All other accounts of Catherine II. have been superseded by Waliszewski’s two volumes,Le Roman d’une impératrice(Paris, 1893) andAutour d’un Trône: Catherine II., ses collaborateurs, ses amis, ses favoris(Paris, 1894). The original sources for the history of her policy and her character are to be found in the publications of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, vols. i.-cix. (St Petersburg), begun in 1867; her private and official correspondence will be found in vols. i., ii., iv., v., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xiii., xiv., xv., xvii., xx., xxiii., xxxii., xxxiii., xxxvi., xlii., xliii., xlvii., xlviii., li., lvii., lxvii., lxviii., lxxxvii., xcvii., xcviii., cvii., cxv., cxviii.
All other accounts of Catherine II. have been superseded by Waliszewski’s two volumes,Le Roman d’une impératrice(Paris, 1893) andAutour d’un Trône: Catherine II., ses collaborateurs, ses amis, ses favoris(Paris, 1894). The original sources for the history of her policy and her character are to be found in the publications of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, vols. i.-cix. (St Petersburg), begun in 1867; her private and official correspondence will be found in vols. i., ii., iv., v., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xiii., xiv., xv., xvii., xx., xxiii., xxxii., xxxiii., xxxvi., xlii., xliii., xlvii., xlviii., li., lvii., lxvii., lxviii., lxxxvii., xcvii., xcviii., cvii., cxv., cxviii.
CATHERINE DE’ MEDICI(1519-1589), queen of France, the wife of one French king and the mother of three, was born at Florence in 1519. She was a daughter of Lorenzo II. de’ Medici and a French princess, Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne. Having lost both her parents at an early age, Catherine was sent to a convent to be educated; and she was only fourteen when she was married (1533) at Marseilles to the duke of Orléans, afterwards Henry II. It was her uncle, Pope Clement VII., who arranged the marriage with Francis I. Francis, still engaged in his lifelong task of making head against Charles V., was only too glad of the opportunity to strengthen his influence in the Italian peninsula, while Clement, ever needful of help against his too powerful protector, was equally ready to hold out a bait. During the reign of Francis, Catherine exercised no influence in France. She was young, a foreigner, a member of a state that had almost no weight in the great world of politics, had not given any proof of great ability, and was thrown into the shade by more important persons. For ten years after her marriage she had no children. In consequence, a divorce began to be talked of at court; and it seemed not impossible that Francis, alarmed at the possible extinction of the royal house, might listen to such a proposal. But Catherine had the happiness of bringing him grandchildren ere he died. During the reign of her husband, too (1547-1559), Catherine lived a quiet and passive, but observant life. Henry being completely under the influence of his mistress, Diane de Poitiers, she had little authority. In 1552, when the king left the kingdom for the campaign of Metz, she was nominated regent, but with very limited powers. This continued even after the accession of her son Francis II. Francis was under the spell of Mary Stuart, and she, little disposed to meddle with politics on her own account, was managed by her uncles, the cardinal of Lorraine and the duke of Guise. The queen-mother, however, soon grew weary of the domination of the Guises, and entered upon a course of secret opposition. On the 1st of April 1560 she placed in thechancellorship Michel de l’Hôpital (q.v.), who advocated the policy of conciliation.
On the death of Francis (5th of December 1560), Catherine became regent during the minority of her second son, Charles IX., and now found before her a career worthy of the most soaring ambition. She was then forty-one years old, but, although she was the mother of nine children, she was still very vigorous and active. She retained her influence for more than twenty years in the troubled period of the wars of religion. At first she listened to the moderate counsels of l’Hôpital in so far as to avoid siding definitely with either party, but her character and the habits of policy to which she had been accustomed, rendered her incapable of any noble aim. She had only one virtue, and that was her zeal for the interests of her children, especially of her favourite third son, the duke of Anjou. Like so many of the Italians of that time, who were almost destitute of a moral sense, she looked upon statesmanship in particular as a career in which finesse, lying and assassination were the most admirable, because the most effective weapons. By habit a Catholic, but above all things fond of power, she was determined to prevent the Protestants from getting the upper hand, and almost equally resolved not to allow them to be utterly crushed, in order to use them as a counterpoise to the Guises. This trimming policy met with little success: rage and suspicion so possessed men’s minds, that she could no longer control the opposing parties, and one civil war followed another to the end of her life. In 1567, after the “Enterprise of Meaux,†she dismissed l’Hôpital and joined the Catholic party. But, having failed to crush the Protestant rebellion by arms, she resumed in 1570 the policy of peace and negotiation. She conceived the project of marrying her favourite son, the duke of Anjou, to Queen Elizabeth of England, and her daughter Margaret to Henry of Navarre. To this end she became reconciled with the Protestants, and allowed Coligny to return to court and to re-enter the council. Of this step she quickly repented. Charles IX. conceived a great affection for the admiral and showed signs of taking up an independent attitude. Catherine, thinking her influence menaced, sought to regain it, first by the murder of Coligny, and, when that had failed, by the massacre of St Bartholomew (q.v.). The whole of the responsibility for this crime, therefore, rests with Catherine; unlike the populace, she had not even the excuse of fanaticism. This responsibility, however, weighed but lightly on her; while her son was overwhelmed with remorse, she calmly enjoyed her short-lived triumph. After the death of Charles in 1574, and the succession of Anjou under the name of Henry III., Catherine pursued her old policy of compromise and concessions; but as her influence is lost in that of her son, it is unnecessary to dwell upon it. She died on the 5th of January 1589, a short time before the assassination of Henry, and the consequent extinction of the House of Valois. In her taste for art and her love of magnificence and luxury, Catherine was a true Medici; her banquets at Fontainebleau in 1564 were famous for their sumptuousness. In architecture especially she was well versed, and Philibert de l’Orme relates that she discussed with him the plan and decoration of her palace of the Tuileries. Catherine’s policy provoked a crowd of pamphlets, the most celebrated being theDiscours merveilleux de la vie, actions et déportemens de la reine Catherine de Médicis, in which Henri Estienne undoubtedly collaborated.
SeeLettres de Catherine de Médicis, edited by Hector de la Ferrière (Paris, 1880, seq.), in theCollection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France; A. von Reumont,Die Jugend Caterinas de’ Medici(1854; French translation by A. Baschet, 1866); H. Bouchot,Catherine de Médicis(Paris, 1899). For a more complete bibliography see Ernest Lavisse,Histoire de France(vol. v., by H. Lemonnier, and vol. vi., by J.H. Mariéjol, 1904-1905). See also Miss E. Sichel’s books,Catherine de’ Medici and the French Reformation(1905), andThe Later Years of Catherine de’ Medici(1908).
SeeLettres de Catherine de Médicis, edited by Hector de la Ferrière (Paris, 1880, seq.), in theCollection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France; A. von Reumont,Die Jugend Caterinas de’ Medici(1854; French translation by A. Baschet, 1866); H. Bouchot,Catherine de Médicis(Paris, 1899). For a more complete bibliography see Ernest Lavisse,Histoire de France(vol. v., by H. Lemonnier, and vol. vi., by J.H. Mariéjol, 1904-1905). See also Miss E. Sichel’s books,Catherine de’ Medici and the French Reformation(1905), andThe Later Years of Catherine de’ Medici(1908).
CATHERINE OF ARAGON(1485-1536), queen of Henry VIII. of England, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, was born on the 15th or 16th of December 1485. She left Spain in 1501 to marry Arthur, prince of Wales, eldest son of King Henry VII., and landed at Plymouth on the 2nd of October. The wedding took place on the 14th of November in London, and soon afterwards Catherine accompanied her youthful husband to Wales, where, in his sixteenth year, the prince died on the 2nd of April 1502. On the 25th of June 1503, she was formally betrothed to the king’s second son, Henry, now prince of Wales, and a papal dispensation for the alliance was obtained. The marriage, however, did not take place during the lifetime of Henry VII. Ferdinand endeavoured to cheat the English king of the marriage portion agreed upon, and Henry made use of the presence of the unmarried princess in England to extort new conditions, and especially to secure the marriage of his daughter Mary to the archduke Charles, grandson of Ferdinand, and afterwards Charles V. Catherine was thus from the first the unhappy victim of state politics. Writing to Ferdinand on the 11th of March 1509, she describes the state of poverty to which she was reduced, and declares the king’s unkindness impossible to be borne any longer.1On the old king’s death, however, a brighter prospect opened, for Henry VIII. decided immediately on marrying her, the wedding taking place on the 11th of June and the coronation on the 24th. Catherine now enjoyed a few years of married happiness; Henry showed himself an affectionate husband, and the alliance with Ferdinand was maintained against France. She was not without some influence in state affairs. During Henry’s invasion of France in 1513 she was made regent; she showed great zeal and ardour in the preparations for the Scottish expedition, and was riding towards the north to put herself at the head of the troops when the victory of Flodden Field ended the campaign. The following year an affectionate meeting took place between the king and queen at Richmond on the return of the former. Ferdinand’s treachery, however, in making a treaty with France roused Henry’s wrath, and his angry reproaches fell upon his unfortunate wife; but she took occasion in 1520, during the visit of her nephew Charles V. to England, to urge the policy of gaining his alliance rather than that of France. Immediately on his departure, on the 31st of May 1520, she accompanied the king to France, on the celebrated visit to Francis I., called from its splendour the Field of the Cloth of Gold; but in 1522 war was declared against France and the emperor again welcomed to England. In 1521 she is represented by Shakespeare as pleading for the unfortunate duke of Buckingham.
These early years of happiness and of useful influence and activity had, however, been gradually giving way to gloom and disappointment. Between January 1510 and November 1518 Catherine gave birth to six children (including two princes), who were all stillborn or died in infancy except Mary, born in 1516, and rumour did not fail to ascribe this series of disasters to the curse pronounced in Deuteronomy on incestuous unions. In 1526 the condition of Catherine’s health made it highly improbable that she would have more children. No woman had ever reigned in England, alone and in her own right, and to avoid a fresh dispute concerning the succession, and the revival of the civil war, a male heir to the throne was a pressing necessity. The act of marriage, which depended for its validity on the decision of the ecclesiastical courts, had, on account of the numerous dissolutions and dispensations granted, not then attained the security since assured to it by the secular law. For obtaining dissolutions of royal marriages the facilities were especially great. Pope Clement VII. himself permitted such a dissolution in the case of Henry’s own sister Margaret, in 1528, proposed later as a solution of the problem that Henry should be allowed two wives,2and looked not unfavourably, with the same aim, on the project for marrying the duke of Richmond to Mary, a brother to a sister.3In Henry’s case also the irregularity of a union, which is still generally reprobated and forbidden in Christendom, and which it was very doubtful that the pope had the power to legalize, provided a moral justification for a dissolution which in other cases did not exist. It was not therefore the immorality of the plea which obstructed the papal decree inHenry’s favour, but the unlucky imprisonment at this time of Clement VII. at the hands of Charles V., Catherine’s nephew, which obliged the pope, placed thus “between the hammer and the anvil,†to pursue a policy of delay and hesitation. Nor was the immorality of Henry’s own character the primary cause of the project of divorce. Had this been so, a succession of mistresses would have served as well as a series of single wives. The real occasion was the king’s desire for a male heir. But, however clear this may be, the injustice done to Catherine was no less cruel and real. Rumours, probably then unfounded, of an intended divorce had been heard abroad as early as 1524. But the creation in 1525 of the king’s illegitimate son Henry, as duke of Richmond—the title borne by his grandfather Henry VII—and the precedence granted to him over all the peers as well as the princess Mary, together with the special honour paid at this time by the king to his own half-sister Mary, were the first real indications of the king’s thoughts. In 1526, and perhaps earlier, Wolsey had been making tentative inquiries at Rome on the subject. In May 1527 a collusive and secret suit was begun before the cardinal, who, as legate, summoned the king to defend himself from the charge of cohabitation with his brother’s wife; but these proceedings were dropped. On the 22nd of June Henry informed Catherine that they had been living in mortal sin and must separate. During Wolsey’s absence in July at Paris, where he had been commissioned to discuss vaguely the divorce and Henry’s marriage with Renée, daughter of Louis XII., Anne Boleyn is first heard of in connexion with the king, his affection for her having, however, begun probably as early as 1523, and the cardinal on his return found her openly installed at the court. In October 1528 the pope issued a commission to Cardinal Campeggio and Wolsey to try the cause in England, and bound himself not to revoke the case to Rome, confirming his promise by a secret decretal commission which, however, was destroyed by Campeggio. But the trial was a sham. Campeggio was forbidden to pronounce sentence without further reference to Rome, and was instructed to create delays, the pope assuring Charles V. at the same time that the case should be ultimately revoked to Rome.4
The object of all parties was now to persuade Catherine to enter a nunnery and thus relieve them of further embarrassment. While Henry’s envoys were encouraged at Rome in believing that he might then make another marriage, Henry himself gave Catherine assurances that no other union would be contemplated in her lifetime. But Catherine with courage and dignity held fast to her rights, demanded a proper trial, and appealed not only to the bull of dispensation, the validity of which was said to be vitiated by certain irregularities, but to a brief granted for the alliance by Pope Julius II. Henry declared the latter to be a forgery, and endeavoured unsuccessfully to procure a declaration of its falsity from the pope. The court of the legates accordingly opened on the 31st of May 1529, the queen appearing before it on the 18th of June for the purpose of denying its jurisdiction. On the 21st both Henry and Catherine presented themselves before the tribunal, when the queen threw herself at Henry’s feet and appealed for the last time to his sense of honour, recalling her own virtue and helplessness. Henry replied with kindness, showing that her wish for the revocation of the cause to Rome was unreasonable in view of the paramount influence then exercised by Charles V. on the pope. Catherine nevertheless persisted in making appeal to Rome, and then withdrew. After her departure Henry, according to Cavendish, Wolsey’s biographer, praised her virtues to the court. “She is, my lords, as true, as obedient, as conformable a wife as I could in my phantasy wish or desire. She hath all the virtues and qualities that ought to be in a woman of her dignity or in any other of baser estate.†On her refusal to return, her plea was overruled and she was adjudged contumacious, while the sittings of the court continued in her absence. Subsequently the legates paid her a private visit of advice, but were unable to move her from her resolution. Finally, however, in July 1529, the case was, according to her wish, and as the result of the treaty of Barcelona and the pope’s complete surrender to Charles V., revoked by the pope to Rome: a momentous act, which decided Henry’s future attitude, and occasioned the downfall of the whole papal authority in England. On the 7th of March 1530 Pope Clement issued a brief forbidding Henry to make a second marriage, and ordering the restitution of Catherine to her rights till the cause was determined; while at the same time he professed to the French ambassador, the bishop of Tarbes, his pleasure should the marriage with Anne Boleyn have been already made, if only it were not by his authority.5The same year Henry obtained opinions favourable to the divorce from the English, French and most of the Italian universities, but unfavourable answers from Germany, while a large number of English peers and ecclesiastics, including Wolsey and Archbishop Warham, joined in a memorial to the pope in support of Henry’s cause.
Meanwhile, Catherine, while the great question remained unsolved, was still treated by Henry as his queen, and accompanied him in his visits in the provinces and in his hunting expeditions. On the 31st of May 1531 she was visited by thirty privy councillors, who urged the trial of the case in England, but they met only with a firm refusal. On the 14th of July Henry left his wife at Windsor, removing himself to Woodstock, and never saw her again. In August she was ordered to reside at the Moor in Hertfordshire, and at the same time separated from the princess Mary, who was taken to Richmond. In October she again received a deputation of privy councillors, and again refused to withdraw the case from Rome. In 1532 she sent the king a gold cup as a new year’s gift, which the latter returned, and she was forbidden to hold any communication with him. Alone and helpless in confronting Henry’s absolute power, her cause found champions and sympathizers among the people, among the court preachers, and in the House of Commons, while Bishop Fisher had openly taken her part in the legatine trial. Subsequently Catherine was removed to Bishops Hatfield, while Henry and Anne Boleyn visited Francis I. Their marriage, anticipating any sentence of the nullity of the union with Catherine, took place after their return about the 25th of January 1533, in consequence of Anne’s pregnancy. On the 10th of May Cranmer, for whose consecration as archbishop of Canterbury Henry had obtained bulls from Rome, opened his court, and declared on the 23rd the nullity of Catherine’s marriage and the validity of Anne’s. On the 10th of August the king caused proclamation to be made forbidding her the style of queen; but Catherine refused resolutely to yield the title for that of princess-dowager. Not long afterwards she was removed to Buckden in Huntingdonshire. Here her household was considerably reduced, and she found herself hemmed in by spies, and in fact a prisoner. In July she had refused Henry the loan of a certain rich cloth, which had done service at the baptism of her children, for the use of Anne Boleyn’s expected infant; and on the birth of Elizabeth and the refusal of Mary to give up the title of princess, the latter’s household was entirely dismissed and she herself reduced to the position of attendant in Elizabeth’s retinue. A project for removing Catherine from Buckden to Somersham, an unhealthy solitude in the isle of Ely, with a still narrower maintenance, was only prevented by her own determined resistance. The attempt in November to incriminate the queen in connexion with Elizabeth Barton failed. She passed her life now in religious devotions, taking strict precautions against the possibility of being poisoned. On the 23rd of March 1534 the pope pronounced her marriage valid, but by this time England had thrown off the papal jurisdiction, the parliament had transferred Catherine’s jointure to Anne Boleyn, and the decree had no effect on Catherine’s fortunes. She refused to swear to the new act of succession, which declared her marriage null and Anne’s infant the heir to the throne, and soon afterwards she was removed to Kimbolton, where she was well treated. On the 21st of May she was visited by the archbishop of York and Tunstall, bishop of Durham, who threatened her with death if she persisted in her refusal, but only succeeded in confirming her resolution. She was kept in strict seclusion, separated from Maryand from all outside communications, and in December 1535 her health gave way, her death taking place on the 8th of January 1536, not without suspicions of poison, which, however, may be dismissed. She was buried by the king’s order in Peterborough cathedral. Before her death she dictated a last letter to Henry, according to Polydore Vergil, expressing her forgiveness, begging his good offices for Mary, and concluding with the astounding assurance—â€I vow that mine eyes desire you above all things.†The king himself affected no sorrow at her death, and thanked God there was now no fear of war.
Catherine is described as “rather ugly than otherwise; of low stature and rather stout; very good and very religious; speaks Spanish, French, Flemish, English; more beloved by the islanders than any queen that has ever reigned.†She was a woman of considerable education and culture, her scholarship and knowledge of the Bible being noted by Erasmus, who dedicated to her his book onChristian Matrimonyin 1526. She endured her bitter and undeserved misfortunes with extraordinary courage and resolution, and at the same time with great womanly forbearance, of which a striking instance was the compassion shown by her for the fallen Wolsey.
Bibliography.—See the article inDict. of Nat. Biog.by J. Gairdner, and those on Henry VIII. and Wolsey, where the case is summed up very adversely to Henry, andThe Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, by J.A. Froude (1891), where it is regarded from the contrary aspect;Henry VIII., by A. F. Pollard (1905);Cambridge Mod. History(1903), ii. 416 et seq. and bibliographies, p. 789;The Wives of Henry VIII., by M. Hume (1905).
Bibliography.—See the article inDict. of Nat. Biog.by J. Gairdner, and those on Henry VIII. and Wolsey, where the case is summed up very adversely to Henry, andThe Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, by J.A. Froude (1891), where it is regarded from the contrary aspect;Henry VIII., by A. F. Pollard (1905);Cambridge Mod. History(1903), ii. 416 et seq. and bibliographies, p. 789;The Wives of Henry VIII., by M. Hume (1905).
(P. C. Y.)
1Cat. of State Pap., England and Spain, i. 469.2Letters and Papers, iv. 6627, 6705, and app. 261.3Ib.iv. 5072.4Cal. of State Pap., England and Spain, iii. pt. ii. 779.5Cal. of State Pap., Foreign and Dom., iv. 6290.
1Cat. of State Pap., England and Spain, i. 469.
2Letters and Papers, iv. 6627, 6705, and app. 261.
3Ib.iv. 5072.
4Cal. of State Pap., England and Spain, iii. pt. ii. 779.
5Cal. of State Pap., Foreign and Dom., iv. 6290.
CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA(1638-1705), queen consort of Charles II. of England, daughter of John IV. of Portugal, and of Louisa de Gusman, daughter of the duke of Medina Sidonia, was born on the15â„25of November 1638 at Villia Viçosa. She was early regarded as a useful medium for contracting an alliance with England, more necessary than ever to Portugal after the treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 whereby Portugal was ostensibly abandoned by France. Negotiations for the marriage began during the reign of Charles I., were renewed immediately after the Restoration, and on the 23rd of June, in spite of Spanish opposition, the marriage contract was signed, England securing Tangier and Bombay, with trading privileges in Brazil and the East Indies, religious and commercial freedom in Portugal and two million Portuguese crowns (about £300,000); while Portugal obtained military and naval support against Spain and liberty of worship for Catherine. She reached England on the 13th of May 1662, but was not visited by Charles at Portsmouth till the 20th. The next day the marriage was solemnized twice, according to the Roman Catholic and Anglican usages. Catherine possessed several good qualities, but had been brought up in a conventual seclusion and was scarcely a wife Charles would have chosen for himself. Her personal charms were not potent enough to wean Charles away from the society of his mistresses, and in a few weeks after her arrival she became aware of her painful and humiliating position as the wife of the selfish and licentious king. On the first presentation to her of Lady Castlemaine, Charles’s mistressen titre, whom he insisted on making lady of her bedchamber, she fainted away. She withdrew from the king’s society, and in spite of Clarendon’s attempts to moderate her resentment, declared she would return to Portugal rather than consent to a base compliance. To overcome her resistance nearly the whole of her Portuguese retinue was dismissed. She was helpless, and the violence of her grief and anger soon changed to passive resistance, and then to a complete forbearance and complaisance which gained the king’s regard and favour. In the midst of Charles’s debauched and licentious court, she lived neglected and retired, often deprived of her due allowance, having no ambitions and taking no part in English politics, but keeping up rather her interest in her native country.
As the prospect diminished of her bearing children to Charles, several schemes were set on foot for procuring a divorce on various pretexts. As a Roman Catholic and near to the king’s person Catherine was the special object of attack by the inventors of the Popish Plot. In 1678 the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey was ascribed to her servants, and Titus Oates accused her of a design to poison the king. These charges, of which the absurdity was soon shown by cross-examination, nevertheless placed the queen for some time in great danger. On the 28th of November Oates accused her of high treason, and the Commons passed an address for her removal and that of all the Roman Catholics from Whitehall. A series of fresh depositions were sent in against her, and in June 1679 it was decided that she must stand her trial; but she was protected by the king, who in this instance showed unusual chivalry and earned her gratitude. On the 17th of November Shaftesbury moved in the House of Lords for a divorce to enable the king to marry a Protestant and have legitimate issue; but he received little support, and the bill was opposed by Charles, who continued to show his wife “extraordinary affection.†During the winter the calumnies against the queen were revived by Fitzharris, who, however, before his execution in 1681 confessed to their falsity; and after the revival of the king’s influence subsequent to the Oxford parliament, the queen’s position was no more assailed.
During Charles’s last illness in 1685 she showed great anxiety for his reconciliation with the Romish Church, and it was probably effected largely through her influence. She exhibited great grief at his death. She afterwards resided at Somerset House and at Hammersmith, where she had privately founded a convent. She interceded with great generosity, but ineffectually, for Monmouth the same year. On the 10th of June 1688 she was present at the birth of the prince of Wales and gave evidence before the council in favour of the genuineness of the child. She was still in England at the Revolution, having delayed her return to Portugal to prosecute a lawsuit against the second earl of Clarendon, formerly her chamberlain. She maintained at first good terms with William and Mary; but the practice of her religion aroused jealousies, while her establishment at Somerset House was said to be the home of cabals against the government; and in 1691 she settled for a short time at Euston. She left England finally with a train of one hundred persons in March 1692, travelling through France and arriving at Lisbon on the 20th of January 1693. She took up her residence at the palace of Bemposta, built by herself, near Lisbon. In 1703 she supported the Methuen Treaty, which cemented still further the alliance between Portugal and England, and in 1704 she was appointed regent of Portugal during the illness of her brother King Pedro II., her administration being distinguished by several successes gained over the Spaniards. She died on the 31st of December 1705, bequeathing her great wealth, the result of long hoarding, after the payment of divers charitable legacies, to King Pedro; and was buried with great ceremony and splendour at Belem.
See L. C. Davidson,Catherine of Braganza(1908).
See L. C. Davidson,Catherine of Braganza(1908).
CATHERINE OF VALOIS(1401-1437), queen of Henry V. of England, daughter of Charles VI. of France by his wife Isabel of Bavaria, was born in Paris on the 27th of October 1401. The lunacy of her father and the depravity of her mother were serious drawbacks to Catherine, and her only education was obtained in a convent at Poissy. About 1408 a marriage was suggested between the princess and Henry, prince of Wales, afterwards Henry V., who renewed this proposal after he became king in March 1413. In addition to the hand of Catherine, however, the English king asked for a large dowry both in money and lands, and when these demands were rejected war broke out. Once or twice during short intervals of peace the marriage project was revived, and was favoured by Queen Isabel. When peace was eventually made at Troyes in May 1420 Henry and Catherine were betrothed, and the marriage took place at Troyes on the 2nd of June 1420. Having crossed to England with Henry, the queen was crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 23rd of February 1421, and in the following December gave birth to a son, afterwards King Henry VI. She joined Henry in France in May 1422, returning to England after his death in the succeeding August. Catherine’s name soon began to be coupled with that of Owen Tudor, a Welsh gentleman, and in 1428 Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, secured the passing of an act to prevent her from marrying without theconsent of the king and council. It appears, however, that by this time Catherine and Tudor were already married. They lived in obscurity till 1436, when Tudor was imprisoned, and Catherine retired to Bermondsey Abbey, where she died on the 3rd of January 1437. Her body was buried in the Lady chapel of Westminster Abbey, and when the chapel was pulled down during the reign of Henry VII., was placed in Henry V.’s tomb. It lay afterwards under the Villiers monument, and in 1878 was re-buried in Henry V.’s chantry. By Tudor Catherine had three sons and a daughter. Her eldest son by this marriage, Edmund, was created earl of Richmond in 1452, and was the father of Henry VII.
See Agnes Strickland,Lives of the Queens of England, vol. iii. (London, 1877).
See Agnes Strickland,Lives of the Queens of England, vol. iii. (London, 1877).
CATHETUS(Gr.κάθετος, a perpendicular line), in architecture the eye of the volute, so termed because its position is determined, in an Ionic or voluted capital, by a line let down from the point in which the volute generates.
CATHOLIC(Gr.καθολικός, general, universal), a designation adopted in the 2nd century by the Christian Church to indicate Christendom as a whole, in contrast with individual churches. With this idea went the notions that Christianity had been diffused throughout the whole earth by the apostles, and that only what was found everywhere throughout the church could be true. The term thus in time became full of dogmatic and political meaning, connoting, when applied to the church, a universal authoritative and orthodox society, as opposed to Gnostic and other “sects†(cf. the famous canon of Vincent of Lerinsa.d.434;quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). The term “Catholic†does not occur in the old Roman symbol; but Professor Loofs includes it in his reconstruction, based on typical phrases in common use at the time of the ante-Nicene creeds of the East. In the original form of the Nicene creed itself it does not occur; but in the creed of Jerusalem (348), an amplification of the Nicene symbol, we find “one Holy Catholic Church,†and in the revision by Cyril of Alexandria (362) “Catholic and Apostolic Church†(seeCreeds). Thus, though the word “Catholic†was late in finding its way into the formal symbols of the church, it is clear that it had long been in use in the original sense defined above. It must be borne in mind, however, that the designation “Catholic†was equally claimed by all the warring parties within the church at various times; thus, the followers of Arius and Athanasius alike called themselves Catholics, and it was only the ultimate victory of the latter that has reserved for them in history the name of Catholic, and branded the former as Arian.
With the gradual development and stereotyping of the creed it was inevitable that the term “Catholic†should come to imply a more narrowly defined orthodoxy. In the Eastern churches, indeed, the conception of the church as the guardian of “the faith once delivered to the saints†soon overshadowed that of interpretation and development by catholic consent, and, though they have throughout claimed the title of Catholic, their chief glory is that conveyed in the name of the Holy Orthodox Church. In the West, meanwhile, the growth of the power of the papacy had tended more and more to the interpretation of the word “catholic†as implying communion with, and obedience to, the see of Rome (seePapacy); the churches of the East, no less than the heretical sects of the West, by repudiating this allegiance, had ceased to be Catholic. This identification of “Catholic†with “Roman†was accentuated by the progress of the Reformation. The Reformers themselves, indeed, like other dissidents and reformers before them, did not necessarily repudiate the name of Catholic; they believed, in fact, in Catholicism,i.e.the universal sanction of their beliefs, as firmly as did the adherents of “the old religionâ€; they included the Catholic creeds, definitions formulated by the universal church, in their service books; they too appealed, as the fathers of Basel and Constance had done, from the papal monarchy to the great ecclesiastical republic. The Church of England at least, emphasizing her own essential catholicity, retained in her translations of the ancient symbols the word “catholic†instead of replacing it by “universal.†But the appeal to the verbally inspired Bible was stronger than that to a church hopelessly divided; the Bible, and not the consent of the universal church, became the touchstone of the reformed orthodoxy; in the nomenclature of the time, “evangelical†arose in contradistinction to “Catholic,†while, in popular parlance, the “protest†of the Reformers against the “corruptions of Rome†led to the invention of the term “Protestant,†which, though nowhere assumed in the official titles of the older reformed churches, was early used as a generic term to include them all.
“Catholic†and “Catholicism†thus again changed and narrowed their meaning; they became, by universal usage, identified definitely with “Romanist†and the creed and obedience of Rome. Even in England, where the church retained most strongly the Catholic tradition, this distinction of “Protestant†and “Catholic†was clearly maintained, at least till the “Catholic revival†in the Church of England of the 19th century. On the continent of Europe the equivalent words (e.g.Ger.Katholik, Katholizismus; Fr.catholique, catholicisme) are even more definitely associated with Rome; they have lost the sense which they still convey to a considerable school of Anglicans. The dissident “Catholic†churches are forced to qualify their titles: they are “Old Catholics†(Alt-Katholiken) or “German Catholics†(Deutsch-Katholiken). The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is “the Catholic Church†(katholische Kirche, église catholique), a title which she proudly claims as exclusively her own, by divine right, by the sanction of immemorial tradition, and by reason of her perpetual protest against the idea of “national†churches, consecrated by the Reformation (seeChurch History, andRoman Catholic Church). The additional qualification of “Roman†she tolerates, since it proclaims her doctrine of the see of Rome as the keystone of Catholicism; but to herself she is “the Catholic Church,†and her members are “Catholics.â€
Yet to concede this claim and surrender without qualification the word “Catholic†to a connotation which is at best only universal in theory, is to beg several very weighty questions. The doctrine of the Catholic Church,i.e.the essential unity and interdependence of “all God’s faithful people scattered throughout the world,†is common to all sections of Christians. The creed is one; it is the interpretation that differs. In a somewhat narrower sense, too, the Church of England at least has never repudiated the conception of the Catholic Church as a divinely instituted organization for the safe-guarding and proclamation of the Christian revelation. She deliberately retained the Catholic creeds, the Catholic ministry and the appeal to Catholic antiquity (seeEngland, Church of). A large section of her members, accordingly, laying stress on this side of her tradition, prefer to call themselves “Catholics.†But, though the invention of the terms “Roman Catholic†and “Roman Catholicism†early implied the retention by the English Church of her Catholic claim, her members were never, after the Reformation, called Catholics; even the Caroline divines of the 17th century, for all their “popish practices,†styled themselves Protestants, though they would have professed their adherence to “the Catholic faith†and their belief in “the Holy Catholic Church.â€
Clearly, then, the exact meaning of the term varies according to those who use it and those to whom it is applied. To the Romanist “Catholic†means “Roman Catholicâ€; to the high Anglican it means whatever is common to the three “historic†branches into which he conceives the church to be divided—Roman, Anglican and Orthodox; to the Protestant pure and simple it means either what it does to the Romanist, or, in expansive moments, simply what is “universal†to all Christians. In a yet broader sense it is used adjectivally of mere wideness or universality of view, as when we speak of a man as “of catholic sympathies†or “catholic in his tastes.â€
The name ofCatholic Epistlesis given to those letters (two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude) incorporated in the New Testament which (except 2 and 3 John) are not, likethose of St Paul, addressed to particular individuals or churches, but to a larger and more indefinite circle of readers. (See BIBLE:New Testament, Canon.)
The title ofCatholicus(καθολικός) seems to have been used under the Roman empire, though rarely, as the Greek equivalent ofconsularisandpraefectus. Thus Eusebius (Hist. eccl.viii. 23) speaks of the catholicus of Africa (καθολικὸν τῆς ΆφÏικῆς). As an ecclesiastical title it was used to imply, not universal (ecumenical), but a great and widespread jurisdiction. Thus the bishop of the important see of Seleucia (Bagdad), though subordinate to the patriarch of Antioch, had the title of Catholicus and power to consecrate even archbishops; and on the division of the see there were twoCatholiciunder the patriarch of Antioch. In Ethiopia, too, there wereCatholiciwith less extensive powers, subject to the patriarch of Alexandria. The title now survives, however, only as that of the head of the Armenian Church (q.v.). A bishop’s cathedral church is, however, in Greek theCatholicon.
An isolated use of the word “catholic†as a secular legal term survives in Scots law; acatholic creditoris one whose debt is secured over several or over all of the subjects belonging to the debtor.
CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, THE,a religious community often called “Irvingites,†though neither actually founded nor anticipated by Edward Irving (q.v.). Irving’s relation to this community was, according to its members, somewhat similar to that of John the Baptist to the early Christian Church,i.e.he was the forerunner and prophet of the coming dispensation, not the founder of a new sect; and indeed the only connexion which Irving seems to have had with the existing organization of the Catholic Apostolic body was in “fostering spiritual persons who had been driven out of other congregations for the exercise of their spiritual gifts.†Shortly after Irving’s trial and deposition (1831), certain persons were, at some meetings held for prayer, designated as “called to be apostles of the Lord†by certain others claiming prophetic gifts. In the year 1835, six months after Irving’s death, six others were similarly designated as “called†to complete the number of the “twelve,†who were then formally “separated,†by the pastors of the local congregations to which they belonged, to their higher office in the universal church on the 14th of July 1835. This separation is understood by the community not as “in any sense being a schism or separation from the one Catholic Church, but a separation to a special work of blessing and intercession on behalf of it.†The twelve were afterwards guided to ordain others—twelve prophets, twelve evangelists, and twelve pastors, “sharing equally with them the one Catholic Episcopate,†and also seven deacons for administering the temporal affairs of the church catholic. The apostles were the channels of the Holy Ghost and the mysteries of God, and the authoritative interpreters of “prophetic utteranceâ€; their teaching was brought home to the people by the “evangelists.†The function of the prophets was to explain scripture and exhort to holiness, that of the “pastors†is explained by their title. The central episcopacy of forty-eight was regarded as “indicated by prophecy,†being foreshown in the forty-eight boards of the Mosaic tabernacle. For ecclesiastical purposes the church universal is under their charge in twelve tribes; for Christendom is considered to be divided into twelve portions or tribes, each tribe being under the special charge of an apostle and his co-ministers, and the seat of the Apostolic College being at Albury, near Guildford. This is an ideal outline which has never been fulfilled. There has never been a “central episcopacy†of forty-eight. The “apostles†alone always held the supreme authority, though, as their number dwindled, “coadjutors†were appointed to assist the survivors, and to exercise the functions of the “apostolate.†The last “apostle†died on the 3rd of February 1901.
For the service of the church a comprehensive book of liturgies and offices was provided by the “apostles.†It dates from 1842 and is based on the Anglican, Roman and Greek liturgies. Lights, incense, vestments, holy water, chrism, and other adjuncts of worship are in constant use. The ceremonial in its completeness may be seen in the church in Gordon Square, London, and elsewhere. The daily worship consists of “matins†with “proposition†(or exposition) of the sacrament at 6a.m., prayers at 9a.m.and 3p.m., and “vespers†with “proposition†at 5p.m.On all Sundays and holy days there is a “solemn celebration of the eucharist†at the high altar; on Sundays this is at 10a.m.On other days “low celebrations†are held in the side-chapels, which with the chancel in all churches correctly built after apostolic directions are separated or marked off from the nave by open screens with gates. The community has always laid great stress on symbolism, and in the eucharist, while rejecting both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, holds strongly to a real (mystical) presence. It emphasizes also the “phenomena†of Christian experience and deems miracle and mystery to be of the essence of a spirit-filled church.
Each congregation is presided over by its “angel†or bishop (who ranks as angel-pastor in the Universal Church), under him are four-and-twenty priests, divided into the four ministries of “elders, prophets, evangelists and pastors,†and with these are the deacons, seven of whom regulate the temporal affairs of the church—besides whom there are also “sub-deacons, acolytes, singers, and door-keepers.†The understanding is that each elder, with his co-presbyters and deacons, shall have charge of 500 adult communicants in his district; but this has been but partially carried into practice. This is the full constitution of each particular church or congregation as founded by the “restored apostles,†each local church thus “reflecting in its government the government of the church catholic by the angel or high priest Jesus Christ, and His forty-eight presbyters in their fourfold ministry (in which apostles and elders always rank first), and under these the deacons of the church catholic.†The priesthood is supported by tithes; it being deemed a duty on the part of all members of the church who receive yearly incomes to offer a tithe of their increase every week, besides the free-will offering for the support of the place of worship, and for the relief of distress. Each local church sends “a tithe of its tithes†to the “Temple,†by which the ministers of the Universal Church are supported and its administrative expenses defrayed; by these offerings, too, the needs of poorer churches are supplied. It claims to have among its clergy many of the Roman, Anglican and other churches, the orders of those ordained by Greek, Roman and Anglican bishops being recognized by it with the simple confirmation of an “apostolic act.†The community has not changed recently in general constitution or doctrine. It does not publish statistics, and its growth during late years is said to have been more marked in the United States and in certain European countries, such as Germany, than in Great Britain. There are nine congregations enumerated inThe Religious Life of London(1904).