Chapter IV: Of Provincial and Communal Institutions (10)

"In 1873 Mrs. Booth, overcoming her own intense reluctance,
began to preach. In 1874 and the two following years the work
spread to Portsmouth, Chatham, Wellingborough, Hammersmith,
Hackney, Leeds, Leicester, Stockton, Middlesborough, Cardiff,
Hartlepool, and other towns, where recent converts of the
humblest rank—tinkers, railway guards, navvies—took charge of
new stations. In 1876, shaking itself more and more free from
the trammels of custom and routine, the Army deliberately
utilized the services of women. In 1877 it spread still
further. In 1878 it 'attacked' no less than fifty towns,
and—more by what we should call 'accident' than by
design—assumed the title of the Salvation Army. It also
adopted, for good or for evil, the whole vocabulary of
military organization, which has caused it to be covered with
ridicule, but which may undoubtedly have aided its discipline
and helped its progress. In 1879 advance was marked by the
imprisonment of three Salvationists—who refused, as always, to
pay the alternative fine—for the offence of praying in a
country road near a public-house, which was regarded as
'obstructing the thoroughfare.'
{3802}
In this year began also the establishment of training homes
for the instruction and equipment of the young officers; the
printing of the 'War Cry'; the use of uniforms and badges; and
the extension of the work to Philadelphia and the United
States. In 1880 the United Kingdom was mapped into divisions.
In 1881 the work was extended to Australia and the colonies,
and so stupendous had become the religious energy of the
soldiers that they began to dream of the religious rescue of
Europe as well as of Great Britain and its empire-colonies.
Since that year its spread, in spite of all opposition, has
been steady and continuous, until, in 1890, it excited the
attention of the civilized world by that immense scheme of
social amelioration into which we shall not here enter
particularly. At the present moment [1891] the Army has no
less than 9,349 regular officers, 13,000 voluntary officers,
30 training homes; with 400 cadets, and 2,864 corps scattered
over 32 different countries. In England alone it has 1,377
corps, and has held some 160,000 open-air meetings. This
represents a part of its religious work. Besides this it has
in social work 30 rescue homes, 5 shelters, 3 food depots, and
many other agencies for good."

_F. W. Farrar,
The Salvation Army
(Harper's Magazine, May, 1891)._

In one of his addresses, delivered during his visit to the
United States, in February, 1895, General Booth said: "We
have, with God's help, been able to carry our banner and hoist
our flag in 45 different countries and colonies, and we are
reaching out day by day. We have been able to create and bring
into harmonious action, with self-supporting and self-guiding
officers, something like 4,000 separate societies. We have
been able to gather together something like 11,000 men and
women, separated from their earthly affiliations, who have
gone forth as leaders of this host." In the same address,
General Booth gave the number of the Army newspapers as 27,
with a circulation of 50,000,000,—presumably meaning the total
issues of a year.

SARACENS, Medical Science of the.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2129).

SARDANAPALUS.

See SEMITES: THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (page 2892).

SCHULZE-DELITZSCH, and the Cooperative movement in Germany.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883 (page 2946).

SCHURZ, Carl.
Report on affairs in the South.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

SCHWATKA, Lieutenant, Polar explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.

SECESSION, The Federalist Movement of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

SERVIA, A. D. 1893. Royal Coup d'Etat.

"A great sensation was created by the announcement, January
19, that Milan and Natalie, the divorced parents of King
Alexander, had become reconciled at Biarritz. Whether this had
political significance was unknown, but rumor connected it
with various incidents bearing on the pending elections. The
Skupshtina was dissolved in November, and the Liberal
government, by energetic measures, put the electoral machinery
in such shape that at the voting in March a small Liberal
majority was secured in the place of the enormous Radical
majority that had controlled the former legislature. When the
Skupshtina assembled, April 6, the Radicals, in resentment at
certain proceedings of the government designed to increase its
majority, left the hall and refused to take part in the
session. The troublesome situation thus produced was wholly
abolished by a coup d'etat of King Alexander, April 13. At a
banquet in the palace, at which the regents and cabinet were
present, the king suddenly accused them of misrule and
demanded their resignations, saying that he would assume the
government himself. On the refusal of the regents to resign he
ordered them under guard, and on the following day a new
ministry was appointed, with M. Dokitch, a Radical, at its
head. Careful arrangement of the troops had insured that no
resistance could be made to the king's acts, and no blood was
shed. The constitution makes eighteen the age at which the
king attains his majority, but Alexander is not yet seventeen.
His action was greeted with general favor throughout the
country. An explanation of the affair is found in the
ill-disguised relations of the Radicals with the pretender
Karageorgiewitch, and the dread of Milan and Natalie that the
hostile policy of the regents toward the Radicals, who are in
a majority in the land, would precipitate an overthrow of the
reigning dynasty." The elections which followed the coup d'
état gave the Radicals an overwhelming majority in the
Skupshtina—122 members out of 134.

_Political Science Quarterly,
June and December, 1893._

SEWARD, William H.,
The "higher law" speech of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

SIEMENS, Dr. W., and his dynamo-electric inventions.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

_T. O'Conor Sloane,
The Standard Electrical Dictionary
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

SINGLE TAX MOVEMENT, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

SLAVE TRADE: Abolition in the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807 (page 3335).

SLAVERY, Petitions against, in the American Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1835, 1836, 1837-1838, and 1842,
(page 3373, and after).

SOCIAL PALACE AT GUISE, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864,
and 1875-1893 (pages 2949 and 2953).

SOLOMON. SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

See JEWS: (page 1902);
and TEMPLE OF SOLOMON (page 3093).

SOMMERING'S TELEGRAPH.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
A. D. 1753-1820 (page 771).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861.
Monarchical cravings.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3426).

SPAIN: Outline Sketch of general history.

See EUROPE
(pages 1016, 1034-1035, 1050-1051, 1055-1065, and after).

{3803}

SPAIN: A. D. 1034-1090.
The exploits of the Cid.

"Rodrigo Diez de Bivar, who came of an old Castilian stock,
was born in 1026—others say 1040—and was thus a contemporary
of William the Conqueror, of England. Diez was his patronymic,
meaning the son of Diego (in English James), and Bivar, the
village of his birth, near Burgos, where the site of his house
is still shown. His name of 'El Cid,' the Lord, or 'Mio Cid,'
which is exactly 'Monseigneur,' was given him first by the
Moors, his own soldiers and subjects, and universally adopted
by all Spaniards from that day to this. Such a title is
significant, not only of the relations between the two
peoples, but of Rodrigo's position as at once a Moorish and a
Spanish chief. 'El Campeador,' the name by which Rodrigo is
also distinguished, means in Spanish something more special
than 'champion.' A 'campeador' was a man who had fought and
beaten the select fighting-man of the opposite side, in the
presence of the two armies; which points to a custom derived,
as much else of early Spanish, from the East. Rodrigo earned
the name, not at the expense of any Moor but of a Christian,
having when quite a youth slain a Navarrese champion in a war
between Castile and Navarre. The first mention of his name
occurs in a deed of Fernando I., of the year 1064."

_H. E. Watts,
Christian Recovery of Spain,
chapter 3._

"Sancho III. of Navarre, who died in 1034, had united almost
all the Christian states of the Peninsula under one dominion,
having married the heiress of the county of Castile, and
obtained the hand of the sister of Bermudez III., the last
king of Leon, for his second son, Ferdinand. The Asturias,
Navarre, and Aragon, were all subject to him, and he was the
first who assumed the title of King of Castile. To him the
sovereign houses of Spain have looked up as their common
ancestor, for the male line of the Gothic Kings became extinct
in Bermudez III. … D. Sancho divided his states amongst his
children: D. Garcia became King of Navarre, D. Ferdinand, King
of Castile, and D. Ramirez, King of Aragon. The Cid, who was a
subject of D. Ferdinand, entered upon his military career
under that monarch's banners, where he displayed that
marvellous strength and prodigious valour, that constancy and
coolness, which raised him above all the other warriors of
Europe. Many of the victories of Ferdinand and the Cid were
obtained over the Moors, who being at that time deprived of
their leader and without a central government, were much
exposed to the attacks of the Christians. … The arms of
Ferdinand and the Cid were not, however, always directed
against the infidels. The ambitious Monarch soon afterwards
attacked his brother-in-law, Bermudez III. of Leon, the last
of the descendants of D. Pelagius, whom he despoiled of his
states, and put to death in 1037. He subsequently attacked and
dethroned his eldest brother, D. Garcia, and afterwards his
younger brother, D. Ramirez, the former of whom he likewise
sacrificed. The Cid, who had received his earliest
instructions under D. Ferdinand, made no scrupulous enquiries
into the justice of that prince's cause, but combating blindly
for him, rendered him glorious in the eyes of the vulgar by
these iniquitous conquests. It is also in the reign of
Ferdinand that the first romantic adventures of the Cid are
said to have occurred; his attachment to Ximena, the only
daughter of Count Gormaz; his duel with the Count, who had
mortally injured his father; and lastly his marriage with the
daughter of the man who had perished by his sword. The
authenticity of these poetical achievements rests entirely on
the romances [of the Chronicle of the Cid]; but though this
brilliant story is not to be found in any historical document,
yet the universal tradition of a nation seems to stamp it with
sufficient credit. The Cid was in habits of the strictest
friendship with the eldest son of Ferdinand, D. Sancho,
surnamed the Strong, and the two warriors always combated side
by side. During the lifetime of the father, the Cid, in 1049,
had rendered tributary the Musulman Emir of Saragossa. He
defended that Moorish prince against the Aragonese, in 1063;
and when Sancho succeeded to the throne in 1065, he was
placed, by the young King, at the head of all his armies,
whence, without doubt, he acquired the name of 'Campeador.' D.
Sancho, who merited the friendship of a hero, and who always
remained faithful to him, was, notwithstanding, no less
ambitious and unjust than his father, whose example he
followed in endeavouring to deprive his brothers of their
share of the paternal inheritance. To the valour of the Cid he
owed his victories over D. Garcia, King of Galicia, and D.
Alfonso, King of Leon, whose states he invaded. The latter
prince took refuge amongst the Moors, with the King of Toledo,
who afforded him a generous asylum. D. Sancho, after having
also stripped his sisters of their inheritance, was slain in
1072, before Zamora, where the last of his sisters, D. Urraca,
had fortified herself. Alfonso VI., recalled from the Moors to
ascend the vacant throne, after having taken an oath,
administered by the hands of the Cid, that he had been in no
degree accessary to his brother's death, endeavoured to attach
that celebrated leader to his interests by promising him in
marriage his own niece Ximena, whose mother was sister-in-law
to Ferdinand the Great and Bermudez III. the last King of
Leon. This marriage, of which historical evidence remains, was
celebrated on the 19th of July, 1074. The Cid was at that time
nearly fifty years of age, and had survived his first wife
Ximena, the daughter of Count Gormaz, so celebrated in the
Spanish and French tragedies. Being soon afterwards despatched
on an embassy to the Moorish princes of Seville and Cordova,
the Cid assisted them in gaining a great victory over the King
of Grenada; but scarcely had the heat of the battle passed
away when he restored all the prisoners whom he had taken,
with arms in their hands, to liberty. By these constant acts
of generosity he won the hearts of his enemies as well as of
his friends. He was admired and respected both by Moors and
Christians. He had soon afterwards occasion to claim the
protection of the former; for Alfonso VI., instigated by those
who were envious of the hero's success, banished him from
Castile. The Cid upon this occasion took refuge with his
friend Ahmed el Muktadir, King of Saragossa, by whom he was
treated with boundless confidence and respect. He was
appointed by him to the post of governor of his son, and was
in fact intrusted with the whole administration of the kingdom
of Saragossa, during the reign of Joseph El Muktamam, from
1081 to 1085, within which period he gained many brilliant
victories over the Christians of Aragon, Navarre, and
Barcelona. Always generous to the vanquished, he again gave
liberty to the prisoners. Alfonso VI. now began to regret that
he had deprived himself of the services of the most valiant of
his warriors; and being attacked by the redoubtable Joseph,
the son of Teschfin, the Morabite, who had invaded Spain with
a new army of Moors from Africa, and having sustained a defeat
at Zalaka, on the 23d of October, 1087, he recalled the Cid to
his assistance.
{3804}
That hero immediately repaired to his standard with 7,000
soldiers, levied at his own charge; and for two years
continued to combat for his ungrateful sovereign; but at
length, either his generosity in dismissing his captives, or
his disobedience to the orders of a prince far inferior to
himself in the knowledge of the art of war, drew upon him a
second disgrace about the year 1090. He was again banished;
his wife and son were imprisoned, and his goods were
confiscated. It is at this period that the poem … commences.
It is in fact the fragment of a complete history of the Cid,
the beginning of which has been lost."

_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
Literature of the South of Europe,
chapter 23 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_R. Southey,
Chronicle of the Cid, from the Spanish._

_R. Markham,
Chronicle of the Cid, edited with introduction._

_G. Ticknor,
History of Spanish Literature,
period 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

SPAIN: 15-17th Centuries.
The waste of the commercial opportunities of the Spaniards.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.
Charles IV., Marie Louise, and Godoy.

"Charles III. had just died when the French Revolution
commenced. He was the best sovereign that Spain had had in a
long time; he left good ministers: Aranda, Campomanès, Florida
Blanca; but it was not given to them to continue his work.
This reparative reign was followed by one the most
disintegrating. Spain, elevated anew for an instant by an
intelligent prince, was, in a few years, under the government
of an imbecile one, to founder in an ignoble intrigue. The web
of this latter was begun immediately upon the accession of the
new king. Charles IV. was forty years old; corpulent and
weak-minded, simple and choleric, incapable of believing evil
because he was incapable of conceiving it: amorous, chaste,
devout, and consequently the slave of his wife even more than
of his temperament, the first years of his marriage blinded
him for his entire life. Scrupulous to the point of separating
himself from the queen when he no longer hoped to have
children by her, he took refuge in the chase, manual labor,
violent exercise, caring only for the table, music and
bull-fights, exhausted when he had followed his trade of king
for half an hour. Small and without beauty, dark of
complexion, but with some grace, with elegance and above all
carriage, Marie Louise of Parma was at once superstitious and
passionate, ignorant, uneasy, with a very frivolous soul as a
foundation, with obstinacy without firmness, with artifice
without intelligence, with intrigue leading to no result, more
covetousness than ambition, much emptiness of mind, still more
of heart. Her husband seemed to her coarse and brutish; she
despised him. She detested her eldest son and cared moderately
for her other children. She was thirty-four years old, of
perturbed imagination, of uneasy senses, without any curb of
religion or virtue, when she ascended the throne and the
fortune of Godoy threw him in her way. He was a small
provincial gentleman; for lack of something better, he had
entered the life-guards at seventeen. He was then twenty-one.
He was very handsome, with a grave beauty frequent in the men
of the south, which gives to youth that air of restrained and
imperious passion, to mature age that impenetrable and
imposing exterior so well calculated to conceal mediocrity of
mind, barrenness of heart, despotic selfishness, and all the
artifices of a corruption the more insinuating because it
seems to be unaware of itself. The queen fell in love with
him, and abandoned herself wildly; he took advantage of it
without shame. She was not satisfied to make of Godoy her
lover, she desired to make a great man of him, a minister, to
make him a partner in her power. She introduced him to the
court and into the intimacy of the royal household, where
Charles IV. tractably became infatuated with him. Marie Louise
had at first some circumspection in the gradation of the
honors which she lavished upon him, and which marked, by so
many scandals, the progress of her passion; but she was very
soon entirely possessed by it. Godoy obtained over her an
ascendancy equal to that which she arrogated to herself over
Charles IV. Thus on the eve of the French Revolution, these
three persons, so strangely associated, began, in court
costume, and under the austere decorum of the palace of Philip
II., that comedy, as old as vice and stupidity, of the
compliant husband duped by his wife and of the old mistress
exploited by her lover. At the beginning of the reign, Charles
IV. from scruple, the queen from hypocrisy, Godoy from policy,
became devout. The queen wished power for Godoy, and Godoy
wished it for lucre. It was necessary to set aside the old
counsellors of Charles III. They were philosophers, the nation
had remained catholic. Marie Louise and Godoy relied on the
old Spanish fanaticism. The ministers very soon lost
influence, and after having secluded them for some time, the
queen disgraced them. A complete reaction took place in Spain.
The church regained its empire; the Inquisition was
re-established. It would appear then that the Revolution must
necessarily have found Spain hostile; a Bourbon king and a
devout government could but detest it. But before being a
Bourbon the king was a husband, and Marie Louise was devout
only to mask her intrigues. The same passions led her to
desire by turns, war to make her lover illustrious and peace
to render him popular. This debilitated and corrupt court
found itself given over in advance to all the suggestions of
fear, to all the temptations of avidity. Those who had to
treat with it did not fail to profit by its feebleness to
dominate it. We see it successively linked to England, then to
France; treat the Revolution with consideration, condemn it
with violence, combat it without vigor; seek an alliance with
the Directory, and abandon itself to Napoleon who annihilated
it. France found at Madrid only too much docility to her
designs; the illusions that she conceived from it became more
fatal for her than were for Spain the incapacity and turpitude
of its rulers. The French were led by the habits and
traditions of the 'ancien regime' to treat the Spaniards as a
subordinate nation consigned to the role of auxiliary. Holding
the court of Spain as cowardly and venal, the politicians of
Paris neglected to take account of the Spanish people. They
judged them to be divisible and governable at mercy.
{3805}
It was not that they despised them nor that they intended to
reduce them to servitude as a conquered people; but they
thought that the last Austrian kings had enervated and
enfeebled them, that they had been uplifted from this
decadence only by the Bourbons, that that dynasty was
degenerating in its turn; that another foreign government,
more intelligent, more enlightened, more resolute, alone could
take up again the work of reparation and bring it to a
successful result by means of rigorous treatment and
appropriate applications. What Louis XIV. had undertaken
solely in the interest of despotism, France, herself
regenerated by the Revolution, had the right and the power to
accomplish, for the highest good of Spain and of humanity.
These calculations in which the essential element, that is to
say the Spanish character, was suppressed, deceived the
Convention, led the Directory astray, and ended by drawing
Napoleon into the most fatal of his enterprises."

_A. Sorel,
L'Europe et la Revolution française
(translated from the French),
part 1, pages 373-377._

SPAIN: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

----------SPAIN: End--------

STAMP TAX ON NEWSPAPERS, English.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1712,
and 1853-1870 (pages 2599 and 2602).

STANLEY, Henry M., Explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1866-1873, and after.

SUEZ CANAL, Effects of the opening of the.

See (in this Supplement)
COMMERCE, MODERN: THE RECENT REVOLUTION IN COMMERCE.

SUMERIAN.

See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

SUMNER, Senator Charles, The assault of Preston Brooks on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 (page 3398).

SUMTER, Thomas, in the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (page 3273).

----------SWEDEN: Start--------

SWEDEN: A. D. 1810.
The election of Bernadotte.

"It was necessary to look out for a new successor to the
throne. Adlersparre desired the brother of the deceased crown
prince, Frederic Christian, duke of Augustenborg, thinking by
this means to secure the fruits of the revolution and to keep
in view the union between Sweden and Norway. He succeeded in
persuading Charles XII. to give his voice for this prince, and
the council of State even sustained this idea, with the
exception of Adlercreutz who proposed the emperor Alexander's
brother-in-law, the Duke of Oldenburg. A third candidate was
King Frederic VI. of Denmark, and even Napoleon himself worked
in secret for him as he had by this time realized the
advantage of the formation of a strong Northern power as a
balance against Russia. But the king of Denmark as a candidate
was far from popular among the Swedes, and still less prospect
was there of the election of prince Gustaf. The Swedish
government which had made its determination sent a writing to
Napoleon in order to gain his influence in favor of the
prince. The message was sent in duplicate by different roads.
The choice of the Swedish government did not meet his
approval; still he declared that he would not oppose it. One
of the couriers who brought the above writing to Paris, was
lieutenant in Upland's regiment, baron Carl Otto Mörner. This
young officer was no friend of the candidacy of the Duke of
Augustenborg; like many other Swedes, especially in the army,
he desired as a successor to the throne a warrior, above all a
French marshal, persuaded that in that way Sweden would most
readily gain the alliance with France, and revenge upon
Russia. Among the French marshals Bernadotte, prince of Ponte
Corvo, was particularly known in Sweden through his contact
with them during the last wars and to him their thoughts had
turned in the first place. Young, bold, and forward, at the
same time full of the wish to be useful to his country, Mörner
had contrived to obtain the office of courier in order to find
a successor to the crown at his own risk. He calls on a
certain Captain La Pie whose acquaintance he had made on a
former visit to Paris, and explains his plans, and La Pie
strengthens him in his ideas, that Bernadotte would be
preferable before Macdonald, Eugene Beauharnais, and others
whom Mörner had in his mind. Through La Pie and the Swedish
general consul Signeul, Mörner obtains the necessary
information which enables him to meet the Marshal. He calls on
Bernadotte and finds him, however careful in his utterance
regarding the matter, not opposed to the project; nay
Bernadotte hastens immediately after the conference with
Mörner to the emperor to impart it to him. Napoleon, who had
officially been informed of the thoughts of the Swedish
government, looked on the whole matter as a ghost of the
brain, but declared that he would not meddle with it. At
Mörner's last visit (27 June 1810) Bernadotte gave him leave
to communicate that the emperor had nothing against
Bernadotte's election and that he himself was ready to accept
if the choice fell on him. It is easy to imagine the
astonishment of Engström, the minister of state, when he heard
Mörner's description of his bold attempt in Paris. 'What do
you bring from Paris?' Engström asked, when Mörner came into
the foreign Minister's cabinet in Stockholm. 'That I have
induced the prince of Ponte Corvo to accept the Swedish
crown.' 'How could you speak to him about it without being
commissioned?' 'Our only safety lies in the prince of Ponte
Corvo.' 'Are you sure that he will receive it so that we are
not doubly committed?' 'Certainly. I have a letter here.'
'From him to you?' 'No, from me to him.' 'Boy.' exclaimed
Mörner's relation, his excellency Von Essen, at the end of the
conference, 'You ought to sit where neither sun nor moon will
shine on you.' But Mörner's project won more and more favor in
the country though he himself was arrested in Orebro, whereby
the government desired to prevent his presence as a member of
the house of knights at the special diet called at Örebro for
election. Through messengers and a pamphlet on the succession
in Sweden he though absent worked for his plan even among the
estates which met the 23d July 1810."

_Sveriges Historia, 1805-1875
(translated from the Swedish by L. G. Sellstedt),
pages 29-31._

See, also,
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1810 (page 2831).

SWEDEN: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

----------SWEDEN: End--------

{3806}

SWEDENBORG, and the New Church.

"Swedenborg was born in 1688, and died in 1772. The son of a
Lutheran Bishop of Sweden, a student at several universities,
and an extensive traveler throughout all the principal
countries of Europe, he had exceptional opportunities for
testing the essential quality of contemporaneous Christianity.
… Until he was more than fifty years of age, Swedenborg had
written nothing on religious subjects, and apparently given
them no special attention. He was principally known, in his
own country, as Assessor Extraordinary of the Board of Mines,
and an influential member of the Swedish Diet; and not only
there, but throughout Europe, as a writer on many branches of
science and philosophy. In this field he acquired great
distinction; and the number and variety of topics which he
treated was remarkable. Geometry and algebra, metallurgy and
magnetism, anatomy, physiology, and the relation of the soul
to the body were among the subjects which received his
attention. There is to be noticed in the general order of his
publications a certain gradual, but steady, progression from
lower to higher themes,—from a contemplation of the mere
external phenomena of nature to a study of their deep and
hidden causes. He was always full of devout spiritual
aspirations. In all his scientific researches he steadfastly
looked through nature up to nature's God. … Maintaining this
inflexible belief in God and revelation, and in the essential
unity of truth, Swedenborg, in his upward course, at last
reached the boundary line between matter and spirit. Then it
was that he entered on those remarkable experiences by which,
as he affirms, the secrets of the other world were revealed to
him. He declares that the eyes of his spirit were opened, and
that he had, from that time forward, conscious daily
intercourse with spirits and angels. His general teaching on
this subject is that the spiritual world is an inner sphere of
being,—not material, and in no wise discernible to natural
senses, yet none the less real and substantial,—and that it is
the ever-present medium of life to man and nature."

_J. Reed,
Why am I a New Churchman?
(North American Review, January, 1887)._

"The doctrine of Correspondence is the central idea of
Swedenborg's system. Everything visible has belonging to it an
appropriate spiritual reality. The history of man is an acted
parable; the universe, a temple covered with hieroglyphics.
Behmen, from the light which flashes on certain exalted
moments, imagines that he receives the key to these hidden
significances,—that he can interpret the 'Signatura Rerum.'
But he does not see spirits, or talk with angels. According to
him, such communications would be less reliable than the
intuition he enjoyed. Swedenborg takes opposite ground. 'What
I relate,' he would say, 'comes from no such mere inward
persuasion. I recount the things I have seen. I do not labour
to recall and to express the manifestation made me in some
moment of ecstatic exaltation. I write you down a plain
statement of journeys and conversations in the spiritual
world, which have made the greater part of my daily history
for many years together. I take my stand upon experience. I
have proceeded by observation and induction as strict as that
of any man of science among you. Only it has been given me to
enjoy an experience reaching into two worlds—that of spirit,
as well as that of matter.' … According to Swedenborg, all the
mythology and the symbolisms of ancient times were so many
refracted or fragmentary correspondences—relics of that better
day when every outward object suggested to man's mind its
appropriate divine truth. Such desultory and uncertain links
between the seen and the unseen are so many imperfect attempts
toward that harmony of the two worlds which he believed
himself commissioned to reveal. The happy thoughts of the
artist, the imaginative analogies of the poet, are exchanged
with Swedenborg for an elaborate system. All the terms and
objects in the natural and spiritual worlds are catalogued in
pairs."

_R. A. Vaughan,
Hours with the Mystics,
book 12, chapter 1, (volume 2)._

"It is more than a century since the foundation of this church
[the New-Church] was laid, by the publication of the
theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. For more than half
of that time, individuals and societies have been active in
translating them, and in publishing them widely. There have
been many preachers of these doctrines, and not a few writers
of books and periodicals. The sale of Swedenborg's writings,
and of books intended to present the doctrines of the church,
has been constant and large. How happens it, under these
circumstances, that the growth of this church has been and is
so slow, if its doctrines are all that we who hold them
suppose them to be? There are many answers to this question.
One among them is, that its growth has been greater than is
apparent. It is not a sect. Its faith does not consist of a
few specific tenets, easily stated and easily received. It is
a new way of thinking about God and man, this life and
another, and every topic, connected with these. And this new
way of thinking has made and is making what may well be called
great progress. It may be discerned everywhere, in the
science, literature, philosophy, and theology of the times;
not prevalent in any of them, but existing, and cognizable by
all who are able to appreciate these new truths with their
bearings and results. … Let it not be supposed that by the
New-Church is meant the organized societies calling themselves
by that name. In one sense, that is their name. Swedenborg
says there are three essentials of this Church: a belief in
the Divinity of the Lord, and in the sanctity of the
Scriptures, and a life of charity, which is a life governed by
a love of the neighbor. Where these are, there is the Church.
Whoever holds these essentials in faith and life is a member
of the New-Church, whatever may be his theological name or
place. Only in the degree in which he so holds these
essentials is anyone a member of that church. Those who,
holding or desiring to hold these essentials in faith and
life, unite and organize that they may be assisted and may
assist each other in so holding them, constitute the visible
or professed New-Church. But very false would they be to its
doctrines, if they supposed themselves to be exclusively
members of that Church, or if they founded their membership
upon their profession or external organization. For there is
no other true foundation for this membership than every man's
own internal reception of the essentials of the Church, and
his leading the life which its truths require."

_T. Parsons,
Outlines of the Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,
chapter 14, section 5._

ALSO IN:
_E. Swedenborg,
The four leading Doctrines of the New Church._

_G. F. E. Le Boys Des Guays,
Letters to a Man of the World._

_B. F. Barrett,
Lectures on the New Dispensation._

SWITZERLAND, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

{3807}

T.

TAORMINA. TAUROMENION.

About 392 B. C. Dionysios, the tyrant of Syracuse, expelled
the Sikels, or natives of Sicily, from one of their towns,
Tauromenion (modern Taormina) on the height of Tauros,
overlooking the site of the old Greek city of Naxos, which
Dionysios had destroyed ten years before. He peopled the town
anew with some of his mercenaries; but after his death the
scattered Naxians were brought together in it, and made it
their home. "The city thus strengthened by new colonists grew
and prospered, and became specially remarkable for the wealth
of its citizens. Greek Tauromenion ran through the usual
course of a Sikeliot city in later times. Settled again by a
Roman colony, it lived on till the days of its greatest glory,
as the last of Sikeliot cities to hold out for Christ and
Cæsar against the assaults of the besieging Saracens. But even
that greater memory does not shut out the thoughts of the
stirring early days of the city. … The rocks and the heights
are there still, and not the rocks and the heights only. There
is the wall with the work of the Sikel and the Greek side by
side. There is the temple of the Greek changed into the church
of the Christian apostle of Sicily. There is the theatre, the
work of the Greek enlarged and modified by the Roman; the
theatre which, unlike those of Syracuse and Argos, still keeps
so large a part of its scena, 'and where we hardly mourn the
loss of the rest as we look out on the hills and the sea
between its fragments. … The matchless site would be something
even without a story, but at Taormina the story is for ever
written on the site. On the long ridge of the town, on its
walls and gates, on the rocks on which it stands, on the
prouder rocks which rise above it, we may truly say that, of
all who have assailed or defended the mountain-city, alongside
of the names of Ibrahim and of Roger, the first names in the
long story of Tauromenion dwell there also."

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapter 11, section 2 (volume 4)._

ALSO IN:
_The Century,
September 1893._

TELEGRAPH, Invention of the Electrical.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION (pages 771-772).

_T. O'Conor Sloane,
The Standard Electrical Dictionary
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The effects of.

See (in this Supplement)
GERMANY: A. D. 1648; also page 1484.

"TIPPECANOE AND TYLER TOO."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840 (page 3377).

----------TOLERATION, Religious: Start--------

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1631-1661.
Denied in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1656-1661
(pages 2103 to 2109).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1636.
Established by Roger Williams in Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647 (page 2639).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1649.
Enacted in Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649 (page 2094).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1689.
Partial enactment in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (page 909).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1778.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780 (page 936).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1827-1829.
Removal of disabilities from Dissenters and Emancipation
of Catholics in England and Ireland.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828 (page 952);
and IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829 (page 1784).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1869.
Disestablishment of the Irish Church.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870 (page 969).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1871.
Abolition of religious tests in English Universities.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871 (page 970).

----------TOLERATION, Religious: End--------

TORQUEMADA.

See INQUISITION (page 1751).

TRADE.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE.

TRADE-MARKS, Protection of.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

TRADES UNIONS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
A. D: 1720-1800 (page 2933), and after.

TSIAM NATION, The.

See TONKIN (page 3115).

TULANE UNIVERSITY, or University of Louisiana.

"This institution had its origin in certain land grants made
by the United States 'for the use of a seminary of learning.'
By an act of the General Government passed in 1806 one
township of land was granted for the above named purpose, and
in 1811 another township was added to this and both were
confirmed by an act (of 1824) which also authorized their
location. The first movement toward the utilization of these
grants was made in 1845, when the following clause was adopted
in the amended Constitution: 'A university shall be
established in the city of New Orleans. It shall be composed
of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of medicine, one of
natural sciences, and one of letters.' … The university was
chartered in 1847. … For many years the university received
but meagre support from the State. … By the Constitution of
1879 the institution was endowed permanently by authorizing
the sum of not more than $10,000 payable annually [for five
years] to the university. At the expiration of this period the
university was united with the Tulane University (in 1884).
Since that time no appropriations have been made by the
Legislature."

_F. W. Blackmar,
History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
in the United States
(Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
1890. number 1), pages 272-273._

TYPHOID FEVER, Appearance of.

See PLAGUE; 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

U.

"UNCLE TOM'S CABIN," The effect of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852 (page 3392).

-----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

{3808}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Historical Geography.

The historical geography of the United States possesses, in a
unique degree, a two-fold character. These divisions of the
subject are best described by the words exterior and interior.
While such a classification is, of course, inevitable in the
history of every nation, the fact remains that, with the
United States, these divisions stand in a different relation
to each other from any that appear usually in the historical
geography of other countries. The difference is chiefly one of
relative importance. The internal historical geography of the
Old World nations, barring the feudal period, involves so
largely questions concerning mere provincial administration
that it has no claim, from a geographical standpoint, to an
importance equal to the shifting of the great national
frontiers. Examples of this are found in the Roman and
Byzantine empires, and in the majority of the modern states.
In our own case however the order of interest is reversed. Our
internal geography has attracted the chief attention of the
student, not so much from the greater difficulty of the
subject as from its vast importance in the early history of
our government. It is not, indeed, too much to say that the
organization of the present government under the constitution
is an event of scarcely greater importance than the
determination of the final policy of the states and the nation
concerning the unoccupied western lands. It is this fact alone
which gives the higher degree of relative importance to our
internal historical geography. The general facts concerning
our external geography are quickly told. The outlines of the
entire subject are contained in the enumeration of the eight
cessions, as follows:

the original territory ceded by Great Britain at the
peace of Paris in 1783 (see page 3287);

the Louisiana purchase from France in 1803
(pages 2049, and 3327);

the acquisition of Florida from Spain by the treaty of 1819
(page 1154);

the admission of Texas in 1845 (page 3102);

the undisputed acquisition of the Oregon country by treaty
with Great Britain in 1846 (page 2402);

the first Mexican cession by the peace of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848 (page 2175);

the second Mexican cession, known as the Gadsden purchase, in
1853 (page 133);

and the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 (page 30).

The enumeration of these eight acquisitions, all of which,
save the final one are shown on the first United States map,
affords a complete picture of the successive stages of our
territorial growth. The occasion of these different
annexations, as well as their exact territorial extent, would
involve us in a series of details which are beyond the purpose
of the present article. It should be observed, however, that
in several cases the map shows the territories in question as
finally determined by treaty or survey, rather than their
actual extent as understood at the time the annexations were
made. This is one of the inevitable disadvantages in the
purely cartographic treatment of such a subject. The
historical map is compelled from its nature to give a tangible
appearance to matters which are often very intangible in fact.
In the case, for example, of what we may call the first United
States, the country as recognized by the treaty of Paris, the
western line of the Mississippi was the only boundary which
was not the subject of future discussion. The southern
frontier as arranged at Paris was affirmed by treaty with
Spain in 1795. On the other side, however, Great Britain
retained a number of posts in the Old Northwest up to the Jay
treaty of 1794; the boundary between the upper Mississippi and
the Lake of the Woods, imperfectly described in the Paris
treaty, was not settled until 1818; the line from the
intersection of the St. Lawrence to the Sault Ste. Marie was
established in 1822 by joint commission under the treaty of
Ghent; while the Maine frontier question, the most difficult
and obstinate of all our boundary disputes, was not finally
settled until the year 1842. The Louisiana purchase of 1803
brought in fresh questions concerning our territorial limits.
On three sides, the North, West and Southwest the frontiers of
this vast area were undefined. On the northern side the
boundary was settled with Great Britain by the treaty of 1818
which carried the line along the forty-ninth parallel to the
Rocky Mountains, while the treaty of 1819 with Spain, which
ceded Florida to the United States, also defined the limits of
Louisiana on the South-West. This line of 1819 has an
additional importance, in that it drew the frontier between
Spain and the United States along the forty-second parallel to
the Pacific coast. The importance of this lay in the fact that
it gave us a clear title on the Spanish side to the so-called
Oregon country. The exact connection, real or supposed,
between this territory and the Louisiana country was for many
years one of the disputed points in American historical
geography. The belief in this connection, at one time general,
undoubtedly had its origin in the undefined character of
Louisiana at the time of the purchase, and the fact that our
government turned this indefiniteness to its own purpose in
advancing its Oregon claims. It is now clear, however, from
the evidence of the old maps, the official statement of the
limits of the region, of which there is but one in existence
(the Crozat grant of 1712) and lastly the understanding of
France herself at the time of the cession, that Louisiana did
not include in its limits any part of the Pacific watershed. A
map published in a subsequent work of the French
plenipotentiary placed the western boundary of Louisiana at
the one hundred and tenth meridian. A line drawn in this
arbitrary fashion and unsanctioned by the terms of the treaty
itself may be regarded merely as one of convenience. If this
view is correct it is certainly more convenient and, at the
same time, more logical, to consider the western boundary as
extending to the Rocky Mountain watershed,—a line which would
not deviate to any radical extent from the meridian in
question. The historical connection however between the
Louisiana purchase and our subsequent acquisition of the
Oregon country is perfectly clear. The exploration of the
latter followed almost immediately but its final annexation
was delayed by the opposing claim of Great Britain. In this
controversy the claim of the United States was merely relative
as opposed to that of England. The just claimant was
undoubtedly the king of Spain, whose rights, based on
discovery, antedated those of either of the contesting powers.
The Spanish title, however, having, as we have seen, been
relinquished by the treaty of 1819, the issue between Great
Britain and the United States became clearly defined. A joint
occupation of the disputed territory by the two powers ensued
from 1818 to 1846. In the latter year was negotiated the
compromise treaty, which continued our northern line of 1818
on the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the
Pacific coast. From the treaty of 1846 we may date the
completion of our northern frontier, although the ownership of
certain islands between Vancouver and the mainland was not
settled until 1872.
{3809}
A few more years witnessed the completion of our southern
frontier, as well. In 1845 Texas was admitted to the Union.
The western boundary of the Rio Grande, claimed by the new
state under her constitution of 1836, led directly to the war
with Mexico, and by that war to the great additional cession
at Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The southern boundary was
finally completed by the Gadsden purchase of 1853. Coming now
to the study of our internal geography, we find ourselves in
contact with what is practically a distinct subject. Here we
encounter a whole series of those weighty questions, the
solution of which figures so prominently in the early history
of the American government. We have already noted that the
first western boundary of the United States was placed by the
treaty of 1783 at the Mississippi river. But during the Paris
negotiations our ally France and quasi ally Spain both opposed
this westward extension of our territory and it was long an
open question, even after our independence itself was assured,
whether we should not be compelled to accept a western
boundary on the Appalachian range. Years before the final
settlement of the question at Paris, the expectancy of the
Mississippi boundary had given rise to questions which caused
an undercurrent of dissension between the states during the
entire period of the Revolutionary War. In their relation to
the western land question, the thirteen original states divide
themselves into two classes, the claimant and non-claimant
states. In the first class were Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New York, Virginia, the two Carolinas and Georgia; in the
second, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware and Maryland. The claims of the seven first named
states covered every inch of our prospective western domain
and in the country north of the Ohio, known as the Old
Northwest there were opposing claims of two and in some
districts of even three states to the same territory. The
extent of these claims is indicated on the map of the
Federated states in 1783. They rested for the most part upon
the royal grants and charters to the colonies, and, in the
case of New York, upon the treaties with the Iroquois. Their
relative merits where conflicting, or their collective merit
as a whole, are questions which we will not attempt to
discuss. It is sufficient to observe that if insisted upon in
their entirety they would have presented an insuperable
obstacle to the formation of an American federate government.
In the proceedings of the Continental Congress, as well as in
the state legislative bodies, touching this western domain, we
may find the germs of nearly all the political and
constitutional questions which have made the greater part of
our subsequent history. The relative rank and power of the
states, the obligation of one state towards another, the
individual rights of states as opposed to the collective
rights of the Union; all of these questions entered into the
great problem which the nation was now called upon to solve.
The objections to the western claims by the non-claimant
states, though urged with varying degrees of vehemence and
accompanied with many widely differing alternatives, may be
fairly resolved into the two following contentions: that it
was unjust that so vast a domain, whose acquisition at the
peace could only be insured through the joint labor of all the
states, should thereafter become the property of a certain
favored few, and also that the claims if allowed would in the
end give the claimant states a preponderating power which
would be extremely prejudicial if not dangerous to the others.
Of all the non-claimant states, Maryland was the most
determined in her opposition, and it is to her that Professor
Herbert B. Adams in his monograph on "Maryland's Influence
upon Land Cessions to the United States," assigns the chief
credit for the final creation of the first national domain
(see page 3280). The claim though a just one cannot be
asserted without an important qualification. The proposition
advanced by Maryland, that a national title to the western
lands be asserted by a clause in the Articles of
Confederation, was manifestly one to which the claimant states
would never give their consent. It was due, however, to the
action of Maryland,—which refused for more than three years,
from November 1777 to March 1781, to ratify the articles,—
that the question was kept open until the claimant states, in
order to complete the circle of the Union, found it necessary
to adopt the policy of voluntary cessions, suggested by
Congress. The history in detail of the several state cessions
involves many questions concerning the distribution and sale
of public lands which need not concern us. Some of the offers
of cession, at first conditional and partial, were made
absolute and final, as, one by one, the besetting difficulties
were cleared away. The dates of the final cessions by the
seven claimant states in order were as follows:
New York 1781,
Virginia 1783,
Massachusetts 1785,
Connecticut 1786,
South Carolina 1787,
North Carolina 1790,
Georgia 1802.