Chapter XX: Part VI: After the Reformation (14)

The standard biography is A.B. Hart's _Salmon Portland Chase_ in the
"American Statesmen Series" (1899). Less philosophical, but containing
a greater wealth of detail, is J.W. Shuckers' _Life and Public
Services of Salmon Portland Chase_ (New York, 1874). R.B. Warden's
_Account of the Private Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland
Chase_ (Cincinnati, 1874) deals more fully with Chase's private life.

CHASE, SAMUEL (1741-1811), American jurist, was born in Somerset county, Maryland, on the 17th of April 1741. He was admitted to the bar at Annapolis in 1761, and for more than twenty years was a member of the Maryland legislature. He took an active part in the resistance to the Stamp Act, and from 1774 to 1778 and 1784 to 1785 was a member of the Continental Congress. With Benjamin Franklin and Charles Carroll he was sent by Congress in 1776 to win over the Canadians to the side of the revolting colonies, and after his return did much to persuade Maryland to advocate a formal separation of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain, he himself being one of those who signed the Declaration of Independence on the 2nd of August 1776. In this year he was also a member of the convention which framed the first constitution for the state of Maryland. After serving in the Maryland convention which ratified for that state the Federal Constitution, and there vigorously opposing ratification, though afterwards he was an ardent Federalist, he became in 1791 chief judge of the Maryland general court, which position he resigned in 1796 for that of an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His radical Federalism, however, led him to continue active in politics, and he took advantage of every opportunity, on the bench and off, to promote the cause of his party. His overbearing conduct while presiding at the trials of John Fries for treason, and of James Thompson Callender (d. 1813) for seditious libel in 1800, drove the lawyers for the defence from the court, and evoked the wrath of the Republicans, who were stirred to action by a political harangue on the evil tendencies of democracy which he delivered as a charge to a grand jury at Baltimore in 1803. The House of Representatives adopted a resolution of impeachment in March 1804, and on the 7th of December 1804 the House managers, chief among whom were John Randolph, Joseph H. Nicholson (1770-1817), and Caesar A. Rodney (1772-1824), laid their articles of impeachment before the Senate. The trial, with frequent interruptions and delays, lasted from the 2nd of January to the 1st of March 1805. Judge Chase was defended by the ablest lawyers in the country, including Luther Martin, Robert Goodloe Harper (1765-1825), Philip Barton Key (1757-1815), Charles Lee (1758-1815), and Joseph Hopkinson (1770-1842). The indictment, in eight articles, dealt with his conduct in the Fries and Callender trials, with his treatment of a Delaware grand jury, and (in article viii.) with his making "highly indecent, extra-judicial" reflections upon the national administration, probably the greatest offence in Republican eyes. On only three articles was there a majority against Judge Chase, the largest, on article viii., being four short of the necessary two-thirds to convict. "The case," says Henry Adams, "proved impeachment to be an impracticable thing for partisan purposes, and it decided the permanence of those lines of constitutional development which were a reflection of the common law." Judge Chase resumed his seat on the bench, and occupied it until his death on the 19th of June 1811.

See _The Trial of Samuel Chase_ (2 vols., Washington, 1805), reported
by Samuel H. Smith and Thomas Lloyd; an article in _The American Law
Review_, vol. xxxiii. (St Louis, Mo., 1899); and Henry Adams's
_History of the United States_, vol. ii. (New York, 1889).

CHASE, WILLIAM MERRITT (1849- ), American painter, was born at Franklin, Indiana, on the 1st of November 1849. He was a pupil of B.F. Hays at Indianapolis, of J.O. Eaton in New York, and subsequently of A. Wagner and Piloty in Munich. In New York he established a school of his own, after teaching with success for some years at the Art Students' League. A worker in all mediums--oils, water-colour, pastel and etching--painting with distinction the figure, landscape and still-life, he is perhaps best known by his portraits, his sitters numbering some of the most important men and women of his time. Mr Chase won many honours at home and abroad, became a member of the National Academy of Design, New York, and for ten years was president of the Society of American Artists. Among his important canvases are "Ready for the Ride" (Union League Club, N.Y.), "The Apprentice," "Court Jester," and portraits of the painters Whistler and Duveneck; of General Webb and of Peter Cooper.

CHASE. (1) (Fr. _chasse_, from Lat. _captare_, frequentative of _capere_, to take), the pursuit of wild animals for food or sport (see HUNTING). The word is used of the pursuit of anything, and also of the thing pursued, as, in naval warfare, of a ship. A transferred meaning is that of park land reserved for the breeding and hunting of wild animals, in which sense it appears in various place-names in England, as Cannock Chase. It is also a term for a stroke in tennis (q.v.). (2) (Fr. _chasse_, Lat. _capsa_, a box, cf. _caisse_, and "chest"), an enclosure, such as the muzzle-end of a gun in front of the trunnions, a groove cut to hold a pipe, and, in typography, the frame enclosing the "forme."

CHASING, or ENCHASING, the art of producing figures and ornamental patterns, either raised or indented, on metallic surfaces by means of steel tools or punches. It is practised extensively for the ornamentation of goldsmith and silversmith work, electro-plate and similar objects, being employed to produce bold flutings and bosses, and in another manner utilized for imitating engraved surfaces. Minute work can be produced by this method, perfect examples of which may be seen in the watch-cases chased by G.M. Moser, R.A. (1704-1783). The chaser first outlines the pattern on the surface he is to ornament, after which, if the work involves bold or high embossments, these are blocked out by a process termed "snarling." The snarling iron is a long iron tool turned up at the end, and made so that when securely fastened in a vise the upturned end can reach and press against any portion of the interior of the vase or other object to be chased. The part to be raised being held firmly against the upturned point of the snarling iron, the workman gives the shoulder or opposite end of the iron a sharp blow, which causes the point applied to the work to give it a percussive stroke, and thus throw up the surface of the metal held against the tool. When the blocking out from the interior is finished, or when no such embossing is required, the object to be chased is filled with molten pitch, which is allowed to harden. It is then fastened to a sandbag, and with hammer and a multitude of small punches of different outline the whole details of the pattern, lined, smooth or "matt," are worked out. Embossing and stamping from steel dies and rolled ornaments have long since taken the place of chased ornamentations in the cheaper kinds of plated works. (See EMBOSSING.)

CHASLES, VICTOR EUPHEMIEN PHILARETE (1798-1873), French critic and man of letters, was born at Mainvilliers (Eure et Loir) on the 8th of October 1798. His father, Pierre Jacques Michel Chasles (1754-1826), was a member of the Convention, and was one of those who voted the death of Louis XVI. He brought up his son according to the principles of Rousseau's _Emile_, and the boy, after a regime of outdoor life, followed by some years' classical study, was apprenticed to a printer, so that he might make acquaintance with manual labour. His master was involved in one of the plots of 1815, and Philarete suffered two months' imprisonment. On his release he was sent to London, where he worked for the printer Valpy on editions of classical authors. He wrote articles for the English reviews, and on his return to France did much to popularize the study of English authors. He was also one of the earliest to draw attention in France to Scandinavian and Russian literature. He contributed to the _Revue des deux mondes_, until he had a violent quarrel, terminating in a lawsuit, with Francois Buloz, who won his case. He became librarian of the Bibliotheque Mazarine, and from 1841 was professor of comparative literature at the College de France. During his active life he produced some fifty volumes of literary history and criticism, and of social history, much of which is extremely valuable. He died at Venice on the 18th of July 1873. His son, Emile Chasles (b. 1827), was a philologist of some reputation.

Among his best critical works is _Dix-huitieme Siecle en Angleterre_
... (1846), one of a series of 20 vols. of _Etudes de litterature
comparee_ (1846-1875), which he called later _Trente ans de critique_.
An account of his strenuous boyhood is given in his _Maison de mon
pere_. His _Memoires_ (1876-1877) did not fulfil the expectations
based on his brilliant talk.

CHASSE (from the Fr., in full _chasse-cafe_, or "coffee-chaser"), a draught of spirit or liqueur, taken with or after coffee, &c.

CHASSE (Fr. for "chased"), a gliding step in dancing, so called since one foot is brought up behind or chases the other. The _chasse croise_ is a double variety of the step.

CHASSELOUP-LAUBAT, FRANCOIS, MARQUIS DE (1754-1833), French general and military engineer, was born at St Sernin (Lower Charente) on the 18th of August 1754, of a noble family, and entered the French engineers in 1774. He was still a subaltern at the outbreak of the Revolution, becoming captain in 1791. His ability as a military engineer was recognized in the campaigns of 1792 and 1793. In the following year he won distinction in various actions and was promoted successively _chef de bataillon_ and colonel. He was chief of engineers at the siege of Mainz in 1796, after which he was sent to Italy. He there conducted the first siege of Mantua, and reconnoitred the positions and lines of advance of the army of Bonaparte. He was promoted general of brigade before the close of the campaign, and was subsequently employed in fortifying the new Rhine frontier of France. His work as chief of engineers in the army of Italy (1799) was conspicuously successful, and after the battle of Novi he was made general of division. When Napoleon took the field in 1800 to retrieve the disasters of 1799, he again selected Chasseloup as his engineer general. During the peace of 1801-1805 he was chiefly employed in reconstructing the defences of northern Italy, and in particular the afterwards famous Quadrilateral. His _chef-d'oeuvre_ was the great fortress of Alessandria on the Tanaro. In 1805 he remained in Italy with Massena, but at the end of 1806 Napoleon, then engaged in the Polish campaign, called him to the _Grande Armee_, with which he served in the campaign of 1806-07, directing the sieges of Colberg, Danzig and Stralsund. During the Napoleonic domination in Germany, Chasseloup reconstructed many fortresses, in particular Magdeburg. In the campaign of 1809 he again served in Italy. In 1810 Napoleon made him a councillor of state. His last campaign was that of 1812 in Russia. He retired from active service soon afterwards, though in 1814 he was occasionally engaged in the inspection and construction of fortifications. Louis XVIII. made him a peer of France and a knight of St Louis. He refused to join Napoleon in the Hundred Days, but after the second Restoration he voted in the chamber of peers against the condemnation of Marshal Ney. In politics he belonged to the constitutional party. The king created him a marquis. Chasseloup's later years were employed chiefly in putting in order his manuscripts, a task which he had to abandon owing to the failure of his sight. His only published work was _Correspondence d'un general francais, &c. sur divers sujets_ (Paris, 1801, republished Milan, 1805 and 1811, under the title _Correspondance de deux generals, &c., essais sur quelques parties d'artillerie et de fortification_). The most important of his papers are in manuscript in the Depot of Fortifications, Paris.

As an engineer Chasseloup was an adherent, though of advanced views, of the old bastioned system. He followed in many respects the engineer Bousmard, whose work was published in 1797 and who fell, as a Prussian officer, in the defence of Danzig in 1807 against Chasseloup's own attack. His front was applied to Alessandria, as has been stated, and contains many elaborations of the bastion trace, with, in particular, masked flanks in the tenaille, which served as extra flanks of the bastions. The bastion itself was carefully and minutely retrenched. The ordinary ravelin he replaced by a heavy casemated caponier after the example of Montalembert, and, like Bousmard's, his own ravelin was a large and powerful work pushed out beyond the glacis.

CHASSEPOT, officially "fusil modele 1866," a military breech-loading rifle, famous as the arm of the French forces in the Franco-German War of 1870-71. It was so called after its inventor, Antoine Alphonse Chassepot (1833-1905), who, from 1857 onwards, had constructed various experimental forms of breech-loader, and it became the French service weapon in 1866. In the following year it made its first appearance on the battle-field at Mentana (November 3rd, 1867), where it inflicted severe losses upon Garibaldi's troops. In the war of 1870 it proved very greatly superior to the German needle-gun. The breech was closed by a bolt very similar to those of more modern rifles, and amongst the technical features of interest were the method of obturation, which was similar in principle to the de Bange obturator for heavy guns (see ORDNANCE), and the retention of the paper cartridge. The principal details of the chassepot are:--weight of rifle, 9 lb. 5 oz.; length with bayonet, 6 ft. 2 in.; calibre, .433 in.; weight of bullet (lead), 386 grains; weight of charge (black powder), 86.4 grains; muzzle velocity, 1328 f.s.; sighted to 1312 yds. (1200 m.). The chassepot was replaced in 1874 by the Gras rifle, which had a metal cartridge, and all rifles of the older model remaining in store were converted to take the same ammunition (fusil modele 1866/74).

CHASSESRIAU, THEODORE (1819-1856), French painter, was born in the Antilles, and studied under Ingres at Paris and at Rome, subsequently falling under the influence of Paul Delaroche. He was a well-known painter of portraits and historical pieces, his "Tepidarium at Pompeii" (1853) being now in the Louvre.

CHASSIS (Fr. _chassis_, a frame, from the Late. Lat. _capsum_, an enclosed space), properly a window-frame, from which is derived the word "sash"; also the movable traversing frame of a gun, and more particularly that part of a motor vehicle consisting of the wheels, frame and machinery, on which the body or carriage part rests.

CHASTELARD, PIERRE DE BOCSOZEL DE (1540-1563), French poet, was born in Dauphine, a scion of the house of Bayard. His name is inseparably connected with Mary, queen of Scots. From the service of the Constable Montmorency, Chastelard, then a page, passed to the household of Marshal Damville, whom he accompanied in his journey to Scotland in escort of Mary (1561). He returned to Paris in the marshal's train, but left for Scotland again shortly afterward, bearing letters of recommendation to Mary from his old protector, Montmorency, and the _Regrets_ addressed to the ex-queen of France by Pierre Ronsard, his master in the art of song. He undertook to transmit to the poet the service of plate with which Mary rewarded him. But he had fallen in love with the queen, who is said to have encouraged his passion. Copies of verse passed between them; she lost no occasion of showing herself partial to his person and conversation. The young man hid himself under her bed, where he was discovered by her maids of honour. Mary pardoned the offence, and the old familiar terms between them were resumed. Chastelard was so rash as again to violate her privacy. He was discovered a second time, seized, sentenced and hanged the next morning. He met his fate valiantly and consistently, reading, on his way to the scaffold, his master's noble _Hymne de la mort_, and turning at the instant of doom towards the palace of Holyrood, to address to his unseen mistress the famous farewell--"Adieu, toi si belle et si cruelle, qui me tues et que je ne puis cesser d'aimer." This at least is the version of the _Memoires_ of Brantome, who is, however, notoriously untrustworthy. But for his madness of love, it is possible that Chastelard would have left no shadow or shred of himself behind. As it is, his life and death are of interest as illustrating the wild days in which his lot was cast.

CHASTELLAIN, GEORGES (d. 1475), Burgundian chronicler, was a native of Alost in Flanders. He derived his surname from the fact that his ancestors were burgraves or chatelains of the town; his parents, who belonged to illustrious Flemish families, were probably the Jean Chastellain and his wife Marie de Masmines mentioned in the town records in 1425 and 1432. A copy of an epitaph originally at Valenciennes states that he died on the 20th of March 1474-5 aged seventy. But since he states that he was so young a child in 1430 that he could not recollect the details of events in that year, and since he was "_ecolier_" at Louvain in 1430, his birth may probably be placed nearer 1415 than 1405. He saw active service in the Anglo-French wars and probably elsewhere, winning the surname of _L'adventureux_. In 1434 he received a gift from Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, for his military services, but on the conclusion of the peace of Arras in the next year he abandoned soldiering for diplomacy. The next ten years were spent in France, where he was connected with Georges de la Tremoille, and afterwards entered the household of Pierre de Breze, at that time seneschal of Poitou, by whom he was employed on missions to the duke of Burgundy, in an attempt to establish better relations between Charles VII. and the duke. During these years Chastellain had ample opportunity of obtaining an intimate knowledge of French affairs, but on the further breach between the two princes, Chastellain left the French service to enter Philip's household. He was at first pantler, then carver, titles which are misleading as to the nature of his services, which were those of a diplomatist; and in 1457 he became a member of the ducal council. He was continually employed on diplomatic errands until 1455, when, owing apparently to ill-health, he received apartments in the palace of the counts of Hainaut at Salle-le-Comte, Valenciennes, with a considerable pension, on condition that the recipient should put in writing "_choses nouvelles et morales_," and a chronicle of notable events. That is to say, he was appointed Burgundian historiographer with a recommendation to write also on other subjects not strictly within the scope of a chronicler. From this time he worked hard at his _Chronique_, with occasional interruptions in his retreat to fulfil missions in France, or to visit the Burgundian court. He was assisted, from about 1463 onwards, by his disciple and continuator, Jean Molinet, whose rhetorical and redundant style may be fairly traced in some passages of the _Chronique_. Charles the Bold maintained the traditions of his house as a patron of literature, and showed special favour to Chastellain, who, after being constituted _indiciaire_ or chronicler of the order of the Golden Fleece, was himself made a knight of the order on the 2nd of May 1473. He died at Valenciennes on the 13th of February (according to the treasury accounts), or on the 20th of March (according to his epitaph) 1475. He left an illegitimate son, to whom was paid in 1524 one hundred and twenty livres for a copy of the _Chronique_ intended for Charles V.'s sister Mary, queen of Hungary. Only about one-third of the whole work, which extended from 1410 to 1474, is known to be in existence, but MSS. carried by the Habsburgs to Vienna or Madrid may possibly yet be discovered.

Among his contemporaries Chastellain acquired a great reputation by his poems and occasional pieces now little considered. The unfinished state of his _Chronique_ at the time of his death, coupled with political considerations, may possibly account for the fact that it remained unprinted during the century that followed his death, and his historical work was only disinterred from the libraries of Arras, Paris and Brussels by the painstaking researches of M. Buchon in 1825. Chastellain was constantly engaged during the earlier part of his career in negotiations between the French and Burgundian courts, and thus had personal knowledge of the persons and events dealt with in his history. A partisan element in writing of French affairs was inevitable in a Burgundian chronicle. This defect appears most strongly in his treatment of Joan of Arc; and the attack on Agnes Sorel seems to have been dictated by the dauphin (afterwards Louis XI.), then a refugee in Burgundy, of whom he was afterwards to become a severe critic. He was not, however, misled, as his more picturesque predecessor Froissart had been, by feudal and chivalric tradition into misconception of the radical injustice of the English cause in France; and except in isolated instances where Burgundian interests were at stake, he did full justice to the patriotism of Frenchmen. Among his most sympathetic portraits are those of his friend Pierre de Breze and of Jacques Coeur. His French style, based partly on his Latin reading, has, together with its undeniable vigour and picturesqueness, the characteristic redundance and rhetorical quality of the Burgundian school. Chastellain was no mere annalist, but proposed to fuse and shape his vast material to his own conclusions, in accordance with his political experience. The most interesting feature of his work is the skill with which he pictures the leading figures of his time. His "characters" are the fruit of acute and experienced observation, and abound in satirical traits, although the 42nd chapter of his second book, devoted expressly to portraiture, is headed "_Comment Georges escrit et mentionne les louanges vertueuses des princes de son temps._"

The known extant fragments of Chastellain's _Chroniques_ with his
other works were edited by Kervyn de Lettenhove for the Brussels
Academy in 1863-1866 (8 vols., Brussels) as _OEuvres de Georges
Chastellain_. This edition includes all that had been already
published by Buchon in his _Collection de chroniques_ and _Choix de
chroniques_ (material subsequently incorporated in the _Pantheon
litteraire_), and portions printed by Renard in his _Tresor national_,
vol. i. and by Quicherat in the _Proces de la Pucelle_ vol. iv. Kervyn
de Lettenhove's text includes the portions of the chronicle covering
the periods September 1419, October 1422, January 1430 to December
1431, 1451-1452, July 1454 to October 1458, July 1461 to July 1463,
and, with omissions, June 1467 to September 1470; and three volumes of
minor pieces of considerable interest, especially _Le Temple de
Boccace_, dedicated to Margaret of Anjou, and the _Deprecation_ for
Pierre Breze, imprisoned by Louis XI. In the case of these minor works
the attribution to Chastellain is in some cases erroneous, notably in
the case of the _Livre des faits de Jacques de Lalain_, which is the
work of Lefebvre de Saint-Remi, herald of the Golden Fleece. In the
allegorical _Oultre d'amour_ it has been thought a real romance
between Breze and a lady of the royal house is concealed.

See A. Molinier, _Les Sources de l'histoire de France_; as well as
notices by Kervyn de Lettenhove prefixed to the _OEuvres_ and in the
_Biographie nationale de Belgique_; and an article (three parts) by
Vallet de Viriville in the _Journal des savants_ (1867).

CHASUBLE (Fr. _chasuble_, Ger. _Kasel_, Span. _casulla_; Late Lat. _casula_, a little house, hut, from _casa_), a liturgical vestment of the Catholic Church. It is the outermost garment worn by bishops and priests at the celebration of the Mass, forming with the alb (q.v.) the most essential part of the eucharistic vestments. Since it is only used at the Mass, or rarely for functions intimately connected with the sacrament of the altar, it may be regarded as the Mass vestment _par excellence_. The chasuble is thus in a special sense the sacerdotal vestment, and at the ordination of priests, according to the Roman rite, the bishop places on the candidate a chasuble rolled up at the back (_planeta plicata_), with the words, "Take the sacerdotal robe, the symbol of love," &c.; at the end of the ordination Mass the vestment is unrolled. The chasuble or _planeta_ (as it is called in the Roman missal), according to the prevailing model in the Roman Catholic Church, is a scapular-like cloak, with a hole in the middle for the head, falling down over breast and back, and leaving the arms uncovered at the sides. Its shape and size, however, differ considerably in various countries (see fig. 1), while some churches--e.g. those of certain monastic orders--have retained or reverted to the earlier "Gothic" forms to be described later. According to the decisions of the Congregation of Rites chasubles must not be of linen, cotton or woollen stuffs, but of silk; though a mixture of wool (or linen and cotton) and silk is allowed if the silk completely cover the other material on the outer side; spun glass thread, as a substitute for gold or silver thread, is also forbidden, owing to the possible danger to the priest's health through broken fragments falling into the chalice.

FIG. 1.--Comparative shape and size of Chasubles as now in use in various countries.

a, b, German. c, Roman. d, Spanish.]

The chasuble, like the kindred vestments (the [Greek: phelonion], &c.) in the Eastern Churches, is derived from the Roman _paenula_ or _planeta_, a cloak worn by all classes and both sexes in the Graeco-Roman world (see VESTMENTS). Though early used in the celebration of the liturgy it had for several centuries no specifically liturgical character, the first clear instances of its ritual use being in a letter of St Germanus of Paris (d. 576), and the next in the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Toledo (633). Much later than this, however, it was still an article of everyday clerical dress, and as such was prescribed by the German council convened by Carloman and presided over by St Boniface in 742. Amalarius of Metz, in his _De ecclesiasticis officiis_ (ii. 19), tells us in 816 that the _casula_ is the _generale indumentum sacrorum ducum_ and "is proper generally to all the clergy." It was not until the 11th century, when the cope (q.v.) had become established as a liturgical vestment, that the chasuble began to be reserved as special to the sacrifice of the Mass. As illustrating this process Father Braun (p. 170) cites an interesting correspondence between Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury and John of Avranches, archbishop of Rouen, as to the propriety of a bishop wearing a chasuble at the consecration of a church, Lanfranc maintaining as an established principle that the vestment should be reserved for the Mass. By the 13th century, with the final development of the ritual of the Mass, the chasuble became definitely fixed as the vestment of the celebrating priest; though to this day in the Roman Church relics of the earlier general use of the chasuble survive in the _planeta plicata_ worn by deacons and subdeacons in Lent and Advent, and other penitential seasons.

At the Reformation the chasuble was rejected with the other vestments by the more extreme Protestants. Its use, however, survived in the Lutheran churches; and though in those of Germany it is no longer worn, it still forms part of the liturgical costume of the Scandinavian Evangelical churches. In the Church of England, though it was prescribed alternatively with the cope in the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI., it was ultimately discarded, with the other "Mass vestments," the cope being substituted for it at the celebration of the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches; its use has, however, during the last fifty years been widely revived in connexion with the reactionary movement in the direction of the pre-Reformation doctrine of the eucharist. The difficult question of its legality is discussed in the article VESTMENTS.

_Form._--The chasuble was originally a tent-like robe which fell in loose folds below the knee (see Plate I. fig. 4). Its obvious inconvenience for celebrating the holy mysteries, however, caused its gradual modification. The object of the change was primarily to leave the hands of the celebrant freer for the careful performance of the manual acts, and to this end a process of cutting away at the sides of the vestment began, which continued until the tent-shaped chasuble of the 12th century had developed in the 16th into the scapular-like vestment at present in use. This process was, moreover, hastened by the substitution of costly and elaborately embroidered materials for the simple stuffs of which the vestment had originally been composed; for, as it became heavier and stiffer, it necessarily had to be made smaller. For the extremely exiguous proportions of some chasubles actually in use, which have been robbed of all the beauty of form they ever possessed, less respectable motives have sometimes been responsible, viz. the desire of their makers to save on the materials. The most beautiful form of the chasuble is undoubtedly the "Gothic" (see the figure of Bishop Johannes of Lubeck in the article VESTMENTS), which is the form most affected by the Anglican clergy, as being that worn in the English Church before the Reformation.

_Decoration._--Though _planetae_ decorated with narrow orphreys are occasionally met with in the monuments of the early centuries, these vestments were until the 10th century generally quite plain, and even at the close of this century, when the custom of decorating the chasuble with orphreys had become common, there was no definite rule as to their disposition; sometimes they were merely embroidered borders to the neck-opening or hem, sometimes a vertical strip down the back, less often a forked cross, the arms of which turned upwards over the shoulders. From this time onward, however, the embroidery became ever more and more elaborate, and with this tendency the orphreys were broadened to allow of their being decorated with figures. About the middle of the 13th century, the cross with horizontal arms begins to appear on the back of the vestment, and by the 15th this had become the most usual form, though the forked cross also survived--e.g. in England, where it is now considered distinctive of the chasuble as worn in the Anglican Church. Where the forked cross is used it is placed both on the back and front of the vestment; the horizontal-armed cross, on the other hand, is placed only on the back, the front being decorated with a vertical strip extending to the lower hem (fig. 1, b, d). Sometimes the back of the chasuble has no cross, but only a vertical orphrey, and in this case the front, besides the vertical stripe, has a horizontal orphrey just below the neck opening (see Plate I. fig. 2). This latter is the type used in the local Roman Church, which has been adopted in certain dioceses in South Germany and Switzerland, and of late years in the Roman Catholic churches in England, e.g. Westminster cathedral (see Plate I. figs. 3 and 5).

FIG. 2.--Chasuble of Pope Calixtus III. (15th century) preserved at
Valencia.

From a photograph by Father J.L. Braun in _Die liturg Gewandung_, by
permission of the publisher, B. Herder.

FIG. 3.--Chasuble of Pope Pius V. (late 15th century) at S. Maria
Maggiore at Rome.

From a photograph by Father J.L. Braun in _Die liturg Gewandung_.

FIG. 4.--Chasuble dedicated by Stephen of Hungary (997-1038) and his
wife Gisela, used as the Hungarian Coronation Robe.

(From Braun, _Die liturg. Gewandung_.)

FIG. 5.--Modern Roman Chasuble of Archbishop Bourne of Westminster.

FIG. 6.--Modern English Chasuble, used at St Paul's Church,
Knightsbridge, London.]

FIG. 7.--Back of a Chasuble of Italian Brocaded Damask (Red) with
Embroidered Orphreys. The Vestment is of the early 16th century, the
Orphreys of the late 14th century. (English. In the Victoria and
Albert Museum.)]

It has been widely held that the forked cross was a conscious imitation of the archiepiscopal pallium (F. Bock, _Gesch. der liturg. Gewander_, ii. 107), and that the chasuble so decorated is proper to archbishops. Father Braun, however, makes it quite clear that this was not the case, and gives proof that this decoration was not even originally conceived as a cross at all, citing early instances of its having been worn by laymen and even by non-Christians (p. 210). It was not until the 13th century that the symbolical meaning of the cross began to be elaborated, and this was still further accentuated from the 14th century onward by the increasingly widespread custom of adding to it the figure of the crucified Christ and other symbols of the Passion. This, however, did not represent any definite rule; and the orphreys of chasubles were decorated with a great variety of pictorial subjects, scriptural or drawn from the stories of the saints, while the rest of the vestment was either left plain or, if embroidered, most usually decorated with arabesque patterns of foliage or animals. The local Roman Church, true to its ancient traditions, adhered to the simpler forms. The modern Roman chasuble pictured in Plate I. fig. 5, besides the conventional arabesque pattern, is decorated, according to rule, with the arms of the archbishop and his see.

_The Eastern Church._--The original equivalent of the chasuble is the phelonion ([Greek: phelonion, phelones, phainolion], from _paenula_). It is a full vestment of the type of the Western bell chasuble; but, instead of being cut away at the sides, it is for convenience' sake either gathered up or cut short in front. In the Armenian, Syrian, Chaldaean and Coptic rites it is cope-shaped. There is some difference of opinion as to the derivation of the vestment in the latter case; the Five Bishops (Report to Convocation, 1908) deriving it, like the cope, from the _birrus_, while Father Braun considers it, as well as the cope, to be a modification of the _paenula_.[1] The phelonion (Arm. _shurtshar_, Syr. _phaina_, Chald. _maaphra_ or _phaina_, Copt, _burnos, felonion, kuklion_) is confined to the priests in the Armenian, Syrian, Chaldaean and Coptic rites; in the Greek rite it is worn also by the lectors. It is not in the East so specifically a eucharistic vestment as in the West, but is worn at other solemn functions besides the liturgy, e.g. marriages, processions, &c.

Until the 11th century the phelonion is always pictured as a perfectly plain dark robe, but at this period the custom arose of decorating the patriarchal phelonion with a number of crosses, whence its name of [Greek: polystaurion]. By the 14th century the use of these polystauria had been extended to metropolitans and later still to all bishops. The purple or black phelonion, however, remained plain in all cases. The Greeks and Greek Melchite metropolitans now wear the _sakkos_ instead of the phelonion; and in the Russian, Ruthenian, Bulgarian and Italo-Greek churches this vestment has superseded the phelonion in the case of all bishops (see DALMATIC and VESTMENTS).

See J. Braun, S.J., _Die liturgische Gewandung_ (Freiburg im Breisgau,
1907), pp. 149-247, and the bibliography to the article VESTMENTS.
(W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The writer is indebted to the courtesy of Father Braun for the
following note:--"That the Syrian _phaina_ was formerly a closed
mantle of the type of the bell chasuble is clearly proved by the
evidence of the miniatures of a Syrian pontifical (dated 1239) in the
Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris (cf. Bild 16, 112, 284, in _Die
liturgische Gewandung_). The liturgical vestments of the Armenians
are derived, like their rite, from the Greek rite; so that in this
case also there can be no doubt that the _shurtshar_ was originally
closed. The Coptic rite is in the same relation to the Syrian.
Moreover, it would be further necessary to prove that the _birrus_,
in contradistinction to the _paenula_, was always open in front;
whereas, _per contra_, the _paenula_, both as worn by soldiers and in
ordinary life, was, like the modern Arab _burnus_, often slit up the
front to the neck. For the rest, it is obvious that if the Syrian
_phaina_ was still quite closed in the 13th century, and was only
provided with a slit since that time, the same is very probable in
the case of the Armenian chasuble. The absence of the hood might also
be taken as additional proof of the derivation of the _phaina_ from
the _paenula_, but I should not lay particular stress upon it. The
question is settled by the above-mentioned miniatures."

CHATEAU (from Lat. _castellum_, fortress, through O. Fr. _chastel, chasteau_), the French word for castle (q.v.). The development of the medieval castle, in the 15th and 16th centuries, into houses arranged rather for residence than defence led to a corresponding widening of the meaning of the term _chateau_, which came to be applied to any seigniorial residence and so generally to all houses, especially country houses, of any pretensions (cf. the Ger. _Schloss_). The French distinguish the fortified castle from the residential mansion by describing the former as the _chateau fort_, the latter as the _chateau de plaisance_. The development of the one into the other is admirably illustrated by surviving buildings in France, especially in the _chateaux_ scattered along the Loire. Of these Langeais, still in perfect preservation, is a fine type of the _chateau fort_, with its 10th-century keep and 13th-century walls. Amboise (1490), Blois (1500-1540), Chambord (begun 1526), Chenonceaux (1515-1560), Azay-le-Rideau (1521), may be taken as typical examples of the _chateau de plaisance_ of the transition period, all retaining in greater or less degree some of the architectural characteristics of the medieval castle. Some description of these is given under their several headings. In English the word _chateau_ is often used to translate foreign words (e.g. _Schloss_) meaning country house or mansion.

For the Loire chateaux see Theodore Andrea Cook, _Old Touraine_
(1892).

CHATEAUBRIAND, FRANCOIS RENE, VICOMTE DE (1768-1848), French author, youngest son of Rene Auguste de Chateaubriand, comte de Combourg,[1] was born at St Malo on the 4th of September 1768. He was a brilliant representative of the reaction against the ideas of the French Revolution, and the most conspicuous figure in French literature during the First Empire. His naturally poetical temperament was fostered in childhood by picturesque influences, the mysterious reserve of his morose father, the ardent piety of his mother, the traditions of his ancient family, the legends and antiquated customs of the sequestered Breton district, above all, the vagueness and solemnity of the neighbouring ocean. His closest friend was his sister Lucile,[2] a passionate-hearted girl, divided between her devotion to him and to religion. Francois received his education at Dol and Rennes, where Jean Victor Moreau was among his fellow-students. From Rennes he proceeded to the College of Dinan, and passed some years in desultory study in preparation for the priesthood. He finally decided, after a year's holiday at the family chateau of Combourg, that he had no vocation for the Church, and was on the point of proceeding to try his fortune in India when he received (1786) a commission in the army. After a short visit to Paris he joined his regiment at Cambrai, and early in the following year was presented at court. In 1788 he received the tonsure in order to enter the order of the Knights of Malta. In Paris (1787-1789) he made acquaintance with the Parisian men of letters. He met la Harpe, Evariste Parny, "Pindare" Lebrun, Nicolas Chamfort, Pierre Louis Ginguene, and others, of whom he has left portraits in his memoirs.

Chateaubriand was not unfavourable to the Revolution in its first stages, but he was disturbed by its early excesses; moreover, his regiment was disbanded, and his family belonged to the party of reaction. His political impartiality, he says, pleased no one. These causes and the restlessness of his spirit induced him to take part in a romantic scheme for the discovery of the North-West Passage, in pursuance of which he departed for America in the spring of 1791. The passage was not found or even attempted, but the adventurer returned enriched with the--to him--more important discovery of his own powers and vocation, conscious of his marvellous faculty for the delineation of nature, and stored with the new ideas and new imagery, derived from the virgin forests and magnificent scenery of the western continent. That he actually lived among the Indians, however, is shown by Bedier to be doubtful, and the same critic has exposed the untrustworthiness of the autobiographical details of his American trip. His knowledge of America was mainly derived from the books of Charlevoix and others.

The news of the arrest of Louis XVI. at Varennes in June 1791 recalled him to France. In 1792 he married Mlle Celeste Buisson de Lavigne, a girl of seventeen, who brought him a small fortune. This enabled him to join the ranks of the emigrants, a course practically imposed on him by his birth and his profession as a soldier. After the failure of the duke of Brunswick's invasion he contrived to reach Brussels, where he was left wounded and apparently dying in the street. His brother succeeded in obtaining some shelter for him, and sent him to Jersey. The captain of the boat in which he travelled left him on the beach in Guernsey. He was once more rescued from death, this time by some fishermen. After spending some time in the Channel Islands under the care of an emigrant uncle, the comte de Bedee, he made his way to London. In England he lived obscurely for several years, gaining an intimate acquaintance with English literature and a practical acquaintance with poverty. His own account of this period has been exposed by A. le Braz, _Au pays d'exil de Chateaubriand_ (1909), and by E. Dick, _Revue d'histoire litteraire de la France_ (1908), i. From his English exile dates the _Natchez_ (first printed in his _OEuvres completes_, 1826-1831), a prose epic designed to portray the life of the Red Indians. Two brilliant episodes originally designed for this work, _Atala_ and _Rene_, are among his most famous productions. Chateaubriand's first publication, however, was the _Essai historique, politique et moral sur les revolutions_ ... (London, 1797), which the author subsequently retracted, but took care not to suppress. In this volume he appears as a mediator between royalist and revolutionary ideas, a free-thinker in religion, and a philosopher imbued with the spirit of Rousseau. A great change in his views was, however, at hand, induced, according to his own statement, by a letter from his sister Julie (Mme de Farcy), telling him of the grief his views had caused his mother, who had died soon after her release from the Conciergerie in the same year. His brother had perished on the scaffold in April 1794, and both his sisters, Lucile and Julie, and his wife had been imprisoned at Rennes. Mme de Farcy did not long survive her imprisonment.

Chateaubriand's thoughts turned to religion, and on his return to France in 1800 the _Genie du christianisme_ was already in an advanced state. Louis de Fontanes had been a fellow-exile with Chateaubriand in London, and he now introduced him to the society of Mme de Stael, Mme Recamier, Benjamin Constant, Lucien Bonaparte and others. But Chateaubriand's favourite resort was the salon of Pauline de Beaumont, who was destined to fill a great place in his life, and gave him some help in the preparation of his work on Christianity, part of the book being written at her house at Savigny. _Atala, ou les amours de deux sauvages dans le desert_, used as an episode in the _Genie du christianisme_, appeared separately in 1801 and immediately made his reputation. Exquisite style, impassioned eloquence and glowing descriptions of nature gained indulgence for the incongruity between the rudeness of the personages and the refinement of the sentiments, and for the distasteful blending of prudery with sensuousness. Alike in its merits and defects the piece is a more emphatic and highly coloured _Paul et Virginie_; it has been justly said that Bernardin Saint-Pierre models in marble and Chateaubriand in bronze. Encouraged by his success the author resumed his _Genie du christianisme, ou beautes de la religion chretienne_, which appeared in 1802, just upon the eve of Napoleon's re-establishment of the Catholic religion in France, for which it thus seemed almost to have prepared the way. No coincidence could have been more opportune, and Chateaubriand came to esteem himself the counterpart of Napoleon in the intellectual order. In composing his work he had borne in mind the admonition of his friend Joseph Joubert, that the public would care very little for his erudition and very much for his eloquence. It is consequently an inefficient production from the point of view of serious argument. The considerations derived from natural theology are but commonplaces rendered dazzling by the magic of style; and the parallels between Christianity and antiquity, especially in arts and letters, are at best ingenious sophistries. The less polemical passages, however, where the author depicts the glories of the Catholic liturgy and its accessories, or expounds its symbolical significance, are splendid instances of the effect produced by the accumulation and judicious distribution of particulars gorgeous in the mass, and treated with the utmost refinement of detail. The work is a masterpiece of literary art, and its influence in French literature was immense. The _Eloa_ of Alfred de Vigny, the _Harmonies_ of Lamartine and even the _Legende des siecles_ of Victor Hugo may be said to have been inspired by the _Genie du christianisme_. Its immediate effect was very considerable. It admirably subserved the statecraft of Napoleon, and Talleyrand in 1803 appointed the writer _attache_ to the French legation at Rome, whither he was followed by Mme de Beaumont, who died there.

When his insubordinate and intriguing spirit compelled his recall he was transferred as envoy to the canton of the Valais. The murder of the duke of Enghien (21st of March 1804) took place before he took up this appointment. Chateaubriand, who was in Paris at the time, showed his courage and independence by immediately resigning his post. In 1807 he gave great offence to Napoleon by an article in the _Mercure de France_ (4th of July), containing allusions to Nero which were rightly taken to refer to the emperor. The _Mercure_, of which he had become proprietor, was temporarily suppressed, and was in the next year amalgamated with the _Decade_. Chateaubriand states in his _Memoires_ that his life was threatened, but it is more than possible that he exaggerated the danger. Before this, in 1806, he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, undertaken, as he subsequently acknowledged, less in a devotional spirit than in quest of new imagery. He returned by way of Tunis, Carthage, Cadiz and Granada. At Granada he met Mme de Mouchy, and the place and the meeting apparently suggested the romantic tale of _Le Dernier Abencerage_, which, for political reasons, remained unprinted until the publication of the _OEuvres completes_ (1826-1831). The journey also produced _L'Itineraire de Paris a Jerusalem_ ... (3 vols., 1811), a record of travel distinguished by the writer's habitual picturesqueness; and inspired his prose epic, _Les Martyrs, ou le triomphe de la religion chretienne_ (2 vols., 1809). This work may be regarded as the argument of the _Genie du christianisme_ thrown into an objective form. As in the _Epicurean_ of Thomas Moore, the professed design is the contrast between Paganism and Christianity, which fails of its purpose partly from the absence of real insight into the genius of antiquity, and partly because the heathen are the most interesting characters after all. _Rene_ had appeared in 1802 as an episode of the _Genie du christianisme_, and was published separately at Leipzig without its author's consent in the same year. It was perhaps Chateaubriand's most characteristic production. The connecting link in European literature between _Werther_ and _Childe Harold_, it paints the misery of a morbid and dissatisfied soul. The representation is mainly from the life. Chateaubriand betrayed amazing egotism in describing his sister Lucile in the Amelie of the story, and much is obviously descriptive of his own early surroundings. With _Les Natchez_ his career as an imaginative writer is closed. In 1831 he published his _Etudes ou discours historiques_ ... (4 vols.) dealing with the fall of the Roman Empire.

As a politician Chateaubriand was equally formidable to his antagonists when in opposition and to his friends when in office. His poetical receptivity and impressionableness rendered him no doubt honestly inconsistent with himself; his vanity and ambition, too morbidly acute to be restrained by the ties of party allegiance, made him dangerous and untrustworthy as a political associate. He was forbidden to deliver the address he had prepared (1811) for his reception to the Academy on M.J. Chenier on account of the bitter allusions to Napoleon contained in it. From this date until 1814 Chateaubriand lived in seclusion at the Vallee-aux-loups, an estate he had bought in 1807 at Aulnay. His pamphlet _De Bonaparte, des Bourbons, et de la necessite de se rattier a nos princes legitimes_, published on the 31st of March 1814, the day of the entrance of the allies into Paris, was as opportune in the moment of its appearance as the _Genie du christianisme_, and produced a hardly less signal effect. Louis XVIII. declared that it had been worth a hundred thousand men to him. Chateaubriand, as minister of the interior, accompanied him to Ghent during the Hundred Days, and for a time associated himself with the excesses of the royalist reaction. Political bigotry, however, was not among his faults; he rapidly drifted into liberalism and opposition, and was disgraced in September 1816 for his pamphlet _De la monarchie selon la charte_. He had to sell his library and his house of the Vallee-aux-loups.

After the fall of his opponent, the due Decazes, Chateaubriand obtained the Berlin embassy (1821), from which he was transferred to London (1822), and he also acted as French plenipotentiary at the Congress of Verona (1822). He here made himself mainly responsible for the iniquitous invasion of Spain--an expedition undertaken, as he himself admits, with the idea of restoring French prestige by a military parade. He next received the portfolio of foreign affairs, which he soon lost by his desertion of his colleagues on the question of a reduction of the interest on the national debt. After another interlude of effective pamphleteering in opposition, he accepted the embassy to Rome in 1827, under the Martignac administration, but resigned it at Prince Polignac's accession to office. On the downfall of the elder branch of the Bourbons, he made a brilliant but inevitably fruitless protest from the tribune in defence of the principle of legitimacy. During the first half of Louis Philippe's reign he was still politically active with his pen, and published a _Memoire sur la captivite de madame la duchesse de Berry_ (1833) and other pamphlets in which he made himself the champion of the exiled dynasty; but as years increased upon him, and the prospect of his again performing a conspicuous part diminished, he relapsed into an attitude of complete discouragement. His _Congres de Verone_ (1838), _Vie de Rance_ (1844), and his translation of Milton, _Le Paradis perdu de Milton_ (1836), belong to the writings of these later days. He died on the 4th of July 1848, wholly exhausted and thoroughly discontented with himself and the world, but affectionately tended by his old friend Madame Recamier, herself deprived of sight. For the last fifteen years of his life he had been engaged on his _Memoires_, and his chief distraction had been his daily visit to Madame Recamier, at whose house he met the European celebrities. He was buried in the Grand Be, an islet in the bay of St Malo. Shortly after his death his memory was revived, and at the same time exposed to much adverse criticism, by the publication, with sundry mutilations as has been suspected, of his celebrated _Memoires d'outre-tombe_ (12 vols., 1849-1850). These memoirs undoubtedly reveal his vanity, his egotism, the frequent hollowness of his professed convictions, and his incapacity for sincere attachment, except, perhaps, in the case of Madame Recamier. Though the book must be read with the greatest caution, especially in regard to persons with whom Chateaubriand came into collision, it is perhaps now the most read of all his works.