into effect by his successor in the ministry, Count, afterwards Prince, von Hardenberg; and the result was, as Stein had foreseen, that during the time of Prussia's apparent ruin and weakness, she was gradually gathering strength for the struggle that should restore ber to liberty. Nor was Stein in his exile idle. Apart altogether from the system of institutions which he had framed and recommended, he was to a great extent the author and founder of that secret and patriotic society, having for its object the expulsion of the French and the recovery of Prussian and German independence, which between 1808 and 1813 pervaded, under the name of Tugend bund, all ranks of German Society, and embraced the noblest German spirits of the time. This Tugend-bund however contemplated also a future of free representative institutions for Prussia and Germany when they should be liberated.

In 1812 Stein went to Russia, and attached himself as counsellor to the Emperor Al xander, then about to begin his great final struggle with Napoleon I In 1813, after the entry of the Allies into Saxony, he was named chief of the Administrative Council of all the German territories in the possession of the Allies; and in this year the fruits of his "system" and of the "Tugend-bund," so far as Prussia was concerned, were seen in the universal rising and the excellent discipline of the Pru-sian "landwehr." In 1814 Stein accompanied the Allies into Paris, and in the debates then in progress as to the terms on which France should be let off, he took a truly Prussian view, and argued for a far greater measure of vengeance on France for the injuries she had innicted on Europe since 1792 than the leaders of the Allies were disposed to exact. Stein's part in the Congress of Vienna was not great. He was charged with the preparation of some plans connected with the re-organisation of Germany; and he afterwards published his views on that subject. After the final overthrow of Napoleon I. in 1815, Stein's influence with the leaders of the Allies was gone. His notions of free institutions, of representative government, and of a federal alliance of all the German states by means of a popularlyelected Diet, were not to the taste of the Russian emperor and the other powers of the Congress, Even the Prussian king, who at first, under Stein's inspiration, was disposed to make a stand for the liberal use of the European opportunity afforded by Napoleon's fall, deserted his adviser, and joined the absolutist league. The intrigues of Montgelas, the Bavarian minister, representing the jealousies of some of the minor German states, bad something to do with Stein's loss of influence. He retired into private life, and bad the pain of seeing the Prussian sovereign and government relapsing from his "system" even in the administrative parts, while the attainment of a national representation, as the means of German union, seemed postponed to a far distant day. His name however lived in the hearts of patriotic Prussians, and from time to time he was heard of. In 1816 he was decorated with the Order of the Prussian Eagle; in 1818 he was at the Congress of Aixla Chapelle; in 1827 he was nominated a member of the Prussian Council of State; and in the same year he was mareschal of the first assembly of states of Westphalia. In the same year (1827) he published a criticism on some parts of Bourienne's Life of Napoleon,' in which his own share of the events of 1814-15 had been commented on. He died on the 29th of June 1831, leaving behind him the reputation of having been one of the firmest characters and the greatest statesmen that Prussia bad produced.

STELLA, JACQUES, a celebrated French painter, was born at Lyon in 1596. His father, François Stella, who was also a painter, died when he was only nine years old, yet, though so young when he lost his father, Stella is said to have had no other master. At the age

of twenty he went to Italy, and at Florence he was employed by the Grand-Duke Cosmo II. to execute the decorations which were designed for the celebration of the marriage of his son Ferdinand II. Stella made many designs and painted several pictures for the grand-duke, who gave him apartu ents and allowed him a similar pension to that which he gave to Callot the engraver. After living seven years in Florence, Stella went to Rome in 1623, and contracted a friendship with Poussin, of whom he became also an imitator.

While in Rome be was by some treachery or misunderstanding thrown into prison, and while in confinement he amused himself with drawing on the wall, in charcoal, the figure of the Virgin with the infant Jesus in her arms. A report of the excellence of the drawing reached the Cardinal Barberini, who went to see it, and from that time a lighted lamp was suspended over it, and the prisoners performed their devotions before it.

In 1634 Stella returned by Venice and Milan to France, with the intention of visiting Spain. At Milan they offered him the directorship of the Academy, with a view of retaining him in that city, but his object was to go to Spain, whither he had been invited by the king. Cardinal Richelieu however succeeded in detaining him in Paris; he procured him apartments in the Louvre, with the title of painter to the king and an annual pension of 1000 francs. In 1644 he was decorated with the cross of St. Michael, and was elevated to the rank of principal painter to the king. He died at Paris, April 20, 1657. Stella remained an imitator of the style of Poussin, but he did not go beyond the drawing and colouring of Poussin, and in the latter respect he exaggerated the defect of Poussin: many of his pictures are very red. He excelled in pastoral pieces, and in the sports of infants; be was also excellent in perspective and architecture. His chief defect

was a want of expression. There are however several good pictures by him in some of the churches of Paris, and there are a few at Lyon. The prints after Stella amount to several hundreds: his niece, Claudine Stella, has engraved fifteen pastoral pieces, fifty-two sports of infants, and three books of ornaments. Edelinck, the Poillys, Melan, and others have engraved some of his greater works. He etched five plates himself, which are very scarce, namely, 'The Descent from the Cross,' a Madonna, a Saint George, a genre piece with infants dancing, and a large print of the ceremony of the Presentation of Tribute to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany,' of the date 1621, which is very rare. Many woodcuts, apparently by P. Maupin, are marked 'Steila fecit,' but this alludes to the design, not the woodcut.

(Felibien, Entretiens, &c.; D'Argenville, Vies des Peintres, &c.; R. Dumesnil, Peintre Graveur Français.)

STENO, NICHOLAS, was born in 1631, at Copenhagen, and there also first studied the medical and other sciences. Bartholin was his preceptor in anatomy, and induced him to pursue it with an ardour which was crowned with eminent success. Having left Copenhagen, Stene studied for three years at Leyden, and for two at Paris, and then travelled through the greater part of Germany and Italy. At Florence, Ferdinand II., grand duke of Tuscany, appointed him his physician in 1667; and Cosmo III., the next duke, retained him in the same post, and made him tutor to his son. In 1669 Steno renounced the Lutheran faith, in which he had been born and educated, but in which his confidence had been shaken during his residence at Paris by Bossuet, and embraced the Roman Catholic religion. Soon after, Frederic III. of Denmark recalled him, but it was not till Christian V., who was more tolerant of Steno's new faith, succeeded, that he was induced to accept the professorship of anatomy at Copenhagen. He held the appointment for only a short time, and then returned to Florence, where, in 1677, giving up the study of anatomy, he took holy orders, and was consecrated Bishop of Heliopolis. Soon after, having been invited to the court of Hanover, the pope made him vicar apostolical of the churches in the north, and in this office he remained, devoting himself zealously to his religious duties till 1679, when, a Lutheran prince succeeding to the government of Hanover, he was obliged to quit the country. He retired to Münster, and there and in other parts of Germany he continued sedulously preaching till 1687, when he died at Schwerin in Mecklenburg.

Steno is now known chiefly through the results of his anatomical labours, which, considering the short period occupied in them, were neither few nor unimportant. In his inaugural dissertation, published in 1661, he described accurately the salivary glands and their ducts, and especially that of the parotid gland, which Casserius had regarded as a ligament, and which has since been commonly called Steno's duct, though it had been before his time observed by Gerard Blasius. In another small treatise Steno first described the ducts of the lachrymal gland. His principal work, 'On the Muscles and Glands,' &c., was published in 1664, and contains, among many excellent anatomical descriptions, the first good account of the course of the muscular fibrs of the heart, the tongue, and the pharynx, and of the anatomy of the respiratory muscles. It includes also most of his observations on the lymph and lymphatics. In bis 'Discourse on the Anatomy of the Brain,' Paris, 1679, Steno speaks of its fibrous structure, and urges the propriety of tracing more carefully than had been hitherto done the course of the nerves into its interior. He wrote also several papers in the Acta Hafniensia,' containing some excellent observations on the motions of the heart in living animals, on the nature of the ovaries and the ova of quadrupeds, and on the developement of the chick. A brief account of his researches is published in Haller, Bibliotheca Anatomica,' tom. i., p. 491.

STEPHANUS, ATHENIENSIS, an ancient Greek physician, the author of several treatises still extant. Nothing is known of the events of his life, except that (if we may believe the titles of some manuscripts at Vienna) he was a pupil of Theophilus Protospatharius. (Lambec., Biblioth. Vindob.,' lib. vi., pp. 198, 223, 492; lib. vii, p. 352, ed. Kollar.) Neither is it known for certain when he lived, for his having Theophilus for his tutor does not at all help to decide this question, as it is equally difficult to determine the date of the master as of the pupil. G. J. Vossius (Lib. de Philosoph.,' cap. 13, p. 109, in ‘Opera,' tom. iii., ed. Amst.) and Fabricius (‘Biblioth. Gr.,' tom. xii., p. 693) think he is the same as the author who is known by the name of Stephanus Alexandrinus, and who dedicated his work 'De Chrysopœia' to the Emperor Heraclius (A.D. 610-641); and that he might have been called Atheniensis from having been born at Athens, and Alexandrinus from having settled at Alexandria. Probably however neither of these great scholars ever saw his works in the original; as Dietz, his editor, notices several words that occur in them, which seem to belong to the 11th century rather than the 7th. The first of his works that we possess is a Commentary on the 'Prognostics' of Hippocrates, which was first published by Dietz (who calls him "inter Hippocratis interpretes sequioris ætatis facile princeps"), in the first volume of his 'Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum,' Regim. Pruss., 1834. There is also a commentary on the 'Aphorisms' which bears his name, and which in fact agrees word for word with that which is commonly attributed to Theophilus. Some extracts from this are inserted in the second volume of Dietz's collection. His commentary on Galen's Ad Glauconem de Medendi Methodo,' is said by Fabricius

and Choulant (Handb. der Bücherkunde für die Aeltere Medicin,' Leipzig, 1841) to have been first published at Venice in Greek by Aldus, 8vo, 1536; but Dietz doubts the existence of this edition. He has himself inserted the co nmentary in the first volume of his collection mentioned above. It had before appeared several times in a Latin translation by Augustinus Gadalinus, Venet., 8vo, 1554, Lugd., 8vo, 1555 and 1558. Another of his works was published in a Latin translation by Casp. Wolf, with the title Alphabetum Empiricum, sive Dioscoridis et Stephani Atheniensis de Remediis Expertis Liber,' &c, Tiguri, 8vo, 1581. The treatise on fevers, sometimes attributed to Stephanus Atheniensis, is in fact by Palladius. [PALLADIUS, vol. iv., col. 645.] The work on Alchemy by Stephanus Alexandrinus consists of nine págeis, or 'Lectures' (see Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr.,' tom. xii., p. 695), with the title Στεφάνου ̓Αλεξανδρέως, Οικουμενικοῦ Φιλοσόφου καὶ Διδασκάλου, Μεγάλης καὶ Ἱερᾶς ταύτης Τέχνης περὶ Χρυσοποιΐας Πράξις ¿v ☺e прúτη. It was published in Latin, Patav., 8vo, 1573, by Dominic Pizimentus, together with Democritus, Synesius, and other writers on the same subject. The Greek text is contained in vol. ii. of Ideler's 'Physici et Medici Græci Minores.' 8vo, Berol., 1842. The writer was a Christian, and lived (as was before noticed) in the 7th century. Reinesius (ap. Fabric., Bibl. Gr.,' tom. xii., p. 757) speaks highly of his work, but notices that he falls into the common error of the Eastern and Greek churches of that age respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost.

lived much later.

It may be mentioned that the father of Alexander Trallianus (Alex. Trall., 'De Re Med.,' lib. iv., cap. 1, p. 230, ed. Guint.), and a physician of Edessa, sent by Justinian as ambassador to the Persian king (Procop., De Bello Pers.,' lib. ii., cap. 26) must not be confounded with the two writers noticed in this article, both of whom probably STEPHANUS, BYZANTI'NUS, a Greek grammarian, the author of a geographical dictionary, the earliest probably ever written. Nothing is known of his life, and his age is uncertain; he is placed by Saxius ('Onomasticon,' i. 520) in the latter part of the 5th century. Of his original work nothing but an abridgment made by Hermolaus, another grammarian, who lived in the time of the Emperor Justinian, has come down to us, with the exception of a fragment of the letter A beginning with Dyme and ending with Dodona, which was first published from the 'Bibliotheca' of Peter Seguier, by Samuel Tennulius, Amst., 4to, 1669. A comparison of this portion of the original work with its abridgement will show how much valuable matter has been omitted by Hermolaus. Constantine Porphyrogennetus, in his book De Administrando Imperio,' c. 23, 24, and in that on the 'Themata' (lib. 2, Thema 6, 9, 10, 12), quotes from Stephanus and gives much fuller extracts than are found in the Epitome,' and in one instance cites him by name (Thema 9, 'De Sicilia;' see 'Excerpta Constantini Peiresciana,' edit. Henr. Valesius, p. 493; and also "Etymolog. Magnum,' voc. Zońkela). In the work, as it has come down to us, much of the letter K, from KE to KO, is wanting, which is known to have existed, according to Scaliger, quoted by Fabricius Biblioth. Græc.,' iii. 51, Hamburg. 1717). The latter part is less full than the earlier; from Patræ to little more than the names of places and their adjectives are given; from this letter onwards the extracts become less meagre. In X and we have what, from the difference in style, may be considered an uncurtailed transcript of the original; the first nine articles of X are abridged in the 'Codex Vratisl.,' like those of the preceding letters, as if the epitomist had desisted suddenly in his undertaking. The difficulty of distinguishing the original material from the possible additions of Hermolaus prevents us from relying with any certainty on several passages in the work which have been thought to refer to Stephanus himself. Under the word 'Avaкtópea, he or his abridger speaks of Eugenius, a grammarian (according to Suidas) of the time of the Emperor Anastasius; in the article Toro occur the words, 'as has been said by me in the Byzantica;' and under BTλeua (Bethlehem) are expressions, which prove the writer of them to have been a Christian. Westermann, in the preface to his edition of Stephanus (Lips., 8vo, 1839), is inclined to apply these passages to him rather than to Hermolaus, and his reasons are apparently just. In the Burney manuscript 50, 11, 254, British Museum, in a volume entitled 'Vitæ, Mores, et Dicta Patrum Sanctorum, Ordine Alphabetico disposita, ex Johannis Moschæ Prato Spirituali aliisque Auctoribus collecta,' is mention of a Stephanus of Byzantium, who is described as one of the scribes or chartularii of Maurianus the General; his great fame is spoken of, and a miraculous scene at his death is described, at which the narrator and Theodosius, bishop of Babylon, are said to have been present. A Count Maurianus lived in the time of the Emperor Zeno, A.D. 490 ('Chron. Paschal.,' 261; 'Corpus Byzant, Script.,' Venet., 1729); and another was Comes Domesticorum in the time of Honorius (Banduri, 'Comment. in Antiq. C. P.,' lib. ii. 477, ibid.), and it is possible that some future discovery may connect the Stephanus mentioned in this passage with the subject of this biography.

Westermann has adopted the title Ethnica ('Eviká), on the authority of Eustathius, instead of that of Пeрl Пóλewv, prefixed to the work by Aldus and others. The editions of Stephanus are Aldi Manutii, Venet, fol., 1502; Florent. ex Juntar. officin., fol., 1521; Gesner, Basil., fol., 1553; Xylander, Basil., fol., 1568, cum castigat.; Thomæ de

Pinedo, Amstel., 1678, with a Latin translation and useful commentary, and the fragment published by Tennalins. Luc. Holsten., Lugd. Batav, 1684, with many annotations; Abraham Berkel, Lugd. Batav., fol., 1688: this edition was finished by Gronovius, 1694, who republished the fragment with a triple Latin translation in the 7th vol of the Thesaurus Antiq. Græc.'; Dindorf, 4 vols. 8vo, Lips. 1825; and Westermann (referred to above), which contains a carefully revised text and a preface in which is given much valuable information. The work of Stephanus contains many interesting particulars relative to history and mythology; it treats of towns, nations, and tribes, giving to each proper name its gentilitial adjective. It does not how. ever appear, as some have supposed, that the chief object of the author was to convey grammatical information, and a title to the work, written at the end of the fragment already mentioned, and quoted as proving this, is not considered genuine. The number of authors cited in the fragment makes us the more regret the loss of so valuable a compilation as the whole work must have been. The notices of cities in the Epitome,' particularly of those which struck coins, are very useful in the illustration of the local history and topography of the ancient world. STEPHANUS. [STEPHENS.]

STEPHEN, the first Christian martyr, has been supposed, on no very sufficient grounds, to have been one of the 'seventy two disciples.' It is more likely that he was a Hellenistic Jew, and one of the large body converted on the day of Pentecost by the preaching of St. Peter. He appears to have been a person of some reputation, and was one of the seven deacons chosen to attend to the temporal affairs of the growing church. The Jews, from the different synagogues out of Palestine, exasperated by the defection from their body of so eminent a person as Stephen, lost no opportunity of contending vehemently with him; and ultimately brought him before the Sanhedrim, to give an account of his belief and conduct. In answer, he commenced a fine oration, the object of which appears to have been to open, histori cally, the true design of the Jewish dispensation, and the consummation of that design in Christ. The object of this discourse has however been disputed; and it was in fact not fully developed by the speaker, as he was interrupted by the clamours of the mob, who "were cut to the heart, and gnashed on him with their teeth." He was however encouraged by a vision of “heaven opened," and of Christ glorified; on declaring which to the people, they rushed upon him, dragged him outside the city, and there stoned him to death, A.D. 33. With his last breath he invoked the pardon of God for his murderers. This was entirely an extrajudicial act, the effect of popular excitement; for the Sanhedrim did not convict him, and had indeed no power to inflict death.

STEPHEN I. was elected bishop of Rome after the death of Lucius, A.D. 253. He was applied to by the Christians of Gaul concerning some differences which they had with Martianus of Arles, who appears to have been unusually austere in matters of discipline. Next came the commotions among the Christians of Spain concerning the two bishops Basilides and Martialis, who were both deposed. Basilides went to Rome, and, it appears, prevailed upon Stephen to take his part; but the Spanish bishops applied to Cyprian of Carthage, who approved of the despotism of Basilides, and caused it to be confirmed by a council held in Africa. A controversy arose between Stephen and Cyprian concerning the baptism of heretics, but the authenticity of the letters of Cyprian and Firmilian concerning this controversy has been disputed by some church historians and critics. Stephen died in 257, but the manner of his death is not clearly ascertained: the Acta S. Stephani' are not considered as genuine. Of Stephen's writings we have only fragments of epistles.

STEPHEN II. was elected after Zacharias in 752, but died three days after his election, without being consecrated, for which reason he is generally omitted in the series of the popes.

STEPHEN III., a native of Rome, was elected the successor of Stephen II. (752), and he is styled by many Stephen II. Astolphus, king of the Longobards, having shortly before driven the Byzantines out of Ravenna, and the Exarchate, and Pentapolis, marched towards Rome, in violation of the peace concluded between his predecessors and that see, and having advanced as far as Narni, sent messengers to the pope, requiring the inhabitants of Rome and its duchy to pay him a capitation tax, and acknowledge him for their liege lord, threatening to pillage Rome in case of refusal. Stephen, having applied in vain for assistance to the Eastern emperor Constantine Copronymus, who was at that time busy in breaking images and persecuting image-worshippers, had recourse to Pepin, king of the Franks, whose accession to that throne in lieu of the deposed Childeric, the last nominal king of the Merovingian dynasty, had been countenanced and sanctioned by Zacharias, Stephen's predecessor. Pepin sent two legates, to endeavour to prevail upon Astolphus to desist from annoying the pope. Their remonstrances proving useless, pope Stephen determined to repair to France in company with Pepin's legates. Pepin received the pope with the greatest respect, and was crowned and anointed by him in the church of St. Denis, together with his two sons Charles and Carlomann. It was then agreed between Stephen and Pepin that Pepin should oblige Astolphus to evacuate not only the duchy of Rome, but also the Exarchate and Pentapolis, which he had taken from the Byzantines, and that those territories

should be made over to St. Peter and the Roman see. Pepin, accompanied by Stephen, marched with an army into Italy, defeated Astolphus, besieged him in Pavia, and obliged him to promise to give up Ravenna with the Exarchate, which embraced the actual provinces called the Papal Legations, and the Pentapolis or present March of Ancona, including Urbino and Pesaro. Astolphus made the promise, and gave hostages to Pepin, who quickly returned to France (A.D. 754). In the following year however Astolphus, having recruited his forces, marched straight to Rome, to which he laid siege, devastating the country around. Pope Stephen now wrote to Pepin in the most urgent manner, in the name of St. Peter: "Petrus vocatus Apostolus à Jesu Christo Dei vivi filio: Viris excellentissimis Pipino, Carlo et Carolomanno tribus regibus," &c., promising them and all the French people eternal life, if they would support the rights of St. Peter's see, but threatening them with eternal perdition if they neglected so to do. These remarkable letters of Pope Stephen are in Baronius, Duchesne, and the Codex Carolinus. Pepin quickly repaired to Italy, again defeated Astolphus, who had been obliged to raise the siege of Rome in order to oppose him, and besieged him in Pavia. While Pepin was encamped before that city, an envoy appeared before him, sent by Constantiue Copronymus, emperor of the East, who, after praising Pepin for having driven the Longobards out of the Exarchate, demanded its restitution to its former sovereign the emperor. Pepin replied, that the Exarchate had belonged to the Longobards by right of conquest, and also by the will of the people, who had given themselves up to King Luitprand, in consequence of the persecution of the images ordered by the Greek emperors; and that now by the same right those provinces belonged to Pepin, who had taken them from the Longobards, and that he had thought it expedient to give them to the pope for the honour and advancement of the Catholic church, and to keep it free both from the heresies of the Greeks and from the ambition and rapacity of the Longobards. (Anastasius in Vita Stephani III.) Pepin, having dismissed the envoy with this answer, continued to press the siege of Pavia, and Astolphus was obliged to sue for peace. Pepin required him immediately to deliver to his com missioner Fulrad, abbot of St. Denis, the towns of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, and to cause them to be evacuated by the Longobards. This being done, Fulrad carried the keys of those towns to Rome, and deposited them on the sepulchre of the holy Apostle, together with the solemn deed of donation signed by Pepin, his two sons, and the principal barons and prelates of France. This act of donation is lost, but from some of the expressions, gathered from Pope Stephen's letters, it appears that it was made to "the blessed Peter, and the holy church of God," and "to the Roman republic." The city and duchy of Rome were therefore not included in the donation, as they had not been conquered either by the Longobards or by Pepin. The pope then entrusted the administration of the Exarchate to the archbishop of Ravenna. Some critics, especially French, and Sigouius himself, assume that Pepin gave to the pope only the "utile dominium of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, and retained for himself and his successors the "jus imperii," or sovereign rights.

,,

Soon after this memorable transaction Astolphus died of an accident while hunting, and Desiderius, king of Tuscany, was chosen by the Longobards for their king. Ratchis, brother of Astolphus, who had formerly abdicated the crown and turned monk, left his convent and aspired again to the throne. Desiderius applied to Pope Stephen, who ordered Ratchis to return to his convent. Ratchis obeyed, and Desiderius was acknowledged king. In the following year (April 757) Pope Stephen died, and was succeeded by Paul I. We have of Pope Stephen's writings, besides his letters in the Codex Carolinus, his 'Responsa ad Gallos,' in Harduin's 'Concilia.'

STEPHEN IV., styled III. by some, a Sicilian by birth, was elected pope in 768, more than a year after the death of Paul I., during which time one Constantine, a layman, and brother of Toto, king of Nepi, intruded himself by force on the papal see, having obliged Gregory, bishop of Præneste, to ordain and consecrate him. At last, part of the Roman clergy, supported by the Longobard duke of Spoleto, who sent an armed force to Rome, overcame the faction of Constantine, who was deposed, deprived of his eyes, and shut up in a convent, and Stephen was elected. The new pope convoked a council in the Lateran, in which all the abettors of Constantine were degraded. Shortly after, new disturbances broke out in Rome, which induced Desiderius, king of the Lougobards, to go thither with some troops. He had several interviews with Pope Stephen in the Vatican Basilica outside of the walls, and assisted him in quelling the insurrection, the leaders of which had their eyes put out.

King Pepin being dead, the kingdom of the Franks was divided between his two sons, Charles and Carlomann. Bertha, Pepin's widow, having made a journey into Italy, saw King Desiderius, and arranged with him a matrimonial alliance between two of his daughters and her two sons. Pope Stephen, upon hearing this, wrote to the two kings of the Franks a very violent letter, which is contained in the Codex Carolinus, dissuading them from the proposed alliance, and asserting that it would be "arrant folly to contaminate their noble legal race with the perfidious and infected race of the Longobards, who had brought leprosy into Italy, and who did not deserve to be reckoned among nations; that having promised to St. Peter to be friends of his friends, and enemies to his enemies, they ought to shun

the alliance of the Longobards, who were enemies to Rome," adding several scriptural passages which he made to bear upon the subject: he concluded by stating that he wrote this letter upon the sepulchre of the holy Apostle, and he threatened them with excommunication if they spurned his advice. The alliance however took place, at least in part; for Charles (afterwards Charlemagne) married Hermengarda, daughter of Desiderius, whom he repudiated a year after, to marry Hildegard, a German princess.

Sergius, archbishop of Ravenna, being dead, the Archduke Leo was elected his successor; but Mauritius, duke of Rimini, went to Ravenna with an armed force, and violently placed in the archiepiscopal see the archivist Michael, a layman. Pope Stephen refused to consecrate Michael, who, after having stripped the church and treasury of many valuables, at last retired, and made room for Leo. It is said that King Desiderius favoured Michael. Pope Stephen, in the latter part of his pcrtificate, was at open variance with the king of the Longobards, who kept or recovered possession of Ferrara, Comacchio, and Faenza, which formed part of the long-disputed Exarchate. Pope Stephen died at the beginning of 772, and was succeeded by Adrian I. STEPHEN V., a native of Rome, succeeded Leo III. in 816. Shortly after his consecration he went to France to confer with the Emperor Louis the Pious, whom he met at Orleans, and who received him with great honour. On his return to Rome, he died in the seventh month of his pontificate. He founded at Rome the monastery of Santa Prassede, which he gave to a congregation of Greek monks, who retained their own liturgy.

STEPHEN VI., a Roman, succeeded Adrian III. in 885. He found, on his succession, the Lateran palace stripped of its treasures and other valuables by the relatives and attendants of the late pope, according to the practice of those times. The public granaries were also empty, and the people of Rome were suffering from famine resulting from a bad harvest and from swarms of locusts which had desolated the country. Stephen ordered the fields to be sprinkled with holy water; but at the same time he promised a bounty in money for every measure of dead locusts which the peasants should bring him, and this had the effect of clearing the country of that scourge. He also sold his own property to relieve the poor. Pope Stephen had been consecrated by John, bishop of Pavia, who was one of the imperial 'missi;' but the Emperor Charles the Fat was angry because the new pope had not waited for his approbation, and he sent some of his officers to Rome to arrest him. Stephen however having forwarded the report of his election, made according to the canonical forms, and numerous attestations of both clergy and laity, the emperor was pacified. In the year 887 Charles the Fat was deposed, and his vast monarchy parcelled out. Berengarius, duke of Friuli, was elected by part of the Italian barons king of Italy; but he found a rival in Guy, duke of Spoleto, who overthrew Berengarius in battle, and was crowned at Rome by the pope, in February 891, with the title of emperor, Wido Imperator Augustus.' Six months later (August 7), Pope Stephen died, and was succeeded by Formosus. Pope Stephen is said by Gulielmus Bibliothecarius to have been a man of learning: he collected manuscripts, which he gave to the Basilica of St. Paul.

STEPHEN VII., Bishop of Anagni, and a native of Rome, succeeded in 896 Benedict VI., who had not lived a month after his election, which took place on the death of Formosus. Stephen, from what motive is not clearly ascertained, persecuted with the greatest bitterness the memory of Pope Formosus, caused his body to be disinterred and stripped of its pontifical garments, and thrown into a common grave among lay men. He justified himself by the fact that Formosus, before his elevation to the papacy, had been excommunicated by Pope John VIII., in consequence of the frequent factious strifes which often broke out at Rome. Stephen also annulled all the acts and decrees of Formosus. This affair of Formosus gave rise to much controversy, which lasted during several successive pontificates; and a contemporary writer called Auxilius wrote in defence of the memory of Formosus, 'De Ordinatione Formosi Libri Duo.' In 897 an insurrection of the friends of Formosus broke out at Rome, and Pope Stephen was seized, cast into prison, and strangled. He was succeeded by Romanus, who annulled all Stephen's acts as to Formosus.

STEPHEN VIII., succeeded Leo VI. in 929. This was the period when Marozia, and her husband Guido, duke of Tuscany, ruled in Rome. They had put to death Pope John X., and are said to have done the same to his successor Leo VI, whose pontificate lasted only seven months. The election of Stephen is supposed therefore to have been effected with their approbation; but we have no historical record concerning the particulars of his pontificate. The 10th century is the truly dark age of Italian history. Stephen VIII., styled by some VII., died in December 930, and was succeeded by John XI., son of Marozia.

STEPHEN IX., succeeded Leo VII. in 939. Rome was then governed by Alberic, son of Marozia, who assumed the title of "prince and senator of all the Romans." Little or nothing is known of Stephen IX.'s pontificate. Martinus Polonus alone, a chronicler of dubious authority, says he was roughly handled by the Romans in a popular tumult, and was crippled for the rest of his life. He died in 942, and was succeeded by Martinus III.

STEPHEN X., styled IX. by some, CARDINAL FREDERIC, abbot of Monte Casino, and brother of Godfrey, duke of Tuscany, succeeded

Victor II. in 1057. He had been legate of Leo IX. to the court of Constantinople, and was learned in controversial divinity. His election is said to have been unanimous. By the advice of the monk Hilde brand (afterwards Gregory VII.), he sent two legates to Milan to enforce the decrees concerning the celibacy of the clergy, which the church of Milan had not yet adopted. This dispute had begun in 1021, at the council of Pavia, and it lasted for nearly half a century. Stephen issued also several bulls against simony, which was prevalent in his time. He sent for the learned Petrus Damianus, who had retired to a secluded cloister, and obliged him to come to Rome under pain of excommunication, and made him cardinal and bishop of Ostia. The pope also visited his former monastery of Monte Casino, in which he enforced a strict discipline. He also issued a bull exempting the clergy from the jurisdiction of the lay courts, and from paying tribute to laymen. From some passages of Leo Ostiensis and other chroniclers it has been surmised that he intended to make his brother Godfrey king of Italy. But the pope fell ill, and died on the 29th of March, 1058. On his deathbed he recommended the clergy and people to wait for the return of Hildebrand from Germany before they elected his successsor, but the advice was not followed, and a schism ensued. [BENEDICT X.; NICHOLAS II.]

STEPHEN, SAINT, first king of Hungary, son of the Magyar chief Geysa, and Sarolta, the daughter of Gyula, a Hungarian nobleman who had been baptised in Greece, was born about 979, at Gran (Estragan, the ancient Strigonium).

His father Geysa (Gyözö, that is, 'Victor'), whose fierce and indomitable character the Christian Sarolta had succeeded in softening, allowed Piligrin, bishop of Lorch, to preach the Gospel to the Magyars; but these first attempts proved unsuccessful, and it was only at a subsequent period, when Geysa himself was converted, that a few of his countrymen followed his example. The number was however greatly increased upon the arrival in Hungary of St. Adalbert, who advised Geysa to allow Christians to settle there; and in consequence of this permission being granted, a number of Germans and Italians established themselves in the neighbourhood of the capital, Gran. The majority of the Hungarians being however still attached to their gods, persecution as well as other means of conversion were used against them. In the midst of preparations for a powerful attack against his heathen countrymen, Geysa died, and Stephen succeeded him in 997. The legend says that an angel had announced to Geysa the birth of a son, and that St. Stephen, the protomartyr, appeared to Sarolta, and bade her call her offspring after him. The name which he bore before his baptism was Vaik, according to Mailath. Great care was taken by his mother that he should receive a good education; Count Deodatus à San Severino, in Apulia, was appointed his instructor, and St. Adalbert, of Prague, baptised him in 995. Shortly after this he married Gisela, the sister of the Emperor Otho III.

The dissatisfied Magyars, though they had hitherto refrained from any acts of violence against the Christians, who enjoyed the powerful protection of Geysa, now began to make open resistance. The youthful inexperience of Stephen, who had scarcely assumed the reins of government, seemed to give them hopes of succeeding in their attempts to check the progress of Christianity and restore their ancient religion. Indeed it appears that when Kupan, the count of Simegh, had consented to lead the heathen Magyars, a number of those who had received Christian baptism joined his standard. In addition to this, so wavering was the faith of those who remained with Stephen, that the youthful chief could only rely upon the support of the foreigners. Kupan had assembled all his forces, and marched towards Weszprim, in the neighbourhood of which town Stephen met him. After a desperate battle, in which Kupan lost his life, the victory so decidedly leaned towards the side of the Christians, that the remaining adherents of the party of Kupan quitted it. For the purpose of securing the possession of his throne, Stephen sent an embassy to Pope Sylvester II., at the head of which was Astricus or Anasbasius, bishop of the newly-created see of Kolotz, who was instructed to obtain the title of king for Stephen. Astricus soon returned with a crown and a deed of the pope, which gave Stephen unlimited power in the ecclesiastical affairs of his country. The coronation took place on the 15th of August 1000. From the time of his assuming the title of king, the peaceful occupations of Stephen were only interrupted by a few warlike incursions, all of which he successfully repelled.

In 1002 Gyula, his cousin, rebelled against him, and publicly abjured Christianity. After a short campaign he was taken prisoner with his two sons, and Zoltan was appointed governor of Transylvania in his stead. The Bulgarians having assisted Gyula in his rebellion, and threatening to make an incursion into the country, Stephen led an expedition against their chief Kean, and gained a decisive victory over him. The third invasion against Stephen was one conducted by Henry, the son of the Emperor Conrad, who had already advanced as far as the Raab with a powerful army, but after some negociations the army returned without having fought a single battle. These were the only instances in Stephen's long reign which obliged him to have recourse to arms. Indeed his court was so well known for the security which it afforded, that the two English princes Edwin and Edward, who had been exiled by Canute, went over to Hungary and lived under King Stephen's protection. The whole of his attention was

BIOG. DIV. VOL. V.

given to the firm establishment of Christianity, and no means were neglected by him which could induce the few who still persevered in heathenish practices to adopt it. He divided Hungary into ten bishoprics, which were plentifully supplied with monasteries built by Greek architects. Schools were also established, the first and best of which was that of St. Gerard, who had been tutor to Prince Emeric, the king's son. It was afterwards entrusted to the direction of Walter, a monk of Bákony Bél, the fifth monastery founded by Stephen. The country itself being now provided with ecclesiastical and school establishments, a monastery was built at Ravenna for the use of Magyar pilgrims on their way to Rome, where the munificent king had erected a college with a foundation for ten canons, and an inn for his subjects whom the desire of learning might lead to Rome. A large convent in the neighbourhood of Constantinople was the resting-place for Hungarian monks who wished to join their brethren at Jerusalem, and who were entirely supported by the king. These and many other pious and charitable institutions of St. Stephen, joined to his own exemplary life and precepts, soon rooted out the last remnants of paganism. His civil constitution, of which we have no well-authenticated remains, finished the work of civilisation which he had begun thirty years before.

At this period of his life, being fifty-one years of age, he lost his son Emeric, who, under the able tuition of Gerard, had all the accomplishments of his time, and was in every respect worthy of his father. Emeric was married to the daughter of Kresimir, king of Croatia, but he died without issue. Stephen's grief for the loss of his son was increased by the treachery of Gisela, who put out the eyes of Vazul, whom Stephen had designed for his successor, in order that her own son Peter might succeed to the throne. These causes of sorrow so affected Stephen's health that they brought on an illness which afflicted him till his death. About this time an attempt was made against his life by a murderer, who was incited by four of the principal men of the court. Stephen gave a general pardon to all who were concerned in the crime. He died on the 15th of August 1038 (the day of his coronation), forty-one years after the death of his father. In 1083 his relics were enshrined by St. Ladislaus, in a rich chapel which bears his name, in the church of our Lady of Buda The 20th of August, the day of the translation of his relics, is kept in Hungary as a festival.

St. Stephen was canonised by Benedict IX.; and Pope Innocent XI., in 1686, appointed his festival to be kept on the 2nd of September, the Emperor Leopold having on that day recovered Buda from the Turks. (Chartuitius, Vita S. Stephani.')

STEPHEN II., king of Hungary, son of Koloman, whom he suc ceeded in 1114, at the age of fourteen. He was of a weak intellect, and unwilling to submit to the judgment of his advisers, but was accustomed to act from the impulse of the moment. This quality gave him the name of the Lightning,' or 'the Thunderer,' and rendered him odious to his subjects. Soon after his accession to the throne he made war on the Venetians, who could not be reconciled to the loss of Dalmatia, which had been taken from them during the reign of Stephen's father. They sent a fleet, with a considerable army, under the Doge Ordelaf Faledro, who however did not recover this province, the possession of which was of the greatest importance to the republic. The hostilities, which lasted two years, ended with a treaty which secured the mainland of Dalmatia to Stephen, whilst Venice obtained the adjoining islands. This transaction was scarcely concluded, when Stephen went (1116) to meet Wladislaw, the chief of the Bohemians, for the purpose of renewing the treaties of friendship which had long existed between the two countries. Through the treachery of Solth, the meeting terminated in a quarrel attended with bloodshed; but after a few months the traitor was executed, and the old treaty renewed: some writers however assert that Stephen was a participator in this dishonourable transaction. In the two following years Stephen invaded Poland and Austria, from which expeditions he derived no material benefit. In 1119 he made an incursion into Austria, but the Emperor Leopold, in a decisive battle, completely defeated the Hungarian army, and pursued it as far as Eisenberg.

The bad feeling which such acts had produced in the people was only checked by the great respect for kingly authority; but Stephen at last excited general indignation by filling the country with foreigners, to whom he showed a decided preference. This foolish policy was followed, in 1127, by a war with the grand-duke of Muscovy, Wladimir Monomakh. Yaroslav, the exiled prince of Wladimir, applied to Stephen for aid. The Hungarian army marched into Russia, and advanced without opposition as far as Wladimir. At this crisis Yaroslav died, and with his death the cause of the war ceased. But instead of returning, Stephen insisted upon storming the town; and in consequence of his obstinacy, the chief nobles of his army, with Rozma Peznan at their head, declared that if he would not immediately follow them into their own country, they would elect another king, and leave him at the mercy of the Russians. Intimidated by these threats, Stephen returned to Hungary; but his conduct compelled many of those who were concerned in the revolt to fly to Constantinople. Here they were well received by the Emperor John II., who, upon Stephen's threatening to invade the empire, sent a powerful army against him, which completely defeated the Hungarians at Uj27

Palanka. When peace was restored, Stephen adopted Bela, the son of his relative Amos, who had been obliged to seek protection at the court of Constantinople, and resigned in his favour in 1131. He then entered a monastery, and died at Waradin, in the thirty-first year of his age. STEPHEN III. was crowned king of Hungary in 1161, under unfavourable circumstances, arising from the influence which the emperor of Constantinople had exercised over Hungary during the reign of his father. Although Stephen had legitimate claims to the throne, and was generally beloved by the Hungarian nobles, the Emperor Manuel did not approve of his spirit of independence, and signified to the Hungarians that unless they elected Ladislaus, the brother of the late king, he would invade the country. Ladislaus had been brought up at the Byzantine court, and had the Greek interest much more at heart than the Hungarian. Terrified by the approach of a formidable army, the Hungarian nobles elected Ladislaus, who however died in 1161.

STEPHEN IV. On the death of Ladislaus, Stephen IV. was forced upon the Hungarians by the Emperor Manuel; though no man could be less acceptable to them than the debauched uncle of the unfortunate Stephen III. A revolt soon compelled him to seek refuge at the court of his patron, and the lawful king, Stephen III., was unanimously re-elected. During the usurpation of his uncle, Stephen lived under the protection of the archbishop of Gan, Luke Banfi. Manuel seemed to approve of the newly elected king, and gave his daughter in marriage to Bela, the brother of Stephen, on condition that the prince should live at Constantinople. Stephen agreed to this; but upon the arrival of Bela at Constantinople, the emperor claimed his heritage, which consisted of Dalmatia. Stephen refused to admit his claim; whereupon his uncle, Stephen IV., re-appeared at the instigation of Manuel, and commenced hostilities. He was however defeated in a battle by his nephew, and obliged to fly to Semlin, where he died in 1163. Soon after his death Semlin was taken, the kingdom cleared of the partisans of the Greek cause, and in an expedition into Dalmatia, which was conducted by Stephen himself, in 1165, this province was recovered from the hands of Manuel. But whilst engaged in the western part of his kingdom, a Greek army appeared in Hungary. Stephen went to meet it; and a decisive battle, in which the Hungarians were defeated, secured the influence of Greece in Hungary. Stephen III. died in 1173, and was succeeded by his brother Bela III.

STEPHEN V., king of Hungary, succeeded his father Bela in 1270, and began his reign by a war against Ottocar, king of the Bohemians, whom he defeated. A subsequent campaign against the Bulgarians was crowned with success; but the course of his victories was interrupted by his death, which occurred in 1272. This king is sometimes called Stephen IV. by those who do not recognise the usurper of that name. (Thwrocz, Chronica Hungarorum; Ranzanus, Epitome rerum Hungaricarum Decades Quatuor; Mailáth, Geschichte der Magyaren.) STEPHEN, king of England, born in 1105, was the third of the four sons of Stephen, earl of Blois, by Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror; and was consequently nephew of Henry I., cousin to that king's daughter the Empress Matilda, and second cousin to Matilda's son, who became king of England as Henry II. Having been early brought over to England by his uncle Henry I., that king, with whom he became a great favourite, besides bestowing upon him several valuable estates here, made him earl of Mortagne in Nor mandy. Dr. Lingard says that Stephen "had earned by his valour in the field of Tenchebrai the Norman earldom of Mortoil." (Hist. of Engl.,' i. 158). But when the battle of Tenchebrai was fought, in 1106 (HENRY I. vol. iii. col. 353.], Stephen was only about a twelvemonth old. Henry also procured for him a marriage with Matilda, the daughter and heiress of Eustace, earl of Boulogne (younger brother of the famous Godfrey and Baldwin, king of Jerusalem), by which he acquired that earldom, and also a new alliance with the royal families both of England and Scotland, for the mother of Matilda of Boulogne was Maria, daughter of Malcolm Canmore, and a younger sister of Henry's queen Matilda (the good queen Maud). As Stephen therefore was the nephew of Henry I., so his wife was the niece of Henry's queen; and by this match the issue of Stephen, as well as the issue of Henry, might boast of inheriting the blood of the old Saxon royal family, as being equally sprung from Malcolm's queen Margaret, the sister of Edgar Atheling, a circumstance by no means without influence in the contentions of the two lines.

When Henry, after the loss of his son and the failure of issue by his second wife, determined upon securing the succession to the crown for his daughter the Empress Matilda, the two individuals upon whom he appears to have principally relied for the support of that arrangement were his natural son Robert, earl of Gloucester, and his nephew Stephen. It is not improbable that both may have meditated the attempt which Stephen actually made, and that, if the crown upon Henry's death had not been seized by him, it might have been clutched at by Gloucester. The notions of that age were by no means so settled in favour of legitimate birth as to have prevented the son of the late king, although illegitimate, from having a fair chance in such a competition against his nephew.

Perhaps Henry himself was not without his fears of one or both. He must have felt at least that the existence of two males so nearly

connected with the royal house, and distinguished both for military talent and popular manners, tended to make still more precarious the success of his novel project of a woman-king, a thing opposed to all the notions and habits of the Gothic nations, and (if we except the single instance of a wife of one of the kings of the West Saxons, who is said to have retained the government in her hands for a year after the death of her husband, and then to have been expelled with dis dain by the nobles, who would not fight under a woman) unexampled either in England, or in France, or in Normandy, or in the kingdom of Denmark and Norway, whence the Normans came. At the same time it was obviously much better for Matilda that she should have two such near male relations than if she had only one; seeing that, if she had to fear a rival in one of them, she might count with equal certainty upon having a defender in the other. But that which after all gave her the best chance was the circumstance of her having had the good fortune to give birth to a son a few years before her father's death. Indeed she had borne two sons to her second husband before her father died. Had it not been for these lucky accidents it may be doubted if all her father's provident arrangements would have secured the recognition of Matilda's pretensions for a moment after the throne became vacant. But for the existence of the infant Henry of Anjou, or of his younger brother, at the time of his grandfather's death, the crown might probably have been Stephen's without striking a blowunless there had ensued a fight for it between him and his cousin Gloucester.

In 1125, immediately after the death of her first husband the Emperor Henry V. (whom she was suspected of having made away with), Henry had sent for his daughter to Normandy, and, having the next year brought her over to England, he collected all the chief persons of the realm about him at Windsor while he kept his Christmas, and, having there by presents and promises engaged those among them of greatest influence to support his views, he came to London, and, having proposed the matter in a council consisting of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and all the thanes, obtained, in the beginning of January 1127, though not, says Malmesbury, without great and long deliberation, the unanimous promise of the assembly, that, if he should die without male issue, they would receive Matilda as his successor. Every individual present who seemed to be of any note-quicunque in eodem concilio alicujus, videbatur esse momenti (to adhere to Malmesbury's remarkable expression)-took a solemn oath to that effect: first, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops and abbots; then the King of Scotland on account of the fiefs he held of the English crown; then Stephen, earl of Boulogne and Mortagne; then the Earl of Gloucester; then the other barons. A few months after this Matilda was married to Geoffrey Plantagenet, the son of the Earl of Anjou; and in the year 1131, when she was in England, having already quarrelled with her husband, the oath of fealty to her was again taken by the bishops and nobility at a grand council held at Northampton; and two years after, on the birth of Matilda's first son Henry, it was once more renewed, in a council held at Oxford, both to her and to her son.

Nevertheless, as soon as Henry had expired in Normandy, December 1st, 1135, Stephen, who, as well as Gloucester, had been for some time in attendance on the dying king, instantly set out for England, and taking ship at Whitsand, near Calais, the usual port of embarkation, landed on the coast of Kent. It appears that, foreseeing his uncle's decease, he had already secured the support of a powerful faction of the clergy and nobility, by means of his younger brother Henry, who, having also stood high in the favour of the late king, had been placed by him in the bishopric of Winchester, and had succeeded in winning over to his brother's interest the most influential subject in the kingdom, Roger, bishop of Salisbury, who, as grand justiciary, was the supreme governor of the realm during the vacancy of the throne. Of Stephen's two elder brothers, it may be here mentioned that William, the eldest, was almost an idiot, and that the other, Theobald, had succeeded to his father's earldom of Blois; so that Stephen, in aspiring to the English crown, did not find either of them in his way. The politic and zealous management of his brother Henry had also gained for him the support of William de Pont de l'Arche, who held thẻ castle of Winchester and the key of the royal treasures deposited there. The consequence was, that although Stephen was refused admission by the inhabitants both of Dover and of Canterbury, he was received with warm welcome by those of London and Winchester; and after Hugh Bigot, earl of Norfolk, the steward of the royal household, had, to remove the scruples, real or affected, of some of his adherents, boldly sworn that Henry on his deathbed had disinherited his daughter and her issue, and left the crown to his nephew, it was resolved by the clergy and nobility who had gathered about him that he should be crowned forthwith, and the ceremony was accordingly performed at Westminster on the 26th of December, St. Stephen's-day, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the bishops of Salisbury and Winchester. The commencement of the reign of Stephen is reckoned from that day.

At his coronation Stephen swore,-1, That on all occasions of episcopal vacancies he would appoint a new prelate within a certain time, and meanwhile would leave the temporalities of the see in the charge of some ecclesiastic; 2, That he would make no addition to the royal forests, but would, on the contrary, restore to their owners