden was the headquarters at once of his merchandise and of his propaganda; but he travelled in both interests to various countries, visiting England in 1552 or 1553. To this period belong most of his writings. His primary work was Den Spegel der Gherechticheit dorch den Geist der Liefden unde den vergodeden Mensch H.N. uth de hemmelische Warheit betüget. It appeared in an English form with the author’s revision, as An Introduction to the holy Understanding of the Glasse of Righteousness (1575?; reprinted in 1649). None of his works bear his name in full; his initials were mystically interpreted as standing for Homo Novus. His “glass of righteousness” is the spirit of Christ as interpreted by him. The remarkable fact was brought out by G. Arnold (and more fully by F. Nippold in 1862) that the printer of Niclaes’s works was Christopher Plantin, of Antwerp, a specially privileged printer of Roman Catholic theology and liturgy, yet secretly a steadfast adherent of Niclaes. It is true that Niclaes claimed to hold an impartial attitude towards all existing religious parties, and his mysticism, derived from David Joris, was undogmatic. Yet he admitted his followers by the rite of adult baptism, and set up a hierarchy among them on the Roman model (see his Evangelium Regni, in English A Joyfull Message of the Kingdom, 1574?; reprinted, 1652). His pantheism had an antinomian drift; for himself and his officials he claimed impeccability; but, whatever truth there may be in the charge that among his followers were those who interpreted “love” as licence, no such charge can be sustained against the morals of Niclaes and the other leaders of the sect. His chief apostle in England was Christopher Vitel, a native of Delft, an “illuminate elder,” living at Colchester and Southwark, who ultimately recanted. The society spread in the eastern counties, in spite of repressive measures; it revived under the Commonwealth, and lingered into the early years of the 18th century; the leading idea of its “service of love” was a reliance on sympathy and tenderness for the moral and spiritual edification of its members. Thus, in an age of strife and polemics, it seemed to afford a refuge for quiet, gentle spirits, and meditative temperaments.

FAMILISTS, is a term that originated in English and was later adopted in other languages to refer to the members of the Familia Caritatis (Hus der Lieften; Huis der Liefde; Haus der Liebe; “Family of Love”), which was founded by Hendrik Niclaes (born on either January 9 or 10, 1501 or 1502, likely in Münster; died after 1570, but no later than 1581, probably in 1580). He worked as a merchant, and he and his son Franz became quite successful, ultimately achieving wealth. It wasn't until 1540 that he presented himself as someone divinely inspired with “the spirit of the true love of Jesus Christ.” For twenty years (1540-1560), Emden served as both his business headquarters and his base for spreading his teachings; during this time, he traveled to various countries, including a visit to England in 1552 or 1553. Most of his writings were produced during this period. His key work was Den Spegel der Gherechticheit dorch den Geist der Liefden unde den vergodeden Mensch H.N. uth de hemmelische Warheit betüget, which was published in English as An Introduction to the holy Understanding of the Glasse of Righteousness (1575?; reprinted in 1649), revised by the author himself. None of his works carry his full name; instead, his initials were mystically interpreted to mean Homo Novus. His “glass of righteousness” represents the spirit of Christ as he interpreted it. G. Arnold, and later F. Nippold in 1862, noted that the printer of Niclaes’s works was Christopher Plantin from Antwerp, a printer who had special privileges to publish Roman Catholic theology and liturgy and was secretly a loyal supporter of Niclaes. Niclaes claimed to maintain an impartial stance towards all existing religious groups, and his mysticism, which he derived from David Joris, was not dogmatic. However, he welcomed his followers through adult baptism and established a hierarchy similar to the Roman model (refer to his Evangelium Regni, in English A Joyfull Message of the Kingdom, 1574?; reprinted, 1652). His pantheism had an antinomian inclination; he claimed to be without sin for himself and his leaders, but, despite allegations that some of his followers interpreted “love” as a license to act without morals, the integrity of Niclaes and the other leaders of the group cannot be questioned. His main apostle in England was Christopher Vitel, a native of Delft, an “illuminate elder” living in Colchester and Southwark, who eventually recanted. The movement spread in the eastern counties despite efforts to suppress it; it revived during the Commonwealth and persisted into the early 18th century. The core idea of its “service of love” was based on empathy and compassion for the moral and spiritual upliftment of its members. In a time filled with conflict and debate, it offered a sanctuary for calm, gentle individuals and reflective souls.

See F. Nippold, “H. Niclaes u. das Haus der Liebe,” in Zeitschrift für die histor. Theol. (1862); article “H. Niclaes” in A.J. van der Aa, Biog. Woordenboek der Nederlanden (1868); article “H. Nicholas,” by C. Fell Smith, in Dict. Nat. Biog. (1894); article “Familisten,” by Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1898).

See F. Nippold, “H. Niclaes and the House of Love,” in Journal for Historical Theology (1862); article “H. Niclaes” in A.J. van der Aa, Biography Dictionary of the Netherlands (1868); article “H. Nicholas,” by C. Fell Smith, in Dictionary of National Biography (1894); article “Familisten,” by Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck’s Real Encyclopedia (1898).

(A. Go.*)

FAMILY, a word of which the etymology but partially illustrates the meaning. The Roman familia, derived from the Oscan famel (servus), originally signified the servile property, the thralls, of a master. Next, the term denoted other domestic property, in things as well as in persons. Thus, in the fifth of the laws of the Twelve Tables, the rules are laid down: SI · INTESTATO · MORITUR · CUI · SUUS · HERES · NEC · SIT · ADGNATUS · 159 PROXIMUS · AMILIAM · ABETO, and SI · AGNATUS · NEC · ESCIT · GENTILIS · FAMILIAM · NANCITOR; that is, if a man die intestate, leaving no natural heir who had been under his potestas, the nearest agnate, or relative tracing his connexion with the deceased exclusively through males, is to inherit the familia, or family fortune of every sort. Failing an agnate, a member of the gens of the dead man is to inherit. In a third sense, familia was applied to all the persons who could prove themselves to be descended from the same ancestor, and thus the word almost corresponded to our own use of it in the widest meaning, as when we say that a person is “of a good family” (Ulpian, Dig. 50, 16, 195 fin.).

FAMILY, is a word whose origin only partially clarifies its meaning. The Roman familia, coming from the Oscan famel (servus), originally referred to a master's enslaved property, the servants. Over time, the term came to mean other domestic property, encompassing both people and things. Therefore, in the fifth of the laws of the Twelve Tables, the rules state: SI · INTESTATE · MORITUR · CUI · SUUS · HERES · NEC · SIT · ADGNATUS · 159 PROXIMUS · AMILIAM · ABETO, and SI · AGNATUS · NEITHER · KNOWS · HIS · GENTILE · FAMILY · FOUNDATIONS; meaning, if a man dies without a will, leaving no direct heir who was under his potestas, the closest male relative, or agnate, who connects to the deceased solely through males, is set to inherit the familia, or all types of family wealth. If there is no agnate, a member of the deceased's gens will inherit. Additionally, familia referred to all individuals who could prove they descended from the same ancestor, making the term nearly equivalent to our modern usage, as in saying someone is “from a good family” (Ulpian, Dig. 50, 16, 195 fin.).

1. Leaving for awhile the Roman terms, to which it will be necessary to return, we may provisionally define Family, in the modern sense, as the small community formed by the union of one man with one woman, and by the Old theory. increase of children born to them. These in modern times, and in most European countries, constitute the household, and it has been almost universally supposed that little natural associations of this sort are the germ-cell of early society. The Bible presents the growth of the Jewish nation from the one household of Abraham. His patriarchal family differed from the modern family in being polygamous, but, as female chastity was one of the conditions of the patriarchal family, and as descent through males was therefore recognized as certain, the plurality of wives makes no real difference to the argument. In the same way the earliest formal records of Indian, Greek and Roman society present the family as firmly established, and generally regarded as the most primitive of human associations. Thus, Aristotle derives the first household (οἰκία πρώτη) from the combination of man’s possession of property—in the slave or in domesticated animals—with man’s relation to woman, and he quotes Hesiod: οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τ᾽ ἀροτῆρα (Politics, i. 2. 5). The village, again, with him is a colony or offshoot of the household, and monarchical government in states is derived from the monarchy of the eldest male member of the family. Now, though certain ancient terms, introduced by Aristotle in the chapters to which we refer, might have led him to imagine a very different origin of society, his theory is, on the face of it, natural and plausible, and it has been almost universally accepted. The beginning of society, it has been said a thousand times, is the family, a natural association of kindred by blood, composed of father, mother and their descendants. In this family, the father is absolute master of his wife, his children and the goods of the little community; at his death his eldest son succeeds him; and in course of time this association of kindred, by natural increase and by adoption, develops into the clan, gens, or γένος. As generations multiply, the more distant relations split off into other clans, and these clans, which have not lost the sense of primitive kinship, unite once more into tribes. The tribes again, as civilization advances, acknowledge themselves to be subjects of a king, in whose veins the blood of the original family runs purest. This, or something like this, is the common theory of the growth of society.

1. Setting aside for a moment the Roman concepts, which we will need to revisit, we can tentatively define Family, in a contemporary sense, as the small community formed by the union of one man and one woman, along with the children they have together. In modern times, especially in most European countries, these constitute the household, and it has been widely assumed that such natural associations are the basic building blocks of early society. The Bible describes the growth of the Jewish nation starting from Abraham's one household. His patriarchal family was different from the modern family in that it was polygamous, but since female chastity was one condition of the patriarchal family and descent through males was clearly established, having multiple wives doesn't significantly alter the argument. Similarly, the earliest formal records of Indian, Greek, and Roman society show the family to be well-established and generally considered the most primitive human association. Thus, Aristotle traces the first household (house one) back to the combination of man's ownership of property — whether it be in slaves or domesticated animals — with his relationship to women, and he quotes Hesiod: First of all, a household needs a wife and a plow ox. (Politics, i. 2. 5). For him, the village is an extension or offshoot of the household, and monarchical rule in states comes from the monarchy of the oldest male member of the family. Now, while certain ancient terms introduced by Aristotle in the chapters we refer to might have led him to envision a very different origin for society, his theory appears natural and reasonable on the surface, and it has been widely accepted. It has been said countless times that the family is the beginning of society, a natural association of blood relatives made up of a father, mother, and their descendants. In this family, the father is the absolute authority over his wife, children, and the assets of the small community; upon his death, the eldest son takes his place; and over time, this connection of relatives, through natural growth and adoption, evolves into the clan, gens, or gender. As generations pass, more distant relatives branch off into other clans, and these clans, which still retain a sense of primitive kinship, come together again to form tribes. The tribes, as civilization progresses, recognize themselves as subjects of a king, who is thought to have the purest blood of the original family. This, or something similar, is the common theory regarding the development of society.

2. It was between 1866 and 1880 that the common opinion began to be seriously opposed. John Ferguson McLennan, in his Primitive Marriage and his essays on The Worship of Plants and Animals (see his Studies in Ancient History, Modern criticism second series), drew attention to the wide prevalence of the custom of inheriting the kinship name through mothers, not fathers; and to the law of “Exogamy” (q.v.). The former usage he attributed to archaic uncertainty as to fatherhood; the natural result of absolute sexual promiscuity, or of Polyandry (q.v.). Either practice is inconsistent, prima facie, with the primitive existence of the Family, whether polygamous or monogamous, whether patriarchal or modern. The custom of Exogamy, again,—here taken to mean the unwritten law which makes it incest, and a capital offence, to marry within the real or supposed kin denoted by the common name of the kinship,—pointed to an archaic condition of family affairs all unlike our Table of prohibited degrees. This law of Exogamy was found, among many savage races, associated with Totems, that is plants, animals and other natural objects which give names to the various kinships, and are themselves, in various degrees, reverenced by members of the kinships. (See Totem and Totemism.) Traces of such kinships, and of Totemism, also of alleged promiscuity in ancient times, were detected by McLennan in the legends, folk-lore and institutions of Greece, Rome and India. Later, Prof. Robertson Smith found similar survivals, or possible survivals, among the Semitic races (Kinship in Early Arabia). Others have followed the same trail among the Celts (S. Reinach, Cultes, mythes et religions, 1904).

2. Between 1866 and 1880, popular opinion began to face serious challenges. John Ferguson McLennan, in his Primitive Marriage and his essays on The Worship of Plants and Animals (see his Studies in Ancient History, Current critique second series), highlighted the widespread custom of inheriting kinship names through mothers rather than fathers; and the law of “Exogamy” (q.v.). He attributed this former practice to ancient uncertainty about paternity, stemming from absolute sexual promiscuity or Polyandry (q.v.). Both of these practices seem inconsistent, at first glance, with the primitive existence of the Family, whether polygamous or monogamous, whether patriarchal or modern. The custom of Exogamy, which refers to the unwritten law that makes it incestuous and a serious crime to marry within the real or perceived kin defined by the shared kinship name, indicated an ancient state of family dynamics very different from our Table of prohibited degrees. This Exogamy law was commonly found among many primitive societies, linked to Totems, which are plants, animals, and other natural objects that give names to various kinships and are themselves revered by kin members to varying degrees. (See Totem and Totemism.) McLennan also identified signs of such kinships, Totemism, and supposed promiscuity in ancient times within the legends, folktales, and institutions of Greece, Rome, and India. Later, Prof. Robertson Smith discovered similar remnants or possible remnants among Semitic races (Kinship in Early Arabia). Others have explored the same patterns among the Celts (S. Reinach, Cultes, mythes et religions, 1904).

If arguments founded on these alleged survivals be valid, it may be that the most civilized races have passed through the stages of Exogamy, Totemism and reckoning descent in the female line. McLennan explained Exogamy as a result of scarcity of women, due to female infanticide. Women being scarce, the men of a group would steal them from other groups, and it would become shameful, and finally a deadly sin, for a man to marry within his own group-name, or name of kinship, say Wolf or Raven. Meanwhile, owing to scarcity of women, one woman would be the mate of many husbands (polyandry); hence, paternity being undetermined, descent would be reckoned through mothers.

If arguments based on these supposed remnants are valid, it could be that the most advanced societies have gone through stages of Exogamy, Totemism, and tracing descent through the female line. McLennan explained Exogamy as a response to a shortage of women caused by female infanticide. With women being in short supply, men from a group would take them from other groups, making it increasingly shameful, and eventually a serious offense, for a man to marry within his own group or kinship name, like Wolf or Raven. Meanwhile, due to the scarcity of women, one woman would have multiple husbands (polyandry); thus, since paternity was unclear, lineage would be traced through mothers.

Such are the outlines of McLennan’s theory, which, as a whole, has been attacked by many writers, and is now, perhaps, accepted by none. McLennan’s was the most brilliant pioneer work; but his supply of facts was relatively McLennan’s value. scanty, and his friend Charles Darwin stated objections which to many seem final, as regards the past existence of a stage of sexual promiscuity. C.N. Starcke (The Primitive Family, 1889), Edward Alexander Westermarck (History of Human Marriage, 1891), Ernest Crawley (The Mystic Rose), Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Lord Avebury and many others, have criticized McLennan, who, however, in coining the term Exogamy, and drawing scientific attention to Totemism, and reckoning of kin through mothers, founded the study of early society. Here it must be observed that “Matriarchate” (q.v.) is a misleading term, as is “Gynaecocracy,” for the custom of deducing descent on the spindle side. Women among totemistic and exogamous savages are in a degraded position, nor does the deriving and inheriting of the kinship name, or anything else, on the spindle side, imply any ignorance of paternal relations; even where, as among Central Australian tribes, the facts of reproduction are said to be unknown.

These are the main points of McLennan’s theory, which has been criticized by many writers and is now probably accepted by none. McLennan’s work was incredibly pioneering, but his evidence was rather limited, and his friend Charles Darwin raised objections that many consider conclusive regarding the historical existence of a stage of sexual promiscuity. C.N. Starcke (The Primitive Family, 1889), Edward Alexander Westermarck (History of Human Marriage, 1891), Ernest Crawley (The Mystic Rose), Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Lord Avebury, and many others have critiqued McLennan. However, he introduced the term Exogamy and brought scientific focus to Totemism and maternal kinship, establishing the study of early societies. It should be noted that “Matriarchate” (q.v.) is a misleading term, just like “Gynaecocracy,” for the practice of tracing descent through the female line. In totemistic and exogamous cultures, women hold a subordinate status, and the practice of deriving and inheriting kinship names or anything else on the maternal side does not indicate a lack of understanding of paternal relationships, even where, as in some Central Australian tribes, the facts of reproduction are said to be unknown.

3. Simultaneous with McLennan’s researches and speculations were the works of Lewis H. Morgan. He was the discoverer of a custom very important in its bearing on the history of society. In about two-thirds of the globe, persons Lewis Morgan. in addressing a kinsman do not discriminate between grades of relationship. All these grades are merged in large categories. Thus, in what Morgan calls the “Malayan system,” “all consanguinei, near or far, fall within one of these relationships—grandparent, parent, brother, sister, child and grandchild.” No other blood-relationships are recognized (Ancient Society). This at once reminds us of the Platonic Republic. “We devised means that no one should ever be able to know his own child, but that all should imagine themselves to be of one family, and should regard as brothers and sisters those who were within a certain limit of age; and those who were of an elder generation they were to regard as parents and grandparents, and those who were of a younger generation as children and grandchildren” (Timaeus, 18, Jowett’s translation, first edition, vol. ii., 1871). This system prevails in the Polynesian groups and in New Zealand. Next comes what Morgan chooses to call the Turanian system. “It was universal among the North American aborigines,” whom he styles Ganowanians. “Traces of it have been found in parts of Africa” (Ancient Society), and “it still prevails in South India among the Hindus, who speak the Dravidian language,” and also in North India, among other Hindus. The system, Morgan says, “is simply stupendous.” It is not exactly the same among all his miscellaneous “Turanians,” but, on the whole, assumes the following shapes. Suppose the speaker to be a male, he will style his nephew and 160 niece in the male line, his brother’s children, “son” and “daughter,” and his grand-nephews and grand-nieces in the male line, “grandson” and “granddaughter.” Here the Turanian and the Malayan systems agree. But change the sex; let the male speaker address his nephews and nieces in the female line,—the children of his sister,—he salutes them as “nephew” and “niece,” and they hail him as “uncle.” Now, in the Malay system, nephews and nieces on both sides, brother’s children or sisters, are alike named “children” of the uncle. If the speaker be a female, using the Turanian style, these terms are reversed. Her sister’s sons and daughters are saluted by her as “son” and “daughter,” her brother’s children she calls “nephew” and “niece.” Yet the children of the persons thus styled “nephew” and “niece” are not recognized in conversation as “grand-nephew” and “grand-niece,” but as “grandson” and “granddaughter.” It is impossible here to do more than indicate these features of the classificatory nomenclature, from which the others may be inferred. The reader is referred for particulars to Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Race.

3. At the same time as McLennan was conducting his research and ideas, Lewis H. Morgan was working on his own discoveries. He identified a custom that is very significant for understanding the history of society. In about two-thirds of the world, when people talk to a relative, they don’t differentiate between different levels of relationship. All these levels are grouped into broad categories. For instance, in what Morgan calls the “Malayan system,” “all consanguinei, near or far, fall within one of these relationships—grandparent, parent, brother, sister, child, and grandchild.” No other blood relationships are recognized (Ancient Society). This immediately reminds us of Plato’s Republic. “We devised means that no one should ever know his own child, but that everyone should think of themselves as part of one family, and regard those within a certain age range as brothers and sisters; those from an older generation should be seen as parents and grandparents, and those from a younger generation as children and grandchildren” (Timaeus, 18, Jowett’s translation, first edition, vol. ii., 1871). This system is also found in Polynesia and New Zealand. Next is what Morgan refers to as the Turanian system. “It was universal among the North American natives,” whom he calls Ganowanians. “Traces of it have been found in parts of Africa” (Ancient Society), and “it still exists in South India among Hindus who speak the Dravidian language,” as well as in North India among other Hindus. Morgan claims this system “is simply astonishing.” While it’s not exactly the same among all his diverse “Turanians,” it generally takes the following forms. If the speaker is male, he will refer to his nephew and niece from his brother’s side as “son” and “daughter,” and his grand-nephews and grand-nieces from the male line as “grandson” and “granddaughter.” Here, the Turanian and Malayan systems are similar. But if we switch the sex; if the male speaker addresses his nephews and nieces from his sister’s side, he calls them “nephew” and “niece,” and they address him as “uncle.” In the Malay system, nephews and nieces from both sides, whether from a brother or a sister, are all referred to as “children” of the uncle. If a female speaker uses the Turanian style, these terms are flipped. Her sister’s children are called “son” and “daughter,” while her brother’s kids are referred to as “nephew” and “niece.” However, the children of those addressed as “nephew” and “niece” are not referred to in conversation as “grand-nephew” and “grand-niece,” but rather as “grandson” and “granddaughter.” It’s difficult to cover all the aspects of this classificatory naming system in detail, but further information can be found in Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Race.

The existence of the classificatory system is not an entirely novel discovery. Nicolaus Damascenus, one of the inquirers into early society, who lived in the first century of our era, noticed this mode of address among the Galactophagi. Lafitau found it among the Iroquois. To Morgan’s perception of the importance of the facts, and to his energetic collection of reports, we owe our knowledge of the wide prevalence of the system. From an examination of the degrees of kindred which seem to be indicated by the “Malayan” and “Turanian” modes of address, he has worked out a theory of the evolution of the modern family. A brief comparison of this with other modern theories will close our account of the family. The main points of the theory are shortly stated in Systems of Consanguinity, &c., and in Ancient Society. From the latter work we quote the following description of the five different and successive forms of the family:—

The existence of the classification system isn’t a completely new discovery. Nicolaus Damascenus, one of the early society researchers who lived in the first century, noticed this form of address among the Galactophagi. Lafitau found it among the Iroquois. Thanks to Morgan's recognition of the significance of these facts and his diligent gathering of reports, we understand how widespread the system is. By examining the degrees of kinship suggested by the “Malayan” and “Turanian” forms of address, he developed a theory about the evolution of the modern family. A brief comparison with other contemporary theories will wrap up our discussion of the family. The main points of the theory are briefly outlined in Systems of Consanguinity, & c., and in Ancient Society. From the latter work, we quote the following description of the five different and successive forms of the family:—

“I. The Consanguine Family.—It was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group.

“I. The Consanguine Family.—It was based on the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, both direct and collateral, within a group.”

“II. The Punaluan Family.—It was founded upon the intermarriage of several sisters, own and collateral, with each others’ husbands, in a group—the joint husbands not being necessarily kinsmen of each other; also, on the intermarriage of several brothers, own and collateral, with each others’ wives in a group—these wives not being necessarily of kin to each other, although often the case in both instances (sic). In each case the group of men were conjointly married to the group of women.

“II. The Punaluan Family.—It was established through the intermarriage of several sisters, both direct and collateral, with each other's husbands, forming a group—the joint husbands not necessarily being related to each other; also, through the intermarriage of several brothers, both direct and collateral, with each other's wives in a group—these wives not necessarily being related to each other, although this was often the case in both situations. In each instance, the group of men was collectively married to the group of women.”

“III. The Syndyasmian or Pairing Family.—It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, but without an exclusive cohabitation. The marriage continued during the pleasure of the parties.

“III. The Syndyasmian or Pairing Family.—It was based on marriage between individual pairs, but without exclusive living together. The marriage lasted as long as the parties enjoyed it."

“IV. The Patriarchal Family.—It was founded upon the marriage of one man with several wives, followed in general by the seclusion of the wives.

“IV. The Patriarchal Family.—It was based on the marriage of one man to multiple wives, typically accompanied by the wives being kept in seclusion.

“V. The Monogamian Family.—It was founded upon marriage between single pairs with an exclusive cohabitation.

“V. The Monogamian Family.—It was based on marriage between individual couples who lived together exclusively.”

“Three of these forms, namely, the first, second, and fifth, were radical, because they were sufficiently general, and influential to create three distinct systems of consanguinity, all of which still exist in living forms. Conversely, these systems are sufficient of themselves to prove the antecedent existence of the forms of the family and of marriage with which they severally stand connected.”

“Three of these forms—specifically, the first, second, and fifth—were groundbreaking because they were broad enough and impactful enough to create three separate systems of family relationships, all of which still exist today. On the other hand, these systems are enough on their own to demonstrate the prior existence of the family structures and the types of marriage they are each associated with.”

Morgan makes the systems of nomenclature proofs of the existence of the Consanguine and Punaluan families. Unhappily, there is no other proof, and the same systems have been explained on a very different principle (McLennan, Studies in Ancient History). Looking at facts, we find the Consanguine family nowhere, and cannot easily imagine how early groups abstained from infringing on each other, and created a systematic marriage of brothers and sisters. St Augustine, however (De civ. Dei, xv. 16), and Archinus in his Thessalica (Odyssey, xi. 7, scholia B, Q) agree more or less with Morgan. Next, how did the Consanguine family change into the Punaluan? Morgan says (Ancient Society) brothers ceased to marry their sisters, because “the evils of it could not for ever escape human observation.” Thus the Punaluan family was hit upon, and “created a distinct system of consanguinity” (Ancient Society), the Turanian. Again, “marriages in Punaluan groups explain the relationships in the system.” But Morgan provides himself with another explanation, “the Turanian system owes its origin to marriage in the group and to the gentile organization.” He calls exogamy “the gentile organization,” though, in point of fact, the only gentes we know, the Roman gentes, show scarcely a trace of exogamy. Again, “the change of relationships which resulted from substituting Punaluan in the place of Consanguine marriage turns the Malayan into the Turanian system.” On the same page Morgan attributes the change to the “gentile organization,” and, still on the same page, uses both factors in his working out of the problem. Now, if the Punaluan marriage is a sufficient explanation, we do not need the “gentile organization.” Both, in Morgan’s opinion, were efforts of conscious moral reform. In Systems of Consanguinity the gentile organization (there called tribal), that is, exogamy, is said to have been “designed to work out a reformation in the intermarriage of brothers and sisters.” But the Punaluan marriage had done that, otherwise it would not have produced (as Morgan says it did) the change from the Malayan to the Turanian system, the difference in the two systems, as exemplified in Seneca and Tamil, being “in the relationships which depended on the intermarriage or non-intermarriage of brothers and sisters” (Ancient Society). Yet the Punaluan family, though itself a reform in morals and in “breeding,” “did not furnish adequate motives to reform the Malay system,” which, as we have seen, it did reform. The Punaluan family, it is suspected, “frequently involved own brothers and sisters”; had it not been so, there would have been no need of a fresh moral reformation,—“the gentile organization.” Yet even in the Punaluan family (Ancient Society) “brothers ceased to marry their own sisters.” What, then, did the “gentile organization” do for men? As they had already ceased to marry their own sisters, and as, under the gentile organization, they were still able to marry their half-sisters, the reformatory “ingenuity” of the inventors of the organizations was at once superfluous and useless. It is impossible to understand the Punaluan system. Its existence is inferred from a system of nomenclature which it does (and does not) produce; it admits (and excludes) own brothers and sisters. Morgan has intended, apparently, to represent the Punaluan marriage as a long transition to the definite custom of exogamy, but it will be seen that his language is not very clear nor his positions assured. He does not adduce sufficient proof that the Punaluan family ever existed as an institution, even in Hawaii. There is, if possible, a greater absence of historical testimony to the existence of the Consanguine family. It is difficult to believe that exogamy was a conscious moral and social reformation, because, ex hypothesi, the savages had no moral data, nothing to cause disgust at relations which seem revolting to us. It is as improbable that they discovered the supposed physical evils of breeding in and in. That discovery could only have been made after a long experience, and in the Consanguine family that experience was impossible. Thus, setting moral reform aside as inconceivable, we cannot understand how the Consanguine families ever broke up. Morgan’s ingenious speculations as to a transitional step towards the gens (as he calls what we style the totem-kindred), supposed to be found in the “classes” and marriage laws of the Kamilaroi, are vitiated by the weakness and contradictory nature of the evidence (see Pritchard; J.D. Lang’s Queensland, Appendix; Proceedings of American Academy of Arts, &c., vol. viii. 412; Nature, October 29, 1874). Further, though Morgan calls the Australian “gentile organization” “incipient,” he admits (Ancient Society) that the Narrinyeri have totem groups, in which “the children are of the clan of the father.” Far from being “incipient,” the gens of the Narrinyeri is on the footing of the ghotra of Hindu custom. Lastly, though Morgan frequently declares that the Polynesians have not the gens (for he thinks them not sufficiently advanced), W.W. Gill (Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, London, 1876) has shown that unmistakable traces of the totem survive in Polynesian mythology.

Morgan presents the systems of naming as evidence for the existence of the Consanguine and Punaluan families. Unfortunately, there's no other evidence, and these same systems have been explained using a completely different principle (McLennan, Studies in Ancient History). When we look at the facts, we find that the Consanguine family is nowhere to be found, and it's hard to imagine how early communities managed to avoid infringing on one another while systematically marrying brothers and sisters. However, St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, xv. 16) and Archinus in his Thessalica (Odyssey, xi. 7, scholia B, Q) somewhat agree with Morgan. Next, how did the Consanguine family transition into the Punaluan one? Morgan claims (Ancient Society) that brothers stopped marrying their sisters because “the evils of it could not forever escape human observation.” This led to the emergence of the Punaluan family, which “created a distinct system of consanguinity” (Ancient Society), the Turanian. Furthermore, “marriages in Punaluan groups explain the relationships in the system.” But Morgan provides another explanation, stating that “the Turanian system owes its origin to marriage in the group and to the gentile organization.” He refers to exogamy as “the gentile organization,” even though the only gentes we know of, the Roman gentes, show almost no evidence of exogamy. Additionally, “the change of relationships brought about by substituting Punaluan for Consanguine marriage transforms the Malayan system into the Turanian one.” On the same page, Morgan attributes this change to the “gentile organization,” and still on that same page, he uses both factors in his analysis of the issue. If the Punaluan marriage is a sufficient explanation, then we don’t need the “gentile organization.” In Morgan’s view, both were attempts at conscious moral reform. In Systems of Consanguinity, the gentile organization (referred to as tribal) is said to have been “designed to work out a reformation in the intermarriage of brothers and sisters.” But the Punaluan marriage had already accomplished that; otherwise, it wouldn’t have led to (as Morgan claims) the shift from the Malayan to the Turanian system, with the differences in the two systems, as shown in Seneca and Tamil, hinging on “the relationships that depended on the intermarriage or non-intermarriage of brothers and sisters” (Ancient Society). Yet the Punaluan family, being a reform in morals and in “breeding,” “did not provide sufficient motives to reform the Malay system,” which, as we have seen, it indeed reformed. It's suspected that the Punaluan family “frequently involved own brothers and sisters”; had it not been so, there would have been no need for a new moral reformation—“the gentile organization.” Yet even within the Punaluan family (Ancient Society), “brothers ceased to marry their own sisters.” So, what did the “gentile organization” actually do for people? Since they had already stopped marrying their own sisters, and under the gentile organization they were still able to marry their half-sisters, the creative “ingenuity” of the creators of the organizations seems entirely unnecessary and unhelpful. The Punaluan system is difficult to understand. Its existence is inferred from a naming system that it both creates and fails to create; it allows for (and excludes) own brothers and sisters. Morgan appears to want to portray the Punaluan marriage as a long transition to the established practice of exogamy, but his language is unclear and his arguments are not solid. He doesn't provide enough evidence that the Punaluan family ever existed as an institution, even in Hawaii. There is an even greater lack of historical proof for the existence of the Consanguine family. It's hard to believe that exogamy was a conscious moral and social reform since, ex hypothesi, the savages lacked moral guidelines, nothing to evoke disgust at relationships that seem shocking to us. It's just as unlikely that they recognized the supposed physical harms of inbreeding. That realization could only have come after extensive experience, and in the Consanguine family, that experience was not possible. Therefore, if we set aside moral reform as inconceivable, we struggle to understand how the Consanguine families ever dissolved. Morgan’s clever theories about a transitional step toward the gens (what we refer to as the totem-kindred), believed to be found in the “classes” and marriage laws of the Kamilaroi, are undermined by the weak and contradictory nature of the evidence (see Pritchard; J.D. Lang’s Queensland, Appendix; Proceedings of American Academy of Arts, &c., vol. viii. 412; Nature, October 29, 1874). Moreover, although Morgan refers to the Australian “gentile organization” as “incipient,” he acknowledges (Ancient Society) that the Narrinyeri have totem groups in which “the children are of the clan of the father.” Far from being “incipient,” the gens of the Narrinyeri closely resembles the ghotra of Hindu custom. Finally, although Morgan often asserts that the Polynesians do not possess the gens (because he thinks they are not advanced enough), W.W. Gill (Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, London, 1876) has shown that there are unmistakable remnants of totemism in Polynesian mythology.

4. Morgan’s theory was opposed by McLennan (Studies in Ancient History, 1876), who maintained that the names of 161 relationships, in the “classificatory system,” were merely terms of address, as among ourselves when a preacher calls any adult Rival theories. male “brother,” when an old woman is addressed as “mother,” when an elder man calls a junior “my son.” He also showed that his own system accounted for the terms. The controversy is still alive; one set of writers regarding the savage terms of relationship as indicating a state of things in which human beings dwelt in a “horde,” with promiscuous intercourse; another set holding that the terms do not indicate consanguineous kinship, but degrees of age, status, and reciprocal obligations in a local tribe, and therefore that they do not yield any presumption that there was a past of promiscuity or of what is called “group marriage.” On Morgan’s side (not of course accepting all his details) are L. Fison and A.W. Howitt, and Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen. Against him are Starcke, Westermarck, A. Lang, Dr Durkheim, apparently, Crawley and many others.

4. Morgan’s theory faced opposition from McLennan (Studies in Ancient History, 1876), who argued that the names of relationships in the “classificatory system” were just terms of address. For example, when a preacher calls any adult male “brother,” when an older woman is referred to as “mother,” or when an older man calls a younger one “my son.” He also demonstrated that his own system explained these terms. The debate is still ongoing; one group of writers sees the savage terms of relationship as reflecting a time when humans lived in a “horde” with casual sexual relationships, while another group believes these terms do not signify blood relations but rather age, status, and mutual obligations within a local tribe, suggesting no history of promiscuity or what is known as “group marriage.” Supporting Morgan (though not accepting all his specifics) are L. Fison, A.W. Howitt, Baldwin Spencer, and F.J. Gillen. Opposing him are Starcke, Westermarck, A. Lang, Dr. Durkheim, Crawley, and many others.

5. A second presumption in favour of original promiscuity has been drawn by the eminent Australian students, Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, and by A.W. Howitt, from the customs of some Australian aborigines. In each Evidence of original promiscuity. tribe, owing to customary laws which are to be examined later, only men and women of a given status are intermarriageable (nupa, noa, unawa) with each other. Though child-betrothals are usual, and though the woman is specialized to one man, who protects and nourishes her and all her children, and though their union is immediately preceded by an extended jus primae noctis (such as Herodotus describes among the Nasamones), yet, among certain tribes, the following custom prevails. At great meetings the tribal leaders assign a woman as paramour (with what amount of permanence remains obscure) to a man (pirrauru); one woman may have several pirrauru men, one man several pirrauru women, in addition to their regularly betrothed (tippa malku) wives and husbands. The husband occasionally shows fight, and bitter jealousies prevail, but, at the great ceremonial meetings, complaisance is enforced under penalty of strangling. Thenceforth, if the husband permits, the male pirrauru has matrimonial rights over the other man’s tippa malku wife when they meet. A symbolic ceremony of union precedes the junction of the pirrauru people. This institution, as far as reported, is peculiar to a group of tribes near Lake Eyre, the Dieri, Urabunna, and their congeners,—or perhaps to all who have the same “phratry” names as the Dieri and Urabunna (Kiraru and Mattera, in various dialectic forms).

5. A second assumption supporting original promiscuity has been made by prominent Australian scholars Baldwin Spencer, F.J. Gillen, and A.W. Howitt, based on the customs of some Australian Aboriginal people. In each Evidence of past promiscuity. tribe, due to customary laws that will be discussed later, only men and women of a certain status can marry each other (nupa, noa, unawa). Although child betrothals are common, and while the woman is linked to one man, who supports and takes care of her and all her children, and although their union is usually preceded by an extended jus primae noctis (as described by Herodotus among the Nasamones), a different custom is observed in certain tribes. At major gatherings, the tribal leaders assign a woman as a partner (the permanence of which is unclear) to a man (pirrauru); one woman may have several pirrauru men, and one man may have several pirrauru women, in addition to their regularly betrothed (tippa malku) wives and husbands. The husband may sometimes fight, and there can be intense jealousy, but at the significant ceremonial gatherings, compliance is required under the threat of strangulation. From that point on, if the husband allows it, the male pirrauru has marital rights over the other man's tippa malku wife when they meet. A symbolic ceremony of union takes place before the pirrauru individuals come together. This practice, as far as reported, is unique to a group of tribes around Lake Eyre, including the Dieri, Urabunna, and their related groups—or perhaps to all who share the same “phratry” names as the Dieri and Urabunna (Kiraru and Mattera, in various dialect forms).

Elsewhere the pirrauru custom is not known: but almost everywhere there are licentious festivals, in which all marriage rules except those which forbid incest (in our sense of the word, namely between the closest relations) are thrown to the winds. Also a native travelling among alien tribes is lent women of the status into which he may legally marry.

Elsewhere, the pirrauru custom is unknown; however, nearly everywhere there are uninhibited festivals where most marriage rules, except those prohibiting incest (as we define it, meaning between close relatives), are disregarded. Additionally, a native traveling among foreign tribes is given women of the status to which he can legally marry.

Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, and A.W. Howitt, regard pirrauru as “group marriage” and as a proof that, at one time, all intermarriageable people were actually husbands and wives, while the other examples of licence are also Group marriage. survivals, in a later stage of decay, of promiscuity, and “group marriage.” To this it is replied that “group marriage” is a misnomer; that if pirrauru be in a sense marriage it is status, not group marriage. Again, it is urged, pirrauru is a modification of tippa malku, which comes first; a woman is “specialized” to a man before she can be made pirrauru to another, and her tippa malku husband continues to support her, and to recognize her children as his own, after she has become pirrauru to another man or other men. Without the foregoing tippa malku union, the pirrauru unions are not conceivable; they are mere legalized paramourships, modifying the tippa malku marriage (like the Italian cicisbeism); procuring a protector for a woman in her husband’s absence, and supplying legal loves for bachelors. The custom is peculiar to a given set of kindred tribes. The festivals are the legalized, restricted and more or less permanent modification of the casual orgies of feasts of licence, or Saturnalia, which have their analogies among many people, ancient and modern. Pirrauru is no more a survival of and a proof of primitive promiscuity, than is the legalized incest of ancient Egypt or ancient Peru. If these views be correct the argument for primitive promiscuity derived from pirrauru falls to the ground.

Baldwin Spencer, F.J. Gillen, and A.W. Howitt see pirrauru as “group marriage” and evidence that, at one point, all intermarriageable people were actually husbands and wives, while other instances of license are also Polyamorous relationship. remnants, in a later stage of decline, of promiscuity and “group marriage.” In response, it’s argued that “group marriage” is a mislabel; if pirrauru is considered a form of marriage, it’s a status, not group marriage. Furthermore, it’s suggested that pirrauru is a variation of tippa malku, which comes first; a woman is “specialized” to a man before she can be made pirrauru to another, and her tippa malku husband continues to support her and acknowledge her children as his own, even after she has become pirrauru to another man or men. Without the initial tippa malku union, the pirrauru unions aren’t plausible; they are simply sanctioned relationships that modify the tippa malku marriage (similar to Italian cicisbeism), providing a protector for a woman in her husband’s absence and offering legal partners for bachelors. This custom is unique to a specific group of related tribes. The festivals are a legalized, controlled, and somewhat permanent adaptation of the casual feasts of license, or Saturnalia, which have parallels among many ancient and modern cultures. Pirrauru is no more a remnant of or evidence for primitive promiscuity than the legalized incest in ancient Egypt or ancient Peru. If these perspectives are accurate, the argument for primitive promiscuity based on pirrauru collapses.

6. The questions at issue obviously are, was mankind originally promiscuous, with no objections to marriage between persons of the nearest kin; and was the first step in advance the prohibition of marriage (or of amatory intercourse) The historical problem. between brothers and sisters; or did mankind originally live in very small groups, under a jealous sire, who imposed restrictions on intercourse between the young males, his sons, and all the females of the “hearth-circle,” who constituted his harem? The problem has been studied, first, in the institutions of savages, notably of the most backward savages, the black natives of Australia; and next, in the light of the habits of the higher mammalia.

6. The key questions are, was humanity originally promiscuous, with no issues regarding marriage between close relatives; and was the first move towards progress the ban on marriage (or sexual relations) between brothers and sisters? Or did humans initially live in very small groups, under a possessive leader, who enforced restrictions on relationships between young males, his sons, and all the females in the “hearth-circle,” who made up his harem? This issue has been explored, first, through the practices of primitive peoples, particularly the most isolated groups, like the Indigenous Australians; and second, considering the behaviors of higher mammals.

As regards Australian matrimonial institutions, it has been known since the date of the Journals of two Expeditions of Discovery, by Sir George Grey (1837-1839), that they are very complex and peculiar, in points strongly resembling the customary laws of the more backward Red Indian tribes of North America. Information came in, while McLennan was working, from G. Taplin (The Narrinyeri, 1874), from A.W. Howitt and L. Fison, and many other inquirers (in Brough Smyth’s Aborigines of Victoria, 1878), from Howitt and Fison again (in Kamilaroi and Kurnai, 1880), and many essays by these authors, and finally, in Native Tribes of Central Australia (1899) and Northern Tribes of Central Australia (1904), by Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen; and in Howitt’s Native Tribes of South-East Australia (1904), with R. Roth’s North-West Central Queensland Aborigines (1897). All of these are works of very high merit. Knowledge is now much more wide, minute and securely based than it was when McLennan’s Studies in Ancient History, second series, was posthumously published (1896). We know with certainty that in Australia, among archaic savages who have neither metals, agriculture, pottery nor domesticated animals, a graduated scale of matrimonial institutions exists. First there are local tribes, each tribe having its own dialect; holding a recognized area of territory; and living on friendly terms with neighbouring tribes. Territorial conquest is never attempted. In many cases a knot of tribes of allied dialects and kindred rites may be, or at least is, spoken of as a “nation” by our authorities.

Regarding Australian marriage customs, it has been known since the publication of the Journals of two Expeditions of Discovery by Sir George Grey (1837-1839) that they are quite intricate and unique, with notable similarities to the customary laws of some of the more primitive Native American tribes. While McLennan was conducting his research, information was gathered from G. Taplin's The Narrinyeri (1874), along with contributions from A.W. Howitt, L. Fison, and various other researchers (in Brough Smyth’s Aborigines of Victoria, 1878), as well as from Howitt and Fison again (in Kamilaroi and Kurnai, 1880) and several essays authored by them. This continued with works like Native Tribes of Central Australia (1899) and Northern Tribes of Central Australia (1904) by Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, and Howitt’s Native Tribes of South-East Australia (1904), along with R. Roth’s North-West Central Queensland Aborigines (1897). All these works are of excellent quality. Our understanding is now much broader, more detailed, and well-founded than it was when McLennan’s Studies in Ancient History, second series, was published posthumously (1896). We know for sure that in Australia, among primitive tribes who have no metals, agriculture, pottery, or domesticated animals, there is a structured set of marriage customs. First, there are local tribes, each with its own dialect; they occupy recognized territories and maintain friendly relationships with neighboring tribes. They never attempt territorial conquest. In many instances, a group of tribes sharing similar dialects and related customs may be referred to as a "nation" by our scholars.

7. Customary law is administered by the Seniors, the wise, the magically skilled, who in many cases are “headmen” of local groups or of sets of kindred. As to marriage, Primitive restrictions on marriage. persons may wed within the local tribe, or into a neighbouring local tribe, at will, provided that they obey the restrictions of customary law. The local tribe is neither exogamous nor endogamous, any more than is an English county. The restrictions, except where they have become obsolete, fall into six main categories:—

7. Customary law is handled by the elders, the wise ones, who are often the "headmen" of local groups or families. When it comes to marriage, Outdated restrictions on marriage. people can marry within their local tribe or even a neighboring tribe, whenever they like, as long as they follow the rules of customary law. The local tribe is neither strictly open to outsiders nor exclusively closed off, similar to an English county. The restrictions, unless they've become outdated, fall into six main categories:—

(1) In the most primitive, each tribe consists of two intermarrying and exogamous divisions, which are often styled phratries. Each such division has a name, which, when it can be translated, is the name of an animal: in the majority of cases, however, the meaning of the phratry name is lost. In one instance, that of the Euahlayi tribe of north-west New South Wales, the phratry names are said (by Mrs Langloh Parker) to mean “Light Blood” and “Dark Blood.” This, as in the theory of the Rev. J. Mathews, Eagle and Crow, might be taken to indicate a blending of two distinct races.

(1) In the most basic societies, each tribe has two intermarrying and exogamous divisions, often called phratries. Each division has a name, which, when it can be translated, refers to an animal; however, in most cases, the meaning of the phratry name is lost. For example, in the Euahlayi tribe of northwest New South Wales, the phratry names are said (by Mrs. Langloh Parker) to mean “Light Blood” and “Dark Blood.” This, as suggested in the theory of Rev. J. Mathews, Eagle and Crow, could indicate a blending of two distinct races.

Taking, for the sake of clearness, tribes whose phratry names mean “Crow” and “Eagle Hawk,” every member of the tribe belongs either to Eagle Hawk phratry or to Crow phratry: if to Crow, the man or woman can only marry an Eagle Hawk, if to Eagle Hawk, can only marry a Crow. The children invariably belong to the phratry of the mother, in this most primitive type. Within Eagle Hawk phratry is one set of totem kins, named usually after various species of animals and plants; within Crow phratry is another set of totem kins, named always (except in one region of Central Australia) after a different set of plants and animals. With the exception mentioned (that of the Arunta 162 “nation”), in no tribe does the same totem ever occur in both phratries. Totems and totem names are inherited by the children from the mother, in this primitive type. Thus a man, Eagle Hawk by phratry, Snipe by totem, marries a woman Crow by phratry, Black Duck by totem. His children by her are of phratry Crow, of totem Black Duck. Obviously no person can marry another of his or her own totem, because, in the phratry into which he or she must marry, no man or woman of his or her totem exists. The prohibition extends to members of alien and remote tribes, if of the same totem name.

To clarify, let's consider tribes with phratry names that mean “Crow” and “Eagle Hawk.” Every tribe member belongs to either the Eagle Hawk phratry or the Crow phratry: if they belong to the Crow, they can only marry someone from the Eagle Hawk; if they belong to the Eagle Hawk, they can only marry someone from the Crow. The children always belong to the mother’s phratry in this very basic social structure. Within the Eagle Hawk phratry, there is a group of totem kins, typically named after different species of animals and plants; within the Crow phratry, there's another group of totem kins, usually named after a different set of plants and animals (except in one area of Central Australia). Aside from this exception regarding the Arunta 162 “nation,” no tribe has the same totem in both phratries. The children inherit their totems and totem names from their mother in this basic type of society. So, if a man is Eagle Hawk by phratry and Snipe by totem, and he marries a woman who is Crow by phratry and Black Duck by totem, their children will belong to the Crow phratry and have the totem Black Duck. Clearly, no one can marry someone of their own totem because, in the phratry where they must marry, no one of their totem exists. This rule also applies to members from distant and unrelated tribes if they have the same totem name.

The same rules exist in the more primitive North American tribes, but as the phratry there has generally, though not always, decayed, the rule, where this has occurred, merely forbids marriage within the totem kin.

The same rules apply in the more primitive North American tribes, but since the phratry has generally, though not always, declined there, the rule, where this has happened, simply prohibits marriage within the totem kin.

(2) We find this type of organization, where the child inherits phratry and totem from the father, not from the mother.

(2) We see this kind of organization, where the child gets the phratry and totem from the father, not from the mother.

(3) We find tribes in which phratry and totem are inherited from the mother, but an additional rule prevails: the rule of “Matrimonial Classes.” By this device, in phratry “Dilbi,” there are two classes, “Muri” and “Kubi.” In phratry “Kupathin” are two classes, “Ipai” and “Kumbo” (all these names are of unknown meaning). Each child inherits its mother’s phratry name and totem name, and also the name of that class of the two in the mother’s phratry to which the mother does not belong. No person may marry into his or her own class—practically into his or her own generation: the rule makes parental and filial marriages impossible,—but these never occur even among more primitive tribes which have not the institution of classes. Suppose that the class names are really names of animals and other objects in nature—as in a few cases they actually are. Then the rules, where classes exist, would amount to this: no person may marry another who, by phratry, totem or generation, owns the same hereditary animal name as himself or herself. In practice, where phratries exist, a man who knows a woman’s phratry name knows whether or not he may marry her. Where class names exist (even though the phratry name be lost), a man who knows a woman’s class name knows whether or not he may marry her. Nothing can be simpler in practice.

(3) We find tribes where phratry and totem are passed down from the mother, but there’s also an additional rule: the rule of “Matrimonial Classes.” In the phratry “Dilbi,” there are two classes, “Muri” and “Kubi.” In the phratry “Kupathin,” there are also two classes, “Ipai” and “Kumbo” (all these names have unknown meanings). Each child inherits their mother’s phratry name and totem name, as well as the name of the class in the mother’s phratry that she does not belong to. No person can marry into their own class—effectively marrying within their own generation: this rule makes parental and child marriages impossible, which do not happen even among more primitive tribes that lack the institution of classes. Suppose the class names are actually names of animals and other natural objects—as some cases suggest they are. Then the rules where classes exist would boil down to this: no person can marry another who, through phratry, totem, or generation, shares the same hereditary animal name as themselves. In practice, where phratries exist, a man who knows a woman’s phratry name knows if he can marry her. Similarly, where class names exist (even if the phratry name is lost), a man who knows a woman’s class name knows whether he can marry her. It’s really that simple in practice.

(4) The same rules as under (3) exist, but the phratry, totem and class are inherited through the father: the class of the child of course not being the father’s, but the linked class in his phratry.

(4) The same rules as in (3) apply here, but the phratry, totem, and class are passed down through the father: the child’s class is not the same as the father’s, but the associated class in his phratry.

(5) In the fifth category (Central North Australia), while phratry name (if not lost) and totem name are inherited from the father, by a refinement of law which is spreading southwards there are four classes in each phratry (or main exogamous division unnamed), and the choice of a partner in life is thus more restricted than in more primitive tribes.

(5) In the fifth category (Central North Australia), while the phratry name (if it hasn’t been lost) and totem name are passed down from the father, due to a legal refinement that’s spreading southward, there are four classes in each phratry (or main exogamous division that isn't named), making the choice of a life partner more limited than in more primitive tribes.

(6) Finally we reach the institutions of the group of tribes called, from the name of the most powerful tribe in the set, “the Arunta nation.” They occupy the Macdonnell Ranges and other territory in the very centre of Arunta customs. Australia. The Arunta reckon kinship in the male line: their phratry names they have forgotten, in place of phratries eight matrimonial classes regulate marriage. In these respects they resemble most of the central and northern tribes, but present this unique peculiarity, that the same totems may and do exist in both of the opposed intermarrying exogamous divisions consisting of four classes each. It thus results that a man, in the Arunta tribe, may marry a woman of his own totem, if she be in the class with which he may intermarry. This licence is unknown in every other part of the totemic world, and even in the Kaitish tribe of the Arunta nation intertotemic marriages, in practice, almost never occur.

(6) Finally, we come to the institutions of the group of tribes known as "the Arunta nation," named after the most powerful tribe in the group. They inhabit the Macdonnell Ranges and other areas right in the center of Arunta traditions. Australia. The Arunta trace their kinship through the male line: they've forgotten their phratry names, and instead, eight matrimonial classes govern marriage. In these ways, they are similar to most central and northern tribes, but they have a unique feature: the same totems can and do exist in both of the opposing intermarrying exogamous divisions, which each consist of four classes. As a result, a man in the Arunta tribe may marry a woman of his own totem if she belongs to the class that he can intermarry with. This allowance is not found in any other part of the totemic world, and even in the Kaitish tribe of the Arunta nation, intertotemic marriages rarely occur in practice.

Among the Arunta the totems are only prominent in magical ceremonies, unknown in South-Eastern Australia. At these ceremonies (Intichiuma) the men of the totem do cooperative magic for the benefit of their plant or animal, as part of the tribal food-supply. The members of the totem taste it sparingly on these occasions, apparently under the belief that to do so increases their magical power: the rest of the tribe eat freely. But, as far as denoting kinship or regulating marriage is concerned, the totems, among the Arunta, have no legally important existence. Men and women of the same totem may intermarry, their children need not belong to the totem of either father or mother.

Among the Arunta, totems are mainly significant during magical ceremonies, which are not found in South-Eastern Australia. In these ceremonies (Intichiuma), the men of the totem perform cooperative magic to support their plant or animal, as part of the tribal food supply. The members of the totem only taste it lightly during these events, seemingly believing that this enhances their magical power, while the rest of the tribe eats freely. However, in terms of defining kinship or regulating marriage, totems among the Arunta don't have any legal significance. Men and women of the same totem can marry, and their children don't have to belong to the totem of either parent.

The process by which Arunta totems came thus to differ from those of all other savages is easily understood. Like the other tribes from the centre to the north (including the Urabunna nation, which reckons descent through women), the Arunta believe that the souls of the primal semi-bestial ancestors of the Alcheringa or “dream time” are perpetually reincarnated. This opinion does not affect by itself the usual exogamous character of totemism among the other tribes. The Arunta nation, however, cultivates an additional myth, namely that the primal ancestors, when they sank into the ground, left behind them certain oval stone slabs, with archaic markings, called churinga nanja, or “sacred things of the nanja.” The nanja, again, is a tree or rock, fabled to have risen up to mark the spot where a group of primal ancestors, all of one and the same totem in each case (Cats here, Grubs there, Ducks elsewhere), “went into the ground.” The souls of these ancestors haunt such spots, especially they haunt the nanja tree or rock, and the stone churinga nanja. Each district, therefore, has its own oknanikilla (or local totem centre of the ghosts), Cat ghosts, Grub ghosts, Hakea flower ghosts and so on. These spirits enter into women and are reborn as children. When a child comes to birth, the mother names the oknanikilla in which she conceived it, and, whatever the ghost totem of that place may be, it is the child’s totem. Its mother may be a Grub, its father may be a Crow, but if the child was conceived in a Duck, or Cat, or Opossum or Kangaroo locality, it is, by totem, a Cat, Opossum, Duck or Kangaroo. The churinga nanja of its primal ancestor is sought for at the place of the child’s conception, and is put into the sacred repository of such objects.

The way Arunta totems are different from those of other tribes is pretty straightforward. Like the other tribes from the center to the north (including the Urabunna nation, which traces descent through women), the Arunta believe that the souls of their ancient, semi-bestial ancestors from the Alcheringa, or “dream time,” are always being reincarnated. This belief doesn't change the usual rules of totemism for the other tribes. However, the Arunta nation has an additional myth: when the primal ancestors sank into the ground, they left behind oval stone slabs with ancient markings, called churinga nanja, or “sacred things of the nanja.” The nanja is a tree or rock that is said to have risen up to mark the spot where a group of primal ancestors, all of the same totem (Cats here, Grubs there, Ducks elsewhere), “went into the ground.” The souls of these ancestors haunt those places, especially the nanja tree or rock, and the stone churinga nanja. Each area has its own oknanikilla (or local totem center of the spirits), like Cat ghosts, Grub ghosts, Hakea flower ghosts, and so on. These spirits enter into women and are reborn as children. When a child is born, the mother names the oknanikilla where she conceived the child, and whatever the ghost totem of that place may be becomes the child's totem. The mother may be a Grub, and the father may be a Crow, but if the child was conceived in a Duck, Cat, Opossum, or Kangaroo area, then that is the child's totem. The churinga nanja of its ancient ancestor is looked for at the place of the child's conception and is placed in the sacred repository of such objects.

Thus the child does not inherit its totem from father, or from mother, as everywhere else, but does inherit the right to do ceremonies for the paternal totem: a proof that, of old, totems were inherited, as elsewhere, and that in the male line. If totems among the Arunta, as everywhere else, were once arranged on the plan that the same totem never occurs in both exogamous moieties, that arrangement has been destroyed, as was inevitable, by the existing method of allotting totems to children,—not by inheritance,—but at haphazard. By this means (a consequence of the unique Arunta belief about churinga nanja) the same totems have got into both exogamous moieties, so that persons of the same totem, but of appropriate matrimonial classes, may marry. This licence is absolutely confined to the limited region in which stone churinga nanja occur.

Thus the child doesn't inherit its totem from the father or the mother, like in other places, but does inherit the right to perform ceremonies for the paternal totem: proof that, long ago, totems were inherited, as they are elsewhere, and through the male line. If totems among the Arunta, like everywhere else, were once organized such that the same totem never appears in both exogamous groups, that structure has been broken, as was inevitable, by the current method of assigning totems to children—not through inheritance—but randomly. Because of this method (a result of the unique Arunta belief about churinga nanja), the same totems have appeared in both exogamous groups, allowing people of the same totem, but from the appropriate matrimonial classes, to marry. This allowance is strictly limited to the specific area where stone churinga nanja can be found.

The whole system is impossible except where descent is reckoned in the male line, for there alone is local totemism possible, and the Arunta system is based on local totemism, plus the churinga nanja and reincarnation beliefs. With reckoning of descent in the female line, no locality can possibly have its local totem: all the totems indiscriminately distributed everywhere: and thus no woman can say in what totemic locality her child was conceived, for there is not and cannot be, with female descent, any totemic locality. Now it is admitted that reckoning by female descent is the earlier method, and it is granted that in rites and ceremonies the Arunta are of a relatively advanced and highly organized pattern. Their social organization is local, and they have a kind of local magistracies, hereditary in the male line.

The whole system only works where descent is traced through males, because that’s the only situation where local totemism makes sense. The Arunta system relies on local totemism, along with the churinga nanja and reincarnation beliefs. When descent is traced through females, no specific locality can have its own local totem; instead, totems are spread out everywhere. This means no woman can identify the totemic locality where her child was conceived, because with female descent, there simply can't be any totemic locality. It's recognized that tracing descent through females is the earlier approach, and it's understood that the Arunta are relatively advanced and highly organized in their rites and ceremonies. Their social structure is based on local communities, and they have a form of local magistracy that is hereditary in the male line.

In spite of these facts, Spencer and Gillen conceive that the peculiar totemism of the Arunta is the most primitive type extant (cp. Spencer, J.A.I. (N.S.), vol. i. 275-281; and Frazer, ibid. 281-288). It is not easy to understand this position, as, without male kinship and consequent local totemism (which are not primitive), and without the churinga nanja (which exist only in a strictly limited area), the Arunta system of non-exogamous totems cannot possibly exist. Again, the other tribes cannot have passed through the Arunta stage, for, if they had, their totems would have existed, as among the Arunta, in both exogamous moieties, and would there remain when they came to be inherited; 163 so that the totems of all these tribes would still be non-exogamous, like those of the Arunta. But this is not the case. Once more, it is clear that the Arunta system has but recently reached their neighbours, the Kaitish, for though they have the churinga nanja belief, and the haphazard method of acquiring totems by local accident, these things have not yet overcome the old traditional reluctance to marry within the totem name. It is not unlawful among the Kaitish; but it is hardly ever done.

Despite these facts, Spencer and Gillen believe that the unique totemism of the Arunta is the most primitive type still in existence (see Spencer, J.A.I. (N.S.), vol. i. 275-281; and Frazer, ibid. 281-288). This viewpoint is hard to understand because, without male kinship and the resulting local totemism (which are not primitive), and without the churinga nanja (which only exist in a very restricted area), the Arunta's system of non-exogamous totems couldn't exist at all. Furthermore, other tribes couldn’t have passed through the Arunta stage; if they had, their totems would have appeared like those of the Arunta, in both exogamous moieties, and would have been inherited as such; 163 so the totems of all these tribes would still be non-exogamous, just like those of the Arunta. But that’s not the case. Additionally, it’s clear that the Arunta system has only recently reached their neighbors, the Kaitish. Although they share the belief in churinga nanja and the random way of acquiring totems through local chance, these factors haven’t yet overcome the longstanding tradition of hesitance to marry within the totem name. It’s not forbidden among the Kaitish, but it’s very rarely practiced.

Despite these objections, however, Spencer and Gillen hold, as we have said, that, originally, there were no restrictions (or no known restrictions) on marriage. Totems were merely the result of the formation of co-operative magical societies, in the interest of the tribal food supply. Then, in some unknown way, regulations as to marriage were introduced for some unknown purpose, or were involved in some manner not understood. “The traditions of the Arunta,” says Spencer, “point to a very definite introduction of an exogamous system long after the totemic groups were fully developed, and, further, they point very clearly to the fact that the introduction was due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors. Our knowledge of the natives leads us to the opinion that it is quite possible that this really took place, that the exogamic groups were deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations.”

Despite these objections, Spencer and Gillen argue, as we mentioned, that originally, there were no restrictions (or known restrictions) on marriage. Totems were simply the result of forming cooperative magical societies aimed at supporting the tribal food supply. Then, in some unknown way, rules about marriage were introduced for some unclear purpose or were involved in some way that isn't understood. “The traditions of the Arunta,” Spencer states, “indicate a very clear introduction of an exogamous system long after the totemic groups were fully developed, and they also clearly point out that this introduction was due to the intentional actions of certain ancestors. Our knowledge of the natives leads us to believe that this likely occurred, and that the exogamous groups were deliberately established to regulate marital relationships.”

Thus the wisdom of men living promiscuously as regards marriage, but organized in magical societies for the benefit of the common food supply of the local tribe (a complex institution postulated as already in being at this early stage), induced them to institute exogamy. Why they did this, what harm they saw in their promiscuity, we are not informed. Spencer goes on, “by this we do not mean that the regulations had anything whatever to do with the idea of incest, or of any harm accruing from the union of individuals who were regarded as too nearly related.... There was felt the need of some kind of organization, and this gradually resulted in the development of exogamous groups.” But as “it is quite possible that the exogamous groups were deliberately introduced to regulate marital relations,” and as they could only do so by introducing exogamy, we do not see how that system can be the result of the gradual development of an organization quelconque,—of unknown nature. A magical organization already existed (Journal of the Anthropological Institute, New Series, i. pp. 284-285).

Thus, the wisdom of people living freely when it comes to marriage, but organized in magical societies for the benefit of the local tribe (a complex institution that was apparently already established at this early stage), led them to create exogamy. We don’t know why they did this or what issues they saw in their promiscuity. Spencer continues, “by this we do not mean that the regulations had anything to do with the idea of incest, or any harm arising from the union of individuals who were seen as too closely related.... There was a need for some kind of organization, and this gradually led to the development of exogamous groups.” However, as it is “quite possible that the exogamous groups were intentionally introduced to regulate marital relations,” and since they could only achieve this by implementing exogamy, it’s unclear how that system could have resulted from a gradual development of an organization quelconque,—of unknown nature. A magical organization was already in place (Journal of the Anthropological Institute, New Series, i. pp. 284-285).

The traditions of the Arunta seem here to be first accepted: “quite possibly” they are correct in stating that an exogamic system was purposefully introduced, long after totemic groups had arisen, by “the deliberate action of certain ancestors,” and then that myth is rejected, in favour of the gradual development of exogamy, “out of some form of organization,” unknown.

The traditions of the Arunta appear to be initially acknowledged here: “quite possibly” they are right in saying that an exogamous system was intentionally established, long after totemic groups had emerged, by “the deliberate actions of specific ancestors,” and then that myth is dismissed, in favor of the gradual evolution of exogamy, “from some form of organization,” which is unknown.

People who, like the Arunta, have lost memory of the very names of the phratries, cannot conceivably remember the nature of the origin of exogamy. Accustomed as they now are to tribal councils which introduce new rules, they fancy that, in the beginning, new rules were thus introduced.

People who, like the Arunta, have forgotten even the names of their factions can't possibly recall how exogamy originated. Now used to tribal councils that create new rules, they believe that new rules must have been introduced that way from the start.

Meanwhile the working of magic for the behoof of the totem animals and plants, or rather for the name-giving animals of magical societies, is not known to Howitt among the tribes of primitive social organization, while it is well Conclusion as to Spencer’s hypothesis. known among agricultural natives of the Torres Strait Islands and among the advanced Sioux and Omaha of North America. The practice seems to belong rather to the decadence than to the dawn of totemism. On the whole, then, there seem to be insuperable difficulties in the way of Spencer’s hypothesis that mankind were promiscuous, as regards marriage, but were organized into cooperative magical groups, athwart which came, in some unexplained way, the rule of exogamy; while, when it did come, all savages except the Arunta arranged matters so that totem kins were exogamous. The reverse was probably the case, totem kins were originally exogamous, and ceased to be so, and even to be kins among the Arunta, in consequence of the churinga nanja creed, becoming co-operative magical societies (Hartland, Marett, Durkheim and others).

Meanwhile, the use of magic for the benefit of totem animals and plants, or specifically for the animals that give names in magical societies, isn't known to Howitt among tribes with primitive social structures. However, it is well-documented among the agricultural natives of the Torres Strait Islands and among the more advanced Sioux and Omaha of North America. This practice seems to be more associated with the decline than the beginning of totemism. Overall, there appear to be significant challenges to Spencer’s theory that humanity was promiscuous in terms of marriage but organized into collaborative magical groups, which were somehow affected by the rule of exogamy; yet, when this rule did appear, all savages except the Arunta arranged things so that totem clans were exogamous. The opposite was probably true: totem clans were originally exogamous but stopped being so, and even stopped being clans among the Arunta, due to the churinga nanja belief, evolving into cooperative magical societies (Hartland, Marett, Durkheim, and others).

8. Spencer and Gillen leave the origin of exogamy an open question. Howitt supposes that, in the shape of the phratriac division of the tribe into two exogamous moieties, the scheme may have been introduced to the tribal Origin of exogamy. headmen by a medicine man “announcing to his fellow headman a command received from some supernatural being ...” (Natives of South-East Australia, pp. 89, 90). The Council, so to speak, of “headmen” accept the divine decree, and the assembled tribe pass the Act. But this explanation explains nothing. Why did the prophet wish to introduce exogamy? Why were names of animals given, in so many cases, to the two exogamous divisions? As Howitt asks (op. cit. p. 153), “How was it that men assumed the names of objects, which in fact must have been the commencement of totemism?”

8. Spencer and Gillen leave the origin of exogamy as an open question. Howitt suggests that the phratriac division of the tribe into two exogamous groups might have been introduced to the tribal Origin of interracial marriage. headmen by a medicine man who “announced to his fellow headman a command received from some supernatural being ...” (Natives of South-East Australia, pp. 89, 90). The Council of “headmen” accepts the divine decree, and the assembled tribe enacts it. But this explanation doesn’t really clarify anything. Why did the prophet want to introduce exogamy? Why were names of animals given to the two exogamous divisions in so many cases? As Howitt asks (op. cit. p. 153), “How was it that men took on the names of objects, which must have been the beginning of totemism?”

It is apparent that any theory which begins by postulating the existence of early mankind in promiscuous groups or hordes, into which exogamous moieties are introduced by tribal decree, takes for granted that the tribe, with its headman, councils and great meetings (not to mention its inspired prophet, with the tribal “All Father” who inspires him), existed before any rules regulating “marital relations” were evolved. Even if all this were probable, we are not told why a promiscuous tribe thought good to establish exogamous divisions. Some native myths attribute the institution to certain wise ancestors; some to the supernatural “All Father,” say Baiame; some to a treaty between Eagle Hawk and Crow, beings of cosmogonic legend, who give names to the phratries. Such myths are mere hypotheses. It is impossible to imagine how early savages, ex hypothesi promiscuous, saw anything to reform in their state of promiscuity. They now think certain unions wrong, because they are forbidden: they were not forbidden, originally, because they were thought wrong.

It’s clear that any theory suggesting early humans lived in promiscuous groups or hordes, with exogamous divisions created by tribal law, assumes that the tribe, along with its leader, councils, and large assemblies (not to mention its inspired prophet, with the tribal “All Father” who inspires him), existed before any rules about “marital relations” were developed. Even if all this seems likely, it doesn’t explain why a promiscuous tribe would decide to create exogamous divisions. Some local myths credit the establishment of these divisions to certain wise ancestors; others reference the supernatural “All Father,” like Baiame; and some attribute it to a treaty between Eagle Hawk and Crow, figures from creation legends, who name the phratries. These myths are just hypotheses. It’s hard to imagine how early savages, presumed to be promiscuous, saw anything to change in their state of promiscuity. They now view certain unions as wrong because they are forbidden; originally, they weren’t forbidden because they were considered wrong.

Westermarck has endeavoured to escape the difficulty thus: “Among the ancestors of man, as among other animals, there was no doubt a time when blood relationship was no bar to sexual intercourse. But variations here, as Westermarck elsewhere, would naturally present themselves, and those of our ancestors who avoided in and in breeding would survive,” while the others would die out. This appears to be orthodox evolutionary language, but it carries us no further. Human societies are not animals or plants, in whose structure various favourable “accidents” occur, producing better types, which survive. We ask why in human society did “variations present themselves”; why did certain sets of human beings “avoid in and in breeding”? We are merely told that some of our ancestors became exogamous and survived, while others remained promiscuous and perished. No light is thrown on the problem,—wherefore did some of our ancestors avoid in and in breeding, and become exogamous? Nothing is gained by saying “thus an instinct would be developed which would be powerful enough, as a rule, to prevent injurious unions.” There is no “instinct,” there is a tribal law of exogamy. If there had been an “instinct,” it might account for the avoidance of “in and in breeding”—that is, it might account for exogamy, ab initio. But that is left unaccounted for by the theory which, after maintaining that the avoidance produced the instinct, seems to argue that the instinct produced the avoidance. Westermarck goes on to say that “exogamy, as a natural extension of the instinct, would arise when single families united in small hordes.” But, if the single families already had the “instinct,” they would not marry within the family: they would be exogamous,—marrying only into other families,—before they “united in small hordes.” The difficulty of accounting for exogamy does not seem to have been overcome, and no attempt is made to explain the animal names of totem kins and phratries. Westermarck, however, says that “there is no reason why we should assume, as so many anthropologists have done, that primitive men lived in small endogamous groups, practising incest in every degree,” although, as he also says, “there was no doubt a time when blood relationship was no bar to sexual intercourse.” If there was no bar, people would “practise incest in every degree,”—what was there to prevent them? (History of Human Marriage, pp. 352, 353 (1891)).

Westermarck tried to address the issue this way: “In the early ancestors of humans, just like among other animals, there was undoubtedly a time when blood relations didn’t prevent sexual relationships. However, variations in this regard, as in other areas, would naturally arise, and those of our ancestors who avoided inbreeding would survive while others would not. This sounds like standard evolutionary language, but it doesn’t take us further. Human societies aren’t the same as animals or plants, where various fortunate ‘accidents’ happen that create better types that survive. We want to know why in human societies did ‘variations occur’; why did certain groups of people ‘avoid inbreeding’? We’re simply told that some of our ancestors chose exogamy and survived, while others remained promiscuous and died out. The question remains unanswered—why did some of our ancestors avoid inbreeding and become exogamous? Simply stating, ‘thus an instinct would be developed that would generally prevent harmful unions’ gains us nothing. There is no ‘instinct’; there is a tribal law of exogamy. If an ‘instinct’ existed, it might explain the avoidance of ‘inbreeding’—that is, it could explain exogamy, from the beginning. But this theory fails to account for that; after claiming that avoidance created the instinct, it seems to suggest that the instinct created the avoidance. Westermarck continues by saying that ‘exogamy, as a natural extension of the instinct, would emerge when individual families came together in small groups.’ But if those families already had the ‘instinct,’ they wouldn’t marry within the family: they would practice exogamy—marrying only outside their families—before they ‘united in small groups.’ The challenge of explaining exogamy still isn’t resolved, and there’s no effort made to clarify the animal names of totem kins and phratries. However, Westermarck states that ‘there’s no reason to assume, as many anthropologists have, that primitive people lived in small endogamous groups practicing incest in all forms,’ though he also acknowledges that ‘there was undoubtedly a time when blood ties posed no barrier to sexual relationships.’ If there were no barriers, people would ‘practice incest in every form’—what would stop them? (History of Human Marriage, pp. 352, 353 (1891)).

164

164

So far we have seen no luminous and consistent account of how mankind became exogamous, if they began by being promiscuous. The theories rest on the idea that man, dwelling in an “undivided horde” (except so far as Durkheim. it was divided into co-operative magical societies), bisected it into two exogamous intermarrying moieties. Durkheim has put forward a theory which is not at all points easily understood. He supposes that, “at the beginning of societies of men, incest was not prohibited ... before each horde (peuplade) divided itself into two primitive ‘clans’ at least” (L’Année sociologique, i. pp. 62, 63). Each of the two “clans” claimed descent from a different animal, which was its totem, and its “god.” The two clans were exogamous,—out of respect to the blood of their totem (with which every member of the clan is mystically one), and, being hostile, the two clans raided each other for women. Each clan threw off colonies, which took new totems, new “gods,” though still owning some regard to their original clan, from which they had seceded, while abandoning its “god.” When the two “primary clans” made alliance and connubium, they became the phratries in the local tribe, and their colonies became the totem kins within the phratries.

So far, we have not seen a clear and consistent explanation of how humanity became exogamous if they initially started as promiscuous. The theories suggest that humans, living in an “undivided horde” (except when divided into cooperative magical societies), split into two exogamous, intermarrying groups. Durkheim proposed a theory that is not always easy to understand. He suggests that “at the beginning of human societies, incest was not prohibited... before each horde (peuplade) divided itself into two primitive 'clans' at least” (L’Année sociologique, i. pp. 62, 63). Each of the two “clans” traced their descent from a different animal, which served as their totem and their “god.” The two clans were exogamous—out of respect for the blood of their totem (with which every member of the clan is mystically connected)—and, being hostile, the two clans raided each other for women. Each clan established colonies that adopted new totems and new “gods,” while still acknowledging some connection to their original clan from which they had separated, even as they discarded its “god.” When the two “primary clans” formed an alliance and connubium, they became the phratries within the local tribe, and their colonies became the totem kins within the phratries.

We are not told why the original horde was disrupted into two hostile and intermarrying “clans”: we especially wonder why the horde, if it wanted an animal god, did not choose one animal for the whole community; and we may suspect that a difference of taste in animal “gods” caused the hostility of the two clans. Nor do we see why, if things occurred thus, the totem kins should not represent twenty or thirty differences of religious taste, in the original horde, as to the choice of animal gods. If the horde was going to vary in opinion, it is unlikely that only two factions put forward animal candidates for divinity. Again, a “clan” (a totem kin, with exogamy and descent derived through mothers) cannot overflow its territorial area and be therefore obliged to send out colonies, for such a clan (as Durkheim himself remarks) has no territorial area to overflow. It is not a local institution at all.

We aren’t told why the original group split into two rival and intermarrying "clans": we especially wonder why the group, if it wanted an animal god, didn’t choose one animal for the entire community; and we might suspect that a difference in taste for animal "gods" led to the conflict between the two clans. We also don't understand why, if this happened, the totem kins wouldn’t represent twenty or thirty different religious preferences within the original group when choosing animal gods. If the group was going to have differing opinions, it’s unlikely that only two factions would propose animal candidates for divinity. Additionally, a "clan" (a totem kin with exogamy and lineage traced through mothers) can’t expand beyond its territorial area and therefore be forced to establish colonies, because such a clan (as Durkheim himself points out) doesn’t have a territorial area to overflow. It is not a local institution at all.

While these objections cannot but occur, Durkheim does provide a valid reason for the existence of exogamy. When once the groups (however they got them) had totems, with the usual taboos on any sort of use of the totem by his human kinsfolk, the women of the kin would be tabooed to the men of the same kin. In marrying a maiden of his own totem, a man inevitably violates the sanctity of the blood of the totem (L’Année sociologique, i. pp. 47-57. Cf. Reinach, Cultes, mythes et religions, vol. i. pp. 162-166).

While these objections are understandable, Durkheim does offer a reasonable explanation for the existence of exogamy. Once the groups, regardless of how they acquired them, had totems, there were common taboos against any kind of use of the totem by their human relatives. The women of the kin would be off-limits to the men of the same kin. By marrying a woman from his own totem, a man inevitably breaks the sacred bond of the totem's lineage (L’Année sociologique, i. pp. 47-57. Cf. Reinach, Cultes, mythes et religions, vol. i. pp. 162-166).

Here at last we have a theory which accounts for the “religious horror” that attaches to the violation of the rule of totemic exogamy: a mysterious entity, the totem, is hereby offended. But how did totems, animals, plants and so on, come to be mystically solidaires with their human namesakes and kinsmen? We do not observe that Dr Durkheim ever explains why two divisions of one horde chose each a different animal god, or why the supposed colonies thrown off by these primary clans deserted their animal gods for others, or why, and on what principle, they all chose new “gods,”—fresh animals, plants and other objects. His hereditary totem is, in practice, the last thing that a savage changes. The only case of change on record is a recent attempt to increase the range of legal marriages in a waning Australian tribe, on whose lands certain species of animals are perishing.

Here we finally have a theory that explains the “religious horror” associated with breaking the rule of totemic exogamy: a mysterious entity, the totem, is offended. But how did totems—whether animals, plants, or others—become so closely connected with their human namesakes and relatives? We don’t see Dr. Durkheim explaining why two groups within the same horde picked different animal gods or why the supposed offshoots of these primary clans abandoned their animal gods for others, or on what basis they selected new “gods”—new animals, plants, and other objects. In practice, a person’s hereditary totem is usually the last thing a member of a tribe changes. The only documented case of a change is a recent effort to expand the range of legal marriages in a declining Australian tribe, where certain animal species are becoming extinct.

Theories based on a supposed primal state of promiscuity certainly encounter, when explaining the social oganization of Australian savages, difficulties which they do not surmount. But Howitt has provided (apparently Howitt’s solution. without fully realizing the merit of his own suggestions) a way out of the perplexities caused by the conception of early mankind dwelling promiscuously in “undivided communes.” The way out is practically to say that, in everyday life, they lived in nothing of the sort. Howitt writes (Native Tribes of South-East Australia, p. 173): “A study of the evidence ... has led me to the conclusion that the state of society among the early Australians was that of an ‘Undivided Commune.’... It is, however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from one point to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or more Communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear ... that in the past as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed, so that, admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings ... or on great ceremonial occasions, all the segments of the original Commune would reunite,” and would behave in the fashion now common in great licentious festive meetings.

Theories that suggest a supposed original state of promiscuity definitely face challenges when trying to explain the social organization of Australian indigenous people, and they can't seem to overcome these issues. However, Howitt has offered a solution (though he doesn't fully recognize the value of his own ideas) that helps clarify the confusion brought on by the idea of early humans living promiscuously in “undivided communes.” Essentially, he suggests that in their daily lives, they didn’t live that way at all. Howitt writes (Native Tribes of South-East Australia, p. 173): “A study of the evidence ... has led me to conclude that the societal structure among the early Australians was that of an ‘Undivided Commune.’... It is, however, important to clarify this term. I do not mean to imply that there was complete and constant communism between the sexes. The nature of the land and the need to move around to find game and edible plants would cause any Undivided Commune that grew larger than what the local area could sustain to split into two or more Communes of the same kind. Furthermore, it’s clear ... that just like today, individual preferences and aversions existed, so even if there were common rights among the members of the Commune, these rights would be put on hold for the separated parts of the Commune. However, at specific gatherings ... or during significant ceremonial events, all parts of the original Commune would come together,” and would act in ways similar to those seen in large, uninhibited festive celebrations today.

In the early ages contemplated, how can we postulate “great ceremonial occasions” or even peaceful assemblies at fruit-bearing spots? How can we postulate a surviving sense of solidarity among the scattered segments of Primitive promiscuity improbable. the Commune, obviously very small, owing to lack of supplies, and perpetually disintegrated? But, taking the original groups as very small, and as ruled by likes and dislikes, by affection and jealousy, we are no longer concerned with a promiscuous horde, but with a little knot of human beings, in whom love, parental affection and the jealousy of sires, would promptly make discriminations between this person and that person, as regards sexual privileges. Thus we have edged away from the hypothesis of the promiscuous indiscriminating horde to the opinion of Darwin. “We may conclude,” he says, “from what we know of the jealousy of all male quadrupeds, armed as many of them are with special weapons for battling with their rivals, that promiscuous intercourse in a state of Nature is extremely improbable.... The most probable view is that Man originally lived in small communities, each (man) with a single wife, or, if powerful, with-several, whom he jealously guarded against all other men.” But, in a community of this early type, to guard women jealously would mean constant battle, at least when Man became an animal who makes love all the year round. So Darwin adds: “Or man may not have been a social animal, and yet have lived with several wives, like the Gorilla,—for all the natives agree that but one adult male is seen in a band; when the young male grows up a contest takes place for the mastery, and the strongest, by killing or driving out the others, establishes himself as head of the Community. Younger males, being thus expelled and wandering about, would, when at last successful in finding a partner, prevent too close interbreeding within the limits of the same family” (Descent of Man, ii. pp. 361, 363 (1871)).

In the early ages we’re talking about, how can we suggest that there were “great ceremonial occasions” or even peaceful gatherings at fruitful locations? How can we assume there was any lasting sense of unity among the scattered parts of Primitive promiscuity unlikely. the Commune, which was clearly very small due to a lack of resources and constantly breaking apart? But if we consider the original groups to be quite small, governed by likes and dislikes, affection and jealousy, we’re dealing not with a promiscuous horde but with a close-knit group of people. In this group, love, parental affection, and jealousy would quickly create distinctions between individuals concerning sexual privileges. Thus, we’ve moved from the idea of an indiscriminate, promiscuous horde to Darwin's perspective. “We may conclude,” he states, “from what we know of the jealousy of all male quadrupeds, many of whom are equipped with special weapons to fight their rivals, that promiscuous relationships in a natural state are highly unlikely... The most reasonable view is that humans originally lived in small communities, each man with one wife, or, if he was powerful, with several, whom he guarded jealously against all other men.” However, in such an early type of community, guarding women closely would mean constant conflict, especially once men became beings who mate year-round. So, Darwin adds: “Or man may not have been a social animal but still lived with multiple wives, like the Gorilla—since all the locals agree that only one adult male is seen in a band; when the young male matures, a contest occurs for dominance, and the strongest, by killing or driving out the others, establishes himself as the leader of the Community. Younger males, thus expelled and wandering alone, would, once they eventually found a mate, prevent too much inbreeding within the same family” (Descent of Man, ii. pp. 361, 363 (1871)).

Here, then, we have practical Exogamy, as regards unions of brothers and sisters, among man still brutish, while the Sire is husband of the whole harem of females, probably unchecked as regards his daughters.

Here, we have practical Exogamy concerning the unions of brothers and sisters among men who are still somewhat savage, while the male is the husband of an entire harem of females, likely without restrictions regarding his daughters.

On this Darwinian text J.J. Atkinson builds his theory of the evolution of exogamy and of savage society in his Primal Law (Social Origins and Primal Law, by Lang and Atkinson, 1903). Paternal jealousy “gave birth to Primal Law, Atkinson’s theory. prohibitory of marriage between certain members of a family or local group, and thus, in natural sequence, led to forced connubial selection beyond its circle, that is, led to Exogamy ... as a habit, not as an expressed law....” The “expressed law” was necessarily a later development; conditioned by the circumstances which produced totemism, and sanctioned, as on Durkheim’s scheme, by the totemic taboo. Atkinson worked out his theory by a minute study of customs of avoidance between near kin by blood or affinity; by observations on the customs of animals, and by hypotheses as to the very gradual evolution of human restrictions through many modifications. He also gave a theory of the “classificatory” system of names for relationships opposed to that of Morgan. The names are based merely “on reference to relativity of age of a class in relation to the group.” The exogamous moieties of a tribe (phratries) are not 165 the result of a reformatory legislative bisection of the tribe, but of the existence of “two intermarrying totem clan groups.” The whole treatise, allowing for defects caused by the author’s death before the book was printed, is highly original and ingenious. The author, however, did not touch on the evolution of totemism.

On this Darwinian text, J.J. Atkinson develops his theory of the evolution of exogamy and of primitive society in his Primal Law (Social Origins and Primal Law, by Lang and Atkinson, 1903). Paternal jealousy “gave rise to Primal Law, Atkinson's theory. prohibiting marriage between certain members of a family or local group, and thus, in a natural sequence, led to forced selection of spouses beyond that circle, that is, led to Exogamy ... as a habit, not as an expressed law....” The “expressed law” was necessarily a later development; shaped by the circumstances that led to totemism and sanctioned, as on Durkheim’s scheme, by the totemic taboo. Atkinson formulated his theory through a detailed study of avoidance customs between close relatives by blood or affinity; through observations on animal behaviors, and through hypotheses regarding the very gradual evolution of human restrictions over many modifications. He also proposed a theory of the “classificatory” system of names for relationships that opposed that of Morgan. The names are based simply “on reference to the relative age of a class in relation to the group.” The exogamous divisions of a tribe (phratries) are not the result of a reformative legislative division of the tribe, but rather of the existence of “two intermarrying totem clan groups.” The entire treatise, allowing for shortcomings due to the author's death before the book was published, is highly original and innovative. However, the author did not address the evolution of totemism.

9. The following system, as a means of making intelligible the evolution of Australian totemic society, is proposed by the present writer. We may suggest that men originally lived in the state of “the Cyclopean family” of Lang’s system. Atkinson; that is, in Darwin’s “family group,” containing but one adult male, with the females, the adolescent males being driven out, to find each a female mate, or mates, elsewhere if they can. With increase of skill, improvements in implements and mitigation of ferocity, such groups may become larger, in a given area, but men may retain the habit of seeking mates outside the limits of the group of contiguity; the “avoidance” of brothers and sisters may already have arisen. Among the advanced Arunta, now, a man may speak freely to his elder sisters; to younger sisters, or “tribal sisters,” he may not speak, “or only at such a distance that the features are indistinguishable.” This archaic rule of avoidance would be a step facilitating the permission to adult males to dwell in their paternal group, avoiding their sisters. Such groups, whether habitually exogamous or not, will require names for each other, and various reasons would yield a preference to names derived from animals. These are easily signalled in gesture language; are easily presented in pictographs and tattooing; are even now, among savages and boys, the most usual sort of personal nicknames; and are widely employed as group names of villagers in European folk-lore. Among European rustics such group sobriquets are usual, but are resented. The savage, with his ideas of the equality or superiority of animals to himself, sees nothing to resent in an animal sobriquet, and the names, originally group sobriquets, would not find more difficulty in being accepted than “Whig,” “Tory,” “Huguenot,” “Cavalier,” “Christian,” “Cameronian,”—all of them originally nicknames given from without. Again, “Wry Nose” and “Crooked Mouth” are derisive nicknames, but they are the translations of the ancient Celtic clan names Cameron and Campbell. The nicknames “Naked Dogs,” “Liars,” “Buffalo Dung,” “Men who do not laugh,” “Big Topknots,” have been thoroughly accepted by the “gentes” of the Blackfoot Indians, now passing out of Totemism (Grinnell, Blackfoot Lodge Tales, pp. 208-225).

9. The following system, proposed by the author, aims to clarify the evolution of Australian totemic society. We can suggest that men originally lived in what Lang called the "Cyclopean family" system. Atkinson; that is, in Darwin’s “family group,” containing just one adult male, with the females, while the adolescent males are pushed out to find female mates elsewhere, if they can. As skills improved, tools developed, and aggression decreased, these groups might grow larger in a given area, but men might still prefer to seek mates outside their immediate group. The practice of "avoiding" brothers and sisters may have already started. Among the advanced Arunta today, a man can talk freely to his older sisters, but he cannot speak to younger sisters or “tribal sisters,” except “or only at such a distance that their features are indistinguishable.” This old rule of avoidance would help to allow adult males to stay in their paternal group while avoiding their sisters. Such groups, whether they are usually exogamous or not, will need names for each other, and various reasons might lead to a preference for names derived from animals. These are easily communicated through gesture language, easily represented in pictographs and tattoos, and are still the most common type of personal nicknames among tribes and young boys; they are also widely used as group names in European folklore. Among European peasants, such group nicknames are common but are often frowned upon. The savage, who views animals as equal to or superior to himself, finds nothing offensive about an animal nickname, and names that started out as group nicknames would likely be just as accepted as “Whig,” “Tory,” “Huguenot,” “Cavalier,” “Christian,” “Cameronian”—all originally given as external nicknames. Furthermore, “Wry Nose” and “Crooked Mouth” are derisive nicknames, but they translate the ancient Celtic clan names Cameron and Campbell. The nicknames “Naked Dogs,” “Liars,” “Buffalo Dung,” “Men who do not laugh,” and “Big Topknots” have been fully embraced by the "gentes" of the Blackfoot Indians, who are now moving away from Totemism (Grinnell, Blackfoot Lodge Tales, pp. 208-225).

As Howitt writes, “the assumption of the names of objects by men must in fact have been the origin of totemism.” Howitt does not admit the theory that the totem names came to arise in this way, but this way is a vera causa. Names must be given either from within or from without. A group, in savagery, has no need of a name for itself; “we” are “we,” or are “The Men”; for all other adjacent groups names are needed. The name of one totem, Thaballa, “The Laughing Boy” totem, among the Warramunga and another tribe, is quite transparently a nickname, as is Karti, “The Grown-up Men” (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes of Central Australia, p. 207).

As Howitt writes, “the idea that people took names from objects must have actually been the start of totemism.” Howitt doesn't support the theory that totem names originated this way, but this concept is a vera causa. Names have to be given either from within or from outside. A group, in its primitive state, doesn't need a name for itself; “we” are just “we,” or simply “The Men”; names are necessary only for other nearby groups. One totem's name, Thaballa, meaning “The Laughing Boy” totem, among the Warramunga and another tribe, is clearly a nickname, just like Karti, meaning “The Grown-up Men” (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes of Central Australia, p. 207).

There is nothing, prima facie, which renders this origin of animal, plant and other such names for early savage groups at all improbable. They would not even be resented, as now are the animal names for villagers in the Orkneys, the Channel Islands, France, Cornwall and in ancient Israel (for examples see Social Origins, pp. 295-301). The names once accepted, and their origin forgotten, would be inevitably regarded as implying a mystic rapport between the bestial and the human namesakes, Crow, Eagle Hawk, Grub, Bandicoot, Opossum, Emu, Kangaroo and so on (see Name). On this subject it is enough to cite J.G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough (2nd ed., vol. i. pp. 404-446). Here will be found a rich and satisfactory collection of proof that community of name implies mystic rapport. Professor Rhys is quoted for the statement that probably “the whole Aryan race believed at one time not only that the name was a part of the man, but that it was that part of him which is termed the soul.” In such a mental stage the men “Crows” identify themselves with the actual Crow species: the birds are now “of their flesh,” are fabled to be their ancestors, or the men have been evolved out of the birds. The Crow is sacro-sanct, a friend and protector, and a centre of taboos, one of which is the prohibition preventing a Crow man from intercourse with a Crow woman, “however far apart their hunting grounds may have been.” All men and women Crows are recognized as brothers and sisters in the Crow, and are not intermarriageable.

There’s nothing, at first glance, that makes this origin of names for animals, plants, and other similar things for early tribal groups unlikely. They wouldn’t even be taken negatively, like the animal names for people in the Orkneys, the Channel Islands, France, Cornwall, and ancient Israel (for examples, see Social Origins, pp. 295-301). Once the names were accepted and their origins forgotten, they would likely be seen as suggesting a mystical rapport between the animal and human namesakes, like Crow, Eagle Hawk, Grub, Bandicoot, Opossum, Emu, Kangaroo, and so on (see Name). On this topic, it’s enough to reference J.G. Frazer in The Golden Bough (2nd ed., vol. i. pp. 404-446). There, you’ll find a rich and satisfying collection of evidence that sharing a name implies a mystical rapport. Professor Rhys is cited saying that likely “the whole Aryan race believed at one time not only that the name was a part of the man, but that it was that part of him which is termed the soul.” In such a mindset, the “Crows” see themselves as connected to the actual Crow species: the birds are now “of their flesh,” are believed to be their ancestors, or the men have evolved from the birds. The Crow is sacred, a friend and protector, and has a set of taboos, one of which prevents a Crow man from having relations with a Crow woman, “no matter how far apart their hunting grounds may have been.” All men and women Crows are acknowledged as brothers and sisters among the Crows and cannot intermarry.

On these lines the prohibition to infringe the totem taboo by marriage within the totem name is intelligible, but the system of phratries has yet to be accounted for. It is obvious that the names could only have been given originally to local groups: the people who held this or that local habitation received the name. Suppose that the rule of each such group, or heart circle, had been “no marriage within the local group or camp,” as in Atkinson’s scheme. When the groups accept their new names, the rule becomes, “no marriage within local group Eagle Hawk, group Crow,” and so on. So far the animal giving the group name may not yet have become a revered totem. The result of the rule would inevitably be, in three or four generations, that in groups Crow or Eagle Hawk, there were no Crows or Eagle Hawks by descent, if the children took the names of descent from their mothers; for the sake of differentiation: the Ant woman’s children in local group Crow being Ants, the Grub woman’s children being Grubs, the Eagle Hawk woman’s children being Eagle Hawks,—all in local group Crow, and inheriting the names of the local groups whence their mothers were brought into local group Crow.

On these points, the ban on marrying within the totem name is clear, but we still need to explain the system of phratries. It’s evident that these names were initially assigned to local groups: the people who lived in a specific area received the name. Imagine if the rule for each group, or heart circle, was “no marriage within the local group or camp,” like in Atkinson’s approach. When the groups adopt their new names, the rule becomes, “no marriage within local group Eagle Hawk, group Crow,” and so on. At this stage, the animal that gives the group its name may not have yet become a respected totem. Over three or four generations, this rule would lead to groups Crow or Eagle Hawk having no Crows or Eagle Hawks by descent, assuming children inherited their names from their mothers; for example, the Ant woman's children in local group Crow would be Ants, the Grub woman's children would be Grubs, and the Eagle Hawk woman’s children would be Eagle Hawks—all in local group Crow and taking the names of the local groups from which their mothers came.

By this means (indicated first by McLennan) each member of a local group would have a local group name, say Eagle Hawk, and a name by female descent, say Kangaroo, in addition, as now, to his or her personal name. In this way, all members of each local group would find, in any other local group, people of his name of descent, and, as the totem belief grew to maturity, kinsmen of his in the totem. When this fact was realized, it would inevitably make for peace among all contiguous groups. In place of taking women by force, at the risk of shedding kindred blood, peaceful betrothals between men and women of different local group names and of different names by descent could be arranged. Say that local groups Eagle Hawk and Crow took the lead in this arrangement of alliance and connubium, and that (as they would naturally flourish in the strength conferred by union) the other local groups came into it, ranging themselves under Eagle Hawk and Crow, we should have the existing primitive type of organization: Local Groups Eagle Hawk (Mukwara) and Crow (Kilpara) would have become the widely diffused phratries, Mukwara and Kilpara, with all the totem kins within them.

By this method (first pointed out by McLennan), each member of a local group would have a local group name, like Eagle Hawk, and a name based on female descent, such as Kangaroo, along with their personal name. This way, all members of each local group would discover people with the same name of descent in any other local group, and as the totem belief developed, they would recognize kinsmen within the totem. When this became clear, it would inevitably promote peace among neighboring groups. Instead of taking women by force, risking the spilling of kindred blood, peaceful engagements could be arranged between men and women from different local group names and different names by descent. For example, if the local groups Eagle Hawk and Crow led the way in establishing this alliance and connubium, and (as they would naturally thrive from the strength gained through union) the other local groups joined them, aligning themselves under Eagle Hawk and Crow, we would see the existing primitive type of organization: Local Groups Eagle Hawk (Mukwara) and Crow (Kilpara) would have evolved into the widely spread phratries, Mukwara and Kilpara, containing all the totem kins within them.

But, on these lines, some members of any totem kin, say Cat, would be in phratry Eagle Hawk, some would be in phratry Kilpara as now (for the different reason already indicated) among the Arunta. Such persons were in a quandary. By phratry law, as being in opposite phratries, a Cat in Eagle Hawk’ phratry could marry a Cat in Crow phratry. But, by totem law, this was impossible. To avoid the clash of law, all Cats had to go into one phratry or the other, either into Eagle Hawk or into Crow.

But, in these cases, some members of any totem group, like Cat, would be in the Eagle Hawk phratry, while others would be in the Kilpara phratry as they are now (for the different reason already mentioned) among the Arunta. These individuals found themselves in a dilemma. According to phratry law, since they belonged to opposite phratries, a Cat in the Eagle Hawk phratry could marry a Cat in the Crow phratry. However, according to totem law, this was not allowed. To prevent a conflict between the laws, all Cats had to choose one phratry or the other, either the Eagle Hawk or the Crow.

Two whole totem kins were in the same unhappy position. The persons who were Eagle Hawks by descent could not be in Eagle Hawk local group, now phratry, as we have already shown. They were in Crow phratry, they could not, by phratry law, marry in their own phratry, and to marry in Eagle Hawk was to break the old law, “no marriage within the local group name.” Their only chance was to return to Eagle Hawk phratry, while Crow totem kin went into Crow phratry, and thus we often find, in fact, that in Australian phratries Mukwara (Eagle Hawk) there is a totem kin Eagle Hawk, and in Kilpara phratry (Crow) there is a totem kin Crow. This arrangement—the totem kin within the phratry of its own name—has long been known to exist in America. The Thlinkets have Raven phratry, with totem kins Raven, Frog, Goose, &c., and Wolf phratry, with 166 totem kins Wolf, Bear, Eagle, &c. (Frazer, Totemism, pp. 61, 62 (1887)). In Australia the fact has hitherto escaped observation, because so many phratry names are not translated, while, though Mukwara and Kilpara are translated, the Eagle Hawk and Crow totem kins within them bear other names for the same birds, more recent names, or tribal native names, such as Biliari and Waa, while Mukwara and Kilpara may have been names borrowed, within the institution of phratries, from some alien tribe now perhaps extinct.

Two entire totem clans were in the same unfortunate situation. The people who were Eagle Hawks by ancestry couldn't be part of the Eagle Hawk local group, now called a phratry, as we've already stated. They were in the Crow phratry, and phratry law prohibited them from marrying within their own phratry. Marrying an Eagle Hawk would violate the old law of "no marriage within the local group name." Their only option was to return to the Eagle Hawk phratry, while the Crow totem clan integrated into the Crow phratry. Consequently, in Australian phratries, it's common to see that in the Mukwara (Eagle Hawk) phratry, there’s a totem kin called Eagle Hawk, and in the Kilpara phratry (Crow), there’s a totem kin called Crow. This setup—having the totem kin within its own named phratry—has long been recognized in America. The Thlinkets have a Raven phratry, which includes totem kins like Raven, Frog, Goose, etc., and a Wolf phratry, which includes totem kins like Wolf, Bear, Eagle, etc. (Frazer, Totemism, pp. 61, 62 [1887]). In Australia, this fact has gone unnoticed until now, as many phratry names remain untranslated. Although Mukwara and Kilpara are translated, the Eagle Hawk and Crow totem kins within them go by different, more recent names, or tribal native names like Biliari and Waa, while Mukwara and Kilpara might have borrowed their names from some now possibly extinct foreign tribe within the phratry system.

We have now sketched a scheme explanatory of the most primitive type of social organization in Australia. The tendency is for phratries first to lose the meanings of their names, and, next, for their names to lapse into oblivion, as among the Arunta; the work of regulating marriage being done by the opposed Matrimonial Classes.

We have now outlined a framework that explains the most basic type of social organization in Australia. The trend is for phratries to first lose the meanings of their names, and then for those names to fade into obscurity, as seen among the Arunta; the task of managing marriage is handled by the opposing Matrimonial Classes.

These classes are obviously an artificial arrangement, intended to restrict marriage to persons on the same level as generations. The meanings of the class names are only known with certainty in two cases, and then are names of animals, while there is reason to suspect that animal names occur in four or five of the eight class-names which, in different dialect forms, prevail in central and northern Australia. Conceivably the new class regulations made use of the old totemic machinery of nomenclature. But until Australian philologists can trace the original meanings of Class names, further speculation is premature.

These classes are clearly a made-up system, meant to limit marriage to people within the same generation. The meanings of the class names are only definitively known in two instances, and those are names of animals. There's also reason to believe that animal names might appear in four or five of the eight class names that are found in different dialects across central and northern Australia. It’s possible that the new class rules utilized the old totemic naming system. However, until Australian linguists can uncover the original meanings of the class names, any further speculation is too early.

10. Much might be said about the way out of totemism. When once descent and inheritance are traced through males, the social side of totemism begins to break up. One way out is the Arunta way, where totems no longer Breaking up of totemism. designate kinships. In parts of America totems are simply fading into heraldry, or into magical societies, while the “gentes,” once totemic, have acquired new names, often local, as among the Sioux, or mere sobriquets, as among the Blackfeet. In Melanesia the phratries, whether named or nameless, have survived, while the totems have left but a few traces which some consider disputable (Social Origins, pp. 176-184). Among the Bantu of South Africa the tribes have sacred animals (Siboko), which may be survivals of the totems of the chief local totem group, with male descent in the tribe, the whole of which now bears the name of the sacred animal. Even in Australia, among tribes where there is reckoning of descent in the male line, and where there are no matrimonial classes, the tendency is for totems to dwindle, while exogamy becomes local, the rule being to marry out of the district, not out of the kin (Howitt, Native Tribes of South-East Australia, pp. 270-272; cf. pp. 135-137).

10. There’s a lot to discuss about moving away from totemism. Once lineage and inheritance are traced through males, the social aspects of totemism start to break down. One example is the Arunta, where totems no longer signify kinships. In parts of America, totems are fading into heraldry or magical societies, while the “gentes,” once totemic, have taken on new names, often local, as seen with the Sioux, or simply nicknames, like those among the Blackfeet. In Melanesia, the phratries, whether they have names or not, have persisted, while totems have left behind only a few traces, which some argue are questionable (Social Origins, pp. 176-184). Among the Bantu people of South Africa, the tribes have sacred animals (Siboko), which might be remnants of the totems of the main local totem group, with male lineage in the tribe, all of which now carries the name of the sacred animal. Even in Australia, among tribes that trace descent through the male line and have no marriage classes, there’s a trend for totems to diminish, while exogamy becomes local, with the norm being to marry outside of the district, not outside of the kin (Howitt, Native Tribes of South-East Australia, pp. 270-272; cf. pp. 135-137).

The problem as to why, among savages all on the same low level of material culture, one tribe derives descent through women, while its nearest neighbouring tribe, with ceremonies, rites, beliefs and myths like its own, and occupying lands of similar character in a similar climate, traces descent through men, seems totally insoluble. Again, we find that the civilized Lycians, as described by Herodotus (book i. ch. 173), reckoned lineage in the female line, while the naked savages of north and central Australia reckon in the male line. Our knowledge does not enable us to explain the change from female to male tracing of lineage. Yet the change was essential for the formation of the family system of civilized life. The change may be observed taking place in the region of North-West America peopled by the Thlinket, Haida and Salish tribes; the first are pure totemists, the last have arrived, practically, in the south, at the modern family, while a curious intermediate stage pervades the interjacent region.

The question of why, among primitive societies with similar levels of material culture, one tribe traces lineage through women while its neighboring tribe, which shares similar ceremonies, beliefs, and myths, and lives in a comparable environment, traces lineage through men seems completely unanswerable. Additionally, we see that the civilized Lycians, as described by Herodotus (book i. ch. 173), traced their ancestry through females, whereas the indigenous tribes of northern and central Australia traced it through males. Our understanding does not allow us to clarify the shift from female to male lineage. However, this shift was crucial for developing the family structure in civilized societies. This transition can be observed in the Northwest region of America, home to the Thlinket, Haida, and Salish tribes; the Thlinket are pure totemists, while the Salish have, for the most part, reached a modern family structure in the south, and a peculiar intermediate stage exists in the area in between.

The best authority on the Family developed in different shapes in North-West America is Charles Hill-Tout (cf. “Origin of the Totemism of the Aborigines of British Columbia,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, vol. vii. sect. 11, 1901). He, like many American and some English and continental students, applies the term “totem” not only to the hereditary totem of the exogamous kin, but to the animal familiars of individual men or women, called manitus, naguals, nyarongs and yunbeai, among North American Indians, in South America, in Borneo and in the Euahlayi tribe of New South Wales. These animal familiars are chosen by individuals, obeying the monition of dreams, or are assigned to them at birth, or at puberty, by the tribal magicians. It has often been suggested that totemism arose when the familiar of an individual became hereditary among his descendants. This could not occur under a system of reckoning descent and inheriting the kin name through women, but as a Tsimshian myth says that a man’s sister adopted his animal familiar, the bear, and transmitted it to her offspring, Hill-Tout supposes that this may have been the origin of totemism in tribes with reckoning of descent in the female line. Instances, however, are not known to exist in practice, and myths are mere baseless savage hypotheses.

The leading expert on family structures that developed in various forms in North-West America is Charles Hill-Tout (see “Origin of the Totemism of the Aborigines of British Columbia,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, vol. vii. sect. 11, 1901). He, along with many American and some English and continental researchers, uses the term “totem” not just for the hereditary totem of exogamous kin but also for the animal companions of individual men or women, referred to as manitus, naguals, nyarongs, and yunbeai among North American Indians, as well as in South America, Borneo, and the Euahlayi tribe of New South Wales. These animal companions are either chosen by individuals based on dreams or assigned to them at birth or puberty by tribal magicians. It has often been suggested that totemism developed when an individual's familiar became hereditary among their descendants. This transformation couldn't happen under a system that tracks descent and inherits names through women. However, a Tsimshian myth suggests that a man’s sister adopted his animal familiar, the bear, and passed it on to her children. Hill-Tout proposes that this could have been the origin of totemism in tribes that track descent through the female line. However, there are no known practical instances of this, and myths are simply unfounded savage theories.

Exogamy, in his opinion, is the result of treaties of political alliance with exclusive interconnubium between two sets of kinsfolk by blood, totemism being a mere accidental concomitant. This theory evades the difficulties raised by the hypothesis of deliberate reformatory legislation introducing the bisection of the tribe into exogamous societies.

Exogamy, according to him, is the outcome of political alliance treaties with exclusive interconnubium between two groups of blood relatives, with totemism being just an unrelated aspect. This theory sidesteps the challenges posed by the idea of intentional reformative laws that divide the tribe into exogamous societies.

Authorities.—The study of the History of the Family has been subject to great fluctuation of opinion, as unexpected evidence has kept pouring in from many quarters. The theory of primal promiscuity, which in 1870 succeeded to Sir Henry Maine’s patriarchal theory, has endured many attacks, and there is a tendency to return, not precisely to the “patriarchal theory,” but to the view that the jealousy of the Sire of the “Cyclopean family,” or “Gorilla family” indicated by Darwin, has had much to do with laying the bases of “primal law.” The whole subject has been especially studied by English-speaking writers, as the English and Americans are brought most into contact with the most archaic savage societies. Among foreigners, in addition to Starcke, Westermarck and Durkheim, already cited, may be mentioned Professor J. Kohler, Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe (Stuttgart, 1897). Professor Kohler is in favour of a remote past of “collective marriage,” indicated, as in Morgan’s hypothesis, by the existing savage names of relationships, which are expressive of relations of consanguinity. E.S. Hartland (Primitive Paternity, 1910) discusses myths of supernatural birth in relation to the history of the Family.

Authorities.—The study of Family History has seen a lot of changes in opinion as new evidence continues to emerge from various sources. The theory of primal promiscuity, which took over from Sir Henry Maine’s patriarchal theory in 1870, has faced many criticisms, and there’s a trend to move back, not exactly to the “patriarchal theory,” but to the idea that the jealousy of the leader of the “Cyclopean family” or “Gorilla family,” as described by Darwin, played a significant role in establishing the foundations of “primal law.” This topic has been especially examined by writers who speak English, as the English and Americans have the most exposure to ancient savage societies. Among foreign scholars, in addition to Starcke, Westermarck, and Durkheim, already mentioned, Professor J. Kohler in Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe (Stuttgart, 1897) can be noted. Professor Kohler supports the idea of a distant past of “collective marriage,” as indicated, similar to Morgan’s hypothesis, by the existing savage terms for relationships, which reflect kinship ties. E.S. Hartland (Primitive Paternity, 1910) explores myths of supernatural birth in the context of Family History.

A careful and well-reasoned work by Herr Cunow (Die Verwandtschafts Organisationen der Australneger, Stuttgart, 1894) deals with the Matrimonial Classes of Australian tribes. Cunow supposes that descent was originally reckoned in the male line, and that tribes with this organization (such as the Narrinyeri) are the more primitive. In this opinion he has few allies: and on the origin of Exogamy he seems to possess no definite ideas. Pikler’s Ursprung des Totemismus (Berlin, 1900) explains Totemism as arising from the need of names for early groups of men: names which could be expressed in pictographs and tattooing, to which we may add “gesture language.” This is much akin to the theory which we have already suggested, though Pikler seems to think that the pictograph (say of a Crow or an Eagle Hawk) was prior to the group name. But, he remarks, like Howitt, “the germ of Totemism is the naming”; and the community of name between the animal species and the human group led to the belief that there was an important connexion between the men and their name-giving animal.

A thorough and well-thought-out work by Herr Cunow (Die Verwandtschafts Organisationen der Australneger, Stuttgart, 1894) examines the matrimonial classes of Australian tribes. Cunow believes that lineage was originally traced through the male line, suggesting that tribes with this structure (like the Narrinyeri) are more primitive. He has few supporters for this view, and he doesn't seem to have clear ideas about the origins of exogamy. Pikler’s Ursprung des Totemismus (Berlin, 1900) explains totemism as stemming from the need for names for early human groups—names that could be shown through pictographs and tattooing, which we can also consider as “gesture language.” This is quite similar to the theory we’ve already proposed, although Pikler seems to believe that the pictograph (like a Crow or an Eagle Hawk) came before the group name. However, he notes, like Howitt, that “the essence of totemism is the naming”; and the shared name between the animal species and the human group led to the belief that there was a significant connection between people and the animal that gave them their name.

Other useful sources of information are the annual Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology (Washington), the Journal of the Institute of the Anthropological Society, Folk Lore (the organ of the Folk Lore Society), and Durkheim’s L’Année sociologique. Tabou et totémisme à Madagascar, by M.A. van Gennep (Leroux, Paris, 1904) is a valuable contribution to knowledge.

Other useful sources of information are the annual Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology (Washington), the Journal of the Institute of the Anthropological Society, Folk Lore (the publication of the Folk Lore Society), and Durkheim’s L’Année sociologique. Tabou et totémisme à Madagascar, by M.A. van Gennep (Leroux, Paris, 1904) is a valuable contribution to knowledge.

For India, where vestiges of totemism linger in the hill tribes, see Risley and Crooke, Tribes and Castes, vols. i., ii., iii., iv.; and Crooke, Popular Religion; also Crooke in J.A.I. (N.S.), vol. i. pp. 232-244.

For India, where remnants of totemism can still be found among the hill tribes, see Risley and Crooke, Tribes and Castes, vols. i., ii., iii., iv.; and Crooke, Popular Religion; also Crooke in J.A.I. (N.S.), vol. i. pp. 232-244.

(A. L.)

FAMINE (Lat. fames, hunger), extreme and general scarcity of food, causing distress and deaths from starvation among the population of a district or country. Famines have caused widespread suffering in all countries and ages. A list of the chief famines recorded by history is given farther on. The causes of famine are partly natural and partly artificial. Among the natural causes may be classed all failures of crops due to excess or defect of rainfall and other meteorological phenomena, or to the ravages of insects and vermin. Among the artificial causes may be classed war and economic errors in the production, transport and sale of food-stuffs.

FAMINE (Lat. fames, hunger), an extreme and widespread shortage of food, leading to suffering and death from starvation among the people in a region or country. Famines have caused significant suffering throughout history across all nations and eras. A list of the major famines recorded in history can be found later. The causes of famine are both natural and man-made. Natural causes include crop failures due to excessive or insufficient rainfall and other weather-related events, as well as damage caused by insects and pests. Man-made causes include war and economic mistakes in the production, transportation, and sale of food.

The natural causes of famine are still mainly outside our control, though science enables agriculturists to combat them more successfully, and the improvement in means of transport allows a rich harvest in one land to supplement the defective 167 crops in another. In tropical countries drought is the commonest cause of a failure in the harvest, and where great droughts are not uncommon—as in parts of India and Australia—the hydraulic engineer comes to the rescue by devising systems of water-storage and irrigation. It is less easy to provide against the evils of excessive rainfall and of frost, hail and the like. The experience of the French in Algiers shows that it is possible to stamp out a plague of locusts, such as is the greatest danger to the farmer in many parts of Argentina. But the ease with which food can nowadays be transported from one part of the world to another minimizes the danger of famine from natural causes, as we can hardly conceive that the whole food-producing area of the world should be thus affected at once.

The natural causes of famine are still mostly out of our control, but science helps farmers tackle them more effectively, and improvements in transportation allow a bountiful harvest in one region to support the poor crops in another. In tropical areas, drought is the most common reason for harvest failure, and in regions where severe droughts are frequent—like parts of India and Australia—engineers step in with water-storage and irrigation systems. However, it's harder to manage the problems caused by too much rain, frost, hail, and similar issues. The French experience in Algeria shows that it's possible to eliminate a locust plague, which poses a significant threat to farmers in many parts of Argentina. But the ease of transporting food around the globe today reduces the threat of famine from natural causes, as it's hard to imagine that the entire food-producing regions of the world could be affected at the same time. 167

The artificial causes of famine have mostly ceased to be operative on any large scale. Chief among them is war, which may cause a shortage of food-supplies, either by its direct ravages or by depleting the supply of agricultural labour. But only local famines are likely to arise from this cause. Legislative interference with agricultural operations or with the distribution of food-supplies, currency restrictions and failure of transport, which have all caused famines in the past, are unlikely thus to operate again; nor is it probable that the modern speculators who attempt to make “corners” in wheat could produce the evil effects contemplated in the old statutes against forestallers and regrators.

The man-made causes of famine have mostly stopped being a major issue. The main one is war, which can lead to food shortages, either through its direct destruction or by reducing the number of workers in agriculture. However, this is likely to result in only local famines. Legislative interference with farming practices or food distribution, currency restrictions, and transportation failures, which have all led to famines in the past, are unlikely to happen again. It’s also unlikely that modern speculators trying to corner the wheat market could create the harmful effects that were addressed in the old laws against hoarders and resellers.

Such local famines as may occur in the 20th century will probably be attributable to natural causes. It is impossible to regulate the rainfall of any district, or wholly to supply its failure by any system of water-storage. Irrigation is better able to bring fertility to a naturally arid district than to avert the failure of crops in one which is naturally fertile. The true palliative of famine is to be found in the improvement of methods of transport, which make it possible rapidly to convey food from one district to another. But the efficiency of this preventive stops short at the point of saving human life. It cannot prevent a rise in prices, with the consequent suffering among the poor. Still, every year makes it less likely that the world will see a renewal of the great famines of the past, and it is only the countries where civilization is still backward that are in much danger of even a local famine.

Local famines that may happen in the 20th century will likely be due to natural causes. It’s impossible to control the rainfall in any area or completely make up for its failure with any water-storage system. Irrigation is better at making a naturally dry area fertile than at preventing crop failure in a naturally fertile area. The real solution to famine lies in improving transportation methods, which allows food to be quickly moved from one area to another. However, this preventive measure only goes so far as to save human lives. It can't stop prices from rising, which leads to suffering among the poor. Still, each passing year makes it less likely that the world will experience a return of the major famines of the past, and only those countries where civilization is still developing are at significant risk of even a local famine.

Great Famines.—Amongst the great famines of history may be named the following:—

Great Famines.—Among the significant famines in history, the following can be mentioned:—

BCE  
436

Famine at Rome, when thousands of starving people threw themselves into the Tiber.

Famine in Rome, when thousands of starving people jumped into the Tiber.

CE  
42

Great famine in Egypt.

Great famine in Egypt.

650

Famine throughout India.

Famine across India.

879

Universal famine.

Global hunger.

941, 1022
  and 1033

Great famines in India, in which entire provinces were depopulated and man was driven to cannibalism.

Great famines in India, where entire regions were emptied and people resorted to cannibalism.

1005

Famine in England.

Famine in England.

1016

Famine throughout Europe.

Famine across Europe.

1064-1072

Seven years’ famine in Egypt.

Seven years of famine in Egypt.

1148-1159

Eleven years’ famine in India.

Eleven-year famine in India.

1162

Universal famine.

Global hunger.

1344-1345

Great famine in India, when the Mogul emperor was unable to obtain the necessaries for his household. The famine continued for years and thousands upon thousands of people perished of want.

Great famine in India, when the Mogul emperor couldn't get the essentials for his household. The famine lasted for years and thousands upon thousands of people died from lack of food.

1396-1407

The Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years.

The Durga Devi famine in India lasted for twelve years.

1586

Famine in England which gave rise to the Poor Law system.

Famine in England that led to the Poor Law system.

1661

Famine in India, when not a drop of rain fell for two years.

Famine in India, when not a single drop of rain fell for two years.

1769-1770

Great famine in Bengal, when a third of the population (10,000,000 persons) perished.

Great famine in Bengal, when a third of the population (10,000,000 people) died.

1783

The Chalisa famine in India, which extended from the eastern edge of the Benares province to Lahore and Jammu.

The Chalisa famine in India stretched from the eastern part of the Benares province to Lahore and Jammu.

1790-1792

The Doji Bara, or skull famine, in India, so-called because the people died in such numbers that they could not be buried. According to tradition this was one of the severest famines ever known. It extended over the whole of Bombay into Hyderabad and affected the northern districts of Madras. Relief works were first opened during this famine in Madras.

The Doji Bara, or skull famine, in India, got its name because so many people died that they couldn't be buried. Tradition says this was one of the worst famines ever recorded. It spread across all of Bombay into Hyderabad and impacted the northern districts of Madras. Relief efforts were first initiated during this famine in Madras.

1838

Intense famine in North-West Provinces (United Provinces) of India; 800,000 perished.

Intense famine in the North-West Provinces (United Provinces) of India; 800,000 people died.

1846-1847

Famine in Ireland, due to the failure of the potato-crop. Grants were made by parliament amounting to £10,000,000.

Famine in Ireland, caused by the failure of the potato crop. Parliament approved grants totaling £10,000,000.

1861

Famine in North-West India.

Famine in North-West India.

1866

Famine in Bengal and Orissa; one million perished.

Famine in Bengal and Orissa; one million people died.

1869

Intense famine in Rajputana; one million and a half perished. The government initiated the policy of saving life.

Intense famine in Rajputana; one and a half million people perished. The government started a policy to save lives.

1874

Famine in Behar, India. Government relief in excess of the needs of the people.

Famine in Behar, India. Government aid surpassing the people's needs.

1876-1878

Famine in Bombay, Madras and Mysore; five millions perish. Relief insufficient.

Famine in Bombay, Madras, and Mysore; five million die. Relief is not enough.

1877-1878

Severe famine in north China. Nine and a half millions said to have perished.

Severe famine in northern China. Nine and a half million are reported to have died.

1887-1889

Famine in China.

Famine in China.

1891-1892

Famine in Russia.

Famine in Russia.

1897

Famine in India. Government policy of saving life successful. Mansion House fund £550,000.

Famine in India. The government's life-saving policy is working. Mansion House fund: £550,000.

1899-1901

Famine in India. One million people perished. Estimated loss to India £50,000,000. The government spent £10,000,000 on relief, and at one time there were 4,500,000 people on the relief works.

Famine in India. One million people died. Estimated loss to India was £50,000,000. The government spent £10,000,000 on relief, and at one point, there were 4,500,000 people involved in relief efforts.

1905

Famine in Russia.

Famine in Russia.

Famines in India.—Owing to its tropical situation and its almost entire dependence upon the monsoon rains, India is more liable than any other country in the world to crop failures, which upon occasion deepen into famine. Every year sufficient rain falls in India to secure an abundant harvest if it were evenly distributed over the whole country; but as a matter of fact the distribution is so uneven and so uncertain that every year some district suffers from insufficient rainfall. In fact, famine is, to all intents and purposes, endemic in India, and is a problem to reckon with every year in some portion of that vast area. The people depend so entirely upon agriculture, and the harvest is so entirely destroyed by a single monsoon failure, that wherever a total failure occurs the landless labourer is immediately thrown out of work and remains out of work for the whole year. The question is thus one of lack of employment, rather than lack of food. The food is there, perhaps at a slightly enhanced price, but the unemployed labourer has no money to buy it. The problem is very much the same as that met by the British Poor Law system. Every year in England a poor rate of some £22,000,000 is expended for a population of 40 millions; while it is only in an exceptional year in India that £10,000,000 are spent on a population of 300 millions.

Famines in India.—Because of its tropical climate and its heavy reliance on monsoon rains, India is more vulnerable to crop failures than any other country in the world, which sometimes lead to famine. Each year, enough rain falls in India to produce a bountiful harvest if it were evenly distributed across the entire nation; however, the reality is that the distribution is so uneven and unpredictable that some regions experience insufficient rainfall each year. In fact, famine is essentially a constant issue in India, presenting a problem every year in some part of that vast area. The population relies heavily on agriculture, and a single monsoon failure can completely devastate the harvest, meaning that when a total failure occurs, landless laborers are instantly out of work and may remain unemployed for an entire year. Therefore, the issue is more about lack of employment than lack of food. The food may be available, perhaps at a slightly higher price, but unemployed laborers have no money to purchase it. The situation is quite similar to what the British Poor Law system encounters. Every year in England, about £22,000,000 is spent on assistance for a population of 40 million, while in India, only in exceptional years do expenditures reach £10,000,000 for a population of 300 million.

Famines seem to recur in India at periodical intervals, which have been held to be in some way dependent on the sun-spot period. Every five or ten years the annual scarcity widens its area and becomes a recognized famine; every fifty or a hundred years whole provinces are involved, loss of life becomes widespread, and a great famine is recorded. In the 140 years since Warren Hastings initiated British rule in India, there have been nineteen famines and five severe scarcities. For the period preceding British rule the records have not been so well preserved, but there is ample evidence to show that famine was just as frequent in its incidence and infinitely more deadly in its effects under the native rulers of India. In the great Bengal famine of 1769-1770, which occurred shortly after the foundation of British rule, but while the native officials were still in power, a third of the population, or ten millions out of thirty millions, perished. From this it may be guessed what occurred in the centuries under Mogul rule, when for years there was no rain, when famine lasted for three, four or twelve years, and entire cities were left without an inhabitant. In the famine of 1901, the worst of recent years, the loss of life in British districts was 3% of the population affected, as against 33% in the Bengal famine of 1770.

Famines seem to happen regularly in India, which have been thought to be somewhat linked to the sunspot cycle. Every five to ten years, the annual shortage expands and turns into a recognized famine; every fifty to one hundred years, entire regions are affected, leading to widespread loss of life and a major famine is recorded. Since Warren Hastings started British rule in India 140 years ago, there have been nineteen famines and five severe shortages. For the time before British rule, records haven’t been as well kept, but there’s plenty of evidence to show that famine was just as frequent and far more deadly under the native rulers of India. During the great Bengal famine of 1769-1770, which took place shortly after British rule began but when native officials were still in charge, a third of the population—ten million out of thirty million—died. This gives an idea of what happened under Mogul rule, when there were years with no rain, famine lasted for three, four, or even twelve years, and entire cities became deserted. In the famine of 1901, the worst in recent years, the death toll in British districts was 3% of the affected population, compared to 33% in the Bengal famine of 1770.

The native rulers of India seem to have made no effort to relieve the sufferings of their subjects in times of famine; and even down to 1866 the British government had no settled famine policy. In that year the Orissa famine awakened the public conscience, and the commission presided over by Sir George Campbell laid down the lines upon which subsequent famine-relief was organized. In the Rajputana famine of 1869 the humane principle of saving every possible life was first 168 enunciated. In the Behar famine of 1874 this principle was even carried to an extreme, the cost was enormous, and the people were in danger of being pauperized. The resulting reaction caused a regrettable loss of life in the Madras and Bombay famine of 1876-1878; and the Famine Commission of 1880, followed by those of 1898 and 1901, laid down the principle that every possible life must be saved, but that the wages on relief works must be so regulated in relation to the market rate of wages as not to undermine the independence of the people. The experience gained in the great famines of 1898 and 1901 has been garnered by these commissions, and stored up in the “famine codes” of each separate province, where rules are provided for the treatment of famine directly a crop failure is seen to be probable. The first step is to open test works; and directly they show the necessity, regular relief works are established, in which the people may earn enough to keep them from starvation, until the time comes to sow the next crop.

The local rulers of India didn’t seem to take any steps to ease the suffering of their people during famines; even up until 1866, the British government had no established famine policy. That year, the Orissa famine caught public attention, and the commission led by Sir George Campbell set the framework for how famine relief would be organized in the future. During the Rajputana famine of 1869, the principle of saving as many lives as possible was introduced. In the Behar famine of 1874, this principle was taken to an extreme, leading to huge costs and putting people at risk of becoming dependent on aid. This backlash resulted in a tragic loss of life during the Madras and Bombay famine of 1876-1878; consequently, the Famine Commission of 1880, along with those from 1898 and 1901, established that every possible life should be saved, but the wages for relief work needed to be set in relation to market wages to avoid undermining the community's independence. The insights gained from the major famines of 1898 and 1901 were compiled by these commissions and documented in the “famine codes” for each province, which outline procedures for handling famine as soon as a crop failure seems likely. The initial step is to launch test work programs; as soon as the need is evident, regular relief work is set up, allowing people to earn enough to avoid starvation until it's time to plant the next crop.

As a result of the severe famine of 1878-1879, Lord Lytton’s government instituted a form of insurance against famine known as the Famine Insurance Grant. A sum of Rs. 1,500,000 was to be yearly set aside for purposes of famine relief. This scheme has been widely misunderstood; it has been assumed that an entirely separate fund was created, and that in years when the specified sum was not paid into this fund, the purpose of the government was not carried out. But Sir John Strachey, the author of the scheme, explains in his book on India that the original intention was nothing more than the annual application of surplus revenue, of the indicated amount, to purposes of famine relief; and that when the country was free from famine, this sum should be regularly devoted to the discharge of debt, or to the prevention of debt which would otherwise have been incurred for the construction of railways and canals. The sum of 1½ crores is regularly set aside for this purpose, and is devoted as a rule to the construction of protective irrigation works, and for investigating and preparing new projects falling under the head of protective works.

As a result of the severe famine of 1878-1879, Lord Lytton’s government established a type of insurance against famine known as the Famine Insurance Grant. An amount of Rs. 1,500,000 was to be set aside each year for famine relief purposes. This scheme has been widely misunderstood; many have assumed that a completely separate fund was created, and that in years when the specified amount was not paid into this fund, the government's objective was not met. However, Sir John Strachey, the author of the scheme, explains in his book on India that the original intention was simply to use surplus revenue, of the specified amount, annually for famine relief; and that when the country was free from famine, this amount should be regularly used to pay off debt or to avoid incurring debt that would have otherwise been necessary for building railways and canals. The sum of 1½ crores is consistently set aside for this purpose and is typically allocated for the construction of protective irrigation works and for investigating and preparing new projects under the category of protective works.

The measures by which the government of India chiefly endeavours to reduce the liability of the country to famine are the promotion of railways; the extension of canal and well irrigation; the reclamation of waste lands, with the establishment of fuel and fodder reserves; the introduction of agricultural improvements; the multiplication of industries; emigration; and finally the improvement where necessary of the revenue and rent systems. In times of famine the function of the railways in distributing the grain is just as important as the function of the irrigation-canals in increasing the amount grown. There is always enough grain within the boundaries of India for the needs of the people; the only difficulty is to transport it to the tract where it is required at a particular moment. Owing to the extension of railways, in the famines of 1898 and 1901 there was never any dearth of food in any famine-stricken tract; and the only difficulty was to find enough rolling-stock to cope with the demand. Irrigation protects large tracts against famine, and has immensely increased the wheat output of the Punjab; the Irrigation Commission of 1903 recommended the addition of 6½ million acres to the irrigated area of India, and that recommendation is being carried out at an annual cost of 1½ millions sterling for twenty years, but at the end of that time the list of works that will return a lucrative interest on capital will be practically exhausted. Local conditions do not make irrigation everywhere possible.

The main ways the Indian government tries to reduce the risk of famine are by promoting railways, expanding canal and well irrigation, reclaiming wasteland, establishing fuel and fodder reserves, introducing agricultural advancements, increasing industries, encouraging emigration, and improving revenue and rent systems when necessary. During famines, railways play a crucial role in distributing grain, just as irrigation canals are essential for boosting crop production. There's always enough grain within India to meet the people's needs; the challenge is getting it to where it's needed at specific times. Thanks to the expansion of railways, there was never a shortage of food in the famine areas during the famines of 1898 and 1901; the only issue was a lack of train cars to meet the demand. Irrigation protects large areas from famine and has significantly increased wheat production in Punjab. The Irrigation Commission of 1903 recommended adding 6.5 million acres to the irrigated areas in India, and this plan is being implemented at an annual cost of 1.5 million pounds over twenty years. However, by the end of that period, there will be hardly any projects left that can provide a profitable return on investment. Local conditions don’t allow for irrigation everywhere.

As five-sixths of the whole population of India are dependent upon the land, any failure, of agriculture becomes a national calamity. If there were more industries and manufactures in India, the dependence on the land would not be so great and the liability to lack of occupation would not be so uniform in any particular district. The remedy for this is the extension of factories and home industries; but European capital is difficult to obtain in India, and the native capitalist prefers to hoard his rupees. The extension of industries, therefore, is a work of time.

As five-sixths of the entire population of India relies on agriculture, any failure in farming becomes a national disaster. If there were more industries and manufacturing in India, the reliance on agriculture wouldn't be as significant, and the risk of unemployment wouldn't be as widespread in specific areas. The solution to this is to expand factories and local industries; however, it's hard to secure European investment in India, and local investors tend to keep their money saved. Therefore, the growth of industries will take time.

It is sometimes alleged by native Indian politicians that famines are growing worse under British rule, because India is becoming exhausted by an excessive land revenue, a civil service too expensive for her needs, military expenditure on imperial objects, and the annual drain of some £15,000,000 for “home charges.” The reply to this indictment is that the British land revenue is £16,000,000 annually, whereas Aurangzeb’s over a smaller area, allowing for the difference in the value of the rupee, was £110,000,000; though the Indian Civil Service is expensive, its cost is more than covered by the fact that India, under British guarantee, obtains her loans at 3½% as against 10% or more paid by native rulers; though India has a heavy military burden, she pays no contribution to the British navy, which protects her seaboard from invasion; the drain of the home charges cannot be very great, as India annually absorbs 6 millions sterling of the precious metals; in 1899-1900, a year of famine, the net imports of gold and silver were 130 millions. Finally, it is estimated by the census commissioners that in the famine of 1901 three million people died in the native states and only one million in British territory.

It is sometimes claimed by local Indian politicians that famines are getting worse under British rule because India is being drained by high land taxes, a civil service that's too costly for its needs, military spending on imperial interests, and the annual outflow of about £15,000,000 for “home charges.” In response to this accusation, it's noted that the British land revenue is £16,000,000 per year, while Aurangzeb’s was £110,000,000 over a smaller area, adjusted for the differences in rupee value. Although the Indian Civil Service is expensive, its costs are outweighed by the fact that India can secure loans at 3½% under British assurance, compared to the 10% or more charged by local rulers. While India does have a significant military expense, she contributes nothing to the British navy, which protects her coastline from attacks. The outflow for home charges can’t be too substantial, considering India takes in £6 million in precious metals each year; during 1899-1900, a famine year, the net imports of gold and silver reached £130 million. Finally, census officials estimate that during the famine of 1901, three million people died in the native states, while only one million died in British-controlled areas.

See Cornelius Walford, “On the Famines of the World, Past and Present” (Journal of the Statistical Society, 1878-1879); Romesh C. Dutt, Famines in India (1900); Robert Wallace, Famine in India (1900); George Campbell, Famines in India (1769-1788); Chronological List of Famines for all India (Madras Administration Report, 1885); J.C. Geddes, Administrative Experience in Former Famines (1874); Statistical Atlas of India (1895); F.H.S. Merewether, Through the Famine Districts of India (1898); G.W. Forrest, The Famine in India (1898); E.A.B. Hodgetts, In the Track of the Russian Famine (1892); W.B. Steveni, Through Famine-stricken Russia (1892); Vaughan Nash, The Great Famine (1900); Lady Hope, Sir Arthur Cotton (1900); Lord Curzon in India (1905); T.W. Holderness, Narrative of the Famine of 1896-1897 (c. 8812 of 1898); the Indian Famine Commission reports of 1880, 1898 and 1900; report of the Indian Irrigation Commission (1901-1903); C.W. McMinn, Famine Truths, Half-Truths, Untruths (1902); Theodore Morison, Indian Industrial Organization (1906).

See Cornelius Walford, “On the Famines of the World, Past and Present” (Journal of the Statistical Society, 1878-1879); Romesh C. Dutt, Famines in India (1900); Robert Wallace, Famine in India (1900); George Campbell, Famines in India (1769-1788); Chronological List of Famines for all India (Madras Administration Report, 1885); J.C. Geddes, Administrative Experience in Former Famines (1874); Statistical Atlas of India (1895); F.H.S. Merewether, Through the Famine Districts of India (1898); G.W. Forrest, The Famine in India (1898); E.A.B. Hodgetts, In the Track of the Russian Famine (1892); W.B. Steveni, Through Famine-stricken Russia (1892); Vaughan Nash, The Great Famine (1900); Lady Hope, Sir Arthur Cotton (1900); Lord Curzon in India (1905); T.W. Holderness, Narrative of the Famine of 1896-1897 (c. 8812 of 1898); the Indian Famine Commission reports of 1880, 1898 and 1900; report of the Indian Irrigation Commission (1901-1903); C.W. McMinn, Famine Truths, Half-Truths, Untruths (1902); Theodore Morison, Indian Industrial Organization (1906).


FAN (Lat. vannus; Fr. éventail), in its usually restricted meaning, a light implement used for giving motion to the air in order to produce coolness to the face; the word is, however, also applied to the winnowing fan, for separating chaff from grain, and to various engineering appliances for ventilation, &c. Ventilabrum and flabellum are names under which ecclesiastical fans are mentioned in old inventories. Fans for cooling the face have been in use in hot climates from remote ages. A bas-relief in the British Museum represents Sennacherib with female figures carrying feather fans. They were attributes of royalty along with horse-hair fly-flappers and umbrellas. Examples may be seen in plates of the Egyptian sculptures at Thebes and other places, and also in the ruins of Persepolis. In the museum of Boulak, near Cairo, a wooden fan handle showing holes for feathers is still preserved. It is from the tomb of Amenhotep, of the 18th dynasty, 17th century B.C. In India fans were also attributes of men in authority, and sometimes sacred emblems. A heart-shaped fan, with an ivory handle, of unknown age, and held in great veneration by the Hindus, was given to King Edward VII. when prince of Wales. Large punkahs or screens, moved by a servant who does nothing else, are in common use in hot countries, and particularly India.

FAN (Latin vannus; French éventail), in its usual sense, refers to a lightweight tool used to create airflow to cool the face. However, the term also applies to the winnowing fan for separating chaff from grain and various engineering devices used for ventilation, etc. Ventilabrum and flabellum are terms found in old inventories referring to ecclesiastical fans. Fans for cooling the face have been used in hot climates for a long time. A bas-relief in the British Museum depicts Sennacherib with female figures carrying feather fans. These fans were symbols of royalty, along with horse-hair fly swatters and umbrellas. Examples can be seen in the plates of Egyptian sculptures from Thebes and other locations, as well as in the ruins of Persepolis. In the Boulak Museum near Cairo, a wooden fan handle with holes for feathers is still preserved. It comes from the tomb of Amenhotep, from the 18th dynasty, 17th century BCE In India, fans were also symbols of authority and sometimes considered sacred emblems. A heart-shaped fan with an ivory handle, of unknown age and highly revered by Hindus, was presented to King Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales. Large punkahs or screens, operated by a servant dedicated to this task, are commonly used in hot countries, especially India.

Fans were used in the early middle ages to keep flies from the sacred elements during the celebrations of the Christian mysteries. Sometimes they were round, with bells attached—of silver or silver gilt. Notices of such fans in the ancient records of St Paul’s, London, Salisbury cathedral and many other churches exist still. For these purposes they are no longer used in the Western church, though they are retained in some Oriental rites. The large feather fans, however, are still carried in the state processions of the supreme pontiff in Rome, though not used during the celebration of the mass. The fan of Queen Theodolinda (7th century) is still preserved in the treasury of the cathedral of Monza. Fans made part of the bridal outfit, or mundus muliebris, of Roman ladies.

Fans were used in the early Middle Ages to keep flies away from the sacred elements during the Christian mystery celebrations. Sometimes they were round and had bells attached—either silver or silver-gilt. Records of such fans can still be found in the ancient archives of St Paul’s in London, Salisbury Cathedral, and many other churches. Though they are no longer used for this purpose in the Western church, they are still part of some Oriental rites. However, large feather fans are still carried in the state processions of the Pope in Rome, although they are not used during the Mass. The fan of Queen Theodolinda (7th century) is still preserved in the treasury of the cathedral in Monza. Fans were also included in the bridal outfit, or mundus muliebris, of Roman women.

Folding fans had their origin in Japan, and were imported thence to China. They were in the shape still used—a segment of a circle of paper pasted on a light radiating framework of bamboo, and variously decorated, some in colours, others of white paper on which verses or sentences are written. It is a 169 compliment in China to invite a friend or distinguished guest to write some sentiment on your fan as a memento of any special occasion, and this practice has continued. A fan that has some celebrity in France was presented by the Chinese ambassador to the comtesse de Clauzel at the coronation of Napoleon I. in 1804. When a site was given in 1635, on an artificial island, for the settlement of Portuguese merchants in Nippo in Japan, the space was laid out in the form of a fan as emblematic of an object agreeable for general use. Men and women of every rank both in China and Japan carry fans, even artisans using them with one hand while working with the other. In China they are often made of carved ivory, the sticks being plates very thin and sometimes carved on both sides, the intervals between the carved parts pierced with astonishing delicacy, and the plates held together by a ribbon. The Japanese make the two outer guards of the stick, which cover the others, occasionally of beaten iron, extremely thin and light, damascened with gold and other metals.

Folding fans originated in Japan and were brought to China. They are still shaped like they used to be—a segment of a circle made of paper attached to a lightweight bamboo frame, decorated in various ways, some in color and others in white paper where verses or sentences are written. It is a 169 compliment in China to invite a friend or distinguished guest to write a sentiment on your fan as a keepsake for any special occasion, and this tradition has continued. One famous fan in France was gifted by the Chinese ambassador to the Comtesse de Clauzel at the coronation of Napoleon I in 1804. When a site was designated in 1635 on an artificial island for Portuguese merchants in Nippo, Japan, the area was designed in the shape of a fan to symbolize something enjoyable for general use. Men and women of all ranks in both China and Japan carry fans, even artisans who use one hand for the fan while working with the other. In China, fans are often made of carved ivory, with very thin sticks that are sometimes intricately carved on both sides, and the spaces between the carved sections are pierced with remarkable delicacy, holding the plates together with a ribbon. The Japanese create the two outer guards of the stick, which cover the inner sticks, sometimes from very thin and lightweight beaten iron, decorated with gold and other metals.

Fans were used by Portuguese ladies in the 14th century, and were well known in England before the close of the reign of Richard II. In France the inventory of Charles V. at the end of the 14th century mentions a folding ivory fan. They were brought into general use in that country by Catherine de’Medici, probably from Italy, then in advance of other countries in all matters of personal luxury. The court ladies of Henry VIII.’s reign in England were used to handling fans. A lady in the “Dance of Death” by Holbein holds a fan. Queen Elizabeth is painted with a round feather fan in her portrait at Gorhambury; and as many as twenty-seven are enumerated in her inventory (1606). Coryat, the English traveller, in 1608 describes them as common in Italy. They also became of general use from that time in Spain. In Italy, France and Spain fans had special conventional uses, and various actions in handling them grew into a code of signals, by which ladies were supposed to convey hints or signals to admirers or to rivals in society. A paper in the Spectator humorously proposes to establish a regular drill for these purposes.

Fans were used by Portuguese women in the 14th century and were well known in England before the end of Richard II’s reign. In France, an inventory from Charles V at the end of the 14th century mentions a folding ivory fan. Catherine de’Medici popularized them in that country, likely bringing them from Italy, which was ahead of other nations in personal luxury. The ladies at Henry VIII’s court in England were accustomed to using fans. A woman in Holbein’s “Dance of Death” holds a fan. Queen Elizabeth is depicted with a round feather fan in her portrait at Gorhambury, and her inventory from 1606 lists as many as twenty-seven fans. Coryat, the English traveler, described them as common in Italy in 1608. They also became widely used in Spain from that point on. In Italy, France, and Spain, fans had specific conventional uses, and various ways of handling them developed into a code of signals, allowing ladies to communicate hints or signals to admirers or rivals in society. A paper in the Spectator humorously suggests establishing a formal drill for these purposes.

The chief seat of the European manufacture of fans during the 17th century was Paris, where the sticks or frames, whether of wood or ivory, were made, and the decorations painted on mounts of very carefully prepared vellum (incorrectly called chicken skin)—a material stronger and tougher than paper, which breaks at the folds. Paris makers exported fans unpainted to Madrid and other Spanish cities, where they were decorated by native artists. Many were exported complete; of old fans called Spanish a great number were in fact made in France. Louis XIV. issued edicts at various times to regulate the manufacture. Besides fans mounted with parchment, Dutch fans of ivory were imported into Paris, and decorated by the heraldic painters in the process called “Vernis Martin,” after a famous carriage painter and inventor of colourless lac varnish. Fans of this kind belonging to Queen Victoria and the baroness de Rothschild were exhibited in 1870 at Kensington. A fan of the date of 1660, representing sacred subjects, is attributed to Philippe de Champagne, another to Peter Oliver in England in the 17th century. Cano de Arevalo, a Spanish painter of the 17th century, devoted himself to fan painting. Some harsh expressions of Queen Christina to the young ladies of the French court are said to have caused an increased ostentation in the splendour of their fans, which were set with jewels and mounted in gold. Rosalba Carriera was the name of a fan painter of celebrity in the 17th century. Le Brun and Romanelli were much employed during the same period. Klingstet, a Dutch artist, enjoyed a considerable reputation in the latter part of the 17th and the first thirty years of the 18th century.

The main hub for fan production in Europe during the 17th century was Paris, where the sticks or frames, made from wood or ivory, were crafted, and the designs were painted on mounts made of specially prepared vellum (commonly misnamed as chicken skin)—a material that's stronger and more durable than paper, which tends to break at the folds. Parisian makers exported unpainted fans to Madrid and other Spanish cities, where local artists would add decorations. Many fans were exported fully decorated; many of the so-called Spanish fans were actually made in France. Louis XIV issued various edicts to regulate the production. In addition to fans with parchment mounts, Dutch ivory fans were brought into Paris and decorated by heraldic painters using a technique called “Vernis Martin,” named after a famous carriage painter who invented a colorless lacquer. Fans of this type that belonged to Queen Victoria and Baroness de Rothschild were displayed in 1870 at Kensington. A fan dating back to 1660, featuring sacred images, is credited to Philippe de Champagne, while another is attributed to Peter Oliver in England during the 17th century. Cano de Arevalo, a Spanish artist from the 17th century, focused on fan painting. Some harsh comments from Queen Christina to the young women of the French court are said to have led to a more extravagant display in the beauty of their fans, which were adorned with jewels and mounted in gold. Rosalba Carriera was a well-known fan painter in the 17th century. Le Brun and Romanelli were also frequently commissioned during this time. Klingstet, a Dutch artist, gained significant recognition in the latter half of the 17th century and the first thirty years of the 18th century.

The revocation of the edict of Nantes drove many fan-makers out of France to Holland and England. The trade in England was well established under the Stuart sovereigns. Petitions were addressed by the fan-makers to Charles II. against the importation of fans from India, and a duty was levied upon such fans in consequence. This importation of Indian fans, according to Savary, extended also to France. During the reign of Louis XV. carved Indian and China fans displaced to some extent those formerly imported from Italy, which had been painted on swanskin parchment prepared with various perfumes.

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes pushed many fan-makers out of France to Holland and England. The trade in England was well established under the Stuart monarchs. Fan-makers sent petitions to Charles II. against importing fans from India, leading to a duty being imposed on those fans. According to Savary, this importation of Indian fans also affected France. During the reign of Louis XV, carved Indian and Chinese fans partially replaced the ones previously imported from Italy, which had been painted on swanskin parchment treated with various perfumes.

During the 18th century all the luxurious ornamentation of the day was bestowed on fans as far as they could display it. The sticks were made of mother-of-pearl or ivory, carved with extraordinary skill in France, Italy, England and other countries. They were painted from designs of Boucher, Watteau, Lancret and other “genre” painters; Hébert, Rau, Chevalier, Jean Boquet, Mme. Vérité, are known as fan-painters. These fashions were followed in most countries of Europe, with certain national differences. Taffeta and silk, as well as fine parchment, were used for the mounts. Little circles of glass were let into the stick to be looked through, and small telescopic glasses were sometimes contrived at the pivot of the stick. They were occasionally mounted with the finest point lace. An interesting fan (belonging to Madame de Thiac in France), the work of Le Flamand, was presented by the municipality of Dieppe to Marie Antoinette on the birth of her son the dauphin. From the time of the Revolution the old luxury expended on fans died out. Fine examples ceased to be exported to England and other countries. The painting on them represented scenes or personages connected with political events. At a later period fan mounts were often prints coloured by hand. The events of the day mark the date of many examples found in modern collections. Among the fan-makers of modern days the names of Alexandre, Duvelleroy, Fayet, Vanier became well known in Paris; and the designs of Charles Conder (1868-1909) have brought his name to the front in this art. Painters of distinction often design and paint the mounts, the best designs being figure subjects. A great impulse was given to the manufacture and painting of fans in England after the exhibition which took place at South Kensington in 1870. Modern collections of fans take their date from the emigration of many noble families from France at the time of the Revolution. Such objects were given as souvenirs, and occasionally sold by families in straitened circumstances. A large number of fans of all sorts, principally those of the 18th century, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, &c., have been bequeathed to the South Kensington (Victoria and Albert) Museum.

During the 18th century, all the extravagant decorations of the time were lavishly applied to fans as much as possible. The sticks were crafted from mother-of-pearl or ivory, intricately carved in France, Italy, England, and other countries. They were painted based on designs from Boucher, Watteau, Lancret, and other “genre” painters; Hébert, Rau, Chevalier, Jean Boquet, and Mme. Vérité are recognized as fan painters. These styles were adopted in most European countries, each with some national variations. Taffeta and silk, along with fine parchment, were used for the mounts. Small circles of glass were embedded into the stick for viewing, and sometimes small telescopic lenses were incorporated at the pivot of the stick. They were occasionally adorned with the finest lace. An interesting fan (owned by Madame de Thiac in France), created by Le Flamand, was gifted to Marie Antoinette by the municipality of Dieppe upon the birth of her son, the dauphin. After the Revolution, the old luxury invested in fans faded away. High-quality examples stopped being exported to England and other countries. The artwork on them depicted scenes or figures related to political events. Later, fan mounts were often prints colored by hand. The events of the time are reflected in the dates of many examples found in contemporary collections. Among modern fan makers, the names Alexandre, Duvelleroy, Fayet, and Vanier became well-known in Paris; Charles Conder (1868-1909) gained recognition for his designs in this art form. Distinguished painters frequently design and paint the mounts, with the best designs featuring figures. The manufacture and painting of fans in England received a significant boost after the exhibition held at South Kensington in 1870. Modern fan collections date back to the emigration of numerous noble families from France during the Revolution. Such items were given as keepsakes and occasionally sold by families facing financial difficulties. A large number of fans of all kinds, mainly from the 18th century, including French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, etc., have been donated to the South Kensington (Victoria and Albert) Museum.

The sticks of folding fans are called in French brins, the two outer guards panaches, and the mount feuille.

The sticks of folding fans are called in French brins, the two outer guards panaches, and the mount feuille.

See also Blondel, Histoire des éventails (1875); Octave Uzanne, L’éventail (1882); and especially G. Wooliscroft Rhead, History of the Fan (1909).

See also Blondel, Histoire des éventails (1875); Octave Uzanne, L’éventail (1882); and especially G. Wooliscroft Rhead, History of the Fan (1909).

(J. H. P.*)

FANCY (a shortened form, dating from the 15th century, of “fantasy,” which is derived through the O. Fr. fantasie, modern fantaisie. from the Latinized form of the Gr. φαντασία, φαντάζειν, φαίνειν, to show), display, showing forth, as a philosophical term, the presentative power of the mind. The word “fancy” and the older form “fantasy,” which is now chiefly used poetically, was in its early application synonymous with imagination, the mental faculty of creating representations or images of things not present to the senses; it is more usually, in this sense, applied to the lighter forms of the imagination. “Fancy” also commonly means inclination, whim, caprice. The more learned form “phantasy,” as also such words as “phantom” and “phantasm,” is chiefly confined to visionary imaginings.

FANCY (a shortened version from the 15th century of “fantasy,” which comes from the Old French fantasie, modern fantaisie, and the Latinized version of the Greek fantasy, to seem, to show, meaning to show), refers to display or showing forth, and in philosophical terms, it represents the mind's ability to present ideas. The word “fancy” and its older counterpart “fantasy,” which is mostly used in poetry today, were once synonymous with imagination, which is the mental ability to create images or representations of things not currently sensed; it is typically applied to the lighter aspects of imagination. “Fancy” also usually means inclination, whim, or caprice. The more scholarly term “phantasy,” along with words like “phantom” and “phantasm,” is mainly used for visionary imaginations.


FANG (Fan, Fanwe, Panwe, Pahouin, Paouen, Mpangwe), a powerful African people occupying the Gabun district north of the Ogowé river in French Congo. Their name means “men.” They call themselves Panwe, Fanwe and Fan with highly nasalized n. They are a finely-made race of chocolate colour; some few are very dark, but these are of slave origin. They have bright expressive oval faces with prominent cheek-bones. Many of them file their teeth to points. Their hair, which is woolly, is worn by the women long, reaching below the nape of the neck. The men wear it in a variety of shapes, often building it up over a wooden base. The growth of the hair appears abundant, but that on the face is usually removed. Little clothing is worn; the men wear a bark waist-cloth, the women a plantain girdle, sometimes with a bustle of dried grass. A chief wears a leopard’s skin round the shoulders. Both sexes tattoo and paint the body, 170 and delight in ornaments of every kind. The men, whose sole occupations are fighting and hunting, all carry arms—muskets, spears for throwing and stabbing, and curious throwing-knives with blades broader than they are long. Instead of bows and arrows they use crossbows made of ebony, with which they hunt apes and birds. In battle the Fang used to carry elephant hide shields; these have apparently been discarded.

FANG (Fan, Fanwe, Panwe, Pahouin, Paouen, Mpangwe), a strong African group located in the Gabun area north of the Ogowé River in French Congo. Their name means “men.” They refer to themselves as Panwe, Fanwe, and Fan with a highly nasalized n. They are a well-built people with a chocolate complexion; a few are very dark, but those usually come from slave ancestry. They have bright, expressive oval faces with prominent cheekbones. Many of them sharpen their teeth to points. Their hair, which is woolly, is worn long by the women, reaching below the nape of the neck. The men style their hair in various shapes, often building it up over a wooden base. They have abundant hair growth, but facial hair is typically removed. They wear minimal clothing; men have a bark waistcloth, while women don a plantain girdle, sometimes accessorized with a bustle made of dried grass. A chief drapes a leopard skin over their shoulders. Both men and women tattoo and paint their bodies, and they enjoy all kinds of ornaments. The men, whose main activities are fighting and hunting, always carry weapons—muskets, throwing and stabbing spears, and unique throwing knives with blades that are broader than they are long. Instead of bows and arrows, they use ebony crossbows to hunt apes and birds. In battle, the Fang used to carry shields made of elephant hide; these no longer seem to be in use. 170

When first met by T.E. Bowdich (1815) the Paamways, as he calls the Fang, were an inland people inhabiting the hilly plateaus north of the Ogowé affluents. Now they have become the neighbours of the Mpongwe (q.v.) of Glass and Libreville on the Komo river, while south of the Gabun they have reached the sea at several points. Their original home is probably to be placed somewhere near the Congo. Their language, according to Sir R. Burton, is soft and sweet and a contrast to their harsh voices, and the vocabularies collected prove it to be of the Bantu-Negroid linguistic family. W. Winwood Reade (Sketch Book, i. p. 108) states that “it is like Mpongwe (a pure Bantu idiom) cut in half; for instance, njina (gorilla) in Mpongwe is nji in Fan.” The plural of the tribal name is formed in the usual Bantu way, Ba-Fang.

When T.E. Bowdich first encountered them in 1815, the Paamways, as he referred to the Fang, were an inland community living in the hilly plateaus north of the Ogowé rivers. Now, they are neighbors of the Mpongwe (q.v.) communities at Glass and Libreville along the Komo River, and to the south of Gabun, they have reached the coast at several locations. Their original homeland is likely somewhere near the Congo. According to Sir R. Burton, their language is soft and melodic, which contrasts with their harsh tones, and the vocabularies collected show it belongs to the Bantu-Negroid language family. W. Winwood Reade (Sketch Book, i. p. 108) notes that “it is like Mpongwe (a pure Bantu dialect) cut in half; for example, njina (gorilla) in Mpongwe is nji in Fan.” The plural of the tribal name is formed in the typical Bantu manner, Ba-Fang.

Morally the Fang are superior to the negro. Mary Kingsley writes: “The Fan is full of fire, temper, intelligence and go, very teachable, rather difficult to manage, quick to take offence, and utterly indifferent to human life.” This latter characteristic has made the Fang dreaded by all their neighbours. They are noted cannibals, and ferocious in nature. Prisoners are badly treated and are often allowed to starve. The Fang are always fighting, but the battles are not bloody. After the fall of two or three warriors the bodies are dragged off to be devoured, and their friends disperse. Burton says that their cannibalism is limited to the consumption of slain enemies; that the sick are not devoured; and that the dead are decently buried, except slaves, whose bodies are thrown into the forest. Mary Kingsley, on the other hand, believed their cannibalism was not limited. She writes: “The Fan is not a cannibal for sacrificial motives, like the negro. He will eat his next door neighbour’s relation and sell his own deceased to his next door neighbour in return, but he does not buy slaves and fatten them up for his table as some of the middle Congo tribes do. He has no slaves, no prisoners of war, no cemeteries, so you must draw your own conclusions.” Among certain tribes the aged alone are permitted to eat human flesh, which is taboo for all others. There is no doubt that the cannibalism of the Fang is diminishing before the advance of civilization. Apart from their ferocity, the Fang are an agreeable and industrious people. They are skilful workers in iron and have a curious coinage called bikĕi, little iron imitation axeheads tied up in bundles called ntet, ten to a bundle; these are used chiefly in the purchase of wives. They are energetic traders and are skilled in pottery and in gardening. Their religion appears to be a combination of primitive animism and ancestor worship, with a belief in sympathetic magic.

Morally, the Fang consider themselves superior to black people. Mary Kingsley writes: “The Fang is full of energy, temper, intelligence, and ambition, very teachable, somewhat hard to manage, quick to take offense, and completely indifferent to human life.” This last trait has made the Fang feared by all their neighbors. They are known to be cannibals and have a fierce nature. Prisoners are treated poorly and often left to starve. The Fang are always fighting, but the battles aren't bloody. After two or three warriors fall, their bodies are dragged off to be eaten, and their friends scatter. Burton states that their cannibalism is limited to eating fallen enemies; the sick aren’t eaten, and the dead are buried respectfully, except for slaves, whose bodies are discarded in the forest. Mary Kingsley, on the other hand, believed their cannibalism was broader. She writes: “The Fang is not a cannibal for sacrificial reasons, like black people. He will eat his neighbor’s relative and sell his own deceased to his neighbor in return, but he doesn’t buy slaves and fatten them up for his table as some tribes in the middle Congo do. He has no slaves, no war prisoners, no cemeteries, so you have to make your own conclusions.” Among certain tribes, only the elderly are allowed to eat human flesh, which is taboo for everyone else. There’s no doubt that the cannibalism of the Fang is decreasing with the spread of civilization. Aside from their ferocity, the Fang are a pleasant and hardworking people. They are skilled iron workers and have a unique form of currency called bikĕi, which are little iron axehead imitations tied in bundles called ntet, with ten in each bundle; these are mainly used for buying wives. They are active traders and excel in pottery and gardening. Their religion seems to combine primitive animism and ancestor worship, along with a belief in sympathetic magic.

Bibliography.—Paul du Chaillu, Explorations in Equatorial Africa (1861); Sir R. Burton, “A Day with the Fans,” Transactions of Ethnological Society, new series, vols. 3-4; Mary Kingsley, Travels in West Africa (1897); Oscar Lenz, Skizzen aus West Africa (1878); R.E. Dennett, Notes on the Folklore of the Fjort (1898); William Winwood Reade, The African Sketch Book (1873); and (chiefly) A.L. Bennett, “Ethnographical Notes on the Fang,” Journ. Anthr. Inst. N.S., ii. p. 66, and L. Martron in Anthropos, t. i. (1906), fasc. 4.

References.—Paul du Chaillu, Explorations in Equatorial Africa (1861); Sir R. Burton, “A Day with the Fans,” Transactions of Ethnological Society, new series, vols. 3-4; Mary Kingsley, Travels in West Africa (1897); Oscar Lenz, Skizzen aus West Africa (1878); R.E. Dennett, Notes on the Folklore of the Fjort (1898); William Winwood Reade, The African Sketch Book (1873); and (chiefly) A.L. Bennett, “Ethnographical Notes on the Fang,” Journ. Anthr. Inst. N.S., ii. p. 66, and L. Martron in Anthropos, t. i. (1906), fasc. 4.


FANO (anc. Fanum Fortunae, q.v.), a town and episcopal see of the Marches, Italy, in the province of Pesaro and Urbino, 8 m. S.E. of the former by rail, and 46 ft. above sea-level, on the N.E. coast of Italy. Pop. (1901), town 10,535, commune 24,730. The cathedral has a 13th century portal, but the interior is unimportant. The vestibule of S. Francesco contains the tombs of some members of the Malatesta family. S. Croce and S. Maria Nuova contain works by Giovanni Santi, the father of Raphael; the latter has also two works by Perugino, the predella of one of which is attributed to Raphael. S. Agostino contains a painting of S. Angelo Custode (“the Guardian Angel”), which is the subject of a poem by Robert Browning. The fine Gothic Palazzo della Ragione (1299) has been converted into a theatre. The palace of the Malatesta, with fine porticos and Gothic windows, was much damaged by an earthquake in 1874. S. Michele, built against the arch of Augustus, is an early Renaissance building (1475-1490), probably by Matteo Nuzio of Fano, with an ornate portal. The façade has an interesting relief showing the colonnade added by Constantine as an upper storey to the arch of Augustus and removed in 1463.

FANO (formerly Fanum Fortunae, q.v.), a town and episcopal see in the Marches, Italy, in the province of Pesaro and Urbino, is located 8 miles southeast of the former by rail and 46 feet above sea level, on the northeast coast of Italy. Population (1901): town 10,535, commune 24,730. The cathedral features a 13th-century entrance, but the interior is not particularly noteworthy. The vestibule of S. Francesco holds the tombs of some members of the Malatesta family. S. Croce and S. Maria Nuova showcase works by Giovanni Santi, the father of Raphael; the latter also includes two pieces by Perugino, one of whose predella is attributed to Raphael. S. Agostino houses a painting of S. Angelo Custode (“the Guardian Angel”), which inspired a poem by Robert Browning. The impressive Gothic Palazzo della Ragione (1299) has been turned into a theater. The Malatesta palace, with its beautiful porticos and Gothic windows, suffered significant damage during an earthquake in 1874. S. Michele, built against the arch of Augustus, is an early Renaissance structure (1475-1490), likely designed by Matteo Nuzio of Fano, featuring an ornate entrance. The façade displays an intriguing relief of the colonnade added by Constantine as an upper level to the arch of Augustus, which was removed in 1463.

Fano in the middle ages passed through various political vicissitudes, and in the 14th century became subject to the Malatesta. In 1458 Pius II. added it to the states of the Church. Julius II. established here in 1514 the first printing press with movable Arabic type. The harbour was restored by Paul V. but is now unimportant.

Fano went through several political changes in the Middle Ages and became subject to the Malatesta in the 14th century. In 1458, Pius II added it to the Papal States. Julius II established the first printing press with movable Arabic type here in 1514. The harbor was restored by Paul V but is now not that significant.


FANSHAWE, SIR RICHARD, Bart. (1608-1666), English poet and ambassador, son of Sir Henry Fanshawe, remembrancer of the exchequer, of Ware Park, Hertfordshire, and of Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Smith or Smythe, was born early in June 1608, and was educated in Cripplegate by the famous schoolmaster, Thomas Farnaby. In November 1623 he was admitted fellow-commoner of Jesus College, Cambridge, and in January 1626 he entered the Inner Temple; but the study of the law being distasteful to him he travelled in France and Spain. On his return, an accomplished linguist, in 1635, he was appointed secretary to the English embassy at Madrid under Lord Aston. At the outbreak of the Civil War he joined the king, and while at Oxford in 1644 married Anne, daughter of Sir John Harrison of Balls, Hertfordshire. About the same time he was appointed secretary at war to the prince of Wales, with whom he set out in 1645 for the western counties, Scilly, and afterwards Jersey. He compounded in 1646 with the parliamentary authorities, and was allowed to live in London till October 1647, visiting Charles I. at Hampton Court. In 1647 he published his translation of the Pastor Fido of Guarini, which he reissued in 1648 with the addition of several other poems, original and translated. In 1648 he was appointed treasurer to the navy under Prince Rupert. In November of this year he was in Ireland, where he actively engaged in the royalist cause till the spring of 1650, when he was despatched by Charles II. on a mission to obtain help from Spain. This was refused, and he joined Charles in Scotland as secretary. On the 2nd of September 1650 he had been created a baronet. He accompanied Charles in the expedition into England, and was taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester on the 3rd of September 1651. After a confinement of some weeks at Whitehall, he was allowed, with restrictions, and under the supervision of the authorities, to choose his own place of residence. He published in 1652 his Selected Parts of Horace, a translation remarkable for its fidelity, felicity and elegance. In 1654 he completed translations of two of the comedies of the Spanish poet Antonio de Mendoza, which were published after his death, Querer per solo querer: To Love only for Love’s Sake, in 1670, and Fiestas de Aranjuez in 1671. But the great labour of his retirement was the translation of the Lusiad, by Camoens published in 1655. It is in ottava rima, with the translation prefixed to it of the Latin poem Furor Petroniensis. In 1658 he published a Latin version of the Faithful Shepherdess of Fletcher.

FANSHAWE, SIR RICHARD, Bart. (1608-1666), English poet and ambassador, son of Sir Henry Fanshawe, remembrancer of the exchequer from Ware Park, Hertfordshire, and of Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Smith or Smythe, was born in early June 1608. He was educated in Cripplegate by the well-known schoolmaster, Thomas Farnaby. In November 1623, he became a fellow-commoner at Jesus College, Cambridge, and in January 1626, he enrolled at the Inner Temple; however, finding law unappealing, he traveled in France and Spain. Upon his return in 1635, he was appointed secretary to the English embassy in Madrid under Lord Aston, having become an accomplished linguist. When the Civil War broke out, he supported the king and married Anne, daughter of Sir John Harrison of Balls, Hertfordshire, while in Oxford in 1644. Around the same time, he was appointed secretary at war to the prince of Wales and traveled in 1645 to the western counties, Scilly, and later Jersey. He made a financial settlement with the parliamentary authorities in 1646, allowing him to stay in London until October 1647, during which time he visited Charles I at Hampton Court. In 1647, he published his translation of the Pastor Fido by Guarini, reissuing it in 1648 with additional original and translated poems. In 1648, he became treasurer to the navy under Prince Rupert. In November of that year, he was in Ireland, where he actively supported the royalist cause until spring 1650, when Charles II sent him on a mission to seek assistance from Spain, which was declined. He then joined Charles in Scotland as secretary and was created a baronet on September 2, 1650. He accompanied Charles during the expedition into England and was captured at the battle of Worcester on September 3, 1651. After several weeks of confinement at Whitehall, he was permitted, with restrictions and under supervision, to choose his own residence. In 1652, he published his Selected Parts of Horace, a translation notable for its fidelity, grace, and elegance. In 1654, he finished translations of two comedies by the Spanish poet Antonio de Mendoza, which were published posthumously: Querer per solo querer: To Love only for Love’s Sake in 1670, and Fiestas de Aranjuez in 1671. However, his major work during retirement was the translation of the Lusiad by Camoens, published in 1655. This translation is in ottava rima, featuring a preface that includes the Latin poem Furor Petroniensis. In 1658, he published a Latin version of Fletcher's Faithful Shepherdess.

In April 1659 Fanshawe left England for Paris, re-entered Charles’s service and accompanied him to England at the Restoration, but was not offered any place in the administration. In 1661 he was returned to parliament for the university of Cambridge, and the same year was sent to Portugal to negotiate the marriage between Charles II. and the infanta. In January 1662 he was made a privy councillor of Ireland, and was appointed ambassador again to Portugal in August, where he remained till August 1663. He was sworn a privy councillor of England on the 1st of October. In January 1664 he was sent as ambassador to Spain, and arrived at Cadiz in February of that year. He signed the first draft of a treaty on the 17th of December, which offered advantageous concessions to English trade, but of which one condition was that it should be confirmed by his government before a certain date. In January 1666 Fanshawe went to Lisbon to procure the adherence of Portugal to this agreement. He 171 returned to Madrid, having failed in his mission, and was almost immediately recalled by Clarendon on the plea that he had exceeded his instructions. He died very shortly afterwards before leaving Madrid, on the 26th of June 1666. He had a family of fourteen children, of whom five only survived him, Richard, the youngest, succeeding as second baronet and dying unmarried in 1694.

In April 1659, Fanshawe left England for Paris, rejoined Charles’s service, and went back to England with him during the Restoration, but he wasn’t offered any position in the government. In 1661, he was elected to parliament for the University of Cambridge, and that same year, he was sent to Portugal to negotiate the marriage between Charles II and the infanta. In January 1662, he was made a privy councillor of Ireland and appointed ambassador again to Portugal in August, where he stayed until August 1663. He took the oath as a privy councillor of England on October 1st. In January 1664, he was sent as ambassador to Spain, arriving in Cadiz in February of that year. He signed the first draft of a treaty on December 17, which included favorable concessions for English trade, but one condition was that it needed to be confirmed by his government before a specific date. In January 1666, Fanshawe traveled to Lisbon to secure Portugal’s agreement to this treaty. He returned to Madrid after his mission failed and was almost immediately recalled by Clarendon on the grounds that he had overstepped his instructions. He died shortly afterward, before leaving Madrid, on June 26, 1666. He had a family of fourteen children, of whom only five survived him, with Richard, the youngest, succeeding as the second baronet and dying unmarried in 1694.

As a translator, whether from the Italian, Latin, Portuguese or Spanish, Fanshawe has a considerable reputation. His Pastor Fido and his Lusiad have not been superseded by later scholars, and his rendering of the latter is praised by Southey and Sir Richard Burton. As an original poet also the few verses he has left are sufficient evidence of exceptional literary talent.

As a translator, whether from Italian, Latin, Portuguese, or Spanish, Fanshawe is well-respected. His Pastor Fido and Lusiad have not been surpassed by later scholars, and his translation of the latter is praised by Southey and Sir Richard Burton. As an original poet, the few verses he left behind clearly show his exceptional literary talent.

Authorities.Memoirs of Lady Fanshawe, written in 1676 and published 1829 (from an inaccurate transcript); these were reprinted from the original manuscript and edited by H.C. Fanshawe (London, 1907); article in the Dict. of Nat. Biography and authorities there quoted; Biographia Brit. (Kippis); Original Letters of Sir R.F. (2 vols., 1724), the earlier edition of 1702 with portrait being only vol. i. of this edition; Notes Genealogical and Historical of the Fanshawe Family (1868-1872); funeral sermon by H. Bagshaw; Nicholas Papers (Camden Society); Quarterly Review, xxvii. 1; Macmillan’s Mag. lvii. 279; Camoen’s Life and Lusiads, by Sir F. Burton, i. 135; Clarendon’s State Papers, Calendars of State Papers, Autobiography and Hist. of the Rebellion; Athenaeum (1883), i. 121; Add. MSS. British Museum, 15,228 (poems); Harl. MSS. Brit. Mus. 7010 (letters).

References.Memoirs of Lady Fanshawe, written in 1676 and published in 1829 (from an inaccurate transcript); these were reprinted from the original manuscript and edited by H.C. Fanshawe (London, 1907); article in the Dict. of Nat. Biography and sources referenced there; Biographia Brit. (Kippis); Original Letters of Sir R.F. (2 vols., 1724), with the earlier edition of 1702 containing only volume i of this edition; Notes Genealogical and Historical of the Fanshawe Family (1868-1872); funeral sermon by H. Bagshaw; Nicholas Papers (Camden Society); Quarterly Review, xxvii. 1; Macmillan’s Mag. lvii. 279; Camoen’s Life and Lusiads, by Sir F. Burton, i. 135; Clarendon’s State Papers, Calendars of State Papers, Autobiography and Hist. of the Rebellion; Athenaeum (1883), i. 121; Add. MSS. British Museum, 15,228 (poems); Harl. MSS. Brit. Mus. 7010 (letters).

(P. C. Y.)

FANTAN, a form of gambling highly popular among the Chinese. The game is simple. A square is marked in the centre of an ordinary table, or a square piece of metal is laid on it, the sides being marked 1, 2, 3 and 4. The banker puts on the table a double handful of small coins—in China “cash”—or similar articles, which he covers with a metal bowl. The players bet on the numbers, setting their stakes on the side of the square which bears the number selected. When all have staked, the bowl is removed, and the banker or croupier with a small stick removes coins from the heap, four at a time, till the final batch is reached. If it contains four coins, the backer of No. 4 wins; if three, the backer of No. 3 wins, and so on. Twenty-five per cent is deducted from the stake by the banker, and the winner receives five times the amount of his stake thus reduced. In Macao, the Monte Carlo of China, play goes on day and night, every day of the week, and bets can be made from 5 cents to 500 dollars, which are the limits.

FANTAN, is a gambling game that is very popular among the Chinese. The game is straightforward. A square is drawn in the center of an ordinary table, or a square piece of metal is placed on it, with the sides marked 1, 2, 3, and 4. The banker puts a double handful of small coins—in China known as “cash”—or similar items on the table, covering them with a metal bowl. The players bet on the numbers, placing their stakes on the side of the square with their chosen number. When everyone has placed their bets, the bowl is lifted, and the banker or dealer, using a small stick, removes coins from the pile, four at a time, until the last group is reached. If that group contains four coins, the player who backed No. 4 wins; if it has three, the player who backed No. 3 wins, and so forth. The banker deducts twenty-five percent from the stake, and the winner receives five times the amount of their stake after this reduction. In Macao, the Monte Carlo of China, the game continues day and night, every day of the week, with bets ranging from 5 cents to 500 dollars, which are the limits.

Fantan is also the name of a card game, played with an ordinary pack, by any number of players up to eight. The deal decided, the cards are dealt singly, any that are left over forming a stock, and being placed face downwards on the table. Each player contributes a fixed stake or “ante.” The first player can enter if he has an ace; if he has not he pays an “ante” and takes a card from the stock; the second player is then called upon and acts similarly till an ace is played. This (and the other aces when played) is put face upwards on the table, and the piles are built up from the ace to the king. The pool goes to the player who first gets rid of all his cards. If a player fails to play, having a playable card, he is fined the amount of the ante for every card in the other players’ hands.

Fantan is also the name of a card game played with a regular deck by any number of players, up to eight. Once the deal is determined, the cards are dealt one at a time, with any leftovers forming a stock that is placed face down on the table. Each player puts in a fixed stake or "ante." The first player can join in if they have an ace; if not, they pay an "ante" and draw a card from the stock. The second player then takes their turn and does the same until an ace is played. This ace (and any subsequent aces played) is placed face up on the table, and the piles are built from the ace up to the king. The pot goes to the player who first gets rid of all their cards. If a player has a playable card but fails to play it, they are fined the amount of the ante for each card remaining in the other players' hands.


FANTASIA (Italian for “fantasy,” a causing to be seen, from Greek, φαίνειν, to show), a name in music sometimes loosely used for a composition which has little structural form, and appears to be an improvization; and also for a combination or medley of familiar airs connected together with original passages of more or less brilliance. The word, however, was originally applied to more formal compositions, based on the madrigal, for several instruments. Fantasias appear as distinct compositions in Bach’s works, and also joined to a fugue, as in the “Great Fantasia and Fugue” in A minor, and the “Fantasia cromatica” in D minor. Brahms used the name for his shorter piano pieces. It is also applied to orchestral compositions “not long enough to be called symphonic poems and not formal enough to be called overtures” (Sir C. Hubert Parry, in Grove’s Dictionary of Music, ed. 1906). The Italian word is still used in Tunis, Algeria and Morocco, with the meaning of “showing off,” for an acrobatic exhibition of horsemanship by the Arabs. The riders fire their guns, throw them and their lances into the air, and catch them again, standing or kneeling in the saddle, all at a full gallop.

FANTASIA (Italian for “fantasy,” meaning to cause to be seen, from Greek, shine, to show), is a term in music that’s often used loosely for a piece that lacks a strict structure and seems to be improvised. It can also refer to a mix or medley of familiar tunes linked together with original sections that vary in brilliance. Originally, though, the term described more formal compositions based on the madrigal for several instruments. You can find fantasias as distinct works in Bach’s compositions and also combined with a fugue, like in the “Great Fantasia and Fugue” in A minor, and the “Fantasia cromatica” in D minor. Brahms used the term for his shorter piano pieces. It’s also applied to orchestral works that are “not long enough to be called symphonic poems and not formal enough to be called overtures” (Sir C. Hubert Parry, in Grove’s Dictionary of Music, ed. 1906). The Italian word is still used in Tunis, Algeria, and Morocco, meaning “showing off,” particularly for an acrobatic display of horsemanship by the Arabs. The riders shoot their guns, throw them and their lances into the air, and catch them again, either standing or kneeling in the saddle, all while galloping full speed.


FANTI, MANFREDO (1806-1865), Italian general, was born at Carpi and educated at the military college of Modena. In 1831 he was implicated in the revolutionary movement organized by Ciro Menotti (see Francis IV., of Modena), and was condemned to death and hanged in effigy, but escaped to France, where he was given an appointment in the French corps of engineers. In 1833 he took part in Mazzini’s abortive attempt to invade Savoy, and in 1835 he went to Spain to serve in Queen Christina’s army against the Carlists. There he remained for thirteen years, distinguishing himself in battle and rising to a high staff appointment. But on the outbreak of the war between Piedmont and Austria in 1848 he hurried back to Italy, and although at first his services were rejected both by the Piedmontese government and the Lombard provisional government, he was afterwards given the command of a Lombard brigade. In the general confusion following on Charles Albert’s defeat on the Mincio and his retreat to Milan, where the people rose against the unhappy king, Fanti’s courage and tact saved the situation. He was elected member of the Piedmontese chamber in 1849, and on the renewal of the campaign he again commanded a Lombard brigade under General Ramorino. After the Piedmontese defeat at Novara (23rd of March) peace was made, but a rising broke out at Genoa, and Fanti with great difficulty restrained his Lombards from taking part in it. But he was suspected as a Mazzinian and a soldier of fortune by the higher Piedmontese officers, and they insisted on his being court-martialled for his operations under Ramorino (who had been tried and shot). Although honourably acquitted, he was not employed again until the Crimean expedition of 1855. In the second Austrian war in 1859 Fanti commanded the 2nd division, and contributed to the victories of Palestro, Magenta and San Martino. After the peace of Villafranca he was sent to organize the army of the Central Italian League (composed of the provisional governments of Tuscany, Modena, Parma and Romagna), and converted it in a few months into a well-drilled body of 45,000 men, whose function was to be ready to intervene in the papal states on the outbreak of a revolution. He showed statesmanlike qualities in steering a clear course between the exaggerated prudence of Baron Ricasoli, who wished to recall the troops from the frontier, and the impetuosity of Garibaldi, his second-in-command, who was anxious to invade Romagna prematurely, even at the risk of Austrian intervention. Fanti’s firmness led to Garibaldi’s resignation. In January 1860 Fanti became minister of war and marine under Cavour, and incorporated the League’s army in that of Piedmont. In the meanwhile Garibaldi had invaded Sicily with his Thousand, and King Victor Emmanuel decided at last that he too must intervene; Fanti was given the chief command of a strong Italian force which invaded the papal states, seized Ancona and other fortresses, and defeated the papal army at Castelfidardo, where the enemy’s commander, General Lamoricière, was captured. In three weeks Fanti had conquered the Marche and Umbria and taken 28,000 prisoners. When the army entered Neapolitan territory the king took the chief command, with Fanti as chief of the staff. After defeating a large Neapolitan force at Mola and organizing the siege operations round Gaeta, Fanti returned to the war office at Turin to carry out important army reforms. His attitude in opposing the admission of Garibaldi’s 7000 officers into the regular army with their own grades made him the object of great unpopularity for a time, and led to a severe reprimand from Cavour. On the death of the latter (7th of June 1861) he resigned office and took command of the VII. army corps. But his health had now broken down, and after four years’ suffering he died in Florence on the 5th of April 1865. His lose was greatly felt in the war of 1866.

FANTI, MANFREDO (1806-1865), an Italian general, was born in Carpi and educated at the military college in Modena. In 1831, he got involved in the revolutionary movement led by Ciro Menotti (see Francis IV. of Modena) and was sentenced to death and hanged in effigy, but he escaped to France, where he was appointed to the French corps of engineers. In 1833, he participated in Mazzini’s failed attempt to invade Savoy, and in 1835, he went to Spain to serve in Queen Christina’s army against the Carlists. He stayed there for thirteen years, making a name for himself in battle and rising to a senior staff position. However, when the war broke out between Piedmont and Austria in 1848, he rushed back to Italy. Although his services were initially rejected by both the Piedmontese government and the Lombard provisional government, he eventually took command of a Lombard brigade. Amid the chaos following Charles Albert’s defeat on the Mincio and his retreat to Milan, where the public revolted against the troubled king, Fanti’s bravery and skill turned the situation around. He was elected to the Piedmontese chamber in 1849, and during the renewed campaign, he again led a Lombard brigade under General Ramorino. After the Piedmontese defeat at Novara (March 23), peace was established, but a revolt broke out in Genoa, and Fanti struggled to keep his Lombards from joining in. He was suspected of being a Mazzinian and a fortune-seeking soldier by the higher Piedmontese officers, and they demanded a court-martial for his actions under Ramorino (who had been tried and executed). Although he was honorably acquitted, he was not called upon again until the Crimean expedition in 1855. During the second Austrian war in 1859, Fanti commanded the 2nd division and contributed to the victories of Palestro, Magenta, and San Martino. After the peace of Villafranca, he was sent to organize the army of the Central Italian League (made up of the provisional governments of Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna) and transformed it into a well-drilled force of 45,000 men within a few months, ready to step in during a revolution in the papal states. He demonstrated political skill by navigating between the overly cautious Baron Ricasoli, who wanted to withdraw troops from the frontier, and the rashness of Garibaldi, his second-in-command, who was eager to invade Romagna prematurely, even at the risk of Austrian intervention. Fanti’s resolve resulted in Garibaldi’s resignation. In January 1860, Fanti became the minister of war and marine under Cavour, incorporating the League’s army into the Piedmontese forces. Meanwhile, Garibaldi had invaded Sicily with his Thousand, and King Victor Emmanuel finally decided to intervene; Fanti received the overall command of a strong Italian force that invaded the papal states, captured Ancona and other fortresses, and defeated the papal army at Castelfidardo, where the opposing commander, General Lamoricière, was taken prisoner. In three weeks, Fanti had conquered the Marche and Umbria, taking 28,000 prisoners. Once the army entered Neapolitan territory, the king assumed command, with Fanti as chief of staff. After defeating a large Neapolitan force at Mola and organizing the siege operations around Gaeta, Fanti returned to the war office in Turin to implement important army reforms. His opposition to allowing Garibaldi’s 7,000 officers into the regular army with their own ranks made him quite unpopular for a time and led to a stern reprimand from Cavour. Following Cavour’s death (June 7, 1861), he resigned from his office and took command of the VII army corps. However, by then his health had deteriorated, and after four years of suffering, he died in Florence on April 5, 1865. His loss was deeply felt in the 1866 war.

See Carandini, Vita di M. Fanti (Verona, 1872); A. Di Giorgio, Il Generale M. Fanti (Florence, 1906).

See Carandini, Vita di M. Fanti (Verona, 1872); A. Di Giorgio, Il Generale M. Fanti (Florence, 1906).

(L. V.*)

FANTI, a nation of Negroes, inhabiting part of the seaboard of the Gold Coast colony, British West Africa, and about 20,000 172 sq. m. of the interior. They number about a million. They have many traditions of early migrations. It seems probable that the Fanti and Ashanti were originally one race, driven from the north-east towards the sea by more powerful races, possibly the ancestors of Fula and Hausa. There are many words in Fanti for plants and animals not now existing in the country, but which abound in the Gurunsi and Moshi countries farther north. These regions have been always haunted by slave-raiders, and possibly these latter may have influenced the exodus. At any rate, the Fanti were early driven into the forests from the open plains and slopes of the hills. The name Fanti, an English version of Mfantsi, is supposed to be derived from fan, a wild cabbage, and ti, di or dz, to eat; the story being that upon the exile of the tribe the only available food was some such plant. They are divided into seven tribes, obviously totemic, and with rules as to exogamy still in force. (1) Kwonna, buffalo; (2) Etchwi, leopard; (3) Eso, bush-cat; (4) Nitchwa, dog; (5) Nnuna, parrot; (6) Ebradzi, lion; and (7) Abrutu, corn-stalk; these names are obsolete, though the meanings are known. The tribal marks are three gashes in front of the ear on each side in a line parallel to the jaw-bone. The Fanti language has been associated by A.B. Ellis with the Ashanti speech as the principal descendant of an original language, possibly the Tshi (pronounced Tchwi), which is generally considered as the parent of Ashanti, Fanti, Akim, Akwapim and modern Tshi.

FANTI, is a nation of Black people living along part of the coastline of the Gold Coast colony, British West Africa, and covering around 20,000 172 square miles of the interior. They number about a million. They have many stories about early migrations. It seems likely that the Fanti and Ashanti were originally one people, pushed from the northeast towards the coast by stronger groups, possibly the ancestors of the Fula and Hausa. There are many words in Fanti for plants and animals that no longer exist in the region but are common in the Gurunsi and Moshi countries further north. These areas have always been plagued by slave raids, and these may have played a role in the migrations. Regardless, the Fanti were eventually forced into the forests from the open plains and hillside areas. The name Fanti, an English version of Mfantsi, is thought to come from fan, meaning wild cabbage, and ti, di, or dz, meaning to eat; the story goes that when the tribe was exiled, the only food available was this kind of plant. They are divided into seven tribes, which clearly have totemic significance and still follow rules regarding exogamy. (1) Kwonna, buffalo; (2) Etchwi, leopard; (3) Eso, bush-cat; (4) Nitchwa, dog; (5) Nnuna, parrot; (6) Ebradzi, lion; and (7) Abrutu, corn-stalk; these names are now outdated, but their meanings are known. The tribal markings are three cuts in front of the ear on each side, lined up with the jawbone. A.B. Ellis has linked the Fanti language to the Ashanti language as a major descendant of an original language, possibly Tshi (pronounced Tchwi), which is generally regarded as the root of Ashanti, Fanti, Akim, Akwapim, and modern Tshi.

The average Fanti is of a dull brown colour, of medium height, with negroid features. Some of the women, when young, are quite pretty. The women use various perfumes, one of the most usual being prepared from the excrement of snakes. There are no special initiatory rites for the youthful Fanti, only a short seclusion for girls when they reach the marriageable age. Marriage is a mere matter of sale, and the maidens are tricked out in all the family finery and walk round the village to indicate that they are ready for husbands. The marriages frequently end in divorce. Polygamy is universally practised. The care of the children is left exclusively to the mothers, who are regarded by the Fanti with deep veneration, while little attention is paid to the fathers. Wives never eat with their husbands, but always with the children. The rightful heir in native law is the eldest nephew, i.e. the eldest sister’s eldest son, who invariably inherits wives, children and all property. As to tenure of land, the source of ownership of land is derived from the possession of the chief’s “stool,” which is, like the throne of a king, the symbol of authority, and not even the chief can alienate the land from the stool. Females may succeed to property, but generally only when the acquisition of such property is the result of their succeeding to the stool of a chief. The Fanti are not permanent cultivators of the soil. Three or at most five years will cover the period during which land is continuously cultivated. The commonest native dishes are palm-oil chop, a bowl of palm oil, produced by boiling freshly ground palm nuts, in which a fowl or fish is then cooked; and fūfū, “white,” a boiled mash of yams or plantains. The Fanti have a taste for shark-flesh, called locally “stink-fish.” It is sliced up and partly sun-dried, and is eaten in a putrid state. The Fanti are skilful sailors and fishermen, build excellent canoes, and are expert weavers. Pottery and goldsmithery are trades also followed. Their religion is fetishism, every Fanti having his own “fetish” or familiar spirit, but there is a belief in a beneficent Creative Being. Food is offered the dead, and a ceremony of purification is said to be indulged in at funerals, the bearers and mourners plunging into the sea or river after the interment.

The typical Fanti person has a dull brown complexion, stands at a medium height, and has distinct African features. Some of the young women are quite attractive. The women use various perfumes, one of the most common being made from snake excrement. There aren't any special initiation rituals for young Fanti people, just a brief period of seclusion for girls once they reach marriageable age. Marriage is mostly a matter of transaction, and the young women dress in their best family clothes and walk around the village to show they're available for marriage. These marriages often end in divorce. Polygamy is widely practiced. Mothers are solely responsible for raising the children and are held in high regard by the Fanti, while fathers receive little attention. Wives never eat with their husbands but always with their children. According to native law, the rightful heir is the eldest nephew, meaning the eldest son of the eldest sister, who typically inherits wives, children, and all property. Regarding land ownership, it originates from the chief’s “stool,” which symbolizes authority, similar to a king's throne, and even the chief cannot sell the land from the stool. Women can inherit property, but usually only when it’s through inheriting from the stool of a chief. The Fanti are not permanent farmers. Land is cultivated for three to five years before it is left fallow. Common native dishes include palm-oil chop, a dish made with palm oil from boiling fresh palm nuts, in which a chicken or fish is cooked, and “fūfū,” a boiled mash of yams or plantains. The Fanti enjoy eating shark meat, locally known as “stink-fish.” It is sliced and partially sun-dried, consumed in a somewhat rotten state. The Fanti are skilled sailors and fishermen, construct excellent canoes, and are proficient weavers. They also engage in pottery and goldsmithing. Their religion is fetishism, with each Fanti having their own “fetish” or familiar spirit, alongside a belief in a benevolent Creator. Food is offered to the deceased, and a purification ceremony is performed at funerals, where the bearers and mourners immerse themselves in the sea or river after the burial.

See Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, vol. 26, pp. 128 et seq.; A.B. Ellis, The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast (London, 1887).

See Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, vol. 26, pp. 128 and following; A.B. Ellis, The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast (London, 1887).


FANTIN-LATOUR, IGNACE HENRI JEAN THÉODORE (1836-1904), French artist, was born at Grenoble on the 14th of January 1836. He studied first with his father, a pastel painter, and then at the drawing school of Lecoq de Boisbaudran, and later under Couture. He was the friend of Ingres, Dalacroix, Corot, Courbet and others. He exhibited in the Salon of 1861, and many of his more important canvases appeared on its walls in later years, though 1863 found him with Harpignies, Monet, Legros and Whistler in the Salon des Refusés. Whistler introduced him to English artistic circles, and he lived for some time in England, many of his portraits and flower pieces being in English galleries. He died on the 28th of August 1904. His portrait groups, arranged somewhat after the manner of the Dutch masters, are as interesting from their subjects as they are from the artistic point of view. “Hommage à Delacroix” showed portraits of Whistler and Legros, Baudelaire, Champfleury and himself; “Un Atelier à Batignolles” gave portraits of Monet, Manet, Zola and Renoir, and is now in the Luxembourg; “Un Coin de table” presented Verlaine, Rimbaud, Camille Peladan and others; and “Autour du Piano” contained portraits of Chabrier, D’Indy and other musicians. His paintings of flowers are perfect examples of the art, and form perhaps the most famous section of his work in England. In his later years he devoted much attention to lithography, which had occupied him as early as 1862, but his examples were then considered so revolutionary, with their strong lights and black shadows, that the printer refused to execute them. After “L’Anniversaire” in honour of Berlioz in the Salon of 1876, he regularly exhibited lithographs, some of which were excellent examples of delicate portraiture, others being elusive and imaginative drawings illustrative of the music of Wagner (whose cause he championed in Paris as early as 1864), Berlioz, Brahms and other composers. He illustrated Adolphe Jullien’s Wagner (1886) and Berlioz (1888). There are excellent collections of his lithographic work at Dresden, in the British Museum, and a practically complete set given by his widow to the Louvre. Some were also exhibited at South Kensington in 1898-1899, and at the Dutch gallery in 1904.

FANTIN-LATOUR, IGNACE HENRI JEAN THÉODORE (1836-1904), a French artist, was born in Grenoble on January 14, 1836. He first studied with his father, a pastel painter, then at the Lecoq de Boisbaudran drawing school, and later under Couture. He was friends with Ingres, Delacroix, Corot, Courbet, and others. He exhibited at the Salon in 1861, and many of his more significant paintings were featured on its walls in subsequent years, although in 1863 he was among Harpignies, Monet, Legros, and Whistler at the Salon des Refusés. Whistler introduced him to English art circles, and he spent some time in England, where many of his portraits and flower paintings can be found in English galleries. He died on August 28, 1904. His portrait groups, arranged similarly to those of the Dutch masters, are just as compelling for their subjects as they are for their artistic execution. “Hommage à Delacroix” featured portraits of Whistler, Legros,

A catalogue of the lithographs of Fantin-Latour was drawn up by Germain Hédiard in Les Maîtres de la lithographie (1898-1899). A volume of reproductions, in a limited edition, was published (Paris, 1907) as L’Œuvre lithographique de Fantin-Latour. See A. Jullien, Fantin-Latour, sa vie et ses amitiés (Paris, 1909).

A catalog of the lithographs by Fantin-Latour was created by Germain Hédiard in Les Maîtres de la lithographie (1898-1899). A limited edition volume of reproductions was published (Paris, 1907) titled L’Œuvre lithographique de Fantin-Latour. See A. Jullien, Fantin-Latour, sa vie et ses amitiés (Paris, 1909).


FANUM FORTUNAE (mod. Fano), an ancient town of Umbria, Italy, at the point where the Via Flaminia reaches the N.E. coast of Italy. Its name shows that it was of Roman origin, but of its foundation we know nothing. It is first mentioned, with Pisaurum and Ancona, as held by Julius Caesar in 49 B.C. Augustus planted a colony there, and round it constructed a wall (of which some remains exist), as is recorded in the inscription on the triple arch erected in his honour at the entrance to the town (A.D. 9-10), which is still standing. Vitruvius tells us that there was, during Augustus’s lifetime, a temple in his honour and a temple of Jupiter, and describes a basilica of which he himself was the architect. The arch of Augustus bears a subsequent inscription in honour of Constantine, added after his death by L. Turcius Secundus, corrector Flaminiae et Piceni, who also constructed a colonnade above the arch. Several Roman statues and heads, attributable to members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, were found in the convent of S. Filippo in 1899. These and other objects are now in the municipal museum (E. Brizio in Notizie degli scavi, 1899, 249 seq.). Of the temple of Fortune from which the town took its name no traces have been discovered.

Fountain of Fortune (modern Fano), an ancient town in Umbria, Italy, is located where the Via Flaminia meets the northeastern coast of Italy. Its name indicates that it has Roman origins, but we have no information about its founding. It is first mentioned, along with Pisaurum and Ancona, as being controlled by Julius Caesar in 49 BCE Augustus established a colony there and built a wall around it (some remains still exist), as noted in the inscription on the triple arch that was erected in his honor at the town entrance (C.E. 9-10), which still stands today. Vitruvius tells us that during Augustus's lifetime, there was a temple dedicated to him and another temple for Jupiter, and he describes a basilica that he designed himself. The arch of Augustus has a later inscription honoring Constantine, added after his death by L. Turcius Secundus, corrector Flaminiae et Piceni, who also built a colonnade above the arch. Several Roman statues and busts, attributed to members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, were discovered in the convent of S. Filippo in 1899. These and other artifacts are now housed in the municipal museum (E. Brizio in Notizie degli scavi, 1899, 249 seq.). No evidence has been found of the temple of Fortune, from which the town got its name.

(T. As.)

FAN VAULT, in architecture, a method of vaulting used in the Perpendicular style, of which the earliest example is found in the cloisters of Gloucester cathedral, built towards the close of the 14th century. The ribs are all of one curve and equidistant, and their divergency, resembling that of an open fan, has suggested the name. One of the finest examples, though of later date (1640), is the vault over the staircase of Christ Church, Oxford. For the origin of its development see Vault.

FAN VAULT, in architecture, is a type of vaulting used in the Perpendicular style, with the earliest example found in the cloisters of Gloucester cathedral, built near the end of the 14th century. The ribs are all the same curve and evenly spaced, and their spread, which looks like an open fan, inspired the name. One of the best examples, though from a later date (1640), is the vault over the staircase of Christ Church, Oxford. For the origin of its development, see Vault.


FĀRĀBĪ [Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Tarkhān ul-Fārābī] (ca. 870-950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fārāb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the Hamdānid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life. 173 He died in Damascus, whither he had gone with his patron. His works are very clear in style, though aphoristic rather than systematic in the treatment of subjects. Unfortunately the success of Avicenna seems to have led to the neglect of much of his work. In Europe his compendium of Aristotle’s Rhetoric was published at Venice, 1484. Two of his smaller works appear in Alpharabii opera omnia (Paris, 1638), and two are translated in F.A. Schmölders’ Documcnta philosophiae Arabum (Bonn, 1836). More recently Fr. Dieterici has published at Leiden: Alfarabi’s philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabi’s Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay “Über den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie,” 1900); Die Staatsleitung von Alfarabi in German, with an essay on “Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie” (1904).

Fārābī [Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Tarkhān ul-Fārābī] (ca. 870-950), an Arabian philosopher, was born to Turkish parents in Fārāb, Turkestan, where he spent his early years. From there, he traveled to Baghdad, where he learned Arabic and dedicated himself to studying mathematics, medicine, and philosophy, particularly the works of Aristotle. Later, he went to the court of the Hamdānid Saif addaula, who warmly welcomed him and provided a small pension. Here, he lived a quiet, if not ascetic, life. 173 He passed away in Damascus, having traveled there with his patron. His writings are quite clear in style, though they lean more toward being aphoristic rather than systematic in how they address subjects. Unfortunately, the success of Avicenna seems to have overshadowed much of his work. In Europe, his compilation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric was published in Venice in 1484. Two of his smaller pieces are included in Alpharabii opera omnia (Paris, 1638), and two more are translated in F.A. Schmölders’ Documenta philosophiae Arabum (Bonn, 1836). More recently, Fr. Dieterici published in Leiden: Alfarabi’s philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German translation 1892); Alfarabi’s Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German translation with an essay “Über den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie,” 1900); Die Staatsleitung von Alfarabi in German, along with an essay on “Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie” (1904).

For Fārābi’s life see McG. de Slane’s translation of Ibn Khallikān (vol. 3, pp. 307 ff.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneider’s article in the Mémoires de l’Académie (St Petersburg, série 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 1869); and C. Brockelmann’s Gesch. der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, 1898), pp. 210-213.

For Fārābi’s life, see McG. de Slane’s translation of Ibn Khallikān (vol. 3, pp. 307 ff.); for more information about his works, check out M. Steinschneider’s article in the Mémoires de l’Académie (St Petersburg, série 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 1869); and C. Brockelmann’s Gesch. der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, 1898), pp. 210-213.

(G. W. T.)

FARADAY, MICHAEL (1791-1867), English chemist and physicist, was born at Newington, Surrey, on the 22nd of September 1791. His parents had migrated from Yorkshire to London, where his father worked as a blacksmith. Faraday himself became apprenticed to a bookbinder. The letters written to his friend Benjamin Abbott at this time give a lucid account of his aims in life, and of his methods of self-culture, when his mind was beginning to turn to the experimental study of nature. In 1812 Mr Dance, a customer of his master, took him to hear four lectures by Sir Humphry Davy. Faraday took notes of these lectures, and afterwards wrote them out in a fuller form. Under the encouragement of Mr Dance, he wrote to Sir H. Davy, enclosing these notes. “The reply was immediate, kind and favourable.” He continued to work as a journeyman bookbinder till the 1st of March 1813, when he was appointed assistant in the laboratory of the Royal Institution of Great Britain on the recommendation of Davy, whom he accompanied on a tour through France, Italy and Switzerland from October 1813 to April 1815. He was appointed director of the laboratory in 1825; and in 1833 he was appointed Fullerian professor of chemistry in the institution for life, without the obligation to deliver lectures. He thus remained in the institution for fifty-four years. He died at Hampton Court on the 25th of August 1867.

FARADAY, MICHAEL (1791-1867), an English chemist and physicist, was born in Newington, Surrey, on September 22, 1791. His parents had moved from Yorkshire to London, where his father worked as a blacksmith. Faraday himself was apprenticed to a bookbinder. The letters he wrote to his friend Benjamin Abbott during this time provide a clear account of his goals in life and his methods of self-education, as his mind began to focus on the experimental study of nature. In 1812, Mr. Dance, a customer of his master, took him to attend four lectures by Sir Humphry Davy. Faraday took notes during these lectures and later wrote them out more thoroughly. Encouraged by Mr. Dance, he sent these notes to Sir H. Davy. “The reply was immediate, kind, and favorable.” He continued working as a journeyman bookbinder until March 1, 1813, when he was appointed assistant in the laboratory of the Royal Institution of Great Britain on Davy’s recommendation. He accompanied Davy on a tour through France, Italy, and Switzerland from October 1813 to April 1815. In 1825, he became the director of the laboratory, and in 1833 he was appointed Fullerian professor of chemistry at the institution for life, without the requirement to give lectures. He remained at the institution for fifty-four years. He passed away at Hampton Court on August 25, 1867.

Faraday’s earliest chemical work was in the paths opened by Davy, to whom he acted as assistant. He made a special study of chlorine, and discovered two new chlorides of carbon. He also made the first rough experiments on the diffusion of gases, a phenomenon first pointed out by John Dalton, the physical importance of which was more fully brought to light by Thomas Graham and Joseph Loschmidt. He succeeded in liquefying several gases; he investigated the alloys of steel, and produced several new kinds of glass intended for optical purposes. A specimen of one of these heavy glasses afterwards became historically important as the substance in which Faraday detected the rotation of the plane of polarization of light when the glass was placed in the magnetic field, and also as the substance which was first repelled by the poles of the magnet. He also endeavoured with some success to make the general methods of chemistry, as distinguished from its results, the subject of special study and of popular exposition. See his work on Chemical Manipulation.

Faraday’s earliest work in chemistry followed the paths that Davy had opened, where he served as an assistant. He focused on studying chlorine and discovered two new chlorides of carbon. He also conducted the first basic experiments on gas diffusion, a phenomenon initially noted by John Dalton, which was later further explored by Thomas Graham and Joseph Loschmidt. He managed to liquefy several gases, researched steel alloys, and created several new types of glass for optical use. One sample of this heavy glass later gained historical significance as the material in which Faraday observed the rotation of the plane of polarization of light when the glass was subjected to a magnetic field, and it was also the first material to be repelled by the poles of a magnet. He also aimed, with some success, to emphasize the general methods of chemistry, as opposed to just its outcomes, as a subject worthy of in-depth study and public explanation. Check out his work on Chemical Manipulation.

But Faraday’s chemical work, however important in itself, was soon completely overshadowed by his electrical discoveries. The first experiment which he has recorded was the construction of a voltaic pile with seven halfpence, seven disks of sheet zinc, and six pieces of paper moistened with salt water. With this pile he decomposed sulphate of magnesia (first letter to Abbott, July 12, 1812). Henceforward, whatever other subjects might from time to time claim his attention, it was from among electrical phenomena that he selected those problems to which he applied the full force of his mind, and which he kept persistently in view, even when year after year his attempts to solve them had been baffled.

But Faraday's chemical work, while significant on its own, was quickly overshadowed by his electrical discoveries. The first experiment he documented involved building a voltaic pile using seven halfpence, seven disks of zinc, and six pieces of paper soaked in salt water. With this pile, he decomposed magnesium sulfate (first letter to Abbott, July 12, 1812). From then on, no matter what other topics might occasionally capture his interest, he focused on electrical phenomena, tackling those problems with all his mental energy, and he remained determined to resolve them, even when his efforts year after year were unsuccessful.

His first notable discovery was the production of the continuous rotation of magnets and of wires conducting the electric current round each other. The consequences deducible from the great discovery of H.C. Oersted (21st July 1820) were still in 1821 apprehended in a somewhat confused manner even by the foremost men of science. Dr W.H. Wollaston indeed had formed the expectation that he could make the conducting wire rotate on its own axis, and in April 1821 he came with Sir H. Davy to the laboratory of the Royal Institution to make an experiment. Faraday was not there at the time, but coming in afterwards he heard the conversation on the expected rotation of the wire.

His first significant discovery was the creation of continuous rotation of magnets and wires carrying electric current around each other. The implications of H.C. Oersted's major discovery (July 21, 1820) were still somewhat unclear even to leading scientists in 1821. Dr. W.H. Wollaston had actually hoped to make the conducting wire rotate on its own axis, and in April 1821, he visited the laboratory of the Royal Institution with Sir H. Davy to conduct an experiment. Faraday wasn't present at that time, but after he arrived, he overheard the discussion about the anticipated rotation of the wire.

In July, August and September of that year Faraday, at the request of R. Phillips, the editor of the Annals of Philosophy, wrote for that journal an historical sketch of electromagnetism, and he repeated almost all the experiments he described. This led him in the beginning of September to discover the method of producing the continuous rotation of the wire round the magnet, and of the magnet round the wire. He did not succeed in making the wire or the magnet revolve on its own axis. This first success of Faraday in electro-magnetic research became the occasion of the most painful, though unfounded, imputations against his honour. Into these we shall not enter, referring the reader to the Life of Faraday, by Dr Bence Jones.

In July, August, and September of that year, Faraday, at the request of R. Phillips, the editor of the Annals of Philosophy, wrote a historical overview of electromagnetism for the journal, and he repeated nearly all the experiments he described. This led him in early September to discover how to create continuous rotation of the wire around the magnet and the magnet around the wire. However, he was unable to make the wire or the magnet spin on their own axes. This initial success of Faraday in electromagnetic research resulted in some unfounded but painful accusations against his integrity. We won’t go into those here and refer the reader to the Life of Faraday by Dr. Bence Jones.

We may remark, however, that although the fact of the tangential force between an electric current and a magnetic pole was clearly stated by Oersted, and clearly apprehended by A.M. Ampère, Wollaston and others, the realization of the continuous rotation of the wire and the magnet round each other was a scientific puzzle requiring no mean ingenuity for its original solution. For on the one hand the electric current always forms a closed circuit, and on the other the two poles of the magnet have equal but opposite properties, and are inseparably connected, so that whatever tendency there is for one pole to circulate round the current in one direction is opposed by the equal tendency of the other pole to go round the other way, and thus the one pole can neither drag the other round and round the wire nor yet leave it behind. The thing cannot be done unless we adopt in some form Faraday’s ingenious solution, by causing the current, in some part of its course, to divide into two channels, one on each side of the magnet, in such a way that during the revolution of the magnet the current is transferred from the channel in front of the magnet to the channel behind it, so that the middle of the magnet can pass across the current without stopping it, just as Cyrus caused his army to pass dryshod over the Gyndes by diverting the river into a channel cut for it in his rear.

We can note, however, that while Oersted clearly stated the existence of the force acting between an electric current and a magnetic pole, and A.M. Ampère, Wollaston, and others understood it well, figuring out how the wire and magnet could continuously rotate around each other was a scientific challenge that required considerable ingenuity to solve. This is because, on one hand, the electric current always forms a closed loop, while on the other hand, the two poles of the magnet have equal but opposite characteristics and are tightly connected. Therefore, any tendency for one pole to move around the current in one direction is countered by the equal tendency of the other pole to move in the opposite direction. Because of this, one pole can't pull the other around the wire, nor can it leave it behind. This situation can't be resolved without using Faraday’s clever solution, which involves splitting the current into two paths on either side of the magnet. This way, as the magnet rotates, the current shifts from the path in front of the magnet to the path behind it, allowing the middle of the magnet to cross the current without interrupting it, similar to how Cyrus made his army cross the Gyndes River on dry land by rerouting the river into a channel he created behind them.

We must now go on to the crowning discovery of the induction of electric currents.

We must now move on to the key discovery of the induction of electric currents.

In December 1824 he had attempted to obtain an electric current by means of a magnet, and on three occasions he had made elaborate but unsuccessful attempts to produce a current in one wire by means of a current in another wire or by a magnet. He still persevered, and on the 29th of August 1831 he obtained the first evidence that an electric current can induce another in a different circuit. On the 23rd of September he writes to his friend R. Phillips: “I am busy just now again on electromagnetism, and think I have got hold of a good thing, but can’t say. It may be a weed instead of a fish that, after all my labour, I may at last pull up.” This was his first successful experiment. In nine more days of experimenting he had arrived at the results described in his first series of “Experimental Researches” read to the Royal Society on the 24th of November 1841. By the intense application of his mind he had thus brought the new idea, in less than three months from its first development, to a state of perfect maturity.

In December 1824, he tried to generate an electric current using a magnet, and he made detailed but unsuccessful attempts three times to create a current in one wire by using a current in another wire or a magnet. He kept at it, and on August 29, 1831, he got the first proof that an electric current can induce another in a different circuit. On September 23, he wrote to his friend R. Phillips: “I’m busy again with electromagnetism and think I’ve found something promising, but I can’t be certain. It might end up being a weed instead of a fish that I pull up after all this work.” This was his first successful experiment. After nine more days of experimenting, he achieved the results detailed in his first series of “Experimental Researches,” which he presented to the Royal Society on November 24, 1841. Through intense focus, he managed to develop this new idea into a fully formed concept in less than three months from its initial discovery.

During his first period of discovery, besides the induction of electric currents, Faraday established the identity of the electrification produced in different ways; the law of the definite electrolytic action of the current; and the fact, upon which he 174 laid great stress, that every unit of positive electrification is related in a definite manner to a unit of negative electrification, so that it is impossible to produce what Faraday called “an absolute charge of electricity” of one kind not related to an equal charge of the opposite kind. He also discovered the difference of the capacities of different substances for taking part in electric induction. Henry Cavendish had before 1773 discovered that glass, wax, rosin and shellac have higher specific inductive capacities than air, and had actually determined the numerical ratios of these capacities, but this was unknown both to Faraday and to all other electricians of his time, since Cavendish’s Electrical Researches remained unpublished till 1879.

During his early explorations, in addition to generating electric currents, Faraday identified that electrification occurs through various methods; he formulated the law of specific electrolytic action of the current; and emphasized the idea that every unit of positive charge is consistently linked to a unit of negative charge. This means that it is impossible to create, as Faraday termed it, “an absolute charge of electricity” of one type without a corresponding equal charge of the opposite type. He also found that different materials vary in their ability to engage in electric induction. Before 1773, Henry Cavendish had discovered that glass, wax, rosin, and shellac have higher specific inductive capacities than air and had actually calculated the numerical ratios of these capacities, but this was unknown to Faraday and all other electricians of his time, as Cavendish’s Electrical Researches remained unpublished until 1879.

The first period of Faraday’s electrical discoveries lasted ten years. In 1841 he found that he required rest, and it was not till 1845 that he entered on his second great period of research, in which he discovered the effect of magnetism on polarized light, and the phenomena of diamagnetism.

The first phase of Faraday’s discoveries in electricity lasted ten years. In 1841, he realized he needed a break, and it wasn’t until 1845 that he began his second major research period, during which he uncovered the effect of magnetism on polarized light and the phenomenon of diamagnetism.

Faraday had for a long time kept in view the possibility of using a ray of polarized light as a means of investigating the condition of transparent bodies when acted on by electric and magnetic forces. Dr Bence Jones (Life of Faraday, vol. i. p. 362) gives the following note from his laboratory book on the 10th of September 1822:—

Faraday had long considered the possibility of using a beam of polarized light to examine how transparent materials react to electric and magnetic forces. Dr. Bence Jones (Life of Faraday, vol. i. p. 362) provides the following note from his lab book on September 10, 1822:—

“Polarized a ray of lamplight by reflection, and endeavoured to ascertain whether any depolarizing action (was) exerted on it by water placed between the poles of a voltaic battery in a glass cistern; one Wollaston’s trough used; the fluids decomposed were pure water, weak solution of sulphate of soda, and strong sulphuric acid; none of them had any effect on the polarized light, either when out of or in the voltaic circuit, so that no particular arrangement of particles could be ascertained in this way.”

“Polarized a beam of light from a lamp by reflection and tried to see if water placed between the poles of a battery in a glass container had any depolarizing effect on it; using Wollaston’s trough for the experiment. The substances tested were pure water, a weak solution of sodium sulfate, and concentrated sulfuric acid; none of them affected the polarized light, whether in or out of the battery circuit, so no specific arrangement of particles could be determined this way.”

Eleven years afterwards we find another entry in his notebook on the 2nd of May 1833 (Life, by Dr Bence Jones, vol. ii. p. 29). He then tried not only the effect of a steady current, but the effect on making and breaking contact.

Eleven years later, we find another entry in his notebook on May 2, 1833 (Life, by Dr. Bence Jones, vol. ii. p. 29). He then tested not only the effect of a steady current but also the effect of making and breaking contact.

“I do not think, therefore, that decomposing solutions or substances will be found to have (as a consequence of decomposition or arrangement for the time) any effect on the polarized ray. Should now try non-decomposing bodies, as solid nitre, nitrate of silver, borax, glass, &c., whilst solid, to see if any internal state induced, which by decomposition is destroyed, i.e. whether, when they cannot decompose, any state of electrical tension is present. My borate of glass good, and common electricity better than voltaic.”

“I don’t believe that decomposing solutions or substances will have any effect on the polarized ray because of their decomposition or temporary arrangement. I should now test non-decomposing materials, like solid nitrate, silver nitrate, borax, glass, etc., to see if any internal state induced, which is lost during decomposition, exists. In other words, when they can’t decompose, is there any kind of electrical tension present? My borate of glass is good, and common electricity is better than voltaic.”

On the 6th of May he makes further experiments, and concludes: “Hence I see no reason to expect that any kind of structure or tension can be rendered evident, either in decomposing or non-decomposing bodies, in insulating or conducting states.”

On May 6th, he conducts more experiments and concludes: “So, I see no reason to expect that any kind of structure or tension can be made evident, whether in decomposing or non-decomposing bodies, in insulating or conducting states.”

At last, in 1845, Faraday attacked the old problem, but this time with complete success. Before we describe this result we may mention that in 1862 he made the relation between magnetism and light the subject of his very last experimental work. He endeavoured, but in vain, to detect any change in the lines of the spectrum of a flame when the flame was acted on by a powerful magnet.

At last, in 1845, Faraday tackled the old problem, but this time with complete success. Before we describe this outcome, we should note that in 1862 he focused his final experimental work on the connection between magnetism and light. He tried, but unsuccessfully, to find any change in the spectrum lines of a flame when it was influenced by a strong magnet.

This long series of researches is an instance of his persistence. His energy is shown in the way in which he followed up his discovery in the single instance in which he was successful. The first evidence which he obtained of the rotation of the plane of polarization of light under the action of magnetism was on the 13th of September 1845, the transparent substance being his own heavy glass. He began to work on the 30th of August 1845 on polarized light passing through electrolytes. After three days he worked with common electricity, trying glass, heavy optical glass, quartz, Iceland spar, all without effect, as on former trials. On the 13th of September he worked with lines of magnetic force. Air, flint, glass, rock-crystal, calcareous spar were examined, but without effect.

This long series of research shows his persistence. His energy is evident in how he pursued his discovery in the one instance he succeeded. The first evidence he found of the rotation of the plane of polarization of light due to magnetism was on September 13, 1845, using his own heavy glass. He started working on polarized light passing through electrolytes on August 30, 1845. After three days, he experimented with regular electricity, trying glass, heavy optical glass, quartz, and Iceland spar, all without results, just like in previous attempts. On September 13, he worked with magnetic force lines. He examined air, flint, glass, rock crystal, and calcareous spar, but again found no effect.

“Heavy glass was experimented with. It gave no effects when the same magnetic poles or the contrary poles were on opposite sides (as respects the course of the polarized ray), nor when the same poles were on the same side either with the constant or intermitting current. But when contrary magnetic poles were on the same side there was an effect produced on the polarized ray, and thus magnetic force and light were proved to have relations to each other. This fact will most likely prove exceedingly fertile, and of great value in the investigation of the conditions of natural force.”

"Heavy glass was tested out. It showed no effects when the same magnetic poles or the opposite poles were on opposite sides (in relation to the path of the polarized ray), nor when the same poles were on the same side whether using a constant or intermittent current. However, when opposite magnetic poles were on the same side, there was an effect on the polarized ray, demonstrating a connection between magnetic force and light. This finding is likely to be very productive and valuable for exploring the conditions of natural force."

He immediately goes on to examine other substances, but with “no effect,” and he ends by saying, “Have got enough for to-day.” On the 18th of September he “does an excellent day’s work.” During September he had four days of work, and in October six, and on the 6th of November he sent in to the Royal Society the nineteenth series of his “Experimental Researches,” in which the whole conditions of the phenomena are fully specified. The negative rotation in ferro-magnetic media is the only fact of importance which remained to be discovered afterwards (by M.E. Verdet in 1856).

He quickly moves on to test other substances, but with “no effect,” and concludes by saying, “I’ve got enough for today.” On September 18th, he “does an excellent day’s work.” Throughout September, he had four workdays, and in October, six. On November 6th, he submitted the nineteenth series of his “Experimental Researches” to the Royal Society, detailing all the conditions of the phenomena. The negative rotation in ferro-magnetic materials is the only significant fact that was later discovered (by M.E. Verdet in 1856).

But his work for the year was not yet over. On the 3rd of November a new horseshoe magnet came home, and Faraday immediately began to experiment on the action in the polarized ray through gases, but with no effect. The following day he repeated an experiment which had given no result on the 6th of October. A bar of heavy glass was suspended by silk between the poles of the new magnet. “When it was arranged, and had come to rest, I found I could affect it by the magnetic forces and give it position.” By the 6th of December he had sent in to the Royal Society the twentieth, and on the 24th of December the twenty-first, series of his “Researches,” in which the properties of diamagnetic bodies are fully described. Thus these two great discoveries were elaborated, like his earlier one, in about three months.

But his work for the year wasn't done yet. On November 3rd, a new horseshoe magnet arrived, and Faraday immediately started experimenting with how it acted on polarized rays through gases, but didn’t see any results. The next day, he repeated an experiment that had been unsuccessful on October 6th. A heavy glass bar was suspended by silk between the poles of the new magnet. “Once it was set up and settled, I found I could affect it with the magnetic forces and adjust its position.” By December 6th, he submitted the twentieth series of his “Researches” to the Royal Society, and on December 24th, the twenty-first series, where he detailed the properties of diamagnetic materials. In this way, these two significant discoveries were developed, much like his earlier one, in about three months.

The discovery of the magnetic rotation of the plane of polarized light, though it did not lead to such important practical applications as some of Faraday’s earlier discoveries, has been of the highest value to science, as furnishing complete dynamical evidence that wherever magnetic force exists there is matter, small portions of which are rotating about axes parallel to the direction of that force.

The finding that magnetic forces can rotate the plane of polarized light, while not resulting in as many practical applications as some of Faraday's earlier discoveries, has been extremely valuable to science. It provides solid evidence that wherever there is a magnetic force, there is matter, and that small bits of this matter are rotating around axes that align with the direction of that force.

We have given a few examples of the concentration of his efforts in seeking to identify the apparently different forces of nature, of his far-sightedness in selecting subjects for investigation, of his persistence in the pursuit of what he set before him, of his energy in working out the results of his discoveries, and of the accuracy and completeness with which he made his final statement of the laws of the phenomenon.

We have provided a few examples of how focused he was in identifying the seemingly different forces of nature, his insight in choosing topics for research, his determination in pursuing his goals, his vigor in developing the results of his discoveries, and the precision and thoroughness with which he presented his final explanation of the laws of the phenomenon.

These characteristics of his scientific spirit lie on the surface of his work, and are manifest to all who read his writings. But there was another side of his character, to the cultivation of which he paid at least as much attention, and which was reserved for his friends, his family and his church. His letters and his conversation were always full of whatever could awaken a healthy interest, and free from anything that might rouse ill-feeling. When, on rare occasions, he was forced out of the region of science into that of controversy, he stated the facts and let them make their own way. He was entirely free from pride and undue self-assertion. During the growth of his powers he always thankfully accepted a correction, and made use of every expedient, however humble, which would make his work more effective in every detail. When at length he found his memory failing and his mental powers declining, he gave up, without ostentation or complaint, whatever parts of his work he could no longer carry on according to his own standard of efficiency. When he was no longer able to apply his mind to science, he remained content and happy in the exercise of those kindly feelings and warm affections which he had cultivated no less carefully than his scientific powers.

These traits of his scientific spirit are clearly evident in his work and can be seen by anyone who reads his writings. However, there was another side to his character that he nurtured just as much, which he reserved for his friends, family, and church. His letters and conversations were always rich with topics that could spark genuine interest and were free from anything that might create negativity. When, on rare occasions, he was pulled into debates rather than sticking to science, he stated the facts and let them speak for themselves. He was completely free of pride and unnecessary self-importance. Throughout the development of his skills, he willingly accepted corrections and utilized every means, no matter how simple, to enhance the effectiveness of his work in all aspects. When he eventually noticed his memory slipping and his mental abilities declining, he gracefully stepped back from any part of his work he could no longer manage to his own standards. Even when he could no longer focus on science, he remained content and happy, fostering the kindness and affection he had cultivated with just as much care as his scientific abilities.

The parents of Faraday belonged to the very small and isolated Christian sect which is commonly called after Robert Sandeman. Faraday himself attended the meetings from childhood; at the age of thirty he made public profession of his faith, and during two different periods he discharged the office of elder. His opinion with respect to the relation between his science and his religion is expressed in a lecture on mental education delivered in 1854, and printed at the end of his Researches in Chemistry and Physics.

The parents of Faraday were part of a very small and isolated Christian sect commonly known as the Sandemanian church. Faraday himself attended their meetings from a young age; at thirty, he publicly professed his faith, and during two different periods, he served as an elder. His views on the relationship between his science and his religion are outlined in a lecture on mental education given in 1854, which was printed at the end of his Researches in Chemistry and Physics.

“Before entering upon the subject, I must make one distinction which, however it may appear to others, is to me of the utmost importance. High as man is placed above the creatures around 175 him, there is a higher and far more exalted position within his view; and the ways are infinite in which he occupies his thoughts about the fears, or hopes, or expectations of a future life. I believe that the truth of that future cannot be brought to his knowledge by any exertion of his mental powers, however exalted they may be; that it is made known to him by other teaching than his own, and is received through simple belief of the testimony given. Let no one suppose for an instant that the self-education I am about to commend, in respect of the things of this life, extends to any considerations of the hope set before us, as if man by reasoning could find out God. It would be improper here to enter upon this subject further than to claim an absolute distinction between religious and ordinary belief. I shall be reproached with the weakness of refusing to apply those mental operations which I think good in respect of high things to the very highest. I am content to bear the reproach. Yet even in earthly matters I believe that ‘the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead’; and I have never seen anything incompatible between those things of man which can be known by the spirit of man which is within him and those higher things concerning his future, which he cannot know by that spirit.”

“Before diving into the topic, I need to make an important distinction that, while it might not seem so to others, is crucial to me. Even though humans are placed above the creatures around them, there exists a higher and more elevated position they can perceive; there are countless ways in which they reflect on their fears, hopes, or expectations about life after death. I believe that the truth about that future cannot be discovered through any effort of mental abilities, no matter how advanced they are; rather, it is revealed through a different kind of teaching and accepted through simple belief in the testimony provided. Let no one think for a moment that the self-education I’m about to praise regarding this life includes any reflections on the hope offered to us, as if humans could reason their way to God. It would be inappropriate to explore this topic any further than to emphasize a clear distinction between religious belief and ordinary belief. I know I’ll be criticized for not applying the mental processes I consider useful for high matters to the absolute highest ones. I’m willing to accept that criticism. Yet, even in worldly matters, I believe that ‘the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead’; and I have never found a conflict between what can be known by the human spirit within and those greater truths about the future that cannot be known by that spirit.”

Faraday gives the following note as to this lecture:—

Faraday provides this note regarding the lecture:—

“These observations were delivered as a lecture before His Royal Highness the Prince Consort and the members of the Royal Institution on the 6th of May 1854. They are so immediately connected in their nature and origin with my own experimental life, considered either as cause or consequence, that I have thought the close of this volume not an unfit place for their reproduction.”

“These observations were presented in a lecture to His Royal Highness the Prince Consort and the members of the Royal Institution on May 6, 1854. They are closely tied to my own experimental life, whether as cause or effect, so I thought that the end of this volume would be a fitting place to include them.”

As Dr Bence Jones concludes—

As Dr. Bence Jones finishes—

“His standard of duty was supernatural. It was not founded on any intuitive ideas of right and wrong, nor was it fashioned upon any outward experiences of time and place, but it was formed entirely on what he held to be the revelation of the will of God in the written word, and throughout all his life his faith led him to act up to the very letter of it.”

“His sense of duty was extraordinary. It wasn’t based on any instinctive ideas of right and wrong, nor was it shaped by any external experiences of time and place, but it was completely formed by what he believed to be the revelation of God’s will in the written word, and throughout his life his faith guided him to follow it to the letter.”

Published Works.—Chemical Manipulation, being Instructions to Students in Chemistry (1 vol., John Murray, 1st ed. 1827, 2nd 1830, 3rd 1842); Experimental Researches in Electricity, vols. i. and ii., Richard and John Edward Taylor, vols. i. and ii. (1844 and 1847); vol. iii. (1844); vol. iii. Richard Taylor and William Francis (1855); Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics, Taylor and Francis (1859); Lectures on the Chemical History of a Candle (edited by W. Crookes) (Griffin, Bohn & Co., 1861); On the Various Forces in Nature (edited by W. Crookes) (Chatto & Windus, no date).

Published Works.—Chemical Manipulation, being Instructions to Students in Chemistry (1 vol., John Murray, 1st ed. 1827, 2nd 1830, 3rd 1842); Experimental Researches in Electricity, vols. i. and ii., Richard and John Edward Taylor, vols. i. and ii. (1844 and 1847); vol. iii. (1844); vol. iii. Richard Taylor and William Francis (1855); Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics, Taylor and Francis (1859); Lectures on the Chemical History of a Candle (edited by W. Crookes) (Griffin, Bohn & Co., 1861); On the Various Forces in Nature (edited by W. Crookes) (Chatto & Windus, no date).

Biographies.Faraday as a Discoverer, by John Tyndall (Longmans, 1st ed. 1868, 2nd ed. 1870); The Life and Letters of Faraday, by Dr Bence Jones, secretary of the Royal Institution, in 2 vols. (Longmans, 1870); Michael Faraday, by J.H. Gladstone, Ph.D., F.R.S. (Macmillan, 1872); Michael Faraday; his Life and Work, by S.P. Thompson (1898).

Bio.Faraday as a Discoverer, by John Tyndall (Longmans, 1st ed. 1868, 2nd ed. 1870); The Life and Letters of Faraday, by Dr. Bence Jones, secretary of the Royal Institution, in 2 vols. (Longmans, 1870); Michael Faraday, by J.H. Gladstone, Ph.D., F.R.S. (Macmillan, 1872); Michael Faraday: His Life and Work, by S.P. Thompson (1898).

(J. C. M.)

FARAH, a river of Afghanistan. It rises in the southern slopes of Siah-Koh, which forms the southern wall of the valley of Herat, and after a south-westerly course of about 200 m. falls into the Seistan Hamun. At the town of Farah it has a width of 150 yds. in the dry season with 2 ft. of water and a clear swift stream. It is liable to floods, when it becomes impassable for weeks. The lower valley of the Farah Rud is fertile and well cultivated.

FARAH, is a river in Afghanistan. It starts in the southern slopes of Siah-Koh, which serves as the southern boundary of the Herat valley, and after flowing southwest for about 200 meters, it empties into the Seistan Hamun. In the town of Farah, the river measures 150 yards wide during the dry season, with 2 feet of water and a clear, fast-moving stream. It is prone to flooding, making it unusable for weeks at a time. The lower valley of the Farah Rud is fertile and well-farmed.


FARAH, a town of Afghanistan. It is situated on the river that bears its name on the main road between Herat and Kandahar, 160 m. S. of Herat and 225 m. W. of Kandahar. It is a place of some strategical importance, as it commands the approaches to India and Seistan from Herat. The town (2460 ft. above sea-level) is a square walled enclosure standing in the middle of the plain, surrounded with a walled rampart. Owing to its unhealthiness it is now almost deserted, being only occupied by the Afghan regiment quartered there. It is a place of great antiquity, being probably the Phra mentioned by Isidore of Charax in the 1st century A.D. It was sacked by the armies of Jenghiz Khan, and the survivors transported to a position farther north, where there are still great ruins. The population returned to the original site after the destruction of the medieval city by Shah Abbas, and the city prospered again until its bloody siege by Nadir Shah. Subsequently under constant attacks it declined, and in 1837 the population amounting to 6000 was carried off to Kandahar. The sole industry of the town at present is the manufacture of gunpowder. In the districts east of Farah are to be found the most fanatical of the Durani Afghan tribes.

FARAH, is a town in Afghanistan. It's located on the river that shares its name, along the main road between Herat and Kandahar, 160 miles south of Herat and 225 miles west of Kandahar. The town is strategically important because it controls the routes to India and Seistan from Herat. Farah sits at 2460 feet above sea level and is a square walled enclosure in the middle of the plain, surrounded by a rampart. Due to its unhealthy conditions, it's now mostly deserted, occupied only by the Afghan regiment stationed there. This area has a rich history, likely being the Phra mentioned by Isidore of Charax in the 1st century A.D. It was looted by the armies of Genghis Khan, and the survivors were relocated to a site further north, where significant ruins still exist. After the medieval city was destroyed by Shah Abbas, the population returned to the original location, and the city thrived again until its bloody siege by Nadir Shah. Following continuous attacks, it declined, and in 1837, a population of about 6000 was taken to Kandahar. Currently, the town's only industry is the production of gunpowder. In the districts east of Farah, the most fanatical of the Durani Afghan tribes can be found.


FARAZDAQ [Hammām ibn Ghālib ibn Sa’sa’, known as al-Farazdaq] (ca. 641-ca. 728), Arabian poet, was born at Basra. He was of the Dārim, one of the most respected divisions of the bani Tamīm, and his mother was of the tribe of Ḍabba. His grandfather Sa’sa’ was a Bedouin of great repute, his father Ghālib followed the same manner of life until Basra was founded, and was famous for his generosity and hospitality. At the age of fifteen Farazdaq was known as a poet, and though checked for a short time by the advice of the caliph Ali to devote his attention to the study of the Koran, he soon returned to making verse. In the true Bedouin spirit he devoted his talent largely to satire and attacked the bani Nahshal and the bani Fuqaim. When Ziyād, a member of the latter tribe, became governor of Basra, the poet was compelled to flee, first to Kufa, and then, as he was still too near Ziyād, to Medina, where he was well received by Sa‘īd ibn ul-Āsī. Here he remained about ten years, writing satires on Bedouin tribes, but avoiding city politics. But he lived a prodigal life, and his amorous verses led to his expulsion by the caliph Merwan I. Just at that time he learned of the death of Ziyād and returned to Basra, where he secured the favour of Ziyād’s successor ‘Obaidallāh ibn Ziyād. Much of his poetry was now devoted to his matrimonial affairs. He had taken advantage of his position as guardian and married his cousin Nawār against her will. She sought help in vain from the court of Basra and from various tribes. All feared the poet’s satires. At last she fled to Mecca and appealed to the pretender ‘Abdallah ibn Zobair, who, however, succeeded in inducing her to consent to a confirmation of the marriage. Quarrels soon arose again. Farazdaq took a second wife, and after her death a third, to annoy Nawār. Finally he consented to a divorce pronounced by Hasan al-Baṣrī. Another subject occasioned a long series of verses, namely his feud with his rival Jarīr (q.v.) and his tribe the bani Kulaib. These poems are published as the Naka’id of Jarīr and al-Farazdaq (ed. A.A. Bevan, Leiden, 1906 ff.). In political life Farazdaq was prevented by fear from taking a large part. He seems, however, to have been attached to the house of Ali. During the reign of Moawiya I. he avoided politics, but later gave his allegiance to ‘Abdallah ibn Zobair.

FARAZDAQ [Hammām ibn Ghālib ibn Sa’sa’, known as al-Farazdaq] (ca. 641-ca. 728), was an Arabian poet born in Basra. He belonged to the Dārim, one of the most respected divisions of the bani Tamīm, and his mother was from the tribe of Ḍabba. His grandfather Sa’sa’ was a well-known Bedouin, and his father Ghālib lived the same lifestyle until Basra was established, earning fame for his generosity and hospitality. By the age of fifteen, Farazdaq was already recognized as a poet. Although he briefly paused his poetry due to the caliph Ali suggesting he focus on studying the Koran, he soon returned to writing verses. True to his Bedouin roots, he used his talent mainly for satire, targeting the bani Nahshal and the bani Fuqaim. When Ziyād, a member of the latter tribe, became the governor of Basra, the poet had to flee to Kufa, and later, since Kufa was still too close, to Medina, where he was welcomed by Sa‘īd ibn ul-Āsī. He spent about ten years there, writing satires about Bedouin tribes while steering clear of city politics. However, he led a lavish lifestyle, and his love poems led to his exile by the caliph Merwan I. At that time, he heard about Ziyād’s death and returned to Basra, gaining the favor of Ziyād’s successor ‘Obaidallāh ibn Ziyād. Much of his poetry during this period focused on his married life. He had married his cousin Nawār against her will, taking advantage of his position as her guardian. She sought help from the court of Basra and various tribes but found no support, as everyone feared his satirical verses. Eventually, she fled to Mecca and sought assistance from the pretender ‘Abdallah ibn Zobair, who managed to persuade her to agree to the marriage. Conflicts arose again when Farazdaq took a second wife, and after her death, a third, to irritate Nawār. Ultimately, he agreed to a divorce declared by Hasan al-Baṣrī. Another significant topic in his poetry was his feud with his rival Jarīr (q.v.) and his tribe, the bani Kulaib. These poems are published as the Naka’id of Jarīr and al-Farazdaq (ed. A.A. Bevan, Leiden, 1906 ff.). In political matters, Farazdaq was often too afraid to participate significantly, but he seemed to have a connection to the house of Ali. During Moawiya I's reign, he steered clear of politics, but later pledged his loyalty to ‘Abdallah ibn Zobair.

The fullest account of his life is contained in J. Hell’s Das Leben Farazdaq nach seinen Gedichten (Leipzig, 1903); Arabian stories of him in the Kitab ul-Aghāni and in Ibn Khallikān. A portion of his poems was edited with French translation by R. Boucher (Paris, 1870); the remainder have been published by J. Hell (Munich, 1900).

The most complete account of his life can be found in J. Hell’s Das Leben Farazdaq nach seinen Gedichten (Leipzig, 1903); Arabian stories about him appear in the Kitab ul-Aghāni and in Ibn Khallikān. Some of his poems were edited with a French translation by R. Boucher (Paris, 1870); the rest were published by J. Hell (Munich, 1900).

(G. W. T.)

FARCE, a form of the comic in dramatic art, the object of which is to excite laughter by ridiculous situations and incidents rather than by imitation with intent to ridicule, which is the province of burlesque, or by the delineation of the play of character upon character, which is that of comedy. The history of the word is interesting. Its ultimate origin is the Latin farcire, to stuff, and with the meaning of “stuffing” or forcemeat it appears in old cookery books in English. In medieval Latin farsa and farsia were applied to the expansion of the Kyrie eleison in litanies, &c., by interpolating words and phrases between those two words; later, to words, phrases and rhymed verses, sometimes in the vernacular, also interpolated in various parts of the service. The French farce, the form to which we owe our word, was originally the “gag” that the actors in the medieval drama inserted into their parts, generally to meet the popular demand for a lightening of humour or buffoonery. It has thus been used for the lighter form of comic drama (see Drama), and also figuratively for a piece of idle buffoonery, sham, or mockery.

FARCE, a type of comedy in drama, aims to provoke laughter through ridiculous situations and events rather than through imitation to mock, which is what burlesque does, or by exploring the dynamics between characters, which is the essence of comedy. The history of the term is quite fascinating. It ultimately comes from the Latin farcire, meaning to stuff, and with the idea of “stuffing” or ground meat, it appears in old English cookbooks. In medieval Latin, farsa and farsia referred to the expansion of the Kyrie eleison in litanies by adding words and phrases between those two words; later, it applied to the addition of words, phrases, and rhymed verses, sometimes in the local language, inserted in various parts of the service. The French farce, from which we get our term, originally referred to the “gag” that actors in medieval drama included in their roles, usually to satisfy the audience's desire for humor or silliness. It has thus been used for the lighter form of comic drama (see Drama), and also more broadly for something trivial, silly, or mocking.


FAREHAM, a market town in the Fareham parliamentary division of Hampshire, England, 76 m. S.W. from London by the London & South Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 8246. It lies at the head of a creek opening into the north-western corner of Portsmouth harbour. The principal industries are the manufacture of sackings, ropes, bricks, coarse earthenware, terra-cotta, tobacco-pipes and leather. Fareham has a considerable trade in corn, timber and coal; the creek being accessible to vessels of 300 tons. Three miles E. of Fareham, on Portsmouth harbour, are the interesting ruins of Porchester 176 Castle, an extensive walled enclosure retaining its Norman keep, and exhibiting in its outer walls considerable evidence of Roman workmanship; Professor Haverfield, however, denies that it occupies the site of the Roman Portus Magnus. The church of St Mary has some fine Norman portions. It belonged to an Augustinian priory founded by Henry I. At Titchfield, 3 m. W. of Fareham, are ruins of the beautiful Tudor mansion, Place House, built on the site of a Premonstratensian abbey of the 13th century, of which there are also fragments.

FAREHAM, is a market town in the Fareham parliamentary division of Hampshire, England, located 76 miles southwest of London by the London & South Western railway. The population of the urban district in 1901 was 8,246. It sits at the mouth of a creek that opens into the northwestern corner of Portsmouth harbour. The main industries include the production of sackings, ropes, bricks, coarse pottery, terra-cotta, tobacco pipes, and leather. Fareham has a significant trade in grain, timber, and coal, with the creek being accessible to vessels up to 300 tons. Three miles east of Fareham, on Portsmouth harbour, you can find the fascinating ruins of Porchester 176 Castle, which features an extensive walled enclosure that includes its Norman keep and shows considerable Roman craftsmanship in its outer walls; however, Professor Haverfield argues that it does not occupy the site of the Roman Portus Magnus. The church of St Mary has some notable Norman sections. It was part of an Augustinian priory founded by Henry I. In Titchfield, 3 miles west of Fareham, there are ruins of the beautiful Tudor mansion, Place House, which was built on the site of a 13th-century Premonstratensian abbey, of which there are also some remnants.

The fact that Fareham (Fernham, Ferham) formed part of the original endowment of the see of Winchester fixes its existence certainly as early as the 9th century. It is mentioned in the Domesday Survey as subject to a reduced assessment on account of its exposed position and liability to Danish attacks. There is evidence to show that Fareham had become a borough before 1264, but no charter can be found. It was a mesne borough held of the bishop of Winchester, but it is probable that during the 18th century the privileges of the burgesses were allowed to lapse, as by 1835 it had ceased to be a borough. Fareham returned two members to the parliament of 1306, but two years later it petitioned against representation on the ground of expense. A fair on the 31st of October and the two following days was held under grant of Henry III. The day appears to have been afterwards changed to the 29th of June, and in the 18th century was mainly important for the sale of toys. It was abolished in 1871. Fareham owed its importance in medieval times to its facilities for commerce. It was a free port and had a considerable trade in wool and wine. Later its shipping declined and in the 16th century it was little more than a fishing village. Its commercial prosperity in modern times is due to its nearness to Portsmouth.

The fact that Fareham (Fernham, Ferham) was part of the original endowment of the see of Winchester confirms its existence as early as the 9th century. It’s mentioned in the Domesday Survey as having a lower assessment due to its vulnerable location and susceptibility to Danish attacks. Evidence shows that Fareham had become a borough before 1264, but no charter has been found. It was a mesne borough held by the bishop of Winchester, but it’s likely that during the 18th century, the rights of the burgesses were allowed to lapse, as by 1835 it had stopped being a borough. Fareham sent two members to the parliament in 1306, but two years later it petitioned against representation due to the cost. A fair was held on October 31st and the following two days under a grant from Henry III. The date seems to have been later moved to June 29th, and in the 18th century it mainly became important for selling toys. It was abolished in 1871. Fareham’s significance in medieval times came from its trade capabilities. It was a free port and had significant commerce in wool and wine. Later, its shipping declined and in the 16th century, it was mostly just a fishing village. Its modern economic success is due to its proximity to Portsmouth.


FAREL, GUILLAUME (1489-1565), French reformer, was born of a noble family near Gap in Dauphiné in 1489. His parents meant him for the military profession, but his bent being for study he was allowed to enter the university of Paris. Here he came under the influence of Jacobus Faber (Stapulensis), on whose recommendation he was appointed professor in the college of Cardinal Lemoine. In 1521, on the invitation of Bishop Briçonnet, he repaired to Meaux, and took part in efforts of reform within the Roman communion. The persecuting measures of 1523, from which Faber found a refuge at Meaux, determined Farel to leave France. Oecolampadius welcomed him to Basel, where in 1524 he put forth thirteen theses sharply antagonizing Roman doctrine. These he defended with great ability, but with so much heat that Erasmus joined in demanding his expulsion from the city. He thought of going to Wittenberg, but his first halt was at Strassburg, where Bucer and Capito received him kindly. At the call of Duke Ulrich of Württemberg he went as preacher to Montbéliard. Displaying the same qualities which had driven him from Basel, he was forced to leave Montbéliard in the spring of 1525.

FAREL, GUILLAUME (1489-1565), a French reformer, was born into a noble family near Gap in Dauphiné in 1489. His parents intended for him to pursue a military career, but since he preferred studying, he was permitted to attend the University of Paris. There, he came under the influence of Jacobus Faber (Stapulensis), who recommended him for a professor position at the College of Cardinal Lemoine. In 1521, at the invitation of Bishop Briçonnet, he went to Meaux to join reform efforts within the Roman Catholic Church. The persecution in 1523, which led Faber to seek refuge in Meaux, prompted Farel to leave France. Oecolampadius welcomed him in Basel, where in 1524, he presented thirteen theses sharply opposing Roman doctrine. He defended these with considerable skill but was so passionate that Erasmus demanded his expulsion from the city. He considered going to Wittenberg but first stopped in Strassburg, where Bucer and Capito welcomed him warmly. Responding to the request of Duke Ulrich of Württemberg, he became a preacher in Montbéliard. Exhibiting the same qualities that had caused his departure from Basel, he had to leave Montbéliard in the spring of 1525.

He retraced his steps to Strassburg and Basel; and, at the end of 1526, obtained a preacher’s post at Aigle, then a dependency of Bern. Deeming it wise to suppress his name, he adopted the pseudonym Ursinus, with reference to his protection by Bern. Despite strenuous opposition by the monastic orders, he obtained in 1528 a licence from the authorities to preach anywhere within the canton of Bern. He extended his labours to the cantons of Neuchâtel and Vaud. His vehement missionary addresses were met by mob violence, but he persevered with undaunted zeal. In October 1530 he broke into the church of Neuchâtel with an iconoclastic mob, thus planting the Reformation in that city. In 1532 he visited the Waldenses. On the return journey he halted at Geneva, then at a crisis of political and religious strife. On the 30th of June 1532 the council of two hundred had ordained that in every church and cloister of the city “the pure Gospel” should be preached; against this order the bishop’s vicar led the opposition. Reaching Geneva in October 1532, Farel (described in a contemporary monastic chronicle as “un chétif malheureux prédicant, nommé maistre Guillaume”) at once began to preach in a room of his lodging, and soon attracted “un grand nombre de gens qui estoient advertis de sa venue et déjà infects de son hérésie.” Summoned before the bishop’s vicar, his trial was a scene of insult and clamour, ending in his being violently thrust from the court and bidden to leave the city within three hours. He escaped with difficulty to Orbe by boat. Through the intervention of the government of Bern, liberty of worship was granted on the 28th of March 1533 to the Reformation party in Geneva. Farel, returning, achieved in a couple of years a complete supremacy for his followers. On New Year’s Day 1534 the bishop interdicted all preaching unauthorized by himself, and ordered the burning of all Protestant Bibles. This was the signal for public disputations in which Farel took the leading part on the Reformation side, with the result that by decree of the 27th of August 1535 the mass was suppressed and the reformed religion established. Calvin, on his way to Basel for a life of study, touched at Geneva, and by the importunity of Farel was there detained to become the leader of the Genevan Reformation. The severity of the disciplinary measures which followed procured a reaction under which Farel and Calvin were banished the city in 1538. Farel was called to Neuchâtel in July 1538, but his position there was made untenable, though he remained at his post during a visitation of the plague. When (1541) Calvin was recalled to Geneva, Farel also returned; but in 1542 he went to Metz to support the Reformation there. It is said that when he preached in the Dominican church of Metz, the bells were rung to drown his voice, but his voice outdid the bells, and on the next occasion he had three thousand hearers. His work was checked by the active hostility of the duke of Lorraine, and in 1544 he returned to Neuchâtel. No one was more frequently and confidentially consulted by Calvin. When the trial of Servetus was in progress (1553), Calvin was anxious for Farel’s presence, but he did not arrive till sentence had been passed. He accompanied Servetus to the stake, vainly urging him to a recantation at the last moment. A coolness with Calvin was created by Farel’s marriage, at the age of sixty-nine, with a refugee widow from Rouen, of unsuitable age. By her, six years later, he had one son, who died in infancy. The vigour and fervency of his preaching were unabated by length of years. Calvin’s death, in 1564, affected him deeply. Yet in his last year he revisited Metz, preaching amid great enthusiasm, with all his wonted fire. The effort was too much for him; he left the church exhausted, took to his bed, and died at Metz on the 13th of September 1565.

He retraced his steps to Strasbourg and Basel; and, at the end of 1526, secured a preacher’s position at Aigle, then a dependency of Bern. Considering it wise to keep his identity hidden, he adopted the pseudonym Ursinus, in reference to his protection by Bern. Despite strong opposition from the monastic orders, he obtained in 1528 a license from the authorities to preach anywhere within the canton of Bern. He extended his efforts to the cantons of Neuchâtel and Vaud. His passionate missionary speeches were met with mob violence, but he continued with unwavering determination. In October 1530, he stormed the church of Neuchâtel with an iconoclastic mob, thus establishing the Reformation in that city. In 1532, he visited the Waldenses. On his return journey, he stopped in Geneva, which was in the midst of political and religious turmoil. On June 30, 1532, the council of two hundred had ordered that in every church and cloister in the city “the pure Gospel” should be preached; against this order, the bishop’s vicar led the opposition. Arriving in Geneva in October 1532, Farel (described in a contemporary monastic chronicle as “a miserable unfortunate preacher named Master William”) immediately began to preach in a room of his lodging, quickly attracting “a large number of people who were informed of his arrival and already infected with his heresy.” Summoned before the bishop’s vicar, his trial was a scene of insults and chaos, ending with him being violently expelled from the court and ordered to leave the city within three hours. He narrowly escaped to Orbe by boat. Through the intervention of the government of Bern, freedom of worship was granted on March 28, 1533, to the Reformation party in Geneva. Farel, returning, established complete dominance for his followers within a couple of years. On New Year’s Day 1534, the bishop prohibited all preaching not authorized by himself and ordered the burning of all Protestant Bibles. This triggered public debates, where Farel played a leading role for the Reformation side, resulting in the suppression of the mass and the establishment of the reformed religion by decree on August 27, 1535. Calvin, on his way to Basel for a life of study, stopped in Geneva and was convinced by Farel to stay and lead the Genevan Reformation. The strict disciplinary measures that followed led to a backlash, resulting in Farel and Calvin being banished from the city in 1538. Farel was called to Neuchâtel in July 1538, but his position there became untenable, though he remained in his role during a visitation of the plague. When Calvin was recalled to Geneva in 1541, Farel also returned; however, in 1542 he went to Metz to support the Reformation there. It is said that when he preached in the Dominican church of Metz, the bells were rung to drown out his voice, but he spoke louder than the bells, and on the next occasion he had three thousand listeners. His work was hindered by the active hostility of the duke of Lorraine, and in 1544 he returned to Neuchâtel. No one was consulted more frequently and confidentially by Calvin. When the trial of Servetus was happening in 1553, Calvin was eager for Farel’s presence, but he arrived only after the sentence had been passed. He accompanied Servetus to the stake, desperately urging him to recant at the last moment. A rift with Calvin developed due to Farel’s marriage, at the age of sixty-nine, to a refugee widow from Rouen, who was much younger. Six years later, they had a son who died in infancy. The energy and passion of his preaching remained strong despite his age. Calvin's death in 1564 affected him deeply. Yet in his last year, he revisited Metz, preaching with great enthusiasm and all his usual fervor. The effort proved too much for him; he left the church exhausted, went to bed, and died in Metz on September 13, 1565.

Farel wrote much, but usually in haste, and for an immediate purpose. He takes no rank as a scientific theologian, being a man of activity rather than of speculation or of much insight. His Sommaire was re-edited from the edition of 1534 by J.G. Baum in 1867. Others of his works (all in French) were his treatise on purgatory (1534), on the Lord’s Prayer (1543), on the Supper (1555). He “was remarkable for boldness and energy both in preaching and prayer” (M. Young, Life of Paleario). As an orator, he was denunciatory rather than suasive; thus while on the one hand he powerfully impressed, on the other hand he stimulated opposition. A monument to him was unveiled at Neuchâtel on the 4th of May 1876.

Farel wrote a lot, but usually in a rush and for a specific purpose. He doesn't hold a position as a scientific theologian, being more of an active doer than a deep thinker or someone with much insight. His Sommaire was re-edited from the 1534 edition by J.G. Baum in 1867. Other works of his (all in French) include his treatise on purgatory (1534), on the Lord’s Prayer (1543), and on the Supper (1555). He “was known for his boldness and energy in both preaching and prayer” (M. Young, Life of Paleario). As a speaker, he was more about denouncing than persuading; so while he made a strong impression, he also sparked opposition. A monument to him was unveiled in Neuchâtel on May 4, 1876.

Lives of Farel are numerous; it may suffice to mention C. Ancillon, Vie de G. Farel (1691); the article in Bayle.; M. Kirchhofer, Das Leben W. Farels (1831-1833); Ch. Schmidt, Études sur Farel (1834); F. Bevan, W. Farel (1893); J.J. Herzog, in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1898).

Lives of Farel are numerous; it may be enough to mention C. Ancillon, Vie de G. Farel (1691); the article in Bayle; M. Kirchhofer, Das Leben W. Farels (1831-1833); Ch. Schmidt, Études sur Farel (1834); F. Bevan, W. Farel (1893); J.J. Herzog, in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1898).

(A. Go.*)

FAREY, JOHN (1766-1826), English geologist, was born at Woburn in Bedfordshire in 1766. He was educated at Halifax in Yorkshire, and showed such aptitude in mathematics, drawing and surveying, that he was brought under the notice of John Smeaton (1724-1792). In 1792 he was appointed agent to the duke of Bedford for his Woburn estates. After the decease of the duke, Farey in 1802 removed to London, and settled there as a consulting surveyor and geologist. That he was enabled to take this step was due largely to his acquaintance with William Smith (q.v.), who in 1801 had been employed by the duke of Bedford in works of draining and irrigation. The duke, appreciating Smith’s knowledge of the strata, commissioned him in 1802 to explore the margin of the chalk-hills south of Woburn in order to determine the true succession of the strata; and he instructed Farey to accompany him. Farey has remarked 177 that Smith was his “Master and Instructor in Mineral Surveying,” and his subsequent publications show how well he had profited by the teachings he received. Farey prepared the General View of the Agriculture and Minerals of Derbyshire in two vols. (1811-1813) for the Board of Agriculture. In the first of these volumes (1811) he gave an able account of the upper part of the British series of strata, and a masterly exposition of the Carboniferous and other strata of Derbyshire. In this classic work, and in a paper published in the Phil. Mag. vol. li. 1818, p. 173, on “Mr Smith’s Geological Claims stated,” he zealously called attention to the importance of the discoveries of William Smith. Farey died in London on the 6th of January 1826.

FAREY, JOHN (1766-1826), an English geologist, was born in Woburn, Bedfordshire, in 1766. He was educated in Halifax, Yorkshire, and displayed such skill in mathematics, drawing, and surveying that he caught the attention of John Smeaton (1724-1792). In 1792, he was appointed as the agent for the Duke of Bedford for his Woburn estates. After the duke passed away, Farey moved to London in 1802, where he became a consulting surveyor and geologist. His ability to make this transition was largely thanks to his connection with William Smith (q.v.), who had been hired by the Duke of Bedford in 1801 for drainage and irrigation projects. The duke recognized Smith’s expertise in geology and commissioned him in 1802 to investigate the chalk hills south of Woburn to clarify the sequence of the strata; he instructed Farey to accompany him. Farey noted 177 that Smith was his “Master and Instructor in Mineral Surveying,” and his later publications demonstrate the significant impact of Smith’s teachings on his work. Farey prepared the General View of the Agriculture and Minerals of Derbyshire in two volumes (1811-1813) for the Board of Agriculture. In the first volume (1811), he provided an excellent overview of the upper portion of the British series of strata and a detailed analysis of the Carboniferous and other strata of Derbyshire. In this classic work, as well as in a paper published in the Phil. Mag. vol. li. 1818, p. 173, titled “Mr Smith’s Geological Claims stated,” he passionately highlighted the significance of William Smith's discoveries. Farey passed away in London on January 6, 1826.

See Biographical Notice, by W.S. Mitchell, in Geol. Mag. 1873, P. 25.

See Biographical Notice, by W.S. Mitchell, in Geol. Mag. 1873, P. 25.


FARGO, WILLIAM GEORGE (1818-1881), pioneer American expressman, was born in Pompey, New York, on the 20th of May 1818. From the age of thirteen he had to support himself, obtaining little schooling, and for several years he was a clerk in grocery stores in Syracuse. He became a freight agent for the Auburn & Syracuse railway company at Auburn in 1841, an express messenger between Albany and Buffalo a year later, and in 1843 a resident agent in Buffalo. In 1844 he organized, with Henry Wells (1805-1878) and Daniel Dunning, the first express company (Wells & Co.; after 1845 Livingston & Fargo) to engage in the carrying business west of Buffalo. The lines of this company (which first operated only to Detroit, via Cleveland) were rapidly extended to Chicago, St Louis, and other western points. In March 1850, when through a consolidation of competing lines the American Express Company was organized, Wells became president and Fargo secretary. In 1851, with Wells and others, he organized the firm of Wells, Fargo & Company to conduct an express business between New York and San Francisco by way of the Isthmus of Panama and on the Pacific coast, where it long had a virtual monopoly. In 1861 Wells, Fargo & Co. bought and reorganized the Overland Mail Co., which had been formed in 1857 to carry the United States mails, and of which Fargo had been one of the original promoters. From 1862 to 1866 he was mayor of Buffalo, and from 1868 to his death, in Buffalo, on the 3rd of August 1881, he was president of the American Express Company, with which in 1868 the Merchants Union Express Co. was consolidated. He was a director of the New York Central and of the Northern Pacific railways.

FARGO, WILLIAM GEORGE (1818-1881), a pioneering American expressman, was born in Pompey, New York, on May 20, 1818. From the age of thirteen, he had to fend for himself, receiving little education, and for several years, he worked as a clerk in grocery stores in Syracuse. In 1841, he became a freight agent for the Auburn & Syracuse railway company in Auburn, and a year later, he worked as an express messenger between Albany and Buffalo. By 1843, he was a resident agent in Buffalo. In 1844, he teamed up with Henry Wells (1805-1878) and Daniel Dunning to organize the first express company (Wells & Co.; after 1845, Livingston & Fargo) to operate in the carrying business west of Buffalo. This company initially operated only to Detroit via Cleveland but quickly expanded its routes to Chicago, St. Louis, and other western locations. In March 1850, when several competing lines merged to form the American Express Company, Wells was named president, and Fargo became secretary. In 1851, along with Wells and others, he established Wells, Fargo & Company to handle express services between New York and San Francisco via the Isthmus of Panama and along the Pacific coast, where it maintained a near monopoly for a long time. In 1861, Wells, Fargo & Co. acquired and restructured the Overland Mail Co., which was founded in 1857 to carry U.S. mail, and of which Fargo was one of the original promoters. From 1862 to 1866, he served as mayor of Buffalo, and from 1868 until his death in Buffalo on August 3, 1881, he was the president of the American Express Company, which merged with the Merchants Union Express Co. in 1868. He also served as a director for the New York Central and Northern Pacific railways.


FARGO, a city and the county-seat of Cass county, North Dakota, U.S.A., about 254 m. W. of Duluth, Minnesota. Pop. (1890) 5664; (1900) 9589, of whom 2564 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 14,331. It is served by the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul railways. The city is situated on the W. bank of the Red river of the North, which in 1909 had a navigable depth of only about 2 ft. from Fargo to Grank Forks, and the navigation of which was obstructed at various places by fixed bridges. In the city are Island and Oakgrove parks, the former of which contains a statue (erected by Norwegians in 1908) of Henrik Arnold Wergeland, the Norwegian poet. Fargo is the seat of the North Dakota agricultural college (coeducational), founded in 1890 under the provisions of the Federal “Morrill Act” of 1862; it receives both Federal and state support (the former under the Morrill Act of 1890), and in connexion with it a United States Agricultural Experiment Station is maintained. In 1907-1908 the college had 988 students in the regular courses (including the students in the Academy), 117 in the summer course in steam engineering, and 68 in correspondence courses. At Fargo, also, are Fargo College (non-sectarian, 1887; founded by Congregationalists), which has a college department, a preparatory department, and a conservatory of music, and in 1908 had 310 students, of whom 211 were in the conservatory of music; the Oak Grove Lutheran ladies’ seminary (1906) and the Sacred Heart Academy (Roman Catholic). The city is the see of both a Roman Catholic bishop and a Protestant Episcopal bishop; and it is the centre of masonic interests in the state, having a fine masonic temple. There are a public library and a large Y.M.C.A. building. St John’s hospital is controlled by Roman Catholic sisters, and St Luke’s hospital by the Lutheran Church. Fargo is in a rich agricultural (especially wheat) region, is a busy grain-trading and jobbing centre, is one of the most important wholesale distributing centres for agricultural implements and machinery in the United States, and has a number of manufactures, notably flour. The total value of the city’s factory products in 1905 was $1,160,832. Fargo, named in honour of W.G. Fargo of the Wells Fargo Express Company, was first settled as a tent city in 1871, when the Red river was crossed by the Northern Pacific, but was not permanently settled until after the extinction in 1873 of the Indian title to the reservation on which it was situated. It was chartered as a city in 1875. The Milwaukee railway was completed to Fargo in 1884. In June 1893 a large part of the city was destroyed by fire, the loss being more than $3,000,000.

FARGO, is a city and the county seat of Cass County, North Dakota, U.S.A., approximately 254 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota. Population: (1890) 5,664; (1900) 9,589, including 2,564 foreign-born; (1910 census) 14,331. It is served by the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railways. The city is located on the west bank of the Red River of the North, which in 1909 had a navigable depth of only about 2 feet from Fargo to Grand Forks, with navigation obstructed at various points by fixed bridges. The city has Island and Oak Grove parks, the former featuring a statue (erected by Norwegians in 1908) of Henrik Arnold Wergeland, the Norwegian poet. Fargo is home to the North Dakota Agricultural College (coeducational), established in 1890 under the provisions of the Federal "Morrill Act" of 1862; it receives both Federal and state support (the latter under the Morrill Act of 1890), along with a U.S. Agricultural Experiment Station. In 1907-1908, the college had 988 students in regular courses (including those in the Academy), 117 in the summer course for steam engineering, and 68 in correspondence courses. Fargo also hosts Fargo College (non-sectarian, founded in 1887 by Congregationalists), which has a college department, a preparatory department, and a conservatory of music, with 310 students in 1908, 211 of whom were in the conservatory; the Oak Grove Lutheran Ladies' Seminary (1906) and the Sacred Heart Academy (Roman Catholic). The city is the seat of both a Roman Catholic bishop and a Protestant Episcopal bishop, and it is the center of Masonic interests in the state, featuring a fine Masonic temple. There is a public library and a large Y.M.C.A. building. St. John’s Hospital is managed by Roman Catholic sisters, while St. Luke’s Hospital is operated by the Lutheran Church. Fargo is located in a rich agricultural region, especially known for wheat, and serves as a bustling grain-trading and jobbing center. It is one of the major wholesale distribution centers for agricultural implements and machinery in the United States and has several manufacturing operations, particularly in flour. The total value of the city's factory products in 1905 was $1,160,832. Fargo is named in honor of W.G. Fargo of the Wells Fargo Express Company and was first settled as a tent city in 1871 when the Northern Pacific crossed the Red River, but it wasn’t permanently established until the Indian title to the reservation on which it lies was extinguished in 1873. The city was chartered in 1875. The Milwaukee Railway reached Fargo in 1884. In June 1893, a significant portion of the city was destroyed by fire, incurring losses exceeding $3,000,000.


FARIA Y SOUSA, MANUEL DE (1590-1649), Spanish and Portuguese historian and poet, was born of an ancient Portuguese family, probably at Pombeiro, on the 18th of March 1590, attended the university of Braga for some years, and when about fourteen entered the service of the bishop of Oporto. With the exception of about four years from 1631 to 1634, during which he was a member of the Portuguese embassy in Rome, the greater part of his later life was spent at Madrid, and there he died, after much suffering, on the 3rd of June 1649. He was a laborious, peaceful man; and a happy marriage with Catharina Machado, the Albania of his poems, enabled him to lead a studious domestic life, dividing his cares and affections between his children and his books. His first important work, an Epitome de las historias Portuguezas (Madrid, 1628), was favourably received; but some passages in his enormous commentary upon Os Lusiadas, the poem of Luis de Camoens, excited the suspicion of the inquisitors, caused his temporary incarceration, and led to the permanent loss of his official salary. In spite of the enthusiasm which is said to have prescribed to him the daily task of twelve folio pages, death overtook him before he had completed his greatest enterprise, a history of the Portuguese in all parts of the world. Several portions of the work appeared at Lisbon after his death, under the editorship of Captain Faria y Sousa:—Europa Portugueza (1667, 3 vols.); Asia Portugueza (1666-1675, 3 vols.); Africa Portugueza (1681). As a poet Faria y Sousa was nearly as prolific; but his poems are vitiated by the prevailing Gongorism of his time. They were for the most part collected in the Noches claras (Madrid, 1624-1626), and the Fuente de Aganipe, of which four volumes were published at Madrid in 1644-1646. He also wrote, from information supplied by P.A. Semmedo, Imperio de China i cultura evangelica en él (Madrid, 1642); and translated and completed the Nobiliario of the count of Barcellos.

Faria y Sousa, Manuel de (1590-1649), a Spanish and Portuguese historian and poet, was born into an old Portuguese family, probably in Pombeiro, on March 18, 1590. He studied at the University of Braga for several years, and around the age of fourteen, he joined the service of the Bishop of Oporto. Except for about four years from 1631 to 1634, when he was part of the Portuguese embassy in Rome, most of his later life was spent in Madrid, where he died, after much suffering, on June 3, 1649. He was a hardworking and peaceful man. A happy marriage with Catharina Machado, the muse of his poems, allowed him to lead a studious home life, sharing his cares and affections between his children and his books. His first significant work, an Epitome de las historias Portuguesas (Madrid, 1628), was well received; however, some sections of his extensive commentary on Os Lusiadas, the poem by Luis de Camoens, raised the suspicions of the inquisitors, resulting in his temporary imprisonment and the permanent loss of his official salary. Despite the enthusiasm that allegedly drove him to write twelve folio pages daily, death came before he could finish his greatest project, a history of the Portuguese around the world. Several parts of this work were published in Lisbon after his death, under the editing of Captain Faria y Sousa:—Europa Portugueza (1667, 3 vols.); Asia Portugueza (1666-1675, 3 vols.); Africa Portugueza (1681). As a poet, Faria y Sousa was almost as prolific, but his poems are marred by the dominant Gongorism of his time. They were largely compiled in the Noches claras (Madrid, 1624-1626), and the Fuente de Aganipe, with four volumes published in Madrid between 1644 and 1646. He also authored Imperio de China i cultura evangelica en él (Madrid, 1642), based on information from P.A. Semmedo, and translated and completed the Nobiliario of the Count of Barcellos.

There are English translations by J. Stevens of the History of Portugal (London, 1698), and of Portuguese Asia (London, 1695).

There are English translations by J. Stevens of the History of Portugal (London, 1698) and Portuguese Asia (London, 1695).


FARIBAULT, a city and the county-seat of Rice county, Minnesota, U.S.A., on the Cannon river, at the mouth of the Straight river, about 45 m. S. of St Paul. (Pop. 1890) 6520; (1900) 7868, of whom 1586 were foreign-born; (1905) 8279; (1910) 9001. Faribault is served by the Chicago Great Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railways. The city is attractively situated near a lake region widely known for its summer resorts. Faribault is the seat of the Minnesota institute for defectives, embracing the state school for the deaf (1863), the state school for the blind (1874), and the state school for the feeble-minded (1879); of three institutions under control of the Protestant Episcopal Church—the Seabury divinity school (incorporated 1860), the Shattuck school (1867; incorporated in 1905), a military school for boys, and St Mary’s hall (1866), a school for girls, founded by Bishop Whipple; and of the Roman Catholic (Dominican) Bethlehem Academy for girls. In the city are the cathedral of our Merciful Saviour (1868-1869), the first Protestant Episcopal church in the United States built and used as a cathedral from its opening; and the hospital and nurses’ training school of the Minnesota District of the Evangelical 178 Synod. The city has a public library, and owns and operates its own water-supply system. There is a good water power, and among the city’s manufactures are flour, beer, shoes, furniture, rattan-ware, warehouse trucks, canned goods, cane syrup, waggons and carriages, gasolene engines, wind-mills, pianos and woollen goods. Faribault, named in honour of Jean Baptiste Faribault, a French fur-trader and pioneer who made his headquarters in the region in the latter part of the 18th century, was permanently settled about 1848, and was chartered as a city in 1872. A French millwright, N. La Croix, introduced here, about 1860, a new process of making flour, which revolutionized the industry in the United States, but his mill was soon destroyed by flood and he removed to Minneapolis, where the process was first successful on a large scale. Faribault was for many years the home of Bishop Henry Benjamin Whipple (1822-1901), the pioneer bishop (1850-1901) of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Minnesota, famous for his missionary work among the Indians.

FARIBAULT, is a city and the county seat of Rice County, Minnesota, U.S.A. It’s located on the Cannon River, at the mouth of the Straight River, about 45 miles south of St. Paul. (Pop. 1890) 6,520; (1900) 7,868, of which 1,586 were foreign-born; (1905) 8,279; (1910) 9,001. Faribault is served by the Chicago Great Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railways. The city is nicely positioned near a lake region that is well-known for its summer resorts. Faribault is home to the Minnesota Institute for Defectives, which includes the state school for the deaf (1863), the state school for the blind (1874), and the state school for the feeble-minded (1879); three institutions controlled by the Protestant Episcopal Church: the Seabury Divinity School (incorporated 1860), the Shattuck School (1867; incorporated in 1905), a military school for boys, and St. Mary’s Hall (1866), a school for girls founded by Bishop Whipple; as well as the Roman Catholic (Dominican) Bethlehem Academy for girls. The city features the Cathedral of Our Merciful Saviour (1868-1869), the first Protestant Episcopal church in the U.S. built and used as a cathedral from its opening, along with the hospital and nurses’ training school of the Minnesota District of the Evangelical 178 Synod. The city has a public library and operates its own water supply system. There’s a good water power source, and among the city’s products are flour, beer, shoes, furniture, rattan goods, warehouse trucks, canned goods, cane syrup, wagons and carriages, gasoline engines, windmills, pianos, and woolen goods. Faribault was named in honor of Jean Baptiste Faribault, a French fur trader and pioneer who established his headquarters in the area in the late 18th century. It was permanently settled around 1848 and was chartered as a city in 1872. A French millwright, N. La Croix, introduced a new flour-making process here around 1860, which revolutionized the industry in the U.S., but his mill was soon destroyed by a flood, and he moved to Minneapolis, where the process first became successful on a large scale. Faribault was home to Bishop Henry Benjamin Whipple (1822-1901) for many years, who was the pioneer bishop (1850-1901) of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Minnesota, known for his missionary work among Native Americans.


FARIDKOT, a native state of India in the Punjab. It ranks as one of the Cis-Sutlej states, which came under British influence in 1809. Its area is 642 sq. m., and its population in 1901 was 124,912. It is bounded on the W. and N.E. by the British district of Ferozepore, and on the S. by Nabha state. During the Sikh wars in 1845 the chief, Raja Pahar Singh, exerted himself in the British cause, and was rewarded with an increase of territory. In the Mutiny of 1857, too, his son and successor, Wazir Singh, did good service by guarding the Sutlej ferries, and in attacking a notorious rebel, whose stronghold he destroyed. The estimated gross revenue is £28,300; there is no tribute. The territory is traversed by the Rewari-Ferozepore railway, and also crossed by the Fazilka line, which starts from Kotkapura, the old capital. It is irrigated by a branch of the Sirhind canal. The town of Faridkot has a railway station, 84 m. from Lahore.

FARIDKOT, is a native state in India located in Punjab. It is one of the Cis-Sutlej states that came under British influence in 1809. The area covers 642 square miles, and the population was 124,912 in 1901. It is bordered to the west and northeast by the British district of Ferozepore, and to the south by Nabha state. During the Sikh wars in 1845, the chief, Raja Pahar Singh, supported the British cause and was rewarded with additional territory. During the Mutiny of 1857, his son and successor, Wazir Singh, also served well by guarding the Sutlej ferries and attacking a notorious rebel, destroying his stronghold. The estimated gross revenue is £28,300, and there are no tribute payments. The territory is crossed by the Rewari-Ferozepore railway and also by the Fazilka line, which starts from the old capital, Kotkapura. It is irrigated by a branch of the Sirhind canal. The town of Faridkot has a railway station located 84 miles from Lahore.


FARIDPUR, or Furreedpore, a town and district of British India, in the Dacca division of eastern Bengal and Assam. The town, which has a railway station, stands on an old channel of the Ganges. Pop. (1901) 11,649. There are a Baptist mission and a government high school. The district comprises an area of 2281 sq. m. The general aspect is flat, tame and uninteresting, although in the northern tract the land is comparatively high, with a light sandy soil, covered with water during the rainy season, but dry during the cold and hot weather. From the town of Faridpur the ground slopes, until in the south, on the confines of Backergunje, it becomes one immense swamp, never entirely dry. During the height of the inundations the whole district may be said to be under water. The villages are built on artificially raised sites, or the high banks of the deltaic streams. Along many of the larger rivers the line of hamlets is unbroken for miles together, so that it is difficult to say where one ends and another begins. The huts, however, except in markets and bazaars, are seldom close together, but are scattered amidst small garden plots, and groves of mango, date and betel-nut trees. The plains between the villages are almost invariably more or less depressed towards the centre, where usually a marsh, or lake, or deep lagoon is found. These marshes, however, are gradually filling up by the silt deposited from the rivers; in the north of the district there now only remain two or three large swamps, and in them the process may be seen going on. The climate of Faridpur is damp, like that of the other districts of eastern Bengal; the average annual rainfall is 66 in. and the average mean temperature 76.9° F.

FARIDPUR, or Furreedpore is a town and district in British India, located in the Dacca division of eastern Bengal and Assam. The town has a railway station and is situated on an old channel of the Ganges. Its population in 1901 was 11,649. There is a Baptist mission and a government high school in the area. The district covers 2,281 square miles. The landscape is generally flat and unremarkable, although the northern part has slightly elevated land with light sandy soil, which is flooded during the rainy season but dry in the cold and hot weather. From the town of Faridpur, the land slopes down, and in the south, near Backergunje, it turns into a vast swamp that never completely dries up. During peak flooding, the entire district is submerged. Villages are built on raised platforms or the higher banks of the deltaic rivers. Along many of the larger rivers, a continuous line of small settlements stretches for miles, making it hard to tell where one ends and another begins. However, except in markets and bazaars, the huts are usually not close together but are spread out among small gardens and groves of mango, date, and betel-nut trees. The plains between the villages are typically lower in the center, where marshes, lakes, or deep lagoons can be found. These marshes are gradually filling up due to silt from the rivers; in the northern part of the district, only a couple of large swamps remain, where this process is observable. The climate in Faridpur is damp, similar to other districts in eastern Bengal; the average yearly rainfall is 66 inches, and the average temperature is 76.9°F.

The principal rivers of Faridpur are the Ganges, the Arial Khan and the Haringhata. The Ganges, or Padma as it is locally called, touches the extreme north-west corner of the district, flows along its northern boundary as far as Goalanda, where it receives the waters o£ the Jamuna or main stream of the Brahmaputra, and whence the united stream turns southwards and forms the eastern boundary of the district. The river is navigable by large cargo boats throughout the year, and has an average breadth during the rainy season of 1600 yds. Rice is the great crop of the district. In 1901 the population was 1,937,646, showing an increase of 6% in the decade. The north of the district is crossed by the line of the Eastern Bengal railway to Goalanda, the port of the Brahmaputra steamers, and a branch runs to Faridpur town. But most of the trade is conducted by river.

The main rivers of Faridpur are the Ganges, the Arial Khan, and the Haringhata. The Ganges, locally known as Padma, touches the extreme northwest corner of the district, flows along the northern boundary up to Goalanda, where it merges with the waters of the Jamuna, the main stream of the Brahmaputra. From there, the combined stream heads south and forms the eastern boundary of the district. The river is navigable by large cargo boats year-round and has an average width of 1600 yards during the rainy season. Rice is the primary crop of the district. In 1901, the population was 1,937,646, reflecting a 6% increase over the decade. The northern part of the district is crossed by the Eastern Bengal railway line to Goalanda, the port for Brahmaputra steamers, with a branch running to Faridpur town. However, most trade is conducted via the river.


FARĪD UD-DĪN ‘ATTĀR, or Ferid Eddin-Athar (1119-1229), Persian poet and mystic, was born at Nishapur, 513 A.H. (1119 A.D.), and was put to death 627 A.H. (1229 A.D.), thus having reached the age of 110 years. The date of his death is, however, variously given between the years 1193 and 1235, although the majority of authorities support 1229; it is also probable that he was born later than 1119, but before 1150. His real name was Abu Ṭalib (or Abu Ḥamid) Mahommed ben Ibrahim, and Farīd ud-dīn was simply an honourable title equivalent to Pearl of Religion. He followed for a time his father’s profession of druggist or perfumer, and hence the name ‘Attar (one who sold ‘itr, otto of roses; hence, simply, dealer in drugs), which he afterwards employed as his poetical designation. According to the account of Dawlatshah, his interest in the great mystery of the higher life of man was awakened in the following way. One day a wandering fakir gazed sadly into his shop, and, when ordered to be gone, replied: “It is nothing for me to go; but I grieve for thee, O druggist, for how wilt thou be able to think of death, and leave all these goods of thine behind thee?” The word was in season; and Mahommed ben Ibrahim the druggist soon gave up his shop and began to study the mystic theosophy of the Sufis under Sheik Rukneddin. So thoroughly did he enter into the spirit of that religion that he was before long recognized as one of its principal representatives. He travelled extensively, visited Mecca, Egypt, Damascus and India, and on his return was invested with the Sufi mantle by Sheik Majd-ud-din of Bagdad. The greater portion of his life was spent in the town of Shadyakh, but he is not unfrequently named Nishapuri, after the city of his boyhood and youth. The story of his death is a strange one. Captured by a soldier of Jenghiz Khan, he was about to be sold for a thousand dirhems, when he advised his captor to keep him, as doubtless a larger offer would yet be made; but when the second bidder said he would give a bag of horse fodder for the old man, he asserted that he was worth no more, and had better be sold. The soldier, irritated at the loss of the first offer, immediately slew him. A noble tomb was erected over his grave, and the spot acquired a reputation for sanctity. Farīd was a voluminous writer, and left no fewer than 120,000 couplets of poetry, though in his later years he carried his asceticism so far as to deny himself the pleasures of poetical composition. His most famous work is the Mantiḳ uṭṭair, or language of birds, an allegorical poem containing a complete survey of the life and doctrine of the Sufis. It is extremely popular among Mahommedans both of the Sunnite and Shiite sects, and the manuscript copies are consequently very numerous. The birds, according to the poet, were tired of a republican constitution, and longed for a king. As the lapwing, having guided Solomon through the desert, best knew what a king should be, he was asked whom they should choose. The Simorg in the Caucasus, was his reply. But the way to the Caucasus was long and dangerous, and most of the birds excused themselves from the enterprise. A few, however, set out; but by the time they reached the great king’s court, their number was reduced to thirty. The thirty birds (sī morg), wing-weary and hunger-stricken, at length gained access to their chosen monarch the Simorg; but only to find that they strangely lost their identity in his presence—that they are he, and he is they. In such strange fashion does the poet image forth the search of the human soul after absorption into the divine.

FARĪD UD-DĪN ‘ATTĀR, or Ferid Eddin-Attar (1119-1229), Persian poet and mystic, was born in Nishapur in 513 A.H. (1119 CE) and died in 627 A.H. (1229 A.D.), thus reaching the age of 110 years. However, his date of death is variously stated between the years 1193 and 1235, although most sources agree on 1229; it’s also likely he was born later than 1119, but before 1150. His real name was Abu Ṭalib (or Abu Ḥamid) Mahommed ben Ibrahim, and Farīd ud-dīn was an honorable title meaning Pearl of Religion. He briefly followed his father’s profession as a druggist or perfumer, which led to the name ‘Attar (one who sold ‘itr, rose oil; thus, a dealer in drugs), later adopted as his poetic name. According to Dawlatshah’s account, his interest in the deeper mysteries of human life was sparked one day when a wandering fakir sadly looked into his shop. When told to leave, he replied: “It’s nothing for me to go; but I feel sorry for you, O druggist, for how will you think of death and leave all these goods behind?” The words resonated, and Mahommed ben Ibrahim soon closed his shop to study Sufi mysticism under Sheik Rukneddin. He engaged so deeply with that belief that he became one of its foremost representatives. He traveled widely, visiting Mecca, Egypt, Damascus, and India, and upon returning, he received the Sufi mantle from Sheik Majd-ud-din of Bagdad. He spent most of his life in Shadyakh but is frequently referred to as Nishapuri, after the city of his youth. The story of his death is quite unusual. Captured by a soldier of Jenghiz Khan, he was about to be sold for a thousand dirhems when he advised the soldier to keep him, suggesting that a better offer would come; however, when a second bidder offered only a bag of horse fodder for him, he declared he was worth no more and should be sold. Annoyed by the loss of the initial offer, the soldier immediately killed him. A grand tomb was built over his grave, which became a site of reverence. Farīd was a prolific writer, having left behind no fewer than 120,000 couplets of poetry, although in his later years he took his asceticism to the extent of denying himself the joy of writing poetry. His most renowned work is the Mantiḳ uṭṭair, or Language of Birds, an allegorical poem offering a comprehensive view of Sufi life and teachings. It is highly popular among Muslims of both Sunni and Shiite sects, resulting in numerous manuscript copies. In the poem, the birds, tired of a democracy, yearn for a king. They ask the lapwing, who guided Solomon through the desert, who they should choose. His answer is the Simorg in the Caucasus. However, the journey to the Caucasus is long and perilous, and most birds opt out. A few do set off, but by the time they reach the great king’s court, their number has dwindled to thirty. The thirty birds (sī morg), weary and starving, finally gain access to their chosen monarch, the Simorg, only to discover that they lose their individual identities in his presence—that they are him, and he is them. In this unique way, the poet depicts the human soul’s quest for unity with the divine.

The text of the Mantiḳ uṭṭair was published by Garcin de Tassy in 1857, a summary of its contents having already appeared as La Poésie philosophique et religieuse chez les Persans in 1856; this was succeeded by a complete translation in 1863. Among Farīd ud-dīn’s other works may be mentioned his Pandnāma (Book of Counsel), of which a translation by Silvestre de Sacy appeared in 1819; Bulbul Nama (Book of the Nightingale); Wasalet Nama (Book of Conjunctions); Khusru va Gul (The King and the Rose); and Tadhkiratu ‘l Awliyā (Memoirs of the Saints) (ed. R.A. Nicholson in 179 l’ersian Historical Texts). See Sir Gore Ouseley, Biographical Notices of Persian Poets (1846), p. 236; Von Hammer Purgstall, Geschichte der schönen Redekünste Persiens (Vienna, 1818), p. 140; the Oriental Collections, ii. (London, 1798), pp. 84, 124, containing translations of part of the Pandnāma; E.H. Palmer, Oriental Mysticism (1867); E.G. Browne, Literary History of Persia (1906).

The text of the Mantiḳ uṭṭair was published by Garcin de Tassy in 1857, with a summary of its contents having been released as La Poésie philosophique et religieuse chez les Persans in 1856; this was followed by a complete translation in 1863. Among Farīd ud-dīn’s other works are his Pandnāma (Book of Counsel), which was translated by Silvestre de Sacy in 1819; Bulbul Nama (Book of the Nightingale); Wasalet Nama (Book of Conjunctions); Khusru va Gul (The King and the Rose); and Tadhkiratu ‘l Awliyā (Memoirs of the Saints) (ed. R.A. Nicholson in 179 l’ersian Historical Texts). See Sir Gore Ouseley, Biographical Notices of Persian Poets (1846), p. 236; Von Hammer Purgstall, Geschichte der schönen Redekünste Persiens (Vienna, 1818), p. 140; the Oriental Collections, ii. (London, 1798), pp. 84, 124, which include translations of part of the Pandnāma; E.H. Palmer, Oriental Mysticism (1867); E.G. Browne, Literary History of Persia (1906).


FARINA, SALVATORE (1846-  ), Italian novelist, was born in Sardinia, and after studying law at Turin and Pavia devoted himself to a literary life at Milan. Farina has often been compared as a sentimental humorist with Dickens, and his style of writing has given him a special place in modern Italian fiction. His masterpiece is Il Signor Io (1880), a delightful portrait of an egoist; Don Chisciottino, Amore bendato, Capelli biondi, Oro nascosto, Il Tesoro di Donnina, Amore a cent’ occhi, Mio figlio, Il numero 13, are some of his other volumes.

FARINA, SALVATORE (1846-  ), Italian novelist, was born in Sardinia. After studying law at Turin and Pavia, he dedicated himself to a literary life in Milan. Farina has often been compared to Dickens as a sentimental humorist, and his writing style has earned him a unique spot in modern Italian fiction. His greatest work is Il Signor Io (1880), a charming portrayal of an egoist; other notable works include Don Chisciottino, Amore bendato, Capelli biondi, Oro nascosto, Il Tesoro di Donnina, Amore a cent’ occhi, Mio figlio, and Il numero 13.


FARINATO, PAOLO (1522-1606), Italian painter and architect, was a native of Verona. He is sometimes named Farinato degli Uberti, as he came from the ancient Florentine stock to which the Ghibelline leader Farinata degli Uberti, celebrated in Dante’s Commedia, belonged. He flourished at the same time that the art of Verona obtained its greatest lustre in the works of Paolo Cagliari (Paul Veronese), succeeded by other members of the Cagliari family, of whom most or all were outlived by Farinato. He was instructed by Niccolò Giolfino, and probably by Antonio Badile and Domenico del Riccio (Brusasorci). Proceeding to Venice, he formed his style partly on Titian and Giorgione, though he was never conspicuous as a colourist, and in form he learned more from the works of Giulio Romano. His nude figures show knowledge of the antique; he affected a bronzed tone in the complexions, harmonizing with the general gravity of his colour, which is more laudable in fresco than in oil-painting. Vasari praised his thronged compositions and merit of draughtsmanship. His works are to be found not only in Venice and principally in Verona, but also in Mantua, Padua and other towns belonging or adjacent to the Venetian territory. He was a prosperous and light-hearted man, and continually progressed in his art, passing from a comparatively dry manner into a larger and bolder one, with much attraction of drapery and of landscape. The “Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes,” painted in the church of S. Giorgio in Verona, is accounted his masterpiece; it was executed at the advanced age of seventy-nine, and is of course replete with figures, comprising those of the painter’s own family. A saloon was painted by him in S. Maria in Organo, in the same city, with the subjects of “Michael expelling Lucifer” and the “Massacre of the Innocents”; in Piacenza is a “St Sixtus”; in Berlin a “Presentation in the Temple”; and in the communal gallery of Verona one of his prime works, the “Marriage of St Catherine.” Farinato executed some sculptures, and various etchings of sacred and mythologic subjects; his works of all kinds were much in request, including the wax models which he wrought as studies for his painted figures. He is said to have died at the same hour as his wife. His son Orazio was also a painter of merit.

FARINATO, PAOLO (1522-1606), an Italian painter and architect, was from Verona. He’s sometimes referred to as Farinato degli Uberti because he descended from the ancient Florentine family linked to the Ghibelline leader Farinata degli Uberti, who is celebrated in Dante’s Commedia. He thrived when Verona's art was at its peak, particularly in the works of Paolo Cagliari (Paul Veronese), followed by other members of the Cagliari family, most of whom outlived Farinato. He was taught by Niccolò Giolfino and likely by Antonio Badile and Domenico del Riccio (Brusasorci). After moving to Venice, he developed his style influenced partly by Titian and Giorgione, though he was never noted for his use of color; rather, he learned more about form from Giulio Romano’s works. His nude figures reflect knowledge of ancient art; he favored a bronzed tone for skin tones that matched the overall seriousness of his color palette, which is more impressive in fresco than in oil painting. Vasari praised his crowded compositions and skill in drawing. His works can be found not just in Venice and mainly in Verona, but also in Mantua, Padua, and other towns in or near the Venetian territory. He was a successful and cheerful man, consistently advancing in his art from a more restrained style to a broader and bolder one, characterized by beautiful drapery and landscapes. The “Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes,” painted in the church of S. Giorgio in Verona, is considered his masterpiece; he created it at the age of seventy-nine, and it includes figures from his own family. He also painted a saloon in S. Maria in Organo in Verona with scenes of “Michael expelling Lucifer” and the “Massacre of the Innocents”; in Piacenza, there’s a “St Sixtus”; in Berlin, a “Presentation in the Temple”; and in the communal gallery of Verona is one of his key works, the “Marriage of St Catherine.” Farinato also created some sculptures and various etchings of sacred and mythological subjects; all types of his work were highly sought after, including the wax models he made as studies for his painted figures. He is said to have died at the same time as his wife. His son Orazio was also a talented painter.


FARINELLI (1705-1782), whose real name was Carlo Broschi, one of the most extraordinary singers that ever lived, was born on the 24th of January 1705, at Naples. He was the nephew of Cristiano Farinelli, the composer and violinist, whose name he took. Having been prepared for the career of a soprano, he soon acquired, under the instruction of N.A. Porpora, a voice of marvellous beauty, and became famous throughout southern Italy as il ragazzo (the boy). In 1722 he made his first appearance at Rome in his master’s Eumene, creating the greatest enthusiasm by surpassing a popular German trumpet-player, for whom Porpora had written an obligato to one of the boy’s songs, in holding and swelling a note of prodigious length, purity and power, and in the variations, roulades and trills which he introduced into the air. In 1724 he appeared at Vienna, and at Venice in the following year, returning to Naples shortly afterwards. He sang at Milan in 1726, and at Bologna in 1727, where he first met and acknowledged himself vanquished by the singer Antonio Bernacchi (b. 1700), to whose instruction he was much indebted. With ever-increasing success and fame Farinelli appeared in nearly all the great cities of Italy; and returned a third time to Vienna in 1731. He now modified his style, it is said on the advice of Charles VI., from mere bravura of the Porpora school to one of pathos and simplicity. He visited London in 1734, arriving in time to lend his powerful support to the faction which in opposition to Handel had set up a rival opera with Porpora as composer and Senesino as principal singer. But not even his aid could make the undertaking successful. His first appearance at the Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre was in Artaserse, much of the music of which was by his brother, Riccardo Broschi. His success was instantaneous, and the prince of Wales and the court loaded him with favours and presents. Having spent three years in England, Farinelli set out for Spain, staying a few months on the way in France, where he sang before Louis XV. In Spain, where he had only meant to stay a few months, he ended by passing nearly twenty-five years. His voice, employed by the queen to cure Philip V. of his melancholy madness, acquired for him an influence with that prince which gave him eventually the power, if not the name, of prime minister. This power he was wise and modest enough to use discreetly. For ten years, night after night, he had to sing to the king the same six songs, and never anything else. Under Ferdinand VI. he held a similar position, and was decorated (1750) with the cross of Calatrava. He utilized his ascendancy over this king by persuading him to establish an Italian opera. After the accession of Charles III. Farinelli retired with the fortune he had amassed to Bologna, and spent the remainder of his days there in melancholy splendour, dying on the 15th of July 1782. His voice was of large compass, possessing seven or eight notes more than those of ordinary singers, and was sonorous, equal and clear; he also possessed a great knowledge of music.

FARINELLI (1705-1782), whose real name was Carlo Broschi, one of the most extraordinary singers ever, was born on January 24, 1705, in Naples. He was the nephew of Cristiano Farinelli, the composer and violinist, after whom he took his name. Prepared for a career as a soprano, he quickly developed a voice of incredible beauty under the instruction of N.A. Porpora, becoming famous throughout southern Italy as il ragazzo (the boy). In 1722, he made his first appearance in Rome in his master’s Eumene, creating immense enthusiasm by outshining a popular German trumpet-player, for whom Porpora had written an obligato to one of Farinelli’s songs, with a note of extraordinary length, purity, and power, amped up by the variations, roulades, and trills he added. In 1724, he performed in Vienna, and the following year in Venice, returning to Naples shortly after. He sang in Milan in 1726 and Bologna in 1727, where he first met and admitted he was outdone by the singer Antonio Bernacchi (b. 1700), to whom he was deeply grateful for guidance. With growing success and fame, Farinelli performed in nearly all the major cities of Italy and returned to Vienna for the third time in 1731. He reportedly changed his style, following the advice of Charles VI, shifting from the flashy bravura of the Porpora school to one of emotion and simplicity. He visited London in 1734, arriving just in time to support the faction that opposed Handel by setting up a rival opera with Porpora as composer and Senesino as the lead. However, even with his help, the venture struggled. His debut at the Lincoln's Inn Fields theatre was in Artaserse, much of the music composed by his brother, Riccardo Broschi. He was an immediate hit, and the Prince of Wales and the court showered him with favors and gifts. After spending three years in England, Farinelli headed to Spain, stopping for a few months in France, where he performed for Louis XV. Although he initially planned to stay in Spain for only a few months, he ended up there for nearly twenty-five years. His voice, used by the queen to help cure Philip V. of his melancholic madness, gave him significant influence with that king, allowing him the power, if not the title, of prime minister. He wisely and modestly wielded this power discreetly. For ten years, he had to sing the same six songs to the king night after night, never anything else. Under Ferdinand VI, he held a similar role and was awarded (1750) the cross of Calatrava. He leveraged his influence with this king to convince him to establish an Italian opera. After Charles III ascended the throne, Farinelli retired to Bologna with the fortune he had amassed, living out his days in melancholic splendor, passing away on July 15, 1782. His voice had a wide range, with seven or eight notes more than the average singer, and was rich, even, and clear; he also had a deep understanding of music.


FARINGDON, properly Great Faringdon, a market town in the Abingdon parliamentary division of Berkshire, England, 17 m. W.S.W. of Oxford by road. Pop. (1901) 2900. It lies on the slope of a low range of hills which borders the valley of the Thames on the south. It is the terminus of a branch of the Great Western railway from Uffington. The church of All Saints is a large cruciform building with low central tower. Its period is mainly Transitional Norman and Early English, and though considerably altered by restoration it contains some good details, with many monuments and brasses. Faringdon House, close to the church, was built by Henry James Pye (1745-1813), poet laureate from 1790 to 1813, who also caused to be planted the conspicuous group of fir-trees on the hill east of the town called Faringdon Clump, or locally (like other similar groups) the Folly. The trade of Faringdon is agricultural.

FARINGDON, more commonly known as Great Faringdon, is a market town in the Abingdon parliamentary division of Berkshire, England, located 17 miles west-southwest of Oxford by road. The population in 1901 was 2,900. It sits on the slope of a low range of hills that borders the Thames valley to the south. Faringdon is the endpoint of a branch of the Great Western Railway that runs from Uffington. The church of All Saints is a large, cross-shaped building with a low central tower. The architectural style is primarily Transitional Norman and Early English. Although it has been significantly changed through restoration, it features some impressive details, along with various monuments and brasses. Close to the church stands Faringdon House, constructed by Henry James Pye (1745-1813), poet laureate from 1790 to 1813. He also had the notable group of fir trees planted on the hill east of the town, known as Faringdon Clump, or locally referred to (like other similar groves) as the Folly. The economy of Faringdon is primarily agricultural.


FARINI, LUIGI CARLO (1812-1866), Italian statesman and historian, was born at Russi, near Ravenna, on the 22nd of October 1812. After completing a brilliant university course at Bologna, which he interrupted to take part in the revolution of 1831 (see Carbonari), he practised as a physician at Russi and at Ravenna. He acquired a considerable reputation, but in 1843 his political opinions brought him under the suspicion of the police and caused his expulsion from the papal states. He resided successively in Florence and Paris, and travelled about Europe as private physician to Prince Jerome Bonaparte, but when Pius IX. was elected to the Holy See and began his reign with apparently Liberal and nationalist tendencies, Farini returned to Italy and was appointed secretary-general to G. Recchi, the minister of the interior (March 1848). But he held office for little more than a month, since like all the other Italian Liberals he disapproved of the pope’s change of front in refusing to allow his troops to fight against Austria, and resigned with the rest of the ministry on the 29th of April. Pius, wishing to counteract the effect of this policy, sent Farini to Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, to hand over the command of the papal contingent to him. Elected member of parliament for Faenza, he was again appointed secretary to the ministry of the interior in the Mamiani cabinet, and later director-general of the public health department. He resigned office on the proclamation of the republic after the flight of the pope to Gaeta in 1849, resumed it for a while when Pius returned to Rome with the protection 180 of French arms, but when a reactionary and priestly policy was instituted, he went into exile and took up his residence at Turin. There he became convinced that it was only through the House of Savoy that Italy could be liberated, and he expounded his views in Cavour’s paper Il Risorgimento, in La Frusta and Il Piemonte, of which latter he was at one time editor. He also wrote his chief historical work, Lo Stato Romano dal 1815 al 1850, in four volumes (Turin, 1850). In 1851 he was appointed minister of public instruction in the D’Azeglio cabinet, an office which he held till May 1852. As a member of the Sardinian parliament and as a journalist Farini was one of the staunchest supporters of Cavour (q.v.), and strongly favoured the proposal that Piedmont should participate in the Crimean War, if indeed he was not actually the first to suggest that policy (see G.B. Ercolani’s letter in E. Parri’s memoir of Farini). In 1856 and 1857 he published two letters to Mr Gladstone on Italian affairs, which created a sensation, while he continued to propagate his views in the Italian press. When on the outbreak of the war of 1859 Francis V., duke of Modena, was expelled and a provisional government set up, Farini was sent as Piedmontese commissioner to that city; but although recalled after the peace of Villafranca he was determined on the annexation of central Italy to Piedmont and remained behind, becoming a Modenese citizen and dictator of the state. He negotiated an alliance with Parma, Romagna and Tuscany, when other provisional governments had been established, and entrusted the task of organizing an army for this central Italian league to General Fanti (q.v.). Annexation to Piedmont having been voted by plébiscite and the opposition of Napoleon III. having been overcome, Farini returned to Turin, when the king conferred on him the order of the Annunziata and Cavour appointed him minister of the interior (June 1860), and subsequently viceroy of Naples; but he soon resigned on the score of ill-health. Cavour died in 1861, and the following year Farini succeeded Rattazzi as premier, in which office he endeavoured to carry out Cavour’s policy. Over-exertion, however, brought on softening of the brain, which compelled him to resign office on the 24th of March 1863, and ultimately resulted in his death on the 1st of August 1866. He was buried at Turin, but in 1878 his remains were removed to his native village of Russi.

FARINI, LUIGI CARLO (1812-1866), Italian politician and historian, was born in Russi, near Ravenna, on October 22, 1812. After completing an impressive university education at Bologna, which he paused to join the revolution of 1831 (see Carbonari), he worked as a doctor in Russi and Ravenna. He gained a significant reputation, but in 1843, his political views led to police suspicion and his expulsion from the papal states. He then lived in Florence and Paris, traveling across Europe as a private doctor to Prince Jerome Bonaparte. When Pius IX was elected to the Holy See and appeared to embrace Liberal and nationalist ideas, Farini returned to Italy and became secretary-general to G. Recchi, the minister of the interior (March 1848). However, he held that position for just over a month because, like many Italian Liberals, he disagreed with the pope’s decision not to allow his troops to fight against Austria, resigning along with the rest of the ministry on April 29. To counter this policy, Pius sent Farini to Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, to transfer command of the papal forces to him. Elected as a member of parliament for Faenza, he was later appointed secretary to the ministry of the interior in the Mamiani cabinet and became the director-general of the public health department. He resigned after the republic was declared following the pope's flight to Gaeta in 1849, briefly returned when Pius came back to Rome with French support, but went into exile in Turin when a reactionary and priestly policy was established. There, he became convinced that Italy could only be liberated through the House of Savoy, and he shared his views in Cavour’s paper Il Risorgimento, as well as in La Frusta and Il Piemonte, of which he was once the editor. He also wrote his main historical work, Lo Stato Romano dal 1815 al 1850, in four volumes (Turin, 1850). In 1851, he was appointed minister of public instruction in the D’Azeglio cabinet, a position he held until May 1852. As a member of the Sardinian parliament and a journalist, Farini was one of the strongest supporters of Cavour (q.v.) and was a strong advocate for Piedmont’s involvement in the Crimean War War, and may have even been the first to suggest this policy (see G.B. Ercolani’s letter in E. Parri’s memoir of Farini). In 1856 and 1857, he published two letters to Mr. Gladstone regarding Italian issues, which caused quite a stir, while he continued to promote his ideas in the Italian media. When the war broke out in 1859 and Francis V, duke of Modena, was expelled, setting up a provisional government, Farini was sent as a Piedmontese commissioner to that city. Although he was recalled after the peace of Villafranca, he was determined to annex central Italy to Piedmont and stayed behind, becoming a Modenese citizen and dictator of the state. He negotiated an alliance with Parma, Romagna, and Tuscany as other provisional governments were formed, and assigned General Fanti (q.v.) the task of organizing an army for this central Italian league. After the annexation to Piedmont was approved by plébiscite and Napoleon III's opposition was overcome, Farini returned to Turin, where the king awarded him the order of the Annunziata and Cavour appointed him minister of the interior (June 1860), and later viceroy of Naples, but he soon resigned due to health issues. Cavour passed away in 1861, and the next year, Farini replaced Rattazzi as premier, trying to carry out Cavour’s policies. However, overexertion led to brain deterioration, forcing him to resign on March 24, 1863, which ultimately contributed to his death on August 1, 1866. He was buried in Turin, but in 1878 his remains were moved to his hometown of Russi.

His son Domenico Farini had a distinguished political career and was at one time president of the chamber.

His son Domenico Farini had a notable political career and once served as the president of the chamber.

Bibliography.—Several letters from Farini to Mr Gladstone and Lord John Russell were reprinted in a Mémoire sur les affaires d’Italie (1859), and a collection of his political Correspondence was published under the title of Lettres sur les affaires d’Italie (Paris, 1860). His historical work was translated into English in part by Mr Gladstone and in part under his superintendence. See E. Parri, Luigi Carlo Farini (Rome, 1878); L. Carpi in Il Risorgimento Italiano, vol. iv. (Milan, 1888); and G. Finali’s article, “Il 27 Aprile 1859,” in the Nuova Antologia for the 16th of May 1903.

References.—Several letters from Farini to Mr. Gladstone and Lord John Russell were reprinted in a Mémoire sur les affaires d’Italie (1859), and a collection of his political correspondence was published under the title of Lettres sur les affaires d’Italie (Paris, 1860). His historical work was translated into English partly by Mr. Gladstone and partly under his supervision. See E. Parri, Luigi Carlo Farini (Rome, 1878); L. Carpi in Il Risorgimento Italiano, vol. iv. (Milan, 1888); and G. Finali’s article, “Il 27 Aprile 1859,” in the Nuova Antologia for May 16, 1903.

(L. V.*)

FARM, in the most generally used sense, a portion of land leased or held for the purpose of agriculture; hence “farming” is equivalent to the pursuit of agriculture, and “farmer” to an agriculturist. This meaning is comparatively modern. The origin of the word has perhaps been complicated by an Anglo-Saxon feorm, meaning provisions or food supply, and more particularly a payment of provisions for the sustenance of the king, the cyninges feorm. In Domesday this appears as a food rent: firma unius noctis or diei. According to the New English Dictionary there is no satisfactory Teutonic origin for the word. It has, however, been sometimes connected with a word which appears in the older forms of some Teutonic languages, meaning “life.” The present form “farm” certainly comes, through the French ferme, from the medieval Lat. firma (firmus, fixed), a fixed or certain payment in money or kind. The Anglo-Saxon feorm may be not an original Teutonic word but an early adaptation of the Latin. The feorm, originally a tax, seems, as the king “booked” his land, to have become a rent (see F.W. Maitland, Domesday Book and After, 1897, p. 236 ff., and J.H. Round, Feudal England, 1895, p. 109 ff.). The word firma is thus used of the composition paid by the sheriff in respect of the dues to be collected from the shire. From the use of the word for the fixed sum paid as rent for a portion of land leased for cultivation, “farm” was applied to the land itself, whether held on lease or otherwise, and always with the meaning of agricultural land. The aspect of the fixity of the sum paid leads to a secondary meaning, that of a certain sum paid by a taxable person, community, state, &c., in respect of the taxes or dues that will be imposed, or to such a sum paid as a rent by a contractor for the right of collecting such taxes. This method of indirect collection of the revenue by contractors instead of directly by the officials of the state is that known as “farming the taxes.” The system is best known through the publicani of Rome, who formed companies or syndicates to farm not only the indirect taxation of the state, but also other sources of the state revenues, such as mines, fisheries, &c. (see Publicani).

FARM, in the most commonly understood sense, is a piece of land leased or owned for agricultural purposes; thus, “farming” means engaging in agriculture, and “farmer” refers to someone who practices this. This definition is relatively modern. The origin of the word may have been complicated by the Anglo-Saxon feorm, which means provisions or a food supply, specifically a payment of provisions for the sustenance of the king, the cyninges feorm. In the Domesday Book, this appears as a food rent: firma unius noctis or diei. According to the New English Dictionary, there isn’t a clear Teutonic origin for the word. However, it has sometimes been linked to a term found in older forms of some Teutonic languages that means “life.” The current form “farm” certainly comes, through the French ferme, from the medieval Latin firma (firmus, fixed), which denotes a fixed or certain payment in money or kind. The Anglo-Saxon feorm might not be an original Teutonic word but an early adaptation of Latin. The feorm, originally a tax, seems to have transformed into a rent as the king “booked” his land (see F.W. Maitland, Domesday Book and After, 1897, p. 236 ff., and J.H. Round, Feudal England, 1895, p. 109 ff.). The word firma is thus used to refer to the payment made by the sheriff regarding the dues to be collected from the shire. From the use of the word to describe the fixed sum paid as rent for a piece of land leased for cultivation, “farm” came to refer to the land itself, whether leased or not, and always with the meaning of agricultural land. The aspect of the fixed amount paid leads to a secondary meaning, that of a specific sum paid by a taxable person, community, state, etc., in relation to taxes or dues that will be imposed, or such a sum paid as rent by a contractor for the right to collect those taxes. This method of indirectly collecting revenue through contractors instead of directly by state officials is known as “farming the taxes.” The system is best exemplified by the publicani of Rome, who formed companies or syndicates to farm not only the state’s indirect taxes but also other sources of state revenue, such as mines, fisheries, etc. (see Publicani).

In monarchical Europe, which grew out of the ruins of the Roman empire, the revenue was almost universally farmed, but the system was gradually narrowed down until only indirect taxes became the subject of farming. France from the 16th to the 18th centuries is the most interesting modern example. Owing to the hopeless condition of its revenues, the French government was continually in a state of anticipating its resources, and was thus entirely in the hands of financiers. In 1681 the indirect taxes were farmed collectively to a single company of forty capitalists (ferme générale), increased to sixty in 1755, and reduced to the original number in 1780. These farmers-general were appointed by the king for six years, and paid an annual fixed sum every year in advance. The taxes which they collected were the customs (douanes or traites), the gabelle or salt tax, local taxes or octrois (entrées, &c.), and various smaller taxes. They were under the management of a controller-general, who had a central office in Paris. The office of farmer-general was the object of keen competition, notwithstanding that the successful candidates had to share a considerable part of the profits of the post with ministers, courtiers, favourites, and even the sovereign, in the shape of gifts (croupes) and pensions. The rapacity of the farmers-general was proverbial, and the loss to the revenue by the system was great, while very considerable hardships were inflicted on the poorer contributors by the unscrupulous methods of collection practised by the underlings of the farmers. In addition, the unpopular nature of the taxes caused deep discontent, and the detestation in which the farmers-general were held culminated in the execution of thirty-two of them during the French Revolution and the sweeping away of the system.

In monarchical Europe, which emerged from the ruins of the Roman Empire, revenue was mostly collected through a farming system. However, this approach gradually became limited, focusing only on indirect taxes. France from the 16th to the 18th centuries is the most notable modern example. Due to the dire state of its finances, the French government was constantly anticipating its resources, leaving it completely dependent on financiers. In 1681, the indirect taxes were contracted out to a single company of forty capitalists (ferme générale), which was expanded to sixty in 1755 and then reduced back to the original number in 1780. These farmers-general were appointed by the king for six years and paid a fixed sum every year in advance. The taxes they collected included customs (douanes or traites), the gabelle or salt tax, local taxes or octrois (entrées, etc.), and various smaller taxes. They were overseen by a controller-general, who operated from a central office in Paris. The position of farmer-general sparked fierce competition, even though successful candidates had to share a significant portion of their profits with ministers, courtiers, favorites, and even the king, in the form of gifts (croupes) and pensions. The greed of the farmers-general was well known, and the losses to the revenue from this system were considerable, while many poorer taxpayers suffered due to the ruthless collection methods employed by the farmers' subordinates. Moreover, the unpopularity of these taxes led to widespread dissatisfaction, and the loathing of the farmers-general reached a peak during the French Revolution, culminating in the execution of thirty-two of them and the abolition of the system.


FARM BUILDINGS. The best laying out of a farm, and the construction of its buildings, are matters which, from the variety of needs and circumstances, involve practical considerations and expert knowledge, too detailed in their nature for more than a brief reference in this work. It may be said generally that the best aspect for farm buildings is S. or S.S.E., and with a view to easy disposal of drainage they should be built on a slight slope. The supply of water, whether it be provided from wells by engine or windmill power, by hydraulic rams or other means, is a prime consideration, and it should if possible be laid on at different suitable points or at any rate the central source of supply should be in the most accessible and convenient place as regards stables and cow-sheds. The buildings should be constructed on or within easy distance of the public road, in order to save the upkeep of private roads, and should be as near as possible to the centre of the farm. On mixed farms of ordinary size (200 to 500 acres) the building may be advantageously planned in one rectangular block, the stock-yards being placed in the centre separated by the cow-sheds, and surrounded by the cart-sheds, stables, stores and barn, cattle-boxes, piggeries and minor buildings. On farms of larger size and on dairy farms special needs must be taken into account, while in all cases the local methods of farming must influence the grouping and arrangement of the steading.

FARM STRUCTURES. The layout of a farm and the construction of its buildings are important matters that, due to the variety of needs and situations, require practical considerations and expert knowledge too detailed for more than a brief mention here. Generally, the best orientation for farm buildings is south or southeast, and they should be built on a slight slope to facilitate drainage. Access to water, whether sourced from wells powered by engines or windmills, hydraulic rams, or other methods, is a key factor. It should ideally be available at various suitable points, or at the very least, the main water source should be located in the most accessible and convenient area for stables and cow sheds. The buildings should be constructed close to or within easy reach of the public road to minimize the maintenance of private roads, and they should be as centrally located on the farm as possible. For mixed farms of average size (200 to 500 acres), the layout can be effectively organized in one rectangular block, with stockyards at the center separated by cow sheds, and surrounded by cart sheds, stables, storage areas, barns, cattle boxes, pig pens, and smaller buildings. On larger farms and dairy farms, specific needs must be taken into account, while in all cases, local farming methods should influence the grouping and arrangement of the buildings.

For a more detailed treatment of the subject reference may be made to the following works;—S. Taylor, Modern Homesteads, 181 a Treatise on the Designing of Farm Buildings (London, 1905); A.D. Clarke, Modern Farm Buildings (London, 1899); P. Roberts, The Farmstead, in the “Rural Science Series” (New York, 1900), and articles in the Standard Cyclopaedia of Agriculture, vol. 3, and in the Cyclopaedia of American Agriculture, vol. 1.

For a more detailed discussion on this topic, you can refer to the following works: S. Taylor, Modern Homesteads, 181 a Treatise on the Designing of Farm Buildings (London, 1905); A.D. Clarke, Modern Farm Buildings (London, 1899); P. Roberts, The Farmstead, in the “Rural Science Series” (New York, 1900), and articles in the Standard Cyclopaedia of Agriculture, vol. 3, and in the Cyclopaedia of American Agriculture, vol. 1.


FARMER, RICHARD (1735-1797), Shakespearian commentator, the son of a rich maltster, was born at Leicester on the 28th of August 1735. He was educated at the free grammar school of his native town, and at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He graduated in 1757 a senior optime; three years later he proceeded M.A. and became classical tutor, and in 1775 master of his college, in succession to William Richardson, the biographer of the English bishops. In the latter year also he was appointed vice-chancellor, and three years afterwards chief librarian of the university. In 1780 he was appointed to a prebendal stall in Lichfield, and two years later to one at Canterbury; but the second office he exchanged in 1788 for that of a canon residentiary of St Paul’s. Cambridge, where he usually resided, was indebted to him for improvements in lighting, paving and watching; but perhaps London and the nation have less reason to be grateful for his zealous advocacy of the custom of erecting monuments to departed worthies in St Paul’s. In 1765 he issued a prospectus for a history of the town of Leicester; but this work, based on materials collected by Thomas Staveley, he never even began; it was carried out by the learned printer John Nichols. In 1766 he published his famous Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare, in which he proved that the poet’s acquaintance with ancient and modern Continental literature was exclusively derived from translations, of which he copied even the blunders. “Shakespeare,” he said, “wanted not the stilts of language to raise him above all other men.” “He came out of nature’s hand, like Pallas out of Jove’s head, at full growth and mature.” “One might,” he said—by way of ridiculing the Shakespearian criticism of the day—“with equal wisdom, study the Talmud for an exposition of Tristram Shandy.” The essay fully justifies the author’s description of himself in the preface to the second edition: “I may consider myself as the pioneer of the commentators; I have removed a deal of learned rubbish, and pointed out to them Shakespeare’s track in the very pleasant paths of nature.” Farmer died at Cambridge on the 8th of September 1797. He was, it appears, twice offered a bishopric by Pitt, but declined the preferment. Farmer was immensely popular in his own college, and loved, it was said, above all other things, old port, old clothes and old books.

FARMER, RICHARD (1735-1797), Shakespeare commentator, was born in Leicester on August 28, 1735, to a wealthy maltster. He attended the free grammar school in his hometown and then went to Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He graduated in 1757 as a senior optime; three years later, he became an M.A. and was appointed classical tutor. In 1775, he succeeded William Richardson, the biographer of the English bishops, as master of his college. That same year, he was named vice-chancellor, and three years later, he became the chief librarian of the university. In 1780, he received a prebendal stall in Lichfield and two years later one at Canterbury; however, he exchanged the second position in 1788 for that of a canon residentiary at St Paul’s. Cambridge, where he mostly lived, benefited from his efforts to improve lighting, paving, and security; however, London and the nation may have less reason to thank him for his strong support of erecting monuments for notable individuals in St Paul’s. In 1765, he released a prospectus for a history of Leicester, but never started the project, which was completed by the learned printer John Nichols using materials collected by Thomas Staveley. In 1766, he published his famous Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare, where he argued that Shakespeare’s knowledge of ancient and modern Continental literature came exclusively from translations, which he even copied with their mistakes. “Shakespeare,” he asserted, “did not need the crutches of language to elevate him above all other men.” “He was born fully formed and mature, like Pallas out of Jove’s head.” “One might,” he said—mocking the Shakespearean criticism of his time—“as wisely study the Talmud to understand Tristram Shandy.” The essay effectively validates the author’s self-description in the preface to the second edition: “I see myself as the pioneer of the commentators; I have cleared away a lot of learned nonsense and highlighted Shakespeare’s path through the enjoyable terrains of nature.” Farmer passed away in Cambridge on September 8, 1797. He was reportedly offered a bishopric twice by Pitt but turned it down. Farmer was extremely popular in his college and was said to treasure, above all, old port, old clothes, and old books.


FARMERS’ MOVEMENT, in American political history, the general name for a movement between 1867 and 1896 remarkable for a radical socio-economic propaganda that came from what was considered the most conservative class of American society. In this movement there were three periods, popularly known as Granger, Alliance and Populist.

FARMERS' MOVEMENT, in American political history, the general name for a movement between 1867 and 1896 remarkable for a radical socio-economic campaign that emerged from what was viewed as the most conservative class of American society. This movement consisted of three periods, commonly referred to as Granger, Alliance, and Populist.

The Grange, or Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (the latter the official name of the national organization, while the former was the name of local chapters, including a supervisory National Grange at Washington), was a secret order founded in 1867 to advance the social needs and combat the economic backwardness of farm life. It grew remarkably in 1873-1874, and in the latter year attained a membership of perhaps 800,000. In the causes of its growth—much broader than those that issued in the financial crisis of 1873—a high tariff, railway freight-rates and other grievances were mingled with agricultural troubles like the fall of wheat prices and the increase of mortgages. The condition of the farmer seemed desperate. The original objects of the Grange were primarily educational, but these were soon overborne by an anti-middleman, co-operative movement. Grange agents bought everything from farm machinery to women’s dresses; hundreds of grain elevators and cotton and tobacco warehouses were bought, and even steamboat lines; mutual insurance companies were formed and joint-stock stores. Nor was co-operation limited to distributive processes; crop-reports were circulated, co-operative dairies multiplied, flour-mills were operated, and patents were purchased, that the Grange might manufacture farm machinery. The outcome in some states was ruin, and the name Grange became a reproach. Nevertheless these efforts in co-operation were exceedingly important both for the results obtained and for their wider significance. Nor could politics be excluded, though officially tabooed; for economics must be considered by social idealists, and economics everywhere ran into politics. Thus it was with the railway question. Railways had been extended into frontier states; there were heavy crops in sparsely settled regions where freight-rates were high, so that—given the existing distributive system—there were “over production” and waste; there was notorious stock manipulation and discrimination in rates; and the farmers regarded “absentee ownership” of railways by New York capitalists much as absentee ownership of land has been regarded in Ireland. The Grange officially disclaimed enmity to railways; but though the organization did not attack them, the Grangers—through political “farmers’ clubs” and the like—did. About 1867 began the efforts to establish regulation of the railways, as common-carriers, by the states. Such laws were known as “Granger laws,” and their general principles, soon endorsed (1876) by the Supreme Court of the United States, have become an important chapter in the laws of the land. In a declaration of principles in 1874 Grangers were declared to be “not enemies of railroads,” and their cause to stand for “no communism, no agrarianism.” To conservatives, however, co-operation seemed communism, and “Grange laws” agrarianism; and thus in 1873-1874 the growth of the movement aroused extraordinary interest and much uneasiness. In 1874 the order was reorganized, membership being limited to persons directly interested in the farmers’ cause (there had been a millionaire manufacturers’ Grange on Broadway), and after this there were constant quarrels in the order; moreover, in 1875 the National Grange largely lost control of the state Granges, which discredited the organization by their disastrous co-operation ventures. Thus by 1876 it had already ceased to be of national political importance. About 1880 a renascence began, particularly in the Middle States and New England; this revival was marked by a recurrence to the original social and educational objects. The national Grange and state Granges (in all, or nearly all, of the states) were still active in 1909, especially in the old cultural movement and in such economic movements—notably the improvement of highways—as most directly concern the farmers. The initiative and referendum, and other proposals of reform politics in the direction of a democratic advance, also enter in a measure into their propaganda.

The Grange, or Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (the official name of the national organization, while the former was the name of local chapters, including a supervisory National Grange in Washington), was a secret organization founded in 1867 to promote social needs and tackle the economic struggles of farm life. It experienced significant growth in 1873-1874, reaching a membership of around 800,000 in the latter year. Contributing to its growth—much broader than the factors that led to the financial crisis of 1873—were a high tariff, railway freight rates, and various grievances combined with agricultural issues like falling wheat prices and rising mortgages. The situation for farmers looked bleak. The original goals of the Grange were mainly educational, but these were quickly overshadowed by an anti-middleman, cooperative movement. Grange agents purchased everything from farm machinery to women's clothing; they acquired hundreds of grain elevators and warehouses for cotton and tobacco, and even steamboat lines; mutual insurance companies and cooperative stores were established. Cooperation wasn't just limited to distribution; crop reports were shared, cooperative dairies increased, flour mills were operated, and patents were acquired so the Grange could manufacture farm equipment. The outcome in some states was disastrous, and the name Grange became associated with failure. However, these cooperative efforts were crucial for both the results achieved and their broader implications. Politics couldn't be ignored, even though it was officially off-limits; social idealists had to consider economics, which often intersected with politics. This was evident in the railway issue. Railroads had expanded into frontier states, there were large harvests in sparsely populated areas where freight rates were high, leading to “overproduction” and waste due to the existing distribution system; there was also notable stock manipulation and rate discrimination, and farmers viewed the “absentee ownership” of railroads by New York capitalists similarly to how absentee land ownership was perceived in Ireland. The Grange publicly denied any hostility towards railroads; however, while the organization did not challenge them, Grangers—through political “farmers’ clubs” and similar groups—did. Efforts to establish state regulation of railroads as common carriers began around 1867. These laws became known as “Granger laws,” and their general principles, which were soon supported (in 1876) by the Supreme Court of the United States, have become an important part of the nation's legal framework. In a declaration of principles in 1874, Grangers stated they were “not enemies of railroads,” and their mission stood for “no communism, no agrarianism.” But to conservatives, cooperation seemed like communism, and “Grange laws” appeared as agrarianism. Consequently, the movement’s growth in 1873-1874 generated exceptional interest and considerable concern. In 1874, the organization was restructured, limiting membership to those directly interested in the farmers' cause (a Grange for millionaire manufacturers had existed on Broadway), leading to constant disputes within the order; moreover, in 1875, the National Grange largely lost control over the state Granges, which discredited the organization through their unsuccessful cooperative ventures. By 1876, it had already diminished in national political significance. Around 1880, a revival began, particularly in the Middle States and New England; this resurgence was characterized by a return to the original social and educational goals. The national Grange and state Granges were still active in 1909 (in almost all states), especially in cultural initiatives and economic movements—particularly in improving highways—that directly affected farmers. The initiative and referendum, along with other proposals for reform politics aimed at advancing democracy, also became part of their advocacy.

The Alliance carried the movement farther into economics. The “National Farmers’ Alliance and Industrial Union,” formed in 1889, embraced several originally independent organizations formed from 1873 onwards; it was largely confined to the South and was secret. The “National Farmers’ Alliance,” formed in 1880, went back similarly to 1877, was much smaller, Northern and non-secret. The “Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and Co-operative Union” (formed 1888, merged in the above “Southern” Alliance in 1890) was the second greatest organization. With these three were associated many others, state and national, including an annual, non-partisan, deliberative and advisory Farmers’ National Congress. The Alliance movement reached its greatest power about 1890, in which year twelve national farmers’ organizations were represented in conventions in St Louis, and the six leading ones alone probably had a membership of 5,000,000.1

The Partnership took the movement further into economics. The “National Farmers’ Alliance and Industrial Union,” established in 1889, brought together several originally independent organizations that had formed since 1873; it was mostly limited to the South and operated in secrecy. The “National Farmers’ Alliance,” created in 1880, dated back similarly to 1877, was much smaller, located in the North, and was not secretive. The “Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and Co-operative Union” (formed in 1888 and merged into the above “Southern” Alliance in 1890) was the second largest organization. Along with these three, many other state and national groups were involved, including an annual, non-partisan, deliberative, and advisory Farmers’ National Congress. The Alliance movement reached its peak around 1890, when twelve national farmers’ organizations were represented at conventions in St. Louis, with the six leading organizations likely having a combined membership of 5,000,000.1

As with the Grange, so in the ends and declarations of the whole later movement, concrete remedial legislation for agricultural or economic ills was mingled with principles of vague radical tendency and with lofty idealism.2 Among the principles 182 advocated about 1890, practically all the great organizations demanded the abolition of national banks, the free coinage of silver, a “sufficient” issue of government paper money, tariff revision, and a secret ballot (the last was soon realized); only less commonly demanded were an income tax, taxation of evidence of debt, and government loans on lands. All of these were principles of the two great Alliances (the Northern and the Southern), as were also pure food legislation, abolition of landholding by aliens, reclamation of unused or unearned land grants (to railways, e.g.), and either rigid federal regulation of railways and other means of communication or government ownership thereof. The “Southern” Alliance put in the forefront a “sub-treasury” scheme according to which cheap loans should be made by government from local sub-treasuries on non-perishable farm products (such as grain and cotton) stored in government warehouses; while the “Northern” Alliance demanded restriction of the liquor traffic and (for a short time) woman suffrage. Still other issues were a modification of the patent laws (e.g. to prevent the purchase of patents to stifle competition), postal currency exchange, the eight-hour day, inequitable taxation, the single-tax on land, “trusts,” educational qualification for suffrage, direct popular election of federal judges, of senators, and of the president, special-interest lobbying, &c.

As with the Grange, the later movement mixed specific laws meant to fix agricultural or economic problems with broader radical ideas and high-minded principles. Among the principles advocated around 1890, nearly all the major organizations called for the end of national banks, the free coinage of silver, a “sufficient” amount of government paper money, changes to tariffs, and a secret ballot (which was soon achieved); less frequently mentioned were an income tax, taxing debt evidence, and government loans on land. All of these were principles supported by both the Northern and Southern Alliances, along with pure food laws, ending land ownership by foreigners, reclaiming unused or unearned land grants (like those given to railroads), and either strict federal regulation of railroads and other communication methods or government ownership of them. The “Southern” Alliance prominently featured a “sub-treasury” plan for offering low-interest loans from local sub-treasuries based on non-perishable farm products (like grain and cotton) stored in government warehouses; meanwhile, the “Northern” Alliance pushed for restricting the liquor trade and, for a brief time, women's voting rights. Other issues included changes to patent laws (like preventing patent purchases that suppress competition), postal currency exchange, an eight-hour workday, unfair taxation, a single tax on land, “trusts,” educational requirements for voting, direct popular elections for federal judges, senators, and the president, and lobbying by special interest groups.

In 1889-1890 the political (non-partisan) movement developed astonishing strength; it captured the Republican stronghold of Kansas, brought the Democratic Party to vassalage in South Carolina, revolutionized legislatures even in conservative states like Massachusetts, and seemed likely completely to dominate the South and West. All its work in the South was accomplished within the old-party organizations, but in 1890 the demand became strong for an independent third party, for which various consolidations since 1887 had prepared the way, and by 1892 a large part of the strength of the farmers’ organizations, with that of various industrial and radical orders, was united in the People’s Party (perhaps more generally known as the Populist Party), which had its beginnings in Kansas in 1890, and received national organization in 1892. This party emphasized free silver, the income tax, eight-hour day, reclamation of land grants, government ownership of railways, telephones and telegraphs, popular election of federal senators, and the initiative and referendum. In the presidential election of 1892 it cast 1,041,021 votes (in a total of 12,036,089), and elected 22 presidential electors, the first chosen by any third party since 1856. In 1896 the People’s Party “fused” with the Democratic Party (q.v.) in the presidential campaign, and again in 1900; during this period, indeed, the greatest part of the People’s Party was reabsorbed into the two great parties from which its membership had originally been drawn;—in some northern states apparently largely into the Republican ranks, but mainly into the Democratic Party, to which it gave a powerful radical impulse.

In 1889-1890, the political (non-partisan) movement gained remarkable strength; it took over the Republican stronghold of Kansas, placed the Democratic Party under its influence in South Carolina, revolutionized legislatures even in conservative states like Massachusetts, and appeared poised to completely dominate the South and West. All its efforts in the South were carried out within the existing party structures, but by 1890, there was a strong push for an independent third party, which various consolidations since 1887 had paved the way for. By 1892, a significant portion of the farmers’ organizations, along with various industrial and radical groups, united to form the People’s Party (commonly known as the Populist Party), which started in Kansas in 1890 and gained national organization in 1892. This party advocated for free silver, an income tax, an eight-hour workday, the reclamation of land grants, government control of railways, telephones, and telegraphs, the popular election of federal senators, and the initiative and referendum. In the 1892 presidential election, it garnered 1,041,021 votes (out of a total of 12,036,089) and elected 22 presidential electors, the first chosen by any third party since 1856. In 1896, the People’s Party “fused” with the Democratic Party (q.v.) during the presidential campaign, and again in 1900; during this time, most of the People’s Party was absorbed back into the two major parties it had originated from—largely into the Republican ranks in some northern states, but mainly into the Democratic Party, to which it provided a significant radical boost.

The Farmers’ movement was much misunderstood, abused and ridiculed. It accomplished a vast amount of good. The movement—and especially the Grange, for on most important points the later movements only followed where it had led—contributed the initial impulse and prepared the way for the establishment of travelling and local rural libraries, reading courses, lyceums, farmers’ institutes (a steadily increasing influence) and rural free mail delivery (inaugurated experimentally in 1896 and adopted as part of the permanent postal system of the country in 1902); for agricultural exhibits and an improved agricultural press; for encouragement to and increased profit from the work of agricultural colleges, the establishment (1885) and great services of the United States Department of Agriculture,—in short, for an extraordinary lessening of rural isolation and betterment of the farmers’ opportunities; for the irrigation of the semi-arid West, adopted as a national policy in 1902, the pure-food laws of 1906, the interstate-commerce law of 1887, the railway-rate laws of 1903 and 1906, even the great Bureau of Commerce-and-Labor law of 1903, and the Anti-trust laws of 1903 and later. The Alliance and Populist movements were bottomed on the idea of “ethical gains through legislation.” In its local manifestations the whole movement was often marked by eccentric ideas, narrow prejudices and weaknesses in economic reasoning. It is not to be forgotten that owing to the movement of the frontier the United States has always been “at once a developed country and a primitive one. The same political questions have been put to a society advanced in some regions and undeveloped in others.... On specific political questions each economic area has reflected its peculiar interests” (Prof. F.J. Turner). That this idea must not, however, be over-emphasized, is admirably enforced by observing the great mass of farmer radicalism that has, since about 1896, become an accepted Democratic and Republican principle over the whole country. The Farmers’ movement was the beginning of widespread, effective protest against “the menace of privilege” in the United States.

The Farmers’ movement was widely misunderstood, mocked, and criticized. It achieved a lot of positive change. The movement—and especially the Grange, since most subsequent movements followed its lead—provided the initial momentum and laid the groundwork for the creation of traveling and local rural libraries, reading courses, lyceums, farmers’ institutes (which steadily increased in influence), and rural free mail delivery (experimentally launched in 1896 and officially added to the country's permanent postal system in 1902). It also supported agricultural exhibits and an improved agricultural press, boosted and profited agricultural colleges, established the United States Department of Agriculture in 1885, and played a significant role in reducing rural isolation and improving farmers’ opportunities. It advocated for the irrigation of the semi-arid West, adopted as a national policy in 1902, the pure-food laws of 1906, the interstate-commerce law of 1887, the railway-rate laws of 1903 and 1906, and even the Bureau of Commerce-and-Labor law of 1903, along with the Anti-trust laws of 1903 and later. The Alliance and Populist movements were based on the idea of achieving “ethical gains through legislation.” In its local forms, the movement was often characterized by eccentric ideas, narrow-mindedness, and weaknesses in economic reasoning. It’s important to remember that due to the westward expansion, the United States has always been “both a developed country and a primitive one. The same political issues have faced a society that is advanced in some areas and underdeveloped in others.... On specific political questions, each economic region has reflected its unique interests” (Prof. F.J. Turner). However, this idea should not be overstated, as seen in the large amount of farmer radicalism that has become an accepted principle within the Democratic and Republican parties across the country since around 1896. The Farmers’ movement marked the start of a widespread and effective protest against “the menace of privilege” in the United States.

American periodicals, especially in 1890-1892, are particularly informing on the growth of the movement; see F.M. Drew in Political Science Quarterly (1891), vi. p. 282; C.W. Pierson in Popular Science Monthly (1888), xxxii. pp. 199, 368; C.S. Walker and F.J. Foster in Annals of American Academy (1894); iv. p. 790; Senator W.A. Peffer in Cosmopolitan (1890), x. p. 694; and on agricultural discontent, Political Science Quarterly, iv. (1889), p. 433, by W.F. Mappin; v. (1890), p. 65, by J.P. Dunn; xi. (1896), pp. 433, 601, xii. (1897), p. 93, and xiv. (1899), p. 444, by C.F. Emerick; Prof. E.W. Bemis in Journal of Political Economy (1893), i. p. 193; A.H. Peters in Quarterly Journal of Economics (1890), iv. p. 18; C.W. Davis in Forum (1890), ix. pp. 231, 291, 348.

American magazines, especially from 1890 to 1892, provide valuable insights into the growth of the movement; see F.M. Drew in Political Science Quarterly (1891), vi. p. 282; C.W. Pierson in Popular Science Monthly (1888), xxxii. pp. 199, 368; C.S. Walker and F.J. Foster in Annals of American Academy (1894); iv. p. 790; Senator W.A. Peffer in Cosmopolitan (1890), x. p. 694; and on agricultural discontent, Political Science Quarterly, iv. (1889), p. 433, by W.F. Mappin; v. (1890), p. 65, by J.P. Dunn; xi. (1896), pp. 433, 601, xii. (1897), p. 93, and xiv. (1899), p. 444, by C.F. Emerick; Prof. E.W. Bemis in Journal of Political Economy (1893), i. p. 193; A.H. Peters in Quarterly Journal of Economics (1890), iv. p. 18; C.W. Davis in Forum (1890), ix. pp. 231, 291, 348.


1 Membership usually included males or females above 16 years of age.

1 Membership typically included individuals, regardless of gender, who were 16 years or older.

2 Thus, the “Southern” Alliance in 1890 (the chief platforms were the one at Ocala, Florida, and that of 1889 at St Louis, in conjunction with the Knights of Labor) declared its principles to be: “(1) To labour for the education of the agricultural classes in the science of economical government in a strictly non-partisan way, and to bring about a more perfect union of such classes. (2) To demand equal rights to all, and special privileges to none. (3) To endorse the motto: ‘In things essential, unity; in all things, charity.’ (4) To develop a better state, mentally, morally, socially and financially.... (6) To suppress personal, local, sectional and national prejudices.” For the Southern farmer a chief concrete evil was the pre-crop mortgages by which cotton farmers remained in debt to country merchants; in the North the farmer attacked a wide range of “capitalistic” legislation that hurt him, he believed, for the benefit of other classes—notably legislation sought by railways.

2 In 1890, the "Southern" Alliance (with major meetings in Ocala, Florida, and St. Louis in 1889 alongside the Knights of Labor) laid out its principles: “(1) To work towards educating agricultural workers about the principles of economic governance in a completely non-partisan manner and to promote a stronger unity among these workers. (2) To advocate for equal rights for everyone and no special privileges for anyone. (3) To support the motto: ‘In essential matters, unity; in all others, charity.’ (4) To foster a better state in terms of mental, moral, social, and financial well-being.... (6) To eliminate personal, local, sectional, and national biases.” For Southern farmers, a major concrete issue was the pre-crop mortgages that kept cotton farmers in debt to local merchants; meanwhile, Northern farmers were fighting against a variety of “capitalistic” laws that they felt benefited other classes at their expense, particularly those pushed by railways.


FARNABY (or Farnabie), THOMAS (c. 1575-1647), English grammarian, was the son of a London carpenter; his grandfather, it is said, had been mayor of Truro, his great-grandfather an Italian musician. Between 1590 and 1595 he appears successively as a student of Merton College, Oxford, a pupil in a Jesuit college in Spain, and a follower of Drake and Hawkins. After some military service in the Low Countries “he made shift,” says Wood, “to be set on shore in the western part of England; where, after some wandering to and fro under the name of Tho. Bainrafe, the anagram of his sirname, he settled at Martock, in Somersetshire, and taught the grammar school there for some time with success. After he had gotten some feathers at Martock, he took his flight to London,” and opened a school in Goldsmiths’ Rents, Cripplegate. From this school, which had as many as 300 pupils, there issued, says Wood, “more churchmen and statesmen than from any school taught by one man in England.” In the course of his London career “he was made master of arts of Cambridge, and soon after incorporated at Oxon.” Such was his success that he was enabled to buy an estate at Otford near Sevenoaks, Kent, to which he retired from London in 1636, still, however, carrying on his profession of schoolmaster. In course of time he added to his Otford estate and bought another near Horsham in Sussex. In politics he was a royalist; and, suspected of participation in the rising near Tunbridge, 1643, he was imprisoned in Ely House, Holborn. He died at Sevenoaks on the 12th of June 1647.

FARNABY (or Farnabie), THOMAS (c. 1575-1647), an English grammarian, was the son of a carpenter from London. His grandfather was reportedly the mayor of Truro, and his great-grandfather was an Italian musician. Between 1590 and 1595, he is recorded as a student at Merton College, Oxford, a student at a Jesuit college in Spain, and a follower of Drake and Hawkins. After some military service in the Low Countries, “he managed,” says Wood, “to be set ashore in the western part of England; where, after some wandering back and forth under the name of Tho. Bainrafe, an anagram of his surname, he settled in Martock, Somersetshire, and successfully taught the grammar school there for a while. Once he had gained some recognition in Martock, he moved to London,” and opened a school in Goldsmiths’ Rents, Cripplegate. From this school, which had as many as 300 students, Wood states, “more churchmen and statesmen emerged than from any school taught by one person in England.” During his time in London, “he received a Master of Arts degree from Cambridge and soon after was incorporated at Oxon.” His success allowed him to purchase an estate in Otford near Sevenoaks, Kent, where he retired from London in 1636, though he continued to work as a schoolmaster. Over time, he expanded his Otford estate and acquired another one near Horsham in Sussex. Politically, he was a royalist, and due to suspicions of his involvement in the uprising near Tunbridge in 1643, he was imprisoned in Ely House, Holborn. He died in Sevenoaks on June 12, 1647.

The details of his life were derived by Anthony à Wood from Francis, Farnaby’s son by a second marriage (see Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, iii. 213). His works chiefly consisted of annotated editions of Latin authors—Juvenal, Persius, Seneca, Martial, Lucan, Virgil, Ovid and Terence, which enjoyed extraordinary popularity. His Systema grammaticum was published in London in 1641. On the 6th of April 1632, Farnaby was presented with a royal patent granting him, for the space of twenty-one years, the sole right of printing and publishing certain of his works.

The details of his life were gathered by Anthony à Wood from Francis, Farnaby’s son from his second marriage (see Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, iii. 213). His works mainly included annotated editions of Latin authors—Juvenal, Persius, Seneca, Martial, Lucan, Virgil, Ovid, and Terence—which were extremely popular. His Systema grammaticum was published in London in 1641. On April 6, 1632, Farnaby was granted a royal patent that gave him the exclusive right to print and publish certain of his works for twenty-one years.


FARNBOROUGH, THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, Baron (1815-1886), English Constitutional historian, was born in London on the 8th of February 1815 and educated at Bedford grammar school. In 1831 he was nominated by Manners Sutton, speaker of the House of Commons, to the post of assistant librarian, so that his long connexion with parliament began in his youth. 183 He studied for the bar, and was called at the Middle Temple in 1838. In 1844 he published the first edition of his Treatise on the Law, Privilege, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. This work, which has passed through many editions, is not only an invaluable mine of information for the historical student, but it is known as the text-book of the law by which parliament governs its proceedings. In 1846 Erskine May was appointed examiner of petitions for private bills, and the following year taxing-master of the House of Commons. He published his Remarks to Facilitate Public Business in Parliament in 1849; a work On the Consolidation of Election Laws in 1850; and his Rules, Orders and Forms of the House of Commons was printed by command of the House in 1854. In 1856 he was appointed clerk assistant at the table of the House of Commons. He received the companionship of the Bath in 1860 for his parliamentary services, and became a knight commander in 1866. His important work, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III. (1760-1860), was published in 1861-1863, and it received frequent additions in subsequent editions. In 1871 Sir Erskine May was appointed clerk of the House of Commons. His Democracy in Europe: a History appeared in 1877, but it failed to take the same rank in critical esteem as his Constitutional History. He retired from the post of clerk to the House of Commons in April 1886, having for fifteen years discharged the onerous duties of the office with as much knowledge and energy as unfailing tact and courtesy. Shortly after his retirement from office he was raised to the peerage under the title of Baron Farnborough of Farnborough, in the county of Southampton, but he only survived to enjoy the dignity for a few days. He died in London on the 17th of May 1886, and as he left no issue the title became extinct.

Farnborough, Thomas Erskine May, Baron (1815-1886), English constitutional historian, was born in London on February 8, 1815, and educated at Bedford Grammar School. In 1831, he was nominated by Manners Sutton, Speaker of the House of Commons, to the position of assistant librarian, marking the beginning of his long connection with Parliament in his youth. 183 He studied for the bar and was called to the Middle Temple in 1838. In 1844, he published the first edition of his Treatise on the Law, Privilege, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. This work, which has gone through many editions, is not only an invaluable resource for historians but is also recognized as the textbook for the law governing Parliament's proceedings. In 1846, Erskine May was appointed examiner of petitions for private bills, and the following year he became the taxing-master of the House of Commons. He published his Remarks to Facilitate Public Business in Parliament in 1849; a work On the Consolidation of Election Laws in 1850; and his Rules, Orders and Forms of the House of Commons was printed by command of the House in 1854. In 1856, he was appointed clerk assistant at the table of the House of Commons. He received the companionship of the Bath in 1860 for his parliamentary services and became a knight commander in 1866. His significant work, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III. (1760-1860), was published between 1861 and 1863 and received frequent updates in later editions. In 1871, Sir Erskine May was appointed clerk of the House of Commons. His Democracy in Europe: a History came out in 1877, but it did not achieve the same critical acclaim as his Constitutional History. He retired from the role of clerk to the House of Commons in April 1886, after serving fifteen years and managing the duties of the office with considerable knowledge, energy, and unfailing tact and courtesy. Soon after his retirement, he was elevated to the peerage as Baron Farnborough of Farnborough, in the county of Southampton, but he only lived a few days to enjoy the honor. He died in London on May 17, 1886, and since he had no descendants, the title became extinct.


FARNBOROUGH, an urban district in the Basingstoke parliamentary division of Hampshire, England, 33 m. S.W. by W. from London, on the London & South Western and the South Eastern & Chatham railways. Pop. (1901) 11,500 (including 5070 military). The church of St Peter ranges from Early English to Perpendicular in style. St Michael’s Catholic memorial church, erected in 1887 by the ex-empress Eugénie, contains the remains of Napoleon III. and the prince imperial. An adjoining abbey is occupied by Benedictine fathers of the French congregation; the convent is a ladies’ boarding-school. Aldershot North Camp is within the parish.

Farnborough, is an urban district in the Basingstoke parliamentary division of Hampshire, England, located 33 miles southwest by west of London, on the London & South Western and the South Eastern & Chatham railways. Population (1901) was 11,500 (including 5,070 military personnel). The church of St Peter features styles ranging from Early English to Perpendicular. St Michael’s Catholic memorial church, built in 1887 by the former empress Eugénie, holds the remains of Napoleon III and the prince imperial. An adjacent abbey is home to Benedictine monks of the French congregation; the convent serves as a ladies’ boarding school. Aldershot North Camp is located within the parish.


FARNE ISLANDS [also Fearne, Fern, or The Staples], a group of rocky islands and reefs off the coast of Northumberland, England, included in that county. In 1901 they had only eleven inhabitants. They extend in a line of some 6 m. in a northeasterly direction from the coast, on which the nearest villages are Bamborough and North Sunderland. The Fairway, 1½ m. across, separates the largest island, Farne, or House, from the mainland. Farne is 16 acres in area, and has precipitous cliffs up to 80 ft. in height on the east, but the shore is otherwise low. The other principal islets are Staple, Brownsman, North and South Wamses, Longstone and Big Harcar. On Farne is a small ancient chapel, with a square tower near it built for purposes of defence in the 15th century. The chapel is believed to occupy the site of St Cuthbert’s hermitage, whither he retired from the priory on the neighbouring Holy Island or Lindisfarne. He was with difficulty persuaded to leave it on his elevation to the bishopric of Lindisfarne, and returned to it to die (687). Longstone rock, with its lighthouse, is famous as the scene of the bravery of Grace Darling in rescuing some of the survivors of the wreck of the “Forfarshire” (1838). The rocks abound in sea-birds, including eider duck.

FARNE ISLANDS [also Fearne, Fern, or The Essentials], a group of rocky islands and reefs off the coast of Northumberland, England, are part of that county. In 1901, they had just eleven residents. They stretch in a line of about 6 miles in a northeast direction from the coast, where the closest villages are Bamborough and North Sunderland. The Fairway, 1½ miles across, separates the largest island, Farne, or House, from the mainland. Farne covers 16 acres and has steep cliffs up to 80 feet tall on the east side, but the shore is otherwise low. The other main islets are Staple, Brownsman, North and South Wamses, Longstone, and Big Harcar. On Farne, there's a small ancient chapel with a square tower nearby that was built for defense in the 15th century. The chapel is thought to be on the site of St Cuthbert’s hermitage, where he withdrew from the priory on the nearby Holy Island or Lindisfarne. He was reluctantly persuaded to leave when he was made bishop of Lindisfarne, and he returned to it to die (687). Longstone rock, featuring its lighthouse, is famous for the bravery of Grace Darling in rescuing some of the survivors of the wreck of the “Forfarshire” (1838). The rocks are home to a variety of sea birds, including eider ducks.


FARNESE, the name of one of the most illustrious and powerful Italian families, which besides including eminent prelates, statesmen and warriors among its members, ruled the duchy of Parma for two centuries. The early history of the family is involved in obscurity, but they are first heard of as lords of Farneto or Farnese, a castle near the lake of Bolsena, and they played an important part as consuls and signori of Orvieto. They seem to have always been Guelphs, and in the civil broils of Orvieto they sided with the Monaldeschi faction against the Ghibelline Filippeschi. One Pietro Farnese commanded the papal armies under Paschal II. (1099-1118); another Pietro led the Florentines to victory against the Pisans in 1363. Ranuccio Farnese served Eugene IV. so well that the pope endowed him with large fiefs, and is reported to have said, “The Church is ours because Farnese has given it back to us.”

FARNESE, is the name of one of the most prominent and powerful Italian families, which, in addition to featuring distinguished clergy, politicians, and military leaders among its members, ruled the duchy of Parma for two centuries. The family's early history is somewhat unclear, but they first appear as lords of Farneto or Farnese, a castle near the lake of Bolsena, and they played a significant role as consuls and signori of Orvieto. They always seemed to be Guelphs, and during the civil conflicts in Orvieto, they aligned with the Monaldeschi faction against the Ghibelline Filippeschi. One Pietro Farnese led the papal armies under Paschal II. (1099-1118); another Pietro steered the Florentines to victory over the Pisans in 1363. Ranuccio Farnese served Eugene IV. so well that the pope granted him large estates and reportedly said, “The Church is ours because Farnese has given it back to us.”

The family derived further advantages at the time of Pope Alexander VI., who was the lover of the beautiful Giulia Farnese, known as Giulia Bella, and created her brother Alessandro a cardinal (1493). The latter was elected pope as Paul III. in 1534, and it is from that moment that the great importance of the family dates. An unblushing nepotist, he alienated immense fiefs belonging to the Holy See in favour of his natural children. Of these the most famous was Pierluigi Farnese (1503-1547), who served in the papal army in various campaigns, but also took part in the sack of Rome in 1527. On his father’s elevation to the papacy he was made captain-general of the Church, and received the duchy of Castro in the Maremma, besides Frascati, Nepi, Montalto and other fiefs. A shameless rake and a man of uncontrollable temper, his massacre of the people of Perugia after a rebellion in 1540 and the unspeakable outrage he committed on the bishop of Fano are typical of his character. In 1545 his father conferred on him the duchy of Parma and Piacenza, which likewise belonged to the Holy See, and his rule proved cruel and tyrannical. He deprived the nobles of their privileges, and forced them to dwell in the towns, but to some extent he improved the conditions of the lower classes. Pierluigi being an uncompromising opponent of the emperor Charles V., Don Ferrante Gonzaga, the imperial governor of Milan, was ever on the watch for a pretext to deprive him of Piacenza, which the emperor greatly coveted. When the duke proceeded to build a castle in that town in order to overawe its inhabitants, the nobles were furiously indignant, and a plot to murder him was organized by the marquis Anguissola and others with the support both of Gonzaga and of Andrea Doria (q.v.), Charles’s admiral, who wished to be revenged on Pierluigi for the part he had played in the Fiesco conspiracy (see Fiesco). The deed was done while the duke was superintending the building of the above-mentioned citadel, and his corpse was flung into the street (December 10th, 1547). Piacenza was thereupon occupied by the imperialists.

The family gained additional advantages during the time of Pope Alexander VI, who was the lover of the beautiful Giulia Farnese, known as Giulia Bella, and made her brother Alessandro a cardinal in 1493. Alessandro was later elected pope as Paul III in 1534, marking the beginning of the family's significant influence. As a blatant nepotist, he transferred vast lands belonging to the Holy See to his illegitimate children. The most well-known of these was Pierluigi Farnese (1503-1547), who served in the papal army during various campaigns and also participated in the sack of Rome in 1527. After his father became pope, he was appointed captain-general of the Church and received the duchy of Castro in the Maremma, as well as Frascati, Nepi, Montalto, and other estates. A shameless rake with a volatile temper, he massacred the people of Perugia after a rebellion in 1540 and committed unspeakable acts against the bishop of Fano, illustrating his character. In 1545, his father granted him the duchy of Parma and Piacenza, which also belonged to the Holy See, and his rule was marked by cruelty and tyranny. He stripped the nobles of their privileges and forced them to live in the towns, although he did improve conditions for the lower classes to some extent. As an unwavering opponent of Emperor Charles V, Don Ferrante Gonzaga, the imperial governor of Milan, was always looking for a reason to remove him from Piacenza, which the emperor greatly desired. When the duke began constructing a castle in the town to intimidate its residents, the nobles were outraged and plotted to assassinate him with the support of Gonzaga and Andrea Doria, Charles’s admiral, who wanted revenge on Pierluigi for his involvement in the Fiesco conspiracy. The assassination occurred while the duke was supervising the construction of the citadel, and his body was thrown into the street on December 10, 1547. Following this, Piacenza was occupied by imperial forces.

Pierluigi had several children, for all of whom Paul made generous provision. One of them, Alessandro (1520-1589), was created cardinal at the age of fourteen; he was a man of learning and artistic tastes, and lived with great splendour surrounded by scholars and artists, among whom were Annibal Caro, Paolo Giovio, Mons. Della Casa, Bembo, Vasari, &c. It was he who completed the magnificent Farnese palace in Rome. He displayed diplomatic ability on various missions to foreign courts, but failed to get elected to the papacy.

Pierluigi had several children, all of whom Paul generously supported. One of them, Alessandro (1520-1589), became a cardinal at just fourteen years old. He was well-educated and had a passion for the arts, living lavishly among scholars and artists, including Annibal Caro, Paolo Giovio, Mons. Della Casa, Bembo, Vasari, and others. He was the one who completed the magnificent Farnese palace in Rome. He showed diplomatic skill on various missions to foreign courts but was unsuccessful in being elected to the papacy.

Orazio, Pierluigi’s third son, was made duke of Castro when his father became duke of Parma, and married Diane, a natural daughter of Henry II. of France. Ottavio, the second son (1521-1586), married Margaret, the natural daughter of Charles V. and widow of Alessandro de’ Medici, at the age of fifteen, she being a year older; at first she disliked her youthful bridegroom, but when he returned wounded from the expedition to Algiers in 1541 her aversion was turned to affection (see Margaret of Austria). Ottavio had been made lord of Camerino in 1540, but he gave up that fief when his father became duke of Parma. When, on the murder of the latter in 1547, Piacenza was occupied by the imperialists, Paul determined to make an effort to regain the city; he set aside Ottavio’s claims to the succession of Parma, where he appointed a papal legate, giving him back Camerino in exchange, and then claimed Piacenza of the emperor, not for the Farnesi, but for the Church. But Ottavio would not be put off; he attempted to seize Parma by force, and having failed, entered into negotiations with Gonzaga. This unnatural rebellion on the part of one grandson, combined with the fact that it was supported by the other grandson, Cardinal Alessandro, hastened the pope’s death, which occurred on the 10th of November 1549. During the interregnum that followed Ottavio 184 again tried to induce the governor of Parma to give up the city to him, but met with no better success; however, on the election of Giovan Maria Ciocchi (Julius III.) the duchy was conferred on him (1551). This did not end his quarrel with the emperor, for Gonzaga refused to give up Piacenza and even threatened to occupy Parma, so that Ottavio was driven into the arms of France. Julius, who was anxious to be on good terms with Charles on account of the council of Trent which was then sitting, ordered Farnese to hand Parma over to the papal authorities once more, and on his refusal hurled censures and admonitions at his head, and deprived him of his Roman fiefs, while Charles did the same with regard to those in Lombardy. A French army came to protect Parma, war broke out, and Gonzaga at once laid siege to the city. But the duke came to an arrangement with his father-in-law, by which he regained Piacenza and his other fiefs. The rest of his life was spent quietly at home, where the moderation and wisdom of his rule won for him the affection of his people. At his death in 1586 he was succeeded by his son Alessandro Farnese (1545-1592), the famous general of Philip II. of Spain, who spent the whole of his reign in the Flemish wars.

Orazio, Pierluigi’s third son, became duke of Castro when his father became duke of Parma and married Diane, a legitimate daughter of Henry II of France. Ottavio, the second son (1521-1586), married Margaret, the natural daughter of Charles V and widow of Alessandro de’ Medici, when he was fifteen and she a year older. At first, she didn’t like her young husband, but her feelings changed to affection when he returned wounded from the expedition to Algiers in 1541 (see Margaret of Austria). Ottavio was made lord of Camerino in 1540, but he gave up that title when his father became duke of Parma. After the murder of the latter in 1547, Piacenza was seized by the imperialists, and Paul decided to try to take the city back; he set aside Ottavio’s claims to the succession of Parma, appointed a papal legate there, returned Camerino to Ottavio in exchange, and then claimed Piacenza from the emperor, not for the Farnesi, but for the Church. However, Ottavio wasn’t easily pushed aside; he tried to take Parma by force and, after failing, began negotiations with Gonzaga. This unnatural rebellion by one grandson, supported by the other grandson, Cardinal Alessandro, hastened the pope’s death on November 10, 1549. During the interregnum that followed, Ottavio again attempted to convince the governor of Parma to surrender the city to him, but he had no better luck. However, when Giovan Maria Ciocchi (Julius III) was elected, he was granted the duchy (1551). This did not resolve his conflict with the emperor, as Gonzaga refused to give up Piacenza and even threatened to take Parma, forcing Ottavio to seek support from France. Julius, eager to maintain good relations with Charles due to the ongoing council of Trent, ordered Farnese to return Parma to papal control again, and when he refused, he faced censures and warnings and lost his Roman fiefs, while Charles did the same regarding his lands in Lombardy. A French army came to defend Parma, war broke out, and Gonzaga immediately laid siege to the city. But the duke made a deal with his father-in-law, which allowed him to regain Piacenza and his other lands. The rest of his life was spent peacefully at home, where the moderation and wisdom of his rule earned him the love of his people. He died in 1586 and was succeeded by his son Alessandro Farnese (1545-1592), the famous general of Philip II of Spain, who spent his entire reign in the Flemish wars.

The first years of the reign of his son and successor Ranuccio I. (1569-1622), who had shown much spirit in a controversy with Pope Sixtus V., were uneventful, but in 1611 a conspiracy was formed against him by a group of discontented nobles supported by the dukes of Modena and Mantua. The plot was discovered and the conspirators were barbarously punished, many being tortured and put to death, and their estates confiscated. Ranuccio was a reserved and gloomy bigot; he instituted savage persecutions against supposed witches and heretics, and lived in perpetual terror of plots. His eldest son Alessandro being deaf and dumb, the succession devolved on his second son Odoardo (1612-1646), who fought on the French side in the war against Spain. His failure to pay the interest of the money borrowed in Rome, and the desire of Urban VIII. to obtain Castro for his relatives the Barberini (q.v.), resulted in a war between that pope and Odoardo. His son and successor Ranuccio II. (1630-1694) also had a war with the Holy See about Castro, which was eventually razed to the ground. His son Francesco Maria (1678-1727) suffered from the wars between Spain and Austria, the latter’s troops devastating his territory; but although this obliged him to levy some burdensome taxes, he was a good ruler and practised economy in his administration. Having no children, the succession devolved at his death on his brother Antonio (1679-1731), who was also childless. The powers had agreed that at the death of the latter the duchy should pass to Don Carlos of Bourbon, son of King Philip V. of Spain by Elisabetta Farnese (1692-1766), granddaughter of Ranuccio II. Antonio died in 1731, and with him the line of Farnese came to an end.

The early years of his son and successor Ranuccio I (1569-1622) were quite uneventful, though he had shown great spirit during a dispute with Pope Sixtus V. In 1611, a conspiracy against him emerged, led by a group of disgruntled nobles with support from the dukes of Modena and Mantua. The plot was uncovered, and the conspirators faced brutal punishment, with many tortured and executed, and their estates confiscated. Ranuccio was a secretive and somber bigot; he launched harsh persecutions against accused witches and heretics and lived in constant fear of plots against him. His eldest son Alessandro was deaf and mute, so the succession passed to his second son Odoardo (1612-1646), who fought for the French during the war against Spain. His failure to pay interest on money borrowed in Rome, along with Pope Urban VIII's desire to give Castro to his relatives the Barberini (q.v.), led to a war between the pope and Odoardo. His son and successor Ranuccio II (1630-1694) also engaged in a conflict with the Holy See over Castro, which was eventually destroyed. His son Francesco Maria (1678-1727) was affected by the wars between Spain and Austria, with Austrian troops ravaging his lands; although this forced him to impose some heavy taxes, he was a capable ruler and practiced economical administration. With no children, upon his death, the succession passed to his brother Antonio (1679-1731), who was also childless. The powers agreed that upon Antonio's death, the duchy would go to Don Carlos of Bourbon, son of King Philip V of Spain and Elisabetta Farnese (1692-1766), granddaughter of Ranuccio II. Antonio died in 1731, marking the end of the Farnese line.

The Palazzo Farnese in Rome, one of the finest specimens of Roman Renaissance architecture, was begun under Paul III., while he was cardinal, by Antonio da San Gallo, and completed by his nephew Cardinal Alessandro under the direction of Michelangelo (1526). It was inherited by Don Carlos, afterwards king of Naples and Spain, and most of the pictures were removed to Naples. It now contains the French embassy to the Italian court, as well as the French school of Rome.

The Palazzo Farnese in Rome, one of the finest examples of Roman Renaissance architecture, was started under Paul III, while he was a cardinal, by Antonio da San Gallo, and finished by his nephew Cardinal Alessandro under Michelangelo's direction in 1526. It was inherited by Don Carlos, who later became king of Naples and Spain, and most of the paintings were taken to Naples. It now houses the French embassy to the Italian court, as well as the French school of Rome.

Bibliography.—F. Odorici gives a detailed history of the family in P. Litta’s Famiglie celebri italiane, vol. x. (Milan, 1868), to which an elaborate bibliography is appended, including manuscript sources; a more recent bibliography is S. Lottici and G. Sitti, Bibliografia generale per la storia parmense (Parma, 1904); much information will be found in A. von Reumont’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. iii. (Berlin, 1868), and in F. Gregorovius’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Stuttgart, 1872).

References.—F. Odorici provides a detailed history of the family in P. Litta’s Famiglie celebri italiane, vol. x. (Milan, 1868), which includes a comprehensive bibliography with manuscript sources; a more recent bibliography is by S. Lottici and G. Sitti, Bibliografia generale per la storia parmense (Parma, 1904); additional information can be found in A. von Reumont’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. iii. (Berlin, 1868), and in F. Gregorovius’s Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Stuttgart, 1872).

(L. V.*)

FARNESE, ALEXANDER (1545-1592), duke of Parma, general, statesman and diplomatist, governor-general of the Netherlands under Philip II. of Spain, was born at Rome on the 27th of August 1545, and died at the abbey of St Waast, near Arras, on the 3rd of December 1592. He was the son of Ottavio Farnese, duke of Parma, and Margaret of Austria, natural daughter of Charles V. He accompanied his mother to Brussels when she was appointed governor of the Netherlands, and in 1565 his marriage with the princess Maria of Portugal was celebrated in Brussels with great splendour. Alexander Farnese had been brought up in Spain with his cousin, the ill-fated Don Carlos, and his uncle Don John of Austria, both of whom were about the same age as himself, and after his marriage he took up his residence at once at the court of Madrid. He fought with much personal distinction under the command of Don John in 1571 at the battle of Lepanto. It was seven years, however, before he had again an opportunity for the display of his great military talents. In the meantime the provinces of the Netherlands had revolted against the arbitrary and oppressive Spanish rule, and Don John of Austria, who had been sent as governor-general to restore order, had found himself helpless in face of the superior talent and personal influence of the prince of Orange, who had succeeded in uniting all the provinces in common resistance to the civil and religious tyranny of Philip. In the autumn of 1577 Farnese was sent to join Don John at the head of reinforcements, and it was mainly his prompt decision at a critical moment that won the battle of Gemblours (1578). Shortly afterwards Don John, whose health had broken down through disappointment and ill-health, died, and Farnese was appointed to take his place.

FARNESE, ALEXANDER (1545-1592), Duke of Parma, general, statesman, and diplomat, was the governor-general of the Netherlands under Philip II of Spain. He was born in Rome on August 27, 1545, and died at the Abbey of St. Waast, near Arras, on December 3, 1592. He was the son of Ottavio Farnese, Duke of Parma, and Margaret of Austria, the illegitimate daughter of Charles V. He accompanied his mother to Brussels when she became the governor of the Netherlands, and in 1565, his marriage to Princess Maria of Portugal was celebrated in Brussels with great pomp. Alexander Farnese was raised in Spain alongside his cousin, the tragic Don Carlos, and his uncle Don John of Austria, who were both around the same age as him. After his marriage, he immediately moved to the court of Madrid. He demonstrated great personal bravery under Don John's command at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. However, it wasn't until seven years later that he had another chance to showcase his exceptional military skills. During this time, the provinces of the Netherlands revolted against the harsh and oppressive Spanish rule, and Don John of Austria, sent as governor-general to restore order, found himself overwhelmed by the superior skills and influence of the Prince of Orange, who managed to unite all the provinces in a common fight against the civil and religious oppression of Philip. In the autumn of 1577, Farnese was dispatched to reinforce Don John, and it was primarily his quick thinking at a crucial moment that secured victory at the Battle of Gemblours (1578). Shortly after, Don John, worn down by disappointment and poor health, died, and Farnese was appointed to succeed him.

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the difficulties with which he found himself confronted, but he proved himself more than equal to the task. In military ability the prince of Parma was inferior to none of his contemporaries, as a skilful diplomatist he was the match even of his great antagonist William the Silent, and, like most of the leading statesmen of his day, was unscrupulous as to the means he employed so long as he achieved his ends. Perceiving that there were divisions and jealousies in the ranks of his opponents between Catholic and Protestant, Fleming and Walloon, he set to work by persuasion, address and bribery, to foment the growing discord, and bring back the Walloon provinces to the allegiance of the king. He was successful, and by the treaty of Arras, January 1579, he was able to secure the support of the “Malcontents,” as the Catholic nobles of the south were styled, to the royal cause. The reply to the treaty of Arras was the Union of Utrecht, concluded a few weeks later between the seven northern provinces, who abjured the sovereignty of King Philip and bound themselves to use all their resources to maintain their independence of Spanish rule.

It’s hard to overstate the challenges he faced, but he proved more than capable of handling them. In military skill, the prince of Parma was unmatched by any of his peers; as a skilled diplomat, he was even a worthy opponent to his major rival, William the Silent. Like many leading politicians of his time, he was ruthless in the methods he used as long as he reached his goals. Noticing the divisions and rivalries among his opponents—between Catholics and Protestants, Flemings and Walloons—he set out to exploit these tensions through persuasion, charm, and bribery to stir up discord and bring the Walloon provinces back under the king's control. He succeeded, and by the Treaty of Arras in January 1579, he secured the support of the “Malcontents,” the name given to the Catholic nobles in the south, for the royal cause. The response to the Treaty of Arras came with the Union of Utrecht, signed a few weeks later by the seven northern provinces, which rejected King Philip’s sovereignty and committed themselves to using all their resources to maintain their independence from Spanish rule.

Farnese, as soon as he had obtained a secure basis of operations in Hainaut and Artois, set himself in earnest to the task of reconquering Brabant and Flanders by force of arms. Town after town fell into his power. Tournai, Maastricht, Breda, Bruges and Ghent opened their gates, and finally he laid siege to the great seaport of Antwerp. The town was open to the sea, was strongly fortified, and was defended with resolute determination and courage by the citizens. They were led by the famous Philip de Marnix, lord of St Aldegonde, and had the assistance of an ingenious Italian engineer, by name Gianibelli. The siege began in 1584 and called forth all the resources of Farnese’s military genius. He cut off all access to Antwerp from the sea by constructing a bridge of boats across the Scheldt from Calloo to Oordam, in spite of the desperate efforts of the besieged to prevent its completion. At last, on the 15th of August 1585, Antwerp was compelled by famine to capitulate. Favourable conditions were granted, but all Protestants were required to leave the town within two years. With the fall of Antwerp, for Malines and Brussels were already in the hands of Farnese, the whole of the southern Netherlands was brought once more to recognize the authority of Philip. But Holland and Zeeland, whose geographical position made them unassailable except by water, were by the courage and skill of their hardy seafaring population, with the help of English auxiliaries sent by Queen Elizabeth, able to defy his further advance.

Farnese, once he established a solid base of operations in Hainaut and Artois, got serious about reclaiming Brabant and Flanders through military force. One by one, towns fell under his control. Tournai, Maastricht, Breda, Bruges, and Ghent opened their gates, and ultimately, he laid siege to the major port city of Antwerp. The town was exposed to the sea, heavily fortified, and fiercely defended by its citizens. They were led by the renowned Philip de Marnix, lord of St Aldegonde, along with the support of a clever Italian engineer named Gianibelli. The siege started in 1584 and demanded all of Farnese’s military ingenuity. He blocked all access to Antwerp from the sea by building a bridge of boats across the Scheldt from Calloo to Oordam, despite the desperate attempts of the defenders to stop its construction. Finally, on August 15, 1585, Antwerp was forced to surrender due to starvation. Favorable terms were offered, but all Protestants were ordered to leave the city within two years. With Antwerp's fall, and Malines and Brussels already under Farnese's control, the entire southern Netherlands was once again brought to recognize Philip's authority. However, Holland and Zeeland, whose geographical position made it nearly impossible to conquer except by sea, were able to resist further advances due to the bravery and skill of their tough seafaring population, aided by English forces sent by Queen Elizabeth.

In 1586 Alexander Farnese became duke of Parma by the death of his father. He applied for leave to visit his paternal territory, but Philip would not permit him. He could not replace him in the Netherlands; but while retaining him in his command at the head of a formidable army, the king would not give his sanction to his great general’s desire to use it for the reconquest 185 of the Northern Provinces. Never was there a better opportunity than the end of 1586 for an invading army to march through the country almost without opposition. The misgovernment and lack of high statesmanship of the earl of Leicester had caused faction to be rampant in the United Provinces; and on his return to England he left the country without organized forces or experienced generals to oppose an advance of a veteran army under the greatest commander of his time. But Philip’s whole thoughts and energies were already directed to the preparation of an Invincible Armada for the conquest of England, and Parma was ordered to collect an enormous flotilla of transports and to keep his army concentrated and trained for the projected invasion of the island realm of Queen Elizabeth. Thus the critical period passed by unused, and when the tempests had finally dispersed the defeated remnants of the Great Armada the Dutch had found a general, in the youthful Maurice of Nassau, worthy to be the rival in military genius even of Alexander of Parma. Moreover, the accession to the throne of France of Henry of Navarre had altogether altered the situation of affairs, and relieved the pressure upon the Dutch by creating a diversion, and placing Parma and his army between hostile forces. The ruinous expenditure upon the Great Armada had also depleted the Spanish treasury and Philip found himself virtually bankrupt. In 1590 the condition of the Spanish troops had become intolerable. Farnese could get no regular supplies of money from the king for the payment of the soldiery, and he had to pledge his own jewels to meet the demand. A mutiny broke out, but was suppressed. In the midst of these difficulties Parma received orders to abandon the task on which he had spent himself for so many years, and to raise the siege of Paris, which was blockaded by Henry IV. He left the Netherlands on the 3rd of August 1590 at the head of 15,000 troops. By brilliant generalship he outwitted Henry and succeeded in relieving Paris; but owing to lack of money and supplies he was compelled immediately to retreat to the Netherlands, abandoning on the march many stragglers and wounded, who were killed by the peasantry, and leaving all the positions he had taken to be recaptured by Henry.

In 1586, Alexander Farnese became the Duke of Parma after his father's death. He requested permission to visit his ancestral territory, but Philip denied it. He couldn't replace him in the Netherlands; while keeping him in command of a powerful army, the king would not endorse his general's wish to use it to reclaim the Northern Provinces. There was never a better chance than late 1586 for an invading army to move through the region with little resistance. The poor governance and lack of true leadership from the Earl of Leicester had led to widespread factionalism in the United Provinces. When he returned to England, he left the country defenseless and without experienced leaders to confront a seasoned army under one of the greatest commanders of that era. However, Philip was fully focused on preparing an Invincible Armada to conquer England, and he ordered Parma to assemble a massive fleet of transport ships, keeping his army well-trained for the planned invasion of Queen Elizabeth's realm. Thus, this critical moment was wasted, and by the time the storms had finally scattered the remnants of the Great Armada, the Dutch had found a capable leader in the young Maurice of Nassau, who could rival Alexander of Parma in military skill. Additionally, the rise of Henry of Navarre to the French throne changed the situation completely, easing pressure on the Dutch by creating a diversion and placing Parma and his army between hostile forces. The exorbitant expense of the Great Armada had also drained the Spanish treasury, leaving Philip nearly bankrupt. By 1590, the condition of the Spanish troops had become unbearable. Farnese could not get regular funds from the king to pay the soldiers, forcing him to pawn his own jewelry to meet the demand. A mutiny erupted but was quelled. Amid these challenges, Parma received orders to abandon the mission he'd devoted years to and to lift the siege of Paris, which was surrounded by Henry IV's forces. He left the Netherlands on August 3, 1590, leading 15,000 troops. Through brilliant strategy, he outmaneuvered Henry and managed to relieve Paris; however, due to a lack of money and supplies, he had to retreat back to the Netherlands immediately, leaving behind many stragglers and wounded who were killed by local peasants, and allowing all the positions he had captured to be reclaimed by Henry.

Again in 1591, in the very midst of a campaign against Maurice of Nassau, sorely against his will, the duke of Parma was obliged to give up the engrossing struggle and march to relieve Rouen. He was again successful in his object, but was wounded in the arm before Caudebec, and was finally compelled to withdraw his army with considerable losses through the privations the troops had to undergo. He himself was shattered in health by so many years of continuous campaigning and exposure, and by the cares and disappointments which had befallen him. He died at Arras on the 3rd of December 1592, in the forty-seventh year of his age. The feeling that his immense services had not won for him either the gratitude or confidence of his sovereign hastened his end. He was honoured by a splendid funeral at Brussels, but his body was interred at his own capital city of Parma. He left two sons, Ranuce, who succeeded him, and Edward, who was created a cardinal in 1591 by Pope Gregory XIV. His daughter Margaret married Vincent, duke of Mantua.

Again in 1591, right in the middle of a campaign against Maurice of Nassau, the Duke of Parma, against his will, had to abandon the intense struggle and head out to relieve Rouen. He was successful in this mission but was wounded in the arm before Caudebec and ultimately had to withdraw his army, suffering significant losses due to the hardships the troops endured. He himself was in poor health after so many years of constant campaigning and exposure, along with the worries and disappointments he faced. He died in Arras on December 3rd, 1592, at the age of forty-seven. The sense that his enormous efforts had not earned him either the gratitude or confidence of his sovereign hastened his demise. He received a grand funeral in Brussels, but his body was buried in his own capital city of Parma. He left behind two sons, Ranuce, who succeeded him, and Edward, who was made a cardinal in 1591 by Pope Gregory XIV. His daughter Margaret married Vincent, Duke of Mantua.

See L.P. Gachard, Correspondance d’Alexandre Farnese, Prince de Parme, gouverneur général des Pays-Bas, avec Philippe II, 1578-1579 (Brussels, 1850); Fra Pietro, Alessandro Farnese, duca di Parma (Rome, 1836).

See L.P. Gachard, Correspondence of Alexander Farnese, Prince of Parma, Governor General of the Netherlands, with Philip II, 1578-1579 (Brussels, 1850); Fra Pietro, Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma (Rome, 1836).


FARNESE, ELIZABETH (1692-1766), queen of Spain, born on the 25th of October 1692, was the only daughter of Odoardo II., prince of Parma. Her mother educated her in strict seclusion, but seclusion altogether failed to tame her imperious and ambitious temper. At the age of twenty-one (1714) she was married by proxy at Parma to Philip V. of Spain. The marriage was arranged by Cardinal Alberoni (q.v.), with the concurrence of the Princess des Ursins, the Camerara Mayor. On arriving at the borders of Spain, Elizabeth was met by the Princess des Ursins, but received her sternly, and, perhaps in accordance with a plan previously concerted with the king, at once ordered her to be removed from her presence and from Spain. Over the weak king Elizabeth quickly obtained complete influence. This influence was exerted altogether in support of the policy of Alberoni, one chief aim of which was to recover the ancient Italian possessions of Spain, and which actually resulted in the seizure of Sardinia and Sicily. So vigorously did she enter into this policy that, when the French forces advanced to the Pyrenees, she placed herself at the head of one division of the Spanish army. But Elizabeth’s ambition was grievously disappointed. The Triple Alliance thwarted her plans, and at length in 1720 the allies made the banishment of Alberoni a condition of peace. Sicily also had to be evacuated. And finally, all her entreaties failed to prevent the abdication of Philip, who in 1724 gave up the throne to his heir, and retired to the palace of La Granja. Seven months later, however, the death of the young king recalled him to the throne. During his later years, when he was nearly imbecile, she directed the whole policy of Spain so as to secure thrones in Italy for her sons. In 1736 she had the satisfaction of seeing her favourite scheme realized in the accession of her son Don Carlos (afterwards Charles III. of Spain) to the throne of the Two Sicilies and his recognition by the powers in the treaty of Vienna. Her second son, Philip, became duke of Parma. Elizabeth survived her husband twenty years, dying in 1766.

Farnese, Elizabeth (1692-1766), queen of Spain, born on October 25, 1692, was the only daughter of Odoardo II, prince of Parma. Her mother raised her in strict isolation, but this seclusion did not tame her strong-willed and ambitious nature. At the age of twenty-one (1714), she was married by proxy in Parma to Philip V of Spain. The marriage was arranged by Cardinal Alberoni (q.v.), with the agreement of the Princess des Ursins, the Camerara Mayor. Upon reaching the borders of Spain, Elizabeth was greeted by the Princess des Ursins but responded coldly and, possibly as part of a plan agreed upon with the king, immediately ordered her to be removed from her presence and from Spain. Elizabeth quickly gained complete control over the weak king. This influence was entirely in support of Alberoni's policy, which aimed to regain Spain's former Italian territories and resulted in the capture of Sardinia and Sicily. She engaged vigorously in this policy, even taking charge of one division of the Spanish army when French forces advanced to the Pyrenees. However, Elizabeth’s ambitions were severely frustrated. The Triple Alliance undermined her plans, and by 1720, the allies made Alberoni's banishment a condition for peace. Sicily also had to be evacuated. Ultimately, all her pleas could not stop Philip's abdication; he gave up the throne to his heir in 1724 and retreated to the palace of La Granja. Seven months later, however, the young king's death brought him back to the throne. During his later, nearly senile years, she controlled Spain's entire policy to secure thrones in Italy for her sons. In 1736, she saw her preferred plan come to fruition when her son Don Carlos (who later became Charles III of Spain) ascended to the throne of the Two Sicilies and was recognized by the powers in the treaty of Vienna. Her second son, Philip, became duke of Parma. Elizabeth outlived her husband by twenty years, passing away in 1766.

See Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire d’Espagne sous le règne de Philippe V, by the Marquis de St Philippe, translated by Maudave (Paris, 1756); Memoirs of Elizabeth Farnese (London, 1746); and E. Armstrong, Elizabeth Farnese, the Termagant of Spain (1892).

See Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire d’Espagne sous le règne de Philippe V, by the Marquis de St Philippe, translated by Maudave (Paris, 1756); Memoirs of Elizabeth Farnese (London, 1746); and E. Armstrong, Elizabeth Farnese, the Termagant of Spain (1892).


FARNHAM, a market town in the Guildford parliamentary division of Surrey, England, 37½ m. S.W. by W. from London by the London & South Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 6124. It lies on the left bank of the river Wey, on the southern slope of a hill rising about 700 ft. above the sea-level. The church of St Andrew is a spacious transitional Norman and Early English building, with later additions, and was formerly a chapel of ease to Waverley Abbey, of which a crypt and fragmentary remains, of Early English date, stand in the park attached to a modern residence of the same name. This was the earliest Cistercian house in England, founded in 1128 by William Gifford, bishop of Winchester. The Annales Waverlienses, published by Gale in his Scriptores and afterwards in the Record series of Chronicles, are believed to have suggested to Sir Walter Scott the name of his first novel. Farnham Castle, on a hill north of the town, the seat of the bishops of Winchester, was first built by Henry de Blois, bishop of Winchester, and brother of King Stephen; but it was razed by Henry III. It was rebuilt and garrisoned for Charles I. by Denham, from whom it was taken in 1642 by Sir W. Waller; and having been dismantled, it was restored by George Morley, bishop of Winchester (1662-1684). Farnham has a town hall and exchange in Italian style (1866), a grammar school of early foundation, and a school of science and art. It was formerly noted for its cloth manufacture. Hops of fine quality are grown in the vicinity. William Cobbett was born in the parish (1766), and is buried in the churchyard of St Andrew’s. The neighbouring mansion of Moor Park was the residence of Sir William Temple (d. 1699), and Swift worked here as his secretary. Hester Johnson, Swift’s “Stella,” was the daughter of Temple’s steward, whose cottage still stands. The town has grown in favour as a residential centre from the proximity of Aldershot Camp (3 m. N.E.).

Farnham, is a market town in the Guildford parliamentary division of Surrey, England, located 37½ miles southwest of London via the London & South Western railway. The population of the urban district was 6,124 as of 1901. It sits on the left bank of the River Wey, on the southern slope of a hill that rises about 700 feet above sea level. The Church of St Andrew is a spacious building that features a mix of Norman and Early English architectural styles, with later additions, and it was once a chapel of ease to Waverley Abbey, where remnants of an Early English crypt and other remains can still be found in the park attached to a modern residence of the same name. This was the first Cistercian monastery in England, founded in 1128 by William Gifford, the bishop of Winchester. The Annales Waverlienses, published by Gale in his Scriptores and later in the Record series of Chronicles, are thought to have inspired Sir Walter Scott to name his first novel. Farnham Castle, located on a hill north of the town, serves as the residence of the bishops of Winchester and was originally built by Henry de Blois, the bishop of Winchester and brother of King Stephen; it was destroyed by Henry III. It was later rebuilt and fortified for Charles I by Denham, but was seized in 1642 by Sir W. Waller. After being dismantled, it was restored by George Morley, the bishop of Winchester (1662-1684). Farnham features a town hall and exchange built in Italian style (1866), an established grammar school, and a school of science and art. The town was previously known for its cloth manufacturing. High-quality hops are cultivated in the area. William Cobbett was born in the parish in 1766 and is buried in the churchyard of St Andrew’s. The nearby Moor Park mansion was the home of Sir William Temple (d. 1699), and Jonathan Swift worked there as his secretary. Hester Johnson, known as Swift’s “Stella,” was the daughter of Temple’s steward, whose cottage still stands. The town has become more popular as a residential area due to its proximity to Aldershot Camp (3 miles northeast).

Though there is evidence of an early settlement in the neighbourhood, the town of Farnham (Ferneham) seems to have grown up round the castle of the bishops of Winchester, who possessed the manor at the Domesday Survey. Its position at the junction of the Pilgrim’s Way and the road from Southampton to London was important. In 1205 Farnham had bailiffs, and in 1207 it was definitely a mesne borough under the bishops of Winchester. In 1247 the bishop granted the first charter, giving, among other privileges, a fair on All Saints’ Day. The burgesses surrendered the proceeds of the borough court and other rights in 1365 in return for respite of the fee farm rent; these were recovered in 1405 and rent again paid. Bishop Waynflete is said to have confirmed the original charter in 1452, and in 1566 Bishop Horne 186 granted a new charter by which the burgesses elected 2 bailiffs and 12 burgesses annually and did service at their own courts every three weeks, the court leet being held twice a year. In resisting an attack made by the bishop in 1660 on their right of toll, the burgesses could only claim Farnham as a borough by prescription as their charters had been mislaid, but the charters were subsequently found, and after some litigation their rights were established. In the 18th century the corporation, a close body, declined, its duties being performed by the vestry, and in 1789 the one survivor resigned and handed over the town papers to the bishop. Farnham sent representatives to parliament in 1311 and 1460, on both occasions being practically the bishop’s pocket borough. In accordance with the grant of 1247 a fair was held on All Saints’ day and also on Holy Thursday; the former was afterwards held on All Souls’ Day. Farnham was early a market of importance, and in 1216 a royal grant changed the market day from Sunday to Thursday in each week. It was famous in the early 17th century for wheat and oats; hop-growing began in 1597.

Though there's evidence of an early settlement in the area, the town of Farnham (Ferneham) seems to have developed around the castle of the bishops of Winchester, who owned the manor at the time of the Domesday Survey. Its location at the junction of the Pilgrim’s Way and the road from Southampton to London was significant. By 1205, Farnham had bailiffs, and in 1207 it became officially recognized as a mesne borough under the bishops of Winchester. In 1247, the bishop granted the first charter, which included several privileges, such as a fair on All Saints’ Day. In 1365, the burgesses gave up the proceeds from the borough court and other rights in exchange for a break from the fee farm rent; these rights were regained in 1405 and rent was paid again. Bishop Waynflete reportedly confirmed the original charter in 1452, and in 1566, Bishop Horne 186 issued a new charter that allowed the burgesses to elect 2 bailiffs and 12 burgesses every year and to hold their own courts every three weeks, with the court leet meeting twice a year. When they faced an attack from the bishop in 1660 regarding their right to toll, the burgesses could only assert that Farnham was a borough by prescription since their charters had been misplaced. However, the charters were later found, and after some legal battles, their rights were confirmed. During the 18th century, the corporation, a closed group, declined, with its responsibilities taken over by the vestry. In 1789, the last remaining member resigned and handed over the town documents to the bishop. Farnham sent representatives to parliament in 1311 and 1460, both times essentially serving as the bishop’s pocket borough. Following the grant of 1247, a fair was held on All Saints’ Day and also on Holy Thursday; the former was later moved to All Souls’ Day. Farnham had already established itself as an important market, and in 1216, a royal grant changed the market day from Sunday to Thursday each week. It became well-known in the early 17th century for wheat and oats; hop-growing started in 1597.


FARNWORTH, an urban district in the Radcliffe-cum-Farnworth parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, on the Irwell, 3 m. S.E. of Bolton by the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 25,925. Cotton mills, iron foundries, brick and tile works, and collieries employ the large industrial population.

FARNWORTH, is an urban district in the Radcliffe-cum-Farnworth parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, situated on the Irwell, 3 miles southeast of Bolton, accessible via the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Population (1901) was 25,925. Cotton mills, iron foundries, brick and tile factories, and coal mines provide jobs for the large industrial workforce.


FARO, the capital of a district bearing the same name, in southern Portugal; at the terminus of the Lisbon-Faro railway, and on the Atlantic Ocean. Pop. (1900) 11,789. Faro is an episcopal see, with a Renaissance cathedral of great size, an ecclesiastical seminary, and a ruined castle surrounded by Moorish fortifications. Its broad but shallow harbour is protected on the south by the long island of Cães, and a number of sandy islets, which, being constantly enlarged by silt from the small river Fermoso, render the entrance of large vessels impossible. Fishing is an important industry, and fish, with wine, fruit, cork, baskets and sumach, are the principal articles of export. Little has been done to develop the mineral resources of the district, which include tin, lead, antimony and auriferous quartz. Faro was taken from the Moors by Alphonso III. of Portugal (1248-1279). It was sacked by the English in 1596, and nearly destroyed by an earthquake in 1755.

FARO, is the capital of a district with the same name, located in southern Portugal; it’s at the end of the Lisbon-Faro railway and right by the Atlantic Ocean. Population (1900) was 11,789. Faro is an episcopal see, featuring a large Renaissance cathedral, an ecclesiastical seminary, and a ruined castle surrounded by Moorish fortifications. Its wide but shallow harbor is protected to the south by the long island of Cães and several sandy islets, which are continually growing due to silt from the small river Fermoso, making it impossible for large vessels to enter. Fishing is a vital industry, and fish, along with wine, fruit, cork, baskets, and sumach, are the main exports. There has been little effort to develop the area’s mineral resources, which include tin, lead, antimony, and gold-bearing quartz. Faro was captured from the Moors by Alphonso III of Portugal (1248-1279). It was raided by the English in 1596 and almost destroyed by an earthquake in 1755.

The administrative district of Faro coincides with the ancient kingdom and province of Algarve (q.v.); pop. (1900) 255,191; area, 1937 sq. m.

The administrative district of Faro matches the historical kingdom and province of Algarve (q.v.); population (1900) 255,191; area, 1937 sq. m.


FARO (from Pharaoh, a picture of the Egyptian king appearing on a card of the old French pack), a game of cards, played with a full pack. Originally the pack was held in the dealer’s left hand, but nowadays very elaborate and expensive implements are used. The dealer places the pack, after shuffling and cutting, in a dealing-box face upwards, and the cards are taken from the top of the box in couples through a slit in the side. The exposed card on top is called soda, and the last card left in the box is in hoc. The implements include counters of various colours and values, a dealing-box, a case or frame manipulated by a “case-keeper,” upon which the cards already played are arranged in sight, a shuffling-board, and score-sheets for the players. Upon the table is the “lay-out,” a complete suit of spades, enamelled on green cloth, upon or near which to place the stakes. The dealer takes two cards from the box, placing the first one near it and the second close beside it. Each deal of two cards is called a turn, and there are twenty-five such, soda and hoc not counting. The players stake upon any card they please, or in such manner as to take in several cards, reducing the amount, but increasing the chances, of winning, as at roulette. The dealer, having waved the hand, after which no more bets may be made, deals the turn, and then proceeds to gather in the stakes won by him, and to pay those he has lost. The chances as between dealer and punters, or players, are equal, except that the banker wins half the money staked on the cards of a turn should they chance to be alike. Faro is played considerably in parts of the United States, whither it is said to have been taken from France, where it had a great vogue during the reign of Louis XIV. Owing to the dishonest methods of many gambling “clubs” the game is in disrepute.

FARO (from Pharaoh, an image of the Egyptian king found on a card from the old French deck), is a card game played with a full deck. Originally, the dealer held the deck in their left hand, but now, very fancy and expensive tools are used. After shuffling and cutting, the dealer places the deck face up in a dealing box, and the cards are drawn in pairs through a slit in the side. The top card shown is called soda, and the last card left in the box is in hoc. The equipment includes chips of different colors and values, a dealing box, a case or frame handled by a “case-keeper,” where the already played cards are displayed, a shuffling board, and score sheets for the players. On the table is the “lay-out,” a complete suit of spades, set on green cloth, where the bets are placed. The dealer takes two cards from the box, placing the first one nearby and the second one right next to it. Each deal of two cards is called a turn, totaling twenty-five of these, not counting soda and hoc. Players can bet on any card they like or in a way that covers several cards, lowering their stake but increasing their chances of winning, similar to roulette. After signaling with their hand, which means no more bets can be placed, the dealer deals the turn and then collects the bets they have won and pays out those they have lost. The odds between the dealer and players are equal, except that the banker wins half the money staked on the cards of a turn if they happen to match. Faro is played quite a bit in parts of the United States, where it is said to have been brought over from France, where it was very popular during the reign of Louis XIV. Due to the dishonest practices of many gambling “clubs,” the game has fallen into disrepute.


FARQUHAR, GEORGE (1677-1707), British dramatist, son of William Farquhar, a clergyman, was born in Londonderry, Ireland, in 1677. When he was seventeen he was entered as a sizar at Trinity College, Dublin, under the patronage of Dr Wiseman, bishop of Dromore. He did not long continue his studies, being, according to one account, expelled for a profane joke. Thomas Wilkes, however, states that the abrupt termination of his studies was due to the death of his patron. He became an actor on the Dublin stage, but in a fencing scene in Dryden’s Indian Emperor he forgot to exchange his sword for a foil, with results which narrowly escaped being fatal to a fellow-actor. After this accident he never appeared on the boards. He had met Robert Wilks, the famous comedian, in Dublin. Though he did not, as generally stated, go to London with Wilks, it was at his suggestion that he wrote his first play, Love and a Bottle, which was performed at Drury Lane, perhaps through Wilks’s interest, in 1698. He received from the earl of Orrery a lieutenancy in his regiment, then in Ireland, but in two letters of his dated from Holland in 1700 he says nothing of military service. His second comedy, The Constant Couple: or a Trip to the Jubilee (1699), ridiculing the preparations for the pilgrimage to Rome in the Jubilee year, met with an enthusiastic reception. Wilks as Sir Harry Wildair contributed substantially to its success. In 1701 Farquhar wrote a sequel, Sir Harry Wildair. Leigh Hunt says that Mrs Oldfield, like Wilks, played admirably well in it, but the original Lady Lurewell was Mrs Verbruggen. Mrs Oldfield is said to have been the “Penelope” of Farquhar’s letters. In 1702 Farquhar published a slight volume of miscellanies—Love and Business; in a Collection of Occasionary Verse and Epistolary Prose—containing, among other things, “A Discourse on Comedy in reference to the English Stage,” in which he defends the English neglect of the dramatic unities. “The rules of English comedy,” he says, “don’t lie in the compass of Aristotle or his followers, but in the pit, box and galleries.” In 1702 he borrowed from Fletcher’s Wild Goose Chase, The Inconstant, or the Way to win Him, in which he followed his original fairly closely except in the last act. In 1703 he married, in the expectation of a fortune, but found too late that he was deceived. It is said that he never reproached his wife, although the marriage increased his liabilities and the rest of his life was a constant struggle against poverty. His other plays are: The Stage Coach (1704), a one-act farce adapted from the French of Jean de la Chapelle in conjunction with Peter Motteux; The Twin Rivals (Drury Lane, 1702); The Recruiting Officer (Drury Lane, 1706); and The Beaux’ Stratagem (Haymarket, 1707). The Recruiting Officer was suggested to him by a recruiting expedition (1705) in Shropshire, and is dedicated to his “friends round the Wrekin.” The Beaux’ Stratagem, is the best o£ all his plays, and long kept the stage. Genest notes nineteen revivals up to 1828. Two embarrassed gentlemen travel in the country disguised as master and servant in the hope of mending their fortune. The play gives vivid pictures of the Lichfield inn with its rascally landlord, and of the domestic affairs of the Sullens. Archer, the supposed valet, whose adventurous spirit secures full play, was one of Garrick’s best parts.

FARQUHAR, GEORGE (1677-1707), British playwright, son of William Farquhar, a clergyman, was born in Londonderry, Ireland, in 1677. At seventeen, he enrolled as a sizar at Trinity College, Dublin, with the support of Dr. Wiseman, bishop of Dromore. He didn't continue his studies for long; according to one account, he was expelled for a profane joke. However, Thomas Wilkes argues that his studies ended abruptly due to the death of his patron. He became an actor on the Dublin stage but had an accident during a fencing scene in Dryden’s Indian Emperor, where he forgot to switch his sword for a foil, nearly causing a fatal injury to a fellow actor. After this incident, he never performed again. He met Robert Wilks, the renowned comedian, in Dublin. While he didn't travel to London with Wilks, it was at his suggestion that he wrote his first play, Love and a Bottle, which was performed at Drury Lane, likely thanks to Wilks's influence, in 1698. He received a lieutenancy in the Earl of Orrery's regiment in Ireland, but in two letters dated from Holland in 1700, he mentions nothing about military service. His second comedy, The Constant Couple: or a Trip to the Jubilee (1699), which satirized the preparations for the pilgrimage to Rome during the Jubilee year, was very well received. Wilks, as Sir Harry Wildair, played a significant role in its success. In 1701, Farquhar wrote a sequel, Sir Harry Wildair. Leigh Hunt noted that Mrs. Oldfield, like Wilks, performed exceptionally well in it, but the original Lady Lurewell was played by Mrs. Verbruggen. It’s said that Mrs. Oldfield was the “Penelope” of Farquhar’s letters. In 1702, Farquhar published a small volume of miscellaneous works—Love and Business; in a Collection of Occasionary Verse and Epistolary Prose—which included, among other content, “A Discourse on Comedy in reference to the English Stage,” where he defends the English disregard for dramatic unity. “The rules of English comedy,” he claims, “aren’t found within the works of Aristotle or his followers, but in the pit, box, and galleries.” In 1702, he borrowed from Fletcher’s Wild Goose Chase to create The Inconstant, or the Way to win Him, in which he followed the original quite closely, except for the final act. In 1703, he married, expecting a fortune, only to discover too late that he had been deceived. It’s said that he never blamed his wife, even though the marriage increased his debts, and the rest of his life was a constant fight against poverty. His other plays include: The Stage Coach (1704), a one-act farce adapted from the French of Jean de la Chapelle in collaboration with Peter Motteux; The Twin Rivals (Drury Lane, 1702); The Recruiting Officer (Drury Lane, 1706); and The Beaux’ Stratagem (Haymarket, 1707). The Recruiting Officer was inspired by a recruiting expedition (1705) in Shropshire, and is dedicated to his “friends round the Wrekin.” The Beaux’ Stratagem is considered his best play, and it remained popular for a long time. Genest notes nineteen revivals up to 1828. Two financially troubled gentlemen travel through the countryside disguised as master and servant in hopes of improving their fortunes. The play vividly depicts the Lichfield inn with its unscrupulous landlord and the domestic troubles of the Sullens. Archer, the supposed servant, whose adventurous nature lights up the play, was one of Garrick’s best roles.

Meanwhile one of his patrons, said to have been the duke of Ormond, had advised Farquhar to sell out of his regiment, and had promised to give him a captaincy in his own. Farquhar sold his commission, but the duke’s promise remained unfulfilled. Before he had finished the second act of The Beaux’ Stratagem he knew that he was stricken with a mortal illness, but it was necessary to persevere and to be “consumedly lively to the end.” He had received in advance £30 for the copyright from Lintot the bookseller. The play was staged on the 8th of March, and Farquhar lived to have his third night, and there was an extra benefit on the 29th of April, the day of his death. He left his two children to the care of his friend Wilks. Wilks obtained a benefit at the theatre for the dramatist’s widow, but he seems to have done little for the daughters. They were apprenticed to a mantua-maker, and one of them was, as late as 1764, in 187 receipt of a pension of £20 solicited for her by Edmund Chaloner, a patron of Farquhar. She was then described as a maidservant and possessed of sentiments “fitted to her humble situation.”

Meanwhile, one of his supporters, thought to be the Duke of Ormond, advised Farquhar to leave his regiment and promised to give him a captaincy in his own. Farquhar sold his commission, but the duke’s promise was never fulfilled. Before he finished the second act of The Beaux’ Stratagem, he realized he was suffering from a terminal illness, but he felt it was necessary to keep going and to be “remarkably lively to the end.” He had received £30 in advance for the copyright from Lintot the bookseller. The play premiered on March 8th, and Farquhar lived to see it for its third night, with an additional benefit performance on April 29th, the day he died. He left his two children in the care of his friend Wilks. Wilks organized a benefit at the theatre for the widow of the playwright, but he seems to have done little for the daughters. They were apprenticed to a dressmaker, and one of them was, as late as 1764, in 187 receipt of a £20 pension arranged for her by Edmund Chaloner, a supporter of Farquhar. She was then described as a maidservant and had feelings “appropriate to her modest situation.”

The plots of Farquhar’s comedies are ingenious in conception and skilfully conducted. He has no pretensions to the brilliance of Congreve, but his amusing dialogue arises naturally out of the situation, and its wit is never strained. Sergeant Kite in the Recruiting Officer, Scrub, Archer and Boniface in The Beaux’ Stratagem are distinct, original characters which had a great success on the boards, and the unexpected incidents and adventures in which they are mixed up are represented in an irresistibly comic manner by a man who thoroughly understood the resources of the stage. The spontaneity and verve with which his adventurous heroes are drawn have suggested that in his favourite type he was describing himself. His own disposition seems to have been most lovable, and he was apparently a much gayer person than the reader might be led to suppose from the “Portrait of Himself” quoted by Leigh Hunt. The code of morals followed by these characters is open to criticism, but they are human and genial in their roguery, and compare far from unfavourably with the cynical creations of contemporary drama. The advance which he made on his immediate predecessors in dramatic construction and in general moral tone is more striking when it is remembered that he died before he was thirty.

The plots of Farquhar’s comedies are clever and well-executed. He doesn't claim to be as brilliant as Congreve, but his funny dialogue flows naturally from the situations, and its humor never feels forced. Characters like Sergeant Kite in the Recruiting Officer, as well as Scrub, Archer, and Boniface in The Beaux’ Stratagem, are unique and original, achieving great success on stage, with unexpected incidents and adventures presented in a hilariously comic way by someone who truly understood the stage's potential. The spontaneity and energy with which his adventurous heroes are portrayed suggest that he was essentially describing himself through his favorite character type. He seems to have had a very lovable personality and was apparently much more cheerful than one might think based on the “Portrait of Himself” quoted by Leigh Hunt. The moral code these characters follow can be questioned, but they are relatable and charming in their mischief, standing in contrast to the cynical characters found in contemporary drama. The progress he made over his immediate predecessors in terms of dramatic structure and overall moral tone is even more impressive considering he died before turning thirty.

Farquhar’s dramatic works were published in 1728, 1742 and 1772, and by Thomas Wilkes with a biography in 1775. They were included in the Dramatic Works of Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh and Farquhar (1849), with biographical and critical notices, by Leigh Hunt. See also The Dramatic Works of George Farquhar, with Life and Notes, by A.C. Ewald (2 vols., 1892); The Best Plays of George Farquhar (Mermaid series, 1906), with biographical and critical introductions, by William Archer; The Beaux’ Stratagem, edited (1898) by H. Macaulay Fitzgibbon for “The Temple Dramatists”; and D. Schmid, “George Farquhar, sein Leben und seine Original-Dramen” (1904) in Wiener Beiträge zur engl. Philol.

Farquhar’s plays were published in 1728, 1742, and 1772, and by Thomas Wilkes with a biography in 1775. They were included in the Dramatic Works of Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh and Farquhar (1849), with biographical and critical notes by Leigh Hunt. Also, check out The Dramatic Works of George Farquhar, with Life and Notes, by A.C. Ewald (2 vols., 1892); The Best Plays of George Farquhar (Mermaid series, 1906), with biographical and critical introductions by William Archer; The Beaux’ Stratagem, edited (1898) by H. Macaulay Fitzgibbon for “The Temple Dramatists”; and D. Schmid, “George Farquhar, sein Leben und seine Original-Dramen” (1904) in Wiener Beiträge zur engl. Philol.


FARR, WILLIAM (1807-1883), English statistician, was born at Kenley, in Shropshire, on the 30th of November 1807. When nineteen he became the pupil of a doctor in Shrewsbury, also acting as dresser in the infirmary there. He then went to Paris to study medicine, but after two years returned to London, where, in 1832, he qualified as L.S.A. Next year he began to practise, but without very brilliant results, for five years later he definitely abandoned the exercise of his profession on accepting the post of compiler of abstracts in the registrar-general’s office. The commissioners for the 1841 census consulted him on several points, but did not in every case follow his advice. For the next two decennial censuses he acted as assistant-commissioner; for that of 1871 he was a commissioner, and he wrote the greater part of the reports of all. He had an ambition to become registrar-general; and when that post became vacant in 1879, he was so disappointed at the selection of Sir Brydges Henniker instead of himself, that he refused to stay any longer in the registrar’s office. He died of paralysis of the brain a year or two later, on the 14th of April 1883. A great part of Farr’s literary production is to be found in the papers which, from 1839 to 1880, he wrote for each annual report of the registrar-general on the cause of the year’s deaths in England. He was also the author of many papers on general statistics and on life-tables for insurance, some read before the Royal Statistical Society, of which he was president in 1871 and 1872, some contributed to the Lancet and other periodicals. A selection from his statistical writings was published in 1885 under the editorship of Mr Noël Humphreys.

FARR, WILLIAM (1807-1883), was an English statistician born in Kenley, Shropshire, on November 30, 1807. At nineteen, he became an apprentice to a doctor in Shrewsbury and also worked as a dresser at the local infirmary. He later moved to Paris to study medicine, but after two years, he returned to London, where he qualified as L.S.A. in 1832. The following year, he began practicing, but his results were not very impressive; five years later, he decided to stop practicing medicine and took a job compiling abstracts at the registrar-general’s office. The commissioners for the 1841 census consulted him on various issues, though they didn’t always follow his suggestions. For the next two decennial censuses, he served as an assistant commissioner; for the 1871 census, he was a commissioner, writing most of the reports. He aspired to become the registrar-general and was disappointed when Sir Brydges Henniker was chosen for the role in 1879, which led him to resign from the registrar’s office. He passed away from brain paralysis a year or two later, on April 14, 1883. A significant portion of Farr’s writings can be found in the annual reports he authored from 1839 to 1880 regarding the causes of deaths in England. He also wrote many papers on general statistics and life tables for insurance, some of which he presented to the Royal Statistical Society, where he served as president in 1871 and 1872, and he contributed to the Lancet and other journals. A selection of his statistical writings was published in 1885, edited by Mr. Noël Humphreys.


FARRAGUT, DAVID GLASGOW (1801-1870), first admiral of the United States navy, was the son of Major George Farragut, a Catalan by descent, a Minorquin by birth, who had emigrated to America in 1776, and, after the peace, had married a lady of Scottish family and settled near Knoxville, in Tennessee; there Farragut was born on the 5th of July 1801. At the early age of nine he entered the navy, under the protection of his name-father, Captain David Porter, with whom he served in the “Essex” during her cruise in the Atlantic in 1812, and afterwards in the Pacific, until her capture by the “Phoebe,” in Valparaiso Bay, on the 28th of March 1814. He afterwards served on board the “Washington” (74) carrying the broad pennant of Commodore Chauncey in the Mediterranean, and pursued his professional and other studies under the instruction of the chaplain, Charles Folsom, with whom he contracted a lifelong friendship. Folsom was appointed from the “Washington” as U.S. consul at Tunis, and obtained leave for his pupil to pay him a lengthened visit, during which he studied not only mathematics, but also French and Italian, and acquired a familiar knowledge of Arabic and Turkish. He is said to have had a great natural aptitude for languages and in after years to have spoken several fluently.

Farragut, David Glasgow (1801-1870), the first admiral of the United States Navy, was the son of Major George Farragut, who was of Catalan descent and born in Minorca. He emigrated to America in 1776 and, after the peace, married a woman from a Scottish family and settled near Knoxville, Tennessee, where Farragut was born on July 5, 1801. At the young age of nine, he joined the navy under the protection of his namesake, Captain David Porter. He served on the “Essex” during her Atlantic cruise in 1812 and later in the Pacific until her capture by the “Phoebe” in Valparaiso Bay on March 28, 1814. He then served on the “Washington” (74), flying the broad pennant of Commodore Chauncey in the Mediterranean, and pursued his professional and other studies under Chaplain Charles Folsom, with whom he formed a lifelong friendship. Folsom was later appointed U.S. consul in Tunis and arranged for Farragut to visit him for an extended period, during which he studied not only mathematics but also French and Italian, gaining a strong understanding of Arabic and Turkish. It is said that he had a natural talent for languages and later spoke several fluently.

After more than four years in the Mediterranean, Farragut returned to the States in November 1820. He then passed his examination, and in 1822 was appointed for service in what was called the “mosquito” fleet, against the pirates, who then infested the Caribbean Sea. The service was one of great exposure and privation; for two years and a half, Farragut wrote, he never owned a bed, but lay down to rest wherever he found the most comfortable berth. By the end of that time the joint action of the British and American navies had driven the pirates off the sea, and when they took to marauding on shore the Spanish governors did the rest. In 1825 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, whilst serving in the navy yard at Norfolk, where, with some breaks in sea-going ships, he continued till 1832; he then served for a commission on the coast of Brazil, and was again appointed to the yard at Norfolk.

After more than four years in the Mediterranean, Farragut returned to the United States in November 1820. He then passed his exams and, in 1822, was assigned to what was known as the “mosquito” fleet, which operated against the pirates that were then terrorizing the Caribbean Sea. The service involved a lot of hardship and exposure; for two and a half years, Farragut wrote, he never had a bed but would rest wherever he found the most comfortable spot. By the end of that period, the combined efforts of the British and American navies had driven the pirates from the seas, and when they started raiding on land, the Spanish governors took care of them. In 1825, he was promoted to lieutenant while working at the naval yard in Norfolk, where, with some breaks on seagoing ships, he stayed until 1832; he then served on a commission along the coast of Brazil and was again appointed to the yard in Norfolk.

It is needless to trace the ordinary routine of his service step by step. The officers of the U.S. navy have one great advantage which British officers are without; when on shore they are not necessarily parted from the service, but are employed in their several ranks in the different dockyards, escaping thus not only the private grievance and pecuniary difficulties of a very narrow half-pay, but also, what from a public point of view is much more important, the loss of professional aptitude, and of that skill which comes from unceasing practice. On the 8th of September 1841 Farragut was promoted to the rank of commander, and on the 14th of September 1855 to that of captain. At this time he was in charge of the navy yard, Mare Island, California, from which post he was recalled in 1858, and appointed to the “Brooklyn” frigate, the command of which he held for the next two years. When the war of secession broke out in 1861, he was “waiting orders” at Norfolk. By birth and marriage he was a Southerner, and the citizens of Norfolk counted on his throwing in his lot with them; but professional pride, and affection for the flag under which he had served for more than fifty years, held him true to his allegiance; he passionately rejected the proposals of his fellow-townsmen, and as it was more than hinted to him that his longer stay in Norfolk might be dangerous, he hastily quitted that place, and offered his services to the government at Washington. These were at once accepted; he was requested to sit on the Naval Retiring Board—a board then specially constituted for clearing the navy of unfit or disloyal officers—and a few months later was appointed to the command of the “Western Gulf Blockading Squadron,” with the rank of flag-officer, and ordered to proceed forthwith, in the “Hartford,” to the Gulf of Mexico, to collect such vessels as could be spared from the blockade, to proceed up the Mississippi, to reduce the defences which guarded the approaches to New Orleans, and to take and hold the city. All this Farragut executed to the letter, with a skill and caution that won for him the love of his followers, and with a dash and boldness that gained him the admiration of the public and the popular name of “Old Salamander.” The passage of the Mississippi was forced on the 24th of April 1862, and New Orleans surrendered on the 26th; this was immediately followed by the operations against Vicksburg, from which, however, Farragut was compelled to withdraw, having relearnt the old lesson that against heavy earthworks, crowning hills of sufficient height, a purely naval attack is unavailing; it was not till the following summer, and after a long siege, that Vicksburg surrendered to a land force under General Grant. During this time the service on the Mississippi continued both difficult and irksome; nor until the river was cleared could 188 Farragut seriously plan operations against Mobile, a port to which the fall of New Orleans had given increased importance. Even then he was long delayed by the want of monitors with which to oppose the ironclad vessels of the enemy. It was the end of July 1864 before he was joined by these monitors; and on the 5th of August, undismayed by the loss of his leading ship, the monitor “Tecumseh,” sunk by a torpedo, he forced the passage into the bay, destroyed or captured the enemy’s ships, including the ram “Tennessee” bearing Admiral Buchanan’s flag, and took possession of the forts. The town was not occupied till the following April, but with the loss of its harbour it ceased to have any political or strategical importance.

It’s unnecessary to go through the routine of his service step by step. U.S. Navy officers have a significant advantage that British officers lack; when they are on shore, they are not completely separated from service but are assigned to various ranks in different dockyards. This not only helps them avoid the personal grievances and financial difficulties of a limited half-pay but, more importantly, prevents them from losing their professional skills and the expertise that comes from constant practice. On September 8, 1841, Farragut was promoted to commander, and on September 14, 1855, he became captain. At that time, he was in charge of the navy yard at Mare Island, California, from which he was recalled in 1858 and assigned to the frigate “Brooklyn,” a command he held for the next two years. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, he was “waiting for orders” in Norfolk. Given his Southern roots and marriage, the citizens of Norfolk expected him to side with them; however, his professional pride and loyalty to the flag he had served under for more than fifty years kept him true to his allegiance. He passionately turned down his fellow townsmen’s proposals and, feeling that staying in Norfolk could be dangerous, quickly left and offered his services to the government in Washington. His offer was accepted right away; he was asked to sit on the Naval Retiring Board, a group set up to remove unfit or disloyal officers from the navy. A few months later, he was appointed to lead the “Western Gulf Blockading Squadron” with the rank of flag officer, instructed to immediately proceed on the “Hartford” to the Gulf of Mexico. His mission was to gather ships enough to ease the blockade, move up the Mississippi, reduce the defenses protecting New Orleans, and capture and hold the city. He accomplished all of this with a skill and caution that earned him the admiration and affection of his men, and with the boldness that brought him public praise and the nickname “Old Salamander.” The Mississippi passage was forced on April 24, 1862, and New Orleans surrendered on the 26th; this was quickly followed by attempts against Vicksburg. However, Farragut had to retreat after realizing that a purely naval attack was ineffective against heavy earthworks on high hills; Vicksburg wouldn’t surrender to a land force led by General Grant until the next summer, after a lengthy siege. During this time, service on the Mississippi remained both challenging and frustrating; it wasn't until the river was cleared that 188 Farragut could seriously plan operations against Mobile, a port that had gained more importance after New Orleans fell. Even then, he faced delays due to the lack of monitors to counter the enemy’s ironclad ships. It wasn’t until the end of July 1864 that he was joined by these monitors; on August 5, undeterred by the loss of his flagship, the monitor “Tecumseh,” which was sunk by a torpedo, he forced his way into the bay, destroying or capturing enemy ships, including the ram “Tennessee” with Admiral Buchanan’s flag, and took control of the forts. The town itself wasn’t occupied until the following April, but after losing its harbor, it lost all political and strategic importance.

With this Farragut’s active service came to an end; for though in September 1864 he was offered the command of the force intended for the reduction of Wilmington, the state of his health, after the labours and anxieties of the past three years, in a trying climate, compelled him to decline it and to ask to be recalled. He accordingly returned to New York in December, and was received with the wildest display of popular enthusiasm. It was then that the Government instituted the rank of vice-admiral, previously unknown in the American service. Farragut was promoted to it, and in July 1866 was further promoted to the rank of admiral. In 1867, with his flag flying in the “Franklin,” he visited Europe. The appointment was an honourable distinction without political or naval import: the “Franklin” was, to all intents, for the time being, a yacht at Farragut’s disposal; and her arrival in the different ports was the signal for international courtesies, entertainments and social gaiety. She returned to America in 1868, and Farragut retired into private life. Two years later, on the 14th of August 1870, he died at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

With this, Farragut’s active service came to an end; for although he was offered the command of the force aimed at capturing Wilmington in September 1864, his health, after three years of hard work and stress in a tough climate, forced him to decline and request to be relieved. He returned to New York in December and was met with an overwhelming show of public enthusiasm. It was then that the Government created the rank of vice-admiral, which had not previously existed in the American service. Farragut was promoted to that rank, and in July 1866, he was further promoted to admiral. In 1867, with his flag flying on the “Franklin,” he visited Europe. This appointment was an honorable distinction without political or naval significance: the “Franklin” was essentially a yacht at Farragut’s disposal for the time being, and her arrival at various ports was an occasion for international courtesies, celebrations, and social festivities. She returned to America in 1868, and Farragut retired to private life. Two years later, on August 14, 1870, he died in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Farragut was twice married, and left, by his second wife, a son, Loyall Farragut, who, in 1878, published a Life of his father “embodying his Journal and Letters.” Another Life (1892), by Captain A.T. Mahan, though shorter, has a greater value from the professional point of view, by reason of the critical appreciation of Farragut’s services.

Farragut was married twice and had a son with his second wife, Loyall Farragut, who published a Life of his father in 1878 that included his Journal and Letters. Another Life (1892), written by Captain A.T. Mahan, is shorter but holds more value from a professional perspective due to its critical analysis of Farragut’s contributions.

(J. K. L.)

FARRANT, RICHARD, composer of English church music, flourished during the 16th century. Very little is known about him. Fétis gives 1530 as the date of his birth, but on what authority does not appear. He became a gentleman of the Chapel Royal in the reign of Edward VI., but resigned his post in 1564 on being appointed master of the children of St George’s chapel, Windsor. In this capacity he presented a play before the queen at Shrovetide 1568, and again at Christmas of the same year, receiving on each occasion the sum of £6: 13: 4d. In November 1569 he was reinstated as gentleman of the Chapel Royal. It is stated by Hawkins (History of Music, vol. iii. 279) that Farrant was also one of the clerks and organists of St George’s chapel, Windsor, and that he retained these posts till his death. Many of his compositions are printed in the collections of Barnard and Boyce. Among the most admired of them are a service in G minor, and the anthems “Call to remembrance” and “Hide not thou thy face.” It is doubtful whether Farrant is entitled to the credit of the authorship of the beautiful anthem “Lord, for thy tender mercies’ sake.” No copy of the music under his name appeared in print till 1800, although it had been earlier attributed to him. Some writers have named John Hilton, and others Thomas Tallis, as the composer. From entries in the Old Check Book of the Chapel Royal (edited for the Camden Society by Dr Rimbault) it appears that Farrant died, not in 1585, as Hawkins states, but on the 30th of November 1580 or 1581.

FARRANT, RICHARD, was a composer of English church music who thrived in the 16th century. Not much is known about him. Fétis claims he was born in 1530, but the source of this information isn't clear. He became a gentleman of the Chapel Royal during Edward VI's reign but stepped down in 1564 when he was appointed master of the children at St George’s Chapel, Windsor. In this role, he performed a play for the queen during Shrovetide in 1568 and again at Christmas that same year, earning £6: 13: 4d each time. In November 1569, he was reinstated as a gentleman of the Chapel Royal. According to Hawkins (History of Music, vol. iii. 279), Farrant also served as one of the clerks and organists for St George’s Chapel, Windsor, and held these positions until his death. Many of his compositions are included in the collections of Barnard and Boyce. Among the most respected are a service in G minor, along with the anthems “Call to remembrance” and “Hide not thou thy face.” It's uncertain whether Farrant should be credited with the authorship of the lovely anthem “Lord, for thy tender mercies’ sake.” No printed music under his name came out until 1800, despite it being attributed to him earlier. Some authors have suggested John Hilton or even Thomas Tallis as the composer. Records in the Old Check Book of the Chapel Royal (edited for the Camden Society by Dr Rimbault) indicate that Farrant died not in 1585 as Hawkins asserts, but on either November 30, 1580, or 1581.


FARRAR, FREDERIC WILLIAM (1831-1903), English divine, was born on the 7th of August 1831, in the Fort of Bombay, where his father, afterwards vicar of Sidcup, Kent, was then a missionary. His early education was received in King William’s College, Castletown, Isle of Man, a school whose external surroundings are reproduced in his popular schoolboy tale, Eric; or, Little by Little. In 1847 he entered King’s College, London. Through the influence of F.D. Maurice he was led to the study of Coleridge, whose writings had a profound influence upon his faith and opinions. He proceeded to Trinity College, Cambridge, in October 1851, and in the following year took the degree of B.A. at the university of London. In 1854 he took his degree as fourth junior optime, and fourth in the first class of the classical tripos. In addition to other college prizes he gained the chancellor’s medal for the English prize poem on the search for Sir John Franklin in 1852, the Le Bas prize and the Norrisian prize. He was elected fellow of Trinity College in 1856.

FARRAR, FREDERIC WILLIAM (1831-1903), English priest, was born on August 7, 1831, in the Fort of Bombay, where his father, who later became the vicar of Sidcup, Kent, was then a missionary. He received his early education at King William’s College, Castletown, Isle of Man, a school whose surroundings are depicted in his well-known schoolboy story, Eric; or, Little by Little. In 1847, he joined King’s College, London. Thanks to the influence of F.D. Maurice, he was inspired to study Coleridge, whose writings deeply impacted his beliefs and views. He went on to Trinity College, Cambridge, in October 1851, and the following year earned his B.A. from the University of London. In 1854, he graduated as the fourth junior optime and ranked fourth in the first class of the classical tripos. Besides other college awards, he won the chancellor’s medal for the English prize poem on the search for Sir John Franklin in 1852, the Le Bas prize, and the Norrisian prize. He was elected a fellow of Trinity College in 1856.

On leaving the university Farrar became an assistant-master under G.E.L. Cotton at Marlborough College. In November 1855 he was appointed an assistant-master at Harrow, where he remained for fifteen years. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1864, university preacher in 1868, honorary chaplain to the queen in 1869 and Hulsean lecturer in 1870. In 1871 he was appointed headmaster of Marlborough College, and in the following year he became chaplain-in-ordinary to the queen. In 1876 he was appointed canon of Westminster and rector of St Margaret’s, Westminster. He took his D.D. degree in 1874, the first under the new regulations at Cambridge. Farrar began his literary labours with the publication of his schoolboy story Eric in 1858, succeeded in the following year by Julian Home and Lyrics of Life, and in 1862 by St Winifred’s; or the World of School. He had already published a work on The Origin of Language, and followed it up by a series of works on grammar and scholastic philology, including Chapters on Language (1865); Greek Grammar Rules (1865); Greek Syntax (1866); and Families of Speech (1869). He edited Essays on a Liberal Education in 1868; and published Seekers after God in the Sunday Library (1869). It was by his theological works, however, that Farrar attained his greatest popularity. His Hulsean lectures were published in 1870 under the title of The Witness of History to Christ. The Life of Christ, which was published in 1874, speedily passed through a great number of editions, and is still in much demand. It reveals considerable powers of imagination and eloquence, and was partly inspired by a personal knowledge of the sacred localities depicted. In 1877 appeared In the Days of My Youth, sermons preached in the chapel of Marlborough College; and during the same year his volume of sermons on Eternal Hope—in which he called in question the dogma of everlasting punishment—caused much controversy in religious circles and did much to mollify the harsh theology of an earlier age. There is little doubt that his boldness and liberality of thought barred his elevation to the episcopate. In 1879 appeared The Life and Works of St Paul, and this was succeeded in 1882 by The Early Days of Christianity. Then came in order of publication the following works: Everyday Christian Life; or, Sermons by the Way (1887); Lives of the Fathers (1888); Sketches of Church History (1889); Darkness and Dawn, a story of the Neronic persecution (1891); The Voice from Sinai (1892); The Life of Christ as Represented in Art (1894); a work on Daniel (1895); Gathering Clouds, a tale of the days of Chrysostom (1896); and The Bible, its Meaning and Supremacy (1896). Farrar was a copious contributor of articles to various magazines, encyclopaedias and theological commentaries. In 1883 he was made archdeacon of Westminster and rural dean; in 1885 he was appointed Bampton lecturer at Oxford, and took for his subject “The History of Interpretation.” He was appointed dean of Canterbury in 1895. From 1890 to 1895 he was chaplain to the speaker of the House of Commons, and in 1894 he was appointed deputy-clerk of the closet to Queen Victoria. He died at Canterbury on the 22nd of March 1903.

On leaving university, Farrar became an assistant master under G.E.L. Cotton at Marlborough College. In November 1855, he was appointed as an assistant master at Harrow, where he stayed for fifteen years. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1864, university preacher in 1868, honorary chaplain to the queen in 1869, and Hulsean lecturer in 1870. In 1871, he became the headmaster of Marlborough College, and the following year he was appointed chaplain-in-ordinary to the queen. In 1876, he became a canon of Westminster and rector of St Margaret’s, Westminster. He earned his D.D. degree in 1874, the first under the new regulations at Cambridge. Farrar began his literary career with the publication of his schoolboy story *Eric* in 1858, followed by *Julian Home* and *Lyrics of Life* the next year, and *St Winifred’s; or the World of School* in 1862. He had already published a work on *The Origin of Language*, which he followed with a series of texts on grammar and scholastic philology, including *Chapters on Language* (1865); *Greek Grammar Rules* (1865); *Greek Syntax* (1866); and *Families of Speech* (1869). He edited *Essays on a Liberal Education* in 1868 and published *Seekers after God* in the Sunday Library (1869). However, it was through his theological works that Farrar gained his greatest popularity. His Hulsean lectures were published in 1870 under the title *The Witness of History to Christ*. *The Life of Christ*, published in 1874, quickly went through many editions and is still in high demand. It showcases significant imagination and eloquence, partially inspired by his personal knowledge of the sacred locations depicted. In 1877, *In the Days of My Youth*, sermons preached in the chapel of Marlborough College, was released, and that same year, his volume of sermons *Eternal Hope*—which questioned the belief in everlasting punishment—sparked considerable controversy in religious circles and helped soften the rigid theology of an earlier era. There is little doubt that his boldness and liberal thinking hindered his rise to the episcopate. In 1879, *The Life and Works of St Paul* was published, followed in 1882 by *The Early Days of Christianity*. Next in line were: *Everyday Christian Life; or, Sermons by the Way* (1887); *Lives of the Fathers* (1888); *Sketches of Church History* (1889); *Darkness and Dawn*, a story of the Neronic persecution (1891); *The Voice from Sinai* (1892); *The Life of Christ as Represented in Art* (1894); a work on Daniel (1895); *Gathering Clouds*, a tale from the days of Chrysostom (1896); and *The Bible, its Meaning and Supremacy* (1896). Farrar contributed numerous articles to various magazines, encyclopedias, and theological commentaries. In 1883, he was made archdeacon of Westminster and rural dean; in 1885, he became the Bampton lecturer at Oxford, taking “The History of Interpretation” as his subject. He was appointed dean of Canterbury in 1895. From 1890 to 1895, he served as chaplain to the speaker of the House of Commons, and in 1894, he was named deputy-clerk of the closet to Queen Victoria. He died at Canterbury on March 22, 1903.

As a theologian Farrar occupied a position midway between the Evangelical party and the Broad Church; while as a somewhat rhetorical preacher and writer he exerted a commanding influence over wide circles of readers. He was an ardent temperance and social reformer, and was one of the founders of the institution known as the Anglican Brotherhood, a religious band with modern aims and objects.

As a theologian, Farrar held a position between the Evangelical group and the Broad Church. As a somewhat rhetorical preacher and writer, he had a significant impact on a large audience of readers. He was a passionate advocate for temperance and social reform, and he was one of the founders of the Anglican Brotherhood, a religious organization with contemporary goals and purposes.

See his Life, by his son R. Farrar (1904).

See his Life, by his son R. Farrar (1904).


FARREN, ELIZABETH (c. 1759-1829), English actress, was the daughter of George Farren, an actor. Her first London appearance was in 1777 as Miss Hardcastle in She Stoops to Conquer. Subsequent successes established her reputation 189 and she became the natural successor to Mrs Abington when the latter left Drury Lane in 1782. The parts of Hermione, Olivia, Portia and Juliet were in her repertory, but her Lady Betty Modish, Lady Townly, Lady Fanciful, Lady Teazle and similar parts were her favourites. In 1797 she married Edward, 12th earl of Derby (1752-1834).

FARREN, ELIZABETH (c. 1759-1829), was an English actress and the daughter of actor George Farren. She made her first appearance in London in 1777 as Miss Hardcastle in She Stoops to Conquer. Her subsequent successes solidified her reputation 189 and she became the natural successor to Mrs. Abington when the latter left Drury Lane in 1782. The roles she played included Hermione, Olivia, Portia, and Juliet, but her favorites were Lady Betty Modish, Lady Townly, Lady Fanciful, Lady Teazle, and similar characters. In 1797, she married Edward, the 12th Earl of Derby (1752-1834).


FARREN, WILLIAM (1786-1861), English actor, was born on the 13th of May 1786, the son of an actor (b. 1725) of the same name, who played leading rôles from 1784 to 1795 at Covent Garden. His first appearance on the stage was at Plymouth at the Theatre Royal, then under the management of his brother, in Love à la mode. His first London appearance was in 1818 at Covent Garden as Sir Peter Teazle, a part with which his name is always associated. He played at Covent Garden every winter until 1828, and began in 1824 a series of summer engagements at the Haymarket which also lasted some years. At these two theatres he played an immense variety of comedy characters. From 1828 until 1837 he was at Drury Lane, where he essayed a wider range, including Polonius and Caesar. He was again at Covent Garden for a few years, and next joined Benjamin Webster at the Haymarket, as stage-manager as well as actor. In 1843 at the close of his performance of the title-part in Mark Lemon’s Old Parr, he was stricken with paralysis on the stage. He was, however, able to reappear the following year, and he remained at the Haymarket ten years more, though his acting never again reached its former level. For a time he managed the Strand, and, 1850-1853, was lessee of the Olympic. During his later years he confined himself to old men parts, in which he was unrivalled. In 1855 he made his final appearance at the Haymarket, as Lord Ogleby in a scene from the Clandestine Marriage. He died in London on the 24th of September 1861. In 1825 he had married the actress Mrs Faucit, mother of Miss Helena Saville Faucit (Lady Martin), and he left two sons, Henry (1826-1860) and William (1825-1908), both actors. The former was the father of Ellen [Nellie] Farren (1848-1904), long famous for boy’s parts in Gaiety musical burlesques, in the days of Edward Terry and Fred Leslie. As Jack Sheppard, and in similar rôles, she had a unique position at the Gaiety, and was an unrivalled public favourite. From 1892 her health failed, and her retirement, coupled with Fred Leslie’s death, brought to an end the type of Gaiety burlesque associated with them.

FARREN, WILLIAM (1786-1861), English actor, was born on May 13, 1786, the son of an actor (b. 1725) with the same name, who played lead roles from 1784 to 1795 at Covent Garden. His first stage appearance was in Plymouth at the Theatre Royal, which was managed by his brother, in Love à la mode. He made his first London appearance in 1818 at Covent Garden as Sir Peter Teazle, a role that is closely associated with him. He performed at Covent Garden every winter until 1828 and started a series of summer engagements at the Haymarket in 1824 that lasted several years. At these two theatres, he played a wide variety of comedic characters. From 1828 to 1837, he was at Drury Lane, where he explored a broader range of roles, including Polonius and Caesar. He returned to Covent Garden for a few years before joining Benjamin Webster at the Haymarket, taking on the role of stage manager in addition to acting. In 1843, after finishing his performance in the title role of Mark Lemon's Old Parr, he suffered a stroke on stage. However, he was able to return the following year and continued at the Haymarket for another ten years, although his performances never regained their previous quality. For a time, he managed the Strand and from 1850 to 1853, was the lessee of the Olympic. In his later years, he focused on playing older men, a role in which he was unmatched. In 1855, he made his final appearance at the Haymarket, playing Lord Ogleby in a scene from The Clandestine Marriage. He passed away in London on September 24, 1861. In 1825, he married the actress Mrs. Faucit, who was the mother of Miss Helena Saville Faucit (Lady Martin), and he left behind two sons, Henry (1826-1860) and William (1825-1908), both of whom were actors. The former was the father of Ellen [Nellie] Farren (1848-1904), who was well-known for her boyish roles in Gaiety musical burlesques during the times of Edward Terry and Fred Leslie. As Jack Sheppard and in similar roles, she held a unique status at the Gaiety and was an unmatched public favorite. From 1892, her health declined, and her retirement, along with Fred Leslie's death, marked the end of the type of Gaiety burlesque associated with them.


FARRER, THOMAS HENRY FARRER, 1st Baron (1819-1899), English civil servant and statistician, was the son of Thomas Farrer, a solicitor in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Born in London on the 24th of June 1819, he was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated in 1840. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1844, but retired from practice in the course of a few years. He entered the public service in 1850 as secretary to the naval (renamed in 1853 the marine) department of the Board of Trade. In 1865 he was promoted to be one of the joint secretaries of the Board of Trade, and in 1867 became permanent secretary. His tenure of this office, which he held for upwards of twenty years, was marked by many reforms and an energetic administration. Not only was he an advanced Liberal in politics, but an uncompromising Free-trader of the strictest school. He was created a baronet for his services at the Board of Trade in 1883, and in 1886 he retired from office. During the same year he published a work entitled Free Trade versus Fair Trade, in which he dealt with an economic controversy then greatly agitating the public mind. He had already, in 1883, written a volume on The State in its Relation to Trade. In 1889 he was co-opted by the Progressives an alderman of the London County Council, of which he became vice-chairman in 1890. His efficiency and ability in this capacity were warmly recognized; but in the course of time divergencies arose between his personal views and those of many of his colleagues. The tendency towards socialistic legislation which became apparent was quite at variance with his principles of individual enterprise and responsibility. He consequently resigned his position. In 1893 he was raised to the peerage. From this time forward he devoted much of his energy and leisure to advocating his views at the Cobden Club, the Political Economy Club, on the platform, and in the public press. Especially were his efforts directed against the opinions of the Fair Trade League, and upon this and other controversies on economic questions he wrote able, clear, and uncompromising letters, which left no doubt that he still adhered to the doctrines of free trade as advocated by its earliest exponents. In 1898 he published his Studies in Currency. He died at Abinger Hall, Dorking, on the 11th of October 1899. He was succeeded in the title by his eldest son Thomas Cecil (b. 1859).

FARRER, THOMAS HENRY FARRER, 1st Baron (1819-1899), English civil servant and statistician, was the son of Thomas Farrer, a solicitor in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Born in London on June 24, 1819, he was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated in 1840. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1844 but stepped back from practice within a few years. He joined public service in 1850 as secretary to the naval (renamed in 1853 to marine) department of the Board of Trade. In 1865, he was promoted to one of the joint secretaries of the Board of Trade and became permanent secretary in 1867. His time in this role, which he held for over twenty years, was marked by numerous reforms and effective management. He was not only a progressive Liberal politically but also a strict advocate of Free Trade. He was made a baronet for his service at the Board of Trade in 1883 and retired from that position in 1886. That same year, he published a book titled Free Trade versus Fair Trade, addressing an economic debate that was heavily on people’s minds. He had already published a volume on The State in its Relation to Trade in 1883. In 1889, he was appointed as an alderman of the London County Council by the Progressives and became vice-chairman in 1890. His efficiency and skills in this role were widely acknowledged; however, over time, differences emerged between his personal beliefs and those of many colleagues. The shift towards socialist legislation was at odds with his values of individual enterprise and responsibility, leading him to resign. In 1893, he was granted a peerage. From then on, he invested much of his time and energy into promoting his views at the Cobden Club, the Political Economy Club, on public platforms, and in the media. He particularly focused his efforts against the Fair Trade League's opinions, and he wrote clear and compelling letters on this and other economic debates, firmly showing that he still supported the free trade principles advocated by its early proponents. In 1898, he published his Studies in Currency. He passed away at Abinger Hall, Dorking, on October 11, 1899. His eldest son Thomas Cecil (b. 1859) succeeded him in the title.


FARRIER, and FARRIERY (from Lat. ferrarius, a blacksmith, ferrum, iron). Farrier is the name given generally either to the professional shoer of horses or in a more extended sense to a practitioner of the veterinary art; and farriery is the term for his business. Primarily the art of farriery is identical with that of the blacksmith, in so far as he makes and fixes shoes on horses (see Horse-Shoes); he is liable in law for negligence, as one who holds himself out as skilled; and he has a lien on the animal for his expenses. William the Conqueror is supposed to have introduced horse-shoeing into England, and the art had an important place through the middle ages, the days of chivalry, and the later developments of equitation. In modern times it has been closely allied with the general progress in veterinary science, and in the knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the horse’s foot and hoof.

FARRIER, and FARRIERY (from Latin ferrarius, meaning blacksmith, ferrum, iron). A farrier is generally referred to as someone who professionally shoes horses or, more broadly, a practitioner of veterinary medicine; farriery refers to his work. Primarily, farriery is the same as blacksmithing because it involves making and fitting shoes on horses (see Horse-Shoes); a farrier is legally responsible for any negligence as someone who claims to be skilled in this area and has the right to keep the animal until he is paid for his services. It is believed that William the Conqueror brought horse-shoeing to England, and it played a significant role throughout the Middle Ages, during the age of chivalry, and in the later developments of horseback riding. In modern times, it has become closely connected with advances in veterinary science and a better understanding of the anatomy and physiology of a horse’s foot and hoof.

See Fisher, The Farrier (1893); Lungwitz, Text-Book of Horse-shoeing (Eng. trans., 1898).

See Fisher, The Farrier (1893); Lungwitz, Text-Book of Horse-shoeing (Eng. trans., 1898).


FARS (the name Farsistan is not used), one of the five mamlikats (great provinces) of Persia, extending along the northern shore of the Persian Gulf and bounded on the west by Arabistan, on the north by Isfahan and on the east by Kerman. It lies between 49° 30′ and 56° 10′ E. and 26° 20′ and 31° 45′ N. and has an area of nearly 60,000 sq. m. Fars is the same word as the Greek Persis, and, originally the name of only a part of the Persian empire (Iran), has become the name which Europeans have applied to the whole (see Persis). The province is popularly, but not for administrative purposes, divided according to climate into germsīr and sardsīr, or the warm and cold regions. The former extends from the sea to the central chain of hills and contains all the lowlands and many mountainous districts, some of the latter rising to an elevation of between 3000 and 4000 ft. and the sardsīr comprises the remaining and northern districts of the province.

FARS (the name Farsistan is not used), one of the five mamlikats (great provinces) of Persia, stretches along the northern shore of the Persian Gulf and is bordered on the west by Arabistan, on the north by Isfahan, and on the east by Kerman. It lies between 49° 30′ and 56° 10′ E. and 26° 20′ and 31° 45′ N. and covers an area of nearly 60,000 sq. m. Fars is the same word as the Greek Persis, and, originally the name of only part of the Persian empire (Iran), has become the term that Europeans use for the entire region (see Persis). The province is commonly, but not for administrative purposes, divided according to climate into germsīr and sardsīr, or the warm and cold regions. The former extends from the sea to the central chain of hills and includes all the lowlands and many mountainous areas, some of which rise to an elevation of between 3000 and 4000 ft., while the sardsīr includes the remaining northern districts of the province.

In Arrian’s relation of the voyage of Nearchus (Indica, 40), these two regions are well described. “The first part of Persis which lies along the Persian Gulf is hot, sandy and barren and only the date palm thrives there. The other part comprehends inner Persis lying northwards; it enjoys a pleasant climate and has fertile and well-watered plains, gardens with trees of all kinds, rich pasturages and forests abounding with game; with the exception of the olive all fruits are produced in profusion, particularly the vine. Horses and other draught animals are reared in the province, and there are several lakes frequented by water-fowl, and streams of clear water flow through it, as for instance the Kyros (Kur) formed by the junction of the Medos and Araxes.”

In Arrian’s account of Nearchus's voyage (Indica, 40), these two regions are clearly described. “The first part of Persis along the Persian Gulf is hot, sandy, and barren, with only the date palm able to grow there. The other part includes inner Persis to the north, which has a pleasant climate and features fertile, well-watered plains, gardens filled with all kinds of trees, rich pastures, and forests full of game; all fruits are plentiful except for olives, especially grapes. Horses and other draft animals are raised in the province, and there are several lakes visited by waterfowl, along with clear streams flowing through it, like the Kyros (Kur) formed by the meeting of the Medos and Araxes.”

The mountains of Fars may be considered as a continuation of the Zagros and run parallel to the shores of the Persian Gulf. They comprise several ranges which the roads from the sea to the interior have to cross at right angles, thereby rendering communication and transport very difficult. The highest of the mountains of Fars (14,000 ft.) is the Kuh Dinā in the north-western part of the province. Of the rivers of Fars only three important ones flow into the sea: (1) the Mand (Arrian’s Sitakos), Karaaghach in its upper course; (2) the Shapur or Khisht river (Granis); (3) the Tab (Oroatis). Some rivers, notably the Kur (Kyros, Araxes) which flows into the Bakhtegan lake east of Shiraz, drain into inland depressions or lakes.

The mountains of Fars can be seen as an extension of the Zagros, running parallel to the Persian Gulf shores. They consist of several ranges that roads from the sea to the interior must cross at right angles, making communication and transport very challenging. The tallest mountain in Fars is Kuh Dinā, reaching 14,000 ft., located in the northwestern part of the province. Only three significant rivers in Fars flow into the sea: (1) the Mand (Arrian’s Sitakos), known as Karaaghach in its upper stretch; (2) the Shapur or Khisht river (Granis); (3) the Tab (Oroatis). Some rivers, particularly the Kur (Kyros, Araxes), which empties into Bakhtegan Lake east of Shiraz, drain into inland depressions or lakes.

The capital of the province is Shiraz, and the subdivision in districts, the chief places of the districts and their estimated population, and the number of inhabited villages in each as they appear in lists dated 1884 and 1905 are shown on the following page.

The capital of the province is Shiraz, and the breakdown into districts, along with the main places in those districts, their estimated populations, and the number of inhabited villages in each as listed in documents from 1884 and 1905 are shown on the following page.

190

190

  Name of District. Chief Place or Seat of
Government.
Number of
inhabited
Villages in
District.
Name. Population.
1 Abādeh Iklīd Abādeh 4,000 33
2 Abādeh-Tashk Tashk 600 8
3 Abarj Dashtek 2,000 6
4 Abbāsi      
    (1) Bander Abbāsi1 and villages Bander Abbāsi 10,000 14
    (2) Issīn and Taziān Issīn   6
    (3) Shamil Shamil 1,000 18
    (4) Moghistan Ziarat   10
    (5) Mināb Mināb 4,000 23
5 Afzar Nī-mdeh   12
6 ‘Alemrūd Sabzpushan 1,000 16
7 Arb’ah (the four)      
    (1) Deh Rūd      
    (2) Deh Ram Deh Ram 1,500 19
    (3) Hengam      
    (4) Rudbāl      
8 Ardakān Ardakān 5,000 10
9 Arsinjan Arsinjan 5,000 25
10 Asīr Asīr 500 10
11 Baiza Baiza 2,000 55
12 Bī-dshahr and Juvī-m Bī-dshahr 3,000 23
13 Bovanāt Suriān 500 23
14 Darāb Darāb 5,000 62
15 Dashti      
    (1) Bardistan Bander Dair 1,000 28
    (2) Buluk Bushgān   18
    (3) Māndistan Kāki 1,500 40
    (4) Tassūj Tang Bagh 500 11
    (5) Shumbeh Shumbeh   15
16 Dashtistān      
    (1) Angāli Haftjūsh   10
    (2) Ahrom Ahrom 1,500 5
    (3) Borazjan Borazjan 4,000 19
    (4) Bushire1 Bushire 25,000 20
    (5) Daliki Daliki 1,500 7
    (6) Gonāvah Gonāvah 1,000 12
    (7) Hayāt Daūd Bander Rig 1,000 6
    (8) Khurmuj Khurmuj 1,000 5
    (9) Rūd Hillah Kelat Sukhteh   10
    (10) Shaban Kareh Deh Kohneh   27
    (11) Tangistan Tangistan 1,000 31
    (12) Zengeneh Samal 750 4
    (13) Zirāh Zirāh   6
17 Dizkurd Cherkes 500 6
18 Famur Pagah 300 3
19 Ferrashband Ferrashband 1,000 14
20 Fessa Fessa 5,000 40
21 Firuzabad Firuzabad 4,000 20
22 Gillehdār Gillehdār 1,000 43
23 Hūmeh of Shiraz Zerkān 1,000 89
24 Istahbanat Istahbanat 10,000 12
25 Jahrum Jahrum 10,000 33
26 Jireh Ishfāyikān   23
27 Kamfiruz Palangeri   34
28 Kamin Kalilek   11
29 Kazerun Kazerun 8,000 46
30 Kavār Kavār   26
31 Kir and Karzīn Kir 1,000 23
32 Khafr Khafr 1,000 41
33 Khajeh Zanjiran 500 15
34 Khisht Khisht 2,500 25
35 Khunj Khunj 1,500 27
36 Kongān Bander Kongān   12
37 Kuh Gilū and Behbahan Behbahan 10,000 182
38 Kurbāl Gavkan 600 67
39 Kuh i Marreh Shikeft Shikeft   41
40 Kunkuri Kazian   29
41 Laristan      
    (1) Lar Lar 8,000 34
    (2) Bikhah Ihsham Bairam   11
    (3) Bikhah Fal Ishkenān   10
    (4) Jehāngiriyeh Bastak 4,000 30
    (5) Shib Kūh Bander Chārak   36
    (6) Fūmistan or Gavbandi Gāvbandi   13
    (7) Kauristān Kauristān   4
    (8) Lingah1 Bander Lingah 10,000 11
    (9) Mazāyijan Mazāyijan   6
42 Mahūr Milāti Jemalgird   5
43 Maimand Maimand 5,000 14
44 Maliki Bander Assalu 1,000 25
45 Mamasenni (Shūlistan)      
    (1) Bekesh     8
    (2) Javīdi or Jāvi     6
    (3) Dushmanziaris     16
    (4) Rustami Kal‘ah Safid   26
    (5) Fahlian     7
    (6) Kākān     5
46 Māyin Māyin   8
47 Mervast and Herāt Mervast   14
48 Mervdasht      
    (1) Upper Khafrek     14
    (2) Lower Khafrek Fathabad 1,250 16
    (3) Mervdasht     22
49 Meshhed Mader Sulimān Murghāb 800 6
50 Nīrīz Nīrīz 9,000 24
51 Ramjird Jashian   36
52 Rūdan and Ahmedī Dehbariz   21
53 Sab‘ah (the seven)      
    (1) Bīvunj (Bī-vanej) Durz   14
    (2) Hasanabad Hasanabad   7
    (3) Tarom Tarun 2,000 15
    (4) Fāraghān Fāraghān 1,500 13
    (5) Forg Forg 3,000 18
    (6) Fīn and Guhrah Fīn   13
    (7) Gileh Gāh (abandoned) Ziaret 1,000 11
54 Sarchahān      
55 Sarhad Chahār Dungeh      
    (1) Dasht Ujān      
    (2) Dasht Khosro va Shirin Kūshk   31
    (3) Dasht Khūngasht      
    (4) Dasht Kushk Zard      
56 Sarhad Shesh Nahīyeh      
    (1) Pādinā (foot of Mount Dinā Khūr    
    (2) Hennā Hennā    
    (3) Samiram Samiram    
    (4) Felārd Felārd   24
    (5) Vardasht Germabad    
    (6) Vank Vank    
57 Sarvistan Sarvistan 4,500 23
58 Shiraz (town) in 1884   53,6072 . .
59 Siyākh Darinjān   13
60 Simkān Dūzeh   28

The above sixty districts are grouped into eighteen sub-provinces under governors appointed by the governor-general of Fars, but the towns of Bushire, Lingah and Bander Abbasi, together with the villages in their immediate neighbourhood, form a separate government known as that of the “Persian Gulf Ports” (Benādir i Khalij i Fars), under a governor appointed from Teheran. The population of the province has been estimated at 750,000 and the yearly revenue it pays to the state amounts to about £150,000. Many districts are fertile, but some, particularly those in the south-eastern part of the province, do not produce sufficient grain for the requirements of the sparse population. In consequence of droughts, ravages of locusts and misgovernment by local governors the province has been much impoverished and hundreds of villages are in ruins and deserted. About a third of the population is composed of turbulent and lawless nomads who, when on the march between their winter and summer camping grounds, frequently render the roads insecure and occasionally plunder whole districts, leaving the inhabitants without means of subsistence.

The sixty districts mentioned above are divided into eighteen sub-provinces overseen by governors appointed by the governor-general of Fars. However, the towns of Bushire, Lingah, and Bander Abbasi, along with the nearby villages, constitute a separate administration called the “Persian Gulf Ports” (Benādir i Khalij i Fars), led by a governor appointed from Tehran. The province's population is estimated to be around 750,000, and it contributes about £150,000 annually to the state revenue. Many districts are fertile, but some, especially in the southeastern part of the province, don't produce enough grain to meet the needs of the sparse population. Due to droughts, locust infestations, and poor governance by local governors, the province has suffered greatly, leaving hundreds of villages in ruins and abandoned. About a third of the population consists of unruly and lawless nomads who, while traveling between their winter and summer camps, often make the roads unsafe and occasionally raid entire districts, leaving the residents without resources.

The province produces much wheat, barley, rice, millet, cotton, but the authorities every now and then prohibiting the export of cereals, the people generally sow just as much as they think will suffice for their own wants. Much tobacco of excellent quality, principally for consumption in Persia, is also grown (especially in Fessa, Darab and Jahrom) and a considerable quantity of opium, much of it for export to China, is produced. Salt, lime and gypsum are abundant. There are also some oil 191 wells at Daliki, near Bushire, but several attempts to tap the oil have been unsuccessful. There are no valuable oyster-banks in Persian waters, and all the Persian Gulf pearls are obtained from banks on the coast of Arabia and near Bahrein.

The province produces a lot of wheat, barley, rice, millet, and cotton, but the authorities occasionally ban the export of grains, so people generally only plant enough to meet their own needs. A significant amount of high-quality tobacco is also grown, mainly for use in Persia (especially in Fessa, Darab, and Jahrom), along with a considerable quantity of opium, much of which is exported to China. Salt, lime, and gypsum are plentiful. There are also some oil 191 wells at Daliki, near Bushire, but several attempts to extract the oil have been unsuccessful. There are no valuable oyster beds in Persian waters, and all the pearls from the Persian Gulf come from beds along the coast of Arabia and near Bahrein.

(A. H.-S.)

1 Are forming separate administrative division of “Persian Gulf Ports.”

1 Are establishing a separate administrative division for “Persian Gulf Ports.”

2 Persian census in 1884; 25,284 males, 28,323 females.

2 Persian census in 1884; 25,284 males, 28,323 females.


FARTHING (A.S. feórtha, fourth, +ing, diminutive), the smallest English coin, equal to the fourth of a penny. It became a regular part of the coinage from the reign of Edward I., and was, up to the reign of Mary, a silver coin. No farthing was struck in the reign of Elizabeth, but a silver three-farthing piece was issued in that reign, with a profile bust of the queen crowned, with a rose behind her head, and inscribed “E.D.G. Rosa sine spina.” The copper farthing was first introduced in the reign of James I., a patent being given to Lord Harington of Exton in 1613 for the issue of copper tokens of this denomination. It was nominally of six grains’ weight, but was usually heavier. Properly, however, the copper farthing dates from the reign of Charles II., in whose reign also was issued a tin farthing, with a small copper plug in the centre, and an inscription on the edge, “Nummorum famulus 1684.” No farthings were actually issued in the reign of Queen Anne, though a number of patterns were prepared (see Numismatics: medieval section, England). In 1860 the copper farthing was superseded by one struck in bronze. In 1842 a proclamation was issued giving currency to half-farthings, and there were several issues, but they were demonetized in 1869. In 1897 the practice was adopted of darkening farthings before issue, to prevent their being mistaken for half-sovereigns.

FARTHING (A.S. feórtha, meaning fourth, +ing, diminutive), the smallest English coin, worth a quarter of a penny. It became a regular part of the currency during the reign of Edward I and was a silver coin up until the reign of Mary. No farthing was minted during the reign of Elizabeth, but a silver three-farthing piece was issued then, featuring a crowned profile bust of the queen with a rose behind her head, inscribed “E.D.G. Rosa sine spina.” The copper farthing was first introduced during the reign of James I when a patent was granted to Lord Harington of Exton in 1613 for issuing copper tokens of this value. It was nominally supposed to weigh six grains but was usually heavier. However, the copper farthing properly dates back to the reign of Charles II, during which a tin farthing was also issued, containing a small copper plug in the center and inscribed on the edge, “Nummorum famulus 1684.” No farthings were actually issued during the reign of Queen Anne, although several patterns were created (see Numismatics: medieval section, England). In 1860, the copper farthing was replaced by one made of bronze. In 1842, a proclamation was made to give value to half-farthings, and several issues followed, but they were demonetized in 1869. In 1897, the practice of darkening farthings before issuing them was adopted to prevent them from being confused with half-sovereigns.


FARTHINGALE (from the O. Fr. verdagalle, or vertugalle, a corruption of the Spanish name of the article, verdagado, from verdago, a rod or stick), a case or hoop, originally of bent rods, but afterwards made of whalebone, upon which were hung the voluminous skirts of a woman’s dress. The fashion was introduced into England from Spain in the 16th century. In its most exaggerated shape, at the beginning of the 17th century, the top of the farthingale formed a flat circular surface projecting at right angles to the bodice (see Costume).

FARTHINGALE (from the Old French verdagalle, or vertugalle, a variation of the Spanish name for the item, verdagado, from verdago, meaning a rod or stick), is a frame or hoop, originally made of bent rods but later constructed from whalebone, which supported the full skirts of a woman’s dress. This trend was brought to England from Spain in the 16th century. In its most extreme form, at the start of the 17th century, the top of the farthingale created a flat circular area that stuck out at a right angle to the bodice (see Costume).


FARUKHABAD, Farrakhabad, or Furruckabad, a city and district of British India in the Agra division of the United Provinces. The city is near the right bank of the Ganges, 87 m. by rail from Cawnpore. It forms a joint municipality with Fatehgarh, the civil headquarters of the district with a military cantonment. Pop. (1901) 67,338. At Fatehgarh is the government gun-carriage factory; and other industries include cotton-printing and the manufacture of gold lace, metal vessels and tents.

FARUKHABAD, Farrakhabad, or Farrukhabad, is a city and district in British India, located in the Agra division of the United Provinces. The city is situated near the right bank of the Ganges, 87 miles by rail from Cawnpore. It shares a municipality with Fatehgarh, the civil headquarters of the district that also hosts a military cantonment. Population (1901) was 67,338. In Fatehgarh, there is a government gun-carriage factory, and other local industries include cotton printing, gold lace manufacturing, metal vessel production, and tent making.

The District of Farukhabad has an area of 1685 sq. m. It is a flat alluvial plain in the middle Doab. The principal rivers are: the Ganges, which has a course of 87 m. either bordering on or passing through the district, but is not at all times navigable by large boats throughout its entire course; the Kali-nadi (84 m.) and the Isan-nadi (42 m.), both tributaries of the Ganges; and the Arind-nadi, which, after a course of 20 m. in the south of the district, passes into Cawnpore. The principal products are rice, wheat, barley, millets, pulses, cotton, sugar-cane, potatoes, &c. The grain crops, however, are insufficient for local wants, and grain is largely imported from Oudh and Rohilkhand. The district is, therefore, liable to famine, and it was severely visited by this calamity six times during the 19th century—in 1803-1804, 1815-1816, 1825-1826, 1837-1838, 1868-1869 and 1899-1900. Farukhabad is one of the healthiest districts in the Doab, but fevers are prevalent during August and September. The average annual mean temperature is almost 80° F.; the average annual rainfall, 29.4 in.

The Farukhabad District covers an area of 1685 sq. miles. It's a flat alluvial plain located in the middle Doab. The main rivers include the Ganges, which runs 87 miles along or through the district but isn't always navigable by large boats for its entire length; the Kali-nadi (84 miles) and the Isan-nadi (42 miles), both tributaries of the Ganges; and the Arind-nadi, which flows 20 miles in the south of the district before entering Cawnpore. The primary products are rice, wheat, barley, millets, pulses, cotton, sugarcane, potatoes, etc. However, the grain crops aren't enough to meet local needs, so grain is often imported from Oudh and Rohilkhand. As a result, the district is vulnerable to famine, having experienced this disaster six times in the 19th century—in 1803-1804, 1815-1816, 1825-1826, 1837-1838, 1868-1869, and 1899-1900. Farukhabad is one of the healthiest districts in the Doab, though fevers are common during August and September. The average annual temperature is nearly 80° F., with an average annual rainfall of 29.4 inches.

In the early part of the 18th century, when the Mogul empire was breaking up, Mahommed Khan, a Bangash Afghan from a village near Kaimganj, governor of Allahabad and later of Malwa, established a considerable state of which the present district of Farukhabad was the nucleus, founding the city of Farukhabad in 1714. After his death in 1743, his son and successor Kaim Khan was embroiled by Safdar Jang, the nawab wazir of Oudh, with the Rohillas, in battle with whom he lost his life in 1749. In 1750 his brother, Ahmad Khan, recovered the Farukhabad territories; but Safdar Jang called in the Mahrattas, and a struggle for the possession of the country began, which ended in 1771, on the death of Ahmad Khan, by its becoming tributary to Oudh. In 1801 the nawab wazir ceded to the British his lands in this district, with the tribute due from the nawab of Farukhabad, who gave up his sovereign rights in 1802. In 1804 the Mahrattas, under Holkar, ravaged this tract, but were utterly routed by Lord Lake at the town of Farukhabad. During the mutiny Farukhabad shared the fate of other districts, and passed entirely out of British hands for a time. The native troops, who had for some time previously evinced a seditious spirit, finally broke into rebellion on the 18th of June 1857, and placed the titular nawab of Farukhabad on the throne. The English military residents took shelter in the fort, which they held until the 4th of July, when, the fort being undermined, they endeavoured to escape by the river. One boat succeeded in reaching Cawnpore, but only to fall into the hands of Nana. Its occupants were made prisoners, and perished in the massacre of the 10th of July. The other boat was stopped on its progress down the river, and all those in it were captured or killed, except four who escaped. The prisoners were conveyed back to Fatehgarh, and murdered there by the nawab on the 19th of July. The rebels were defeated in several engagements, and on the 3rd of January 1858 the English troops recaptured Fatehgarh fort; but it was not till May that order was thoroughly re-established. In 1901 the population was 925,812, showing an increase of 8% in one decade. Part of the district is watered by distributaries of the Ganges canal; it is traversed throughout its length by the Agra-Cawnpore line of the Rajputana railway, and is also served by a branch of the East Indian system. Tobacco, opium, potatoes and fruit, cotton-prints, scent and saltpetre are among the principal exports.

In the early 1700s, as the Mogul Empire began to break apart, Mahommed Khan, a Bangash Afghan from a village near Kaimganj, who was the governor of Allahabad and later Malwa, created a significant state with the present district of Farukhabad at its core, founding the city of Farukhabad in 1714. After he died in 1743, his son and successor, Kaim Khan, got involved in a conflict with Safdar Jang, the nawab wazir of Oudh, and was killed in battle against the Rohillas in 1749. In 1750, his brother, Ahmad Khan, regained control of the Farukhabad territories; however, Safdar Jang brought in the Mahrattas, leading to a struggle for control that lasted until 1771, ending with Ahmad Khan's death and the region becoming a tributary to Oudh. In 1801, the nawab wazir ceded his lands in this district to the British, along with the tribute owed by the nawab of Farukhabad, who renounced his sovereign rights in 1802. In 1804, the Mahrattas, led by Holkar, devastated this area but were decisively defeated by Lord Lake in the town of Farukhabad. During the mutiny, Farukhabad faced a fate similar to other districts and temporarily fell out of British control. Native troops, who had shown rebellious tendencies for some time, finally revolted on June 18, 1857, and restored the titular nawab of Farukhabad to the throne. The English military residents took refuge in the fort, which they held until July 4, when, after the fort was undermined, they tried to escape via the river. One boat made it to Cawnpore but was captured by Nana; its passengers were taken prisoner and were killed in the massacre on July 10. The other boat was intercepted before it could reach safety, leading to the capture or death of all aboard, except for four who managed to escape. The prisoners were brought back to Fatehgarh, where the nawab murdered them on July 19. The rebels were defeated in several battles, and by January 3, 1858, the British forces retook Fatehgarh fort; however, full order wasn't restored until May. By 1901, the population was 925,812, marking an 8% increase over the past decade. Part of the district is irrigated by branches of the Ganges canal, and the Agra-Cawnpore line of the Rajputana railway runs through it, along with a branch of the East Indian system. Major exports include tobacco, opium, potatoes, fruits, cotton prints, perfume, and saltpeter.


FASCES, in Roman antiquities, bundles of elm or birch rods from which the head of an axe projected, fastened together by a red strap. Nothing is known of their origin, the tradition that represents them as borrowed by one of the kings from Etruria resting on insufficient grounds. As the emblem of official authority, they were carried by the lictors, in the left hand and on the left shoulder, before the higher Roman magistrates; at the funeral of a deceased magistrate they were carried behind the bier. The lictors and the fasces were so inseparably connected that they came to be used as synonymous terms. The fasces originally represented the power over life and limb possessed by the kings, and after the abolition of the monarchy, the consuls, like the kings, were preceded by twelve fasces. Within the precincts of the city the axe was removed, in recognition of the right of appeal (provocat-io) to the people in a matter of life and death; outside Rome, however, each consul retained the axe, and was preceded by his own lictors, not merely by a single accensus (supernumerary), as was originally the case within the city when he was not officiating. Later, the lictors preceded the officiating consul, and walked behind the other. Valerius Publicola, the champion of popular rights, further established the custom that the fasces should be lowered before the people, as the real representatives of sovereignty (Livy ii. 7; Florus i. 9; Plutarch, Publicola, 10); lowering the fasces was also the manner in which an inferior saluted a superior magistrate. A dictator, as taking the place of the two consuls, had 24 fasces (including the axe even within the city); most of the other magistrates had fasces varying in number, with the exception of the censors, who, as possessing no executive authority, had none. Fasces were given to the Flamen Dialis and (after 42 B.C.) even to the Vestals. During the times of the republic, a victorious general, who had been saluted by the title of imperator by his soldiers, had his fasces crowned with laurel (Cicero, Pro Ligario, 3). Later, under the empire, when the emperor received the title for life on his accession, it became restricted to him, and the laurel was regarded as distinctive of the imperial fasces (see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i., 1887, p. 373).

FASCES, in Roman history, are bundles of elm or birch rods with the head of an axe sticking out, tied together with a red strap. Their origin is unknown; the idea that they were taken from Etruria by one of the kings is not well-supported. As a symbol of official authority, they were carried by lictors in their left hand and on their left shoulder in front of higher Roman magistrates; during the funeral of a deceased magistrate, they were carried behind the coffin. The lictors and fasces were so closely linked that the terms became interchangeable. The fasces originally symbolized the power over life and death held by the kings, and even after the monarchy was abolished, the consuls, like the kings, were preceded by twelve fasces. Inside the city, the axe was removed to acknowledge the right of citizens to appeal (provocat-io) in life-and-death situations; however, outside of Rome, each consul kept the axe and was preceded by his own lictors, rather than just a single accensus (supernumerary), which was the case in the city when he was not performing official duties. Eventually, lictors began to precede the officiating consul and walked behind the others. Valerius Publicola, an advocate for the people's rights, further established the practice of lowering the fasces before the people as they were seen as the true representatives of sovereignty (Livy ii. 7; Florus i. 9; Plutarch, Publicola, 10); lowering the fasces was also how a junior would show respect to a senior magistrate. A dictator, who assumed the role of the two consuls, had 24 fasces (including the axe even within the city); most other magistrates had varying numbers of fasces, except for the censors, who, lacking executive authority, had none. Fasces were awarded to the Flamen Dialis and, after 42 BCE, even to the Vestals. During the Republic, a victorious general who was honored with the title of imperator by his soldiers had his fasces adorned with laurel (Cicero, Pro Ligario, 3). Later, under the Empire, when the emperor received the title for life upon his accession, it became exclusive to him, and the laurel was viewed as a hallmark of the imperial fasces (see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i., 1887, p. 373).


FASCIA (Latin for a bandage or fillet), a term used for many objects which resemble a band in shape; thus in anatomy it is applied to the layers of fibrous connective tissue which sheathe 192 the muscles or cover various parts or organs in the body, and in zoology, and particularly in ornithology, to bands or stripes of colour. In architecture the word is used of the bands into which the architrave of the Ionic and Corinthian orders is subdivided; their origin would seem to have been derived from the superimposing of two or more beams of timber to span the opening between columns and to support a superincumbent weight; the upper beam projected slightly in front of the lower, and similar projections were continued in the stone or marble beam though in one block. In the Roman Corinthian order the fasciae, still projecting one in front of the other, were subdivided by small mouldings sometimes carved. The several bands are known as the first or upper fascia, the second or middle fascia and the third or lower fascia. The term is sometimes applied to flat projecting bands in Renaissance architecture when employed as string courses. It is also used, though more commonly in the form “facia,” of the band or plate over a shop-front, on which the name and occupation of the tradesman is written.

Fascia (Latin for a bandage or strip) is a term used for various objects that are band-like in shape. In anatomy, it refers to the layers of fibrous connective tissue that cover the muscles or other parts and organs of the body. In zoology, especially ornithology, it describes bands or stripes of color. In architecture, the term refers to the bands that divide the architrave of the Ionic and Corinthian styles. Its origin seems to come from layering two or more timber beams to span the space between columns and support an upper weight; the top beam slightly extended over the lower one, and this was mirrored in the stone or marble beam, although made from a single block. In the Roman Corinthian style, the fascias, which continued to project over each other, were sometimes detailed with small mouldings. These bands are identified as the first or upper fascia, the second or middle fascia, and the third or lower fascia. The term is also used for flat projecting bands in Renaissance architecture when used as string courses. Additionally, it appears, often as "facia," to refer to the band or plate above a shopfront that displays the name and trade of the shopkeeper.


FASCINATION (from Lat. fascinare, to bewitch, probably connected with the Gr. βασκαίνειν, to speak ill of, to bewitch), the art of enchanting or bewitching, especially through the influence of the “evil eye,” and so properly of the exercise of an evil influence over the reason or will. The word is thus used of the supposed paralysing attraction exercised by some reptiles on their victims. It is also applied to a particular hypnotic condition, marked by muscular contraction, but with consciousness and power of remembrance left. In a quite general sense, fascination means the exercise of any charm or strong attraction.

Fascination (from Latin fascinare, to bewitch, likely related to the Greek βασκαίνειν, to speak ill of, to bewitch), the art of enchanting or bewitching, especially through the influence of the “evil eye,” and specifically regarding the exertion of an evil influence over a person's reasoning or will. The term is used to describe the supposed paralyzing attraction that some reptiles have on their prey. It also refers to a specific hypnotic state, characterized by muscle contraction but with consciousness and memory intact. More generally, fascination means the use of any charm or strong attraction.


FASCINE (from the Lat. fascina, fascis, a bundle of sticks), a large faggot of brushwood used in the revetments of earthworks and for other purposes of military engineering. The British service pattern of fascine is 18 ft. long; it is tied as tightly as possible at short intervals, and the usual diameter is 9 in. Similar bundles of wood formed part of the foundations of the early lake-dwellings, and in modern engineering fascines are used in making rough roads over marshy ground and in building river and sea walls and breakwaters.

FASCINE (from Latin fascina, fascis, a bundle of sticks), a large bundle of brushwood used in the construction of earthworks and for various military engineering purposes. The standard British fascine measures 18 feet long; it is tied as tightly as possible at short intervals, and the usual diameter is 9 inches. Similar bundles of wood were part of the foundations of early lake-dwellings, and today, fascines are used for creating rough roads over marshy areas and in the construction of river and sea walls and breakwaters.


FASHION (adapted from Fr. façon, Lat. factio, making, facere, to do or make), the action of making, hence the shape or form which anything takes in the process of making. It is thus used in the sense of the pattern, kind, sort, manner or mode in which a thing is done. It is particularly used of the common or customary way in which a thing is done, and so is applied to the manner or custom prevalent at or characteristic of a particular period, especially of the manner of dress, &c., current at a particular period in any rank of society, for which the French term is modes (see Costume).

FASHION (adapted from Fr. façon, Lat. factio, making, facere, to do or make), refers to the act of creating, which leads to the shape or form that something takes during the making process. It is used to describe the pattern, type, kind, style, or manner in which something is done. It often signifies the usual or customary way something is done and is specifically related to the style or practices that are typical of a specific time period, particularly regarding clothing and fashion trends prominent in any social class, for which the French term is modes (see Costume).


FASHODA (renamed, 1904, Kodok), a post on the west bank of the Upper Nile, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, in 9° 53′ N., 32° 8′ E., 459 m. S., by river, of Khartum. It is the headquarters of the mudiria (province) of the Upper Nile. The station is built on a flat peninsula connected by a narrow strip of land with a ridge which runs parallel with the river. The surrounding country is mostly deep swamp and the station is most unhealthy; mosquitoes are present in millions. The climate is always damp and the temperature rarely below 98° in the shade. The government offices are well-built brick structures. In front of the station is a long low island, and when the Nile is at its lowest this channel becomes dry. Several roads from Kordofan converge on the Nile at this point, and near the station is the residence of the mek, or king, of the Shilluk tribe, whose designation of the post was adopted when it was decided to abandon the use of Fashoda. At Lul, 18 m. farther up stream, is an Austrian Roman Catholic mission station.

Fashoda (renamed in 1904, Kodok), is located on the west bank of the Upper Nile in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, at 9° 53′ N., 32° 8′ E., 459 km south by river from Khartum. It serves as the headquarters for the mudiria (province) of the Upper Nile. The station is set on a flat peninsula that connects to a ridge running parallel to the river via a narrow strip of land. The surrounding area is mostly deep swamp, making the station very unhealthy, with millions of mosquitoes present. The climate is consistently damp, and temperatures rarely drop below 98°F in the shade. The government offices are well-constructed brick buildings. In front of the station is a long, low island that becomes dry when the Nile is at its lowest water levels. Several roads from Kordofan meet the Nile at this location, and near the station is the residence of the mek, or king, of the Shilluk tribe, whose name was used for the post when they decided to stop using Fashoda. Upstream, 18 km away at Lul, there is an Austrian Roman Catholic mission station.

An Egyptian military post was established at Fashoda in 1865. It was then a trading station of some importance, slaves being the chief commodity dealt in. In 1883-1884 the place fell into the hands of the Mahdists. On the 10th of July 1898 it was occupied by a French force from the Congo under Commandant J.B. Marchand, a circumstance which gave rise to a state of great tension between Great Britain and France. On the 11th of December following the French force withdrew, returning home via Abyssinia (see Africa, § 5, and Egypt: History, and Military Operations).

An Egyptian military post was set up in Fashoda in 1865. It was an important trading station, mainly dealing in slaves. In 1883-1884, the Mahdists took control of the area. On July 10, 1898, a French force from the Congo, led by Commandant J.B. Marchand, occupied it, which caused significant tension between Great Britain and France. The French force withdrew on December 11, returning home through Abyssinia (see Africa, § 5, and Egypt: History, and Military Operations).


FAST AND LOOSE, a cheating game played at fairs by sharpers. A strap, usually in the form of a belt, is rolled or doubled up with a loop in the centre, and laid edgewise on a table. The swindler then bets that the loop cannot be caught with a stick or skewer as he unrolls the belt. As this looks to be easy to do the bet is often taken, but the sharper unrolls the belt in such a manner as to make the catching of the loop practically impossible. Centuries ago it was much practised by gipsies, a circumstance alluded to by Shakespeare in Anthony and Cleopatra (iv. 12):

FAST AND LOOSE, is a con game played at fairs by fraudsters. A strap, usually shaped like a belt, is rolled or folded with a loop in the middle and placed edgewise on a table. The scammer then bets that the loop can’t be caught with a stick or skewer as he unrolls the belt. Because it seems easy, many people take the bet, but the con artist unrolls the belt in a way that makes catching the loop nearly impossible. Centuries ago, it was commonly played by gypsies, a detail mentioned by Shakespeare in Anthony and Cleopatra (iv. 12):

“Like a right gipsy, hath, at fast and loose,

“Like a true gypsy, has, at fast and loose,

Beguiled me to the very heart of loss.”

Beguiled me to the core of sorrow.”

From this game is taken the colloquial expression “to play fast and loose.” At the present day it is called “prick the garter” or “prick the loop.”

From this game comes the saying “to play fast and loose.” Nowadays, it's referred to as “prick the garter” or “prick the loop.”


FASTI, in Roman antiquities, plural of the Latin adjective fastus, but more commonly used as a substantive, derived from fas, meaning what is binding, or allowable, by divine law, as opposed to jus, or human law. Fasti dies thus came to mean the days on which law business might be transacted without impiety, corresponding to our own “lawful days”; the opposite of the dies fasti were the dies nefasti, on which, on various religious grounds, the courts could not sit. The word fasti itself then came to be used to denote lists or registers of various kinds, which may be divided into two great classes.

FASTI, in Roman history, is the plural of the Latin word fastus, but it's more often used as a noun, coming from fas, which refers to what is permitted or allowed by divine law, as opposed to jus, or human law. Fasti dies thus means the days when legal matters could be conducted without religious offense, similar to our own “lawful days”; the opposite of the dies fasti were the dies nefasti, on which, for various religious reasons, the courts could not operate. The term fasti eventually came to describe lists or records of different kinds, which can be categorized into two main groups.

1. Fasti Diurni, divided into urbani and rustici, a kind of official year-book, with dates and directions for religious ceremonies, court-days, market-days, divisions of the month, and the like. Until 304 B.C. the lore of the calendaria remained the exclusive and lucrative monopoly of the priesthood; but in that year Gnaeus Flavius, a pontifical secretary, introduced the custom of publishing in the forum tables containing the requisite information, besides brief references to victories, triumphs, prodigies, &c. This list was the origin of the public Roman calendar, in which the days were divided into weeks of eight days each, and indicated by the letters A-H. Each day was marked by a certain letter to show its nature; thus the letters F., N., N.P., F.P., Q. Rex C.F., C., EN., stood for fastus, nefastus, nefastus in some unexplained sense, fastus priore, quando rex (sacrorum) comitiavit fastus, comitialis and intercisus. The dies intercisi were partly fasti and partly nefasti. Ovid’s Fasti is a poetical description of the Roman festivals of the first six months, written to illustrate the Fasti published by Julius Caesar after he remodelled the Roman year. Upon the cultivators fewer feasts, sacrifices, ceremonies and holidays were enjoined than on the inhabitants of cities; and the rustic fasti contained little more than the ceremonies of the calends, nones and ides, the fairs, signs of zodiac, increase and decrease of the days, the tutelary gods of each month, and certain directions for rustic labours to be performed each month.

1. Fasti Diurni is divided into urbani and rustici, a sort of official yearbook that includes dates and guidelines for religious ceremonies, court dates, market days, monthly divisions, and similar information. Until 304 BCE, the knowledge of the calendaria was the exclusive and profitable domain of the priesthood; however, that year, Gnaeus Flavius, a secretary to the pontiff, started the practice of publishing tables in the forum with the necessary information, along with brief notes about victories, triumphs, prodigies, etc. This list marked the beginning of the public Roman calendar, where the days were divided into weeks of eight days, represented by the letters A-H. Each day was denoted by a specific letter to indicate its type; hence, the letters F., N., N.P., F.P., Q. Rex C.F., C., EN., stood for fastus, nefastus, nefastus in some unclear context, fastus priore, quando rex (sacrorum) comitiavit fastus, comitialis and intercisus. The dies intercisi were partly fasti and partly nefasti. Ovid’s Fasti is a poetic portrayal of the Roman festivals for the first six months, written to illustrate the Fasti published by Julius Caesar after he reformed the Roman year. The rural population observed fewer feasts, sacrifices, ceremonies, and holidays than those in cities; and the rustic fasti included little more than the ceremonies for the calends, nones, and ides, fairs, zodiac signs, changes in daylight, the protective gods of each month, and specific instructions for rural tasks to be completed each month.

2. Fasti Magistrales, Annales or Historici, were concerned with the several feasts, and everything relating to the gods, religion and the magistrates; to the emperors, their birthdays, offices, days consecrated to them, with feasts and ceremonies established in their honour or for their prosperity. They came to be denominated magni, by way of distinction from the bare calendar, or fasti diurni. Of this class, the fasti consulares, for example, were a chronicle or register of time, in which the several years were denoted by the respective consuls, with the principal events which happened during their consulates. The fasti triumphales and sacerdotales contained a list in chronological order of persons who had obtained a triumph, together with the name of the conquered people, and of the priests. The word fasti thus came to be used in the general sense of “annals” or “historical records.” A famous specimen of the same class are the fasti Capitolini, so called because they were deposited in the Capitol by Alexander Farnese, after their excavation from the Roman forum in 1547. They are chiefly a nominal list of statesmen, victories, triumphs, &c., from the expulsion of the kings to the death of Augustus. A considerable number of fasti 193 of the first class have also been discovered; but none of them appear to be older than the time of Augustus. The Praenestine calendar, discovered in 1770, arranged by the famous grammarian Verrius Flaccus, contains the months of January, March, April and December, and a portion of February. The tablets give an account of festivals, as also of the triumphs of Augustus and Tiberius. There are still two complete calendars in existence, an official list by Furius Dionysius Philocalus (A.D. 354), and a Christian version of the official calendar, made by Polemius Silvius (A.D. 448). But some kinds of fasti included under the second general head were, from the very beginning, written for publication. The Annales Pontificum—different from the calendaria properly so called—were “annually exhibited in public on a white table, on which the memorable events of the year, with special mention of the prodigies, were set down in the briefest possible manner.” Any one was allowed to copy them. Like the pontifices, the augurs also had their books, libri augurales. In fact, all the state offices had their fasti corresponding in character to the consular fasti named above.

2. Fasti Magistrales, Annales, or Historici, focused on various feasts and everything related to the gods, religion, and magistrates; including the emperors, their birthdays, official positions, and the days dedicated to them, along with the feasts and ceremonies established in their honor or for their success. They became known as magni to distinguish them from the basic calendar or fasti diurni. For instance, the fasti consulares served as a timeline or record in which different years were marked by their respective consuls, along with the main events that occurred during their terms. The fasti triumphales and sacerdotales contained a chronological list of individuals who achieved a triumph, along with the names of the conquered nations and the priests. The term fasti ultimately came to be used in the broader sense of “annals” or “historical records.” A well-known example of this category is the fasti Capitolini, named because they were placed in the Capitol by Alexander Farnese after being excavated from the Roman forum in 1547. They primarily consist of a nominal list of statesmen, victories, triumphs, etc., from the expulsion of the kings up to the death of Augustus. A significant number of fasti of the first class have also been found; however, none seem to be older than the time of Augustus. The Praenestine calendar, discovered in 1770 and organized by the famous grammarian Verrius Flaccus, includes the months of January, March, April, and December, as well as part of February. The tablets detail festivals and the triumphs of Augustus and Tiberius. There are still two complete calendars in existence: an official list by Furius Dionysius Philocalus (AD 354) and a Christian version of the official calendar created by Polemius Silvius (CE 448). However, some types of fasti categorized under the second general heading were, from the very start, intended for public release. The Annales Pontificum—different from the calendaria as typically defined—were “annually displayed in public on a white board, where the notable events of the year, particularly significant prodigies, were noted in the briefest way possible.” Anyone could copy them. Like the pontifices, the augurs also had their books, libri augurales. In fact, every state office had corresponding fasti similar to the consular fasti mentioned above.

For the best text and account of the fragments of the Fasti see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, i. (2nd ed.); on the subject generally, Teuffel-Schwabe, Hist. of Roman Literature, §§ 74, 75, and article by Bouché-Leclercq in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités.

For the best text and explanation of the fragments of the Fasti, see Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, i. (2nd ed.); for general information on the topic, refer to Teuffel-Schwabe, Hist. of Roman Literature, §§ 74, 75, and the article by Bouché-Leclercq in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités.


FASTING (from “fast,” derived from old Teutonic fastêjan; synonyms being the Gr. νηστεύειν, late Lat. jejunare), an act which is most accurately defined as an abstention from meat, drink and all natural food for a determined period. So it is defined by the Church of England, in the 16th homily, on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon1 and of the primitive church generally. In a looser sense the word is employed to denote abstinence from certain kinds of food merely; and this meaning, which in ordinary usage is probably the more prevalent, seems also to be at least tolerated by the Church of England when it speaks of “fast or abstinence days,” as if fasting and abstinence were synonymous.2 More vaguely still, the word is occasionally used as an equivalent for moral self-restraint generally. This secondary and metaphorical sense (νηστεύειν κακότητος) occurs in one of the fragments of Empedocles. For the physiology of fasting, see Dietetics; Nutrition; also Corpulence.

INTERMITTENT FASTING (derived from the old Teutonic fastêjan; synonyms include the Gr. fasting, late Lat. jejunare), is most accurately defined as the act of abstaining from meat, drink, and all natural food for a set period. This is how it's defined by the Church of England in the 16th homily, based on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon1 and the early church in general. In a broader sense, the term is also used to describe abstaining from specific types of food only, and this interpretation, which is likely the more common in everyday usage, seems to be accepted by the Church of England when referring to “fast or abstinence days,” as if fasting and abstinence were interchangeable.2 Even more loosely, the term is sometimes used to mean general moral self-restraint. This secondary and metaphorical use (fasting for goodness) appears in one of the fragments of Empedocles. For the physiology of fasting, see Dietetics; Nutrition; also Corpulence.

Starvation itself (see also Hunger and Thirst) is of the nature of a disease which may be prevented by diet; nevertheless there are connected with it a few peculiarities of scientific and practical interest. “Inedia,” as it is called in the nomenclature of diseases by the London College of Physicians, is of two kinds, arising from want of food and from want of water. When entirely deprived of nutriment the human body is ordinarily capable of supporting life under ordinary circumstances for little more than a week. In the spring of 1869 this was tried on the person of a “fasting girl” in South Wales. The parents made a show of their child, decking her out like a bride on a bed, and asserting that she had eaten no food for two years. Some reckless enthusiasts for truth set four trustworthy hospital nurses to watch her; the Celtic obstinacy of the parents was roused, and in defence of their imposture they allowed death to take place in eight days. Their trial and conviction for manslaughter may be found in the daily periodicals of the date; but, strange to say, the experimental physiologists and nurses escaped scot-free. There is no doubt that in this instance the unnatural quietude, the grave-like silence, and the dim religious light in which the victim was kept contributed to deter death.

Starvation itself (see also Hunger and Thirst) is essentially a disease that can be prevented by diet; however, there are a few unique aspects of scientific and practical interest associated with it. “Inedia,” as it's referred to in the medical terminology of the London College of Physicians, comes in two forms: one caused by lack of food and the other by lack of water. When completely deprived of nourishment, the human body can typically sustain life under normal conditions for just over a week. In the spring of 1869, this was tested on a "fasting girl" in South Wales. Her parents displayed her like a bride on a bed, claiming she hadn’t consumed any food in two years. Some reckless truth-seekers assigned four reliable hospital nurses to monitor her; this provoked the stubbornness of the parents, and to defend their deception, they allowed their child to die in eight days. Their trial and conviction for manslaughter was reported in daily newspapers from that time; curiously, the experimental physiologists and nurses faced no repercussions. It’s clear that in this case, the eerie stillness, the grave-like silence, and the dim light in which the victim was kept helped delay death.

One thing which remarkably prolongs life is a supply of water. Dogs furnished with as much as they wished to drink were found by M. Chossat (Sur l’inanition, Paris, 1843) to live three times as long as those who were deprived of solids and liquids at the same time. Even wetting the skin with sea-water has been found useful by shipwrecked sailors. Four men and a boy of fourteen who got shut in the Tynewydd mine near Porth, in South Wales, in the winter of 1876-1877 for ten days without food, were not only alive when released, but several of them were able to walk, and all subsequently recovered. The thorough saturation of the narrow space with aqueous vapour, and the presence of drain water in the cutting, were probably their chief preservatives—assisted by the high even temperature always found in the deeper headings of coal mines, and by the enormous compression of the confined air. This doubtless prevented evaporation, and retarded vital processes dependent upon oxidation. The accumulation of carbonic acid in the breathed air would also have a similar arrestive power over destructive assimilation. These prisoners do not seem to have felt any of the severer pangs of hunger, for they were not tempted to eat their candles. With the instinctive feeling that darkness adds a horror to death, they preferred to use them for light. At the wreck of the “Medusa” frigate in 1816, fifteen people survived on a raft for thirteen days without food.

One thing that clearly extends life is having access to water. Dogs that were given as much water as they wanted were found by M. Chossat (Sur l’inanition, Paris, 1843) to live three times longer than those who had no solid or liquid food at the same time. Even wetting the skin with seawater has been found helpful by shipwrecked sailors. Four men and a fourteen-year-old boy who were trapped in the Tynewydd mine near Porth, in South Wales, during the winter of 1876-1877 for ten days without food were not only alive when rescued, but several of them could walk, and all eventually recovered. The complete saturation of the cramped space with water vapor, along with the presence of drain water in the cutting, were likely their main lifelines—supported by the consistently warm temperature found in the deeper parts of coal mines, and by the immense pressure of the confined air. This likely slowed down evaporation and delayed vital processes that depend on oxidation. The buildup of carbon dioxide in the air they breathed would also have a similar effect in slowing down harmful assimilation. These trapped individuals don’t seem to have experienced extreme hunger, as they were not tempted to eat their candles. With the instinctive understanding that darkness adds a fear of death, they chose to use them for light instead. In the wreck of the “Medusa” frigate in 1816, fifteen people survived on a raft for thirteen days without food.

It is a paradoxical fact, that the supply of the stomach even from the substance of the starving individual’s body should tend to prolong life. In April 1874 a case was recorded of exposure in an open boat for 32 days of three men and two boys, with only ten days’ provisions, exclusive of old boots and jelly-fish. They had a fight in their delirium, and one was severely wounded. As the blood gushed out he lapped it up; and instead of suffering the fatal weakness which might have been expected from the haemorrhage, he seems to have done well. Experiments were performed by a French physiologist, M. Anselmier (Archives gén. de médecine, 1860, vol. i. p. 169), with the object of trying to preserve the lives of dogs by what he calls “artificial autophagy.” He fed them on the blood taken from their own veins daily, depriving them of all other food, and he found that the fatal cooling incident to starvation was thus postponed, and existence prolonged. Life lasted till the emaciation had proceeded to six-tenths of the animal’s weight, as in Chossat’s experiments, extending to the fourteenth day, instead of ending on the tenth day, as was the case with other dogs which were not bled.

It’s a strange fact that the body can use its own substances to help extend life, even during starvation. In April 1874, there was a case of three men and two boys stranded in an open boat for 32 days with only ten days' worth of food, not counting old boots and jellyfish. They went into delirium and ended up fighting each other, causing one to get seriously hurt. As blood poured out, he drank it; surprisingly, instead of suffering from the expected weakness from the bleeding, he seemed to do well. A French physiologist, M. Anselmier (Archives gén. de médecine, 1860, vol. i. p. 169), conducted experiments to see if dogs could survive through what he called “artificial autophagy.” He fed them blood drawn from their own veins every day and gave them no other food. He discovered that this delayed the deadly effects of starvation and extended their lives. The dogs lived until they lost 60% of their body weight, as shown in Chossat’s experiments, lasting up to the fourteenth day instead of dying by the tenth day like other dogs that weren’t bled.

Various people have tried, generally for exhibition purposes, how long they could fast from food with the aid merely of water or some medicinal preparation; but these exhibitions cannot be held to have proved anything of importance. A man named Jacques in this way fasted at Edinburgh for thirty days in 1888, and in London for forty-two days in 1890, and for fifty days in 1891; and an Italian named Succi fasted for forty days in 1890.

Various people have tried, usually for show, to see how long they could go without food, using only water or some type of medicine; but these demonstrations can’t be considered to have proved anything significant. A man named Jacques fasted in Edinburgh for thirty days in 1888, in London for forty-two days in 1890, and for fifty days in 1891; and an Italian named Succi fasted for forty days in 1890.

Religious Fasts.—Fasting is of special interest when considered as a discipline voluntarily submitted to for moral and religious ends. As such it is very widely diffused. Its modes and motives vary considerably according to climate, race, civilization and other circumstances; but it would be difficult to name any religious system of any description in which it is wholly unrecognized.3 The origin of the practice is very obscure.4 In his Principles of Sociology Herbert Spencer collected, from the accounts we have of various savage tribes in widely separated 194 parts of the globe, a considerable body of evidence, from which he suggested that it may have arisen out of the custom of providing refreshments for the dead, either by actually feeding the corpse, or by leaving eatables and drinkables for its use. It is suggested that the fasting which was at first the natural and inevitable result of such sacrifice on behalf of the dead may eventually have come to be regarded as an indispensable concomitant of all sacrifice, and so have survived as a well-established usage long after the original cause had ceased to operate.5 But this theory is repudiated by the best authorities; indeed its extreme precariousness at once becomes evident when it is remembered that, now at least, it is usual for religious fasts to precede rather than to follow sacrificial and funeral feasts, if observed at all in connexion with these. Spencer himself (p. 284) admits that “probably the practice arises in more ways than one,” and proceeds to supplement the theory already given by another—that adopted by E.B. Tylor—to the effect that it originated in the desire of the primitive man to bring on at will certain abnormal nervous conditions favourable to the seeing of those visions and the dreaming of those dreams which are supposed to give the soul direct access to the objective realities of the spiritual world.6 Probably, if we leave out of sight the very numerous and obvious cases in which fasting, originally the natural reflex result of grief, fear or other strong emotion, has come to be the usual conventional symbol of these, we shall find that the practice is generally resorted to, either as a means of somehow exalting the higher faculties at the expense of the lower, or as an act of homage to some object of worship. The axiom of the Amazulu, that “the continually stuffed body cannot see secret things,” meets even now with pretty general acceptance; and if the notion that it is precisely the food which the worshipper foregoes that makes the deity more vigorous to do battle for his human friend be confined only to a few scattered tribes of savages, the general proposition that “fasting is a work of reverence toward God” may be said to be an article of the Catholic faith.7

Religious Fasts.—Fasting is particularly interesting when viewed as a discipline that people willingly undertake for moral and spiritual reasons. It's a common practice across various cultures. The ways and reasons for fasting vary significantly depending on factors like climate, ethnicity, civilization, and other circumstances; however, it would be hard to find any religious system, regardless of its type, that completely ignores it.3 The origins of fasting are quite unclear.4 In his Principles of Sociology, Herbert Spencer gathered a significant amount of evidence from various accounts of different tribal societies across the globe, suggesting that fasting may have originated from the practice of offering food to the dead, either by actually feeding the body or by leaving food and drink for the deceased. It's proposed that the fasting, which naturally resulted from such sacrifices for the dead, might have evolved to be seen as a necessary part of all sacrifices and thus continued as a common practice long after the original purpose had faded.5 However, this theory is rejected by leading experts; its uncertainty becomes clear when considering that currently, religious fasts typically precede rather than follow sacrificial and funeral feasts, if they are observed in connection with these at all. Spencer himself (p. 284) acknowledges that “the practice probably arises in more ways than one,” and adds to the previous theory another suggested by E.B. Tylor, proposing that it stems from the primitive person's desire to induce certain abnormal states of mind conducive to having visions and dreams that supposedly provide direct access to the realities of the spiritual world.6 If we set aside the many straightforward instances where fasting, which initially is a natural response to grief, fear, or other strong emotions, has become a conventional symbol of these feelings, we will likely find that fasting is generally used either as a way to elevate higher faculties at the expense of lower ones or as an act of respect toward some object of worship. The belief among the Amazulu that “a constantly stuffed body cannot see hidden things” is still widely accepted; while the idea that the food the worshipper abstains from makes the deity more inclined to assist their human counterpart may only apply to a few isolated tribal groups, the broader notion that “fasting is a work of reverence toward God” is widely held in Catholic faith.7

Although fasting as a religious rite is to be met with almost everywhere, there are comparatively few religions, and those only of the more developed kind, which appoint definite public fasts, and make them binding at fixed seasons upon all the faithful. Brahmanism, for example, does not appear to enforce any stated fast upon the laity.8 Among the ancient Egyptians fasting seems to have been associated with many religious festivals, notably with that of Isis (Herod. ii. 40), but it does not appear that, so far as the common people were concerned, the observance of these festivals (which were purely local) was compulsory. The νηστεία on the third day of the Thesmophoria at Athens was observed only by the women attending the festival (who were permitted to eat cakes made of sesame and honey). It is doubtful whether the fast mentioned by Livy (xxxvi. 37) was intended to be general or sacerdotal merely.

Although fasting as a religious practice is found almost everywhere, there are relatively few religions—mostly more developed ones—that set specific public fasts and require all followers to observe them at designated times. For instance, Brahmanism doesn’t seem to impose any official fast on the general public. Among the ancient Egyptians, fasting appeared to be connected to various religious festivals, especially that of Isis (Herod. ii. 40), but it doesn't seem that, for regular people, participation in these local festivals was mandatory. The fasting on the third day of the Thesmophoria in Athens was only followed by the women participating in the festival (who were allowed to eat cakes made of sesame and honey). It's unclear whether the fast mentioned by Livy (xxxvi. 37) was meant to be universal or just for the priests.

Jewish Fasts.—While remarkable for the cheerful, non-ascetic character of their worship, the Jews were no less distinguished from all the nations of antiquity by their annual solemn fast appointed to be observed on the 10th day of the 7th month (Tisri), the penalty of disobedience being death. The rules, as laid down in Lev. xvi. 29-34, xxiii. 27-32 and Numb. xxix. 7-11, include a special injunction of strict abstinence (“ye shall afflict your souls”9) from evening to evening. This fast was intimately associated with the chief feast of the year. Before that feast could be entered upon, the sins of the people had to be confessed and (sacramentally) expiated. The fast was a suitable concomitant of that contrition which befitted the occasion. The practice of stated fasting was not in any other case enjoined by the law; and it is generally understood to have been forbidden on Sabbath.10 At the same time, private and occasional fasting, being regarded as a natural and legitimate instinct, was regulated rather than repressed. The only other provision about fasting in the Pentateuch is of a regulative nature, Numb. xxx. 14 (13), to the effect that a vow made by a woman “to afflict the soul” may in certain circumstances be cancelled by her husband.

Jewish Fasts.—While known for the joyful, non-ascetic nature of their worship, the Jews were also unique among ancient nations for their annual solemn fast, which is to be observed on the 10th day of the 7th month (Tisri), with the penalty for disobedience being death. The rules, as outlined in Lev. xvi. 29-34, xxiii. 27-32 and Numb. xxix. 7-11, include a specific requirement for strict abstinence (“you shall afflict your souls”9) from evening to evening. This fast was closely connected to the most important feast of the year. Before that feast could begin, the sins of the people had to be confessed and (sacramentally) atoned for. The fast was a fitting expression of the remorse that was appropriate for the occasion. Regular fasting was not mandated by the law in any other instance, and it is widely understood to have been prohibited on the Sabbath.10 At the same time, private and occasional fasting, seen as a natural and legitimate instinct, was regulated rather than suppressed. The only other mention of fasting in the Pentateuch is of a regulatory nature, Numb. xxx. 14 (13), stating that a vow made by a woman “to afflict the soul” can, in certain circumstances, be canceled by her husband.

The history of Israel from Moses to Ezra furnishes a large number of instances in which the fasting instinct was obeyed both publicly and privately, locally and nationally, under the influence of sorrow, or fear, or passionate desire. See, for example, Judg. xx. 26; 1 Sam. vii. 6 (where the national fast was conjoined with the ceremony of pouring out water before the Lord); Jer. xxxvi. 6, 9; and 2 Sam. xii. 16.11 Sometimes the observance of such fasts extended over a considerable period of time, during which, of course, the stricter jejunium was conjoined with abstinentia (Dan. x. 2). Sometimes they lasted only for a day. In Jonah iii. 6, 7, we have an illustrative example of the rigour with which a strict fast might be observed; and such passages as Joel ii. and Isa. lviii. 5 enable us to picture with some vividness the outward accompaniments of a Jewish fast day before the exile.

The history of Israel from Moses to Ezra provides many examples where fasting was practiced both publicly and privately, locally and nationally, influenced by sorrow, fear, or intense desire. For instance, see Judg. xx. 26; 1 Sam. vii. 6 (where the national fast was accompanied by the ritual of pouring out water before the Lord); Jer. xxxvi. 6, 9; and 2 Sam. xii. 16.11 Sometimes these fasts lasted for an extended period, during which a stricter jejunium was combined with abstinentia (Dan. x. 2). Other times, they lasted only for a day. In Jonah iii. 6, 7, we see a clear example of how rigorously a strict fast could be observed; and passages like Joel ii. and Isa. lviii. 5 give us a vivid picture of the outward practices of a Jewish fast day before the exile.

During the exile many occasional fasts were doubtless observed by the scattered communities, in sorrowful commemoration of the various sad events which had issued in the downfall of the kingdom of Judah. Of these, four appear to have passed into general use—the fasts of the 10th, 4th, 5th and 7th months—commemorating the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, the capture of the city, the destruction of the temple, the assassination of Gedaliah. As time rolled on they became invested with increasing sanctity; and though the prophet Zechariah, when consulted about them at the close of the exile (Zech. viii. 19), had by no means encouraged the observance of them, the rebuilding of the temple does not appear to have been considered an achievement of sufficient importance to warrant their discontinuance. It is worthy of remark that Ezekiel’s prophetic legislation contains no reference to any fast day; the book of Esther (ix. 31), on the other hand, records the institution of a new fast on the 13th of the 12th month.

During the exile, many scattered communities likely observed occasional fasts in sorrowful remembrance of the tragic events that led to the fall of the kingdom of Judah. Four fasts became widely practiced—those on the 10th, 4th, 5th, and 7th months—marking the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, the city's capture, the destruction of the temple, and the assassination of Gedaliah. As time went on, these fasts gained more significance; and although the prophet Zechariah, when asked about them at the end of the exile (Zech. viii. 19), did not encourage their observance, rebuilding the temple didn't seem significant enough to justify stopping them. It's interesting to note that Ezekiel’s prophetic writings do not mention any fasting days; in contrast, the book of Esther (ix. 31) mentions the establishment of a new fast on the 13th of the 12th month.

In the post-exile period private fasting was much practised by the pious, and encouraged by the religious sentiment of the time (see Judith viii. 6; Tob. xii. 8, and context; Sirach xxxiv. 26, Luke ii. 37 and xviii. 12). The last reference contains an allusion to the weekly fasts which were observed on the 2nd and 5th days of each week, in commemoration, it was said, of the ascent and descent of Moses at Sinai. The real origin of these fasts and the date of their introduction are alike uncertain; it is manifest, however, that the observance of them was voluntary, and never made a matter of universal obligation. It is probable that the Sadducees, if not also the Essenes, wholly neglected them. The second book (Seder Moed) of the Mishna contains two tractates bearing upon the subject of fasting. One (Yoma, “the day”) deals exclusively with the rites which were to be observed on the great day of expiation or atonement the other (Taanith, “fast”) is devoted to the other fasts, and 195 deals especially with the manner in which occasional fasting is to be gone about if no rain shall have fallen on or before the 17th day of Marcheschwan. It is enacted that in such a case the rabbis shall begin with a light fast of three days (Monday, Thursday, Monday), i.e. a fast during which it is lawful to work, and also to wash and anoint the person. Then, in the event of a continued drought, fasts of increasing intensity are ordered; and as a last resort the ark is to be brought into the street and sprinkled with ashes, the heads of the Nasi and Ab-beth-din being at the same time similarly sprinkled.12 In no case was any fast to be allowed to interfere with new-moon or other fixed festival. Another institution treated with considerable fulness in the treatise Taanith is that of the אנשי מעמד (viri stationis), who are represented as having been laymen severally representing the twenty-four classes or families into which the whole commonwealth of the laity was divided. They used to attend the temple in rotation, and be present at the sacrifices; and as this duty fell to each in his turn, the men of the class or family which he represented were expected in their several cities and places of abode to engage themselves in religious exercises, and especially in fasting. The suggestion will readily occur that here may be the origin of the Christian stationes. But neither Tertullian nor any other of the fathers seems to have been aware of the existence of any such institution among the Jews; and very probably the story about it may have been a comparatively late invention. It ought to be borne in mind that the Aramaic portion of the Megillath Taanith (a document considerably older than the treatises in the Mishna) gives a catalogue only of the days on which fasting was forbidden. The Hebrew part (commented on by Maimonides), in which numerous fasts are recommended, is of considerably later date. See Reland, Antiq. Hebr. p. iv. c. 10; Derenbourg, Hist. de Palestine, p. 439.

In the time after the exile, private fasting became common among the devout and was encouraged by the religious feelings of that period (see Judith viii. 6; Tob. xii. 8, and context; Sirach xxxiv. 26, Luke ii. 37 and xviii. 12). The last reference hints at the weekly fasts that were observed on the 2nd and 5th days of the week, supposedly to remember Moses’ ascent and descent at Sinai. The true origin and timing of these fasts are unclear; however, it is evident that their observance was voluntary and never made a universal requirement. It’s likely that the Sadducees, and possibly the Essenes, completely ignored them. The second book (Seder Moed) of the Mishna includes two tractates related to fasting. One (Yoma, "the day") focuses only on the rituals for the Day of Atonement, while the other (Taanith, "fast") addresses other fasts, particularly how to conduct occasional fasting if no rain has fallen by the 17th day of Marcheschwan. In such a case, it is mandated that the rabbis start with a light fast of three days (Monday, Thursday, Monday), meaning a fast during which work is allowed, and washing and anointing are also permitted. If drought continues, more intense fasts are prescribed; as a last resort, the ark is to be brought into the street and sprinkled with ashes, with the leaders being similarly sprinkled. In no case should any fast interfere with the new moon or other fixed festivals. Another topic explored in detail in the treatise Taanith is the Social status (viri stationis), described as laymen representing the twenty-four classes or families of the laity. They would take turns attending the temple and participating in the sacrifices; as this duty rotated, the members of their respective class or family were expected to engage in religious activities, especially fasting, in their local communities. One might suggest that this could be the origin of the Christian stationes. However, neither Tertullian nor any of the church fathers seem to have recognized such an institution among the Jews, and it's quite possible that the story about it is a later invention. It should be noted that the Aramaic section of the Megillath Taanith (a document significantly older than the Mishna treatises) only lists the days when fasting was prohibited. The Hebrew part (commented on by Maimonides), which recommends numerous fasts, is of a much later date. See Reland, Antiq. Hebr. p. iv. c. 10; Derenbourg, Hist. de Palestine, p. 439.

Practice of the Early Christian Church.—Jesus Himself did not inculcate asceticism in His teaching, and the absence of that distinctive element from His practice was sometimes a subject of hostile remark (Matt. xi. 19). We read, indeed, that on one occasion He fasted forty days and forty nights; but the expression, which is an obscure one, possibly means nothing more than that He endured the privations ordinarily involved in a stay in the wilderness. While we have no reason to doubt that He observed the one great national fast prescribed in the written law of Moses, we have express notice that neither He nor His disciples were in the habit of observing the other fasts which custom and tradition had established. See Mark ii. 18, where the correct reading appears to be—“The disciples of John, and the Pharisees, were fasting” (some customary fast). He never formally forbade fasting, but neither did He ever enjoin it. He assumed that, in certain circumstances of sorrow and need, the fasting instinct would sometimes be felt by the community and the individual; what He was chiefly concerned about was to warn His followers against the mistaken aims which His contemporaries were so apt to contemplate in their fasting (Matt. vi. 16-18). In one passage, indeed, He has been understood as practically commanding resort to the practice in certain circumstances. It ought to be noted, however, that Matt. xvii. 21 is probably spurious; and that in Mark ix. 29 the words “and fasting” are omitted by Westcott and Hort as well as by Tischendorf on the evidence of the Cod. Sinaiticus (first hand) and Cod. Vaticanus.13 The reference to “the fast” in Acts xxvii. 9 has generally been held to indicate that the apostles continued to observe the yearly Jewish fast. But this inference is by no means a necessary one. According to Acts xiii. 2, 3, xiv. 23, they conjoined fasting with prayer at ordinations, and doubtless also on some other solemn occasions; but at the same time the liberty of the Christian “in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath” was strongly insisted on, by one of them at least, who declared that meat whether taken or abstained from commendeth not to God (Col. ii. 16-23; 1 Cor. viii. 8; Rom. xiv. 14-22; 1 Tim. iv. 3-5). The fastings to which the apostle Paul alludes in 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 27, were rather of the nature of inevitable hardships cheerfully endured in the discharge of his sacred calling. The words which appear to encourage fasting in 1 Cor. vii. 5 are absent from all the oldest manuscripts and are now omitted by all critics;14 and on the whole the precept and practice of the New Testament, while recognizing the propriety of occasional and extraordinary fasts, seem to be decidedly hostile to the imposition of any of a stated, obligatory and general kind.

Practice of the Early Christian Church.—Jesus Himself did not promote asceticism in His teachings, and the lack of that distinctive feature in His actions was sometimes a target of criticism (Matt. xi. 19). We do read that at one point He fasted for forty days and forty nights; however, this phrase is somewhat unclear and could simply mean that He faced the usual hardships of being in the wilderness. While we have no reason to believe that He didn't observe the one major national fast set forth in the written law of Moses, we have clear indications that neither He nor His disciples regularly observed the other fasts established by custom and tradition. See Mark ii. 18, where the correct reading seems to be—“The disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting” (a customary fast). He never explicitly prohibited fasting, but He also never mandated it. He assumed that, in certain situations of grief and need, the community and individuals would naturally feel the urge to fast; what He mainly focused on was warning His followers against the misguided purposes that many of His contemporaries associated with fasting (Matt. vi. 16-18). In one passage, He has even been interpreted as practically commanding fasting in certain situations. However, it's worth noting that Matt. xvii. 21 is likely not authentic; and in Mark ix. 29, the phrase “and fasting” has been omitted by Westcott and Hort as well as Tischendorf based on evidence from Cod. Sinaiticus (first-hand) and Cod. Vaticanus.13 The mention of “the fast” in Acts xxvii. 9 is generally seen as indicating that the apostles continued to observe the annual Jewish fast. But this conclusion isn’t necessarily valid. According to Acts xiii. 2, 3, and xiv. 23, they combined fasting with prayer during ordinations and likely on other significant occasions as well; however, at the same time, at least one of them strongly emphasized the freedom of Christians regarding “a holiday, the new moon, or the Sabbath,” stating that food, whether eaten or not, does not commend us to God (Col. ii. 16-23; 1 Cor. viii. 8; Rom. xiv. 14-22; 1 Tim. iv. 3-5). The fasts mentioned by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. vi. 5 and xi. 27 were more about unavoidable hardships handled with cheerfulness in the course of his sacred duty. The wording that seems to promote fasting in 1 Cor. vii. 5 is absent from all the oldest manuscripts and is now excluded by all critics;14 and overall, the guidance and practice of the New Testament, while acknowledging the appropriateness of occasional and significant fasts, seem to be clearly against any imposition of mandatory, obligatory, and general fasts.

The usage of the Christian church during the earlier centuries was in this, as in so many other matters, influenced by traditional Jewish feeling, and by the force of old habit, quite as much as by any direct apostolic authority or supposed divine command. Habitual temperance was of course in all cases regarded as an absolute duty; and “the bridegroom” being absent, the present life was regarded as being in a sense one continual “fast.” Fasting in the stricter sense was not unknown; but it is certain that it did not at first occupy nearly so prominent a place in Christian ritual as that to which it afterwards attained. There are early traces of the customary observance of the Wednesday and Friday fasts—the dies stationum (Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 877), and also of a “quadragesimal” fast before Easter. But the very passage which proves the early origin of “quadragesima,” conclusively shows how uncertain it was in its character, and how unlike the Catholic “Lent.” Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius (v. 24), informs us with reference to the customary yearly celebration of the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord, that disputes prevailed not only with respect to the day, but also with respect to the manner of fasting in connexion with it. “For some think that they ought to fast only one day, some two, some more days; some compute their day as consisting of forty hours night and day; and this diversity existing among those that observe it is not a matter that has just sprung up in our times, but long ago among those before us.” It was not pretended that the apostles had legislated on the matter, but the general and natural feeling that the anniversaries of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ ought to be celebrated by Christians took expression in a variety of ways according to the differing tastes of individuals. No other stated fasts, besides those already mentioned, can be adduced from the time before Irenaeus; but there was also a tendency—not unnatural in itself, and already sanctioned by Jewish practice—to fast by way of preparation for any season of peculiar privilege. Thus, according to Justin Martyr (Apol. ii. 93), catechumens were accustomed to fast before baptism, and the church fasted with them. To the same feeling the quadragesimal fast which (as already stated) preceded the joyful feast of the resurrection, is to be, in part at least, attributed. As early as the time of Tertullian it was also usual for communicants to prepare themselves by fasting for receiving the eucharist. But that Christian fasts had not yet attained to the exaggerated importance which they afterwards assumed is strikingly shown in the well-known Shepherd of Hermas (lib. iii. sim. v.), where it is declared that “with merely outward fasting nothing is done for true virtue”; the believer is exhorted chiefly to abstain from evil and seek to cleanse himself from feelings of covetousness, and impurity, and revenge: “on the day that thou fastest content thyself with bread, vegetables and water, and thank God for these. But reckon up on this day what thy meal would otherwise have cost thee, and give the amount that it comes to to some poor widow or orphan, or to the poor.” The right of bishops to ordain special fasts, “ex aliqua sollicitudinis ecclesiasticae causa” (Tertullian), was also recognized.

The way the Christian church was used in the earlier centuries, like many other things, was shaped by traditional Jewish beliefs and the influence of old habits, just as much as by any direct apostolic authority or supposed divine command. Practicing temperance was definitely seen as an absolute duty; with “the bridegroom” absent, the present life was viewed as a kind of ongoing “fast.” Fasting in a stricter sense wasn't uncommon, but it clearly didn’t play as significant a role in Christian rituals at first as it later did. There are early signs of the common practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays—the dies stationum (Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 877)—and also of a “quadragesimal” fast leading up to Easter. However, the very passage that proves the early origin of “quadragesima” shows how uncertain it was and how different it was from the Catholic “Lent.” Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius (v. 24), tells us that during the annual celebration of the mystery of our Lord's resurrection, there were disputes not only about the day but also about how to fast in relation to it. “Some think they should fast only one day, some two, some more days; some measure their day as lasting forty hours day and night, and this diversity among those who observe it didn't just arise in our times but has existed long before us.” It wasn’t claimed that the apostles had set rules on the matter, but there was a general feeling that anniversaries of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection should be celebrated by Christians in various ways according to personal preferences. No other established fasts can be identified before Irenaeus, but there was also a natural tendency—already validated by Jewish practices—to fast as preparation for any significant occasion. So, according to Justin Martyr (Apol. ii. 93), catechumens used to fast before baptism, and the church fasted with them. This same feeling can be partly attributed to the quadragesimal fast that preceded the joyful feast of the resurrection. Even back in Tertullian’s time, communicants commonly prepared themselves for receiving the Eucharist by fasting. But the fact that Christian fasts hadn’t yet taken on the exaggerated importance they would later on is clearly shown in the well-known Shepherd of Hermas (lib. iii. sim. v.), where it states that “with only outward fasting, nothing is done for true virtue”; believers are mainly encouraged to avoid evil and work to cleanse themselves of greed, impurity, and revenge. “On the day you fast, restrict yourself to bread, vegetables, and water, and thank God for these. But calculate what your meal would have cost that day, and donate the amount to a poor widow, orphan, or to those in need.” The right of bishops to declare special fasts for “any ecclesiastical concern” (Tertullian) was also acknowledged.

Later Practice of the Church.—According to an expression preserved by Eusebius (H.E. v. 18), Montanus was the first to give laws (to the church) on fasting. Such language, though rhetorical in form, is substantially correct. The treatise of Tertullian,—Concerning Fasting: against the Carnal,—written as 196 it was under Montanistic influence, is doubly interesting, first as showing how free the practice of the church down to that time had been, and then as foreshadowing the burdensome legislation which was destined to succeed. In that treatise (c. 15) he approves indeed of the church practice of not fasting on Saturdays and Sundays (as elsewhere, De corona, c. 3, he had expressed his concurrence in the other practice of observing the entire period between Easter and Pentecost as a season of joy); but otherwise he evinces great dissatisfaction with the indifference of the church as to the number, duration and severity of her fasts.15 The church thus came to be more and more involved in discussions as to the number of days to be observed, especially in “Lent,” as fast days, as to the hour at which a fast ought to terminate (whether at the 3rd or at the 9th hour), as to the rigour with which each fast ought to be observed (whether by abstinence from flesh merely, abstinentia, or by abstinence from lacticinia, xerophagia, or by literal jejunium), and as to the penalties by which the laws of fasting ought to be enforced. Almost a century, however, elapsed between the composition of the treatise of Tertullian (cir. 212) and the first recorded instances of ecclesiastical legislation on the subject. These, while far from indicating that the church had attained unanimity on the points at issue, show progress in the direction of the later practice of catholicism. About the year 306 the synod of Illiberis in its 26th canon decided in favour of the observance of the Saturday fast.16 The council of Ancyra in 314, on the other hand, found it necessary to legislate in a somewhat different direction,—by its 14th canon enjoining its priests and clerks at least to taste meat at the love feasts.17 The synod of Laodicea framed several rules with regard to the observance of “Lent,” such as that “during Lent the bread shall not be offered except on Saturday and Sunday” (can. 49), that “the fast shall not be relaxed on the Thursday of the last week of Lent, thus dishonouring the whole season; but the fast shall be kept throughout the whole period” (can. 50), that “during the fast no feasts of the martyrs shall be celebrated” (can. 51), and that “no wedding or birthday feasts shall be celebrated during Lent” (can. 52). The synod of Hippo (393 A.D.) enacted that the sacrament of the altar should always be taken fasting, except on the Thursday before Easter. Protests in favour of freedom were occasionally raised, not always in a very wise manner, or on very wise grounds, by various individuals such as Eustathius of Sebaste (c. 350), Aerius of Pontus (c. 375), and Jovinian, a Roman monk (c. 388). Of the Eustathians, for example (whose connexion with Eustathius can hardly be doubted), the complaint was made that “they fast on Sundays, but eat on the fast-days of the church.” They were condemned by the synod of Gangra in Paphlagonia in the following canons:—Can. 19, “If any one fast on Sunday, let him be anathema.”18 Can. 20, “If any one do not keep the fasts universally commanded and observed by the whole church, let him be anathema.” Jovinian was very moderate. He “did not allow himself to be hurried on by an inconsiderate zeal to condemn fasting, the life of celibacy, monachism, considered purely in themselves.... He merely sought to show that men were wrong in recommending so highly and indiscriminately the life of celibacy and fasting, though he was ready to admit that both under certain circumstances might be good and useful” (Neander). He was nevertheless condemned (390) both by Pope Siricius at a synod in Rome, and by Ambrose at another in Milan. The views of Aerius, according to the representations of his bitter opponent Epiphanius (Haer. 75, “Adv. Aerium”), seem on this head at least, though unpopular, to have been characterized by great wisdom and sobriety. He did not condemn fasting altogether, but thought that it ought to be resorted to in the spirit of gospel freedom according as each occasion should arise. He found fault with the church for having substituted for Christian liberty a yoke of Jewish bondage.19

Later Practice of the Church.—According to a statement preserved by Eusebius (H.E. v. 18), Montanus was the first to establish rules (for the church) on fasting. While this language is somewhat rhetorical, it is essentially accurate. Tertullian’s treatise,—Concerning Fasting: against the Carnal,—written under Montanistic influence, is particularly interesting because it highlights how flexible the church's practices had been up to that time and hints at the heavy regulations that were to follow. In that treatise (c. 15), he actually supports the church’s custom of not fasting on Saturdays and Sundays (and elsewhere, in De corona, c. 3, he expressed agreement with the practice of treating the entire period between Easter and Pentecost as a joyful season); however, he shows significant dissatisfaction with the church's indifference regarding the number, duration, and strictness of its fasts. The church thus became increasingly involved in debates about the number of fast days, especially during “Lent,” the exact time a fast should end (whether at the 3rd or the 9th hour), the strictness with which each fast should be upheld (whether by simply abstaining from meat, abstinentia, or from dairy, xerophagia, or through complete fasting, jejunium), and the penalties for breaking fasting laws. However, almost a century passed between the writing of Tertullian’s treatise (cir. 212) and the first recorded instances of church legislation on this matter. These instances, while far from indicating that the church reached consensus on the debated issues, reflect movement toward the later practices of Catholicism. Around the year 306, the synod of Illiberis, in its 26th canon, ruled in favor of observing a Saturday fast. In contrast, the council of Ancyra in 314 found it necessary to legislate in a somewhat different direction—its 14th canon instructed its priests and clerics to at least taste meat during love feasts. The synod of Laodicea established several rules regarding the observance of “Lent,” such as stating that “during Lent, bread shall not be offered except on Saturday and Sunday” (can. 49), that “the fast shall not be relaxed on the Thursday of the last week of Lent, thus dishonoring the entire season; but the fast shall be maintained throughout the whole period” (can. 50), that “during the fast, no feasts of the martyrs shall be celebrated” (can. 51), and that “no wedding or birthday feasts shall be celebrated during Lent” (can. 52). The synod of Hippo (393 A.D.) mandated that the sacrament of the altar should always be taken while fasting, except on the Thursday before Easter. Calls for freedom were occasionally raised, not always wisely, by various individuals such as Eustathius of Sebaste (c. 350), Aerius of Pontus (c. 375), and Jovinian, a Roman monk (c. 388). For example, the Eustathians (whose connection to Eustathius is likely) complained that “they fast on Sundays but eat on the church’s fast days.” They were condemned by the synod of Gangra in Paphlagonia in the following canons:—Can. 19, “If anyone fasts on Sunday, let him be anathema.”18 Can. 20, “If anyone does not keep the fasts universally commanded and observed by the whole church, let him be anathema.” Jovinian was quite moderate. He “did not allow himself to be swept away by an inconsiderate zeal to condemn fasting or the life of celibacy and monasticism when considered purely in themselves.... He merely sought to show that people were wrong to indiscriminately recommend the life of celibacy and fasting, though he acknowledged that both could be good and useful under certain circumstances” (Neander). Nonetheless, he was condemned (390) by Pope Siricius at a synod in Rome and by Ambrose at another in Milan. Aerius's views, according to his fierce opponent Epiphanius (Haer. 75, “Adv. Aerium”), though unpopular, seemed to be marked by significant wisdom and sobriety. He did not condemn fasting entirely but believed it should be practiced in the spirit of gospel freedom as circumstances warranted. He criticized the church for having replaced Christian liberty with a yoke of Jewish bondage.19

Towards the beginning of the 5th century we find Socrates (439) enumerating (H.E. v. 22) a long catalogue of the different fasting practices of the church. The Romans fasted three weeks continuously before Easter (Saturdays and Sundays excepted). In Illyria, Achaia and Alexandria the quadragesimal fast lasted six weeks. Others (the Constantinopolitans) began their fasts seven weeks before Easter, but fasted only on alternate weeks, five days at a time. Corresponding differences as to the manner of abstinence occurred. Some abstained from all living creatures; others ate fish; others fish and fowl. Some abstained from eggs and fruit; some confined themselves to bread; some would not take even that. Some fasted till three in the afternoon, and then took whatever they pleased. “Other nations,” adds the historian, “observe other customs in their fasts, and that for various reasons. And since no one can show any written rule about this, it is plain the apostles left this matter free to every one’s liberty and choice, that no one should be compelled to do a good thing out of necessity and fear.” When Leo the Great became pope in 440, a period of more rigid uniformity began. The imperial authority of Valentinian helped to bring the whole West at least into submission to the see of Rome; and ecclesiastical enactments had, more than formerly, the support of the civil power. Though the introduction of the four Ember seasons was not entirely due to him, as has sometimes been asserted, it is certain that their widespread observance was due to his influence, and to that of his successors, especially of Gregory the Great. The tendency to increased rigour may be discerned in the 2nd canon of the synod of Orleans (541), which declares that every Christian is bound to observe the fast of Lent, and, in case of failure to do so, is to be punished according to the laws of the church by his spiritual superior; in the 9th canon of the synod of Toledo (653), which declares the eating of flesh during Lent to be a mortal sin; in Charlemagne’s law for the newly conquered Saxony, which attaches the penalty of death to wanton disregard of the holy season.20 Baronius mentions that in the 11th century those who ate flesh during Lent were liable to have their teeth knocked out. But it ought to be remembered that this severity of the law early began to be tempered by the power to grant dispensations. The so-called Butter Towers (Tours de beurre) of Rouen, 1485-1507, Bourges and other cities, are said to have been built with money raised by sale of dispensations to eat lacticinia on fast days.

Towards the start of the 5th century, Socrates (439) lists a lengthy catalog of the various fasting practices of the church (H.E. v. 22). The Romans fasted for three straight weeks before Easter, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. In Illyria, Achaia, and Alexandria, the Lenten fast lasted six weeks. Others, like those in Constantinople, began fasting seven weeks before Easter but fasted only every other week, for five days at a time. There were different approaches to abstinence as well. Some refrained from all animal products; others ate fish; and still others consumed both fish and poultry. Some avoided eggs and fruit; some limited themselves to bread; and some wouldn’t eat even that. Some fasted until three in the afternoon and then ate whatever they wanted. “Other nations,” the historian notes, “follow their own customs regarding fasting for various reasons. Since no one can provide a written rule about this, it’s clear that the apostles left this matter open for personal choice, so that no one feels obligated to do a good deed out of necessity or fear.” When Leo the Great became pope in 440, a period of stricter uniformity began. The imperial authority of Valentinian helped enforce obedience to the see of Rome throughout the West; and ecclesiastical laws were increasingly supported by civil power. Although the introduction of the four Ember Seasons wasn’t entirely due to him, as some have claimed, it’s certain that their widespread observance was influenced by him and his successors, especially Gregory the Great. The move toward stricter practices can be seen in the 2nd canon of the synod of Orleans (541), which states that every Christian is required to observe the fast of Lent, and if someone fails to do so, they will be punished according to church law by their spiritual leader; and in the 9th canon of the synod of Toledo (653), which declares that eating meat during Lent is a mortal sin; and in Charlemagne’s law for the newly conquered Saxony, which imposes the death penalty for blatant disregard of the holy season. 20 Baronius notes that in the 11th century, those who ate meat during Lent risked having their teeth knocked out. However, it should be noted that this harshness of the law began to be softened by the ability to grant exemptions. The so-called Butter Towers (Tours de beurre) of Rouen, 1485-1507, Bourges, and other cities, are said to have been built with funds raised from selling exemptions to eat lacticinia on fast days.

It is probable that the apparent severity of the medieval Latin Church on this subject was largely due to the real strictness of the Greek Church, which, under the patriarch Photius in 864, had taken what was virtually a new departure in its fasting praxis. The rigour of the fasts of the modern Greek Church is well known; and it can on the whole be traced back to that comparatively early date. Of the nine fundamental laws of that 197 church (ἐννέα παραγγέλματα τῆς ἐκκλησίας) two are concerned with fasting. Besides fasts of an occasional and extraordinary nature, the following are recognized as of stated and universal obligation:—(1) The Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout the year (with the exception of the period between Christmas and Epiphany, the Easter week, the week after Whitsunday, the third week after Epiphany); (2) The great yearly fasts, viz. that of Lent, lasting 48 days, from the Monday of Sexagesima to Easter eve; that of Advent, 39 days, from November 15 to Christmas eve; that of the Theotokos (νηστεία τῆς Θεοτόκου), from August 1 to August 15; that of the Holy Apostles, lasting a variable number of days from the Monday after Trinity; (3) The minor yearly fasts before Epiphany, before Whitsunday, before the feasts of the transfiguration, the invention of the cross, the beheading of John the Baptist. During even the least rigid of these the use of flesh and lacticinia is strictly forbidden; fish, oil and wine are occasionally conceded, but not before two o’clock in the afternoon. The practice of the Coptic church is almost identical with this. A week before the Great Fast (Lent), a fast of three days is observed in commemoration of that of the Ninevites, mentioned in the book of Jonah. Some of the Copts are said to observe it by total abstinence during the whole period. The Great Fast continues fifty-five days; nothing is eaten except bread and vegetables, and that only in the afternoon, when church prayers are over. The Fast of the Nativity lasts for twenty-eight days before Christmas; that of the Apostles for a variable number of days from the Feast of the Ascension; and that of the Virgin for fifteen days before the Assumption. All Wednesdays and Fridays are also fast days except those that occur in the period between Easter and Whitsunday. The Armenians are equally strict; but (adds Rycaut) “the times seem so confused and without rule that they can scarce be recounted, unless by those who live amongst them, and strictly observe them, it being the chief care of the priest, whose learning principally consists in knowing the appointed times of fasting and feasting, the which they never omit on Sundays to publish unto the people.”21

It’s likely that the strict approach of the medieval Latin Church on this issue was significantly influenced by the genuine rigor of the Greek Church. Under Patriarch Photius in 864, the Greek Church adopted a new approach to fasting. The stringency of fasts in the modern Greek Church is well-known and can generally be traced back to that earlier time. Of the nine fundamental laws of that 197 church (Nine commandments of the church), two focus on fasting. Besides occasional and extraordinary fasts, the following are recognized as obligatory:—(1) The Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout the year (except for the period between Christmas and Epiphany, Easter week, the week after Whitsunday, and the third week after Epiphany); (2) The major annual fasts: Lent, lasting 48 days from the Monday of Sexagesima to Easter eve; Advent, 39 days, from November 15 to Christmas eve; the fast of the Theotokos (fast of the Theotokos), from August 1 to August 15; the fast of the Holy Apostles, lasting a varying number of days from the Monday after Trinity; (3) The minor annual fasts before Epiphany, before Whitsunday, and before the feasts of Transfiguration, the Invention of the Cross, and the Beheading of John the Baptist. Even during the least stringent of these fasts, the consumption of meat and dairy products is strictly prohibited; fish, oil, and wine may be allowed occasionally, but not before 2 PM. The practice of the Coptic church closely mirrors this. A week before the Great Fast (Lent), a three-day fast is observed to commemorate the fast of the Ninevites mentioned in the book of Jonah. Some Copts reportedly observe it with total abstinence for the entire period. The Great Fast lasts fifty-five days; only bread and vegetables are eaten, and only in the afternoon after church prayers. The Fast of the Nativity continues for twenty-eight days leading up to Christmas; the fast of the Apostles lasts for a variable number of days from the Feast of Ascension; and the fast of the Virgin lasts for fifteen days before the Assumption. All Wednesdays and Fridays are also fast days, except for the time between Easter and Whitsunday. The Armenians also maintain strict practices; however, Rycaut adds that “the timings seem so disorganized and without structure that they can barely be listed, unless by those who live among them and strictly follow their customs, which is the main responsibility of the priest, whose knowledge mainly consists of being aware of the designated times for fasting and feasting, which they never fail to announce to the congregation on Sundays.”21

At the council of Trent no more than a passing allusion was made to the subject of fasting. The faithful were simply enjoined to submit themselves to church authority on the subject; and the clergy were exhorted to urge their flocks to the observance of frequent jejunia, as conducive to the mortification of the flesh, and as assuredly securing the divine favour. R.F.R. Bellarmine (De jejunio) distinguishes jejunium spirituale (abstinentia a vitiis), jejunium morale (parsimonia et temperantia cibi et potus), jejunium naturale (abstinentia ab omni prorsus cibo et potu, quacunque ratione sumpto), and jejunium ecclesiasticum. The last he defines simply as an abstinence from food in conformity with the rule of the church. It may be either voluntary or compulsory; and compulsory either because of a vow or because of a command. But the definition given by Alexander Halensis, which is much fuller, still retains its authority:—“Jejunium est abstinentia a cibo et potu secundum formam ecclesiae, intuitu satisfaciendi pro peccato et acquirendi vitam aeternam.” It was to this last clause that the Reformers most seriously objected. They did not deny that fasting might be a good thing, nor did they maintain that the church or the authority might not ordain fasts, though they deprecated the imposition of needless burdens on the conscience. What they protested against was the theory of the opus operatum et meritorium as applied to fasting. As matter of fact, the Reformed churches in no case gave up the custom of observing fast days, though by some churches the number of such days was greatly reduced. In many parts of Germany the seasons of Lent and Advent are still marked by the use of emblems of mourning in the churches, by the frequency of certain phrases (Kyrie eleison, Agnus Dei) and the absence of others (Hallelujah, Gloria in excelsis) in the liturgical services, by abstinence from some of the usual social festivities, and by the non-celebration of marriages. And occasional fasts are more or less familiar. The Church of England has retained a considerable list of fasts; though Hooker (E.P. v. 72) had to contend with some who, while approving of fastings undertaken “of men’s own free and voluntary accord as their particular devotion doth move them thereunto,” yet “yearly or weekly fasts such as ours in the Church of England they allow no further than as the temporal state of the land doth require the same for the maintenance of seafaring men and preservation of cattle; because the decay of the one and the waste of the other could not well be prevented but by a politic order appointing some such usual change of diet as ours is.”

At the Council of Trent, there was only a brief mention of fasting. The faithful were simply encouraged to submit to church authority on this issue, and the clergy were urged to guide their congregations to observe regular fasts, as these were believed to help in controlling desires and securing divine favor. R.F.R. Bellarmine (De jejunio) differentiates between jejunium spirituale (spiritual fasting, or abstaining from vices), jejunium morale (moral fasting, or moderation in food and drink), jejunium naturale (natural fasting, or complete abstinence from all food and drink for any reason), and jejunium ecclesiasticum. The last category he simply defines as abstaining from food according to church rules. This can be voluntary or mandatory; mandatory fasting can be due to a vow or a church command. However, the more detailed definition by Alexander Halensis still holds authority: “Fasting is abstinence from food and drink according to the church’s guidelines, intended to make satisfaction for sin and to obtain eternal life.” The Reformers objected most strongly to this last point. They did not deny that fasting could be beneficial, nor did they argue that the church or its authority could not declare fasts, although they were against imposing unnecessary burdens on people’s consciences. What they opposed was the theory of the opus operatum et meritorium as it related to fasting. In fact, the Reformed churches did not discard the practice of observing fast days, although some churches significantly reduced the number of these days. In many parts of Germany, the seasons of Lent and Advent are still marked by mourning symbols in the churches, the frequent use of certain phrases (like Kyrie eleison and Agnus Dei), and the absence of others (like Hallelujah and Gloria in excelsis) in the liturgical services, as well as the avoidance of some usual social celebrations and the non-celebration of marriages. Occasional fasting is also quite common. The Church of England has kept a substantial list of fasts; however, Hooker (E.P. v. 72) had to address those who, while supporting fasts taken “out of one’s own free will and as a personal devotion,” only accepted yearly or weekly fasts like those in the Church of England to the extent that the local government required them for the support of sailors and the preservation of livestock, because the decline of one and the depletion of the other couldn't be well managed without some political decision instituting such regular changes in diet as practiced in our church.

In the practice of modern Roman Catholicism the following are recognized as fasting days, that is to say, days on which one meal only, and that not of flesh, may be taken in the course of twenty-four hours:—The forty days of Lent (Sundays excepted), all the Ember days, the Wednesdays and Fridays in Advent, and the vigils of certain feasts, namely, those of Whitsuntide, of St Peter and St Paul, of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of All Saints and of Christmas day. The following are simply days of abstinence, that is to say, days on which flesh at all events must not be eaten:—The Sundays in Lent, the three Rogation days, the feast of St Mark (unless it falls in Easter week), and all Fridays which are not days of fasting. In the Anglican Church, the “days of fasting or abstinence” are the forty days of Lent, the Ember days, the Rogation days, and all the Fridays in the year, except Christmas day. The evens or vigils before Christmas, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Easter day, Ascension day, Pentecost, St Matthias, the Nativity of St John Baptist, St Peter, St James, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, St Simon and St Jude, St Andrew, St Thomas, and All Saints are also recognized as “fast days.” By the 64th canon it is enacted that “every parson, vicar or curate, shall in his several charge declare to the people every Sunday at the time appointed in the communion-book [which is, after the Nicene creed has been repeated] whether there be any holy-days or fast-days the week following.” The 72nd canon ordains that “no minister or ministers shall, without licence and direction of the bishop under hand and seal, appoint or keep any solemn fasts, either publicly or in any private houses, other than such as by law are or by public authority shall be appointed, nor shall be wittingly present at any of them under pain of suspension for the first fault, of excommunication for the second, and of deposition from the ministry for the third.” While strongly discouraging the arbitrary multiplication of public or private fasts, the English Church seems to leave to the discretion of the individual conscience every question as to the manner in which the fasts she formally enjoins are to be observed. In this connexion the homily Of Fasting may be again referred to. By a statute of the reign of Queen Elizabeth it was enacted that none should eat flesh on “fish days” (the Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays throughout the year) without a licence, under a penalty. In the Scottish Presbyterian churches days of “fasting, humiliation and prayer” are observed by ecclesiastical appointment in each parish once or twice every year on some day of the week preceding the Sunday fixed for the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In some of the New England States, it has been usual for the governor to appoint by proclamation at some time in spring a day of fasting, when religious services are conducted in the churches. National fasts have more than once been observed on special occasions both in this country and in the United States of America.

In modern Roman Catholicism, the following days are recognized as fasting days, which means that only one meal is allowed, and it cannot include meat: the forty days of Lent (excluding Sundays), all Ember days, the Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent, and the vigils of certain feasts, specifically those of Whitsuntide, St. Peter and St. Paul, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, All Saints, and Christmas Day. The following are considered days of abstinence, which means that meat cannot be eaten at all: the Sundays in Lent, the three Rogation days, the feast of St. Mark (unless it falls during Easter week), and all Fridays that are not fasting days. In the Anglican Church, the “days of fasting or abstinence” include the forty days of Lent, Ember days, Rogation days, and all Fridays throughout the year, except Christmas Day. The evenings or vigils before Christmas, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Pentecost, St. Matthias, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, and All Saints are also recognized as “fast days.” According to the 64th canon, “every parson, vicar, or curate must inform the congregation every Sunday, at the time specified in the communion book [which is after the Nicene creed has been recited], if there are any holy days or fast days in the following week.” The 72nd canon states that “no minister or ministers shall, without the bishop’s written and sealed license and direction, set or observe any solemn fasts, either publicly or privately, other than those appointed by law or public authority, nor shall they knowingly attend any of them, facing suspension for the first violation, excommunication for the second, and removal from the ministry for the third.” While the English Church strongly discourages arbitrary public or private fasts, it seems to allow individuals the freedom to decide how to observe the formal fasts it mandates. In this context, the homily Of Fasting can be referenced again. A law from Queen Elizabeth's reign established that no one should eat meat on “fish days” (Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays throughout the year) without a license, under penalty. In Scottish Presbyterian churches, days of “fasting, humiliation, and prayer” are officially observed in each parish once or twice a year on a weekday prior to the Sunday designated for administering the Lord’s Supper. In some New England States, it has been customary for the governor to proclaim a day of fasting in spring, during which religious services are held in churches. National fasts have been observed on special occasions in both this country and the United States.

On the subject of fasting the views of Aerius are to a large extent shared by modern Protestant moralists. R. Rothe, for example, who on this point may be regarded as a representative thinker, rejects the idea that fasting is a thing meritorious in itself, and is very doubtful of its value even as an aid to devotional feeling. Of course when bodily health and other circumstances require it, it becomes a duty; and as a means of self-discipline it may be used with due regard to the claims of other duties, and to the fitness of things. In this last aspect, however, habitual temperance will generally be found to be much more 198 beneficial than occasional fasting. It is extremely questionable, in particular, whether fasting be so efficient as it is sometimes supposed to be in protecting against temptation to fleshly sin. The practice has a well-ascertained tendency to excite the imagination; and in so far as it disturbs that healthy and well-balanced interaction of body and mind which is the best or at least the normal condition for the practice of virtue, it is to be deprecated rather than encouraged (Theologische Ethik, sec. 873-875).

On the topic of fasting, Aerius's views are largely aligned with those of modern Protestant moralists. R. Rothe, for instance, who can be considered a key thinker on this issue, dismisses the notion that fasting is inherently virtuous and is quite skeptical about its effectiveness as a way to enhance spiritual feelings. Naturally, when physical health and other factors necessitate it, fasting becomes a duty; and when used as a form of self-discipline, it should take into account other responsibilities and what is appropriate. However, in this regard, regular temperance is generally found to be much more beneficial than occasional fasting. It is particularly questionable whether fasting is as effective as some believe in guarding against temptation to indulge in sinful desires. This practice tends to stimulate the imagination, and since it can disrupt the healthy and balanced interaction between body and mind—which is the ideal, or at least the typical, state for practicing virtue—it is better to discourage rather than promote it (Theologische Ethik, sec. 873-875).

Mahommedan Fasts.—Among the Mahommedans, the month Ramadan, in which the first part of the Koran is said to have been received, is by command of the prophet observed as a fast with extraordinary rigour. No food or drink of any kind is permitted to be taken from daybreak until the appearance of the stars at nightfall. Extending as it does over the whole “month of raging heat,” such a fast manifestly involves considerable self-denial; and it is absolutely binding upon all the faithful whether at home or abroad. Should its observance at the appointed time be interfered with by sickness or any other cause, the fast must be kept as soon afterwards as possible for a like number of days. It is the only one which Mahommedanism enjoins; but the doctors of the law recommend a considerable number of voluntary fasts, as for example on the tenth day of the month Moharram. This day, called the “Yom Ashoora,” is held sacred on many accounts:—“because it is believed to be the day on which the first meeting of Adam and Eve took place after they were cast out of paradise; and that on which Noah went out from the ark; also because several other great events are said to have happened on this day; and because the ancient Arabs, before the time of the prophet, observed it by fasting. But what, in the opinion of most modern Moslems, and especially the Persians, confers the greatest sanctity on the day of Ashoora is the fact of its being that on which El-Hoseyn, the prophet’s grandson, was slain a martyr at the battle of the plain of Karbala.” It is the practice of many Moslems to fast on this day, and some do so on the preceding day also. Mahomet himself called fasting the “gate of religion,” and forbade it only on the two great festivals, namely, on that which immediately follows Ramadan and on that which succeeds the pilgrimage. (See Lane, Modern Egyptians, chaps, iii., xxiv.)

Muslim Fasts.—Among Muslims, the month of Ramadan, when the first part of the Quran is believed to have been revealed, is observed as a fast with great commitment as commanded by the prophet. No food or drink of any kind is allowed from dawn until the stars appear at night. Since this fast occurs during the “month of intense heat,” it clearly requires significant self-restraint; and it is obligatory for all believers whether at home or traveling. If someone cannot observe it at the designated time due to illness or another reason, they must complete the fast as soon as possible for the same number of days. This is the only fast mandated by Islam; however, religious scholars recommend several voluntary fasts, such as on the tenth day of the month of Muharram. This day, known as “Yom Ashura,” is considered sacred for various reasons: “because it is believed to be the day when Adam and Eve first met after being expelled from paradise; the day Noah exited the ark; and because several other significant events are said to have occurred on this day; plus the ancient Arabs, before the prophet's time, observed it by fasting. However, what most modern Muslims, especially Persians, believe makes Ashura particularly holy is that it marks the day when Al-Hussein, the prophet’s grandson, was martyred at the battle of Karbala.” Many Muslims fast on this day, and some fast on the day before as well. Muhammad himself referred to fasting as the “gateway to religion” and only prohibited it on the two major festivals, specifically the one that follows Ramadan and the one that comes after the pilgrimage. (See Lane, Modern Egyptians, chaps, iii., xxiv.)


1 “The Fathers assembled there ... decreed in that council that every person, as well in his private as public fast, should continue all the day without meat and drink, till after the evening prayer. And whosoever did eat or drink before the evening prayer was ended should be accounted and reputed not to consider the purity of his fast. This canon teacheth so evidently how fasting was used in the primitive church as by words it cannot be more plainly expressed” (Of Good Works; and first, of Fasting.)

1 “The leaders gathered there ... decided in that council that everyone, whether fasting privately or publicly, should go the entire day without food or drink until after the evening prayer. Anyone who ate or drank before the evening prayer was concluded would be considered someone who did not respect the integrity of their fast. This rule clearly demonstrates how fasting was practiced in the early church, and it couldn't be stated more clearly" (Of Good Works; and first, of Fasting.)

2 As indeed they are, etymologically; but, prior to the Reformation, a conventional distinction between abstinentia and jejunium naturale had long been recognized. “Exceptio eduliorum quorundam portionale jejunium est” (Tertullian).

2 They truly are, in terms of their origins; however, before the Reformation, there was a commonly accepted distinction between abstinentia and jejunium naturale. “Exceptio eduliorum quorundam portionale jejunium est” (Tertullian).

3 Confucianism ought perhaps to be named as one. Zoroastrianism is frequently given as another, but hardly correctly. In the Liber Sad-der, indeed (Porta xxv.), we read, “Cavendum est tibi a jejunio; nam a mane ad vesperam nihil comedere non est bonum in religione nostra”; but according to the Père de Chinon (Lyons, 1671) the Parsee religion enjoins, upon the priesthood at least, no fewer than five yearly fasts. See Hyde, Veterum Persarum religio, pp. 449, 548 (ed. 1700).

3 Confucianism might be considered one. Zoroastrianism is often mentioned as another, but that’s not entirely accurate. In the book Sad-der, indeed (Porta xxv.), it states, “You should be careful about fasting; for not eating from morning to evening is not good in our religion”; however, according to Père de Chinon (Lyons, 1671), the Parsee religion requires at least five fasts each year for the priesthood. See Hyde, Veterum Persarum religio, pp. 449, 548 (ed. 1700).

4 During the middle ages the prevalent notion was that it had its origin in paradise. The germ at least of this idea is to be found in Tertullian, who says: “Acceperat Adam a Deo legem non gustandi de arbore agnitionis boni et mali, moriturus si gustasset; verum et ipse tunc in psychicum reversus ... facilius ventri quam Deo cessit, pabulo potius quam praecepto annuit, salutem gula vendidit, manducavit denique et periit, salvus alioquin si uni arbusculae jejunare maluisset” (De jejuniis, c. 3).

4 During the Middle Ages, the widespread belief was that it originated in paradise. The root of this idea can be traced back to Tertullian, who says: “Adam received from God the command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, doomed to die if he did; yet he turned back to his carnal desires... he surrendered more easily to his appetite than to God, agreeing to satisfy his hunger rather than obey the command, ultimately selling his salvation for food, and thus he ate and perished, although he would have been safe had he chosen to fast from that one little tree” (De jejuniis, c. 3).

5 Principles of Sociology, i. pp. 170, 284, 285. Compare the passage in the appendix from Hanusch, Slavischer Mythus, p. 408.

5 Principles of Sociology, i. pp. 170, 284, 285. Compare the passage in the appendix from Hanusch, Slavischer Mythus, p. 408.

6 Spencer, Prin. of Sociology, i. 256, &c.; E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. 277, 402; ii. 372, &c.

6 Spencer, Principles of Sociology, i. 256, etc.; E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. 277, 402; ii. 372, etc.

7 Hooker, E.P. v. 72. In the Westminster Assembly’s Larger Catechism fasting is mentioned among the duties required by the second commandment.

7 Hooker, E.P. v. 72. In the Westminster Assembly’s Larger Catechism, fasting is listed as one of the duties required by the second commandment.

8 The Brahmans themselves on the eleventh day after the full moon and the eleventh day after the new “abstain for sixty hours from every kind of sustenance”; and some have a special fast every Monday in November. See Picart, The Religion and Manners of the Brahmins.

8 The Brahmans themselves on the eleventh day after the full moon and the eleventh day after the new moon “abstain for sixty hours from all kinds of food”; and some have a special fast every Monday in November. See Picart, The Religion and Manners of the Brahmins.

9 נפש is here to be taken as substantially equivalent to “desire,” “appetite.”

9 Soul can be understood as essentially the same as "desire" or "appetite."

10 See Judith viii. 6. “And yet it may be a question whether they (the Jews) did not always fast upon Sabbath,” says Hooker (E.P. v. 72, 7), who gives a curious array of evidence pointing in this direction. He even makes use of Neh. viii. 9-12, which might be thought to tell the other way. Justinian’s phrase, “Sabbata Judaeorum a Mose in omne aevum jejunio dicata” (l. xxxvi. c. 2; comp. Suetonius, Augustus, 76) may be accounted for by the fact that the day of atonement is called Sabbat Sabbatôn (“a perfect Sabbath”).

10 See Judith viii. 6. “And it might be debated whether they (the Jews) always fasted on the Sabbath,” says Hooker (E.P. v. 72, 7), who presents an interesting collection of evidence supporting this idea. He even refers to Neh. viii. 9-12, which might seem to suggest the opposite. Justinian’s statement, “The Sabbaths of the Jews are dedicated to fasting by Moses for all time” (l. xxxvi. c. 2; compare Suetonius, Augustus, 76) could be explained by the fact that the Day of Atonement is referred to as Sabbat Sabbatôn (“a perfect Sabbath”).

11 There is, as Graf (Gesch. Bücher des A.T. p. 41) has pointed out, no direct evidence that the fast on the 10th of the 7th month was ever observed before the exile. But the inference which he draws from this silence of the historical books is manifestly a precarious one at best. Bleek calls Lev. xvi. “ein deutliches Beispiel Mosaïscher Abfassung” (Einleitung, p. 31, ed. 1878).

11 As Graf (Gesch. Bücher des A.T. p. 41) noted, there's no direct evidence that the fast on the 10th of the 7th month was ever practiced before the exile. However, the conclusion he reaches from this silence in the historical books is clearly a shaky one at best. Bleek refers to Lev. xvi. as “a clear example of Mosaic authorship” (Einleitung, p. 31, ed. 1878).

12 The allusion to the ark warns us to be cautious in assuming the laws of the Mishna to have been ever in force.

12 The reference to the ark reminds us to be careful in assuming that the laws of the Mishna were always in effect.

13 The idea, however, is found in the Clementine Homilies, ix. 9. Compare Tertullian De jejuniis, c. 8: “Docuit etiam adversus diriora daemonia jejuniis praeliandum.”

13 The concept, however, appears in the Clementine Homilies, ix. 9. Compare Tertullian De jejuniis, c. 8: “He also taught that fasting is to be fought against the more terrible demons.”

14 On the manuscript evidence the words “I was fasting,” in Acts x. 30, must also be regarded as doubtful. They are rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf.

14 Based on the manuscript evidence, the phrase “I was fasting,” found in Acts x. 30, should also be considered questionable. Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf do not accept it.

15 Quinam isti (adversarii) sint, semel nominabo: exteriores et interiores botuli psychicorum.... Arguunt nos quod jejunia propria custodiamus, quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus, quod etiam xerophagias observemus, siccantes cibum ab omni carne et omni jurulentia et uvidioribus quibusque pomis, nec quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus; lavacri quoque abstinentiam congruentem arido victui.

15 Let me briefly mention who our (opponents) are: external and internal critics of the psychics.... They argue that we should adhere to our own fasts, that we generally hold vigils in the evening, and that we observe dry meals, abstaining from any meat, all rich foods, and any overly juicy fruits, and that we should neither eat nor drink anything alcoholic; we also maintain an appropriate abstinence from baths, aligning with a dry diet.

16 The language of the canon is ambiguous; but this interpretation seems to be preferable, especially in view of canon 23, which enacts that jejunii superpositiones are to be observed in all months except July and August. See Hefele, Councils, i. 148 (Engl. trs.).

16 The language of the canon is unclear, but this interpretation seems to be better, especially considering canon 23, which states that jejunii superpositiones should be followed in all months except July and August. See Hefele, Councils, i. 148 (Engl. trs.).

17 Compare the 52nd [51st] of the Apostolical canons. “If any bishop or presbyter or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, abstains from flesh and wine, not for his own exercise but out of hatred of the things, forgetting that all things were very good ... either let him reform, or let him be deprived and be cast out of the church. So also a layman.” To this particular canon Hefele is disposed to assign a very early date.

17 Compare the 52nd [51st] of the Apostolic canons. “If any bishop, priest, deacon, or really anyone in the clergy avoids meat and wine, not for their personal discipline but out of disdain for these things, forgetting that everything was created good ... either let them change their ways, or let them be removed and cast out of the church. The same applies to a layperson.” Hefele is inclined to date this particular canon very early.

18 Compare canon 64 of the (supposed) fourth synod of Carthage: “He who fasts on Sunday is not accounted a Catholic” (Hefele, ii. 415).

18 Compare canon 64 of the (supposed) fourth synod of Carthage: “Anyone who fasts on Sunday is not considered a Catholic” (Hefele, ii. 415).

19 Priscillian, whose widespread heresy evoked from the synod of Saragossa (418) the canon, “No one shall fast on Sunday, nor may any one absent himself from church during Lent and hold a festival of his own,” appears, on the question of fasting, not to have differed from the Encratites and various other sects of Manichean tendency (c. 406).

19 Priscillian, whose widespread heresy prompted the synod of Saragossa (418) to establish the rule, “No one shall fast on Sunday, nor may anyone skip church during Lent and hold their own festival,” seems, regarding the issue of fasting, not to have differed from the Encratites and several other groups with Manichean beliefs (c. 406).

20 Cap. iii. pro partib. Saxoniae: “Si quis sanctum quadragesimale jejunium pro despectu Christianitatis contempserit et carnem comederit, morte moriatur. Sed tamen consideretur a sacerdote ne forte causa necessitatis hoc cuilibet proveniat, ut carnem comedat.” See Augusti, Christliche Archäologie, x. p. 374.

20 Cap. iii. concerning the parts of Saxony: “If anyone despises the holy forty-day fast out of contempt for Christianity and eats meat, they should die. However, the priest should consider whether there might be a necessity causing someone to eat meat.” See Augusti, Christian Archaeology, x. p. 374.

21 See Fink’s article “Fasten” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopädie; Lane, Modern Egyptians; and Rycaut, Present State of the Armenian Church.

21 See Fink’s article “Fasten” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopädie; Lane, Modern Egyptians; and Rycaut, Present State of the Armenian Church.


FASTOLF, SIR JOHN (d. 1459), English soldier, has enjoyed a more lasting reputation as in some part the prototype of Shakespeare’s Falstaff. He was son of a Norfolk gentleman, John Fastolf of Caister, is said to have been squire to Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, before 1398, served with Thomas of Lancaster in Ireland during 1405 and 1406, and in 1408 made a fortunate marriage with Millicent, widow of Sir Stephen Scrope of Castle Combe in Wiltshire. In 1413 he was serving in Gascony, and took part in all the subsequent campaigns of Henry V. in France. He must have earned a good repute as a soldier, for in 1423 he was made governor of Maine and Anjou, and in February 1426 created a knight of the Garter. But later in this year he was superseded in his command by John Talbot. After a visit to England in 1428, he returned to the war, and on the 12th of February 1429 when in charge of the convoy for the English army before Orleans defeated the French and Scots at the “battle of herrings.” On the 18th of June of the same year an English force under the command of Fastolf and Talbot suffered a serious defeat at Patay. According to the French historian Waurin, who was present, the disaster was due to Talbot’s rashness, and Fastolf only fled when resistance was hopeless. Other accounts charge him with cowardice, and it is true that John of Bedford at first deprived him of the Garter, though after inquiry he was honourably reinstated. This incident was made unfavourable use of by Shakespeare in Henry VI. (pt. i. act iv. sc. i.). Fastolf continued to serve with honour in France, and was trusted both by Bedford and by Richard of York. He only came home finally in 1440, when past sixty years of age. But the scandal against him continued, and during Cade’s rebellion in 1451 he was charged with having been the cause of the English disasters through minishing the garrisons of Normandy. It is suggested that he had made much money in the war by the hire of troops, and in his later days he showed himself a grasping man of business. A servant wrote of him:—“cruel and vengible he hath been ever, and for the most part without pity and mercy” (Paston Letters, i. 389). Besides his share in his wife’s property he had large estates in Norfolk and Suffolk, and a house at Southwark, where he also owned the Boar’s Head Inn. He died at Caister on the 5th of November 1459. There is some reason to suppose that Fastolf favoured Lollardry, and this circumstance with the tradition of his braggart cowardice may have suggested the use of his name for the boon companion of Prince Hal, when Shakespeare found it expedient to drop that of Oldcastle. In the first two folios the name of the historical character in the first part of Henry VI. is given as “Falstaffe” not Fastolf. Other points of resemblance between the historic Fastolf and the Falstaff of the dramatist are to be found in their service under Thomas Mowbray, and association with a Boar’s Head Inn. But Falstaff is in no true sense a dramatization of the real soldier.

FASTOLF, SIR JOHN (d. 1459), an English soldier, is known for being an early model for Shakespeare’s Falstaff. He was the son of a Norfolk gentleman, John Fastolf of Caister, and is said to have been a squire to Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, before 1398. He served with Thomas of Lancaster in Ireland during 1405 and 1406, and in 1408 he made a fortunate marriage to Millicent, the widow of Sir Stephen Scrope of Castle Combe in Wiltshire. In 1413, he was serving in Gascony and participated in all the subsequent campaigns of Henry V in France. He earned a good reputation as a soldier, so in 1423 he was appointed governor of Maine and Anjou, and in February 1426, he was made a knight of the Garter. However, later that year, he was replaced in his command by John Talbot. After visiting England in 1428, he returned to the war, and on February 12, 1429, while in charge of the convoy for the English army before Orleans, he defeated the French and Scots at the “battle of herrings.” On June 18 of that year, an English force led by Fastolf and Talbot suffered a serious defeat at Patay. According to the French historian Waurin, who was there, the defeat was due to Talbot’s recklessness, and Fastolf only fled when further resistance was pointless. Other accounts accuse him of cowardice, and John of Bedford initially stripped him of the Garter, though he was later honorably reinstated after an inquiry. Shakespeare later used this incident unfavorably in Henry VI. (pt. i. act iv. sc. i.). Fastolf continued to serve honorably in France and earned the trust of both Bedford and Richard of York. He only returned home in 1440 when he was over sixty. However, the scandal against him persisted, and during Cade’s rebellion in 1451, he was blamed for the English losses due to reducing the garrisons in Normandy. It’s suggested that he profited greatly from the war by hiring troops, and in his later years, he showed himself to be a greedy businessman. A servant described him as “cruel and vengeful he hath been ever, and for the most part without pity and mercy” (Paston Letters, i. 389). Besides his share of his wife’s property, he owned large estates in Norfolk and Suffolk, and a house in Southwark, where he also owned the Boar’s Head Inn. He died at Caister on November 5, 1459. There’s some indication that Fastolf supported Lollardry, and this, along with the idea of his cowardice, may have inspired Shakespeare to use his name for the jovial companion of Prince Hal, after deciding to drop the name Oldcastle. In the first two folios, the historical character’s name in the first part of Henry VI. is recorded as “Falstaffe,” not Fastolf. Other similarities between the historical Fastolf and Shakespeare’s Falstaff include their service under Thomas Mowbray and their connection to the Boar’s Head Inn. However, Falstaff is not accurately a dramatization of the real soldier.

The facts of Fastolf’s early career are to be found chiefly in the chronicles of Monstrelet and Waurin. For his later life there is much material, including a number of his own letters, in the Paston Letters. There is a full life by W. Oldys in the Biographia Britannica (1st ed., enlarged by Gough in Kippis’s edition). See also Dawson Turner’s History of Caister Castle, Scrope’s History of Castle Combe, J. Gairdner’s essay On the Historical Element in Shakespeare’s Falstaff, ap. Studies in English History, Sidney Lee’s article in the Dictionary of National Biography, and D.W. Duthie, The Case of Sir John Fastolf and other Historical Studies (1907).

The details of Fastolf's early career can mainly be found in the chronicles of Monstrelet and Waurin. For his later life, there's plenty of material available, including several of his own letters, in the Paston Letters. W. Oldys wrote a comprehensive biography in the Biographia Britannica (1st ed., expanded by Gough in Kippis’s edition). Also, check out Dawson Turner’s History of Caister Castle, Scrope’s History of Castle Combe, J. Gairdner’s essay On the Historical Element in Shakespeare’s Falstaff, found in Studies in English History, Sidney Lee’s article in the Dictionary of National Biography, and D.W. Duthie’s The Case of Sir John Fastolf and other Historical Studies (1907).

(C. L. K.)

FAT (O.E. fáett; the word is common to Teutonic languages, cf. Dutch vet, Ger. Fett, &c., and may be ultimately related to Greek πίων and πιαρός, and Sanskrit pivan), the name given to certain animal and vegetable products which are oily solids at ordinary temperatures, and are chemically distinguished as being the glyceryl esters of various fatty acids, of which the most important are stearic, palmitic, and oleic; it is to be noticed that they are non-nitrogenous. Fat is a normal constituent of animal tissue, being found even before birth; it occurs especially in the intra-muscular, the abdominal and the subcutaneous connective tissues. In the vegetable kingdom fats especially occur in the seeds and fruits, and sometimes in the roots. Physiological subjects concerned with the part played by fats in living animals are treated in the articles Connective Tissues; Nutrition; Corpulence; Metabolic Diseases. The fats are chemically similar to the fixed oils, from which they are roughly distinguished by being solids and not liquids (see Oils). While all fats have received industrial applications, foremost importance must be accorded to the fats of the domestic animals—the sheep, cow, ox and calf. These, which are extracted from the bones and skins in the first operation in the manufacture of glue, are the raw materials of the soap, candle and glycerin industries.

FAT (O.E. fáett; the term is found in various Germanic languages, like Dutch vet, Ger. Fett, etc., and may ultimately be connected to Greek fat and πιαρός, as well as Sanskrit pivan), refers to certain animal and plant products that are solid and oily at regular temperatures. These are chemically identified as glyceryl esters of various fatty acids, the most significant of which include stearic, palmitic, and oleic acids; they do not contain nitrogen. Fat is a typical component of animal tissues, present even before birth, and is particularly found in the intra-muscular, abdominal, and subcutaneous connective tissues. In the plant kingdom, fats are predominantly found in seeds and fruits, and occasionally in roots. The physiological roles of fats in living organisms are discussed in the articles Connective Tissues; Nutrition; Corpulence; Metabolic Diseases. Fats are chemically similar to fixed oils, but they are generally solid rather than liquid (see Oils). While all types of fats have industrial uses, the fats derived from domestic animals—like sheep, cows, oxen, and calves—are particularly important. These fats are extracted from bones and skins in the initial stage of glue production and serve as the base for the soap, candle, and glycerin industries.


FATALISM (Lat. fatum, that which is spoken, decreed), strictly the doctrine that all things happen according to a prearranged fate, necessity or inexorable decree. It has frequently been confused with determinism (q.v.), which, however, differs from it categorically in assigning a certain function to the will. The essence of the fatalistic doctrine is that it assigns no place at all to the initiative of the individual, or to rational sequence of events. Thus an oriental may believe that he is fated to die on a particular day; he believes that, whatever he does and in spite of all precautions he may take, nothing can avert the disaster. The idea of an omnipotent fate overruling all affairs of men is present in various forms in practically all religious systems. Thus Homer assumes a single fate (Μοῖρα), an impersonal power which makes all human concerns subject to the gods: it is not powerful over the gods, however, for Zeus is spoken of as weighing out the fate of men (Il. xxii. 209, viii. 69). Hesiod has three Fates (Μοῖραι), daughters of Night, Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos. In Aeschylus fate is powerful even over the gods. The Epicureans regarded fate as blind chance, while to the Stoics everything is subject to an absolute rational law.

Fatalism (Lat. fatum, that which is spoken, decreed), is the belief that everything happens according to a predetermined fate, necessity, or unavoidable decree. It is often confused with determinism (q.v.), which, however, differs fundamentally by assigning a role to free will. The key aspect of fatalism is that it gives no room for individual initiative or a logical progression of events. For example, someone from the East might believe they are destined to die on a certain day; they think that no matter what actions they take or precautions they make, they cannot escape this fate. The concept of an all-powerful fate controlling human affairs appears in various forms across almost all religions. Homer, for instance, presents a single fate (Fate), an impersonal force that makes all human matters subject to the gods; however, this fate does not control the gods themselves, as Zeus is described as determining the fates of men (Il. xxii. 209, viii. 69). Hesiod describes three Fates (Fates), the daughters of Night: Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos. In Aeschylus, fate is powerful even over the gods. The Epicureans viewed fate as mere blind chance, while the Stoics believed everything is governed by an absolute rational law.

The doctrine of fate appears also in what are known as the higher religions, e.g. Christianity and Mahommedanism. In the 199 former the ideas of personality and infinite power have vanished, all power being conceived as inherent in God. It is recognized that the moral individual must have some kind of initiative, and yet since God is omnipotent and omniscient man must be conceived as in some sense foreordained to a certain moral, mental and physical development. In the history of the Christian church emphasis has from time to time been laid specially on the latter aspect of human life (cf. the doctrines of election, foreordination, determinism). Even those theologians, however, who have laid special stress on the limitations of the human will have repudiated the strictly fatalistic doctrine which is characteristic of Oriental thought and is the negation of all human initiative (see Predestination; Augustine, Saint; Will). In Islam fate is an absolute power, known as Kismet, or Nasib, which is conceived as inexorable and transcending all the physical laws of the universe. The most striking feature of the Oriental fatalism is its complete indifference to material circumstances: men accept prosperity and misfortune with calmness as the decree of fate.

The idea of fate is also present in what are often referred to as the higher religions, e.g. Christianity and Islam. In Christianity, the concepts of personality and infinite power have diminished, with all power seen as inherent in God. It is acknowledged that moral individuals must have some initiative, yet because God is all-powerful and all-knowing, humans are viewed as being somewhat predetermined to a particular moral, mental, and physical development. Throughout the history of the Christian church, there have been moments where the focus has been particularly on this aspect of human life (cf. the doctrines of election, foreordination, determinism). Even those theologians who emphasize the limitations of human will have rejected the strictly fatalistic view characteristic of Eastern thought that negates all human initiative (see Predestination; Augustine, Saint; Will). In Islam, fate is seen as an absolute power, known as Kismet or Nasib, understood to be unyielding and beyond all physical laws of the universe. The most notable aspect of Oriental fatalism is its total indifference to material circumstances: people accept both prosperity and adversity with composure as the will of fate.


FATE, in Roman mythology, the spoken word (fatum) of Jupiter, the unalterable will of heaven. The plural (Fata, the Fates) was used for the “destinies” of individuals or cities, and then for the three goddesses who controlled them. Thus, Fata Scribunda were the goddesses who wrote down a man’s destiny at his birth. In this connexion, however, Fata may be singular, the masculine and feminine Fatus, Fata, being the usual forms in popular and ceremonial language. The Fates were also called Parcae, the attributes of both being the same as those of the Greek Moerae.

FATE, in Roman mythology, is the spoken word (fatum) of Jupiter, representing the unchanging will of the heavens. The plural form (Fata, the Fates) referred to the “destinies” of individuals or cities, and later to the three goddesses who governed them. Therefore, Fata Scribunda were the goddesses who recorded a person’s fate at their birth. In this context, Fata can also be singular, with the masculine and feminine Fatus, Fata, being the common forms in everyday and ceremonial language. The Fates were also known as Parcae, sharing the same attributes as the Greek Moerae.


FATEHPUR, Fathipur or Futtehpoor, a town and district of British India, in the Allahabad division of the United Provinces. The town is 73 m. by rail N.W. of Allahabad. Pop. (1901) 19,281. The district has an area of 1618 sq. m. It is situated in the extreme south-eastern corner of the Doab or tract of country between the Ganges and the Jumna, which respectively mark its northern and southern boundaries. The whole district consists of an alluvial plain formed by the deposits of the two great rivers. The central part is almost perfectly level, and consists of highly cultivated land interspersed with jungle and with tracts impregnated with saltpetre (usar). A ridge of higher land, forming the watershed of the district, runs along it from east to west at an average distance of about 5 m. from the Ganges. Fatehpur therefore consists of two inclined planes, the one 5 m. broad, sloping down rapidly to the Ganges, and the other from 15 to 20 m. broad, falling gradually to the Jumna. The country near the banks of the two rivers is cut up into ravines and nullahs running in all directions, and is almost entirely uncultivable. Besides the Ganges and Jumna the only rivers of importance are the Pandu, a tributary of the Ganges, and the Arind and Nun, which both fall into the Jumna. The climate is more humid than in the other districts of the Doab, and although fevers are common, it is not considered an unhealthy district. The average annual rainfall is 34 in.

Fatehpur, Fathipur or Fatehpur is a town and district in British India, located in the Allahabad division of the United Provinces. The town is 73 miles by rail northwest of Allahabad, with a population of 19,281 in 1901. The district covers an area of 1,618 square miles and is positioned in the far southeastern corner of the Doab, the region between the Ganges and the Jumna rivers, which form its northern and southern borders. The entire district is an alluvial plain shaped by the deposits of these two major rivers. The central area is nearly perfectly flat and consists of intensely cultivated land mixed with patches of jungle and areas rich in saltpetre (usar). A ridge of higher land runs from east to west, about 5 miles from the Ganges, forming the watershed of the district. Thus, Fatehpur features two sloped areas: one is 5 miles wide, sloping steeply down towards the Ganges, while the other ranges from 15 to 20 miles wide, sloping gradually towards the Jumna. The land near the banks of both rivers is marked by ravines and nullahs running in every direction, making it almost entirely unsuitable for farming. Besides the Ganges and Jumna, the other significant rivers are the Pandu, a tributary of the Ganges, and the Arind and Nun, both of which flow into the Jumna. The climate here is more humid than in other parts of the Doab, and although fevers are common, it is not regarded as an unhealthy district. The average annual rainfall is 34 inches.

The tract in which this district is comprised was conquered in 1194 by the Pathans; but subsequently, after a desperate resistance, it was wrested from them by the Moguls. In the 18th century it formed a part of the subah of Korah, and was under the government of the wazir of Oudh. In 1736 it was overrun by the Mahrattas, who retained possession of it until, in 1750, they were ousted by the Pathans of Fatehpur. In 1753 it was reconquered by the nawab of Oudh. In 1765, by a treaty between the East India Company and the nawab, Korah was made over to the Delhi emperor, who retained it till 1774, when it was again restored to the nawab wazir’s dominions. Finally in 1801, the nawab, by treaty, reconveyed it to the Company in commutation of the amount which he had stipulated to pay in return for the defence of his country. In June 1857 the district rose in rebellion, and the usual murders of Europeans took place. Order was established after the fall of Lucknow, on the return of Lord Clyde’s army to Cawnpore. In 1901 the population was 686,391, showing a decrease of 2% in the decade. The district is traversed by the main line of the East Indian railway from Allahabad to Cawnpore. Trade is mainly agricultural, but the town of Fatehpur is noted for the manufacture of ornamental whips, and Jafarganj for artistic curtains, &c.

The area that makes up this district was taken over in 1194 by the Pathans; however, after a fierce struggle, it was captured from them by the Moguls. In the 18th century, it was part of the subah of Korah and was governed by the wazir of Oudh. In 1736, the Mahrattas invaded it and held it until 1750, when the Pathans from Fatehpur drove them out. The nawab of Oudh reconquered it in 1753. In 1765, a treaty between the East India Company and the nawab transferred Korah to the Delhi emperor, who kept it until 1774, when it was returned to the nawab's territories. Finally, in 1801, the nawab reconveyed it to the Company through a treaty as part of the payment for the defense of his region. In June 1857, the district revolted, resulting in the usual violence against Europeans. Order was restored after the fall of Lucknow when Lord Clyde’s army returned to Cawnpore. By 1901, the population was 686,391, showing a 2% decrease over the last decade. The district is crossed by the main line of the East Indian railway connecting Allahabad to Cawnpore. The economy is primarily agricultural, but Fatehpur is known for producing decorative whips, and Jafarganj is famous for artistic curtains, among other items.


FATEHPUR SIKRI, a town in the Agra district in the United Provinces of India, on the road from Agra to Jaipur. Pop. (1901) 7147. It is a ruined city, and is interesting only from an archaeological point of view. It was founded by Akbar in 1569 as a thank-offering for the birth of a son, Selim, afterwards the emperor Jahangir, foretold by Selim Chisti, a famous Mahommedan saint. The principal building is the great mosque, which is said by Fergusson to be hardly surpassed by any in India. “It measures 550 ft. east and west by 470 ft. north and south, over all. The mosque itself, 250 ft. by 80 ft., is crowned by three domes. In its courtyard, which measures 350 ft. by 440 ft., stand two tombs. One is that of Selim Chisti, built of white marble, and the windows with pierced tracery of the most exquisite geometrical patterns. It possesses besides a deep cornice of marble, supported by brackets of the most elaborate design. The other tomb, that of Nawab Islam Khan, is soberer and in excellent taste, but quite eclipsed by its surroundings. Even these parts, however, are surpassed in magnificence by the southern gateway. As it stands on a rising ground, when looked at from below its appearance is noble beyond that of any portal attached to any mosque in India, perhaps in the whole world.” Among other more noteworthy buildings the following may be mentioned. The palace of Jodh Bai, the Rajput wife of Akbar, consists of a courtyard surrounded by a gallery, above which rise buildings roofed with blue enamel. A rich gateway gives access to a terrace on which are the “houses of Birbal and Miriam”; and beyond these is another courtyard, where are Akbar’s private apartments and the exquisite palace of the Turkish sultana. Here are also the Panch Mahal or five-storeyed building, consisting of five galleries in tiers, and the audience chamber. The special feature in the architecture of the city is the softness of the red sandstone, which could be carved almost as easily as wood, and so lent itself readily to the elaborate Hindu embellishment. Fatehpur Sikri was a favourite residence of Akbar throughout his reign, and his establishment here was of great magnificence. After Akbar’s death Fatehpur Sikri was deserted within 50 years of its foundation. The reason for this was that frequent cause in the East, lack of water. The only water obtainable was so brackish and corroding as to cause great mortality among the inhabitants. The buildings are situated within an enclosure, walled on three sides and about 7 m. in circumference. They are all now more or less in ruins, and their elaborate painting and other decoration has largely perished, but some modern restoration has been effected.

Fatehpur Sikri, is a town in the Agra district of the United Provinces of India, located on the road from Agra to Jaipur. Population (1901) was 7,147. It is a ruined city that is primarily interesting from an archaeological perspective. Akbar founded it in 1569 as a gratitude offering for the birth of his son, Selim, who later became Emperor Jahangir, as predicted by Selim Chisti, a renowned Muslim saint. The main structure is the grand mosque, which Fergusson claims is among the best in India. “It measures 550 ft. east to west and 470 ft. north to south overall. The mosque itself, 250 ft. by 80 ft., features three domes. The courtyard, measuring 350 ft. by 440 ft., contains two tombs. One is that of Selim Chisti, made of white marble with windows featuring intricate geometrical patterns. It also has a deep marble cornice supported by delicately designed brackets. The other tomb, belonging to Nawab Islam Khan, is more subdued and tastefully designed but is outshined by its surroundings. However, even these structures are overshadowed by the southern gateway. Positioned on elevated ground, its view from below is grander than any portal associated with any mosque in India, and possibly in the entire world.” Among other notable buildings, the palace of Jodh Bai, Akbar's Rajput wife, features a courtyard surrounded by a gallery, topped with blue enamel-roofed buildings. An ornate gateway leads to a terrace hosting the “houses of Birbal and Miriam,” and beyond is another courtyard that contains Akbar’s private quarters and the beautiful palace of the Turkish sultana. The Panch Mahal, or five-storey building, comprises five tiered galleries along with the audience chamber. A distinctive aspect of the city's architecture is the softness of the red sandstone, which could be carved almost as easily as wood, allowing for intricate Hindu designs. Fatehpur Sikri was a favored residence of Akbar throughout his reign, and the establishment here was very grand. After Akbar’s death, Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned within 50 years of its founding. The reason for this, a common issue in the East, was the water scarcity. The only available water was so salty and corrosive that it caused significant mortality among the residents. The buildings are enclosed within walls on three sides, with a circumference of about 7 m. They are now mostly in ruins, and much of the intricate painting and decoration has largely faded, although some modern restoration has taken place.

See E.B. Havell, A Handbook to Agra and the Taj, Sikandra, Fatehpur Sikri, &c. (1904).

See E.B. Havell, A Handbook to Agra and the Taj, Sikandra, Fatehpur Sikri, & etc. (1904).


FATHER, the begetter of a child, the male parent. The word is common to Teutonic languages, and, like the other words for close family relationship, mother, brother, son, sister, daughter, appears in most Indo-European languages. The O. Eng. form is fæder, and it appears in Ger. Vater, Dutch vader, Gr. πατήρ, Lat. pater, whence Romanic Fr. père, Span. padre, &c. The word is used of male ancestors more remote than the actual male parent, and of ancestors in general. It is applied to God, as the Father of Jesus Christ, and as the Creator of the world, and is thus the orthodox term for the First Person of the Trinity. Of the transferred uses of the word many have religious reference; thus it is used of the Christian writers, usually confined to those of the first five centuries, the Fathers of the Church (see below), of whom those who flourished at the end of, or just after the age of, the apostles are known as the Apostolic Fathers. One who stands as a spiritual parent to another is his “father,” e.g. godfather, or in the title of bishops or archbishops, Right or Most Reverend Father in God. The pope is, in the Roman Church, the Holy Father. In the Roman Church, father is strictly applied to a “regular,” a member of one of the religious orders, and so always in Europe, in English usage, often applied to a confessor, whether regular or secular, and to any Roman priest, and sometimes used of sub-members of a religious society or fraternity 200 in the English Church. Of transferred uses, other than religious, may be mentioned the application to the first founders of an institution, constitution, epoch, &c. Thus the earliest settlers of North America are the Pilgrim Fathers, and the framers of the United States constitution are the Fathers of the Constitution. In ancient Rome the members of the senate are the Patres conscripti, the “Conscript fathers.” The senior member or doyen of a society is often called the father. Thus the member of the English House of Commons, and similarly, of the House of Representatives in the United States, America, who has sat for the longest period uninterruptedly, is the Father of the House.

DAD, the male parent of a child. The word is common in Germanic languages and, like other terms for close family relationships, such as mother, brother, son, sister, and daughter, appears in most Indo-European languages. The Old English form is fæder, and it appears in German as Vater, Dutch as vader, Greek as father, and Latin as pater, from which we get the Romance languages like French père and Spanish padre. The term is used for male ancestors beyond the immediate male parent and for ancestors in general. It is also applied to God, as the Father of Jesus Christ and the Creator of the world, making it the accepted term for the First Person of the Trinity. Many of the broader uses of the word have religious connotations; for instance, it refers to early Christian writers, especially from the first five centuries known as the Fathers of the Church (see below), with those who lived at the end of or shortly after the apostolic age called the Apostolic Fathers. A spiritual mentor is referred to as a “father,” such as a godfather, or in the titles of bishops or archbishops, Right or Most Reverend Father in God. The pope is referred to as the Holy Father in the Roman Church. In this context, "father" specifically refers to a "regular," a member of a religious order, and historically in Europe, it has often been applied to a confessor, whether in a regular or secular capacity, and to any Roman priest, sometimes extended to subordinate members of a religious community or fraternity in the English Church. Other than religious uses, it also applies to the first founders of an institution, constitution, epoch, etc. For example, the earliest settlers of North America are known as the Pilgrim Fathers, and the framers of the United States Constitution are called the Fathers of the Constitution. In ancient Rome, the members of the senate were known as Patres conscripti, or “Conscript fathers.” The senior member or doyen of a society is often called the father; thus, the member of the English House of Commons, and similarly, of the House of Representatives in the United States, who has served the longest uninterruptedly is referred to as the Father of the House. 200


FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. The use of the word “father” as a title of respect is found in the Old Testament, where it is applied to patriarchs (Gen. l. 24 (Septuagint); Exod. iii. 13, 15; Deut. i. 8), priests (Judg. xvii. 10, xviii. 19), prophets (2 Kings ii. 12, vi. 21, xiii. 14), and distinguished ancestors (Ecclus. xliv. 1). In the time of our Lord the scribes claimed the name with an arrogance which He disapproved (Matt. xxiii. 9); in the rabbinic literature “the fathers” are the more eminent of the earlier rabbis whose sayings were handed down for the guidance of posterity.1 The Christian Church, warned perhaps by the words of Christ, appears at first to have avoided a similar use of the term, while St Paul, St Peter and St John speak of their converts as spiritual children (1 Cor. iv. 14 f., Gal. iv. 19, 1 Pet. v. 13, 1 John ii. 12); they did not assume, so far as we know, the official style of “fathers in God.” Nor is this title found in the age which succeeded to that of the apostles. When Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred (A.D. 155), the crowd shouted, “This is the father of the Christians”2; but the words were probably prompted by the Jews, who took a prominent part in the martyrdom, and who naturally viewed Polycarp in the light of a great Christian rabbi, and gave him the title which their own teachers bore. In the next century members of the episcopal order were sometimes addressed in this manner: thus Cyprian is styled papas or papa by his Roman correspondents.3 The bishops who sat in the great councils of the 4th century were known as “the 318 fathers” of Nicaea, and “the 150 fathers” of Constantinople. Meanwhile the custom was growing up of appealing to eminent Church writers of a past generation under this name. Thus Athanasius writes (ad Afros vi.): “We have the testimony of fathers (the two Dionysii, bishops of Alexandria and Rome, who wrote in the previous century) for the use of the word ὁμοούσιος.” Such quotations were multiplied, as theologians learnt to depend increasingly upon their predecessors, until the testimony of “our holy father” Athanasius, or Gregory the Divine, or John the Golden-mouthed, came to be regarded as decisive in reference to controverted points of faith and practice.

CHURCH FATHERS. The term "father" as a sign of respect appears in the Old Testament, where it is used for patriarchs (Gen. l. 24 (Septuagint); Exod. iii. 13, 15; Deut. i. 8), priests (Judg. xvii. 10, xviii. 19), prophets (2 Kings ii. 12, vi. 21, xiii. 14), and notable ancestors (Ecclus. xliv. 1). In the time of Jesus, the scribes took on this title with a pride that He disapproved of (Matt. xxiii. 9); in rabbinic literature, “the fathers” refer to the more prominent earlier rabbis whose teachings were preserved for future generations.1 The Christian Church, perhaps influenced by Christ’s words, initially avoided using the term in a similar way, while St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John referred to their followers as spiritual children (1 Cor. iv. 14 f., Gal. iv. 19, 1 Pet. v. 13, 1 John ii. 12); they did not, as far as we know, adopt the official title of “fathers in God.” This title was also absent in the period following the apostles. When Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred (CE 155), the crowd shouted, “This is the father of the Christians”2; but this was likely encouraged by the Jews, who played a major role in the martyrdom and viewed Polycarp as a significant Christian rabbi, giving him a title similar to that of their own teachers. In the following century, members of the episcopal order were occasionally addressed this way: Cyprian, for instance, is referred to as papas or papa by his Roman correspondents.3 The bishops at the major councils of the 4th century were known as “the 318 fathers” of Nicaea and “the 150 fathers” of Constantinople. Meanwhile, there was a growing trend of referencing prominent Church writers from previous generations using this title. For example, Athanasius writes (ad Afros vi.): “We have the testimony of fathers (the two Dionysii, bishops of Alexandria and Rome, who wrote in the previous century) regarding the use of the word homogeneous.” These quotations increased as theologians leaned more on their predecessors, until the testimony of “our holy father” Athanasius, or Gregory the Divine, or John the Golden-mouthed became viewed as conclusive on debated points of faith and practice.

In the narrower sense thus indicated the “fathers” of the Church are the great bishops and other eminent Christian teachers of the earlier centuries, who were conspicuous for soundness of judgment and sanctity of life, and whose writings remained as a court of appeal for their successors. A list of fathers drawn up on this principle will begin with the Christian writers of the 1st century whose writings are not included in the New Testament: where it ought to end is a more difficult point to determine. Perhaps the balance of opinion is in favour of regarding Gregory the Great (d. 604) as the last of the Latin fathers, and John of Damascus (d. c. 760) as the last of the fathers of the Greek Church. A more liberal estimate might include John Scotus Erigena or even Anselm or Bernard of Clairvaux in the West and Photius in the East. The abbé Migne carried his Latin patrology down to the time of Innocent III. (d. 1216), and his Greek patrology to the fall of Constantinople (1453); but, while this large extension of the field is much to the advantage of his readers, it undoubtedly stretches the meaning of patrologia far beyond its natural limits. For ordinary purposes it is best to make the patristic period conterminous with the life of the ancient Catholic Church. In the West the Church enters the medieval stage of its history with the death of Gregory, while in the East even John of Damascus is rather a compiler of patristic teaching than a true “father.”

In the narrower sense outlined, the "fathers" of the Church are the key bishops and notable Christian teachers from the early centuries, known for their sound judgment and holy lives, whose writings served as a reference for their successors. A list of fathers based on this definition would start with the Christian writers of the 1st century whose works are not part of the New Testament: determining where this list should end is more challenging. Generally, there's a consensus that Gregory the Great (d. 604) is seen as the last of the Latin fathers, while John of Damascus (d. c. 760) is considered the last of the Greek Church fathers. A broader perspective might include John Scotus Erigena, as well as Anselm or Bernard of Clairvaux in the West and Photius in the East. Abbé Migne extended his Latin patrology up to the time of Innocent III. (d. 1216) and his Greek patrology until the fall of Constantinople (1453); though this extensive range benefits his readers, it clearly expands the meaning of patrologia well beyond its usual limits. For practical purposes, it’s best to align the patristic period with the lifespan of the ancient Catholic Church. In the West, the Church transitions into the medieval period with Gregory's death, while in the East, even John of Damascus is more of a compiler of patristic teachings than a true "father."

A further question arises. Are all the Christian writers of a given period to be included among the “fathers,” or those only who wrote on religious subjects, and of whose orthodoxy there is no doubt? Migne, following the example of the editors of bibliothecae patrum who preceded him, swept into his great collection all the Christian writings which fell within his period; but he is careful to state upon his title-page that his patrologies include the ecclesiastical writers as well as the fathers and doctors of the Church. For a comprehensive use of the term “ecclesiastical writers” he has the authority of Jerome, who enumerates among them4 such heresiarchs or leaders of schism as Tatian, Bardaisan, Novatus, Donatus, Photinus and Eunomius. This may not be logical, but long usage has made it permissible or even necessary. It is often difficult, if not impracticable, to draw the line between orthodox writers and heterodox; on which side, it might be asked, is Origen to be placed? and in the case of a writer like Tertullian who left the Church in middle life, are we to admit certain of his works into our patrology and refuse a place to others? It is clear that in the circumstances the terms “father,” “patristic,” “patrology” must be used with much elasticity, since it is now too late to substitute for them any more comprehensive terms.

A further question comes up. Should all Christian writers from a particular time be considered “fathers,” or only those who wrote about religious topics and whose beliefs are unquestionably orthodox? Migne, following the example of previous editors of the bibliothecae patrum, included all Christian writings from his era in his extensive collection; however, he is careful to state on his title page that his patrologies encompass both ecclesiastical writers and the fathers and doctors of the Church. For a broad interpretation of the term “ecclesiastical writers,” he has the backing of Jerome, who lists among them4 figures like Tatian, Bardaisan, Novatus, Donatus, Photinus, and Eunomius, who were considered heretics or leaders of schisms. This may not be entirely logical, but long-standing practice has made it acceptable or even necessary. It often proves difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox writers; for instance, where should Origen be categorized? And in the case of a writer like Tertullian, who left the Church later in life, should we include some of his works in our patrology while excluding others? It is evident that under these circumstances, the terms “father,” “patristic,” and “patrology” must be used quite flexibly, as it is now too late to replace them with any more inclusive terms.

By the “fathers,” then, we understand the whole of extant Christian literature from the time of the apostles to the rise of scholasticism or the beginning of the middle ages. However we may interpret the lower limit of this period, the literature which it embraces is immense. Some method of subdivision is necessary, and the simplest and most obvious is that which breaks the whole into two great parts, the ante-Nicene and the post-Nicene. This is not an arbitrary cleavage; the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) is the watershed which actually separates two great tracts of Christian literature. The ante-Nicene age yields priceless records of the early struggles of Christianity; from it we have received specimens of the early apologetic and the early polemic of the Church, the first essays of Christian philosophy, Christian correspondence, Christian biblical interpretation: we owe to it the works of Justin, Irenaeus, the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian. In these products of the 2nd and 3rd centuries there is much which in its own way was not surpassed by any of the later patristic writings. Yet the post-Nicene literature, considered as literature, reaches a far higher level. Both in East and West, the 4th and 5th centuries form the golden age of dogmatic theology, of homiletic preaching, of exposition, of letter-writing, of Church history, of religious poetry. Two causes may be assigned for this fact. The conversion of the empire gave the members of the Church leisure and opportunities for the cultivation of literary taste, and gradually drew the educated classes within the pale of the Christian society. Moreover, the great Christological controversies of the age tended to encourage in Christian writers and preachers an intellectual acuteness and an accuracy of thought and expression of which the earlier centuries had not felt the need.

By the “fathers,” we mean all the existing Christian literature from the time of the apostles until the rise of scholasticism or the beginning of the Middle Ages. Regardless of how we define the starting point of this period, the literature it includes is vast. We need some way to break it down, and the simplest method is to divide it into two main parts: the ante-Nicene and the post-Nicene. This isn’t a random split; the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) serves as a dividing line that truly separates two significant sections of Christian literature. The ante-Nicene period provides invaluable records of the early challenges faced by Christianity; from this time, we have examples of early apologetics and polemics of the Church, the first attempts at Christian philosophy, Christian correspondence, and biblical interpretation. We owe to it the works of Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian. In these writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there is much that, in its own way, was unmatched by later patristic works. However, post-Nicene literature, in terms of literary quality, reaches a significantly higher standard. In both the East and the West, the 4th and 5th centuries are considered the golden age of dogmatic theology, preaching, exposition, letter-writing, Church history, and religious poetry. Two reasons can explain this phenomenon. The conversion of the empire provided church members with leisure and opportunities to develop their literary skills, gradually bringing educated classes into Christian society. Additionally, the major Christological debates of the time encouraged Christian writers and preachers to pursue intellectual sharpness and clarity of thought and expression, which the earlier centuries did not emphasize.

The ante-Nicene period of patristic literature opens with the “apostolic fathers,”5 i.e. the Church writers who flourished toward the end of the apostolic age and during the half century that followed it, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and the author known as “Barnabas.” Their writings, like those of the apostles, are epistolary; but editions of the apostolic fathers now usually admit also the early Church order known as the Didachē, the allegory entitled the Shepherd, and a short anonymous apology addressed to one Diognetus. A second group, known as the “Greek Apologists,” embraces Aristides, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras and Theophilus; and a third consists of the early polemical writers, Irenaeus and 201 Hippolytus. Next come the great Alexandrians, Clement, Origen, Dionysius; the Carthaginians, Tertullian and Cyprian; the Romans, Minucius Felix and Novatian; the last four laid the foundations of a Latin Christian literature. Even the stormy days of the last persecution yielded some considerable writers, such as Methodius in the East and Lactantius in the West. This list is far from complete; the principal collections of the ante-Nicene fathers include not a few minor and anonymous writers, and the fragments of many others whose works as a whole have perished.

The ante-Nicene period of early Christian literature begins with the “apostolic fathers,”5 i.e. the Church writers who thrived toward the end of the apostolic age and during the following fifty years, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and the author known as “Barnabas.” Their writings, like those of the apostles, are in letter form; however, editions of the apostolic fathers now often include the early Church order known as the Didachē, the allegory titled the Shepherd, and a short anonymous apology addressed to one Diognetus. A second group, referred to as the “Greek Apologists,” includes Aristides, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; and a third consists of early polemical writers, Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Next are the great Alexandrians, Clement, Origen, and Dionysius; the Carthaginians, Tertullian and Cyprian; the Romans, Minucius Felix and Novatian; the last four established the foundations of Latin Christian literature. Even the turbulent times of the last persecution produced some notable writers, such as Methodius in the East and Lactantius in the West. This list is far from exhaustive; the main collections of the ante-Nicene fathers include several minor and anonymous writers, as well as the fragments of many others whose complete works have been lost.

In the post-Nicene period the literary output of the Church was greater. Only the more representative names can be mentioned here. From Alexandria we get Athanasius, Didymus and Cyril; from Cyrene, Synesius; from Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom and Theodoret; from Palestine, Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem; from Cappadocia, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus. The Latin West was scarcely less productive; it is enough to mention Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Leo of Rome, Jerome, Rufinus, and a father lately restored to his place in patristic literature, Niceta of Remesiana.6 Gaul alone has a goodly list of Christian authors to show: John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Hilary of Arles, Prosper of Aquitaine, Salvian of Marseilles, Sidonius Apollinaris of Auvergne, Caesarius of Arles, Gregory of Tours. The period ends in the West with two great Italian names, Cassiodorus and Pope Gregory I., after Leo the greatest of papal theologians.

In the post-Nicene period, the Church produced a lot more literature. Only a few key figures can be highlighted here. From Alexandria, we have Athanasius, Didymus, and Cyril; from Cyrene, there's Synesius; from Antioch, we get Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret; from Palestine, Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem; and from Cappadocia, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The Latin West was also highly productive, with notable figures like Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Leo of Rome, Jerome, Rufinus, and a recently recognized father in patristic literature, Niceta of Remesiana. Gaul also boasts a significant list of Christian authors: John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Hilary of Arles, Prosper of Aquitaine, Salvian of Marseilles, Sidonius Apollinaris of Auvergne, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory of Tours. The period in the West concludes with two prominent Italian figures, Cassiodorus and Pope Gregory I, following Leo, the greatest of papal theologians.6

The reader to whom the study is new will gain some idea of the bulk of the extant patristic literature, if we add that in Migne’s collection ninety-six large volumes are occupied with the Greek fathers from Clement of Rome to John of Damascus, and seventy-six with the Latin fathers from Tertullian to Gregory the Great.7

The reader who is new to this study will get a sense of the vast amount of existing patristic literature if we mention that in Migne’s collection, ninety-six large volumes are dedicated to the Greek fathers from Clement of Rome to John of Damascus, and seventy-six volumes are focused on the Latin fathers from Tertullian to Gregory the Great.7

For a discussion of the more important fathers the student is referred to the articles which deal with them separately. In this place it is enough to consider the general influence of the patristic writings upon Christian doctrine and biblical interpretation. Can any authority be claimed for their teaching or their exegesis, other than that which belongs to the best writers of every age. The decree of the council of Trent8 (ut nemo ... contra unanimum consensum patrum ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat) is studiously moderate, and yet it seems to rule that under certain circumstances it is not permitted to the Church of later times to carry the science of biblical interpretation beyond the point which it had reached at the end of the patristic period. Roman Catholic writers,9 however, have explained the prohibition to apply to matters of faith only, and in that case the Tridentine decree is little else than another form of the Vincentian canon which has been widely accepted in the Anglican communion: curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. The fathers of the first six or seven centuries, so far as they agree, may be fairly taken to represent the main stream of Christian tradition and belief during the period when the apostolic teaching took shape in the great creeds and dogmatic decisions of Christendom. The English reformers realized this fact; and notwithstanding their insistence on the unique authority of the canon of Scripture, their appeal to the fathers as representatives of the teaching of the undivided Church was as wholehearted as that of the Tridentine divines. Thus the English canon of 1571 directs preachers “to take heed that they do not teach anything in their sermons as though they would have it completely held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered from that doctrine.” Depreciation of the fathers was characteristic, not of the Anglican reformation, but of the revolt against some of its fundamental principles which was led by the Puritan reaction.10

For a discussion of the more significant church fathers, students are directed to the articles that cover them individually. Here, it suffices to consider the overall impact of the writings of the church fathers on Christian doctrine and biblical interpretation. Can their teachings or interpretations be backed by any authority other than what belongs to the best writers of every era? The decree from the Council of Trent8 (ut nemo ... contra unanimum consensum patrum ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat) is deliberately moderate, yet it seems to imply that under certain circumstances, the Church in later times is not allowed to extend the field of biblical interpretation beyond what was established by the end of the patristic era. However, Roman Catholic writers9 have clarified that the prohibition pertains to matters of faith only, making the Tridentine decree little more than another form of the Vincentian canon, which is widely accepted in the Anglican communion: curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. The church fathers of the first six or seven centuries, as far as they are in agreement, can reasonably be seen as representing the main current of Christian tradition and belief during the time when the apostolic teaching was shaped into the great creeds and dogmatic decisions of Christendom. The English reformers recognized this reality; and despite their focus on the unique authority of the canon of Scripture, their reference to the fathers as representatives of the teaching of the undivided Church was as sincere as that of the Tridentine theologians. Consequently, the English canon of 1571 instructs preachers "to take care that they do not teach anything in their sermons as though it should be completely accepted and believed by the people, except what is consistent with the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have derived from that doctrine." Disparaging the fathers was typical, not of the Anglican reformation, but of the backlash against some of its fundamental principles led by the Puritan reaction.10

Now that the smoke of these controversies has passed away, it is possible to form a clearer judgment upon the merits of the patristic writings. They are no longer used as an armoury from which opposite sides may draw effective weapons, offensive or defensive; nor on the other hand are they cast aside as the rubbish of an ignorant and superstitious age. All patristic students now recognize the great inequality of these authors, and admit that they are not free from the faults of their times; it is not denied that much of their exegesis is untenable, or that their logic is often feeble and their rhetoric offensive to modern taste. But against these disadvantages may be set the unique services which the fathers still render to Christian scholars. Their works comprise the whole literature of our faith during the decisive centuries which followed the apostolic age. They are important witnesses to the text of the New Testament, to the history of the canon, and to the history of interpretation. It is to their pages that we owe nearly all that we know of the life of ancient Christianity. We see in them the thought of the ancient Church taking shape in the minds of her bishops and doctors; and in many cases they express the results of the great doctrinal controversies of their age in language which leaves little to be desired.11

Now that the smoke from these controversies has cleared, we can form a clearer judgment about the value of the church fathers' writings. They are no longer used as a source of weapons for opposing sides, whether offensive or defensive; nor are they dismissed as the trash of an ignorant and superstitious time. All students of patristics now recognize the significant differences among these authors and acknowledge that they aren’t without the flaws of their era. It's true that much of their interpretation doesn’t hold up and that their logic is often weak and their rhetoric off-putting to modern sensibilities. However, these drawbacks are outweighed by the unique contributions that the church fathers still provide to Christian scholars. Their works encompass the entire literature of our faith during the crucial centuries that followed the apostolic age. They are essential witnesses to the text of the New Testament, the history of the canon, and the history of interpretation. We owe almost everything we know about the life of early Christianity to their writings. They reflect the thoughts of the early Church as they developed in the minds of its bishops and theologians, and in many cases, they capture the outcomes of the significant doctrinal debates of their time in language that is generally well-articulated.

Authorities.—The earliest writer on patristics was Jerome, whose book De viris illustribus gives a brief account of one hundred and thirty-five Church writers, beginning with St Peter and ending with himself. Jerome’s work was continued successively by Gennadius of Marseilles, Isidore of Seville, and Ildefonsus of Toledo; the last-named writer brings the list down to the middle of the 7th century. Since the revival of learning books on the fathers have been numerous; among the more recent and most accessible of these we may mention Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, Hauck-Herzog’s Realencyklopädie, Bardenhewer’s Patrologie and Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, Harnack’s Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bei Eusebius and Ehrard’s Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung. A record of patristic collections and editions down to 1839 may be found in Dowling’s Notitia Scriptorum SS. Patrum. The contents of the volumes of Migne’s patrologies are given in the Catalogue général des livres de l’abbé Migne, and a useful list in alphabetical order of the writers in the Greek Patrologia has been compiled by Dr J.B. Pearson (Cambridge, 1882). Migne’s texts are not always satisfactory, but since the completion of his great undertaking two important collections have been begun on critical lines—the Vienna edition of the Latin Church writers,12 and the Berlin edition of the Greek writers of the ante-Nicene period.13

Authorities.—The earliest writer on patristics was Jerome, whose book De viris illustribus provides a brief overview of one hundred and thirty-five Church writers, starting with St. Peter and finishing with himself. Jerome’s work was later continued by Gennadius of Marseilles, Isidore of Seville, and Ildefonsus of Toledo; the last of these writers updates the list to the middle of the 7th century. Since the revival of learning, there have been many books on the Church Fathers; some of the more recent and accessible ones include Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, Hauck-Herzog’s Realencyklopädie, Bardenhewer’s Patrologie and Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, Harnack’s Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bei Eusebius, and Ehrard’s Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung. A record of patristic collections and editions up to 1839 can be found in Dowling’s Notitia Scriptorum SS. Patrum. The contents of the volumes of Migne’s patrologies are listed in the Catalogue général des livres de l’abbé Migne, and Dr. J.B. Pearson (Cambridge, 1882) compiled a useful alphabetical list of the writers in the Greek Patrologia. Migne’s texts are not always satisfactory, but since he completed his extensive project, two significant collections have been started with critical approaches—the Vienna edition of the Latin Church writers,12 and the Berlin edition of the Greek writers from the ante-Nicene period.13

For English readers there are three series of translations from the fathers, which cover much of the ground; the Oxford Library of the Fathers, the Ante Nicene Christian Library and the Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Satisfactory lexicons of patristic Greek and Latin are still a desideratum: but assistance may be obtained in the study of the Greek fathers from Suicer’s Thesaurus, the Lexicon of Byzantine Greek by E.A. Sophocles, and the Lexicon Graecum suppletorium et dialecticum of Van Herwerden; whilst the new great Latin Lexicon, published by the Berlin Academy, is calculated to meet the needs of students of Latin patristic literature. For a fuller list of books useful to the reader of the Greek and Latin fathers see H.B. Swete’s Patristic Study (2nd ed., 1902).

For English readers, there are three series of translations from the Church Fathers that cover a lot of ground: the Oxford Library of the Fathers, the Ante Nicene Christian Library, and the Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Good lexicons for patristic Greek and Latin are still lacking, but you can find help in studying the Greek Fathers with Suicer’s Thesaurus, E.A. Sophocles' Lexicon of Byzantine Greek, and Van Herwerden’s Lexicon Graecum suppletorium et dialecticum; meanwhile, the new comprehensive Latin Lexicon published by the Berlin Academy is designed to meet the needs of students of Latin patristic literature. For a more extensive list of books useful to readers of the Greek and Latin Fathers, check out H.B. Swete’s Patristic Study (2nd ed., 1902).

(H. B. S.)

1 See Buxtorf, s.v. Abh, and cf. the title of the tract Pirke Aboth (ed. Taylor, p. 3).

1 See Buxtorf, s.v. Abh, and also see the title of the tract Pirke Aboth (ed. Taylor, p. 3).

2 Polyc. Mart. 8.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Polycarbonate Market. 8.

3 Studia biblica, iv. p. 273.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Biblical Studies, iv. p. 273.

4 In his book De viris illustribus.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ In his book On Famous Men.

5 The term patres apostolici is due to the patristic scholars of the 17th century: see Lightfoot, St Clement of Rome, i. p. 3. “Sub-apostolic” is perhaps a more accurate designation.

5 The term patres apostolici comes from the patristic scholars of the 17th century: see Lightfoot, St Clement of Rome, i. p. 3. “Sub-apostolic” might be a more precise label.

6 The editio princeps of Niceta’s works was published by Dr A.E. Burn in 1905.

6 The editio princeps of Niceta’s works was published by Dr. A.E. Burn in 1905.

7 The Greek patrology contains, however, besides the text, a Latin translation, and in both patrologies there is much editorial matter.

7 The Greek patrology includes, in addition to the text, a Latin translation, and both patrologies contain a lot of editorial content.

8 Sess. iv.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Session 4.

9 E.G. Möhler, Symbolism (E. tr.) § 42.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ E.G. Möhler, Symbolism (E. tr.) § 42.

10 See J.J. Blunt, Right Use of the Fathers, p. 15 ff.

10 See J.J. Blunt, Right Use of the Fathers, p. 15 ff.

11 See Stanton, Place of Authority in Religion, p. 165 f.

11 See Stanton, Place of Authority in Religion, p. 165 f.

12 Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Latin Church Fathers Collection.

13 Griechischen christlichen Schriftstellern der ersten drei Jahrhunderte.

13 Greek Christian writers of the first three centuries.


FATHOM (a word common, in various forms, to Scandinavian and Teutonic languages; cf. Danish favn, Dutch vaam and Ger. Faden, and meaning “the arms extended”; the ultimate origin is a root pet, seen in the Gr. πεταννύναι, to spread), a measure of length, being the distance from the tip of one middle finger to the tip of the other, when the arms are stretched out to their widest extent. This length has been standardized to a measure of 6 ft., and as such is used mainly in soundings as a unit for measuring the depth of the sea. “Fathom” is also used in the measurement of timber, when it is equivalent to 6 ft. sq.; similarly, in mining, a fathom is a portion of ground running the whole thickness of the vein of ore, and is 6 ft. in breadth and thickness. The verb “to fathom,” i.e. to sound or measure with a fathom-line, is used figuratively, meaning to go into a subject deeply, to penetrate, or to explore thoroughly.

FATHOM (a word found in various forms in Scandinavian and Germanic languages; see Danish favn, Dutch vaam, and German Faden, meaning “the arms extended”; ultimately derived from the root pet, as seen in the Greek πεταννύναι, which means to spread), is a measure of length that represents the distance from the tip of one middle finger to the tip of the other when the arms are fully stretched out. This length is standardized to 6 ft. and is primarily used in nautical contexts as a unit to measure water depth. “Fathom” is also used when measuring timber, where it equals 6 ft. sq.; similarly, in mining, a fathom refers to a section of ground that encompasses the entire thickness of an ore vein, being 6 ft. wide and thick. The verb “to fathom,” meaning to measure or sound with a fathom-line, is used figuratively to mean to explore a subject in depth or to thoroughly investigate something.

202

202


FATIMITES, or Fatimides, the name of a dynasty called after Fatima, daughter of the prophet Mahomet, from whom and her husband the caliph Ali, son of Abu Talib, they claimed descent. The dynasty is also called ‘Obaidi (Ubaidī) after ‘Obaidallah, the first sovereign, and ‘Alawī, a title which it shares with other dynasties claiming the same ancestry. For a list of sovereigns see Egypt, section History (Mahommedan period); three, however, must be prefixed who reigned in north-western Africa before the annexation of Egypt: al-Mahdī ‘Obaidallah 297 (909); al-Qā’im Mahommed 322 (934); al-Mansūr Ismā‘īl 334 (945).

FATIMIDS, or Fatimids, is the name of a dynasty named after Fatima, the daughter of the prophet Muhammad, from whom and her husband the caliph Ali, son of Abu Talib, they claimed descent. The dynasty is also called ‘Obaidi (Ubaidī) after ‘Obaidallah, the first ruler, and ‘Alawī, a title it shares with other dynasties claiming the same lineage. For a list of rulers, see Egypt, section History (Islamic period); however, three must be mentioned who ruled in north-western Africa before Egypt's annexation: al-Mahdī ‘Obaidallah 297 (909); al-Qā’im Mahommed 322 (934); al-Mansūr Ismā‘īl 334 (945).

The dynasty owed its rise to the attachment to the family of the prophet which was widespread in the Moslem world, and the belief that the sovereignty was the right of one of its members. Owing, however, to the absence of the principle of primogeniture there was difference of opinion as to the person whose claim should be enforced, and a number of sects arose maintaining the rights of different branches of the family. The Fatimites were supported by those who regarded the sovereignty as vested in Ismā‘īl, son of Ja‘far al-Sādiq, great-great-grandson of Alī, through his second son Hosain (Ḥusain). Of this Ismā‘īl the first Fatimite caliph was supposed to be the great-grandson. The line of ancestors between him and Ismā‘īl is, however, variously given, even his father’s name being quite uncertain, and in some of the pedigrees even Ismā‘īl does not figure. Apparently when the family first became of political importance their Alid descent was not disputed at Bagdad, and the poet al-Sharīf al-Radī (d. A.H. 406: A.D. 1015), in whose family the office of Naqīb (registrar of the Alids) was hereditary, appears to have acknowledged it (Dīwān, ed. Beirut, p. 972). When their success became a menace to the caliphs of Bagdad, genealogists were employed to demonstrate the falsity of the claim, and a considerable literature, both official and unofficial, rose in consequence. The founder of the dynasty was made out to be a scion of a family of heretics from whom the terrible Carmathian sect had originated: later on (perhaps owing to the rôle played by Jacob, son of Killis, in bringing the Fatimites to Egypt), the founder was made out to have been a Jew, either as having been adopted by the heretic supposed to be his father, or as having been made to personate the real ‘Obaidallah, who had been killed in captivity. While the stories that make him of either Jewish or Carmathian origin may be neglected, as the product of malice, the uncertainty of the genealogies offered by their partisans renders any positive solution of the problem impossible. What seems to be clear is that secretly within the Abbasid empire propaganda was carried on in favour of one or other Alid aspirant, and the danger which any such aspirant incurred by coming forward openly led to his whereabouts being concealed except from a very few adherents. What is known then is that towards the end of the 3rd Islamic century the leader of the sect of Ismā‘ī-lites (Assassins, q.v.) who afterwards mounted a throne, lived at Salamia, near Emesa (Homs), having agents spread over Arabia, Persia and Syria, and frequently receiving visits from pious adherents, who had been on pilgrimage to the grave of Hosain (Ḥusain). Such visitors received directions and orders such as are usual in secret societies. One of these agents, Abū Abdallah al-Hosain called al-Shī‘ī, said to have filled the office of censor (muhtasib) at Basra, received orders to carry on a mission in Arabia, and at Mecca is said to have made the acquaintance of some members of the Berber tribe Kutama, south of the bay of Bougie. These persons persuaded him to travel home with them in the character of teacher of the Koran, but according to some authorities the ground had already been prepared there for a political mission. He arrived in the Kutama country in June 893, and appears very soon to have been made chief, thereby exciting the suspicion of the Aghlabite ruler of Kairawān, Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad, which, however, was soon allayed. His success provoked a civil war among the Berbers, but he was protected by a chief named Ḥasan b. Hārūn, and displayed sufficient military ability to win respect. Nine years after his arrival he made use of the unrest following on the death of the Aghlabite Ibrāhīm to attack the town of Mila, which he took by treachery, and turned into his capital; the son and successor of Ibrāhīm, Abu’l-‘Abbās ‘Abdallah, sent his son al-Aḥwal to deal with the new power, and he defeated al-Shī‘ī in some battles, but in 903 al-Aḥwal was recalled by his brother Ziyādatallah, who had usurped the throne, and put to death.

The dynasty's rise was due to the widespread loyalty to the family of the prophet in the Muslim world and the belief that sovereignty belonged to one of its members. However, because there was no principle of primogeniture, opinions differed on who should claim this right, leading to the emergence of various sects advocating for different branches of the family. The Fatimids were supported by those who believed that sovereignty was held by Ismā‘īl, the son of Ja‘far al-Sādiq, who was a great-great-grandson of Alī through his second son Hosain (Ḥusain). The first Fatimid caliph was thought to be his great-grandson. However, the genealogy connecting him to Ismā‘īl is presented in different ways, with even his father's name being uncertain, and in some genealogies, Ismā‘īl isn't mentioned at all. When the family first became politically significant, their Alid lineage was not disputed in Baghdad, and the poet al-Sharīf al-Radī (d. A.H. 406: A.D. 1015), whose family held the hereditary office of Naqīb (registrar of the Alids), seemed to acknowledge this (Dīwān, ed. Beirut, p. 972). However, as their success became a threat to the caliphs of Baghdad, genealogists were hired to prove their claims were false, resulting in a significant amount of literature, both official and unofficial. The founder of the dynasty was portrayed as a descendant of a family of heretics from which the notorious Carmathians originated. Later on, possibly due to Jacob, son of Killis's role in bringing the Fatimids to Egypt, the founder was depicted as having been a Jew, either adopted by the supposed heretical father or made to impersonate the real ‘Obaidallah, who had been killed in captivity. While the stories suggesting his Jewish or Carmathian origins can be dismissed as malicious, the uncertain genealogies presented by their supporters make a definitive answer to the issue impossible. What seems clear is that secretly within the Abbasid empire, propaganda was spread in favor of various Alid claimants, and the risks associated with these claimants coming forward publicly meant their locations were kept hidden except from a few loyal followers. What is known is that towards the end of the 3rd Islamic century, the leader of the Ismā‘īlites (Assassins, q.v.) who would later ascend to the throne resided in Salamia, near Emesa (Homs), with agents spread across Arabia, Persia, and Syria, frequently hosting pious supporters who had gone on pilgrimage to Hosain’s (Ḥusain) grave. These visitors received instructions and orders typical of secret societies. One of these agents, Abū Abdallah al-Hosain, known as al-Shī‘ī, who served as a censor (muhtasib) in Basra, was sent on a mission to Arabia and is said to have met members of the Koutama Berber tribe south of the bay of Bougie in Mecca. These members convinced him to return home with them as a teacher of the Koran, but according to some sources, the groundwork for a political mission had already been laid there. He arrived in Koutama territory in June 893 and quickly became the leader, raising the suspicions of the Aghlabite ruler of Kairawān, Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad, but those suspicions were soon allayed. His success led to a civil war among the Berbers, but he was protected by a chief named Ḥasan b. Hārūn and showed enough military skill to gain respect. Nine years after his arrival, he capitalized on the turmoil following Ibrahim’s death to attack the town of Mila, which he captured through treachery and made his capital. Ibrahim's son and successor, Abu’l-‘Abbās ‘Abdallah, sent his son al-Aḥwal to confront the new threat, and although al-Aḥwal won some battles against al-Shī‘ī, he was recalled by his brother Ziyādatallah, who had seized the throne, and subsequently executed in 903.

At some time after his first successes al-Shī‘ī sent a messenger (apparently his brother) to the head of his sect at Salamia, bidding him come to the Kutama country, and place himself at the head of affairs, since al-Shī‘ī’s followers had been taught to pay homage to a Mahdī who would at some time be shown them. It is said that ‘Obaidallah, who now held this post, was known to the court at Bagdad, and that on the news of his departure orders were sent to the governor of Egypt to arrest him; but by skilful simulation ‘Obaidallah succeeded in escaping this danger, and with his escort reached Tripoli safely. Instructions had by this time reached the Aghlabite Ziyādatallah to be on the watch for the Mahdī, who was finally arrested at Sijilmāsa (Tafilalt) in the year A.H. 292 (A.D. 905); his companion, al-Shī‘ī’s brother, had been arrested at an earlier point, and the Mahdī’s journey to the south-west must have been to elude pursuit.

At some point after his initial successes, al-Shī‘ī sent a messenger (probably his brother) to the leader of his sect in Salamia, asking him to come to the Kutama region and take charge, as al-Shī‘ī’s followers had been taught to honor a Mahdī who would eventually be revealed to them. It is said that ‘Obaidallah, who was currently in this role, was known to the court in Baghdad, and when news of his departure reached them, orders were sent to the governor of Egypt to arrest him. However, through clever deception, ‘Obaidallah managed to avoid this danger and safely arrived in Tripoli with his escort. By this time, the Aghlabite Ziyādatallah had received instructions to look out for the Mahdī, who was finally captured at Sijilmāsa (Tafilalt) in the year A.H. 292 (CE 905); his companion, al-Shī‘ī’s brother, had been arrested earlier, and the Mahdī’s journey to the southwest was likely an attempt to escape capture.

The invitation to the Mahdī turned out to have been premature; for Ziyādatallah had sent a powerful army to oppose al-Shī‘ī, which, making Constantine its headquarters, had driven al-Shī‘ī into the mountains: after six months al-Shī‘ī secured an opportunity for attacking it, and won a complete victory. Early in 906 another army was sent to deal with al-Shī‘ī, and an earnest appeal came from the caliph Muqtafī (Moktafi), addressed to all the Moslems of Africa, to aid Ziyādatallah against the usurper. The operations of the Aghlabite prince were unproductive of any decided result, and by September 906 al-Shī‘ī had got possession of the important fortress Tubna and some others. Further forces were immediately sent to the front by Ziyādatallah, but these were defeated by al-Shī‘ī and his officers, to whom other towns capitulated, till Ziyādatallah found it prudent to retire from Al-Urbus or Laribus, which had been his headquarters, and entrench himself in Raqqāda, one of the two capitals of his kingdom, Kairawān being the other. Ziyādatallah is charged by the chroniclers with dissoluteness and levity, and even cowardice: after his retreat the fortresses and towns in what now constitute the department of Constantine and in Tunisia fell fast into al-Shī‘ī’s hands, and he was soon able to threaten Raqqāda itself.

The invitation to the Mahdī turned out to be premature; Ziyādatallah had sent a strong army to oppose al-Shī‘ī, which, making Constantine its base, had pushed al-Shī‘ī into the mountains. After six months, al-Shī‘ī found an opportunity to attack and achieved a complete victory. Early in 906, another army was sent to confront al-Shī‘ī, and the caliph Muqtafī (Moktafi) made a heartfelt appeal to all Muslims in Africa to support Ziyādatallah against the usurper. The efforts of the Aghlabite prince yielded no significant results, and by September 906, al-Shī‘ī had taken control of the crucial fortress Tubna and several others. Ziyādatallah quickly sent more forces to the front, but they were defeated by al-Shī‘ī and his officers, who also managed to convince other towns to surrender. Eventually, Ziyādatallah deemed it wise to retreat from Al-Urbus or Laribus, which had been his headquarters, and entrench himself in Raqqāda, one of the two capitals of his kingdom, the other being Kairawān. Chroniclers accuse Ziyādatallah of being dissolute, frivolous, and even cowardly: after his retreat, the fortresses and towns in what is now the department of Constantine and Tunisia quickly fell into al-Shī‘ī’s hands, allowing him to threaten Raqqāda itself.

By March 909 Raqqāda had become untenable, and Ziyādatallah resolved to flee from his kingdom; taking with him his chief possessions, he made for Egypt, and thence to ‘Irak: his final fate is uncertain. The cities Raqqāda and Kairawān were immediately occupied by Al-Shī‘ī, who proceeded to send governors to the other places of importance in what had been the Aghlabite kingdom, and to strike new coins, which, however, bore no sovereign’s name. Orders were given that the Shī‘ite peculiarities should be introduced into public worship.

By March 909, Raqqāda had become unlivable, and Ziyādatallah decided to escape his kingdom. Taking his most valuable possessions, he headed for Egypt and then to ‘Irak; his ultimate fate is unknown. The cities of Raqqāda and Kairawān were quickly taken over by Al-Shī‘ī, who then appointed governors for other key locations in what had once been the Aghlabite kingdom and began minting new coins that had no ruler's name on them. Orders were given to incorporate Shī‘ite practices into public worship.

In May 909 al-Shī‘ī led a tremendous army westwards to the kingdom of Tahert, where he put an end to the Rustamite dynasty, and appointed a governor of his own: he thence proceeded to Sijilmāsa where ‘Obaidallah lay imprisoned, with the intention of releasing him and placing him on the throne. After a brief attempt at resistance, the governor fled, and al-Shī‘ī entered the city, released ‘Obaidallah and presented him to the army as the long-promised Imām. The day is given as the 26th of August 909. ‘Obaidallah had been in prison more than three years. Whether his identity with the Mahdī for whom al-Shī‘ī had been fighting was known to the governor of Sijilmāsa is uncertain. If it was, the governor and his master the Aghlabite sovereign might have been expected to make use of their knowledge and outwit al-Shī‘ī by putting his Mahdī to death. Opponents of the Fatimites assert that this was actually done, and that the Mahdī presented to the army was not the real ‘Obaidallah, but (as usual) a Jewish captive, who had been suborned to play the rôle.

In May 909, al-Shī‘ī led a huge army west to the kingdom of Tahert, where he ended the Rustamite dynasty and appointed his own governor. He then moved on to Sijilmāsa, where ‘Obaidallah was imprisoned, intending to free him and put him on the throne. After a brief resistance, the governor fled, and al-Shī‘ī entered the city, freed ‘Obaidallah, and presented him to the army as the long-awaited Imām. This occurred on August 26, 909. ‘Obaidallah had been in prison for over three years. It’s uncertain whether the governor of Sijilmāsa knew that ‘Obaidallah was the Mahdī al-Shī‘ī had been fighting for. If he did, the governor and his master, the Aghlabite ruler, might have tried to use that knowledge to outsmart al-Shī‘ī by killing the Mahdī. Opponents of the Fatimites claim that this actually happened, arguing that the Mahdī presented to the army wasn’t the real ‘Obaidallah, but rather, as usual, a Jewish captive who had been bribed to play the role.

The chief command was now assumed by ‘Obaidallah, who took the title “al-Mahdī, Commander of the Faithful,” thereby claiming the headship of the whole Moslem world: Raqqāda 203 was at the first made the seat of the court, and the Shī‘īte doctrines were enforced on the inhabitants, not without encountering some opposition. Revolts which arose in different parts of the Aghlabite kingdom were, however, speedily quelled.

The main leadership was now taken over by ‘Obaidallah, who adopted the title “al-Mahdī, Commander of the Faithful,” asserting his authority over the entire Muslim community. Raqqāda 203 was initially designated as the center of power, and the Shī‘īte beliefs were imposed on the residents, although not without some resistance. Revolts that erupted in various regions of the Aghlabite kingdom were quickly put down.

The course followed by ‘Obaidallah in governing independently of al-Shī‘ī soon led to dissatisfaction on the part of the latter, who, urged on it is said by his brother, decided to dethrone their Mahdī, and on the occasion of an expedition to Ténés, which al-Shī‘ī- commanded, organized a conspiracy with that end. The conspiracy was betrayed to ‘Obaidallah, who took steps to defeat it, and on the last day of July 911 contrived to assassinate both al-Shī‘ī and his brother. Thus the procedure which had characterized the accession of the ‘Abbāsid dynasty was repeated. It has been conjectured that these assassinations lost the Fatimites the support of the organization that continued to exist in the East, whence the Carmathians figure as an independent and even hostile community, though they appear to have been amenable to the influence of the African caliph.

The path taken by ‘Obaidallah to rule independently of al-Shī‘ī soon led to al-Shī‘ī’s dissatisfaction. It’s said that urged by his brother, he decided to overthrow their Mahdī. During an expedition to Ténés, which al-Shī‘ī commanded, he organized a conspiracy for this purpose. The plot was discovered by ‘Obaidallah, who then took measures to thwart it, and on the last day of July 911, he managed to assassinate both al-Shī‘ī and his brother. This mirrored the process that marked the rise of the ‘Abbāsid dynasty. It’s believed that these assassinations caused the Fatimites to lose the support of the network that still existed in the East, where the Carmathians emerged as an independent and even antagonistic community, although they seemed to be receptive to the influence of the African caliph.

‘Obaidallah had now to face the dissatisfaction of the tribes whose allegiance al-Shī‘ī had won, especially the Kutāma, Zenāta and Lawāta: the uprising of the first assumed formidable proportions, and they even elected a Mahdī of their own, one Kādū b. Mu‘ārik al-Māwatī, who promulgated a new revelation for their guidance. They were finally defeated by ‘Obaidallah’s son Abu’l-Qāsim Mahommed, who took Constantine, and succeeded in capturing the new Mahdī, whom he brought to Raqqāda. Other opponents were got rid of by ‘Obaidallah by ruthless executions. By the middle of the year 913 by his own and his son’s efforts he had brought his kingdom into order. After the style of most founders of dynasties he then selected a site for a new capital, to be called after his title Mahdia (q.v.), on a peninsula called Ḥamma (Cape Africa) S.S.E. of Kairawān. Eight years were spent in fortifying this place, which in 921 was made the capital of the empire.

‘Obaidallah now had to deal with the dissatisfaction of the tribes whose loyalty al-Shī‘ī had gained, especially the Kutāma, Zenāta, and Lawāta. The uprising of the first tribe grew to impressive proportions, and they even chose their own Mahdī, a man named Kādū b. Mu‘ārik al-Māwatī, who announced a new revelation for their guidance. They were ultimately defeated by ‘Obaidallah’s son, Abu’l-Qāsim Mahommed, who captured Constantine and succeeded in taking the new Mahdī to Raqqāda. ‘Obaidallah eliminated other opponents through ruthless executions. By the middle of the year 913, thanks to his and his son’s efforts, he had managed to stabilize his kingdom. Following the usual practice of most dynasty founders, he then chose a location for a new capital, to be named after his title Mahdia (q.v.), on a peninsula called Ḥamma (Cape Africa) S.S.E. of Kairawān. He spent eight years fortifying this site, which became the capital of the empire in 921.

After defeating internal enemies ‘Obaidallah turned his attention to the remaining ‘Abbāsid possessions in Africa, and his general Habāsah b. Yūsuf in the year 913 advanced along the northern coast, taking various places, including the important town of Barca, his progress, it is said, being marked by great cruelty. He then advanced towards Egypt, and towards the end of July 914, being reinforced by Abu’l-Qāsim, afterwards al-Qā’im, entered Alexandria. The danger led to measures of unusual energy being taken by the Bagdad caliph Moqtadir, an army being sent to Egypt under Mu‘nis, and a special post being organized between that country and Bagdad to convey messages uninterruptedly. The Fatimite forces were defeated, partly owing to the insubordination of the general Habāsah, in the winter of 914, and returned to Barca and Kairawān with great loss.

After defeating internal enemies, Obaidallah focused on the remaining Abbasid territories in Africa. In 913, his general Habasah b. Yusuf moved along the northern coast, capturing various locations, including the significant town of Barca, with reports of extreme cruelty during his campaign. He then moved toward Egypt, and by the end of July 914, after being joined by Abu’l-Qasim, who later became al-Qaim, entered Alexandria. This threat prompted the Baghdad caliph Moqtadir to take extraordinary measures, sending an army to Egypt under Mu‘nis and setting up a special communication line between Egypt and Baghdad for uninterrupted message delivery. The Fatimid forces faced defeat during the winter of 914, partly due to Habasah's insubordination, and retreated to Barca and Kairawan with heavy losses.

A second expedition was undertaken against Egypt in the year 919, and on the 10th of July Alexandria was entered by Abu’l-Qāsim, who then advanced southward, seizing the Fayum and Ushmūnain (Eshmunain). He was presently reinforced by a fleet, which, however, was defeated at Rosetta in March of the year 920 by a fleet despatched from Tarsus by the ‘Abbāsid caliph Moqtadir, most of the vessels being burned. Through the energetic measures of the caliph, who sent repeated reinforcements to Fostat, Abu’l-Qāsim was compelled in the spring of 921 to evacuate the places which he had seized, and return to the west with the remains of his army, which had suffered much from plague as well as defeat on the field. On his return he found that the court had migrated from Raqqāda to the new capital Mahdia (q.v.). Meanwhile other expeditions had been despatched by ‘Obaidallah towards the west, and Nekor (Nakur) and Fez had been forced to acknowledge his sovereignty.

A second campaign against Egypt took place in the year 919, and on July 10th, Abu’l-Qāsim entered Alexandria. He then moved south, capturing the Fayum and Ushmūnain (Eshmunain). Soon after, he was strengthened by a fleet, which, however, faced defeat at Rosetta in March of 920 by a fleet sent from Tarsus by the ‘Abbāsid caliph Moqtadir, with most of the ships being destroyed. Thanks to the caliph's proactive efforts, who sent multiple reinforcements to Fostat, Abu’l-Qāsim was forced to retreat in the spring of 921 from the territories he had taken and head back west with the remnants of his army, which had suffered greatly from both the plague and losses in battle. Upon his return, he discovered that the court had moved from Raqqāda to the new capital, Mahdia (q.v.). In the meantime, other expeditions were sent by ‘Obaidallah to the west, and Nekor (Nakur) and Fez had been compelled to recognize his authority.

The remaining years of ‘Obaidallah’s reign were largely spent in dealing with uprisings in various parts of his dominions, the success of which at times reduced the territory in which he was recognized to a small area.

The last years of 'Obaidallah's reign were mostly spent handling rebellions in different areas of his territory, and at times, the success of these uprisings shrank the region where he was acknowledged to a small area.

‘Obaidallah died on the 4th of March 933, and was succeeded by Abu’l-Qāsim, who took the title al-Qā’im biamr allah. He immediately after his accession occupied himself with the reconquest of Fez and Nekor, which had revolted during the last years of the former caliph. He also despatched a fleet under Ya‘qūb b. Isḥāq, which ravaged the coast of France, took Genoa, and plundered the coast of Calabria before returning to Africa. A third attempt made by him to take Egypt resulted in a disastrous defeat at Dhāt al-Humān, after which the remains of the expedition retreated in disorder to Barca.

‘Obaidallah died on March 4, 933, and was succeeded by Abu’l-Qāsim, who took the title al-Qā’im biamr allah. Right after he took power, he focused on reclaiming Fez and Nekor, which had revolted during the last years of the previous caliph. He also sent a fleet under Ya‘qūb b. Isḥāq that ravaged the coast of France, captured Genoa, and plundered the coast of Calabria before returning to Africa. A third attempt to conquer Egypt ended in a disastrous defeat at Dhāt al-Humān, after which the remnants of the expedition retreated in disarray to Barca.

The later years of the reign of Qā’im were troubled by the uprising of Abū Yazīd Makhlad al-Zenātī, a leader who during the former reign had acquired a following among the tribes inhabiting the Jebel Aures, including adherents of the ‘Ibādī sect. After having fled for a time to Mecca, this person returned in 937 to Tauzar (Touzer), the original seat of his operations, and was imprisoned by Qā’im’s order. His sons, aided by the powerful tribe Zenāta, succeeded in forcing the prison, and releasing their father, who continued to organize a conspiracy on a vast scale, and by the end of 943 was strong enough to take the field against the Fatimite sovereign, whom he drove out of Kairawān. Abū Yazīd proclaimed himself a champion of Sunnī doctrine against the Shī‘is, and ordered the legal system of Malik to be restored in place of that introduced by the Fatimites. Apparently the doctrines of the latter has as yet won little popularity, and Abū Yazīd won an enormous following, except among the Kutāma, who remained faithful to Qā’im. On the last day of October 944, an engagement was fought between Kairawān and Mahdia at a place called al-Akhawān, which resulted in the rout of Qā’im’s forces, and the caliph’s being shortly after shut up in his capital, the suburbs of which he defended by a trench. Abū Yazīd’s forces were ill-suited to maintain a protracted siege, and since, owing to the former caliph’s forethought, the capital was in a condition to hold out for a long time, many of them deserted and the besiegers gained no permanent advantage. After the siege had lasted some ten months Abū Yazīd was compelled to raise it (September 945); the struggle, however, did not end with that event, and for a time the caliph and Abū Yazīd continued to fight with varying fortune, while anarchy prevailed over most of the caliph’s dominions. On the 13th of January 946, Abū Yazīd shut up Qā’im’s forces in Susa which he began to besiege, and attempted to take by storm.

The later years of Qā’im’s reign were marked by the uprising of Abū Yazīd Makhlad al-Zenātī, a leader who had gained a following among the tribes in the Jebel Aures, including supporters of the ‘Ibādī sect during the previous reign. After fleeing to Mecca for a while, he returned in 937 to Tauzar (Touzer), the original base of his operations, and was imprisoned by Qā’im’s order. His sons, with the help of the powerful Zenāta tribe, managed to break him out of prison, and he continued to organize a large-scale conspiracy. By the end of 943, he was strong enough to challenge the Fatimite ruler, driving him out of Kairawān. Abū Yazīd declared himself a defender of Sunni doctrine against the Shī‘is and ordered the reinstatement of the Malik legal system instead of the one introduced by the Fatimites. It seemed that the Fatimites’ doctrines had not gained much popularity, and Abū Yazīd attracted a massive following, except among the Kutāma, who remained loyal to Qā’im. On the last day of October 944, a battle took place between Kairawān and Mahdia at a location called al-Akhawān, resulting in a defeat for Qā’im’s forces, which soon led to the caliph being trapped in his capital, where he defended the suburbs with a trench. Abū Yazīd’s troops were not well-equipped for a prolonged siege, and since the previous caliph had ensured the capital could withstand a lengthy defense, many of them deserted, leaving the besiegers without a lasting advantage. After about ten months of siege, Abū Yazīd was forced to lift it (September 945); however, the conflict did not end there, and for some time, the caliph and Abū Yazīd continued to battle with fluctuating success while anarchy spread across much of the caliph’s territory. On January 13, 946, Abū Yazīd trapped Qā’im’s forces in Susa, which he began to besiege and attempted to capture by storm.

On the 18th of May 945, while Abū Yazīd was besieging Susa, the caliph al-Qā’im died at Mahdia, and was succeeded by his son Ismā’īl, who took the title Manṣūr. He almost immediately relieved Susa by sending a fleet, which joining with the garrison inflicted a severe defeat on Abū Yazīd, who had to evacuate Kairawān also; but though the cities were mainly in the hands of Fatimite prefects, Abū Yazīd was able to maintain the field for more than two years longer, while his followers were steadily decreasing in numbers, and he was repeatedly driven into fastnesses of the Sahara. In August 947 his last stronghold was taken, and he died of wounds received in defending it. His sons carried on some desultory warfare against Manṣūr after their father’s death. A town called Manṣūra or Ṣābrā was built adjoining Kairawān to celebrate the decisive victory over Abū Yazīd, which, however, did not long preserve its name. The exhausted condition of north-west Africa due to the protracted civil war required some years of peace for recuperation, and further exploits are not recorded for Manṣūr, who died on the 19th of March 952.

On May 18, 945, while Abū Yazīd was attacking Susa, the caliph al-Qā’im passed away in Mahdia and was succeeded by his son Ismā’īl, who took the title Manṣūr. He quickly relieved Susa by sending a fleet that, alongside the garrison, inflicted a heavy defeat on Abū Yazīd, forcing him to evacuate Kairawān as well. However, even though the cities were largely under the control of Fatimite officials, Abū Yazīd managed to stay in the field for more than two more years, even as his followers continuously dwindled in number, often retreating to the remote areas of the Sahara. In August 947, his last stronghold was captured, and he died from wounds he sustained while defending it. After their father’s death, his sons engaged in some sporadic fighting against Manṣūr. A town named Manṣūra or Ṣābrā was established next to Kairawān to commemorate the significant victory over Abū Yazīd, although the name didn't last long. The prolonged civil war had left north-west Africa in a weakened state, necessitating several years of peace for recovery, and there are no notable exploits recorded for Manṣūr, who died on March 19, 952.

His son, Abū Tamīm Ma‘add, was twenty-two years of age at the time, and succeeded his father with the title Mo‘izz lidīn allah. His authority was acknowledged over the greater part of the region now constituting Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as Sicily, and he appears to have had serious thoughts of endeavouring to annex Spain. At an early period in his reign he made Jauhar, who had been secretary under the former caliph, commander of the forces, and the services rendered by this person to the dynasty made him count as its second founder after al-Shī‘ī. In the years 958 and 959 he was sent westwards to reduce Fez and other places where the authority of the Fatimite caliph had been repudiated, and after a successful expedition advanced as far as the Atlantic. As early as 966 the plan of 204 attempting a fresh invasion of Egypt was conceived, and preparations made for its execution; but it was delayed, it is said at the request of the caliph’s mother, who wished to make a pilgrimage to Mecca first; and her honourable treatment by Kāfūr when she passed through Egypt induced the caliph to postpone the invasion till that sovereign’s death.

His son, Abū Tamīm Ma‘add, was twenty-two years old at the time and took over from his father with the title Mo‘izz lidīn allah. His authority was recognized over most of the area that is now Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, as well as Sicily, and it seems he seriously considered trying to annex Spain. Early in his reign, he appointed Jauhar, who had been a secretary under the previous caliph, as the commander of the forces, and the contributions this individual made to the dynasty earned him the status of its second founder after al-Shī‘ī. In 958 and 959, he was sent west to reclaim Fez and other places where the Fatimid caliph's authority had been rejected, and after a successful campaign, he advanced as far as the Atlantic. As early as 966, there were plans to attempt another invasion of Egypt, and preparations were made for its execution; however, it was delayed, reportedly at the request of the caliph's mother, who wanted to make a pilgrimage to Mecca first. Her respectful treatment by Kāfūr during her passage through Egypt led the caliph to postpone the invasion until that ruler’s death.

In August 972 Mo‘izz resolved to follow Jauhar’s pressing invitation to enter his new capital Cairo. With his arrival there the centre of the Fatimite power was transferred from Mahdia and Kairawān to Egypt, and their original dominion became a province called al-Maghrib, which immediately fell into the hands of a hereditary dynasty, the Zeirids, acknowledging Fatimite suzerainty. The first sovereign was Bulukkīn, also called Abu’l-Futūḥ Yūsuf, appointed by Mo‘izz as his viceroy on the occasion of his departure for Egypt: separate prefects were appointed for Sicily and Tripoli; and at the first the minister of finance was to be an official independent of the governor of the Maghrib. On the death of Bulukkīn in 984 he was succeeded by a son who took the royal title al-Manṣūr, under whose rule an attempt was made by the Kutāma, instigated by the caliph, to shake off the yoke of the Zeirids, who originated from the Sanhaja tribe. This attempt was defeated by the energy of Manṣūr in 988; and the sovereignty of the Fatimites in the Maghrib became more and more confined to recognition in public prayer and on coins, and the payment of tribute and the giving of presents to the viziers at Cairo. The fourth ruler of the Zeirid dynasty, called Mo‘izz, endeavoured to substitute ‘Abbāsid suzerainty for Fatimite: his land was invaded by Arab colonies sent by the Fatimite caliph, with whom in 1051 Mo‘izz fought a decisive engagement, after which the dominion of the Zeirids was restricted to the territory adjoining Mahdia; a number of smaller kingdoms rising up around them. The Zeirids were finally overthrown by Roger II. of Sicily in 1148.

In August 972, Mo‘izz decided to accept Jauhar’s urgent invitation to come to his new capital, Cairo. With his arrival, the center of Fatimid power shifted from Mahdia and Kairouan to Egypt, and their original territory became a province called al-Maghrib, which quickly fell under the control of a hereditary dynasty, the Zeirids, who acknowledged Fatimid authority. The first ruler was Bulukkīn, also known as Abu’l-Futūḥ Yūsuf, whom Mo‘izz appointed as his viceroy when he left for Egypt. Separate governors were assigned for Sicily and Tripoli, and initially, the finance minister was to be an official independent of the Maghrib governor. Following Bulukkīn’s death in 984, his son took the royal title al-Manṣūr. Under his reign, the Kutāma, encouraged by the caliph, attempted to break free from the Zeirid control, who were from the Sanhaja tribe. This uprising was thwarted by Manṣūr's determination in 988. The Fatimid sovereignty in the Maghrib progressively diminished to mere acknowledgments in public prayers and on coins, along with tribute payments and gifts to the viziers in Cairo. The fourth ruler of the Zeirid dynasty, named Mo‘izz, tried to replace Fatimid authority with that of the ‘Abbasids. His territory was invaded by Arab settlers sent by the Fatimid caliph, and in 1051, Mo‘izz fought a decisive battle against him, after which the Zeirid influence was limited to the land surrounding Mahdia, with several smaller kingdoms emerging around them. The Zeirids were ultimately defeated by Roger II of Sicily in 1148.

After the death of al-Ādid, the last Fatimite caliph in Egypt, some attempts were made to place on the throne a member of the family, and at one time there seemed a chance of the Assassins, who formed a branch of the Fatimite sect, assisting in this project. In 1174 a conspiracy for the restoration of the dynasty was organized by ‘Umarah of Yemen, a court poet, with the aid of eight officials of the government: it was discovered and those who were implicated were executed. Two persons claiming Fatimite descent took the royal titles al-Mo‘taṣim billah and al-Ḥāmid lillah in the years 1175 and 1176 respectively; and as late as 1192 we hear of pretenders in Egypt. Some members of the family are traceable till near the end of the 7th century of Islam.

After the death of al-Ādid, the last Fatimite caliph in Egypt, there were some efforts to put a family member on the throne, and at one point it looked like the Assassins, who were a branch of the Fatimite sect, might help with this plan. In 1174, a conspiracy to restore the dynasty was organized by 'Umarah of Yemen, a court poet, along with eight government officials: it was uncovered, and those involved were executed. Two individuals claiming Fatimite descent assumed the royal titles al-Mo‘taṣim billah and al-Ḥāmid lillah in 1175 and 1176, respectively; and as late as 1192, we hear of pretenders in Egypt. Some family members can be traced until nearly the end of the 7th century of Islam.

The doctrines of the Fatimites as a sect, apart from their claim to the sovereignty in Islam, are little known, and we are not justified in identifying them with those of the Assassins, the Carmathians or the Druses, though all these sects are connected with them in origin. A famous account is given by Maqrīzī of a system of education by which the neophyte had doubts gently instilled into his mind till he was prepared to have the allegorical meaning of the Koran set before him, and to substitute some form of natural for revealed religion. In most accounts of the early days of the community it is stated that the permission of wine-drinking and licentiousness, and the community of wives and property formed part of its tenets. There is little in the recorded practice of the Fatimite state to confirm or justify these assertions; and they appear to have differed from orthodox Moslems rather in small details of ritual and law than in deep matters of doctrine.

The beliefs of the Fatimites as a sect, aside from their claim to leadership in Islam, are not well-known, and we can't simply equate them with the Assassins, the Carmathians, or the Druses, even though all these groups share a common origin. A well-known account by Maqrīzī describes an educational system where doubts were gently introduced to the neophyte's mind until they were ready to explore the allegorical meaning of the Koran and to replace some form of natural religion for revealed religion. Most narratives about the early days of the community suggest that allowing wine-drinking, promiscuity, and the sharing of wives and property were part of their beliefs. However, there is little evidence in the recorded practices of the Fatimite state to support or validate these claims; they seemed to differ from orthodox Muslims mainly in minor details of ritual and law rather than in significant doctrinal issues.

Authorities.—F. Wüstenfeld, Geschichte der Fatimiden Chalifen (Göttingen, 1881); E. Mercier, Histoire de l’Afrique Septentrionale (Paris, 1888); M.J. de Goeje, Mémoire sur les Carmathes de Bahrain et les Fatimides (2nd ed., Leiden, 1886); P. Casanova, “Mémoire sur les derniers Fatimides,” Mém. Miss. archéologique au Caire, vol. vi.; for the lives of ‘Obaidallah and Abū Yazī-d, Cherbonneau in the Journal Asiatique, sér. iv. vol. 20, and sér. v. vol. 5. See also Egypt: History, sect. Mahommedan.

Authorities.—F. Wüstenfeld, History of the Fatimid Caliphs (Göttingen, 1881); E. Mercier, History of North Africa (Paris, 1888); M.J. de Goeje, Memoir on the Carmathians of Bahrain and the Fatimids (2nd ed., Leiden, 1886); P. Casanova, “Memoir on the Last Fatimids,” Memoirs of the Archaeological Mission in Cairo, vol. vi.; for the lives of ‘Obaidallah and Abū Yazīd, see Cherbonneau in the Asian Journal, sér. iv. vol. 20, and sér. v. vol. 5. See also Egypt: History, sect. Mohammedan.

(D. S. M.*)

FAUBOURG, the French name for a portion of a town which lies outside the walls, hence properly a suburb. The name survives in certain parts of Paris, such as the Faubourg St Antoine, and the Faubourg St Germain, &c., which have long since ceased to be suburbs and have become portions of the town itself. The origin of the word is doubtful. The earlier spelling faux-bourg, and the occurrence in medieval Latin of falsus-burgus (see Ducange, Glossarium, s.v. “Falsus-Burgus”), was taken as showing its obvious origin and meaning, the sham or quasi-borough. The generally accepted derivation is from fors, outside (Lat. foris, outside the gates), and bourg. It is suggested that the word is the French adaptation of the Ger. Pfahlbürger, the burghers of the pale, i.e. outside the walls but within the pale.

FAUBOURG, is the French term for a part of a town that lies outside the walls, essentially a suburb. The name exists in several areas of Paris, like Faubourg St Antoine and Faubourg St Germain, which have long stopped being suburbs and are now integral parts of the city. The origin of the word is unclear. The earlier spelling faux-bourg and its presence in medieval Latin as falsus-burgus (see Ducange, Glossarium, s.v. “Falsus-Burgus”) are thought to indicate its clear origin and meaning, referring to a fake or quasi-borough. The widely accepted derivation comes from fors, meaning outside (from Latin foris, outside the gates), combined with bourg. It’s also suggested that the word may be the French adaptation of the German Pfahlbürger, referring to the burghers of the pale, that is, those outside the walls but within the pale.


FAUCES (a Latin plural word for “throat”; the singular faux is rarely found), in anatomy, the hinder part of the mouth, which leads into the pharynx; also an architectural term given by Vitruvius to narrow passages on either side of the tablinum, through which access could be obtained from the atrium to the peristylar court in the rear.

FAUCES (a Latin plural word for “throat”; the singular faux is rarely used), in anatomy, refers to the back part of the mouth that connects to the pharynx; it’s also an architectural term used by Vitruvius to describe narrow passages on either side of the tablinum, which provided access from the atrium to the peristylar court at the back.


FAUCHER, LÉONARD JOSEPH [Léon] (1803-1854), French politician and economist, was born at Limoges on the 8th of September 1803. When he was nine years old the family removed to Toulouse, where the boy was sent to school. His parents were separated in 1816, and Léon Faucher, who resisted his father’s attempts to put him to a trade, helped to support himself and his mother during the rest of his school career by designing embroidery and needlework. As a private tutor in Paris he continued his studies in the direction of archaeology and history, but with the revolution of 1830 he was drawn into active political journalism on the Liberal side. He was on the staff of the Temps from 1830 to 1833, when he became editor of the Constitutionnel for a short time. A Sunday journal of his own, Le Bien public, proved a disastrous financial failure; and his political independence having caused his retirement from the Constitutionnel, he joined in 1834 the Courrier français, of which he was editor from 1839 until 1842, when the paper changed hands. Faucher belonged in policy to the dynastic Left, and consistently preached moderation to the more ardent Liberals. On resigning his connexion with the Courrier français he gave his attention chiefly to economic questions. He advocated a customs union between the Latin countries to counter-balance the German Zollverein, and in view of the impracticability of such a measure narrowed his proposal in 1842 to a customs union between France and Belgium. In 1843 he visited England to study the English social system, publishing the results of his investigations in a famous series of Études sur l’Angleterre (2 vols., 1845), published originally in the Revue des deux mondes. He helped to organize the Bordeaux association for free-trade propaganda, and it was as an advocate of free trade that he was elected in 1847 to the chamber of deputies for Reims. After the revolution of 1848 he entered the Constituent Assembly for the department of Marne, where he opposed many Republican measures—the limitation of the hours of labour, the creation of the national relief works in Paris, the abolition of the death penalty and others. Under the presidency of Louis Napoleon he became minister of public works, and then minister of the interior, but his action in seeking to influence the coming elections by a circular letter addressed to the prefects was censured by the Constituent Assembly, and he was compelled to resign office on the 14th of May 1849. In 1851 he was again minister of the interior until Napoleon declared his intention of resorting to universal suffrage. After the coup d’état of December he refused a seat in the consultative commission instituted by Napoleon. He had been elected a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Science in 1849, and his retirement from politics permitted a return to his writings on economics. He had been to Italy in search of health in 1854, and was returning to Paris on business when he was seized by typhoid at Marseilles, where he died on the 14th of December 1854.

FAUCHER, LÉONARD JOSEPH [Léon] (1803-1854), a French politician and economist, was born in Limoges on September 8, 1803. When he was nine, his family moved to Toulouse, where he was sent to school. His parents separated in 1816, and Léon Faucher, who resisted his father's attempts to apprentice him to a trade, helped support himself and his mother throughout his schooling by designing embroidery and needlework. As a private tutor in Paris, he continued his studies in archaeology and history, but with the revolution of 1830, he became involved in political journalism on the Liberal side. He was part of the staff of the Temps from 1830 to 1833, when he briefly became editor of the Constitutionnel. A Sunday journal he started, Le Bien public, ended up being a financial disaster; and his political independence led to his departure from the Constitutionnel. In 1834, he joined the Courrier français, where he served as editor from 1839 until 1842, when the paper changed ownership. Faucher aligned with the dynastic Left and consistently promoted moderation to the more passionate Liberals. After resigning from the Courrier français, he focused mainly on economic issues. He advocated for a customs union among Latin countries to balance against the German Zollverein but, seeing the impracticality of this idea, narrowed his proposal in 1842 to a customs union between France and Belgium. In 1843, he traveled to England to study the English social system, publishing the findings of his research in a well-known series titled Études sur l’Angleterre (2 vols., 1845), which was originally published in the Revue des deux mondes. He helped organize the Bordeaux association for free-trade advocacy, and it was as a supporter of free trade that he was elected to the chamber of deputies for Reims in 1847. After the revolution of 1848, he entered the Constituent Assembly representing the Marne department, where he opposed several Republican measures, including limiting working hours, creating national relief works in Paris, abolishing the death penalty, and others. Under Louis Napoleon's presidency, he became minister of public works, then minister of the interior, but his attempt to influence the upcoming elections through a circular letter to the prefects was criticized by the Constituent Assembly, leading to his resignation on May 14, 1849. In 1851, he became minister of the interior again until Napoleon announced his plan to use universal suffrage. After the coup d’état in December, he declined a position in the consultative commission set up by Napoleon. He had been elected to the Academy of Moral and Political Science in 1849, and with his retirement from politics, he returned to writing about economics. He had traveled to Italy in search of health in 1854 and was returning to Paris for business when he contracted typhoid in Marseilles, where he died on December 14, 1854.

His miscellaneous writings were collected (2 vols., 1856) as Melanges d’économie politique et de finance, and his speeches in the legislature are printed in vol. ii. of Léon Faucher, biographie et correspondance (2 vols., 2nd ed., Paris, 1875).

His various writings were gathered (2 vols., 1856) as Melanges d’économie politique et de finance, and his speeches in the legislature are published in vol. ii. of Léon Faucher, biographie et correspondance (2 vols., 2nd ed., Paris, 1875).

205

205


FAUCHET, CLAUDE (1530-1601), French historian and antiquary, was born at Paris on the 3rd of July 1530. Of his early life few particulars are known. He applied himself to the study of the early French chroniclers, and proposed to publish extracts which would throw light on the first periods of the monarchy. During the civil wars he lost a large part of his books and manuscripts in a riot, and was compelled to leave Paris. He then settled at Marseilles. Attaching himself afterwards to Cardinal de Tournon, he accompanied him in 1554 to Italy, whence he was several times sent on embassies to the king, with reports on the siege of Siena. His services at length procured him the post of president of the chambre des monnaies, and thus enabled him to resume his literary studies. Having become embarrassed with debt, he found it necessary, at the age of seventy, to sell his office; but the king, amused with an epigram, gave him a pension, with the title of historiographer of France. Fauchet has the reputation of an impartial and scrupulously accurate writer; and in his works are to be found important facts not easily accessible elsewhere. He was, however, entirely uncritical, and his style is singularly inelegant. His principal works (1579, 1599) treat of Gaulish and French antiquities, of the dignities and magistrates of France, of the origin of the French language and poetry, of the liberties of the Gallican church, &c. A collected edition was published in 1610. Fauchet took part in a translation of the Annals of Tacitus (1582). He died at Paris about the close of 1601.

FAUCHET, CLAUDE (1530-1601), a French historian and collector of antiquities, was born in Paris on July 3, 1530. There aren't many details known about his early life. He focused on studying early French chroniclers and planned to publish excerpts that would shed light on the early years of the monarchy. During the civil wars, he lost a significant portion of his books and manuscripts in a riot and had to leave Paris. He then moved to Marseille. Later on, he became associated with Cardinal de Tournon and traveled with him to Italy in 1554, from where he was sent several times on missions to the king with reports on the siege of Siena. His efforts eventually earned him the position of president of the chambre des monnaies, allowing him to resume his literary studies. However, due to financial difficulties, he found it necessary to sell his office at the age of seventy; but the king, amused by a witty poem, granted him a pension and appointed him historiographer of France. Fauchet is known for being an impartial and meticulously accurate writer, and his works include important facts that are not easily found elsewhere. However, he was entirely uncritical, and his writing style is notably awkward. His major works (1579, 1599) cover Gaulish and French antiquities, the ranks and officials of France, the origins of the French language and poetry, and the liberties of the Gallican church, among other topics. A collected edition was published in 1610. Fauchet also contributed to a translation of the Annals of Tacitus (1582). He passed away in Paris around the end of 1601.


FAUCHET, CLAUDE (1744-1793), French revolutionary bishop, was born at Dornes (Nièvre) on the 22nd of September 1744. He was a curate of the church of St Roch, Paris, when he was engaged as tutor to the children of the marquis of Choiseul, brother of Louis XV.’s minister, an appointment which proved to be the first step to fortune. He was successively grand vicar to the archbishop of Bourges, preacher to the king, and abbot of Montfort-Lacarre. The “philosophic” tone of his sermons caused his dismissal from court in 1788 before he became a popular speaker in the Parisian sections. He was one of the leaders of the attack on the Bastille, and on the 5th of August 1789 he delivered an eloquent discourse by way of funeral sermon for the citizens slain on the 14th of July, taking as his text the words of St Paul, “Ye have been called to liberty.” He blessed the tricolour flag for the National Guard, and in September was elected to the Commune, from which he retired in October 1790. During the next winter he organized within the Palais Royal the “Social Club of the Society of the Friends of Truth,” presiding over crowded meetings under the self-assumed title of procureur général de la vérité. Nevertheless, events were marching faster than his opinions, and the last occasion on which he carried his public with him was in a sermon preached at Notre Dame on the 14th of February 1791. In May he became constitutional bishop of Calvados, and was presently returned by the department to the Legislative Assembly, and afterwards to the Convention. At the king’s trial he voted for the appeal to the people and for the penalty of imprisonment. He protested against the execution of Louis XVI. in the Journal des amis (January 26, 1793), and next month was denounced to the Convention for prohibiting married priests from the exercise of the priesthood in his diocese. He remained secretary to the Convention until the accusation of the Girondists in May 1793. In July he was imprisoned on the charge of supporting the federalist movement at Caen, and of complicity with Charlotte Corday, whom he had taken to see a sitting of the Convention on her arrival in Paris. Of the second of these charges he was certainly innocent. With the Girondist deputies he was brought before the revolutionary tribunal on the 30th of October, and was guillotined on the following day.

FAUCHET, CLAUDE (1744-1793), French revolutionary bishop, was born in Dornes (Nièvre) on September 22, 1744. He was a curate at the church of St Roch in Paris when he was hired as a tutor for the children of the marquis of Choiseul, the brother of Louis XV’s minister, an opportunity that became his first step towards success. He went on to become the grand vicar to the archbishop of Bourges, a preacher to the king, and the abbot of Montfort-Lacarre. The "philosophical" tone of his sermons led to his dismissal from court in 1788, but he soon became a popular speaker in the Parisian sections. He was one of the leaders in the attack on the Bastille, and on August 5, 1789, he delivered a powerful sermon as a eulogy for the citizens killed on July 14, using St Paul’s words, “You have been called to liberty.” He blessed the tricolor flag for the National Guard and in September was elected to the Commune, although he stepped down in October 1790. During the following winter, he organized the "Social Club of the Society of the Friends of Truth" within the Palais Royal, leading packed meetings under the self-assigned title of procureur général de la vérité. However, events were evolving quicker than his views, and the last time he successfully swayed the public was during a sermon at Notre Dame on February 14, 1791. In May, he became the constitutional bishop of Calvados and was later elected to the Legislative Assembly and then to the Convention. At the king's trial, he voted for the appeal to the people and for the sentence of imprisonment. He spoke out against the execution of Louis XVI. in the Journal des amis (January 26, 1793), and the following month was denounced to the Convention for prohibiting married priests from practicing in his diocese. He served as secretary to the Convention until the Girondists were accused in May 1793. In July, he was imprisoned for allegedly supporting the federalist movement in Caen and for being involved with Charlotte Corday, whom he had taken to observe a sitting of the Convention upon her arrival in Paris. He was definitely innocent of the latter charge. Along with the Girondist deputies, he was brought before the revolutionary tribunal on October 30 and was guillotined the next day.

See Mémoires ... ou Lettres de Claude Fauchet (5th ed., 1793); Notes sur Claude Fauchet (Caen, 1842).

See Mémoires ... ou Lettres de Claude Fauchet (5th ed., 1793); Notes sur Claude Fauchet (Caen, 1842).


FAUCIT, HELENA SAVILLE (1817-1898), English actress, the daughter of John Saville Faucit, an actor, was born in London. Her first London appearance was made on the 5th of January 1836 at Covent Garden as Julia in The Hunchback. Her success in this was so definitely confirmed by her subsequent acting of Juliet, Lady Teazle, Beatrice, Imogen and Hermione, that within eighteen months she was engaged by Macready as leading lady at Covent Garden. There, besides appearing in several Shakespearian characters, she created the heroine’s part in Lytton’s Duchess de la Vallière (1836), Lady of Lyons (1838), Richelieu (1839), The Sea Captain (1839), Money (1840), and Browning’s Strafford (1837). After a visit to Paris and a short season at the Haymarket, she joined the Drury Lane company under Macready early in 1842. There she played Lady Macbeth, Constance in King John, Desdemona and Imogen, and took part in the first production of Westland Marston’s Patrician’s Daughter (1842) and Browning’s Blot on the Scutcheon (1843). Among her successful tours was included a visit to Paris in 1844-1845, where she acted with Macready in several Shakespearian plays. In 1851 she was married to Mr (afterwards Sir) Theodore Martin, but still acted occasionally for charity. One of her last appearances was as Beatrice, on the opening of the Shakespeare Memorial at Stratford-on-Avon on the 23rd of April 1879. In 1881 there appeared in Blackwood’s Magazine the first of her Letters on some of Shakespeare’s Heroines, which were published in book form as On Some of Shakespeare’s Female Characters (1885). Lady Martin died at her home near Llangollen in Wales on the 31st of October 1898. There is a tablet to her in the Shakespeare Memorial with a portrait figure, and the marble pulpit in the Shakespeare church—with her portrait as Saint Helena—was given in her memory by her husband.

FAUCIT, HELENA SAVILLE (1817-1898), English actress, the daughter of John Saville Faucit, an actor, was born in London. Her first performance in London was on January 5, 1836, at Covent Garden as Julia in The Hunchback. Her success in this role was solidified by her later performances as Juliet, Lady Teazle, Beatrice, Imogen, and Hermione, which got her hired by Macready as the leading lady at Covent Garden within eighteen months. There, besides playing several Shakespearean roles, she created the lead female role in Lytton’s Duchess de la Vallière (1836), Lady of Lyons (1838), Richelieu (1839), The Sea Captain (1839), Money (1840), and Browning’s Strafford (1837). After a trip to Paris and a short stint at the Haymarket, she joined the Drury Lane company under Macready in early 1842. There, she played Lady Macbeth, Constance in King John, Desdemona, and Imogen, and participated in the first production of Westland Marston’s Patrician’s Daughter (1842) and Browning’s Blot on the Scutcheon (1843). Among her successful tours was a visit to Paris in 1844-1845, where she acted with Macready in several Shakespearean plays. In 1851, she married Mr. (later Sir) Theodore Martin, but continued to perform occasionally for charity. One of her last roles was as Beatrice during the opening of the Shakespeare Memorial at Stratford-on-Avon on April 23, 1879. In 1881, Blackwood’s Magazine published her first piece, Letters on some of Shakespeare’s Heroines, which were later released as On Some of Shakespeare’s Female Characters (1885). Lady Martin passed away at her home near Llangollen in Wales on October 31, 1898. There is a plaque dedicated to her in the Shakespeare Memorial featuring a portrait figure, and the marble pulpit in the Shakespeare church—with her portrait as Saint Helena—was given in her memory by her husband.

See Sir Theodore Martin’s Helena Faucit (1900).

See Sir Theodore Martin’s *Helena Faucit* (1900).


FAUJAS DE SAINT-FOND, BARTHÉLEMY (1741-1819), French geologist and traveller, was born at Montélimart on the 17th of May 1741. He was educated at the Jesuits’ College at Lyons; afterwards he went to Grenoble, applied himself to the study of law, and was admitted advocate to the parliament. He rose to be president of the seneschal’s court (1765), a post which he honourably filled, but the duties of which became irksome, as he had early developed a love of nature and his favourite relaxation was found in visits to the Alps. There he began to study the forms, structure, composition and superposition of rocks. In 1775 he discovered in the Velay a rich deposit of pozzuolana, which in due course was worked by the government. In 1776 he put himself in communication with Buffon, who was not slow to perceive the value of his labours. Invited by Buffon to Paris, he quitted the law, and was appointed by Louis XVI. assistant naturalist to the museum, to which office was added some years later (1785, 1788) that of royal commissioner for mines. One of the most important of his works was the Recherches sur les volcans éteints du Vivarais et du Velay, which appeared in 1778. In this work, rich in facts and observations, he developed his theory of the origin of volcanoes. In his capacity of commissioner for mines Faujas travelled in almost all the countries of Europe, everywhere devoting attention to the nature and constituents of the rocks. It was he who first recognized the volcanic nature of the basaltic columns of the cave of Fingal (Staffa), although the island was visited in 1772 by Sir Joseph Banks, who remarked that the stone “is a coarse kind of Basaltes, very much resembling the Giants’ Causeway in Ireland” (Pennant’s Tour in Scotland and Voyage to the Hebrides). Faujas’s Voyage en Angleterre, en Écosse et aux Îles Hébrides (1797) is full of interest—containing anecdotes of Sir Joseph Banks and Dr John Whitehurst, and an amusing account of “The Dinner of an Academic Club” (the Royal Society), and has been translated into English (2 vols., 1799). Having been nominated in 1793 professor at the Jardin des Plantes, he held this post till he was nearly eighty years of age, retiring in 1818 to his estate of Saint-Fond in Dauphiné. Faujas took a warm interest in the balloon experiments of the brothers Montgolfier, and published a very complete Description des expériences de la machine aérostatique de MM. Montgolfier, &c. (1783, 1784). He contributed many scientific memoirs to the Annales and the Mémoires of the museum of natural history. Among his separate works, in addition to those already named are—Histoire naturelle de la province de Dauphiné (1781, 1782); Minéralogie des volcans 206 (1784); and Essai de géologie (1803-1809). Faujas died on the 18th of July 1819.

FAUJAS DE SAINT-FOND, BARTHÉLEMY (1741-1819), French geologist and traveler, was born in Montélimart on May 17, 1741. He studied at the Jesuits’ College in Lyons, then went to Grenoble, where he focused on law and became an advocate in the parliament. He eventually became the president of the seneschal’s court in 1765, a role he fulfilled honorably but found tedious, as he had developed a passion for nature and enjoyed visiting the Alps. There, he began studying the forms, structure, composition, and layering of rocks. In 1775, he discovered a rich deposit of pozzolana in Velay, which was later mined by the government. In 1776, he established contact with Buffon, who quickly recognized the significance of his work. Invited by Buffon to Paris, he left law and was appointed by Louis XVI as assistant naturalist at the museum, later adding the role of royal commissioner for mines in 1785 and 1788. One of his most significant works was the Recherches sur les volcans éteints du Vivarais et du Velay, published in 1778. This work, rich in facts and observations, presented his theory on the origins of volcanoes. As a commissioner for mines, Faujas traveled across much of Europe, focusing on the nature and components of rocks. He was the first to identify the volcanic nature of the basalt columns in Fingal's Cave (Staffa), even though the island had been visited in 1772 by Sir Joseph Banks, who noted that the stone “is a coarse kind of Basaltes, very much resembling the Giants’ Causeway in Ireland” (Pennant’s Tour in Scotland and Voyage to the Hebrides). Faujas’s Voyage en Angleterre, en Écosse et aux Îles Hébrides (1797) is quite engaging—featuring anecdotes about Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. John Whitehurst, along with a humorous account of “The Dinner of an Academic Club” (the Royal Society), and has been translated into English (2 vols., 1799). In 1793, he was appointed professor at the Jardin des Plantes, a position he held until he was nearly eighty, retiring to his estate of Saint-Fond in Dauphiné in 1818. Faujas was deeply interested in the balloon experiments conducted by the Montgolfier brothers and published a comprehensive Description des expériences de la machine aérostatique de MM. Montgolfier, etc. (1783, 1784). He contributed numerous scientific papers to the Annales and the Mémoires of the museum of natural history. Among his other works, besides those already mentioned, are: Histoire naturelle de la province de Dauphiné (1781, 1782); Minéralogie des volcans 206 (1784); and Essai de géologie (1803-1809). Faujas passed away on July 18, 1819.


Fig. 1.—Section of clean-cut fault.

FAULT (Mid. Eng. faute, through the French, from the popular Latin use of fallere, to fail; the original l of the Latin being replaced in English in the 15th century), a failing, mistake or defect.

FAULT (Middle English faute, derived from French, originating from the Latin fallere, meaning to fail; the original l from Latin was replaced in English in the 15th century), a failing, mistake, or defect.

In geology, the term is given to a plane of dislocation in a portion of the earth’s crust; synonyms used in mining are “trouble,” “throw” and “heave”; the German equivalent is Verwerfung, and the French faille. Faults on a small scale are sometimes sharply-defined planes,1 as if the rocks had been sliced through and fitted together again after being shifted (fig. 1). In such cases, however, the harder portions of the dislocated rocks will usually be found “slickensided.” More frequently some disturbance has occurred on one or both sides of the fault. Sometimes in a series of strata the beds on the side which has been pushed up are bent down against the fault, while those on the opposite side are bent up (fig. 2). Most commonly the rocks on both sides are considerably broken, jumbled and crumpled, so that the line of fracture is marked by a belt or wall-like mass of fragmentary rock, fault-rock, which may be several yards in breadth. Faults are to be distinguished from joints and fissures by the fact that there must have been a movement of the rock on one side of the fault-plane relatively to that on the other side. The trace of a fault-plane at the surface of the earth is a line (or belt of fault-rock), which in geological mapping is often spoken of as a “fault-line” or “line of fault.” Fig. 3 represents the plan of a simple fault; quite frequently, however, the main fault subdivides at the extremities into a number of minor faults (fig. 4), or the main fault may be accompanied by lateral subordinate faults (fig. 5), some varieties of which have been termed flaws or Blatts.

In geology, the term refers to a break in a section of the earth's crust; synonyms used in mining include "trouble," "throw," and "heave"; the German equivalent is Verwerfung, and the French is faille. Small-scale faults are sometimes clearly defined planes, 1 as if the rocks were sliced through and put back together after shifting (fig. 1). In these cases, however, the harder parts of the dislocated rocks are usually found to be "slickensided." More often, some disturbance happens on one or both sides of the fault. Sometimes in a sequence of layers, the beds on the side that has been pushed up are bent down toward the fault, while those on the opposite side are bent up (fig. 2). Most commonly, the rocks on both sides are significantly broken, mixed up, and crumpled, so the line of fracture is marked by a belt or wall-like mass of fragmentary rock, fault-rock, which can be several yards wide. Faults are different from joints and fissures because there must have been movement of the rock on one side of the fault plane relative to the other side. The trace of a fault plane at the earth's surface is a line (or belt of fault-rock), which in geological mapping is often called a "fault-line" or "line of fault." Fig. 3 shows the layout of a simple fault; however, quite frequently, the main fault divides at the ends into several minor faults (fig. 4), or the main fault may have lateral subordinate faults (fig. 5), some types of which are referred to as flaws or Blatts.

Fig. 2.—Section of strata, bent at a line of fault.
Fig. 3.—Plan of simple fault.
Fig. 4.—Plan of a fault splitting into minor faults.

“Fault-planes” are sometimes perpendicular to the horizon, but more usually they are inclined at a greater or lesser angle. The angle made by the fault-plane with the vertical is the hade of the fault (if the angle of inclination were measured from the horizon, as in determining the “dip” of strata, this would be expressed as the “dip of the fault”). In figs. 1 and 2 the faults are hading towards the right of the reader. The amount of dislocation as measured along a fault-plane is the displacement of the fault (for an illustration of these terms see fig. 18, where they are applied to a thrust fault); the vertical displacement is the throw (Fr. rejet); the horizontal displacement, which even with vertical movement must arise in all cases where the faults are not perpendicular to the horizon and the strata are not horizontal, is known as the heave. In fig. 6 the displacement is equal to the throw in the fault A; in the fault B the displacement is more than twice as great as in A, while the throw is the same in both; the fault A has no heave, in B it is considerable. The rock on that side of a fault which has dropped relatively to the rock on the other is said to be upon the downthrow side of the fault; conversely, the relatively uplifted portion is the upthrow side. The two fault faces are known as the “hanging-wall” and the “foot-wall.”

“Fault-planes” can sometimes be vertical but are usually tilted at various angles. The angle between the fault-plane and the vertical is called the hade of the fault (if the angle is measured from the horizontal, similar to determining the “dip” of layers, it’s referred to as the “dip of the fault”). In figures 1 and 2, the faults are slanting towards the right of the reader. The amount of shift measured along a fault-plane is the displacement of the fault (for an example of these terms, see fig. 18, where they are used in a thrust fault); the vertical displacement is known as the throw (Fr. rejet); the horizontal displacement, which must occur whenever the faults aren't vertical and the layers aren't horizontal, is known as the heave. In fig. 6, the displacement equals the throw in fault A; in fault B, the displacement is more than twice that of A, while the throw is the same in both; fault A has no heave, whereas in B it is significant. The rock on one side of a fault that has dropped relative to the rock on the other side is referred to as being on the downthrow side of the fault; conversely, the portion that is relatively elevated is the upthrow side. The two faces of the fault are called the “hanging-wall” and the “foot-wall.”

Fig. 5.—Plan of main fault, with branches.
Fig. 6.—Section of a vertical and inclined fault.
Fig. 7.—Reversed fault, Liddesdale.

The relationship that exists between the hade and the direction of throw has led to the classification of faults into “normal faults,” which hade under the downthrow side, or in other words, those in which the hanging-wall has dropped; and “reversed faults,” which hade beneath the upthrow side, that is to say, the foot-wall exhibits a relative sinking. Normal faults are exemplified in figs. 1, 2, and 6; in the latter the masses A and B are on the downthrow sides, C is upthrown. Fig. 7 represents a small reversed fault. Normal faults are so called because they are more generally prevalent than the other type; they are sometimes designated “drop” or “gravity” faults, but these are misleading expressions and should be discountenanced. Normal faults are regarded as the result of stretching of the crust, hence they have been called “tension” faults as distinguished from reversed faults, which are assumed to be due to pressure. It is needful, however, to exercise great caution in accepting this view except in a restricted and localized sense, for there are many instances in which the two forms are intimately associated (see fig. 8), and a whole complex system of faults may be the result of horizontal (tangential) pressure alone or even of direct vertical uplift. It is often tacitly assumed 207 that most normal and reversed faults are due to simple vertical movements of the fractured crust-blocks; but this is by no means the case. What is actually observed in examining a fault is the apparent direction of motion; but the present position of the dislocated masses is the result of real motion or series of motions, which have taken place along the fault-plane at various angles from horizontal to vertical; frequently it can be shown that these movements have been extremely complicated. The striations and “slickensides” on the faces of a fault indicate only the direction of the last movement.

The relationship between the hade and the direction of throw has led to classifying faults into “normal faults,” which have hade on the downthrow side (in other words, where the hanging wall has dropped), and “reversed faults,” which have hade on the upthrow side (meaning the foot wall has sunk relatively). Normal faults are shown in figures 1, 2, and 6; in figure 6, masses A and B are on the downthrow side, while C is upthrown. Figure 7 shows a small reversed fault. Normal faults are called that because they are more common than the other type; they are sometimes referred to as “drop” or “gravity” faults, but those labels are misleading and should be avoided. Normal faults are seen as a result of the crust stretching, hence they are called “tension” faults, as opposed to reversed faults, which are thought to result from pressure. However, it’s essential to be very cautious in accepting this perspective except in a limited and specific way, since there are many cases where both forms are closely connected (see figure 8), and an entire complex system of faults could result from horizontal (tangential) pressure alone or even from direct vertical uplift. It is often assumed that most normal and reversed faults are due to simple vertical movements of the fractured crust blocks, but that is definitely not the whole story. What we actually see when examining a fault is the apparent direction of motion; however, the current position of the dislocated masses results from real motion or a series of motions that have occurred along the fault plane at various angles from horizontal to vertical, and it can often be demonstrated that these movements have been quite complex. The striations and “slickensides” on the faces of a fault only indicate the direction of the last movement.

Fig. 8.—Diagram of gently undulating strata cut by a fault, with alternate throw in opposite directions.
Fig. 9.—Section of strata cut by step faults.
Fig. 10.—Trough faults.
Fig. 11.—Plan of a strike fault.

A broad monoclinal fold is sometimes observed to pass into a fault of gradually increasing throw; such a fault is occasionally regarded as pivoted at one end. Again, a faulted mass may be on the downthrow side towards one end, and on the upthrow side towards the other, the movement having taken place about an axis approximately normal to the fault-plane, the “pivot” in this case being near the centre. From an example of this kind it is evident that the same fault may at the same time be both “normal” and “reversed” (see fig. 8). When the principal movement along a highly inclined fault-plane has been approximately horizontal, the fault has been variously styled a lateral-shift, transcurrent fault, transverse thrust or a heave fault. The horizontal component in faulting movements is more common than is often supposed.

A wide monoclinal fold can sometimes transition into a fault with gradually increasing displacement; this kind of fault is sometimes viewed as being pivoted at one end. Additionally, a faulted section might be on the downthrow side at one end and on the upthrow side at the other, with the movement occurring around an axis that is roughly perpendicular to the fault plane, with the “pivot” in this case being near the center. From an example like this, it’s clear that the same fault can simultaneously be both “normal” and “reverse” (see fig. 8). When the main movement along a steeply inclined fault plane is roughly horizontal, the fault has been referred to as a lateral-shift, transcurrent fault, transverse thrust, or a heave fault. The horizontal aspect in fault movements is more common than is often thought.

Fig. 12.—Section across the plan, fig. 11.

A single normal fault of large throw is sometimes replaced by a series of close parallel faults, each throwing a small amount in the same direction; if these subordinate faults occur within a narrow width of ground they are known as distribution faults; if they are more widely separated they are called step faults (fig. 9). Occasionally two normal faults hade towards one another and intersect, and the rock mass between them has been let down; this is described as a trough fault (fig. 10). A fault running parallel to the strike of bedded rocks is a strike fault; one which runs along the direction of the dip is a dip fault; a so-called diagonal fault takes a direction intermediate between these two directions. Although the effects of these types of fault upon the outcrops of strata differ, there are no intrinsic differences between the faults themselves.

A large normal fault is sometimes replaced by a series of closely spaced parallel faults, each producing a small amount of movement in the same direction. If these smaller faults are within a narrow area, they are called distribution faults; if they are more spread out, they are known as step faults (fig. 9). Occasionally, two normal faults tilt toward each other and intersect, causing the rock mass between them to drop down; this is referred to as a trough fault (fig. 10). A fault that runs parallel to the layers of bedded rocks is a strike fault; one that runs along the direction of the slope is a dip fault; a diagonal fault takes a direction that is in between these two. Although the effects of these types of faults on the exposure of rock layers differ, there are no fundamental differences between the faults themselves.

Fig. 13.—Plan of strata cut by a dip fault.
Fig. 14.—Plan of strata traversed by a diminishing strike fault.
Fig. 15.—Plan of an anticline (A) and syncline (S), dislocated by a fault.
Fig. 16.—Section along the upcast side of the fault in fig. 15.
Fig. 17.—Section along the downcast side of same fault.

The effect of normal faults upon the outcrop may be thus briefly summarized:—a strike fault that hades with the direction of the dip may cause beds to be cut out at the surface on the upthrow side; if it hades against the dip direction it may repeat some of the beds on the upthrow side (figs. 11 and 12). With dip faults the crop is carried forward (down the dip) on the upthrow side. The perpendicular distance between the crop of the bed (dike or vein) on opposite sides of the fault is the “offset.” The offset decreases with increasing angle of dip and increases with increase in the throw of the fault (fig. 13). Faults which run obliquely across the direction of dip, if they hade with the dip of the strata, will produce offset with “gap” between the outcrops; if they hade in the opposite direction to the dip, offset with “overlap” is caused: in the latter case the crop moves forward (down dip) on the denuded upthrow side, in the former it moves backward. The effect of a strike fault of diminishing throw is seen in fig. 14. Faults crossing folded strata cause the outcrops to approach on the upthrow side of a syncline and tend to separate the outcrops of an anticline (figs. 15, 16, 17).

The impact of normal faults on the surface can be summarized like this: a strike fault that angles in the same direction as the dip may result in layers being missing at the surface on the upthrow side; if it angles against the dip direction, it can repeat some of the layers on the upthrow side (figs. 11 and 12). With dip faults, the outcrop is pushed forward (down the dip) on the upthrow side. The straight-line distance between the outcrop of the layer (dike or vein) on either side of the fault is known as the “offset.” The offset decreases as the dip angle increases and increases with more throw of the fault (fig. 13). Faults that run diagonally across the dip direction, if they angle with the dip of the layers, will create an offset with a “gap” between the outcrops; if they angle in the opposite direction to the dip, an offset with “overlap” occurs: in the latter case, the outcrop shifts forward (down dip) on the stripped upthrow side, while in the former it shifts backward. The effect of a strike fault with diminishing throw is shown in fig. 14. Faults that intersect folded layers make the outcrops move closer together on the upthrow side of a syncline and tend to separate the outcrops of an anticline (figs. 15, 16, 17).

In the majority of cases the upthrown side of a fault has been so reduced by denudation as to leave no sharp upstanding ridge; but examples are known where the upthrown side still 208 exists as a prominent cliff-like face of rock, a “fault-scarp”; familiar instances occur in the Basin ranges of Utah, Nevada, &c., and many smaller examples have been observed in the areas affected by recent earthquakes in Japan, San Francisco and other places. But although there may be no sharp cliff, the effect of faulting upon topographic forms is abundantly evident wherever a harder series of strata has been brought in juxtaposition to softer rocks. By certain French writers, the upstanding side of a faulted piece of ground is said to have a regard, thus the faults of the Jura Mountains have a “regard français,” and in the same region it has been observed that in curved faults the convexity is directed the same way as the regard. Occasionally one or more parallel faults have let down an intervening strip of rock, thereby forming “fault valleys” or Graben (Grabensenken); the Great Rift Valley is a striking example. On the other hand, a large area of rock is sometimes lifted up, or surrounded by a system of faults, which have let down the encircling ground; such a fault-block is known also as a horst; a considerable area of Greenland stands up in this manner.

In most cases, the raised side of a fault has been worn down by erosion, leaving no sharp ridge; however, there are examples where the raised side still exists as a prominent cliff-like rock face, called a “fault-scarp.” Familiar examples can be found in the Basin ranges of Utah, Nevada, etc., and many smaller instances have been noted in areas affected by recent earthquakes in Japan, San Francisco, and other locations. Even if there isn’t a sharp cliff, the impact of faulting on the landscape is clearly visible wherever harder rock layers are positioned next to softer rocks. Certain French writers refer to the elevated side of a faulted area as having a regard; thus, the faults in the Jura Mountains are said to have a “regard français.” In the same region, it has been noted that in curved faults, the bulge points in the same direction as the regard. Sometimes, one or more parallel faults lower an intervening strip of rock, creating “fault valleys” or Graben (Grabensenken); the Great Rift Valley is a striking example. On the flip side, a large chunk of rock can be lifted or surrounded by a system of faults that have lowered the surrounding ground; this kind of fault-block is also known as a horst; a significant area of Greenland is elevated in this way.

Faults have often an important influence upon water-supply by bringing impervious beds up against pervious ones or vice versa, thus forming underground dams or reservoirs, or allowing water to flow away that would otherwise be conserved. Springs often rise along the outcrop of a fault. In coal and metal mining it is evident from what has already been said that faults must act sometimes beneficially, sometimes the reverse. It is a common occurrence for fault-fissures and fault-rock to appear as valuable mineral lodes through the infilling or impregnation of the spaces and broken ground with mineral ores.

Faults often have a significant impact on water supply by bringing impermeable layers next to permeable ones, creating underground dams or reservoirs, or allowing water to escape that would otherwise be stored. Springs frequently emerge along the surface of a fault. In coal and metal mining, it's clear that faults can be both beneficial and detrimental. It's common for fault fissures and fault rock to show up as valuable mineral deposits due to the filling or saturation of the spaces and fractured ground with mineral ores.

In certain regions which have been subjected to very great crustal disturbance a type of fault is found which possesses a very low hade—sometimes only a few degrees from the horizontal—and, like a reversed fault, hades beneath the upthrown mass; these are termed thrusts, overthrusts, or overthrust faults (Fr. recouvrements, failles de chevauchement, charriages; Ger. Überschiebungen, Übersprünge, Wechsel, Fallenverwerfungen). Thrusts should not be confused with reversed faults, which have a strong hade. Thrusts play a very important part in the N.W. highlands of Scotland, the Scandinavian highlands, the western Alps, the Appalachians, the Belgian coal region, &c. By the action of thrusts enormous masses of rock have been pushed almost horizontally over underlying rocks, in some cases for several miles. One of the largest of the Scandinavian thrust 209 masses is 1120 m. long, 80 m. broad, and 5000 ft. thick. In Scotland three grades of thrusts are recognized, maximum, major, and minor thrusts; the last have very generally been truncated by those of greater magnitude. Some of these great thrusts have received distinguishing names, e.g. the Moine thrust (fig. 19) and the Ben More thrust; similarly in the coal basin of Mons and Valenciennes we find the faille de Boussu and the Grande faille du midi. Overturned folds are frequently seen passing into thrusts. Bayley Willis has classified thrusts as (1) Shear thrusts, (2) Break thrusts, (3) Stretch thrusts, and (4) Erosion thrusts.

In certain areas that have experienced significant crustal disturbance, there is a type of fault that has a very low angle—sometimes only a few degrees from horizontal—and, like a reverse fault, dips beneath the raised section; these are called thrusts, overthrusts, or overthrust faults (Fr. recouvrements, failles de chevauchement, charriages; Ger. Überschiebungen, Übersprünge, Wechsel, Fallenverwerfungen). Thrusts should not be mistaken for reverse faults, which have a steep angle. Thrusts play a crucial role in the northwest highlands of Scotland, the Scandinavian highlands, the western Alps, the Appalachians, the Belgian coal region, etc. Through thrusting, enormous rock masses have been pushed nearly horizontally over underlying rocks, sometimes extending for several miles. One of the largest thrust masses in Scandinavia measures 1120 m long, 80 m wide, and 5000 ft thick. In Scotland, three types of thrusts are identified: maximum, major, and minor thrusts; the minor ones are often truncated by larger ones. Some of these significant thrusts have specific names, such as the Moine thrust (fig. 19) and the Ben More thrust; likewise, in the coal basin of Mons and Valenciennes, we find the faille de Boussu and the Grande faille du midi. Overturned folds often transition into thrusts. Bayley Willis has categorized thrusts into (1) Shear thrusts, (2) Break thrusts, (3) Stretch thrusts, and (4) Erosion thrusts.

Fig. 18.—Diagram to illustrate the terminology of faults and thrusts.
Fig. 19.—Section of a very large thrust in the Durness Eriboll district, Scotland.

Dr J.E. Marr (“Notes on the Geology of the English Lake District,” Proc. Geol. Assoc., 1900) has described a type of fault which may be regarded as the converse of a thrust fault. If we consider a series of rock masses A, B, C—of which A is the oldest and undermost—undergoing thrusting, say from south to north, should the mass C be prevented from moving forward as rapidly as B, a low-hading fault may form between C and B and the mass C may lag behind; similarly the mass B may lag behind A. Such faults Dr Marr calls “lag faults.” A mass of rock suffering thrusting or lagging may yield unequally in its several parts, and those portions tending to travel more rapidly than the adjoining masses in the same sheet may be cut off by fractures. Thus the faster-moving blocks will be separated from the slower ones by faults approximately normal to the plane of movement: these are described as “tear faults.”

Dr. J.E. Marr (“Notes on the Geology of the English Lake District,” Proc. Geol. Assoc., 1900) has described a type of fault that can be seen as the opposite of a thrust fault. If we look at a set of rock masses A, B, and C—where A is the oldest and bottommost—being pushed from south to north, if mass C can't move forward as fast as B, a low-angle fault might form between C and B, causing C to lag behind; in a similar way, mass B might lag behind A. Dr. Marr refers to these as “lag faults.” A rock mass under thrusting or lagging can deform unevenly in different parts, and those sections that move faster than the adjacent masses in the same layer can be separated by fractures. As a result, the faster-moving blocks will be divided from the slower ones by faults that are roughly perpendicular to the direction of movement: these are known as “tear faults.”

Faults may occur in rocks of all ages; small local dislocations are observable even in glacial deposits, alluvium and loess. A region of faulting may continue to be so through more than one geological period. Little is known of the mechanism of faulting or of the causes that produce it; the majority of the text-book explanations will not bear scrutiny, and there is room for extended observation and research. The sudden yielding of the strata along a plane of faulting is a familiar cause of earthquakes.

Faults can happen in rocks from any time period; minor local displacements can be seen even in glacial deposits, alluvium, and loess. A faulted area can remain that way for more than one geological period. There's still a lot we don't understand about how faults form or what causes them; most textbook explanations don't hold up under closer examination, and there's a need for more observation and research. The sudden shift of the layers along a fault line is a well-known cause of earthquakes.

See E. de Margerie and A. Heim, Les Dislocations de l’écorce terrestre (Zürich, 1888); A. Rothpletz, Geotektonische Probleme (Stuttgart, 1894); B. Willis, “The Mechanics of Appalachian Structure,” 13th Ann. Rep. U.S. Geol. Survey (1891-1892, pub. 1893). A prolonged discussion of the subject is given in Economic Geology, Lancaster, Pa., U.S.A., vols. i. and ii. (1906, 1907).

See E. de Margerie and A. Heim, Les Dislocations de l’écorce terrestre (Zurich, 1888); A. Rothpletz, Geotektonische Probleme (Stuttgart, 1894); B. Willis, “The Mechanics of Appalachian Structure,” 13th Ann. Rep. U.S. Geol. Survey (1891-1892, published 1893). A detailed discussion of the topic is presented in Economic Geology, Lancaster, Pa., U.S.A., volumes i. and ii. (1906, 1907).

(A. Ge.; J. A. H.)

1 The fault-plane is not a plane surface in the mathematical sense; it may curve irregularly in more than one direction.

1 The fault-plane isn’t a flat surface like you would imagine in math; it can curve unpredictably in multiple directions.


FAUNA, the name, in Roman mythology, of a country goddess of the fields and cattle, known sometimes as the sister, sometimes as the wife of the god Faunus; hence the term is used collectively for all the animals in any given geographical area or geological period, or for an enumeration of the same. It thus corresponds to the term “flora” in respect to plant life.

FAUNA is the name of a goddess from Roman mythology who represents the fields and livestock. She is sometimes referred to as the sister or the wife of the god Faunus. Because of this, the term is used collectively to refer to all animals in a specific geographical area or geological period, or to list the same. This is similar to how “flora” refers to plant life.


FAUNTLEROY, HENRY (1785-1824), English banker and forger, was born in 1785. After seven years as a clerk in the London bank of Marsh, Sibbald & Co., of which his father was one of the founders, he was taken into partnership, and the whole business of the firm was left in his hands. In 1824 the bank suspended payment. Fauntleroy was arrested on the charge of appropriating trust funds by forging the trustees’ signatures, and was committed for trial, it being freely rumoured that he had appropriated £250,000, which he had squandered in debauchery. He was tried at the Old Bailey, and, the case against him having been proved, he admitted his guilt, but pleaded that he had used the misappropriated funds to pay his firm’s debts. He was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. Seventeen merchants and bankers gave evidence as to his general integrity at the trial, and after his conviction powerful influence was brought to bear on his behalf, and his case was twice argued before judges on points of law. An Italian named Angelini even offered to take Fauntleroy’s place on the scaffold. The efforts of his many friends were, however, unavailing, and he was executed on the 30th of November 1824. A wholly unfounded rumour was widely credited for some time subsequently to the effect that he had escaped strangulation by inserting a silver tube in his throat, and was living comfortably abroad.

FAUNTLEROY, HENRY (1785-1824), English banker and forger, was born in 1785. After spending seven years as a clerk at the London bank of Marsh, Sibbald & Co.—co-founded by his father—he became a partner, taking full control of the business. In 1824, the bank stopped operating. Fauntleroy was arrested for misappropriating trust funds by forging the signatures of the trustees, with rumors suggesting that he had taken £250,000, which he wasted on a life of excess. He was tried at the Old Bailey, where the evidence against him was strong, and he admitted his guilt but claimed that he had used the stolen funds to settle his firm’s debts. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. Seventeen merchants and bankers testified about his overall integrity during the trial, and after his conviction, significant influence was exerted on his behalf, with his case being argued twice in front of judges on legal points. An Italian named Angelini even offered to take Fauntleroy’s place on the gallows. However, the efforts of his supporters were unsuccessful, and he was executed on November 30, 1824. Following his execution, an entirely unfounded rumor circulated for some time that he had escaped strangulation by inserting a silver tube into his throat and was living comfortably abroad.

See A. Griffith’s Chronicles of Newgate, ii. 294-300, and Pierce Egan’s Account of the Trial of Mr Fauntleroy.

See A. Griffith’s Chronicles of Newgate, ii. 294-300, and Pierce Egan’s Account of the Trial of Mr Fauntleroy.


FAUNUS (i.e. the “kindly,” from Lat. favere, or the “speaker,” from fari), an old Italian rural deity, the bestower of fruitfulness on fields and cattle. As such he is akin to or identical with Inuus (“fructifier”) and Lupercus (see Lupercalia). Faunus also revealed the secrets of the future by strange sounds from the woods, or by visions communicated to those who slept within his precincts in the skin of sacrificed lambs; he was then called Fatuus, and with him was associated his wife or daughter Fatua. Under Greek influence he was identified with Pan, and just as there was supposed to be a number of Panisci, so the existence of many Fauni was assumed—misshapen and mischievous goblins of the forest, with pointed ears, tails and goat’s feet, who loved to torment sleepers with hideous nightmares. In poetical tradition Faunus is an old king of Latium, the son of Picus (Mars) and father of Latinus, the teacher of agriculture and cattle-breeding, and the introducer of the religious system of the country, honoured after death as a tutelary divinity. Two festivals called Faunalia were celebrated in honour of Faunus, one on the 13th of February in his temple on the island in the Tiber, the other in the country on the 5th of December (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 193; Horace, Odes, iii. 18. 10). At these goats were sacrificed to him with libations of wine and milk, and he was implored to be propitious to fields and flocks. The peasants and slaves at the same time amused themselves with dancing in the meadows.

FAUNUS (i.e. the “kindly,” from Lat. favere, or the “speaker,” from fari) is an ancient Italian rural god who brings fertility to fields and animals. He is similar to or the same as Inuus (“fructifier”) and Lupercus (see Lupercalia). Faunus also revealed future secrets through strange sounds from the woods or visions given to those who slept in his sacred areas while wearing the skin of sacrificed lambs; at that time, he was called Fatuus, and his wife or daughter was known as Fatua. Under Greek influence, he was identified with Pan, and just as there were thought to be many Panisci, it was believed there were many Fauni—deformed and mischievous forest goblins with pointed ears, tails, and goat-like feet, who enjoyed tormenting sleepers with terrible nightmares. In poetry, Faunus is depicted as an ancient king of Latium, the son of Picus (Mars) and the father of Latinus, who taught agriculture and animal husbandry and introduced the region's religious practices, and he was honored after death as a protective deity. Two festivals called Faunalia were held in his honor, one on February 13 in his temple on the island in the Tiber and the other in the countryside on December 5 (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 193; Horace, Odes, iii. 18. 10). At these celebrations, goats were sacrificed to him along with offerings of wine and milk, and he was asked to bless the fields and flocks. Meanwhile, the peasants and slaves enjoyed themselves dancing in the meadows.


FAURE, FRANÇOIS FÉLIX (1841-1899), President of the French Republic, was born in Paris on the 30th of January 1841, being the son of a small furniture maker. Having started as a tanner and merchant at Havre, he acquired considerable wealth, was elected to the National Assembly on the 21st of August 1881, and took his seat as a member of the Left, interesting himself chiefly in matters concerning economics, railways and the navy. In November 1882 he became under-secretary for the colonies in M. Ferry’s ministry, and retained the post till 1885. He held the same post in M. Tirard’s ministry in 1888, and in 1893 was made vice-president of the chamber. In 1894 he obtained cabinet rank as minister of marine in the administration of M. Dupuy. In the January following he was unexpectedly elected president of the Republic upon the resignation of M. Casimir-Périer. The principal cause of his elevation was the determination of the various sections of the moderate republican party to exclude M. Brisson, who had had a majority of votes on the first ballot, but had failed to obtain an absolute majority. To accomplish this end it was necessary to unite among themselves, and union could only be secured by the nomination of some one who offended nobody. M. Faure answered perfectly to this description. His fine presence and his tact on ceremonial occasions rendered the state some service when in 1896 he received the Tsar of Russia at Paris, and in 1897 returned his visit, after which meeting the momentous Franco-Russian alliance was publicly announced. The latter days of M. Faure’s presidency were embittered by the Dreyfus affair, which he was determined to regard as chose jugée. But at a critical moment in the proceedings his death occurred suddenly, from apoplexy, on the 16th of February 1899. With all his faults, and in spite of no slight amount of personal vanity, President Faure was a shrewd political observer and a good man of business. After his death, some alleged extracts from his private journals, dealing with French policy, were published in the Paris press.

FAURE, FRANÇOIS FÉLIX (1841-1899), President of the French Republic, was born in Paris on January 30, 1841, to the son of a small furniture maker. He began his career as a tanner and merchant in Le Havre, where he gained considerable wealth, and was elected to the National Assembly on August 21, 1881, joining the left and focusing mainly on economics, railways, and the navy. In November 1882, he became under-secretary for the colonies in M. Ferry’s ministry and held the position until 1885. He took on the same role in M. Tirard’s ministry in 1888, and in 1893, he became vice-president of the chamber. In 1894, he rose to cabinet rank as the minister of marine in M. Dupuy’s administration. The following January, he was unexpectedly elected president of the Republic after M. Casimir-Périer resigned. The main reason for his election was the moderate republican party's determination to exclude M. Brisson, who had a majority of votes on the first ballot but failed to achieve an absolute majority. To achieve this, it was necessary to unite and nominate someone who wouldn’t offend anyone. M. Faure fit this description perfectly. His impressive presence and tact during ceremonial events benefited the state when he received the Tsar of Russia in Paris in 1896 and returned the visit in 1897, after which the significant Franco-Russian alliance was publicly announced. The final days of M. Faure’s presidency were overshadowed by the Dreyfus affair, which he wanted to treat as chose jugée. However, unexpectedly, he died from a stroke on February 16, 1899. Despite his flaws and a degree of personal vanity, President Faure was a keen political observer and a competent businessman. After his death, alleged excerpts from his private journals concerning French policy were published in the Paris press.

See E. Maillard, Le Président F. Faure (Paris, 1897); P. Bluysen, Félix Faure intime (1898); and F. Martin-Ginouvier, F. Faure devant l’histoire (1895).

See E. Maillard, Le Président F. Faure (Paris, 1897); P. Bluysen, Félix Faure intime (1898); and F. Martin-Ginouvier, F. Faure devant l’histoire (1895).


FAURÉ, GABRIEL (1845-  ), French musical composer, was born at Pamiers on the 13th of May 1845. He studied at the school of sacred music directed by Niedermeyer, first under Dietsch, and subsequently under Saint-Saëns. He became “maître de chapelle” at the church of the Madeleine in 1877, and organist in 1896. His works include a symphony in D minor (Op. 40), two quartets for piano and strings (Opp. 15 and 45), a suite for orchestra (Op. 12), sonata for violin and piano (Op. 13), concerto for violin (Op. 14), berceuse for violin, élégie for violoncello, pavane for orchestra, incidental music for Alexandre Dumas’ Caligula and De Haraucourt’s Shylock, 210 a requiem, a cantata, The Birth of Venus, produced at the Leeds festival in 1898, a quantity of piano music, and a large number of songs. Fauré occupies a place by himself among modern French composers. He delights in the imprévu, and loves to wander through labyrinthine harmonies. There can be no denying the intense fascination and remarkable originality of his music. His muse is essentially aristocratic, and suggests the surroundings of the boudoir and the perfume of the hot-house.

FAURÉ, GABRIEL (1845-  ), French composer, was born in Pamiers on May 13, 1845. He studied at the school of sacred music run by Niedermeyer, first under Dietsch and later under Saint-Saëns. He became the “maître de chapelle” at the church of the Madeleine in 1877 and an organist in 1896. His works include a symphony in D minor (Op. 40), two quartets for piano and strings (Opp. 15 and 45), a suite for orchestra (Op. 12), a sonata for violin and piano (Op. 13), a concerto for violin (Op. 14), a berceuse for violin, an élégie for violoncello, a pavane for orchestra, incidental music for Alexandre Dumas' Caligula and De Haraucourt’s Shylock, 210 a requiem, a cantata, The Birth of Venus, performed at the Leeds festival in 1898, a lot of piano music, and numerous songs. Fauré stands out among modern French composers. He enjoys the imprévu and loves to explore complex harmonies. His music is undeniably captivating and uniquely original. His muse has an aristocratic essence, evoking the atmosphere of a boudoir and the aroma of a greenhouse.


FAURIEL, CLAUDE CHARLES (1772-1844), French historian, philologist and critic, was born at St Étienne on the 21st of October 1772. Though the son of a poor joiner, he received a good education in the Oratorian colleges of Tournon and Lyons. He was twice in the army—at Perpignan in 1793, and in 1796-1797 at Briançon, as private secretary to General J. Servan de Gerbey (1741-1808); but he preferred the civil service and the companionship of his friends and his books. In 1794 he returned to St Étienne, where, but only for a short period, he filled a municipal office; and from 1797 to 1799 he devoted himself to strenuous study, more especially of the literature and history, both ancient and modern, of Greece and Italy. Having paid a visit to Paris in 1799, he was introduced to Fouché, minister of police, who induced him to become his private secretary. Though he discharged the duties of this office to Fouché’s satisfaction, his strength was overtasked by his continued application to study, and he found it necessary in 1801 to recruit his health by a three months’ trip in the south. In resigning his office in the following year he was actuated as much by these considerations as by the scruples he put forward in serving longer under Napoleon, when the latter, in violation of strict republican principles, became consul for life. This is clearly shown by the fragments of Memoirs discovered by Ludovic Lalanne and published in 1886.

FAURIEL, CLAUDE CHARLES (1772-1844), a French historian, philologist, and critic, was born in St Étienne on October 21, 1772. Although he was the son of a poor carpenter, he received a solid education at the Oratorian colleges in Tournon and Lyons. He served twice in the army—first in Perpignan in 1793 and then in 1796-1797 at Briançon, acting as private secretary to General J. Servan de Gerbey (1741-1808); however, he preferred working in civil service and spending time with friends and reading. In 1794, he returned to St Étienne, where he briefly held a municipal position, and from 1797 to 1799, he focused intensely on studying, particularly the literature and history of ancient and modern Greece and Italy. After visiting Paris in 1799, he met Fouché, the minister of police, who encouraged him to become his private secretary. Although he performed this role well, the demands of his studies took a toll on his health, and in 1801 he needed a three-month break in the south to recuperate. When he resigned from his position the following year, it was motivated as much by his health concerns as by his ethical reservations about serving under Napoleon, especially when Napoleon violated strict republican principles by appointing himself consul for life. This is evident from the fragments of Memoirs discovered by Ludovic Lalanne and published in 1886.

Some articles which Fauriel published in the Décade philosophique (1800) on a work of Madame de Staël’s—De la littérature considerée dans ses rapports avec les institutions sociales—led to an intimate friendship with her. About 1802 he contracted with Madame de Condorcet a liaison which lasted till her death (1822). It was said of him at the time that he gave up all his energies to love, friendship and learning. The salon of Mme de Condorcet was throughout the Consulate and the first Empire a rallying point for the dissentient republicans. Fauriel was introduced by Madame de Staël to the literary circle of Auteuil, which gathered round Destutt de Tracy. Those who enjoyed his closest intimacy were the physiologist Cabanis (Madame de Condorcet’s brother-in-law), the poet Manzoni, the publicist Benjamin Constant, and Guizot. Later Tracy introduced to him Aug. Thierry (1821) and perhaps Thiers and Mignet. During his connexion with Auteuil, Fauriel’s attention was naturally turned to philosophy, and for some years he was engaged on a history of Stoicism, which was never completed, all the papers connected with it having accidentally perished in 1814. He also studied Arabic, Sanskrit and the old South French dialects. He published in 1810 a translation of the Parthenaīs of the Danish poet Baggesen, with a preface on the various kinds of poetry; in 1823 translations of two tragedies of Manzoni, with a preface “Sur la théorie de l’art dramatique”; and in 1824-1825 his translation of the popular songs of modern Greece, with a “Discours préliminaire” on popular poetry.

Some articles that Fauriel published in the Décade philosophique (1800) about a work by Madame de Staël—De la littérature considérée dans ses rapports avec les institutions sociales—led to a close friendship with her. Around 1802, he began a relationship with Madame de Condorcet that lasted until her death in 1822. At that time, people said he devoted all his energy to love, friendship, and learning. Madame de Condorcet's salon was a gathering place for dissenting republicans throughout the Consulate and the early Empire. Madame de Staël introduced Fauriel to the literary circle of Auteuil, centered around Destutt de Tracy. His closest companions included the physiologist Cabanis (Madame de Condorcet’s brother-in-law), the poet Manzoni, the publicist Benjamin Constant, and Guizot. Later, Tracy introduced him to Aug. Thierry (1821) and possibly Thiers and Mignet. During his time in Auteuil, Fauriel naturally focused on philosophy, and for several years, he worked on a history of Stoicism, which he never finished, as all related papers were accidentally lost in 1814. He also studied Arabic, Sanskrit, and the old Southern French dialects. In 1810, he published a translation of the Parthenaïs by the Danish poet Baggesen, with a preface on various types of poetry; in 1823, he translated two tragedies by Manzoni, including a preface titled “Sur la théorie de l’art dramatique”; and in 1824-1825, he released his translation of popular songs from modern Greece, accompanied by a “Discours préliminaire” on popular poetry.

The Revolution of July, which put his friends in power, opened to him the career of higher education. In 1830 he became professor of foreign literature at the Sorbonne. The Histoire de la Gaule méridionale sous la domination des conquerants germains (4 vols., 1836) was the only completed section of a general history of southern Gaul which he had projected. In 1836 he was elected a member of the Academy of Inscriptions, and in 1837 he published (with an introduction the conclusions of which would not now all be endorsed) a translation of a Provençal poem on the Albigensian war. He died on the 15th of July 1844. After his death his friend Mary Clarke (afterwards Madame J. Möhl) published his Histoire de la littérature provençale (3 vols., 1846)—his lectures for 1831-1832. Fauriel was biased in this work by his preconceived and somewhat fanciful theory that Provence was the cradle of the chansons de geste and even of the Round Table romances; but he gave a great stimulus to the scientific study of Old French and Provençal. Dante et les origines de la langue et de la littérature italiennes (2 vols.) was published in 1854.

The July Revolution, which brought his friends to power, opened up a path for him in higher education. In 1830, he became a professor of foreign literature at the Sorbonne. The Histoire de la Gaule méridionale sous la domination des conquerants germains (4 vols., 1836) was the only completed part of a general history of southern Gaul that he had planned. In 1836, he was elected to the Academy of Inscriptions, and in 1837, he published (with an introduction that not all would agree with today) a translation of a Provençal poem about the Albigensian war. He passed away on July 15, 1844. After his death, his friend Mary Clarke (who later became Madame J. Möhl) published his Histoire de la littérature provençale (3 vols., 1846)—which were his lectures from 1831-1832. Fauriel was influenced by his preconceived and somewhat fanciful belief that Provence was the birthplace of the chansons de geste and even the Round Table romances; however, he greatly encouraged the scientific study of Old French and Provençal. Dante et les origines de la langue et de la littérature italiennes (2 vols.) was published in 1854.

Fauriel’s Mémoires, found with Condorcet’s papers, are in the Institute library. They were written at latest in 1804, and include some interesting fragments on the close of the consulate, Moreau, &c. Though anonymous, Lalanne, who published them (Les Derniers Jours du Consulat, 1886), proved them to be in the same handwriting as a letter of Fauriel’s in 1803. The same library has Fauriel’s correspondence, catalogued by Ad. Régnier (1900). Benjamin Constant’s letters (1802-1823) were published by Victor Glachant in 1906. For Fauriel’s correspondence with Guizot see Nouvelle Rev. (Dec. 1, 1901, by V. Glachant), and for his love-letters to Miss Clarke (1822-1844) the Revue des deux mondes (1908-1909) by E. Rod. See further Sainte-Beuve, Portraits contemporains, ii.; Antoine Guillois, Le Salon de Mme Helvétius (1894) and La Marquise de Condorcet (1897); O’Meara, Un Salon à Paris: Mme Möhl (undated); and J.B. Galley, Claude Fauriel (1909).

Fauriel’s Mémoires, discovered among Condorcet’s papers, are in the Institute library. They were written no later than 1804 and include some intriguing fragments about the end of the consulate, Moreau, etc. Although published anonymously, Lalanne proved that they were written in the same handwriting as a letter from Fauriel dated 1803 (Les Derniers Jours du Consulat, 1886). The same library also has Fauriel’s correspondence, cataloged by Ad. Régnier (1900). Benjamin Constant’s letters (1802-1823) were published by Victor Glachant in 1906. For Fauriel’s correspondence with Guizot, see Nouvelle Rev. (Dec. 1, 1901, by V. Glachant), and for his love letters to Miss Clarke (1822-1844), refer to the Revue des deux mondes (1908-1909) by E. Rod. Additional references include Sainte-Beuve, Portraits contemporains, ii.; Antoine Guillois, Le Salon de Mme Helvétius (1894) and La Marquise de Condorcet (1897); O’Meara, Un Salon à Paris: Mme Möhl (undated); and J.B. Galley, Claude Fauriel (1909).


FAUST, or Faustus, the name of a magician and charlatan of the 16th century, famous in legend and in literature. The historical Faust forms little more than the nucleus round which a great mass of legendary and imaginative material gradually accumulated. That such a person existed there is, however, sufficient proof.1 He is first mentioned in a letter, dated August 20, 1507, of the learned Benedictine Johann Tritheim or Trithemius (1462-1516), abbot of Spanheim, to the mathematician and astrologer Johann Windung, at Hasfurt, who had apparently written about him. Trithemius, himself reputed a magician, and the author of a mystical work (published at Darmstadt in 1621 under the title of Steganographica and burnt by order of the Spanish Inquisition), speaks contemptuously of Faust, who called himself Magister Georgius Sabellicus Faustus Junior, as a fool rather than a philosopher (fatuum non philosophum), a vain babbler, vagabond and mountebank who ought to be whipped, and who had fled from the city rather than confront him. The insane conceit of the man was proved by his boast that, were all the works of Aristotle and Plato blotted from the memory of men, he could restore them with greater elegance, and that Christ’s miracles were nothing to marvel at, since he could do the like whenever and as often as he pleased; his debased character by the fact that he had been forced to flee from the school of which he had been appointed master by the discovery of his unnatural crimes. The same unflattering estimate is contained in the second extant notice of Faust, in a letter of the jurist and canon Konrad Mudt (Mutianus Rufus), of the 3rd of October 1513, to Heinrich Urbanus. Mudt, like Trithemius, simply regards Faust as a charlatan. Similar is the judgment of another contemporary, Philipp Begardi, who in the fourth chapter of his Index sanitatis (Worms, 1539) ranks Faust, with Theophrastus Paracelsus, among the “wicked, cheating, useless and unlearned doctors.”

FAUST, or Faust, was the name of a magician and fraud from the 16th century, known in both legend and literature. The historical figure of Faust is little more than a core around which a huge amount of legendary and imaginative stories piled up over time. However, there is enough evidence to confirm that such a person actually existed. He is first mentioned in a letter dated August 20, 1507, from the learned Benedictine Johann Tritheim or Trithemius (1462-1516), the abbot of Spanheim, to the mathematician and astrologer Johann Windung in Hasfurt, who had apparently written about him. Trithemius, who was also regarded as a magician and the author of a mystical work (published in Darmstadt in 1621 under the title Steganographica and later burned by the Spanish Inquisition), speaks scornfully of Faust, who called himself Magister Georgius Sabellicus Faustus Junior, referring to him as a fool rather than a philosopher (fatuum non philosophum), a boastful nuisance, vagabond, and con artist who deserved punishment and who fled the city instead of facing him. The man's insane arrogance is highlighted by his claim that, if all the works of Aristotle and Plato were forgotten, he could recreate them with more elegance, and that Christ’s miracles were nothing special since he could perform the same feats whenever he wanted; his degraded character is shown by the fact that he was forced to escape from the school where he was supposed to be master after his immoral actions were uncovered. The same negative assessment is found in the second existing mention of Faust, in a letter from the jurist and canon Konrad Mudt (Mutianus Rufus) dated October 3, 1513, to Heinrich Urbanus. Like Trithemius, Mudt simply sees Faust as a fraud. A similar view is shared by another contemporary, Philipp Begardi, who in the fourth chapter of his Index sanitatis (Worms, 1539) categorizes Faust, along with Theophrastus Paracelsus, among the “wicked, deceitful, worthless, and uneducated doctors.”

It was Johann Gast (d. 1572), a worthy Protestant pastor of Basel, who like Mudt claims to have come into personal contact with Faust, who in his Sermones convivales (Basel, 1543) first credited the magician with genuine supernatural qualities. Gast, a man of some learning and much superstition, believed Faust to be in league with the devil, by whom about 1525 he was ultimately carried off, and declared the performing horse and dog by which the necromancer was accompanied to be familiar and evil spirits. Further information was given to the world by Johann Mannel or Manlius (d. 1560), councillor and historian to the emperor Maximilian II., in his Locorum communium collectanea (Basel, undated). Manlius reports a conversation of Melanchthon, which there is no reason to suspect of being other than genuine, in which the Reformer speaks of Faust as “a disgraceful beast and sewer of many devils,” as having been born at Kundling (Kundlingen or Knittlingen), a little town near his own native town (of Bretten), and as having studied magic at Cracow. The rest of the information given can hardly be regarded as historical, though Melanchthon, who, like Luther, 211 was no whit less superstitious than most people of his time, evidently believed it to be so. According to him, among other marvels, Faust was killed by the devil wringing his neck. While he lived he had taken about with him a dog, which was really a devil. A similar opinion would seem to have been held of Faust by Luther also, who in Widmann’s Faust-book is mentioned as having declared that, by God’s help, he had been able to ward off the evils which Faust with his sorceries had sought to put upon him. The passage, with the omission of Faust’s name, occurs word for word in Luther’s Table-talk (ed. C.E. Förstemann, vol. i. p. 50). It is not improbable, then, that Widmann, in supplying the name of the necromancer omitted in the Table-talk, may be giving a fuller account of the conversation. Bullinger also, in his Theatrum de beneficiis (Frankf., 1569) mentions Faust as one of those “of whom the Scriptures speak, in various places, calling them magi.” Lastly Johann Weiher, Wierus or Piscinarius (1515-1588)—a pupil of Cornelius Agrippa, body physician to the duke of Cleves and a man of enlightenment, who opposed the persecution of witches—in his De praestigiis daemonum (Basel, 1563, &c.), speaks of Faust as a drunken vagabond who had studied magic at Cracow, and before 1540 had practised “this beautiful art shamelessly up and down Germany, with unspeakable deceit, many lies and great effect.” He goes on to tell how the magician had revenged himself on an unhappy parish priest, who had refused to supply him any longer with drink, by giving him a depilatory which removed not only the beard but the skin, and further, how he had insulted a poor wretch, for no better reason than that he had a black beard, by greeting him as his cousin the devil. Of his superhuman powers Weiher evidently believes nothing, but he tells the tale of his being found dead with his neck wrung, after the whole house had been shaken by a terrific din.

It was Johann Gast (d. 1572), a respected Protestant pastor of Basel, who, like Mudt, claimed to have had personal interaction with Faust. In his Sermones convivales (Basel, 1543), he was the first to attribute genuine supernatural abilities to the magician. Gast, a somewhat educated man steeped in superstition, believed Faust to be in cahoots with the devil, by whom he was ultimately taken around 1525, and he suggested that the performing horse and dog accompanying the necromancer were familiar and evil spirits. Additional details were provided to the public by Johann Mannel or Manlius (d. 1560), a counselor and historian to Emperor Maximilian II., in his Locorum communium collectanea (Basel, undated). Manlius reports a conversation involving Melanchthon, which there is no reason to doubt as genuine, where the Reformer describes Faust as “a disgraceful beast and sewer of many devils,” noting that he was born in Kundling (Kundlingen or Knittlingen), a small town near Melanchthon’s birthplace of Bretten, and that he studied magic in Cracow. The rest of the information provided can hardly be considered historical, although Melanchthon, who, like Luther, was no less superstitious than most people of his era, clearly believed it to be true. According to him, among other wonders, Faust was killed by the devil breaking his neck. During his life, he had a dog with him, which was actually a devil. A similar view of Faust seems to have been held by Luther, who in Widmann’s Faust-book is noted as having stated that, with God’s help, he managed to fend off the troubles that Faust had tried to impose upon him with his sorcery. This passage, with Faust’s name omitted, appears verbatim in Luther’s Table-talk (ed. C.E. Förstemann, vol. i. p. 50). It’s very likely that Widmann, by supplying the name of the necromancer left out in the Table-talk, provides a more complete account of the conversation. Bullinger also mentions Faust in his Theatrum de beneficiis (Frankf., 1569) as one of those “of whom the Scriptures speak, in various places, calling them magi.” Finally, Johann Weiher, Wierus, or Piscinarius (1515-1588)—a student of Cornelius Agrippa, personal physician to the Duke of Cleves and a progressive thinker who opposed witch hunts—in his De praestigiis daemonum (Basel, 1563, & c.), describes Faust as a drunken vagabond who had studied magic in Cracow and had shamelessly practiced “this beautiful art” all over Germany before 1540, marked by unspeakable deceit, many lies, and great success. He details how the magician took revenge on an unfortunate parish priest who had stopped supplying him with drinks, by giving him a hair removal treatment that removed not just the beard but also the skin, and how he insulted a poor man with a black beard by jokingly calling him his cousin the devil. Weiher clearly doubts any superhuman abilities, but he does recount the tale of Faust being found dead with his neck broken, after a tremendous noise shook the entire house.

The sources above mentioned, which were but the first of numerous works on Faust, of more or less value, appearing throughout the next two centuries, give a sufficient picture of the man as he appeared to his contemporaries: a wandering charlatan who lived by his wits, cheiromantist, astrologer, diviner, spiritualist medium, alchemist, or, to the more credulous, a necromancer whose supernatural gifts were the outcome of a foul pact with the enemy of mankind. Whatever his character, his efforts to secure a widespread notoriety had, by the time of his death, certainly succeeded. By the latter part of the 16th century he had become the necromancer par excellence, and all that legend had to tell about the great wizards of the middle ages, Virgil, Pope Silvester, Roger Bacon, Michael Scot, or the mythic Klingsor, had become for ever associated with his name. When in 1587, the oldest Faust-book was published, the Faust legend was, in all essential particulars, already complete.

The sources mentioned above, which were just the first of many works about Faust, varying in value, that emerged over the next two centuries, provide a clear image of the man as he appeared to his contemporaries: a wandering fraud who survived by his cleverness, a palm reader, astrologer, fortune teller, spiritualist medium, alchemist, or, to the more gullible, a necromancer whose supernatural abilities were believed to come from a dark deal with the enemy of humanity. Regardless of his true nature, his attempts to achieve widespread fame had certainly succeeded by the time of his death. By the late 16th century, he had become the ultimate necromancer, and everything that legend had to say about the great wizards of the Middle Ages—Virgil, Pope Sylvester, Roger Bacon, Michael Scot, or the mythical Klingsor—had become forever linked to his name. When the oldest Faust book was published in 1587, the Faust legend was already essentially complete.

The origin of the main elements of the legend must be sought far back in the middle ages and beyond. The idea of a compact with the devil, for the purpose of obtaining superhuman power or knowledge, is of Jewish origin, dating from the centuries immediately before and after the Christian era which produced the Talmud, the Kabbalah and such magical books as that of Enoch. In the mystical rites—in which blood, as the seat of life, played a great part—that accompanied the incantations with which the Jewish magicians evoked the Satanim—the lowest grade of those elemental spirits (shedim) who have their existence beyond the dimensions of time and space—we have the prototypes and originals of all the ceremonies which occupy the books of magic down to the various versions of the Höllenzwang ascribed to Faust. The other principle underlying the Faust legend, the belief in the essentially evil character of purely human learning, has existed ever since the triumph of Christianity set divine revelation above human science. The legend of Theophilus—a Cilician archdeacon of the 6th century, who sold his soul to Satan for no better reason than to clear himself of a false charge brought against him by his bishop—was immensely popular throughout the middle ages, and in the 8th century formed the theme of a poem in Latin hexameters by the nun Hroswitha of Gandersheim, who, especially in her description of the ritual of Satan’s court, displays a sufficiently lively and original imagination. Equally widespread were the legends which gathered round the great name of Gerbert (Pope Silvester II.). Gerbert’s vast erudition, like Roger Bacon’s so far in advance of his age, naturally cast upon him the suspicion of traffic with the infernal powers; and in due course the suspicion developed into the tale, embellished with circumstantial and harrowing details, of a compact with the arch-fiend, by which the scholar had obtained the summit of earthly ambition at the cost of his immortal soul. These are but the two most notable of many similar stories,2 and, in an age when the belief in witchcraft and the ubiquitous activity of devils was still universal, it is natural that they should have been retold in all good faith of a notorious wizard who was himself at no pains to deny their essential truth. The Faust legend, however, owes something of its peculiar significance also to the special conditions of the age which gave it birth: the age of the Renaissance and the Reformation. The opinion that the religious reformers were the champions of liberty of thought against the obscurantism of Rome is the outgrowth of later experience. To themselves they were the protagonists of “the pure Word of God” against the corruptions of a church defiled by the world and the devil, and the sceptical spirit of Italian humanism was as abhorrent to them as to the Catholic reactionaries by whom it was again trampled under foot. If then, in Goethe’s drama, Faust ultimately develops into the type of the unsatisfied yearning of the human intellect for “more than earthly meat and drink,” this was because the great German humanist deliberately infused into the old story a spirit absolutely opposed to that by which it had originally been inspired. The Faust of the early Faust-books, of the ballads, the dramas and the puppet-plays innumerable which grew out of them, is irrevocably damned because he deliberately prefers human to “divine” knowledge; “he laid the Holy Scriptures behind the door and under the bench, refused to be called doctor of Theology, but preferred to be styled doctor of Medicine.” The orthodox moral of the earliest versions is preserved to the last in the puppet-plays. The Voice to the right cries: “Faust! Faust! desist from this proposal! Go on with the study of Theology, and you will be the happiest of mortals.” The Voice to the left answers: “Faust! Faust! leave the study of Theology. Betake you to Necromancy, and you will be the happiest of mortals!” The Faust legend was, in fact, the creation of orthodox Protestantism; its moral, the inevitable doom which follows the wilful revolt of the intellect against divine authority as represented by the Holy Scriptures and its accredited interpreters. Faust, the contemner of Holy Writ, is set up as a foil to Luther, the champion of the new orthodoxy, who with well-directed inkpot worsted the devil when he sought to interrupt the sacred work of rendering the Bible into the vulgar tongue.

The origins of the main elements of the legend can be traced back to the Middle Ages and even earlier. The concept of making a deal with the devil to gain superhuman power or knowledge has its roots in Jewish tradition, dating back to the centuries just before and after the advent of Christianity, which produced the Talmud, the Kabbalah, and magical books like that of Enoch. In the mystical rituals—where blood, seen as the source of life, played a significant role—that accompanied the incantations used by Jewish magicians to summon the Satanim—the lowest level of those elemental spirits (shedim) that exist outside the bounds of time and space—we find the prototypes and originals of all the ceremonies that fill the pages of magical texts, extending down to the various versions of the Höllenzwang associated with Faust. The other key principle behind the Faust legend, the belief in the fundamentally evil nature of purely human learning, has existed since Christianity prevailed, placing divine revelation above human knowledge. The tale of Theophilus—a Cilician archdeacon from the 6th century who sold his soul to Satan simply to clear himself of a false accusation by his bishop—was extremely popular throughout the Middle Ages and became the basis for a poem in Latin hexameters written by the nun Hroswitha of Gandersheim in the 8th century, who, particularly in her depiction of the rituals of Satan’s court, displays a vibrant and original imagination. Similarly widespread were the legends surrounding the prominent figure of Gerbert (Pope Silvester II.). Gerbert, with his vast knowledge, much like Roger Bacon, who was far ahead of his time, attracted suspicion of engaging with infernal powers; eventually, this suspicion evolved into the tale, filled with elaborate and horrifying details, of a deal with the arch-fiend, wherein the scholar achieved the pinnacle of earthly ambition at the expense of his immortal soul. These are just two notable examples among many similar stories, and in an era when belief in witchcraft and the constant presence of devils was still prevalent, it’s unsurprising that they were retold in earnest about a notorious wizard who himself made little effort to deny their core truth. The Faust legend, however, also carries unique significance due to the specific conditions of the time in which it emerged: the Renaissance and Reformation era. The belief that the religious reformers were champions of free thought against the darkness of Rome comes from later experiences. In their eyes, they were the defenders of “the pure Word of God” against a church corrupted by the world and the devil, and the skeptical attitude of Italian humanism was as repugnant to them as it was to the Catholic reactionaries who again suppressed it. If in Goethe’s drama, Faust ultimately embodies the human intellect's unfulfilled desire for “more than earthly meat and drink,” it is because the great German humanist intentionally infused the old tale with a spirit completely opposed to the one that originally inspired it. The Faust of the early Faust texts, the ballads, the countless dramas, and puppet plays arising from them, is doomed because he consciously chooses human over “divine” knowledge; “he put the Holy Scriptures behind the door and under the bench, refused to be called a doctor of Theology, but preferred to be referred to as a doctor of Medicine.” The orthodox moral of the earliest versions remains intact in the puppet plays. The Voice on the right shouts: “Faust! Faust! stop this proposal! Continue studying Theology, and you will be the happiest of mortals.” The Voice on the left responds: “Faust! Faust! abandon the study of Theology. Turn to Necromancy, and you will be the happiest of mortals!” The Faust legend was, in fact, a creation of orthodox Protestantism; its moral emphasizes the unavoidable doom that follows the willful rebellion of the intellect against divine authority as represented by the Holy Scriptures and their accepted interpreters. Faust, who disdains Holy Writ, stands in stark contrast to Luther, the defender of the new orthodoxy, who, with his well-aimed inkpot, bested the devil when he tried to interrupt the sacred task of translating the Bible into the common tongue.

It was doubtless this orthodox and Protestant character of the Faust story which contributed to its immense and immediate popularity in the Protestant countries. The first edition of the Historia von D. Johann Fausten, by an unknown compiler, published by Johann Spies at Frankfort in 1587, sold out at once. Though only placed on the market in the autumn, before the year was out it had been reprinted in four pirated editions. In the following year a rhymed version was printed at Tübingen, a second edition was published by Spies at Frankfort and a version in low German by J.J. Balhorn at Lübeck. Reprints and amended versions continued to appear in Germany every year, till they culminated in the pedantic compilation of Georg Rudolf Widmann, who obscured the dramatic interest of the story by an excessive display of erudition and by his well-meant efforts to elaborate the orthodox moral. Widmann’s version of 1599 formed the basis of that of Johann Nicholaus Pfitzer, published at Nuremberg in 1674, which passed through six editions, the last appearing in 1726. Like Widmann, Pfitzer was more zealous for imparting information than for perfecting a work of art, though he had the good taste to restore the episode of the evocation of Helen, which Widmann had expunged as unfit for Christian readers. Lastly there appeared, about 212 1712, what was to prove the most popular of all the Faust-books: The League with the Devil established by the world-famous Arch-necromancer and Wizard Dr Johann Faust. By a Christian Believer (Christlich Meynenden). This version, which bore the obviously false date of 1525, passed through many editions, and was circulated at all the fairs in Germany. Abroad the success of the story was scarcely less striking. A Danish version appeared in 1588; in England the History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Dr John Faustus was published some time between 1588 and 1594; in France the translation of Victor Palma Cayet was published at Paris in 1592 and, in the course of the next two hundred years, went through fifteen editions; the oldest Dutch and Flemish versions are dated 1592; and in 1612 a Czech translation was published at Prague.

It was undoubtedly the traditional and Protestant nature of the Faust story that contributed to its huge and immediate popularity in Protestant countries. The first edition of the Historia von D. Johann Fausten, by an unknown compiler, published by Johann Spies in Frankfurt in 1587, sold out instantly. Although it was only released in the fall, by the end of the year, it had already been reprinted in four pirated editions. The following year, a rhymed version was printed in Tübingen, Spies published a second edition in Frankfurt, and a version in Low German was released by J.J. Balhorn in Lübeck. Reprints and revised versions continued to appear in Germany every year until they peaked with the scholarly compilation by Georg Rudolf Widmann, who muddied the dramatic appeal of the story with excessive displays of knowledge and his well-meaning attempts to expand on the orthodox moral. Widmann’s 1599 version served as the foundation for Johann Nicholaus Pfitzer's edition, published in Nuremberg in 1674, which went through six editions, the last one appearing in 1726. Like Widmann, Pfitzer was more focused on sharing information than on creating a work of art, though he had the good sense to restore the episode of the summoning of Helen, which Widmann had removed as inappropriate for Christian readers. Finally, around 212 1712, the most popular of all the Faust books emerged: The League with the Devil established by the world-famous Arch-necromancer and Wizard Dr Johann Faust. By a Christian Believer (Christlich Meynenden). This version, which had the obviously fake date of 1525, went through many editions and was distributed at all the fairs in Germany. The success of the story was hardly less remarkable abroad. A Danish version appeared in 1588; in England, the History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Dr John Faustus was published sometime between 1588 and 1594; in France, Victor Palma Cayet's translation was published in Paris in 1592 and went through fifteen editions over the next two hundred years; the oldest Dutch and Flemish versions are dated 1592; and in 1612, a Czech translation was published in Prague.

Besides the popular histories of Faust, all more or less founded on the original edition of Spies, numerous ballads on the same subject were also soon in circulation. Of these the most interesting for the English reader is A Ballad of the life and death of Dr Faustus the great congerer, published in 1588 with the imprimatur of the learned Aylmer, bishop of London. This ballad is supposed to have preceded the English version of Spies’s Faust-book, mentioned above, on which Marlowe’s drama was founded.

Besides the popular stories about Faust, which are mostly based on the original edition by Spies, many ballads on the same topic quickly became available. Of these, the most intriguing for English readers is A Ballad of the life and death of Dr Faustus the great conjurer, published in 1588 with the approval of the knowledgeable Aylmer, bishop of London. This ballad is believed to have come out before the English version of Spies’s Faust-book, mentioned earlier, which Marlowe's play was based on.

To Christopher Marlowe, it would appear, belongs the honour of first realizing the great dramatic possibilities of the Faust legend. The Tragicall History of D. Faustus as it hath bene acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Nottingham his servants was first published by Thomas Bushall at London in 1604. As Marlowe died in 1593, the play must have been written shortly after the appearance of the English version of the Faust story on which it was based. The first recorded performance was on the 30th of September 1594.

To Christopher Marlowe goes the credit for being the first to recognize the great dramatic potential of the Faust legend. The Tragicall History of D. Faustus as it hath bene acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Nottingham his servants was first published by Thomas Bushall in London in 1604. Since Marlowe died in 1593, the play must have been written shortly after the English version of the Faust story that it was based on appeared. The first recorded performance was on September 30, 1594.

As Marlowe’s Faustus is the first, so it is imcomparably the finest of the Faust dramas which preceded Goethe’s masterpiece. Like most of Marlowe’s work it is, indeed, very unequal. At certain moments the poet seems to realize the great possibilities of the story, only to sacrifice them to the necessity for humouring the prevailing public taste of the age. Faustus, who in one scene turns disillusioned from the ordinary fountains of knowledge, or flies in a dragon-drawn chariot through the Empyrean to search out the mysteries of the heavens, in another is made to use his superhuman powers to satisfy the taste of the groundlings for senseless buffoonery, to swindle a horse-dealer, or cheat an ale-wife of her score; while Protestant orthodoxy is conciliated by irrelevant insults to the Roman Church and by the final catastrophe, when Faustus pays for his revolt against the Word of God by the forfeit of his soul. This conception, which followed that of the popular Faust histories, underlay all further developments of the Faust drama for nearly two hundred years. Of the serious stage plays founded on this theme, Marlowe’s Faustus remains the sole authentic example until near the end of the 18th century; but there is plenty of evidence to prove that in Germany the Comedy of Dr Faust, in one form or another, was and continued to be a popular item in the repertories of theatrical companies until far into the 18th century. It is supposed, with good reason, that the German versions were based on those introduced into the country by English strolling players early in the 17th century. However this may be, the dramatic versions of the Faust legend followed much the same course as the prose histories. Just as these gradually degenerated into chap-books hawked at fairs, so the dramas were replaced by puppet-plays, handed down by tradition through generations of showmen, retaining their original broad characteristics, but subject to infinite modification in detail. In this way, in the puppet-shows, the traditional Faust story retained its popularity until far into the 19th century, long after, in the sphere of literature, Goethe had for ever raised it to quite another plane.

As Marlowe’s Faustus is the first, it is undeniably the best of the Faust dramas that came before Goethe’s masterpiece. Like much of Marlowe’s work, it can be quite uneven. At times, the poet seems to grasp the great potential of the story, only to compromise it to cater to the popular tastes of the time. Faustus, who in one scene becomes disillusioned with everyday sources of knowledge or travels in a dragon-drawn chariot through the heavens to uncover cosmic mysteries, in another scene uses his superhuman abilities to entertain the masses with silly antics, trick a horse dealer, or cheat an alewife out of her money. At the same time, Protestant orthodoxy is appeased with irrelevant jabs at the Roman Church and by the ultimate tragedy, where Faustus pays for his rebellion against God's Word with the loss of his soul. This idea, which followed the popular Faust stories, set the stage for all future developments of the Faust drama for nearly two hundred years. Among serious stage plays based on this theme, Marlowe’s Faustus remains the only genuine example until the late 18th century; however, there is plenty of evidence that the Comedy of Dr Faust, in various forms, was popular in German theater companies well into the 18th century. It is reasonably believed that the German versions were based on those brought to the country by English traveling performers in the early 17th century. Regardless, the dramatic adaptations of the Faust legend followed a similar path to the prose narratives. Just as those gradually turned into cheap chapbooks sold at fairs, the dramas evolved into puppet shows, passed down through generations of performers, keeping their original broad traits while undergoing countless changes in detail. In this way, the traditional Faust story remained popular in puppet shows until well into the 19th century, long after Goethe had elevated it to a whole new level in the world of literature.

It was natural that during the literary revival in Germany in the 18th century, when German writers were eagerly on the look-out for subjects to form the material of a truly national literature, the Faust legend should have attracted their attention. Lessing was the first to point out its great possibilities;3 and he himself wrote a Faust drama, of which unfortunately only a fragment remains, the MS. of the completed work having been lost in the author’s lifetime. None the less, to Lessing, not to Goethe, is due the new point of view from which the story was approached by most of those who, after about the year 1770, attempted to tell it. The traditional Faust legend represented the sternly orthodox attitude of the Protestant reformers. Even the mitigating elements which the middle ages had permitted had been banished by the stern logic of the theologians of the New Religion. Theophilus had been saved in the end by the intervention of the Blessed Virgin; Pope Silvester, according to one version of the legend, had likewise been snatched from the jaws of hell at the last moment. Faust was irrevocably damned, since the attractions of the studium theologicum proved insufficient to counteract the fascinations of the classic Helen. But if he was to become, in the 18th century, the type of the human intellect face to face with the deep problems of human life, it was intolerable that his struggles should issue in eternal reprobation. Error and heresy had ceased to be regarded as crimes; and stereotyped orthodoxy, to the age of the Encyclopaedists, represented nothing more than the atrophy of the human intellect. Es irrt der Mensch so lang er strebt, which sums up in one pregnant line the spirit of Goethe’s Faust, sums up also the spirit of the age which killed with ridicule the last efforts of persecuting piety, and saw the birth of modern science. Lessing, in short, proclaimed that the final end of Faust must be, not his damnation, but his salvation. This revolutionary conception is the measure of Goethe’s debt to Lessing. The essential change which Goethe himself introduced into the story is in the nature of the pact between Faust and Mephistopheles, and in the character of Mephistopheles himself. The Mephistopheles of Marlowe, as of the old Faust-books, for all his brave buffoonery, is a melancholy devil, with a soul above the unsavoury hell in which he is forced to pass a hopeless existence. “Tell me,” says Faust, in the puppet-play, to Mephistopheles, “what would you do if you could attain to everlasting salvation?” And the devil answers, “Hear and despair! Were I able to attain everlasting salvation, I would mount to heaven on a ladder, though every rung were a razor edge!” Goethe’s Mephistopheles would have made no such reply. There is nothing of the fallen angel about him; he is perfectly content with his past, his present and his future; and he appears before the throne of God with the same easy insolence as he exhibits in Dame Martha’s back-garden. He is, in fact, according to his own definition, the Spirit of Denial, the impersonation of that utter scepticism which can see no distinction between high and low, between good and bad, and is therefore without aspiration because it knows no “divine discontent.” And the compact which Faust makes with this spirit is from the first doomed to be void. Faustus had bartered away his soul for a definite period of pleasure and power. The conception that underlies the compact of Faust with Mephistopheles is far more subtle. He had sought happiness vainly in the higher intellectual and spiritual pursuits; he is content to seek it on a lower plane since Mephistopheles gives him the chance; but he is confident that nothing that “such a poor devil” can offer him could give him that moment of supreme satisfaction for which he craves. He goes through the traditional mummery of signing the bond with scornful submission; for he knows that his damnation will not be the outcome of any formal compact, but will follow inevitably, and only then, when his soul has grown to be satisfied with what Mephistopheles can purvey him.

It was natural that during the literary revival in Germany in the 18th century, when German writers were eagerly seeking subjects to develop a truly national literature, the Faust legend would catch their interest. Lessing was the first to highlight its great potential; and he himself wrote a Faust drama, of which unfortunately only a fragment remains, as the manuscript of the completed work was lost during the author's lifetime. Nevertheless, it is Lessing, not Goethe, who deserves credit for the new perspective from which most of those who tried to tell the story after around 1770 approached it. The traditional Faust legend embodied the strict orthodox stance of the Protestant reformers. Even the lenient elements allowed during the Middle Ages had been eliminated by the rigid logic of the theologians of the New Religion. Theophilus was ultimately saved through the intervention of the Blessed Virgin; Pope Silvester, according to one version of the legend, was also saved from the brink of hell at the last moment. Faust, however, was irrevocably damned, as the attractions of the knowledge of theology proved insufficient to counteract the allure of the classic Helen. But if he were to become, in the 18th century, a symbol of human intellect confronting the profound issues of human life, it was unacceptable that his struggles should lead to eternal damnation. Error and heresy had come to be viewed as non-criminal; and rigid orthodoxy, in the age of the Encyclopaedists, represented nothing more than the stagnation of the human mind. “Man errs as long as he strives,” which encapsulates in one powerful line the spirit of Goethe’s Faust, also reflects the spirit of the age that mocked the last efforts of persecuting piety and witnessed the birth of modern science. In short, Lessing asserted that the ultimate fate of Faust should not be his damnation, but his salvation. This groundbreaking idea symbolizes Goethe’s debt to Lessing. The main change that Goethe introduced into the story is in the nature of the pact between Faust and Mephistopheles, as well as in the character of Mephistopheles himself. The Mephistopheles of Marlowe, like that of the old Faust books, despite his bravado and humor, is a melancholic devil, with a soul that yearns for a better existence than the miserable hell he’s stuck in. “Tell me,” says Faust, in the puppet play, to Mephistopheles, “what would you do if you could achieve everlasting salvation?” The devil replies, “Hear and despair! If I could attain everlasting salvation, I would climb to heaven on a ladder, even if every rung were a razor’s edge!” Goethe’s Mephistopheles would never say something like that. He has none of the qualities of a fallen angel; he is completely satisfied with his past, present, and future; and he approaches God’s throne with the same casual arrogance he shows in Dame Martha’s backyard. According to his own definition, he is the Spirit of Denial, embodying a total skepticism that sees no difference between high and low, good and bad, and is consequently devoid of aspiration because it does not know “divine discontent.” The agreement that Faust makes with this spirit is from the very beginning destined to fail. Faustus had traded his soul for a specific period of pleasure and power. The concept underlying the pact between Faust and Mephistopheles is far more complex. Faust sought happiness in the higher intellectual and spiritual pursuits but found it fruitless; he is willing to seek it on a lower level since Mephistopheles offers him that chance; but he is confident that nothing that “such a poor devil” can provide will give him that moment of ultimate satisfaction he longs for. He goes through the traditional ritual of signing the contract with a disdainful submission; for he knows that his damnation will not result from any formal agreement, but will follow inevitably, and only when his soul has become content with what Mephistopheles can offer him.

“Canst thou with lying flattery rule me

“Can you control me with deceitful praise

Until self-pleased myself I see,

Until I pleased myself, I see,

Canst thou with pleasure mock and fool me,

Can you mock and fool me with pleasure,

Let that hour be the last for me!

Let that hour be the last for me!

When thus I hail the moment flying:

When I greet the moment that’s passing by:

‘Ah, still delay, thou art so fair!’

‘Ah, still wait, you are so beautiful!’

Then bind me in thy chains undying,

Then bind me in your eternal chains,

My final ruin then declare!”4

My ultimate downfall then declare!” __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

It is because Mephistopheles fails to give him this self-satisfaction 213 or to absorb his being in the pleasures he provides, that the compact comes to nothing. When, at last, Faust cries to the passing moment to remain, it is because he has forgotten self in enthusiasm for a great and beneficent work, in a state of mind the very antithesis of all that Mephistopheles represents. In the old Faust-books, Faust had been given plenty of opportunity for repentance, but the inducements had been no higher than the exhibition of a throne in heaven on the one hand and the tortures of hell on the other. Goethe’s Faust, for all its Christian setting, departs widely from this orthodox standpoint. Faust shows no signs of “repentance”; he simply emerges by the innate force of his character from a lower into a higher state. The triumph, foretold by “the Lord” in the opening scene, was inevitable from the first, since, though

It’s because Mephistopheles can’t provide him with this self-satisfaction 213 or fully immerse him in the pleasures he offers that the deal falls apart. When Faust finally calls out for the fleeting moment to stay, it’s because he’s lost himself in the excitement of pursuing a great, meaningful work, embodying a mindset that completely opposes everything Mephistopheles stands for. In the old Faust stories, Faust had many chances to repent, but the temptations were limited to visions of a heavenly throne on one side and hell’s torments on the other. Goethe’s Faust, despite its Christian backdrop, takes a significant departure from this traditional view. Faust doesn’t show any signs of “repentance”; he simply evolves by the inherent strength of his character from a lower to a higher state. The triumph, predicted by “the Lord” in the opening scene, was inevitable from the beginning since, though

“‘Man errs so long as he is striving,

"‘People make mistakes as long as they're trying,

A good man through obscurest aspiration

A good man through the dimmest desire

Is ever conscious of the one true way.’”

Is always aware of the one true path.”

A man, in short, must be judged not by the sins and follies which may be but accidents of his career, but by the character which is its essential outcome.

A man should be judged not by the mistakes and foolishness that might just be random events in his life, but by the character that is the true result of his experiences.

This idea, which inspired also the kindred theme of Browning’s Paracelsus, is the main development introduced by Goethe into the Faust legend. The episode of Gretchen, for all its tragic interest, does not belong to the legend at all; and it is difficult to deny the pertinency of Charles Lamb’s criticism, “What has Margaret to do with Faust?” Yet in spite of all that may be said of the irrelevancies, and of the discussions of themes of merely ephemeral interest, with which Goethe overloaded especially the second part of the poem, his Faust remains for the modern world the final form of the legend out of which it grew, the magnificent expression of the broad humanism which, even in spheres accounted orthodox, has tended to replace the peculiar studium theologicum which inspired the early Faust-books.

This idea, which also inspired the similar theme in Browning’s Paracelsus, is the main development that Goethe introduced into the Faust legend. The story of Gretchen, despite its tragic appeal, doesn't actually belong to the legend; and it's hard to ignore Charles Lamb’s criticism, “What does Margaret have to do with Faust?” Yet, despite everything that can be said about the unrelated elements and the discussions of themes with only temporary interest, which Goethe especially packed into the second part of the poem, his Faust remains the definitive version of the legend for the modern world, a magnificent expression of the broad humanism that has tended to replace the specific studium theologicum that inspired the early Faust books, even in traditionally accepted areas.

See Karl Engel, Zusammenstellung der Faust-Schriften vom 16. Jahrhundert bis Mitte 1884—a second edition of the Bibliotheca Faustiana (1874)—(Oldenburg, 1885), a complete bibliography of all published matter concerned, even somewhat remotely, with Faust; Goethe’s Faust, with introduction and notes by K.J. Schröer (2nd ed., Heilbronn, 1886); Carl Kiesewetter, Faust in der Geschichte und Tradition (Leipzig, 1893). The last book, besides being a critical study of the material for the historical and legendary story of Faust, aims at estimating the relation of the Faust-legend to the whole subject of occultism, ancient and modern. It is a mine of information on necromancy and its kindred subjects, as well as on eminent theurgists, wizards, crystal-gazers and the like of all ages.

See Karl Engel, Zusammenstellung der Faust-Schriften vom 16. Jahrhundert bis Mitte 1884—a second edition of the Bibliotheca Faustiana (1874)—(Oldenburg, 1885), a complete bibliography of all published material related, even loosely, to Faust; Goethe’s Faust, with an introduction and notes by K.J. Schröer (2nd ed., Heilbronn, 1886); Carl Kiesewetter, Faust in der Geschichte und Tradition (Leipzig, 1893). The last book, in addition to being a critical study of the material surrounding the historical and legendary story of Faust, aims to evaluate the connection between the Faust legend and the entire topic of occultism, both ancient and modern. It is a treasure trove of information on necromancy and related subjects, as well as on notable theurgists, wizards, crystal-gazers, and similar figures throughout history.

(W. A. P.)

1 The opinion, long maintained by some, that he was identical with Johann Fust, the printer, is now universally rejected.

1 The belief, which some have held for a long time, that he was the same person as Johann Fust, the printer, is now widely dismissed.

2 Many are given in Kiesewetter’s Faust, p. 112, &c.

2 Many are discussed in Kiesewetter’s Faust, p. 112, etc.

3 In the Literaturbrief of Feb. 16, 1759.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ In the Literaturbrief from February 16, 1759.

4 Bayard Taylor’s trans.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Bayard Taylor's translation.


FAUSTINA, ANNIA GALERIA, the younger, daughter of Antoninus Pius, and wife of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. She is accused by Dio Cassius and Capitolinus of gross profligacy, and was reputed to have instigated the revolt of Avidius Cassius against her husband. She died in 175 or 176 (so Clinton, Fasti rom.) at Halala, near Mount Taurus, in Cappadocia, whither she had accompanied Aurelius. Charitable schools for orphan girls (hence called Faustinianae) were founded in her honour, like those established by her father Antoninus in honour of his wife, the elder Faustina. Her statue was placed in the temple of Venus, and she was numbered among the tutelary deities of Rome. From the fact that Aurelius was always devoted to her and was heartbroken at her death, it has been inferred that the unfavourable estimate of the historians is prejudiced or at least mistaken.

FAUSTINA, ANNIA GALERIA, the younger, daughter of Antoninus Pius and wife of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Dio Cassius and Capitolinus accuse her of extreme extravagance, and she was believed to have sparked Avidius Cassius's revolt against her husband. She died in 175 or 176 (according to Clinton, Fasti rom.) at Halala, near Mount Taurus in Cappadocia, where she had accompanied Aurelius. Charitable schools for orphaned girls (thus called Faustinianae) were established in her honor, similar to those her father Antoninus founded for his wife, the elder Faustina. Her statue was placed in the temple of Venus, and she was considered one of the protective deities of Rome. Since Aurelius was always devoted to her and deeply saddened by her death, it has been suggested that the negative opinions of historians are biased or at least incorrect.

See Capitolinus, Marcus Aurelius; Dio Cassius lxxi. 22, lxxiv. 3; E. Renan, in Mélanges d’histoire et des voyages, 169-195.

See Capitolinus, Marcus Aurelius; Dio Cassius lxxi. 22, lxxiv. 3; E. Renan, in Mélanges d’histoire et des voyages, 169-195.


FAVARA, a town of Sicily, in the province of Girgenti, 5 m. E. of Girgenti by road. Pop. (1901) 20,398. It possesses a fine castle of the Chiaramonte family, erected in 1280. The town has a considerable agricultural trade, and there are sulphur and other mines in the neighbourhood.

FAVARA, a town in Sicily, located 5 miles east of Girgenti by road. Population (1901) 20,398. It has an impressive castle built by the Chiaramonte family in 1280. The town has a significant agricultural trade, and there are sulfur and other mines nearby.


FAVART, CHARLES SIMON (1710-1792), French dramatist, was born in Paris on the 13th of November 1710, the son of a pastry-cook. He was educated at the college of Louis-le-Grand, and after his father’s death carried on the business for a time. His first success in literature was La France délivrée par la Pucelle d’Orléans, a poem which obtained a prize of the Académie des Jeux Flor ux. After the production of his first vaudeville, Les Deux Jumelles (1734), circumstances enabled him to relinquish business and devote himself entirely to the drama. He provided many pieces anonymously for the lesser theatres, and first put his name to La Chercheuse d’esprit, which was produced in 1741. Among his most successful works were Annette et Lubin, Le Coq du village (1743), Ninette à la cour (1753), Les Trois Sultanes (1761) and L’Anglais à Bordeaux (1763). Favart became director of the Opéra Comique, and in 1745 married Marie Justine Benoîte Duronceray (1727-1772), a beautiful young dancer, singer and actress, who as “Mlle Chantilly” had made a successful début the year before. By their united talents and labours the Opéra Comique rose to such a height of success that it aroused the jealousy of the rival Comédie Italienne and was suppressed. Favart, left thus without resources, accepted the proposal of Maurice de Saxe, and undertook the direction of a troupe of comedians which was to accompany his army into Flanders. It was part of his duty to compose from time to time impromptu verses on the events of the campaign, amusing and stimulating the spirits of the men. So popular were Favart and his troupe that the enemy became desirous of hearing his company and sharing his services, and permission was given to gratify them, battles and comedies thus curiously alternating with each other. But the marshal, who was an admirer of Mme Favart, began to persecute her with his attentions. To escape him she went to Paris, and the wrath of Saxe fell upon the husband. A lettre de cachet was issued against him, but he fled to Strassburg and found concealment in a cellar. Mme Favart meanwhile had been established by the marshal in a house at Vaugirard; but as she proved a fickle mistress she was suddenly arrested and confined in a convent, where she was brought to unconditional surrender in the beginning of 1750. Before the year was out the marshal died, and Mme Favart reappeared at the Comédie Italienne, where for twenty years she was the favourite actress. To her is largely due the beginnings of the change in this theatre to performances of a lyric type adapted from Italian models, which developed later into the genuine French comic opera. She was also a bold reformer in matters of stage costume, playing the peasant with bare arms, in wooden shoes and linen dress, and not, as heretofore, in court costume with enormous hoops, diamonds and long white kid gloves. With her husband, and other authors, she collaborated in a number of successful pieces, and one—La Fille mal gardée—she produced alone.

FAVART, CHARLES SIMON (1710-1792), a French playwright, was born in Paris on November 13, 1710, to a pastry chef. He studied at the Louis-le-Grand college, and after his father's passing, he took over the family business for a while. His literary debut was La France délivrée par la Pucelle d’Orléans, a poem that won a prize from the Académie des Jeux Floraux. After his first vaudeville, Les Deux Jumelles (1734), he was able to leave the business behind and focus fully on theater. He anonymously wrote many works for smaller theaters, finally attaching his name to La Chercheuse d’esprit, which premiered in 1741. Some of his most notable works include Annette et Lubin, Le Coq du village (1743), Ninette à la cour (1753), Les Trois Sultanes (1761), and L’Anglais à Bordeaux (1763). Favart became the director of the Opéra Comique and married Marie Justine Benoîte Duronceray (1727-1772) in 1745, a talented young dancer, singer, and actress who had made her successful debut as “Mlle Chantilly” the previous year. Together, their talents and efforts elevated the Opéra Comique to an extraordinary level of success, which caused jealousy from the rival Comédie Italienne, leading to its suppression. With limited resources, Favart accepted an offer from Maurice de Saxe to lead a group of comedians to entertain his army in Flanders. Part of his job was to spontaneously write verses about the campaign's events to lift the soldiers' spirits. Favart and his troupe became so popular that they drew interest from the enemy, leading to a rare situation where battles and comedies alternated. However, the marshal, who liked Mme Favart, began to pursue her aggressively. To avoid him, she went to Paris, and Saxe's anger fell upon her husband. An official order was issued against him, but he managed to escape to Strassburg and hid in a cellar. Meanwhile, Mme Favart was sheltered by the marshal in a house in Vaugirard. But since she proved to be unfaithful, she was arrested and confined to a convent, where she eventually capitulated in early 1750. Before the end of that year, the marshal passed away, and Mme Favart returned to the Comédie Italienne, becoming its favorite actress for the next twenty years. She significantly contributed to the shift in this theater towards lyrical performances influenced by Italian styles, which later evolved into authentic French comic opera. She also boldly changed stage costumes, choosing to play peasant roles with bare arms, wooden shoes, and simple linen dresses, instead of the elaborate court attire with huge skirts, diamonds, and long white gloves. Alongside her husband and other writers, she collaborated on several successful productions, including one—La Fille mal gardée—that she produced on her own.

Favart survived his wife twenty years. After the marshal’s death in 1750 he had returned to Paris, and resumed his pursuits as a dramatist. It was at this time that the abbé de Voisenon became intimate with him and took part in his labours, to what extent is uncertain. He had grown nearly blind in his last days, and died in Paris on the 12th of May 1792. His plays have been several times republished in various editions and selections (1763-1772, 12 vols.; 1810, 3 vols.; 1813; 1853). His correspondence (1759-1763) with Count Durazzo, director of theatres at Vienna, was published in 1808 as Mémoires et correspondance littéraire, dramatique et anecdotique de C.S. Favart. It furnishes valuable information on the state of the literary and theatrical worlds in the 18th century.

Favart outlived his wife by twenty years. After the marshal passed away in 1750, he returned to Paris and continued his work as a playwright. During this time, the abbé de Voisenon became close to him and contributed to his projects, though it’s unclear to what extent. He nearly went blind in his later years and died in Paris on May 12, 1792. His plays have been republished several times in various editions and selections (1763-1772, 12 vols.; 1810, 3 vols.; 1813; 1853). His correspondence (1759-1763) with Count Durazzo, the director of theaters in Vienna, was published in 1808 as Mémoires et correspondance littéraire, dramatique et anecdotique de C.S. Favart. It provides valuable insights into the literary and theatrical landscape of the 18th century.

Favart’s second son, Charles Nicolas Joseph Justin Favart (1749-1806), was an actor of moderate talent at the Comédie Française for fifteen years. He wrote a number of successful plays:—Le Diable boiteux (1782), Le Mariage singulier (1787) and, with his father, La Vieillesse d’Annette (1791). His son Antoine Pierre Charles Favart (1780-1867) was in the diplomatic service, and assisted in editing his grandfather’s memoirs; he was a playwright and painter as well.

Favart’s second son, Charles Favart (1749-1806), was a moderately talented actor at the Comédie Française for fifteen years. He wrote several successful plays: Le Diable boiteux (1782), Le Mariage singulier (1787), and, with his father, La Vieillesse d’Annette (1791). His son Antoine Pierre Charles Favart (1780-1867) worked in the diplomatic service and helped edit his grandfather’s memoirs; he was also a playwright and painter.


FAVERSHAM, a market town and river-port, member of the Cinque Port of Dover, and municipal borough in the Faversham parliamentary division of Kent, England, on a creek of the Swale, 9 m. W.N.W. of Canterbury on the South-Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. (1901) 11,290. The church of St Mary of Charity, restored by Sir G.G. Scott in 1874, is of Early English architecture, and has some remains on one of the columns of frescoes of the same period, while the 14th-century paintings in the chancel are in better preservation. Some of the brasses are very fine, and there is one commemorating King Stephen, as well as 214 a tomb said to be his. He was buried at the abbey he founded here, of which only a wall and the foundations below ground remain. At Davington, close to Faversham, there are remains, incorporated in a residence, of the cloisters and other parts of a Benedictine priory founded in 1153. Faversham has a free grammar school founded in 1527 and removed to its present site in 1877. Faversham Creek is navigable up to the town for vessels of 200 tons. The shipping trade is considerable, chiefly in coal, timber and agricultural produce. The oyster fisheries are important, and are managed by a very ancient gild, the Company of Free Dredgermen of the Hundred and Manor of Faversham. Brewing, brickmaking and the manufacture of cement are also carried on, and there are several large powder mills in the vicinity. The town is governed by a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 686 acres.

Faversham, is a market town and river port, part of the Cinque Port of Dover, and a municipal borough in the Faversham parliamentary division of Kent, England. It's located on a creek of the Swale, 9 miles W.N.W. of Canterbury on the South-Eastern & Chatham railway. Population (1901): 11,290. The church of St Mary of Charity, restored by Sir G.G. Scott in 1874, features Early English architecture and has some remnants of frescoes from that period on one of the columns. The 14th-century paintings in the chancel are in better condition. Some of the brasses are very impressive, including one commemorating King Stephen, along with 214 a tomb that is said to be his. He was buried at the abbey he founded here, of which only a wall and the foundations remain. Near Faversham, at Davington, there are remnants, integrated into a residence, of the cloisters and other parts of a Benedictine priory founded in 1153. Faversham has a free grammar school established in 1527, which was moved to its current location in 1877. Faversham Creek is navigable up to the town for vessels up to 200 tons. The shipping trade is significant, mainly involving coal, timber, and agricultural products. The oyster fisheries are substantial and are managed by an old guild, the Company of Free Dredgermen of the Hundred and Manor of Faversham. The town also engages in brewing, brickmaking, and cement manufacturing, and there are several large powder mills in the area. The town is governed by a mayor, four aldermen, and twelve councillors. Area: 686 acres.

There was a Romano-British village on the site of Faversham. The town (Fauresfeld, Faveresham) owed its early importance to its situation as a port on the Swale, to the fertile country surrounding it, and to the neighbourhood of Watling Street. In 811 it was called the king’s town, and a witenagemot was held here under Æthelstan. In 1086 it was assessed as royal demesne, and a market was held here at this date. An abbey was built by Stephen in 1147, in which he and Matilda were buried. They had endowed it with the manor and hundred of Faversham; this grant caused many disputes between the abbot and men of Faversham concerning the abbot’s jurisdiction. Faversham was probably a member of Dover from the earliest association of the Cinque Ports, certainly as early as Henry III., who in 1252 granted among other liberties of the Cinque Ports that the barons of Faversham should plead only in Shepway Court, but ten years later transferred certain pleas to the abbot’s court. In this reign also the abbot appointed the mayor, but from the reign of Edward I. he was elected by the freemen and then installed by the abbot. The corporation was prescriptive, and a hallmote held in 1293 was attended by a mayor and twelve jurats. All the liberties of the Cinque Ports were granted to the barons of Faversham by Edward I. in 1302, and confirmed by Edward III. in 1365, and by later monarchs. The governing charter till 1835 was that of Henry VIII., granted in 1545 and confirmed by Edward VI.

There was a Romano-British village where Faversham is now. The town (Fauresfeld, Faveresham) became important early on due to its location as a port on the Swale, the fertile land around it, and its proximity to Watling Street. In 811, it was referred to as the king’s town, and a witenagemot was held here under Æthelstan. By 1086, it was classified as royal land, and a market was established here at that time. An abbey was built by Stephen in 1147, where he and Matilda were buried. They endowed it with the manor and hundred of Faversham; this grant led to many disputes between the abbot and the people of Faversham about the abbot’s authority. Faversham was likely part of Dover from the earliest connections of the Cinque Ports, certainly by the time of Henry III., who in 1252 granted, among other rights of the Cinque Ports, that the barons of Faversham would only plead in Shepway Court, but ten years later moved certain pleas to the abbot’s court. During this reign, the abbot also appointed the mayor, but from Edward I.'s reign, the mayor was elected by the freemen and then installed by the abbot. The corporation was established by tradition, and a hallmote held in 1293 had a mayor and twelve jurats in attendance. All the rights of the Cinque Ports were granted to the barons of Faversham by Edward I. in 1302 and confirmed by Edward III. in 1365, as well as by later kings. The governing charter until 1835 was that of Henry VIII., granted in 1545 and confirmed by Edward VI.


FAVORINUS (2nd century A.D.), Greek sophist and philosopher, flourished during the reign of Hadrian. A Gaul by birth, he was a native of Arelate (Arles), but at an early age began his lifelong travels through Greece, Italy and the East. His extensive knowledge, combined with great oratorical powers, raised him to eminence both in Athens and in Rome. With Plutarch, who dedicated to him his treatise Περὶ τοῦ πρώτου ψυχροῦ, with Herodes Atticus, to whom he bequeathed his library at Rome, with Demetrius the Cynic, Cornelius Fronto, Aulus Gellius, and with Hadrian himself, he lived on intimate terms; his great rival, whom he violently attacked in his later years, was Polemon of Smyrna. It was Favorinus who, on being silenced by Hadrian in an argument in which the sophist might easily have refuted his adversary, subsequently explained that it was foolish to criticize the logic of the master of thirty legions. When the servile Athenians, feigning to share the emperor’s displeasure with the sophist, pulled down a statue which they had erected to him, Favorinus remarked that if only Socrates also had had a statue at Athens, he might have been spared the hemlock. Of the very numerous works of Favorinus, we possess only a few fragments (unless the Κορινθιακὸς λόγος attributed to his tutor Dio Chrysostom is by him), preserved by Aulus Gellius, Diogenes Laërtius, Philostratus, and Suïdas, the second of whom borrows from his Παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία (miscellaneous history) and his Ἀπομνημονεύματα (memoirs). As a philosopher, Favorinus belonged to the sceptical school; his most important work in this connexion appears to have been Πυρρώνειοι τρόποι (the Pyrrhonean Tropes) in ten books, in which he endeavours to show that the methods of Pyrrho were useful to those who intended to practise in the law courts.

FAVORINUS (2nd century A.D.), Greek sophist and philosopher, thrived during Hadrian's reign. Born in Gaul, he was from Arelate (Arles), but he started a lifetime of travel through Greece, Italy, and the East at a young age. His vast knowledge and exceptional oratory skills made him prominent in both Athens and Rome. He had close relationships with Plutarch, who dedicated his treatise About the first cold, Herodes Atticus, who received his library in Rome, Demetrius the Cynic, Cornelius Fronto, Aulus Gellius, and even Hadrian himself. His main rival, whom he fiercely criticized in his later years, was Polemon of Smyrna. When Hadrian silenced him during a debate where Favorinus could have easily countered his opponent, he later explained it was unwise to question the reasoning of the leader of thirty legions. After the submissive Athenians, pretending to share the emperor’s anger, tore down a statue they had put up for him, Favorinus pointed out that if Socrates had also had a statue in Athens, he might have been spared the hemlock. Of Favorinus' many works, only a few fragments remain (unless the Corinthian speech attributed to his teacher Dio Chrysostom is by him), preserved by Aulus Gellius, Diogenes Laërtius, Philostratus, and Suïdas, the latter of whom draws from his Various history (miscellaneous history) and his Memoirs (memoirs). As a philosopher, Favorinus was part of the sceptical school; his most significant work in this regard seems to be Pyrrhonian methods (the Pyrrhonean Tropes) in ten books, where he argues that Pyrrho’s methods are beneficial for those planning to practice in the courts.

See Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum, i. 8; Suïdas, s.v.; frags. in C.W. Müller, Frag. Hist. Graec. iii. 4; monographs by L. Legré (1900), T. Colardeau (1903).

See Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum, i. 8; Suïdas, s.v.; frags. in C.W. Müller, Frag. Hist. Graec. iii. 4; monographs by L. Legré (1900), T. Colardeau (1903).


FAVRAS, THOMAS DE MAHY, Marquis de (1744-1790), French royalist, was born on the 26th of March 1744, at Blois. He belonged to a poor family whose nobility dated from the 12th century. At seventeen he was a captain of dragoons, and saw some service in the closing campaign of the Seven Years’ War. In 1772 he became first lieutenant of the Swiss guards of the count of Provence (afterwards Louis XVIII.). Unable to meet the expenses of his rank, which was equivalent to the grade of colonel in the army, he retired in 1775. He married in 1776 Victoria Hedwig Caroline, princess of Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg, whose mother, deserted by her husband Prince Carl Ludwig in 1749, had found refuge with her daughter in the house of Marshal Soubise. After his marriage he went to Vienna to press the restitution of his wife’s rights, and spent some time in Warsaw. In 1787 he was authorized to raise a patriotic legion to help the Dutch against the stadtholder William IV. and his Prussian allies. Returning to Paris at the outbreak of the Revolution, he became implicated in schemes for the escape of Louis XVI. from Paris and the dominance of the National Assembly. He was commissioned by the count of Provence through one of his gentlemen, the comte de la Châtre, to negotiate a loan of two million francs from the bankers Schaumel and Sartorius. Favras took into his confidence certain officers by whom he was betrayed; and, with his wife, he was arrested on Christmas Eve 1789 and imprisoned in the Abbaye. A fortnight later they were separated, Favras being removed to the Châtelet. It was stated in a leaflet circulated throughout Paris that Favras had organized a plot of which the count of Provence was the moving spirit. A force of 30,000 was to be raised, La Fayette and Bailly, the mayor of Paris, were to be assassinated, and Paris was to be starved into submission by cutting off supplies. The count hastened publicly to disavow Favras in a speech delivered before the commune of Paris and in a letter to the National Assembly, although there is no reasonable doubt of his complicity in the plot that did exist. In the course of a trial of nearly two months’ duration the witnesses disagreed, and even the editor of the Révolutions de Paris (No. 30) admitted that the evidence was insufficient but an armed attempt of the Royalists on the Châtelet on the 26th of January, which was defeated by La Fayette, roused the suspicious temper of the Parisians to fury, and on the 18th of February 1790, in spite of the courageous defence of his counsel, Favras was condemned to be hanged. He refused to give any information of the alleged plot, and the sentence was carried out on the Place de Grève the next day, to the delight of the populace, since it was the first instance when no distinction in the mode of execution was allowed between noble and commoner. Favras was generally regarded as a martyr to his refusal to implicate the count of Provence, and Madame de Favras was pensioned by Louis XVI. She left France, and her son Charles de Favras served in the Austrian and the Russian armies. He received an allowance from Louis XVIII. Her daughter Caroline married Rüdiger, Freiherr von Stillfried Ratènic, in 1805.

FAVRAS, THOMAS DE MAHY, Marquis (1744-1790), French royalist, was born on March 26, 1744, in Blois. He came from a poor family with a noble lineage dating back to the 12th century. By the age of seventeen, he was a captain of dragoons and saw action during the final campaign of the Seven Years’ War. In 1772, he became first lieutenant of the Swiss guards for the Count of Provence (who later became Louis XVIII). Struggling to cover the costs of his rank, which was the equivalent of a colonel in the army, he retired in 1775. He married Victoria Hedwig Caroline, Princess of Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg, in 1776; her mother had been abandoned by her husband, Prince Carl Ludwig, in 1749, and found refuge with her daughter at Marshal Soubise's residence. After getting married, he traveled to Vienna to advocate for his wife’s rights and spent some time in Warsaw. In 1787, he received permission to form a patriotic legion to assist the Dutch against Stadtholder William IV and his Prussian allies. Upon returning to Paris at the onset of the Revolution, he became involved in plans to help Louis XVI escape from Paris and counter the National Assembly’s influence. The Count of Provence assigned him to negotiate a loan of two million francs from bankers Schaumel and Sartorius through one of his representatives, the Comte de la Châtre. Favras confided in certain officers who then betrayed him; he and his wife were arrested on Christmas Eve 1789 and imprisoned in the Abbaye. Two weeks later, they were separated, and Favras was moved to the Châtelet. A leaflet circulated throughout Paris claimed that Favras had orchestrated a plot with the Count of Provence as its mastermind. The plan included raising a force of 30,000, assassinating La Fayette and Bailly, the Mayor of Paris, and starving the city into submission by cutting off supplies. The Count quickly distanced himself from Favras in a speech to the Paris commune and in a letter to the National Assembly, despite clear evidence of his involvement in the existing plot. During a trial lasting nearly two months, witnesses contradicted each other, and even the editor of the Révolutions de Paris (No. 30) acknowledged that the evidence was lacking. However, an armed Royalist attempt on the Châtelet on January 26, which was thwarted by La Fayette, fueled public outrage in Paris. On February 18, 1790, despite a strong defense from his attorney, Favras was sentenced to hang. He refused to reveal any details about the supposed plot, and the execution was carried out the following day at Place de Grève, much to the crowd's approval, marking a moment when no distinction was made in execution methods between nobles and commoners. Favras was largely seen as a martyr for refusing to implicate the Count of Provence, and Madame de Favras was granted a pension by Louis XVI. She left France, and her son Charles de Favras served in the Austrian and Russian armies, receiving an allowance from Louis XVIII. Her daughter Caroline married Rüdiger, Freiherr von Stillfried Ratènic, in 1805.

The official dossier of Favras’s trial for high treason against the nation disappeared from the Châtelet, but its substance is preserved in the papers of a clerk.

The official dossier of Favras’s trial for treason against the nation disappeared from the Châtelet, but its details are kept in the records of a clerk.

Bibliography.—For particulars see A. Tuetey, Répertoire général des sources manuscrites de l’histoire de Paris pendant la Révolution Française (vol. i., 1890, pp. 175-177); M. Tourneux, Bibl. de l’histoire de Paris pendant la Révolution Française (vol. i. pp. 196-198, 1890). His brother, M. Mahy de Cormère, published a Mémoire justificatif in 1790 and a Justification in 1791. See also a memoir by Eduard, Freiherr v. Stillfried Ratènic (Vienna, 1881), and an article by Alexis de Valon in the Revue des deux mondes (15th June 1851).

References.—For details, see A. Tuetey, General Directory of Manuscript Sources for the History of Paris During the French Revolution (vol. i., 1890, pp. 175-177); M. Tourneux, Library of the History of Paris During the French Revolution (vol. i. pp. 196-198, 1890). His brother, M. Mahy de Cormère, published a Justifying Memoir in 1790 and a Justification in 1791. Also, see a memoir by Eduard, Freiherr v. Stillfried Ratènic (Vienna, 1881), and an article by Alexis de Valon in the Review of Two Worlds (15th June 1851).


FAVRE, JEAN ALPHONSE (1815-1890), Swiss geologist, was born at Geneva on the 31st of March 1815. He was for many years professor of geology in the academy at Geneva, and afterwards president of the Federal Commission with charge of the geological map of Switzerland. One of his earliest papers was On the Anthracites of the Alps (1841), and later he gave special attention to the geology of Savoy and of Mont Blanc, and to the ancient glacial phenomena of those Alpine regions. His elucidation of the geological structure demonstrated that 215 certain anomalous occurrences of fossils were due to repeated interfoldings of the strata and to complicated overthrust faults. In 1867 he published Recherches géologiques dans les parties de la Savoie, du Piémont et de la Suisse voisines du Mont Blanc. He died at Geneva in June 1890.

FAVRE, JEAN ALPHONSE (1815-1890), Swiss geologist, was born in Geneva on March 31, 1815. He served for many years as a professor of geology at the Academy in Geneva and later became the president of the Federal Commission responsible for the geological map of Switzerland. One of his earliest papers was On the Anthracites of the Alps (1841), and he later focused on the geology of Savoy and Mont Blanc, as well as the ancient glacial phenomena in those Alpine regions. His explanation of the geological structure showed that certain unusual occurrences of fossils were caused by repeated interfolding of the layers and by complex overthrust faults. In 1867, he published Recherches géologiques dans les parties de la Savoie, du Piémont et de la Suisse voisines du Mont Blanc. He passed away in Geneva in June 1890.

His son Ernest Favre (b. 1845) has written on the palaeontology and geology of Galicia, Savoy and the Fribourg Alps, and of the Caucasus and Crimea.

His son Ernest Favre (b. 1845) has written about the paleontology and geology of Galicia, Savoy, the Fribourg Alps, the Caucasus, and Crimea.


FAVRE, JULES CLAUDE GABRIEL (1809-1880), French statesman, was born at Lyons on the 21st of March 1809, and began his career as an advocate. From the time of the revolution of 1830 he openly declared himself a republican, and in political trials he seized the opportunity to express his opinions. After the revolution of 1848 he was elected deputy for Lyons to the Constituent Assembly, where he sat among the moderate republicans, voting against the socialists. When Louis Napoleon was elected President of France, Favre made himself conspicuous by his opposition, and on the 2nd of December 1851 he tried with Victor Hugo and others to organize an armed resistance in the streets of Paris. After the coup d’état he withdrew from politics, resumed his profession, and distinguished himself by his defence of Felice Orsini, the perpetrator of the attack against the life of Napoleon III. In 1858 he was elected deputy for Paris, and was one of the “Five” who gave the signal for the republican opposition to the Empire. In 1863 he became the head of his party, and delivered a number of addresses denouncing the Mexican expedition and the occupation of Rome. These addresses, eloquent, clear and incisive, won him a seat in the French Academy in 1867. With Thiers he opposed the declaration of war against Prussia in 1870, and at the news of the defeat of Napoleon III. at Sedan he demanded from the Legislative Assembly the deposition of the emperor. In the government of National Defence he became vice-president under General Trochu, and minister of foreign affairs, with the onerous task of negotiating peace with victorious Germany. He proved to be less adroit as a diplomat than he had been as an orator, and committed several irreparable blunders. His famous statement on the 6th of September 1870 that he “would not yield to Germany an inch of territory nor a single stone of the fortresses” was a piece of oratory which Bismarck met on the 19th by his declaration to Favre that the cession of Alsace and of Lorraine was the indispensable condition of peace. He also made the mistake of not having an assembly elected which would have more regular powers than the government of National Defence, and of opposing the removal of the government from Paris during the siege. In the peace negotiations he allowed Bismarck to get the better of him, and arranged for the armistice of the 28th of June 1871 without knowing the situation of the armies, and without consulting the government at Bordeaux. By a grave oversight he neglected to inform Gambetta that the army of the East (80,000 men) was not included in the armistice, and it was thus obliged to retreat to neutral territory. He gave no proof whatever of diplomatic skill in the negotiations for the treaty of Frankfort, and it was Bismarck who imposed all the conditions. He withdrew from the ministry, discredited, on the 2nd of August 1871, but remained in the chamber of deputies. Elected senator on the 30th of January 1876, he continued to support the government of the republic against the reactionary opposition, until his death on the 20th of January 1880.

FAVRE, JULES CLAUDE GABRIEL (1809-1880), French statesman, was born in Lyons on March 21, 1809, and started his career as a lawyer. Following the revolution of 1830, he openly identified as a republican and took every chance during political trials to share his views. After the revolution of 1848, he was elected as a deputy for Lyons to the Constituent Assembly, where he aligned with moderate republicans and voted against the socialists. When Louis Napoleon was elected President of France, Favre became notably vocal in his opposition. On December 2, 1851, he attempted, alongside Victor Hugo and others, to organize armed resistance in the streets of Paris. After the coup d’état, he withdrew from politics, returned to his profession, and gained recognition by defending Felice Orsini, who was responsible for an assassination attempt on Napoleon III. In 1858, he was elected deputy for Paris and became one of the “Five” who initiated the republican opposition to the Empire. By 1863, he led his party and delivered several speeches against the Mexican expedition and the occupation of Rome. These speeches, which were powerful, clear, and sharp, earned him a seat in the French Academy in 1867. Alongside Thiers, he opposed the declaration of war against Prussia in 1870. Upon learning of Napoleon III's defeat at Sedan, he called for the Legislative Assembly to depose the emperor. In the National Defence government, he served as vice-president under General Trochu and as minister of foreign affairs, tasked with negotiating peace with the victorious Germany. He turned out to be less skilled as a diplomat than as an orator, making several critical mistakes. His famous statement on September 6, 1870, that he “would not yield to Germany an inch of territory nor a single stone of the fortresses,” was challenged by Bismarck's declaration on the 19th that the cession of Alsace and Lorraine was a necessary condition for peace. He also erred by not organizing an assembly with more legitimate powers than the National Defence government and by resisting the relocation of the government from Paris during the siege. In the peace talks, he allowed Bismarck to take the upper hand and arranged for the armistice on June 28, 1871, without knowing the situation of the armies and without consulting the government in Bordeaux. He made a significant oversight by failing to inform Gambetta that the army of the East (80,000 men) was not included in the armistice, forcing it to retreat to neutral territory. He showed no diplomatic skill while negotiating the treaty of Frankfurt, with Bismarck dictating all the terms. He resigned from the ministry, discredited, on August 2, 1871, yet continued to serve in the chamber of deputies. Elected senator on January 30, 1876, he continued to support the republican government against the reactionary opposition until his death on January 20, 1880.

His work include many speeches and addresses, notably La Liberté de la Presse (1849), Défense de F. Orsini (1866), Discours de réception à l’Académie française (1868), Discours sur la liberté intérieure (1869). In Le Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale, 3 vols., 1871-1875, he explained his rôle in 1870-1871. After his death his family published his speeches in 8 volumes.

His work includes many speeches and addresses, notably La Liberté de la Presse (1849), Défense de F. Orsini (1866), Discours de réception à l’Académie française (1868), Discours sur la liberté intérieure (1869). In Le Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale, 3 vols., 1871-1875, he explained his role in 1870-1871. After his death, his family published his speeches in 8 volumes.

See G. Hanotaux, Histoire de la France contemporaine (1903, &c.); also E. Benoît-Lévy, Jules Favre (1884).

See G. Hanotaux, Histoire de la France contemporaine (1903, &c.); also E. Benoît-Lévy, Jules Favre (1884).


FAVUS (Lat. for honeycomb), a disease of the scalp, but occurring occasionally on any part of the skin, and even at times on mucous membranes. The uncomplicated appearance is that of a number of yellowish, circular, cup-shaped crusts (scutula) grouped in patches like a piece of honeycomb, each about the size of a split pea, with a hair projecting in the centre. These increase in size and become crusted over, so that the characteristic lesion can only be seen round the edge of the scab. Growth continues to take place for several months, when scab and scutulum come away, leaving a shining bare patch destitute of hair. The disease is essentially chronic, lasting from ten to twenty years. It is caused by the growth of a fungus, and pathologically is the reaction of the tissues to the growth. It was the first disease in which a fungus was discovered—by J.L. Schönlein in 1839; the discovery was published in a brief note of twenty lines in Müllers Archiv for that year (p. 82), the fungus having been subsequently named by R. Remak Achorion Schönleinii after its discoverer. The achorion consists of slender, mycelial threads matted together, bearing oval, nucleated gonidia either free or jointed. The spores would appear to enter through the unbroken cutaneous surface, and to germinate mostly in and around the hair-follicle and sometimes in the shaft of the hair. In 1892 two other species of the fungus were described by P.G. Unna and Frank, the Favus griseus, giving rise to greyish-yellow scutula, and the Favus sulphureus celerior, causing sulphur-yellow scutula of a rapid growth. Favus is commonest among the poorer Jews of Russia, Poland, Hungary, Galicia and the East, and among the same class of Mahommedans in Turkey, Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, Egypt, Algiers, &c. It is not rare in the southern departments of France, in some parts of Italy, and in Scotland. It is spread by contagion, usually from cats, often, however, from mice, fowls or dogs. Lack of personal cleanliness is an almost necessary factor in its development, but any one in delicate health, especially if suffering from phthisis, seems especially liable to contract it. Before treatment can be begun the scabs must be removed by means of carbolized oil, and the head thoroughly cleansed with soft soap. The cure is then brought about by the judicious use of parasiticides. If the nails are affected, avulsion will probably be needed before the disease can be reached.

FAVUS (Latin for honeycomb) is a scalp disease that can also occasionally appear on other parts of the skin and sometimes on mucous membranes. The initial appearance consists of several yellowish, round, cup-shaped crusts (scutula) clustered together like a honeycomb, each about the size of a split pea, with a hair sticking out in the middle. These lesions grow larger and become crusty, so the characteristic features are only visible around the edges of the scab. The growth can continue for several months, and eventually, the scab and scutulum fall off, leaving a shiny bald patch. The disease is chronic, lasting ten to twenty years. It's caused by a fungal infection, and the body's response to it involves tissue reactions. It was the first disease in which a fungus was identified—by J.L. Schönlein in 1839; this was noted in a short 20-line article in Müllers Archiv that year (p. 82), and the fungus was later named by R. Remak as Achorion Schönleinii in honor of its discoverer. The achorion is made up of thin, matted mycelial threads that carry oval, nucleated spores that can be free or jointed. The spores seem to penetrate through unbroken skin and primarily germinate around the hair follicles or sometimes within the hair shaft. In 1892, two other species of the fungus were identified by P.G. Unna and Frank: Favus griseus, which causes grayish-yellow scutula, and Favus sulphureus celerior, which leads to fast-growing sulfur-yellow scutula. Favus is most common among poorer Jewish communities in Russia, Poland, Hungary, Galicia, and the East, as well as among similar groups of Muslims in Turkey, Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, Egypt, Algiers, etc. It is also not uncommon in southern France, parts of Italy, and Scotland. The disease spreads through contagion, typically from cats, but also from mice, chickens, or dogs. Poor personal hygiene is almost always a contributing factor, but anyone in poor health, especially those suffering from tuberculosis, seems particularly susceptible. Before treatment starts, scabs must be removed using carbolized oil, and the head should be thoroughly cleaned with soft soap. The treatment typically involves the careful application of antifungal medications. If the nails are involved, they may need to be removed before the infection can be treated effectively.


FAWCETT, HENRY (1833-1884), English politician and economist, was born at Salisbury on the 25th of August 1833. His father, William Fawcett, a native of Kirkby Lonsdale, in Westmorland, started life as a draper’s assistant at Salisbury, opened a draper’s shop on his own account in the market-place there in 1825, married a solicitor’s daughter of the city, became a prominent local man, took a farm, developed his north-country sporting instincts, and displayed his shrewdness by successful speculations in Cornish mining. His second son, Henry, inherited a full measure of his shrewdness, along with his masculine energy, his straightforwardness, his perseverance and his fondness for fishing. The father was active in electioneering matters, and his wife was an ardent reformer. Henry Fawcett was educated locally and at King’s College school, London, and proceeded to Peterhouse, Cambridge, in October 1852, migrating in 1853 to Trinity Hall. He was seventh wrangler in 1856, and was elected to a fellowship at his college.

FAWCETT, HENRY (1833-1884), English politician and economist, was born in Salisbury on August 25, 1833. His father, William Fawcett, originally from Kirkby Lonsdale in Westmorland, started out as a draper's assistant in Salisbury, opened his own draper's shop in the market square there in 1825, married the daughter of a local solicitor, became a well-known figure in the community, took on a farm, embraced his northern sporting instincts, and showed his cleverness through successful investments in Cornish mining. His second son, Henry, inherited a lot of his father's cleverness along with his strong energy, directness, perseverance, and love of fishing. The father was active in election campaigning, and his wife was a passionate reformer. Henry Fawcett was educated locally and at King's College School in London before moving to Peterhouse, Cambridge, in October 1852, and then to Trinity Hall in 1853. He was seventh wrangler in 1856 and was elected to a fellowship at his college.

He had already attained some prominence as an orator at the Cambridge Union. Before he left school he had formed the ambition of entering parliament, and, being a poor man, he resolved to approach the House of Commons through a career at the bar. He had already entered Lincoln’s Inn. His prospects, however, were shattered by a calamity which befell him in September 1858, when two stray pellets from his father’s fowling-piece passed through the glasses he was wearing and blinded him for life. Within ten minutes after his accident he had made up his mind “to stick to his old pursuits as much as possible.” He kept up all recreations contributing to the enjoyment of life; he fished, rowed, skated, took abundant walking and horse exercise, and learnt to play cards with marked packs. Soon after his accident he established his headquarters at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, entered cordially into the social life of the college, and came to be regarded by many as a typical Cambridge man. He gave up mathematics (for which he had little aptitude), and specialized in political economy. He paid comparatively little attention to economic history, but he was in the main a 216 devout believer in economic theory, as represented by Ricardo and his school. The later philosophy of the subject he believed to be summed up in one book, Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, which he regarded as the indispensable “vade mecum” of every politician. He was not a great reader, and Mill probably never had a serious rival in his regard, though he was much impressed by Buckle’s History of Civilization and Darwin’s Origin of Species when they severally appeared. He made a great impression in 1859 with a paper at the British Association, and he soon became a familiar figure there and at various lecture halls in the north as an exponent of orthodox economic theory. Of the sincerity of his faith he gave the strongest evidence by his desire at all times to give a practical application to his views and submit them to the test of experiment. Among Mill’s disciples he was, no doubt, far inferior as an economic thinker to Cairnes, but as a popularizer of the system and a demonstrator of its principles by concrete examples he had no rival. His power of exposition was illustrated in his Manual of Political Economy (1863), of which in twenty years as many as 20,000 copies were sold. Alexander Macmillan had suggested the book, and it appeared just in time to serve as a credential, when, in the autumn of 1863, Fawcett stood and was elected for the Chair of Political Economy at Cambridge. The appointment attached him permanently to Cambridge, gave him an income, and showed that he was competent to discharge duties from which a blind man is often considered to be debarred. He was already a member of the Political Economy Club, and was becoming well known in political circles as an advanced Radical. In January 1863, after a spirited though abortive attempt in Southwark, he was only narrowly beaten for the borough of Cambridge. Early in 1864 he was adopted as one of the Liberal candidates at Brighton, and at the general election of 1865 he was elected by a large majority. Shortly after his election he became engaged to Millicent, daughter of Mr Newson Garrett of Aldeburgh, Suffolk, and in 1867 he was married. Mrs Fawcett (b. 1847) became well known for her social and literary work, and especially as an advocate, in the press and on the platform, of women’s suffrage and the higher education and independent employment of women. And after her husband’s death, as well as during his lifetime, she was a prominent leader in these movements.

He had already gained some recognition as a speaker at the Cambridge Union. Before graduating from school, he aimed to enter parliament, and since he was from a humble background, he decided to pursue a legal career to gain access to the House of Commons. He had already joined Lincoln’s Inn. However, his future was shattered by a tragedy that struck him in September 1858 when two stray pellets from his father's shotgun went through his glasses and blinded him for life. Within ten minutes of the accident, he resolved "to stick to his old pursuits as much as possible." He maintained all his hobbies that brought him joy; he fished, rowed, skated, took plenty of walks and rode horses, and learned to play cards with marked decks. Soon after his accident, he set up his base at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, engaged fully in the college's social life, and became seen by many as a typical Cambridge student. He dropped mathematics (which he didn't excel in) and focused on political economy. He paid relatively little attention to economic history, but he was primarily a devout believer in economic theory as represented by Ricardo and his followers. He thought the later philosophy of the subject was summed up in one book, Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, which he considered an essential guide for every politician. He wasn't a heavy reader, and Mill probably had no serious competitors in his eyes, although he was significantly impressed by Buckle’s History of Civilization and Darwin’s Origin of Species when they first came out. He made a strong impression in 1859 with a paper at the British Association, quickly becoming a familiar figure there and in various lecture halls in the north as a proponent of traditional economic theory. His commitment to his beliefs was evident in his constant desire to apply his ideas practically and test them through experiments. Among Mill’s followers, he was likely much less capable as an economic thinker compared to Cairnes, but as a popularizer of the system and a demonstrator of its principles through concrete examples, he had no equal. His ability to explain concepts was demonstrated in his Manual of Political Economy (1863), of which 20,000 copies were sold in just twenty years. Alexander Macmillan had suggested the book, and it was published just in time to serve as a credential when, in the fall of 1863, Fawcett ran for and was elected to the Chair of Political Economy at Cambridge. This position secured his connection to Cambridge, provided him with an income, and proved that he was capable of fulfilling responsibilities often thought inaccessible to a blind person. He was already a member of the Political Economy Club and was becoming increasingly recognized in political circles as an advanced Radical. In January 1863, after a lively but unsuccessful attempt in Southwark, he narrowly lost the election for the borough of Cambridge. Early in 1864, he was selected as one of the Liberal candidates in Brighton, and at the 1865 general election, he was elected with a large majority. Shortly after his election, he got engaged to Millicent, the daughter of Mr. Newson Garrett from Aldeburgh, Suffolk, and they married in 1867. Mrs. Fawcett (b. 1847) became well-known for her social and literary contributions, especially as an advocate for women's suffrage and for women's higher education and independent employment. After her husband’s death, as well as during his life, she was a leading figure in these movements.

Fawcett entered parliament just in time to see the close of Palmerston’s career and to hail the adoption by Gladstone of a programme of reform to which most of the laissez-faire economists gave assent. He was soon known as a forcible speaker, and quickly overcame the imputation that he was academic and doctrinaire, though it is true that a certain monotony in delivery often gave a slightly too didactic tone to his discourses. But it was as the uncompromising critic of the political shifts and expedients of his leaders that he attracted most attention. He constantly insisted upon the right of exercising private judgment, and he especially devoted himself to the defence of causes which, as he thought, were neglected both by his official leaders and by his Radical comrades. Re-elected for Brighton to the parliament of 1868-1874, he greatly hampered the government by his persistence in urging the abolition of clerical fellowships and the payment of election expenses out of the rates, and by opposing the “permissive compulsion” clauses of the Elementary Education Bill, and the exclusion of agricultural children from the scope of the act. His hatred of weak concessions made him the terror of parliamentary wirepullers, and in 1871 he was not undeservedly spoken of in The Times as the most “thorough Radical now in the House.” His liberal ideals were further shocked by the methods by which Gladstone achieved the abolition of Army Purchase. His disgust at the supineness of the cabinet in dealing with the problems of Indian finance and the growing evil of Commons Enclosures were added to the catalogue of grievances which Fawcett drew up in a powerful article, “On the Present Position of the Government,” in the Fortnightly Review for November 1871. In 1867 he had opposed the expenses of a ball given to the sultan at the India office being charged upon the Indian budget. In 1870 he similarly opposed the taxation of the Indian revenue with the cost of presents distributed by the duke of Edinburgh in India. In 1871 he went alone into the lobby to vote against the dowry granted to the princess Louise. The soundness of his principles was not impeached, but his leaders looked askance at him, and from 1871 he was severely shunned by the government whips. Their suspicion was justified when in 1873 Fawcett took a leading share in opposing Gladstone’s scheme for university education in Ireland as too denominational, and so contributed largely to a conclusive defeat of the Gladstone ministry.

Fawcett entered parliament just in time to witness the end of Palmerston's career and to support Gladstone's proposed reforms, which most of the laissez-faire economists agreed with. He quickly became known as a powerful speaker and overcame the perception that he was just an academic with rigid ideas, although his somewhat monotonous delivery often gave his speeches a slightly didactic tone. However, it was his role as a strong critic of the political maneuvers and strategies of his leaders that really drew attention. He consistently advocated for the right to private judgment and focused on defending causes he believed were ignored by both his official leaders and his Radical peers. Re-elected for Brighton in the 1868-1874 parliament, he significantly challenged the government by persistently pushing for the abolition of clerical fellowships and for election expenses to be funded through local rates. He also opposed the “permissive compulsion” clauses of the Elementary Education Bill and fought against the exclusion of agricultural children from its provisions. His disdain for half-hearted compromises made him a formidable figure for parliamentary manipulators, and in 1871, he was rightly described in The Times as the most “thorough Radical now in the House.” His progressive ideals were further shaken by the way Gladstone accomplished the abolition of Army Purchase. He became increasingly frustrated with the cabinet's passivity in addressing issues related to Indian finance and the ongoing problem of Commons Enclosures, which were added to the list of grievances he detailed in a strong article titled “On the Present Position of the Government,” published in the Fortnightly Review in November 1871. In 1867, he had opposed charging the expenses of a ball for the sultan at the India Office to the Indian budget. In 1870, he similarly argued against taxing Indian revenue to cover the costs of gifts given by the Duke of Edinburgh in India. In 1871, he went into the lobby alone to vote against the dowry given to Princess Louise. His principles were never questioned, but his leaders viewed him with suspicion, and from 1871 on, he was largely avoided by the government whips. Their concerns were validated when, in 1873, Fawcett played a major role in opposing Gladstone’s university education plan for Ireland, which he felt was too denominational, ultimately contributing significantly to the downfall of Gladstone's ministry.

From 1869 to 1880 Fawcett concentrated his energies upon two important subjects which had not hitherto been deemed worthy of serious parliamentary attention. The first of these was the preservation of commons, especially those near large towns; and the second was the responsibility of the British government for the amendment of Indian finance. In both cases the success which he obtained exhibited the sterling sense and shrewdness which made up such a great part of Fawcett’s character. In the first case Fawcett’s great triumph was the enforcement of the general principle that each annual Enclosure Act must be scrutinized by parliament and judged in the light of its conformity to the interests of the community at large. Probably no one did more than he did to prevent the disafforestation of Epping Forest and of the New Forest. From 1869 he regularly attended the meetings of the Commons Preservation Society, and he remained to the end one of its staunchest supporters. His intervention in the matter of Indian finance, which gained him the sobriquet of the “member for India,” led to no definite legislative achievements, but it called forth the best energies of his mind and helped to rouse an apathetic and ignorant public to its duties and responsibilities. Fawcett was defeated at Brighton in February 1874. Two months later, however, he was elected for Hackney, and retained the seat during his life. He was promptly replaced on the Indian Finance Committee, and continued his searching inquiries with a view to promote a stricter economy in the Indian budget, and a more effective responsibility in the management of Indian accounts.

From 1869 to 1880, Fawcett focused his efforts on two significant issues that had not previously received serious attention in Parliament. The first was the protection of common land, especially near large towns, and the second was the British government's responsibility for improving India's finances. In both cases, his success demonstrated the keen insight and intelligence that were key aspects of Fawcett’s character. For the preservation of common land, Fawcett's major achievement was ensuring that each annual Enclosure Act would be reviewed by Parliament to assess whether it served the interests of the wider community. He likely did more than anyone else to stop the deforestation of Epping Forest and the New Forest. Starting in 1869, he regularly attended meetings of the Commons Preservation Society and remained one of its strongest supporters until the end. His involvement in Indian finance earned him the nickname "member for India." While it didn't result in specific legislative successes, it sparked his intellect and helped awaken a disengaged and uninformed public to its responsibilities. Fawcett lost his seat in Brighton in February 1874, but two months later, he was elected for Hackney and held that position for the rest of his life. He quickly rejoined the Indian Finance Committee and continued his thorough investigations aimed at promoting stricter economy in the Indian budget and more effective oversight of Indian financial management.

As an opponent of the Disraeli government (1874-1880) Fawcett came more into line with the Liberal leaders. In foreign politics he gave a general adhesion to Gladstone’s views, but he continued to devote much attention to Indian matters, and it was during this period that he produced two of his best publications. His Free Trade and Protection (1878) illustrated his continued loyalty to Cobdenite ideas. At the same time his admiration for Palmerston and his repugnance to schemes of Home Rule show that he was not by any means a peace-at-any-price man. He thought that the Cobdenites had deserved well of their country, but he always maintained that their foreign politics were biased to excess by purely commercial considerations. As befitted a writer whose linguistic gifts were of the slenderest, Fawcett’s English was a sound homespun, clear and unpretentious. In a vigorous employment of the vernacular he approached Cobbett, whose writing he justly admired. The second publication was his Indian Finance (1880), three essays reprinted from the Nineteenth Century, with an introduction and appendix. When the Liberal party returned to power in 1880 Gladstone offered Fawcett a place in the new government as postmaster-general (without a seat in the cabinet). On Egyptian and other questions of foreign policy Fawcett was often far from being in full harmony with his leaders, but his position in the government naturally enforced reserve. He was, moreover, fully absorbed by his new administrative functions. He gained the sympathy of a class which he had hitherto done little to conciliate, that of public officials, and he showed himself a most capable head of a public department. To his readiness in adopting suggestions, and his determination to push business through instead of allowing it to remain permanently in the stage of preparation and circumlocution, the public is mainly indebted for five substantial postal reforms:—(1) The parcels post, (2) postal orders, (3) sixpenny telegrams, (4) the banking 217 of small savings by means of stamps, (5) increased facilities for life insurance and annuities. In connexion with these last two improvements Fawcett, in 1880, with the assistance of Mr James Cardin, took great pains in drawing up a small pamphlet called Aids to Thrift, of which over a million copies were circulated gratis. A very useful minor innovation of his provided for the announcement on every pillar-box of the time of the “next collection.” In the post office, as elsewhere, he was a strong advocate of the employment of women. Proportional representation and the extension of franchise to women were both political doctrines which he adopted very early in his career, and never abandoned. Honours were showered upon him during his later years. He was made an honorary D.C.L. of Oxford, a fellow of the Royal Society, and was in 1883 elected lord rector of Glasgow University. But the stress of departmental work soon began to tell upon his health. In the autumn of 1882 he had a sharp attack of diphtheria complicated by typhoid, from which he never properly recovered. He resumed his activities, but on the 6th of November 1884 he succumbed at Cambridge to an attack of congestion of the lungs. He was buried in Trumpington churchyard, near Cambridge, and to his memory were erected a monument in Westminster Abbey, a statue in Salisbury market-place, and a drinking fountain on the Thames embankment.

As an opponent of the Disraeli government (1874-1880), Fawcett aligned himself more closely with the Liberal leaders. In foreign policy, he generally supported Gladstone’s views but continued to focus heavily on Indian issues. During this time, he published two of his most significant works. His Free Trade and Protection (1878) demonstrated his ongoing loyalty to Cobdenite principles. At the same time, his admiration for Palmerston and his opposition to Home Rule schemes showed that he was not someone who believed in peace at any cost. He thought the Cobdenites had done well for their country, but he always argued that their foreign policy was overly influenced by commercial interests. As a writer with limited linguistic skills, Fawcett's English was practical, clear, and straightforward. He used the vernacular vigorously and admired Cobbett's writing. The second publication was his Indian Finance (1880), which included three essays reprinted from the Nineteenth Century, along with an introduction and appendix. When the Liberal party regained power in 1880, Gladstone offered Fawcett a position in the new government as postmaster-general (without a cabinet position). On Egyptian and various foreign policy issues, Fawcett often found himself at odds with his leaders, but his role in the government required him to be diplomatic. Additionally, he was fully engaged with his new administrative responsibilities. He earned the support of a group he had previously done little to reach out to: public officials, and he proved to be a very capable head of a government department. Thanks to his openness to suggestions and his determination to follow through on initiatives rather than letting them languish, the public benefited from five significant postal reforms: (1) The parcels post, (2) postal orders, (3) sixpenny telegrams, (4) banking of small savings using stamps, (5) expanded options for life insurance and annuities. In connection with the last two improvements, Fawcett, in 1880, with help from Mr. James Cardin, worked hard on a small pamphlet titled Aids to Thrift, of which over a million copies were distributed for free. One of his very useful minor innovations was the announcement of the “next collection” time on every pillar box. In the post office, as in other areas, he was a strong supporter of hiring women. Proportional representation and extending the franchise to women were both political views he adopted early in his career and never abandoned. Honors were heaped upon him in his later years. He was made an honorary D.C.L. at Oxford, a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1883, he was elected lord rector of Glasgow University. However, the demands of his departmental work began to take a toll on his health. In autumn 1882, he suffered a severe attack of diphtheria complicated by typhoid, from which he never fully recovered. He resumed his work, but on November 6, 1884, he succumbed to pneumonia in Cambridge. He was buried in Trumpington churchyard, near Cambridge, and in his memory, a monument was erected in Westminster Abbey, a statue in Salisbury market place, and a drinking fountain on the Thames embankment.

In economic matters Fawcett’s position can best be described as transitional. He believed in co-operation almost as a panacea. In other matters he clung to the old laissez-faire theorists, and was a strong anti-socialist, with serious doubts about free education, though he supported the Factory Acts and wished their extension to agriculture. Apparent inconsistencies were harmonized to a great extent by his dominating anxiety to increase the well-being of the poor. One of his noblest traits was his kindliness and genuine affection for the humble and oppressed, country labourers and the like, for whom his sympathies seemed always on the increase. Another was his disposition to interest himself in and to befriend younger men. In the great affliction of his youth Fawcett bore himself with a fortitude which it would be difficult to parallel. The effect of his blindness was, as the event proved, the reverse of calamitous. It brought the great aim and purpose of his life to maturity at an earlier date than would otherwise have been possible, and it had a mellowing influence upon his character of an exceptional and beneficent kind. As a youth he was rough and canny, with a suspicion of harshness. The kindness evoked by his misfortune, a strongly reciprocated family affection, a growing capacity for making and keeping friends—these and other causes tended to ripen all that was best, and apparently that only, in a strong but somewhat stern character. His acerbity passed away, and in later life was reserved exclusively for official witnesses before parliamentary committees. Frank, helpful, conscientious to a fault, a shrewd gossip, and a staunch friend, he was a man whom no one could help liking. Several of his letters to his father and mother at different periods of his career are preserved in Leslie Stephen’s admirable Life (1885), and show a goodness of heart, together with a homely simplicity of nature, which is most touching. In appearance Fawcett was gaunt and tall, over 6 ft. 3 in. in height, large of bone, and massive in limb.

In economic matters, Fawcett's views can be described as transitional. He believed in cooperation almost as a cure-all. In other areas, he stuck to the old laissez-faire theorists and was a strong anti-socialist, harboring serious doubts about free education, even though he supported the Factory Acts and wanted them extended to agriculture. Any apparent inconsistencies were largely reconciled by his deep concern for improving the lives of the poor. One of his noblest qualities was his kindness and genuine affection for humble, oppressed country laborers, for whom his sympathy seemed to grow continuously. He also had a tendency to take an interest in and mentor younger men. In the significant hardship he faced in his youth, Fawcett showed a level of courage that’s hard to match. The impact of his blindness turned out to be the opposite of disastrous; it brought his life’s great aim and purpose to maturity sooner than would have otherwise been possible, and it had a unique and beneficial softening effect on his character. As a young man, he was rough and shrewd, with a hint of harshness. The kindness that arose from his misfortune, a strong family bond, and an increasing ability to make and maintain friendships—all these factors helped bring out the best in his strong but somewhat stern character. His bitterness faded and, in later life, was reserved only for official witnesses before parliamentary committees. Honest, helpful, conscientious to a fault, a clever conversationalist, and a loyal friend, he was someone everyone found hard not to like. Several letters he wrote to his father and mother at various times in his life are preserved in Leslie Stephen’s excellent Life (1885) and display a heartfelt goodness along with a simple, down-to-earth nature that is truly touching. In appearance, Fawcett was tall and thin, standing over 6 ft. 3 in. tall, with a large frame and strong limbs.

(T. Se.)

FAWCETT, JOHN (1768-1837), English actor and playwright, was born on the 29th of August 1768, the son of an actor of the same name (d. 1793). At the age of eighteen he ran away from school and appeared at Margate as Courtall in The Belle’s Stratagem; afterwards he joined Tate Wilkinson’s company and turned from tragedy to low comedy parts. In 1791 he appeared at Covent Garden, and in 1794 at the Haymarket. Colman, then manager of that house, wrote a number of parts designed to suit his talents, and two of Fawcett’s greatest successes were as Dr. Pangloss in The Heir at Law (1797) and as Dr Ollapod in The Poor Gentleman (1798). He retired from the stage in 1830.

FAWCETT, JOHN (1768-1837), English actor and playwright, was born on August 29, 1768, the son of an actor with the same name (d. 1793). At eighteen, he ran away from school and performed at Margate as Courtall in The Belle’s Stratagem; he later joined Tate Wilkinson’s company and switched from tragedy to low comedy roles. In 1791, he appeared at Covent Garden, and in 1794 at the Haymarket. Colman, the manager of that venue at the time, wrote several parts tailored to his abilities, and two of Fawcett’s biggest hits were as Dr. Pangloss in The Heir at Law (1797) and as Dr. Ollapod in The Poor Gentleman (1798). He retired from the stage in 1830.


FAWKES, FRANCIS (1720-1777), English poet and divine, was born at Warmsworth, near Doncaster, Yorkshire, where his father was rector, and was baptized on the 4th of April 1720. After studying at Jesus College, Cambridge, where he graduated M.A. in 1745, he took holy orders, and was successively curate of Bramham, curate of Croydon, vicar of Orpington, and rector of Hayes, and finally was made one of the chaplains to the princess of Wales. His first publication is said to have been Bramham Park, a Poem, in 1745; a volume of poems and translations appeared in 1761; and Partridge Shooting, an eclogue, in 1764. His translations of the minor Greek poets—Anacreon, Sappho, Bion and Moschus, Musaeus, Theocritus and Apollonius—acquired for him considerable fame, but they are less likely to be remembered than his fine song, “Dear Tom, this brown jug, that now foams with mild ale.” Fawkes died on the 26th of August 1777.

FAWKES, FRANCIS (1720-1777), was an English poet and clergyman, born in Warmsworth, near Doncaster, Yorkshire, where his father was the rector. He was baptized on April 4, 1720. After studying at Jesus College, Cambridge, and earning his M.A. in 1745, he was ordained and served as the curate of Bramham, then the curate of Croydon, followed by the vicar of Orpington, and the rector of Hayes. Eventually, he became one of the chaplains to the Princess of Wales. His first published work is believed to be Bramham Park, a Poem, released in 1745. A collection of his poems and translations was published in 1761, followed by Partridge Shooting, an eclogue, in 1764. His translations of lesser-known Greek poets—Anacreon, Sappho, Bion, Moschus, Musaeus, Theocritus, and Apollonius—gained him significant recognition, although he is more likely to be remembered for his beautiful song, “Dear Tom, this brown jug, that now foams with mild ale.” Fawkes passed away on August 26, 1777.


FAWKES, GUY (1570-1606), English “gunpowder plot” conspirator, son of Edward Fawkes of York, a member of a good Yorkshire family and advocate of the archbishop of York’s consistory court, was baptized at St Michael le Belfrey at York on the 16th of April 1570. His parents were Protestants, and he was educated at the free school at York, where, it is said, John and Christopher Wright and the Jesuit Tesimond alias Greenway, afterwards implicated in the conspiracy, were his schoolfellows. On his father’s death in 1579 he inherited his property. Soon afterwards his mother married, as her second husband, Dionis Baynbrigge of Scotton in Yorkshire, to which place the family removed. Fawkes’s stepfather was connected with many Roman Catholic families, and was probably a Roman Catholic himself, and Fawkes himself became a zealous adherent of the old faith. Soon after he had come of age he disposed of his property, and in 1593 went to Flanders and enlisted in the Spanish army, assisting at the capture of Calais by the Spanish in 1596 and gaining some military reputation. According to Father Greenway he was “a man of great piety, of exemplary temperance, of mild and cheerful demeanour, an enemy of broils and disputes, a faithful friend and remarkable for his punctual attendance upon religious observances,” while his society was “sought by all the most distinguished in the archduke’s camp for nobility and virtue.” He is described as “tall, with brown hair and auburn beard.”

FAWKES, GUY (1570-1606), English “gunpowder plot” conspirator, was the son of Edward Fawkes from York, who was part of a respectable Yorkshire family and a supporter of the archbishop of York’s consistory court. He was baptized at St Michael le Belfrey in York on April 16, 1570. His parents were Protestants, and he was educated at the free school in York, where he is said to have been classmates with John and Christopher Wright and the Jesuit Tesimond alias Greenway, who would later be involved in the conspiracy. After his father's death in 1579, he inherited his property. Shortly after, his mother remarried Dionis Baynbrigge from Scotton in Yorkshire, and the family moved there. Fawkes’s stepfather was connected with several Roman Catholic families, and was likely a Roman Catholic himself, which influenced Fawkes to become a devoted follower of the old faith. After reaching adulthood, he sold his property and went to Flanders in 1593, where he joined the Spanish army, participating in the capture of Calais by the Spanish in 1596 and gaining some military recognition. According to Father Greenway, he was “a man of great piety, of exemplary temperance, with a mild and cheerful disposition, an opponent of arguments and disputes, a loyal friend, and known for his punctual participation in religious activities,” while many distinguished individuals in the archduke’s camp sought his company for his nobility and virtue. He was described as “tall, with brown hair and an auburn beard.”

In 1604 Thomas Winter, at the instance of Catesby, in whose mind the gunpowder plot had now taken definite shape, introduced himself to Fawkes in Flanders, and as “a confident gentleman,” “best able for this business,” brought him on to England as assistant in the conspiracy. Shortly afterwards he was initiated into the plot, after taking an oath of secrecy, meeting Catesby, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy and John Wright at a house behind St Clement’s (see Gunpowder Plot and Catesby, Robert). Owing to the fact of his being unknown in London, to his exceptional courage and coolness, and probably to his experience in the wars and at sieges, the actual accomplishment of the design was entrusted to Fawkes, and when the house adjoining the parliament house was hired in Percy’s name, he took charge of it as Percy’s servant, under the name of Johnson He acted as sentinel while the others worked at the mine in December 1604, probably directing their operations, and on the discovery of the adjoining cellar, situated immediately beneath the House of Lords, he arranged in it the barrels of gunpowder, which he covered over with firewood and coals and with iron bars to increase the force of the explosion. When all was ready in May 1605 Fawkes was despatched to Flanders to acquaint Sir William Stanley, the betrayer of Deventer, and the intriguer Owen with the plot. He returned in August and brought fresh gunpowder into the cellars to replace any which might be spoilt by damp. A slow match was prepared which would give him a quarter of an hour in which to escape from the explosion. On Saturday, the 26th of October, Lord Monteagle (q.v.) received the mysterious letter which revealed the conspiracy and of which the conspirators received information the following day. They, nevertheless, after some hesitation, hoping that the government would despise the warning, determined to proceed with their plans, and were encouraged in their resolution by Fawkes, who visited the cellar on the 30th and 218 reported that nothing had been moved or touched. He returned accordingly to his lonely and perilous vigil on the 4th of November. On that day the earl of Suffolk, as lord chamberlain, visited the vault, accompanied by Monteagle, remarked the quantity of faggots, and asked Fawkes, now described as “a very tall and desperate fellow,” who it was that rented the cellar. Percy’s name, which Fawkes gave, aroused fresh suspicions and they retired to inform the king. At about ten o’ clock Robert Keyes brought Fawkes from Percy a watch, that he might know how the anxious hours were passing, and very shortly afterwards he was arrested, and the gunpowder discovered, by Thomas Knyvett, a Westminster magistrate. Fawkes was brought into the king’s bedchamber, where the ministers had hastily assembled, at one o’clock. He maintained an attitude of defiance and of “Roman resolution,” smiled scornfully at his questioners, making no secret of his intentions, replied to the king, who asked why he would kill him, that the pope had excommunicated him, that “dangerous diseases require a desperate remedy,” adding fiercely to the Scottish courtiers who surrounded him that “one of his objects was to blow back the Scots into Scotland.” His only regret was the failure of the scheme. “He carrieth himself,” writes Salisbury to Sir Charles Cornwallis, ambassador at Madrid, “without any feare or perturbation ...; under all this action he is noe more dismayed, nay scarce any more troubled than if he was taken for a poor robbery upon the highway,” declaring “that he is ready to die, and rather wisheth 10,000 deaths, than willingly to accuse his master or any other.” He refused stubbornly on the following days to give information concerning his accomplices; on the 8th he gave a narrative of the plot, but it was not till the 9th, when the fugitive conspirators had been taken at Holbeche, that torture could wring from him their names. His imperfect signature to his confession of this date, consisting only of his Christian name and written in a faint and trembling hand, is probably a ghastly testimony to the severity of the torture (“per gradus ad ima”) which James had ordered to be applied if he would not otherwise confess and the “gentler tortures” were unavailing,—a horrible practice unrecognized by the law of England, but usually employed and justified at this time in cases of treason to obtain information. He was tried, together with the two Winters, John Grant, Ambrose Rokewood, Robert Keyes and Thomas Bates, before a special commission in Westminster Hall on the 27th of January 1606. In this case there could be no defence and he was found guilty. He suffered death in company with Thomas Winter, Rokewood and Keyes on the 31st, being drawn on a hurdle from the Tower to the Parliament House, opposite which he was executed. He made a short speech on the scaffold, expressing his repentance, and mounted the ladder last and with assistance, being weak from torture and illness. The usual barbarities practised upon him after he had been cut down from the gallows were inflicted on a body from which all life had already fled.

In 1604, Thomas Winter, prompted by Catesby, who was now fully committed to the gunpowder plot, met Fawkes in Flanders. As a “trustworthy gentleman,” he deemed Fawkes “best able for this business” and brought him back to England as an accomplice in the conspiracy. Soon after, Fawkes was initiated into the plot after taking an oath of secrecy and met with Catesby, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, and John Wright at a house behind St Clement’s (see Gunpowder Plot and Catesby, Robert). Because he was unknown in London, his extraordinary courage and calmness, along with his military experience, led to Fawkes being entrusted with the execution of the plan. When the house next to the Parliament was rented in Percy’s name, he took on the role of Percy’s servant there, using the name Johnson. He stood watch while the others worked on the mine in December 1604, likely guiding their efforts. After discovering the cellar right beneath the House of Lords, he arranged barrels of gunpowder there, covering them with firewood, coals, and iron bars to maximize the explosion's force. When everything was ready in May 1605, Fawkes was sent to Flanders to inform Sir William Stanley, the betrayer of Deventer, and the conspirator Owen about the plot. He returned in August with fresh gunpowder to replace any that might have gotten damp. A slow match was prepared to give him a 15-minute window to escape before the explosion. On Saturday, October 26, Lord Monteagle (q.v.) received a mysterious letter revealing the conspiracy, and the conspirators learned about it the next day. Despite some hesitation, hoping the government would dismiss the warning, they decided to proceed, encouraged by Fawkes, who visited the cellar on the 30th and reported that nothing had been disturbed. He returned to his solo and risky vigil on November 4. That day, the Earl of Suffolk, as lord chamberlain, visited the vault with Monteagle, noticed the amount of firewood, and asked Fawkes, now described as “a very tall and desperate fellow,” who was renting the cellar. Fawkes' response with Percy’s name raised further suspicions, and they left to inform the king. Around ten o’clock, Robert Keyes brought Fawkes a watch from Percy so he could track the nervous hours passing, and shortly after, he was arrested by Thomas Knyvett, a Westminster magistrate, with the gunpowder found. Fawkes was taken into the king’s bedroom where ministers were hastily gathered at one o’clock. He maintained a defiant stance, with “Roman resolution,” scornfully smiling at his questioners, and was open about his intentions. When the king asked why he would kill him, Fawkes replied that the pope had excommunicated him, and that “dangerous diseases require a desperate remedy,” adding fiercely to the Scottish courtiers around him that “one of his goals was to blow the Scots back into Scotland.” His only regret was that the plan had failed. “He carries himself,” Salisbury wrote to Sir Charles Cornwallis, the ambassador in Madrid, “without any fear or disturbance...; he is no more upset about this than if he had been caught for a petty robbery on the highway,” declaring “that he is ready to die, and would rather wish for 10,000 deaths than to willingly accuse his master or anyone else.” He stubbornly refused to provide information about his accomplices in the following days; on the 8th, he gave an account of the plot, but it was not until the 9th, after the fugitive conspirators had been captured at Holbeche, that torture finally extracted their names from him. His shaky signature on his confession from that date, consisting only of his first name, likely reflects the severity of the torture (“per gradus ad ima”) that James had ordered to be applied if he wouldn't confess otherwise, with the “gentler tortures” failing,—a horrific practice not recognized by English law but commonly used and justified at the time in treason cases to obtain information. He was tried, along with the two Winters, John Grant, Ambrose Rokewood, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates, before a special commission in Westminster Hall on January 27, 1606. In this situation, there was no defense, and he was found guilty. He was executed alongside Thomas Winter, Rokewood, and Keyes on the 31st, being drawn on a hurdle from the Tower to the Parliament House, where he was executed. He made a brief speech at the scaffold, expressing remorse, and climbed the ladder last with help, weakened from torture and illness. The usual brutal treatment inflicted upon him after he was cut down from the gallows was directed at a body that had already lost all life.

Bibliography.Hist. of England, by S.R. Gardiner, vol. i.; and the same author’s What Gunpowder Plot was (1897); What was the Gunpowder Plot? by J. Gerard (1897); The Gunpowder Plot, by D. Jardine (1857); Calendar of State Pap. Dom. 1603-1610; State Trials, vol. ii.; Archaeologia, xii. 200; R. Winwood’s Memorials; Notes and Queries, vi. ser. vii. 233, viii. 136; The Fawkeses of York in the 16th Century, by R. Davies (1850); Dict. of Nat. Biog. and authorities cited there. The official account (untrustworthy in details) is the True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the late most Barbarous Traitors (1606), reprinted by Bishop Barlow of Lincoln as The Gunpowder Treason (1679). See also Gunpowder Plot.

References.History of England, by S.R. Gardiner, vol. i.; and the same author's What Gunpowder Plot Was (1897); What Was the Gunpowder Plot? by J. Gerard (1897); The Gunpowder Plot, by D. Jardine (1857); Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1603-1610; State Trials, vol. ii.; Archaeologia, xii. 200; R. Winwood’s Memorials; Notes and Queries, vi. ser. vii. 233, viii. 136; The Fawkeses of York in the 16th Century, by R. Davies (1850); Dictionary of National Biography and the authorities cited there. The official account (unreliable in details) is the True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings Against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors (1606), reprinted by Bishop Barlow of Lincoln as The Gunpowder Treason (1679). See also Gunpowder Plot.

The lantern said to be Guy Fawkes’s is in the Bodleian library at Oxford.

The lantern that is said to belong to Guy Fawkes is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

(P. C. Y.)

FÁY, ANDRÁS (1786-1864), Hungarian poet and author, was born on the 30th of May 1786, at Kohány in the county of Zemplin, and was educated for the law at the Protestant college of Sárospatak. His Mesék (Fables), the first edition of which appeared at Vienna in 1820, evinced his powers of satire and invention, and won him the well-merited applause of his countrymen. These fables, which, on account of their originality and simplicity, caused Fáy to be regarded as the Hungarian Aesop, were translated into German by Petz (Raab, 1825), and partly into English by E.D. Butler, Hungarian Poems and Fables (London, 1877). Fáy wrote also numerous poems, the chief of which are to be found in the collections Bokréta (Nosegay) (Pest, 1807), and Fris Bokréta (Fresh Nosegay) (Pest, 1818). He also composed plays and romances and tales. In 1835 Fáy was elected to the Hungarian diet, and was for a time the leader of the opposition party. It is to him that the Pest Savings Bank owes its origin, and he was one of the chief founders of the Hungarian National theatre. He died on the 26th of July 1864. His earlier works were collected at Pest (1843-1844, 8 vols.). The most noteworthy of his later works is a humorous novel entitled Jávor orvos és Bakator Ambrus szolgáia (Jávor the Doctor and his servant Ambrose Bakator), (Pest 1855, 2 vols.).

FÁY, ANDRÁS (1786-1864), Hungarian poet and writer, was born on May 30, 1786, in Kohány, Zemplin County. He studied law at the Protestant college of Sárospatak. His Mesék (Fables), with the first edition published in Vienna in 1820, showcased his talent for satire and creativity, earning him well-deserved praise from his fellow countrymen. These fables, known for their originality and simplicity, led to Fáy being regarded as the Hungarian Aesop. They were translated into German by Petz (Raab, 1825) and partially into English by E.D. Butler, Hungarian Poems and Fables (London, 1877). Fáy also wrote many poems, the most notable of which can be found in the collections Bokréta (Nosegay) (Pest, 1807) and Fris Bokréta (Fresh Nosegay) (Pest, 1818). He composed plays, stories, and novels as well. In 1835, Fáy was elected to the Hungarian diet and led the opposition for a time. The Pest Savings Bank owes its inception to him, and he was one of the primary founders of the Hungarian National Theatre. He passed away on July 26, 1864. His earlier works were compiled in Pest (1843-1844, 8 vols.). One of his most notable later works is a humorous novel titled Jávor orvos és Bakator Ambrus szolgáia (Jávor the Doctor and his servant Ambrose Bakator), (Pest 1855, 2 vols.).


FAYAL (Faial), a Portuguese island in the Atlantic Ocean, forming part of the Azores archipelago. Pop. (1900) 22,262; area, 63 sq. m. Fayal, i.e. “the beech wood,” was so called from the former abundance of the Myrica faya, which its discoverers mistook for beech trees. It is one of the most frequented of the Azores, for it lies directly in the track of vessels crossing the Atlantic, and has an excellent harbour at Horta (q.v.), a town of 6574 inhabitants. Cedros (3278) and Féteira (2002) are the other chief towns. The so-called “Fayal wine,” which was largely exported from the Azores in the 19th century, was really the produce of Pico, a larger island lying to the east. The women of Fayal manufacture fine lace from the agave thread. They also execute carvings in snow-white fig-tree pith, and carry on the finer kinds of basket-making. A small valley, called Flemengos, perpetuates the name of the Flemish settlers, who have left their mark on the physical appearance of the inhabitants. (See Azores.)

FAYAL (Faial), a Portuguese island in the Atlantic Ocean, is part of the Azores archipelago. Population (1900) is 22,262; area is 63 sq. mi. Fayal, meaning “the beech wood,” was named for the once plentiful Myrica faya, which its discoverers mistakenly thought were beech trees. It’s one of the busiest islands in the Azores, as it’s directly in the path of ships crossing the Atlantic and has a great harbor at Horta (q.v.), a town with 6,574 residents. The other main towns are Cedros (3,278) and Féteira (2,002). The so-called “Fayal wine,” which was widely exported from the Azores in the 19th century, actually came from Pico, a larger island to the east. The women of Fayal create fine lace from agave thread, carve items from snow-white fig-tree pith, and excel in intricate basket-making. A small valley called Flemengos honors the Flemish settlers, who have influenced the physical appearance of the local people. (See Azores.)


FAYETTEVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Washington county, Arkansas, U.S.A., about 150 m. N.W. of Little Rock. Pop. (1890) 2942; (1900) 4061; (1910) 4471. It is served by the St Louis & San Francisco railway. The city lies about 1400 ft. above the sea, in the Ozark Mountain region. There is much fine scenery in the neighbourhood, there are mineral springs near by, and the place has become known as a summer resort. Fayetteville is the seat of the University of Arkansas (incorporated 1871; opened 1872; co-educational), which includes the following departments: at Fayetteville, a college of liberal arts, science and engineering, a conservatory of music and art, a preparatory school, and an agricultural college and agricultural experiment station; at Little Rock, a medical school and a law school, and at Pine Bluff, the Branch Normal College for negroes. In 1908 the university had 122 instructors and a total enrolment of 1725 students. In Fayetteville there are a National cemetery with 1236 soldiers’ graves (782 “unknown”) and a Confederate cemetery with 725 graves and a memorial monument. In the vicinity of Fayetteville there are deposits of coal; and the city is in a fine fruit-growing region, apples being the principal crop. Much of the surrounding country is still covered with timber. Among manufactures are lumber, spokes, handles, waggons, lime, evaporated fruit and flour.

Fayetteville, is a city and the county seat of Washington County, Arkansas, USA, located about 150 miles northwest of Little Rock. Population: (1890) 2,942; (1900) 4,061; (1910) 4,471. It is served by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway. The city sits about 1,400 feet above sea level, in the Ozark Mountain region. There are beautiful scenic views in the area, nearby mineral springs, and the location has become popular as a summer resort. Fayetteville is home to the University of Arkansas (incorporated in 1871; opened in 1872; co-educational), which includes the following departments: in Fayetteville, a college of liberal arts, science and engineering, a conservatory of music and art, a preparatory school, and an agricultural college with an agricultural experiment station; in Little Rock, a medical school and a law school; and in Pine Bluff, the Branch Normal College for African Americans. In 1908, the university had 122 instructors and a total enrollment of 1,725 students. Fayetteville also has a national cemetery with 1,236 soldiers’ graves (782 “unknown”) and a Confederate cemetery with 725 graves and a memorial monument. The area around Fayetteville has coal deposits, and the city is in a prime fruit-growing region, with apples as the main crop. Much of the surrounding land is still covered in timber. Local industries include lumber, spokes, handles, wagons, lime, evaporated fruit, and flour.

The first settlement on the site of what is now Fayetteville was made between 1820 and 1825; when Washington county was created in 1828 the place became the county-seat, and it was called Washington Court-house until 1829, when it received its present name. The citizens of Fayetteville were mainly Confederate sympathizers; Fayetteville was raided by Federal cavalry on the 14th of July 1862, and was permanently occupied by Federal troops in the autumn of the same year. Confederate cavalry under Brigadier-General William Lewis Cabell attacked the city on the 18th of April 1863, but were driven off. The town was burned in August 1863, and shelled on the 3rd of November 1864, after the battle of Pea Ridge, by a detachment of General Price’s army. Fayetteville was incorporated as a town in 1841, and in 1859 received a city charter, which was abolished by act of the Legislature in 1867; under a general law of 1869 the town was re-incorporated; and in 1906 it became a city of the first class.

The first settlement on the site of what is now Fayetteville was established between 1820 and 1825. When Washington County was created in 1828, the area became the county seat and was called Washington Court-house until 1829, when it got its current name. The residents of Fayetteville were mostly Confederate supporters. Fayetteville was raided by Federal cavalry on July 14, 1862, and was permanently occupied by Federal troops in the fall of that same year. Confederate cavalry led by Brigadier-General William Lewis Cabell attacked the city on April 18, 1863, but were pushed back. The town was burned in August 1863 and shelled on November 3, 1864, after the Battle of Pea Ridge, by a detachment from General Price’s army. Fayetteville was incorporated as a town in 1841 and received a city charter in 1859, which was revoked by an act of the Legislature in 1867. Under a general law in 1869, the town was re-incorporated, and in 1906 it became a first-class city.

219

219


FAYETTEVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Cumberland county, North Carolina, U.S.A., on the W. bank of the Cape Fear river (at the head of steamboat navigation), about 80 m. N.W. of Wilmington. Pop. (1890) 4222; (1900) 4670, including 2221 negroes; (1910) 7045. It is served by the Atlantic Coast Line railway and the short Raleigh & Southport railway, and by steamboat lines to Wilmington. A scheme was set on foot for the improvement by canalization of the Cape Fear river above Wilmington under a Federal project of 1902, which provided for a channel 8 ft. deep at low water from Wilmington to Fayetteville. Below Wilmington the improvement of the river channel, 270 ft. wide and 16 ft. deep, was completed in 1889, and the project of 1889 provided for an increase in depth to 20 ft. Pine forests surround the town, and oaks and elms of more than a century’s growth shade its streets. Fayetteville has two hospitals (each with a training school for nurses), and is the seat of a state coloured normal school and of the Donaldson military school. Several creeks and the upper Cape Fear river furnish considerable water-power, and in or near Fayetteville are manufactories of cotton goods, silk, lumber, wooden-ware, turpentine, carriages, wagons, ploughs, edge tools and flour. In the earlier half of the 19th century Fayetteville was a great inland market for the western part of the state, for eastern Tennessee and for south-western Virginia. There is a large vineyard in the vicinity; truck-gardening is an important industry in the surrounding country; and Fayetteville is a shipping centre for small fruits and vegetables, especially lettuce, melons and berries. The municipality owns its water-works and its electric-lighting plant. The vicinity was settled between 1729 and 1747 by Highlanders, the settlement called Cross Creek lying within the present limits of Fayetteville. In 1762, by an act of the assembly, a town was laid out including Cross Creek, and was named Campbelltown (or “Campbeltown”); but in 1784, when Lafayette visited the town, its name was changed in his honour to Fayetteville, though the name Cross Creek continued to be used locally for many years. Flora McDonald, the famous Scottish heroine, came to Campbelltown in April 1775 with her husband and children, and here she seems to have lived during the remainder of that year. The general assembly of the state met at Fayetteville in 1787, 1788 and 1789 (Newbern, Tarboro, Hillsboro and Fayetteville all being rivals at this time for the honour of becoming the permanent capital); and in 1789 the Federal constitution was here ratified for North Carolina. In 1831 most of the town was burned. At the outbreak of the Civil War, the state authorities seized the United States Arsenal at Fayetteville, which contained 37,000 muskets and a complete equipment for a battery of light artillery. In March 1865 General W.T. Sherman and his army took possession of the town, destroyed the arsenal, and did considerable damage to property. Fayetteville was chartered as a city in 1893. A serious flood occurred in August 1908.

Fayetteville, is a city and the county seat of Cumberland County, North Carolina, U.S.A., located on the west bank of the Cape Fear River (at the starting point for steamboat navigation), about 80 miles northwest of Wilmington. Population: (1890) 4,222; (1900) 4,670, including 2,221 African Americans; (1910) 7,045. It is served by the Atlantic Coast Line Railway and the short Raleigh & Southport Railway, along with steamboat lines to Wilmington. A plan was initiated to improve the Cape Fear River by creating a canal above Wilmington under a Federal project from 1902, which aimed to establish an 8-foot deep channel at low water from Wilmington to Fayetteville. Below Wilmington, the river channel was improved to be 270 feet wide and 16 feet deep, completed in 1889, and the 1889 project included plans to deepen it to 20 feet. Pine forests surround the town, and oaks and elms that are over a century old provide shade on its streets. Fayetteville has two hospitals (each with a training school for nurses), and is home to a state normal school for African Americans and the Donaldson Military School. Several creeks and the upper Cape Fear River provide significant water power, and there are factories in or near Fayetteville producing cotton goods, silk, lumber, wooden products, turpentine, carriages, wagons, plows, edge tools, and flour. In the first half of the 19th century, Fayetteville was a major inland market for the western part of the state, eastern Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia. There’s a large vineyard nearby; truck gardening is an important industry in the surrounding area; and Fayetteville serves as a shipping center for small fruits and vegetables, particularly lettuce, melons, and berries. The city owns its own waterworks and electric lighting plant. The area was settled between 1729 and 1747 by Highlanders, with a settlement called Cross Creek within the current boundaries of Fayetteville. In 1762, an act of the assembly laid out a town including Cross Creek, naming it Campbelltown (or “Campbeltown”); however, in 1784, when Lafayette visited the town, its name was changed to Fayetteville in his honor, although the name Cross Creek continued to be used locally for many years. Flora McDonald, the famous Scottish heroine, arrived in Campbelltown in April 1775 with her husband and children, and she appears to have lived there for the rest of that year. The state general assembly met in Fayetteville in 1787, 1788, and 1789 (with New Bern, Tarboro, Hillsboro, and Fayetteville competing at the time to become the permanent capital); and in 1789, the Federal Constitution was ratified here for North Carolina. A significant portion of the town was destroyed by fire in 1831. At the start of the Civil War, state authorities took control of the United States Arsenal in Fayetteville, which housed 37,000 muskets and a complete set of equipment for a light artillery battery. In March 1865, General W.T. Sherman and his army occupied the town, destroyed the arsenal, and caused considerable damage to property. Fayetteville was incorporated as a city in 1893. A serious flood took place in August 1908.


FAYRER, SIR JOSEPH, Bart. (1824-1907), English physician, was born at Plymouth on the 6th of December 1824. After studying medicine at Charing Cross hospital, London, he was in 1847 appointed medical officer of H.M.S. “Victory,” and soon afterwards accompanied the 3rd Lord Mount-Edgcumbe on a tour through Europe, in the course of which he saw fighting at Palmero and Rome. Appointed an assistant surgeon in Bengal in 1850, he went through the Burmese campaign of 1852 and was political assistant and Residency surgeon at Lucknow during the Mutiny. From 1859 to 1872 he was professor of surgery at the Medical College of Calcutta, and when the prince of Wales made his tour in India he was appointed to accompany him as physician. Returning from India, he acted as president of the Medical Board of the India office from 1874 to 1895, and in 1896 he was created a baronet. Sir Joseph Fayrer, who became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1877, wrote much on subjects connected with the practice of medicine in India, and was especially known for his studies on the poisonous snakes of that country and on the physiological effects produced by their virus (Thanatophidia of India, 1872). In 1900 appeared his Recollections of my Life. He died at Falmouth on the 21st of May 1907.

FAYRER, SIR JOSEPH, Bart. (1824-1907), English doctor, was born in Plymouth on December 6, 1824. After studying medicine at Charing Cross Hospital in London, he was appointed the medical officer of H.M.S. “Victory” in 1847 and soon afterwards went on a European tour with the 3rd Lord Mount-Edgcumbe, where he witnessed fighting in Palermo and Rome. In 1850, he was appointed as an assistant surgeon in Bengal, where he participated in the Burmese campaign of 1852 and served as political assistant and Residency surgeon at Lucknow during the Mutiny. From 1859 to 1872, he was a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Calcutta, and when the Prince of Wales toured India, he was appointed to accompany him as his physician. After returning from India, he served as president of the Medical Board of the India Office from 1874 to 1895, and in 1896 he was made a baronet. Sir Joseph Fayrer, who became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1877, wrote extensively on topics related to medical practice in India, particularly studying the poisonous snakes of the region and the physiological effects of their venom (Thanatophidia of India, 1872). His Recollections of my Life was published in 1900. He passed away in Falmouth on May 21, 1907.


FAYUM, a mudiria (province) of Upper Egypt, having an area of 490 sq. m. and a population (1907) of 441,583. The capital, Medinet-el-Fayum, is 81 m. S.S.W. of Cairo by rail. The Fayum proper is an oasis in the Libyan Desert, its eastern border being about 15 m. west of the Nile. It is connected with that river by the Bahr Yusuf, which reaches the oasis through a gap in the hills separating the province from the Nile Valley. South-west of the Fayum, and forming part of the mudiria, is the Gharak depression. Another depression, entirely barren, the Wadi Rayan, covering 280 sq. m., lies west of the Gharak. The whole region is below sea-level, and save for the gap mentioned is encircled by the Libyan hills. The lowest part of the province, the north-west end, is occupied by the Birket el Kerun, or Lake of the Horns, whose surface level is 140 ft. below that of the sea. The lake covers about 78 sq. m.

FAYUM, is a province in Upper Egypt, covering an area of 490 square miles and having a population of 441,583 as of 1907. The capital, Medinet-el-Fayum, is located 81 miles S.S.W. of Cairo by rail. The Fayum area is an oasis in the Libyan Desert, with its eastern border about 15 miles west of the Nile. It connects to the Nile through the Bahr Yusuf, which flows into the oasis through a pass in the hills that separate the province from the Nile Valley. To the southwest of the Fayum, part of the province, is the Gharak depression. Another completely barren depression, the Wadi Rayan, spans 280 square miles and lies to the west of Gharak. The entire region is below sea level and is surrounded by the Libyan hills except for the mentioned gap. The lowest area of the province, at the northwestern end, is occupied by the Birket el Kerun, or Lake of the Horns, which has a surface level 140 feet below sea level. The lake covers about 78 square miles.

Differing from the typical oasis, whose fertility depends on water obtained from springs, the cultivated land in the Fayum is formed of Nile mud brought down by the Bahr Yusuf. From this channel, 15 m. in length from Lahun, at the entrance of the gap in the hills, to Medina, several canals branch off and by these the province is irrigated, the drainage water flowing into the Birket el Kerun. Over 400 sq. m. of the Fayum is cultivated, the chief crops being cereals and cotton. The completion of the Assuan dam by ensuring a fuller supply of water enabled 20,000 acres of land, previously unirrigated and untaxed, to be brought under cultivation in the three years 1903-1905. Three crops are obtained in twenty months. The province is noted for its figs and grapes, the figs being of exceptionally good quality. Olives are also cultivated. Rose trees are very numerous and most of the attar of roses of Egypt is manufactured in the province. The Fayum also possesses an excellent breed of sheep. Lake Kerun abounds in fish, notably the bulti (Nile carp), of which considerable quantities are sent to Cairo.

Unlike a typical oasis, which relies on spring water for its fertility, the farmed land in the Fayum is made up of Nile mud deposited by the Bahr Yusuf. From this channel, which is 15 meters long from Lahun, at the entrance of the hills, to Medina, several canals branch off to irrigate the province, with the drainage water flowing into the Birket el Kerun. Over 400 square miles of the Fayum are cultivated, with the main crops being grains and cotton. The completion of the Aswan Dam, which ensured a more consistent supply of water, allowed for 20,000 acres of previously unirrigated and untaxed land to be cultivated between 1903 and 1905. Three crops can be harvested within twenty months. The province is famous for its figs and grapes, with the figs being of particularly high quality. Olives are also grown. There are many rose trees, and most of Egypt's rose oil is produced in this province. The Fayum is known for a superb breed of sheep. Lake Kerun is filled with fish, especially the bulti (Nile carp), with large quantities being sent to Cairo.

Medinet el-Fayum (or Medina), the capital of the province, is a great agricultural centre, with a population which increased from 26,000 in 1882 to 37,320 in 1907, and has several large bazaars, mosques, baths and a much-frequented weekly market. The Bahr Yusuf runs through the town, its banks lined with houses. There are two bridges over the stream: one of three arches, which carries the main street and bazaar, and one of two arches over which is built the Kait Bey mosque. Mounds north of the town mark the site of Arsinoë, earlier Crocodilopolis, where was worshipped the sacred crocodile kept in the Lake of Moeris. Besides Medina there are several other towns in the province, among them Senuris and Tomia to the north of Medina and Senaru and Abuksa on the road to the lake, all served by railways. There are also, especially in the neighbourhood of the lake, many ruins of ancient villages and cities. The Fayum is the site of the Lake of Moeris (q.v.) of the ancient Egyptians—a lake of which Birket el Kerun is the shrunken remnant.

Medinet el-Fayum (or Medina), the capital of the province, is a major agricultural center, with a population that grew from 26,000 in 1882 to 37,320 in 1907. It features several large bazaars, mosques, baths, and a popular weekly market. The Bahr Yusuf runs through the town, with houses lining its banks. There are two bridges over the stream: one with three arches that carries the main street and bazaar, and another with two arches that supports the Kait Bey mosque. Mounds north of the town mark the site of Arsinoë, formerly known as Crocodilopolis, where the sacred crocodile was worshipped and kept in the Lake of Moeris. In addition to Medina, there are several other towns in the province, including Senuris and Tomia to the north, and Senaru and Abuksa on the road to the lake, all accessible by rail. There are also many ruins of ancient villages and cities, particularly near the lake. The Fayum is home to the Lake of Moeris (q.v.) known to the ancient Egyptians—a lake of which Birket el Kerun is the diminished remnant.

See The Fayum and Lake Moeris, by Major (Sir) R.H. Brown, R.E. (London, 1892), a valuable contribution as to the condition of the province at that date, its connexion with Lake Moeris and its possibilities in the future; The Assuân Reservoir and Lake Moeris (London, 1904), by Sir William Willcocks—with text in English, French and Arabic—a consideration of irrigation possibilities; The Topography and Geology of the Fayum Province of Egypt, by H.J.L. Beadnell (Cairo, 1905).

See The Fayum and Lake Moeris, by Major (Sir) R.H. Brown, R.E. (London, 1892), a valuable contribution regarding the status of the province at that time, its connection with Lake Moeris, and its potential for the future; The Assuân Reservoir and Lake Moeris (London, 1904), by Sir William Willcocks—with text in English, French, and Arabic—a discussion of irrigation opportunities; The Topography and Geology of the Fayum Province of Egypt, by H.J.L. Beadnell (Cairo, 1905).


FAZOGLI, or Fazokl, a district of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, cut by 11° N. and bounded E. and S. by Abyssinia. It forms part of the foot-hills of the Abyssinian plateau and is traversed by the Blue Nile and its affluent the Tumat. Immediately south is the auriferous Beni Shangul country. The chief gold-washings lie (in Abyssinian territory) on the west slope of the hills draining to the White Nile. Here is the steep Jebel-Dul, which appears to contain rich gold-bearing reefs, as gold is found in all the ravines on its flanks. The auriferous region extends into Sudanese territory, gold dust being found in all the khors coming from Jebel Faronge on the S.E. frontier. The inhabitants of Fazogli, who are governed, under the Sudan administration, by their own meks or kings, are Berta and other Shangalla tribes with an admixture of Funj blood, the country having been conquered by the Funj rulers of Sennar at the close of the 15th 220 century. There are also Arab settlements. Fazogli, the residence of the principal mek, is a straggling town built some 800 yds. from the left bank of the Blue Nile near the Tumat confluence, 434 m. by river above Khartum and opposite Famaka, the headquarters of the Egyptians in this region between 1839 and 1883. Above Famaka and near the Abyssinian frontier is the prosperous town of Kiri, while Abu Shaneina on the Nile below Fazogli is the spot where the trade route from Beni Shangul strikes the river. The chief imports from Abyssinia are coffee, cattle, transport animals and gold. Durra and tobacco are the principal crops. The local currency includes rings of gold, specially made as a circulating medium.

FAZOGLI, or Fazokl, is a district in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, located at 11° N and bordered to the east and south by Abyssinia. It is part of the foothills of the Abyssinian plateau and is crossed by the Blue Nile and its tributary, the Tumat. Just to the south is the gold-bearing Beni Shangul region. The main gold-washing sites are on the western slopes of the hills that drain into the White Nile, located in Abyssinian territory. This area features the steep Jebel-Dul, which seems to have rich gold deposits, as gold is found in all the ravines on its sides. The gold-bearing area stretches into Sudan, with gold dust found in all the khors flowing from Jebel Faronge on the southeastern border. The people of Fazogli, who are governed under the Sudan administration by their own leaders or kings, are primarily from the Berta and other Shangalla tribes, mixed with some Funj ancestry, as the Funj rulers of Sennar conquered the region at the end of the 15th century. There are also some Arab settlements. Fazogli, which is home to the main mek, is a sprawling town located about 800 yards from the left bank of the Blue Nile near where it meets the Tumat, 434 meters by river from Khartum and facing Famaka, the Egyptian headquarters in this area from 1839 to 1883. Just above Famaka and close to the Abyssinian border is the thriving town of Kiri, while Abu Shaneina, located on the Nile below Fazogli, is where the trade route from Beni Shangul intersects with the river. The main imports from Abyssinia include coffee, cattle, transport animals, and gold. The primary crops are durra and tobacco. The local currency features gold rings that are specifically made for use as money.


FEA, CARLO (1753-1836), Italian archaeologist, was born at Pigna in Piedmont on the 2nd of February 1753, and studied law in Rome. He received the degree of doctor of laws from the university of La Sapienza, but archaeology gradually absorbed his attention, and with the view of obtaining better opportunities for his researches in 1798 he took orders. For political reasons he was obliged to take refuge in Florence; on his return in 1799 he was imprisoned by the Neapolitans, at that time in occupation of Rome, as a Jacobin, but shortly afterwards liberated and appointed Commissario delle Antichità and librarian to Prince Chigi. He died at Rome on the 18th of March 1836.

FEA, CARLO (1753-1836), an Italian archaeologist, was born in Pigna, Piedmont, on February 2, 1753, and studied law in Rome. He earned a doctor of laws degree from the University of La Sapienza, but gradually became more focused on archaeology. In 1798, seeking better research opportunities, he took holy orders. Due to political issues, he had to seek refuge in Florence; upon his return in 1799, he was imprisoned by the Neapolitans, who were occupying Rome, as a Jacobin. However, he was soon released and appointed Commissioner of Antiquities and librarian to Prince Chigi. He passed away in Rome on March 18, 1836.

Fea revised, with notes, an Italian translation of J.J. Winckelmann’s Geschichte der Kunst, and also added notes to some of G.L. Bianconi’s works. Among his original writings the principal are:—Miscellanea filologica, critica, e antiquaria; L’Integrità del Panteone rivendicata a M. Agrippa; Frammenti di fasti consolari; Iscrizioni di monumenti pubblichi; and Descrizione di Roma.

Fea updated and added notes to an Italian translation of J.J. Winckelmann’s History of Art, and also contributed notes to some of G.L. Bianconi’s works. His main original writings include: Miscellanea filologica, critica, e antiquaria; L’Integrità del Panteone rivendicata a M. Agrippa; Frammenti di fasti consolari; Iscrizioni di monumenti pubblichi; and Descrizione di Roma.


FEARNE, CHARLES (1742-1794), English jurist, son of Charles Fearne, judge-advocate of the admiralty, was born in London in 1742, and was educated at Westminster school. He adopted the legal profession, but, though well fitted by his talents to succeed as a barrister, he neglected his profession and devoted most of his attention and his patrimony to the prosecution of scientific experiments, with the vain hope of achieving discoveries which would reward him for his pains and expense. He died in 1794, leaving his widow and family in necessitous circumstances. His Essay on the Learning of Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises, the work which has made his reputation as a legal authority, and which has passed through numerous editions, was called forth by a decision of Lord Mansfield in the case of Perrin v. Blake, and had the effect of reversing that decision.

FEARNE, CHARLES (1742-1794), English jurist, son of Charles Fearne, judge-advocate of the admiralty, was born in London in 1742 and educated at Westminster School. He pursued a career in law, but despite being well-suited to succeed as a barrister, he neglected his profession and devoted most of his focus and inheritance to scientific experiments, hoping to make discoveries that would compensate him for his efforts and expenses. He passed away in 1794, leaving his widow and family in difficult circumstances. His Essay on the Learning of Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises, the work that established his reputation as a legal expert and has gone through multiple editions, was prompted by a decision from Lord Mansfield in the case of Perrin v. Blake, and it ultimately had the effect of overturning that decision.

A volume entitled Fearne’s Posthumous Works was published by subscription in 1797 for the benefit of his widow.

A book called Fearne’s Posthumous Works was published by subscription in 1797 to support his widow.


FEASTS AND FESTIVALS. A festival or feast1 is a day or series of days specially and publicly set apart for religious observances. Whether its occurrence be casual or periodic, whether its ritual be grave or gay, carnal as the orgies of Baal and Astarte, or spiritual as the worship of a Puritan Sabbath, it is to be regarded as a festival or “holy day” as long as it is professedly held in the name of religion.

Feasts and festivals. A festival or feast1 is a day or series of days specifically and publicly designated for religious observances. Whether it happens occasionally or regularly, whether its rituals are serious or joyful, indulgent like the orgies of Baal and Astarte, or spiritual like the worship observed on a Puritan Sabbath, it is considered a festival or “holy day” as long as it is declared to be held in the name of religion.

To trace the festivals of the world through all their variations would be to trace the entire history of human religion and human civilization. Where no religion is, there can of course be no feasts; and without civilization any attempt at festival-keeping must necessarily be fitful and comparatively futile. But as religion develops, festivals develop with it, and assume their distinctive character; and an advancing civilization, at least in its earlier stages, will generally be found to increase their number, enrich their ritual, fix more precisely the time and order of their recurrence, and widen the area of their observance.

To explore the festivals around the world in all their forms would mean exploring the complete history of human religion and civilization. Where there is no religion, there can’t be any celebrations; and without civilization, any attempts at holding festivals will inevitably be sporadic and mostly ineffective. However, as religion evolves, festivals evolve alongside it, taking on their unique characteristics; and in the early stages of advancing civilization, you will often find that the number of festivals increases, their rituals become more elaborate, the timing and order of their occurrence are established more precisely, and the scope of their observance expands.

Some uncivilized tribes, such as the Juángs of Bengal, the Fuegians and the Andamanese, have been described as having no word for God, no idea of a future state, and consequently no religious ceremonies of any kind whatever. But such cases, doubtful at the best, are confessedly exceptional. In the vast majority of instances observed and recorded, the religiosity of the savage is conspicuous. Even when incapable of higher manifestations, it can at least take the form of reverence for the dead; the grave-heap can become an altar on which offerings of food for the departed may be placed, and where in acts of public and private worship the gifts of survivors may be accompanied with praises and with prayers. That the custom of ghost-propitiation by some sort of sacrifice is even now very widely diffused among the lower races at least, and that there are also many curious “survivals” of such a habit to be traced among highly civilized modern nations, has been abundantly shown of late by numerous collectors of folk-lore and students of sociology; and indications of the same phenomena can be readily pointed out in the Rig-Veda, the Zend-Avesta and the Pentateuch, as well as in the known usages of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.2 In many cases the ceremonial observed is of the simplest; but it ever tends to become more elaborate; and above all it calls for repetition, and repetition, too, at regular intervals. Whenever this last demand has made itself felt, a calendar begins to take shape. The simplest calendar is obviously the lunar. “The Naga tribes of Assam celebrate their funeral feasts month by month, laying food and drink on the graves of the departed.” But it soon comes to be combined with the solar. Thus the Karens, “while habitually making oblations, have also annual feasts for the dead, at which they ask the spirits to eat and drink.” The natives of the Mexican valley in November lay animals, edibles and flowers on the graves of their dead relatives and friends. The common people in China have a similar custom on the arrival of the winter solstice. The ancient Peruvians had the custom of periodically assembling the embalmed bodies of their dead emperors in the great square of the capital to be feasted in company with the people. The Athenians had their annual Νεκύσια or Νεμέσεια and the Romans their Feralia and Lemuralia. The Egyptians observed their three “festivals of the seasons,” twelve “festivals of the month,” and twelve “festivals of the half month,” in honour of their dead. The Parsees, too, were required to render their afringans (blessings which were to be recited over a meal to which an angel or the spirit of a deceased person was invited) at each of the six seasons of the year, and also on certain other days.3

Some uncivilized tribes, like the Juángs of Bengal, the Fuegians, and the Andamanese, have been noted for not having a word for God, no concept of an afterlife, and therefore no religious ceremonies whatsoever. However, these examples, albeit uncertain, are clearly exceptions. In the vast majority of cases that have been observed and documented, the spirituality of these so-called savages is evident. Even when they cannot express more sophisticated beliefs, they often show respect for the deceased; grave sites can turn into altars where offerings of food for the departed may be placed, and public and private acts of worship can include praises and prayers alongside the gifts of those still living. The practice of appeasing spirits with some form of sacrifice is still widespread among lower races at least, and many interesting “survivals” of this behavior can be found in highly civilized modern societies, as demonstrated by various collectors of folklore and sociology researchers; similar signs can be easily identified in the Rig-Veda, the Zend-Avesta, and the Pentateuch, as well as in the known customs of ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.2 In many cases, the ceremonies practiced are quite simple; however, they tend to grow in complexity over time and, above all, they require repetition at regular intervals. Once this need is recognized, a calendar begins to form. The most basic calendar is obviously the lunar one. “The Naga tribes of Assam celebrate their funeral feasts monthly, leaving food and drink on the graves of the departed.” But it soon becomes combined with the solar calendar. For instance, the Karens “frequently make offerings, but they also hold annual feasts for the dead, at which they invite the spirits to eat and drink.” The people in the Mexican valley leave animals, food, and flowers on the graves of their deceased relatives and friends every November. In China, common people observe a similar tradition at the winter solstice. The ancient Peruvians would periodically gather the embalmed bodies of their deceased emperors in the main square of the capital to be feasted on alongside the people. The Athenians celebrated their annual Deadly or Νέμεσις, and the Romans held their Feralia and Lemuralia. The Egyptians observed three “festivals of the seasons,” twelve “festivals of the month,” and twelve “festivals of the half month” in honor of their dead. The Parsees were also expected to offer their afringans (blessings recited over a meal to which an angel or the spirit of a deceased person was invited) during each of the six seasons of the year, as well as on specific other days.3

In the majority of recorded instances, the religious feeling of the savage has been found to express itself in other forms besides that of reverence towards the dead. The oldest literatures of the world, at all events, whether Aryan or Semitic, embody a religion of a much higher type than ancestor worship. The hymns of the Rig-Veda, for example, while not without traces of the other, yet indicate chiefly a worship of the powers of nature, connected with the regular recurrence of the seasons. Thus in iv. 57 we have a hymn designed for use at the commencement of the ploughing time;4 and in the Aitareya-Brâhmana, the earliest treatise on Hindu ceremonial, we already find a complete series of sattras or sacrificial sessions exactly following the course of the solar year. They are divided into two distinct sections, each consisting of six months of thirty days each. The sacrifices are allowed to commence only at certain lucky constellations and in certain months. So, for instance, as a rule, no great sacrifice can commence during the sun’s southern progress. The great sacrifices generally take place in spring, in the months of April and May.5 In the Parsee Scriptures6 the year is divided into six seasons or gahanbârs of two months each, concluding with February, the season at which “great expiatory sacrifices were offered for the growth of the whole creation in the last two months of the year.” We have no means of knowing precisely what were the arrangements of the Phoenician calendar, but it 221 is generally admitted that the worship was solar, the principal festivals taking place in spring and in autumn. Among the most characteristic celebrations of the Egyptians were those which took place at the ἀφανισμός or disappearance of Osiris in October or November, at the search for his remains, and their discovery about the winter solstice, and at the date of his supposed entrance into the moon at the beginning of spring. The Phrygian festivals were also arranged on the theory that the deity was asleep during the winter and awake during the summer; in the autumn they celebrated his retiring to rest, and in spring with mirth and revelry they roused him from his slumbers.7 The seasonal character of the Teutonic Ostern, the Celtic Beltein and the Scandinavian Yule is obvious. Nor was the habit of observing such festivals peculiar to the Aryan or the Semitic race. The Mexicans, who were remarkable for the perfection of their calendar, in addition to this had an elaborate system of movable and immovable feasts distributed over the entire year; the principal festivals, however, in honour of their chief gods, Tezcatlipoca, Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc, were held in May, June and December. Still more plainly connected with the revolutions of the seasons was the public worship of the ancient Peruvians, who, besides the ordinary feast at each new moon, observed four solar festivals annually. Of these the most important was the Yntip-Raymi (Sun-feast), which, preceded by a three days’ fast, began with the summer solstice, and lasted for nine days. Its ceremonies have been often described. A similar but less important festival was held at the winter solstice. The Cusqui-Raymi, held after seedtime, as the maize began to appear, was celebrated with sacrifices and banquets, music and dancing. A fourth great festival, called Citua, held on the first new moon after the autumnal equinox, was preceded by a strict fast and special observances intended for purposes of purification and expiation, after which the festivities lasted until the moon entered her second quarter.

In most recorded cases, the spiritual beliefs of primitive people have been found to express themselves in ways other than just honoring the dead. The earliest literatures of the world, whether Aryan or Semitic, reflect a religion of a higher order than ancestor worship. The hymns of the Rig-Veda, for instance, although showing some signs of ancestor worship, primarily focus on the worship of nature's forces, connected to the regular change of seasons. For example, in iv. 57 there’s a hymn meant for the beginning of the plowing season; and in the Aitareya-Brâhmana, the oldest treatise on Hindu rituals, there's a complete series of sattras, or sacrificial sessions, that follow the solar year's pattern. They are split into two distinct parts, each lasting six months with thirty days. Sacrifices can only begin at certain fortunate constellations and in specific months. For instance, typically, no major sacrifice can start during the sun’s southward journey. Major sacrifices usually happen in spring, specifically in April and May. In the Parsee Scriptures, the year is divided into six seasons or gahanbârs, each lasting two months, culminating in February, when "great expiatory sacrifices were offered for the growth of all creation in the last two months of the year." We don’t exactly know how the Phoenician calendar was structured, but it’s generally agreed that their worship was solar, with main festivals occurring in spring and autumn. Some of the most distinctive Egyptian celebrations revolved around the disappearance of Osiris in October or November, the search for his body, and its discovery around the winter solstice, along with the date believed to be his entry into the moon at the start of spring. The Phrygian festivals were also organized with the belief that the deity slept during winter and woke up in summer; in autumn they celebrated his retreat to rest, and in spring, with joy and festivities, they roused him from his slumber. The seasonal nature of the Teutonic Ostern, the Celtic Beltein, and the Scandinavian Yule is clear. The practice of holding such festivals wasn’t only found among the Aryan or Semitic peoples. The Mexicans, known for their sophisticated calendar, also had a detailed system of movable and immovable festivals spread throughout the year; however, their main celebrations honoring their chief gods, Tezcatlipoca, Huitzilopochtli, and Tlaloc, took place in May, June, and December. Even more closely tied to the changing seasons was the public worship of the ancient Peruvians, who, besides the monthly new moon feast, celebrated four solar festivals each year. The most significant was the Yntip-Raymi (Sun Feast), which, starting with a three-day fast, began with the summer solstice and lasted nine days. Its rituals have often been described. A similar but less notable festival occurred at the winter solstice. The Cusqui-Raymi celebrated after planting, as the maize began to grow, included sacrifices and banquets, music, and dancing. A fourth major festival, called Citua, took place after the first new moon following the autumnal equinox, preceded by a strict fast and specific rituals for purification and atonement, after which the festivities continued until the moon entered its second quarter.

Greek Festivals.—Perhaps the annual Attic festival in honour of Erechtheus alluded to in the Iliad (ii. 550) ought to be regarded as an instance of ancestor-worship; but the seasonal character of the ἑορτή or new-moon feast in Od. xx. 156, and of the θαλύσια or harvest-festival in Il. ix. 533, is generally acknowledged. The older Homeric poems, however, give no such express indications of a fully-developed system of festivals as are to be met with in the so-called “Homeric” hymns, in the Works and Days of Hesiod, in the pages of Herodotus, and so abundantly in most authors of the subsequent period; and it is manifest that the calendar of Homer or even of Herodotus must have been a much simpler matter than that of the Tarentines, for example, came to be, of whom we are told by Strabo that their holidays were in excess of their working days. Each demos of ancient Greece during the historical period had its own local festivals (ἑορταὶ δημοτικαί), often largely attended and splendidly solemnized, the usages of which, though essentially alike, differed very considerably in details. These details have in many cases been wholly lost, and in others have reached us only in a very fragmentary state. But with regard to the Athenian calendar, the most interesting of all, our means of information are fortunately very copious. It included some 50 or 60 days on which all business, and especially the administration of justice, was by order of the magistrates suspended. Among these ἱερομηνίαι were included—in Gamelion (January), the Lenaea or festival of vats in honour of Dionysus; in Anthesterion (February), the Anthesteria, also in honour of Dionysus, lasting three days (Pithoigia, Choes and Chytri); the Diasia in honour of Zeus, and the lesser Eleusinia; in Elaphebolion (March), the Pandia (? of Zeus), the Elaphebolia of Artemis, and the greater Dionysia; in Munychion, the Munychia of Artemis as the moon goddess (Μουνυχία) and the Delphinia of Apollo; in Thargelion (May), the Thargelia of Apollo and the Plynteria and Callynteria of Athena; in Scirophorion (June), the Diipolia of Zeus and the Scirophoria of Athena; in Hekatombaion, hecatombs were offered to Apollo the summer-god, and the Cronia of Cronus and the Panathenaea of Athena were held; in Metageitnion, the Metageitnia of Apollo; in Boëdromion, the Boëdromia of Apollo the helper,8 the Nekusia or Nemeseia (the festival of the dead), and the greater Eleusinia; in Pyanepsion, the Pyanepsia of Apollo, the Oschophoria of Dionysus (probably), the Chalkeia or Athenaea of Athena, the Thesmophoria of Demeter, and the Apaturia; in Maimacterion, the Maimacteria of Zeus; and in Poseideon (December), the lesser Dionysia.

Greek Festivals.—The yearly Attic festival honoring Erechtheus mentioned in the Iliad (ii. 550) might be seen as a form of ancestor-worship; however, the seasonal nature of the festival or new-moon feast in Od. xx. 156, and the θαλύσια or harvest festival in Il. ix. 533, are generally recognized. The earlier Homeric poems do not show clear signs of a well-established system of festivals like that found in the so-called “Homeric” hymns, in Hesiod's Works and Days, in the writings of Herodotus, and extensively in most writers from later times; it's clear that the festival calendar of Homer or even of Herodotus must have been much simpler than that of the Tarentines, for example, whom Strabo tells us had more holidays than working days. Each community in ancient Greece during the historical period had its own local festivals (folk festivals), which were often well-attended and beautifully celebrated; while the core customs were quite similar, the specifics varied greatly. Many of these details have been completely lost, and others have survived only in fragmented forms. Thankfully, concerning the Athenian calendar, we have a wealth of information. It included about 50 or 60 days when all activities, especially the administration of justice, were suspended by order of the magistrates. Among these sacred months were—in Gamelion (January), the Lenaea or festival of vats in honor of Dionysus; in Anthesterion (February), the Anthesteria, also in honor of Dionysus, lasting three days (Pithoigia, Choes, and Chytri); the Diasia in honor of Zeus, and the lesser Eleusinia; in Elaphebolion (March), the Pandia (? of Zeus), the Elaphebolia of Artemis, and the greater Dionysia; in Munychion, the Munychia of Artemis as the moon goddess (Μουνυχία) and the Delphinia of Apollo; in Thargelion (May), the Thargelia of Apollo and the Plynteria and Callynteria of Athena; in Scirophorion (June), the Diipolia of Zeus and the Scirophoria of Athena; in Hekatombaion, hecatombs were offered to Apollo the summer-god, and the Cronia of Cronus and the Panathenaea of Athena were held; in Metageitnion, the Metageitnia of Apollo; in Boëdromion, the Boëdromia of Apollo the helper, the Nekusia or Nemeseia (the festival of the dead), and the greater Eleusinia; in Pyanepsion, the Pyanepsia of Apollo, the Oschophoria of Dionysus (probably), the Chalkeia or Athenaea of Athena, the Thesmophoria of Demeter, and the Apaturia; in Maimacterion, the Maimacteria of Zeus; and in Poseideon (December), the lesser Dionysia.

Of these some are commemorative of historical events, and one at least may perhaps be regarded as a relic of ancestor-worship; but the great majority are nature-festivals, associating themselves in the manner that has already been indicated with the phenomena of the seasons, the equinoxes and the solstices.9 In addition to their numerous public festivals, the Greeks held various family celebrations, also called ἑορταί, in connexion with weddings, births and similar domestic occurrences. For the great national πανηγύρεις—Olympian, Pythian, Nemean and Isthmian—see the article Games, Classical.

Some of these events celebrate historical moments, and at least one might be seen as a remnant of ancestor-worship; however, the vast majority are nature festivals, linking themselves with the seasonal changes, equinoxes, and solstices. 9 In addition to their many public festivals, the Greeks also held various family celebrations, known as festivals, related to weddings, births, and other home events. For the major national festivals—Olympian, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian—see the article Games, Classical.

Roman Festivals.—For the purpose of holding comitia and administering justice, the days of the Roman year were regarded as being either dies fasti or dies nefasti—the dies fasti being the days on which it was lawful for the praetors to administer justice in the public courts, while on the dies nefasti neither courts of justice nor meetings of comitia were allowed to be held. Some days were fasti during one portion and nefasti during another; these were called dies intercisi. For the purposes of religion a different division of the year was made; the days were treated as festi or as profesti,—the former being consecrated to acts of public worship, such as sacrifices, banquets and games, while the latter (whether fasti or nefasti) were not specially claimed for religious purposes. The dies festi or feriae publicae10 were either stativae, conceptivae or imperativae. The stativae were such as were observed regularly, each on a definite day; the conceptivae were observed annually on days fixed by the authorities for the time being; the imperativae were publicly appointed as occasion called for them. In the Augustan age the feriae stativae were very numerous, as may be seen from what we possess of the Fasti of Ovid. The number was somewhat fluctuating. Festivals frequently fell into desuetude or were revived, were increased or diminished, were shortened or prolonged at the will of the emperor, or under the caprice of the popular taste. Thus Augustus restored the Compitalia and Lupercalia; while Marcus Antoninus in his turn found it expedient to diminish the number of holidays.

Roman Festivals.—In order to hold comitia and administer justice, the days of the Roman year were classified as either dies fasti or dies nefasti. The dies fasti were the days when it was legal for the praetors to administer justice in public courts, whereas on the dies nefasti, neither courts of justice nor meetings of comitia could take place. Some days were fasti at one time and nefasti at another; these were known as dies intercisi. For religious purposes, the year was divided differently; days were categorized as festi or profesti. The festi were dedicated to public worship activities, like sacrifices, banquets, and games, while the profesti (whether fasti or nefasti) were not specifically reserved for religious activities. The dies festi or feriae publicae10 were either stativae, conceptivae, or imperativae. The stativae were observed regularly on set days; the conceptivae occurred annually on days determined by the authorities; the imperativae were organized as needed. During the Augustan period, the feriae stativae were quite numerous, as shown in what we have of Ovid's Fasti. The number was somewhat variable. Festivals often fell out of use or were revived, increased or decreased, and could be shortened or extended at the emperor’s discretion or based on the preferences of the people. For example, Augustus revived the Compitalia and Lupercalia, while Marcus Antoninus found it necessary to reduce the number of holidays.

The following is an enumeration of the stated festivals as given by Ovid and contemporary writers. The first day of January was observed somewhat as is the modern New Year’s day: clients sent presents to their patrons, slaves to their masters, friends and relatives to one another. On the 9th the Agonalia were held, apparently in honour of Janus. On the 11th the Carmentalia were kept as a half-holiday, but principally by women; so also on the 15th. On the 13th of February were the Faunalia, on the 15th the Lupercalia, on the 17th the Quirinalia, on the 18th the Feralia, on the 23rd (at one time the last day of the Roman year) the Terminalia, on the 24th the Regifugium or Fugalia, and on the 27th the Equiria (of Mars). On the 1st of March were the Matronalia, on the 14th a repetition of the Equiria, on the 15th the festival of Anna Perenna, on the 17th the Liberalia or Agonalia, and from the 19th to the 23rd the Quinquatria (of Minerva). On the 4th of April were the Megalesia (of Cybele), on the 12th the Cerealia, on the 21st the Palilia, on the 23rd the Vinalia, on the 25th the Robigalia, and on the 28th the Floralia. The 1st of May was the festival of the Lares Praestites; on the 9th, 11th and 13th the Lemuria were celebrated; on the 12th the Ludi Martiales, and on the 15th those of Mercury. June 5 was sacred to Semo Sancus; the Vestalia occurred on the 9th, the Matralia on the 11th, and the 222 Quinquatrus Minusculae on the 13th. The Ludi Apollinares were on the 5th, and the Neptunalia on the 23rd of July. On the 13th of August were the Nemoralia, in honour of Diana; on the 18th the Consualia, on the 19th the Vinalia Rustica, and on the 23rd the Vulcanalia. The Ludi Magni, in honour of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, began on September 4. The Meditrinalia (new wine) were on the 11th of October, the Faunalia on the 13th, and the Equiria on the 15th. The Epulum Jovis was on 13th November. The December festivals were—on the 5th Faunalia, and towards the close Opalia, Saturnalia, Larentalia.

The following is a list of the mentioned festivals as noted by Ovid and other contemporary writers. The first day of January was celebrated similarly to today's New Year’s Day: clients gave gifts to their patrons, slaves to their masters, and friends and family exchanged presents with each other. On the 9th, the Agonalia were held, supposedly in honor of Janus. The Carmentalia took place on the 11th, observed mostly by women, and the same for the 15th. On February 13th were the Faunalia, and on the 15th the Lupercalia, followed by the Quirinalia on the 17th, the Feralia on the 18th, the Terminalia on the 23rd (once the last day of the Roman year), the Regifugium or Fugalia on the 24th, and the Equiria (of Mars) on the 27th. On March 1st were the Matronalia, on the 14th another Equiria, on the 15th the festival of Anna Perenna, on the 17th the Liberalia or Agonalia, and from the 19th to the 23rd the Quinquatria (of Minerva). On April 4th were the Megalesia (of Cybele), on the 12th the Cerealia, on the 21st the Palilia, on the 23rd the Vinalia, on the 25th the Robigalia, and on the 28th the Floralia. May 1st was the festival of the Lares Praestites; on the 9th, 11th, and 13th, the Lemuria were celebrated; on the 12th, the Ludi Martiales, and on the 15th those of Mercury. June 5 was dedicated to Semo Sancus; the Vestalia occurred on the 9th, the Matralia on the 11th, and the Quinquatrus Minusculae on the 13th. The Ludi Apollinares were on the 5th, and the Neptunalia on July 23rd. On August 13th were the Nemoralia, in honor of Diana; on the 18th the Consualia, on the 19th the Vinalia Rustica, and on the 23rd the Vulcanalia. The Ludi Magni, honoring Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, began on September 4. The Meditrinalia (new wine) were on October 11, the Faunalia on the 13th, and the Equiria on the 15th. The Epulum Jovis was on November 13. The December festivals included the Faunalia on the 5th, and toward the end Opalia, Saturnalia, and Larentalia.

The calendar as it stood at the Augustan age was known to contain many comparatively recent accessions, brought in under the influence of two “closely allied powers, the foreign priest and the foreign cook” (Mommsen). The Megalesia, for example, had been introduced 204 B.C. The Ludi Apollinares could not be traced farther back than 208 B.C. The Floralia and Cerealia had not come in much earlier. Among the oldest feasts were undoubtedly the Lupercalia, in honour of Lupercus, the god of fertility; the Equiria, in honour of Mars; the Palilia; the great September festival; and the Saturnalia.

The calendar during the Augustan age included several relatively recent additions, influenced by two "closely allied powers, the foreign priest and the foreign cook" (Mommsen). The Megalesia, for instance, had been introduced in 204 BCE The Ludi Apollinares could only be traced back to 208 BCE The Floralia and Cerealia had also been added not too long before. Among the oldest celebrations were definitely the Lupercalia, honoring Lupercus, the god of fertility; the Equiria, in honor of Mars; the Palilia; the grand September festival; and the Saturnalia.

Among the feriae conceptivae were the very ancient feriae Latinae, held in honour of Jupiter on the Alban Mount, and attended by all the higher magistrates and the whole body of the senate. The time of their celebration greatly depended on the state of affairs at Rome, as the consuls were not allowed to take the field until they had held the Latinae, which were regarded as days of a sacred truce. The feriae sementivae were held in the spring, and the Ambarvalia in autumn, both in honour of Ceres. The Paganalia of each pagus, and the Compitalia of each vicus were also conceptivae. Of feriae imperativae,—that is to say, festivals appointed by the senate, or magistrates, or higher priests to commemorate some great event or avert some threatened disaster,—the best known is the Novendiale, which used to be celebrated as often as stones fell from heaven (Livy xxi. 62, xxv. 7, &c.). In addition to all those already mentioned, there occasionally occurred ludi votivi, which were celebrated in fulfilment of a vow; ludi funebres, sometimes given by private persons; and ludi seculares, to celebrate certain periods marked off in the Etrusco-Roman religion.

Among the conceptive holidays were the ancient feriae Latinae, celebrated in honor of Jupiter on Alban Mount, attended by all the high-ranking officials and the entire Senate. The timing of these celebrations depended heavily on the situation in Rome, as the consuls couldn't go into battle until they had held the Latinae, which were seen as days of sacred truce. The feriae sementivae were celebrated in the spring, and the Ambarvalia in autumn, both honoring Ceres. The Paganalia for each pagus and the Compitalia for each vicus were also conceptivae. Among the feriae imperativae—that is, festivals designated by the Senate, magistrates, or high priests to commemorate a significant event or avert a potential disaster—the most well-known is the Novendiale, which was celebrated whenever stones fell from the sky (Livy xxi. 62, xxv. 7, &c.). In addition to those already mentioned, there were occasionally ludi votivi, celebrated to fulfill a vow; ludi funebres, sometimes organized by private individuals; and ludi seculares, to mark certain significant periods in Etrusco-Roman religion.

Feasts of the Jews.—By Old Testament writers a festival or feast is generally called either חג (compare the Arabic Hadj), from חגג to rejoice, or מועד, from יעד, to appoint. The words שבת and מקרא קודש are also occasionally used. In the Talmud the three principal feasts are called רגלים, after Exod. xxiii. 14. Of the Jewish feasts which are usually traced to a pre-Mosaic origin the most important and characteristic was the weekly Sabbath, but special importance was also attached from a very early date to the lunar periods. It is probable that other festivals also, of a seasonal character, were observed (see Exod. v. 1). In common with most others, the Mosaic system of annual feasts groups itself readily around the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. In Lev. xxiii., where the list is most fully given, they seem to be arranged with a conscious reference to the sacred number seven (compare Numb. xxviii.). Those belonging to the vernal equinox are three in number; a preparatory day, that of the Passover, leads up to the principal festival, that of unleavened bread, which again is followed by an after-feast, that of Pentecost (see Passover, Pentecost). Those of the autumnal equinox are four; a preparatory day on the new moon of the seventh month (the Feast of Trumpets) is followed by a great day of rest, the day of Atonement (which, however, was hardly a festival in the stricter sense of the word), by the Feast of Tabernacles, and by a great concluding day (Lev. xxiii. 36; John vii. 37). If the feast of the Passover be excepted, it will be seen that all these celebrations or commemorations associate themselves more readily with natural than with historical events.11 There was also a considerable number of post-Mosaic festivals, of which the principal were that of the Dedication (described in 1 Macc. iv. 52-59; comp. John x. 22) and that of Purim, the origin of which is given in the book of Esther (ix. 20 seq.). It has probably no connexion with the Persian festival Furdigán (see Esther).12

Feasts of the Jews.—In the writings of the Old Testament, a festival or feast is generally referred to as either Holiday (similar to the Arabic Hadj), from Celebrated meaning to rejoice, or Date, from Goal, meaning to appoint. The terms Shabbat and Holy Scripture are also occasionally used. In the Talmud, the three main feasts are called feet, according to Exod. xxiii. 14. Among the Jewish feasts typically linked to a pre-Mosaic origin, the most significant and distinctive was the weekly Sabbath, but from an early time, special importance was also given to lunar cycles. It's likely that other seasonal festivals were also celebrated (see Exod. v. 1). Like many other systems, the Mosaic framework of annual feasts is easily organized around the spring and fall equinoxes. In Lev. xxiii., where the list is most detailed, the feasts appear to be ordered with a deliberate reference to the sacred number seven (compare Numb. xxviii.). The feasts associated with the spring equinox are three: a preparatory day leading to the main celebration of Passover, followed by the festival of unleavened bread, and then an after-feast known as Pentecost (see Passover, Pentecost). The autumn equinox feasts total four: a preparatory day on the new moon of the seventh month (the Feast of Trumpets), followed by a significant day of rest, the Day of Atonement (which was not really a festival in the strict sense), followed by the Feast of Tabernacles, and concluding with a great final day (Lev. xxiii. 36; John vii. 37). Except for Passover, it's clear that all these celebrations or remembrances are more easily connected to natural events than to historical ones.11 There was also a significant number of post-Mosaic festivals, with the main ones being the Dedication (described in 1 Macc. iv. 52-59; comp. John x. 22) and Purim, the origin of which is found in the book of Esther (ix. 20 seq.). It likely has no connection to the Persian festival Furdigán (see Esther).12

Earlier Christian Festivals.—While making it abundantly manifest that Christ and his disciples observed the appointed Jewish feasts, the New Testament nowhere records the formal institution of any distinctively Christian festival. But we have unambiguous evidence of the actual observance, from a very early period, of the first day of the week as a holy day (John xx. 19, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; Rev. i. 10). Pliny in his letter to Trajan describes the Christians of Bithynia as meeting for religious purposes on a set day; that this day was Sunday is put beyond all reasonable doubt by such a passage as that in the Apology of Justin Martyr, where he says that “on Sunday (τῆ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ) all the Christians living either in the city or the country met together.” The Jewish element, in some churches at least, and especially in the East, was strong enough to secure that, along with the dies dominica, the seventh day should continue to be kept holy. Thus in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 59) we find the Saturday specially mentioned along with the Sunday as a day for the assembling of the church; in v. 15 it is ordained that there shall be no fasting on Saturday, while in viii. 33 it is added that both on Saturday and Sunday slaves are to have rest from their labours. The 16th canon of the council of Laodicea almost certainly means that solemn public service was to be held on Saturday as well as on Sunday. In other quarters, however, the tendency to regard both days as equally sacred met with considerable resistance. The 36th canon of the council of Illiberis, for example, deciding that Saturday should be observed as a fast-day, was doubtless intended to enforce the distinction between Saturday and Sunday. At Milan in Ambrose’s time Saturday was observed as a festival; but Pope Innocent is found writing to the bishop of Eugubium to urge that it should be kept as a fast. Ultimately the Christian church came to recognize but one weekly festival.

Earlier Christian Festivals.—While making it very clear that Christ and his disciples celebrated the established Jewish feasts, the New Testament doesn’t record the official establishment of any uniquely Christian festival. However, there is clear evidence that the first day of the week was observed as a holy day from a very early time (John xx. 19, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; Rev. i. 10). Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, describes the Christians of Bithynia as gathering for religious reasons on a specific day; it’s clearly established that this day was Sunday, as indicated in the Apology of Justin Martyr, where he states that “on Sunday (the day called Sun Day) all the Christians living in the city or the countryside gathered together.” The Jewish influence in some churches, particularly in the East, was significant enough to ensure that, alongside the dies dominica, the seventh day continued to be observed as holy. Thus, in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 59), Saturday is specifically mentioned alongside Sunday as a day for church gatherings; in v. 15, it states that no fasting should occur on Saturday, while in viii. 33, it notes that both Saturday and Sunday should allow slaves a break from their work. The 16th canon of the council of Laodicea likely indicates that formal public services were to be held on Saturday as well as Sunday. However, in other areas, the idea of treating both days as equally sacred faced considerable opposition. The 36th canon of the council of Illiberis, for instance, determined that Saturday should be observed as a fast day, likely aiming to reinforce the distinction between Saturday and Sunday. In Milan during Ambrose’s time, Saturday was celebrated as a festival; yet Pope Innocent wrote to the bishop of Eugubium advocating that it should be observed as a fast. Ultimately, the Christian church recognized only one weekly festival.

The numerous yearly festivals of the later Christian church, when historically investigated, can be traced to very small beginnings. Indeed, while it appears to be tolerably certain that Jewish Christians for the most part retained all the festivals which had been instituted under the old dispensation, it is not at all probable that either they or their Gentile brethren recognized any yearly feasts as of distinctively Christian origin or obligation. It cannot be doubted, however, that gradually, in the course of the 2nd century, the universal church came to observe the anniversaries of the death and resurrection of Christ—the πάσχα σταυρώσιμον and the πάσχα ἁναστάσιμον, as they were respectively called (see Easter and Good Friday). Not long afterwards Whitsunday also came to be fixed in the usage of Christendom as a great annual festival. Even Origen (in the 8th book Against Celsus) enumerates as Christian festivals the Sunday, the παρασκευή, the Passover with the feast of the Resurrection, and Pentecost; under which latter term, however, he includes the whole period between Easter and Whitsuntide. About Cyprian’s time we find individual Christians commemorating their departed friends, and whole churches commemorating their martyrs; in particular, there are traces of a local and partial observance of the feast of the Innocents. Christmas day and Epiphany were among the later introductions, the feast of the Epiphany being somewhat the earlier of the two. Both are alluded to indeed by Clemens Alexandrinus (i. 340), but only in a way which indicates that even in his time the precise date of Christ’s birth was unknown, that its anniversary was not usually observed, and that the day of his baptism was kept as a festival only by the followers of Basilides (see Epiphany).

The many annual festivals of the later Christian church, when looked at historically, can be traced back to very small beginnings. It seems pretty certain that Jewish Christians mainly kept all the festivals that were established under the old covenant, but it’s unlikely that they or their Gentile counterparts recognized any yearly celebrations as having a distinctly Christian origin or requirement. However, there’s no doubt that over time, in the 2nd century, the global church started to observe the anniversaries of Christ's death and resurrection—the Easter crucifixion and the Easter resurrection, as they were called (see Easter and Good Friday). Not long after, Whitsunday became established in Christian practice as a major annual celebration. Even Origen (in the 8th book Against Celsus) lists Christian festivals as including Sunday, the Friday, Passover with the Resurrection feast, and Pentecost; though with Pentecost, he refers to the entire time between Easter and Whitsun. Around Cyprian's time, we see individual Christians remembering their departed friends and whole churches honoring their martyrs; specifically, there are signs of a local and partial observance of the feast of the Innocents. Christmas Day and Epiphany were among the later celebrations introduced, with Epiphany being the earlier of the two. Both are mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus (i. 340), but in a way that shows that even back then, the exact date of Christ's birth was unknown, that his birthday wasn’t commonly celebrated, and that his baptism was marked as a festival only by the followers of Basilides (see Epiphany).

When we come down to the 4th century we find that, among the 50 days between Easter and Pentecost, Ascension Day has 223 come into new prominence. Augustine, for example, enumerates as anniversaries celebrated by the whole church those of Christ’s passion, resurrection and ascension, along with that of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, while he is silent with regard to Christmas and Epiphany. The general tendency of this and the following centuries was largely to increase the festivals of the Church, and by legislation to make them more fixed and uniform. Many passages, indeed, could be quoted from Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine to show that these fathers had not by any means forgotten that comparative freedom with regard to outward observances was one of the distinctive excellences of Christianity as contrasted with Judaism and the various heathen systems (compare Socrates, H.E. v. 22). But there were many special circumstances which seemed to the leaders of the Church at that time to necessitate the permission and even legislative sanction of a large number of new feasts. The innovations of heretics sometimes seemed to call for rectification by the institution of more orthodox observances; in other instances the propensity of rude and uneducated converts from paganism to cling to the festal rites of their forefathers proved to be invincible, so that it was seen to be necessary to seek to adapt the old usages to the new worship rather than to abolish them altogether;13 moreover, although the empire had become Christian, it was manifestly expedient that the old holidays should be recognized as much as possible in the new arrangements of the calendar. Constantine soon after his conversion enacted that on the dies dominica there should be no suits or trials in law; Theodosius the Great added a prohibition of all public shows on that day, and Theodosius the younger extended the prohibition to Epiphany and the anniversaries of martyrdoms, which at that time included the festivals of St Stephen, and of St Peter and St Paul, as also that of the Maccabees. In the 21st canon of the council of Agde (506), besides Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, Ascension and Pentecost, we find the Nativity of John the Baptist already mentioned as one of the more important festivals on which attendance at church was regarded as obligatory. To these were added, in the centuries immediately following, the feasts of the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption of the Virgin; as well as those of the Circumcision, of St Michael and of All Saints.

When we look at the 4th century, we see that during the 50 days between Easter and Pentecost, Ascension Day gained new significance. Augustine, for instance, lists the anniversaries celebrated by the entire church as those of Christ's passion, resurrection, and ascension, along with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, while he doesn’t mention Christmas or Epiphany. The overall trend in this and the following centuries was largely to increase the Church's festivals and, through legislation, to make them more established and uniform. Indeed, there are several quotes from Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine that show these early leaders hadn't forgotten that the relative freedom regarding outward practices was one of the distinctive strengths of Christianity compared to Judaism and various pagan systems (see Socrates, H.E. v. 22). However, numerous specific circumstances made the Church leaders at the time feel that it was necessary to allow and even legally endorse many new feasts. The innovations of heretics often seemed to require correction by creating more orthodox practices; in other cases, the strong attachment of unrefined and uneducated converts from paganism to their ancestral festivals proved difficult to overcome, leading to a need to adapt traditional customs to the new worship rather than eliminate them completely. Moreover, even after the empire became Christian, it was clearly practical to incorporate the old holidays into the new calendar arrangements. Shortly after his conversion, Constantine enacted that no legal proceedings should take place on the dies dominica; Theodosius the Great added a ban on all public entertainment on that day, and Theodosius the younger extended the ban to Epiphany and the anniversaries of martyrdoms, which at that time included the festivals of St. Stephen, St. Peter, St. Paul, and the Maccabees. In the 21st canon of the council of Agde (506), alongside Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, Ascension, and Pentecost, the Nativity of John the Baptist is already recognized as one of the key festivals for which church attendance was deemed obligatory. In the following centuries, additional feasts such as the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Assumption of the Virgin, as well as those of the Circumcision, St. Michael, and All Saints were added.

Festivals were in practice distinguished from ordinary days in the following ways: all public and judicial business was suspended,14 as well as every kind of game or amusement which might interfere with devotion; the churches were specially decorated; Christians were expected to attend public worship, attired in their best dress; love feasts were celebrated, and the rich were accustomed to show special kindness to the poor; fasting was strictly forbidden, and public prayers were said in a standing posture.

Festivals were clearly different from regular days in these ways: all public and legal activities were paused, as well as any games or entertainment that could distract from worship; the churches were specially decorated; Christians were expected to attend public services dressed in their best; love feasts were held, and the wealthy often showed particular kindness to the poor; fasting was strictly prohibited, and public prayers were offered while standing.

Later Practice.—In the present calendar of the Roman Catholic Church the number of feast days is very large. Each is celebrated by an appropriate office, which, according to its character, is either duplex, semi-duplex or simplex. A duplex again may be either of the first class or of the second, or a major or a minor. The distinctions of ritual for each of these are given with great minuteness in the general rubrics of the breviary; they turn chiefly on the number of Psalms to be sung and of lessons to be read, on the manner in which the antiphons are to be given and on similar details. The duplicia of the first class are the Nativity, the Epiphany, Easter with the three preceding and two following days, the Ascension, Whitsunday and the two following days, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of John Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, the Assumption of the Virgin, All Saints, and, for each church, the feast proper to its patron or title and the feast of its dedication. The duplicia of the second class are the Circumcision, the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, of the Holy Trinity, and of the Most Precious Blood of Christ, the feasts of the Purification, Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity and Conception of the Virgin, the Natalitia of the Twelve Apostles, the feasts of the Evangelists, of St Stephen, of the Holy Innocents, of St Joseph and of the Patrocinium of Joseph, of St Lawrence, of the Invention of the Cross and of the Dedication of St Michael. The Dominicae majores of the first class are the first Sunday in Advent, the first in Lent, Passion Sunday, Palm Sunday, Easter Sunday, Dominica in Albis, Whitsunday and Trinity Sunday; the Dominicae majores of the second class are the second, third and fourth in Advent, Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima Sundays, and the second, third and fourth Sundays in Lent.

Later Practice.—In the current calendar of the Roman Catholic Church, there are many feast days. Each is celebrated with a specific office, which is classified as either duplex, semi-duplex, or simplex, depending on its nature. A duplex can further be classified as first class, second class, major, or minor. The details for each of these rituals are outlined thoroughly in the general rubrics of the breviary, focusing mainly on the number of Psalms to be sung, lessons to be read, the way antiphons are presented, and other similar details. The first-class duplex feasts include the Nativity, the Epiphany, Easter along with the three days before and two days after, the Ascension, Whitsunday, and the two days following, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, the Assumption of the Virgin, All Saints, and each church’s patron or title feast, along with the feast of its dedication. The second-class duplex feasts are the Circumcision, the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, the Holy Trinity, the Most Precious Blood of Christ, and the feasts of the Purification, Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, and Conception of the Virgin, the Nativity of the Twelve Apostles, the feasts of the Evangelists, St. Stephen, the Holy Innocents, St. Joseph and his patronage, St. Lawrence, the Finding of the Cross, and the Dedication of St. Michael. The first-class major Sundays include the first Sunday in Advent, the first Sunday in Lent, Passion Sunday, Palm Sunday, Easter Sunday, Dominica in Albis, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday; the second-class major Sundays include the second, third, and fourth Sundays in Advent, Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima Sundays, and the second, third, and fourth Sundays in Lent.

In the canons and decrees of the council of Trent repeated allusions are made to the feast days, and their fitness, when properly observed, to promote piety. Those entrusted with the cure of souls are urged to see that the feasts of the Church be devoutly and religiously observed, the faithful are enjoined to attend public worship on Sundays and on the greater festivals at least, and parish priests are bidden to expound to the people on such days some of the things which have been read in the office for the day. Since the council of Trent the practice of the Church with respect to the prohibition of servile work on holidays has varied considerably in different Catholic countries, and even in the same country at different times. Thus in 1577, in the diocese of Lyons, there were almost forty annual festivals of a compulsory character. By the concordat of 1802 the number of such festivals was for France reduced to four, namely, Christmas day, Ascension day, the Assumption of the Virgin, and All Saints day.

In the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, there are many references to feast days and how properly observing them can encourage piety. Those responsible for spiritual care are encouraged to ensure that the Church's feasts are observed with devotion and reverence. The faithful are encouraged to attend public worship on Sundays and at least on the major festivals, and parish priests are instructed to explain to the congregation some of the readings from that day's services. Since the Council of Trent, the Church's practice regarding the prohibition of non-religious work on holidays has varied significantly across different Catholic countries, and even within the same country at various times. For example, in 1577, the diocese of Lyons had nearly forty mandatory annual festivals. By the concordat of 1802, the number of such festivals in France was reduced to four: Christmas Day, Ascension Day, the Assumption of the Virgin, and All Saints' Day.

The calendar of the Greek Church is even fuller than that of the Latin, especially as regards the ἑορταὶ τῶν ἁγιῶν. Thus on the last Sunday in Advent the feast of All Saints of the Old Covenant is celebrated; while Adam and Eve, Job, Elijah, Isaiah, &c., have separate days. The distinctions of ritual are analogous to those in the Western Church. In the Coptic Church there are seven great festivals, Christmas, Epiphany, the Annunciation, Palm Sunday, Easter Sunday, Ascension and Whitsunday, on all of which the Copts “wear new clothes (or the best they have), feast and give alms” (Lane). They also observe, as minor festivals, Maundy Thursday, Holy Saturday, the feast of the Apostles (11th July), and that of the Discovery of the Cross.

The calendar of the Greek Church has even more events than that of the Latin Church, especially when it comes to the Feasts of the saints. For example, on the last Sunday of Advent, the feast of All Saints of the Old Covenant is celebrated, while Adam and Eve, Job, Elijah, Isaiah, etc., each have their own days. The differences in rituals are similar to those in the Western Church. In the Coptic Church, there are seven major festivals: Christmas, Epiphany, the Annunciation, Palm Sunday, Easter Sunday, Ascension, and Whitsunday, on which the Copts “wear new clothes (or the best they have), feast, and give alms” (Lane). They also celebrate minor festivals, such as Maundy Thursday, Holy Saturday, the feast of the Apostles (July 11), and the feast of the Discovery of the Cross.

In common with most of the churches of the Reformation, the Church of England retained a certain number of feasts besides all Sundays in the year. They are, besides Monday and Tuesday both in Easter-week and Whitsun-week, as follows: the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Conversion of St Paul, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, St Matthias the Apostle, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, St Mark the Evangelist, St Philip and St James (Apostles), the Ascension, St Barnabas, the Nativity of St John Baptist, St Peter the Apostle, St James the Apostle, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, St Michael and all Angels, St Luke the Evangelist, St Simon and St Jude, All Saints, St Andrew, St Thomas, Christmas, St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents. The 13th canon enjoins that all manner of persons within the Church of England shall from henceforth celebrate and keep the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, and other holy days, according to God’s holy will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed in that behalf, that is, in hearing the Word of God read and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offences to God and amendment of the same, in reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure hath been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood of Christ, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober conversation. (Compare Hooker, E.P. v. 70.) In the Directory for the Public Worship of God which was drawn up by the Westminster Assembly, and accepted by the Church of Scotland in 1645, there is an appendix which declares that there is no day commanded in Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath; festival days, vulgarly called holy-days, having no warrant in the Word of God, 224 are not to be continued; nevertheless it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.

Like most of the Reformation churches, the Church of England kept a number of feast days in addition to every Sunday of the year. These include, in addition to Monday and Tuesday during both Easter week and Whitsun week, the following: the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Conversion of St. Paul, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, St. Matthias the Apostle, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, St. Mark the Evangelist, St. Philip and St. James (Apostles), the Ascension, St. Barnabas, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, St. Peter the Apostle, St. James the Apostle, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Michael and all Angels, St. Luke the Evangelist, St. Simon and St. Jude, All Saints, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, Christmas, St. Stephen, St. John the Evangelist, and the Holy Innocents. The 13th canon requires that everyone in the Church of England must henceforth celebrate and observe the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, and other holy days, according to God’s holy will and the directives of the Church of England. This means hearing the Word of God read and taught, conducting private and public prayers, acknowledging their offenses to God and making amends, reconciling kindly with neighbors where there has been discord, frequently receiving communion of the body and blood of Christ, visiting the poor and sick, and engaging in all godly and sober conversation. (Compare Hooker, E.P. v. 70.) In the Directory for the Public Worship of God, created by the Westminster Assembly and accepted by the Church of Scotland in 1645, there is an appendix stating that there is no day mandated in Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel except the Lord’s Day, which is the Christian Sabbath; festival days, commonly known as holy days, lack support in the Word of God, 224 and should not be continued. However, it is lawful and necessary, on special occasions, to set aside a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving, as various significant and extraordinary events within God’s providence provide cause and opportunity for his people.

Several attempts have been made at various times in western Europe to reorganize the festival system on some other scheme than the Christian. Thus at the time of the French Revolution, during the period of Robespierre’s ascendancy, it was proposed to substitute a tenth day (Décadi) for the weekly rest, and to introduce the following new festivals: that of the Supreme Being and of Nature, of the Human Race, of the French people, of the Benefactors of Mankind, of Freedom and Equality, of the Martyrs of Freedom, of the Republic, of the Freedom of the World, of Patriotism, of Hatred of Tyrants and Traitors, of Truth, of Justice, of Modesty, of Fame and Immortality, of Friendship, of Temperance, of Heroism, of Fidelity, of Unselfishness, of Stoicism, of Love, of Conjugal Fidelity, of Filial Affection, of Childhood, of Youth, of Manhood, of Old Age, of Misfortune, of Agriculture, of Industry, of our Forefathers, of Posterity and Felicity. The proposal, however, was never fully carried out, and soon fell into oblivion.

Several attempts have been made at different times in Western Europe to reorganize the festival system based on something other than Christianity. For instance, during the French Revolution, when Robespierre was in power, there was a suggestion to replace the weekly day of rest with a tenth day (Décadi) and to introduce several new festivals: those celebrating the Supreme Being and Nature, the Human Race, the French people, the Benefactors of Mankind, Freedom and Equality, the Martyrs of Freedom, the Republic, the Freedom of the World, Patriotism, Hatred of Tyrants and Traitors, Truth, Justice, Modesty, Fame and Immortality, Friendship, Temperance, Heroism, Fidelity, Altruism, Stoicism, Love, Marital Fidelity, Filial Affection, Childhood, Youth, Adulthood, Old Age, Misfortune, Agriculture, Industry, our Ancestors, Posterity, and Happiness. However, this proposal was never fully implemented and eventually faded into obscurity.

Mahommedan Festivals.—These are chiefly two—the ‘Eed es-Sagheer (or minor festival) and the ‘Eed el-Kebeer (or great festival), sometimes called ‘Eed el-Kurban. The former, which lasts for three days, immediately follows the month Ramadan, and is generally the more joyful of the two; the latter begins on the tenth of Zu-l-Heggeh (the last month of the Mahommedan year), and lasts for three or four days. Besides these festivals they usually keep holy the first ten days of Moharram (the first month of the year), especially the tenth day, called Yom Ashoora; the birthday of the prophet, on the twelfth day of the third month; the birthday of El-Hoseyn, in the fourth month; the anniversary of the prophet’s miraculous ascension into heaven, in the seventh month; and one or two other anniversaries. Friday, called the day of El-Gumah (the assembly), is a day of public worship; but it is not usual to abstain from public business on that day except during the time of prayer.

Muslim Festivals.—There are mainly two—Eid al-Fitr (or minor festival) and Eid al-Adha (or great festival), sometimes called Eid al-Qurban. The former, which lasts for three days, comes right after the month of Ramadan and is usually the more joyful of the two; the latter starts on the tenth of Dhu al-Hijjah (the last month of the Islamic year) and lasts for three or four days. In addition to these festivals, they typically observe the first ten days of Muharram (the first month of the year), especially the tenth day, known as Yom Ashura; the birthday of the prophet, on the twelfth day of the third month; the birthday of El-Hussein in the fourth month; the anniversary of the prophet’s miraculous ascent to heaven in the seventh month; and one or two other anniversaries. Friday, called the day of Jumu'ah (the assembly), is a day of public worship; however, it is not common to stop public business on that day except during prayer time.

Hindu and Buddhist Festivals.—In modern India the leading popular festivals are the Holí, which is held in March or April and lasts for five days, and the Dasahara, which occurs in October. Although in its origin Buddhism was a deliberate reaction against all ceremonial, it does not now refuse to observe festivals. By Buddhists in China, for example, three days in the year are especially observed in honour of the Buddha,—the eighth day of the second month, when he left his home; the eighth day of the fourth month, the anniversary of his birthday; and the eighth of the twelfth, when he attained to perfection and entered Nirvāna. In Siam the eighth and fifteenth days of every month are considered holy, and are observed as days for rest and worship. At Trut, the festival of the close of the year, visiting and play-going are universal. The new year (January) is celebrated for three days; in February is another holiday; in April is a sort of Lent, ushering in the rainy season; on the last day of June presents are made of cakes of the new rice; in August is the festival of the angel of the river, “whose forgiveness is then asked for every act by which the waters of the Meinam have been rendered impure.” See Bowring’s Siam and Carné’s Travels in Indo-China and the Chinese Empire. Copious details of the elaborate festival-system of the Chinese may be found in Doolittle’s Social Life of the Chinese.

Hindu and Buddhist Festivals.—In modern India, the main popular festivals are Holí, which takes place in March or April and lasts for five days, and Dasahara, which is celebrated in October. While Buddhism originally aimed to move away from all ceremonies, it now embraces festivals. In China, for example, Buddhists observe three special days each year in honor of the Buddha: the eighth day of the second month, when he left home; the eighth day of the fourth month, marking his birthday; and the eighth day of the twelfth month, when he achieved enlightenment and entered Nirvāna. In Thailand, the eighth and fifteenth days of every month are considered holy and are observed as days for rest and worship. During the Trut festival, which marks the end of the year, visiting friends and attending plays are common. The new year (January) is celebrated for three days; there's another holiday in February; in April, there's a kind of Lent marking the start of the rainy season; on the last day of June, gifts of cakes made from new rice are given; and in August, there's a festival honoring the river angel, during which forgiveness is requested for any actions that may have polluted the waters of the Meinam. See Bowring’s Siam and Carné’s Travels in Indo-China and the Chinese Empire. Detailed information about the rich festival traditions in China can be found in Doolittle’s Social Life of the Chinese.

Literature.—For Christian feasts see K.A. H. Kellner, Heortologie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1906); Hippolyte Delehaye, Les Légendes hagiographiques (Brussels, 1905); J. Rendel Harris, The Cult of the Heavenly Twins (Cambridge, 1906); de Rossi-Duchesne, Martyrologium Hieronymianum.

Literature.—For Christian holidays, refer to K.A. H. Kellner, Heortologie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1906); Hippolyte Delehaye, Les Légendes hagiographiques (Brussels, 1905); J. Rendel Harris, The Cult of the Heavenly Twins (Cambridge, 1906); de Rossi-Duchesne, Martyrologium Hieronymianum.


1 “To feast” is simply to keep a festum or festival. The etymology of the word is uncertain; but probably it has no connexion with the Gr. ἑστιᾶν.

1 “To feast” just means to hold a festival. The origin of the word is unclear; however, it likely isn’t related to the Greek hosting.

2 See Spencer, Principles of Sociology, i. 170, 280, 306.

2 See Spencer, Principles of Sociology, i. 170, 280, 306.

3 Haug, Parsis, 224, 225.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Haug, *Parsis*, 224, 225.

4 “May the heavens, the waters, the firmament, be kind to us; may the lord of the field be gracious to us.... May the oxen (draw) happily, the men labour happily; may the traces bind happily, wield the goad happily” (Wilson’s translation, iii. 224).

4 “May the skies, the waters, the heavens be good to us; may the lord of the land be kind to us.... May the oxen pull happily, the men work joyfully; may the yokes fit well, and may we guide them cheerfully” (Wilson’s translation, iii. 224).

5 See Haug’s Aitareya-brâhmanam of the Rig-Veda; Max Müller’s Chips from a German Workshop, i. 115.

5 See Haug’s Aitareya-brâhmanam of the Rig-Veda; Max Müller’s Chips from a German Workshop, i. 115.

6 Visperad. See Haug, Parsis, 192; Richardson’s Dissertation on the Language, &c., of Eastern Nations, p. 184; Morier’s Journey through Persia.

6 Visperad. See Haug, Parsis, 192; Richardson’s Dissertation on the Language, &c., of Eastern Nations, p. 184; Morier’s Journey through Persia.

7 Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride; Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 21.

7 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris; Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 21.

8 In this month the anniversaries of the battle of Marathon, and of the downfall of the thirty tyrants, were also publicly celebrated.

8 This month, the anniversaries of the Battle of Marathon and the fall of the thirty tyrants were also celebrated publicly.

9 See Schoemann, Griechische Altertümer, ii. 439 seq.; Mommsen Heortologie.

9 See Schoemann, Greek Antiquities, ii. 439 and following; Mommsen Heortology.

10 Feriae privatae, such as anniversaries of births, deaths, and the like, were observed by separate clans, families or individuals.

10 Private holidays, like birthdays, anniversaries of deaths, and similar occasions, were celebrated by different clans, families, or individuals.

11 In the “parallel” passages, there is considerable variety in the designation and arrangement of these feasts. While Ex. xii. approximates most closely to Lev. xxiii. and Num. xxviii., Ex. xxiii. has stronger affinities with Deut. xvi. The relations of these passages are largely discussed by Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des A. T., pp. 34-41, and by other recent critics.

11 In the "parallel" passages, there is a lot of variation in how these feasts are named and organized. While Ex. xii. is most similar to Lev. xxiii. and Num. xxviii., Ex. xxiii. has closer ties with Deut. xvi. The relationships among these passages are largely explored by Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des A. T., pp. 34-41, and by other contemporary critics.

12 On the whole subject of Jewish festivals see Reland, Antiq. Hebr.; Knobel, Leviticus (c. 23); George, Die jüdischen Feste; Edersheim, The Temple; its Ministry and Services; Ewald, Altertümer des Volkes Israël; articles in Bible dictionaries.

12 For a comprehensive overview of Jewish festivals, check out Reland, Antiq. Hebr.; Knobel, Leviticus (c. 23); George, Die jüdischen Feste; Edersheim, The Temple; its Ministry and Services; Ewald, Altertümer des Volkes Israel; and various articles in Bible dictionaries.

13 As, at a later period (601), Gregory the Great instructed his Anglo-Saxon missionaries so to Christianize the temples, festivals, &c., of the heathen “ut durae mentes gradibus vel passibus, non autem saltibus, eleventur.”

13 Later on (601), Gregory the Great told his Anglo-Saxon missionaries to Christianize the temples, festivals, etc., of the pagans “so that stubborn minds are raised by steps or stages, not by leaps.”

14 Manumission, however, was lawful on any day.

14 However, manumission was legal on any day.


FEATHER (O. Eng. fether, Ger. Feder, from an Indo-European root seen also in Gr. πτερόν, and πέτεσθαι, to fly), a horny outgrowth of the skin of birds homologous with the scale of the reptile. The body-covering of birds is, without exception, comprised of feathers, and by this character alone birds may be distinguished from all other animals.

FEATHER (Old English fether, German Feder, from an Indo-European root also seen in Greek wing, and πέτεσθαι, meaning to fly), a hard growth from the skin of birds that is similar to the scale of reptiles. The outer covering of birds is, without exception, made up of feathers, and this characteristic alone sets birds apart from all other animals.

The most perfect form of feather is made up of a long, tapering rod, fringed on either side, for the greater part of its length, by a secondary series of slender and tapering rods forming a more or less acute angle with the central axis. This fringe is known as the vexillum or “vane” (fig. 1 a). The central axis is divisible into two distinct parts,—a hollow, cylindrical, transparent calamus, or “quill,” the base of which is inserted into the skin, and a solid, quadrangular rhachis or “shaft” which supports the vane. At the lower end of the quill is a small hole—the lower umbilicus—through which the nutritive pulp passes during the growth of the feather: while at the upper end, where it passes into the shaft, a similar hole will be found,—the upper umbilicus—and from this the last remains of the capsules which contained the nutritive pulp may sometimes be seen protruding. If the quill is cut open a series of these capsules will be found fitting one into the other throughout the whole length of the tubular chamber.

The most perfect type of feather consists of a long, pointed rod, fringed on either side for most of its length by a secondary series of slender, pointed rods that form a more or less sharp angle with the central axis. This fringe is called the vexillum or “vane” (fig. 1 a). The central axis can be divided into two distinct parts: a hollow, cylindrical, transparent calamus, or “quill,” whose base is attached to the skin, and a solid, quadrangular rhachis or “shaft” that supports the vane. At the bottom end of the quill is a small hole—the lower umbilicus—through which the nourishing pulp flows during the feather's growth; while at the top end, where it connects to the shaft, there's a similar hole—the upper umbilicus—from which remnants of the capsules containing the nourishing pulp can sometimes be seen sticking out. If the quill is cut open, a series of these capsules can be found fitting into each other all along the length of the tubular chamber.

Fig. 1.—Diagrams of Feather-Barbs.

a, Outline of a feather showing the relation of the barbs and barbules to the central axis or shaft.

a, Outline of a feather showing the relationship of the barbs and barbules to the central axis or shaft.

b, Section across two of the barbs shown in a, highly magnified.

b, Section across two of the barbs shown in a, highly magnified.

c, Two barbules of the posterior series—seen only in cross-section in b.

c, Two barbules from the back series—visible only in cross-section in b.

d, A barbule of the anterior series.

d, A barbule from the front series.

e, Section across the base of three anterior barbules showing attachment to barb.

e, Section across the base of three front barbules showing attachment to barb.

f, A portion of the hooklet of the anterior series showing the method of interlocking with the barbules of the posterior series.

f, A part of the hooklet from the front series demonstrating how it interlocks with the barbules of the back series.

The rods comprising the lateral fringe, or vane, are known as the rami or the “barbs,” and will be found, on microscopic examination, to be lath-shaped and to taper to a point. Further, each barb supports a double series of smaller outgrowths known as the radii, or “barbules”; so that each barb may be likened to a feather in miniature. These “barbules,” however, differ markedly in structure on the two sides of the barb, those pointing towards the tip of the feather—the “anterior barbules”—being ribbon-shaped from the base outwards for about half their length, when they become cut up to form a series of long and very delicate hooklets (fig. 1 d). On the opposite side of the barb the barbules are also ribbon-shaped for about half their length, but the ribbon is curved trough-fashion, so that the whole series of posterior barbules forms a number of deep valleys, and into these the hooklets are thrust so as to catch hold of the upper edges of the troughs, which are set so that the 225 upper edge is towards the upper, and the lower edge towards the under surface of the feather. The manner in which this beautiful mechanism works may be seen in fig. 1 b.

The rods that make up the lateral fringe, or vane, are called the rami or “barbs.” When looked at under a microscope, they appear lath-shaped and taper to a point. Additionally, each barb has a double row of smaller outgrowths known as radii or “barbules,” making each barb resemble a miniature feather. However, these “barbules” have significantly different structures on either side of the barb. The ones pointing toward the tip of the feather—the “anterior barbules”—are ribbon-shaped for about half their length, and then they break up into a series of long, delicate hooklets (fig. 1 d). On the other side of the barb, the barbules are also ribbon-shaped for about half their length, but they are curved like a trough. This creates deep valleys, where the hooklets fit into the upper edges of the troughs, arranged so that the upper edge faces upwards, while the lower edge points towards the underside of the feather. You can see how this intricate mechanism functions in fig. 1 b.

In one of the primary or “quill” feathers of the wing of a crane, each barb of the inner side of the vane was found to bear about 600 pairs of barbules, which would make about 800,000 barbules for the inner web of the vane alone, or more than a million for the whole feather (H.F. Gadow). It is to the agency of these hooklets alone that the closely-knit, elastic vanes of the flight feathers and the body feathers are due. Where these hooklets are wanting the barbs do not adhere together, resulting in a loose “discontinuous” vane such as, for example, is found in the plumes of the ostrich.

In one of the main or “quill” feathers of a crane's wing, each barb on the inner side of the vane had about 600 pairs of tiny hooks, which adds up to around 800,000 hooks for the inner web of the vane alone, or more than a million for the entire feather (H.F. Gadow). These tiny hooks are what allow the tightly packed, flexible vanes of flight feathers and body feathers to stay together. Where these hooks are missing, the barbs don’t stick together, resulting in a loose “discontinuous” vane, like the ones you see in ostrich plumes.

Many feathers, in addition to the main axis, bear a second, generally much shorter axis, supporting a loose discontinuous vane; this shorter branch is known as the “aftershaft” and arises from the under surface of the feather. Only in the cassowary and emu among adult birds is the aftershaft as large as the main shaft.

Many feathers, along with the main shaft, have a secondary, usually much shorter shaft that holds a loose, uneven vane; this shorter part is called the “aftershaft” and comes from the underside of the feather. Only in adult birds like the cassowary and emu is the aftershaft as big as the main shaft.

There are several different kinds of feathers—contour feathers, semiplumes, down-feathers, filoplumes and powder-down. Contour feathers, as their name implies, are those which form the contour or outline of the body, and are all that can generally be seen. Those which form the “flight feathers” of the wing, and the tail feathers, are the most perfectly developed. Semiplumes are degenerate contour feathers. The down-feathers are generally completely hidden by the contour feathers: they form in many birds, such as gulls and ducks, a thick underclothing comparable to the under-fur of mammals such as the seals. In all cases they are of a loose, soft, “fluffy” structure, the barbs being of great length and slenderness, while the barbules are often long and provided with knob-like thickenings answering to the hooklets of the more perfectly developed contour feathers; these thickenings help to “felt” the separate down-feathers together, the barbs of one down-feather interlocking with those of its neighbour. Down-feathers differ from semiplumes both in their relation to contour feathers and in that they do not possess a main axis, all the barbs arising from a common centre.

There are several different types of feathers—contour feathers, semiplumes, down feathers, filoplumes, and powder down. Contour feathers, as the name suggests, shape the outline of the body and are generally all that can be seen. The feathers that make up the “flight feathers” of the wing and the tail feathers are the most developed. Semiplumes are less developed contour feathers. Down feathers are usually completely hidden by the contour feathers; they create a thick layer of insulation in many birds, like gulls and ducks, similar to the under-fur of mammals such as seals. They have a loose, soft, “fluffy” structure, with long, slender barbs, while the barbules are often long and have knob-like thickenings that correspond to the hooklets of the more developed contour feathers; these thickenings help to interlock the separate down feathers, so that the barbs of one down feather connect with those of another. Down feathers are different from semiplumes in both their relationship to contour feathers and in that they lack a main axis, with all the barbs coming from a common center.

Filoplumes are degenerate structures having a superficial resemblance to hairs, but they always bear a minute vane at the tip. They occur in all birds, in clusters of varying number, about the bases of contour feathers. In some birds they attain a great length, and may project beyond the contour feathers, sometimes forming conspicuous white patches, as for example in the necks of cormorants. In their early stages of development they often possess a large aftershaft made up of a number of barbs, but these quickly disappear, leaving only the degenerate main shaft. The eyelashes and bristles round the mouth found in many birds appear to be akin to filoplumes.

Filoplumes are reduced structures that look somewhat like hairs, but they always have a tiny vane at the tip. They are found in all birds, clustered in varying numbers around the bases of contour feathers. In some birds, they can grow quite long and may stick out beyond the contour feathers, sometimes creating noticeable white patches, like on the necks of cormorants. In their early developmental stages, they often have a large aftershaft made up of several barbs, but these quickly vanish, leaving just the reduced main shaft. The eyelashes and bristles around the mouths of many birds seem to be related to filoplumes.

Powder-down feathers are degenerate down-feathers which appear to secrete a dry, waxy kind of powder. This powder rapidly disintegrates and becomes distributed over the plumage, adding thereto a quite peculiar bloom. In birds of the heron tribe powder-down feathers have reached a high degree of development, forming large patches in the breast and thighs, while in some hawks, and in the parrots, these mysterious feathers are scattered singly over the greater part of the body.

Powder-down feathers are a type of degraded down feather that seem to produce a dry, waxy powder. This powder quickly breaks down and spreads over the feathers, giving them a unique sheen. In herons, powder-down feathers have developed significantly, creating large patches on the chest and thighs, while in some hawks and parrots, these unusual feathers are found individually spread across most of the body.

The nature of the covering of nestling birds is of a more complex character than has hitherto been suspected. The majority of young birds, as is well known, either emerge from the egg clothed in down-feathers, or they Nestling down. develop these within a day or two afterwards. But this covering, though superficially similar in all, may, as a matter of fact, differ widely in its constitution, even in closely related forms, while only in a very few species can the complete history of these feathers be made out.

The covering of baby birds is more complex than previously thought. Most young birds, as we know, either hatch from their eggs with down feathers or develop them within a day or two. However, while this covering may look similar in all of them, it can actually vary a lot in its makeup, even among closely related species. Surprisingly, only a few species have a complete history that can be traced for these feathers.

The brown or tawny owl (Syrnium aluco) is one of these. At hatching, the young of this species is thickly clad in white, woolly down-feathers, of the character known as umbelliform—that is to say, the central axis or main shaft is wanting, so that the barbs all start from a common centre. These feathers occupy the position of the ultimate contour feathers. They are shortly replaced by a second down-like covering, superficially resembling, and generally regarded as, true down. But they differ in that their barbs spring from a central axis as in typical contour feathers. Feathers of this last description indeed have now made their appearance in the shape of the “flight” or quill feathers (remiges) and of the tail feathers. This plumage is worn until the autumn, when the downy feathers give place to the characteristic adult plumage. The down feathers which appear at hatching-time are known as pre-pennae, or pre-plumulae, as the case may be; the first generation of pre-pennae, in the case of the tawny owl for example, is made up of protoptyles, while the succeeding plumage is made up of mesoptyles, and these in turn give place to the teleoptyles or adult feathers. The two forms of nestling plumage—pre-pennae and pre-plumulae—may be collectively called “neossoptyles,” a term coined by H.F. Gadow to distinguish the plumage of the nestling from that of the adult—the “teleoptyle” plumage.

The brown or tawny owl (Syrnium aluco) is one of these species. When they hatch, the young are covered in thick white, woolly down feathers that are umbelliform—meaning that they don't have a central shaft, so all the barbs come from a common point. These feathers serve as the final outer contour feathers. They are quickly replaced by a second down-like layer, which looks like and is often called true down. However, these differ in that their barbs extend from a central axis, similar to regular contour feathers. Feathers of this type eventually develop into the “flight” or quill feathers (remiges) and tail feathers. This plumage lasts until autumn, when the downy feathers give way to the adult plumage. The down feathers appearing at hatching are known as pre-pennae or pre-plumulae, depending on the context. In the case of the tawny owl, the first generation of pre-pennae consists of protoptyles, while the next set of feathers consists of mesoptyles, which are ultimately replaced by teleoptyles or adult feathers. The two types of nestling plumage—pre-pennae and pre-plumulae—can be referred to collectively as “neossoptyles,” a term created by H.F. Gadow to differentiate the nestling plumage from adult plumage, which is called “teleoptyle.”

As a rule the nestling develops but one of these generations of neossoptyles, and this generally answers to the mesoptyle plumage, though this is of a degenerate type. In some birds, as in the Megapodes, the “protoptyle” or first of these two generations of pre-pennae is developed and shed while the chick is yet in the shell, so that at hatching the mesoptyle plumage is well developed. But in the majority of birds, probably, the mesoptyle plumage only is developed, while the earlier, and apparently more degenerate, dress is suppressed. In the penguins both of these nestling plumages are developed, but the mesoptyle dress has degenerated so that umbelliform feathers now take the place of feathers having a central axis.

As a rule, the baby bird only develops one of these generations of feathers called neossoptyles, which usually corresponds to the mesoptyle plumage, although this is a less evolved type. In some birds, like the Megapodes, the "protoptyle" or first generation of these pre-feathers develops and is shed while the chick is still in the egg, so when it hatches, it has well-developed mesoptyle plumage. However, in most birds, it seems that only the mesoptyle plumage develops, while the earlier, seemingly more primitive feathers are not produced. In penguins, both types of nestling plumage develop, but the mesoptyle feathers have evolved to the point where feather shapes resembling umbrellas now replace feathers with a central shaft.

The Anatidae show traces of the earlier, first generation of feathers in one or two species only, e.g. Cloëphaga rubidiceps. In all the remaining species mesoptyles only occur. And this is true also of the game-birds. In both the Tinamous, the duck-tribe and the game-birds this mesoptyle plumage shows, in different species, every gradation between feathers having a well-developed main shaft and aftershaft, and those which are mere umbelliform tufts.

The Anatidae family displays remnants of the earliest generation of feathers in just one or two species, like Cloëphaga rubidiceps. In all other species, only mesoptyles are found. This also applies to game birds. In both Tinamous, the duck family, and game birds, this mesoptyle plumage varies across species, showing every level of development from feathers with a strong main shaft and aftershaft to those that are just fluffy tufts.

As development proceeds and the contour feathers make their appearance they thrust the mesoptyle feathers out of their follicles—the pockets in the skin in which they were rooted—and these will often be found adhering to the tips of the contour feathers for many weeks after the bird has left the nest. This occurs because the development of the contour feather begins before that of the mesoptyles has completed.

As development continues and the contour feathers start to show up, they push the mesoptyle feathers out of their follicles—the pockets in the skin where they were attached—and these often stay stuck to the tips of the contour feathers for several weeks after the bird has left the nest. This happens because the development of the contour feather begins before the mesoptyles are fully developed.

The plumage in nestling birds is still further complicated by the fact that it may be almost, or entirely, composed of pre-plumulae; that is to say, of down-feathers which are later succeeded by adult down-feathers. This is the case among the accipitrine birds for example, and thereby it differs entirely from that of the owls, which develop neither pre-plumulae nor adult down. The cormorants are, so far as is known, the only birds which have a nestling plumage composed entirely of pre-plumulae.

The feathers in baby birds are even more complicated because they can be mostly, or entirely, made up of pre-plumulae; in other words, down feathers that are later replaced by adult down feathers. This is true for accipitrine birds, for example, and it sets them apart from owls, which don’t develop either pre-plumulae or adult down. As far as we know, cormorants are the only birds with baby feathers made entirely of pre-plumulae.

In variety and brilliancy the colours of birds are not surpassed by those of any other group of animals. Yet the pigments to which these colours are due are but few in number, The colours of feathers. while a large number of the most resplendent hues are produced by structural peculiarities of the colourless horny surface of the feathers, and hence are known as subjective or optical colours.

In terms of variety and brilliance, the colors of birds are unmatched by those of any other group of animals. However, the pigments responsible for these colors are quite limited in number, Feather colors. while many of the most vibrant hues come from the structural features of the colorless, horny surface of the feathers, which is why they are called subjective or optical colors.

The principal colour pigments are (a) melanin pigments, derived possibly from the haemoglobin of the blood, but more probably from the blood plasma, and (b) lipochrome or “fat” pigments, which are regarded as reserve products; though in the case of birds it is exceedingly doubtful whether they have this significance.

The main color pigments are (a) melanin pigments, which likely come from the hemoglobin in the blood, but it’s more probable they derive from the blood plasma, and (b) lipochrome or “fat” pigments, which are considered reserve products; however, in birds, it’s highly questionable whether they actually serve this purpose.

The melanin pigments (zoomelanin) occur in the form of granules and give rise to the black, brown and grey tones; or they may combine with those of the lipochrome series.

The melanin pigments (zoomelanin) appear as granules and produce black, brown, and gray shades; or they can mix with pigments from the lipochrome series.

The lipochrome pigments (zoonerythrin and zooxanthin) tend to be diffused throughout the substance of the feather, and give rise respectively to the red and yellow colours.

The lipochrome pigments (zoonerythrin and zooxanthin) are usually spread throughout the feather's material, producing red and yellow colors, respectively.

226

226

In addition to these must be reckoned turacin, a reddish-purple pigment consisting of the same elements as zoomelanin, but remarkable for the fact that it contains from 5 to 8% of copper, which can be extracted by a weak alkaline solution, such as ammonia, and with the addition of acetic acid it can be filtered off as a metallic red or blue powder. The presence of metallic copper is indicated by the green flame of these red feathers when burnt. Turacin was discovered by Sir A.H. Church in the quill-feathers of the wings of Touracoes or “plantain eaters.” These feathers, he showed, lose their colour after they have become wet, but regain it on drying. But turacin is not, as was supposed, confined to the feathers of the plantain eaters, since it has been obtained from a cuckoo, Dasylophus superciliosus.

In addition to these, we must consider turacin, a reddish-purple pigment made up of the same elements as zoomelanin, but notable for containing 5 to 8% copper. This copper can be extracted using a weak alkaline solution like ammonia, and when acetic acid is added, it can be filtered out as a metallic red or blue powder. The presence of metallic copper is shown by the green flame produced when these red feathers are burned. Turacin was discovered by Sir A.H. Church in the quill feathers of the wings of Touracoes, or “plantain eaters.” He demonstrated that these feathers lose their color when wet but regain it when dried. However, turacin isn’t limited to the feathers of plantain eaters, as it has also been obtained from a cuckoo, Dasylophus superciliosus.

What effect food may have on colour in birds in a wild state we have no means of knowing, but it is significant that flamingoes and linnets in confinement never regain their bright hues after their first moult in captivity. If cayenne pepper be mixed with the food of certain strains of canaries, from the time the birds are hatched onwards, the yellow colour of the feathers becomes intensified, till it takes on a deep orange hue. Bullfinches, if fed on hemp-seed, turn black. According to Darwin, the natives of the Amazonian region feed the common green parrot on the fat of large Siluroid fishes, and as a result the feathers become beautifully variegated with red and yellow. Similarly, in the Malay Archipelago, the natives of Gilolo change the colours of another parrot.

What effect food may have on the color of birds in the wild is unknown, but it's noteworthy that flamingos and linnets in captivity never regain their vivid colors after their first molt. If cayenne pepper is mixed into the diets of certain canary strains from the time they're hatched, the yellow of their feathers becomes more intense, eventually turning a deep orange. Bullfinches, when fed hemp seeds, turn black. According to Darwin, the natives of the Amazon region feed the common green parrot on the fat of large Siluroid fish, resulting in beautifully variegated red and yellow feathers. Similarly, in the Malay Archipelago, the natives of Gilolo alter the colors of another parrot.

With but rare exceptions bright colours are confined to the exposed portions of the plumage, but in some of the Bustards the down is of a bright pink colour.

With a few rare exceptions, bright colors are mostly found on the exposed parts of the plumage, but in some Bustards, the down is a bright pink.

Structural colours include all metallic or prismatic colours, blue, green, white, some yellows, and, in part, glossy black. In metallic feathers the radii (barbules) are modified in various ways, frequently to form flattened, overlapping Structural colours. plates or tiles, while the surfaces of the plates are either smooth, finely striated or pitted. But, save only in the case of white feathers, beneath this colourless, glazed outer coat there is always a layer of pigment.

Structural colors include all metallic or prismatic colors: blue, green, white, some yellows, and partly glossy black. In metallic feathers, the barbs (barbules) are altered in various ways, often forming flattened, overlapping Structural colors. plates or tiles, while the surfaces of these plates can be smooth, finely striated, or textured. However, except in the case of white feathers, beneath this colorless, glossy outer layer, there is always a layer of pigment.

The only green pigment known to occur in feathers is turacoverdin, found in the feathers of the plantain eaters; it contains a relatively large amount of iron, but no copper. In all other cases the green colour of feathers is due to yellow, orange or greyish-brown pigment occurring with a special superstructure consisting of narrow ridges, as in some parrots and pittas (ant-thrushes), or the surface of the barbs and barbules is smooth and transparent, while between it and the pigment there exists a layer of small polygonal, colourless bodies having highly refractory, and often striated, surfaces.

The only green pigment found in feathers is turacoverdin, which is present in the feathers of plantain eaters; it has a relatively high iron content but no copper. In all other instances, the green color of feathers comes from yellow, orange, or greyish-brown pigments combined with a specific superstructure made up of narrow ridges, as seen in some parrots and pittas (ant-thrushes). Alternatively, the surface of the barbs and barbules can be smooth and transparent, with a layer of small, colorless, polygonal bodies featuring highly reflective and often striated surfaces existing between the pigment and the surface.

Blue is unknown as a pigment in feathers. Blue feathers contain only orange or brownish pigment (Gadow), the blue colour being caused by the combination of pigment corpuscles and colourless striated polygonal bodies, as in green feathers.

Blue is not recognized as a pigment in feathers. Blue feathers only have orange or brownish pigment (Gadow), and the blue color comes from the combination of pigment particles and colorless striated polygonal bodies, similar to green feathers.

While in many birds the coloration takes the form either of a uniform hue or of bands and patches of colour more or less brilliant, in others the coloration is sombre, and made up of dark longitudinal stripes or transverse bars on a lighter ground. The latter is the more primitive, and there seems good reason to believe that longitudinal stripes preceded transverse bars. This is indicated by the fact that the nestlings of the more primitive groups are longitudinally striped, and that young hawks in their first plumage are so striped, while the adults are barred.

While in many birds the coloration is either a solid color or features bands and patches that are more or less vibrant, in others, the colors are dull and consist of dark vertical stripes or horizontal bars on a lighter background. The latter is the more basic form, and there’s solid evidence to suggest that vertical stripes came before horizontal bars. This is shown by the fact that the chicks of the more primitive groups have vertical stripes, and that young hawks in their first feathers are also striped, while the adults have bars.

There is also evidence to show that the evolution of brilliant plumage began with the males, and has, in many cases, been more or less perfectly acquired by the females, and also by the young, as for example in the kingfishers, where parents and offspring wear the same livery. Often, where the parents are alike in plumage, the young wear a different and duller livery, as in the case of the common starling (Sturnus vulgaris). But where the female differs from the male in coloration the young resemble the female parent.

There’s evidence that the development of vibrant feathers started with the males and has often been somewhat successfully adopted by the females and the young. For instance, in kingfishers, both parents and offspring have the same coloration. Often, when the parents have similar plumage, the young sport a different, duller appearance, as seen in the common starling (Sturnus vulgaris). However, when the female has a different coloration from the male, the young tend to resemble the female parent.

The physiological explanation of complete disappearance of pigment in adult life, e.g. gannet, is not yet apparent.

The physiological reason for the complete disappearance of pigment in adulthood, e.g. gannet, is still unclear.

At least once annually birds renew their feathers completely by a process known as a moult. Until the new feathers have attained at least half their full length they are invested in a soft sheath, and, as development proceeds, the Moulting. sheath breaks up from the tip of the feather downwards, so that for a time the new feathers have almost a brush-like appearance. Generally this replacement takes place gradually, new and old feathers occurring side by side, and on this account it is not always possible to see whether a moult is proceeding without raising the old feathers.

At least once a year, birds completely replace their feathers through a process called moult. When the new feathers are growing, they are covered in a soft sheath until they reach at least half of their full length. As they develop, the sheath breaks down from the tip of the feather downward, giving the new feathers a nearly brush-like look for a while. Usually, this replacement happens gradually, with new and old feathers existing side by side, so it's not always easy to tell if a moult is happening without lifting the old feathers.

The “quill” feathers of the wing and tail are renewed in pairs, so that flight is little, if at all, impaired, the change taking place in the wing from the region of the wrist inwards, as to the primaries, and from the body outwards, towards the tip of the wing, as to the secondaries. In certain birds, however, as in the duck tribe and the rails, for example, all the quill-feathers of the wing are shed at once, so that for some time flight is impossible.

The “quill” feathers in the wings and tail are replaced in pairs, so flight is only slightly affected, if at all. The change happens in the wings from the wrist area inward for the primary feathers, and from the body outward toward the tips for the secondary feathers. However, in some birds like ducks and rails, all the quill feathers in the wings are shed at once, making flight impossible for a while.

In the penguins this simultaneous method of moulting is carried still further. That is to say, the old feathers covering the body are not replaced gradually, but en masse. This method of ecdysis is, however, still further remarkable in that the old feathers do not drop out, to be succeeded by spine-like stumps which, later, split at the tip, liberating the barbs of the new feathers. They are, on the contrary, thrust out upon the tips of the new feathers, the barbs of which are never enclosed within an envelope such as that just described. When their growth has practically completed, and not till then, the old feathers are removed in large patches by the aid of the bird’s beak; exposing thereby a perfectly developed plumage. In the cassowary, and emeu, the old feathers similarly adhere for a time to the tips of the new; but in these birds the feathers are moulted singly as in other birds.

In penguins, this simultaneous moulting process goes even further. Instead of gradually replacing old feathers, they do it all at once. This method of shedding is particularly interesting because the old feathers don't fall out to leave behind stubs that later split at the tips, releasing the barbs of the new feathers. Instead, the old feathers are pushed out by the tips of the new feathers, and the barbs are never covered by a envelope like described earlier. Only when the new feathers are almost fully grown do the birds use their beaks to remove the old feathers in big patches, revealing a full set of new plumage underneath. In cassowaries and emus, the old feathers also hang on for a while at the tips of the new ones, but in these birds, the feathers are shed one at a time, just like in other birds.

Some birds moult twice within the year, the additional moult taking place in the spring, as in the case of the “warblers” (Sylviidae) and Limicolae, for example. But when this is the case the spring moult is only partial, since the quill feathers of the wings and the tail feathers are not renewed.

Some birds molt twice a year, with an extra molt happening in the spring, like in the case of the "warblers" (Sylviidae) and Limicolae, for example. However, when this occurs, the spring molt is only partial, as the flight feathers in the wings and the tail feathers are not replaced.

At this spring moult a special “nuptial” plumage is often assumed, as for example in many of the Limicolae, e.g. god-wits, knots, dunlin, ruff.

At this spring molt, a special "nuptial" plumage is often worn, like in many of the Limicolae, e.g. godwits, knots, dunlins, ruffs.

The sequel to this habit of assuming a nuptial dress is an interesting one. Briefly, this plumage, at first assumed at the mating period by the males only, and doffed soon after the young appear, has become retained for longer and longer periods, so that the succeeding plumage, often conspicuously dull compared with the nuptial dress, is worn only for a few weeks, instead of many months, as in the case of many of the ducks, for example; wherein the males, as soon as the young are hatched, assume what C. Waterton has aptly called an “eclipse” dress. This, instead of being worn till the following spring, as in the waders, is shed again in the autumn and replaced by what answers to the waders’ “nuptial” dress. In the game-birds but a trace of this “eclipse” plumage remains; and this, apparently, only in jungle-fowl, the common grey partridge (Perdix cinerea) and the blackcock (Lyrurus), in whose case the head and neck for a short period following the breeding season are clothed only by dull feathers. Further, this more highly developed plumage becomes transferred, first to the female, then to the young, so that, in many groups, the dull phase of plumage is entirely eliminated.

The follow-up to this habit of taking on a mating outfit is quite fascinating. Initially, this colorful plumage is worn only by males during the mating season and is shed soon after the young are born. However, it has increasingly been kept for longer durations. As a result, the next plumage, which is often much duller compared to the mating outfit, is now only worn for a few weeks instead of several months, like many ducks do. In those cases, as soon as the young are hatched, the males adopt what C. Waterton cleverly referred to as an “eclipse” outfit. Unlike the waders that keep this plumage until the next spring, the males shed it again in the autumn and replace it with what resembles the waders’ “nuptial” outfit. In game birds, only a slight trace of this “eclipse” plumage remains, mostly seen in jungle-fowl, the common grey partridge (Perdix cinerea), and the blackcock (Lyrurus), where the head and neck are covered with dull feathers for a short time after the breeding season. Moreover, this more vibrant plumage eventually gets passed on to the female and then to the young, leading to the removal of the dull plumage phase in many groups.

But the assumption at the breeding season of a conspicuously brilliant plumage is not always due to a moult. In many birds, notably many Passerines, this change is brought about by shedding the tips of the feathers, which are of a duller hue than the rest of the feather. In this way the bright rose pink of the linnet’s breast, the blue and black head of the chaffinch, and the black throat and chestnut-and-black markings of the back of the sparrow, are assumed—to mention but a few instances. These birds moult but once a year, in the autumn, when the new feathers have broad brown fringes; as the spring advances these drop off, and with them the barbicels from the barbules 227 of the upper surface of the feather, thus revealing the hidden tints.

But the bright colors that birds show during mating season aren't always due to a molt. In many birds, especially many songbirds, this change happens when they shed the tips of their feathers, which are a duller color than the rest of the feather. This way, the vibrant rose pink of the linnet’s breast, the blue and black head of the chaffinch, and the black throat and chestnut-and-black markings on the back of the sparrow emerge — just to name a few examples. These birds only molt once a year in the fall, when their new feathers have wide brown edges; as spring comes, these edges fall off along with the tiny bristles from the feather barbs, revealing the bright colors underneath. 227

According to some authorities, however, some birds acquire a change of colour without a moult by the ascent of pigment from the base of the feather. The black head assumed by many gulls in the spring is, for example, said to be gained in this way. There is, however, not only no good evidence in support of the contention, but the whole structure of the feather is against the probability of any such change taking place.

According to some experts, certain birds can change color without shedding their feathers, as pigments rise from the base of the feather. For instance, many gulls are said to develop a black head in the spring through this process. However, there’s no solid evidence to support this idea, and the entire structure of the feather makes such a change unlikely.

Feathers correspond with the scales of reptiles rather than with the hairs of mammals, as is shown by their development. They make their first appearance in the developing chick at about the sixth day of incubation, in the shape of small The development of feathers. papillae. In section each papilla is found to be made up of a cluster of dermal cells—that is to say, of cells of the deeper layer of the skin—capped by cells of the epidermis. These last form a single superficial layer of flattened cells—the epitrichium—overlaying the cells of the Malpighian layer, which are cylindrical in shape and rapidly increase to form several layers. As development proceeds the papillae assume a cone-shape with its apex directed backwards, while the base of this cone sinks down into the skin, or rather is carried down by the growth of the Malpighian cells, so that the cone is now sunk in a deep pit. Thereby these Malpighian cells become divided into two portions: (1) those taking part in the formation of the walls of the pit or “feather follicle,” and (2) those enclosed within the cone. These last surround the central mass or core formed by the dermis. This mass constitutes the nutritive pulp for the development of the growing feather, and is highly vascular. The cells of the Malpighian layer within the cone now become differentiated into three layers. (1) An inner, extremely thin, forming a delicate sheath for the pulp, and found in the fully developed feather in the form of a series of hollow, transparent caps enclosed within the calamus; (2) a thick layer which forms the feather itself; and (3) a thin layer which forms the investing sheath of the feather. It is this sheath which gives the curious spine-covered character to many nestling birds and birds in moult. As growth proceeds the cells of this middle layer arrange themselves in longitudinal rows to form the barbs, while the barbules are formed by a secondary splitting. At their bases these rudimentary barbs meet to form the calamus. Finally the tips of the barbs break through the investing sheath and the fully formed down-feather emerges.

Feathers are more similar to reptile scales than to mammal hair, as evidenced by their development. They first show up in the developing chick around the sixth day of incubation as small papillae. Each papilla consists of a cluster of dermal cells, which are part of the deeper layer of the skin, topped by epidermal cells. These form a single layer of flattened cells called the epitrichium, sitting above the cylindrical, rapidly multiplying cells of the Malpighian layer. As development continues, the papillae take on a cone shape with the pointed end facing backward, while the base sinks into the skin, pushed down by the growing Malpighian cells, creating a pit for the cone. This leads to the Malpighian cells splitting into two sections: (1) those forming the walls of the pit, or “feather follicle,” and (2) those inside the cone. The latter surround a central mass formed from the dermis, which provides nourishment for the developing feather and is rich in blood vessels. The Malpighian layer cells within the cone differentiate into three layers: (1) an inner, very thin layer that creates a delicate sheath for the pulp, which in mature feathers takes the form of hollow, transparent caps inside the calamus; (2) a thick layer that makes up the feather itself; and (3) a thin layer that forms the outer sheath of the feather. This sheath gives many young and molting birds their unique spiny appearance. As the feather grows, the cells in the middle layer align in rows to create the barbs, while the barbules form from secondary splitting. At their bases, these early barbs come together to form the calamus. Eventually, the tips of the barbs break through the outer sheath, and the fully formed down feather emerges.

A part of the pulp and Malpighian cells remains over after the complete growth of the down-feather, and from this succeeding generations of feathers are developed. The process of this development differs from that just outlined chiefly in this: that of the longitudinal rows which in the down-feather form the barbs, two on the dorsal and two on the ventral aspect of the interior of the cylinder become stronger than the rest, combining to form the main- and after-shaft respectively. The remainder of the rods form the barbs and barbules as in the down-feather.

A part of the pulp and Malpighian cells is left behind after the down-feather fully grows, and from this, new generations of feathers develop. The development process of these new feathers is mainly different in one way: among the longitudinal rows that create the barbs in the down-feather, two on the top side and two on the underside of the inside of the cylinder become stronger than the others, merging to form the main shaft and the after-shaft, respectively. The rest of the rods form the barbs and barbules just like in the down-feather.

The reproductive power of the feather follicle appears to be almost inexhaustible, since it is not diminished appreciably by age, nor restricted to definite moulting periods, as is shown by the cruel and now obsolete custom of plucking geese alive, no less than three times annually, for the sake of their feathers. The growth of the feathers is, however, certainly affected by the general health of the bird, mal-nutrition causing the appearance of peculiar transverse V-shaped grooves, at more or less regular intervals, along the whole length of the feather. These are known as “hunger-marks,” a name given by falconers, to whom this defect was well known.

The reproductive power of the feather follicle seems nearly endless, as it doesn’t significantly decrease with age and isn’t limited to specific molting periods. This is evidenced by the cruel and now outdated practice of plucking geese alive up to three times a year for their feathers. However, the growth of feathers is definitely influenced by the overall health of the bird; malnutrition results in the appearance of unusual transverse V-shaped grooves at regular intervals along the entire length of the feather. These are referred to as “hunger marks,” a term used by falconers who were familiar with this issue.

It would seem that while the feather germ may be artificially stimulated to produce three successive generations of feathers within a year, it may, on the other hand, be induced artificially to maintain a continuous activity extending over long periods. That is to say, the normal quiescent period, and periodic moult, may be suspended, so that the feather maintains a steady and continuous growth till it attains a length of several feet. The only known instance of this kind is that furnished by a domesticated breed of jungle-fowl known as the “Japanese long-tailed fowls” or as “Yokohamas.” In this breed the upper tail coverts are in some way, as yet unknown to Europeans, induced to go on growing until they have attained a length of from 12 to 18 or even 20 ft.! In this abnormal growth the “hackles” of the lower part of the back also share, though they do not attain a similar length.

It seems that while the feather germ can be artificially stimulated to produce three successive generations of feathers in a single year, it can also be artificially induced to maintain continuous activity over long periods. In other words, the normal resting period and periodic molting can be suspended, allowing the feather to grow steadily and continuously until it reaches several feet in length. The only known example of this is a domesticated breed of jungle fowl called the "Japanese long-tailed fowls" or "Yokohamas." In this breed, the upper tail coverts are somehow, still unknown to Europeans, stimulated to continue growing until they reach a length of 12 to 18 or even 20 feet! This unusual growth also affects the "hackles" on the lower part of the back, although they don't reach the same length.

The feathers of birds are not uniformly distributed over the body, but grow only along certain definite tracts known as pterylae, leaving bare spaces or apteria. These pterylae differ considerably in their conformation in different groups of birds, and hence are of service in systematic ornithology.

The feathers on birds are not spread out evenly across their bodies; instead, they grow in specific areas called pterylae, leaving bare patches known as apteria. These pterylae vary significantly in shape and arrangement among different bird groups, which makes them useful in the study of bird classification.

The principal pterylae are as follows:—

The main pterylae are as follows:—

(1) The head tract (pt. capitis), which embraces the head only.

(1) The head area (pt. capitis), which includes just the head.

(2) The spinal tract (pt. spinalis), which extends the whole length of the vertical column. It is one of the most variable in its modifications, especially in so far as the region from the base of the neck to the tail is concerned. In its simplest form it runs down the back in the form of a band of almost uniform width, but generally it expands considerably in the lumbar region, as in Passeres. Frequently it is divided into two portions; an upper, terminating in the region of the middle of the back in a fork, and a lower, which commences either as a fork, e.g. plover, barbet, or as a median band, e.g. swallow. Very commonly the dorsal region of this tract encloses a more or less extensive featherless space (apterion), e.g. swift, auk. While, as a rule, the dorsal region of this tract is relatively narrow, it is in some of great breadth, e.g. grebe, pigeon, coly.

(2) The spinal tract (pt. spinalis) runs the entire length of the vertebral column. It's one of the most variable in its adaptations, especially from the base of the neck to the tail. In its simplest form, it runs down the back as a band of almost uniform width, but it usually widens significantly in the lumbar region, like in Passeres. Often, it splits into two parts: an upper section that ends halfway down the back in a fork, and a lower section that starts either as a fork, e.g. plover, barbet, or as a central band, e.g. swallow. Frequently, the dorsal section of this tract has a more or less extensive featherless area (apterion), e.g. swift, auk. While the dorsal region of this tract is typically narrow, in some species it can be quite broad, e.g. grebe, pigeon, coly.

(3) The ventral tract (pt. ventralis), which presents almost as many variations as the spinal tract.

(3) The ventral tract (pt. ventralis) has almost as many variations as the spinal tract.

Fig. 2.—Pterylosis of the plover.

In its simplest form it runs from the throat backwards in the form of a median band as far as the base of the neck where it divides, sending a branch to each side of the breast. This branch commonly again divides into a short, broad outer branch which lodges the “flank” feathers, and a long, narrow, inner branch which runs backwards to join its fellow of the opposite side in front of the cloacal aperture. This branch lodges the abdominal feathers. The median space which divides the inner branches of the tract may be continued forwards as far as the middle of the neck, or even up to the throat, e.g. plover. Only in a few cases is the neck continuously covered by the fusion of the dorsal and ventral tracts, e.g. flamingo, Anseres, Ciconidae, Pygopodes.

In its simplest form, it runs from the throat backward in a central band all the way to the base of the neck, where it splits and sends a branch to each side of the chest. This branch usually splits again into a short, wide outer branch that holds the "flank" feathers, and a long, narrow inner branch that extends backward to connect with the one on the opposite side in front of the cloacal opening. This inner branch holds the abdominal feathers. The space in the middle that separates the inner branches of the tract can extend forward to the middle of the neck or even up to the throat, for example, in plovers. Only in a few cases does the neck have a continuous covering from the fusion of the dorsal and ventral tracts, such as in flamingos, geese, storks, and diving birds.

For convenience sake the cervical portions of the spinal and ventral tracts are generally regarded as separate tracts, the pt. colli dorsalis and pt. colli ventralis respectively.

For convenience, the cervical sections of the spinal and ventral tracts are generally viewed as separate tracts: the pt. colli dorsalis and pt. colli ventralis, respectively.

(4) The humeral tract (pt. humeralis), which gives rise to the “scapular” feathers.

(4) The humeral tract (pt. humeralis), which produces the “scapular” feathers.

(5) The femoral tract (pt. femoralis), which forms an oblique band across the thigh.

(5) The femoral tract (pt. femoralis) creates an angled band across the thigh.

(6) The crural tract (pt. cruralis), which clothes the rest of the leg.

(6) The crural tract (pt. cruralis), which covers the rest of the leg.

(7) The tail tract (pt. caudalis), including the tail feathers and their coverts; and

(7) The tail section (pt. caudalis), which includes the tail feathers and their coverts; and

(8) The wing tract (pt. alaris). The wing tract presents many peculiar features. Each segment—arm, forearm and hand—bears feathers essential to flight, and these are divided into remiges, or “quill” feathers, and tectrices, or “coverts.”

(8) The wing area (pt. alaris). The wing area has many unique characteristics. Each part—arm, forearm, and hand—has feathers that are crucial for flying, and these are split into remiges, or “quill” feathers, and tectrices, or “coverts.”

The remiges of the arm, more commonly described as “tertiaries,” are, technically, collectively known as the parapteron and hypopteron, and are composed respectively of long, quill-like feathers forming a double series, the former arranged along the upper, and the latter along the lower aspect of the humerus. They serve to fill up the gap which, in long-winged birds, would otherwise occur during flight between the quill-feathers of the forearm and the body, a gap which would make flight impossible. In short-winged birds these two series are extremely reduced.

The flight feathers of the arm, more commonly called “tertiaries,” are technically known as the parapteron and hypopteron. They consist of long, quill-like feathers that form a double series: the former is arranged along the upper part, and the latter along the lower part of the humerus. These feathers fill in the gap that would otherwise exist during flight between the quill-feathers of the forearm and the body in long-winged birds, a gap that would make flight impossible. In short-winged birds, these two series are greatly reduced.

The remiges range in number from 16, as in humming-birds, to 48 as in the albatross, according, in short, to the length of the wing. But these numerical differences depend, in flying birds, rather upon the length of the forearm, since the quills of the hand never exceed 12 and never fall below 10, though the tenth may be reduced to a mere vestige.

The flight feathers range in number from 16, like in hummingbirds, to 48, like in the albatross, depending mainly on the wing's length. However, these numerical differences in flying birds are more about the length of the forearm, since the primary feathers never exceed 12 and never go below 10, although the tenth can be reduced to just a small remnant.

The quills of the forearm are known as “secondaries,” those of the hand as “primaries.” The former are attached by their bases at relatively wide distances apart to the ulna, while the primaries are crowded close together and attached to the skeleton of the hand. The six or seven which rest upon the fused metacarpals II.-III. are known as “metacarpals.” The next succeeding feather is borne by the phalanx of digit III. and hence is known as the addigital. Phalanx i. of digit II. always supports two quills, the “middigitals,” while the remaining feathers—one or two—are borne by the last phalanx of digit II. and are known as pre-digitals, while the whole series of primaries are known as the metacarpo-digitals.

The quills on the forearm are called “secondaries,” and those on the hand are referred to as “primaries.” The secondaries are connected at their bases to the ulna spaced relatively far apart, while the primaries are packed closely together and attached to the skeletal structure of the hand. The six or seven quills resting on the fused metacarpals II-III are known as “metacarpals.” The next feather is attached to the phalanx of digit III and is therefore called the addigital. Phalanx i of digit II always supports two quills, called the “middigitals,” while the remaining feathers—one or two—are attached to the last phalanx of digit II and are known as pre-digitals. The entire series of primaries is referred to as the metacarpo-digitals.

In their relation one to another the remiges, it must be noted, are always so placed that they overlap one another, the free edge of each, when the wing is seen from its upper surface, being turned towards the tip of the wing. Thus, in flight, the air passes through the wing as it is raised, while in the downstroke the feathers are forced together to form a homogeneous surface.

In their relationship to each other, it's important to note that the feathers on the wings are always arranged to overlap. When you look at the wing from the top, the free edge of each feather points toward the wingtip. This way, during flight, air flows through the wing as it lifts, and during the downward stroke, the feathers come together to create a smooth surface.

Birds which fly much have the outer primaries of great length, giving the wing a pointed shape, as in swifts, while in species which fly but little, or frequent thickets, the outer primaries are very short, giving the wing a rounded appearance. This adaptation to environment is commonly lost sight of by taxonomers, who not infrequently use the form of the wing as a factor in classification.

Birds that fly a lot have long outer primary feathers, which give their wings a pointed shape, like swifts. In contrast, species that fly less often or spend time in thick vegetation have very short outer primary feathers, making their wings look rounded. This adaptation to their environment is often overlooked by taxonomists, who frequently use the wing shape as a classification factor.

The tectrices, or covert feathers of the wing, are arranged in several series, decreasing in size from behind forwards. The number of rows on the dorsal aspect and the method of their overlap, afford characters of general importance in classification.

The tectrices, or the wing's cover feathers, are lined up in several rows, getting smaller from back to front. The number of rows on the back side and how they overlap are important features for classification.

228

228

The first row of the series is formed by the major coverts; these, like the primaries, have their free-edges directed towards the tip of the wing, and hence are said to have a distal overlap. The next row is formed by the median coverts. These, on the forearm, commonly overlap as to the outer half of the row distally, and as to the inner half proximally. On the hand this series is incomplete. Beyond the median are four or five rows of coverts known as the minor coverts. These may have either a proximal or a distal overlap. The remaining rows of small feathers are known as the marginal coverts, and they always have a distal overlap.

The first row of the series consists of the major coverts; these, like the primaries, have their free edges pointing toward the tip of the wing, which is why they are said to have a distal overlap. The next row consists of the median coverts. These typically overlap in the outer half distally and in the inner half proximally on the forearm. On the hand, this series is not complete. After the median, there are four or five rows of coverts known as the minor coverts. These can have either a proximal or a distal overlap. The remaining rows of small feathers are called the marginal coverts, and they always have a distal overlap.

The three or four large quill-like feathers borne by the thumb form what is known as the “bastard-wing,” ala spuria.

The three or four large quill-like feathers on the thumb make up what is called the “bastard-wing,” ala spuria.

The coverts of the under follow an arrangement similar to that of the upper surface, but the minor coverts are commonly but feebly developed, leaving a more or less bare space which is covered by the great elongation of the marginal series.

The coverts of the under side follow a pattern similar to the upper surface, but the minor coverts are usually only slightly developed, resulting in a more or less bare area that is covered by the significant length of the marginal series.

One noteworthy fact about the coverts of the under side of the wing is that all save the major and median coverts have what answers to the dorsal surfaces of the feather turned towards the body, and what answers to the ventral surface of the feather turned towards the under surface of the wing. In the major and median coverts, however, the ventral surfaces of these feathers are turned ventralwards, that is to say, in the extended wing they, like the remiges, have the ventral surfaces turned downwards or towards the body in the closed wing.

One interesting detail about the covert feathers on the underside of the wing is that all of them, except for the major and median coverts, have what corresponds to the top side of the feather facing the body, while the side that corresponds to the underside of the feather is facing the bottom of the wing. In contrast, the major and median coverts have the underside of these feathers facing downwards, which means that when the wing is extended, like the flight feathers, their underside is directed down towards the ground or towards the body when the wing is closed.

But the most remarkable fact in connexion with the pterylosis of the wing is the fact that in all, save the Passerine and Galliform types, and some few other isolated exceptions, the secondary series of remiges appears always to lack the fifth remex, counting from the wrist inwards, inasmuch as, when such wings are examined, there is always found, in the place of the fifth remex, a pair of major coverts only, while throughout the rest of the series each such pair of coverts embraces a quill.

But the most notable thing about the wing's feather structure is that, except for Passerine and Galliform types and a few other isolated cases, the secondary set of flight feathers usually doesn't have the fifth feather when counting from the wrist inward. When examining these wings, you always find a pair of major coverts in place of the fifth feather, while in the rest of the arrangement, each pair of coverts covers a quill feather.

This extraordinary fact was first discovered by the French naturalist Z. Gerbe, and was later rediscovered by R.S. Wray. Neither of these, however, was able to offer any explanation thereof. This, however, has since been attempted, simultaneously, by P.C. Mitchell and W.P. Pycraft. The former has aptly coined the word diastataxic to denote the gap in the series, and eutaxic to denote such wings as have an uninterrupted series of quills. While both authors agree that there is no evidence of any loss in the number of the quills in diastataxic wings, they differ in the interpretation as to which of the two conditions is the more primitive and the means by which the gap has been brought about.

This amazing fact was first discovered by the French naturalist Z. Gerbe and later rediscovered by R.S. Wray. However, neither of them could provide an explanation for it. Since then, P.C. Mitchell and W.P. Pycraft have both tried to explain it. Mitchell has appropriately created the term diastataxic to describe the gap in the series and eutaxic for wings that have a continuous series of quills. While both authors agree that there is no evidence of any loss in the number of quills in diastataxic wings, they disagree on which of the two conditions is the more primitive and how the gap was created.

According to Mitchell the diastataxic is the more primitive condition, and he has conclusively shown a way in which diastataxic wings may become eutaxic. Pycraft on the other hand contends that the diastataxic wing has been derived from the eutaxic type, and has produced evidence showing, on the one hand, the method by which this transition is effected, and on the other that by which the diastataxic wing may again recover the eutaxic condition, though in this last particular the evidence adduced by Mitchell is much more complete. The matter is, however, one of considerable difficulty, but is well worth further investigation.

According to Mitchell, diastataxic is the more primitive condition, and he has clearly demonstrated how diastataxic wings can become eutaxic. Pycraft, on the other hand, argues that the diastataxic wing evolved from the eutaxic type and has provided evidence showing both the process through which this transition occurs and how the diastataxic wing can revert back to the eutaxic condition. However, in this last aspect, the evidence presented by Mitchell is much more comprehensive. This topic is quite complex, but it's definitely worth further exploration.

The wings of struthious birds differ from those of the Carinatae, just described, in many ways. All are degenerate and quite useless as organs of flight. In some cases indeed they have become reduced to mere vestiges.

The wings of flightless birds are different from those of the flying birds just described in many ways. All are underdeveloped and pretty much useless for flying. In some cases, they have even become reduced to just remnants.

Those of the ostrich and Rhea are the least degraded.

Those of the ostrich and Rhea are the least evolved.

In the ostrich ankylosis has prevented the flexion of the hand at the wrist joint so that the quills—primaries and secondaries—form an unbroken series of about forty in number. Of these sixteen belong to the primary or metacarpo-digital series, a number exceeding that of any other bird. What the significance of this may be with regard to the primitive wing it is impossible to say at present. The coverts, in their disposition, bear a general resemblance to those of Carinate wings; but they differ on account of the great length of the feathers and the absence of any definite overlap.

In ostriches, ankylosis has stopped the wrist from flexing, meaning the feathers—both primary and secondary—create an unbroken series of about forty in total. Among these, sixteen are part of the primary or metacarpo-digital series, which is more than any other bird has. It's hard to determine what this means for the primitive wing right now. The coverts, in their arrangement, generally resemble those of Carinate wings; however, they differ due to the long length of the feathers and the lack of any clear overlap.

The wing of the South American Rhea more nearly resembles that of flying birds since the hand can be flexed at the wrist joint, and the primaries are twelve in number, as in grebes, and some storks, for example.

The wing of the South American Rhea is more similar to that of flying birds because the hand can bend at the wrist joint, and there are twelve primary feathers, like in grebes and some storks, for instance.

The coverts, as in the African ostrich, are remarkable for their great length, those representing the major series being as long as the remiges, a fact probably due to the shortening of the latter. They are not, however, arranged in quincunx, as is the rule among the Carinatae, but in parallel, transverse rows, in which respect they resemble the owls.

The coverts, like those of the African ostrich, are notable for their impressive length, with the primary series being as long as the flight feathers, likely because the latter are shorter. However, they are not arranged in a quincunx pattern, which is typical among the Carinatae, but instead in parallel, cross rows, similar to owls.

In both ostrich and Rhea, as well as in all the other struthious birds, the under surface of the wing is entirely bare.

In both ostriches and rheas, as well as in all other flightless birds, the underside of the wing is completely bare.

The wing of the cassowary, emeu and apteryx has undergone complete degeneration; so much so that only a vestige of the hand remains.

The wings of the cassowary, emu, and kiwi have completely degenerated; so much so that only a remnant of the hand is left.

Remiges in the cassowary are represented by a few spine-like shafts—three primaries and two secondaries. These are really hypertrophied calami. This is shown by the fact that in the nestling these remiges have a normal calamus, rhachis and vane; but as development proceeds the rhachis with its vane sloughs off, while the calamus becomes enormously lengthened and solid.

Remiges in the cassowary are represented by a few spine-like shafts—three primaries and two secondaries. These are actually enlarged calami. This is evident because in the nestling, these remiges have a normal calamus, rhachis, and vane; but as they develop, the rhachis with its vane sheds off, while the calamus becomes greatly elongated and solid.

In the emeu the wing is less atrophied than in the cassowary, but is not yet completely degenerate. Altogether seventeen remiges are represented, of which seven correspond to primaries. Since, however, these feathers have each an aftershaft as long as the main shaft—like the rest of the body feathers—it may be that they answer not to remiges, but to major coverts.

In the emu, the wing is less underdeveloped than in the cassowary, but it isn’t entirely useless yet. There are a total of seventeen flight feathers, seven of which are considered primary feathers. However, since each of these feathers has an aftershaft that is as long as the main shaft—similar to the other body feathers—it’s possible that these feathers do not correspond to flight feathers but rather to major coverts.

The wing of apteryx, like that of the cassowary, has become extremely reduced. The remiges are thirteen in number, four of which answer to primaries. These feathers are specially interesting, inasmuch as they retain throughout life a stage corresponding to that seen in the very young cassowary, the calamus being greatly swollen, and supporting a very degenerate rhachis and vane.

The wing of the kiwi, similar to that of the cassowary, has become significantly smaller. There are thirteen flight feathers, four of which are considered primary feathers. These feathers are particularly interesting because they maintain a juvenile state throughout their life, with a greatly swollen base and a very underdeveloped shaft and vane.

The penguins afford another object-lesson in degeneration of this kind. Here the wing has become transformed into a paddle, clothed on both sides with a covering of small, close-set feathers. A pollex is wanting, as in the cassowary, emeu and apteryx, while it is impossible to say whether remiges are represented or not.

The penguins provide another example of this type of degeneration. Here, the wing has changed into a paddle, covered on both sides with small, closely spaced feathers. There is no thumb, like in the cassowary, emu, and kiwi, and it’s unclear whether the flight feathers are present or not.

Authorities.—The following authors should be consulted for further details on this subject:—

Authorities.—The following authors should be consulted for more information on this topic:—

For General Reference as to Structure, Colour, Development and Pterylosis.—H. Gadow, in Newton’s Dictionary of Birds (1896); W.P. Pycraft, “The Interlocking of the Barbs of Feathers,” Natural Science (1893).

For General Reference on Structure, Color, Development, and Pterylosis.—H. Gadow, in Newton’s Dictionary of Birds (1896); W.P. Pycraft, “The Interlocking of the Barbs of Feathers,” Natural Science (1893).

On the Colours of Feathers.—J.L. Bonhote, “On Moult and Colour Change in Birds,” Ibis (1900); A.H. Church, “Researches on Turacin, an Animal Pigment containing Copper,” Phil. Trans. clix. (1870), pt. ii.; H. Gadow, “The Coloration of Feathers as affected by Structure,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1882); Newbegin, Colour in Nature (1898); R.M. Strong, “The Development of Color in the Definitive Feather,” Bull. Mus. Zool. Harvard College, vol. xl.

On the Colors of Feathers.—J.L. Bonhote, “On Molt and Color Change in Birds,” Ibis (1900); A.H. Church, “Researches on Turacin, an Animal Pigment containing Copper,” Phil. Trans. clix. (1870), pt. ii.; H. Gadow, “The Coloration of Feathers as Affected by Structure,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1882); Newbegin, Color in Nature (1898); R.M. Strong, “The Development of Color in the Definitive Feather,” Bull. Mus. Zool. Harvard College, vol. xl.

On Moulting.—J. Dwight, “The Sequences of Plumage and Moults of the Passerine Birds of New York,” Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol. xiii. (1900); W.E. De Winton, “On the Moulting of the King Penguin,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1898-1899); W.P. Pycraft, “On some Points in the Anatomy of the Emperor and Adélie Penguins,” Report National Antarctic Expedition, vol. ii. (1907).

On Moulting.—J. Dwight, “The Sequences of Plumage and Moults of the Passerine Birds of New York,” Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol. xiii. (1900); W.E. De Winton, “On the Moulting of the King Penguin,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1898-1899); W.P. Pycraft, “On some Points in the Anatomy of the Emperor and Adélie Penguins,” Report National Antarctic Expedition, vol. ii. (1907).

On Development of Embryonic, Nestling and Adult Feathers.—T.H. Studer, “Die Entwicklung der Federn,” Inaug.-Diss. (Bern, 1873); “Beiträge zur Entwickl. der Feder,” Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxx.; J.T. Cunningham, “Observations and Experiments on Japanese Long-tailed Fowls,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1903); H.R. Davies, “Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Feder,” Morph. Jahrb. xiv. (1888), xv. (1889); W.P. Pycraft, “A Contribution towards our Knowledge of the Morphology of the Owls,” Trans. Linn. Soc. (1898); W.P. Pycraft, “A Contribution towards our Knowledge of the Pterytography of the Megapodii,” Report Willey’s Zoological Results, pt. iv. (1900); W.P. Pycraft, “Nestling Birds and some of the Problems they Present,” British Birds (1907).

On the Development of Embryonic, Nestling, and Adult Feathers.—T.H. Studer, “The Development of Feathers,” Inaug.-Diss. (Bern, 1873); “Contributions to the Development of Feathers,” Journal of Scientific Zoology, Vol. xxx.; J.T. Cunningham, “Observations and Experiments on Japanese Long-tailed Chickens,” Proceedings of the Zoological Society (1903); H.R. Davies, “Contribution to the Development of Feathers,” Morphological Yearbook xiv. (1888), xv. (1889); W.P. Pycraft, “A Contribution to Our Understanding of Owl Morphology,” Transactions of the Linnean Society (1898); W.P. Pycraft, “A Contribution to Our Understanding of the Pterytography of the Megapode,” Report of Willey’s Zoological Results, pt. iv. (1900); W.P. Pycraft, “Nestling Birds and Some of the Problems They Present,” British Birds (1907).

On Pterylosis.—H. Gadow, “Remarks on the Numbers and on the Phylogenetic Development of the Remiges of Birds,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1888); Z. Gerbe, “Sur les plumes du vol et leur mue,” Bull. Soc. Zool. France, vol. ii. (1877); J.G. Goodchild, “The Cubital Coverts of the Euornithae in relation to Taxonomy,” Proc. Roy. Phys. Edinb. vol. x. (1890-1891); Meijere, “Über die Federn der Vögel,” Morphol. Jahrb. xxiii. (1895); P.C. Mitchell, “On so-called ‘Quintocubitalism’ in the Wing of Birds,” Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool. vol. xxvii. (1899); “On the Anatomy of the Kingfishers, with special reference to the Conditions known as Eutaxy and Diastataxy,” Ibis (1901); C.L. Nitzsch, “Pterytography,” Ray Soc. (1867); W.P. Pycraft, “Some Facts concerning the so-called ‘Aquintocubitalism’ of the Bird’s Wing,” Journ. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvii.; C.J. Sundevall, “On the Wings of Birds,” Ibis (1886); R.S. Wray, “On some Points in the Morphology of the Wings of Birds,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1887).

On Pterylosis.—H. Gadow, “Remarks on the Numbers and on the Phylogenetic Development of the Remiges of Birds,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1888); Z. Gerbe, “On the Flight Feathers and Their Molting,” Bull. Soc. Zool. France, vol. ii. (1877); J.G. Goodchild, “The Cubital Coverts of the Euornithae in Relation to Taxonomy,” Proc. Roy. Phys. Edinb. vol. x. (1890-1891); Meijere, “On the Feathers of Birds,” Morphol. Jahrb. xxiii. (1895); P.C. Mitchell, “On So-Called ‘Quintocubitalism’ in the Wing of Birds,” Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool. vol. xxvii. (1899); “On the Anatomy of Kingfishers, with a Special Focus on Conditions Known as Eutaxy and Diastataxy,” Ibis (1901); C.L. Nitzsch, “Pterytography,” Ray Soc. (1867); W.P. Pycraft, “Some Facts About the So-Called ‘Aquintocubitalism’ of the Bird’s Wing,” Journ. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvii.; C.J. Sundevall, “On the Wings of Birds,” Ibis (1886); R.S. Wray, “On Some Aspects of the Morphology of the Wings of Birds,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (1887).

(W. P. P.)

Commercial Applications of Feathers.—The chief purposes for which feathers become commercially valuable may be comprehended under four divisions:—(1) bed and upholstery feathers; (2) quills for writing; (3) ornamental feathers; and (4) miscellaneous uses of feathers.

Commercial Applications of Feathers.—The main reasons feathers are commercially valuable can be categorized into four groups:—(1) feathers for bedding and upholstery; (2) quills for writing; (3) decorative feathers; and (4) other uses of feathers.

Bed and Upholstery Feathers.—The qualities which render feathers available for stuffing beds, cushions, &c., are lightness elasticity, freedom from matting and softness. These are combined in the most satisfactory degree in the feathers of the goose and of several other allied aquatic birds, whose bodies are protected with a warm downy covering. Goose feathers and down, when plucked in spring from the living bird, are most esteemed, being at once more elastic, cleaner and less liable to taint than those obtained from the bodies of killed geese. The down of the eider duck, Anas mollissima, is valued above all other substances for lightness, softness and elasticity; but it has some tendency to mat, and is consequently more used for quilts and in articles of clothing than unmixed for stuffing beds. The feathers of swans, ducks and of the common domestic fowl are also largely employed for beds; but in the case of the latter bird, which is of course non-aquatic, the feathers are harsher 229 and less downy than are those of the natatorial birds generally. Feathers which possess strong or stiff shafts cannot without some preliminary preparation be used for stuffing purposes, as the stiff points they present would not only be highly uncomfortable, but would also pierce and cause the escape of the feathers from any covering in which they might be enclosed. The barbs are therefore stripped or cut from these feathers, and when so prepared they, in common with soft feathers and downs, undergo a careful process of drying and cleaning, without which they would acquire an offensive smell, readily attract damp, and harbour vermin. The drying is generally done in highly heated apartments or stoves, and subsequently the feathers are smartly beaten with a stick, and shaken in a sieve to separate all dust and small debris.

Bed and Upholstery Feathers.—The qualities that make feathers suitable for stuffing beds, cushions, etc., include lightness, elasticity, non-matting, and softness. These qualities are best found in the feathers of geese and several other related aquatic birds, which have a warm downy layer. Goose feathers and down, when taken in spring from a live bird, are the most prized because they are more elastic, cleaner, and less likely to smell than those from dead geese. The down from the eider duck, Anas mollissima, is considered the best for its lightness, softness, and elasticity; however, it tends to mat, so it is usually used for quilts and clothing instead of as stuffing for beds. Feathers from swans, ducks, and common domestic chickens are also widely used for bedding, but the feathers from chickens, being non-aquatic, are coarser and less downy compared to those from water birds. Feathers with strong or stiff shafts can't be used for stuffing without some preparation because their stiff tips would be uncomfortable and could poke through any covering, causing the feathers to escape. Therefore, the barbs are stripped or cut from these feathers, and, like soft feathers and down, they go through a careful drying and cleaning process to prevent bad odors, moisture attraction, and pest infestations. The drying usually happens in warm rooms or stoves, and afterward, the feathers are vigorously beaten with a stick and shaken in a sieve to remove all dust and small debris. 229

Quills for Writing.—The earliest period at which the use of quill feathers for writing purposes is recorded is the 6th century; and from that time till the introduction of steel pens in the early part of the 19th century they formed the principal writing implements of civilized communities. It has always been from the goose that quills have been chiefly obtained, although the swan, crow, eagle, owl, hawk and turkey all have more or less been laid under contribution. Swan quills, indeed are better and more costly than are those from the goose, and for fine lines crow quills have been much employed. Only the five outer wing feathers of the goose are useful for writing, and of these the second and third are the best, while left-wing quills are also generally more esteemed than those of the right wing, from the fact that they curve outward and away from the writer using them. Quills obtained in spring, by plucking or otherwise, from living birds are by far the best, those taken from dead geese, more especially if fattened, being comparatively worthless. To take away the natural greasiness to remove the superficial and internal pellicles of skin, and to give the necessary qualities of hardness and elasticity, quills require to undergo some processes of preparation. The essential operation consists in heating them, generally in a fine sand-bath, to from 130° to 180° F. according to circumstances, and scraping them under pressure while still soft from heat, whereby the outer skin is removed and the inner shrivelled up. If the heating has been properly effected, the quills are found on cooling to have become hard, elastic and somewhat brittle. While the quills are soft and hot, lozenge-shaped patterns, ornamental designs, and names are easily and permanently impressed on them by pressure with suitable instruments or designs in metal stamps.

Quills for Writing.—The first recorded use of quill feathers for writing dates back to the 6th century; from then until the early 19th century, when steel pens were introduced, quills were the main writing tools used by civilized societies. Quills have mainly come from geese, although swans, crows, eagles, owls, hawks, and turkeys have also occasionally been used. Swan quills are actually better and more expensive than those from geese, and crow quills have been widely used for fine lines. Only the five outer wing feathers of a goose are useful for writing, with the second and third being the best. Generally, left-wing quills are preferred over right-wing ones because they curve outward, which makes them easier to use for the writer. Quills plucked in spring from living birds are the best; those taken from dead geese, especially fattened ones, are relatively useless. To remove the natural greasiness and superficial skin, and to enhance their hardness and elasticity, quills require some preparation. The main process involves heating them, usually in a fine sand bath, to a temperature between 130° and 180° F, depending on the situation, and then scraping them under pressure while they're still warm. This removes the outer skin and causes the inner part to shrivel. When properly heated, the quills become hard, elastic, and slightly brittle as they cool. While the quills are still soft and hot, it's easy to press lozenge-shaped patterns, decorative designs, and names onto them using appropriate tools or metal stamps.

Ornamental Feathers.—Feathers do not appear to have been much used, in Europe at least, for ornamental purposes till the close of the 13th century. They are found in the conical caps worn in England during the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II.; but not till the period of Henry V. did they take their place as a part of military costume. Towards the close of the 15th century the fashion of wearing feathers in both civil and military life was carried to an almost ludicrous excess. In the time of Henry VIII. they first appeared in the bonnets of ladies; and during Elizabeth’s reign feathers began to occupy an important place as head-dress ornaments of women. From that time down to the present, feathers of endless variety have continued to be leading articles of ornamentation in female head-attire; but, except for military plumes, they have long ceased to be worn in ordinary male costume. At the present day, the feathers of numerous birds are, in one way or another, turned to account by ladies for the purpose of personal ornament. Ostrich feathers, however, hold, as they have always held, a pre-eminent position among ornamental feathers; and the ostrich is the only bird which may be said to be reared exclusively for the sake of its feathers. Ostrich farming is one of the established industries of South Africa, and is also practised in Kordofan and other semi-desert regions of North Africa, in Argentina, and in Arizona and California in North America. The feathers are generally plucked from the living animal—a process which does not appear to cause any great inconvenience. In the male bird, the long feathers of the rump and wings are white, and the short feathers of the body are jet black; while the rump and wing feathers of the female are white tinged with a dusky grey, the general body colour being the latter hue. The feathers of the male are consequently much more valuable than those of the female, and they are separately classified in commerce. The art of the plumassier embraces the cleaning, bleaching, dyeing, curling and making up of ostrich and other plumes and feathers. White feathers are simply washed in bundles in hot soapy water, run through pure warm water, exposed to sulphurous fumes for bleaching, thereafter blued with indigo solution, rinsed in pure cold water, and hung up to dry. When dry the shafts are pared or scraped down to give the feathers greater flexibility, and the barbs are curled by drawing them singly over the face of a blunt knife or by the cautious application of a heated iron. Dull-coloured feathers are usually dyed black. Feathers which are dyed light colours are first bleached by exposure in the open air. Much ingenuity is displayed in the making up of plumes, with the general result of producing the appearance of full, rich, and long feathers from inferior varieties and from scraps and fragments of ostrich feathers; and so dexterously can factitious plumes be prepared that only an experienced person is able to detect the fabrication.

Ornamental Feathers.—Feathers don’t seem to have been widely used for decoration in Europe until the late 13th century. They can be seen in the conical caps worn in England during the reigns of Edward III and Richard II; however, it wasn't until the time of Henry V that they became a standard part of military attire. By the end of the 15th century, the trend of wearing feathers in both civilian and military life reached a level that was almost absurd. During the reign of Henry VIII, they first showed up in women’s bonnets; and in Elizabeth’s era, feathers began to play an important role as hair accessories for women. From that time to now, a wide variety of feathers have remained popular as decorative items in women’s headwear; but aside from military plumes, they have mostly faded from everyday men’s fashion. Today, women use feathers from various birds for personal decoration in different ways. However, ostrich feathers have always held a top spot among decorative feathers, and ostriches are the only birds raised exclusively for their feathers. Ostrich farming is a well-established industry in South Africa and is also practiced in Kordofan and other semi-desert regions of North Africa, as well as in Argentina, Arizona, and California in North America. The feathers are typically plucked from the live bird, a process that doesn’t seem to cause much discomfort. In male ostriches, the long feathers of the tail and wings are white, while the shorter body feathers are jet black; in females, the tail and wing feathers are white tinged with a muted gray, and the overall body color is the same muted hue. As a result, male feathers are much more valuable than female ones and are classified separately in trade. The craft of the plumassier involves cleaning, bleaching, dyeing, curling, and preparing ostrich and other feathers and plumes. White feathers are washed in bundles in hot soapy water, rinsed in pure warm water, bleached with sulfur fumes, blued with indigo solution, rinsed in pure cold water, and then hung to dry. Once dry, the shafts are trimmed or scraped to make the feathers more flexible, and the barbs are curled by drawing them individually over the edge of a blunt knife or using a heated iron with care. Dull-colored feathers are typically dyed black. Feathers that need to be dyed light colors are first bleached by exposure to the open air. A lot of creativity goes into assembling plumes, resulting in the appearance of full, rich, and long feathers made from inferior varieties and scraps of ostrich feathers; so skillfully can these fake plumes be crafted that only an expert can tell they’re not genuine.

In addition to those of the ostrich, the feathers of certain other birds form articles of steady commercial demand. Among these are the feathers of the South American ostrich, Rhea americana, the marabout feathers of India obtained from Leptoptilos argala and L. javanica, the aigrettes of the heron, the feathers of the various species of birds of paradise, and of numerous species of humming-birds. Swan-down and the skins of various penguins and grebes and of the albatross are used, like fur, for muffs and collarettes.

In addition to those of the ostrich, the feathers of certain other birds are in constant commercial demand. This includes the feathers of the South American ostrich, Rhea americana, marabout feathers from India sourced from Leptoptilos argala and L. javanica, heron aigrettes, the feathers from various species of birds of paradise, and many types of hummingbirds. Swan down and the skins of different penguins, grebes, and albatrosses are also used, like fur, for muffs and collars.

The Chinese excel in the preparation of artificial flowers and other ornaments from bright natural-coloured or dyed feathers; and the French also skilfully work fragments of feathers into bouquets of artificial flowers, imitation butterflies, &c.

The Chinese are experts at making artificial flowers and other decorations from vibrant natural or dyed feathers, and the French also skillfully incorporate pieces of feathers into bouquets of artificial flowers, fake butterflies, etc.

Miscellaneous Applications of Feathers.—Quills of various sizes are extensively employed as holders for the sable and camel hair brushes used by artists, &c. Feather brushes and dusters are made from the wing-feathers of the domestic fowl and other birds; those of a superior quality, under the name of vulture dusters, being really made of American ostrich feathers. A minor application of feathers is found in the dressing of artificial fly-hooks for fishing. As steel pens came into general use it became an object of considerable importance to find applications for the supplanted goose-quills, and a large field of employment for them was found in the preparation of toothpicks.

Miscellaneous Applications of Feathers.—Quills of various sizes are widely used as holders for sable and camel hair brushes used by artists, etc. Feather brushes and dusters are made from the wing feathers of domestic chickens and other birds; those of higher quality, called vulture dusters, are actually made from American ostrich feathers. A smaller use for feathers is in dressing artificial fly hooks for fishing. As steel pens became popular, it became important to find uses for the now-unneeded goose quills, and a large market for them emerged in the production of toothpicks.

(J. Pa; W. P. P.)

FEATHERSTONE, an urban district in the Osgoldcross parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 6 m. E. of Wakefield on the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 12,093. The industrial population is employed in large collieries in the vicinity; and here, on the 7th of September 1893, serious riots during a strike resulted in the destruction of some of the colliery works belonging to Lord Masham, and were not quelled without military intervention and some bloodshed.

FEATHERSTONE, is an urban area in the Osgoldcross parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 6 miles east of Wakefield on the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Population (1901) was 12,093. The industrial workforce is engaged in large coal mines nearby; and on September 7, 1893, serious riots erupted during a strike, leading to the destruction of some of the colliery facilities owned by Lord Masham, and this unrest was only brought under control with military involvement and resulted in some bloodshed.


FEATLEY (or Fairclough) DANIEL (1582-1645), English divine, was born at Charlton, Oxfordshire, on the 15th of March 1582. He was a scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and probationer fellow in 1602, after which he went to France as chaplain to the English ambassador. For some years he was domestic chaplain to George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and held also the rectories of Lambeth (1619), Allhallows, Bread Street (c. 1622), and Acton (1627), this last after leaving the archbishop’s service in 1625. His varied activities included a “scholastick duel” with James I. in 1625, and the publication of (1) the report of a conference with some Jesuits in 1624, (2) a devotional manual entitled Ancilla Pietatis (1626), (3) Mystica Clavis, a Key opening divers Difficult Texts of Scripture in 70 Sermons (1636). He was appointed provost of Chelsea College in 1630, and in 1641 was one of the sub-committee “to settle religion.” In the course of this work he had a disputation with four Baptists at Southwark which he commemorated in his book 230 Καταβαπτισταὶ καταπτυστοί, The Dippers dipt or the Anabaptists duckt and plunged over head and ears (1645). He sat in the Westminster Assembly 1643, and was the last of the Episcopal members to remain. For revealing its proceedings he was expelled and imprisoned. He died at Chelsea on the 17th of April 1645.

FEATLEY (or Fairclough) DANIEL (1582-1645), an English theologian, was born in Charlton, Oxfordshire, on March 15, 1582. He studied at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and became a probationer fellow in 1602, after which he went to France as the chaplain to the English ambassador. He served as the domestic chaplain to George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, for several years, and also held the rectories of Lambeth (1619), Allhallows, Bread Street (around 1622), and Acton (1627), the latter after leaving the archbishop’s service in 1625. His diverse roles included a “scholastic duel” with James I in 1625, and he published (1) a report from a conference with some Jesuits in 1624, (2) a devotional manual titled Ancilla Pietatis (1626), and (3) Mystica Clavis, a Key opening various Difficult Texts of Scripture in 70 Sermons (1636). He was appointed provost of Chelsea College in 1630, and in 1641 he was part of the sub-committee “to settle religion.” During this work, he had a debate with four Baptists in Southwark, which he recorded in his book 230 Baptists are detestable, The Dippers dipt or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears (1645). He was a member of the Westminster Assembly in 1643 and was the last Episcopal member to stay. He was expelled and imprisoned for revealing its proceedings. He died in Chelsea on April 17, 1645.


FEBRONIANISM, the name given to a powerful movement within the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, in the latter part of the 18th century, directed towards the “nationalizing” of Catholicism, the restriction of the monarchical power usurped by the papacy at the expense of the episcopate, and the reunion of the dissident churches with Catholic Christendom. It was thus, in its main tendencies, the equivalent of what in France is known as Gallicanism (q.v.). The name is derived from the pseudonym of “Justinus Febronius” adopted by Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim (q.v.), coadjutor bishop of Treves (Trier), in publishing his work De statu ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani pontificis. This book, which roused a vast amount of excitement and controversy at the time, exercised an immense influence on opinion within the Roman Catholic Church, and the principles it proclaimed were put into practice by the rulers of that Church in various countries during the latter part of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century.

FEBRONIANISM, is the name given to a significant movement within the Roman Catholic Church in Germany during the late 18th century. This movement aimed to "nationalize" Catholicism, limit the monarchical power that the papacy had taken from the bishops, and reunite the dissenting churches with Catholic Christendom. Thus, it was essentially the equivalent of what is known as Gallicanism in France (q.v.). The name comes from the pseudonym “Justinus Febronius” used by Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim (q.v.), coadjutor bishop of Treves (Trier), when he published his work De statu ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani pontificis. This book generated significant excitement and controversy at the time, and it had a huge impact on opinion within the Roman Catholic Church. The principles it set forth were implemented by the Church’s leaders in various countries during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

The main propositions defended by “Febronius” were as follows. The constitution of the Church is not, by Christ’s institution, monarchical, and the pope, though entitled to a certain primacy, is subordinate to the universal Church. Though as the “centre of unity” he may be regarded as the guardian and champion of the ecclesiastical law, and though he may propose laws, and send legates on the affairs of his primacy, his sovereignty (principatus) over the Church is not one of jurisdiction, but of order and collaboration (ordinis et consociationis). The Roman (ultramontane) doctrine of papal infallibility is not accepted “by the other Catholic Churches” and, moreover, “has no practical utility.” The Church is based on the one episcopacy common to all bishops, the pope being only primus inter pares. It follows that the pope is subject to general councils, in which the bishops are his colleagues (conjudices), not merely his consultors; nor has he the exclusive right to summon such councils. The decrees of general councils need not be confirmed by the pope nor can they be altered by him; on the other hand, appeal may be made from papal decisions to a general council. As for the rights of the popes in such matters as appeals, reservations, the confirmation, translation and deposition of bishops, these belong properly to the bishops in provincial synods, and were usurped by the papacy gradually as the result of a variety of causes, notably of the False Decretals. For the health of the Church it is therefore necessary to restore matters to their condition before the False Decretals, and to give to the episcopate its due authority. The main obstacle to this is not the pope himself, but the Curia, and this must be fought by all possible means, especially by thorough popular education (primum adversus abusum ecclesiasticae potestatis remedium), and by the assembling of national and provincial synods, the neglect of which is the main cause of the Church’s woes. If the pope will not move in the matter, the princes, and notably the emperor, must act in co-operation with the bishops, summon national councils even against the pope’s will, defy his excommunication, and in the last resort refuse obedience in those matters over which the papacy has usurped jurisdiction.

The main points defended by “Febronius” were as follows. The structure of the Church, as established by Christ, is not monarchical; although the pope has a certain primacy, he is subordinate to the universal Church. While he can be seen as the “center of unity” and acts as the guardian and champion of ecclesiastical law, and though he can propose laws and send representatives for his primacy’s affairs, his sovereignty over the Church is one of order and collaboration, not jurisdiction. The Roman (ultramontane) belief in papal infallibility isn’t accepted by “the other Catholic Churches” and has “no practical utility.” The Church relies on a single episcopacy shared by all bishops, with the pope being merely primus inter pares. Thus, the pope is accountable to general councils, where the bishops are his colleagues, not just his advisors; he does not have the exclusive right to convene these councils. The decrees from general councils do not require the pope's confirmation and cannot be changed by him; conversely, appeals can be made from papal decisions to a general council. As for the pope's rights regarding appeals, reservations, and the confirmation, transfer, and deposition of bishops, these rightfully belong to the bishops in provincial synods but were gradually taken over by the papacy due to various causes, especially the False Decretals. For the Church's health, it is necessary to return to the situation before the False Decretals and restore the due authority of the episcopate. The main obstacle to this isn’t the pope himself but the Curia, which must be opposed by all possible means, especially through thorough public education, and by holding national and provincial synods, the neglect of which is the primary cause of the Church's problems. If the pope refuses to engage on this issue, the princes, particularly the emperor, must work with the bishops, call national councils even against the pope’s wishes, challenge his excommunications, and ultimately resist obedience in matters where the papacy has assumed jurisdiction.

It will be seen that the views of Febronius had but little originality. In the main they were those that predominated in the great general councils of Constance and Basel in the 15th century; but they were backed by him with such a wealth of learning, and they fitted so well into the intellectual and political conditions of the time, that they found a widespread acceptance. The book, indeed, was at once condemned at Rome (February 1764), and by a brief of the 21st of May the pope commanded all the bishops of Germany to suppress it. The papal condemnation met with a very mixed reception; in some dioceses the order to prohibit the book was ignored, in others action upon it was postponed pending an independent examination, in yet others (nine in all) it was at once obeyed “for political reasons,” though even in these the forbidden book became the “breviary of the governments.” The Febronian doctrine, in fact, exactly fitted the views of the German bishops, which were by no means disinterested. It must be remembered that the bishops were at this time great secular princes rather than Catholic prelates; with rare exceptions, they made no pretence of carrying out their spiritual duties; they shared to the full in the somewhat shallow “enlightenment” of the age. As princes of the Empire they had asserted their practical independence of the emperor; they were irked by what they considered the unjustifiable interference of the Curia with their sovereign prerogatives, and wished to establish their independence of the pope also. In the ranks of the hierarchy, then, selfish motives combined with others more respectable to secure the acceptance of the Febronian position. Among secular rulers the welcome given to it was even less equivocal. Even so devout a sovereign as Maria Theresa refused to allow “Febronius” to be forbidden in the Habsburg dominions; her son, the emperor Joseph II., applied the Febronian principles with remorseless thoroughness. In Venice, in Tuscany, in Naples, in Portugal, they inspired the vigorous efforts of “enlightened despots” to reform the Church from above; and they gave a fresh impetus to the movement against the Jesuits, which, under pressure of the secular governments, culminated in the suppression of the Society by Pope Clement XIV. in 1773. “Febronius,” too, inspired the proceedings of two notable ecclesiastical assemblies, both held in the year 1786. The reforming synod which met at Pistoia under the presidency of the bishop, Scipione de’ Ricci, is dealt with elsewhere (see Pistoia). The other was the so-called congress of Ems, a meeting of the delegates of the four German archbishops, which resulted, on the 25th of August, in the celebrated “Punctation of Ems,” subsequently ratified and issued by the archbishops. This document was the outcome of several years of controversy between the archbishops and the papal nuncios, aroused by what was considered the unjustifiable interference of the latter in the affairs of the German dioceses. In 1769 the three archbishop-electors of Mainz, Cologne and Treves (Trier) had drawn up in thirty articles their complaints against the Curia, and after submitting them to the emperor Joseph II., had forwarded them to the new pope, Clement XIV. These articles, though “Febronius” was prohibited in the archdioceses, were wholly Febronian in tone; and, indeed, Bishop von Hontheim himself took an active part in the diplomatic negotiations which were their outcome. In drawing up the “Punctation” he took no active part, but it was wholly inspired by his principles. It consisted of XXIII. articles, which may be summarized as follows. Bishops have, in virtue of their God-given powers, full authority within their dioceses in all matters of dispensation, patronage and the like; papal bulls, briefs, &c., and the decrees of the Roman Congregations are only of binding force in each diocese when sanctioned by the bishop; nunciatures, as hitherto conceived, are to cease; the oath of allegiance to the pope demanded of bishops since Gregory VII.’s time is to be altered so as to bring it into conformity with episcopal rights; annates and the fees payable for the pallium and confirmation are to be lowered and, in the event of the pallium or confirmation being refused, German archbishops and bishops are to be free to exercise their office under the protection of the emperor; with the Church tribunals of first and second instance (episcopal and metropolitan) the nuncios are not to interfere, and, though appeal to Rome is allowed under certain “national” safe-guards, the opinion is expressed that it would be better to set up in each archdiocese a final court of appeal representing the provincial synod; finally the emperor is prayed to use his influence with the pope to secure the assembly of a national council in order to remove the grievances left unredressed by the council of Trent.

It will be clear that Febronius' ideas weren't very original. Mainly, they reflected the views that were dominant in the major general councils of Constance and Basel in the 15th century, but he supported them with a lot of scholarship, and they fit so well with the intellectual and political climate of the time that they gained widespread acceptance. The book was immediately condemned in Rome (February 1764), and by a decree on May 21, the pope ordered all the bishops in Germany to suppress it. The papal condemnation received a mixed response; in some dioceses, the order to ban the book was ignored, in others, action was delayed for an independent review, and in several cases (nine total), it was promptly obeyed "for political reasons," though even in these areas, the banned book became the "breviary of the governments." The Febronian doctrine aligned perfectly with the views of the German bishops, who were by no means disinterested. It's important to note that at this time, the bishops were more like powerful secular princes than Catholic leaders; with rare exceptions, they didn't pretend to fulfill their spiritual duties; they fully embraced the somewhat superficial "enlightenment" of the era. As princes of the Empire, they had asserted their practical independence from the emperor; they were annoyed by what they saw as unjustified interference from the Curia with their sovereign rights, and they wanted to establish their independence from the pope as well. Among the hierarchy, self-serving motives mixed with more honorable ones to ensure the acceptance of the Febronian stance. Among secular rulers, the support was even clearer. Even a devout ruler like Maria Theresa refused to allow "Febronius" to be banned in the Habsburg territories; her son, Emperor Joseph II, applied the Febronian principles rigorously. In Venice, Tuscany, Naples, and Portugal, these principles fueled the vigorous efforts of "enlightened despots" to reform the Church from above; they also gave new momentum to the movement against the Jesuits, which, under pressure from secular governments, culminated in the Society's suppression by Pope Clement XIV in 1773. "Febronius" also influenced two significant ecclesiastical assemblies held in 1786. The reform synod at Pistoia, chaired by Bishop Scipione de' Ricci, is discussed elsewhere (see Pistoia). The other was the so-called Congress of Ems, where delegates from the four German archbishops met, resulting in the famous "Punctation of Ems" on August 25, which was later ratified and issued by the archbishops. This document came from years of disputes between the archbishops and papal nuncios over what was seen as unjustified interference in German diocesan affairs. In 1769, the three archbishop-electors of Mainz, Cologne, and Treves (Trier) compiled thirty articles listing their complaints against the Curia and sent them to Emperor Joseph II before forwarding them to Pope Clement XIV. Although "Febronius" was banned in the archdioceses, these articles were entirely Febronian in nature; indeed, Bishop von Hontheim himself was actively involved in the negotiations that resulted from them. While he didn't directly participate in drafting the "Punctation," it was entirely influenced by his principles. It consisted of 23 articles that can be summarized as follows: Bishops have full authority within their dioceses over matters of dispensation, patronage, and similar issues due to their God-given powers; papal bulls, briefs, etc., and decrees from the Roman Congregations are only binding in each diocese when approved by the bishop; nuncios, as previously understood, are to cease; the oath of loyalty to the pope required from bishops since Gregory VII’s time will be revised to align with episcopal rights; fees for annates, the pallium, and confirmation will be reduced, and if the pallium or confirmation is denied, German archbishops and bishops can carry out their duties under the emperor’s protection; nuncios are not to interfere with church tribunals of first and second instance (episcopal and metropolitan), and while appeals to Rome are allowed under certain "national" safeguards, it is suggested that each archdiocese should establish a final appeals court representing the provincial synod; finally, the emperor is asked to influence the pope to convene a national council to address the unresolved grievances from the Council of Trent.

Whether this manifesto would have led to a reconstitution of the Roman Catholic Church on permanently Febronian lines must for ever remain doubtful. The French Revolution intervened; the German Church went down in the storm: and in 231 1803 the secularizations carried out by order of the First Consul put an end to the temporal ambitions of its prelates. Febronianism indeed, survived. Karl Theodor von Dalberg, prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, upheld its principles throughout the Napoleonic epoch and hoped to establish them in the new Germany to be created by the congress of Vienna. He sent to this assembly, as representative of the German Church, Bishop von Wessenberg, who in his diocese of Constance had not hesitated to apply Febronian principles in reforming, on his own authority, the services and discipline of the Church. But the times were not favourable for such experiments. The tide of reaction after the Revolutionary turmoil was setting strongly in the direction of traditional authority, in religion as in politics; and that ultramontane movement which, before the century was ended, was to dominate the Church, was already showing signs of vigorous life. Moreover, the great national German Church of which Dalberg had a vision—with himself as primate—did not appeal to the German princes, tenacious of their newly acquired status as European powers. One by one these entered into concordats with Rome, and Febronianism from an aggressive policy subsided into a speculative opinion. As such it survived strongly, especially in the universities (Bonn especially had been, from its foundation in 1774, very Febronian), and it reasserted itself vigorously in the attitude of many of the most learned German prelates and professors towards the question of the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870. It was, in fact, against the Febronian position that the decrees of the Vatican Council were deliberately directed, and their promulgation marked the triumph of the ultramontane view (see Vatican Council, Ultramontanism, Papacy). In Germany, indeed, the struggle against the papal monarchy was carried on for a while by the governments on the so-called Kulturkampf, the Old Catholics representing militant Febronianism. The latter, however, since Bismarck “went to Canossa,” have sunk into a respectable but comparatively obscure sect, and Febronianism, though it still has some hold on opinion within the Church in the chapters and universities of the Rhine provinces, is practically extinct in Germany. Its revival under the guise of so-called Modernism drew from Pope Pius X. in 1908 the scathing condemnation embodied in the encyclical Pascendi gregis.

Whether this manifesto would have led to a reorganization of the Roman Catholic Church on a permanent Febronian basis will always remain uncertain. The French Revolution interrupted things; the German Church was caught in the upheaval. In 1803, the secularizations ordered by the First Consul ended the worldly ambitions of its leaders. Febronianism did survive, though. Karl Theodor von Dalberg, the prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, supported its principles throughout the Napoleonic era and wanted to establish them in the new Germany that would emerge from the Congress of Vienna. He sent Bishop von Wessenberg as a representative of the German Church to this assembly. Wessenberg had already applied Febronian principles in reforming the services and discipline of the Church within his diocese of Constance, acting on his own authority. However, the times were not conducive to such experiments. The backlash after the Revolutionary chaos was strongly leaning toward traditional authority, both in religion and politics; and the ultramontane movement, which would dominate the Church before the century ended, was already showing signs of robust energy. Moreover, the grand national German Church that Dalberg envisioned for himself as primate didn’t appeal to the German princes, who were keen to maintain their newly acquired positions as European powers. One by one, these princes entered into agreements with Rome, and Febronianism shifted from an aggressive agenda to a speculative viewpoint. It endured particularly strongly in universities (Bonn, founded in 1774, had been very Febronian) and reasserted itself in the attitudes of many well-educated German prelates and professors regarding the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870. In fact, the decrees of the Vatican Council were specifically aimed against the Febronian position, and their announcement marked the victory of the ultramontane perspective (see Vatican Council, Ultramontanism, Papacy). In Germany, the struggle against the papal monarchy continued for a while, led by the governments in the so-called Kulturkampf, while the Old Catholics represented a militant form of Febronianism. However, since Bismarck “went to Canossa,” they have become a respectable but relatively obscure sect, and Febronianism, although it still has some influence within the Church in the chapters and universities of the Rhine provinces, is virtually extinct in Germany. Its revival under the name of so-called Modernism drew a scathing condemnation from Pope Pius X. in 1908, expressed in the encyclical Pascendi gregis.

Authorities.—See Justinus Febronius, De statu ecclesiae et legitima potestae Romani pontificis (Bullioni, 1765), second and enlarged edition, with new prefaces addressed to Pope Clement XIII., to Christian kings and princes, to the bishops of the Catholic Church, and to doctors of theology and canon law; three additional volumes, published in 1770, 1772 and 1774 at Frankfort, are devoted to vindications of the original work against the critics. In the Revue des deux mondes for July 1903 (tome xvi. p. 266) is an interesting article under the title of “L’Allemagne Catholique,” from the papal point of view, by Georges Goyau. For the congress of Ems see Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie (Leipzig, 1898), s.v. “Emser Kongress.” Further references are given in the article on Hontheim (q.v.).

Authorities.—See Justinus Febronius, De statu ecclesiae et legitima potestae Romani pontificis (Bullioni, 1765), second and expanded edition, featuring new prefaces addressed to Pope Clement XIII, to Christian kings and princes, to the bishops of the Catholic Church, and to scholars of theology and canon law; three additional volumes published in 1770, 1772, and 1774 in Frankfurt are focused on defending the original work against critics. In the Revue des deux mondes for July 1903 (tome xvi. p. 266), there is an interesting article titled “L’Allemagne Catholique,” from the papal perspective, by Georges Goyau. For the congress of Ems, see Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie (Leipzig, 1898), s.v. “Emser Kongress.” Additional references can be found in the article on Hontheim (q.v.).

(W. A. P.)

FEBRUARY, the second month of the modern calendar. In ordinary years it contains 28 days; but in bissextile or leap year, by the addition of the intercalary day, it consists of 29 days. This month was not in the Romulian calendar. In the reign of Numa two months were added to the year, namely, January at the beginning, and February at the end; and this arrangement was continued until 452 B.C., when the decemvirs placed February after January. The ancient name of Februarius was derived from februare, to purify, or from Februa, the Roman festival of general expiation and lustration, which was celebrated during the latter part of this month. In February also the Lupercalia were held, and women were purified by the priests of Pan Lyceus at that festival. The Anglo-Saxons called this month Sprout-Kale from the sprouting of the cabbage at this season. Later it was known as Solmonath, because of the return of the sun from the low latitudes. The most generally noted days of February are the following:—the 2nd, Candlemas day, one of the fixed quarter days used in Scotland; the 14th, St Valentine’s day; and the 24th, St Matthias. The church festival of St Matthias was formerly observed on the 25th of February in bissextile years, but it is now invariably celebrated on the 24th.

FEBRUARY, the second month of the modern calendar. In regular years, it has 28 days; but in a leap year, with the extra day added, it has 29 days. This month was not part of the Romulian calendar. During Numa's reign, two months were added to the year: January at the beginning and February at the end; and this arrangement continued until 452 BCE, when the decemvirs moved February after January. The old name Februarius comes from februare, which means to purify, or from Februa, the Roman festival of purification and expiation, celebrated in the latter part of this month. February also saw the Lupercalia, where women were purified by the priests of Pan Lyceus during the festival. The Anglo-Saxons called this month Sprout-Kale due to the cabbage sprouting at this time. Later, it was known as Solmonath, because of the sun returning from the low latitudes. The most notable days in February are: the 2nd, Candlemas Day, one of the fixed quarter days in Scotland; the 14th, St. Valentine’s Day; and the 24th, St. Matthias. The church festival of St. Matthias used to be celebrated on the 25th of February in leap years, but it is now always observed on the 24th.


FEBVRE, ALEXANDRE FRÉDÉRIC (1835-  ), French actor, was born in Paris, and after the usual apprenticeship in the provinces and in several Parisian theatres in small parts, was called to the Comédie Française in 1866, where he made his début as Philip II. in Don Juan d’Autriche. He soon became the most popular leading man in Paris, not only in the classical répertoire, but in contemporary novelties. In 1894 he toured the principal cities of Europe, and, in 1895, of America. He was also a composer of light music for the piano, and published several books of varying merit. He married Mdlle Harville, daughter of one of his predecessors at the Comédie Française, herself a well-known actress.

FEBVRE, ALEXANDRE FRÉDÉRIC (1835-  ), French actor, was born in Paris. After the typical training in smaller theaters both in the provinces and in Paris, he was invited to join the Comédie Française in 1866, where he made his debut as Philip II. in Don Juan d’Autriche. He quickly became the most popular leading man in Paris, excelling not only in classic plays but also in modern works. In 1894, he toured major cities across Europe, and in 1895, he toured America. He was also a composer of light piano music and published several books of varying quality. He married Mdlle Harville, the daughter of one of his predecessors at the Comédie Française and herself a well-known actress.


FÉCAMP, a seaport and bathing resort of northern France, in the department of Seine-Inférieure, 28 m. N.N.E. of Havre on the Western railway. Pop. (1906) 15,872. The town, which is situated on the English Channel at the mouth of the small river Fécamp, consists almost entirely of one street upwards of 2 m. in length. It occupies the bottom and sides of a narrow valley opening out towards the sea between high cliffs. The most important building is the abbey church of La Trinité, dating for the most part from 1175 to 1225. The central tower and the south portal (13th century) are the chief features of its simple exterior; in the interior, the decorative work, notably the chapel-screens and some fine stained glass, is remarkable. The hotel-de-ville with a municipal museum and library occupy the remains of the abbey buildings (18th century). The church of St Étienne (16th century) and the Benedictine liqueur distillery,1 a modern building which also contains a museum, are of some interest. A tribunal and chamber of commerce, a board of trade-arbitrators and a nautical school, are among the public institutions. The port consists of an entrance channel nearly 400 yds. long leading to a tidal harbour and docks capable of receiving ships drawing 26 ft. at spring-tide, 19 ft. at neap-tide. Fishing for herring and mackerel is carried on and the town equips a large fleet for the codbanks of Newfoundland and Iceland. The chief exports are oil-cake, flint, cod and Benedictine liqueur. Imports include coal, timber, tar and hemp. Steam sawing, metal-founding, fish-salting, shipbuilding and repairing, and the manufacture of ship’s-biscuits and fishing-nets are among the industries.

Fécamp a port city and beach destination in northern France, located in the Seine-Inférieure department, 28 miles N.N.E. of Le Havre on the Western railway. Population (1906) was 15,872. The town, situated on the English Channel at the mouth of the small Fécamp river, is made up almost entirely of a single street that is over 2 miles long. It sits in the bottom and on the sides of a narrow valley that opens to the sea between high cliffs. The most notable building is the La Trinité abbey church, mostly built between 1175 and 1225. Key features of its simple exterior include the central tower and the south portal from the 13th century; inside, the decorative work, particularly the chapel screens and some beautiful stained glass, is impressive. The town hall, which includes a municipal museum and library, occupies the remains of the abbey buildings from the 18th century. The church of St Étienne, built in the 16th century, and the Benedictine liqueur distillery, a modern building that also hosts a museum, are of some interest. Public institutions include a tribunal, a chamber of commerce, a board of trade-arbitrators, and a nautical school. The port features an entrance channel that is nearly 400 yards long, leading to a tidal harbor and docks that can accommodate ships with a draft of 26 feet at spring tide and 19 feet at neap tide. Fishing for herring and mackerel takes place, and the town supports a large fleet for cod fishing in Newfoundland and Iceland. The main exports include oil cake, flint, cod, and Benedictine liqueur. Imports consist of coal, timber, tar, and hemp. The local industries include steam sawing, metal founding, fish salting, shipbuilding and repair, as well as the production of ship’s biscuits and fishing nets.

The town of Fécamp grew up round the nunnery founded in 658 to guard the relic of the True Blood which, according to the legend, was found in the trunk of a fig-tree drifted from Palestine to this spot, and which still remains the most precious treasure of the church. The original convent was destroyed by the Northmen, but was re-established by Duke William Longsword as a house of canons regular, which shortly afterwards was converted into a Benedictine monastery. King Richard I. greatly enlarged this, and rebuilt the church. The town achieved some prosperity under the dukes of Normandy, who improved its harbour, but after the annexation of Normandy to France it was overshadowed by the rising port of Havre.

The town of Fécamp developed around the nunnery established in 658 to protect the relic of the True Blood, which, according to legend, was discovered in a fig tree that drifted from Palestine to this location, and which still remains the church's most valued treasure. The original convent was destroyed by the Norsemen but was later re-established by Duke William Longsword as a house of regular canons, which was soon transformed into a Benedictine monastery. King Richard I significantly expanded this and rebuilt the church. The town experienced some prosperity under the dukes of Normandy, who enhanced its harbor, but after Normandy was annexed to France, it was overshadowed by the rising port of Havre.


1 The liqueur is said to have been manufactured by the Benedictine monks of the abbey as far back as 1510; since the Revolution it has been produced commercially by a secular company. The familiar legend D.O.M. (Deo Optimo Maximo) on the bottles preserves the memory of its original makers.

1 The liqueur is believed to have been made by the Benedictine monks of the abbey as early as 1510; since the Revolution, it has been produced commercially by a non-religious company. The well-known legend D.O.M. (Deo Optimo Maximo) on the bottles keeps the memory of its original creators alive.


FECHNER, GUSTAV THEODOR (1801-1887), German experimental psychologist, was born on the 19th of April 1801 at Gross-Särchen, near Muskau, in Lower Lusatia, where his father was pastor. He was educated at Sorau and Dresden and at the university of Leipzig, in which city he spent the rest of his life. In 1834 he was appointed professor of physics, but in 1839 contracted an affection of the eyes while studying the phenomena of colour and vision, and, after much suffering, resigned. Subsequently recovering, he turned to the study of mind and the relations between body and mind, giving public lectures on the subjects of which his books treat. He died at Leipzig on the 18th of November 1887. Among his works may be mentioned: Das Büchlein vom Leben nach dem Tode (1836, 5th ed., 1903), which has been translated into English; Nanna, oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen (1848, 3rd ed., 1903); Zendavesta, oder 232 über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits (1851, 2nd ed. by Lasswitz, 1901); Über die physikalische und philosophische Atomenlehre (1853, 2nd ed., 1864); Elemente der Psychophysik (1860, 2nd ed., 1889); Vorschule der Ästhetik (1876, 2nd ed., 1898); Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht (1879). He also published chemical and physical papers, and translated chemical works by J.B. Biot and L.J. Thénard from the French. A different but essential side of his character is seen in his poems and humorous pieces, such as the Vergleichende Anatomie der Engel (1825), written under the pseudonym of “Dr Mises.” Fechner’s epoch-making work was his Elemente der Psychophysik (1860). He starts from the Spinozistic thought that bodily facts and conscious facts, though not reducible one to the other, are different sides of one reality. His originality lies in trying to discover an exact mathematical relation between them. The most famous outcome of his inquiries is the law known as Weber’s or Fechner’s law which may be expressed as follows:— “In order that the intensity of a sensation may increase in arithmetical progression, the stimulus must increase in geometrical progression.” Though holding good within certain limits only, the law has been found immensely useful. Unfortunately, from the tenable theory that the intensity of a sensation increases by definite additions of stimulus, Fechner was led on to postulate a unit of sensation, so that any sensation S might be regarded as composed of n units. Sensations, he argued, thus being representable by numbers, psychology may become an “exact” science, susceptible of mathematical treatment. His general formula for getting at the number of units in any sensation is S = C log R, where S stands for the sensation, R for the stimulus numerically estimated, and C for a constant that must be separately determined by experiment in each particular order of sensibility. This reasoning of Fechner’s has given rise to a great mass of controversy, but the fundamental mistake in it is simple. Though stimuli are composite, sensations are not. “Every sensation,” says Professor James, “presents itself as an indivisible unit; and it is quite impossible to read any clear meaning into the notion that they are masses of units combined.” Still, the idea of the exact measurement of sensation has been a fruitful one, and mainly through his influence on Wundt, Fechner was the father of that “new” psychology of laboratories which investigates human faculties with the aid of exact scientific apparatus. Though he has had a vast influence in this special department, the disciples of his general philosophy are few. His world-conception is highly animistic. He feels the thrill of life everywhere, in plants, earth, stars, the total universe. Man stands midway between the souls of plants and the souls of stars, who are angels. God, the soul of the universe, must be conceived as having an existence analogous to men. Natural laws are just the modes of the unfolding of God’s perfection. In his last work Fechner, aged but full of hope, contrasts this joyous “daylight view” of the world with the dead, dreary “night view” of materialism. Fechner’s work in aesthetics is also important. He conducted experiments to show that certain abstract forms and proportions are naturally pleasing to our senses, and gave some new illustrations of the working of aesthetic association. Fechner’s position in reference to predecessors and contemporaries is not very sharply defined. He was remotely a disciple of Schelling, learnt much from Herbart and Weisse, and decidedly rejected Hegel and the monadism of Lotze.

FECHNER, GUSTAV THEODOR (1801-1887), was a German experimental psychologist born on April 19, 1801, in Gross-Särchen, near Muskau, in Lower Lusatia, where his father was a pastor. He was educated in Sorau, Dresden, and at the University of Leipzig, where he spent the rest of his life. In 1834, he became a professor of physics, but in 1839 he developed an eye condition while studying color and vision phenomena, which caused him a lot of suffering, leading to his resignation. After recovering, he shifted his focus to studying the mind and the relationship between body and mind, giving public lectures on these topics, which were also covered in his books. He passed away in Leipzig on November 18, 1887. Some of his works include: Das Büchlein vom Leben nach dem Tode (1836, 5th ed., 1903), which has been translated into English; Nanna, oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen (1848, 3rd ed., 1903); Zendavesta, oder 232 über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits (1851, 2nd ed. by Lasswitz, 1901); Über die physikalische und philosophische Atomenlehre (1853, 2nd ed., 1864); Elemente der Psychophysik (1860, 2nd ed., 1889); Vorschule der Ästhetik (1876, 2nd ed., 1898); Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht (1879). He also published several chemical and physical papers and translated works by J.B. Biot and L.J. Thénard from French. Another important facet of his character can be seen in his poems and humorous pieces, like the Vergleichende Anatomie der Engel (1825), which he wrote under the pseudonym "Dr. Mises." Fechner's groundbreaking work was Elemente der Psychophysik (1860). He starts from the Spinozistic idea that while bodily facts and conscious facts are distinct, they are both aspects of one reality. His originality lies in his attempt to find a precise mathematical relationship between them. The most famous result of his research is the law known as Weber's or Fechner's law, which can be summarized as: "For the intensity of a sensation to increase arithmetically, the stimulus must increase geometrically." Although applicable only within certain limits, this law has proven to be extremely useful. Unfortunately, from the reasonable theory that the intensity of a sensation increases with specific stimulus additions, Fechner assumed a unit of sensation, proposing that any sensation S could be viewed as made up of n units. He argued that because sensations could be represented numerically, psychology could become an "exact" science, manageable through mathematical methods. His general formula for determining the number of units in any sensation is S = C log R, where S stands for the sensation, R represents the stimulus measured numerically, and C is a constant that must be determined by experiment for each specific sensitivity. This reasoning of Fechner has sparked considerable debate, but the central flaw in it is clear. While stimuli are complex, sensations are not. "Every sensation," states Professor James, "appears as an indivisible unit, and it is impossible to derive any clear meaning from the idea that they are masses of combined units." Nevertheless, the pursuit of accurately measuring sensation has yielded valuable results, and largely through Fechner's influence on Wundt, he is considered the father of the "new" laboratory psychology that examines human faculties using precise scientific equipment. Although he has significantly impacted this specific field, few follow his broader philosophical ideas. His worldview is strongly animistic; he senses life everywhere—in plants, Earth, stars, and the entire universe. Humans exist between the souls of plants and the souls of stars, which he regards as angels. God, as the soul of the universe, must be viewed as existing in a manner similar to humans. Natural laws represent the unfolding of God's perfection. In his final work, Fechner, despite being aged, remained hopeful as he contrasted this joyful "daylight view" of the world with the bleak, depressing "night view" of materialism. Fechner's contributions to aesthetics are also significant. He conducted experiments demonstrating that certain abstract forms and proportions naturally appeal to our senses and provided new illustrations of how aesthetic associations operate. Fechner's position in relation to his predecessors and contemporaries isn't sharply defined. He was somewhat a follower of Schelling, learned much from Herbart and Weisse, and clearly rejected Hegel and Lotze's monadism.

See W. Wundt, G. Th. Fechner (Leipzig, 1901); A. Elsas, “Zum Andenken G. Th. Fechners,” in Grenzbote, 1888; J.E. Kuntze, G. Th. Fechner (Leipzig, 1892); Karl Lasswitz, G. Th. Fechner (Stuttgart, 1896 and 1902); E.B. Titchener, Experimental Psychology (New York, 1905); G.F. Stout, Manual of Psychology (1898), bk. ii. ch. vii.; R. Falckenberg, Hist. of Mod. Phil. (Eng. trans., 1895), pp. 601 foll.; H. Höffding, Hist. of Mod. Phil. (Eng. trans., 1900), vol. ii. pp. 524 foll.; Liebe, Fechners Metaphysik, im Umriss dargestellt (1903).

See W. Wundt, G. Th. Fechner (Leipzig, 1901); A. Elsas, “In Memory of G. Th. Fechner,” in Grenzbote, 1888; J.E. Kuntze, G. Th. Fechner (Leipzig, 1892); Karl Lasswitz, G. Th. Fechner (Stuttgart, 1896 and 1902); E.B. Titchener, Experimental Psychology (New York, 1905); G.F. Stout, Manual of Psychology (1898), bk. ii. ch. vii.; R. Falckenberg, Hist. of Mod. Phil. (Eng. trans., 1895), pp. 601 foll.; H. Höffding, Hist. of Mod. Phil. (Eng. trans., 1900), vol. ii. pp. 524 foll.; Liebe, Fechners Metaphysik, im Umriss dargestellt (1903).

(H. St.)

FECHTER, CHARLES ALBERT (1824-1879), Anglo-French actor, was born, probably in London, on the 23rd of October 1824, of French parents, although his mother was of Piedmontese and his father of German extraction. The boy would probably have devoted himself to a sculptor’s life but for the accident of a striking success made in some private theatricals. The result was an engagement in 1841 to play in a travelling company that was going to Italy. The tour was a failure, and the company broke up; whereupon Fechter returned home and worked assiduously at sculpture. At the same time he attended classes at the Conservatoire with the view of gaining admission to the Comédie Française. Late in 1844 he won the grand medal of the Académie des Beaux-Arts with a piece of sculpture, and was admitted to make his debut at the Comédie Française as Seide in Voltaire’s Mahomet and Valère in Molière’s Tartuffe. He acquitted himself with credit; but, tired of the small parts he found himself condemned to play, returned again to his sculptor’s studio in 1846. In that year he accepted an engagement to play with a French company in Berlin, where he made his first decisive success as an actor. On his return to Paris in the following year he married the actress Eléonore Rabut (d. 1895). Previously he had appeared for some months in London, in a season of French classical plays given at the St James’s theatre. In Paris for the next ten years he fulfilled a series of successful engagements at various theatres, his chief triumph being his creation at the Vaudeville on the 2nd of February 1852 of the part of Armand Duval in La Dame aux camélias. For nearly two years (1857-1858) Fechter was manager of the Odéon, where he produced Tartuffe and other classical plays. Having received tempting offers to act in English at the Princess’s theatre, London, he made a diligent study of the language, and appeared there on the 27th of October 1860 in an English version of Victor Hugo’s Ruy Blas. This was followed by The Corsican Brothers and Don César de Bazan; and on the 20th of March 1861 he first attempted Hamlet. The result was an extraordinary triumph, the play running for 115 nights. This was followed by Othello, in which he played alternately the Moor and Iago. In 1863 he became lessee of the Lyceum theatre, which he opened with The Duke’s Motto; this was followed by The King’s Butterfly, The Mountebank (in which his son Paul, a boy of seven, appeared), The Roadside Inn, The Master of Ravenswood, The Corsican Brothers (in the original French version, in which he had created the parts of Louis and Fabian dei Franchi) and The Lady of Lyons. After this he appeared at the Adelphi (1868) as Obenreizer in No Thoroughfare, by Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins, as Edmond Dantes in Monte Cristo, and as Count de Leyrac in Black and White, a play in which the actor himself collaborated with Wilkie Collins. In 1870 he visited the United States, where (with the exception of a visit to London in 1872) he remained till his death. His first appearance in New York was at Niblo’s Garden in the title rôle of Ruy Blas. He played in the United States between 1870 and 1876 in most of the parts in which he had won his chief triumphs in England, making at various times attempts at management, rarely successful, owing to his ungovernable temper. The last three years of his life were spent in seclusion on a farm which he had bought at Rockland Centre, near Quakertown, Pennsylvania, where he died on the 5th of August 1879. A bust of the actor by himself is in the Garrick Club, London.

FECHTER, CHARLES ALBERT (1824-1879), Anglo-French actor, was likely born in London on October 23, 1824, to French parents, although his mother had Piedmontese roots and his father was of German descent. The boy probably would have pursued a career in sculpture if not for a remarkable success he had in some private theater performances. This led to an engagement in 1841 to join a traveling company heading to Italy. The tour was unsuccessful, and the company disbanded; as a result, Fechter returned home and worked hard on his sculpture. At the same time, he took classes at the Conservatoire to qualify for the Comédie Française. In late 1844, he won the grand medal from the Académie des Beaux-Arts for a sculpture and made his debut at the Comédie Française as Seide in Voltaire’s Mahomet and Valère in Molière’s Tartuffe. He performed well but, tired of being stuck with minor roles, returned to his sculpture studio in 1846. That year, he accepted an offer to act with a French company in Berlin, where he achieved his first significant success as an actor. Upon returning to Paris the following year, he married actress Eléonore Rabut (d. 1895). Before that, he had spent several months in London during a season of French classical plays at St James’s theatre. In Paris over the next ten years, he enjoyed a string of successful engagements at various theaters, with his major triumph being his role as Armand Duval in La Dame aux camélias at the Vaudeville on February 2, 1852. For nearly two years (1857-1858), Fechter managed the Odéon, where he produced Tartuffe and other classic plays. After receiving attractive offers to perform in English at the Princess’s theatre in London, he diligently studied the language and made his debut there on October 27, 1860, in an English version of Victor Hugo’s Ruy Blas. He followed this with The Corsican Brothers and Don César de Bazan; on March 20, 1861, he attempted Hamlet for the first time, achieving an incredible success, with the play running for 115 nights. He continued with Othello, playing both the Moor and Iago. In 1863, he became the lessee of the Lyceum theatre, which he opened with The Duke’s Motto; this was followed by The King’s Butterfly, The Mountebank (which featured his son Paul, just seven years old), The Roadside Inn, The Master of Ravenswood, The Corsican Brothers (in the original French version, playing Louis and Fabian dei Franchi), and The Lady of Lyons. Afterwards, he appeared at the Adelphi (1868) as Obenreizer in No Thoroughfare by Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins, as Edmond Dantes in Monte Cristo, and as Count de Leyrac in Black and White, a play that he co-wrote with Wilkie Collins. In 1870, he traveled to the United States, where he remained until his death, except for a trip to London in 1872. His first appearance in New York was at Niblo’s Garden in the title role of Ruy Blas. He performed in the U.S. from 1870 to 1876 in most of the roles that had brought him his greatest successes in England, occasionally attempting management but rarely with success due to his uncontrollable temper. The last three years of his life were spent in seclusion on a farm he purchased in Rockland Centre, near Quakertown, Pennsylvania, where he died on August 5, 1879. A bust of the actor made by himself is located in the Garrick Club, London.


FECKENHAM, JOHN (c. 1515-1584), English ecclesiastic, last abbot of Westminster, was born at Feckenham, Worcestershire, of ancestors who, by their wills, seem to have been substantial yeomen. The family name was Howman, but, according to the English custom, Feckenham, on monastic profession, changed it for the territorial name by which he is always known. Learning his letters first from the parish priest, he was sent at an early age to the claustral school at Evesham and thence, in his eighteenth year, to Gloucester Hall, Oxford, as a Benedictine student. After taking his degree in arts, he returned to the abbey, where he was professed; but he was at the university again in 1537 and took his B.D. on the 11th of June 1539. Returning to Evesham he was there when the abbey was surrendered to the king (27th of January 1540); and then, with a pension of £10 a year, he once more went back to Oxford, but soon after became chaplain to Bishop Bell of Worcester and then served Bonner in that same capacity from 1543 to 1549. 233 In 1544 Bonner gave him the living of Solihull; and Feckenham established a reputation as a preacher and a disputant of keen intellect but unvarying charity. About 1549 Cranmer sent him to the Tower of London, and while there “he was borrowed out of prison” to take part in seven public disputations against Hooper, Jewel and others. Released by Queen Mary (5th of September 1553), he returned to Bonner and became prebendary of St Paul’s, rector of Finchley, then of Greenford Magna, chaplain and confessor to the queen, and dean of St Paul’s (10th of March 1554). He took part, with much charity and mildness, in the Oxford disputes against Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley; but he had no liking for the fierce bigotry and bloody measures then in force against Protestants. Feckenham used all his influence with Mary “to procure pardon of the faults or mitigation of the punishment for poor Protestants” (Fuller), and he was sent by the queen to prepare Lady Jane Grey for death. When Elizabeth was sent to the Tower (18th of March 1554), Feckenham interceded for her life and liberty, even at the cost of displeasing the queen.

FECKENHAM, JOHN (c. 1515-1584), English churchman, last abbot of Westminster, was born in Feckenham, Worcestershire, into a family that appeared to be well-off landowners based on their wills. His family name was Howman, but following English tradition, Feckenham changed it to the geographical name he is known by after joining the monastery. He started his education with the local priest and was sent at a young age to the monastic school at Evesham, and then, at eighteen, to Gloucester Hall, Oxford, as a Benedictine student. After earning his degree in arts, he returned to the abbey, where he was formally accepted as a monk; however, he went back to the university in 1537 and received his B.D. on June 11, 1539. He returned to Evesham and was present when the abbey was surrendered to the king on January 27, 1540; afterward, with a pension of £10 a year, he returned to Oxford, but soon became chaplain to Bishop Bell of Worcester and then served Bonner in the same role from 1543 to 1549. 233 In 1544, Bonner appointed him to the living of Solihull, and Feckenham gained a reputation as a preacher and a sharp-minded debater known for his unwavering kindness. Around 1549, Cranmer sent him to the Tower of London, where he was temporarily released from prison to participate in seven public debates against Hooper, Jewel, and others. After being released by Queen Mary on September 5, 1553, he returned to Bonner and became a prebendary at St Paul’s, rector of Finchley, then of Greenford Magna, chaplain and confessor to the queen, and dean of St Paul’s on March 10, 1554. He participated in the Oxford debates against Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley with much compassion and gentleness; however, he disapproved of the harsh bigotry and violent measures that were in place against Protestants at the time. Feckenham used his influence with Mary “to seek forgiveness for the offenses or a reduction in punishment for unfortunate Protestants” (Fuller), and he was sent by the queen to prepare Lady Jane Grey for execution. When Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower on March 18, 1554, Feckenham pleaded for her life and freedom, even risking the queen’s displeasure.

The royal abbey of Westminster having been restored to its primitive use, Feckenham was appointed abbot, and the old life began again within its hallowed walls on the 21st of November 1556. The abbey school was reopened and the shrine of St Edward restored. On the accession of Elizabeth Feckenham consistently opposed all the legislation for changes in religion, and, when the hour of trial came, he refused the oath of supremacy, rejecting also Elizabeth’s offer to remain with his monks at Westminster if he would conform to the new laws. The abbey was dissolved (12th of July 1559), and within a year Feckenham was sent by Archbishop Parker to the Tower (20th of May 1560), according to Jewel, “for having obstinately refused attendance on public worship and everywhere declaiming and railing against that religion which we now profess” (Parker Society, first series, p. 79). Henceforth, except for some brief periods when he was a prisoner at large, Feckenham spent the rest of his life in confinement either in some recognized prison, or in the more distasteful and equally rigorous keeping of the bishops of Winchester and Ely. After fourteen years’ confinement, he was released on bail and lived in Holborn, where his benevolence was shown by all manner of works of charity. “He relieved the poor wheresoever he came, so that flies flock not thicker to spilt honey than beggars constantly crowd about him” (Fuller). He set up a public aqueduct in Holborn, and a hospice for the poor at Bath; he distributed every day to the sick the milk of twelve cows, took care of orphans, and encouraged manly sports on Sundays among the youth of London by giving prizes. In 1577 he was committed to the care of Cox of Ely with strict rules for his treatment; and the bishop (1578) could find no fault with him except that “he was a gentle person but in the popish religion too, too obstinate.” In 1580 he was removed to Wisbeach Castle, and there exercised such an influence of charity and peace among his fellow-prisoners that was remembered when, in after years, the notorious Wisbeach Stirs broke out under the Jesuit Weston. Even here Feckenham found a means of doing public good; at his own cost he repaired the road and set up a market cross in the town. After twenty-four years of suffering for his conscience he died in prison and was buried in an unknown grave in the parish church at Wisbeach on the 16th of October 1584.

The royal abbey of Westminster was restored to its original purpose, and Feckenham was appointed abbot, marking the return to the old way of life within its sacred walls on November 21, 1556. The abbey school reopened, and the shrine of St. Edward was restored. When Elizabeth became queen, Feckenham consistently opposed all the laws related to religious changes, and when the time came to choose, he refused the oath of supremacy. He also turned down Elizabeth’s proposal to stay with his monks at Westminster if he agreed to follow the new laws. The abbey was dissolved on July 12, 1559, and within a year, Feckenham was sent to the Tower by Archbishop Parker on May 20, 1560, for “obstinately refusing to attend public worship and openly criticizing the religion we now profess” (Parker Society, first series, p. 79). From then on, except for some brief periods when he was not in custody, Feckenham spent the rest of his life imprisoned, either in a recognized jail or under the strict supervision of the bishops of Winchester and Ely. After fourteen years of confinement, he was released on bail and lived in Holborn, where he showed his generosity through various charitable acts. “He helped the poor wherever he went, so that flies flock not thicker to spilt honey than beggars constantly crowd about him” (Fuller). He built a public aqueduct in Holborn and a hospice for the poor in Bath; he provided milk from twelve cows to the sick every day, cared for orphans, and encouraged young men in London to engage in sports on Sundays by offering prizes. In 1577, he was placed under the care of Cox of Ely, with strict rules for his treatment; and the bishop (in 1578) found no fault with him except that “he was a gentle person but too obstinate in the popish religion.” In 1580, he was transferred to Wisbeach Castle, where he had such a charitable and peaceful influence among his fellow prisoners that it was remembered during the later Wisbeach Stirs that occurred under the Jesuit Weston. Even there, Feckenham found ways to do good; he repaired the road and erected a market cross in town at his own expense. After twenty-four years of suffering for his beliefs, he died in prison and was buried in an unmarked grave in the parish church at Wisbeach on October 16, 1584.

The fullest account of Feckenham is to be found in E. Taunton’s English Black Monks of St Benedict (London, 1897), vol. i. pp. 160-222.

The most complete information on Feckenham can be found in E. Taunton’s English Black Monks of St Benedict (London, 1897), vol. i. pp. 160-222.

(E. Tn.)

FEDCHENKO, ALEXIS PAVLOVICH (1844-1873), Russian naturalist and traveller, well known for his explorations in central Asia, was born at Irkutsk, in Siberia, on the 7th of February 1844; and, after attending the gymnasium of his native town, proceeded to the university of Moscow, for the study more especially of zoology and geology. In 1868 he travelled through Turkestan, the district of the lower Syr-Darya and Samarkand; and shortly after his return he set out for Khokand, where he visited a large portion of territory till then unknown. Soon after his return to Europe he perished on Mont Blanc while engaged in an exploring tour in Switzerland, on the 15th of September 1873.

FEDCHENKO, ALEXIS PAVLOVICH (1844-1873), a Russian naturalist and traveler known for his explorations in Central Asia, was born in Irkutsk, Siberia, on February 7, 1844. After attending the gymnasium in his hometown, he went to the University of Moscow to study zoology and geology. In 1868, he traveled through Turkestan, the area around the lower Syr-Darya, and Samarkand. Shortly after returning, he headed to Khokand, where he explored a large part of unknown territory. Tragically, soon after returning to Europe, he died on Mont Blanc while on an exploratory trip in Switzerland on September 15, 1873.

Accounts of the explorations and discoveries of Fedchenko have been published by the Russian government,—his Journeys in Turkestan in 1874, In the Khanat of Khokand in 1875, and Botanical Discoveries in 1876. See Petermann’s Mittheilungen (1872-1874).

Accounts of Fedchenko's explorations and discoveries have been published by the Russian government—his Journeys in Turkestan in 1874, In the Khanat of Khokand in 1875, and Botanical Discoveries in 1876. See Petermann’s Mittheilungen (1872-1874).


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Lat. foedus, a league), a form of government of which the essential principle is that there is a union of two or more states under one central body for certain permanent common objects. In the most perfect form of federation the states agree to delegate to a supreme federal government certain powers or functions inherent in themselves in their sovereign or separate capacity, and the federal government, in turn, in the exercise of those specific powers acts directly, not only on the communities making up the federation, but on each individual citizen. So far as concerns the residue of powers unallotted to the central or federal authority, the separate states retain unimpaired their individual sovereignty, and the citizens of a federation consequently owe a double allegiance, one to the state, and the other to the federal government. They live under two sets of laws, the laws of the state and the laws of the federal government (J. Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, ii. 490). The word “confederation,” as distinct from “federation” has been sometimes, though not universally, used to distinguish from such a federal state (Bundesstaat) a mere union of states (Staatenbund) for mutual aid, and the promotion of interests common to all (see Confederation).

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Lat. foedus, a league), is a type of government where two or more states come together under one central authority for specific ongoing common goals. In the best version of federalism, the states agree to hand over certain powers or responsibilities that are normally theirs as sovereign entities to a central federal government. This federal government, in exercising those specific powers, interacts directly not only with the communities that make up the federation but also with each individual citizen. As for the remaining powers not given to the central or federal authority, the individual states keep their sovereignty intact, meaning that the citizens of a federation owe loyalty to both their state and the federal government. They are governed by two sets of laws: state laws and federal laws (J. Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, ii. 490). The term “confederation,” as opposed to “federation,” is sometimes used—though not always—to differentiate a true federal state (Bundesstaat) from a simple union of states (Staatenbund) formed for mutual support and the advancement of common interests (see Confederation).

The history of federal government practically begins with Greece. This, however, is due to the fact that the Greek federations are the only ones of which we have any detailed information. The obvious importance, especially to scattered villages or tribes, of systematic joint action in the face of a common danger makes it reasonable to infer that federation in its elementary forms was a widespread device. This view is strengthened by what we can gather of the conditions obtaining in such districts as Aetolia, Acarnania and Samnium, as in modern times among primitive peoples and tribes. The relatively detailed information which we possess concerning the federal governments of Greece makes it necessary to pay special attention to them.

The history of the federal government basically starts with Greece. This is mainly because the Greek federations are the only ones we have detailed information about. It makes sense to think that organized cooperation among scattered villages or tribes facing a common threat was a common practice, given its obvious importance. This idea is supported by what we know about the situations in areas like Aetolia, Acarnania, and Samnium, similar to what we see today among primitive peoples and tribes. The fairly detailed information we have about the federal governments in Greece means we need to focus on them specifically.

In ancient Greece the most striking tendency of political development was the maintenance of separate city states, each striving for absolute autonomy, though all spoke practically the same language and shared to some extent in the same traditions, interests and dangers. This centrifugal tendency is most marked in the cases of the more important states, Athens, Sparta, Argos, Corinth, but Greek history is full of examples of small states deliberately sacrificing what must have been obvious commercial advantage for the sake of a precarious autonomy. Such examples as existed of even semi-federal union were very loose in structure, and the selfishness of the component units was the predominant feature. Thus the Spartan hegemony in the Peloponnese was not really a federation except in the broadest sense. The states did, it is true, meet occasionally for discussion, but their relation, which had no real existence save in cases of immediate common danger, was really that between a paramount leader and unwilling and suspicious allies. The Athenian empire again was a thinly disguised autocracy. The synod (see Delian League) of the “allies” soon degenerated into a mere form; of comprehensive united policy there was none, at all events after the League had achieved its original purpose of expelling the Persians from Europe.

In ancient Greece, the most notable trend in political development was the existence of separate city-states, each aiming for complete independence, even though they all spoke nearly the same language and shared similar traditions, interests, and dangers. This tendency is especially clear in the more significant states like Athens, Sparta, Argos, and Corinth, but Greek history is filled with examples of smaller states consciously giving up obvious commercial benefits to maintain a shaky independence. Instances of even semi-federal unions were very loose in structure, with the self-interest of the individual units being the most significant characteristic. Thus, the Spartan dominance in the Peloponnese was really not a federation, except in the broadest sense. While the states did occasionally come together for discussions, their relationship, which only existed during times of immediate danger, resembled that of a leading figure and reluctant, suspicious allies. On the other hand, the Athenian empire was just a thinly veiled autocracy. The synod (see Delian League) of the "allies" quickly turned into a mere formality; there was no overall united policy, especially after the League had fulfilled its original goal of driving the Persians out of Europe.

None the less it is possible, even in the early days of political development in Greece, to find some traces of a tendency towards united action. Thus the unions of individual villages, known as synoecisms, such as took place in Attica and Elis in early times were partly of a federal character: they resulted in the establishment of a common administration, and no doubt in some degree of commercial and military unity. On the other hand, it is likely that these unions lacked the characteristic of federation in that the units could hardly be described as having any sovereign power: at the most they had some municipal autonomy as in the case of the Cleisthenic demes. The union was rather national than federal. Again the Amphictyonic unions had one of the 234 characteristic elements of federation, namely that they were free sovereign states combining for a particular purpose with an elaborate system of representation (see Amphictyony). But these unions, at all events in historic times, were mainly concerned with religion, and the authority of the councils did not seriously affect the autonomy of the individual states.

Nonetheless, even in the early stages of political development in Greece, you can find some signs of a movement towards united action. For example, the unions of individual villages, known as synoecisms, like those that occurred in Attica and Elis in ancient times, were somewhat federal in nature: they led to a shared administration, and likely fostered some degree of commercial and military unity. On the other hand, it’s probable that these unions didn't fully embody the characteristics of a federation, as the individual units could hardly be seen as having any real sovereign power: at best, they had some local autonomy like the Cleisthenic demes. The union was more national than federal. Furthermore, the Amphictyonic unions included one of the key features of a federation, namely that they were free sovereign states coming together for a specific purpose with a detailed system of representation (see Amphictyony). However, in historical times, these unions were mainly focused on religious matters, and the authority of their councils didn’t significantly impact the independence of the individual states.

Thus among the city-states as well as among scattered villages the principle of cohesion was not unknown. On the other hand the golden mean between an easily dissoluble relationship, more like an alliance than a federation, and a national system resulting from synoecism was practically never attained in early Greek history. There are, however, examples in Greece proper, and one, Lycia in Asia Minor, of real federal unions. The chief Greek federations were those of Thessaly, Boeotia, Acarnania, Olynthus, Arcadia, Aetolia, Achaea, the most important as well as the most complete in respect of organization being the Aetolian League and the Achaean League.

Thus, both city-states and scattered villages had a sense of unity. However, the ideal balance between a loosely connected relationship, which resembled an alliance more than a federation, and a national system that emerged from synoecism was rarely achieved in early Greek history. There are, nonetheless, examples in mainland Greece, and one in Lycia in Asia Minor, of genuine federal unions. The main Greek federations were those of Thessaly, Boeotia, Acarnania, Olynthus, Arcadia, Aetolia, and Achaea, with the Aetolian League and the Achaean League being the most important and well-organized.

1. The Thessalian League originated in the deliberate choice by village aristocracies of a single monarch who belonged from time to time to several of the so-called Heracleid families. Soon after the Persian War this monarchy (dynasty of the Aleuadae, Herod, v. 63 and vii. 6) disappeared, and in 424 we find Athens in alliance with a sort of democratic federal council representing τὸ κοινὸν Θετταλῶν (cf. Thuc. i. 102, ii. 22, iv. 78), and probably composed of delegates from the towns. The local feudal nobles, however, seem to have put an end to this government by council, and a dictator (tagus) was appointed, with authority over the whole military force of the federation. Three such officers, Lycophron, Jason and Alexander, all of Pherae, endeavoured vainly to administer the collective affairs of the federation, the last by means of a revived republican council. The final failure of this scheme coincided with the disappearance of Thessaly as a sovereign state (see Thessaly).

1. The Thessalian League started when village aristocracies intentionally chose a single monarch, who at times belonged to several of the so-called Heracleid families. Soon after the Persian War, this monarchy (the dynasty of the Aleuadae, Herod, v. 63 and vii. 6) vanished, and in 424, Athens allied with a sort of democratic federal council representing the common people of Thessaly (cf. Thuc. i. 102, ii. 22, iv. 78), which was likely made up of delegates from the towns. However, the local feudal nobles seem to have ended this council-based government, and a dictator (tagus) was appointed with authority over the entire military force of the federation. Three such officers, Lycophron, Jason, and Alexander, all from Pherae, tried unsuccessfully to manage the federation's affairs, with the last attempting to use a revived republican council. The ultimate failure of this effort coincided with Thessaly losing its status as a sovereign state (see Thessaly).

2. The form and the history of the Boeotian federation are treated fully under Boeotia (q.v.). It may probably have originated in religious associations, but the guiding power throughout was the imperial policy of Thebes, especially during its short-lived supremacy after 379 B.C.

2. The structure and history of the Boeotian federation are discussed in detail under Boeotia (q.v.). It likely started as religious groups, but the main influence was the imperial policy of Thebes, especially during its brief dominance after 379 BCE

3. The federation of Acarnania is of peculiar interest as being formed by scattered villages or tribes, without settled, still less fortified, habitation. In the early part of the 4th century a κοινὸν τῶν Ἀκαρνάνων met at Stratus (Xen. Hell. iv. 6. 4). Late in the same century towns began to form, without, however, disturbing the federation, which existed as late as the 2nd century B.C., governed by a representative council (βουλά), and a common assembly (κοινόν) at which any citizen might be present.

3. The federation of Acarnania is particularly interesting because it was made up of scattered villages or tribes, without any permanent, let alone fortified, settlements. In the early part of the 4th century, a common of the Acarnanians convened at Stratus (Xen. Hell. iv. 6. 4). Later in the same century, towns began to develop, but this did not disrupt the federation, which lasted until the 2nd century BCE, governed by a representative council (βουλά) and a common assembly (κοινό) where any citizen could attend.

4. The foundation of the Olynthian federation was due to the need of protection against the northern invaders (see Olynthus). It was in many respects based on liberal principles, but Olynthus did not hesitate to exercise force against recalcitrants such as Acanthus.

4. The Olynthian federation was formed to protect against northern invaders (see Olynthus). While it was largely based on liberal principles, Olynthus wasn't afraid to use force against those who resisted, like Acanthus.

5. The 4th century Arcadian league, which was no doubt a revival of an older federation, was the result of the struggle for supremacy between Thebes and Sparta. The defeat of Sparta at Leuctra removed the pressure which had kept separate the Arcadian tribes, and τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀρκάδων was established in the new city, Megalopolis (q.v., also Arcadia).

5. The 4th century Arcadian league, which was clearly a revival of an older federation, came about due to the power struggle between Thebes and Sparta. The defeat of Sparta at Leuctra eased the tensions that had kept the Arcadian tribes apart, leading to the establishment of The common people of Arcadia in the new city, Megalopolis (q.v., also Arcadia).

6 and 7. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues (see Aetolia, and Achaean League) were in all respects more important than the preceding and constitute a new epoch in European politics. Both belong to a period in Greek history when the great city states had exhausted themselves in the futile struggle against Macedon and Rome, and both represent a conscious popular determination in the direction of systematic government. This characteristic is curious in the Aetolian tribes which were famous in all time for habitual brigandage; there was, however, among them the strong link of a racial feeling. The governing council (τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Αἰτωλῶν) was the permanent representative body; there was also a popular assembly (παναιτωλικόν), partly of a primary, partly of a representative kind, any one being free to attend, but each state having only one official representative and one vote. Of all the federal governments of Greece, this league was the most certainly democratic in constitution. There was a complete system of federal officers, at the head of whom was a Strategus entrusted with powers both military and civil. This officer was annually elected, and, though the chief executive authority, was strictly limited in the federal deliberations to presidential functions (cf. Livy xxxv. 25, “ne praetor, quum de bello consuluisset, ipse sententiam diceret”). The Achaean League was likewise highly organized; joint action was strictly limited, and the individual cities had sovereign power over internal affairs. There were federal officers, all the military forces of the cities were controlled by the league, and federal finance was quite separate from city finance.

6 and 7. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues (see Aetolia, and Achaean League) were significantly more important than the earlier leagues and mark a new era in European politics. Both belong to a time in Greek history when the major city-states had worn themselves out in a pointless fight against Macedon and Rome, and both reflect a deliberate popular desire for organized governance. This is especially interesting considering the Aetolian tribes, known throughout history for their frequent banditry; however, they shared a strong sense of racial unity. The governing council (the common people of Aetolia) served as the permanent representative body, along with a popular assembly (παναιτωλικόν), which included both direct and representative elements, where anyone could participate, but each state had only one official representative and one vote. Of all the federal governments in Greece, this league was the most decidedly democratic in its structure. It had a complete set of federal officers, led by a Strategus who had both military and civil authority. This officer was elected annually and, although he held the top executive role, his powers in federal discussions were limited to presidential duties (cf. Livy xxxv. 25, “ne praetor, quum de bello consuluisset, ipse sententiam diceret”). The Achaean League was also very well organized; collective action was tightly controlled, and individual cities retained sovereign power over their internal matters. There were federal officers, all military forces of the cities were managed by the league, and the league's finances were completely separate from those of the cities.

8. Of the Lycian federation, its origin and duration, practically nothing is known. We know of it in 188-168 B.C. as dependent on Rhodes, and, from 168 till the time when the emperor Claudius absorbed it in the provincial system, as an independent state under Roman protection. The federation was a remarkable example of a typical Hellenic development among a non-Hellenic people. Strabo (p. 665) informs us that the federation, composed of twenty-three cities, was governed by a council (συνέδριον) which assembled from time to time at that city which was most convenient for the purpose in hand. The cities were represented according to size by one, two or three delegates, and bore proportionate shares in financial responsibility. The Lycian league was, therefore, in this respect rather national than federal.

8. We really don’t know much about the origin and duration of the Lycian federation. We do know that from 188-168 B.C., it was dependent on Rhodes, and from 168 until the emperor Claudius incorporated it into the provincial system, it was an independent state under Roman protection. The federation is a notable example of typical Hellenic development among a non-Hellenic people. Strabo (p. 665) tells us that the federation, made up of twenty-three cities, was governed by a council (conference) that gathered occasionally in the city that was most convenient for the meeting. The cities were represented based on their size with one, two, or three delegates and shared financial responsibilities proportionally. Therefore, the Lycian league was more national than federal in this regard.

Of ancient federal government outside Greece we know very little. The history of Italy supplies a few examples, of which the chief is perhaps the league of the cities of Latium (q.v.; see also Etruria).

Of ancient federal government outside Greece, we know very little. The history of Italy provides a few examples, the most important of which is probably the league of the cities of Latium (q.v.; see also Etruria).

See E.A. Freeman, Federal Government in Greece and Rome (2nd ed., 1893, J.B. Bury), and works quoted in the special articles.

See E.A. Freeman, Federal Government in Greece and Rome (2nd ed., 1893, J.B. Bury), and the works referenced in the special articles.

Among the later European confederations the Swiss republic is one of the most interesting. As now constituted it consists of twenty-two sovereign states or cantons. The government is vested in two legislative chambers, a senate or council of state (Ständerat), and a national council (Nationalrat), constituting unitedly the federal assembly. The executive council (Bundesrat) of seven members elects the president and vice-president for a term of three years (see Switzerland: Government). Before the French Revolution the German empire was a complex confederation, with the states divided into electoral colleges, consisting—(1) of the ecclesiastical electors and of the secular electors, including the king of Bohemia; (2) of the spiritual and temporal princes of the empire next in rank to the electors; and (3) of the free imperial cities. The emperor was elected by the first college alone. This imposing confederation came to an end by the conquests of Napoleon; and the Confederation of the Rhine was established in 1806 with the French emperor as protector. But in 1815 the Germanic confederation (Deutscher Bund) was established by the congress of Vienna, which in its turn has been displaced by the present German empire. This, in its new organization, conferred on Germany the long-coveted unity and coherence the lack of which had been a source of weakness. The constitution dates, in its latest form, from the treaties entered into at Versailles in 1871. A federation was then organized with the king of Prussia as president, under the hereditary title of German emperor. Delegates of the various federated governments form the Bundesrath; the Reichstag, or popular assembly, is directly chosen by the people by universal suffrage; and the two assemblies constitute the federal parliament. This body has power to legislate for the whole empire in reference to all matters connected with the army, navy, postal service, customs, coinage, &c., all political laws affecting citizens, and all general questions of commerce, navigation, passports, &c. The emperor represents the federation in all international relations, with the chancellor as first minister of the empire, and has power, with consent of the Bundesrath, to declare war in name of the empire.

Among the later European confederations, the Swiss republic is one of the most fascinating. As it stands today, it is made up of twenty-two sovereign states or cantons. The government is divided into two legislative chambers: a senate or council of state (Ständerat) and a national council (Nationalrat), which together form the federal assembly. The executive council (Bundesrat), composed of seven members, elects the president and vice-president for a term of three years (see Switzerland: Government). Before the French Revolution, the German empire was a complicated confederation, with states divided into electoral colleges, which consisted of—(1) ecclesiastical electors and secular electors, including the king of Bohemia; (2) spiritual and temporal princes of the empire ranked just below the electors; and (3) free imperial cities. The emperor was elected solely by the first college. This significant confederation ended due to Napoleon's conquests, leading to the establishment of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 with the French emperor as its protector. However, in 1815, the Germanic confederation (Deutscher Bund) was formed at the congress of Vienna, which was later replaced by the present German empire. In this new organization, Germany achieved the long-desired unity and coherence that had previously been a source of weakness. The constitution, in its most recent version, originated from the treaties concluded at Versailles in 1871. At that time, a federation was created with the king of Prussia as president, holding the hereditary title of German emperor. Delegates from various federated governments make up the Bundesrath; the Reichstag, or popular assembly, is elected directly by the people through universal suffrage; and together, these two assemblies constitute the federal parliament. This body has the authority to legislate for the entire empire regarding all matters related to the army, navy, postal service, customs, coinage, and more, as well as political laws affecting citizens and general issues of commerce, navigation, passports, etc. The emperor represents the federation in all international matters, with the chancellor as the first minister of the empire, and has the power, with the approval of the Bundesrath, to declare war in the name of the empire.

The United States of America more nearly resembles the Swiss confederacy, though retaining marks of its English origin. The original thirteen states were colonies wholly independent of each 235 other. By the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777, and in effect in 1781-1789, the states bound themselves in a league of common defence. By the written Constitution, drafted in 1787 and in operation since 1789, a stronger and more centralized union was established—in theory a federal republic formed by the voluntary combination of sovereign states. A common citizenship was recognized for the whole union; but the federal government was to exercise only such powers as were expressly delegated to it (Amendment of 1791). The powers of the central government are entrusted to three distinct authorities—executive, legislative and judicial. The president, elected for a term of four years by electors chosen for that purpose by each state, is the executive head of the republic. The vice-president, ex officio president of the Senate, assumes the presidency in case of resignation or death. Legislative power is vested in a Congress, consisting of two Houses: a Senate, composed of two members elected by each state for a term of six years; and a House of Representatives, consisting of representatives in numbers proportionate to the population of each state, holding their seats for two years. The supreme judicial authority is vested in a Supreme Court, which consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, all appointed for life by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The United States of America is more similar to the Swiss confederacy, though it still shows its English roots. The original thirteen states were completely independent colonies. Through the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777 and effective from 1781 to 1789, the states formed a league for mutual defense. With the written Constitution drafted in 1787 and in effect since 1789, a stronger and more centralized union was created—essentially a federal republic formed by the voluntary joining of sovereign states. A common citizenship was recognized for the entire union, but the federal government was only meant to exercise powers specifically granted to it (Amendment of 1791). The powers of the central government are divided among three distinct branches—executive, legislative, and judicial. The president, elected for a four-year term by electors selected by each state, is the head of the republic. The vice president, who also serves as president of the Senate, takes over the presidency in the event of resignation or death. Legislative power is held by Congress, which includes two Houses: a Senate with two members elected by each state for a six-year term, and a House of Representatives, with representatives based on each state's population, serving two-year terms. The highest judicial authority is held by a Supreme Court, which is made up of a chief justice and eight associate justices, all appointed for life by the president, pending Senate confirmation.

The extension of responsible constitutional government by Great Britain to her chief colonies, under a governor or viceregal representative of the crown, has been followed in British North America by the union of the Canadian, maritime and Pacific provinces under a federal government—with a senate, the members of which are nominated by the crown, and a house of commons elected by the different provinces according to their relative population. The governor-general is appointed by the crown for a term of five years, and represents the sovereign in all matters of federal government. The lieutenant-governors of the provinces are nominated by him; and all local legislation is carried on by the provincial parliaments. The remarkable federation of the Dominion of Canada which was thus originated presented the unique feature of a federal union of provinces practically exercising sovereign rights in relation to all local self-government, and sustaining a constitutional autonomy, while cherishing the colonial relationship to Great Britain.

The extension of responsible constitutional government by Great Britain to its major colonies, under a governor or vice-regal representative of the crown, has led to the unification of the Canadian, maritime, and Pacific provinces under a federal government in British North America. This government includes a Senate, with members appointed by the crown, and a House of Commons, elected by the various provinces based on their population. The governor-general is appointed by the crown for a five-year term and represents the sovereign in all federal matters. The lieutenant-governors of the provinces are appointed by him, and all local legislation is handled by the provincial parliaments. This remarkable federation of the Dominion of Canada created the unique aspect of a federal union of provinces that effectively exercises sovereign rights regarding local self-government while maintaining a constitutional autonomy and nurturing the colonial relationship with Great Britain.

The Commonwealth of Australia (q.v.), proclaimed in 1901, is another interesting example of self-governing states federating into a united whole. There is, however, a striking difference to be observed in the powers of the federal governments of Canada and Australia. The federal parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over all matters not specially assigned to the local legislatures, while the federal parliament of Australia has only such jurisdiction as is expressly vested in it or is not expressly withdrawn from the local legislatures. This jurisdiction is undoubtedly extensive, comprising among others, power to legislate concerning trade and industry, criminal law, taxation, quarantine, marriage and divorce, weights and measures, legal tender, copyrights and patents, and naturalization and aliens. There was also an early attempt to federate the South African colonies, and an act was passed for that purpose (South African Act 1877), but it expired on the 18th of August 1882, without having been brought into effect by the sovereign in council; in 1908, however, the Closer Union movement (see South Africa) ripened, and in 1909 a federating Act was successfully passed.

The Commonwealth of Australia (q.v.), established in 1901, is another fascinating example of self-governing states coming together as a unified entity. However, there’s a notable difference in the powers of the federal governments of Canada and Australia. Canada’s federal parliament has authority over all matters that are not specifically assigned to local legislatures, while Australia’s federal parliament only has the authority that is explicitly granted to it or not explicitly taken away from the local legislatures. This authority is certainly broad and includes powers related to trade and industry, criminal law, taxation, quarantine, marriage and divorce, weights and measures, legal tender, copyrights and patents, and immigration and aliens. There was also an earlier attempt to unite the South African colonies, and an act was passed for that reason (South African Act 1877), but it lapsed on August 18, 1882, without being implemented by the sovereign in council; however, in 1908, the Closer Union movement (see South Africa) matured, and in 1909, a federation Act was successfully passed.

See also Bluntschli, The Theory of the State; W. Wilson, The State; Wheaton, International Law.

See also Bluntschli, The Theory of the State; W. Wilson, The State; Wheaton, International Law.


FEDERALIST PARTY, in American politics, the party that organized the national government of the United States under the constitution of 1787. It may be regarded as, in various important respects, the lineal predecessor of the American Whig and Republican parties. The name Federalists (see Anti-Federalists) was first given to those who championed the adoption of the Constitution. They brought to the support of that instrument “the areas of intercourse and wealth” (Libby), the influence of the commercial towns, the greater planters, the army officers, creditors and property-holders generally,—in short, of interests that had felt the evils of the weak government of the Confederation,—and also of some few true nationalists (few, because there was as yet no general national feeling), actuated by political principles of centralization independently of motives of expediency and self-interest. Most of the Federalists of 1787-1788 became members of the later Federalist Party.

FEDERALIST PARTY, in American politics, the party that established the national government of the United States under the constitution of 1787. It can be seen as, in several important ways, the direct predecessor of the American Whig and Republican parties. The term Federalists (see Anti-Federalists) was initially used to describe those who supported the adoption of the Constitution. They brought support to that document from “the areas of commerce and wealth” (Libby), including the influence of commercial towns, large landowners, army officers, creditors, and generally property owners,—in essence, representing interests that had experienced the drawbacks of the weak government of the Confederation,—as well as a few true nationalists (few, because there was not yet a widespread national sentiment), driven by political principles of centralization rather than by motives of expediency and self-interest. Most of the Federalists from 1787-1788 later became members of the established Federalist Party.

The Federalist Party, which may be regarded as definitely organized practically from 1791, was led, leaving Washington aside, by Alexander Hamilton (q.v.) and John Adams. A nationalization of the new central government to the full extent warranted by a broad construction of the powers granted to it by the constitution, and a correspondingly strict construction of the powers reserved to the states and the citizens, were the basic principles of Hamilton’s policy. The friends of individual liberty and local government naturally found in the assumption by the central government of even the minimum of its granted powers constant stimulus to their fears (see Democratic Party); while the financial measures of Hamilton—whose wish for extreme centralization was nowise satisfied by the government actually created in 1787—were calculated to force an immediate and firm assumption by that government, to the limit, of every power it could be held to possess. To the Republicans (Democratic Republicans) they seemed intended to cause a usurpation of powers ungranted. Hence these measures became the issues on which the first American parties were formed. Their effect was supplemented by the division into French and British sympathizers; the Republicans approving the aims and condoning the excesses of the French Revolution, the Federalists siding with British reaction against French democracy. The Federalists controlled the government until 1801. They, having the great opportunity of initiative, organized it in all its branches, giving it an administrative machinery that in the main endures to-day; established the doctrine of national neutrality toward European conflicts (although the variance of Federalist and Republican opinion on this point was largely factitious); and fixed the practice of a liberal construction of the Constitution,1—not only by Congress, but above all by the United States Supreme Court, which, under the lead of John Marshall (who had been appointed chief-justice by Pres. John Adams), impressed enduringly on the national system large portions of the Federalist doctrine. These are the great claims of the party to memory. After 1801 it never regained power. In attempts to do so, alike in national and in state politics, it impaired its morale by internal dissension, by intrigues, and by inconsistent factious opposition to Democratic measures on grounds of ultra-strict construction. It took up, too, the Democratic weapon of states’ rights, and in New England carried sectionalism dangerously near secession in 1808, and in 1812-1814, during the movement, in opposition to the war of 1812, which culminated in the Hartford Convention (see Hartford). It lost, more and more, its influence and usefulness, and by 1817 was practically dead as a national party, although in Massachusetts it lingered in power until 1823. It is sometimes said that Federalism died because the Republicans took over its principles of nationality. Rather it fell because its great leaders, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, became bitter enemies; because neither was even distantly comparable to Jefferson as a party leader; because the party could not hold the support of its original commercial, manufacturing and general business elements; because the party opposed sectionalism to a growing nationalism on the issues that ended in the war of 1812; and, above all, because the principles of the party’s leaders (e.g. of Hamilton) were out of harmony, in various respects, with American ideals. Their conservatism became increasingly a reactionary fear of democracy; indeed, it is not a strained construction of the times to regard the entire Federalist period from the American point of view as reactionary—a reaction against the doctrines of natural rights, individualism, and states’ rights, and the financial looseness of the period of the War of Independence and the succeeding years of the Confederation. The Federalists were charged by the Republicans with being aristocrats and monarchists, and it is certain that their leaders 236 (who were really a very remarkable body of men) distrusted democratic government; that their Sedition Law was outrageous in itself, and (as well as the Alien Law) bad as a party measure; that in disputes with Great Britain they were true English Tories when contrasted with the friendly attitude toward America held by many English Liberals; and that they persisted in New England as a pro-British, aristocratic social-cult long after they lost effective political influence. In short, the country was already thoroughly democratic in spirit, while Federalism stood for obsolescent social ideas and was infected with political “Toryism” fatally against the times.

The Federalist Party, which was essentially organized around 1791, was led, apart from Washington, by Alexander Hamilton (q.v.) and John Adams. The fundamental principles of Hamilton's policy were centered on a nationalization of the new central government, as broadly interpreted by the powers granted to it by the Constitution, and a correspondingly strict interpretation of the powers reserved for the states and citizens. Naturally, those who valued individual liberty and local governance found the central government’s assumption of even its minimum granted powers to be a constant source of concern (see Democratic Party); meanwhile, Hamilton's financial measures—since his desire for extreme centralization was not satisfied by the government formed in 1787—were designed to compel the government to assume every power it could be seen to possess. For the Republicans (Democratic-Republicans), these actions appeared to lead to the usurpation of ungranted powers. Consequently, these measures became the foundation for the first American political parties. Their impact was further amplified by the divide between French and British sympathizers; the Republicans supported the goals of the French Revolution and excused its excesses, while the Federalists aligned themselves with British opposition to French democracy. The Federalists held control of the government until 1801. They took the significant opportunity to organize it in all its branches, creating an administrative framework that largely remains in place today; they established the principle of national neutrality regarding European conflicts (though the disagreement between Federalist and Republican viewpoints on this issue was largely superficial); and they set the precedent for a broad interpretation of the Constitution, 1—not only by Congress but especially by the United States Supreme Court, under the leadership of John Marshall (who was appointed as chief justice by President John Adams), which deeply ingrained many aspects of Federalist doctrine into the national system. These are the main achievements of the party that are remembered. After 1801, it never regained power. In trying to do so, both nationally and in state politics, it weakened its morale through internal conflicts, schemes, and inconsistent opposition to Democratic measures based on ultra-strict interpretation. It also adopted the Democratic approach of states’ rights, bringing sectionalism dangerously close to secession in 1808, and again in 1812-1814, especially during opposition to the War of 1812, culminating in the Hartford Convention (see Hartford). Over time, it lost influence and relevance, and by 1817, it was practically dead as a national party, although it continued to hold power in Massachusetts until 1823. It is sometimes suggested that Federalism faded because the Republicans embraced its principles of nationality. In reality, it declined due to the bitter rivalry between its key leaders, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton; the fact that neither was even remotely comparable to Jefferson as a party leader; because the party couldn't maintain the support of its initial commercial, manufacturing, and general business constituents; because it opposed sectionalism amidst a growing nationalism that contributed to the War of 1812; and, most importantly, because its leaders’ principles (like those of Hamilton) were increasingly out of tune with American ideals. Their conservatism morphed into a reactionary fear of democracy; indeed, it is not an exaggeration to view the entire Federalist era from the American perspective as reactionary—a pushback against the principles of natural rights, individualism, and states’ rights, as well as the financial leniency seen during the War of Independence and the subsequent years of the Confederation. The Republicans accused the Federalists of being aristocrats and monarchists, and it is undeniable that their leaders (who were an exceptionally remarkable group of men) were skeptical of democratic governance; their Sedition Law was outrageous in itself and, along with the Alien Law, was detrimental as a party tactic; in disputes with Great Britain, they acted like true English Tories, especially when compared to the more sympathetic stance towards America taken by many English Liberals; and they continued to exist in New England as a pro-British, aristocratic social elite long after they lost effective political clout. In summary, the nation had become thoroughly democratic in spirit, while Federalism represented outdated social ideas and was tainted by political "Toryism," rendering it fundamentally incompatible with the times.

Besides the standard general histories see O.G. Libby, Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (Madison, Wis., 1894); the Memoirs of Oliver Wolcott (ed. by Gibbs); C.D. Hazen, Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution (“J.H.U. Studies,” Baltimore, 1897); Henry Adams, Documents relating to New England Federalism, 1800-1815 (Boston, 1878); A.E. Morse, The Federalist Party in Massachusetts (Princeton, N.J., 1909); and the biographies and writings of George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Rufus King, Timothy Pickering, Theodore Sedgwick, C.C. Pinckney and J.A. Bayard.

Besides the standard general histories, see O.G. Libby, Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (Madison, Wis., 1894); the Memoirs of Oliver Wolcott (edited by Gibbs); C.D. Hazen, Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution (“J.H.U. Studies,” Baltimore, 1897); Henry Adams, Documents relating to New England Federalism, 1800-1815 (Boston, 1878); A.E. Morse, The Federalist Party in Massachusetts (Princeton, N.J., 1909); and the biographies and writings of George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Rufus King, Timothy Pickering, Theodore Sedgwick, C.C. Pinckney, and J.A. Bayard.


1 Even the Democratic party has generally been liberal; although less so in theory (hardly less so in practice) than its opponents.

1 Even the Democratic Party has typically been liberal; although, in theory, it's not as much as its opponents (but definitely so in practice).


FEDERICI, CAMILLO (1749-1802), Italian dramatist and actor, was born at Garessio, a small town in Piedmont, on the 9th of April 1749. His real name was Giovanni Battista Viassolo, and that by which he is now known and which he transmitted to his children was taken from the title of one of his first pieces, Camillo e Federico. He was educated at Turin, and showed at an early age a great fondness for literature and especially for the theatre. The praises bestowed on his early attempts determined his choice of a career, and he obtained engagements with several companies both as writer and actor. He made a happy marriage in 1777, and soon after left the stage and devoted himself entirely to composition. He settled at Padua, and the reputation of his numerous comedies rapidly spread in Italy, and for a time seemed to eclipse that of his predecessors. Most of his pieces were of the melodramatic class, and he too often resorted to the same means of exciting interest and curiosity. He caught, however, something of the new spirit which was manifesting itself in German dramatic literature in the works of Schiller, Iffland and Kotzebue, and the moral tone of his plays is generally healthy. Fortune did not smile upon him; but he found a helpful friend in a wealthy merchant of Padua, Francis Barisan, for whose private theatre he wrote many pieces. He was attacked in 1791 with a dangerous malady which disabled him for several years; and he had the misfortune to see his works, in the absence of any copyright law, published by others without his permission. At length, in 1802, he undertook to prepare a collected edition; but of this four volumes only were completed when he was again attacked with illness, and died at Padua (December 23).

FEDERICI, CAMILLO (1749-1802), Italian playwright and actor, was born in Garessio, a small town in Piedmont, on April 9, 1749. His real name was Giovanni Battista Viassolo, and the name he is known by today, which he passed on to his children, was inspired by one of his early works, Camillo e Federico. He was educated in Turin and showed a strong passion for literature and especially for the theater from a young age. The praise he received for his early works encouraged him to pursue a career in this field, and he secured roles with various companies as both a writer and an actor. He had a happy marriage in 1777, and shortly after, he left the stage to focus entirely on writing. He settled in Padua, where his many comedies quickly gained popularity across Italy, even seeming to overshadow those of his predecessors at one point. Most of his works were melodramatic, and he frequently relied on similar techniques to engage his audience's interest and curiosity. However, he did capture some of the new spirit emerging in German dramatic literature as seen in the works of Schiller, Iffland, and Kotzebue, and the moral message of his plays is generally positive. Unfortunately, luck was not on his side; however, he found a supportive friend in a wealthy merchant from Padua, Francis Barisan, for whom he wrote many pieces for his private theater. In 1791, he fell seriously ill and was unable to work for several years; during that time, he suffered the misfortune of seeing his works published by others without his consent due to the lack of copyright laws. Finally, in 1802, he began working on a collected edition of his works, but he had only completed four volumes when illness struck him again, leading to his death in Padua on December 23.

The publication of his works was completed in 14 volumes in 1816. Another edition in 26 volumes was published at Florence in 1826-1827. A biographical memoir of Federici by Neymar appeared at Venice in 1838.

The publication of his works was finished in 14 volumes in 1816. Another edition in 26 volumes was released in Florence in 1826-1827. A biographical memoir of Federici by Neymar was published in Venice in 1838.


FEE, an estate in land held of a superior lord on condition of the performance of homage or service (see Feudalism). In English law “fee” signifies an estate of inheritance (i.e. an estate descendable to the heirs of the grantee so long as there are any in existence) as opposed to an estate for life. It is divisible into three species: (1) fee simple; (2) conditional fee; (3) fee tail. (See Estate.) A fee farm rent is the rent reserved on granting a fee farm, i.e. land in fee simple, to be held by the tenant and his heirs at a yearly rent. It is generally at least one-fourth of the value of the land at the time of its reservation. (See Rent.)

FEE, a type of property held from a higher authority on the condition of performing services or duties (see Feudalism). In English law, “fee” refers to an inheritable estate (i.e. an estate that can be passed down to the heirs of the grantee as long as there are any alive) rather than a life estate. It can be categorized into three types: (1) fee simple; (2) conditional fee; (3) fee tail. (See Estate.) A fee farm rent is the rent set when granting a fee farm, i.e. land in fee simple, which the tenant and their heirs will hold at an annual rent. This rent is typically at least one-fourth of the land's value at the time it was established. (See Rent.)

The word “fee” has also the sense of remuneration for services, especially the honorarium paid to a doctor, lawyer or member of any other profession. It is also used of a fixed sum paid for the right to enter for an examination, or on admission to membership of a university or other society. This sense of the word is taken by the New English Dictionary to be due to a use of “fee” in its feudal sense, and to represent a sum paid to the holder of an office “in fee.”

The word “fee” also refers to payment for services, especially the honorarium given to a doctor, lawyer, or other professional. It's also used for a set amount paid to enter an exam or to join a university or other organization. The New English Dictionary suggests that this meaning comes from the feudal use of “fee,” representing a payment made to the holder of an office “in fee.”

The etymology of the Med. Lat. feudum, feodum or feum, of its French equivalent fief, and English “fee,” in Scots law “feu” (q.v.), is extremely obscure. (See the New English Dictionary, s.v. “Fee.”) There is a common Teutonic word represented in Old English as feoh or féo, in Old High German as fehu, meaning property in the shape of cattle (cf. modern Ger. Vieh, Dutch vee). The old Aryan péku gives Sanskrit paçu, Lat. pecus, cattle, whence pecunia, money. The O. Eng. feoh, in the sense of money, possibly survives in “fee,” honorarium, though this is not the view of the New English Dictionary. The common explanation of the Med. Lat. feudum or feodum, of which Ducange (Glossarium, s.v.) gives an example from a constitution of the emperor Charles the Fat of the year 884, is that it is formed from the Teutonic fehu, property, and ôd, wealth (cf. Allodium and Udal). This would apparently restrict the original meaning to movable property, while the early applications of feudum are to the enjoyment of something granted in return for service (beneficium). Another theory takes the origin to be fehu alone, in a particular sense of wages, payment for services. This leaves the d- of feudum unexplained. Some have taken the origin to be a verbal form feudare = feum dare. Another theory finds the source in the O. High Ger. fehôn, to eat, feed upon, “take for one’s enjoyment.”

The origin of the Medieval Latin terms feudum, feodum, or feum, along with their French equivalent fief and the English word “fee,” which in Scots law is referred to as “feu” (q.v.), is quite unclear. (See the New English Dictionary, s.v. “Fee.”) There’s a common Teutonic word, represented in Old English as feoh or féo, and in Old High German as fehu, which means property in the form of cattle (see modern German Vieh and Dutch vee). The ancient Aryan word péku leads to the Sanskrit paču, Latin pecus, which means cattle, and is the root of pecunia, meaning money. The Old English feoh, in the context of money, could still be seen in “fee,” an honorarium, although this perspective is not supported by the New English Dictionary. The usual explanation of the Medieval Latin feudum or feodum, as noted by Ducange in his Glossarium, s.v., gives an example from a constitution issued by Emperor Charles the Fat in 884, suggesting it derives from the Teutonic fehu, meaning property, and ôd, meaning wealth (see Allodium and Udal). This seems to limit the original meaning to movable property, while early uses of feudum refer to the right to enjoy something granted in exchange for service (beneficium). Another theory posits that the origin is solely fehu, specifically in the sense of wages or payment for services. This leaves the d- of feudum undefined. Some have suggested that its origin is a verbal form feudare = feum dare. Another theory traces it back to the Old High German fehôn, meaning to eat, feed upon, or “take for one’s enjoyment.”


FEHLING, HERMANN VON (1812-1885), German chemist, was born at Lübeck on the 9th of June 1812. With the intention of taking up pharmacy he entered Heidelberg University about 1835, and after graduating went to Giessen as préparateur to Liebig, with whom he elucidated the composition of paraldehyde and metaldehyde. In 1839 on Liebig’s recommendation he was appointed to the chair of chemistry in the polytechnic at Stuttgart, and held it till within three years of his death, which happened at Stuttgart on the 1st of July 1885. His earlier work included an investigation of succinic acid, and the preparation of phenyl cyanide (benzonitrile), the simplest nitrile of the aromatic series; but later his time was mainly occupied with questions of technology and public health rather than with pure chemistry. Among the analytical methods worked up by him the best known is that for the estimation of sugars by “Fehling’s solution,” which consists of a solution of cupric sulphate mixed with alkali and potassium-sodium tartrate (Rochelle salt). He was a contributor to the Handwörterbuch of Liebig, Wöhler and Poggendorff, and to the Graham-Otto Textbook of Chemistry, and for many years was a member of the committee of revision of the Pharmacopoeia Germanica.

FEHLING, HERMANN VON (1812-1885), a German chemist, was born in Lübeck on June 9, 1812. He began his studies at Heidelberg University around 1835 with the goal of pursuing pharmacy. After graduating, he went to Giessen to work as a preparer for Liebig, where he helped clarify the composition of paraldehyde and metaldehyde. In 1839, on Liebig’s recommendation, he was appointed to the chemistry chair at the polytechnic in Stuttgart, where he remained until three years before his death on July 1, 1885, in Stuttgart. His early research focused on succinic acid and the preparation of phenyl cyanide (benzonitrile), the simplest aromatic nitrile, but later he spent most of his time dealing with technology and public health issues rather than pure chemistry. Among the analytical methods he developed, the most famous is the sugar estimation method using “Fehling’s solution,” which is a mixture of cupric sulfate with alkali and potassium-sodium tartrate (Rochelle salt). He contributed to the Handwörterbuch by Liebig, Wöhler, and Poggendorff, and to the Graham-Otto Textbook of Chemistry. He also served on the revision committee for the Pharmacopoeia Germanica for many years.


FEHMARN, an island of Germany, belonging to the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, in the Baltic, separated from the north-east corner of Holstein by a strait known as the Fehmarn-Sund, less than a quarter of a mile in breadth. It is a gently undulating tract of country, about 120 sq. m. in area, bare of forest but containing excellent pasture-land, and rears cattle in considerable numbers. Pop. 10,000.

FEHMARN, is an island in Germany, part of the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, located in the Baltic Sea. It's separated from the northeast corner of Holstein by a narrow strait called the Fehmarn-Sund, which is less than a quarter of a mile wide. The landscape is gently rolling and covers about 120 square miles. There are no forests, but it has great pastureland and raises a significant number of cattle. The population is around 10,000.


FEHMIC COURTS (Ger. Femgerichte, or Vehmgerichte, of disputed origin, but probably, according to J. Grimm, from O. High Ger. feme or feime, a court of justice), certain tribunals which, during the middle ages, exercised a powerful and sometimes sinister jurisdiction in Germany, and more especially in Westphalia. Their origin is uncertain, but is traceable to the time of Charlemagne and in all probability to the old Teutonic free courts. They were, indeed, also known as free courts (Freigerichte), a name due to the fact that all free-born men were eligible for membership and also to the fact that they claimed certain exceptional liberties. Their jurisdiction they owed to the emperor, from whom they received the power of life and death (Blutbann) which they exercised in his name. The sessions were often held in secret, whence the names of secret court (heimliches Gericht, Stillgericht, &c.); and these the uninitiated were forbidden to attend, on pain of death, which led to the designation forbidden courts (verbotene Gerichte). Legend and romance have combined to exaggerate the sinister reputation of the Fehmic courts; but modern historical research has largely discounted this, proving that they never employed torture, that their sittings were only sometimes secret, and that 237 their meeting-places were always well known. They were, in fact, a survival of an ancient and venerable German institution; and if, during a certain period, they exercised something like a reign of terror over a great part of Germany, the cause of this lay in the sickness of the times, which called for some powerful organization to combat the growing feudal anarchy. Such an organization the Westphalian free courts, with their discipline of terror and elaborate system of secret service, were well calculated to supply. Everywhere else the power of life and death, originally reserved to the emperor alone, had been usurped by the territorial nobles; only in Westphalia, called “the Red Earth” because here the imperial blood-ban was still valid, were capital sentences passed and executed by the Fehmic courts in the emperor’s name alone.

FEHMIC COURTS (Ger. Femgerichte, or Vehmgerichte, of disputed origin, but probably, according to J. Grimm, from O. High Ger. feme or feime, a court of justice), were certain tribunals that wielded significant and sometimes ominous power in Germany during the Middle Ages, especially in Westphalia. Their origins are unclear, but they can be traced back to the time of Charlemagne and likely to the old Teutonic free courts. They were also known as free courts (Freigerichte) because all free-born men were eligible for membership and they claimed certain exceptional rights. Their authority came from the emperor, who granted them the power of life and death (Blutbann) that they exercised in his name. Sessions were often held in secret, leading to names like secret court (heimliches Gericht, Stillgericht, etc.); those not initiated were forbidden to attend, under the threat of death, which resulted in the term forbidden courts (verbotene Gerichte). Legend and fiction have exaggerated the dark reputation of the Fehmic courts, but modern historical research has largely dispelled this, showing that they never used torture, that their meetings were only sometimes secret, and that their meeting places were always known. They were, in fact, a remnant of an ancient and respected German institution. Although they did instill a sense of terror in parts of Germany for a while, this was a response to the chaotic conditions of the time, which demanded a strong organization to counter the rising feudal anarchy. The Westphalian free courts, with their discipline of fear and organized network of secret service, were well-suited to provide this. Everywhere else, the power of life and death, originally reserved for the emperor, had been seized by local nobles; only in Westphalia, known as “the Red Earth” because the emperor's blood-ban still held, did the Fehmic courts pass and carry out capital sentences in the emperor's name alone.

The system, though ancient, began to become of importance only after the division of the duchy of Saxony on the fall of Henry the Lion, when the archbishop of Cologne, duke of Westphalia from 1180 onwards, placed himself as representative of the emperor at the head of the Fehme. The organization now rapidly spread. Every free man, born in lawful wedlock, and neither excommunicate nor outlaw, was eligible for membership. Princes and nobles were initiated; and in 1429 even the emperor Sigismund himself became “a true and proper Freischöffe of the Holy Roman Empire.” By the middle of the 14th century these Freischöffen (Latin scabini), sworn associates of the Fehme, were scattered in thousands throughout the length and breadth of Germany, known to each other by secret signs and pass-words, and all of them pledged to serve the summons of the secret courts and to execute their judgment.

The system, although old, started to gain significance only after the duchy of Saxony was divided following the fall of Henry the Lion. The archbishop of Cologne, who became the duke of Westphalia in 1180, positioned himself as the emperor's representative at the head of the Fehme. The organization quickly expanded from there. Every free man, born in lawful marriage, and who was neither excommunicated nor an outlaw, could join. Princes and nobles were initiated as well; in 1429, even Emperor Sigismund himself became “a true and proper Freischöffe of the Holy Roman Empire.” By the mid-14th century, these Freischöffen (Latin scabini), sworn associates of the Fehme, were spread out in the thousands across Germany, recognized by one another through secret signs and passwords, and all of them committed to respond to the summons of the secret courts and to carry out their judgments.

The organization of the Fehme was elaborate. The head of each centre of jurisdiction (Freistuhl), often a secular or spiritual prince, sometimes a civic community, was known as the Stuhlherr, the archbishop of Cologne being, as stated above, supreme over all (Oberststuhlherr). The actual president of the court was the Freigraf (free count) chosen for life by the Stuhlherr from among the Freischöffen, who formed the great body of the initiated. Of these the lowest rank were the Fronboten or Freifronen, charged with the maintenance of order in the courts and the duty of carrying out the commands of the Freigraf. The immense development of the Fehme is explained by the privileges of the Freischöffen; for they were subject to no jurisdiction but those of the Westphalian courts, whether as accused or accuser they had access to the secret sessions, and they shared in the discussions of the general chapter as to the policy of the society. At their initiation these swore to support the Fehme with all their powers, to guard its secrets, and to bring before its tribunal anything within its competence that they might discover. They were then initiated into the secret signs by which members recognized each other, and were presented with a rope and with a knife on which were engraved the mystic letters S.S.G.G., supposed to mean Strick, Stein, Gras, Grün (rope, stone, grass, green).

The organization of the Fehme was complex. The leader of each jurisdiction center (Freistuhl), often a secular or spiritual authority, and sometimes a city community, was referred to as the Stuhlherr, with the archbishop of Cologne being, as mentioned earlier, supreme over all (Oberststuhlherr). The actual head of the court was the Freigraf (free count), chosen for life by the Stuhlherr from among the Freischöffen, who made up the large group of initiated members. The lowest rank among them were the Fronboten or Freifronen, responsible for maintaining order in the courts and carrying out the Freigraf's orders. The significant growth of the Fehme can be attributed to the privileges of the Freischöffen; they were not subject to any jurisdiction except that of the Westphalian courts, and whether as defendants or plaintiffs, they had access to secret sessions and participated in discussions of the general chapter regarding the society's policies. Upon their initiation, they swore to support the Fehme with all their strength, to keep its secrets, and to bring any relevant matters to its tribunal that they might uncover. They were then taught the secret signs by which members recognized each other and were given a rope and a knife engraved with the mystical letters S.S.G.G., which were believed to mean Strick, Stein, Gras, Grün (rope, stone, grass, green).

The procedure of the Fehmic courts was practically that of the ancient German courts generally. The place of session, known as the Freistuhl (free seat), was usually a hillock, or some other well-known and accessible spot. The Freigraf and Schöffen occupied the bench, before which a table, with a sword and rope upon it, was placed. The court was held by day and, unless the session was declared secret, all freemen, whether initiated or not, were admitted. The accusation was in the old German form; but only a Freischöffe could act as accuser. If the offence came under the competence of the court, i.e. was punishable by death, a summons to the accused was issued under the seal of the Freigraf. This was not usually served on him personally, but was nailed to his door, or to some convenient place where he was certain to pass. Six weeks and three days’ grace were allowed, according to the old Saxon law, and the summons was thrice repeated. If the accused appeared, the accuser stated the case, and the investigation proceeded by the examination of witnesses as in an ordinary court of law. The judgment was put into execution on the spot if that was possible. The secret court, from whose procedure the whole institution has acquired its evil reputation, was closed to all but the initiated, although these were so numerous as to secure quasi-publicity; any one not a member on being discovered was instantly put to death, and the members present were bound under the same penalty not to disclose what took place. Crimes of a serious nature, and especially those that were deemed unfit for ordinary judicial investigation—such as heresy and witchcraft—fell within its jurisdiction, as also did appeals by persons condemned in the open courts, and likewise the cases before those tribunals in which the accused had not appeared. The accused if a member could clear himself by his own oath, unless he had revealed the secrets of the Fehme. If he were one of the uninitiated it was necessary for him to bring forward witnesses to his innocence from among the initiated, whose number varied according to the number on the side of the accuser, but twenty-one in favour of innocence necessarily secured an acquittal. The only punishment which the secret court could inflict was death. If the accused appeared, the sentence was carried into execution at once; if he did not appear, it was quickly made known to the whole body, and the Freischöffe who was the first to meet the condemned was bound to put him to death. This was usually done by hanging, the nearest tree serving for gallows. A knife with the cabalistic letters was left beside the corpse to show that the deed was not a murder.

The process of the Fehmic courts was basically the same as that of ancient German courts in general. The meeting place, called the Freistuhl (free seat), was usually a small hill or another well-known and accessible location. The Freigraf and Schöffen sat on the bench, in front of which was a table with a sword and rope on it. The court sessions were held during the day, and unless the session was declared secret, all freemen, whether initiated or not, were allowed to attend. The accusation followed the traditional German format, but only a Freischöffe could serve as the accuser. If the offense fell under the court's authority, meaning it was punishable by death, a summons was issued to the accused under the seal of the Freigraf. This was typically not delivered to him personally but was instead nailed to his door or posted in another spot where he was sure to see it. According to old Saxon law, there was a grace period of six weeks and three days, and the summons was repeated three times. If the accused showed up, the accuser presented the case, and the investigation continued with witness testimonies, just like in a regular court of law. The judgment was carried out immediately if possible. The secret court, which has given the whole system its bad reputation, was only open to the initiated, although there were so many members that it had a sort of public feel; anyone not a member who was discovered was instantly executed, and those present were also bound by the same penalty not to reveal what occurred. Serious crimes, especially those considered unsuitable for normal legal proceedings—like heresy and witchcraft—fell under its jurisdiction, as did appeals from individuals condemned in open courts, as well as cases where the accused had not appeared. If a member was accused, he could absolve himself with his own oath unless he had disclosed the secrets of the Fehme. If he was uninitiated, he needed to present witnesses who could attest to his innocence from among the initiated; the number of witnesses needed corresponded to the number supporting the accuser, but having twenty-one in favor of innocence ensured an acquittal. The only punishment the secret court could impose was death. If the accused appeared, the sentence was carried out immediately; if he did not, the verdict was quickly broadcast to the entire group, and the Freischöffe who first encountered the condemned was obligated to execute him. This was usually done by hanging, using the nearest tree as a gallows. A knife with mysterious letters was left next to the corpse to indicate that the act was not murder.

That an organization of this character should have outlived its usefulness and issued in intolerable abuses was inevitable. With the growing power of the territorial sovereigns and the gradual improvement of the ordinary process of justice, the functions of the Fehmic courts were superseded. By the action of the emperor Maximilian and of other German princes they were, in the 16th century, once more restricted to Westphalia, and here, too, they were brought under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and finally confined to mere police duties. With these functions, however, but with the old forms long since robbed of their impressiveness, they survived into the 19th century. They were finally abolished by order of Jerome Bonaparte, king of Westphalia, in 1811. The last Freigraf died in 1835.

That an organization like this should have outlived its usefulness and led to serious abuses was bound to happen. As the power of local rulers grew and the regular justice system improved, the roles of the Fehmic courts were replaced. In the 16th century, Emperor Maximilian and other German princes limited their authority again to Westphalia, where they were placed under the control of regular courts and eventually reduced to only handling police duties. However, these courts continued to exist into the 19th century, but with outdated practices that had lost their significance. They were finally abolished by Jerome Bonaparte, the king of Westphalia, in 1811. The last Freigraf passed away in 1835.

Authorities.—P. Wigand, Das Femgericht Westfalens (Hamm, 1825, 2nd ed., Halle, 1893); L. Tross, Sammlung merkwürdiger Urkunden für die Geschichte der Femgerichte (Hanover, 1826); F.P. Usener, Die frei- und heimlichen Gerichte Westfalens (Frankfort, 1832); K.G. von Wächter, Beiträge zur deutschen Gesch., insbesondere ... des deutschen Strafrechts (Tübingen, 1845); O. Wächter, Femgerichte und Hexenprozesse in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1882); T. Lindner, Die Feme (Münster and Paderborn, 1888); F. Thudichum, Femgericht und Inquisition (Giessen, 1889) whose theory concerning the origin of the Fehme is combated in T. Lindner’s Der angebliche Ursprung der Femgerichte aus der Inquisition (Paderborn, 1890). For works on individual aspects see further Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde (ed. Leipzig, 1906), p. 401; also ib. supplementary vol. (1907), p. 78.

Authorities.—P. Wigand, The Fem Court of Westphalia (Hamm, 1825, 2nd ed., Halle, 1893); L. Tross, Collection of Notable Documents for the History of the Fem Courts (Hanover, 1826); F.P. Usener, The Free and Secret Courts of Westphalia (Frankfort, 1832); K.G. von Wächter, Contributions to German History, Especially ... of German Criminal Law (Tübingen, 1845); O. Wächter, Fem Courts and Witch Trials in Germany (Stuttgart, 1882); T. Lindner, The Feme (Münster and Paderborn, 1888); F. Thudichum, Fem Court and Inquisition (Giessen, 1889) whose theory about the origin of the Fehme is challenged in T. Lindner’s The Alleged Origin of Fem Courts from the Inquisition (Paderborn, 1890). For works on individual aspects see further Dahlmann-Waitz, Source Studies (ed. Leipzig, 1906), p. 401; also ib. supplementary vol. (1907), p. 78.


FEHRBELLIN, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Rhine, 40 m. N.W. from Berlin on the railway to Neu-Ruppin. Pop. (1905) 1602. It has a Protestant and a Roman Catholic church and some small industries, among them that of wooden shoes. Fehrbellin is memorable in history as the scene of the famous victory gained, on the 18th of June 1675, by the great elector, Frederick William of Prussia, over the Swedes under Field-Marshal Wrangel. A monument was erected in 1879 on the field of battle, near the village of Hakenberg, to commemorate this great feat of arms.

FEHRBELLIN, a town in Germany, located in the kingdom of Prussia on the Rhine River, 40 miles northwest of Berlin along the railway to Neu-Ruppin. Population (1905) was 1,602. It has both a Protestant and a Roman Catholic church, along with some small industries, including wooden shoe production. Fehrbellin is historically significant as the site of the famous victory on June 18, 1675, when the Great Elector, Frederick William of Prussia, defeated the Swedes led by Field-Marshal Wrangel. A monument was erected in 1879 on the battlefield, near the village of Hakenberg, to honor this significant military achievement.

See A. von Witzleben and P. Hassel, Zum 200-jährigen Gedenktag von Fehrbellin (Berlin, 1875); G. Sello, “Fehrbellin,” in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, vii.; M. Jähns, “Der Grosse Kurfürst bei Fehrbellin, &c.,” in Hohenzollern Jahrbuch, i.

See A. von Witzleben and P. Hassel, On the 200th Anniversary of Fehrbellin (Berlin, 1875); G. Sello, “Fehrbellin,” in German Journal for Historical Sciences, vii.; M. Jähns, “The Great Elector at Fehrbellin, &c.,” in Hohenzollern Yearbook, i.


FEIJÓO Y MONTENEGRO, BENITO JERÓNIMO (1676-1764), Spanish monk and scholar was born at Santa María de Melias, near Orense, on the 8th of October 1676. At the age of twelve he entered the Benedictine order, devoted himself to study, and waged war against the superstition and ignorance of his countrymen in the Teatro crí-tico (1726-1739) and the Cartas eruditas (1742-1760). These exposures of a retrograde system called forth embittered protests from narrow-minded patriots like Salvador José Maner, and others; but the opposition was 238 futile, and Feijóo’s services to the cause of knowledge were universally recognized long before his death, which took place at Oviedo on the 26th of September 1764. He was not a great genius, nor a writer of transcendent merit; his name is connected with no important discovery, and his style is undistinguished. But he uprooted many popular errors, awakened an interest in scientific methods, and is justly regarded as the initiator of educational reform in Spain.

FEIJÓO AND MONTENEGRO, BENITO JERÓNIMO (1676-1764), a Spanish monk and scholar, was born in Santa María de Melias, near Orense, on October 8, 1676. At the age of twelve, he joined the Benedictine order, dedicated himself to study, and fought against the superstition and ignorance of his fellow countrymen in the Teatro crítico (1726-1739) and the Cartas eruditas (1742-1760). His critiques of a backward system provoked bitter protests from narrow-minded patriots like Salvador José Maner and others; however, the opposition was 238 useless, and Feijóo’s contributions to the advancement of knowledge were widely acknowledged long before his death, which occurred in Oviedo on September 26, 1764. He was not a great genius, nor a writer of exceptional merit; his name is not linked to any major discovery, and his writing style is unremarkable. But he eliminated many common misconceptions, sparked interest in scientific methods, and is rightly considered the initiator of educational reform in Spain.


FEITH, RHIJNVIS (1753-1824), Dutch poet, was born of an aristocratic family at Zwolle, the capital of the province Overijssel, on the 7th of February 1753. He was educated at Harderwijk and at the university of Leiden, where he took his degree in 1770. In 1772 he settled at his birthplace, and married. In 1780, in his twenty-seventh year, he became burgomaster of Zwolle. He built a luxurious villa, which he named Boschwijk, in the outskirts of the town, and there he lived in the greatest comfort. His first important production was Julia, in 1783, a novel written in emulation of Werther, and steeped in Weltschmerz and despair. This was followed by the tragedy of Thirsa (1784); Ferdinand and Constantia (1785), another Werther novel; and The Patriots (1784), a tragedy. Bilderdijk and other writers attacked his morbid melancholy, and Johannes Kinker (1764-1845) parodied his novels, but his vogue continued. In 1791 he published a tragedy of Lady Jane Grey; in 1792 a didactic poem, The Grave, in four cantos; in 1793 Inez de Castro; in 1796 to 1814 five volumes of Odes and Miscellaneous Poems; and in 1802 Old Age, in six cantos. He died at Zwolle on the 8th of February 1824.

FEITH, RHIJNVIS (1753-1824), Dutch poet, was born into an aristocratic family in Zwolle, the capital of the province of Overijssel, on February 7, 1753. He was educated in Harderwijk and at the University of Leiden, where he earned his degree in 1770. In 1772, he returned to his hometown and got married. In 1780, at the age of twenty-seven, he became the mayor of Zwolle. He built an elegant villa called Boschwijk on the outskirts of the town, where he lived comfortably. His first significant work was Julia, published in 1783, a novel inspired by Werther, infused with Weltschmerz and despair. This was followed by the tragedy Thirsa (1784); Ferdinand and Constantia (1785), another Werther-style novel; and The Patriots (1784), a tragedy. Writers like Bilderdijk criticized his gloomy outlook, and Johannes Kinker (1764-1845) parodied his novels, yet his popularity persisted. In 1791, he released the tragedy Lady Jane Grey; in 1792, a didactic poem titled The Grave, in four cantos; in 1793 Inez de Castro; and between 1796 and 1814, five volumes of Odes and Miscellaneous Poems; in 1802, he published Old Age, in six cantos. He passed away in Zwolle on February 8, 1824.

His works were collected (Rotterdam, 11 vols.) in 1824, with a biographical notice by N.G. van Kampen.

His works were collected (Rotterdam, 11 vols.) in 1824, featuring a biographical note by N.G. van Kampen.


FEJÉR, GYORGY (1766-1851), Hungarian author, was born on the 23rd of April 1766, at Keszthely, in the county of Zala. He studied philosophy at Pest, and theology at Pressburg; eventually, in 1808, he obtained a theological professorship at Pest University. Ten years later (1818) he became chief director of the educational circle of Raab, and in 1824 was appointed librarian to the university of Pest. Fejér’s works, which are nearly all written either in Latin or Hungarian, exceed one hundred and eighty in number. His most important work, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, published from 1829 to 1844, in eleven so-called tomes, really exceeds forty volumes. It consists of old documents and charters from A.D. 104 to the end of 1439, and forms an extraordinary monument of patient industry. This work and many others relating to Hungarian national history have placed Fejér in the foremost rank of Hungarian historians. He died on the 2nd of July 1851. His latest works were A Kunok eredete (The Origin of the Huns), and A politikai forradalmak okai (The Causes of Political Revolutions), both published in 1850. The latter production, on account of its liberal tendencies, was suppressed by the Austrian government.

FEJÉR, GYORGY (1766-1851), Hungarian author, was born on April 23, 1766, in Keszthely, Zala County. He studied philosophy in Pest and theology in Pressburg; eventually, in 1808, he secured a theology professorship at Pest University. Ten years later (1818), he became the chief director of the educational circle in Raab, and in 1824, he was appointed librarian at Pest University. Fejér’s works, which are almost all written in Latin or Hungarian, number over one hundred eighty. His most significant work, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, published between 1829 and 1844 in eleven so-called tomes, actually exceeds forty volumes. It consists of ancient documents and charters from CE 104 to the end of 1439 and stands as an extraordinary testament to diligent work. This and many other works related to Hungarian national history have established Fejér among the leading Hungarian historians. He died on July 2, 1851. His last works were A Kunok eredete (The Origin of the Huns) and A politikai forradalmak okai (The Causes of Political Revolutions), both published in 1850. The latter, due to its liberal views, was suppressed by the Austrian government.

See Magyar Irók: Életrajz-gyüjtemény (Pest, 1856), and A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata (Pest, 1861).

See Magyar Irók: Életrajz-gyüjtemény (Pest, 1856), and A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata (Pest, 1861).


FELANITX, or Felaniche, a town of Spain, in the south-east of the island of Majorca, Balearic Islands; about 5 m. inland from its harbour, Puerto Colon. Pop. (1900) 11,294. A range of low hills intervenes between Felanitx and the Mediterranean; upon one summit, the Puig de San Sebastian, stands a Moorish castle with a remarkable series of subterranean vaults. From the 3rd century B.C., and possibly for a longer period, earthenware water-coolers and other pottery have been manufactured in the town, and many of the vessels produced are noteworthy for their beauty of form and antiquity of design. There is a thriving trade in wine, fruit, wheat, cattle, brandy, chalk and soap.

FELANITX, or Felaniche is a town in Spain, located in the southeast of the island of Majorca, Balearic Islands; about 5 miles inland from its harbor, Puerto Colon. Population (1900) was 11,294. A range of low hills separates Felanitx from the Mediterranean; on one peak, the Puig de San Sebastian, there is a Moorish castle with an impressive series of underground vaults. Since the 3rd century BCE, and possibly even longer, earthenware water coolers and other pottery have been made in the town, and many of the items produced are notable for their beautiful shapes and ancient designs. There is a lively trade in wine, fruit, wheat, cattle, brandy, chalk, and soap.


FELDKIRCH, a small town in the Austrian province of the Vorarlberg, some 20 m. S. of the S. end of the Lake of Constance. It is situated in a green hollow, on the Ill river, between the two narrow rocky gorges through which it flows out into the broad valley of the Rhine. Hence, though containing only about 4000 inhabitants (German-speaking and Romanist), the town is of great military importance, since it commands the entrance into Tirol from the west, over the Arlberg Pass (5912 ft.), and has been the scene of many conflicts, the last in 1799, when the French, under Oudinot and Masséna, were driven back by the Austrians under Hotze and Jellachich. It is a picturesque little town, overshadowed by the old castle of Schattenburg (now a poor-house), built about 1200 by the count of Montfort, whose descendant in 1375 sold it to the Habsburgs. The town contains many administrative offices, and is the residence of a suffragan bishop, who acts as vicar-general of the diocesan, the bishop of Brixen. Among the principal buildings are the parish church, dating from 1487, and possessing a “Descent from the Cross” (1521), which has been attributed to Holbein, the great Jesuit educational establishment called “Stella Matutina,” and a Capuchin convent and church. There is a considerable amount of transit trade at Feldkirch, which by rail is 11 m. from Buchs (Switzerland), through the principality of Liechtenstein, 24 m. from Bregenz, and 99½ m. from Innsbruck by tunnel beneath the Arlberg Pass. The town also possesses numerous industrial establishments, such as factories for cotton-spinning, weaving, bell-founding, dyeing, &c.

Feldkirch is a small town in the Austrian province of Vorarlberg, about 20 miles south of the southern end of Lake Constance. It lies in a green valley along the Ill River, nestled between two narrow rocky gorges that lead into the broad Rhine Valley. Despite having only about 4,000 residents (German-speaking and Roman Catholic), the town is strategically important for the military, as it controls the western entrance to Tyrol over the Arlberg Pass (5,912 feet), and has been the site of many battles, the last one being in 1799 when the French, led by Oudinot and Masséna, were pushed back by the Austrians under Hotze and Jellachich. It's a charming town, overlooked by the old Schattenburg Castle (now a poorhouse), which was built around 1200 by the Count of Montfort and was sold to the Habsburgs by his descendant in 1375. The town houses several administrative offices and is the residence of a suffragan bishop, who serves as the vicar-general of the diocesan bishop of Brixen. Notable buildings include the parish church from 1487, which features a “Descent from the Cross” (1521) attributed to Holbein, the significant Jesuit school known as “Stella Matutina,” and a Capuchin convent and church. Feldkirch experiences a significant amount of transit trade, being 11 miles by rail from Buchs (Switzerland) through Liechtenstein, 24 miles from Bregenz, and 99½ miles from Innsbruck via the tunnel under the Arlberg Pass. The town also has various industrial facilities, including factories for cotton spinning, weaving, bell founding, dyeing, and more.

(W. A. B. C.)

FÉLIBIEN, ANDRÉ (1610-1695), sieur des Avaux et de Javercy, French architect and historiographer, was born at Chartres in May 1619. At the age of fourteen he went to Paris to continue his studies; and in 1647 he was sent to Rome in the capacity of secretary of embassy to the Marquis de Marueil. His residence at Rome he turned to good account by diligent study of its ancient monuments, by examination of the literary treasures of its libraries, and by cultivating the acquaintance of men eminent in literature and in art, with whom he was brought into contact through his translation of Cardinal Barberini’s Life of Pius V. Among his friends was Nicholas Poussin, whose counsels were of great value to him. On his return to France he married, and was ultimately induced, in the hope of employment and honours, to settle in Paris. Both Fouquet and Colbert in their turn recognized his abilities; and he was one of the first members (1663) of the Academy of Inscriptions. Three years later Colbert procured him the appointment of historiographer to the king. In 1671 he was named secretary to the newly-founded Academy of Architecture, and in 1673 keeper of the cabinet of antiques in the palace of Brion. To these offices was afterwards added by Louvois that of deputy controller-general of roads and bridges. Félibien found time in the midst of his official duties for study and research, and produced many literary works. Among these the best and the most generally known is the Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres anciens et modernes, which appeared in successive livraisons, the first in 1666, and the fifth in 1688. It was republished with several additions at Amsterdam in 1706, and again at Trévoux in 1725. Félibien wrote also Origine de la peinture (1660), Principes de l’architecture, de la sculpture, de la peinture, &c. (1676-1690), and descriptions of Versailles, of La Trappe, and of the pictures and statues of the royal residences. Among other literary works, he edited the Conférences of the Academy of Painting, and translated the Castle of the Soul from the Spanish of St Theresa. His personal character commanded the highest esteem, agreeing with the motto which he adopted—Bene facere et vera dicere. He died in Paris on the 11th of June 1695.

FÉLIBIEN, ANDRÉ (1610-1695), Lord of Avaux and Javercy, French architect and historian, was born in Chartres in May 1619. At fourteen, he moved to Paris to continue his studies, and in 1647, he was sent to Rome as the secretary of the embassy to the Marquis de Marueil. During his time in Rome, he took full advantage of the opportunity by studying its ancient monuments, exploring the literary treasures in its libraries, and building relationships with notable figures in literature and art, which stemmed from his translation of Cardinal Barberini’s Life of Pius V. Among his friends was Nicholas Poussin, whose advice was invaluable to him. After returning to France, he got married and eventually decided to settle in Paris, hoping for employment and recognition. Both Fouquet and Colbert acknowledged his talents; he was one of the first members (1663) of the Academy of Inscriptions. Three years later, Colbert helped him secure the position of historiographer to the king. In 1671, he was appointed secretary of the newly-founded Academy of Architecture, and in 1673, he became the keeper of the cabinet of antiques in the palace of Brion. Later, Louvois added the role of deputy controller-general of roads and bridges to his responsibilities. Despite his official duties, Félibien carved out time for study and research, producing many literary works. The most notable and widely known among them is the Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres anciens et modernes, which was published in several installments, starting in 1666 and concluding with the fifth in 1688. It was republished with several additions in Amsterdam in 1706 and again in Trévoux in 1725. Félibien also wrote Origine de la peinture (1660), Principes de l’architecture, de la sculpture, de la peinture, etc. (1676-1690), and provided descriptions of Versailles, La Trappe, and the paintings and statues of the royal residences. Among his other works, he edited the Conférences of the Academy of Painting and translated the Castle of the Soul from the Spanish of St. Theresa. His personal character earned him great respect, aligning with the motto he adopted—Bene facere et vera dicere. He passed away in Paris on June 11, 1695.

His son, Jean François Félibien (c. 1658-1733), was also an architect who left a number of works on his subject; and a younger son, Michel Félibien (c. 1666-1719), was a Benedictine of Saint Germain-des-Prés whose fame rests on his Histoire de l’abbaye royale de S. Denys en France, and also his L’Histoire de la ville de Paris in 5 vols., a work indispensable to the student of Paris.

His son, Jean François Félibien (c. 1658-1733), was also an architect who produced several works on the subject; and a younger son, Michel Félibien (c. 1666-1719), was a Benedictine at Saint Germain-des-Prés, known for his *Histoire de l’abbaye royale de S. Denys en France*, as well as his *L’Histoire de la ville de Paris* in 5 volumes, a crucial resource for anyone studying Paris.


FELIX, the name of five popes.

FELIX, the name of five popes.

Felix I., pope from January 269 until his death in January 274. He has been claimed as a martyr, and as such his name is given in the Roman calendar and elsewhere, but his title to this honour is by no means proved, and he has been probably confused with another bishop of the same name. He appears in connexion with the dispute in the church of Antioch between Paul of Samosata, who had been deprived of his bishopric by a council of bishops for heresy, and his successor Domnus. Paul refused to give way, and in 272 the emperor Aurelian was asked to decide between the 239 rivals. He ordered the church building to be given to the bishop who was “recognized by the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome” (Felix). See Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. vii. 30.

Felix 1. served as pope from January 269 until his death in January 274. He has been recognized as a martyr, and his name is included in the Roman calendar and other places, but there isn’t clear proof for this honor, and he may have been confused with another bishop who had the same name. He is associated with the conflict in the church of Antioch between Paul of Samosata, who was removed from his bishop position by a council of bishops for heresy, and his successor Domnus. Paul refused to back down, and in 272, Emperor Aurelian was asked to intervene between the two rivals. He ordered that the church building be given to the bishop who was “recognized by the bishops of Italy and the city of Rome” (Felix). See Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. vii. 30.

Felix II., antipope, was in 356 raised from the archdeaconate of Rome to the papal chair, when Liberius was banished by the emperor Constantius for refusing to subscribe the sentence of condemnation against Athanasius. His election was contrary to the wishes both of the clergy and of the people, and the consecration ceremony was performed by certain prelates belonging to the court. In 357 Constantius, at the urgent request of an influential deputation of Roman ladies, agreed to the release of Liberius on condition that he signed the semi-Arian creed. Constantius also issued an edict to the effect that the two bishops should rule conjointly, but Liberius, on his entrance into Rome in the following year, was received by all classes with so much enthusiasm that Felix found it necessary to retire at once from Rome. Regarding the remainder of his life little is known, and the accounts handed down are contradictory, but he appears to have spent the most of it in retirement at his estate near Porto. He died in 365.

Felix II., an antipope, was elevated from the archdeacon position in Rome to the papacy in 356, when Liberius was exiled by Emperor Constantius for refusing to agree to the verdict against Athanasius. His election went against the wishes of both the clergy and the public, and the consecration was carried out by certain bishops from the emperor's court. In 357, Constantius, responding to a strong request from a group of prominent Roman women, allowed the return of Liberius on the condition that he accepted the semi-Arian creed. Constantius also issued an edict stating that the two bishops would govern together, but when Liberius returned to Rome the following year, he was greeted with such enthusiasm from all classes that Felix felt compelled to leave Rome immediately. Little is known about the rest of his life, and the surviving accounts are conflicting, but it seems he spent most of it in seclusion at his estate near Porto. He died in 365.

Felix III., pope, was descended from one of the most influential families of Rome, and was a direct ancestor of Gregory the Great. He succeeded Simplicius in the papal chair on the 2nd of March 483. His first act was to repudiate the Henoticon, a deed of union, originating, it is supposed, with Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and published by the emperor Zeno with the view of allaying the strife between the Monophysites and their opponents in the Eastern church. He also addressed a letter of remonstrance to Acacius; but the latter proved refractory, and sentence of deposition was passed against him. As Acacius, however, had the support of the emperor, a schism arose between the Eastern and Western churches, which lasted for 34 years. Felix died in 492.

Felix III., pope, came from one of the most powerful families in Rome and was a direct ancestor of Gregory the Great. He took over from Simplicius as pope on March 2, 483. His first action was to reject the Henoticon, a document meant to unify the church, which was believed to be created by Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and published by Emperor Zeno to reduce conflict between the Monophysites and their opponents in the Eastern church. He also wrote a letter of protest to Acacius, but Acacius was unyielding, leading to a decision to depose him. However, since Acacius had the emperor's backing, a schism developed between the Eastern and Western churches that lasted for 34 years. Felix died in 492.

Felix IV., pope, a native of Beneventum, was, on the death of John in 526, raised to the papal chair by the emperor Theodoric in opposition to the wishes of the clergy and people. His election was followed by serious riots. To prevent a recrudescence of these, Felix, on his death-bed, thought it advisable to nominate his own successor. His choice fell upon the archdeacon Boniface (pope as Boniface II.). But this proceeding was contrary to all tradition and roused very serious opposition. Out of two old buildings adapted by him to Christian worship, Felix made the church of SS. Cosimo and Damiano, near the Via Sacra. He died in September 530.

Felix IV., pope, originally from Beneventum, was appointed to the papal seat by the emperor Theodoric after John’s death in 526, despite the objections of the clergy and the people. His election led to significant riots. To avoid any further unrest, Felix, while on his deathbed, decided to choose his own successor. He selected the archdeacon Boniface (who became pope as Boniface II.). However, this decision went against all tradition and sparked considerable opposition. He repurposed two old buildings for Christian worship, creating the church of SS. Cosimo and Damiano, located near the Via Sacra. He passed away in September 530.

Felix V., the name taken by Amadeus (1383-1451), duke of Savoy, when he was elected pope in opposition to Eugenius IV. in 1439. Amadeus was born at Chambéry on the 4th of December 1383, and succeeded his father, Amadeus VII., as count of Savoy in 1391. Having added largely to his patrimonial possessions he became very powerful, and in 1416 the German king Sigismund erected Savoy into a duchy; after this elevation Amadeus added Piedmont to his dominions. Then suddenly, in 1434, the duke retired to a hermitage at Ripaille, near Thonon, resigning his duchy to his son Louis (d. 1465), although he seems to have taken some part in its subsequent administration. It is said, but some historians doubt the story, that, instead of leading a life of asceticism, he spent his revenues in furthering his own luxury and enjoyment. In 1439, when Pope Eugenius IV. was deposed by the council of Basel, Amadeus, although not in orders, was chosen as his successor, and was crowned in the following year as Felix V. In the stormy conflict between the rival popes which followed, the German king, Frederick IV., after some hesitation sided with Eugenius, and having steadily lost ground Felix renounced his claim to the pontificate in 1449 in favour of Nicholas V., who had been elected on the death of Eugenius. He induced Nicholas, however, to appoint him as apostolic vicar-general in Savoy, Piedmont and other parts of his own dominions, and to make him a cardinal. Amadeus died at Geneva on the 7th of January 1451.

Felix V. was the name adopted by Amadeus (1383-1451), the duke of Savoy, when he was elected pope in opposition to Eugenius IV. in 1439. Amadeus was born in Chambéry on December 4, 1383, and became count of Savoy after his father, Amadeus VII, died in 1391. He significantly expanded his inherited lands and became very powerful, and in 1416, the German king Sigismund elevated Savoy to a duchy; after this, Amadeus added Piedmont to his territories. Then, suddenly in 1434, the duke withdrew to a hermitage at Ripaille, near Thonon, giving up his duchy to his son Louis (d. 1465), although he seemed to still be involved in its administration. It’s said, though some historians question this, that rather than living a life of self-denial, he spent his income on luxury and enjoyment. In 1439, after Pope Eugenius IV. was deposed by the council of Basel, Amadeus, despite not being a cleric, was chosen as his successor and was crowned as Felix V. the following year. During the tumultuous conflict between the rival popes that ensued, the German king, Frederick IV., after some indecision, supported Eugenius, and as Felix steadily lost ground, he renounced his claim to the papacy in 1449 in favor of Nicholas V., who had been elected following Eugenius's death. However, he persuaded Nicholas to appoint him as apostolic vicar-general in Savoy, Piedmont, and other parts of his domains, and to make him a cardinal. Amadeus died in Geneva on January 7, 1451.


FELIX, a missionary bishop from Burgundy, sent into East Anglia by Honorius of Canterbury (630-631). Under King Sigebert his mission was successful, and he became first bishop of East Anglia, with a see at Dunwich, where he died and was buried, 647-648. It is noteworthy that the Irish monk Furseus preached in East Anglia at the same time, and Bede notices the admiration of Felix for Aidan.

FELIX, was a missionary bishop from Burgundy, sent to East Anglia by Honorius of Canterbury (630-631). His mission was successful under King Sigebert, and he became the first bishop of East Anglia, with his seat at Dunwich, where he died and was buried, 647-648. It's interesting to note that the Irish monk Furseus was preaching in East Anglia around the same time, and Bede mentions Felix's admiration for Aidan.

See Bede, Hist. Eccl. (Plummer), ii. 15, iii. 18, 20, 25; Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 636.

See Bede, Hist. Eccl. (Plummer), ii. 15, iii. 18, 20, 25; Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 636.


FELIX, of Urgella (fl. 8th century), Spanish bishop, the friend of Elipandus and the propagator of his views in the great Adoptian Controversy (see Adoptianism).

FELIX, of Urgella (fl. 8th century), Spanish bishop, a friend of Elipandus and the supporter of his ideas during the major Adoptian Controversy (see Adoptianism).


FELIX, of Valois (1127-1212), one of the founders of the monastic order of Trinitarians or Redemptionists, was born in the district of Valois, France, on the 19th of April 1127. In early manhood he became a hermit in the forest of Galeresse, where he remained till his sixty-first year, when his disciple Jean de Matha (1160-1213) suggested to him the idea of establishing an order of monks who should devote their lives to the redemption of Christian captives from the Saracens. They journeyed to Rome about the end of 1197, obtained the sanction of the pope, and on their return to France founded the monastery of Cerfroi in Picardy. Felix remained to govern and propagate the order, while Jean de Matha superintended the foreign journeys. A subordinate establishment was also founded by Felix in Paris near a chapel dedicated to St Mathurin, on which account his monks were also called St Mathurins. He died at Cerfroi on the 4th of November 1212, and was canonized.

FELIX, of Valois (1127-1212), one of the founders of the monastic order of Trinitarians or Redemptionists, was born in the Valois region of France on April 19, 1127. In his early adulthood, he became a hermit in the Galeresse forest, where he stayed until he was sixty-one. It was then that his disciple Jean de Matha (1160-1213) suggested creating an order of monks dedicated to rescuing Christian captives from the Saracens. They traveled to Rome at the end of 1197, received approval from the pope, and upon returning to France, established the monastery of Cerfroi in Picardy. Felix stayed on to lead and promote the order, while Jean de Matha oversaw the foreign missions. Felix also set up a smaller community in Paris near a chapel dedicated to St. Mathurin, which is why his monks became known as St. Mathurins. He passed away at Cerfroi on November 4, 1212, and was canonized.


FELIX, ANTONIUS, Roman procurator of Judaea (A.D. 52-60), in succession to Ventidius Cumanus. He was a freedman either of the emperor Claudius—according to which theory Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7) calls him Claudius Felix—or more probably of the empress Antonia. On entering his province he induced Drusilla, wife of Azizus of Homs (Emesa), to leave her husband and live with him as his wife. His cruelty and licentiousness, coupled with his accessibility to bribes, led to a great increase of crime in Judaea. To put down the Zealots he favoured an even more violent sect, the Sicarii (“Dagger-men”), by whose aid he contrived the murder of the high-priest Jonathan. The period of his rule was marked by internal feuds and disturbances, which he put down with severity. The apostle Paul, after being apprehended in Jerusalem, was sent to be judged before Felix at Caesarea, and kept in custody for two years (Acts xxiv.). On returning to Rome, Felix was accused of having taken advantage of a dispute between the Jews and Syrians of Caesarea to slay and plunder the inhabitants, but through the intercession of his brother, the freedman Pallas, who had great influence with the emperor Nero, he escaped unpunished.

FELIX, ANTONIUS, Roman governor of Judea (CE 52-60), following Ventidius Cumanus. He was a freedman of either Emperor Claudius—according to one theory, Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7) refers to him as Claudius Felix—or, more likely, Empress Antonia. Upon taking office, he persuaded Drusilla, the wife of Azizus of Homs (Emesa), to leave her husband and live with him as his wife. His brutality and debauchery, combined with his willingness to accept bribes, led to a significant rise in crime in Judea. To suppress the Zealots, he supported an even more violent group, the Sicarii (“Dagger-men”), who helped him orchestrate the murder of high priest Jonathan. His time in power was marked by internal conflict and unrest, which he quashed with harshness. The apostle Paul, after being arrested in Jerusalem, was sent to be tried before Felix in Caesarea and was kept in custody for two years (Acts xxiv.). When he returned to Rome, Felix was accused of exploiting a conflict between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea to kill and loot the residents, but he escaped punishment through the intervention of his brother, the freedman Pallas, who had significant influence with Emperor Nero.

See Tacitus, Annals, xx. 54, Hist. v. 9; Suetonius, Claudius, 28; E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People (1890-1891); article in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible (A. Robertson); commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles; Sir W.M. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller; Carl v. Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age (Eng. trans., 1894); art. Jews.

See Tacitus, Annals, xx. 54, Hist. v. 9; Suetonius, Claudius, 28; E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People (1890-1891); article in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible (A. Robertson); commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles; Sir W.M. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller; Carl v. Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age (Eng. trans., 1894); art. Jews.


FÉLIX, LIA (1830-  ), French actress, was the third sister and the pupil of the great Rachel. She had hardly been given any trial when, by chance, she was called on to create the leading woman’s part in Lamartine’s Toussaint Louverture at the Porte St Martin on the 6th of April 1850. The play did not make a hit, but the young actress was favourably noticed, and several important parts were immediately entrusted to her. She soon came to be recognized as one of the best comediennes in Paris. Rachel took Lia to America with her to play second parts, and on returning to Paris she played at several of the principal theatres, although her health compelled her to retire for several years. When she reappeared at the Gaiété in the title-rôle of Jules Barbier’s Jeanne d’Arc she had an enormous success.

FÉLIX, LIA (1830-  ), a French actress, was the third sister and student of the renowned Rachel. She barely had a chance to prove herself when, by chance, she was called to play the lead female role in Lamartine’s Toussaint Louverture at the Porte St Martin on April 6, 1850. The play didn’t succeed, but the young actress caught attention, and several significant roles were quickly assigned to her. She soon became known as one of the best comedians in Paris. Rachel took Lia to America to perform supporting roles, and upon returning to Paris, she acted at several major theaters, although her health forced her to take a break for several years. When she returned to the Gaiété in the title role of Jules Barbier’s Jeanne d’Arc, she achieved tremendous success.


FELIXSTOWE, a seaside resort of Suffolk, England; fronting both to the North Sea and to the estuary of the Orwell, where there are piers. Pop. of urban district of Felixstowe and Walton (1901), 5815. It is 85 m. N.E. by E. from London by a branch line from Ipswich of the Great Eastern railway; and is in the Woodbridge parliamentary division of the county. It has good golf links, and is much frequented by visitors for its bracing climate and sea-bathing. There is a small dock, and phosphate of lime is extensively dug in the neighbourhood and 240 exported for use as manure. The neighbouring village of Walton, a short distance inland, receives many visitors. The vicinity has yielded numerous Roman remains, and there was a Roman fort in the neighbourhood (now destroyed by the sea), forming part of the coast defence of the Litus Saxonicum in the 4th century.

FELIXSTOWE, is a seaside resort in Suffolk, England, located along both the North Sea and the estuary of the Orwell, where there are piers. The population of the urban district of Felixstowe and Walton was 5,815 in 1901. It’s 85 miles northeast by east of London and accessible by a branch line from Ipswich on the Great Eastern railway; it falls within the Woodbridge parliamentary division of the county. The area offers excellent golf courses and attracts many visitors for its refreshing climate and beach activities. There’s a small dock, and phosphate of lime is extensively extracted nearby and exported for use as fertilizer. The nearby village of Walton, just a short distance inland, also sees many visitors. The area has yielded numerous Roman artifacts, and there was a Roman fort in the vicinity (now lost to the sea), part of the coastal defense known as the Litus Saxonicum in the 4th century. 240


FELL, JOHN (1625-1686), English divine, son of Samuel Fell, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was born at Longworth in Berkshire and received his first education at the free school at Thame in Oxfordshire. In 1636 he obtained a studentship at Christ Church, and in 1640 he was specially allowed by Archbishop Laud on account of his “known desert,” when wanting one term’s residence, to proceed to his degree of B.A. He obtained his M.A. in 1643 and took holy orders (deacon 1647, priest 1649). During the Civil War he bore arms for the king and held a commission as ensign. In 1648 he was deprived of his studentship by the parliamentary visitors, and during the next few years he resided chiefly at Oxford with his brother-in-law, Dr T. Willis, at whose house opposite Merton College he and his friends Allestree and Dolben kept up the service of the Church of England through the Commonwealth.

FELL, JOHN (1625-1686), an English clergyman, was the son of Samuel Fell, dean of Christ Church, Oxford. He was born in Longworth, Berkshire, and received his early education at the free school in Thame, Oxfordshire. In 1636, he earned a studentship at Christ Church, and in 1640, Archbishop Laud specifically allowed him to complete his B.A. degree, despite lacking one term of residency, due to his “known merit.” He received his M.A. in 1643 and was ordained (deacon in 1647, priest in 1649). During the Civil War, he fought for the king and held a commission as ensign. In 1648, parliamentary visitors removed him from his studentship, and for the next few years, he primarily lived in Oxford with his brother-in-law, Dr. T. Willis. At his house opposite Merton College, he and his friends Allestree and Dolben maintained the services of the Church of England throughout the Commonwealth.

At the Restoration Fell was made prebendary of Chichester, canon of Christ Church (July 27, 1660), dean (Nov. 30), master of St Oswald’s hospital, Worcester, chaplain to the king, and D.D. He filled the office of vice-chancellor from 1666 to 1669, and was consecrated bishop of Oxford, in 1676, retaining his deanery in commendam. Some years later he declined the primacy of Ireland. Fell showed himself a most capable and vigorous administrator in his various high employments, and a worthy disciple of Archbishop Laud. He restored in the university the good order instituted by the archbishop, which in the Commonwealth had given place to anarchy and a general disregard of authority. He ejected the intruders from his college or else “fixed them in loyal principles.” “He was the most zealous man of his time for the Church of England,” says Wood, “and none that I yet know of did go beyond him in the performance of the rules belonging thereunto.” He attended chapel four times a day, restored to the services, not without some opposition, the organ and surplice, and insisted on the proper academical dress which had fallen into disuse. He was active in recovering church property, and by his directions a children’s catechism was drawn up by Thomas Marshall for use in his diocese. “As he was among the first of our clergy,” says Burnet, “that apprehended the design of bringing in popery, so he was one of the most zealous against it.” He was forward in making converts from the Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. On the other hand, it is recorded to his honour that he opposed successfully the incorporation of Titus Oates as D.D. in the university in October 1679; and according to the testimony of William Nichols, his secretary, he disapproved of the Exclusion Bill. He excluded the undergraduates, whose presence had been irregularly permitted, from convocation. He obliged the students to attend lectures, instituted reforms in the performances of the public exercises in the schools, kept the examiners up to their duties, and himself attended the examinations. He encouraged the students to act plays. He entirely suppressed “coursing,” i.e. disputations in which the rival parties “ran down opponents in arguments,” and which commonly ended in blows and disturbances. He was an excellent disciplinarian and possessed a special talent for the education of young men, many of whom he received into his own family and watched over their progress with paternal care. Tom Browne, author of the Dialogues of the Dead, about to be expelled from Oxford for some offence, was pardoned by Fell on the condition of his translating extempore the 33rd epigram from Martial:—

At the Restoration, Fell became prebendary of Chichester, canon of Christ Church (July 27, 1660), dean (Nov. 30), master of St Oswald’s hospital in Worcester, chaplain to the king, and earned his Doctor of Divinity (D.D.). He served as vice-chancellor from 1666 to 1669 and was consecrated bishop of Oxford in 1676, while keeping his deanery in commendam. A few years later, he turned down the primacy of Ireland. Fell proved to be a highly capable and energetic administrator in his several important roles and a dedicated follower of Archbishop Laud. He reinstated the order that the archbishop had established in the university, which had been replaced by chaos and a lack of respect for authority during the Commonwealth. He expelled intruders from his college or otherwise “secured them in loyal principles.” “He was the most zealous man of his time for the Church of England,” says Wood, “and no one I know of surpassed him in following the necessary rules.” He attended chapel four times a day, reinstated the organ and surplice to the services despite some pushback, and insisted on the proper academic dress that had fallen out of practice. He was proactive in recovering church property, and under his direction, a children’s catechism was created by Thomas Marshall for use in his diocese. “As he was among the first of our clergy,” says Burnet, “to recognize the plan to reinstate Catholicism, he was also one of the most passionate opponents of it.” He took the lead in converting Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. On the other hand, it is to his credit that he successfully opposed Titus Oates’ incorporation as D.D. in the university in October 1679; and according to his secretary William Nichols, he disapproved of the Exclusion Bill. He barred undergraduates, whose presence had been improperly allowed, from convocation. He required the students to attend lectures, initiated reforms in public exercises in the schools, ensured the examiners fulfilled their responsibilities, and personally attended the examinations. He encouraged students to perform in plays. He completely eliminated “coursing,” i.e. disputations where rival parties “attacked opponents with arguments,” which often ended in physical fights and chaos. He was an excellent disciplinarian and had a unique talent for educating young men, many of whom he welcomed into his own home and oversaw their development with parental care. Tom Browne, the author of the Dialogues of the Dead, was about to be expelled from Oxford for an offense but was pardoned by Fell on the condition that he translate on the spot the 33rd epigram from Martial:—

“Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare;

“Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare;

Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.”

Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.”

To which he immediately replied with the well-known lines:—

To which he replied right away with the famous lines:—

“I do not love you, Dr Fell,

“I do not love you, Dr. Fell,

But why, I cannot tell,

But I can't say why,

But this I know full well,

But I know this for sure,

I do not love you, Dr Fell.”1

I don’t love you, Dr. Fell.”1

Delinquents, however, were not always treated thus mildly by Fell, and Acton Cremer, for the crime of courting a wife while only a bachelor of arts, was set as an imposition the translation into English of the whole of Scheffer’s history of Lapland. As vice-chancellor, Fell himself visited the drinking taverns and ordered out the students. In the university elections he showed great energy in suppressing corruption.

Delinquents, however, weren’t always treated so leniently by Fell, and Acton Cremer, because for the crime of pursuing a wife while only having a bachelor’s degree, he was required to translate the entire Scheffer’s history of Lapland into English. As vice-chancellor, Fell personally visited the drinking taverns and ordered the students out. During the university elections, he displayed significant effort in combating corruption.

Fell’s building operations almost rivalled the plans of the great ecclesiastical architects of the middle ages. In his own college he completed in 1665 the north side of Wolsey’s great quadrangle, already begun by his father but abandoned during the Commonwealth; he rebuilt in 1672 the east side of the Chaplain’s quadrangle “with a straight passage under it leading from the cloister into the field,” occupied now by the new Meadow Buildings; the lodgings of the canon of the 3rd stall in the passage uniting the Tom and Peckwater quadrangles (c. 1674); a long building joining the Chaplain’s quadrangle on the east side in 1677-1678; and lastly the great tower gate, begun in June 1681 on the foundation laid by Wolsey and finished in November 1682, to which the bell “great Tom,” after being recast, was transferred from the cathedral in 1683. In 1670 he planted and laid out the Broad Walk. He spent large sums of his own on these works, gave £500 for the restoration of Banbury church, erected a church at St Oswald’s, Worcester, and the parsonage house at Woodstock at his own expense, and rebuilt Cuddesdon palace. Fell disapproved of the use of St Mary’s church for secular purposes, and promoted the building of the Sheldonian theatre by Archbishop Sheldon. He was treasurer during its construction, presided at the formal opening on the 9th of July 1669, and was nominated with Wren curator in July 1670. In the theatre was placed the University Press, the establishment of which had been a favourite project of Laud, which now engaged a large share of Fell’s energy and attention, and which as curator he practically controlled. “Were it not you ken Mr Dean extraordinarily well,” writes Sir L. Jenkins to J. Williamson in 1672, “it were impossible to imagine how assiduous and drudging he is about his press.”2 He sent for type and printers from Holland, declaring that “the foundation of all success must be laid in doing things well, which I am sure will not be done with English letters.” Many works, including a Bible, editions of the classics and of the early fathers, were produced under his direction and editing, and his press became noted not only in England but abroad. He published annually one work, generally a classical author annotated by himself, which he distributed to all the students of his college on New Year’s day. On one occasion he surprised the Press in printing surreptitiously Aretino’s Postures, when he seized and destroyed the plates and impressions. Ever “an eager defender and maintainer of the university and its privileges,” he was hostile to the Royal Society, which he regarded as a possible rival, and in 1686 he gave an absolute refusal to Obadiah Walker, afterwards the Roman Catholic master of University College, though licensed by James II., to print books, declaring he would as soon “part with his bed from under him” as his press. He conducted it on strict business principles, and to the criticism that more great works were not produced replied that they would not sell. He was, however, not free from fads, and his new spelling (of which one feature was the substitution of i for y in such words as eies, daies, maiest) met with great disapproval.

Fell’s building projects nearly matched the ambitions of the great ecclesiastical architects of the Middle Ages. In his own college, he completed the north side of Wolsey’s grand quadrangle in 1665, which had been started by his father but was left unfinished during the Commonwealth. In 1672, he rebuilt the east side of the Chaplain’s quadrangle, which included a straight passage underneath it leading from the cloister into the field, now occupied by the new Meadow Buildings. He worked on the lodgings for the canon of the 3rd stall in the passage connecting the Tom and Peckwater quadrangles (around 1674); constructed a long building joining the Chaplain’s quadrangle on the east side in 1677-1678; and lastly, he began the great tower gate in June 1681 on the foundations laid by Wolsey, finishing it in November 1682. The bell “great Tom,” was transferred from the cathedral to the tower after being recast in 1683. In 1670, he planted and designed the Broad Walk. He invested significant amounts of his own money into these projects, donated £500 for the restoration of Banbury church, built a church at St Oswald’s in Worcester, and funded the parsonage house at Woodstock. He also rebuilt Cuddesdon palace. Fell was against using St Mary’s church for secular purposes and supported the construction of the Sheldonian theatre by Archbishop Sheldon. He served as treasurer during its building, presided over the official opening on July 9, 1669, and was appointed curator alongside Wren in July 1670. The theatre became home to the University Press, which had been a favorite initiative of Laud and took up a considerable amount of Fell’s time and energy, allowing him to manage it closely as curator. “Were it not you know Mr Dean extraordinarily well,” Sir L. Jenkins wrote to J. Williamson in 1672, “it would be impossible to imagine how diligent and hardworking he is about his press.” He brought type and printers from Holland, asserting that “the foundation of all success must be laid in doing things well, which I am sure will not be done with English letters.” Many works, including a Bible and editions of classical texts and early church fathers, were produced under his direction and editing, leading his press to gain recognition both in England and abroad. Each year, he published one work, typically a classical text annotated by himself, which he distributed to all the students of his college on New Year’s Day. On one occasion, he caught the Press illegally printing Aretino’s *Postures*, seizing and destroying the plates and impressions. Forever “an eager defender and maintainer of the university and its privileges,” he was opposed to the Royal Society, viewing it as a potential competitor. In 1686, he firmly refused Obadiah Walker, later the Roman Catholic master of University College, licensed by James II, from printing books, stating he would as soon “part with his bed from under him” as his press. He operated it on strict business principles, and in response to criticism that more significant works were not produced, he replied that they wouldn’t sell. However, he wasn’t without his quirks, and his new spelling (which substituted *i* for *y* in words like *eies*, *daies*, *maiest*) faced considerable disapproval.

Fell also did much to encourage learning in the university. While still a young man at Christ Church he had shown both his zeal and his charity by reading gratuitously with the poor and neglected students of the college. He bore himself a high reputation as a Grecian, a Latinist and a philologist, and he found time, in spite of his great public employments, to bring out with the collaboration of others his great edition of St Cyprian in 1682, an English translation of The Unity of the Church in 1681, editions of Nemesius of Emesa (1671), of Aratus and of Eratosthenes (1672), Theocritus (1676), Alcinous on Plato (1677), St Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians (1677), Athenagoras (1682), Clemens Alexandrinus (1683), St Theophilus of Antioch (1684), 241 Grammatica rationis sive institutiones logicae (1673 and 1685), and a critical edition of the New Testament in 1675. The first volumes of Rerum Anglicarum scriptores and of Historiae Britannicae, &c. were compiled under his patronage in 1684. He had the MSS. of St. Augustine in the Bodleian and other libraries at Oxford generously collated for the use of the Benedictines at Paris, then preparing a new edition of the father.

Fell also did a lot to promote learning at the university. Even as a young man at Christ Church, he demonstrated both his passion and his kindness by volunteering to read with the poor and neglected students of the college. He earned a strong reputation as a Greek scholar, a Latin expert, and a linguist, and despite his significant public responsibilities, he managed to publish, with the help of others, his major edition of St. Cyprian in 1682, an English translation of The Unity of the Church in 1681, editions of Nemesius of Emesa (1671), Aratus and Eratosthenes (1672), Theocritus (1676), Alcinous on Plato (1677), St. Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians (1677), Athenagoras (1682), Clemens Alexandrinus (1683), St. Theophilus of Antioch (1684), 241 Grammatica rationis sive institutiones logicae (1673 and 1685), and a critical edition of the New Testament in 1675. The first volumes of Rerum Anglicarum scriptores and Historiae Britannicae, etc., were compiled under his support in 1684. He generously arranged for the manuscripts of St. Augustine in the Bodleian and other libraries at Oxford to be collated for the use of the Benedictines in Paris, who were preparing a new edition of the works of the father.

Fell spent such large sums in his building, in his noble patronage of learning, and in charities, that sometimes there was little left for his private use. Occasionally in his schemes he showed greater zeal than prudence. He was the originator of a mission to India which was warmly taken up by the East India Company. He undertook himself to train as missionaries four scholars at Oxford, procured a set of Arabic types, and issued from these the Gospels and Acts in the Malay language in 1677. But this was scarcely the best method of communicating the gospel to the natives of India, and the mission collapsed. He affected to despise public opinion, and was masterful and despotic in his dealings with others, especially with those upon whom he was conferring favours. Having generously undertaken at his own charge to publish a Latin version of Wood’s History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, with the object of presenting the history of the university in a manner worthy of the great subject to European readers, and of extending its fame abroad, he arrogated to himself the right of editing the work. “He would correct, alter, dash out what he pleased.... He was a great man and carried all things at his pleasure.” In particular he struck out all the passages which Wood had inserted in praise of Hobbes, and substituted some disparaging epithets. He called the philosopher’s Leviathan “monstrosissimus” and “publico damno notissimus.” To the printed remonstrance of Hobbes, Fell inserted an insulting reply in the History to “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmesburiense animal,” and to the complaint of Wood at this usage answered only that Hobbes “was an old man, had one foot in the grave; that he should mind his latter end, and not trouble the world any more with his papers.” In small things as in great he loved to rule and direct. “Let not Fell,” writes R. South to R. Bathurst, “have the fingering and altering of them (i.e. his Latin verses), for I think that, bating the want of siquidems and quinetiams, they are as good as his Worship can make.” Wood styles him “a valde vult person.” He was not content with ruling his own college, but desired to govern the whole university. He prevented Gilbert Ironside, who “was not pliable to his humour,” from holding the office of vice-chancellor. He “endeavoured to carry all things by a high hand; scorn’d in the least to court the Masters when he had to have anything pass’d the convocation. Severe to other colleges, blind as to his own, very partiall and with good words, and flatterers and tell-tales could get anything out of him.” According to Bishop Burnet, who praises his character and his administration, Fell was “a little too much heated in the matter of our disputes with the dissenters.” “He had much zeal for reforming abuses, and managed it perhaps with too much heat and in too peremptory a way.” “But,” he adds, “we have so little of that among us that no wonder if such men are censured by those who love not such patterns nor such severe task-masters.” And Wood, whose adverse criticism must be discounted a little on account of the personal dispute,—after declaring that Fell “was exceeding partial in his government even to corruption; went thro’ thick and thin; grasped at all yet did nothing perfect or effectually; cared not what people said of him, was in many things very rude and in most pedantic and pedagogical,”—concludes with the acknowledgment, “yet still aimed at the public good.” Roger North, who paid Fell a visit at Oxford, speaks of him in terms of enthusiasm:—“The great Dr Fell, who was truly great in all his circumstances, capacities, undertakings and learning, and above all for his superabundant public spirit and goodwill.... O the felicity of that age and place when his authority swayed!”

Fell spent so much on his buildings, his generous support of education, and charity that sometimes there was hardly anything left for himself. At times, his enthusiasm for his plans outweighed his caution. He initiated a mission to India that the East India Company enthusiastically supported. He personally trained four scholars at Oxford to be missionaries, acquired a set of Arabic type, and published the Gospels and Acts in Malay in 1677. However, this approach wasn’t the most effective way to share the gospel with the Indian natives, and the mission ultimately failed. He pretended to disregard public opinion and was domineering and authoritarian in his interactions with others, especially with those he was helping. After deciding to publish a Latin version of Wood’s History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford at his own expense, aiming to present the university's history in a manner worthy of such a significant topic and to enhance its reputation overseas, he claimed the right to edit the work. “He would correct, alter, and delete whatever he wanted…. He was a great man and did things as he pleased.” Notably, he removed all passages Wood had written in praise of Hobbes and replaced them with negative remarks. He referred to Hobbes's Leviathan as “monstrosissimus” and “publico damno notissimus.” In response to Hobbes’s printed objections, Fell included a disrespectful reply in the History referring to him as “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmesburiense animal,” and when Wood complained about this treatment, he simply remarked that Hobbes “was an old man, had one foot in the grave; he should focus on his end and not bother the world with his writings anymore.” In both minor and major matters, he enjoyed controlling and directing. “Let not Fell,” writes R. South to R. Bathurst, “have his fingers on them (i.e. his Latin verses), for I think that, aside from missing siquidems and quinetiams, they are as good as he can make them.” Wood describes him as “a very willful person.” He was not satisfied with just ruling his own college but wanted to control the entire university. He prevented Gilbert Ironside, who “was not flexible to his whims,” from becoming vice-chancellor. He “sought to impose his will; scorned to curry favor with the Masters when he had to get anything passed in convocation. Strict with other colleges, blind to his own, very biased, and with kind words and flatterers, he could be influenced to give anything.” According to Bishop Burnet, who praises his character and administration, Fell was “a little too intense in our disputes with the dissenters.” “He had strong zeal for reforming abuses and handled it perhaps with excessive intensity and in an overly commanding manner.” “But,” he adds, “it’s no surprise that such individuals are criticized by those who do not appreciate such standards or such strict supervisors.” And Wood, whose criticism must be taken with a grain of salt due to his personal disputes—after stating that Fell “was extremely biased in his governance to the point of corruption; pushed through obstacles; aimed for everything but accomplished nothing thoroughly or effectively; didn’t care what people thought of him, was very rude in many ways, and often pedantic”—concludes by acknowledging that “he still aimed for the public good.” Roger North, who visited Fell at Oxford, described him enthusiastically: “The great Dr. Fell, who was truly great in all his characteristics, abilities, endeavors, and learning, and above all for his extraordinary public spirit and goodwill.... Oh, the fortune of that time and place when his authority prevailed!”

In November 1684, at the command of the king, Fell deprived Locke, who had incurred the royal displeasure by his friendship with Shaftesbury, and was suspected as the author of certain seditious pamphlets, of his studentship at Christ Church, summarily and without hearing his defence. Fell had in former years cultivated Locke’s friendship, had kept up a correspondence with him, and in 1663 had written a testimonial in his favour; and the ready compliance of one who could on occasion offer a stout resistance to any invasion of the privileges of the university has been severely criticised. It must, however, be remembered in extenuation that the legal status of a person on the foundation of a collegiate body had not then been decided in the law-courts. With regard to the justice of the proceeding Fell had evidently some doubts, and he afterwards expressed his regret for the step which he was now compelled to take. But such scruples, however strong, would, with a man of Fell’s political and religious opinions, yield immediately to an order from the sovereign, who possessed special authority in this case as a visitor to the college; and such subservience, however strange to modern notions, would probably only be considered natural and proper at that period.

In November 1684, under the king's orders, Fell removed Locke from his position as a student at Christ Church. Locke had fallen out of favor with the royal court due to his friendship with Shaftesbury and was suspected of writing seditious pamphlets. This decision was made quickly and without allowing Locke to defend himself. In earlier years, Fell had nurtured a friendship with Locke, maintained correspondence with him, and even wrote a recommendation for him in 1663. Fell’s willingness to comply with the king has faced harsh criticism, especially since he could usually resist threats to the university's privileges. However, it should be noted that the legal status of someone in a college's foundation hadn’t yet been established in the courts. Fell seemed to have some doubts about the fairness of his actions and later expressed regret for the decision he felt forced to make. Yet, such objections, no matter how strong, would likely give way to a command from the king, who had special authority in this situation as a visitor to the college. This kind of compliance, although surprising by today's standards, would have been viewed as normal and acceptable at that time.

Fell, who had never married, died on the 10th of July 1686, worn out, according to Wood, by his overwhelming public duties. He was buried in the divinity chapel in the cathedral, below the seat which he had so often occupied when living, where a monument and an epitaph, now moved elsewhere, were placed to his memory. “His death,” writes John Evelyn, “was an extraordinary losse to the poore church at this time”; but for himself Fell was fortunate in the time of his departure; for a few months more of life would have necessitated a choice, most painful to a man of his character and creed, between fidelity to his sovereign and to his church. With all his faults, which were the defects which often attend eminent qualities such as his, Fell was a great man, “the greatest governor,” according to Speaker Onslow, “that has ever been since his time in either of the universities,” and of his own college, to which he left several exhibitions for the maintenance of poor scholars, he was a second founder. He was a worthy upholder of the Laudian tradition at Oxford, an enlightened and untiring patron of learning, and a man of exemplary morals and great piety which remained unsullied in the midst of a busy life and much contact with the world. A sum of money was left by John Cross to perpetuate Fell’s memory by an annual speech in his praise, but the Felii laudes have been discontinued since 1866. There are two interesting pictures of Fell at Christ Church, one where he is represented with his two friends Allestree and Dolben, and another by Vandyck. The statue placed on the N.E. angle of the Great Quadrangle bears no likeness to the bishop, who is described by Hearne as a “thin grave man.”

Fell, who never married, passed away on July 10, 1686, worn out, according to Wood, by his heavy public responsibilities. He was buried in the divinity chapel in the cathedral, beneath the seat he frequently occupied in life, where a monument and an epitaph, now relocated, were dedicated to his memory. “His death,” writes John Evelyn, “was an extraordinary loss to the poor church at this time”; but for himself, Fell was fortunate in the timing of his passing; a few more months alive would have forced him to make a painful choice, which would have been difficult for a man of his character and beliefs, between loyalty to his sovereign and his church. Despite his flaws, which were typical of many great qualities such as his, Fell was a remarkable man, “the greatest governor,” according to Speaker Onslow, “that has ever been since his time in either of the universities,” and he was like a second founder of his own college, to which he left several scholarships for supporting poor students. He was a strong supporter of the Laudian tradition at Oxford, an enlightened and tireless advocate for learning, and a man of exemplary morals and deep faith that remained unblemished amidst a busy life and extensive interactions with the world. John Cross left a sum of money to honor Fell’s memory with an annual speech celebrating him, but the Felii laudes have not been held since 1866. There are two notable portraits of Fell at Christ Church, one showing him with his two friends Allestree and Dolben, and another created by Vandyck. The statue located at the northeast corner of the Great Quadrangle does not resemble the bishop, who is described by Hearne as a “thin grave man.”

Besides the learned works already mentioned Fell wrote the lives of his friends Dr Henry Hammond (1661), Richard Allestree, prefixed to his edition of the latter’s sermons (1684), and Dr Thomas Willis, in Latin. His Seasonable advice to Protestants showing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Popery was published in 1688. Some of his sermons, which Evelyn found dull, were printed, including Character of the Last Daies, preached before the king, 1675, and a Sermon preached before the House of Peers Dec. 22, 1680. The Interest of England stated (1659), advocating the restoration of the king,3 and The Vanity of Scoffing (1674), are also attributed to him. Fell probably had some share in the composition of The Whole Duty of Man, and in the subsequent works published under the name of the author of The Whole Duty, which included Reasons of the Decay of Christian Piety, The Ladies Calling, The Gentleman’s Calling, The Government of the Tongue, The Art of Contentment, and The Lively Oracles given us, all of which were published in one volume with notes and a preface by Fell in 1684.

Besides the scholarly works already mentioned, Fell wrote about the lives of his friends Dr. Henry Hammond (1661), Richard Allestree, and included a preface to his edition of Allestree’s sermons (1684), as well as Dr. Thomas Willis, in Latin. His Seasonable Advice to Protestants Showing the Necessity of Maintaining the Established Religion in Opposition to Popery was published in 1688. Some of his sermons, which Evelyn found tedious, were printed, including Character of the Last Days, preached before the king in 1675, and a Sermon Preached Before the House of Peers on Dec. 22, 1680. The Interest of England Stated (1659), which advocated for the restoration of the king, and The Vanity of Scoffing (1674), are also attributed to him. Fell likely contributed to the composition of The Whole Duty of Man, as well as the later works published under the name of the author of The Whole Duty, which included Reasons of the Decay of Christian Piety, The Ladies Calling, The Gentleman’s Calling, The Government of the Tongue, The Art of Contentment, and The Lively Oracles Given Us, all of which were published in one volume with notes and a preface by Fell in 1684.

Authorities.—Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses and Fasti (ed. Bliss); Wood’s Life and Times, ed. by A. Clark; Burnet’s Hist. of His Own Time, ed. 1833; J. Welch, Alumni Westmonasterienses; Thomas Hearne, Collections, ed. by C.E. Doble and others; History of the Univ. of Oxford (1814); Christ Church, by Rev. H.L. Thompson; Fortnightly Review, lix. 689 (May 1896); Macmillan’s Magazine (Aug. 1875); A Specimen of the several sorts of Letter given to the 242 University by Dr J. F(ell) (1695); Notes and Queries, ser. vi. 2, and ser. vii. 166; Calendars of State Papers, Dom. Series (1660-1675). Fell’s books and papers were bequeathed by his nephew Henry Jones to the Bodleian library. A few of his letters are to be found in Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. 11046, and some are printed in Life of James II., by Ch. J. Fox, Appendix; Gent. Mag. 77, p. 633; Academy, 8, p. 141; Athenaeum for 1887 (2), p. 311; J. Gutch, Collectanea Curiosa, i. 269; and in Cal. of State Papers, Dom. Series.

Sources.—Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses and Fasti (ed. Bliss); Wood’s Life and Times, edited by A. Clark; Burnet’s History of His Own Time, edited 1833; J. Welch, Alumni Westmonasterienses; Thomas Hearne, Collections, edited by C.E. Doble and others; History of the University of Oxford (1814); Christ Church, by Rev. H.L. Thompson; Fortnightly Review, lix. 689 (May 1896); Macmillan’s Magazine (Aug. 1875); A Specimen of the Various Types of Letter Issued to the 242 University by Dr J. F(ell) (1695); Notes and Queries, ser. vi. 2, and ser. vii. 166; Calendars of State Papers, Domestic Series (1660-1675). Fell’s books and papers were left to the Bodleian library by his nephew Henry Jones. A few of his letters can be found in Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. 11046, and some are printed in Life of James II., by Ch. J. Fox, Appendix; Gent. Mag. 77, p. 633; Academy, 8, p. 141; Athenaeum for 1887 (2), p. 311; J. Gutch, Collectanea Curiosa, i. 269; and in Cal. of State Papers, Domestic Series.

(P. C. Y.)

1 J.T. Browne, Works (9th ed. by J. Drake), iv. 99-100; T. Forde, Virtus rediviva (1661), 106.

1 J.T. Browne, Works (9th ed. by J. Drake), iv. 99-100; T. Forde, Virtus rediviva (1661), 106.

2 Cal. of State Pap. Dom., 1672, p. 478, and 1670, p. 26.

2 Cal. of State Pap. Dom., 1672, p. 478, and 1670, p. 26.

3 F. Maseres, Tracts of the Civil War, ii. 673.

3 F. Maseres, Tracts of the Civil War, ii. 673.


FELL. (1) (Through the O. Fr. fel, from Low Lat. fello, felon), savage, ruthless, deadly; only used now in poetry. (2) (Of Scandinavian origin, cf. Danish fjeld, probably connected with a Teutonic root appearing in German fels, rock), a hill, as in the names of mountains in the Lake District in England, e.g. Scawfell; also a lofty moorland down. (3) (A word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Ger. fell, and Dutch vel, cognate with Lat. pellis, skin), the pelt or hide of an animal, with the hair or wool and skin; also used of any thick shaggy covering, like a matted fleece. (4) To cause to “fall,” a word common to Teutonic languages and akin to the root of the Lat. fallere and Gr. σφάλλειν, to cause to stumble, to deceive. As a substantive “fell” is used of a flat seam laid level with the surface of the fabric; also, in weaving, of the end of the web.

FELL. (1) (From Old French fel, derived from Low Latin fello, meaning felon), savage, ruthless, deadly; now mainly used in poetry. (2) (Of Scandinavian origin, compare Danish fjeld, likely linked to a Teutonic root found in German fels, meaning rock), refers to a hill, as seen in the names of mountains in England's Lake District, e.g. Scawfell; also describes a high moorland or down. (3) (A term found in Teutonic languages, compare German fell, and Dutch vel, related to Latin pellis, meaning skin), the pelt or hide of an animal, including the hair or wool and skin; also used for any thick, shaggy covering, like a matted fleece. (4) To cause to "fall," a word found in Teutonic languages and related to the roots of Latin fallere and Greek σφάλλειν, meaning to trip or deceive. As a noun, “fell” can refer to a flat seam that is even with the fabric's surface; in weaving, it refers to the end of the web.


FELLAH (pl. Fellahin), Arabic for “ploughman” or “tiller,” the word used in Arabic-speaking countries to designate peasantry. It is employed especially of the peasantry of Egypt, “Fellahin” in modern English usage being almost equivalent to “Egyptians.” In Egypt the name is applied to the peasantry as opposed to the Arabs of the desert (and even those who have settled on the land), the Turks and the townsfolk. Fellah is used by the Arabs as a term of reproach, somewhat like the English “boor,” but rather implying a slavish disposition; the fellahin, however, are not ashamed of the name and may pride themselves on being of good fellah descent, as a “fellah of a fellah.” They may be classified as Hamito-Semites, and preserve to some extent the blood of the ancient Egyptians. They form the bulk of the population of Egypt and are mainly Mahommedan, though some villages in Upper Egypt are almost exclusively Copt (Christian). Their hybridism is well shown by their great divergence of colour, fellahin in the Delta being sometimes lighter than Arabs, while in Upper Egypt the prevailing complexion is dark brown. The average fellah is somewhat above medium height, big-boned, of clumsy but powerful build, with head and face of fine oval shape, cheek-bones high, forehead broad, short flattish nose with wide nostrils, and black but not woolly hair. The eyebrows are always straight and smooth, never bushy. The mouth is thick-lipped and large but well formed. The eyes are large and black, and are remarkable for the closeness of the eyelashes. The women and girls are particularly noted for their graceful and slender figures and their fine carriage, due to the custom of carrying burdens, especially water-jars, on their heads. The men’s heads are usually shaved. The women are not as a rule closely veiled: they generally paint the lips a deep blue, and tattoo a floral device on the chin, sometimes on the forehead and other parts of the body. All but the poorest wear necklaces of cheap pearls, coins or gilt disks. The men wear a blue or brown cotton shirt, linen drawers and a plain skull-cap, or on occasion the tarbush or fez, round which sometimes a turban is wound; the women wear a single cotton smock. The common fellah’s home is a mere mud hut, roofed with durra straw. Inside are a few mats, a sheepskin, baskets and some earthenware and wooden vessels. He lives almost entirely on vegetables, millet bread, beans, lentils, dates and onions. But some of the sheikhs are wealthy, and have large houses built of crude brick and whitewashed with lime, with courtyard, many apartments and good furniture. The fellah is laborious in the fields, and abominates absence from his occupations, which generally means loss of money to him. Military service on the old oriental plan was both ruinous and distasteful to him; hence voluntary mutilations to avoid conscription were formerly common and the ingrained prejudice against military service remains. Trained by British officers the fellahin make, however, excellent soldiers, as was proved in the Sudan campaigns of 1896-98. The fellah is intelligent, cheerful and sober, and as hospitable as his poverty allows. (See Copts and Egypt.)

FELLAH (pl. Fellahin), Arabic for “ploughman” or “tiller,” is the term used in Arabic-speaking countries to refer to peasants. It is particularly associated with the peasantry of Egypt, with “Fellahin” in modern English roughly equivalent to “Egyptians.” In Egypt, this name distinguishes the rural peasantry from the desert Arabs (including those settled on the land), Turks, and city residents. The term fellah can be used by Arabs as an insult, similar to the English term “boor,” but it carries a connotation of servitude; nonetheless, the fellahin take pride in their identity, often highlighting their lineage as a "fellah of a fellah." They are classified as Hamito-Semites and retain some ancestry from ancient Egyptians. They make up the majority of Egypt’s population and are mostly Muslim, although some villages in Upper Egypt are nearly entirely Coptic (Christian). Their mixed heritage is evident in their wide range of skin tones; fellahin in the Delta can sometimes be lighter than Arabs, while in Upper Egypt, darker brown is the common complexion. The average fellah is somewhat taller than average, robustly built, with an oval-shaped head and face, high cheekbones, a broad forehead, a short flat nose with wide nostrils, and black hair that is not woolly. Their eyebrows are straight and smooth, not bushy. They have thick lips and a well-shaped, large mouth. Their eyes are big and dark, noted for closely spaced eyelashes. The women and girls are especially recognized for their graceful and slender bodies and good posture, a result of the tradition of balancing loads, particularly water jars, on their heads. Men typically shave their heads. Women usually do not wear heavy veils; they often color their lips deep blue and tattoo floral designs on their chins, sometimes on their foreheads and other body parts. Almost all, except the very poor, wear necklaces made of inexpensive pearls, coins, or gilded disks. Men typically wear a blue or brown cotton shirt, linen trousers, and a simple skullcap, occasionally opting for a tarbush or fez, sometimes wrapped with a turban; women wear a single cotton dress. The typical fellah's home is a simple mud hut with a roof made from durra straw. Inside, there are a few mats, a sheepskin, baskets, and some clay and wooden dishes. His diet mainly consists of vegetables, millet bread, beans, lentils, dates, and onions. However, some wealthy sheikhs have large homes made of crude bricks, whitwashed with lime, featuring courtyards, many rooms, and decent furniture. The fellah works hard in the fields and dislikes being away from his work, as that usually means a loss of income. Military service under the old eastern system was both devastating and unwelcome to him; therefore, voluntary mutilation to evade conscription was once common, and a strong aversion to military service still exists. However, trained by British officers, the fellahin have proven to be excellent soldiers, as demonstrated in the Sudan campaigns of 1896-98. The fellah is intelligent, cheerful, and sober, and as hospitable as his limited means allow. (See Copts and Egypt.)


FELLENBERG, PHILIPP EMANUEL VON (1771-1844), Swiss educationist, was born on the 27th of June 1771 at Bern, in Switzerland. His father was of patrician family, and a man of importance in his canton, and his mother was a grand-daughter of the Dutch admiral Van Tromp. From his mother and from Pfeffel, the blind poet of Colmar, he received a better education than falls to the lot of most boys, while the intimacy of his father with Pestalozzi gave to his mind that bent which it afterwards followed. In 1790 he entered the university of Tübingen, where he distinguished himself by his rapid progress in legal studies. On account of his health he afterwards undertook a walking tour in Switzerland and the adjoining portions of France, Swabia and Tirol, visiting the hamlets and farmhouses, mingling in the labours and occupations of the peasants and mechanics, and partaking of their rude fare and lodging. After the downfall of Robespierre, he went to Paris and remained there long enough to be assured of the storm impending over his native country. This he did his best to avert, but his warnings were disregarded, and Switzerland was lost before any efficient means could be taken for its safety. Fellenberg, who had hastily raised a levy en masse, was proscribed; a price was set upon his head, and he was compelled to fly into Germany. Shortly afterwards, however, he was recalled by his countrymen, and sent on a mission to Paris to remonstrate against the rapacity and cruelty of the agents of the French republic. But in this and other diplomatic offices which he held for a short time, he was witness to so much corruption and intrigue that his mind revolted from the idea of a political life, and he returned home with the intention of devoting himself wholly to the education of the young. With this resolution he purchased in 1799 the estate of Hofwyl, near Bern, intending to make agriculture the basis of a new system which he had projected, for elevating the lower and rightly training the higher orders of the state, and welding them together in a closer union than had hitherto been deemed attainable. For some time he carried on his labours in conjunction with Pestalozzi, but incompatibility of disposition soon induced them to separate. The scheme of Fellenberg at first excited a large amount of ridicule, but gradually it began to attract the notice of foreign countries; and pupils, some of them of the highest rank, began to flock to him from every country in Europe, both for the purpose of studying agriculture and to profit by the high moral training which he associated with his educational system. For forty-five years Fellenberg, assisted by his wife, continued his educational labours, and finally raised his institution to the highest point of prosperity and usefulness. He died on the 21st of November 1844.

FELLENBERG, PHILIPP EMANUEL VON (1771-1844), Swiss educator, was born on June 27, 1771, in Bern, Switzerland. His father came from a patrician family and was an important man in his canton, and his mother was a granddaughter of the Dutch admiral Van Tromp. He received a better education than most boys, thanks to his mother and Pfeffel, the blind poet from Colmar, while his father's relationship with Pestalozzi shaped his future interests. In 1790, he entered the University of Tübingen, where he quickly excelled in law studies. Due to health issues, he later took a walking tour through Switzerland and nearby parts of France, Swabia, and Tirol, visiting villages and farmhouses, getting involved in the work of peasants and artisans, and sharing their simple meals and accommodations. After Robespierre's downfall, he went to Paris and stayed long enough to be warned of the impending crisis in his homeland. He tried to prevent it, but his warnings were ignored, and Switzerland fell before effective safety measures could be taken. Fellenberg, who had hastily raised a militia, was declared an outlaw; a bounty was placed on his head, forcing him to escape to Germany. However, he was soon recalled by his fellow countrymen and sent on a mission to Paris to protest against the greed and cruelty of the French Republic's agents. In these and other temporary diplomatic roles, he witnessed extensive corruption and intrigue, which turned him away from politics, leading him to decide to fully dedicate himself to educating the youth. With this goal in mind, he purchased the Hofwyl estate near Bern in 1799, intending to use agriculture as the foundation of a new system he envisioned to uplift the lower classes and properly train the upper classes, bringing them closer together than ever before. For a time, he worked alongside Pestalozzi, but their differing personalities soon led to their separation. Initially, Fellenberg's plan faced significant ridicule, but over time, it started to gain attention from foreign nations; students, including some from high-ranking families, began to arrive from all over Europe to learn agriculture and benefit from the moral education he integrated into his teaching system. For forty-five years, Fellenberg, with his wife's assistance, continued his educational efforts, ultimately elevating his institution to great success and utility. He passed away on November 21, 1844.

See Hamm, Fellenberg’s Leben und Wirken (Bern, 1845); and Schoni, Der Stifter von Hofwyl, Leben und Wirken Fellenberg’s.

See Hamm, Fellenberg’s Life and Work (Bern, 1845); and Schoni, The Founder of Hofwyl, The Life and Work of Fellenberg.


FELLER, FRANÇOIS XAVIER DE (1735-1802), Belgian author, was born at Brussels on the 18th of August 1735. In 1752 he entered a school of the Jesuits at Reims, where he manifested a great aptitude for mathematics and physical science. He commenced his novitiate two years afterwards, and in testimony of his admiration for the apostle of India added Xavier to his surname. On the expiry of his novitiate he became professor at Luxembourg, and afterwards at Liége. In 1764 he was appointed to the professorship of theology at Tyrnau in Hungary, but in 1771 he returned to Belgium and continued to discharge his professorial duties at Liége till the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773. The remainder of his life he devoted to study, travel and literature. On the invasion of Belgium by the French in 1794 he went to Paderborn, and remained there two years, after which he took up his residence at Ratisbon, where he died on the 23rd of May 1802.

Feller, François Xavier De (1735-1802), Belgian author, was born in Brussels on August 18, 1735. In 1752, he started attending a Jesuit school in Reims, where he showed a strong talent for mathematics and physical science. He began his novitiate two years later and, out of admiration for the apostle of India, added Xavier to his name. After completing his novitiate, he became a professor in Luxembourg and later in Liège. In 1764, he was appointed to the theology professorship at Tyrnau in Hungary, but in 1771 he returned to Belgium and continued teaching at Liège until the Jesuits were dissolved in 1773. The rest of his life was spent on study, travel, and writing. When the French invaded Belgium in 1794, he moved to Paderborn, where he stayed for two years, and then settled in Ratisbon, where he died on May 23, 1802.

Feller’s works exceed 120 volumes. In 1773 he published, under the assumed name Flexier de Reval (an anagram of Xavier de Feller), his Catéchisme philosophique; and his principal work Dictionnaire historique et littéraire (published in 1781 at Liége in 8 volumes, and afterwards several times reprinted and continued 243 down to 1848), appeared under the same name. Among his other works the most important are Cours de morale chrétienne et de littérature religieuse and his Coup d’œil sur congrès d’Ems. The Journal historique et littéraire, published at Luxembourg and Liége from 1774 to 1794 in 70 volumes, was edited and in great part written by him.

Feller's works total over 120 volumes. In 1773, he published, under the pen name Flexier de Reval (an anagram of Xavier de Feller), his Catéchisme philosophique; and his major work Dictionnaire historique et littéraire (released in 1781 in Liège, spanning 8 volumes, and subsequently reprinted and updated until 1848) was published under the same name. Among his other significant works are Cours de morale chrétienne et de littérature religieuse and Coup d’œil sur congrès d’Ems. The Journal historique et littéraire, published in Luxembourg and Liège from 1774 to 1794 in 70 volumes, was edited and largely written by him.


FELLING, an urban district in the Jarrow parliamentary division of Durham, England, forming an eastern suburb of Gateshead. Pop. (1901) 22,467. Its large industrial population is employed in the neighbouring collieries and the various attendant manufactures.

Felling, an urban area in the Jarrow parliamentary division of Durham, England, which is an eastern suburb of Gateshead. Population (1901) 22,467. Its large industrial population works in the nearby coal mines and various related industries.


FELLOE, the outer rim of a wheel, to which the spokes are attached. The word is sometimes spelled and usually pronounced “felly.” It is a Teutonic word, in O. Eng. felg, cognate with Dutch velge, Ger. Felge; the original Teutonic root from which these are derived probably meant “to fit together.”

FELLOE, the outer edge of a wheel, where the spokes are anchored. This word is sometimes spelled and typically pronounced as “felly.” It originates from a Teutonic word, in Old English felg, related to the Dutch velge and German Felge; the original Teutonic root from which these terms are derived likely meant “to fit together.”


FELLOW, properly and by origin a partner or associate, hence a companion, comrade or mate, as in “fellow-man,” “fellow-countryman,” &c. The word from the 15th century has also been applied, generally and colloquially, to any male person, often in a contemptuous or pitying sense. The Old English féolage meant a partner in a business, i.e. one who lays (lag) money or property (féoh, fee) together for a common purpose. The word was, therefore, the natural equivalent for socius, a member of the foundation of an incorporated college, as Eton, or a college at a university. In the earlier history of universities both the senior and junior members of a college were known as “scholars,” but later, as now, “scholar” was restricted to those members of the foundation still in statu pupillari, and “fellow” to those senior graduate members who have been elected to the foundation by the corporate body, sharing in the government and receiving a fixed emolument out of the revenues of the college. It is in this sense that “fellow” is used at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and Trinity, Dublin. At these universities the college teaching is performed by those fellows who are also “tutors.” At other universities the term is applied to the members of the governing body or to the holders of certain sums of money for a fixed number of years to be devoted to special study or research. By analogy the word is also used of the members of various learned societies and institutions.

FELLOW, essentially means a partner or associate, referring to a companion, comrade, or mate, as seen in terms like “fellow-man” or “fellow-countryman.” This term, dating back to the 15th century, has also been used informally to describe any male person, often in a dismissive or sympathetic way. The Old English word féolage referred to a business partner, implying someone who combines (lag) money or property (féoh, fee) for a shared goal. Thus, it naturally fits as the equivalent of socius, a member of the foundation of an incorporated college, like Eton or a university college. In the earlier history of universities, both senior and junior college members were called “scholars,” but later, as it is now, the term “scholar” became limited to those members still in statu pupillari, while “fellow” was assigned to senior graduate members elected into the foundation by the corporate body, participating in governance and receiving a fixed stipend from the college's revenues. This is how “fellow” is understood at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and Trinity, Dublin. At these institutions, college teaching is conducted by fellows who also serve as “tutors.” In other universities, the term refers to members of the governing body or those who hold specific funds for a set number of years dedicated to specialized study or research. Similarly, the word is also used for members of various scholarly societies and institutions.


FELLOWS, SIR CHARLES (1799-1860), British archaeologist, was born in August 1799 at Nottingham, where his family had an estate. When fourteen he drew sketches to illustrate a trip to the ruins of Newstead Abbey, which afterwards appeared on the title-page of Moore’s Life of Lord Byron. In 1820 he settled in London, where he became an active member of the British Association. In 1827 he discovered the modern ascent of Mont Blanc. After the death of his mother in 1832 he passed the greater portion of his time in Italy, Greece and the Levant. The numerous sketches he executed were largely used in illustrating Childe Harold. In 1838 he went to Asia Minor, making Smyrna his headquarters. His explorations in the interior and the south led him to districts practically unknown to Europeans, and he thus discovered ruins of a number of ancient cities. He entered Lycia and explored the Xanthus from the mouth at Patara upwards. Nine miles from Patara he discovered the ruins of Xanthus, the ancient capital of Lycia, finely situated on hills, and abounding in magnificent remains. About 15 m. farther up he came upon the ruins of Tlos. After taking sketches of the most interesting objects and copying a number of inscriptions, he returned to Smyrna through Caria and Lydia. The publication of A Journal written during an Excursion in Asia Minor (London, 1839) roused such interest that Lord Palmerston, at the request of the British Museum authorities, asked the British consul at Constantinople to get leave from the sultan to ship a number of the Lycian works of art. Late in 1839 Fellows, under the auspices of the British Museum, again set out for Lycia, accompanied by George Scharf, who assisted him in sketching. This second visit resulted in the discovery of thirteen ancient cities, and in 1841 appeared An Account of Discoveries in Lycia, being a Journal kept during a Second Excursion in Asia Minor. A third visit was made late in 1841, after Fellows had obtained a firman by personal application at Constantinople. He shipped a number of works of art for England, and in the fourth and most famous expedition (1844) twenty-seven cases of marbles were despatched to the British Museum. His chief discoveries were at Xanthus, Pinara, Patara, Tlos, Myra and Olympus. In 1844 he presented to the British Museum his portfolios, accounts of his expeditions, and specimens of natural history illustrative of Lycia. In 1845 he was knighted “as an acknowledgment of his services in the removal of the Xanthian antiquities to this country.” He paid his own expenses in all his journeys and received no public reward. Fellows was twice married. He died in London on the 8th of November 1860.

Fellows, Sir Charles (1799-1860), British archaeologist, was born in August 1799 in Nottingham, where his family owned an estate. At fourteen, he created sketches to illustrate a trip to the ruins of Newstead Abbey, which later appeared on the title page of Moore’s Life of Lord Byron. In 1820, he moved to London, where he became an active member of the British Association. In 1827, he discovered the modern route up Mont Blanc. After his mother passed away in 1832, he spent most of his time in Italy, Greece, and the Levant. The many sketches he made were widely used to illustrate Childe Harold. In 1838, he traveled to Asia Minor, making Smyrna his base. His explorations in the interior and south brought him to areas that were virtually unknown to Europeans, leading to the discovery of ruins from several ancient cities. He visited Lycia and explored the Xanthus River from the mouth at Patara upwards. Nine miles from Patara, he found the ruins of Xanthus, the ancient capital of Lycia, beautifully situated on hills and rich in remarkable remains. About 15 miles farther upstream, he came across the ruins of Tlos. After sketching the most interesting objects and copying several inscriptions, he returned to Smyrna via Caria and Lydia. The publication of A Journal written during an Excursion in Asia Minor (London, 1839) sparked such interest that Lord Palmerston, at the request of the British Museum, asked the British consul in Constantinople to seek permission from the sultan to ship a number of Lycian artworks. In late 1839, Fellows, under the auspices of the British Museum, set out for Lycia again, accompanied by George Scharf, who helped him with sketching. This second trip led to the discovery of thirteen ancient cities, and in 1841, he published An Account of Discoveries in Lycia, being a Journal kept during a Second Excursion in Asia Minor. A third visit took place in late 1841, after Fellows had secured a firman through personal application in Constantinople. He shipped several artworks to England, and on his fourth and most famous expedition in 1844, he sent twenty-seven cases of marbles to the British Museum. His main discoveries were at Xanthus, Pinara, Patara, Tlos, Myra, and Olympus. In 1844, he presented his portfolios, accounts of his expeditions, and specimens of natural history related to Lycia to the British Museum. In 1845, he was knighted "in recognition of his services in the removal of the Xanthian antiquities to this country." He funded all his travels himself and received no public compensation. Fellows was married twice. He passed away in London on November 8, 1860.

In addition to the works above mentioned, Fellows published the following: The Xanthian Marbles; their Acquisition and Transmission to England (1843), a refutation of false statements that had been published; An Account of the Ionic Trophy Monument excavated at Xanthus (1848); a cheap edition of his two Journals, entitled Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, particularly in the Province of Lycia (1852); and Coins of Ancient Lycia before the Reign of Alexander; with an Essay on the Relative Dates of the Lycian Monuments in the British Museum (1855). See C. Brown’s Lives of Nottinghamshire Worthies (1882), pp. 352-353, and Journ. of Roy. Geog. Soc., 1861.

In addition to the works mentioned above, Fellows published the following: The Xanthian Marbles; their Acquisition and Transmission to England (1843), a response to false claims that had been published; An Account of the Ionic Trophy Monument excavated at Xanthus (1848); a budget edition of his two Journals, titled Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, particularly in the Province of Lycia (1852); and Coins of Ancient Lycia before the Reign of Alexander; with an Essay on the Relative Dates of the Lycian Monuments in the British Museum (1855). See C. Brown’s Lives of Nottinghamshire Worthies (1882), pp. 352-353, and Journ. of Roy. Geog. Soc., 1861.


FELO DE SE (M.L. a felon, i.e. murderer, of himself), one who commits murder upon himself. The technical conditions of murder apply to this crime; e.g., “if one commits any unlawful malicious act, the consequence of which is his own death, as if attempting to kill another he runs upon his antagonist’s sword, or shooting at another the gun bursts and kills himself,” he is a felo de se. The horror inspired by this crime led to the revolting punishment of an “ignominious burial on the highway, with a stake driven through the body.” This was abolished by an act of 1823, which ordered the burial of the body of a person found to be felo de se within 24 hours after the coroner’s inquest, between the hours of 9 and 12 at night, and without Christian rites of sepulture. This act was again superseded in 1882 by the Interments (Felo de se) Act, which permits the interment of any felo de se in the churchyard or other burial ground of the parish or place in which by the law or custom of England he might have been interred but for the verdict. The interment is carried out in accordance with the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 (see Burial and Burial Acts). The act does not authorize the performance of any of the rites of Christian burial, but a special form of service may be used. Formerly the goods and chattels, but not the land, of a felo de se were forfeited to the crown, but such forfeitures were abolished by the Forfeiture Act 1870. (See also Suicide.)

FELO DE SE (M.L. a felon, i.e. murderer of oneself), someone who commits suicide. The legal definitions of murder apply to this act; e.g., “if someone carries out any illegal malicious action that results in their own death, like charging at another person’s sword while trying to kill them, or if their gun misfires and kills them while attempting to shoot someone else,” they are considered a felo de se. The horror associated with this act led to the disturbing punishment of an “ignominious burial by the roadside, with a stake driven through the body.” This was abolished by a law in 1823, which mandated that the body of someone found to be felo de se be buried within 24 hours after the coroner’s inquest, between 9 and 12 at night, without any Christian burial rites. This law was replaced in 1882 by the Interments (Felo de se) Act, which allows for the burial of any felo de se in the churchyard or burial ground of the parish or place where, according to English law or custom, they could have been buried if not for the verdict. The burial is conducted in accordance with the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 (see Burial and Burial Acts). The act does not permit any Christian burial rites, but a specific form of service may be used. Previously, the personal belongings, but not the land, of a felo de se were forfeited to the crown, but such forfeitures were ended by the Forfeiture Act 1870. (See also Suicide.)


FELONY (O. Fr. felonie, from felon, a word meaning “wicked,” common to Romanic languages, cf. Italian fello, fellone, the ultimate origin of which is obscure, but is possibly connected either with Lat. fel, gall, or fallere, to deceive. The English “fell” cruel or fierce, is also connected; and the Greek φῆλυς, an impostor, has also been suggested). Legal writers have sought to throw light on the nature of felony by examining the supposed etymology of the word. Coke says it is crimen animo felleo perpetratum [a crime committed with malicious or evil intent (fee lohn)]. Spelman connects it with the word fee, signifying fief or feud; and felony in this way would be equivalent to pretium feudi, an act for which a man lost or gave up his fee (see Stephen’s Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 7). And acts involving forfeiture were styled felonies in feudal law, although they had nothing of a criminal character about them. A breach of duty on the part of the vassal, neglect of service, delay in seeking investiture, and the like were felonies: so were injuries by the lord against the vassal. Modern writers are now disposed to accept Coke’s definition. In English law, crimes are usually classified as treason, felony, misdemeanour and summary offence. Some writers—and with some justice—treat treason merely as a grave form of felony and it is so dealt with in the Juries Detention Act 1897. But owing to legislation in and since the time of William and Mary, the procedure for the trial of most forms of treason differs from that of felony. The expression summary offence is ambiguous. Many offences which are at common law or by statute felonies, or misdemeanours indictable at common law or by statute, may under certain conditions be tried by a court 244 of summary jurisdiction (q.v.), and many merely statutory offences which would ordinarily be punishable summarily may at the election of the accused be tried by a jury on indictment (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, s. 17).

FELONY (Old French felonie, from felon, which means “wicked,” a term found in Romance languages, such as Italian fello, fellone. The original source of this term is unclear, but it may be linked to Latin fel, meaning gall, or fallere, meaning to deceive. The English word “fell,” meaning cruel or fierce, is also related, and the Greek φῆλυς, meaning an impostor, has been mentioned as well). Legal scholars have tried to clarify the meaning of felony by exploring the possible origin of the word. Coke stated it is crimen animo felleo perpetratum [a crime committed with malicious or evil intent (fee lohn)]. Spelman links it to the word fee, which means fief or feud; thus, felony would equate to pretium feudi, an act that caused a man to lose or give up his fee (see Stephen’s Commentaries, vol. iv. p. 7). Acts that involved forfeiture were labeled felonies in feudal law, even though they weren't criminal in nature. Violations of duty by the vassal, failure to provide service, delays in seeking investiture, and similar issues were considered felonies: so were wrongs committed by the lord against the vassal. Modern writers generally lean towards accepting Coke’s definition. In English law, crimes are typically grouped into treason, felony, misdemeanour, and summary offence. Some writers—and with some validity—view treason as a serious form of felony, which is how it is treated in the Juries Detention Act 1897. However, due to laws established during and after the reign of William and Mary, the process for trying most types of treason is different from that of felony. The term summary offence is vague. Many offences that are classified as felonies or misdemeanours indictable at common law or by statute may, under specific circumstances, be heard by a court of summary jurisdiction (q.v.), and many simply statutory offences that would usually be punished summarily may, at the defendant's choice, be tried by a jury through indictment (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, s. 17). 244

The question whether a particular offence is felony or misdemeanour can be answered only by reference to the history of the offence and not by any logical test. For instance, killing a horse in an unlicensed place is still felony under a statute of 1786. But most crimes described as felonies are or have been capital offences at common law or by statute, and have also entailed on the offender attaint and forfeiture of goods. A few felonies were not punishable by death, e.g. petty larceny and mayhem. Where an offence is declared a felony by statute, the common law punishments and incidents of trial attach, unless other statutory provision is made (Blackstone, Commentaries, iv. 94).

The question of whether a specific crime is classified as a felony or a misdemeanor can only be determined by looking at the history of that offense, not through any logical test. For example, killing a horse in an unlicensed place is still considered a felony under a law from 1786. However, most crimes labeled as felonies have historically been capital offenses, either under common law or statute, and have also led to consequences like attainder and forfeiture of property for the offender. A few felonies weren’t punishable by death, such as petty larceny and mayhem. When a crime is classified as a felony by law, the common law penalties and trial procedures apply, unless there’s another legal provision in place (Blackstone, Commentaries, iv. 94).

The chief common law felonies are: homicide, rape, larceny (i.e. in ordinary language, theft), robbery (i.e. theft with violence), burglary and kindred offences. Counterfeiting the coin has been made a felony instead of being treason; and forgery of most documents has been made a felony instead of being, as it was at common law, a misdemeanour. At the beginning of the 19th century felony was almost equivalent to capital crime; but during that century capital punishment was abolished as to all felonies, except wilful murder, piracy with violence (7 W. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 88, s. 2) and offences against the Dockyards, &c., Protection Act 1772; and by the Forfeiture Act 1870, a felon no longer forfeits land or goods on conviction, though forfeiture on outlawry is not abolished. The usual punishment for felony under the present law is penal servitude or imprisonment with or without hard labour. “Every person convicted of any felony for which no punishment is specially provided by the law in force for the time being is liable upon conviction thereof to be sentenced to penal servitude for any period not exceeding seven years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years” (Stephen, Dig. Cr. Law (6th ed.), art 18, Penal Servitude Act 1891). A felon may not be fined or whipped on conviction nor put under recognizance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour except under statutory provision. (See Offences against the Person Act 1861, ss. 5. 71.)

The main common law felonies are: homicide, rape, larceny (i.e. theft), robbery (i.e. theft with violence), burglary, and similar offenses. Counterfeiting currency has been classified as a felony instead of treason, and forgery of most documents is now a felony rather than, as it was at common law, a misdemeanor. At the start of the 19th century, felony was nearly equivalent to a capital crime; however, during that century, capital punishment was abolished for all felonies except willful murder, violent piracy (7 W. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 88, s. 2), and offenses against the Dockyards, &c., Protection Act 1772. Additionally, under the Forfeiture Act 1870, a felon no longer loses property upon conviction, although forfeiture due to outlawry still exists. The typical punishment for felony under current law is penal servitude or imprisonment with or without hard labor. “Every person convicted of any felony for which no specific punishment is provided by current law may be sentenced to penal servitude for up to seven years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labor for a term not exceeding two years” (Stephen, Dig. Cr. Law (6th ed.), art 18, Penal Servitude Act 1891). A felon cannot be fined or whipped upon conviction or required to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace or be of good behavior, except as provided by law. (See Offences against the Person Act 1861, ss. 5, 71.)

The result of legislative changes is that at the present time the only practical distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are:—

The result of legislative changes is that right now the only practical differences between felony and misdemeanor are:—

1. That a private person may arrest a felon without judicial authority and that bail on arrest is granted as a matter of discretion and not as of right. Any one who has obtained a drove of oxen or a flock of sheep by false pretences may go quietly on his way and no one, not even a peace officer, can apprehend him without a warrant, but if a man offers to sell another a bit of dead fence supposed to have been stolen, he not only may but is required to be apprehended by that person (Greaves, Criminal Law Consolidation Acts). (See Arrest, Bail.)

1. A private individual can arrest someone committing a felony without a court order, and getting bail after an arrest is up to the discretion of the authorities, not guaranteed by law. Anyone who has acquired a herd of oxen or a flock of sheep through deceit can just walk away, and no one, including a law enforcement officer, can detain them without a warrant. However, if someone tries to sell another person a piece of stolen fence, that person is not only allowed but required to detain them (Greaves, Criminal Law Consolidation Acts). (See Arrest, Bail.)

2. That on an indictment for felony counts may not be joined for different felonies unless they form part of the same transaction. (See Indictment.)

2. That in an indictment for felony charges, different felonies cannot be combined unless they are part of the same incident. (See Indictment.)

3. That on a trial for felony the accused has a right peremptorily to challenge, or object to, the jurors called to try him, up to the number of twenty. (See Jury.)

3. The accused has the right to challenge or object to the jurors assigned to their felony trial, up to a maximum of twenty. (See Jury.)

4. That a felon cannot be tried in absentia, and that the jury who try him may not separate during the trial without leave of the court, which may not be given in cases of murder.

4. A felon cannot be tried in absentia, and the jury that tries him cannot separate during the trial without permission from the court, which may not be granted in murder cases.

5. That a special jury cannot be empanelled to try a felony.

5. A special jury can’t be formed to try a felony.

6. That peers charged with felony are tried in a special manner. (See Peerage.)

6. People accused of felonies are tried in a specific way. (See Peerage.)

7. That the costs of prosecuting all felonies (except treason felony) are paid out of public funds: and that a felon may be condemned to pay the costs of his prosecution and to compensate up to £100 for any loss of property suffered by any person through or by means of the felony. In the Criminal Code Bills of 1878-1880 it was proposed to abolish the term felony altogether: and in the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 the term “crime” is substituted, and within its connotation are included not only treason and piracy but also perjury.

7. The costs of prosecuting all felonies (except treason) are covered by public funds: a felon can be ordered to pay the costs of their prosecution and to compensate up to £100 for any property loss experienced by someone due to the felony. In the Criminal Code Bills of 1878-1880, there was a proposal to get rid of the term felony entirely: in the Queensland Criminal Code of 1899, the term “crime” is used instead, which includes not just treason and piracy but also perjury.

8. That a sentence of a felon to death, or to penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour or for over twelve months, involves loss of and disqualification for certain offices until the sentence has been served or a free pardon obtained. (Forfeiture Act 1870.)

8. A sentence of death for a felony, or penal servitude, or imprisonment with hard labor for more than twelve months results in the loss of and disqualification from certain positions until the sentence is completed or a free pardon is granted. (Forfeiture Act 1870.)

It is a misdemeanour (i.) to compound a felony or to agree for valuable consideration not to prosecute or to show favour in such prosecution; (ii.) to omit to inform the authorities of a felony known to have been committed (see Misprision), and, (iii.) not to assist in the arrest of a felon at the call of an officer of the law. (See Criminal law; Misdemeanour; Misprision.)

It is a misdemeanor (i.) to settle a felony or to agree for a reward not to prosecute or to show leniency in such prosecution; (ii.) to fail to report a felony that has been committed (see Misprision), and, (iii.) not to help in the arrest of a criminal when called by a law officer. (See Criminal law; Misdemeanour; Misprision.)


FELSITE, in petrology, a term which has long been generally used by geologists, especially in England, to designate fine-grained igneous rocks of acid (or subacid) composition. As a rule their ingredients are not determinable by the unaided eye, but they are principally felspar and quartz as very minute particles. The rocks are pale-coloured (yellowish or reddish as a rule), hard, splintery, much jointed and occasionally nodular. Many felsites contain porphyritic crystals of clear quartz in rounded blebs, more or less idiomorphic felspar, and occasionally biotite. Others are entirely fine-grained and micro- or crypto-crystalline. Occasionally they show a fluxional banding; they may also be spherulitic or vesicular. Those which carry porphyritic quartz are known as quartz-felsites; the term soda-felsites has been applied to similar fine-grained rocks rich in soda-felspar.

FELSITE, in petrology refers to a term that has long been commonly used by geologists, particularly in England, to describe fine-grained igneous rocks with an acid (or subacid) composition. Typically, their components are not visible to the naked eye, but they mainly consist of very tiny particles of feldspar and quartz. These rocks are usually pale-colored (yellowish or reddish), hard, splintery, highly jointed, and sometimes nodular. Many felsites contain porphyritic crystals of clear quartz in rounded blobs, more or less well-formed feldspar, and occasionally biotite. Others are entirely fine-grained and micro- or crypto-crystalline. Sometimes they display a flow-like banding; they can also be spherulitic or vesicular. Those that contain porphyritic quartz are known as quartz-felsites; the term soda-felsites is used for similar fine-grained rocks that are rich in soda-feldspar.

Although there are few objections to the employment of felsite as a field designation for rocks having the above characters, it lacks definiteness, and has been discarded by many petrologists as unsuited for the exact description of rocks, especially when their microscopic characters are taken into consideration. The felsites accordingly are broken up into “granite-porphyries,” “orthophyres” and “orthoclase-porphyries,” “felsitic-rhyolites,” “keratophyres,” “granophyres,” “micro-granites,” &c. But felsite or microfelsite is still the generally accepted designation for that very fine-grained, almost crypto-crystalline substance which forms the ground-mass of so many rhyolites, dacites and porphyries.

Although there are few objections to using felsite as a term for rocks with the characteristics mentioned above, it lacks precision and has been rejected by many petrologists as unsuitable for accurately describing rocks, especially when considering their microscopic features. As a result, felsites are categorized into “granite-porphyries,” “orthophyres,” “orthoclase-porphyries,” “felsitic-rhyolites,” “keratophyres,” “granophyres,” “micro-granites,” etc. However, felsite or microfelsite is still the commonly accepted term for that very fine-grained, almost crypto-crystalline material that makes up the ground mass of many rhyolites, dacites, and porphyries.

In the hand specimen it is a dull, lustreless, stony-looking aggregate. Under the microscope even with high powers and the very thinnest modern sections, it often cannot be resolved into its components. In places it may contain determinable minute crystals of quartz; less commonly it may show grains which can be proved to be felspar, but usually it consists of an ultra-microscopic aggregate of fibres, threads and grains, which react to polarized light in a feeble and indefinite manner. Spherulitic, spotted, streaky and fluidal structures may appear in it, and many different varieties have been established on such characters as these but without much validity.

In a hand sample, it looks like a dull, lifeless, stone-like mix. Even under a microscope with high magnification and the thinnest modern slices, it often can't be broken down into its parts. Sometimes, it might have tiny quartz crystals that can be identified; less frequently, it may show grains that can be confirmed as feldspar. Usually, though, it consists of an ultra-microscopic mix of fibers, threads, and grains that react to polarized light in a weak and unclear way. Spherulitic, spotted, streaky, and fluid-like structures can appear in it, and many different types have been identified based on these features, but with little reliability.

Its association with the acid rocks, its hardness, method of weathering and chemical composition, indicate that it is an intermixture of quartz and acid felspar, and the occasional presence of these two minerals in well-defined grains confirms this. Moreover, in many dikes, while the ground-mass is microcrystalline and consists of quartz and felspar near the centre of the mass, towards the margins, where it has been rapidly chilled by contact with the cold surrounding rocks, it is felsitic. The very great viscosity of acid magmas prevents their molecules, especially when cooling takes place suddenly, from arranging themselves to form discrete crystals, and is the principal cause of the production of felsitic ground-masses. In extreme cases these conditions hinder crystallization altogether, and glassy rocks result. Some rocks are felsitic in parts but elsewhere glassy; and it is not always clear whether the felsite is an original substance or has arisen by the devitrification of primary glass. The presence of perlitic structure in some of these felsites points to the latter conclusion, and the results of an examination of ancient glasses and of artificial glass which has been slowly cooled are in accordance with this view. It has been argued that felsite is a eutectic mixture of quartz and felspar, such that when solidification takes place and the excess of felspar (or quartz) has 245 crystallized out it remains liquid till the temperature has fallen to its freezing point, and then consolidates simultaneously. This may be so, but analyses show that it has not always the same composition and consequently that the conditions which determine its formation are not quite simple. Felsitic rocks are sometimes silicified and have their matrix replaced by granular aggregates of cloudy quartz.

Its relation to acidic rocks, its hardness, the way it weathers, and its chemical makeup show that it's a mix of quartz and acidic feldspar. The occasional presence of these two minerals in distinct grains backs this up. Additionally, in many dikes, while the ground mass is microcrystalline and made up of quartz and feldspar near the center, towards the edges, where it cools quickly from contact with the colder surrounding rocks, it becomes felsitic. The high viscosity of acidic magmas prevents their molecules, especially when they cool quickly, from arranging themselves into separate crystals, which mainly causes the formation of felsitic ground masses. In extreme cases, these conditions can completely hinder crystallization, resulting in glassy rocks. Some rocks are felsitic in some areas but glassy in others, and it’s not always clear if the felsite is a primary substance or if it formed from the devitrification of original glass. The presence of perlitic structure in some felsites supports the latter idea, and studies of ancient glasses and artificially made glass that has cooled slowly align with this perspective. It has been suggested that felsite is a eutectic mixture of quartz and feldspar, such that when solidification occurs and the excess feldspar (or quartz) has crystallized out, it remains liquid until the temperature drops to its freezing point, at which point it solidifies all at once. This may be true, but analyses indicate that it doesn’t always have the same composition, suggesting that the conditions needed for its formation are not straightforward. Felsitic rocks can sometimes be silicified and have their matrix replaced by granular clusters of cloudy quartz.

(J. S. F.)

FELSPAR, or Feldspar, a name applied to a group of mineral silicates of much importance as rock-constituents. The name, taken from the Ger. Feldspath, was originally written with a “d” but in 1794 it was written “felspar” by R. Kirwan, on the assumption that it denoted a mineral of the “fels” rather than of the “field,” and this corrupted form is now in common use in England. By some of the earlier mineralogists it was written “feltspar,” from the Swedish form fältspat.

Feldspar, or Feldspar, refers to a group of silicate minerals that are very important as components of rocks. The name comes from the German term Feldspath, which was originally spelled with a “d.” In 1794, R. Kirwan changed the spelling to “felspar,” believing it referred to a mineral related to “fels” rather than “field,” and this altered spelling is now commonly used in England. Some earlier mineralogists spelled it “feltspar,” based on the Swedish word fältspat.

The felspar-group is divided into two subgroups according to the symmetry of the crystals. Although the crystals of all felspars present a general resemblance in habit, they are usually regarded as belonging to two systems, some felspars being monoclinic and others anorthic. Figures of the crystals are given in the articles on the different species. Two cleavages are generally well marked. In the monoclinic or monosymmetric felspars these, being parallel to the basal pinacoid and clinopinacoid, necessarily make an angle of 90°, whence the name orthoclase applied to these minerals; whilst in the anorthic or asymmetric felspars the corresponding angle is never exactly 90°, and from this obliquity of the principal cleavages they are termed plagioclase (see Orthoclase and Plagioclase). There are consequently two series of felspars, one termed orthoclastic or orthotomous, and the other plagioclastic or clinotomous. F.E. Mallard suggested that all felspars are really asymmetric, and that orthoclase presents only a pseudo-monosymmetric habit, due to twinning. Twin-crystals are very common in all the felspars, as explained under their respective headings.

The felspar group is divided into two subgroups based on the symmetry of the crystals. Even though the crystals of all felspars generally look similar, they are usually classified into two systems: some felspars are monoclinic while others are anorthic. Illustrations of the crystals can be found in the articles on the different species. Two cleavages are typically well-defined. In the monoclinic or monosymmetric felspars, these cleavages, being parallel to the basal pinacoid and clinopinacoid, form a 90° angle, which is why the term orthoclase is used for these minerals. In contrast, in the anorthic or asymmetric felspars, the corresponding angle is never exactly 90°, and because of this tilt of the main cleavages, they are referred to as plagioclase (see Orthoclase and Plagioclase). Therefore, there are two series of felspars: one called orthoclastic or orthotomous, and the other plagioclastic or clinotomous. F.E. Mallard proposed that all felspars are actually asymmetric, and that orthoclase only shows a pseudo-monosymmetric form due to twinning. Twin crystals are very common in all felspars, as discussed under their respective headings.

The two divisions of the felspar-group founded on differences of crystalline symmetry are subdivided according to chemical composition. All the felspars are silicates containing aluminium with some other metallic base or bases, generally potassium, sodium or calcium, rarely barium, but never magnesium or iron. The monoclinic series includes common potash-felspar or orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) and hyalophane, a rare felspar containing barium (K2BaAl4Si8O24). The anorthic series includes at one end the soda-felspar albite (NaAlSi3O8) and at the other extremity the lime-felspar anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8). It was suggested by G. Tschermak in 1864 that the other plagioclastic felspars are isomorphous mixtures in various proportion of albite (Ab) and anorthite (An). These intermediate members are the lime-soda felspars known as oligoclase, andesine, labradorite and bytownite. There are also placed in the anorthic class a potash-felspar called microcline, and a rare soda-potash-felspar known as anorthoclase.

The two branches of the feldspar group, based on different types of crystalline symmetry, are further divided according to their chemical composition. All feldspars are silicates containing aluminum along with some other metallic elements, usually potassium, sodium, or calcium, and occasionally barium, but never magnesium or iron. The monoclinic series includes common potash feldspar or orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) and hyalophane, a rare feldspar that contains barium (K2BaAl4Si8O24). The anorthic series includes at one end the soda feldspar albite (NaAlSi3O8) and at the other end the lime feldspar anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8). In 1864, G. Tschermak proposed that the other plagioclase feldspars are isomorphic mixtures in various proportions of albite (Ab) and anorthite (An). These intermediate members are the lime-soda feldspars known as oligoclase, andesine, labradorite, and bytownite. Also included in the anorthic class are a potash feldspar called microcline and a rare soda-potash feldspar known as anorthoclase.

The specific gravity of the felspars has been shown by G. Tschermak and V. Goldschmidt to vary according to their chemical composition, rising steadily from 2.57 in orthoclase to 2.75 in anorthite. All the felspars have a hardness of 6 to 6.5, being therefore rather less hard than quartz. Pure felspar is colourless, but the mineral is usually white, yellow, red or green. Certain felspars are used as ornamental stones on account of their colour (see Amazon Stone). Other felspars are prized for their pearly opalescence (see Moonstone), or for their play of iridescent colours (see Labradorite), or for their spangled appearance, like aventurine (see Sun-stone).

The specific gravity of the feldspars, as shown by G. Tschermak and V. Goldschmidt, varies based on their chemical composition, increasing steadily from 2.57 in orthoclase to 2.75 in anorthite. All the feldspars have a hardness of 6 to 6.5, making them slightly less hard than quartz. Pure feldspar is colorless, but the mineral is usually white, yellow, red, or green. Some feldspars are used as decorative stones due to their color (see Amazon Stone). Other feldspars are valued for their pearly opalescence (see Moonstone), or for their iridescent play of colors (see Labradorite), or for their glittery look, similar to aventurine (see Sun-stone).

Felspar is much used in the manufacture of porcelain by reason of its fusibility. In England the material employed is mostly orthoclase from Scandinavia, often known as “Swedish spar.” The high translucency of “ivory porcelain” depends on the large proportion of felspar in the body. The mineral is also an important constituent of most ceramic glazes. The melting points of felspars have been investigated by Prof. J. Joly, Prof. C. A. Doelter y Cisterich and especially by A.L. Day and E.T. Allen in the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute at Washington.

Feldspar is widely used in making porcelain because it melts easily. In England, the main material used is orthoclase from Scandinavia, often referred to as “Swedish spar.” The high translucency of “ivory porcelain” relies on the large amount of feldspar in the mixture. This mineral is also a key ingredient in most ceramic glazes. The melting points of feldspars have been studied by Prof. J. Joly, Prof. C. A. Doelter y Cisterich, and particularly by A.L. Day and E.T. Allen at the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute in Washington.

Among the applications of felspar is that of pure orthoclase in the manufacture of artificial teeth.

Among the uses of feldspar is pure orthoclase in the production of artificial teeth.

Felspar readily suffers chemical alteration, yielding kaolin (q.v.). The turbidity of orthoclase is usually due to partial kaolinization. Secondary mica is also a common result of alteration, and among other products are pinite, epidote, saussurite, chlorite, wollastonite and various zeolites.

Feldspar easily undergoes chemical changes, producing kaolin (q.v.). The cloudiness of orthoclase is typically caused by partial kaolinization. Secondary mica is also a frequent outcome of alteration, and other products include pinite, epidote, saussurite, chlorite, wollastonite, and various zeolites.


FELSTED, or Felstead, a village of Essex, England, between Dunmow and Braintree, and 10 m. from Chelmsford; with a station on the Great Eastern railway. Felsted is only noteworthy by reason of its important public school, dating back to its foundation as a grammar school in 1564 by Richard 1st Baron Rich, who as lord chancellor and chancellor of the court of augmentations had enriched himself with the spoil of the adjoining abbey and priory of Little Leez at the dissolution of the monasteries. It became a notable educational centre for Puritan families in the 17th century, numbering a hundred or more pupils, under Martin Holbeach (1600-1670), headmaster from 1627-1649, and his successors C. Glasscock (from 1650 to 1690), and Simon Lydiatt (1690 to 1702). John Wallis and Isaac Barrow were educated here, and also four sons of Oliver Cromwell, Robert, Oliver, Richard (the Protector), and Henry. Another era of prosperity set in under the headmastership of William Trivett (1745-1830) between 1778 and 1794; but under his successors W.J. Carless (from 1794 to 1813) and E. Squire (from 1813 to 1829) the numbers dwindled. As the result of the discovery by T. Surridge (headmaster 1835-1850), from research among the records, that a larger income was really due to the foundation, a reorganization took place by act of parliament, and in 1851, under the headmastership of Rev. A.H. Wratislaw, the school was put under a new governing body (a revised scheme coming into operation in 1876). The result under Rev. W.S. Grignon (1823-1907), the headmaster from 1856 to 1875, who may be considered almost the second founder, was the rapid development of Felsted into one of the regular public schools of the modern English type. New buildings on an elaborate scale arose, the numbers increased to more than 200, and a complete transformation took place, which was carried on under his successors D.S. Ingram (from 1875 to 1890), H.A. Dalton (to 1906), and F. Stephenson, under whom large extensions to the buildings and playing-fields were made.

FELSTED, or Felstead, is a village in Essex, England, located between Dunmow and Braintree, and 10 miles from Chelmsford, featuring a station on the Great Eastern railway. Felsted is primarily known for its prominent public school, which was founded as a grammar school in 1564 by Richard, the 1st Baron Rich. He profited from the dissolution of the nearby abbey and priory of Little Leez when he served as lord chancellor and chancellor of the court of augmentations. In the 17th century, it became a significant educational hub for Puritan families, boasting over a hundred students. Notable headmasters included Martin Holbeach (1600-1670), who served from 1627-1649, followed by C. Glasscock (1650 to 1690) and Simon Lydiatt (1690 to 1702). John Wallis and Isaac Barrow were educated here, along with four sons of Oliver Cromwell: Robert, Oliver, Richard (the Protector), and Henry. Another prosperous period occurred under headmaster William Trivett (1745-1830) between 1778 and 1794. However, enrollment declined under his successors W.J. Carless (1794 to 1813) and E. Squire (1813 to 1829). A breakthrough came under T. Surridge (headmaster from 1835-1850) when he discovered, through record research, that the foundation was entitled to a larger income. This led to reorganizations through an act of parliament, and in 1851, under Rev. A.H. Wratislaw, the school was established under a new governing body (with a revised scheme enacted in 1876). The headmaster Rev. W.S. Grignon (1823-1907), who served from 1856 to 1875 and is often viewed as the school's second founder, oversaw significant development, transforming Felsted into one of the established public schools of the modern English type. New buildings were constructed on a grand scale, enrollment exceeded 200, and a comprehensive transformation occurred, which continued under his successors D.S. Ingram (1875 to 1890), H.A. Dalton (to 1906), and F. Stephenson, who oversaw substantial expansions to the buildings and playing fields.

See John Sargeaunt, History of Felsted School (1889); and Alumni Felstedienses, by R.J. Beevor, E.T. Roberts and others (1903).

See John Sargeaunt, History of Felsted School (1889); and Alumni Felstedienses, by R.J. Beevor, E.T. Roberts, and others (1903).


FELT (cognate with Ger. Filz, Du. vilt, Swed. and Dan. filt; the root is unknown; the word has given Med. Lat. filtrum, “filter”), a fabric produced by the “matting” or “felting” together of fibrous materials such as wools, hairs, furs, &c. Most textile fibres (see Fibres) possess the quality of matting to some extent, but wools, furs and some few hairs are the only fibres which can be felted satisfactorily. It is probable that the quality of felting must be attributed to the scale structure and waviness of the wools, furs and hairs referred to. When it is desired to incorporate non-felting fibres in felt cloths, wool must be employed to “carry” them.

Felt (related to Ger. Filz, Du. vilt, Swed. and Dan. filt; the origin is unknown; this word has also given us Med. Lat. filtrum, meaning “filter”), is a fabric made by matting or felting together fibrous materials like wool, hair, fur, etc. Most textile fibers (see Fibres) have some ability to mat, but wool, fur, and a few types of hair are the only fibers that can be felted effectively. It's likely that this felting ability is due to the scale structure and waviness of the mentioned wools, furs, and hairs. When you want to include non-felting fibers in felt cloths, wool must be used to “carry” them.

There are two distinct classes of felts, viz. woven or “thread-structure” felts, and “fibre” or true felts. In the manufacture of thread-structure felts, wools possessing the quality of felting in a high degree are naturally selected, carefully scoured so that the felting quality is not seriously damaged, spun into woollen yarn possessing the necessary fibre arrangement and twist, woven into cloth of such a character that subsequently satisfactory shrinking or felting may be effected, and finally scoured, milled in the stocks of machine of both, dyed and finished on the lines of an ordinary woven fabric. The lighter styles of woven felts may be composed of a single cloth only, but for the heavier styles two or more cloths are woven, one on top of the other, at one and the same time, arrangements being made to stitch the cloths together during the weaving operation.

There are two main types of felts: woven or "thread-structure" felts, and "fibre" or true felts. In making thread-structure felts, wools that have a strong felting quality are carefully chosen, thoroughly cleaned so that their felting ability isn't compromised, spun into wool yarn with the right fiber arrangement and twist, and woven into fabric that can later be successfully shrunk or felted. Finally, this fabric is scoured, milled in machines, dyed, and finished like regular woven fabric. The lighter types of woven felts may be made from a single layer of cloth, while the heavier types are created by weaving two or more layers at the same time, with stitches added to hold the layers together during the weaving process.

Fibre felts are exceedingly interesting from the historical point of view. It is now generally admitted that the art of 246 weaving preceded that of spinning, and it must further be conceded that the art of felting preceded that of weaving, so that the felt fabric is probably one of the oldest of the various styles of recognized fabrics. The inhabitants of the middle and northern regions of Asia seem to have employed felt from time immemorial, as clothing and also as a covering for their habitations. Most of the classical writers refer to it and some of them actually describe its manufacture. Felt was also largely employed by the ancients for their hats, outer garments, and sometimes as a species of armour.

Fibre felts are really fascinating from a historical perspective. It's now widely accepted that weaving came before spinning, and it's also acknowledged that felting came before weaving, making felt fabric probably one of the oldest types of recognized fabrics. People in the central and northern parts of Asia seem to have used felt for ages, both as clothing and as covering for their homes. Many classical writers mention it, and a few even describe how it was made. The ancients also used felt extensively for their hats, outer clothing, and sometimes even as a kind of armor.

Fibre felts may be divided into three classes, viz. ordinary felts; hat felts; and impregnated felts. As all felts are based upon the ordinary felt, the process of manufacture of this will first be described. Of the wools employed the principal are:—East Indian, German or mid-European, New Zealand cross-breds, and Australian, Cape and Buenos Aires merinos. Vegetable fibres and silk are also employed, but wool must be used to “carry” them; thus a good felting wool may be made to carry its own weight of cotton, hemp, &c. Hairs and furs are principally used in the hat felts. The average loss upon the wool from the raw state to the finished felt is 40 to 50%. The order of the manufacturing processes is as follows:—mixing, willowing, teasing, scribbling and carding. It is interesting to note that it is not usual to scour felting wools. This is not because they are really clean—some are dirty—but because the felting property is liable to be interfered with in the scouring operation. Some wools, however, must be scoured to ensure satisfactory working in the machines. From the card the wool is delivered as a gossamer-like film from 50 to 60 in. wide on to an endless sheet from 30 to 60 yds. long, upon which the felt is built up film upon film until the required thickness—perhaps 4 in.—is obtained. To harden this somewhat tender sheet of felt it is now passed through an ironing process, effected by either steam-heated rollers—to which a rotatory and vibratory motion is given—playing upon the continually drawn-through cloth; or a huge vibrating flat-iron, to which the cloth is automatically fed, held in position and then wound up while the following length to be treated is drawn under the iron. Soaping, fulling or “felting” and the ordinary finishing operations—including dyeing and printing if desirable—now follow, so that ultimately a strong firm fabric is turned out. It must be admitted, however, that the strength is much greater lengthwise than cross-wise, owing to the parallelization of the fibres induced in the scribbling and carding operations. Of course, the true felting or contraction occurs in the fulling or felting stock, the fabric being perpetually “hammered” in the presence of fulling agents such as soap, fuller’s earth, &c., for a considerable time. The reduction in width, length and thickness is remarkable. This may be controlled within certain limits. The principal styles of ordinary fibre-felts are—linings for coats, furniture and rubber shoes; saddlery; seatings for carriages and pews; carpets, surrounds and under-felts for carpets; mantles, dresses and table-cloths; felt-slippers; mattress felts; chest-preservers, and shoulder-pads; steam-engine packing, motor-car and anti-vibration felts, shipbuilding felts; drawing-roller felts and gun-wad felts.

Fibre felts can be categorized into three types: regular felts, hat felts, and impregnated felts. Since all felts are based on the regular felt, we will first describe its manufacturing process. The main types of wool used include East Indian, German or mid-European, New Zealand cross-breds, and Australian, Cape, and Buenos Aires merinos. Vegetable fibers and silk are also used, but wool is essential to support them; for example, a good felting wool can carry its own weight in cotton, hemp, etc. Hairs and furs are primarily used in hat felts. The average loss of wool from its raw state to the final felt is 40 to 50%. The manufacturing steps include mixing, willowing, teasing, scribbling, and carding. It's interesting to note that felting wools aren’t usually scoured. This isn’t necessarily because they’re clean—some are dirty—but because the scouring process can interfere with their felting properties. However, some wools must be scoured to ensure they work properly in the machines. From the carding process, the wool is delivered as a thin film, 50 to 60 inches wide, onto an endless sheet that is 30 to 60 yards long, where the felt is built up layer by layer until the desired thickness—perhaps 4 inches—is achieved. To strengthen this somewhat delicate sheet of felt, it undergoes an ironing process using steam-heated rollers that have a rotating and vibrating motion, or a large vibrating flat-iron that automatically feeds, holds, and rolls the cloth while the next length is drawn beneath it. Soaping, fulling (or "felting"), and usual finishing operations—like dyeing and printing if needed—follow next, resulting in a strong, durable fabric. However, it's worth noting that the strength is significantly greater lengthwise than crosswise due to the alignment of the fibers during the scribbling and carding processes. True felting or contraction happens in the fulling stage, where the fabric is continuously "hammered" with fulling agents such as soap and fuller’s earth for an extended period. The reduction in width, length, and thickness is quite remarkable and can be controlled within certain limits. The main types of ordinary fibre felts are linings for coats, furniture, and rubber shoes; saddlery; seats for carriages and pews; carpets, surrounding and under-felts for carpets; mantles, dresses, and tablecloths; felt slippers; mattress felts; chest protectors, and shoulder pads; steam engine packing, car and anti-vibration felts; shipbuilding felts; drawing roller felts, and gun wad felts.

Hat felts may be divided into two classes, viz. those made from wool and fur respectively. Wool “bodies” used for the lower quality hats are manufactured in the same way as ordinary felts, but the “shape” upon which the film issuing from the carder is built up takes the form of a double cone and thus approximates to the shape of the two hats ultimately formed. The shape is further controlled and developed in the fulling or felting operation. In the fur hat felts an air-blast is employed to carry the finely separated fibres on to the shape required, upon which shape the fibres are held in position by suction until the required thickness is obtained. The structure is then further developed and “stiffened,” i.e. impregnated with certain stiffening agents according to requirements. If desirable the exterior fibres blown on to any shape may be of a different material from the body fabric.

Hat felts can be divided into two categories: those made from wool and those made from fur. Wool “bodies” used for lower-quality hats are produced in the same way as regular felts, but the “shape” that the fibers from the carder form is a double cone, which closely resembles the shape of the two hats that will be created. This shape is further adjusted and refined during the fulling or felting process. In fur hat felts, an air blast is used to carry the finely separated fibers onto the desired shape, where they are held in place by suction until the desired thickness is achieved. The structure is then enhanced and “stiffened,” i.e., treated with specific stiffening agents as needed. If desired, the outer fibers that are applied to any shape can be made from a different material than the main fabric.

Impregnated felts are simply felts made in the ordinary way but subsequently impregnated with certain agents which give a special quality to the fabric. Messrs McNeill & Co., of London, were the originators of “asphalted-felt” for roofing and, among other styles, place on the market sheathing felt, inodorous felt, dry hair felt, foundation felt, &c., &c. A later development, however, is the impregnated iron-felt manufactured by Messrs Mitchells, Ashworth, Stansfield & Co., of Waterfoot, near Manchester, who not only produce from 70 to 80% of the ordinary felts manufactured in Great Britain, but also place on the market several specialties of which this “iron-felt” is largely used in the construction of bridges, &c., and as a substitute for rubber, it being apparently more durable.

Impregnated felts are just regular felts that are made in the usual way but then treated with specific agents that enhance the fabric's qualities. McNeill & Co. from London were the first to create “asphalted-felt” for roofing, and they offer a variety of products including sheathing felt, odorless felt, dry hair felt, foundation felt, and more. A newer innovation is the impregnated iron-felt made by Mitchells, Ashworth, Stansfield & Co. from Waterfoot, near Manchester. They produce 70 to 80% of the regular felts made in Great Britain and offer several specialized products, with this “iron-felt” being widely used in bridge construction and as a rubber alternative, as it seems to be more durable.

(A. F. B.)

FELTHAM, or Felltham, OWEN (d. 1668), English moralist, was the son of Thomas Feltham or Felltham of Mutford in Suffolk. The date of his birth is given variously as 1602 and 1609. He is famous chiefly as the author of a volume entitled Resolves, Divine, Moral and Political, containing one hundred short and pithy essays. To later issues of the Resolves Feltham appended Lusoria, a collection of forty poems. Hardly anything is known of his life except that T. Randolph, the adopted “son” of Ben Jonson, addressed a poem of compliment to him, and became his friend, and that Feltham attacked Ben Jonson in an ode shortly before the aged poet’s death, but contributed a flattering elegy to the Jonsonus Virbius in 1638. Early in life Feltham visited Flanders, and published observations in 1652 under the title of A Brief Character of the Low Countries. He was a strict high-churchman and a royalist; he even described Charles I. as “Christ the Second.” Hallam stigmatized Feltham as one of our worst writers. He has not, indeed, the elegance of Bacon, whom he emulated, and he is often obscure and affected; but his copious imagery and genuine penetration give his reflections a certain charm. To the middle classes of the 17th century he seemed a heaven-sent philosopher and guide, and was only less popular than Francis Quarles the poet.

FELTHAM, or Felltham, OWEN (d. 1668), an English moralist, was the son of Thomas Feltham or Felltham from Mutford in Suffolk. His birth year is noted as either 1602 or 1609. He is primarily known as the author of a book titled Resolves, Divine, Moral and Political, which includes one hundred concise and impactful essays. In later editions of the Resolves, Feltham added Lusoria, a collection of forty poems. Very little is known about his life, except that T. Randolph, the adopted “son” of Ben Jonson, wrote a complimentary poem to him and became his friend. Feltham also criticized Ben Jonson in an ode shortly before the famous poet's death but did contribute a flattering elegy to the Jonsonus Virbius in 1638. Early in his life, Feltham traveled to Flanders and published observations in 1652 under the title A Brief Character of the Low Countries. He was a devoted high-churchman and a royalist, even referring to Charles I as “Christ the Second.” Hallam criticized Feltham as one of our least impressive writers. While he doesn't possess the elegance of Bacon, whom he admired, and is often unclear and pretentious, his rich imagery and genuine insight give his reflections a unique appeal. To the middle classes of the 17th century, he seemed like a philosopher and guide sent from heaven, and he was only slightly less popular than the poet Francis Quarles.

Eleven editions of the Resolves appeared before 1700. Later. editions by James Cumming (London, 1806; much garbled; has account of Feltham’s life and writings), and O. Smeaton in “Temple Classics” series (London, 1904).

Eleven editions of the Resolves were published before 1700. Later editions were released by James Cumming (London, 1806; heavily edited; includes an account of Feltham’s life and writings) and O. Smeaton in the “Temple Classics” series (London, 1904).


FELTON, CORNELIUS CONWAY (1807-1862), American classical scholar, was born on the 6th of November 1807, in West Newbury, Massachusetts. He graduated at Harvard College in 1827, having taught school in the winter vacations of his sophomore and junior years. After teaching in the Livingstone high school of Geneseo, New York, for two years, he became tutor at Harvard in 1829, university professor of Greek in 1832, and Eliot professor of Greek literature in 1834. In 1860 he succeeded James Walker as president of Harvard, which position he held until his death, at Chester, Pennsylvania, on the 26th of February 1862. Dr Felton edited many classical texts. His annotations on Wolf’s text of the Iliad (1833) are especially valuable. Greece, Ancient and Modern (2 vols., 1867), forty-nine lectures before the Lowell Institute, is scholarly, able and suggestive of the author’s personality. Among his miscellaneous publications are the American edition of Sir William Smith’s History of Greece (1855); translations of Menzel’s German Literature (1840), of Munk’s Metres of the Greeks and Romans (1844), and of Guyot’s Earth and Man (1849); and Familiar Letters from Europe (1865).

FELTON, CORNELIUS CONWAY (1807-1862), American classical scholar, was born on November 6, 1807, in West Newbury, Massachusetts. He graduated from Harvard College in 1827, having taught school during the winter breaks of his sophomore and junior years. After teaching at the Livingstone High School in Geneseo, New York, for two years, he became a tutor at Harvard in 1829, a university professor of Greek in 1832, and Eliot professor of Greek literature in 1834. In 1860, he succeeded James Walker as president of Harvard, a position he held until he died in Chester, Pennsylvania, on February 26, 1862. Dr. Felton edited many classical texts. His notes on Wolf’s edition of the Iliad (1833) are especially valuable. Greece, Ancient and Modern (2 vols., 1867), a collection of forty-nine lectures given at the Lowell Institute, is scholarly, insightful, and reflective of the author’s character. Among his other publications are the American edition of Sir William Smith’s History of Greece (1855); translations of Menzel’s German Literature (1840), Munk’s Metres of the Greeks and Romans (1844), and Guyot’s Earth and Man (1849); and Familiar Letters from Europe (1865).


FELTON, JOHN (c. 1595-1628), assassin of the 1st duke of Buckingham, was a member of an old Suffolk family established at Playford. The date of his birth and the name of his father are unknown, but his mother was Eleanor, daughter of William Wright, mayor of Durham. He entered the army, and served as lieutenant in the expedition to Cadiz commanded by Sir Edward Cecil in 1625. His career seems to have been ill-starred and unfortunate from the beginning. His left hand was early disabled by a wound, and a morose temper rendered him unpopular and prevented his advancement. Every application made to Buckingham for his promotion was refused, on account of an enmity, according to Sir Simonds D’Ewes, which existed between Felton and Sir Henry Hungate, a favourite of Buckingham. To his personal application that he could not live without a captaincy Buckingham replied harshly “that he might hang.” Whether he 247 took part in the expedition to Rhé in 1627 is uncertain, but there is no doubt that he continued to be refused promotion, and that even his scanty pay earned during the Cadiz adventure was not received. Exasperated by his ill-treatment, his discontent sharpened by poverty, and his hatred of Buckingham intensified by a study of the Commons “Remonstrances” of the previous June, and by a work published by Eglesham, the physician of James I., in which Buckingham was accused of poisoning the king, Felton determined to effect his assassination. He bought a tenpenny knife on Tower Hill, and on his way through Fleet Street he left his name in a church to be prayed for as “a man much discontented in mind.” He arrived at Portsmouth at 9 o’clock in the morning of the 23rd of August 1628, and immediately proceeded to No. 10 High Street, where Buckingham was lodged. Here mingling with the crowd of applicants and unnoticed he stabbed the duke, who immediately fell dead. Though escape would have been easy he confessed the deed and was seized and conveyed to the Tower, his journey thither, such was the unpopularity of the duke, being accompanied by cries of “God bless thee” from the people. Charles and Laud desired he should be racked, but the illegal torture was prevented by the judges. He was tried before the king’s bench on the 27th of November, pleaded guilty, and was hanged the next day, his body being exposed in chains subsequently at Portsmouth.

FELTON, JOHN (c. 1595-1628), the assassin of the 1st duke of Buckingham, came from an old Suffolk family based in Playford. His birth date and father's name are unknown, but his mother was Eleanor, the daughter of William Wright, the mayor of Durham. He joined the army and served as a lieutenant in the expedition to Cadiz led by Sir Edward Cecil in 1625. His career appeared to be doomed from the start. A wound he received early on left his left hand injured, and his gloomy disposition made him unpopular and held back his advancement. Every request he made to Buckingham for a promotion was denied, due to a feud, according to Sir Simonds D’Ewes, between Felton and Sir Henry Hungate, a favorite of Buckingham's. When he personally told Buckingham he couldn't survive without a captaincy, Buckingham harshly replied that he might as well hang. Whether he participated in the expedition to Rhé in 1627 is unclear, but it's certain that he continued to be denied promotions, and even his meager pay earned from the Cadiz venture was not paid. Frustrated by his poor treatment, deepened by poverty, and fueled by hatred for Buckingham after studying the Commons “Remonstrances” from the previous June and a publication by Eglesham, James I's physician, which accused Buckingham of poisoning the king, Felton decided to carry out his assassination. He bought a tenpenny knife on Tower Hill, and on his way through Fleet Street, he left his name in a church to be prayed for as “a man much discontented in mind.” He arrived in Portsmouth at 9 a.m. on August 23, 1628, and immediately went to No. 10 High Street, where Buckingham was staying. Blending in with the crowd of applicants, he unnoticed stabbed the duke, who fell dead instantly. Though he could have easily escaped, he confessed to the act and was taken to the Tower, where the journey was met with cries of “God bless thee” from the crowd, reflecting the duke's unpopularity. Charles and Laud wanted him to be tortured, but the judges stopped the illegal act. He was tried before the king’s bench on November 27, pleaded guilty, and was hanged the next day, with his body later displayed in chains at Portsmouth.


FELTRE, MORTO DA, Italian painter of the Venetian school, who worked at the close of the 15th century and beginning of the 16th. His real name appears to have been Pietro Luzzo; he is also known by the name Zarato or Zarotto, either from the place of his death or because his father, a surgeon, was in Zara during the son’s childhood: whether he was termed Morto (dead) from his joyless temperament is a disputed point. He may probably have studied painting first in Venice, but under what master is uncertain. At an early age he went to Rome, and investigated the ancient, especially the subterranean remains, and thence to Pozzuoli, where he painted from the decorations of antique crypts or “grotte.” The style of fanciful arabesque which he formed for himself from these studies gained the name of “grottesche,” whence comes the term “grotesque”; not, indeed, that Morto was the first painter of arabesque in the Italian Renaissance, for art of this kind had, apart from his influence, been fully developed, both in painting and in sculpture, towards 1480, but he may have powerfully aided its diffusion southwards. His works were received with much favour in Rome. He afterwards went to Florence, and painted some fine grotesques in the Palazzo Pubblico. Returning to Venice towards 1505, he assisted Giorgione in painting the Fondaco dei Tedeschi, and seems to have remained with him till 1511. If we may trust Ridolfi, Morto eloped with the mistress of Giorgione, whose grief at this transaction brought him to the grave; the allegation, however, is hardly reconcilable with other accounts. It may have been in 1515 that Morto returned to his native Feltre, then in a very ruinous condition from the ravages of war in 1509. There he executed various works, including some frescoes, still partly extant, and considered to be almost worthy of the hand of Raphael, in the loggia beside San Stefano. Towards the age of forty-five, Morto, unquiet and dissatisfied, abandoned painting and took to soldiering in the service of the Venetian republic. He was made captain of a troop of two hundred men; and fighting valorously, he is said to have died at Zara in Dalmatia, in 1519. This story, and especially the date of it, are questionable: there is some reason to think that Morto was painting as late as 1522. One of his pictures is in the Berlin museum, an allegorical subject of “Peace and War.” Andrea Feltrini was his pupil and assistant as a decorative painter.

FELTRE, MORTO DA, An Italian painter from the Venetian school who worked at the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th. His real name seems to have been Pietro Luzzo; he is also known as Zarato or Zarotto, possibly because of where he died or because his father, a surgeon, was in Zara during his childhood. There's some debate about whether he was called Morto (dead) because of his gloomy personality. He likely started studying painting in Venice, but it's unclear under which master. At a young age, he moved to Rome and explored ancient sites, particularly underground ones, and then went to Pozzuoli, where he painted decorations in ancient crypts or “grotte.” The whimsical arabesque style he developed from these studies was known as “grottesche,” which is where we get the term “grotesque.” Although Morto wasn't the first to paint arabesques during the Italian Renaissance—this style had already flourished by around 1480 in both painting and sculpture—he may have played a significant role in spreading it southward. His works were well-received in Rome. He later moved to Florence and painted stunning grotesques in the Palazzo Pubblico. After returning to Venice around 1505, he assisted Giorgione in painting the Fondaco dei Tedeschi and seemed to stay with him until 1511. According to Ridolfi, Morto ran away with Giorgione's mistress, which allegedly caused Giorgione's death from grief; however, this claim conflicts with other accounts. Morto might have returned to his hometown of Feltre in 1515, which was in ruins due to war in 1509. There, he completed various works, including frescoes still partially intact, considered almost worthy of Raphael, in the loggia beside San Stefano. At around forty-five, feeling restless and unhappy, Morto left painting to become a soldier for the Venetian Republic. He was made captain of a troop of two hundred men and, after fighting bravely, is said to have died in Zara, Dalmatia, in 1519. This story, particularly the date, is questionable; there's reason to believe Morto was still painting as late as 1522. One of his paintings, an allegorical piece called “Peace and War,” is in the Berlin museum. Andrea Feltrini was his pupil and assistant in decorative painting.


FELTRE (anc. Feltria), a town and episcopal see of Venetia, Italy, in the province of Belluno, 20 m. W.S.W. of it by rail, situated on an isolated hill, 885 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 5468 (town), 15,243 (commune). The cathedral has a fine polygonal apse of the 16th century. The Palazzo del Consiglio, now a theatre, is attributed to Palladio. At one end of the chief square of the town, the Piazza Maggiore, is the cistern by which the town is supplied with water, and a large fountain. There are some remains of the medieval castle. The ancient Feltria, which lay on the road (Via Claudia) from Opitergium to Tridentum, does not seem to have been a place of any importance under the Romans. Vittorino dei Rambaldoni da Feltre (1378-1446) was a famous educator and philosopher of his time.

FELTRE (formerly Feltria), a town and episcopal see in Venetia, Italy, located in the province of Belluno, 20 miles W.S.W. by train, sits on an isolated hill, 885 feet above sea level. Population (1901) was 5,468 (town), 15,243 (commune). The cathedral features a beautiful polygonal apse from the 16th century. The Palazzo del Consiglio, which is now a theater, is believed to be designed by Palladio. At one end of the main square, the Piazza Maggiore, is the cistern that provides the town with water, along with a large fountain. There are several remains of the medieval castle. The ancient Feltria, located on the road (Via Claudia) from Opitergium to Tridentum, doesn't seem to have been very significant during Roman times. Vittorino dei Rambaldoni da Feltre (1378-1446) was a renowned educator and philosopher of his era.


FELUCCA (an Italian word; in forms like the Span. faluca, Fr. felouque, it appears in other languages; it is probably of Arabic origin, cf. fulk, a ship, and falaka, to be round; the modern Arabic form is falūkah), a type of vessel used in the Mediterranean for coasters or fishing-boats. It is a long, low and narrow undecked vessel, built for speed, and propelled by oars or sails. The sails are lateen-shaped and carried on one or two masts placed far forward (see Boat).

FELUCCA (an Italian word; in forms like the Spanish faluca, French felouque, it appears in other languages; it probably has Arabic roots, related to fulk, meaning ship, and falaka, meaning to be round; the modern Arabic version is falūkah), is a type of boat used in the Mediterranean for coastal transport or fishing. It is a long, low, and narrow vessel without a deck, designed for speed, and powered by oars or sails. The sails are shaped like lateen sails and are set on one or two masts placed towards the front (see Boat).


FEMALE, the correlative of “male,” the sex which performs the function of conceiving and bearing as opposed to the begetting of young. The word in Middle English is femelle, adopted from the French from the Lat. femella, which is a diminutive, and in classical Latin used strictly as such, of femina, a woman. The present termination in English is due to a connexion in ideas with “male.” In various mechanical devices, where two corresponding parts work within the other, the receiving part is often known as the “female,” as for example in the “male” and “female screw.” The O. Fr. feme, modern femme, occurs in legal phraseology in feme covert, a married woman, i.e. one protected or covered by a husband, and in feme sole, one not so protected, a widow or spinster (see Women and Husband and Wife).

FEMALE, the counterpart of “male,” refers to the sex that has the ability to conceive and bear children, as opposed to the act of producing them. The term in Middle English is femelle, borrowed from French, which comes from the Latin femella, a diminutive form, and in classic Latin, it strictly refers to femina, a woman. The current ending in English comes from a connection in meaning with “male.” In various mechanical devices, where two corresponding parts fit into each other, the part that receives is often called the “female,” for instance, in “male” and “female screw.” The Old French feme, modern femme, appears in legal terms as feme covert, meaning a married woman, that is, someone protected or covered by a husband, and in feme sole, referring to one who is not protected, like a widow or spinster (see Women and Husband and Wife).


FEMERELL, properly Fumerell (from O. Fr. fumeraille, Lat. fumus, smoke), the old English term given to the lantern in the ridge of a hall roof for the purpose of letting out the smoke of the fire kindled on a central hearth.

FEMERELL, correctly Fumerell (from Old French fumeraille, Latin fumus, smoke), is the old English term for the lantern positioned at the peak of a hall roof to allow smoke from the fire burning in a central hearth to escape.


FENCING. If by “fencing”—the art of fence, i.e. of defence or offence—were meant generally the dexterous use of the sword, the subject would be wide indeed; as wide, in fact, as the history of the sword (q.v.) itself. But, in its modern acceptation, the meaning of the word has become considerably restricted. The scope of investigation must therefore be confined to one kind of swordsmanship only: to that which depends on the regulated, artificial conditions of “single combat.” It is indeed this play, hemmed in by many restrictions, which we have come to mean more specially by “fencing.” It differs, of course, in many respects, from what may be called the art of fighting in the light of nature. But as its restrictions are among the very elements which work to the perfection of the play, it is undoubtedly in the history of swordsmanship as applied to duelling (see Duel) that we shall trace the higher development of the art.

Fencing. When we say “fencing” — the art of fighting, i.e. both defense and attack — we’re referring to the skilled use of a sword, which could encompass a vast range of topics; in fact, it would be as broad as the entire history of the sword (q.v.). However, in modern terms, the definition has become much narrower. Therefore, we need to focus our exploration on just one type of sword fighting: that which is based on the controlled, structured conditions of “single combat.” It is this form of fighting, constrained by many rules, that we specifically refer to as “fencing.” Naturally, it differs in several ways from what could be called the art of fighting in a more natural context. Yet, since these restrictions are a key part of refining the practice, it is clearly in the history of swordplay as it relates to dueling (see Duel) that we will find the most advanced development of the art.

It may be said that the history of fencing, therefore, would be tantamount to the history of private duelling. Now, this is an ethical subject; one, again, which would carry the investigation too far; and it need not be taken up farther back than the middle of the 16th century, when, on the disuse of the medieval wager of battle, the practice of private duelling began to take an assured footing in a warlike society. It is curious to mark that the first cultivation of refined cunning in fence dates from that period, which corresponds chronologically with the general disuse of armour, both in battle and in more private encounters. It is still more curious to note that, in order to fit himself to meet what was an illegal but aristocratic obligation, the gallant of those days had to appeal to a class of men hitherto little considered: to those plebeian adepts, in fact, who for generations had cultivated skill in the use of hand weapons, on foot and without armour. Thus it came to pass that the earliest masters of fence in all countries, namely, the masters of the art of conducting skilfully what was essentially considered as an honourable encounter, were almost invariably to be found among a somewhat dishonoured gentry—gladiators, free companions, professional champions, more or less openly recognized, or bravoes of the most uncompromising character.

It can be said that the history of fencing is essentially the history of private dueling. This is an ethical topic; one that would lead the discussion too far, and we need not delve back any further than the mid-16th century, when, with the decline of the medieval wager of battle, the practice of private dueling began to establish itself in a martial society. It’s interesting to note that the first development of refined skill in fencing dates from this time, which aligns chronologically with the general abandonment of armor, both in battles and in more personal confrontations. It’s even more intriguing to see that, in order to prepare for what was an illegal but noble obligation, the gentlemen of that era had to turn to a group of individuals who had previously received little attention: those common experts, in fact, who had honed their skills with hand weapons for generations, on foot and unarmored. Consequently, the earliest masters of fencing in all countries — specifically, those who excelled at conducting what was fundamentally considered an honorable encounter — were almost always found among a somewhat disreputable gentry: gladiators, free companions, professional champions, openly acknowledged, or hardened bravoes.

In Germany, which may be considered the cradle of systematic swordsmanship, these teachers of the sword had, as early as the 15th century, formed themselves into gilds; among which the best known were the Marxbrüder, or the Associates of St Marcus 248 of Löwenberg, who had their headquarters at Frankfort, and branches in all the more important towns. Similarly, in Spain and in northern Italy, professional swordsmen were at various times allowed to form themselves into recognized or at least tolerated associations.

In Germany, often seen as the birthplace of organized sword fighting, these sword instructors had, by the 15th century, formed themselves into guilds. The most notable among them were the Marxbrüder, or the Associates of St. Marcus of Löwenberg, who had their main base in Frankfurt and branches in all the major cities. Likewise, in Spain and northern Italy, professional swordsmen were sometimes permitted to create recognized or at least accepted groups. 248

In England “swordmen” had been looked upon with especial disfavour by the powers that were, until Henry VIII., who was a great lover of all manly exercises, found it likewise advisable to turn their obnoxious existence to a disciplined and profitable channel by regularizing their position. The most redoubtable masters were allowed to form themselves into a company, with powers to increase their numbers with suitable and duly tried men, in imitation of the world-famed German Marxbrüder or Marcusbrüder. Under these conditions they were granted the lucrative monopoly of teaching the art of fight in England. The enormous privileges that the king, in course of time, conferred on his Corporation of Masters of Defence very soon enabled it to put down or absorb all the more ferocious of independent swashbucklers, and thereby to impart to the profession a moderate degree of respectability under the coat of arms granted by the royal heralds: gules a sword pendant argent.

In England, "swordmen" were viewed with particular disfavor by those in power until Henry VIII, who loved all kinds of physical activities, decided it was wise to channel their troublesome existence into a disciplined and profitable direction by officially recognizing their role. The most formidable masters were permitted to organize themselves into a company, which could expand its ranks with qualified and properly vetted individuals, similar to the world-renowned German Marxbrüder or Marcusbrüder. Under these circumstances, they were granted the exclusive right to teach the art of fighting in England. The significant privileges that the king eventually bestowed upon his Corporation of Masters of Defence quickly allowed it to eliminate or incorporate many of the more aggressive independent swordsmen, thus bringing a level of respectability to the profession, as indicated by the coat of arms granted by the royal heralds: gules a sword pendant argent.

It was in the midst of such corporations and in the fighting dens of independent swordsmen, therefore, that sprouted the first buds of systematic swordsmanship. Among the professional fencers, curiously and happily for the historian, there seem to have been a few with a literary turn of mind.

It was in the middle of these organizations and in the battlegrounds of freelance fighters that the first signs of organized swordsmanship began to emerge. Among the professional fencers, interestingly and fortunately for the historian, there appeared to be a few who had a flair for writing.

The oldest manuscripts of fence belong to Italy and Germany. They deal with the methods of carrying out single combats on foot, with any of the most generally accepted weapons—long sword and short sword, dagger and every kind of knives, mace, long and short staff, axes, &c.,—and with the tricks of wrestling recommendable therefor. Among the most comprehensive in their scope may be mentioned Il Fior di battaglia di Maestro Fiore dei Liberi da Premariaco; a work which, although illustrated with truly Italian taste and grace, shows, as far as its fighting style is concerned, unmistakable marks of German influence. The text of the MS. bears the date 1410, but the writer was known to be flourishing as a master of fence as early as 1383. A reprint of this invaluable codex has been published, under the care of Francesco Donati, by the Istituto Italiano d’ Arti Grafiche. Another is the better known Thalhofer’s Fecht Buch, gerichtliche und andere Zweykämpfe darstellend (1467), a reprint of which, with its 268 plates in facsimile, was brought out by Gustave Hergsell in Prague. The oldest printed book is likewise German: Ergründung der ritterlicher Kunst der Fechterei, von Andreas Paurnfeindt, Freifechter zu Wien (1516). This work, which is exceedingly rare, is a very complete exponent of the ways of wielding long and short blades to the utmost of their lethal capacity. It was reproduced (under various titles, very confusing to the bibliographer) in Frankfort, Augsburg, Strassburg, and finally done into French under the name of La Noble science des joueurs d’épée, published in Paris and Antwerp, 1535.

The oldest manuscripts on fencing come from Italy and Germany. They cover the methods for conducting single combats on foot, using various commonly accepted weapons like the longsword, shortsword, dagger, and different types of knives, as well as maces, long and short staffs, axes, etc., along with wrestling techniques suitable for those fights. One of the most comprehensive works is Il Fior di battaglia di Maestro Fiore dei Liberi da Premariaco; this work, while illustrated with genuine Italian style and elegance, clearly shows the influence of German techniques in its fighting style. The manuscript dates back to 1410, but the author was recognized as a fencing master as early as 1383. A reprint of this valuable manuscript has been published by Francesco Donati through the Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche. Another well-known work is Thalhofer’s Fecht Buch, gerichtliche und andere Zweykämpfe darstellend (1467), which was reprinted by Gustave Hergsell in Prague, complete with 268 facsimile plates. The oldest printed book is also German: Ergründung der ritterlicher Kunst der Fechterei, von Andreas Paurnfeindt, Freifechter zu Wien (1516). This rare book provides a thorough explanation of how to use long and short blades to their fullest deadly potential. It was reproduced (under various titles that can be confusing for bibliographers) in Frankfurt, Augsburg, Strassburg, and eventually translated into French as La Noble science des joueurs d’épée, published in Paris and Antwerp in 1535.

Following the Germans, the oldest printed books of fence are Italian. The first French book on the sword is known to be a translation from the German. Curiously enough, the second, and one of the most notable, Le Traité de l’épée seule, mère de toutes armes, of the Sieur de St Didier, published in Paris in 1573, can be shown to be a transparent adaptation of two Italian treatises, the Trattato di scienza d’ arme of Camillo Agrippa, and Grassi’s Ragione di adoperar sicuramente l’arme, &c.

Following the Germans, the oldest printed books on fencing are Italian. The first French book about the sword is a known translation from German. Interestingly, the second book, and one of the most notable, Le Traité de l’épée seule, mère de toutes armes, by Sieur de St Didier, published in Paris in 1573, can be clearly seen as a direct adaptation of two Italian treatises, Camillo Agrippa's Trattato di scienza d’ arme and Grassi's Ragione di adoperar sicuramente l’arme, among others.

It is about this time, namely, the latter half of the 16th century, that swordsmanship pure and simple may be said to find its origin; for then a great change is perceptible in the nature and tendency of fence books: they dissociate themselves from indecorous wrestling tricks, and approximate more and more to the consideration of what we understand by swordsmanship. The older works expounded the art of fighting generally; taught the reader a number of valuable, if not “gentlemanlike,” dodges for overcoming an adversary at all manner of weapons: now the lucubrations of fence-masters deal almost exclusively with the walking sword, that is, the duelling weapon—with the rapier in fact, both with and without its lieutenant, the dagger.

It is around this time, specifically the latter half of the 16th century, that pure swordsmanship can be said to have originated; a significant change becomes noticeable in the nature and focus of fencing books: they separate themselves from inappropriate wrestling tricks and increasingly focus on what we know as swordsmanship. The earlier works discussed the art of fighting in general; they taught readers various valuable, if not “gentlemanly,” tactics for defeating an opponent with all kinds of weapons: now, the writings of fencing masters focus almost entirely on the walking sword, meaning the dueling weapon—with the rapier, in fact, both with and without its companion, the dagger.

It must be remembered that at this period private duelling and cavalier quarrelsomeness amounted to a perfect mania. The fencing master was no longer merely a teacher of efficacious, if rascally, tricks; he was becoming a model of gallant deportment; in many cases he was even a recognized arbiter on matters of honour. He was often a gentleman himself: at all events he posed as such.

It should be noted that during this time, private dueling and reckless fighting had reached an absolute obsession. The fencing instructor was no longer just a teacher of effective, albeit questionable, techniques; he was evolving into a standard of chivalrous behavior; in many instances, he was even seen as an authority on matters of honor. He was often a gentleman himself; in any case, he presented himself as one.

Although the Germans were always redoubtable adepts at the rougher games of swordsmanship, it is in Italy that is to be found development of that nimbler, more regulated, more cunning, better controlled, kind of play which we have learned to associate with the term “fencing.” It was from Italy that the art of fence first spread over Europe: not from Spain, as it has been asserted by many writers. The Italians—if we take their early books as evidence, and the fact that their phraseology was adopted by all Europe—were the first to perceive (as soon as the problem of armour-breaking ceased to be the most important one in fight) the superior efficiency of the point. They accordingly reduced the breadth of their sword, modified the hilt portion thereof to admit of readier thrust action, and relegated the cut to quite a secondary position in their system. With this lighter weapon they devised in course of time that brilliant cunning play known as rapier fence.

Although the Germans were always formidable experts in the rougher styles of swordplay, it is in Italy that we see the development of the more agile, structured, clever, and better-controlled type of combat we now associate with the term “fencing.” It was from Italy that the art of fencing first spread across Europe, not from Spain, as many writers have claimed. The Italians—if we consider their early books as evidence, along with the fact that their terminology was adopted throughout Europe—were the first to recognize that once the issue of breaking armor was no longer the main focus of combat, the point became much more effective. They therefore narrowed the blade of their swords, adjusted the hilt for easier thrusting, and made cutting a secondary aspect of their technique. With this lighter weapon, they eventually created the sophisticated and skillful style known as rapier fencing.

The rapier was ultimately adopted everywhere by men of courtly habit; but, in England at least, it was not accepted without murmur and vituperation from the older fighting class of swordsmen, especially from the members and admirers of the English Corporation of Defence Masters. As a body Englishmen were as conservative then as they are now. They knew the value of what they had as their own, and distrusted innovations, especially from foreign quarters. The old sword and the buckler were reckoned as your true English weapons: they always went together—in fact sword and buckler play in the 16th century was evidently held to be as national a game as boxing came to be in a later age. Many are the allusions in contemporary dramatic literature to this characteristic national distrust of continental innovations. There is the well-known passage in Porter’s play, The Two Angry Women of Abingdon, for instance: “Sword and buckler fight,” says a sturdy Briton (in much the same tone of disgust as a British lover of fisticuffs might now assume when talking of a French “Mounseer’s” foil play), “begins to grow out of use. I am sorry for it. I shall never see good manhood again. If it be once gone, this poking fight with rapier and dagger will come up. Then the tall man (that is, a courageous man and a good sword-and-buckler man) will be spitted like a cat or a rabbit!” The long-sword, that is, the two-hander, was also an essentially national weapon. It was a right-down pleasing and sturdy implement, recalling in good steel the vernacular quarter-staff of old. It required thews and sinews, and, incidentally, much beef and ale. The long-sword man looked perhaps with even greater disfavour than the smaller swashbuckler upon the new-fangled “bird-spit.” “Tut, man,” says Justice Shallow, typical laudator of the good bygone days, on hearing of the ridiculous Frenchman’s skill with his rapier, “I could have told you more. In these times you stand on distance, your passes, stoccadoes, and I know not what; ’tis the heart, Master Page; ’tis here, ’tis here. I have seen the time, with my long-sword, I would have made you four tall fellows skip like rats.”

The rapier eventually became popular among fashionable men everywhere; however, in England, it faced resistance and criticism from the older generation of swordsmen, particularly those who were part of the English Corporation of Defence Masters. Generally, Englishmen were as traditional then as they are now. They recognized the worth of their own methods and were suspicious of new ideas, especially those from abroad. The traditional sword and buckler were regarded as truly English weapons: they were always used together—in fact, sword and buckler fighting in the 16th century was considered just as much a national pastime as boxing would be in a later time. There are many references in contemporary plays that highlight this characteristic national skepticism towards foreign innovations. For example, in Porter’s play, The Two Angry Women of Abingdon, a sturdy Briton laments, “Sword and buckler fight,” much like a British boxing fan today might express disdain at a Frenchman’s fencing techniques, “begins to grow out of use. I am sorry for it. I shall never see good manhood again. If it once goes away, this poking fight with rapier and dagger will take over. Then the tall man (meaning a brave man and a good sword-and-buckler fighter) will end up spitted like a cat or a rabbit!” The long-sword, or two-handed sword, was also a quintessentially national weapon. It was a truly formidable and solid tool, reminiscent of the sturdy quarter-staff of old. It required strength and stamina, and, unavoidably, a good diet of beef and ale. The long-sword fighter looked even more unfavorably than the smaller fencer upon the newfangled “bird-spit.” “Tut, man,” says Justice Shallow, a typical admirer of the good old days, upon hearing about the ridiculous Frenchman’s skill with his rapier, “I could have told you more. These days you stand at a distance, your passes, stoccadoes, and I know not what; it’s the heart, Master Page; it’s here, it’s here. I have seen the time when, with my long-sword, I would have made you four tall fellows skip like rats.”

Now, sword-and-buckler and long-sword play was no doubt a manly pursuit and a useful. But, as an every-day companion, the long-sword was incongruous to a fastidious cavalier; and, again, the buckler, indispensable adjunct to the broad swashing blade of home production, was hardly more suitable. In Elizabethan days it soon became obvious that the buckler was inadmissible as an item of gentlemanly attire. It was accordingly left to the body attendant; and the gallant took kindly to the fine rapier of Milanese or Toledan make. On the other hand, it is not difficult to understand the rapid popularity gained among the gentry by this nimble rapier, so much reviled by the older fighting men. The rapier, in fact, came in with the taste for “cavalíero” 249 style, and may be looked upon as its fit outward symbol already in the days of Queen Mary. In Elizabeth’s reign it was firmly established as your only gentlemanlike weapon.

Now, sword and buckler and long sword fighting were undeniably manly and useful activities. But, as a daily companion, the long sword was out of place for a particular kind of gentleman; similarly, the buckler, an essential partner to the broad, flashy sword of local craftsmanship, was hardly more appropriate. In Elizabethan times, it quickly became clear that the buckler was not acceptable as part of a gentleman's attire. So, it was left to the bodyguard; and the gentleman took a liking to the sleek rapier made in Milan or Toledo. On the other hand, it’s easy to see why this agile rapier became so popular among the gentry, even though older fighters looked down on it. The rapier actually arrived with the trend for "cavalíero" style and can be seen as its perfect outward symbol, even during Queen Mary's reign. By Elizabeth's time, it was firmly established as the weapon of choice for any true gentleman. 249

The rapier was decidedly a foreigner; yet it suited the Elizabethan age, for it was decorative as well as practical. Its play was picturesque, fantastic—almost euphuistic, one might say—in comparison with the matter-of-fact hanger of older days. Its phraseology had a quaint, rich, southern smack, which connoted outlandish experience and gave those conversant with its intricate distinctions that marvellous character, at once precious and ruffling, which was so highly appreciated by the cavalier youth of the time. The rapier in its heyday was an admirable weapon to look at, a delicious one to wield. And, besides, in proper hands, it was undoubtedly one that was most conclusive. It was, in short, as elegant and deadly as its predecessors were sturdy and brutal.

The rapier was definitely a foreign weapon, but it fit perfectly into the Elizabethan era, being both decorative and practical. Its movements were stylish and dramatic—almost poetic, you could say—compared to the straightforward swords of earlier times. Its terminology had a charming, rich, southern flair, which suggested exotic experiences and gave those familiar with its complex subtleties a remarkable quality that was both valuable and unpredictable, highly valued by the dashing young men of the period. In its prime, the rapier was a stunning weapon to behold and a pleasure to use. Moreover, in skilled hands, it was without a doubt the most effective. In short, it was as elegant and deadly as its predecessors were tough and harsh.

By the time that the most perfect, namely, the Italian, rapier fence came to be generally taught in England—that is, during the last third of Elizabeth’s reign—the theory of swordsmanship, as applied to a single combat, after having passed through many phases of imperfection, was already tolerably simple and practical. (The exact story of its evolution may be found in a work now included in Bohn’s Libraries, Schools and Masters of Fence.) What may be considered as one of the cardinal actions of regulated sword-play on foot, namely, the lunge, had already been discovered. Although a great many movements which, according to modern notions, would be considered not only unnecessary but actually pernicious, still formed part of the system, it may be doubted whether, considering the character of the weapon, anything very much better could be devised, even in our present state of knowledge.

By the time the most refined style of fencing, specifically the Italian rapier style, became commonly taught in England—during the last third of Elizabeth’s reign—the theory of sword fighting, especially for one-on-one duels, had evolved through various stages of imperfection and was fairly straightforward and practical. (You can find the full story of its development in a work now included in Bohn’s Libraries, Schools and Masters of Fence.) One of the key techniques of regulated foot swordplay, known as the lunge, had already been established. Although many movements that we would now view as unnecessary or even harmful were still part of the system, it’s questionable whether anything significantly better could have been developed, even with today’s knowledge, given the nature of the weapon.

For it must be remembered that the evolution of the forms of the sword and of the theories concerning its most efficient use are closely connected. It is, in fact, sometimes difficult to decide whether the change in the shape of the weapon was the result of a development of a theory; or whether new theories were elaborated to fit alterations in these shapes due to fashion or any other reason.

For we must remember that the evolution of sword designs and the theories about their most effective use are closely linked. In fact, it can sometimes be hard to determine whether the changes in the shape of the weapon came from a development in theory, or if new theories were created to match changes in these shapes due to trends or other reasons.

When systematic fence came over to England it was already much simplified (it should be noted that improvement in the art, from its earliest days down to the present time, seems always to have been in the direction of simplification); yet, for more than a century from the appearance of the first real treatise, simplification never reached that point which would render impossible a belief in the undoubted efficacy of those “secret thrusts,” of that “universal parry,” of those ineluctable passes, which every master professed to teach. These precious secrets remain long, among a certain shady class of swordsmen, an object of untiring study, carried on with much the same faith and zest as the quest of the alchemist for his powder of projection, or of the Merchant Adventurer for El Dorado. There can, of course, be no such thing as an insuperable pass, a secret thrust or parry; every attack can be parried, every parry can be deceived by suitable movements. Yet there was some justification for the belief in the existence of secrets of swordsmanship in days when, as a rule, lessons of fence were given in jealous privacy; constant practice at one particular pass, especially with the long rapier, which required a great deal of muscular strength, might render any peculiarly fierce, sudden and audacious stroke excessively dangerous to one who did not happen to have opposed that stroke before. Undoubtedly there was little in Elizabethan fencing-schools of what we understand in modern days by loose-play between the pupils; practice was almost invariably conducted between scholar and teacher in private; and thus the opportunities for watching or testing any particular fencer’s play were few. Such an opportunity would, as a rule, only occur on occasions of an earnest fight; and the possessor of a specially handy thrust (if it came off at all) would of course take good care that his opponent should not live to ponder over the secret. The secret, such as it was, remained. In this guise it was inevitable that an almost superstitious belief in “secret foynes,” in the botte secrète of certain practised duellists, should arise.

When systematic fencing came to England, it was already much simpler (it's important to note that the development of the art has always leaned toward simplification from its earliest days to now); however, for over a century after the first real guide was published, simplification never reached a point that made it impossible to believe in the undeniable effectiveness of those “secret thrusts,” the “universal parry,” and those inescapable moves that every master claimed to teach. These valuable secrets remained a constant focus of study among a certain shady group of swordsmen, pursued with the same dedication and enthusiasm as an alchemist's search for their projection powder or a Merchant Adventurer looking for El Dorado. Of course, there can't be such a thing as an unbeatable move, a secret thrust, or parry; every attack can be countered, and every defense can be circumvented with the right movements. Yet, there was some reason to believe in the existence of swordsmanship secrets back when lessons were typically taught in jealous secrecy; constant practice on a specific move, especially with the long rapier, which required a lot of strength, could make any particularly fierce, sudden, and daring strike extremely dangerous for someone who hadn’t faced that strike before. Undoubtedly, there was little in Elizabethan fencing schools resembling what we understand today as sparring among students; practice was almost always conducted privately between a student and teacher; thus, there were few chances to observe or test a particular fencer’s technique. Such a chance usually only arose during a serious match; and the holder of a especially effective thrust (if it worked at all) would certainly ensure that their opponent wouldn’t survive long enough to contemplate the secret. So the secret, as it was, remained. In this way, it was inevitable that an almost superstitious belief in “secret thrusts” and the botte secrète of certain skilled duelists would develop.

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that towards the end of the 16th century there were many free-lances in the field of arms who professed to teach, in exchange for much gold, strokes that were not to be parried. From one truculent personage, whom Brantôme mentions, Tappa the Milanese, you could learn how to cut (if it so took your fancy) both eyes out of your adversary’s face with a rinverso tondo, or circular “reverse of the point.” From Caizo, another Italian teacher, at one time much favoured by the French court, lessons were to be had in the special art of ham-stringing. Caizo’s botte secrète seems to have been nothing more nor less than a falso manco, that is, a left-handed drawing cut, at the inside of the knee. But, as practised and taught by him, it was infallible. This stroke has come down to us as le coup de Jarnac—a stroke, be it said, which, notwithstanding its bad name, was quite as fair as any in rapier fence. One Le Flamand, a French master in Paris, was reputed the inventor of a jerky time-thrust at the adversary’s brows, which was a certainty. This special foyne, which was merely an imbrocata at the head, has become legendary in the fencing world as la botte de Nevers. English fencers have their own legends about “the very butcher of a silk button,” and this brings us to the first writer on the rapier in England, Vincenzio Saviolo, the great expounder of that Italianated fence which was so obnoxious to the old masters, withal so much admired of Elizabethan courtiers; the man, in short, who—there seems to be much internal evidence to show it—was Shakespeare’s fencing master.

That said, there’s no doubt that by the end of the 16th century, there were many freelancers in the field of arms who claimed to teach, in exchange for a lot of money, techniques that couldn’t be blocked. From one tough character, whom Brantôme mentions, Tappa the Milanese, you could learn how to cut both of your opponent's eyes out with a rinverso tondo, or circular “reverse of the point.” From Caizo, another Italian instructor who was once favored by the French court, you could get lessons in the special art of hamstringing. Caizo’s botte secrète seems to have been nothing more than a falso manco, which is a left-handed drawing cut to the inside of the knee. But, as he practiced and taught it, it was foolproof. This technique has come down to us as le coup de Jarnac—a move, let it be noted, that, despite its bad reputation, was as fair as any in rapier fencing. A French master in Paris named Le Flamand was rumored to have invented a quick thrust aimed at the opponent’s forehead that was guaranteed to hit. This particular thrust, which was simply an imbrocata to the head, has become legendary in the fencing world as la botte de Nevers. English fencers have their own stories about “the very butcher of a silk button,” which brings us to the first writer on the rapier in England, Vincenzio Saviolo, the prominent promoter of that Italian-style fencing that was so disliked by the old masters yet so admired by Elizabethan courtiers; the man, in short, who—there seems to be much evidence indicating this—was Shakespeare’s fencing master.

Vincenzio was not the only foreign master of note established in London during the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign. One, Signor Rocco, had, we hear, a very gorgeously appointed academy in Warwick Lane, near St Paul’s, where he coined money rapidly at the expense of gulls and gallants alike. But this man came to grief ultimately in an encounter with the long-sword with an old-fashioned English master of defence. Another popular teacher was a certain “Geronimo”; but he also met with a melancholy and premature end by the hands of one Cheefe, “a tall man in his fight and natural English,” says George Silver, the champion of the Corporation of Masters of Defence. Saviolo, however, seems to have remained unconquered. In his work (Vincentio Saviolo, his practise, in two bookes, the first intreating of the use of the Rapier and Dagger, the second of Honor and honorable quarrels. London. Printed by John Wolfe, 1595) are expounded in a most typical manner the principles of rapier play.

Vincenzio wasn't the only notable foreign master in London during the later years of Elizabeth's reign. One, Signor Rocco, reportedly had a very lavish academy in Warwick Lane, near St Paul’s, where he made money quickly at the expense of fools and fashionable gentlemen alike. However, this man ultimately faced downfall in a duel with a traditional English fencing master. Another popular instructor was a certain “Geronimo,” but he also met a tragic and early end at the hands of one Cheefe, “a tall man in his fight and natural English,” according to George Silver, the champion of the Corporation of Masters of Defence. Saviolo, however, appears to have remained undefeated. In his work (Vincentio Saviolo, his practise, in two bookes, the first intreating of the use of the Rapier and Dagger, the second of Honor and honorable quarrels. London. Printed by John Wolfe, 1595), the principles of rapier play are explained in a very typical manner.

The fencing phraseology of Elizabethan times is highly picturesque, but with difficulty intelligible in the absence of practical demonstration. Without going into technical details it may be pointed out that the long Elizabethan rapier, however admirably balanced it might otherwise be, was still too heavy to admit of quick parries with the blade itself. Thrusts, as a rule, had to be avoided by body movements, by ducking, or by a vault aside (incartata), or beaten away with the left hand, the hand being protected with a gauntlet or armed with a dagger. In fact, one may say that the chief characteristic of Elizabethan sword-play was the concerted action of the left hand parrying while the right delivered the attack. Benvolio’s description of Tybalt’s fight is graphic:—

The way people talked about fencing in Elizabethan times is very colorful but hard to understand without seeing it in action. Without diving into technical specifics, it's worth noting that the long Elizabethan rapier, no matter how well-balanced, was still too heavy for quick blade parries. Typically, you had to avoid thrusts by moving your body, ducking, or vaulting to the side (incartata), or you could block them with your left hand, which would be protected by a glove or armed with a dagger. In fact, the main feature of Elizabethan swordsmanship was the coordinated effort of the left hand blocking while the right hand attacked. Benvolio's account of Tybalt's duel is vivid:—

“With piercing steel he tilts at bold Mercutio’s breast,

“With piercing steel he thrusts at bold Mercutio’s chest,

Who, all as hot, turns deadly point to point,

Who, all as hot, turns deadly point to point,

And with a martial scorn, with one hand beats

And with a fierce disdain, strikes with one hand

Cold death aside, and with the other

Cold death aside, and with the other

Sends it back to Tybalt, whose dexterity

Sends it back to Tybalt, whose skill

Retorts it....”

Retorts it...

Of these body movements, in Saviolo’s days, the most approved were: the incartata, just mentioned; the pass (the “passado,” in the ruffling Anglo-Italian jargon), that is, passing of one foot in front of the other whilst delivering the attack; the botta lunga, or lunge; and the caricado, which was a far-reaching combination of the two. Of systematic sword movements there were six: stocata, a thrust delivered with nails upwards; imbrocata, with nails down; punta-reversa, any thrust delivered from the left side of the body; mandritto, a cut from the right; rinverso, one from the left; stramazone, a right-down blow with the point of the sword.

Of these body movements, back in Saviolo’s time, the most popular were: the incartata, as previously mentioned; the pass (the “passado,” in the mix of English and Italian slang), which means stepping one foot in front of the other while launching an attack; the botta lunga, or lunge; and the caricado, which was a wide-ranging combination of the two. There were six systematic sword movements: stocata, a thrust delivered with the blade facing upwards; imbrocata, with the blade facing downwards; punta-reversa, any thrust coming from the left side of the body; mandritto, a cut from the right; rinverso, a cut from the left; stramazone, a downward blow with the tip of the sword.

250

250

The new art of fence, as systematized by the principles of rapier play, was on the whole already accepted in England during the last decade of the 16th century, and was, as we know, destined to endure. Nevertheless, there were still many partisans of the older school: lovers of the national short-sword and the buckler. Their tenets are to be found embodied, in very strenuous language, by the George Silver mentioned above, a member, it would seem, of the now dwindling company of Masters of Defence, in his small work: Paradoxe of Defence, wherein is proved the true ground of fight to be in the short ancient weapons, etc. Printed in London, 1599. (The work has been reprinted by Messrs George Bell & Sons.)

The new fencing style, organized around the principles of rapier techniques, was mostly accepted in England during the last decade of the 16th century and, as we know, was set to last. However, there were still many supporters of the old ways: enthusiasts of the traditional short sword and the buckler. Their beliefs are strongly expressed by George Silver, as mentioned earlier, who seems to be part of the now dwindling group of Masters of Defense, in his short work: Paradoxe of Defence, wherein is proved the true ground of fight to be in the short ancient weapons, etc. Printed in London, 1599. (The work has been reprinted by Messrs George Bell & Sons.)

The Italians were undoubtedly the leaders in sword-play; but, towards the beginning of the 17th century, the Spaniards developed a peculiar school of their own, which for a short while was all the mode in England as well as in France. The last trace, be it stated, of that school is now extinct. Yet the Spaniard of cavalier days was undoubtedly a formidable duellist; that was no doubt owing to the quality of the man, not of his art. The Italian’s fence was artistic; the Spaniard’s dexterity was essentially scientific. In Spain were to be found typically those “Captains of Complements,” who not only understood in their most intricate mazes the proper “dependencies” for the cartel, but also the mathematical certainties for the “reason demonstrative.” These Spanish books are marvellously pedantic; one may as well say it, frankly ridiculous. Spanish masters instructed their scholars on mathematical lines, with the help of diagrams drawn on the floor within a circle, the radius of which bore certain cryptic proportions to length of human arms and Spanish swords. The circle was inscribed in squares and intersected by sundry chords bearing occult but, it was held, incontrovertible relations to probabilities of strokes and parries. The scholar was to step from certain intersections to certain others. If this stepping was correctly done the result was a foregone victory. “A villain,” exclaims Mercutio, indignantly, “who fights by the book of arithmetic.” Elizabethan comedies bring us many an echo of its great expounder of mathematical swordsmanship, the magnificent Carranza, the primer inventor de la Ciencia de las Armas, the writer of treatises so abstruse on “the first and second cause,” in questions of honour and swording, that they have never been quite understood to this day.

The Italians were definitely the leaders in sword-fighting; however, at the start of the 17th century, the Spaniards created their own distinctive style that briefly became popular in England and France. The last remnants of that style have now disappeared. Still, the Spanish duelist from the cavalier period was certainly quite formidable, thanks more to their skill than the techniques themselves. The Italian fencing was artistic, whereas the Spanish approach was fundamentally scientific. In Spain, you would typically find those “Captains of Complements,” who not only mastered the complicated rules for challenging someone to a duel but also understood the mathematical principles behind their tactics. These Spanish writings are incredibly detailed; one might even say it's quite ridiculous. Spanish masters taught their students using mathematical concepts, often drawing diagrams on the ground within a circle whose radius corresponded to certain cryptic measurements of arm lengths and Spanish swords. The circle was divided into squares and crossed by various lines that were thought to have undeniable relationships to the chances of landing strikes or defenses. The student was to move from one specific point of intersection to another. If done correctly, this would guarantee victory. “A scoundrel,” Mercutio exclaims in anger, “who fights by the rules of arithmetic.” Elizabethan comedies often reference the great exponent of mathematical swordsmanship, the remarkable Carranza, the primer inventor de la Ciencia de las Armas, who wrote so intricately about “the first and second cause” regarding honor and fencing that his works remain somewhat baffling to this day.

Perhaps the most curious matter in connexion with the Spanish fence is that the most splendid treatise of the sword published in the French language is in reality purely Spanish (we have seen that the first was German, and the second an adaptation of Italian treatises). This third work, Académie de l’épée de Girard Thibault, d’Anvers, etc., is indeed a monument; one of the biggest books ever printed, and beyond compare the biggest book of fence. It was issued in 1628 by the Leiden Elzevirs, and took fifteen years to complete. Nine reigning princes and a vast number of private gentlemen subscribed to meet its stupendous expenses.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Spanish fencing technique is that the most outstanding swordsmanship treatise published in French is actually completely Spanish (we’ve noted that the first was German, and the second was an adaptation of Italian works). This third work, Académie de l’épée de Girard Thibault, d’Anvers, etc., is truly a landmark; it’s one of the largest books ever printed and by far the biggest book on fencing. It was published in 1628 by the Leiden Elzevirs and took fifteen years to complete. Nine reigning princes and a large number of private gentlemen contributed to cover its enormous costs.

This work was spoken of as a “monument.” It may, in some respects, be looked upon as the funeral monument of the old rapier fence; for soon after that period rose an entirely new school, one adapted to the use of a less portentous weapon, the small-sword of French pattern; a school destined to endure, and to lead to the perfection of our modern escrime.

This work was referred to as a "monument." In some ways, it can be seen as the memorial for the old rapier fencing; shortly after that time, a completely new style emerged, suited to a lighter weapon, the small-sword of French design; a style that was meant to last and to evolve into the perfection of our modern escrime.

The evolution of this new school is an instance of the influence of fashion upon the shape of the sword, and hence upon theories concerning its use. The French school of fencing may be said to owe its origin to the adoption, under Louis XIV., of the short court-sword in place of the over-long wide-hilted rapier of the older style. With a weapon of such reduced dimensions, of such reduced weight, the advantage of the dagger as a fencing adjunct at once ceased to be felt. The dagger, last Gothic remnant, disappeared accordingly; and there arose rapidly a new system of play, in which most of the defensive actions were performed by the blade alone; in which, at the same time (the reduction in the size and weight of the weapon rendering the efficiency of the edge almost nugatory in comparison with that of the point), all cutting action was ultimately discarded.

The development of this new school reflects how fashion influenced the design of the sword, and consequently, the theories about its use. The French fencing school can be traced back to the adoption of the short court sword during Louis XIV's reign, replacing the excessively long, wide-hilted rapier of the previous style. With a weapon that was lighter and more compact, the need for a dagger as a fencing accessory quickly diminished. The dagger, a remnant of the Gothic era, consequently disappeared; and a new system of play emerged rapidly, where most defensive moves were executed solely with the blade. At the same time, since the reduced size and weight made the effectiveness of the edge nearly irrelevant compared to that of the point, all cutting actions were eventually eliminated.

It is from that date, namely, from the last third of the 17th century, that the sword, as a fighting implement, becomes differentiated into two very different directions. The military weapon becomes the back-sword or sabre; the walking companion and duelling weapon becomes what we now understand by the small-sword. Two utterly different kinds of fence are practised: one, that of the back-sword; the other, what we would now call foil-play.

It is from that date, specifically the last third of the 17th century, that the sword, as a weapon, begins to split into two distinct categories. The military sword evolves into the back-sword or sabre; the stylish accessory and dueling weapon transforms into what we now recognize as the small-sword. Two completely different styles of fencing are practiced: one, that of the back-sword; the other, what we would now refer to as foil fencing.

The magnificent old cut and thrust rapier still flourished, it is true, in parts of Italy and Spain; but by the end of the 17th century it had already become an object of ridicule in the eyes of all persons addicted to bon ton—and it must be remembered that bon ton, on the Continent everywhere and even in England, at that time, was French ton. The walking sword, fit for a gentleman’s side, was therefore the small-sword of Versailles pattern. Its use had to be learnt from French masters of deportment; the old magniloquent Italo-Spanish rapier jargon was forgotten; French terms, barbarized into carte, tierce, sagoon, flanquonade, and so forth, were alone understood. In fact, French fencing became as indispensable an accomplishment to the Georgian gentlemen as the fine Italianated foyning had been to the Elizabethan.

The impressive old cut-and-thrust rapier was still used, it’s true, in some parts of Italy and Spain; but by the late 17th century, it had already become a laughingstock among those who considered themselves to have good style— and we should remember that, at that time, good style, or bon ton, was associated with French ton all over the Continent and even in England. The fashionable sword suitable for a gentleman was therefore the small-sword based on the Versailles pattern. Learning to use it required instruction from French masters of etiquette; the grand old terminology of the Italo-Spanish rapier was forgotten; only French terms, twisted into carte, tierce, sagoon, flanquonade, and so on, were understood. In fact, French fencing became as essential a skill for Georgian gentlemen as the refined Italian foreshortening had been for Elizabethans.

The new French sword-play was, it must be owned, very neat, quiet, precise, and, if anything, even more deadly than the old fence. It was perfect as a decorous mode of fight, and as well suited to the lace ruffles, to the high perruque and the red heels of the “beau” as the long cup-hilted rapier had been to the booted and spurred “cavalier.” The essence of its play was nimbleness of wrist; it required quickness of spirit rather than muscular vigour. It is to be noted, however, that the same sort of popular opposition met the invasion of French fencing, in post-Restoration days, that had been offered to the new-fangled Italian rapier a century earlier. During the Parliamentary period the rapier and its attendant dagger had practically disappeared; they were not true warlike weapons, their chief virtue was for duelling or sudden encounters. But the stout English back-sword survived; and with it a very definite school of back-sword play. Under Charles II., the amusement of stage or prize-fighting with swords had become à la mode. Courteous assaults at many weapons, of course rebated, had been frequent functions under the auspices of the Corporation of Masters of Defence during the second half of the 16th century; it is (be it remarked) in such sword-matches on the scaffold that we find the origin of our modern prize-fights at fisticuffs. The first instance known of a challenge at sharps on the fighting stage is seen in a cartel sent by George Silver and Toby his son, as champions of the Corporation of Masters of Defence, to the obnoxious “Signors” Saviolo and Geronimo. As a matter of fact, the latter, having apparently no wish to improve their excellent social position or to risk forfeiting it, declined this invitation to a public trial of skill. But the idea was right martial and pleasing to the English mind, and the fashion of prize-fighting took the firm hold it retained on English minds till stringent legislation, not so very long ago, was brought to bear upon it. Be it as it may, this prize-fighting with swords endured until middle Georgian days; when, under the impetus given to fistic displays then by the renowned Figg (who was at one and the same time the most formidable of English fencers and the first on the long list of English pugilistic champions), back-swording became relegated to the provinces, and ultimately dwindled into our bastard “single-stick.”

The new French swordplay was, to be honest, very neat, quiet, precise, and, if anything, even deadlier than the old style of fencing. It was perfect as a refined way to fight, well-suited to the lace ruffles, high wigs, and red heels of the fashionable elite, just as the long cup-hilted rapier had been for the booted and spurred cavaliers. The key to this style was the quickness of the wrist; it relied on speed of mind rather than physical strength. However, it's important to note that the same kind of public resistance faced the rise of French fencing in the post-Restoration period that had been directed at the trendy Italian rapier a hundred years earlier. During the Parliamentary era, the rapier and its accompanying dagger had practically vanished; they weren't true weapons of war, but their main value was in dueling or surprise encounters. But the sturdy English backsword survived, along with a clear style of backsword fighting. Under Charles II, the thrill of staged or prize fighting with swords had become fashionable. Courteous duels with various weapons, of course with blunted edges, had been common events under the organization of the Corporation of Masters of Defence during the latter half of the 16th century; it’s worth noting that these sword matches on the platform led to our modern boxing matches. The first recorded instance of a challenge to a real fight on stage is seen in a challenge sent by George Silver and his son Toby, acting as champions of the Corporation of Masters of Defence, to the disliked “Signors” Saviolo and Geronimo. In fact, the latter, seemingly uninterested in risking their comfortable status or jeopardizing it, declined this invitation for a public contest of skill. Nevertheless, the idea was decidedly martial and appealing to the English mindset, and the trend of prize-fighting took a strong hold on English society until strict laws, not too long ago, were enforced against it. Regardless, this sword fighting with prizes continued until the mid-Georgian era; when, prompted by the highlighted boxing events led by the famous Figg (who was both the most skilled English fencer and the first in a long line of English boxing champions), backsword fighting became less popular and eventually faded into what we now call “single-stick.”

Fencing, in its restricted sense of purely thrusting play, was always an “academic” art in England. The first great advocate and exponent of the new small-sword fence, as taught by the new French school, was Sir William Hope of Balcomy, at one time deputy governor of Edinburgh Castle, who wrote a great number of quaint treatises of great interest to the “operative” as well as to the “speculative” fencer. Yet, oddly enough, Sir William Hope was instrumental in endeavouring to push through parliament a bill for the establishment of a court of honour, the office of which was to have been the deciding of honourable quarrels, whenever possible, without appeal to fencing skill. The House, 251 however, being at the time excited and busy on the question of the union of Scotland and England, the bill never became act.

Fencing, in its limited sense of only thrusting techniques, was always seen as an “academic” art in England. The first major supporter and promoter of the new small-sword technique taught by the modern French school was Sir William Hope of Balcomy, who at one point served as deputy governor of Edinburgh Castle. He wrote a number of interesting treatises that were valuable to both "operative" and "speculative" fencers. Interestingly, Sir William Hope also tried to push a bill through parliament to create a court of honor, which would settle disputes honorably whenever possible, without resorting to fencing skills. However, the House, 251 was too caught up in the discussions about the union of Scotland and England at that time, so the bill never became law.

To resume: since it began to be practised as a regulated art one may say broadly that sword play has already passed through four main phases. The first belongs to the early Tudor days of sword and buckler encounters, whereof, if the best theoretical treatises appeared in Italy, the sturdiest practical exponents were most probably found in the British Isles. Then came the age of the rapier, coeval with the general disuse of the buckler. There may be discerned the dawn of fencing proper, which will fully arise when, in Caroline times, the outrageous length of the tucke will at last be sufficiently reduced no longer to require the dagger as a helpmate. The third was the age of the small-sword. With its light, elegant and deadly practice we enter a new atmosphere, so to speak, on fencing ground. Suppleness of wrist and precision of fingering replace the ramping and traversing, the heavy forcing play, of the Elizabethan. If the rapier age was well exemplified by Vincent Saviolo, this one was typified, albeit perhaps at a time when it was already somewhat on the wane, by the admirable Angelo Tremamondo Malevolti.

To sum up: since it started being practiced as a regulated art, one can generally say that sword fighting has gone through four main phases. The first phase dates back to the early Tudor period, characterized by sword and buckler fights. While the best theoretical texts came from Italy, the strongest practical practitioners were likely in the British Isles. Next was the era of the rapier, which coincided with the decline of the buckler. This period saw the beginnings of proper fencing, which would fully evolve during the Caroline era when the excessive length of the tucke was finally reduced enough to eliminate the need for a dagger as a companion. The third phase was the small sword era. With its light, graceful, and lethal style, we enter a whole new environment for fencing. Flexibility of the wrist and precision in finger movements took the place of the heavy, forceful techniques of the Elizabethan style. If the rapier era was well represented by Vincent Saviolo, this period is exemplified, although perhaps at a time when it was already somewhat declining, by the remarkable Angelo Tremamondo Malevolti.

In the early days of the small-sword age men still fenced in play as they fought in earnest. But presently there appeared on the scene (during the last years of the 18th century) an implement destined to revolutionize the art and hopelessly to divide the practice of the school from that of the field: that was the fencing mask. Before this invention, small-sword play in the master’s room was perforce comparatively cautious, correct, sure and above all deliberate. The long, excited, argumentative phrases of modern assaults were unknown; and so was the almost inevitably consequent scrimmage. But under the protection of the fencing mask a new school of foil-play was evolved, one in which swiftness and inveteracy of attack and parry, of riposte, remise, counter-riposte and reprise, assumed an all-important character. With the new style began to assert itself that utter recklessness of “chance hits” which in our days so markedly differentiates foil-practice from actual duelling. And this brings us to the fourth phase, the fencing art, to what may be called the age of the foil.

In the early days of the small-sword era, men still practiced fencing as if they were genuinely fighting. But soon, during the late 18th century, a game-changing piece of equipment appeared: the fencing mask. Before this invention, small-sword practice in the master’s studio was necessarily cautious, correct, precise, and, most importantly, deliberate. The long, energetic, and debative styles of modern bouts were nonexistent, as was the chaotic scrimmage that often followed. However, with the introduction of the fencing mask, a new style of foil-play emerged, characterized by speed and intensity in attack and defense, including elements like riposte, remise, counter-riposte, and reprise, which became fundamental. This new approach also introduced a reckless attitude towards "chance hits," significantly distinguishing foil practice from real dueling today. This leads us to the fourth phase of fencing, marking the beginning of the era of the foil.

If anything were required to demonstrate that foil-play has nowadays passed into the state of what may be called fine art in athleticism, it would be found in the rise of the method which French masters particularize as le jeu du terrain, as duelling play in fact; a play which differs as completely from academic foil-fencing as cross-country riding in an unknown district from the haute école of horsemanship in the manège. By fencing, nowadays, that is by foil-play, we have come to mean not simply fighting for hits, but a strictly regulated game which, being quite conventional, does not take accidental hits into consideration at all. This game requires for its perfect display a combination of artificial circumstances, such as even floors, featherweight weapons, and an unconditional acceptance of a number of traditional conventions. Now, for the more utilitarian purposes of duelling, the major part of the foil fencer’s special achievement and brilliancy has to be uncompromisingly sacrificed in the presence of the brutal fact that thrusts in the face, or below the waist, do count, insomuch as they may kill; that accidental hits in the arm or the leg cannot be disregarded, for they may, and generally do, put a premature stop to the bout. The “rub on the green” must be accepted, perforce, and indeed often plays as important a part in the issue of the game as the player’s skill. The fact, however, that in earnest encounters all conventionalities which determine the value of a hit vanish, does not in any way justify the notion, prevalent among many, that a successful hit justifies any method of planting the same; and that the mere discarding of all convention in practical sword-play is sufficient to convert a bad fencer into a dangerous duellist.

If anything proves that foil fencing has now become a refined art in sports, it's the emergence of the method French masters refer to as le jeu du terrain, which is essentially dueling play. This style is completely different from academic foil fencing, much like how cross-country riding in unfamiliar territory contrasts with the formal horsemanship of the manège. Today, when we talk about fencing, specifically foil play, we don't just mean scoring hits; we refer to a highly regulated sport that ignores random hits entirely and is quite conventional. This game needs specific conditions for perfect performance, such as smooth surfaces, lightweight weapons, and adherence to many established rules. However, for the practical purposes of dueling, most of what makes a foil fencer impressive has to be set aside because the harsh reality is that thrusts to the face or below the waist do count, as they can be deadly. Those accidental hits to the arm or leg can't be overlooked either, as they often end the match prematurely. The “rub on the green” must be accepted, and it often plays as significant a role in the game's outcome as the player's skill. Nevertheless, the fact that all the rules which define a hit's value disappear in real confrontations does not support the belief, held by many, that a successful hit justifies any method of achieving it; nor does it mean that simply discarding all convention in practical sword fighting is enough to turn a poor fencer into a formidable duelist.

It is the recognition of this fact (which, oddly enough, only came to be generally admitted, and not without reluctance, by the masters of the art during the last quarter of the 19th century) which has led to the elaboration of the modified system of small-sword fence now known as épée play. The new system, after passing through various rather extravagant phases of its own, gradually returned to the main principle of sound foil-play, but shorn of all futile conventions as to the relative values of hits. In épée play a hit is a hit, whether correctly delivered or reckless, whether intentional or the result of mere chance, and must, at the cost of much caution and patience, be guarded against.

It’s the acknowledgment of this fact (which, surprisingly, was only widely accepted, albeit reluctantly, by the experts in the field during the last quarter of the 19th century) that led to the development of the modified system of small-sword fencing now known as épée play. This new system, after going through various somewhat extravagant stages of its own, gradually returned to the core principle of solid foil play, but stripped of all pointless conventions regarding the relative value of hits. In épée play, a hit is a hit, whether delivered accurately or carelessly, intentionally or by chance, and must, with a lot of caution and patience, be defended against.

Per contra the elaboration by the devotees of the épée of a really practical system of fence, that is, one applicable to trials in earnest, has reacted upon the teaching of foil-play by the best masters of the present day—a teaching which, without ceasing to be academical up to a certain point, takes now cognisance of the necessity of defending every part of the body as sedulously as the target of the breast, and, moreover, of warding the many possibilities of chance hits in contretemps.

On the other hand, the work by the enthusiasts of the épée on creating a truly practical fencing system, one that's relevant to serious competitions, has influenced the teaching of foil fencing by today's top masters. This approach still maintains a certain academic rigor but now acknowledges the importance of protecting every part of the body as carefully as the target area of the chest, as well as defending against the various chances of accidental hits during contretemps.

In both plays—in the highly refined, complicated and brilliant fence of the first-class “foil,” as well as in the simpler and more cautious operations of the practised duellist—the one golden rule remains, that one so quaintly expressed by M. Jourdain’s maître d’armes in Molière’s comedy: “Tout le secret des armes ne consiste qu’en deux choses, à donner et à ne point recevoir.”

In both plays—in the highly refined, complex, and brilliant techniques of the top-tier “foil,” as well as in the simpler and more cautious moves of the skilled duelist—the one golden rule remains, as so cleverly stated by M. Jourdain’s maître d’armes in Molière’s comedy: “The secret of weapons comes down to just two things: to give and not to receive.”

The point most usually lost sight of by sanguine and self-reliant scorners of conventionalities is that, although with the sword it may be comparatively easy at any time “to give,” it is by no means easy to make sure of “giving without receiving.” The mutual simultaneous hit—the coup-double—is, in fact, the dread pitfall of all sword-play. For this reason, in courteous bouts, a hit has no real value, not only when it is actually cancelled by a counter, but when it is delivered in such a way as to admit of a counter. In short, the experience of ages and the careful consideration of probabilities have given birth to the various make-believes and restrictions that go to make sound foil-play. These restrictions are destined to act in the same direction as the warning presence of a sharp point instead of a button; and thus, as far as possible, to prevent those mutual hits—the contretemps of the old masters—which mar the greater number of assaults. The proper observance of those conventions, other things being equal, distinguishes the good from the indifferent swordsman, the man who uses his head from him who rushes blindly where angels fear to tread. So much for foil-play.

The point that is often overlooked by optimistic and self-assured critics of conventions is that, while it may be relatively easy at any time to “give” with a sword, it is definitely not easy to ensure “giving without receiving.” The mutual simultaneous hit—the coup-double—is actually the dangerous trap of all swordplay. For this reason, in courteous matches, a hit has no real value not only when it is directly canceled by a counter, but also when it’s delivered in such a way that allows for a counter. In short, the wisdom of ages and careful consideration of possibilities have led to the various makeshift rules and restrictions that create proper foil-play. These restrictions are intended to act like the intimidating presence of a sharp point instead of a button; and thus, as much as possible, to prevent those mutual hits—the contretemps of the old masters—which spoil most encounters. Properly following these conventions, all else being equal, separates the good swordsman from the mediocre, the thinker from the one who blindly charges into situations that even angels would avoid. That covers foil-play.

In modern sword-play, on the other hand, is seen the usual tendency of arts which have reached their climax of complication to return to comparative simplicity. With reference to actual duelling, it is a recognized thing that it would be the height of folly to attempt, sword in hand, the complex attacks, the full-length lunges, the neat but somewhat weak parries of the foil; so much so, that many have been led to assert that, for its ultimate practical purpose (which logically is that of duelling), the refined art of the foil, requiring so many years of assiduous and methodical work, is next to useless. It is alleged, as a proof, that many successful duellists have happened to be indifferent performers on the fencing floor. Some even maintain that a few weeks’ special work in that restricted—very restricted—play, which alone can be considered safe on the field of honour, will produce as good a practical swordsman as any who have walked the schools for years. Nothing can be further from the truth: were it but on the ground that the greater includes the less; that the foil-fencer of standing who can perform with ease and accuracy all the intricate movements of the assault, who has trained his hand and eye to the lightning speed of the well-handled foil, must logically prove more than a match for the more purely practical but less trained devotees of the épée de combat. The only difference for him in the two plays is that the latter is incomparably slower in action, simpler; that it demands above all things patience and caution; and especially that, instead of protecting his breast only, the épée fencer must beware of the wily attack, or the chance hit, at every part of his body, especially at his sword-hand.

In modern swordplay, there’s a common trend seen in arts that have become extremely complex: they often revert to a simpler form. When it comes to actual dueling, it’s widely accepted that it would be foolish to try the complicated attacks, full-length lunges, or the precise yet somewhat weak parries typical of foil fencing. Many argue that for its ultimate practical purpose—dueling—the refined art of the foil, which requires years of diligent and systematic practice, is nearly useless. It’s claimed that numerous successful duelists have been average performers in the fencing arena. Some even argue that just a few weeks of focused training in that very limited type of play, which can legitimately be considered safe on the field of honor, can make a practical swordsman just as effective as someone who has spent years in fencing classes. This could not be further from the truth: the simple fact is that the greater encompasses the lesser. A skilled foil fencer who can effortlessly and accurately perform all the intricate moves required in a duel, who has trained their hand and eye to the lightning speed of well-executed foil techniques, will logically outperform the more practical yet less trained adherents of the épée de combat. The only difference for them between the two styles is that the latter is much slower and simpler; it requires, above all, patience and caution; and especially that, instead of just guarding their chest, the épée fencer has to be on guard against sneaky attacks or random hits at every part of their body, particularly their sword hand.

The difference which still exists between the French and Italian schools of small-sword fence—by no means so wide, in point of theory, as popularly supposed—is mainly due to the dissimilarity of the weapons favoured by the two countries. The quillons, which are retained to this day in the Italian 252 fioretto and spada, conduce to a freer use of wrist-play and a straight arm. The French, on the other hand, having long ago adopted the plain grip both for fleuret and épée, have come to rely more upon finger-play and a semi-bent arm. Both schools have long laid claims to an overwhelming superiority, on theoretical ground, over their rivals—claims which were unwarrantable. Indeed, of later days, especially since the evolution of a special “duelling play,” the two schools show a decided tendency, notwithstanding the difference in the grip of the weapons, towards a mutual assimilation of principles.

The difference that still exists between the French and Italian schools of small-sword fencing—by no means as significant, in terms of theory, as people often think—is mainly due to the different weapons favored by each country. The quillons, which are still present today in the Italian fioretto and spada, allow for more freedom in wrist movement and a straight arm. The French, on the other hand, having adopted the plain grip long ago for both fleuret and épée, tend to rely more on finger movement and a slightly bent arm. Both schools have historically claimed to have a significant theoretical superiority over each other—claims that were not justified. In recent times, especially since the development of a specific “dueling style,” the two schools have shown a notable trend, despite the differences in weapon grip, towards a blending of principles.

As a duelling weapon—as one, that is to say, the practice of which under the restrictive influence of conventions could become elaborated into an art—the sabre (see Sabre-fencing) returned to favour in some countries at the close of the Napoleonic wars. Considered from the historical point of view, the modern sabre, albeit now a very distant cousin of the small-sword, is as direct a descendant as the latter itself of the old cut-and-thrust rapier. It is curious, therefore, to note that, just as the practice of the “small” or thrusting sword gave rise to two rival schools, the French and the Italian, that of the sabre or cutting sword (it can hardly be called the broadsword, the blade, for the purposes of duelling play, having been reduced to slenderest proportions) became split up into two main systems, Italian and German. And further it is remarkable that the leading characteristics of the latter should still be, in a manner, “severity” and steadfastness; and that the former, the Italian, should rely, as of yore, specially upon agility and insidious cunning.

As a dueling weapon—meaning that the practice, influenced by strict conventions, could develop into an art—the sabre (see Sabre-fencing) became popular again in some countries after the Napoleonic wars. From a historical perspective, the modern sabre, though now a very distant relative of the small-sword, is as much a descendant of the old cut-and-thrust rapier as the latter is. It’s interesting to note that, just as the practice of the “small” or thrusting sword led to two competing schools, the French and the Italian, the practice of the sabre or cutting sword (it can hardly be called a broadsword since, for dueling purposes, the blade has been reduced to very slim proportions) divided into two main systems: Italian and German. Moreover, it’s noteworthy that the key traits of the German style continue to be, in a way, “severity” and steadfastness, while the Italian style still relies, as it did before, primarily on agility and clever deception.

Concerning the latter-day evolution of that special and still more conventional system of fence, the Schläger or Hau-rapier play favoured by the German student, from that of the ancestral rapier, the curious will find a critical account in an article entitled “Schlägerei” which appeared in the Saturday Review, 5th of December 1885.

Concerning the recent development of that unique and more traditional fencing style, the Schläger or Hau-rapier favored by German students, from its ancestral rapier origins, those interested will find a critical overview in an article titled “Schlägerei” that was published in the Saturday Review on December 5, 1885.

See also the separate articles on Cane-Fencing (canne); Épée-de-Combat; Foil-Fencing; Sabre-Fencing; and Single-stick.

See also the separate articles on Cane-Fencing (canne); Épée-de-Combat; Foil-Fencing; Sabre-Fencing; and Single-stick.

Authorities.—The bibliography of fencing is a copious subject; but it has been very completely dealt with in the following works: Bibliotheca dimicatoria, in the “Fencing, Boxing and Wrestling” volume of the Badminton library (Longmans); A Bibliography of Fencing and Duelling, by Carl A. Thimm (John Lane). For French works more especially: La Bibliographie de l’escrime, by Vigeant (Paris, Motteroz); and Ma Collection d’escrime, by the same (Paris, Quantin). For Italian books: Bibliografia generale della scherma, by Gelli (Firenza, Niccolai). For Spain and Portugal: Libros de esgrima españoles y portugueses, by Leguina (Madrid, Los Huérfanos). Both M. Vigeant’s and Cav. Gelli’s works deal with the subject generally; but their entries are only critical, or even tolerably accurate, in the case of books belonging to their own countries. Concerning the history of the art, Egerton Castle’s Schools and Masters of Fence (George Bell); Hutton’s The Sword and the Centuries (Grant Richards); and Letainturier-Fradin’s Les Joueurs d’épée à travers les âges (Paris, Flammarion) cover the ground, technically and ethically. As typical exponents of the French and Italian schools respectively may be mentioned here: La Théorie de l’escrime, by Prévost (Paris, de Brunhof) (this is the work which was adopted in the Badminton volume on Fencing), and Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma, by Parise (Rome, Voghera).

Authorities.—The bibliography of fencing is a vast topic; however, it has been thoroughly covered in the following works: Bibliotheca dimicatoria, in the “Fencing, Boxing and Wrestling” volume of the Badminton library (Longmans); A Bibliography of Fencing and Duelling, by Carl A. Thimm (John Lane). For French works in particular: La Bibliographie de l’escrime, by Vigeant (Paris, Motteroz); and Ma Collection d’escrime, by the same author (Paris, Quantin). For Italian books: Bibliografia generale della scherma, by Gelli (Florence, Niccolai). For Spain and Portugal: Libros de esgrima españoles y portugueses, by Leguina (Madrid, Los Huérfanos). Both M. Vigeant’s and Cav. Gelli’s works address the topic generally; however, their entries are only critical, or reasonably accurate, for books from their own countries. Regarding the history of the art, Egerton Castle’s Schools and Masters of Fence (George Bell); Hutton’s The Sword and the Centuries (Grant Richards); and Letainturier-Fradin’s Les Joueurs d’épée à travers les âges (Paris, Flammarion) comprehensively cover the topic, both technically and ethically. As representative works of the French and Italian schools, we can mention: La Théorie de l’escrime, by Prévost (Paris, de Brunhof) (this is the work used in the Badminton volume on Fencing), and Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma, by Parise (Rome, Voghera).

(E. Ca.)

FENDER, a metal guard or defence (whence the name) for a fire-place. When the open hearth with its logs burning upon dogs or andirons was replaced by the closed grate, the fender was devised as a finish to the smaller fire-places, and as a safeguard against the dropping of cinders upon the wooden floor, which was now much nearer to the fire. Fenders are usually of steel, brass or iron, solid or pierced. Those made of brass in the latter part of the 18th and the earlier part of the 19th centuries are by far the most elegant and artistic. They usually had three claw feet, and the pierced varieties were often cut into arabesques or conventional patterns. The lyre and other motives of the Empire style were much used during the prevalence of that fashion. The modern fender is much lower and is often little more than a kerb; it is now not infrequently of stone or marble, fixed to the floor.

FENDER, is a metal guard or protective barrier for a fireplace. When the open hearth with its logs on andirons was replaced by the closed grate, the fender was created to finish the smaller fireplaces and to protect against cinders falling onto the wooden floor, which was now much closer to the fire. Fenders are typically made of steel, brass, or iron, and can be solid or pierced. Those made of brass in the late 18th and early 19th centuries are the most elegant and artistic. They commonly featured three claw feet, and the pierced designs were often shaped into arabesques or decorative patterns. The lyre and other motifs of the Empire style were frequently used during that period. The modern fender is much lower and is often just a border; it is now often made of stone or marble and fixed to the floor.


FÉNELON, BERTRAND DE SALIGNAC, seigneur de la Mothe (1523-1589), French diplomatist, came of an old family of Périgord. After serving in the army he was sent ambassador to England in 1568. At the request of Charles IX. he endeavoured to excuse to Elizabeth the massacre of St. Bartholomew as a necessity caused by a plot which had been laid against the life of the king of France. For some time after the death of Charles IX. Fénelon was continued in his office, but he was recalled in 1575 when Catherine de’ Medici wished to bring about a marriage between Elizabeth and the duke of Alençon, and thought that another ambassador would have a better chance of success in the negotiation. In 1582 Fénelon was charged with a new mission to England, then to Scotland, and returned to France in 1583. He opposed the Protestants until the end of the reign of Henry III., but espoused the cause of Henry IV. He died in 1589. His nephew in the sixth degree was the celebrated archbishop of Cambrai.

Fénelon, Bertrand de Salignac, lord of la Mothe (1523-1589), was a French diplomat from an old family in Périgord. After serving in the military, he was appointed ambassador to England in 1568. At the request of Charles IX, he tried to justify the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre to Elizabeth as a necessary action due to a plot against the life of the king of France. He continued in his role for some time after Charles IX's death but was recalled in 1575 when Catherine de' Medici wanted to arrange a marriage between Elizabeth and the duke of Alençon, believing another ambassador might be more successful in the negotiations. In 1582, Fénelon was given a new mission to England, then to Scotland, and returned to France in 1583. He opposed the Protestants until the end of Henry III's reign but later supported Henry IV. He passed away in 1589. His sixth-degree nephew was the famous archbishop of Cambrai.

Fénelon is the author of a number of writings, among which those of general importance are Mémoires touchant l’Angleterre et la Suisse, ou Sommaire de la négociation faite en Angleterre, l’an 1571 (containing a number of the letters of Charles and his mother, relating to Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and the Bartholomew massacre), published in the Mémoires of Castelnau (Paris, 1659); Négociations de la Mothe Fénelon et de Michel, sieur de Mauvissière, en Angleterre; and Dépêches de M. de la Mothe Fénelon, Instructions au sieur de la Mauvissière, both contained in the edition of Castelnau’s Mémoires, published at Brussels in 1731. The correspondence of Fénelon was published at Paris in 1838-1841, in 7 vols. 8vo.

Fénelon wrote several important works, including Mémoires touchant l’Angleterre et la Suisse, ou Sommaire de la négociation faite en Angleterre, l’an 1571 (which includes several letters from Charles and his mother regarding Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, and the Bartholomew massacre), published in the Mémoires of Castelnau (Paris, 1659); Négociations de la Mothe Fénelon et de Michel, sieur de Mauvissière, en Angleterre; and Dépêches de M. de la Mothe Fénelon, Instructions au sieur de la Mauvissière, both included in the edition of Castelnau’s Mémoires, published in Brussels in 1731. Fénelon's correspondence was released in Paris from 1838 to 1841, in 7 volumes, 8vo.

See “Lettres de Catherine de’ Médicis,” edited by Hector de la Ferrière (1880 seq.) in the Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France.

See “Lettres de Catherine de’ Médicis,” edited by Hector de la Ferrière (1880 seq.) in the Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France.


FÉNELON, FRANÇOIS DE SALIGNAC DE LA MOTHE (1651-1715), French writer and archbishop of Cambrai, was born at the château of Fénelon in Périgord on the 6th of August 1651. His father, Pons, comte de Fénelon, was a country gentleman of ancient lineage, large family and small estate. Owing to his delicate health the boy’s early education was carried on at home; though he was able to spend some time at the neighbouring university of Cahors. In 1666 he came to Paris, under charge of his father’s brother, Antoine, marquis de Fénelon, a retired soldier of distinction, well known for his religious zeal. Three years later he entered the famous theological college of Saint Sulpice. Here, while imbibing the somewhat mystical piety of the house, he had an excellent chance of carrying on his beloved classical studies; indeed, at one time he proposed to couple sacred and profane together, and go on a missionary journey to the Levant. “There I shall once more make the Apostle’s voice heard in the Church of Corinth. I shall stand on that Areopagus where St. Paul preached to the sages of this world an unknown God. But I do not scorn to descend thence to the Piraeus, where Socrates sketched the plan of his republic. I shall mount to the double summit of Parnassus; I shall revel in the joys of Tempe.” Family opposition, however, put an end to this attractive prospect. Fénelon remained at Saint Sulpice till 1679, when he was made “superior” of a “New Catholic” sisterhood in Paris—an institution devoted to the conversion of Huguenot ladies. Of his work here nothing is known for certain. Presumably it was successful; since in the winter of 1685, just after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Fénelon was put at the head of a number of priests, and sent on a mission to the Protestants of Saintonge, the district immediately around the famous Huguenot citadel of La Rochelle. To Fénelon such employment was clearly uncongenial; and if he was rather too ready to employ unsavoury methods—such as bribery and espionage—among his proselytes, his general conduct was kindly and statesmanlike in no slight degree. But neither in his actions nor in his writings is there the least trace of that belief in liberty of conscience ascribed to him by 18th-century philosophers. Tender-hearted he might be in practice; but toleration he declares synonymous with “cowardly indulgence and false compassion.”

FÉNELON, FRANÇOIS DE SALIGNAC DE LA MOTHE (1651-1715), French writer and archbishop of Cambrai, was born at the château of Fénelon in Périgord on August 6, 1651. His father, Pons, comte de Fénelon, was a country gentleman from an ancient family with a large household but a small estate. Due to his delicate health, the boy’s early education took place at home, although he was able to spend some time at the nearby university of Cahors. In 1666, he moved to Paris under the care of his father's brother, Antoine, marquis de Fénelon, a retired soldier known for his religious fervor. Three years later, he entered the renowned theological college of Saint Sulpice. Here, while absorbing the somewhat mystical piety of the institution, he had a great opportunity to continue his cherished classical studies. At one point, he even considered combining sacred and secular learning and embarking on a missionary journey to the Levant. “There I shall once again let the Apostle's voice be heard in the Church of Corinth. I will stand on that Areopagus where St. Paul preached to the wise of this world about an unknown God. But I do not shy away from descending to Piraeus, where Socrates drafted his plan for a republic. I will ascend the dual peak of Parnassus; I will delight in the pleasures of Tempe.” However, family opposition ended this enticing prospect. Fénelon remained at Saint Sulpice until 1679 when he became the “superior” of a “New Catholic” sisterhood in Paris—an organization dedicated to converting Huguenot women. Nothing is certain about his work there, but it was presumably successful; in the winter of 1685, shortly after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Fénelon was put in charge of a group of priests and sent on a mission to the Protestants of Saintonge, the area surrounding the famous Huguenot citadel of La Rochelle. Fénelon clearly found this work unsatisfactory; and although he was perhaps too quick to use questionable methods—like bribery and espionage—his overall demeanor was kind and quite statesmanlike. Yet, in both his actions and writings, there is no sign of the belief in freedom of conscience attributed to him by 18th-century philosophers. He may have been compassionate in practice, but he equated tolerance with “cowardly indulgence and false empathy.”

Meanwhile the marquis de Fénelon had introduced his nephew into the devout section of the court, dominated by Mme de Maintenon. He became a favourite disciple of Bossuet, and at the bishop’s instance undertook to refute certain metaphysical errors of Father Malebranche. Followed thereon an independent philosophical Treatise on the Existence of God, wherein Fénelon rewrote Descartes in the spirit of St Augustine. More important 253 were his Dialogues on Eloquence, wherein he entered an eloquent plea for greater simplicity and naturalness in the pulpit, and urged preachers to take the scriptural, natural style of Bossuet as their model, rather than the coldly analytic eloquence of his great rival, Bourdaloue. Still more important was his Treatise on the Education of Girls, being the first systematic attempt ever made to deal with that subject as a whole. Hence it was probably the most influential of all Fénelon’s books, and guided French ideas on the question all through the 18th century. It holds a most judicious balance between the two opposing parties of the time. On the one side were the précieuses, enthusiasts for the “higher” education of their sex; on the other were the heavy Philistines, so often portrayed by Molière, who thought that the less girls knew the better they were likely to be. Fénelon sums up in favour of the cultivated house-wife; his first object was to persuade the mothers to take charge of their girls themselves, and fit them to become wives and mothers in their turn.

Meanwhile, the Marquis de Fénelon had introduced his nephew to the devout part of the court, led by Mme de Maintenon. He became a favorite disciple of Bossuet and, at the bishop's suggestion, took on the task of refuting certain metaphysical errors of Father Malebranche. Following that, he wrote an independent philosophical Treatise on the Existence of God, where Fénelon reinterpreted Descartes in the spirit of St. Augustine. More importantly, 253 were his Dialogues on Eloquence, in which he passionately advocated for greater simplicity and naturalness in sermons, urging preachers to adopt the scriptural, natural style of Bossuet as their model, rather than the coldly analytical eloquence of his great rival, Bourdaloue. Even more significant was his Treatise on the Education of Girls, the first systematic attempt ever made to thoroughly address that subject. Therefore, it was likely the most influential of all Fénelon’s books, shaping French ideas on the question throughout the 18th century. It maintained a wise balance between the two opposing factions of the time. On one side were the précieuses, enthusiasts for the “higher” education of women; on the other were the heavy Philistines, often depicted by Molière, who believed that the less girls knew, the better they would be. Fénelon advocated for the educated housewife; his primary goal was to persuade mothers to take charge of their daughters' education and prepare them to become wives and mothers in the future.

The book brought its author more than literary glory. In 1689 Fénelon was gazetted tutor to the duke of Burgundy, eldest son of the dauphin, and eventual heir to the crown. The character of this strange prince has been drawn once for all by Saint-Simon. Shortly it may be said that he was essentially a mass of contradictions—brilliant, passionate to the point of mania, but utterly weak and unstable, capable of developing into a saint or a monster, but quite incapable of becoming an ordinary human being. Fénelon assailed him on the religious side, and managed to transform him into a devotee, exceedingly affectionate, earnest and religious, but woefully lacking in tact and common sense. In justice, however, it should be added that his health was being steadily undermined by a mysterious internal complaint, and that Fénelon’s tutorship came to an end on his disgrace in 1697, before the pupil was fifteen. The abiding result of his tutorship is a code of carefully graduated moral lessons—the Fables, the Dialogues of the Dead (a series of imaginary conversations between departed heroes), and finally Télémaque, where the adventures of the son of Ulysses in search of a father are made into a political novel with a purpose. Not, indeed, that Fénelon meant his book to be the literal paper Constitution some of his contemporaries thought it. Like other Utopias, it is an easy-going compromise between dreams and possibilities. Its one object was to broaden Burgundy’s mind, and ever keep before his eyes the “great and holy maxim that kings exist for the sake of their subjects, not subjects for the sake of kings.” Here and there Fénelon carries his philanthropy to lengths curiously prophetic of the age of Rousseau—fervid denunciation of war, belief in nature and fraternity of nations. And he has a truly 18th-century belief in the all-efficiency of institutions. Mentor proposes to “change the tastes and habits of the whole people, and build up again from the very foundations.” Fénelon is on firmer ground when he leads a reaction against the “mercantile system” of Colbert, with its crushing restrictions on trade; or when he sings the praises of agriculture, in the hope of bringing back labour to the land, and thereby ensuring the physical efficiency of the race. Valuable and far-sighted as were these ideas, they fitted but ill into the scheme of a romance. Seldom was Voltaire wider of the mark than when he called Télémaque a Greek poem in French prose. It is too motivé, too full of ingenious contrivances, to be really Greek. As, in Fénelon’s own opinion, the great merit of Homer was his “amiable simplicity,” so the great merit of Télémaque is the art that gives to each adventure its hidden moral, to each scene some sly reflection on Versailles. Under stress of these preoccupations, however, organic unity of structure went very much to the wall, and Télémaque is a grievous offender against its author’s own canons of literary taste. Not that it altogether lost thereby. There is a curious richness in this prose, so full of rhythm and harmony, that breaks at every moment into verse, as it drags itself along its slow and weary way, half-fainting under an overload of epithets. And although no single feature of the book is Greek, there hangs round it a moral fragrance only to be called forth by one who had fulfilled the vow of his youth, and learnt to breathe, as purely as on “the double summit of Parnassus,” the very essence of the antique.

The book brought its author more than just literary fame. In 1689, Fénelon was appointed tutor to the duke of Burgundy, the eldest son of the dauphin and future heir to the throne. The nature of this unusual prince has been permanently captured by Saint-Simon. In short, he was a bundle of contradictions—brilliant and ardently passionate to the point of mania, yet utterly weak and unstable, capable of becoming either a saint or a monster but unable to be an ordinary person. Fénelon focused on his religious education and succeeded in making him a devoted, affectionate, earnest, and religious person, though sadly lacking in tact and common sense. However, it should be noted that his health was being steadily weakened by a mysterious internal issue, and Fénelon’s time as his tutor ended with his disgrace in 1697, before the boy turned fifteen. The lasting outcome of his tutoring is a set of carefully crafted moral lessons—the Fables, the Dialogues of the Dead (a series of imaginary chats between deceased heroes), and finally Télémaque, where the adventures of Ulysses' son in search of his father turn into a political novel with a purpose. It’s true that Fénelon didn’t intend for his book to be the literal paper Constitution that some of his contemporaries believed it to be. Like other Utopias, it serves as a relaxed compromise between dreams and what’s achievable. Its primary goal was to expand Burgundy’s mind and continually remind him of the “great and holy maxim that kings exist for the sake of their subjects, not subjects for the sake of kings.” Occasionally, Fénelon carries his philanthropic ideas to lengths that seem strangely prophetic of Rousseau's time—passionate denunciations of war, a belief in nature, and the brotherhood of nations. He also holds a truly 18th-century faith in the power of institutions. Mentor proposes to “change the tastes and habits of the entire population and rebuild from the ground up.” Fénelon is on more solid ground when he criticizes Colbert’s “mercantile system,” with its heavy restrictions on trade, or when he praises agriculture, hoping to bring labor back to the land and, in turn, ensure the physical well-being of the population. Though these ideas were valuable and forward-thinking, they fit poorly into a romance. Voltaire was seldom more off base than when he referred to Télémaque as a Greek poem in French prose. It is too motivé, too filled with clever devices, to be genuinely Greek. As Fénelon believed that the great quality of Homer was his “amiable simplicity,” the great quality of Télémaque is the skill that gives each adventure its hidden moral and each scene a sly nod to Versailles. However, under the strain of these concerns, the organic unity of structure suffered greatly, and Télémaque violates its author’s own standards of literary taste. This isn’t to say it lost everything. There’s a curious richness in this prose, so filled with rhythm and harmony, that it breaks into verse at every turn, dragging itself along its slow and weary path, half-fainting under a load of adjectives. And although no single element of the book is Greek, it carries a moral essence that can only be evoked by someone who has honored their youthful vows and learned to breathe, as purely as on “the double summit of Parnassus,” the very essence of the ancient world.

Télémaque was published in 1699. Four years before, Fénelon had been appointed archbishop of Cambrai, one of the richest benefices in France. Very soon afterwards, however, came the great calamity of his life. In the early days of his tutorship he had met the Quietist apostle, Mme Guyon (q.v.), and had been much struck by some of her ideas. These he developed along lines of his own, where Christian Neoplatonism curiously mingles with theories of chivalry and disinterestedness, borrowed from the précieuses of his own time. His mystical principles are set out at length in his Maxims of the Saints, published in 1697 (see Quietism). Here he argues that the more love we have for ourselves, the less we can spare for our Maker. Perfection lies in getting rid of self-hood altogether—in never thinking of ourselves, or even of the relation in which God stands to us. The saint does not love Christ as his Redeemer, but only as the Redeemer of the human race. Bossuet (q.v.) attacked this position as inconsistent with Christianity. Fénelon promptly appealed to Rome, and after two years of bitter controversy his book was condemned by Innocent XII. in 1699. As to the merits of the controversy opinion will always be divided. On the point of doctrine all good judges agree that Fénelon was wrong; though many still welcome the obiter dictum of Pope Innocent, that Fénelon erred by loving God too much, and Bossuet by loving his neighbour too little. Of late years, however, Bossuet has found powerful defenders; and if they have not cleared his character from reproach, they have certainly managed to prove that Fénelon’s methods of controversy were not much better than his. One of the results of the quarrel was Fénelon’s banishment from court; for Louis XIV. had ardently taken Bossuet’s side, and brought all the batteries of French influence to bear on the pope. Immediately on the outbreak of the controversy, Fénelon was exiled to his diocese, and during the last eighteen years of his life he was only once allowed to leave it.

Télémaque was published in 1699. Four years earlier, Fénelon had become the archbishop of Cambrai, one of the wealthiest positions in France. Soon after, though, came the major disaster of his life. Early in his role as tutor, he met the Quietist leader, Mme Guyon (q.v.), and was quite impressed by some of her ideas. He developed these along his own lines, where Christian Neoplatonism intriguingly blends with theories of chivalry and selflessness, drawn from the précieuses of his time. His mystical views are elaborated on extensively in his Maxims of the Saints, published in 1697 (see Quietism). Here he argues that the more we love ourselves, the less love we have for our Creator. Perfection involves completely letting go of self—never thinking about ourselves or even about how God relates to us. A saint doesn’t love Christ as his Redeemer but simply as the Redeemer of humanity. Bossuet (q.v.) criticized this view as inconsistent with Christianity. Fénelon quickly appealed to Rome, and after two years of fierce debate, his book was condemned by Innocent XII in 1699. Opinions will always be split regarding the merits of the controversy. When it comes to doctrine, all credible judges agree that Fénelon was mistaken; however, many still hold onto the obiter dictum of Pope Innocent, which suggested that Fénelon erred by loving God too much and Bossuet by loving his neighbor too little. In recent years, though, Bossuet has gained strong supporters; and while they haven’t completely cleared his name, they have definitely shown that Fénelon’s methods of debate weren’t much better than his. One outcome of the dispute was Fénelon’s banishment from court; Louis XIV had passionately sided with Bossuet and used all the influence of France to pressure the pope. Right after the controversy began, Fénelon was exiled to his diocese, and during the last eighteen years of his life, he was only permitted to leave it once.

To Cambrai, accordingly, all his energies were now directed. Even Saint-Simon allows that his episcopal duties were perfectly performed. Tours of inspection, repeated several times a year, brought him into touch with every corner of his diocese. It was administered with great strictness, and yet on broad and liberal lines. There was no bureaucratic fussiness, no seeking after popularity; but every man, whether great or small, was treated exactly as became his station in the world. And Saint-Simon bears the same witness to his government of his palace. There he lived with all the piety of a true pastor, yet with all the dignity of a great nobleman, who was still on excellent terms with the world. But his magnificence made no one angry, for it was kept up chiefly for the sake of others, and was exactly proportionate to his place. With all its luxuries and courtly ease, his house remained a true bishop’s palace, breathing the strictest discipline and restraint. And of all this chastened dignity the archbishop was himself the ever-present, ever-inimitable model—in all that he did the perfect churchman, in all the high-bred noble, in all things, also, the author of Télémaque.

To Cambrai, all his energies were now focused. Even Saint-Simon admits that he carried out his duties as a bishop perfectly. He made several inspection tours each year, getting familiar with every corner of his diocese. It was managed with great rigor but also in a broad and open-minded way. There was no bureaucratic fuss, no chasing after popularity; instead, every person, whether important or not, was treated according to their standing in society. Saint-Simon also praises how he ran his palace. He lived there with the piety of a true pastor, yet with the dignity of a prominent nobleman who still had good relations with the world. His splendor didn’t annoy anyone, as it was mainly maintained for the sake of others, and was perfectly suited to his position. Despite all its luxuries and comforts, his home remained a genuine bishop’s palace, exuding strict discipline and restraint. Throughout all this composed dignity, the archbishop was always the present and unmatched example—in everything he did, he was the perfect churchman, in every way a high-bred noble, and in all things, the author of Télémaque.

The one great blot on this ideal existence was his persecution of the Jansenists (see Jansenism). His theories of life were very different from theirs; and they had taken a strong line against his Maxims of the Saints, holding that visionary theories of perfection were ill-fitted for a world where even the holiest could scarce be saved. To suppress them, and to gain a better market for his own ideas, he was even ready to strike up an alliance with the Jesuits, and force on a reluctant France the doctrine of papal infallibility. His time was much better employed in fitting his old pupil, Burgundy, for a kingship that never came. Louis XIV. seldom allowed them to meet, but for years they corresponded; and nothing is more admirable than the mingled tact and firmness with which Fénelon spoke his mind about the prince’s faults. This exchange of letters became still more frequent in 1711, when the wretched dauphin died and left Burgundy heir-apparent to the throne. Fénelon now wrote a series of memorable criticisms on the government of Louis XIV., accompanied by projects of reform, not always quite so wise. For his practical 254 political service was to act as an alarm-bell. Much more clearly than most men, he saw that the Bourbons were tottering to their fall, but how to prevent that fall he did not know.

The one major flaw in this ideal life was his persecution of the Jansenists (see Jansenism). His views on life were very unlike theirs; they had taken a strong stand against his Maxims of the Saints, arguing that abstract ideas of perfection were out of touch with a world where even the holiest could barely be saved. To silence them and promote his own ideas, he was even willing to partner with the Jesuits and impose the doctrine of papal infallibility on a reluctant France. He would have been better off focusing on preparing his former student, Burgundy, for a kingship that never came to pass. Louis XIV hardly let them meet, but they corresponded for years; nothing is more admirable than the mix of tact and firmness with which Fénelon expressed his thoughts about the prince’s flaws. Their exchange of letters became even more frequent in 1711, when the unfortunate dauphin died and made Burgundy the heir-apparent to the throne. Fénelon then wrote a series of significant critiques of Louis XIV’s government, accompanied by reform proposals, which were not always very wise. His main political role was to act as an alarm bell. More clearly than most, he recognized that the Bourbons were on the verge of collapse, but he didn’t know how to stop it.

Not that any amount of knowledge would have availed. In 1712 Burgundy died, and with him died all his tutor’s hopes of reform. From this moment his health began to fail, though he mustered strength enough to write a remarkable Letter to the French Academy in the autumn of 1714. This is really a series of general reflections on the literary movement of his time. As in his political theories, the critical element is much stronger than the constructive. Fénelon was feeling his way away from the rigid standards of Boileau to “a Sublime so simple and familiar that all may understand it.” But some of his methods were remarkably erratic; he was anxious, for instance, to abolish verse, as unsuited to the genius of the French. In other respects, however, he was far before his age. The 17th century has treated literature as it treated politics and religion; each of the three was cooped up in a water-tight compartment by itself. Fénelon was one of the first to break down these partition-walls, and insist on viewing all three as products of a single spirit, seen at different angles.

Not that any amount of knowledge would have helped. In 1712, Burgundy died, taking with him all his tutor’s hopes for reform. From that point on, his health began to decline, although he found enough strength to write a remarkable Letter to the French Academy in the autumn of 1714. This is essentially a series of general thoughts on the literary movement of his time. As in his political theories, the critical aspect is much stronger than the constructive. Fénelon was trying to move away from the rigid standards of Boileau to “a Sublime so simple and familiar that everyone can understand it.” However, some of his methods were quite erratic; for example, he wanted to abolish verse, as he believed it was unsuitable for the genius of the French. In other ways, though, he was far ahead of his time. The 17th century treated literature the same way it treated politics and religion; each of the three was confined to its own separate compartment. Fénelon was one of the first to break down these walls and advocate viewing all three as products of a single spirit, seen from different angles.

A few weeks after the Letter was written, Fénelon met with a carriage-accident, and the shock proved too much for his enfeebled frame. On the 7th of January 1715 he died at the age of 63. Ever since, his character has been a much-discussed enigma. Bossuet can only be thought of as the high-priest of authority and common-sense; but Fénelon has been made by turns into a sentimentalist, a mystical saint, an 18th-century philosophe, an ultramontane churchman and a hysterical hypocrite. And each of these views, except the last, contains an element of truth. More than most men, Fénelon “wanders between two worlds—one dead, the other powerless to be born.” He came just at a time when the characteristic ideas of the 17th century—the ideas of Louis XIV., of Bossuet and Boileau—had lost their savour, and before another creed could arise to take their place. Hence, like most of those who break away from an established order, he seems by turns a revolutionist and a reactionary. Such a man expresses his ideas much better by word of mouth than in the cold formality of print; and Fénelon’s contemporaries thought far more highly of his conversation than his books. That downright, gossiping German princess, the duchess of Orleans, cared little for the Maxims; but she was enraptured by their author, and his “ugly face, all skin and bone, though he laughed and talked quite unaffectedly and easily.” An observer of very different mettle, the great lawyer d’Aguesseau, dwells on the “noble singularity, that gave him an almost prophetic air. Yet he was neither passionate nor masterful. Though in reality he governed others, it was always by seeming to give way; and he reigned in society as much by the attraction of his manners as by the superior virtue of his parts. Under his hand the most trifling subjects gained a new importance; yet he treated the gravest with a touch so light that he seemed to have invented the sciences rather than learnt them, for he was always a creator, always original, and himself was imitable of none.” Still better is Saint-Simon’s portrait of Fénelon as he appeared about the time of his appointment to Cambrai—tall, thin, well-built, exceedingly pale, with a great nose, eyes from which fire and genius poured in torrents, a face curious and unlike any other, yet so striking and attractive that, once seen, it could not be forgotten. There were to be found the most contradictory qualities in perfect agreement with each other—gravity and courtliness, earnestness and gaiety, the man of learning, the noble and the bishop. But all centred in an air of high-bred dignity, of graceful, polished seemliness and wit—it cost an effort to turn away one’s eyes.

A few weeks after the Letter was written, Fénelon got into a carriage accident, and the shock was too much for his weakened body. On January 7, 1715, he died at the age of 63. Ever since, his character has been a widely debated mystery. Bossuet is seen as the high-priest of authority and common sense; however, Fénelon has alternately been viewed as a sentimentalist, a mystical saint, an 18th-century philosophe, an ultramontane churchman, and a hypocritical figure. Each of these perspectives, except the last, contains a grain of truth. More than most people, Fénelon “wanders between two worlds—one dead, the other powerless to be born.” He came at a time when the key ideas of the 17th century—the ideas of Louis XIV., Bossuet, and Boileau—had lost their appeal, and before another set of beliefs could take their place. Thus, like many who break away from an established order, he appears at times to be both a revolutionary and a conservative. Such a person expresses their ideas much better in conversation than in the formal rigidity of print; and Fénelon’s contemporaries thought far more highly of his discussions than his writings. That straightforward, chatty German princess, the Duchesse of Orleans, didn’t care much for the Maxims; but she was captivated by their author, and his “ugly face, all skin and bone, though he laughed and talked quite naturally and easily.” An observer of a very different character, the great lawyer d’Aguesseau, noted the “noble uniqueness that gave him an almost prophetic presence. Yet he was neither passionate nor domineering. Although he effectively led others, it was always by appearing to yield; and he reigned in society as much by the charm of his demeanor as by the superior quality of his abilities. Under his influence, even the most trivial topics gained new significance; yet he approached the gravest matters with such a light touch that it seemed like he had invented the sciences rather than learned them, as he was always a creator, always original, and truly unmatched.” Even better is Saint-Simon’s description of Fénelon as he appeared around the time of his appointment to Cambrai—tall, thin, well-built, extremely pale, with a large nose, eyes from which fire and genius flowed in torrents, a face that was unusual and unlike any other, yet so striking and attractive that once seen, it could not be forgotten. In him were found the most contradictory qualities harmoniously aligned—seriousness and courtesy, earnestness and light-heartedness, the scholar, the noble, and the bishop. But all of this radiated an air of high dignity, graceful sophistication, and wit—it was hard not to keep looking.

Authorities.—The best complete edition of Fénelon was brought out by the abbé Gosselin of Saint Sulpice (10 vols., Paris, 1851). Gosselin also edited the Histoire de Fénelon, by Cardinal Bausset (4 vols., Paris, 1850). Modern authorities are Fénelon à Cambrai (Paris, 1885), by Emmanuel de Broglie; Fénelon, by Paul Janet (Paris, 1892); Bossuet et Fénelon, by L. Crouslé (2 vols., Paris, 1894); J. Lemaître, Fénelon (1910). In English there are: Fénelon, his Friends and Enemies, by E.K. Sanders (1901); and François de Fénelon, by Lord St Cyres (1906); see also the Quarterly Review for January 1902, and M. Masson, Fénelon et Madame Guyon (1907). (St. C.)

Authorities.—The best complete edition of Fénelon was published by Abbé Gosselin of Saint Sulpice (10 vols., Paris, 1851). Gosselin also edited the Histoire de Fénelon by Cardinal Bausset (4 vols., Paris, 1850). Modern sources include Fénelon à Cambrai (Paris, 1885) by Emmanuel de Broglie; Fénelon by Paul Janet (Paris, 1892); Bossuet et Fénelon by L. Crouslé (2 vols., Paris, 1894); and J. Lemaître's Fénelon (1910). In English, there are: Fénelon, his Friends and Enemies by E.K. Sanders (1901); and François de Fénelon by Lord St Cyres (1906); also see the Quarterly Review from January 1902 and M. Masson's Fénelon et Madame Guyon (1907). (St. C.)


FENESTELLA, Roman historian and encyclopaedic writer, flourished in the reign of Tiberius. If the notice in Jerome be correct, he lived from 52 B.C. to A.D. 19 (according to others 35 B.C.-A.D. 36). Taking Varro for his model, Fenestella was one of the chief representatives of the new style of historical writing which, in the place of the brilliant descriptive pictures of Livy, discussed curious and out-of-the-way incidents and customs of political and social life, including literary history. He was the author of an Annales, probably from the earliest times down to his own days. The fragments indicate the great variety of subjects discussed: the origin of the appeal to the people (provocatio); the use of elephants in the circus games; the wearing of gold rings; the introduction of the olive tree; the material for making the toga; the cultivation of the soil; certain details as to the lives of Cicero and Terence. The work was very much used (mention is made of an abridged edition) by Pliny the elder, Asconius Pedianus (the commentator on Cicero), Nonius, and the philologists.

FENESTELLA, was a Roman historian and encyclopedic writer who thrived during Tiberius's reign. If Jerome's account is accurate, he lived from 52 BCE to CE 19 (though some say 35 BCE-CE 36). Following Varro's example, Fenestella became one of the main figures of a new style of historical writing that, instead of the vivid descriptive scenes of Livy, focused on interesting and obscure events and customs of political and social life, including literary history. He authored an Annales, likely covering from the earliest times up to his own period. The fragments reveal a wide range of topics discussed: the origin of the appeal to the people (provocatio); the use of elephants in circus games; the wearing of gold rings; the introduction of the olive tree; the materials used for making the toga; agricultural practices; and details about the lives of Cicero and Terence. His work was frequently referenced (there's mention of an abridged edition) by Pliny the Elder, Asconius Pedianus (the commentator on Cicero), Nonius, and various philologists.

Fragments in H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum fragmenta (1883); see also monographs by L. Mercklin (1844) and J. Poeth (1849); M. Schanz, Geschichte der röm. Litt. ed. 2 (1901); Teuffel, Hist. of Roman Literature, p. 259. A work published under the name of L. Fenestella (De magistratibus et sacerdotiis Romanorum, 1510) is really by A.D. Fiocchi, canon and papal secretary, and was subsequently published as by him (under the latinized form of his name, Floccus), edited by Aegidius Witsius (1561).

Fragments in H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum fragmenta (1883); also see monographs by L. Mercklin (1844) and J. Poeth (1849); M. Schanz, Geschichte der röm. Litt. ed. 2 (1901); Teuffel, Hist. of Roman Literature, p. 259. A work published under the name of L. Fenestella (De magistratibus et sacerdotiis Romanorum, 1510) is actually by A.D. Fiocchi, a canon and papal secretary, and was later published under his name (in the Latinized form Floccus), edited by Aegidius Witsius (1561).


FENESTRATION (from O. Fr. fenestre, modern fenêtre, Lat. fenestra, a window, connected with Gr. φαίνειν, to show), an architectural term applied to the arrangement of windows on the front of a building, more especially when, in the absence of columns or pilasters separating them, they constitute its chief architectural embellishment. The term “fenestral” is given to a frame or “chassis” on which oiled paper or thin cloth was strained to keep out wind and rain when the windows were not glazed.

FENESTRATION (from Old French fenestre, modern fenêtre, Latin fenestra, meaning a window, related to Greek shine, which means to show), is an architectural term used to describe the arrangement of windows on the front of a building, especially when they serve as the main architectural feature without being separated by columns or pilasters. The term “fenestral” refers to a frame or “chassis” that held oiled paper or thin cloth, used to keep out wind and rain when the windows weren't glassed.


FENIANS, or Fenian Brotherhood, the name of a modern Irish-American revolutionary secret society, founded in America by John O’Mahony (1816-1877) in 1858. The name was derived from an anglicized version of fiann, féinne, the legendary band of warriors in Ireland led by the hero Find Mac Cumaill (see Finn Mac Cool; and Celt: Celtic Literature: Irish); and it was given to his organization of conspirators by O’Mahony, who was a Celtic scholar and had translated Keating’s History of Ireland in 1857. After the collapse of William Smith O’Brien’s attempted rising in 1848, O’Mahony, who was concerned in it, escaped abroad, and since 1852 had been living in New York. James Stephens, another of the “men of 1848,” had established himself in Paris, and was in correspondence with O’Mahony and other disaffected Irishmen at home and abroad. A club called the Phoenix National and Literary Society, with Jeremiah Donovan (afterwards known as O’Donovan Rossa) among its more prominent members, had recently been formed at Skibbereen; and under the influence of Stephens, who visited it in May 1858, it became the centre of preparations for armed rebellion. About the same time O’Mahony in the United States established the “Fenian Brotherhood,” whose members bound themselves by an oath of “allegiance to the Irish Republic, now virtually established,” and swore to take up arms when called upon and to yield implicit obedience to the commands of their superior officers. The object of Stephens, O’Mahony and other leaders of the movement was to form a great league of Irishmen in all parts of the world against British rule in Ireland. The organization was modelled on that of the French Jacobins at the Revolution; there was a “Committee of Public Safety” in Paris, with a number of subsidiary committees, and affiliated clubs; its operations were conducted secretly by unknown and irresponsible leaders; and it had ramifications in every part of the world, the “Fenians,” as they soon came to be generally called, being found in Australia, South America, Canada, and above all in the United States, as well as in the large centres of population in Great Britain such as London, Manchester and Glasgow. It is, however, noteworthy that Fenianism never gained much hold on the tenant-farmers or agricultural labourers in Ireland, although the scurrilous press by which it 255 was supported preached a savage vendetta against the landowners, who were to be shot down “as we shoot robbers and rats.”1 The movement was denounced by the priests of the Catholic Church.

Fenians, or Fenian Brotherhood, is the name of a modern Irish-American revolutionary secret society, founded in America by John O’Mahony (1816-1877) in 1858. The name comes from an anglicized version of fiann, féinne, the legendary band of warriors in Ireland led by the hero Find Mac Cumaill (see Finn Mac Cool; and Celt: Celtic Literature: Irish); O’Mahony gave this name to his group of conspirators, as he was a Celtic scholar who had translated Keating’s History of Ireland in 1857. After the failure of William Smith O’Brien’s uprising in 1848, O’Mahony, who was involved in it, fled abroad and had been living in New York since 1852. James Stephens, another of the “men of 1848,” had settled in Paris and was in contact with O’Mahony and other discontented Irish people both at home and abroad. A club called the Phoenix National and Literary Society, with Jeremiah Donovan (later known as O’Donovan Rossa) among its more notable members, had recently been established in Skibbereen; influenced by Stephens, who visited in May 1858, it became the center for planning armed rebellion. Around the same time, O’Mahony in the United States created the “Fenian Brotherhood,” whose members pledged an oath of “allegiance to the Irish Republic, now virtually established,” committing to take up arms when needed and to strictly obey their superior officers. The goal of Stephens, O’Mahony, and other leaders of the movement was to form a vast alliance of Irish people worldwide against British rule in Ireland. The organization was modeled on the French Jacobins during the Revolution; there was a “Committee of Public Safety” in Paris, along with several subsidiary committees and affiliated clubs; its activities were carried out secretly by unknown and unaccountable leaders, and it had connections in every part of the world, with “Fenians,” as they became commonly known, found in Australia, South America, Canada, and especially in the United States, as well as in major urban areas of Great Britain like London, Manchester, and Glasgow. However, it is notable that Fenianism never really attracted the tenant-farmers or agricultural workers in Ireland, even though the unscrupulous press supporting it called for a brutal revenge against the landowners, who were to be shot down “as we shoot robbers and rats.” 1 The movement was condemned by the priests of the Catholic Church.

It was, however, some few years after the foundation of the Fenian Brotherhood before it made much headway, or at all events before much was heard of it outside the organization itself, though it is probable that large numbers of recruits had enrolled themselves in its “circles.” The Phoenix Club conspiracy in Kerry was easily crushed by the government, who had accurate knowledge from an informer of what was going on. Some twenty ringleaders were put on trial, including Donovan, and when they pleaded guilty were, with a single exception, treated with conspicuous leniency. But after a convention held at Chicago under O’Mahony’s presidency in November 1863 the movement began to show signs of life. About the same time the Irish People, a revolutionary journal of extreme violence, was started in Dublin by Stephens, and for two years was allowed without molestation by the government to advocate armed rebellion, and to appeal for aid to Irishmen who had had military training in the American Civil War. At the close of that war in 1865 numbers of Irish who had borne arms flocked to Ireland, and the plans for a rising matured. The government, well served as usual by informers, now took action. In September 1865 the Irish People was suppressed, and several of the more prominent Fenians were sentenced to terms of penal servitude; Stephens, through the connivance of a prison warder, escaped to France. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in the beginning of 1866, and a considerable number of persons were arrested. Stephens issued a bombastic proclamation in America announcing an imminent general rising in Ireland; but he was himself soon afterwards deposed by his confederates, among whom dissension had broken out. A few Irish-American officers, who landed at Cork in the expectation of commanding an army against England, were locked up in gaol; some petty disturbances in Limerick and Kerry were easily suppressed by the police.

It was a few years after the Fenian Brotherhood was founded before it gained any real momentum, or at least before it was widely recognized outside the organization itself, although it's likely that many recruits had joined its "circles." The Phoenix Club conspiracy in Kerry was quickly dismantled by the government, which had accurate information from an informant about what was happening. About twenty leaders, including Donovan, were put on trial and, after pleading guilty, were treated with notable leniency except for one case. However, following a convention held in Chicago under O'Mahony's leadership in November 1863, the movement started to regain energy. Around that same time, the Irish People, an extremely radical revolutionary journal, was launched in Dublin by Stephens, and for two years, the government allowed it to promote armed rebellion and seek support from Irishmen who had military experience from the American Civil War. After that war ended in 1865, many Irish veterans returned to Ireland, and plans for an uprising began to take shape. The government, as always, relying on informants, began to take action. In September 1865, the Irish People was shut down, and several prominent Fenians were sentenced to prison. Stephens managed to escape to France with the help of a prison guard. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in early 1866, leading to a significant number of arrests. Stephens issued an over-the-top proclamation in America claiming a general uprising in Ireland was imminent; however, he was soon deposed by his allies, who had started to argue among themselves. A few Irish-American officers who landed in Cork hoping to lead an army against England were thrown in jail, and some minor disturbances in Limerick and Kerry were quickly suppressed by the police.

In the United States, however, the Fenian Brotherhood, now under the presidency of W.R. Roberts, continued plotting. They raised money by the issue of bonds in the name of the “Irish Republic,” which were bought by the credulous in the expectation of their being honoured when Ireland should be “a nation once again.” A large quantity of arms was purchased, and preparations were openly made for a raid into Canada, which the United States government took no steps to prevent. It was indeed believed that President Andrew Johnson was not indisposed to turn the movement to account in the settlement of the Alabama claims. The Fenian “secretary for war” was General T.W. Sweeny (1820-1892), who temporarily (Jan. 1865-Nov. 1866) was struck off the American army list. The command of the expedition was entrusted to John O’Neill, who crossed the Niagara river at the head of some 800 men on the 1st of June 1866, and captured Fort Erie. But large numbers of his men deserted, and at Ridgeway the Fenians were routed by a battalion of Canadian volunteers. On the 3rd of June the remnant surrendered to the American warship “Michigan”; and the tardy issue of President Johnson’s proclamation enforcing the laws of neutrality brought the raid to an ignominious end; the prisoners were released, and the arms taken from the raiders were, according to Henri Le Caron, “returned to the Fenian organization, only to be used for the same purpose some four years later.” In December 1867, John O’Neill became president of the Brotherhood in America, which in the following year held a great convention in Philadelphia attended by over 400 properly accredited delegates, while 6000 Fenian soldiers, armed and in uniform, paraded the streets. At this convention a second invasion of Canada was determined upon; while the news of the Clerkenwell explosion in London (see below) was a strong incentive to a vigorous policy. Le Caron (q.v.), who, while acting as a secret agent of the English government, held the position of “inspector-general of the Irish Republican Army,” asserts that he “distributed fifteen thousand stands of arms and almost three million rounds of ammunition in the care of the many trusted men stationed between Ogdensburg and St Albans,” in preparation for the intended raid. It took place in April 1870, and proved a failure not less rapid or complete than the attempt of 1866. The Fenians under O’Neill’s command crossed the Canadian frontier near Franklin, Vt., but were dispersed by a single volley from Canadian volunteers; while O’Neill himself was promptly arrested by the United States authorities acting under the orders of President Grant.

In the United States, however, the Fenian Brotherhood, now led by W.R. Roberts, continued their planning. They raised funds by issuing bonds in the name of the “Irish Republic,” which were purchased by believers who expected them to be honored when Ireland became “a nation once again.” A large amount of weapons was acquired, and plans were openly made for a raid into Canada, which the U.S. government did nothing to stop. In fact, it was believed that President Andrew Johnson was willing to use the movement to help resolve the Alabama claims. The Fenian “secretary for war” was General T.W. Sweeny (1820-1892), who was temporarily removed from the American army list between January 1865 and November 1866. The command of the expedition was given to John O’Neill, who crossed the Niagara River with about 800 men on June 1, 1866, and captured Fort Erie. However, many of his men deserted, and at Ridgeway, the Fenians were defeated by a battalion of Canadian volunteers. On June 3, the remaining soldiers surrendered to the American warship “Michigan,” and the delayed issuance of President Johnson’s proclamation enforcing neutrality laws brought the raid to a shameful end; the prisoners were released, and the weapons taken from the raiders were, according to Henri Le Caron, “returned to the Fenian organization, only to be used for the same purpose about four years later.” In December 1867, John O’Neill became president of the Brotherhood in America, which held a large convention in Philadelphia the following year attended by over 400 officially recognized delegates, while 6,000 Fenian soldiers, armed and in uniform, paraded through the streets. At this convention, a second invasion of Canada was planned; the news of the Clerkenwell explosion in London (see below) served as a strong motivation for an aggressive strategy. Le Caron (q.v.), acting as a secret agent for the British government, held the role of “inspector-general of the Irish Republican Army,” and claimed he “distributed fifteen thousand stands of arms and almost three million rounds of ammunition to many trusted men stationed between Ogdensburg and St Albans” in preparation for the planned raid. This raid occurred in April 1870 and was just as rapidly and completely unsuccessful as the attempt in 1866. The Fenians under O’Neill crossed the Canadian border near Franklin, VT, but were quickly dispersed by a single volley from Canadian volunteers, while O’Neill himself was soon arrested by U.S. authorities acting on orders from President Grant.

Meantime in Ireland, after the suppression of the Irish People, disaffection had continued to smoulder, and during the latter part of 1866 Stephens endeavoured to raise funds in America for a fresh rising planned for the following year. A bold move on the part of the Fenian “circles” in Lancashire had been concerted in co-operation with the movement in Ireland. An attack was to be made on Chester, the arms stored in the castle were to be seized, the telegraph wires cut, the rolling stock on the railway to be appropriated for transport to Holyhead, where shipping was to be seized and a descent made on Dublin before the authorities should have time to interfere. This scheme was frustrated by information given to the government by the informer John Joseph Corydon, one of Stephens’s most trusted agents. Some insignificant outbreaks in the south and west of Ireland brought “the rebellion of 1867” to an ignominious close. Most of the ringleaders were arrested, but although some of them were sentenced to death none was executed. On the 11th of September 1867, Colonel Thomas J. Kelly, “deputy central organizer of the Irish Republic,” one of the most dangerous of the Fenian conspirators, was arrested in Manchester, whither he had gone from Dublin to attend a council of the English “centres,” together with a companion, Captain Deasy. A plot to effect the rescue of these prisoners was hatched by Edward O’Meaher Condon with other Manchester Fenians; and on the 18th of September, while Kelly and Deasy were being conveyed through the city from the court-house, the prison van was attacked by Fenians armed with revolvers, and in the scuffle police-sergeant Brett, who was seated inside the van, was shot dead. Condon, Allen, Larkin, Maguire and O’Brien, who had taken a prominent part in the rescue, were arrested. All five were sentenced to death; but Condon, who was an American citizen, was respited at the request of the United States government, his sentence being commuted to penal servitude for life, and Maguire was granted a pardon. Allen, Larkin, and O’Brien were hanged on the 23rd of November for the murder of Brett. Attempts were made at the time, and have since been repeated, to show that these men were unjustly sentenced, the contention of their sympathizers being, first, that as “political offenders” they should not have been treated as ordinary murderers; and, secondly, that as they had no deliberate intention to kill the police-sergeant, the shot that caused his death having been fired for the purpose of breaking open the lock of the van, the crime was at worst that of manslaughter. But even if these pleas rest on a correct statement of the facts they have no legal validity, and they afford no warrant for the title of the “Manchester martyrs” by which these criminals are remembered among the more extreme nationalists in Ireland and America. Kelly and Deasy escaped to the United States, where the former obtained employment in the New York custom-house.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, after the shutdown of the Irish People, dissatisfaction continued to simmer, and during the latter part of 1866, Stephens attempted to raise funds in America for a new uprising planned for the following year. A bold plan was made by the Fenian “circles” in Lancashire in collaboration with the movement in Ireland. An attack was supposed to be launched on Chester, the arms stored in the castle were to be seized, the telegraph wires cut, and the rolling stock on the railway to be taken for transport to Holyhead, where shipping was to be commandeered and an assault made on Dublin before the authorities could intervene. This scheme was thwarted by information given to the government by the informer John Joseph Corydon, one of Stephens’s most trusted agents. Some minor outbreaks in the south and west of Ireland brought “the rebellion of 1867” to a shameful end. Most of the ringleaders were arrested, but even though some were sentenced to death, none were executed. On September 11, 1867, Colonel Thomas J. Kelly, “deputy central organizer of the Irish Republic,” one of the most dangerous of the Fenian conspirators, was arrested in Manchester, where he had traveled from Dublin to attend a council of the English “centres,” along with a companion, Captain Deasy. A plan to rescue these prisoners was hatched by Edward O’Meaher Condon and other Manchester Fenians; and on September 18, while Kelly and Deasy were being transported through the city from the courthouse, the prison van was attacked by Fenians armed with revolvers, and in the struggle, police sergeant Brett, who was inside the van, was shot dead. Condon, Allen, Larkin, Maguire, and O’Brien, who played a significant role in the rescue, were arrested. All five were sentenced to death; however, Condon, who was an American citizen, had his execution postponed at the request of the United States government, and his sentence was changed to life imprisonment, while Maguire received a pardon. Allen, Larkin, and O’Brien were hanged on November 23 for Brett's murder. Efforts were made at the time, and have been repeated since, to argue that these men were unjustly sentenced, with their supporters claiming, first, that as “political offenders,” they shouldn't have been treated like ordinary murderers; and, second, that since they had no intention to kill the police sergeant, as the shot that caused his death was fired to break open the lock of the van, the crime was, at worst, manslaughter. But even if these arguments accurately reflect the facts, they hold no legal ground, and they provide no justification for the title of the “Manchester martyrs” by which these criminals are remembered among the more extreme nationalists in Ireland and America. Kelly and Deasy escaped to the United States, where Kelly found work at the New York customs house.

In the same month, November 1867, one Richard Burke, who had been employed by the Fenians to purchase arms in Birmingham, was arrested and lodged in Clerkenwell prison in London. While he was awaiting trial a wall of the prison was blown down by gunpowder, the explosion causing the death of twelve persons, and the maiming of some hundred and twenty others. This outrage, for which Michael Barrett suffered the death penalty, powerfully influenced W.E. Gladstone in deciding that the Protestant Church of Ireland should be disestablished as a concession to Irish disaffection. In 1870, Michael Davitt (q.v.) was sentenced to fifteen years’ penal servitude for participation in the Fenian conspiracy; and before he was released on ticket of leave the name Fenian had become practically obsolete, though the “Irish Republican Brotherhood” and other organizations 256 in Ireland and abroad carried on the same tradition and pursued the same policy in later years. In 1879, John Devoy, a member of the Fenian Brotherhood, promoted a “new departure” in America, by which the “physical force party” allied itself with the “constitutional movement” under the leadership of C.S. Parnell (q.v.); and the political conspiracy of the Fenians was combined with the agrarian revolution inaugurated by the Land League.

In November 1867, Richard Burke, who had been hired by the Fenians to buy weapons in Birmingham, was arrested and taken to Clerkenwell prison in London. While he was waiting for his trial, a wall of the prison was blown up with gunpowder, resulting in the deaths of twelve people and injuring around one hundred and twenty others. This incident, for which Michael Barrett was executed, greatly impacted W.E. Gladstone's decision to disband the Protestant Church of Ireland as a concession to Irish dissatisfaction. In 1870, Michael Davitt (q.v.) was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for his involvement in the Fenian conspiracy; by the time he was released on parole, the name Fenian had nearly faded away, although the “Irish Republican Brotherhood” and other organizations 256 in Ireland and abroad continued the same tradition and pursued similar goals in the following years. In 1879, John Devoy, a member of the Fenian Brotherhood, initiated a “new departure” in America, where the “physical force party” joined forces with the “constitutional movement” led by C.S. Parnell (q.v.); this merged the Fenians' political conspiracy with the agrarian revolution started by the Land League.

See William O’Connor Morris, Ireland from 1798 to 1898 (London, 1898); Two Centuries of Irish History, 1601-1870, edited by R. Barry O’Brien (London, 1907); Henri Le Caron, Twenty-five Years in the Secret Service (London, 1892); Patrick J.P. Tynan, The Irish National Invincibles and their Times (London, 1896); Justin M‘Carthy, A History of our own Times (4 vols., London, 1880).

See William O’Connor Morris, Ireland from 1798 to 1898 (London, 1898); Two Centuries of Irish History, 1601-1870, edited by R. Barry O’Brien (London, 1907); Henri Le Caron, Twenty-five Years in the Secret Service (London, 1892); Patrick J.P. Tynan, The Irish National Invincibles and their Times (London, 1896); Justin M‘Carthy, A History of our own Times (4 vols., London, 1880).

(R. J. M.)

1 William O’Connor Morris, Ireland 1798-1898, p. 195.

1 William O’Connor Morris, Ireland 1798-1898, p. 195.


FENNEL, Foeniculum vulgare (also known as F. capillaceum), a perennial plant of the natural order Umbelliferae, from 2 to 3 or (when cultivated) 4 ft. in height, having leaves three or four times pinnate, with numerous linear or awl-shaped segments, and glaucous compound umbels of about 15 or 20 rays, with no involucres, and small yellow flowers, the petals incurved at the tip. The fruit is laterally compressed, five-ridged, and has a large single resin-canal or “vitta” under each furrow. The plant appears to be of south European origin, but is now met with in various parts of Britain and the rest of temperate Europe, and in the west of Asia. The dried fruits of cultivated plants from Malta have an aromatic taste and odour, and are used for the preparation of fennel water, valued for its carminative properties. It is given in doses of 1 to 2 oz., the active principle being a volatile oil which is probably the same as oil of anise. The shoots of fennel are eaten blanched, and the seeds are used for flavouring. The fennel seeds of commerce are of several sorts. Sweet or Roman fennel seeds are the produce of a tall perennial plant, with umbels of 25-30 rays, which is cultivated near Nismes in the south of France; they are elliptical and arched in form, about 25 in. long and a quarter as broad, and are smooth externally, and of a colour approaching a pale green. Shorter and straighter fruits are obtained from the annual variety of F. vulgare known as F. Panmorium (Panmuhuri) or Indian fennel, and are employed in India in curries, and for medicinal purposes. Other kinds are the German or Saxon fruits, brownish-green in colour, and between 15 and ¼ in. in length, and the broader but smaller fruits of the wild or bitter fennel of the south of France. A variety of fennel, F. dulce, having the stem compressed at the base, and the umbel 6-8 rayed, is grown in kitchen-gardens for the sake of its leaves.

FENNEL, Foeniculum vulgare (also known as F. capillaceum) is a perennial plant from the natural order Umbelliferae, typically growing to heights of 2 to 3 feet or up to 4 feet when cultivated. It has leaves that are three to four times pinnate, with numerous linear or awl-shaped segments, and features glaucous compound umbels that consist of about 15 to 20 rays, lacking involucres, along with small yellow flowers that have incurved tips. The fruit is laterally compressed, five-ridged, and includes a large single resin canal or “vitta” under each furrow. The plant seems to have originated in southern Europe but can now be found in various parts of Britain, the rest of temperate Europe, and western Asia. The dried fruits from cultivated plants in Malta have an aromatic taste and scent, and are used to make fennel water, which is known for its carminative properties. It is typically given in doses of 1 to 2 ounces, with the active ingredient being a volatile oil that is likely the same as oil of anise. The blanched shoots of fennel are edible, and the seeds are used for flavoring. Fennel seeds available in commerce come in several varieties. Sweet or Roman fennel seeds are produced by a tall perennial plant, with umbels of 25-30 rays, that is cultivated near Nîmes in the south of France; these seeds are elliptical, curved, about 25 inches long, a quarter as wide, smooth on the outside, and have a color that leans towards pale green. Shorter, straighter fruits come from the annual variety of F. vulgare known as F. Panmorium (Panmuhuri) or Indian fennel, which is used in India for curries and medicinal purposes. Other types include the German or Saxon fruits, which are brownish-green and between 15 and a quarter inch long, and the wider but smaller fruits from wild or bitter fennel found in southern France. A variety of fennel, F. dulce, has a stem compressed at the base and 6-8 rays in its umbel, and is cultivated in kitchen gardens for its leaves.

Giant fennel is the name applied to the plant Ferula communis, a member of the same natural order, and a fine herbaceous plant, native in the Mediterranean region, where the pith of the stem is used as tinder. Hog’s or sow fennel is the species Peucedanum officinale, another member of the Umbelliferae.

Giant fennel refers to the plant Ferula communis, which is part of the same natural order and is a robust herbaceous plant found in the Mediterranean region, where the pith of its stem is used as tinder. Hog’s or sow fennel is the species Peucedanum officinale, another member of the Umbelliferae family.


FENNER, DUDLEY (c. 1558-1587), English puritan divine, was born in Kent and educated at Cambridge University. There he became an adherent of Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603), and publicly expounded his presbyterian views, with the result that he was obliged to leave Cambridge without taking his degree. For some months he seems to have assisted the vicar of Cranbrook, Kent, but it is doubtful whether he received ordination. He next followed Cartwright to Antwerp, and, having received ordination according to rite of the Reformed church, assisted Cartwright for several years in preaching to the English congregation there. The leniency shown by Archbishop Grindal to puritans encouraged him to return to England, and he became curate of Cranbrook in 1583. In the same year, however, he was one of seventeen Kentish ministers suspended for refusing to sign an acknowledgment of the queen’s supremacy and of the authority of the Prayer Book and articles. He was imprisoned for a time, but eventually regained his liberty and spent the remainder of his life as chaplain in the Reformed church at Middleburgh.

FENNER, DUDLEY (c. 1558-1587), English Puritan minister, was born in Kent and educated at Cambridge University. There, he became a follower of Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603) and publicly shared his Presbyterian beliefs, which led to him leaving Cambridge without completing his degree. For a few months, he seems to have helped the vicar of Cranbrook, Kent, but it’s uncertain if he was ever ordained. He then followed Cartwright to Antwerp and, after being ordained in the Reformed church, helped Cartwright for several years in preaching to the English congregation there. The tolerance shown by Archbishop Grindal towards Puritans encouraged him to return to England, where he became curate of Cranbrook in 1583. That same year, however, he was one of seventeen ministers from Kent who were suspended for refusing to acknowledge the queen’s supremacy and the authority of the Prayer Book and articles. He was imprisoned for a while but eventually regained his freedom and spent the rest of his life as a chaplain in the Reformed church in Middleburgh.

A list of his authentic works is given in Cooper’s Athenae Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1858-1861). They rank among the best expositions of the principles of puritanism.

A list of his authentic works is provided in Cooper’s Athenae Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1858-1861). They are regarded as some of the best explanations of the principles of Puritanism.


FENNY STRATFORD, a market town in the Buckingham parliamentary division of Buckinghamshire, England, 48 m. N.W. by N. of London on a branch of the London & North-Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 4799. It lies in an open valley on the west (left) bank of the Ouzel, where the great north-western road from London, the Roman Watling Street, crosses the stream, and is 1 m. E. of Bletchley, an important junction on the main line of the North-Western railway. The church of St Martin was built (c. 1730) on the site of an older church at the instance of Dr Browne Willis, an eminent antiquary (d. 1760), buried here; but the building has been greatly enlarged. A custom instituted by Willis on St Martin’s Day (November 11th) includes a service in the church, the firing of some small cannon called the “Fenny Poppers,” and other celebrations. The trade of the town is mainly agricultural.

Fenny Stratford, is a market town located in the Buckingham parliamentary division of Buckinghamshire, England, 48 miles northwest of London along a branch of the London & North-Western railway. The population of the urban district was 4,799 in 1901. The town is situated in an open valley on the west (left) bank of the Ouzel River, where the main north-western road from London, the Roman Watling Street, crosses the stream, and is 1 mile east of Bletchley, an important junction on the main line of the North-Western railway. The church of St. Martin was built around 1730 on the site of an older church at the request of Dr. Browne Willis, a notable antiquarian who died in 1760 and is buried here; however, the building has been significantly enlarged since then. A tradition established by Willis on St. Martin’s Day (November 11th) includes a service in the church, the firing of small cannons known as the “Fenny Poppers,” and other festivities. The town's economy is primarily based on agriculture.


FENRIR, or Fenris, in Scandinavian mythology, a water-demon in the shape of a huge wolf. He was the offspring of Loki and the giantess Angurboda, who bore two other children, Midgard the serpent, and Hel the goddess of death. Fenrir grew so large that the gods were afraid of him and had him chained up. But he broke the first two chains. The third, however, was made of the sound of a cat’s footsteps, a man’s beard, the roots of a mountain, a fish’s breath and a bird’s spittle. This magic bond was too strong for him until Ragnarok (Judgment Day), when he escaped and swallowed Odin and was in turn slain by Vidar, the latter’s son.

FENRIR, or Fenris, in Scandinavian mythology, is a water-demon in the form of a massive wolf. He was the son of Loki and the giantess Angurboda, who also had two other children: Midgard the serpent and Hel, the goddess of death. Fenrir grew so enormous that the gods became fearful of him and decided to chain him up. He broke free from the first two chains. However, the third chain was made from the sound of a cat’s footsteps, a man’s beard, the roots of a mountain, a fish’s breath, and a bird’s spittle. This magical bond was too powerful for him to break until Ragnarok (Judgment Day), when he escaped and devoured Odin, only to be killed by Vidar, Odin's son.


FENS,1 a district in the east of England, possessing a distinctive history and peculiar characteristics. It lies west and south of the Wash, in Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, and extends over more than 70 m. in length (Lincoln to Cambridge) and some 35 m. in maximum breadth. (Stamford to Brandon in Suffolk), its area being considerably over half a million acres. Although low and flat, and seamed by innumerable water-courses, the entire region is not, as the Roman name of Metaris Aestuarium would imply, a river estuary, but a bay of the North Sea, silted up, of which the Wash is the last remaining portion. Hydrographically, the Fens embrace the lower parts of the drainage-basins of the rivers Witham, Welland, Nene and Great Ouse; and against these streams, as against the ocean, they are protected by earthen embankments, 10 to 15 ft. high. As a rule the drainage water is lifted off the Fens into the rivers by means of steam-pumps, formerly by windmills.

FENS,1 a region in the east of England, with a unique history and distinct features. It is located to the west and south of the Wash, covering areas in Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Norfolk. It stretches over 70 miles in length (from Lincoln to Cambridge) and about 35 miles at its widest point (from Stamford to Brandon in Suffolk), occupying well over half a million acres. Despite being low and flat, and crisscrossed by countless waterways, the entire area is not, as the Roman name Metaris Aestuarium suggests, a river estuary, but rather a bay of the North Sea that has been silted up, with the Wash being the last remaining part. Hydrologically, the Fens include the lower parts of the drainage basins for the rivers Witham, Welland, Nene, and Great Ouse. They are protected against these rivers, as well as the sea, by earthen embankments that are 10 to 15 feet high. Typically, drainage water is pumped off the Fens into the rivers using steam pumps, which were previously powered by windmills.

General History.—According to fairly credible tradition, the first systematic attempt to drain the Fens was made by the Romans. They dug a catchwater drain (as the artificial fenland water-courses are called), the Caer or Car Dyke, from Lincoln to Ramsey (or, according to Stukeley, as far as Cambridge), along the western edge of the Fens, to carry off the precipitation of the higher districts which border the fenland, and constructed alongside the Welland and on the seashore earthen embankments, of which some 150 m. survive. Mr S.H. Miller is disposed to credit the native British inhabitants of the Fens with having executed certain of these works. The Romans also carried causeways over the country. After their departure from Britain in the first half of the 5th century the Fens fell into neglect; and despite the preservation of the woodlands for the purposes of the chase by the Norman and early Plantagenet kings, and the unsuccessful attempt which Richard de Rulos, chamberlain of William the Conqueror, made to drain Deeping Fen, the fenland region became almost everywhere waterlogged, and relapsed to a great extent into a state of nature. In addition to this it was ravaged by serious inundations of the sea, for example, in the years 1178, 1248 (or 1250), 1288, 1322, 1335, 1467, 1571. Yet the fenland was not altogether a wilderness of reed-grown marsh and watery swamp. At various spots, more particularly in the north and in the south, there existed islands of firmer and higher ground, resting generally on the boulder clays of the Glacial epochs and on the inter-Glacial gravels of the Palaeolithic age. In these isolated localities members of the monastic 257 orders (especially at a later date the Cistercians) began to settle after about the middle of the 7th century. At Medeshampstead (i.e. Peterborough), Ely, Crowland, Ramsey, Thorney, Spalding, Peakirk, Swineshead, Tattershall, Kirkstead, Bardney, Sempringham, Bourne and numerous other places, they made settlements and built churches, monasteries and abbeys. In spite of the incursions of the predatory Northmen and Danes in the 9th and 10th centuries, and of the disturbances consequent upon the establishment of the Camp of Refuge by Hereward the Wake in the fens of the Isle of Ely in the 11th century, these scattered outposts continued to shed rays of civilization across the lonely Fenland down to the dissolution of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII. Then they, too, were partly overtaken by the fate which befell the rest of the Fens; and it was only in the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century that the complete drainage and reclamation of the Fen region was finally effected. Attempts on a considerable scale were indeed made to reclaim them in the 17th century, and the work as a whole forms one of the most remarkable chapters of the industrial history of England. Thus, the reclamation of the Witham Fens was taken up by Sir Anthony Thomas, the earl of Lindsey, Sir William Killigrew, King Charles I., and others in 1631 and succeeding years; and that of the Deeping or Welland Fens in 1638 by Sir W. Ayloff, Sir Anthony Thomas and other “adventurers,” after one Thomas Lovell had ruined himself in a similar attempt in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The earl of Lindsey received 24,000 acres for his work. Charles I., declaring himself the “undertaker” of the Holland Fen, claimed 8000 out of its 22,000 acres as his share.

General History.—According to reasonably reliable tradition, the first organized effort to drain the Fens was undertaken by the Romans. They created a catchwater drain (as the man-made waterways in the fenland are called), known as the Caer or Car Dyke, stretching from Lincoln to Ramsey (or, according to Stukeley, as far as Cambridge), along the western edge of the Fens, to remove the runoff from the higher land that surrounds the fenland. They also built earthen embankments alongside the Welland River and on the coast, of which about 150 miles still exist. Mr. S.H. Miller believes that the native British inhabitants of the Fens may have contributed to some of these constructions. The Romans also established causeways across the region. After they left Britain in the early 5th century, the Fens fell into disrepair. Despite the Norman and early Plantagenet kings preserving the woodlands for hunting purposes, and the unsuccessful attempt by Richard de Rulos, chamberlain to William the Conqueror, to drain Deeping Fen, the fenland became largely waterlogged, returning to a natural state. Additionally, it was devastated by serious flooding from the sea, for example, in the years 1178, 1248 (or 1250), 1288, 1322, 1335, 1467, and 1571. However, the fenland was not entirely a wilderness of reed-filled marshes and watery swamps. In various locations, especially in the north and south, there were patches of firmer and higher ground, generally formed from boulder clays from the Glacial period and inter-Glacial gravels from the Palaeolithic age. In these isolated areas, members of monastic orders (especially the Cistercians later on) began to settle after about the middle of the 7th century. At Medeshampstead (i.e. Peterborough), Ely, Crowland, Ramsey, Thorney, Spalding, Peakirk, Swineshead, Tattershall, Kirkstead, Bardney, Sempringham, Bourne, and many other places, they established communities and built churches, monasteries, and abbeys. Despite the raids by the Northmen and Danes in the 9th and 10th centuries, and the upheavals caused by Hereward the Wake's establishment of the Camp of Refuge in the fens of the Isle of Ely in the 11th century, these scattered settlements continued to spread civilization across the desolate Fenland until the dissolution of the monasteries during Henry VIII's reign. After that, they, too, were partially subjected to the same fate as the rest of the Fens; it wasn't until the late 18th and early 19th centuries that the complete drainage and reclamation of the Fen region was finally achieved. Significant attempts to reclaim the Fens occurred in the 17th century, and this effort is one of the most notable chapters in England's industrial history. For example, the reclamation of the Witham Fens was taken on by Sir Anthony Thomas, the Earl of Lindsey, Sir William Killigrew, King Charles I, and others starting in 1631 and the following years; while the Deeping or Welland Fens were tackled in 1638 by Sir W. Ayloff, Sir Anthony Thomas, and other "adventurers," after one Thomas Lovell had bankrupted himself trying to do the same in Queen Elizabeth's reign. The Earl of Lindsey was awarded 24,000 acres for his efforts. Charles I, who called himself the "undertaker" of the Holland Fen, claimed 8,000 out of its 22,000 acres as his share.

A larger work than these, however, was the drainage of the fens of the Nene and the Great Ouse, comprehending the wide tract known as the Bedford level. This district took name from the agreement of Francis, earl of Bedford, the principal land-holder, and thirteen other adventurers, with Charles I. in 1634, to drain the level, on condition of receiving 95,000 acres of the reclaimed land. A partial attempt at drainage had been made (1478-1490) by John Morton, when bishop of Ely, who constructed Morton’s Leam, from Peterborough to the sea, to carry the waters of the Nene, but this also proved a failure. An act was passed, moreover, in 1602 for effecting its reclamation; and Lord Chief-Justice Popham (whose name is preserved in Popham’s Eau, S.E. of Wisbech) and a company of Londoners began the work in 1605; but the first effectual attempt was that of 1634. The work was largely directed by the Dutch engineer Cornelius Vermuyden, who had begun work in the Fens in 1621, and was knighted in 1628.

A bigger project than these was the drainage of the fens of the Nene and the Great Ouse, covering the large area known as the Bedford level. This area got its name from the agreement made in 1634 between Francis, Earl of Bedford, the main landowner, and thirteen other adventurers with Charles I., to drain the level in exchange for 95,000 acres of the reclaimed land. A partial drainage attempt had been made by John Morton, who was Bishop of Ely from 1478 to 1490. He built Morton’s Leam, which stretched from Peterborough to the sea to carry the waters of the Nene, but this also failed. Additionally, an act was passed in 1602 to reclaim the land, and Lord Chief Justice Popham (whose name is remembered in Popham’s Eau, southeast of Wisbech) along with a group of Londoners started the work in 1605, but the first successful attempt happened in 1634. The project was mainly led by the Dutch engineer Cornelius Vermuyden, who had begun working in the Fens in 1621 and was knighted in 1628.

Three years after the agreement of the earl of Bedford and his partners with the king, after an outlay of £100,000 on the part of the company, the contract was annulled, on the fraudulent plea that the works were insufficient; and an offer was made by King Charles to undertake its completion on condition of receiving 57,000 acres in addition to the amount originally agreed on. This unjust attempt was frustrated by the breaking out of the civil war; and no further attempt at drainage was made until 1649, when the parliament reinstated the earl of Bedford’s successor in his father’s rights. After an additional outlay of £300,000, the adventurers received 95,000 acres of reclaimed land, according to the contract, which, however, fell far short of repaying the expense of the undertaking. In 1664 a royal charter was obtained to incorporate the company, which still exists, and carries on the concern under a governor, 6 bailiffs, 20 conservators, and a commonalty, each of whom must possess 100 acres of land in the level, and has a voice in the election of officers. The conservators must each possess not less than 280 acres, the governor and bailiffs each 400 acres. The original adventurers had allotments of land according to their interest of the original 95,000 acres; but Charles II., on granting the charter, took care to secure to the crown a lot of 12,000 acres out of the 95,000, which, however, is held under the directors, whereas the allotments are not held in common, though subject to the laws of the corporation. The level was divided in 1697 into three parts, called the North, Middle, and South Levels—the second being separated from the others by the Nene and Old Bedford rivers.

Three years after the earl of Bedford and his partners made a deal with the king, and after the company spent £100,000, the contract was canceled based on the false claim that the work was inadequate. King Charles then proposed to complete the project on the condition that he received an additional 57,000 acres along with the original agreement. This unfair attempt was thwarted by the outbreak of the civil war, and no further drainage efforts were made until 1649, when parliament restored the earl of Bedford’s successor to his father's rights. After investing another £300,000, the investors ended up with 95,000 acres of reclaimed land, according to the contract, but this was still far less than what was needed to cover their expenses. In 1664, they obtained a royal charter to incorporate the company, which is still in operation today, managed by a governor, 6 bailiffs, 20 conservators, and a community, each of whom must own 100 acres of land in the area and has a say in electing the officials. The conservators must own at least 280 acres, while the governor and bailiffs each need to have 400 acres. The original investors received land allotments based on their stake in the initial 95,000 acres; however, Charles II, when granting the charter, ensured that the crown secured 12,000 acres out of the 95,000, which is managed under the directors, whereas the allotments are not held in common but are still subject to the corporation's laws. The area was divided in 1697 into three sections, called the North, Middle, and South Levels, with the Middle Level being separated from the others by the Nene and Old Bedford rivers.

These attempts failed owing to the determined opposition of the native fenmen (“stilt-walkers”), whom the drainage and appropriation of the unenclosed fenlands would deprive of valuable and long-enjoyed rights of commonage, turbary (turf-cutting), fishing, fowling, &c. Oliver Cromwell is said to have put himself at their head and succeeded in stopping all the operations. When he became Protector, however, he sanctioned Vermuyden’s plans, and Scottish prisoners taken at Dunbar, and Dutch prisoners taken by Blake in his victory over Van Tromp, were employed as the workers. Vermuyden’s system, however, was exclusively Dutch; and while perfectly suited to Holland it did not meet all the necessities of East Anglia. He confined his attention almost exclusively to the inland draining and embankments, and did not provide sufficient outlet for the waters themselves into the sea.

These attempts failed because of the strong resistance from the local fenmen ("stilt-walkers"), who would lose their valuable and long-held rights to common land, turf-cutting, fishing, and hunting due to the drainage and appropriation of the unenclosed fenlands. It is said that Oliver Cromwell took their side and managed to halt all the operations. However, when he became Protector, he approved Vermuyden’s plans, and Scottish prisoners captured at Dunbar, along with Dutch prisoners taken by Blake during his victory over Van Tromp, were used as the labor force. Nevertheless, Vermuyden’s approach was entirely Dutch, and while it worked well in Holland, it didn’t fully address the needs of East Anglia. He focused almost entirely on inland drainage and embankments and didn’t create enough outlets for the water to flow into the sea.

Holland and other Fens on the west side of the Witham were finally drained in 1767, although not without much rioting and lawlessness; and a striking account of the wonderful improvements effected by a generation later is recorded in Arthur Young’s General View of the Agriculture of the County of Lincoln (London, 1799). The East, West and Wildmore Fens on the east side of the Witham were drained in 1801-1807 by John Rennie, who carried off the precipitation which fell on the higher grounds by catchwater drains, on the principle of the Roman Car Dyke, and improved the outfall of the river, so that it might the more easily discharge the Fen water which flowed or was pumped into it. The Welland or Deeping Fens were drained in 1794, 1801, 1824, 1837 and other years. Almost the only portion of the original wild Fens now remaining is Wicken Fen, which lies east of the river Cam and south-east of the Isle of Ely.

Holland and other Fens on the west side of the Witham were finally drained in 1767, though it involved a lot of rioting and disorder; a remarkable account of the significant changes made a generation later is found in Arthur Young’s General View of the Agriculture of the County of Lincoln (London, 1799). The East, West, and Wildmore Fens on the east side of the Witham were drained from 1801 to 1807 by John Rennie, who diverted the rainfall that fell on the higher grounds through catchwater drains, based on the Roman Car Dyke method, and improved the river's outflow so that it could more easily carry away the Fen water that flowed or was pumped into it. The Welland or Deeping Fens were drained in 1794, 1801, 1824, 1837, and other years. Almost the only part of the original wild Fens still left is Wicken Fen, located east of the river Cam and southeast of the Isle of Ely.

The Fen Rivers.—The preservation of the Fens depends in an intimate and essential manner upon the preservation of the rivers, and especially of their banks. The Witham, known originally as the Grant Avon, also called the Lindis by Leyland (Itinerary, vol. vii. p. 41), and in Jean Ingelow’s High Tide on the Lincolnshire Coast, is some 80 m. long, and drains an area of 1079 sq. m. It owes its present condition to engineering works carried out in the years 1762-1764, 1865, 1881, and especially in 1880-1884. In 1500 the river was dammed immediately above Boston by a large sluice, the effect of which was not only to hinder free navigation up to Lincoln (to which city sea-going vessels used to penetrate in the 14th and 15th centuries), but also to choke the channel below Boston with sedimentary matter. The sluice, or rather a new structure made in 1764-1766, remains; but the river below Boston has been materially improved (1880-1884), first by the construction of a new outfall, 3 m. in length, whereby the channel was not only straightened, but its current carried directly into deep water, without having to battle against the often shifting sandbanks of the Wash; and secondly, by the deepening and regulation of the river-bed up to Boston. The Welland, which is about 70 m. long, and drains an area of 760 sq. m., was made to assume its present shape and direction in 1620, 1638, 1650, 1794, and 1835 and following years. The most radical alteration took place in 1794, when a new outfall was made from the confluence of the Glen (30 m. long) to the Wash, a distance of nearly 3 m. The Nene, 90 m. long, and draining an area of some 1077 sq. m., was first regulated by Bishop Morton, and it was further improved in 1631, 1721, and especially, under plans by Rennie and Telford, in 1827-1830 and 1832. The work done from 1721 onward consisted in straightening the lower reaches of the stream and in directing and deepening the outfall. The Ouse (q.v.) or Great Ouse, the largest of the fenland rivers, seems to have been deflected, at some unknown period, from a former channel connecting via the Old Croft river with the Nene, into the Little Ouse below Littleport; and the courses of the two streams are now linked together by an elaborate network of artificial drains, the results of the great engineering works carried out in the Bedford Level in the 17th century. The old channel, starting from Earith, and known as the Old West river, carries only a small stream until, at a point above Ely, it joins the 258 Cam. The salient features of the plan executed by Vermuyden2 for the earl of Bedford in the years 1632-1653 were as follows: taking the division of the area made in 1697-1698 into (i.) the North Level, between the river Welland and the river Nene; (ii.) the Middle Level, between the Nene and the Old Bedford river (which was made at this time, i.e. 1630); and (iii.) the South Level, from the Old Bedford river to the south-eastern border of the fenland. In the North Level the Welland was embanked, the New South Eau, Peakirk Drain, and Shire Drain made, and the existing main drains deepened and regulated. In the Middle Level the Nene was embanked from Peterborough to Guyhirn, also the Ouse from Earith to Over, both places at the south-west edge of the fenland; the New Bedford river was made from Earith to Denver, and the north side of the Old Bedford river and the south side of the New Bedford river were embanked, a long narrow “wash,” or overflow basin, being left between them; several large feeding-drains were dug, including the Forty Foot or Vermuyden’s Drain, the Sixteen Foot river, Bevill’s river, and the Twenty Foot river; and a new outfall was made for the Nene, and Denver sluice (to dam the old circuitous Ouse) constructed. In the South Level Sam’s Cut was dug and the rivers were embanked. Since that period the mouth of the Ouse has been straightened above and below King’s Lynn (1795-1821), a new straight cut made between Ely and Littleport, the North Level Main Drain and the Middle Level Drain constructed, and the meres of Ramsey, Whittlesey (1851-1852), &c., drained and brought under cultivation. A considerable barge traffic is maintained on the Ouse below St Ives, on the Cam up to Cambridge, the Lark and Little Ouse, and the network of navigable cuts between the New Bedford river and Peterborough. The Nene, though locked up to Northampton, and connected from that point with the Grand Junction canal, is practically unused above Wansford, and traffic is small except below Wisbech.

The Fen Rivers.—The preservation of the Fens is closely linked to the preservation of the rivers, especially their banks. The Witham, originally known as the Grant Avon and also referred to as the Lindis by Leyland (Itinerary, vol. vii. p. 41), and mentioned in Jean Ingelow’s High Tide on the Lincolnshire Coast, is about 80 miles long and drains an area of 1,079 square miles. Its current state is due to engineering work done between 1762-1764, 1865, 1881, and particularly from 1880-1884. In 1500, the river was dammed just above Boston by a large sluice, which not only obstructed navigation upstream to Lincoln (where sea-going vessels used to reach in the 14th and 15th centuries) but also clogged the channel below Boston with sediment. The sluice, or rather a new structure built between 1764-1766, still exists, but improvements to the river below Boston were made (1880-1884), starting with a new 3-mile outfall that straightened the channel and directed the current into deep water, avoiding the often shifting sandbanks of the Wash; additionally, the riverbed was deepened and regulated up to Boston. The Welland, which is about 70 miles long and drains an area of 760 square miles, was shaped and directed during the years 1620, 1638, 1650, 1794, and 1835 and later. The most significant change happened in 1794, when a new outfall was created from the confluence of the Glen (30 miles long) to the Wash, nearly 3 miles away. The Nene, 90 miles long and draining roughly 1,077 square miles, was initially regulated by Bishop Morton and further improved in 1631, 1721, and significantly under plans by Rennie and Telford, in 1827-1830 and 1832. The work from 1721 onwards involved straightening the lower parts of the stream and directing and deepening the outfall. The Ouse (q.v.) or Great Ouse, the largest of the fenland rivers, seems to have been diverted at some unknown time from a former channel that connected through the Old Croft river with the Nene, into the Little Ouse below Littleport; the courses of the two streams are now connected by an intricate network of artificial drains, resulting from extensive engineering projects done in the Bedford Level in the 17th century. The old channel, beginning at Earith and known as the Old West river, carries only a small flow until it joins the 258 Cam at a point above Ely. The main features of the plan executed by Vermuyden for the Earl of Bedford between 1632-1653 included dividing the area from 1697-1698 into (i.) the North Level, between the Welland and Nene rivers; (ii.) the Middle Level, between the Nene and the Old Bedford river (which was constructed at this time, i.e., 1630); and (iii.) the South Level, from the Old Bedford river to the southeastern border of the fenland. In the North Level, the Welland was embanked, and the New South Eau, Peakirk Drain, and Shire Drain were created, while the existing main drains were deepened and regulated. In the Middle Level, the Nene was embanked from Peterborough to Guyhirn, and the Ouse from Earith to Over, both located at the south-west edge of the fenland; the New Bedford river was created from Earith to Denver, and both the north side of the Old Bedford river and the south side of the New Bedford river were embanked, leaving a long narrow “wash” or overflow basin between them; several large feeding-drains were dug, including the Forty Foot or Vermuyden’s Drain, the Sixteen Foot river, Bevill’s river, and the Twenty Foot river; and a new outfall for the Nene was made along with the construction of the Denver sluice (to dam the old winding Ouse). In the South Level, Sam’s Cut was dug and the rivers were embanked. Since then, the mouth of the Ouse has been straightened above and below King’s Lynn (1795-1821), a new straight cut made between Ely and Littleport, the North Level Main Drain and the Middle Level Drain constructed, and the meres of Ramsey and Whittlesey (1851-1852), etc., drained and turned into farmland. A significant barge traffic operates on the Ouse below St Ives, on the Cam up to Cambridge, the Lark and Little Ouse, and the network of navigable cuts between the New Bedford river and Peterborough. The Nene, although locked up to Northampton and connected from there to the Grand Junction canal, is largely unused above Wansford, with limited traffic except below Wisbech.

The effect of the drainage schemes has been to lower the level of the fenlands generally by some 18 in., owing to the shrinkage of the peat consequent upon the extraction of so much of its contained water; and this again has tended, on the one hand, to diminish the speed and erosive power of the fenland rivers, and, on the other, to choke up their respective outfalls with the sedimentary matters which they themselves sluggishly roll seawards.

The impact of the drainage systems has been to reduce the overall level of the fenlands by about 18 inches, due to the shrinkage of the peat as a result of the removal of much of its water. This has led to a decrease in the speed and erosive force of the fenland rivers, while also clogging their respective outflows with the sediment that they slowly push towards the sea.

The Wash.—From this it will be plain that the Wash (q.v.) is being silted up by riverine detritus. The formation of new dry land, known at first as “marsh,” goes on, however, but slowly. During the centuries since the Romans are believed to have constructed the sea-banks which shut out the ocean, it is computed that an area of not more than 60,000 to 70,000 acres has been won from the Wash, embanked, drained and brought more or less under cultivation. The greatest gain has been at the direct head of the bay, between the Welland and the Great Ouse, where the average annual accretion is estimated at 10 to 11 lineal feet. On the Lincolnshire coast, farther north, the average annual gain has been not quite 2 ft.; whilst on the opposite Norfolk coast it has been little more than 6 in. annually. On the whole, some 35,000 acres were enclosed in the 17th century, about 19,000 acres during the 18th, and about 10,000 acres during the 19th century.

The Wash.—It's clear that the Wash (q.v.) is gradually being filled with river sediment. The creation of new dry land, initially referred to as “marsh,” continues, but at a slow pace. Over the centuries since the Romans are thought to have built the sea walls that keep the ocean out, it is estimated that only about 60,000 to 70,000 acres have been reclaimed from the Wash, drained, and largely turned into farmland. The most significant reclamation has occurred at the direct head of the bay, between the Welland and the Great Ouse, where the average annual increase is estimated at 10 to 11 linear feet. On the Lincolnshire coast, further north, the average annual increase is just under 2 ft.; while on the opposite Norfolk coast, it has been slightly over 6 in. each year. Overall, around 35,000 acres were enclosed in the 17th century, about 19,000 acres in the 18th century, and roughly 10,000 acres in the 19th century.

The first comprehensive scheme for regulating the outfall channels and controlling the currents of the Fen rivers seems to be that proposed by Nathaniel Kinderley in 1751. His idea3 was to link the Nene with the Ouse by means of a new cut to be made through the marshland, and guide the united stream through a further new cut “under Wotten and Wolverton through the Marshes till over against Inglesthorp or Snetsham, and there discharge itself immediately into the Deeps of Lyn Channel.” In a similar way the Witham, “when it has received the Welland from Spalding,” was to be carried “to some convenient place over against Wrangle or Friskney, where it may be discharged into Boston Deeps.” This scheme was still further improved upon by Sir John Rennie, who, in a report which he drew up in 1839, recommended that the outfalls of all four rivers should be directed by means of fascined channels into one common outfall, and that the land lying between them should be enclosed as rapidly as it consolidated. By this means he estimated that 150,000 acres would be won to cultivation. But beyond one or two abortive or half-hearted attempts, e.g. by the Lincolnshire Estuary Company in 1851, and in 1876 and subsequent years by the Norfolk Estuary Company, no serious effort has ever been made to execute either of these schemes.

The first comprehensive plan to manage the outfall channels and control the currents of the Fen rivers appears to be the one suggested by Nathaniel Kinderley in 1751. His idea was to connect the Nene with the Ouse through a new channel that would be cut through the marshland and direct the combined stream through another new cut “under Wotten and Wolverton through the Marshes until it reaches Inglesthorp or Snetsham, where it would discharge directly into the Deeps of Lyn Channel.” Similarly, the Witham, “after receiving the Welland from Spalding,” was supposed to be carried “to a suitable spot opposite Wrangle or Friskney, allowing it to flow into Boston Deeps.” This plan was further improved by Sir John Rennie, who, in a report he prepared in 1839, proposed that all four rivers’ outfalls should be channeled into one common outfall, and that the land between them should be enclosed as quickly as it solidified. He estimated this would reclaim 150,000 acres for cultivation. However, apart from a few failed or half-hearted attempts, such as those by the Lincolnshire Estuary Company in 1851 and the Norfolk Estuary Company in 1876 and later years, no serious effort has ever been made to implement either of these plans.

Climate.—The annual mean temperature, as observed at Boston, in the period 1864-1885, is 48.7° F.; January, 36.5°; July, 62.8°; and as observed at Wisbech, for the period 1861-1875, 49.1°. The average mean rainfall for the seventy-one years 1830-1900, at Boston, was 22.9 in.; at Wisbech for the fifteen years 1860-1875, 24.2 in., and for the fifteen years 1866-1880, 26.7 in.; and at Maxey near Peterborough, 21.7 for the nineteen years 1882-1900. Previous to the drainage of the Fens, ague, rheumatism, and other ailments incidental to a damp 259 climate were widely prevalent, but at the present day the Fen country is as healthy as the rest of England; indeed, there is reason to believe that it is conducive to longevity.

Climate.—The average annual temperature recorded in Boston from 1864 to 1885 was 48.7° F.; January averaged 36.5°; July averaged 62.8°; and in Wisbech, from 1861 to 1875, it was 49.1°. The average annual rainfall for the seventy-one years from 1830 to 1900 in Boston was 22.9 inches; in Wisbech, for the fifteen years from 1860 to 1875, it was 24.2 inches, and for the fifteen years from 1866 to 1880, it was 26.7 inches; in Maxey near Peterborough, it averaged 21.7 inches over nineteen years from 1882 to 1900. Before the drainage of the Fens, diseases like ague, rheumatism, and other issues related to a damp climate were common. However, today, the Fen country is as healthy as the rest of England; in fact, there's reason to believe it promotes longevity.

Historical Notes.—The earliest inhabitants of this region of whom we have record were the British tribes of the Iceni confederation; the Romans, who subdued them, called them Coriceni or Coritani. In Saxon times the inhabitants of the Fens were known (e.g. to Bede) as Gyrvii, and are described as traversing the country on stilts. Macaulay, writing of the year 1689, gives to them the name of Breedlings, and describes them as “a half-savage population ... who led an amphibious life, sometimes wading, sometimes rowing, from one islet of firm ground to another.” In the end of the 18th century those who dwelt in the remoter parts were scarcely more civilized, being known to their neighbours by the expressive term of “Slodgers.” These rude fen-dwellers have in all ages been animated by a tenacious love of liberty. Boadicea, queen of the Iceni, the worthy foe of the Romans; Hereward the Saxon, who defied William the Conqueror; Cromwell and his Ironsides, are representative of the fenman’s spirit at its best. The fen peasantry showed a stubborn defence of their rights, not only when they resisted the encroachments and selfish appropriations of the “adventurers” in the 17th century, in the Bedford Level, in Deeping Fen, and in the Witham Fens, and again in the 18th century, when Holland Fen was finally enclosed, but also in the Peasants’ Rising of 1381, and in the Pilgrimage of Grace in the reign of Henry VIII. So long as the Fens were unenclosed and thickly studded with immense “forests” of reeds, and innumerable marshy pools and “rows” (channels connecting the pools), they abounded in wild fowl, being regularly frequented by various species of wild duck and geese, garganies, polchards, shovelers, teals, widgeons, peewits, terns, grebes, coots, water-hens, water-rails, red-shanks, lapwings, god-wits, whimbrels, cranes, bitterns, herons, swans, ruffs and reeves. Vast numbers of these were taken in decoys4 and sent to the London markets. At the same time equally vast quantities of tame geese were reared in the Fens, and driven by road5 to London to be killed at Michaelmas. Their down, feathers and quills (for pens) were also a considerable source of profit. The Fen waters, too, abounded in fresh-water fish, especially pike, perch, bream, tench, rud, dace, roach, eels and sticklebacks. The Witham, on whose banks so many monasteries stood, was particularly famous for its pike; as were certain of the monastic waters in the southern part of the Fens for their eels. The soil of the reclaimed Fens is of exceptional fertility, being almost everywhere rich in humus, which is capable not only of producing very heavy crops of wheat and other corn, but also of fattening live-stock with peculiar ease. Lincolnshire oxen were famous in Elizabeth’s time, and are specially singled out by Arthur Young,6 the breed being the shorthorn. Of the crops peculiar to the region it must suffice to mention the old British dye-plant woad, which is still grown on a small scale in two or three parishes immediately south of Boston; hemp, which was extensively grown in the 18th century, but is not now planted; and peppermint, which is occasionally grown, e.g. at Deeping and Wisbech. In the second half of the 19th century the Fen country acquired a certain celebrity in the world of sport from the encouragement it gave to speed skating. Whenever practicable, championship and other racing meetings are held, chiefly at Littleport and Spalding. The little village of Welney, between Ely and Wisbech, has produced some of the most notable of the typical Fen skaters, e.g. “Turkey” Smart and “Fish” Smart.

Historical Notes.—The earliest recorded inhabitants of this area were the British tribes of the Iceni confederation. The Romans, who conquered them, referred to them as Coriceni or Coritani. During Saxon times, the people living in the Fens were known (for example, to Bede) as Gyrvii and were described as moving through the land on stilts. Macaulay, writing about the year 1689, called them Breedlings and described them as “a half-savage population ... who led an amphibious life, sometimes wading, sometimes rowing, from one islet of firm ground to another.” By the end of the 18th century, those living in the more remote areas were hardly more civilized, being known to their neighbors by the expressive term “Slodgers.” These rough fen-dwellers have always been driven by a strong love of freedom. Boadicea, queen of the Iceni, a worthy opponent of the Romans; Hereward the Saxon, who stood up to William the Conqueror; Cromwell and his Ironsides, represent the best spirit of the fenfolk. The fen peasants displayed a relentless defense of their rights, not only when they resisted the encroachments and selfish takeovers by the “adventurers” in the 17th century, in the Bedford Level, Deeping Fen, and the Witham Fens, but also in the 18th century, when Holland Fen was finally enclosed, as well as during the Peasants’ Rising of 1381 and the Pilgrimage of Grace in the reign of Henry VIII. As long as the Fens were unenclosed and densely packed with large “forests” of reeds and countless marshy pools and “rows” (channels connecting the pools), they were filled with wild birds, regularly visited by various types of wild ducks and geese, garganies, polchards, shovelers, teals, widgeons, peewits, terns, grebes, coots, water-hens, water-rails, red-shanks, lapwings, god-wits, whimbrels, cranes, bitterns, herons, swans, ruffs, and reeves. Huge numbers of these were caught in decoys4 and sent to the London markets. At the same time, vast quantities of domesticated geese were raised in the Fens and transported by road5 to London to be slaughtered at Michaelmas. Their down, feathers, and quills (for pens) were also a significant source of income. The Fen waters were rich in fresh-water fish, especially pike, perch, bream, tench, rud, dace, roach, eels, and sticklebacks. The Witham, lining which many monasteries stood, was especially famous for its pike, as were certain monastic waters in the southern part of the Fens for their eels. The soil of the reclaimed Fens is exceptionally fertile, being rich in humus almost everywhere, capable of producing very heavy crops of wheat and other grains, and easily fattening livestock. Lincolnshire oxen were well-known in Elizabeth’s time and are specifically mentioned by Arthur Young,6 particularly the shorthorn breed. Crops unique to the region include the old British dye-plant woad, which is still grown on a small scale in a couple of parishes immediately south of Boston; hemp, which was widely cultivated in the 18th century but is no longer planted; and peppermint, which is occasionally grown, for example, in Deeping and Wisbech. In the second half of the 19th century, the Fen country became known in the sports world for its promotion of speed skating. Whenever possible, championship and other racing events are held, mainly at Littleport and Spalding. The small village of Welney, between Ely and Wisbech, has produced some of the most notable Fen skaters, such as “Turkey” Smart and “Fish” Smart.

Apart from fragmentary ruins of the former monastic buildings of Crowland, Kirkstead and other places, the Fen country of Lincolnshire (division of Holland) is especially remarkable for the size and beauty of its parish churches, mostly built of Barnack rag from Northamptonshire. Moreover, in the possession of such buildings as Ely cathedral and the parish church of King’s Lynn, other parts of the Fens must be considered only less rich in ecclesiastical architecture. Using these fine opportunities, the Fen folk have long cultivated the science of campanology.

Besides the scattered remains of the old monasteries in Crowland, Kirkstead, and other locations, the Fen area of Lincolnshire (part of Holland) is particularly notable for the impressive size and beauty of its parish churches, mostly constructed from Barnack rag from Northamptonshire. Additionally, with landmarks like Ely Cathedral and the parish church of King’s Lynn, other regions of the Fens can't be seen as much less rich in church architecture. Taking advantage of these remarkable structures, the people of the Fens have long embraced the art of bell ringing.

Dialect.—Owing to the comparative remoteness of their geographical situation, and the relatively late period at which the Fens were definitely enclosed, the Fenmen have preserved several dialectal features of a distinctive character, not the least interesting being their close kinship with the classical English of the present day. Professor E.E. Freeman (Longman’s Magazine, 1875) reminded modern Englishmen that it was a native of the Fens, “a Bourne man, who gave the English language its present shape.” This was Robert Manning, or Robert of Brunne, who in or about 1303 wrote The Handlynge Synne. Tennyson’s dialect poems, The Northern Farmer, &c., do not reproduce the pure Fen dialect, but rather the dialect of the Wold district of mid Lincolnshire.

Dialect.—Because of their somewhat isolated geographical location and the relatively late time when the Fens were enclosed, the Fenmen have kept several distinctive dialect features, interestingly, they are closely related to the modern English we use today. Professor E.E. Freeman (Longman’s Magazine, 1875) pointed out to contemporary English speakers that it was someone from the Fens, “a Bourne man,” who shaped the English language as we know it. This person was Robert Manning, or Robert of Brunne, who wrote The Handlynge Synne around 1303. Tennyson’s dialect poems, like The Northern Farmer, do not mirror the pure Fen dialect but rather reflect the dialect from the Wold area of mid Lincolnshire.

Authorities.—Sir William Dugdale, History of Imbanking and Draining (2nd ed., London, 1772); W. Elstobb, A Historical Account of the Great Level (Lynn, 1793); W. Chapman, Facts and Remarks relative to the Witham and the Welland (Boston, 1800); S. Wells, History and Drainage of the Great Level of the Fens (2 vols., London, 1828 and 1830); P. Thompson, History of Boston (Boston, 1856); Baldwin Latham, Papers on the Drainage of the Fens, read before the Society of Engineers, 3rd November 1862; N. and A. Goodman, Handbook of Fen Skating (London, 1882); Moore, Associated Architectural Societies’ Reports and Papers (1893); Fenland Notes and Queries, and Lincolnshire Notes and Queries, passim; W.H. Wheeler, A History of the Fens of South Lincolnshire, pp. 223 et seq. (2nd ed., Boston, 1897). Various phases of Fen life, mostly of the past, are described in Charles Kingsley’s Hereward the Wake (Cambridge, 1866); Baring Gould’s Cheap-Jack Zita (London, 1893); Manville Fenn’s Dick o’ the Fens (London, 1887); and J.T. Bealby’s A Daughter of the Fen (London, 1896).

Authorities.—Sir William Dugdale, History of Imbanking and Draining (2nd ed., London, 1772); W. Elstobb, A Historical Account of the Great Level (Lynn, 1793); W. Chapman, Facts and Remarks Related to the Witham and the Welland (Boston, 1800); S. Wells, History and Drainage of the Great Level of the Fens (2 vols., London, 1828 and 1830); P. Thompson, History of Boston (Boston, 1856); Baldwin Latham, Papers on the Drainage of the Fens, read before the Society of Engineers, November 3, 1862; N. and A. Goodman, Handbook of Fen Skating (London, 1882); Moore, Reports and Papers of Associated Architectural Societies (1893); Fenland Notes and Queries, and Lincolnshire Notes and Queries, passim; W.H. Wheeler, A History of the Fens of South Lincolnshire, pp. 223 et seq. (2nd ed., Boston, 1897). Various aspects of Fen life, mostly from the past, are detailed in Charles Kingsley’s Hereward the Wake (Cambridge, 1866); Baring Gould’s Cheap-Jack Zita (London, 1893); Manville Fenn’s Dick o’ the Fens (London, 1887); and J.T. Bealby’s A Daughter of the Fen (London, 1896).

(J. T. Be.)

1 The word “fen,” a general term for low marshy land or bog, is common to Teutonic languages, cf. Dutch ven or veen, Ger. Fenne, Fehn, Goth. fani, mud; the Indo-European root is seen in Gr. πῆλος, mud, Lat. palus, marsh. The word “bog” is from the Irish or Gaelic bogach, formed from Celtic bog, soft, and meaning therefore soft, swampy ground.

1 The word "fen," which refers to low, marshy land or a bog, is common in Teutonic languages, like Dutch ven or veen, German Fenne, Fehn, and Gothic fani, meaning mud. The Indo-European root can be found in Greek πῆλος, meaning mud, and in Latin palus, meaning marsh. The word "bog" comes from the Irish or Gaelic bogach, which is derived from the Celtic bog, meaning soft, and refers to soft, swampy ground.

2 The principles upon which he proceeded are set forth in his Discourse touching the Draining of the Great Fennes (1642), reprinted in Fenland Notes and Queries (1898), pp. 26-38 and 81-87.

2 The principles he followed are outlined in his Discourse on the Draining of the Great Fens (1642), reprinted in Fenland Notes and Queries (1898), pp. 26-38 and 81-87.

3 Set forth in The Present State of the Navigation of the Towns of Lyn, Wisbeach, Spalding and Boston (2nd ed., London, 1851), pp. 82 seq.

3 Outlined in The Present State of the Navigation of the Towns of Lyn, Wisbeach, Spalding and Boston (2nd ed., London, 1851), pp. 82 seq.

4 For descriptions of these see Oldfield, Appendix, pp. 2-4, of A Topographical and Historical Account of Wainfleet (London, 1829); and Miller and Skertchly, The Fenland, pp. 369-375.

4 For details about these, see Oldfield, Appendix, pp. 2-4, of A Topographical and Historical Account of Wainfleet (London, 1829); and Miller and Skertchly, The Fenland, pp. 369-375.

5 See De Foe’s account in A Tour through the Eastern Counties, 1722 (1724-1725).

5 See Defoe's account in A Tour through the Eastern Counties, 1722 (1724-1725).

6 General View, pp. 174-194 and 288-304.

6 General View, pp. 174-194 and 288-304.





        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!