Chapter 3

See P. Kulish,On the Defection of Malo-Russia from Poland(Rus.) (Moscow, 1890); S.M. Solovev,History of Russia(Rus.) (Moscow, 1857, &c.), vol. x.; Robert Nisbet Bain,The First Romanovs, chaps. 3-4 (London, 1905).

(R. N. B.)

CHOATE, JOSEPH HODGES(1832- ), American lawyer and diplomat, was born at Salem, Massachusetts, on the 24th of January 1832. He was the son of Dr George Choate, a physician of considerable note, and was a nephew of Rufus Choate. After graduating at Harvard College in 1852 and at the law school of Harvard University in 1854, he was admitted first to the Massachusetts (1855) and then (1856) to the New York bar, and entered the law office of Scudder & Carter in New York City. His success in his profession was immediate, and in 1860 he became junior partner in the firm of Evarts, Southmayd & Choate, the senior partner in which was William M. Evarts. This firm and its successor, that of Evarts, Choate & Beaman, remained for many years among the leading law firms of New York and of the country, the activities of both being national rather than local. During these busy years Mr Choate was associated with many of the most famous litigations in American legal history, including the Tilden, A.T. Stewart, and Stanford will cases, the Kansas prohibition cases, the Chinese exclusion cases, the Maynard election returns case, and the Income Tax Suit. In 1871 he became a member of the “Committee of Seventy” in New York City, which was instrumental in breaking up the “Tweed Ring,” and later assisted in the prosecution of the indicted officials. In the retrial of the General Fitz John Porter case he obtained a reversal of the decision of the original court-martial. His greatest reputation was won perhaps in cross-examination. In politics he allied himself with the Republican party on its organization, being a frequent speaker in presidential campaigns, beginning with that of 1856. He never held political office, although he was a candidate for the Republican senatorial nomination against Senator Thomas C. Platt in 1897. In 1894 he was president of the New York state constitutional convention. He was appointed, by President McKinley, ambassador to Great Britain to succeed John Hay in 1899, and remained in this position until the spring of 1905. In England he won great personal popularity, and accomplished much in fostering the good relations of the two great English-speaking powers. He was one of the representatives of the United States at the second Peace Congress at the Hague in 1907.

Several of his notable public addresses have been published.The Choate Story Book(New York, 1903) contains a few of his addresses and after-dinner speeches, and is prefaced by a brief biographical sketch.

CHOATE, RUFUS(1799-1859), American lawyer and orator, was born at Ipswich, Massachusetts, on the 1st of October 1799, the descendant of a family which settled in Massachusetts in 1667. As a child he was remarkably precocious; at six he is said to have been able to repeat large parts of the Bible and ofPilgrim’s Progressby heart. He graduated as valedictorian of his class at Dartmouth College in 1819, was a tutor there in 1819-1820, spent a year in the law school of Harvard University, and studied for a like period at Washington, in the office of William Wirt, then attorney-general of the United States. He was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1823 and practised at what was later South Danvers (now Peabody) for five years, during which time he served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives (1825-1826) and in the state senate (1827). In 1828 he removed to Salem, where his successful conduct of several important law-suits brought him prominently into public notice. In 1830 he was elected to Congress as a Whig from the Salem district, defeating the Jacksonian candidate for re-election,B.W. Crowninshield (1772-1851), a former secretary of the navy, and in 1832 he was re-elected. His career in Congress was marked by a notable speech in defence of a protective tariff. In 1834, before the completion of his second term, he resigned and established himself in the practice of law in Boston. Already his fame as a speaker had spread beyond New England, and he was much sought after as an orator for public occasions. For several years he devoted himself unremittingly to his profession, but in 1841 succeeded Daniel Webster in the United States Senate. Shortly afterwards he delivered one of his most eloquent addresses at the memorial services for President Harrison in Faneuil Hall, Boston. In the Senate he made a series of brilliant speeches on the tariff, the Oregon boundary, in favour of the Fiscal Bank Act, and in opposition to the annexation of Texas. On Webster’s re-election to the Senate, Choate resumed (1845) his law practice, which no amount of urging could ever persuade him to abandon for public office, save for a short term as attorney-general of Massachusetts in 1853-1854. In 1853 he was a member of the state constitutional convention. He was a faithful supporter of Webster’s policy as declared in the latter’s famous “Seventh of March Speech” (1850) and laboured to secure for him the presidential nomination at the Whig national convention in 1852. In 1856 he refused to follow most of his former Whig associates into the Republican party and gave his support to James Buchanan, whom he considered the representative of a national instead of a sectional party. In July 1859 failing health led him to seek rest in a trip to Europe, but he died on the 13th of that month at Halifax, Nova Scotia, where he had been put ashore when it was seen that he probably could not outlive the voyage across the Atlantic. Choate, besides being one of the ablest of American lawyers, was one of the most scholarly of American public men, and his numerous orations and addresses were remarkable for their pure style, their grace and elegance of form, and their wealth of classical allusion.

HisWorks(edited, with a memoir, by S.G. Brown) were published in 2 vols. at Boston in 1862. TheMemoirwas afterwards published separately (Boston, 1870). See also E.G. Parker’sReminiscences of Rufus Choate(New York, 1860); E.P. Whipple’sSome Recollections of Rufus Choate(New York, 1879); and theAlbany Law Review(1877-1878).

CHOBE, a large western affluent of the middle Zambezi (q.v.). The river was discovered by David Livingstone in 1851, and to him was known as the Chobe. It is also called the Linyante and the Kwando, the last name being that commonly used.

CHOCOLATE, a paste of the ground kernels of the cocoa bean, mixed with sugar, vanilla or other flavouring, made into a cake, which is used for the manufacture of various forms of sweetmeat, or in making the beverage, also known as “chocolate,” obtained by dissolving cakes of chocolate in boiling water or milk (seeCocoa). The word came into Eng. through the Fr.chocolator Span.chocolatefrom the Mex.chocolatl. According to theNew English Dictionary(quoting R. Siméon,Dict. de la langue Nahuatl), this was “an article of food made of ... the seeds of cacao and of the tree pochotl (Bombax ceiba),” and was etymologically distinct from the Mexicancacauatl, cacao, or cocoa.

CHOCTAWS,Chahtas, orChacatos(apparently a corruption of Span.chato, flattened), a tribe of North American Indians of Muskhogean stock. They are now settled in Oklahoma, but when first known to Europeans they occupied the district now forming the southern part of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama. On the settlement of Louisiana they formed an alliance with the French, and assisted them against the Natchez and Chickasaws; but by degrees they entered into friendly relations with the English, and at last, in 1786, recognized the supremacy of the United States by the treaty of Hopewell. Their emigration westward began about 1800, and the last remains of their original territory were ceded in 1830. In their new settlements the Choctaws continued to advance in prosperity till the outbreak of the Civil War, which considerably diminished the population and ruined a large part of their property. They sided with the Confederates, and their territory was occupied by Confederate troops; and accordingly at the close of the war they were regarded as having lost their rights. Part of their land they were forced to surrender to the government; their slaves were emancipated; and provision was claimed for them in the shape of either land or money. Since then they have considerably recovered their position. They long constituted a quasi-independent people under the title of the Choctaw nation, and were governed by a chief and a national council of forty members, according to a written constitution, dating in the main from 1838; they possessed a regular judicial system and employed trial by jury. Tribal government virtually ceased in 1906. The Choctaws number some 18,000. A few groups still linger in Mississippi and Louisiana. The Choctaw language has been reduced to writing, and brought to some degree of literary precision.

SeeIndians, North American;Handbook of American Indians, ed. F.W. Hodge (Washington, 1907).

CHODKIEWICZ, JAN KAROL(1560-1621), Polish general, was the son of Hieronymus Chodkiewicz, castellan of Wilna. After being educated at the Wilna academy he went abroad to learn the science of war, fighting in the Spanish service under Alva, and also under Maurice of Nassau. In 1593 he married the wealthy Sophia Mielecka, by whom he had one son who predeceased him. His first military service at home was against the Cossack rising of Nalewajko as lieutenant to Zolkiewski, and he subsequently assisted Zamoyski in his victorious Moldavian campaign. Honours and dignities were now showered upon him. In 1599 he was appointed starosta of Samogitia, and in 1600 acting commander-in-chief of Lithuania. In the war against Sweden for the possession of Livonia he brilliantly distinguished himself, capturing fortress after fortress and repulsing the duke of Sudermania, afterwards Charles IX, from Riga. In 1604 he captured Dorpat, twice defeated the Swedish generals at Bialy Kamien, and was rewarded with the grand bâton of Lithuania. Criminally neglected by the diet, which from sheer niggardliness turned a deaf ear to all his requests for reinforcements and for supplies and money to pay his soldiers, Chodkiewicz nevertheless more than held his own against the Swedes. His crowning achievement was the great victory of Kirkholm (Aug. 27th, 1605), when with barely 5000 men he annihilated a threefold larger Swedish army; for which feat he received letters of congratulation from the pope, all the Catholic potentates, of Europe, and even from the sultan of Turkey and the shah of Persia. Yet this great victory was absolutely fruitless, owing to the domestic dissensions which prevailed in Poland during the following five years. Chodkiewicz’s own army, unpaid for years, abandoned him at lasten massein order to plunder the estates of their political opponents, leaving the grand hetman to carry on the war as best he could with a handful of mercenaries paid out of the pockets of himself and his friends. Chodkiewicz was one of the few magnates who remained loyal to the king, and after helping to defeat the rebels in Poland a fresh invasion of Livonia by the Swedes recalled him thither, and once more he relieved Riga besides capturing Pernau. Meanwhile the war with Muscovy broke out, and Chodkiewicz was sent against Moscow with an army of 2000 men—though if there had been a spark of true patriotism in Poland he could easily have marshalled 100,000. Moreover, the diet neglected to pay for the maintenance even of this paltry 2000, with the result that they mutinied and compelled their leader to retreat through the heart of Muscovy to Smolensk. Not till the crown prince Wladislaus arrived with tardy reinforcements did the war assume a different character, Chodkiewicz opening a new career of victory by taking the fortress of Drohobu in 1617. The Muscovite war had no sooner been ended by the treaty of Deulina than Chodkiewicz was hastily despatched southwards to defend the southern frontier against the Turks, who after the catastrophe of Cecora (seeZolkiewski) had high hopes of conquering Poland altogether. An army of 160,000 Turkish veterans led by Sultan Osman in person advanced from Adrianople towards the Polish frontier, but Chodkiewicz crossed the Dnieper in September 1621 and entrenched himself in the fortress of Khotin right in the path of the Ottoman advance. Here for a whole month the Polish hero held the sultan at bay, till the first fall of autumn snow compelled Osman to withdrawhis diminished forces. But the victory was dearly purchased by Poland. A few days before the siege was raised the aged grand hetman died of exhaustion in the fortress (Sept. 24th, 1621).

See Adam Stanislaw Naruszewicz,Life of J.K. Chodkiewicz(Pol.; 4th ed., Cracow, 1857-1858); Lukasz Golebiowski,The Moral Side of J.K. Chodkiewicz as indicated by his Letters(Pol.; Warsaw, 1854).

(R. N. B.)

CHODOWIECKI, DANIEL NICOLAS(1726-1801), German painter and engraver of Polish descent, was born at Danzig. Left an orphan at an early age, he devoted himself to the practice of miniature painting, the elements of which his father had taught him, as a means of support for himself and his mother. In 1743 he went to Berlin, where for some time he worked as clerk in an uncle’s office, practising art, however, in his leisure moments, and gaining a sort of reputation as a painter of miniatures for snuff-boxes. The Berlin Academy, attracted by a small engraving of his, entrusted to him the illustration of its yearly almanac. After designing and engraving several subjects from the story of the Seven Years’ War, Chodowiecki produced the famous “History of the Life of Jesus Christ,” a set of admirably painted miniatures, which made him at once so popular that he laid aside all occupations save those of painting and engraving. Few books were published in Prussia for some years without plate or vignette by Chodowiecki. It is not surprising, therefore, that the catalogue of his works (Berlin, 1814) should include over 3000 items, of which, however, the picture of “Jean Calas and his Family” is the only one of any reputation. He became director of the Berlin Academy in 1797. The title of the German Hogarth, which he sometimes obtained, was the effect of an admiration rather imaginative than critical, and was disclaimed by Chodowiecki himself. The illustrator of Lavater’sEssays on Physiognomy, the painter of the “Hunt the Slipper” in the Berlin museum, had indeed but one point in common with the great Englishman—the practice of representing actual life and manners. In this he showed skilful drawing and grouping, and considerable expressional power, but no tendency whatever to the use of the grotesque.

His brother Gottfried (1728-1781) and son Wilhelm (1765-1803) painted and engraved after the style of Daniel, and sometimes co-operated with him.

CHOERILUS. (1) An Athenian tragic poet, who exhibited plays as early as 524B.C.He was said to have competed with Aeschylus, Pratinas and even Sophocles. According to F.G. Welcker, however, the rival of Sophocles was a son of Choerilus, who bore the same name. Suidas states that Choerilus wrote 150 tragedies and gained the prize 13 times. His works are all lost; only Pausanias (i. 14) mentions a play by him entitledAlope(a mythological personage who was the subject of dramas by Euripides and Carcinus). His reputation as a writer of satyric dramas is attested in the well-known line

ἡνίκα μἑν βασιλεὑς ἡν Χοιρίλος ἐν Σατύοις.

The Choerilean metre, mentioned by the Latin grammarians, is probably so called because the above line is the oldest extant specimen. Choerilus was also said to have introduced considerable improvements in theatrical masks and costumes.

See A. Nauck,Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta(1889); F.G. Welcker,Die griechischen Tragödien, pp. 18, 892.

(2) An epic poet of Samos, who flourished at the end of the 5th centuryB.C.After the fall of Athens he settled at the court of Archelaus, king of Macedonia, where he was the associate of Agathon, Melanippides, and Plato the comic poet. The only work that can with certainty be attributed to him is theΠερσηίςorΠερσικά, a history of the struggle of the Greeks against Persia, the central point of which was the battle of Salamis. His importance consists in his having taken for his theme national and contemporary events in place of the deeds of old-time heroes. For this new departure he apologizes in the introductory verses (preserved in the scholiast on Aristotle,Rhetoric, iii. 14), where he says that, the subjects of epic poetry being all exhausted, it was necessary to strike out a new path. The story of his intimacy with Herodotus is probably due to the fact that he imitated him and had recourse to his history for the incidents of his poem. ThePerseiswas at first highly successful and was said to have been read, together with the Homeric poems, at the Panathenaea, but later critics reversed this favourable judgment. Aristotle (Topica, viii. 1) calls Choerilus’s comparisons far-fetched and obscure, and the Alexandrians displaced him by Antimachus in the canon of epic poets. The fragments are artificial in tone.

G. Kinkel,Epicorum Graecorum Frag.i. (1877); for another view of his relations with Herodotus see Müder inKlio(1907), 29-44.

(3) An epic poet of Iasus in Caria, who lived in the 4th centuryB.C.He accompanied Alexander the Great on his campaigns as court-poet. He is well known from the passages in Horace (Epistles, ii. 1, 232;Ars Poëtica, 357), according to which he received a piece of gold for every good verse he wrote in celebration of the glorious deeds of his master. The quality of his verses may be estimated from the remark attributed to Alexander, that he would rather be the Thersites of Homer than the Achilles of Choerilus. The epitaph on Sardanapalus, said to have been translated from the Chaldean (quoted in Athenaeus, viii. p. 336), is generally supposed to be by Choerilus.

See G. Kinkel,Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, i. (1877); A.F. Näke,De Choerili Samii Aetate Vita et Poësi aliisque Choerilis(1817), where the above poets are carefully distinguished; and the articles in Pauly-Wissowa’sRealencydopädie, iii. 2 (1899).

CHOEROBOSCUS, GEORGIUS(c.A.D.600), deacon and professor at the oecumenical school at Constantinople. He is also calledchartophylaxeither as the holder of some ecclesiastical office or as superintendent of the university library. It is not known whether “Choeroboscus” (Gr. for “swineherd”) is an allusion to his earlier occupation or an inherited family name. During his tenure of office he delivered a course of lectures on grammar, which has come down to us in the shape of notes taken by his pupils. He drew from the best authorities—Apollonius Dyscolus, Herodian, Orion, Theodosius of Alexandria. The lectures are written in simple style, but suffer from diffuseness. They were much used by Constantine Lascaris in his Greek grammar and by Urban of Belluno (end of 15th cent.). The chief work of Choeroboscus, which we have in its complete form, is the commentary on the canons of Theodosius on Declension and Conjugation. Mention may also be made of a treatise on orthography, of which a fragment (on Quantity) has been preserved; a tract on prosody; commentaries on Hephaestion and Dionysius Thrax; and grammatical notes on the Psalms.

See C. Krumbacher,Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur(1897); A. Hilgard,Grammatici Graeci, iv. (1889-1894), containing the text of the commentary on Theodosius, and a full account of the life and writings of Choeroboscus; L. Kohn in Pauly-Wissowa’sRealencydopädie, iii. 2 (1889); Reitzenstein,Etymologika, 190, n. 4.

CHOIR(O. Fr.cuerfrom Lat.chorus; pronouncedquire, and until the end of the 17th century so spelt, the spelling being altered to agree with the Fr.chœur), the body of singers who perform the musical portion of the service in a church, or the place set apart for them. Any organized body of singers performing full part choral works or oratorios is also called a choir.

In English cathedrals the choir is composed of men (vicars-choral or lay clerks) and boys (choristers). They are divided into two sets, sitting on the north and south sides of the chancel respectively, calledcantorisanddecani, from being on the same side as thecantor(precentor) or thedecanus(dean). This arrangement, together with the custom of vesting choirmen and choristers in surplices (traditional only in cathedrals and collegiate churches), has, since the middle of the 19th century, been adopted in a large number of parish and other churches. Surpliced choirs of women have occasionally been introduced, notably in America and the British colonies, but the practice has no warrant of traditional usage. In the Roman Catholic Church the choir plays a less conspicuous rôle than in the Church of England, its members not being regarded as ministers of the church, and non-Catholics are allowed to sing in it. The singers at Mass or other solemn services are usually placed in a gallery or some other inconspicuous place. The word “choir,” indeed, formerly applied to all the clergy taking part in services of the church, and the restriction of the term to the singing men and boys, who were in their origin no more than the representatives(vicars) of the clergy, is a comparatively late development. The distinction between “choir services” (Mattins, Vespers, Compline, &c.)—consisting of prayers, lections, the singing of the psalms, &c.—and the service of the altar was sharply drawn in the middle ages, as in the modern Roman Church. “Choir vestments” (surplice, &c.) are those worn by the clergy at the former, as distinguished from those used at the Mass (seeVestments). In England at the Reformation the choir services (Mattins, Evensong) replaced the Mass as the principal popular services, and, in general, only the choir vestments were retained in use. In the English cathedrals the members of the choir often retain privileges reminiscent of an earlier definite ecclesiastical status. At Wells, for instance, the vicars-choral form a corporation practically independent of the dean and chapter; they have their own lodgings inside the cathedral precincts (Vicars’ Close) and they can only be dismissed by a vote of their own body.

(W. A. P.)

In an architectural sense a “choir” is strictly that part of a church which is fitted up for the choir services, and is thus limited to the space between the choir screen and the presbytery. Some confusion has arisen owing to the term being employed by medieval writers to express the entire space enclosed for the performance of the principal services of the church, and therefore to include not only the choir proper, but the presbytery. In the case of a cruciform church the choir is sometimes situated under the central tower, or in the nave, and this is the case in Westminster Abbey, where it occupies four bays to the west of the transept. The choir is usually raised one step above the nave, and its sides are fitted up with seats or stalls, of which in large buildings there are usually two or three rows rising one behind the other.

In Romanesque churches there are eastern and western choirs, and in former times the term was given to chantries and subsidiary chapels, which were also called chancels. In the early Christian church the ambones where the gospels and epistles were read were placed one on either side of the choir and formed part of its enclosure, and this is the case in S. Clemente, S. Lorenzo and S. Maria in Cosmedin in Rome. In England the choir seems almost universally to have assembled at the eastern part of the church to recite the breviary services, whereas on the continent it was moved from one place to another according to convenience. In Spanish churches it occupies the nave of the church, and in the church of the Escorial in Spain was at the west end above the entrance vestibule.

(R. P. S.)

CHOISEUL, CÉSAR,Duc de(1602-1675), French marshal and diplomatist, generally known for the best part of his life as the marshal du Plessis-Praslin, came of the old French family of Choiseul, which arose in the valley of the Upper Marne in the 10th century and divided into many branches, three of the names of which, Hostel, Praslin and du Plessis, were borne, at one time or another, by the subject of this article. Entering the army at the age of fourteen as proprietary colonel of an infantry regiment, he shared in almost all the exploits of the French arms during the reign of Louis XIII. He took part in the siege of La Rochelle, assisted to defend the island of Ré against the attacks of the English under the duke of Buckingham, and accompanied the French forces to Italy in 1629. In 1630 he was appointed ambassador at the court of the duke of Savoy, and was engaged in diplomatic and administrative work in Italy until 1635, when war was declared between France and Spain. In the war that followed Plessis-Praslin distinguished himself in various battles and sieges in Italy, including the action called the “Route de Quiers” and the celebrated four-cornered operations round Turin. In 1640 he was made governor of Turin, and in 1642 lieutenant-general, and after further service in Italy he was made a marshal of France (1645) and appointed second in command in Catalonia. During the first War of the Fronde, which broke out in 1649, he assisted Condé in the brief siege of Paris; and in the second war, remaining loyal to the queen regent and the court party, he won his greatest triumph in defeating Turenne and the allied Spaniards and rebels at Rethel (or Blanc-Champ) in 1650. He then held high office at the court of Louis XIV., became minister of state in 1652, and in November 1665 was created duc de Choiseul. He was concerned in some of the negotiations between Louis and Charles II. of England which led to the treaty of Dover, and died in Paris on the 23rd of December 1675.

CHOISEUL, ÉTIENNE FRANÇOIS,Duc de(1719-1785), French statesman, was the eldest son of François Joseph de Choiseul, marquis de Stainville (1700-1770), and bore in early life the title of comte de Stainville. Born on the 28th of June 1719, he entered the army, and during the War of the Austrian Succession served in Bohemia in 1741 and in Italy, where he distinguished himself at the battle of Coni, in 1744. From 1745 until 1748 he was with the army in the Low Countries, being present at the sieges of Mons, Charleroi and Maestricht. He attained the rank of lieutenant-general, and in 1750 married Louise Honorine, daughter of Louis François Crozat, marquis du Châtel (d. 1750), who brought her husband a large fortune and proved a most devoted wife.

Choiseul gained the favour of Madame de Pompadour by procuring for her some letters which Louis XV. had written to his cousin Madame de Choiseul, with whom the king had formerly had an intrigue; and after a short time asbailliof the Vosges he was given the appointment of ambassador to Rome in 1753, where he was entrusted with the negotiations concerning the disturbances called forth by the bullUnigenitus. He acquitted himself skilfully in this task, and in 1757 his patroness obtained his transfer to Vienna, where he was instructed to cement the new alliance between France and Austria. His success at Vienna opened the way to a larger career, when in 1758 he supplanted Antoine Louis Rouillé (1689-1761) as minister for foreign affairs and so had the direction of French foreign policy during the Seven Years’ War. At this time he was made a peer of France and created duc de Choiseul. Although from 1761 until 1766 his cousin César, duc de Choiseul-Praslin (1712-1785), was minister for foreign affairs, yet Choiseul continued to control the policy of France until 1770, and during this period held most of the other important offices of state. As the author of the “Family Compact” he sought to retrieve by an alliance with the Bourbon house of Spain the disastrous results of the alliance with Austria; but his action came too late. His vigorous policy in other departments of state was not, however, fruitless. Coming to power in the midst of the demoralization consequent upon the defeats of Rossbach and Crefeld, by boldness and energy he reformed and strengthened both army and navy, and although too late to prevent the loss of Canada and India, he developed French colonies in the Antilles and San Domingo, and added Corsica and Lorraine to the crown of France. His management of home affairs in general satisfied thephilosophes. He allowed theEncyclopédieto be published, and brought about the banishment of the Jesuits and the temporary abolition of the order by Pope Clement IV.

Choiseul’s fall was caused by his action towards the Jesuits, and by his support of their opponent La Chalotais, and of the provincial parlements. After the death of Madame de Pompadour in 1764, his enemies, led by Madame Du Barry and the chancellor Maupeou, were too strong for him, and in 1770 he was ordered to retire to his estate at Chanteloupe. The intrigues against him had, however, increased his popularity, which was already great, and during his retirement, which lasted until 1774, he lived in the greatest affluence and was visited by many eminent personages. Greatly to his disappointment Louis XVI. did not restore him to his former position, although the king recalled him to Paris in 1774, when he died on the 8th of May 1785, leaving behind him a huge accumulation of debt which was scrupulously discharged by his widow.

Choiseul possessed both ability and diligence, and though lacking in tenacity he showed foresight and liberality in his direction of affairs. In appearance he was a short, ill-featured man, with a ruddy countenance and a sturdy frame. HisMémoireswere written during his exile from Paris, and are merely detached notes upon different questions. Horace Walpole, in hisMemoirs, gives a very vivid description of theduke’s character, accuses him of exciting the war between Russia and Turkey in 1768 in order to be revenged upon the tsarina Catherine II., and says of his foreign policy, “he would project and determine the ruin of a country, but could not meditate a little mischief or a narrow benefit.” “He dissipated the nation’s wealth and his own; but did not repair the latter by plunder of the former,” says the same writer, who in reference to Choiseul’s private life asserts that “gallantry without delicacy was his constant pursuit.” Choiseul’s widow, a woman “in whom industrious malice could not find an imperfection,” lived in retirement until her death on the 3rd of December 1808.

SeeMémoires du duc de Choiseul, edited by F. Calmettes (Paris, 1904); P. Boutaric,L’Ambassade de Choiseul à Vienne en 1757-1758(Paris, 1872); Duc de Cars,Mémoires(Paris, 1890); F.J. de P., Cardinal de Bernis,Mémoires et lettres(Paris, 1878); Madame de Pompadour,Correspondance(Paris, 1878);Revue historique, tomes 82 and 87 (Paris, 1903-1905); Horace Walpole,Memoirs of the Reign of George III., edited by G.F.R. Barker (London, 1894); G. Mangros,Le duc et la duchesse de Choiseul(Paris, 1903); andLa Disgrace du duc et de la duchesse de Choiseul(Paris, 1903); E. Calmettes,Choiseul et Voltaire(Paris, 1902); A. Bourguet,Études sur la politique étrangère du duc de Choiseul(Paris, 1907); andLe Duc de Choiseul et l’alliance espagnole(Paris, 1906). See also theEdinburgh Reviewfor July 1908.

CHOISEUL-STAINVILLE, CLAUDE ANTOINE GABRIEL,Duc de(1760-1838), French soldier, was brought up at Chanteloup, under the care of his relative, Étienne François, duc de Choiseul, who was childless. The outbreak of the Revolution found him a colonel of dragoons, and throughout those troublous times he was distinguished for his devotion to the royal house. He took part in the attempt of Louis XVI. to escape from Paris on the 20th of June 1791; was arrested with the king, and imprisoned. Liberated in May 1792, he emigrated in October, and fought in the “army of Condé” against the republic. Captured in 1795, he was confined at Dunkirk; escaped, set sail for India, was wrecked on the French coast, and condemned to death by the decree of the Directory. Nevertheless, he was fortunate enough to escape once more. Napoleon allowed him to return to France in 1801, but he remained in private life until the fall of the Empire. At the Restoration he was called to the House of Peers by Louis XVIII. At the revolution of 1830 he was nominated a member of the provisional government; and he afterwards received from Louis Philippe the post of aide-de-camp to the king and governor of the Louvre. He died in Paris on the 1st of December 1838.

CHOISY, FRANÇOIS TIMOLÉON,Abbé de(1644-1724), French author, was born in Paris on the 16th of August 1644, and died in Paris on the 2nd of October 1724. His father was attached to the household of the duke of Orleans, and his mother, who was on intimate terms with Anne of Austria, was regularly called upon to amuse Louis XIV. By a whim of his mother, the boy was dressed like a girl until he was eighteen, and, after appearing for a short time in man’s costume, he resumed woman’s dress on the advice—doubtless satirical—of Madame de La Fayette. He delighted in the most extravagant toilettes until he was publicly rebuked by the duc de Montausier, when he retired for some time to the provinces, using his disguise to assist his numerous intrigues. He had been made an abbé in his childhood, and poverty, induced by his extravagance, drove him to live on his benefice at Sainte-Seine in Burgundy, where he found among his neighbours a kindred spirit in Bussy-Rabutin. He visited Rome in the suite of the cardinal de Bouillon in 1676, and shortly afterwards a serious illness brought about a sudden and rather frivolous conversion to religion. In 1685 he accompanied the chevalier de Chaumont on a mission to Siam. He was ordained priest, and received various ecclesiastical preferments. He was admitted to the Academy in 1687, and wrote a number of historical and religious works, of which the most notable are the following:—Quatre dialogues sur l’immortalitè de l’âme... (1684), written with the Abbé Dangeau and explaining his conversion;Traduction de l’Imitation de Jésus-Christ(1692);Histoire de France sous les règnes de Saint Louis ... de Charles V et Charles VI(5 vols., 1688-1695); andHistoire de l’Église(11 vols., 1703-1723) He is remembered, however, by his gossipingMémoires(1737), which contain striking and accurate pictures of his time and remarkably exact portraits of his contemporaries, although he has otherwise small pretensions to historical accuracy.

TheMémoirespassed through many editions, and were edited in 1888 by M. de Lescure. Some admirable letters of Choisy are included in the correspondence of Bussy-Rabutin. Choisy is said to have burnt some of his indiscreet revelations, but left a considerable quantity of unpublished MS. Part of this material, giving an account of his adventures as a woman, was surreptitiously used in an anonymousHistoire de madame la comtesse de Barres(Antwerp, 1735), and again with much editing in theVie de M. l’abbé de Choisy(Lausanne and Geneva, 1742), ascribed by Paul Lacroix to Lenglet Dufresnoy; the text was finally edited (1870) by Lacroix asAventures de l’abbé de Choisy. See also Sainte-Beuve,Causeries du lundi, vol. iii.

CHOLERA(from the Gr.χολή, bile, andῥέειν, to flow), the name given to two distinct forms of disease, simple cholera and malignant cholera. Although essentially different both as to their causation and their pathological relationships, these two diseases may in individual cases present many symptoms of mutual resemblance.

Simple Cholera(synonyms,Cholera Europaea,British Cholera,SummerorAutumnal Cholera) is the cholera of ancient medical writers, as is apparent from the accurate description of the disease given by Hippocrates, Celsus and Aretaeus. Its occurrence in an epidemic form was noticed by various physicians in the 16th century, and an admirable account of the disease was subsequently given by Thomas Sydenham in 1669-1672. This disease is sometimes calledCholera Nostras, the wordnostras, which is good Latin and used by Cicero, meaning “belonging to our country.” The relations between it and Asiatic cholera (see below) are obscure. Clinically they may exactly resemble each other, and bacteriology has not been able to draw an absolute line between them. The real difference is epidemiological, cholera nostras having no epidemic significance.

The chief symptoms in well-marked cases are vomiting and purging occurring either together or alternately. The seizure is usually sudden and violent. The contents of the stomach are first ejected, and this is followed by severe retching and vomiting of thin fluid of bilious appearance and bitter taste. The diarrhoea which accompanies or succeeds the vomiting, and is likewise of bilious character, is attended with severe griping abdominal pain, while cramps affecting the legs or arms greatly intensify the suffering. The effect upon the system is rapid and alarming, a few hours of such an attack sufficing to reduce the strongest person to a state of extreme prostration. The surface of the body becomes cold, the pulse weak, the voice husky, and the whole symptoms may resemble in a striking manner those of malignant cholera, to be subsequently described. In unfavourable cases, particularly where the disorder is epidemic, death may result within forty-eight hours. Generally, however, the attack is arrested and recovery soon follows, although there may remain for a considerable time a degree of irritability of the alimentary canal, rendering necessary the utmost care in regard to diet.

Attacks of this kind are of frequent occurrence in summer and autumn in almost all countries. They appear specially liable to occur when cold and damp alternate with heat. Occasionally the disorder prevails so extensively as to constitute an epidemic. The exciting causes of an attack are in many cases errors in diet, particularly the use of unripe fruit and new vegetables, and the excessive drinking of cold liquids during perspiration. Outbreaks of this disorder in a household or community can sometimes be traced to the use of impure water, or to noxious emanations from the sewers.

In the treatment, vomiting should be encouraged so long as it shows the presence of undigested food, after which opiates ought to be administered. Small opium pills, or Dover’s powder, or the aromatic powder of chalk with opium, are likely to be retained in the stomach, and will generally succeed in allaying the pain and diarrhoea, while ice and effervescing drinks serveto quench the thirst and subdue the sickness. In aggravated cases where medicines are rejected, enemata of starch and laudanum, or the hypodermic injection of morphia, ought to be resorted to. Counter-irritation by mustard or turpentine over the abdomen is always of use, as is also friction with the hands where cramps are present. When sinking threatens, brandy and ammonia will be called for. During convalescence the food should be in the form of milk and farinaceous diet, or light soups, and all indigestible articles must be carefully avoided.

In the treatment of this disease as it affects young children (Cholera Infantum), most reliance is to be placed on the administration of chalk and the use of starch enemata. In their case opium in any form cannot be safely employed.

Malignant Cholera(synonyms,Asiatic Cholera, Indian Cholera, Epidemic Cholera, Algide Cholera) is one of the most severe and fatal diseases. In describing the symptoms it is customary to divide them into three stages, but it must be noted that these do not always present themselves in so distinct a form as to be capable of separate recognition. The first or premonitory stage consists in the occurrence of diarrhoea. Frequently of mild and painless character, and coming on after some error in diet, this symptom is apt to be disregarded. The discharges from the bowels are similar to those of ordinary summer cholera, which the attack closely resembles. There is, however, at first the absence of vomiting. This diarrhoea generally lasts for two or three days, and then if it does not gradually subside either may pass into the more severe phenomena characteristic of the second stage of cholera, or on the other hand may itself prove fatal.

The second stage is termed the stage of collapse or the algide or asphyxial stage. As above mentioned, this is often preceded by the premonitory diarrhoea, but not infrequently the phenomena attendant upon this stage are the first to manifest themselves. They come on often suddenly in the night with diarrhoea of the most violent character, the matters discharged being of whey-like appearance, and commonly termed the “rice-water” evacuations. They contain large quantities of disintegrated epithelium from the mucous membrane of the intestines. The discharge, which is at first unattended with pain, is soon succeeded by copious vomiting of matters similar to those passed from the bowels, accompanied with severe pain at the pit of the stomach, and with intense thirst. The symptoms now advance with rapidity. Cramps of the legs, feet, and muscles of the abdomen come on and occasion great agony, while the signs of collapse make their appearance. The surface of the body becomes cold and assumes a blue or purple hue, the skin is dry, sodden and wrinkled, indicating the intense draining away of the fluids of the body, the features are pinched and the eyes deeply sunken, the pulse at the wrist is imperceptible, and the voice is reduced to a hoarse whisper (thevox cholerica). There is complete suppression of the urine.

In this condition death often takes place in less than one day, but in epidemics cases are frequently observed where the collapse is so sudden and complete as to prove fatal in one or two hours even without any great amount of previous purging or vomiting. In most instances the mental faculties are comparatively unaffected, although in the later stages there is in general more or less apathy.

Reaction, however, may take place, and this constitutes the third stage. It consists in the arrest of the alarming symptoms characterizing the second stage, and the gradual but evident improvement in the patient’s condition. The pulse returns, the surface assumes a natural hue, and the bodily heat is restored. Before long the vomiting ceases, and although diarrhoea may continue for a time, it is not of a very severe character and soon subsides, as do also the cramps. The urine may remain suppressed for some time, and on returning is often found to be albuminous. Even in this stage, however, the danger is not past, for relapses sometimes occur which speedily prove fatal, while again the reaction may be of imperfect character, and there may succeed an exhausting fever (the so-called typhoid stage of cholera) which may greatly retard recovery, and under which the patient may sink at a period even as late as two or three weeks from the commencement of the illness.

Many other complications are apt to arise during the progress of convalescence from cholera, such as diphtheritic and local inflammatory affections, all of which are attended with grave danger.

When the attack of cholera is of milder character in all its stages than that above described, it has been namedCholerine, but the term is an arbitrary one and the disease is essentially cholera.

The bodies of persons dying of cholera are found to remain long warm, and the temperature may even rise after death. Peculiar muscular contractions have been observed to take place after death, so that the position of the limbs may become altered. The soft textures of the body are found to be dry and hard, and the muscles of a dark brown appearance. The blood is of dark colour and tarry consistence. The upper portion of the small intestines is generally found distended with the rice-water discharges, the mucous membrane is swollen, and there is a remarkable loss of its natural epithelium. The kidneys are usually in a state of acute congestion. This form of cholera belongs originally to Asia, more particularly to India, where, as well as in the Indian archipelago, epidemics are known to have occurred at various times for several centuries.

Much light has been thrown upon Asiatic cholera by Western experience; and the study of the disease by modern methods has resulted in important additions to our previous knowledge of its nature, causation, mode of dissemination and prevention.

The cause is a micro-organism identified by Koch in 1883 (seeParasitic Diseases). For some years it was called the “comma bacillus,” from its supposed resemblance in shape to a comma, but it was subsequently foundCausation.to be a vibrio or spirillum, not a bacillus. The discovery was received with much scepticism in some quarters, and the claim of Koch’s vibrio to be the true cause of cholera was long disputed, but is now universally acknowledged. Few micro-organisms have been more elaborately investigated, but very little is known of its natural history, and its epidemiological behaviour is still surrounded by obscurity. At an important discussion on the subject, held at the International Hygienic Congress in 1894, Professor Gruber of Vienna declared that the deeper investigators went the more difficult the problem became, while M. Elie Metschnikoff of the Pasteur Institute made a similar admission. The difficulty lies chiefly in the variable characters assumed by the organism and the variable effects produced by it. The type reached by cultivation through a few generations may differ so widely from the original in appearance and behaviour as to be hardly recognizable, while, on the other hand, of two organisms apparently indistinguishable one may be innocuous and the other give rise to the most violent cholera. This variability offers a possible explanation of the frequent failure to trace the origin of epidemic outbreaks in isolated places. It is commonly assumed that the micro-organism is of a specific character, and always introduced from without, when cholera appears in countries or places where it is not endemic. In some cases such introduction can be proved, and in others it can be inferred with a high degree of probability, but sometimes it is impossible to trace the origin to any possible channel of communication. A remarkable case of this kind occurred at the Nietleben lunatic asylum near Halle, in 1893, in the shape of a sudden, explosive and isolated outbreak of true Asiatic cholera. It was entirely confined to the institution, and the peculiar circumstances enabled a very exact investigation to be made. The facts led Professor Arndt, of Greifswald, to propound a novel and interesting theory. No cholera existed in the surrounding district and no introduction could be traced, but for several months in the previous autumn diarrhoea had prevailed in the asylum. The sewage from the establishment was disposed of on a farm, and the effluent passed into the river Saale above the intake of the water-supply for the asylum. Thus a circulation of morbid material through the persons of the inmates was established. Dr Arndt’s theory was that by virtue of this circulation cholera wasgradually developed from previously existing intestinal disease of an allied but milder type. The outbreak occurred in winter, and coincided with the freezing of the filter-beds at the waterworks. The theory is worth notice, because a similar relation between the drainage and the water-supply frequently exists in places severely attacked by cholera, and it has repeatedly been observed that the latter is preceded by the prevalence of a milder form of intestinal disease. The inference is not that cholera can be developedde novo, but that the type is unstable, and that a virulent form may be evolved under favourable conditions from another so mild as to be unrecognized, and consequently undetected in its origin or introduction. This is quite in keeping with the observed variability of the micro-organism, and with the trend of modern research with regard to the relations between other pathogenic germs and the multifarious gradations of type assumed by other zymotic diseases. The same thing has been suggested of diphtheria.

Cholera is endemic in the East over a wide area, ranging from Bombay to southern China, but its chief home is British India. It principally affects the alluvial soil near the mouths of the great rivers, and more particularly the deltaEpidemicity.of the Ganges. Lower Bengal is pre-eminently the standing focus and centre of diffusion. In some years it is quiescent, though never absent; in others it becomes diffused, for reasons of which nothing is known, and its diffusive activity varies greatly from equally inscrutable causes. At irregular intervals this property becomes so heightened that the disease passes its natural boundaries and is carried east, north and west, it may be to Europe or beyond to the American continent. We must assume that the micro-organism, like those of other epidemic diseases, acquires greater vitality and toxic energy, or greater power of reproduction at some times than at others, but the conditions that govern this behaviour are quite unknown, though no problem has a more important bearing on public health. Bacteriology, as already intimated, has thrown no light upon it, nor has meteorology. Some results of modern research, indeed, tend to assign increasing importance to the relations between surface soil and certain micro-organisms, and suggest that changes in the level of the subsoil water, to which Professor Max von Pettenkoffer long ago drew attention, may be a dominant factor in determining the latency or activity of pathogenic germs. But this is largely a matter of conjecture, and, so far as cholera is concerned, the conditions which turn an endemic into an epidemic disease must be admitted to be still unknown.

On the other hand, the mode of dissemination is now well understood. Diffusion takes place along the lines of human intercourse. The poison is carried chiefly by infected persons moving from place to place; but soiled clothes, rags and other articles that have come into contact with persons suffering from the disease may be the means of conveyance to a distance. There is no reason to suppose that it is air-borne, or that atmospheric influences have anything to do with its spread, except in so far as meteorological conditions may be favourable to the growth and activity of the micro-organisms. Beyond all doubt, the great manufactory of the poison is the human body, and the discharges from it are the great source of contagion. They may infect the ground, the water, or the immediate surroundings of the patient, and so pass from hand to hand, the poison finding entrance into the bodies of the healthy by means of food and drink which have become contaminated in various ways. Flies which feed upon excreta and other foul matters may be carriers of contagion. Of all the means of local dissemination, contaminated water is by far the most important, because it affects the greatest number of people, and this is particularly the case in places which have a public water-supply. A single contaminated source may expose the entire population to danger. All severe outbreaks of an explosive character are due to this cause. It is also possible that the cholera poison multiplies rapidly in water under favourable conditions, and that a reservoir, for instance, may form a sort of forcing-bed. But it would be a mistake to regard cholera as purely a water-borne disease, even locally. It may infect the soil in localities which have a perfectly pure water-supply, but have defective drainage or no drainage at all, and then it will be found more difficult to get rid of, though less formidable in its effects, than when the water alone is the source of mischief. In all these respects it has a great affinity to enteric fever. With regard to locality, no situation can be said to be free from attack if the disease is introduced and the sanitary conditions are bad; but, speaking generally, low-lying places on alluvial soil near rivers are more liable than those standing high or on a rocky foundation. Of meteorological conditions it can only be said with certainty that a high temperature favours the development of cholera, though a low one does not prevent it. In temperate climates the summer months, and particularly August and September, are the season of its greatest activity.

Cholera spreads westwards from India by two routes—(1) by sea to the shores of the Red Sea, Egypt and the Mediterranean; and (2) by land to northern India and Afghanistan, thence to Persia and central Asia, and so to Russia. InWestern diffusion.the great invasions of Europe during the 19th century it sometimes followed one route and sometimes the other. It was not till 1817 that the attention of European physicians was specially directed to the disease by the outbreak of a violent epidemic of cholera at Jessore in Bengal. This was followed by its rapid spread over a large portion of British India, where it caused immense destruction of life both among natives and Europeans. During the next three years cholera continued to rage all over India, as well as in Ceylon and others of the Indian islands. The disease now began to spread over a wider extent than hitherto, invading China on the east and Persia on the west. In 1823 it had extended into Asia Minor and Russia in Asia, and it continued to advance steadily though slowly westwards, while at the same time fresh epidemics were appearing at intervals in India. From this period up till 1830 no great extension of cholera took place, but in the latter year it reappeared in Persia and along the shores of the Caspian Sea, and thence entered Russia in Europe. Despite the strictest sanitary precautions, the disease spread rapidly through that whole empire, causing great mortality and exciting consternation everywhere. It ravaged the northern and central parts of Europe, and spread onwards to England, appearing in Sunderland in October 1831, and in London in January 1832, during which year it continued to prevail in most cf the cities and large towns of Great Britain and Ireland. The disease subsequently extended into France, Spain and Italy, and crossing the Atlantic spread through North and Central America. It had previously prevailed in Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and the Nile district, and in 1835 it was general throughout North Africa. Up till 1837 cholera continued to break out in various parts of the continent of Europe, after which this epidemic disappeared, having thus within twenty years visited a large portion of the world.

About the year 1841 another great epidemic of cholera appeared in India and China, and soon began to extend in the direction traversed by the former, but involving a still wider area. It entered Europe again in 1847, and spread through Russia and Germany on to England, and thence to France, whence it passed to America, and subsequently appeared in the West Indies. This epidemic appears to have been even more deadly than the former, especially as regards Great Britain and France. A third great outbreak of cholera took place in the East in 1850, entering Europe in 1853. During the two succeeding years it prevailed extensively throughout the continent, and fell with severity on the armies engaged in the Crimean War. Although widely prevalent in Great Britain and Ireland it was less destructive than former epidemics. It was specially severe throughout both North and South America. A fourth epidemic visited Europe again in 1865-1866, but was on the whole less extensive and destructive than its predecessors.

By some writers the epidemic of 1853 is regarded as a recrudescence of that of 1847. The earlier ones followed the land route by way of Afghanistan and Persia, and took several years to reach Europe. That of 1865 travelled more rapidly, being carried from Bombay by sea to Mecca, from there to Suez and Alexandria, and then on to various Mediterranean ports. Withinthe year it had not only spread extensively in Europe, but had reached the West Indies. In 1866 it invaded England and the United States, but during the following year it died down in the West. The subsequent history of cholera in Europe may be stated chronologically.

1860-1874.—This invasion was traced to the great gathering of pilgrims at Hardwar on the Upper Ganges in the month of April 1867. From there the returning pilgrims carried it to the Punjab, Kashmir and Afghanistan, whence it spread to Persia and the Caspian, but it did not reach Russia until 1869. During the next four years a number of outbreaks occurred in central Europe, and notably one at Munich in the winter of 1873. The irregular character of these epidemics suggests that they were rather survivals from the pandemic wave of 1867 than fresh importations, but there is no doubt that cholera was carried overland into Russia in the manner described.

1883-1887.—This visitation, again, came by the Mediterranean. In 1883 a severe outbreak occurred in Egypt, causing a mortality of above 25,000. Its origin remained unknown. During this epidemic Koch discovered the comma bacillus. The following year cholera appeared at Toulon. It was said to have been brought in a troopship from Saigon in Cochin-China, but it may have been connected with the Egyptian epidemic. A severe outbreak followed and reached Italy, nearly 8000 persons dying in Naples alone. In 1885 the south of France, Italy, Sicily and Spain all suffered, especially the last, where nearly 120,000 deaths occurred. Portugal escaped, and the authorities there attributed their good fortune to the institution of a military cordon, in which they have had implicit confidence ever since. In 1886 the same countries suffered again, and also Austria-Hungary. From Italy the disease was carried to South America, and even travelled as far as Chile, where it had previously been unknown. In 1887 it still lingered in the Mediterranean, causing great mortality in Messina especially. According to Dr A.J. Wall, this epidemic cost 250,000 lives in Europe and at least 50,000 in America. A particular interest attaches to it in the fact that a localized revival of the disease was caused in Spain in 1890 by the disturbance of the graves of some of the victims who had died of cholera four years previously.

1892-1895.—This great invasion reverted again to the old overland route, but the march of the disease was of unprecedented rapidity. Within less than five months it travelled from the North-West Provinces of India to St Petersburg, and probably to Hamburg, and thence in a few days to England and the United States. This speed, in such striking contrast to the slow advance of former occasions, was attributed, and no doubt rightly, to improved steam transit, and particularly the Transcaspian railway. The progress of the disease was traced from place to place, and almost from day to day, with great precision, showing how it moves along the chief highways and is obviously carried by man. The main facts are as follows:—Cholera was extensively and severely prevalent in India in 1891, causing 601,603 deaths, the highest mortality since 1877. In March 1892 it broke out at the Hardwar fair, a day or two before the pilgrims dispersed; on the 19th of April it was at Kabul, on the 1st of May at Herat, and on the 26th of May at Meshed. From Meshed it moved in three directions—due west to Teheran in Persia, north-east by the Transcaspian railway to Samarkand in Central Asia, and north-west by the same line in the opposite direction to Uzun-ada on the Caspian Sea. It reached Uzun-ada on the 6th of June; crossed to Baku, June 18th; Astrakhan, June 24th; then up the Volga to Nizhniy-Novgorod, arriving at Moscow and St Petersburg early in August. The part played by steam transit is clear from the fact that the disease took no longer to travel all the way from Meshed to St Petersburg by rail and steamboat than to traverse the short distance from Meshed to Teheran by road. On the 16th of August cases began to occur in Hamburg; on the 19th of August a fireman was taken ill at Grangemouth in Scotland, where he had arrived the day before from Hamburg; and on the 31st of August a vessel reached New York from the same port with cholera on board. On the 8th of September the disease appeared in Galicia, having moved somewhat slowly westwards across Russia into Poland, and on the 26th of September it was in Budapest. Holland and Servia were also attacked, while isolated cases were carried to Norway, Denmark and Italy. Meanwhile two entirely separate epidemics were in progress elsewhere. The first was confined to Arabia and the Somali coast of Africa, and was connected with the remains of an outbreak in Syria and Arabia in 1890-1891. The second arose mysteriously in France about the time when the overland invasion started from India. The first known case occurred in the prison at Nanterre, near Paris, on the 31st of March. Paris was affected in April, and Havre in July. The origin of this outbreak, which was of a much less violent character than that which came simultaneously by way of Russia, was never ascertained. Its activity was confined to France, particularly in the neighbourhood of Paris, together with Belgium and Holland, which was placed between two fires, but escaped with but little mortality. The number of persons killed by cholera in 1892, outside of India, was reckoned at 378,449, and the vast majority of those died within six months. The countries which suffered most severely were as follows:—European Russia, 151,626; Caucasus, 69,423; Central Asian Russia, 31,804; Siberia, 15,037—total for Russian empire, 267,890; Persia, 63,982; Somaliland, 10,000; Afghanistan, 7,000; Germany, 9563; France, 4550; Hungary, 1255; Belgium, 961. Curiously enough, the south of Europe, which had been the scene of the previous epidemic visitation, escaped. The disease was of the most virulent character. In European Russia the mortality was 45.8% of the cases, the highest rate ever known in that country; in Germany it was 51.3%; and in Austria-Hungary, 57.5%. Of all the localities attacked, the case of Hamburg was the most remarkable. The presence of cholera was first suspected on the 16th of August, when two cases occurred, but it was not officially declared until the 23rd of August. By that time the daily number of victims had already risen to some hundreds, while the experts and authorities were making up their minds whether they had cholera to deal with or not. Their decision eventually came too late and was superfluous, for by the 27th of August the people were being stricken down at the rate of 1000 a day. This rate was maintained for four days, after which the vehemence of the pestilence began to abate. It gradually declined, and ceased on the 14th of November. During those three months 16,956 persons were attacked and 8605 died, the majority within the space of a few weeks. The town, ordinarily one of the gayest places of business and pleasure on the continent, became a city of the dead. Thousands of persons fled, carrying the disease into all parts of Germany; the rest shut themselves indoors; the shops were closed, the trams ceased to run, the hotels and restaurants were deserted, and few vehicles or pedestrians were seen in the streets. At the cemetery, which lies about 10 m. from the town, some hundreds of men were engaged day and night digging long trenches to hold double rows of coffins, while the funerals formed an almost continuous procession along the roads; even so the victims could not be buried fast enough, and their bodies lay for days in sheds hastily run up as mortuaries. Hamburg had been attacked by cholera on fourteen previous occasions, beginning with 1831, but the mortality had never approached that of 1892; in the worst year, which was 1832, there were only 3687 cases and 1765 deaths. The disease was believed to have been introduced by Jewish emigrants passing through on their way from Russia, but the importation could not be traced. The Jews were segregated and kept under careful supervision from the middle of July onwards, and no recognized case occurred among them. The total number of places in Germany in which cholera appeared in 1892 was 269, but it took no serious hold anywhere save in Hamburg. The distribution was chiefly by the waterways, which seem to affect a larger number of places than the railways as carriers of cholera. In Paris 907 persons died, and in Havre 498. Between the 18th of August and the 21st of October 38 cases were imported into England and Scotland through eleven different ports, but the disease nowhere obtained a footing. Seven vessels brought 72 cases to the United States,and 16 others occurred on shore, but there was no further dissemination.

During the winter of 1892-1893 cholera died down, but never wholly ceased in Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and France. With the return of warm weather it showed renewed activity, and prevailed extensively throughout Europe. The recorded mortality for the principal countries was as follows:—Russia (chiefly western provinces), 41,047; Austria-Hungary, 4669; France, 4000; Italy, 3036; Turkey, 1500; Germany, 298; Holland, 376; Belgium, 372; England, 139. Hardly any country escaped altogether; but Europe suffered less than Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia. Cholera broke out at Mecca in June, and owing to the presence of an exceptionally large number of pilgrims caused an appalling mortality. The chief shereef estimated the mortality at 50,000. The pilgrims carried the disease to Asia Minor and Constantinople. In Persia also a recrudescence took place and proved enormously destructive. Dr. Barry estimated the mortality at 70,000. At Hamburg, where new waterworks had been installed with sand filtration, only a few sporadic cases occurred until the autumn, when a sudden but limited rush took place, which was traced to a defect in the masonry permitting unfiltered Elbe water to pass into the mains. In England cholera obtained a footing on the Humber at Grimsby, and to a lesser extent at Hull, and isolated attacks occurred in some 50 different localities. Excluding a few ship-borne cases the registered number of attacks was 287, with 135 deaths, of which 9 took place in London. It is interesting to compare the mortality from cholera in England and Wales, and in London, for each year in which it has prevailed since registration began:—

In 1894 no deaths from cholera were recorded in England, but on the continent it still prevailed over a wide area. In Russia over 30,000 persons died of it, in Germany about 500, but the most violent outbreak was in Galicia, where upwards of 8000 deaths were registered. In 1895 it still lingered, chiefly in Russia and Galicia, but with greatly diminished activity. In that year Egypt, Morocco and Japan were attacked, the last severely. The disease then remained in abeyance until the severe epidemic in India in 1900.

The great invasion just described was fruitful in lessons for the prevention of cholera. It proved that the one real and sufficient protection lies in a standing condition of good sanitation backed by an efficient and vigilantPreventionsanitary administration. The experience of Great Britain was a remarkable piece of evidence, but that of Berlin was perhaps even more striking, for Berlin lay in the centre of four fires, in direct and frequent communication with Hamburg, Russia, France and Austria, and without the advantage of a sea frontier. Cholera was repeatedly brought into Berlin, but never obtained a footing, and its successful repression was accomplished without any irksome interference with traffic or the ordinary business of life. The general success of Great Britain and Germany in keeping cholera in check by ordinary sanitary means completed the conversion of all enlightened nations to the policy laid down so far back as 1865 by Sir John Simon, and advocated by Great Britain at a series of international congresses—the policy of abandoning quarantine, which Great Britain did in 1873, and trusting to sanitary measures with medical inspection of persons arriving from infected places. This principle was formally adopted at the international conference ference held at Dresden in 1893, at which a convention was signed by the delegates of Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Montenegro and the Netherlands. Under this instrument the practice is broadly as follows, though the procedure varies a good deal in different countries:—Ships arriving from infected ports are inspected, and if healthy are not detained, but bilge-water and drinking-water are evacuated, and persons landing may be placed under medical supervision without detention; infected ships are detained only for purposes of disinfection; persons suffering from cholera are removed to hospital; other persons landing from an infected ship are placed under medical observation, which may mean detention for five days from the last case, or, as in Great Britain, supervision in their own homes, for which purpose they give their names and places of destination before landing. All goods are freed from restrictions, except rags and articles believed to be contaminated by cholera matters. By land, passengers from infected places are similarly inspected at the frontiers and their luggage “disinfected”—in all cases a pious ceremony of no practical value, involving a short but often a vexatious delay; only those found suffering from cholera can be detained. Each nation is pledged to notify the others of the existence within its own borders of a “foyer” of cholera, by which is meant a focus or centre of infection. The precise interpretation of the term is left to each government, and is treated in a rather elastic fashion by some, but it is generally understood to imply the occurrence of non-imported cases in such a manner as to point to the local presence of infection. The question of guarding Europe generally from the danger of diffusion by pilgrims through the Red Sea was settled at another conference held in Paris in 1894. The provisions agreed on included the inspection of pilgrims at ports of departure, detention of infected or suspected persons, and supervision of pilgrim ships and of pilgrims proceeding overland to Mecca.

The substitution of the procedure above described for the old measures of quarantine and other still more drastic interferences with traffic presupposes the existence of a sanitary service and fairly good sanitary conditions if cholera is to be effectually prevented. No doubt if sanitation were perfect in any place or country, cholera, along with many other diseases, might there be ignored, but sanitation is not perfect anywhere, and therefore it requires to be supplemented by a system of notification with prompt segregation of the sick and destruction of infective material. These things imply a regular organization, and it is to the public health service of Great Britain that the complete mastery of cholera has mainly been due in recent years, and particularly in 1893. Of sanitary conditions the most important is unquestionably the water-supply. So many irrefragable proofs of this fact were given during 1892-1893 that it is no longer necessary to refer to the time-honoured case of the Broad Street pump. At Samarkand three regiments were encamped side by side on a level plain close to a stream of water. The colonel of one regiment took extraordinary precautions, placing a guard over the river, and compelling his men to use boiled water even for washing. Not a single case of cholera occurred in that regiment, while the others, in which only ordinary precautions were taken, lost over 100 men. At Askabad the cholera had almost disappeared, when a banquet was given by the governor in honour of the tsar’s name-day. Of the guests one-half died within twenty-four hours; a military band, which was present, lost 40 men out of 50; and one regiment lost half its men and 9 officers. Within forty-eight hours 1300 persons died out of a total population of about 13,000. The water supply came from a small stream, and just before the banquet a heavy rain-storm had occurred, which swept into the stream all surface refuse from an infected village higher up and some distance from the banks. But the classical example was Hamburg. The water-supply is obtained from the Elbe, which became infected by some means not ascertained. The drainage from the town also runs into the river, and the movement of the tide was sufficient to carry the sewage matter up above the water-intake. The water itself, which is no cleaner than that of the Thamesat London Bridge, underwent no purification whatever before distribution. It passed through a couple of ponds, supposed to act as settling tanks, but owing to the growth of the town and increased demand for water it was pumped through too rapidly to permit of any subsidence. Eels and other fish constantly found their way into the houses, while the mains were lined with vegetation and crustacea. The water-pipes of Hamburg had a peculiar and abundant fauna and flora of their own, and the water they delivered was commonly calledFleischbrühe, from its resemblance to thick soup. On the other hand, at Altona, which is continuous with Hamburg, the water was filtered through sand. In all other respects the conditions were identical, yet in Altona only 328 persons died, against 8605 in Hamburg. In some streets one side lies in Hamburg, the other in Altona, and cholera stopped at the dividing line, the Hamburg side being full of cases and the Altona side untouched. In the following year, when Hamburg had the new filtered supply, it enjoyed equal immunity, save for a short period when, as we have said, raw Elbe water accidentally entered the mains.

Back to Index Next