Chapter 10

For a more detailed treatment of the subject reference may be made to the following works;—S. Taylor,Modern Homesteads,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 theStandard Cyclopaedia of Agriculture, vol. 3, and in theCyclopaedia 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 famousEssay 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 ofTristram 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.

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.

TheGrange, 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 officiallytabooed; 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.

TheAlliancecarried 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

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.2Among the principlesadvocated 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.

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.

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.

American periodicals, especially in 1890-1892, are particularly informing on the growth of the movement; see F.M. Drew inPolitical Science Quarterly(1891), vi. p. 282; C.W. Pierson inPopular Science Monthly(1888), xxxii. pp. 199, 368; C.S. Walker and F.J. Foster inAnnals of American Academy(1894); iv. p. 790; Senator W.A. Peffer inCosmopolitan(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 inJournal of Political Economy(1893), i. p. 193; A.H. Peters inQuarterly Journal of Economics(1890), iv. p. 18; C.W. Davis inForum(1890), ix. pp. 231, 291, 348.

1Membership usually included males or females above 16 years of age.2Thus, 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.

1Membership usually included males or females above 16 years of age.

2Thus, 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.

FARNABY(orFarnabie),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.

The details of his life were derived by Anthony à Wood from Francis, Farnaby’s son by a second marriage (see Wood’sAthenae 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. HisSystema grammaticumwas 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.

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.He studied for the bar, and was called at the Middle Temple in 1838. In 1844 he published the first edition of hisTreatise 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 hisRemarks to Facilitate Public Business in Parliamentin 1849; a workOn the Consolidation of Election Lawsin 1850; and hisRules, Orders and Forms of the House of Commonswas 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. HisDemocracy in Europe: a Historyappeared in 1877, but it failed to take the same rank in critical esteem as hisConstitutional 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,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.

FARNE ISLANDS[alsoFearne,Fern, orThe 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.

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.”

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 variouscampaigns, 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 (seeFiesco). 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.

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.

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 (seeMargaret 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 Ottavioagain 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.

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 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.

Bibliography.—F. Odorici gives a detailed history of the family in P. Litta’sFamiglie 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’sGeschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. iii. (Berlin, 1868), and in F. Gregorovius’sGeschichte 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.

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.

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.

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 reconquestof 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.

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.

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).

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, theCamerara 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.

SeeMémoires 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. TheAnnales Waverlienses, published by Gale in hisScriptoresand afterwards in the Record series ofChronicles, 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.).

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 Hornegranted 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.

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.

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.

The administrative district of Faro coincides with the ancient kingdom and province of Algarve (q.v.); pop. (1900) 255,191; area, 1937 sq. m.

FARO(fromPharaoh, 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 calledsoda, and the last card left in the box isin 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 aturn, and there are twenty-five such,sodaandhocnot 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.

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’sIndian Emperorhe 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’sWild 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); andThe Beaux’ Stratagem(Haymarket, 1707).The Recruiting Officerwas 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.

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 ofThe Beaux’ Stratagemhe 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, inreceipt 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.”

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 theRecruiting Officer, Scrub, Archer and Boniface inThe Beaux’ Stratagemare 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.

Back to Index Next