Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/423

 CARO

371

CAROLINE

Chysiologiques sur les champignons" published in the iiilcl in of tin- "Suin'i. royale de botanique". In is7ti he was appointed curt at Bauffe, where his pas- toral duties gave him little leisure for scientific work. In 1876 he was again invited to Louvain i>n the pro- posal of Monseigneur Nameche. He began his teach- ing with a course in practical microscopy, and in L879 he published his "Manuel de microscopie". This was. however, bu( preliminary to his work in biology, upon which his fame as a teacher and investigator rests. Bui instead of taking the whole science for his field he confined himself to thai phase of ii which seemed to him of greatest interest and importance, viz. the study of the structure and phenomena of the cell. He thus became the founder of the school of cellular biology or cytology at Louvain — the first of its kind — whose laboratories he equipped at his own expense. He gathered about him students whom he inspired with his own enthusiasm, and he spared no pains or labour to advance his school and its work and to secure recognition for it. In 1884 he founded "La Cellule", a journal of cytology, in which much of his own work and that of his collaborators was published. Carnoy did much to advance our knowledge- of the cell. He advocated Froniman's

tli v of the reticulated structure of the cell, and

appears to have been the first to explain the true nature of the albuminoid membrane, lie devoted Considerable study to the nucleus and was able to dis- tinguish three species of nucleoli within the nucleus. differing in structure and function. He also carried on important researches in cell segmentation. He- sides tin- works already mentioned, Carnoy was the author of the "Trait.' .le biologie cellulaire" (1884), an important work, which, however, was never completed.

GlLSON, in I.a Cellule (I.ierre and Louvain, 1900), XVII, 'i"Hs- .',<•(, ■nhli'iutx, XLVI, p. 695;

i m! igies by Ileum. i ■, \ k and Gilbon in Annuaire de VUniver- eiti Catholtgue <!,• Louvain (1900).

H. M. Brock.

Caro, Francisco Lopez. See Lopez Caro.

Caro, Giuseppe. See Giuseppe Maria Tommasi, Blessed.

Carochi, Hoeacio, b. in Florence, c. 1586; d. in Mexico in ltititi. He entered the Society of Jesus and before he had concluded his philosophical studies went to Mexico, where lie studied the Indian languages, especially the Nahuatl and the Othomf, which he mastered fully. He was made Secretary of the Province and wrote ''Arte de la l.engua mexicana con la deelaracii'm de todos sus adverbios", printed at Mexico in 1645; "Vocabulario copioso de la i mexicana"; "Gramatica de la Lengua Otomf"; "Vocabulario Otomf"; "Sermoncs en His letters to the Bishop of Puebla, Juan de Palafox, also deserve mention. Only tin- lirst named work has been printed. It is a much esteemed contribution to .Mexican linguistics and a

Soto i ime, 1876); Beribtain,

1 pig. Literature of Am. Abo- riginal Language-,

\i>. 1. Bandelier.

Caroline Books (Libri Carolini), a work in four books I 120 or l_'l chapters), purporting to be the

composition of Charlemagne, and written about v. hi 92. It is a very severe critique of the Seven! h General

Council, held at Xiea-a in 787, particularly as n

its acts and decrees in the matter of sacred images. In fact, it is a grave theological treatise in which both

the Iconoclastic council of 751 and its opponent, the aforesaid Second Nicene of 7^7. are brought before

the bar of Prankish criticism and judged equally er- roneous, the former for excluding all images from the churches as sheer idolatry, the latter for advocating an absolute adoration of images. Though launched

under the royal name, the theological, philosophical, and philological learning displayed far surpass t In- known powers of Charlemagne. The author may be Alcuin; possibly one or more of the Spanish or Irish theologians who were then residing at the Prankish court (cf. Samuel Berger. Histoire de la Vulgate, Paris, 1895). The work had its origin in a very faulty (see Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Mansi, Coll. Cone. XII, 981) Latin version of t he I Ireek nets ,,t t lie Sev- enth General Council (Second Nicene) which the negligence of the Roman copyists disfigured still more; in one crucial text, e. g., the negative particle was omitted, and in another the council was made to assert that the images were to be adored as the Trinity itself, whereas the genuine Greek text is quite orthodox (Hefele gives a parallel list of the numerous errors, History of the Councils, III, 709, German text). This version was severely criticised by an as- sembly of Prankish theologians at which Charlemagne assisted. Some (85) obnoxious passages were gath- ered therefrom and brought to Pope Adrian I by Ab- bot Angilbert for correction. This document is lost, but its content maybe gathered from t he model ate and prudent reply (794) of Adrian (P. L., 1217 -92; cf. Nam absit. a nobis ut ipsas imagines, sicut quidam garriunt, deificemus, etc.). Dissatisfied wit h 1 1 1 i s defence of the council (not reputed oecumenical by the king's theo- logians) Charlemagne caused the preparation (790- 92) of the large work in question, known since then as "Quattuor Libri Carolini" (Hampe, Hadrians I Verteidigung der zweiten nic&nischen Synode in Neues Archiv, 1890. XXI, 85 sqq.; Hergenrother- Kirsch, Kircheng. 4th ed. Freiburg. 1904, II, 133; Kncipfler-Hefele, Kircheng., 1902, 283).

In further explanation of this remarkable step, it has been noted that Charlemagne was at this time much irritated against the Greek Empress Irene, partly for the failure of the marriage projected be- tween her son and his daughter Rotrudis, partly for the protection and help she was affording to Adelchis, the son of the dethroned King of Lom- bard}-, to which may be added a certain jealousy of any authority over his Frankish subjects by a Greek council in which they had taken no part. Some believe that he was even then contemplating the assumption of the imperial title, and was there- fore only too willing to discredit Creek authority wherever possible. The work was first printed at Paris in 1519 by the priest Jean du Tillet (Tilius), later Bishop of Saint Brieuc and then of Meaux, hut anonymously and without indication of the place where he found the manuscript ('films was suspected of a leaning to Calvinism). While the Centuriators of Magdeburg (q. v.) at once made use of it as an evi- dence of Catholic corruption of the true doctrine con- cerning images, some Catholic apologists asserted that it was only an heretical work sent by < lharlemagne to Rome for condemnation, others that it was a forgery of Carlstad (the manuscript of Tilius was, after all. a very recent one; Floss. De suspects librorum Caro- linorum a Joanne Tilio cditorum fide, Bonn. 1860). They overlooked the fact that Aiigustinus Steuchus (1469 1549) librarian of the Vatican, writing in de- fence of the Donation of Constantine. had already quoteda passage from the " Libri Carolini " (1, 6) which he declared In- had found in a Vatican manuscript

written in an ancient Lombard hand; it had disap-

B eared, however, by 1759, according to a letter of ardinal Passionei t" the learned Usbot Frobenius Forster, then meditating a new edition of the work (see preface no. 10 to his edition of the Opera Al- cuini). Floss (op. cit.) maintained the thesis of a forgery, but the genuinity of the work can no longer be questioned since the discovery (1866) by HcitTer- scheid of a tenth century (imperfect I manuscript in the Vatican Archives (Narratio de Vaticano Libror. Carol, codice, Breslau, 1S73). Moreover, the work is