to the rank of brigadier-general. He surrendered with Lee at Appomattox in 18(55, and in 1865-'6 was a state senator. He was cliosen to congress as a Democrat in 1874, and served by successive re-elections until his death.
FORRES, Juan de, clergyman, b. in Spain; d. in Nicaragua in 1560. He was named vicar-general of the province of Nicaragua, the monks of which were supposed to have relaxed from the austerity
of their rules. He had full powers, in case he did not succeed in restoring the ancient discipline among them, to send them to Spain and confiscate their movable property for the benefit of the stricter, Dominicans of Gruatemala. The Dominicans of Nicaragua claimed that the climate did not permit a rigid observance of the rule, that they had rendered great services to the country, and that they were punctual in observing necessary rules. He did not
reply to their protest, and, when the rigorous ordinances he issued were not observed, he emptied all the convents of their inhabitants, whom he sent back to Spain, and, taking possession of the valuables in them, returned to Guatemala. The father-general
of the order was far from approving the severity with which Forres acted, and summoned him to Rome. The latter received new instructions and returned to Nicaragua in 1559. He then showed
as much zeal in providing the Dominicans for the vacant convents as he had exhibited energy in turning the monks out of their homes before. After his death, however, in the following year,
the Dominicans abandoned Nicaragua.
|
|
FORREST, Edwin, actor, b. in Philadelphia, 9 March, 1806; d. there, 12 Dec., 1872. He was descended from Scottish ancestry. His father died, leaving the support of the family to the mother, a German woman of humble birth but of fine mental endowments, who developed qualities of hardihood that were reproduced in her gifted son. Edwin was educated at the common schools in Philadelphia, and early evinced a taste for the theatre. Kean was at that time in the meridian of his fitful career; Conway, Cooper, and the elder Booth were playing under the management of Wood and Warren, both actors of great merit. Constant attendance at the performances of these artists fired Forrest's ambition and aroused his enthusiasm for the dramatic profession, to the deep grief of his pious mother. At an early age he had given pain to his parents by taking an humble part in a dramatic performance. Unable to withstand the attractions of the mysterious calling, he, in 1820, made his first regular appearance on the stage as Douglas in John Home's tragedy of that name. His success was immediate. His youth, his robust and manly physique, his clear, resonant voice, his fair and handsome face, won the great audience at once. He then began the professional career that was as severe in its hardships as it was brilliant in its results. The theatres of New York and Philadelphia were already crowded with trained and successful actors: Forrest therefore set out at once for the south and west. His tour through a rough country, with the inconveniences of long distances, the necessity of presenting his plays in rude halls, an insufficient support, and poor scenery, was not altogether successful; but the discipline to mind and body was felt in all his subsequent career. After a few years of this hard novitiate he emerged once more into the scenes where his later glories were to culminate. In November, 1826, he made his first metropolitan experiment as Othello at the old Bowery theatre, and gained an instant success. The management employed him at a salary far below his worth, and he was at once offered increased payment at another theatre; but he refused to break his word, and carried out the contract to his own detriment. This strict sense of honor was characteristic of him throughout his career. His New York success was repeated in every city he visited, and after a few years of profitable labor, during which he had encouraged native talent by liberal offers for new American plays, he went to Europe for rest and travel and larger observation, and was received with much courtesy by actors and scholars. He returned to Philadelphia in 1831, and played there and in New York and elsewhere with triumphant success until September, 1836, when he sailed for England, this time professionally, and made his first appearance as Sparticus, in the tragedy of “The Gladiator,” at Drury Lane theatre, London. The play proved unpopular, but his own rôle was a distinguished success. During a season of ten months he performed in that historic theatre the parts of Macbeth, Othello, and King Lear. His social triumphs were as great as were his professional; he was entertained by Macready and Charles Kemble, and at the end of the season was complimented by a dinner at the Garrick club, presided over by Talfourd. During this engagement he married, in June, 1837, Miss Catherine Norton Sinclair, daughter of John Sinclair, the popular singer. He returned to Philadelphia in November of the same year and began an engagement. His wife made a deep impression wherever she was presented, and it was argued that domestic happiness would be the fitting crown of his public career. But these predictions were disappointed. The marriage proved unhappy, and a divorce, followed by public scandal, ensued. He visited London a second time in 1845, accompanied by his wife, who was welcomed in the intellectual circles of English and Scotch society. He acted at the Princess's theatre in London. He met with great success in Virginius and other parts, but when he attempted to personate Macbeth, a character unsuited to his physique and style of acting, the performance was hissed by the audience. Forrest attributed the hissing to the professional jealousy and machinations of Macready, although that artist had been kind and helpful to him when he first came before London audiences. A few weeks later, when Macready was playing Hamlet in Edinburgh, Forrest stood up in a private box and hissed the English actor. This act of spiteful resentment evoked contemptuous reproaches from the British press and destroyed the respect in which he had been held by the public. An acrimonious letter that he printed in the “Times” aggravated, instead of justifying, his offence. A portion of the American public believed that national jealousy and professional intrigue had in-
