Chapter I: Front Matter

Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.

(5) The following typographical error has been corrected:

ARTICLE CHARLES ALBERT: "... made a savage demonstration against
him at the Palazzo Greppi, whence he escaped in the night with
difficulty and returned to Piedmont with his defeated army." 'army
amended from armp'.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME V, SLICE VIII

Chariot to Chatelaine

ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:

CHARIOT CHARLES MARTEL
CHARISIUS, FLAVIUS SOSIPATER CHARLESTON (Illinois, U.S.A)
CHARITON CHARLESTON (South Carolina, U.S.A.)
CHARITY AND CHARITIES CHARLESTON (West Virginia, U.S.A.)
CHARIVARI CHARLESTOWN
CHARKHARI CHARLET, NICOLAS TOUSSAINT
CHARLATAN CHARLEVILLE
CHARLEMAGNE CHARLEVOIX, PIERRE FRANCOIS XAVIER DE
CHARLEMAGNE, JEAN ARMAND CHARLEVOIX
CHARLEMONT, JAMES CAULFEILD CHARLOTTE
CHARLEROI (town in Belgium) CHARLOTTENBURG
CHARLEROI (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) CHARLOTTESVILLE
CHARLES CHARLOTTETOWN
CHARLES II. (Roman emperor) CHARM
CHARLES III. (Roman emperor) CHARNAY, (CLAUDE JOSEPH) DESIRE
CHARLES IV. (Roman emperor) CHARNEL HOUSE
CHARLES V. (Roman emperor) CHARNOCK, JOB
CHARLES VI. (Roman emperor) CHARNOCK, ROBERT
CHARLES VII. (Roman emperor) CHARNOCKITE
CHARLES I. (king of Great Britain) CHARNWOOD FOREST
CHARLES II. (king of G. Britain) CHAROLLES
CHARLES I. and II. (of France) CHARON
CHARLES III. (king of France) CHARONDAS
CHARLES IV. (king of France) CHARPENTIER, FRANCOIS
CHARLES V. (king of France) CHARRIERE, AGNES ISABELLE EMILIE DE
CHARLES VI. (king of France) CHARRON, PIERRE
CHARLES VII. (king of France) CHARRUA
CHARLES VIII. (king of France) CHART
CHARLES IX. (king of France) CHARTER
CHARLES X. (king of France) CHARTERED COMPANIES
CHARLES I. (king of Hungary) CHARTERHOUSE
CHARLES I. (king of Naples) CHARTER-PARTY
CHARLES II. (king of Naples) CHARTERS TOWERS
CHARLES II. (king of Navarre) CHARTIER, ALAIN
CHARLES III. (king of Navarre) CHARTISM
CHARLES (king of Rumania) CHARTRES
CHARLES II. (king of Spain) CHARTREUSE
CHARLES III. (king of Spain) CHARTREUSE, LA GRANDE
CHARLES IV. (king of Spain) CHARWOMAN
CHARLES IX. (king of Sweden) CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND
CHARLES X. (king of Sweden) CHASE, SAMUEL
CHARLES XI. (king of Sweden) CHASE, WILLIAM MERRITT
CHARLES XII. (king of Sweden) CHASE
CHARLES XIII. (king of Sweden) CHASING
CHARLES XIV. (king of Sweden) CHASLES, VICTOR EUPHEMIEN PHILARETE
CHARLES XV. (king of Sweden) CHASSE
CHARLES (duke of Brittany) CHASSE
CHARLES (duke of Burgundy) CHASSELOUP-LAUBAT, FRANCOIS
CHARLES (count of Flanders) CHASSEPOT
CHARLES I. (duke of Lorraine) CHASSESRIAU, THEODORE
CHARLES II. (duke of Lorraine) CHASSIS
CHARLES III. or II. (duke of Lrn.) CHASTELARD, PIERRE DE BOCSOZEL DE
CHARLES IV. or III. (duke of Lrn.) CHASTELLAIN, GEORGES
CHARLES V. or IV. (duke of Lor.) CHASUBLE
CHARLES II. (duke of Parma) CHATEAU
CHARLES (archduke of Austria) CHATEAUBRIAND, FRANCOIS RENE
CHARLES (cardinal of Lorraine) CHATEAUBRIANT
CHARLES (prince of Lorraine) CHATEAUDUN
CHARLES (count of Valois) CHATEAU-GONTIER
CHARLES (prince of Viana) CHATEAUNEUF, LA BELLE
CHARLES, ELIZABETH CHATEAU-RENAULT, DE ROUSSELET
CHARLES, JACQUES ALEXANDRE CESAR CHATEAUROUX, MARIE ANNE
CHARLES, THOMAS CHATEAUROUX
CHARLES ALBERT CHATEAU-THIERRY
CHARLES AUGUSTUS CHATELAIN
CHARLES EDWARD CHATELAINE
CHARLES EMMANUEL I.

CHARIOT (derived from an O. Fr. word, formed from _char_, a car), in antiquity, a conveyance (Gr. [Greek: arma], Lat. _currus_) used in battle, for the chase, in public processions and in games. The Greek chariot had two wheels, and was made to be drawn by two horses; if a third or, more commonly, two reserve horses were added, they were attached on each side of the main pair by a single trace fastened to the front of the chariot, as may be seen on two prize vases in the British Museum from the Panathenaic games at Athens. On the monuments there is no other sign of traces, from the want of which wheeling round must have been difficult. Immediately on the axle ([Greek: axon], _axis_), without springs of any kind, rested the basket or body ([Greek: diphros]) of the chariot, which consisted of a floor to stand on, and a semicircular guard round the front about half the height of the driver. It was entirely open at the back, so that the combatant might readily leap to the ground and up again as was necessary. There was no seat, and generally only room for the combatant and his charioteer to stand in. The pole ([Greek: rumos], _temo_) was probably attached to the middle of the axle, though it appears to spring from the front of the basket; at the end of the pole was the yoke ([Greek: zygon], _jugum_), which consisted of two small saddles fitting the necks of the horses, and fastened by broad bands round the chest. Besides this the harness of each horse consisted of a bridle and a pair of reins, mostly the same as in use now, made of leather and ornamented with studs of ivory or metal. The reins were passed through rings attached to the collar bands or yoke, and were long enough to be tied round the waist of the charioteer in case of his having to defend himself. The wheels and body of the chariot were usually of wood, strengthened in places with bronze or iron; the wheels had from four to eight spokes and tires of bronze or iron. This description applies generally to the chariots of all the nations of antiquity; the differences consisted chiefly in the mountings. The chariots of the Egyptians and Assyrians, with whom the bow was the principal arm of attack, were richly mounted with quivers full of arrows, while those of the Greeks, whose characteristic weapon was the spear, were plain except as regards mere decoration. Among the Persians, again, and more remarkably among the ancient Britons, there was a class of chariot having the wheels mounted with sharp, sickle-shaped blades, which cut to pieces whatever came in their way. This was probably an invention of the Persians; Cyrus the younger employed these chariots in large numbers. Among the Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, the chariot had passed out of use in war before historical times, and was retained only for races in the public games, or for processions, without undergoing any alteration apparently, its form continuing to correspond with the description of Homer, though it was lighter in build, having to carry only the charioteer. On two Panathenaic prize vases in the British Museum are figures of racing _bigae_, in which, contrary to the description given above, the driver is seated with his feet resting on a board hanging down in front close to the legs of his horses. The _biga_ itself consists of a seat resting on the axle, with a rail at each side to protect the driver from the wheels. The chariot was unsuited to the uneven soil of Greece and Italy, and it is not improbable that these nations had brought it with them as part of their original habits from their former seats in the East. In the remains of Egyptian and Assyrian art there are numerous representations of chariots, from which it may be seen with what richness they were sometimes ornamented. The "iron" chariots in use among the Jews appear to have been chariots strengthened or plated with metal, and no doubt were of the form above described, which prevailed generally among the other ancient nations. (See also CARRIAGE.)

The chief authorities are J.C. Ginzrot, _Die Wagen and Fahrwerke der
Griechen und Romer_ (1817); C.F. Grashof, _Uber das Fuhrwerk bei Homer
und Hesiod_ (1846); W. Leaf in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, v.; E.
Buchholz, _Die homerischen Realien_ (1871-1885); W. Helbig, _Das
homerische Epos aus den Denkmalern erlautert_ (1884), and the article
"Currus" in Daremberg and Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquites_.

CHARISIUS, FLAVIUS SOSIPATER, Latin grammarian, flourished about the middle of the 4th century A.D. He was probably an African by birth, summoned to Constantinople to take the place of Euanthius, a learned commentator on Terence. The _Ars Grammatica_ of Charisius, in five books, addressed to his son (not a Roman, as the preface shows), has come down to us in a mutilated condition, the beginning of the first, part of the fourth, and the greater part of the fifth book having been lost. The work, which is merely a compilation, is valuable as containing excerpts from the earlier writers on grammar, who are in many cases mentioned by name--Q. Remmius Palaemon, C. Julius Romanus, Cominianus.

The best edition is by H. Keil, _Grammatici Latini_, i. (1857); see
also article by G. Gotz in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_, iii. 2
(1899); Teuffel-Schwabe, _Hist. of Roman Literature_ (Eng. trans.), S
419, I. 2; Frohde, in _Jahr. f. Philol._, 18 Suppl. (1892), 567-672.

CHARITON, of Aphrodisias in Caria, the author of a Greek romance entitled _The Loves of Chaereas and Callirrhoe_, probably flourished in the 4th century A.D. The action of the story, which is to a certain extent historical, takes place during the time of the Peloponnesian War. Opinions differ as to the merits of the romance, which is an imitation of Xenophon of Ephesus and Heliodorus.

Editions by J.P. D'Orville (1783), G.A. Hirschig (1856) and R. Hercher
(1859); there is an (anonymous) English translation (1764); see also
E. Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_ (1900).

CHARITY AND CHARITIES. The word "charity," or love, represents the principle of the good life. It stands for a mood or habit of mind and an endeavour. From it, as a habit of mind, springs the social and personal endeavour which in the widest sense we may call charity. The two correspond. Where the habit of mind has not been gained, the endeavour fluctuates and is relatively purposeless. In so far as it has been gained, the endeavour is founded on an intelligent scrutiny of social conditions and guided by a definite purpose. In the one case it is realized that some social theory must be found by us, if our action is to be right and consistent; in the other case no need of such a theory is felt. This article is based on the assumption that there are principles in charity or charitable work, and that these can be ascertained by a study of the development of social conditions, and their relation to prevalent social aims and religious or philosophic conceptions. It is assumed also that the charity of the religious life, if rightly understood, cannot be inconsistent with that of the social life.

Perhaps some closer definition of charity is necessary. The words that
signify goodwill towards the community and its members are primarily
words expressive of the affections of family life in the relations
existing between parents, and between parent and child. As will be
seen, the analogies underlying such phrases as "God the Father,"
"children of God," "brethren," have played a great part in the
development of charitable thought in pre-Christian as well as in
Christian days. The germ, if we may say so, of the words [Greek:
philia, agape], _amor_, love; _amicitia_, friendship, is the sexual or
the parental relation. With the realization of the larger life in man
the meaning of the word expands. _Caritas_, or charity, strikes
another note--high price, and thus dearness. It is charity, indeed,
expressed in mercantile metaphor; and it would seem that it was
associated in thought with the word [Greek: charis], which has also a
commercial meaning, but signifies as well favour, gratitude, grace,
kindness. Partly thus, perhaps, it assumed and suggested a nobler
conception; and sometimes, as, for instance, in English ecclesiastical
documents, it was spelt _charitas_. [Greek: Agape], which in the
Authorized Version of the Bible is translated charity, was used by St
Paul as a translation of the Hebrew word _hesed_, which in the Old
Testament is in the same version translated "mercy"--as in Hosea vi.
6, "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice." This word represents the
charity of kindness and goodness, as distinguished from almsgiving.
Almsgiving, _sedaqah_, is translated by the word [Greek: eleemosune]
in the Septuagint, and in the Authorized Version by the word
"righteousness." It represents the deed or the gift which is due--done
or made, not spontaneously, but under a sense of religious obligation.
In the earlier Christian period the word almsgiving has this meaning,
and was in that sense applied to a wide range of actions and
contracts, from a gift to a beggar at a church door to a grant and a
tenure of land. It also, in the word almoner, represented the
fulfilment of the religious obligation with the aid of an agent or
delegate. The words charity or love (_caritas_ or [Greek: agape]), on
the other hand, without losing the tone with which the thought of
parental or family love inspires them, assume a higher meaning. In
religious thought they imply an ideal life, as represented by such
expressions as "love (_agape_) of God." This on the one side; and on
the other an ideal social relation, in such words as "love of man."
Thus in the word "charity" religious and social associations meet; and
thus regarded the word means a disciplined and habitual mood in which
the mind is considerate of the welfare of others individually and
generally, and devises what is for their real good, and in which the
intelligence and the will strive to fulfil the mind's purpose. Charity
thus has no necessary relation to relief or alms. To give a lecture,
or to nurse a sick man who is not in want or "poor," may be equally a
deed of charity; though in fact charity concerns itself largely with
the classes usually called "the poor," and with problems of distress
and relief. Relief, however, is not an essential part of charity or
charitable work. It is one of many means at its disposal. If the world
were so poor that no one could make a gift, or so wealthy that no one
needed it, charity--the charity of life and of deeds--would remain.

The history of charity is a history of many social and religious theories, influences and endeavours, that have left their mark alike upon the popular and the cultivated thought of the present day. The inconsistencies of charitable effort and argument may thus in part be accounted for. To understand the problem of charity we have therefore (1) to consider the stages of charitable thought--the primitive, pagan, Greek and Roman, Jewish and Christian elements, that make up the modern consciousness in regard to charity, and also the growth of the habit of "charity" as representing a gradually educated social instinct. (2) We have also to consider in their relation to charity the results of recent investigations of the conditions of social life. (3) At each stage we have to note the corresponding stage of practical administration in public relief and private effort--for the division between public or "poor-law" relief and charity which prevails in England is, comparatively speaking, a novelty, and, generally speaking, the work of charity can hardly be appreciated or understood if it be considered without reference to public relief. (4) As to the present day, we have to consider practical suggestions in regard to such subjects as charity and economic thought, charity organization, friendly visiting and almonership, co-operation with the poor-law, charity and thrift, parochial management, hospitals and medical relief, exceptional distress and the "unemployed," the utilization of endowments and their supervision, and their adaptation to new needs and emergencies. (5) We have also throughout to consider charitable help in relation to classes of dependants, who appear early in the history of the question--widows and orphans, the sick and the aged, vagrants and wayfarers.

First in the series come the charities of the family and of hospitality; then the wider charities of religion, the charities of the community, and of individual donors and of mutual help. These gradually assumed importance in communities which consisted originally of self-supporting classes, within which widows and orphans, for instance, would be rather provided for, in accordance with recognized class obligations, than relieved. Then come habitual almsgiving, the charitable endowment, and the modern charitable institution and association. But throughout the test of progress or decadence appears to be the condition of the family. The family is the source, the home and the hearthstone of charity. It has been created but slowly, and there is naturally a constant tendency to break away from its obligations and to ignore and depreciate its utility. Yet the family, as we now have it, is itself the outcome of infinite thought working through social instinct, and has at each stage of its development indicated a general advance. To it, therefore, constant reference must be made.