VOLUME VII SLICE IV Coquelin to Costume (continued 6)

CORONA (Lat. for “crown”), in astronomy, the exterior envelope of the sun, being beyond the photosphere and chromosphere, invisible in the telescope and unrecognized by the spectroscope, except during a total eclipse (see Sun; Eclipse).

Corona Borealis, also known as the Corona septentrionalis, and the Northern Crown or Garland, is a constellation of the Northern hemisphere, mentioned by Eudoxus (4th cent. B.C.) and Aratus (3rd cent. B.C.). In the catalogues of Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, and Hevelius, eight stars are mentioned; but recent uranographic surveys have greatly increased this number. The most interesting members are: σ Coronae, a binary consisting of a yellow star of the 6th magnitude, and a bluish star of the 7th magnitude; R Coronae, an irregular variable star; and T Coronae or Nova Coronae, a temporary or new star, first observed in 1866. Corona Australis, also known as Corona meridionalis, or the Southern Crown, is a constellation of the Southern hemisphere, mentioned by Eudoxus and Aratus. In Ptolemy’s catalogue thirteen stars are described.

In physical science, coronae (or “glories”) are the coloured rings frequently seen closely encircling the sun or moon. Formerly classified by the ancient Greeks with halos, rainbows, &c., under the general group of “meteors,” they came to receive considerable attention at the hands of Descartes, Christiaan Huygens, and Sir Isaac Newton; but the correct explanation of coronae was reserved until the beginning of the 19th century, when Thomas Young applied the theories of the diffraction and interference of light to this phenomenon. Prior to Young, halos and coronae had not been clearly differentiated; they were both regarded as caused by the refraction of light by atmospheric moisture and ice, although observation had shown that important distinctions existed between these phenomena. Thus, while halos have certain definite radii, viz. 22° and 46°, the radii of coronae vary very considerably; also, halos are coloured red on the inside, whereas coronae are coloured red on the outside (see Halo).

It has now been firmly established, both experimentally and mathematically, that coronae are due to diffraction by the minute particles of moisture and dust suspended in the atmosphere, and the radii of the rings depend on the size of the diffracting particles. (See Diffraction of Light.)

Other meteorological phenomena caused by the diffraction of light include the anthelia, and the chromatic rings seen encircling shadows thrown on a bank of clouds, mist or fog. These appearances differ from halos and coronae inasmuch as their centres are at the anti-solar point; they thus resemble the rainbow. The anthelia (from the Greek ἀντί, opposite, and ἥλιος, the sun) are coloured red on the inside, the outside being generally colourless owing to the continued overlapping of many spectra. The diameter increases with the size of the globules making up the mist. The chromatic rings seen encircling the “spectre of the Brocken” are similarly explained.

The blue colour of the sky (q.v.), supernumerary rainbows, and the gorgeous sunsets observed after intense volcanic disturbances, when the atmosphere is charged with large quantities of extremely minute dust particles (e.g. Krakatoa), are also explicable by the diffraction of light. (See Dust.)

See E. Mascart, Traité d’optique (1899-1903); J. Pernter, Meteorologische Optik (1902-1905).

In architecture, the term “corona” is used of that part of a cornice which projects over the bed mould and constitutes the chief protection to the wall from rain; it is always throated, and its soffit rises towards the wall. The term is also given to the apse or semicircular termination of the choir; as at Canterbury in the part called “Becket’s crown.” The large circular chandelier suspended in churches, of which the finest example is that given by Barbarossa to Aix-la-Chapelle, is often called a corona. The term is also used in botany of the crown-like appendage at the top of compound flowers, the diminutive being coronule.

CORONACH (a Gaelic word, from comh, with, and ranach, wailing), the lamentation or dirge for the dead which accompanied funerals in the Highlands of Scotland and in Ireland. The more usual term in Ireland is “keen” or “keening.”

CORONADO, FRANCISCO VASQUEZ DE (c. 1500-c. 1545), Spanish explorer of the south-western part of the United States of America. He accompanied Antonio de Mendoza to New Spain in 1535; by a brilliant marriage, became a leading grandee, and in 1539 was appointed governor of the province of New Galicia. The report presented by Fray Marcos de Niza concerning the “Seven cities of Cibola” (now identified almost certainly with the Zuñi pueblos of New Mexico) aroused great interest in Mexico; Melchior Diaz was sent late in 1539 to retrace Fray Marcos’s route and report on his story; and an expedition under Coronado left Compostela for the “Seven Cities” in February 1540. This expedition consisted of a provision train and droves of live-stock; several hundred friendly Indians, Spanish footmen, and more than 250 horsemen. Coronado, with a part of this force, captured the “Seven Cities.” The fabled wealth, however, was not there. In the autumn (1540) Coronado was joined by the rest of his army. Meanwhile exploring parties were sent out: Tusayan, the Hopi or Moki (Moqui) country of north-eastern Arizona, was visited; Garcia Lopez de Cardenas discovered and described the Grand Canyon of the Colorado; and expeditions were sent along the Rio Grande (Tuguez), where the army wintered. The Indians revolted but were put down. The army, reinspirited by the tales of a plains-Indian slave1 about vast herds of cows (bison) on the plains, and about an Eldorado called “Quivira” far to the N.E., started thither in April 1541, and, with a few horsemen, penetrated at least to what is now central Kansas. Here Coronado found a few permanent settlements of Indians; in October he was again on the Rio Grande; and in the spring of 1542 he led his followers home. Thereafter he practically disappears from history. The first description of the bison and the prairie plains, the first trustworthy account of the Zuñi pueblos, the discovery of the Grand Canyon, a vast increase of the nominal dominion of Spain and Christianity (the priests did not return from Cibola), and a notable addition to geographical knowledge, which, however, was long forgotten, were the results of this expedition; which is, besides, for its duration and the vast distance covered, over mountains, desert and plains, one of the most remarkable expeditions in the history of American discovery. In connexion with it, in 1540, Hernando de Alarcon ascended the Gulf of California to its head and the Colorado river for a long distance above its mouth.

All the essential sources with a critical narrative are available in G. P. Winship’s The Coronado Expedition (in the 14th Report of the United States Bureau of Ethnology, for 1892-1893, Washington, 1896), except the Tratado del descubrimiento de las Yndias y su conquesta of Juan Suarez de Peralta (written in the last third of the 16th century, republished at Madrid, 1878). See also especially Justo Zaragoza, Noticias historicas de la Nueva España (Madrid, 1878), the various writings of A. F. A. Bandelier (q.v.); General J. H. Simpson in Smithsonian Institution Report (Washington, 1869), with an excellent map; and Winship for a full bibliography. H. H. Bancroft’s account in his Pacific States (vols. 5, 10, 12) is less authoritative.

CORONATION (Lat. corona, crown), a solemnity whereby sovereigns are inaugurated in office. In pre-Christian times in Europe the king or ruler, upon his election, was raised on a shield, and, standing upon it, was borne on the shoulders of certain of the chief men of the tribe, or nation, round the assembled people. This was called the gyratio, and it was usually performed three times. At its conclusion a spear was placed in the king’s hand, and the diadem, a richly wrought band of silk or linen, which must not be confused with the crown (see Crown and Coronet), was bound round his forehead, as a token of regal authority. When Europe became Christian, a religious service of benediction was added to the older form, which, however, was not abandoned. Derived from the Teutons, the Franks continued the gyratio, and Clovis, Sigebert, Pippin and others were thus elevated to the royal estate. From a combination of the old custom with the religious service, the later coronation ceremonies were gradually developed. In the ceremonial procession of the English king from the Tower to Westminster (first abandoned at the coronation of James II.), in the subsequent elevation of the king into what was known as the marble chair in Westminster Hall, and in the showing of the king of France to the people, as also in the universal practice of delivering a sceptre to the new ruler, traces, it is thought, may be detected of the influence of the original function.

The added religious service was naturally derived from the Bible, where mention is frequently made, in the Old Testament, of the anointing and crowning of kings. The anointing of the king soon came to be regarded as the most important, if not essential, feature of the service. By virtue of the unction which he received, the sovereign was regarded, in the middle ages, as a mixta persona, in part a priest, and in part a layman. It was a strange theory, and Lyndwode, the great English canonist, is cautious as to it, and was content to say that it was the opinion of some people. It gained very wide acceptance, and the anointed sovereign was generally regarded as, in some degree, possessed of the priestly character. By virtue of the unction he had received, the emperor was made a canon of St John Lateran and of St Peter at Rome, and also of the collegiate church of Aachen, while the king of France was premier chanoine of the primatial church of Lyons, and held canonries at Embrun, Le Mans, Montpellier, St Pol-de-Léon, Lodève, and other cathedral churches in France. There are, moreover, trustworthy records that, on more than one occasion, a king of France, habited in a surplice and choir robes, took part with the clergy in the services of some of those churches. Martène quotes an order, which directs that at the imperial coronation at Rome, the pope ought to sing the mass, the emperor read the gospel, and the king of Sicily, or if present the king of France, the epistle. Nothing like this was known in England, and a theory, which has prevailed of late, that the English sovereign is, in a personal sense, canon of St David’s, is based on a misconception. The canonry in question was attached to St Mary’s College at St David’s before the Reformation, and, at the dissolution of the college, became crown property, which it has remained ever since; but the king of England is not, and never was personally, a canon of St David’s, nor did he ever perform any quasi-clerical function.

At first a single anointing on the head was the practice, but afterwards other parts of the body, as the breast, arms, shoulders and hands received the unction. From a very early period in the West three kinds of oil have been blessed each year on Maundy Thursday, the oil of the catechumens, the oil of the sick, and the chrism. The last, a compound of olive oil and balsam, is only used for the most sacred purposes, and the oil of the catechumens was that used for the unction of kings. In France, however, a legend gained credence that, as a special sign of divine favour, the Holy Dove had miraculously descended from heaven, bearing a vessel (afterwards called the Sainte Ampoule), containing holy oil, and had placed it on the altar for the coronation of Clovis. A drop of oil from the Sainte Ampoule mixed with chrism was afterwards used for anointing the kings of France. Similarly the chrism was introduced into English coronations, for the first time probably at the coronation of Edward II. To rival the French story another miracle was related that the Virgin Mary had appeared to Thomas Becket, and had given him a vessel with holy oil, which at some future period was to be used for the sacring of the English king. A full account of this miracle, and the subsequent finding of the vessel, is contained in a letter written in 1318 by Pope John XXII. to Edward II. The chrism was used in addition to the holy oil. The king was first anointed with the oil, and then signed on the head with the chrism. In all other countries the oil of the catechumens was alone used. In consequence of the use of chrism the kings of England and France were thought to be able to cure scrofula by the imposition of their hands, and hence arose the practice in those countries of touching for the king’s evil, as it was called. In England the chrism disappeared at the Reformation, but touching for the evil was continued till the accession of the house of Hanover in 1714.

The oldest of all existing rituals for the coronation of a king is contained in what is known as the Pontifical of Egbert, who was archbishop of York in the middle of the 8th century. The coronation service in it is entitled Missa pro rege in die benedictionis ejus, and the coronation ceremony is interpolated in the middle of the mass. After the Gospel the officiant recites some prayers of benediction, and then pours oil from a horn on the king’s head, while the anthem “Zadok the priest,” &c., is sung. After this the assembled bishops and nobles place a sceptre in the king’s hands, while a form of intercessory benediction is recited. Then the staff (baculus) is delivered to him, and finally a helmet (galea) is set upon his head, the whole assembly repeating thrice “May King N. live for ever. Amen. Amen. Amen.” The enthronement follows, with the kisses of homage and of fealty, and the mass, with special prayers, is concluded.

Another coronation service of Anglo-Saxon date bearing, but with no good reason, the name of Æthelred II., has also been preserved, and is of importance as it spread from England to the continent, and was used for the coronations of the kings of France. It differs from the Egbert form as the coronation precedes the mass, while the use of a ring, and the definite allusion to a crown (corona not galea) occur in it. Joined to it is the form for the coronation of a queen consort. It may have been used for the crowning of Harold and of William the Conqueror.

A third English coronation form, of the 12th century, bears the name of Henry I., but also without good reason. The ceremonial is more fully developed, and the king is anointed on the head, breast, shoulders and elbows. The royal mantle appears for the first time, as does the sceptre. The queen consort is to be crowned secundum ordinem Romanum, and the whole function precedes the mass.

The fourth and most important of all English coronation services is that of the Liber Regalis, a manuscript still in the keeping of the dean of Westminster. It was introduced in 1307, and continued in use till the Reformation, and, in an English translation and with the Communion service substituted for the Latin mass, it was used for the coronation of James I. In it the English coronation ceremonies reached their fullest development. The following is a bare outline of its main features:—

The ceremonies began the day before the coronation, the king being ceremonially conducted in a procession from the Tower of London to Westminster. There he reposed for the night, and was instructed by the abbot as to the solemn obligations of the kingly office. Early next morning he went to Westminster Hall, and there, among other ceremonies, as rex regnaturus was elevated into a richly adorned seat on the king’s bench, called the Marble Chair. Then a procession with the regalia was marshalled, and led into the abbey church, the king wearing a cap of estate on his head, and supported by the bishops of Bath and Durham. A platform with thrones, &c., having been previously prepared under the crossing, the king ascended it, and all being in order, the archbishop of Canterbury called for the Recognition, after which the king, approaching the high altar, offered a pall to cover it, and a pound of gold. Then a sermon appropriate to the occasion was preached by one of the bishops, the oath was administered by the archbishop, and the Veni Creator and a litany were sung. Then the king was anointed with oil on his hands, breast, between the shoulders, on the shoulders, on the elbows, and on the head; finally he was anointed with the chrism on his head. Thus blessed and anointed, the king was vested, first with a silk dalmatic, called the colobium sindonis, then a long tunic, reaching to the ankles and woven with great golden images before and behind, was put upon him. He then received the buskins (caligae), the sandals (sandalia), and spurs (calcaria), then the sword and its girdle; after this the stole, and finally the royal mantle, four-square in shape and woven throughout with golden eagles. Thus vested, the crown of St Edward was set on his head, the ring placed on his wedding finger, the gloves drawn over his hands, and the golden sceptre, in form of an orb and cross, delivered to him. Lastly, the golden rod with the dove at the top was placed in the king’s left hand. Thus consecrated, vested and crowned, the king kissed the bishops who, assisted by the nobles, enthroned him, while the Te Deum was sung. When a queen consort was also crowned, that ceremony immediately followed, and the mass with special collect, epistle, gospel and preface was said, and during it both king and queen received the sacrament in one kind. At the conclusion the king retired to a convenient place, surrounded with curtains, where the great chamberlain took off certain of the robes, and substituted others for them, and the archbishop, still wearing his mass vestments, set other crowns on the heads of the king and queen, and with these they left the church.

This service, in English, was used at the coronation of James I., Elizabeth having been crowned with the Latin service. Little change was made till 1685, when it was considerably altered for the coronation of James II. The Communion was necessarily omitted in the case of a Roman Catholic, but other changes were introduced quite needlessly by Archbishop Sancroft, and four years later the old order was still more seriously changed, with the result that the revisions of 1685 and 1689 have grievously mutilated the service, by confusing the order of its different sections, while the meaning of the prayers has been completely changed for no apparent reason. Alterations since then have been verbal rather than essential, but at each subsequent coronation some feature has disappeared, the proper preface having been abandoned at the coronation of Edward VII.

In connexion with the English coronation a number of claims to do certain services have sprung up, and before each coronation a court of claims is constituted, which investigates and adjudicates on the claims that are made. The most striking of all these services is that of the challenge made by the king’s champion, an office which has been hereditary in the Dymoke family for many centuries. Immediately following the service in the church a banquet was held in Westminster Hall, during the first course of which the champion entered the hall on horseback, armed cap-à-pie, with red, white and blue feathers in his helmet. He was supported by the high constable on his right, and the earl marshal on his left, both of whom were also mounted. On his appearance in the hall a herald in front of him read the challenge, the words of which have not materially varied at any period, as follows: “If any person, of what degree soever, high or low, shall deny or gainsay our sovereign lord ..., king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith (son and), next heir unto our sovereign lord the last king deceased, to be the right heir to the imperial crown of this realm of Great Britain and Ireland, or that he ought not to enjoy the same; here is his champion, who saith that he lieth, and is a false traitor, being ready in person to combat with him; and in this quarrel will adventure his life against him, on what day soever he shall be appointed.” The champion then threw down the gauntlet. The challenge was again made in the centre of the hall, and a third time before the high table, at which the king was seated. The king then drank to the champion out of a silver-gilt cup, with a cover, which he handed to him as his fee. The banquet was last held, and the challenge made, at the coronation of George IV. in 1821. The champion’s claim was admitted in 1902, but as there was no banquet the duty of bearing the standard of England was assigned to him. There is no record of the challenge having been ever accepted.

The revival of the western empire under Charlemagne was marked by his coronation by the pope at Rome in the year 800. His successors, for several centuries, went to Rome, where they received the imperial crown in St Peter’s from the pope, the crown of Lombardy being conferred in the church of St Ambrose (Sant’ Ambrogio) at Milan, that of Burgundy at Arles, and the German crown, which came to be the most important of all, most commonly at Aix-la-Chapelle. It must suffice to speak of the coronations at Rome and Aix-la-Chapelle. From Martène we learn the early form of the ceremony at Rome. The emperor was met at the silver door of St Peter’s, where the first coronation prayer was recited over him by the bishop of Albano. He was then conducted within the church, where in medio rotae majoris, the bishop Of Porto said the second prayer. Thence the emperor went to the confessio of St Peter, where the litany was said, and there, or before the altar of St Maurice, the bishop of Ostia anointed him on the right arm and between the shoulders. Then he ascended to the high altar, where the pope delivered the naked sword to him. This he flourished, and then sheathed in its scabbard. The pope then delivered the sceptre to the emperor, and placed the crown on his head. The ceremony was concluded by the coronation mass said by the pope. The custom of the emperors going to Rome to be crowned was last observed by Frederick III. in 1440, and after that the German coronation was alone celebrated. The form followed was mainly thus: the electors first met at Frankfort, under the presidency of the elector-archbishop of Mainz, and, the election having been made, the emperor was led to the high altar of the cathedral and seated at it. He was then conducted to a gallery over the entrance to the choir, where, seating himself with the electors, proclamation was made of the election, and on a subsequent day the coronation took place. If the coronation was performed, as it most commonly was, at Aix-la-Chapelle, then the archbishop of Cologne, as diocesan, was the chief officiant, and the emperor was presented to him by the two other clerical electors, the archbishops of Mainz and Trier. The emperor was anointed on the head, the nape of the neck, the breast, the right arm between the wrist and the elbow, and on the palms of both hands. After this, he was vested in what were called the imperial and pontifical robes, which included the buskins, a long alb, the stole crossed priest-wise over the breast, and the mantle. The regalia were then delivered to him, and the crown was set on his head conjointly by the three archbishop-electors. Mass was then said, during which the emperor communicated in one kind. When the coronation was performed at Aix-la-Chapelle, the emperor was at once made, at its conclusion, a canon of the church.

The coronation form in France bore much resemblance, in its general features, to the English coronation, and was, it is believed originally based on the English form. The unction was given, first on the top of the head in the form of a cross, on the breast, between the shoulders, and at the bending and joints of both arms. Then, standing up, the king was vested in the dalmatic, tunic and royal robe, all of purple velvet sprinkled with fleurs-de-lys of gold, and representing, it was said, the three orders of subdeacon, deacon and priest. Then, kneeling again, he was anointed in the palms of the hands, after which the gloves, ring and sceptre were delivered. Then the peers were summoned by name to come near and assist, and the archbishop of Reims, taking the crown of Charlemagne from the altar, set it on the king’s head. After which the enthronement, and showing of the king to the people, took place. All the unctions were made with the chrism, mixed with a drop of oil from the Sainte Ampoule. After the enthronement, mass was said, and at its conclusion the king communicated in both kinds. The third day after the coronation, the king touched for the evil.

On the “11 Frimaire an 13” Napoleon and Josephine were jointly crowned at Paris, by the pope. Napoleon entered Notre-Dame wearing a crown, and before him were carried the imperial ornaments, to wit: ”la couronne de l’empereur, l’épée, la main de justice, le sceptre, le manteau de l’empereur, son anneau, son collier, le globe impérial, la couronne de l’impératrice, son manteau, son anneau.” Each of these was blessed, and delivered with a benediction to the emperor and empress, kneeling, side by side, to receive them, both having previously received the unction on the head and on each hand. Napoleon placed the crown on his head himself. Mass with special prayers followed.

In Spain the coronation ceremony never assumed the fullness, or magnificence, that might have been expected. It was usually performed at Toledo, or in the church of St Jerome at Madrid, the king being anointed by the archbishop of Toledo. The royal ornaments were the sword, sceptre, crown of gold and the apple of gold, which the king himself assumed after the unction. In recent years the unction and coronation have been disused.

In Sweden the king was anointed and crowned at Upsala by the archbishop. The ceremony is now performed in the Storkyrka, at Stockholm, where the archbishop of Upsala anoints the king on the breast, temples, forehead and palms of both hands. The crown is placed on the king’s head by the archbishop and the minister of justice jointly, whereupon the state marshal proclaims: “Now is crowned king of the Swedes, Goths and Wends, he and no other.” When there is a queen consort, she is then anointed, crowned and proclaimed, in the same manner.

In Norway, according to the law of 1814, the coronation is performed in the cathedral at Trondhjem, when the Lutheran superintendent, or bishop, anoints the king. The crown is placed on the king’s head jointly by the bishop and the prime minister.

In Russia the coronation is celebrated at Moscow, and is full of religious significance. The tsar is anointed by the metropolitan, but places the crown on his head himself. He receives the sacrament among the clergy, the priestly theory of his office being recognized. In some other European countries the coronation ceremony, as in Austria and Hungary, is also performed with much significant ritual. In other countries, as Prussia, it is retained in a modified form; but in the remaining states such as Denmark, Belgium, Italy, &c., it has been abandoned, or never introduced.

Authorities.—L. G. Wickham Legg, English Coronation Records; Roxburgh Club—Liber Regalis; Anon., A Complete Account of the Ceremonies observed in the Coronations of the Kings and Queens of England (London, 1727); F. Sandford, Description of the Coronation of James II. (1687); Menin, The Form, Order and Ceremonies of Coronations, trans. from the French (1727); Martène, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, lib. ii.

(T. M. F.)

CORONER, an ancient officer of the English common law, so called, according to Coke, because he was a keeper of the pleas of the crown (custos placitorum coronae). At what period the office of coroner was instituted is a matter of considerable doubt; some modern authorities (Stubbs, Select Charters, 260; Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, i. 519) date its origin from 1194, but C. Gross (Political Science Quarterly, vol. vii.) has shown that it must have existed before that date. The office was always elective, the appointment being made by the freeholders of the county assembled in county court. By the Statute of Westminster the First it was ordered that none but lawful and discreet knights should be chosen as coroners, and in one instance a person was actually removed from office for insufficiency of estate. Lands to the value of £20 per annum (the qualification for knighthood) were afterwards deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirements as to estate which ought to be insisted on in the case of a coroner. The complaint of Blackstone shows the transition of the office from its original dignified and honorary character to a paid appointment in the public service, “Now, indeed, through the culpable neglect of gentlemen of property, this office has been suffered to fall into disrepute, and get into low and indigent hands; so that, although formerly no coroners would condescend to be paid for serving their country, and they were by the aforesaid Statute of Westminster expressly forbidden to take a reward, under pain of a great forfeiture to the king; yet for many years past they have only desired to be chosen for their perquisites; being allowed fees for their attendance by the statute 3 Henry VII. c. 1, which Sir Edward Coke complains of heavily; though since his time those fees have been much enlarged.” The mercenary character of the office, thus deprecated by Coke and Blackstone, is now firmly established, without, however (it need hardly be said), affording the slightest ground for such reflections as the above. The coroner is in fact a public officer, and like other public officers receives payment for his services. The person appointed is almost invariably a qualified legal or medical practitioner; how far one is a more “fit person” than another has frequently been a matter of dispute—a Bill of 1879, which, however, failed to pass, decided in favour of the legal profession. The property qualification for a county coroner (“having land in fee sufficient in the same county whereof he may answer to all manner of people,” 14 Ed. III. st. 1, c. 8), although re-enacted in the Coroners Act 1887, is now virtually dispensed with. The appointment is for life, but is vacated by the holder being made sheriff. A coroner may be removed by the writ de coronatore exonerando, for sufficient cause assigned, or the lord chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove any coroner from his office for inability or misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty.

Coroners are of three kinds: (1) coroners by virtue of their office, e.g. the lord chief justice of the king’s bench is the principal coroner of England; the puisne judges of the king’s bench are sovereign coroners—they may exercise their jurisdiction within any part of the realm, even in the verge1 or other exempt liberties or franchises; (2) coroners by charter or commission, e.g. in certain liberties and franchises coroners are appointed by the crown or by lords holding a charter from the crown; (3) coroners by virtue of election, e.g. county and borough coroners. County coroners in England were, until 1888, elected by the freeholders, but by the Local Government Act 1888 the appointment was given to the county council, who may appoint any fit person, not being a county alderman or county councillor, to fill the office. By an act of 1860 the system of payment by fees, established by an act of 1843, was abolished and payment made by salary calculated on the average amount of the fees, mileage, and allowances usually received by the coroner for a period of five years, and the calculation revised every five years. In boroughs having a separate court of quarter sessions, and whose population exceeds 10,000, the coroner is appointed by the town council and is paid by fees. A county coroner must reside within his district or not more than two miles out of it. Deputy coroners are also appointed in both counties and boroughs, and the law relating to their appointment is contained in the Coroners Act 1892. The duties of a coroner were ascertained by 4 Edward I. st. 2:—“A coroner of our Lord the king ought to inquire of these things, first, when coroners are commanded by the king’s bailiffs or by the honest men of the county, they shall go to the places where any be slain, or suddenly dead or wounded, or where houses are broken, or where treasure is said to be found, and shall forthwith command four of the next towns, or five, or six, to appear before him in such a place; and when they are come thither, the coroner upon the oath of them shall inquire in this manner, that is, to wit, if it concerns a man slain, if they know when the person was slain, whether it were in any house, field, bed, tavern, or company, and if any, and who, were there, &c. It shall also be inquired if the dead person were known, or else a stranger, and where he lay the night before. And if any person is said to be guilty of the murder, the coroner shall go to their house and inquire what goods they have, &c.” Similar directions were given for cases of persons found drowned or suddenly dead, for attachment of criminals in cases of violence, &c. His functions are now, by the Coroners Act 1887, limited to an inquiry upon “the dead body of a person lying within his jurisdiction, where there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person has died either a violent or an unnatural death, or has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown, or that such person has died in prison, or in such place or under such circumstances as to require an inquest in pursuance of any act” (S. 3), and upon treasure-trove (S. 36). The inquisition must be super visum corporis (that is, after “viewing the body”); the evidence is taken on oath; and any party suspected may tender evidence. The Coroners Act 1887, S. 21, gives power to the coroner to summon medical witnesses and to direct the performance of a post-mortem examination. The verdict must be that of twelve at least of the jury. If any person is found guilty of murder or other homicide, the coroner shall commit him to prison for trial; he shall also certify the material evidence to the court, and bind over the proper persons to prosecute or to give evidence at the trial. He may in his discretion accept bail for a person found guilty of manslaughter. Since the abolition of public executions, the coroner is required to hold an inquest on the body of any criminal on whom sentence of death has been carried into effect. The duty of coroners to inquire into treasure-trove (q.v.) is still preserved by the Coroners Act 1887, which, however, repealed certain other jurisdictions, as,—inquests of royal fish (whale, sturgeon) thrown ashore or caught near the coast; inquest of wrecks, and of felonies, except felonies on inquisitions of death. By the City of London Fire Inquests Act 1888 the duty is imposed upon the coroner for the city to hold inquests in cases of loss or injury by fire in the city of London and the liberties thereof situated in the county of Middlesex. This is a practice which exists in several European countries.

In Scotland the duties of a coroner are performed by an officer called a procurator-fiscal.

In the United States and in most of the colonies of Great Britain the duties of a coroner are substantially the same. In some cases his duties are more enlarged, his inquisition embracing the origin of fires; in others they are confined to holding inquests in cases of suspicious deaths. Unlike a coroner in England, he is elected generally only for a specified period.

Authorities.—Jervis, Office and Duties of Coroners (6th ed., 1898); R. H. Wellington, The King’s Coroner (2 vols., 1905-1906). In 1908 a committee was appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners’ inquests and into the practice in coroners’ courts.

(T. A. I.)

CORONIUM, that constituent (otherwise unknown) of the sun’s corona, which emits the characteristic green coronal ray, of which the wave-length is 5303.

COROT, JEAN-BAPTISTE CAMILLE (1796-1875), French landscape painter, was born in Paris, in a house on the Quai by the rue du Bac, now demolished, on the 26th of July 1796. His family were well-to-do bourgeois people, and whatever may have been the experience of some of his artistic colleagues, he never, throughout his life, felt the want of money. He was educated at Rouen and was afterwards apprenticed to a draper, but hated commercial life and despised what he called its “business tricks,” yet he faithfully remained in it until he was twenty-six, when his father at last consented to his adopting the profession of art. Corot learned little from his masters. He visited Italy on three occasions: two of his Roman studies are now in the Louvre. He was a regular contributor to the Salon during his lifetime, and in 1846 was “decorated” with the cross of the Legion of Honour. He was promoted to be officer in 1867. His many friends considered nevertheless that he was officially neglected, and in 1874, only a short time before his death, they presented him with a gold medal. He died in Paris, on the 22nd of February 1875, and was buried at Père Lachaise.

Of the painters classed in the Barbizon school it is probable that Corot will live the longest, and will continue to occupy the highest position. His art is more individual than Rousseau’s, whose works are more strictly traditional; more poetic than that of Daubigny, who is, however, Corot’s greatest contemporary rival; and in every sense more beautiful than J. F. Millet, who thought more of stern truth than of aesthetic feeling.

Corot’s works are somewhat arbitrarily divided into periods, but the point of division is never certain, as he often completed a picture years after it had been begun. In his first style he painted traditionally and “tight”—that is to say, with minute exactness, clear outlines, and with absolute definition of objects throughout. After his fiftieth year his methods changed to breadth of tone and an approach to poetic power, and about twenty years later, say from 1865 onwards, his manner of painting became full of “mystery” and poetry. In the last ten years of his work he became the Père Corot of the artistic circles of Paris, in which he was regarded with personal affection, and he was acknowledged as one of the five or six greatest landscape painters the world has ever seen, along with Hobbema, Claude, Turner and Constable. During the last few years of his life he earned large sums by his pictures, which became greatly sought after. In 1871 he gave £2000 for the poor of Paris (where he remained during the siege), and his continued charity was long the subject of remark. Besides landscapes, of which he painted several hundred, Corot produced a number of figure pictures which are much prized. These were mostly studio pieces, executed probably with a view to keep his hand in with severe drawing, rather than with the intention of producing pictures. Yet many of them are fine in composition, and in all cases the colour is remarkable for its strength and purity. Corot also executed a few etchings and pencil sketches. In his landscape pictures Corot was more traditional in his method of work than is usually believed. If even his latest tree-painting and arrangement are compared with such a Claude as that which hangs in the Bridgewater gallery, it will be observed how similar is Corot’s method and also how masterly are his results.

The works of Corot are scattered over France and the Netherlands, Great Britain and America. The following may be considered as the first half-dozen: “Une Matinée” (1850), now in the Louvre; “Macbeth” (1859), in the Wallace collection: “Le Lac” (1861); “L’Arbre brisé” (1865): “Pastorale—Souvenir d’Italie” (1873), in the Glasgow Corporation Art Gallery; “Biblis” (1875). Corot had a number of followers who called themselves his pupils. The best known are Boudin, Lepine, Chintreuil, Français and Le Roux.

Authorities.—H. Dumesnil. Souvenirs intimes (Paris, 1875); Roger-Milès, Les Artistes célèbres: Corot (Paris, 1891); Roger-Milès, Album classique des chefs-d’œuvres de Corot (Paris, 1895); J. Rousseau, Bibliothèque d’art moderne: Camille Corot (Paris, 1884); J. Claretie, Peintres et sculpteurs contemporains: Corot (Paris, 1884); Ch. Bigot, Peintres français contemporains: Corot (Paris, 1888); Geo. Moore, Ingres and Corot in Modern Painting (London, 1893); David Croal Thomson, Corot (4to, London, 1892); Mrs Schuyler van Rensselaer, “Corot,” Century Magazine (June 1889); Corot, The Portfolio (1870), p. 60, (1875) p. 146; R. A. M. Stevenson, “Corot as an Example of Style in Painting,” Scottish Art Review (Aug. 1888); Ethel Birnstigl and Alice Pollard, Corot (London, 1904); Alfred Robaut, L’Œuvre de Corot, catalogue raisonné et illustré, précédé de l’histoire de Corot et de ses œuvres par Étienne Morceau-Nélaton (Paris, 1905).

(D. C. T.)

CORPORAL. 1. (From Lat. corporalis, belonging to the corpus or body), an adjective appearing in several expressions, such as “corporal punishment” (see below), or in “corporal works of mercy,” for those acts confined to the succouring of the bodily needs, such as feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, rescuing captives. A “corporal oath” was sworn with the body in contact with a sacred object (see Oath).

2. (From Lat. corporalis, sc. palla, or corporale, sc. pallium), in the Roman Catholic Church, a small square linen cloth, which at the service of the Mass is placed on the altar under the chalice and paten. It was originally large enough to cover the whole surface of the altar, and was folded over so as to cover the chalice—a custom still observed by the Carthusians. The chalice is now, however, covered by another small square of linen, stiffened with cardboard, &c., known as the pall (palla). When not in use both corporal and pall are carried in a square silken pocket called the burse. The corporal must be blessed by the bishop, or by a priest with special faculties, the ritual prayers invoking the divine blessing that the linen may be worthy to cover and enwrap the body and blood of the Lord. It represents the winding-sheet in which Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of the dead Christ.

3. (Of uncertain derivation; the French form caporal, and Ital. caporale, point to an origin from capo, Italian for head; the New English Dictionary, however, favours the derivation from Lat. corpus, Ital. corpo, body), a non-commissioned officer of infantry, cavalry and artillery, ranking below a sergeant. This rank is almost universal in armies. In the 16th and 17th centuries there were corporals but no sergeants in the cavalry, and this custom is preserved in the three regiments of British household cavalry, the rank of sergeant being replaced by that of “corporal of horse,” and that of sergeant-major by “corporal-major.” In the 16th and early 17th centuries the title “corporal of the field” was often given to a superior officer who acted as a staff-officer to the sergeant-major-general. In the navy the “ship’s corporal,” formerly a semi-military instructor to the crew, is now a petty officer charged with assisting the master-at-arms in police duties on board ship.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, chastisement inflicted by one person on the body (corpus) of another. By the common law of England, Scotland and Ireland, the infliction of corporal punishment is illegal unless it is done in self-defence or in defence of others, or is done either by some person having punitive authority over the person chastised or under the authority of a competent court of justice. Corporal punishment in defence of self or others needs no comment, except that, like all other acts done in defence, its justification depends on whether or not it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the person attacked. Among persons invested with punitive authority, mention must first be made of parents and guardians, and of teachers, who have, by implied delegation from the parents, and as incidental to the relation of master and pupil, powers of reasonable corporal punishment. Such powers are not limited to offences committed by the pupil upon the premises of the school, but extend to acts done on the way to and from school and during what may be properly regarded as school hours (Cleary v. Booth, 1893, 1 Q.B. 465). The rights of parents, guardians and teachers, in regard to the chastisement of children, were expressly recognized in English law by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 (§ 28). Poor law authorities and managers of reformatories are in the same position in this respect as teachers. The punitive authority of elementary school teachers is subject to the regulations of the education authority: that of poor law authorities to the regulation of the Home Office and the Local Government Board. A master has a right to inflict moderate chastisement upon his apprentice for neglect or other misbehaviour, provided that he does so himself, and that the apprentice is under age (Archbold, Cr. Pl., 23rd ed., 795). Where a legal right of chastisement is exercised immoderately, the person so exercising it incurs both civil and criminal liability.

In some of the older English legal authorities (e.g. Bacon, Abridg. tit. “Baron and Feme,” B), it was stated that a husband might inflict moderate corporal punishment on his wife in order to keep her “within the bounds of duty.” But these authorities were definitely discredited in 1891 in the case of R. v. Jackson (1 Q.B. 671). By the unmodified Mahommedan law, a husband may administer moderate corporal punishment to his wife; but it is doubtful whether this right could be legally exercised in British India (Wilson, Digest of Anglo-Mahommedan Law, 2nd ed., pp. 153, 154). In Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown (Bk. 1, c. 63, § 29) it is laid down that “churchwardens, and perhaps private persons, may whip boys playing in church” during divine service. But while the right to remove such offenders is undoubted, the right of castigation could not now safely be exercised. At common law the master of a ship is entitled to inflict reasonable chastisement on a seaman for gross breach of duty. But such offences are now specially provided for by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (§§ 220-238); and where the provisions of that statute are available, corporal punishment would probably be illegal.

As to corporal punishment in the army and navy, see articles Military Law; Navy. In civil prisons, whether they are convict prisons or local prisons, corporal punishment may not be inflicted except under sentence of a competent court, or except in the case of prisoners under sentence of penal servitude, or convicted of felony, or sentenced to hard labour, who have been guilty of mutiny or incitement to mutiny, or of gross personal violence to an officer or servant of the prison (Act of 1898, § 5). Flogging for these offences in prison may not be inflicted except by order of the board of visitors or visiting committee of the prison, made at a meeting specially constituted, and confirmed by a secretary of state (Prison Act of 1898, § 5; Convict Prison Rules 1899; Stat. R. and O. 1899, No. 321, rr. 77-79; Local Prison Rules 1899; Stat. R. and O. 1899, No. 322, rr. 84, 85). The mode of inflicting the punishment is prescribed by the Convict Prison Rules (rr. 82-85) and the Local Prison Rules (rr. 88-91), which limit the number of strokes and prescribe the instrument to be used for inflicting them, the cat or birch for prisoners over 18, and the birch for prisoners under 18.

Corporal punishment for breaches of prison discipline in Scottish prisons is not authorized by any statute nor under the Scottish Prison Rules (see Stat. R. and O. Revised, ed. 1904, vol. X. tit. “Prison, Scotland,” p. 60). In Irish convict prisons corporal punishment may be inflicted by order of justices specially appointed by the lord-lieutenant under § 3 of the Penal Servitude Act 1864, but the Irish Prison Rules of 1902 (Stat. R. and O. 1902, No. 590) contain no reference to this power.

At common law, courts of justice had jurisdiction to impose a sentence of whipping on persons convicted on indictment for petty larceny or misdemeanours of the meaner kind (see 1 Bishop, Amer. Cr. Law, 8th ed., § 942). But they do not now impose such sentence except under statutory authority. The whipping of women was absolutely prohibited in 1820 by the Whipping of Female Offenders Abolition Act of that year. But there are numerous statutes authorizing the imposition of a sentence of whipping on male offenders. The following cases may be noted. 1. Adults: (a) who are incorrigible rogues (Vagrancy Act 1824, § 10); (b) who discharge fire-arms, &c., with intent to injure or alarm the sovereign (Treason Act 1842, § 2, and see 8 St. Tr. N.S. 1, and O’Connor’s Case, 1872, ib. p. 3 n.); (c) who are guilty of robbery with violence (Larceny Act 1861, § 43), or offences against § 21 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861; there has been much controversy as to whether the Garrotters Act of 1861, which authorized the ordering of more than one whipping in the case of an offender over 16 years of age, was the effective cause of the diminution of the offences against which it was directed, but the best judicial opinion is in the affirmative. 2. Males under sixteen: (a) in any of the cases above noted; (b) for many statutory offences, e.g. larceny (Larceny Act 1861), malicious damage (Malicious Damage Act 1861, § 75; Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, § 4); (c) by courts of summary jurisdiction (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, §§ 10, 11, and 1899; First Offenders Act 1887); if a boy is over 7 and under 12, not more than 6 strokes, if he is over 12, but under 14, not more than 12 strokes may be inflicted; the birch-rod is to be used, and the punishment is to be given by a police constable in the presence of a superior officer, and of the parent or guardian if he desire it.

In Scotland the whipping of male offenders under 14 is regulated by the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1860, § 74, the Whipping Act 1862, and § 514 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892; and offenders over 16 may not be whipped for offences against person or property (Whipping Act 1862, § 2).

In Ireland the law is in substance the same as in England; for special statutes see official Index to Statutes (ed. 1905), p. 985, art. Punishment, 6.

The flogging of women is prohibited throughout British India (Code of Criminal Procedure, Act v. of 1898, § 393) and the British colonies, where the infliction of corporal punishment by judicial order is in the main regulated on the lines of modern English legislation. In some British colonies the list of offences punishable by whipping is larger than in England (see Queensland Criminal Code 1899, arts. 212, 213, 216).

In the United States whipping is not a legal punishment under the Federal Law (Revised Stats. U.S. § 5327). But in some of the states of the Union whipping is inflicted under statute, and is not held cruel or unusual within the Federal Constitution (1 Bishop, Amer. Crim. Law, 8th ed., § 947). In Delaware wife-beating and certain offences against property by males are punishable with flogging; and in Maryland the same punishment is applicable for wife-beating. Flogging is in force as a disciplinary measure in some penal institutions.

It has been suggested by Laurent (Principes de droit civil français (1870), vol. iv. § 275) that the express definition in the French Code Civil (arts. 371 et seq.) of parental rights over children excludes the power of corporal punishment. But this view is not generally accepted. The parental right of moderate chastisement is expressly reserved in the Civil Code of Spain (art. 155, 2). Flogging is not recognized as a legal punishment by the French Code Pénal, nor by the Penal Codes of Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal. (See also Whipping or Flogging.)

(A. W. R.)

CORPORATION (from Lat. corporare, to form into a body, corpus, corporis), in English law, an association of persons which is treated in many respects as if it were itself a person. It has rights and duties of its own which are not the rights and duties of the individual members thereof. Thus a corporation may own land, but the individual members of the corporation have no rights therein. A corporation may owe money, but the corporators as individuals are under no obligation to pay the debt. The rights and duties descend to the successive members of the corporation. This capacity of perpetual succession is regarded as the distinguishing feature of corporations as compared with other societies. One of the phrases most commonly met with in law-books describes a corporation as a society with perpetual succession and a common seal. The latter point, however, is not conclusive of the corporate character.

The legal attributes of a corporation have been worked out with great fulness and ingenuity in English law, but the conception has been taken full-grown from the law of Rome. The term in Roman law corresponding to the modern corporation is collegium; a more general term is universitas. A collegium or corpus must have consisted of at least three persons, who were said to be corporati—habere corpus. They could hold property in common and had a common chest. They might sue and be sued by their agent (syndicus or actor). There was a complete separation in law between the rights of the collegium as a body and those of its individual members. The collegium remained in existence although all its original members were changed. It was governed by its own by-laws, provided these were not contrary to the common law. The power of forming collegia was restrained, and societies pretending to act as corporations were often suppressed. In all these points the collegia of Roman closely resemble the corporations of English law. There is a similar parallel between the purposes for which the formation of such societies is authorized in English and in Roman law. Thus among the Roman collegia the following classes are distinguished:—(1) Public governing bodies, or municipalities, civitates; (2) religious societies, such as the collegia of priests and Vestal Virgins; (3) official societies, e.g. the scribae, employed in the administration of the state; (4) trade societies, e.g. fabri, pictores, navicularii, &c. This class shades down into the societates not incorporated, just as our own trading corporations partake largely of the character of ordinary partnerships. In the later Roman law the distinction of corporations into civil and ecclesiastical, into lay and eleemosynary, is recognized. The latter could not alienate without just cause, nor take land without a licence—a restriction which may be compared with modern statutes of mortmain. All these privileged societies are what we should call corporations aggregate. The corporation sole (i.e. consisting of only a single person) is a later refinement, for although Roman law held that the corporation subsisted in full force, notwithstanding that only one member survived, it did not impute to the successive holders of a public office the character of a corporation. When a public officer in English law is said to be a corporation sole, the meaning is that the rights acquired by him in that capacity descend to his successor in office, and not (as the case is where a public officer is not a corporation) to his ordinary legal representative. The best known instances of corporation sole are the king and the parson of a parish. The conception of the king as a corporation is the key to many of his paradoxical attributes in constitutional theory—his invisibility, immortality, &c.

The term quasi-corporation is applied to holders for the time being of certain official positions, though not incorporated, as the churchwardens of a parish, guardians of the poor, &c.

The Roman conception of a corporation was kept alive by ecclesiastical and municipal bodies. When English lawyers came to deal with such societies, the corporation law of Rome admitted of easy application. Accordingly, in no department has English law borrowed so copiously and so directly from the civil law. The corporations known to the earlier English law were mainly the municipal, the ecclesiastical, and the educational and eleemosynary. To all of these the same principles, borrowed from Roman jurisprudence, were applied. The different purposes of these institutions brought about in course of time differences in the rules of the law applicable to each. In particular, the great development of trading companies under special statutes has produced a new class of corporations, differing widely from those formerly known to the law. The reform of municipal corporations has also restricted the operation of the principles of the older corporation law. These principles, however, still apply when special statutes have not intervened.

The legal origin of corporation is ascribed by J. Grant (Treatise on the Law of Corporations, 1850) to five sources, viz. common law, prescription, act of parliament, charter and implication. Prescription in legal theory implies a grant, so that corporations by prescription would be reducible to the class of chartered or statutory corporations. A corporation is said to exist by implication when the purposes of a legally constituted society cannot be carried out without corporate powers. Corporations are thus ultimately traceable to the authority of charters and acts of parliament. The power of creating corporations by charter is an important prerogative of the crown, but in the present state of the constitution, when all the powers of the crown are practically exercised by parliament, there is no room for any jealousy as to the manner in which it may be exercised. The power of chartering corporations belonged also to subjects who had jura regalia, e.g. the bishops of Durham granted a charter of incorporation to the city of Durham in 1565, 1602 and 1780. The charter of a corporation is regarded as being of the nature of a contract between the king and the corporation. It will be construed more favourably for the crown, and more strictly as against the grantee. It cannot alter the law of the land, and it may be surrendered, so that, if the surrender is accepted by the crown and enrolled in chancery, the corporation is thereby dissolved. Great use was made of this power of the crown in the reigns of Charles II. and James II.

Every corporation, it is said, must have a name, and it may have more names than one, but two corporations cannot have the same name. And corporations cannot change their name save by charter or some equivalent authority.

The possession of a common seal, though, as already stated, not conclusive of the corporate character, is an incident of every corporation aggregate. The inns of courts have common seals, but they are only voluntary societies, not corporations. Generally speaking, all corporate acts affecting strangers must be performed under the common seal; acts of internal administration affecting only the corporators, need not be under seal. The rule has been defended as following necessarily from the impersonal character of a corporation; either a seal or something equivalent must be fixed upon so that the act of the corporation may be recognized by all.

A corporation may be abolished by statute, but not by the mere authority of the crown. It may also become extinct by the disappearance of all its members or of any integral part, by surrender of charter if it is a chartered society, by process of law, or by forfeiture of privileges.

The power of the majority to bind the society is one of the first principles of corporation law, even in cases where the corporation has a head. It is even said that only by an act of parliament can this rule be avoided. The binding majority is that of the number present at a corporate meeting duly summoned.

In corporations which have a head (as colleges), although the head cannot veto the resolution of the majority, he is still considered an integral part of the society, and his death suspends its existence, so that a head cannot devise or bequeath to the corporation, nor can a grant be made to a corporation during vacancy of the headship.

A corporation has power to make such regulations (by-laws) as are necessary for carrying out its purposes, and these are binding on its members and on persons within its local jurisdiction if it has any.

The power to acquire and hold land was incident to a corporation at common law, but its restriction by the statutes of mortmain dates from a very early period. The English law against mortmain was dictated by the jealousy of the feudal lords, who lost the services they would otherwise have been entitled to, when their land passed into the hands of a perpetual corporation. The vast increase in the estates of ecclesiastical corporations constituted by itself a danger which might well justify the operation of the restricting statutes.

The Mortmain Acts applied only to cases of alienation inter vivos. There was no power to devise lands by will until 32 Henry VIII. c. 1 (1540), and when the power was granted corporations were expressly excluded from its benefits. No devise to a corporation, whether for its own use or in trust, was allowed to be good; land so devised went to the heir, either absolutely or charged with the trusts imposed upon it in the abortive devise. A modification, however, was gradually wrought by the judicial interpretations of the Charitable Trusts Act 1601, and it was held that a devise to a corporation for a charitable purpose might be a good devise, and would stand unless voided by the Mortmain Acts; so that no corporation could take land, without a licence, for any purpose or in any way; and no localised corporation could take lands by devise, save for charitable purposes. Then came the act of 1736, commonly but improperly called the Mortmain Act. Its effect was generally to make it impossible for land to be left by will for charitable uses, whether through a corporation or a natural person1. The Wills Act 1837 did not renew the old provision against devises to corporations, which therefore fell under the general law of mortmain. The law was consolidated by the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888, and the result is simply that corporations cannot take land for any purpose without a licence, and no licence in mortmain is granted by the crown, except in certain statutory cases in the interests of religion, charity or other definite public object.

The power of corporations at common law to alienate their property is usually restricted, as is their power to lease it for more than a certain number of years, except by sanction of a public authority. The more important classes of corporations, however, are now governed by special statutes which exclude or modify the operation of the common law principles. The most considerable class of societies still unaffected by such special legislation are the Livery Companies (q.v.). Under Company will be found an account of the important enactments regulating joint-stock companies.

The question to what extent the common law incidents of a corporation have been interfered with by special legislation has become one of much importance, especially under the acts relating to joint-stock companies. The most important case on this subject is that of Riche v. The Ashbury Railway Carriage Company, 1875 (L.R. 9 Ex. 224; L.R. 7 H.L. 653), in which, the judges of the exchequer chamber being equally divided, the decision of the court below was affirmed. The view taken by the affirming judges, viz. that the common law incidents of a corporation adhere unless expressly removed by the legislature, may be illustrated by a short extract from the judgment of Mr Justice Blackburn:—

“If I thought it was at common law an incident to a corporation that its capacity should be limited by the instrument creating it, I should agree that the capacity of a company incorporated under the act of 1862 was limited to the object in the memorandum of association. But if I am right in the opinion which I have already expressed, that the general power of contracting is an incident to a corporation which it requires an indication of intention in the legislature to take away, I see no such indication here. If the question was whether the legislature had conferred on a corporation, created under this act, capacity to enter into contracts beyond the provisions of the deed, there could be only one answer. The legislature did not confer such capacity. But if the question be, as I apprehend it is, whether the legislature have indicated an intention to take away the power of contracting which at common law would be incident to a body corporate, and not merely to limit the authority of the managing body and the majority of the share-holders to bind the minority, but also to prohibit and make illegal contracts made by the body corporate, in such a manner that they would be binding on the body if incorporated at common law, I think the answer should be the other way.”

On the other hand, the House of Lords, agreeing with the three dissentient judges in the exchequer chamber, pronounced the effect of the Companies Act to be the opposite of that indicated by Mr Justice Blackburn, “It was the intention of the legislature, not implied, but actually expressed, that the corporations, should not enter, having regard to this memorandum of association, into a contract of this description. The contract in my judgment could not have been ratified by the unanimous assent of the whole corporation.” In such companies, therefore, objects beyond the scope of the memorandum of association are ultra vires of the corporation. The doctrine of ultra vires, as it is called, is almost wholly of modern and judicial creation. The first emphatic recognition of it appears to have been in the case of companies created for special purposes with extraordinary powers, by act of parliament, and, more particularly, railway companies. The funds of such companies, it was held, must be applied to the purposes for which they were created, and to no other. Whether this doctrine is applicable to the older or, as they are sometimes called, ordinary corporations, appears to be doubtful. S. Brice (Ultra Vires) writes:—

“Take, as a strong instance, a university or a London guild. Either can undoubtedly manage, invest, transform and expend the corporate property in almost any way it pleases, but if they proposed to exhaust the same on the private pleasures of existing members, or to abandon the promotion, the one of education, the other of their art and mystery, it is very probable, if not absolutely certain, that the court of chancery would restrain the same, as being ultra vires.”

CORPS (pronounced as in French, from which it is taken, being a late spelling of cors, from Lat. corpus, a body; cf. “corpse”), a word in very general use since the 17th century to denote a body of troops, varying from a few hundred to the greater part of an army. In a special sense “corps” is used as synonymous with “army corps” (corps d’armée). The word is applied to any organized body, as in corps diplomatique, the general body of foreign diplomatic agents accredited to any government (see Diplomacy), or corps de ballet, the members of a troop of dancers at a theatre; so in esprit de corps, the common spirit of loyalty which animates any body of associated persons.

CORPSE (Lat. corpus, the body), a dead human body. By the common law of England a corpse is not the subject of property nor capable of holding property. It is not therefore larceny to steal a corpse, but any removal of the coffin or grave-cloths is otherwise, such remaining the property of the persons who buried the body. It is a misdemeanour to expose a naked corpse to public view, to prevent the burial of a dead body, or to disinter it without authority; also to bury or otherwise dispose of a dead body on which an inquest ought to be held, without giving notice to a coroner. Anyone who, having the means, neglects to bury a dead body which he is legally bound to bury, is guilty of a misdemeanour, but no one is bound to incur a debt for such a purpose. It is incumbent on the relatives and friends of a deceased person to provide Christian burial for him; failing relatives and friends, the duty devolves upon the parish. No corpse can be attached, taken in execution, arrested or detained for debt. See further Body-snatching, and Burial and Burial Acts.

CORPULENCE (Lat. corpus, body), or Obesity (Lat. ob, against, and edere, to eat), a condition of the animal body characterized by the over-accumulation of fat under the skin and around certain of the internal organs. In all healthy persons a greater or less amount of fat is present in these parts, and serves important physiological ends, besides contributing to the proper configuration of the body (see Nutrition). Even a considerable measure of fatness, however inconvenient, is not inconsistent with a high degree of health and activity, and it is only when in great excess or rapidly increasing that it can be regarded as a pathological state (see Metabolic Diseases). The extent to which excess of fat may proceed is illustrated by numerous well-authenticated examples recorded in medical works, of which only a few can be here mentioned. Thus Bright, a grocer of Maldon, in Essex, who died in 1750, in his twenty-ninth year, weighed 616 ℔. Dr F. Dancel (Traité de l’obésité, Paris, 1863) records the case of a young man of twenty-two, who died from excessive obesity, weighing 643 ℔. In the Philosophical Transactions for 1813 a case is recorded of a girl of four years of age who weighed 256 ℔. But the most celebrated case is that of Daniel Lambert (q.v.) of Leicester, who died in 1809 in his fortieth year. He is said to have been the heaviest man that ever lived, his weight being 739 ℔ (52 st. 11 ℔). Health cannot be long maintained under excessive obesity, for the increase in bulk of the body, rendering exercise more difficult, leads to relaxation and defective nutrition of muscle, while the accumulations of fat in the chest and abdomen occasion serious embarrassment to the functions of the various organs in those cavities. In general the mental activity of the highly corpulent becomes impaired, although there have always been many notable exceptions to this rule.

Various causes are assigned for the production of corpulence (see Metabolic Diseases). In some families there exists an hereditary predisposition to an obese habit of body, the manifestation of which no precautions as to living appear capable of averting. But it is unquestionable that certain habits favour the occurrence of corpulence. A luxurious, inactive, or sedentary life, with over-indulgence in sleep and absence of mental occupation, are well recognized predisposing causes. The more immediate exciting causes are over-feeding and the large use of fluids of any kind, but especially alcoholic liquors. Fat persons are not always great eaters, though many of them are, while leanness and inordinate appetite are not infrequently associated. Still, it may be stated generally that indulgence in food, beyond what is requisite to repair daily waste, goes towards the increase of flesh, particularly of fat. This is more especially the case when the non-nitrogenous (the fatty, saccharine and starchy) elements of the food are in excess. The want of adequate bodily exercise will in a similar manner produce a like effect, and it is probable that many cases of corpulence are to be ascribed to this cause alone, from the well-known facts that many persons of sedentary occupation become stout, although of most abstemious habits, and that obesity frequently comes on in the middle-aged and old, who take relatively less exercise than the young, in whom it is comparatively rare. Women are more prone to become corpulent than men, and appear to take on this condition more readily after the cessation of the function of menstruation.

For the prevention of corpulence and the reduction of superfluous fat many expedients have been resorted to, and numerous remedies recommended. These have included bleeding, blistering, purging, starving (see Fasting), the use of different kinds of baths, and of drugs innumerable. The drinking of vinegar was long popularly, but erroneously, supposed to be a remedy for obesity. It is related of the marquis of Cortona, a noted general of the duke of Alva, that by drinking vinegar he so reduced his body from a condition of enormous obesity that he could fold his skin about him like a garment.

In 1863 a pamphlet entitled “Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public by William Banting,” in which was narrated the remarkable experience of the writer in accomplishing the reduction of his own weight in a short space of time by the adoption of a particular kind of diet, started the modern dietetic treatment, at first called “Banting” after the author. After trying almost every known remedy without effect, Banting was induced, on the suggestion of Mr Harvey, a London aurist, to place himself upon an entirely new form of diet, which consisted chiefly in the removal, as far as possible, of all saccharine, starchy and fat food, the reduction of liquids, and the substitution of meat or fish and fruit in moderate quantity at each meal, together with the daily use of an antacid draught. Under this regimen his weight was reduced 46 ℔ in the course of a few weeks, while his health underwent a marked improvement. His experience, as might have been expected, induced many to follow his example; and since then various regimens have been propounded, all aiming at treating corpulence on modern physiological principles (see also Dietetics, Metabolic Diseases and Nutrition). It is important, however, to bear in mind that the treatment should be followed under medical advice and observation; for, however desirable it be to get rid of superabundant fat, it would be manifestly no gain were this to be achieved by the sacrifice of the general health.

CORPUS CHRISTI, a city and the county-seat of Nueces county, Texas, U.S.A., situated on Corpus Christi Bay opposite the mouth of the Nueces river, 192 m. W.S.W. of Galveston and about 150 m. S.S.E. of San Antonio. Pop. (1890) 4387; (1900) 4703, including 963 foreign-born and 460 negroes; (1910) 8299. It is served by the National of Mexico, the St Louis, Brownsville & Mexico, and the San Antonio & Aransas Pass railways. In 1908 the Federal government began work on a project to connect Corpus Christi harbour with Aransas Pass by a channel 8½ ft. deep at low water and 75 ft. wide at the bottom, following a natural depression between the two bays. Corpus Christi is a summer and winter resort, with a very dry equable climate (average annual mean, 70.2° F.) and good bathing on the horseshoe beach of Corpus Christi Bay. The city has an extensive coasting trade, and exports fruit, early vegetables, fish and oysters. There was a small Spanish settlement here at an early date, but no American settlement was made until after the Mexican War. Corpus Christi was the base from which General Zachary Taylor made his forward movement to the Rio Grande in 1846. It was chartered as a city in 1876.

CORPUS CHRISTI, FEAST OF (Lat. festum corporis Christi, i.e. festival of the Body of Christ, Fr. fête-Dieu or fête du sacrement, Ger. Frohnleichnamsfest), a festival of the Roman Catholic Church in honour of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar, observed on the first Thursday after Trinity Sunday. The doctrine of transubstantiation was defined by the Lateran Council in 1215, and shortly afterwards the elevation and adoration of the Host were formally enjoined. This naturally stimulated the popular devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, which had been already widespread before the definition of the dogma. The movement was especially strong in the diocese of Liége, and when Julienne, prioress of Mont-Cornillon near Liége (1222-1258), had a vision in which the need for the establishment of a festival in honour of the Sacrament was revealed to her, the matter was taken up with enthusiasm by the clergy, and in 1246 Robert de Torote, bishop of Liége, instituted such a festival for his diocese. The idea, however, did not spread until, in 1261, Jacob Pantaleon, archdeacon of Liége, ascended the papal throne as Urban IV. By a bull of 1264 Urban made the festival, hitherto practically confined to the diocese of Liége, obligatory on the whole Church,1 and a new office for the festival was written by Thomas Aquinas himself. As yet the stress was laid on reverence for the Holy Sacrament as a whole; there is no mention in Urban’s bull of the solemn procession and exposition of the Host for the adoration of the faithful, which are the main features of the festival as at present celebrated. Urban’s bull was once more promulgated, at the council of Vienne in 1311, by Pope Clement V.; and the procession of the Host in connexion with the festival was instituted, if the accounts we possess are trustworthy, by Pope John XXII.

From this time onwards the festival increased in popularity and in splendour. It became in effect the principal feast of the Church, the procession of the Sacrament a gorgeous pageant, in which not only the members of the trade and craft gilds, with the magistrates of the cities, took part, but princes and sovereigns. It thus became in a high degree symbolical of the exaltation of the sacerdotal power.2 In the 15th century the custom became almost universal of following the procession with the performance of miracle-plays and mysteries, generally arranged and acted by members of the gilds who had formed part of the pageant.

The rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation at the Reformation naturally involved the suppression of the festival of Corpus Christi in the reformed Churches. Luther, in spite of his belief in the Real Presence, regarded it as the most harmful of all the medieval festivals and, though he fully realized its popularity, it was the first that he abolished. This attitude of the reformers towards the festival, however, intensified by their abhorrence of the traffic in indulgences with which it had become closely associated, only tended to establish it more firmly among the adherents of the “old religion.” The procession of the Host on Corpus Christi day became, as it were, a public demonstration of Catholic orthodoxy against Protestantism and later against religious Liberalism. In most countries where religious opinion is sharply divided the procession of Corpus Christi is therefore now forbidden, even when Catholicism is the dominant religion. In England occasional breaches of the law in this respect have been for some time tolerated, as in the case of the Corpus Christi procession annually held by the Italian community in London. An attempt to hold a public procession of the Host in connexion with the Eucharistic Congress at Westminster in 1908, however, was the signal for the outburst of a considerable amount of opposition, and was eventually abandoned owing to the personal intervention of the prime minister.

CORRAL (Span. from corro, a circle), a word used chiefly in Spanish America and the United States for an enclosure for cattle and horses, and also for a defensive circle formed of wagons against attacks from Indians. It is also used as a verb, meaning to drive into a corral, and so figuratively to enclose, hem in. The word is probably connected with the South African Dutch word kraal (q.v.). In Ceylon it is especially used for an enclosure meant for the capture of wild elephants. In this last sense of the word the corresponding term in India is keddah (q.v.).

CORREA, a genus of Australian plants belonging to the natural order Rutaceae, named after the Portuguese botanist José Francisco Correa da Serra. The plants are evergreen shrubs and extremely useful for winter flowering. They are increased by cuttings, and grown in a cool greenhouse in rough peaty soil, with a slight addition of loam and sand. After the plants have done flowering, they should all get a little artificial warmth, plenty of moisture, and a slight shade, while they are making their growth, during which period the tips of the young shoots should be nipped out when 6 or 8 in. long. When the growth is complete, a half-shady place outdoors during August and September will be suitable, with protection from parching winds and hot sunshine.

CORREA DA SERRA, JOSÉ FRANCISCO (1750-1823), Portuguese politician and man of science, was born at Serpa, in Alemtejo, in 1750. Educated at Rome, he took orders under the protection of the duke of Alafoès, uncle of Mary I. of Portugal. In 1777 he returned to Lisbon, where he resided with his patron, with whose assistance he founded the Portuguese Academy of Sciences. Of this institution he was named perpetual secretary, and he received the privilege of publishing its transactions without reference to any censor whatever. His use of this right brought him into conflict with the Holy Office; and consequently in 1786 he fled to France, and remained there till the death of Pedro III., when he again took up his residence with Alafoès. But having given a lodging in the palace to a French Girondist, he was forced to flee to England, where he found a protector in Sir Joseph Banks, and became a member of the Royal Society. In 1797 he was appointed secretary to the Portuguese embassy, but a quarrel with the ambassador drove him once more to Paris (1802), and in that city he resided till 1813, when he crossed over to New York. In 1816 he was made Portuguese minister-plenipotentiary at Washington, and in 1820 he was recalled home, appointed a member of the financial council, and elected to a seat in the Cortes. Three years after, and in the same year with the fall of the constitutional government, he died. Correa da Serra ranks high as a botanist, though he published no great special work. His principal claim to renown is the Colecção de livros ineditos da historia Portugueza, (4 vols., 1790-1816), an invaluable selection of documents, exceedingly well edited.

CORREGGIO, or Coreggio, the name ordinarily given to Antonio Allegri (1494-1534), the celebrated Italian painter, one of the most vivid and impulsive inventors in expression and pose and the most consummate executants. The external circumstances of his life have been very diversely stated by different writers, and the whole of what has been narrated regarding him, even waiving the question of its authenticity, is but meagre.

The first controversy is as to his origin. Some say that he was born of poor and lowly parents; others, that his family was noble and rich. Neither account is accurate. His father was Pellegrino Allegri, a tradesman in comfortable circumstances, living at Correggio, a small city in the territory of Modena; his mother Bernardina Piazzoli degli Aromani, also of a creditable family of moderate means. Antonio was born at Correggio, and was carefully educated. He was not (as has been often alleged) strictly self-taught in his art—a supposition which the internal evidence of his pictures must of itself refute. They show a knowledge of optics, perspective, architecture, sculpture and anatomy. The last-named science he studied under Dr Giovanni Battista Lombardi, whom he is believed to have represented in the portrait currently named “II Medico del Correggio” (Correggio’s physician). It is concluded that he learned the first elements of design from his uncle, Lorenzo Allegri, a painter of moderate ability at Correggio, and from Antonio Bartolotti, named Tognino, and that he afterwards went to the school of Francesco Ferrari Bianchi (named Frarè), and perhaps to that of the successors of Andrea Mantegna in Mantua. He is said to have learned modelling along with the celebrated Begarelli at Parma; and it has even been suggested that, in the “Pietà” executed by Begarelli for the church of Santa Margherita, the three finest figures are the work of Correggio, but, as the group appears to have been completed three years after the painter’s death, there is very little plausibility in this story. Another statement connecting Begarelli with Correggio is probably true, namely, that the sculptor executed models in relief for the figures which the painter had to design on the cupolas of the churches in Parma. This was necessarily an expensive item, and it has been cited as showing that Correggio must have been at least tolerably well off,—an inference further supported by the fact that he used the most precious and costly colours, and generally painted on fine canvases or sometimes on sheets of copper.

The few certain early works of Correggio show a rapid progression towards the attainment of his own original style. Though he never achieved any large measure of reputation during his brief lifetime, and was perhaps totally unknown beyond his own district of country, he found a sufficiency of employers, and this from a very youthful age. One of his early pictures, painted in 1514 when he was nineteen or twenty years old, is a large altar-piece commissioned for the Franciscan convent at Carpi, representing the Virgin enthroned, with Saints; it indicates a predilection for the style of Leonardo da Vinci, and has certainly even greater freedom than similarly early works of Raphael. This picture is now in the Dresden gallery. Another painting of Correggio’s youth is the “Arrest of Christ.” A third is an Ancona (or triple altar-piece—the “Repose in Egypt, with Sts Bartholomew and John”) in the church of the Conventuali at Correggio, showing the transition from the painter’s first to his second style. Between 1514 and 1520 Correggio worked much, both in oil and in fresco, for churches and convents. In 1521 he began his famous fresco of the “Ascension of Christ,” on the cupola of the Benedictine church of San Giovanni in Parma; here the Redeemer is surrounded by the twelve apostles and the four doctors of the church, supported by a host of wingless cherub boys amid the clouds. This he finished in 1524, and soon afterwards undertook his still vaster work on another cupola, that of the cathedral of the same city, presenting the “Assumption of the Virgin,” amid an unnumbered host of saints and angels rapt in celestial joy. It occupied him up to 1530. The astounding boldness of scheme in these works, especially as regards their incessant and audacious foreshortenings—the whole mass of figures being portrayed as in the clouds, and as seen from below—becomes all the more startling when we recall to mind the three facts—that Correggio had apparently never seen any of the masterpieces of Raphael or his other great predecessors and contemporaries, in Rome, Florence, or other chief centres of art; that he was the first artist who ever undertook the painting of a large cupola; and that he not only went at once to the extreme of what can be adventured in foreshortening, but even forestalled in this attempt the mightiest geniuses of an elder generation—the “Last Judgment” of Michelangelo, for instance, not having been begun earlier than 1533 (although the ceiling of the Sixtine chapel, in which foreshortening plays a comparatively small part, dates from 1508 to 1512). The cupola of the cathedral has neither skylight nor windows, but only light reflected from below; the frescoes, some portions of which were ultimately supplied by Giorgio Gandini, are now dusky with the smoke of tapers, and parts of them, in the cathedral and in the church of St John, have during many past years been peeling off. The violent foreshortenings were not, in the painter’s own time, the object of unmixed admiration; some satirist termed the groups a “guazzetto di rane,” or “hash of frogs.” This was not exactly the opinion of Titian, who is reported to have said, on seeing the pictures, and finding them lightly esteemed by local dignitaries, “Reverse the cupola, and fill it with gold, and even that will not be its money’s worth.” Annibale Caracci and the Eclectics generally evinced their zealous admiration quite as ardently. Parma is the only city which contains frescoes by Correggio. For the paintings of the cupola of San Giovanni he received the moderate sum of 472 sequins; for those of the cathedral, much less proportionately, 350. On these amounts he had to subsist, himself and his family, and to provide the colours, for about ten years, having little time for further work meanwhile. Parma was in an exceedingly unsettled and turbulent condition during some of the years covered by Correggio’s labours there, veering between the governmental ascendancy of the French and of the Pope, with wars and rumours of wars, alarms, tumults and pestilence.

Other leading works by Correggio are the following:—The frescoes in the Camera di San Paolo (the abbess’s saloon) in the monastery of S. Lodovico at Parma, painted towards 1519 in fresco,—“Diana returning from the Chase,” with auxiliary groups of lovely and vivacious boys of more than life size, in sixteen oval compartments. In the National Gallery, London, the “Ecce Homo,” painted probably towards 1520 (authenticity not unquestioned); and “Cupid, Mercury and Venus,” the latter more especially a fine example. The oil-painting of the Nativity named “Night” (“La Notte”), for which 40 ducats and 208 livres of old Reggio coin were paid, the nocturnal scene partially lit up by the splendour proceeding from the divine Infant. This work was undertaken at Reggio in 1522 for Alberto Pratoneris, and is now in the Dresden gallery. The oil-painting of St Jerome, termed also “Day” (“Il Giorno”), as contrasting with the above-named “Night.” Jerome is here with the Madonna and Child, the Magdalene, and two Angels, of whom one points out to the Infant a passage in the book held by the Saint. This was painted for Briseida Bergonzi from 1527 onwards, and was remunerated by 400 gold imperials, some cartloads of faggots and measures of wheat, and a fat pig. It is now in the gallery at Parma. The “Magdalene lying at the entrance of her Cavern”: this small picture (only 18 in. wide) was bought by Augustus III. of Saxony for 6000 louis d’or, and is in Dresden. In the same gallery, the two works designated “St George” (painted towards 1532) and “St Sebastian.” In the Parma gallery, the Madonna named “della Scala,” a fresco which was originally in a recess of the Porta Romana, Parma; also the Madonna “della Scodella” (of the bowl, which is held by the Virgin—the subject being the Repose in Egypt): it was executed for the church of San Sepolcro. Both these works date towards 1526. In the church of the Annunciation, “Parma,” a fresco of the Annunciation, now all but perished. Five celebrated pictures painted or begun in 1532,—“Venus,” “Leda,” “Danaë,” “Vice,” and “Virtue”: the “Leda,” with figures of charming girls bathing, is now in the Berlin gallery, and is a singularly delightful specimen of the master. In Vienna, “Jupiter and Io.” In the Louvre, “Jupiter and Antiope,” and the “Mystic Marriage of St Catharine.” In the Naples Museum, the “Madonna Reposing,” commonly named “La Zingarella,” or the “Madonna del Coniglio” (Gipsy-girl, or Madonna of the Rabbit). On some of his pictures Correggio signed “Lieto,” as a synonym of “Allegri.” About forty works can be confidently assigned to him, apart from a multitude of others probably or manifestly spurious.

The famous story that this great but isolated artist was once, after long expectancy, gratified by seeing a picture of Raphael’s, and closed an intense scrutiny of it by exclaiming “Anch’ io son pittore” (I too am a painter), cannot be traced to any certain source. It has nevertheless a great internal air of probability; and the most enthusiastic devotee of the Umbrian will admit that in technical bravura, in enterprizing, gifted, and consummated execution, not Raphael himself could have assumed to lord it over Correggio.

In 1520 Correggio married Girolama Merlino, a young lady of Mantua, who brought him a good dowry. She was but sixteen years of age, very lovely, and is said by tradition to have been the model of his Zingarella. They lived in great harmony together, and had a family of four children. She died in 1529. Correggio himself expired at his native place on the 5th of March 1534. His illness was a short one, and has by some authors been termed pleurisy. Others, following Vasari, allege that it was brought on by his having had to carry home a sum of money, 50 scudi, which had been paid to him for one of his pictures, and paid in copper coin to humiliate and annoy him; he carried the money himself, to save expense, from Parma to Correggio on a hot day, and his fatigue and exhaustion led to the mortal illness. In this curious tale there is no symptom of authenticity, unless its very singularity, and the unlikelihood of its being invented without any foundation at all, may be allowed to count for something. He is said to have died with Christian piety; and his eulogists (speaking apparently from intuition rather than record) affirm that he was a good citizen, an affectionate son and father, fond and observant of children, a sincere and obliging friend, pacific, beneficent, grateful, unassuming, without meanness, free from envy and tolerant of criticism. He was buried with some pomp in the Arrivabene chapel, in the cloister of the Franciscan church at Correggio.

Regarding the art of Correggio from an intellectual or emotional point of view, his supreme gift may be defined as suavity,—a vivid, spontaneous, lambent play of the affections, a heartfelt inner grace which fashions the forms and features, and beams like soft and glancing sunshine in the expressions. We see lovely or lovable souls clothed in bodies or corresponding loveliness, which are not only physically charming, but are so informed with the spirit within as to become one with that in movement and gesture. In these qualities of graceful naturalness, not heightened into the sacred or severe, and of joyous animation, in momentary smiles and casual living turns of head or limb, Correggio undoubtedly carried the art some steps beyond anything it had previously attained, and he remains to this day the unsurpassed or unequalled model of pre-eminence. From a technical point of view, his supreme gift—even exceeding his prodigious faculty in foreshortening and the like—is chiaroscuro, the power of modifying every tone, from bright light to depth of darkness, with the sweetest and most subtle gradations, all being combined into harmonious unity. In this again he far distanced all predecessors, and defied subsequent competition. His colour also is luminous and precious, perfectly understood and blended; it does not rival the superb richness or deep intense glow of the Venetians, but on its own showing is a perfect achievement, in exact keeping with his powers in chiaroscuro and in vital expression. When we come, however, to estimate painters according to their dramatic faculty, their power of telling a story or impressing a majestic truth, their range and strength of mind, we find the merits of Correggio very feeble in comparison with those of the highest masters, and even of many who without, being altogether great have excelled in these particular qualities. Correggio never means much, and often, in subjects where fulness of significance is demanded, he means provokingly little. He expressed his own miraculous facility by saying that he always had his thoughts at the end of his pencil; in truth, they were often thoughts rather of the pencil and its controlling hand than of the teeming brain. He has the faults of his excellences—sweetness lapsing into mawkishness and affectation, empty in elevated themes and lasciviously voluptuous in those of a sensuous type, rapid and forceful action lapsing into posturing and self-display, fineness and sinuosity of contour lapsing into exaggeration and mannerism, daring design lapsing into incorrectness. No great master is more dangerous than Correggio to his enthusiasts; round him the misdeeds of conventionalists and the follies of connoisseurs cluster with peculiar virulence, and almost tend to blind to his real and astonishing excellences those practitioners or lovers of painting who, while they can acknowledge the value of technique, are still more devoted to greatness of soul, and grave or elevated invention, as expressed in the form of art.