« السابقةمتابعة »
occasion on which a European plenipotentiary ever entered Peking accompanied by all the pomp and circumstance of his rank.
Outside the Forbidden City the most noteworthy building is the Temple of Heaven, which stands in the outer or Chinese city. Here at early morning on the 21st of December the emperor offers sacrifice on an open altar to Shang-ti, and at periods of drought or famine presents prayers for relief to the same supreme deity. The altar at which these solemn rites are performed consists of a triple circular marble terrace, 210 ft. wide at the base, 150 in the middle and 90 at the top. The uppermost surface is paved with blocks of the same material forming nine concentric circles, the innermost consisting of nine blocks, and that on the outside of eighty-one blocks. On the central stone, which is a perfect circle, the emperor kneels. In the same temple stands the altar of prayer for good harvests, which is surmounted by a triple-roofed circular structure 99 ft. in height. The tiles of these roofs are glazed porcelain of the most exquisite deep-blue colour, and add a conspicuous element of splendour to the shrine.
The other powers of nature have shrines dedicated to them in the altar: to the Earth on the north of the city, the altars to the Sun and Moon outside the north-eastern and north-western angles respectively of the Chinese city, and the altar of agriculture inside the south gate of the Chinese city. Next to these in religious importance comes the Confucian temple, known as the Kwo-tsze-kien. Here there is no splendour; everything is quite plain; and one hall contains all that is sacred in the building. There the tablets of “the soul of the most holy ancestral teacher, Confucius,” and of his ten principal disciples stand as objects of worship for their countless followers. In one courtyard of this temple are deposited the celebrated ten stone drums which bear poetical inscriptions commemorative of the hunting expeditions of King Si'ian (827—781 13.0.), in whose reign they are believed, though erroneously, to have been cut; and in another stands a series of stone tablets on which are inscribed the names of all those who have obtained the highest literary degree of Tsin-shi for the last five centuries.
In the south-eastern portion of the Tatar city used to stand the observatory, which was built by order of Kuhlai Khan in 1296. During the period of the Jesuit ascendancy in the reign of K’ang-hi (1661—1721), the superintendence of this institution was confided to Roman Catholic missionaries, under whose guidance the bronze instruments formerly existing were constructed. The inhabitants of Peking being consumers only, and in no way producers, the trade of the city is very small, though the city is open to foreign commerce. In 1897 a railway was opened between Tientsin and Peking. This was only effected after great opposition from the ultra-Conservatives, but once accomplished the facilities were gladly accepted by all classes, and the traffic both in goods and passengers is already enormous. Out of deference to the scruples of the ultra-Conservatives, the terminus was fixed at a place called Lu-Kou—ch’iao, some 4 m. outside the walls, but this distance has since been covered by an electric tramway. 'The trunk line constructed by the Franco-Belgian syndicate connects Lu-Kou-ch’iao, the original terminus, with Hankow—~hence the name Lu-Han by which this trunk line is generally spoken of, Lu being short for Lu-Kou-ch’iao and Han for Hankow.
Brnuooaarnv.—A Williamson, Journeys in North China, Manehuria and Eastern Mongolia (2 vols., London, 1870); S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, revised ed. (New York, 1883); A Favier, Peking, histoire ct description (Peking, roar—contains over 800 illustrations, most of them reproductions of the work of Chinese artists); N. Oliphant, A Diary of the Siege of the Legations in Peking during the Summer of 1900 (London, 1901); A. H. Smith, China in Convulsion (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1902). (R. K. D.)
PELAGIA, ST. An Antiochene saint of this name, a virgin of fifteen years, who chose death by a leap from the housetop rather than dishonour, is mentioned by Ambrose (De virg. iii. 7, 33; E1). xxx'vii. ad Simplic.), and is the subject of two sermons by Chrysostom. Her festival was celebrated on the 8th of October (Wright’s Syriac M artyrolagy). In the Greek synaxaria
the same day is assigned to two other saints of the name of Pelagia—one, also of AntiOch, and sometimes called Margarito and also “ the sinner ”; the other, known as Pelagia of Tarsus, in Cilicia. The legend of the former of these two is famous. She was a celebrated dancer and courtesan, who, in the full flower of her beauty and guilty sovereignty over the youth of Antioch, was suddenly converted by the influence of the holy bishop Nonnus, whom she had heard preaching in front of a church which she was passing with her gay train of attendants and admirers. Seeking out N onnus, she overcame his canonical scruples by her tears of genuine penitence, was baptized, and, disguising herself in the garb of a male penitent, retired to a grotto on the Mount of Olives, where she died after three years of strict penance. This story seems to combine with the name of the older Pelagia some traits from an actual history referred to by Chrysostom (Ham. in M atth. lxvii. 3). In associating St Pelagia with St Marina, St Margaret (9.11.), and others, of whom either the name or the legend recalls Pelagia, Hermann Usener has endeavoured to show by a series of subtle deductions that this saint is only a Christian travesty of Aphrodite. But there is no doubt of the existence of the first Pelagia of Antioch, the Pelagia of Ambrose and Chrysostom. The legends which have subsequently become connected with her name are the result of a very common development in literary history.
See Ada sanetorum, October, iv. 248 seq.; H. Usener, Legmden der heiligen Pelagia (Bonn, 1879); H. Delehaye, The Legends of the Saint: (London, 1907), pp. 197—205. (H. DE.) .
PELAGIUS, the name of two popes.
Pamerus I., pope from 555 to 561, was a Roman by birth, and first appears in history at Constantinople in the rank of deacon, and as apocrisiarius of Pope Silverius, whose over— throw in favour of Vigilius his intrigues promoted. Vigilius continued him in his diplomatic appointment, and he was sent by the emperor Justinian in 542 to Antioch on ecclesiastical business; he afterwards took part in the synod at Gaza which deposed Paul of Alexandria. He had amassed some wealth, which on his return to Rome he so employed among the poor as to secure for himself great popularity; and, when Vigilius was summoned to Byzantium in 544, Pelagius, now archdeacon, was left behind as his vicar, and by his tact in dealing with Totila, the Gothic invader, saved the citizens from murder and outrage. He appears to have followed his master to Constantinople, and to have taken part in the Three Chapters controversy; in 553, at all events, he signed the “ constitutum ” of Vigilius in favour of these, and for refusing, with him, to accept the decrees of the fifth general council (the 2nd of Constantinople, 553) shared his exile. Even after Vigilius had approved the comdemnation of the Three Chapters, Pelagius defended them, and even published a book on the subject. But when Vigilius died (June 7, 555), he accepted the council, and allowed himself to be designated by Justinian to succeed the late pope. It was in these circumstances that he returned to Rome; but most of the clergy, suspecting his orthodoxy, and believing him to have had some share in the removal of his predecessor, shunned his fellowship. He enjoyed, however, the support of Narses, and, after he had publicly purged himself of complicity in Vigilius’s death in the church of St Peter, he met with toleration in hisown immediate diocese. The rest of the western bishops, however, still held aloof, and the episcopate of Tuscany caused his name to be removed from the diptychs. This elicited from him a circular, in which he asserted his loyalty to the four general councils, and declared that the hostile bishops had been guilty of schism. The bishops of Liguria and Aemilia, headed by the archbishop of Milan, and those of Istria and Venice, headed by Paulinus of Aquileiau also withheld their fellowship; but Narses resisted the appeals of Pelagius, who would have invoked the secular arm. Childebert, king of the Franks, also refused to interfere. Pelagius died on the 4th of March 561, and was succeeded by John III.
PELAGIUS II., a native of Rome, but of Gothic descent, was pope from 579 to 590, having been consecrated successor of Benedict 1., without the sanction of the emperor, on the 26th of November. To make his apologies for this irregularity he sent Deacon Gregory, who afterwards became Pope Gregory the Great, as his apocrisiarius to Constantinople. In 585 he sought to heal the schism which had subsisted since the time of Pelagius I. in connexion with the Three Chapters, but his efforts were without success. In 588 John, patriarch of Constantinople, by reviving the old and disputed claim to the title of oecumenic patriarch, elicited a vigorous protest from Pelagius; but the decretal which professes to convey the exact words of the document is now known to be false. He died in January 590, and was succeeded by Gregory I.
PELAGIUS (c. 360— c. 420), early British theologian. Of the origin of Pelagius almost nothing is known. The name is supposed to be a graecized form of the Cymric Morgan (seabegotten). His contemporaries understood that he was of British (probably of Irish) birth,and gave him the appellation Brita. He was a large ponderous person, heavy both in body and mind (Jerome, “stolidissimus et Scotorum pultibus praegravatus”). He was influenced by the monastic enthusiasm which had been kindled in Gaul by Athanasius (3 36), and which, through the energy of Martin of Tours (361), rapidly communi— cated itself to the Britons and Scots. For, though Pelagius remained a layman throughout his life, and though he never appears in any strict connexion with a coenobite fraternity, he yet adhered to monastic discipline (“veluti monachus”), and distinguished himself by his purity of life and exceptional sanctity (“ egregie Christianus ”). He seems to have been one of the earliest, if not the very earliest, of that remarkable series of men who issued from the monasteries of Scotland and Ireland, and carried back to the Continent in a purified form the religion they had received from it. Coming to Rome in the beginning of the 5th century (his eariiest known writing is of date 405), he found a scandalously low tone of morality prevalent. But his remonstrances were met by the plea of human weakness. To remove this plea by exhibiting the actual powers of human nature became his first object. It seemed ‘to him that the Augustinian doctrine of total depravity and of the consequent bondage of the will both cut the sinew of all human effort and threw upon God the blame which really belonged to man. His favourite maxim was, “ If I ought, I can.”
The views of Pelagius did not originate in a conscious reaction against the influence of the Augustinian theology, although each of these systems was developed into its ultimate form by the opposition of the other. Neither must too much weight be allowed to the circumstance that Pelagius was a monk, for he was unquestionably alive to the delusive character of much that passed for monkish sanctity. Yet possibly his monastic training may have led him to look more at conduct than at character, and to believe that holiness could be arrived at by rigour of discipline. This view of things suited his matter-of-fact temperament. Judging from the general style of his writings, his religious development had been equable and peaceful, not marked by the prolonged mental conflict, or the abrupt transitions, which characterized the experience of his great opponent. With no great penetration he saw very clearly the thing before him, and many of his practical counsels are marked by sagacity, and are expressed with the succinctness of a proverb (“ corpus non frangendum, sed regendum est ”). His interests were primarily ethical; hence his insistence on the freedom of the will and his limitation of the action of divine grace.
The peculiar tenets of Pelagius, though indicated in the commentaries which he published at Rome previous to 409, might not so speedily have attracted attention had they not been adopted by Coelestius, a much younger and bolder man than his teacher. Coelestius, probably an Italian, had been trained as a lawyer, but abandoned his profession for an ascetic life. When Rome was sacked by the Goths (410) the two friends crossed to Africa. There Pelagius once or twice met with Augustine, but very shortly sailed for Palestine, where he justly expected that his opinions would be more cordially received. Coelestius remained in Carthage with the view of receiving ordination. But Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, being warned
against him, summoned a synod, at which Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, charged Coelestius with holding the following six errors: (1) that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned; (2) that the sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the human race; (3) that new-born children are in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall; (4) that the whole human race does not die because of Adam’s death or sin, nor will the race rise again because of the resurrection of Christ; (5) that the law gives entrance to heaven as well as the gospel; (6) that even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin. To these propositions a seventh is sometimes added, “ that infants, though unbaptized,have eternal life,” a corollary from the third. Coelestius did not deny that he held these opinions, but he maintained that they were open questions, on which the Church had never pronounced. The synod, notwithstanding, condemned and excommunicated him. Coelestius, after a futile appeal to Rome, went to Ephesus,and there received ordination.
In Palestine Pelagius lived unmolested and revered, until in 415 Orosius, a Spanish priest, came from Augustine, who in the meantime had written his Dc Percalorum merilis, to warn Jerome against him. The result was that in June of that year Pelagius was cited by Jerome before John, bishop of Jerusalem, and charged with holding that man may be without sin, if only he desires it. This prosecution broke down, and in December of the same year Pelagius was summoned before a synod of fourteen bishops at Diospolis (Lydda). The prosecutors on this occasion were two deposed Gallican bishops, Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, but on account of the illness of one of them neither could appear. The proceedings, being conducted in various languages and by means of interpreters, lacked certainty, and justified Jerome's application to the synod of the epithet “ miserable.” But there is no doubt that Pelagius repudiated the assertion of Coelestius, that “ the divine grace and help is not granted to individual acts, but consists in free will, and in the giving of the law and instruction.” At the same time he afiirmed that a man is able, if he likes, to live without sin and keep the commandments of God, inasmuch as God gives him this ability. The synod was satisfied with these statements, and pronounced Pelagius to be in agreement with Catholic teaching. Pelagius naturally plumed himself on his acquittal, and provoked Augustine‘to give a detailed account of the synod, in which he shows that the language used by Pelagius was ambiguous, but that, being interpreted by his previous written statements, it involved a denial of what the Church understood by grace and by man’s dependence on it. The North African Church as a whole resented the decisions of Diospolis, and in 416 sent up from their synods of Carthage and Mileve (in Numidia) an appeal to Innocent, bishop of Rome, who, flattered by the tribute thus paid to the see of Rome, decided the question in favour of the African synods. And, though his successor Zosimus wavered for some time, he at length fell in with what he saw to be the general mind of both the ecclesiastical and the civil powers. For, simultaneously with the largely attended African synod which finally condemned Pelagianism in the West, an imperial edict was issued at Ravenna by Honorius on the 30th of April 418, peremptorily determining the theological question and enacting that not only Pelagius and Coelestius but all who accepted their opinions should suffer confiscation of goods and irrevocable banishment. Thus prompted, Zosimus drew up a circular inviting all the bishops of Christendom to subscribe a condemnation of Pelagian opinions. Nineteen Italian bishops refused, among them Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, a man of good birth, approved sanctity and-great capacity, who now became the recognized leader of the movement. But not even his acuteness and zeal could redeem a cause which was rendered hopeless when the Eastern Church (Ephesus, 431) confirmed the decision of the West. Pelagius himself disappears after 420; Coelestius was at Constantinople seeking the aid of Nestorius in 428.
Pelagianism.—The system of Pelagius is a consistent whole,
each art involving the existence of every other. Starting from the i ea that “ability limits obligation," and resolved that men should feel their responsibility, he insisted that man is able to do all that God commands, and that there is, and can be, no sin where the will is not absolutely free—able to choose goodor evil. The favourite Pelagian formula, “ Si necessitatis est, peccatum non est; si voluntatis, vitari potest," had an appearance of finality which imposed on superficial minds. The theory of the will involved in this fundamental axiom of Pelagianism is that which is commonly known as the “liberty of indifference," or ‘ power of contrary choice ”——a theory which aflirms the freedom of the will, not in the sense that the individual is self-determined, but in the sense that in each volition and at each moment of life, no matter what the previous career of the individual has been, the will is in equipoise, able to choose good or evil. We are born characterless (non pleni), and with no bias towards good or evil (ut sine virtute, ita et sine vitio). It follows that we are uninjured by the sin of Adam, save in so far as the evil example of our predecessors misleads and influences us (non propagine sed excmplo). There is, in fact, no such thing as original sin, sin beinga thing of will and not of nature; for if it could be of nature our sin would be chargeable on God the creator. This will, capable of good as of evil, being the natural endowment of man, is found in the heathen as well as in the Christian. and the heathen may therefore perfectly keep such law as they know. But, if all men have this natural ability to do and to be all that is required for perfect righteousness, what becomes of grace, of the aid of the Holy Spirit, and, in a word, of Christianity? Pelagius vacillates considerably in his use of the word “ grace. ' Sometimes he makes it equivalent to natural endowment. Indeed one of his most careful statements is to this effect: “ We distinguish three things—the ability, the will, the act (posse, velle, csse). The ability is in nature, and must be referred to God, who has bestowed this on His creature; the other two, the will and the act, must be referred to man, because they flow from the fountain of free will " (Aug., De gr. Christi, ch. 4). But at other times he admits a much wider range to grace, so as to make Augustine doubt whether his meaning is not, after all, orthodox. But, when he speaks of grace “ sanctifying," "assisting," and so forth, it is only that man may “ more easily " accomplish what he could with more difficulty accomplish without grace. A decisive passage occurs in the letter he sent to the see of Rome along with his Confessio fidei: “ We maintain that free will exists generally in all mankind, in Christians, Jews and Gentiles; they have all equally received it by nature, but in Christians only is it assisted by grace. In others this good of their original creation is naked and unarmed. They shall be judged and condemned because, though possessed of free will, by which they might come to the faith and merit the grace of God, they make an ill use of their freedom; while Christians shall be rewarded because, by using their free will aright, they merit the grace of the Lord and keep His commandments " (ibid. chs. 33, 34).
elagius allowed to race eve thing but the initial determining movement towards sa vation. e ascribed to the unassisted human will power to accept and use the proffered salvation of Christ. It was at this point his departure from the Catholic creed could be made apparent: Pelagius maintains, expressly and by implication, that it is the human will which takes the initiative, and is the determining factor in the salvation of the individual; while the Church maintains that it is the divine will that takes the initiative by renewing and enabling the human will to accept and use the aid or grace offered.
SemiPelagianism.—It was easy for Augustine to show that this was an “ impia opinio "; it was easy for him to ex ose the defective character of a theory of the will which implied t at God was not holy because He is necessarily holy; it was easy for him to show that the positions of Pelagius were anti-Scriptural (see AUGUSTINE); but, though his arguments prevailed, they did not wholly convince, and the rise of Scmipelagianism—an attempt to hold a middle course between the harshness of Aiigustinianism and the obvious errors of Pelagianism—is full of significance. This earnest and conciliatory movement discovered itself simultaneously in North Africa and in southern Gaul. In the former Church, which naturally desired to adhere to the views of its own great theologian, the monks of Adrumetum found themselves either sunk to the verge of despair or provoked to licentiousness by his predestinarian teaching. \Vhen this was reported to Augustine he wrote two elaborate treatises to show that when God ordains the end He also ordains the means, and if any man is ordained to life eternal he is thereby ordained to holiness and zealous effort. But meanwhile some of the monks themselves had struck out a via media which ascribed to God sovereign grace and yet left intact man’s responsibility. A similar scheme was adopted by Cassian of Marseilles (hence Semipelagians are often 5 oken of as illussilians), and was afterwards ably advocated by \fincent of Lcrins and Faustus of Rhegium. These writers, in opposition to Pelagius, maintained that man was damaged by the fall, and seemed indeed disposed to purchase a certificate of orthodoxy by the abusive e ithets they heaped upon Pelagians (ranae,,muscae moriturae, &c. . The differentia of Semipelagianism is the tenet that in regeneration, and all that results from it, the divine and the human will are co-operating (synergistic) coefficient factors. After finding considerable acceptance, this theory was ultimately condemned, because it retained the root-principle of Pelagianism— that man has some ability to will 00d and that the beginning of salvation may be with man. The Councils of Orange and Valence
(529), however, which condemned Semipelagianism, did so with the significant restriction that predestination to evil was not to be taught~a restriction so agreeable to the eneral feeling of the Church that, three centuries after, Gottscha k was sentenced to be degraded from the priesthood, scourged and imprisoned for teaching reprobation. The questions raised b Pelagiue continually recur, but, without tracing the strife as sustained by Thomists and Jansenists on the one side and the Jesuits and Arminians on the other, this article can only indicate the general bearing of the controversy on society and the Church.
The anthropology of Pelagius was essentially naturalistic. It threatened to supersede grace by nature, to deny all immediate divine influence, and so to make Christianity practically useless. Pelagius himself did not carry his rationalism through to its issues; but the logical consequence of his system was, as Augustine perceived, the denial of the atonement and other central truths of revealed religion. And, while the Pelagians never existed as a sect separate from the Church Catholic, yet wherever rationalism has infected any art of the Church there Pelagianism has sooner or later appeared); and'the term “ I’ela ian " has been continued to denote views which minimize the e ects of the fall and unduly magnify man’s natural ability. These views and tendencies have appeared in theologies which are not in other respects rationalistic, as, e.g. in Arminianism; and their presence in such theologies is explained by the desire to remove everything which might seem to discourage human effort.
It is not easy to determine how far the vices which ate so deeply into the life of the Church of the middle ages were due to the sharpness with which some of the severer features of the Augustinian theology were defined during the Pelagian controversy. The pernicious belief in the magical efficacy of the sacraments and the consequent defective ethical power of religion, the superstitious eagerness to accept the Church’s creed without examining or really be ieving it, the falsity and cruelty engendered and propa ated by the idea that in the Church's cause all weapons were justifigable, these vices were undoubtedly due to the belief that the visible church was the sole divinely-appointed repository of grace. And the sharply accentuated tone in which Augustinianism afiirmed man's inability quickened the craving for that grace or direct agency of God upon the soul which the Church declared to be needful and administered through her divinely appointed persons and sacraments, and thus brought a decided impulse to the developmmt of the sacerdotal system.
Again, although it may fairly be doubted whether, as Baur supposes, Augustine was permanently tainted with the Manichaean notion of the inherent evil of matter, it can scarcely be questioned that his views on marriage as elicited by the Pelagiari controversy gave a considerable impulse to the already prevalent idea of the superiority of virginity. When the Pelagians declared that Augustine's theory of original sin discredited marriage by the im lication that even t e children of the regenerate were born in sin, e could only reply (De nuptiis el concupiscmlia) that marriage now cannot partake of the spotless purity of the marriage of unfallen man, and that, though what is eVil in concupiscence is made a good use of in marriage, it is still a thing to be ashamed of—not only with the shame of natural modesty (which he does not take into account) but with the shame of guilt. So that, even although he is careful to point out the advantages of marriage, an indelible stigma is still left even on the lawful procreation of children.
“ The Pelagians deserve respect," says Harnack, “ for their purity of motive, their horror of the Manichacan leaven and the aims operatum, their insistence on clearness, and their intention to defend the Deity. But we cannot but decide that their doctrine fails to recognize the misery of sin and evil, that in its deepest roots it is godless, that it knows, and seeks to know, nothing of redemption and that it is dominated by an empty formalism (a notional mythology), which does justice at "no single point to actual quantities, and on a closer examination consists of sheer contradictions. In the form in which this doctrine was exPressed by Pelagius—and in fact also by Julian—is. with all the accommodations to which he condescended, it was not a novelty. But in its fundamental thought it was; or rather, it was an innovation because it abandoned in spite of all accommodations in expression, the ole of the mystical doctrine of redemption, which the Church ha steadfastly maintained side by side with the doctrine of freedom."
In the Pelagian controversy some of the fundamental differences between the Eastern and Western theologies appear. The former laid stress on “the su rnatural character of Christianit as a fact in the objective worl " and developed the doctrines of t e Trinity and the Incarnation; the Western emphasized “ the supernatural charac— ter of Christianity as an agency in the subjective world " and developed the doctrines of sin and grace. All the Greek fathers from Origen to Chrysostum had been jealous for human freedom and loath to make sin a natural wer, though of course admitting a. general state of sinfulncss. T (2 early British monasteries had been connected with the Orient. Pela 'us was familiar with the Greek language and theology, and when e came to- Rome he was much in the company of Rufinus and his circle who were endeavouring to propagate Greek theolo in the Latin Church.
LirERATURE.—Pelagius's Commentarii in epistolas Pauli, Libellus
tidn' ad Innocentium and Efistolapd Demetriadeni are reserved in jerome's works (vol. v. o Martiani's ed., vol. X!- of allarsi's). The last-named was also published separately by Semler (Halle, 1 75). There are of course many Citations 1n the Anti-Pelagian
reatises of Augustine. On the Commentaries see Journal of Theol. Studies, vii. 568, viii. 526; an edition is being prepared for the Cambridge Texts and Studies by A. S_outer.
See also F. Wi gers, Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagiam'smu: (2 vols., Ber in, 18 1—1832; Eng. trans. of vol. i., by R. Emerson, Andover, 18 o); L. iacob1,_Die Lehre d. Pelagiu: (Leipzi . 1842); F. Klasen, $18 mnere Ent-wukelung des Pelagianismus (fg eiburg, 1882); B. B. Warfield, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine (New York. 1893); A. Harnack, History of Dogma, Eng. trans, v. 168—202;
Loofs, Dagmengeschischte and art. in Hauck-Herzog's Realmyklo. fflr pm. Theologie u. Kirch»: (end of vol. xv.), where a full bibliography is given. (M. D.)
PELASGIANS, a name applied by Greek writers to a prehistoric people whose traces werc believed to exist in Greek lands. If the statements of ancient authorities are marshalled in order of their date it will be seen that certain beliefs cannot be traced back beyond the'age of this or that author. Though this does not prove that the beliefs themselves were not held earlier, it suggests caution in assuming that they were. In the Homeric poems there are Pelasgians among the allies of Troy: in the catalogue, Iliad, ii. 840—843, which is otherwise in strict geographical order, they stand between the Hellespontine towns and the Thracians of south-east Europe, i.e. on the Hellespontine border of Thrace. Their town or district is called Larissa and is fertile, and they are celebrated for their spearmanship. Their chiefs are Hippothous and Pylaeus, sons of Lethus son of Teutamus. Iliad, x. 428—429, describes their camping ground between the town of Troy and the sea; but this obviously proves nothing about their habitat in time of peace. Odyssey, xvii. 17 5—177, notes Pelasgians in Crete, together with two apparently indigenous and two immigrant peoples (Achaeans and Dorians), but gives no indication to which class the Pelasgians belong. In Lemnos (Iliad, vii. 467; xiv. 230) there are no Pelasgians, but a Minyan dynasty. Two other passages (Iliad, ii. 681—684; xvi. 233-235) apply the epithet “ Pelasgic” to a district called Argos about Mt Othrys in south Thessaly, and to Zeus of Dodona. But in neither case are actual Pelasgians mentioned; the Thessalian Argos is the specific home of Hellenes and Achacans, and Dodona is inhabited by Perrhaebians and Aenianes (Iliad, ii. 750) who are nowhere described as Pelasgian. It looks therefore as if “ Pelasgian ” were here used connotativcly, to mean either “formerly occupied by Pelasgian ” or simply “ of immemorial age.”
Hesiod expands the Homeric phrase and calls Dodona “ seat of Pelasgians ” (fr. 22 5); he speaks also of a personal Pelasgus as father of Lycaon, the culture-hero of Arcadia; and a later epic poet, Asius, describes Pelasgus as the first man, whom the earth threw up that there might be a race of men.‘ Hecataeus makes Pelasgus king of Thessaly (expounding Iliad, ii. 681—684); Acusilaus applies this Homeric passage to the Peloponnesian Argos, and engrafts the Hesiodic Pelasgus, father of Lycaon, into a Peloponnesian genealogy. Hellanicus a generation later repeats this blunder, and identifies this Argive and Arcadian Pelasgus with the Thessalian Pelasgus of Hecataeus. For Aeschylus (Supplices 1, sqq.) Pelasgus is earthborn, as in Asius, and rules a kingdom stretching from Argos to Dodona and the Strymon; but in Prometheus 879, the “ Pelasgian ” land simply means Argos. Sophocles takes the same view (Inachus, fr. 256) and for the first time introduces the word “ Tyrrhenian ” into the story, apparently as synonymous with Pelasgian.
Herodotus, like Homer, has a denotative as well as a conno— tative use. He describes actual Pelasgians surviving and mutually intelligible (a) at Placie and Scylace on the Asiatic shore of the Hellespont, and (b) near Creston on the Strymon; in the latter area they have “ Tyrrhenian "neighbours. He alludes to other districts where Pelasgian peoples lived on under changed names; Samothrace and Antandrus in Troas are probably instances of this. In Lemnos and Imbros he describes a Pelasgian population who were only conquered by Athens shortly before 500 B.C., and in this connexion he tells a story of earlier raids of these Pelasgians on Attica, and of a temporary
settlement there of Hellespontine Pelasgians, all dating from a time “ when the Athenians were first beginning to count as Greeks.” Elsewhere “ Pelasgian ” in Herodotus connotes anything typical of, or surviving from, the state of things in Greece before the coming of the Hellenes. In this sense all Greece was once “ Pelasgic ”; the clearest instances of Pelasgian survival in ritual and customs and antiquities are in Arcadia, the “ Ionian ” districts of north-west Peloponnese, and Attica, which have suffered least from hellenization. In Athens itself the prehistoric wall of the citadel and a plot of ground close below it were venerated in the 5th century as “ Pelasgian ”; so too Thucydides (ii. 17). We may note that all Herodotean examples of actual Pelasgi lie round, or near, the actual Pelasgi of Homeric Thrace; that the most distant of these is confirmed by the testimony of Thucydides (iv. 106) as to the Pelasgian and Tyrrhenian population of the adjacent seaboard: also that T hucydides adopts the same general Pelasgian theory of early Greece, with the refinement that he regards the Pelasgian name as originally specific, and as having come gradually into this generic use.
Ephorus, relying on Hesiodic tradition of an aboriginal Pelasgian type in Arcadia, elaborated a theory of the Pelasgiansasa warrior-people spreading (like “ Aryans ”) from a. “ Pelasgian home,” and annexing and colonizing all the parts of Greece where earlier writers had found allusions to them, from Dodona to Crete and the Troad, and even as far as Italy, where again their settlements had been recognized as early as the time of Hellanicus, in close connexion once more with “ Tyrrhenians.”
The copious additional information given by later writers is all by way either of interpretation of local legends in the light of Ephorus’s theory, or of explanation of the name “ Pelasgoi ”; as when Philochorus expands a popular etymology “ stork-folk ” (wekaa'yol—rrekap'yol) into a theory of their seasonal migrations; or Apollodorus says that Homer calls Zeus Pelasgian “ because he is not far from every one of us,” on 117: 75s wéhas éarlv. The connexion with Tyrrhenians which began with Hellanichs, Herodotus and Sophocles becomes confusion with them in the 3rd century, when the Lemnian pirates and their Attic kinsmen are plainly styled Tyrrhenians, and early fortress-walls in Italy (like those on the Palatine in Rome) are quoted as “ Arcadian ” colonies.
Modern writers have either been content to restate or amplify the view, ascribed above to Ephorus, that “ Pelasgian ” simply means “ prehistoric Greek,” or have used the name Pelasgian at their pleasure to denote some one element in the mixed population of the Aegean—Thracian, Illyrian (Albanian) or Semitic. G. Sergi (Origins e difl'usione dclla stirpe medilerranea, Rome, 1895; Eng. trans. The Mediterranean Race, London, 1901), followed by many anthropologists, describes as “ Pelasgian ” one branch of the Mediterranean or Eur-African race of mankind, and one group of typesof skull within that race. The character of the ancient citadel wall at Athens, already mentioned, has given the name “ Pelasgic masonry” to all constructions of large unhewn blocks fitted roughly together without mortar, from Asia Minor to Spain.
For another view than that here taken see ACHAEANS; also GREECE: Ancient History, § 3, “ Homeric Age.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY.—Besides sections on the subject in all princi al histories of Greece and bibliogra hies in G. Busolt, Gr. Gesrhic 1:, i’ (Gotha, 18 3, 164—182) ; and Ki“. Hermann (Thumser), Gr. Staatsalterthzimer, 6, see 5. Bruck, Quae veteres de Pelasgis tradiderint (Breslau, 1884); B. Giseke, Thrakisrh- clasgische Slamme auf der Balkanhalbinsel (Lei zig, 1858); F. G. ahn, Albanesixrhe Studim (jena. 1854); P. Vol muth. Die Pelasger a1: Semilm (Schaffhausen, 1860); H. Kiepert.‘,Monatsb.ericht d. bcrl. Akademie (1861). pp. 114 sqq.; K. Pauli, Ema vorgnechisrhe Inschrift auf Lemnos (Leipzig, 1886); E. Meyer. “ Die Pelasger " in Forschungen z. alten Geschichle (Halle, 1892). i. 124; W. Ridge-way, Early Age of Greece (Cambridge, 1901). vol. i.; . L. Myres, “ History of the Pelasgian Theory " (in Journal 0 Hellenic Studies, xxvui. 170); H. Marsh. Home pelasgicae (Cambridge. 1815); L. Benloew, La Grace avant In Grecs (Paris, 1877). (J. L. M.)
PELEUS, in Greek legend, king of the Myrmidones of Phthia in Thessaly, son of Aeacus, king of Aegina, and brother (or
intimate friend) of Telamon. The two brothers, jealous of the athletic prowess of their step-brother Phocus, slew him; but the crime was discovered, and Peleus and Telamon were banished. Peleus took refuge in Phthia with his uncle Eurytion, who purified him from the guilt of murder, and gave him his daughter Antigone to wife, and a third of the kingdom as her dowry. Having accidentally killed his father-in-law at the Calydonian boar-hunt, Peleus was again obliged to flee, this time to Iolcus, where he was purified by Acastus. The most famous event in the life of Peleus was his marriage with the sea-goddess T hetis, by whom he became the father of Achilles. The story ran that both Zeus and Poseidon had sought her hand, but, Themis (or Prometheus or Proteus) having warned the former that a son of Thetis by Zeus would prove mightier than his father, the gods decided to marry her to Peleus. Thetis, to escape a distasteful union, changed herself into various forms, but at last Peleus, by the instructions of Chiron, seized and held her fast till she resumed her original shape, and was unable to offer further resistance. The wedding (described in the fine Epithalamium of Catullus) took place in Chiron’s cave on Mt Pelion. Peleus survived both his son Achilles and his grandson Neoptolemus, and was carried away by Thetis to dwell for ever among the Nereids.
See A ollodorus iii. 12, 13; Ovid, Metam. xi; Pindar, 'Islhmia, viii. 7o, emea, iv. 101; Catullus, lxiv.; schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 816; Euripides. Andromache, 1242-1260.
PELEW ISLANDS (Ger. Palam'nseln, also Palao), a group of twenty-six islands in the western Pacific Ocean, between 2° 35’ and 9° N., and 130° 4’ and 134° 40' E., belonging to Germany. They lie within a coral barrier reef, and in the south the islands are of coral, but in the north of volcanic rocks. They are well wooded, the climate is healthy, and the water-supply good. A few rats and bats represent the indigenous mammals, but the sea is rich in fish and molluscs, and Dr Otto Finsch (J oum. des Museum Godeflroy, 1875) enumerated 56 species of birds, of which 12 are peculiar to the group. The total area is 17 5 sq. m., the largest islands being Babeltop (Babelthuap, Baobeltaob and other variants), Uruktapi (Urukthopel), Korror, N yaur, Peleliu and Eilmalk (Irakong). The population is about 3100. The natives are Micronesians, and are darker and shorter than their kinsmen, the Caroline Islanders. They usually have the frizzly hair of the Melanesians,and paint their bodies in brilliant colours, especially yellow. The men vary in height from 5 ft. to 5 ft. 5 in., the women from 4 ft. 9 to 5 ft. 2 in. The skull shows a strong tendency to brachycephalism. Two curious customs may be noted—the institution of an honourable order bestowed by the king, called Hill; and a species of mutual aid society, sometimes confined to women, and possessing considerable political influence. There are five kinds of currency in the islands, consisting of beads of glass and enamel, to which a supernatural origin is ascribed.
The islands were sighted in 1543 by Ruy Lopez de Villalobos, who named them the Arrecifos. The origin of the name Islas Palaos is doubtful. The islands were bought by Germany from Spain in 1899, and are administered together with the western Carolines, Yap being the administrative centre.
See K. Semper, Die Palau-Inseln (Leipzrg, 1873); J. S. Kubary, Die sozialm Emn'chtungen der Palauer (Berlin. 1885); A. A. Marche, Lugon e! Palauan (Paris, 1887).
PELF, a term now chiefly used of money and always in a derogatory sense. The word originally meant plunder, pillage (0. Fr. pelfre, probably from Lat. failure, to deprive of hair, pilus), and this significance is still kept in the related word “ pilfer,” to make petty thefts.
PELHAM, the name of an English family, derived from Pelham in Hertfordshire, which was owned by a certain Walter de Pelham under Edward 1., and is alleged to have been in the possession of the same family before the Norman conquest. The family dignities included the barony of Pelham of Laughton (1706—1768), the earldom of ‘Clare (1714—1768), the dukedom of Newcastle (1715-1768), the barony 0f Pelham of Stanmer from
1762, the earldom of Chichester from 1801 and the earldom of Yarborough from 1837.
JOHN DE PELHAM, who was one of the captors of John II. of France at Poitiers, acquired land at W inchelsea by his marriage with Joan Herbert, or Finch. His son, JOHN on: P1:me (d. 1429), was attached to the party of John of Gaunt and his son Henry IV. In 1393 he received a life appointment as constable of Pevensey Castle, an honour subsequently extended to his heirs male, and he joined Henry on his invasion in 1399, if he did not actually land with him at Ravenspur. He was knighted at Henry's coronation, and represented Sussex in parliament repeatedly during the reign of Henry IV., and again in 1422 and 1427. As constable of Pevensey he had at different times the charge of Edward, duke of York, in 1405; Edmund, earl of March, with his brother Roger Mortimer in 1406; James I. of Scotland in 1414; Sir John Mortimer in 1422, and the queen dowager, Joan of Navarre, from 1418 to 1422. He was constantly employed in the defence of the southern ports against French invasion, and his powers were increased in 1407 by his appointment as chief butler of Chichester and »of the Sussex ports, and in 1412 by the grant of the rape of Hastings. He was treasurer of England in 1412—1413, and although he was superseded on the accession of Henry V. he was sent in the next year to negotiate with the French court. He was included among the executors of the wills of Henry IV., of Thomas, duke of Clarence, and of Henry V. He died on the 12th of February 1429, and was succeeded by his son John, who took part in Henry V.’s expedition to Normandy in 1417.
In the reign of Queen Elizabeth Sir WILLIAM PELHAM (c. 1530— 1587), third son of Sir William Pelham (d. 1538) of Laughton, Sussex, became lord justice of Ireland. He was captain of pioneers at the siege of Leith in 1560, and served at the siege of Havre in 1562, and with Coligny at Caen in 1563. He then returned to Havre, at that time occupied by English troops, and was one of the hostages for the fulfilment of its surrender to Charles IX. in 1564. After his return to England he fortified Berwick among other places, and was appointed lieutenantgeneral of ordnance. He was sent to Ireland in 1579, when he was knighted by Sir William Drury, the lord justice. Drury died in October, and Pelham was provisionally made his successor, an appointment subsequently confirmed by Elizabeth. Alarmed by the proceedings of Gerald Fitzgerald, 15th earl of Desmond, and his brother John Desmond, he proclaimed the earl a traitor. Elizabeth protested strongly against Pelham’s action, which was justified by the sack of Youghal by Desmond. Thomas Butler, 10th earl of Ormonde, was entrusted with 'the campaign in Munster, but Pelham joined him in February 1580, when it was believed that a Spanish descent was about to be made in the south-west. The English generals laid waste northern Kerry, and proceeded to besiege Carrigafoer Castle, which they stormed, giving no quarter to man, woman or child. Other strongholds submitted on learning the fate of Carrigafoyle, and were garrisoned by Pelham, who hoped with the concourse of Admiral Winter’s fleet to limit the struggle to Kerry. He vainly sought help from the gentry of the county, who sympathized with Desmond, and were only brought to submission by a series of “ drives.” After the arrival of the new deputy, Lord Grey of Wilton, Pelham returned to England on the ground of health. He had retained his ofiice as lieutenant-general of ordnance, and was now made responsible for debts incurred during his absence. Leicester desired his services in the Netherlands, but it was only after much persuasion that Elizabeth set him free to join the army by accepting a mortgage on his estates as security for his liabilities. The favour shown by Leicester to Pelham caused serious jealousies among the English officers, and occasioned a camp brawl in which Sir Edward Norris was injured. Pelham was wounded at Doesburg in 1586, and accompanied Leicester to England in 1587. Returning to the Netherlands in the same year he died at Flushing on the 24th of November 1587. His half-brother, Sir Edmund Pelham (d. 1606), chief baron of the exchequer in Ireland, was the first English judge to go on circuit in Ulster.