As to corporal punishment in the army and navy, see articlesMilitary Law;Navy. In civil prisons, whether they are convict prisons or local prisons, corporal punishment may not be inflicted except under sentence of a competent court, or except in the case of prisoners under sentence of penal servitude, or convicted of felony, or sentenced to hard labour, who have been guilty of mutiny or incitement to mutiny, or of gross personal violence to an officer or servant of the prison (Act of 1898, § 5). Flogging for these offences in prison may not be inflicted except by order of the board of visitors or visiting committee of the prison, made at a meeting specially constituted, and confirmed by a secretary of state (Prison Act of 1898, § 5; Convict Prison Rules 1899; Stat. R. and O. 1899, No. 321, rr. 77-79; Local Prison Rules 1899; Stat. R. and O. 1899, No. 322, rr. 84, 85). The mode of inflicting the punishment is prescribed by the Convict Prison Rules (rr. 82-85) and the Local Prison Rules (rr. 88-91), which limit the number of strokes and prescribe the instrument to be used for inflicting them, the cat or birch for prisoners over 18, and the birch for prisoners under 18.Corporal punishment for breaches of prison discipline in Scottish prisons is not authorized by any statute nor under the Scottish Prison Rules (seeStat. R. and O. Revised, ed. 1904, vol. X. tit. “Prison, Scotland,” p. 60). In Irish convict prisons corporal punishment may be inflicted by order of justices specially appointed by the lord-lieutenant under § 3 of the Penal Servitude Act 1864, but the Irish Prison Rules of 1902 (Stat. R. and O. 1902, No. 590) contain no reference to this power.
As to corporal punishment in the army and navy, see articlesMilitary Law;Navy. In civil prisons, whether they are convict prisons or local prisons, corporal punishment may not be inflicted except under sentence of a competent court, or except in the case of prisoners under sentence of penal servitude, or convicted of felony, or sentenced to hard labour, who have been guilty of mutiny or incitement to mutiny, or of gross personal violence to an officer or servant of the prison (Act of 1898, § 5). Flogging for these offences in prison may not be inflicted except by order of the board of visitors or visiting committee of the prison, made at a meeting specially constituted, and confirmed by a secretary of state (Prison Act of 1898, § 5; Convict Prison Rules 1899; Stat. R. and O. 1899, No. 321, rr. 77-79; Local Prison Rules 1899; Stat. R. and O. 1899, No. 322, rr. 84, 85). The mode of inflicting the punishment is prescribed by the Convict Prison Rules (rr. 82-85) and the Local Prison Rules (rr. 88-91), which limit the number of strokes and prescribe the instrument to be used for inflicting them, the cat or birch for prisoners over 18, and the birch for prisoners under 18.
Corporal punishment for breaches of prison discipline in Scottish prisons is not authorized by any statute nor under the Scottish Prison Rules (seeStat. R. and O. Revised, ed. 1904, vol. X. tit. “Prison, Scotland,” p. 60). In Irish convict prisons corporal punishment may be inflicted by order of justices specially appointed by the lord-lieutenant under § 3 of the Penal Servitude Act 1864, but the Irish Prison Rules of 1902 (Stat. R. and O. 1902, No. 590) contain no reference to this power.
At common law, courts of justice had jurisdiction to impose a sentence of whipping on persons convicted on indictment for petty larceny or misdemeanours of the meaner kind (see 1 Bishop,Amer. Cr. Law, 8th ed., § 942). But they do not now impose such sentence except under statutory authority. The whipping of women was absolutely prohibited in 1820 by the Whipping of Female Offenders Abolition Act of that year. But there are numerous statutes authorizing the imposition of a sentence of whipping on male offenders. The following cases may be noted. 1.Adults: (a) who are incorrigible rogues (Vagrancy Act 1824, § 10); (b) who discharge fire-arms, &c., with intent to injure or alarm the sovereign (Treason Act 1842, § 2, and see 8 St. Tr. N.S. 1, andO’Connor’s Case, 1872, ib. p. 3 n.); (c) who are guilty of robbery with violence (Larceny Act 1861, § 43), or offences against § 21 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861; there has been much controversy as to whether the Garrotters Act of 1861, which authorized the ordering of more than one whipping in the case of an offender over 16 years of age, was the effective cause of the diminution of the offences against which it was directed, but the best judicial opinion is in the affirmative. 2.Males under sixteen: (a) in any of the cases above noted; (b) for many statutory offences, e.g. larceny (Larceny Act 1861), malicious damage (Malicious Damage Act 1861, § 75; Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, § 4); (c) by courts of summary jurisdiction (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, §§ 10, 11, and 1899; First Offenders Act 1887); if a boy is over 7 and under 12, not more than 6 strokes, if he is over 12, but under 14, not more than 12 strokes may be inflicted; the birch-rod is to be used, and the punishment is to be given by a police constable in the presence of a superior officer, and of the parent or guardian if he desire it.
In Scotland the whipping of male offenders under 14 is regulated by the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1860, § 74, the Whipping Act 1862, and § 514 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892; and offenders over 16 may not be whipped for offences against person or property (Whipping Act 1862, § 2).In Ireland the law is in substance the same as in England; for special statutes see officialIndex to Statutes(ed. 1905), p. 985, art. Punishment, 6.The flogging of women is prohibited throughout British India (Code of Criminal Procedure, Act v. of 1898, § 393) and the British colonies, where the infliction of corporal punishment by judicial order is in the main regulated on the lines of modern English legislation. In some British colonies the list of offences punishable by whipping is larger than in England (see Queensland Criminal Code 1899, arts. 212, 213, 216).
In Scotland the whipping of male offenders under 14 is regulated by the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1860, § 74, the Whipping Act 1862, and § 514 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892; and offenders over 16 may not be whipped for offences against person or property (Whipping Act 1862, § 2).
In Ireland the law is in substance the same as in England; for special statutes see officialIndex to Statutes(ed. 1905), p. 985, art. Punishment, 6.
The flogging of women is prohibited throughout British India (Code of Criminal Procedure, Act v. of 1898, § 393) and the British colonies, where the infliction of corporal punishment by judicial order is in the main regulated on the lines of modern English legislation. In some British colonies the list of offences punishable by whipping is larger than in England (see Queensland Criminal Code 1899, arts. 212, 213, 216).
In the United States whipping is not a legal punishment under the Federal Law (Revised Stats. U.S. § 5327). But in some of the states of the Union whipping is inflicted under statute, and is not held cruel or unusual within the Federal Constitution (1 Bishop,Amer. Crim. Law, 8th ed., § 947). In Delaware wife-beating and certain offences against property by males are punishable with flogging; and in Maryland the same punishment is applicable for wife-beating. Flogging is in force as a disciplinary measure in some penal institutions.
It has been suggested by Laurent (Principes de droit civil français(1870), vol. iv. § 275) that the express definition in the French Code Civil (arts. 371 et seq.) of parental rights over children excludes the power of corporal punishment. But this view is not generally accepted. The parental right of moderate chastisement is expressly reserved in the Civil Code of Spain (art. 155, 2). Flogging is not recognized as a legal punishment by the French Code Pénal, nor by the Penal Codes of Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal. (See alsoWhipping or Flogging.)
(A. W. R.)
CORPORATION(from Lat.corporare, to form into a body,corpus,corporis), in English law, an association of persons which is treated in many respects as if it were itself a person. It has rights and duties of its own which are not the rights and duties of the individual members thereof. Thus a corporation may own land, but the individual members of the corporation have no rights therein. A corporation may owe money, but the corporators as individuals are under no obligation to pay the debt. The rights and duties descend to the successive members of the corporation. This capacity of perpetual succession is regarded as the distinguishing feature of corporations as compared with other societies. One of the phrases most commonly met with in law-books describes a corporation as a society with perpetual succession and a common seal. The latter point, however, is not conclusive of the corporate character.
The legal attributes of a corporation have been worked out with great fulness and ingenuity in English law, but the conception has been taken full-grown from the law of Rome. The term in Roman law corresponding to the modern corporation iscollegium; a more general term isuniversitas. Acollegiumorcorpusmust have consisted of at least three persons, who were said to becorporati—habere corpus. They could hold property in common and had a common chest. They might sue and be sued by their agent (syndicusoractor). There was a complete separation in law between the rights of thecollegiumas a body and those of its individual members. Thecollegiumremained in existence although all its original members were changed. It was governed by its own by-laws, provided these were not contrary to the common law. The power of formingcollegiawas restrained, and societies pretending to act as corporations were often suppressed. In all these points thecollegiaof Roman closely resemble the corporations of English law. There is a similar parallel between the purposes for which the formation of such societies is authorized in English and in Roman law. Thus among the Romancollegiathe following classes are distinguished:—(1) Public governing bodies, or municipalities,civitates; (2) religious societies, such as thecollegiaof priests and Vestal Virgins; (3) official societies, e.g. thescribae, employed in the administration of the state; (4) trade societies, e.g.fabri,pictores,navicularii, &c. This class shades down into thesocietatesnot incorporated, just as our own trading corporations partake largely of the character of ordinary partnerships. In the later Roman law the distinction of corporations into civil and ecclesiastical, into lay and eleemosynary, is recognized. The latter could not alienate without just cause, nor take land without a licence—a restriction which may be compared with modern statutes of mortmain. All these privileged societies are what we should callcorporations aggregate. Thecorporation sole(i.e. consisting of only a single person) is a later refinement, for although Roman law held that the corporation subsisted in full force, notwithstanding that only one member survived, it did not impute to the successive holders of a public office the character of a corporation. When a public officer in English law is said to be a corporation sole, the meaning is that the rights acquired by him in that capacity descend to his successor in office, and not (as the case is where a public officer is not a corporation) to his ordinary legal representative. The best known instances ofcorporation sole are the king and the parson of a parish. The conception of the king as a corporation is the key to many of his paradoxical attributes in constitutional theory—his invisibility, immortality, &c.
The termquasi-corporationis applied to holders for the time being of certain official positions, though not incorporated, as the churchwardens of a parish, guardians of the poor, &c.
The Roman conception of a corporation was kept alive by ecclesiastical and municipal bodies. When English lawyers came to deal with such societies, the corporation law of Rome admitted of easy application. Accordingly, in no department has English law borrowed so copiously and so directly from the civil law. The corporations known to the earlier English law were mainly the municipal, the ecclesiastical, and the educational and eleemosynary. To all of these the same principles, borrowed from Roman jurisprudence, were applied. The different purposes of these institutions brought about in course of time differences in the rules of the law applicable to each. In particular, the great development of trading companies under special statutes has produced a new class of corporations, differing widely from those formerly known to the law. The reform of municipal corporations has also restricted the operation of the principles of the older corporation law. These principles, however, still apply when special statutes have not intervened.
The legal origin of corporation is ascribed by J. Grant (Treatise on the Law of Corporations, 1850) to five sources, viz. common law, prescription, act of parliament, charter and implication. Prescription in legal theory implies a grant, so that corporations by prescription would be reducible to the class of chartered or statutory corporations. A corporation is said to exist by implication when the purposes of a legally constituted society cannot be carried out without corporate powers. Corporations are thus ultimately traceable to the authority of charters and acts of parliament. The power of creating corporations by charter is an important prerogative of the crown, but in the present state of the constitution, when all the powers of the crown are practically exercised by parliament, there is no room for any jealousy as to the manner in which it may be exercised. The power of chartering corporations belonged also to subjects who hadjura regalia, e.g. the bishops of Durham granted a charter of incorporation to the city of Durham in 1565, 1602 and 1780. The charter of a corporation is regarded as being of the nature of a contract between the king and the corporation. It will be construed more favourably for the crown, and more strictly as against the grantee. It cannot alter the law of the land, and it may be surrendered, so that, if the surrender is accepted by the crown and enrolled in chancery, the corporation is thereby dissolved. Great use was made of this power of the crown in the reigns of Charles II. and James II.
Every corporation, it is said, must have a name, and it may have more names than one, but two corporations cannot have the same name. And corporations cannot change their name save by charter or some equivalent authority.
The possession of a common seal, though, as already stated, not conclusive of the corporate character, is an incident of every corporation aggregate. The inns of courts have common seals, but they are only voluntary societies, not corporations. Generally speaking, all corporate acts affecting strangers must be performed under the common seal; acts of internal administration affecting only the corporators, need not be under seal. The rule has been defended as following necessarily from the impersonal character of a corporation; either a seal or something equivalent must be fixed upon so that the act of the corporation may be recognized by all.
A corporation may be abolished by statute, but not by the mere authority of the crown. It may also become extinct by the disappearance of all its members or of any integral part, by surrender of charter if it is a chartered society, by process of law, or by forfeiture of privileges.
The power of the majority to bind the society is one of the first principles of corporation law, even in cases where the corporation has a head. It is even said that only by an act of parliament can this rule be avoided. The binding majority is that of the number present at a corporate meeting duly summoned.
In corporations which have a head (as colleges), although the head cannot veto the resolution of the majority, he is still considered an integral part of the society, and his death suspends its existence, so that a head cannot devise or bequeath to the corporation, nor can a grant be made to a corporation during vacancy of the headship.
A corporation has power to make such regulations (by-laws) as are necessary for carrying out its purposes, and these are binding on its members and on persons within its local jurisdiction if it has any.
The power to acquire and hold land was incident to a corporation at common law, but its restriction by the statutes of mortmain dates from a very early period. The English law against mortmain was dictated by the jealousy of the feudal lords, who lost the services they would otherwise have been entitled to, when their land passed into the hands of a perpetual corporation. The vast increase in the estates of ecclesiastical corporations constituted by itself a danger which might well justify the operation of the restricting statutes.
The Mortmain Acts applied only to cases of alienationinter vivos. There was no power to devise lands by will until 32 Henry VIII. c. 1 (1540), and when the power was granted corporations were expressly excluded from its benefits. No devise to a corporation, whether for its own use or in trust, was allowed to be good; land so devised went to the heir, either absolutely or charged with the trusts imposed upon it in the abortive devise. A modification, however, was gradually wrought by the judicial interpretations of the Charitable Trusts Act 1601, and it was held that a devise to a corporation for a charitable purpose might be a good devise, and would stand unless voided by the Mortmain Acts; so that no corporation could take land, without a licence, for any purpose or in any way; and no localised corporation could take lands by devise, save for charitable purposes. Then came the act of 1736, commonly but improperly called the Mortmain Act. Its effect was generally to make it impossible for land to be left by will for charitable uses, whether through a corporation or a natural person1. The Wills Act 1837 did not renew the old provision against devises to corporations, which therefore fell under the general law of mortmain. The law was consolidated by the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888, and the result is simply that corporations cannot take land for any purpose without a licence, and no licence in mortmain is granted by the crown, except in certain statutory cases in the interests of religion, charity or other definite public object.
The power of corporations at common law to alienate their property is usually restricted, as is their power to lease it for more than a certain number of years, except by sanction of a public authority. The more important classes of corporations, however, are now governed by special statutes which exclude or modify the operation of the common law principles. The most considerable class of societies still unaffected by such special legislation are the Livery Companies (q.v.). UnderCompanywill be found an account of the important enactments regulating joint-stock companies.
The question to what extent the common law incidents of a corporation have been interfered with by special legislation has become one of much importance, especially under the acts relating to joint-stock companies. The most important case on this subject is that ofRichev.The Ashbury Railway Carriage Company, 1875 (L.R. 9 Ex. 224; L.R. 7 H.L. 653), in which, the judges of the exchequer chamber being equally divided, the decision of the court below was affirmed. The view taken by the affirming judges, viz. that the common law incidents of a corporation adhere unless expressly removed by the legislature, may beillustrated by a short extract from the judgment of Mr Justice Blackburn:—
“If I thought it was at common law an incident to a corporation that its capacity should be limited by the instrument creating it, I should agree that the capacity of a company incorporated under the act of 1862 was limited to the object in the memorandum of association. But if I am right in the opinion which I have already expressed, that the general power of contracting is an incident to a corporation which it requires an indication of intention in the legislature to take away, I see no such indication here. If the question was whether the legislature had conferred on a corporation, created under this act, capacity to enter into contracts beyond the provisions of the deed, there could be only one answer. The legislature did not confer such capacity. But if the question be, as I apprehend it is, whether the legislature have indicated an intention to take away the power of contracting which at common law would be incident to a body corporate, and not merely to limit the authority of the managing body and the majority of the share-holders to bind the minority, but also to prohibit and make illegal contracts made by the body corporate, in such a manner that they would be binding on the body if incorporated at common law, I think the answer should be the other way.”
“If I thought it was at common law an incident to a corporation that its capacity should be limited by the instrument creating it, I should agree that the capacity of a company incorporated under the act of 1862 was limited to the object in the memorandum of association. But if I am right in the opinion which I have already expressed, that the general power of contracting is an incident to a corporation which it requires an indication of intention in the legislature to take away, I see no such indication here. If the question was whether the legislature had conferred on a corporation, created under this act, capacity to enter into contracts beyond the provisions of the deed, there could be only one answer. The legislature did not confer such capacity. But if the question be, as I apprehend it is, whether the legislature have indicated an intention to take away the power of contracting which at common law would be incident to a body corporate, and not merely to limit the authority of the managing body and the majority of the share-holders to bind the minority, but also to prohibit and make illegal contracts made by the body corporate, in such a manner that they would be binding on the body if incorporated at common law, I think the answer should be the other way.”
On the other hand, the House of Lords, agreeing with the three dissentient judges in the exchequer chamber, pronounced the effect of the Companies Act to be the opposite of that indicated by Mr Justice Blackburn, “It was the intention of the legislature, not implied, but actually expressed, that the corporations, should not enter, having regard to this memorandum of association, into a contract of this description. The contract in my judgment could not have been ratified by the unanimous assent of the whole corporation.” In such companies, therefore, objects beyond the scope of the memorandum of association areultra viresof the corporation. The doctrine ofultra vires, as it is called, is almost wholly of modern and judicial creation. The first emphatic recognition of it appears to have been in the case of companies created for special purposes with extraordinary powers, by act of parliament, and, more particularly, railway companies. The funds of such companies, it was held, must be applied to the purposes for which they were created, and to no other. Whether this doctrine is applicable to the older or, as they are sometimes called, ordinary corporations, appears to be doubtful. S. Brice (Ultra Vires) writes:—
“Take, as a strong instance, a university or a London guild. Either can undoubtedly manage, invest, transform and expend the corporate property in almost any way it pleases, but if they proposed to exhaust the same on the private pleasures of existing members, or to abandon the promotion, the one of education, the other of their art and mystery, it is very probable, if not absolutely certain, that the court of chancery would restrain the same, as beingultra vires.”
“Take, as a strong instance, a university or a London guild. Either can undoubtedly manage, invest, transform and expend the corporate property in almost any way it pleases, but if they proposed to exhaust the same on the private pleasures of existing members, or to abandon the promotion, the one of education, the other of their art and mystery, it is very probable, if not absolutely certain, that the court of chancery would restrain the same, as beingultra vires.”
1Devises to colleges are excepted from the operation of the act, but such devises must be for purposes identical with or closely resembling the original purposes of the college; and the exception from this act does not supersede the necessity for a licence in mortmain.
1Devises to colleges are excepted from the operation of the act, but such devises must be for purposes identical with or closely resembling the original purposes of the college; and the exception from this act does not supersede the necessity for a licence in mortmain.
CORPS(pronounced as in French, from which it is taken, being a late spelling ofcors, from Lat.corpus, a body; cf. “corpse”), a word in very general use since the 17th century to denote a body of troops, varying from a few hundred to the greater part of an army. In a special sense “corps” is used as synonymous with “army corps” (corps d’armée). The word is applied to any organized body, as incorps diplomatique, the general body of foreign diplomatic agents accredited to any government (seeDiplomacy), orcorps de ballet, the members of a troop of dancers at a theatre; so inesprit de corps, the common spirit of loyalty which animates any body of associated persons.
CORPSE(Lat.corpus, the body), a dead human body. By the common law of England a corpse is not the subject of property nor capable of holding property. It is not therefore larceny to steal a corpse, but any removal of the coffin or grave-cloths is otherwise, such remaining the property of the persons who buried the body. It is a misdemeanour to expose a naked corpse to public view, to prevent the burial of a dead body, or to disinter it without authority; also to bury or otherwise dispose of a dead body on which an inquest ought to be held, without giving notice to a coroner. Anyone who, having the means, neglects to bury a dead body which he is legally bound to bury, is guilty of a misdemeanour, but no one is bound to incur a debt for such a purpose. It is incumbent on the relatives and friends of a deceased person to provide Christian burial for him; failing relatives and friends, the duty devolves upon the parish. No corpse can be attached, taken in execution, arrested or detained for debt. See furtherBody-snatching, andBurial and Burial Acts.
CORPULENCE(Lat.corpus, body), orObesity(Lat.ob, against, andedere, to eat), a condition of the animal body characterized by the over-accumulation of fat under the skin and around certain of the internal organs. In all healthy persons a greater or less amount of fat is present in these parts, and serves important physiological ends, besides contributing to the proper configuration of the body (seeNutrition). Even a considerable measure of fatness, however inconvenient, is not inconsistent with a high degree of health and activity, and it is only when in great excess or rapidly increasing that it can be regarded as a pathological state (seeMetabolic Diseases). The extent to which excess of fat may proceed is illustrated by numerous well-authenticated examples recorded in medical works, of which only a few can be here mentioned. Thus Bright, a grocer of Maldon, in Essex, who died in 1750, in his twenty-ninth year, weighed 616 ℔. Dr F. Dancel (Traité de l’obésité, Paris, 1863) records the case of a young man of twenty-two, who died from excessive obesity, weighing 643 ℔. In thePhilosophical Transactionsfor 1813 a case is recorded of a girl of four years of age who weighed 256 ℔. But the most celebrated case is that of Daniel Lambert (q.v.) of Leicester, who died in 1809 in his fortieth year. He is said to have been the heaviest man that ever lived, his weight being 739 ℔ (52 st. 11 ℔). Health cannot be long maintained under excessive obesity, for the increase in bulk of the body, rendering exercise more difficult, leads to relaxation and defective nutrition of muscle, while the accumulations of fat in the chest and abdomen occasion serious embarrassment to the functions of the various organs in those cavities. In general the mental activity of the highly corpulent becomes impaired, although there have always been many notable exceptions to this rule.
Various causes are assigned for the production of corpulence (seeMetabolic Diseases). In some families there exists an hereditary predisposition to an obese habit of body, the manifestation of which no precautions as to living appear capable of averting. But it is unquestionable that certain habits favour the occurrence of corpulence. A luxurious, inactive, or sedentary life, with over-indulgence in sleep and absence of mental occupation, are well recognized predisposing causes. The more immediate exciting causes are over-feeding and the large use of fluids of any kind, but especially alcoholic liquors. Fat persons are not always great eaters, though many of them are, while leanness and inordinate appetite are not infrequently associated. Still, it may be stated generally that indulgence in food, beyond what is requisite to repair daily waste, goes towards the increase of flesh, particularly of fat. This is more especially the case when the non-nitrogenous (the fatty, saccharine and starchy) elements of the food are in excess. The want of adequate bodily exercise will in a similar manner produce a like effect, and it is probable that many cases of corpulence are to be ascribed to this cause alone, from the well-known facts that many persons of sedentary occupation become stout, although of most abstemious habits, and that obesity frequently comes on in the middle-aged and old, who take relatively less exercise than the young, in whom it is comparatively rare. Women are more prone to become corpulent than men, and appear to take on this condition more readily after the cessation of the function of menstruation.
For the prevention of corpulence and the reduction of superfluous fat many expedients have been resorted to, and numerous remedies recommended. These have included bleeding, blistering, purging, starving (seeFasting), the use of different kinds of baths, and of drugs innumerable. The drinking of vinegar was long popularly, but erroneously, supposed to be a remedy for obesity. It is related of the marquis of Cortona, a noted general of the duke of Alva, that by drinking vinegar he so reduced his body from a condition of enormous obesity that he could fold his skin about him like a garment.
In 1863 a pamphlet entitled “Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public by William Banting,” in which was narrated the remarkable experience of the writer in accomplishing the reduction of his own weight in a short space of time by the adoption of aparticular kind of diet, started the modern dietetic treatment, at first called “Banting” after the author. After trying almost every known remedy without effect, Banting was induced, on the suggestion of Mr Harvey, a London aurist, to place himself upon an entirely new form of diet, which consisted chiefly in the removal, as far as possible, of all saccharine, starchy and fat food, the reduction of liquids, and the substitution of meat or fish and fruit in moderate quantity at each meal, together with the daily use of an antacid draught. Under this regimen his weight was reduced 46 ℔ in the course of a few weeks, while his health underwent a marked improvement. His experience, as might have been expected, induced many to follow his example; and since then various regimens have been propounded, all aiming at treating corpulence on modern physiological principles (see alsoDietetics,Metabolic DiseasesandNutrition). It is important, however, to bear in mind that the treatment should be followed under medical advice and observation; for, however desirable it be to get rid of superabundant fat, it would be manifestly no gain were this to be achieved by the sacrifice of the general health.
CORPUS CHRISTI,a city and the county-seat of Nueces county, Texas, U.S.A., situated on Corpus Christi Bay opposite the mouth of the Nueces river, 192 m. W.S.W. of Galveston and about 150 m. S.S.E. of San Antonio. Pop. (1890) 4387; (1900) 4703, including 963 foreign-born and 460 negroes; (1910) 8299. It is served by the National of Mexico, the St Louis, Brownsville & Mexico, and the San Antonio & Aransas Pass railways. In 1908 the Federal government began work on a project to connect Corpus Christi harbour with Aransas Pass by a channel 8½ ft. deep at low water and 75 ft. wide at the bottom, following a natural depression between the two bays. Corpus Christi is a summer and winter resort, with a very dry equable climate (average annual mean, 70.2° F.) and good bathing on the horseshoe beach of Corpus Christi Bay. The city has an extensive coasting trade, and exports fruit, early vegetables, fish and oysters. There was a small Spanish settlement here at an early date, but no American settlement was made until after the Mexican War. Corpus Christi was the base from which General Zachary Taylor made his forward movement to the Rio Grande in 1846. It was chartered as a city in 1876.
CORPUS CHRISTI, FEAST OF(Lat.festum corporis Christi, i.e. festival of the Body of Christ, Fr.fête-Dieuorfête du sacrement, Ger.Frohnleichnamsfest), a festival of the Roman Catholic Church in honour of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar, observed on the first Thursday after Trinity Sunday. The doctrine of transubstantiation was defined by the Lateran Council in 1215, and shortly afterwards the elevation and adoration of the Host were formally enjoined. This naturally stimulated the popular devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, which had been already widespread before the definition of the dogma. The movement was especially strong in the diocese of Liége, and when Julienne, prioress of Mont-Cornillon near Liége (1222-1258), had a vision in which the need for the establishment of a festival in honour of the Sacrament was revealed to her, the matter was taken up with enthusiasm by the clergy, and in 1246 Robert de Torote, bishop of Liége, instituted such a festival for his diocese. The idea, however, did not spread until, in 1261, Jacob Pantaleon, archdeacon of Liége, ascended the papal throne as Urban IV. By a bull of 1264 Urban made the festival, hitherto practically confined to the diocese of Liége, obligatory on the whole Church,1and a new office for the festival was written by Thomas Aquinas himself. As yet the stress was laid on reverence for the Holy Sacrament as a whole; there is no mention in Urban’s bull of the solemn procession and exposition of the Host for the adoration of the faithful, which are the main features of the festival as at present celebrated. Urban’s bull was once more promulgated, at the council of Vienne in 1311, by Pope Clement V.; and the procession of the Host in connexion with the festival was instituted, if the accounts we possess are trustworthy, by Pope John XXII.
From this time onwards the festival increased in popularity and in splendour. It became in effect the principal feast of the Church, the procession of the Sacrament a gorgeous pageant, in which not only the members of the trade and craft gilds, with the magistrates of the cities, took part, but princes and sovereigns. It thus became in a high degree symbolical of the exaltation of the sacerdotal power.2In the 15th century the custom became almost universal of following the procession with the performance of miracle-plays and mysteries, generally arranged and acted by members of the gilds who had formed part of the pageant.
The rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation at the Reformation naturally involved the suppression of the festival of Corpus Christi in the reformed Churches. Luther, in spite of his belief in the Real Presence, regarded it as the most harmful of all the medieval festivals and, though he fully realized its popularity, it was the first that he abolished. This attitude of the reformers towards the festival, however, intensified by their abhorrence of the traffic in indulgences with which it had become closely associated, only tended to establish it more firmly among the adherents of the “old religion.” The procession of the Host on Corpus Christi day became, as it were, a public demonstration of Catholic orthodoxy against Protestantism and later against religious Liberalism. In most countries where religious opinion is sharply divided the procession of Corpus Christi is therefore now forbidden, even when Catholicism is the dominant religion. In England occasional breaches of the law in this respect have been for some time tolerated, as in the case of the Corpus Christi procession annually held by the Italian community in London. An attempt to hold a public procession of the Host in connexion with the Eucharistic Congress at Westminster in 1908, however, was the signal for the outburst of a considerable amount of opposition, and was eventually abandoned owing to the personal intervention of the prime minister.
1The pope’s decision, so the story goes, was hastened by a miracle. A priest, saying mass at the church of Santa Christina at Bolsena, was troubled, after the consecration, with grave doubts as to the truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation. His temptation was removed by the Host beginning to bleed, the blood soaking through the corporalintothe marble of the altar.2Nothing caused more offence to Liberal sentiment in France after the Restoration than the spectacle of King Louis XVIII. walking and carrying a candle in the procession through the streets of Paris.
1The pope’s decision, so the story goes, was hastened by a miracle. A priest, saying mass at the church of Santa Christina at Bolsena, was troubled, after the consecration, with grave doubts as to the truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation. His temptation was removed by the Host beginning to bleed, the blood soaking through the corporalintothe marble of the altar.
2Nothing caused more offence to Liberal sentiment in France after the Restoration than the spectacle of King Louis XVIII. walking and carrying a candle in the procession through the streets of Paris.
CORRAL(Span. fromcorro, a circle), a word used chiefly in Spanish America and the United States for an enclosure for cattle and horses, and also for a defensive circle formed of wagons against attacks from Indians. It is also used as a verb, meaning to drive into a corral, and so figuratively to enclose, hem in. The word is probably connected with the South African Dutch word kraal (q.v.). In Ceylon it is especially used for an enclosure meant for the capture of wild elephants. In this last sense of the word the corresponding term in India is keddah (q.v.).
CORREA,a genus of Australian plants belonging to the natural order Rutaceae, named after the Portuguese botanist José Francisco Correa da Serra. The plants are evergreen shrubs and extremely useful for winter flowering. They are increased by cuttings, and grown in a cool greenhouse in rough peaty soil, with a slight addition of loam and sand. After the plants have done flowering, they should all get a little artificial warmth, plenty of moisture, and a slight shade, while they are making their growth, during which period the tips of the young shoots should be nipped out when 6 or 8 in. long. When the growth is complete, a half-shady place outdoors during August and September will be suitable, with protection from parching winds and hot sunshine.
CORREA DA SERRA, JOSÉ FRANCISCO(1750-1823), Portuguese politician and man of science, was born at Serpa, in Alemtejo, in 1750. Educated at Rome, he took orders under the protection of the duke of Alafoès, uncle of Mary I. of Portugal. In 1777 he returned to Lisbon, where he resided with his patron, with whose assistance he founded the Portuguese Academy of Sciences. Of this institution he was named perpetual secretary, and he received the privilege of publishing its transactions without reference to any censor whatever. His use of this right brought him into conflict with the Holy Office; andconsequently in 1786 he fled to France, and remained there till the death of Pedro III., when he again took up his residence with Alafoès. But having given a lodging in the palace to a French Girondist, he was forced to flee to England, where he found a protector in Sir Joseph Banks, and became a member of the Royal Society. In 1797 he was appointed secretary to the Portuguese embassy, but a quarrel with the ambassador drove him once more to Paris (1802), and in that city he resided till 1813, when he crossed over to New York. In 1816 he was made Portuguese minister-plenipotentiary at Washington, and in 1820 he was recalled home, appointed a member of the financial council, and elected to a seat in the Cortes. Three years after, and in the same year with the fall of the constitutional government, he died. Correa da Serra ranks high as a botanist, though he published no great special work. His principal claim to renown is theColecção de livros ineditos da historia Portugueza, (4 vols., 1790-1816), an invaluable selection of documents, exceedingly well edited.
CORREGGIO,orCoreggio, the name ordinarily given to Antonio Allegri (1494-1534), the celebrated Italian painter, one of the most vivid and impulsive inventors in expression and pose and the most consummate executants. The external circumstances of his life have been very diversely stated by different writers, and the whole of what has been narrated regarding him, even waiving the question of its authenticity, is but meagre.
The first controversy is as to his origin. Some say that he was born of poor and lowly parents; others, that his family was noble and rich. Neither account is accurate. His father was Pellegrino Allegri, a tradesman in comfortable circumstances, living at Correggio, a small city in the territory of Modena; his mother Bernardina Piazzoli degli Aromani, also of a creditable family of moderate means. Antonio was born at Correggio, and was carefully educated. He was not (as has been often alleged) strictly self-taught in his art—a supposition which the internal evidence of his pictures must of itself refute. They show a knowledge of optics, perspective, architecture, sculpture and anatomy. The last-named science he studied under Dr Giovanni Battista Lombardi, whom he is believed to have represented in the portrait currently named “II Medico del Correggio” (Correggio’s physician). It is concluded that he learned the first elements of design from his uncle, Lorenzo Allegri, a painter of moderate ability at Correggio, and from Antonio Bartolotti, named Tognino, and that he afterwards went to the school of Francesco Ferrari Bianchi (named Frarè), and perhaps to that of the successors of Andrea Mantegna in Mantua. He is said to have learned modelling along with the celebrated Begarelli at Parma; and it has even been suggested that, in the “Pietà” executed by Begarelli for the church of Santa Margherita, the three finest figures are the work of Correggio, but, as the group appears to have been completed three years after the painter’s death, there is very little plausibility in this story. Another statement connecting Begarelli with Correggio is probably true, namely, that the sculptor executed models in relief for the figures which the painter had to design on the cupolas of the churches in Parma. This was necessarily an expensive item, and it has been cited as showing that Correggio must have been at least tolerably well off,—an inference further supported by the fact that he used the most precious and costly colours, and generally painted on fine canvases or sometimes on sheets of copper.
The few certain early works of Correggio show a rapid progression towards the attainment of his own original style. Though he never achieved any large measure of reputation during his brief lifetime, and was perhaps totally unknown beyond his own district of country, he found a sufficiency of employers, and this from a very youthful age. One of his early pictures, painted in 1514 when he was nineteen or twenty years old, is a large altar-piece commissioned for the Franciscan convent at Carpi, representing the Virgin enthroned, with Saints; it indicates a predilection for the style of Leonardo da Vinci, and has certainly even greater freedom than similarly early works of Raphael. This picture is now in the Dresden gallery. Another painting of Correggio’s youth is the “Arrest of Christ.” A third is an Ancona (or triple altar-piece—the “Repose in Egypt, with Sts Bartholomew and John”) in the church of the Conventuali at Correggio, showing the transition from the painter’s first to his second style. Between 1514 and 1520 Correggio worked much, both in oil and in fresco, for churches and convents. In 1521 he began his famous fresco of the “Ascension of Christ,” on the cupola of the Benedictine church of San Giovanni in Parma; here the Redeemer is surrounded by the twelve apostles and the four doctors of the church, supported by a host of wingless cherub boys amid the clouds. This he finished in 1524, and soon afterwards undertook his still vaster work on another cupola, that of the cathedral of the same city, presenting the “Assumption of the Virgin,” amid an unnumbered host of saints and angels rapt in celestial joy. It occupied him up to 1530. The astounding boldness of scheme in these works, especially as regards their incessant and audacious foreshortenings—the whole mass of figures being portrayed as in the clouds, and as seen from below—becomes all the more startling when we recall to mind the three facts—that Correggio had apparently never seen any of the masterpieces of Raphael or his other great predecessors and contemporaries, in Rome, Florence, or other chief centres of art; that he was the first artist who ever undertook the painting of a large cupola; and that he not only went at once to the extreme of what can be adventured in foreshortening, but even forestalled in this attempt the mightiest geniuses of an elder generation—the “Last Judgment” of Michelangelo, for instance, not having been begun earlier than 1533 (although the ceiling of the Sixtine chapel, in which foreshortening plays a comparatively small part, dates from 1508 to 1512). The cupola of the cathedral has neither skylight nor windows, but only light reflected from below; the frescoes, some portions of which were ultimately supplied by Giorgio Gandini, are now dusky with the smoke of tapers, and parts of them, in the cathedral and in the church of St John, have during many past years been peeling off. The violent foreshortenings were not, in the painter’s own time, the object of unmixed admiration; some satirist termed the groups a “guazzetto di rane,” or “hash of frogs.” This was not exactly the opinion of Titian, who is reported to have said, on seeing the pictures, and finding them lightly esteemed by local dignitaries, “Reverse the cupola, and fill it with gold, and even that will not be its money’s worth.” Annibale Caracci and the Eclectics generally evinced their zealous admiration quite as ardently. Parma is the only city which contains frescoes by Correggio. For the paintings of the cupola of San Giovanni he received the moderate sum of 472 sequins; for those of the cathedral, much less proportionately, 350. On these amounts he had to subsist, himself and his family, and to provide the colours, for about ten years, having little time for further work meanwhile. Parma was in an exceedingly unsettled and turbulent condition during some of the years covered by Correggio’s labours there, veering between the governmental ascendancy of the French and of the Pope, with wars and rumours of wars, alarms, tumults and pestilence.
Other leading works by Correggio are the following:—The frescoes in the Camera di San Paolo (the abbess’s saloon) in the monastery of S. Lodovico at Parma, painted towards 1519 in fresco,—“Diana returning from the Chase,” with auxiliary groups of lovely and vivacious boys of more than life size, in sixteen oval compartments. In the National Gallery, London, the “Ecce Homo,” painted probably towards 1520 (authenticity not unquestioned); and “Cupid, Mercury and Venus,” the latter more especially a fine example. The oil-painting of the Nativity named “Night” (“La Notte”), for which 40 ducats and 208 livres of old Reggio coin were paid, the nocturnal scene partially lit up by the splendour proceeding from the divine Infant. This work was undertaken at Reggio in 1522 for Alberto Pratoneris, and is now in the Dresden gallery. The oil-painting of St Jerome, termed also “Day” (“Il Giorno”), as contrasting with the above-named “Night.” Jerome is here with the Madonna and Child, the Magdalene, and two Angels, of whom one points out to the Infant a passage in the book held by theSaint. This was painted for Briseida Bergonzi from 1527 onwards, and was remunerated by 400 gold imperials, some cartloads of faggots and measures of wheat, and a fat pig. It is now in the gallery at Parma. The “Magdalene lying at the entrance of her Cavern”: this small picture (only 18 in. wide) was bought by Augustus III. of Saxony for 6000 louis d’or, and is in Dresden. In the same gallery, the two works designated “St George” (painted towards 1532) and “St Sebastian.” In the Parma gallery, the Madonna named “della Scala,” a fresco which was originally in a recess of the Porta Romana, Parma; also the Madonna “della Scodella” (of the bowl, which is held by the Virgin—the subject being the Repose in Egypt): it was executed for the church of San Sepolcro. Both these works date towards 1526. In the church of the Annunciation, “Parma,” a fresco of the Annunciation, now all but perished. Five celebrated pictures painted or begun in 1532,—“Venus,” “Leda,” “Danaë,” “Vice,” and “Virtue”: the “Leda,” with figures of charming girls bathing, is now in the Berlin gallery, and is a singularly delightful specimen of the master. In Vienna, “Jupiter and Io.” In the Louvre, “Jupiter and Antiope,” and the “Mystic Marriage of St Catharine.” In the Naples Museum, the “Madonna Reposing,” commonly named “La Zingarella,” or the “Madonna del Coniglio” (Gipsy-girl, or Madonna of the Rabbit). On some of his pictures Correggio signed “Lieto,” as a synonym of “Allegri.” About forty works can be confidently assigned to him, apart from a multitude of others probably or manifestly spurious.
The famous story that this great but isolated artist was once, after long expectancy, gratified by seeing a picture of Raphael’s, and closed an intense scrutiny of it by exclaiming “Anch’ io son pittore” (I too am a painter), cannot be traced to any certain source. It has nevertheless a great internal air of probability; and the most enthusiastic devotee of the Umbrian will admit that in technicalbravura, in enterprizing, gifted, and consummated execution, not Raphael himself could have assumed to lord it over Correggio.
In 1520 Correggio married Girolama Merlino, a young lady of Mantua, who brought him a good dowry. She was but sixteen years of age, very lovely, and is said by tradition to have been the model of his Zingarella. They lived in great harmony together, and had a family of four children. She died in 1529. Correggio himself expired at his native place on the 5th of March 1534. His illness was a short one, and has by some authors been termed pleurisy. Others, following Vasari, allege that it was brought on by his having had to carry home a sum of money, 50 scudi, which had been paid to him for one of his pictures, and paid in copper coin to humiliate and annoy him; he carried the money himself, to save expense, from Parma to Correggio on a hot day, and his fatigue and exhaustion led to the mortal illness. In this curious tale there is no symptom of authenticity, unless its very singularity, and the unlikelihood of its being invented without any foundation at all, may be allowed to count for something. He is said to have died with Christian piety; and his eulogists (speaking apparently from intuition rather than record) affirm that he was a good citizen, an affectionate son and father, fond and observant of children, a sincere and obliging friend, pacific, beneficent, grateful, unassuming, without meanness, free from envy and tolerant of criticism. He was buried with some pomp in the Arrivabene chapel, in the cloister of the Franciscan church at Correggio.
Regarding the art of Correggio from an intellectual or emotional point of view, his supreme gift may be defined as suavity,—a vivid, spontaneous, lambent play of the affections, a heartfelt inner grace which fashions the forms and features, and beams like soft and glancing sunshine in the expressions. We see lovely or lovable souls clothed in bodies or corresponding loveliness, which are not only physically charming, but are so informed with the spirit within as to become one with that in movement and gesture. In these qualities of graceful naturalness, not heightened into the sacred or severe, and of joyous animation, in momentary smiles and casual living turns of head or limb, Correggio undoubtedly carried the art some steps beyond anything it had previously attained, and he remains to this day the unsurpassed or unequalled model of pre-eminence. From a technical point of view, his supreme gift—even exceeding his prodigious faculty in foreshortening and the like—is chiaroscuro, the power of modifying every tone, from bright light to depth of darkness, with the sweetest and most subtle gradations, all being combined into harmonious unity. In this again he far distanced all predecessors, and defied subsequent competition. His colour also is luminous and precious, perfectly understood and blended; it does not rival the superb richness or deep intense glow of the Venetians, but on its own showing is a perfect achievement, in exact keeping with his powers in chiaroscuro and in vital expression. When we come, however, to estimate painters according to their dramatic faculty, their power of telling a story or impressing a majestic truth, their range and strength of mind, we find the merits of Correggio very feeble in comparison with those of the highest masters, and even of many who without, being altogether great have excelled in these particular qualities. Correggio nevermeansmuch, and often, in subjects where fulness of significance is demanded, he means provokingly little. He expressed his own miraculous facility by saying that he always had his thoughts at the end of his pencil; in truth, they were often thoughts rather of the pencil and its controlling hand than of the teeming brain. He has the faults of his excellences—sweetness lapsing into mawkishness and affectation, empty in elevated themes and lasciviously voluptuous in those of a sensuous type, rapid and forceful action lapsing into posturing and self-display, fineness and sinuosity of contour lapsing into exaggeration and mannerism, daring design lapsing into incorrectness. No great master is more dangerous than Correggio to his enthusiasts; round him the misdeeds of conventionalists and the follies of connoisseurs cluster with peculiar virulence, and almost tend to blind to his real and astonishing excellences those practitioners or lovers of painting who, while they can acknowledge the value oftechnique, are still more devoted to greatness of soul, and grave or elevated invention, as expressed in the form of art.
Correggio was the head of the school of painting of Parma, which forms one main division of the Lombardic school. He had more imitators than pupils. Of the latter one can name with certainty only his son Pomponio, who was born in 1521 and died at an advanced age; Francesco Capelli; Giovanni Giarola; Antonio Bernieri (who, being also a native of the town of Correggio, has sometimes been confounded with Allegri); and Bernardo Gatti, who ranks as the best of all. The Parmigiani (Mazzuoli) were his most highly distinguished imitators.