Pontiff:_
Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included
in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as
successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the
whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual
practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils
themselves have declared, especially those in which the East
with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the
Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in
the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn
profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the
rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord
Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter,
and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which
have been said are approved by events, because in the
Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn
doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore,
not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and
doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the
one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is
the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And,
with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks
professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full
Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which
it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the
plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of
blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor
the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before
all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any
questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by
its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That
the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of
the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all
Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by
our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and
governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our
predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary
doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations
of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be
preserved sincere and pure where it had been received.
Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now
assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of
Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this
Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of
faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be
repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman
Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and
circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or
asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the
world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other
helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held
those things which with the help of God they had recognised as
conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic
Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make
known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might
scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or
deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed,
all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox
Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever
free from all blemish of error, according to the divine
promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His
disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and
thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift,
then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven
upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might
perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the
whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous
food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly
doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole
Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation,
might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this
very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic
office is even most of all required, not a few are found who
take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary
solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son
of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.
Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received
from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of
God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic
Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the
approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is
a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he
speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office
of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his
supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding
faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the
divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that
His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith
or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the
consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert
—presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be
anathema."
PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
End of the Temporal Sovereignty.
Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy.
The Law of the Papal Guarantees.
The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the
Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be
found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the
Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was
acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and
Roman Catholic.
{2478}
The French Government of National Defence,
which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second
Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what
they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The
Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to
protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial
and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among
other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon
which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since
reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to
the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the
Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted
much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor
Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and
prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the
Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of
Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical
party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at
Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not,
in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the
fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course
Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial
difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with
which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the
principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an
opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian
Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th
December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence
for the last time. Among its members now sat those who
represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated.
The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary
arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by
the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in
relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament
resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long
and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on
the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:
Article I.—The person of the Sovereign Pontiff is sacred and
inviolable.
Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person
of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such
attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those
established in the case of an attack directed against the
person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an
attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against
the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means
indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are
punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of
the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and
are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The
discussion of religious subjects is completely free.
Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the
territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign
Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised
as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff
has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to
his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without
prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such
guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.
Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane)
of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With
this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman
balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces,
Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of
State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to
provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for
the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary
and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the
apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay,
gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is
made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the
Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the
ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and
library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those
employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall
be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of
perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy
See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall
continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the
Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall
remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or
provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in
the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself
to assume the expenses of the museums and library.
Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment
established in the preceding article, will continue to have
the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran
with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and
dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo
with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces,
villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art
and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable,
are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all
expropriation on the ground of public utility.
Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant,
no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any
reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the
personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides
that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical
Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.
Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of
the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office
enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or
temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which
are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless
authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by
the Council.
Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits,
perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or
registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested
with purely spiritual functions.
Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil
all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have
affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all
the acts of the said ministry.
{2479}
Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office,
participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the
spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account
of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of
magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every
stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys
the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in
virtue of the laws of the kingdom.
Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See
enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which
belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right.
To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted
for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited
to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to
foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of
the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities,
according to the same (international) right, in going to and
from the place of their mission.
Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the
Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any
interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government.
To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican,
or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices
worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical
post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of
sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign
administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the
Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of
despatches or correspondence furnished with the official
Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as
regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name
of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the
kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign
government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed
in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the
kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by
the said office with the authorised designation of
'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the
privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the
exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages
will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or
those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp
of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office
in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff
shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.
Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees
the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic
institutions founded for the education and culture of
ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See,
without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the
kingdom.
Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the
right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic
clergy is abolished.
Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic
legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right,
throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the
collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be
required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater
and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of
the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the
suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation
to benefices under royal patronage.
Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every
other form of Government assent for the publication and
execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished.
However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the
special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these
(ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of
ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and
minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the
suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and
'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the
creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical
institutions and of their property remain unaltered.
Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual
discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the
ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the
civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it
accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in
these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical)
authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such
acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State,
or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are
subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.
Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the
reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of
the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.
Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the
present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be
contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.
The object of this law was to carry out still further than had
yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free
State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual
matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the
State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against
all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and
declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical
transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."
_J. W. Probyn,
Italy, 1815 to 1878,
chapter 11._
The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the
Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the
following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it:
"Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize
the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the
Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for
the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He
refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely
upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than
to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his
civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the
boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured
to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the
insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling
forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made
the pretext for stern military repression.
{2480}
Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the
protection of the agents of that very power against whose
presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it
was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own
palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of
the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The
extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders,
the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the
expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were
so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome
interpreted their pledges, that the change of government
should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in
its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and
difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united
the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre
of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in
all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX.
has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at
length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the
intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX.
found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of
loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he
celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the
first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years
of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by
the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee
of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to
outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. …
Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th
[1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however
stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the
new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of
more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred
somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of
1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there
was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at
least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when
the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes
that followed the accession of a new king, and when the
diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement
of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in
schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of
the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action,
the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as
Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He
assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only
within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized
world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered
the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the
Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he
showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on
the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its
effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme
Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a
surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had
contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most
optimist of the Italian party."
_Chevalier O'Clery,
The Making of Italy,
chapter 26._
PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887.
The Culturkampf in Germany.
The "May Laws" and their repeal.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
PAPACY: A. D. 1878.
Election of Leo XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1891.
Disestablishment of the Church in Brazil.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
PAPACY: A. D. 1892.
Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to
the United States of America.
In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the
United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic
Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We
command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church,
'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power
of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid,
concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive
with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"
_Forum,
May, 1893 (volume 15, page 278)._
----------PAPACY:End--------
PAPAGOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.
PAPAL GUARANTEES, Law of the.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
PAPAL STATES.
See
STATES OF THE CHURCH;
also PAPACY.
PAPER BLOCKADE.
See BLOCKADE, PAPER.
PAPER MONEY.
See MONEY AND BANKING.
PAPHLAGONIANS, The.
A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1._
Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of
Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often
governed by local princes.
PAPIN, Inventions of.
See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.
PAPINEAU REBELLION, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
PAPUANS, The.
"In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and
shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic
Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island
of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring
islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New
Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New
Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the
northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of
the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper,
Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true
Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in
the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and
following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern
blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and
Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the
islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the
islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be
found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render
them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those
races.
{2481}
The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah,
crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their
black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the
name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common
name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in
genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close
resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong
contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."
_J. S. Kingsley, editor,
The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History,
volume 6, page 42._
ALSO IN:
_A. R. Wallace,
The Malay Archipelago,
chapter 40._
PARABOLANI OF ALEXANDRIA, The.
"The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation,
instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick
and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and
sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct
under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked
the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and
to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these
restraints were transient and ineffectual."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_J. Bingham,
Antiquities of the Christian Church,
book 3, chapter 9._
PARACELSUS.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY.
----------PARAGUAY: Start--------
PARAGUAY:
The name.
"De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name
from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest
navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of
its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara
says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom
of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique
ever having borne that name."
_T. J. Hutchinson,
The Parana,
page 44._
PARAGUAY:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES, and TUPI.
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery and exploration of La Plata.
Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.
The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in
1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed
incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this
"Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by
Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the
great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to
ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt
the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian
Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of
Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the
Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in
turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following
two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose
silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence
of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by
Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and
sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted
followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and
to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their
acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so
tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator
quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five
years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken
up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who
received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of
2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests.
Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a
town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the
fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as
they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared
well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were
reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with
disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his
lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way.
Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the
Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana,
where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in
1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make
his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were
left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a
most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned
and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600
souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400
adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a
hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado
of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces
on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and
boldly marched across country, making an important exploration
and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he
was not successful in his government, and the discontented
colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain,
with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command
of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked
at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered
with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had
reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were
such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise
have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the
constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which
separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage
intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of
time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular
combination of outward civilization and of primitive
simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race
until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in
fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration
became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the
colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village
of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70
years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The
Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain
proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in
sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that
the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was
formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time,
therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong
sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or
those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed
the basis of the plan of government founded by the great
Irala.
{2482}
The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the
natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was
far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The
Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes
with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly
fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass
consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of
their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them.
Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most
part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as
herdsmen."
_R. G. Watson,
Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 1, chapters 5 and 16._
ALSO IN:
_R. Southey,
History of Brazil,
volume 1, chapters 2-3, 5-7, and 11._
_R. Biddle,
Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
chapters 16-23._
_Father Charlevoix,
History of Paraguay,
books 1-3._
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
The rule of the Jesuits.
The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II.
Disastrous War with Brazil.
"Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century
as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos
Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the
Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D, 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on
which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic
government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608,
baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and
communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they
had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed
savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits,
married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes
stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a
choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and
marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the
sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their
leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any
amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed
each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other
fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole
bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding
those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving
with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and
instructors. With the whole labouring population under
control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into
subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the
conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the
country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion,
they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical
authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and
worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh
outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four
years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they
made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom
they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things
which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the
time of the general crusade of the European powers against
their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as
from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of
the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain
determined a general collapse of her power in the American
colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and
constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But,
although the party of emancipation was the strongest and
seized the reins of government, there were still many among
the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother
country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were
many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of
Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by
the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to
the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or
harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the
projected confederation.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless
energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name
of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian
half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern,
gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism
and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes
according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to
call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from
the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at
Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the
Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a
Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion …
(1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death,
at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of
stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding
off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his
colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions,
imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a
kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory,
depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man
to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission
from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though
there was something like method in his madness. There were
faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for
about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new
Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a
lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly
despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten
years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus
to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his
demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco
Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of
all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself
appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was
only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later
years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign,
though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been
altogether unfavourable to the development of public
prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and
400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857.
Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper
money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to
muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in
the field and in his fortresses.
{2483}
Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose
perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by
several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the
influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by
the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers
as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon
himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till
he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in
a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which
lasted five years (1865-1870).
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had
been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself
died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but
killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before
he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to
starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of
the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is
calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873
only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than
doubled the males."
_A. Gallenga,
South America,
chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_Father Charlevoix,
History of Paraguay._
_J. R. Rengger and Longchamps,
The Reign of Dr. Francia._
_T. Carlyle,
Dr. Francia
(Essays, volume 6)._
_C. A. Washburn,
History of Paraguay._
_R. F. Burton,
Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay._
_T. J. Page,
La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
chapters 27-30._
_T. Griesinger,
The Jesuits,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4)._
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1870-1894.
The Republic under a new Constitution.
Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed
a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in
recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of
occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution,
the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected
for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two
houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in
1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.
----------PARAGUAY: End--------
PARALI, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
PARALUS, The.
The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for
the conveyance of despatches and other official service.
PARASANG, The.
The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about
which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus
represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo
regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems
to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that
the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance,
averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and
others, something less than three geographical miles. The
modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated
distance, which generally, however, overruns three
geographical miles.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 10, note B (volume 1)._
PARAWIANAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
PARICANIANS, The.
The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied
the territory of modern Baluchistan.
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
chapter 1._
PARILIA,
PULILIA, The.
The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a
shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 21, with foot-note._
----------PARIS: Start--------
PARIS:
The beginning.
A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost
insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site
of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when
Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It
was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the
minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the
protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a
small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the
Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards.
"Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia;
Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and
afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not
known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is
supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian.
Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and
Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then
this name has been preserved in all the histories and public
records."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 7, note._
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
PARIS:
Julian's residence.
Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar
(355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not
in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which
he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii
(whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have
taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the
fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the
earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted
the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius
had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the
Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity
as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the
surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the
Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors
selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position.
They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the
soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts
and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of
Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still
regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known
as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite
residence."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 7._
PARIS:
The capital of Clovis.
Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the
united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at
Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He
afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church
dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the
epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 5._
{2484}
PARIS: A. D. 511-752.
Under the Merovingians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 511-752.
PARIS: A. D. 845.
Sacked by the Normans.
"France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was
followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North
wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the
pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished
by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in
Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright
activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their
fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak
Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed
cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. …
Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly
occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of
the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it
being scarcely possible to account for the condition of
Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that
the country had long previously received a considerable Danish
population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were
advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly
so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river:
Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps
expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by
any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the
increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the
Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. …
With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave
themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris
bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the
Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles.
Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with
Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army
at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been
entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body;
neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and
abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845]
the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted
their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their
shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their
fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left
open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude.
The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all
valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the
Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the
church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars
and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen
beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city,
generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged
themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the
moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or
dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the
Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them,
dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned
by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under
these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on
receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be
equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld
paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the
pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this
disgraceful compromise."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings in Western Christendom,
chapter 9._
PARIS: A. D. 857.-861.
Twice ravaged by the Northmen.
"The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid
open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered
from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell
intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great
monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three
churches were found standing—Saint-Denis,
Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these
having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but
Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to
their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider
it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most
heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis,
Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida.
Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the
pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more
conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three
centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins
continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities
of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries
seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After
this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three
years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying
the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across
the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to
Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken,
on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the
ruthless savages of the North entered Paris.
Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire,
and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles
the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with
bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and
presently got him settled in the country as a baptized
Christian and a vassal.
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
PARIS: A. D. 885-886.
The great siege by the Northmen.
"In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after
having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France,
they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at
length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had
so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart
of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been
and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in
motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already
famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went
right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of
Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took
Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. …
{2485}
On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen
formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two
leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000
men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new
fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation,
the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the
ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly
rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the
Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes,
lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen
months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several
assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop,
Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a
time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon
saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three
battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on
his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe
through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle
was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November,
886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a
large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of
the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing
them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants
obeyed not the emperor.'"
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 12 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5._
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings in Western Christendom,
chapter 15._
PARIS: A. D. 987.
First becomes the capital of France.
"Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the
capital of France until after the accession of the third
dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 1, page 280._
PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199.
Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.
"During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in
the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he
had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people;
and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his
activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow,
and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin
name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of
the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the
court, in works of public utility, in the construction of
paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and
hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection
of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 4._
PARIS: A. D. 1328.
The splendor and gaiety of the Court.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383.
The building of the Bastille.
See BASTILLE.
PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358.
The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.
See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.
PARIS: A. D. 1381.
The Insurrection of the Maillotins.
At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke
out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on
merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal,
where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of
the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of
the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used
the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons,
Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital.
The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at
Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The
Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during
the minority of the young king], powerless to make them
submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the
offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a
time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious
towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after
the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at
Rosebecque.
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5._
PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.
The reign of the Cabochiens.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
PARIS: A. D. 1418.
The massacre of Armagnacs.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422.
King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
PARIS: A. D. 1429.
The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
PARIS: A. D. 1436.
Recovery from the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
PARIS: A. D. 1465.
Siege by the League of the Public Weal.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
PARIS: A. D. 1496.
Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.
PARIS: A. D. 1567.
The Battle of St. Denis.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
PARIS: A. D. 1572.
The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).
PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.
Insurrection of the Catholic League.
The Day of Barricades.
Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
PARIS: A. D. 1590.
The siege by Henry IV.
Horrors of famine and disease.
Relief by the Duke of Parma.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
PARIS: A. D. 1594.
Henry IV.'s entry.
Expulsion of Jesuits.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
PARIS: A. D. 1636.
Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.
The capital in peril.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652.
In the wars of the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651;
and 1651-1653.
PARIS: A. D. 1652.
The Battle of Porte St. Antoine
and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.
See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.
PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799.
Scenes of the Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.
PARIS: A. D. 1814.
Surrender to the Allied armies.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and MARCH-APRIL).
PARIS: A. D. 1815.
The English and Prussian armies in the city.
Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).
Revolution.
Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).
Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.
Insurrection consequent on closing them.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).
PARIS: A. D. 1851.
The Coup d'Etat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.
{2486}
PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871.
Siege by the Germans.
Capitulation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
The insurgent Commune.
Its Reign of Terror.
Second Siege of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).
----------PARIS: End--------
PARIS, Congress of (1856).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856;
and DECLARATION OF PARIS.
PARIS, Declaration of.
See DECLARATION OF PARIS.
PARIS, The Parliament of.
See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
PARIS, Treaty of (1763).
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
PARIS, Treaty of (1783).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
PARIS, Treaty of (1814).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
PARIS, Treaty of (1815).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
PARIS, University of.
See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.
PARISII, The.
See PARIS: THE BEGINNING;
and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
----------Subject: Start--------
PARLIAMENT, The English:
Early stages of its evolution.
"There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies
every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great
assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of
the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us
any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body.
It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the
wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like
these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which
implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a
body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary
practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any
time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this
body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest,
had become not a little anomalous, and not a little
fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of
that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew
out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the
same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs
out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no
break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every
freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of
circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden
change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and
official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man,
but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot
refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has
once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink
up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the
Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established
through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special
function of the body into which the old national Assembly has
changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a
House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not
show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution
had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English
polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither
of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our
Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we
may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom
and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the
course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man,
the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and
more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the
greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of
Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the
founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him
the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th
century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as
having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we
may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; …
but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of
the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into
a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter
secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly
as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the
part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution
of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill
of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by
a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III.,
a popular element was fast making its way into the national
Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary
freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of
the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more
practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this
time become the more practical right of choosing
representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in
England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result
of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both
in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of
Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county
being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county
members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of
the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as
distinct from the gathering of the people in their own
persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned
them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The
earliest object for which they were called together was
probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of
getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men
to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the
practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and
commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for
certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or
hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our
parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we
come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary
Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do
but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the
patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular
Chamber. …
{2487}
When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the
kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous
Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights
from every county, but also two citizens from every city and
two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly
developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow
into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of
Parliament."
_E. A. Freeman,
Growth of the English Constitution,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapters 6, 13-14._
_R. Gneist,
The English Parliament._
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 7._
_A. Bissett,
Short History of English Parliament,
chapters 2-3._
See, also,
WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244.
Earliest use of the name.
In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in
France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in
England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and
curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to
the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the
assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum
Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et
barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name
'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant
the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."
_H. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1)._
"The name given to these sessions of Council [the national
councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin
'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of
Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme,
may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct
instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further,
although when the term comes into use it is applied
retrospectively."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 13, section 159._
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258.
The Mad Parliament.
An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford
A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from
whom it extorted an important reorganization of the
government, with much curtailment of the royal power.
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2)._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.
Simon de Montfort's Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295.
Development under Edward I.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376.
The Good Parliament.
The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;
although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone
by its successor.
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 16 (volume 2)._
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388.
The Wonderful Parliament.
In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed
demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his
obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament
for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The
doings of this Parliament [which came together in February,
1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so
that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be
applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the
Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the
impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the
courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the
block.
_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 2, section 5._
ALSO IN:
_C. H. Pearson,
English History in the 14th Century,
chapter 11._
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404.
The Unlearned Parliament.
"This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its
ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the
king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372,
directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had
complained more than once that the members of the House of
Commons spent more time on private suits than on public
business."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3)._
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422.
First acquisition of Privilege.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425.
The Parliament of Bats.
The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of
the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of
Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485.
Depression under the Yorkist kings.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603.
Under Queen Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614.
The Addled Parliament.
In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious
members promised to manage for him and make docile to his
royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the
Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the
attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve
the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old
grievances, especially discussing the legality of the
impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and
of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme,
James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had
completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time
christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 599._
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
The Long Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648.
The Rump.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649.
Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653.
The Barebones or Little Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659.
The Rump restored.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740.
Rise and development of the Cabinet
as an organ of Parliamentary government.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693.
The Triennial Bill.
In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the
opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then
sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that
no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The
king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar
bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._
{2488}
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703.
The Aylesbury election case.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.
Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.
Representation of Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716.
The Septennial Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.
Last struggle against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727.
Defeat of the first Reform measure.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830.
State of the unreformed representation.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832.
The first Reform of the Representation.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867.
The second Reform Bill.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.
Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885.
The third Reform Bill (text and comment).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
----------PARLIAMENT: End--------
PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.
See WESTMINSTER PALACE.
PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.
PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
"When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to
Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de
Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ
also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence
the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held
within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There
was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute,
moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions
immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it.
There especially were adopted all general regulations which
the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and
especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other
imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief,
was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal
provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or
Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal
domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a
Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a
convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king
as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his
feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established,
either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries
apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might
dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by
simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to
his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections
which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this
slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament
of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the
constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX.
[A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that
monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of
the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not
with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but
in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now
they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English
prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and
even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the
statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom
could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist
of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in
a change which had taken place in the character of the
Parliament, through which its function and authority became
distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or
a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he
provided for the decision of complaints against officers of
the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of
Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of
the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the
time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it,
that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such
assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the
attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively,
but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament.
Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons,
three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to
be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not
appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications
requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he
directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated
to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in
holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the
study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was
that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other
written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus
constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament
of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training,
the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into
their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a
bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the
Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which
Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons.
The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due
time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La
Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of
the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its
jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the
Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become
the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of
France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the
reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the
royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former
became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its
members were required to be constantly resident in Paris.
{2489}
By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called,
had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles
VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became
hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was
acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the
meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with
the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king …
had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the
Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the
right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals,
had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was
disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected
law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at
length formally declined to register it among their records.
Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful.
In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory
order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such
orders the Parliament generally submitted."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 8._
"It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to
the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a
different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies
held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy
[the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the
earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer
two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of
Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were
called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum
[also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were
called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it
is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the
time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at
the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual
appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that
of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial,
that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other
tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called
upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable
influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of
remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only
could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris,
besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though
compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a
more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's
Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be
doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified
in consequence of this power of refusal."
_Lord Brougham,
History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,
note 66._
For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris
and the crown which immediately preceded the French
Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.
_ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie,
Marie Antoinette,
chapters 6-11._
PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.
----------PARMA: Start--------
PARMA:
Founding of.
See MUTINA.
PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115.
In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349.
Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
PARMA: A. D. 1513.
Conquest by Pope Julius II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
PARMA: A. D. 1515.
Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
PARMA: A. D. 1521.
Retaken by the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,
into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.
"Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered
the interests of the holy see subordinate to the
aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself
the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were
ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated
during his life, they led to the establishment of his
descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly
200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to
alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might
erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi
Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years
before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,
bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of
Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and
grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.
was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to
the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,
which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon
evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,
Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved
himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his
debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient
tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and
insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and
he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a
reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in
the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter
the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul
III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to
retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city
for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor
would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul
III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the
conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],
obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the
gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house
of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still
retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services
of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to
deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to
him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the
protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive
war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved
his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of
the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the
invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from
the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding
Placentia again to him.
{2490}
But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that
place; and it was only the brilliant military career of
Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of
duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his
family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro
gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;
and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the
Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.
The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but
Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the
head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and
his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of
Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy
see and the monarchy of Spain."
_G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 9._
PARMA: A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.
Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.
The French alliance renounced.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
PARMA: A. D. 1725.
Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
PARMA: A. D. 1731.
Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
PARMA: A. D. 1735.
Restored to Austria.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748.
Changes of masters.
In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by
Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see
ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to
the infant of Spain in 1748.
PARMA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
Papal excommunication of the Duke.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
PARMA: A. D. 1801.
The Duke's son made King of Etruria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
PARMA: A. D. 1802.
The duchy declared a dependency of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
PARMA: A. D. 1814.
Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).
PARMA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.
Her restoration by Austria.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Abortive revolution.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.
End of the duchy.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.
----------PARMA: End--------
PARMA, Battle of (1734).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
PARNASSUS.
See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.
PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.
PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
PARSEES, The.
"On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to
Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty
thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran.
The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs,
after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there,
persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta],
faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of
Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a
few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient
faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island
close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian
Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of
Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the
neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions
have been found which prove that these settlers reached the
coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time
their descendants form a considerable part of the population
of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after
their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle
Persian."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5)._
See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.
PARSONS' CAUSE, The.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.
PARTHENII, The.
This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young
men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the
exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even
when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit
these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the
military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally
driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1._
See TARENTUM.
----------PARTHENON: Start--------
PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.
"Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the
Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive
edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately
together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was
to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the
wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories
which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …
See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and
Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who
was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the
double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice
which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its
proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the
earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not
exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the
edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east
to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of
the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or
Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of
Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the
festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had
gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. …
The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum,
where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and
flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being
produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic
games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium,
foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the
torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the
Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed
one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 3._
See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.
{2491}
PARTHENON: A. D. 1687.
Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens
by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------PARTHENON: End--------
PARTHENOPÉ.
See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.
PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.
"The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian,
skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north,
broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the
sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or
five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having
between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to
their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded;
the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water
abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a
considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is
further increased by the extension of cultivation to a
considerable distance from the base of the most southern of
the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It
was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly
described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. …
Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the
region described. A portion of that region formed the district
called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine
what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on
the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west
and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and
east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the
main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south
of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E.
longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia
Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to
the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian
character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved,
appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be
accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the
vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the
steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon
the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively
unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view
them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of
the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts,
&c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained
their independence from the time of their settlement in the
district called after their name until the sudden arrival in
their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about
554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius
Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the
same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria.
Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous,
it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to
form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the
comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of
Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the
new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death,
that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the
Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria
as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt
occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an
independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.
Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the
line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic
dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by
conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole
territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia
Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians
successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in
several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were
advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia._
Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an
expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of
Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The
degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before
his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the
mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the
honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman
generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets
ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished
senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations
that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon
clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the
eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his
[successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the
Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew
the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia
and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus,
once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the
empire."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 1._
In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the
Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the
Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war
which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and
Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and
Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.
165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding
Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of
a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of
Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],
which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,
was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought
between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three
days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to
flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his
troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and
retired within the lines of their camp.
{2492}
Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the
heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of
the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two
contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,
therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome
at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was
rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,
and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the
Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries
and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the
races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian
monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the
Parthian throne.
_G. Rawlinson,
The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapters 3-21._
ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson,
Story of Parthia._
PARTHIAN HORSE.
PARTHIAN ARROWS.
"Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a
headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only
in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong
bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early
boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could
use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse
was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing
towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his
ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the
presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or
round and round his square or column, never charging it, but
at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed
shafts."
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 11._
----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------
PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS.
Abolitionists.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Adullamites.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Aggraviados.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Ammoniti.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anarchists.
See ANARCHISTS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anilleros.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Corn-Law League.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Federalists.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Masonic.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832;
and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Renters.
See LIVINGSTON MANOR.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808;
1828-1832; 1840-1847.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Armagnacs.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Arrabiati.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Assideans.
See CHASIDIM.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Barnburners.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Beggars.
See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bianchi.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bigi, or Greys.
See BIGI.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Blacks, or Black Guelfs.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Blue-Light Federalists.
See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Blues.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN;
and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Border Ruffians.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Boys in Blue.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bucktails.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bundschuh.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Burgundians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415;
and 1415-1419.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Burschenschaft.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Butternuts.
See Boys IN BLUE.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cabochiens.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Calixtines, or Utraquists.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Camisards.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Caps and Hats.
See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Carbonari.
See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Carlists.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Carpet-baggers.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cavaliers and Roundheads.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
also, ROUNDHEADS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Center.
See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Charcoals.
See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Chartists.
See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Chasidim.
See CHASIDIM.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Chouans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Christinos.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Claybanks and Charcoals.
See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Clear Grits.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Clichyans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Clintonians.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cods.
See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Communeros.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Communists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Conservative (English).
See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Constitutional Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Copperheads.
See COPPERHEADS.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cordeliers.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Country Party.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Covenanters.
See COVENANTERS;
also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,
and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Crêtois.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Decamisados.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Democrats.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
1825-1828; 1845-1846.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Doughfaces.
See DOUGHFACES.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Douglas Democrats.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Equal Rights Party.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Escocés.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Essex Junto.
See ESSEX JUNTO.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Farmers' Alliance.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Federalists.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;
and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Feds.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Fenians.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Free Soilers.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Free Traders.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
The Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Gachupines.
See GACHUPINES.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Girondists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Gomerists.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Grangers.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Graybacks.
See Boys IN BLUE.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Greenbackers.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.
PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Greens.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.