TURKEY A MODERN HISTORY REVISED EDITION ERIK J.

ZURCHER - QUICK DOWNLOAD

https://ebookultra.com/download/turkey-a-modern-
history-revised-edition-erik-j-zurcher/

★★★★★
4.6 out of 5.0 (22 reviews)

QUICK DOWNLOAD

Ebookultra.com
 Turkey A Modern History Revised Edition Erik J. Zurcher

Study Guide Immediate Download Educational Resource

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook ■ EBookUltra

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

4.9 out of 5.0

(1027 reviews)

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS - STUDY SUPPLEMENTS - TESTING RESOURCES

 Explore More Books

The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 4 Turkey in the

Modern World 1st Edition Resat Kasaba

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-cambridge-history-of-turkey-
volume-4-turkey-in-the-modern-world-1st-edition-resat-kasaba/

The Emergence of Modern Turkey Studies in Middle Eastern

History 3rd Edition Bernard Lewis

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-emergence-of-modern-turkey-
studies-in-middle-eastern-history-3rd-edition-bernard-lewis/

The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 1 Byzantium to

Turkey 1071 1453 1st Edition Kate Fleet

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-cambridge-history-of-turkey-
volume-1-byzantium-to-turkey-1071-1453-1st-edition-kate-fleet/

Irregularities in Modern English 2nd Edition Edition Erik

W. Hansen

https://ebookultra.com/download/irregularities-in-modern-
english-2nd-edition-edition-erik-w-hansen/
A History of South Africa Revised Edition Leonard Thompson

https://ebookultra.com/download/a-history-of-south-africa-revised-
edition-leonard-thompson/

Kimono A Modern History Terry Satsuki Milhaupt

https://ebookultra.com/download/kimono-a-modern-history-terry-
satsuki-milhaupt/

Apuleius A Latin Sophist 2 Revised Edition S. J. Harrison

https://ebookultra.com/download/apuleius-a-latin-sophist-2-revised-
edition-s-j-harrison/

The Portuguese A Modern History 2nd Edition Barry Hatton

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-portuguese-a-modern-history-2nd-
edition-barry-hatton/

A History of the English Language Revised edition Elly Van

Gelderen

https://ebookultra.com/download/a-history-of-the-english-language-
revised-edition-elly-van-gelderen/
 Contents

Preface vii
Preface to the Third Edition ix
Glossary xi

Introduction: Periodization, Theory and Methodology 1

Part I Western Influences and Early Attempts at Modernization

1. The Ottoman Empire at the end of the Eighteenth Century 9

2. Between Tradition and Innovation: Sultan Selim III
and the ‘New Order’, 1789–1807 21
3. The Early Years of Sultan Mahmut II: The Centre Tries
to Regain Control 30
4. The Later Years of Sultan Mahmut II: The Start of the
Reforms 36
5. The Era of the Tanzimat, 1839–71 50
6. The Crisis of 1873–78 and its Aftermath 71
7. Reactionary Despotism or Culmination of the Reforms?
The reign of Sultan Abdülhamit II 76

Part II The Young Turk Era in Turkish History (1908–50)

8. The Second Constitutional Period, 1912–18 93

9. The Struggle for Independence 133
10. The Emergence of the One-Party State, 1923–27 166
11. The Kemalist One-Party State, 1925–45 176
12. The Transition to Democracy, 1945–50 206

Part III A Troubled Democracy

13. The Rule of the Democratic Party, 1950–60 221

14. The Second Turkish Republic, 1960–80 241
15. The Third Republic: Turkey since 1980 278
vi CONTENTS
Notes 338
Maps drawn by Russell Townsend 356
The Ottoman Balkans 356
Anatolia 357
The Arab Provinces of the Ottoman Empire 358
Bibliographical Survey 359
Biographical Notes: Some Important Figures in Ottoman
and Turkish History 381
Index 407
 Preface

The best way to master a subject is to try to teach it. This is a truth I
discovered years ago when, fresh out of university, I was charged with
teaching students barely younger than myself Turkish. Time and again
these students made me realize how little I knew about the intricacies of
the Turkish language. Some 15 years on I rediscovered this truth when
Dr Lester Crook invited me to write the present volume, the primary
purpose of which is to serve as teaching material. Although by then I
had been researching and writing for years on the period of transition
from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic, again, it made me
realize how much there was I didn’t know and how much there was that
wasn’t known at all. Again, I learned as I wrote. Therefore, if reading
this book is only half as rewarding to you, the reader, as writing it has
been to me, the author, it will have amply served its purpose.
I have always found that in the academic profession many of the most
useful findings are the outcome of informal discussions with one’s
colleagues and students. Their contributions mostly remain anonymous,
since they are submerged into the unconscious, only to reappear as
one’s own bright ideas. Apart from these anonymous contributors, a
synthetic work such as this is, of course, heavily dependent on the
authors of the monographs that have been used in the synthesis. Their
names, and those of their works, are to be found in the bibliographical
survey at the end of the book, which shows the extent of my debt.
A number of people made specific contributions through their
comments on parts of the text: Dick Douwes of the Catholic University
of Nijmegen, Professors Jan Lucassen and Rinus Penninx of the
University of Amsterdam, and Dr William Hale of the School of
Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. Parts of the
book also reflect the work of a number of former students, notably the
MA theses of Nicole van Os, Jacqueline Kuypers and Anneke Voeten.
Dr Lester Crook has contributed greatly to any merits the book may
have by his meticulous and informed reading of, and commenting on,
the text.
The original suggestion for this book came from my dear friend Dr
viii PREFACE
Colin Heywood of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the
University of London, who pointed out that there could be a need for a
book such as this 30 years after the publication of Professor Bernard
Lewis’s epochal Emergence of Modern Turkey. I can only hope the
result is somewhat as he expected it to be.
Saskia’s contribution has been much greater than the patience and
forbearance for which wives and partners are usually commended in
prefaces.

Nijmegen/Amsterdam
August 1992
Other documents randomly have
different content
on a feather, so that by means of another shaft containing levers and
a tumbling ball, the box on reversing was carried from one bevel-
wheel to the opposite one.”[54] This planer was in regular use as late
as 1859. The driving and reversing mechanism described above is
almost exactly that used on Clement’s great planer, built a dozen
years later. Fox is said to have also invented a screw-cutting
machine, an automatic gear cutter and a self-acting lathe, but the
evidence in regard to their dates is uncertain.
[54] Ibid., p. 315.

George Rennie was the brother of Sir John Rennie. They

succeeded to the business founded by their father, the elder John
Rennie, one of Watt’s best-known workmen and next to Murdock the
most important of his assistants, who built the Albion Flour Mills in
Black Friars, where one of the first rotative engines was installed
about 1788. The mill was a great success until it burned down a few
years later. John Rennie’s connection with it established his
reputation and he shortly after started out for himself as a millwright
and founded the business which his two sons carried on for many
years and which had a great influence throughout all England. Sir
William Fairbairn was one of those who worked for George Rennie
and furnishes another example of the cumulative influence of a
succession of strong mechanics.
Matthew Murray was born at Stockton about 1765. He was
apprenticed to a blacksmith and soon became an expert mechanic.
He married before his term of apprenticeship expired and as it was
difficult to find sufficient work near Stockton, he left his wife behind
him as soon as he was free and set out for Leeds with his bundle on
his back. He obtained employment with a John Marshall who had
begun the manufacture of flax machinery near Adel. Murray
suggested improvements which brought him a present of £20 and
rapid promotion until he soon became the first mechanic in the shop.
He sent for his wife and settled down in Leeds, remaining with Mr.
Marshall for about twelve years. He formed a partnership with James
Fenton and David Wood and started an engineering and machine-
building factory at Leeds in 1795. Here he began the manufacture of
steam engines and soon established a high reputation, pushing
Boulton & Watt hard. Murdock was sent down to Leeds, called on
Murray, was received cordially, and was shown freely over the entire
work. On visiting the Soho works a short time afterward Murray was
received cordially by Murdock, and was invited to dinner but was told
that there was a rule against admitting anyone in the trade to the
works. Under the circumstances Murray was indignant and declining
the invitation to dinner left without further delay. A little later Boulton
& Watt attempted to “plug him up” by buying the property adjoining
his factory, and this tract of land remained vacant for over 50 years.
He improved the D-slide valve and did much work toward simplifying
the design of the steam engine. The flat surfaces required in this
type of valve led to the building of his planer. Mr. March, a well-
known tool manufacturer of the next generation, went to work for
Murray in 1814. Mr. March said the planer was in use at that time. “I
recollect it very distinctly,” he continues, “and even the sort of
framing on which it stood. The machine was not patented, and like
many inventions in those days it was kept as much a secret as
possible, being locked up in a small room by itself, to which the
ordinary workmen could not obtain access. The year in which I
remember it being in use was, so far as I am aware, long before any
planing machine of a similar kind had been invented.”[55]
[55] Ibid., p. 316.

Like many of the owners of that time Murray lived directly opposite
his works and he installed in his house a steam heating apparatus
which excited much wonder and which must have been one of the
first in use. He built the first locomotive which was put to successful
commercial use. Trevithick had invented a steam road-engine with a
single steam cylinder and a large flywheel, which had attracted
considerable attention, but was wholly impracticable. It was
important, however, as it had one of the first high-pressure engines,
working above atmospheric pressure. In 1811 Blenkinsop of Leeds,
taking his idea from Trevithick, had a number of locomotives built to
operate a railway from the Middletown collieries to Leeds, a distance
of 3¹⁄₂ miles. Blenkinsop was not a mechanic and the work was
designed and executed by Matthew Murray. Murray used two steam
cylinders instead of one, driving onto the same shaft with cranks set
at right angles, and therefore introduced one of the most important
features of modern locomotive design. These engines were in daily
use for many years and were inspected by George Stephenson
when he began his development of the locomotive. Murray’s design
formed the basis from which he started. The engines, however, were
operated by a cog-wheel driving onto a continuous rack laid along
the road bed. It was not until a number of years later that Hedley and
Stephenson established the fact that the wheel friction of smooth
drivers would furnish adequate tractive power. The old Blenkinsop
engines, as they were called, hauled about thirty coal wagons at a
speed of 3¹⁄₄ miles an hour.
Murray’s most important inventions were connected with the flax
industry and for these he obtained a gold medal from the Society of
Arts. At the time they were developed, the flax trade was dying. Their
effect was to establish the British linen trade on a permanent and
secure foundation. All the machine tools used in his establishment
were designed and built by himself and among these was the planer
which was unquestionably one of the earliest built. He made similar
articles for other firms and started a branch of engineering for which
Leeds became famous. He was a frank, open-hearted man, and one
who contributed greatly to the industrial supremacy of England.
Joseph Clement was born in Westmoreland in 1779.[56] His father
was a weaver, a man of little education but of mental ability, a great
lover of nature and something of a mechanic. Joseph Clement
himself had only the merest elements of reading and writing. He
started in life as a thatcher and slater, but picked up the rudiments of
mechanics at the village blacksmith shop. Being grateful to the
blacksmith, he repaid him by making for him a lathe which was a
pretty creditable machine. On this he himself made flutes and fifes
for sale and also a microscope for his father to use in his nature
studies. As early as 1804 he began to work on screw cutting and
made a set of die-stocks, although he had never seen any. He
worked in several small country shops, then in Carlisle and in
Glasgow, where he took lessons in drawing from a Peter Nicholson
and became one of the most skillful draftsmen in England. Later he
went to Aberdeen and was earning three guineas ($15) a week
designing and fitting up power looms. By the end of 1813 he had
saved £100. With this he went to London, meaning sooner or later to
set up for himself. He first worked for an Alexander Galloway, a ward
politician and tradesman who owned a small shop. Galloway was a
slovenly manager and left things to run themselves. When Clement
started in he found the tools so poor that he could not do good work
with them, and immediately set to work truing them up, to the
surprise of his shopmates who had settled down to the slipshod
standards of the shop. Seeing that Clement was capable of the
highest grade work, one of his shopmates told him to go to Bramah’s
where such workmanship would be appreciated.
[56] The best information on Clement comes from Smiles’ “Industrial
Biography,” Chap. XIII.

He saw Bramah and engaged to work for him for a month on trial.
The result was so satisfactory that he signed an agreement for five
years, dated April 1, 1814, under which he became chief draftsman
and superintendent of the Pimlico works. Clement threw himself
eagerly into the new work and took great satisfaction in the high
quality of work which was the standard in Bramah’s establishment.
Bramah was greatly pleased with him and told him, “If I had secured
your services five years since I would now have been a richer man
by many thousands of pounds.” Bramah died, however, within a year
and his two sons returning from college took charge of the business.
They soon became jealous of Clement’s influence and by mutual
consent the agreement signed with their father was terminated.
Clement immediately went to Maudslay & Field’s as chief draftsman
and assisted in the development of the early marine engines which
they were building at that time. In 1817 he started in for himself in a
small shop in Newington, with a capital of £500 and his work there
until his death in 1844 is of great importance.
Figure 18. Matthew Murray
 Figure 19. Richard Roberts

As already pointed out, he had been working for many years on

the problem of screw cutting. Maudslay had carried this to a more
refined point than any other mechanic. Profiting by Maudslay’s
experience, Clement began the regular manufacture of taps and dies
in 1828, using the thread standards developed by Maudslay as his
basis. He introduced the tap with a small squared shank which would
fall through the threaded hole and save the time of backing out. He is
said to have been one of the first in England to employ revolving
cutters, using them to flute his taps. While he may have used such
cutters, he was certainly not the first to do so, as they were in use in
France at least thirty years earlier. He did important work in
developing the screw-cutting lathe, again improving upon Maudslay’s
work and increasing the accuracy of the device. He was given a
number of gold medals for various improvements in it, as well as for
his work on the planer. We have already referred to his “great planer”
and will only say here that of those who contributed to the early
development of this machine none have had a greater influence. He
executed the work on Charles Babbage’s famous calculating
machine, which attracted so much attention eighty years ago and
was probably the most refined and intricate piece of mechanism
constructed up to that time.
Clement was a rough and heavy-browed man, without polish, who
retained until the last his strong Westmoreland dialect. At no time did
he employ over thirty workmen in his factory, but they were all of the
very highest class. Among them was Sir Joseph Whitworth, who
continued his work on screw threads and brought about the general
use of what is now known as the Whitworth thread.
Richard Roberts, the last of those mentioned as inventors of the
metal planer, was born in Wales in 1789. Like most of the early
mechanics he had little or no education, and as soon as he was
strong enough he began work as a laborer in a quarry near his
home. His mechanical aptitude led him into odd jobs and he soon
became known for his dexterity. He finally determined to become a
mechanic and worked in several shops in the neighborhood. He was
employed for a time as pattern maker at John Wilkinson’s works at
Bradley, and is one of the few links between Wilkinson, who made
the first modern metal-cutting tool—his boring machine—and the
later generation of tool builders.
He drifted about, a jack-of-all-trades—turner, millwright, pattern
maker and wheelwright—to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and
finally up to London, where, after being with Holtzapffel for a short
time, he found work with Maudslay in 1814 and remained with him
several years. His experience here was valuable as he came in
contact with the best mechanical practice. The memoir of Roberts in
the “Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers”[57] states that
he worked on the Portsmouth block machinery, but this could hardly
have been true, as that machinery was in operation by 1808. He
ceased roving and did so well that he determined to return to the
North and begin business for himself.
[57] Vol. XXIV, p. 536. 1864.

He started at Manchester in 1817 and there he spent the best

years of his life. Few inventors have been more prolific or more
versatile. Within a year or two he had made one of the first planers,
already described; had invented the back-geared headstock, having
the cone pulley running loose upon the main spindle,[58] shown in
Fig. 21, and made other improvements in the screw-cutting lathe;
invented the first successful gas meter and built gear-cutting,
broaching and slotting machines and an improved beam-scale.
Holtzapffel says: “Probably no individual has originated so many
useful varieties of drilling machines as Mr. Richard Roberts.”
Throughout his book he frequently illustrates and describes tools and
machinery designed by Roberts, crediting him with the invention of
the slotter and key-seater, which he thinks was an outgrowth of
Brunel’s mortising machine, Fig. 11. Roberts’ punching and shearing
machinery was the standard for that time.[59]
[58] Ibid., p. 537.
[59] Holtzapffel: “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, pp. 568,
900, 920-922. London, 1847.
Figure 20. Roberts’ Planer, Built in 1817
 Figure 21. Roberts’ Back-Geared Lathe

By 1825 his reputation had so increased that his firm, Sharp,

Roberts & Company, was asked by a committee of the cotton
manufacturers of Manchester to undertake the development of an
automatic spinning mule. The spinners were the highest paid labor in
Lancashire textile industry, but they were difficult to work with and
prone to strike on a moment’s notice, closing the mills and throwing
other workmen out of employment. The operators asked Roberts
repeatedly to help them but he gave them no encouragement, as the
problem was conceded to be difficult and he said he was not familiar
with textile machinery. He had been thinking over the problem,
however, and the third time they called on him he said that he now
thought he could construct the required machinery. The result was
the invention in 1825 of his delicate and complex automatic spinning
mule in which hundreds of spindles “run themselves” with only the
attention of a few unskilled helpers to watch for broken threads and
mend them. This was one of the great textile inventions and has had
an enormous influence on the development of the cotton industry.
The next year, 1826, he went to Mülhouse in Alsace and laid the
foundation of modern French cotton manufacture. Later he invented
and patented a number of other important textile machines.
 With the development of the railway his firm began the
manufacture of locomotives. They built more than 1500, and
established a reputation equal to that of Stephenson & Company in
Newcastle. The engines were built interchangeably to templates and
gauges, and Roberts’ works were one of the first in England to grasp
and use the modern system of interchangeable manufacture.
In addition to all that has been mentioned, he invented the iron
billiard table, a successful punching and shearing machine, the most
powerful electro-magnet then made, a turret clock, a cigar-making
machine and a system of constructing steamships and equipping
them with twin screws having independent engines.
With a wonderful mechanical genius, he was lacking in worldly
wisdom and was a poor business man. He severed his connection
with Sharp, Roberts & Company, became involved financially and
finally died at London in 1864 in poverty. At his death a popular
subscription, headed by Sir William Fairbairn and many of the
nobility, was started to provide for his only daughter as a memorial of
the debt which England owed him. The memoir of him in the
“Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers” closes with the
following words: “The career of Mr. Roberts was remarkable, and it
should be carefully written by some one who could investigate
impartially the numerous inventions and improvements to which
claim could justly be laid for him, and who, at the same time, would,
with equal justice, show where his inventions have been pirated.” It
is a great pity that this was never done.
He was a rugged, straightforward, kindly man, of great inventive
power. He improved nearly everything he touched or superseded it
entirely by something better, and neither his name nor his work
should be forgotten.
 CHAPTER VI
GEARING AND MILLWORK
By 1830 the use of machine tools was becoming general; they
were being regularly manufactured and their design was
crystallizing. It was the period of architectural embellishment when
no tool was complete without at least a pair of Doric columns, and
planers were furnished in the Greek or Gothic style. As the first
machine frames were made of wood, much of the work probably
being done by cabinet makers, it was natural that they should show
the same influence that furniture did. It took several generations of
mechanics to work out the simpler lines of the later machines.
The application of scientific forms for gear teeth came at about this
time with the general development of the machine tool. The
suggestion of the use of epicyclic and involute curves is much older
than most of us realize. The first idea of them is ascribed to Roemer,
a Danish mathematician, who is said to have pointed out the
advantages of the epicyclic curve in 1674. De la Hire, a Frenchman,
suggested it a few years later, and went further, showing how the
direction of motion might be changed by toothed wheels. On the
basis of this, the invention of the bevel-gear has been attributed to
him. Willis,[60] however, has pointed out that he missed the essential
principle of rolling cones, as the conical lantern wheel which he used
was placed the wrong way, its apex pointing away from, instead of
coinciding with, the intersection of the axes. De la Hire also
investigated the involute and considered it equally suitable for tooth
outlines. Euler, in 1760, and Kaestner, in 1771, improved the method
of applying the involute, and Camus, a French mathematician, did
much to crystallize the modern principles of gearing. The two who
had the most influence were Camus and Robert Willis, a professor of
natural philosophy in Cambridge, whose name still survives in his
odontograph and tables. All of the later writers base their work on the
latter’s essay on “The Teeth of Wheels,” which appeared originally in
the second volume of the “Transactions of the Institution of Civil
Engineers,” 1837. Willis’ “Principles of Mechanism,” published in
1841, which included the above, laid down the general principles of
mechanical motion and transmission machinery. In fact, many of the
figures used in his book are found almost unchanged in the text-
books of today. Smeaton is said to have first introduced cast-iron
gears in 1769 at the Carron Iron Works near Glasgow, and Arkwright
used iron bevels in 1775. All of these, except the last two, were
mathematicians; and no phase of modern machinery owes more to
pure theory than the gearing practice of today.
[60] “Principles of Mechanism,” p. 49. London, 1841.

Camus gave lectures on mathematics in Paris when he was

twelve years old. At an early age he had attained the highest
academic honors in his own and foreign countries, and had become
examiner of engines and professor in the Royal Academy of
Architecture in Paris. He published a “Course of Mathematics,” in the
second volume of which were two books, or sections, devoted to the
consideration of the teeth of wheels, by far the fullest and clearest
treatment of this subject then published. These were translated
separately, the first English edition appearing in London in 1806, and
the second in 1837.[61] In these the theory of spur-, bevel-, and pin-
gearing is fully developed for epicycloidal teeth. In the edition of
1837, there is an appendix by John Hawkins, the translator, which is
of unusual interest. He gives the result of an inquiry which he made
in regard to the English gear practice at that time.[62] As the edition is
long since out of print and to be found only in the larger libraries, we
give his findings rather fully. His inquiries were addressed to the
principal manufacturers of machinery in which gearing was used,
and included, among others, Maudslay & Field, Rennie, Bramah,
Clement, and Sharp, Roberts & Company. To quote Hawkins:
[61] “A Treatise on the Teeth of Wheels.” Translated from the French of
M. Camus by John Isaac Hawkins, C.E. London, 1837.
[62] Ibid., p. 175.
 A painful task now presents itself, which the editor would gladly avoid, if he
could do so without a dereliction of duty; namely, to declare that there is a
lamentable deficiency of the knowledge of principles, and of correct practice, in a
majority of those most respectable houses in forming the teeth of their wheel-work.
Some of the engineers and millwrights said that they followed Camus, and
formed their teeth from the epicycloid derived from the diameter of the opposite
wheel....
One said, “We have no method but the rule of thumb;” another, “We thumb out
the figure;” by both which expressions may be understood that they left their
workmen to take their own course.
Some set one point of a pair of compasses in the center of a tooth, at the
primitive circle (pitch-circle), and with the other point describe a segment of a circle
for the off side of the next tooth.... Others set the point of the compasses at
different distances from the center of the tooth, nearer or farther off; also within or
without the line of centers, each according to some inexplicable notion received
from his grandfather or picked up by chance. It is said inexplicable, because no
tooth bounded at the sides by segments of circles can work together without such
friction as will cause an unnecessary wearing away.
It is admitted that with a certain number of teeth of a certain proportionate length
as compared with the radii, there may be a segment of a circle drawn from some
center which would give “very near” a true figure to the tooth; but “very near” ought
to be expunged from the vocabulary of engineers and millwrights; for that “very
near” will depend on the chance of hitting the right center and right radius,
according to the diameter of the wheel, and the number of teeth; against which
hitting, the odds are very great indeed.
Among the Mathematical Instrument Makers, Chronometer, Clock and Watch
Makers, the answers to the inquiries were, by some, “We have no rule but the eye
in the formation of the teeth of our wheels;” by others, “We draw the tooth correctly
on a large scale to assist the eye in judging of the figure of the small teeth;” by
another, “In Lancashire, they make the teeth of watch wheels of what is called the
bay leaf pattern; they are formed altogether by the eye of the workman; and they
would stare at you for a simpleton to hear you talk about the epicycloidal curve.”
Again, “The astronomical instrument makers hold the bay leaf pattern to be too
pointed a form for smooth action; they make the end of the tooth more rounding
than the figure of the bay leaf.”
It is curious to observe with what accuracy the practiced eye will determine
forms.... How important it is, then, that these Lancashire bay leaf fanciers should
be furnished with pattern teeth of large dimensions cut accurately in metal or at
least in cardboard; and that they should frequently study them, and compare their
work with the patterns. These Lancashire workmen are called bay leaf fanciers,
because they cannot be bay leaf copiers; since it is notorious that there are not
two bay leaves of the same figure.
 Hawkins then describes a method of generating correctly curved
teeth, or rather of truing them after they had been roughly formed,
devised by Mr. Saxton of Philadelphia, “who is justly celebrated for
his excessively acute feeling of the nature and value of accuracy in
mechanism; and who is reputed not to be excelled by any man in
Europe or America for exquisite nicety of workmanship.” By this
method the faces of the teeth were milled true by a cutter, the side of
which lay in a plane through the axis of a describing circle which was
rolled around a pitch circle clamped to the side of the gear being cut.
It is by this general method that the most accurate gears and gear
cutters are formed today.
While he by no means originated the system, Hawkins seems first
to have grasped the practical advantages of the involute form of
teeth. Breaking away from the influence of Camus, the very authority
he was translating, who seems to have controlled the thought of
everyone else, Hawkins writes the following rather remarkable
words:[63]
[63] Ibid., pp. 160 et seq.

Since M. Camus has treated of no other curve than the epicycloid, it would
appear that he considered it to supersede all others for the figure of the teeth of
wheels and pinions. And the editor must candidly acknowledge that he entertained
the same opinion until after the greater part of the foregoing sheets were printed
off; but on critically examining the properties of the involute with a view to the
better explaining of its application to the formation of the teeth of wheels and
pinions, the editor has discovered advantages which had before escaped his
notice, owing, perhaps, to his prejudice in favor of the epicycloid, from having,
during a long life, heard it extolled above all other curves; a prejudice strengthened
too by the supremacy given to it by De la Hire, Doctor Robison, Sir David
Brewster, Dr. Thomas Young, Mr. Thomas Reid, Mr. Buchannan, and many others,
who have, indeed, described the involute as a curve by which equable motion
might be communicated from wheel to wheel, but scarce any of whom have held it
up as equally eligible with the epicycloid; and owing also to his perfect conviction,
resulting from strict research, that a wheel and pinion, or two wheels, accurately
formed according to the epicycloidal curve, would work with the least possible
degree of friction, and with the greatest durability.
But the editor had not sufficiently adverted to the case where one wheel or
pinion drives, at the same time, two or more wheels or pinions of different
diameters, for which purpose the epicycloid is not perfectly applicable, because
the form of the tooth of the driving wheel cannot be generated by a circle equal to
the radius of more than one of the driven wheels or pinions. In considering this
case, he found that the involute satisfies all the conditions of perfect figure, for
wheels of any sizes, to work smoothly in wheels of any other sizes; although,
perhaps, not equal to the epicycloid for pinions of few leaves.

With Joseph Clement, he experimented somewhat to determine

the relative end-thrust of involute and cycloidal teeth, deciding that
the advantage, if any, lay with the former. He details methods of
laying out involute teeth and concludes:
Before dismissing the involute it may be well to remark that what has been said
respecting that curve should be considered as a mere sketch, there appearing to
be many very interesting points in regard to its application in the formation of the
teeth of wheels which require strict investigation and experiment.
It is the editor’s intention to pursue the inquiry and should he discover a clear
theory and systematic practice in the use of the involute, he shall feel himself
bound to give his views to the public in a separate treatise. He thinks he perceives
a wide field, but is free to confess that his vision is as yet obscure. What he has
given on the involute is more than was due from him, as editor of Camus, who
treated only of the epicycloid, but the zeal of a new convert to any doctrine is not
easily restrained.

So far as the writer knows this is the first real appreciation of the
value of the involute curve for tooth outlines, and Hawkins should be
given a credit which he has not received,[64] especially as he points
the way, for the first time, to the possibility of a set of gears any one
of which will gear correctly with any other of the set. It was thought at
that time that there should be two diameters of describing circles
used in each pair of gears, each equal to the pitch radius of the
opposite wheel or pinion. This gave radial flanks for all teeth, but
made the faces different for each pair. The use of a single size of
describing circle throughout an entire set of cycloidal gears, whereby
they could be made to gear together in any combination, was not
known until a little later.
[64] John Isaac Hawkins was a member of the Institution of Civil
Engineers. He was the son of a watch and clock maker and was born at
Taunton, Somersetshire, in 1772. At an early age he went to the United
States and “entered college at Jersey, Pennsylvania, as a student of
medicine,” but did not follow it up. He was a fine musician and had a
marked aptitude for mechanics. He returned to England, traveled a great
deal on the Continent, and acquired a wide experience. He was consulted
 frequently on all kinds of engineering activities, one of them being the
attempt, in 1808, to drive a tunnel under the Thames. For many years he
practiced in London as a patent agent and consulting engineer. He went to
the United States again in the prosecution of some of his inventions, and
died in Elizabeth, N. J., in 1865. From a Memoir in the “Transactions of the
Institution of Civil Engineers,” Vol. XXV, p. 512. 1865.

Professor Willis seems to be the first to have pointed out the

proper basis of this interchangeability in cycloidal gearing. With the
clearness which characterized all his work he states: “If for a set of
wheels of the same pitch a constant describing circle be taken and
employed to trace those portions of the teeth which project beyond
each pitch line by rolling on the exterior circumference, and those
which lie within it by rolling on its interior circumference, then any two
wheels of this set will work correctly together.... The diameter of the
describing circle must not be made greater than the radius of the
pitch-circle of any of the wheels.... On the contrary, when the
describing circle is less in diameter than the radius of the pitch-circle,
the root of the tooth spreads, and it acquires a very strong form....
The best rule appears to be that the diameter of the constant
describing circle in a given set of wheels shall be made equal to the
least radius of the set.”[65] This practice is standard for cycloidal
gearing to this day. In his “Principles of Mechanism,” Willis did the
work on involute gearing which Hawkins set before himself; and also
describes “a different mode of sizing the teeth” which had “been
adopted in Manchester,” for which he suggests the name “diametral
pitch.”[66]
[65] Willis: “Principles of Mechanism,” Articles 114-116. London, 1841.
See also “Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers,” Vol. II, p. 91.
[66] Diametral pitch, which is credited to John George Bodmer, was long
known as “Manchester pitch.”
 CHAPTER VII
FAIRBAIRN AND BODMER
With the improvement in machinery came improvement in millwork
and power transmission. We quote in the next chapter Nasmyth’s
description of the millwork of his boyhood.[67] Two of the mechanics
most influential in the change from these conditions were Sir William
Fairbairn and his younger brother, Sir Peter Fairbairn. They were
born in Scotland but spent their boyhood in poverty in the
neighborhood of Newcastle, in the same village with George
Stephenson.
[67] See page 85.

Sir William Fairbairn went to London in 1811 and obtained work

with the Rennies. The shop, however, was filled with union men who
set their shoulders against all outsiders. After struggling for a
foothold for six weeks, he was set adrift, almost penniless, and
turned his face northward. He obtained odd jobs in Hertfordshire as
a millwright, and returned again to London in a few weeks, where he
finally found work and remained for two years, most of the time at
Mr. Penn’s engine shop in Greenwich. In the spring of 1813 he
worked his way through southern England and Wales to Dublin,
where he spent the summer constructing nail-making machinery for
a Mr. Robinson, who had determined to introduce the industry into
Ireland. The machinery, however, was never set at work owing to the
opposition of the workmen, and the trade left Ireland permanently.
Fairbairn went from Dublin to Liverpool and proceeded to
Manchester, the city to which Nasmyth, Roberts, Whitworth and
Bodmer all gravitated. He found work with an Adam Parkinson,
remaining with him for two years as a millwright, at good wages. “In
those days,” wrote Fairbairn, “a good millwright was a man of large
resources; he was generally well educated, and could draw out his
own designs and work at the lathe; he had a knowledge of mill
machinery, pumps, and cranes, could turn his hand to the bench or
the forge with equal adroitness and facility. If hard pressed, as was
frequently the case in country places far from towns, he could devise
for himself expedients which enabled him to meet special
requirements, and to complete his work without assistance. This was
the class of men with whom I associated in early life,—proud of their
calling, fertile in resources, and aware of their value in a country
where the industrial arts were rapidly developing.”[68]
[68] “Useful Information for Engineers, Second Series,” p. 212.

In 1817 Fairbairn and James Lillie, a shopmate, started out as

general millwrights. They hired a small shed for 12 shillings a week
and equipped it with a lathe of their own making, to turn shafts, and
“a strong Irishman to drive it.” Their first order of importance came
from Mr. Adam Murray, a large cotton spinner, who took them over
his mill and asked them whether they were competent to renew his
main drive. They boldly replied that they were willing and able to
execute the work, but were more than apprehensive when Mr.
Murray told them he would call the next day and look over their
workshop to satisfy himself. He came, pondered over “the
nakedness of the land,” “sized up” the young partners and told them
to go ahead. Although a rush job, the work was done on time and so
well that Murray recommended the new firm to Mr. John Kennedy,
the largest cotton spinner in the kingdom. For his firm, MacConnel &
Kennedy, Fairbairn & Lillie equipped a large, new mill in 1818, which
was an immediate success and at once put the struggling partners in
the front rank of engineering millwrights.
“They found the machinery driven by large, square cast-iron shafts
on which huge wooden drums, some of them as much as four feet in
diameter, revolved at the rate of about forty revolutions a minute; and
the couplings were so badly fitted that they might be heard creaking
and groaning a long way off.... Another serious defect lay in the
construction of the shafts, and in the mode of fixing the couplings,
which were constantly giving way, so that a week seldom passed
without one or more breaks-down.”[69]
 [69] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 389.

Fairbairn remedied this by the introduction of wrought-iron shafts,

driven at double or treble the speed, and by improving and
standardizing the design of pulleys, hangers and couplings. In the
course of a few years a revolution was effected, and by 1840 the
shafting speeds in textile mills had risen to from 300 to 350
revolutions per minute.
William Fairbairn’s influence was felt in many ways. His treatise on
“Mills and Millwork” and numerous papers before the learned
societies were authoritative for many years. He improved the design
of waterwheels, and was one of the first to undertake iron
shipbuilding as a special industry. He established a plant at Millwall,
on the Thames, “where in the course of some fourteen years he built
upwards of a hundred and twenty iron ships, some of them above
two thousand tons burden. It was, in fact, the first great iron
shipbuilding yard in Britain.”[70] To facilitate the building of his iron
ships he invented, about 1839, improved riveting machinery. With
Robert Stephenson he built the Conway and Britannia Tubular
Bridges. Probably no man in England did so much to extend the use
of iron into new fields, and his formulæ for the strength of boilers,
tubing, shafting, etc., were standard for years. Like Nasmyth, William
Fairbairn has left an autobiography which gives a full account of his
career. It is not, however, so well written or so interesting. He died in
1874, at the age of eighty-five, loaded with every honor the nation
could bestow.
[70] Ibid., p. 394.

His younger brother, Sir Peter Fairbairn, of Leeds, was

apprenticed to a millwright while William was a journeyman
mechanic in London. A few years later he became foreman in a
machine shop constructing cotton machinery, and for ten years he
worked in England, Scotland and on the Continent, wholly on textile
machinery. In 1828 he came to Leeds, in the first flush of its
manufacturing prosperity. Mr. Marshall, who had helped Matthew
Murray, gave him his start and encouraged him to take over the
Wellington Foundry, which, under Fairbairn’s management, was for
thirty years one of the greatest machine shops in England. To the
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com