Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 38)

J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter 43.

SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894. Alphonso XIII.

At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name of her young son, Alphonso XIII.

—————SPAIN: End————

SPALATO.

See SALONA, ANCIENT.

—————SPANISH AMERICA: Start————

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517. Discoveries and early settlements.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524. Discovery and conquest of Mexico.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518; and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533. Discovery and conquest or Peru.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528; and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533. Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.

See ECUADOR.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550. Spanish conquests in Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538. Conquest of New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568. Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas, New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.

See AUDIENCIAS.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724. The Araucanian War.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580. Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767. The Jesuits in Paraguay.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620. Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767. Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776. Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777; and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816. Revolt, independence and confederation of the Argentine Provinces.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818. Chilean independence achieved.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821. The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811. Paraguayan independence accomplished.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826. The independence of Mexico. Brief Empire of Iturbide. The Federal Republic established.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821. Independence acquired in the Central American States.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824. Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826. The Congress of Panama.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828. The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

—————SPANISH AMERICA: End————

SPANISH ARMADA, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

SPANISH COINS.

"The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under different names at different times. Thus during the discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but 'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50 castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65 'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210 maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350, there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440 maravedis. {3018} In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,' whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark, in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490 maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo, was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion, is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight, equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon, 5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi, 100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high value of silver as compared with gold at the period in question."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note.

SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPANISH ERA, The.

See ERA, SPANISH.

SPANISH FURY, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

SPANISH INQUISITION, The.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPANISH MAIN, The.

"The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term 'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III., chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena, and Porto Bello.

See TIERRA FIRME.

Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, volume 2, page 35, foot-note.

SPANISH MARCH, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after; NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after; GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after; ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713; NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710; and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

—————SPARTA: Start————

SPARTA: The City. Its situation, origin and growth. Laconia. "Hollow Lacedæmon."

"Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides, and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow Lacedæmon' of Homer."

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, book 1, chapter 4.

Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks, composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants of remoter points being on that account in any less degree citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. … Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact, the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides (hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains, the precipitous declivities of which they made available by means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived the name of the Helots."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1.

{3019}

SPARTA: The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.

"Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of the progress of her power we have only the most meagre information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad government, a condition of affairs which was certainly unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan history that the condition of the country was for a long time one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history. Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides, though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus, when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good government.' They were therefore the oldest political ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the admixture of external elements, were divided into three tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. … Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus. The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life. … About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus, two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of no great importance. But as they were intimately connected with the commons, elected from and by them as their representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time. {3020} The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace, treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of Sparta than her political constitution was the education and training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections. Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home; his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him at an early age to go through the same training in which he himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal freedom."

E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 6.

G. W. Cox, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 5.

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, book 3 (volume 2).

SPARTA: B. C. 743-510. The First and Second Messenian Wars. Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.

"The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world. Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate, it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character, but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies. After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient writers give long details of the events of this twenty years' struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years' duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name. In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately, however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian territory.

See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000 square miles. {3021} To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her power she never made any further addition to her possessions in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the Pisistratids."

C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 9.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapters 7-8.

SPARTA: B. C. 509-506. Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

SPARTA: B. C. 508. Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

SPARTA: B. C. 501. Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SPARTA: B. C. 496. War with Argos. Prostration of the Argive state.

See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 492-491. Headship in Greece recognized. Defiance of the Persian king. Enforced unity of Greece for war.

See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

SPARTA: B. C. 481-479. Congress at Corinth. Organized Hellenic Union against Persia. The Spartan headship.

See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

SPARTA: B. C. 480. The Persian War. Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.

See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.

SPARTA: B. C. 478. Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens, foiled by Themistocles.

See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SPARTA: B. C. 478-477. Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium. Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks. Loss of the leadership of the Greek world. Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at its head.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

SPARTA: B. C. 464-455. The great Earthquake. The Third Messenian War. Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.

See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.

SPARTA: B. C. 462-458. Embittered enmity at Athens. Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party. Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

SPARTA: B. C. 457. Interference in Phocis. Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

SPARTA: B. C.453. Five years truce with Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

SPARTA: B. C. 449-445. Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara against Athenian rule or influence. The Thirty Years Truce.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

SPARTA: B. C. 440. Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SPARTA: B. C. 432-431. Hearing of charges against Athens. Congress of Allies. Decision for war. Theban attack on Platæa. Opening of the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

SPARTA: B. C. 431-429. First and second years of the Peloponnesian War: Invasions of Attica. Plague at Athens. Death of Pericles.

See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

SPARTA: B. C. 429-427. The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.

SPARTA: B. C. 428-427. The Peloponnesian War: Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans. Its failure.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.

SPARTA: B. C. 425. The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria. Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPARTA: B. C. 424-421. Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice. Athenian defeat at Delium. Death of Brasidas. Peace of Nikias.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 421-418. The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations. The Argive confederacy. War in Argos and Arcadia. Victory at Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

SPARTA: B. C. 415-413. The Peloponnesian War: Help to Syracuse against the Athenians. Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SPARTA: B. C. 413-412. The Peloponnesian War: Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean. Intrigues of Alcibiades.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SPARTA: B. C. 413. Negotiations with Persian satraps. Subsidies for war against Athens. Invasion of Attica. The Decelian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

SPARTA: B. C. 411-407. Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos. Exploits of Alcibiades. His return to Athens. His second deposition and exile.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

SPARTA: B. C. 406. The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.

See GREECE: B. C. 406.

SPARTA: B. C. 405. The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

SPARTA: B. C. 404. End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

SPARTA: B. C. 404-403. The organizing of Spartan supremacy. The Harmosts in power.

The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire. The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were established.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

{3022}

In order to give security and strength to those governing bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again, was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ (i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection, and how they at bottom designed to make no essential difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise, submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 72.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1.

C. Sankey, The Spartan and Theban Supremacies, chapter 1.

SPARTA: B. C. 399-387. War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece. Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus. Restored independence of Athens. The Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

SPARTA: B. C. 385. Destruction of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 385.

SPARTA: B. C. 383. Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

SPARTA: B. C. 383-379. Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.

See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

SPARTA: B. C. 379-371. Liberation and triumph of Thebes. Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

SPARTA: B. C. 371-362. The conflict with Thebes. Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city. The battle of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

SPARTA: B. C. 353-331. Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

SPARTA: B. C. 317. Building of Walls.

It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great, that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even safety at home."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 96.

SPARTA: B. C. 272. Siege by Pyrrhus.

Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown, and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one, marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272) and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited forces.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 60.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

SPARTA: B. C. 227-221. Downfall in the Cleomenic War.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SPARTA: A. D. 267. Ravaged by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

SPARTA: A. D. 395. Plundered by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

—————SPARTA: End————

SPARTACUS, The Rising of.

Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way, and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps; but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus. In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while 6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the road between Capua and Rome.

G. Long, Decline cf the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 2.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SPARTAN EMPIRE.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

SPARTAN TRAINING.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE; also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

{3023}

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment, nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of £4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the corridors used by members for passing to the committee, library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the side."

The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117).

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS. SPENCEANS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPEUSINII.

See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

SPHACTERIA, Capture of.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPHINX, The.

"About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres, equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches; the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15 centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren) gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image of an Egyptian god called Armachis."

A. Mariette, Monuments of Upper Egypt, page 70.

SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

—————SPIRES: Start————

SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529. The imperial Diets. Legal recognition of the Reformed religion, and its withdrawal. Protest of Lutheran princes.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

SPIRES: A. D. 1689. Destruction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SPIRES: A. D. 1713. Taken by the French.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

—————SPIRES: End————

SPOILS SYSTEM, The.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

SPOLETO: A. D. 1155. Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

SPOLIA OPIMA.

"The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima, which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus, a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 12.

SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

SPORADES, The.

See CYCLADES.

SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.

SPRING HILL, Engagement at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637. The first settlement.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

SPURS, The Day of the.

See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SQUIRE.

See CHIVALRY.

STAATEN-BUND.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

STADACONA.

See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.

STADION, OR STADIUM, The.

See HIPPODROME.

STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.

"Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet. This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure' … republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a degree."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 6, note c.

STADTHOLDER.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

{3024}

STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.

STALLER AND HORDERE, The.

"In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect, as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost importance as the court became stationary and no longer maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."

J. R. Green, Conquest of England, chapter 10, note.

"The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe, Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume that he had the general management of the royal property, as well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and Strator regis."

J. M. Kemble, The Saxons in England, book 2, chapter 3.

See, also, CONSTABLE.

STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of their party than had been known before in the history of the country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and district,—became what was accurately described as a "political machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked. They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880, however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is, official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election, and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.

J. C. Ridpath, Life and Work of James A. Garfield, chapters 10-12.

ALSO IN: E. Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, chapters 24-25.

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapters 60-65 (volume 2).

STAMBOUL.

"It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa, Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera, that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of what was originally called Pera."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 7, foot-note.

STAMFORD, Battle of.

See LOSE-COAT FIELD.

STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).

STAMP ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765; and 1766.

STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).

In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the consecrated wafer. {3025} The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows, which had now become the national weapon of the English; 11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great standard above described, which probably resembled the "Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 1, page 79.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.

STÄNDERATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI, King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI, King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.

STANWIX, Fort.

The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler, near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.

STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768. Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

STANZ, Battle of (1798).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

STANZ, Convention of.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.

STAOUELI, Battles of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

STAPLE. STAPLERS, The.

"A term which makes a great figure in the commercial regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears to have meant a particular port or other place to which certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the king's staple was said to be established. The articles of English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels, and they could be carried for sale to no other port in Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in 1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all staples were abolished and trade was set free from their restriction; but these were of brief duration.

G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool, woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais, occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

C. Gross, The Gild Merchant, pages 140-141.

ALSO IN: A. Anderson, History of Commerce, volume 1, page 216. and after.

STAR, Knights of the.

"On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter, and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St. Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and the same was embroidered on their mantles."

T. Johnes, Note to Froissart's Chronicles, book 1, chapter 152.

STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.

"In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber (la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the 3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime, probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, pages 181-183.

"The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers. {3026} It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that this august tribunal was merely the Council under another name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised, that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do, but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is, indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

A. V. Dicey, The Privy Council, part 3, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, chapter 1.

R. Gneist, History of the English Constitution, chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2).

STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.

An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861, to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by the British Crown.

Annual Register, 1861.

STAR SPANGLED BANNER: The circumstances of the writing of the song.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

STAROSTS.

"Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.

Count Moltke, Poland, page 8.

See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.

STARRY CROSS, Order of the.

An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth, by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

—————STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start————

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: In the 14th Century.

"I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A. D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy, and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more, before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax, which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned session in the following year to receive an accounting of the Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356, King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances which gave them full power to check and control the royal authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent commission, from their own membership, charged with a general superintendence of the administration of the government during the intervals between sessions of the States-General themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more promise of free government in France than across the channel. But the advantage which the national representatives acquired was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the power of the purse from the representatives of the people to the ministers of the crown."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 10.

{3027}

"The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all political influence, and for some centuries were only empty shadows of national assemblies."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, period 4, book 2, chapter 3.

"One single result of importance was won for France by the states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King John, the states-general became one of the principles of national right; a principle which did not disappear even when it remained without application, and the prestige of which survived even its reverses."

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 21.

ALSO IN: A. Thierry, Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France, volume 1, chapters 2-3.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: The last States General before the Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: The States-General of 1789.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).

—————STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End————

STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

—————STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start————

STATES OF THE CHURCH: Origin.

See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216. The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275. The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378. Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz. Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378; and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380. Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409. Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513. Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty under Julius II.

See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513, and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556. Alienation of Parma and Placentia.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597. Annexation of Ferrara.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631. Annexation of Urbino.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797. Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809. Seizure by Napoleon. Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy. Final incorporation with the French Empire.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815. Papal Sovereignty restored.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832. Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861. Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

—————STATES OF THE CHURCH: End————

STATUTES.

See LAW.

STAURACIUS, Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.

STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

—————STEAM ENGINE: Start————

STEAM ENGINE: The beginning of its invention, before Watt.

"It is probable that the first contriver of a working steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D. 1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years [when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop, wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied with water. … It is probable that the planning and construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II. immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin." Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam; but his undertakings were not successful. {3028} He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion, turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis. "His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means for the construction of another, and three years later he died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable. Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder. The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power, turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most important invention by the circumstance of his having been brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect," until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting machine."

S. Smiles, Lives of Boulton and Watt, chapters 1-4.

"We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

H. Dircks, Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester, page 337.

STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785. The improvements of James Watt.

After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736, educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker, and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his attention first, with all his profound physical and mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the quantity of water which a given weight of coal could vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at different temperatures. All these investigations would have occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and, by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston, lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to render it complete. {3029} The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel would give out its latent heat; this would raise the temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump, called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon the power of the machine, but the total gain was enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine. This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover, introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine; it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less striking in appearance, but of value in economising the consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which could be filled with steam. By this means the air was prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr. Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had been called to the subject." Another two years had passed before he found the means to introduce his invention into practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck, who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck], with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately, Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent, but without the means of rendering it available." For five years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr. Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament, where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in point of the additional power gained, was more important than the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder, and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt, would occupy too much space."

Life of James Watt (Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17).

"The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did little more than improve it by altering the forms and proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely, if ever, real developments."

R. H. Thurston, History of the Growth of the Steam Engine, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: S. Smiles, Lives of Boulton and Watt, chapters 5-17.

J. P. Muirhead, Life of James Watt.

J. P. Muirhead, Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt.

—————STEAM ENGINE: End————

STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND. The beginning of Railroads.

"The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In 1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805. It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808. {3030} After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813, made the important discovery that no such aids are required, the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall, when required, be capable of being increased to many times the rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary engine of the same size; and that the surface through which heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

W. J. M. Rankine, Manual of the Steam Engine, pages xxv-xxvii.

George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from the important improvements which he had effected in the colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements, he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr. Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in 450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than about three miles an hour. The result was anything but decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace], and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds. "It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that, although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

S. Smiles, Life of George Stephenson, chapters 9-24.

"Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a school history of the United States knows something of the Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway, built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart, however, from the construction of the Granite railway, Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was this true of South Carolina. {3031} There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly four months after the formal opening of the Manchester & Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius. … In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point, had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect, indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype. There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. … About six months before …there had actually been a trial of speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives, which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in 1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore & Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest, but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly, after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston; to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is, however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch, moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H. Brown."

C. F. Adams, Jr., Railroads: Their Origin and Problems, chapter 1.

—————STEAM NAVIGATION: Start————

STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.

"The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay, in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine, to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.

In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model, which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier, published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power, and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were made in the United States to solve this problem. … William Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business, where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new, and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt. He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763. Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design, presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry, and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 … Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the first suggestion which afterward … made the young portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last, readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. … {3032} Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai, friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested, and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined to attempt the realization of the plans which he had conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night, foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued, D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine. The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model] was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels. … In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he had substituted an endless chain and floats for the paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in 1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington, Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in 1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796, Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison. This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in 1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion of ships so completely successful that no interruption subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed several other boats in 1815, and with his success steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated." Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few years in the United States, through the labors and exertions of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803), where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three years later they renewed them in America, using an engine ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of 1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in successful operation. {3033} The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9 deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans. "The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."