See Karl Engel,Zusammenstellung der Faust-Schriften vom 16. Jahrhundert bis Mitte 1884—a second edition of theBibliotheca Faustiana(1874)—(Oldenburg, 1885), a complete bibliography of all published matter concerned, even somewhat remotely, with Faust; Goethe’sFaust, 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 theBibliotheca Faustiana(1874)—(Oldenburg, 1885), a complete bibliography of all published matter concerned, even somewhat remotely, with Faust; Goethe’sFaust, 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.
(W. A. P.)
1The opinion, long maintained by some, that he was identical with Johann Fust, the printer, is now universally rejected.2Many are given in Kiesewetter’sFaust, p. 112, &c.3In theLiteraturbriefof Feb. 16, 1759.4Bayard Taylor’s trans.
1The opinion, long maintained by some, that he was identical with Johann Fust, the printer, is now universally rejected.
2Many are given in Kiesewetter’sFaust, p. 112, &c.
3In theLiteraturbriefof Feb. 16, 1759.
4Bayard Taylor’s trans.
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 calledFaustinianae) 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.
See Capitolinus,Marcus Aurelius; Dio Cassius lxxi. 22, lxxiv. 3; E. Renan, inMélanges d’histoire et des voyages, 169-195.
See Capitolinus,Marcus Aurelius; Dio Cassius lxxi. 22, lxxiv. 3; E. Renan, inMélanges 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.
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 wasLa 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 toLa Chercheuse d’esprit, which was produced in 1741. Among his most successful works wereAnnette et Lubin, Le Coq du village(1743),Ninette à la cour(1753),Les Trois Sultanes(1761) andL’Anglais à Bordeaux(1763). Favart became director of the Opéra Comique, and in 1745 marriedMarie 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. Alettre de cachetwas 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 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 asMémoires 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’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.
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 asa 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.
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.
FAVORINUS(2nd centuryA.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 treatiseΠερὶ 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 theΚορινθιακὸς λόγοςattributed to his tutor Dio Chrysostom is by him), preserved by Aulus Gellius, Diogenes Laërtius, Philostratus, and Suïdas, the second of whom borrows from hisΠαντοδαπὴ ἱστορία(miscellaneous history) and hisἈπομνημονεύματα(memoirs). As a philosopher, Favorinus belonged to the sceptical school; his most important work in this connexion appears to have beenΠυρρώνειοι 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.
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 theRévolutions 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.
The officialdossierof Favras’s trial for high treason against the nation disappeared from the Châtelet, but its substance is preserved in the papers 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 aMémoire justificatifin 1790 and aJustificationin 1791. See also a memoir by Eduard, Freiherr v. Stillfried Ratènic (Vienna, 1881), and an article by Alexis de Valon in theRevue des deux mondes(15th June 1851).
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 aMémoire justificatifin 1790 and aJustificationin 1791. See also a memoir by Eduard, Freiherr v. Stillfried Ratènic (Vienna, 1881), and an article by Alexis de Valon in theRevue des deux mondes(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 wasOn 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 thatcertain anomalous occurrences of fossils were due to repeated interfoldings of the strata and to complicated overthrust faults. In 1867 he publishedRecherches géologiques dans les parties de la Savoie, du Piémont et de la Suisse voisines du Mont Blanc. He died at Geneva in June 1890.
His sonErnest Favre(b. 1845) has written on the palaeontology and geology of Galicia, Savoy and the Fribourg Alps, and of 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 thecoup d’étathe 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.
His work include many speeches and addresses, notablyLa Liberté de la Presse(1849),Défense de F. Orsini(1866),Discours de réception à l’Académie française(1868),Discours sur la liberté intérieure(1869). InLe 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.
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 inMüllers Archivfor that year (p. 82), the fungus having been subsequently named by R. RemakAchorion Schönleiniiafter 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, theFavus griseus, giving rise to greyish-yellow scutula, and theFavus 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.
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.
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 adevout 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’sPrinciples 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’sHistory of Civilizationand Darwin’sOrigin of Specieswhen 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 hisManual 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.
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 thelaissez-faireeconomists 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 inThe Timesas 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 theFortnightly Reviewfor 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.
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.
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. HisFree 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 hisIndian Finance(1880), three essays reprinted from theNineteenth 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 bankingof 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 calledAids 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.
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 oldlaissez-fairetheorists, 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 admirableLife(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.
(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 inThe 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 inThe Heir at Law(1797) and as Dr Ollapod inThe 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 beenBramham Park, a Poem, in 1745; a volume of poems and translations appeared in 1761; andPartridge 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, 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 TesimondaliasGreenway, 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.”
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 (seeGunpowder PlotandCatesby, 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 andreported 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.
Bibliography.—Hist. of England, by S.R. Gardiner, vol. i.; and the same author’sWhat 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’sMemorials; 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 theTrue and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the late most Barbarous Traitors(1606), reprinted by Bishop Barlow of Lincoln asThe Gunpowder Treason(1679). See alsoGunpowder Plot.The lantern said to be Guy Fawkes’s is in the Bodleian library at Oxford.
Bibliography.—Hist. of England, by S.R. Gardiner, vol. i.; and the same author’sWhat 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’sMemorials; 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 theTrue and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the late most Barbarous Traitors(1606), reprinted by Bishop Barlow of Lincoln asThe Gunpowder Treason(1679). See alsoGunpowder Plot.
The lantern said to be Guy Fawkes’s is in the Bodleian library at Oxford.