Chapter 7

1La Forest, a knight of St John of Jerusalem, was the first resident ambassador of France at Constantinople. He died in 1537.

CAPIZ,a town and the capital of the province of Capiz, Panay, Philippine Islands, on the Capiz or Panay river, about 4 m. from its mouth on the N. coast. Pop. (1903) 18,525. Capiz has a large and beautiful Roman Catholic church (of stone), a Protestant church (with a hospital) and good government buildings, and is the seat of the provincial high school. Alcohol of a superior quality is manufactured in large quantities from the fermented juice of the nipa palm, which grows plentifully in the neighbouring swamps. Fishing and the weaving of fabrics of cotton, hemp and pineapple fibre are important industries. Rice and sugar are raised in abundance. Tobacco, Indian cornand cacao are produced to a limited extent; and rice, alcohol, sugar and copra are exported. Coasting vessels ascend the river to the town. The language is Visayan.

CAPMANY Y MONTPALAU, ANTONIO DE(1742-1813), Spanish polygraph, was born at Barcelona on the 24th of November 1742. He retired from the army in 1770, and was subsequently elected secretary of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid. His principal works are—Memorias históricas sobre la marina, commercio, y artes de la antigua ciudad de Barcelona(4 vols. 1779-1792);Teatro histórico-critico de la elocuencia Española(1786);Filiosofía de la elocuencia(1776), andCuestiones críticas sobre varias puntos de historia ecónomica, política, y militar(1807). Capmany died at Barcelona on the 14th of November 1813. His monograph on the history of his birthplace still preserves much of its original value.

CAPO D’ISTRIA, GIOVANNI ANTONIO[Joannes],1Count(1776-1831), Russian statesman and president of the Greek republic, was born at Corfu on the 11th of February 1776. He belonged to an ancient Corfiot family which had immigrated from Istria in 1373, the title of count being granted to it by Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy, in 1689. The father of Giovanni, Antonio Maria Capo d’Istria, was a man of considerable importance in the island, a stiff aristocrat of the old school, who in 1798, after the treaty of Campo Formio had placed the Ionian Islands under French rule, was imprisoned for his opposition to the new regime, his release next year being the earliest triumph of his son’s diplomacy. On the establishment in 1800, under Turkish suzerainty, of the septinsular republic—a settlement negotiated at Constantinople by the elder Capo d’Istria—Giovanni, who had meanwhile studied medicine at Padua, entered the government service as secretary to the legislative council, and in one capacity or another exercised for the next seven years a determining voice in the affairs of the republic. At the beginning of 1807 he was appointed “extraordinary military governor” to organize the defence of Santa Maura against Ali Pasha of Iannina, an enterprise which brought him into contact with Theodores Kolokotrones and other future chiefs of the war of Greek independence, and awoke in him that wider Hellenic patriotism which was so largely to influence his career.

Throughout the period of his official connexion with the Ionian government, Capo d’Istria had been a consistent upholder of Russian influence in the islands; and when the treaty of Tilsit (1807) dashed his hopes by handing over the Ionian republic to Napoleon, he did not relinquish his belief in Russia as the most reliable ally of the Greek cause. He accordingly refused the offers made to him by the French government, and accepted the invitation of the Russian chancellor Romanzov to enter the tsar’s service. He went to St Petersburg in 1809, and was appointed to the honorary post of attaché to the foreign office, but it was not till two years after, in 1811, that he was actually employed in diplomatic work as attaché to Baron Stackelberg, the Russian ambassador at Vienna. His knowledge of the near East was here of great service, and in the following year he was attached, as chief of his diplomatic bureau, to Admiral Chichagov, on his mission to the Danubian principalities to stir up trouble in the Balkan peninsula as a diversion on the flank of Austria, and to attempt to supplement the treaty of Bucharest by an offensive and defensive alliance with the Ottoman empire. The Moscow campaign of 1812 intervened; Chichagov was disgraced in consequence of his failure to destroy Napoleon at the passage of the Beresina; but Capo d’Istria was not involved, was made a councillor of state and continued in his diplomatic functions. During the campaign of 1813 he was attached to the staff of Barclay de Tolly and was present at the battles of Lützen, Bautzen, Dresden and Leipzig. With the advance of the allies he was sent to Switzerland to secure the withdrawal of the republic from the French alliance. Here, in spite of his instructions to guarantee the neutrality of Switzerland, he signed on his own responsibility the proclamation issued by Prince Schwarzenberg, stating the intention of the allied troops to march through the country. His motive was to prevent any appearance of disagreement among the allies. The emperor Alexander, to whom he hastened to make an explanation in person, endorsed his action.

Capo d’Istria was present with the allies in Paris, and after the signing of the first peace of Paris he was rewarded by the tsar with the order of St Vladimir and his full confidence. At the congress of Vienna his influence was conspicuous; he represented the tsar on the Swiss committee, was associated with Rasumovsky in negotiating the tangled Polish and Saxon questions, and was the Russian plenipotentiary in the discussions with the Baron vom Stein on the affairs of Germany. HisMémoire sur l’empire germanique, of the 9th of February 1815, presented to the tsar, was based on the policy of keeping Germany weak in order to secure Russian preponderance in its councils. It was perhaps from a similar motive that, after the Waterloo campaign, he strenuously opposed the proposals for the dismemberment of France. It was on his advice that the duc de Richelieu persuaded Louis XVIII. to write the autograph letter in which he declared his intention of resigning rather than submit to any diminution of the territories handed down to him by his ancestors.2The treaty of the 20th of November 1815, which formed for years the basis of the effective concert of Europe, was also largely his work.

On the 26th of September 1815, after the proclamation of the Holy Alliance at the great review on the plain of Vertus, Capo d’Istria was named a secretary of state. On his return to St Petersburg, he shared the ministry of foreign affairs with Count Nesselrode, though the latter as senior signed all documents. Capo d’Istria, however, had sole charge of the newly acquired province of Bessarabia, which he governed conspicuously well. In 1818 he attended the emperor Alexander at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, and in the following year obtained leave to visit his home. He travelled by way of Venice, Rome and Naples, his progress exciting the liveliest apprehensions of the powers, notably of Austria. The “Jacobin” pose of the tsar was notorious, his all-embracing ambition hardly less so; and Russian travellers in Italy, notably the emperor’s former tutor, César de Laharpe, were little careful in the expression of their sympathy for the ideals of the Carbonari. In Metternich’s eyes Capo d’Istria, “the coryphaeus of liberalism,” was responsible for the tsar’s vagaries, the fount of all the ills of which the times were sick; and, for all the count’s diplomatic reticence, the Austrian spies who dogged his footsteps earned their salaries by reporting sayings that set the reactionary courts in a flutter. For Metternich the overthrow of Capo d’Istria’s influence became a necessity of political salvation. At Corfu Capo d’Istria became the repository of all the grievances of his countrymen against the robust administration of Sir Thomas Maitland. At the congress of Vienna the count had supported the British protectorate over the Ionian Islands, the advantages of which from the point of view of trade and security were obvious; but the drastic methods of “King Tom’s” government, symbolized by a gallows for pirates and other evil-doers in every popular gathering place, offended his local patriotism. He submitted a memorandum on the subject to the tsar, and before returning to Russia travelled via Paris to England to lay the grievances of the Ionians before the British government. His reception was a cold one, mainly due to his own disingenuousness, for he refused to show British ministers the memorandum which he had already submitted to the Russian emperor, on the ground that it was intended only for his own private use. The whole thing seemed, rightly or wrongly, an excuse for the intervention of Russia in affairs which were by treaty wholly British.

On his return to St Petersburg in the autumn of 1819, Capo d’Istria resumed his influence in the intimate counsels of the tsar. The murder of the Russian agent, Kotzebue, in March, had shaken but not destroyed Alexander’s liberalism, and it was Capo d’Istria who drew up the emperor’s protest against the Carlsbad decrees and the declaration of his adherence to constitutional views (seeAlexander I.). In October 1820 Capod’Istria accompanied the tsar to the congress at Troppau. The events of the year—the murder of the due de Berry in March, the Revolutions in Spain and in Naples—had produced their effect. Alexander was, in Metternich’s exultant language, “a changed man,” and Capo d’Istria apparently shared his conversion to reactionary principles. The Austrian chancellor now put forth all his powers to bring Alexander under his own influence, and to overthrow Capo d’Istria, whom he despised, distrusted and feared. In 1821 Alexander Ypsilanti’s misguided raid into the Danubian principalities gave him his opportunity. The news reached the tsar at the congress of Laibach, and to Capo d’Istria was entrusted the task of writing the letter to Ypsilanti in which the tsar repudiated his claim, publicly proclaimed that he had the sympathy and support of Russia. For a while the position of Capo d’Istria was saved; but it was known that he had been approached by the agent of the GreekHetairiabefore Ypsilanti, and that he had encouraged Ypsilanti to take up the ill-fated adventure which he himself had refused; he was hated at the Russian court as an upstart Greek, and Metternich was never weary of impressing on all and sundry that he was “using Russian policy for Greek ends.” At last nothing but long habit and native loyalty to those who had served him well, prevented Alexander from parting with a minister who had ceased to possess his confidence. Capo d’Istria, anticipating his dismissal, resigned on the eve of the tsar’s departure for the congress of Verona (1822), and retired into private life at Geneva.

On the 11th of April 1827, the Greek national assembly at Troezene elected Capo d’Istria president of the republic. The vote was a triumph for the Russian faction, for the count, even after his fall, had not lost the personal regard of the emperor Alexander, nor ceased to consider himself a Russian official. He accepted the offer, but was in no hurry to take up the thankless task. In July he visited the emperor Nicholas I. at Tsarskoye Selo, receiving permission to proceed and instructions as to the policy he should adopt, and he next made a tour of the courts of Europe in search of moral and material support. The news of the battle of Navarino (20th of October 1827) hastened his arrival; the British frigate “Warspite” was placed at his disposal to carry him to Greece, and on the 19th of January 1828 he landed at Nauplia.

Capo d’Istria’s rule in Greece had to contend against immense difficulties—the utter poverty of the treasury, the barbarism of the people but recently emancipated, the continued presence of Ibrahim Pasha, with an unbroken army, in the south of the Morea. His strength lay in his experience of affairs and in the support of Russia; but he was by inheritance an aristocrat and by training an official, lacking in broad human sympathy, and therefore little fitted to deal with the wild and democratic elements of the society it was his task to control. The Greeks could understand the international status given to them by his presidency, and for a while the enthusiasm evoked by his arrival made him master of the situation. He thoroughly represented Greek sentiment, too, in his refusal to accept the narrow limits which the powers, in successive protocols, sought to impose on the new state (seeGreece). But the Russian administrative system by which he sought to restrain the native turbulence was bound in the end to be fatal to him. The wild chiefs of the revolution won over at first by their inclusion in his government, were offended by his European airs and Russian uniform, and alienated by his preference for the educated Greeks of the Phanar and of Corfu, his promotion of his brothers Viaro and Agostino to high commands causing special offence. Dissatisfaction ended in open rebellion; the islands revolted; Capo d’Istria called in the aid of the Russian admiral; and Miaoulis, the hero of the Greek war at sea, blew up the warships under his command to prevent their falling into the hands of the government. On land, so far as the president was concerned, the climax was reached with the attempt to coerce the Mavromichales of the Maina, the bravest and most turbulent of the mountain clans, whose chief Petros Mavromichales, commonly known as Petrobey, had played a leading part in the War of Independence. The result was an insurrection in the Maina (Easter, 1830), and the imprisonment of those of the Mavromichales, including Petrobey, who happened to be in the power of the government. At the news of their chieftain’s imprisonment the Mainots, who had for a while been pacified, once more flew to arms and threatened to march on Nauplia; but negotiations were opened, and on the advice of the Russian minister Petrobey consented to make his submission to the president. Unhappily, when he was brought under guard to the appointed interview, Capo d’Istria, in a moment of irritation and weariness, refused to see him. Maddened with rage at this insult from a man who had not struck a blow for Greece, the proud old chief, on his way back to prison, called out to two of his kinsmen, his son George and his brother Constantino, “You see how I fare,” and passed on. According to the code of the Maina this was a command to take revenge. Next day, the 9th of October 1831, the two placed themselves at the door of the church where Capo d’Istria was accustomed to worship. As he passed in Constantine shot him down, and as he fell George thrust a dagger into his heart.

Authorities.—Carl W.P. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy’sGraf Johann Kapodistrias(Berlin, 1864) is based on all the sources, printed and unprinted, available at the time of publication, and contains an excellent guide to these. This may be supplemented by the historical sections of F. de Marten’sRecueil des traites condus par la Russie, &c.(1874, &c.). A sketch of Capo d’Istria’s activity as president will be found in W. Alison Phillips’sThe War of Greek Independence(London, 1897). Many of Capo d’Istria’s despatches, &c., are published in the collections of diplomatic correspondence mentioned in the bibliography of the articleEurope:History. Under the Russian title “Zapiska grapha Joanna Capodistrias” is published in the series of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, vol. iii. p. 163 (St Petersburg, 1868)theAperçu de ma carriére publique,written by Capo d’Istria for presentation to the emperor Alexander, and dated at Geneva12⁄24December 1826. Of unpublished materials may be mentioned the letters of Capo d’Istria to Sir Richard Church, vol. xvi. of the Church Papers in the British Museum (Add. MSS.36453-36571). See further bibliography to chapter vi. of vol. x. of theCambridge Modern History(1907).

(W. A. P.)

1After his election to the Greek presidency in 1827, Capo d’Istria, whose baptismal names were Giovanni Antonio, signed himself Joannes Capodistrias, the form by which he is very commonly known.2The letter was written by Michael Stourdza andcopiedby Louis.

1After his election to the Greek presidency in 1827, Capo d’Istria, whose baptismal names were Giovanni Antonio, signed himself Joannes Capodistrias, the form by which he is very commonly known.

2The letter was written by Michael Stourdza andcopiedby Louis.

CAPODISTRIA,a town and seaport of Austria, in Istria, 15 m. S.W. of Trieste by rail. Pop. (1900) 10,711, mostly Italians. It is situated on a small island, which occupies the end of a large bay in the Gulf of Trieste, and which is connected with the mainland by a causeway half a mile in length. Capodistria is an old town with small streets, and has preserved remarkably well its Italian, almost its Venetian character. The most noteworthy buildings are the cathedral, the town-hall and theLoggiaor the old law-court, all situated in the principal square. In addition to the extraction of salt from the sea in the extensive salt works near the town, fishing and shipbuilding are the other principal occupations of the population. Trade is chiefly in sea-salt, wine and oil. Capodistria is usually identified with the town of Aegida, mentioned by Pliny, which appears by an inscription to have afterwards received (in the 6th century) the name of Justinopolis from Justin II. When at the beginning of the 13th century Istria fell into the hands of the patriarchs of Aquileia, they made this town the capital of the whole province. Thence it acquired its actual name, which means the capital of Istria. It was captured by the Venetians in 1279, and passed into Austrian possession in 1797.

CAPONIER(from the Fr.caponnière, properly a capon-cote or house), in fortification, a work constructed in the ditch of a fort. Its fire (musketry, machine-guns, case shot, &c.) sweeps the bottom of the ditch and prevents an enemy from establishing himself in it. The term is used in a military sense as early as in the late 17th century. In various bastioned systems of fortification a caponier served merely as a covered means of access to outworks, the bastion trace providing for the defence of the ditch by fire from the main parapet.

CAPPADOCIA,in ancient geography, an extensive inland district of Asia Minor. In the time of Herodotus the Cappadocians occupied the whole region from Mount Taurus to the Euxine. That author tells us that the name of the Cappadocians (Katpatouka) was applied to them by the Persians, while they were termed by the Greeks “Syrians,” or “White Syrians” (Leucosyri). Under the later kings of the Persian empire thewere divided into two satrapies or governments, the one comprising the central and inland portion, to which the name of Cappadocia continued to be applied by Greek geographers, while the other was called Cappadociaκατὰ Πόντον, or simply Pontus (q.v.). This division had already come about before the time of Xenophon. As after the fall of the Persian government the two provinces continued to be separate, the distinction was perpetuated, and the name Cappadocia came to be restricted to the inland province (sometimes called Great Cappadocia), which alone will be considered in the present article.

Cappadocia, in this sense, was bounded S. by the chain of Mount Taurus, E. by the Euphrates, N. by Pontus, and W. vaguely by the great central salt “Desert” (Axylon). But it is impossible to define its limits with accuracy. Strabo, the only ancient author who gives any circumstantial account of the country, greatly exaggerated its dimensions; it was in reality about 250 m. in length by less than 150 in breadth. With the exception of a narrow strip of the district called Melitene, on the east, which forms part of the valley of the Euphrates, the whole of this region is a high upland tract, attaining to more than 3000 ft., and constituting the most elevated portion of the great tableland of Asia Minor (q.v.). The western parts of the province, where it adjoins Lycaonia, extending thence to the foot of Mount Taurus, are open treeless plains, affording pasture in modern as in ancient times to numerous flocks of sheep, but almost wholly desolate. But out of the midst of this great upland level rise detached groups or masses of mountains, mostly of volcanic origin, of which the loftiest are Mount Argaeus (still called by the Turks Erjish Dagh), (13,100 ft.), and Hassan Dagh to the south-west (8000 ft.).

The eastern portion of the province is of a more varied and broken character, being traversed by the mountain system called by the Greeks Anti-Taurus. Between these mountains and the southern chain of Taurus, properly so called, lies the region called in ancient times Cataonia, occupying an upland plain surrounded by mountains. This district in the time of Strabo formed a portion of Cappadocia and was completely assimilated; but earlier writers and the Persian military system regarded the Cataonians as a distinct people.

Cappadocia contained the sources of the Sarus and Pyramus rivers with their higher affluents, and also the middle course of the Halys (seeAsia Minor), and the whole course of the tributary of Euphrates now called Tokhma Su. But as no one of these rivers was navigable or served to fertilize the lands along its torrential course, none has much importance in the history of the province.

The kingdom of Cappadocia, which was still in existence in the time of Strabo, as a nominally independent state, was divided, according to that geographer, into ten districts. Of theseCataoniahas been described; the adjoining district ofMelitene, which did not originally form part of Cappadocia at all, but was annexed to it by Ariarathes I., was a fertile tract adjoining the Euphrates; its chief town retains the name of Malatia.Ciliciawas the name given to the district in which Caesarea, the capital of the whole country was situated, and in which rose the conspicuous Mount Argaeus.Tyanitis, the region of which Tyana was the capital, was a level tract in the extreme south, extending to the foot of Mount Taurus.Garsauritisappears to have comprised the western or south-western districts adjoining Lycaonia; its chief town was Archelais.LavianseneorLavinianewas the country south and south-east of Sivas, through which ran the road from Sebastea to Caesarea:Sargarausenelay south of the above, and included Uzun Yaila and the upper basin of the Tokhma Su;Saravenelay west of Laviansene and included the modern district of Ak Dagh;Chamanenelay west again of the above along the middle course of the Halys:Morimenewas the north-western district extending along the edge of the central desert as far south as Melegob.

The only two cities of Cappadocia considered by Strabo to deserve that appellation were Mazaca, the capital of the kingdom under its native monarchs (seeCaesarea-Mazaca); and Tyana, not far from the foot of the Taurus, the site of which is marked by a great mound at a place called Kiz (or Ekuz) Hissar, about 12 m. south-west of Nigdeh. Archelais, founded by Archelaus, the last king of the country, subsequently became a Roman colony, and a place of some importance. It is now Akserai.

Several localities in the Cappadocian country were the sites of famous temples. Among these the most celebrated were those of Comana (q.v.) and Venasa in Morimene, where a male god was served by over 3000hieroduli. The local sanctity of Venasa has been perpetuated by the Moslem veneration for Haji Bektash, the founder of the order of dervishes to which the Janissaries used in great part to belong. Cappadocia was remarkable for the number of its slaves, which constituted the principal wealth of its monarchs. Large numbers were sent to Rome but did not enjoy a good reputation. The Cappadocian peasants are still in the habit of taking service in the West of the peninsula and only returning to their homes after long absences; their labour is now much valued by employers, as they are a strong sober folk. The province was celebrated for its horses, as well as for its vast flocks of sheep; but from its elevation above the sea, and the coldness of its climate, it could never have been rich and fertile.

History.—Nothing is known of the history of Cappadocia before it became subject to the Persian empire, except that the country was the home of a great “Hittite” power centred at Boghaz-Keui (seePteria), which has left monuments at many places,e.g.Nevsheher, Fraktin, Gorun, Malatia, various points about Albistan and Derendeh, Bulgur Maden, Andaval and Tyana. Possibly the princes of the last named city were independent. With the decline of the Syro-Cappadocians after their defeat by Croesus, Cappadocia was left in the power of a sort of feudal aristocracy, dwelling in strong castles and keeping the peasants in a servile condition, which later made them apt for foreign slavery. It was included in the third Persian satrapy in the division established by Darius, but long continued to be governed by rulers of its own, none apparently supreme over the whole country and all more or less tributary to the Great King. Thoroughly subdued at last by the satrap Datames, Cappadocia recovered independence under a single ruler, Ariarathes (hence called Ariarathes I.), who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and maintained himself on the throne of Cappadocia after the fall of the Persian monarchy.

The province was not visited by Alexander, who contented himself with the tributary acknowledgment of his sovereignty made by Ariarathes before the conqueror’s departure from Asia Minor; and the continuity of the native dynasty was only interrupted for a short time after Alexander’s death, when the kingdom fell, in the general partition of the empire, to Eumenes. His claims were made good in 322 by the regent Perdiccas, who crucified Ariarathes; but in the dissensions following Eumenes’s death, the son of Ariarathes recovered his inheritance and left it to a line of successors, who mostly bore the name of the founder of the dynasty, Under the fourth of the name Cappadocia came into relations with Rome, first as a foe espousing the cause of Antiochus the Great, then as an ally against Perseus of Macedon. The kings henceforward threw in their lot with the Republic as against the Seleucids, to whom they had been from time to time tributary. Ariarathes V. marched with the Roman proconsul Crassus against Aristonicus, a claimant to the throne of Pergammum, and their forces were annihilated (130b.c.). The imbroglio which followed his death ultimately led to interference by the rising power of Pontus and the intrigues and wars which ended in the failure of the dynasty. The Cappadocians, supported by Rome against Mithradates, elected a native lord, Ariobarzanes, to succeed (93b.c.); but it was not till Rome had disposed at once of the Pontic and Armenian kings that his rule was established (63b.c.). In the civil wars Cappadocia was now for Pompey, now for Caesar, now for Antony, now against him. The Ariobarzanes dynasty came to an end and a certain Archelaus reigned in its stead, by favour first of Antony, then of Octavian, and maintained tributary independence tilla.d.17, when the emperor Tiberius, on Archelaus’s death in disgrace, reduced Cappadocia at last to a province. Vespasian ina.d.70joined Armenia Minor to it and made the combined province a frontier bulwark. It remained, under various provincial redistributions, part of the Eastern Empire till late in the 11th century, though often ravaged both by Persians and Arabs. But before it passed into Seljuk hands (1074), and from them ultimately to the Osmanlis, it had already become largely Armenian in religion and speech; and thus we find the southern part referred to as “Hermeniorum terra” by crusading chroniclers. At this day the north-east and east parts of the province are largely inhabited by Armenians. The native kings had done much to Hellenize Cappadocia, which had previously received a strong Iranian colour; but it was left to Christianity to complete their work. Though pre-Hellenic usages long survived in the local cults and habits, a part of the people has remained more or less Hellenic to this day, in spite of its envelopment by Moslem conquerors and converts. The tradition of its early church, illuminated by the names of the two Gregories and Basil of Caesarea, has been perpetuated by the survival of a native Orthodox element throughout the west and north-west of the province; and in the remoter valleys Greek speech has never wholly died out. Its use has once more become general under Greek propagandist influence, and the Cappadocian “Greeks” are now a flourishing community.

Bibliography.—W. Wright,Empire of the Hittites(1884); G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,Hist. de l’art dans l’antiquité,vol. iv. (1886); A.H. Sayce,Hittites(1892) (see alsoPteria); J.G. Droysen,Gesch. des Hellenismus(3rd ed., 1878); A. Holm,Gesch. Griech.(Eng. trans., 1886); Th. Reinach,Mithridate Eupator(1890); E.R. Bevan,House of Seleucus(1902); Th. Mommsen,Provinces of the Roman Empire(Eng. trans., 1886); J. Marquardt,Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. (1874); W.M. Ramsey,Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor(1890); C. Ritter,Erdkunde, xviii. xix. (1858-1859); D.G. Hogarth and J.A.R. Munro,Mod. and Anc. Roads in E. Asia Minor(R.G.S. Supp. Papers, iii. 1893); G. Perrot,Souvenirs d’un voyage dans l’A. Mineure(1864); H.J. v. Lennep,Travels in Asia Minor(1870); E. Chantre,Mission en Cappadocie(1898); H.F. Tozer,Turkish Armenia(1881); H.C. Barkley,Ride Through A.M. and Armenia(1891); Lord Warkworth,Notes of a Diary in As. Turkey(1898); M. Sykes,Dar ul-Islam(1904).

(E. H. B.; D. G. H.)

CAPPEL,a French family which produced some distinguished jurists and theologians in the 15th and 16th centuries. In 1491, Guillaume Cappel, as rector of the university of Paris, protested against a tithe which Innocent VIII. claimed from that body. His nephew, Jacques Cappel (d. 1541), the real founder of the family, was himself advocate-general at the parlement of Paris, and in a celebrated address delivered before the court in 1537, against the emperor Charles V., claimed for Francis I. the counties of Artois, Flanders and Charolais. He left nine children, of whom three became Protestants. The eldest, Jacques (1529-1586), sieur du Tilloy, wrote several treatises on jurisprudence. Louis (1534-1586), sieur de Moriambert, the fifth son, was a most ardent Protestant. In 1570 he presented a confession of faith to Charles IX. in the name of his co-religionists. He disputed at Sedan before the duc de Bouillon with the Jesuit, Jean Maldouat (1534-1583), and wrote in defence of Protestantism. The seventh son, Ange (1537-1623), seigneur du Luat, was secretary to Henry IV., and enjoyed the esteem of Sully. Among those who remained Catholic should be mentioned Guillaume, the translator of Machiavelli. The eldest son Jacques also left two sons, famous in the history of Protestantism:—Jacques (1570-1624), pastor of the church founded by himself on his fief of le Tilloy and afterwards at Sedan, where he became professor of Hebrew, distinguished as historian, philologist and exegetical scholar; and Louis (see below).

On the protest of Guillaume Cappel, see Du Bellay,Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. v. On the family, see the sketch by another Jacques Cappel, “De Capellorum gente,” in theCommentarii et notae criticae in Vetus Testamentumof Louis Cappel, his father (Amsterdam, 1689). Consult Eugène and Emile Haag,La France protestante, vol. iii. (new edition, 1881).

CAPPEL, LOUIS(1585-1658), French Protestant divine and scholar, a Huguenot whose descent is traced above, was born at St Elier, near Sedan, in 1585. He studied theology at Sedan and Saumur; and Arabic at Oxford, where he spent two years. At the age of twenty-eight he accepted the chair of Hebrew at Saumur, and twenty years afterwards was appointed professor of theology. Amongst his fellow lecturers were Moses Amyraut and Josué de la Place. As a Hebrew scholar he made a special study of the history of the Hebrew text, which led him to the conclusion that the vowel points and accents are not an original part of the Hebrew language, but were inserted by the Massorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier than the 5th centurya.d., and that the primitive Hebrew characters are those now known as the Samaritan, while the square characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. These conclusions were hotly contested by Johannes Buxtorf, being in conflict with the views of his father, Johannes Buxtorf senior, notwithstanding the fact that Elias Levita had already disputed the antiquity of the vowel points and that neither Jerome nor the Talmud shows any acquaintance with them. His second important work,Critica Sacra,was distasteful from a theological point of view. He had completed it in 1634; but owing to the fierce opposition with which he had to contend, he was only able to print it at Paris in 1650, by aid of a son, who had turned Catholic. The various readings in the Old Testament text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Massoretic text convinced him that the idea of the integrity of the Hebrew text, as commonly held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition to his views, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars.

Cappel was also the author ofAnnotationes et Commentarii in Vetus Testamentum,Chronologia Sacra, and other biblical works, as well as of several other treatises on Hebrew, among which are theArcanum Punctuationis revelatum(1624) and theDiatriba de veris et antiquis Ebraeorum literis(1645). HisCommentarius de Capellorum gente,giving an account of the family to which he belonged, was published by his nephew James Cappel (1639-1722), who, at the age of eighteen, became professor of Hebrew at Saumur, but, on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, fled to England, where he died in 1722. See Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie.

CAPPELLO, BIANCA(1548-1587), grand duchess of Tuscany, was the daughter of Bartolommeo Cappello, a member of one of the richest and noblest Venetian families, and was famed for her great beauty. At the age of fifteen she fell in love with Pietro Bonaventuri, a young Florentine clerk in the firm of Salviati, and on the 28th of November 1563 escaped with him to Florence, where they were married and she had a daughter named Pellegrina. The Venetian government made every effort to have Bianca arrested and brought back, but the grand duke Cosimo de’ Medici intervened in her favour and she was left unmolested. However she did not get on well with her husband’s family, who were very poor and made her do menial work, until at last her beauty attracted Francesco, the grand duke’s son, a vicious and unprincipled rake. Although already married to the virtuous and charming Archduchess Giovanna of Austria, he seduced the fair Venetian and loaded her with jewels, money and other presents. Bianca’s accommodating husband was given court employment, and consoled himself with other ladies; in 1572 he was murdered in the streets of Florence in consequence of some amorous intrigue, though possibly Bianca and Francesco were privy to the deed. On the death of Cosimo in 1574 Francesco succeeded to the grand duchy; he now installed Bianca in a fine palace close to his own and outraged his wife by flaunting his mistress before her. As Giovanna had borne Francesco no sons, Bianca was very anxious to present him with an heir, for otherwise her position would remain very insecure. But although she resorted to all sorts of expedients, even to that of trying to pass off a changeling as the grand duke’s child, she was not successful. In 1578 Giovanna died; a few days later Francesco secretly married Bianca, and on the 10th of June, 1579, the marriage was publicly announced. The Venetian government now put aside its resentment and was officially represented at the magnificent wedding festivities, for it saw in Bianca Cappello an instrument for cementing good relations with Tuscany. But the long expected heir failed to come, and Bianca realized that if her husband were to die before her she was lost, for his family, especially his brother CardinalFerdinand, hated her bitterly, as an adventuress and interloper. In October 1587 both the grand duke and his wife died of colic within a couple of days of each other. At the time poison was suspected, but documentary evidence has proved the suspicion to be unfounded.

See S. Romanin,Lezioni di storia Veneta,vol. ii. (Florence, 1875); G.E. Saltini,Tragedie Medicee domestiche(Florence, 1898).

(L. V.*)

CAPPERONNIER, CLAUDE(1671-1744), French classical scholar, the son of a tanner, was born at Montdidier on the 1st of May 1671. He studied at Amiens and Paris, and took orders in the Church of Rome, but devoted himself almost entirely to classical studies. He declined a professorship in the university of Bâle, and was afterwards appointed (1722) to the Greek chair in the Collège de France. He published an edition of Quintilian (1725) and left behind him at his death an edition of the ancient Latin Rhetoricians, which was published in 1756. He furnished much material for Robert Estienne’sThesaurus Linguae Latinae. His nephew, Jean Capperonnier (1716-1775), his successor in the chair of Greek at the Collège de France, was also a distinguished scholar, and published valuable editions of classical authors—Caesar, Anacreon, Plautus, Sophocles.

CAPPONI, GINO,Marquis(1792-1876), Italian statesman and historian, was born on the 13th of September 1792. The Capponi family is one of the most illustrious Florentine houses, and is mentioned as early as 1250; it acquired great wealth as a mercantile and banking firm, and many of its members distinguished themselves in the service of the republic and the Medicis (seeCapponi, Piero), and later in that of the house of Lorraine. Gino was the son of the Marquis Pier Roberto Capponi, a nobleman greatly attached to the reigning grand duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand III. When that prince was deposed by the French in 1799 the Capponi family followed him into exile at Vienna, where they remained until he exchanged his rights to the grand duchy for a German principality (1803). The Capponi then returned to Florence, and in 1811 Gino married the marchesina Giulia Riccardi. Although the family were very anti-French Gino was chosen with other notables to pay homage to Napoleon in Paris in 1813. On the fall of Napoleon Ferdinand returned to Tuscany (September 1814), but the restoration proved less reactionary there than in any other part of Italy. Young Capponi was well received at court, but not being satisfied with the life of a mere man of fashion, he devoted himself to serious study and foreign travel. After sundry journeys in Italy he again visited Paris in 1818, and then went to England. He became deeply interested in English institutions, and carefully studied the constitution, the electoral system, university life, industrial organization, &c. At Edinburgh he met Francis Jeffrey, the editor of theEdinburgh Review,and conceived a desire to found a similar review in Italy. Besides knowing Jeffrey he made the acquaintance of many prominent statesmen and men of letters, including Lord John Russell, the duke of Bedford, Dugald Stewart, Ugo Foscolo, &c. This visit had a great effect in forming his character, and while it made him an ardent Anglophil, he realized more and more the distressing conditions of his own country. He returned to Italy in 1820, and on reaching Florence he set to work to found a review on the lines of theEdinburgh, which should attract the best literary talent. This he achieved with the help of the Swiss G.P. Vieusseux, and the result was theAntologia. He contributed largely to its columns, as well as to those of theArchivio Storico,another of Vieusseux’s ventures. Capponi began to take a more active interest in politics, and entered into communication with the Liberals of all parts of Italy. He had discussed the possibility of liberating Italy with Prince Charles Albert of Savoy-Carignano, to whom he had introduced the Milanese revolutionist Count Confalonieri (q.v.). But the collapse of the rising of 1821 and the imprisonment of Confalonieri made Capponi despair of achieving anything by revolution, and he devoted himself to the economic development of Tuscany and to study. At his beautiful villa of Varramista he collected materials for a history of the Church; his work was interrupted by family troubles and by increasing blindness, but although by 1844 he had completely lost his sight he continued to work by means of amanuenses. In 1847 he again plunged into politics and discussed plans for an Italian alliance against Austria. When the grand duke Leopold II. decided in 1848 to grant his people a constitution, Capponi was made a member of the commission to draw it up, and he eventually became prime minister. During his short tenure of office he conducted foreign affairs with great skill, and made every effort to save the Italian situation after the defeat of Charles Albert on the Mincio. In October 1848 he resigned; soon afterwards the grand duke fled, anarchy followed, and then in 1849 he returned, but with an escort of Austrian soldiery. The blind statesman thanked God that he could not see the hated white uniforms in Florence. He returned to his studies and commenced his greatStoria della Repubblica di Firenze; but he followed political affairs with great interest, and helped to convince Lord John Russell, who stayed with him in 1859, of the hopelessness of the grand duke’s position. On Leopold’s second flight (27th of April 1859) a Tuscan assembly was summoned, and Capponi elected member of it. He voted for the grand duke’s deposition and for the union of Tuscany with Piedmont. King Victor Emmanuel made him senator in 1860. His last years were devoted almost exclusively to his Florentine history, which was published in 1875 and achieved an immediate success. This was Capponi’s swan song, for on the 3rd of February 1876 he died at the age of eighty-four.

Capponi was one of the best specimens of the Tuscan landlord class. “He represents,” wrote his biographer Tabarrini, “one of the most striking personalities of a generation, now wholly passed away, which did not resign itself to the beatitudes of 1815, but wished to raise Italy from the humble state to which the European peace of that year had condemned her; and he succeeded by first raising the character of the Italians in the opinion of foreigners, so as to deserve their esteem and respect.” He knew nearly all the most interesting people in Italy, besides many distinguished foreigners: Giuseppe Giusti, the poet, A. Manzoni, the novelist, Niccolò Tommaseo, Richard Cobden, A. von Reumont, the historian, were among those whom he entertained at his palace or his villas, and many were the struggling students and revolutionists to whom he gave assistance. As a historian his reputation rests on hisStoria della Repubblica di Firenze(Florence, 1875); it was the first comprehensive Italian book on the subject based on documents and written in a modern critical spirit, and if the chapters on the early history of the city are now obsolete in view of recent discoveries, yet, as a whole, it remains a standard work. Besides his history a large number of essays and pamphlets have been published in hisScritti Inediti.

See M. Tabarrini,Gino Capponi(Florence, 1879); and A. von Reumont,Gino Capponi(Gotha, 1880).

(L. V.*)

CAPPONI, PIERO(1447-1496), Florentine statesman and warrior. He was at first intended for a business career, but Lorenzo de’ Medici, appreciating his ability, sent him as ambassador to various courts, where he acquitted himself with distinction. On the death of Lorenzo (1492), who was succeeded by his son, the weak and incapable Piero, Capponi became one of the leaders of the anti-Medicean faction which two years later expelled him from Florence. Capponi was then made chief of the republic and conducted public affairs with great skill, notably in the difficult negotiations with Charles VIII. of France, who had invaded Italy in 1494 and in whose camp the exiled Medici had taken refuge. In November Charles, on his way to Naples, entered Florence with his army, and immediately began to behave as though he were the conqueror of the city, because he had entered it lance in rest. The signory was anxious to be on good terms with him, but when he spoke in favour of the Medici their temper changed at once, and the citizens were ordered to arm and be prepared for all emergencies. Tumults broke out between French soldiers and Florentine citizens, barricades were erected and stones began to fly from the windows. This alarmed Charles, who lowered his tone and said nothing moreabout conquered cities or the Medici. The Florentines were willing to pay him a large sum of money, but in settling the amount further disagreements arose. Charles, who was full of the Medici’s promises, made exorbitant demands, and finally presented an ultimatum to the signory, who rejected it. “Then we shall sound our trumpets,” said the king, to which Capponi replied “And we shall toll our bells,” and tore up the ultimatum in the king’s face. Charles, who did not relish the idea of house-to-house fighting, was forced to moderate his claims, and concluded a more equitable treaty with the republic. On the 28th of November he departed, and Capponi was appointed to reform the government of Florence. But being more at home in the camp than in the council chamber, he was glad of the opportunity of leading the armies of the republic against the Pisan rebels. He proved a most capable general, but while besieging the castle of Soiana, he was killed on the 25th of September 1496. His death was greatly regretted, for the Florentines recognized in him their ablest statesman and warrior.

Back to Index Next