Chapter 7

Bibliography.—General History.—The most valuable authority is D. Barros Arana’sHistoria jeneral de Chile(15 vols., Santiago, 1884), from the earliest days up to 1830. Smaller handbooks covering the whole period are: A.U. Hancock, aHistory of Chile(Chicago, 1893), the only general history in English, and containing a bibliography; Gaspar Toro,Compendio de la historia de Chile(Santiago, 1879), a good clear abstract of Chilean history; and F. Valdes Vergara,Historia de Chile(Valparaiso, 1898), written primarily for schools, but containing useful sketches of leading figures in Chilean history.Works on Special Periods.—Colonial Period: M.L. Amunátequi,Descubri miento y conquista de Chile(Santiago, 1885), a valuable detailed account of the Spanish conquest; by same author,Los Precursores de la independencia de Chile(Santiago, 1870), a clear useful description of the evils of the Spanish colonial system; Horacio Lara,Cronica de la Araucania(Santiago, 1889), a history of the Araucanian Indians right up to recent dates; Abbé Eyzaguirre,Histoire du Chili(Lille, 1855), mainly dealing with the position of the Church during the colonial period. Perez Garcia’sHistoria del reino de Chile(Santiago, 1900), an old history by a Spanish officer written about 1780, and Molina’sHistory of Chiliin the English translation (London, 1809), will also be found useful. Useful material for research exists in J.T. Medina’sColeccion de documentos para la historia de Chile(Santiago, 1888), a collection of despatches and official documents; hisCosas de la colonia(Santiago, 1889), an accumulation of undigested information about life in the colonial period; andHistoriadores de Chile(21 vols., Santiago, 1861), a collection of ancient chronicles and official documents up to the early part of the 17th century.Revolutionary Period.—A. Roldan,Las Primeras Asambleas nacionales(Santiago, 1890), an account of the struggles in the first national assemblies; A. Valdes,Revolucion Chilena y campañas de la independencia(Santiago, 1888), an account of the early fighting and rivalry of the revolutionary leaders; W. Pilling,Emancipation of South America(London, 1893), a translation of B. Mitre’s life of San Martin, describing the fighting in the wars of independence; Lord Cochrane,Narrative of Services in Chile, Peru and Brazil(London, 1859), an autobiography describing the naval exploits that helped to secure the expulsion of the Spaniards; B. Vicuña Machenna,Vida de O’Higgins(Santiago, 1882), giving a useful account of the revolutionary struggle and the main actors; and the same author’sHistoria jeneral de la republica de Chile, a collection of essays on the early republican history by various writers.Later History.—R. Sotomayor Valdes,Historia de Chili, 1831-1871, a detailed account of the period (Santiago, 1875); the same author’sCampaña del ejercito Chileno en 1837(Santiago, 1896), describing the fighting of the first Peruvian War; B. Vicuña Machenna,D. Diego Portales(Valparaiso, 1863), a good account of the life and time of Portales, the famous minister of the Conservative party; P.B. Fiqueroa,Historia de la revolution constituyente 1858-59(Santiago, 1889), an account of the revolution at the end of Montt’s presidency; F. Fonch,Chile in der Gegenwart(Berlin, 1870), a description of Chile at the time;Statement on Behalf of Chile(in the Chilean-Argentine Boundary Arbitration) (6 vols., London, 1901-1902); Sir Thomas Holdich,Countries of the King’s Award(1904); Beltran y Rospido,Los Pueblos hispano-americanos en el siglo XX.(Madrid, 1904); P.F. Martin,Through Five Republics of South America(London, 1906); Wright,The Republic of Chile(London, 1905); G.F. Scott Elliot,Chilé(London, 1907); Sir W.M.Conway,Aconcagua and Tierra del Fuego(London, 1902); “Chile-Argentine Arbitration” in theGeog. Journal(January 1903); C.M. Pepper,Panama to Patagonia(London, 1907); C.E. Akers,History of South America, 1854-1904(London, 1904); M. Hume,Lecture on the Republic of Chile(London, 1902).

Works on Special Periods.—Colonial Period: M.L. Amunátequi,Descubri miento y conquista de Chile(Santiago, 1885), a valuable detailed account of the Spanish conquest; by same author,Los Precursores de la independencia de Chile(Santiago, 1870), a clear useful description of the evils of the Spanish colonial system; Horacio Lara,Cronica de la Araucania(Santiago, 1889), a history of the Araucanian Indians right up to recent dates; Abbé Eyzaguirre,Histoire du Chili(Lille, 1855), mainly dealing with the position of the Church during the colonial period. Perez Garcia’sHistoria del reino de Chile(Santiago, 1900), an old history by a Spanish officer written about 1780, and Molina’sHistory of Chiliin the English translation (London, 1809), will also be found useful. Useful material for research exists in J.T. Medina’sColeccion de documentos para la historia de Chile(Santiago, 1888), a collection of despatches and official documents; hisCosas de la colonia(Santiago, 1889), an accumulation of undigested information about life in the colonial period; andHistoriadores de Chile(21 vols., Santiago, 1861), a collection of ancient chronicles and official documents up to the early part of the 17th century.

Revolutionary Period.—A. Roldan,Las Primeras Asambleas nacionales(Santiago, 1890), an account of the struggles in the first national assemblies; A. Valdes,Revolucion Chilena y campañas de la independencia(Santiago, 1888), an account of the early fighting and rivalry of the revolutionary leaders; W. Pilling,Emancipation of South America(London, 1893), a translation of B. Mitre’s life of San Martin, describing the fighting in the wars of independence; Lord Cochrane,Narrative of Services in Chile, Peru and Brazil(London, 1859), an autobiography describing the naval exploits that helped to secure the expulsion of the Spaniards; B. Vicuña Machenna,Vida de O’Higgins(Santiago, 1882), giving a useful account of the revolutionary struggle and the main actors; and the same author’sHistoria jeneral de la republica de Chile, a collection of essays on the early republican history by various writers.

Later History.—R. Sotomayor Valdes,Historia de Chili, 1831-1871, a detailed account of the period (Santiago, 1875); the same author’sCampaña del ejercito Chileno en 1837(Santiago, 1896), describing the fighting of the first Peruvian War; B. Vicuña Machenna,D. Diego Portales(Valparaiso, 1863), a good account of the life and time of Portales, the famous minister of the Conservative party; P.B. Fiqueroa,Historia de la revolution constituyente 1858-59(Santiago, 1889), an account of the revolution at the end of Montt’s presidency; F. Fonch,Chile in der Gegenwart(Berlin, 1870), a description of Chile at the time;Statement on Behalf of Chile(in the Chilean-Argentine Boundary Arbitration) (6 vols., London, 1901-1902); Sir Thomas Holdich,Countries of the King’s Award(1904); Beltran y Rospido,Los Pueblos hispano-americanos en el siglo XX.(Madrid, 1904); P.F. Martin,Through Five Republics of South America(London, 1906); Wright,The Republic of Chile(London, 1905); G.F. Scott Elliot,Chilé(London, 1907); Sir W.M.Conway,Aconcagua and Tierra del Fuego(London, 1902); “Chile-Argentine Arbitration” in theGeog. Journal(January 1903); C.M. Pepper,Panama to Patagonia(London, 1907); C.E. Akers,History of South America, 1854-1904(London, 1904); M. Hume,Lecture on the Republic of Chile(London, 1902).

(E. G. J. M.; C. E. A.; G. E.)

1See A. Pissis, “Sur la constitution géologique de la chaîne des Andes entre le 16° et le 55° degré de latitude sud,”Ann. des mines, ser. 7, vol. iii. (Mém.), 1873, pp. 402-426, pils. ix., x.; R.A. Philippi,Die tertiären und quartären Versteinerungen Chiles(Leipzig, 1887), (includes also descriptions of some Cretaceous fossils), andLos Fósiles secondarios de Chile(Santiago, 1899); Karl Burckhardt, “Profils géologiques transversaux de la Cordillère argentino-chilienne. Stratigraphie et tectonique,”Anales Mus. La Plata, 1900, and “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Jura- und Kreide-formation der Cordillere,”Palaeontographica, vol. 1. (1903-1904) pp. 1-144, pls. i.-xvi.; see also a series of papers on South American geology by G. Steinmann and his collaborators inNeues Jahrb, für Min.Beil.-band viii. et seq.2Notes of a Naturalist in South America, p. 134.3Also classified asNothofagus(Mirb.).4A. Gallenga,South America(London, 1880), p. 181.5The expenditures of 1902 are also given as 25,882,702 pesos gold, and 108,844,693 pesos currency.

2Notes of a Naturalist in South America, p. 134.

3Also classified asNothofagus(Mirb.).

4A. Gallenga,South America(London, 1880), p. 181.

5The expenditures of 1902 are also given as 25,882,702 pesos gold, and 108,844,693 pesos currency.

CHILEAN CIVIL WAR(1891). The Chilean civil war grew out of political dissensions between the president of Chile, J.M. Balmaceda, and his congress (seeChile:History), and began in January 1891. On the 6th, at Valparaiso, the political leaders of the Congressional party went on board the ironclad “Blanco Encalada,” and Captain Jorje Montt of that vessel hoisted a broad pennant as commodore of the Congressional fleet. Preparations had long been made for the navalpronunciamento, and in the end but few vessels of the Chilean navy adhered to the cause of the “dictator” Balmaceda. But amongst these were two new and fast torpedo gunboats, “Almirante Condell” and “Almirante Lynch,” and in European dockyards (incomplete) lay the most powerful vessel of the navy, the “Arturo Prat,” and two fast cruisers. If these were secured by the Balmacedists the naval supremacy of the congress would be seriously challenged. For the present, and without prejudice to the future, command of the sea was held by Montt’s squadron (January). The rank and file of the army remained faithful to the executive, and thus in the early part of the war the “Gobernistas,” speaking broadly, possessed an army without a fleet, the congress a fleet without an army. Balmaceda hoped to create a navy; the congress took steps to recruit an army by taking its sympathizers on board the fleet. The first shot was fired, on the 16th of January, by the “Blanco” at the Valparaiso batteries, and landing parties from the warships engaged small parties of government troops at various places during January and February. The dictator’s principal forces were stationed in and about Iquique, Coquirabo, Valparaiso, Santiago and Concepción. The troops at Iquique and Coquimbo were necessarily isolated from the rest and from each other, and military operations began, as in the campaign of 1879 in this quarter, with a naval descent upon Pisagua followed by an advance inland to Dolores. The Congressional forces failed at first to make good their footing (16th-23rd of January), but, though defeated in two or three actions, they brought off many recruits and a quantity of munitions of war. On the 26th they retook Pisagua, and on the 15th of February the Balmacedist commander, Eulojio Robles, who offered battle in the expectation of receiving reinforcements from Tacna, was completely defeated on the old battlefield of San Francisco. Robles fell back along the railway, called up troops from Iquique, and beat the invaders at Haura on the 17th, but Iquique in the meanwhile fell to the Congressional fleet on the 16th. The Pisagua line of operations was at once abandoned, and the military forces of the congress were moved by sea to Iquique, whence, under the command of Colonel Estanislao Del Canto, they started inland. The battle of Pozo Almonte, fought on the 7th of March, was desperately contested, but Del Canto was superior in numbers, and Robles was himself killed and his army dispersed. After this the other Balmacedist troops in the north gave up the struggle. Some were driven into Peru, others into Bolivia, and one column made a laborious retreat from Calama to Santiago, in the course of which it twice crossed the main chain of the Andes.

The CongressionalJunta de Gobiernonow established in Iquique prosecuted the war vigorously, and by the end of April the whole country was in the hands of the “rebels” from the Peruvian border to the outposts of the Balmacedists at Coquimbo and La Serena. TheJuntanow began the formation of a properly organized army for the next campaign, which, it was believed universally on both sides, would be directed against Coquimbo. But in a few months the arrival of the new ships from Europe would reopen the struggle for command of the sea; thetorpederas“Condell” and “Lynch” had already weakened the Congressional squadron severely by sinking the “Blanco Encalada” in Caldera Bay (23rd of April), and the Congressional party could no longer aim at a methodical conquest of successive provinces, but was compelled to attempt to crush the dictator at a blow. Where this blow was to fall was not decided up to the last moment, but the instrument which was to deliver it was prepared with all the care possible under the circumstances. Del Canto was made commander-in-chief, and an ex-Prussian officer, Emil Körner, chief of staff. The army was organized in three brigades of all arms, at Iquique, Caldera and Vallenar. Körner superintended the training of the men, gave instruction in tactics to the officers, caused maps to be prepared, and in general took every precaution that his experience could suggest to ensure success. Del Canto was himself no mere figurehead, but a thoroughly capable leader who had distinguished himself at Tacna (1880) and Miraflores (1881), as well as in the present war. The men were enthusiastic, and the officers unusually numerous. The artillery was fair, the cavalry good, and the train and auxiliary services well organized. About one-third of the infantry were armed with the (Männlicher) magazine rifle, which now made its first appearance in war, the remainder had the Gras and other breech-loaders, which were also the armament of the dictator’s infantry. Balmaceda could only wait upon events, but he prepared his forces as best he was able, and historpederasconstantly harried the Congressional navy. By the end of July Del Canto and Körner had done their work as well as time permitted, and early in August the troops prepared to embark, not for Coquimbo, but for Valparaiso itself.

The expedition by sea was admirably managed, and Quinteros, N. of Valparaiso and not many miles out of range of its batteries, was occupied on the 20th of August 1891. Balmaceda was surprised, but acted promptly. The first battle was fought on the Aconcagua at Concon on the 21st. The eager infantry of the Congressional army forced the passage of the river and stormed the heights held by the Gobernistas, capturing 36 guns. The killed and wounded of the Balmacedists numbered 1600, and nearly all the prisoners, about 1500 men, enrolled themselves in the rebel army, which thus more than made good its loss of 1000 killed and wounded. The victors pressed on towards Valparaiso, but were soon brought up by the strong fortified position of the Balmacedist general Barbosa at Viña del Mar, whither Balmaceda hurried up all available troops from Valparaiso and Santiago, and even from Concepción. Del Canto and Körner now resolved on a daring step. Supplies of all kinds were brought up from Quinteros to the front, and on the 24th of August the army abandoned its line of communications and marched inland. The flank march was conducted with great skill, little opposition was encountered, and the rebels finally appeared to the south-east of Valparaiso. Here, on the 28th, took place the decisive battle of La Placilla. Concon had been perhaps little more than the destruction of an isolated corps; the second battle was a fair trial of strength, for Barbosa was well prepared, and had under his command the greater part of the existing forces of the dictator. But the splendid fighting qualities of the Congressional troops and the superior generalship of their leaders prevailed in the end over every obstacle. The government army was practically annihilated, 941 men were killed, including Barbosa and his second in command, and 2402 wounded. The Congressional army lost over 1800 men. Valparaiso was occupied the same evening and Santiago soon afterwards. There was no further fighting, for so great was the effect of the battles of Concon and La Placella that even the Coquimbo troops surrendered without firing a shot.

Bibliography.—Lieut. Sears and Ensign Wells, U.S.N.,The Chilian Revolution of 1891(Office of Naval Intelligence, Washington, 1893);The Capture of Valparaiso, 1891(Intelligence Department, War Office, London, 1892); Hermann Kunz,Taktische Beispiele aus den Kriegen der neuesten Zeit; der Bürgerkrieg in Chile(Berlin, 1901);Revista militar de Chile(February-March 1892); Hugo Kunz,Der Bürgerkrieg in Chile(Vienna, 1892);Militär Wochenblatt(5th supplement, 1892); Sir W. Laird Clowes,Four Modern Naval Campaigns(London, 1902);Proceedings of U.S. Naval Institute(1894) (for La Placilla); and the military and naval periodicals of 1892.

CHILE-PERUVIAN WAR(1879-1882). The proximate cause of this war was the seizure, by the authorities of Bolivia, of the effects of the Chilean Nitrate Company at Antofagasta, then part of the Bolivian province of Atacama. The first act ofhostility was the despatch of 500 soldiers to protect Chilean interests at Antofagasta. This force, under Colonel Sotomayor, landed and marched inland; the only resistance encountered was at Calama on the river Loa, where a handful of newly raised militia was routed (23rd March 1879). About the same time Chilean warships occupied Cobija and Tocapilla, and Sotomayor, after his victory at Calama, marched to the latter port. Bolivia had declared war on the 1st of March, but Peru not till the 5th of April: this delay gave the Chileans time to occupy every port on the Bolivian coast. Thus the Chilean admiral was able to proceed at once to the blockade of the southern ports of Peru, and in particular Iquique, where there took place the first naval action of the war. On the 21st of April the Chilean sloop “Esmeralda” and the gunboat “Covadonga”—both small and weak ships—engaged the Peruvian heavy ironclads “Huascar” and “Independencia”; after a hot fight the “Huascar” under Miguel Grau sank the “Esmeralda” under Arturo Piat, who was killed, but Carlos Condell in the “Covadonga” manoeuvred the “Independencia” aground and shelled her into a complete wreck. The Chileans now gave up the blockade and concentrated all their efforts on the destruction of the “Huascar,” while the allies organized a field army in the neighbourhood of Tacna and a large Chilean force assembled at Antofagasta.

On the 8th of October 1879 the “Huascar” was brought to action off Angamos by the “Blanco Encalada,” and the “Almirante Cochrane.” Grau was outmatched as hopelessly and made as brave a fight as Prat at Iquique. Early in the action a shot destroyed the Peruvian’s conning tower, killing Grau and his staff, and another entered her turret, killing the flag captain and nearly all the crew of the turret guns. When the “Huascar” finally surrendered she had but one gun left in action, her fourth commander and three-quarters of her crew were killed and wounded, and the steering-gear had been shot away. The Peruvian navy had now ceased to exist. The Chileans resumed the blockade, and more active operations were soon undertaken. The whole force of the allies was about 20,000 men, scattered along the seaboard of Peru. The Chileans on the other hand had a striking force of 16,000 men in the neighbourhood of Antofagasta, and of this nearly half was embarked for Pisagua on the 26th of October. The expeditionary force landed, in the face of considerable opposition, on the 2nd of November, and captured Pisagua. From Pisagua the Peruvians and Bolivians fell back along the railway to their reinforcements, and when some 10,000 men had been collected they moved forward to attack the Chilean position of San Francisco near Dolores station (19th November). In the end the Chileans were victorious, but their only material gain was the possession of Iquique and the retreat of the allies, who fell back inland towards Tarapacá. The tardy pursuit of the Chileans ended in the battle of Tarapacá on the 27th. In this the allies were at first surprised, but, rapidly recovering themselves, took the offensive, and after a murderous fight, in which more men were killed than were wounded, the Chileans suffered a complete defeat. For some inexplicable reason the allies made no use of their victory, continued to retreat and left the Chileans in complete possession of the Tarapacá region. With this the campaign of 1879 ended. Chile had taken possession of the Bolivian seaboard and of the Peruvian province of Tarapacá, and had destroyed the hostile navy.

The objective of the Chileans in the second campaign was the province of Tacna and the field force of the allies at Tacna and Arica. The invasion was again carried out by sea, and 12,000 Chileans were landed at Pacocha (Ylo), far to the N. of Arica. Careful preparations were made for a desert march, and on the 12th of March 1880 the advanced corps started inland for Moquegua, which was occupied on the 20th. Near Moquegua the Peruvians, some 2000 strong, took up an unusually strong position in the defile of Cuesta de los Angeles. But the great numerical superiority of the assailants enabled them to turn the flanks and press the front of the Peruvian position, and after a severe struggle the defence collapsed (March 22nd), In April the army began its advance southward from Moquegua to Tacna, while the Chilean warships engaged in a series of minor naval operations in and about the bay of Callao. Arica was also watched, and the blockade was extended north of Lima. The land campaign had ere this culminated in the battle of Tacna (May 26th), in which the Chileans attacked at first in several disconnected bodies, and suffered severely until all their forces came on the field. Then a combined advance carried all before it. The allies engaged under General Narciso Campero, the new president of Bolivia, lost nearly 3000 men, and the Chileans, commanded by Manuel Baquedano, lost 2000 out of 8500 on the field. The defeated army was completely dissolved, and it only remained for the Chileans to march on Arica from the land side. The navy co-operated with its long-range guns, on the 7th of June a general assault was made, and before nightfall the whole of the defences were in the hands of the Chileans. Their second campaign had given them entire possession of another strip of Peru (from Pisagua to Ylo), and they had shown themselves greatly superior, both in courage and leadership, to their opponents. While the army prepared for the next campaign, the Chilean navy was active; the blockade became more stringent and several fights took place, in one of which the “Covadonga” was sunk; an expeditionary force about 3000 strong, commanded by Patricio Lynch, a captain in the Chilean navy, carried out successful raids at various places on the coast and inland.The Chilean army was reorganized during the summer, and prepared for its next operation, this time against Lima itself. General Baquedano was in command. The leading troops disembarked at Pisco on the 18th of November 1880, and the whole army was ready to move against the defences of Lima six weeks later. These defences consisted of two distinct positions, Chorrillos and Miraflores, the latter being about 4000 yds. outside Lima. The first line of defence was attacked by Baquedano on the 13th of January 1881. Reconnaissances proved that the Peruvian lines could not be turned, and the battle was a pure frontal attack. The defenders had 22,000 men in the lines, the Chileans engaged about 24,000. The battle of Chorrillos ended in the complete defeat of the Peruvians, less than a quarter of whose army rallied behind the Miraflores defences. The Chileans lost over 3000 men. Two days later took place the battle of Miraflores (January 15th). Here the defences were very strong, and the action began with a daring counter-attack by some Peruvians. Neither party had intended to fight a battle, for negotiations were in progress, but the action quickly became general. Its result was, as before, the complete dissolution of the defending army. Lima, incapable of defence, was occupied by the invaders on the 17th, and on the 18th Callao surrendered. The resistance of the Peruvians was so far broken that Chile left only a small army of occupation to deal with the remnants of their army. The last engagement took place at Caxacamara in September 1882, when the Peruvians won an unimportant success.See T. B. M. Mason,The War on the Pacific Coast, 1879-1881(U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, Washington, 1883); Captain Châteauminois (transl.),Mémoire du Ministre de la Guerre du Chili sur la guerre Chilo-Péruvienne(1882); Barros Arana,Hist. de la guerre du Pacifique(1884); Sir W. Laird Clowes,Four Modern Naval Campaigns(London, 1902); Anon.,Précis de la guerre du Pacifique(Paris, 1886); Clements R. Markham,The War between Peru and Chile.

The Chilean army was reorganized during the summer, and prepared for its next operation, this time against Lima itself. General Baquedano was in command. The leading troops disembarked at Pisco on the 18th of November 1880, and the whole army was ready to move against the defences of Lima six weeks later. These defences consisted of two distinct positions, Chorrillos and Miraflores, the latter being about 4000 yds. outside Lima. The first line of defence was attacked by Baquedano on the 13th of January 1881. Reconnaissances proved that the Peruvian lines could not be turned, and the battle was a pure frontal attack. The defenders had 22,000 men in the lines, the Chileans engaged about 24,000. The battle of Chorrillos ended in the complete defeat of the Peruvians, less than a quarter of whose army rallied behind the Miraflores defences. The Chileans lost over 3000 men. Two days later took place the battle of Miraflores (January 15th). Here the defences were very strong, and the action began with a daring counter-attack by some Peruvians. Neither party had intended to fight a battle, for negotiations were in progress, but the action quickly became general. Its result was, as before, the complete dissolution of the defending army. Lima, incapable of defence, was occupied by the invaders on the 17th, and on the 18th Callao surrendered. The resistance of the Peruvians was so far broken that Chile left only a small army of occupation to deal with the remnants of their army. The last engagement took place at Caxacamara in September 1882, when the Peruvians won an unimportant success.

See T. B. M. Mason,The War on the Pacific Coast, 1879-1881(U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, Washington, 1883); Captain Châteauminois (transl.),Mémoire du Ministre de la Guerre du Chili sur la guerre Chilo-Péruvienne(1882); Barros Arana,Hist. de la guerre du Pacifique(1884); Sir W. Laird Clowes,Four Modern Naval Campaigns(London, 1902); Anon.,Précis de la guerre du Pacifique(Paris, 1886); Clements R. Markham,The War between Peru and Chile.

CHILIASM(from Gr.χιλιασμός, χίλιοι, a thousand), the belief that Christ will return to reign in the body for a thousand years, the doctrine of the Millennium (q.v.).

CHILLÁN, a city and the capital of the province of Ñuble, in the southern part of central Chile, 35° 56′ S., 71° 37′ W., 246 m. by rail S.S.W. of Santiago and about 56 m. direct (108 by rail) N.E. of Concepción. Pop. (1895) 28,738; (1902, official estimate) 36,382. Chillán is one of the most active commercial cities of central Chile, and is surrounded by a rich agricultural and grazing country. Chillán was founded by Ruiz de Gambôa in 1594. Its present site was chosen in 1836. The original site, known as Chillán Viejo, forms a suburb of the new city. The hot sulphur springs of Chillán, which were discovered in 1795, are about 45 m. E.S.E. They issue from the flanks of the “Volcan Viejo,” about 7000 ft. above sea-level. The highest temperature of the water issuing from these springs is a little over 135°. The principal volcanoes of the Chillán group are the Nevado (9528 ft.) and the Viejo. After a repose of about two centuries the Nevado de Chillán broke out in eruption early in 1861 and caused great destruction. The eruption ceased in 1863, but broke out again in 1864.

CHILLIANWALLA, a village of British India in the Punjab, situated on the left bank of the river Jhelum, about 85 m. N.W. of Lahore. It is memorable as the scene of a battle on the 13th of January 1849, between a British force commanded by Lord Gough and the Sikh army under Sher Singh. The loss of the Sikhs was estimated at 4000, while that of the British in killed and wounded amounted to 2800, of whom nearly 1000 were Europeans and 89 were British and 43 native officers. Anobelisk erected at Chillianwalla by the British government preserves the names of those who fell.

CHILLICOTHE, a city and the county-seat of Livingston county, Missouri, U.S.A., situated in the N. part of the state, on the Grand river, about 80 m. N.E. of Kansas City. Pop. (1890) 5717; (1900) 6905 (538 negroes); (1910) 6265. It is served by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, the Wabash, and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railways. There are various manufactures. Coal and limestone are found in the vicinity, and much live stock is raised, wool and hides being shipped from Chillicothe. Chillicothe was settled about 1830, and the town was laid out in 1837 on land granted directly by the Federal government; it was incorporated in 1855.

CHILLICOTHE, a city and the county-seat of Ross county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the W. bank of the Scioto river, on the Ohio & Erie Canal, about 50 m. S. of Columbus. Pop. (1890) 11,288; (1900) 12,976, of whom 986 were negroes, and 910 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 14,508. Chillicothe is served by the Baltimore & Ohio South-Western (which has railway shops here), and other railways. The city has two parks. There are several ancient mounds in the vicinity. Chillicothe is built on a plain about 30 ft. above the river, in the midst of a fertile agricultural region, and has a large trade in grain and coal, and in manufactures. The value of the city’s factory products increased from $1,615,959 in 1900 to $3,146,890 in 1905, or 94.7%. Chillicothe was founded in 1796, and was first incorporated in 1802. In 1800-1803 it was the capital of the North-West Territory, and in 1803-1810 and 1812-1816 the capital of Ohio. Three Indian villages bore the name Chillicothe, each being in turn the chief town of the Chillicothe, one of the four tribal divisions of the Shawnee, in their retreat before the whites; the village near what is now Oldtown in Greene county was destroyed by George Rogers Clark in 1780; that in Miami county, where Piqua is now, was destroyed by Clark in 1782; and the Indian village near the present Chillicothe was destroyed in 1787 by Kentuckians.

See Henry Howe,Historical Collections of Ohio(Columbus, 1891).

CHILLINGWORTH, WILLIAM(1602-1644), English divine and controversialist, was born at Oxford in October 1602. In June 1618 he became a scholar of Trinity College, Oxford, and was made a fellow of his college in June 1628. He had some reputation as a skilful disputant, excelled in mathematics, and gained some credit as a writer of verses. The marriage of Charles I. with Henrietta Maria of France had stimulated the propaganda of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Jesuits made the universities their special point of attack. One of them, “John Fisher,” who had his sphere at Oxford, succeeded in making a convert of young Chillingworth, and prevailed upon him to go to the Jesuit college at Douai. Influenced, however, by his godfather, Laud, then bishop of London, he resolved to make an impartial inquiry into the claims of the two churches. After a short stay he left Douai in 1631 and returned to Oxford. On grounds of Scripture and reason he at length declared for Protestantism, and wrote in 1634, but did not publish, a confutation of the motives which had led him over to Rome. This paper was lost; the other, on the same subject, was probably written on some other occasion at the request of his friends. He would not, however, take orders. His theological sensitiveness appears in his refusal of a preferment offered to him in 1635 by Sir Thomas Coventry, lord keeper of the great seal. He was in difficulty about subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. As he informed Gilbert Sheldon, then warden of All Souls, in a letter, he was fully resolved on two points—that to say that the Fourth Commandment is a law of God appertaining to Christians is false and unlawful, and that the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed are most false, and in a high degree presumptuous and schismatical. To subscribe, therefore, he felt would be to “subscribe his own damnation.” At this time his principal work was far towards completion. It was undertaken in defence of Dr Christopher Potter, provost of Queen’s College in Oxford, who had for some time been carrying on a controversy with a Jesuit known as Edward Knott, but whose real name was Matthias Wilson. Potter had replied in 1633 to Knott’sCharity Mistaken(1630), and Knott retaliated withMercy and Truth. This work Chillingworth engaged to answer, and Knott, hearing of his intention and hoping to bias the public mind, hastily brought out a pamphlet tending to show that Chillingworth was a Socinian who aimed at perverting not only Catholicism but Christianity.

Laud, now archbishop of Canterbury, was not a little solicitous about Chillingworth’s reply to Knott, and at his request, as “the young man had given cause why a more watchful eye should be held over him and his writings,” it was examined by the vice-chancellor of Oxford and two professors of divinity, and published with their approbation in 1637, with the titleThe Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation. The main argument is a vindication of the sole authority of the Bible in spiritual matters, and of the free right of the individual conscience to interpret it. In the preface Chillingworth expresses his new view about subscription to the articles. “For the Church of England,” he there says, “I am persuaded that the constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved, and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of it. This, in my opinion, is all intended by subscription.” His scruples having thus been overcome, he was, in the following year (1638), promoted to the chancellorship of the church of Sarum, with the prebend of Brixworth in Northamptonshire annexed to it. In the great civil struggle he used his pen against the Scots, and was in the king’s army at the siege of Gloucester, inventing certain engines for assaulting the town. Shortly afterwards he accompanied Lord Hopton, general of the king’s troops in the west, in his march; and, being laid up with illness at Arundel Castle, he was there taken prisoner by the parliamentary forces under Sir William Waller. As he was unable to go to London with the garrison, he was conveyed to Chichester, and died there in January 1644. His last days were harassed by the diatribes of the Puritan preacher, Francis Cheynell.

Besides his principal work, Chillingworth wrote a number of smaller anti-Jesuit papers published in the posthumousAdditional Discourses(1687), and nine of his sermons have been preserved. In politics he was a zealous Royalist, asserting that even the unjust and tyrannous violence of princes may not be resisted, although it might be avoided in terms of the instruction, “when they persecute you in one city, flee into another.” His writings long enjoyed a high popularity. TheReligion of Protestantsis characterized by much fairness and acuteness of argument, and was commended by Locke as a discipline of “perspicuity and the way of right reasoning.” The charge of Socinianism was frequently brought against him, but, as Tillotson thought, “for no other cause but his worthy and successful attempts to make the Christian religion reasonable.” His creed, and the whole gist of his argument, is expressed in a single sentence, “I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to, require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scripture to be God’s word, and to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.”ALifeby Rev. T. Birch was prefixed to the 1742 edition of Chillingworth’sWorks.

ALifeby Rev. T. Birch was prefixed to the 1742 edition of Chillingworth’sWorks.

CHILOÉ(fromChileandhué, “part of Chile”), a province of southern Chile, and also the name of a large island off the Chilean coast forming part of the province. The province, area 8593 sq. m., pop. (1895) 77,750, is composed of three groups of islands, Chiloé, Guaitecas and Chonos, and extends from the narrow strait of Chacao in 41° 40′ S. to the peninsula of Taytao, about 45° 45′ S. The population is composed mainly of Indians, distantly related to the tribes of the mainland, and mestizos. The capital of the province is Ancud or San Carlos, at the northern end of the island of Chiloé, on the sheltered bay of San Carlos, once frequented by whalers. It is the seat of a bishopric; pop. (1905) 3182. Other towns are Castro, the former capital, on the eastern shore of Chiloé, and the oldest town of the island (founded 1566), once the seat of a Jesuit mission, and Melinca on an island of the Guaitecas group.

The island of Chiloé, which lies immediately south of the province of Llanquihue, is a continuation of the western Chilean formation, the coast range appearing in the mountainous range of western Chiloé and the islands extending south along the coast. Between this coastrange and the Andes, the gulfs of Chacao, or Ancud and Corcovado (average width, 30 m.) separate the island from the mainland. Chiloé has an extreme length north to south of about 118 m., and an average width of 35 to 40 m., with an area of about 4700 sq. m. There are several lakes on the island—Cucao, 12 m. long, being the largest,—and one small river, the Pudeto, in the northern part of the island, is celebrated as the scene of the last engagement in the war for independence, the Spanish retaining possession of Chiloé until 1826.

CHILON, of Sparta, son of Damagetus, one of the Seven Sages of Greece, flourished about the beginning of the 6th centuryB.C.In 560 (or 556) he acted as ephor, an office which he is even said to have founded. The tradition was that he died of joy on hearing that his son had gained a prize at the Olympic games. According to Chilon, the great virtue of man was prudence, or well-grounded judgment as to future events.

A collection of the sayings attributed to him will be found in F.W. Mullach,Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum, i.; see Herodotus i. 69; Diogenes Laertius i. 68; Pausanias iii. 16, x. 24.

CHILPERIC, the name of two Frankish kings.

Chilperic I.(d. 584) was one of the sons of Clotaire I. Immediately after the death of his father in 561 he endeavoured to take possession of the whole kingdom, seized the treasure amassed in the royal town of Berny and entered Paris. His brothers, however, compelled him to divide the kingdom with them, and Soissons, together with Amiens, Arras, Cambrai, Thérouanne, Tournai and Boulogne, fell to Chilperic’s share, but on the death of Charibert in 567 his estates were augmented. When his brother Sigebert married Brunhilda, Chilperic also wished to make a brilliant marriage. He had already repudiated his first wife, Audovera, and had taken as his concubine a serving-woman called Fredegond. He accordingly dismissed Fredegond, and married Brunhilda’s sister, Galswintha. But he soon tired of his new partner, and one morning Galswintha was found strangled in her bed. A few days afterwards Chilperic married Fredegond. This murder was the cause of long and bloody wars, interspersed with truces, between Chilperic and Sigebert. In 575 Sigebert was assassinated by Fredegond at the very moment when he had Chilperic at his mercy. Chilperic retrieved his position, took from Austrasia Tours and Poitiers and some places in Aquitaine, and fostered discord in the kingdom of the east during the minority of Childebert II. One day, however, while returning from the chase to the town of Chelles, Chilperic was stabbed to death.

Chilperic may be regarded as the type of Merovingian sovereigns. He was exceedingly anxious to extend the royal authority. He levied numerous imposts, and his fiscal measures provoked a great sedition at Limoges in 579. He wished to bring about the subjection of the church, and to this end sold bishoprics to the highest bidder, annulled the wills made in favour of the bishoprics and abbeys, and sought to impose upon his subjects a rationalistic conception of the Trinity. He pretended to some literary culture, and was the author of some halting verse. He even added letters to the Latin alphabet, and wished to have the MSS. rewritten with the new characters. The wresting of Tours from Austrasia and the seizure of ecclesiastical property provoked the bitter hatred of Gregory of Tours, by whom Chilperic was stigmatized as the Nero and the Herod of his time.

See Sérésia,L’Église et l’État sous les rois francs au VIe siècle(Ghent, 1888).

Chilperic II.(d. 720) was the son of Childeric II. He became king of Neustria in 715, on which occasion he changed his name from Daniel to Chilperic. At first he was a tool in the hands of Ragenfrid, the mayor of the palace. Charles Martel, however, overthrew Ragenfrid, accepted Chilperic as king of Neustria, and, on the death of Clotaire IV., set him over the whole kingdom. The young king died soon afterwards.

(C. PF.)

CHILTERN HILLS, orThe Chilterns, a range of chalk hills in England, extending through part of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. Running from S.W. to N.E., they form a well-marked escarpment north-westward, while the south-eastern slope is long. The name of Chilterns is applied to the hills between the Thames in the neighbourhood of Goring and the headwaters of its tributary the Lea between Dunstable and Hitchin, the crest line between these points being about 55 m. in length. But these hills are part of a larger chalk system, continuing the line of the White Horse Hills from Berkshire, and themselves continued eastward by the East Anglian ridge. The greatest elevation of the Chilterns is found in the centre from Watlington to Tring, where heights from 800 to 850 ft. are frequent. Westward towards the Thames gap the elevation falls away but little, but eastward the East Anglian ridge does not often exceed 500 ft., though it continues the northward escarpment across Hertfordshire. There are several passes through the Chilterns, followed by main roads and railways converging on London, which lies in the basin of which these hills form part of the northern rim. The most remarkable passes are those near Tring, Wendover and Prince’s Risborough, the floors of which are occupied by the gravels of former rivers. The Chilterns were formerly covered with a forest of beech, and there is still a local supply of this wood for the manufacture of chairs and other articles in the neighbourhood of Wycombe.

CHILTERN HUNDREDS. An old principle of English parliamentary law declared that a member of the House of Commons, once duly chosen, could notresignhis seat. This rule was a relic of the days when the local gentry had to be compelled to serve in parliament. The only method, therefore, of avoiding the rule came to be by accepting an office of profit from the crown, a statute of 1707 enacting that every member accepting an office of profit from the crown should thereby vacate his seat, but should be capable of re-election, unless the office in question had been created since 1705, or had been otherwise declared to disqualify for a seat in parliament. Among the posts of profit held by members of the House of Commons in the first half of the 18th century are to be found the names of several crown stewardships, which apparently were not regarded as places of profit under the crown within the meaning of the act of 1707, for no seats were vacated by appointment to them. The first instance of the acceptance of such a stewardship vacating a seat was in 1740, when the house decided that Sir W.W. Wynn, on inheriting from his father, in virtue of a royal grant, the stewardship of the lordship and manor of Bromfield and Yale, hadipso factovacated his seat. On the passing of the Place Act of 1742, the idea of utilizing the appointment to certain crown stewardships (possibly suggested by Sir W.W. Wynn’s case) as a pretext for enabling a member to resign his seat was carried into practice. These nominal stewardships were eight in number, but only two survived to be used in this way in contemporary practice—those of the Chilterns and Northstead; and when a member wished to vacate his seat, he was accordingly spoken of as taking the Chiltern Hundreds.

1.Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, County Bucks.—The Chiltern Hundreds formed a bailiwick of the ordinary type. They are situated on the Chiltern Hills, and the depredations of the bandits, who found shelter within their recesses, became at an early period so alarming that a special officer, known as the steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, was appointed for the protection of the inhabitants of the neighbouring districts. It is doubtful at what date the necessity for such an appointment disappeared, but the three hundreds of Stoke, Burnham and Desborough are still distinguished by the old name. The appointment of steward was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1750, the appointment being made by the chancellor of the exchequer (and at his discretion to grant or not), and the warrant bestowing on the holder “all wages, fees, allowances and other privileges and pre-eminences.” Up to the 19th century there was a nominal salary of 20s. attached to the post. It was laid down in 1846 by the chancellor of the exchequer that the Chilterns could not be granted to more than one person in the same day, but this rule has not been strictly adhered to, for on four occasions subsequent to 1850 the Chilterns were granted twice on the same day. The Chilterns might be granted to members whether they had taken the oath or not, or during a recess, though in this case a new writ could not be issued until the House met again. Each new warrant expressly revoked the grant to the last holder, the new steward retaining it in his turn until another should be appointed.2.Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of East Hundred, or Hendred, Berks.—This stewardship was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1763, and was in more or less constant use until 1840, after which it disappeared. This manor comprised copyholds, the usual courts were held, and the stewardship was an actual and active office, the duties being executed by a deputy steward. The manor was sold bypublic auction in 1823 for £910, but in some manner the crown retained the right of appointing a steward for seventeen years after that date.3.Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, Yorkshire.—This manor was crown property before 1750, but was in lease until 1838. It has no copyhold lands, nor are there any records of manor courts. There are no traces of any profits having ever been derived from the office. It was used for parliamentary purposes in 1844 and subsequently.4.Steward of the Manor of Hempholme, Yorkshire.—This manor appears to have been of the same nature as that of Northstead. It was in lease until 1835. It was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1845 and was in constant use until 1865. It was sold in 1866.5.Escheator of Munster.—Escheators were officers commissioned to secure the rights of the crown over property which had legally escheated to it. In Ireland mention is made of escheators as early as 1256. In 1605 the escheatorship of Ireland was split up into four, one for each province, but the duties soon became practically nominal. The escheatorship of Munster was first used for parliamentary purposes in the Irish parliament from 1793 to 1800, and in the united parliament (24 times for Irish seats and once for a Scottish seat) from 1801 to 1820. After 1820 it was discontinued and finally abolished in 1838.6.Steward of the Manor of Old Shoreham, Sussex.—This manor belonged to the duchy of Cornwall, and it is difficult to understand how it came to be regarded as a crown appointment. It was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1756, and then, occasionally, until 1799, in which year it was sold by the duchy to the duke of Norfolk.7.Steward of the Manor of Poynings, Sussex.—This manor reverted to the crown on the death of Lord Montague about 1804, but was leased up to about 1835. It was only twice used for parliamentary purposes, in 1841 and 1843.8.Escheator of Ulster.—This appointment was used in the united parliament three times, for Irish seats only; the last time in 1819.See parliamentary paper—Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Vacating of Seats)(1894).

2.Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of East Hundred, or Hendred, Berks.—This stewardship was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1763, and was in more or less constant use until 1840, after which it disappeared. This manor comprised copyholds, the usual courts were held, and the stewardship was an actual and active office, the duties being executed by a deputy steward. The manor was sold bypublic auction in 1823 for £910, but in some manner the crown retained the right of appointing a steward for seventeen years after that date.

3.Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, Yorkshire.—This manor was crown property before 1750, but was in lease until 1838. It has no copyhold lands, nor are there any records of manor courts. There are no traces of any profits having ever been derived from the office. It was used for parliamentary purposes in 1844 and subsequently.

4.Steward of the Manor of Hempholme, Yorkshire.—This manor appears to have been of the same nature as that of Northstead. It was in lease until 1835. It was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1845 and was in constant use until 1865. It was sold in 1866.

5.Escheator of Munster.—Escheators were officers commissioned to secure the rights of the crown over property which had legally escheated to it. In Ireland mention is made of escheators as early as 1256. In 1605 the escheatorship of Ireland was split up into four, one for each province, but the duties soon became practically nominal. The escheatorship of Munster was first used for parliamentary purposes in the Irish parliament from 1793 to 1800, and in the united parliament (24 times for Irish seats and once for a Scottish seat) from 1801 to 1820. After 1820 it was discontinued and finally abolished in 1838.

6.Steward of the Manor of Old Shoreham, Sussex.—This manor belonged to the duchy of Cornwall, and it is difficult to understand how it came to be regarded as a crown appointment. It was first used for parliamentary purposes in 1756, and then, occasionally, until 1799, in which year it was sold by the duchy to the duke of Norfolk.

7.Steward of the Manor of Poynings, Sussex.—This manor reverted to the crown on the death of Lord Montague about 1804, but was leased up to about 1835. It was only twice used for parliamentary purposes, in 1841 and 1843.

8.Escheator of Ulster.—This appointment was used in the united parliament three times, for Irish seats only; the last time in 1819.

See parliamentary paper—Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Vacating of Seats)(1894).

(T. A. I.)

CHILWA(incorrectlyShirwa), a shallow lake in south-east Africa, S.S.E. of Lake Nyasa, cut by 35°20′E., and lying between 15° and 15°35′S. The lake is undergoing a process of desiccation, and in some dry seasons (as in 1879 and 1903) the “open water” is reduced to a number of large pools. Formerly the lake seems to have found an outlet northwards to the Lujenda branch of the Rovuma, but with the sinking of its level it is now separated from the Lujenda by a wooded ridge some 30 to 40 ft. above the surrounding plains. There are four islands, the largest rising 500 ft. above the water. The lake was discovered by David Livingstone in 1859 and was by him called Shirwa, from a mishearing of the native name.

CHIMAERA, in Greek mythology, a fire-breathing female monster resembling a lion in the fore part, a goat in the middle, and a dragon behind (Iliad, vi. 179), with three heads corresponding. She devastated Caria and Lycia until she was finally slain by Bellerophon (see H.A. Fischer,Bellerophon, 1851). The origin of the myth was the volcanic nature of the soil of Lycia (Pliny,Nat. Hist.ii. 110; Servius onAeneid, vi. 288), where works have been found containing representations of the Chimaera in the simple form of a lion. In modern art the Chimaera is usually represented as a lion, with a goat’s head in the middle of the back, as in the bronze Chimaera of Arezzo (5th century). The word is now used generally to denote a fantastic idea or fiction of the imagination.

CHIMAY, a town in the extreme south-east of the province of Hainaut, Belgium, dating from the 7th century. Pop. (1904) 3383. It is more commonly spoken of as being in the districtentre Sambre et Meuse. Owing to its proximity to the French frontier it has undergone many sieges, the last of which was in 1640, when Turenne gave orders that it should be reduced to such ruin that it could never stand another. The town is chiefly famous for the castle and park that bear its name. Originally a stronghold of the Cröy family, it has passed through the D’Arenbergs to its present owners, the princes of Caraman-Chimay. The castle, which before Turenne’s order to demolish it possessed seven towers, has now only one in ruins, and a modern château was built in the Tudor style in the 18th century. This domain carried with it the right to one of the twelve peerages of Hainaut. Madame Tallien, daughter of Dr Cabarrus, the Lady of Thermidor, married as her second husband the prince de Chimay, and held her little court here down to her death in 1835. There is a memorial to her in the church, which also contains a fine monument of Phillippe de Cröy, chamberlain and comrade in arms of the emperor Charles V. John Froissart the chronicler died and was buried here. There is a statue in his honour on the Grand Place. Chimay is situated on a stream called the White Water, which in its lower course becomes the Viroin and joins the Meuse.

CHIME, (1) (Probably derived from a mistaken separation into two words,chimbe bell, ofchymbalorchymbel, the old form of “cymbal,” Lat.cymbalum), a mechanical arrangement by which a set of bells in a church or other tower, or in a clock, are struck so as to produce a sequence of musical sounds or a tune. For the mechanism of such an arrangement in a clock and in a set of bells, see the articlesClockandBell. The word is also applied to the tune thus played by the bells and also to the harmonious “fall” of verse, and so, figuratively, to any harmonious agreement of thought or action. (2) (From Mid. Eng.chimb, a word meaning “edge,” common in varied forms to Teutonic languages, cf. Ger.Kimme), the bevelled rim formed by the projecting staves at the ends of a cask.

CHIMERE(Lat.chimera, chimaera; O. Fr.chamarre, Mod. Fr.simarre; Ital.zimarra; cf. Span.zamarra, a sheepskin coat; possibly derived ultimately from Gr.χειμέριος, “wintry,”i.e.a winter overcoat), in modern English use the name of a garment worn as part of the ceremonial dress of Anglican bishops. It is a long sleeveless gown of silk or satin, open down the front, gathered in at the back between the shoulders, and with slits for the arms. It is worn over the rochet (q.v.), and its colour is either black or scarlet (convocation robes). By a late abuse the sleeves of the rochet were, from motives of convenience, sometimes attached to the chimere. The origin of the chimere has been the subject of much debate; but the view that it is a modification of the cope (q.v.) is now discarded, and it is practically proved to be derived from the medieval tabard (tabardum, taberdaorcollobium), an upper garment worn in civil life by all classes of people both in England and abroad. It has therefore a common origin with certain academic robes (seeRobes, §Academic dress).

The word “chimere,” which first appears in England in the 14th century, was sometimes applied not only to the tabard worn over the rochet, but to the sleeved cassock worn under it. Thus Archbishop Scrope is described as wearing when on his way to execution (1405) a blue chimere with sleeves. But the word properly applies to the sleeveless tabard which tended to supersede, from the 15th century onwards, the inconvenientcappa clausa(a long closed cloak with a slit in front for the arms) as the out-of-doors upper garment of bishops. These chimeres, the colours of which (murrey, scarlet, green, &c.) may possibly have denoted academical rank, were part of the civil costume of prelates. Thus in the inventory of Walter Skirlawe, bishop of Durham (1405-1406), eight chimeres of various colours are mentioned, including two for riding (pro equitatura). The chimere was, moreover, a cold weather garment. In summer its place was taken by the tippet.

In the Anglican form for the consecration of bishops the newly consecrated prelate, hitherto vested in rochet, is directed to put on “the rest of the episcopal habit,”i.e.the chimere. The robe has thus become in the Church of England symbolical of the episcopal office, and is in effect a liturgical vestment. The rubric containing this direction was added to the Book of Common Prayer in 1662; and there is proof that the development of the chimere into at least a choir vestment was subsequent to the Reformation. Foxe, indeed, mentions that Hooper at his consecration wore “a long scarlet chymere down to the foot” (Acts and Mon., ed. 1563, p. 1051), a source of trouble to himself and of scandal to other extreme reformers; but that this was no more than the full civil dress of a bishop is proved by the fact that Archbishop Parker at his consecration wore surplice and tippet, and only put on the chimere, when the service was over, to go away in. This civil quality of the garment still survives alongside the other; the full dress of an Anglican prelate at civil functions of importance (e.g.in parliament, or at court) is still rochet and chimere.

Back to Index Next