(T. As.)
CASIRI, MIGUEL(1710-1791), a learned Maronite, was born at Tripoli (Syria) in 1710. He studied at Rome, where he lectured on Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, philosophy and theology. In 1748 he went to Spain, and was employed in the royal library at Madrid. He was successively appointed a member of the Royal Academy of History, interpreter of oriental languages to the king, and joint-librarian at the Escorial. In 1763 he became principal librarian, a post which he appears to have held till his death in 1791. Casiri published a work entitledBibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis(2 vols., Madrid, 1760-1770). It is a catalogue of above 1800 Arabic MSS., which he found in the library of the Escorial; it also contains a number of quotations from Arabic works on history. The MSS. are classified according to subjects; the second volume gives an account of a large collection of geographical and historical MSS., which contain valuable information regarding the wars between the Moors and the Christians in Spain. Casiri’s work is not yet obsolete, but a more scientific system is adopted in Hartwig Derenbourg’s incomplete treatise,Les Manuscrits arabes de l’Escorial(Paris, 1884).
CASKET,a small box or coffer, commonly used for jewels, money, papers, or other objects of value. The etymology is doubtful. It is possibly a diminutive of “cask,” a barrel for wine or other liquor. The Spanishcascomeant also a skull, helmet, or rind of an onion, and is probably connected withcascar, to break open, Latinquassare, Frenchcasser, to break, shake. The Frenchcasque, casquet, of the same origin is only used of a helmet, and the sense of “small chest” is not found in languages other than English. Skeat suggests that the word is a corruption of Frenchcassette, diminutive ofcasse, box, Latincapsa, fromcapere, to hold, contain, cf. English “case.” History and literature are full of references to the often disconcerting contents of these famous receptacles. The “Casket Letters” (q.v.) are one of the mysteries of history. Harpagnon’s casket plays an important part in Molière’sL’Avare; Bluebeard gives his too-curious wife the keys of his caskets filled with precious stones; the contents of Sainte-Croix’s casket brought about the trial and condemnation of the marquise de Brinvilliers, the poisoner. This very ancient piece of furniture was no doubt derived from the chest, which was the original wardrobe. It was often an object of great value, covered with ivory, enamel, or stamped leather, enriched with precious metals, or encrusted with jewels. One which belonged to St Louis and is preserved in the Louvre is covered with enamelled shields of arms and other decorations. In the 16th and 17th centuries secret hiding-places were sometimes in the thickness of the lid or in a false bottom. The word is now little used—the natural result of the desuetude of the object; but auctioneers occasionally announce that they will sell a “casket of jewels,” and undertakers, especially in the United States, frequently use it as a grandiose synonym for “coffin.”
CASKET LETTERS. This is the name generally given to eight letters, and a sequence of irregular sonnets, all described as originally in French, and said to have been addressed by Mary, queen of Scots, to the earl of Bothwell, between January and April 1566-1567. The nature of these documents—authentic, forged, or partly forged, partly genuine—has been the theme of much discussion. If authentic throughout, they afford perfect proof of Mary’s complicity in the murder of her husband, Henry, Lord Darnley. The topic is so perplexing, and possibilitiesare so delicately balanced, that inquirers may change their views, and modify or reverse their opinions, on the appearance of each fresh document that is brought to light; or even upon a new consideration of existing evidence. Controversy centres round a very long and singular undated epistle called “The Glasgow Letter” or “Letter II.” If Mary wrote all of this, or even wrote some compromising parts of it, she was certainly guilty. But two questions remain to be settled—(1) did her accusers at one time possess another version of this letter which if it existed was beyond doubt a forgery? and (2) is not part of Letter II. a forged interpolation, based on another document, not by Mary?
The whole affair has been obscured and almost inextricably entangled, as we shall see, by the behaviour of Mary’s accusers. Of these Maitland of Lethington was consenting to Darnley’s murder; the earl of Morton had, at least, guilty foreknowledge; the regent Moray (Mary’s natural brother) had “looked through his fingers” at the crime, and for months remained on intimate terms with the criminals. He also perjured himself when putting before Elizabeth’s commission of inquiry at Westminster (December 1568) a copy of the confession of Hepburn of Bowton (Cotton MSS. British Museum. Caligula C.I. fol. 325). This is attested as a “true copy,” but Moray, who had been present when Bowton was examined (December 8, 1567), knew that the copy presented at Westminster (December 1568) had been mutilated because the excised passages were damning to Lethington and the earl of Morton, accomplices in the crime of Darnley’s murder, and accomplices of Moray in his prosecution of his sister. (See in Cambridge University Library, MS. Oo. 47, fol. 5 et seq. Compare the MS. copy of the confession in the British Museum, Cotton MSS. Caligula, C.I. fol. 325, printed in Anderson’sCollections, vol. ii. pp. 183-188.)
If Moray the righteous could act thus, much more might the murderer Morton perjure himself in his averment that there had been no tampering with the Casket Letters in his custody. We cannot, in short, believe Mary’s accusers on their oaths. When they all went, in October-December 1568, to York and London to accuse their queen—and before that, in their proclamations—they contradicted themselves freely and frequently; they put in a list of dates which made Mary’s authorship of Letter II. impossible; and they rang the changes on Scots translations of the alleged French originals, and on the French itself. For example, when Moray, after Mary was in Elizabeth’s power (May 16, 1568), wished Elizabeth to have the matter tried, he in May-June 1568 sent John Wood to England with Scots translations of the letters. Wood was to ask, “if the French originals are found to tally with the Scots translations, will that be reckoned good evidence?” It was as easy to send copies of the French, and thus give no ground for the suspicion that the Scots letters were altered on the basis of information acquired between May and October 1568, and that the French versions were made to fit the new form of the Scots copies. Another source of confusion, now removed, was the later publication in France of the letters in French. This French did not correspond with French copies of some of the originals recently discovered in Cecil’s MSS. and elsewhere. But that is no ground of suspicion, for the published French letters were not copies of the alleged originals, but translations of Latin translations of them, from the Scots (see T.F. Henderson,The Casket Letters, 1890). German historians have not made matters more clear by treating the Letters on the principle of “the higher criticism” of Homer and the Bible. They find that the documents are of composite origin, partly notes from Mary to Darnley, partly a diary of Mary’s, and so on; all combined and edited by some one who played the part of the legendary editorial committee of Peisistratus (seeHomer), which compiled theIliadandOdysseyout of fragmentary lays! From all these causes, and others, arise confusion and suspicion.
So much information unknown to older disputants such as Goodall, the elder Tytler, Chalmers, and Malcolm Laing, and in certain cases unknown even to Froude and Skelton, has accrued, that the question can now best be studied inThe Casket Letters, by T.F. Henderson (1889; second issue, 1890, being the more accurate); inThe Mystery of Mary Stuart, by Andrew Lang (4th edition, 1904), and in Henderson’s criticism of that book, in hisMary, Queen of Scots(1905) (Appendix A). The conclusion arrived at here is that of Henderson, but it is reached independently.
The history of the letters must be given in summary. Henderson, inThe Casket Letters(1889), was the first to publish and use as evidence a document of which the existence was made known in the fifth report of the royal commission on historical manuscripts. It is a sworn statement of the earl of Morton, written in 1568. A silver casket (originally Mary’s property, but then in the possession of Bothwell) was placed in his hands on the 20th of June, and was inspected by several nobles and gentlemen on the 21st of June 1567. Morton denies that the contents, the letters, sonnets, and some other papers, had been in any way tampered with. But if Moray could knowingly submit garbled evidence, Morton’s oath is of no value if uncorroborated.
Mary was, on the 21st of June 1567, a prisoner in Loch Leven Castle. A messenger was at once sent from Edinburgh to London with a letter from Lethington and a verbal message. By the 12th of July, de Silva, the Spanish ambassador, reports on the authority of the French ambassador that du Croc, French envoy to Scotland, avers that Mary’s Scottish enemies have autograph letters of hers proving her guilt, and himself possesses copies. Of these copies no more is heard, and they cannot be found. According to de Silva, Elizabeth said that she did not believe in the Letters, and that Lethington, who wrote to Cecil on the 21st of June, and sent a verbal message by the bearer, “had behaved badly in the matter,”—whether that of the letters, or in general. On what evidence she based that opinion, if she really held it, is unknown. In December 1567 the Scottish parliament was informed that the letters weresignedby Mary (they are unsigned), but the phrase is not used in the subsequent act of parliament. The letters were exhibited and apparently were read, probably read aloud. Mary’s party in September 1568 declared that they were garbled, and that the handwriting was not hers. In the end of July 1567 the earl of Moray, Mary’s brother, passing through London from France, told de Silva, as de Silva reported to his government, that there was proof of Mary’s guilt in a letter of three double sheets of papersignedby her.
According to Moray’s version of the letter, Mary was to try to poison Darnley in a house on the way between Glasgow and Edinburgh where he and she were to stop. Clearly Lord Livingstone’s house, Callendar, where they did rest on their journey, is intended. If this failed, Mary would put Darnley “in the house where the explosion was arranged for the night upon which one of the servants was to be married.” No such arrangement had been made, as the confessions of the murderers, at which Moray was present, clearly prove. It may be said that de Silva means “the house in which the explosion wasafterwardsarranged.” But the earl of Lennox, Darnley’s father, understood Moray to mean that as early as January 21-22, 1567, the house of Kirk o’ Field, where Darnley was slain, had already been mined. Moray’s version of the letter made Mary tell Bothwell to poison or put away his wife. No such matters occur in Letter II.; Moray spoke, he said, on the authority of “a man who had read the letter.” A similar account of this letter is given in a document of Darnley’s father, the earl of Lennox (Cambridge University Library MSS. Oo. 7. 47; f. 17 b.). Can we suppose that “the man who had read the letter” invented much of its contents, and told them to Moray, who told de Silva, and told Darnley’s father, Lennox, then in or near London?
At this point comes in the evidence—unknown to Froude, Skelton, Hosack, and Henderson in his bookThe Casket Letters—of a number of documents, notes of information, and indictments of Mary, written for or by the earl of Lennox. These MSS are in the University Library of Cambridge, and were transcribed by Father Stevenson. His transcripts were brought to light by Father Pollen, S.J., who lent them, with his own notes on them,to Andrew Lang for use in his book,The Mystery of Mary Stuart(1900-1904).
Not one of the Lennox documents is dated; all but one are endorsed in an English hand of the period. It may be conjectured that they were selected by Lennox from his papers, and lent by him to some one who was writing against Mary. Among them (Cambridge University MSS. Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.) is a long indictment of Mary, in which Lennox describes a wicked letter of hers. As has been said, he closely follows Moray’s version reported by de Silva in July 1567. Lennox also gives several stories of cruel words of Mary spoken to Darnley in the hearing of her servants.
Now, on the 11th of June 1568, Lennox was in the company of John Wood, a creature of Moray’s, and Wood, as we saw, brought copies of the Scots renderings of the Letters into England in May-June 1568. It was argued by Andrew Lang that Wood was likely to show these letters to Lennox; and that as Lennox follows Moray’s version of Mary’s long and murderous letter, and doesnotfollow Letter II., the murderous letter (a forgery) was then part of thedossierof Mary’s accusers. Again, as Lennox’s indictment of Mary (Cambridge Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.) is rife in “reports and sayings of Mary’s servants” about her cruel words to Darnley, and as Lennox had not these reports on the 11th of June 1568, for on that day he wrote to Scotland asking his friends to discover them and send them to him, the indictment (Oo. 7. 47) must have been composed long after the 11th of June. This must be so, for Lennox’s letters of the 11th of June were intercepted by his foes, the Hamiltons, and were found in the Hamilton Muniment Room. Thus answers to his inquiries were delayed. (The letters of Lennox were published inMiscellany of the Maitland Club, vol. iv.)
Henderson, on the other side, believes that Wood “indubitably” showed to Lennox the Scots copies of the Casket Letters about the 11th of June 1568. But Lennox, he says, could not quote Letter II. in his indictment against Mary, and had to rest on Moray’s version of July 1567, because Lennox’s indictment was completed, and even laid before Elizabeth, as early as the 28th of May 1568. Henderson seeks to prove that this is so by quoting from Chalmers’sMary Queen of Scots(vol. ii. p. 289) the statement that Lennox and his wife on that day presented to Elizabeth a “Bill of Supplication”; and (though he submits that the indictment [Oo. 7. 47] is adraftfor the Bill) he strengthens his case by heading the indictment, which he publishes,Bill of Supplication. The document, in fact, is unendorsed, and without a title, and there is not a word of “supplication” in it. It is a self-contradictory history of the relations between Mary and Darnley.
Henderson’s contention therefore seems erroneous. Lennox could not begin to prepare an English indictment against Mary till she was in England and in Elizabeth’s power. He could not hear of this fact—Mary’s arrival in England (May 16, 1568)—before, say, the 19th of May; and between the 19th of May and the 28th of May he could not write for and receive from Scotland “the reports and sayings of her servants.” He did not possess them on the 11th of June, when he asked for them; he did not get them at once, for his letters were intercepted; the indictment (Oo. 7. 47) is rich in them; therefore that paper is not the “Bill of Supplication” of the 28th of May.
Thus the question remains, why, if Wood about the 11th of June showed to Lennox Letter II. in Scots, did Lennox follow Moray’s erroneous version of July 1567? Because in June 1568 that version, forged, was in the Scots collection of the Casket Letters? If so, there was time for Lennox to lend to the accusers certain notes which a retainer of his, Thomas Crawford of Jordan Hill, swore (December 9, 1568) that he had made for Lennox (about January 22, 1567) of secret conversations between Darnley and Mary. Lennox (June 11, 1568) asked Crawford for his reminiscences,notof Darnley’s reports of his talks with Mary, but of Crawford’s own interview with her as she entered Glasgow to visit Darnley, probably on the 21st of January 1567. It follows that Lennox possessed Crawford’s written notes of the Darnley and Mary conversations. If he had not possessed them on the 11th of June 1568, he must have asked Crawford for his reminiscences of these talks. But he did not ask.
Crawford’s evidence was all-important, because it corroborated Mary’s own account of her interviews with Darnley in Letter II. That part of the letter then, it is argued by many, is a forged interpolation based on Crawford’s notes and memories. The force of this contention lies in the close verbal identities between Crawford’s account of the Darnley-Mary interviews (see Crawford’s Declaration of December 9, 1568, in Lang’sMystery of Mary Stuart, pp. 428-431; fromState Papers Scotland, Elizabeth vol. xiii. No. 14. Record Office) and the corresponding passages in Letter II. (Mystery of Mary Stuart, pp. 396-398). The verbal identities can only be explained in one of the following ways. Either Letter II. is here based on Crawford; or Crawford has copied Letter II. by way of corroborating it (a fatal step, if the case came before a modern English court of justice); or Darnley’s memory of his conversation with Mary was so fresh, when he dictated his recollection of it to Crawford on 21st-22nd January 1567, that he reported speeches in almost the very same words as Mary used in writing Letter II. Henderson prefers the hypothesis that Lennox had lost Crawford’s notes; and that the identities are explained by the “remarkably good memories of Crawford and Mary, or by the more likely supposition that Crawford, before preparing his declaration for the conference” (at Westminster, December 1568) “refreshed his memory by the letter.” (Letter II.,Mary Queen of Scots, p. 650.)
Mary did not need a particularly good memory; if she wrote, she wrote unchecked her recollections of the day’s talk. But no human memory of a conversation reported on the 22nd of January 1567, could be so nearly “word perfect” as Crawford’s must have been two years later. If Crawford “refreshed his memory by the letter,” he exposed himself, and the entire case, by copying whole passages, often with few verbal changes. If he had access to his original notes of the 21st and 22nd of January 1567, then he was safe—that is, if Darnley’s memory of the conversations tallied so exactly with Mary’s. Whether that could be, Darnley dictating while still hot from the exciting interchange of words which he meant to report, is a question for psychologists. Experiments made by a person who possesses a good memory seem to show that the thing is very possible, especially if Darnley revised Crawford’s notes.
Thus the probabilities are delicately balanced. But if any one compares Crawford’s whole declaration with Letter II. in Scots, he will find that Crawford has sources of information not yielded by Letter II.; while Letter II. abounds in matter spoken by Mary and Darnley which could not be borrowed by the hypothetical forger from Crawford’s Declaration, for it does not contain the facts. These facts, again, in Letter II., are worthless to a forger, because they concern matters never alluded to in any of the records; never employed in any indictment (though Lennox’s are copious in private talk between Darnley and Mary, “reports of her servants “), and totally useless for the purposes of the accusers. Here is one of several examples. Letter II. has, and Crawford has not, the statement that Darnley “showed me, amongst other talk, that he knew well enough that my brother had revealed to me what he (Darnley) had spoken at Stirling. Of this he (Darnley) denies half, and above all that he (the brother?) ever came to his (Darnley’s) chamber.”
Nothing is known about this matter. The Lennox papers are full of reports of bitter words that passed between Darnley and Mary at Stirling (December 1566), where Darnley was sulking apart while the festivities of the baptism of his son (later James VI.) were being held. But nothing is said in the Lennox papers of words spoken by Darnley to Mary’s brother (probably Lord Robert of Holyrood) and revealed by Lord Robert to Mary. Lord Robert was the only friend of Darnley in Mary’s entourage; and he even, according to the accusers, warned him of his danger in Kirk o’ Field, to which they said that a Casket Letter (III.) referred. The reference is only to be seen by willing eyes.
Is it credible that a forger, using Crawford’s Declaration, which is silent as to Mary’s brother at Stirling, should have superfluously added what is not to any purpose? Could he have combinedwith Crawford’s matter the passage “he (Darnley) showed me almost all that is in name of the Bishop and Sutherland, and yet I have never touched a word of what you (Bothwell) showed me ... and by complaining of the Bishop, I have drawn it all out of him.”
Who but Mary herself could have written about this unknown affair of the Bishop, and what had the supposed forger to gain by inventing and adding these references to affairs unconnected with the case?
There remains what looks like absolute proof that, in essence, Crawford’s Declaration and Letter II. are independent documents. We are not aware that this crucial point has been noticed by the earlier critics of the Letters. In Letter II. (paragraph 7, p. 398, in Lang’sMystery of Mary Stuart, 1901) Mary writes, “I asked why he (Darnley) would pass away in the English ship. He denies it, and swears thereunto; but he grants that he spoke unto the men.” Here Crawford’s declaration has, “She asked him why he would pass away in the English ship. He answered that he had spoken with the Englishman, but not of mind to go away with him. And, if he had, it had not been without cause, considering how he was used. For he had neither [means] to sustain himself nor his servants, and need not make further rehearsal thereof, seeing she knew it as well as he.” (Mystery of Mary Stuart, p. 429.)
It may seem to the reader doubtful whether these complaints are words of Darnley’s, or an indignant addition by his friend Crawford. But Mary, in Letter II., shows that the complaints and the self-defence are Darnley’s own. It was in paragraph 7 that she wrote about the English ship; she did not then give Darnley’s remonstrances, as Crawford does. But in paragraph 18 (Mystery, p. 406) Mary returns to the subject, and writes, “He (Darnley) spoke very bravely at the beginning, as the bearer will show you, upon the subject of the Englishmen, and of his departing; but in the end he returned to his humility.”
Thus it is certain that Darnley had reported to Crawford his brave words and reproaches of Mary, which Crawford gives in the proper place. But Letter II. omits them in that place (paragraph 7); and only on her second day of writing, in paragraph 18, does Mary’s mind recur to Darnley’s first brave words—“he spoke very bravely at the beginning,” about his wrongs, “but in the end he returned again to his humility.”
Here is proof positive that Crawford does not copy Letter II., but gives Darnley’s words as reported to him by Darnley—words that Darnley was proud of,—while Mary, returning on the second day of writing to the topic, does not quote Darnley’s brave words, but merely contrasts his speaking “very bravely at the beginning” with his pitiful and craven later submission; “he has ever the tear in his eye,” with what follows. (Mystery, paragraph 12, p. 402.)
When we add to these and other proofs the strange lists of memoranda in the middle of the pages of the letter, and the breach in internal chronology which was apparently caused by Mary’s writing, on her second day, on the clean verso of a page on the other side of which she had written some lines during her first night in Glasgow; when we add the dramatic changes of her mood, and the heart-breaking evidence of a remorse not stifled by lawless love, we seem compelled to believe that she wrote the whole of Letter II.; that none of it is forged.
InThe Mystery of Mary Stuartthe evidence for an early forged letter was presented with confidence; the interpolation of forgeries based on Crawford’s declaration was more dubiously suggested. That position the writer now abandons. It may be asked why, after being with Wood on the 11th of June, did Lennox still rely on Moray’s version of Mary’s letter? The reply may be that the Scots versions were regarded as a great secret; that Lennox was a married man; and that though Lennox in June knew about Mary’s letters, doubtless from Wood, or from common report (Bishop Jewell in a letter of August 1567 mentions that he had heard of them), yet Wood did not show to him the Scots copies. Lennox quotes Letter II. later, in an indictment to be read to the commission sitting at York (October 1568). But, on the other hand, as Lennox after meeting Wood wrote to Crawford for his reminiscences of his own interview with Mary (January 21, 1567), and as these reminiscences were only useful as corroborative of Mary’s account in Letter II., it seems that Wood had either shown Lennox the letters or had spoken of their contents. In that case, when Lennox later quotes Moray’s version, not Letter II. itself, he is only acting with the self-contradictory stupidity which pervades his whole indictment (Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.).
The letters are not known to have been seen by any man—they or the silver casket—after the death of the earl of Gowrie (who possessed them). In May 1584 Bowes, the English ambassador to Holyrood, had endeavoured to procure them for Elizabeth, “for the secrecy and benefit of the cause.” Conceivably the letters fell into the hands of James VI. and were destroyed by his orders.
(A. L.)
CASLON,the name of a famous family of English typefounders. William Caslon (1692-1766), the first of the name, was born at Cradley, Worcestershire, and in 1716 started business in London as an engraver of gun locks and barrels, and as a bookbinder’s tool-cutter. Being thus brought into contact with printers, he was induced to fit up a type foundry, largely through the encouragement of William Bowyer. The distinction and legibility of his type secured him the patronage of the leading printers of the day in England and on the continent. The use of Caslon types, discontinued about the beginning of the 19th century, was revived about 1845 at the suggestion of Sir Henry Cole, and used for printing theDiary of Lady Willoughby(a pseudo-17th-century story) by the Chiswick Press. The headline on this page is “Caslon Old Face.” He died on the 23rd of January 1766. His son, William Caslon (1720-1778), who had been partner with his father for some years, continued the business.
CASPARI, KARL PAUL(1814-1892), German Lutheran theologian and orientalist, was born of Jewish parents at Dessau, Anhalt, on the 8th of February 1814. He studied at Leipzig and Berlin, became a Christian in 1838, and in 1857 was appointed professor of theology at Christiania, having declined invitations to Rostock and Erlangen. He died at Christiania on the 11th of April 1892. Caspari is best known as the author of an Arabic grammar (Grammatica Arabica, 2 vols., 1844-1848; new edition,Arabische Grammatik, edited by A. Müller; 5th ed. 1887). He also wrote commentaries on the prophetical books of the Old Testament, dogmatic and historical works on baptism, and from 1857 helped to edit theTheologisk Tidskrift for den evangelisk-lutherske Kirke i Norge. His writings include:Beiträge zur Einleitung in Jesaja(1848), andAlte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel(1879).
CASPIAN SEA(anc.Mare CaspiumorMare Hyrcanium; Russian,Kaspiyskoe More, formerlyHvalynskoe More; Persian,Darya-i-KhyzyrorGurzem; Tatar,Ak-denghiz; theSikimandJurjanof the ancient Eastern geographers), an inland sea between Europe and Asia, extending from 36° 40′ to 47° 20′ N. lat., and from 46° 50′ to 55° 10′ E. long. Its length is 760 m. from N. to S., and its breadth 100 to 280 m., and its area reaches 169,330 sq. m., of which 865 sq. m. belong to its islands. It fills the deepest part of a vast depression, sometimes known as the Aralo-Caspian depression, once an inland sea, the Eurasian Mediterranean or Sarmatian Ocean. At the present time its surface lies 86 ft. below the level of the ocean, or 96.7 ft. according to the Aral-Caspian levelling1and 242.7 ft. below the level of the Aral.
Hydrography and Shores.—The hydrography of the Caspian Sea has been studied by von Baer, by N. Ivashintsev (1819-1871) in 1862-1870, by O. Grimm, N.I. Andrusov (1895), and by J.B. Spindler (1897), N. von Seidlitz and N. Knipovich (1904) since the last quoted date. Its basin is divided naturally into three sections—(1) A northern, forming in the east the Gulf of Mortvyi Kultuk or Tsarevich Bay. This is the shallowest part, barely reaching a depth of 20 fathoms. It is being graduallysilted up by the sedimentary deposits brought down by the rivers Volga, Ural and Terek. The western shore, from the delta of the Volga to the mouth of the Kuma, a distance of 170 m., is gashed by thousands of narrow channels or lagoons, termedlimans, from 12 to 30 m. in length, and separated in some cases by chains of hillocks, calledbugors, in others by sandbanks. These channels are filled, sometimes with sea-water, sometimes with overflow water from the Volga and the Kuma. The coast-line of the Gulf of Mortvyi Kultuk on the north-east is, on the other hand, formed by a range of low calcareous hills, constituting the rampart of the Ust-Urt plateau, which intervenes between the Caspian and the Sea of Aral. On the south this gulf is backed by the conjoined peninsulas of Busachi and Manghishlak, into which penetrates the long, narrow, curving bay or fjord of Kaidak or Kara-su. (2) South of the line joining the Bay of Kuma with the Manghishlak peninsula, in 44° 10′ N. lat., the western shore is higher and the water deepens considerably, being over one-half of the area 50 fathoms, while the maximum depth (between 41° and 42° N. lat.) reaches 437 fathoms. This, the middle section of the Caspian, which extends as far as the Apsheron peninsula, receives the Terek and several smaller streams (e.g.Sulak, Samur), that drain the northern slopes of the Caucasus. At Derbent, just north of 42° lat., a spur of the Caucasus approaches so close to the sea as to leave room for only a narrow passage, theCaspiae PylaeorAlbanae Portae, which has been fortified for centuries. The eastern shore of this section of the sea is also formed by the Ust-Urt plateau, which rises 550 ft. to 750 ft. above the level of the Caspian; but in 42° N. lat. the Ust-Urt recedes from the Caspian and circles round the Gulf of Kara-boghaz or Kara-bugaz (also called Aji-darya and Kuli-darya). This subsidiary basin is separated from the Caspian by a narrow sandbar, pierced by a strait 1¼ m. long and only 115 to 170 yds. wide, through which a current flows continuously into the gulf at the rate of 1½ to 5 m. an hour, the mean velocity at the surface being 3 m. an hour. To this there exists no compensating outflow current at a greater depth, as is usually the case in similar situations. The area of this lateral basin being about 7100 sq. m., and its depth but comparatively slight (3½ to 36 ft.), the evaporation is very appreciable (amounting to 3.2 ft. per annum), and sufficient, according to von Baer, to account for the perpetual inflow from the Caspian. South of the Kara-Boghaz Bay the coast rises again in another peninsula, formed by an extension of the Balkhan Mountains. This marks (40° N. lat.) the southern boundary of the middle section of the Caspian. This basin may be, on the whole, considered as a continuation of the synclinal depression of the Manych, which stretches along the northern foot of the Caucasus from the Sea of Azov. It is separated from (3), the southern and deepest section of the Caspian, by a submarine ridge (30 to 150 fathoms of water), which links the main range of the Caucasus on the west with the Kopet-dagh in the Transcaspian region on the east. This section of the sea washes on the south the base of the Elburz range in Persia, sweeping round from the mouth of the Kura, a little north of the Bay of Kizil-agach, to Astarabad at an average distance of 40 m. from the foot of the mountains. A little east of the Gulf of Enzeli, which resembles the Kara-boghaz, though on a much smaller scale, the Sefid-rud pours into the Caspian the drainage of the western end of the Elburz range, and several smaller streams bring down the precipitation that falls on the northern face of the same range farther to the east. Near its south-east corner the Caspian is entered by the Atrek, which drains the mountain ranges of the Turkoman (N.E.) frontier of Persia. Farther north, on the east coast, opposite to the Bay of Kizil-agach, comes the Balkhan or Krasnovodsk Bay. In the summer of 1894 a subterranean volcano was observed in this basin of the Caspian, in 38° 10′ N. lat. and 52° 37′ E. long. The depth in this section ranges from 300 to 500 fathoms, with a maximum of 602 fathoms.
Drainage Area and Former Extent.—The catchment area from which the Caspian is fed extends to a very much greater distance on the west and north than it does on the south and east. From the former it is entered by the Volga, which is estimated to drain an area of 560,000 sq. m., the Ural 96,000 sq. m., the Terek 59,000 sq. m., the Sulak 7000 sq. m., the Samur 4250 sq. m.; as compared with these, there comes from the south and east the Kura and Aras, draining the south side of the Caucasus over 87,250 sq. m., and the Sefid-rud and the Atrek, both relatively short. Altogether it is estimated (by von Dingelstedt) that the total discharge of all the rivers emptying into the Caspian amounts annually to a volume equal to 174.5 cub. m. Were there no evaporation, this would raise the surface of the sea 5½ ft. annually. In point of fact, however, the entire volume of fresh water poured into the Caspian is only just sufficient to compensate for the loss by evaporation. Indeed in recent times the level appears to have undergone several oscillations. From the researches of Philippov it appears that during the period 1851-1888 the level reached a maximum on three separate occasions, namely in 1868-1869, 1882 and 1885, while in 1853 and 1873 it stood at a minimum; the range of these oscillations did not, however, exceed 3 ft. 6½ in. The Russian expedition which investigated the Kara-boghaz in 1896 concluded that there is no permanent subsidence in the level of the sea. In addition to these periodical fluctuations, there are also seasonal oscillations, the level being lowest in January and highest in the summer.
The level of the Caspian, however, was formerly about the same as the existing level of the Black Sea, although now some 86 ft. below it. This is shown by the evidences of erosion on the face of the rocks which formed the original shore-line of its southern basin, those evidences existing at the height of 65 to 80 ft. above the present level. That a rapid subsidence did take place from the higher level is indicated by the fact that between it and the present level there is an absence of indications of erosive energy. There can be no real doubt that formerly the area of the Caspian was considerably greater than it is at the present time. Nearly one hundred and fifty years ago Pallas had his attention arrested by the existence of the salt lakes and dry saline deposits on the steppes to the east of the Caspian, and at great distances from its shores, and by the presence in the same localities of shells of the same marine fauna as that which now inhabits that sea, and he suggested the obvious explanation that those regions must formerly have been covered by the waters of the sea. And it is indeed the fact that large portions of the vast region comprised between the lower Volga, the Aral-Irtysh water-divide, the Dzungarian Ala-tau, and the outliers of the Tian-shan and Hindu-kush systems are actually covered with Aralo-Caspian deposits, nearly always a yellowish-grey clay, though occasionally they assume the character of a more or less compact sandstone of the same colour. These deposits attain their maximum thickness of 90 ft. east of the Caspian, and have in many parts been excavated and washed away by the rivers (which have frequently changed their beds) or been transported by the winds, which sweep with unmitigated violence across those wide unsheltered expanses. The typical fossils unearthed in these deposits are shells of species now living in both the Caspian and the Aral, though in the shallow parts of both seas only, namely (according to Ivan V. Mushketov [1850-1902])Cardium edule, Dreissena polymorpha, Neritina liturata, Adacna vitrea, Hydrobia stagnalis, in the Kara-kum desert, andLithoglyphus caspius, Hydrobia stagnalis, Anodonta ponderosaand the spongeMetchnikovia tuberculata, in the Kizil-kum desert. The exact limits of the ancient Aralo-Caspian sea are not yet settled, except in the north-west, where the Ergeni Hills of Astrakhan constitute an unmistakable barrier. Northwards these marine deposits are known to exist 80 m. away from Lake Aral, though they do not cross the Aral-Irtysh water-divide, so that this sea will not probably have been at that time connected with the Arctic, as some have supposed. The eastern limits of these deposits lie about 100 m. from Lake Aral, though Severtsov maintained that they penetrate into the basin of Lake Balkash. Southwards they have been observed without a break for 160 m. from Lake Aral, namely in the Sary-kamysh depression (the surface of which lies below the level of the Caspian) and upthe Uzboi trench for 100 m. from the latter sea. How far they reach up the present courses of the Oxus (Amu-darya) and Jaxartes (Syr-darya) is not known. Hence, it is plain that in late Tertiary, and probably also in Post-Tertiary, times the Aralo-Caspian Sea covered a vast expanse of territory and embraced very large islands (e.g.Ust-Urt), which divided it into an eastern and a western portion, communicating by one or two narrow straits only, such as on the south the Sary-kamysh depression, and on the north the line of the lakes of Chumyshty and Asmantai. More than this, the Caspian was also, it is pretty certain, at the same epoch, and later, in direct communication with the Sea of Azov, no doubt by way of the Manych depression; for in thelimansor lagoons of the Black Sea many faunal species exist which are not only identical with species that are found in the Caspian, but also many which, though not exactly identical, are closely allied. As examples of the former may be named—Archaeobdella, Clessinia variabilis, Neritina liturata, Gmelina, Gammarus moeoticus, Pseudocuma pectinata, Paramysis Baeri, Mesomysis KowalevskyiandM. intermedia, Limnomysis BenedeniandL. Brandti, and species of the ichthyological faunaGobius, ClupeaandAcipenser; while as illustrating the latter class the Black Sea containsDreissenia bugensis(allied toD. rostriformisandD. Grimmi), Cardium ponticum(toC. caspium), C. coloratum(toMonodacna edentula), Amphicteis antiqua(toA. Kowalevskyi) andBythotrephes azovicus(toB. socialis).
In the opinion of Russian geologists the separation of the Caspian from the great ocean must have taken place at a comparatively recent geological epoch. During the early Tertiary age it belonged to the Sarmatian Ocean, which reached from the middle Danube eastwards through Rumania, South Russia, and along both flanks of the Caucasus to the Aralo-Caspian region, and westwards had open communication with the great ocean, as indeed the ancient geographers Eratosthenes, Strabo and Pliny believed it still had in their day. This communication began to fail, or close up presumably in the Miocene period; and before the dawn of Pliocene times the Sarmatian Ocean was broken up or divided into sections, one of which was the Aralo-Caspian sea already discussed. During the subsequent Ice Age the Caspian flowed over the steppes that stretch away to the north, and was probably still connected with the Black Sea (itself as yet unconnected with the Mediterranean), while northwards it sent a narrow gulf or inlet far up the Volga valley, for Aralo-Caspian deposits have been observed along the lower Kama in 56° N. lat. Eastwards it penetrated up the Uzboi depression between the Great and Little Balkhan ranges, so that that depression, which is strewn (as mentioned above) with Post-Tertiary marine deposits, was not (as is sometimes supposed) an old bed of the Oxus, but a gulf of the Caspian. After the great ice cap had thawed and a period of general desiccation set in, the Caspian began to shrink in area, and simultaneously its connexions with the Black Sea and the Sea of Aral were severed.
Fauna.—The fauna of this sea has been studied by Eichwald, Kowalevsky, Grimm, Dybowski, Kessler and Sars. At the present time it represents an intermingling of marine and fresh-water forms. To the former belongs the herring (Clupea), and to the latter, species ofCyprinus, PercaandSilurus, also a lobster. Other marine forms are Rhizopoda (RotaliaandTextillaria), the spongeAmorphina, theAmphicteisworm, the molluscsCardium eduleand otherCardidae, and some Amphipods (CumaceaandMysidae,), but they are forms which either tolerate variations in salinity or are especially characteristic of brackish waters. But there are many species inhabiting the waters of the Caspian which are not found elsewhere. These include Protozoa, three sponges, Vermes, twenty-five Molluscs, numerous Amphipods, fishes of the generaGobias, BenthophilusandCobitis, and one mammal (Phoca caspia). This last, together with some of theMysidaeand the speciesGlyptonotus entomon, exhibits Arctic characteristics, which has suggested the idea of a geologically recent connexion between the Caspian and the Arctic, an idea of which no real proofs have been as yet discovered. The Knipovich expedition in 1904 found no traces of organic life below the depth of 220 fathoms except micro-organisms and a single Oligochaete; but above that level there exist abundant evidences of rich pelagic life, more particularly from the surface down to a depth of 80 fathoms.
Fisheries.—No other inland sea is so richly stocked with fish as the Caspian, especially off the mouths of the large rivers, the Volga, Ural, Terek and Kura. The fish of greatest economic value are sturgeon (four species), which yield great quantities of caviare and isinglass, the herring, the salmon and the lobster. The annual catch of the entire sea is valued at an average of one million sterling. Some 50,000 persons are engaged in this industry off the mouth of the Volga alone. Seals are hunted in Krasnovodsk Bay.
Salinity.—The proportion of salt in the water of the Caspian, though varying in different parts and at different seasons, is generally much less than the proportion in oceanic water, and even less than the proportion in the water of the Black Sea. In fact the salinity of the Caspian is only three-eights of that of the ocean. In the northern section, which receives the copious volumes brought down by the Volga, Ural and Terek, the salinity is so slight (only 0.0075% in the surface layers) that the water is quite drinkable, its specific gravity being not higher than 1.0016. In the middle section the salinity of the surface layers increases to 0.015%, though it is of course greater along the shores. The concentration of the saline ingredients proceeds with the greatest degree of intensity in the large bays on the east side of the sea, and more especially in that of Kara-boghaz, where it reaches 16.3% (Spindler expedition). The bottom of this almost isolated basin is covered for an area of 1300 sq. m. with a deposit of Epsom salts (sulphate of magnesia), 7 ft. thick, amounting to an estimated total of 1,000,000,000 tons. While the proportion of common salt to sulphate of magnesia is as 11 to 1 in the water of the Black Sea and as 2 to 1 in the Caspian water generally, it is as 12.8 to 5.03 in the Kara-boghaz. The salinity of the surface water of the southern section of the Caspian averages 1.5%.
Climate.—The temperature of the air over the Caspian basin is remarkable for its wide range both geographically and seasonally. The January isotherm of 15° F. skirts its northern shore; that of 40° crosses its southern border. But the winter extremes go far below this range: during the prevalence of north-east winds the thermometer drops to -20°, or even lower, on the surrounding steppes, while on the Ust-Urt plateau a temperature of -30° is not uncommon. Again, the July isotherm of 75° crosses the middle section of the Caspian, nearly coinciding with the January isotherm of 25°, while that of 80° skirts the southern shore of the sea, nearly coinciding with the January curve of 40°, so that the mean annual range over the northern section of the sea is 60° and over the southern section 40°. The former section, which is too shallow to store up any large amount of heat during the summer, freezes for three or four months along the shores, effectually stopping navigation on the lower Volga, but out in the middle ice appears only when driven there by northerly winds.
The prevalent winds of the Caspian blow from the south-east, usually between October and March, and from the north and north-west, commonly between July and September. They sometimes continue for days together with great violence, rendering navigation dangerous and driving the sea-water up over the shores. They also, by heaping up the water at the one end of the sea or the other, raise the level temporarily and locally to the extent of 4 to 8 ft. The currents of the Caspian were investigated by the Knipovich expedition; it detected two of special prominence, a south-going current along the west shore and a north-going current along the east shore. As a consequence of this the temperature of the water is higher on the Asiatic than on the European side. The lowest temperature obtained was 35°.24 on the bottom in shallow water, the highest 70°.7 on the surface. But in March the temperature, as also the salinity, was tolerably uniform throughout all the layers of water. Another interesting fact ascertained by the same expedition is that the amount of oxygen contained in the water decreases rapidly with the depth: off Derbent in the middle section of the sea the amount diminished from 5.6 cc. per litre at a depth of 100 metres(330 ft.) to 0.32 cc. per litre at a depth of 700 metres (say 2300 ft.). At the same spot samples of water drawn from the bottom were found to contain 0.3 cc. of sulphuretted hydrogen per litre. In the southern section of the sea the decrease is not so rapid. In this latter section Spindler ascertained in July 1897 that the temperature of the surface water 60 m. from Baku was 72.9°, but that below 10 fathoms it sank rapidly, and at 200 fathoms and below it was constant at 21.2°.
Navigation.—The development of the petroleum industry in the Apeshron peninsula (Baku) and the opening (1886) of the Transcaspian railway have greatly increased the traffic across the Caspian Sea. A considerable quantity of raw cotton is brought from Ferghana by the latter route and shipped at Krasnovodsk for the mills in the south and centre of Russia, as well as for countries farther west. And Russia draws her own supplies of petroleum, both for lighting and for use as liquid fuel, by the sea route from Baku. Other ports in addition to those just mentioned are Astrakhan, on the Volga; Petrovsk, Derbent and Lenkoran, on the west shore; Enzeli or Resht, and Astarabad, on the Persian coast; and Mikhailovsk, on the east coast. The Russians keep a small naval flotilla on the Caspian, all other nations being debarred from doing so by the treaty of Turkmanchai (1828).
At various times and by various persons, but more particularly by Peter the Great, the project has been mooted of cutting a canal between the Volga and the Don, and so establishing unrestricted water communication between the Caspian and the Black Sea; but so far none of these schemes has taken practical shape. In 1900 the Hydrotechnical Congress of Russia discussed the plan of constructing a canal to connect the Caspian more directly with the Black Sea by cutting an artificial waterway about 22 ft. deep and 180 ft. wide from Astrakhan to Taganrog on the Sea of Azov.