VOLUME VII SLICE VI Coucy-le-Château to Crocodile (continued 15)

The Indian penal code and criminal procedure code, by their history, their form, and the extent and diversity of the races and peoples to which they apply, are perhaps the most important codes in the whole world. While the India. East India Company was merely a trading company holding certain forts and trading ports in India and elsewhere, such criminal justice as was administered under its auspices was in the main based on the English criminal law, said to have been introduced to some extent by the company’s charter of 1661, but reintroduced into the presidency laws by later charters of 1726, 1753 and 1774. (See Nuncomar and Impey, by Sir J. Stephen.) From 1771 until 1860 the criminal law administered was the Mahommedan law. When in 1771 the East Indian Company determined to stand forth as diwan, Warren Hastings required the courts of the mofussil (provinces), as distinct from those of the presidency town of Fort William, to be guided in the administration of criminal justice by Mahommedan law, which under the Moguls had been used in criminal cases to the exclusion of Hindu law. Difficulties arose in administration, from the definition of crime, the nature of punishments, and in matters of procedure, which were removed by regulations and by enactments on English lines, especially in Bombay (1827); and great delays and considerable injustice were caused by the want of unity in judicial organization.

Between 1834 and 1837 Macaulay with three other commissioners, Macleod, Anderson and Millet, prepared a draft penal code for India, for which they drew not only upon English and Indian laws and regulations but also upon Livingstone’s Louisiana code and the Code Napoléon. Little or nothing was taken from the Mahommedan law. A revised draft of the penal code by Sir B. Peacock, Sir J. W. Colville and others was completed in 1856. In framing it the reports of the English criminal law commissioners (published after Macaulay’s draft code) were considered. The draft was presented to the legislative council in 1856, but owing to the mutiny and to objections from missionaries, &c., its passing was delayed till the 6th of October 1860. A draft scheme of criminal procedure was prepared in India in 1847-1848, which, after submission to a commission in England in 1853 (Government of India Act 1853), was moulded into a draft code which passed the India legislative council in 1861 (Act No. XXV.) and came into force in 1862. It has been re-enacted with amendments in 1872 (Act X.), 1882 (Act X.) and 1898 (Act V.).

The result is that in India the criminal law is the law of the conqueror, though for many civil purposes the law of race, religion and caste governs. Under the codes, one set of courts has been established throughout the country, composed of well-paid, well-educated judges, most of the higher judicial appointments being held by Englishmen; all those who hold subordinate judicial posts at the same time are subjected to a combined system of appeal and revision. The arrangement of the Indian penal code is natural as well as logical; its basis is the law of England stripped of technicality and local peculiarities, whilst certain modifications are introduced to meet the exigencies of a country such as British India. It opens with a chapter of general explanations, and interpretations of the terms used throughout the code. It then describes the various punishments to which offenders are liable; follows with a list of the exceptions regarding criminal responsibility under which a person who otherwise would be liable to punishment is exempted from the penal consequences of his act, such as offences committed by children, by accident or misfortune without any criminal intention, offences committed by lunatics, offences committed in the exercise of the right of private defence. It may be worth while to add, as an innovation on English law, that an act which results in harm so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm is not considered an offence under the code. Then follows a chapter on abetment, in other words, the instigation of a person to do a wrongful act. The next chapters deal with offences against the public, including the state, the army and navy, public tranquillity, public servants, contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, perjury; offences relating to coin and government stamps, to weights and measures; offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals; offences relating to religion; and offences relating to the human body, from murder down to the infliction of any hurt. The code then passes on to offences against property; offences relating to forgery, including trade marks, criminal breach of contracts for service; offences relating to marriage, defamation, criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Under this last head is included an attempt to cause a person to do anything which that person is not legally bound to do, by inducing him to believe that he would otherwise become subject to Divine displeasure. The last chapter deals with attempts to commit offences punishable by the code with transportation or imprisonment, and the punishment is limited to one-half of the longest term provided for the offence had it been carried out.

One peculiarity of the Penal Code which has proved eminently successful lies in the system of illustration of the offence declared in every section by a brief statement of some concrete case. For instance, as illustration of the offence of an attempt to commit an offence the following examples are given:—

I. “A. makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds on opening the box there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section.

II. “A. makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z. by thrusting his hand into Z.’s pocket. A. fails in the attempt in consequence of Z. having nothing in his pocket. A. is guilty under this section.”

Passing on to the system of criminal procedure which is set forth in detail in the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in 1898, it is no doubt modelled on the English system, but with considerable modifications. The principal Indian code of criminal procedure. steps are—(1) arrest by the police and inquiries by the police; (2) the issue of summons or warrant by the magistrate; (3) the mode of procedure before the magistrate, who may either try the accused himself or commit him to the sessions or the High Court, according to the importance of the case; (4) procedure before the court of session; (5) appeals, reference and revision by the High Court.

Elaborate provision is made for the prevention of offences, as regards security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, the dispersion of unlawful assemblies, the suppression of nuisances, disputes as to immovable property, which in all Oriental countries constitute one of the most frequent causes of a breach of the peace.

Ample provision is thus made for the prevention of offences, and the code next deals with the mode of prosecution of offences actually committed.

As a general rule, every offence is inquired into and tried by the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. Differing from the practice of continental countries, all offences, even attempts, may be prosecuted after any lapse of time. As in England, there is no statutory limitation to a criminal offence.

A simple procedure is provided for what are called summons cases, as distinguished from warrant cases—the first being offences for which a police officer may arrest without warrant, the second being offences where he must have a warrant, or, in other words, minor offences and important offences. In summons cases no formal charge need be framed. The magistrate tells the accused the particulars of the offence charged; if he admits his guilt, he is convicted; if he does not, evidence is taken, and a finding is given in accordance with the facts as proved. When the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, the magistrate has the power to fine the complainant. The code gives power of criminal appeal which goes much further than the system in England.

In cases tried by a jury, no appeal lies as to matters of fact, but it is allowed as to matters of law; in other cases, criminal appeal is admitted on matters of law and fact.

In addition to the system of appeal, the superior courts are entrusted with a power of revision, which is maintained automatically by the periodical transmission to the High Courts of calendars and statements of all cases tried by the inferior courts; and at the same time, whenever the High Court thinks fit, it can call for the record of any trial and pass such orders as it deems right. All sentences of death must be confirmed by the High Court. No appeal lies against an acquittal in any criminal case. This system of appeal, superintendence and revision would be totally inapplicable to England, but it has proved eminently successful as applied to the present social condition of the inhabitants of India. The appeals keep the judges up to their work, revision corrects all grave mistakes, superintendence is necessary as a kind of discipline over the conduct of judges, who are not subjected, as in England, to the criticism of enlightened public opinion.

These Indian codes form the basis of the penal, &c., codes in force in Ceylon (superseding there the Roman-Dutch law), the Straits Settlements, the Sudan and the East Africa protectorates.

It has already been stated that most European states have codified their criminal law. The earliest of continental codes is that of Charles V., promulgated in 1532, and known as Constitutio Criminalis Carolina. Austria made Foreign codes. further codes in 1768 (Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana) and 1787 (Emperor Joseph’s code). A new code was framed in 1803, and amended in 1852 by reference to the Code Napoléon; and in 1906 a completely new code existed in draft. The Hungarian penal code dates from 1880. The Bavarian code of 1768 of Maximilian, revised in 1861, and the Prussian code of 1780, have been superseded by the German penal code of 1872.

The most important of the continental criminal codes are those of France, the Code Pénal (1810) and the Code d’Instruction Criminelle (1808)—the work of Napoleon the Great and his advisers, which professedly incorporate much of the Roman law.

The Belgian codes (1867), and the Dutch penal code (1880), closely follow the French model. In Spain the penal code dates from 1870, the procedure code from 1886. The Spanish American republics for the most part also have codes. Portugal has a penal code (1852). In Italy the procedure code and the penal code, perhaps the completest yet framed, are of 1890. The Swedish code dates from 1864. The Norwegian code was passed in May 1902, and came into force in 1905. Japan has a code based on a study of European and American models; and Switzerland is framing a federal criminal code.

In the United States no federal criminal code is possible; but most states, following the lead of Louisiana, have digested their criminal law and procedure more or less effectually into penal codes.

(W. F. C.)

CRIMINOLOGY, the name given to a new branch of social science, devoted to the discussion of the genesis of crime (q.v.), which has received much attention in recent years. The expression is one of modern coinage, and originated with the speculative theories first advanced by the school of sociologists which had the Italian savant, Professor Lombroso, at its head. He discovered or was supposed to have discovered a criminal type, the “instinctive” or “born” criminal, a creature who had come into the world predestined to evil deeds, and who could be surely recognized by certain stigmata, certain facial, physical, even moral birthmarks, the possession of which, presumably ineradicable, foredoomed him to the commission of crime. Dr Lombroso, in his ingenious work L’Uomo delinquente, found many attentive and appreciative, not to say bigoted followers. Large numbers of dissentients exist, however, and the conclusions of the Italian school have been warmly contested and on very plausible grounds. If the doctrines be fully accepted the whole theory of free-will breaks down, and we are faced with the paradox that we have no right to punish an irresponsible being who is impelled to crime by congenital causes, entirely beyond his control. The “instinctive” criminal, under this reasoning, must be classed with the lunatic whom we cannot justly, and practically never do, punish. There are other points on which proof of the existence of the criminal type fails absolutely. The whole theory illustrates a modern phase of psychological doctrine, and the subject has exercised such a potent effect on modern thought that the claims and pretensions of the Lombroso school must be examined and disposed of.

The alleged discovery of the “born-criminal” as a separate and distinct genus of the human species was first published by Dr Lombroso in 1876 as the result of long continued investigation and examination of a number of imprisoned criminals. The personality of this human monster was to be recognized by certain inherent moral and physical traits, not all displayed by the same individual but generally appearing in conjunction and then constituting the type. These traits have been defined as follows:—various brain and cerebral anomalies; receding foreheads; massive jaws, prognathous chins; skulls without symmetry; ears long, large and projecting (the ear ad ansa); noses rectilinear, wrinkles strongly marked, even in the young and in both sexes, hair abundant on the head, scanty on the cheeks and chin; eyes feline, fixed, cold, glassy, ferocious; bad repellent faces. Much stress is laid upon the physiognomy, and it is said that it is independent of nationality; two natives of the same country do not so nearly resemble each other as two criminals of different countries. Other peculiarities are:—great width of the extended arms (l’envergure of the French), extraordinary ape-like agility; left-handedness as well as ambi-dexterism; obtuse sense of smell, taste and sometimes of hearing, although the eyesight is superior to that of normal people. “In general,” to quote Lombroso, “the born criminal has projecting ears, thick hair and thin beard, projecting frontal eminences, enormous jaws, a square and protruding chin, large cheek bones and frequent gesticulation.” So much for the anatomical and physiological peculiarities of the criminal. There remain the psychological or mental characteristics, so far as they have been observed. Moral insensibility is attributed to him, a dull conscience that never pricks and a general freedom from remorse. He is said to be generally lacking in intelligence, hence his stupidity, the want of proper precautions, both before and after an offence, which leads so often to his detection and capture. His vanity is strongly marked and shown in the pride taken in infamous achievements rather than personal appearance.

No sooner was this new theory made public than the very existence of the supposed type was questioned and more evidence demanded. A French savant declared that Lombroso’s portraits were very similar to the photographs of his friends. Save for the dirt, the recklessness, the weariness and the misery so often seen on it, the face of the criminal does not differ from that of an honest man’s. It was pointed out that if certain traits denoted the criminal, the converse should be seen in the honest man. A pertinent objection was that the deductions had been made from insufficient premises. The criminologists had worked upon a comparatively small number of criminals, and yet made their discoveries applicable to the whole class. The facts were collected from too small an area and no definite conclusions could be based upon them. Moreover, the criminologists were by no means unanimous. They differed amongst themselves and often contradicted one another as to the characteristics exhibited.

The controversy was long maintained. Many eminent persons have been arrayed on either side. In Italy Lombroso was supported by Colajanni, Ferri, Garofalo; in France by J. A. Lacassagne. In Germany Lombroso has found few followers; Dr Naëcke of Hubertusburg near Leipzig, one of the most eminent of German alienists, declined to admit there was any special animal type. Van Hamel of Amsterdam gives only a qualified approval. In England it stands generally condemned, because it gives no importance to circumstance and passing temptation, or to domestic or social environment, as affecting the causation of crime. Dr Nicholson of Broadmoor has said that “if the criminal is such by predestination, heredity or accidental flaws or anomalies in brain or physical structure, he is such for good and all; no cure is possible, all the plans and processes for his betterment, education, moral training and disciplinary treatment are nugatory and vain.” No weight can then be attached to evil example, or unfavourable social surroundings, in moulding and forming character, particularly during the more plastic periods of childhood and youth.

The pertinent question remains, has the study and development of criminology served any useful purpose? Little perhaps can come of it in its restricted sense, but it has taken a wider meaning and embraces larger researches. It has inquired into the sources and causes of crime, it has collected criminal statistics and deduced valuable lessons from them, it has sought and obtained guidance in the best methods of prevention, repression, and forms of procedure. The champions of law and order have been greatly aided by the criminologist in carrying on the continual combat with crime, and in dealing with the most complicated of social phenomena. The new science has, in fact, by accumulating a number of curious details, in recording the psychology, the secret desires, the springs of the criminal’s nefarious actions, his corrigibility or the reverse, “prepared the way to his sociological explanation” (Tarde). Thanks to the labours of the criminologist we are moving steadily forward to a future improved treatment of the criminal, and may thus arrive at the increased morality and greater safety of society. Very appreciable advance has been made in the increased attention paid to juvenile and adult crime, the acceptance of the theory, now well established, that there is an especially criminal age, a period when the moral fibre is weaker and more yielding to temptation to crime, when happily human nature is more malleable and susceptible to improvement and reform.

The study of criminology has, however, gone far to satisfy us that the true genesis of crime is not to be sought in the anatomical anomalies of individuals, or in the fact that there are people who under “any social conditions whatever and of any nationality at no matter what epoch, would have undoubtedly become murderers and thieves.” On the contrary it may be safely assumed that many such would have done no wrong if they had, e.g., been born rich, had been free from the pressing needs that drove them into crime, and had escaped the evil influences of their surroundings. The criminologists have strengthened the hands of administrators, have emphasized the paramount importance of child-rescue and judicious direction of adults, have held the balance between penal methods, advocating the moralizing effect of open-air labour as opposed to prolonged isolation, and have insisted upon the desirability of indefinite detention for all who have obstinately determined to wage perpetual war against society by the persistent perpetration of crime.

Authorities.—See A. Weingart, Kriminaltaktik, ein Handbuch für das Untersuchen von Verbrechen (Leipzig, 1904); F. H. Wines, Punishment and Reformation (New York, 1895); C. Perrier, Les Criminels (Paris, 1905); G. Macé, Femmes criminelles (Paris, 1904); E. Carpenter, Prisons, Police and Punishment (1905); R. R. Rentoul, Proposed Sterilization of certain Mental and Physical Degenerates (1904); R. Sommer, Kriminalpsychologie und strafrechtliche Psychopathologie auf naturwissenschaftlicher Grundlage (Leipzig, 1904); F. Kitzinger, Die internationale kriminalistische Vereinigung (1905); Reports of Committee on the best mode of giving efficiency to Secondary Punishments (1831-1832); Reports of the House of Commons Committee of 1853, of the royal commission of 1884, of the departmental committee of 1895, and the annual reports of H. M. inspectors for Great Britain and Ireland.

(A. G.)

CRIMMITZSCHAU, or Krimmitschau, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, on the Pleisse and the main Leipzig-Hof railway, 7 m. N.W. from Zwickau. Pop. (1900) 22,845. The most important industries of the town are the manufacture of buckskin, the spinning of carded yarn and vicuna-wool, and the processes of dyeing, finishing and wool-spinning connected with these. Among other manufactures are brushes, boilers and the like, machinery, metal ware generally, the cases and other parts of watches. The town has a modern school (Realschule), a commercial school, and technical schools for weaving and finishing.

CRIMP (possibly connected with “crimp,” to draw together, or fold in parallel lines, in the sense of “confine”; the primary meaning, however, seems to be that of “agent,” and the word may be a distinct one, of which the origin is lost), an agent for the supplying of soldiers and sailors, by kidnapping, drugging, decoying or other illegal means. Crimps were formerly regularly employed in the days of impressment (q.v.). Now the term is used, first of any one who engages to supply merchant seamen without a licence from the Board of Trade, and is not either the owner, master or mate of the ship, or is not bona fide the servant, and in the constant employment of the owner, or is not a superintendent (Merchant Shipping Act 1894, § 111); and, with a wide application, of the extortionate lodging or boarding-house keepers, who are generally in league with the “crimp” proper.

Sections 212 to 219 inclusive of the above act provide for the protection of merchant seamen in the United Kingdom from imposition. Local authorities at seaports have power to make by-laws for the licensing and regulating of lodging-houses for sailors, and to inflict penalties for the infringement thereof. If this power be not exercised, the Board of Trade may do so. Penalties are also imposed by the act for overcharging by lodging-house keepers, for detaining of seamen’s effects, and for soliciting. Unauthorized persons are prohibited from boarding a ship in port without leave. The Board of Trade officer at a port may provide money for sending a seaman to his home on discharge, and may forward his wages after deducting the expenses. Facilities are also given for having wages sent home from foreign ports at a small charge. These provisions have practically killed “crimping” in the United Kingdom. In the ports of the United States of America crimping was long prevalent, especially on the Pacific coast, and its prevention was very difficult, but state regulations as to the licensing of boarding-houses, and the limitation of the amount of so-called “blood-money” paid by masters of vessels to the suppliers of crews to ships denuded by desertions, have reduced the abuse materially.

The term “to shanghai” is used of a more serious offence. Literally meaning “to ship to Shanghai,” in China, it is applied to the drugging or rendering unconscious by violence or other means of persons, whether sailors or not, and shipping them to distant ports, in order fraudulently to obtain money in advance of wages, or for the sake of the premium paid for supplying crews.

CRIMSON, the name of a strong, bright red colour tinged to a greater or less degree with purple. It is the colour of the dye produced from the dried bodies of the cochineal insect (Coccus cacti). The word, in its earlier forms cremesin, crymysyn, also cramoysin, cf. “cramoisy,” the name of a red cloth, is adapted from the Med. Lat. cremesinus for kermesinus or carmesinus, the dye produced from the insect Kermes (Coccus ilicis), Arab. quirmiz, which Skeat (Etym. Dict., 1898) connects with the Sanskrit krimi, cognate with Lat. vermis and Eng. “worm.” From the Lat. carminus, a shortened form of carmesinus, comes “carmine” (q.v.).

CRINAGORAS, of Mytilene, Greek epigrammatist, flourished during the reign of Augustus (Strabo xiii. p. 617). A number of epigrams appear under his name in the Greek Anthology. From inscriptions discovered at Mytilene, he appears to have been one of the ambassadors sent from that city to Rome in 45 and 26 B.C.

The epigrams have been edited by M. Rubensohn (1888).

CRINOLINE (a Fr. word formed of the Lat. crinis, hair, and linum, thread), a stiffening material made of horse-hair and cotton or linen thread. Substitutes for this, such as the straw-like material used in making hat shapes, are also known by the same name. From the use of the material to expand ladies’ skirts the term was applied, during the third quarter of the 19th century, when the fashion of wearing greatly expanded skirts was at its height, to the whalebone and steel hoops employed to support the skirts thus worn (see Costume). The term is also used of structures resembling these articles, especially of the framework of booms, spars and netting forming a protection for a warship against torpedo attack.

CRINUM, a genus (nat. ord. Amaryllidaceae) of bulbous plants with rather broad leaves and a solid leafless stem, bearing a cluster of handsome white or red funnel-shaped regular flowers. They are well known in cultivation, and owing to the wide distribution of the genus different methods are adopted with different species. Some require the hot, moist temperature of a stove; such are C. amabile, a native of Sumatra, C. amoenum (India), C. Balfourii (Socotra), C. giganteum (West tropical Africa), C. Kirkii (Zanzibar), C. latifolium (India), C. zeylanicum (tropical Asia and Africa), and others. Others thrive in a greenhouse; such are C. asiaticum, a widely distributed plant on the sea-coast of tropical Asia, C. capense and C. longiflorum, from the Cape, and C. Macowani and C. Moorei from Natal. C. asiaticum, C. capense and C. Macowani will also thrive in sheltered positions in the garden.

CRIOBOLIUM, the sacrifice of a ram in the cult of Attis and the Great Mother. It seems to have been a special ceremony instituted after the rise, and on the analogy of the taurobolium (q.v.), which was performed in honour of the Great Mother, for the purpose of giving fuller recognition to Attis in the duality which he formed with the Mother. There is no evidence of its existence either in Asia or in Italy before the taurobolium came into prominence (after A.D. 134). When the criobolium was performed in conjunction with the taurobolium, the altar was almost invariably inscribed to both the Mother and Attis, while the inscription was to the Mother alone when the taurobolium only was performed. The celebration of the criobolium was widespread, and its importance such that it was sometimes performed in place of the taurobolium (Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 505, 506). The details and effect of the ceremony were no doubt similar to those of the taurobolium.

(G. Sn.)

CRIPPLE CREEK, a city and the county-seat of Teller county, almost at the geographical centre of Colorado, U.S.A., one of the phenomenal mining camps of the West. Pop. (1900) 10,147 (1408 foreign-born); (1910) 6206. The city is served by three railways—the Colorado Springs & Cripple Creek District (a branch of the Colorado & Southern), the Midland Terminal (which connects at Divide, 30 m. distant by rail, with the Colorado Midland), and the Florence & Cripple Creek. Cripple Creek is situated on a mountain slope in a pocket amid the ranges, about 9600 ft. above the sea at the head of the stream after which it is named. The municipal water-supply is drawn from Pike’s Peak, 10 m. distant. The interest of the city is in its extraordinary mines and their history. Cripple Creek’s site was frequently prospected after 1860, and “colours” and gold “float” were always found, but not until February 1891 was the source discovered. Cripple Creek was at that time a cattle range. In 1891 the output of gold in the district was valued at $449, in 1892 at $583,010, and in the next three years at $2,010,367, $2,908,702 and $6,879,137 respectively. From 1891 to 1906 the total production of gold was valued at $168,584,331; in 19051 the product of gold was valued at $15,411,724, the total for the whole state being valued at $25,023,973; in 1906 the output for the district was valued at $14,253,245, out of $23,210,629 for the entire state. The development of the camp into a yellow-pine town and then into something more like a substantial city was marvellously rapid. The first railway was completed in 1894. In the same year a great strike—one of the most famous in American industrial history—threatening civil war, temporarily closed the mines; in 1896 fire almost destroyed the city; in 1903-1904 a second strike, lasting more than a year and greater than the first, occurred. The first strike, which was for an eight-hour day and $3.00 wage, was won by the miners. The second, for the recognition outright of the union organization of the miners, secured only a reaffirmation of the former conditions. The ores are almost exclusively gold, tellurides being the most characteristic form, and occur in fissure veins. Outcroppings were very rare, as the veins were covered with loose wash, and this accounted for the late opening of the field. The field covers a district about 8 × 10 m. Some peculiarities of the ores have required the use of new methods in their treatment, and in general the development of mining methods and machinery is of a wonderful character. The whole surrounding country is seamed with miles of tunnels in granite, and the hillsides are dotted everywhere with enormous dumps. The most famous mines have been the “Independence” (1891) and the “Portland” (1892). The latter had in 1904 more than 25 m. of workings above the 1100-ft. level. In 1903 the El Paso drain was completed, to unwater the western half of the field to the 880-ft. level, greatly increasing many mine values and outputs; in 1906 the work of drainage was again taken up, and work on a long bore was begun in May 1907. There are smelters and cyanide extracters in the district, but the bulk of the ore product is shipped to other places for treatment. Among the towns around Cripple Creek in the same mining district is Victor, pop. (1910) 3162, incorporated in 1894, chartered as a city in 1898.

See W. Lindgren and F. L. Ransome, Geology and Gold Deposits of the Cripple Creek District, Colorado, with maps (Washington, 1906), being Professional Paper No. 54 of the United States Geological Survey; and Benjamin McKie Rastall, The Labor History of the Cripple Creek District; A Study in Industrial Evolution (Madison, Wis., 1908), a full account of the strikes of 1894 and of 1903-1904.

CRISA, or Crissa, in ancient geography, one of the oldest cities of Greece, situated in Phocis, on one of the spurs of Parnassus. Its name occurs both in the Iliad and in the Homeric Hymns, where it is described as a powerful place, with a rich and fertile territory, reaching to the sea, and including within its limits the sanctuary of Pytho. As the town of Delphi grew up around the shrine, and the seaport of Cirrha arose on the Crisean Gulf, Crisa gradually lost much of its importance. By the ancients themselves the name of Cirrha was so often substituted for that of Crisa, that it soon became doubtful whether these names indicated the same city or not. The question was practically settled by the investigations of H. N. Ulrichs. From its position Cirrha commanded the approach to Delphi, and its inhabitants became obnoxious to the Greeks from the heavy tolls which they exacted from the devotees who thronged to the shrine. The Amphictyonic Council declared war (the first Sacred War) against the Criseans in 595 B.C., and having taken the town, razed it to the ground, and consecrated its territory to the temple at Delphi. The plunder of the town was sold to defray the expenses of the Pythian games. In 339 the people of Amphissa began to rebuild the town of Cirrha and to cultivate the plain. This act brought on the second Sacred War, the conduct of which was entrusted by the Amphictyons to Philip of Macedon, who took Amphissa (mod. Salona) in the following year. The ruins of Crisa may be still seen where the ravine of the Pleistus joins the plain; its name is probably preserved by the modern Chryso.

See J. G. Frazer’s Pausanias, v. 459 (note on x. 37.5).

(E. Gr.)

CRISPI, FRANCESCO (1819-1901), Italian statesman, was born at Ribéra in Sicily on the 4th of October 1819. In 1846 he established himself as advocate at Naples. On the outbreak of the Sicilian revolution at Palermo (January 12, 1848) he hastened to the island and took an active part in guiding the insurrection. Upon the restoration of the Bourbon government (May 15, 1849) he was excluded from the amnesty and compelled to flee to Piedmont. Here he unsuccessfully applied for a situation as communal secretary of Verolengo, and eked out a penurious existence by journalism. Implicated in the Mazzinian conspiracy at Milan (February 6, 1853), he was expelled from Piedmont, and obliged to take refuge at Malta, whence he fled to Paris. Expelled from France, he joined Mazzini in London, and continued to conspire for the redemption of Italy. On the 15th of June 1859 he returned to Italy after publishing a letter repudiating the aggrandizement of Piedmont, and proclaiming himself a republican and a partisan of national unity. Twice in that year he went the round of the Sicilian cities in disguise, and prepared the insurrectionary movement of 1860.

Upon his return to Genoa he organized, with Bertani, Bixio, Medici and Garibaldi, the expedition of the Thousand, and overcoming by a stratagem the hesitation of Garibaldi, secured the departure of the expedition on the 5th of May 1860. Disembarking at Marsala on the 11th, Crispi on the 13th, at Salemi, drew up the proclamation whereby Garibaldi assumed the dictatorship of Sicily, with the programme: “Italy and Victor Emmanuel.” After the fall of Palermo, Crispi was appointed minister of the interior and of finance in the Sicilian provisional government, but was shortly afterwards obliged to resign on account of the struggle between Garibaldi and the emissaries of Cavour with regard to the question of immediate annexation. Appointed secretary to Garibaldi, Crispi secured the resignation of Depretis, whom Garibaldi had appointed pro-dictator, and would have continued his fierce opposition to Cavour at Naples, where he had been placed by Garibaldi in the foreign office, had not the advent of the Italian regular troops and the annexation of the Two Sicilies to Italy brought about Garibaldi’s withdrawal to Caprera and Crispi’s own resignation. Entering parliament in 1861 as deputy of the extreme Left for Castelvetrano, Crispi acquired the reputation of being the most aggressive and most impetuous member of the republican party. In 1864, however, he made at the chamber a monarchical profession of faith, in the famous phrase afterwards repeated in his letter to Mazzini: “The monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us.” In 1860 he refused to enter the Ricasoli cabinet; in 1867 he worked to impede the Garibaldian invasion of the papal states, foreseeing the French occupation of Rome and the disaster of Mentana. By methods of the same character as those subsequently employed against himself by Cavallotti, he carried on the violent agitation known as the Lobbia affair, in which sundry conservative deputies were, on insufficient grounds, accused of corruption. On the outbreak of the Franco-German War he worked energetically to impede the projected alliance with France, and to drive the Lanza cabinet to Rome. The death of Ratazzi in 1873 induced Crispi’s friends to put forward his candidature to the leadership of the Left; but Crispi, anxious to reassure the crown, secured the election of Depretis. After the advent of the Left he was elected (November 1876) president of the chamber. During the autumn of 1877 he went to London, Paris and Berlin on a confidential mission, establishing cordial personal relationships with Gladstone, Granville and other English statesmen, and with Bismarck.

In December 1877 he replaced Nicotera as minister of the interior in the Depretis cabinet, his short term of office (70 days) being signalized by a series of important events. On January 9, 1878, the death of Victor Emmanuel and the accession of King Humbert enabled Crispi to secure the formal establishment of a unitary monarchy, the new monarch taking the title of Humbert I. of Italy instead of Humbert IV. of Savoy. The remains of Victor Emmanuel were interred in the Pantheon instead of being transported to the Savoy Mausoleum at Superga. On the 9th of February, 1879, the death of Pius IX. necessitated a conclave, the first to be held after the unification of Italy. Crispi, helped by Mancini and Cardinal Pecci (afterwards Leo XIII.), persuaded the Sacred College to hold the conclave in Rome, and prorogued the chamber lest any untoward manifestation should mar the solemnity of the event. The statesmanlike qualities displayed on this occasion were unavailing to avert the storm of indignation conjured up by Crispi’s opponents in connexion with a charge of bigamy not susceptible of legal proof. Crispi was compelled to resign office, although the judicial authorities upheld the invalidity of his early marriage, contracted at Malta in 1853, and ratified his subsequent union with Signora Barbagallo. For nine years Crispi remained politically under a cloud, but in 1887 returned to office as minister of the interior in the Depretis cabinet, succeeding to the premiership upon the death of Depretis (July 29, 1887).

One of his first acts as premier was a visit to Bismarck, whom he desired to consult upon the working of the Triple Alliance. Basing his foreign policy upon the alliance, as supplemented by the naval entente with Great Britain negotiated by his predecessor, Count Robilant, Crispi assumed a resolute attitude towards France, breaking off the prolonged and unfruitful negotiations for a new Franco-Italian commercial treaty, and refusing the French invitation to organize an Italian section at the Paris Exhibition of 1889. At home Crispi secured the adoption of the Sanitary and Commercial Codes, and reformed the administration of justice. Forsaken by his Radical friends, Crispi governed with the help of the Right until, on the 31st of January 1891, an intemperate allusion to the sante memorie of the conservative party led to his overthrow. In December 1893 the impotence of the Giolitti cabinet to restore public order, then menaced by disturbances in Sicily and in Lunigiana, gave rise to a general demand that Crispi should return to power. Upon resuming office he vigorously suppressed the disorders, and steadily supported the energetic remedies adopted by Sonnino, minister of finance, to save Italian credit, which had been severely shaken by the bank and financial crises of 1892-1893. Crispi’s uncompromising suppression of disorder, and his refusal to abandon either the Triple Alliance or the Eritrean colony, or to forsake his colleague Sonnino, caused a breach between him and the radical leader Cavallotti. Cavallotti then began against him a pitiless campaign of defamation. An unsuccessful attempt upon Crispi’s life by the anarchist Lega brought a momentary truce, but Cavallotti’s attacks were soon renewed more fiercely than ever. They produced so little effect that the general election of 1895 gave Crispi a huge majority, but, a year later, the defeat of the Italian army at Adowa in Abyssinia brought about his resignation. The ensuing Rudini cabinet lent itself to Cavallotti’s campaign, and at the end of 1897 the judicial authorities applied to the chamber for permission to prosecute Crispi for embezzlement. A parliamentary commission, appointed to inquire into the charges against him, discovered only that Crispi, on assuming office in 1893, had found the secret service coffers empty, and had borrowed from a state bank the sum of £12,000 for secret service, repaying it with the monthly instalments granted in regular course by the treasury. The commission, considering this proceeding irregular, proposed, and the chamber adopted, a vote of censure, but refused to authorize a prosecution. Crispi resigned his seat in parliament, but was re-elected by an overwhelming majority in April 1898 by his Palermo constituents. For some time he took little part in active politics, chiefly on account of his growing blindness. A successful operation for cataract restored his eyesight in June 1900, and notwithstanding his 81 years he resumed to some extent his former political activity. Soon afterwards, however, his health began to give way permanently, and he died at Naples on the 12th of August 1901.

The importance of Crispi in Italian public life depended less upon the many reforms accomplished under his administrations than upon his intense patriotism, remarkable fibre, and capacity for administering to his fellow-countrymen the political tonic of which they stood in constant need. In regard to foreign politics he greatly contributed to raise Italian prestige and to dispel the reputation for untrustworthiness and vacillation acquired by many of his predecessors. If in regard to France his policy appeared to lack suavity and circumspection, it must be remembered that the French republic was then engaged in active anti-Italian schemes and was working, both at the Vatican and in the sphere of colonial politics, to create a situation that should compel Italy to bow to French exigencies and to abandon the Triple Alliance. Crispi was prepared to cultivate good relations with France, but refused to yield to pressure or to submit to dictation; and in this attitude he was firmly supported by the bulk of his fellow-countrymen. The criticism freely directed against him was based rather upon the circumstances of his unfortunate private life and the misdeeds of an unscrupulous entourage which traded upon his name than upon his personal or political shortcomings.

See Scritti e discorsi politici di F. Crispi, 1847-1890 (Rome, 1890); Francesco Crispi, by W. J. Stillman (London, 1899).

CRISPIN and CRISPINIAN, the patron saints of shoemakers, whose festival is celebrated on the 25th of October. Their history is largely legendary, and there exists no trace of it earlier than the 8th century. It is said that they were brothers and members of a noble family in Rome. They gave up their property and travelled to Soissons (Noviodunum, Augusta Sucessionum), where they supported themselves by shoemaking and made many converts to Christianity. The emperor Maximianus (Herculius) condemned them to death. His prefect Rictiovarus endeavoured to carry out the sentence, but they emerged unharmed from all the ordeals to which he subjected them, and the weapons he used recoiled against the executioners. Rictiovarus in disgust cast himself into the fire, or the caldron of boiling tar, from which they had emerged refreshed. At last Maximian had their heads cut off (c. 287-300). Their remains were buried at Soissons, but were afterwards removed, partly by Charlemagne to Osnabrück (where a festival is observed annually on the 20th of June) and partly to the chapel of St Lawrence in Rome. The abbeys of St Crépin-en-Chaye (the remains of which still form part of a farmhouse on the river Aisne, N.N.W. of Soissons), of St Crépin-le-Petit, and St Crépin-le-Grand (the site of which is occupied by a house belonging to the Sisters of Mercy), in or near Soissons, commemorated the places sanctified by their imprisonment and burial. There are also relics at Fulda, and a Kentish tradition claims that the bodies of the martyrs were cast into the sea and cast on shore on Romney Marsh (see Acta SS. Bolland, xi. 495; A. Butler, Lives of the Saints. October 25th).

Especially in France, but also in England and in other parts of Europe, the festival of St Crispin was for centuries the occasion of solemn processions and merry-making, in which gilds of shoemakers took the chief part. At Troyes, where the gild of St Crispin was reconstituted as late as 1820, an annual festival is celebrated in the church of St Urban. In England and Scotland the day acquired additional importance as the anniversary of the battle of Agincourt (cf. Shakespeare, Henry V. iv. 3); the symbolical processions in honour of “King Crispin” at Stirling and Edinburgh were particularly famous.

For other examples see Notes and Queries, 1st series, v. 30, vi. 243; W. S. Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs (London, 1898).

CRITIAS, Athenian orator and poet, and one of the Thirty Tyrants. In his youth he was a pupil of Gorgias and Socrates, but subsequently devoted himself to political intrigues. In 415 B.C. he was implicated in the mutilation of the Hermae and imprisoned. In 411 he helped to put down the Four Hundred, and was instrumental in procuring the recall of Alcibiades. He was banished (probably in the democratic reaction of 407) and fled to Thessaly, where he stirred up the Penestae (the helots of Thessaly) against their masters, and endeavoured to establish a democracy. Returning to Athens he was made ephor by the oligarchical party; and he was the most cruel and unscrupulous of the Thirty Tyrants who in 404 were appointed by the Lacedaemonians. He was slain in battle against Thrasybulus and the returning democrats. Critias was a man of varied talents—poet, orator, historian and philosopher. Some fragments of his elegies will be found in Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci. He was also the author of several tragedies and of biographies of distinguished poets (possibly in verse).

See Xenophon, Hellenica, ii. 3. 4. 19, Memorabilia, i. 2; Cornelius Nepos, Thrasybulus, 2; R. Lallier, De Critiae tyranni vita ac scriptis (1875); Nestle, Neue Jahrb. f. d. kl. Altert. (1903).

CRITICISM (from the Gr. κρίτης, a judge, κρίνειν, to decide, to give an authoritative opinion), the art of judging the qualities and values of an aesthetic object, whether in literature or the fine arts.1 It involves, in the first instance, the formation and expression of a judgment on the qualities of anything, and Matthew Arnold defined it in this general sense as “a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.” It has come, however, to possess a secondary and specialized meaning as a published analysis of the qualities and characteristics of a work in literature or fine art, itself taking the form of independent literature. The sense in which criticism is taken as implying censure, the “picking holes” in any statement or production, is frequent, but it is entirely unjustifiable. There is nothing in the proper scope of criticism which presupposes blame. On the contrary, a work of perfect beauty and fitness, in which no fault could possibly be found with justice, is as proper a subject for criticism to deal with as a work of the greatest imperfection. It may be perfectly just to state that a book or a picture is “beneath criticism,” i.e. is so wanting in all qualities of originality and technical excellence that time would merely be wasted in analysing it. But it can never be properly said that a work is “above criticism,” although it may be “above censure,” for the very complexity of its merits and the fulness of its beauties tempt the skill of the analyser and reward it.

It is necessary at the threshold of an examination of the history of criticism to expose this laxity of speech, since nothing is more confusing to a clear conception of this art than to suppose that it consists in an effort to detect what is blameworthy. Candid criticism should be neither benevolent nor adverse; its function is to give a just judgment, without partiality or bias. A critic (κριτικός) is one who exercises the art of criticism, who sets himself up, or is set up, as a judge of literary and artistic merit. The irritability of mankind, which easily forgets and neglects praise, but cannot forgive the rankling poison of blame, has set upon the word critic a seal which is even more unamiable than that of criticism. It takes its most savage form in Benjamin Disraeli’s celebrated and deplorable dictum, “the critics are the men who have failed in literature and art.” It is plain that such names as those of Aristotle, Dante, Dryden, Joshua Reynolds, Sainte-Beuve and Matthew Arnold are not to be thus swept by a reckless fulmination. There have been many critics who brought from failure in imaginative composition a cavilling, jealous and ignoble temper, who have mainly exercised their function in indulging the evil passion of envy. But, so far as they have done this, they have proved themselves bad critics, and neither minute care, nor a basis of learning, nor wide experience of literature, salutary as all these must be, can avail to make that criticism valuable which is founded on the desire to exaggerate fault-finding and to emphasize censure unfairly. The examination of what has been produced by other ages of human thought is much less liable to this dangerous error than the attempt to estimate contemporary works of art and literature. There are few indeed whom personal passion can blind to the merits of a picture of the 15th or a poem of the 17th century. In the higher branches of historical criticism, prejudice of this ignoble sort is hardly possible, and therefore, in considering criticism in its ideal forms, it is best to leave out of consideration that invidious and fugitive species which bears the general name of “reviewing.” This pedestrian criticism, indeed, is useful and even indispensable, but it is, by its very nature, ephemeral, and it is liable to a multitude of drawbacks. Even when the reviewer is, or desires to be, strictly just, it is almost impossible for him to stand far enough back from the object under review to see it in its proper perspective. He is dazzled, or scandalized, by its novelty; he has formed a preconceived notion of the degree to which its author should be encouraged or depressed; he is himself, in all cases, an element in the mental condition which he attempts to judge, and if not positively a defendant is at least a juryman in the court over which he ought to preside with remote impartiality.

It may be laid down as the definition of criticism in its pure sense, that it should consist in the application, in the most competent form, of the principles of literary composition. Those principles are the general aesthetics upon which taste is founded; they take the character of rules of writing. From the days of Aristotle the existence of such rules has not been doubted, but different orders of mind in various ages have given them diverse application, and upon this diversity the fluctuations of taste are founded. It is now generally admitted that in past ages critics have too often succumbed to the temptation to regulate taste rigidly, and to lay down rules that shall match every case with a formula. Over-legislation has been the bane of official criticism, and originality, especially in works of creative imagination, has been condemned because it did not conform to existing rules. Such instances of want of contemporary appreciation as the reception given to William Blake or Keats, or even Milton, are quoted to prove the futility of criticism. As a matter of fact they do nothing of the kind. They merely prove the immutable principles which underlie all judgment of artistic products to have been misunderstood or imperfectly obeyed during the life-times of those illustrious men. False critics have built domes of glass, as Voltaire put it, between the heavens and themselves, domes which genius has to shatter in pieces before it can make itself comprehended. In critical application formulas are often useful, but they should be held lightly; when the formula becomes the tyrant where it should be the servant of thought, fatal error is imminent. What is required above all else by a critic is knowledge, tempered with good sense, and combined with an exquisite delicacy of taste. He who possesses these qualities may go wrong in certain instances, but his error cannot become radical, and he is always open to correction. It is not his business crudely to pronounce a composition “good” or “bad”; he must be able to show why it is “good” and wherein it is “bad”; he must admire with independence and blame with careful candour. He must above all be assiduous to escape from pompous generalizations, which conceal lack of thought under a flow of words. The finest criticism should take every circumstance of the case into consideration, and hold it necessary, if possible, to know the author as well as the book. A large part of the reason why the criticism of productions of the past is so much more fruitful than mere contemporary reviewing, is that by remoteness from the scene of action the critic is able to make himself familiar with all the elements of age, place and medium which affected the writer at the moment of his composition. In short, knowledge and even taste are not sufficient for perfect criticism without the infusion of a still rarer quality, breadth of sympathy.

Criticism has been one of the latest branches of literature to reach maturity, but from very early times the instinct which induces mankind to review what it has produced led to the composition of imperfect but often extremely valuable bodies of opinion. What makes these early criticisms tantalizing is that the moral or political aspects of literature had not disengaged themselves from the purely intellectual or aesthetic.

To pass to an historical examination of the subject, we find that in antiquity Aristotle was regarded as the father and almost as the founder of literary criticism. Yet before his day, three Greek writers of eminence had examined, in more or less fulness, the principles of composition; these were Plato, Isocrates and Aristophanes. The comedy of The Frogs, by the latter, is the earliest specimen we possess of hostile literary criticism, being devoted to ridicule of the plays of Euripides. In the cases of Plato and Isocrates, criticism takes the form mainly of an examination of the rules of rhetoric. We reach, however, much firmer ground when we arrive at Aristotle, whose Poetics and Rhetoric are among the most valuable treatises which antiquity has handed down to us. Of what existed in the literature of his age, extremely rich in some branches, entirely empty in others, Aristotle speaks with extraordinary authority; but Mr G. Saintsbury has justly remarked that as his criticism of poetry was injuriously affected by the non-existence of the novelist, so his criticism of prose was injuriously affected by the omnipresence of the orator. This continues true of all ancient criticism. A work by Aristotle on the problems raised by a study of Homer is lost, and there may have been others of a similar nature; in the two famous treatises which remain we have nothing less important than the foundation on which all subsequent European criticism has been raised. It does not appear that any of the numerous disciples of Aristotle understood his attitude to literature, nor do the later philosophical schools offer much of interest. The Neoplatonists, however, were occupied with analysis of the Beautiful, on which both Proclus and Plotinus expatiated; still more purely literary were some of the treatises of Porphyry. There seems to be no doubt that Alexandria possessed, in the third century, a vivid school of critic-grammarians; the names of Zenodotus, of Crates and of Aristarchus were eminent in this connexion, but of their writings nothing substantial has survived. They were followed by the scholiasts, and they by the mere rhetoricians of the last Greek schools, such as Hermogenes and Aphthonius. In the 2nd century of our era, Dio Chrysostom, Aristides of Smyrna, and Maximus of Tyre were the main representatives of criticism, and they were succeeded by Philostratus and Libanius. The most modern of post-Christian Greek critics, however, is unquestionably Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who leads up to Lucian and Cassius Longinus. The last-mentioned name calls for special notice; in “the lovely and magnificent personality of Longinus” we find the most intelligent judge of literature who wrote between Aristotle and the moderns. His book On the Sublime (Περὶ ὕψους), probably written about A.D. 260, and first printed in 1554, is of extreme importance, while his intuitions and the splendour of his style combine to lift Longinus to the highest rank among the critics of the world.

In Roman literature criticism never took a very prominent position. In early days the rhetorical works of Cicero and the famous Art of Poetry of Horace exhaust the category. During the later Augustan period the only literary critic of importance was the elder Seneca. Passing over the valuable allusions to the art of writing in the poets, especially in Juvenal and Martial, we reach, in the Silver Age, Quintilian, the most accomplished of all the Roman critics. His Institutes of Oratory has been described as the fullest and most intelligent application of criticism to literature which the Latin world produced, and one which places the name of Quintilian not far below those of Aristotle and Longinus. He was followed by Aulus Gellius, by Macrobius (whose reputation was great in the middle ages), by Servius (the great commentator on Virgil), and, after a long interval, by Martianus Capella. Latin criticism sank into mere pedantry about rhetoric and grammar. This continued throughout the Dark Ages, until the 13th century, when rhythmical treatises, of which the Labyrinthus of Eberhard (1212?) and the Ars rhythmica of John of Garlandia (John Garland) are the most famous, came into fashion. These writings testified to a growing revival of a taste for poetry.

It is, however, in the masterly technical treatise De vulgari eloquio, generally attributed to Dante, the first printed (in Italian) in 1529, that modern poetical criticism takes its first step. The example of this admirable book was not adequately followed; throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, criticism is mainly indirect and accidental. Boccaccio, indeed, is the only figure worthy of mention, between Dante and Erasmus. With the Renaissance came a blossoming of Humanist criticism in Italy, producing such excellent specimens as the Sylvae of Poliziano, the Poetics (1527) of Vida, and the Poetica of Trissino, the best of a whole crop of critical works produced, often by famous names, between 1525 and 1560. These were followed by sounder scholars and acuter theorists: by Scaliger with his epoch-making Poetices (1561); by L. Castelvetro, whose Poetica (1570) started the modern cultivation of the Unities and asserted the value of the Epic; by Tasso with his Discorsi (1587); and by Francesco Patrizzi in his Poetica (1586).

In France, the earliest and for a long time the most important specimen of literary criticism was the Défense et illustration de la langue française, published in 1549 by Joachim du Bellay. Ronsard, also, wrote frequently and ably on the art of poetry. The theories of the Pléiade were summed up in the Art poétique of Vauquelin de la Fresnaye, which belongs to 1574 (though not printed until 1605).

In England, the earliest literary critic of importance was Thomas Wilson, whose Art of Rhetoric was printed in 1553, and the earliest student of poetry, George Gascoigne, whose Instruction appeared in 1575. Gascoigne is the first writer who deals intelligently with the subject of English prosody. He was followed by Thomas Drant, Harvey, Gosson, Lodge and Sidney, whose controversial pamphlets belong to the period between 1575 and 1580. Among Elizabethan “arts” or “defences” of English poetry are to be mentioned those of William Webbe (1586), George Puttenham (1589), Thomas Campion (1602), and Samuel Daniel (1603). With the tractates of Ben Jonson, several of them lost, the criticism of the Renaissance may be said to close.

A new era began throughout Europe when Malherbe started, about 1600, a taste for the neo-classic or anti-romantic school of poetry, taking up the line which had been foreshadowed by Castelvetro. Enfin Malherbe vint, and he was supported in his revolution by Regnier, Vaugelas, Balzac, and finally by Corneille himself, in his famous prefatory discourses. It was Boileau, however, who more than any other man stood out at the close of the 17th century as the law-giver of Parnassus. The rules of the neo-classics were drawn together and arranged in a system by René Rapin, whose authoritative treatises mainly appeared between 1668 and 1674. It is in writings of this man, and of the Jesuits, Le Bossu and Bouhours, that the preposterous rigidity of the formal classic criticism is most plainly seen. The influence of these three critics was, however, very great throughout Europe, and we trace it in the writings of Dryden, Addison and Rymer. In the course of the 18th century, when the neoclassic creed was universally accepted, Pope, Blair, Kames, Harris, Goldsmith and Samuel Johnson were its most distinguished exponents in England, while Voltaire, Buffon (to whom we owe the phrase “the style is the man”), Marmontel, La Harpe and Suard were the types of academic opinion in France.

Modern, or more properly Romantic, criticism came in when the neo-classic tradition became bankrupt throughout Europe at the very close of the 18th century. It has been heralded in Germany by the writings of Lessing, and in France by those of Diderot. Of the reconstruction of critical opinion in the 19th century it is impossible to speak here with any fulness, it is contained in the record of the recent literature of each European language. It is noticeable, in England, that the predominant place in it was occupied, in violent contrast with Disraeli’s dictum, by those who had obviously not failed in imaginative composition, by Wordsworth, by Shelley, by Keats, by Landor, and pre-eminently by S. T. Coleridge, who was one of the most penetrative, original and imaginative critics who have ever lived. In France, the importance of Sainte-Beuve is not to be ignored or even qualified; after manifold changes of taste, he remains as much a master as he was a precursor. He was followed by Théophile Gautier, Saint-Marc, Girardin, Paul de Saint Victor, and a crowd of others, down to Taine and the latest school of individualistic critics, comparable with Matthew Arnold, Pater, and their followers in England.

See G. Saintsbury, A History of Criticism (3 vols., 1902-1904); J. E. Spingarn, A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance (2nd ed. 1908); Théry, Histoire des opinions littéraires (1849); J. A. Symonds, The Revival of Learning (1877); Matthew Arnold, Essays in Criticism, i. (1865), ii. (1868); Bourgoin, Les Maîtres de la critique au XVIIe siècle (1889); Paul Hamelius, Die Kritik in der englischen Literatur (1897); S. H. Butcher, The Poetics of Aristotle (1898); H. L. Havell and Andrew Lang, Longinus on the Sublime (1890). See also the writings of Sainte-Beuve, Matthew Arnold, F. Brunetière, Anatole France, Walter Pater, passim.

(E. G.)

CRITIUS and NESIOTES, two Greek sculptors of uncertain school, of the time of the Persian Wars. When Xerxes carried away to Persia the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton made by Antenor, Critius and Nesiotes were commissioned to replace them. By the help of coins and reliefs, two statues at Naples, wrongly restored as gladiators, have been identified as copies of the tyrannicides of Critius; and to them well apply the words in which Lucian (Rhetor. praecepta, 9) describes the works of Critius and Nesiotes, “closely knit and sinewy, and hard and severe in outline.” Critius also made a statue of the armed runner Epicharinus.

CRITOLAUS, Greek philosopher, was born at Phaselis in the 2nd century B.C. He lived to the age of eighty-two and died probably before 111 B.C. He studied philosophy under Aristo of Ceos and became one of the leaders of the Peripatetic school by his eminence as an orator, a scholar and a moralist. There has been considerable discussion as to whether he was the immediate successor of Aristo, but the evidence is confused and unprofitable. In general he was a loyal adherent to the Peripatetic succession (cf. Cicero, De fin. v. 5 “C. imitari antiquos voluit”), though in some respects he went beyond his predecessors. For example, he held that pleasure is an evil (Gellius, Noctes Atticae, ix. 5. 6), and definitely maintained that the soul consists of aether. The end of existence was to him the general perfection of the natural life, including the goods of the soul and the body, and also external goods. Cicero says in the Tusculans that the goods of the soul entirely outweighed for him the other goods (“tantum propendere illam bonorum animi lancem”). Further, he defended against the Stoics the Peripatetic doctrine of the eternity of the world and the indestructibility of the human race. There is no observed change in the natural order of things; mankind re-creates itself in the same manner according to the capacity given by Nature, and the various ills to which it is heir, though fatal to individuals, do not avail to modify the whole. Just as it is absurd to suppose that man is merely earth-born, so the possibility of his ultimate destruction is inconceivable. The world, as the manifestation of eternal order, must itself be immortal. The life of Critolaus is not recorded. One incident alone is preserved. From Cicero (Acad. ii. 45) it appears that he was sent with Carneades and Diogenes to Rome in 156-155 B.C. to protest against the fine of 500 talents imposed on Athens in punishment for the sack of Oropus. The three ambassadors lectured on philosophy in Rome with so much success that Cato was alarmed and had them dismissed the city. Gellius describes his arguments as scita et teretia.

Consult the article Peripatetics, and histories of ancient philosophy, e.g. Zeller.

CRITTENDEN, JOHN JORDAN (1787-1863), American statesman, was born in Versailles, Kentucky, on the 10th of September 1787. After graduating at the College of William and Mary in 1807, he began the practice of law in his native state. He served for three months, in 1810, as attorney-general of Illinois Territory, but soon returned to Kentucky, and during the War of 1812 he was for a time on the staff of General Isaac Shelby. In 1811-1817 he served in the state House of Representatives, being speaker in 1815-1816, and in 1817-1819 was a United States senator. Settling in Frankfort, he soon took high rank as a criminal lawyer, was in the Kentucky House of Representatives in 1825 and 1829-1832, acting as speaker in the latter period, and from 1827 to 1829 was United States district-attorney. He was removed by President Jackson, to whom he was radically opposed. In 1835, as a Whig, he was again elected to the United States Senate, and was re-elected in 1841, but resigned to enter the cabinet of President W. H. Harrison as attorney-general, continuing after President Tyler’s accession and serving from March until September. He was again a member of the United States Senate from 1842 to 1848, and in 1848-1850 was governor of Kentucky. He was an ardent and outspoken supporter of Clay’s compromise measures, and in 1850 he entered President Fillmore’s cabinet as attorney-general, serving throughout the administration. From 1855 to 1861 he was once more a member of the United States Senate. During these years he was perhaps the foremost champion of Union in the South, and strenuously opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which he declared prophetically would unite the various elements of opposition in the North, and render the breach between the sections irreparable. Nevertheless he laboured unceasingly in the cause of compromise, gave his strong support to the Bell and Everett ticket in 1860, and in 1860-1861 proposed and vainly contended for the adoption by congress of the compromise measures which bear his name. When war became inevitable he threw himself zealously into the Union cause, and lent his great influence to keep Kentucky in the Union. In 1861-1863 he was a member of the national House of Representatives, where, while advocating the prosecution of the war, he opposed such radical measures as the division of Virginia, the enlistment of slaves and the Conscription Acts. He died at Frankfort, Kentucky, on the 26th of July 1863.

See the Life of J. J. Crittenden, by his daughter Mrs Chapman Coleman (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1871).

His son, George Bibb Crittenden (1812-1880), soldier, was born in Russellville, Kentucky, on the 20th of March 1812, and graduated at West Point in 1832, but resigned his commission in 1833. He re-entered the army as a captain of mounted rifles in the Mexican War, served with distinction, and was breveted major for bravery at Contreras and Churubusco. After the war he remained in the army, and in 1856 attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel. In June 1861 he resigned, and entered the service of the Confederacy. He was commissioned major-general and given a command in south-east Kentucky and Tennessee, but after the defeat of his forces by General George H. Thomas at Mill Springs (January 9, 1862), he was censured and gave up his command. He served subsequently as a volunteer aide on the staff of Gen. John S. Williams. From 1867 to 1871 he was state librarian of Kentucky. He died at Danville, Kentucky, on the 27th of November 1880.

Another son, Thomas Leonidas Crittenden (1815-1893), soldier, was also born at Russellville, Kentucky. He studied law, and practised with his father, and in 1842 became commonwealth’s attorney. He served in the Mexican War as a lieutenant-colonel of Kentucky volunteers, and was an aide on Gen. Zachary Taylor’s staff at the battle of Buena Vista. From 1849 to 1853 he was United States consul at Liverpool, England. Like his father, he was a strong Union man, and in September 1861 he was commissioned by President Lincoln a brigadier-general of volunteers. He commanded a division at Shiloh, for gallantry in which battle he was promoted major-general in July 1862. He was in command of a corps in the army of the Ohio under Gen. D. C. Buell, and took part in the battles of Stone River and Chickamauga. Subsequently he served in the Virginia campaign of 1864. He resigned his commission in December 1864, but in July 1866 entered the regular army with the rank of colonel of infantry, receiving the brevet of brigadier-general in 1867, served on the frontier and in several Indian wars, and retired in 1881. He died on the 23rd of October 1893.

CRIVELLI, CARLO, Venetian painter, was born in the earlier part of the 15th century. The only dates that can with certainty be given are 1468 and 1493; these are respectively the earliest and the latest years signed on his pictures—the former on an altar-piece in the church of San Silvestro at Massa near Fermo, and the latter on a picture in the Oggioni collection in Milan. Though born in Venice, Crivelli seems to have worked chiefly in the March of Ancona, and especially in and near Ascoli; there are only two pictures of his proper to a Venetian building, both of these being in the church of San Sebastiano. He is said to have studied under Jacobello del Fiore, who was painting as late at any rate as 1436; at that time Crivelli was probably only a boy. The latter always signed as “Carolus Crivellus Venetus”; from 1490 he added “Miles,” having been then knighted (“Cavalière”) by Ferdinand II. of Naples. He painted in tempera only, and is seen to most advantage in subject pictures of moderate size. He introduced agreeable landscape backgrounds; and was particularly partial to giving fruits and flowers (the peach is one of his favourite fruits) as accessories, often in pendent festoons. The National Gallery in London is well supplied with examples of Crivelli; the “Annunciation,” and the “Beato Ferretti” (of the same family as Pope Pius IX.) in religious ecstasy, may be specified. Another of his principal pictures is in San Francesco di Matelica; in Berlin is a “Madonna and Saints” (1491); in the Vatican Gallery a “Dead Christ,” and in the Brera of Milan the painter’s own portrait, with other examples. Crivelli is a painter of marked individuality,—hard in form, crudely definite in contour; stern, forced, energetic, almost grotesque and repellent, in feature and expression, and yet well capable of a prim sort of prettiness; simply vigorous in his effect of detachment and relief, and sometimes admitting into his pictures objects actually raised in surface; distinct and warm in colour, with an effect at once harsh and harmonious. His pictures gain by being seen in half-light, and at some little distance; under favouring conditions they grip the spectator with uncommon power. Few artists seem to have worked with more uniformity of purpose, or more forthright command of his materials, so far as they go. It is surmised that Carlo was of the same family as the painters Donato Crivelli (who was working in 1459, and was also a scholar of Jacobello) and Vittorio Crivelli. Pietro Alamanni was his pupil.

See, along with Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Berenson, Venetian Painters of the Renaissance (1899); Morelli, Italian Painters (1892-1893); Rushforth, Carlo Crivelli (1900).

(W. M. R.)

CROATIA-SLAVONIA (Serbo-Croatian Hrvatska i Slavonija; Hung. Horvát-Szlavonország; Ger. Kroatien und Slawonien), a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy; bounded on the N. by Carniola, Styria and Hungary proper; E. by Hungary and Servia; S. by Servia, Bosnia and Dalmatia; and W. by the Adriatic Sea, Istria and Carniola. Until 1881 Croatia, in the N.W. of this region, was divided from Slavonia, in the N.E., by a section of the Austrian Military Frontier. This section is now the county of Bjelovar, and forms part of the united kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The river Kulpa, which bisects the county of Agram, is usually regarded as the north-eastern limit of the Balkan Peninsula; and thus the greater part of Croatia, lying south of this river, falls within the peninsular boundary, while the remainder, with all Slavonia, belongs to the continental mainland. According to the official survey of 1900, the total area of the country is 16,423 sq. m. The Croatian littoral extends for about 90 m. from Fiume to the Dalmatian frontier. A narrow strait, the Canale della Morlacca (or della Montagna), separates it from Veglia, Arbe, Pago and other Istrian or Dalmatian islands. The city and territories of Fiume, the sole important harbour on this coast, are included in Hungary proper, and controlled by the Budapest government. Westward from Warasdin, and along the borders of Styria, Carniola, Istria, Dalmatia and north-western Bosnia, the frontier is generally mountainous and follows an irregular course. The central and eastern region, situated between the Drave and Danube on the north, and the Save on the south, forms one long wedge, with its point at Semlin.

Physical Features.—Croatia-Slavonia is naturally divided into two great sections, the highlands of the west and the lowlands of the east.

The plateau of the Istrian Karst is prolonged in several of the bare and desolate mountain chains between the Save and the Adriatic, notably the Great and Little Kapella (or Kapela), which link together the Karst and the Dinaric Alps, culminating in Biela Lažica (5029 ft.); the Plješevica or Pliševica Planina (5410 ft.), overlooking the valley of the river Una; and the Velebit Planina, which follows the westward curve of the coast, and rises above the sea in an abrupt wall, unbroken by any considerable bay or inlet. As it skirts the Dalmatian border, this range attains its greatest altitude in the adjacent peaks of Sveto Brdo (5751 ft.), and Vakanski Vrh (5768 ft.). Large tracts of the Croatian highlands are well-nigh waterless, and it is only in the more sheltered hollows that sufficient soil collects for large trees to flourish. In northern Croatia and Slavonia the mountains are far more fertile, being often densely wooded with oaks, beeches and pines. They comprise the Uskoken Gebirge, or Uskoks Mountains, named after the piratical Uskoks (q.v.) of Zengg, who were deported hither after the fall of their stronghold in 1617; the Warasdin Mountains, with the peak of Ivansciča (3478 ft.); the Agram Mountains, culminating in Sljeme or Slema (3396 ft.), and including the beautiful stretches of Alpine pasture known as the Zagorje, or “land beyond the hills”; the Bilo Gebirge, or White Mountains, a low range of chalk, and, farther to the south, several groups of mountains, among which Psunj (3228 ft.), Papuk (3217 ft.) Crni Vrh (2833 ft.), and the Ravna Gora (2808 ft.) are the chief summits. All these ranges, except the Uskoken Gebirge, constitute the central watershed of the kingdom, between the Drave and Save. In the east Slavonian county of Syrmia1 the Fruška Gora or Vrdnik Mountains rise to a height of 1768 ft. along the southern bank of the Danube, their picturesque vineyards and pine or oak woods contrasting strongly with the plains that surround them.

The lowlands, in the valleys of the Drave, Danube, Save and Kulpa, belong partly to the great Hungarian Plains, or Alföld. Besides the sterile and monotonous steppes, valuable only as pasture, and so sparsely populated that it is possible to travel for many hours without encountering any sign of human life except a primitive artesian well or a shepherd’s hut, there are wide expanses of fen-country, regularly flooded in spring and autumn. The marshes which line the Save below Sissek are often impassable except at Brod and Mitrovica, and the river is constantly scooping out fresh channels in the soft soil, only to abandon each in turn. The total area liable to yearly inundation exceeds 200 sq. m. But along the Drave and Danube the plains are sometimes strikingly fertile, and yield an abundance of grain, fruit and wine.

The main rivers of Croatia-Slavonia, the Danube, Drave and Save, are fully described under separate headings. After reaching Croatian territory 13 m. N.W. of Warasdin, the Drave flows along the northern frontier for 155 m., receiving the Bednja and Karasnica on the right, and falling, near Esseg, into the Danube, which serves as the Hungaro-Slavonian boundary for an additional 116 m. The Save enters the country 16 m. W. of Agram, and, after winding for 106 m. S.E. to Jasenovac, constitutes the southern frontier for 253 m., and meets the Danube at Belgrade. It is joined by the Sotla, Krapina, Lonja, Ilova, Pakra and Oljana, which drain the central watershed; but its only large tributaries are the Una, a Bosnian stream, which springs in the Dinaric Alps, and skirts the Croatian border for 40 m. before entering the Save at Jasenovac; and the Kulpa, which follows a tortuous course of 60 m. from its headwaters north of Fiume, to its confluence with the Save at Sissek. The Mrežnica, Dobra, Glina and Korana are right-hand tributaries of the Kulpa. In the Croatian Karst the seven streams of the Lika unite and plunge into a rocky chasm near Gospić, and the few small brooks of this region usually vanish underground in a similar manner. Near Fiume, the Recina, Rjeka or Fiumara falls into the Adriatic after a brief course. There is no large lake in Croatia-Slavonia, but the upland pools and waterfalls of Plitvica, near Ogulin, are celebrated for their beauty. After a thaw or heavy rain, the subterranean rivers flood the mountain hollows of the Karst; and a lake thus formed by the river Gajka, near Otočac, has occasionally filled its basin to a depth of 160 ft.

Minerals.—The mineral resources of the kingdom, though capable of further development, are not rich. They are chiefly confined to the mountains, where iron, coal, copper, lead, zinc, silver and sulphur are mined in small quantities. Warm mineral springs rise at Krapina, at Toplice near Warasdin, at Stubica near Agram, and elsewhere.

Climate.—The climate of Croatia-Slavonia varies greatly in different regions. In the Karst it is liable to sudden and violent changes, and especially to the bora, a fierce N.N.E. wind, which renders navigation perilous among the islands off the coast, and, in winter, blocks the roads and railway-cuttings with deep snowdrifts. The sheltered bays near Fiume enjoy an equable climate; but in all other districts the temperature in mid-winter falls regularly below zero, and the summer heats are excessive. Earthquakes are common among the mountains, and the eastern lowlands are exposed to the great winds and sandstorms which sweep down the Alföld. At Agram, during the years 1896-1900, the mean annual temperature was 52° F., with 34.6 in. of rain and snow; at Fiume, the figures for the same period were 57° and 71 in.

Agriculture.—The agricultural inquiry of 1895 showed that 94.5% of the country consisted of arable land, gardens, vineyards, meadows, pastures and forests; but much of this area must be set down as mountainous and swampy pasture of poor quality. The richest land occurs in the Zagorje and its neighbourhood, in the hills near Warasdin and in the northern half of Syrmia. The Karst and the fens are of least agricultural value. Indian corn heads the list of cereals, but wheat, oats, rye and barley are also cultivated, besides hemp, flax, tobacco and large quantities of potatoes. The extensive vineyards were much injured by phylloxera towards the close of the 19th century. The Slavonian plum orchards furnish dried prunes, besides a kind of brandy largely exported under the name of sliwowitz or shlivovitsa. Near Fiume the orange, lemon, pomegranate, fig and olive bear well; mulberries are planted on many estates for silkworms; and the heather-clad uplands of the central region favour the keeping of bees. Large herds of swine fatten in the oak and beech forests; and dairy-farming is a thriving industry in the highlands between Agram and Warasdin, where, during the last years of the 19th century, systematic attempts were made to replace the mountain pastures by clover and sown grass. The proportion of sheep to other live-stock is lower than in most of the South Slavonic lands, and the scarcity of goats is also noteworthy. Horsebreeding is a favourite pursuit in Slavonia; and between 1900 and 1902 many thousands of remounts were shipped to the British army in South Africa. The local administration endeavours to better the quality of live-stock by importing purer breeds, distributing prizes, and other measures; but the native farmers are slow to accept improvements.

Forests.—Forests, principally of oak, pine and beech, covered 3,734,000 acres in 1895, about one-fifth being state property. Especially valuable are the Croatian oak-forests, near Agram and Sissek. Timber is exported from Fiume and down the Danube.

Industries.—Apart from the distilleries and breweries scattered throughout the country, the rude flour-mills which lie moored in the rivers, and a few glass-works, saw-mills, silk-mills and tobacco factories, the chief industrial establishments of Croatia-Slavonia are at Agram, Fiume, Semlin, Buccari and Porto Ré. Only 8.3 of the population was, in 1900, engaged in industries other than farming, which occupied 85.2%. The exports mainly consist of foodstuffs, especially grain, of live-stock, especially pigs and horses, and of timber. The imports include textiles, iron, coal, wine and colonial products; with machinery and other finished articles. Goods in transit to and from Hungary figure largely in the official returns for Fiume2 and Semlin, which are the centres of the foreign trade. In 1900 Croatia-Slavonia possessed 253 banking establishments.

Communications.—The commerce of the country is furthered by upwards of 2000 m. of carriage-roads, the most remarkable of these being the Maria Louisa, which connects Karlstadt with Fiume, and the Josephina, which passes inland from Zengg. Many excellent highways were built for strategic purposes before the abolition of the Military Frontier in 1881. The railways, which are all owned and managed by the Hungarian state, intersect most parts of the country except the mountains south of Ogulin, where there is, nevertheless, a considerable traffic over the passes into Dalmatia and Bosnia. Agram is the principal railway centre, from which lines radiate S. W. to Fiume, W. into Austria, N.N.E. to Warasdin and into Hungary, and S.E. into Bosnia by way of Kostajnica. The main line eastward from Agram passes through Brod, where it meets the Bosnian system, and on to Belgrade; throwing out two branch lines to Brčka and Šamac in Bosnia, and several branches on the north, which traverse the central watershed, and cross the Hungarian frontier at Zákány, Barcs, Esseg, Erdar and Peterwardein. Above Agram the Save is used chiefly for floating rafts of timber; east of Sissek it is navigable by small steamboats, but, despite its great volume, the multitude of its perpetually shifting sandbanks interferes greatly with traffic. Steamers also ply on the Una, the Drave below Barcs, and the Danube. The marshes of Syrmia are partially drained by the so-called “Canal of Probus,” the one large artificial waterway in the country, said to have been cut by the Romans in the 3rd century.

Chief Towns,—The principal towns are Agram, the capital, with 61,002 inhabitants in 1900; Esseg, the capital of Slavonia (24,930); Semlin (15,079); Mitrovica (11,518); Warasdin (12,930); Karlstadt (7396); Brod (7310); Sissek (7047); Djakovo (6824); Karlowitz (5643); Peterwardein (5019); Zengg (3182); and Buccari (1870). These are described in separate articles. The centre of the coasting trade is Novi, and other small seaports are San Giorgio (Sveto Juraj), Porto Ré (Kraljevica) and Carlopago. Agram, Gospić (10,799), Ogulin (8699), Warasdin and Bjelovar (6056) are respectively the capitals of the five counties which belong to Croatia proper,—Agram (Hung. Zágráb), Modruš-Fiume, Lika-Krbava, Warasdin (Varasd) and Bjelovar (Belovár-Körös); while the capitals of the three Slavonian counties, Virovitica (Veröcze), Požega (Pozsega) and Syrmia (Szerém), are Esseg, Požega (5000) and Semlin.

Population and National Characteristics.—The population rose from 1,892,499 in 1881 to 2,416,304 in 1900, an increase of little less than one-third, resulting from a uniformly low death rate, with a high marriage and birth rate, and characterized by that preponderance of male over female children which is common to all the South Slavonic lands. More than 75% of the inhabitants are Croats, the bulk of the remainder being Serbs, who predominate in eastern Slavonia. Outside Croatia-Slavonia, the Croats occupy the greater part of Dalmatia and northern Bosnia. There are large Croatian settlements in the south of Hungary, and smaller colonies in Austria. The numbers of the whole nation may be estimated at 3,500,000 or 4,000,000. The distinction between Croats and Serbs is religious, and, to a less extent, linguistic. Croats and Serbs together constitute a single branch of the Slavonic race, frequently called the Serbo-Croatian branch. The literary language of the two nations is identical, but the Croats use the Latin alphabet,3 while the Serbs prefer a modified form of the Cyrillic. The two nations have also been politically separated since the 7th century, if not for a longer period; but this division has produced little difference of character or physical type. Even the costume of the Croatian peasantry, to whom brilliant colours and intricate embroideries are always dear, proclaims their racial identity with the Serbs; their songs, dances and musical instruments, the chief part of their customs and folk-lore, their whole manner of life, so little changed by its closer contact with Western civilization, may be studied in Servia (q.v.) itself. In both countries rural society was based on the old-fashioned household community, or zadruga, which still survives in the territories that formed the Military Frontier, though everywhere tending to disappear and be replaced by individual ownership. The Croatian peasantry are least prosperous in the riverside districts, where marsh-fevers prevail, and especially beside the Save. Even in many of the towns the houses are mere cabins of wood and thatch. As in Servia, there is practically no middle class between the peasants and the educated minority; and the commercial element consists to a great extent of foreigners, especially Germans, Hungarians, Italians and Jews. Numerically this alien population is insignificant. The Italians are chiefly confined to the coast; the Germans congregate at Semlin and Warasdin; the Slovenes are settled along the north-western frontier, where they have introduced their language, and so greatly modified the local dialect; the gipsies wander from city to city, as horse-dealers, metal workers or musicians; there are numerous Moravian and Bohemian settlements; and near Mitrovica there is a colony of Albanians. It is impossible to give accurate statistics of the alien population; for, in the compilation of the official figures, language is taken as a test of nationality, an utterly untrustworthy method in a country where every educated person speaks two or three languages. Croatian nationalists also maintain that official figures are systematically altered in the Hungarian interest.

Constitution and Government.—By the fundamental law of the 21st of December 1867 Austria-Hungary was divided, for purposes of internal government, into Cisleithania, or the Austrian empire, and Transleithania, or the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia. In theory the viceroy, or ban of Croatia-Slavonia is nominated by the crown, and enjoys almost unlimited authority over local affairs; in practice the consent of the crown is purely formal, and the ban is appointed by the Hungarian premier, who can dismiss him at any moment. The provincial government is subject to the ban, and comprises three ministries—the interior, justice, and religion and education,—for whose working the ban is responsible to the Hungarian premier, and to the national assembly of Croatia-Slavonia (Narodna Skupština). This body consists of a single chamber, composed partly of elected deputies, partly of privileged members, whose numbers cannot exceed half those of the deputies. There are 69 constituencies, besides the 21 royal free cities which also return deputies. Electors must belong to certain professions or pay a small tax. The privileged members are the heads of the nobility, with the highest ecclesiastics and officials. As a rule, they represent the “Magyarist” section of society, which sympathizes with Hungarian policy. The chamber deals with religion, education, justice and certain strictly provincial affairs, but even within this limited sphere all its important enactments must be countersigned by the minister for Croatia-Slavonia, a member, without portfolio, of the Hungarian cabinet. At the polls, all votes are given orally, a system which facilitates corruption; the officials who control the elections depend for their livelihood on the ban, usually a Magyarist; and thus, even apart from the privileged members, a majority favourable to Hungary can usually be secured. The constitutional relations between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia are regulated by the agreement, or nagoda, of 1868. This instrument determines the functions of the ban; the control of common interests, such as railways, posts, telegraphs, telephones, commerce, industry, agriculture or forests; and the choice of delegates by the chamber, to sit in the Hungarian parliament. See also below, under History.

For administrative purposes Croatia-Slavonia is divided into 8 rural counties, already enumerated; besides the 4 urban counties, or municipalities of Agram, Semlin, Warasdin and Esseg. These are subdivided into rural and urban communes, Local administration. each with its representative council. The affairs of each rural county are managed by an assembly chosen for 6 years, which comprises not only elected members, but delegates from all the cities except Agram and Esseg, with certain high ecclesiastics and officials.

The highest judicial authority is the supreme court or Septemviral Table, which sits at Agram, and ranks above the royal Justice. courts of appeal, the county courts of first instance, and the district courts or magistracies.

Fully four-fifths of the population belong to the Roman Catholic Church, which has an archbishop at Agram and bishops at Zengg and Djakovo. There are about 12,000 Greek Catholics, with a bishop at Kreuz (Križevac). The Serb congregations, Religion. who had previously been classed as Orthodox Greek, were officially recognized as members of the Orthodox Church of Servia after 1883. Their episcopal sees of Karlowitz and Pakrac depend upon the metropolitanate of Belgrade; but from 1830 to 1838 Karlowitz was itself the headquarters of the Servian Church.

During the 19th century strenuous efforts to better the state of education were made by Bishop Strossmayer (1815-1905) and other reformers; but, although some success was achieved, only one-third Education. of the population could read and write in 1900. Foremost among the educational institutions is the South Slavonic Academy of Sciences and Arts (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti), founded by Strossmayer and others in 1867, as an improvement on a learned society which had existed since 1836. The academy is the headquarters of the nationalist propaganda. Its numerous publications, though sometimes biased by political passion, throw much light on Serbo-Croatian history, law, philology and kindred topics. Agram University, founded in 1874, possesses three faculties—theology, philosophy and law; but, unlike other Hungarian universities, it lacks a faculty of medicine. Its average number of students varies from 300 to 350. In 1900 there were also 19 real-gymnasia, teaching science, art and modern languages, as well as classics and mathematics; 1400 elementary schools; and a few special institutions, such as the naval and military academies of Fiume, ecclesiastical seminaries and commercial colleges. In almost every case the language of instruction is Serbo-Croatian. The development of higher education, without a corresponding advance of technical education, has created an intellectual class, comprising many men of letters, and several painters, musicians and sculptors, though none of great eminence; it also tends to produce many aspirants to official or professional careers, who find employment difficult to obtain. The want of a strong native middle class may partly be traced to this tendency.

History.

Medieval historians did not use the terms Croatia and Slavonia in their present sense. The Croatia of the middle ages comprised north-western Bosnia, Turkish Croatia, and the region now known as Upper Croatia. The whole country between the Drave and Save, thus including a large part of modern Croatia, was called in Latin Slavonia, in German Windisches Land, and in Hungarian Tótország, to distinguish it from the territories in which the Croats were racially supreme (Horvátország). At the time of their conquest by the Romans (35 B.C.) both these divisions were occupied by the Pannonians, who in Slavonia had displaced an older population, the Scordisci; and both were included in the Roman province of Pannonia Inferior, although Slavonia had the distinctive name of Pannonia Savia (see Pannonia). When the Roman dominions were broken up in A.D. 395, Croatia-Slavonia remained part of the Western empire. The Ostrogoths overran it in 489; in 535 it was annexed by Justinian; in 568 it was conquered by the Avars. These were in turn expelled from Croatia by the Croats, a Slavonic people from the western Carpathians, who, according to some authorities, had occupied the territories of the Marcomanni in Bohemia, and been driven thence in the 6th century by the Czechs. The main body of the Croats, whose tribal and racial names respectively are perpetuated in the names of Croatia and Slavonia, entered Croatia between 634 and 638, and were encouraged by the emperor Heraclius to attack the Avars. Smaller bodies had led the way southwards since 548. The Croats formed the western division of the great migratory horde of Serbo-Croats which colonized the lands between Bulgaria and the Adriatic. Contemporary chroniclers called them Chrobati, Belochrobati (“White Croats”), Chrovati, Horvati, or by some similar Latin or Byzantine variant of the Slavonic Khrvaty. The Croats occupied most of the region now known as Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, and north-western Bosnia, displacing or absorbing the earlier inhabitants everywhere except along the Dalmatian littoral, where the Italian city-states usually maintained their independence, and in certain districts of Slavonia, where, out of a mixed population of Slavonic immigrants, Avars and Pannonians, the Slavs, and especially the Serbo-Croats, gradually became predominant. The Croats brought with them their primitive tribal institutions, organized on a basis partly military, partly patriarchal, and identical with the Zhupanates of the Serbs (see Servia); agriculture, war and hunting were their chief pursuits. Although they at first acknowledged no alien sovereign, they passed gradually under Italian influence in the extreme west, and under Byzantine influence in the south and south-east. In 806 the northern and north-eastern districts were added to the empire of the Franks, and thus won for the Western Church. Frankish predominance was long commemorated by the name Francochorion, given by the Byzantines to Syrmia; it is still commemorated by the name Fruška Gora, “Mountains of the Franks,” in that province.

The Croatian Kingdom: c. 910-1091.—In 877 the Croats were temporarily subdued by the Byzantine emperor, but after successive insurrections which tended to centralize their loosely knit tribal organization, and to place all power in the hands of a military chief, they regained their independence and founded a national kingdom about 910. It is probable that Tomislav or Timislav, who had led their armies to victory, assumed the title of king in that year. Some authorities, however, state that Tomislav only bore the title of veliki župan or “paramount chief,” and was only one in a long line of princes which can be traced without interruption back to 818. On this view, Držislav (c. 978-1000) was the first king properly so called. But Tomislav, whatever his official style, was certainly the first of a series of independent national rulers which lasted for nearly two centuries. The records of this period, regarded by many Croats as the golden age of their country, are often scanty, and its chronology is still unsettled. Little is known of Trpimir, who preceded Držislav, or of Stephen I. (1035-1058), but a few of the kings gained a more lasting fame by their success in war and diplomacy. Among these were Krešimir I. (c. 940—946), his successor Miroslav, and especially Krešimir II., surnamed the Great (c. 1000-1035), who harried the Bulgarians, at that time a powerful nation, and conquered a large part of Dalmatia, including some of the Italian cities. Already, under his predecessors, the Croats had built a fleet, which they used first for piracy and afterwards for trade. Their skill in maritime affairs, exemplified first in the 9th century by the pagan corsairs of the Narenta (see Dalmatia: History), and later by the numerous Dalmatian and Croatian sailors who served in the navies of Venice and Austria, is remarkable in a Slavonic people, and one which had so recently migrated from central Europe. At the end of the 10th century they even for a short period exacted tribute from Venice, but their power was temporarily destroyed in 1000, when the Venetians captured and sacked Biograd or Belgrade, the Italian Zaravecchia. This Dalmatian port was not only the Croatian arsenal, but the seat of the kings, who here sought to enhance their dignity by borrowing the grandiose titles and elaborate procedure of the Byzantine court. Krešimir II. and Krešimir Peter (c. 1058-1073), the hero of many national legends and lays, restored the naval power of the Croats. After the death of Krešimir Peter, Slavic or Slaviža reigned until 1076, when he was succeeded by Zvonimir (Svinimir or Zvoinimir) Demetrius. Zvonimir was crowned by the legate of Pope Gregory VII, and appears to have been regarded as a vassal of the papacy. Both he and Stephen II., a nephew of Krešimir II., died in 1089.