Chapter 28

SeeScritti e discorsi politici di F. Crispi, 1847-1890(Rome, 1890);Francesco Crispi, by W. J. Stillman (London, 1899).

CRISPINandCRISPINIAN, the patron saints of shoemakers, whose festival is celebrated on the 25th of October. Their history is largely legendary, and there exists no trace of it earlier than the 8th century. It is said that they were brothers and members of a noble family in Rome. They gave up their property and travelled to Soissons (Noviodunum, Augusta Sucessionum), where they supported themselves by shoemaking and made many converts to Christianity. The emperor Maximianus (Herculius) condemned them to death. His prefect Rictiovarus endeavoured to carry out the sentence, but they emerged unharmed from all the ordeals to which he subjected them, and the weapons he used recoiled against the executioners. Rictiovarus in disgust cast himself into the fire, or the caldron of boiling tar, from which they had emerged refreshed. At last Maximian had their heads cut off (c. 287-300). Their remains were buried at Soissons, but were afterwards removed, partly by Charlemagne to Osnabrück (where a festival is observed annually on the 20th of June) and partly to the chapel of St Lawrence in Rome. The abbeys of St Crépin-en-Chaye (the remains of which still form part of a farmhouse on the river Aisne, N.N.W. of Soissons), of St Crépin-le-Petit, and St Crépin-le-Grand (the site of which is occupied by a house belonging to the Sisters of Mercy), in or near Soissons, commemorated the places sanctified by their imprisonment and burial. There are also relics at Fulda, and a Kentish tradition claims that the bodies of the martyrs were cast into the sea and cast on shore on Romney Marsh (seeActa SS. Bolland, xi. 495; A. Butler,Lives of the Saints. October 25th).

Especially in France, but also in England and in other parts of Europe, the festival of St Crispin was for centuries the occasion of solemn processions and merry-making, in which gilds of shoemakers took the chief part. At Troyes, where the gild of St Crispin was reconstituted as late as 1820, an annual festival is celebrated in the church of St Urban. In England and Scotland the day acquired additional importance as the anniversary of the battle of Agincourt (cf. Shakespeare,Henry V.iv. 3); the symbolical processions in honour of “King Crispin” at Stirling and Edinburgh were particularly famous.

For other examples seeNotes and Queries, 1st series, v. 30, vi. 243; W. S. Walsh,Curiosities of Popular Customs(London, 1898).

CRITIAS, Athenian orator and poet, and one of the Thirty Tyrants. In his youth he was a pupil of Gorgias and Socrates, but subsequently devoted himself to political intrigues. In 415B.C.he was implicated in the mutilation of the Hermae and imprisoned. In 411 he helped to put down the Four Hundred, and was instrumental in procuring the recall of Alcibiades. He was banished (probably in the democratic reaction of 407) and fled to Thessaly, where he stirred up the Penestae (the helots of Thessaly) against their masters, and endeavoured to establish a democracy. Returning to Athens he was made ephor by the oligarchical party; and he was the most cruel and unscrupulous of the Thirty Tyrants who in 404 were appointed by the Lacedaemonians. He was slain in battle against Thrasybulus and the returning democrats. Critias was a man of varied talents—poet, orator, historian and philosopher. Some fragments of his elegies will be found in Bergk,Poetae Lyrici Graeci. He was also the author of several tragedies and of biographies of distinguished poets (possibly in verse).

See Xenophon,Hellenica, ii. 3. 4. 19,Memorabilia, i. 2; Cornelius Nepos,Thrasybulus, 2; R. Lallier,De Critiae tyranni vita ac scriptis(1875); Nestle,Neue Jahrb. f. d. kl. Altert.(1903).

CRITICISM(from the Gr.κρίτης, a judge,κρίνειν, to decide, to give an authoritative opinion), the art of judging the qualities and values of an aesthetic object, whether in literature or the fine arts.1It involves, in the first instance, the formation and expression of a judgment on the qualities of anything, and Matthew Arnold defined it in this general sense as “a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.” It has come, however, to possess a secondary and specialized meaning as a published analysis of the qualities and characteristics of a work in literature or fine art, itself taking the form of independent literature. The sense in which criticism is taken as implying censure, the “picking holes” in any statement or production, is frequent, but it is entirely unjustifiable. There is nothing in the proper scope of criticism which presupposes blame. On the contrary, a work of perfect beauty and fitness, in which no fault could possibly be found with justice, is as proper a subject for criticism to deal with as a work of the greatest imperfection. It may be perfectly just to state that a book or a picture is “beneath criticism,”i.e.is so wanting in all qualities of originality and technical excellence that time would merely be wasted in analysing it. But it can never be properly said that a work is “above criticism,” although it may be “above censure,” for the very complexity of its merits and the fulness of its beauties tempt the skill of the analyser and reward it.

It is necessary at the threshold of an examination of the history of criticism to expose this laxity of speech, since nothing is more confusing to a clear conception of this art than to suppose that it consists in an effort to detect what is blameworthy. Candid criticism should be neither benevolent nor adverse; its function is to give a just judgment, without partiality or bias. A critic (κριτικός) is one who exercises the art of criticism, who sets himself up, or is set up, as a judge of literary and artistic merit. The irritability of mankind, which easily forgets and neglects praise, but cannot forgive the rankling poison of blame, has set upon the wordcritica seal which is even more unamiable than that ofcriticism. It takes its most savage form in Benjamin Disraeli’s celebrated and deplorabledictum, “the critics are the men who have failed in literature and art.” It is plain that such names as those of Aristotle, Dante, Dryden, Joshua Reynolds, Sainte-Beuve and Matthew Arnold are not to be thus swept by a reckless fulmination. There have beenmany critics who brought from failure in imaginative composition a cavilling, jealous and ignoble temper, who have mainly exercised their function in indulging the evil passion of envy. But, so far as they have done this, they have proved themselves bad critics, and neither minute care, nor a basis of learning, nor wide experience of literature, salutary as all these must be, can avail to make that criticism valuable which is founded on the desire to exaggerate fault-finding and to emphasize censure unfairly. The examination of what has been produced by other ages of human thought is much less liable to this dangerous error than the attempt to estimate contemporary works of art and literature. There are few indeed whom personal passion can blind to the merits of a picture of the 15th or a poem of the 17th century. In the higher branches of historical criticism, prejudice of this ignoble sort is hardly possible, and therefore, in considering criticism in its ideal forms, it is best to leave out of consideration that invidious and fugitive species which bears the general name of “reviewing.” This pedestrian criticism, indeed, is useful and even indispensable, but it is, by its very nature, ephemeral, and it is liable to a multitude of drawbacks. Even when the reviewer is, or desires to be, strictly just, it is almost impossible for him to stand far enough back from the object under review to see it in its proper perspective. He is dazzled, or scandalized, by its novelty; he has formed a preconceived notion of the degree to which its author should be encouraged or depressed; he is himself, in all cases, an element in the mental condition which he attempts to judge, and if not positively a defendant is at least a juryman in the court over which he ought to preside with remote impartiality.

It may be laid down as the definition of criticism in its pure sense, that it should consist in the application, in the most competent form, of the principles of literary composition. Those principles are the general aesthetics upon which taste is founded; they take the character of rules of writing. From the days of Aristotle the existence of such rules has not been doubted, but different orders of mind in various ages have given them diverse application, and upon this diversity the fluctuations of taste are founded. It is now generally admitted that in past ages critics have too often succumbed to the temptation to regulate taste rigidly, and to lay down rules that shall match every case with a formula. Over-legislation has been the bane of official criticism, and originality, especially in works of creative imagination, has been condemned because it did not conform to existing rules. Such instances of want of contemporary appreciation as the reception given to William Blake or Keats, or even Milton, are quoted to prove the futility of criticism. As a matter of fact they do nothing of the kind. They merely prove the immutable principles which underlie all judgment of artistic products to have been misunderstood or imperfectly obeyed during the life-times of those illustrious men. False critics have built domes of glass, as Voltaire put it, between the heavens and themselves, domes which genius has to shatter in pieces before it can make itself comprehended. In critical application formulas are often useful, but they should be held lightly; when the formula becomes the tyrant where it should be the servant of thought, fatal error is imminent. What is required above all else by a critic is knowledge, tempered with good sense, and combined with an exquisite delicacy of taste. He who possesses these qualities may go wrong in certain instances, but his error cannot become radical, and he is always open to correction. It is not his business crudely to pronounce a composition “good” or “bad”; he must be able to show why it is “good” and wherein it is “bad”; he must admire with independence and blame with careful candour. He must above all be assiduous to escape from pompous generalizations, which conceal lack of thought under a flow of words. The finest criticism should take every circumstance of the case into consideration, and hold it necessary, if possible, to know the author as well as the book. A large part of the reason why the criticism of productions of the past is so much more fruitful than mere contemporary reviewing, is that by remoteness from the scene of action the critic is able to make himself familiar with all the elements of age, place and medium which affected the writer at the moment of his composition. In short, knowledge and even taste are not sufficient for perfect criticism without the infusion of a still rarer quality, breadth of sympathy.

Criticism has been one of the latest branches of literature to reach maturity, but from very early times the instinct which induces mankind to review what it has produced led to the composition of imperfect but often extremely valuable bodies of opinion. What makes these early criticisms tantalizing is that the moral or political aspects of literature had not disengaged themselves from the purely intellectual or aesthetic.

To pass to an historical examination of the subject, we find that in antiquity Aristotle was regarded as the father and almost as the founder of literary criticism. Yet before his day, three Greek writers of eminence had examined, in more or less fulness, the principles of composition; these were Plato, Isocrates and Aristophanes. The comedy ofThe Frogs, by the latter, is the earliest specimen we possess of hostile literary criticism, being devoted to ridicule of the plays of Euripides. In the cases of Plato and Isocrates, criticism takes the form mainly of an examination of the rules of rhetoric. We reach, however, much firmer ground when we arrive at Aristotle, whosePoeticsandRhetoricare among the most valuable treatises which antiquity has handed down to us. Of what existed in the literature of his age, extremely rich in some branches, entirely empty in others, Aristotle speaks with extraordinary authority; but Mr G. Saintsbury has justly remarked that as his criticism of poetry was injuriously affected by the non-existence of the novelist, so his criticism of prose was injuriously affected by the omnipresence of the orator. This continues true of all ancient criticism. A work by Aristotle on the problems raised by a study of Homer is lost, and there may have been others of a similar nature; in the two famous treatises which remain we have nothing less important than the foundation on which all subsequent European criticism has been raised. It does not appear that any of the numerous disciples of Aristotle understood his attitude to literature, nor do the later philosophical schools offer much of interest. The Neoplatonists, however, were occupied with analysis of the Beautiful, on which both Proclus and Plotinus expatiated; still more purely literary were some of the treatises of Porphyry. There seems to be no doubt that Alexandria possessed, in the third century, a vivid school of critic-grammarians; the names of Zenodotus, of Crates and of Aristarchus were eminent in this connexion, but of their writings nothing substantial has survived. They were followed by the scholiasts, and they by the mere rhetoricians of the last Greek schools, such as Hermogenes and Aphthonius. In the 2nd century of our era, Dio Chrysostom, Aristides of Smyrna, and Maximus of Tyre were the main representatives of criticism, and they were succeeded by Philostratus and Libanius. The most modern of post-Christian Greek critics, however, is unquestionably Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who leads up to Lucian and Cassius Longinus. The last-mentioned name calls for special notice; in “the lovely and magnificent personality of Longinus” we find the most intelligent judge of literature who wrote between Aristotle and the moderns. His bookOn the Sublime(Περὶ ὕψους), probably written aboutA.D.260, and first printed in 1554, is of extreme importance, while his intuitions and the splendour of his style combine to lift Longinus to the highest rank among the critics of the world.

In Roman literature criticism never took a very prominent position. In early days the rhetorical works of Cicero and the famousArt of Poetryof Horace exhaust the category. During the later Augustan period the only literary critic of importance was the elder Seneca. Passing over the valuable allusions to the art of writing in the poets, especially in Juvenal and Martial, we reach, in the Silver Age, Quintilian, the most accomplished of all the Roman critics. HisInstitutes of Oratoryhas been described as the fullest and most intelligent application of criticism to literature which the Latin world produced, and one which places the name of Quintilian not far below those of Aristotle and Longinus. He was followed by Aulus Gellius,by Macrobius (whose reputation was great in the middle ages), by Servius (the great commentator on Virgil), and, after a long interval, by Martianus Capella. Latin criticism sank into mere pedantry about rhetoric and grammar. This continued throughout the Dark Ages, until the 13th century, when rhythmical treatises, of which theLabyrinthusof Eberhard (1212?) and theArs rhythmicaof John of Garlandia (John Garland) are the most famous, came into fashion. These writings testified to a growing revival of a taste for poetry.

It is, however, in the masterly technical treatiseDe vulgari eloquio, generally attributed to Dante, the first printed (in Italian) in 1529, that modern poetical criticism takes its first step. The example of this admirable book was not adequately followed; throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, criticism is mainly indirect and accidental. Boccaccio, indeed, is the only figure worthy of mention, between Dante and Erasmus. With the Renaissance came a blossoming of Humanist criticism in Italy, producing such excellent specimens as theSylvaeof Poliziano, thePoetics(1527) of Vida, and thePoeticaof Trissino, the best of a whole crop of critical works produced, often by famous names, between 1525 and 1560. These were followed by sounder scholars and acuter theorists: by Scaliger with his epoch-makingPoetices(1561); by L. Castelvetro, whosePoetica(1570) started the modern cultivation of the Unities and asserted the value of the Epic; by Tasso with hisDiscorsi(1587); and by Francesco Patrizzi in hisPoetica(1586).

In France, the earliest and for a long time the most important specimen of literary criticism was theDéfense et illustration de la langue française, published in 1549 by Joachim du Bellay. Ronsard, also, wrote frequently and ably on the art of poetry. The theories of the Pléiade were summed up in theArt poétiqueof Vauquelin de la Fresnaye, which belongs to 1574 (though not printed until 1605).

In England, the earliest literary critic of importance was Thomas Wilson, whoseArt of Rhetoricwas printed in 1553, and the earliest student of poetry, George Gascoigne, whoseInstructionappeared in 1575. Gascoigne is the first writer who deals intelligently with the subject of English prosody. He was followed by Thomas Drant, Harvey, Gosson, Lodge and Sidney, whose controversial pamphlets belong to the period between 1575 and 1580. Among Elizabethan “arts” or “defences” of English poetry are to be mentioned those of William Webbe (1586), George Puttenham (1589), Thomas Campion (1602), and Samuel Daniel (1603). With the tractates of Ben Jonson, several of them lost, the criticism of the Renaissance may be said to close.

A new era began throughout Europe when Malherbe started, about 1600, a taste for the neo-classic or anti-romantic school of poetry, taking up the line which had been foreshadowed by Castelvetro.Enfin Malherbe vint, and he was supported in his revolution by Regnier, Vaugelas, Balzac, and finally by Corneille himself, in his famous prefatory discourses. It was Boileau, however, who more than any other man stood out at the close of the 17th century as the law-giver of Parnassus. The rules of the neo-classics were drawn together and arranged in a system by René Rapin, whose authoritative treatises mainly appeared between 1668 and 1674. It is in writings of this man, and of the Jesuits, Le Bossu and Bouhours, that the preposterous rigidity of the formal classic criticism is most plainly seen. The influence of these three critics was, however, very great throughout Europe, and we trace it in the writings of Dryden, Addison and Rymer. In the course of the 18th century, when the neoclassic creed was universally accepted, Pope, Blair, Kames, Harris, Goldsmith and Samuel Johnson were its most distinguished exponents in England, while Voltaire, Buffon (to whom we owe the phrase “the style is the man”), Marmontel, La Harpe and Suard were the types of academic opinion in France.

Modern, or more properly Romantic, criticism came in when the neo-classic tradition became bankrupt throughout Europe at the very close of the 18th century. It has been heralded in Germany by the writings of Lessing, and in France by those of Diderot. Of the reconstruction of critical opinion in the 19th century it is impossible to speak here with any fulness, it is contained in the record of the recent literature of each European language. It is noticeable, in England, that the predominant place in it was occupied, in violent contrast with Disraeli’s dictum, by those who had obviouslynotfailed in imaginative composition, by Wordsworth, by Shelley, by Keats, by Landor, and pre-eminently by S. T. Coleridge, who was one of the most penetrative, original and imaginative critics who have ever lived. In France, the importance of Sainte-Beuve is not to be ignored or even qualified; after manifold changes of taste, he remains as much a master as he was a precursor. He was followed by Théophile Gautier, Saint-Marc, Girardin, Paul de Saint Victor, and a crowd of others, down to Taine and the latest school of individualistic critics, comparable with Matthew Arnold, Pater, and their followers in England.

See G. Saintsbury,A History of Criticism(3 vols., 1902-1904); J. E. Spingarn,A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance(2nd ed. 1908); Théry,Histoire des opinions littéraires(1849); J. A. Symonds,The Revival of Learning(1877); Matthew Arnold,Essays in Criticism, i. (1865), ii. (1868); Bourgoin,Les Maîtres de la critique au XVIIesiècle(1889); Paul Hamelius,Die Kritik in der englischen Literatur(1897); S. H. Butcher,The Poetics ofAristotle(1898); H. L. Havell and Andrew Lang,Longinus on the Sublime(1890). See also the writings of Sainte-Beuve, Matthew Arnold, F. Brunetière, Anatole France, Walter Pater,passim.

(E. G.)

1It is in this general sense that the subject is considered in this article. The term is, however, used in more restricted senses, generally with some word of qualification,e.g.“textual criticism” or “higher criticism”; see the articleTextual Criticismand the articleBiblefor an outstanding example of both “textual” and “higher.”

CRITIUSandNESIOTES, two Greek sculptors of uncertain school, of the time of the Persian Wars. When Xerxes carried away to Persia the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton made by Antenor, Critius and Nesiotes were commissioned to replace them. By the help of coins and reliefs, two statues at Naples, wrongly restored as gladiators, have been identified as copies of the tyrannicides of Critius; and to them well apply the words in which Lucian (Rhetor. praecepta, 9) describes the works of Critius and Nesiotes, “closely knit and sinewy, and hard and severe in outline.” Critius also made a statue of the armed runner Epicharinus.

CRITOLAUS, Greek philosopher, was born at Phaselis in the 2nd centuryB.C.He lived to the age of eighty-two and died probably before 111B.C.He studied philosophy under Aristo of Ceos and became one of the leaders of the Peripatetic school by his eminence as an orator, a scholar and a moralist. There has been considerable discussion as to whether he was the immediate successor of Aristo, but the evidence is confused and unprofitable. In general he was a loyal adherent to the Peripatetic succession (cf. Cicero,De fin.v. 5 “C. imitari antiquos voluit”), though in some respects he went beyond his predecessors. For example, he held that pleasure is an evil (Gellius,Noctes Atticae, ix. 5. 6), and definitely maintained that the soul consists of aether. The end of existence was to him the general perfection of the natural life, including the goods of the soul and the body, and also external goods. Cicero says in theTusculansthat the goods of the soul entirely outweighed for him the other goods (“tantum propendere illam bonorum animi lancem”). Further, he defended against the Stoics the Peripatetic doctrine of the eternity of the world and the indestructibility of the human race. There is no observed change in the natural order of things; mankind re-creates itself in the same manner according to the capacity given by Nature, and the various ills to which it is heir, though fatal to individuals, do not avail to modify the whole. Just as it is absurd to suppose that man is merely earth-born, so the possibility of his ultimate destruction is inconceivable. The world, as the manifestation of eternal order, must itself be immortal. The life of Critolaus is not recorded. One incident alone is preserved. From Cicero (Acad.ii. 45) it appears that he was sent with Carneades and Diogenes to Rome in 156-155B.C.to protest against the fine of 500 talents imposed on Athens in punishment for the sack of Oropus. The three ambassadors lectured on philosophy in Rome with so much success that Cato was alarmed and had them dismissed the city. Gellius describes his arguments asscita et teretia.

Consult the articlePeripatetics, and histories of ancient philosophy,e.g.Zeller.

CRITTENDEN, JOHN JORDAN(1787-1863), American statesman, was born in Versailles, Kentucky, on the 10th of September 1787. After graduating at the College of William and Mary in 1807, he began the practice of law in his native state. He served for three months, in 1810, as attorney-general of Illinois Territory, but soon returned to Kentucky, and during the War of 1812 he was for a time on the staff of General Isaac Shelby. In 1811-1817 he served in the state House of Representatives, being speaker in 1815-1816, and in 1817-1819 was a United States senator. Settling in Frankfort, he soon took high rank as a criminal lawyer, was in the Kentucky House of Representatives in 1825 and 1829-1832, acting as speaker in the latter period, and from 1827 to 1829 was United States district-attorney. He was removed by President Jackson, to whom he was radically opposed. In 1835, as a Whig, he was again elected to the United States Senate, and was re-elected in 1841, but resigned to enter the cabinet of President W. H. Harrison as attorney-general, continuing after President Tyler’s accession and serving from March until September. He was again a member of the United States Senate from 1842 to 1848, and in 1848-1850 was governor of Kentucky. He was an ardent and outspoken supporter of Clay’s compromise measures, and in 1850 he entered President Fillmore’s cabinet as attorney-general, serving throughout the administration. From 1855 to 1861 he was once more a member of the United States Senate. During these years he was perhaps the foremost champion of Union in the South, and strenuously opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which he declared prophetically would unite the various elements of opposition in the North, and render the breach between the sections irreparable. Nevertheless he laboured unceasingly in the cause of compromise, gave his strong support to the Bell and Everett ticket in 1860, and in 1860-1861 proposed and vainly contended for the adoption by congress of the compromise measures which bear his name. When war became inevitable he threw himself zealously into the Union cause, and lent his great influence to keep Kentucky in the Union. In 1861-1863 he was a member of the national House of Representatives, where, while advocating the prosecution of the war, he opposed such radical measures as the division of Virginia, the enlistment of slaves and the Conscription Acts. He died at Frankfort, Kentucky, on the 26th of July 1863.

See theLife of J. J. Crittenden, by his daughter Mrs Chapman Coleman (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1871).

His son,George Bibb Crittenden(1812-1880), soldier, was born in Russellville, Kentucky, on the 20th of March 1812, and graduated at West Point in 1832, but resigned his commission in 1833. He re-entered the army as a captain of mounted rifles in the Mexican War, served with distinction, and was breveted major for bravery at Contreras and Churubusco. After the war he remained in the army, and in 1856 attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel. In June 1861 he resigned, and entered the service of the Confederacy. He was commissioned major-general and given a command in south-east Kentucky and Tennessee, but after the defeat of his forces by General George H. Thomas at Mill Springs (January 9, 1862), he was censured and gave up his command. He served subsequently as a volunteer aide on the staff of Gen. John S. Williams. From 1867 to 1871 he was state librarian of Kentucky. He died at Danville, Kentucky, on the 27th of November 1880.

Another son,Thomas Leonidas Crittenden(1815-1893), soldier, was also born at Russellville, Kentucky. He studied law, and practised with his father, and in 1842 became commonwealth’s attorney. He served in the Mexican War as a lieutenant-colonel of Kentucky volunteers, and was an aide on Gen. Zachary Taylor’s staff at the battle of Buena Vista. From 1849 to 1853 he was United States consul at Liverpool, England. Like his father, he was a strong Union man, and in September 1861 he was commissioned by President Lincoln a brigadier-general of volunteers. He commanded a division at Shiloh, for gallantry in which battle he was promoted major-general in July 1862. He was in command of a corps in the army of the Ohio under Gen. D. C. Buell, and took part in the battles of Stone River and Chickamauga. Subsequently he served in the Virginia campaign of 1864. He resigned his commission in December 1864, but in July 1866 entered the regular army with the rank of colonel of infantry, receiving the brevet of brigadier-general in 1867, served on the frontier and in several Indian wars, and retired in 1881. He died on the 23rd of October 1893.

CRIVELLI, CARLO, Venetian painter, was born in the earlier part of the 15th century. The only dates that can with certainty be given are 1468 and 1493; these are respectively the earliest and the latest years signed on his pictures—the former on an altar-piece in the church of San Silvestro at Massa near Fermo, and the latter on a picture in the Oggioni collection in Milan. Though born in Venice, Crivelli seems to have worked chiefly in the March of Ancona, and especially in and near Ascoli; there are only two pictures of his proper to a Venetian building, both of these being in the church of San Sebastiano. He is said to have studied under Jacobello del Fiore, who was painting as late at any rate as 1436; at that time Crivelli was probably only a boy. The latter always signed as “Carolus Crivellus Venetus”; from 1490 he added “Miles,” having been then knighted (“Cavalière”) by Ferdinand II. of Naples. He painted in tempera only, and is seen to most advantage in subject pictures of moderate size. He introduced agreeable landscape backgrounds; and was particularly partial to giving fruits and flowers (the peach is one of his favourite fruits) as accessories, often in pendent festoons. The National Gallery in London is well supplied with examples of Crivelli; the “Annunciation,” and the “Beato Ferretti” (of the same family as Pope Pius IX.) in religious ecstasy, may be specified. Another of his principal pictures is in San Francesco di Matelica; in Berlin is a “Madonna and Saints” (1491); in the Vatican Gallery a “Dead Christ,” and in the Brera of Milan the painter’s own portrait, with other examples. Crivelli is a painter of marked individuality,—hard in form, crudely definite in contour; stern, forced, energetic, almost grotesque and repellent, in feature and expression, and yet well capable of a prim sort of prettiness; simply vigorous in his effect of detachment and relief, and sometimes admitting into his pictures objects actually raised in surface; distinct and warm in colour, with an effect at once harsh and harmonious. His pictures gain by being seen in half-light, and at some little distance; under favouring conditions they grip the spectator with uncommon power. Few artists seem to have worked with more uniformity of purpose, or more forthright command of his materials, so far as they go. It is surmised that Carlo was of the same family as the painters Donato Crivelli (who was working in 1459, and was also a scholar of Jacobello) and Vittorio Crivelli. Pietro Alamanni was his pupil.

See, along with Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Berenson,Venetian Painters of the Renaissance(1899); Morelli,Italian Painters(1892-1893); Rushforth,Carlo Crivelli(1900).

(W. M. R.)

CROATIA-SLAVONIA(Serbo-CroatianHrvatska i Slavonija; Hung.Horvát-Szlavonország; Ger.Kroatien und Slawonien), a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy; bounded on the N. by Carniola, Styria and Hungary proper; E. by Hungary and Servia; S. by Servia, Bosnia and Dalmatia; and W. by the Adriatic Sea, Istria and Carniola. Until 1881 Croatia, in the N.W. of this region, was divided from Slavonia, in the N.E., by a section of the Austrian Military Frontier. This section is now the county of Bjelovar, and forms part of the united kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The river Kulpa, which bisects the county of Agram, is usually regarded as the north-eastern limit of the Balkan Peninsula; and thus the greater part of Croatia, lying south of this river, falls within the peninsular boundary, while the remainder, with all Slavonia, belongs to the continental mainland. According to the official survey of 1900, the total area of the country is 16,423 sq. m. The Croatian littoral extends for about 90 m. from Fiume to the Dalmatian frontier. A narrow strait, the Canale della Morlacca (or della Montagna), separates it from Veglia, Arbe, Pago and other Istrian or Dalmatian islands. The city and territories of Fiume, the sole important harbour on this coast, are included in Hungary proper, and controlled by the Budapest government. Westward fromWarasdin, and along the borders of Styria, Carniola, Istria, Dalmatia and north-western Bosnia, the frontier is generally mountainous and follows an irregular course. The central and eastern region, situated between the Drave and Danube on the north, and the Save on the south, forms one long wedge, with its point at Semlin.

Physical Features.—Croatia-Slavonia is naturally divided into two great sections, the highlands of the west and the lowlands of the east.

The plateau of the Istrian Karst is prolonged in several of the bare and desolate mountain chains between the Save and the Adriatic, notably the Great and Little Kapella (or Kapela), which link together the Karst and the Dinaric Alps, culminating in Biela Lažica (5029 ft.); the Plješevica or Pliševica Planina (5410 ft.), overlooking the valley of the river Una; and the Velebit Planina, which follows the westward curve of the coast, and rises above the sea in an abrupt wall, unbroken by any considerable bay or inlet. As it skirts the Dalmatian border, this range attains its greatest altitude in the adjacent peaks of Sveto Brdo (5751 ft.), and Vakanski Vrh (5768 ft.). Large tracts of the Croatian highlands are well-nigh waterless, and it is only in the more sheltered hollows that sufficient soil collects for large trees to flourish. In northern Croatia and Slavonia the mountains are far more fertile, being often densely wooded with oaks, beeches and pines. They comprise the Uskoken Gebirge, or Uskoks Mountains, named after the piratical Uskoks (q.v.) of Zengg, who were deported hither after the fall of their stronghold in 1617; the Warasdin Mountains, with the peak of Ivansciča (3478 ft.); the Agram Mountains, culminating in Sljeme or Slema (3396 ft.), and including the beautiful stretches of Alpine pasture known as the Zagorje, or “land beyond the hills”; the Bilo Gebirge, or White Mountains, a low range of chalk, and, farther to the south, several groups of mountains, among which Psunj (3228 ft.), Papuk (3217 ft.) Crni Vrh (2833 ft.), and the Ravna Gora (2808 ft.) are the chief summits. All these ranges, except the Uskoken Gebirge, constitute the central watershed of the kingdom, between the Drave and Save. In the east Slavonian county of Syrmia1the Fruška Gora or Vrdnik Mountains rise to a height of 1768 ft. along the southern bank of the Danube, their picturesque vineyards and pine or oak woods contrasting strongly with the plains that surround them.

The lowlands, in the valleys of the Drave, Danube, Save and Kulpa, belong partly to the great Hungarian Plains, or Alföld. Besides the sterile and monotonous steppes, valuable only as pasture, and so sparsely populated that it is possible to travel for many hours without encountering any sign of human life except a primitive artesian well or a shepherd’s hut, there are wide expanses of fen-country, regularly flooded in spring and autumn. The marshes which line the Save below Sissek are often impassable except at Brod and Mitrovica, and the river is constantly scooping out fresh channels in the soft soil, only to abandon each in turn. The total area liable to yearly inundation exceeds 200 sq. m. But along the Drave and Danube the plains are sometimes strikingly fertile, and yield an abundance of grain, fruit and wine.

The main rivers of Croatia-Slavonia, the Danube, Drave and Save, are fully described under separate headings. After reaching Croatian territory 13 m. N.W. of Warasdin, the Drave flows along the northern frontier for 155 m., receiving the Bednja and Karasnica on the right, and falling, near Esseg, into the Danube, which serves as the Hungaro-Slavonian boundary for an additional 116 m. The Save enters the country 16 m. W. of Agram, and, after winding for 106 m. S.E. to Jasenovac, constitutes the southern frontier for 253 m., and meets the Danube at Belgrade. It is joined by the Sotla, Krapina, Lonja, Ilova, Pakra and Oljana, which drain the central watershed; but its only large tributaries are the Una, a Bosnian stream, which springs in the Dinaric Alps, and skirts the Croatian border for 40 m. before entering the Save at Jasenovac; and the Kulpa, which follows a tortuous course of 60 m. from its headwaters north of Fiume, to its confluence with the Save at Sissek. The Mrežnica, Dobra, Glina and Korana are right-hand tributaries of the Kulpa. In the Croatian Karst the seven streams of the Lika unite and plunge into a rocky chasm near Gospić, and the few small brooks of this region usually vanish underground in a similar manner. Near Fiume, the Recina, Rjeka or Fiumara falls into the Adriatic after a brief course. There is no large lake in Croatia-Slavonia, but the upland pools and waterfalls of Plitvica, near Ogulin, are celebrated for their beauty. After a thaw or heavy rain, the subterranean rivers flood the mountain hollows of the Karst; and a lake thus formed by the river Gajka, near Otočac, has occasionally filled its basin to a depth of 160 ft.

Minerals.—The mineral resources of the kingdom, though capable of further development, are not rich. They are chiefly confined to the mountains, where iron, coal, copper, lead, zinc, silver and sulphur are mined in small quantities. Warm mineral springs rise at Krapina, at Toplice near Warasdin, at Stubica near Agram, and elsewhere.Climate.—The climate of Croatia-Slavonia varies greatly in different regions. In the Karst it is liable to sudden and violent changes, and especially to thebora, a fierce N.N.E. wind, which renders navigation perilous among the islands off the coast, and, in winter, blocks the roads and railway-cuttings with deep snowdrifts. The sheltered bays near Fiume enjoy an equable climate; but in all other districts the temperature in mid-winter falls regularly below zero, and the summer heats are excessive. Earthquakes are common among the mountains, and the eastern lowlands are exposed to the great winds and sandstorms which sweep down the Alföld. At Agram, during the years 1896-1900, the mean annual temperature was 52° F., with 34.6 in. of rain and snow; at Fiume, the figures for the same period were 57° and 71 in.Agriculture.—The agricultural inquiry of 1895 showed that 94.5% of the country consisted of arable land, gardens, vineyards, meadows, pastures and forests; but much of this area must be set down as mountainous and swampy pasture of poor quality. The richest land occurs in the Zagorje and its neighbourhood, in the hills near Warasdin and in the northern half of Syrmia. The Karst and the fens are of least agricultural value. Indian corn heads the list of cereals, but wheat, oats, rye and barley are also cultivated, besides hemp, flax, tobacco and large quantities of potatoes. The extensive vineyards were much injured byphylloxeratowards the close of the 19th century. The Slavonian plum orchards furnish dried prunes, besides a kind of brandy largely exported under the name ofsliwowitzorshlivovitsa. Near Fiume the orange, lemon, pomegranate, fig and olive bear well; mulberries are planted on many estates for silkworms; and the heather-clad uplands of the central region favour the keeping of bees. Large herds of swine fatten in the oak and beech forests; and dairy-farming is a thriving industry in the highlands between Agram and Warasdin, where, during the last years of the 19th century, systematic attempts were made to replace the mountain pastures by clover and sown grass. The proportion of sheep to other live-stock is lower than in most of the South Slavonic lands, and the scarcity of goats is also noteworthy. Horsebreeding is a favourite pursuit in Slavonia; and between 1900 and 1902 many thousands of remounts were shipped to the British army in South Africa. The local administration endeavours to better the quality of live-stock by importing purer breeds, distributing prizes, and other measures; but the native farmers are slow to accept improvements.Forests.—Forests, principally of oak, pine and beech, covered 3,734,000 acres in 1895, about one-fifth being state property. Especially valuable are the Croatian oak-forests, near Agram and Sissek. Timber is exported from Fiume and down the Danube.Industries.—Apart from the distilleries and breweries scattered throughout the country, the rude flour-mills which lie moored in the rivers, and a few glass-works, saw-mills, silk-mills and tobacco factories, the chief industrial establishments of Croatia-Slavonia are at Agram, Fiume, Semlin, Buccari and Porto Ré. Only 8.3 of the population was, in 1900, engaged in industries other than farming, which occupied 85.2%. The exports mainly consist of foodstuffs, especially grain, of live-stock, especially pigs and horses, and of timber. The imports include textiles, iron, coal, wine and colonial products; with machinery and other finished articles. Goods in transit to and from Hungary figure largely in the official returns for Fiume2and Semlin, which are the centres of the foreign trade. In 1900 Croatia-Slavonia possessed 253 banking establishments.Communications.—The commerce of the country is furthered by upwards of 2000 m. of carriage-roads, the most remarkable of thesebeing the Maria Louisa, which connects Karlstadt with Fiume, and the Josephina, which passes inland from Zengg. Many excellent highways were built for strategic purposes before the abolition of the Military Frontier in 1881. The railways, which are all owned and managed by the Hungarian state, intersect most parts of the country except the mountains south of Ogulin, where there is, nevertheless, a considerable traffic over the passes into Dalmatia and Bosnia. Agram is the principal railway centre, from which lines radiate S. W. to Fiume, W. into Austria, N.N.E. to Warasdin and into Hungary, and S.E. into Bosnia by way of Kostajnica. The main line eastward from Agram passes through Brod, where it meets the Bosnian system, and on to Belgrade; throwing out two branch lines to Brčka and Šamac in Bosnia, and several branches on the north, which traverse the central watershed, and cross the Hungarian frontier at Zákány, Barcs, Esseg, Erdar and Peterwardein. Above Agram the Save is used chiefly for floating rafts of timber; east of Sissek it is navigable by small steamboats, but, despite its great volume, the multitude of its perpetually shifting sandbanks interferes greatly with traffic. Steamers also ply on the Una, the Drave below Barcs, and the Danube. The marshes of Syrmia are partially drained by the so-called “Canal of Probus,” the one large artificial waterway in the country, said to have been cut by the Romans in the 3rd century.Chief Towns,—The principal towns are Agram, the capital, with 61,002 inhabitants in 1900; Esseg, the capital of Slavonia (24,930); Semlin (15,079); Mitrovica (11,518); Warasdin (12,930); Karlstadt (7396); Brod (7310); Sissek (7047); Djakovo (6824); Karlowitz (5643); Peterwardein (5019); Zengg (3182); and Buccari (1870). These are described in separate articles. The centre of the coasting trade is Novi, and other small seaports are San Giorgio (Sveto Juraj), Porto Ré (Kraljevica) and Carlopago. Agram, Gospić (10,799), Ogulin (8699), Warasdin and Bjelovar (6056) are respectively the capitals of the five counties which belong to Croatia proper,—Agram (Hung.Zágráb), Modruš-Fiume, Lika-Krbava, Warasdin (Varasd) and Bjelovar (Belovár-Körös); while the capitals of the three Slavonian counties, Virovitica (Veröcze), Požega (Pozsega) and Syrmia (Szerém), are Esseg, Požega (5000) and Semlin.

Climate.—The climate of Croatia-Slavonia varies greatly in different regions. In the Karst it is liable to sudden and violent changes, and especially to thebora, a fierce N.N.E. wind, which renders navigation perilous among the islands off the coast, and, in winter, blocks the roads and railway-cuttings with deep snowdrifts. The sheltered bays near Fiume enjoy an equable climate; but in all other districts the temperature in mid-winter falls regularly below zero, and the summer heats are excessive. Earthquakes are common among the mountains, and the eastern lowlands are exposed to the great winds and sandstorms which sweep down the Alföld. At Agram, during the years 1896-1900, the mean annual temperature was 52° F., with 34.6 in. of rain and snow; at Fiume, the figures for the same period were 57° and 71 in.

Agriculture.—The agricultural inquiry of 1895 showed that 94.5% of the country consisted of arable land, gardens, vineyards, meadows, pastures and forests; but much of this area must be set down as mountainous and swampy pasture of poor quality. The richest land occurs in the Zagorje and its neighbourhood, in the hills near Warasdin and in the northern half of Syrmia. The Karst and the fens are of least agricultural value. Indian corn heads the list of cereals, but wheat, oats, rye and barley are also cultivated, besides hemp, flax, tobacco and large quantities of potatoes. The extensive vineyards were much injured byphylloxeratowards the close of the 19th century. The Slavonian plum orchards furnish dried prunes, besides a kind of brandy largely exported under the name ofsliwowitzorshlivovitsa. Near Fiume the orange, lemon, pomegranate, fig and olive bear well; mulberries are planted on many estates for silkworms; and the heather-clad uplands of the central region favour the keeping of bees. Large herds of swine fatten in the oak and beech forests; and dairy-farming is a thriving industry in the highlands between Agram and Warasdin, where, during the last years of the 19th century, systematic attempts were made to replace the mountain pastures by clover and sown grass. The proportion of sheep to other live-stock is lower than in most of the South Slavonic lands, and the scarcity of goats is also noteworthy. Horsebreeding is a favourite pursuit in Slavonia; and between 1900 and 1902 many thousands of remounts were shipped to the British army in South Africa. The local administration endeavours to better the quality of live-stock by importing purer breeds, distributing prizes, and other measures; but the native farmers are slow to accept improvements.

Forests.—Forests, principally of oak, pine and beech, covered 3,734,000 acres in 1895, about one-fifth being state property. Especially valuable are the Croatian oak-forests, near Agram and Sissek. Timber is exported from Fiume and down the Danube.

Industries.—Apart from the distilleries and breweries scattered throughout the country, the rude flour-mills which lie moored in the rivers, and a few glass-works, saw-mills, silk-mills and tobacco factories, the chief industrial establishments of Croatia-Slavonia are at Agram, Fiume, Semlin, Buccari and Porto Ré. Only 8.3 of the population was, in 1900, engaged in industries other than farming, which occupied 85.2%. The exports mainly consist of foodstuffs, especially grain, of live-stock, especially pigs and horses, and of timber. The imports include textiles, iron, coal, wine and colonial products; with machinery and other finished articles. Goods in transit to and from Hungary figure largely in the official returns for Fiume2and Semlin, which are the centres of the foreign trade. In 1900 Croatia-Slavonia possessed 253 banking establishments.

Communications.—The commerce of the country is furthered by upwards of 2000 m. of carriage-roads, the most remarkable of thesebeing the Maria Louisa, which connects Karlstadt with Fiume, and the Josephina, which passes inland from Zengg. Many excellent highways were built for strategic purposes before the abolition of the Military Frontier in 1881. The railways, which are all owned and managed by the Hungarian state, intersect most parts of the country except the mountains south of Ogulin, where there is, nevertheless, a considerable traffic over the passes into Dalmatia and Bosnia. Agram is the principal railway centre, from which lines radiate S. W. to Fiume, W. into Austria, N.N.E. to Warasdin and into Hungary, and S.E. into Bosnia by way of Kostajnica. The main line eastward from Agram passes through Brod, where it meets the Bosnian system, and on to Belgrade; throwing out two branch lines to Brčka and Šamac in Bosnia, and several branches on the north, which traverse the central watershed, and cross the Hungarian frontier at Zákány, Barcs, Esseg, Erdar and Peterwardein. Above Agram the Save is used chiefly for floating rafts of timber; east of Sissek it is navigable by small steamboats, but, despite its great volume, the multitude of its perpetually shifting sandbanks interferes greatly with traffic. Steamers also ply on the Una, the Drave below Barcs, and the Danube. The marshes of Syrmia are partially drained by the so-called “Canal of Probus,” the one large artificial waterway in the country, said to have been cut by the Romans in the 3rd century.

Chief Towns,—The principal towns are Agram, the capital, with 61,002 inhabitants in 1900; Esseg, the capital of Slavonia (24,930); Semlin (15,079); Mitrovica (11,518); Warasdin (12,930); Karlstadt (7396); Brod (7310); Sissek (7047); Djakovo (6824); Karlowitz (5643); Peterwardein (5019); Zengg (3182); and Buccari (1870). These are described in separate articles. The centre of the coasting trade is Novi, and other small seaports are San Giorgio (Sveto Juraj), Porto Ré (Kraljevica) and Carlopago. Agram, Gospić (10,799), Ogulin (8699), Warasdin and Bjelovar (6056) are respectively the capitals of the five counties which belong to Croatia proper,—Agram (Hung.Zágráb), Modruš-Fiume, Lika-Krbava, Warasdin (Varasd) and Bjelovar (Belovár-Körös); while the capitals of the three Slavonian counties, Virovitica (Veröcze), Požega (Pozsega) and Syrmia (Szerém), are Esseg, Požega (5000) and Semlin.

Population and National Characteristics.—The population rose from 1,892,499 in 1881 to 2,416,304 in 1900, an increase of little less than one-third, resulting from a uniformly low death rate, with a high marriage and birth rate, and characterized by that preponderance of male over female children which is common to all the South Slavonic lands. More than 75% of the inhabitants are Croats, the bulk of the remainder being Serbs, who predominate in eastern Slavonia. Outside Croatia-Slavonia, the Croats occupy the greater part of Dalmatia and northern Bosnia. There are large Croatian settlements in the south of Hungary, and smaller colonies in Austria. The numbers of the whole nation may be estimated at 3,500,000 or 4,000,000. The distinction between Croats and Serbs is religious, and, to a less extent, linguistic. Croats and Serbs together constitute a single branch of the Slavonic race, frequently called the Serbo-Croatian branch. The literary language of the two nations is identical, but the Croats use the Latin alphabet,3while the Serbs prefer a modified form of the Cyrillic. The two nations have also been politically separated since the 7th century, if not for a longer period; but this division has produced little difference of character or physical type. Even the costume of the Croatian peasantry, to whom brilliant colours and intricate embroideries are always dear, proclaims their racial identity with the Serbs; their songs, dances and musical instruments, the chief part of their customs and folk-lore, their whole manner of life, so little changed by its closer contact with Western civilization, may be studied in Servia (q.v.) itself. In both countries rural society was based on the old-fashioned household community, orzadruga, which still survives in the territories that formed the Military Frontier, though everywhere tending to disappear and be replaced by individual ownership. The Croatian peasantry are least prosperous in the riverside districts, where marsh-fevers prevail, and especially beside the Save. Even in many of the towns the houses are mere cabins of wood and thatch. As in Servia, there is practically no middle class between the peasants and the educated minority; and the commercial element consists to a great extent of foreigners, especially Germans, Hungarians, Italians and Jews. Numerically this alien population is insignificant. The Italians are chiefly confined to the coast; the Germans congregate at Semlin and Warasdin; the Slovenes are settled along the north-western frontier, where they have introduced their language, and so greatly modified the local dialect; the gipsies wander from city to city, as horse-dealers, metal workers or musicians; there are numerous Moravian and Bohemian settlements; and near Mitrovica there is a colony of Albanians. It is impossible to give accurate statistics of the alien population; for, in the compilation of the official figures, language is taken as a test of nationality, an utterly untrustworthy method in a country where every educated person speaks two or three languages. Croatian nationalists also maintain that official figures are systematically altered in the Hungarian interest.

Constitution and Government.—By the fundamental law of the 21st of December 1867 Austria-Hungary was divided, for purposes of internal government, into Cisleithania, or the Austrian empire, and Transleithania, or the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia. In theory the viceroy, orbanof Croatia-Slavonia is nominated by the crown, and enjoys almost unlimited authority over local affairs; in practice the consent of the crown is purely formal, and thebanis appointed by the Hungarian premier, who can dismiss him at any moment. The provincial government is subject to theban, and comprises three ministries—the interior, justice, and religion and education,—for whose working thebanis responsible to the Hungarian premier, and to the national assembly of Croatia-Slavonia (Narodna Skupština). This body consists of a single chamber, composed partly of elected deputies, partly of privileged members, whose numbers cannot exceed half those of the deputies. There are 69 constituencies, besides the 21 royal free cities which also return deputies. Electors must belong to certain professions or pay a small tax. The privileged members are the heads of the nobility, with the highest ecclesiastics and officials. As a rule, they represent the “Magyarist” section of society, which sympathizes with Hungarian policy. The chamber deals with religion, education, justice and certain strictly provincial affairs, but even within this limited sphere all its important enactments must be countersigned by the minister for Croatia-Slavonia, a member, without portfolio, of the Hungarian cabinet. At the polls, all votes are given orally, a system which facilitates corruption; the officials who control the elections depend for their livelihood on theban, usually a Magyarist; and thus, even apart from the privileged members, a majority favourable to Hungary can usually be secured. The constitutional relations between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia are regulated by the agreement, ornagoda, of 1868. This instrument determines the functions of theban; the control of common interests, such as railways, posts, telegraphs, telephones, commerce, industry, agriculture or forests; and the choice of delegates by the chamber, to sit in the Hungarian parliament. See also below, underHistory.

Back to Index Next