IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (part 1 of 8)

IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (part 1 of 8)

Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils themselves have declared, especially those in which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which have been said are approved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved sincere and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of God they had recognised as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is even most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert —presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be anathema."

PAPACY: A. D. 1870. End of the Temporal Sovereignty. Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy. The Law of the Papal Guarantees.

The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. {2478} The French Government of National Defence, which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not, in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence for the last time. Among its members now sat those who represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated. The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:

Article I.—The person of the Sovereign Pontiff is sacred and inviolable.

Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those established in the case of an attack directed against the person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The discussion of religious subjects is completely free.

Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.

Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane) of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces, Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay, gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself to assume the expenses of the museums and library.

Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment established in the preceding article, will continue to have the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces, villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable, are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all expropriation on the ground of public utility.

Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant, no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.

Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by the Council.

Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits, perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested with purely spiritual functions.

Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all the acts of the said ministry.

{2479}

Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office, participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in virtue of the laws of the kingdom.

Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right. To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities, according to the same (international) right, in going to and from the place of their mission.

Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government. To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican, or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of despatches or correspondence furnished with the official Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by the said office with the authorised designation of 'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.

Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic institutions founded for the education and culture of ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See, without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the kingdom.

Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic clergy is abolished.

Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right, throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation to benefices under royal patronage.

Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every other form of Government assent for the publication and execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished. However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these (ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and 'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical institutions and of their property remain unaltered.

Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical) authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State, or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.

Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.

Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.

The object of this law was to carry out still further than had yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."

J. W. Probyn, Italy, 1815 to 1878, chapter 11.

The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it: "Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made the pretext for stern military repression. {2480} Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the protection of the agents of that very power against whose presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders, the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome interpreted their pledges, that the change of government should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX. has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX. found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. … Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th [1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of 1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes that followed the accession of a new king, and when the diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action, the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most optimist of the Italian party."

Chevalier O'Clery, The Making of Italy, chapter 26.

PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887. The Culturkampf in Germany. The "May Laws" and their repeal.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

PAPACY: A. D. 1878. Election of Leo XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1891. Disestablishment of the Church in Brazil.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

PAPACY: A. D. 1892. Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to the United States of America.

In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church, 'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid, concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"

_Forum, May, 1893 (volume 15, page 278)._

----------PAPACY:End--------

PAPAGOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

PAPAL GUARANTEES, Law of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

PAPAL STATES.

See STATES OF THE CHURCH; also PAPACY.

PAPER BLOCKADE.

See BLOCKADE, PAPER.

PAPER MONEY.

See MONEY AND BANKING.

PAPHLAGONIANS, The.

A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.

Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often governed by local princes.

PAPIN, Inventions of.

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

PAPINEAU REBELLION, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PAPUANS, The.

"In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper, Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes, and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those races. {2481} The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah, crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."

J. S. Kingsley, editor, The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History, volume 6, page 42.

ALSO IN: A. R. Wallace, The Malay Archipelago, chapter 40.

PARABOLANI OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

"The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation, instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these restraints were transient and ineffectual."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47, foot-note.

ALSO IN: J. Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9.

PARACELSUS.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY.

----------PARAGUAY: Start--------

PARAGUAY: The name.

"De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique ever having borne that name."

T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, page 44.

PARAGUAY: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES, and TUPI.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557. Discovery and exploration of La Plata. Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.

The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in 1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this "Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of 2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests. Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way. Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana, where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in 1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600 souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400 adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and boldly marched across country, making an important exploration and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he was not successful in his government, and the discontented colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain, with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular combination of outward civilization and of primitive simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70 years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time, therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed the basis of the plan of government founded by the great Irala. {2482} The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them. Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as herdsmen."

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapters 5 and 16.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1, chapters 2-3, 5-7, and 11.

R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapters 16-23.

Father Charlevoix, History of Paraguay, books 1-3.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873. The rule of the Jesuits. The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II. Disastrous War with Brazil.

"Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D, 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608, baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits, married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and instructors. With the whole labouring population under control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion, they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the time of the general crusade of the European powers against their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain determined a general collapse of her power in the American colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But, although the party of emancipation was the strongest and seized the reins of government, there were still many among the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the projected confederation.

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

All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern, gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion … (1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death, at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions, imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory, depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though there was something like method in his madness. There were faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign, though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been altogether unfavourable to the development of public prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and 400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857. Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in the field and in his fortresses. {2483} Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which lasted five years (1865-1870).

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873 only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than doubled the males."

A. Gallenga, South America, chapter 16.

ALSO IN: _Father Charlevoix, History of Paraguay._

_J. R. Rengger and Longchamps, The Reign of Dr. Francia._

_T. Carlyle, Dr. Francia (Essays, volume 6)._

_C. A. Washburn, History of Paraguay._

_R. F. Burton, Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay._

T. J. Page, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay, chapters 27-30.

T. Griesinger, The Jesuits, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

J. E. Darras, General History of the Catholic Church, period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4).

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1870-1894. The Republic under a new Constitution.

Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution, the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in 1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.

----------PARAGUAY: End--------

PARALI, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PARALUS, The.

The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for the conveyance of despatches and other official service.

PARASANG, The.

The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance, averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and others, something less than three geographical miles. The modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated distance, which generally, however, overruns three geographical miles.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 10, note B (volume 1).

PARAWIANAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

PARICANIANS, The.

The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied the territory of modern Baluchistan.

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Persia, chapter 1.

PARILIA, PULILIA, The.

The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 21, with foot-note.

----------PARIS: Start--------

PARIS: The beginning.

A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards. "Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia; Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian. Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then this name has been preserved in all the histories and public records."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 2, chapter 7, note.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

PARIS: Julian's residence.

Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar (355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii (whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position. They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite residence."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 2, chapter 7.

PARIS: The capital of Clovis.

Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Merovingians, chapter 5.

{2484}

PARIS: A. D. 511-752. Under the Merovingians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 511-752.

PARIS: A. D. 845. Sacked by the Normans.

"France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. … Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it being scarcely possible to account for the condition of Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that the country had long previously received a considerable Danish population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river: Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. … With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles. Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body; neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845] the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude. The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city, generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them, dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this disgraceful compromise."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: C. F. Keary, The Vikings in Western Christendom, chapter 9.

PARIS: A. D. 857.-861. Twice ravaged by the Northmen.

"The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three churches were found standing—Saint-Denis, Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis, Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida. Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken, on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the ruthless savages of the North entered Paris. Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire, and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and presently got him settled in the country as a baptized Christian and a vassal.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

PARIS: A. D. 885-886. The great siege by the Northmen.

"In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France, they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. … {2485} On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000 men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation, the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes, lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop, Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November, 886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants obeyed not the emperor.'"

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 12 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 5.

C. F. Keary, The Vikings in Western Christendom, chapter 15.

PARIS: A. D. 987. First becomes the capital of France.

"Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the capital of France until after the accession of the third dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 1, page 280.

PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199. Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.

"During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people; and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow, and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the court, in works of public utility, in the construction of paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 4.

PARIS: A. D. 1328. The splendor and gaiety of the Court.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.

PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383. The building of the Bastille.

See BASTILLE.

PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358. The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.

See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.

PARIS: A. D. 1381. The Insurrection of the Maillotins.

At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal, where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons, Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital. The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during the minority of the young king], powerless to make them submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at Rosebecque.

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5.

PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415. The reign of the Cabochiens. The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARIS: A. D. 1418. The massacre of Armagnacs.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422. King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

PARIS: A. D. 1429. The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PARIS: A. D. 1436. Recovery from the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

PARIS: A. D. 1465. Siege by the League of the Public Weal.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

PARIS: A. D. 1496. Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1567. The Battle of St. Denis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

PARIS: A. D. 1572. The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589. Insurrection of the Catholic League. The Day of Barricades. Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PARIS: A. D. 1590. The siege by Henry IV. Horrors of famine and disease. Relief by the Duke of Parma.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

PARIS: A. D. 1594. Henry IV.'s entry. Expulsion of Jesuits.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1636. Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands. The capital in peril.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652. In the wars of the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651; and 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1652. The Battle of Porte St. Antoine and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799. Scenes of the Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.

PARIS: A. D. 1814. Surrender to the Allied armies.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and MARCH-APRIL).

PARIS: A. D. 1815. The English and Prussian armies in the city. Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February). Revolution. Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June). Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux. Insurrection consequent on closing them.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1851. The Coup d'Etat.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

{2486}

PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871. Siege by the Germans. Capitulation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May). The insurgent Commune. Its Reign of Terror. Second Siege of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

----------PARIS: End--------

PARIS, Congress of (1856).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856; and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, Declaration of.

See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, The Parliament of.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PARIS, Treaty of (1763).

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

PARIS, Treaty of (1783).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

PARIS, Treaty of (1814).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

PARIS, Treaty of (1815).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS, University of.

See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.

PARISII, The.

See PARIS: THE BEGINNING; and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

----------Subject: Start--------

PARLIAMENT, The English: Early stages of its evolution.

"There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body. It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest, had become not a little anomalous, and not a little fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man, but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special function of the body into which the old national Assembly has changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man, the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; … but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III., a popular element was fast making its way into the national Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this time become the more practical right of choosing representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as distinct from the gathering of the people in their own persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The earliest object for which they were called together was probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular Chamber. … {2487} When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights from every county, but also two citizens from every city and two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of Parliament."

E. A. Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapters 6, 13-14.

_R. Gneist, The English Parliament._

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 7.

A. Bissett, Short History of English Parliament, chapters 2-3.

See, also, WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274; and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244. Earliest use of the name.

In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name 'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

H. Gneist, History of the English Constitution, chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1).

"The name given to these sessions of Council [the national councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin 'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme, may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further, although when the term comes into use it is applied retrospectively."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13, section 159.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258. The Mad Parliament.

An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from whom it extorted an important reorganization of the government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264. Simon de Montfort's Parliament. See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274; and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295. Development under Edward I.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376. The Good Parliament.

The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament; although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone by its successor.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 16 (volume 2).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388. The Wonderful Parliament.

In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The doings of this Parliament [which came together in February, 1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the block.

J. Gairdner, Houses of Lancaster and York, chapter 2, section 5.

ALSO IN: C. H. Pearson, English History in the 14th Century, chapter 11.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404. The Unlearned Parliament.

"This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372, directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had complained more than once that the members of the House of Commons spent more time on private suits than on public business."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422. First acquisition of Privilege.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425. The Parliament of Bats.

The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485. Depression under the Yorkist kings.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603. Under Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614. The Addled Parliament.

In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious members promised to manage for him and make docile to his royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old grievances, especially discussing the legality of the impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme, James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, page 599.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640. The Short Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640. The Long Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648. The Rump.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649. Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653. The Barebones or Little Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659. The Rump restored.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740. Rise and development of the Cabinet as an organ of Parliamentary government.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693. The Triennial Bill.

In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15 (volume 3).

{2488}

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703. The Aylesbury election case.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707. Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain. Representation of Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716. The Septennial Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771. Last struggle against the Press. Freedom of reporting secured.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727. Defeat of the first Reform measure.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830. State of the unreformed representation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832. The first Reform of the Representation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867. The second Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883. Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885. The third Reform Bill (text and comment).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

----------PARLIAMENT: End--------

PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.

See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

"When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute, moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it. There especially were adopted all general regulations which the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief, was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established, either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX. [A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in a change which had taken place in the character of the Parliament, through which its function and authority became distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he provided for the decision of complaints against officers of the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it, that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively, but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament. Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons, three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training, the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons. The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its members were required to be constantly resident in Paris. {2489} By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called, had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king … had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals, had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at length formally declined to register it among their records. Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful. In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such orders the Parliament generally submitted."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 8.

"It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy [the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum [also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial, that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris, besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified in consequence of this power of refusal."

Lord Brougham, History of England and France under the House of Lancaster, note 66.

For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris and the crown which immediately preceded the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.

ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie, Marie Antoinette, chapters 6-11.

PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

----------PARMA: Start--------

PARMA: Founding of.

See MUTINA.

PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115. In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349. Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PARMA: A. D. 1513. Conquest by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PARMA: A. D. 1515. Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PARMA: A. D. 1521. Retaken by the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592. Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia, into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

"Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered the interests of the holy see subordinate to the aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated during his life, they led to the establishment of his descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly 200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years before, to secure the support of the papacy against France, bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V. was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions, which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law, Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550], obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding Placentia again to him. {2490} But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that place; and it was only the brilliant military career of Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch; and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories. The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy see and the monarchy of Spain."

G. Procter, History of Italy, chapter 9.

PARMA: A. D. 1635. Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637. Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards. The French alliance renounced.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

PARMA: A. D. 1725. Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PARMA: A. D. 1731. Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731; and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1735. Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735; and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748. Changes of masters.

In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to the infant of Spain in 1748.

PARMA: A. D. 1767. Expulsion of the Jesuits. Papal excommunication of the Duke.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PARMA: A. D. 1801. The Duke's son made King of Etruria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PARMA: A. D. 1802. The duchy declared a dependency of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

PARMA: A. D. 1814. Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

PARMA: A. D. 1831. Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise. Her restoration by Austria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849. Abortive revolution.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861. End of the duchy. Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------PARMA: End--------

PARMA, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PARNASSUS.

See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.

PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

PARSEES, The.

"On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran. The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs, after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there, persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta], faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions have been found which prove that these settlers reached the coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time their descendants form a considerable part of the population of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle Persian."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5).

See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

PARSONS' CAUSE, The.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

PARTHENII, The.

This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

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

See TARENTUM.

----------PARTHENON: Start--------

PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.

"Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. … The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum, where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium, foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 3.

See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

{2491}

PARTHENON: A. D. 1687. Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------PARTHENON: End--------

PARTHENOPÉ.

See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

"The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian, skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded; the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is further increased by the extension of cultivation to a considerable distance from the base of the most southern of the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. … Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the region described. A portion of that region formed the district called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E. longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved, appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts, &c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained their independence from the time of their settlement in the district called after their name until the sudden arrival in their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about 554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria. Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous, it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death, that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

_G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia._

Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his [successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus, once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the empire."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 1.

In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D. 165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217], which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia, was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and retired within the lines of their camp. {2492} Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies, therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions, and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the Parthian throne.

G. Rawlinson, The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapters 3-21.

ALSO IN: _G. Rawlinson, Story of Parthia._

PARTHIAN HORSE. PARTHIAN ARROWS.

"Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or round and round his square or column, never charging it, but at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed shafts."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 11.

----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------

PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS. Abolitionists.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Adullamites.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Aggraviados.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: American.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Ammoniti.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anarchists.

See ANARCHISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anilleros.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anti-Corn-Law League.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anti-Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anti-Masonic.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832; and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anti-Renters.

See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Anti-Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808; 1828-1832; 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Armagnacs.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Arrabiati.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Assideans.

See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Barnburners.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Beggars.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Bianchi.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Bigi, or Greys.

See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Blacks, or Black Guelfs.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Blue-Light Federalists.

See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Blues.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN; and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Border Ruffians.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Boys in Blue.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Bucktails.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Bundschuh.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Burgundians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415; and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Burschenschaft.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Butternuts.

See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Cabochiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Calixtines, or Utraquists.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Camisards.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Caps and Hats.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Carbonari.

See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Carlists.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Carpet-baggers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Cavaliers and Roundheads.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER); also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Charcoals.

See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Chartists.

See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Chasidim.

See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Chouans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Christinos.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Claybanks and Charcoals.

See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Clear Grits.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Clichyans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Clintonians.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Cods.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Communeros.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Communists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Conservative (English).

See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Constitutional Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Copperheads.

See COPPERHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Cordeliers.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Country Party.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Covenanters.

See COVENANTERS; also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645, and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Crêtois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Decamisados.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1825-1828; 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Doughfaces.

See DOUGHFACES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Douglas Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Equal Rights Party.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Escocés.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Essex Junto.

See ESSEX JUNTO.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Farmers' Alliance.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812; and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Feds.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Fenians.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867; and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Free Soilers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Free Traders.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: The Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Gachupines.

See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Girondists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Gomerists.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Grangers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Graybacks.

See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Greenbackers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Greens.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Greys.

See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Guadalupes.

See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See GUELFS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Gueux, or Beggars.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Half-breeds.

See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Hard-Shell Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Hats and Caps.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Home Rulers or Nationalists.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; also ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886, and 1892-1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Hooks and Cods, or Kabeljauws.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354; and 1482-1493.

{2493}

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Huguenots.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599; 1620-1622, to 1627-1628; 1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Hunkers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Iconoclasts of the 8th century.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Iconoclasts of the 16th century.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Importants.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Independent Republicans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Independents, or Separatists.

See INDEPENDENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Intransigentists.

See INTRANSIGENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Irredentists.

See IRREDENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Jacobins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Jacobites.

See JACOBITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Jacquerie.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Jingoes.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Kabeljauws.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Kharejites.

See KHAREJITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Know Nothing.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Ku Klux Klan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Land Leaguers.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Left. Left Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Legitimists.

See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Leliaerds.

See LELIAERDS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Levellers.

See LEVELLERS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Liberal Republicans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Liberal Unionists.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Libertines.

See LIBERTINES OF GENEVA.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Liberty Boys.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: SONS OF LIBERTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Liberty Party.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Locofocos.

See LOCOFOCOS; and NEW YORK: A.D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Lollards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Malignants.

See MALIGNANTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: The Marais, or Plain.

See FRANCE A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Marians.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Martling Men.

See MARTLING MEN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Melchites.

See MELCHITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: The Mountain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Mugwumps.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Muscadins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Nationalists, Irish.

See ENGLAND: A.D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Neri.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Nihilists.

See NIHILISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Oak Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1708.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Opportunists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Orangemen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1705-1706.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Orleanists.

See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: The Ormée.

See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Orphans.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Ottimati.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Palleschi.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Patrons of Husbandry.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1801.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Peep-o'-Day Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798, and 1784.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Pelucones.

See PELUCONES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Petits Maîtres.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Piagnoni.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1408.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: The Plain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Plebs.

See PLEBEIANS; also, ROME: THE BEGINNING, and after.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Politiques.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Popolani.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Populist or People's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Prohibitionists.

See PROHIBITIONISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Protectionists.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Puritan.

See PURITANS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Republican (Earlier).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Ribbonmen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Right.—Right Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Roundheads.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER); also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Sansculottes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Secesh.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Serviles.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Shias.

See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Silver-greys. Snuff-takers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Socialists.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Soft-Shell Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Sons of Liberty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY, and 1864 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Stalwarts.

See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Steel Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Sunni.

See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Taborites.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Tammany Ring.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871; and TAMMANY SOCIETY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Tories.

See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680; CONSERVATIVE PARTY; and TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Tugenbund.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Ultramontanists.

See ULTRAMONTANE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: United Irishmen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1703-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Utraquists.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Whigs (American).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Whigs (English).

See WHIGS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Whiteboys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: White Hoods.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379, and 'WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Whites.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Wide Awakes.

See WIDE AWAKES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Woolly-heads.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Yellows;

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Yorkinos.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Young Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Young Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Zealots.

See ZEALOTS; and JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

PARTITION OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE, The Treaties of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

PARTITIONS OF POLAND.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773; and 1793-1706.

PARU, The Great.

See EL DORADO.

PASARGADÆ.

One of the tribes of the ancient Persians, from which came the royal race of the Achæmenids.

See PERSIA: ANCIENT PEOPLE AND COUNTRY.

PASCAGOULAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

PASCAL I., Pope, A. D. 817-824.

Pascal II., Pope, 1099-1118.

PASCUA.

See VECTIGAL.

PASSAROWITZ, Peace of (1718).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718; and TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

PASSAU: Taken by the Bavarians and French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

PASSAU, Treaty of.

See GERMANY; A. D. 1546-1552.

PASSÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

PASTEUR, Louis, and his work in Bacteriology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

PASTORS, The Crusade of the.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

PASTRENGO, Battle of (1799).

SEE FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

{2494}

PASTRY WAR, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

PATAGONIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

PATARA, Oracle of.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

PATARENES. PATERINI.

About the middle of the 11th century, there appeared at Milan a young priest named Ariald who caused a great commotion by attacking the corruptions of clergy and people and preaching repentance and reform. The whole of Milan became "separated into two hotly contending parties. This controversy divided families; it was the one object which commanded universal participation. The popular party, devoted to Ariald and Landulph [a deacon who supported Ariald], was nicknamed 'Pataria', which in the dialect of Milan signified a popular faction; and as a heretical tendency might easily grow out of, or attach itself to, this spirit of separatism so zealously opposed to the corruption of the clergy, it came about that, in the following centuries, the name Patarenes was applied in Italy as a general appellation to denote sects contending against the dominant church and clergy—sects which, for the most part, met with great favour from the people."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church (Bohn's edition), volume 6, page 67.

"The name Patarini is derived from the quarter of the rag-gatherers, Pataria."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages, page 253, foot-note.

During the fierce controversy of the 11th century over the question of celibacy for the clergy (see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122), the party in Milan which supported Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) in his inflexible warfare against the marriage of priests were called by their opponents Patarines.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 6, chapter 3.

See, also, CATHARISTS: ALBIGENSES; and PAULICIANS; and TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

PATAVIUM, Early knowledge of.

See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PATAY, Battle of (1429).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PATCHINAKS. UZES. COMANS.

The Patchinaks, or Patzinaks, Uzes and Comans were successive swarms of Turkish nomads which came into southeastern Europe during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, following and driving each other into the long and often devastated Danubian provinces of the Byzantine empire, and across the Balkans. The wars of the empire with the Patchinaks were many and seriously exhausting. The Comans are said to have been Turcomans, with the first part of their true name dropped off.

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 3.

See, also, RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900.

PATER PATRATUS.

See FETIALES.

PATER PATRIÆ.

"The first individual, belonging to an epoch strictly historical, who received this title was Cicero, to whom it was voted by the Senate after the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 5.

PATERINI, The.

See PATARENES.

PATNA, Massacre at (1763).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST, The.

"It was not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state [consequent on the revolt suppressed by Titus] that it revived again in appearance, under the form of two separate communities mostly dependent upon each other: one under a sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly temporal and partly spiritual,—but each comprehending all the Jewish families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head of the Jews on this side of the Euphrates appeared the Patriarch of the West: the chief of the Mesopotamian community assumed the striking but more temporal title of 'Resch-Glutha,' or' Prince of the Captivity. The origin of both these dignities, especially of the Western patriarchate, is involved in much obscurity."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 18.

See, also, JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PATRIARCHS.

See PRIMATES.

PATRICIAN, The class.

See COMITIA CURIATA; also, PLEBEIANS.

PATRICIAN, The Later Roman Title.

"Introduced by Constantine at a time when its original meaning had been long forgotten, it was designed to be, and for a while remained, the name not of an office but of a rank, the highest after those of emperor and consul. As such, it was usually conferred upon provincial governors of the first class, and in time also upon barbarian potentates whose vanity the Roman court might wish to flatter. Thus Odoacer, Theodoric, the Burgundian king Sigismund, Clovis himself, had all received it from the Eastern emperor: so too in still later times it was given to Saracenic and Bulgarian princes. In the sixth and seventh centuries an invariable practice seems to have attached it to the Byzantine viceroys of Italy, and thus, as we may conjecture, a natural confusion of ideas had made men take it to be, in some sense, an official title, conveying an extensive though undefined authority, and implying in particular the duty of overseeing the Church and promoting her temporal interests. It was doubtless with such a meaning that the Romans and their bishop bestowed it upon the Frankish kings, acting quite without legal right, for it could emanate from the emperor alone, but choosing it as the title which bound its possessor to render to the church support and defence against her Lombard foes."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 4.

PATRICK, St., in Ireland.

See IRELAND: 5-8TH CENTURIES; and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND.

PATRIMONY OF ST. PETER, The.

The territory over which the Pope formerly exercised and still claims temporal sovereignty.

See STATES OF THE CHURCH also, PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and after.

PATRIOT WAR, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PATRIPASSIANS.

See NOËTIANS.

PATRONAGE, Political.

See STALWARTS.

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

PATROONS OF NEW NETHERLAND, and their colonies.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

PATZINAKS, The.

See PATCHINAKS.

PAUL, St., the Apostle, the missionary labors of.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100; and ATHENS: B. C. 54 (?).

Paul, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1796-1801.

Paul I., Pope, 757-767.

Paul II., Pope, 1464-1471.

Paul III., Pope, 1534-1549.

Paul IV., Pope, 1555-1559.

Paul V., Pope, 1605-1621.

{2495}

PAULETTE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

PAULICIANS, The.

"After a pretty long obscurity the Manichean theory revived with some modification in the western parts of Armenia, and was propagated in the 8th and 9th centuries by a sect denominated Paulicians. Their tenets are not to be collected with absolute certainty from the mouths of their adversaries, and no apology of their own survives. There seems however to be sufficient evidence that the Paulicians, though professing to acknowledge and even to study the apostolical writings, ascribed the creation of the world to an evil deity, whom they supposed also to be the author of the Jewish law, and consequently rejected all the Old Testament. … Petrus Siculus enumerates six Paulician heresies.

1. They maintained the existence of two deities, the one evil, and the creator of this world; the other good, … the author of that which is to come. 2. They refused to worship the Virgin, and asserted that Christ brought his body from heaven. 3. They rejected the Lord's Supper. 4. And the adoration of the cross. 5. They denied the authority of the Old Testament, but admitted the New, except the epistles of St. Peter, and, perhaps, the Apocalypse. 6. They did not acknowledge the order of priests.

There seems every reason to suppose that the Paulicians, notwithstanding their mistakes, were endowed with sincere and zealous piety, and studious of the Scriptures. … These errors exposed them to a long and cruel persecution, during which a colony of exiles was planted by one of the Greek emperors in Bulgaria. From this settlement they silently promulgated their Manichean creed over the western regions of Christendom. A large part of the commerce of those countries with Constantinople was carried on for several centuries by the channel of the Danube. This opened an immediate intercourse with the Paulicians, who may be traced up that river through Hungary and Bavaria, or sometimes taking the route of Lombardy, into Switzerland and France. In the last country, and especially in its southern and eastern provinces, they became conspicuous under a variety of names; such as Catharists, Picards, Paterins, but, above all, Albigenses. It is beyond a doubt that many of these sectaries owed their origin to the Paulicians; the appellation of Bulgarians was distinctively bestowed upon them; and, according to some writers, they acknowledged a primate or patriarch resident in that country. … It is generally agreed that the Manicheans from Bulgaria did not penetrate into the west of Europe before the year 1000; and they seem to have been in small numbers till about 1140. … I will only add, in order to obviate cavilling, that I use the word Albigenses for the Manichean sects, without pretending to assert that their doctrines prevailed more in the neighbourhood of Albi than elsewhere. The main position is that a large part of the Languedocian heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the Paulician opinions. If anyone chooses rather to call them Catharists, it will not be material."

H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 2, and foot-notes.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 54.

See, also, CATHARISTS, and ALBIGENSES.

PAULINES, The.

See BARNABITES.

PAULISTAS (of Brazil).

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

PAULUS HOOK, The storming of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

PAUSANIUS, The mad conduct of.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

----------PAVIA: Start--------

PAVIA: Origin of the city.

See LIGURIANS.

PAVIA: A. D. 270. Defeat of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PAVIA: A. D. 493-523. Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

PAVIA: A. D. 568-571. Siege by the Lombards. Made capital of the Lombard kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

PAVIA: A. D. 753-754. Siege by Charlemagne.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

PAVIA: A. D. 924. Destruction by the Hungarians.

See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

PAVIA: A. D. 1004. Burned by the German troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

PAVIA: 11-12th Centuries. Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PAVIA: A. D. 1395. Relation to the duchy of the Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PAVIA: A. D. 1524-1525. Siege and Battle. Defeat and capture of Francis I., of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

PAVIA: A. D. 1527. Taken and plundered by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

PAVIA: A. D. 1745. Taken by the French and Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

PAVIA: A. D. 1796. Capture and pillage by the French.

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

----------PAVIA: End--------

PAVON, Battle of.

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

PAVONIA, The Patroon colony of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

PAWNEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PAWTUCKET INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAXTON BOYS, Massacre of Indians by the.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

PAYAGUAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAYENS, Hugh de, and the founding of the Order of the Templars.

See TEMPLARS.

PAYTITI, The Great.

See EL DORADO.

PAZZI, Conspiracy of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

PEA INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PEABODY EDUCATION FUND.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867-1891.

PEACE, The King's.

See KING'S PEACE; also LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1110, 1135, and 1300.

PEACE CONVENTION, The.

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

PEACE OF AUGUSTUS, AND PEACE OF VESPASIAN.

See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

PEACE OF THE DAMES, THE LADIES' PEACE.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

{2496}

PEACH TREE CREEK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

PEACOCK THRONE, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

PEAGE, PEAKE.

See WAMPUM.

----------PEASANT REVOLTS: Start--------

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 287. The Bagauds of Gaul.

See BAGAUDS.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1358. The Jacquerie of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1381. Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1450. Jack Cade's rebellion in England.

See ENGLAND; A. D. 1450.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1492-1514. The Bundschuh in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1513. The Kurucs of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1521-1525. The Peasants' War in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1652-1653. Peasant War in Switzerland.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

----------PEASANT REVOLTS: End--------

PEC-SÆTAN.

Band of Angles who settled on the moorlands of the Peak of Derbyshire.

PEDDAR-WAY, The.

The popular name of an old Roman road in England, which runs from Brancaster, on the Wash, via Colchester, to London.

PEDIÆI. THE PEDION.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PEDRO (called The Cruel), King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1350-1369.

Pedro, King of Portugal, 1357-1367.

Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, 1822-1831;

Pedro IV., King of Portugal, 1826

Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, 1831-1889

Pedro II., King of Portugal, 1667-1706.

Pedro III., King-Consort of Portugal, 1777-1786.

Pedro V., King of Portugal, 1853-1861.

Pedro.

See, also, PETER.

PEEL, Sir Robert: Administrations of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837, 1837-1839, 1841-1842, to 1846; TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1842, and 1845-1846; MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

PEEP-O'-DAY BOYS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798; and 1784.

PEERS. PEERAGE, The British.

"The estate of the peerage is identical with the house of lords."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, volume 2, page 184.

See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF; and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

PEERS OF FRANCE, The Twelve.

See TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

PEGU, British acquisition of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

PEHLEVI LANGUAGE.

"Under the Arsacids, the Old Persian passed into Middle Persian, which at a later time was known by the name of the Parthians, the tribe at that time supreme in Persia. Pahlav and Pehlevi mean Parthian, and, as applied to language, the language of the Parthians, i. e. of the Parthian era. … In the latest period of the dominion of the Sassanids, the recent Middle Persian or Parsec took the place of Pehlevi."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.

PEHUELCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

----------PEKIN: Start--------

PEKIN: The origin of the city.

See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

PEKIN: A. D. 1860. English and French forces in the city. The burning of the Summer Palace.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

----------PEKIN: End--------

PELAGIANISM.

"Pelagianism was … the great intellectual controversy of the church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the fourth. … Everyone is aware that this controversy turned upon the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the relations between the liberty of man and the Divine power, of the influence of God upon the moral activity of men. … About the year 405, a British monk, Pelagius (this is the name given him by the Greek and Latin writers; his real name, it appears, was Morgan), was residing at Rome. There has been infinite discussion as to his origin, his moral character, his capacity, his learning; and, under these various heads, much abuse has been lavished upon him; but this abuse would appear to be unfounded, for judging from the most authoritative testimony, from that of St. Augustin himself, Pelagius was a man of good birth, of excellent education, of pure life. A resident, as I have said, at Rome, and now a man of mature age, without laying down any distinct doctrines, without having written any book on the subject, Pelagius began, about the year I have mentioned, 405, to talk much about free-will, to insist urgently upon this moral fact, to expound it. There is no indication that he attacked any person about the matter, or that he sought controversy; he appears to have acted simply upon the belief that human liberty was not held in sufficient account, had not its due share in the religious doctrines of the period. These ideas excited no trouble in Rome, scarcely any debate. Pelagius spoke freely; they listened to him quietly. His principal disciple was Celestius, like him a monk, or so it is thought at least, but younger. … In 411 Pelagius and Celestius are no longer at Rome; we find them in Africa, at Hippo and at Carthage. … Their doctrines spread. … The bishop of Hippo began to be alarmed; he saw in these new ideas error and peril. … Saint Augustin was the chief of the doctors of the church, called upon more than any other to maintain the general system of her doctrines. … You see, from that time, what a serious aspect the quarrel took: everything was engaged in it, philosophy, politics, and religion, the opinions of Saint Augustin and his business, his self-love and his duty. He entirely abandoned himself to it." In the end, Saint Augustin and his opinions prevailed. The doctrines of Pelagius were condemned by three successive councils of the church, by three successive emperors and by two popes—one of whom was forced to reverse his first decision. His partisans were persecuted and banished. "After the year 418, we discover in history no trace of Pelagius. The name of Celestius is sometimes met with until the year 427; it then disappears. These two men once off the scene, their school rapidly declined."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization (translated by Hazlitt), volume 2, lecture. 5.

ALSO IN: P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, period 3, chapter 9.

See, also, PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

{2497}

PELASGIANS, The.

Under this name we have vague knowledge of a people whom the Greeks of historic times refer to as having preceded them in the occupancy of the Hellenic peninsula and Asia Minor, and whom they looked upon as being kindred to themselves in race. "Such information as the Hellenes … possessed about the Pelasgi, was in truth very scanty. They did not look upon them as a mythical people of huge giants—as, for example, in the popular tales of the modern Greeks the ancestors of the latter are represented as mighty warriors, towering to the height of poplar trees. There exist no Pelasgian myths, no Pelasgian gods, to be contrasted with the Greeks. … Thucydides, in whom the historic consciousness of the Hellenes finds its clearest expression, also regards the inhabitants of Hellas from the most ancient times, Pelasgi as well as Hellenes, as one nation. … And furthermore, according to his opinion genuine sons of these ancient Pelasgi continued through all times to dwell in different regions, and especially in Attica.

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

"It is inevitable that modern historians should take widely divergent views of a nation concerning which tradition is so uncertain. Some writers, among whom is Kiepert, think that the Pelasgi were a Semitic tribe, who immigrated into Greece. This theory, though it explains their presence on the coast, fails to account for their position at Dodona and in Thessaly. … In another view, which has received the assent of Thirlwall and Duncker, Pelasgian is nothing more than the name of the ancient inhabitants of the country, which subsequently gave way to the title Achaean, as this in its turn was supplanted by the term Hellenes. … We have no evidence to support the idea of a Pelasgic Age as a period of simple habits and agricultural occupations, which slowly gave way before the more martial age of the Achaeans. The civilization of the 'Achaean Age' exists only in the epic poems, and the 'Pelasgic Age' is but another name for the prehistoric Greeks, of whose agriculture we know nothing."

E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2.

See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS; ŒNOTRIANS; ARYANS; ITALY: ANCIENT.

PELAYO, King of the Asturias (or Oviedo) and Leon, A. D. 718-737.

PELHAMS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745; and 1757-1760.

PELIGNIANS, The.

See SABINES.

PELISIPIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

----------PELLA: Start--------

PELLA.

A new Macedonian capital founded by Archelaus, the ninth of the kings of Macedonia.

PELLA: Surrendered to the Ostrogoths.

See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

----------PELLA: End--------

PELOPIDS. PELOPONNESUS.

"Among the ancient legendary genealogies, there was none which figured with greater splendour, or which attracted to itself a higher degree of poetical interest and pathos, than that of the Pelopids:—Tantalus, Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, Agamemnon and Menelaus and Ægisthus, Helen and Klytaemnestra, Orestes and Elektra and Hermione. Each of these characters is a star of the first magnitude in the Grecian hemisphere. … Pelops is the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnesus: to find an eponym for every conspicuous local name was the invariable turn of Grecian retrospective fancy. The name Peloponnesus is not to be found either in the Iliad or the Odyssey, nor any other denomination which can be attached distinctly and specially to the entire peninsula. But we meet with the name in one of the most ancient post-Homeric poems of which any fragments have been preserved—the Cyprian Verses. … The attributes by which the Pelopid Agamemnon and his house are marked out and distinguished from the other heroes of the Iliad, are precisely those which Grecian imagination would naturally seek in an eponymus—superior wealth, power, splendour and regality."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 7.

"Of the … family of myths … that of Pelops [is] especially remarkable as attaching itself more manifestly and decisively than any other Heroic myth to Ionia and Lydia. We remember the royal house of Tantalus enthroned on the banks of the Sipylus, and intimately associated with the worship of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods. Members of this royal house emigrate and cross to Hellas from the Ionian ports; they bring with them bands of adventurous companions, a treasure of rich culture and knowledge of the world, arms and ornaments, and splendid implements of furniture, and gain a following among the natives, hitherto combined in no political union. … This was the notion formed by men like Thucydides as to the epoch occasioned by the appearance of the Pelopidæ in the earliest ages of the nation; and what element in this notion is either improbable or untenable. Do not all the traditions connected with Achæan princes of the house of Pelops point with one consent over the sea to Lydia?"

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.

PELOPONNESIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432, to B. C. 405; and ATHENS: B. C. 431, and after.

PELOPONNESUS, The Doric migration to.

See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PELTIER TRIAL, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

PELUCONES, The.

The name of one of the parties in Chilean politics, supposed to have some resemblance to the English Whigs.

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, page 279.

----------PELUSIUM: Start--------

PELUSIUM.

"Behind, as we enter Egypt [from the east] is the treacherous Lake Serbonis; in front the great marsh broadening towards the west; on the right the level melancholy shore of the almost tideless Mediterranean. At the very point of the angle stood of old the great stronghold Pelusium, Sin, in Ezekiel's days, 'the strength of Egypt' (xxx. 15). The most eastward Nile-stream flowed behind the city, and on the north was a port commodious enough to hold an ancient fleet. … As the Egyptian monarchy waned, Pelusium grew in importance, for it was the strongest city of the border. Here the last king of the Saïte line, Psammeticus III, son of Amasis, awaited Cambyses. The battle of Pelusium, which crushed the native power, may almost take rank among the decisive battles of the world. Had the Persians failed, they might never have won the command of the Mediterranean, without which they could scarcely have invaded Greece. Of the details of the action we know nothing."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 11.

It was at Pelusium that Pompey, defeated and flying from Cæsar, was assassinated.

{2498}

PELUSIUM: B. C. 47. Taken by the king of Pergamus.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 616. Surprised by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 640. Capture by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

----------PELUSIUM: End--------

PEMAQUID PATENT.

See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.

PEMAQUID PATENT: A. D. 1664. Purchased for the Duke of York.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1664.

PEN SELWOOD, Battle of.

The first battle fought, A. D. 1016, between the English king Edmund, or Eadmund, Ironsides, and his Danish rival Cnut, or Canute, for the crown of England. The Dane was beaten.

PENACOOK INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

PENDLE, Forest of.

A former forest in Lancashire, England, which was popularly believed to be the resort of "Lancashire Witches."

PENDLETON BILL, The.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

PENDRAGON.

See DRAGON.

PENESTÆ, The.

In ancient Thessaly there was "a class of serfs, or dependent cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who, tilling the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a proportion of its produce, furnished the retainers by which these great families were surrounded, served as their followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of villanage,—yet with the important reserve that they could not be sold out of the country, that they had a permanent tenure in the soil, and that they maintained among one another the relations of family and village. This … order of men, in Thessaly called the Penestæ, is assimulated by all ancient authors to the Helots of Luconia."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.

PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN OF McCLELLAN.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA; MAY: VIRGINIA, JUNE: VIRGINIA, JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA, JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA.

PENINSULAR WAR, The Spanish.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808 to 1812-1814.

PENN, William, and the colony of Pennsylvania.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1681. and after.

PENNAMITE AND YANKEE WAR.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1790.

----------PENNSYLVANIA: Start--------

PENNSYLVANIA. The aboriginal inhabitants and their relations to the white colonists.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, SUSQUEHANNAS, and SHAWANESE.

PENNSYLVANIA:A. D. 1629-1664. The Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE; A. D. 1620-1631, and after.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1632. Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1634. Partly embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1641. The settlement from New Haven, on the site of Philadelphia.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1673. Repossession of the Delaware by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681. The Proprietary grant to William Penn.

"William Penn was descended from a long line of sailor ancestors. His father, an admiral in the British navy, had held various important naval commands, and in recognition of his services had been honored by knighthood. A member of Parliament, and possessed of a considerable fortune, the path of worldly advancement seemed open and easy for the feet of his son, who had received a liberal education at Oxford, continued in the schools of the Continent. Beautiful in person, engaging in manner, accomplished in manly exercises and the use of the sword, fortune and preferment seemed to wait the acceptance of William Penn. But at the very outset of his career the Divine voice fell upon his ears as upon those of St. Paul." He became a follower of George Fox, and one of the people known as Quakers or Friends. "Many trials awaited the youthful convert. His father cast him off. He underwent a considerable imprisonment in the Tower for 'urging the cause of freedom with importunity.' … In time these afflictions abated. The influence of his family saved him from the heavier penalties which fell upon many of his co-religionists. His father on his death-bed reinstated him as his heir. 'Son William,' said the dying man, 'if you and your friends keep to your plain way of preaching and living, you will make an end of the priests.' Some years later we find him exerting an influence at Court which almost amounted to popularity. It is evident that, with all his boldness of opinion and speech, Penn possessed a tact and address which gave him the advantage over most of his sect in dealings with worldly people. … In 1680 his influence at Court and with moneyed men enabled him to purchase a large tract of land in east New Jersey, on which to settle a colony of Quakers, a previous colony having been sent out three years before to west New Jersey. Meanwhile a larger project filled his mind. His father had bequeathed to him a claim on the Crown for £16,000. Colonial property was then held in light esteem, and, with the help of some powerful friends, Penn was enabled so to press his claim as to secure the charter for that valuable grant which afterward became the State of Pennsylvania, and which included three degrees of latitude by five of longitude, west from the Delaware. 'This day,' writes Penn, January 5, 1681, 'my country was confirmed to me by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the king [Charles II.] would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales, being as this a pretty hilly country. I proposed (when the Secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales) Sylvania, and they added Penn to it, and though I much opposed it, and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he said 'twas past, and he would take it upon him. … I feared lest it should be looked upon as a vanity in me, and not as a respect of the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he often mentions with praise.' {2499} 'In return for this grant of 26,000,000 of acres of the best land in the universe, William Penn, it was agreed, was to deliver annually at Windsor Castle two beaver-skins, pay into the King's treasury one fifth of the gold and silver which the province might yield, and govern the province in conformity with the laws of England and as became a liege of England's King. He was to appoint judges and magistrates, could pardon all crimes except murder and treason, and whatsoever things he could lawfully do himself, he could appoint a deputy to do, he and his heirs forever.' The original grant was fantastically limited by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from Newcastle, northward and westward, to the beginning of the 40th degree of latitude. This was done to accommodate the Duke of York, who wished to retain the three lower counties as an appanage to the State of New York. A few months later he was persuaded to renounce this claim, and the charter of Penn was extended to include the western and southern shores of the Delaware Bay and River from the 43rd degree of latitude to the Atlantic. … The charter confirmed, a brief account of the country was published, and lands offered for sale on the easy terms of 40 shillings a hundred acres, and one shilling's rent a year in perpetuity. Numerous adventurers, many of them men of wealth and respectability, offered. The articles of agreement included a provision as to 'just and friendly conduct toward the natives.' … In April, 1681, he sent forward 'young Mr. Markham,' his relative, with a small party of colonists to take possession of the grant, and prepare for his own coming during the following year. … In August, 1682, Penn himself embarked."

Susan Coolidge (S. C. Woolsey), Short History of Philadelphia, chapter 2.

"The charter [to Penn], which is given complete in Hazard's Annals, consists of 23 articles, with a preamble. … The grant comprises all that part of America, islands included, which is bounded on the east by the Delaware River from a point on a circle twelve miles northward of New Castle town to the 43° north latitude if the Delaware extends so far; if not, as far as it does extend, and thence to the 43° by a meridian line. From this point westward five degrees of longitude on the 43° parallel; the western boundary to the 40th parallel, and thence by a straight line to the place of beginning. … Grants Penn rights to and use of rivers, harbors, fisheries, etc. … Creates and constitutes him Lord Proprietary of the Province, saving only his allegiance to the King, Penn to hold directly of the kings of England, 'as of our castle of Windsor in the county of Berks, in free and common socage, by fealty only, for all services, and not in capite, or by Knight's service, yielding and paying therefore to us, our heirs and successors, two beaver-skins.' … Grants Penn and his successors, his deputies and lieutenants, 'free, full, and absolute power' to make laws for raising money for the public uses of the Province, and for other public purposes at their discretion, by and with the advice and consent of the people or their representatives in assembly. … Grants power to appoint officers, judges, magistrates, etc., to pardon offenders."

J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. Clarkson, Memoirs of William Penn, volume 1, chapters 16-17.

S. Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, pages 485-504.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681-1682. Penn's Frame of Government.

Before the departure from England of the first company of colonists, Penn drew up a Frame of Government which he submitted to them, and to which they gave their assent and approval by their signatures, he signing the instrument likewise. The next year this Frame of Government was published by Penn, with a preface, "containing his own thoughts upon the origin, nature, object, and modes of Government. … The Frame, which followed this preface, consisted of twenty-four articles; and the Laws, which were annexed to the latter, were forty. By the Frame the government was placed in the Governor and Freemen of the province, out of whom were to be formed two bodies; namely, a Provincial Council and a General Assembly. These were to be chosen by the Freemen; and though the Governor or his Deputy was to be perpetual President, he was to have but a treble vote. The Provincial Council was to consist of seventy-two members. One third part, that is, twenty-four of them, were to serve for three years, one third for two, and the other third for one; so that there might be an annual succession of twenty-four new members, each third part thus continuing for three years and no longer. It was the office of this Council to prepare and propose bills, to see that the laws were executed, to take care of the peace and safety of the province, to settle the situation of ports, cities, market towns, roads, and other public places, to inspect the public treasury, to erect courts of justice, institute schools, and reward the authors of useful discovery. Not less than two thirds of these were necessary to make a quorum; and the consent of not less than two thirds of such quorum in all matters of moment. The General Assembly was to consist the first year of all the freemen, and the next of two hundred. These were to be increased afterwards according to the increase of the population of the province. They were to have no deliberative power; but, when bills were brought to them from the Governor and Provincial Council, to pass or reject them by a plain Yes or No. They were to present sheriffs and justices of the peace to the Governor, a double number for his choice of half. They were to be elected annually. All elections of members, whether to the Provincial Council or General Assembly, were to be by ballot. And this Charter or Frame of Government was not to be altered, changed, or diminished in any part or clause of it, without the consent of the Governor, or his heirs or assigns, and six parts out of seven of the Freemen both in the Provincial Council and General Assembly. With respect to the Laws, which I said before were forty in number, I shall only at present observe of them that they related to whatever may be included under the term 'Good Government of the Province'; some of them to liberty of conscience; others to civil officers and their qualifications; others to offences; others to legal proceedings, such as pleadings, processes, fines, imprisonments, and arrests; others to the natural servants and poor of the province. With respect to all of them it may be observed, that, like the Frame itself, they could not be altered but by the consent of the Governor, or his heirs, and the consent of six parts out of seven of the two bodies before mentioned."

T. Clarkson, Memoirs of William Penn, volume 1, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: S. Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, pages 558-574.

{2500}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682. Acquisition by Penn of the claims of the Duke of York to Delaware.

"During the negotiations between New Netherland and Maryland in 1659, the Dutch insisted that, as Lord Baltimore's patent covered only savage or uninhabited territory, it could not affect their own possession of the Delaware region. Accordingly, they held it against Maryland until it was taken from them by the Duke of York in 1664. But James's title by conquest had never been confirmed to him by a grant from the king; and Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, insisted that Delaware belonged to Maryland. To quiet controversy, the duke had offered to buy off Baltimore's claim, to which he would not agree. Penn afterward refused a large offer by Fenwick 'to get of the duke his interest in Newcastle and those parts' for West Jersey. Thus stood the matter when the Pennsylvania charter was sealed. Its proprietor soon found that his province, wholly inland, wanted a front on the sea. As Delaware was 'necessary' to Pennsylvania, Penn 'endeavored to get it' from the duke by maintaining that Baltimore's pretension 'was against law, civil and common.' Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore, was 'very free' in talking against the Duke of York's rights; but he could not circumvent Penn. The astute Quaker readily got from James a quit-claim of all his interest in the territory included within the proper bounds of Pennsylvania. After a struggle, Penn also gained the more important conveyances [August, 1682] to himself of the duke's interest in all the region within a circle of twelve miles diameter around Newcastle, and extending southward as far as Cape Henlopen. The triumphant Penn set sail the next week. At Newcastle he received from James's agents formal possession of the surrounding territory, and of the region farther south."

J. R. Brodhead, History of New York, volume 2, chapter 7.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685. Penn's arrival in his province. His treaty with the Indians. The founding of Philadelphia.

Penn sailed, in person, for his province on the 1st of September, 1682, on the ship "Welcome," with 100 fellow passengers, mostly Friends, and landed at Newcastle after a dreary voyage, during which thirty of his companions had died of smallpox. "Next day he called the people together in the Dutch court-house, when he went through the legal forms of taking possession. … Penn's great powers being legally established, he addressed the people in profoundest silence. He spoke of the reasons for his coming—the great idea which he had nursed from his youth upwards—his desire to found a free and virtuous state, in which the people should rule themselves. … He spoke of the constitution he had published for Pennsylvania as containing his theory of government; and promised the settlers on the lower reaches of the Delaware, that the same principles should be adopted in their territory. Every man in his provinces, he said, should enjoy liberty of conscience and his share of political power. … The people listened to this speech with wonder and delight. … They had but one request to make in answer; that he would stay amongst them and reign over them in person. They besought him to annex their territory to Pennsylvania, in order that the white settlers might have one country, one parliament, and one ruler. He promised, at their desire, to take the question of a union of the two provinces into consideration, and submit it to an assembly then about to meet at Upland. So he took his leave. Ascending the Delaware … the adventurers soon arrived at the Swedish town of Upland, then the place of chief importance in the province. … Penn changed the name from Upland to Chester, and as Chester it is known. Markham and the three commissioners had done their work so well that in a short time after Penn's arrival, the first General Assembly, elected by universal suffrage, was ready to meet. … As soon as Penn had given them assurances similar to those which he had made in Newcastle, they proceeded to discuss, amend, and accept the Frame of Government and the Provisional Laws. The settlers on the Delaware sent representatives to this Assembly, and one of their first acts was to declare the two Provinces united. The constitution was adopted without important alteration; and to the forty laws were added twenty-one others, and the infant code was passed in form. … Penn paid some visits to the neighbouring seats of government in New York, Maryland, and the Jerseys. At West River, Lord Baltimore came forth to meet him with a retinue of the chief persons in the province. … It was impossible to adjust the boundary, and the two proprietors separated with the resolution to maintain their several rights. … The lands already bought from the Redmen were now put up for sale at four-pence an acre, with a reserve of one shilling for every hundred acres as quit-rent; the latter sum intended to form a state revenue for the Governor's support. Amidst these sales and settlements he recollected George Fox, for whose use and profit he set aside a thousand acres of the best land in the province. … Penn was no less careful for the Redskins. Laying on one side all ceremonial manners, he won their hearts by his easy confidence and familiar speech. He walked with them alone into the forests. He sat with them on the ground to watch the young men dance. He joined in their feasts, and ate their roasted hominy and acorns. … Having now become intimate with Taminent and other of the native kings, who had approved these treaties, seeing great advantages in them for their people, he proposed to hold a conference with the chiefs and warriors, to confirm the former treaties and form a lasting league of peace. On the banks of the Delaware, in the suburbs of the rising city of Philadelphia, lay a natural amphitheatre, used from time immemorial as a place of meeting for the native tribes. The name of Sakimaxing—now corrupted by the white men into Shackamaxon—means the place of kings. At this spot stood an aged elm-tree, one of those glorious elms which mark the forests of the New World. It was a hundred and fifty-five years old; under its spreading branches friendly nations had been wont to meet; and here the Redskins smoked the calumet of peace long before the pale-faces landed on those shores. Markham had appointed this locality for his first conference, and the land commissioners wisely followed his example. {2501} Old traditions had made the place sacred to one of the contracting parties,—and when Penn proposed his solemn conference, he named Sakimaxing [or Shackamaxon] as a place of meeting with the Indian kings. Artists have painted, poets sung, philosophers praised this meeting of the white men and the red [October 14, 1682]. … All being seated, the old king announced to the Governor that the natives were prepared to hear and consider his words. Penn then rose to address them. … He and his children, he went on to say, never fired the rifle, never trusted to the sword; they met the red men on the broad path of good faith and good will. They meant no harm, and had no fear. He read the treaty of friendship, and explained its clauses. It recited that from that day the children of Onas and the nations of the Lenni Lenapé should be brothers to each other,—that all paths should be free and open—that the doors of the white men should be open to the red men, and the lodges of the red men should be open to the white men,—that the children of Onas should not believe any false reports of the Lenni Lenape, nor the Lenni Lenape of the children of Onas, but should come and see for themselves, … that if any son of Onas were to do any harm to any Redskin, or any Redskin were to do harm to a son of Onas, the sufferer should not offer to right himself, but should complain to the chiefs and to Onas, that justice might be declared by twelve honest men, and the wrong buried in a pit with no bottom,—that the Lenni Lenape should assist the white men, and the white men should assist the Lenni Lenape, against all such as would disturb them or do them hurt; and, lastly, that both Christians and Indians should tell their children of this league and chain of friendship, that it might grow stronger and stronger, and be kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, while the waters ran down the creeks and rivers, and while the sun and moon and stars endured. He laid the scroll on the ground. The sachems received his proposal for themselves and for their children. No oaths, no seals, no mummeries, were used; the treaty was ratified on both sides with yea,—and, unlike treaties which are sworn and sealed, was kept. When Penn had sailed, he held a note in his mind of six things to be done on landing:

(1) to organize his government; (2) to visit Friends in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; (3) to conciliate the Indians; (4) to see the Governor of New York, who had previously governed his province; (5) to fix the site for his capital city; (6) to arrange his differences with Lord Baltimore.

The subject of his chief city occupied his anxious thought, and Markham had collected information for his use. Some people wished to see Chester made his capital; but the surveyor, Thomas Holme, agreed with Penn that the best locality in almost every respect was the neck of land lying at the junction of the Delaware and the Skuylkill rivers. … The point was known as Wicocoa. … The land was owned by three Swedes, from whom Penn purchased it on their own terms; and then, with the assistance of Holme, he drew his plan. … Not content to begin humbly, and allow house to be added to house, and street to street, as people wanted them, he formed the whole scheme of his city—its name, its form, its streets, its docks, and open spaces—fair and perfect in his mind, before a single stone was laid. According to his original design, Philadelphia was to cover with its houses, squares, and gardens, twelve square miles. … One year from the date of Penn's landing in the New World, a hundred houses had been built; two years later there were six hundred houses."

W. H. Dixon, History of William Penn, chapters 24-25.

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, volume 1, chapter 9.

Memoirs of the Penn Historical Society, volume 6 (The Belt of Wampum, &c.).

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 2, chapter 20.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685. The Maryland Boundary question. Points in dispute with Lord Baltimore.

"The grant to Penn confused the old controversy between Virginia and Lord Baltimore as to their boundary, and led to fresh controversies. The question soon arose: What do the descriptions, 'the beginning of the fortieth,' and 'the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude,' mean? If they meant the 40th and 43rd parallels of north latitude, as most historians have held, Penn's province was the zone, three degrees of latitude in width, that leaves Philadelphia a little to the south and Syracuse a little to the north; but if those descriptions meant the belts lying between 39° and 40°, and 42° and 43°, as some authors have held, then Penn's southern and northern boundaries were 39° and 42° north. A glance at the map of Pennsylvania will show the reader how different the territorial dispositions would have been if either one of these constructions had been carried out. The first construction would avoid disputes on the south, unless with Virginia west of the mountains; on the north it would not conflict with New York, but would most seriously conflict with Connecticut and Massachusetts west of the Delaware. The second construction involved disputes with the two southern colonies concerning the degree 39-40 to the farthest limit of Pennsylvania, and it also overlapped Connecticut's claim to the degree 41-42. Perhaps we cannot certainly say what was the intention of the king, or Penn's first understanding; but the Quaker proprietary and his successors adopted substantially the second construction, and thus involved their province in the most bitter disputes. The first quarrel was with Lord Baltimore. It has been well said that this 'notable quarrel' 'continued more than eighty years; was the cause of endless trouble between individuals; occupied the attention not only of the proprietors of the respective provinces, but of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, of the High Court of Chancery, and of the Privy Councils of at least three monarchs; it greatly retarded the settlement and development of a beautiful and fertile country, and brought about numerous tumults, which sometimes ended in bloodshed.'"

B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 7.

"As the Duke of York claimed, by right of conquest, the settlements on the western shores of the Bay of Delaware, and had, by his deed of 1682, transferred to William Penn his title to that country, embracing the town of Newcastle and twelve miles around it (as a reasonable portion of land attached to it), and as far down as what was then called Cape Henlopen; an important subject of controversy was the true situation of that cape, and the ascertainment of the southern and western boundaries of the country along the bay, as transferred by the Duke's deed. … {2502} After two personal interviews in America, the Proprietaries separated without coming to any arrangement and with mutual recriminations and dissatisfaction. And they each wrote to the Lords of Plantations excusing themselves and blaming the other. … At length, in 1685, one important step was taken toward the decision of the conflicting claims of Maryland and Pennsylvania, by a decree of King James' Council, which ordered, 'that for a voiding further differences, the tract of land lying between the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, on the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided into equal parts, by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen to the 40th degree of north latitude, the southern boundary of Pennsylvania by Charter; and that the one half thereof, lying towards the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged to belong to his majesty, and the other half to Lord Baltimore, as comprised in his charter.' … This decree of King James, which evidently exhibits a partiality towards the claims of Penn, in decreeing the eastern half of the peninsula to his majesty, with whom Lord Baltimore could not presume, and indeed had declined to dispute, instead of to the Proprietary himself, by no means removed the difficulties which hung over this tedious, expensive, and vexatious litigation. For … there existed as much uncertainty with respect to the true situation of Cape Henlopen and the ascertainment of the middle of the Peninsula, as any points in contest."

J. Dunlop, Memoir on the Controversy between William Penn and Lord Baltimore, (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 1).

See, PENNSYLVANIA: 1760-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1691-1702. Practical separation of Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696. Keith's schism. Penn deprived of his government, but restored. Early resistance to the proprietary yoke.

"While New England and New York were suffering from war, superstition, and the bitterness of faction, Pennsylvania was not without internal troubles. These troubles originated with George Keith, a Scotch Quaker, formerly surveyor-general of East Jersey, and at this time master of the Quaker school at Philadelphia, and champion of the Quakers against Cotton Mather and the Boston ministers. Pressing the doctrines of non-resistance to their logical conclusion, Keith advanced the opinion that Quaker principles were not consistent with the exercise of political authority. He also attacked negro slavery as inconsistent with those principles. There is no surer way of giving mortal offense to a sect or party than to call upon it to be consistent with its own professed doctrines. Keith was disowned by the yearly meeting, but he forthwith instituted a meeting of his own, to which he gave the name of Christian Quakers. In reply to a 'Testimony of Denial' put forth against him, he published an 'Address,' in which he handled his adversaries with very little ceremony. He was fined by the Quaker magistrates for insolence, and Bradford, the only printer in the colony, was called to account for having published Keith's address. Though he obtained a discharge, Bradford, however, judged it expedient to remove with his types to New York, which now [1692] first obtained a printing press. The Episcopalians and other non-Quakers professed great sympathy for Keith, and raised a loud outcry against Quaker intolerance. Keith himself presently embraced Episcopacy, went to England, and took orders there. The Quaker magistrates were accused of hostility to the Church of England, and in the alleged maladministration of his agents, joined with his own suspected loyalty, a pretense was found for depriving Penn of the government—a step taken by the Privy Council without any of the forms, or, indeed, any authority of law, though justified by the opinions of some of the leading Whig lawyers of that day." Governor Fletcher of New York was now authorized for a time to administer the government of Pennsylvania and Delaware. "He accordingly visited Philadelphia, and called an Assembly in which deputies from both provinces were present. Penn's frame of government was disregarded, the Assembly being modeled after that of New York. Fletcher hoped to obtain a salary for himself and some contributions toward the defense of the northern frontier. The Quakers, very reluctant to vote money at all, had special scruples about the lawfulness of war. They were also very suspicious of designs against their liberties, and refused to enter on any business until the existing laws and liberties of the province had been first expressly confirmed. This concession reluctantly made, Fletcher obtained the grant of a small sum of money, not, however, without stipulating that it 'should not be dipped in blood.' … The suspicions against Penn soon dying away, the administration of his province was restored to him [1694]. But the pressure of his private affairs—for he was very much in debt—detained him in England, and he sent a commission to Markham [his relative and representative in Pennsylvania] to act as his deputy. An Assembly called by Markham refused to recognize the binding force of Penn's frame of government, which, indeed, had been totally disregarded by Fletcher. To the restrictions on their authority imposed by that frame they would not submit. A second Assembly [1696] proved equally obstinate, and, as the only means of obtaining a vote of the money required of the province toward the defense of New York, Markham was obliged to agree to a new act of settlement, securing to the Assembly the right of originating laws. A power of disapproval was reserved, however, to the proprietary, and this act never received Penn's sanction."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 21 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: _G. E. Ellis, Life of Penn, chapter 10 (Library of American Bibliographies, series 2, volume 12)._

G. P. Fisher, The Colonial Era, chapter 16.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1696-1749. Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718. The new Charter of Privileges and the city charter of Philadelphia. The divorcing of Delaware. Differences with the Proprietary. The death of Penn.

It was not until 1699 that Penn returned to his domain after an absence of fifteen years, and his brief stay of two years was not made wholly agreeable to him. Between him and his colonists there were many points of friction, as was inevitable under the relationship in which they stood to one another. The assembly of the province would not be persuaded to contribute to the fortification of the northern frontier of the king's dominions (in New York) against the French and Indians. Penn's influence, however, prevailed upon that body to adopt measures for suppressing both piracy and illicit trade. {2503} With much difficulty, moreover, he settled with his subjects the terms of a new constitution of government, or Charter of Privileges, as it was called. The old Frame of Government was formally abandoned and the government of Pennsylvania was now organized upon an entirely new footing. "The new charter for the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25, 1701, was more republican in character than those of the neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of the people with great powers, including those of creating courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the representatives of the two territorial districts [Pennsylvania proper, held under Penn's original grant, and the Lower Counties, afterwards constituting Delaware, which he acquired from the Duke of York] could not agree within three years to join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established by letters-patent a council of state for the province, 'to consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with the best of their advice and council in public affairs and matters relating to the government and the peace and well-being of the people; and in the absence of the proprietary, or upon the deputy's absence out of the province, his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular the powers of government.' The original town and borough of Philadelphia, having by this time 'become near equal to the city of New York in trade and riches,' was raised, by patent of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and not appointed by the governor, as in New York. The government of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton, also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the two sections of his government together again. The Delaware members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen, a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was acting as president, it was settled that they should have separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other. The first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color their religion with the hue of political power." In December, 1703, John Evans, a young Welshman, appointed deputy-governor by Penn, arrived at Philadelphia, and was soon involved in quarrels with the assemblies. "At one time they had for ground the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for £6,000. The recall of Evans in 1709, and the appointment of Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan, Penn's intimate friend and representative, was finally compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710), he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the refractory assembly to terms." In 1717 Gookin involved himself in fresh troubles and was recalled. Sir William Keith was then appointed—"the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718. … After Penn's death his heirs went to law among themselves about the government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania."

B. Fernow, Middle Colonies (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 3).

ALSO IN: _G. E. Ellis, Life of Penn (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 12), chapters 11-12._

R. Proud, History of Pennsylvania, chapters 14-22 (volumes 1-2).

_Penn and Logan Correspondence (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volumes 9-10)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1709-1710. Immigration of Palatines and other Germans.

See PALATINES.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1740-1741. First settlements and missions of the Moravian Brethren.

See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1743. Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1683-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1744-1748. King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1748-1754. First movements beyond the mountains to dispute possession with the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799. Connecticut claims and settlements in the Wyoming Valley. The Pennamite and Yankee War.

"The charter bounds [of Connecticut] extended west to the Pacific Ocean [see CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664]: this would have carried Connecticut over a strip covering the northern two fifths of the present State of Pennsylvania. Stuart faithlessness interfered with this doubly. Almost immediately after the grant of the charter, Charles granted to his brother James the Dutch colony of New Netherland, thus interrupting the continuity of Connecticut. Rather than resist the king's brother, Connecticut agreed and ratified the interruption. In 1681 a more serious interference took place. Charles granted to Penn the province of Pennsylvania, extending westward five degrees between the 40th and 43rd parallels of north latitude." Under the final compromise of Penn's boundary dispute with Lord Baltimore the northern line of Pennsylvania was moved southward to latitude 42° instead of 43°; but it still absorbed five degrees in length of the Connecticut western belt. {2504} "The territory taken from Connecticut by the Penn grant would be bounded southerly on the present map by a straight line entering Pennsylvania about Stroudsburg, just north of the Delaware Water Gap, and running west through Hazelton, Catawissa, Clearfield, and New Castle, taking in all the northern coal, iron, and oil fields. It was a royal heritage, but the Penns made no attempt to settle it, and Connecticut until the middle of the 18th century had no energy to spare from the task of winning her home territory 'out of the fire, as it were, by hard blows and for small recompense.' This task had been fairly well done by 1750, and in 1753 a movement to colonize in the Wyoming country was set on foot in Windham county. It spread by degrees until the Susquehanna Company was formed the next year, with nearly 700 members, of whom 638 were of Connecticut. Their agents made a treaty with the Five Nations July 11, 1754, by which they bought for £2,000 a tract of land beginning at the 41st degree of latitude, the southerly boundary of Connecticut; thence running north, following the line of the Susquehanna at a distance of ten miles from it, to the present northern boundary of Pennsylvania; thence 120 miles west; thence south to the 41st degree and back to the point of beginning. In May, 1755, the Connecticut general assembly expressed its acquiescence in the scheme, if the king should approve it; and it approved also a plan of Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, for another colony, to be placed west of Pennsylvania, and within the chartered limits of Connecticut. The court might have taken stronger ground than this; for, at the meeting of commissioners from the various colonies at Albany, in 1754, the representatives of Pennsylvania being present, no opposition was made to a resolution that Connecticut and Massachusetts, by charter right, extended west to the South Sea. The formation of the Susquehanna Company brought out objections from Pennsylvania, but the company sent out surveyors and plotted its tract. Settlement was begun on the Delaware River in 1757, and in the Susquehanna purchase in 1762. This was a temporary settlement, the settlers going home for the winter. A permanent venture was made the next year on the flats below Wilkes Barre, but it was destroyed by the Indians the same year. In 1768 the company marked out five townships, and sent out forty settlers for the first, Kingston. Most of them, including the famous Captain Zebulon Butler, had served in the French and Indian War; and their first step was to build the 'Forty Fort.' The Penns, after their usual policy, had refused to sell lands, but had leased plots to a number of men on condition of their 'defending the lands from the Connecticut claimants.' The forty Connecticut men found these in possession when they arrived in February, 1769, and a war of writs and arrests followed for the remainder of the year. The Pennsylvania men had one too powerful argument, in the shape of a four-pounder gun, and they retained possession at the end of the year. Early in 1770 the forty reappeared, captured the four-pounder, and secured possession. For a time in 1771 the Pennsylvania men returned, put up a fort of their own, and engaged in a partisan warfare; but the numbers of the Connecticut men were rapidly increasing, and they remained masters until the opening of the Revolution, when they numbered some 3,000. … But for the Revolution, the check occasioned by the massacre [of 1778—see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY)], and the appearance of a popular government in place of the Penns, nothing could have prevented the establishment of Connecticut's authority over all the regions embraced in her western claims. … The articles of confederation went into force early in 1781. One of their provisions empowered congress to appoint courts of arbitration to decide disputes between States as to boundaries. Pennsylvania at once availed herself of this, and applied for a court to decide the Wyoming dispute. Connecticut asked for time, in order to get papers from England; but congress overruled the motion, and ordered the court to meet at Trenton in November, 1782. After forty-one days of argument, the court came to the unanimous conclusion that Wyoming, or the Susquehanna district, belonged to Pennsylvania and not to Connecticut." Connecticut yielded to the decision at once; but, in 1786, when, following New York and Virginia, she was called upon to make a cession of her western territorial claims to congress (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786) she compensated herself for the loss of the Susquehanna district by reserving from the cession "a tract of about the same length and width as the Wyoming grant, west of Pennsylvania, in northeastern Ohio …; and this was the tract known as the Western Reserve of Connecticut. It contained about 3,500,000 acres. … The unfortunate Wyoming settlers, deserted by their own State, and left to the mercy of rival claimants, had a hard time of it for years. The militia of the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania was mustered to enforce the writs of Pennsylvania courts; the property of the Connecticut men was destroyed, their fences were cast down, and their rights ignored; and the 'Pennamite and Yankee War' began. … The old Susquehanna Company was reorganized in 1785-86, and made ready to support its settlers by force. New Yankee faces came crowding into the disputed territory. Among them was Ethan Allen, and with him came some Green Mountain Boys." It was not until 1799 that the controversy came to an end, by the passage of an act which confirmed the title of the actual settlers.

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 15.

ALSO IN: C. Miner, History of Wyoming, letters 5-12.

W. L. Stone, Poetry and History of Wyoming, chapters 4-5.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754. Building of Fort Duquesne by the French. The first armed collision in the western valley.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755. The opening of the French and Indian War. Braddock's defeat. The frontier ravaged.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755-1760. French and Indian War. Conquest of Canada and the west.

See CANADA: A. D.1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758, 1759, 1760; and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

{2505}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1757-1762. The question of taxation in dispute with the proprietaries. Franklin's mission to England.

"For a long while past the relationship between the Penns, unworthy sons of the great William, and now the proprietaries, on the one side, and their quasi subjects, the people of the Province, upon the other, had been steadily becoming more and more strained, until something very like a crisis had [in 1757] been reached. As usual in English and Anglo-American communities, it was a quarrel over dollars, or rather over pounds sterling, a question of taxation, which was producing the alienation. At bottom, there was the trouble which always pertains to absenteeism; the proprietaries lived in England, and regarded their vast American estate, with about 200,000 white inhabitants, only as a source of revenue. … The chief point in dispute was, whether or not the waste lands, still directly owned by the proprietaries, and other lands let by them at quitrents, should be taxed in the same manner as like property of other owners. They refused to submit to such taxation; the Assembly of Burgesses insisted. In ordinary times the proprietaries prevailed; for the governor was their nominee and removable at their pleasure; they gave him general instructions to assent to no law taxing their holdings, and he naturally obeyed his masters. But since governors got their salaries only by virtue of a vote of the Assembly, it seems that they sometimes disregarded instructions, in the sacred cause of their own interests. After a while, therefore, the proprietaries, made shrewd by experience, devised the scheme of placing their unfortunate sub-rulers under bonds. This went far towards settling the matter. Yet in such a crisis and stress as were now present in the colony … it certainly seemed that the rich and idle proprietaries might stand on the same footing with their poor and laboring subjects. They lived comfortably in England upon revenues estimated to amount to the then enormous sum of £20,000 sterling; while the colonists were struggling under unusual losses, as well as enormous expenses, growing out of the war and Indian ravages. At such a time their parsimony, their 'incredible meanness,' as Franklin called it, was cruel as well as stupid. At last the Assembly flatly refused to raise any money unless the proprietaries should be burdened like the rest. All should pay together, or all should go to destruction together. The Penns too stood obstinate, facing the not less resolute Assembly. It was indeed a deadlock! Yet the times were such that neither party could afford to maintain its ground indefinitely. So a temporary arrangement was made, whereby of £60,000 sterling to be raised the proprietaries agreed to contribute £5,000, and the Assembly agreed to accept the same in lieu or commutation for their tax. But neither side abandoned its principle. Before long more money was needed, and the dispute was as fierce as ever. The burgesses now thought that it would be well to carry a statement of their case before the king in council and the lords of trade. In February, 1757, they named their speaker, Isaac Norris, and Franklin to be their emissaries 'to represent in England the unhappy situation of the Province,' and to seek redress by an act of Parliament. Norris, an aged man, begged to be excused; Franklin accepted. … A portion of his business also was to endeavor to induce the king to resume the Province of Pennsylvania as his own. A clause in the charter had reserved this right, which could be exercised on payment of a certain sum of money. The colonists now preferred to be an appanage of the crown rather than a fief of the Penns." In this latter object of his mission Franklin did not succeed; but he accomplished its main purpose, procuring, after long delays, from the board of trade, a decision which subjected the proprietary estate to its fair share of taxation. He returned home after an absence of five years.

J. T. Morse, Jr., Benjamin Franklin, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. Parton, Life of Franklin, part 3 (volume 1).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767. Settlement of the Maryland boundary dispute. Mason and Dixon's line.

The decision of 1685 (see above), in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland, "formed the basis of a settlement between the respective heirs of the two proprietaries in 1732. Three years afterward, the subject became a question in chancery; in 1750 the present boundaries were decreed by Lord Hardwicke; ten years later, they were, by agreement, more accurately defined; and, in 1761, commissioners began to designate the limit of Maryland on the side of Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 1763, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two mathematicians and surveyors [sent over from England by the proprietaries], were engaged to mark the lines. In 1764, they entered upon their task, with good instruments and a corps of axe men; by the middle of June, 1765, they had traced the parallel of latitude to the Susquehannah; a year later, they climbed the Little Alleghany; in 1767, they carried forward their work, under an escort from the Six Nations, to an Indian war-path, 244 miles from the Delaware River. Others continued Mason and Dixon's line to the bound of Pennsylvania on the south-west."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 2, chapter 16.

"The east and west line which they [Mason and Dixon] ran and marked … is the Mason and Dixon's line of history, so long the boundary between the free and the slave States. Its precise latitude is 39° 43' 26.3" north. The Penns did not, therefore, gain the degree 39-40, but they did gain a zone one-fourth of a degree in width, south of the 40th degree, to their western limit, because the decision of 1760 controlled that of 1779, made with Virginia. … Pennsylvania is narrower by nearly three-fourths of a degree than the charter of 1681 contemplated. No doubt, however, the Penns considered the narrow strip gained at the south more valuable than the broad one lost at the north."

B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: T. Donaldson, The Public Domain, page 50.

Pennsylvania Archives, volume 4, pages 1-37.

W. H. Browne, Maryland, pages 238-239.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1764. Pontiac's War. Bouquet's expedition.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act and its repeal. The Declaratory Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1765. Patriotic self-denials. Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2506}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768. The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768-1774. Opening events of the Revolution.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1774. The western territorial claims of Virginia pursued. Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1775. The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. Action taken upon the news. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776. The end of royal and proprietary government. Adoption of a State Constitution.

"Congress, on the 15th of May, 1776, recommended … 'the respective Assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.' A diversity of opinion existed in the Province upon this resolution. … The Assembly referred the resolve of Congress to a committee, but took no further action, nor did the committee ever make a report. 'The old Assembly,' says Westcott, 'which had adjourned on the 14th of June, to meet on the 14th of August, could not obtain a quorum, and adjourned again to the 23d of September. It then interposed a feeble remonstrance against the invasion of its prerogatives by the Convention, but it was a dying protest. The Declaration of Independence had given the old State Government a mortal blow, and it soon expired without a sigh—thus ending forever the Proprietary and royal authority in Pennsylvania.' In the meantime, the Committee of Correspondence for Philadelphia issued a circular to all the county committees for a conference in that city on Tuesday, the 18th day of June. … The Conference at once unanimously resolved, 'That the present government of this Province is not competent to the exigencies of our affairs, and that it is necessary that a Provincial Convention be called by this Conference for the express purpose of forming a new government in this Province on the authority of the people only.' Acting upon these resolves, preparations were immediately taken to secure a proper representation in the Convention. … Every voter was obliged to take an oath of renunciation of the authority of George III., and one of allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, and a religious test was prescribed for all members of the Convention. … The delegates to the Convention to frame a constitution for the new government consisted of the representative men of the State—men selected for their ability, patriotism, and personal popularity. They met at Philadelphia, on the 15th of July, … and organized by the selection of Benjamin Franklin, president, George Ross, vice-president, and John Morris and Jacob Garrigues, secretaries. … On the 28th of September, the Convention completed its labors by adopting the first State Constitution, which went into immediate effect, without a vote of the people. … The legislative power of the frame of government was vested in a General Assembly of one House, elected annually. The supreme executive power was vested in a President, chosen annually by the Assembly and Council, by joint ballot—the Council consisting of twelve persons, elected in classes, for a term of three years. A Council of Censors, consisting of two persons from each city and county, was to be elected in 1783, and in every seventh year thereafter, whose duty it was to make inquiry as to whether the Constitution had been preserved inviolate during the last septennary, and whether the executive or legislative branches of the government had performed their duties."

W. H. Egle, History of Pennsylvania, chapter 9.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776-1777. The Declaration of Independence. The struggle for the Hudson and the Delaware. Battles of the Brandywine and Germantown. The British in Philadelphia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 and 1777; and PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1777-1779. The Articles of Confederation. The alliance with France. British evacuation of Philadelphia. The war on the northern border.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1778 (July). The Wyoming Massacre.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1779-1786. Final settlement of boundaries with Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779–1786.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780. Emancipation of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780-1783. The treason of Arnold. The war in the south. Surrender of Cornwallis. Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1781. Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1787. Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794. The Whiskey Insurrection.

"In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but resistance having been made in a few of the western counties, and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District, Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled to desist from the execution of their official duties. The next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men, assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight. {2507} A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August, 'to take into consideration the situation of the western country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days' provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose hostility had been discovered by the letters they had intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg, it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason, commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents, and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary, though he at first declined the appointment. … The Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended until the following July, when, if there had been no violation of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty. These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the interposition of the militia was indispensable. The Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of September, in which he announced, the march of the militia, and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed, and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief, issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not signed the declaration of submission, and send them to Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire order restored in less than four months from the time of the burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

George Tucker, History of the United States, volume 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: J. T. Morse, Life of Hamilton, volume 2, chapter 4.

_T. Ward, The Insurrection of 1794 (Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6)._

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, chapter 9 (volume 2).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1861. First troops sent to Washington.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1863. Lee's invasion. Battle of Gettysburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1864. Early's invasion. Burning of Chambersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

----------PENNSYLVANIA: End--------

{2508}

PENNY POSTAGE.

See POST.

PENSACOLA: Unauthorized capture by General Jackson (1818).

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

See CYRENE.

PENTATHLON, The.

The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in all of them."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 52.

PEORIAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEPIN.

See PIPPIN.

PEPLUM, The.

"The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body. Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape, seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was expressive of humility or of grief."

T. Hope, Costume of the Ancients, volume 1.

PEPPERELL, Sir William, and the expedition against Louisburg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

PEQUOTS. PEQUOT WAR.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SHAWANESE: also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

PERA, The Genoese established at.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

PERCEVAL MINISTRY, The.

See: ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PERDICCAS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

PERDUELLIO, The Crime of.

"'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term High Treason."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 9.

See MAJESTAS.

PERED, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

PEREGRINI.

"The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis' (i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with Rome."

w. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 3.

See, also, CIVES ROMANI.

----------PERGAMUM: Start--------

PERGAMUM, PERGAMUS.

This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became, during the troubled century that followed the death of Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander, left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum. He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,' who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home of Stoic philosophy."

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 20.

_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul_

From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria. The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment, which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place called Bergamah.

See, also, SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187; ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246; and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

PERGAMUM: A. D. 1336. Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

----------PERGAMUM: End--------

PERGAMUS, Citadel of.

See TROJA.

PERICLES, Age of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454; and 445-429.

PERINTHUS: B. C. 340. Siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

PERIOECI, The.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

PERIPLUS.

The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers, signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

PERIZZITES, The.

"The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, book 6, chapter 1.

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

PERONNE, The Treaty of.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

{2509}

PERPETUAL EDICT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

PERPIGNAN: A. D. 1642. Siege and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

PERRHÆBIANS, The.

"There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of this nation. But at a very early time the primitive inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus, under Olympus."

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

Dr. Curtius is of the opinion that the Dorians were a subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

E. Curtius History of Greece, book 1, chapter 4.

PERRY, Commodore Matthew C.: Expedition to Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

PERRY, Commodore Oliver H.: Victory on Lake Erie.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

PERRYVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

PERSARGADÆ.

See PERSIA., ANCIENT PEOPLE, &c.

PERSARMENIA.

While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

PERSECUTIONS, Religious. Of Albigenses.

See ALBIGENSES.

Of Christians under the Roman Empire.

See ROME: A. D. 64-68; 96-138; 192-284; 303-305; and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

Of Hussites in Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434, and after.

Of Jews.

See JEWS.

Of Lollards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

Of Protestants in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

Of Protestants in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547; 1559-1561 to 1598-1599; 1661-1680; 1681-1698.

Of Protestants in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1521-1555 to 1594-1609.

Of Roman Catholics in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587; 1587-1588; 1678-1679.

Of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D.1691-1782.

Of Christians in Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

Of the Waldenses.

See WALDENSES.

See, also, INQUISITION.

PERSEIDÆ, The.

See ARGOS.—ARGOLIS.

----------PERSEPOLIS: Start--------

PERSEPOLIS: Origin.

See PERSIA, ANCIENT PEOPLE.

PERSEPOLIS: B. C. 330. Destruction by Alexander.

Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire, Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine, though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased, and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of 120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling) —Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their property in their own houses."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 93.

----------PERSIA: Start--------

PERSIA: Ancient people and country.

"Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia, and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude 53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself, toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that we once more find them brought into contact with the power which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapters 1 and 7.

ALSO IN: A. R. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 5.

See, also, ARIANS; IRAN; and ACHÆMENIDS.

PERSIA: The ancient religion.

See ZOROASTRIANS.

{2510}

PERSIA: B. C. 549-521. The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam. His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia. The restoration of the Jews. Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

"It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA]. On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time, however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara, formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome; and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538 the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June; on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros himself entered his new capital in triumph."

_A. H. Sayee, The Ancient Empires of the East: Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5._

"The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire, and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated, especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos, except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects very different from that handed down to us by classical writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus. Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam, who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province. In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C. 549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god. The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel. … The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities back to their homes. {2511} Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered population to another country, and sought instead to win their gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable, however, that this means only the heads of families; if so, the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture, Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to have been under the government of a collateral branch of the family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death, Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the third centre of the great empire, and in later days the Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it. The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said. … A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince, and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

A. H. Sayce, Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, chapters 1 and 3.

ALSO IN: A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 7.

Z. A. Ragozin, The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia, chapter 10-12.

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493. The reign of Darius I. His Indian and Scythian expeditions. The Ionian revolt and its suppression. Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

"Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands), Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae, Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician, Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe, and so to carry war into Scythia. {2512} It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right, and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares. So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus— over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde, yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. … It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of 700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire, crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat. The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in the country till they should perish from famine." Darius retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind, with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march, and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably, Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace." Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his master, in B. C. 506.

P. Smith, Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 27.

"Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in profound peace under the government of his brother Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens, Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power; popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501). Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king, Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire; but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians. Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands were treated with scarcely less severity. This third subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

P. Smith, History of the World: Ancient, chapter 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4).

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 14 (volume 2).

PERSIA: B. C. 509. Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

{2513}

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491. First expedition against Greece and its failure. Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

PERSIA: B. C. 490-479. Wars with the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 490, to B. C. 479.

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405. From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II. The disastrous invasion of Greece. Loss of Egypt. Recovery of Asia Minor. Decay of the empire.

"Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

See GREECE: B. C. 480, to B. C. 479.

… It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at the Eurymedon.

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard, Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C. 465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes, who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt [B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost all their men.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449, despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis, besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed 'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C. 425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II. Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days, was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B. C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which, though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful. In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection. Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence. The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the authority of the Great King was once more established over the Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 2, sections 24-39.

{2514}

ALSO IN: G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, volume 3: Persia, chapter 7.

PERSIA: B. C. 413. Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor. Hostility to Athens. Subsidies to her enemies.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400. The expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis. During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia, Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes, who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken, and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital, if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority over them. But they possessed what no other people of their time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece. "Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no immediate significance for political history, yet it is of high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of weakness, a wandering political community which, according to home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions, and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000 Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy they hated most.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 5, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, chapters 69-71.

_Xenophon, Anabasis._

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387. War with Sparta. Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos. The Peace of Antalcidas. Recovery of Ionian cities.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PERSIA: B. C. 366. Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes. The Great King's rescript.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

PERSIA: B. C. 337-336. Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PERSIA: B. C. 334-330. Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA &c.: B. C. 334-330.

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150. Under the Successors of Alexander. In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; and SELEUCIDÆ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226. Embraced in the Parthian empire. Recovery of national independence. Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

"About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana, Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation. … It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern themselves. {2515} These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a military expedition."

G. Rawlinson, The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 1.

"The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. … As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 8 (volume 1).

PERSIA: A. D. 226-627. Wars with the Romans.

The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars, extending through four centuries and ending only with the Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power, alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms. Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner, after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D. 260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked, while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery. Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner. Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305).

That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated, on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A. D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then, for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A. D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363, he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry. {2516} An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor, and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius, together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own. The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D. 422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however, in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid 11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged, half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis, or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till 591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627, he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle, fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled, and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was a fugitive.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

_G. Rawlinson, The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46.

PERSIA: A. D. 632-651. Mahometan Conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

PERSIA: A. D. 901-998. The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

See SAMANIDES; and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038. Under the Gaznevides.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193. Under the Seljuk Turks.

See TURKS (SELJUK): 1004-1063, and after.

PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250. The period of the Atabegs.

See ATABEGS.

PERSIA: A. D. 1193. Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226. Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227; and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393. The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in the East."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 211.

Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions, who laboured in works of science under the direction of his favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by the conquests of Timour.

Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, chapter 10 (volume 1).

{2517}

"It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303, that Mahometanism again became the established religion of Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. … The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion, utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless Timour."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens, lecture 6.

PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393. Conquest by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887. The founding of the Sefavean dynasty. Triumph of the Sheahs. Subjugation by the Afghans. Deliverance by Nadir Shah. The Khajar dynasty.

"At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D. 680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh, called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. … Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa, the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid, the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard, and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah government, and gave great strength to that sect of the Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors, Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722 with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan, although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain. That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow. Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf. But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia. Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia; and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. … {2518} Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces, notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in 1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

S. G. W. Benjamin, The Story of Persia, chapter 20.

ALSO IN: C. R. Markham, General Sketch of the History of Persia, chapters 10-20.

Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2).

_R. G. Watson, History of Persia, 1800-1858._

PERSIA: A. D. 1894. The reigning Shah.

Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

----------PERSIA: End--------

PERSIAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

----------PERTH: Start--------

PERTH: A. D. 1559. The Reformation Riot.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

PERTH: A. D. 1715. Headquarters of the Jacobite Rebellion.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

----------PERTH: End--------

PERTH, The Five Articles of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

PERTINAX, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

----------PERU: Start--------

PERU: Origin of the name.

"There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

C. H. Markham, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, book 6, chapter 2.

PERU: The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization. The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

"The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous region between the central and western cordilleras. These six tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their language was introduced into every conquered province, and was carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac. Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together, 'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua. The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had domesticated all the animals in their country capable of domestication, understood mining and the working of metals, excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra. There are some slight indications of the aborigines having been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the Yunca people."

C. R. Markham, Peru, chapter 3.

{2519}

"In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts, canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of the law might be as great among the latter, the law was expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law. He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing that deserved to be called property. They could follow no craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was specially provided by law. They could not change their residence or their dress without a license from the government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but that established by law. The power of free agency—the inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was annihilated in Peru."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, edition.), volume 6, pages 215-226.

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 9 (volume 2).

E. J. Payne, History of the New World called America, book 2 (volume 1).

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES, ANDESIANS.

PERU: The empire of the Incas.

"The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father, the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from 3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles, covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the United States, or to the whole of the United States to the eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200 miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and productive, but the barriers which separate it from the neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks, on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India, may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the support of dense populations. … The present population of the three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed above forty millions of people.'"

E. G. Squier, Peru, chapter 1.

PERU:A. D. 1527-1528. Discovery by the Spaniards.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

{2520}

PERU: A. D. 1528-1531. The commission and the preparations of Pizarro.

"In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades, taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses under his government, and, in short, to exercise the prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo; whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. … Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January, 1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land. It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapters 6-7.

PERU:A. D. 1531-1533. Pizarro's conquest. Treacherous murder of Atahualpa.

"Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531, with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region. After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier, Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force. Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position. Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander, and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery. He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing, came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession. He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco, the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco, to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing. On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84 horses. {2521} On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived should be melted down for distribution; but another large instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

C. R. Markham, Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 8).

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru, book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1).

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 10 (volume 2).

PERU: A. D. 1533-1548. The fighting of the Spanish conquerors over the spoils.

"The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms the next great series of events in American history, is one of the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came within its influence, desolated the country where it originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa. That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame and rage at his helpless position], and set out from Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of water running through the middle of each, with grand squares and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses, and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime, Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror, returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to take possession and govern a province, which should be called New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising, which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed, from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500 men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph. {2522} Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial, condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely masters of the country and maintained their domination for a few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions. But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela, sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the "repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro, however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death. This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after some years.

Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, books 17-18 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: _W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru._

PERU: A. D. 1539-1541. Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

See AMAZONS RIVER.

PERU: A. D. 1550-1816. Under the Spanish Viceroys.

"When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House, the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of South America, including the present republics of Venezuela, New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice, this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the present century, and shortly before the commencement of the war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000 received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to show itself in the various measures of government; and the trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair, which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in their places practical men, who had done good service as captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780. At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government. … But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally, the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies, brought popular excitement in South America to such a height that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable materials."

C. R. Markham, Cuzco and Lima, chapter 9.

{2523}

The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and their just administration. But when his moderate demands were only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July, 1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard. The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

C. R. Markham, Peru, page 150.

PERU: A. D. 1579. The piracies of Drake.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

PERU: A. D. 1776. Separation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

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

PERU: A. D. 1820-1826. The Struggle for Independence. Help from Chile and Colombia. San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators. The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

"The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part, crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820, independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane [afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda, which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. … As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place. … The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of Peru. No important military movements took place during a considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili. Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823, the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security, that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September, 1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once invested with supreme power, both civil and military. … {2524} In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to call forth the full energies of the great general. He had under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824, "when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most remarkable in its details and important in its results ever fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700 wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy, entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out, however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825, and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

H. Brownell, North and South America: Peru, chapters 12-13.

ALSO IN: Earl of Dundonald, Autobiography of a Seaman, Sequel, chapter 3.

J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapters 12-27 (volumes 1-2).

T. Sutcliffe, Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru, chapters 2-3.

PERU: A. D. 1825-1826. The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru. The Bolivian Constitution.

"Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars, which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent traits in his character. After continuing in session about a month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they should continue to exercise their functions; and they accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or control in the government, after issuing a decree for installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his political principles more directly before the world. When the victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to act, the great question presented to their consideration was, whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state. Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be, that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator. Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless, however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of his preeminent services to the country. With the same characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and constitution of the state. {2525} Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if, indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again and again declared, that it contains his confession of political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government; and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and unnatural the distribution of powers among the several branches, that it would be impracticable for any people, having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct public business in the projected mode; and much more impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the legislative body, holding his office for life, without responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the state, every appointment of any importance, from the vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute control of all the military force of the nation, it being at the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May 25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration. It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia, and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected president for life under it, although one of its provisions expressly required, that the president should be a native of Bolivia."

_C. Cushing, Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution (N. A. Rev., January 1830)._

PERU: A. D. 1826-1876. Retirement of Bolivar. Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile. The succession of military presidents. Abolition of Slavery. War with Spain.

"As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was at the same time President of the United States of Colombia, he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. … But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them [September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the generals of their own nation."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, pages 290-291.

"A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers secured the presidential chair, the administration in the early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme, which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay, which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the new state of things was of short duration. {2526} On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th, 1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of $1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves. The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties, licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in 1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every 20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives. Executive power is in the hands of a President and Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution of railways and other public works with feverish haste, bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July 26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. … He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

C. R. Markham, Peru, chapter 8.

PERU: A. D. 1879-1884. The disastrous war with Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

PERU: A. D. 1886-1894. Slow recovery.

Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

----------PERU: End--------

PERUGIA, Early history of.

See PERUSIA.

PERUGIA, Under the domination of the Baglioni.

See BAGLIONI.

PERUS, The Two.

Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

PERUSIA, The war of.

In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness, with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

C. Merivale, History of Rome, chapter 27.

PERUVIAN BARK, Introduction of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

PERUVIAN QUIPU.

See QUIPU.

PES, The.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

PESHWA OF THE MAHRATTAS, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

PESO DE ORO.

See SPANISH COINS.

PESTALOZZI, and educational reform.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1798-1827.

PESTH: A. D. 1241. Destruction by the Mongols.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

PESTH: A. D. 1872. Union with Buda.

See BUDAPESTH.

PESTILENCE.

See PLAGUE.

PETALISM.

A vote of banishment which the ancient Syracusans brought into practice for a time, in imitation of the Ostracism of the Athenians,—(see OSTRACISM). The name of the citizen to be banished was written, at Syracuse, on olive-leaves, instead of on shells, as at Athens. Hence the name, petalism.

Diodorus, Historical Library, book 11, chapter 26.

PETER, Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1217-1219. Peter I. (called The Great), Czar of Russia, 1689-1725.

Peter I., King of Aragon and Navarre, 1094-1104.

Peter I., King of Hungary, 1088-1046.

Peter II., Czar of Russia, 1727-1780.

Peter II., King of Aragon, 1196-1213.

{2527}

Peter II., King of Sicily, 1337-1342.

Peter III., Czar of Russia, 1762.

Peter III., King of Aragon, 1276-1285; King of Sicily, 1283-1285.

Peter IV., King of Aragon, 1336-1387.

Peter the Hermit's Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095; and 1096-1099.

Peter.

See, also, PEDRO.

PETERBOROUGH, Earl of, and the siege of Barcelona.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

PETERLOO, Massacre of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PETER'S PENCE.

King Offa, of the old English kingdom of Mercia, procured, by a liberal tribute to Rome, a new archbishopric for Lichfield, thus dividing the province of Canterbury. "This payment … is probably the origin of the Rom-feoh, or Peter's pence, a tax of a penny on every hearth, which was collected [in England] and sent to Rome from the beginning of the tenth century, and was a subject of frequent legislation. But the archiepiscopate of Lichfield scarcely survived its founder."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

PETERSBURG, Siege and evacuation of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA), (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

PETERSHAM, Rout of Shays' rebels at.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

PETERVARDEIN, Battle of (1716).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1600-1718.

PETILIA, Battle at.

See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

PETIT SERJEANTY.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

PETITION OF RIGHT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1625–1628; and 1628.

PETITS MAÍTRES, Les.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PETRA, Arabia. The rock-city of the Nabatheans.

See NABATHEANS.

PETRA, Illyricum: Cæsar's blockade of Pompeius.

See ROME B. C. 48.

PETRA, Lazica.

See LAZICA.

PETROBRUSIANS. HENRICIANS.

"The heretic who, for above twenty years, attempted a restoration of a simple religion in Southern France, the well-known Pierre de Bruys, a native of Gap or Embrun, … warred against images and all other visible emblems of worship; he questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the soundness of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and opposed prayers for the dead; but he professed poverty for himself, and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers of the altar. He protested against the payment of tithes; and it was, most probably, owing to this last, the most heinous of all offences, that he was, towards 1130, burnt with slow fire by a populace maddened by the priests, at St. Gilles, on the Rhone. … His followers rallied … and changed their name of Petrobrusians into that of Henricians, when the mantle of their first master rested on the shoulders of Henry, supposed by Mosheim [Eccles. History, volume 2] to have been an Italian Eremite monk."

L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Frà Dolcina and his Times, chapter 1.

PETROCORII, The.

A Gallic tribe established in the ancient Périgord, the modern French department of the Dordogne.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, footnote.

PETRONILLA, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1137-1163.

PETRONIUS MAXIMUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455.

PEUCINI, The.

"The Peucini derived their name from the little island Peuce (Piczino) at the mouth of the Danube. Pliny (iv. 14) speaks of them as a German people bordering on the Daci. They would thus stretch through Moldavia from the Carpathian Mountains to the Black Sea. Under the name Bastarnæ they are mentioned by Livy (xl. 57, 58) as a powerful people, who helped Philip, king of Macedonia, in his wars with the Romans. Plutarch ('Life of Paullus Æmilius,' ch. ix.) says they were the same as the Galatæ, who dwelt round the Ister (Danube). If so, they were Gauls, which Livy also implies."

_Church and Brodribb, Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

PEUKETIANS, The.

See ŒNOTRIANS.

PEUTINGERIAN TABLE, The.

This is the name given to the only copy which has survived of a Roman official road-chart. "Tables of this kind were not maps in the proper sense of the term, but were rather diagrams drawn purposely out of proportion, on which the public roads were projected in a panoramic view. The latitude and longitude and the positions of rivers and mountains were disregarded so far as they might interfere with the display of the provinces, the outlines being flattened out to suit the shape of a roll of parchment; but the distances between the stations were inserted in numerals, so that an extract from the record might be used as a supplement to the table of mileage in the road-book. The copy now remaining derives its name from Conrad Peutinger of Augsburg, in whose library it was found on his death in 1547. It is supposed to have been brought to Europe from a monastery in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, and to have been a copy taken by some thirteenth century scribe from an original assigned to the beginning of the fourth century or the end of the third.'

C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 11 and plate 7.

ALSO IN: W. M. Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, part 1, chapter 6.

PEVENSEY.

The landing-place of William the Conqueror, September 28, A. D. 1066, when he came to win the crown of England.

See, also, ANDERIDA.

PFALZ. PFALZGRAF.

In German, the term signifying Palatine and Palatine Count.

See PALATINE COUNT.

PHACUSEH.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PHÆACIANS, The.

"We are wholly at a loss to explain the reasons that led the Greeks in early times … to treat the Phæacians [of Homer's Odyssey] as a historical people, and to identify the Homeric Scheria with the island of Corcyra [modern Corfu]. … We must … be content to banish the kindly and hospitable Phæacians, as well as the barbarous Cyclopes and Læstrygones, to that outer zone of the Homeric world, in which everything was still shrouded in a veil of marvel and mystery."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 3, section 3 volume 1).

PHALANGITES, The.

The soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.

{2528}

PHALANX, The Macedonian.

"The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of 18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into six brigades of 3,000 each, formidable in its aspect, and, on ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks. The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the Greek heavy infantry, helmet, breast-plate, and greaves; and almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword, long enough to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him, and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name sarissa, four and twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched, projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier, and the space between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine, those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in advance of the first line; so that the man at the head of the file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was composed in part of foreign troops."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 48.

PHALARIS, Brazen bull of. Epistles of.

Phalaris is said to have been a rich man who made himself tyrant of the Greek city of Agrigentum in Sicily, about 570 B. C., and who distinguished himself above all others of his kind by his cruelties. He seems to have been especially infamous in early times on account of his brazen bull. "This piece of mechanism was hollow, and sufficiently capacious to contain one or more victims enclosed within it, to perish in tortures when the metal was heated: the cries of these suffering prisoners passed for the roarings of the animal. The artist was named Perillus, and is said to have been himself the first person burnt in it by order of the despot."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 43.

At a later time Phalaris was represented as having been a man of culture and letters, and certain Epistles were ascribed to him which most scholars now regard as forgeries. The famous treatise of Bentley is thought to have settled the question.

PHALERUM.

See PIRÆUS.

PHANARIOTS, The.

"The reduction of Constantinople, in 1453, was mainly achieved by the extraordinary exploit of Mahomet II. in transporting his galleys from the Bosphorus to the interior of the harbour, by dragging them over land from Dolma Bactche, and again launching them opposite to the quarter denominated the Phanar, from a lantern suspended over the gate which there communicates with the city. The inhabitants of this district, either from terror or treachery, are said to have subsequently thrown open a passage to the conqueror; and Mahomet, as a remuneration, assigned them for their residence this portion of Constantinople, which has since continued to be occupied by the Patriarch and the most distinguished families of the Greeks. It is only, however, within the last century and a half that the Phanariots have attained any distinction beyond that of merchants and bankers, or that their name, from merely designating their residence, has been used to indicate their diplomatic employments."

Sir J. E. Tennent, History of Modern Greece, chapter 12 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 4.

J. Samuelson, Roumania, Past and Present, chapter 13, sections 3-7.

PHARAOH, The title.

The title Pharaoh which was given to the kings of ancient Egypt, "appears on the monuments as piraa, 'great house,' the palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king himself, just as in our own time the 'porte' or gate of the palace has become synonymous with the Turkish Sultan."

A. H. Sayee, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 2.

PHARAOHITES.

See GYPSIES.

PHARISEES, The.

See CHASIDIM; and SADDUCEES.

PHARSALIA, Battle of.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

PHELPS' AND GORHAM'S PURCHASE.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PHERÆ.

A town in ancient Thessaly which acquired an evil fame in Greek history, during the fourth century, B. C., by the power and the cruelty of the tyrants who ruled it and who extended their sway for a time over the greater part of Thessaly. Jason and Alexander were the most notorious of the brood.

PHILADELPHIA, Asia Minor.

The city of Philadelphia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus of Pergamum, in eastern Lydia, not far from Sardes, was one in which Christianity flourished at an early day, and which prospered for several centuries, notwithstanding repeated calamities of earthquake. It was the last community of Greeks in Asia Minor which retained its independence of the Turks. It stood out for two generations in the midst of the Seljouk Turks, after all around it had succumbed. The brave city was finally taken by the Ottoman sultan, Bayezid, or Bajazet, about 1390. The Turks then gave it the name Alashehr.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2, section 4 (volume 2).

----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: Start--------

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1641.- The first settlement, by New Haven colonists.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1682-1685. Penn's founding of the city.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1686-1692. Bradford's Press.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 15<15-1709.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1701. Chartered as a city.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1719-1729. The first newspapers. Franklin's advent.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1765. Patriotic self-denials. Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1774. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER) and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775. Reception of the news of Lexington and Concord.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-JUNE).

{2529}

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777. The British army in the city. Removal of Congress to York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777-1778. The gay winter with the British in the city. The Battle of the Kegs. The Mischianza.

"The year 1778 found the British at Philadelphia in snug quarters, unembarrassed by the cares of the field, and, except for occasional detachments, free from other military duties than the necessary details of garrison life. The trifling affairs that occurred during the remainder of the season served rather as a zest to the pleasures which engaged them than as a serious occupation. … No sooner were they settled in their winter-quarters than the English set on foot scenes of gayety that were long remembered, and often with regret, by the younger part of the local gentry. … Of all the band, no one seems to have created such a pleasing impression or to have been so long admiringly remembered as André. His name in our own days lingered on the lips of every aged woman whose youth had seen her a belle in the royal lines. … The military feats about Philadelphia, in the earlier part of 1778, were neither numerous or important. Howe aimed at little more than keeping a passage clear for the country-people, within certain bounds, to come in with marketing. The incident known as the Battle of the Kegs was celebrated by Hopkinson in a very amusing song that, wedded to the air of Maggy Lander, was long the favorite of the American military vocalists; but it hardly seems to have been noticed at Philadelphia until the Whig version came in. The local newspapers say that, in January, 1778, a barrel floating down the Delaware being taken up by some boys exploded in their hands, and killed or maimed one of them. A few days after, some of the transports fired a few guns at several other kegs that appeared on the tide; but no particular notice of the occurrence was taken. These torpedoes were sent down in the hope that they would damage the shipping." When Howe was displaced from the command and recalled, his officers, among whom he was very popular, resolved "to commemorate their esteem for him by an entertainment not less novel than splendid. This was the famous Mischianza [or Meschianza] of the 18th of May, 1778; the various nature of which is expressed by its name, while its conception is evidently taken from Lord Derby's fête champêtre at The Oaks, June 9th, 1774, on occasion of Lord Stanley's marriage to the Duke of Hamilton's daughter. … The regatta, or aquatic procession, in the Mischianza was suggested by a like pageant on the Thames, June 23rd, 1775. … A mock tournament—perhaps the first in America—was a part of the play."

W. Sargent, Life of Major John André, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, chapter 17 (volume 1).

A. H. Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways, chapter 2.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1778. Evacuation by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1780-1784. Founding of the Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1787. The sitting of the Federal Constitutional Convention.

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

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1876. The Centennial Exhibition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: End--------

PHILADELPHIA, Tenn., Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY COMPANY.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PHILIP, Roman Emperor, A. D. 244-249.

Philip, King of Macedon, The ascendancy in Greece of.

See GREECE: B. C. 359-358, and 357-336.

Philip, King of the Pokanokets, and his war with the English.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D.1674-1675, to 1676-1678.

Philip, King of Sweden, 1112-1118.

Philip (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1363-1404.

Philip (called The Good), Duke of Burgundy, 1418-1467.

Philip I. King of France, 1060-1108.

Philip II. (called Augustus), King of France, 1180-1223.

Philip II., King of the Two Sicilies, 1554-1598; Duke of Burgundy, 1555-1598; King of Spain, 1556-1598; King of Portugal, 1580-1598.

Philip III. (called The Bold), King of France, 1270-1285.

Philip III., King of Spain, Portugal and the Two Sicilies, and Duke of Burgundy, 1598-1621.

Philip IV. (called The Fair), King of France, 1285-1314.

Philip IV., King of Spain, 1621-1665; King of Portugal, 1621-1640.

Philip V., King of France and Navarre, 1316-1322.

Philip V., King of Spain (first of the Spanish-Bourbon line), 1700-1746.

Philip VI., King of France (the first king of the House of Valois), 1328-1350.

PHILIPHAUGH, Battle of (1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

PHILIPPI, The founding of.

Philip of Macedonia in 356 B. C. took from the Thasians the rich gold-mining district of Pangæus, on the left bank of the Strymon on the border of Thrace, and settled a colony there in what afterwards became the important city of Philippi.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 42.

PHILIPPI, Battles of (B. C. 42).

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

PHILIPPI, West Virginia, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

PHILIPPICS OF DEMOSTHENES, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, and 351-348.

PHILIPPICUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 711-713.

PHILIPPOPOLIS, Capture of, by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

----------PHILIPSBURG: Start--------

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1644. Taken by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1648. Right of garrisoning secured to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1676. Taken from France by the Imperialists.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1679. Given up by France.

See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1734. Siege and reduction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

----------PHILIPSBURG: End--------

{2530}

PHILISTINES, The.

"One small nation alone, of all which dwelt on the land claimed by Israel, permanently refused to amalgamate itself with the circumcised peoples,—namely the uncircumcised Philistines. They occupied the lots which ought to have been conquered by Dan and Simeon, and had five principal cities, Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, of which the three first are on the sea-coast. Ashdod and Gaza were places of great strength, capable of long resisting the efforts of Egyptian and Greek warfare. The Philistines cannot have been a populous nation, but they were far more advanced in the arts of peace and war than the Hebrews. Their position commanded the land traffic between Egypt and Canaan, and gave them access to the sea; hence perhaps their wealth and comparatively advanced civilization. Some learned men give credit to an account in Sanchoniathon, that they came from Crete." They gave their name to Palestine.

F. W. Newman, History of the Hebrew Monarchy, chapter 2.

"Where the Philistines came from, and what they originally were, is not clear. That they moved up the coast from Egypt is certain; that they came from Kaphtor is also certain. But it by no means follows, as some argue, that Kaphtor and Egypt are the same region. … It appears more safe to identify Kaphtor with" Crete. "But to have traced the Philistines to Crete is not to have cleared up their origin, for early Crete was full of tribes from both east and west. … Take them as a whole, and the Philistines appear a Semitic people."

George Adam Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 16.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 2, section 3.

See, also, JEWS: THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN, and after.

PHILOCRATES, The Peace of.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PHLIUS, Siege of.

Phlius, the chief city of the small mountain state of Phliasia, in the northeastern corner of Peloponnesus, adjoining Argos and Arcadia, made an heroic effort, B. C. 380, to maintain its liberties against Sparta. Under a valiant leader, Delphion, it endured a siege which lasted more than an entire year. When forced to surrender, in the end, it was treated with terrible severity by the Spartan king, Agesilaus.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 5, chapter 5.

PHOCÆANS, OR PHOKÆANS, The.

"The citizens of Phocæa had been the last on the coast-line of Ionia [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] to settle down to a condition of tranquillity. They had no building-ground but a rocky peninsula, where they found so little space over which to spread at their ease that this very circumstance made them a thorough people of sailors. In accordance with their local situation they had turned to the waters of the Pontus, established settlements on the Dardanelles and the Black Sea, and taken part in the trade with Egypt. Here however they were unable to hold their own by the side of the Milesians, … and the Phocæans accordingly saw themselves obliged to look westward and to follow the direction of Chalcidian navigation. … It was thus that the Ionian Phocæans came into the western sea. Being forced from the first to accustom themselves to long and distant voyages, instead of the easy summer trips of the other maritime cities, they became notably bold and heroic sailors. They began where the rest left off; they made voyages of discovery into regions avoided by others; they remained at sea even when the skies already showed signs of approaching winter and the observation of the stars became difficult. They built their ships long and slim, in order to increase their agility; their merchant vessels were at the same time men-of-war. … They entered those parts of the Adriatic which most abound in rocks, and circumnavigated the islands of the Tyrrhenian sea in spite of the Carthaginian guard–ships; they sought out the bays of Campania and the mouths of the Tiber and Arnus; they proceeded farther, past the Alpine ranges, along the coast as far as the mouth of the Rhodanus, and finally reached Iberia, with whose rich treasures of precious metals they had first become acquainted on the coast of Italy. … During the period when Ionia began to be hard pressed by the Lydians, the Phocæans, who had hitherto contented themselves with small commercial settlements, in their turn proceeded to the foundation of cities in Gaul and Iberia. The month of the Rhodanus [the Rhone] was of especial importance to them for the purposes of land and sea trade. … Massalia [modern Marseilles], from the forty-fifth Olympiad [B. C. 600] became a fixed seat of Hellenic culture in the land of the Celts, despite the hostility of the piratical tribes of Liguria and the Punic fleet. Large fisheries were established on the shore; and the stony soil in the immediate vicinity of the city itself was converted into vine and olive plantations. The roads leading inland were made level, which brought the products of the country to the mouth of the Rhone; and in the Celtic towns were set up mercantile establishments, which collected at Massalia the loads of British tin, of inestimable value for the manufacture of copper, while wine and oil, as well as works of art, particularly copper utensils, were supplied to the interior. A totally new horizon opened for Hellenic inquiry."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.

See, also, ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

PHOCAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 602-610.

PHOCIANS, The.

See PHOKIANS.

PHOCION, Execution of.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

PHOCIS: B. C. 357-346. Seizure of Delphi. The Ten Years Sacred War with Thebes. Intervention of Philip of Macedon. Heavy punishment by his hand.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

----------PHŒNICIANS: Start--------

PHŒNICIANS: Origin and early history. Commerce. Colonies.

"The traditions of the Phœnicians collected at Tyre itself by Herodotus …; those of the inhabitants of Southern Arabia preserved by Strabo; and, finally, those still current in Babylonia during the first centuries of the Christian era, when the Syro-Chaldee original of the book of 'Nabathæan Agriculture' was revised—all agree in stating that the Canaanites at first lived near the Cushites, their brethren in race, on the banks of the Erythræan Sea, or Persian Gulf, on that portion of the coast of Bahrein designated El Katif on our modern maps of Arabia. Pliny speaks of a land of Canaan in this neighbourhood, in his time. … According to Tragus Pompeius, the Canaanites were driven from their first settlements by earthquakes, and then journeyed towards Southern Syria. {2531} The traditions preserved in 'Nabathæan Agriculture' state, on the contrary, that they were violently expelled, in consequence of a quarrel with the Cushite monarchs of Babylon of the dynasty of Nimrod; and this is also the account given by the Arabian historians. … The entry of the Canaanites into Palestine, and their settlement in the entire country situated between the sea and the valley of Jordan, must … be placed between the period when the twelfth dynasty governed Egypt and that when the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, reigned as suzerain over all the Tigro-Euphrates basin. This brings us approximately between 2400 and 2300 B. C. … The Sidonians formed the first settlement, and always remained at the head of the Phœnician nation, which, at all periods of its history, even when joined by other peoples of the same race, called itself both 'Canaanite' and 'Sidonian.' … The Greek name, Phœnicians, of unknown origin, must not be applied to the whole of the nations of the race of Canaan who settled in Southern Syria; it belongs to the Canaanites of the sea coast only, who were always widely separated from the others. Phœnicia, in both classical history and geography, is merely that very narrow tract of land, hemmed in by mountains and sea, extending from Aradus on the north to the town of Acco on the south."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 6, chapter 1.

"Renan sums up the evidence when he says: 'The greater number of modern critics admit it as demonstrated, that the primitive abode of the Phœnicians must be placed on the Lower Euphrates, in the centre of the great commercial and maritime establishments of the Persian Gulf, conformably to the unanimous witness of antiquity.' The date, the causes, and the circumstances of the migration are involved in equal obscurity. The motive for it assigned by Justin is absurd, since no nation ever undertook a long and difficult migration on account of an earthquake. If we may resort to conjecture we should b inclined to suggest that the spirit of adventure gave the first impulse, and that afterwards the unexampled facilities for trade, which the Mediterranean coast was found to possess, attracted a continuous flow of immigrants from the sea of the Rising to that of the Setting Sun."

G. Rawlinson, The Story of Phœnicia, chapter 2.

G. Rawlinson, History of Phœnicia, chapter 3.

"The campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and the land of the Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds could not leave these cities [Sidon and others] unmoved. If the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is Zemar (Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in his sixth campaign (about the year 1580 B. C.); if Arkatu is Arka, south of Aradus, this place must have been destroyed in his fifteenth campaign (about the year 1570 B. C.). Sethos I. (1440-1400 B. C.) subdued the land of Limanon (i. e. the region of Lebanon). and caused cedars to be felled there. One of his inscriptions mentions Zor, i. e. Tyre, among the cities conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses II., also forced his way in the first decades of the fourteenth century as far as the coasts of the Phenicians. At the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between Sidon and Berytus, the rocks on the coast display the memorial which he caused to be set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour of the successes obtained in this region. In the fifth year of his reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta, defeats the king of Arathu in the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and Ramses III., about the year 1310 B. C., mentions beside the Cheta who attack Egypt the people of Arathu, by which name in the one case as in the other, may be meant the warriors of Aradus. If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows, from the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the Hittites had risen about the middle of the fifteenth century B. C., and which it maintained to the end of the fourteenth, the Phenician cities had assumed an independent position. The successes of the Pharaohs in Syria come to an end in the first decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt makes peace and enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house of the Cheta. … The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which succumbed to the attack of the Amorites soon after the year 1300 B. C., must have had a reaction on the cities of the Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must have been driven to the coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the middle of the thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of the Hebrews on the mountains of the Amorites [see JEWS: CONQUEST OF CANAAN], must again have thrown the vanquished, i. e. the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast. With this retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to the coast is connected the movement which from this period emanates from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed towards the islands of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is true that on this subject only the most scanty statements and traces, only the most legendary traditions have come down to us, so that we can ascertain these advances only in the most wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off the coast of Phenicia lies the island of Cyprus. … The western writers state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had conquered and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium belonged to Belus. The victorious Belus is the Baal of the Phenicians. The date of the Trojan war is of no importance for the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement is found in Virgil only. More important is the fact that the settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform writing to Cyprus. … The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must therefore have taken place before the time in which the alphabetic writing, i. e. the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B. C. … In the beginning of the tenth century B. C. the cities of Cyprus stood under the supremacy of the king of Tyre. The island was of extraordinary fertility. The forests furnished wood for ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of the metal which has obtained the name of copper from this island. Hence it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening of the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later period. … {2532} As early as the fifteenth century B. C., we may regard the Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching east and west, which must have been augmented by the fact that they conveyed not only products of the Syrian land to the Euphrates and the Nile, but could also carry the goods which they obtained in exchange in Egypt to Babylonia, and what they obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the same time the fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see producing woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments and weapons, and becoming preeminent in the colouring of stuffs with the liquor of the purple-fish which are found on the Phenician coasts. This industry required above all things metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no less in need, and when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no longer sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to be obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a proportionately small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found in Cyprus, gold in the island of Thasos, and purple-fish on the coasts of Hellas. When the fall of the kingdom of the Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes in the south of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those possessions of the islands by merely landing and making exchanges with the inhabitants. Intercourse with semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by the sword. Good harbours were needed. … Thus arose protecting forts on the distant islands and coasts, which received the ships of the native land. … In order to obtain the raw material necessary for their industry no less than to carry off the surplus of population, the Phenicians were brought to colonise Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace, Imbros, Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the straits of Eubœa, purple–fish were found in extraordinary quantities. … We may conclude that the Phenicians must have set foot on Cyprus about the year 1250 B. C., and on the islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200 B. C. Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had occupied the promontories of Sicily and the small islands lying around Sicily, in order to carry on trade with the Sicels. Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the Phenicians extended their trade to the western ocean they settled in the island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the middle of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge for their ships. … On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the Phenicians planted many colonies. The mountains of Sardinia contained iron, silver, and lead. … The legend of the Greeks makes Heracles, i. e. Baal Melkarth, lord of the whole West. As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond Sardinia in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out nearest Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest colony. In the legends of the coins mentioned above Hippo is named beside Tyre and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. … Ityke (atak, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas (Medsherda), takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed it was not founded before it. Aristotle tells us that the Phenicians stated that Ityke was built 287 years before Carthage, and Pliny maintains that Ityke was founded 1,178 years before his time. As Carthage was founded in the year 846 B. C. [see CARTHAGE] Ityke, according to Aristotle's statement, was built in the year 1133 B. C. With this the statement of Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A. D., and therefore he places the foundation of Ityke in the year 1126 or 1100 B. C. About the same time, i. e. about the year 1100 B. C., the Phenicians had already reached much further to the west. … When their undertakings succeeded according to their desire and they had collected great treasures, they resolved to traverse the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles, which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their passage through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe a city which they called Gadeira. … This foundation of Gades, which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir, i. e. wall, fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said to have taken place in the year 1100 B. C. If Ityke was founded before 1100 B. C. or about that time, we have no reason to doubt the founding of Gades soon after that date. Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have reached the ocean about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris with his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the Mediterranean."

M. Duncker, The History of Antiquity, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).

"The typical Phœnician colony was only a trading station, inhabited by dealers, who had not ceased to be counted as citizens of the parent State. … In Phœnicia itself the chief object of public interest was the maintenance and extension of foreign trade. The wealth of the country depended on the profits of the merchants, and it was therefore the interest of the Government to encourage and protect the adventures of the citizens. Unlike the treasures or curiosities imported by the fleets of royal adventurers, Phœnician imports were not intended to be consumed within the country, but to be exchanged for the most part for other commodities. The products of all lands were brought to market there, and the market people, after supplying all their own wants in kind, still had commodities to sell at a profit to the rest of the world. The Government did not seek to retain a monopoly of this profit; on the contrary, private enterprise seems to have been more untrammelled than at any time before the present century. But individuals and the State were agreed in desiring to retain a monopoly of foreign traffic as against the rest of the world, hence the invention of 'Phœnician lies' about the dangers of the sea, and the real dangers which 'Tyrian seas' came to possess for navigators of any other nation. … Phœnician traders were everywhere first in the field, and it was easy for them to persuade their barbarous customers that foreigners of any other stock were dangerous and should be treated as enemies. They themselves relied more on stratagem than on open warfare to keep the seas, which they considered their own, free from other navigators. … Silver and gold, wool and purple, couches inlaid with ivory, Babylonish garments and carpets, unguents of all sorts, female slaves and musicians, are indicated by the comic poets as forming part of the typical cargo of a Phœnician merchantman, the value of which in many cases would reach a far higher figure than a small ship-owner or captain could command. {2533} As a consequence, a good deal of banking or money-lending business was done by the wealthy members of the great Corporation of Merchants and Ship-owners. The Phœnicians had an evil reputation with the other nations of the Mediterranean for sharp practices, and the custom of lending money at interest was considered, of course wrongly, a Phœnician invention, though it is possible that they led the way in the general substitution of loans at interest for the more primitive use of antichretic pledges. … To the Greeks the name Phœnician seems to have called up the same sort of association as those which still cling to the name of Jew in circles which make no boast of tolerance; and it is probable enough that the first, like the second, great race of wandering traders was less scrupulous in its dealings with aliens than compatriots. … So far as the Punic race may be supposed to have merited its evil reputation, one is tempted to account for the fact by the character of its principal staples. All the products of all the countries of the world circulated in Phœnician merchantmen, but the two most considerable, and most profitable articles of trade in which they dealt were human beings and the precious metals. The Phœnicians were the slave-dealers and the money-changers of the Old World. And it is evident that a branch of trade, which necessarily follows the methods of piracy, is less favourable to the growth of the social virtues than the cultivation of the ground, the domestication of animals, or the arts and manufactures by which the products of nature are applied to new and varied uses. Compared with the trade in slaves, that in metals—gold, silver, copper and tin—must seem innocent and meritorious; yet the experience of ages seems to show that, somehow or other, mining is not a moralizing industry. … Sidon was famous in Homer's time for copper or bronze, and Tyre in Solomon's for bronze (the 'brass' of the Authorized Version); and the Phœnicians retailed the work of all other metallurgists as well as their own, as they retailed the manufactures of Egypt and Babylonia, and the gums and spices of Arabia. … Two things are certain with regard to the continental commerce of Europe before the written history of its northern countries begins. Tin and umber were conveyed by more than one route from Cornwall and the North Sea to Mediterranean ports. In the latter case the traders proceeded up the Rhine and the Aar, along the Jura to the Rhone, and thence down to Marseilles; and also across the Alps, by a track forking off, perhaps at Grenoble, into the valley of the Po, and so to the Adriatic. … Apart from the Phœnician sea trade, Cornish tin was conveyed partly by water to Armorica and to Marseilles through the west of France; but also to the east of England' (partly overland by the route known later as the Pilgrims' Way), and from the east of Kent, possibly to the seat of the amber trade, as well as to a route through the east of France, starting from the short Dover crossing."

E. J. Simcox, Primitive Civilizations, volume 1, pages 397-402.

"The epigraphic texts left us by the Phœnicians are too short and dry to give us any of those vivid glimpses into the past that the historian loves. When we wish to make the men of Tyre and Sidon live again, when we try to see them as they moved in those seven or eight centuries during which they were supreme in the Mediterranean, we have to turn to the Greeks, to Herodotus and Homer, for the details of our picture; it is in their pages that we are told how these eastern traders made themselves indispensable to the half-savage races of Europe. … The Phœnicians carried on their trade in a leisurely way. It consisted for the most part in exchanging their manufactured wares for the natural produce of the countries they visited; it was in conformity with the spirit of the time, and, although it inspired distrust, it was regular enough in its methods. Stories told by both Homer and Herodotus show them to us as abductors of women and children, but in the then state of the world even deeds like those described would soon be forgotten, and after a time the faithless traders would be readmitted for the sake of the wares they brought. … Seeing how great their services were to the civilization of Greece and Rome, and how admirable were those virtues of industry, activity, and splendid courage that they brought to their work, how is it that the classic writers speak of the Phœnicians with so little sympathy? and why does the modern historian, in spite of his breadth and freedom from bias, find it difficult to treat them even with justice? It is because, in spite of their long relations with them, the peoples of Greece and Italy never learnt to really know the Phœnicians or to understand their language, and, to answer the second question, because our modern historians are hardly better informed. Between Greece and Rome on the one hand and Phœnicia and Carthage on the other, there was a barrier which was never beaten down. They traded and fought, but they never concluded a lasting and cordial peace; they made no effort to comprehend each other's nature, but retained their mutual, ignorant antipathy to the very end. … That full justice has never been done to the Phœnicians is partly their own fault. They were moved neither by the passion for truth nor by that for beauty; they cared only for gain, and thanks to the condition of the world at the time they entered upon the scene, they could satisfy that lust to the full. In the barter trade they carried on for so many centuries the advantage must always have been for the more civilized, and the Phœnicians used and abused that advantage. Tyre and Sidon acquired prodigious wealth; the minds of their people were exclusively occupied with the useful; they were thinking always of the immediate profit to themselves in every transaction; and to such a people the world readily denies justice, to say nothing of indulgence. … No doubt it may be said that it was quite without their goodwill that the Phœnicians helped other nations to shake off barbarism and to supply themselves with the material of civilized life. That, of course, is true, but it does not diminish the importance of the results obtained through their means. Phœnicia appropriated for herself all the inventions and recipes of the old eastern civilizations and by more than one happy discovery, and especially by the invention of the alphabet, she added to the value of the treasure thus accumulated. Whether she meant it or not, she did, as a fact, devote her energies to the dissemination of all this precious knowledge from the very day on which she entered into relations with those tribes on the Grecian islands and on the continent of Europe which were as yet strangers to political life. … {2534} At the time of their greatest expansion, the true Phœnicians numbered, at the very most, a few hundreds of thousands. It was with such scanty numbers that they contrived to be present everywhere, to construct ports of refuge for their ships, factories for their merchants and warehouses for their goods. These 'English of antiquity,' as they have been so well called, upheld their power by means very similar to those employed by England, who has succeeded for two centuries in holding together her vast colonial empire by a handful of soldiers and a huge fleet of ships. The great difference lies in the fact that Tyre made no attempt to subjugate and govern the nations she traded with."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in Phœnicia, volume 2, chapter 6.

The ascendancy among Phœnician cities passed at some early day from Sidon to Tyre, and the decline of the former has been ascribed to an attack from the Philistines of Ascalon, which occurred about 1250 or 1200 B. C. But the explanation seems questionable.

G. Rawlinson, History of Phœnicia, chapter 14.

See TYRE.

PHŒNICIANS: Coinage and Money.

See MONEY AND BANKING: PHŒNICIA.

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538. Subjection to Assyria and Babylonia.

About 850 B. C. "the military expeditions of the Assyrians began to reach Southern Syria, and Phœnician independence seems to have been lost. We cannot be sure that the submission was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phœnician subjection, while there is no evidence of resistance or revolt. … About B. C. 743 the passive submission of Phœnicia to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phœnician independence. These efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian empire succumbed, success crowned the nation's patriotic exertions, and autonomy was recovered. … Scarcely, however, had Assyria fallen when a new enemy appeared upon the scene. Nechoh of Egypt, about B. C. 608, conquered the whole tract between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phœnicia submitted or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 605, after his defeat of Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phœnicia to Babylon; and, though Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B. C. 598, and resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her, yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian yoke was firmly fixed on the entire Phœnician people. It is not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the death of the great Babylonian king; but, on the whole, probability is in favour of their having remained subject till the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B. C. 538."

G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 1, part 1, section 6.

"It appears to have been only a few years after Nebuchadnezzar's triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed troubles broke out in Syria. Phœnicia revolted under the leadership of Tyre; and about the same time Jehoiakim, the Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid from the Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh year (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into Palestine at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first invested Tyre; but finding that city too strong to be taken by assault, he left a portion of his army to continue the siege, while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. … The siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the second investment of Jerusalem. … Tyre, if it fell at the end of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very year which followed the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 585. … It has been questioned whether the real Tyre, the island city, actually fell on this occasion (Heeren, As. Nat. volume ii. page 11, E. T.; Kenrick, Phœnicia, page 390), chiefly because Ezekiel says, about B. C. 570, that Nebuchadnezzar had 'received no wages for the service that he served against it.' (Ezekiel xxix. 18.) But this passage may be understood to mean that he had had no sufficient wages. Berosus expressly stated that Nebuchadnezzar reduced all Phœnicia."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia, chapter 8, and footnote.

PHŒNICIANS: Later commerce.

"The commerce of Phœnicia appears to have reached its greatest height about the time of the rise of the Chaldæan power at Babylon. Its monopoly may have been more complete in earlier times, but the range of its traffic was more confined. Nebuchadnezzar was impelled to attempt its conquest by a double motive—to possess himself of its riches and to become master of its harbours and its navy. The prophet Ezekiel (chapter 27), foretelling his siege of Tyre, has drawn a picture of its commerce, which is the most valuable document for its commercial history that has come down to us. … Directly or indirectly, the commerce of Tyre, in the beginning of the sixth century before Christ, thus embraced the whole known world. By means of the Arabian and the Persian gulfs it communicated with India and the coast of Africa towards the equator. On the north its vessels found their way along the Euxine to the frozen borders of Scythia. Beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, its ships, or those of its colony of Gades, visited the British isles for tin, if they did not penetrate into the Baltic to bring back amber. Ezekiel says nothing of the voyages of the Tyrians in the Atlantic ocean, which lay beyond the limits of Jewish geography; but it is probable that they had several centuries before passed the limits of the Desert on the western coast of Africa, and by the discovery of one of the Canaries had given rise to the Greek fable of the Islands of the Blessed."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: A. H. L. Heeren, Historical Researches, volume 1.

J. Yeats, Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce, chapter 3.

G. Rawlinson, History of Phœnicia, chapters 9, and 14, section 2.

R. Bosworth Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 1.

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 332, and after. Final history.

See TYRE.

----------PHŒNICIANS: End--------

PHOENIX CLUBS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

PHOENIX PARK MURDERS, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

{2535}

PHOKIANS, The.

"The Phokians [in ancient Greece] were bounded on the north by the little territories called Doris and Dryopis, which separated them from the Malians,—on the northeast, east and south-west by the different branches of Lokrians,—and on the south-east by the Bœotians. They touched the Eubœan sea … at Daphnus, the point where it approaches nearest to their chief town, Elateia; their territory also comprised most part of the lofty and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis, projects into the Corinthian Gulf, between the two bays of Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain, was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo. Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian race. But the sanctity of the temple, together with Lacedæmonian aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for themselves, disavowing their connexion with the Phokian brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable part of Phokis consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus. … It was on the projecting mountain ledges and rocks on each side of this river that the numerous little Phokian towns were situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred War."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.

See SACRED WARS.

PHORMIO, and the sea victories of.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PHRATRIÆ.

See PHYLÆ: also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

PHRYGIAN CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

PHRYGIAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

PHRYGIANS. MYSIANS.

"When the Assyrians in the thirteenth century [B. C.] advanced past the springs of the Euphrates into the western peninsula [of Asia Minor], they found, on the central table-land, a mighty body of native population—the Phrygians. The remains of their language tend to show them to have been the central link between the Greeks and the elder Aryans. They called their Zeus Bagalus ('baga' in ancient Persian signifying God; 'bhaga,' in Sanscrit, fortune), or Sabazius, from a verb common to Indian and Greek, and signifying 'to adore.' They possessed the vowels of the Greeks, and in the terminations of words changed the 'm' into 'n.' Kept off from the sea, they, it is true, lagged behind the coast tribes in civilization, and were regarded by these as men slow of understanding and only suited for inferior duties in human society. Yet they too had a great and independent post of their own, which is mirrored in the native myths of their kings. The home of these myths is especially in the northern regions of Phrygia, on the banks of the springs which feed the Sangarius, flowing in mighty curves through Bithynia into Pontus. Here traditions survived of the ancient kings of the land, of Gordius and Midas."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 1, book 1, chapter 3.

"As far us any positive opinion can be formed respecting nations of whom we know so little, it would appear that the Mysians and Phrygians are a sort of connecting link between Lydians and Karians on one side, and Thracians (European as well as Asiatic) on the other—a remote ethnical affinity pervading the whole. Ancient migrations are spoken of in both directions across the Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus. It was the opinion of some that Phrygians, Mysians and Thracians had immigrated into Asia from Europe. … On the other hand, Herodotus speaks of a vast body of Teukrians and Mysians who, before the Trojan war, had crossed the strait from Asia into Europe. … The Phrygians also are supposed by some to have originally occupied an European soil on the borders of Macedonia, … while the Mysians are said to have come from the northeastern portions of European Thrace south of the Danube, known under the Roman empire by the name of Mœsia. But with respect to the Mysians there was also another story, according to which they were described as colonists emanating from the Lydians. … And this last opinion was supported by the character of the Mysian language, half Lydian and half Phrygian."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 16.

The Mysians occupied the north-western corner of Asia Minor, including the region of the Troad. "In the works of the great Greek writers which have come down to us, notably, in the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the Phrygians figure but little. To the Greeks generally they were known but as the race whence most of their slaves were drawn, as a people branded with the qualities of slaves, idleness, cowardice, effeminacy. … From the Phrygians came those orgiastic forms of religious cult which were connected with the worship of Dionysus and of the Mother of the Gods, orgies which led alike to sensual excess and to hideous self–mutilations, to semi-religious frenzy and bestial immoralities, against which the strong good sense of the better Greeks set itself at all periods, though it could not deprive them of their attractions for the lowest of the people. And yet it was to this race sunk in corruption, except when roused by frenzy, that the warlike Trojan stock belonged. Hector and Aeneas were Phrygians; and the most manly race of the ancient world, the Romans, were proud of their supposed descent from shepherds of Phrygia."

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 2.

PHUT.

See LIBYANS.

PHYLÆ. PHRATRIÆ. GENTES.

"In all Greek states, without exception, the people was divided into tribes or Phylæ, and those again into the smaller subdivisions of Phratriæ and gentes, and the distribution so made was employed to a greater or less extent for the common organisation of the State."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 2, chapter 4.

The four Attic tribes were called, during the later period of that division, the Geleontes, Hopletes, Ægikoreis, and Argadeis. "It is affirmed, and with some etymological plausibility, that the denominations of these four tribes must originally have had reference to the occupations of those who bore them,—the Hopletes being the warriour-class, the Ægikoreis goatherds, the Argadeis artisans, and the Geleontes (Teleontes or Gedeontes) cultivators. Hence some authors have ascribed to the ancient inhabitants of Attica an actual primitive distribution into hereditary professions or castes, similar to that which prevailed in India and Egypt. If we should even grant that such a division into castes might originally have prevailed, it must have grown obsolete long before the time of Solon; but there seem no sufficient grounds for believing that it ever did prevail. … The four tribes, and the four names (allowing for some variations of reading), are therefore historically verified. But neither the time of their introduction, nor their primitive import, are ascertainable matters. … {2536} These four tribes may be looked at either as religious and social aggregates, in which capacity each of them comprised three Phratries and ninety Gentes; or as political aggregates, in which point of view each included three Trittyes and twelve Naukraries. Each Phratry contained thirty Gentes; each Trittys comprised four Naukraries: the total numbers were thus 360 Gentes and 48 Naukraries. Moreover, each gens is said to have contained thirty heads of families, of whom therefore there would be a total of 10,800. … That every Phratry contained an equal number of Gentes, and every Gens an equal number of families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes themselves were real, ancient and durable associations among the Athenian people, highly important to be understood. The basis of the whole was the house, hearth or family,—a number of which, greater or less, composed the Gens, or Genos. This Gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly factitious, brotherhood. … All these phratric and gentile associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind—a coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry, or of communion in certain special religious rites with communion of blood, real or supposed. The god, or hero, to whom the assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as the primitive ancestor, to whom they owed their origin. … The revolution of Kleisthenes in 509 B. C. abolished the old tribes for civil purposes, and created ten new tribes,—leaving the Phratries and Gentes unaltered, but introducing the local distribution according to demes or cantons, as the foundation of his new political tribes. A certain number of demes belonged to each of the ten Kleisthenean tribes (the demes in the same tribes were not usually contiguous, so that the tribe was not coincident with a definite circumscription), and the deme, in which every individual was then registered, continued to be that in which his descendants were also registered. … The different Gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed the hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being in some cases considered as of preeminent sanctity in reference to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus the Eumolpidæ and Kerykes, who supplied the Hierophant and superintended the mysteries of the Eleusinian Demeter—and the Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of Athene Polias as well as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus in the acropolis—seem to have been reverenced above all the other Gentes. When the name Butadæ was selected in the Kleisthenean arrangement as the name of a deme, the holy Gens so called adopted the distinctive denomination of Eteobutadæ, or 'The true Butadæ.'"

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 3, chapter 1.

PHYLARCH.

See TAXIARCH.

PHYLE.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

PHYSICIANS, First English College of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, 16TH CENTURY.

PIACENZA.

See PLACENTIA.

PIAGNONI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PIANKISHAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

PIASTS, PIASSES, The.

See POLAND: BEGINNINGS, &c.

PIAVE, Battle on the.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

PI-BESETH.

See BUBASTIS.

PICARDS, The Religions Sect of the.

"The reforming movement of Bohemia [15th century] had drawn thither persons from other countries whose opinions were obnoxious to the authorities of the church. Among these, the most remarkable were known by the name of Picards,—apparently a form of the word 'beghards' [see BEGUINES], which … was then widely applied to sectaries. These Picards appear to have come from the Low Countries."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, volume 8, page 24.

See, also, PAULICIANS.

PICARDY. PICARDS.

"Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than A. D. 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students in the university of Paris who came from the frontier of France and Flanders."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58, foot-note 1.

PICENIANS, The.

See SABINES.

PICHEGRU, Campaign and political intrigues of.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER); 1797 (SEPTEMBER); 1804-1805.

PICHINCHA, Battle of (1822).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PICKAWILLANY.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1764.

PICTAVI.

See POITIERS: ORIGINAL NAMES.

PICTONES, The.

"The Pictones [of ancient Gaul], whose name is represented by Poitou, and the Santones (Saintonge) occupied the coast between the lower Loire and the great aestuary of the Garonne."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 6.

PICTS AND SCOTS.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PICTURE-WRITING.

See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING; also HIEROGLYPHICS.

PIE-POWDER COURT, The.

"There was one special court [in London, during the Middle Ages], which met to decide disputes arising on market-days, or among travellers and men of business, and which reminds us of the old English tendency to decide quickly and definitely, without entering into any long written or verbal consideration of the question at issue; and this was known as the Pie-powder Court, a corruption of the old French words. 'pieds poudres,' the Latin 'pedes pulverizati,' in which the complainant and the accused were supposed not to have shaken the dust from off their feet."

R. Pauli, Pictures of Old England, chapter 12.

PIECES OF EIGHT.

See SPANISH COINS.

PIEDMONT: Primitive inhabitants.

See LIGURIANS.

PIEDMONT: History.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT.

PIEDMONT, VIRGINIA., Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA) THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

{2537}

PIEGANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

PIERCE, Franklin: Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852, to 1857.

----------PIGNEROL: Start--------

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1630-1631 Siege, capture and purchase by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1648. Secured to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1659. Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1697. Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

See SAVOY: A. D. 1580-1713.

----------PIGNEROL: End--------

PIGNEROL, Treaty of.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

PIKE'S PEAK MINING REGION.

See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

PILATE, Pontius.

See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44; and A. D. 26.

PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

PILGRIMS. PILGRIM FATHERS.

In American history, the familiar designation of the little company of English colonists who sailed for the New World in the Mayflower, A. D. 1620, seeking religious freedom, and who landed at Plymouth Rock.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS, and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

----------PILLOW, Fort: Start--------

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1862. Evacuated by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1864. Capture and Massacre.

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

----------PILLOW, Fort: End--------

PILNITZ, The Declaration of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

PILOT KNOB, Attack on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PILSEN, Capture by Count Ernest of Mansfeld (1618).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PILUM, The.

The Roman spear was called the pilum. "It was, according to [Polybius], a spear having a very large iron head or blade, and this was carried by a socket to receive the shaft. … By the soldiers of the legions, to whom the use of the pilum was restricted, this weapon was both hurled from the hand as a javelin, and grasped firmly, as well for the charge as to resist and beat down hostile attacks."

P. Lacombe, Arms and Armour, chapter 4.

PIMAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY.

PIMENTEIRAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

PINDARIS, PINDHARIES, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

PINE TREE MONEY.

Between 1652 and 1684 the colony of Massachusetts coined silver shillings and smaller coins, which bore on their faces the rude figure of a pine tree, and are called "pine tree money."

See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

PINEROLO.

See PIGNEROL.

PINKIE, Battle of (1547).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

PIPE ROLLS.

See EXCHEQUER.

PIPPIN, OR PEPIN, of Heristal, Austrasian Mayor of the Palace, and Duke of the Franks, A. D. 687-714.

Pippin, or Pepin, the Short, Duke and Prince of the Franks, 741-752; King, 752-768.

PIQUETS AND ZINGLINS.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

PIRÆUS, The.

This was the important harbor of Athens, constructed and fortified during and after the Persian wars; a work which the Athenians owed to the genius and energy of Themistocles. The name was sometimes applied to the whole peninsula in which the Piræus is situated, and which contained two other harbors—Munychia and Zea. Phalerum, which had previously been the harbor of Athens, lay to the east. The walls built by Themistocles "were carried round the whole of the peninsula in a circumference of seven miles, following the bend of its rocky rim, and including the three harbour-bays. At the mouths of each of the harbours a pair of towers rose opposite to one another at so short a distance that it was possible to connect them by means of chains: these were the locks of the Piræus. The walls, about 16 feet thick, were built without mortar, of rectangular blocks throughout, and were raised to a height of 30 feet by Themistocles, who is said to have originally intended to give them double that height."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

PIRATES OF CILICIA, The.

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

PIRMASENS, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF TUE WAR.

PIRNA, Saxon Surrender at.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

PIRU, CHONTAQUIROS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: ANDESIANS.

PISA, Greece.

See ELIS; and OLYMPIC GAMES.

----------PISA, Italy: Start--------

PISA, Italy: Origin of the city. Early growth of its commerce and naval power. Conquest of Sardinia.

Strabo and others have given Pisa a Grecian origin. "Situated near the sea upon the triangle formed in past ages, by the confluence of the two rivers, the Arno and the Serchio; she was highly adapted to commerce and navigation; particularly in times when these were carried on with small vessels. We consequently find that she was rich and mercantile in early times, and frequented by all the barbarous nations. … Down to the end of the fifteenth century, almost all the navigation of the nations of Europe, as well as those of Asia and Africa, which kept a correspondence and commerce with the former, was limited to the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Archipelago, and Euxine seas; and the first three Italian republics, Pisa, Genoa, and Venice, were for a long time mistresses of it. Pisa, as far back as the year 925, was the principal city of Tuscany, according to Luitprand. In the beginning of the eleventh century, that is, in the year 1004, we find in the Pisan annals, that the latter waged war with the Lucchese and beat them; this is the first enterprise of one Italian city against another, which proves that she already acted for herself, and was in great part, if not wholly, liberated from the dominion of the Duke of Tuscany. {2538} In the Pisan annals, and in other authors, we meet with a series of enterprises, many of which are obscurely related, or perhaps exaggerated. Thus we find that in the year 1005, in an expedition of the Pisans against the maritime city of Reggio, Pisa being left unprovided with defenders, Musetto, king, or head, of the Saracens, who occupied Sardinia, seized the opportunity of making an invasion; and having sacked the city, departed, or was driven out of it. … It was very natural for the Pisans and Genoese, who must have been in continual fear of the piracies and invasions of the barbarians as long as they occupied Sardinia, to think seriously of exterminating them from that country: the pope himself sent the Bishop of Ostia in haste to the Pisans as legate, to encourage them to the enterprise: who, joining with the Genoese, conquered Sardinia [1017] by driving out the Saracens; and the pope, by the right he thought he possessed over all the kingdoms of the earth, invested the Pisans with the dominion; not however without exciting the jealousy of the Genoese, who, as they were less powerful in those times, were obliged to yield to force. The mutual necessity of defence from the common enemy kept them united; the barbarians having disembarked in the year 1020 in Sardinia under the same leader, they were again repulsed, and all their treasure which remained a booty of the conquerors, was conceded to the Genoese as an indemnity for the expense."

L. Pignotti, History of Tuscany, volume 1, chapter 7.

PISA: A. D. 1063-1293. Architectural development. Disastrous war with Genoa. The great defeat at Meloria. Count Ugolino and his fate. War with Florence and Lucca.

"The republic of Pisa was one of the first to make known to the world the riches and power which a small state might acquire by the aid of commerce and liberty. Pisa had astonished the shores of the Mediterranean by the number of vessels and galleys that sailed under her flag, by the succor she had given the crusaders, by the fear she had inspired at Constantinople, and by the conquest of Sardinia and the Balearic Isles. Pisa was the first to introduce into Tuscany the arts that ennoble wealth: her dome, her baptistery, her leaning tower, and her Campo Santo, which the traveller's eye embraces at one glance, but does not weary of beholding, had been successively built from the year 1063 to the end of the 12th century. These chefs-d'œuvre had animated the genius of the Pisans; the great architects of the 13th century were, for the most part, pupils of Nicolas di Pisa. But the moment was come in which the ruin of this glorious republic was at hand; a deep-rooted jealousy, to be dated from the conquest of Sardinia, had frequently, during the last two centuries, armed against each other the republics of Genoa and Pisa: a new war between them broke out in 1282. It is difficult to comprehend how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets as those of Pisa and Genoa. In 1282, Ginicel Sismondi commanded 30 Pisan galleys, of which he lost the half in a tempest, on the 9th of September; the following year, Rosso Sismondi commanded 64; in 1284, Guido Jacia commanded 24, and was vanquished. The Pisans had recourse the same year to a Venetian admiral, Alberto Morosini, to whom they intrusted 103 galleys: but whatever efforts they made, the Genoese constantly opposed a superior fleet. This year [1284], however, all the male population of the two republics seemed assembled on their vessels; they met on the 6th of August, 1284, once more before the Isle of Meloria, rendered famous 43 years before by the victory of the Pisans over the same enemies [when the Ghibelline friendship of Pisa for the Emperor Frederick II. induced her to intercept and attack, on the 3d of May, 1241, a Genoese fleet which conveyed many prelates to a great council called by Pope Gregory IX. with hostile intentions towards the Emperor, and which the latter desired to prevent]. Valor was still the same, but fortune had changed sides; and a terrible disaster effaced the memory of an ancient victory. While the two fleets, almost equal in number, were engaged, a reinforcement of 30 Genoese galleys, driven impetuously by the wind, struck the Pisan fleet in flank: 7 of their vessels were instantly sunk, 28 taken. 5,000 citizens perished in the battle, and 11,000 who were taken prisoners to Genoa preferred death in captivity rather than their republic should ransom them, by giving up Sardinia to the Genoese. This prodigious loss ruined the maritime power of Pisa; the same nautical knowledge, the same spirit of enterprise, were not transmitted to the next generation. All the fishermen of the coast quitted the Pisan galleys for those of Genoa. The vessels diminished in number, with the means of manning them; and Pisa could no longer pretend to be more than the third maritime power in Italy. While the republic was thus exhausted by this great reverse of fortune, it was attacked by the league of the Tuscan Guelphs; and a powerful citizen, to whom it had intrusted itself, betrayed his country to enslave it. Ugolino was count of the Gherardesca, a mountainous country situated along the coast, between Leghorn and Piombino: he was of Ghibeline origin, but had married his sister to Giovan di Gallura, chief of the Guelphs of Pisa and of Sardinia. From that time he artfully opposed the Guelphs to the Ghibelines." The Pisans, thinking him to be the person best able to reconcile Pisa with the Guelph league "named Ugolino captain-general for ten years: and the new commander did, indeed, obtain peace with the Guelph league; but not till he had caused all the fortresses of the Pisan territory to be opened by his creatures to the Lucchese and Florentines. … From that time he sought only to strengthen his own despotism." In July, 1288, there was a rising of the Pisans against him; his palace was stormed and burned; and he, his two sons and two grandsons, were dragged out of the flames, to be locked in a tower and starved to death—as told in the verse of Dante. "The victory over count Ugolino, achieved by the most ardent of the Ghibelines,. redoubled the enthusiasm and audacity of that party; and soon determined them to renew the war with the Guelphs of Tuscany. … Guido de Montefeltro was named captain. He had acquired a high reputation in defending Forli against the French forces of Charles of Anjou; and the republic had not to repent of its choice. He recovered by force of arms all the fortresses which Ugolino had given up to the Lucchese and Florentines. The Pisan militia, whom Montefeltro armed with cross-bows, which he had trained them to use with precision, became the terror of Tuscany. The Guelphs of Florence and Lucca were glad to make peace in 1293."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics, chapter 5.

{2539}

In 1290, when Pisa was in her greatest distress, Genoa suddenly joined again in the attack on her ancient rival. She sent an expedition under Conrad d'Oria which entered the harbor of Pisa, pulled down its towers, its bridge and its forts, and carried away the chain which locked the harbor entrance. The latter trophy was only restored to Pisa in recent years.

J. T. Bent, Genoa, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

PISA: A. D. 1100-1111. Participation in the first Crusades.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

PISA: A. D. 1135-1137. Destruction of Amalfi.

See AMALFI.

PISA: 13th Century. Commercial rivalry with Venice and Genoa at Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

PISA: A. D. 1311-1313. Welcome to the Emperor Henry VII. Aid to his war against Florence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

PISA: A. D. 1313-1328. Military successes under Uguccione della Faggiuola. His tyranny and its overthrow. Subjection to Castruccio Castracani and the deliverance.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

PISA: A. D. 1341. Defeat of the Florentines before Lucca. Acquisition of that city.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

PISA: A. D. 1353-1364. Dealings with the Free Companies. War with Florence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

PISA: A. D. 1399-1406. Betrayal to Visconti of Milan. Sale to the Florentines. Conquest by them and subsequent decline.

See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PISA: A. D. 1409. The General Council of the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

PISA: A. D. 1494-1509. Delivered by the French. The faithlessness of Charles VIII. Thirteen years of struggle against Florence. Final surrender.

"The Florentine conquest was the beginning of 90 years of slavery for Pisa —a terrible slavery, heavy with exaggerated imports, bitter with the tolerated plunder of private Florentines, humiliating with continual espionage. … Pisa was the Ireland of Florence, captive and yet unvanquished. … At last a favourable chance was offered to the Pisans. … In the autumn of 1494, the armies of Charles VIII. poured into Italy [see ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496]. It had been the custom of the Florentines, in times of war and danger, to call the heads of every Pisan household into Florence, as hostages for the good behaviour of their families and fellow citizens. But in the autumn of 1494, Piero de' Medici who forgot everything, who had forgotten to garrison his frontier, forgot to call the Pisan hostages to Florence, although the French were steadily advancing on Tuscany, and the Pisans eager to rebel. … The French army and the hope of liberty entered the unhappy city hand in hand [November 8, 1494]. … That night the Florentines in Pisa—men in office, judges, merchants, and soldiers of the garrison—were driven at the sword's point out of the rebellious city. … Twenty-four hours after the entry of the French, Pisa was a free republic, governed by a Gonfalonier, six Priors, and a Balia of Ten, with a new militia of its own, and, for the first time in eight and eighty years, a Pisan garrison in the ancient citadel." All this was done with the assent of the King of France and the promise of his protection. But when he passed on to Florence, and was faced there by the resolute Capponi, he signed a treaty in which he promised to give back Pisa to Florence when he returned from Naples. He returned from Naples the next summer (1495), hard pressed and retreating from his recent triumphs, and halted with his army at Pisa. There the tears and distress of the friendly Pisans moved even his soldiers to cry out in protestation against the surrender of the city to its former bondage. Charles compromised by a new treaty with the Florentines, again agreeing to deliver Pisa to them, but stipulating that they should place their old rivals on equal terms with themselves, in commerce and in civil rights. But Entragues, the French governor whom Charles had left in command at Pisa, with a small garrison, refused to carry out the treaty. He assisted the Pisans in expelling a force with which the Duke of Milan attempted to secure the city, and then, on the 1st of January, 1496, he delivered the citadel which he held into the hands of the Pisan signory. "During thirteen years from this date the shifting fortunes, the greeds and jealousies of the great Italian cities, fostered an artificial liberty in Pisa. Thrown like a ball from Milan to Venice, Venice to Maximilian, Max again to Venice, and thence to Cæsar Borgia, the unhappy Republic described the whole circle of desperate hope, agonized courage, misery, poverty, cunning, and betrayal."

_A. M. F. Robinson, The End of the Middle Ages: The French at Pisa._

In 1509 the Pisans, reduced to the last extremity by the obstinate siege which the Florentines had maintained, and sold by the French and Spaniards, who took pay from Florence (see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509) for abandoning their cause, opened their gates to the Florentine army.

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 8, chapter 6 and book 9, chapters 1-10.

PISA: A. D. 1512. The attempted convocation of a Council by Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

----------PISA: End--------

PISISTRATIDÆ, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

PISTICS.

See GNOSTICS.

PIT RIVER INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

PITHECUSA.

The ancient name of the island of Ischia.

PITHOM, the store city.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham). The administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763; and 1765-1768.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham). The American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

PITT, William (the Younger). The Administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787, to 1801-1806.

PITTI PALACE, The building of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.

PITTSBURG LANDING, OR SHILOH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

{2540}

----------PITTSBURGH: Start--------

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1754. Fort Duquesne built by the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1758. Fort Duquesne abandoned by the French, occupied by the English, and named in honor of Pitt.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1763. Siege of Fort Pitt by the Indians. Bouquet's relieving expedition.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1794. The Whiskey Insurrection.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

----------PITTSBURGH: End--------

PIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1458-1464.

Pius III., Pope, 1503, September to October.

Pius IV., Pope, 1559-1565.

Pius V., Pope, 1566-1572.

Pius VI., Pope, 1775-1799.

Pius VII., Pope, 1800-1823.

Pius VIII., Pope, 1829-1830.

Pius IX., Pope, 1846-1878.

PIUTES, PAH UTES, &c.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

PIZARRO, Francisco: Discovery and conquest of Peru.

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

PLACARDS OF CHARLES V., The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACENTIA (modern Piacenza): The Roman colony. Its capture by the Gauls.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

PLACENTIA: B. C. 49. Mutiny of Cæsar's Legions.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 270. Defeat of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PLACENTIA: 14th Century. Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1513. Conquest by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1515. Restored to the duchy of Milan, and with it to the king of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1521. Retaken by the Pope. See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1545-1592. Union with Parma in the duchy created for the House of Farnese.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1725. Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1735. Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1746. Given up by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1805. The duchy declared a dependency of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1814. The duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACILLA, Battle of (1891).

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

PLACITUM. PLAID.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

----------PLAGUE: Start--------

PLAGUE. PESTILENCE. EPIDEMICS:

PLAGUE: B. C. 466-463. At Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 466-463.

PLAGUE: B. C. 431-429. At Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

PLAGUE: B. C. 405-375. Among the Carthaginians.

"Within the space of less than thirty years [from B. C. 405] we read of four distinct epidemic distempers, each of frightful severity, as having afflicted Carthage and her armies in Sicily, without touching either Syracuse or the Sicilian Greeks. Such epidemics were the most irresistible of all enemies to the Carthaginians. … Upon what physical conditions the frequent repetition of such a calamity depended, together with the remarkable fact that it was confined to Carthage and her armies—we know partially in respect to the third of the four cases [when it was attributable in some degree to the situation of the Carthaginian camp on low, marshy ground, at a season when hot days alternated with chill nights] but not at all in regard to the others."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 83.

PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266. Plague after the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii. Plagues of Orosius, Antoninus, and Cyprian.

"On the cessation of the eruption of Vesuvius, which began on the 23d of August, A. D. 78, and which buried Herculaneum, Stabiæ and Pompeii in ashes, there arose … a destructive plague, which for many days in succession slew 10,000 men daily." The plague of Orosius (so called because Orosius, who wrote in the 5th century, described it most fully) began in the year A. D. 125. It was attributed to immense masses of grasshoppers which were swept by the winds, that year, from Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, and which were cast back by the waves to putrefy in heaps on the shore. "'In Numidia, where at that time Micipsa was king, 800,000 men perished, while in the region which lies most contiguous to the sea-shore of Carthage and Utica, more than 200,000 are said to have been cut down. In the city of Utica itself, 80,000 soldiers, who had been ordered here for the defence of all Africa, were destroyed.' … The plague of Antoninus (A. D. 164-180) visited the whole Roman Empire, from its most eastern to its extreme western boundaries, beginning at the former, and spreading thence by means of the troops who returned from putting down a rebellion in Syria. In the year 166 it broke out for the first time in Rome, and returned again in the year 168. … The plague depopulated entire cities and districts, so that forests sprung up in places before inhabited. … In its last year it appears to have raged again with especial fury, so that in Rome … 2,000 men often died in a single day. With regard to the character of this plague, it has been considered sometimes smallpox, sometimes petechial typhus, and again the bubo-plague. The third so-called plague, that of Cyprian, raged about A. D. 251-266. … For a long time 500 died a day in Rome. … After its disappearance Italy was almost deserted. … It has been assumed that this plague should be considered either a true bubo-plague, or smallpox."

J. H. Baas, Outlines of the History of Medicine, pages 189-190.

"Niebuhr has expressed the opinion that 'the ancient world never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the plague which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.'"

O. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 68, footnote.

ALSO IN: P. B. Watson, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, chapter 4.

{2541}

PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594. During the reign of Justinian.

"The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of Justinian and his successors first appeared in the neighbourhood of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the eastern channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a double path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and the Indies, and penetrated to the west, along the coast of Africa, and over the continent of Europe. In the spring of the second year, Constantinople, during three or four months, was visited by the pestilence; and Procopius, who observed its progress and symptoms with the eyes of a physician, has emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides in the description of the plague of Athens. … The fever was often accompanied with lethargy or delirium; the bodies of the sick were covered with black pustules or carbuncles, the symptoms of immediate death; and in the constitutions too feeble to produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood was followed by a mortification of the bowels. … Youth was the most perilous season; and the female sex was less susceptible than the male. … It was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two years [A. D. 542-594] that mankind recovered their health, or the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. … During three months, five and at length ten thousand persons died each day at Constantinople; … many cities of the east were left vacant; … in several districts of Italy the harvest and the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of war, pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian; and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest countries of the globe."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.

ALSO IN: T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 5, chapter 17.

J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, book 4, chapter 6 (volume 1).

PLAGUE: 6-13th Centuries. Spread of Small-pox.

"Nothing is known of the origin of small-pox; but it appears to have come originally from the East, and to have been known in China and Hindostan from time immemorial. … 'It seems to have reached Constantinople by way of Egypt about the year 569.' From Constantinople it spread gradually over the whole of Europe, reaching England about the middle of the 13th century."

R. Rollo, Epidemics, Plagues, and Fevers, page 271.

PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748. The world-wide pestilence.

"One great calamity in the age of Constantine [the Byzantine emperor Constantine V., called Copronymus], appears to have travelled over the whole habitable world; this was the great pestilence, which made its appearance in the Byzantine empire as early as 745. It had previously carried off a considerable portion of the population of Syria, and the Caliph Yezid III. perished of the disease in 744. From Syria it visited Egypt and Africa, from whence it passed into Sicily. After making great ravages in Sicily and Calabria, it spread to Greece; and at last, in the year 747, it broke out with terrible violence in Constantinople, then probably the most populous city in the universe. It was supposed to have been introduced, and dispersed through Christian countries, by the Venetian and Greek ships employed in carrying on a contraband trade in slaves with the Mohammedan nations, and it spread wherever commerce extended. … This plague threatened to exterminate the Hellenic race." After it had disappeared, at the end of a year, "the capital required an immense influx of new inhabitants. To fill up the void caused by the scourge, Constantine induced many Greek families from the continent and the islands to emigrate to Constantinople."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057, book 1, chapter 1, section 3.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1348-1351. The Black Death.

See BLACK DEATH; also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1360-1363. The Children's Plague.

"The peace of Bretigni [England and France, A. D. 1360], like the capture of Calais, was followed by a pestilence that turned the national rejoicings into mourning. But the 'Children's Plague,' as it was called, from the fact that it was most deadly to the young, was fortunately not a return of the Black Death, and did not approach it in its effects. It numbered, however, three prelates and the Duke of Lancaster among its victims, and caused such anxiety in London that the courts of law were adjourned from May to October. France felt the scourge more severely. It ravaged the country for three years, and was especially fatal at Paris and at Avignon. In Ireland, where the pestilence lingered on into the next year, and proved very deadly, it was mistaken for scrofula, a circumstance which probably shows that it attacked the glands and the throat."

C. H. Pearson, English History in the 14th Century, chapter 7.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1374. The Dancing Mania.

"The effects of the Black Death had not yet subsided, and the graves of millions of its victims were scarcely closed, when a strange delusion arose in Germany. … It was a convulsion which in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame, and excited the astonishment of contemporaries for more than two centuries, since which time it has never reappeared. It was called the dance of St. John or of St. Vitus, on account of the Bacchantic leaps by which it was characterized, and which gave to those affected, whilst performing their wild dance, and screaming and foaming with fury, all the appearance of persons possessed. It did not remain confined to particular localities, but was propagated by the sight of the sufferers, like a demoniacal epidemic, over the whole of Germany and the neighbouring countries to the north-west, which were already prepared for its reception by the prevailing opinions of the times. So early as the year 1374, assemblages of men and women were seen at Aix-la–Chapelle who had come out of Germany, and who, united by one common delusion, exhibited to the public both in the streets and in the churches the following strange spectacle. They formed circles hand in hand, and appearing to have lost all control over their senses, continued dancing, regardless of the by-standers, for hours together in wild delirium, until at length they fell to the ground in a state of exhaustion. They then complained of extreme oppression, and groaned as if in the agonies of death, until they were swathed in cloths, bound tightly round their waists, upon which they again recovered, and remained free from complaint until the next attack. This practice of swathing was resorted to on account of the tympany which followed these spasmodic ravings, but the by-standers frequently relieved patients in a less artificial manner, by thumping and trampling upon the parts affected. {2542} While dancing they neither saw nor heard, being insensible to external impressions through the senses, but were haunted by visions, their fancies conjuring up spirits whose names they shrieked out; and some of them afterwards asserted that they felt as if they had been immersed in a stream of blood, which obliged them to leap so high. … Where the disease was completely developed, the attack commenced with epileptic convulsions. Those affected fell to the ground senseless, panting and labouring for breath. They foamed at the mouth, and suddenly springing up began their dance amidst strange contortions. Yet the malady doubtless made its appearance very variously, and was modified by temporary or local circumstances. … It was but a few months ere this demoniacal disease had spread from Aix-Ia-Chapelle, where it appeared in July, over the neighbouring Netherlands. In Liege, Utrecht, Tongres, and many other towns of Belgium, the dancers appeared with garlands in their hair, and their waists girt with cloths, that they might, as soon as the paroxysm was over, receive immediate relief on the attack of the tympany. This bandage was, by the insertion of a stick, easily twisted tight: many, however, obtained more relief from kicks and blows, which they found numbers of persons ready to administer. … A few months after this dancing malady had made its appearance at Aix-la-Chapelle, it broke out at Cologne, where the number of those possessed amounted to more than five hundred, and about the same time at Metz, the streets of which place are said to have been filled with eleven hundred dancers. Peasants left their ploughs, mechanics their workshops, housewives their domestic duties, to join the wild revels, and this rich commercial city became the scene of the most ruinous disorder. … The dancing mania of the year 1374 was, in fact, no new disease, but a phenomenon well known in the middle ages, of which many wondrous stories were traditionally current among the people."

J. F. C. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages: The Dancing Mania, chapter 1.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1485-1593. The Sweating Sickness in England. Plague, Small-pox and Grippe in Europe.

"For centuries no infection had visited England, which in fearful rapidity and malignancy could be compared with the 'sudor Anglicus,' as it was at first called, from the notion that its attacks were confined to Englishmen. People sitting at dinner, in the full enjoyment of health and spirits, were seized with it and died before the next morning. An open window, accidental contact in the streets, children playing before the door, a beggar knocking at the rich man's gate, might disseminate the infection, and a whole family would be decimated in a few hours without hope or remedy. Houses and villages were deserted. … Dr. Caius, a physician who had studied the disease under its various aspects, gives the following account of its appearance: 'In the year of our Lord God 1485, shortly after the 7th day of August, at which time King Henry VII. arrived at Milford in Wales out of France, and in the first year of his reign, there chanced a disease among the people lasting the rest of that month and all September, which for the sudden sharpness and unwont cruelness passed the pestilence. For this commonly giveth in four, often seven, sometime nine, sometime eleven and sometime fourteen days, respite to whom it vexeth. But that immediately killed some in opening their windows, some in playing with children in their street doors, some in one hour, many in two, it destroyed. … This disease, because it most did stand in sweating from the beginning until the ending, was called here The Sweating Sickness; and because it first began in England, it was named in other countries The English Sweat.' From the same authority we learn that it appeared in 1506, again in 1517 from July to the middle of December, then in 1528. It commenced with a fever, followed by strong internal struggles of nature, causing sweat. … It was attended with sharp pains in the back, shoulders and extremities, and then attacked the liver. … It never entered Scotland. In Calais, Antwerp and Brabant it generally singled out English residents and visitors. … In consequence of the peculiarity of the disease in thus singling out Englishmen, and those of a richer diet and more sanguine temperament, various speculations were set afloat as to its origin and its best mode of cure. Erasmus attributed it to bad houses and bad ventilation, to the clay floors, the unchanged and festering rushes with which the rooms were strewn, and the putrid offal, bones and filth which reeked and rotted together in the unswept and unwashed dining halls and chambers."

J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII., volume 1, chapter 8.

See, also, SWEATING SICKNESS.

"In the middle of the 16th century the English sweating sickness disappeared from the list of epidemic diseases. On the other hand, the plague, during the whole 16th century, prevailed more generally, and in places more fatally, than ever before. … In 1500-1507 it raged in Germany, Italy, and Holland, in 1528 in Upper Italy, 1534 in Southern France, 1562-1568 pretty generally throughout Europe. … The disease prevailed again in 1591. It is characteristic of the improvement in the art of observation of this century that the plague was declared contagious and portable, and accordingly measures of isolation and disinfection were put in force against it, though without proving in any degree effectual. With a view to disinfection, horn, gunpowder, arsenic with sulphur or straw moistened with wine, etc., were burned in the streets. … Small-pox (first observed or described in Germany in 1493) and measles, whose specific nature was still unknown to the physicians of the West, likewise appeared in the 16th century. … The Grippe (influenza), for the first time recognizable with certainty as such, showed itself in the year 1510, and spread over all Europe. A second epidemic, beginning in 1557, was less widely extended. On the other hand, in 1580 and 1593 it became again pandemic, while in 1591 Germany alone was visited."

J. H. Baas, Outlines of the History of Medicine, pages 438-439.

ALSO IN: _J. F. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1665. In London.

See LONDON: A. D. 1665.

{2543}

PLAGUE: 18th Century. The more serious epidemics.

"The bubo–plague, 'the disease of barbarism' and especially of declining nations, in the 18th century still often reached the north of Europe, though it maintained its chief focus and head-quarters in the south-west [south-east?]. Thus from 1703 forward, as the result of the Russo-Swedish war, it spread from Turkey to Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Prussia, so that in 1709, the coldest year of the 18th century, more than 300,000 human beings died in East Prussia in spite of the intense cold, and in Dantzic alone more than 30,000. Obliquing to the west, the plague reached Styria and Bohemia, and was carried by a ship to Regensburg in 1714, but by means of strict quarantine regulations was prevented from spreading to the rest of Germany. A hurricane swept the disease, as it were, out of all Europe. Yet six years later it appeared anew with devastating force in southern France" and was recurrent at intervals, in different parts of the continent, throughout the century. "Epidemics of typhus fever … showed themselves at the beginning of the century in small numbers, but disappeared before the plague. … The first description of typhoid fever—under the designation of 'Schleimfieber' (morbus mucosus)—appeared in the 18th century. … Malaria in the last century still gave rise to great epidemics. Of course all the conditions of life favored its prevalence. … La Grippe (influenza) appeared as a pandemic throughout almost all Europe in the years 1709, 1729, 1732, 1742, and 1788; in almost all America in 1732, 1737, 1751, 1772, 1781, and 1798; throughout the eastern hemisphere in 1781, and in the entire western hemisphere in 1761 and 1789; throughout Europe and America in 1767. It prevailed as an epidemic in France in the years 1737, 1775, and 1779; in England in 1758 and 1775, and in Germany in 1800. … Diphtheria, which in the 17th century had showed itself almost exclusively in Spain and Italy, was observed during the 18th in all parts of the world. … Small-pox had attained general diffusion. … Scarlet fever, first observed in the 17th century, had already gained wide diffusion. … Yellow fever, first recognized in the 16th century, and mentioned occasionally in the 17th, appeared with great frequency in the 18th century, but was mostly confined, as at a later period, to America."

J. H. Baas, Outlines of the History of Medicine, pages 727-730.

PLAGUE: 19th Century. The visitations of Asiatic Cholera.

Cholera "has its origin in Asia, where its ravages are as great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow (1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics, 1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."

E. L. Trouessart, Microbes, Ferments and Moulds, chapter 5, section 8.

A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892. Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits. Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.

Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892.

ALSO IN: _C. Macnamara, History of Asiatic Cholera._

A. Stillé, Cholera, pages 15-31.

----------PLAGUE: End--------

PLAID. PLACITUM.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PLAIN OR MARAIS, The Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

See ABRAHAM, PLAINS OF.

PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

PLANTAGENETS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189; and ANJOU; CREATION OF THE COUNTY.

PLASSEY, Battle of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1757.

----------PLATÆA: Start--------

PLATÆA.

Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31.

PLATÆA: B. C. 490. Help to Athens at Marathon.

See GREECE: B. C. 490.

PLATÆA: B. C. 479. Decisive overthrow of the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 479.

PLATÆA: B. C. 431. Surprise of.

The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.

See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

PLATÆA: B. C. 429-427. Siege, capture, and destruction by the Peloponnesians.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PLATÆA: B. C. 335. Restoration by Alexander.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

----------PLATÆA: End--------

PLATE RIVER, Discovery of the.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

PLATE RIVER, Provinces of the.

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

PLATO, and the Schools of Athens.

See ACADEMY; also EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREEK.

PLATTSBURG, Battle of.

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

PLAUTIO-PAPIRIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

PLEASANT HILL, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

----------PLEBEIANS: Start--------

{2544}

PLEBEIANS, OR PLEBS, Roman.

"We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,' cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor, for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three sources of this multitude:

I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the condition of slaves, were attached to the state as non-citizens.

II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient times, could be entered into between individuals with their families and descendants, and also between individuals and a state, or between two states. Provision for such guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which bound together Rome on the one side and the various independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without acquiring Roman citizenship.

III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a body, identified with the plebeians."

A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Constitution, chapter 3.

Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians were forced to content themselves with the privilege they enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they struggled with success for a share in the government and for other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy and revolution, giving way to imperialism.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapters 7, 8, 10, 35.

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on History of Rome, book 4, chapter 2.

PLEBEIANS: Secessions of the Plebs.

See SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

----------PLEBEIANS: End--------

PLEBISCITA.

Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."

See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a general vote of the people, taken upon some single question, like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852; also, REFERENDUM.

PLESWITZ, Armistice of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

PLEVNA, Siege and capture of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

PLOW PATENT, The.

See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.

See NEW ALBION.

PLUVIÔSE, The month.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605. Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620. Landing of the Pilgrims. Founding of the Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

PLYMOUTH, North Carolina: A. D. 1864. Capture and recapture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Start--------

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Formation.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607; and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615. Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1620. Merged in the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: End--------

PLYMOUTH ROCK.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

PNYX, The.

"The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in the market; in the historical period the people met there only to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter, a point which quite recently has become a matter of considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and that of the streets running out of the market one led only into the Pnyx."

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

"The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high. {2545} The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad, rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock, which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing a square yard to each."

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, appendix 11.

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, The Assemblies of the Athenians, pages 48-51.

See, also, AGORA.

POCKET BOROUGHS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PODESTAS.

"About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an office which had been abrogated when they first rose in rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions carried into the administration of justice, it became a general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native of the city, nor have any relation resident within the district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority was merely judicial."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 69.

PODIEBRAD, George, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1458-1471.

POINT PLEASANT, Battle of.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

POISSY, The Colloquy at.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

POITIERS: Original names.

Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.

POITIERS:A. D. 1569. Siege by the Huguenots.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

POITIERS, Battle of.

A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince," the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers was on the side of the French, but the position of the English was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was taken prisoner.

Froissart, Chronicles, (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapters 157-166.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

POITIERS, Edict of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

POITOU: Origin of the name.

See PICTONES.

POITOU: The rise of the Counts.

See TOULOUSE: 10-11th CENTURIES.

POITOU: The Counts become Dukes of Aquitaine or Guienne.

See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

POKANOKETS, WAMPANOAGS, The.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636; AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY; NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

POLA, Naval battle of (1379).

See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

----------POLAND: Start--------

POLAND. The Name.

"The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue signifying a level field or plain."

S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, introduction.

POLAND: The ancestors of the race.

See LYGIANS.

POLAND: Beginnings of national existence.

"The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts, embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse, Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude. {2546} The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion, asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I., took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II. afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I. reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370). This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its founder."

W. Koch, History of Revolutions in Europe, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, chapters 1-2.

POLAND: A. D. 1096. The refuge of the Jews.

See JEWS: 11-17th CENTURIES.

POLAND: A. D. 1240-1241. Mongol invasion.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

POLAND: 13-14th Centuries. Growing power and increasing dominion. Encroachments on Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572. The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty. Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.

Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning, and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country, had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles; and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign (1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then moving westward before the impulse of the conquering Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights, which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to try to recover their power. By this time, however, their Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing, Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them; and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia revolted from the knights and placed itself under his protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty, the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of administration; and the knights being allowed to retain certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that necessity of its existence as a great European state—a seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander (1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to Poland. {2547} The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in 1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg. Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn. Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together, with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained, a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one, and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy in the matter of the great religious controversy then agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its last transactions was the consummation of the union between the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1, 1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences of which her name is now associated."

_Poland: her History and Prospects (Westminster Review, January, 1855)._

ALSO IN: H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, to Frederick the Great, chapter 4.

S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, book 1, chapter 3.

POLAND: A. D. 1439. Election of Ladislaus III. to the throne of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

POLAND: A. D. 1471-1479. War with Matthias of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

POLAND: A. D. 1505-1588. Enslavement of the peasantry.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: POLAND.

POLAND: A. D. 1573. Election of Henry of Valois to the throne. The Pacta Conventa.

On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of the Pacta Conventa were the following:

"1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing one at his decease.

2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir' of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.

3. That he should observe the treaty of peace made with the dissidents.

4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.

5. That he should not impose taxes or contributions of any description.

6. That he should not have any authority to appoint ambassadors to foreign courts.

7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.

8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines, and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and should be selected by the ordinary diets.

9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or oftener, if required.

10. That the duration of each diet should not exceed six weeks.

11. That no dignities or benefices should be conferred on other than natives.

12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife without the permission of the diet.

The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit, was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another ruler."

S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, book 2, chapter 1.

POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590. Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois. Election of Stephen Batory. His successful wars with Russia, and his death. Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.

The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow, on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the 30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however, transpired through another channel. {2548} His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it. He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. … After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter, however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic, wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet (assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania. Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess, subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might have beheld the power of their king shattered against the bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear; the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was now his object. … Success every where accompanied him. Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity for a fierce private war between the factions of the Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner, and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to the Polish crown.

S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, book 2, chapter 1.

{2549}

POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652. Anarchy organized by the Nobles. The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country. The Liberum Veto and its effects.

"On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility, which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent circumstances did not justify his acting without the co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses, but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account, by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit were the only means of influence that could be employed by a king, who was excluded from the administration, who was without domains, without private property or settled revenue, who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which, dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely organized. This step was taken when individual palatines enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to. Before long, several deputies received the same instructions, and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened. Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing, and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by the nation."

Count Moltke, Poland: an Historical Sketch, chapter 3.

"It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him, and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history, and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of a political institution, with which the records of any nation present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the exercise of the power was a different thing from its possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into unanimity. There was also the device of what were called confederations; that is, associations of the nobles independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the intervals between the Diets."

_Poland: her History and Prospects (Westminster Review, January, 1855)._

POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629. Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne. His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition. His claims and the consequent war.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604; and 1611-1629.

{2550}

POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648. Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV. Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes. Domestic discord in the kingdom.

"The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle Charles, the brother of the late king.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz, terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and remained in occupation of it for some time.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

"As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on condition that he would change his religion and become a member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits, wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. … Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor invited him to take part with him … in what is historically termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in 'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora [1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign … the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a 'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and, notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield, besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. … The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took possession of this Polish province.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones, the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in 1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in 1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved from his vows and permitted to marry.

K. Wolski, Poland, lectures 11-12.

POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612. Intervention in Russia. Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654. The great revolt of the Cossacks. Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews. {2551} It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate, with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully. Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions. They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources, and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen, Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

W. R. Morfill, The Story of Russia, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: Count H. Krasinski, The Cossacks of the Ukraine, chapter 1.

POLAND: A. D. 1652. First exercise of the Liberum Veto.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657. Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden. Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697; and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696. Abdication of John Casimir. War with the Turks. Election and reign of John Sobieski.

"In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in 1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg [Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion, caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees; and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it; and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern Europe. His fame increased during the six years which followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom; the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before been held in conjunction by the same individual. These dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne, Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671 and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When … Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked God for the most signal success which, for three centuries, Christendom had gained over the Infidel.' {2552} While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory, intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg, who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort; but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier, and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than 10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking up his position in two small villages on the banks of the Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out. Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October 1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in 1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed with political and domestic annoyances.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

… Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented from employing itself with effect upon great national objects. He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and 'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony. The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles, and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

_History of Poland (Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4)._

ALSO IN: _A. T. Palmer, Life of John Sobieski._

POLAND: A. D. 1683. Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.

See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.

POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696. War of the Holy League against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698. Disputed Election of a King. The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony, on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697; but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti, abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November. … In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 2, chapter 4.

{2553}

POLAND: A. D. 1699. The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.

POLAND: A. D. 1700. Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark against Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707. Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden. Deposition of Augustus from the throne. Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

POLAND: A. D. 1709. Restoration of Augustus to the throne. Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

POLAND: A. D. 1720. Peace with Sweden. Recognition of Augustus. Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733. The election to the throne a European question. France against Russia, Austria and Prussia. Triumph of the three powers. The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

"It became clear that before long a struggle would take place for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her, should cherish French influences, and form a centre of resistance against the dominance of the northern powers. England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died: the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704; with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell (1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee, found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland submitted to Augustus III."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773. The First Partition and the events which led to it. The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

"In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia. Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman; how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe. Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound, therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort, deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support for her diplomatic action. {2554} The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia. That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left, and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety, however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country, occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the constitution, to establish a regular administration, to strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their political opponents, together with that of all the religious Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried the measure through by force and the act embodying it was signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman Catholic population of every district joined the Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When … the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to Poland.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had become a European question of the first importance; and no one felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey. … The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war. Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side, simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar. {2555} It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount of donations and pensions which the individual senators and deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes. Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of the Sovereign, were continued."

_H. von Sybel, The First Partition of Poland (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22)._

"One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second, what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand, it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment. Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465 English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500, between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772, it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth little record."

T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great, book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6).

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter. 119 (volume 3).

[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D. SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA). HABSBURG(AUSTRIA). RUSSIAN. POLISH. TURKISH. VENETIAN. THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA. AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797). AUSTRIAN PRUSSIAN RUSSIAN FRENCH SWEDISH DANISH PAPAL STATES ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE. THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792. The reformed Constitution of 1791 and its Russian strangulation.

"After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776, that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable. Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. … Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia, became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden; and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the head of all the independent members of the Germanic Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable combination against the power of Russia was in process of time formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte, concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to 1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress, and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State. They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions, during most of the previous two years, was reported to the Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free: these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution "confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise. The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient constitutional language and forms were preserved. The necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and, with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary. {2556} Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January, 1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and, being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with that very slender pretext with which she was always content. Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. … They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792, they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia, which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions [especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of 1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the 4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month … [he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz; and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

Sir J. Mackintosh, Account of the Partition of Poland (Edinburgh Review, November, 1822; reprinted in Miscellaneous Works).

ALSO IN: H. Von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 2, chapters 1 and 6, book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2).

_A. Gielgud, The Centenary of the Polish Constitution (Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547)._

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796. The Second and Third Partitions. Extinction of Polish nationality.

"The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier [January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which, passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof, Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory, Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime, Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of 1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt, directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired. "The order to disband the army hastened the explosion. Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings, rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,' in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794, the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon. {2557} "A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army, under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim), and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and Chelm."

A. Rambaud, History of Russia, volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: _R. N. Bain, The Second Partition of Poland (English Historical Review, April, 1801)._

H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 7, chapter 5, book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3); and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1806. False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.

POLAND: A. D. 1807. Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw, and given to the king of Saxony.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

POLAND: A. D. 1809. Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia, by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1812. Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom, not encouraged by Napoleon.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815. The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna. The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia. Constitution granted by the Czar.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832. Rising against the Russian oppressor. Courageous struggle for independence. Early victories and final defeat. Barbarity of the conqueror.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us