Chapter 19

See also Bluntschli,The Theory of the State; W. Wilson,The State; Wheaton,International Law.

FEDERALIST PARTY,in American politics, the party that organized the national government of the United States under the constitution of 1787. It may be regarded as, in various important respects, the lineal predecessor of the American Whig and Republican parties. The nameFederalists(seeAnti-Federalists) was first given to those who championed the adoption of the Constitution. They brought to the support of that instrument “the areas of intercourse and wealth” (Libby), the influence of the commercial towns, the greater planters, the army officers, creditors and property-holders generally,—in short, of interests that had felt the evils of the weak government of the Confederation,—and also of some few true nationalists (few, because there was as yet no general national feeling), actuated by political principles of centralization independently of motives of expediency and self-interest. Most of the Federalists of 1787-1788 became members of the later Federalist Party.

The Federalist Party, which may be regarded as definitely organized practically from 1791, was led, leaving Washington aside, by Alexander Hamilton (q.v.) and John Adams. A nationalization of the new central government to the full extent warranted by a broad construction of the powers granted to it by the constitution, and a correspondingly strict construction of the powers reserved to the states and the citizens, were the basic principles of Hamilton’s policy. The friends of individual liberty and local government naturally found in the assumption by the central government of even the minimum of its granted powers constant stimulus to their fears (seeDemocratic Party); while the financial measures of Hamilton—whose wish for extreme centralization was nowise satisfied by the government actually created in 1787—were calculated to force an immediate and firm assumption by that government, to the limit, of every power it could be held to possess. To the Republicans (Democratic Republicans) they seemed intended to cause a usurpation of powers ungranted. Hence these measures became the issues on which the first American parties were formed. Their effect was supplemented by the division into French and British sympathizers; the Republicans approving the aims and condoning the excesses of the French Revolution, the Federalists siding with British reaction against French democracy. The Federalists controlled the government until 1801. They, having the great opportunity of initiative, organized it in all its branches, giving it an administrative machinery that in the main endures to-day; established the doctrine of national neutrality toward European conflicts (although the variance of Federalist and Republican opinion on this point was largely factitious); and fixed the practice of a liberal construction of the Constitution,1—not only by Congress, but above all by the United States Supreme Court, which, under the lead of John Marshall (who had been appointed chief-justice by Pres. John Adams), impressed enduringly on the national system large portions of the Federalist doctrine. These are the great claims of the party to memory. After 1801 it never regained power. In attempts to do so, alike in national and in state politics, it impaired its morale by internal dissension, by intrigues, and by inconsistent factious opposition to Democratic measures on grounds of ultra-strict construction. It took up, too, the Democratic weapon of states’ rights, and in New England carried sectionalism dangerously near secession in 1808, and in 1812-1814, during the movement, in opposition to the war of 1812, which culminated in the Hartford Convention (seeHartford). It lost, more and more, its influence and usefulness, and by 1817 was practically dead as a national party, although in Massachusetts it lingered in power until 1823. It is sometimes said that Federalism died because the Republicans took over its principles of nationality. Rather it fell because its great leaders, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, became bitter enemies; because neither was even distantly comparable to Jefferson as a party leader; because the party could not hold the support of its original commercial, manufacturing and general business elements; because the party opposed sectionalism to a growing nationalism on the issues that ended in the war of 1812; and, above all, because the principles of the party’s leaders (e.g.of Hamilton) were out of harmony, in various respects, with American ideals. Their conservatism became increasingly a reactionary fear of democracy; indeed, it is not a strained construction of the times to regard the entire Federalist period from the American point of view as reactionary—a reaction against the doctrines of natural rights, individualism, and states’ rights, and the financial looseness of the period of the War of Independence and the succeeding years of the Confederation. The Federalists were charged by the Republicans with being aristocrats and monarchists, and it is certain that their leaders(who were really a very remarkable body of men) distrusted democratic government; that their Sedition Law was outrageous in itself, and (as well as the Alien Law) bad as a party measure; that in disputes with Great Britain they were true English Tories when contrasted with the friendly attitude toward America held by many English Liberals; and that they persisted in New England as a pro-British, aristocratic social-cult long after they lost effective political influence. In short, the country was already thoroughly democratic in spirit, while Federalism stood for obsolescent social ideas and was infected with political “Toryism” fatally against the times.

Besides the standard general histories see O.G. Libby,Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (Madison, Wis., 1894); theMemoirsof Oliver Wolcott (ed. by Gibbs); C.D. Hazen,Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution(“J.H.U. Studies,” Baltimore, 1897); Henry Adams,Documents relating to New England Federalism, 1800-1815 (Boston, 1878); A.E. Morse,The Federalist Party in Massachusetts(Princeton, N.J., 1909); and the biographies and writings of George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Rufus King, Timothy Pickering, Theodore Sedgwick, C.C. Pinckney and J.A. Bayard.

1Even the Democratic party has generally been liberal; although less so in theory (hardly less so in practice) than its opponents.

FEDERICI, CAMILLO(1749-1802), Italian dramatist and actor, was born at Garessio, a small town in Piedmont, on the 9th of April 1749. His real name was Giovanni Battista Viassolo, and that by which he is now known and which he transmitted to his children was taken from the title of one of his first pieces,Camillo e Federico. He was educated at Turin, and showed at an early age a great fondness for literature and especially for the theatre. The praises bestowed on his early attempts determined his choice of a career, and he obtained engagements with several companies both as writer and actor. He made a happy marriage in 1777, and soon after left the stage and devoted himself entirely to composition. He settled at Padua, and the reputation of his numerous comedies rapidly spread in Italy, and for a time seemed to eclipse that of his predecessors. Most of his pieces were of the melodramatic class, and he too often resorted to the same means of exciting interest and curiosity. He caught, however, something of the new spirit which was manifesting itself in German dramatic literature in the works of Schiller, Iffland and Kotzebue, and the moral tone of his plays is generally healthy. Fortune did not smile upon him; but he found a helpful friend in a wealthy merchant of Padua, Francis Barisan, for whose private theatre he wrote many pieces. He was attacked in 1791 with a dangerous malady which disabled him for several years; and he had the misfortune to see his works, in the absence of any copyright law, published by others without his permission. At length, in 1802, he undertook to prepare a collected edition; but of this four volumes only were completed when he was again attacked with illness, and died at Padua (December 23).

The publication of his works was completed in 14 volumes in 1816. Another edition in 26 volumes was published at Florence in 1826-1827. A biographical memoir of Federici by Neymar appeared at Venice in 1838.

FEE,an estate in land held of a superior lord on condition of the performance of homage or service (seeFeudalism). In English law “fee” signifies an estate of inheritance (i.e.an estate descendable to the heirs of the grantee so long as there are any in existence) as opposed to an estate for life. It is divisible into three species: (1) fee simple; (2) conditional fee; (3) fee tail. (SeeEstate.) A fee farm rent is the rent reserved on granting a fee farm,i.e.land in fee simple, to be held by the tenant and his heirs at a yearly rent. It is generally at least one-fourth of the value of the land at the time of its reservation. (SeeRent.)

The word “fee” has also the sense of remuneration for services, especially thehonorariumpaid to a doctor, lawyer or member of any other profession. It is also used of a fixed sum paid for the right to enter for an examination, or on admission to membership of a university or other society. This sense of the word is taken by theNew English Dictionaryto be due to a use of “fee” in its feudal sense, and to represent a sum paid to the holder of an office “in fee.”

The etymology of the Med. Lat.feudum,feodumorfeum, of its French equivalentfief, and English “fee,” in Scots law “feu” (q.v.), is extremely obscure. (See theNew English Dictionary, s.v. “Fee.”) There is a common Teutonic word represented in Old English asfeohorféo, in Old High German asfehu, meaning property in the shape of cattle (cf. modern Ger.Vieh, Dutchvee). The old Aryanpékugives Sanskritpaçu, Lat.pecus, cattle, whencepecunia, money. The O. Eng.feoh, in the sense of money, possibly survives in “fee,” honorarium, though this is not the view of theNew English Dictionary. The common explanation of the Med. Lat.feudumorfeodum, of which Ducange (Glossarium, s.v.) gives an example from a constitution of the emperor Charles the Fat of the year 884, is that it is formed from the Teutonicfehu, property, andôd, wealth (cf.AllodiumandUdal). This would apparently restrict the original meaning to movable property, while the early applications offeudumare to the enjoyment of something granted in return for service (beneficium). Another theory takes the origin to befehualone, in a particular sense of wages, payment for services. This leaves thed-offeudumunexplained. Some have taken the origin to be a verbal formfeudare=feum dare. Another theory finds the source in the O. High Ger.fehôn, to eat, feed upon, “take for one’s enjoyment.”

FEHLING, HERMANN VON(1812-1885), German chemist, was born at Lübeck on the 9th of June 1812. With the intention of taking up pharmacy he entered Heidelberg University about 1835, and after graduating went to Giessen aspréparateurto Liebig, with whom he elucidated the composition of paraldehyde and metaldehyde. In 1839 on Liebig’s recommendation he was appointed to the chair of chemistry in the polytechnic at Stuttgart, and held it till within three years of his death, which happened at Stuttgart on the 1st of July 1885. His earlier work included an investigation of succinic acid, and the preparation of phenyl cyanide (benzonitrile), the simplest nitrile of the aromatic series; but later his time was mainly occupied with questions of technology and public health rather than with pure chemistry. Among the analytical methods worked up by him the best known is that for the estimation of sugars by “Fehling’s solution,” which consists of a solution of cupric sulphate mixed with alkali and potassium-sodium tartrate (Rochelle salt). He was a contributor to theHandwörterbuchof Liebig, Wöhler and Poggendorff, and to the Graham-OttoTextbook of Chemistry, and for many years was a member of the committee of revision of thePharmacopoeia Germanica.

FEHMARN,an island of Germany, belonging to the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, in the Baltic, separated from the north-east corner of Holstein by a strait known as the Fehmarn-Sund, less than a quarter of a mile in breadth. It is a gently undulating tract of country, about 120 sq. m. in area, bare of forest but containing excellent pasture-land, and rears cattle in considerable numbers. Pop. 10,000.

FEHMIC COURTS(Ger.Femgerichte, orVehmgerichte, of disputed origin, but probably, according to J. Grimm, from O. High Ger.femeorfeime, a court of justice), certain tribunals which, during the middle ages, exercised a powerful and sometimes sinister jurisdiction in Germany, and more especially in Westphalia. Their origin is uncertain, but is traceable to the time of Charlemagne and in all probability to the old Teutonic free courts. They were, indeed, also known as free courts (Freigerichte), a name due to the fact that all free-born men were eligible for membership and also to the fact that they claimed certain exceptional liberties. Their jurisdiction they owed to the emperor, from whom they received the power of life and death (Blutbann) which they exercised in his name. The sessions were often held in secret, whence the names of secret court (heimliches Gericht,Stillgericht, &c.); and these the uninitiated were forbidden to attend, on pain of death, which led to the designation forbidden courts (verbotene Gerichte). Legend and romance have combined to exaggerate the sinister reputation of the Fehmic courts; but modern historical research has largely discounted this, proving that they never employed torture, that their sittings were only sometimes secret, and thattheir meeting-places were always well known. They were, in fact, a survival of an ancient and venerable German institution; and if, during a certain period, they exercised something like a reign of terror over a great part of Germany, the cause of this lay in the sickness of the times, which called for some powerful organization to combat the growing feudal anarchy. Such an organization the Westphalian free courts, with their discipline of terror and elaborate system of secret service, were well calculated to supply. Everywhere else the power of life and death, originally reserved to the emperor alone, had been usurped by the territorial nobles; only in Westphalia, called “the Red Earth” because here the imperial blood-ban was still valid, were capital sentences passed and executed by the Fehmic courts in the emperor’s name alone.

The system, though ancient, began to become of importance only after the division of the duchy of Saxony on the fall of Henry the Lion, when the archbishop of Cologne, duke of Westphalia from 1180 onwards, placed himself as representative of the emperor at the head of the Fehme. The organization now rapidly spread. Every free man, born in lawful wedlock, and neither excommunicate nor outlaw, was eligible for membership. Princes and nobles were initiated; and in 1429 even the emperor Sigismund himself became “a true and properFreischöffeof the Holy Roman Empire.” By the middle of the 14th century theseFreischöffen(Latinscabini), sworn associates of the Fehme, were scattered in thousands throughout the length and breadth of Germany, known to each other by secret signs and pass-words, and all of them pledged to serve the summons of the secret courts and to execute their judgment.

The organization of the Fehme was elaborate. The head of each centre of jurisdiction (Freistuhl), often a secular or spiritual prince, sometimes a civic community, was known as theStuhlherr, the archbishop of Cologne being, as stated above, supreme over all (Oberststuhlherr). The actual president of the court was theFreigraf(free count) chosen for life by theStuhlherrfrom among theFreischöffen, who formed the great body of the initiated. Of these the lowest rank were theFronbotenorFreifronen, charged with the maintenance of order in the courts and the duty of carrying out the commands of theFreigraf. The immense development of the Fehme is explained by the privileges of theFreischöffen; for they were subject to no jurisdiction but those of the Westphalian courts, whether as accused or accuser they had access to the secret sessions, and they shared in the discussions of the general chapter as to the policy of the society. At their initiation these swore to support the Fehme with all their powers, to guard its secrets, and to bring before its tribunal anything within its competence that they might discover. They were then initiated into the secret signs by which members recognized each other, and were presented with a rope and with a knife on which were engraved the mystic letters S.S.G.G., supposed to meanStrick,Stein,Gras,Grün(rope, stone, grass, green).

The procedure of the Fehmic courts was practically that of the ancient German courts generally. The place of session, known as theFreistuhl(free seat), was usually a hillock, or some other well-known and accessible spot. TheFreigrafandSchöffenoccupied the bench, before which a table, with a sword and rope upon it, was placed. The court was held by day and, unless the session was declared secret, all freemen, whether initiated or not, were admitted. The accusation was in the old German form; but only aFreischöffecould act as accuser. If the offence came under the competence of the court,i.e.was punishable by death, a summons to the accused was issued under the seal of theFreigraf. This was not usually served on him personally, but was nailed to his door, or to some convenient place where he was certain to pass. Six weeks and three days’ grace were allowed, according to the old Saxon law, and the summons was thrice repeated. If the accused appeared, the accuser stated the case, and the investigation proceeded by the examination of witnesses as in an ordinary court of law. The judgment was put into execution on the spot if that was possible. The secret court, from whose procedure the whole institution has acquired its evil reputation, was closed to all but the initiated, although these were so numerous as to secure quasi-publicity; any one not a member on being discovered was instantly put to death, and the members present were bound under the same penalty not to disclose what took place. Crimes of a serious nature, and especially those that were deemed unfit for ordinary judicial investigation—such as heresy and witchcraft—fell within its jurisdiction, as also did appeals by persons condemned in the open courts, and likewise the cases before those tribunals in which the accused had not appeared. The accused if a member could clear himself by his own oath, unless he had revealed the secrets of the Fehme. If he were one of the uninitiated it was necessary for him to bring forward witnesses to his innocence from among the initiated, whose number varied according to the number on the side of the accuser, but twenty-one in favour of innocence necessarily secured an acquittal. The only punishment which the secret court could inflict was death. If the accused appeared, the sentence was carried into execution at once; if he did not appear, it was quickly made known to the whole body, and theFreischöffewho was the first to meet the condemned was bound to put him to death. This was usually done by hanging, the nearest tree serving for gallows. A knife with the cabalistic letters was left beside the corpse to show that the deed was not a murder.

That an organization of this character should have outlived its usefulness and issued in intolerable abuses was inevitable. With the growing power of the territorial sovereigns and the gradual improvement of the ordinary process of justice, the functions of the Fehmic courts were superseded. By the action of the emperor Maximilian and of other German princes they were, in the 16th century, once more restricted to Westphalia, and here, too, they were brought under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and finally confined to mere police duties. With these functions, however, but with the old forms long since robbed of their impressiveness, they survived into the 19th century. They were finally abolished by order of Jerome Bonaparte, king of Westphalia, in 1811. The lastFreigrafdied in 1835.

Authorities.—P. Wigand,Das Femgericht Westfalens(Hamm, 1825, 2nd ed., Halle, 1893); L. Tross,Sammlung merkwürdiger Urkunden für die Geschichte der Femgerichte(Hanover, 1826); F.P. Usener,Die frei- und heimlichen Gerichte Westfalens(Frankfort, 1832); K.G. von Wächter,Beiträge zur deutschen Gesch., insbesondere ... des deutschen Strafrechts(Tübingen, 1845); O. Wächter, Femgerichte und Hexenprozesse in Deutschland(Stuttgart, 1882); T. Lindner,Die Feme(Münster and Paderborn, 1888); F. Thudichum,Femgericht und Inquisition(Giessen, 1889) whose theory concerning the origin of theFehmeis combated in T. Lindner’sDer angebliche Ursprung der Femgerichte aus der Inquisition(Paderborn, 1890). For works on individual aspects see further Dahlmann-Waitz,Quellenkunde(ed. Leipzig, 1906), p. 401; alsoib.supplementary vol. (1907), p. 78.

FEHRBELLIN,a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Rhine, 40 m. N.W. from Berlin on the railway to Neu-Ruppin. Pop. (1905) 1602. It has a Protestant and a Roman Catholic church and some small industries, among them that of wooden shoes. Fehrbellin is memorable in history as the scene of the famous victory gained, on the 18th of June 1675, by the great elector, Frederick William of Prussia, over the Swedes under Field-Marshal Wrangel. A monument was erected in 1879 on the field of battle, near the village of Hakenberg, to commemorate this great feat of arms.

See A. von Witzleben and P. Hassel,Zum 200-jährigen Gedenktag von Fehrbellin(Berlin, 1875); G. Sello, “Fehrbellin,” inDeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, vii.; M. Jähns, “Der Grosse Kurfürst bei Fehrbellin, &c.,” inHohenzollern Jahrbuch, i.

FEIJÓO Y MONTENEGRO, BENITO JERÓNIMO(1676-1764), Spanish monk and scholar was born at Santa María de Melias, near Orense, on the 8th of October 1676. At the age of twelve he entered the Benedictine order, devoted himself to study, and waged war against the superstition and ignorance of his countrymen in theTeatro crí-tico(1726-1739) and theCartas eruditas(1742-1760). These exposures of a retrograde system called forth embittered protests from narrow-minded patriots like Salvador José Maner, and others; but the opposition wasfutile, and Feijóo’s services to the cause of knowledge were universally recognized long before his death, which took place at Oviedo on the 26th of September 1764. He was not a great genius, nor a writer of transcendent merit; his name is connected with no important discovery, and his style is undistinguished. But he uprooted many popular errors, awakened an interest in scientific methods, and is justly regarded as the initiator of educational reform in Spain.

FEITH, RHIJNVIS(1753-1824), Dutch poet, was born of an aristocratic family at Zwolle, the capital of the province Overijssel, on the 7th of February 1753. He was educated at Harderwijk and at the university of Leiden, where he took his degree in 1770. In 1772 he settled at his birthplace, and married. In 1780, in his twenty-seventh year, he became burgomaster of Zwolle. He built a luxurious villa, which he named Boschwijk, in the outskirts of the town, and there he lived in the greatest comfort. His first important production wasJulia, in 1783, a novel written in emulation ofWerther, and steeped inWeltschmerzand despair. This was followed by the tragedy ofThirsa(1784);Ferdinand and Constantia(1785), anotherWerthernovel; andThe Patriots(1784), a tragedy. Bilderdijk and other writers attacked his morbid melancholy, and Johannes Kinker (1764-1845) parodied his novels, but his vogue continued. In 1791 he published a tragedy ofLady Jane Grey; in 1792 a didactic poem,The Grave, in four cantos; in 1793Inez de Castro; in 1796 to 1814 five volumes ofOdes and Miscellaneous Poems; and in 1802Old Age, in six cantos. He died at Zwolle on the 8th of February 1824.

His works were collected (Rotterdam, 11 vols.) in 1824, with a biographical notice by N.G. van Kampen.

FEJÉR, GYORGY(1766-1851), Hungarian author, was born on the 23rd of April 1766, at Keszthely, in the county of Zala. He studied philosophy at Pest, and theology at Pressburg; eventually, in 1808, he obtained a theological professorship at Pest University. Ten years later (1818) he became chief director of the educational circle of Raab, and in 1824 was appointed librarian to the university of Pest. Fejér’s works, which are nearly all written either in Latin or Hungarian, exceed one hundred and eighty in number. His most important work,Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, published from 1829 to 1844, in eleven so-called tomes, really exceeds forty volumes. It consists of old documents and charters fromA.D.104 to the end of 1439, and forms an extraordinary monument of patient industry. This work and many others relating to Hungarian national history have placed Fejér in the foremost rank of Hungarian historians. He died on the 2nd of July 1851. His latest works wereA Kunok eredete(The Origin of the Huns), andA politikai forradalmak okai(The Causes of Political Revolutions), both published in 1850. The latter production, on account of its liberal tendencies, was suppressed by the Austrian government.

SeeMagyar Irók: Életrajz-gyüjtemény(Pest, 1856), andA Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata(Pest, 1861).

FELANITX,orFelaniche, a town of Spain, in the south-east of the island of Majorca, Balearic Islands; about 5 m. inland from its harbour, Puerto Colon. Pop. (1900) 11,294. A range of low hills intervenes between Felanitx and the Mediterranean; upon one summit, the Puig de San Sebastian, stands a Moorish castle with a remarkable series of subterranean vaults. From the 3rd centuryB.C., and possibly for a longer period, earthenware water-coolers and other pottery have been manufactured in the town, and many of the vessels produced are noteworthy for their beauty of form and antiquity of design. There is a thriving trade in wine, fruit, wheat, cattle, brandy, chalk and soap.

FELDKIRCH,a small town in the Austrian province of the Vorarlberg, some 20 m. S. of the S. end of the Lake of Constance. It is situated in a green hollow, on the Ill river, between the two narrow rocky gorges through which it flows out into the broad valley of the Rhine. Hence, though containing only about 4000 inhabitants (German-speaking and Romanist), the town is of great military importance, since it commands the entrance into Tirol from the west, over the Arlberg Pass (5912 ft.), and has been the scene of many conflicts, the last in 1799, when the French, under Oudinot and Masséna, were driven back by the Austrians under Hotze and Jellachich. It is a picturesque little town, overshadowed by the old castle of Schattenburg (now a poor-house), built about 1200 by the count of Montfort, whose descendant in 1375 sold it to the Habsburgs. The town contains many administrative offices, and is the residence of a suffragan bishop, who acts as vicar-general of the diocesan, the bishop of Brixen. Among the principal buildings are the parish church, dating from 1487, and possessing a “Descent from the Cross” (1521), which has been attributed to Holbein, the great Jesuit educational establishment called “Stella Matutina,” and a Capuchin convent and church. There is a considerable amount of transit trade at Feldkirch, which by rail is 11 m. from Buchs (Switzerland), through the principality of Liechtenstein, 24 m. from Bregenz, and 99½ m. from Innsbruck by tunnel beneath the Arlberg Pass. The town also possesses numerous industrial establishments, such as factories for cotton-spinning, weaving, bell-founding, dyeing, &c.

(W. A. B. C.)

FÉLIBIEN, ANDRÉ(1610-1695), sieur des Avaux et de Javercy, French architect and historiographer, was born at Chartres in May 1619. At the age of fourteen he went to Paris to continue his studies; and in 1647 he was sent to Rome in the capacity of secretary of embassy to the Marquis de Marueil. His residence at Rome he turned to good account by diligent study of its ancient monuments, by examination of the literary treasures of its libraries, and by cultivating the acquaintance of men eminent in literature and in art, with whom he was brought into contact through his translation of Cardinal Barberini’sLife of Pius V. Among his friends was Nicholas Poussin, whose counsels were of great value to him. On his return to France he married, and was ultimately induced, in the hope of employment and honours, to settle in Paris. Both Fouquet and Colbert in their turn recognized his abilities; and he was one of the first members (1663) of the Academy of Inscriptions. Three years later Colbert procured him the appointment of historiographer to the king. In 1671 he was named secretary to the newly-founded Academy of Architecture, and in 1673 keeper of the cabinet of antiques in the palace of Brion. To these offices was afterwards added by Louvois that of deputy controller-general of roads and bridges. Félibien found time in the midst of his official duties for study and research, and produced many literary works. Among these the best and the most generally known is theEntretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres anciens et modernes, which appeared in successive livraisons, the first in 1666, and the fifth in 1688. It was republished with several additions at Amsterdam in 1706, and again at Trévoux in 1725. Félibien wrote alsoOrigine de la peinture(1660),Principes de l’architecture, de la sculpture, de la peinture, &c. (1676-1690), and descriptions of Versailles, of La Trappe, and of the pictures and statues of the royal residences. Among other literary works, he edited theConférencesof the Academy of Painting, and translated theCastle of the Soulfrom the Spanish of St Theresa. His personal character commanded the highest esteem, agreeing with the motto which he adopted—Bene facere et vera dicere. He died in Paris on the 11th of June 1695.

His son, Jean François Félibien (c.1658-1733), was also an architect who left a number of works on his subject; and a younger son, Michel Félibien (c.1666-1719), was a Benedictine of Saint Germain-des-Prés whose fame rests on hisHistoire de l’abbaye royale de S. Denys en France, and also hisL’Histoire de la ville de Parisin 5 vols., a work indispensable to the student of Paris.

FELIX,the name of five popes.

Felix I., pope from January 269 until his death in January 274. He has been claimed as a martyr, and as such his name is given in the Roman calendar and elsewhere, but his title to this honour is by no means proved, and he has been probably confused with another bishop of the same name. He appears in connexion with the dispute in the church of Antioch between Paul of Samosata, who had been deprived of his bishopric by a council of bishops for heresy, and his successor Domnus. Paul refused to give way, and in 272 the emperor Aurelian was asked to decide between therivals. He ordered the church building to be given to the bishop who was “recognized by the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome” (Felix). See Eusebius,Hist. Ecc.vii. 30.

Felix II., antipope, was in 356 raised from the archdeaconate of Rome to the papal chair, when Liberius was banished by the emperor Constantius for refusing to subscribe the sentence of condemnation against Athanasius. His election was contrary to the wishes both of the clergy and of the people, and the consecration ceremony was performed by certain prelates belonging to the court. In 357 Constantius, at the urgent request of an influential deputation of Roman ladies, agreed to the release of Liberius on condition that he signed the semi-Arian creed. Constantius also issued an edict to the effect that the two bishops should rule conjointly, but Liberius, on his entrance into Rome in the following year, was received by all classes with so much enthusiasm that Felix found it necessary to retire at once from Rome. Regarding the remainder of his life little is known, and the accounts handed down are contradictory, but he appears to have spent the most of it in retirement at his estate near Porto. He died in 365.

Felix III., pope, was descended from one of the most influential families of Rome, and was a direct ancestor of Gregory the Great. He succeeded Simplicius in the papal chair on the 2nd of March 483. His first act was to repudiate the Henoticon, a deed of union, originating, it is supposed, with Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and published by the emperor Zeno with the view of allaying the strife between the Monophysites and their opponents in the Eastern church. He also addressed a letter of remonstrance to Acacius; but the latter proved refractory, and sentence of deposition was passed against him. As Acacius, however, had the support of the emperor, a schism arose between the Eastern and Western churches, which lasted for 34 years. Felix died in 492.

Felix IV., pope, a native of Beneventum, was, on the death of John in 526, raised to the papal chair by the emperor Theodoric in opposition to the wishes of the clergy and people. His election was followed by serious riots. To prevent a recrudescence of these, Felix, on his death-bed, thought it advisable to nominate his own successor. His choice fell upon the archdeacon Boniface (pope as Boniface II.). But this proceeding was contrary to all tradition and roused very serious opposition. Out of two old buildings adapted by him to Christian worship, Felix made the church of SS. Cosimo and Damiano, near the Via Sacra. He died in September 530.

Felix V., the name taken by Amadeus (1383-1451), duke of Savoy, when he was elected pope in opposition to Eugenius IV. in 1439. Amadeus was born at Chambéry on the 4th of December 1383, and succeeded his father, Amadeus VII., as count of Savoy in 1391. Having added largely to his patrimonial possessions he became very powerful, and in 1416 the German king Sigismund erected Savoy into a duchy; after this elevation Amadeus added Piedmont to his dominions. Then suddenly, in 1434, the duke retired to a hermitage at Ripaille, near Thonon, resigning his duchy to his son Louis (d. 1465), although he seems to have taken some part in its subsequent administration. It is said, but some historians doubt the story, that, instead of leading a life of asceticism, he spent his revenues in furthering his own luxury and enjoyment. In 1439, when Pope Eugenius IV. was deposed by the council of Basel, Amadeus, although not in orders, was chosen as his successor, and was crowned in the following year as Felix V. In the stormy conflict between the rival popes which followed, the German king, Frederick IV., after some hesitation sided with Eugenius, and having steadily lost ground Felix renounced his claim to the pontificate in 1449 in favour of Nicholas V., who had been elected on the death of Eugenius. He induced Nicholas, however, to appoint him as apostolic vicar-general in Savoy, Piedmont and other parts of his own dominions, and to make him a cardinal. Amadeus died at Geneva on the 7th of January 1451.

FELIX,a missionary bishop from Burgundy, sent into East Anglia by Honorius of Canterbury (630-631). Under King Sigebert his mission was successful, and he became first bishop of East Anglia, with a see at Dunwich, where he died and was buried, 647-648. It is noteworthy that the Irish monk Furseus preached in East Anglia at the same time, and Bede notices the admiration of Felix for Aidan.

See Bede,Hist. Eccl.(Plummer), ii. 15, iii. 18, 20, 25;Saxon Chronicle(Earle and Plummer), s.a. 636.

FELIX,of Urgella (fl. 8th century), Spanish bishop, the friend of Elipandus and the propagator of his views in the great Adoptian Controversy (seeAdoptianism).

FELIX,of Valois (1127-1212), one of the founders of the monastic order of Trinitarians or Redemptionists, was born in the district of Valois, France, on the 19th of April 1127. In early manhood he became a hermit in the forest of Galeresse, where he remained till his sixty-first year, when his disciple Jean de Matha (1160-1213) suggested to him the idea of establishing an order of monks who should devote their lives to the redemption of Christian captives from the Saracens. They journeyed to Rome about the end of 1197, obtained the sanction of the pope, and on their return to France founded the monastery of Cerfroi in Picardy. Felix remained to govern and propagate the order, while Jean de Matha superintended the foreign journeys. A subordinate establishment was also founded by Felix in Paris near a chapel dedicated to St Mathurin, on which account his monks were also called St Mathurins. He died at Cerfroi on the 4th of November 1212, and was canonized.

FELIX, ANTONIUS,Roman procurator of Judaea (A.D.52-60), in succession to Ventidius Cumanus. He was a freedman either of the emperor Claudius—according to which theory Josephus (Antiq.xx. 7) calls him Claudius Felix—or more probably of the empress Antonia. On entering his province he induced Drusilla, wife of Azizus of Homs (Emesa), to leave her husband and live with him as his wife. His cruelty and licentiousness, coupled with his accessibility to bribes, led to a great increase of crime in Judaea. To put down the Zealots he favoured an even more violent sect, the Sicarii (“Dagger-men”), by whose aid he contrived the murder of the high-priest Jonathan. The period of his rule was marked by internal feuds and disturbances, which he put down with severity. The apostle Paul, after being apprehended in Jerusalem, was sent to be judged before Felix at Caesarea, and kept in custody for two years (Acts xxiv.). On returning to Rome, Felix was accused of having taken advantage of a dispute between the Jews and Syrians of Caesarea to slay and plunder the inhabitants, but through the intercession of his brother, the freedman Pallas, who had great influence with the emperor Nero, he escaped unpunished.

See Tacitus,Annals, xx. 54,Hist.v. 9; Suetonius,Claudius, 28; E. Schürer,History of the Jewish People(1890-1891); article in Hastings’Dict. of the Bible(A. Robertson); commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles; Sir W.M. Ramsay,St Paul the Traveller; Carl v. Weizsäcker,Apostolic Age(Eng. trans., 1894); art.Jews.

FÉLIX, LIA(1830- ), French actress, was the third sister and the pupil of the great Rachel. She had hardly been given any trial when, by chance, she was called on to create the leading woman’s part in Lamartine’sToussaint Louvertureat the Porte St Martin on the 6th of April 1850. The play did not make a hit, but the young actress was favourably noticed, and several important parts were immediately entrusted to her. She soon came to be recognized as one of the best comediennes in Paris. Rachel took Lia to America with her to play second parts, and on returning to Paris she played at several of the principal theatres, although her health compelled her to retire for several years. When she reappeared at the Gaiété in the title-rôle of Jules Barbier’sJeanne d’Arcshe had an enormous success.

FELIXSTOWE,a seaside resort of Suffolk, England; fronting both to the North Sea and to the estuary of the Orwell, where there are piers. Pop. of urban district of Felixstowe and Walton (1901), 5815. It is 85 m. N.E. by E. from London by a branch line from Ipswich of the Great Eastern railway; and is in the Woodbridge parliamentary division of the county. It has good golf links, and is much frequented by visitors for its bracing climate and sea-bathing. There is a small dock, and phosphate of lime is extensively dug in the neighbourhood andexported for use as manure. The neighbouring village of Walton, a short distance inland, receives many visitors. The vicinity has yielded numerous Roman remains, and there was a Roman fort in the neighbourhood (now destroyed by the sea), forming part of the coast defence of the Litus Saxonicum in the 4th century.

FELL, JOHN(1625-1686), English divine, son of Samuel Fell, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was born at Longworth in Berkshire and received his first education at the free school at Thame in Oxfordshire. In 1636 he obtained a studentship at Christ Church, and in 1640 he was specially allowed by Archbishop Laud on account of his “known desert,” when wanting one term’s residence, to proceed to his degree of B.A. He obtained his M.A. in 1643 and took holy orders (deacon 1647, priest 1649). During the Civil War he bore arms for the king and held a commission as ensign. In 1648 he was deprived of his studentship by the parliamentary visitors, and during the next few years he resided chiefly at Oxford with his brother-in-law, Dr T. Willis, at whose house opposite Merton College he and his friends Allestree and Dolben kept up the service of the Church of England through the Commonwealth.

At the Restoration Fell was made prebendary of Chichester, canon of Christ Church (July 27, 1660), dean (Nov. 30), master of St Oswald’s hospital, Worcester, chaplain to the king, and D.D. He filled the office of vice-chancellor from 1666 to 1669, and was consecrated bishop of Oxford, in 1676, retaining his deaneryin commendam. Some years later he declined the primacy of Ireland. Fell showed himself a most capable and vigorous administrator in his various high employments, and a worthy disciple of Archbishop Laud. He restored in the university the good order instituted by the archbishop, which in the Commonwealth had given place to anarchy and a general disregard of authority. He ejected the intruders from his college or else “fixed them in loyal principles.” “He was the most zealous man of his time for the Church of England,” says Wood, “and none that I yet know of did go beyond him in the performance of the rules belonging thereunto.” He attended chapel four times a day, restored to the services, not without some opposition, the organ and surplice, and insisted on the proper academical dress which had fallen into disuse. He was active in recovering church property, and by his directions a children’s catechism was drawn up by Thomas Marshall for use in his diocese. “As he was among the first of our clergy,” says Burnet, “that apprehended the design of bringing in popery, so he was one of the most zealous against it.” He was forward in making converts from the Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. On the other hand, it is recorded to his honour that he opposed successfully the incorporation of Titus Oates as D.D. in the university in October 1679; and according to the testimony of William Nichols, his secretary, he disapproved of the Exclusion Bill. He excluded the undergraduates, whose presence had been irregularly permitted, from convocation. He obliged the students to attend lectures, instituted reforms in the performances of the public exercises in the schools, kept the examiners up to their duties, and himself attended the examinations. He encouraged the students to act plays. He entirely suppressed “coursing,”i.e.disputations in which the rival parties “ran down opponents in arguments,” and which commonly ended in blows and disturbances. He was an excellent disciplinarian and possessed a special talent for the education of young men, many of whom he received into his own family and watched over their progress with paternal care. Tom Browne, author of theDialogues of the Dead, about to be expelled from Oxford for some offence, was pardoned by Fell on the condition of his translating extempore the 33rd epigram from Martial:—

“Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare;Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.”

“Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare;

Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.”

To which he immediately replied with the well-known lines:—

“I do not love you, Dr Fell,But why, I cannot tell,But this I know full well,I do not love you, Dr Fell.”1

“I do not love you, Dr Fell,

But why, I cannot tell,

But this I know full well,

I do not love you, Dr Fell.”1

Delinquents, however, were not always treated thus mildly by Fell, and Acton Cremer, for the crime of courting a wife while only a bachelor of arts, was set as an imposition the translation into English of the whole of Scheffer’s history of Lapland. As vice-chancellor, Fell himself visited the drinking taverns and ordered out the students. In the university elections he showed great energy in suppressing corruption.

Fell’s building operations almost rivalled the plans of the great ecclesiastical architects of the middle ages. In his own college he completed in 1665 the north side of Wolsey’s great quadrangle, already begun by his father but abandoned during the Commonwealth; he rebuilt in 1672 the east side of the Chaplain’s quadrangle “with a straight passage under it leading from the cloister into the field,” occupied now by the new Meadow Buildings; the lodgings of the canon of the 3rd stall in the passage uniting the Tom and Peckwater quadrangles (c.1674); a long building joining the Chaplain’s quadrangle on the east side in 1677-1678; and lastly the great tower gate, begun in June 1681 on the foundation laid by Wolsey and finished in November 1682, to which the bell “great Tom,” after being recast, was transferred from the cathedral in 1683. In 1670 he planted and laid out the Broad Walk. He spent large sums of his own on these works, gave £500 for the restoration of Banbury church, erected a church at St Oswald’s, Worcester, and the parsonage house at Woodstock at his own expense, and rebuilt Cuddesdon palace. Fell disapproved of the use of St Mary’s church for secular purposes, and promoted the building of the Sheldonian theatre by Archbishop Sheldon. He was treasurer during its construction, presided at the formal opening on the 9th of July 1669, and was nominated with Wren curator in July 1670. In the theatre was placed the University Press, the establishment of which had been a favourite project of Laud, which now engaged a large share of Fell’s energy and attention, and which as curator he practically controlled. “Were it not you ken Mr Dean extraordinarily well,” writes Sir L. Jenkins to J. Williamson in 1672, “it were impossible to imagine how assiduous and drudging he is about his press.”2He sent for type and printers from Holland, declaring that “the foundation of all success must be laid in doing things well, which I am sure will not be done with English letters.” Many works, including a Bible, editions of the classics and of the early fathers, were produced under his direction and editing, and his press became noted not only in England but abroad. He published annually one work, generally a classical author annotated by himself, which he distributed to all the students of his college on New Year’s day. On one occasion he surprised the Press in printing surreptitiously Aretino’sPostures, when he seized and destroyed the plates and impressions. Ever “an eager defender and maintainer of the university and its privileges,” he was hostile to the Royal Society, which he regarded as a possible rival, and in 1686 he gave an absolute refusal to Obadiah Walker, afterwards the Roman Catholic master of University College, though licensed by James II., to print books, declaring he would as soon “part with his bed from under him” as his press. He conducted it on strict business principles, and to the criticism that more great works were not produced replied that they would not sell. He was, however, not free from fads, and his new spelling (of which one feature was the substitution ofiforyin such words aseies,daies,maiest) met with great disapproval.

Fell also did much to encourage learning in the university. While still a young man at Christ Church he had shown both his zeal and his charity by reading gratuitously with the poor and neglected students of the college. He bore himself a high reputation as a Grecian, a Latinist and a philologist, and he found time, in spite of his great public employments, to bring out with the collaboration of others his great edition of St Cyprian in 1682, an English translation ofThe Unity of the Churchin 1681, editions ofNemesius of Emesa(1671), ofAratus and of Eratosthenes(1672),Theocritus(1676),Alcinous on Plato(1677),St Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians(1677),Athenagoras(1682),Clemens Alexandrinus(1683),St Theophilus of Antioch(1684),Grammatica rationis sive institutiones logicae(1673 and 1685), and a critical edition of the New Testament in 1675. The first volumes ofRerum Anglicarum scriptoresand ofHistoriae Britannicae, &c. were compiled under his patronage in 1684. He had the MSS. of St. Augustine in the Bodleian and other libraries at Oxford generously collated for the use of the Benedictines at Paris, then preparing a new edition of the father.

Fell spent such large sums in his building, in his noble patronage of learning, and in charities, that sometimes there was little left for his private use. Occasionally in his schemes he showed greater zeal than prudence. He was the originator of a mission to India which was warmly taken up by the East India Company. He undertook himself to train as missionaries four scholars at Oxford, procured a set of Arabic types, and issued from these the Gospels and Acts in the Malay language in 1677. But this was scarcely the best method of communicating the gospel to the natives of India, and the mission collapsed. He affected to despise public opinion, and was masterful and despotic in his dealings with others, especially with those upon whom he was conferring favours. Having generously undertaken at his own charge to publish a Latin version of Wood’sHistory and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, with the object of presenting the history of the university in a manner worthy of the great subject to European readers, and of extending its fame abroad, he arrogated to himself the right of editing the work. “He would correct, alter, dash out what he pleased.... He was a great man and carried all things at his pleasure.” In particular he struck out all the passages which Wood had inserted in praise of Hobbes, and substituted some disparaging epithets. He called the philosopher’sLeviathan“monstrosissimus” and “publico damno notissimus.” To the printed remonstrance of Hobbes, Fell inserted an insulting reply in theHistoryto “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmesburiense animal,” and to the complaint of Wood at this usage answered only that Hobbes “was an old man, had one foot in the grave; that he should mind his latter end, and not trouble the world any more with his papers.” In small things as in great he loved to rule and direct. “Let not Fell,” writes R. South to R. Bathurst, “have the fingering and altering of them (i.e.his Latin verses), for I think that, bating the want ofsiquidemsandquinetiams, they are as good as his Worship can make.” Wood styles him “a valde vult person.” He was not content with ruling his own college, but desired to govern the whole university. He prevented Gilbert Ironside, who “was not pliable to his humour,” from holding the office of vice-chancellor. He “endeavoured to carry all things by a high hand; scorn’d in the least to court the Masters when he had to have anything pass’d the convocation. Severe to other colleges, blind as to his own, very partiall and with good words, and flatterers and tell-tales could get anything out of him.” According to Bishop Burnet, who praises his character and his administration, Fell was “a little too much heated in the matter of our disputes with the dissenters.” “He had much zeal for reforming abuses, and managed it perhaps with too much heat and in too peremptory a way.” “But,” he adds, “we have so little of that among us that no wonder if such men are censured by those who love not such patterns nor such severe task-masters.” And Wood, whose adverse criticism must be discounted a little on account of the personal dispute,—after declaring that Fell “was exceeding partial in his government even to corruption; went thro’ thick and thin; grasped at all yet did nothing perfect or effectually; cared not what people said of him, was in many things very rude and in most pedantic and pedagogical,”—concludes with the acknowledgment, “yet still aimed at the public good.” Roger North, who paid Fell a visit at Oxford, speaks of him in terms of enthusiasm:—“The great Dr Fell, who was truly great in all his circumstances, capacities, undertakings and learning, and above all for his superabundant public spirit and goodwill.... O the felicity of that age and place when his authority swayed!”

In November 1684, at the command of the king, Fell deprived Locke, who had incurred the royal displeasure by his friendship with Shaftesbury, and was suspected as the author of certain seditious pamphlets, of his studentship at Christ Church, summarily and without hearing his defence. Fell had in former years cultivated Locke’s friendship, had kept up a correspondence with him, and in 1663 had written a testimonial in his favour; and the ready compliance of one who could on occasion offer a stout resistance to any invasion of the privileges of the university has been severely criticised. It must, however, be remembered in extenuation that the legal status of a person on the foundation of a collegiate body had not then been decided in the law-courts. With regard to the justice of the proceeding Fell had evidently some doubts, and he afterwards expressed his regret for the step which he was now compelled to take. But such scruples, however strong, would, with a man of Fell’s political and religious opinions, yield immediately to an order from the sovereign, who possessed special authority in this case as a visitor to the college; and such subservience, however strange to modern notions, would probably only be considered natural and proper at that period.

Fell, who had never married, died on the 10th of July 1686, worn out, according to Wood, by his overwhelming public duties. He was buried in the divinity chapel in the cathedral, below the seat which he had so often occupied when living, where a monument and an epitaph, now moved elsewhere, were placed to his memory. “His death,” writes John Evelyn, “was an extraordinary losse to the poore church at this time”; but for himself Fell was fortunate in the time of his departure; for a few months more of life would have necessitated a choice, most painful to a man of his character and creed, between fidelity to his sovereign and to his church. With all his faults, which were the defects which often attend eminent qualities such as his, Fell was a great man, “the greatest governor,” according to Speaker Onslow, “that has ever been since his time in either of the universities,” and of his own college, to which he left several exhibitions for the maintenance of poor scholars, he was a second founder. He was a worthy upholder of the Laudian tradition at Oxford, an enlightened and untiring patron of learning, and a man of exemplary morals and great piety which remained unsullied in the midst of a busy life and much contact with the world. A sum of money was left by John Cross to perpetuate Fell’s memory by an annual speech in his praise, but theFelii laudeshave been discontinued since 1866. There are two interesting pictures of Fell at Christ Church, one where he is represented with his two friends Allestree and Dolben, and another by Vandyck. The statue placed on the N.E. angle of the Great Quadrangle bears no likeness to the bishop, who is described by Hearne as a “thin grave man.”

Besides the learned works already mentioned Fell wrote the lives of his friends Dr Henry Hammond (1661), Richard Allestree, prefixed to his edition of the latter’s sermons (1684), and Dr Thomas Willis, in Latin. HisSeasonable advice to Protestants showing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Poperywas published in 1688. Some of his sermons, which Evelyn found dull, were printed, includingCharacter of the Last Daies, preached before the king, 1675, and aSermon preached before the House of Peers Dec. 22, 1680.The Interest of England stated(1659), advocating the restoration of the king,3andThe Vanity of Scoffing(1674), are also attributed to him. Fell probably had some share in the composition ofThe Whole Duty of Man, and in the subsequent works published under the name of the author ofThe Whole Duty, which includedReasons of the Decay of Christian Piety,The Ladies Calling,The Gentleman’s Calling,The Government of the Tongue,The Art of Contentment, andThe Lively Oracles given us, all of which were published in one volume with notes and a preface by Fell in 1684.

Back to Index Next