Part 2 — 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."