book ii

. c. 3) is also apposite both for purposes of political economy and practical guidance, though economists have found it difficult to define where "productive expenditure" ends and "unproductive expenditure" begins. Adam Smith includes in his enumeration of the "fixed capital" of a country "the acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants"; and in this sense expenditure on education, arts and sciences might be deemed expenditure of the most productive value, and yet be wanting in strict commercial account of the profit and loss. It must be admitted that there is a personal expenditure among all ranks of society, which, though not in any sense a capital expenditure, may become capital and receive a productive application, always to be preferred to the grossly unproductive form, in the interest both of the possessors and of the community.

The subject in its details is full of controversies, and a discussion of it at any length would embrace the whole field of economics. The subject will be found fully dealt with in every important economic work, but the following may be specially consulted:--J.S. Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_; J.E. Cairns, _Some Leading Principles of Political Economy_; F.A. Walker, _Political Economy_; A. Marshall, _Principles of Economics_; E. Bohm v. Bawerk, _Capital and Interest_; K. Marx, _Capital_; J.B. Clark, _Capital and its Earnings_; see also the economic works of W.H. Mallock (_Critical Examination of Socialism_, 1908, &c.) for an insistence on the importance of "ability," or brain-work, as against much of modern socialist theorizing against "capitalism."

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. By this term is now meant the infliction of the penalty of death for crime under the sentence of some properly constituted authority, as distinguished from killing the offender as a matter of self-defence or private vengeance, or under the order of some self-constituted or irregular tribunal unknown to the law, such as that of the Vigilantes of California, or of lynch law (q.v.). In the early stages of society a man-slayer was killed by the "avenger of blood" on behalf of the family of the man killed, and not as representing the authority of the state (Pollock and Maitland, _Hist. Eng. Law_, ii. 447.) This mode of dealing with homicide survives in the vendetta of Corsica and of the Mainotes in Greece, and in certain of the southern states of North America. The obligation or inclination to take vengeance depends on the fact of homicide, and not on the circumstances in which it was committed, i.e. it is a part of the _lex talionis_. The mischief of this system was alleviated under the Levitical law by the creation of cities of refuge, and in Greece and Italy, both in Pagan and Christian times, by the recognition of the right of sanctuary in temples and churches. A second mode of dealing with homicide was that known to early Teutonic and early Celtic law, where the relatives of the deceased, instead of the life of the slayer, received the wer of the deceased, i.e. a payment in proportion to the rank of the slain, and the king received the blood-wite for the loss of his man. But even under this system certain crimes were in Anglo-Saxon law bot-less, i.e. no compensation could be paid, and the offender must suffer the penalty of death. In the laws of Khammurabi, king of Babylon (2285-2242 B.C.), the death penalty is imposed for many offences. The modes for executing it specially named are burning, drowning and impalement (_Oldest Code of Laws_, by C.H.W. Johns, 1903). Under the Roman law, "capital" punishment also included punishments which deprived the offender of the status of Roman citizen (_capitis deminutio, capitis amissio_), e.g. condemnation to servitude in the mines or to deportation to an island (_Dig._ 48. 19).

British and foreign laws and methods.

_United Kingdom._--The modes of capital punishment in England under the Saxon and Danish kings were various: hanging, beheading, burning, drowning, stoning, and precipitation from rocks. The principle on which this variety depended was that where an offence was such as to entitle the king to outlaw the offender, he forfeited all, life and limb, lands and goods, and that the king might take his life and choose the mode of death. William the Conqueror would not allow judgment of death to be executed by hanging and substituted mutilation; but his successors varied somewhat in their policy as to capital punishment, and by the 13th century the penalty of death became by usage (without legislation) the usual punishment for high and petty treason and for all felonies (except mayhem and petty larceny, i.e. theft of property worth less than 1s.); see Stephen, _Hist. Cr. Law_, vol. i. 458; Pollock and Maitland, _Hist. Eng. Law_, vol. ii. 459. It therefore included all the more serious forms of crime against person or property, such as murder, manslaughter, arson, highway robbery, burglary (or hamesucken) and larceny; and when statutory felonies were created they were also punishable by death unless the statute otherwise provided. The death penalty was also extended to heretics under the writ _de heretico comburendo_, which was lawfully issuable under statute from 1382 (5 Ric. II. stat. 5) until 1677 (29 Chas. II. c. 9). For this purpose the legislature had adopted the civil law of the Roman Empire, which was not a part of the English common law (Stephen, _Hist. Cr. Law_, vol. ii. 438-469).

The methods of execution by crucifixion (as under the Roman law), or breaking on the wheel (as under the Roman Dutch law and the Holy Roman Empire), were never recognized by the common law, and would fall within the term "cruel and unusual punishments" in the English Bill of Rights, and in the United States would seem to be unconstitutional (see _Wilkinson v. Utah_, 1889, 136 U.S. 436, 446).

The severity of barbarian and feudal laws was mitigated, so far as common-law offences were concerned, by the influence of the Church as the inheritor of Christian traditions and Roman jurisprudence. The Roman law under the empire did not allow the execution of citizens except under the _Lex Porcia_. But the right of the emperors to legislate _per rescriptum principis_ enabled them to disregard the ordinary law when so disposed. The 83rd novel of Justinian provided that criminal causes against clerics should be tried by the judges, and that the convicted cleric should be degraded by his bishop before his condemnation by the secular power, and other novels gave the bishops considerable influence, if not authority, over the lay judiciary. In western Europe the right given by imperial legislation in the Eastern Empire was utilized by the Papacy to claim privilege of clergy, i.e. that clerks must be remitted to the bishop for canonical punishment, and not subjected to civil condemnation at all. The history of benefit of clergy is given in Pollock and Maitland, _Hist. English Law_, vol. i. pp. 424-440, and Stephen, _Hist. Cr. Law_, vol. iii. 459, 463. By degrees the privilege was extended not only to persons who could prove ordination or show a genuine tonsure, but all persons who had sufficient learning to be able to read the neck-verse (Ps. li. v. 1). Before the Reformation the ecclesiastical courts had ceased to take any effective action with respect to clerks accused of offences against the king's laws; and by the time of Henry VII. burning on the hand under the order of the king's judges was substituted for the old process of compurgation in use in the spiritual courts.

The effect of the claim of benefit of clergy is said to have been to increase the number of convictions, though it mitigated the punishment; and it became, in fact, a means of showing mercy to certain classes of individuals convicted of crime as a kind of privilege to the educated, i.e. to all clerks whether secular or religious (25 Edw. III. stat. 3); and it was allowed only in case of a first conviction, except in the case of clerks who could produce their letters of orders or a certificate of ordination. To prevent a second claim it was the practice to brand murderers with the letter M, and other felons with the Tyburn T, and Ben Jonson was in 1598 so marked for manslaughter.

The reign of Henry VIII. was marked by extreme severity in the execution of criminals--as during this time 72,000 persons are said to have been hanged. After the formation of English settlements in America the severity of the law was mitigated by the practice of reprieving persons sentenced to death on condition of their consenting to be transported to the American colonies, and to enter into bond service there. The practice seems to have been borrowed from Spain, and to have been begun in 1597 (39 Eliz. c. 4). It was applied by Cromwell after his campaign in Ireland, and was in full force immediately after the Restoration, and is recognized in the Habeas Corpus Act 1677, and was used for the Cameronians during Claverhouse's campaign in south-west Scotland. In the 18th century the courts were empowered to sentence felons to transportation (see DEPORTATION) instead of to execution, and this state of the law continued until 1857 (6 _Law Quarterly Review_, p. 388). This power to sentence to transportation at first applied only to felonies with benefit of clergy; but in 1705, on the abolition of the necessity of proving capacity to read, all criminals alike became entitled to the benefit previously reserved to clerks. Benefit of clergy was finally abolished in 1827 as to all persons not having privilege of peerage, and in 1841 as to peers and peeresses. Its beneficial effect had now been exhausted, since no clergyable offences remained capital crimes.

At the end of the 18th century the criminal law of all Europe was ferocious and indiscriminate in its administration of capital punishment for almost all forms of grave crime; and yet owing to poverty, social conditions, and the inefficiency of the police, such forms of crime were far more numerous than they now are. The policy and righteousness of the English law were questioned as early as 1766 by Goldsmith through the mouth of the vicar of Wakefield: "Nor can I avoid even questioning the validity of that right which social combinations have assumed of capitally punishing offences of a slight nature. In cases of murder their right is obvious, as it is the duty of us all from the law of self-defence to cut off that man who has shown a disregard for the life of another. Against such all nature rises in arms; but it is not so against him who steals my property." He adds later: "When by indiscriminate penal laws the nation beholds the same punishment affixed to dissimilar degrees of guilt, the people are led to lose all sense of distinction in the crime, and this distinction is the bulwark of all morality."

The opinion expressed by Goldsmith was strongly supported by Bentham, Romilly, Basil Montaguand Mackintosh in England, and resulted in considerable mitigation of the severity of the law. In 1800 over 200 and in 1819 about 180 crimes were capital. As the result of the labour of these eminent men and their disciples, and of Sir Robert Peel, there are now only four crimes (other than offences against military law or naval discipline) capitally punishable in England--high treason, murder, piracy with violence, and destruction of public arsenals and dockyards (The Dockyards, &c., Protection Act 1772). An attempt to abolish the death penalty for this last offence was made in 1837, but failed, and has not since been renewed. In the case of the last two offences sentence of death need not be pronounced, but may be recorded (4 Geo. IV. c. 48). Since 1838 it has in practice been executed only for murder; the method being by hanging.

The change in the severity of the law is best illustrated by the following statistics:--

+--------+-------------------+---------------------+ | | Death Sentences. | Sentences Executed. | | Years. +---------+---------+----------+----------+ | | For all | For | For all | For | | | Crimes. | Murder. | Crimes. | Murder. | +--------+---------+---------+----------+----------+ | 1831 | 1601 | 14 | 52 | 12 | | 1833* | 931 | 9 | 33 | 6 | | 1838* | 116 | 25 | 6 | 5 | | 1862* | 29 | 28 | 15 | 15 | +--------+---------+---------+----------+----------+

* Each of these years followed upon legislation mitigating severity of punishment.

During the twelve years from 1893 to 1904, 788 persons were committed for trial for murder, being an average of 65. The highest number was in 1893 (82) and the lowest in 1900 (51). Of those tried in 1904, 28 (26 males and 2 females) were convicted of murder, 16 (all males) were executed; 9 males and 2 females had their sentences commuted to penal servitude for life.

In Scotland capital punishment can be imposed only for treason, murder and offences against 10 Geo. IV. c. 38, i.e., wilful shooting, stabbing, strangling or throwing corrosives with intent to murder, maim, disfigure, disable, or do grievous bodily harm, in all cases where if death had ensued the offence would have been murder. Prior to 1887 rape, robbery, wilful fire-raising and incest, and many other crimes, were also capital offences; but in practice the pains of law were restricted at the instance of the prosecution. The method is by hanging.

In Ireland capital punishment may be inflicted for the same offences as in England, except offences under the Dockyards Protection Act 1772, and it is carried out in the same manner.

_Offences under Military Law_.--Thus far only crimes against the ordinary law of the land have been dealt with. But both the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 and the Army Act empower courts-martial to pass sentence for a number of offences against military and naval laws. Such sentences are rarely if ever passed where an ordinary court is within reach, or except in time of war. The offences extend from traitorous communication with the enemy and cowardice on the field to falling asleep while acting as a sentinel on active service. It is for the authority confirming a sentence of death by court-martial to direct the mode of execution, which both in the British and United States armies is usually by shooting or hanging. During the Indian Mutiny some mutineers were executed by being blown from the mouth of cannon. As to the history of military punishments see Clode, _Military and Martial Law_.

_British Colonies and Possessions_.--Under the Indian Penal Code sentence of death may be passed for waging war against the king (s. 121) and for murder (s. 302). If the murder is committed by a man under sentence of transportation for life the death penalty must be imposed (s. 303). In other cases it is alternative. This code has been in substance adopted in Ceylon, in Straits Settlements and Hong-Kong, and in the Sudan. In most of the British colonies and possessions the death penalty may be imposed only in the case of high treason, wilful murder and piracy with violence. But in New South Wales and Victoria sentence of death may be passed for rape and criminal abuse of girls under ten. In Queensland the law was the same until the passing of the Criminal Code of 1899.

Under the Canadian Criminal Code of 1892 the death sentence may be imposed for treason (s. 657), murder (s. 231), rape (s. 267), piracy with violence (s. 127), and upon subjects of a friendly power who levy war on the king in Canada (s. 68). But the judge is bound by statute to report on all death sentences, and the date of execution is fixed so as to give time for considering the report. The sentence is executed by hanging. In South Africa the criminal law is based on the Roman-Dutch law, under which capital punishment is liable for treason (_crimen perduellionis_ or _laesae majestatis_), murder and rape (van Lecuwen, c. 36). In the Cape Colony rape is still capital (_R. v. Nonosi_, 1885; 1 Buchanan, 1898). In Natal rape may be punished by hanging (act no. 22, 1898). Though the Roman-Dutch modes of executing the sentence by decapitation or breaking on the wheel have not been formally abolished, in practice the sentence in the Cape Colony is executed by hanging. In the Transvaal hanging is now the sole mode of executing capital punishment (Criminal Procedure Code, 1903, s. 244). The Roman-Dutch law as to crime and punishments has been superseded in Ceylon and British Guiana by ordinance.

_Austria-Hungary_.--In Austria capital punishment was in 1787 for a time abolished, but was reintroduced in 1795 for high treason, and in 1803 for certain other crimes. Under the penal code still in force in 1906 it might be inflicted for the offences in the table given below, but not on offenders who were under twenty when they committed the offence. The annexed table indicates that the full sentence was sparingly executed. Under a Penal Code drafted in 1906, however, only two offences were made capital, viz. high treason against the person of the emperor and the graver cases of murder. The sentence is executed by hanging.

+-----------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Crimes Punishable by | 1853 to 1873. | 1875 to 1900. | 1901 to 1903. | | Death. +----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+ | | Condemned.| Executed.| Condemned.| Executed.| Condemned.| Executed.| +-----------------------------+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+ | High treason | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Murder s. 136 | 880 | 102 | 2085 | 81 | 180 | 9 | | Killing by robbers, s. 141 | 12 | 3 | 35 | 1 | 3 | 0 | | Public violence, ss. 85, 87 | . . | . . | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Incendiarism, s. 167 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Criminal use of explosives | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | | (explosives law, s. 4) | | | | | | | +-----------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

_Belgium_.--Under the Belgian Penal Code of 1867 the death penalty is retained for certain forms of high treason, and for assassination and parricide by poisoning. It may not be pronounced on a person under eighteen. The sentence is executed publicly by the guillotine. No execution seems to have taken place since 1863.

_Denmark_.--Sentence of death may be imposed for most forms of high treason, aggravated cases of murder, rape and piracy. It is executed publicly by the axe. Offenders under eighteen are not liable.

_Finland_.--In Finland the death penalty is alleged not to have been inflicted since 1824. It may be imposed for the assassination of the grand duke or grand duchess or the head of a friendly state, and wilful murder of other persons.

_France_.--Under the _ancien regime_ in France, 115 crimes had become capital in 1789. The mode of execution varied, but in some cases it was effected by breaking on the wheel or burning, and was coupled with mutilation. Under the Penal Code of 1810, as amended in or after 1832, even so late as 1871, thirty offences were capital, one being perjury against a prisoner resulting in his condemnation to death (art. 361). At present it may be imposed for wounding a public official with intent to murder (art. 233), assassination, parricide, poisoning, killing to commit a crime or escape from justice (arts. 302, 304). But juries freely exercise the power of acquitting in capital cases, or of defeating the capital sentence by finding extenuating circumstances in more than seven-eighths of the cases, which compels the court to reduce the punishment by one or more degrees, i.e. below the penalty of death. And in recent times the prerogative of mercy has been continually exercised by the president, even in gross cases where public opinion demanded the extreme penalty. The sentence is executed in public by the guillotine.

_Germany_.--In many of the states of Germany capital punishment had been abolished (Brunswick, Coburg, Nassau, Oldenburg in 1849; Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Weimar, 1862; Baden, 1863; Saxony, 1868). But it has been restored by the Imperial Criminal Code of 1872, in the case of attempts on the life of the emperor, or of the sovereign of any federal state in which the offender happens to be (s. 80), and for deliberate homicide (s. 211)--as opposed to intentional homicide without deliberation--and for certain treasonable acts committed when a state of siege has been proclaimed. The sentence is executed by beheading (s. 13).

_Holland_.--In Holland there have been no executions since 1860. Capital punishment (by hanging) was abolished in 1870, and was not reintroduced in the Penal Code of 1886.

_Italy_.--Capital punishment was abolished in Tuscany as far back as 1786, and from Italy has come the chief opposition to the death penalty, originated by Beccaria, and supported by many eminent jurists. Under the Penal Code of 1888 the death penalty was abrogated for all crimes, even for regicide. The cases of homicide in Italy are very numerous compared with those in England, amounting in 1905 to 105 per million as compared with 27 per million in the United Kingdom.

_Japan_.--The penalty of death is executed by hanging within a prison. It may be imposed for executing or contriving acts of violence against the mikado or certain of his family, and for seditious violence with the object of seizing the territory or subverting the government or laws of Japan, or conspiring with foreign powers to commence hostilities against Japan. It is inflicted for certain forms of homicide, substantially wilful murder in the first degree.

_Norway_.--Under Norwegian law, up to 1905, sentence of death might be passed for murder with premeditation, but the court might as an alternative decree penal servitude for life. Sentence of death had also to be passed in cases where a person under sentence of penal servitude for life committed murder or culpable homicide, or caused bodily injuries in circumstances warranting a sentence of penal servitude for life, or committed robbery or the graver forms of wilful fire-raising. The sentence was carried out by decapitation (see BEHEADING); but there had been no execution since 1876. The new Norwegian Code, which came into force on the 6th of January 1905, abolished capital punishment.

_Portugal_.--There has been considerable objection in Portugal to capital punishment, and it was abolished in 1867.

_Rumania_.--Capital punishment was abolished in 1864.

_Russia_.--In 1750, under the empress Elizabeth, capital punishment was abolished; but it was restored later and was freely inflicted, the sentence being executed by shooting, beheading or hanging. According to a Home Office Return in England in 1907 the death penalty is abolished, except in cases where the lives of the emperor, empress or heir to the throne are concerned.

_Spain_.--Under the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 the following crimes are capital:--inducing a foreign power to declare war against Spain, killing the sovereign, parricide and assassination. The method employed is execution in public by the garrote. But the death sentence is rarely imposed, the customary penalty for murder being penal servitude in chains for life, while a parricide is imprisoned in chains "in perpetuity until death."

_Sweden_.--The severity of the law in Sweden was greatly mitigated so far back as 1777. Under the Penal Code of 1864 the penalty of death may be imposed for certain forms of treason, including attempts on the life of the sovereign or on the independence of Sweden, and for premeditated homicide (_assassinat_), and in certain cases for offences committed by persons under sentence of imprisonment for life. In 1901 a bill to abolish capital punishment was rejected by both houses of the Swedish parliament.

_Switzerland_.--Capital punishment was abolished in Switzerland in 1874 by Federal legislation; but in 1879, in consequence of a plebiscite, each canton was empowered to restore the death penalty for offences in its territory. The Federal government was unwilling to take this course, but was impelled to it by the fact that, between 1874 and 1879, cases of premeditated murder had considerably increased. Seven of the cantons out of twenty-two have exercised the power given to restore capital punishment. But there do not seem to have been any cases in which the death penalty has been inflicted; and on the assassination of the empress of Austria at Geneva in 1898 it was found that the laws of the canton did not permit the execution of the assassin. The canton of Zug imposes the lowest minimum penalty known, i.e. three years' imprisonment for wilful homicide, the maximum being imprisonment for life.

_United States of America_.--Under the Federal laws sentence of death may be passed for treason against the United States and for piracy and for murder within the Federal jurisdiction. But for the most part the punishment of crime is regulated by the laws of the constituent states of the Union.

The death penalty was abolished in Michigan in 1846 except for treason, and wholly in Wisconsin in 1853. In Maine it was abolished in 1876, re-enacted in 1883, and again abolished in 1887. In Rhode Island it was abolished in 1852, but restored in 1882, only in case of murder committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life (Laws, 1896, c. 277, s. 2). In all the other states the death penalty may still be inflicted: in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, and West Virginia, for treason, murder, arson and rape; in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, New Jersey, Mississippi, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Dakota, for treason and murder; in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming, for murder only; in Kentucky and Virginia, for treason, murder and rape; in Vermont, for treason, murder and arson; in Indiana, for treason, murder, and for arson if death result; in California, for treason, murder and train-wrecking; in North Carolina, for murder, rape, arson and burglary; in Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, for murder and rape; in Arkansas and Louisiana, for treason, murder, rape, and administering poison or use of dangerous weapons with intent to murder. Louisiana is cited by Girardin (_le droit de punir_) as a state in which the death penalty was abolished in 1830. Under the influence of the eminent jurist, E. Livingston, who framed the state codes, the legislature certainly passed a resolution against capital punishment. But since as early as 1846 it has been there lawful, subject to a power given to the jury, to bring in a verdict of guilty, "but no capital punishment," which had the effect of imposing a sentence of hard labour for life. In certain states the jury has, under local legislation, the right to award the sentence. The constitutionality of such legislation has been doubted, but has been recognized by the courts of Illinois and Iowa. Sentence of death is executed by hanging, except in seven of the states, where it is carried out by "electrocution" (q.v.).

The question of abolition.

With the mitigation of the law as to punishment, agitation against the theory of capital punishment has lost much of its force. But many European and American writers, and some English writers and associations, advocate the total abolition of the death punishment. The ultimate argument of the opponents of capital punishment is that society has no right to take the life of any one of its members on any ground. But they also object to capital punishment: (1) on religious grounds, because it may deprive the sinner of his full time for repentance; (2) on medical grounds, because homicide is usually if not always evidence of mental disease or irresponsibility; (3) on utilitarian grounds, because capital punishment is not really deterrent, and is actually inflicted in so few instances that criminals discount the risks of undergoing it; (4) on legal grounds, i.e. that the sentence being irrevocable and the evidence often circumstantial only, there is great risk of gross injustice in executing a person convicted of murder; (5) on moral grounds, that the punishment does not fit the case nor effect the reformation of the offender. It is to be noted that the English Children Act 1908 expressly forbids the pronouncing or recording the sentence of death against any person under the age of sixteen (s. 103).

The punishment is probably retained, partly from ingrained habit, partly from a sense of its appropriateness for certain crimes, but also that the _ultima ratio_ may be available in cases of sufficient gravity to the commonweal. The apparent discrepancy between the number of trials and convictions for murder is not in England any evidence of hostility on the part of juries to capital punishment, which has on the whole lessened rather than increased since the middle of the 19th century. It is rarely if ever necessary in England, though common in America, to question the jurors as to their views on capital punishment. The reasons for the comparatively small number of convictions for murder seem to be: (1) that court and jury in a capital case lean _in favorem vitae_, and if the offence falls short of the full gravity of murder, conviction for manslaughter only results; (2) that in the absence of a statutory classification of the degrees of murder, the prerogative of mercy is exercised in cases falling short of the highest degree of gravity recognized by lawyers and by public opinion; (3) that where the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence the sentence is not executed unless the circumstantial evidence is conclusive; (4) that charges of infanticide against the mothers of illegitimate children are treated mercifully by judge and jury, and usually terminate in acquittal, or in a conviction of concealment of birth; (5) that many persons tried as murderers are obviously insane; (6) that coroners' juries are somewhat recklessly free in returning inquisitions of murder without any evidence which would warrant the conviction of the person accused.

The medical doctrine, and that of Lombroso with respect to criminal atavism and irresponsibility, have probably tended to incline the public mind in favour of capital punishment, and Sir James Stephen and other eminent jurists have even been thereby tempted to advocate the execution of habitual criminals. It certainly seems strange that the community should feel bound carefully to preserve and tend a class of dangerous lunatics, and to give them, as Charles Kingsley says, "the finest air in England and the right to kill two gaolers a week."

The whole question of capital punishment in the United Kingdom was considered by a royal commission appointed in 1864, which reported in 1866 (Parl. Pap., 1866, 10,438). The commission took the opinions of all the judges of the supreme courts in the United Kingdom and of many other eminent persons, and collected the laws of other countries so far as this was ascertainable. The commissioners differed on the question of the expediency of abolishing or retaining capital punishment, and did not report thereon. But they recommended: (1) that it should be restricted throughout the United Kingdom to high treason and murder; (2) alteration of the law of homicide so as to classify homicides according to their gravity, and to confine capital punishment to murder in the first degree; (3) modification of the law as to child murder so as to punish certain cases of infanticide as misdemeanours; (4) authorizing judges to direct sentence of death to be recorded; (5) the abolition--since carried out--of public executions.

AUTHORITIES.--Beccaria, _Dei Delitte e delle Pene_ (1790); Bentham, _Rationale of Punishment_; Lammasch, _Grundris des Strafrechts_ (Leipzig, 1902); Olivecrona, _De la peine de mort_; Mittermaier, _Capital Punishment; Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment_ (Parl. Pap., 1866, No. 10,438); Oldfield, _The Penalty of Death_ (1901); Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_; Pike, _History of Crime_; Sir J.F. Stephen, _History of Crime in England_; S. Walpole, _History of England_, vol. i. p. 191; vol. iv. p. 74; Andrews' _Old Time Punishments; A Century of Law Reform_ (London, 1901); Lecture ii. by Sir H.B. Poland; Howard Association Publications. (W. F. C.)

CAPITO (or KOPFEL), WOLFGANG [FABRICIUS] (1478-1541), German reformer, was born of humble parentage at Hagenau in Alsace. He was educated for the medical profession, but also studied law, and applied himself so earnestly to theology that he received the doctorate in that faculty also, and, having joined the Benedictines, taught for some time at Freiburg. He acted for three years as pastor in Bruchsal, and was then called to the cathedral church of Basel (1515). Here he made the acquaintance of Zwingli and began to correspond with Luther. In 1519 he removed to Mainz at the request of Albrecht, archbishop of that city, who soon made him his chancellor. In 1523 he settled at Strassburg, where he remained till his death in November 1541. He had found it increasingly difficult to reconcile the new religion with the old, and from 1524 was one of the leaders of the reformed faith in Strassburg. He took a prominent part in the earlier ecclesiastical transactions of the 16th century, was present at the second conference of Zurich and at the conference of Marburg, and along with Martin Bucer drew up the _Confessio Tetrapolitana_. Capito was always more concerned for the "unity of the spirit" than for dogmatic formularies, and from his endeavours to conciliate the Lutheran and Zwinglian parties in regard to the sacraments, he seems to have incurred the suspicions of his own friends; while from his intimacy with Martin Cellarius and other divines of the Socinian school he drew on himself the charge of Arianism. His principal works were:--_Institutionum Hebraicarum libri duo; Enarrationes in Habacuc et Hoseam Prophetas_; a life of Oecolampadius and an account of the synod of Berne (1532).

CAPITULARY (Med. Lat. _capitularium_), a series of legislative or administrative acts emanating from the Merovingian and Carolingian kings, so called as being divided into sections or chapters (_capitula_). With regard to these capitularies two questions arise: (1) as to the means by which they have been handed down to us; (2) as to their true character and scope.

(1) As soon as the capitulary was composed, it was sent to the various functionaries of the Frankish empire, archbishops, bishops, _missi_ and counts, a copy being kept by the chancellor in the archives of the palace. At the present day we do not possess a single capitulary in its original form: but very frequently copies of these isolated capitularies were included in various scattered manuscripts, among pieces of a very different nature, ecclesiastical or secular. We find, therefore, a fair number of them in books which go back as far as the 9th or 10th centuries. In recent editions in the case of each capitulary it is carefully indicated from what manuscripts it has been collated.

These capitularies make provisions of a most varied nature; it was therefore found necessary at quite an early date to classify them into chapters according to the subject. In 827 Ansegisus, abbot of St Wandrille at Fontenelle, made such a collection. He embodied them in four books: one of the ecclesiastical capitularies of Charlemagne, one of the ecclesiastical capitularies of Louis the Pious, one of the secular capitularies of Charlemagne, and one of the secular capitularies of Louis, bringing together similar provisions and suppressing duplicates. This collection soon gained an official authority, and after 829 Louis the Pious refers to it, citing book and section.

After 827 new capitularies were naturally promulgated, and before 858 there appeared a second collection in three books, by an author calling himself Benedictus Levita. His aim was, he said, to complete the work of Ansegisus, and bring it up to date by continuing it from 827 to his own day; but the author has not only borrowed prescriptions from the capitularies; he has introduced other documents into his collection, fragments of Roman laws, canons of the councils and especially spurious provisions very similar in character to those of the same date found in the _False Decretals_. His contemporaries did not notice these spurious documents, but accepted the whole collection as authentic, and incorporated the four books of Ansegisus and the three of Benedictus Levita into a single collection in seven books. The serious historian of to-day, however, is careful not to use books v., vi. and vii. for purposes of reference.

Early editors chose to republish this collection of Ansegisus and Benedictus as they found it. It was a distinguished French scholar, Etienne Baluze, who led the way to a fresh classification. In 1677 he brought out the _Capitularia regum francorum_, in two folio volumes, in which he published first the capitularies of the Merovingian kings, then those of Pippin, of Charles and of Louis the Pious, which he had found complete in various manuscripts. After the date of 840, he published as supplements the unreliable collection of Ansegisus and Benedictus Levita, with the warning that the latter was quite untrustworthy. He then gave the capitularies of Charles the Bald, and of other Carolingian kings, either contemporaries or successors of Charles, which he had discovered in various places. A second edition of Baluze was published in 1780 in 2 volumes folio by Pierre de Chiniac.

The edition of the Capitularies made in 1835 by George Pertz, in the _Monumenta Germaniae_ (folio edition, vol. i., of the _Leges_) was not much advance on that of Baluze. A fresh revision was required, and the editors of the _Monumenta_ decided to reissue it in their quarto series, entrusting the work to Dr Alfred Boretius. In 1883 Boretius published his first volume, containing all the detached capitularies up to 827, together with various appendices bearing on them, and the collection of Ansegisus. Boretius, whose health had been ruined by overwork, was unable to finish his work; it was continued by Victor Krause, who collected in vol. ii. the scattered capitularies of a date posterior to 828. Karl Zeumer and Albrecht Werminghoff drew up a detailed index of both volumes, in which all the essential words are noted. A third volume, prepared by Emil Seckel, was to include the collection of Benedictus Levita.

(2) Among the capitularies are to be found documents of a very varied kind. Boretius has divided them into several classes:--

(a) The _Capitula legibus addenda._--These are additions made by the king of the Franks to the barbarian laws promulgated under the Merovingians, the Salic law, the Ripuarian or the Bavarian. These capitularies have the same weight as the law which they complete; they are particular in their application, applying, that is to say, only to the men subject to that law. Like the laws, they consist chiefly of scales of compensation, rules of procedure and points of civil law. They were solemnly promulgated in the local assemblies where the consent of the people was asked. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious seem to have made efforts to bring the other laws into harmony with the Salic law. It is also to be noted that by certain of the capitularies of this class, the king adds provisions affecting, not only a single law, but all the laws in use throughout the kingdom.

(b) The _Capitula ecclesiastica._--These capitularies were elaborated in the councils of the bishops; the kings of the Franks sanctioned the canon of the councils, and made them obligatory on all the Christians in the kingdom.

(c) The _Capitula per se scribenda._--These embodied political decrees which all subjects of the kingdom were bound to observe. They often bore the name of _edictum_ or of _constitutio_, and the provisions made in them were permanent. These capitularies were generally elaborated by the king of the Franks in the autumn assemblies or in the committees of the spring assemblies. Frequently we have only the proposition made by the king to the committee, _capitula tractanda cum comitibus, episcopis, et abbatibus_, and not the final form which was adopted.

(d) The _Capitula missorum_, which are the instructions given by Charlemagne and his successors to the _missi_ sent into the various parts of the empire. They are sometimes drawn up in common for all the _missi_ of a certain year--_capitula missorum generalia_; sometimes for the _missi_ sent only on a given circuit--_capitula missorum specialia_. These instructions sometimes hold good only for the circuit of the _missus_; they have no general application and are merely temporary.

(e) With the capitularies have been incorporated various documents; for instance, the rules to be observed in administering the king's private domain (the celebrated capitulary _de villis_, which is doubtless a collection of the instructions sent at various times to the agents of these domains); the partitions of the kingdom among the king's sons, as, the _Divisio regnorum_ of 806, or the _Ordinatio imperii_ of 817; the oaths of peace and brotherhood which were taken on various occasions by the sons of Louis the Pious, &c.

The merit of clearly establishing these distinctions belongs to Boretius. He has doubtless exaggerated the difference between the _Capitula missorum_ and the _Capitula per se scribenda;_ among the first are to be found provisions of a general and permanent nature, and among the second temporary measures are often included. But the idea of Boretius is none the less fruitful. In the capitularies there are usually permanent provisions and temporary provisions intermingled; and the observation of this fact has made it possible more clearly to understand certain institutions of Charlemagne, _e.g._ military service.

After the reign of Louis the Pious the capitularies became long and diffuse. Soon, from the 10th century onwards, no provision of general application emanates from the kings. Henceforth the kings only regulated private interests by charters; it was not until the reign of Philip Augustus that general provisions again appeared; but when they did so, they bore the name of ordinances (_ordonnances_).

There were also capitularies of the Lombards. These capitularies formed a continuation of the Lombard laws, and are printed as an appendix to these laws by Boretius in the folio edition of the _Monumenta Germaniae, Leges_, vol. iv.

AUTHORITIES.---Boretius, _Die Capitularien im Longobardenreich_ (Halle, 1864); and _Beitrage zur Capitularienkritik_ (Leipzig, 1874); G. Seeliger, _Die Kapitularien der Karolinger_ (Munich, 1893). See also the histories of institutions or of law by Waitz, Brunner, Fustel de Coulanges, Viollet, Esmein. (C. Pf.)

CAPITULATION (Lat. _capitulum_, a little head or division; _capitulare_, to treat upon terms), an agreement in time of war for the surrender to a hostile armed force of a particular body of troops, a town or a territory. It is an ordinary incident of war, and therefore no previous instructions from the captor's government are required before finally settling the conditions of capitulation. The most usual of such conditions are freedom of religion and security of private property on the one hand, and a promise not to bear arms within a certain period on the other. Such agreements may be rashly concluded with an inferior officer, on whose authority the enemy are not in the actual position of the war entitled to place reliance. When an agreement is made by an officer who has not the proper authority or who has exceeded the limits of his authority, it is termed a _sponsion_, and, to be binding, must be confirmed by express or tacit ratification. Article 35 of the Hague Convention (1899) on the laws and the customs of war lays down that "capitulations agreed on between the contracting parties must be in accordance with the rules of military honour. When once settled they must be observed by both the parties."

In another sense, capitulation is the name given to an arrangement by which foreigners are withdrawn, for most civil and criminal purposes, from the jurisdiction of the state making the capitulation. Thus in Turkey arrangements termed capitulations (q.v.), and treaties confirmatory of them, have been made between the Porte and other states by which foreigners resident in Turkey are subject to the laws of their respective countries. The term is also applied by French writers to the oath which on his election the Holy Roman emperor used to make to the college of electors; this related chiefly to such matters as regalian rights, appeals from local jurisdictions, the rights of the pope, &c.

CAPITULATIONS (from Lat. _caput_, or its Low-Latin diminutive _capitulum_, as indicating the form in which these acts were set down in "chapters"; the Gr. equivalent _cephaleosis_, kephalaiosis, is occasionally used in works of the 17th century), treaties granted by a state and conferring the privilege of extra-territorial jurisdiction within its boundaries on the subjects of another state. Thus, in the 9th century, the caliph Harun-al-Rashid engaged to grant guarantees and commercial facilities to such Franks, subjects of the emperor Charlemagne, as should visit the East with the authorization of their emperor. After the break-up of the Frank empire, similar concessions were made to some of the practically independent Italian city states that grew up on its ruins. Thus, in 1098, the prince of Antioch granted a charter of this nature to the city of Genoa; the king of Jerusalem extended the same privilege to Venice in 1123 and to Marseilles in 1136. Salah-ud-din (Saladin), sultan of Babylon (Cairo), granted a charter to the town of Pisa in 1173. The Byzantine emperors followed this example, and Genoa, Pisa and Venice all obtained capitulations. The explanation of the practice is to be found in the fact that the sovereignty of the state was held in those ages to apply only to its subjects; foreigners were excluded from its rights and obligations. The privilege of citizenship was considered too precious to be extended to the alien, who was long practically an outlaw. But when the numbers, wealth and power of foreigners residing within the state became too great, it was found to be politic to subject them to some law, and it was held that this law should be their own. When the Turkish rule was substituted for that of the Byzantine emperors, the system already in existence was continued; the various non-Moslem peoples were allowed their semi-autonomy in matters affecting their personal status, and the Genoese of Galata were confirmed in their privileges. But the first capitulation concluded with a foreign state was that of 1535 granted to the French. Lest it should be imagined that this was a concession wrested by the victorious Christian monarch from the decadent Turk, it should be borne in mind that Turkey was then at the height of her power, and that Francis I. had shortly before sustained a disastrous defeat at Pavia. His only hope of assistance lay in Suleiman I., whose attack on Vienna had been checked by the victorious Charles V. The appeal to Suleiman on the ground of the common interest of France and Turkey in overcoming Charles V.'s overweening power was successful; the secret mission of Frangipani, an unofficial envoy who could be disowned in case of failure, paved the way for De la Forest's embassy in 1534, and in 1536 the capitulations were signed.[1] They amounted to a treaty of commerce and a treaty allowing the establishment of Frenchmen in Turkey and fixing the jurisdiction to be exercised over them: individual and religious liberty is guaranteed to them, the king of France is empowered to appoint consuls in Turkey, the consuls are recognized as competent to judge the civil and criminal affairs of French subjects in Turkey according to French law, and the consuls may appeal to the officers of the sultan for their aid in the execution of their sentences. This, the first of the capitulations, is practically the prototype of its successors. Five years later, similar capitulations were concluded with Venice. The capitulations were at first held to be in force only during the lifetime of the sultan by whom they were granted; thus in 1569 Sultan Selim II. renewed the French capitulations granted by his predecessor. In 1583 England obtained her first capitulation, until which time France had been the official protector of all Europeans established in Turkey. Later on, England claimed to protect the subjects of other nations, a claim which is rejected in the French capitulations of 1597, 1604 and 1607, the last-named of which explicitly lays down that the subjects of all nations not represented at Constantinople by an ambassador shall be under French protection. In 1613 Holland obtained her first capitulation, with the assistance of the French ambassador, anxious to help a commercial rival of England. In 1673 the French, represented by the marquis de Nointel, succeeded in obtaining the renewal of the capitulations which, for various reasons, had remained unconfirmed since 1607. Louis XIV. had been anxious to secure the protectorate of all Catholics in Turkey, but was obliged to content himself with the recognition of his right to protect all Latins of non-Turkish nationality; his claims for the restoration to the Catholics of the Holy Places usurped by the Greeks was also rejected, the sultan only undertaking to promise to restore their churches to the Jesuit Capuchins. An important commercial gain was the reduction of the import duties from 5 to 3%; and all suits the value of which exceeded 4000 _aspres_ in which French subjects sued, or were sued by, an Ottoman subject, were to be heard not by the ordinary tribunals but at the Porte itself. Later, France's friendship secured for Turkey a successful negotiation of the peace of Belgrade in 1739, and the result was the capitulation of 1740; this is no longer limited in duration to the sultan's lifetime but is made perpetual, and, moreover, declares that it cannot be modified without the assent of the French. It conferred on the French ambassador precedence over his colleagues. Austria had obtained capitulations in 1718, modified in 1784; Russia secured similar privileges in 1784. In the course of the 18th century nearly every European power had obtained these, and such newly-established countries as the United States of America, Belgium and Greece followed in the 19th century.

The chief privileges granted under the capitulations to foreigners resident in Turkey are the following: liberty of residence, inviolability of domicile, liberty to travel by land and sea, freedom of commerce, freedom of religion, immunity from local jurisdiction save under certain safeguards, exclusive extra-territorial jurisdiction over foreigners of the same nationality, and competence of the forum of the defendant in cases in which two foreigners are concerned (though the Sublime Porte has long claimed to exercise jurisdiction in criminal cases in which two foreigners of different nationality are concerned--the capitulations are silent on the point and the claim is resisted by the powers).

The same system has been followed by such countries as Persia, China, Japan and Siam.

The practical result of the capitulations in Turkey is to form each separate foreign colony into a sort of _imperium in imperio_, and to hamper the local jurisdiction very considerably. As the state granting the capitulations progresses in civilization it chafes under these restraints in its sovereignty. Turkey's former vassals, Rumania and Servia, though theoretically bound to respect the capitulations so long as they formed part of Turkey, had practically abrogated them long before securing their independence through the treaty of Berlin in 1878. The same may be said of Bulgaria. Japan was liberated from the burden of the capitulations some years ago.

The extra-territorial jurisdiction exercised by the foreign powers over their subjects in Turkey and other countries where capitulations exist is regulated by special legislative enactments; in the case of the United Kingdom by orders in council.

In Turkey the capitulations are practically the only treaties in force with the powers, since the expiration about 1889 of the commercial treaties concluded in 1861-1862. As they all contain the "most-favoured nation" clause, the privileges in any one apply to all the powers, though not always claimed. Thus America and Belgium claim under their treaties with Turkey the right to try all their subjects, even if accused of offences against Ottoman subjects--a claim recently made by Belgium in the case of the Belgian subject Joris, accused of

## participation in the bomb outrage of 1905 at Yildiz. One peculiar

privilege granted in the capitulations of 1675 (Art. 74) authorizes the king of England to buy in Turkey with his own money two cargoes of figs and raisins, in fertile and abundant years and not in times of dearth or scarcity, and provides that after a duty of 3% has been paid thereon no obstacle or hindrance shall be given thereto.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] La Forest, a knight of St John of Jerusalem, was the first resident ambassador of France at Constantinople. He died in 1537.

CAPIZ, a town and the capital of the province of Capiz, Panay, Philippine Islands, on the Capiz or Panay river, about 4 m. from its mouth on the N. coast. Pop. (1903) 18,525. Capiz has a large and beautiful Roman Catholic church (of stone), a Protestant church (with a hospital) and good government buildings, and is the seat of the provincial high school. Alcohol of a superior quality is manufactured in large quantities from the fermented juice of the nipa palm, which grows plentifully in the neighbouring swamps. Fishing and the weaving of fabrics of cotton, hemp and pineapple fibre are important industries. Rice and sugar are raised in abundance. Tobacco, Indian corn and cacao are produced to a limited extent; and rice, alcohol, sugar and copra are exported. Coasting vessels ascend the river to the town. The language is Visayan.

CAPMANY Y MONTPALAU, ANTONIO DE (1742-1813), Spanish polygraph, was born at Barcelona on the 24th of November 1742. He retired from the army in 1770, and was subsequently elected secretary of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid. His principal works are--_Memorias historicas sobre la marina, commercio, y artes de la antigua ciudad de Barcelona_ (4 vols. 1779-1792); _Teatro historico-critico de la elocuencia Espanola_ (1786); _Filiosofia de la elocuencia_ (1776), and _Cuestiones criticas sobre varias puntos de historia economica, politica, y militar_ (1807). Capmany died at Barcelona on the 14th of November 1813. His monograph on the history of his birthplace still preserves much of its original value.

CAPO D'ISTRIA, GIOVANNI ANTONIO [JOANNES],[1] COUNT (1776-1831), Russian statesman and president of the Greek republic, was born at Corfu on the 11th of February 1776. He belonged to an ancient Corfiot family which had immigrated from Istria in 1373, the title of count being granted to it by Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy, in 1689. The father of Giovanni, Antonio Maria Capo d'Istria, was a man of considerable importance in the island, a stiff aristocrat of the old school, who in 1798, after the treaty of Campo Formio had placed the Ionian Islands under French rule, was imprisoned for his opposition to the new regime, his release next year being the earliest triumph of his son's diplomacy. On the establishment in 1800, under Turkish suzerainty, of the septinsular republic--a settlement negotiated at Constantinople by the elder Capo d'Istria--Giovanni, who had meanwhile studied medicine at Padua, entered the government service as secretary to the legislative council, and in one capacity or another exercised for the next seven years a determining voice in the affairs of the republic. At the beginning of 1807 he was appointed "extraordinary military governor" to organize the defence of Santa Maura against Ali Pasha of Iannina, an enterprise which brought him into contact with Theodores Kolokotrones and other future chiefs of the war of Greek independence, and awoke in him that wider Hellenic patriotism which was so largely to influence his career.

Throughout the period of his official connexion with the Ionian government, Capo d'Istria had been a consistent upholder of Russian influence in the islands; and when the treaty of Tilsit (1807) dashed his hopes by handing over the Ionian republic to Napoleon, he did not relinquish his belief in Russia as the most reliable ally of the Greek cause. He accordingly refused the offers made to him by the French government, and accepted the invitation of the Russian chancellor Romanzov to enter the tsar's service. He went to St Petersburg in 1809, and was appointed to the honorary post of attache to the foreign office, but it was not till two years after, in 1811, that he was actually employed in diplomatic work as attache to Baron Stackelberg, the Russian ambassador at Vienna. His knowledge of the near East was here of great service, and in the following year he was attached, as chief of his diplomatic bureau, to Admiral Chichagov, on his mission to the Danubian principalities to stir up trouble in the Balkan peninsula as a diversion on the flank of Austria, and to attempt to supplement the treaty of Bucharest by an offensive and defensive alliance with the Ottoman empire. The Moscow campaign of 1812 intervened; Chichagov was disgraced in consequence of his failure to destroy Napoleon at the passage of the Beresina; but Capo d'Istria was not involved, was made a councillor of state and continued in his diplomatic functions. During the campaign of 1813 he was attached to the staff of Barclay de Tolly and was present at the battles of Lutzen, Bautzen, Dresden and Leipzig. With the advance of the allies he was sent to Switzerland to secure the withdrawal of the republic from the French alliance. Here, in spite of his instructions to guarantee the neutrality of Switzerland, he signed on his own responsibility the proclamation issued by Prince Schwarzenberg, stating the intention of the allied troops to march through the country. His motive was to prevent any appearance of disagreement among the allies. The emperor Alexander, to whom he hastened to make an explanation in person, endorsed his action.

Capo d'Istria was present with the allies in Paris, and after the signing of the first peace of Paris he was rewarded by the tsar with the order of St Vladimir and his full confidence. At the congress of Vienna his influence was conspicuous; he represented the tsar on the Swiss committee, was associated with Rasumovsky in negotiating the tangled Polish and Saxon questions, and was the Russian plenipotentiary in the discussions with the Baron vom Stein on the affairs of Germany. His _Memoire sur l'empire germanique_, of the 9th of February 1815, presented to the tsar, was based on the policy of keeping Germany weak in order to secure Russian preponderance in its councils. It was perhaps from a similar motive that, after the Waterloo campaign, he strenuously opposed the proposals for the dismemberment of France. It was on his advice that the duc de Richelieu persuaded Louis XVIII. to write the autograph letter in which he declared his intention of resigning rather than submit to any diminution of the territories handed down to him by his ancestors.[2] The treaty of the 20th of November 1815, which formed for years the basis of the effective concert of Europe, was also largely his work.

On the 26th of September 1815, after the proclamation of the Holy Alliance at the great review on the plain of Vertus, Capo d'Istria was named a secretary of state. On his return to St Petersburg, he shared the ministry of foreign affairs with Count Nesselrode, though the latter as senior signed all documents. Capo d'Istria, however, had sole charge of the newly acquired province of Bessarabia, which he governed conspicuously well. In 1818 he attended the emperor Alexander at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, and in the following year obtained leave to visit his home. He travelled by way of Venice, Rome and Naples, his progress exciting the liveliest apprehensions of the powers, notably of Austria. The "Jacobin" pose of the tsar was notorious, his all-embracing ambition hardly less so; and Russian travellers in Italy, notably the emperor's former tutor, Cesar de Laharpe, were little careful in the expression of their sympathy for the ideals of the Carbonari. In Metternich's eyes Capo d'Istria, "the coryphaeus of liberalism," was responsible for the tsar's vagaries, the fount of all the ills of which the times were sick; and, for all the count's diplomatic reticence, the Austrian spies who dogged his footsteps earned their salaries by reporting sayings that set the reactionary courts in a flutter. For Metternich the overthrow of Capo d'Istria's influence became a necessity of political salvation. At Corfu Capo d'Istria became the repository of all the grievances of his countrymen against the robust administration of Sir Thomas Maitland. At the congress of Vienna the count had supported the British protectorate over the Ionian Islands, the advantages of which from the point of view of trade and security were obvious; but the drastic methods of "King Tom's" government, symbolized by a gallows for pirates and other evil-doers in every popular gathering place, offended his local patriotism. He submitted a memorandum on the subject to the tsar, and before returning to Russia travelled via Paris to England to lay the grievances of the Ionians before the British government. His reception was a cold one, mainly due to his own disingenuousness, for he refused to show British ministers the memorandum which he had already submitted to the Russian emperor, on the ground that it was intended only for his own private use. The whole thing seemed, rightly or wrongly, an excuse for the intervention of Russia in affairs which were by treaty wholly British.

On his return to St Petersburg in the autumn of 1819, Capo d'Istria resumed his influence in the intimate counsels of the tsar. The murder of the Russian agent, Kotzebue, in March, had shaken but not destroyed Alexander's liberalism, and it was Capo d'Istria who drew up the emperor's protest against the Carlsbad decrees and the declaration of his adherence to constitutional views (see ALEXANDER I.). In October 1820 Capo d'Istria accompanied the tsar to the congress at Troppau. The events of the year--the murder of the due de Berry in March, the Revolutions in Spain and in Naples--had produced their effect. Alexander was, in Metternich's exultant language, "a changed man," and Capo d'Istria apparently shared his conversion to reactionary principles. The Austrian chancellor now put forth all his powers to bring Alexander under his own influence, and to overthrow Capo d'Istria, whom he despised, distrusted and feared. In 1821 Alexander Ypsilanti's misguided raid into the Danubian principalities gave him his opportunity. The news reached the tsar at the congress of Laibach, and to Capo d'Istria was entrusted the task of writing the letter to Ypsilanti in which the tsar repudiated his claim, publicly proclaimed that he had the sympathy and support of Russia. For a while the position of Capo d'Istria was saved; but it was known that he had been approached by the agent of the Greek _Hetairia_ before Ypsilanti, and that he had encouraged Ypsilanti to take up the ill-fated adventure which he himself had refused; he was hated at the Russian court as an upstart Greek, and Metternich was never weary of impressing on all and sundry that he was "using Russian policy for Greek ends." At last nothing but long habit and native loyalty to those who had served him well, prevented Alexander from parting with a minister who had ceased to possess his confidence. Capo d'Istria, anticipating his dismissal, resigned on the eve of the tsar's departure for the congress of Verona (1822), and retired into private life at Geneva.

On the 11th of April 1827, the Greek national assembly at Troezene elected Capo d'Istria president of the republic. The vote was a triumph for the Russian faction, for the count, even after his fall, had not lost the personal regard of the emperor Alexander, nor ceased to consider himself a Russian official. He accepted the offer, but was in no hurry to take up the thankless task. In July he visited the emperor Nicholas I. at Tsarskoye Selo, receiving permission to proceed and instructions as to the policy he should adopt, and he next made a tour of the courts of Europe in search of moral and material support. The news of the battle of Navarino (20th of October 1827) hastened his arrival; the British frigate "Warspite" was placed at his disposal to carry him to Greece, and on the 19th of January 1828 he landed at Nauplia.

Capo d'Istria's rule in Greece had to contend against immense difficulties--the utter poverty of the treasury, the barbarism of the people but recently emancipated, the continued presence of Ibrahim Pasha, with an unbroken army, in the south of the Morea. His strength lay in his experience of affairs and in the support of Russia; but he was by inheritance an aristocrat and by training an official, lacking in broad human sympathy, and therefore little fitted to deal with the wild and democratic elements of the society it was his task to control. The Greeks could understand the international status given to them by his presidency, and for a while the enthusiasm evoked by his arrival made him master of the situation. He thoroughly represented Greek sentiment, too, in his refusal to accept the narrow limits which the powers, in successive protocols, sought to impose on the new state (see GREECE). But the Russian administrative system by which he sought to restrain the native turbulence was bound in the end to be fatal to him. The wild chiefs of the revolution won over at first by their inclusion in his government, were offended by his European airs and Russian uniform, and alienated by his preference for the educated Greeks of the Phanar and of Corfu, his promotion of his brothers Viaro and Agostino to high commands causing special offence. Dissatisfaction ended in open rebellion; the islands revolted; Capo d'Istria called in the aid of the Russian admiral; and Miaoulis, the hero of the Greek war at sea, blew up the warships under his command to prevent their falling into the hands of the government. On land, so far as the president was concerned, the climax was reached with the attempt to coerce the Mavromichales of the Maina, the bravest and most turbulent of the mountain clans, whose chief Petros Mavromichales, commonly known as Petrobey, had played a leading

## part in the War of Independence. The result was an insurrection in the

Maina (Easter, 1830), and the imprisonment of those of the Mavromichales, including Petrobey, who happened to be in the power of the government. At the news of their chieftain's imprisonment the Mainots, who had for a while been pacified, once more flew to arms and threatened to march on Nauplia; but negotiations were opened, and on the advice of the Russian minister Petrobey consented to make his submission to the president. Unhappily, when he was brought under guard to the appointed interview, Capo d'Istria, in a moment of irritation and weariness, refused to see him. Maddened with rage at this insult from a man who had not struck a blow for Greece, the proud old chief, on his way back to prison, called out to two of his kinsmen, his son George and his brother Constantino, "You see how I fare," and passed on. According to the code of the Maina this was a command to take revenge. Next day, the 9th of October 1831, the two placed themselves at the door of the church where Capo d'Istria was accustomed to worship. As he passed in Constantine shot him down, and as he fell George thrust a dagger into his heart.

AUTHORITIES.--Carl W.P. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy's _Graf Johann Kapodistrias_ (Berlin, 1864) is based on all the sources, printed and unprinted, available at the time of publication, and contains an excellent guide to these. This may be supplemented by the historical sections of F. de Marten's _Recueil des traites condus par la Russie, &c._ (1874, &c.). A sketch of Capo d'Istria's activity as president will be found in W. Alison Phillips's _The War of Greek Independence_ (London, 1897). Many of Capo d'Istria's despatches, &c., are published in the collections of diplomatic correspondence mentioned in the bibliography of the article EUROPE: _History_. Under the Russian title "Zapiska grapha Joanna Capodistrias" is published in the series of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, vol. iii. p. 163 (St Petersburg, 1868)the _Apercu de ma carriere publique_, written by Capo d'Istria for presentation to the emperor Alexander, and dated at Geneva 12/24 December 1826. Of unpublished materials may be mentioned the letters of Capo d'Istria to Sir Richard Church, vol. xvi. of the Church Papers in the British Museum (_Add. MSS._ 36453-36571). See further bibliography to chapter vi. of vol. x. of the _Cambridge Modern History_ (1907). (W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] After his election to the Greek presidency in 1827, Capo d'Istria, whose baptismal names were Giovanni Antonio, signed himself Joannes Capodistrias, the form by which he is very commonly known.

[2] The letter was written by Michael Stourdza and _copied_ by Louis.

CAPODISTRIA, a town and seaport of Austria, in Istria, 15 m. S.W. of Trieste by rail. Pop. (1900) 10,711, mostly Italians. It is situated on a small island, which occupies the end of a large bay in the Gulf of Trieste, and which is connected with the mainland by a causeway half a mile in length. Capodistria is an old town with small streets, and has preserved remarkably well its Italian, almost its Venetian character. The most noteworthy buildings are the cathedral, the town-hall and the _Loggia_ or the old law-court, all situated in the principal square. In addition to the extraction of salt from the sea in the extensive salt works near the town, fishing and shipbuilding are the other principal occupations of the population. Trade is chiefly in sea-salt, wine and oil. Capodistria is usually identified with the town of Aegida, mentioned by Pliny, which appears by an inscription to have afterwards received (in the 6th century) the name of Justinopolis from Justin II. When at the beginning of the 13th century Istria fell into the hands of the patriarchs of Aquileia, they made this town the capital of the whole province. Thence it acquired its actual name, which means the capital of Istria. It was captured by the Venetians in 1279, and passed into Austrian possession in 1797.

CAPONIER (from the Fr. _caponniere_, properly a capon-cote or house), in fortification, a work constructed in the ditch of a fort. Its fire (musketry, machine-guns, case shot, &c.) sweeps the bottom of the ditch and prevents an enemy from establishing himself in it. The term is used in a military sense as early as in the late 17th century. In various bastioned systems of fortification a caponier served merely as a covered means of access to outworks, the bastion trace providing for the defence of the ditch by fire from the main parapet.

CAPPADOCIA, in ancient geography, an extensive inland district of Asia Minor. In the time of Herodotus the Cappadocians occupied the whole region from Mount Taurus to the Euxine. That author tells us that the name of the Cappadocians (Katpatouka) was applied to them by the Persians, while they were termed by the Greeks "Syrians," or "White Syrians" (_Leucosyri_). Under the later kings of the Persian empire the were divided into two satrapies or governments, the one comprising the central and inland portion, to which the name of Cappadocia continued to be applied by Greek geographers, while the other was called Cappadocia [Greek: kata Poutou], or simply Pontus (q.v.). This division had already come about before the time of Xenophon. As after the fall of the Persian government the two provinces continued to be separate, the distinction was perpetuated, and the name Cappadocia came to be restricted to the inland province (sometimes called Great Cappadocia), which alone will be considered in the present article.

Cappadocia, in this sense, was bounded S. by the chain of Mount Taurus, E. by the Euphrates, N. by Pontus, and W. vaguely by the great central salt "Desert" (_Axylon_). But it is impossible to define its limits with accuracy. Strabo, the only ancient author who gives any circumstantial account of the country, greatly exaggerated its dimensions; it was in reality about 250 m. in length by less than 150 in breadth. With the exception of a narrow strip of the district called Melitene, on the east, which forms part of the valley of the Euphrates, the whole of this region is a high upland tract, attaining to more than 3000 ft., and constituting the most elevated portion of the great tableland of Asia Minor (q.v.). The western parts of the province, where it adjoins Lycaonia, extending thence to the foot of Mount Taurus, are open treeless plains, affording pasture in modern as in ancient times to numerous flocks of sheep, but almost wholly desolate. But out of the midst of this great upland level rise detached groups or masses of mountains, mostly of volcanic origin, of which the loftiest are Mount Argaeus (still called by the Turks Erjish Dagh), (13,100 ft.), and Hassan Dagh to the south-west (8000 ft.).

The eastern portion of the province is of a more varied and broken character, being traversed by the mountain system called by the Greeks Anti-Taurus. Between these mountains and the southern chain of Taurus, properly so called, lies the region called in ancient times Cataonia, occupying an upland plain surrounded by mountains. This district in the time of Strabo formed a portion of Cappadocia and was completely assimilated; but earlier writers and the Persian military system regarded the Cataonians as a distinct people.

Cappadocia contained the sources of the Sarus and Pyramus rivers with their higher affluents, and also the middle course of the Halys (see ASIA MINOR), and the whole course of the tributary of Euphrates now called Tokhma Su. But as no one of these rivers was navigable or served to fertilize the lands along its torrential course, none has much importance in the history of the province.

The kingdom of Cappadocia, which was still in existence in the time of Strabo, as a nominally independent state, was divided, according to that geographer, into ten districts. Of these _Cataonia_ has been described; the adjoining district of _Melitene_, which did not originally form part of Cappadocia at all, but was annexed to it by Ariarathes I., was a fertile tract adjoining the Euphrates; its chief town retains the name of Malatia. _Cilicia_ was the name given to the district in which Caesarea, the capital of the whole country was situated, and in which rose the conspicuous Mount Argaeus. _Tyanitis_, the region of which Tyana was the capital, was a level tract in the extreme south, extending to the foot of Mount Taurus. _Garsauritis_ appears to have comprised the western or south-western districts adjoining Lycaonia; its chief town was Archelais. _Laviansene_ or _Laviniane_ was the country south and south-east of Sivas, through which ran the road from Sebastea to Caesarea: _Sargarausene_ lay south of the above, and included Uzun Yaila and the upper basin of the Tokhma Su; _Saravene_ lay west of Laviansene and included the modern district of Ak Dagh; _Chamanene_ lay west again of the above along the middle course of the Halys: _Morimene_ was the north-western district extending along the edge of the central desert as far south as Melegob.

The only two cities of Cappadocia considered by Strabo to deserve that appellation were Mazaca, the capital of the kingdom under its native monarchs (see CAESAREA-MAZACA); and Tyana, not far from the foot of the Taurus, the site of which is marked by a great mound at a place called Kiz (or Ekuz) Hissar, about 12 m. south-west of Nigdeh. Archelais, founded by Archelaus, the last king of the country, subsequently became a Roman colony, and a place of some importance. It is now Akserai.

Several localities in the Cappadocian country were the sites of famous temples. Among these the most celebrated were those of Comana (q.v.) and Venasa in Morimene, where a male god was served by over 3000 _hieroduli_. The local sanctity of Venasa has been perpetuated by the Moslem veneration for Haji Bektash, the founder of the order of dervishes to which the Janissaries used in great part to belong. Cappadocia was remarkable for the number of its slaves, which constituted the principal wealth of its monarchs. Large numbers were sent to Rome but did not enjoy a good reputation. The Cappadocian peasants are still in the habit of taking service in the West of the peninsula and only returning to their homes after long absences; their labour is now much valued by employers, as they are a strong sober folk. The province was celebrated for its horses, as well as for its vast flocks of sheep; but from its elevation above the sea, and the coldness of its climate, it could never have been rich and fertile.

_History_.--Nothing is known of the history of Cappadocia before it became subject to the Persian empire, except that the country was the home of a great "Hittite" power centred at Boghaz-Keui (see PTERIA), which has left monuments at many places, e.g. Nevsheher, Fraktin, Gorun, Malatia, various points about Albistan and Derendeh, Bulgur Maden, Andaval and Tyana. Possibly the princes of the last named city were independent. With the decline of the Syro-Cappadocians after their defeat by Croesus, Cappadocia was left in the power of a sort of feudal aristocracy, dwelling in strong castles and keeping the peasants in a servile condition, which later made them apt for foreign slavery. It was included in the third Persian satrapy in the division established by Darius, but long continued to be governed by rulers of its own, none apparently supreme over the whole country and all more or less tributary to the Great King. Thoroughly subdued at last by the satrap Datames, Cappadocia recovered independence under a single ruler, Ariarathes (hence called Ariarathes I.), who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and maintained himself on the throne of Cappadocia after the fall of the Persian monarchy.

The province was not visited by Alexander, who contented himself with the tributary acknowledgment of his sovereignty made by Ariarathes before the conqueror's departure from Asia Minor; and the continuity of the native dynasty was only interrupted for a short time after Alexander's death, when the kingdom fell, in the general partition of the empire, to Eumenes. His claims were made good in 322 by the regent Perdiccas, who crucified Ariarathes; but in the dissensions following Eumenes's death, the son of Ariarathes recovered his inheritance and left it to a line of successors, who mostly bore the name of the founder of the dynasty, Under the fourth of the name Cappadocia came into relations with Rome, first as a foe espousing the cause of Antiochus the Great, then as an ally against Perseus of Macedon. The kings henceforward threw in their lot with the Republic as against the Seleucids, to whom they had been from time to time tributary. Ariarathes V. marched with the Roman proconsul Crassus against Aristonicus, a claimant to the throne of Pergammum, and their forces were annihilated (130 B.C.). The imbroglio which followed his death ultimately led to interference by the rising power of Pontus and the intrigues and wars which ended in the failure of the dynasty. The Cappadocians, supported by Rome against Mithradates, elected a native lord, Ariobarzanes, to succeed (93 B.C.); but it was not till Rome had disposed at once of the Pontic and Armenian kings that his rule was established (63 B.C.). In the civil wars Cappadocia was now for Pompey, now for Caesar, now for Antony, now against him. The Ariobarzanes dynasty came to an end and a certain Archelaus reigned in its stead, by favour first of Antony, then of Octavian, and maintained tributary independence till A.D. 17, when the emperor Tiberius, on Archelaus's death in disgrace, reduced Cappadocia at last to a province. Vespasian in A.D. 70 joined Armenia Minor to it and made the combined province a frontier bulwark. It remained, under various provincial redistributions, part of the Eastern Empire till late in the 11th century, though often ravaged both by Persians and Arabs. But before it passed into Seljuk hands (1074), and from them ultimately to the Osmanlis, it had already become largely Armenian in religion and speech; and thus we find the southern part referred to as "Hermeniorum terra" by crusading chroniclers. At this day the north-east and east parts of the province are largely inhabited by Armenians. The native kings had done much to Hellenize Cappadocia, which had previously received a strong Iranian colour; but it was left to Christianity to complete their work. Though pre-Hellenic usages long survived in the local cults and habits, a part of the people has remained more or less Hellenic to this day, in spite of its envelopment by Moslem conquerors and converts. The tradition of its early church, illuminated by the names of the two Gregories and Basil of Caesarea, has been perpetuated by the survival of a native Orthodox element throughout the west and north-west of the province; and in the remoter valleys Greek speech has never wholly died out. Its use has once more become general under Greek propagandist influence, and the Cappadocian "Greeks" are now a flourishing community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--W. Wright, _Empire of the Hittites_ (1884); G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, _Hist. de l'art dans l'antiquite_, vol. iv. (1886); A.H. Sayce, _Hittites_ (1892) (see also PTERIA); J.G. Droysen, _Gesch. des Hellenismus_ (3rd ed., 1878); A. Holm, _Gesch. Griech._ (Eng. trans., 1886); Th. Reinach, _Mithridate Eupator_ (1890); E.R. Bevan, _House of Seleucus_ (1902); Th. Mommsen, _Provinces of the Roman Empire_ (Eng. trans., 1886); J. Marquardt, _Rom. Staatsverwaltung_, i. (1874); W.M. Ramsey, _Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor_ (1890); C. Ritter, _Erdkunde_, xviii. xix. (1858-1859); D.G. Hogarth and J.A.R. Munro, _Mod. and Anc. Roads in E. Asia Minor_ (R.G.S. Supp. Papers, iii. 1893); G. Perrot, _Souvenirs d'un voyage dans l'A. Mineure_ (1864); H.J. v. Lennep, _Travels in Asia Minor_ (1870); E. Chantre, _Mission en Cappadocie_ (1898); H.F. Tozer, _Turkish Armenia_ (1881); H.C. Barkley, _Ride Through A.M. and Armenia_ (1891); Lord Warkworth, _Notes of a Diary in As. Turkey_ (1898); M. Sykes, _Dar ul-Islam_ (1904). (E. H. B.; D. G. H.)

CAPPEL, a French family which produced some distinguished jurists and theologians in the 15th and 16th centuries. In 1491, Guillaume Cappel, as rector of the university of Paris, protested against a tithe which Innocent VIII. claimed from that body. His nephew, Jacques Cappel (d. 1541), the real founder of the family, was himself advocate-general at the parlement of Paris, and in a celebrated address delivered before the court in 1537, against the emperor Charles V., claimed for Francis I. the counties of Artois, Flanders and Charolais. He left nine children, of whom three became Protestants. The eldest, Jacques (1529-1586), sieur du Tilloy, wrote several treatises on jurisprudence. Louis (1534-1586), sieur de Moriambert, the fifth son, was a most ardent Protestant. In 1570 he presented a confession of faith to Charles IX. in the name of his co-religionists. He disputed at Sedan before the duc de Bouillon with the Jesuit, Jean Maldouat (1534-1583), and wrote in defence of Protestantism. The seventh son, Ange (1537-1623), seigneur du Luat, was secretary to Henry IV., and enjoyed the esteem of Sully. Among those who remained Catholic should be mentioned Guillaume, the translator of Machiavelli. The eldest son Jacques also left two sons, famous in the history of Protestantism:--Jacques (1570-1624), pastor of the church founded by himself on his fief of le Tilloy and afterwards at Sedan, where he became professor of Hebrew, distinguished as historian, philologist and exegetical scholar; and Louis (see below).

On the protest of Guillaume Cappel, see Du Bellay, _Historia Universitatis Parisiensis_, vol. v. On the family, see the sketch by another Jacques Cappel, "De Capellorum gente," in the _Commentarii et notae criticae in Vetus Testamentum_ of Louis Cappel, his father (Amsterdam, 1689). Consult Eugene and Emile Haag, _La France protestante_, vol. iii. (new edition, 1881).

CAPPEL, LOUIS (1585-1658), French Protestant divine and scholar, a Huguenot whose descent is traced above, was born at St Elier, near Sedan, in 1585. He studied theology at Sedan and Saumur; and Arabic at Oxford, where he spent two years. At the age of twenty-eight he accepted the chair of Hebrew at Saumur, and twenty years afterwards was appointed professor of theology. Amongst his fellow lecturers were Moses Amyraut and Josue de la Place. As a Hebrew scholar he made a special study of the history of the Hebrew text, which led him to the conclusion that the vowel points and accents are not an original part of the Hebrew language, but were inserted by the Massorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier than the 5th century A.D., and that the primitive Hebrew characters are those now known as the Samaritan, while the square characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. These conclusions were hotly contested by Johannes Buxtorf, being in conflict with the views of his father, Johannes Buxtorf senior, notwithstanding the fact that Elias Levita had already disputed the antiquity of the vowel points and that neither Jerome nor the Talmud shows any acquaintance with them. His second important work, _Critica Sacra_, was distasteful from a theological point of view. He had completed it in 1634; but owing to the fierce opposition with which he had to contend, he was only able to print it at Paris in 1650, by aid of a son, who had turned Catholic. The various readings in the Old Testament text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Massoretic text convinced him that the idea of the integrity of the Hebrew text, as commonly held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition to his views, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars.

Cappel was also the author of _Annotationes et Commentarii in Vetus Testamentum_, _Chronologia Sacra_, and other biblical works, as well as of several other treatises on Hebrew, among which are the _Arcanum Punctuationis revelatum_ (1624) and the _Diatriba de veris et antiquis Ebraeorum literis_ (1645). His _Commentarius de Capellorum gente_, giving an account of the family to which he belonged, was published by his nephew James Cappel (1639-1722), who, at the age of eighteen, became professor of Hebrew at Saumur, but, on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, fled to England, where he died in 1722. See Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_.

CAPPELLO, BIANCA (1548-1587), grand duchess of Tuscany, was the daughter of Bartolommeo Cappello, a member of one of the richest and noblest Venetian families, and was famed for her great beauty. At the age of fifteen she fell in love with Pietro Bonaventuri, a young Florentine clerk in the firm of Salviati, and on the 28th of November 1563 escaped with him to Florence, where they were married and she had a daughter named Pellegrina. The Venetian government made every effort to have Bianca arrested and brought back, but the grand duke Cosimo de' Medici intervened in her favour and she was left unmolested. However she did not get on well with her husband's family, who were very poor and made her do menial work, until at last her beauty attracted Francesco, the grand duke's son, a vicious and unprincipled rake. Although already married to the virtuous and charming Archduchess Giovanna of Austria, he seduced the fair Venetian and loaded her with jewels, money and other presents. Bianca's accommodating husband was given court employment, and consoled himself with other ladies; in 1572 he was murdered in the streets of Florence in consequence of some amorous intrigue, though possibly Bianca and Francesco were privy to the deed. On the death of Cosimo in 1574 Francesco succeeded to the grand duchy; he now installed Bianca in a fine palace close to his own and outraged his wife by flaunting his mistress before her. As Giovanna had borne Francesco no sons, Bianca was very anxious to present him with an heir, for otherwise her position would remain very insecure. But although she resorted to all sorts of expedients, even to that of trying to pass off a changeling as the grand duke's child, she was not successful. In 1578 Giovanna died; a few days later Francesco secretly married Bianca, and on the 10th of June, 1579, the marriage was publicly announced. The Venetian government now put aside its resentment and was officially represented at the magnificent wedding festivities, for it saw in Bianca Cappello an instrument for cementing good relations with Tuscany. But the long expected heir failed to come, and Bianca realized that if her husband were to die before her she was lost, for his family, especially his brother Cardinal Ferdinand, hated her bitterly, as an adventuress and interloper. In October 1587 both the grand duke and his wife died of colic within a couple of days of each other. At the time poison was suspected, but documentary evidence has proved the suspicion to be unfounded.

See S. Romanin, _Lezioni di storia Veneta_, vol. ii. (Florence, 1875); G.E. Saltini, _Tragedie Medicee domestiche_ (Florence, 1898). (L. V.*)

CAPPERONNIER, CLAUDE (1671-1744), French classical scholar, the son of a tanner, was born at Montdidier on the 1st of May 1671. He studied at Amiens and Paris, and took orders in the Church of Rome, but devoted himself almost entirely to classical studies. He declined a professorship in the university of Bale, and was afterwards appointed (1722) to the Greek chair in the College de France. He published an edition of Quintilian (1725) and left behind him at his death an edition of the ancient Latin Rhetoricians, which was published in 1756. He furnished much material for Robert Estienne's _Thesaurus Linguae Latinae_. His nephew, Jean Capperonnier (1716-1775), his successor in the chair of Greek at the College de France, was also a distinguished scholar, and published valuable editions of classical authors--Caesar, Anacreon, Plautus, Sophocles.

CAPPONI, GINO, MARQUIS (1792-1876), Italian statesman and historian, was born on the 13th of September 1792. The Capponi family is one of the most illustrious Florentine houses, and is mentioned as early as 1250; it acquired great wealth as a mercantile and banking firm, and many of its members distinguished themselves in the service of the republic and the Medicis (see CAPPONI, PIERO), and later in that of the house of Lorraine. Gino was the son of the Marquis Pier Roberto Capponi, a nobleman greatly attached to the reigning grand duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand III. When that prince was deposed by the French in 1799 the Capponi family followed him into exile at Vienna, where they remained until he exchanged his rights to the grand duchy for a German principality (1803). The Capponi then returned to Florence, and in 1811 Gino married the marchesina Giulia Riccardi. Although the family were very anti-French Gino was chosen with other notables to pay homage to Napoleon in Paris in 1813. On the fall of Napoleon Ferdinand returned to Tuscany (September 1814), but the restoration proved less reactionary there than in any other part of Italy. Young Capponi was well received at court, but not being satisfied with the life of a mere man of fashion, he devoted himself to serious study and foreign travel. After sundry journeys in Italy he again visited Paris in 1818, and then went to England. He became deeply interested in English institutions, and carefully studied the constitution, the electoral system, university life, industrial organization, &c. At Edinburgh he met Francis Jeffrey, the editor of the _Edinburgh Review_, and conceived a desire to found a similar review in Italy. Besides knowing Jeffrey he made the acquaintance of many prominent statesmen and men of letters, including Lord John Russell, the duke of Bedford, Dugald Stewart, Ugo Foscolo, &c. This visit had a great effect in forming his character, and while it made him an ardent Anglophil, he realized more and more the distressing conditions of his own country. He returned to Italy in 1820, and on reaching Florence he set to work to found a review on the lines of the _Edinburgh_, which should attract the best literary talent. This he achieved with the help of the Swiss G.P. Vieusseux, and the result was the _Antologia_. He contributed largely to its columns, as well as to those of the _Archivio Storico_, another of Vieusseux's ventures. Capponi began to take a more active interest in politics, and entered into communication with the Liberals of all parts of Italy. He had discussed the possibility of liberating Italy with Prince Charles Albert of Savoy-Carignano, to whom he had introduced the Milanese revolutionist Count Confalonieri (q.v.). But the collapse of the rising of 1821 and the imprisonment of Confalonieri made Capponi despair of achieving anything by revolution, and he devoted himself to the economic development of Tuscany and to study. At his beautiful villa of Varramista he collected materials for a history of the Church; his work was interrupted by family troubles and by increasing blindness, but although by 1844 he had completely lost his sight he continued to work by means of amanuenses. In 1847 he again plunged into politics and discussed plans for an Italian alliance against Austria. When the grand duke Leopold II. decided in 1848 to grant his people a constitution, Capponi was made a member of the commission to draw it up, and he eventually became prime minister. During his short tenure of office he conducted foreign affairs with great skill, and made every effort to save the Italian situation after the defeat of Charles Albert on the Mincio. In October 1848 he resigned; soon afterwards the grand duke fled, anarchy followed, and then in 1849 he returned, but with an escort of Austrian soldiery. The blind statesman thanked God that he could not see the hated white uniforms in Florence. He returned to his studies and commenced his great _Storia della Repubblica di Firenze_; but he followed political affairs with great interest, and helped to convince Lord John Russell, who stayed with him in 1859, of the hopelessness of the grand duke's position. On Leopold's second flight (27th of April 1859) a Tuscan assembly was summoned, and Capponi elected member of it. He voted for the grand duke's deposition and for the union of Tuscany with Piedmont. King Victor Emmanuel made him senator in 1860. His last years were devoted almost exclusively to his Florentine history, which was published in 1875 and achieved an immediate success. This was Capponi's swan song, for on the 3rd of February 1876 he died at the age of eighty-four.

Capponi was one of the best specimens of the Tuscan landlord class. "He represents," wrote his biographer Tabarrini, "one of the most striking personalities of a generation, now wholly passed away, which did not resign itself to the beatitudes of 1815, but wished to raise Italy from the humble state to which the European peace of that year had condemned her; and he succeeded by first raising the character of the Italians in the opinion of foreigners, so as to deserve their esteem and respect." He knew nearly all the most interesting people in Italy, besides many distinguished foreigners: Giuseppe Giusti, the poet, A. Manzoni, the novelist, Niccolo Tommaseo, Richard Cobden, A. von Reumont, the historian, were among those whom he entertained at his palace or his villas, and many were the struggling students and revolutionists to whom he gave assistance. As a historian his reputation rests on his _Storia della Repubblica di Firenze_ (Florence, 1875); it was the first comprehensive Italian book on the subject based on documents and written in a modern critical spirit, and if the chapters on the early history of the city are now obsolete in view of recent discoveries, yet, as a whole, it remains a standard work. Besides his history a large number of essays and pamphlets have been published in his _Scritti Inediti_.

See M. Tabarrini, _Gino Capponi_ (Florence, 1879); and A. von Reumont, _Gino Capponi_ (Gotha, 1880). (L. V.*)

CAPPONI, PIERO (1447-1496), Florentine statesman and warrior. He was at first intended for a business career, but Lorenzo de' Medici, appreciating his ability, sent him as ambassador to various courts, where he acquitted himself with distinction. On the death of Lorenzo (1492), who was succeeded by his son, the weak and incapable Piero, Capponi became one of the leaders of the anti-Medicean faction which two years later expelled him from Florence. Capponi was then made chief of the republic and conducted public affairs with great skill, notably in the difficult negotiations with Charles VIII. of France, who had invaded Italy in 1494 and in whose camp the exiled Medici had taken refuge. In November Charles, on his way to Naples, entered Florence with his army, and immediately began to behave as though he were the conqueror of the city, because he had entered it lance in rest. The signory was anxious to be on good terms with him, but when he spoke in favour of the Medici their temper changed at once, and the citizens were ordered to arm and be prepared for all emergencies. Tumults broke out between French soldiers and Florentine citizens, barricades were erected and stones began to fly from the windows. This alarmed Charles, who lowered his tone and said nothing more about conquered cities or the Medici. The Florentines were willing to pay him a large sum of money, but in settling the amount further disagreements arose. Charles, who was full of the Medici's promises, made exorbitant demands, and finally presented an ultimatum to the signory, who rejected it. "Then we shall sound our trumpets," said the king, to which Capponi replied "And we shall toll our bells," and tore up the ultimatum in the king's face. Charles, who did not relish the idea of house-to-house fighting, was forced to moderate his claims, and concluded a more equitable treaty with the republic. On the 28th of November he departed, and Capponi was appointed to reform the government of Florence. But being more at home in the camp than in the council chamber, he was glad of the opportunity of leading the armies of the republic against the Pisan rebels. He proved a most capable general, but while besieging the castle of Soiana, he was killed on the 25th of September 1496. His death was greatly regretted, for the Florentines recognized in him their ablest statesman and warrior.

See under SAVONAROLA, FLORENCE, MEDICI, CHARLES VIII. The "Vita di Piero di Gino Capponi," by V. Acciaiuoli (published in the _Archivio Storico Italiano_, series 1, vol. iv.