History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till
1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on
appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve
of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four
Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year
Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight
Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but
persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was
awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked
the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by
restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.
… The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight
vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring
immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think
about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For
two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of
vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been
abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to
the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for
re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'
England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,
Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an
Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the
London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to
it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon
him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The
publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The
effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from
the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and
continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and
by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of
England, who for so many years have been separated from the
see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to
the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to
punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's
prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to
moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by
denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late
aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …
inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of
our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of
the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus
occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded
to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of
ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It
declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to
maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is
so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words
as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the
Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the
'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in
the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the
assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates
of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to
them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and
void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to
them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a
Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of
Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;
but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought
forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill
merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume
territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the
Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by
some chemical process the Government had extracted all the
milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,
but it was never put into execution.
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 23 (volume 5).
ALSO IN.:
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 20 (volume 2).
J. Stoughton,
Religion in England, 1800-1850,
volume 2, chapter 13.
PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
Promulgation of the Dogma of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
"The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
{2468}
Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
8th."
A. de Montor,
The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
volume 2, pages 924-926.
PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
The Encyclical and the Syllabus.
"On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical
Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church
throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the
Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,
condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.
The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are
set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.
1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;
2. Moderated Rationalism;
3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;
4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,
Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;
5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;
6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself
as in its relations with the Church;
7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;
8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;
9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;
10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.
Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,
and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,
Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.
Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and
Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the
pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance
excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of
the enemies of the Church."
J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 33.
The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,
followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:
To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,
we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic
blessing:
You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral
vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the
charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in
the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have
unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the
sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of
the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with
salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned
pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated
it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in
vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,
were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls
by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and
condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the
heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of
the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,
and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited
serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society
into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our
predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to
the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading
their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and
promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor
by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of
the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to
destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and
hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of
inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to
corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and
finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But
as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been
raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the
mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the
most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by
evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury
caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in
accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and
following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we
raised our voice, and by the publication of several
encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other
apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of
our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,
warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear
children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid
the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our
first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,
and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the
9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the
monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the
present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the
detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the
Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable
rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God
upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we
have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the
principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic
Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to
us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely
demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude
to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors
as from so many sources.
{2469}
These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as
they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary
force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine
author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end
of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with
regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy
that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the
government which have always existed for the happiness and
security of religious and civil society, For as you are well
aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in
the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and
absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach
that the perfect right of public society and civil progress
absolutely require a condition of human society constituted
and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,
as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any
distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to
the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the
fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best
condition of society is that in which the power of the laity
is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon
violators of the Catholic religion unless required by
considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social
government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further
to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety
of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by
our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:
"Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every
man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by
law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are
entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which
neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,
their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,
or through the press, or by other means." But in making these
rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,
that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,
Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human
conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to
struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of
human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus
Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this
culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,
Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil
government, since the doctrine and authority of divine
revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected
therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness
and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate
right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,
entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,
to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested
by what is called public opinion or by other means,
constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human
right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by
the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the
force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand
that human society, released from the ties of religion and
true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,
and can follow no other law in its actions than the
indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and
interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with
so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved
so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly
declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so
doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.
For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius
VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of
public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the
Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and
in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the
celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who
constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."
(Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In
their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the
church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly
"receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law
forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon
certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious
pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the
principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating
religion from public society, they desire further to banish it
from families and private life. Teaching and professing these
most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare
that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its
right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be
concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of
parents over their children, and, above all, the right of
instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and
machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the
salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from
the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and
miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices
the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble
sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of
society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have
always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and
efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave
and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is
upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.
Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have
descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain
records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has
been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society
and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so
far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies
of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they
ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and
educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times
condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the
authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred
upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,
and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see
with regard to exterior order.
{2470}
They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not
bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil
power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs
concerning religion and the church require the sanction and
approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and
that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,
whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and
branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have
no force in those regions of the world where these
associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is
likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the
Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who
invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,
seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to
attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide
nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a
temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not
demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by
temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred
theology and the principles of public law to claim for the
civil government the property possessed by the churches, the
religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they
have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the
principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and
perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is
not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil
power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind
can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the
essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over
in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound
doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy
See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare
of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim
the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of
the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the
Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the
sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to
see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a
diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic
duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy
religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls
confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,
have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our
apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe
generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines
specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may
be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the
children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,
venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth
and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have
spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent
books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the
surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You
are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that
excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master
Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous
persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited
eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with
which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an
impiety.
Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed
Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX.
I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.
1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and
providence distinct from the universality of things, and God
is none other than the nature of things, and therefore
immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all
things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,
therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence
mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of
action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.
(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)
2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.
(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)
3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole
arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in
itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the
welfare of men and nations.
(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)
4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native
strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule
by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all
truths of every kind.
(See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,
and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the
progress of human reason.
(See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and
divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to
the perfection of man.
(See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred
books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the
Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The
books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and
Jesus Christ is himself a myth.
(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.
8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,
theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.
(Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")
9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly
the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,
instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength
and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most
abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed
as objective.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
December 4, 1862.
Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
{2471}
10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,
it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to
the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but
philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.
(Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
December 11, 1862;
and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)
11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself
with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the
errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their
correction.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman
congregation fetter the free progress of science.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)
13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
demands of the age and the progress of science.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
supernatural revelation.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the
errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the
Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,
and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"
April 30, 1860.
III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain
eternal salvation.
(Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)
17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
have never been in the true church of Christ.
(Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the
same true religion in which it is possible to be equally
pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.
(Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)
IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES,
BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.
Pests of this description have been frequently
rebuked in the severest terms in the
Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.
V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.
19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free
association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual
rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it
appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights
and limits within which the church may exercise authority.
(Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
"Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)
20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
without the toleration and assent of the civil government.
(Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)
21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically
that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true
religion.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers
does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as
articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
or any direct or indirect temporal power.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded
the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,
and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to
dogma and morals.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,
further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,
either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also
revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
acquisition and possession.
("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;
Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)
27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to
be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over
temporal affairs.
(Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)
28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their
apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be
considered null unless they have been requested by the civil
government.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons
derives its origin from civil law.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether
civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even
without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military
law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right
or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,
especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal
government.
(Letter to Bishop Montisregal,
"Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)
33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
matters of theology.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)
34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to
a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine
which prevailed in the middle ages.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
{2472}
35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,
or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical
sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other
bishopric in another city.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of
subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that
matters shall remain as they are.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
37. National churches can be established without, and
separated from, the Roman pontiff.
(Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)
38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
of the church in Eastern and Western churches.
(Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES
AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.
39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of
all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not
circumscribed by any limit.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
and interests of society.
(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)
41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic
sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over
religious affairs.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law
ought to prevail.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and
render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the
use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without
the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.
(Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding
religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has
control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences
issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the
church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of
administering the divine sacraments and the necessary
arrangements for their reception.
("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth
of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the
case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the
civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority
shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the
discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the
taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.
(Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
"Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)
46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
must be submitted to the civil authority.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require
that popular schools open without distinction to all children
of the people, and public establishments destined to teach
young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to
them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to
the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and
opinions common to the times.
(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)
48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in
separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of
the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of
natural things and the objects of social life, may be
perfectly approved by Catholics.
(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)
49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of
religion and the faithful from communicating freely and
mutually with the Roman Pontiff.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of
presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take
possession of their diocese before having received canonical
institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing
bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to
obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of
sees and the institution of bishops.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")
52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the
church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both
sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to
admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of
religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil
government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a
religious life, and break their vows. The government may also
deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to
collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their
goods to civil competence and administration.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
"Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)
54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction
of the church, but are superior to the church even in
litigious questions of jurisdiction
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
55. The church must be separated from the State and the State
from the church.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)
VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,
and there is no necessity that human laws should be
conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction
from God.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws
may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in
matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency
of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of
riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of
every pleasure.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)
{2473}
59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain
words, and all human facts have the force of right.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material
force.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the
sanctity of right.
(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)
62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and
observed.
(Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)
63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate
princes and to rise in insurrection against them.
(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)
64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and
shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only
undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the
highest praise when done for the love of country.
(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)
VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.
65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised
marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)
66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the
contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself
only consists in the nuptial benediction.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)
67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be
pronounced by the civil authority.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)
68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the
impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which
can remove the existing hindrances.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to
pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not
of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil
power.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema
against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing
upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be
considered as emanating from borrowed power.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of
nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has
appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to
be used in marriage.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of
chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the
place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the
marriage contract between Christians must always be a
sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does
not exist.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)
74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to
civil jurisdiction.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)
N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of
the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of
marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the
first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the
second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,
1851.
IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.
75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not
agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the
spiritual power.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)
76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the
Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and
liberty of the church.
(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)
N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
abundantly explained in Allocutions,
"Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
"Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.
77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the
Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the
State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.
(Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)
78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some
countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free
exercise of their own worship.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)
79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of
worship and the full power given to all of overtly and
publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce
more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and
to the propagation of the evil of indifference.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to
and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.
(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)
----------Syllabus: End--------
PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.
"More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
… He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
Council convened. …
{2474}
It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
(September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a

vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
disproportion between the representatives of the different
nations and the number of their constituents was
overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."
P. Schaff,
History of the Vatican Council
(appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'
American edition).
The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma
"showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta
modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the
congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their
dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed
that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not
to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the
dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on
the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have
the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.
This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant
bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans
mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia
Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates
alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of
Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,
in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.
Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted
till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst
its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their
negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …
Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the
opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for
the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once
declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled
again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …
Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them
was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon
made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to
the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological
faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously
support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,
held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against
the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The
German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And
the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and
Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the
members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.
They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the
month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to
the internal affairs of the Church."
Annual Register, 1870,
part 1, foreign History, chapter 5.
{2475}
But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken
possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings
of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had
opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the
end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his
ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all
those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were
disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this
position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon
itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the
19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated
by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to
retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A
paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.
Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,
together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number
of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,
testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,
moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.
Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held
at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was
formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in
the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the
University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against
six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress
assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.
… Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic
body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the
Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in
1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he
never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at
any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct
Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop
of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical
function. He always continued a strict observer of the
disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic
Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make
that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters
had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany
by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical
property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in
each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old
Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.
van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44
in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in
Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body
of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;
Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number
of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently
some advance was recorded over these numbers."
Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,
volume 4, pages 213-216.
ALSO IN:
Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
Letters from Rome on the Council.
Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
The Pope and the Council.
J. I. von Döllinger,
Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees.
H. E. Manning,
The Vatican Council.
Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),
The Vatican Council.
E. de Pressense,
Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council.
W. E. Gladstone,
The Vatican Decrees.
The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
"Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
subsequently promulgated by the Pope:
"Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the
approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting
remembrance. The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,
in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His
Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,
as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be
united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,
before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through
their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might
be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the
Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were
sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by
the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors
and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in
order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the
faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and
communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,
and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,
and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the
everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the
firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to
Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase
of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that
might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the
preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic
flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to
be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all
the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant
faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic
Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the
entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the
contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.
CHAPTER 1. Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in
Blessed Peter.
We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the
testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was
immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the
Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had
been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and
afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone
that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that
thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever
thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed
also in heaven.
{2476}
And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection
bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all
His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open
variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has
been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse
opinions of those who, while they distort the form of
government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny
that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other
Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of
those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed
immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon
the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the
visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same
directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus
Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper
jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
CHAPTER II. On the perpetuation of the primacy of Peter in
the Roman Pontiffs.
That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the
sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the
Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and
lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution,
necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being
founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the
world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that
the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the
Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the
Catholic Church, who received the keys of the kingdom from Our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the race of
man, continues up to the present time, and ever continues, in
his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was
founded by Him, and consecrated by His blood, to live and
preside and judge. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this
See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the
Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made
by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter,
abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he
received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.
Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every
particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the
world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the
greater authority of the princedom which this has received;
that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the
rights of communion spread to all, as members in the unity of
the Head, might combine to form one "connected body. If, then,
any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the
Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a
perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal
Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed
Peter in this Primacy; let him be anathema.
CHAPTER III. On the force and character of the Primacy of
the Roman Pontiff.
Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred
Writings, and in agreement with both the plain and express
decrees of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the
General Councils, We renew the definition of the Œcumenical
Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of
Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
Pontiff possesses the Primacy over the whole world, and that
the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of
the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the
whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and
that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule,
feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our
Lord: as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils
and in the Sacred Canons. Further we teach and declare that by
the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses the
chief ordinary jurisdiction over all other Churches, and that
this power of jurisdiction possessed by the Roman Pontiff
being truly episcopal is immediate; which all, both pastors
and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound,
by their duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience,
to obey, not merely in matters which belong to faith and
morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and
government of the Church throughout the world, so that the
Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor
through the preservation of unity both of communion and of
profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is
the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate
without loss of faith and of salvation. But so far is this
power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the
ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops
who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the
place of the Apostles feed and govern, each his own flock, as
true Pastors, that this episcopal authority is really
asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and
universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of S. Gregory
the Great: My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My
honour is the firm strength of my Brethren, I am then truly
honoured, when due honour is not denied to each of their
number. Further, from this supreme power possessed by the
Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows
that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors
of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be
taught and directed by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore
we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the
communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and
their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who represent this
communication as subject to the will of the secular power, so
as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or
by its authority, cannot have force or value, unless it be
confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the
divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed
over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all
causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse
may be had to his tribunal: and that none may meddle with the
judgment of the Apostolic See, the authority of which is
greater than all other, nor can any lawfully depart from its
judgment. Wherefore they depart from the right course who
assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the
Roman Pontiffs and an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority
higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
{2477}
If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office
merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme
power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not alone in
things which belong to faith and morals, but in those which
relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread
throughout the world; or who assert that he possesses merely
the principal part, and not all the fulness of this supreme
power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and
immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each
and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.
CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman
Pontiff:
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 '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 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. 1515-1709.
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.