(W. G. F. P.)
1The councils which we are about to mention, up to the 9th century, have been published several times, notably in the great collections of Hardouin, Mansi, &c.; they will be found brought together in one small volume in Bruns,Canones apostolorum et conciliorum(Berlin, 1839).2The date of this council was formerly unknown; it is ascribed to 343 by the Syriac Nestorian collection recently published by M. Chabot,Synodicon Orientale, p. 278, note 4.3See Boudinhon, “Note sur le concile de Laodicée,” in theCompte rendu du premier congrès des savants catholiques à Paris, 1888 (Paris, 1889), vol. ii. p. 420.4For the further history of the law of the Greek Church and that of the Eastern Churches, see Vering,Kirchenrecht, §§ 14-183 (ed. 1893). The Russian Church, as we know, adopted the Greek ecclesiastical law.5Edited by Pierre Pithou (Paris, 1588), and later by Chifflet,Fulg. Ferrandi opera(Dijon, 1694); reproduced in Migne,Patr. Lat.vol. 67, col. 949.6Published by Quesnel in his edition of the works of St Leo, vol. ii. (Paris, 1675); reproduced by the brothers Ballerini, with learned dissertations,Opera S. Leonis, vol. iii., Migne,P.L. 56.7Malnory,Saint Césaire d’Arles(Paris, 1894).8Collectio canonum Ecclesiae Hispanae(Madrid, 1808); reproduced in Migne,P.L. 84.9L. Duchesne, “Le Concile d’Elvire” in theMélanges Renier.10For the Penitentials, see Wasserschleben,Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche(Halle, 1851); Mgr. H.J. Schmitz,Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche(2 vols., Mainz, 1883, 1898).11This is proved, in spite of the contrary opinions of Wasserschleben and Schmitz, by M. Paul Fournier, “Étude sur les Pénitentiels,” in theRevue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, vol. vi. (1901), pp. 289-317, and vol. vii., 1902, pp. 59-70 and 121-127.12In Migne,P.L.105, col. 651.13Edited by Wasserschleben (Giessen, 1874). See also P. Fournier, “De l’influence de la collection irlandaise sur la formation des collections canoniques,” inNouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger, vol. xxiii, note I.14The collection of the False Decretals has been published with a long critical introduction by P. Hinschius,Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et capitula Angilramni(Leipzig, 1863). For the rest of the bibliography, seeDecretals (False).15The latest edition is in Pertz,Monumenta Germaniae, vol. ii. part ii.16Edited by Wasserschleben (Leipzig, 1840); reproduced by Migne,P.L. 132.17Edited several times; in Migne,P.L. 140.18P. Fournier, “Le Premier Manuel canonique de la réforme du XIe siècle,” inMélanges de l’École française de Rome, xiv. (1894).19Unpublished.20Edited by Mgr. Pio Martinucci (Venice, 1869). On this collection see Wolf von Glanvell,Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit(Paderborn, 1905).21Unpublished.22Several times edited; in Migne,P.L.161. See P. Fournier, “Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres,”Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartres(1896 and 1897).23Printed in Martene,Nov. Thesaur. anecdot.vol. v. col. 1019.24See P. Fournier, “Deux Controverses sur les origines du Décret de Gratien,” in theRevue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, vol. iii. (1898), pp. n. 2 and 3.25See Laurin,Introductio in corpus juris canonici, c. vii. p. 73.26By referring to the decretals of Gregory IX. for the texts inserted there, E. Friedberg has succeeded in giving a much abridged edition of theQuinque compilationes(Leipzig, 1882).27Edited by Schulte,Die Summa des Paucapaiea(Giessen, 1890).28Edited by Thaner,Die Summa Magistri Rolandi(Innsbruck, 1874); later by Gietl,Die Sentenzen Rolands(Freiburg im B., 1891).29Edited by H. Singer,Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus(Paderborn, 1902).30Edited by Schulte,Die Summe des Stephanus Tornacensis(Giessen, 1891).31He made a Summa of his own collection, ed. E. Laspeyres,Bernardi Papiensis Summa Decretalium(Mainz, 1860). The commentaries of Innocent IV. and Henry of Susa have been frequently published.32The history of this commission and the rules which it followed for editing theDecretum, will be found in Laurin,Introductio in corpus juris canonici, p. 63, or in the Prolegomena to Friedberg’s edition of theDecretum.33Quoted by Hogan,Clerical Studies, p. 235.34There are innumerable editions of the council of Trent. That which is favoured by canonists is Richter’s edition (Leipzig, 1863), in which each chapterde reformationeis followed by a selection of decisions of the S.C. of the council.35Republished by F. Sentis, from one of the few copies which have escaped destruction:Clementis Papae VIII. Decretales, quae vulgo nunenpantur Liber septimus Decretalium Clementis VIII.(Freiburg im B., 1870).36Omnium concilii Vaticani ... documentorum collectio, per Conradum Martin (Paderborn, 1873), p. 152.
1The councils which we are about to mention, up to the 9th century, have been published several times, notably in the great collections of Hardouin, Mansi, &c.; they will be found brought together in one small volume in Bruns,Canones apostolorum et conciliorum(Berlin, 1839).
2The date of this council was formerly unknown; it is ascribed to 343 by the Syriac Nestorian collection recently published by M. Chabot,Synodicon Orientale, p. 278, note 4.
3See Boudinhon, “Note sur le concile de Laodicée,” in theCompte rendu du premier congrès des savants catholiques à Paris, 1888 (Paris, 1889), vol. ii. p. 420.
4For the further history of the law of the Greek Church and that of the Eastern Churches, see Vering,Kirchenrecht, §§ 14-183 (ed. 1893). The Russian Church, as we know, adopted the Greek ecclesiastical law.
5Edited by Pierre Pithou (Paris, 1588), and later by Chifflet,Fulg. Ferrandi opera(Dijon, 1694); reproduced in Migne,Patr. Lat.vol. 67, col. 949.
6Published by Quesnel in his edition of the works of St Leo, vol. ii. (Paris, 1675); reproduced by the brothers Ballerini, with learned dissertations,Opera S. Leonis, vol. iii., Migne,P.L. 56.
7Malnory,Saint Césaire d’Arles(Paris, 1894).
8Collectio canonum Ecclesiae Hispanae(Madrid, 1808); reproduced in Migne,P.L. 84.
9L. Duchesne, “Le Concile d’Elvire” in theMélanges Renier.
10For the Penitentials, see Wasserschleben,Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche(Halle, 1851); Mgr. H.J. Schmitz,Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche(2 vols., Mainz, 1883, 1898).
11This is proved, in spite of the contrary opinions of Wasserschleben and Schmitz, by M. Paul Fournier, “Étude sur les Pénitentiels,” in theRevue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, vol. vi. (1901), pp. 289-317, and vol. vii., 1902, pp. 59-70 and 121-127.
12In Migne,P.L.105, col. 651.
13Edited by Wasserschleben (Giessen, 1874). See also P. Fournier, “De l’influence de la collection irlandaise sur la formation des collections canoniques,” inNouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger, vol. xxiii, note I.
14The collection of the False Decretals has been published with a long critical introduction by P. Hinschius,Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et capitula Angilramni(Leipzig, 1863). For the rest of the bibliography, seeDecretals (False).
15The latest edition is in Pertz,Monumenta Germaniae, vol. ii. part ii.
16Edited by Wasserschleben (Leipzig, 1840); reproduced by Migne,P.L. 132.
17Edited several times; in Migne,P.L. 140.
18P. Fournier, “Le Premier Manuel canonique de la réforme du XIe siècle,” inMélanges de l’École française de Rome, xiv. (1894).
19Unpublished.
20Edited by Mgr. Pio Martinucci (Venice, 1869). On this collection see Wolf von Glanvell,Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit(Paderborn, 1905).
21Unpublished.
22Several times edited; in Migne,P.L.161. See P. Fournier, “Les Collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres,”Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartres(1896 and 1897).
23Printed in Martene,Nov. Thesaur. anecdot.vol. v. col. 1019.
24See P. Fournier, “Deux Controverses sur les origines du Décret de Gratien,” in theRevue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, vol. iii. (1898), pp. n. 2 and 3.
25See Laurin,Introductio in corpus juris canonici, c. vii. p. 73.
26By referring to the decretals of Gregory IX. for the texts inserted there, E. Friedberg has succeeded in giving a much abridged edition of theQuinque compilationes(Leipzig, 1882).
27Edited by Schulte,Die Summa des Paucapaiea(Giessen, 1890).
28Edited by Thaner,Die Summa Magistri Rolandi(Innsbruck, 1874); later by Gietl,Die Sentenzen Rolands(Freiburg im B., 1891).
29Edited by H. Singer,Die Summa Decretorum des Magister Rufinus(Paderborn, 1902).
30Edited by Schulte,Die Summe des Stephanus Tornacensis(Giessen, 1891).
31He made a Summa of his own collection, ed. E. Laspeyres,Bernardi Papiensis Summa Decretalium(Mainz, 1860). The commentaries of Innocent IV. and Henry of Susa have been frequently published.
32The history of this commission and the rules which it followed for editing theDecretum, will be found in Laurin,Introductio in corpus juris canonici, p. 63, or in the Prolegomena to Friedberg’s edition of theDecretum.
33Quoted by Hogan,Clerical Studies, p. 235.
34There are innumerable editions of the council of Trent. That which is favoured by canonists is Richter’s edition (Leipzig, 1863), in which each chapterde reformationeis followed by a selection of decisions of the S.C. of the council.
35Republished by F. Sentis, from one of the few copies which have escaped destruction:Clementis Papae VIII. Decretales, quae vulgo nunenpantur Liber septimus Decretalium Clementis VIII.(Freiburg im B., 1870).
36Omnium concilii Vaticani ... documentorum collectio, per Conradum Martin (Paderborn, 1873), p. 152.
CANOPUS,orCanobus, an ancient coast town of Lower Egypt, a hundred and twenty stadia, or 15 m. east of Alexandria, the principal port in Egypt for Greek trade before the foundation of Alexandria, situated at the mouth of the westernmost (Canopic or Heracleotic) branch of the Nile, on the western bank. The channel, which entered the Mediterranean at the western end of the Bay of Aboukir, is entirely silted up, but on the shore at Aboukir there are extensive traces of the city with its quays, &c. Excavation has disclosed granite monuments with the name of Rameses II., but they may have been brought at a late period for the adornment of the place. It is not certain that Canopus was an old Egyptian town, but it appears in Herodotus as an ancient port. In the 9th year of Ptolemy Euergetes (239b.c.) a great assembly of priests at Canopus passed an honorific degree,inter alia, conferring the titleΕὐεργέτης“Benefactor” on the king. Two examples of this decree are known, inscribed in hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek. From it we learn that the native form of the name of Canopus was Karob. A temple of Osiris was built by Euergetes, but very near to Canopus was an older shrine, a temple of Heracles mentioned by Herodotus as an asylum for fugitive slaves. The decree shows that Heracles here stands for Ammon. Osiris was worshipped at Canopus under a peculiar form, a vase with a human head, and was identified with Canopus, the pilot of Menelaus, who was said to have been buried here: the name canopic has been applied, through an old misunderstanding, to the vases with human and animal heads in which the internal organs were placed by the Egyptians after embalming. In the Roman epoch the town was notorious for its dissoluteness. Aboukir means “father Cyrus,” referring to a Coptic saint of that name.
(F. Ll. G.)
CANOPY(through Fr.canapé, from Med. Lat.canapeum, classicalconopeum, a mosquito curtain, Gr.κώνωψ, a gnat), the upper part or cover of a niche, or the projecting ornament over an altar or scat or tomb. Early English canopies are generally simple, with trefoiled or cinquefoiled heads; but in the later styles they are very rich, and divided into compartments with pendants, knots, pinnacles, &c. The triangular arrangement over an Early English and Decorated doorway is often called a canopy. The triangular canopies in the north of Italy are peculiar. Those in England are generally part of the arrangement of the arch mouldings of the door, and form, as it were, the hood-moulds to them, as at York. The former are above and independent of the door mouldings, and frequently support an arch with a tympanum, above which is a triangular canopy, as in the Duomo at Florence. Sometimes the canopy and arch project from the wall, and are carried on small jamb shafts, as at San Pietro Martire, at Verona. There is an extremely curious canopy, being a sort of horseshoe arch, surmounting and breaking into a circular arch, at Tournai. Similar canopies are often over windows, as at York, over the great west window, and lower tiers in the towers. These are triangular, while the upper windows in the towers have ogee canopies.
CANOSA(anc.Canusium), a town of Apulia, Italy, in the province of Bari, situated on the right bank of the Ofanto (anc.Aufidus), 505 ft. above sea-level, 15 m. S.W. of Barletta by rail. Pop. (1901) 24,230. It was rebuilt in 963 below the Roman city, which had been abandoned after its devastation by the Saracens in the 9th century. The former cathedral of S. Sabino (the bishopric passed in 1818 to Andria), in the southern Romanesque style, was consecrated in 1101: it has five domes (resembling St Mark’s at Venice, except that it is a Latin cross, instead of a Greek cross, in plan) and many ancient columns. The archiepiscopal throne and pulpit of the end of the 11th century are also fine. On the south side of the buildingis the detached mausoleum of Bohemund, son of Robert Guiscard, who died in 1111, constructed partly in Byzantine, partly in the local style. It has fine bronze doors with long inscriptions; the exterior is entirely faced withcipollino(Carystian) marble. The conception of this mortuary chapel, which is unique at this period, was undoubtedly derived from theturbehbefore a mosque; these turbehs are square, domed-roofed tombs in which the sultans and distinguished Mahommedans are buried (E. Bertaux,L’Art dans l’Italie mêridionale, Paris, 1904, i. 312). A medieval castle crowns the hill on the side of which the city stands. (SeeCanusium.)
(T. As.)
CANOSSA,a ruined castle, 1890 ft. above sea-level, in Emilia, Italy, 12 m. S.W. of Reggio Emilia, commanding a fine view of the Apennines. It belonged to the countess Matilda of Tuscany (d. 1115), and is famous as the scene of the penance performed by the emperor Henry IV. before Pope Gregory VII. in 1077. The castle was destroyed by the inhabitants of Reggio in 1255.
CANOVA, ANTONIO(1757-1822), Italian sculptor, was born on the 1st of November 1757, at Passagno, an obscure village situated amid the recesses of the hills of Asolo, where these form the last undulations of the Venetian Alps, as they subside into the plains of Treviso. At three years of age Canova was deprived of both parents, his father dying and his mother remarrying. Their loss, however, was compensated by the tender solicitude and care of his paternal grandfather and grandmother, the latter of whom lived to experience in her turn the kindest personal attention from her grandson, who, when he had the means, gave her an asylum in his house at Rome. His father and grandfather followed the occupation of stone-cutters or minor statuaries; and it is said that their family had for several ages supplied Passagno with members of that calling. As soon as Canova’s hand could hold a pencil, he was initiated into the principles of drawing by his grandfather Pasino. The latter possessed some knowledge both of drawing and of architecture, designed well, and showed considerable taste in the execution of ornamental works. He was greatly attached to his art; and upon his young charge he looked as one who was to perpetuate, not only the family name, but also the family profession.
The early years of Canova were passed in study. The bias of his mind was to sculpture, and the facilities afforded for the gratification of this predilection in the workshop of his grandfather were eagerly improved. In his ninth year he executed two small shrines of Carrara marble, which are still extant. Soon after this period he appears to have been constantly employed under his grandfather. Amongst those who patronized the old man was the patrician family Falier of Venice, and by this means young Canova was first introduced to the senator of that name, who afterwards became his most zealous patron. Between the younger son, Giuseppe Falier, and the artist a friendship commenced which terminated only with life. The senator Falier was induced to receive him under his immediate protection. It has been related by an Italian writer and since repeated by several biographers, that Canova was indebted to a trivial circumstance—the moulding of a lion in butter—for the warm interest which Falier took in his welfare. The anecdote may or may not be true. By his patron Canova was placed under Bernardi, or, as he is generally called by filiation, Torretto, a sculptor of considerable eminence, who had taken up a temporary residence at Pagnano, a village in the vicinity of the senator’s mansion. This took place whilst Canova was in his thirteenth year; and with Torretto he continued about two years, making in many respects considerable progress. This master returned to Venice, where he soon afterwards died; but by the high terms in which he spoke of his pupil to Falier, the latter was induced to bring the young artist to Venice, whither he accordingly went, and was placed under a nephew of Torretto. With this instructor he continued about a year, studying with the utmost assiduity. After the termination of this engagement he began to work on his own account, and received from his patron an order for a group, “Orpheus and Eurydice.” The first figure, which represents Eurydice in flames and smoke, in the act of leaving Hades, was completed towards the close of his sixteenth year. It was highly esteemed by his patron and friends, and the artist was now considered qualified to appear before a public tribunal. The kindness of some monks supplied him with his first workshop, which was the vacant cell of a monastery. Here for nearly four years he laboured with the greatest perseverance and industry. He was also regular in his attendance at the academy, where he carried off several prizes. But he relied far more on the study and imitation of nature. From his contemporaries he could learn nothing, for their style was vicious. From their works, therefore, he reverted to living models, as exhibited in every variety of situation. A large portion of his time was also devoted to anatomy, which science was regarded by him as “the secret of the art.” He likewise frequented places of public amusement, where he carefully studied the expressions and attitudes of the performers. He formed a resolution, which was faithfully adhered to for several years, never to close his eyes at night without having produced some design. Whatever was likely to forward his advancement in sculpture he studied with ardour. On archaeological pursuits he bestowed considerable attention. With ancient and modern history he rendered himself well acquainted and he also began to acquire some of the continental languages.
Three years had now elapsed without any production coming from his chisel. He began, however, to complete the group for his patron, and the Orpheus which followed evinced the great advance he had made. The work was universally applauded, and laid the foundation of his fame. Several groups succeeded this performance, amongst which was that of “Daedalus and Icarus,” the most celebrated work of his noviciate. The simplicity of style and the faithful imitation of nature which characterized them called forth the warmest admiration. His merits and reputation being now generally recognized, his thoughts began to turn from the shores of the Adriatic to the banks of the Tiber, for which he set out at the commencement of his twenty-fourth year.
Before his departure for Rome, his friends had applied to the Venetian senate for a pension, to enable him to pursue his studies without embarrassment. The application was ultimately successful. The stipend amounted to three hundred ducats (about £60 per annum), and was limited to three years. Canova had obtained letters of introduction to the Venetian ambassador, the Cavaliere Zulian, and enlightened and generous protector of the arts, and was received in the most hospitable manner. His arrival in Rome, on the 28th of December 1780, marks a new era in his life. It was here he was to perfect himself by a study of the most splendid relics of antiquity, and to put his talents to the severest test by a competition with the living masters of the art. The result was equal to the highest hopes cherished either by himself or by his friends. The work which first established his fame at Rome was “Theseus vanquishing the Minotaur.” The figures are of the heroic size. The victorious Theseus is represented as seated on the lifeless body of the monster. The exhaustion which visibly pervades his whole frame proves the terrible nature of the conflict in which he has been engaged. Simplicity and natural expression had hitherto characterized Canova’s style; with these were now united more exalted conceptions of grandeur and of truth. The Theseus was regarded with fervent admiration.
Canova’s next undertaking was a monument in honour of Clement XIV.; but before he proceeded with it he deemed it necessary to request permission from the Venetian senate, whose servant he considered himself to be, in consideration of the pension. This he solicited in person, and it was granted. He returned immediately to Rome, and opened his celebrated studio close to the Via del Babuino. He spent about two years of unremitting toil in arranging the design and composing the models for the tomb of the pontiff. After these were completed, other two years were employed in finishing the monument, and it was finally opened to public inspection in 1787 The work, in the opinion of enthusiasticdilettanti, stamped the author as the first artist of modern times. After five years of incessant labour, he completed another cenotaph to the memory of ClementXIII., which raised his fame still higher. Works now came rapidly from his chisel. Amongst these is Psyche, with a butterfly, which is placed on the left hand, and held by the wings with the right. This figure, which is intended as a personification of man’s immaterial part, is considered as in almost every respect the most faultless and classical of Canova’s works. In two different groups, and with opposite expression, the sculptor has represented Cupid with his bride; in the one they are standing, in the other recumbent. These and other works raised his reputation so high that the most flattering offers were sent him from the Russian court to induce him to remove to St Petersburg, but these were declined. “Italy,” says he, in writing of the occurrence to a friend, “Italy is my country—is the country and native soil of the arts. I cannot leave her; my infancy was nurtured here. If my poor talents can be useful in any other land, they must be of some utility to Italy; and ought not her claim to be preferred to all others?”
Numerous works were produced in the years 1795-1797, of which several were repetitions of previous productions. One was the celebrated group representing the “Parting of Venus and Adonis.” This famous production was sent to Naples. The French Revolution was now extending its shocks over Italy; and Canova sought obscurity and repose in his native Passagno. Thither he retired in 1798, and there he continued for about a year, principally employed in painting, of which art also he had some knowledge. He executed upwards of twenty paintings about this time. One of his productions is a picture representing the dead body of the Saviour just removed from the cross, surrounded by the three Marys, S. John, Joseph of Arimathea, and, somewhat in the background, Nicodemus. Above appears the Father, with the mystic dove in the centre of a glory, and surrounded by a circle of cherubs. This composition, which was greatly applauded, he presented to the parochial church of his native place. Events in the political world having come to a temporary lull, he returned to Rome; but his health being impaired from arduous application, he took a journey through a part of Germany, in company with his friend Prince Rezzonico. He returned from his travels much improved, and again commenced his labours with vigour and enthusiasm.
Canova’s sculptures have been distributed under three heads:—(1) Heroic compositions; (2) Compositions of grace and elegance; and (3) Sepulchral monuments and relievos. In noticing the works which fall under each of these divisions, it will be impossible to maintain a strict chronological order, but perhaps a better idea of his productions may thus be obtained. Their vast number, however, prevents their being all enumerated.
(1) His “Perseus with the Head of Medusa” appeared soon after his return. The moment of representation is when the hero, flushed with conquest, displays the head of the “snaky Gorgon,” whilst the right hand grasps a sword of singular device. By a public decree, this fine work was placed in one of thestanzeof the Vatican hitherto reserved for the most precious works of antiquity; but it would be a mistake to say that it wholly sustains this comparison, or that it rivals the earlier realization of the same subject in Italian art, that by Cellini. In 1802, at the personal request of Napoleon, Canova repaired to Paris to model a bust of the first consul. The artist was entertained with munificence, and various honours were conferred upon him. The statue, which is colossal, was not finished till six years after. On the fall of the great Napoleon, Louis XVIII. presented this statue to the British government, by whom it was afterwards given to the duke of Wellington. “Palamedes,” “Creugas and Damoxenus,” the “Combat of Theseus and the Centaur,” and “Hercules and Lichas” may close the class of heroic compositions, although the catalogue might be swelled by the enumeration of various others, such as “Hector and Ajax,” and the statues of Washington, King Ferdinand of Naples, and others. The group of “Hercules and Lichas” is considered as the most terrible conception of Canova’s mind, and in its peculiar style as scarcely to be excelled.
(2) Under the head of compositions of grace and elegance, the statue of Hebe takes the first place in point of date. Four times has the artist embodied in stone the goddess of youth, and each time with some variation. The only material improvement, however, is the substitution of a support more suitable to the simplicity of the art. Each of the statues is, in all its details, in expression, attitude and delicacy of finish, strikingly elegant. The “Dancing Nymphs” maintain a character similar to that of the Hebe. The “Graces” and the “Venus” are more elevated. The “Awakened Nymph” is another work of uncommon beauty. The mother of Napoleon, his consort Maria Louisa (as Concord), to model whom the author made a further journey to Paris in 1810, the princess Esterhazy and the muse Polymnia (Elisa Bonaparte) take their place in this class, as do the ideal heads, comprising Corinna, Sappho, Laura, Beatrice and Helen of Troy.
(3) Of the cenotaphs and funeral monuments the most splendid is the monument to the archduchess Maria Christina of Austria, consisting of nine figures. Besides the two for the Roman pontiffs already mentioned, there is one for Alfieri, another for Emo, a Venetian admiral, and a small model of a cenotaph for Nelson, besides a great variety of monumental relievos.
The events which marked the life of the artist during the first fifteen years of the period in which he was engaged on the above-mentioned works scarcely merit notice. His mind was entirely absorbed in the labours of his studio, and, with the exception of his journeys to Paris, one to Vienna, and a few short intervals of absence in Florence and other parts of Italy, he never quitted Rome. In his own words, “his statues were the sole proofs of his civil existence.” There was, however, another proof, which modesty forbade him to mention, an ever-active benevolence, especially towards artists. In 1815 he was commissioned by the Pope to superintend the transmission from Paris of those works of art which had formerly been conveyed thither under the direction of Napoleon. By his zeal and exertions, for there were many conflicting interests to reconcile, he adjusted the affair in a manner at once creditable to his judgment and fortunate for his country. In the autumn of this year he gratified a wish he had long entertained of visiting London, where he received the highest tokens of esteem. The artist for whom he showed particular sympathy and regard in London was Haydon, who might at the time be counted the sole representative of historical painting there, and whom he especially honoured for his championship of the Elgin marbles, then recently transported to England, and ignorantly depreciated by polite connoisseurs. Canova returned to Rome in the beginning of 1816, with the ransomed spoils of his country’s genius. Immediately after, he received several marks of distinction,—by the hand of the Pope himself his name was inscribed in “the Golden Volume of the Capitol,” and he received the title of marquis of Ischia, with an annual pension of 3000 crowns, about £625.
He now contemplated a great work, a colossal statue of Religion. The model filled Italy with admiration; the marble was procured, and the chisel of the sculptor ready to be applied to it, when the jealousy of churchmen as to the site, or some other cause, deprived the country of the projected work. The mind of Canova was inspired with the warmest sense of devotion, and though foiled in this instance he resolved to consecrate a shrine to the cause. In his native village he began to make preparations for erecting a temple which was to contain, not only the above statue, but other works of his own; within its precincts were to repose also the ashes of the founder. Accordingly he repaired to Passagno in 1810. At a sumptuous entertainment which he gave to his workmen, there occurred an incident which marks the kindliness of his character. When the festivities of the day had terminated, he requested the shepherdesses and peasantgirls of the adjacent hamlets to pass in review before him, and to each he made a present, expending on the occasion about £400. We need not, therefore, be surprised that a few years afterwards, when the remains of the donor came to be deposited in their last asylum, the grief which the surrounding peasantry evinced was in natural expression so intense as to eclipse the studied solemnity of more pompous mourning.
After the foundation-stone of this edifice had been laid,Canova returned to Rome; but every succeeding autumn he continued to visit Passagno, in order to direct the workmen, and encourage them with pecuniary rewards and medals. In the meantime the vast expenditure exhausted his resources, and compelled him to labour with unceasing assiduity notwithstanding age and disease. During the period which intervened between commencing operations at Passagno and his decease, he executed or finished some of his most striking works. Amongst these were the group “Mars and Venus,” the colossal figure of Pius VI., the “Pietà,” the “St John,” the “recumbent Magdalen.” The last performance which issued from his hand was a colossal bust of his friend, the Count Cicognara. In May 1822 he paid a visit to Naples, to superintend the construction of wax moulds for an equestrian statue of the perjured Bourbon king Ferdinand. This journey materially injured his health, but he rallied again on his return to Rome. Towards the latter end of the year he paid his annual visit to the place of his birth, when he experienced a relapse. He proceeded to Venice, and expired there on the 13th of October 1822, at the age of nearly sixty-five. His disease was one which had affected him from an early age, caused by the continual use of carving-tools, producing a depression of the ribs. The most distinguished funeral honours were paid to his remains, which were deposited in the temple at Passagno on the 25th of the same month.
Canova, in a certain sense, renovated the art of sculpture in Italy, and brought it back to that standard from which it had declined when the sense both of classical beauty and moderation, and of Titanic invention and human or superhuman energy as embodied by the unexampled genius of Michelangelo, had succumbed to the overloaded and flabby mannerisms of the 17th and 18th centuries. His finishing was refined, and he had a special method of giving a mellow and soft appearance to the marble. He formed his models of the same size as the work was intended to be. The prominent defect of Canova’s attractive and highly trained art is that which may be summed up in the word artificiality,—that quality, so characteristic of the modern mind, which seizes upon certain properties of conception and execution in the art of the past, and upon certain types of beauty or emotion in life, and makes a compound of the two—regulating both by the standard of taste prevalent in contemporary “high society,” a standard which, referring to cultivation and refinement as its higher term, declines towards fashion as the lower. Of his moral character a generous and unwearied benevolence formed the most prominent feature. The greater part of the vast fortune realized by his works was distributed in acts of this description. He established prizes for artists and endowed all the academies of Rome. The aged and unfortunate were also the objects of his peculiar solicitude. His titles were numerous. He was enrolled amongst the nobility of several states, decorated with various orders of knighthood, and associated in the highest professional honours.
See theLife of Canovaby Memes; that by Missirini; theBiografiaby the Count Cicognara;Canova et ses ouvrages, by Quatremère de Quincy (1834);Opere scelte di Antonio Canova, by Anzelmi (Naples, 1842);Canova, by A.G. Meyer (1898); andLa Relazione del Canova con Napoli ... memorie con documenti inediti, by Angelo Borzelli (1901).
See theLife of Canovaby Memes; that by Missirini; theBiografiaby the Count Cicognara;Canova et ses ouvrages, by Quatremère de Quincy (1834);Opere scelte di Antonio Canova, by Anzelmi (Naples, 1842);Canova, by A.G. Meyer (1898); andLa Relazione del Canova con Napoli ... memorie con documenti inediti, by Angelo Borzelli (1901).
(W. M. R.)
CANOVAS DEL CASTILLO, ANTONIO(1828-1897), Spanish statesman, was born in Malaga on the 8th of February 1828. Educated in his native town, he went to Madrid in 1845, bent upon finding means to complete his literary and philosophical studies. His uncle, Don Serafin Estebañez Calderon, found him a situation as clerk in the Madrid-Aranjuez railway, but Canovas soon took to journalism and literature, earning enough to support himself and pay for his law studies at the Madrid University. During this period he published his two best works—an historical novel,Las Campanas de Huesca, and the history of the decay of Spain from Philip III. to Charles II. under the house of Austria. He became a politician through his Junius-like letters to the “Murcielago”—The Bat, a satirical political journal—and by drawing up the manifesto of Manzanares in 1854 for Marshal O’Donnell, of whom he always remained a loyal adherent. Canovas entered the Cortes in 1854; he was made governor of Cadiz in 1857, sub-director of the state department in 1858, under-secretary at the home office in 1860, minister of the interior in 1864, minister of the colonies in 1865, minister of finance in 1866, and was exiled by Marshal Narvaez in the same year, afterwards becoming a bitter opponent of all the reactionary cabinets until the revolution of 1868. He took no part in preparing that event. He sat in the Cortes Constituyentes of 1869 as a doctrinaire Conservative, combating all Radical and democratic reforms, and defending the exiled Bourbons; but he abstained from voting when the Cortes elected Amadeus king on the 16th of November 1870. He did not object to some of his political friends, like Silvela and Elduayen, entering the cabinets of King Amadeus, and in 1872 declared that his attitude would depend on the concessions which government would make to Conservative principles. After the abdication of Amadeus and the proclamation of the federal republic, Canovas took the lead of the propaganda in favour of the restoration of the Bourbons, and was their principal agent and adviser. He drew up the manifesto issued in 1874 by the young king Alphonso XII., at that time a cadet at Sandhurst; but he dissented from the military men who were actively conspiring to organize an Alphonsistpronunciamiento. Like Marshal Concha, marquis del Duero, he would have preferred to let events develop enough to allow of the dynasty being restored without force of arms, and he severely blamed the conduct of the generals when he first heard of thepronunciamientoof Marshal Campos at Sagunto. Sagasta thereupon caused Canovas to be arrested (30th of December 1874); but the next day the Madrid garrison also proclaimed Alphonso XII. king, and Canovas showed the full powers he had received from the king to assume the direction of affairs. He formed a regency ministry pending the arrival of his majesty, who confirmed his appointment, and for six years Canovas was premier except during the short-lived cabinets of Marshal Jovellar in 1875 and Marshal Campos for a few months in 1879. Canovas was, in fact, the soul of the Restoration. He had to reconstruct a Conservative party out of the least reactionary parties of the days of Queen Isabella and out of the more moderate elements of the revolution. With such followers he made the constitution of 1876 and all the laws of the monarchy, putting a limited franchise in the place of universal suffrage, curtailing liberty of conscience, rights of association and of meeting, liberty of the press, checking democracy, obliging the military to abstain from politics, conciliating the Carlists and Catholics by his advances to the Vatican, the Church and the religious orders, pandering to the protectionists by his tariff policy, and courting abroad the friendship of Germany and Austria after contributing to the marriage of his king to an Austrian princess. Canovas crowned his policy by countenancing the formation of a Liberal party under Sagasta, flanked by Marshal Serrano and other Liberal generals, which took office in 1881. He again became premier in 1883, and remained in office until November 1885; but he grew very unpopular, and nearly endangered the monarchy in 1885 by his violent repression of popular and press demonstrations, and of student riots in Madrid and the provinces. At the death of Alphonso XII. he at once advised the queen regent to send for Sagasta and the Liberals, and during five years he looked on quietly whilst Sagasta re-established universal suffrage and most of the liberties curtailed in 1876, and carried out a policy of free trade on moderate lines. In 1890 Canovas took office under the queen regent, and one of his first acts was to reverse the tariff policy of the Liberals, denouncing all the treaties of commerce, and passing in 1892 a highly protectionist tariff. This was the starting-point of the decline in foreign trade, the advance of foreign exchanges, the decay of railway traffic, and the monetary and financial crisis which continued from 1892 to 1898. Splits in the Conservative ranks forced Canovas to resign at the end of 1893, and Sagasta came in for eighteen months, Canovas resumed office in March 1895 immediately after the outbreak of the Cuban insurrection, and devoted most of his time and efforts, with characteristic determination, to the preparation of ways and means for sending 200,000 men to the West Indies to carry out his stern and unflinching policy of no surrender, no concessions and no reforms. He was making up his mind for another effortto enable General Weyler to enforce the reforms that had been wrung from the Madrid government, more by American diplomacy than from a sense of the inevitable, when the bullet of an anarchist, in August 1897, at the baths of Santa Agueda, cut short his career. On the whole, Canovas must be regarded as the greatest Spanish statesman of the close of the 19th century. He was not only a politician but also a man of the world, a writer of considerable merit, a scholar well versed in social, economic and philosophical questions, a great debater, a clever lecturer, a member of all the Madrid academies and a patron of art and letters.
(A. E. H.)
CANROBERT, FRANÇOIS CERTAIN(1809-1895), marshal of France, was born at St Céré (Lot) on the 27th of June 1809 and educated at St Cyr; he received a commission as sub-lieutenant in 1828, becoming lieutenant in 1833. He went to Algeria in 1835, served in the expedition to Mascara, at the capture of Tlemcen, and in 1837 became captain. In the same year he was wounded in the storm of Constantine, receiving the Legion of Honour for his conduct. In 1839 he was employed in organizing a battalion of the Foreign Legion for the Carlist Wars. In 1841 he was again serving in Africa. Promoted lieutenant-colonel in 1846 and colonel of the 3rd regiment in 1847, he commanded the expedition against Ahmed Sghir in 1848, and defeated the Arabs at the Djerma Pass. Transferred to the Zouaves, he defeated the Kabyles, and in 1849 displayed both courage and energy in reinforcing the blockaded garrison of Bou Sada, and in command of one of the attacking columns at Zaatcha (December 1849). For his valour on the latter occasion he received the rank of general of brigade and the commandership of the Legion of Honour. He led the expedition against Narah in 1850 and destroyed the Arab stronghold. Summoned to Paris, he was made aide-de-camp to the president, Louis Napoleon, and took part in thecoup d’etatof the 2nd of December 1851. In the Crimean War he commanded a division at the Alma, where he was twice wounded. He held a dormant commission entitling him to command in case of St Arnaud’s death, and he thus succeeded to the chief command of the French army a few days after the battle. He was slightly wounded and had a horse killed under him at Inkerman, when leading a charge of Zouaves. Disagreements with the English commander-in-chief and, in general, the disappointments due to the prolongation of the siege of Sevastopol led to his resignation of the command, but he did not return to France, preferring to serve as chief of his old division almost up to the fall of Sevastopol. After his return to France he was sent on diplomatic missions to Denmark and Sweden, and made a marshal and senator of France (grand cross Legion of Honour, and honorary G.C.B.). He commanded the III. army corps in Lombardy in 1859, distinguishing himself at Magenta and Solferino. He successively commanded the camp at Châlons, the IV. army corps at Lyons and the army of Paris. In the Franco-German War he commanded the VI. army corps, which won the greatest distinction in the battle of Gravelotte, where Canrobert commanded on the St Privat position. The VI. corps was amongst those shut up in Metz and included in the surrender of that fortress. After the war Canrobert was appointed a member of the superior council of war, and was also active in political life, being elected senator for Lot in 1876 and for Charente in 1879 and again in 1885. He died at Paris on the 28th of January 1895 and his remains received a public funeral. HisSouvenirswere published in 1898 at Paris.
CANT, ANDREW(1590?-1663), a leader of the Scottish Covenanters. About 1623 the people of Edinburgh called him to be their minister, but he was rejected by James I. Ten years later he was minister of Pitsligo in Aberdeenshire, a charge which he left in 1638 for that of Newbattle in Mid-Lothian. In July of that year he went with other commissioners to Aberdeen in the vain attempt to induce the university and the presbytery of that city to subscribe the National Covenant, and in the following November sat in the general assembly at Glasgow which abolished episcopacy in Scotland. In 1640 he was chaplain to the Scottish army and then settled as minister at Aberdeen. Though a stanch Covenanter, he was a zealous Royalist, preaching before Charles I. in Edinburgh, and stoutly advocating the restoration of the monarchy in the time of the Commonwealth. Cant’s frequent and bitter attacks on various members of his congregation led in 1660 to complaints laid before the magistrates, in consequence of which he resigned his charge. His son Andrew was principal of Edinburgh University (1675-1685).
CANT,(1) (Possibly through the Fr. from Lat.cantos, corner), in architecture, a term used where the corner of a square is cut off, octagonally or otherwise. Thus a bay window, the sides of which are not parallel, or at right angles to the spectator, is said to be canted. (2) (From the Lat.cantare, to sing, very early in use, in a depreciatory sense, of religious services), a word appearing in English in the 16th century ‘for the whining speech of beggars; hence it is applied to thieves’ or gipsies’ jargon, to the peculiar language of any class or sect, to any current phrase or turn of language, and particularly to the hypocritical use of pious phraseology.
CANTABRI,an ancient tribe which inhabited the north coast of Spain near Santander and Bilbao and the mountains behind—a district hence known as Cantabria. Savage and untameable mountaineers, they long defied the Roman arms and made themselves a name for wild freedom. They were first attacked by the Romans about 150b.c.; they were not subdued till Agrippa and Augustus had carried out a series of campaigns (29-19b.c.) which ended in their partial annihilation. Thenceforward their land was part of the province Hispania Tarraconensis with some measure of local self-government. They became slowly Romanized, but developed little town life and are rarely mentioned in history. They provided recruits for the Romanauxilia, like their neighbours the Astŭres, and their land contained lead mines, of which, however, little is known.
CANTABRIAN MOUNTAINS(Span.Cordillera Cantabrica), a mountain chain which extends for more than 300 m. across northern Spain, from the western limit of the Pyrenees to the borders of Galicia, and on or near the coast of the Bay of Biscay. The Cantabrians stretch from east to west, nearly parallel to the sea, as far as the pass of Leitariegos, afterwards trending southward between Leon and Galicia. Their western boundary is marked by the valley of the river Miño (Portuguese Minho), by the lower Sil, which flows into the Miño, and by the Cabrera, a small tributary of the Sil. Some geographers regard the mountains of Galicia beyond the Miño as an integral part of the same system; others confine the name to the eastern half of the highlands between Galicia and the Pyrenees, and call their western half the Asturian Mountains. There are also many local names for the subsidiary ranges within the chain. As a whole, the Cantabrian Mountains are remarkable for their intricate ramifications, but almost everywhere, and especially in the east, it is possible to distinguish two principal ranges, from which the lesser ridges and mountain masses radiate. One range, or series of ranges, closely follows the outline of the coast; the other, which is loftier, forms the northern limit of the great tableland of Castile and Leon, and is sometimes regarded as a continuation of the Pyrenees. The coastal range rises in some parts sheer above the sea, and everywhere has so abrupt a declivity that the streams which flow seaward are all short and swift. The descent from the southern range to the high plateaus of Castile is more gradual, and several large rivers, notably the Ebro, rise here and flow to the south or west. The breadth of the Cantabrian chain, with all its ramifications, increases from about 60 m. in the east to about 115 m. in the west. Many peaks are upwards of 6000 ft. high, but the greatest altitudes are attained in the central ridges on the borders of Leon, Oviedo, Palencia and Santander. Here are the Peña Vieja (8743 ft.), Prieta (8304 ft.) and Espinguete (7898 ft.); an unnamed summit in the Peñas de Europa, to which range the Peña Vieja also belongs, rises on the right bank of the Sella to a height of 8045 ft.; farther west the peaks of Manipodre, Ubiña, Rubia and Cuiña all exceed 7000 ft. A conspicuous feature of the chain, as of the adjacent tableland, is the number of itsparameras, isolated plateaus shut in by lofty mountains or even by precipitous walls of rock. At the south-western extremity of the chain is el Vierzo, once alake-bed, now a valley drained by the upper Sil and enclosed by mountains which bifurcate from the main range south of the pass of Leitariegos—the Sierra de Justredo and Montañas de Leon curving towards the east and south-west, the Sierra de Picos, Sierra del Caurel and other ranges curving towards the west and south-east. The Cantabrians are rich in coal and iron; an account of their geological structure is given underSpain. They are crossed at many points by good roads and in their eastern half by several railways. In the west, near the pass of Pájares, the railway from Leon to Gijón passes through the Perruca tunnel, which is 2 m. long and 4200 ft. above sea-level; the railway descends northward through fifty-eight smaller tunnels. The line from Leon to Orense also traverses a remarkable series of tunnels, bridges and deep cuttings.
CANTACUZINO,CantacuzenorCantacuzene, the name of a family which traces its origin to the Byzantine emperors and writers of the same name (see underJohn V., Cantacuzene). The founder of the family, Andronik, migrated to Rumania in 1633, and from his two sons Constantine and Gheorge sprang the two principal lines which afterwards branched into numerous families of nobles and high dignitaries, including hospodars (rulers) of Walachia and Moldavia. The Cantacuzinos were represented in every branch of administration and in the world of letters. Under their influence the Rumanian language and literature in the 17th century reached their highest development. Among the more prominent members of the family the following may be mentioned, (1)Sherban Cantacuzino(1640-1688), appointed hospodar of Walachia in 1679. He served under the Turks in the siege of Vienna, and when they were defeated it is alleged that he conceived the plan of marching on Constantinople to drive the Turks out of Europe, the western powers having promised him their moral support. In the midst of his preparations he died suddenly, poisoned, it is said, by the boyars who were afraid of his vast plans. Far more important was his activity in economic and literary directions. He introduced the maize into Rumania; it is now the staple food of the country. He founded the first Rumanian school in Bucharest; he assisted liberally in the establishment of various printing offices; and under his auspices the famous Rumanian Bible appeared in Bucharest in 1688. Through his influence also the Slavonic language was officially and finally abolished from the liturgy and the Rumanian language substituted for it. (2)Stefan Cantacuzino, son of Constantine, prince of Walachia, 1714-1716. (3)Demetrius Cantacuzino, prince of Moldavia, 1674-1676. He left an unsatisfactory record. Descendants of Demetrius and Sherban have emigrated to Russia, and held high positions there as governors of Bessarabia and in other responsible posts. (4) Of the Moldavian Cantacuzinos,Theodoreis well known as a chronicler of his times (c.1740). (5)Gheorge Cantacuzino(b. 1837), son ofGregori(1800-1849). He was appointed in 1870 minister of public instruction in Rumania; in 1889, president of the chamber; in 1892, president of the senate; from 1899 he was head of the Conservative party, and from 1905 to 1907 prime minister (see alsoRumania:History).