Sotchineniya (1755–1764), or “Monthly Works.” In 1759 Sumarakov
founded the Trudolyubivaya Ptchelá, or “Industrious Bee,”
giving translations from the Spectator, and, for the first time, critical
essays. Karamsin brought out in 1802 the V’yestnik Evropi, an
important review with Liberal tendencies. The Conservative
Russkoi V’yestnik (1808) was revived at Moscow in 1856 by Kattkov.
The two last named are still published each month. The romantic
school was supported by Sin Otetchestva (1812), “Son of the Fatherland,” united in 1825 to the Severnoi Arkhiv (1822), which dwindled
and came to an end soon after 1839. One of the most successful
Russian reviews has been the Biblioteka dl’ya Tchtenia (1834) or
“Library of Reading.” The Russkaya Missl, “Russian Thought,”
published in Moscow, represented the Slavophil party. The
following are some representative periodicals of the day: Zurnal
ministersva narodnago prosvescenija, monthly; Baltische Monatsschrift
(1860), monthly; V’yestnik vospitania (for education); Mir iskusstra
(for fine art); Russkoie bogatstvo (for literature); Russki arkhiv
(archives); Mir Boji, monthly; Istorichesky v’yestnik (history);
Russkaia starina (archaeology). In Finland Suomi (1841), written
in Swedish, is still published.
Other Countries
Bohemia has the Časopis musea království českého (1827), quarterly, founded by Palacky; Naše doba, monthly; Čechische Revue (1907) quarterly. Hungary can show the Ungarisches Magazin (1781–1787, 1791), published at Pressburg, and the Magyar Muzeum (1788). The Tudományos gyüjetémény (1817–1841) and the Figyelmezö (1837–1843) deserve mention. Uj Magyar Muzeum was a scientific magazine, and the Budapesti Szemle (1857) of a more general character. Among current Hungarian periodicals are: Magyar Könyvszemle (1876), and Magyar Nyomdászat. Before the revolution of 1830 Poland had the Pamietnik Warszawska of Lach Szyrma. Among other Polish reviews may be mentioned the Dziennik Literacki of Lemberg; the Biblioteka Warszawska (1841), monthly; Przeglad Polski (1866), monthly; Przewodnik naukowy i literacki (1873), monthly; Przewodnik bibliograficzny (1878), monthly; Przeglad powzechny (1884), monthly. Rumania commenced with the Magasinal istorica pentru Dacia (1845), containing valuable historical documents; and Moldavia with Dacia Literaria (1840) and Archiva Romanesca (1841). Rumania now has the Convorbiri literare (1868), monthly, and Romanul, revistǎ literarǎ illustrata septemânalǎ. The best literary review Servia has had was the Wila, edited by Novakovic.
Japan now possesses native periodicals of the European type, of which the following are representative examples: Fudzoku-Gaho (native customs); The Kokka (art); Toyo-Gakugei-Zasshi (science), Jogaku-Zasshi (domestic economy); Tetsugaku-Zasshi (philosophy), Keizai-Zasshi (political economy); Taiyo (literature).
General Indexes to Periodicals.—The most complete collection of periodicals in all languages ever brought together is that preserved in the British Museum, and the excerpt from the printed catalogue of the library, entitled Periodical Publications (London, 1899–1900, 2nd ed. 6 parts folio, with index), includes journals, reviews, magazines and other works issued periodically, with the exception of transactions and proceedings of learned societies and of British and Colonial newspapers later than 1700. The titles of these periodicals, which number about 23,000, are arranged under the town or place of their publication.
The Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, the Revue des deux mondes, the Revue historique, Deutsche Rundschau and others issue from time to time general indexes of their contents, while the periodical literature of special departments of study and research are noted in the various Jahresberichte published in Germany, and indexed monthly in such English and American magazines as the Engineering Magazine, the Geographical Journal, English Historical Review, American Historical Review, Economic Journal (for political economy), Library Journal and Library Association Record (for bibliography) and the Educational Review. The Cat. of Scientific Papers (1800–1900) of the Royal Society (1867–1908), and the Repertorium der techn. Journ. Literatur (1879–1899) of the German Patent Office, are specimens of indexes of special periodicals. There are also annual indexes such as those in the Zoological Record and Annales de géographie. Complete lists are given by A. B. Kroeger (Guide to Reference Books, 1908) and Stein (Manuel de bibliographie générale, 1897). See also Bibliography of Books reviewed in American Periodicals, by G. F. Danforth 1902–1903); Book Review Digest (1906), &c.; H. C. Bolton’s Cat. of Scientific and Technical Periodicals 1665–1895, Smithsonian Inst. (2nd ed., 1897); Harrison’s Int. Cat. of Scientific Lit. (1903–1904); S. H. Scudder’s Cat. of Scientific Serials, 1633–1876 (Camb. [Harvard Univ.] 1876); Cat. of Periodicals (English and Foreign) in Bod. Lib., 1878–1880; Bibliothèque Nationale, Liste des périodiques étrangers (1896). A useful select list, including all languages, is J. D. Brown’s Classified List of Current Periodicals (1904). (H. R. T.)
PERIOECI (περίοικοι, those who dwell around, in the neighbourhood), in ancient Laconia the class intermediate between
the Spartan citizens and the serfs or helots (q.v.). Ephorus
says (Strabo viii 364 seq.) that they were the original Achaean
inhabitants of the country, that for the first generation after
the Dorian invasion they shared in the franchise of the
invaders, but that this was afterwards taken from them and
they were reduced to a subject condition and forced to pay
tribute. The term, however, came to denote not a nationality
but a political status, and though the main body of the perioeci
may have been Achaean in origin, yet they afterwards included
Arcadians on the northern frontier of Laconia, Dorians, especially
in Cythera and in Messenia, and Ionians in Cynuria. They
inhabited a large number of settlements, varying in size from
important towns like Gythium to insignificant hamlets (Isocrates
xii. 179); the names of these, so far as they are known,
have been collected by Clinton (Fasti hellenici, 2nd ed. i. 401 sqq).
They possessed personal freedom and some measure of communal
independence, but were apparently under the immediate supervision
of Spartan harmosts (governors) and subject to the
general control of the ephors, though Isocrates is probably
going too far in saying (xii. 181) that the ephors might put to
death without trial as many of the perioeci as they pleased.
Certain it is that they were excluded not merely from all Spartan
offices of state, but even from the assembly, that they were
absolutely subject to Spartan orders, and that, owing to the
absence of any legal right of marriage (ἐπιγαμία) the gulf between
the two classes was impassable. They were also obliged to
pay the “royal tribute,” perhaps a rent for domain-land which
they occupied, and to render military service. This last burden
grew heavier as time went on; 5000 Spartiates and 5000 perioec
hoplites fought at Plataea in 479 B.C., but the steady decrease
in the number of the Spartiates necessitated the increasing
employment of the perioeci. Perioeci might serve as petty
officers or even rise to divisional commands, especially in the
fleet, but seemingly they were never set over Spartiates. Yet
except at the beginning of the 4th century the perioeci were,
so far as we can judge, fairly contented, and only two of their
cities joined the insurgent helots in 464 B.C. (Thuc. i. 101).
The reason of this was that, though the land which they cultivated
was very unproductive, yet the prohibition which shut out every
Spartiate from manufacture and commerce left the industry
and trade of Laconia entirely in the hands of the perioeci.
Unlike the Spartiates they might, and did, possess gold and silver
and the iron and steel wares from the mines on Mt Taygetus,
the shoes and woollen stuffs of Amyclae, and the import and
export trade of Laconia and Messenia probably enabled some
at least of them to live in an ease and comfort unknown to their
Spartan lords.
See G. Grote, History of Greece, pt. ii., ch. 6; C. O. Müller, Dorians (Eng. trans.), bk. iii, ch. 2; A. H. J. Greenidge, Greek Constitutional History, p. 78 sqq.; G. Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities (Eng. trans.) p. 35 sqq.; G. F. Schomann, Antiquities of Greece (Eng trans.) p. 201 sqq.; G. Busolt, Die griech. Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer, § 84; Griech. geschichte, i. 528 seq. (2nd ed.); V. Thumser, Lehrbuch der griech. Staatsaltertümer (6th ed.), § 19; B. Niese, Nachrichten von der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, (1906), 101 sqq. (M. N. T.)
PERIPATETICS (from Gr. περιπατεῖν, to walk about), the
name given in antiquity to the followers of Aristotle (q.v.), either
from his habit of walking up and down as he lectured to his
pupils, or from the περίπατος (covered walk) of the Lyceum.
Aristotle’s immediate successors,[1] Theophrastus and Eudemus of Rhodes, were diligent scholars rather than original thinkers. They made no innovations upon the main doctrines of their master, and their industry is chiefly directed to supplementing his works in minor particulars. Thus they amplified the Aristotelian logic by the theory of the Theophrastus. hypothetical and disjunctive syllogism, and added to the first figure of the categorical syllogism the five moods out of which the fourth figure was afterwards constructed. The impulse towards natural science and the systematizing of empirical details which distinguished Aristotle from Plato was shared by Theophrastus (q.v.). The same turn for detail is observable in his ethics, where, to judge from the imperfect evidence of the Characters, he elaborated still farther Aristotle’s portraiture of the virtues
- ↑ See Gellius, Noct. Att. xiii. 5, for the story of how Aristotle chose Theophrastus as his successor.
