recall. By means of his sister, however, Pericles had made a private agreement with Cimon, by which the command of the army was left to the latter, and the government of the state was to be in the hands of Pericles. On the death of Cimon, he became, as it were, prince of Athens; for, although the aristocracy set up against him Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a relation of Cimon, he was too unequal to maintain the opposition. "If I should throw him to the ground," said he once of Pericles, "he would say that he had never been prostrated, and would persuade the spectators to believe him." From this time, Pericles ruled the state, but without assuming the title of prince, and endeavored to occupy the people with the establishment of new colonies or warlike enterprises. By his great public works, he flattered the vanity of the Athenians, while he beautified the city, and employed many laborers and artists. To pay the expenses of these undertakings, he caused the public treasury of Greece to be transported from Delos to Athens, and justified this act of perfidy by saying that the money had been raised to defend the nation from the invasion of barbarians; and, as this end had been attained by the exertions of the Athenians, the allies had no further right to inquire into the expenditure of the funds. His personal integrity in pecuniary matters was above suspicion. Of this we have a remarkable example: During an expedition against Euboea, the Lacedæmonians invaded Attica, as the allies of the Megarians. Pericles averted an attack by bribing the tutor of the Spartan king. When he submitted his accounts for examination, ten talents were charged for secret services, and the Athenians were satisfied without any further account. Pericles finally made himself master of the important island of Eubœa, B. C. 447, and, soon after, concluded a truce of thirty years with the Spartans. To set bounds to the popular power, which he had hitherto labored to increase, he now procured the revival of an old law, declaring no person a citizen of Athens whose father and mother were not both Athenian citizens, and caused 5000 individuals, who had before been free, to be sold as slaves. This act is a proof of the great influence of Pericles, and, doubtless, obtained the approbation of a majority of the citizens, whose importance was increased by a diminution of their numbers. Pericles took advantage of the armistice with Sparta to make war upon the Samians

(B. C. 440), who opposed the pretensions of Athens. He was partly persuaded to undertake this war by Aspasia. (q. v.) The expedition, in which she attended Pericles, ended in the subjugation of the island and the restoration of the democratic government. The Samians soon rose and expelled the Athenian garrison; but Pericles again reduced them to subjection. On his return to Athens, he delivered the celebrated funeral oration in memory of those who had perished in the expedition, which had such an effect upon his audience, that the women crowded about him, and wreathed his temples with flowers. Thucydides was banished in the struggles of parties, and the importance of Pericles was greatly increased, till the jealousy of the Athenians awoke, when they found those hopes abortive which had been excited by the events that preceded the Peloponnesian war. Some of the friends of Pericles became the objects of public prosecutions-Anaxagoras, his venerable instructer, on a charge of irreligion; Aspasia on account of her connexion with Pericles. He undertook to plead her cause himself, and was so affected that he forgot his dignity, and burst into tears. He procured her acquittal; but he withdrew Anaxagoras from the attacks of his enemies, by conducting him from Attica under his own protection. When the Spartans, who had assumed the protection of the smaller states of Greece, sent to Athens, demanding a compensation for the injuries which had been done to these states, and threatening war in case of refusal, Pericles persuaded the Athenians to reject the proposal, and thus became the author of the fatal Peloponnesian war. (See Peloponnesus.) Some maintain that his object was to keep his countrymen employed abroad, in order to avert their attention from his government, particularly as his enemies were daily increasing, and that Aspasia entertained a violent hatred against Sparta. The probability is, that Pericles, misled by his views of the dignity and importance of the Athenian republic, would consent to no concessions, particularly as such a measure would be fatal to his own greatness. At the commencement of the war (B. C. 431), Pericles recommended to the Athenians to turn all their attention to the defence of the city and to naval armaments, rather than to the protection of their territories. Accordingly, as he was made commanderin-chief, notwithstanding the murmurs of the Athenians, he allowed the superior forces of the Spartans and their allies to

advance to Acharnæ, in Attica, without resistance, and, at the same time, sent a fleet to the shores of Peloponnesus, to Locris and Ægina, which took twofold vengeance for the ravages in Attica. After the Peloponnesians had retired, he invaded the territory of Megaris, which had been the cause of the war. At the end of this campaign, he delivered a eulogy over those who had fallen in their country's service. The next year, a plague broke out at Athens, which made such dreadful havoc, that Pericles was obliged to summon all his fortitude to sustain his countrymen and himself. То оссиру their attention, he fitted out a large fleet, and sailed to Epidaurus; but the mortality among his troops prevented him from effecting any thing important. He returned with a small force; but the Athenians no longer put confidence in him. He was deprived of the command, and obliged to pay a heavy fine, though no particular crime was charged against him. The fickle people, however, soon recalled him to the head of the state, and gave him more power than he had before enjoyed. But, amid his numerous civil cares, he was afflicted by domestic calamities. His eldest son, Xanthippus, who had lived at variance with him, died of the plague. The same disease carried off his sister,and many of his nearest relatives and friends, and, among the rest, Paralus, his only remaining son by his first marriage. This affliction moved him to tears. To console him for this loss, the Athenians repealed the law which he had himself previously introduced, in regard to children whose parents were not both citizens, and thus placed his son by Aspasia among the citizens. But his strength was gone: he sunk into a lingering sickness, and died B. C. 429, in the third year of the Peloponnesian war. When he lay upon his death-bed, his friends, in their lamentations, spoke of his great achievements; but he suddenly started up and exclaimed, "In these things I have many equals; but this is my glory, that I have never caused an Athenian to wear mourning." By the death of Pericles, Athens lost her most distinguished citizen, to whom, although deficient in severe virtue, is not to be denied greatness of soul. His education enlightened his mind, and raised him above the prejudices of his age. His ambition was to give his country supremacy over all the states of Greece, and, while he ruled it, Athens maintained this rank both in an intellectual and political view. To Pericles the city was indebted for its

finest ornaments-the Parthenon, the Odeon, the Propylæum, the Long Walls numerous statues, and other works of art. The golden age of Grecian art, the age of Phidias (q. v.), ceased with Pericles. His name is therefore connected with the highest glory of art, science and power in Athens; and if he is accused of having conducted the city to the edge of that precipice from which she could not escape, yet he must receive the praise of having contributed greatly to make her the intellectual queen of all the states of antiquity.

PÉRIER, Casimir, formerly a banker, and member of the French chamber of deputies, in which he was one of the most distinguished liberal orators, was born at Grenoble, in 1777, and, after finishing his education at the college of the oratory in Lyons, entered the military service at an early age. He served with honor in the campaigns of Italy (1799 and 1800), but on the death of his father, a respectable merchant, he abandoned the profession of arms for mercantile business. In 1802, he established a banking house in company with his brother, in the management of which he acquired an intimate acquaintance with the most difficult and important questions of public credit and finance. Cotton manufactories, machine manufactories, and several other manufacturing establishments, were carried on by the brothers, and Casimir introduced improvements into the processes. In 1815 Casimir Périer published a pamphlet against the system of foreign loans, characterized by clearness and soundness of views, and in 1817 he was elected to represent the department of the Seine in the chamber of deputies. Here he was no less distinguished as the firm and eloquent advocate of constitutional principles, than as an enlightened and sagacious financier. In the revolution of 1830, he took a decided part in favor of the national liberties; was one of the deputation appointed to wait on marshal Marmont during the three days; a member of the municipal commission of the provisional government, July 28; but did not sign their declaration of the dethronement of Charles X. When Charles made his last effort to retain the throne, he ordered the duke of Mortemart to form a ministry, who made M. Périer minister of finance, and general Gérard that of war. August 5th, Périer was chosen president of the chambers, and on the 12th formed one of the first cabinet of the new king, without holding the port-folio of any

department. In March, 1831, he succeeded Laffitte as president of the council, with the department of the interior; Louis (q. v.) being minister of finance, Sébastiani of foreign affairs, and De Rigny of the marine. (See France, in the Appendix, at the end of the work.) The chief endeavor of M. Périer's ministry, so far, appears to be to keep France at peace with Europe, and thereby to make commerce and manufactures flourish, to establish civil liberty and repress the military spirit; and, secondly, to render the government more firm. The opposition reproach him with ignominiously courting the favor of the absolute monarchs, with having deprived France of the honorable and elevated position due to her in the European system, with being unwilling to follow up, frankly, the principles of the "July revolution," and with having sacrificed Italy to Austria, and Poland to Russia.

PERIGEE, OF PERIGEUM. (See Apogee.)

PERIHELION, OF PERIHELIUM; that point in the orbit of a planet, or comet, which is nearest to the sun; being the extremity of its transverse axis, nearest to that focus in which the sun is placed, and thus opposed to the aphelion, which is the opposite extremity of the same axis. The ancient astronomers used, instead of this, the term perigaum, as they placed the earth in the centre. The perihelion distances of the several planets, the mean distance of the earth from the sun being taken as unity, are as follows: Mercury, .1815831 Venus, .7164793 Earth, .9831468 Mars,

1.4305595 Vesta, 2.2797800 Juno, 2.4122190

Ceres, 2.6890660 Pallas, 2.5222080 Jupiter, 5.1546127 Saturn, 9.4826022 Uranus,19,1366347

(See Aphelion.)

PERILLUS. (See Phalaris.) PERIMETER, in geometry; the bounds or limits of any figure or body The perimeters of surfaces or figures are lines; those of bodies are surfaces. In circular figures, instead of perimeter, we say circumference, or periphery.

PERIOD (from the Greek Epiodos, a circuit); a division of time, or of events occurring in it. The astronomer calls the time of a revolution of a heavenly body, or the time occupied in its return to the same point of its orbit, its period (See Planets, and Kepler.)-In chronology, period denotes a division of time, during which certain phenomena complete their courses, which are repeated in never

ending succession. Chronology depends entirely upon astronomy; and before the latter had made known the true motions of the heavenly bodies, the former remained in a confused state. The principal periods of the Greeks were-Meton's lunar period of 19 years, or 6940 days, according to which the Greeks computed their astronomical calendar from 432 B. C.; the period of Calippus (330 B. C.), or that of Alexander, which comprised 4 times 19, or 76 years minus 1 day; and the still more accurate period of Hipparchus, of 304 years, which made the tropical solar year only 6 minutes and 16 seconds too long. The Roman indiction (q. v.) was a period of 15 years, the origin of which is not very clear. The Julian period, invented by Scaliger, consisting of 7980 Julian years, was intended to reduce to the same result the different computations of the year of the birth of Christ from the creation. It is the product of the numbers 28, 19 and 15; or the solar, lunar and indiction cycle. (See Cycle.) After 28 times 19, or 532 years, the new and full moons return in the same order, upon the same day of the week and month, in the Julian calendar, and the three chronological cycles (the solar cycle of 28 years, the lunar cycle of 19 years, and the indiction cycle of 15 years) recommence at the same time. This period is also called the great Paschal cycle, and the Victorian or Dionysian period. The year of the birth of Christ, in the Julian period, is 4714. It is now little used, as we reckon by years before and after Christ.-In history, a period is a certain division of time, determined by events, giving to it the character of a whole. A judicious division of bistory into periods is very necessary for a clear view of the whole, and, in fact, is the necessary result of an intelligent method of studying history. The ancients wrote general history ethnographically (q. v.), and chronologically, or in the way of annals. Bossuet, in his Discours sur l'Histoire universelle, and Offerhaus, in his Compendium Historiæ universalis, divided history by centuries, and by subdivisions of the latter; but modern historians have preferred to divide universal history by periods. Voltaire, in his Essai sur l'Histoire générale, Millot, Condillac, Gatterer, Schlőzer, and, in general, all the principal modern historians, have followed this plan. The progress of civilization and of civil liberty is more important than the order of dynasties, or the fluctuations of power; and the periods of history ought to be founded upon the various stages or manifestations

of these. A judicious division into periods can be effected only by a clear and philosophical view of history. Philosophical views are the great object of the study; but incautious philosophizing often leads the reader to deductions drawn from his own imagination rather than from a rigid scrutiny of facts. The division of history into periods, founded on general views, requires, therefore, great care. The philosophico-historical school of Germany, at the head of which, at present, we may put professor Hegel, has fallen into glaring errors in this respect. This same censure, however, by no means belongs to all the philosophical historians of that country, but should be confined to the school which is particularly termed philosophical. The division into periods must vary, both according to the chief aim of the historian and according to the amount of historical knowledge existing in his time. Thus a historian who proposes to write a history of religions, or who thinks that religious revolutions have always been the most important, and are the best standards by which to measure the other changes in human society, will establish his division into periods accordingly. Another will take, as his basis, the political changes of nations. The most perfect division would be that which should adopt, as the basis of each period, that feature which was the most strongly characteristic of it, which is not always easy, as one principle often continues strongly operative, while another has risen to an important influence, threatening to supersede it. In such a division of universal history, civilization, religion, government, learning, important inventions, &c., would all become, in turn, the bases of the various periods. (See Epochs, and History.)

A period, or sentence, in writing, is a series of logically connected passages; a passage developed in properly connected parts. Aristotle's definition, which makes it a discourse having its beginning and end in itself, is indistinct. Every passage would then be a period; and, on the other hand, a whole speech, a whole work, would be a period. Periods should not be too long, but it is impossible to fix the limits distinctly. Cicero's rule, that a period ought not to be longer than four hexameters, is as insufficient as the other, that it should be sufficiently short to be spoken at one breath, without exhaustion of the lungs. If it is properly constructed, the voice finds resting-places enough; and, if its parts are logically connected, it

The

is not difficult to follow their connexion and to form a distinct conception of the whole. In some languages, the rules for the construction of periods are stricter than in others: some allow great liberty. To the former belongs the English language; to the latter, the Greek, Latin and German. The genius of the German language, in particular, allows of very long and involved periods, in which perspicuity frequently suffers seriously; and it often happens that the whole meaning of a long, sentence in that language de pends upon the last word, so that we are kept in suspense as to the ideas conveyed, until the decisive word appears. following rules should be observed in the construction of a period: 1. The chief idea must be made prominent, whilst the secondary ideas are presented with a force proportioned to their importance: 2. there should be a certain proportion between the length of the different members; 3. the subordinate parts should each serve for the more distinct explanation of the preceding, and should not be too much accumulated; 4. the ideas to be conveyed should be presented in a certain gradation, from the less distinct to the more distinct, from the weaker to the stronger, the less important to the more important, except the contrary effect is expressly intended. Important as the logical and grammatical arrangement of a period is, the musical and rythmical is by no means to be neglected. Much depends here upon tact, but study can much improve this. There is a harmony in lan- ¦ guage which, if it cannot convince, yet can strongly affect, can carry the reader along, or impress a sentiment indelibly. Yet undue refinement, an overlabored choice of phrase, is to be studiously avoided. The rhythm of a period (the numerus) corresponds to the metre in poetry, and is important for all languages, particularly for those which, like the Greek or German, have a real prosody. Only a few general rules can be given for rhythm: the ear of the writer or speaker must be his principal guide. The beginning of a period should be fitted to gain the attention of the hearer. Hence it is well to choose such words as fill the ear; e. g. in languages which have a prosody, the first paon (~~), the ionicus a majore -—~~), the third epitrites (— — — — and some others. The conclusion ought to satisfy the ear by its firm and full sound. The following feet are therefore desirable: the fourth paon (~~~), the amphibrachys (~~~), the antibacchius (———~},