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 Molière’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.