Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/206

Rh that Corot will live the longest, and will continue to occupy the highest position. His art is more individual than Rousseau’s, whose works are more strictly traditional; more poetic than that of Daubigny, who is, however, Corot’s greatest contemporary rival; and in every sense more beautiful than J. F. Millet, who thought more of stern truth than of aesthetic feeling.

Corot’s works are somewhat arbitrarily divided into periods, but the point of division is never certain, as he often completed a picture years after it had been begun. In his first style he painted traditionally and “tight”—that is to say, with minute exactness, clear outlines, and with absolute definition of objects throughout. After his fiftieth year his methods changed to breadth of tone and an approach to poetic power, and about twenty years later, say from 1865 onwards, his manner of painting became full of “mystery” and poetry. In the last ten years of his work he became the Père Corot of the artistic circles of Paris, in which he was regarded with personal affection, and he was acknowledged as one of the five or six greatest landscape painters the world has ever seen, along with Hobbema, Claude, Turner and Constable. During the last few years of his life he earned large sums by his pictures, which became greatly sought after. In 1871 he gave £2000 for the poor of Paris (where he remained during the siege), and his continued charity was long the subject of remark. Besides landscapes, of which he painted several hundred, Corot produced a number of figure pictures which are much prized. These were mostly studio pieces, executed probably with a view to keep his hand in with severe drawing, rather than with the intention of producing pictures. Yet many of them are fine in composition, and in all cases the colour is remarkable for its strength and purity. Corot also executed a few etchings and pencil sketches. In his landscape pictures Corot was more traditional in his method of work than is usually believed. If even his latest tree-painting and arrangement are compared with such a Claude as that which hangs in the Bridgewater gallery, it will be observed how similar is Corot’s method and also how masterly are his results.

The works of Corot are scattered over France and the Netherlands, Great Britain and America. The following may be considered as the first half-dozen: “Une Matinée” (1850), now in the Louvre; “Macbeth” (1859), in the Wallace collection: “Le Lac” (1861); “L’Arbre brisé” (1865): “Pastorale—Souvenir d’Italie” (1873), in the Glasgow Corporation Art Gallery; “Biblis” (1875). Corot had a number of followers who called themselves his pupils. The best known are Boudin, Lepine, Chintreuil, Français and Le Roux.

—H. Dumesnil. Souvenirs intimes (Paris, 1875); Roger-Milès, Les Artistes célèbres: Corot (Paris, 1891); Roger-Milès, Album classique des chefs-d’œuvres de Corot (Paris, 1895); J. Rousseau, Bibliothèque d’art moderne: Camille Corot (Paris, 1884); J. Claretie, Peintres et sculpteurs contemporains: Corot (Paris, 1884); Ch. Bigot, Peintres français contemporains: Corot (Paris, 1888); Geo. Moore, Ingres and Corot in Modern Painting (London, 1893); David Croal Thomson, Corot (4to, London, 1892); Mrs Schuyler van Rensselaer, “Corot,” Century Magazine (June 1889); Corot, The Portfolio (1870), p. 60, (1875) p. 146; R. A. M. Stevenson, “Corot as an Example of Style in Painting,” Scottish Art Review (Aug. 1888); Ethel Birnstigl and Alice Pollard, Corot (London, 1904); Alfred Robaut, L’Œuvre de Corot, catalogue raisonné et illustré, précédé de l’histoire de Corot et de ses œuvres par Étienne Morceau-Nélaton (Paris, 1905).

CORPORAL. 1. (From Lat. corporalis, belonging to the corpus or body), an adjective appearing in several expressions, such as “corporal punishment” (see below), or in “corporal works of mercy,” for those acts confined to the succouring of the bodily needs, such as feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, rescuing captives. A “corporal oath” was sworn with the body in contact with a sacred object (see ).

2. (From Lat. corporalis, sc. palla, or corporale, sc. pallium), in the Roman Catholic Church, a small square linen cloth, which at the service of the Mass is placed on the altar under the chalice and paten. It was originally large enough to cover the whole surface of the altar, and was folded over so as to cover the chalice—a custom still observed by the Carthusians. The chalice is now, however, covered by another small square of linen, stiffened with cardboard, &c., known as the pall (palla). When not in use both corporal and pall are carried in a square silken pocket called the burse. The corporal must be blessed by the bishop, or by a priest with special faculties, the ritual prayers invoking the divine blessing that the linen may be worthy to cover and enwrap the body and blood of the Lord. It represents the winding-sheet in which Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of the dead Christ.

3. (Of uncertain derivation; the French form caporal, and Ital. caporale, point to an origin from capo, Italian for head; the New English Dictionary, however, favours the derivation from Lat. corpus, Ital. corpo, body), a non-commissioned officer of infantry, cavalry and artillery, ranking below a sergeant. This rank is almost universal in armies. In the 16th and 17th centuries there were corporals but no sergeants in the cavalry, and this custom is preserved in the three regiments of British household cavalry, the rank of sergeant being replaced by that of “corporal of horse,” and that of sergeant-major by “corporal-major.” In the 16th and early 17th centuries the title “corporal of the field” was often given to a superior officer who acted as a staff-officer to the sergeant-major-general. In the navy the “ship’s corporal,” formerly a semi-military instructor to the crew, is now a petty officer charged with assisting the master-at-arms in police duties on board ship.

 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, chastisement inflicted by one person on the body (corpus) of another. By the common law of England, Scotland and Ireland, the infliction of corporal punishment is illegal unless it is done in self-defence or in defence of others, or is done either by some person having punitive authority over the person chastised or under the authority of a competent court of justice. Corporal punishment in defence of self or others needs no comment, except that, like all other acts done in defence, its justification depends on whether or not it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the person attacked. Among persons invested with punitive authority, mention must first be made of parents and guardians, and of teachers, who have, by implied delegation from the parents, and as incidental to the relation of master and pupil, powers of reasonable corporal punishment. Such powers are not limited to offences committed by the pupil upon the premises of the school, but extend to acts done on the way to and from school and during what may be properly regarded as school hours (Cleary v. Booth, 1893, 1 Q.B. 465). The rights of parents, guardians and teachers, in regard to the chastisement of children, were expressly recognized in English law by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 (§ 28). Poor law authorities and managers of reformatories are in the same position in this respect as teachers. The punitive authority of elementary school teachers is subject to the regulations of the education authority: that of poor law authorities to the regulation of the Home Office and the Local Government Board. A master has a right to inflict moderate chastisement upon his apprentice for neglect or other misbehaviour, provided that he does so himself, and that the apprentice is under age (Archbold, Cr. Pl., 23rd ed., 795). Where a legal right of chastisement is exercised immoderately, the person so exercising it incurs both civil and criminal liability.

In some of the older English legal authorities (e.g. Bacon, Abridg. tit. “Baron and Feme,” B), it was stated that a husband might inflict moderate corporal punishment on his wife in order to keep her “within the bounds of duty.” But these authorities were definitely discredited in 1891 in the case of R. v. Jackson (1 Q.B. 671). By the unmodified Mahommedan law, a husband may administer moderate corporal punishment to his wife; but it is doubtful whether this right could be legally exercised in British India (Wilson, Digest of Anglo-Mahommedan Law, 2nd ed., pp. 153, 154). In Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown (Bk. 1, c. 63, § 29) it is laid down that “churchwardens, and perhaps private persons, may whip boys playing in church” during divine service. But while the right to remove such offenders is undoubted, the right of castigation could not now safely be exercised. At common law the master of a ship is entitled to inflict reasonable chastisement on a seaman for gross breach of