Part 138

"China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view. On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia. Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah, and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of office. … 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to governments and employers by their power of steady industry; and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration; English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre; and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing. … Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000. … In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who organise where they can in a way that precludes competition, are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world, and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands? or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or diplomacy, into the possession of China? … There are those who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."

_C. H. Pearson, National Life and Character, pages 45-51._

CHINA: End----------

CHINANTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

CH'ING OR TSING DYNASTY, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

CHINGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227; and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

CHINOOK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY.

CHIOGGIA, The War of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

CHIOS.

The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at the present day. The island was an important member of the Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in consequence.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CHIOS: B. C. 413. Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

CHIOS: A. D. 1346. Taken by the Genoese.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

CHIOS: A. D. 1681. Blockade and attack by the French.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

CHIOS: A. D. 1770. Temporary possession by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

CHIOS: A. D. 1822. Turkish massacre of Christians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

CHIOS: End----------

CHIPPEWA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{430}

CHIPPEWAS, OR OJIBWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, AND OJIBWAS.

CHIPPEWYANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

CHITON, The.

"The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as required by pulling it through this girdle. … Frequently sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. … The short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the chest remaining quite uncovered. … It appears clearly that the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as in a cylinder."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, part 1, section 41._

"The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they walked, entirely exposed their limbs. … The married women, however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,' but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."

_J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 3, chapter 6._

CHITTIM.

See KITTIM.

CHIVALRY.

"The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood, established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages, and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed. Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their effects may still be traced in European manners; and, excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of chivalry. … From the time that cavalry becomes used in war, the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in all countries, into a person of superior importance to the mere foot-soldier. … In various military nations, therefore, we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the state. … But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and imposing character. They were not merely respected on account of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long and severe probation, during which they practised, as acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry. Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to display those of a higher order. … In the general and abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was in the singular tenets of Chivalry,—in the exalted, enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with its duties,—in the singular balance which its institutions offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose, that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so worthy of our attention. … The education of the future knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of chivalry. … To counteract these habits of indulgence, the first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page. The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious parent as that which had the best reputation for good order and discipline. … When advancing age and experience in the use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire, or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the knight being under the especial care of the squire. {431} Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times, became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms. There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in 1579. … In actual war the page was not expected to render much service, but that of the squire was important and indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney. The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which the various pieces were united to each other. … In the actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. … A youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier, and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until he was one-and-twenty. … Knighthood was, in its origin, an order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature; arising … from the customs of the free tribes of Germany [see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose achievements had dignified the period. … Though no positive regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the latter the power of conferring knighthood. … Knights were usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of some solemn warning or grand festival. … The spirit of chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But its most brilliant period was during the wars between France and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the Christians. But even during this splendid period, various causes were silently operating the future extinction of the flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its highest glory. … Another change, of vital importance, arose from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at arms in France, constituted … expressly as a sort of standing army. … A more fatal cause had, however, been for some time operating in England, as well as France, for the destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and gentleness, proper to chivalry. … The civil wars not only operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting and destroying the particular class of society from which its votaries were drawn."

_Sir W. Scott, Essay on Chivalry._

ALSO IN: G _P. R. James, History of Chivalry._

_H. Hallam, State of Europe during the Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3)._

_F. P. Guizot, History of Civilization in France, 6th lecture, 2d course (volume 4)._

_C. Mills, History of Chivalry._

_H. Stebbing, History of Chivalry and the Crusades._

_L. Gautier, Chivalry._

_K. H. Digby, The Broadstone of Honour._

_Dr. Doran, Knights and their Days._

See, also, KNIGHTHOOD, ORDERS OF.

CHLAMYS, The.

"The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] … was an oblong piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp; the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was principally used by travellers and soldiers."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, part 1, section 42._

CHOCIM.

See CHOCZIM.

CHOCTAWS, OR CHA'HTAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622. Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.

See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672. Taken by Sobieska and the Poles. Great defeat of the Turks.

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1739. Captured by the Russians and restored to the Turks.

See Russia: A. D.1725-1739.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1769. Taken by the Russians. Defeat of the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

{432}

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1790. Defeat of the Turks by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

CHOCZIM: End----------

CHOLET, Battles of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CHOLULA: Pyramids at.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

CHOLULA: A. D. 1519. The Massacre at.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (OCTOBER).

CHOLULA: End----------

CHONTALS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

CHONTAQUIROS, OR PIRU, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CHORASMIA.

See KHUAREZM.

CHOREGIA.

See LITURGIES.

CHOTUSITZ, OR CZASLAU, Battle of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

CHOTYN.

See CHOCZIM.

CHOUANS. CHOUANNERIE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

CHOUT. The blackmail levied by the Mahrattas.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

CHOWANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

CHREMONIDEAN WAR, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.

CHRIST, Knights of the Order of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

CHRISTIAN I., King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, A. D. 1448-1481.

Christian II., A. D. 1513-1523.

Christian III., King of Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1534-1558.

Christian IV., A. D. 1588-1648.

Christian V., A. D. 1670-1699.

Christian VI., A. D. 1730-1746.

Christian VII., A. D. 1766-1808.

Christian VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1839-1848.

Christian IX., A. D. 1863-.

CHRISTIAN COMMISSION, The United States.

See SANITARY COMMISSION.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

[image: DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.]

[image: DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.]

CHRISTIANITY:

"Historical geography has of late years become an integral part of the historical science. Recent investigations have opened up the subject and a solid beginning has been made—but it is only a beginning. It is clearly recognized that the land itself as it appears at different periods is one of those invaluable original documents upon which history is built, and no stone is being left unturned to clear away mysteries and to bring to our aid a realism hitherto unknown to the science. … But the special branch of this vast and complicated theme of historical geography which interests us most and which I desire briefly to bring to your attention is that which deals with the Christian Church. … Our eyes first rest upon that little group at Jerusalem that made up the Pentecostal Church. Its spread was conditioned by the extent and character of the Roman Empire, by the municipal genius of that empire, its great highways by land and sea; conditioned by the commercial routes and the track of armies outside the bounds of civilization; conditioned by the spread of languages— Aramaic, Greek, and Latin,—and, most important of all, conditioned by the whereabouts of the seven million Jews massed in Syria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and scattered everywhere throughout the Empire and far beyond its boundaries."

_H. W. Hulbert, The Historical Geography of the Christian Church (American Society of Church History, volume 3)._