8. Cotyledons opened to show the radicle a, and the plumule.]

CASHIBO, or CARAPACHE ("bat"), a tribe of South American Indians of

Pannoan stock, living in scanty numbers on the west side of the Ucayali,

Peru. They are a wild, savage people who have always been foremost in

attacks on the Jesuits. They joined Juan Santos in 1744 in the

destruction of missions.

CASHIER. (1) (Adapted from the Fr. _caissier_, one in charge of the

_caisse_, or money-box), one who has charge of the payment or receiving

of money in a business house. The "cashier" may be a high executive

official of a banking or mercantile house--thus the name of chief

cashier of the Bank of England appears on all notes issued during his

occupation of the post--or he may be merely a clerk, who receives

payment for goods sold, and has the right to give receipts for the same.

(2) (In origin ultimately the same as "quash," to annul, from Lat.

_quassare_, to dash or break to pieces, a frequentative of _quatere_, to

shake, but also connected in form and meaning with _cassare_, to make,

_cassus_, empty or void), a military term, meaning originally to

disband, and probably adopted from the Dutch in the 16th century. The

word in various forms is used in the same sense in most European

languages. It is now used in English for the dismissal of a commissioned

officer from the army and navy for particularly serious offences, in the

words of the Army Act, 1881, s. 16, for "behaving in a scandalous

manner unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." "Cashiering" involves not

merely the loss of the commission, but also a permanent disqualification

from serving the state in any capacity.

CASH REGISTER, a species of calculating machine adapted for use in

connexion with the cash-tills of shops, in order to provide a record of

the money received. Such machines are made in great variety and widely

used. Sometimes the records are constituted by holes punched in a roll

of paper; in other cases they are shown on dials by the aid of adding

mechanism. A common form has a number of keys, each representing a

particular sum and each attached to a counting mechanism which records

how many times it has been used. By pressing appropriate combinations of

these keys the amount of any purchase can be registered, and the

combined records of all the counting mechanism give the total that has

been passed through the machine in any selected period. Each key when

pressed also raises an indicator which informs the customer how much he

has to pay. In their more elaborate forms these cash registers may have

a separate money-drawer for each assistant employed in the shop, thus

enabling the proprietor to ascertain how many customers each man has

served and how much money he has taken, and also to fix responsibility

for mistakes, bad money, &c. The machines are also made to deliver a

printed receipt for each purchase, showing the amount, date and

assistant concerned, and they may be arranged to keep separate records

of credit sales, money received on account, and money paid out.

CASILINUM (mod. _Capua_), an ancient city of Campania, Italy, 3 m. N.W.

of the ancient Capua. Its position at the point of junction of the Via

Appia and Via Latina, and at their crossing of the river Volturnus by a

three-arched bridge, which still exists, gave it considerable importance

under the Roman republic; and while the original pre-Roman town, which

was doubtless dependent on the neighbouring Capua, stood entirely on the

left (S.) bank, surrounded on three sides by the river, the Roman city

extended to the right bank also; remains of it have been found at some

25 ft. below the modern ground-level, the river-bed having risen

considerably. In the Second Punic War it was occupied by Fabius

Cunctator in 217 B.C., taken by Hannibal after a gallant defence by

troops from Praeneste and Perusia in the winter of 216-215, but

recaptured in the following year, serving the Romans as their base of

operations against Capua. It lost its independence and became a

_praefectura_. Caesar conducted a colony thither in 59 B.C., which was

renewed by Antony in 44 B.C. The veterans took Octavian's side after

Caesar's death, but it seems to have been united with Capua before the

time of Vespasian, and it does not occur in the list of independent

communities given by Pliny, who indeed (_Hist. Nat._ iii. 70) speaks of

the _morientis Casilini reliquiae_, and only its position at the

junction of the roads redeemed it from utter insignificance. (T. As.)

CASIMIR III., called "THE GREAT," king of Poland (1310-1370), the son of

Wladislaus Lokietek, king of Poland, and Jadwiga, princess of Kalisch,

was born at Kowal in Kujavia in 1310. Casimir belongs to that remarkable

group of late medieval sovereigns who may be called the fathers of

modern diplomacy, inasmuch as they relegated warfare to its proper place

as the instrument of politics, and preferred the council-chamber to the

battle-field. He was educated at the court of Charles Robert of Hungary,

who had married Casimir's beautiful sister Elizabeth, and who gave his

brother-in-law an excellent education under Italian masters. In his

youth Casimir was considered frivolous and licentious; while his sudden

flight from the field of Plowce, the scene of his father's great victory

over the Teutonic knights, argued but poorly for his personal courage.

When, therefore, he ascended the Polish throne in 1333, the future of

his country, which then consisted of little more than the lately

reunited provinces of Great and Little Poland, seemed dark indeed;

especially as she was still at war with the Teutonic Order and with John

of Luxemburg, king of Bohemia, who claimed the crown of Poland also.

Fortunately Casimir was a man of penetrating genius. His father had been

a hero who trusted entirely to his sword, yet the heroic struggle of a

lifetime had barely sufficed to keep at bay the numerous and potent foes

with which Poland was environed. Casimir recognized from the first that

further fighting against tremendous odds was unprofitable. A careful,

calculating dynastic policy, which aimed at the establishment of an

equilibrium by means of prudent compromises and defensive alliances,

was, he rightly judged, the best guarantee for the future safety and

glory of Poland. Casimir began by tying the hands of the Teutonic Order

by the truce of Thorn; he induced the king of Bohemia to relinquish his

claims to the Polish throne by consenting to leave him a free hand in

Silesia (conference of Trencsen, early in 1335); and subsequently he

attended the celebrated congress of Visegrad (November 12-December 3,

1335), where Charles Robert entertained him and the king of Bohemia

magnificently. At this congress the differences between Casimir and John

of Bohemia were finally adjusted; peace was made between the king of

Poland and the Teutonic Order on the basis of the cession of Pomerania,

Kulm, and Michalow to the knights, who retroceded Kujavia and Dobrzyn;

and the kings of Hungary and Poland further agreed to assist each other

in the acquisition of the south-eastern border province of Halicz, or

Red Russia (very nearly corresponding to the modern Galicia), in case

the necessity for intervention should arise. The Holy See, jealous of

the growing power of the house of Luxemburg, attempted to set aside the

decrees of the congress of Visegrad, by urging Casimir to take up arms

against the knights once more; but Casimir prudently refrained from

hostilities, and ultimately compensated himself in the south-east for

his losses in the north. To guarantee still further the integrity of

Poland, Casimir, who had no male issue, concluded a compact with Charles

Robert whereby he recognized Louis, Charles Robert's son, as the

successor to the Polish crown; Louis on his part contracting to confirm

the privileges of the Polish gentry and clergy, and to rule Poland

through natives only.

In 1340 the death of George II. of Halicz, and the ravaging of that

fruitful border principality by the Tatars, induced Casimir and Charles

Robert to establish their joint influence there, and in 1344 the Red

Russian boyar, Demetrius Detko, was appointed _starosta_, or governor,

in the names of the two kings. Nine years later Lubart of Lithuania, who

also had claims upon Red Russia, disputed the sway of Poland in that

principality. Hungary coming to the assistance of Poland, Lubart was

defeated and taken prisoner; but Casimir, anxious to avoid a bloody war

with Lithuania's Tatar allies, came to a compromise with Lubart whereby

Poland retained Halicz with Lemberg, while Vladimir, Belz, and Brzesc

fell to the share of Lithuania. With the Teutonic knights, still

Poland's most dangerous foe, Casimir preserved peaceful relations

throughout his reign. He kept them within due bounds by using the

influence of the Luxemburgers against them at the papal court; but the

disputes between Poland and the order were ultimately settled by the

peace of Kalisz (July 23, 1343), when the knights engaged for the first

time to pay tribute to the Polish crown. John of Bohemia was also a

constant thorn in the side of Casimir. Silesia, now split up into

seventeen principalities, was the bone of contention between them; and

when Casimir suddenly invaded that country, took Wschowa, and made

Prince Charles of Bohemia a prisoner, war between the two kingdoms

actually broke out and Casimir was besieged in Cracow by the Czechs. But

his Hungarian allies hastened to his assistance, and the mediation of

the Holy See restored peace in 1346. The death of the adventurous John

at Crecy, and the election of his son as emperor, still further improved

the situation. Charles IV., a cautious sovereign with many cares, was as

anxious for the maintenance of peace as Casimir himself. Thus the

relations between them were never very seriously disturbed.

Throughout his reign Casimir never neglected the great work of domestic

reform, greatly aided by Jaroslaw Skotowicki, archbishop of Gnesen,

formerly a professor at Bologna. The first result of their joint labours

was the much-needed codification of the laws of Great and Little Poland

in 1347. This was followed by the establishment of a supreme court of

appeal in 1357. Towards everything like disorder, tyranny, or

aristocratic oppression, Casimir was always inexorably severe; all

disturbers of the peace were remorselessly put to death as the worst

enemies of their country and he enjoyed in consequence the honourable

title of "the Peasants' King." The lawlessness of the nobility was most

noticeable in the province of Great Poland, where outrageous acts of

violence were of everyday occurrence. To remedy the evil, Casimir drew

up and promulgated the severe statute of Great Poland, which went to the

very root of the matter and greatly strengthened the hands of the king's

justices. Casimir also did much for education. Stimulated by the example

of Charles IV., who had founded the university of Prague in 1348,

Casimir on the 12th of May 1364 established and richly endowed the first

university of Cracow, which had five professors of Roman law, three of

Canon law, two of physics, and one master of arts. The security of the

kingdom was sensibly promoted by the erection of a cordon of fortresses

on its north-eastern borders, and a blow was given to foreign

interference when Casimir succeeded in gaining dominant influence over

the independent Polish principality of Masovia, which had hitherto

gravitated between Bohemia and the Teutonic Order.

Casimir's last political act was the conclusion of a fresh alliance with

Louis of Hungary against Charles IV. at Buda in 1369. He died on the 5th

of November 1370 from the effects of an injury received while hunting.

Though married three times Casimir left no sons; but he had the

satisfaction of knowing that his domains would pass into the hands of a

nephew every whit as capable and sagacious as himself.

See Jan Leniek, _The Congress of Visegrad_ (Pol.), (Lemberg, 1884);

J.K. Kochanowski, _Casimir the Great_ (Pol.), (Warsaw, 1900);

Kazimierz J. Gorzycki, _The Annexation of Red Russia by Casimir the

Great_ (Pol.), (Lemberg, 1889); Stanislaw Kryzanowski, _The Embassy of

Casimir the Great to Avignon_ (Pol.), (Cracow, 1900). (R. N. B.)

CASIMIR IV., king of Poland (1427-1492), second son of Wladislaus II.

Jagiello, was appointed while still a lad grand-duke of Lithuania by his

father, and crowned king of Poland at Cracow in June 1447, three years

after the death of his elder brother, Wladislaus III., at the battle of

Varna. The cause of this long interregnum was the disinclination of the

Lithuanians to part with their prince till their outstanding differences

with Poland, relating chiefly to the delimitation of the frontiers of

the two states, had been settled. Casimir's reign of forty-five years

was epoch-making for Poland. He was without doubt one of the greatest

statesmen of his age, concealing beneath a simple exterior and homely

habits a profound political sagacity and an unerring common-sense, and

possessing in a high degree those useful qualities of patience,

moderation, and tenacity, which characterized nearly all the princes of

the house of Jagiello. Throughout life he steadily followed two guiding

principles--the preservation of the political union between Poland and

Lithuania at whatever cost, and the recovery of the lost lands of old

Poland. It was due entirely to his steadfast adherence to these

principles that Poland in the course of the 15th century rose to the

rank of a great power; but by a singular irony of fate, Casimir, in

consequence of his unswerving efforts to make his country glorious and

prosperous, entirely forfeited the popularity of his Polish subjects,

whose true interests he understood far better than they did themselves.

Thus his refusal to sacrifice Polish to Lithuanian or Lithuanian to

Polish interests caused both Poles and Lithuanians to accuse the

far-seeing monarch of partiality and favouritism; while his anti-German

policy, on which the future safety of the dual state depended, could

only be carried through by the most humiliating concessions to patrician

pride and greed. His difficulties were moreover considerably enhanced by

the fact that he was not of an essentially martial temperament, and

could not therefore appeal to the heroic side of the Polish character.

The great triumph of Casimir's reign was the final subjugation of the

Teutonic Order, a triumph only accomplished after a harassing and

desultory thirteen years' war, during which Casimir's own subjects gave

him more trouble than all his enemies. The pretext of the rupture was

the attempt of the knights to crush the Prussian diet, which, bearing

as it did most of the burdens, claimed fairly enough a proportionate

share in the government of the Prussian provinces. Excommunicated by the

pope and placed under the ban of the Empire, the Prussian cities and

gentry naturally turned to their nearest neighbour, Poland, for

protection. In October 1453 they placed themselves beneath the

overlordship of Casimir; on the 4th of February 1454 formally renounced

their ancient allegiance to the Order; and some weeks later captured no

fewer than fifty-seven towns and castles. On the 6th of March 1454

Casimir issued a manifesto directing the incorporation of the Prussian

provinces with Poland, but granting them at the same time freedom from

taxation and full autonomy. But except in the border province of Great

Poland, the acquisition of this new territory excited little interest

and no enthusiasm in Poland generally. The local diets granted subsidies

with a niggard hand, and for the conduct of the war the king soon had to

depend almost entirely on Hussite mercenaries, who frequently turned

against him when their wages were not paid. The Polish gentry on the

other hand exhibited far less energy in the field than in the council

chamber; they were defeated again and again by the knights, and showed

themselves utterly incapable of taking fortresses. No wonder then if in

the earlier years of the war the Order recovered its lost ground, and

the king, irritated beyond endurance by the suicidal parsimony of the

estates, threatened to retire to the forests of Lithuania. But manlier

counsels prevailed, the struggle was resumed, and after the bloody

victory of Puck (September 17, 1462) the scales of fortune inclined

decisively to the side of Poland. Finally the Holy See intervened, and

by the second peace of Thorn (October 14, 1466) all West Prussia, as it

is now called, was ceded to Poland, while East Prussia was left in the

hands of the knights, who held it as a fief of the Polish crown.

The intervention of the Curia, which hitherto had been hostile to

Casimir because of his steady and patriotic resistance to papal

aggression, was due to the permutations of European politics. The pope

was anxious to get rid of the Hussite king of Bohemia, George

Podebrad, as the first step towards the formation of a league against

the Turk. Casimir was to be a leading factor in this combination, and he

took advantage of it to procure the election of his son Wladislaus as

king of Bohemia. But he would not commit himself too far, and his

ulterior plans were frustrated by the rivalry of Matthias Corvinus, king

of Hungary, who even went so far as to stimulate the Teutonic Order to

rise against Casimir. The death of Matthias in 1490 was a great relief

to Poland, and Casimir employed the two remaining years of his reign in

consolidating his position still further. He expired rather suddenly

while hunting at Troki in Lithuania in June 1492.

The feature of Casimir's character which most impressed his

contemporaries was his extraordinary simplicity and sobriety. He, one of

the greatest monarchs in Europe, habitually wore plain Cracow cloth,

drank nothing but water, and kept the most austere of tables. His one

passion was the chase. Yet his liberality to his ministers and servants

was proverbial, and his vanquished enemies he always treated with

magnificent generosity. Casimir's married life was singularly happy. His

consort, Elizabeth of Austria, "the mother of the Jagiellos," bore him

six sons and seven daughters, and by her affection and good counsel

materially relieved the constant anxieties and grievous burdens of his

long and arduous reign.

See Jan Dlugosz, _Opera_ (Cracow, 1887); August Sokolowski,

_Illustrated History of Poland_ (Pol.), vol. ii. (Vienna, 1904).

(R. N. B.)

CASIMIR-PERIER, JEAN PAUL PIERRE (1847-1907), fifth president of the

French Republic, was born in Paris on the 8th of November 1847, being the

grandson of Casimir Pierre Perier (q.v.) the famous premier of Louis

Philippe. He entered public life as secretary to his father, A.V.L.C.

Perier, who was minister of the interior under the presidency of Thiers.

In 1874 he was elected general councillor of the Aube, and was sent by

the same department to the chamber of deputies in the general elections

of 1876, and he was always re-elected until his presidency. In spite of

the traditions of his family, Casimir-Perier joined the group of

Republicans on the Left, and was one of the 363 on the _Seize-Mai_

(1877). If he refused to vote the expulsion of the princes in 1883, and

resigned as deputy upon the enactment of the law, it was only owing to

personal connexions with the family of Orleans. On the 17th of August

1883 he became under-secretary of state for war, and retained that

position until the 7th of January 1885. From 1890 to 1892 he was

vice-president of the chamber, then in 1893 president. On the 3rd of

December he became prime-minister, holding the department of foreign

affairs, resigned in May 1894, and was re-elected president of the

chamber. On the 24th of June 1894, after the assassination of President

Carnot, he was elected president of the republic by 451 votes against 195

for Henri Brisson and 97 for Charles Dupuy. His presidency lasted only

six months. The resignation of the Dupuy ministry on the 14th of January

1895 was followed the next day by that of the president. Casimir-Perier

explained his action by the fact that he found himself ignored by the

ministers, who did not consult him before taking decisions, and did not

keep him informed upon political events, especially in foreign affairs.

From that time he definitely and absolutely abandoned politics, and

devoted himself to business--especially mining. At the trial of Dreyfus

at Rennes, Casimir-Perier's evidence, as opposed to that of General

Mercier, was of great value to the cause of Dreyfus. He died on the 11th

of March 1907.

CASINO (diminutive of _casa_, a house), the Italian name for a

pleasure-house in a garden, which has been extended to a place of public

amusement at pleasure resorts, in which concerts, theatrical

performances and public balls are given, and which usually contains a

_cafe-restaurant_ and gaming saloons. "Casino" as an architectural term

is still employed in France, and the subject is given in competitive

programmes in the French schools of design. In the 18th century in

England many Italian examples were built in the parks of country

mansions, and Sir William Chambers in his treatise on civil architecture

publishes plates of the casinos he had built at Marino, near Dublin,

Wilton near Salisbury, and Birdshall, Yorkshire.

_Casino_ or _Cassino_ is also the name given to a game of cards of

obscure origin, played with a full whist-pack. The object is to take as

many cards as possible, particularly such as have special value. It may

be played by two, three or four persons, partners sitting opposite one

another. The player at the dealer's right is called the pony (_pone_),

the one at his left the eldest hand. The dealer (selected by the cut of

the lowest card) deals four cards to each player by twos and also, just

before dealing to himself, four to the table, face upwards. The eldest

hand begins the game by playing a card in one of three ways. Either he

may take one of the exposed cards on the table by matching it with one

from his own hand; or he may put one of his cards upon one of the table

hand and call the sum of the pips (called _building_); or thirdly,

failing to do either of these things, he must _trail_, i.e. lay a card

face upwards on the table beside the exposed cards, and the player at

his left then plays in his turn. When each player has played out all

four of his cards the dealer deals four more all round, and the game

proceeds until the pack is exhausted. The game either (1) ends at this

juncture, the player having secured the most points winning; or (2) the

side or player first securing 21 points wins; or (3) the points secured

in a given number of deals may determine the winner. The points and

their respective values are as follows:--_Big_ (or Great) _Casino_ (ten

of diamonds), 2; _Little Casino_ (deuce of spades), 1; _Cards_ (greatest

number), 3; _Spades_ (greatest number), 1; _Aces_, 1 each or 4 together;

_Sweeps_ 1 each. Thus, without _sweeps_, the maximum points in one deal

are 11. A sweep is a play that clears the table of all exposed cards.

The game then proceeds by the next player placing a card on the table

face upwards.

"Building," referred to above, is done as follows. Should a 3 lie

exposed on the table, a player may place a 4 upon it, saying, "I build

a 7," and, if it is not disturbed before his next turn, he may then

take the two cards with another 7 from his hand. It follows that no

combination may be built unless the builder holds the proper card in

his hand. But a build may be increased. Thus, in the case cited above,

another player may put a 2 upon the two cards which make 7 and say, "I

build 9," in which case the original builder loses control of the

build unless he also holds a 9 in his hand or can himself increase the

build again; for instance, adding an ace and calling 10. In the old

way of playing the ace counted 1, the deuce 2, and so on as at whist,

excepting that all court cards counted 10. But in the popular

variation called _Royal Casino_, now almost universally played, the

ace counts either 1 or 14, the king 13, the queen 12 and the knave 11.

In this manner the opportunities for simple and increased building are

greatly multiplied, resulting in a much livelier game.

If a player has made a build he must take it in on his next play,

unless he can take some other card. He cannot have two builds on the

table at the same time, nor increase another build if he already has

one of his own. _Double Builds_ cannot be increased, e.g. if a player

combines a 3 and 4 lying on the table and places a 7 from his hand

upon them, saying, "I build sevens," this build can be taken only with

a 7, and cannot be built upon further. Of course in the case cited the

builder must still have another 7 in his hand. In playing partners

each may take in the other's builds, or may build to a card that has

been declared by his partner; e.g. if his partner has built an 8 that

has been captured by an opponent, he may build another 8 with a card

from his own hand to the 8 that he knows to be in his partner's hand,

even though he has no 8 himself. In _trailing_, i.e. laying down a

card without matching or building, one usually plays small cards,

avoiding aces and (if Big and Little Casino have not yet been played)

tens and deuces, as well as any cards one has reason to think will be

of service to the enemy. High cards are usually played last, as they

are stronger in taking combinations. Such rules are, however, quite

general, each situation calling for special treatment. In the last

round all cards remaining on the table become the property of the

player taking the last trick. A good memory and keen powers of

observation are essential in playing this game.

In _Twenty-One-Point Casino_ nothing is scored until the end of the

deal. A second or third deal is usually necessary before one side

scores the requisite 21. In the final deal each side keeps a mental

count of the points made, and as soon as 21 are scored the game is

claimed and the points shown. But if, when added to those already

scored in previous deals, they make more or less than 21, the claimant

loses the game. In counting out _cards_ count first, followed by

_spades, Big Casino, Little Casino, aces_ and _sweeps_, in that order.

_Spade Casino_ is a variation in which the usual 11 points count as in

the regular game, and, in addition, each spade counts 1, excepting the

knave of spades, which counts 2, making 24 points in all. These are

scored on a cribbage-board, each point being marked as it is made. The

game is for 61 points, or once round the board and into the game-hole.

CASINUM, an ancient town of Italy, probably of Volscian origin. Varro

states that the name was Sabine, and meant _forum vetus_, and also that

the town itself was Samnite, but he is probably wrong. When it came

under Roman supremacy is not known, but it probably received the

citizenship in 188 B.C. It was the most south-easterly town in _Latium

adjectum_, situated on the Via Latina about 40 m. N.W. of Capua. It

appears occasionally in the history of the Hannibalic War. Varro

possessed a villa near it, in which later on Mark Antony held his

orgies. Towards the end of the republic it was a _praefectura_, and

under the empire it appears as a colony (perhaps founded by the

triumvirs), though in two (not local) inscriptions it is called

_municipium_. Strabo speaks of it as an important town; Varro mentions

the olive-oil of its district as especially good. The older Volscian

Casinum must have stood on the hill (1715 ft.) above the Roman town (148

ft.), where considerable remains of fortifications in Cyclopean masonry,

of finely cut blocks of limestone, still exist. The site is now occupied

by the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino (q.v.) founded by St

Benedict himself in 529. A number of Roman inscriptions from Casinum are

preserved there. The wall which runs south-west and west starting from

the west side of the monastery, for a total length of about 300 yds., is

not so clearly traceable on the other side of the hill, though there is

one fragment under the east side of the monastery; but it seems to have

defended the summit and was perhaps the original acropolis. The Roman

town lay at the foot of the mountain, close to the Via Latina. The

amphitheatre, erected by Ummidia Quadratilla (whose passion for actors

is mentioned by Pliny, _Epist._ vii. 24, on the occasion of her death at

the age of about eighty), is still existing: it is built of _opus

reticulatum_ and the five entrances are by arches of larger blocks of

stone; it is approximately circular in plan. The external walls are 59

ft. high. The seats in the interior have disappeared. Above it on the

hillside is a theatre of _opus reticulatum_, less well preserved. Close

by is a building converted into the Cappella del Crocefisso, originally

perhaps a tomb in the Via Latina; it is a chamber in the form of a Greek

cross, constructed of large masses of travertine, with a domed roof of

the same material. On the opposite bank of the Rapido are the ruins

called Monticelli, attributed to the villa of Varro, a part of which was

frequently drawn by the architects of the 16th century (T. Ashby in

_Papers of the British School at Rome_, ii. 19). The medieval town of S.

Germano, which resumed the name Cassino in 1871, lies a little to the

north. The cathedral was founded in the 8th century, but the present

building was constructed in the 17th century. The church of S. Maria

delle Cinque Torri contains twelve ancient marble columns; above the

town is a picturesque medieval castle. (T. As.)

CASIRI, MIGUEL (1710-1791), a learned Maronite, was born at Tripoli

(Syria) in 1710. He studied at Rome, where he lectured on Arabic,

Syriac, Chaldee, philosophy and theology. In 1748 he went to Spain, and

was employed in the royal library at Madrid. He was successively

appointed a member of the Royal Academy of History, interpreter of

oriental languages to the king, and joint-librarian at the Escorial. In

1763 he became principal librarian, a post which he appears to have held

till his death in 1791. Casiri published a work entitled _Bibliotheca

Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis_ (2 vols., Madrid, 1760-1770). It is a

catalogue of above 1800 Arabic MSS., which he found in the library of

the Escorial; it also contains a number of quotations from Arabic works

on history. The MSS. are classified according to subjects; the second

volume gives an account of a large collection of geographical and

historical MSS., which contain valuable information regarding the wars

between the Moors and the Christians in Spain. Casiri's work is not yet

obsolete, but a more scientific system is adopted in Hartwig

Derenbourg's incomplete treatise, _Les Manuscrits arabes de l'Escorial_

(Paris, 1884).

CASKET, a small box or coffer, commonly used for jewels, money, papers,

or other objects of value. The etymology is doubtful. It is possibly a

diminutive of "cask," a barrel for wine or other liquor. The Spanish

_casco_ meant also a skull, helmet, or rind of an onion, and is probably

connected with _cascar_, to break open, Latin _quassare_, French

_casser_, to break, shake. The French _casque, casquet_, of the same

origin is only used of a helmet, and the sense of "small chest" is not

found in languages other than English. Skeat suggests that the word is a

corruption of French _cassette_, diminutive of _casse_, box, Latin

_capsa_, from _capere_, to hold, contain, cf. English "case." History

and literature are full of references to the often disconcerting

contents of these famous receptacles. The "Casket Letters" (q.v.) are

one of the mysteries of history. Harpagnon's casket plays an important

part in Moliere's _L'Avare_; Bluebeard gives his too-curious wife the

keys of his caskets filled with precious stones; the contents of

Sainte-Croix's casket brought about the trial and condemnation of the

marquise de Brinvilliers, the poisoner. This very ancient piece of

furniture was no doubt derived from the chest, which was the original

wardrobe. It was often an object of great value, covered with ivory,

enamel, or stamped leather, enriched with precious metals, or encrusted

with jewels. One which belonged to St Louis and is preserved in the

Louvre is covered with enamelled shields of arms and other decorations.

In the 16th and 17th centuries secret hiding-places were sometimes in

the thickness of the lid or in a false bottom. The word is now little

used--the natural result of the desuetude of the object; but auctioneers

occasionally announce that they will sell a "casket of jewels," and

undertakers, especially in the United States, frequently use it as a

grandiose synonym for "coffin."

CASKET LETTERS. This is the name generally given to eight letters, and a

sequence of irregular sonnets, all described as originally in French,

and said to have been addressed by Mary, queen of Scots, to the earl of

Bothwell, between January and April 1566-1567. The nature of these

documents--authentic, forged, or partly forged, partly genuine--has been

the theme of much discussion. If authentic throughout, they afford

perfect proof of Mary's complicity in the murder of her husband, Henry,

Lord Darnley. The topic is so perplexing, and possibilities are so

delicately balanced, that inquirers may change their views, and modify

or reverse their opinions, on the appearance of each fresh document that

is brought to light; or even upon a new consideration of existing

evidence. Controversy centres round a very long and singular undated

epistle called "The Glasgow Letter" or "Letter II." If Mary wrote all of

this, or even wrote some compromising parts of it, she was certainly

guilty. But two questions remain to be settled--(1) did her accusers at

one time possess another version of this letter which if it existed was

beyond doubt a forgery? and (2) is not part of Letter II. a forged

interpolation, based on another document, not by Mary?

The whole affair has been obscured and almost inextricably entangled, as

we shall see, by the behaviour of Mary's accusers. Of these Maitland of

Lethington was consenting to Darnley's murder; the earl of Morton had,

at least, guilty foreknowledge; the regent Moray (Mary's natural

brother) had "looked through his fingers" at the crime, and for months

remained on intimate terms with the criminals. He also perjured himself

when putting before Elizabeth's commission of inquiry at Westminster

(December 1568) a copy of the confession of Hepburn of Bowton (Cotton

MSS. British Museum. Caligula C.I. fol. 325). This is attested as a

"true copy," but Moray, who had been present when Bowton was examined

(December 8, 1567), knew that the copy presented at Westminster

(December 1568) had been mutilated because the excised passages were

damning to Lethington and the earl of Morton, accomplices in the crime

of Darnley's murder, and accomplices of Moray in his prosecution of his

sister. (See in Cambridge University Library, MS. Oo. 47, fol. 5 et seq.

Compare the MS. copy of the confession in the British Museum, Cotton

MSS. Caligula, C.I. fol. 325, printed in Anderson's _Collections_, vol.

ii. pp. 183-188.)

If Moray the righteous could act thus, much more might the murderer

Morton perjure himself in his averment that there had been no tampering

with the Casket Letters in his custody. We cannot, in short, believe

Mary's accusers on their oaths. When they all went, in October-December

1568, to York and London to accuse their queen--and before that, in

their proclamations--they contradicted themselves freely and frequently;

they put in a list of dates which made Mary's authorship of Letter II.

impossible; and they rang the changes on Scots translations of the

alleged French originals, and on the French itself. For example, when

Moray, after Mary was in Elizabeth's power (May 16, 1568), wished

Elizabeth to have the matter tried, he in May-June 1568 sent John Wood

to England with Scots translations of the letters. Wood was to ask, "if

the French originals are found to tally with the Scots translations,

will that be reckoned good evidence?" It was as easy to send copies of

the French, and thus give no ground for the suspicion that the Scots

letters were altered on the basis of information acquired between May

and October 1568, and that the French versions were made to fit the new

form of the Scots copies. Another source of confusion, now removed, was

the later publication in France of the letters in French. This French

did not correspond with French copies of some of the originals recently

discovered in Cecil's MSS. and elsewhere. But that is no ground of

suspicion, for the published French letters were not copies of the

alleged originals, but translations of Latin translations of them, from

the Scots (see T.F. Henderson, _The Casket Letters_, 1890). German

historians have not made matters more clear by treating the Letters on

the principle of "the higher criticism" of Homer and the Bible. They

find that the documents are of composite origin, partly notes from Mary

to Darnley, partly a diary of Mary's, and so on; all combined and edited

by some one who played the part of the legendary editorial committee of

Peisistratus (see HOMER), which compiled the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ out

of fragmentary lays! From all these causes, and others, arise confusion

and suspicion.

So much information unknown to older disputants such as Goodall, the

elder Tytler, Chalmers, and Malcolm Laing, and in certain cases unknown

even to Froude and Skelton, has accrued, that the question can now best

be studied in _The Casket Letters_, by T.F. Henderson (1889; second

issue, 1890, being the more accurate); in _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_,

by Andrew Lang (4th edition, 1904), and in Henderson's criticism of that

book, in his _Mary, Queen of Scots_ (1905) (Appendix A). The conclusion

arrived at here is that of Henderson, but it is reached independently.

The history of the letters must be given in summary. Henderson, in _The

Casket Letters_ (1889), was the first to publish and use as evidence a

document of which the existence was made known in the fifth report of

the royal commission on historical manuscripts. It is a sworn statement

of the earl of Morton, written in 1568. A silver casket (originally

Mary's property, but then in the possession of Bothwell) was placed in

his hands on the 20th of June, and was inspected by several nobles and

gentlemen on the 21st of June 1567. Morton denies that the contents, the

letters, sonnets, and some other papers, had been in any way tampered

with. But if Moray could knowingly submit garbled evidence, Morton's

oath is of no value if uncorroborated.

Mary was, on the 21st of June 1567, a prisoner in Loch Leven Castle. A

messenger was at once sent from Edinburgh to London with a letter from

Lethington and a verbal message. By the 12th of July, de Silva, the

Spanish ambassador, reports on the authority of the French ambassador

that du Croc, French envoy to Scotland, avers that Mary's Scottish

enemies have autograph letters of hers proving her guilt, and himself

possesses copies. Of these copies no more is heard, and they cannot be

found. According to de Silva, Elizabeth said that she did not believe in

the Letters, and that Lethington, who wrote to Cecil on the 21st of

June, and sent a verbal message by the bearer, "had behaved badly in the

matter,"--whether that of the letters, or in general. On what evidence

she based that opinion, if she really held it, is unknown. In December

1567 the Scottish parliament was informed that the letters were _signed_

by Mary (they are unsigned), but the phrase is not used in the

subsequent act of parliament. The letters were exhibited and apparently

were read, probably read aloud. Mary's party in September 1568 declared

that they were garbled, and that the handwriting was not hers. In the

end of July 1567 the earl of Moray, Mary's brother, passing through

London from France, told de Silva, as de Silva reported to his

government, that there was proof of Mary's guilt in a letter of three

double sheets of paper _signed_ by her.

According to Moray's version of the letter, Mary was to try to poison

Darnley in a house on the way between Glasgow and Edinburgh where he and

she were to stop. Clearly Lord Livingstone's house, Callendar, where

they did rest on their journey, is intended. If this failed, Mary would

put Darnley "in the house where the explosion was arranged for the night

upon which one of the servants was to be married." No such arrangement

had been made, as the confessions of the murderers, at which Moray was

present, clearly prove. It may be said that de Silva means "the house in

which the explosion was _afterwards_ arranged." But the earl of Lennox,

Darnley's father, understood Moray to mean that as early as January

21-22, 1567, the house of Kirk o' Field, where Darnley was slain, had

already been mined. Moray's version of the letter made Mary tell

Bothwell to poison or put away his wife. No such matters occur in Letter

II.; Moray spoke, he said, on the authority of "a man who had read the

letter." A similar account of this letter is given in a document of

Darnley's father, the earl of Lennox (Cambridge University Library MSS.

Oo. 7. 47; f. 17 b.). Can we suppose that "the man who had read the

letter" invented much of its contents, and told them to Moray, who told

de Silva, and told Darnley's father, Lennox, then in or near London?

At this point comes in the evidence--unknown to Froude, Skelton, Hosack,

and Henderson in his book _The Casket Letters_--of a number of

documents, notes of information, and indictments of Mary, written for or

by the earl of Lennox. These MSS are in the University Library of

Cambridge, and were transcribed by Father Stevenson. His transcripts

were brought to light by Father Pollen, S.J., who lent them, with his

own notes on them, to Andrew Lang for use in his book, _The Mystery of

Mary Stuart_ (1900-1904).

Not one of the Lennox documents is dated; all but one are endorsed in an

English hand of the period. It may be conjectured that they were

selected by Lennox from his papers, and lent by him to some one who was

writing against Mary. Among them (Cambridge University MSS. Oo. 7. 47.

fol. 17 b.) is a long indictment of Mary, in which Lennox describes a

wicked letter of hers. As has been said, he closely follows Moray's

version reported by de Silva in July 1567. Lennox also gives several

stories of cruel words of Mary spoken to Darnley in the hearing of her

servants.

Now, on the 11th of June 1568, Lennox was in the company of John Wood, a

creature of Moray's, and Wood, as we saw, brought copies of the Scots

renderings of the Letters into England in May-June 1568. It was argued

by Andrew Lang that Wood was likely to show these letters to Lennox; and

that as Lennox follows Moray's version of Mary's long and murderous

letter, and does _not_ follow Letter II., the murderous letter (a

forgery) was then part of the _dossier_ of Mary's accusers. Again, as

Lennox's indictment of Mary (Cambridge Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.) is rife in

"reports and sayings of Mary's servants" about her cruel words to

Darnley, and as Lennox had not these reports on the 11th of June 1568,

for on that day he wrote to Scotland asking his friends to discover them

and send them to him, the indictment (Oo. 7. 47) must have been composed

long after the 11th of June. This must be so, for Lennox's letters of

the 11th of June were intercepted by his foes, the Hamiltons, and were

found in the Hamilton Muniment Room. Thus answers to his inquiries were

delayed. (The letters of Lennox were published in _Miscellany of the

Maitland Club_, vol. iv.)

Henderson, on the other side, believes that Wood "indubitably" showed to

Lennox the Scots copies of the Casket Letters about the 11th of June

1568. But Lennox, he says, could not quote Letter II. in his indictment

against Mary, and had to rest on Moray's version of July 1567, because

Lennox's indictment was completed, and even laid before Elizabeth, as

early as the 28th of May 1568. Henderson seeks to prove that this is so

by quoting from Chalmers's _Mary Queen of Scots_ (vol. ii. p. 289) the

statement that Lennox and his wife on that day presented to Elizabeth a

"Bill of Supplication"; and (though he submits that the indictment [Oo.

7. 47] is a _draft_ for the Bill) he strengthens his case by heading the

indictment, which he publishes, _Bill of Supplication_. The document, in

fact, is unendorsed, and without a title, and there is not a word of

"supplication" in it. It is a self-contradictory history of the

relations between Mary and Darnley.

Henderson's contention therefore seems erroneous. Lennox could not begin

to prepare an English indictment against Mary till she was in England

and in Elizabeth's power. He could not hear of this fact--Mary's arrival

in England (May 16, 1568)--before, say, the 19th of May; and between the

19th of May and the 28th of May he could not write for and receive from

Scotland "the reports and sayings of her servants." He did not possess

them on the 11th of June, when he asked for them; he did not get them at

once, for his letters were intercepted; the indictment (Oo. 7. 47) is

rich in them; therefore that paper is not the "Bill of Supplication" of

the 28th of May.

Thus the question remains, why, if Wood about the 11th of June showed to

Lennox Letter II. in Scots, did Lennox follow Moray's erroneous version

of July 1567? Because in June 1568 that version, forged, was in the

Scots collection of the Casket Letters? If so, there was time for Lennox

to lend to the accusers certain notes which a retainer of his, Thomas

Crawford of Jordan Hill, swore (December 9, 1568) that he had made for

Lennox (about January 22, 1567) of secret conversations between Darnley

and Mary. Lennox (June 11, 1568) asked Crawford for his reminiscences,

_not_ of Darnley's reports of his talks with Mary, but of Crawford's own

interview with her as she entered Glasgow to visit Darnley, probably on

the 21st of January 1567. It follows that Lennox possessed Crawford's

written notes of the Darnley and Mary conversations. If he had not

possessed them on the 11th of June 1568, he must have asked Crawford

for his reminiscences of these talks. But he did not ask.

Crawford's evidence was all-important, because it corroborated Mary's

own account of her interviews with Darnley in Letter II. That part of

the letter then, it is argued by many, is a forged interpolation based

on Crawford's notes and memories. The force of this contention lies in

the close verbal identities between Crawford's account of the

Darnley-Mary interviews (see Crawford's Declaration of December 9, 1568,

in Lang's _Mystery of Mary Stuart_, pp. 428-431; from _State Papers

Scotland_, Elizabeth vol. xiii. No. 14. Record Office) and the

corresponding passages in Letter II. (_Mystery of Mary Stuart_, pp.

396-398). The verbal identities can only be explained in one of the

following ways. Either Letter II. is here based on Crawford; or Crawford

has copied Letter II. by way of corroborating it (a fatal step, if the

case came before a modern English court of justice); or Darnley's memory

of his conversation with Mary was so fresh, when he dictated his

recollection of it to Crawford on 21st-22nd January 1567, that he

reported speeches in almost the very same words as Mary used in writing

Letter II. Henderson prefers the hypothesis that Lennox had lost

Crawford's notes; and that the identities are explained by the

"remarkably good memories of Crawford and Mary, or by the more likely

supposition that Crawford, before preparing his declaration for the

conference" (at Westminster, December 1568) "refreshed his memory by the

letter." (Letter II., _Mary Queen of Scots_, p. 650.)

Mary did not need a particularly good memory; if she wrote, she wrote

unchecked her recollections of the day's talk. But no human memory of a

conversation reported on the 22nd of January 1567, could be so nearly

"word perfect" as Crawford's must have been two years later. If Crawford

"refreshed his memory by the letter," he exposed himself, and the entire

case, by copying whole passages, often with few verbal changes. If he

had access to his original notes of the 21st and 22nd of January 1567,

then he was safe--that is, if Darnley's memory of the conversations

tallied so exactly with Mary's. Whether that could be, Darnley dictating

while still hot from the exciting interchange of words which he meant to

report, is a question for psychologists. Experiments made by a person

who possesses a good memory seem to show that the thing is very

possible, especially if Darnley revised Crawford's notes.

Thus the probabilities are delicately balanced. But if any one compares

Crawford's whole declaration with Letter II. in Scots, he will find that

Crawford has sources of information not yielded by Letter II.; while

Letter II. abounds in matter spoken by Mary and Darnley which could not

be borrowed by the hypothetical forger from Crawford's Declaration, for

it does not contain the facts. These facts, again, in Letter II., are

worthless to a forger, because they concern matters never alluded to in

any of the records; never employed in any indictment (though Lennox's

are copious in private talk between Darnley and Mary, "reports of her

servants "), and totally useless for the purposes of the accusers. Here

is one of several examples. Letter II. has, and Crawford has not, the

statement that Darnley "showed me, amongst other talk, that he knew well

enough that my brother had revealed to me what he (Darnley) had spoken

at Stirling. Of this he (Darnley) denies half, and above all that he

(the brother?) ever came to his (Darnley's) chamber."

Nothing is known about this matter. The Lennox papers are full of

reports of bitter words that passed between Darnley and Mary at Stirling

(December 1566), where Darnley was sulking apart while the festivities

of the baptism of his son (later James VI.) were being held. But nothing

is said in the Lennox papers of words spoken by Darnley to Mary's

brother (probably Lord Robert of Holyrood) and revealed by Lord Robert

to Mary. Lord Robert was the only friend of Darnley in Mary's entourage;

and he even, according to the accusers, warned him of his danger in Kirk

o' Field, to which they said that a Casket Letter (III.) referred. The

reference is only to be seen by willing eyes.

Is it credible that a forger, using Crawford's Declaration, which is

silent as to Mary's brother at Stirling, should have superfluously added

what is not to any purpose? Could he have combined with Crawford's

matter the passage "he (Darnley) showed me almost all that is in name of

the Bishop and Sutherland, and yet I have never touched a word of what

you (Bothwell) showed me ... and by complaining of the Bishop, I have

drawn it all out of him."

Who but Mary herself could have written about this unknown affair of the

Bishop, and what had the supposed forger to gain by inventing and adding

these references to affairs unconnected with the case?

There remains what looks like absolute proof that, in essence,

Crawford's Declaration and Letter II. are independent documents. We are

not aware that this crucial point has been noticed by the earlier

critics of the Letters. In Letter II. (paragraph 7, p. 398, in Lang's

_Mystery of Mary Stuart_, 1901) Mary writes, "I asked why he (Darnley)

would pass away in the English ship. He denies it, and swears thereunto;

but he grants that he spoke unto the men." Here Crawford's declaration

has, "She asked him why he would pass away in the English ship. He

answered that he had spoken with the Englishman, but not of mind to go

away with him. And, if he had, it had not been without cause,

considering how he was used. For he had neither [means] to sustain

himself nor his servants, and need not make further rehearsal thereof,

seeing she knew it as well as he." (_Mystery of Mary Stuart_, p. 429.)

It may seem to the reader doubtful whether these complaints are words of

Darnley's, or an indignant addition by his friend Crawford. But Mary, in

Letter II., shows that the complaints and the self-defence are Darnley's

own. It was in paragraph 7 that she wrote about the English ship; she

did not then give Darnley's remonstrances, as Crawford does. But in

paragraph 18 (_Mystery_, p. 406) Mary returns to the subject, and

writes, "He (Darnley) spoke very bravely at the beginning, as the bearer

will show you, upon the subject of the Englishmen, and of his departing;

but in the end he returned to his humility."

Thus it is certain that Darnley had reported to Crawford his brave words

and reproaches of Mary, which Crawford gives in the proper place. But

Letter II. omits them in that place (paragraph 7); and only on her

second day of writing, in paragraph 18, does Mary's mind recur to

Darnley's first brave words--"he spoke very bravely at the beginning,"

about his wrongs, "but in the end he returned again to his humility."

Here is proof positive that Crawford does not copy Letter II., but gives

Darnley's words as reported to him by Darnley--words that Darnley was

proud of,--while Mary, returning on the second day of writing to the

topic, does not quote Darnley's brave words, but merely contrasts his

speaking "very bravely at the beginning" with his pitiful and craven

later submission; "he has ever the tear in his eye," with what follows.

(_Mystery_, paragraph 12, p. 402.)

When we add to these and other proofs the strange lists of memoranda in

the middle of the pages of the letter, and the breach in internal

chronology which was apparently caused by Mary's writing, on her second

day, on the clean verso of a page on the other side of which she had

written some lines during her first night in Glasgow; when we add the

dramatic changes of her mood, and the heart-breaking evidence of a

remorse not stifled by lawless love, we seem compelled to believe that

she wrote the whole of Letter II.; that none of it is forged.

In _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_ the evidence for an early forged letter

was presented with confidence; the interpolation of forgeries based on

Crawford's declaration was more dubiously suggested. That position the

writer now abandons. It may be asked why, after being with Wood on the

11th of June, did Lennox still rely on Moray's version of Mary's letter?

The reply may be that the Scots versions were regarded as a great

secret; that Lennox was a married man; and that though Lennox in June

knew about Mary's letters, doubtless from Wood, or from common report

(Bishop Jewell in a letter of August 1567 mentions that he had heard of

them), yet Wood did not show to him the Scots copies. Lennox quotes

Letter II. later, in an indictment to be read to the commission sitting

at York (October 1568). But, on the other hand, as Lennox after meeting

Wood wrote to Crawford for his reminiscences of his own interview with

Mary (January 21, 1567), and as these reminiscences were only useful as

corroborative of Mary's account in Letter II., it seems that Wood had

either shown Lennox the letters or had spoken of their contents. In that

case, when Lennox later quotes Moray's version, not Letter II. itself,

he is only acting with the self-contradictory stupidity which pervades

his whole indictment (Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.).

The letters are not known to have been seen by any man--they or the

silver casket--after the death of the earl of Gowrie (who possessed

them). In May 1584 Bowes, the English ambassador to Holyrood, had

endeavoured to procure them for Elizabeth, "for the secrecy and benefit

of the cause." Conceivably the letters fell into the hands of James VI.

and were destroyed by his orders. (A. L.)

CASLON, the name of a famous family of English typefounders. William

Caslon (1692-1766), the first of the name, was born at Cradley,

Worcestershire, and in 1716 started business in London as an engraver of

gun locks and barrels, and as a bookbinder's tool-cutter. Being thus

brought into contact with printers, he was induced to fit up a type

foundry, largely through the encouragement of William Bowyer. The

distinction and legibility of his type secured him the patronage of the

leading printers of the day in England and on the continent. The use of

Caslon types, discontinued about the beginning of the 19th century, was

revived about 1845 at the suggestion of Sir Henry Cole, and used for

printing the _Diary of Lady Willoughby_ (a pseudo-17th-century story) by

the Chiswick Press. The headline on this page is "Caslon Old Face." He

died on the 23rd of January 1766. His son, William Caslon (1720-1778),

who had been partner with his father for some years, continued the

business.

CASPARI, KARL PAUL (1814-1892), German Lutheran theologian and

orientalist, was born of Jewish parents at Dessau, Anhalt, on the 8th of

February 1814. He studied at Leipzig and Berlin, became a Christian in

1838, and in 1857 was appointed professor of theology at Christiania,

having declined invitations to Rostock and Erlangen. He died at

Christiania on the 11th of April 1892. Caspari is best known as the

author of an Arabic grammar (_Grammatica Arabica_, 2 vols., 1844-1848;

new edition, _Arabische Grammatik_, edited by A. Muller; 5th ed. 1887).

He also wrote commentaries on the prophetical books of the Old

Testament, dogmatic and historical works on baptism, and from 1857

helped to edit the _Theologisk Tidskrift for den evangelisk-lutherske

Kirke i Norge_. His writings include: _Beitrage zur Einleitung in

Jesaja_ (1848), and _Alte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des

Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel_ (1879).

CASPIAN SEA (anc. _Mare Caspium_ or _Mare Hyrcanium_; Russian,

_Kaspiyskoe More_, formerly _Hvalynskoe More_; Persian, _Darya-i-Khyzyr_

or _Gurzem_; Tatar, _Ak-denghiz_; the _Sikim_ and _Jurjan_ of the

ancient Eastern geographers), an inland sea between Europe and Asia,

extending from 36 deg. 40' to 47 deg. 20' N. lat., and from 46 deg. 50'

to 55 deg. 10' E. long. Its length is 760 m. from N. to S., and its

breadth 100 to 280 m., and its area reaches 169,330 sq. m., of which 865

sq. m. belong to its islands. It fills the deepest part of a vast

depression, sometimes known as the Aralo-Caspian depression, once an

inland sea, the Eurasian Mediterranean or Sarmatian Ocean. At the

present time its surface lies 86 ft. below the level of the ocean, or

96.7 ft. according to the Aral-Caspian levelling[1] and 242.7 ft. below

the level of the Aral.

_Hydrography and Shores._--The hydrography of the Caspian Sea has been

studied by von Baer, by N. Ivashintsev (1819-1871) in 1862-1870, by O.

Grimm, N.I. Andrusov (1895), and by J.B. Spindler (1897), N. von

Seidlitz and N. Knipovich (1904) since the last quoted date. Its basin

is divided naturally into three sections--(1) A northern, forming in the

east the Gulf of Mortvyi Kultuk or Tsarevich Bay. This is the shallowest

part, barely reaching a depth of 20 fathoms. It is being gradually

silted up by the sedimentary deposits brought down by the rivers Volga,

Ural and Terek. The western shore, from the delta of the Volga to the

mouth of the Kuma, a distance of 170 m., is gashed by thousands of

narrow channels or lagoons, termed _limans_, from 12 to 30 m. in length,

and separated in some cases by chains of hillocks, called _bugors_, in

others by sandbanks. These channels are filled, sometimes with

sea-water, sometimes with overflow water from the Volga and the Kuma.

The coast-line of the Gulf of Mortvyi Kultuk on the north-east is, on

the other hand, formed by a range of low calcareous hills, constituting

the rampart of the Ust-Urt plateau, which intervenes between the Caspian

and the Sea of Aral. On the south this gulf is backed by the conjoined

peninsulas of Busachi and Manghishlak, into which penetrates the long,

narrow, curving bay or fjord of Kaidak or Kara-su. (2) South of the line

joining the Bay of Kuma with the Manghishlak peninsula, in 44 deg. 10'

N. lat., the western shore is higher and the water deepens considerably,

being over one-half of the area 50 fathoms, while the maximum depth

(between 41 deg. and 42 deg. N. lat.) reaches 437 fathoms. This, the

middle section of the Caspian, which extends as far as the Apsheron

peninsula, receives the Terek and several smaller streams (e.g. Sulak,

Samur), that drain the northern slopes of the Caucasus. At Derbent, just

north of 42 deg. lat., a spur of the Caucasus approaches so close to the

sea as to leave room for only a narrow passage, the _Caspiae Pylae_ or

_Albanae Portae_, which has been fortified for centuries. The eastern

shore of this section of the sea is also formed by the Ust-Urt plateau,

which rises 550 ft. to 750 ft. above the level of the Caspian; but in 42

deg. N. lat. the Ust-Urt recedes from the Caspian and circles round the

Gulf of Kara-boghaz or Kara-bugaz (also called Aji-darya and

Kuli-darya). This subsidiary basin is separated from the Caspian by a

narrow sandbar, pierced by a strait 1-1/4 m. long and only 115 to 170

yds. wide, through which a current flows continuously into the gulf at

the rate of 1-1/2 to 5 m. an hour, the mean velocity at the surface

being 3 m. an hour. To this there exists no compensating outflow current

at a greater depth, as is usually the case in similar situations. The

area of this lateral basin being about 7100 sq. m., and its depth but

comparatively slight (3-1/2 to 36 ft.), the evaporation is very

appreciable (amounting to 3.2 ft. per annum), and sufficient, according

to von Baer, to account for the perpetual inflow from the Caspian. South

of the Kara-Boghaz Bay the coast rises again in another peninsula,

formed by an extension of the Balkhan Mountains. This marks (40 deg. N.

lat.) the southern boundary of the middle section of the Caspian. This

basin may be, on the whole, considered as a continuation of the

synclinal depression of the Manych, which stretches along the northern

foot of the Caucasus from the Sea of Azov. It is separated from (3), the

southern and deepest section of the Caspian, by a submarine ridge (30 to

150 fathoms of water), which links the main range of the Caucasus on the

west with the Kopet-dagh in the Transcaspian region on the east. This

section of the sea washes on the south the base of the Elburz range in

Persia, sweeping round from the mouth of the Kura, a little north of the

Bay of Kizil-agach, to Astarabad at an average distance of 40 m. from

the foot of the mountains. A little east of the Gulf of Enzeli, which

resembles the Kara-boghaz, though on a much smaller scale, the Sefid-rud

pours into the Caspian the drainage of the western end of the Elburz

range, and several smaller streams bring down the precipitation that

falls on the northern face of the same range farther to the east. Near

its south-east corner the Caspian is entered by the Atrek, which drains

the mountain ranges of the Turkoman (N.E.) frontier of Persia. Farther

north, on the east coast, opposite to the Bay of Kizil-agach, comes the

Balkhan or Krasnovodsk Bay. In the summer of 1894 a subterranean volcano

was observed in this basin of the Caspian, in 38 deg. 10' N. lat. and 52

deg. 37' E. long. The depth in this section ranges from 300 to 500

fathoms, with a maximum of 602 fathoms.

_Drainage Area and Former Extent._--The catchment area from which the

Caspian is fed extends to a very much greater distance on the west and

north than it does on the south and east. From the former it is entered

by the Volga, which is estimated to drain an area of 560,000 sq. m., the

Ural 96,000 sq. m., the Terek 59,000 sq. m., the Sulak 7000 sq. m., the

Samur 4250 sq. m.; as compared with these, there comes from the south

and east the Kura and Aras, draining the south side of the Caucasus over

87,250 sq. m., and the Sefid-rud and the Atrek, both relatively short.

Altogether it is estimated (by von Dingelstedt) that the total discharge

of all the rivers emptying into the Caspian amounts annually to a volume

equal to 174.5 cub. m. Were there no evaporation, this would raise the

surface of the sea 5-1/2 ft. annually. In point of fact, however, the

entire volume of fresh water poured into the Caspian is only just

sufficient to compensate for the loss by evaporation. Indeed in recent

times the level appears to have undergone several oscillations. From the

researches of Philippov it appears that during the period 1851-1888 the

level reached a maximum on three separate occasions, namely in

1868-1869, 1882 and 1885, while in 1853 and 1873 it stood at a minimum;

the range of these oscillations did not, however, exceed 3 ft. 6-1/2 in.

The Russian expedition which investigated the Kara-boghaz in 1896

concluded that there is no permanent subsidence in the level of the sea.

In addition to these periodical fluctuations, there are also seasonal

oscillations, the level being lowest in January and highest in the

summer.

The level of the Caspian, however, was formerly about the same as the

existing level of the Black Sea, although now some 86 ft. below it. This

is shown by the evidences of erosion on the face of the rocks which

formed the original shore-line of its southern basin, those evidences

existing at the height of 65 to 80 ft. above the present level. That a

rapid subsidence did take place from the higher level is indicated by

the fact that between it and the present level there is an absence of

indications of erosive energy. There can be no real doubt that formerly

the area of the Caspian was considerably greater than it is at the

present time. Nearly one hundred and fifty years ago Pallas had his

attention arrested by the existence of the salt lakes and dry saline

deposits on the steppes to the east of the Caspian, and at great

distances from its shores, and by the presence in the same localities of

shells of the same marine fauna as that which now inhabits that sea, and

he suggested the obvious explanation that those regions must formerly

have been covered by the waters of the sea. And it is indeed the fact

that large portions of the vast region comprised between the lower

Volga, the Aral-Irtysh water-divide, the Dzungarian Ala-tau, and the

outliers of the Tian-shan and Hindu-kush systems are actually covered

with Aralo-Caspian deposits, nearly always a yellowish-grey clay, though

occasionally they assume the character of a more or less compact

sandstone of the same colour. These deposits attain their maximum

thickness of 90 ft. east of the Caspian, and have in many parts been

excavated and washed away by the rivers (which have frequently changed

their beds) or been transported by the winds, which sweep with

unmitigated violence across those wide unsheltered expanses. The typical

fossils unearthed in these deposits are shells of species now living in

both the Caspian and the Aral, though in the shallow parts of both seas

only, namely (according to Ivan V. Mushketov [1850-1902]) _Cardium

edule, Dreissena polymorpha, Neritina liturata, Adacna vitrea, Hydrobia

stagnalis_, in the Kara-kum desert, and _Lithoglyphus caspius, Hydrobia

stagnalis, Anodonta ponderosa_ and the sponge _Metchnikovia

tuberculata_, in the Kizil-kum desert. The exact limits of the ancient

Aralo-Caspian sea are not yet settled, except in the north-west, where

the Ergeni Hills of Astrakhan constitute an unmistakable barrier.

Northwards these marine deposits are known to exist 80 m. away from Lake

Aral, though they do not cross the Aral-Irtysh water-divide, so that

this sea will not probably have been at that time connected with the

Arctic, as some have supposed. The eastern limits of these deposits lie

about 100 m. from Lake Aral, though Severtsov maintained that they

penetrate into the basin of Lake Balkash. Southwards they have been

observed without a break for 160 m. from Lake Aral, namely in the

Sary-kamysh depression (the surface of which lies below the level of the

Caspian) and up the Uzboi trench for 100 m. from the latter sea. How

far they reach up the present courses of the Oxus (Amu-darya) and

Jaxartes (Syr-darya) is not known. Hence, it is plain that in late

Tertiary, and probably also in Post-Tertiary, times the Aralo-Caspian

Sea covered a vast expanse of territory and embraced very large islands

(e.g. Ust-Urt), which divided it into an eastern and a western portion,

communicating by one or two narrow straits only, such as on the south

the Sary-kamysh depression, and on the north the line of the lakes of

Chumyshty and Asmantai. More than this, the Caspian was also, it is

pretty certain, at the same epoch, and later, in direct communication

with the Sea of Azov, no doubt by way of the Manych depression; for in

the _limans_ or lagoons of the Black Sea many faunal species exist which

are not only identical with species that are found in the Caspian, but

also many which, though not exactly identical, are closely allied. As

examples of the former may be named--_Archaeobdella, Clessinia

variabilis, Neritina liturata, Gmelina, Gammarus moeoticus, Pseudocuma

pectinata, Paramysis Baeri, Mesomysis Kowalevskyi_ and _M. intermedia,

Limnomysis Benedeni_ and _L. Brandt_i, and species of the ichthyological

fauna _Gobius, Clupea_ and _Acipenser_; while as illustrating the latter

class the Black Sea contains _Dreissenia bugensis_ (allied to _D.

rostriformis_ and _D. Grimmi), Cardium ponticum_ (to _C. caspium), C.

coloratum_ (to _Monodacna edentula), Amphicteis antiqua_ (to _A.

Kowalevskyi_) and _Bythotrephes azovicus_ (to _B. socialis_).

In the opinion of Russian geologists the separation of the Caspian from

the great ocean must have taken place at a comparatively recent

geological epoch. During the early Tertiary age it belonged to the

Sarmatian Ocean, which reached from the middle Danube eastwards through

Rumania, South Russia, and along both flanks of the Caucasus to the

Aralo-Caspian region, and westwards had open communication with the

great ocean, as indeed the ancient geographers Eratosthenes, Strabo and

Pliny believed it still had in their day. This communication began to

fail, or close up presumably in the Miocene period; and before the dawn

of Pliocene times the Sarmatian Ocean was broken up or divided into

sections, one of which was the Aralo-Caspian sea already discussed.

During the subsequent Ice Age the Caspian flowed over the steppes that

stretch away to the north, and was probably still connected with the

Black Sea (itself as yet unconnected with the Mediterranean), while

northwards it sent a narrow gulf or inlet far up the Volga valley, for

Aralo-Caspian deposits have been observed along the lower Kama in 56

deg. N. lat. Eastwards it penetrated up the Uzboi depression between the

Great and Little Balkhan ranges, so that that depression, which is

strewn (as mentioned above) with Post-Tertiary marine deposits, was not

(as is sometimes supposed) an old bed of the Oxus, but a gulf of the

Caspian. After the great ice cap had thawed and a period of general

desiccation set in, the Caspian began to shrink in area, and

simultaneously its connexions with the Black Sea and the Sea of Aral

were severed.

_Fauna_.--The fauna of this sea has been studied by Eichwald,

Kowalevsky, Grimm, Dybowski, Kessler and Sars. At the present time it

represents an intermingling of marine and fresh-water forms. To the

former belongs the herring (_Clupea_), and to the latter, species of

_Cyprinus, Perca_ and _Silurus_, also a lobster. Other marine forms are

Rhizopoda (_Rotalia_ and _Textillaria_), the sponge _Amorphina_, the

_Amphicteis_ worm, the molluscs _Cardium edule_ and other _Cardidae_,

and some Amphipods (_Cumacea_ and _Mysidae_,), but they are forms which

either tolerate variations in salinity or are especially characteristic

of brackish waters. But there are many species inhabiting the waters of

the Caspian which are not found elsewhere. These include Protozoa, three

sponges, Vermes, twenty-five Molluscs, numerous Amphipods, fishes of the

genera _Gobias, Benthophilus_ and _Cobitis_, and one mammal (_Phoca

caspia_). This last, together with some of the _Mysidae_ and the species

_Glyptonotus entomon_, exhibits Arctic characteristics, which has

suggested the idea of a geologically recent connexion between the

Caspian and the Arctic, an idea of which no real proofs have been as yet

discovered. The Knipovich expedition in 1904 found no traces of organic

life below the depth of 220 fathoms except micro-organisms and a single

Oligochaete; but above that level there exist abundant evidences of rich

pelagic life, more particularly from the surface down to a depth of 80

fathoms.

_Fisheries_.--No other inland sea is so richly stocked with fish as the

Caspian, especially off the mouths of the large rivers, the Volga, Ural,

Terek and Kura. The fish of greatest economic value are sturgeon (four

species), which yield great quantities of caviare and isinglass, the

herring, the salmon and the lobster. The annual catch of the entire sea

is valued at an average of one million sterling. Some 50,000 persons are

engaged in this industry off the mouth of the Volga alone. Seals are

hunted in Krasnovodsk Bay.

_Salinity_.--The proportion of salt in the water of the Caspian, though

varying in different parts and at different seasons, is generally much

less than the proportion in oceanic water, and even less than the

proportion in the water of the Black Sea. In fact the salinity of the

Caspian is only three-eights of that of the ocean. In the northern

section, which receives the copious volumes brought down by the Volga,

Ural and Terek, the salinity is so slight (only 0.0075% in the surface

layers) that the water is quite drinkable, its specific gravity being

not higher than 1.0016. In the middle section the salinity of the

surface layers increases to 0.015%, though it is of course greater along

the shores. The concentration of the saline ingredients proceeds with

the greatest degree of intensity in the large bays on the east side of

the sea, and more especially in that of Kara-boghaz, where it reaches

16.3% (Spindler expedition). The bottom of this almost isolated basin is

covered for an area of 1300 sq. m. with a deposit of Epsom salts

(sulphate of magnesia), 7 ft. thick, amounting to an estimated total of

1,000,000,000 tons. While the proportion of common salt to sulphate of

magnesia is as 11 to 1 in the water of the Black Sea and as 2 to 1 in

the Caspian water generally, it is as 12.8 to 5.03 in the Kara-boghaz.

The salinity of the surface water of the southern section of the Caspian

averages 1.5%.

_Climate_.--The temperature of the air over the Caspian basin is

remarkable for its wide range both geographically and seasonally. The

January isotherm of 15 deg. F. skirts its northern shore; that of 40

deg. crosses its southern border. But the winter extremes go far below

this range: during the prevalence of north-east winds the thermometer

drops to -20 deg., or even lower, on the surrounding steppes, while on

the Ust-Urt plateau a temperature of -30 deg. is not uncommon. Again,

the July isotherm of 75 deg. crosses the middle section of the Caspian,

nearly coinciding with the January isotherm of 25 deg., while that of 80

deg. skirts the southern shore of the sea, nearly coinciding with the

January curve of 40 deg., so that the mean annual range over the

northern section of the sea is 60 deg. and over the southern section 40

deg. The former section, which is too shallow to store up any large

amount of heat during the summer, freezes for three or four months along

the shores, effectually stopping navigation on the lower Volga, but out

in the middle ice appears only when driven there by northerly winds.

The prevalent winds of the Caspian blow from the south-east, usually

between October and March, and from the north and north-west, commonly

between July and September. They sometimes continue for days together

with great violence, rendering navigation dangerous and driving the

sea-water up over the shores. They also, by heaping up the water at the

one end of the sea or the other, raise the level temporarily and locally

to the extent of 4 to 8 ft. The currents of the Caspian were

investigated by the Knipovich expedition; it detected two of special

prominence, a south-going current along the west shore and a north-going

current along the east shore. As a consequence of this the temperature

of the water is higher on the Asiatic than on the European side. The

lowest temperature obtained was 35.24 deg. on the bottom in shallow

water, the highest 70.7 deg. on the surface. But in March the

temperature, as also the salinity, was tolerably uniform throughout all

the layers of water. Another interesting fact ascertained by the same

expedition is that the amount of oxygen contained in the water decreases

rapidly with the depth: off Derbent in the middle section of the sea the

amount diminished from 5.6 cc. per litre at a depth of 100 metres (330

ft.) to 0.32 cc. per litre at a depth of 700 metres (say 2300 ft.). At

the same spot samples of water drawn from the bottom were found to

contain 0.3 cc. of sulphuretted hydrogen per litre. In the southern

section of the sea the decrease is not so rapid. In this latter section

Spindler ascertained in July 1897 that the temperature of the surface

water 60 m. from Baku was 72.9 deg., but that below 10 fathoms it sank

rapidly, and at 200 fathoms and below it was constant at 21.2 deg.

_Navigation_.--The development of the petroleum industry in the Apeshron

peninsula (Baku) and the opening (1886) of the Transcaspian railway have

greatly increased the traffic across the Caspian Sea. A considerable

quantity of raw cotton is brought from Ferghana by the latter route and

shipped at Krasnovodsk for the mills in the south and centre of Russia,

as well as for countries farther west. And Russia draws her own supplies

of petroleum, both for lighting and for use as liquid fuel, by the sea

route from Baku. Other ports in addition to those just mentioned are

Astrakhan, on the Volga; Petrovsk, Derbent and Lenkoran, on the west

shore; Enzeli or Resht, and Astarabad, on the Persian coast; and

Mikhailovsk, on the east coast. The Russians keep a small naval flotilla

on the Caspian, all other nations being debarred from doing so by the

treaty of Turkmanchai (1828).

At various times and by various persons, but more particularly by Peter

the Great, the project has been mooted of cutting a canal between the

Volga and the Don, and so establishing unrestricted water communication

between the Caspian and the Black Sea; but so far none of these schemes

has taken practical shape. In 1900 the Hydrotechnical Congress of Russia

discussed the plan of constructing a canal to connect the Caspian more

directly with the Black Sea by cutting an artificial waterway about 22

ft. deep and 180 ft. wide from Astrakhan to Taganrog on the Sea of Azov.

See works quoted under ARAL; also von Baer, "Kaspische Studien," in

_Bull. Sci. St-Petersbourg_ (1855-1859), and in Erman's _Archiv russ._

(1855-1856); Radde, _Fauna und Flora des sudwestlichen Kaspigebietes_

(1886); J.V. Mushketov, _Turkestan_ (St Petersburg, 1886), with

bibliographical references; Ivashintsev, _Hydrographic Exploration of

the Caspian Sea_ (in Russian), with atlas (2 vols., 1866); Philippov,

_Marine Geography of the Caspian Basin_ (in Russian, 1877); _Memoirs

of the Aral-Caspian Expedition of 1876-1877_ (2 vols, in Russian),

edited by the St Petersburg Society of Naturalists; Andrusov, "A

Sketch of the Development of the Caspian Sea and its Inhabitants," in

_Zapiski of Russ. Geog. Soc.: General Geog._ vol. xxiv.; Eichwald,

_Fauna Caspio-Caucasica_ (1841); Seidlitz, "Das Karabugas Meerbusen,"

in _Globus_, with map, vol. lxxvi. (1899); Knipovich,

"Hydrobiologische Untersuchungert des Kaspischen Meeres," in

_Petermanns Mitteilungen_, vol. l. (1904); and Spindler, in _Izvestia

of Russ. Geog. Soc._ vol. xxxiv. (P. A. K.; J. T. Be.)