Chapter XV: Front Matter (15)

(2) (In origin ultimately the same as "quash," to annul, from Lat. _quassare_, to dash or break to pieces, a frequentative of _quatere_, to shake, but also connected in form and meaning with _cassare_, to make, _cassus_, empty or void), a military term, meaning originally to disband, and probably adopted from the Dutch in the 16th century. The word in various forms is used in the same sense in most European languages. It is now used in English for the dismissal of a commissioned officer from the army and navy for particularly serious offences, in the words of the Army Act, 1881, s. 16, for "behaving in a scandalous manner unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." "Cashiering" involves not merely the loss of the commission, but also a permanent disqualification from serving the state in any capacity.

CASH REGISTER, a species of calculating machine adapted for use in connexion with the cash-tills of shops, in order to provide a record of the money received. Such machines are made in great variety and widely used. Sometimes the records are constituted by holes punched in a roll of paper; in other cases they are shown on dials by the aid of adding mechanism. A common form has a number of keys, each representing a particular sum and each attached to a counting mechanism which records how many times it has been used. By pressing appropriate combinations of these keys the amount of any purchase can be registered, and the combined records of all the counting mechanism give the total that has been passed through the machine in any selected period. Each key when pressed also raises an indicator which informs the customer how much he has to pay. In their more elaborate forms these cash registers may have a separate money-drawer for each assistant employed in the shop, thus enabling the proprietor to ascertain how many customers each man has served and how much money he has taken, and also to fix responsibility for mistakes, bad money, &c. The machines are also made to deliver a printed receipt for each purchase, showing the amount, date and assistant concerned, and they may be arranged to keep separate records of credit sales, money received on account, and money paid out.

CASILINUM (mod. _Capua_), an ancient city of Campania, Italy, 3 m. N.W. of the ancient Capua. Its position at the point of junction of the Via Appia and Via Latina, and at their crossing of the river Volturnus by a three-arched bridge, which still exists, gave it considerable importance under the Roman republic; and while the original pre-Roman town, which was doubtless dependent on the neighbouring Capua, stood entirely on the left (S.) bank, surrounded on three sides by the river, the Roman city extended to the right bank also; remains of it have been found at some 25 ft. below the modern ground-level, the river-bed having risen considerably. In the Second Punic War it was occupied by Fabius Cunctator in 217 B.C., taken by Hannibal after a gallant defence by troops from Praeneste and Perusia in the winter of 216-215, but recaptured in the following year, serving the Romans as their base of operations against Capua. It lost its independence and became a _praefectura_. Caesar conducted a colony thither in 59 B.C., which was renewed by Antony in 44 B.C. The veterans took Octavian's side after Caesar's death, but it seems to have been united with Capua before the time of Vespasian, and it does not occur in the list of independent communities given by Pliny, who indeed (_Hist. Nat._ iii. 70) speaks of the _morientis Casilini reliquiae_, and only its position at the junction of the roads redeemed it from utter insignificance. (T. As.)

CASIMIR III., called "THE GREAT," king of Poland (1310-1370), the son of Wladislaus Lokietek, king of Poland, and Jadwiga, princess of Kalisch, was born at Kowal in Kujavia in 1310. Casimir belongs to that remarkable group of late medieval sovereigns who may be called the fathers of modern diplomacy, inasmuch as they relegated warfare to its proper place as the instrument of politics, and preferred the council-chamber to the battle-field. He was educated at the court of Charles Robert of Hungary, who had married Casimir's beautiful sister Elizabeth, and who gave his brother-in-law an excellent education under Italian masters. In his youth Casimir was considered frivolous and licentious; while his sudden flight from the field of Plowce, the scene of his father's great victory over the Teutonic knights, argued but poorly for his personal courage. When, therefore, he ascended the Polish throne in 1333, the future of his country, which then consisted of little more than the lately reunited provinces of Great and Little Poland, seemed dark indeed; especially as she was still at war with the Teutonic Order and with John of Luxemburg, king of Bohemia, who claimed the crown of Poland also. Fortunately Casimir was a man of penetrating genius. His father had been a hero who trusted entirely to his sword, yet the heroic struggle of a lifetime had barely sufficed to keep at bay the numerous and potent foes with which Poland was environed. Casimir recognized from the first that further fighting against tremendous odds was unprofitable. A careful, calculating dynastic policy, which aimed at the establishment of an equilibrium by means of prudent compromises and defensive alliances, was, he rightly judged, the best guarantee for the future safety and glory of Poland. Casimir began by tying the hands of the Teutonic Order by the truce of Thorn; he induced the king of Bohemia to relinquish his claims to the Polish throne by consenting to leave him a free hand in Silesia (conference of Trencsen, early in 1335); and subsequently he attended the celebrated congress of Visegrad (November 12-December 3, 1335), where Charles Robert entertained him and the king of Bohemia magnificently. At this congress the differences between Casimir and John of Bohemia were finally adjusted; peace was made between the king of Poland and the Teutonic Order on the basis of the cession of Pomerania, Kulm, and Michalow to the knights, who retroceded Kujavia and Dobrzyn; and the kings of Hungary and Poland further agreed to assist each other in the acquisition of the south-eastern border province of Halicz, or Red Russia (very nearly corresponding to the modern Galicia), in case the necessity for intervention should arise. The Holy See, jealous of the growing power of the house of Luxemburg, attempted to set aside the decrees of the congress of Visegrad, by urging Casimir to take up arms against the knights once more; but Casimir prudently refrained from hostilities, and ultimately compensated himself in the south-east for his losses in the north. To guarantee still further the integrity of Poland, Casimir, who had no male issue, concluded a compact with Charles Robert whereby he recognized Louis, Charles Robert's son, as the successor to the Polish crown; Louis on his part contracting to confirm the privileges of the Polish gentry and clergy, and to rule Poland through natives only.

In 1340 the death of George II. of Halicz, and the ravaging of that fruitful border principality by the Tatars, induced Casimir and Charles Robert to establish their joint influence there, and in 1344 the Red Russian boyar, Demetrius Detko, was appointed _starosta_, or governor, in the names of the two kings. Nine years later Lubart of Lithuania, who also had claims upon Red Russia, disputed the sway of Poland in that principality. Hungary coming to the assistance of Poland, Lubart was defeated and taken prisoner; but Casimir, anxious to avoid a bloody war with Lithuania's Tatar allies, came to a compromise with Lubart whereby Poland retained Halicz with Lemberg, while Vladimir, Belz, and Brzesc fell to the share of Lithuania. With the Teutonic knights, still Poland's most dangerous foe, Casimir preserved peaceful relations throughout his reign. He kept them within due bounds by using the influence of the Luxemburgers against them at the papal court; but the disputes between Poland and the order were ultimately settled by the peace of Kalisz (July 23, 1343), when the knights engaged for the first time to pay tribute to the Polish crown. John of Bohemia was also a constant thorn in the side of Casimir. Silesia, now split up into seventeen principalities, was the bone of contention between them; and when Casimir suddenly invaded that country, took Wschowa, and made Prince Charles of Bohemia a prisoner, war between the two kingdoms actually broke out and Casimir was besieged in Cracow by the Czechs. But his Hungarian allies hastened to his assistance, and the mediation of the Holy See restored peace in 1346. The death of the adventurous John at Crecy, and the election of his son as emperor, still further improved the situation. Charles IV., a cautious sovereign with many cares, was as anxious for the maintenance of peace as Casimir himself. Thus the relations between them were never very seriously disturbed.

Throughout his reign Casimir never neglected the great work of domestic reform, greatly aided by Jaroslaw Skotowicki, archbishop of Gnesen, formerly a professor at Bologna. The first result of their joint labours was the much-needed codification of the laws of Great and Little Poland in 1347. This was followed by the establishment of a supreme court of appeal in 1357. Towards everything like disorder, tyranny, or aristocratic oppression, Casimir was always inexorably severe; all disturbers of the peace were remorselessly put to death as the worst enemies of their country and he enjoyed in consequence the honourable title of "the Peasants' King." The lawlessness of the nobility was most noticeable in the province of Great Poland, where outrageous acts of violence were of everyday occurrence. To remedy the evil, Casimir drew up and promulgated the severe statute of Great Poland, which went to the very root of the matter and greatly strengthened the hands of the king's justices. Casimir also did much for education. Stimulated by the example of Charles IV., who had founded the university of Prague in 1348, Casimir on the 12th of May 1364 established and richly endowed the first university of Cracow, which had five professors of Roman law, three of Canon law, two of physics, and one master of arts. The security of the kingdom was sensibly promoted by the erection of a cordon of fortresses on its north-eastern borders, and a blow was given to foreign interference when Casimir succeeded in gaining dominant influence over the independent Polish principality of Masovia, which had hitherto gravitated between Bohemia and the Teutonic Order.

Casimir's last political act was the conclusion of a fresh alliance with Louis of Hungary against Charles IV. at Buda in 1369. He died on the 5th of November 1370 from the effects of an injury received while hunting. Though married three times Casimir left no sons; but he had the satisfaction of knowing that his domains would pass into the hands of a nephew every whit as capable and sagacious as himself.

See Jan Leniek, _The Congress of Visegrad_ (Pol.), (Lemberg, 1884);
J.K. Kochanowski, _Casimir the Great_ (Pol.), (Warsaw, 1900);
Kazimierz J. Gorzycki, _The Annexation of Red Russia by Casimir the
Great_ (Pol.), (Lemberg, 1889); Stanislaw Kryzanowski, _The Embassy of
Casimir the Great to Avignon_ (Pol.), (Cracow, 1900). (R. N. B.)

CASIMIR IV., king of Poland (1427-1492), second son of Wladislaus II. Jagiello, was appointed while still a lad grand-duke of Lithuania by his father, and crowned king of Poland at Cracow in June 1447, three years after the death of his elder brother, Wladislaus III., at the battle of Varna. The cause of this long interregnum was the disinclination of the Lithuanians to part with their prince till their outstanding differences with Poland, relating chiefly to the delimitation of the frontiers of the two states, had been settled. Casimir's reign of forty-five years was epoch-making for Poland. He was without doubt one of the greatest statesmen of his age, concealing beneath a simple exterior and homely habits a profound political sagacity and an unerring common-sense, and possessing in a high degree those useful qualities of patience, moderation, and tenacity, which characterized nearly all the princes of the house of Jagiello. Throughout life he steadily followed two guiding principles--the preservation of the political union between Poland and Lithuania at whatever cost, and the recovery of the lost lands of old Poland. It was due entirely to his steadfast adherence to these principles that Poland in the course of the 15th century rose to the rank of a great power; but by a singular irony of fate, Casimir, in consequence of his unswerving efforts to make his country glorious and prosperous, entirely forfeited the popularity of his Polish subjects, whose true interests he understood far better than they did themselves. Thus his refusal to sacrifice Polish to Lithuanian or Lithuanian to Polish interests caused both Poles and Lithuanians to accuse the far-seeing monarch of partiality and favouritism; while his anti-German policy, on which the future safety of the dual state depended, could only be carried through by the most humiliating concessions to patrician pride and greed. His difficulties were moreover considerably enhanced by the fact that he was not of an essentially martial temperament, and could not therefore appeal to the heroic side of the Polish character.

The great triumph of Casimir's reign was the final subjugation of the Teutonic Order, a triumph only accomplished after a harassing and desultory thirteen years' war, during which Casimir's own subjects gave him more trouble than all his enemies. The pretext of the rupture was the attempt of the knights to crush the Prussian diet, which, bearing as it did most of the burdens, claimed fairly enough a proportionate share in the government of the Prussian provinces. Excommunicated by the pope and placed under the ban of the Empire, the Prussian cities and gentry naturally turned to their nearest neighbour, Poland, for protection. In October 1453 they placed themselves beneath the overlordship of Casimir; on the 4th of February 1454 formally renounced their ancient allegiance to the Order; and some weeks later captured no fewer than fifty-seven towns and castles. On the 6th of March 1454 Casimir issued a manifesto directing the incorporation of the Prussian provinces with Poland, but granting them at the same time freedom from taxation and full autonomy. But except in the border province of Great Poland, the acquisition of this new territory excited little interest and no enthusiasm in Poland generally. The local diets granted subsidies with a niggard hand, and for the conduct of the war the king soon had to depend almost entirely on Hussite mercenaries, who frequently turned against him when their wages were not paid. The Polish gentry on the other hand exhibited far less energy in the field than in the council chamber; they were defeated again and again by the knights, and showed themselves utterly incapable of taking fortresses. No wonder then if in the earlier years of the war the Order recovered its lost ground, and the king, irritated beyond endurance by the suicidal parsimony of the estates, threatened to retire to the forests of Lithuania. But manlier counsels prevailed, the struggle was resumed, and after the bloody victory of Puck (September 17, 1462) the scales of fortune inclined decisively to the side of Poland. Finally the Holy See intervened, and by the second peace of Thorn (October 14, 1466) all West Prussia, as it is now called, was ceded to Poland, while East Prussia was left in the hands of the knights, who held it as a fief of the Polish crown.

The intervention of the Curia, which hitherto had been hostile to Casimir because of his steady and patriotic resistance to papal aggression, was due to the permutations of European politics. The pope was anxious to get rid of the Hussite king of Bohemia, George Podebrad, as the first step towards the formation of a league against the Turk. Casimir was to be a leading factor in this combination, and he took advantage of it to procure the election of his son Wladislaus as king of Bohemia. But he would not commit himself too far, and his ulterior plans were frustrated by the rivalry of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, who even went so far as to stimulate the Teutonic Order to rise against Casimir. The death of Matthias in 1490 was a great relief to Poland, and Casimir employed the two remaining years of his reign in consolidating his position still further. He expired rather suddenly while hunting at Troki in Lithuania in June 1492.

The feature of Casimir's character which most impressed his contemporaries was his extraordinary simplicity and sobriety. He, one of the greatest monarchs in Europe, habitually wore plain Cracow cloth, drank nothing but water, and kept the most austere of tables. His one passion was the chase. Yet his liberality to his ministers and servants was proverbial, and his vanquished enemies he always treated with magnificent generosity. Casimir's married life was singularly happy. His consort, Elizabeth of Austria, "the mother of the Jagiellos," bore him six sons and seven daughters, and by her affection and good counsel materially relieved the constant anxieties and grievous burdens of his long and arduous reign.

See Jan Dlugosz, _Opera_ (Cracow, 1887); August Sokolowski,
_Illustrated History of Poland_ (Pol.), vol. ii. (Vienna, 1904).
(R. N. B.)

CASIMIR-PERIER, JEAN PAUL PIERRE (1847-1907), fifth president of the French Republic, was born in Paris on the 8th of November 1847, being the grandson of Casimir Pierre Perier (q.v.) the famous premier of Louis Philippe. He entered public life as secretary to his father, A.V.L.C. Perier, who was minister of the interior under the presidency of Thiers. In 1874 he was elected general councillor of the Aube, and was sent by the same department to the chamber of deputies in the general elections of 1876, and he was always re-elected until his presidency. In spite of the traditions of his family, Casimir-Perier joined the group of Republicans on the Left, and was one of the 363 on the _Seize-Mai_ (1877). If he refused to vote the expulsion of the princes in 1883, and resigned as deputy upon the enactment of the law, it was only owing to personal connexions with the family of Orleans. On the 17th of August 1883 he became under-secretary of state for war, and retained that position until the 7th of January 1885. From 1890 to 1892 he was vice-president of the chamber, then in 1893 president. On the 3rd of December he became prime-minister, holding the department of foreign affairs, resigned in May 1894, and was re-elected president of the chamber. On the 24th of June 1894, after the assassination of President Carnot, he was elected president of the republic by 451 votes against 195 for Henri Brisson and 97 for Charles Dupuy. His presidency lasted only six months. The resignation of the Dupuy ministry on the 14th of January 1895 was followed the next day by that of the president. Casimir-Perier explained his action by the fact that he found himself ignored by the ministers, who did not consult him before taking decisions, and did not keep him informed upon political events, especially in foreign affairs. From that time he definitely and absolutely abandoned politics, and devoted himself to business--especially mining. At the trial of Dreyfus at Rennes, Casimir-Perier's evidence, as opposed to that of General Mercier, was of great value to the cause of Dreyfus. He died on the 11th of March 1907.

CASINO (diminutive of _casa_, a house), the Italian name for a pleasure-house in a garden, which has been extended to a place of public amusement at pleasure resorts, in which concerts, theatrical performances and public balls are given, and which usually contains a _cafe-restaurant_ and gaming saloons. "Casino" as an architectural term is still employed in France, and the subject is given in competitive programmes in the French schools of design. In the 18th century in England many Italian examples were built in the parks of country mansions, and Sir William Chambers in his treatise on civil architecture publishes plates of the casinos he had built at Marino, near Dublin, Wilton near Salisbury, and Birdshall, Yorkshire.

_Casino_ or _Cassino_ is also the name given to a game of cards of obscure origin, played with a full whist-pack. The object is to take as many cards as possible, particularly such as have special value. It may be played by two, three or four persons, partners sitting opposite one another. The player at the dealer's right is called the pony (_pone_), the one at his left the eldest hand. The dealer (selected by the cut of the lowest card) deals four cards to each player by twos and also, just before dealing to himself, four to the table, face upwards. The eldest hand begins the game by playing a card in one of three ways. Either he may take one of the exposed cards on the table by matching it with one from his own hand; or he may put one of his cards upon one of the table hand and call the sum of the pips (called _building_); or thirdly, failing to do either of these things, he must _trail_, i.e. lay a card face upwards on the table beside the exposed cards, and the player at his left then plays in his turn. When each player has played out all four of his cards the dealer deals four more all round, and the game proceeds until the pack is exhausted. The game either (1) ends at this juncture, the player having secured the most points winning; or (2) the side or player first securing 21 points wins; or (3) the points secured in a given number of deals may determine the winner. The points and their respective values are as follows:--_Big_ (or Great) _Casino_ (ten of diamonds), 2; _Little Casino_ (deuce of spades), 1; _Cards_ (greatest number), 3; _Spades_ (greatest number), 1; _Aces_, 1 each or 4 together; _Sweeps_ 1 each. Thus, without _sweeps_, the maximum points in one deal are 11. A sweep is a play that clears the table of all exposed cards. The game then proceeds by the next player placing a card on the table face upwards.

"Building," referred to above, is done as follows. Should a 3 lie
exposed on the table, a player may place a 4 upon it, saying, "I build
a 7," and, if it is not disturbed before his next turn, he may then
take the two cards with another 7 from his hand. It follows that no
combination may be built unless the builder holds the proper card in
his hand. But a build may be increased. Thus, in the case cited above,
another player may put a 2 upon the two cards which make 7 and say, "I
build 9," in which case the original builder loses control of the
build unless he also holds a 9 in his hand or can himself increase the
build again; for instance, adding an ace and calling 10. In the old
way of playing the ace counted 1, the deuce 2, and so on as at whist,
excepting that all court cards counted 10. But in the popular
variation called _Royal Casino_, now almost universally played, the
ace counts either 1 or 14, the king 13, the queen 12 and the knave 11.
In this manner the opportunities for simple and increased building are
greatly multiplied, resulting in a much livelier game.

If a player has made a build he must take it in on his next play,
unless he can take some other card. He cannot have two builds on the
table at the same time, nor increase another build if he already has
one of his own. _Double Builds_ cannot be increased, e.g. if a player
combines a 3 and 4 lying on the table and places a 7 from his hand
upon them, saying, "I build sevens," this build can be taken only with
a 7, and cannot be built upon further. Of course in the case cited the
builder must still have another 7 in his hand. In playing partners
each may take in the other's builds, or may build to a card that has
been declared by his partner; e.g. if his partner has built an 8 that
has been captured by an opponent, he may build another 8 with a card
from his own hand to the 8 that he knows to be in his partner's hand,
even though he has no 8 himself. In _trailing_, i.e. laying down a
card without matching or building, one usually plays small cards,
avoiding aces and (if Big and Little Casino have not yet been played)
tens and deuces, as well as any cards one has reason to think will be
of service to the enemy. High cards are usually played last, as they
are stronger in taking combinations. Such rules are, however, quite
general, each situation calling for special treatment. In the last
round all cards remaining on the table become the property of the
player taking the last trick. A good memory and keen powers of
observation are essential in playing this game.

In _Twenty-One-Point Casino_ nothing is scored until the end of the
deal. A second or third deal is usually necessary before one side
scores the requisite 21. In the final deal each side keeps a mental
count of the points made, and as soon as 21 are scored the game is
claimed and the points shown. But if, when added to those already
scored in previous deals, they make more or less than 21, the claimant
loses the game. In counting out _cards_ count first, followed by
_spades, Big Casino, Little Casino, aces_ and _sweeps_, in that order.

_Spade Casino_ is a variation in which the usual 11 points count as in
the regular game, and, in addition, each spade counts 1, excepting the
knave of spades, which counts 2, making 24 points in all. These are
scored on a cribbage-board, each point being marked as it is made. The
game is for 61 points, or once round the board and into the game-hole.

CASINUM, an ancient town of Italy, probably of Volscian origin. Varro states that the name was Sabine, and meant _forum vetus_, and also that the town itself was Samnite, but he is probably wrong. When it came under Roman supremacy is not known, but it probably received the citizenship in 188 B.C. It was the most south-easterly town in _Latium adjectum_, situated on the Via Latina about 40 m. N.W. of Capua. It appears occasionally in the history of the Hannibalic War. Varro possessed a villa near it, in which later on Mark Antony held his orgies. Towards the end of the republic it was a _praefectura_, and under the empire it appears as a colony (perhaps founded by the triumvirs), though in two (not local) inscriptions it is called _municipium_. Strabo speaks of it as an important town; Varro mentions the olive-oil of its district as especially good. The older Volscian Casinum must have stood on the hill (1715 ft.) above the Roman town (148 ft.), where considerable remains of fortifications in Cyclopean masonry, of finely cut blocks of limestone, still exist. The site is now occupied by the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino (q.v.) founded by St Benedict himself in 529. A number of Roman inscriptions from Casinum are preserved there. The wall which runs south-west and west starting from the west side of the monastery, for a total length of about 300 yds., is not so clearly traceable on the other side of the hill, though there is one fragment under the east side of the monastery; but it seems to have defended the summit and was perhaps the original acropolis. The Roman town lay at the foot of the mountain, close to the Via Latina. The amphitheatre, erected by Ummidia Quadratilla (whose passion for actors is mentioned by Pliny, _Epist._ vii. 24, on the occasion of her death at the age of about eighty), is still existing: it is built of _opus reticulatum_ and the five entrances are by arches of larger blocks of stone; it is approximately circular in plan. The external walls are 59 ft. high. The seats in the interior have disappeared. Above it on the hillside is a theatre of _opus reticulatum_, less well preserved. Close by is a building converted into the Cappella del Crocefisso, originally perhaps a tomb in the Via Latina; it is a chamber in the form of a Greek cross, constructed of large masses of travertine, with a domed roof of the same material. On the opposite bank of the Rapido are the ruins called Monticelli, attributed to the villa of Varro, a part of which was frequently drawn by the architects of the 16th century (T. Ashby in _Papers of the British School at Rome_, ii. 19). The medieval town of S. Germano, which resumed the name Cassino in 1871, lies a little to the north. The cathedral was founded in the 8th century, but the present building was constructed in the 17th century. The church of S. Maria delle Cinque Torri contains twelve ancient marble columns; above the town is a picturesque medieval castle. (T. As.)

CASIRI, MIGUEL (1710-1791), a learned Maronite, was born at Tripoli (Syria) in 1710. He studied at Rome, where he lectured on Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, philosophy and theology. In 1748 he went to Spain, and was employed in the royal library at Madrid. He was successively appointed a member of the Royal Academy of History, interpreter of oriental languages to the king, and joint-librarian at the Escorial. In 1763 he became principal librarian, a post which he appears to have held till his death in 1791. Casiri published a work entitled _Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis_ (2 vols., Madrid, 1760-1770). It is a catalogue of above 1800 Arabic MSS., which he found in the library of the Escorial; it also contains a number of quotations from Arabic works on history. The MSS. are classified according to subjects; the second volume gives an account of a large collection of geographical and historical MSS., which contain valuable information regarding the wars between the Moors and the Christians in Spain. Casiri's work is not yet obsolete, but a more scientific system is adopted in Hartwig Derenbourg's incomplete treatise, _Les Manuscrits arabes de l'Escorial_ (Paris, 1884).

CASKET, a small box or coffer, commonly used for jewels, money, papers, or other objects of value. The etymology is doubtful. It is possibly a diminutive of "cask," a barrel for wine or other liquor. The Spanish _casco_ meant also a skull, helmet, or rind of an onion, and is probably connected with _cascar_, to break open, Latin _quassare_, French _casser_, to break, shake. The French _casque, casquet_, of the same origin is only used of a helmet, and the sense of "small chest" is not found in languages other than English. Skeat suggests that the word is a corruption of French _cassette_, diminutive of _casse_, box, Latin _capsa_, from _capere_, to hold, contain, cf. English "case." History and literature are full of references to the often disconcerting contents of these famous receptacles. The "Casket Letters" (q.v.) are one of the mysteries of history. Harpagnon's casket plays an important part in Moliere's _L'Avare_; Bluebeard gives his too-curious wife the keys of his caskets filled with precious stones; the contents of Sainte-Croix's casket brought about the trial and condemnation of the marquise de Brinvilliers, the poisoner. This very ancient piece of furniture was no doubt derived from the chest, which was the original wardrobe. It was often an object of great value, covered with ivory, enamel, or stamped leather, enriched with precious metals, or encrusted with jewels. One which belonged to St Louis and is preserved in the Louvre is covered with enamelled shields of arms and other decorations. In the 16th and 17th centuries secret hiding-places were sometimes in the thickness of the lid or in a false bottom. The word is now little used--the natural result of the desuetude of the object; but auctioneers occasionally announce that they will sell a "casket of jewels," and undertakers, especially in the United States, frequently use it as a grandiose synonym for "coffin."

CASKET LETTERS. This is the name generally given to eight letters, and a sequence of irregular sonnets, all described as originally in French, and said to have been addressed by Mary, queen of Scots, to the earl of Bothwell, between January and April 1566-1567. The nature of these documents--authentic, forged, or partly forged, partly genuine--has been the theme of much discussion. If authentic throughout, they afford perfect proof of Mary's complicity in the murder of her husband, Henry, Lord Darnley. The topic is so perplexing, and possibilities are so delicately balanced, that inquirers may change their views, and modify or reverse their opinions, on the appearance of each fresh document that is brought to light; or even upon a new consideration of existing evidence. Controversy centres round a very long and singular undated epistle called "The Glasgow Letter" or "Letter II." If Mary wrote all of this, or even wrote some compromising parts of it, she was certainly guilty. But two questions remain to be settled--(1) did her accusers at one time possess another version of this letter which if it existed was beyond doubt a forgery? and (2) is not part of Letter II. a forged interpolation, based on another document, not by Mary?

The whole affair has been obscured and almost inextricably entangled, as we shall see, by the behaviour of Mary's accusers. Of these Maitland of Lethington was consenting to Darnley's murder; the earl of Morton had, at least, guilty foreknowledge; the regent Moray (Mary's natural brother) had "looked through his fingers" at the crime, and for months remained on intimate terms with the criminals. He also perjured himself when putting before Elizabeth's commission of inquiry at Westminster (December 1568) a copy of the confession of Hepburn of Bowton (Cotton MSS. British Museum. Caligula C.I. fol. 325). This is attested as a "true copy," but Moray, who had been present when Bowton was examined (December 8, 1567), knew that the copy presented at Westminster (December 1568) had been mutilated because the excised passages were damning to Lethington and the earl of Morton, accomplices in the crime of Darnley's murder, and accomplices of Moray in his prosecution of his sister. (See in Cambridge University Library, MS. Oo. 47, fol. 5 et seq. Compare the MS. copy of the confession in the British Museum, Cotton MSS. Caligula, C.I. fol. 325, printed in Anderson's _Collections_, vol. ii. pp. 183-188.)

If Moray the righteous could act thus, much more might the murderer Morton perjure himself in his averment that there had been no tampering with the Casket Letters in his custody. We cannot, in short, believe Mary's accusers on their oaths. When they all went, in October-December 1568, to York and London to accuse their queen--and before that, in their proclamations--they contradicted themselves freely and frequently; they put in a list of dates which made Mary's authorship of Letter II. impossible; and they rang the changes on Scots translations of the alleged French originals, and on the French itself. For example, when Moray, after Mary was in Elizabeth's power (May 16, 1568), wished Elizabeth to have the matter tried, he in May-June 1568 sent John Wood to England with Scots translations of the letters. Wood was to ask, "if the French originals are found to tally with the Scots translations, will that be reckoned good evidence?" It was as easy to send copies of the French, and thus give no ground for the suspicion that the Scots letters were altered on the basis of information acquired between May and October 1568, and that the French versions were made to fit the new form of the Scots copies. Another source of confusion, now removed, was the later publication in France of the letters in French. This French did not correspond with French copies of some of the originals recently discovered in Cecil's MSS. and elsewhere. But that is no ground of suspicion, for the published French letters were not copies of the alleged originals, but translations of Latin translations of them, from the Scots (see T.F. Henderson, _The Casket Letters_, 1890). German historians have not made matters more clear by treating the Letters on the principle of "the higher criticism" of Homer and the Bible. They find that the documents are of composite origin, partly notes from Mary to Darnley, partly a diary of Mary's, and so on; all combined and edited by some one who played the part of the legendary editorial committee of Peisistratus (see HOMER), which compiled the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ out of fragmentary lays! From all these causes, and others, arise confusion and suspicion.

So much information unknown to older disputants such as Goodall, the elder Tytler, Chalmers, and Malcolm Laing, and in certain cases unknown even to Froude and Skelton, has accrued, that the question can now best be studied in _The Casket Letters_, by T.F. Henderson (1889; second issue, 1890, being the more accurate); in _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_, by Andrew Lang (4th edition, 1904), and in Henderson's criticism of that book, in his _Mary, Queen of Scots_ (1905) (Appendix A). The conclusion arrived at here is that of Henderson, but it is reached independently.

The history of the letters must be given in summary. Henderson, in _The Casket Letters_ (1889), was the first to publish and use as evidence a document of which the existence was made known in the fifth report of the royal commission on historical manuscripts. It is a sworn statement of the earl of Morton, written in 1568. A silver casket (originally Mary's property, but then in the possession of Bothwell) was placed in his hands on the 20th of June, and was inspected by several nobles and gentlemen on the 21st of June 1567. Morton denies that the contents, the letters, sonnets, and some other papers, had been in any way tampered with. But if Moray could knowingly submit garbled evidence, Morton's oath is of no value if uncorroborated.

Mary was, on the 21st of June 1567, a prisoner in Loch Leven Castle. A messenger was at once sent from Edinburgh to London with a letter from Lethington and a verbal message. By the 12th of July, de Silva, the Spanish ambassador, reports on the authority of the French ambassador that du Croc, French envoy to Scotland, avers that Mary's Scottish enemies have autograph letters of hers proving her guilt, and himself possesses copies. Of these copies no more is heard, and they cannot be found. According to de Silva, Elizabeth said that she did not believe in the Letters, and that Lethington, who wrote to Cecil on the 21st of June, and sent a verbal message by the bearer, "had behaved badly in the matter,"--whether that of the letters, or in general. On what evidence she based that opinion, if she really held it, is unknown. In December 1567 the Scottish parliament was informed that the letters were _signed_ by Mary (they are unsigned), but the phrase is not used in the subsequent act of parliament. The letters were exhibited and apparently were read, probably read aloud. Mary's party in September 1568 declared that they were garbled, and that the handwriting was not hers. In the end of July 1567 the earl of Moray, Mary's brother, passing through London from France, told de Silva, as de Silva reported to his government, that there was proof of Mary's guilt in a letter of three double sheets of paper _signed_ by her.

According to Moray's version of the letter, Mary was to try to poison Darnley in a house on the way between Glasgow and Edinburgh where he and she were to stop. Clearly Lord Livingstone's house, Callendar, where they did rest on their journey, is intended. If this failed, Mary would put Darnley "in the house where the explosion was arranged for the night upon which one of the servants was to be married." No such arrangement had been made, as the confessions of the murderers, at which Moray was present, clearly prove. It may be said that de Silva means "the house in which the explosion was _afterwards_ arranged." But the earl of Lennox, Darnley's father, understood Moray to mean that as early as January 21-22, 1567, the house of Kirk o' Field, where Darnley was slain, had already been mined. Moray's version of the letter made Mary tell Bothwell to poison or put away his wife. No such matters occur in Letter II.; Moray spoke, he said, on the authority of "a man who had read the letter." A similar account of this letter is given in a document of Darnley's father, the earl of Lennox (Cambridge University Library MSS. Oo. 7. 47; f. 17 b.). Can we suppose that "the man who had read the letter" invented much of its contents, and told them to Moray, who told de Silva, and told Darnley's father, Lennox, then in or near London?

At this point comes in the evidence--unknown to Froude, Skelton, Hosack, and Henderson in his book _The Casket Letters_--of a number of documents, notes of information, and indictments of Mary, written for or by the earl of Lennox. These MSS are in the University Library of Cambridge, and were transcribed by Father Stevenson. His transcripts were brought to light by Father Pollen, S.J., who lent them, with his own notes on them, to Andrew Lang for use in his book, _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_ (1900-1904).

Not one of the Lennox documents is dated; all but one are endorsed in an English hand of the period. It may be conjectured that they were selected by Lennox from his papers, and lent by him to some one who was writing against Mary. Among them (Cambridge University MSS. Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.) is a long indictment of Mary, in which Lennox describes a wicked letter of hers. As has been said, he closely follows Moray's version reported by de Silva in July 1567. Lennox also gives several stories of cruel words of Mary spoken to Darnley in the hearing of her servants.

Now, on the 11th of June 1568, Lennox was in the company of John Wood, a creature of Moray's, and Wood, as we saw, brought copies of the Scots renderings of the Letters into England in May-June 1568. It was argued by Andrew Lang that Wood was likely to show these letters to Lennox; and that as Lennox follows Moray's version of Mary's long and murderous letter, and does _not_ follow Letter II., the murderous letter (a forgery) was then part of the _dossier_ of Mary's accusers. Again, as Lennox's indictment of Mary (Cambridge Oo. 7. 47. fol. 17 b.) is rife in "reports and sayings of Mary's servants" about her cruel words to Darnley, and as Lennox had not these reports on the 11th of June 1568, for on that day he wrote to Scotland asking his friends to discover them and send them to him, the indictment (Oo. 7. 47) must have been composed long after the 11th of June. This must be so, for Lennox's letters of the 11th of June were intercepted by his foes, the Hamiltons, and were found in the Hamilton Muniment Room. Thus answers to his inquiries were delayed. (The letters of Lennox were published in _Miscellany of the Maitland Club_, vol. iv.)

Henderson, on the other side, believes that Wood "indubitably" showed to Lennox the Scots copies of the Casket Letters about the 11th of June 1568. But Lennox, he says, could not quote Letter II. in his indictment against Mary, and had to rest on Moray's version of July 1567, because Lennox's indictment was completed, and even laid before Elizabeth, as early as the 28th of May 1568. Henderson seeks to prove that this is so by quoting from Chalmers's _Mary Queen of Scots_ (vol. ii. p. 289) the statement that Lennox and his wife on that day presented to Elizabeth a "Bill of Supplication"; and (though he submits that the indictment [Oo. 7. 47] is a _draft_ for the Bill) he strengthens his case by heading the indictment, which he publishes, _Bill of Supplication_. The document, in fact, is unendorsed, and without a title, and there is not a word of "supplication" in it. It is a self-contradictory history of the relations between Mary and Darnley.

Henderson's contention therefore seems erroneous. Lennox could not begin to prepare an English indictment against Mary till she was in England and in Elizabeth's power. He could not hear of this fact--Mary's arrival in England (May 16, 1568)--before, say, the 19th of May; and between the 19th of May and the 28th of May he could not write for and receive from Scotland "the reports and sayings of her servants." He did not possess them on the 11th of June, when he asked for them; he did not get them at once, for his letters were intercepted; the indictment (Oo. 7. 47) is rich in them; therefore that paper is not the "Bill of Supplication" of the 28th of May.

Thus the question remains, why, if Wood about the 11th of June showed to Lennox Letter II. in Scots, did Lennox follow Moray's erroneous version of July 1567? Because in June 1568 that version, forged, was in the Scots collection of the Casket Letters? If so, there was time for Lennox to lend to the accusers certain notes which a retainer of his, Thomas Crawford of Jordan Hill, swore (December 9, 1568) that he had made for Lennox (about January 22, 1567) of secret conversations between Darnley and Mary. Lennox (June 11, 1568) asked Crawford for his reminiscences, _not_ of Darnley's reports of his talks with Mary, but of Crawford's own interview with her as she entered Glasgow to visit Darnley, probably on the 21st of January 1567. It follows that Lennox possessed Crawford's written notes of the Darnley and Mary conversations. If he had not possessed them on the 11th of June 1568, he must have asked Crawford for his reminiscences of these talks. But he did not ask.

Crawford's evidence was all-important, because it corroborated Mary's own account of her interviews with Darnley in Letter II. That part of the letter then, it is argued by many, is a forged interpolation based on Crawford's notes and memories. The force of this contention lies in the close verbal identities between Crawford's account of the Darnley-Mary interviews (see Crawford's Declaration of December 9, 1568, in Lang's _Mystery of Mary Stuart_, pp. 428-431; from _State Papers Scotland_, Elizabeth vol. xiii. No. 14. Record Office) and the corresponding passages in Letter II. (_Mystery of Mary Stuart_, pp. 396-398). The verbal identities can only be explained in one of the following ways. Either Letter II. is here based on Crawford; or Crawford has copied Letter II. by way of corroborating it (a fatal step, if the case came before a modern English court of justice); or Darnley's memory of his conversation with Mary was so fresh, when he dictated his recollection of it to Crawford on 21st-22nd January 1567, that he reported speeches in almost the very same words as Mary used in writing