The known extant fragments of Chastellain’sChroniqueswith his other works were edited by Kervyn de Lettenhove for the Brussels Academy in 1863-1866 (8 vols., Brussels) asŒuvres de Georges Chastellain. This edition includes all that had been already published by Buchon in hisCollection de chroniquesandChoix de chroniques(material subsequently incorporated in thePanthéon littéraire), and portions printed by Renard in hisTrésor national, vol. i. and by Quicherat in theProcès de la Pucellevol. 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, especiallyLe Temple de Boccace, dedicated to Margaret of Anjou, and theDéprécationfor Pierre Brézé, 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 theLivre des faits de Jacques de Lalain, whichis the work of Lefèbvre de Saint-Remi, herald of the Golden Fleece. In the allegoricalOultré d’amourit has been thought a real romance between Brézé 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 theŒuvresand in theBiographie nationale de Belgique; and an article (three parts) by Vallet de Viriville in theJournal des savants(1867).
The known extant fragments of Chastellain’sChroniqueswith his other works were edited by Kervyn de Lettenhove for the Brussels Academy in 1863-1866 (8 vols., Brussels) asŒuvres de Georges Chastellain. This edition includes all that had been already published by Buchon in hisCollection de chroniquesandChoix de chroniques(material subsequently incorporated in thePanthéon littéraire), and portions printed by Renard in hisTrésor national, vol. i. and by Quicherat in theProcès de la Pucellevol. 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, especiallyLe Temple de Boccace, dedicated to Margaret of Anjou, and theDéprécationfor Pierre Brézé, 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 theLivre des faits de Jacques de Lalain, whichis the work of Lefèbvre de Saint-Remi, herald of the Golden Fleece. In the allegoricalOultré d’amourit has been thought a real romance between Brézé 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 theŒuvresand in theBiographie nationale de Belgique; and an article (three parts) by Vallet de Viriville in theJournal des savants(1867).
CHASUBLE(Fr.chasuble, Ger.Kasel, Span.casulla; Late Lat.casula, a little house, hut, fromcasa), 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 vestmentpar 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 orplaneta(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.
The chasuble, like the kindred vestments (theφελόνιον, &c.) in the Eastern Churches, is derived from the Romanpaenulaorplaneta, a cloak worn by all classes and both sexes in the Graeco-Roman world (seeVestments). 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 hisDe ecclesiasticis officiis(ii. 19), tells us in 816 that thecasulais thegenerale indumentum sacrorum ducumand “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 theplaneta plicataworn 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 articleVestments.
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 Lübeck in the articleVestments), which is the form most affected by the Anglican clergy, as being that worn in the English Church before the Reformation.
Decoration.—Thoughplanetaedecorated 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 belowthe 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).
Plate I.
Plate II.
It has been widely held that the forked cross was a conscious imitation of the archiepiscopal pallium (F. Bock,Gesch. der liturg. Gewänder, 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 (φελόνιον, φελόνης, φαινόλιον, frompaenula). 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 thebirrus, while Father Braun considers it, as well as the cope, to be a modification of thepaenula.1The phelonion (Arm.shurtshar, Syr.phaina, Chald.maaphraorphaina, 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 ofπολυσταύριον. 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 thesakkosinstead 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 (seeDalmaticandVestments).
See J. Braun, S.J.,Die liturgische Gewandung(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907), pp. 149-247, and the bibliography to the articleVestments.
See J. Braun, S.J.,Die liturgische Gewandung(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907), pp. 149-247, and the bibliography to the articleVestments.
(W. A. P.)
1The writer is indebted to the courtesy of Father Braun for the following note:—“That the Syrianphainawas 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 Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (cf. Bild 16, 112, 284, inDie 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 theshurtsharwas originally closed. The Coptic rite is in the same relation to the Syrian. Moreover, it would be further necessary to prove that thebirrus, in contradistinction to thepaenula, was always open in front; whereas,per contra, thepaenula, both as worn by soldiers and in ordinary life, was, like the modern Arabburnus, often slit up the front to the neck. For the rest, it is obvious that if the Syrianphainawas 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 thephainafrom thepaenula, but I should not lay particular stress upon it. The question is settled by the above-mentioned miniatures.”
1The writer is indebted to the courtesy of Father Braun for the following note:—“That the Syrianphainawas 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 Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (cf. Bild 16, 112, 284, inDie 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 theshurtsharwas originally closed. The Coptic rite is in the same relation to the Syrian. Moreover, it would be further necessary to prove that thebirrus, in contradistinction to thepaenula, was always open in front; whereas,per contra, thepaenula, both as worn by soldiers and in ordinary life, was, like the modern Arabburnus, often slit up the front to the neck. For the rest, it is obvious that if the Syrianphainawas 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 thephainafrom thepaenula, but I should not lay particular stress upon it. The question is settled by the above-mentioned miniatures.”
CHÂTEAU(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 termchâteau, 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 thechâteau fort, the latter as thechâteau de plaisance. The development of the one into the other is admirably illustrated by surviving buildings in France, especially in thechâteauxscattered along the Loire. Of these Langeais, still in perfect preservation, is a fine type of thechâteau 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 thechâteau de plaisanceof 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 wordchâteauis often used to translate foreign words (e.g.Schloss) meaning country house or mansion.
For the Loire châteaux see Theodore Andrea Cook,Old Touraine(1892).
For the Loire châteaux see Theodore Andrea Cook,Old Touraine(1892).
CHATEAUBRIAND, FRANÇOIS RENÉ,Vicomte de(1768-1848), French author, youngest son of René Auguste de Chateaubriand, comte de Combourg,1was 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,2a passionate-hearted girl, divided between her devotion to him and to religion. François 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 château 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, Évariste Parny, “Pindare” Lebrun, Nicolas Chamfort, Pierre Louis Ginguené, 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 Céleste 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 Bédée, 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 littéraire de la France(1908), i. From his English exile dates theNatchez(first printed in hisŒuvres complètes, 1826-1831), a prose epic designed to portray the life of the Red Indians. Two brilliant episodes originally designed for this work,AtalaandRené, are among his most famous productions. Chateaubriand’s first publication, however, was theEssai historique, politique et moral sur les révolutions ...(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 theGénie du christianismewas 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 Staël, Mme Récamier, 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 désert, used as an episode in theGénie 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 colouredPaul 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 hisGénie du christianisme, ou beautés de la religion chrétienne, 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. TheÉloaof Alfred de Vigny, theHarmoniesof Lamartine and even theLégende des sièclesof Victor Hugo may be said to have been inspired by theGénie du christianisme. Its immediate effect was very considerable. It admirably subserved the statecraft of Napoleon, and Talleyrand in 1803 appointed the writerattachéto 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 theMercure de France(4th of July), containing allusions to Nero which were rightly taken to refer to the emperor. TheMercure, of which he had become proprietor, was temporarily suppressed, and was in the next year amalgamated with theDécade. Chateaubriand states in hisMémoiresthat 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 ofLe Dernier Abencérage, which, for political reasons, remained unprinted until the publication of theŒuvres complètes(1826-1831). The journey also producedL’Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem... (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 chrétienne(2 vols., 1809). This work may be regarded as the argument of theGénie du christianismethrown into an objective form. As in theEpicureanof 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.Renéhad appeared in 1802 as an episode of theGénie 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 betweenWertherandChilde 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 Amélie of the story, and much is obviously descriptive of his own early surroundings. WithLes Natchezhis career as an imaginative writer is closed. In 1831 he published hisÉtudes 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. Chénier on account of the bitter allusions to Napoleon contained in it. From this date until 1814 Chateaubriand lived in seclusion atthe Vallée-aux-loups, an estate he had bought in 1807 at Aulnay. His pamphletDe Bonaparte, des Bourbons, et de la nécessité de se rattier à nos princes légitimes, 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 theGénie 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 pamphletDe la monarchie selon la charte. He had to sell his library and his house of the Vallée-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 aMémoire sur la captivité 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. HisCongrès de Vérone(1838),Vie de Rancé(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 Récamier, herself deprived of sight. For the last fifteen years of his life he had been engaged on hisMémoires, and his chief distraction had been his daily visit to Madame Récamier, at whose house he met the European celebrities. He was buried in the Grand Bé, 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 celebratedMémoires 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 Récamier. 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.
Chateaubriand ranks rather as a great rhetorician than as a great poet. Something of affectation or unreality commonly interferes with the enjoyment of his finest works. TheGénie du christianismeis a brilliant piece of special pleading;Atalais marred by its unfaithfulness to the truth of uncivilized human nature,Renéby the perversion of sentiment which solicits sympathy for a contemptible character. Chateaubriand is chiefly significant as marking the transition from the old classical to the modern romantic school. The fertility of ideas, vehemence of expression and luxury of natural description, which he shares with the romanticists, are controlled by a discipline learnt in the school of their predecessors. His palette, always brilliant, is never gaudy; he is not merely a painter but an artist. He is also a master of epigrammatic and incisive sayings. Perhaps, however, the most truly characteristic feature of his genius is the peculiar magical touch which Matthew Arnold indicated as a note of Celtic extraction, which reveals some occult quality in a familiar object, or tinges it, one knows not how, with “the light that never was on sea or land.” This incommunicable gift supplies an element of sincerity to Chateaubriand’s writings which goes far to redeem the artificial effect of his calculated sophistry and set declamation. It is also fortunate for his fame that so large a part of his writings should directly or indirectly refer to himself, for on this theme he always writes well. Egotism was his master-passion, and beyond his intrepidity and the loftiness of his intellectual carriage his character presents little to admire. He is a signal instance of the compatibility of genuine poetic emotion, of sympathy with the grander aspects both of man and nature, and of munificence in pecuniary matters, with absorption in self and general sterility of heart.
Bibliography.—TheŒuvres complétesof Chateaubriand were printed in 28 vols., 1826-1831; in 20 vols., 1829-1831; and in many later editions, notably in 1858-1861, in 20 volumes, with an introductory study by Sainte-Beuve. The principal authority for Chateaubriand’s biography is theMémoires d’outre-tombe(1849-1850), of which there is an English translation,The Memoirs of ... Chateaubriand(6 vols., 1902), by A. Teixeira de Mattos, based on the admirable edition (4 vols., 1899-1901) of Edmond Biré. This work should be supplemented by theSouvenirs et correspondances tirés des papiers de Mme Récamier(2 vols., 1859, ed. Mme Ch. Lenormant). See also Comte de Marcellus,Chateaubriand et son temps(1859); the same editor’sSouvenirs diplomatiques; correspondance intime de Chateaubriand(1858); C.A. Sainte-Beuve,Chateaubriand et son groupe littéraire sous l’empire(2 vols., 1861, new and revised ed., 3 vols., 1872); other articles by Sainte-Beuve, who was in this case a somewhat prejudiced critic, in thePortraits contemporains, vols. i. and ii.;Causeries du lundi, vols. i., ii. and x.;Nouveaux Lundis, vol. iii.;Premiers Lundis, vol. iii.; A. Vinet,Études sur la litt. française au XIXe siècle(1849); M. de Lescure,Chateaubriand(1892) in theGrands écrivains français; Émile Faguet,Études littéraires sur le XIXe siècle(1887); andEssai d’une bio-bibliographie de Chateaubriand et de sa famille(Vannes, 1896), by René Kerviler. Joseph Bedier, inÉtudes critiques(1903), deals with the American writings. Some correspondence with Sainte-Beuve was edited by Louis Thomas in 1904, and some letters to Mme de Staël appeared in theRevue des deux mondes(Oct. 1903).
Bibliography.—TheŒuvres complétesof Chateaubriand were printed in 28 vols., 1826-1831; in 20 vols., 1829-1831; and in many later editions, notably in 1858-1861, in 20 volumes, with an introductory study by Sainte-Beuve. The principal authority for Chateaubriand’s biography is theMémoires d’outre-tombe(1849-1850), of which there is an English translation,The Memoirs of ... Chateaubriand(6 vols., 1902), by A. Teixeira de Mattos, based on the admirable edition (4 vols., 1899-1901) of Edmond Biré. This work should be supplemented by theSouvenirs et correspondances tirés des papiers de Mme Récamier(2 vols., 1859, ed. Mme Ch. Lenormant). See also Comte de Marcellus,Chateaubriand et son temps(1859); the same editor’sSouvenirs diplomatiques; correspondance intime de Chateaubriand(1858); C.A. Sainte-Beuve,Chateaubriand et son groupe littéraire sous l’empire(2 vols., 1861, new and revised ed., 3 vols., 1872); other articles by Sainte-Beuve, who was in this case a somewhat prejudiced critic, in thePortraits contemporains, vols. i. and ii.;Causeries du lundi, vols. i., ii. and x.;Nouveaux Lundis, vol. iii.;Premiers Lundis, vol. iii.; A. Vinet,Études sur la litt. française au XIXe siècle(1849); M. de Lescure,Chateaubriand(1892) in theGrands écrivains français; Émile Faguet,Études littéraires sur le XIXe siècle(1887); andEssai d’une bio-bibliographie de Chateaubriand et de sa famille(Vannes, 1896), by René Kerviler. Joseph Bedier, inÉtudes critiques(1903), deals with the American writings. Some correspondence with Sainte-Beuve was edited by Louis Thomas in 1904, and some letters to Mme de Staël appeared in theRevue des deux mondes(Oct. 1903).
1For full details of the Chateaubriand family see R. Kerviler,Essai d’une bio-bibliographie de Chateaubriand et de sa famille(Vannes, 1895).2HerŒuvreswere edited in 1879, with a memoir, by Anatole France.
1For full details of the Chateaubriand family see R. Kerviler,Essai d’une bio-bibliographie de Chateaubriand et de sa famille(Vannes, 1895).
2HerŒuvreswere edited in 1879, with a memoir, by Anatole France.
CHÂTEAUBRIANT,a town of western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Loire-Inférieure, on the left bank of the Chère, 40 m. N.N.E. of Nantes by rail. Pop. (1906) 5969. Châteaubriant takes its name from a castle founded in the 11th century by Brient, count of Penthièvre, remains of which, consisting of a square donjon and four towers, still exist. Adjoining it is another castle, built in the first half of the 16th century by Jean de Laval, and famous in history as the residence of Françoise de Foix, mistress of Francis I. Of this the most beautiful feature is the colonnade running at right angles to the main building, and connecting it with a graceful pavilion. It is occupied by a small museum and some of the public offices. There is also an interesting Romanesque church dedicated to St Jean de Béré. Châteaubriant is the seat of a subprefect and has a tribunal of first instance. It is an important centre on the Ouest-État railway, and has trade in agricultural products. The manufacture of leather, agricultural implements and preserved angelica are carried on. In 1551 Henry II. signed an edict against the reformed religion at Châteaubriant.
CHÂTEAUDUN,a town of north central France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Eure-et-Loir, 28 m. S.S.W. of Chartres by rail. Pop. (1906) 5805. It stands on an eminence near the left bank of the Loire. The streets, which are straight and regular, radiate from a central square, a uniformity due to the reconstruction of the town after fires in 1723 and 1870. The château, the most remarkable building in the town, was built in great part by Jean, count of Dunois, and his descendants. Founded in the 10th century, and rebuilt in the 12th and 15th centuries, it consists of a principal wing with a fine staircase of the 16th century, and, at right angles, a smaller wing adjoined by a chapel. To the left of the courtyard thus formed rises a lofty keep of the 12th century. The fine apartments and huge kitchens of the château are in keeping with its imposing exterior. The church of La Madeleine dates from the 12th century; the buildings of the abbey to which it belonged are occupied by the subprefecture, the law court and the hospital. The medieval churches of St Valérien and St Jeanand the ruined chapel of Notre-Dame du Champdé, of which the façade in the Renaissance style now forms the entrance to the cemetery, are other notable buildings. The public institutions include a tribunal of first instance and a communal college. Flour-milling, tanning and leather-dressing, and the manufacture of blankets, silver jewelry, nails and machinery are the prominent industries. Trade is in cattle, grain, wool and hemp. Châteaudun (Castrodunum), which dates from the Gallo-Roman period, was in the middle ages the capital of the countship of Dunois.
CHÂTEAU-GONTIER,a town of western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Mayenne, on the Mayenne, 18 m. S. by E. of Laval by road. Pop. (1906) 6871. Of its churches, that of St Jean, a relic of the castle, dates from the 11th century. Château-Gontier is the seat of a subprefect and has a tribunal of first instance, a communal college for boys and a small museum. It carries on wool- and cotton-spinning, the manufacture of serge, flannel and oil, and is an agricultural market. There are chalybeate springs close to the town. Château-Gontier owes its origin and its name to a castle erected in the first half of the 11th century by Gunther, the steward of Fulk Nerra of Anjou, on the site of a farm belonging to the monks of St Aubin d’Angers. On the extinction of the family, the lordship was assigned by Louis XI. to Philippe de Comines. The town suffered severely during the wars of the League. In 1793 it was occupied by the Vendeans.
CHÂTEAUNEUF, LA BELLE,the name popularly given toRenée de Rieux, daughter of Jean de Rieux, seigneur de Châteauneuf, who was descended from one of the greatest families of Brittany. The dates both of her birth and death are not known. She was maid of honour to the queen-mother Catherine de’ Medici, and inspired an ardent passion in the duke of Anjou, brother of Charles IX. This intrigue deterred the duke from the marriage which it was desired to arrange for him with Elizabeth of England; but he soon abandoned La Belle Châteauneuf for Marie of Cleves (1571). The court then wished to find a husband for Renee de Rieux, whose singular beauty gave her an influence which the queen-mother feared, and matches were in turn suggested with the voivode of Transylvania, the earl of Leicester, with Du Prat, provost of Paris, and with the count of Brienne, all of which came to nothing. Ultimately, on the ground that she had been lacking in respect towards the queen, Louise of Lorraine-Vaudémont, Renée was banished from the court. She married a Florentine named Antinotti, whom she stabbed in a fit of jealousy (1577); then she remarried, her husband being Philip Altoviti, who in 1586 was killed in a duel by the Grand Prior Henry of Angoulême, who was himself mortally wounded.
CHÂTEAU-RENAULT, FRANÇOIS LOUIS DE ROUSSELET,Marquis de(1637-1716), French admiral, was the fourth son of the third marquis of Château-Renault. The family was of Breton origin, but had been long settled near Blois. He entered the army in 1658, but in 1661 was transferred to the navy, which Louis XIV. was eager to raise to a high level of strength. After a short apprenticeship he was made captain in 1666. His early services were mostly performed in cruises against the Barbary pirates (1672). In 1673 he was namedchef d’escadre, and he was promotedlieutenant général des armées navalesin 1687. During the wars up to this date he had few chances of distinction, but he had been wounded in action with the pirates, and had been on a cruise to the West Indies. When war broke out between England and France after the revolution of 1688, he was in command at Brest, and was chosen to carry the troops and stores sent by the French king to the aid of James II. in Ireland. Although he was watched by Admiral Herbert (Lord Torrington,q.v.), with whom he fought an indecisive action in Bantry Bay, he executed his mission with success. Château-Renault commanded a squadron under Tourville at the battle of Beachy Head in 1690. He was with Tourville in the attack of the Smyrna convoy in 1693, and was named grand cross of the order of Saint Louis in the same year. Though in constant service, the reduced state of the French navy (owing to the financial embarrassments of the treasury) gave him few openings for fighting at sea during the rest of the war.
On the death of Tourville in 1701 he was named to the vacant post of vice-admiral of France. On the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession he was named for the difficult task of protecting the Spanish ships which were to bring the treasure from America. It was a duty of extreme delicacy, for the Spaniards were unwilling to obey a foreigner, and the French king was anxious that the bullion should be brought to one of his own ports, a scheme which the Spanish officials were sure to resent if they were allowed to discover what was meant. With the utmost difficulty Château-Renault was able to bring the galleons as far as Vigo, to which port he steered when he learnt that a powerful English and Dutch armament was on the Spanish coast, and had to recognize that the Spanish officers would not consent to make for a French harbour or for Passages, which they thought too near France. His fleet of fifteen French and three Spanish war-ships, having under their care twelve galleons, had anchored on the 22nd of September in Vigo Bay. Obstacles, some of an official character, and others due to the poverty of the Spanish government in resources, arose to delay the landing of the treasure. There was no adequate garrison in the town, and the local militia was untrustworthy. Knowing that he would probably be attacked, Château-Renault strove to protect his fleet by means of a boom. The order to land the treasure was delayed, and until it came from Madrid nothing could be done, since according to law it should have been landed at Cadiz, which had a monopoly of the trade with America. At last the order came, and the bullion was landed under the care of the Gallician militia which was ordered to escort it to Lugo. A very large part, if not the whole, was plundered by the militiamen and the farmers whose carts had been commandeered for the service. But the bulk of the merchandise was on board of the galleons when the allied fleet appeared outside of the bay on the 22nd of October 1702. Sir George Rooke and his colleagues resolved to attack. The fleet was carrying a body of troops which had been sent out to make a landing at Cadiz, and had been beaten off. The fortifications of Vigo were weak on the sea side, and on the land side there were none. There was therefore nothing to offer a serious resistance to the allies when they landed soldiers. The fleet of twenty-four sail was steered at the boom and broke through it, while the troops turned the forts and had no difficulty in scattering the Gallician militia. In the bay the action was utterly disastrous to the French and Spaniards. Their ships were all taken or destroyed. The booty gained was far less than the allies hoped, but the damage done to the French and Spanish governments was great.
Château-Renault suffered no loss of his master’s favour by his failure to save the treasure. The king considered him free from blame, and must indeed have known that the admiral had been trusted with too many secrets to make it safe to inflict a public rebuke. The Spanish government declined to give him the rank of grandee which was to have been the reward for bringing home the bullion safe. But in 1703 he was made a marshal of France, and shortly afterwards lieutenant-general of Brittany. The fight in Vigo Bay was the last piece of active service performed by Château-Renault. In 1708 on the death of his nephew he inherited the marquisate, and on the 15th of November 1716 he died in Paris. He married in 1684 Marie-Anne-Renée de la Porte, daughter and heiress of the count of Crozon. His eldest son was killed at the battle of Malaga 1704, and another, also a naval officer, was killed by accident in 1708. A third son, who too was a naval officer, succeeded him in the title.