Development.

In February 1938 the U.S. Navy Bureau of Aeronautics published two requests for proposal for twin-engined and single-engined fighters. For the single-engined fighter the Navy requested the maximum obtainable speed, and a stalling speed not higher than. A range of was specified. The fighter had to carry four guns, or three with increased ammunition. Provision had to be made for anti-aircraft bombs to be carried in the wing. These small bombs would, according to thinking in the 1930s, be dropped on enemy aircraft formations. In June 1938, the U.S. Navy signed a contract with Vought for a prototype bearing the factory designation V-166B, the XF4U-1, BuNo 1443. The Corsair design team was led by Rex Beisel. After mock-up inspection in February 1939, construction of the XF4U-1 powered by an XR-2800-4 prototype of the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp twin-row, 18-cylinder radial engine, rated at went ahead quickly, as the very first airframe ever designed from the start to have a Double Wasp engine fitted for flight. When the prototype was completed it had the biggest and most powerful engine, largest propeller, and probably the largest wing on any naval fighter to date. The first flight of the XF4U-1 was made on 29 May 1940, with Lyman A. Bullard, Jr. at the controls. The maiden flight

Design.

Engine considerations.

The F4U incorporated the largest engine available at the time, the 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney

Landing gear and wings.

To accommodate a folding wing the designers considered retracting the main landing gear rearward but, for the chord of wing that was chosen, it was difficult to make the landing gear struts long enough to provide ground clearance for the large propeller. Their solution was an inverted gull wing, which considerably shortened the required length of the struts. The anhedral of the wing's center-section also permitted the wing and fuselage to meet at the optimum angle for minimizing drag, without using wing root fairings. The bent wing, however, was heavier and more difficult to construct, offsetting these benefits.  The Corsair's aerodynamics were an advance over those of contemporary naval fighters. The F4U was the first U.S. Navy aircraft to feature landing gear that retracted into a fully enclosed wheel well. The landing gear oleo struts—each with its

Technical issues.

In part because of its advances in technology and a top speed greater than existing Navy aircraft, numerous technical problems had to be solved before the Corsair entered service. Carrier suitability was a major development issue, prompting changes to the main landing gear, tail wheel, and tailhook. Early F4U-1s had difficulty recovering from developed spins, since the inverted gull wing's shape interfered with elevator authority. It was also found that the Corsair's right wing could stall and drop rapidly and without warning during slow carrier landings. In addition, if the throttle were suddenly advanced (for example, during an aborted landing) the left wing could stall and drop so quickly that the fighter could flip over with the rapid increase in power. These potentially lethal characteristics were later solved through the addition of a small, -long stall strip to the leading edge of the outer right wing, just outboard of the gun ports. This allowed the right wing to stall at the same time as the left. Other problems were encountered during early carrier trials.

Design modifications.

Production F4U-1s featured several major modifications from the XF4U-1. A change of armament to six wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns (three in each outer wing panel) and their ammunition (400 rounds for the inner pair, 375 rounds for the outer) meant that the location of the wing fuel tanks had to be changed. In order to keep the fuel tank close to the center of gravity, the only available position was in the forward fuselage, ahead of the cockpit. Later on, different variants of the F4U were given different armaments. While most Corsair variants had the standard armament of six.50 caliber M2 Browning machine guns, some models (like the F4U-1C) were equipped with four 20 millimeter M2 cannons for its main weapon. While these cannons were more powerful than the standard machine guns, they were not favored over the standard loadout. Only 200 models of this particular Corsair model were produced, out of the total 12,571. Other variants were capable of carrying mission

Performance.

The performance of the Corsair was superior to most of its contemporaries. The F4U-1 was considerably faster than the Grumman F6F Hellcat and only slower than the

Operational history.

World War II.

U.S. service.

Royal Navy.

Royal New Zealand Air Force.

Equipped with obsolete Curtiss P-40s, Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) squadrons in the South Pacific performed impressively, in particular in the air-to-air role. The American government accordingly decided to give New Zealand early access to the Corsair, especially as it was not initially being used from carriers. Some 424 Corsairs equipped 13 RNZAF squadrons, including No. 14 Squadron RNZAF and No. 15 Squadron RNZAF, replacing Douglas SBD Dauntlesses as well as P-40s. Most of the F4U-1s were assembled by

Captured Corsairs.

On 18 July 1944, a British Corsair F4U-1A, "JT404" of 1841 Naval Air Squadron, was involved in anti-submarine patrol from HMS "Formidable" en route to Scapa Flow after the Operation Mascot attack on the German battleship "Tirpitz".. It flew in company with a Fairey Barracuda. Due to technical problems the Corsair made an emergency landing in a field on Hamarøy north of Bodø, Norway. The pilot, Lt Mattholie, was taken prisoner and the aircraft captured undamaged. Luftwaffe interrogators failed to get the pilot to

Korean War.

During the Korean War, the Corsair was used mostly in the close-support role. The AU-1 Corsair was developed from the F4U-5 and was a ground-attack version which normally operated at low altitudes: as a consequence the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-83W engine used a single-stage, manually controlled supercharger, rather than the two-stage automatic supercharger of the -5. The versions of the Corsair used in Korea from 1950 to 1953 were the AU-1, F4U-4B, -4P, and -5N and 5-NL. There were dogfights between F4Us and Soviet-built Yakovlev Yak-9 fighters early in the war, but when the enemy introduced the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15, the Corsair was outmatched. On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Marine Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 mm cannon. In turn, four MiG-15s shot down Folmar minutes later; Folmar bailed out and was quickly rescued with little injury.  F4U-5N and -5NL Corsair night fighters were used to attack enemy supply lines, including truck convoys and trains, as well as

Aéronavale.

After the war, the French Navy had an urgent requirement for a powerful carrier-borne close-air support aircraft to operate from the French Navy's four aircraft carriers that it acquired in the late 1940s (Two former U.S. Navy and two Royal Navy carriers were transferred). Secondhand US Navy Douglas SBD Dauntless dive-bombers of Flotille 3F and 4F were used to attack enemy targets and support ground forces in the First Indochina War. Former US Grumman F6F-5 Hellcats and Curtiss SB2C Helldivers were also used for close air support. A new and more capable aircraft was needed.

First Indochina War.

The last production Corsair was the "'F4U-7", which was built specifically for the French naval air arm, the Aéronavale. The XF4U-7 prototype did its test flight on 2 July 1952 with a total of 94 F4U-7s built for the French Navy's "Aéronavale" (79 in 1952, 15 in 1953), with the last of the batch, the final Corsair built, rolled out on 31 January 1953. The F4U-7s were actually purchased by the U.S. Navy and passed on to the Aéronavale through the U.S. Military Assistance Program (MAP). The French Navy used its F4U-7s during the second half of the First Indochina War in the 1950s (12.F, 14.F, 15.F Flotillas), where they were supplemented by at least 25

Suez Crisis.

The 14.F and 15.F Flotillas also took part in the Anglo-French-Israeli seizure of the Suez Canal in October 1956, code-named Operation Musketeer. The Corsairs were painted with yellow and black recognition stripes for this operation. They were tasked with destroying Egyptian Navy ships at Alexandria

Algerian War.

As soon as they disembarked from the carriers that took part in Operation Musketeer, at the end of 1956, all three Corsair Flotillas moved to Telergma and Oran airfields in Algeria from where they provided CAS and helicopter escort. They

Tunisia.

France recognized Tunisian independence and sovereignty in 1956 but continued to station military forces at Bizerte and planned to extend the airbase. In 1961, Tunisia asked France to evacuate the base. Tunisia imposed a blockade on the base on 17 July, hoping

French experiments.

In early 1959, the "Aéronavale" experimented with the Vietnam War-era SS.11 wire-guided anti-tank missile on F4U-7 Corsairs. The 12.F pilots trained for this experimental program were required to manually pilot the missile at approximatively two kilometers from the target on low altitude with a joystick using the right hand while keeping track of a flare on its tail, and piloting the aircraft using the left hand; an exercise that could be very tricky in a single-seat aircraft under combat conditions. Despite reportedly effective results during the tests, this armament was not used with Corsairs during the ongoing Algerian War.  The "Aéronavale" used 163 Corsairs (94 F4U-7s and 69 AU-1s), the last of them used by the Cuers-based 14.F Flotilla were out of service by September 1964, with some surviving for museum display or as civilian warbirds. By the early 1960s, two new modern aircraft carriers, and, had entered service with the French Navy and with them a new generation of jet-powered combat aircraft.

"Football War".

Corsairs flew their final combat missions in 1969 during the "Football War" between Honduras and El Salvador, in service with both air forces. The conflict was allegedly triggered, though not really caused, by a disagreement over a soccer (association football) match. Captain Fernando Soto of the Honduran Air Force shot down three Salvadoran Air Force aircraft on 17 July 1969. In the morning he shot down a Cavalier Mustang, killing the pilot. In the afternoon, he shot down two FG-1s; the pilot of the second aircraft may have

Legacy.

The Corsair entered service in 1942. Although designed as a carrier fighter, initial operation from carrier decks proved to be troublesome. Its low-speed handling was tricky due to the left wing stalling before the right wing. This factor, together with poor visibility over the long nose (leading to one of its nicknames, "The Hose Nose"), made landing a Corsair on a carrier a difficult task. For these reasons, most Corsairs initially went to Marine Corps squadrons which operated off land-based runways, with some early Goodyear-built examples (designated FG-1A) being built with fixed wings. The USMC aviators welcomed the Corsair with open arms as its performance was far superior to the contemporary Brewster F2A Buffalo and Grumman F4F-3 and -4 Wildcat.  Moreover, the Corsair was able to outperform the primary Japanese fighter, the A6M Zero. While the Zero could outturn the F4U at low speed, the Corsair was faster and could outclimb and outdive the A6M.  This performance advantage, combined with

Variants.

During World War II, Corsair production expanded beyond Vought to include Brewster and Goodyear models. Allied forces flying the aircraft in World War II included the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Eventually, more than 12,500 F4Us would be built, comprising 16 separate variants.  F4U-1 (called Corsair Mk I by the Fleet Air Arm):  The first production version of the Corsair with the distinctive "birdcage" canopy and low seating position. The differences over the XF4U-1 were as follows:  The Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm received 95 Vought F4U-1s. These were all early "birdcage" Corsairs. Vought also built a single F4U-1 two-seat trainer; the Navy showed no interest.  F4U-1A (called Corsair Mk II by the Fleet Air Arm):  Mid-to-late production Corsairs incorporated a new, taller, wider canopy with only two frames — very close to what the Malcolm hood did for British fighter aircraft — along with a simplified windscreen; the new canopy design implied that the semi-elliptical turtledeck "flank" windows could be omitted. The designation F4U-1A to differentiate these Corsairs from earlier "birdcage" variants was allowed to be used internally by manufacturers The pilot's seat was raised which, combined with the new canopy and a 6-inch (152.4 mm) lengthening of the tailwheel strut, allowed the pilot better visibility over the long nose. In addition to these changes, the bombing window under the cockpit was omitted. These Corsairs introduced a -long stall strip just outboard of the gun ports on the right wing leading edge and improved undercarriage oleo struts which eliminated bouncing on landing, making these the first truly "carrier capable" F4Us.  Three hundred and sixty F4U-1As were delivered to the Fleet Air Arm. In British service, they were modified with "clipped" wings ( was cut off each wingtip) for use on British aircraft carriers, although the Royal Navy had been successfully operating the Corsair Mk I since 1 June 1943 when No. 1830 Squadron NAS was commissioned and assigned to HMS "Illustrious". F4U-1s in many USMC squadrons had their arrester hooks removed. Additionally, an experimental R-2800-8W engine with water injection was fitted on one of the late F4U-1As. After satisfactory results, many F4U-1As were fitted with the new powerplant. The aircraft carried 237 gal (897 L) in the main fuel tank, located in front of the cockpit, as well as an unarmored, non-self-sealing 62 gal (235 L) fuel tank in each wing. This version of the Corsair was the first to be able to carry a drop tank under the center-section. With drop tanks fitted, the fighter had a maximum ferry range of just over.  F3A-1 and F3A-1D (called Corsair Mk III by the Fleet Air Arm):  This was the designation for Brewster-built F4U-1. Labor troubles delayed production, and the Navy ordered the company's contract terminated; they folded soon after. Poor quality wing fittings meant that these aircraft were red-lined for speed and prohibited from aerobatics after several lost their wings. None of the Brewster-built Corsairs reached front line units. 430 Brewster Corsairs (334 F3A-1 and 96 F3A-1D), more than half of Brewster's total production, were delivered to the Fleet Air Arm.  FG-1A and FG-1D (called Corsair Mk IV by the Fleet Air Arm):  This was the designation for Corsairs that were license-built by Goodyear, to the same specifications as Vought's Corsairs. The first Goodyear built FG-1 flew in February 1943 and Goodyear began delivery of FG-1 Corsairs in April 1943. The company continued production until the end of the war and delivered 4,007 FG-1 series Corsairs, including sixty FG-1Ds to the RNZAF and 857 (400 FG-1 and FG-1A, and 457 FG-1D) to the Royal Navy as Corsair Mk IVs. F4U-1B: This was an unofficial post-war designation used to identify F4U-1s modified for Fleet Air Arm use.  F4U-1C:  The prototype F4U-1C, appeared in August 1943 and was based on an F4U-1. A total of 200 of this variant were built from July to November 1944; all were based on the F4U-1D and were built in parallel with that variant. Intended for ground-attack as well as fighter missions, the F4U-1C was similar to the F4U-1D but its six machine guns were replaced by four 20 millimeter (0.79 in) AN/M2 cannons with 231 rounds of ammunition per gun. The F4U-1C was introduced to combat during 1945, most notably in the Okinawa campaign. The firepower of 20 mm was highly appreciated. It was believed that the 20 mm cannon was more effective for all types of combat work than the.50 caliber machine gun. However, despite the superior firepower, many navy pilots preferred.50 caliber machine guns in air combat due to jam and freezing problems of the 20mm cannons. These problems were reduced as the ordnance crews gained experience until the performance of the guns compared favorably with the.50 caliber, but freezing problems remained at until gun heaters were installed.  F4U-1D (called Corsair Mk II by the Fleet Air Arm):  This variant was introduced in April 1944, and was built in parallel with the F4U-1C. It had the new R-2800-8W Double Wasp engine equipped with water injection. This change gave the aircraft up to more power, which, in turn, increased performance. Speed was increased from to. Due to the U.S. Navy's need for fighter-bombers, it had a payload of rockets (double the -1A's) carried on permanent launching rails, as well as twin pylons for bombs or drop tanks. These modifications caused extra drag, but the additional fuel carried by the two drop tanks would still allow the aircraft to fly relatively long missions despite heavy, un-aerodynamic loads. A single piece "blown" clear-view canopy was adopted as standard equipment for the -1D model, and all later F4U production aircraft. 150 F4U-1D were delivered to the Fleet Air Arm.  F4U-1P: A rare photo reconnaissance variant.  XF4U-2: Special night fighter variant, equipped with two auxiliary fuel tanks.  F4U-2: Experimental conversion of the F4U-1 Corsair into a carrier-borne nightfighter, armed with five.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns (the outboard, right gun was deleted), and fitted with Airborne Intercept (AI) radar set in a radome placed outboard on the starboard wing. Since Vought was preoccupied with more important projects, only 32 were converted from existing F4U-1s by the Naval Aircraft Factory and another two by front line units. The type saw combat with VF(N)-101 aboard and USS "Intrepid" in early 1944, VF(N)-75 in the Solomon Islands, and VMF(N)-532 on Tarawa.  XF4U-3: Experimental aircraft built to hold different engines in order to test the Corsair's performance with a variety of power plants. This variant never entered service. Goodyear also contributed a number of airframes, designated FG-3, to the project. A single sub-variant XF4U-3B with minor modifications was also produced for the FAA.  XF4U-4: New engine and cowling.  F4U-4: The last variant to see action during World War II. Deliveries to the U.S. Navy of the F4U-4 began in early 1945. It had the dual-stage-supercharged -18W engine. When the cylinders were injected with the water/alcohol mixture, power was boosted to. The aircraft required an air scoop under the nose and the unarmored wing fuel tanks of 62 gal (234 L) capacities were removed for better maneuverability at the expense of maximum range. The propeller was changed to a four blade type. Maximum speed was increased to and climb rate to over 4,500 ft/min (1,180 m/min) as opposed to the 2,900 ft/min (884 m/min) of the F4U-1A. The "4-Hog" retained the original armament and had all the external load (i.e., drop tanks, bombs) capabilities of the F4U-1D. The windscreen was now flat bullet-resistant glass to avoid optical distortion, a change from the curved Plexiglas windscreens with the internal plate glass of the earlier Corsairs. Vought also tested the two F4U-4Xs (BuNos 49763 and 50301, prototypes for the new R2800) with fixed wingtip tanks (the Navy showed no interest) and an Aeroproducts six-blade contraprop (not accepted for production). F4U-4B: 300 F4U-4s ordered with alternate gun armament of four AN/M3 cannon.  F4U-4E and F4U-4N: Developed late in WWII, these nightfighters featured radar radomes projecting from the right wingtip. The -4E was fitted with the APS-4 search radar, while the -4N was fitted with the APS-6 type. In addition, these aircraft were often refitted with four 20mm M2 cannons similar to the F4U-1C. Though these variants would not see combat during WWII, the nightfighter variants would see great use during the Korean war.  F4U-4K: Experimental drone.  F4U-4P: F4U-4 equivalent to the -1P, a rare photo reconnaissance variant.  XF4U-5: New engine cowling, other extensive changes.  F4U-5: A 1945 design modification of the F4U-4, first flown on 21 December 1945, was intended to increase the F4U-4 Corsair's overall performance and incorporate many Corsair pilots' suggestions. It featured a more powerful Pratt and Whitney R-2800-32(E) engine with a two-stage supercharger, rated at a maximum of. Other improvements included automatic blower controls, cowl flaps, intercooler doors, and oil cooler for the engine, spring tabs for the elevators and rudder, a completely modernized cockpit, a completely retractable tail wheel, and heated cannon bays and pitot head. The cowling was lowered two degrees to help with forward visibility, but perhaps most striking as the first variant to feature all-metal wings (223 units produced). Maximum speed was and max rate of climb at sea level 4,850 feet per minute.  F4U-5N: Radar equipped version (214 units produced)  F4U-5NL: Winterized version (72 units produced, 29 modified from F4U-5Ns (101 total)). Fitted with rubber de-icing boots on the leading edge of the wings and tail.  F4U-5P: Long-range photo-reconnaissance version (30 units produced)  F4U-6: Re-designated AU-1, this was a ground-attack version produced for the U.S. Marine Corps.  F4U-7 : AU-1 developed for the French Navy.  FG-1E: Goodyear FG-1 with radar equipment.  FG-1K: Goodyear FG-1 as drone.  FG-3: Turbosupercharger version converted from FG-1D.  FG-4: Goodyear F4U-4, never delivered.  AU-1: U.S. Marines attack variant with extra armor to protect the pilot and fuel tank, and the oil coolers relocated inboard to reduce vulnerability to ground fire. The supercharger was simplified as the design was intended for low-altitude operation. Extra racks were also fitted. Fully loaded for combat the AU-1 weighed 20% more than a fully loaded F4U-4, and was capable of carrying 8,200 lb of bombs. The AU-1 had a maximum speed of 238 miles per hour at 9,500 ft, when loaded with 4,600 lb of bombs and a 150-gallon drop-tank. When loaded with eight rockets and two 150-gallon drop-tanks, maximum speed was 298 mph at 19,700 ft. When not carrying external loads, maximum speed was 389 mph at 14,000 ft. First produced in 1952 and used in Korea, and retired in 1957. Re-designated from F4U-6.

Surviving aircraft.

According to the FAA there are 45 privately owned F4Us in the U.S.  There is an F4U-4 Corsair with serial number 96995 owned by the Flying Bulls.

The Vought F4U Corsair is an American fighter aircraft that saw service primarily in World War II and the Korean War.

F4U海盗式(F4U Corsair)战斗机是美国海军所装备的一种舰载机,自1940年原型机出厂,至1953年最后一架量产机交给法国空军,她是美国活塞发动机战机生产史中量产最久的纪录保持者;钱斯沃特在战争期间授权固特异航太公司及布鲁斯特飞机公司生产海盗式战机,均为同型款式(FG、F3A)。


塞巴斯蒂安·德·贝拉尔卡萨尔

Early life.

He was born Sebastián Moyano in the province of Córdoba, Spain, in either 1479 or 1480. He took the name Belalcázar as that was the name of the castle-town near to his birthplace in Córdoba. According to various sources, he may have left for the New World with Christopher Columbus as early as 1498, but Juan de Castellanos wrote that he killed a mule in 1507, and fled Spain for the West Indies due to fear of punishment, and as a chance to escape the poverty in which he lived.

Americas.

He was an encomendero in Panama in 1522. He entered Nicaragua with Francisco Hernández de Córdoba in 1524 during the conquest of Nicaragua, and became the first mayor of the city of León in Nicaragua. He remained there until 1527, when he left for Honduras as a result of internal disputes among the Spanish governors. Briefly returning to León, he sailed to the coast of Peru, where he united with the expedition of Francisco Pizarro in 1532.

Conquest of Ecuador.

In 1534, while commanding the settlement of San Miguel for Francisco Pizarro, Sebastian set off to conquer Quito in Ecuador, without orders from Pizarro. Quito had been the northernmost city of the Inca Empire, but while Belalcázar defeated the Inca general Rumiñahui, the local population secreted the city treasure away. Belalcázar then founded the new city of Quito with Diego de Almagro and Baltasar Maldonado, honoring Pizarro by naming it in full "San Francisco de Quito".  His battles, though, were not entirely honourable. At a village called Quinche near Puritaco, he found that all the men were away fighting with the national army. To make an example of these people (and to vent his frustration at finding so little treasure), he ordered all the women and children to be slaughtered. 'A feeble excuse to justify cruelty unworthy of a Castilian', was the verdict of Herrera, the official Chronicler of the Conquest, to Belalcázar's excuse that this was done to terrify other natives into returning to their homes.

Conquest of Colombia.

Moving northward into present day Colombia in search of "El Dorado" in 1535, he entered the Cauca River Valley, founding the southwestern Colombian cities of Santiago de Cali in 1536, and Pasto and Popayán (next in importance after Quito) in 1537. Crossing overland to the Magdalena River Valley, he entered the highlands of central Colombia, which had also been reached by Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada and Nikolaus Federmann, a German, in 1539. The three presented their dispute before King and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. The King granted Belalcázar rule of the area with the title of governor of Popayán and the honorary title of adelantado in May 1540. As so often happened among the conquistadors, land squabbles developed again, this time between Belalcázar and Pascual de Andagoya (1495–1548), who also claimed the governorship of Popayán. Belalcázar successfully defended his lands, and took over some of Andagoya's. He then intervened in a disagreement between supporters of the families of Pizarro and Almagro in Perú. In 1546, he ordered the execution of Jorge Robledo, who governed a neighboring province in yet another land-related vendetta. He was put to trial in absentia in 1550, convicted and condemned to death for the death of Robledo, and other offenses pertaining to his constant involvement in the various wars between other conquistadors. A victim of his own ambition, he died in 1551 before he could begin the voyage back to Spain to appeal the decision, in Cartagena, Colombia.

References.

Sebastián de Belalcázar (; 1479/1480 – 1551) was a Spanish conquistador. De Belalcázar, also written as de Benalcázar, is known as the founder of important early colonial cities in the northwestern part of South America; Quito in 1534 and Cali, Pasto and Popayán in 1537. De Belalcázar led expeditions in present-day Ecuador and Colombia and died of natural causes after being sentenced to death in Cartagena, at the Caribbean coast in 1551.

塞巴斯蒂安·德·贝拉尔卡萨尔(Sebastián de Belalcázar,1480年-约1480年-1551年),西班牙军人、探险家。


Use.

The lantern enclosure was primarily used to prevent a burning candle or wick being extinguished from wind, rain or other causes. Some antique lanterns have only a metal grid, indicating their function was to protect the candle or wick during transportation.  Another important function was to reduce the risk of fire should a spark leap from the flame or the light be dropped. This was especially important below deck on ships: a fire on a wooden ship was a major catastrophe. Use of unguarded lights was taken so seriously that obligatory use of lanterns, rather than unprotected flames, below decks was written into one of the few known remaining examples of a pirate code, on pain of severe punishment.  Lanterns may also be used for signaling. In naval operations, ships used lights to communicate at least as far back as the Middle Ages; the use of a lantern that blinks code to transmit a message dates to the mid-1800s. In railroad operations, lanterns have multiple uses. Permanent lanterns on poles are used to signal trains about the operational status of the track ahead, sometimes with color gels in front of the light to signify stop, etc. Historically, a flagman at a level crossing used a lantern to stop cars and other vehicular traffic before a train arrived. Lanterns also provided a means to signal from train-to-train or from station-to-train.  A "dark lantern" was a candle lantern with a sliding shutter so that a space could be conveniently made dark without extinguishing the candle. For example, in the Sherlock Holmes story "The Red-Headed League", the detective and police make their way down to a bank vault by lantern light but then put a'screen over that dark lantern' in order to wait in the dark for thieves to finish tunneling. This type of lantern could also preserve the light source for sudden use when needed.  Lanterns may be used in religious observances. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, lanterns are used in religious processions and liturgical entrances, usually coming before the processional cross. Lanterns are also used to transport the Holy Fire from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Great Saturday during Holy Week.  Lanterns are used in many Asian festivals. During the Ghost Festival, lotus shaped lanterns are set afloat in rivers and seas to symbolic guide the lost souls of forgotten ancestors to the afterlife. During the Lantern Festival, the displaying of many lanterns is still a common sight on the 15th day of the first lunar month throughout China. During other Chinese festivities, kongming lanterns (sky lanterns) can be seen floating high into the air. Lanterns are the central theme of the Seoul Lantern Festival in South Korea. However, some jurisdictions and organizations ban the use of sky lanterns because of concerns about fire and safety. The term "lantern" can be used more generically to mean a light source, or the enclosure for a light source, even if it is not portable. Decorative lanterns exist in a wide range of designs. Some hang from buildings, such as street lights enclosed in glass panes. Others are placed on or just above the ground; low-light varieties can function as decoration or landscape lighting, and can be a variety of colours and sizes. The housing for the top lamp and lens section of a lighthouse may be called a lantern.

Etymology.

The word "lantern" comes via French from Latin meaning "lamp, torch," possibly itself derived from Greek.  An alternate historical spelling was "lanthorn", believed to derive from the early use of horn windows.

Construction.

Lanterns were usually made from a metal frame with several sides (usually four, but up to eight) or round, commonly with a hook or a hoop of metal on top. Windows of some translucent material may be fitted in the sides; these are now usually glass or plastic but formerly were thin sheets of animal horn, or tinplate punched with holes or decorative patterns.  Paper lanterns are made in societies around the world.  A lantern generally contains a burning light source: a candle, liquid oil with a wick, or gas with a mantle. The ancient Chinese sometimes captured fireflies in transparent or semi-transparent containers and used them as (short-term) lanterns, and use of fireflies in transparent containers was also a widespread practice in ancient India; however, since these were short term solutions, the use of fire torches was more prevalent.  Modern varieties often place an electric light in a decorative glass case.

History.

Lanterns have been used functionally, for light rather than decoration, since antiquity. Some used a wick in oil, while others were essentially protected candle-holders. Before the development of glass sheets, animal horn scraped thin and flattened was used as the translucent window.  Beginning in the Middle Ages, European towns hired watchmen to patrol the streets at night, as a crime deterrent. Each watchman carried a lantern or oil lamp against the darkness. The practice continued up through at least the 18th century.  Public spaces became increasingly lit with lanterns in the 1500s, especially following the invention of lanterns with glass windows, which greatly improved the quantity of light. In 1588 the Parisian Parlement decreed that a torch be installed and lit at each intersection, and in 1594 the police changed this to lanterns. Beginning in 1667 during the reign of King Louis XIV, thousands of street lights were installed in Parisian streets and intersections. Under this system, streets were lit with lanterns suspended apart on a cord over the middle of the street at a height of ; as an English visitor enthused in 1698, 'The streets are lit all winter and even during the full moon!' In London, public street lighting was implemented around the end of the 17th century; a diarist wrote in 1712 that ‘All the way, quite through Hyde Park to the Queen’s Palace at Kensington, lanterns were placed for illuminating the roads on dark nights.’

Modern lanterns.

Fueled lanterns.

All fueled lanterns are somewhat hazardous owing to the danger of handling flammable and toxic fuel, danger of fire or burns from the high temperatures involved, and potential dangers from carbon monoxide poisoning if used in an enclosed environment.  Simple wick lanterns remain available. They are cheap and durable, but provide little light and are unsuitable for reading. They require periodic trimming of the wick and regular cleaning of soot from the inside of the glass chimney.  Mantle lanterns use a woven ceramic impregnated gas mantle to accept and re-radiate heat as visible light from a flame. The mantle does not burn (but the cloth matrix carrying the ceramic must be "burned out" with a match prior to its first use). When heated by the operating flame the mantle becomes incandescent and glows brightly. The heat may be provided by a gas, by kerosene, or by a pressurized liquid such as "white gas", which is essentially naphtha. For protection from the high temperatures produced and to stabilize the airflow, a cylindrical glass shield called the globe or chimney is placed around the mantle.  Manually pressurized lanterns using white gas (also marketed as Coleman fuel or "Camp Fuel") are manufactured by the Coleman Company in one and two-mantle models. Some models are dual fuel and can also use gasoline. These are being supplanted by a battery-powered fluorescent lamp and LED models, which are safer in the hands of young people and inside tents. Liquid fuel lanterns remain popular where the fuel is easily obtained and in common use.  Many portable mantle-type fuel lanterns now use fuel gases that become liquid when compressed, such as propane, either alone or combined with butane. Such lamps usually use a small disposable steel container to provide the fuel. The ability to refuel without liquid fuel handling increases safety. Additional fuel supplies for such lamps have an indefinite shelf life if the containers are protected from moisture (which can cause corrosion of the container) and excess heat.

Electric lanterns.

Lanterns designed as permanently mounted electric lighting fixtures are used in interior, landscape, and civic lighting applications. Styles can evoke former eras, unify street furniture themes, or enhance aesthetic considerations. They are manufactured for use with various wired voltage supplies.  Various battery types are used in portable light sources. They are more convenient, safer, and produce less heat than combustion lights. Solar-powered lanterns have become popular in developing countries, where they provide a safer and cheaper alternative to kerosene lamps.  Lanterns utilizing LEDs are popular as they are more energy-efficient and rugged than other types, and prices of LEDs suitable for lighting have dropped.  Some rechargeable fluorescent lanterns may be plugged in at all times and may be set up to illuminate upon a power failure, a useful feature in some applications. During extensive power failures (or for remote use), supplemental recharging may be provided from an automobile's 12-volt electrical system or from a modest solar-powered charger.

In popular culture.

The derived term "lantern jaw[ed]" is used in two quite different still current ways, comparing faces with different types of lantern. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it refers to "long thin jaws, giving a hollow appearance to the cheek"; this use was recorded in 1361, referring to a lantern with concave horn sides before glass was in use. Another meaning of "lantern jaw" compares a lantern with a jutting base – such as the 15th-century example above – to the face of a person with the extended chin of mandibular prognathism; this condition was also known as Habsburg jaw or Habsburg lip, as it was a hereditary feature of the House of Habsburg (see, for example, portraits of ).  "Raise the Red Lantern", a 1991 Chinese film, prominently features lanterns as a motif.

A lantern is a portable source of lighting, typically featuring a protective enclosure for the light source — historically usually a candle or a wick in oil, and often a battery-powered light in modern times — to make it easier to carry and hang up, and make it more reliable outdoors or in drafty interiors. Lanterns may also be used for signaling, as torches, or as general light-sources outdoors.

灯笼,古称鼓仔灯(闽南语:kóo-á-ting,客家语:den24-nung11) 。主要是圆形、椭圆形、长方型等宫灯造型,变化不大,与百变造型的花灯不同。


Trendy dramas.

Most people associate today's Japanese dramas with the modern style of screenwriting which has coined the term "trendy dramas". The ultimate inspirations for many Japanese dramas are "The Big Chill" (1983) and "St. Elmo's Fire" (1985). The "trendy" formula was invented in the late 1980s when screenwriters decided to reach the television audience with themes that covered real-life Japan, at a time when the Japanese were experiencing a bubble economy. The "trendy" formula was improved in the early 1990s, when the story lines changed with the times. By gambling on harder issues, including teenage violence, child abuse, and modern family life, the trendy drama formula is tweaked to fit the television viewers' changing taste. Even today, the success of Japanese dramas is a result of sticking with the trendy drama formula. Many of these shows employ young actors who use them as springboards to bigger projects.  Although some people consider Super Sentai and tokusatsu type shows as dramas, they do not fit the "trendy" definition. Generally, most evening dramas aired nowadays are "trendy dramas", and the term does not apply to other types of dramas such as "asadora".

Difference in focus between networks.

Dramas that are broadcast on Fuji Television (Fuji TV), NTV, and TBS are generally the most popular in any given season.  Fuji TV is widely known as the inventor of the drama formula. During the 1980s and 1990s, Fuji TV popularized trendy dramas with their use of young and popular actors/actresses. The network's 9:00 p.m. dramas shown on Monday nights are commonly called "Getsuku" (a shortened phrase meaning Monday at 9), which historically have revolved around love stories. Although a popular time slot in the past in which dramas generally brought in high ratings during the season, the popularity of "Getsuku" dramas appears to have declined in recent years, with most dramas not crossing the 20% mark for average rating. Most modern "Getsuku" dramas have also abandoned the traditional love story format.  Other Japan television networks have their own focuses. TV Asahi, for example, focuses heavily on jidaigeki and crime stories (famous examples of the latter are the long-running series "", now on its 19th season., now on its 19th season). NHK puts more effort into programming that reaches an older demographic, focusing mostly on epic period shows of historical significance, often with all-star casts, called "taiga" dramas, as well as inspiring dramas that focus on a young, strong-willed hero or heroine.

Theme music and background music.

Theme music and background music set the overall tone of Japanese drama series. Most dramas will start off with one or two minutes of theme music during the opening credits. Other dramas will have, at the very least a catchy melody in the beginning, displaying the show's name for a few seconds, and then one to two minutes of ending theme music during the closing credits. Background music is placed and used at strategic points of the episode to set the mood.  There is a sub-genre of Japanese drama fans that are also huge fans of the drama's original soundtrack. Most television networks work with music companies to produce original soundtracks. Most opening and closing theme music is written especially for the drama series, while other theme music is licensed from other sources. Once the library is put together, the television network will release the original soundtrack compact disc, usually a few weeks after the start of the drama. Closing themes are often sung by a popular J-pop singer or band.  NHK produces its own theme music and is one of the only Japanese television networks that has its own orchestra. Most of the theme music heard in their taiga and asadora dramas were written and produced in-house.  In recent years, many theme songs have been licensed from sources outside Japan. In some instances, theme songs have been licensed from some of the biggest names in the Western recording industry. This practice has disadvantages. When the Japanese drama is licensed outside Japan, theme music licensing becomes very costly. For example, in the Fuji TV drama "Densha Otoko", the opening song and some of the background music had to be replaced in the release that aired on the Nippon Golden Network because they couldn't get the rights to them.

Importance of ratings.

As in many other countries, Japanese television is arguably the most important media type. A survey completed in 2000 by NHK, Japan's public broadcasting network, showed that 95% of Japanese people watch television every day. Eighty-six percent said they consider television an indispensable medium, and 68% said the same of newspapers. There are other forms of media that can be used to promote products and services, such as the Internet. Most of television network, such as Fuji TV (CX) where operates Fuji Network System, also have online streaming website for service. However, Shinji Takada, a television executive at Nippon Television (NTV), believes that although the Internet is popular among drama fans, "We don't regard broadband as mainstream media. It will never happen. Broadband is a complementary medium."  Television ratings are calculated by several researching firms. Video Research Ltd. is one of the more reliable firms. More television networks, advertisers, and Japanese drama fans use the numbers from this firm than any other. The ratings focus on the Kanto (Tokyo) and the Kansai (Osaka) areas, which are believed to be a good representation of what most of Japan watches. The ratings become available for the general public every Wednesday.

Rating system.

The rating system is very simple. All the major Japanese television networks make up the television market, so a research firm must determine the size of an average audience. The audience size is determined using two factors: the amount of content that is transmitted and the amount that is received, as market size varies from firm to firm. The viewer count of a given episode is calculated using a variety of polling methods. Ratings are calculated using a percentage or point system. This is based on the episode's viewership numbers divided by the market size. Finally, the numbers are published on the research firm's website. A hard copy is also produced.  There is no solid science on how to interpret these rating percentages. For fans, simply the drama with the highest percentage is the "winner" for the week. The fans use these numbers to decide which dramas they should watch during the remainder of the season. Despite this simple interpretation, there are one or more factors that may come into play that explain why some dramas receive higher percentage points than others. For example, evening dramas draw better ratings than those that air in the mornings and afternoons. Although the transmission size is virtually the same in the mornings, afternoons and evenings, the evenings draw higher numbers because most evening viewers work during the day, and fewer people are at home watching television. There are, however, some exceptions: For example, the NHK Asadora drama "Oshin" drew an average rating percentage of 52.6%, a number that would be extremely good for an evening drama but even more extraordinary for a drama that airs in the mornings and six days a week.  Finally, rating percentage plays a heavy role in the success of a drama artist. The numbers of an artist's previous work are used by TV producers to determine whether or not the artist is a marketing success. If the ratings drawn by the artist's previous work are good, he or she would be able to receive offers to star in dramas that are better written and produced. Likewise if the ratings drawn by the artist's previous work are good, some artist could build their career as acting singer.

Formula for good ratings.

In evening dramas, cast members are carefully selected and tend to be famous actors that audiences are very fond of. The choice of cast members frequently affects the drama's audience rating, and pairing the right male and female artists is especially important in a renzoku ren'ai (romantic or love) drama. Cast members of morning and afternoon dramas are not as popular as those of evening dramas, as reflected by ratings, but with time good actors can gain popularity.

, also called, are television programs that are a staple of Japanese television and are broadcast daily. All major TV networks in Japan produce a variety of drama series including romance, comedy, detective stories, horror, jidaigeki, thriller, and many others. Single episode, or "tanpatsu" dramas that are usually two hours in length are also broadcast. For special occasions, there may be a one or two-episode drama with a specific theme, such as one produced in 2015 for the 70-year anniversary of the end of World War II.

日本剧集(;简称日剧),是指日本制作及播出的电视剧、网络剧。


Life and work.

Meriwether Lewis was born in Albemarle County, Colony of Virginia, in the present-day community of Ivy. He was the son of William Lewis, of Welsh ancestry, and Lucy Meriwether, of English ancestry. After his father died of pneumonia in November 1779, he moved with his mother and stepfather Captain John Marks to Georgia. They settled along the Broad River in the Goosepond Community within the Broad River Valley in Wilkes County (now Oglethorpe County).  Lewis had no formal education until he was 13 years of age, but during his time in Georgia he enhanced his skills as a hunter and outdoorsman. He would often venture out in the middle of the night in the dead of winter with only his dog to go hunting. Even at an early age, he was interested in natural history, which would develop into a lifelong passion. His mother taught him how to gather wild herbs for medicinal purposes.  In the Broad River Valley, Lewis first dealt with American Indians. This was the traditional territory of the Cherokee, who resented encroachment by the colonists. Lewis seems to have been a champion for them among his own people. While in Georgia, he met Eric Parker, who encouraged him to travel. At age 13, Lewis was sent back to Virginia for education by private tutors. His father's older brother Nicholas Lewis became his guardian. One of his tutors was Parson Matthew Maury, an uncle of Matthew Fontaine Maury. In 1793, Lewis graduated from Liberty Hall (now Washington and Lee University).  That year he joined the Virginia militia, and in 1794 he was sent as part of a detachment involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1795, Lewis joined the United States Army, commissioned as an ensign—an army rank that was later abolished and was equivalent to a modern-day second lieutenant. By 1800 he rose to captain, and ended his service there in 1801. Among his commanding officers was William Clark, who would later become his companion in the Corps of Discovery.  On April 1, 1801, Lewis was appointed as Secretary to the President by President Thomas Jefferson, whom he knew through Virginia society in Albemarle County. Lewis resided in the presidential mansion, and frequently conversed with various prominent figures in politics, the arts and other circles. He compiled information on the personnel and politics of the United States Army, which had seen an influx of Federalist officers as a result of "midnight appointments" made by outgoing president John Adams in 1801.  When Jefferson began to plan for an expedition across the continent, he chose Lewis to lead the expedition. Meriwether Lewis recruited Clark, then aged 33, to share command of the expedition.

The expedition.

After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Thomas Jefferson wanted to get an accurate sense of the new land and its resources. The President also hoped to find a "direct and practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce with Asia". In addition, Jefferson placed special importance on declaring U.S. sovereignty over the Native Americans along the Missouri River.  The two-year exploration by Lewis and Clark was the first transcontinental expedition to the Pacific Coast by the United States; however, Lewis and Clark reached the Pacific 12 years after Sir Alexander Mackenzie had done so overland in Canada. When they left Fort Mandan in April 1805 they were accompanied by the 16-year-old Shoshone Indian woman, Sacagawea, the wife of the French-Canadian fur trader, Toussaint Charbonneau. The Corps of Discovery made contact with many Native Americans in the trans-Mississippi West and found them accustomed to dealing with European traders and already connected to global markets.  After crossing the Rocky Mountains, the expedition reached the Oregon Country (which was disputed land beyond the Louisiana Purchase) and the Pacific Ocean in November 1805. They returned in 1806, bringing with them an immense amount of information about the region as well as numerous plant and animal specimens. They demonstrated the possibility of overland travel to the Pacific coast. The success of their journey helped to strengthen the American concept of "Manifest destiny" – the idea that the United States was destined to reach all the way across North America from Atlantic to Pacific.

Return and gubernatorial duties.

After returning from the expedition, Lewis received a reward of of land. He also initially made arrangements to publish the Corps of Discovery journals, but had difficulty completing his writing. In 1807, Jefferson appointed him governor of the Louisiana Territory; he settled in St. Louis.  Lewis' record as an administrator is mixed. He published the first laws in the Upper-Louisiana Territory, established roads and furthered Jefferson's mission as a strong proponent of the fur trade. He negotiated peace among several quarreling Indian tribes. His duty to enforce Indian treaties was to protect the western Indian lands from encroachment, which was opposed by the rush of settlers looking to open new lands for settlements. But due to his quarreling with local political leaders, controversy over his approvals of trading licenses, land grant politics, and Indian depredations, some historians have argued that Lewis was a poor administrator.  That view has been reconsidered in recent biographies. Lewis's primary quarrels were with his territorial secretary Frederick Bates. Bates was accused of undermining Lewis to seek Lewis's dismissal and his own appointment as governor. Because of the slow-moving mail system, former president Jefferson and Lewis's superiors in Washington got the impression that Lewis did not adequately keep in touch with them.  Bates wrote letters to Lewis's superiors accusing Lewis of profiting from a mission to return a Mandan chief to his tribe. Because of Bates' accusation, the War Department refused to reimburse Lewis for a large sum he personally advanced for the mission. When Lewis's creditors heard that Lewis would not be reimbursed for the expenses, they called Lewis's notes, forcing him to liquidate his assets, including land he was granted for the Lewis and Clark Expedition. One of the primary reasons Lewis set out for Washington on this final trip was to clear up questions raised by Bates and to seek a reimbursement of the money he had advanced for the territorial government.  The U.S. government finally reimbursed the expenses to Lewis's estate two years after his death. Bates eventually became governor of Missouri. Though some historians have speculated that Lewis abused alcohol or opiates based upon an account attributed to Gilbert Russell at Fort Pickering on Lewis's final journey, others have argued that Bates never alleged that Lewis suffered from such addictions and that Bates certainly would have used them against Lewis if Lewis suffered from those conditions.

Freemasonry.

Lewis was a Freemason, initiated, passed and raised in the "Door To Virtue Lodge No. 44" in Albemarle, Virginia, between 1796 and 1797. On August 2, 1808, Lewis and several of his acquaintances submitted a petition to the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania requesting dispensation to establish a lodge in St. Louis. Lewis was nominated and recommended to serve as the first Master of the proposed Lodge, which was warranted as Lodge No. 111 on September 16, 1808." (See List of Notable Freemasons)"

Lewis and slavery.

Unlike William Clark, who brought his slave York on the westward expedition, Lewis did not have a personal valet slave. Although Lewis attempted to supervise enslaved people while running his mother's plantation before the expedition, he left that post and had no valet during the expedition. Lewis made assignments to York but allowed Clark to supervise him; Lewis also granted York and Sacagewea votes during expedition meetings. Later, Lewis hired a free African-American man as his valet, John Pernia. Pernia accompanied Lewis during his final journey, although his wages were considerably in arrears. After Lewis' death, Pernia continued to Monticello and asked Jefferson to pay the $240 owed him, but was refused. Pernia later committed suicide.

Death.

On September 3, 1809, Lewis set out for Washington, D.C. He hoped to resolve issues regarding the denied payment of drafts he had drawn against the War Department while serving as governor of the Upper Louisiana Territory, leaving him in potentially ruinous debt. Lewis carried his journals with him for delivery to his publisher. He intended to travel to Washington by ship from New Orleans, but changed his plans while floating down the Mississippi River from St. Louis. He disembarked and decided instead to make an overland journey via the Natchez Trace and then east to Washington. (The Natchez Trace was the old pioneer road between Natchez, Mississippi, and Nashville, Tennessee.) Robbers preyed on travelers on that road and sometimes killed their victims. Lewis had written his will before his journey and also attempted suicide on this journey, but was restrained.

Circumstances.

According to a lost letter from October 19, 1809, to Thomas Jefferson, Lewis stopped at an inn on the Natchez Trace called Grinder's Stand, about southwest of Nashville on October 10. After dinner, he retired to his one-room cabin. In the predawn hours of October 11, the innkeeper's wife (Priscilla Grinder) heard gunshots. Servants found Lewis badly injured from multiple gunshot wounds, one each to the head and gut. He bled out on his buffalo hide robe and died shortly after sunrise. The Nashville "Democratic Clarion" published the account, which newspapers across the country repeated and embellished. The Nashville newspaper also reported that Lewis's throat was cut. Money that Lewis had borrowed from Major Gilbert Russell at Fort Pickering to complete the journey was missing.  While Lewis's friend Thomas Jefferson and some modern historians have generally accepted Lewis's death as a suicide, debate continues, as discussed below. No one reported seeing Lewis shoot himself. Three inconsistent somewhat contemporary accounts are attributed to Mrs. Grinder, who left no written account or testimony—some thus believe her testimony was fabricated, while others point to it as proof of suicide. Mrs. Grinder claimed Lewis acted strangely the night before his death: standing and pacing during dinner and talking to himself in the way one would speak to a lawyer, with face flushed as if it had come on him in a fit. She continued to hear him talking to himself after he retired, and then at some point in the night, she heard multiple gunshots, a scuffle, and someone calling for help.  She claimed to be able to see Lewis through the slit in the door crawling back to his room. However, she never explained why she never investigated further at the time, but only the next morning sent her children to look for Lewis's servants. Another account claimed the servants found Lewis in the cabin, wounded and bloody, with part of his skull gone, but he lived for several hours. In the last account attributed to Mrs. Grinder, three men followed Lewis up the Natchez Trace, and he pulled his pistols and challenged them to a duel. In that account, Mrs. Grinder said that she heard voices and gunfire in Lewis's cabin about 1:00 am. She found the cabin empty and a large amount of gunpowder on the floor. Thus, in this account, Lewis's body was found outside the cabin.  Lewis's mother and relatives always contended it was murder. A coroner's jury held an inquest immediately after Lewis's death as provided by local law; however, they did not charge anyone with murdering Lewis. The jury foreman kept a pocket diary of the proceedings, which disappeared in the early 1900s. When William Clark and Thomas Jefferson were informed of Lewis's death, both accepted the conclusion of suicide. Based on their positions and the never-found Lewis letter of mid-September 1809, historian Stephen Ambrose dismissed the murder theory as "not convincing".

Later analyses.

The only doctor to examine Lewis's body did not do so until 40 years later, in 1848. The Tennessee State Commission, including Dr. Samuel B. Moore, charged with locating Lewis's grave and erecting a monument over it, opened Lewis's grave. The commission wrote in its official report that though the impression had long prevailed that Lewis died by his own hand, "it seems to be more probable that he died by the hands of an assassin." In the book "The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition", first printed in 1893, the editor Elliott Coues expressed doubt about Thomas Jefferson's conclusion that Lewis committed suicide, despite including the former president's "Memoir of Meriwether Lewis" in his book.  From 1993–2010, about 200 of Lewis's kin (through his sister Jane, as he had no children) sought to have the body exhumed for forensic analysis, to try to determine whether his death was a suicide or murder. A Tennessee coroner's jury in 1996 recommended exhumation. However, since Lewis's gravesite is in a national monument, the National Park Service must approve. The agency refused the request in 1998, citing possible disturbance to the bodies of more than 100 pioneers buried nearby. In 2008, the Department of the Interior approved the exhumation, but rescinded that decision in 2010, stating that decision is final. It is nonetheless improving the grave site and visitor facility.  Historian Paul Russell Cutright wrote a detailed rebuttal of the murder robbery theory, concluding that it "lacks legs to stand on". He stressed Lewis's debts, heavy drinking, possible morphine and opium use, failure to prepare the expedition's journals for publication, repeated failure to find a wife, and the deterioration of his friendship with Thomas Jefferson. This refutation was countered by Dr. Eldon G. Chuinard, (physician), who argued for the murder hypothesis on the basis that Lewis's reported wounds were inconsistent with his reported two hour survival after the shooting. This theory has been challenged by Dr. David J. Peck (physician), with support from Forensic Pathology and Trauma Surgery. Leading Lewis scholars Donald Jackson, Jay H. Buckley, Clay S. Jenkinson and others, have stated that, regardless of their leanings or beliefs, the facts of his death are not known, there are no eyewitnesses, and the reliability of reports of those in the place or vicinity cannot be considered certain. Author Peter Stark believes that post-traumatic stress disorder may have been a contributor to Meriwether Lewis's condition after spending months traversing hostile Indian territory, particularly because travelers coming afterward exhibited the same symptoms.

Memorials.

The explorer was buried near present-day Hohenwald, Tennessee, near his place of death. His grave was located about 200 yards from Grinder's Stand, alongside the Natchez Trace. (That section of the 1801 Natchez Trace was built by the U.S. Army under the direction of Lewis' mentor Thomas Jefferson, during Lewis' lifetime).  At first, the grave was unmarked. Alexander Wilson, an ornithologist and friend of Lewis' who visited the grave in May 1810, during a trip to New Orleans to sell his drawings, wrote that he gave the innkeeper Robert Griner money to erect a fence around the grave to protect it from animals.  The State of Tennessee erected a monument over Lewis' grave in 1848. Lemuel Kirby, a stonemason from Columbia, Tennessee, chose the design of a broken column, commonly used at the time to symbolize a life cut short.  An iron fence erected around the base of the monument was partially dismantled during the Civil War by General Hood's detachments marching from Shiloh toward Franklin; they forged the iron into horseshoes  A September 1905 article in "Everybody's Magazine" called attention to Lewis' abandoned and overgrown grave. A county road worker, Teen Cothran, took the initiative to open a road to the cemetery. Thereafter, a local Tennessee Meriwether Lewis Monument Committee was soon formed to push for restoring Lewis' gravesite. In 1925, in response to the committee's work, President Calvin Coolidge designated Lewis' grave as the fifth National Monument in the South.  In 2009, the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation organized a commemoration for Lewis in conjunction with their 41st annual meeting October 3–7, 2009. It included the first national memorial service at his grave site. On October 7, 2009, near the 200th anniversary of Lewis' death, about 2,500 people (National Park Service estimate) from more than 25 states gathered at his grave to acknowledge Lewis' life and achievements. Speakers included William Clark's descendant Peyton "Bud" Clark, Lewis' collateral descendants Howell Bowen and Tom McSwain, and Stephanie Ambrose Tubbs (Stephen Ambrose's daughter; her father wrote "Undaunted Courage", an award-winning book about the Lewis and Clark Expedition). A bronze bust of Lewis was dedicated at the Natchez Trace Parkway for a planned visitor center at the grave site area. The District of Columbia and governors of 20 states associated with the Lewis and Clark Trail sent flags flown over state capital buildings to be carried to Lewis' grave by residents of the states, acknowledging the significance of Lewis' contribution in the creation of their states.  The 2009 ceremony at Lewis' grave was the final bicentennial event honoring the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Re-enactors from the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial participated, and official attendees included representatives from Jefferson's Monticello. Lewis and Clark descendants and family members, along with representatives of St. Louis Lodge #1, past presidents of the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, and the Daughters of the American Revolution, carried wreaths and led a formal procession to Lewis' grave. Samples of plants which Lewis discovered on the expedition were brought from the Trail states and laid on his grave. The U.S. Army was represented by the 101st Airborne Infantry Band and its Army chaplain. The National Park Service announced that it would rehabilitate the site.

Legacy.

For many years, Lewis' legacy was overlooked, inaccurately assessed, and somewhat tarnished by his alleged suicide. Yet his contributions to science, the exploration of the Western U.S., and the lore of great world explorers, are considered incalculable.  Four years after Lewis' death, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness & perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from it's direction, careful as a father of those committed to his charge, yet steady in the maintenance of order & discipline, intimate with the Indian character, customs & principles, habituated to the hunting life, guarded by exact observation of the vegetables & animals of his own country, against losing time in the description of objects already possessed, honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth so scrupulous that whatever he should report would be as certain as if seen by ourselves, with all these qualifications as if selected and implanted by nature in one body, for this express purpose, I could have no hesitation in confiding the enterprise to him.  Jefferson wrote that Lewis had a "luminous and discriminating intellect". William Clark's first son Meriwether Lewis Clark was named after Lewis; the senior Meriwether Clark passed the name on to his son, Meriwether Lewis Clark, Jr. Captain Meriwether Lewis and Lieutenant (de facto Co-Captain and posthumously, officially promoted to Captain in advance of the bicentennial) William Clark commanded the Corps of Discovery to map the course of the Missouri River to its source and the Pacific Northwest overland and water routes to and from the mouth of the Columbia River. They were honored with a 3-cent stamp July 24, 1954 on the 150th anniversary. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States. Lewis and Clark described and sketched its flora and fauna and described the native inhabitants they encountered before returning to St. Louis in 1806.

Coins.

Both Lewis and Clark appear on the gold Lewis and Clark Exposition dollars minted for the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition. Among the Early United States commemorative coins, they were produced in both 1904 and 1905 and survive in relatively small numbers.

Postage stamps.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition was celebrated on May 14, 2004, the 200th anniversary of its outset, by depicting the two on a hilltop outlook: two companion 37-cent USPS stamps showed portraits of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. A special 32-page booklet accompanied the issue in eleven cities along the route taken by the Corps of Discovery. An image of the stamp can be found on Arago online at the link in the footnote.

Flora and fauna.

The plant genus "Lewisia" (family Portulacaceae), popular in rock gardens and which includes the bitterroot ("Lewisia rediviva"), the state flower of Montana, is named after Lewis, as is Lewis's woodpecker ("Melanerpes lewis") and a subspecies of cutthroat trout, the westslope cutthroat ("Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi").

Geographic names.

Geographic names that honor him include:

Vessels.

Three US Navy vessels have been named in honor of Lewis: the Liberty ship SS "Meriwether Lewis", the Polaris armed nuclear submarine USS "Lewis and Clark" and the supply ship USNS "Lewis and Clark".

Academic institutions.

Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, was named for Meriwether Lewis and William Clark.  Lewis-Clark State College, Lewiston, Idaho, was named for Meriwether Lewis and William Clark.  Lewis and Clark Community College, Godfrey, Illinois, was named for Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The campus lies about 11 miles upstream from the Corps of Discovery's departure point.  Lewis & Clark High School, Spokane, Washington, was named for Meriwether Lewis and William Clark.  Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, Albemarle County, Virginia was named for Meriwether Lewis, who was born nearby.

Popular culture.

Meriwether Lewis' relationship with Thomas Jefferson; Lewis' multiple expeditions, journals, and discoveries; and details surrounding Lewis' death play major roles in James Rollins' seventh Sigma Force novel, "The Devil Colony".  The mystery surrounding Meriwether Lewis' death played a role in the 2016 book, "The Secret History of Twin Peaks", by author Mark Frost.  In 2013, on the "Nashville" episode of the Comedy Central series "Drunk History", Alie Ward and Georgia Hardstark retold the story of Lewis and Clark's expedition and Lewis' death, with Tony Hale portraying Lewis and Taran Killam as Clark.  In 2015, Link Neal alongside long time collaborator Rhett McLaughlin, portrayed Meriwether Lewis and William Clark respectively in the popular web series Epic Rap Battles of History as part of the Season 4 episode "Lewis and Clark vs Bill and Ted"

Halls of fame.

In 1965, he was inducted into the Hall of Great Westerners of the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum.

Meriwether Lewis (August 18, 1774 – October 11, 1809) was an American explorer, soldier, politician, and public administrator, best known for his role as the leader of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, also known as the Corps of Discovery, with William Clark. Their mission was to explore the territory of the Louisiana Purchase, establish trade with, and sovereignty over the natives near the Missouri River, and claim the Pacific Northwest and Oregon Country for the United States before European nations. They also collected scientific data, and information on indigenous nations. President Thomas Jefferson appointed him Governor of Upper Louisiana in 1806. He died of gunshot wounds in what was either a murder or suicide, in 1809.

梅里韦瑟·刘易斯(Meriwether Lewis;1774年-8月18日-1809年-10月11日)美国探险家、军人和公共管理者,最为人知的是他作为远征军团的领导, 探索路易斯安那购地后的疆土。


Biography.

Latour is related to a well-known family of winemakers from Burgundy, but is not associated with the similarly named estate in Bordeaux.  As a student, Latour originally focused on philosophy. In 1971–1972, he ranked second and then first (reçu second, premier) in the French national competitive exam (agrégation/CAPES de philosophie). He was deeply influenced by Michel Serres.. Latour went on to earn his Ph.D. in philosophical theology in 1975 at the University of Tours. His thesis title was "Exégèse et ontologie: une analyse des textes de resurrection" ("Exegesis and Ontology: An Analysis of the Texts of Resurrection").  He developed an interest in anthropology, and undertook fieldwork in Ivory Coast which resulted in a brief monograph on decolonization, race, and industrial relations. After spending more than twenty years (1982–2006) at the Centre de sociologie de l'innovation at the École des Mines in Paris, Latour moved in 2006 to Sciences Po, where he was the first occupant of a chair named for Gabriel Tarde. In recent years he also served as one of the curators of successful art exhibitions at the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie in Karlsruhe, Germany, including "Iconoclash" (2002) and "Making Things Public" (2005). In 2005 he also held the Spinoza Chair of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam.

Awards and honors.

On 22 May 2008, Latour was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Université de Montréal on the occasion of an organizational communication conference held in honor of the work of James R. Taylor, on whom Latour has had an important influence. He holds several other honorary doctorates, as well as France's Légion d'Honneur (2012). The Dutch "International Spinozaprijs Foundation" will award the "Spinozalens 2020" to Bruno Latour on November 24, 2020. (http://www.spinozalens.nl/en/news/6/Spinozalens-2020-awarded-to-French-philosopher-Bruno-Latour)

Holberg Prize.

On 13 March 2013, he was announced as the winner of the 2013 Holberg Prize. The prize committee stated that "Bruno Latour has undertaken an ambitious analysis and reinterpretation of modernity, and has challenged fundamental concepts such as the distinction between modern and pre-modern, nature and society, human and non-human." The committee states that "the impact of Latour's work is evident internationally and far beyond studies of the history of science, art history, history, philosophy, anthropology, geography, theology, literature and law."  A 2013 article in Aftenposten by Jon Elster criticised the conferment to Latour, by saying "The question is, does he deserve the prize."..."If the statutes [of the award] had used new knowledge as a main criteria, instead of one of several, then he would be completely unqualified in my opinion."

Main works.

"Laboratory Life".

After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of "Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts" with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naïve descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are "socially constructed" within the laboratory—that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices— in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book "Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society" is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results."

"The Pasteurization of France".

After a research project examining the sociology of primatologists, Latour followed up the themes in "Laboratory Life" with "Les Microbes: guerre et paix" (published in English as "The Pasteurization of France" in 1988). In it, he reviews the life and career of one of France's most famous scientists Louis Pasteur and his discovery of microbes, in the fashion of a political biography. Latour highlights the social forces at work in and around Pasteur's career and the uneven manner in which his theories were accepted. By providing more explicitly ideological explanations for the acceptance of Pasteur's work more easily in some quarters than in others, he seeks to undermine the notion that the acceptance and rejection of scientific theories is primarily, or even usually, a matter of experiment, evidence or reason. Another work, "Aramis, or, The Love of Technology" focuses on the history of an unsuccessful mass-transit project.

"We Have Never Been Modern".

Latour's work "Nous n’avons jamais été modernes : Essais d’anthropologie symétrique" was first published in French in 1991, and then in English in 1993 as "We Have Never Been Modern".  Latour encouraged the reader of this anthropology of science to re-think and re-evaluate our mental landscape. He evaluated the work of scientists and contemplated the contribution of the scientific method to knowledge and work, blurring the distinction across various fields and disciplines.  Latour argued that society has never really been modern and promoted nonmodernism (or amodernism) over postmodernism, modernism, or antimodernism. His stance was that we have never been modern and minor divisions alone separate Westerners now from other collectives. Latour viewed modernism as an era that believed it had annulled the entire past in its wake. He presented the antimodern reaction as defending such entities as spirit, rationality, liberty, society, God, or even the past. Postmoderns, according to Latour, also accepted the modernistic abstractions as if they were real. In contrast, the nonmodern approach reestablished symmetry between science and technology on the one hand and society on the other. Latour also referred to the impossibility of returning to premodernism because it precluded the large scale experimentation which was a benefit of modernism.  Latour attempted to prove through case studies the fallacy in the old object/subject and Nature/Society compacts of modernity, which can be traced back to Plato. He refused the concept of "out there" versus "in here". He rendered the object/subject distinction as simply unusable and charted a new approach towards knowledge, work, and circulating reference. Latour considered nonmoderns to be playing on a different field, one vastly different than that of post-moderns. He referred to it as much broader and much less polemical, a creation of an unknown territory, which he playfully referred to as the Middle Kingdom.  In 1998, historian of science Margaret C. Jacob argued that Latour's politicized account of the development of modernism in the 17th century is "a fanciful escape from modern Western history".

"Pandora's Hope".

"Pandora's Hope" (1999) marks a return to the themes Latour explored in "Science in Action" and "We Have Never Been Modern". It uses independent but thematically linked essays and case studies to question the authority and reliability of scientific knowledge. Latour uses a narrative, anecdotal approach in a number of the essays, describing his work with pedologists in the Amazon rainforest, the development of the pasteurization process, and the research of French atomic scientists at the outbreak of the Second World War. Latour states that this specific, anecdotal approach to science studies is essential to gaining a full understanding of the discipline: "The only way to understand the reality of science studies is to follow what science studies do best, that is, paying close attention to the details of scientific practice" (p. 24). Some authors have criticized Latour's methodology, including Katherine Pandora, a history of science professor at the University of Oklahoma. In her review of "Pandora's Hope", Katherine Pandora states:  "[Latour's] writing can be stimulating, fresh and at times genuinely moving, but it can also display a distractingly mannered style in which a rococo zeal for compounding metaphors, examples, definitions and abstractions can frustrate even readers who approach his work with the best of intentions (notwithstanding the inclusion of a nine-page glossary of terms and liberal use of diagrams in an attempt to achieve the utmost clarity)".  In addition to his epistemological concerns, Latour also explores the political dimension of science studies in "Pandora's Hope". Two of the chapters draw on Plato's "Gorgias" as a means of investigating and highlighting the distinction between content and context. As Katherine Pandora states in her review:  "It is hard not to be caught up in the author's obvious delight in deploying a classic work from antiquity to bring current concerns into sharper focus, following along as he manages to leave the reader with the impression that the protagonists Socrates and Callicles are not only in dialogue with each other but with Latour as well."  Although Latour frames his discussion with a classical model, his examples of fraught political issues are all current and of continuing relevance: global warming, the spread of mad cow disease, and the carcinogenic effects of smoking are all mentioned at various points in "Pandora's Hope". In Felix Stalder's article "Beyond constructivism: towards a realistic realism", he summarizes Latour's position on the political dimension of science studies as follows: "These scientific debates have been artificially kept open in order to render impossible any political action against these problems and those who profit from them".

"Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?".

In a 2004 article, Latour questioned the fundamental premises on which he had based most of his career, asking, "Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?" He undertakes a trenchant critique of his own field of study and, more generally, of social criticism in contemporary academia. He suggests that critique, as currently practiced, is bordering on irrelevancy. To maintain any vitality, Latour argues that social critiques require a drastic reappraisal: "our critical equipment deserves as much critical scrutiny as the Pentagon budget." (p. 231) To regain focus and credibility, Latour argues that social critiques must embrace empiricism, to insist on the "cultivation of a stubbornly realist attitude -- to speak like William James". (p. 233)  Latour suggests that about 90 per cent of contemporary social criticism displays one of two approaches which he terms "the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 237) The fairy position is anti-fetishist, arguing that "objects of belief" (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts created by the projected wishes and desires of the "naive believer"; the "fact position" argues that individuals are dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces (e.g., economics, gender). (p. 238) "Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?” asks Latour: no matter which position you take, "You’re always right!” (p. 238-239) Social critics tend to use anti-fetishism against ideas they personally reject; to use "an unrepentant positivist" approach for fields of study they consider valuable; all the while thinking as "a perfectly healthy sturdy realist for what you really cherish." (p. 241) These inconsistencies and double standards go largely unrecognized in social critique because "there is never any crossover between the two lists of objects in the fact position and the fairy position." (p. 241)  The practical result of these approaches being taught to millions of students in elite universities for several decades is a widespread and influential "critical barbarity" that has—like a malign virus created by a "mad scientist"—thus far proven impossible to control. Most troubling, Latour notes that critical ideas have been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including global warming deniers and the 9/11 Truth movement: "Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social neverland, many of the weapons of social critique." (p. 230)  The conclusion of the article is to argue for a positive framing of critique, to help understand how matters of concern can be supported rather than undermined: "The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naïve believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather. The critic is not the one who alternates haphazardly between antifetishism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by Goya, but the one for whom, if something is constructed, then it means it is fragile and thus in great need of care and caution."  Latour's article has been highly influential within the field of postcritique, an intellectual movement within literary criticism and cultural studies that seeks to find new forms of reading and interpretation that go beyond the methods of critique, critical theory, and ideological criticism. The literary critic Rita Felski has named Latour as an important precursor to the project of postcritique.

"Reassembling the Social".

In "Reassembling the Social" (2005), Latour continues a reappraisal of his work, developing what he calls a "practical metaphysics", which calls "real" anything that an actor (one whom we are studying) claims as a source of motivation for action. So if someone says, "I was inspired by God to be charitable to my neighbors" we are obliged to recognize the "ontological weight" of their claim, rather than attempting to replace their belief in God's presence with "social stuff", like class, gender, imperialism, etc. Latour’s nuanced metaphysics demands the existence of a plurality of worlds, and the willingness of the researcher to chart ever more. He argues that researchers must give up the hope of fitting their actors into a structure or framework, but Latour believes the benefits of this sacrifice far outweigh the downsides: "Their complex metaphysics would at least be respected, their recalcitrance recognized, their objections deployed, their multiplicity accepted."  For Latour, to talk about metaphysics or ontology–what really is–means paying close empirical attention to the various, contradictory institutions and ideas that bring people together and inspire them to act. Here is Latour's description of metaphysics:  If we call metaphysics the discipline... that purports to define the basic structure of the world, then empirical metaphysics is what the controversies over agencies lead to since they ceaselessly populate the world with new drives and, as ceaselessly, contest the existence of others. The question then becomes how to explore the actors' own metaphysics.  A more traditional metaphysicist might object, arguing that this means there are multiple, contradictory realities, since there are "controversies over agencies" – since there is a plurality of contradictory ideas that people claim as a basis for action (God, nature, the state, sexual drives, personal ambition, and so on). This objection manifests the most important difference between traditional philosophical metaphysics and Latour's nuance: for Latour, there is no "basic structure of reality" or a single, self-consistent world. An unknowably large multiplicity of realities, or "worlds" in his terms, exists–one for each actor’s sources of agency, inspirations for action. Actors bring "the real" (metaphysics) into being. The task of the researcher is not to find one "basic structure" that explains agency, but to recognize "the metaphysical innovations proposed by ordinary actors". Mapping those metaphysical innovations involves a strong dedication to relativism, Latour argues. The relativist researcher "learns the actors' language," records what they say about what they do, and does not appeal to a higher "structure" to "explain" the actor's motivations. The relativist "takes seriously what [actors] are obstinately saying" and "follows the direction indicated by their fingers when they designate what'makes them act'". The relativist recognizes the plurality of metaphysics that actors bring into being, and attempts to map them rather than reducing them to a single structure or explanation.

Bruno Latour (; ; born 22 June 1947) is a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He is especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS). After teaching at the École des Mines de Paris (Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation) from 1982 to 2006, he became Professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006–2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017. He was also a Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics.

布鲁诺·拉图尔(,,1947年-6月22日),法国哲学家、人类学家和社会学家。 是科学技术与社会 行动者网络理论(Actor-network theory)的主要开创者之一。


History.

Since 1978.

The party was the big winner in the 2003 election, running on the SP.A-Spirit joint list (cartel) with the social-liberal party Spirit. Their share of the vote went up from 9% (of the total Belgian vote) to almost 15%, a second place in the number of votes. The main victim of this resurgence was the Green! party (formerly known as "Agalev"). Sp.a was part of the "purple" federal coalitions of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt from 12 July 1999 until 10 June 2007, which contained both the Flemish and Francophone liberal and social-democratic parties.  In 2004, the sp.a along with its partner Spirit lost the elections for the Flemish Parliament. Although they won more seats in comparison to the Flemish elections of 1999, their percentage of the vote compared to the successful 2003 federal elections was considerably down. The reputation of then party leader Steve Stevaert took a beating too.  The party was briefly led by Caroline Gennez, after former president Steve Stevaert left to become governor of Limburg. Johan Vande Lanotte, who served as Minister of the Budget in the federal Government, was elected President and resigned as minister to become President on 17 October 2005. He resigned 11 June 2007, after sp.a-Spirit lost the elections for the federal parliament of 10 June 2007. In these federal elections, the cartel won 14 out of 150 seats in the Chamber of Representatives and 4 out of 40 seats in the Senate. Afterwards, Caroline Gennez was elected President by the party members.  As of May 2009, sp.a was in opposition in federal politics. Uunlike its Francophone counterpart, the Socialist Party (PS), sp.a was not a participant in the Leterme II Government.  In January 2009, the party had apparently changed its name to Socialists and Progressive Differently (Dutch: "Socialisten en Progressieven Anders"). This name change was retracted and the party baseline was changed from Social Progressive Alternative (Dutch: "Sociaal Progressief Alternatief") to Socialists and Progressive Differently (Dutch: "Socialisten en Progressieven Anders").  In the 2010 federal election, sp.a won 13 seats with 9% of the overall vote. The party was a member of the Di Rupo Government formed on 6 December 2011, until the elections in 2014. In the elections for the Chamber of Representatives on 25 May 2014, sp.a scored again 9% and received 13 seats, in contrast to their francophone Socialist Party counterparts, who lost 3 seats and whose share of the vote decreased by 2%. In the Flemish Parliament, sp.a have 18 representatives, deriving from around 14% of the vote—this is a small reduction on the 2009 parliament, where sp.a had 19 seats, deriving from 15% of the popular vote. From 2009–2014, sp.a participated in the Flemish Government, in an uneasy coalition with the CD & V and the N-VA. From 2014 onwards, sp.a formed part of the opposition in Flanders, as the regional government reflected the Flemish component of the federal administration, consisting of coalition of the Open-VLD, CD & V and the N-VA.  In January 2018, the party advocated for a "new socialism" and a "new equality".

Members holding notable public offices.

Provincial politics.

° In Limburg sp.a formed a cartel with Groen.

Socialist Party Differently (, sp.a) is a social-democratic Flemish political party in Belgium.

不同社会党(),通称荷语社会党,是比利时荷语区的一个社会民主主义政党。该党成立于1978年,分裂自比利时社会党。该党的政治立场是中间偏左。该党的主席是John Crombez。该党的总部位于布鲁塞尔。该党的青年翼是青年社会主义者。该党是社会党国际、进步联盟和欧洲社会党的成员。