"In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and

in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the

officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the

excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of

Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but

resistance having been made in a few of the western counties,

and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of

the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered

against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District,

Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the

Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled

to desist from the execution of their official duties. The

next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men,

assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General

Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the

Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side

of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they

set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this

occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several

of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required

to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight.

{2507}

A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek

meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the

four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring

counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at

Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August,

'to take into consideration the situation of the western

country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the

malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven

miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to

Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then

addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in

the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted

letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field

on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days'

provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but

the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the

prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of

this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at

from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on

the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military

command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed

the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose

hostility had been discovered by the letters they had

intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two

persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then

decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to

prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and

the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg,

it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The

President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason,

commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others

against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try

lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to

the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents,

and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory

assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor

Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing

Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to

grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after

which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of

November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the

insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry

was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and

consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of

Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They

appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary,

though he at first declined the appointment. … The

Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission

to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like

submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm

these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended

until the following July, when, if there had been no violation

of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty.

These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but

before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men

entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and

so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to

be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an

exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of

sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the

Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass

a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to

accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of

submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the

well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws

could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the

interposition of the militia was indispensable. The

Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report

the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of

September, in which he announced, the march of the militia,

and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring

the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States

except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the

militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature

met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of

volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march

increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who

was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to

seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A

second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on

the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed,

and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the

President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the

Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and

resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the

civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the

excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents

to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief,

issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had

submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to

take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were

issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not

signed the declaration of submission, and send them to

Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the

execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire

order restored in less than four months from the time of the

burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of

resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force

of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to

prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so

long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

_George Tucker,

History of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 7._

ALSO IN:

_J. T. Morse,

Life of Hamilton,

volume 2, chapter 4._

_T. Ward,

The Insurrection of 1794

(Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6)._

_J. B. McMaster,

History of the People of the United States,

chapter 9 (volume 2)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1861.

First troops sent to Washington.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1863.

Lee's invasion.

Battle of Gettysburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1864.

Early's invasion.

Burning of Chambersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

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

{2508}

PENNY POSTAGE.

See POST.

PENSACOLA: Unauthorized capture by General Jackson (1818).

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

See CYRENE.

PENTATHLON, The.

The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing

the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks

called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals

all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and

the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in

all of them."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 52._

PEORIAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEPIN.

See PIPPIN.

PEPLUM, The.

"The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body.

Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was

chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public

appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape,

seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as

to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the

arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the

name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the

head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was

expressive of humility or of grief."

_T. Hope,

Costume of the Ancients,

volume 1._

PEPPERELL, Sir William, and the expedition against Louisburg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

PEQUOTS.

PEQUOT WAR.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and SHAWANESE:

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

PERA, The Genoese established at.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

PERCEVAL MINISTRY, The.

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

PERDICCAS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

PERDUELLIO, The Crime of.

"'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly

speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was

employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the

crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually

represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term

High Treason."

_W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 9._

See MAJESTAS.

PERED, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

PEREGRINI.

"The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis'

(i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest

acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was

not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not

applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those

persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with

Rome."

_w. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 3._

See, also, CIVES ROMANI.

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

PERGAMUM,

PERGAMUS.

This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the

province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became,

during the troubled century that followed the death of

Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and

then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which

it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a

great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which

Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander,

left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an

eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after

a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating

the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum.

He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his

cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the

possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the

Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity

that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his

influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of

Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger

part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented

almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of

Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated

by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various

shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression

upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen

remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of

that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,'

who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of

the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of

Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more

fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home

of Stoic philosophy."

_J. P. Mahaffy,

Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 20._

_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul_

From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of

Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it

to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its

splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a

century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria.

The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment,

which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place

called Bergamah.

See, also,

SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187;

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;

and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

PERGAMUM: A. D. 1336.

Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

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

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

PERGAMUS, Citadel of.

See TROJA.

PERICLES, Age of.

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

PERINTHUS: B. C. 340.

Siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

PERIOECI, The.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

PERIPLUS.

The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers,

signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The

Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

PERIZZITES, The.

"The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not

meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in

contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

_F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 6, chapter 1._

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

PERONNE, The Treaty of.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

{2509}

PERPETUAL EDICT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

PERPIGNAN: A. D. 1642.

Siege and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

PERRHÆBIANS, The.

"There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from

the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks

to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at

the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of

this nation. But at a very early time the primitive

inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by

more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains

became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain

degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the

Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus,

under Olympus."

_C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 1._

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

subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

_E. Curtius

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 4._

PERRY, Commodore Matthew C.: Expedition to Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

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

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

PERRYVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

PERSARGADÆ.

See PERSIA., ANCIENT PEOPLE, &c.

PERSARMENIA.

While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the

Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that

river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

PERSECUTIONS, Religious.

Of Albigenses.

See ALBIGENSES.

Of Christians under the Roman Empire.

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

and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

Of Hussites in Bohemia.

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

Of Jews.

See JEWS.

Of Lollards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

Of Protestants in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

Of Protestants in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547; 1559-1561 to 1598-1599;

1661-1680; 1681-1698.

Of Protestants in the Netherlands.

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

Of Roman Catholics in England.

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

1587-1588; 1678-1679.

Of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D.1691-1782.

Of Christians in Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

Of the Waldenses.

See WALDENSES.

See, also, INQUISITION.

PERSEIDÆ, The.

See ARGOS.—ARGOLIS.

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

PERSEPOLIS: Origin.

See PERSIA, ANCIENT PEOPLE.

PERSEPOLIS: B. C. 330.

Destruction by Alexander.

Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to

it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the

city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated

their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the

inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary

sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of

their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire,

Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and

convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as

the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine,

though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from

the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased,

and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After

appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of

120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling)

—Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property

of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the

soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold

and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and

ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants

were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as

obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their

property in their own houses."

_G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 93._

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

PERSIA:

Ancient people and country.

"Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that

province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name

slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia

Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending

from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the

gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by

Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia,

and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been

about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The

earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or

Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the

ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude

53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance

of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the

ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The

Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself,

toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the

surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the

Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The

earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the

inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them

about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time

Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in

south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with

the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly

independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that

we once more find them brought into contact with the power

which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their

re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have

descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which

lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that

they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the

fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates

from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and

therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to

Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

_G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapters 1 and 7._

ALSO IN:

_A. R. Sayce,

Ancient Empires of the East,

appendix 5._

See, also,

ARIANS; IRAN; and ACHÆMENIDS.

PERSIA:

The ancient religion.

See ZOROASTRIANS.

{2510}

PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam.

His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia.

The restoration of the Jews.

Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

"It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA].

On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn

probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and

gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana

and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the

conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy

of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time,

however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older

Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of

the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises

of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched

from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics

of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening

of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C.

625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara,

formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome;

and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos

by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against

Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its

monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see

LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror

was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were

already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously

expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on

the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538

the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from

the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June;

on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two

days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon

itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros

himself entered his new capital in triumph."

_A. H. Sayee,

The Ancient Empires of the East:

Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5._

"The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire,

and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a

restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by

the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account

given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the

Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the

captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is

contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian

and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from

Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is

a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign

of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the

history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The

other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his

son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of

Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The

tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated,

especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be

made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos,

except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the

sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The

inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of

the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects

very different from that handed down to us by classical

writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one

who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have

ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could

not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a

long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus.

Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the

reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself

and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used

is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet

explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians

and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early

inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the

neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam,

who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until

they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king

Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province.

In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of

Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first

became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C.

549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has

become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he

must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in

some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did

not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have

been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to

Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great

inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own

forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original

capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of

the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is

that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and

not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was

an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation

which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We

learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped

Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities

of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his

son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us

that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by

Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet

accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he

was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of

Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god.

The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief

that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of

the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to

warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His

chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel.

… The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the

conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety

towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept

in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities

back to their homes.

{2511}

Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted

the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had

taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to

live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed

the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which

consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered

population to another country, and sought instead to win their

gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their

native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored

from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of

his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his

intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who

took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied

Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable,

however, that this means only the heads of families; if so,

the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and

children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of

Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was

already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow

of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from

the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of

the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older

empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its

doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed

been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or

Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his

neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over

the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median

Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in

Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from

Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture,

Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of

Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to

have been under the government of a collateral branch of the

family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also

the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over

the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus

about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were

spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild

tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all

was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was

carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been

made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death,

Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the

world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon

necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the

third centre of the great empire, and in later days the

Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official

residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so

fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it.

The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so

thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the

only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his

death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands

with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by

Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his

empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said.

… A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes

in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince,

and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into

rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of

this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of

Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to

oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before

he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of

the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of

Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had

known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not

Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes

paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years

from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven

months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son

of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in

the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th

day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to

the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

_A. H. Sayce,

Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,

chapters 1 and 3._

ALSO IN:

_A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 7._

_Z. A. Ragozin,

The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,

chapter 10-12._

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

The reign of Darius I.

His Indian and Scythian expeditions.

The Ionian revolt and its suppression.

Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

"Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the

second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from

the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it

lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the

Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the

hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and

all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he

does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian

worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the

matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at

Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal

evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The

empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the

following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,

Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),

Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,

Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,

Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three

provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the

original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of

the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian

table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the

empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests

in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was

added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such

motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen

Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,

Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was

minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,

and so to carry war into Scythia.

{2512}

It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,

and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the

Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.

So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies

to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the

reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears

to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward

from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—

over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added

to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,

yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The

Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the

Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the

expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped

destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe

by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …

It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a

fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of

700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,

crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to

the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and

the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a

bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the

apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus

makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the

direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries

beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.

The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched

battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in

the country till they should perish from famine." Darius

retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,

with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the

enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated

in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,

and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the

Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the

same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched

back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous

destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and

Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The

Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the

strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,

Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a

rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe

with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."

Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the

kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his

master, in B. C. 506.

_P. Smith,

Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 27._

"Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in

profound peace under the government of his brother

Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of

rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have

seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an

island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the

oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant

of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition

against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the

interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned

the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and

ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to

him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens,

Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet

that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power;

popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and

islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501).

Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king,

Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire;

but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the

sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the

Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by

Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and

the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians.

Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at

Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which

was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were

utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not

effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The

Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians

dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which

should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained

for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as

Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was

recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians

protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was

early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of

Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at

last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the

Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was

no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline

on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians

an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the

worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands

were treated with scarcely less severity. This third

subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the

prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his

narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of

the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships

they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the

Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of

Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot

an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help

to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his

servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the

words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression

of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to

succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent

Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

_P. Smith,

History of the World: Ancient,

chapter 13 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:

_G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4)._

_C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 14 (volume 2)._

PERSIA: B. C. 509.

Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

{2513}

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.

First expedition against Greece and its failure.

Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

PERSIA: B. C. 490-479.

Wars with the Greeks.

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

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.

The disastrous invasion of Greece.

Loss of Egypt.

Recovery of Asia Minor.

Decay of the empire.

"Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his

reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted

to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a

rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the

plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention

to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous

defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

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

… It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their

prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under

that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the

Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and

even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at

their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to

dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at

last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect

Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at

the Eurymedon.

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak

prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his

military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased

to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody

and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later

Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural

penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning

twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard,

Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed

on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C.

465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his

father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes,

who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting

to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About

the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he

was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly

forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good

qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid

declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt

[B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through

the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and

the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the

complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost

all their men.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449,

despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to

Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the

fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and

completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis,

besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still

held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and

Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed

'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of

Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a

rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that

he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent

to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of

successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not

but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court

continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who

allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was

married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and

licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C.

425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II.

Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with

great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days,

was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or

Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the

throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six

months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on

ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in

history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his

aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.

C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole

disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of

the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what

remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was

used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The

revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which,

though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful.

In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in

Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake

off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection.

Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under

Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence.

The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince

seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some

compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the

north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the

authority of the Great King was once more established over the

Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the

Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between

the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens

and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been

expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the

quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet

she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until

the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an

effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the

treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she

gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities

of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and

was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession

took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the

Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had

from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

_G. Rawlinson,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 2, sections 24-39._

{2514}

ALSO IN:

_G. Rawlinson,

The Five Great Monarchies,

volume 3: Persia, chapter 7._

PERSIA: B. C. 413.

Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

Hostility to Athens.

Subsidies to her enemies.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

The expedition of Cyrus the Younger,

and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great

founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius

Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on

the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis.

During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia,

Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all

Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found

himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid

plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes,

who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an

extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do

with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the

Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind

a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had

shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which

he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no

Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of

gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening

his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from

Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding

himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before

him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their

confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it

happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront

them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in

Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the

pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who

numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and

who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken,

and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital,

if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But

the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted

by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of

the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own

commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority

over them. But they possessed what no other people of their

time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose

from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed

him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces

homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the

Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece.

"Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no

immediate significance for political history, yet it is of

high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but

also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate

description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the

most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical

chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on

a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and

faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of

weakness, a wandering political community which, according to

home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions,

and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of

free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this

mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his

qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real

preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only

accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been

introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his

sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he

admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of

culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control

to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and

for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of

situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to

him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable

trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000

Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end

reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the

beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But

their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where

they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then

supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing

any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate

expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut

against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a

Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another

year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the

surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then

summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy

they hated most.

_E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 5, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:

_G. Grote,

History of Greece,

chapters 69-71._

_Xenophon,

Anabasis._

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.

War with Sparta.

Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.

The Peace of Antalcidas.

Recovery of Ionian cities.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PERSIA: B. C. 366.

Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.

The Great King's rescript.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

PERSIA: B. C. 337-336.

Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PERSIA: B. C. 334-330.

Conquest by Alexander the Great.

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

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.

Under the Successors of Alexander.

In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316;

and SELEUCIDÆ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

Embraced in the Parthian empire.

Recovery of national independence.

Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

"About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates

I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which

terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the

Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,

Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the

Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new

conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian

lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.

… It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to

allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern

themselves.

{2515}

These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled

by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary

right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very

much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the

tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him

a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a

military expedition."

_G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 1._

"The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn

subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new

dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN

DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This

great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced

by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander

Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great

reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the

Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and

rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for

superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity

equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the

flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the

former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a

tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him

as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. …

As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to

the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the

Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above

five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were

defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their

king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for

ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly

acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

_E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 8 (volume 1)._

PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

Wars with the Romans.

The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and

brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of

the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new

throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he

sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then

Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be

yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should

be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the

Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars,

extending through four centuries and ending only with the

Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power,

alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the

Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the

reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with

unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms.

Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner,

after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D.

260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his

insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid

capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked,

while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery.

Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner.

Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an

obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The

victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was

cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen

years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching

to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies

and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of

Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus

ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and

passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death

and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before

the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

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

That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into

the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the

war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated,

on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A.

D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the

Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced

Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the

Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and

gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then,

for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had

mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and

his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring

power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A.

D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the

calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia

encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which

Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day

was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle

of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at

first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while

plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great

slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark

of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents

of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed

the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the

city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by

Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the

inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the

Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an

opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after

rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363,

he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the

sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of

Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of

Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too

strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed

the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the

hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray

by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and

scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced

to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might

possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued

them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in

repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry.

{2516}

An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor,

and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the

Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius,

together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in

Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted

to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own.

The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than

half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D.

422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are

little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the

division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as

a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a

Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued

was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while

Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of

Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however,

in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of

Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three

months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the

Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius

now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the

powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of

the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities

again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was

in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and

finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great

battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next

year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers

arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The

Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid

11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so

quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king

Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria

ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just

restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had

nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged,

half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of

war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis,

or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in

history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted

until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged

the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the

Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to

Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till

591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian

throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled

to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his

unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the

most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in

the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria

and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia

Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of

Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp

and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and

held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial

capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who

became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved

himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve

years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could

gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such

resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the

Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627,

he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle,

fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient

Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled,

and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was

a fugitive.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and

his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans

and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in

their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

_G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

ALSO IN:

_E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46._

PERSIA: A. D. 632-651.

Mahometan Conquest.

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

PERSIA: A. D. 901-998.

The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

See SAMANIDES;

and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038.

Under the Gaznevides.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193.

Under the Seljuk Turks.

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

PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250.

The period of the Atabegs.

See ATABEGS.

PERSIA: A. D. 1193.

Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226.

Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;

and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who

extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and

completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his

conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an

empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of

the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time

acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in

the East."

_H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 211._

Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a

beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small

but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of

Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself

in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot

Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years

in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and

astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions,

who laboured in works of science under the direction of his

favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to

Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or

chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by

the conquests of Timour.

_Sir J. Malcolm,

History of Persia,

chapter 10 (volume 1)._

{2517}

"It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303,

that Mahometanism again became the established religion of

Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly

declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After

Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia

rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. …

The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the

descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At

last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion,

utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the

greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless

Timour."

_E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquest of the Saracens,

lecture 6._

PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393.

Conquest by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.

Triumph of the Sheahs.

Subjugation by the Afghans.

Deliverance by Nadir Shah.

The Khajar dynasty.

"At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of

Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to

the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of

Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay

with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as

firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the

sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan

and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict

on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants

of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D.

680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to

Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced

belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh,

called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this

uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a

people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical

speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent

reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in

the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. …

Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution

from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th

century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the

burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in

bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of

her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a

priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest

repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa,

the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed

a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as

to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid,

the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the

youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When

only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the

province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the

sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he

captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard,

and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of

Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on

Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder

of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since

that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of

Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at

times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the

Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah

government, and gave great strength to that sect of the

Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always

great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried

his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism

and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle

with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see

TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were

outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event

he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the

record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors,

Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to

sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new

empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at

home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not

succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the

verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in

the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after

a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This

monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the

throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the

Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah

Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean

dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722

with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the

empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan,

although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every

male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak

sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the

artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain.

That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow.

Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf.

But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir

Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a

brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had

escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia.

Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several

battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But

Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast

ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia;

and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with

some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself

king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a

man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the

Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition

that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi

fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of

great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring

dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each

other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which

succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who

reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder

of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last

pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once

more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …

{2518}

Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by

his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and

some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars

with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,

notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian

armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed

Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual

interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which

was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in

1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the

present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

_S. G. W. Benjamin,

The Story of Persia,

chapter 20._

ALSO IN:

_C. R. Markham,

General Sketch of the History of Persia,

chapters 10-20._

_Sir J. Malcolm,

History of Persia,

chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2)._

_R. G. Watson,

History of Persia, 1800-1858._

PERSIA: A. D. 1894.

The reigning Shah.

Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is

blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

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

PERSIAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)

PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

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

PERTH: A. D. 1559.

The Reformation Riot.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

PERTH: A. D. 1715.

Headquarters of the Jacobite Rebellion.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

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

PERTH, The Five Articles of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

PERTINAX, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

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

PERU:

Origin of the name.

"There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf

of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this

country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro

in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern

land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the

unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire

abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It

was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from

the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

_C. H. Markham,

Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 8._

ALSO IN:

_A. Helps,

Spanish Conquest in America,

book 6, chapter 2._

PERU:

The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization.

The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

"The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the

aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time

immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of

these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in

the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco

section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an

imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into

six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which

formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had

their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and

Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting

it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the

Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The

Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the

Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the

neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The

Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of

the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous

region between the central and western cordilleras. These six

tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their

language was introduced into every conquered province, and was

carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards

correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This

language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the

upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac.

Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long

grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of

straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is

the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together,

'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua.

The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his

grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words

among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was

adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name

would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in

the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke

a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The

Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and

their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many

Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to

express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are

indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One

branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe

inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called

Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined

to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca

sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the

happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and

had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had

domesticated all the animals in their country capable of

domestication, understood mining and the working of metals,

excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good

farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high

pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas

of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a

people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra.

There are some slight indications of the aborigines having

been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the

more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered

the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of

America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the

Yunca people."

_C. R. Markham,

Peru,

chapter 3._

{2519}

"In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico

and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the

construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts,

canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians

were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so

far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher

intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more

especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible

symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East

for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas

over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its

operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of

the law might be as great among the latter, the law was

expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative

of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law.

He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the

Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The

violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a

scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or

which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it

reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private

conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under

this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the

social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and

agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing

that deserved to be called property. They could follow no

craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was

specially provided by law. They could not change their

residence or their dress without a license from the

government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is

conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of

selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism

would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but

that established by law. The power of free agency—the

inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was

annihilated in Peru."

_W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Peru,

book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:

_The Standard Natural History

(J. S. Kingsley, edition.),

volume 6, pages 215-226._

_J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 9 (volume 2)._

_E. J. Payne,

History of the New World called America,

book 2 (volume 1)._

See, also,

AMERICAN ABORIGINES, ANDESIANS.

PERU:

The empire of the Incas.

"The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power

precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under

the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or

Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father,

the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the

south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule

in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had

reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of

Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating

central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on

the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian

valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all

its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the

beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire

extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th

southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from

3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying

width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and

Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles,

covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square

miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the

United States, or to the whole of the United States to the

eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake

Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs

of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of

the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters

flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and

skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200

miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of

Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and

productive, but the barriers which separate it from the

neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may

be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the

same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca

seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes

leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction

whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the

empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of

conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of

Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The

survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the

ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts

of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have

said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country

is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number

of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are

hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is

every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed

to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The

ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks,

on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and

clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to

utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They

excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached

moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano

from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They

terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the

soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow

platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a

single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left

unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India,

may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil

which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No

doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the

scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not

then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor

yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the

support of dense populations. … The present population of the

three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca

Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five

millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population

under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps

somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las

Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells

us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed

above forty millions of people.'"

_E. G. Squier,

Peru,

chapter 1._

PERU:A. D. 1527-1528.

Discovery by the Spaniards.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

{2520}

PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

The commission and the preparations of Pizarro.

"In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades,

taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of

that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the

court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at

Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the

wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed

in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he

now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs

in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not

until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the

country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers

of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of

discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the

titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or

lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable

salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses

under his government, and, in short, to exercise the

prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed

commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo;

whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. …

Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a

force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to

furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and

stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January,

1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by

four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in

Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill

pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership

came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was

brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in

preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions

boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land.

It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward

from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

_R. G. Watson,

Spanish and Portuguese South America,

volume 1, chapters 6-7._

PERU:A. D. 1531-1533.

Pizarro's conquest.

Treacherous murder of Atahualpa.

"Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531,

with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three

men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at

the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers

to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more

men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with

twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro

continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well

peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed

over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating

war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the

conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of

Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a

long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and

Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and

was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been

defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and

Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of

the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was

reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the

mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from

Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's

march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region.

After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the

fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San

Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley

of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal

treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and

Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on

the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier,

Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to

reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main

body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of

Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with

presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired

friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of

Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and

marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of

the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange

the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and

sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with

the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca

Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about

three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed

forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of

November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force.

Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry

buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position.

Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where

Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa

announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander,

and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery.

He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing,

came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession.

He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people

were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described

as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and

seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a

half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders

for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts

of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while

Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his

captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess

and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his

brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on

the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco,

the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They

set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence

and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the

success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two

officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco,

to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing.

On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived

at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84

horses.

{2521}

On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived

should be melted down for distribution; but another large

instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity

consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been

torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were

vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal

fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the

conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal

to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of

the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as

a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of

Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar

Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be

followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of

the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square

of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was

absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest

indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested

against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of

being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed

the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

_C. R. Markham,

Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 8)._

ALSO IN:

_W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Peru,

book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1)._

_J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 10 (volume 2)._

PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

The fighting of the Spanish conquerors over the spoils.

"The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms

the next great series of events in American history, is one of

the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest

in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came

within its influence, desolated the country where it

originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed

for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish

colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century

afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and

fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the

period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa.

That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave

the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning

Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a

brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame

and rage at his helpless position], and set out from

Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his

conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in

Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the

great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on

the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish

descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great

regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of

water running through the middle of each, with grand squares

and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its

environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from

the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred

thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses,

and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of

the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a

building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated

with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun

were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon

their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round

the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a

coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years

the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing

it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the

great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning

many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime,

Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror,

returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent

with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth

of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for

Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed

under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate

and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it

was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to

take possession and govern a province, which should be called

New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's

government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the

beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused

of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as

lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged

in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began

to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards

received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up

Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set

out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which

had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the

subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of

Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months

after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning

Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into

the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising,

which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into

great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been

overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed,

from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to

assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he

endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca

Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the

Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving

before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while

negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the

town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis

Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500

men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but

Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In

November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro

and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted

from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger

Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando

had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army

against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a

desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph.

{2522}

Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial,

condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely

masters of the country and maintained their domination for a

few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under

Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions.

But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head

in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the

governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A

young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the

governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a

new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived

from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His

rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de

Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela,

sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New

Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las

Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the

"repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in

which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish

government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro,

however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after

a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death.

This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in

Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after

some years.

_Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest in America,

books 17-18 (volume 4)._

ALSO IN:

_W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Peru._

PERU: A. D. 1539-1541.

Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon

and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

See AMAZONS RIVER.

PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

Under the Spanish Viceroys.

"When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and

returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung

from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was

Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a

very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during

the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House,

the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the

greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the

mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of

South America, including the present republics of Venezuela,

New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the

court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and

magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the

viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the

capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the

inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of

Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted

from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice,

this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be

considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the

present century, and shortly before the commencement of the

war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was

abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the

seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the

Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of

Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in

Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000

received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain

in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless

descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and

heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high

road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon

kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to

show itself in the various measures of government; and the

trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the

strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the

commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called

the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen

merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of

manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this

fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested

in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines

and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed

to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at

Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of

silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and

sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the

galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The

galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair,

which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was

commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle

of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come

over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened

government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime

minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at

administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the

colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long

found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and

viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while

another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty

grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in

their places practical men, who had done good service as

captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as

Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780.

At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish

adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at

Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of

Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of

the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the

viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose

Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government.

… But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor

of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who

peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the

minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening

of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own

enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their

increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally,

the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies,

brought popular excitement in South America to such a height

that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable

materials."

_C. R. Markham,

Cuzco and Lima,

chapter 9._

{2523}

The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of

revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief

named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was

to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and

their just administration. But when his moderate demands were

only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that

independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a

descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed

Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the

Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The

insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was

maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July,

1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were

due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac

Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the

Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of

Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised

the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who

fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard.

The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined

by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young

poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in

March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less

cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

_C. R. Markham,

Peru,

page 150._

PERU: A. D. 1579.

The piracies of Drake.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

PERU: A. D. 1776.

Separation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

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

PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

The Struggle for Independence.

Help from Chile and Colombia.

San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators.

The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

"The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces

of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part,

crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for

important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of

their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for

assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there

would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the

viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820,

independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A.

D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was

assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the

royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province

from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General

Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose

exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels

of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under

command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole

force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian

coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which

retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at

negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in

motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off

Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane

[afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded

in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda,

which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in

company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit

is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the

kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was

transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. …

As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced

upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The

Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place.

… The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of

July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little

difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his

good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on

prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence

of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition

of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the

ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of

Peru. No important military movements took place during a

considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao

remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of

September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained

at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of

months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to

be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a

severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by

Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the

revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the

month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and

the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then

in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The

result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at

Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence

the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy

protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the

execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which

was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending

party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress

was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned

his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili.

Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the

duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs

of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823,

the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew

his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all

hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now

seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and

this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of

Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of

freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of

the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN

STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security,

that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed

condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to

the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September,

1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once

invested with supreme power, both civil and military. …

{2524}

In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao

resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the

Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same

fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its

own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as

supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to

call forth the full energies of the great general. He had

under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom

were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available

forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far

superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not

become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no

decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824,

"when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most

remarkable in its details and important in its results ever

fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in

Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command

of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those

of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of

the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard

fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the

heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they

had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700

wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less

than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy,

entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a

capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the

battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His

whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms

of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also

bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out,

however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825,

and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with

desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until

January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and

disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a

dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption

by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian

constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he

remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed

him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in

language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction

took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to

accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

_H. Brownell,

North and South America: Peru,

chapters 12-13._

ALSO IN:

_Earl of Dundonald,

Autobiography of a Seaman, Sequel,

chapter 3._

_J. Miller,

Memoirs of General Miller,

chapters 12-27 (volumes 1-2)._

_T. Sutcliffe,

Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru,

chapters 2-3._

PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru.

The Bolivian Constitution.

"Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower

Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body

resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her

being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from

war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my

resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this

tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the

same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic

is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of

Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the

same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he

consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of

reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing

could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to

Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for

another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars,

which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him

the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire

freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent

traits in his character. After continuing in session about a

month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had

granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard

to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was

unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they

should continue to exercise their functions; and they

accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or

control in the government, after issuing a decree for

installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed

from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior

provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to

believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was

greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those

views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the

sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant

gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to

assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his

political principles more directly before the world. When the

victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to

act, the great question presented to their consideration was,

whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or

reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state.

Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's

chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco

in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be,

that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed

that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator.

Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the

fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless,

however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded

to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They

conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as

he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre

was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand

Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the

capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and

profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the

latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of

his preeminent services to the country. With the same

characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like

occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his

own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to

purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held

in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to

prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should

perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and

constitution of the state.

{2525}

Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very

foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if,

indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he

did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator

left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to

assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet

there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution

for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing

date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel

at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again

and again declared, that it contains his confession of

political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its

preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of

his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a

consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government;

and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to

name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The

Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called

tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected

for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So

complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of

laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and

unnatural the distribution of powers among the several

branches, that it would be impracticable for any people,

having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct

public business in the projected mode; and much more

impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all

familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the

most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature

and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in

the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the

legislative body, holding his office for life, without

responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having

the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the

state, every appointment of any importance, from the

vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers

of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute

control of all the military force of the nation, it being at

the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force

shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the

irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the

executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the

people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The

constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May

25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to

the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign

prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government

submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration.

It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia,

and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected

president for life under it, although one of its provisions

expressly required, that the president should be a native of

Bolivia."

_C. Cushing,

Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution

(N. A. Rev., January 1830)._

PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

Retirement of Bolivar.

Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile.

The succession of military presidents.

Abolition of Slavery.

War with Spain.

"As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians

to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was

at the same time President of the United States of Colombia,

he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of

America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power

on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. …

But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a

tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater

Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of

the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and

got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the

arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a

badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic

disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them

[September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both

in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated

Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians

followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian

troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian

element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no

doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the

country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the

apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume

another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the

Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two

Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the

generals of their own nation."

_E. J. Payne,

History of European Colonies,

pages 290-291._

"A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had

returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader

of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the

Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from

Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian

of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers

secured the presidential chair, the administration in the

early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others

of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular

term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition

he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then

followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a

confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa

Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President

of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme,

which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was

carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The

Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three

States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the

ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and

prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and

that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by

General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and

Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay,

which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of

the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled

at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which

acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and

proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the

new state of things was of short duration.

{2526}

On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was

declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the

Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake

Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A

very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which

Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which

was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th,

1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional

President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his

administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous

grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At

the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique

succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head

of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new

Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the

Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of

$1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves.

The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was

entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties,

licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in

1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca

Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The

Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it

had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had

enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had

been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General

San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was

replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio

Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse

of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was

unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some

Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast

valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged

by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the

enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic

feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru

on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been

proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of

Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and

the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral

colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every

20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to

the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to

Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives.

Executive power is in the hands of a President and

Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five

Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a

career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution

of railways and other public works with feverish haste,

bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched

military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July

26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On

August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional

President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been

elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial

difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. …

He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his

term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on

August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

_C. R. Markham,

Peru,

chapter 8._

PERU: A. D. 1879-1884.

The disastrous war with Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

PERU: A. D. 1886-1894.

Slow recovery.

Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly

recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres

became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General

Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

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

PERUGIA, Early history of.

See PERUSIA.

PERUGIA, Under the domination of the Baglioni.

See BAGLIONI.

PERUS, The Two.

Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are

represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic

of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

PERUSIA, The war of.

In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and

Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his

brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which

forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness,

with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame

the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in

Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several

months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called

the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar

horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved

to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the

besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

_C. Merivale,

History of Rome,

chapter 27._

PERUVIAN BARK, Introduction of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

PERUVIAN QUIPU.

See QUIPU.

PES, The.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

PESHWA OF THE MAHRATTAS, The.

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

PESO DE ORO.

See SPANISH COINS.

PESTALOZZI, and educational reform.

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

PESTH: A. D. 1241.

Destruction by the Mongols.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

PESTH: A. D. 1872.

Union with Buda.