VOLUME V SLICE II Camorra to Cape Colony (continued 8)

These drawbacks were felt a long time back, and to this feeling we owe two attempts at a supplementary codification which were made in the 16th century, both of which are known under the name of Liber Septimus. The first “Liber septimus” of P. Mathieu. was of private origin, and had as its author Pierre Mathieu, the Lyons jurist (1563-1621); it appeared in 1590 at Lyons. It is a continuation of the Extravagantes communes, and includes a selection of papal constitutions, from Sixtus IV. (1471-1484) to Sixtus V. (1585-1590) inclusive, with the addition of a few earlier documents. It follows the order of the decretals. This collection has been of some service, and appears as an appendix in many editions of the Corpus juris; the chief reason for its failure is that it has no official sanction. The second attempt was official, but it came to nothing. It was connected with the movement of reform and revision which followed the council of Trent. Immediately after the publication of the official edition of the Corpus juris, Gregory XIII. appointed a committee of cardinals charged with the task of drawing up a Liber septimus. Sixtus V. hurried on its execution, which was of Clement VIII. rapidly proceeded with, mainly owing to Cardinal Pinelli, who submitted the draft of it to Clement VIII. The pope had this Liber VII. printed as a basis for further researches; but after long deliberations the volume was suppressed, and the idea of a fresh codification was abandoned. The collection included the decrees of the council of Trent, and a number of pontifical constitutions, arranged in the order of the titles of the decretals.35 But even had it been promulgated, it is doubtful whether it would have improved the situation. It would merely have added another collection to the previous ones, which were already too voluminous, without resulting in any useful abrogations.

4. The Future Codification.—Neither Clement VIII. nor, at a later date, Benedict XIV., could have dreamt of the radical reform at present in course of execution. Instead of accumulating the texts of the laws in successive collections, Demand for codification. it is proposed entirely to recast the system of editing them. This codification in a series of short articles was suggested by the example of the French codes, the history of which during the 19th century is well known. From all quarters the Catholic episcopate had submitted to the Vatican council petitions in this sense. “It is absolutely clear,” said some French bishops, “and has for a long time past been universally acknowledged and asserted, that a revision and reform of the canon law is necessary and most urgent. As matters now stand, in consequence of the many and grave changes in human affairs and in society, many laws have become useless, others difficult or impossible to obey. With regard to a great number of canons, it is a matter of dispute whether they are still in force or are abrogated. Finally, in the course of so many centuries, the number of ecclesiastical laws has increased to such an extent, and these laws have accumulated in such immense collections, that in a certain sense we can well say: We are crushed beneath the laws, obruimur legibus. Hence arise infinite and inextricable difficulties which obstruct the study of canon law; an immense field for controversy and litigation; a thousand perplexities of conscience; and finally contempt for the laws.”36 We know how the Vatican council had to separate without approaching the question of canonical reform; but this general desire for a recasting of the ecclesiastical code was taken up again on the initiative of Rome. On the 19th of March 1904, Decision of Pius X. Pius X. published a Motu proprio, “de ecclesiae legibus in unum redigendis.” After briefly reviewing the present condition of the canonical texts and collections, he pointed out its inconvenience, referred to the many requests from the episcopate, and decreed the preparation of a general code of canon law. This immense undertaking involved the codification of the entire canon law, drawing it up in a clear, short and precise form, and introducing any expedient modifications and reforms. For this purpose the pope appointed Method. a commission of cardinals, of which he himself became president; also a commission of “consultors” resident at Rome, which asked for a certain amount of assistance from canonists at various universities and seminaries. Further, the assembled bishops of each province were invited to give their opinion as to the points in which they considered the canon law might profitably be modified or abrogated. Two consultors had the duty of separately drawing up a preliminary plan for each title, these projects being twice submitted for the deliberation of the commission (or sub-commission) of consultors, the version adopted by them being next submitted to the commission of cardinals, and the whole finally sent up for the papal sanction. These commissions started work at the end of 1904.

Local Law.—The common law of the Roman Church cannot by itself uniformly regulate all the churches of the different nations; each of them has its own local law, which we must briefly mention here. In theory, this law Local law. has as its author the local ecclesiastical authorities, councils or bishops; but this is true only for laws and regulations which are in harmony with the common law, merely completing or defining it. But if it is a question of derogating from the common law, the authority of the Holy See must intervene to legalize these derogations. This intervention takes the form either of “indults,” i.e. graceful concessions granted at the request of the episcopate, or of special approbation of conciliary resolutions. It would, however, be impossible to mention any compilations containing only local law. Whether in the case of national or provincial councils, or of diocesan synods, the chief object of the decrees is to reinforce, define or apply the law; the measures which constitute a derogation have only a small place in them. It is, then, only in a limited sense that we can see a local canon law in the councils of the various regional churches. Having made this remark, we must distinguish between the countries which are still subject to the system of concordats and other countries.

In the case of the former, the local law is chiefly founded on the concordat (q.v.), including the derogations and privileges resulting from it. The chief thing to note is the existence, for these countries, of a civil-ecclesiastical Countries subject to concordats. law, that is to say, a body of regulations made by the civil authority, with the consent, more or less explicit, of the Church, about ecclesiastical matters, other than spiritual; these dispositions are chiefly concerned with the nomination or confirmation by the state of ecclesiastics to the most important benefices, and with the administration of the property of the Church; sometimes also with questions of jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, concerning the persons or property of the Church. It is plain that the agreements under the concordats have a certain action upon a number of points in the canonical laws; and all these points go to constitute the local concordatory law. This is the case for Austria, Spain, Portugal, Bavaria, the Prussian Rhine provinces, Alsace, Belgium, and, in America, Peru. Up to 1905 it was also the case in France, where the ancient local customs now continue, pending the reorganization of the Church without the concordat.

We do not imply that in other countries the Church can always find exemption from legislative measures imposed upon her by the civil authorities, for example, in Italy, Prussia and Russia; but here it is a situation de facto rather than de jure, which the Church tolerates for the sake of convenience; and these regulations only form part of the local canon law in a very irregular sense.

In other countries the episcopal assemblies lay down the local law. England has its council of Westminster (1852), the United States their plenary councils of Baltimore (1852, 1866, 1884), without mentioning the diocesan synods; and Other Countries. the whole of Latin America is ruled by the special law of its plenary council, held at Rome in 1899. The same is the case with the Eastern Churches united to the Holy See; following the example of the famous council of Lebanon for the Maronites, held in 1730, and that of Zamosc for the Ruthenians, in 1720, these churches, at the suggestion of Leo XIII., have drawn up in plenary assembly their own local law: the Syrians at Sciarfa in 1888; the Ruthenians at Leopol in 1891; and a little later, the Copts. The framing of local law will certainly be more clear and more easy when the general code of canon law has been published.

Bibliography.—For the texts and collections: the dissertations of Dom Coustant, De antiquis canonum collectionibus, deque variis epistolarum Rom. Pont, editionibus (Paris, 1721); P. de Marca, De veteribus collectionibus canonum (Paris, 1681}; the brothers Peter and Jerome Ballerini, De antiquis tum editis tum ineditis collectionibus et collectoribus canonum ad Gratianum usque (Venice, 1757). This is the best of all these works; it is reproduced in Migne, P.L., vol. 56; C. Seb. Berardi, De variis sacrorum canonum collectionibus ante Gratianum (Turin, 1752); P. Quesnel, De codice canonum Ecclesiae Romanae; de variis fidei libellis in antiquo Rom. Eccl. codice contentis; de primo usu codicis canonum Dionysii Exigui in Gallicanis regionibus (Paris, 1675; with the critical notes of the brothers Ballerini, also in Migne, loc. cit.); and finally, Florent, De methodo atque auctoritate collectionis Gratiani (Paris, 1679), and Antonio Agustin, archbishop of Tarragona, De emendatione Gratiani (Tarragona, 1586); these have all been brought together in Gallandi, De vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum sylloge (Venice, 1778). The most complete work on the texts up to the 9th century is F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, vol. i. (all that has yet appeared, Gratz, 1870). For the period between the False Decretals and Gratian, there is no work of this sort, but the materials have been put together and published in part by M.P. Fournier. After Gratian, the classic work is Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1875 et. seq.). Manuals for the study of the sources: Ph. Schneider, Die Lehre von den Kirchenrechtsquellen (Regensburg, 1892); F. Laurin, Introductio in Corpus juris canonici (Freiburg, 1889); Tardif, Histoire des sources du droit canonique (Paris, 1887). Most of the German manuals on canon law devote considerable space to the history of the sources: see Phillips, vol. ii (3rd ed., 1857; French translation by the abbé Crouzet); Vering, 3rd ed. (Freiburg, 1893); Schulte, Das katholische Kirchenrecht, pt. i. (Giessen, 1860), &c. For the Greek Church: Pitra, Juris ecclesiae graecorum historia et monumenta (Rome, 1864); the later history of the Greek law: Zachariae, Historiae juris graecorum delineatio (Heidelberg, 1839); Mortreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin (Paris, 1843-1846); the recent texts in the Conciliorum Collectio lacensis, vol. ii.; Acta et decreta s. conciliorum, quae ab episcopis rituum orientalium ab a. 1682 usque ad a. 1789 indeque ad a. 1869 sunt celebrata (Freiburg, 1876). Short manual of Institutions: Jos. Papp-Szilagyi, Enchiridion juris eccl. orientalis catholicae (Magno-Varadini, 1862). For recent canonical texts: Richter’s edition of the council of Trent (Leipzig, 1863); the Collectanea S.C. de Propaganda Fide (Rome, 1893); the Bullarium, a collection of papal acts and constitutions; the editions of Cocquelines (28 vols., Rome, 1733-1756), and of Cherubini (19 vols., Luxemburg, 1727-1758), which are better than the enlarged reprint of Turin, which was unfinished (it goes up to 1730). The official edition of the Bullarium of Benedict XIV. (4 vols., Rome, 1754-1758) has been reprinted several times and is of great importance; the continuation of the Bullarium since Benedict XIV. has been published by Barberi, Bullarii romani continuatio, in 20 vols., going up to the fourth year of Gregory XVI. Every year, since 1854, has been printed a collection of pontifical acts, Acta Pii IX., Acta Leonis XIII., &c., which are the equivalents of the Bullarium. Dictionaries: Durand de Maillane, Dictionnaire canonique (Paris, 1786), re-edited by André under the title, Cours alphabétique et méthodique de droit canonique, and by Wagner (Paris, 1894), has Gallican tendencies; Ferraris, Prompta bibliotheca canonica, &c., several new and enlarged editions; the best is that of Migne (1866), completed by Father Bucceroni, Ferraris Supplementum (Rome, 1899). Articles on canon law in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlexicon (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1880 et seq.); Hauck, Realencyklopadie für prot. Theologie und Kirche (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877-1888); Vacant-Mangenot’s Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, in course of publication (Paris, 1899 et seq.). Periodicals: Analecta juris pontificii, ed. by Mgr. Chaillot (1863-1889); Analecta ecclesiastica (since 1893); Acta Sanctae sedis (since 1865); Archiv fur kathol. Kirchenrecht (since 1857); Le Canoniste contemporain (since 1878).

(A. Bo.*)

Canon Law in England and in the Anglican Communion.—There were matters in which the local English and Irish canon law, even before the 16th century, differed from that obtaining on the western part of the European continent. Thus (1), it has been said that—whereas the continental canon law recognized a quadripartite division of Church revenue of common right between (a) the bishop, (b) the clergy, (c) the poor, (d) the fabric—the English law maintained a tripartite division—(a) clergy, (b) the poor, (c) the fabric. Lord Selborne (Ancient Facts and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes, 2nd ed., 1892) denies that there was any division of tithe in England. (2) By the general canon law the burden of repairing the nave, as well as the chancel of the church, was upon the parson or rector who collected the whole tithe. But the custom of England transferred this burden to the parishioners, and some particular local customs (as in the city of London) placed even the burden of repair of the chancel on them. To meet this burden church rates were levied. (3) A church polluted by the shedding of blood, as by suicide or murder, was reconsecrated on the continent. In England the custom was (and is) simply to “reconcile.” (4) A much more important difference, if the decision of the Irish court of exchequer chamber upheld in the House of Lords, where the peers were equally divided, correctly stated the English Canon law (Reg. v. Millis, 10 Cl. & Fin., 534) was in regard to the essentials of marriage. By the general Western canon law before the council of Trent, the parties themselves were said to be the “ministers of the Sacrament” in the case of holy matrimony. The declared consent of the parties to take each other there and then constituted at once (although irregularly) holy matrimony. The presence of priest or witnesses was not necessary. In Reg. v. Millis, however, it was held that in England it was always otherwise and that here the presence of a priest was necessary. High authorities, however, have doubted the historical accuracy of this decision. (5) The addition of houses of priests to the provincial synods seems peculiar to England and Ireland.

The historical position of the general canon law of the Catholic Church in the English provinces has, since the separation from Rome, been the subject of much consideration by English lawyers and ecclesiastics. The view taken by the king’s courts, and acquiesced in by the ecclesiastical courts, since Henry VIII., is that the Church of England was always an independent national church, subject indeed to the general principles of the jus commune ecclesiasticum (Whitlock J. in Ever v. Owen, Godbolt’s Reports, 432), but unbound by any particular constitutions of council or pope; unless those constitutions had been “received” here by English councils, or so recognized by English courts (secular or spiritual) as to become part of the ecclesiastical custom of the realm. Foreign canon law never bound (so it has been taught) proprio vigore.

The sources of English ecclesiastical law (purely ecclesiastical) were therefore (1) the principles of the jus commune ecclesiasticum; (2) foreign particular constitutions received here, as just explained; (3) the constitutions and canons of English synods (cf. Phill. Ecc. Law, part i. ch. iv., and authorities there cited).

1. On the existence of this jus commune ecclesiasticum and that the Church of England, in whatever sense independent, takes it over until she repeals it, see Escott v. Mastin, 4 Moo. P.C.C. 119. Lord Brougham, in delivering the judgment, speaks of the “common law prevailing for 1400 years over Christian Europe,” and (p. 137) says that “nothing but express enactment can abrogate the common law of all Christendom before the Reformation of the Anglican Church.”

2. As to foreign particular constitutions in England, there are a great number of them, of which it has been and is admitted, that they have currency in England. However papal in their origin, post-Reformation lawyers have regarded them as valid, unless they can be shown to be contrary to the king’s prerogative, or to the common or statute law of the realm. To this doctrine express statutory authority (as the events have happened) has been given by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, sect. 7. A striking example of the doctrine is furnished by the decree of Innocent III. in the Fourth Lateran Council against pluralities. This decree was enforced in the court of Arches against a pluralist clerk in 1848 (Burder v. Mavor, I Roberts, 614). The courts of common law from Lord Coke’s time downwards have recognized this “constitution of the pope” (as the queen’s bench called it in 1598). The exchequer chamber, in 1837, declared it to have “become part of the common law of the land” (Alstan v. Atlay, 7 A. and E. 289).

3. The particular constitutions of English synods are numerous and cover a large field. At least in legal theory, the only distinction between pre-Reformation and post-Reformation constitutions is in favour of the former—so long as they do not contravene the royal prerogative or the law of the land (see 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19). The most important are collected together and digested (so far as regards England) in Lyndwood’s Provinciale, a work which remains of great authority in English courts. These constitutions are again divided into two classes: (a) provincial constitutions promulgated by provincial synods, usually in the name of the presiding archbishop or bishop; and (b) decrees of papal legates, Otho in 1236 and Othobon (Ottobuono de’ Fieschi, afterwards Pope Adrian V.) in 1269. Canons passed since 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 have not the parliamentary confirmation which that act has been held to give to previous canons, and do not necessarily bind the laity, although made under the king’s licence and ratified by him. This doctrine laid down by Lord Hardwicke in Middleton v. Croft (2 Stra. 1056) was approved in 1860 in Marshall v. Bp. of Exeter (L.R. 3 H.L. 17). Nevertheless, there are many provisions in these post-Reformation canons which are declaratory of the ancient usage and law of the Church, and the law which they thus record is binding on the laity. The chief body of English post-Reformation canon law is to be found in the canons of 1603, amended in 1865 and 1888. The canons of 1640 are apparently upon the same footing as those of 1603; notwithstanding objections made at the time that they were void because convocation continued to sit after the dissolution of parliament. The opinion of all the judges taken at the time was in favour of the legality of this procedure. 13 Car. ii. c. 12 simply provided that these canons should not be given statutory force by the operation of that act.

In addition to the enactment of canons (strictly so-called) the English provincial synods since the Henrician changes have legislated—in 1570 by the enactment of the Thirty-Nine Articles, in 1661 by approving the present Book of Common Prayer, and in 1873 by approving shorter forms of matins and evensong.

The distinction between pre-Henrician and post-Henrician procedure lies in the requirement, since 25 Hen. VIII., of the royal licence and confirmation. Apparently diocesan synods may still enact valid canons without the king’s authority; but these bodies are not now called.

The prevailing legal view of the position of the Church of England in regard to canon law has been just stated, and that is the view taken by judicial authority for the past three centuries. On the other hand, it is suggested by, e.g., the late Professor Maitland, that it was not, in fact, the view taken here in the later middle ages—that in those ages there was no theory that “reception” here was necessary to validate papal decrees. It is said by this school of legal historians that, from the Conquest down to Henry VIII., the Church of England was regarded by churchmen not as in any sense as separate entity, but as two provinces of the extra-territorial, super-national Catholic Church, and that the pope at this period was contemplated as the princeps of this Catholic Church, whose edicts bound everywhere, as those of Augustus had bound in the Roman empire.

It is right that this view should be stated, but it is not that of the writer of this article.

As to Ireland, in a national synod of the four Irish provinces held at Dublin before the four archbishops, in 1634, a hundred canons were promulgated with the royal licence, containing much matter not dealt with by similar constitutions in England. In 1711, some further canons were promulgated (with royal licence) by another national synod. Some forms of special prayer were appended to these canons.

In 1869 the Irish Church Act (32 and 33 Vict. c. 42) “disestablished” the Irish Church, sect. 19 repealed any act of parliament, law or custom whereby the bishops, clergy or laity of the said church were prohibited from holding synods or electing representatives thereto for the purpose of making rules for the well-being and ordering of the said church, and enacted that no such law, &c., should hinder the said bishops, clergy and laity, by such representatives, lay and clerical, and so elected as they shall appoint, from meeting in general synod or convention and in such general synod or convention forming constitutions and providing for future representation of the members of the church in diocesan synods, general convention or otherwise. The Church of Ireland, so set free, created for herself new legislative authorities, unknown to the old canon law, viz. mixed synods of clergy and laity, and a system of representation by election, unknown to primitive or medieval times. Similar changes had, however, been introduced during the preceding century in some parts of the Anglican communion outside the British Isles (see infra). Sect. 20 of the same statute kept alive the old ecclesiastical law of Ireland by way of assumed contract (cf. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction).

Under the provisions of this statute, the “archbishops and bishops of the ancient Apostolic and Catholic Church of Ireland” (so they describe themselves), together with representatives of the clergy and laity, assembled in 1870, in “General Convention,” to “provide for the regulation” of that church. This Convention declared that a General Synod of the archbishops and bishops, with representatives of the clergy and laity, should have chief legislative power in the Irish Church, with such administrative power as might be necessary and consistent with the church’s episcopal constitution. This General Synod was to consist of two Houses—the House of Bishops and the House of Lay and Clerical Representatives. No question was to be carried unless there were in its favour a majority of the clerical and lay representatives, voting either conjointly or by orders, and also a majority of the bishops, should they desire to vote. This General Synod was given full power to alter or amend canons, or to repeal them, or to enact new ones. For any alteration or amendment of “articles, doctrines, rites or rubrics,” a two-thirds majority of each order of the representative house was required and a year’s delay for consultation of the diocesan synods. Provisions were made as to lay representation in the diocesan synods. The Convention also enacted some canons and a statute in regard to ecclesiastical tribunals (see Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction). It expressly provided that its own legislation might be repealed or amended by future general synods.

In 1871 the General Synod attempted to codify its canon law in forty-eight canons which, “and none other,” were to have force and effect as the canons of the Church of Ireland. Since 1871 the General Synod has, from time to time, put forth other canons.

The post-Reformation history of canon law in the Anglican communion in Scotland has differed from the story of that law in the last four centuries in Ireland. After the legislation under William and Mary disestablishing episcopacy in Scotland and subjecting its professors to civil penalties, little attention was given to canon law for many years. Synods of bishops at Edinburgh in 1724 and 1731 dealt with some disputed questions of ritual and ceremonial. In 1743 an assembly of five bishops enacted sixteen canons. A “primus” was to be chosen indifferently from the bishops, but to have no other powers than those of convoking and presiding over synods. He was to hold office only during pleasure of the other bishops. Bishops were to be elected by the presbyters of the district. Such election was subject to the confirmation of the majority of the bishops. In 1811, a “Code of Canons” was enacted by a “General Ecclesiastical Synod,” consisting of the bishops, the deans (viz. presbyters appointed by the bishops in each diocese to defend the interests of the presbyters and now for the first time given “decisive” voice in synods) and certain clerical representatives from the “districts” or dioceses. Future synods, called for the purpose of altering the code, were to consist of two chambers. The first was to be composed of the bishops; the second to consist of the “deans” and clerical representatives. No law or canon was to be enacted or abrogated, save by the consent of both chambers. These canons were revised in 1828, 1829 and 1838. The code of this last year created diocesan synods, to be held annually and to consist of the bishop, dean and all instituted clergy of the diocese. It also provided for the annual meeting of a purely episcopal synod, which was to receive appeals from either clergy or laity. In 1862-1863, another General Synod further revised and amended the Code of Canons. This revised code enabled the bishop to appoint a learned and discreet layman to act as his chancellor, to advise him in legal matters and be his assessor at diocesan synods. Assistant curates and mission priests were, under certain restrictions, given seats in diocesan synods. Male communicants were also permitted to be present at such synods, with a deliberative but not “decisive” voice; unless in special circumstances the bishop excluded them. Canon 46 provides that “if any question shall arise as to the interpretation of this Code of Canons or of any part thereof, the general principles of canon law shall be alone deemed applicable thereto.” This provision was reenacted in Canon 47 of 1876. Canon 51 of 1890, however, weakens this provision. It enacts that: “The preceding canons shall in all cases be construed in accordance with the principles of the civil law of Scotland. Nevertheless, it shall be lawful, in cases of dispute or difficulty concerning the interpretation of these canons, to appeal to any generally recognized principles of canon law.” The canons of 1862-1863 also provided for a lay share in the election of bishops. In 1890 the 32nd canon enacted that the “General Synod” should thereafter be called the Provincial Synod.

The canon law in Scotland before the 16th century was generally that of the continent of Europe. The usages of the church were similar to those in France, and had not the insular character of those in England and Ireland. The canon law regulating marriage, legitimacy and succession was taken over by the Scottish secular courts (see Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction) and survived as part of the common law of the land almost unimpaired. Thus, the courts recognize marriages by verba de praesenti or by verba de futuro cum copula—in this last matter following a decree of Gregory IX.—and also legitimation per subsequens matrimonium. But though one of the fontes juris Scotiae, canon law never was of itself authoritative in Scotland. In the canons of her national provincial councils (at whose yearly meetings representatives attended on behalf of the king) that country possessed a canon law of her own, which was recognized by the parliament and the popes, and enforced in the courts of law. Much of it, no doubt, was borrowed from the Corpus juris canonici and the English provincial canons. But the portions so adopted derived their authority from the Scottish Church. The general canon law, unless where it has been acknowledged by act of parliament, or a decision of the courts, or sanctioned by the canons of a provincial council, is only received in Scotland according to equity and expediency.

The “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States” is the organization of the Anglican Communion in the American colonies before the separation. This communion was subject to “all the laws of the Church of England applicable to its situation” (Murray Hoffman, A Treatise on the Law of the Protestant Episcopal Church, New York, 1850, p. 17). This body of law the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States took over (op. cit. p. 41 et seq.; F. Vinton, A Manual Commentary on the General Canon Law and the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church, New York, 1870, p. 16 et seq.). Much, however, of the English post-Reformation canonical legislation was not applicable to the United States, because of different circumstances, as e.g. a very large portion of the canons of 1603 (Vinton, p. 32). In 1789, a General Convention, consisting of clerical and lay deputies as well as of bishops, assumed for itself and provided for its successors supreme legislative power. The concurrence of both “orders,” clerical and lay, was required for the validity of any vote. Since 1853 a lay deputy to the Convention has been required to be a communicant (ib. p. 102). Upon the American bishops numbering more than three, they became a separate “House” from the “Convention.” The House of Bishops was given a right to propose measures to the “House of Deputies,” and to negative acts of the House of Deputies, provided they complied with certain forms. Similar “constitutions” providing for representation of the laity have been adopted by the different dioceses (Hoffman, op. cit. p. 184 et seq.). Deacons are also admitted to a deciding voice in every diocese but New Jersey, where they may speak but not vote. A great body of legislation has been put forth by these bodies during the past century.

Since 1870, at least, the “Church of the Province of South Africa” has secured autonomy while yet remaining a part of the Anglican Communion. By its constitution of that year the English Church in South Africa adopts the laws and usages of the Church of England, as far as they are applicable to an unestablished church, accepts the three creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the decisions of the undisputed general councils, the Authorized English Version of the Scriptures, disclaims the right of altering any of these standards of faith and doctrine, except in agreement with such alterations as may be adopted by a general synod of the Anglican Communion. But in interpreting these standards of faith and doctrine, the Church of the Province of South Africa is not bound by decisions other than those of its own Church courts, or such court as the Provincial Synod may recognize as a tribunal of appeal. The Provincial Synod is the legislative authority subject to a general synod of the Anglican Communion, provided such latter synod include representatives from the Church of South Africa. The Provincial Synod consists of (1) the House of Bishops, (2) the House of the Clergy, (3) the House of the Laity. No resolution can be passed which is not accepted by all three orders. Bishops are elected by the clergy with the assent of lay representatives, subject to the confirmation of the metropolitan and comprovincial bishops. The metropolitan is to be consecrated in England by the archbishop of Canterbury. He now bears the title of archbishop. All bishops are to enter into a contract to obey and maintain the constitution and canons of the province. Canon 18 of the Code of 1870 recognizes the offices of catechist, reader and sub-deacon (Wirgman, The English Church and People in South Africa, p. 223 et seq.).

In the West Indies, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, provincial and diocesan synods or conventions have been formed on one or other of the types above mentioned and have enacted canons.

(W. G. F. P.)

1 The councils which we are about to mention, up to the 9th century, have been published several times, notably in the great collections of Hardouin, Mansi, &c.; they will be found brought together in one small volume in Bruns, Canones apostolorum et conciliorum (Berlin, 1839).

2 The date of this council was formerly unknown; it is ascribed to 343 by the Syriac Nestorian collection recently published by M. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, p. 278, note 4.

3 See Boudinhon, “Note sur le concile de Laodicée,” in the Compte rendu du premier congrès des savants catholiques à Paris, 1888 (Paris, 1889), vol. ii. p. 420.

4 For the further history of the law of the Greek Church and that of the Eastern Churches, see Vering, Kirchenrecht, §§ 14-183 (ed. 1893). The Russian Church, as we know, adopted the Greek ecclesiastical law.

5 Edited by Pierre Pithou (Paris, 1588), and later by Chifflet, Fulg. Ferrandi opera (Dijon, 1694); reproduced in Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. 67, col. 949.

6 Published by Quesnel in his edition of the works of St Leo, vol. ii. (Paris, 1675); reproduced by the brothers Ballerini, with learned dissertations, Opera S. Leonis, vol. iii., Migne, P.L. 56.

7 Malnory, Saint Césaire d’Arles (Paris, 1894).

8 Collectio canonum Ecclesiae Hispanae (Madrid, 1808); reproduced in Migne, P.L. 84.

9 L. Duchesne, “Le Concile d’Elvire” in the Mélanges Renier.

10 For the Penitentials, see Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche (Halle, 1851); Mgr. H.J. Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche (2 vols., Mainz, 1883, 1898).

11 This is proved, in spite of the contrary opinions of Wasserschleben and Schmitz, by M. Paul Fournier, “Étude sur les Pénitentiels,” in the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, vol. vi. (1901), pp. 289-317, and vol. vii., 1902, pp. 59-70 and 121-127.

12 In Migne, P.L. 105, col. 651.

13 Edited by Wasserschleben (Giessen, 1874). See also P. Fournier, “De l’influence de la collection irlandaise sur la formation des collections canoniques,” in Nouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger, vol. xxiii, note I.

14 The collection of the False Decretals has been published with a long critical introduction by P. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et capitula Angilramni (Leipzig, 1863). For the rest of the bibliography, see Decretals (False).

15 The latest edition is in Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae, vol. ii. part ii.

16 Edited by Wasserschleben (Leipzig, 1840); reproduced by Migne, P.L. 132.

17 Edited several times; in Migne, P.L. 140.

18 P. Fournier, “Le Premier Manuel canonique de la réforme du XIe siècle,” in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, xiv. (1894).

19 Unpublished.

20 Edited by Mgr. Pio Martinucci (Venice, 1869). On this collection see Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderborn, 1905).

21 Unpublished.

22 Several times edited; in Migne, P.L. 161. See P. Fournier, “Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres,” Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartres (1896 and 1897).

23 Printed in Martene, Nov. Thesaur. anecdot. vol. v. col. 1019.

24 See P. Fournier, “Deux Controverses sur les origines du Décret de Gratien,” in the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, vol. iii. (1898), pp. n. 2 and 3.

25 See Laurin, Introductio in corpus juris canonici, c. vii. p. 73.

26 By referring to the decretals of Gregory IX. for the texts inserted there, E. Friedberg has succeeded in giving a much abridged edition of the Quinque compilationes (Leipzig, 1882).

27 Edited by Schulte, Die Summa des Paucapaiea (Giessen, 1890).

28 Edited by Thaner, Die Summa Magistri Rolandi (Innsbruck, 1874); later by Gietl, Die Sentenzen Rolands (Freiburg im B., 1891).

29 Edited by H. Singer, Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus (Paderborn, 1902).

30 Edited by Schulte, Die Summe des Stephanus Tornacensis (Giessen, 1891).

31 He made a Summa of his own collection, ed. E. Laspeyres, Bernardi Papiensis Summa Decretalium (Mainz, 1860). The commentaries of Innocent IV. and Henry of Susa have been frequently published.

32 The history of this commission and the rules which it followed for editing the Decretum, will be found in Laurin, Introductio in corpus juris canonici, p. 63, or in the Prolegomena to Friedberg’s edition of the Decretum.

33 Quoted by Hogan, Clerical Studies, p. 235.

34 There are innumerable editions of the council of Trent. That which is favoured by canonists is Richter’s edition (Leipzig, 1863), in which each chapter de reformatione is followed by a selection of decisions of the S.C. of the council.

35 Republished by F. Sentis, from one of the few copies which have escaped destruction: Clementis Papae VIII. Decretales, quae vulgo nunenpantur Liber septimus Decretalium Clementis VIII. (Freiburg im B., 1870).

36 Omnium concilii Vaticani ... documentorum collectio, per Conradum Martin (Paderborn, 1873), p. 152.

CANOPUS, or Canobus, an ancient coast town of Lower Egypt, a hundred and twenty stadia, or 15 m. east of Alexandria, the principal port in Egypt for Greek trade before the foundation of Alexandria, situated at the mouth of the westernmost (Canopic or Heracleotic) branch of the Nile, on the western bank. The channel, which entered the Mediterranean at the western end of the Bay of Aboukir, is entirely silted up, but on the shore at Aboukir there are extensive traces of the city with its quays, &c. Excavation has disclosed granite monuments with the name of Rameses II., but they may have been brought at a late period for the adornment of the place. It is not certain that Canopus was an old Egyptian town, but it appears in Herodotus as an ancient port. In the 9th year of Ptolemy Euergetes (239 b.c.) a great assembly of priests at Canopus passed an honorific degree, inter alia, conferring the title Εὐεργέτης “Benefactor” on the king. Two examples of this decree are known, inscribed in hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek. From it we learn that the native form of the name of Canopus was Karob. A temple of Osiris was built by Euergetes, but very near to Canopus was an older shrine, a temple of Heracles mentioned by Herodotus as an asylum for fugitive slaves. The decree shows that Heracles here stands for Ammon. Osiris was worshipped at Canopus under a peculiar form, a vase with a human head, and was identified with Canopus, the pilot of Menelaus, who was said to have been buried here: the name canopic has been applied, through an old misunderstanding, to the vases with human and animal heads in which the internal organs were placed by the Egyptians after embalming. In the Roman epoch the town was notorious for its dissoluteness. Aboukir means “father Cyrus,” referring to a Coptic saint of that name.

(F. Ll. G.)

CANOPY (through Fr. canapé, from Med. Lat. canapeum, classical conopeum, a mosquito curtain, Gr. κώνωψ, a gnat), the upper part or cover of a niche, or the projecting ornament over an altar or scat or tomb. Early English canopies are generally simple, with trefoiled or cinquefoiled heads; but in the later styles they are very rich, and divided into compartments with pendants, knots, pinnacles, &c. The triangular arrangement over an Early English and Decorated doorway is often called a canopy. The triangular canopies in the north of Italy are peculiar. Those in England are generally part of the arrangement of the arch mouldings of the door, and form, as it were, the hood-moulds to them, as at York. The former are above and independent of the door mouldings, and frequently support an arch with a tympanum, above which is a triangular canopy, as in the Duomo at Florence. Sometimes the canopy and arch project from the wall, and are carried on small jamb shafts, as at San Pietro Martire, at Verona. There is an extremely curious canopy, being a sort of horseshoe arch, surmounting and breaking into a circular arch, at Tournai. Similar canopies are often over windows, as at York, over the great west window, and lower tiers in the towers. These are triangular, while the upper windows in the towers have ogee canopies.

CANOSA (anc. Canusium), a town of Apulia, Italy, in the province of Bari, situated on the right bank of the Ofanto (anc. Aufidus), 505 ft. above sea-level, 15 m. S.W. of Barletta by rail. Pop. (1901) 24,230. It was rebuilt in 963 below the Roman city, which had been abandoned after its devastation by the Saracens in the 9th century. The former cathedral of S. Sabino (the bishopric passed in 1818 to Andria), in the southern Romanesque style, was consecrated in 1101: it has five domes (resembling St Mark’s at Venice, except that it is a Latin cross, instead of a Greek cross, in plan) and many ancient columns. The archiepiscopal throne and pulpit of the end of the 11th century are also fine. On the south side of the building is the detached mausoleum of Bohemund, son of Robert Guiscard, who died in 1111, constructed partly in Byzantine, partly in the local style. It has fine bronze doors with long inscriptions; the exterior is entirely faced with cipollino (Carystian) marble. The conception of this mortuary chapel, which is unique at this period, was undoubtedly derived from the turbeh before a mosque; these turbehs are square, domed-roofed tombs in which the sultans and distinguished Mahommedans are buried (E. Bertaux, L’Art dans l’Italie mêridionale, Paris, 1904, i. 312). A medieval castle crowns the hill on the side of which the city stands. (See Canusium.)

(T. As.)

CANOSSA, a ruined castle, 1890 ft. above sea-level, in Emilia, Italy, 12 m. S.W. of Reggio Emilia, commanding a fine view of the Apennines. It belonged to the countess Matilda of Tuscany (d. 1115), and is famous as the scene of the penance performed by the emperor Henry IV. before Pope Gregory VII. in 1077. The castle was destroyed by the inhabitants of Reggio in 1255.

CANOVA, ANTONIO (1757-1822), Italian sculptor, was born on the 1st of November 1757, at Passagno, an obscure village situated amid the recesses of the hills of Asolo, where these form the last undulations of the Venetian Alps, as they subside into the plains of Treviso. At three years of age Canova was deprived of both parents, his father dying and his mother remarrying. Their loss, however, was compensated by the tender solicitude and care of his paternal grandfather and grandmother, the latter of whom lived to experience in her turn the kindest personal attention from her grandson, who, when he had the means, gave her an asylum in his house at Rome. His father and grandfather followed the occupation of stone-cutters or minor statuaries; and it is said that their family had for several ages supplied Passagno with members of that calling. As soon as Canova’s hand could hold a pencil, he was initiated into the principles of drawing by his grandfather Pasino. The latter possessed some knowledge both of drawing and of architecture, designed well, and showed considerable taste in the execution of ornamental works. He was greatly attached to his art; and upon his young charge he looked as one who was to perpetuate, not only the family name, but also the family profession.

The early years of Canova were passed in study. The bias of his mind was to sculpture, and the facilities afforded for the gratification of this predilection in the workshop of his grandfather were eagerly improved. In his ninth year he executed two small shrines of Carrara marble, which are still extant. Soon after this period he appears to have been constantly employed under his grandfather. Amongst those who patronized the old man was the patrician family Falier of Venice, and by this means young Canova was first introduced to the senator of that name, who afterwards became his most zealous patron. Between the younger son, Giuseppe Falier, and the artist a friendship commenced which terminated only with life. The senator Falier was induced to receive him under his immediate protection. It has been related by an Italian writer and since repeated by several biographers, that Canova was indebted to a trivial circumstance—the moulding of a lion in butter—for the warm interest which Falier took in his welfare. The anecdote may or may not be true. By his patron Canova was placed under Bernardi, or, as he is generally called by filiation, Torretto, a sculptor of considerable eminence, who had taken up a temporary residence at Pagnano, a village in the vicinity of the senator’s mansion. This took place whilst Canova was in his thirteenth year; and with Torretto he continued about two years, making in many respects considerable progress. This master returned to Venice, where he soon afterwards died; but by the high terms in which he spoke of his pupil to Falier, the latter was induced to bring the young artist to Venice, whither he accordingly went, and was placed under a nephew of Torretto. With this instructor he continued about a year, studying with the utmost assiduity. After the termination of this engagement he began to work on his own account, and received from his patron an order for a group, “Orpheus and Eurydice.” The first figure, which represents Eurydice in flames and smoke, in the act of leaving Hades, was completed towards the close of his sixteenth year. It was highly esteemed by his patron and friends, and the artist was now considered qualified to appear before a public tribunal. The kindness of some monks supplied him with his first workshop, which was the vacant cell of a monastery. Here for nearly four years he laboured with the greatest perseverance and industry. He was also regular in his attendance at the academy, where he carried off several prizes. But he relied far more on the study and imitation of nature. From his contemporaries he could learn nothing, for their style was vicious. From their works, therefore, he reverted to living models, as exhibited in every variety of situation. A large portion of his time was also devoted to anatomy, which science was regarded by him as “the secret of the art.” He likewise frequented places of public amusement, where he carefully studied the expressions and attitudes of the performers. He formed a resolution, which was faithfully adhered to for several years, never to close his eyes at night without having produced some design. Whatever was likely to forward his advancement in sculpture he studied with ardour. On archaeological pursuits he bestowed considerable attention. With ancient and modern history he rendered himself well acquainted and he also began to acquire some of the continental languages.

Three years had now elapsed without any production coming from his chisel. He began, however, to complete the group for his patron, and the Orpheus which followed evinced the great advance he had made. The work was universally applauded, and laid the foundation of his fame. Several groups succeeded this performance, amongst which was that of “Daedalus and Icarus,” the most celebrated work of his noviciate. The simplicity of style and the faithful imitation of nature which characterized them called forth the warmest admiration. His merits and reputation being now generally recognized, his thoughts began to turn from the shores of the Adriatic to the banks of the Tiber, for which he set out at the commencement of his twenty-fourth year.

Before his departure for Rome, his friends had applied to the Venetian senate for a pension, to enable him to pursue his studies without embarrassment. The application was ultimately successful. The stipend amounted to three hundred ducats (about £60 per annum), and was limited to three years. Canova had obtained letters of introduction to the Venetian ambassador, the Cavaliere Zulian, and enlightened and generous protector of the arts, and was received in the most hospitable manner. His arrival in Rome, on the 28th of December 1780, marks a new era in his life. It was here he was to perfect himself by a study of the most splendid relics of antiquity, and to put his talents to the severest test by a competition with the living masters of the art. The result was equal to the highest hopes cherished either by himself or by his friends. The work which first established his fame at Rome was “Theseus vanquishing the Minotaur.” The figures are of the heroic size. The victorious Theseus is represented as seated on the lifeless body of the monster. The exhaustion which visibly pervades his whole frame proves the terrible nature of the conflict in which he has been engaged. Simplicity and natural expression had hitherto characterized Canova’s style; with these were now united more exalted conceptions of grandeur and of truth. The Theseus was regarded with fervent admiration.

Canova’s next undertaking was a monument in honour of Clement XIV.; but before he proceeded with it he deemed it necessary to request permission from the Venetian senate, whose servant he considered himself to be, in consideration of the pension. This he solicited in person, and it was granted. He returned immediately to Rome, and opened his celebrated studio close to the Via del Babuino. He spent about two years of unremitting toil in arranging the design and composing the models for the tomb of the pontiff. After these were completed, other two years were employed in finishing the monument, and it was finally opened to public inspection in 1787 The work, in the opinion of enthusiastic dilettanti, stamped the author as the first artist of modern times. After five years of incessant labour, he completed another cenotaph to the memory of Clement XIII., which raised his fame still higher. Works now came rapidly from his chisel. Amongst these is Psyche, with a butterfly, which is placed on the left hand, and held by the wings with the right. This figure, which is intended as a personification of man’s immaterial part, is considered as in almost every respect the most faultless and classical of Canova’s works. In two different groups, and with opposite expression, the sculptor has represented Cupid with his bride; in the one they are standing, in the other recumbent. These and other works raised his reputation so high that the most flattering offers were sent him from the Russian court to induce him to remove to St Petersburg, but these were declined. “Italy,” says he, in writing of the occurrence to a friend, “Italy is my country—is the country and native soil of the arts. I cannot leave her; my infancy was nurtured here. If my poor talents can be useful in any other land, they must be of some utility to Italy; and ought not her claim to be preferred to all others?”

Numerous works were produced in the years 1795-1797, of which several were repetitions of previous productions. One was the celebrated group representing the “Parting of Venus and Adonis.” This famous production was sent to Naples. The French Revolution was now extending its shocks over Italy; and Canova sought obscurity and repose in his native Passagno. Thither he retired in 1798, and there he continued for about a year, principally employed in painting, of which art also he had some knowledge. He executed upwards of twenty paintings about this time. One of his productions is a picture representing the dead body of the Saviour just removed from the cross, surrounded by the three Marys, S. John, Joseph of Arimathea, and, somewhat in the background, Nicodemus. Above appears the Father, with the mystic dove in the centre of a glory, and surrounded by a circle of cherubs. This composition, which was greatly applauded, he presented to the parochial church of his native place. Events in the political world having come to a temporary lull, he returned to Rome; but his health being impaired from arduous application, he took a journey through a part of Germany, in company with his friend Prince Rezzonico. He returned from his travels much improved, and again commenced his labours with vigour and enthusiasm.

Canova’s sculptures have been distributed under three heads:—(1) Heroic compositions; (2) Compositions of grace and elegance; and (3) Sepulchral monuments and relievos. In noticing the works which fall under each of these divisions, it will be impossible to maintain a strict chronological order, but perhaps a better idea of his productions may thus be obtained. Their vast number, however, prevents their being all enumerated.

(1) His “Perseus with the Head of Medusa” appeared soon after his return. The moment of representation is when the hero, flushed with conquest, displays the head of the “snaky Gorgon,” whilst the right hand grasps a sword of singular device. By a public decree, this fine work was placed in one of the stanze of the Vatican hitherto reserved for the most precious works of antiquity; but it would be a mistake to say that it wholly sustains this comparison, or that it rivals the earlier realization of the same subject in Italian art, that by Cellini. In 1802, at the personal request of Napoleon, Canova repaired to Paris to model a bust of the first consul. The artist was entertained with munificence, and various honours were conferred upon him. The statue, which is colossal, was not finished till six years after. On the fall of the great Napoleon, Louis XVIII. presented this statue to the British government, by whom it was afterwards given to the duke of Wellington. “Palamedes,” “Creugas and Damoxenus,” the “Combat of Theseus and the Centaur,” and “Hercules and Lichas” may close the class of heroic compositions, although the catalogue might be swelled by the enumeration of various others, such as “Hector and Ajax,” and the statues of Washington, King Ferdinand of Naples, and others. The group of “Hercules and Lichas” is considered as the most terrible conception of Canova’s mind, and in its peculiar style as scarcely to be excelled.

(2) Under the head of compositions of grace and elegance, the statue of Hebe takes the first place in point of date. Four times has the artist embodied in stone the goddess of youth, and each time with some variation. The only material improvement, however, is the substitution of a support more suitable to the simplicity of the art. Each of the statues is, in all its details, in expression, attitude and delicacy of finish, strikingly elegant. The “Dancing Nymphs” maintain a character similar to that of the Hebe. The “Graces” and the “Venus” are more elevated. The “Awakened Nymph” is another work of uncommon beauty. The mother of Napoleon, his consort Maria Louisa (as Concord), to model whom the author made a further journey to Paris in 1810, the princess Esterhazy and the muse Polymnia (Elisa Bonaparte) take their place in this class, as do the ideal heads, comprising Corinna, Sappho, Laura, Beatrice and Helen of Troy.

(3) Of the cenotaphs and funeral monuments the most splendid is the monument to the archduchess Maria Christina of Austria, consisting of nine figures. Besides the two for the Roman pontiffs already mentioned, there is one for Alfieri, another for Emo, a Venetian admiral, and a small model of a cenotaph for Nelson, besides a great variety of monumental relievos.

The events which marked the life of the artist during the first fifteen years of the period in which he was engaged on the above-mentioned works scarcely merit notice. His mind was entirely absorbed in the labours of his studio, and, with the exception of his journeys to Paris, one to Vienna, and a few short intervals of absence in Florence and other parts of Italy, he never quitted Rome. In his own words, “his statues were the sole proofs of his civil existence.” There was, however, another proof, which modesty forbade him to mention, an ever-active benevolence, especially towards artists. In 1815 he was commissioned by the Pope to superintend the transmission from Paris of those works of art which had formerly been conveyed thither under the direction of Napoleon. By his zeal and exertions, for there were many conflicting interests to reconcile, he adjusted the affair in a manner at once creditable to his judgment and fortunate for his country. In the autumn of this year he gratified a wish he had long entertained of visiting London, where he received the highest tokens of esteem. The artist for whom he showed particular sympathy and regard in London was Haydon, who might at the time be counted the sole representative of historical painting there, and whom he especially honoured for his championship of the Elgin marbles, then recently transported to England, and ignorantly depreciated by polite connoisseurs. Canova returned to Rome in the beginning of 1816, with the ransomed spoils of his country’s genius. Immediately after, he received several marks of distinction,—by the hand of the Pope himself his name was inscribed in “the Golden Volume of the Capitol,” and he received the title of marquis of Ischia, with an annual pension of 3000 crowns, about £625.

He now contemplated a great work, a colossal statue of Religion. The model filled Italy with admiration; the marble was procured, and the chisel of the sculptor ready to be applied to it, when the jealousy of churchmen as to the site, or some other cause, deprived the country of the projected work. The mind of Canova was inspired with the warmest sense of devotion, and though foiled in this instance he resolved to consecrate a shrine to the cause. In his native village he began to make preparations for erecting a temple which was to contain, not only the above statue, but other works of his own; within its precincts were to repose also the ashes of the founder. Accordingly he repaired to Passagno in 1810. At a sumptuous entertainment which he gave to his workmen, there occurred an incident which marks the kindliness of his character. When the festivities of the day had terminated, he requested the shepherdesses and peasantgirls of the adjacent hamlets to pass in review before him, and to each he made a present, expending on the occasion about £400. We need not, therefore, be surprised that a few years afterwards, when the remains of the donor came to be deposited in their last asylum, the grief which the surrounding peasantry evinced was in natural expression so intense as to eclipse the studied solemnity of more pompous mourning.

After the foundation-stone of this edifice had been laid, Canova returned to Rome; but every succeeding autumn he continued to visit Passagno, in order to direct the workmen, and encourage them with pecuniary rewards and medals. In the meantime the vast expenditure exhausted his resources, and compelled him to labour with unceasing assiduity notwithstanding age and disease. During the period which intervened between commencing operations at Passagno and his decease, he executed or finished some of his most striking works. Amongst these were the group “Mars and Venus,” the colossal figure of Pius VI., the “Pietà,” the “St John,” the “recumbent Magdalen.” The last performance which issued from his hand was a colossal bust of his friend, the Count Cicognara. In May 1822 he paid a visit to Naples, to superintend the construction of wax moulds for an equestrian statue of the perjured Bourbon king Ferdinand. This journey materially injured his health, but he rallied again on his return to Rome. Towards the latter end of the year he paid his annual visit to the place of his birth, when he experienced a relapse. He proceeded to Venice, and expired there on the 13th of October 1822, at the age of nearly sixty-five. His disease was one which had affected him from an early age, caused by the continual use of carving-tools, producing a depression of the ribs. The most distinguished funeral honours were paid to his remains, which were deposited in the temple at Passagno on the 25th of the same month.

Canova, in a certain sense, renovated the art of sculpture in Italy, and brought it back to that standard from which it had declined when the sense both of classical beauty and moderation, and of Titanic invention and human or superhuman energy as embodied by the unexampled genius of Michelangelo, had succumbed to the overloaded and flabby mannerisms of the 17th and 18th centuries. His finishing was refined, and he had a special method of giving a mellow and soft appearance to the marble. He formed his models of the same size as the work was intended to be. The prominent defect of Canova’s attractive and highly trained art is that which may be summed up in the word artificiality,—that quality, so characteristic of the modern mind, which seizes upon certain properties of conception and execution in the art of the past, and upon certain types of beauty or emotion in life, and makes a compound of the two—regulating both by the standard of taste prevalent in contemporary “high society,” a standard which, referring to cultivation and refinement as its higher term, declines towards fashion as the lower. Of his moral character a generous and unwearied benevolence formed the most prominent feature. The greater part of the vast fortune realized by his works was distributed in acts of this description. He established prizes for artists and endowed all the academies of Rome. The aged and unfortunate were also the objects of his peculiar solicitude. His titles were numerous. He was enrolled amongst the nobility of several states, decorated with various orders of knighthood, and associated in the highest professional honours.

See the Life of Canova by Memes; that by Missirini; the Biografia by the Count Cicognara; Canova et ses ouvrages, by Quatremère de Quincy (1834); Opere scelte di Antonio Canova, by Anzelmi (Naples, 1842); Canova, by A.G. Meyer (1898); and La Relazione del Canova con Napoli ... memorie con documenti inediti, by Angelo Borzelli (1901).

(W. M. R.)

CANOVAS DEL CASTILLO, ANTONIO (1828-1897), Spanish statesman, was born in Malaga on the 8th of February 1828. Educated in his native town, he went to Madrid in 1845, bent upon finding means to complete his literary and philosophical studies. His uncle, Don Serafin Estebañez Calderon, found him a situation as clerk in the Madrid-Aranjuez railway, but Canovas soon took to journalism and literature, earning enough to support himself and pay for his law studies at the Madrid University. During this period he published his two best works—an historical novel, Las Campanas de Huesca, and the history of the decay of Spain from Philip III. to Charles II. under the house of Austria. He became a politician through his Junius-like letters to the “Murcielago”—The Bat, a satirical political journal—and by drawing up the manifesto of Manzanares in 1854 for Marshal O’Donnell, of whom he always remained a loyal adherent. Canovas entered the Cortes in 1854; he was made governor of Cadiz in 1857, sub-director of the state department in 1858, under-secretary at the home office in 1860, minister of the interior in 1864, minister of the colonies in 1865, minister of finance in 1866, and was exiled by Marshal Narvaez in the same year, afterwards becoming a bitter opponent of all the reactionary cabinets until the revolution of 1868. He took no part in preparing that event. He sat in the Cortes Constituyentes of 1869 as a doctrinaire Conservative, combating all Radical and democratic reforms, and defending the exiled Bourbons; but he abstained from voting when the Cortes elected Amadeus king on the 16th of November 1870. He did not object to some of his political friends, like Silvela and Elduayen, entering the cabinets of King Amadeus, and in 1872 declared that his attitude would depend on the concessions which government would make to Conservative principles. After the abdication of Amadeus and the proclamation of the federal republic, Canovas took the lead of the propaganda in favour of the restoration of the Bourbons, and was their principal agent and adviser. He drew up the manifesto issued in 1874 by the young king Alphonso XII., at that time a cadet at Sandhurst; but he dissented from the military men who were actively conspiring to organize an Alphonsist pronunciamiento. Like Marshal Concha, marquis del Duero, he would have preferred to let events develop enough to allow of the dynasty being restored without force of arms, and he severely blamed the conduct of the generals when he first heard of the pronunciamiento of Marshal Campos at Sagunto. Sagasta thereupon caused Canovas to be arrested (30th of December 1874); but the next day the Madrid garrison also proclaimed Alphonso XII. king, and Canovas showed the full powers he had received from the king to assume the direction of affairs. He formed a regency ministry pending the arrival of his majesty, who confirmed his appointment, and for six years Canovas was premier except during the short-lived cabinets of Marshal Jovellar in 1875 and Marshal Campos for a few months in 1879. Canovas was, in fact, the soul of the Restoration. He had to reconstruct a Conservative party out of the least reactionary parties of the days of Queen Isabella and out of the more moderate elements of the revolution. With such followers he made the constitution of 1876 and all the laws of the monarchy, putting a limited franchise in the place of universal suffrage, curtailing liberty of conscience, rights of association and of meeting, liberty of the press, checking democracy, obliging the military to abstain from politics, conciliating the Carlists and Catholics by his advances to the Vatican, the Church and the religious orders, pandering to the protectionists by his tariff policy, and courting abroad the friendship of Germany and Austria after contributing to the marriage of his king to an Austrian princess. Canovas crowned his policy by countenancing the formation of a Liberal party under Sagasta, flanked by Marshal Serrano and other Liberal generals, which took office in 1881. He again became premier in 1883, and remained in office until November 1885; but he grew very unpopular, and nearly endangered the monarchy in 1885 by his violent repression of popular and press demonstrations, and of student riots in Madrid and the provinces. At the death of Alphonso XII. he at once advised the queen regent to send for Sagasta and the Liberals, and during five years he looked on quietly whilst Sagasta re-established universal suffrage and most of the liberties curtailed in 1876, and carried out a policy of free trade on moderate lines. In 1890 Canovas took office under the queen regent, and one of his first acts was to reverse the tariff policy of the Liberals, denouncing all the treaties of commerce, and passing in 1892 a highly protectionist tariff. This was the starting-point of the decline in foreign trade, the advance of foreign exchanges, the decay of railway traffic, and the monetary and financial crisis which continued from 1892 to 1898. Splits in the Conservative ranks forced Canovas to resign at the end of 1893, and Sagasta came in for eighteen months, Canovas resumed office in March 1895 immediately after the outbreak of the Cuban insurrection, and devoted most of his time and efforts, with characteristic determination, to the preparation of ways and means for sending 200,000 men to the West Indies to carry out his stern and unflinching policy of no surrender, no concessions and no reforms. He was making up his mind for another effort to enable General Weyler to enforce the reforms that had been wrung from the Madrid government, more by American diplomacy than from a sense of the inevitable, when the bullet of an anarchist, in August 1897, at the baths of Santa Agueda, cut short his career. On the whole, Canovas must be regarded as the greatest Spanish statesman of the close of the 19th century. He was not only a politician but also a man of the world, a writer of considerable merit, a scholar well versed in social, economic and philosophical questions, a great debater, a clever lecturer, a member of all the Madrid academies and a patron of art and letters.

(A. E. H.)

CANROBERT, FRANÇOIS CERTAIN (1809-1895), marshal of France, was born at St Céré (Lot) on the 27th of June 1809 and educated at St Cyr; he received a commission as sub-lieutenant in 1828, becoming lieutenant in 1833. He went to Algeria in 1835, served in the expedition to Mascara, at the capture of Tlemcen, and in 1837 became captain. In the same year he was wounded in the storm of Constantine, receiving the Legion of Honour for his conduct. In 1839 he was employed in organizing a battalion of the Foreign Legion for the Carlist Wars. In 1841 he was again serving in Africa. Promoted lieutenant-colonel in 1846 and colonel of the 3rd regiment in 1847, he commanded the expedition against Ahmed Sghir in 1848, and defeated the Arabs at the Djerma Pass. Transferred to the Zouaves, he defeated the Kabyles, and in 1849 displayed both courage and energy in reinforcing the blockaded garrison of Bou Sada, and in command of one of the attacking columns at Zaatcha (December 1849). For his valour on the latter occasion he received the rank of general of brigade and the commandership of the Legion of Honour. He led the expedition against Narah in 1850 and destroyed the Arab stronghold. Summoned to Paris, he was made aide-de-camp to the president, Louis Napoleon, and took part in the coup d’etat of the 2nd of December 1851. In the Crimean War he commanded a division at the Alma, where he was twice wounded. He held a dormant commission entitling him to command in case of St Arnaud’s death, and he thus succeeded to the chief command of the French army a few days after the battle. He was slightly wounded and had a horse killed under him at Inkerman, when leading a charge of Zouaves. Disagreements with the English commander-in-chief and, in general, the disappointments due to the prolongation of the siege of Sevastopol led to his resignation of the command, but he did not return to France, preferring to serve as chief of his old division almost up to the fall of Sevastopol. After his return to France he was sent on diplomatic missions to Denmark and Sweden, and made a marshal and senator of France (grand cross Legion of Honour, and honorary G.C.B.). He commanded the III. army corps in Lombardy in 1859, distinguishing himself at Magenta and Solferino. He successively commanded the camp at Châlons, the IV. army corps at Lyons and the army of Paris. In the Franco-German War he commanded the VI. army corps, which won the greatest distinction in the battle of Gravelotte, where Canrobert commanded on the St Privat position. The VI. corps was amongst those shut up in Metz and included in the surrender of that fortress. After the war Canrobert was appointed a member of the superior council of war, and was also active in political life, being elected senator for Lot in 1876 and for Charente in 1879 and again in 1885. He died at Paris on the 28th of January 1895 and his remains received a public funeral. His Souvenirs were published in 1898 at Paris.

CANT, ANDREW (1590?-1663), a leader of the Scottish Covenanters. About 1623 the people of Edinburgh called him to be their minister, but he was rejected by James I. Ten years later he was minister of Pitsligo in Aberdeenshire, a charge which he left in 1638 for that of Newbattle in Mid-Lothian. In July of that year he went with other commissioners to Aberdeen in the vain attempt to induce the university and the presbytery of that city to subscribe the National Covenant, and in the following November sat in the general assembly at Glasgow which abolished episcopacy in Scotland. In 1640 he was chaplain to the Scottish army and then settled as minister at Aberdeen. Though a stanch Covenanter, he was a zealous Royalist, preaching before Charles I. in Edinburgh, and stoutly advocating the restoration of the monarchy in the time of the Commonwealth. Cant’s frequent and bitter attacks on various members of his congregation led in 1660 to complaints laid before the magistrates, in consequence of which he resigned his charge. His son Andrew was principal of Edinburgh University (1675-1685).

CANT, (1) (Possibly through the Fr. from Lat. cantos, corner), in architecture, a term used where the corner of a square is cut off, octagonally or otherwise. Thus a bay window, the sides of which are not parallel, or at right angles to the spectator, is said to be canted. (2) (From the Lat. cantare, to sing, very early in use, in a depreciatory sense, of religious services), a word appearing in English in the 16th century ‘for the whining speech of beggars; hence it is applied to thieves’ or gipsies’ jargon, to the peculiar language of any class or sect, to any current phrase or turn of language, and particularly to the hypocritical use of pious phraseology.

CANTABRI, an ancient tribe which inhabited the north coast of Spain near Santander and Bilbao and the mountains behind—a district hence known as Cantabria. Savage and untameable mountaineers, they long defied the Roman arms and made themselves a name for wild freedom. They were first attacked by the Romans about 150 b.c.; they were not subdued till Agrippa and Augustus had carried out a series of campaigns (29-19 b.c.) which ended in their partial annihilation. Thenceforward their land was part of the province Hispania Tarraconensis with some measure of local self-government. They became slowly Romanized, but developed little town life and are rarely mentioned in history. They provided recruits for the Roman auxilia, like their neighbours the Astŭres, and their land contained lead mines, of which, however, little is known.

CANTABRIAN MOUNTAINS (Span. Cordillera Cantabrica), a mountain chain which extends for more than 300 m. across northern Spain, from the western limit of the Pyrenees to the borders of Galicia, and on or near the coast of the Bay of Biscay. The Cantabrians stretch from east to west, nearly parallel to the sea, as far as the pass of Leitariegos, afterwards trending southward between Leon and Galicia. Their western boundary is marked by the valley of the river Miño (Portuguese Minho), by the lower Sil, which flows into the Miño, and by the Cabrera, a small tributary of the Sil. Some geographers regard the mountains of Galicia beyond the Miño as an integral part of the same system; others confine the name to the eastern half of the highlands between Galicia and the Pyrenees, and call their western half the Asturian Mountains. There are also many local names for the subsidiary ranges within the chain. As a whole, the Cantabrian Mountains are remarkable for their intricate ramifications, but almost everywhere, and especially in the east, it is possible to distinguish two principal ranges, from which the lesser ridges and mountain masses radiate. One range, or series of ranges, closely follows the outline of the coast; the other, which is loftier, forms the northern limit of the great tableland of Castile and Leon, and is sometimes regarded as a continuation of the Pyrenees. The coastal range rises in some parts sheer above the sea, and everywhere has so abrupt a declivity that the streams which flow seaward are all short and swift. The descent from the southern range to the high plateaus of Castile is more gradual, and several large rivers, notably the Ebro, rise here and flow to the south or west. The breadth of the Cantabrian chain, with all its ramifications, increases from about 60 m. in the east to about 115 m. in the west. Many peaks are upwards of 6000 ft. high, but the greatest altitudes are attained in the central ridges on the borders of Leon, Oviedo, Palencia and Santander. Here are the Peña Vieja (8743 ft.), Prieta (8304 ft.) and Espinguete (7898 ft.); an unnamed summit in the Peñas de Europa, to which range the Peña Vieja also belongs, rises on the right bank of the Sella to a height of 8045 ft.; farther west the peaks of Manipodre, Ubiña, Rubia and Cuiña all exceed 7000 ft. A conspicuous feature of the chain, as of the adjacent tableland, is the number of its parameras, isolated plateaus shut in by lofty mountains or even by precipitous walls of rock. At the south-western extremity of the chain is el Vierzo, once a lake-bed, now a valley drained by the upper Sil and enclosed by mountains which bifurcate from the main range south of the pass of Leitariegos—the Sierra de Justredo and Montañas de Leon curving towards the east and south-west, the Sierra de Picos, Sierra del Caurel and other ranges curving towards the west and south-east. The Cantabrians are rich in coal and iron; an account of their geological structure is given under Spain. They are crossed at many points by good roads and in their eastern half by several railways. In the west, near the pass of Pájares, the railway from Leon to Gijón passes through the Perruca tunnel, which is 2 m. long and 4200 ft. above sea-level; the railway descends northward through fifty-eight smaller tunnels. The line from Leon to Orense also traverses a remarkable series of tunnels, bridges and deep cuttings.

CANTACUZINO, Cantacuzen or Cantacuzene, the name of a family which traces its origin to the Byzantine emperors and writers of the same name (see under John V., Cantacuzene). The founder of the family, Andronik, migrated to Rumania in 1633, and from his two sons Constantine and Gheorge sprang the two principal lines which afterwards branched into numerous families of nobles and high dignitaries, including hospodars (rulers) of Walachia and Moldavia. The Cantacuzinos were represented in every branch of administration and in the world of letters. Under their influence the Rumanian language and literature in the 17th century reached their highest development. Among the more prominent members of the family the following may be mentioned, (1) Sherban Cantacuzino (1640-1688), appointed hospodar of Walachia in 1679. He served under the Turks in the siege of Vienna, and when they were defeated it is alleged that he conceived the plan of marching on Constantinople to drive the Turks out of Europe, the western powers having promised him their moral support. In the midst of his preparations he died suddenly, poisoned, it is said, by the boyars who were afraid of his vast plans. Far more important was his activity in economic and literary directions. He introduced the maize into Rumania; it is now the staple food of the country. He founded the first Rumanian school in Bucharest; he assisted liberally in the establishment of various printing offices; and under his auspices the famous Rumanian Bible appeared in Bucharest in 1688. Through his influence also the Slavonic language was officially and finally abolished from the liturgy and the Rumanian language substituted for it. (2) Stefan Cantacuzino, son of Constantine, prince of Walachia, 1714-1716. (3) Demetrius Cantacuzino, prince of Moldavia, 1674-1676. He left an unsatisfactory record. Descendants of Demetrius and Sherban have emigrated to Russia, and held high positions there as governors of Bessarabia and in other responsible posts. (4) Of the Moldavian Cantacuzinos, Theodore is well known as a chronicler of his times (c. 1740). (5) Gheorge Cantacuzino (b. 1837), son of Gregori (1800-1849). He was appointed in 1870 minister of public instruction in Rumania; in 1889, president of the chamber; in 1892, president of the senate; from 1899 he was head of the Conservative party, and from 1905 to 1907 prime minister (see also Rumania: History).

(M. G.)

CANTAGALLO, an inland town of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, about 100 m. by rail N.E. of the port of Rio de Janeiro, with which it is connected by the Cantagallo railway. Pop. (1890) of the municipality, 26,067, of whom less than one-fourth live in the town. Cantagallo is situated in the fertile Parahyba valley and is the commercial centre of a rich coffee-producing district. There are exhausted gold placer mines in its vicinity, but they were not rich enough to cause any considerable development in mining. Coffee production is the principal industry, but sugar-cane is grown to a limited extent, and some attention is given to the raising of cattle and swine. The district is an excellent fruit region.

CANTAL, a department of central France, formed from Haute-Auvergne, the southern portion of the old province of Auvergne. It is bounded N. by the department of Puy-de-Dôme, E. by Haute-Loire, S.E. by Lozère, S. by Aveyron and Lozère, and W. by Corrèze and Lot. Area 2231 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 228,600. Cantal is situated in the middle of the central plateau of France. It takes its name from the Monts du Cantal, a volcanic group occupying its central region, and continued towards the north and east by ranges of lower altitude. The Plomb du Cantal, the culminating summit of the department, attains a height of 6096 ft.; and its neighbours, the Puy Mary and the Puy Chavaroche, attain a height of 5863 and 5722 ft. respectively. Immediately to the east of this central mass lies the lofty but fertile plateau of Planèze, which merges into the Monts de la Margeride on the eastern border. The valley of the Truyère skirts the Planèze on the south and divides it from the Monts d’Aubrac, at the foot of which lies Chaudesaigues, noted for its thermal springs, the most important in the department. Northwards the Monts du Cantal are connected with the Monts Dore by the volcanic range of Cézallier and the arid plateaus of Artense. In the west of the department grassy plateaus and beautiful river valleys slope gently down from the central heights. Most of the streams of the department have their sources in this central ridge and fall by a short and rapid course into the rivers which traverse the extensive valleys on either side. The principal rivers are the Alagnon, a tributary of the Allier; the Celle and Truyère, tributaries of the Lot; and the Cère and Rue, tributaries of the Dordogne. The climate of the department varies considerably in the different localities. In the alluvial plain between Murat and St Flour, and in the south-west in the arrondissement of Aurillac, it is generally mild and dry; but in the northern and central portions the winters are long and severe and the hurricanes peculiarly violent. The cold and damp of the climate in these districts are great obstacles to the cultivation of wheat, but rye and buckwheat are grown in considerable quantities, and in natural pasture Cantal is extremely rich. Cattle are accordingly reared with profit, especially around Salers and in the Monts d’Aubrac, while butter and Roquefort cheese are made in large quantities. Large flocks of sheep pasture in the Monts d’Aubrac and elsewhere in the department; goats are also reared. The inhabitants are simple and primitive and accustomed to live on the scantiest fare. Many of them migrate for part of the year to Paris and the provinces, where they engage in the humblest occupations. The principal articles of food are rye, buckwheat and chestnuts. The internal resources of the department are considerable; but the difficulty of land-carriage prevents them being sufficiently developed. The hills and valleys abound with game and the streams with fish. Cantal produces a vast variety of aromatic and medicinal plants; and its mineral products include coal, antimony and lime. The department has no prominent manufactures. Live-stock, cheese, butter and coal are the principal exports; coal, wine, cereals, flour and earthenware are imported. The department is served by the railways of the Orléans and Southern companies, the construction of which at some points demanded considerable engineering skill, notably in the case of the viaduct of Garabit spanning the gorge of the Truyère. Cantal is divided into four arrondissements—Aurillac, Mauriac, Murat and St Flour—23 cantons and 267 communes. It belongs to the region of the XIII. army corps and to the académie (educational division) of Clermont-Ferrand. Its bishopric is at St Flour and depends on the archbishopric of Bourges. Its court of appeal is at Riom. The capital is Aurillac (q.v.), and St Flour (q.v.) is the other principal town.

CANTARINI, SIMONE (1612-1648), called Simone da Pesaro, painter and etcher, was born at Oropezza near Pesaro in 1612. He was a disciple of Guido Reni and a fellow-student of Domenichino and Albano. The irritability of his temper and his vanity were extreme; and it is said that his death, which took place at Verona in 1648, was occasioned by chagrin at his failure in a portrait of the duke of Mantua. Others relate that he was poisoned by a Mantuan painter whom he had injured. His pictures, though masterly and spirited, are deficient in originality. Some of his works have been mistaken for examples of Guido Reni, to whom, indeed, he is by some considered superior in the extremities of the figures. Among his principal paintings are “St Anthony,” at Cagli; the “Magdalene,” at Pesaro; the “Transfiguration,” in the Brera Gallery, Milan; the “Portrait of Guido,” in the Bologna gallery; and “St Romuald,” in the Casa Paolucci. His most celebrated etching is “Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, honouring the arms of Cardinal Borghese.”

CANTATA (Italian for a song or story set to music), a vocal composition accompanied by instruments and generally containing more than one movement. In the 16th century, when all serious music was vocal, the term had no reason to exist, but with the rise of instrumental music in the 17th century cantatas began to exist under that name as soon as the instrumental art was definite enough to be embodied in sonatas. From the middle of the 17th till late in the 18th century a favourite form of Italian chamber music was the cantata for one or two solo voices, with accompaniment of harpsichord and perhaps a few other solo instruments. It consisted at first of a declamatory narrative or scene in recitative, held together by a primitive aria repeated at intervals. Fine examples may be found in the church music of Carissimi; and the English vocal solos of Purcell (such as Mad Tom and Mad Bess) show the utmost that can be made of this archaic form. With the rise of the Da Capo aria the cantata became a group of two or three arias joined by recitative. Handel’s numerous Italian duets and trios are examples on a rather large scale. His Latin motet Silete Venti, for soprano solo, shows the use of this form in church music.

The Italian solo cantata naturally tended, when on a large scale, to become indistinguishable from a scene in an opera. In the same way the church cantata, solo or choral, is indistinguishable from a small oratorio or portion of an oratorio. This is equally evident whether we examine the unparalleled church cantatas of Bach, of which nearly 200 are extant, or the Chandos Anthems of Handel. In Bach’s case many of the larger cantatas are actually called oratorios; and the Christmas Oratorio is a collection of six church cantatas actually intended for performance on six different days, though together forming as complete an artistic whole as any classical oratorio.

The essential point, however, in Bach’s church cantatas is that they formed part of a church service, and moreover of a service in which the organization of the music was far more coherent than is possible in the Anglican church. Many of Bach’s greatest cantatas begin with an elaborate chorus followed by a couple of arias and recitatives, and end with a plain chorale. This has often been commented upon as an example of Bach’s indifference to artistic climax in the work as a whole. But no one will maintain this who realizes the place which the church cantata occupied in the Lutheran church service. The text was carefully based upon the gospel or lessons for the day; unless the cantata was short the sermon probably took place after the first chorus or one of the arias, and the congregation joined in the final chorale. Thus the unity of the service was the unity of the music; and, in the cases where all the movements of the cantata were founded on one and the same chorale-tune, this unity has never been equalled, except by those 16th-century masses and motets which are founded upon the Gregorian tones of the festival for which they are written.

In modern times the term cantata is applied almost exclusively to choral, as distinguished from solo vocal music. There has, perhaps, been only one kind of cantata since Bach which can be recognized as an art form and not as a mere title for works otherwise impossible to classify. It is just possible to recognize as a distinct artistic type that kind of early 19th-century cantata in which the chorus is the vehicle for music more lyric and songlike than the oratorio style, though at the same time not excludeing the possibility of a brilliant climax in the shape of a light order of fugue. Beethoven’s Glorreiche Augenblick is a brilliant “pot-boiler” in this style; Weber’s Jubel Cantata is a typical specimen, and Mendelssohn’s Walpurgisnacht is the classic. Mendelssohn’s “Symphony Cantata,” the Lobgesang, is a hybrid work, partly in the oratorio style. It is preceded by three symphonic movements, a device avowedly suggested by Beethoven’s ninth symphony; but the analogy is not accurate, as Beethoven’s work is a symphony of which the fourth movement is a choral finale of essentially single design, whereas Mendelssohn’s “Symphony Cantata” is a cantata with three symphonic preludes. The full lyric possibilities of a string of choral songs were realized at last by Brahms in his Rinaldo, set to a text which Goethe wrote at the same time as he wrote that of the Walpurgisnacht. The point of Brahms’s work (his only experiment in this genre) has naturally been lost by critics who expected in so voluminous a composition the qualities of an elaborate choral music with which it has nothing whatever to do. Brahms has probably said the last word on this subject; and the remaining types of cantata (beginning with Beethoven’s Meeres-stille, and including most of Brahms’s and many notable English small choral works) are merely so many different ways of setting to choral music a poem which is just too long to be comprised in one movement.

(D. F. T.)

CANTEEN (through the Fr. cantine, from Ital. cantina, a cellar), a word chiefly used in a military sense for an official sutler’s shop, where provisions, &c., are sold to soldiers. The word was formerly applied also to portable equipments for carrying liquors and food, or for cooking in the field. Another sense of the word, which has survived to the present day, is that of a soldier’s water-bottle, or of a small wooden or metal can for carying a workman’s liquor, &c.

CANTEMIR, the name of a celebrated family of Tatar origin, which came from the Crimea in the 17th century and settled in Moldavia.

Constantine Cantemir became a prince of Moldavia, 1685-1693. He was a good and conscientious ruler, who protected the people from the rapacity of the tax-gatherers and introduced peace into his country. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Antioch, who ruled twice, 1696-1700 and 1705-1707.

His youngest brother, Demetrius or Demeter Cantemir (b. October 26, 1673), was made prince of Moldavia in 1710; he ruled only one year, 1710-1711, when he joined Peter the Great in his campaign against the Turks and placed Moldavia under Russian suzerainty. Beaten by the Turks, Cantemir emigrated to Russia, where he and his family finally settled. He died at Kharkov in 1723. He was known as one of the greatest linguists of his time, speaking and writing eleven languages, and being well versed in Oriental scholarship. He was a voluminous and original writer of great sagacity and deep penetration, and his writings range over many subjects. The best known is his History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire. He also wrote a history of oriental music, which is no longer extant; the first critical history of Moldo-Walachia; the first geographical, ethnographical and economic description of Moldavia, Descriptio Moldaviae, under the name of Historia Hieroglyphica, to which he furnished a key, and in which the principal persons are represented by animals; also the history of the two ruling houses of Brancovan and Cantacuzino; and a philosophical treatise on the old theme of the disputation between soul and body, written in Greek and Rumanian under the title Divanul Lumii.

The latter’s son, Antioch Cantemir (born in Moldavia, 1700; died in Paris, 1744), became in 1731 Russian minister in Great Britain, and in 1736 minister plenipotentiary in Paris. He brought to London the Latin MS. from whence the English translation of his father’s history of the Turkish empire was made by N. Tindal, London, 1756, to which he added an exhaustive biography and bibliography of the author (pp. 455-460). He was a Russian poet and almost the first author of satires in modern Russian literature.

Bibliography.—Operele Principelui D. Cantemir, ed. Academia Română (1872 foll.); A. Philippide, Introducere in istoria limbei si literat. romane (Iasi, 1888), pp. 192-202; O.G. Lecca, Familiile boeresti romane (Bukarest, 1898), pp. 144-148; M. Gaster, Chrestom. româna, i. 322, 359 (in Cyrillic).

(M. G.)

CANTERBURY, CHARLES MANNERS-SUTTON, 1st Viscount (1780-1845), speaker of the House of Commons, was the elder son of Charles Manners-Sutton (q.v.), afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and was born on the 29th of January 1780. Educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, he graduated B.A. in 1802, and was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1806. At the general election of this year he was returned to parliament in the Tory interest as member for Scarborough, and in 1809 became judge-advocate-general in the ministry of Spencer Perceval. He retained this position until June 1817, when he was elected speaker in succession to Charles Abbot, created Baron Colchester, refusing to exchange this office in 1827 for that of home secretary. In 1832 he abandoned Scarborough and was returned to parliament as one of the members for the university of Cambridge. Before the general election of 1832 Manners-Sutton had intimated his desire to retire from the position of speaker and had been voted an annuity of £4000 a year. The ministry of Earl Grey, however, reluctant to meet the reformed House of Commons with a new and inexperienced occupant of the chair, persuaded him to retain his office, and in 1833 he was elected speaker for the seventh time. Some feeling had been shown against him on this occasion owing to his Tory proclivities, and the Whigs frequently complained that outside the House he was a decided partisan. The result was that when a new parliament met in February 1835 a sharp contest ensued for the speakership, and Manners-Sutton was defeated by James Abercromby, afterwards Lord Dunfermline. In March 1835 the retiring speaker was raised to the peerage as Baron Bottesford and Viscount Canterbury. In 1835 he was appointed high commissioner for Canada, but owing to domestic reasons he never undertook the appointment. He died in London on the 21st of July 1845 and was buried at Addington. His first wife was Lucy (d. 1815), daughter of John Denison of Ossington, by whom he had two sons and a daughter. Both his sons, Charles John (1812-1869), and John Henry Thomas (1814-1877), succeeded in turn to the viscounty. By his second wife, Ellen (d. 1845), widow of John Home-Purves, he had a daughter.