Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Map" to "Mars" (part 3)

In the summer of 1516 Margaret went to her brother’s court in London, while Angus, much to his wife’s displeasure, returned to Scotland, where he made his peace with Albany and was restored to his estates. The rivalry between the French and English factions in Scotland was complicated by private feuds of the Hamiltons and Douglases, the respective heads of which houses, Arran and Angus, were contending for the supreme power in the absence of Albany in France, where at the instance of Henry VIII. he was detained by Francis I. Margaret, quarrelling with her husband over money matters, sided at first with Arran and began to agitate for a divorce from Angus. In this she was probably aided by Albany, who had been in Rome, and who found an unexpected ally in the queen-mother, Margaret being temporarily alienated from the English party by her brother Henry’s opposition to her divorce. When Albany returned to Scotland in 1521 his association with Margaret gave rise to the accusation that it was with the intention of marrying her himself that he favoured her divorce from Angus, and it was even suggested that she was Albany’s mistress. As Albany was strongly supported by the Scottish parliament, Angus found it necessary to withdraw to France till 1524. During these years there was constant warfare between the English and the Scots on the border, but in May 1524 Albany was obliged to retire to France. Henry VIII. continually aimed at securing the person of his nephew, the king of Scots; while Margaret veered from faction to faction without any settled policy, unless it were the “erection” of her son, i.e. his proclamation as a reigning sovereign, which she successfully brought about in July 1524. The queen-mother had at this time fallen in love with Henry Stewart, second son of Lord Avondale, whom she married immediately after obtaining her divorce from Angus in 1527. Margaret and her new husband, who was created Lord Methven, now became for a time the ruling influence in the counsels of James V. But when her desire to arrange a meeting between James and Henry VIII. in 1534 was frustrated by the opposition of the clergy and the council, Margaret in her disappointment revealed certain secrets to Henry which led to her being accused by her son of betraying him for money and of acting as an English spy. In 1537 she was anxious to obtain a divorce from Methven, and her desire was on the point of being realized when it was defeated by the intervention of James. Two years later she was reconciled to her husband, by whom she had no children; and, continuing to the end to intrigue both in Scotland and England, she died at Methven Castle on the 18th of October 1541.

See Andrew Lang, History of Scotland, vol. i. (London, 1900); Mary A. E. Green, Lives of the Princesses of England (6 vols., London, 1849-1855); The Hamilton Papers, ed. by J. Bain (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1890); John Leslie, History of Scotland, ed. by T. Thompson (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1830); Sir H. Ellis, Original Letters Illustrative of English History (London, 1825-1846).

(R. J. M.)

MARGARET (1283-1290), titular queen of Scotland, and generally known as the “maid of Norway,” was the daughter of Eric II. king of Norway, and Margaret, daughter of Alexander III. king of Scotland. Her mother died soon after Margaret’s birth, and in 1284 the estates of Scotland decided that if Alexander died childless the crown should pass to his granddaughter. In March 1286 Alexander was killed and Margaret became queen. The English king Edward I. was closely watching affairs in Scotland, and in 1289 a marriage was arranged between the infant queen and Edward’s son, afterwards Edward II. Margaret sailed from Norway and reached the Orkneys, where she died about the end of September 1290. The news of this occurrence was first made known in a letter dated the 7th of October 1290. Some mystery, however, surrounded her death, and about 1300 a woman from Leipzig declared she was Queen Margaret. The impostor, if she were such, was burned as a witch at Bergen.

See A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. i. (Edinburgh, 1904).

MARGARET (1353-1412), queen of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the daughter of Valdemar IV. of Denmark, was born in 1353 and married ten years later to King Haakon VI. of Norway. Her first act, after her father’s death (1375), was to procure the election of her infant son Olaf as king of Denmark. Olaf died in 1387, having in 1380 also succeeded his father; and in the following year Margaret, who had ruled both kingdoms in his name, was chosen regent of Norway and Denmark. She had already given proofs of her superior statesmanship by recovering possession of Schleswig from the Holstein counts, who had held it absolutely for a generation, and who now received it back indeed as a fief (by the compact of Nyborg 1386), but under such stringent conditions that the Danish crown got all the advantage of the arrangement. By this compact, moreover, the chronically rebellious Jutish nobility lost the support they had hitherto always found in Schleswig-Holstein, and Margaret, free from all fear of domestic sedition, could now give her undivided attention to Sweden, where the mutinous nobles were already in arms against their unpopular king, Albert of Mecklenburg. At a conference held at Dalaborg Castle, in March 1388, the Swedes were compelled to accept all Margaret’s conditions, elected her “Sovereign Lady and Ruler,” and engaged to accept from her any king she chose to appoint. On the 24th of February 1389, Albert, who had returned from Mecklenburg with an army of mercenaries, was routed and taken prisoner at Aasle near Falköping, and Margaret was now the omnipotent mistress of three kingdoms. Stockholm then almost entirely a German city, still held out; fear of Margaret induced both the Mecklenburg princes and the Wendish towns to hasten to its assistance; and the Baltic and the North Sea speedily swarmed with the privateers of the Viktualien brödre or Vitalianer, so called because their professed object was to revictual Stockholm. Finally the Hansa intervened, and by the compact of Lindholm (1395) Albert was released by Margaret on promising to pay 60,000 marks within three years, the Hansa in the meantime to hold Stockholm in pawn. Albert failing to pay his ransom within the stipulated time, the Hansa surrendered Stockholm to Margaret in September 1398, in exchange for very considerable commercial privileges.

It had been understood that Margaret should, at the first convenient opportunity, provide the three kingdoms with a king who was to be her nearest kinsman, and in 1389 she proclaimed her infant cousin, Eric of Pomerania, king of Norway. In 1396 homage was rendered to him in Denmark and Sweden likewise, Margaret reserving to herself the office of regent during his minority. To weld the united kingdoms still more closely together, Margaret summoned a congress of the three councils of state to Kalmar in June 1397; and on Trinity Sunday, the 17th of June, Eric was solemnly crowned king of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The proposed act of union divided the three Rigsraads, but the actual deed embodying the terms of the union never got beyond the stage of an unratified draft. Margaret revolted at the clauses which insisted that each country should retain exclusive possession of its own laws and customs, and be administered by its own dignitaries, as tending in her opinion to prevent the complete amalgamation of Scandinavia. But with her usual prudence she avoided every appearance of an open rupture.

A few years after the union of Kalmar, Eric, now in his eighteenth year, was declared of age and homage was rendered to him in all his three kingdoms, but during her lifetime Margaret was the real ruler of Scandinavia. So long as the union was insecure, Margaret had tolerated the presence near the throne of “good men” from all three realms (the Rigsraad, or council of state, as these councillors now began to be called); but their influence was always insignificant. In every direction the royal authority remained supreme. The offices of high constable and earl marshal were left vacant; the Danehoffer or national assemblies fell into desuetude, and the great queen, an ideal despot, ruled through her court officials acting as superior clerks. But law and order were well maintained; the licence of the nobility was sternly repressed; the kingdoms of Sweden and Norway were treated as integral parts of the Danish state, and national aspirations were frowned upon or checked, though Norway, as being more loyal, was treated more indulgently than Sweden. Margaret also recovered for the Crown all the landed property which had been alienated during the troublous days of Valdemar IV. This so-called “reduktion,” or land-recovery, was carried out with the utmost rigour, and hundreds of estates fell into the Crown. Margaret also reformed the Danish currency, substituting good silver coins for the old and worthless copper tokens, to the great advantage both of herself and the state. She had always large sums of money to dispose of, and a considerable proportion of this treasure was dispensed in works of charity. Margaret’s foreign policy was sagaciously circumspect, in sharp contrast with the venturesomeness of her father’s. The most tempting offer of alliance, the most favourable conjunctures, could never move her from her system of neutrality. On the other hand she spared no pains to recover lost Danish territory. Gotland she purchased from its actual possessors, Albert of Mecklenburg and the Livonian Order, and the greater part of Schleswig was regained in the same way.

Margaret died suddenly on board her ship in Flensborg harbour on the 28th of October 1412. We know very little of her private character. Contemporary records are both scanty and hostile to a sovereign who squeezed the utmost out of the people. Craft and wiliness are the qualities most generally attributed to her, coupled with the cynical praise that “in temporal matters she was very lucky.”

See Danmarks riges historie, den senere Middelalder, pp. 358-412 (Copenhagen, 1897-1905); Erslev, Danmarks historie under dronning Margrethe (Copenhagen, 1882-1901); Hill, Margaret of Denmark (London, 1898).

(R. N. B.)

MARGARET OF ANJOU (1430-1482), queen of England, daughter of René of Anjou, titular king of Naples and Jerusalem, was born on the 23rd of March 1430. When just fourteen she was betrothed to Henry VI. king of England, and in the following year was brought to England and married at Titchfield Abbey, near Southampton, on the 23rd of April 1445. On the 28th of May she was welcomed at London with a great pageant, and two days later crowned at Westminster. Margaret’s marriage had been negotiated by William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, and when she came to England, Suffolk and his wife were her only friends. Naturally she fell under Suffolk’s influence, and supported his policy. This, added to her French origin and sympathies, made her from the start unpopular. Though clever and good-looking, she was self-willed and imperious, and without the conciliatory manners which her difficult position required. In almost everything she was the opposite of her gentle husband, but entered into his educational schemes, and gave her patronage to the foundation of Queen’s College, Cambridge. Margaret’s really active share in politics began after Suffolk’s fall in 1450. She not only supported Edmond Beaufort, duke of Somerset, in his opposition to Richard of York, but concerned herself also in the details of government, seeking not over-wisely pecuniary benefits for herself and her friends. But as a childless queen her influence was limited; and when at last her only son, Edward, was born on the 13th of October 1453, her husband was stricken with insanity. From this time she was the ardent champion of her husband’s and son’s rights; to her energy the cause of Lancaster owed its endurance, but her implacable spirit contributed to its failure. When York’s protectorate was ended by Henry’s recovery in January 1455, Margaret, not content with the restoration of Somerset and her other friends to liberty and office, pushed her politics to extremes. The result was the defeat of the Lancastrians at St Albans, and for a year Margaret had to acquiesce in York’s power. Yet at this time one wrote of her: “The queen is a great and strong laboured woman, for she spareth no pain to sue her things to an intent and conclusion to her power” (Paston Letters, i. 378). All the while she was organizing her party; and ultimately, in October 1456 at Coventry, procured some change in the government. Though formally reconciled to York in March 1458, she continued to intrigue with her partisans in England, and even with friends in France, like Pierre de Brezé, the seneschal of Normandy. After the Yorkist failure at Ludlow in 1459, it was Margaret’s vindictiveness that embittered the struggle by a wholesale proscription of her opponents in the parliament at Coventry. She was not present with her husband at Northampton on the 10th of July 1460. After romantic adventures, in which she owed her safety to the loyalty of a boy of fourteen, her only companion, she escaped with her little son to Harlech. Thence after a while she made her way to Scotland. From Mary of Gelderland, the queen regent, she purchased the promise of help at the price of surrendering Berwick. Margaret was still in Scotland at the date of Wakefield, so was not, as alleged by hostile writers, responsible for the barbarous treatment of York’s body. But she at once joined her friends, and was with the northern army which defeated Warwick at St Albans on the 17th of February 1461; for the executions which followed she must bear the blame. After Towton Margaret with her husband and son once more took refuge in Scotland.

A year later she went to France, and with help from her father and Louis XI. equipped an expedition under Pierre de Brezé. She landed in Northumberland in October, and achieved some slight success; but when on the way to seek further help from Scotland the fleet was overwhelmed in a storm, and Margaret herself barely escaped in an open boat to Berwick. In the spring she was again trying to raid Northumberland, meeting with many hardships and adventures. Once she owed her escape from capture to the generosity of a Yorkist squire, who carried her off on his own horse; finally she and her son were brought to Bamburgh through the compassionate help of a robber, whom they had encountered in the forest. Thence in August 1463 she crossed to Sluys in Flanders. She was almost destitute, but was courteously treated by Charles the Bold, then count of Charolais, and so made her way to her father in France. For seven years she lived at Saint-Michel-en-Barrois, educating her son with the help of Sir John Fortescue, who wrote at this time: “We be all in great poverty, but yet the queen sustaineth us in meat and drink. Her highness may do no more than she doth” (Works, ii. 72, ed. Clermont). Margaret never lost her hopes of her son’s restoration. But when at last the quarrel between Warwick and Edward IV. brought her the opportunity, it was with difficulty that she could consent to be reconciled to so old and bitter an enemy. After Warwick’s success and Henry’s restoration Margaret still remained in France. When at last she was ready to sail she was delayed by contrary winds. So it was only on the very day of Warwick’s defeat at Barnet (14th of April) that Margaret and Edward landed at Weymouth. Three weeks later the Lancastrians were defeated at Tewkesbury, and Edward was killed. Margaret was not at the battle; she was captured a few days after, and brought to London on the 21st of May. For five years she remained a prisoner, but was treated honourably and for part at least of the time was in charge of her old friend the duchess of Suffolk. Finally Louis XI. ransomed her under the Treaty of Pecquigny, and she returned to France on the 29th of January 1476. Margaret lived for six years at different places in Bar and Anjou, in poverty and dependent for a pension on Louis, who made her surrender in return her claims to her father’s inheritance. She died on the 25th of April 1482 and was buried at Angers Cathedral. René, whom she probably never saw after 1470, had died in the previous year. During her last years Chastellain wrote for her consolation his Temple de Bocace dealing with the misfortunes of contemporary princes.

As the courageous champion of the rights of her son and her husband, Margaret must command a certain sympathy. But she was politically unwise, and injured their cause by her readiness to purchase foreign help at the price of English interests. Comines wrote well of her that she would have done more prudently if she had endeavoured to adjust the disputes of the rival factions instead of saying “I am of this party, and will maintain it” (Mémoires vi. ch. 13). Her fierce partisanship embittered her enemies, and the Yorkists did not hesitate to allege that her son was a bastard. This, like the scandal concerning Margaret and Suffolk, is baseless; the tradition, however, continued and found expression in the Mirror for Magistrates and in Drayton’s Heroical Epistles, as well as in Shakespeare’s Henry VI.

Bibliography.—For contemporary English authorities see under Henry VI. French authorities and especially the Chroniques of George de Chastellain, and the Mémoires of Philippes de Comines contain much that is of value. The Letters of Margaret of Anjou (Camden Soc., 1863) have small historical importance. There have been numerous biographies, the chief is Mrs Hookham’s Life of Margaret of Anjou (1872). But the best modern accounts are to be found in G. du Fresne de Beaucourt’s Histoire de Charles VII., Dr Gairdner’s Introductions to the Paston Letters, Sir James Ramsay’s Lancaster and York (1892), and The Political History of England, vol. iv. (1906), by Professor C. Oman. Dr Karl Schmidt’s Margareta von Anjou, vor und bei Shakespeare (Palaestra, liv., Berlin, 1906) is a useful digest of authorities.

(C. L. K.)

MARGARET OF AUSTRIA (1480-1530), duchess of Savoy and regent of the Netherlands from 1507 to 1530, daughter of the archduke Maximilian of Austria, afterwards the emperor Maximilian I., was born at Brussels on the 10th of January 1480. At two years of age she was betrothed to the dauphin Charles, son of Louis XI. of France, and was brought up at the French court. In 1489, however, Charles, now king as Charles VIII., to prevent Maximilian taking as his second wife the duchess Anne of Brittany, threw over Margaret and married the Breton heiress himself. Her ambitious father now sought for Margaret another throne, and in April 1497 she was married at Burgos to the Infant John, heir to the throne of Castile and Aragon. She was left a widow, however, a few months later. In 1501 Margaret became the wife of Philibert II., duke of Savoy, who only survived until 1504. The sudden death of her brother the archduke, Philip the Handsome (Sept 25, 1506), opened out to her a new career. In 1507 she was appointed by her father regent of the Netherlands and guardian of her nephew Charles, afterwards the emperor Charles V. Charles came of age in 1515, but he entrusted Margaret with the regency, as the vast extent of his dominions permitted him but seldom to visit the Netherlands, and she continued to hold the post until her death in 1530. She was a wise and prudent ruler, of masculine temper and intrepidity, and very capable in affairs.

See E. Münch, Margaretha von Österreich (Leipzig, 1883); Th. Juste, Charles-Quint et Marguérite d’Autriche (Brussels, 1858); A. Le Glay, Maximilien I. et Marguérite d’Autriche (with correspondence, Paris, 1839); De Quinsonas, Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire de Marguérite d’Autriche (Paris, 1855), and E. E. Tremayne, The First Governors of the Netherlands: Margaret of Austria (1908).

MARGARET OF AUSTRIA (1522-1586), duchess of Parma and regent of the Netherlands from 1559 to 1567, was a natural daughter of Charles V. Her mother, Margaret van Ghent, was a Fleming. She was brought up by her aunts Margaret of Austria and Maria of Hungary, who were successively regents of the Netherlands from 1507 to 1530 and from 1530 to 1555. In 1533 she was married to Alexander de’ Medici, duke of Florence, who was assassinated in 1537, after which she became the wife of Ottavio Farnese, duke of Parma, in 1542. The union proved an unhappy one. Like her aunts, who had trained her, she was a woman of masculine abilities, and Philip II., when he left the Netherlands in 1559 for Spain, acted wisely in appointing her regent. In ordinary times she would probably have proved as successful a ruler as her two predecessors in that post, but her task was very different from theirs. She had to face the rising storm of discontent against the Inquisition and Spanish despotism, and Philip left her but nominal authority. He was determined to pursue his own arbitrary course, and the issue was the revolt of the Netherlands. In 1567 Margaret resigned her post into the hands of the duke of Alva and retired to Italy. She had the satisfaction of seeing her son Alexander Farnese appointed to the office she had laid down, and to watch his successful career as governor-general of the Netherlands. She died at Ortona in 1586.

See L. P. Gachard, Correspondance de Marguérite d’Autriche avec Phillippe II. 1554-1568 (Brussels, 1867-1887); R. Fruin, Het voorspel van den tachtig jarigen vorlog (Amsterdam, 1856); E. Rachfahl, Margaretha von Parma, Statthalterin der Niederlande, 1559-1567 (Munich, 1895); also bibliography in Cambridge Modern History, iii. 795-809 (1904).

MARGARET OF PROVENCE (1221-1295), queen of France, was the daughter of Raymond Berenger V., count of Provence. She was married to Saint Louis at Sens on the 27th of May 1234, and was crowned the next day. Blanche of Castile, the queen-mother, arranged the marriage to win over to the cause of France the powerful count of Provence, but treated her daughter-in-law most unkindly, and her jealousy of the energetic young queen was naturally shared by Louis, whose coldness towards and suspicion of his wife are well known. Margaret did not lack courage, she followed the king on his crusade, and bore herself heroically at Damietta. But her ambition and strong personal prejudices often led her to actions injurious to the realm. This is most noticeable in her hostility to her brother-in-law Charles of Anjou, who had married her sister Beatrice, and her devotion to Henry III. of England, who had married her other sister Eleanor. Aspiring during the reign of her son to the same rôle which she had seen Blanche of Castile play, she induced, in 1263, the young Philip, heir to the throne, to promise to obey her in everything up to the age of thirty; and Saint Louis was obliged to ask for a bull from Urban IV. which would release the prince from his oath. After Saint Louis’ death, Margaret continued obstinately to claim her rights on the county of Provence against Charles of Anjou. She sought to employ force of arms, calling upon her son, her nephew Edward II. of England, and the German king Rudolph of Habsburg. She did not give up her claim until after the death of Charles of Anjou (1285), when Philip the Bold succeeded in getting her to accept an income from the county of Anjou in exchange for her rights in Provence. She died on the 31st of December 1295.

See E. Boutaric, Marguérite de Provence, in Revue des questions historiques (1867), pp. 417-458.

MARGARET MAULTASCH (1318-1369), countess of Tirol, who received the name of Maultasch (pocket-mouth) on account of the shape of her mouth, was the daughter and heiress of Henry, duke of Carinthia and count of Tirol. When Henry died in 1335 Carinthia passed to Albert II., duke of Austria; but Tirol was inherited by Margaret and her young husband, John Henry, son of John, king of Bohemia, whom she had married in 1330. This union was not a happy one, and the Tirolese disliked the government of Charles, afterwards the emperor Charles IV., who ruled the county for his brother. The result was that John Henry was driven from Tirol, and Margaret’s cause was espoused by the emperor Louis IV., who was anxious to add the county to his possessions. Declaring her marriage dissolved on the ground that it had not been consummated, Louis married Margaret in 1342 to his own son Louis, margrave of Brandenburg. But as this action on the emperor’s part entrenched on the privileges of the Church, Pope Clement VI. placed father and son under the ban, from which they were not released until 1359. In 1361 Margaret’s husband died, followed two years later by her only son, Meinhard, when she handed over Tirol to Rudolph IV., duke of Austria, and retired to Vienna, where she died on the 3rd of October 1369. She lived long in the memory of the people of Carinthia, who regarded her as an amazon, and called her the Wicked Gretl.

See A. Huber, Geschichte der Vereinigung Tirols mit Oesterreich (Innsbruck, 1864).

MARGARINE, the name, first given by Chevreul, to an artificial substitute for butter, made from beef and other animal fats, and sometimes mixed with real butter. The name of “butterine” has also been used. Artificial butter, or “margarine-mouries,” was for some years manufactured in Paris according to a method made public by the eminent chemist Mège-Mouries. Having surmised that the formation of butter contained in milk was due to the absorption of fat contained in the animal tissues, he was led to experiment on the splitting up of animal fat. The process he ultimately adopted consisted in heating finely minced beef suet with water, carbonate of potash, and fresh sheep’s stomach cut up into small fragments. The mixture he raised to a temperature of 45° C. (113° F.). The influence of the pepsine of the sheep’s stomach with the heat separated the fat from the cellular tissue; he removed the fatty matter, and submitted it when cool to powerful hydraulic pressure, separating it into stearin and oleomargarin, which last alone he used for butter-making. Of this fat about the proportions of 10 ℔ with 4 pints of milk, and 3 pints of water were placed in a churn, to which a small quantity of anatto was added for colouring, and the whole churned together. The compound so obtained when well washed was in general appearance, taste and consistency like ordinary butter, and when well freed from water it was found to keep a longer time. Margarine is a perfectly wholesome butter-substitute, and is now largely used, but the ease with which it may be passed off as real butter has led to much discussion and legislative action. (See Adulteration.)

MARGARITA, an island in the Caribbean Sea belonging to Venezuela, about 12 m. N. of the peninsula of Araya, and constituting, under the constitution of 1904,—with Tortuga, Cubagua and Coche—a political division called the Eastern Federal District. The island is about 40 m. long from east to west, has an area of 400 sq. m., and consists of two mountainous extremities, nearly separated by the Laguna Grande on the south, but connected by a low, narrow isthmus. The highest elevation on the island is the peak of Macanao, 4484 ft., in the western part, the highest point in the eastern part being the peak of Copei, 4170 ft. The higher valleys of the interior are highly fertile and are well adapted to grazing and stock-raising. The principal industries are fishing and the making of salt. The pearl fisheries, which were so productive in the 16th and 17th centuries, are no longer important. A domestic industry of the women is that of making coarse straw hats, which are sold on the mainland. The products of Margarita, however, are insufficient to support its population, and large numbers periodically emigrate to the mainland, preventing the increase in population which its healthful climate favours. The population was estimated in 1904 at 40,000, composed in great part of half-caste Guayqueri Indians. The capital is Asunción (pop. about 3000), on the east side of the island, and its principal port is Pompatar on the south coast. The two small ports of Puebla de la Mar (Porlamar) and Puebla del Norte are merely open roadsteads.

The island of Margarita (from Span. Margarita, pearl) was discovered by Columbus in 1498, and was bestowed in 1524 upon Marceto Villalobos by Charles V. In 1561 the freebooter Lope de Aguirre ravaged the island, and in 1662 the town of Pompatar was destroyed by the Dutch. For a long time Margarita was attached to Cumana, but in the eighteenth century it was made administratively independent. Its traders and sailors rendered invaluable assistance to the revolutionists in the war of independence, and the Spanish general, Morillo, was driven from its shores in 1817; in recognition of this it was made a separate state and was renamed Nueva Esparta (New Sparta). In 1904-1909 it was a part of the Federal District with Asunción as its capital. The first Spanish settlement in South America was Nueva Cadiz, founded in 1515 on the barren island of Cubagua; but the place was abandoned when pearl-fishing and slave-trading ceased to be profitable.

MARGATE, a municipal borough and seaside resort in the Isle of Thanet parliamentary division of Kent, England, 74 m. E. by S. of London by the South Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. (1891), 18,662; (1901), 23,118. It lies on the north coast of Thanet, and is practically contiguous with Westgate on the west and with Broadstairs on the south-east, owing to the modern extension of these popular watering-places. An electric tramway connects Margate with Broadstairs and Ramsgate, and during the season it is served by numerous pleasure steamers from London. An esplanade faces the sea along nearly the entire front of the town, and is lined with hotels, shops and dwelling-houses. A jetty exceeding a quarter of a mile in length permits the approach of vessels at all tides. It was built in 1854 and subsequently enlarged, but a pier was constructed by John Rennie in 1815, and is now chiefly used by fishermen and colliers. The church of St John the Baptist, founded in 1050, contains some portions of Norman architecture, the remainder being Decorated and Perpendicular. It is rich in ancient brasses and monuments, including a brass to Sir John Daundelyon (1443), whose family occupied a manor in the neighbourhood as early as the 13th century. The manor house of Daundelyon, or Dent de Lion, with its gateway of the early part of the 15th century, remains between Margate and Westgate. Charitable institutions include a deaf and dumb asylum (1875-1886), the Metropolitan infirmary for children (1841), and the royal sea-bathing infirmary, established in 1791 and enlarged through the munificence of Sir Erasmus Wilson in 1882. Dane Park (33 acres) was opened in 1898.

Margate (Meregate, Mergate), formerly a small fishing village, was an ancient and senior non-corporate member of Dover. In 1347 it contributed 15 ships of small tonnage at the time of the siege of Calais. Throughout the 14th century references are made to Margate in crown regulations regarding fisheries and shipping. A pier existed before 1500, but by the reign of Henry VIII. it was in a decayed condition. The amount of corn shipped was evidently small, the droits being insufficient to keep the pier in repair. Under Elizabeth Margate was still an obscure fishing village employing about 20 small vessels (“hoys”) in the coasting and river trades, chiefly in the conveyance of grain, on which in 1791 it chiefly subsisted. The droits increased, but were not properly collected until 1724. In 1777 the pier was rebuilt. It was about this time that Margate first began to be known as a bathing-place owing to its fine stretch of firm sand. In 1835 Margate was still a liberty of Dover and no right of citizenship could be acquired. In 1857 it was incorporated. In 1777 a weekly market was granted on Wednesday and Saturday. It is now held daily, but principally on those two days.

MARGGRAF, ANDREAS SIGISMUND (1709-1782), German chemist, was born at Berlin on the 3rd of March 1709. After studying chemistry at Berlin and Strassburg, medicine at Halle, and mineralogy and metallurgy at Freiberg, he returned to his native city in 1735 as assistant to his father, Henning Christian Marggraf, chief apothecary at the court. Three years later he was elected to the Berlin Academy of Sciences, which in 1754 put him in charge of its chemical laboratory and in 1760 appointed him director of its physics class. He died in Berlin on the 7th of August 1782. His name is especially associated with the discovery of sugar in beetroot. In 1747 he published an account of experiments undertaken with the definite view of obtaining true sugar from indigenous plants, and found that for this purpose the first place is taken by beetroot and carrot, that in those plants sugar like that of cane exists ready formed, and that it may be extracted by boiling the dried roots in alcohol, from which it is deposited on cooling. This investigation is also memorable because he detected the minute sugar-crystals in the roots by the help of the microscope, which was thus introduced as an adjunct to chemical inquiry. In another research dealing with the nature of alum he showed that one of the constituents of that substance, alumina, is contained in common clay, and further that the salt cannot be prepared by the action of sulphuric acid on alumina alone, the addition of an alkali being necessary. He explained and simplified the process of obtaining phosphorus from urine, and made some admirable observations on phosphoric acid; but though he noted the increase in weight that attends the conversion of phosphorus into phosphoric acid he was content to remain an adherent of the phlogistic doctrine. For his time he was a skilful chemical analyst; he knew how to distinguish potash and soda by the different colorations they produce in flame, and how to test for iron with prussiate of potash: he was aware that sulphate of potash, gypsum and heavy spar, in spite of their different appearances, all contain sulphuric acid; and he recognized that there are different varieties of urinary calculi. In metallurgy he devised improved methods for the manufacture of zinc and the purification of silver, tin and other metals.

His papers, mostly written in French, were presented to the Berlin Academy, and with the exception of a few of the latest were collected in two volumes of Chymische Schriften in 1761-1767.

MARGHELAN, or Marghilan, a town of Asiatic Russia, situated in 40° 28′ N. and 71° 45′ E., the administrative centre of the province of Ferghana. Pop. (1900), 42,855, mostly Sarts, with Tajiks and Jews. It is a very old town, with high earthen walls and twelve gates, commanded by a fort. It lies in a beautiful, extraordinary fertile and well irrigated district. The heat in summer is excessive. The principal industry is the manufacture of silk; camels’ hair and woollen fabrics are also made. The new Russian town, founded in 1877, is 10 m. distant to the south-east, and has a population (1897) of 8977.

MARGRAVE (Ger. Markgraf), a German title meaning literally “count of the March” (Lat. marchio, comes marchae, marchisus). The margraves had their origin in the counts established by Charlemagne and his successors to guard the frontier districts of the empire, and for centuries the title was always associated with this function. The margraves had within their own jurisdiction the authority of dukes, but at the outset they were subordinate to the dukes in the feudal army of the empire. In the 12th century, however, the margraves of Brandenburg and Austria (the north and east marks) asserted their position as tenants-in-chief of the empire; with the break-up of the great duchies the others did the same; and the margraves henceforward took rank with the great German princes. The title of margrave very early lost its original significance, and was borne by princes whose territories were in no sense frontier districts, e.g. by Hermann, a son of Hermann, margrave of Verona, who assumed in 1112 the title of margrave of Baden. Thus, too, when the elector Albert Achilles of Brandenburg in 1473 gave Bayreuth and Ansbach as apanages to his sons and their descendants these styled themselves margraves. The title, however, retained in Germany its sovereign significance, and has not, like “marquis” in France and “marchese” in Italy, sunk into a mere title of nobility; it is not, therefore, in its present sense the equivalent of the English title “marquess.” The German margraviates have now all been absorbed into other sovereignties, and the title margrave is borne only as a subsidiary title in the full style of their sovereigns.

MARGUERITE, the popular name for the plant known botanically as Pyrethrum (or Chrysanthemum) frutescens (natural order Compositae), a shrubby perennial with smooth leaves cut pinnately into narrow segments and flower-heads two to three inches across produced singly in summer and autumn on slender erect stalks. The white ray-florets surround a yellow disk. It is a native of the Canary Isles, and a favourite for decoration and for greenhouse cultivation, window-boxes and open ground in the summer. The yellow marguerite (étoile d’or) has somewhat larger pale yellow flowers and glaucous leaves. The plant is propagated from cuttings taken in autumn from old plants and placed in sandy loamy soil in cold frames. By pruning the shoots in autumn the plants may be grown into very large specimens in the course of a few seasons.

MARGUERITE DE VALOIS. The name Marguerite was common in the Valois dynasty, and during the 16th century there were three princesses, all of whom figure in the political as well as in the literary history of the time, and who have been not unfrequently confounded. The first and last are the most important, but all deserve some account.

I. Marguerite d’Angoulême (1492-1549). This, the most celebrated of the Marguerites, bore no less than four surnames. By family she was entitled to the name of Marguerite de Valois; as the daughter of Charles d’Orléans, count d’Angoulême, she is more properly, and by careful writers almost invariably, called Marguerite d’Angoulême. From her first husband she took, during no small part of her life, the appellation Marguerite d’Alençon, and from her second, Henri d’Albret, king of Navarre, that of Marguerite de Navarre. She was born at Angoulême on the 11th of April 1492, and was two years older than her brother Francis I. She was betrothed early to Charles, duke d’Alençon, and married him in 1509. She was not very fortunate in this first marriage, but her brother’s accession to the throne made her, next to their mother Louise of Savoy, the most powerful woman of the kingdom. She became a widow in 1525, and was sought in marriage by many persons of distinction, including, it is said, Charles V. and Henry VIII. In 1527 she married Henri d’Albret, titular king of Navarre, who was considerably younger than herself, and whose character was not faultless, but who seems on the whole, despite slander, to have both loved and valued his wife. Navarre was not reconquered for the couple as Francis had promised, but ample apanages were assigned to Marguerite, and at Nérac and Pau miniature courts were kept up, which yielded to none in Europe in the intellectual brilliancy of their frequenters. Marguerite was at once one of the chief patronesses of letters that France possessed, and the chief refuge and defender of advocates of the Reformed doctrines. Round her gathered C. Marot, Bonaventure Des Périers, N. Denisot, J. Peletier, V. Brodeau, and many other men of letters, while she protected Rabelais, E. Dolet, &c. For a time her influence with her brother, to whom she was entirely devoted, and whom she visited when he was imprisoned in Spain, was effectual, but latterly political rather than religious considerations made him discourage Lutheranism, and a fierce persecution was begun against both Protestants and freethinkers, a persecution which drove Des Périers to suicide and brought Dolet to the stake. Marguerite herself, however, was protected by her brother, and her personal inclinations seem to have been rather towards a mystical pietism than towards dogmatic Protestant sentiments. Nevertheless bigotry and the desire to tarnish the reputation of women of letters have led to the bringing of odious accusations against her character, for which there is not the smallest foundation. Marguerite died at Odot-en-Bigorre on the 21st of September 1549. By her first husband she had no children, by her second a son who died in infancy, and a daughter, Jeanne d’Albret, who became the mother of Henry IV. Although the poets of the time are unwearied in celebrating her charms, she does not, from the portraits which exist, appear to have been regularly beautiful, but as to her sweetness of disposition and strength of mind there is universal consent.

Her literary work consists of the Heptameron, of poems entitled Les Marguerites de la marguerite des princesses, and of Letters. The Heptameron, constructed, as its name indicates, on the lines of the Decameron of Boccaccio, consists of seventy-two short stories told to each other by a company of ladies and gentlemen who are stopped in the journey homewards from Cauterets by the swelling of a river. It was not printed till 1558, ten years after the author’s death, and then under the title of Les Amants fortunés. Internal evidence is strongly in favour of its having been a joint work, in which more than one of the men of letters who composed Marguerite’s household took part. It is a delightful book, and strongly characteristic of the French Renaissance. The sensuality which characterized the period appears in it, but in a less coarse form than in the great work of Rabelais; and there is a poetical spirit which, except in rare instances, is absent from Pantagruel. The Letters are interesting and good. The Marguerites consist of a very miscellaneous collection of poems, mysteries, farces, devotional poems of considerable length, spiritual and miscellaneous songs, &c. The Dernières poésies, not printed till 1896 (by M. A. Lefranc), are interesting and characteristic, consisting of verse-epistles, comédies (pieces in dramatic form on the death of Francis I., &c.), Les Prisons, a long allegorical poem of amorous-religious-historical tenor; some miscellaneous verse chiefly in dizains, and a later and remarkable piece, Le Navire, expressing her despair at her brother’s death. Of the other works, never yet completely edited, the best editions are, for the Heptameron, Leroux de Lincy (1855); for the Lettres, Genin (1841-1842); and for the Marguerites, &c., Frank (1873). English translations of the Heptameron are rather numerous: one appeared in 1887 by A. Machen, with an introduction by Miss A. M. F. Robinson (Mme Darmesteter) and another (anonymous) in 1894, with an essay by G. Saintsbury. The religious poem, Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse was translated by Queen Elizabeth. Books on Marguerite and her court are also many. There may be noted Durand’s Marguerite de Valois et la cour de François Ier (1848); La Ferrière’s Marguerite d’Angoulême (1891); Lotheissen’s Königin Margareta von Navarra (1885); Miss Edith Sichel’s Women and Men of the French Renaissance (1901), and P. Courtault’s Marguerite de Navarre (1904).

II. The second Marguerite (1523-1574), daughter of Francis I., was born on the 5th of June, 1523, at St Germain-en-Laye, and, at an age the lateness of which caused lampoons, married Emmanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, in 1559. Like her aunt and her niece she was a good scholar and strongly interested in men of letters. She is noteworthy as having given the chief impulse at the court of her brother Henry II. to the first efforts of the Pléiade (see Ronsard), and as having continued her patronage of literature at Turin. The poet Marc Antonio Flaminio, for instance, congratulates himself in pretty Latin verses on her singing his poems.

Her Letters have been published by A. G. Spinelli.

III. The third Marguerite (1553-1615), called more particularly Marguerite de Valois, was great-niece of the first and niece of the second, being daughter of Henry II. by Catherine de’ Medici. She was born on the 14th of May 1553. When very young she became famous for her beauty, her learning, and the looseness of her conduct. She was married, after a liaison with the duke of Guise, to Henry of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV., on the eve of St Bartholomew’s Day. Both husband and wife were extreme examples of the licentious manners of the time, but they not unfrequently lived together for considerable periods, and nearly always on good terms. Later, however, Marguerite was established in the castle of Usson in Auvergne, and after the accession of Henry the marriage was dissolved by the pope. But Henry and Marguerite still continued friends; she still bore the title of queen; she visited Marie de’ Medici on equal terms; and the king frequently consulted her on important affairs, though his somewhat parsimonious spirit was grieved by her extravagance. Marguerite exhibited during the rest of her life, which was not a short one, the strange Valois mixture of licentiousness, pious exercises, and the cultivation of art and letters, and died in Paris on the 27th of March 1615. She left letters and memoirs the latter of which are admirably written, and rank among the best of the 16th century. She was the idol of Pierre de Bourdeille Brantôme, and is the “Reine Margot” of anecdotic history and romance.

The Mémoires are contained in the collection of Michaud and Poujoulat, and have been published separately by Guessard (the best, 1842), Lalanne, Caboche, &c. An English translation with introduction by Violet Fane appeared in 1892. Her character, and still more her circumstances, made the pen very unamiably busy with her in her lifetime, the chief of many lampoons being the famous Divorce satirique, variously attributed to Agrippa d’Aubigné, Palma Cayet, and others. The chief recent book on her is Saint Poucy’s Histoire de Marguerite de Valois (1887).

(G. Sa.)

MARGUERITTE, PAUL (1860- ) and VICTOR (1866- ), French novelists, both born in Algeria, were the sons of General Jean Auguste Marguerite (1823-1870), who after an honourable career in Algeria was mortally wounded in the great cavalry charge at Sedan, and died in Belgium, on the 6th of September 1870. An account of his life was published by Paul Marguerite as Mon père (1884; enlarged ed., 1897). The names of the two brothers are generally associated, on account of their collaboration. Paul Marguerite, who has given a picture of his home in Algiers in Le Jardin du passé (1895), was sent to the military school of La Flèche for the sons of officers, and became in 1880 clerk to the minister of public instruction. He designed two pantomimes, Pierrot assassin de sa femme (Théâtre Libre, 1882), and Colombine pardonnée (Cercle funambulesque, 1888), in which the traditional Pierrot, played by Margueritte himself, became a nervous, tragic creature. He resigned his clerkship in 1889 to devote himself entirely to literature, producing in rapid succession a series of novels, among which were Tous quatre (1885), La Confession posthume (1886), Maison ouverte (1887), Pascal Géfosse (1887), Jours d’épreuve (1889), Amants (1890), La Force des choses (1891), Sur le retour (1892), La Tourmente (1893), Ma grande (1892), Âme d’enfant (1894) and L’Eau qui dort (1896). Paul Margueritte had begun as a realistic novelist, but he was one of the five writers who signed a manifesto against Zola’s La Terre, and he made his reputation by delicate, sober studies of the by-ways of sentiment. His brother Victor entered his father’s regiment, the 1st chasseurs d’Afrique, in 1888, and served in the army until 1896, when he resigned his commission. He was already known by some volumes of poetry, and by a translation from Calderon (La Double méprise, played at the Odéon, 1898) when he began to collaborate with his brother. From the time of this collaboration Paul Margueritte’s work gained in colour and force.

Among the books written in common by the brothers, the most famous is the series known under the collective title, Une Époque, dealing with the events of 1870-1871, and including the novels Le Désastre (1898), Les Tronçons du glaive (1900), Les Braves gens (1901), La Commune (1904). They also collaborated in an Histoire de la guerre de 1870-1877 (1903). These books were founded on a mass of documentary and verbal information, amassed with great care and arranged with admirable art; the authors are historians rather than novelists. The disasters and humiliations of the campaigns are faithfully described, but are traced to defects of organization and leadership; while the courage and patriotism of the army itself is made the basis of an assured confidence in the destinies of France. La Commune is a bold indictment of the methods adopted by the victorious party. The novelists also attacked the laws governing marriage and divorce and the abuses entailed by the dowry demanded from the bride, in pamphlets and in the novels, Femmes nouvelles (1899), Les Deux vies (1902), and Le Prisme (1905). Their literary partnership was dissolved in 1907. Paul Marguerite was one of the original members of the Académie de Goncourt.

See P. et V. Margueritte (1905) by E. Pilon, in the series of Célébrités d’aujourd’hui, and A. France, La Vie littéraire (4th series, 1892).

MARHEINEKE, PHILIP KONRAD (1780-1846), German Protestant divine, was born at Hildesheim, Hanover, on the 1st of May 1780. He studied at Göttingen, and in 1805 was appointed professor extraordinarius of philosophy at Erlangen; in 1807 he moved to Heidelberg. In 1811 he became professor ordinarius at Berlin, where from 1820 he was also preacher at Trinity Church and worked with Schleiermacher. When he died, on the 31st of May 1846, he was a member of the supreme consistorial council. At first influenced by Schelling, Marheineke found a new master in Hegel, and came to be regarded as the leader of the Hegelian Right. He sought to defend and explain all the orthodox doctrines of the Church in an orthodox way in the terms of Hegel’s philosophy. The dogmatic system that resulted from this procedure was inevitably more Hegelian than Christian; it was in fact an essentially new form of Christianity. Marheineke’s developed views on dogmatics are given in the third edition (1847) of his Die Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik als Wissenschaft. When he published the first edition (1819) he was still under the influence of Schelling; the second edition (1827) marked his change of view. His works on symbolics show profound scholarship, keen critical insight, and rare impartiality. The Christliche Symbolik (1810-1814) has been pronounced his masterpiece.

His other works include Institutiones symbolicae (1812; 3rd ed., 1830), Geschichte der deutschen Reformation (1816; 2nd ed., 1831-1834); Die Reformation, ihre Entstehung und Verbreitung in Deutschland (1846; 2nd ed., 1858), and the posthumous Theol. Vorlesungen (1847-1849).

See F. Lichtenberger, History of German Theology (1889); A. Weber, Le Système dogmatique de Marheineke (1857); and cf. O. Pfleiderer, Development of Theology in Germany (1890).

MARIANA, JUAN DE (1536-1624), Spanish historian, was born at Talavera. He studied at the university of Alcalá, and was admitted at the age of seventeen into the Society of Jesus. In 1561 he went to teach theology in Rome, reckoning among his pupils Robert Bellarmine, afterwards cardinal; then passed into Sicily; and in 1569 he was sent to Paris, where his expositions of the writings of Thomas Aquinas attracted large audiences. In 1574, owing to ill health, he obtained permission to return to Spain; the rest of his life being passed at the Jesuits’ house in Toledo in vigorous literary activity. He died at Madrid, on the 17th of February 1624.

Mariana’s great work, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, first appeared in twenty books at Toledo in 1592; ten books were subsequently added (1605), bringing the work down to the accession of Charles V. in 1519, and in a still later abstract of events the author completed it to the accession of Philip IV. in 1621. It was so well received that Mariana was induced to translate it into Spanish (the first part in 1601; completed, 1609; Eng. trans., by J. Stevens, 1699). Mariana’s Historiae, though in many parts uncritical, is justly esteemed for its research, accuracy, sagacity and style. Of his other works the most interesting is the treatise De rege et regis institutione (Toledo, 1598). In its sixth chapter the question whether it is lawful to overthrow a tyrant is freely discussed and answered in the affirmative, a circumstance which brought much odium upon the Jesuits, especially after the assassination of Henry IV. of France, in 1610. A volume entitled Tractatus VII. theologici et historici (published by Mariana at Cologne, in 1609, containing in particular a tract, “De morte et immortalitate,” and another, ”De mutatione monetae”) was put upon the index expurgatorius, and led to the confinement of its author by the Inquisition. During his confinement there was found among his papers a criticism upon the Jesuits, which was printed after his death as Discursus de erroribus qui in forma gubernationis societatis Jesu occurrunt (Bordeaux, 1625), and was reprinted by order of Charles III. when he banished the Jesuits from Spain.

See L. von Ranke, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig, 1874), and Cirot, Études sur les historiographes espagnols; Mariana, historien (Bordeaux, 1905).

MARIANAO, a city of the province of Havana, Cuba, 6 m. W. by S. of the city of Havana, with which it is connected by the Marianao railway. Pop. (1899), 5416; (1907), 9332. Marianao is on a range of hills about 1500 ft. above the sea, is noted for its salubrious climate, and is mainly a place of residence for the families of prosperous business men of Havana. On the neighbouring coast is Marianao Beach, a popular bathing resort. The city dates from about 1830.

MARIANAS, Mariannes, or Ladrones (Ger. Marianen), an archipelago in the north-western Pacific Ocean, in about 12° to 21° N. and 145° E. With the exception of the island of Guam (United States) it belongs to Germany, and administratively forms part of the New Guinea protectorate. It consists of two groups—a northern of ten volcanic main islands, of which only four (Agrigan, Anatahan, Alamagan and Pagan) are inhabited; and a southern of five coralline limestone islands (Rota, Guam, Aguijan, Tinian and Saypan), all inhabited save Aguijan. In the volcanic group an extreme elevation of about 2700 ft. is reached, and there are craters showing signs of activity, while earthquakes are not uncommon. Coral reefs fringe the coasts of the southern isles, which are of slight elevation. The total area, excluding Guam, is about 245 sq. m. and the population 2500, mostly descendants of the Tagal immigrants from the Philippines. All the islands except Farallon de Medinilla and Urracas or Mangs (in the northern group) are more or less densely wooded, and the vegetation is luxuriant, much resembling that of the Carolines, and also of the Philippines, whence many species of plants have been introduced. Owing to the humidity of the soil cryptogams are numerous, as also most kinds of grasses. Coco-nut and areca palms, yams, sweet potatoes, manioc, coffee, cocoa, sugar, cotton, tobacco and mother-of-pearl are the chief products, and copra is the principal export. Agriculture is neglected, in spite of the exceptional advantages offered by the climate and soil. On most of the islands there is a plentiful supply of water. The native population known to the early Spanish colonists as Chamorros has died out as a distinct people, though their descendants have intermarried with the immigrant Tagals and natives of the Carolines. At the Spanish occupation in 1668 the Chamorros were estimated at 40,000 to 60,000, but less than a century later only 1800 remained. They were typical Micronesians, with a considerable civilization. In the island of Tinian are some remarkable remains attributed to them, consisting of two rows of massive square stone columns, about 5 ft. 4 in. broad and 14 ft. high, with heavy round capitals. According to early Spanish accounts cinerary urns were found imbedded in the capitals.

The fauna of the Marianas, though inferior in number and variety, is similar in character to that of the Carolines, and certain species are indigenous to both colonies. Swine and oxen run wild, and are hunted when required: the former were known to the earlier inhabitants; the latter with most other domestic animals were introduced by the Spaniards. The climate though damp is healthy, while the heat, being tempered by the trade winds, is milder than that of the Philippines; the variations of temperature are not great.

The discovery of this archipelago is due to Magellan, who on the 6th of March 1521 observed the two southernmost islands, and sailed between them (O. Peschel, Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877). The name Islas de los Ladrones (or “Islands of the Thieves”) was given them by the ship’s crew of Magellan on account of the thieving propensity of the inhabitants; and the islands are still commonly called the Ladrones. Magellan himself styled them Islas de las Velas Latinas (“Islands of the Lateen Sails”). San Lazarus archipelago, Jardines and Prazeres are among the names applied to them by later navigators. They received the name Las Marianas in 1668 in honour of Maria Anna of Austria, widow of Philip IV. of Spain. Research in the archipelago was carried out by Commodore Anson, who in August 1742 landed upon the island of Tinian (George, Lord Anson, Voyage round the World, bk. iii., 1748). The Ladrones were visited by Byron in 1765, Wallis in 1767 and Crozet in 1772. The entire archipelago (except Guam) together with the Caroline and Pelew Islands was sold by Spain to Germany for £837,500 in 1899.

See Anson, op. cit.; L. de Freycinet, Voyage autour du monde (Paris, 1826-1844); “The Marianas Islands” in Nautical Magazine, xxxiv., xxxv. (London, 1865-1866); O. Finsch, Karolinen und Marianen (Hamburg, 1900); Costenoble, ”Die Marianen” in Globus, lxxxviii. (1905).

MARIANAS, or Maranhas, a tribe of South American Indians on the river Jutahy, north-western Brazil. They wear small pieces of wood in their ears and lips, but are not tattooed. Marianas are also found on the upper reaches of the Putumayo across to the Yapurá.

MARIANUS SCOTUS (1028-1082 or 1083), chronicler (who must be distinguished from his namesake Marianus Scotus, d. 1088, abbot of St Peter’s, Regensburg), was an Irishman by birth, and called Moelbrigte, or servant of Bridget. He was educated by a certain Tigernach, and having become a monk he crossed over to the continent of Europe in 1056, and his subsequent life was passed in the abbeys of St Martin at Cologne and of Fulda, and at Mainz. He died at Mainz, on the 22nd of December 1082 or 1083.

Marianus wrote a Chronicon, which purports to be a universal history from the creation of the world to 1082. The Chronicon was very popular during the middle ages, and in England was extensively used by Florence of Worcester and other writers. It was first printed at Basel in 1559, and has been edited with an introduction by G. Waitz for the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores (Bd. v.). See also W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Bd. ii., 1894).

MARIA STELLA, the self-styled legitimate daughter of Philip, duke of Orleans. According to her, Louis Philippe was not the son of Philip duke of Orleans, but a suppositious child, his father being one Lorenzo Chiappini, constable at the village of Modigliana in Tuscany. The story is that the duke and duchess of Orleans, travelling under the incognito of Comte and Comtesse de Joinville, were at this village in April 1773, when the duchess gave birth to a daughter; and that the duke, desiring a son in order to prevent the rich Penthièvre inheritance from reverting to his wife’s relations in the event of her death, bribed the Chiappinis to substitute their newly-born male child for his own.

Maria Stella, the supposed daughter of Chiappini, went on the stage at Florence, where her putative parents had settled, and there at the age of thirteen became the wife of the first Lord Newborough, after whose death she married the Russian Count Ungern-Sternberg. On the death of her putative father in 1821 she received a letter, written by him shortly before his death, in which he confessed that she was not his daughter, adding “Heaven has repaired my fault, since you are in a better position than your real father, though he was of almost similar rank” (i.e. a French nobleman). Maria Stella henceforward devoted her time and fortune to establishing her identity. Her first success was the judgment of the episcopal court at Faenza, which in 1824 declared that the Comte Louis de Joinville exchanged his daughter for the son of Lorenzo Chiappini, and that the Demoiselle de Joinville had been baptized as Maria Stella, “with the false statement that she was the daughter of L. Chiappini and his wife.” The discovery that Joinville was a countship of the Orleans family, and a real or fancied resemblance of Louis Philippe to Chiappini, convinced her that the duke of Orleans was the person for whose sake she had been cheated of her birthright, a conviction strengthened by the striking resemblance which many people discovered in her to the princesses of the Orleans family. In 1830 she published her proofs under the title Maria Stella ou un échange d’une demoiselle du plus haut rang contre un garçon de plus vile condition (reprinted 1839 and 1849). This coincided with the advent of Louis Philippe to the throne, and her claim became a weapon for those who wished to throw discredit and ridicule on the “bourgeois monarch.” He for his part treated the whole thing with amused contempt, and Baroness Newborough-Sternburg de Joinville, or Marie Étoile d’Orléans, as she called herself, was suffered to live in Paris until on the 23rd of December 1843 she died in poverty and obscurity.

In spite of much discussion and investigation, the case of Maria Stella remains one of the unsolved problems of history. Sir Ralph Payne Gallwey’s Mystery of Maria Stella, Lady Newborough (London, 1907), is founded on her own accounts and argues in favour of her point of view. More convincing, however, is Maurice Vitrac’s Philippe-Egalité et M. Chiappini (Paris, 1907), which is based on unpublished material in the Archives nationales. M. Vitrac seeks to overthrow Maria Stella’s case by an alibi. The duke and duchess of Chartres could not have been at Modigliana in April 1773, for the simple reason that they can be proved at that time to have been in Paris. On the 8th of April the duke, according to the official Gazette de France, took part in the Maundy Thursday ceremonies at Versailles; from the 7th to the 14th he was in constant attendance at the lodge of Freemasons of which he had just been elected grand master. Moreover, it was impossible for the first prince of the blood royal to leave France without the royal permission, and his absence would certainly have been remarked. Lastly, the duchess’s accouchement, a semi-public function in the case of royal princesses, did not take place till the 6th of October. M. Vitrac identifies the real father of Maria Stella with Count Carlo Battaglini of Rimini, who died in 1796 without issue: the case being not one of substitution, but of ordinary “farming out” to avoid a scandal.

MARIA THERESA (1717-1780), archduchess of Austria, queen of Hungary and Bohemia, and wife of the Holy Roman emperor Francis I., was born at Vienna on the 13th of May 1717. She was the eldest daughter of the Emperor Charles VI. (q.v.) and his wife Elizabeth of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. On the 12th of February 1736 she was married to her cousin Francis of Lorraine (q.v.), then grand duke of Tuscany, and afterwards emperor. Five sons and eleven daughters were born of this marriage. From the date of her father’s death on the 20th of October 1740, till her own death in 1780, Maria Theresa was one of the central figures in the wars and politics of Europe. But unlike some sovereigns, whose reigns have been agitated, but whose personal character has left little trace, Maria Theresa had a strong and in the main a noble individuality. Her great qualities were relieved by human traits which make her more sympathetic. It must be allowed that she was fairly open to the criticism implied in a husbandly jest attributed to Francis I. While they were returning from the opera house at Vienna she said to him that the singer they had just heard was the greatest actress who had ever lived, and he answered “Next to you, Madam.” Maria Theresa had undoubtedly an instinctive histrionic sense of the perspective of the theatre, and could adopt the appropriate attitude and gesture, passionate, dignified or pathetic, required to impress those she wished to influence. But there was no affectation in her assumption of a becoming bearing or in her picturesque words. The common story, that she appeared before the Hungarian magnates in the diet at Pressburg in 1741 with her infant son, afterwards Joseph II., in her arms, and so worked on their feelings that they shouted Moriamur pro rege nostro Maria Theresia, is only mythically true. But during the delicate negotiations which were required to secure the support of the Hungarian nobles she undoubtedly did appeal to them with passionate eloquence, and, we may believe, with a very pardonable sense of the advantage she obtained from her youth, her beauty and her sex. Her beauty, inherited from her mother, was of an open and noble German type. The official portrait by Muytens, engraved by Petit, gives a less convincing impression that an excellent chalk drawing of the head by Gabriel Mattei. In the conflict between her sense of what was morally just and her sense of duty to the state she laid herself open to the scoffing taunt of Frederick of Prussia, who said that in the first partition of Poland elle pleurait et prenait toujours. But the king of Prussia’s taunt is deprived of its sting by the almost incredible candour of her own words to Kaunitz, that if she was to lose her reputation before God and man for respecting the rights of others it must not be for a small advantage—if, in fact, Austria was to share in the plunder of Poland, she was to be consoled for the distress caused to her feelings by the magnitude of her share of the booty. There was no hypocrisy in the tears of the empress. Her intellectual honesty was as perfect as Frederick’s own, and she was as incapable as he was of endeavouring to blind herself to the quality of her own acts. No ruler was ever more loyal to a conception of duty. Maria Theresa considered herself first and foremost as the heiress of the rights of the house of Austria. Therefore, when her inheritance was assailed at the beginning of her reign, she fought for it with every weapon an honest woman could employ, and for years she cherished the hope of recovering the lost province of Silesia, conquered by Frederick. Her practical sense showed her the necessity of submitting to spoliation when she was overpowered. She accepted the peace of Berlin in 1742 in order to have a free hand against her Bavarian enemy, the emperor Charles VII. (q.v.). When Frederick renewed the war she accepted the struggle cheerfully, because she hoped to recover her own. Down to the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 she went on fighting for Silesia or its equivalent. In the years following the peace she applied herself to finding allies in France and Russia who would help her to recover Silesia. Here, as later in the case of Poland, she subordinated her feelings to her duty to the state. Though she denied that she had ever written directly to Madame de Pompadour, it is certain that she allowed her ministers to make use of the favourite’s influence over the French king. When fate decided against her in the Seven Years’ War she bowed to the inevitable, and was thenceforward a resolute advocate of peace.

In her internal government she showed herself anxious to promote the prosperity of her people, and to give more unity to an administration made up by the juxtaposition of many states and races with different characters and constitutions. Her instincts, like those of her enemy Frederick and her son Joseph II., were emphatically absolutist. She suspended the meetings of the estates in most parts of her dominions. She was able to do so because the mass of her subjects found her hand much lighter than that of the privileged classes who composed these bodies. Education, trade, religious toleration, the emancipation of the agricultural population from feudal burdens—all had her approval up to a certain point. She would favour them, but on the distinct condition that nothing was to be done to weaken the bonds of authority. She took part in the suppression of the Jesuits, and she resisted the pope in the interest of the state. Her methods were those of her cautious younger son, Leopold II., and not of her eldest son and immediate successor, Joseph II. She did not give her consent even to the suppression of torture in legal procedure without hesitation, lest the authority of the law should be weakened. Her caution had its reward, for whatever she did was permanently gained, whereas her successor in his boundless zeal for reform brought his empire to the verge of a general rebellion.

In her private life Maria Theresa was equally the servant of the state and the sovereign of all about her. She was an affectionate wife to her husband Francis I.; but she was always the queen of Hungary and Bohemia and archduchess of Austria, like her ancestress, Isabella the Catholic, who never forgot, nor allowed her husband to forget, that she was “proprietary queen” of Castile and Leon. She married her daughters in the interest of Austria, and taught them not to forget their people and their father’s house. In the case of Marie Antoinette (q.v.), who married the dauphin, afterwards Louis XVI., she gave an extraordinary proof of her readiness to subordinate everything to the reason of state. She instructed her daughter to show a proper respect to her husband’s grandfather, Louis XV., by behaving with politeness to his mistresses, in order that the alliance between the two courts might run no risk. The signing of the peace of Teschen, which averted a great war with Prussia, on the 13th of May 1779, was the last great act of her reign, and so Maria Theresa judged it to be in a letter to Prince Kaunitz; she said that she had now finished her life’s journey and could sing a Te Deum, for she had secured the repose of her people at whatever cost to herself. The rest, she said, would not last long. Her fatal illness developed in the autumn of the following year, and she died on the 28th of November 1780. When she lay painfully on her deathbed her son Joseph said to her, “You are not at ease,” and her last words were the answer, “I am sufficiently at my ease to die.”

See A. von Arneth, Geschichte Maria Theresas (Vienna, 1863-1879) and J. F. Bright, Maria Theresa (London, 1897); also the article Austria.

MARIAZELL, a village of Austria, in Styria, 89 m. N. of Graz. Pop. (1900), 1499. It is picturesquely situated in the valley of the Salza, amid the north Styrian Alps. Its entire claim to notice lies in the fact that it is the most frequented sanctuary in Austria, being visited annually by about 200,000 pilgrims. The object of veneration is a miracle-working image of the Virgin, carved in lime-tree wood, and about 18 in. high. This was presented to the place in 1157, and is now enshrined in a chapel lavishly adorned with objects of silver and other costly materials. The large church of which the chapel forms part was erected in 1644 as an expansion of a smaller church built by Louis I., king of Hungary, after a victory over the Turks in 1363. In the vicinity of Mariazell is the pretty Alpine lake of Erlafsee.

See M. M. Rabenlehrer, Mariazell, Österreichs Loreto (Vienna, 1891); and O. Eigner, Geschichte des aufgeshobenen Benedictinerstiftes Mariazell (Vienna, 1900).

MARIE AMÉLIE THÉRÈSE (1782-1866), queen of Louis Philippe, king of the French, was the daughter of Ferdinand IV., king of Naples, and the archduchess Maria Carolina, daughter of the empress Maria Theresa, and belonged to the house of Bourbon. She was born at Caserta, on the 26th of April 1782, and received a careful education which developed the naturally pious and honourable disposition that earned for her in the family circle the nickname of La Santa. Driven from Naples in 1798, the Neapolitan royal family fled to Palermo, and the years from 1800 to 1802 were spent by Marie Amélie with her mother at the Austrian court. In 1806 they were again in flight before the armies of Masséna, and it was during the second residence of her father’s court at Palermo that she met the exiled Louis Philippe, then duke of Orleans, whom she married in November 1809. Returning to France in 1814, the duke and duchess of Orleans had barely established themselves in the Palais Royal in Paris when the Hundred Days drove them into exile. Marie Amélie took refuge with her four children in England, where she spent two years at Orleans House, Twickenham. Again in France in 1817, her life at Neuilly until 1828 was the happiest period of her existence. Neither then nor at any other time did she take any active share in politics; but she was not without indirect influence on affairs, because her strong royalist and legitimist traditions prevented the court from including her in the suspicion with which her husband’s liberal views were regarded. Her attention was absorbed by the care and education of her numerous family, even after the revolution of 1830 had made her queen of the French, a position accepted by her with forebodings of disaster justified by her early experience of revolutions. During her second exile, from 1848 to the end of her life, she lived at Claremont, where her charity and piety endeared her to the many English friends of the Orleans family. Marie Amélie died at Claremont, on the 24th of March 1866.

See A. Trognon, Vie de Marie Amélie (1872); A. L. Baron Imbert de St Amand, La Jeunesse de Marie Amélie (1891), Marie Amélie au Palais Royal (1892), Marie Amélie et la cour de Palerme (1891), Marie Amélie et la cour des Tuileries (1892), Marie Amélie et l’apogée de règne de Louis Philippe (1893), Marie Amélie et la société française en 1847 (1894), and Marie Amélie et la duchesse d’Orleans (1893).

MARIE ANTOINETTE (1755-1793), queen of France, ninth child of Maria Theresa and the emperor Francis I., was born at Vienna, on the 2nd of November 1755. She was brought up under a simple and austere régime and educated with a view to the French marriage arranged by Maria Theresa, the abbé Vermond being appointed as her tutor in 1769. Her marriage with the dauphin, which took place at Versailles on the 16th of May 1770, was intended to crown the policy of Choiseul and confirm the alliance between Austria and France. This fact, combined with her youth and the extreme corruption of the French court, made her position very difficult. Madame du Barry, whose influence over Louis XV. was at that time supreme, formed the centre of a powerful anti-Choiseul cabal, which succeeded in less than a year after the dauphin’s marriage in bringing about the fall of Choiseul and seriously threatening the stability of the Austrian alliance. Thus the young princess was surrounded by enemies both at court and in the dauphin’s household, and came to rely almost entirely upon the Austrian ambassador, the comte de Mercy-Argenteau, whom Maria Theresa had instructed to act as her mentor, at the same time arranging that she herself should be kept informed of all that concerned her daughter, so that she might at once advise her and safeguard the alliance. Hence arose the famous secret correspondence of Mercy-Argenteau, an invaluable record of all the details of Marie Antoinette’s life from her marriage in 1770 till the death of Maria Theresa in 1780.

Marie Antoinette soon won the affection and confidence of the dauphin and endeared herself to the king, but her position was precarious, and both Mercy and Maria Theresa had continually to urge her to conquer her violent dislike for the favourite and try to conciliate her.

The accession of the young king and queen on the death of Louis XV. (May 10, 1774), was hailed with great popular enthusiasm. But her first steps brought Marie Antoinette into open hostility with the anti-Austrian party. She was urgent in obtaining the dismissal of d’Aiguillon, and did all in her power to secure the recall of Choiseul, though without success. Thus from the very first she appeared in the light of a partisan, having against her all the enemies of Choiseul and of the Austrian alliance, and was already given the nickname of “l’autrichienne” by mesdames the king’s aunts. At the same time her undisguised impatience of the cumbrous court etiquette shocked many people, and her taste for pleasure led her to seek the society of the comte d’Artois and his young and dissolute circle. But the greatest weakness in her position lay in her unsatisfactory relations with her husband. The king, though affectionate, was cold and apathetic, and it was not till seven years after her marriage that there was any possibility of her bearing him an heir. This fact naturally decreased her popularity, and as early as September 1774, was made the subject of offensive pamphlets and the like, as in the case of the affaire Beaumarchais. (See Beaumarchais.)

The end of the period of mourning for the late king was the signal for a succession of gaieties, during which the queen displayed a passion for amusement and excitement which led to unfortunate results. Being childless, and with a husband who could not command her respect, her longing for affection led her to form various intimate friendships, above all with the princesse de Lamballe and the comtesse Jules de Polignac, who soon obtained such an empire over her affections that no favour was too great for them to ask, and often to obtain. Thus for the benefit of Madame de Lamballe the queen revived the superfluous and expensive office of superintendent of her household, which led to constant disagreements and jealousies among her ladies and offended many important families. In frequenting the salons of her friends the queen not only came in contact with a number of the younger and more dissipated courtiers, whose high play and unseemly amusements she countenanced, but she fell under the influence of various ambitious intriguers, such as the baron de Bésenval, the comte de Vaudreuil, the duc de Lauzun and the comte d’Adhémar, whose interested manœuvres she was induced to further by her affection for her favourites. Thus she was often led to interfere for frivolous reasons in public affairs, sometimes with serious results, as in the case of the trial of the comte de Guines (1776), when her interference was responsible for the fall of Turgot. At the same time her extravagance in dress, jewelry and amusements (including the gardens and theatricals at Trianon, of the cost of which such exaggerated reports were spread about) and her presence at horse-races and masked balls in Paris without the king, gave rise to great scandal, which was seized upon by her enemies, among whom were Mesdames, the count of Provence, and the duke of Orleans and the Palais Royal clique.

At this critical period her brother, the emperor Joseph II., decided to visit France. As the result of his visit he left with the queen a memorandum in which he pointed out to her in plain terms the dangers of her conduct. He also took advantage of his visit to advise the king, with such success that at last, in 1778, the queen had the hope of becoming a mother. For a time the emperor’s remonstrances had some effect, and after the birth of her daughter, Marie Thérèse Charlotte (afterwards duchesse d’Angoulême) in December 1778, the queen lived a more quiet life. The death of Maria Theresa (Nov. 29, 1780) deprived her of a wise and devoted friend, and by removing all restraint on the rashness of Joseph II. was bound to increase the dislike of the Austrian alliance and cause embarrassment to Marie Antoinette. Her position was very much strengthened by the birth (Oct. 22, 1781) of a dauphin, Louis Joseph Xavier François, and on the death of Maurepas, which left the king without a chief minister, she might have exerted a considerable influence in public affairs had she taken a consistent interest in them; but her repugnance to serious matters triumphed, and she preferred to occupy herself with the education of her children, to whom she was a wise and devoted mother, and with her friends and amusements at Trianon. Personal motives alone would lead her to interfere in public affairs, especially when it was a question of obtaining places or favours for her favourites and their friends. The influence of the Polignacs was now at its height, and they obtained large sums of money, a dukedom, and many nominations to places. It was Madame de Polignac who obtained the appointment of Calonne as controller-general of the finances, and who succeeded Madame de Guéménée as “governess of the children of France” after the bankruptcy of the prince de Guéménée in 1782. Again, in response to Mercy and Joseph II.’s urgent representations, Marie Antoinette exerted herself on behalf of Austria in the affairs of the opening of the Scheldt (1783-1784) and the exchange of Bavaria (1785), in which, though she failed to provoke active interference on the part of France, she succeeded in obtaining the payment of considerable indemnities to Austria, a fact which led to the popular legend of her having sent millions to Austria, and aroused much indignation against her. Later, on the recommendation of Mercy and Vermond, she supported the nomination of Loménie de Brienne in 1787, an appointment which, though widely approved at the time, was laid to the queen’s blame when it ended in failure.

Two more children were born to her; Louis Charles, duke of Normandy, afterwards dauphin, on the 27th of March 1785, and Sophie Hélène Beatrix (d. June 19, 1787), on the 9th of July 1786. In 1785-1786 the affair of the Diamond Necklace (q.v.) revealed the depth of the hatred which her own follies and the calumnies of her enemies had aroused against her. The public held her responsible for the bankrupt state of the country; and though in 1788, following the popular outcry, she prevailed upon the king to recall Necker, it was impossible for him to avert the Revolution. The year 1789 was one of disaster for Marie Antoinette; on the 10th of March her brother Joseph II. died, and on the 4th of June her eldest son. The same year saw the assembling of the States-general, which she had dreaded; the taking of the Bastille, and the events leading to the terrible days of the 5th and 6th of October at Versailles and the removal of the royal family to the Tuileries. Then began the negotiations with Mirabeau, whose high estimate of the queen is well-known (e.g. his famous remark, “The king has only one man on his side, and that is his wife”). But the queen was violently prejudiced against him, believing him among other things to be responsible for the events of the 5th and 6th of October, and he never gained her full confidence. She was naturally incapable of seeing the full import of the Revolution, and merely temporised with Mirabeau. She dreaded the thought of civil war; and even when she had realized the necessity for decisive action the king’s apathy and indecision made it impossible for her to persuade him to carry into effect Mirabeau’s plan of leaving Paris and appealing to the provinces. Her difficulties were increased by the departure of Mercy for the Hague in September 1790, for Montmorin who now took his place in the negotiations had not her confidence to the same extent. Feeling herself helpless and almost isolated in Paris, she now relied chiefly on her friends outside France—Mercy, Count Axel Fersen, and the baron de Breteuil; and it was by their help and that of Bouillé that after the death of Mirabeau, on the 8th of April 1791, the plan was arranged of escaping to Montmédy, which ended in the flight to Varennes (June 21, 1791).

After the return from Varennes the royal family were closely guarded, but in spite of this they still found channels of communication with the outside world. The king being sunk in apathy, the task of negotiation devolved upon the queen; but in her inexperience and ignorance of affairs, and the uncertainty of information from abroad, it was hard for her to follow any clear policy. Her courageous bearing during the return from Varennes had greatly impressed Barnave, and he now approached her on behalf of the Feuillants and the constitutional party. For about a year she continued to negotiate with them, forwarding to Mercy and the emperor Leopold II. letters and memoranda dictated by them, while at the same time secretly warning her friends not to accept these letters as her own opinions, but to realize that she was dependent on the Constitutionals. She agreed with their plan of an armed congress, and on this idea both she and Fersen insisted with all their might, Fersen leaving Brussels and going on a mission to the emperor to try and gain support and checkmate the émigrés, whose desertion the queen bitterly resented, and whose rashness threatened to frustrate her plans and endanger the lives of her family.

As to the acceptance of the constitution (Sept. 1791), “tissue of absurdities” though the queen thought it, and much as she would have preferred a bolder course, she considered that in the circumstances the king was bound to accept it in order to inspire confidence. Mercy was also in correspondence with the Constitutionals, and in letter after letter to him and the emperor, the queen, strongly supported by Fersen, insisted that the congress should be formed as soon as possible, her appeals increasing in urgency as she saw that Barnave’s party would soon be powerless against the extremists. But owing to the lengthy negotiations of the powers the congress was continually postponed. On the 1st of March 1792 Leopold II. died, and was succeeded by the young Francis II. Marie Antoinette’s actions were now directed entirely by Fersen, for she suspected Mercy and the emperor of sacrificing her to the interests of Austria (Fersen, i. 251; Arneth, pp. 254, 256, &c.). The declaration of war which the king was forced to make (April 20) threw her definitely into opposition to the Revolution, and she betrayed to Mercy and Fersen the plans of the French generals (Arneth, p. 259; Fersen, ii. 220, 289, 308, 325, 327). She was now certain that the life of the king was threatened, and the events of the 20th of June added to her terrors. She considered their only hope to lie in the intervention of the powers and in the appeal to force, and endorsed the suggestion of a threatening manifesto which should hold the National Assembly and Paris responsible for the safety of the king and royal family. Immediately after Brunswick’s manifesto followed the storming of the Tuileries and the removal of the royal family to the Temple (Aug. 10). During all these events and the captivity in the Temple Marie Antoinette showed an unvarying courage and dignity, in spite of her failing health and the illness of her son. After the execution of the king (Jan. 17, 1793) several unsuccessful attempts were made by her friends to rescue her and her children, among others by Jarjayes, Toulan and Lepître, and the “baron de Batz,” and negotiations for her release or exchange were even opened with Danton; but as the allied armies approached her trial and condemnation became a certainty. She had already been separated from her son, the sight of whose ill-treatment added terribly to her sufferings; she was now parted from her daughter and Madame Elizabeth, and removed on the 1st of August 1793 to the Conciergerie. Even here, where she was under the closest guard and subjected to the most offensive espionnage, attempts were made to rescue her, among others Michonis’ “Conspiration de l’oeillet.”

On the 14th of October began her trial, her defence being entrusted to Chauveau-Lagarde and Tronson-Ducourdray. Her noble attitude, even in the face of the atrocious accusations of Fouquier-Tinville, commanded the admiration even of her enemies, and her answers during her long examination were clear and skilful. The following were the questions finally put to the jury:—

(1) Is it established that manœuvres and communications have existed with foreign powers and other external enemies of the republic, the said manœuvres, &c., tending to furnish them with assistance in money, give them an entry into French territory, and facilitate the progress of their armies?

(2) Is Marie Antoinette of Austria, the widow Capet, convicted of having co-operated in these manœuvres and maintained these communications?

(3) Is it established that a plot and conspiracy has existed tending to kindle civil war within the republic, by arming the citizens against one another?

(4) Is Marie Antoinette, the widow Capet, convicted of having participated in this plot and conspiracy?

The jury decided unanimously in the affirmative, and on the 16th of October 1793 Marie Antoinette was led to the guillotine, leaving behind her a touching letter to Madame Elizabeth, known as her “Testament.”

As to the justice of these charges, we have seen how the queen was actually guilty of betraying her country, though it was only natural for her to identify the cause of the monarchy with that of France. To civil war she was consistently opposed, and never ceased to dissociate herself from the plans of the émigrés, but here again her very position made her an enemy of the republic. In any case, all her actions had as their aim—firstly, the safeguarding of the monarchy and the king’s position, and later, when she saw this to be impossible, that of securing the safety of her husband and her son.

For a bibliographical study see: M. Tourneux, Marie Antoinette devant l’histoire. Essai bibliographique (2nd ed., Paris, 1901); id. Bibliogr. de la ville de Paris ... (vol. iv. 1906), nos. 20980-21338; also Bibliogr. de femmes célèbres (Turin and Paris, 1892, &c.). The most important material for her life is to be found in her letters and in the correspondence of Mercy-Argenteau, but a large number of forgeries have found their way into certain of the collections, such as those of Paul Vogt d’Hunolstein (Correspondance inédite de Marie Antoinette, (3rd ed., Paris, 1864), and F. Feuillet des Conches Louis XVI., Marie Antoinette et Madame Élisabeth, lettres et documents inédits (6 vols., Paris, 1864-1873), while most of the works on Marie Antoinette published before the appearance of Arneth’s publications (1865, &c.) are based partly on these forgeries. For a detailed examination of the question of the authenticity of the letters see the introduction to Lettres de Marie Antoinette. Recueil des lettres authentiques de la reine, publié pour la société d’histoire contemporaine, par M. de la Rocheterie et le marquis de Beaucourt (2 vols., Paris, 1895-1896); also A. Geffroy, Gustave III. et la cour de France (2 vols., Paris, 1869), vol. ii., appendix. Of the highest importance are the letters from the archives of Vienna published by Alfred von Arneth and others: A. von Arneth, Maria Theresia und Marie Antoinette, ihr Briefwechsel 1770-1780 (Paris and Vienna, 1865); id., Marie Antoinette, Joseph II. und Leopold II. ihr Briefwechsel (Leipzig, Paris and Vienna, 1866); id. and A. Geffroy, Correspondance secrète de Marie-Thérèse et du comte de Mercy-Argenteau (3 vols., Paris, 1874); id. and J. Flammermont, Correspondance secrète du comte de Mercy-Argenteau avec Joseph II. et le prince de Kaunitz (2 vols., Paris, 1889-1891); for further letters see Comte de Reiset, Lettres de la reine Marie Antoinette à la landgrave Louise de Hesse-Darmstadt (1865); id. Lettres inédites de Marie Antoinette et de Marie-Clotilde, reine de Sardaigne (1877). See also Correspondance entre le comte de Mirabeau et le comte de la Marck, 1789-1791, recueillie ... par F. de Bacourt (3 vols., Paris, 1857), and Baron R. M. de Klinckowström, Le Comte de Fersen et la cour de France (2 vols., Paris, 1877-1878). Memoirs: See most contemporary memoirs, e.g. those of the prince de Ligne, Choiseul, Ségur, Bouillé, Dumouriez, &c. Some, such as those of Madame Campan, Weber, Cléry, Mme de Tourzel, are prejudiced in her favour; others, such as those of Besenval, Lauzun, Soulavie, are equally prejudiced against her. M. Tourneux (op. cit.) discusses the authenticity of the memoirs of Tilly, Cléry, Lauzun, &c. The chief of these memoirs are: Mme Campan, Mémoires sur la vie privée de Marie Antoinette (5th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1823, Eng. trans. 1887), the inaccuracy of which is clearly demonstrated by J. Flammermont in Études critiques sur les sources de l’histoire du xviiie siècle: Les Mémoires de Mme Campan, in the Bulletin de la Faculté des lettres de Poitiers (4th year, 1886, pp. 56, 109); J. Weber, Mémoires concernant Marie Antoinette (3 vols., London, 1804-1809; Eng. trans., 3 vols., London, 1805-1806); Mémoires de M. le baron de Besenval (3 vols., Paris, 1805); Mémoires de M. le duc de Lauzun (2nd ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1822); E. Bavoux, Méms. secrets de J. M. Augeard, secrétaire des commandements de la reine M. Antoinette (Paris, 1866); Mme Vigée-Le-Brun, Mes souvenirs (2 vols., Paris, 1867); Mémoires de Mme la duchesse de Tourzel, ed. by the duc de Cars (2 vols., Paris, 1883); Mémoires de la baronne d’Oberkirch (2 vols., Paris, 1853).

General Works:—See the general works on the period and on Louis XVI., and bibliographies to articles Louis XVI. and French Revolution. A. Sorel, L’Europe et la Rév. fr. (ii. passim) contains a good estimate of Marie Antoinette. See also E. and J. de Goncourt, Histoire de Marie Antoinette (Paris, 1859); P. de Nolhac, Marie Antoinette, dauphine (Paris, 1897); id. La Reine Marie Antoinette (8th cd., 1898), which gives good descriptions of Versailles, Trianon, &c.; M. de la Rocheterie, Histoire de Marie Antoinette (2 vols., Paris, 1890); A. L. Bicknell, The Story of Marie Antoinette; R. Prölss, Königin Marie Antoinette, Bilder aus ihrem Leben (Leipzig, 1894); G. Desjardins, Le Petit-Trianon (Versailles, 1885). For her trial and death, see E. Campardon, Marie Antoinette à la Conciergerie (1863). H. Belloc’s Marie Antoinette (London, 1909) is very biassed and sometimes misleading.

(C. B. P.)

See Arneth, Marie Antoinette, Joseph II. and Leopold II., pp. 1-18.

v. the Instructions données à la marquise de Tourzel, governess of the children of France, dated the 24th of July, 1789, in la Rocheterie and Beaucourt, Lettres de Marie Antoinette, ii. 131.

But see Arneth and Flammermont, i. 228, foot-note.

This had reflected discredit on the queen, Madame de Guéménée having been one of her intimate friends.

Letters of 31st July 1791 to Mercy. Arneth, p. 193 and 194, and letter of 1st August.

Arneth, pp. 196, 203; Klinekowström, Fersen, i. 192.

H. Belloc, Marie-Antoinett, pp. 311-312, states that clause VIII. of Brunswick’s manifesto was “drafted” by Marie Antoinette, i.e. that the idea of holding Paris responsible for the safety of the royal family was first suggested by her. He bases this statement entirely upon the queen’s letters of July 3rd to Fersen, of July 4th to Mercy, the reception of which Fersen notes in his Journal on July 8th and 9th (Fersen ii. 21). But these letters were obviously the answer to Fersen’s letter of June 30th to the queen (Fersen ii. 315), in which he tells her the terms of the manifesto. Moreover, the suggestion of holding the Assembly responsible is to be found as early as in the memo. of the Constitutionals of September the 8th, 1791, and is included in the Instructions of Mallet du Pan (Mems. ed. Sayous, i. 281, and appendix 445). Fersen (Fersen ii. 329, 337, 18th July and 28th July to the queen, and p. 338, 29th July to Taube) states that it was he who drew up the manifesto by means of the marquis de Limon.

MARIE DE FRANCE (fl. c. 1175-1190), French poet and fabulist. In the introduction (c. 1240) to his Vie Seint Edmund le Rey Denis Pyramus says she was one of the most popular of authors with counts, barons and knights, but especially with ladies. She is also mentioned by the anonymous author of the Couronnement Renart. Her lays were translated into Norwegian by order of Haakon IV.; and Thomas Chestre, who is generally supposed to have lived in the reign of Henry VI., gave a version of Lanval. Very little is known about her history, and until comparatively recently the very century in which she lived remained a matter of dispute. In spite of her own statement in the epilogue to her fables: “Marie ai num, si suis de France,” generally interpreted to mean that Marie was a native of the Île de France, she seems to have been of Norman origin, and certainly spent most of her life in England. Her language, however, shows little trace of Anglo-Norman provincialism. Like Wace, she used a literary dialect which probably differed very widely from common Norman speech. The manuscripts in which Marie’s poems are preserved date from the late 13th or even the 14th century, but the language fixes the date of the poems in the second half of the 12th century. The Lais are dedicated to an unknown king, who is identified as Henry II. of England; and the fables, her Ysopet, were written according to the Epilogus for a Count William, generally recognized to be William Longsword, earl of Salisbury. The author of Couronnement Renart, says that Marie had dedicated her poem to the count William to whom the unknown poet addresses himself. This is William of Dampierre (d. 1251), the husband of the countess Margaret of Flanders, and his identification with Marie’s count William is almost certainly an error. Marie lived and wrote at the court of Henry II., which was very literary and purely French. Queen Eleanor was a Provençal, and belonged to a family in which the patronage of poetry was a tradition. There is no evidence to show whether Marie was of noble origin or simply pursued the profession of a trouvère for her living.

The origin of the lais has been the subject of much discussion. Marie herself says that she had heard them sung by Breton minstrels. It seems probable that it is the lesser or French Brittany from which the stories were derived, though something may be due to Welsh and Cornish sources. Gaston Paris (Romania, vol. xv.) maintained that Marie had heard the stories from English minstrels, who had assimilated the Celtic legends. In any case the Breton lays offer abundant evidence of traditions from Scandinavian and Oriental sources. The Guigemar of Marie de France presents marked analogies with the ordinary Oriental romance of escape from a harem, for instance, with details superadded from classical mythology. Marie seems to have contented herself with giving new literary form to the stories she heard by turning them into Norman octosyllabic verse, and apparently made few radical changes from her originals. Joseph Bédier thinks that the lays of the Breton minstrels were prose recitals interspersed with short lyrics something after the manner of the cante-fable of Aucassin et Nicolette. Marie’s task was to give these cante-fables a narrative form destined to be read rather than sung or recited.

The Lais which may be definitely attributed to Marie are: Guigemar, Equitan, Le Frêne, Le Bisclavret (the werewolf), Les Deux amants, Laustic, Chaitivel, Lanval, Le Chèvrefeuille, Milon, Yonec and Eliduc. The other similar lays are anonymous except the Lai d’Ignaure by Renant and the Lai du cor of Robert Biket, two authors otherwise unknown. They vary in length from some twelve thousand lines to about a hundred. Le Chèvrefeuille, a short episode of the Tristan story, telling how Tristan makes known his presence in the wood to Iseult, is the best known of them all. Laustic (Le Rossignol) is almost as short and simple. In Yonec a mysterious bird visits the lady kept in durance by an old husband, and is turned into a valiant knight. The lover is killed by the husband, but in due time is avenged by his son. The scene of the story is partly laid in Chester, but the fable in slightly different forms occurs in the folk-lore of many countries. Lanval is a fairy story, and the hero vanishes eventually with his fairy princess to the island of Avallon or Avilion. Eliduc is more elaborately planned than any of these, and the action is divided between Exeter and Brittany. Here again the story of the man with two brides is not new, but the three characters of the story are so dealt with that each wins the reader’s sympathy. The resignation of the wife of Eliduc and her reception of the new bride find a parallel in another of the lays, Le Frêne. The story is in both cases more human and less repugnant than the, in some respects, similar story of Griselda.

Marie’s Ysopet is translated from an English original which she erroneously attributed to Alfred the Great, who had, she said, translated it from the Latin. The collection includes many fables that have come down from Phaedrus, some Oriental stories derived from Jewish sources, with many popular apologues that belong to the Renard cycle, and differ from those of older origin in that they are intended to amuse rather than to instruct. Marie describes the misery of the poor under the feudal régime, but she preaches resignation rather than revolt. The popularity of this collection is attested by the twenty-three MSS. of it that have been preserved.

Another poem attributed to Marie de France is L’Espurgatoire Seint Patriz, a translation from the Tractatus de purgatorio S. Patricii (c. 1185) of Henri de Salterey, which brings her activity down almost to the close of the century.

See Die Fabeln der Marie de France (1898), edited by Karl Warnke with the help of materials left by Eduard Mall; and Die Lais der Marie de France (2nd ed., 1900), edited by Karl Warnke, with comparative notes by Reinhold Köhler; the two works being vols. vi. and iii. of the Bibliotheca Normannica of Hermann Suchier; also an extremely interesting article by Joseph Bédier in the Revue des deux mondes (Oct. 1891); another by Alice Kemp-Welch in the Nineteenth Century (Dec. 1907). For an analysis of the Lais see Revue de philologie française, viii. 161 seq.; Karl Warnke, Die Quellen der Esope der Marie de France (1900). The Lais were first published in 1819 by B. de Roquefort. L’Espurgatoire Seint Patriz was edited by T. A. Jenkins (Philadelphia, 1894). Some of the Lays were paraphrased by Arthur O’Shaughnessy in his Lays of France (1872).

Cotton MS. Domit. A xi. (British Museum), edited for the Rolls Series by Thomas Arnold in 1892.

Edited by R. Keyser and C. R. Unger as Strengleikar eða Lioðabok (Christiania, 1850).

Chestre’s Sir Launfal was printed by J. Ritson in Ancient English Metrical Romances (1802); and by L. Erling (Kempten, 1883).

The soi-disant Breton folk-song “Ann Eostik” on the same subject translated by La Villemarque in his Barzaz-Breiz (1840) is rejected by competent authorities. Similar stories in which the nightingale is slain by an angry husband occur in Renard contrefait and in the Gesta Romanorum.

Cf. the Oiseau bleu of Mme d’Aulnoy.

Sir Lambewell in Bishop Percy’s Folio MS. (ed. Hales and Furnivall, vol. ii., 1867), is another version of Lanval, and differs from Chestre’s. For the relations between Lanval and the Lai de Graelent, wrongly ascribed to Marie by Roquefort, see W. H. Schofield, “The Lays of Graelent and Lanval, and the story of Wayland,” in the Publications of the Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, vol. xv. (Baltimore, 1900).

MARIE DE’ MEDICI (1573-1642), queen consort and queen regent of France, daughter of Francis de’ Medici, grand duke of Tuscany, and Joanna, an Austrian archduchess, was born in Florence on the 26th of April 1573. After Joanna’s death in 1578 duke Francis married the notorious Bianca Capello, and the grand-ducal children were brought up away from their father at the Pitti Palace in Florence, where after the death of her brother and sister and the marriage of her elder sister Eleonora, duchess of Mantua, a companion was chosen for Marie, this being Leonora Dori, afterwards known as Leonora Galigaï. She received a good education in company with her half-brother Antonio. After many projects of marriage for Marie had failed Henry IV. of France, who was under great monetary obligations to the house of Medici, offered himself as a suitor although his marriage with Marguerite de Valois was not yet dissolved; but the marriage was not celebrated until October 1600. Her eldest son, the future Louis XIII., was born at Fontainebleau in September of the next year; the other children who survived were Gaston duke of Orleans; Elizabeth queen of Spain; Christine duchess of Savoy; and Henrietta Maria queen of England. During her husband’s lifetime Marie de’ Medici showed little sign of political taste or ability; but after his murder in 1610 when she became regent, she devoted herself to affairs with unfailing regularity and developed an inherited passion for power. She gave her confidence chiefly to Concini, the husband of Leonora Galigaï, who squandered the public money and secured a series of important charges with the title of Maréchal d’Ancre. Under the regent’s lax and capricious rule the princes of the blood and the great nobles of the kingdom revolted; and the queen, too weak to assert her authority, consented at Sainte Menehould (May 15, 1614) to buy off the discontented princes. In 1616 her policy was strengthened by the accession to her councils of Richelieu, who had come to the front at the meeting of the states general in 1614; but Louis XIII., who was now sixteen years old, was determined to throw off the tutelage of his mother and Concini. By his orders Concini was murdered, Leonora Galigaï was tried for sorcery and beheaded, Richelieu was banished to his bishopric, and the queen was exiled to Blois. After two years of virtual imprisonment she escaped in 1619 and became the centre of a new revolt. Louis XIII. easily dispersed the rebels, but through the mediation of Richelieu was reconciled with his mother, who was allowed to hold a small court at Angers, and resumed her place in the royal council in 1621. But differences between her and the cardinal rapidly arose, and the queen mother intrigued to drive Richelieu again from court. For a single day the journée des dupes, the 12th of November 1630, she seemed to have succeeded; but the triumph of Richelieu was followed by her exile to Compiêgne, whence she escaped in 1631 to Brussels. From that time till her death at Cologne on the 3rd of July 1642 she intrigued in vain against the cardinal.

Among contemporary authorities for the history of Marie de’ Medici, see Mathieu de Morgues, Deux faces de la vie et de la mort de Marie de Médicis (Antwerp, 1643); J. B. Matthieu, Éloge historial de Marie de Médicis (Paris, 1626); Florentin du Ruau, Le Tableau de la régence de Marie de Médicis (Poitiers, 1615); F. E. Mézeray, Histoire de la mère et du fils, ou de Marie de Médicis et de Louis XIII. (Amsterdam, 1730); and A. P. Lord, The Regency of Marie de Médicis (London, 1904). For the political history see the bibliographies to Henry IV. and Louis XIII.

There are lives by Thiroux d’Arconville (3 vols., Paris, 1774) by Miss J. S. H. Pardoe (London, 1852, and again 1890); and by B. Zeller, Henri IV. et Marie de Médicis (Paris, 1877). There is a technical discussion of the causes of her death in A. Masson’s La Sorcellerie et la science des poisons au xviie siècle (Paris, 1904), and the minutest details of her private life are in L. Batiffol’s La Vie intime d’une reine de France (Paris, 1906; Eng. trans., 1908).

MARIE GALANTE, an island in the French West Indies. It lies in 15° 55′ N. and 61° 17′ W., 16 m. S.E. of Guadeloupe, of which it is a dependency. It is nearly circular in shape and 55 sq. m. in area. A rocky limestone plateau, rising in the east to a height of 675 ft., occupies the centre of the island, and from it the land descends in a series of well-wooded terraces to the sea. The shores are rocky, there are no harbours, and the roadstead off Grand Bourg is difficult of access, owing to the surrounding reefs. The climate is healthy and the soil rich; sugar, coffee and cotton being the chief products. The largest town is Grand Bourg (pop. 6901) on the south-west coast. The island was discovered by Columbus in 1493, and received its name from the vessel on which he was sailing. The French who settled here in 1648 suffered numerous attacks both from the Dutch and the British, but since 1766, except for a short period of British rule in the early part of the 19th century, they have held undisturbed possession.

MARIE LESZCZYNSKA (1703-1768), queen consort of France, was born at Breslau on the 23rd of June 1703, being the daughter of Stanislas Leszczynski (who in 1704 became king of Poland) and of Catherine Opalinska. During a temporary flight from Warsaw the child was lost, and eventually discovered in a stable; on another occasion she was for safety’s sake hidden in an oven. In his exile Stanislas found his chief consolation in superintending the education of his daughter. Madame de Prie first suggested the Polish princess as a bride for Louis duke of Bourbon, but she was soon betrothed not to him but to Louis XV., a step which was the outcome of the jealousies of the houses of Condé and Orléans, and was everywhere regarded as a mésalliance for the French king. The marriage took place at Fontainebleau on the 5th of September 1725. Marie’s one attempt to interfere in politics, an effort to prevent the disgrace of the duke of Bourbon, was the beginning of her husband’s alienation from her; and after the birth of her seventh child Louise, Marie was practically deserted by Louis, who openly avowed his liaison with Louise de Nesle, comtesse de Mailly, who was replaced in turn by her sisters Pauline marquise de Vintimille, and Marie Anne, duchess de Châteauroux, and these by Madame de Pompadour. In the meantime the queen saw her father Stanislas established in Lorraine, and the affectionate intimacy which she maintained with him was the chief consolation of her harassed life. After a momentary reconciliation with Louis during his illness at Metz in 1744, Marie shut herself up more closely with her own circle of friends until her death at Versailles on the 24th of June 1768.

See V. des Diguières, Lettres inédites de le reine Marie Leczinska et de la duchesse de Luynes au Président Hénault (1886); Marquise des Réaux, Le Roi Stanislas et Marie Leczinska (1895); P. de Raynal, Le Mariage d’un roi (Paris, 1887); H. Gauthier Villars, Le Mariage de Louis XV. d’après des documents nouveaux (1900); P. de Nolhac, La Reine Marie Leczinska (1900) and Louis XV. et Marie Leczynska (1900); P. Boyé, Lettres du roi Stanislas à Marie Leszczynska 1754-1766 (Paris and Nancy, 1901); and C. Stryienski’s book on Marie Joséphs de Saxe (La Mère des trois derniers Bourbons, Paris, 1902). See also the memoirs of Président Hénault and of the duc de Luynes (ed. Dussieux and Soulié, 1860, &c.).

MARIE LOUISE (1791-1847), second wife of Napoleon I., was the daughter of Francis I., emperor of Austria, and of the princess Theresa of Naples, and was born on the 12th of December 1791. Her disposition, fresh and natural but lacking the qualities that make for distinction, gave no promise of eminence until reasons of state brought Napoleon shortly after his divorce of Josephine to sue for her hand (see Napoleon and Josephine). It is probable, though not quite certain, that the first suggestions as to this marriage alliance emanated secretly from the Austrian chancellor, Metternich. The prince de Ligne claimed to have been instrumental in arranging it. In any case the proposal was well received at Paris both by Napoleon and by his ministers; and though there were difficulties respecting the divorce, of Josephine, yet these were surmounted in a way satisfactory to the emperor and the prelates of Austria. The marriage took place by proxy in the church of St Augustine, Vienna, on the 11th of March 1810. The new empress was escorted into France by Queen Caroline Murat, for whom she soon conceived a feeling of distrust. The civil and religious contracts took place at Paris early in April, and during the honeymoon, spent at the palace of Compiègne, the emperor showed the greatest regard for his wife. “He is so evidently in love with her,” wrote Metternich “that he cannot conceal his feelings, and all his customary ways of life are subordinate to her wishes.” His joy was complete when on the 20th of March 1811 she bore him a son who was destined to bear the empty titles of “king of Rome” and “Napoleon II.” The regard of Napoleon for his consort was evidenced shortly before the birth of this prince, when he bade the physicians, if the lives of the mother and of the child could not both be saved, to spare her life. Under Marie Louise the etiquette of the court of France became more stately and the ritual of religious ceremonies more elaborate. Before the campaign of 1812 she accompanied the emperor to Dresden; but after that scene of splendour misfortunes crowded upon Napoleon. In January 1814 he appointed her to act as regent of France (with Joseph Bonaparte as lieutenant-general) during his absence in the field.

At the time of Napoleon’s first abdication (April 11, 1814), Joseph and Jerome Bonaparte tried to keep the empress under some measure of restraint at Blois; but she succeeded in reaching her father the emperor Francis while Napoleon was on his way to Elba. She, along with her son, was escorted into Austria by Count von Neipperg, and refused to comply with the entreaties and commands of Napoleon to proceed to Elba; and her alienation from him was completed when he ventured to threaten her with a forcible abduction if she did not obey. During the Hundred Days she remained in Austria and manifested no desire for the success of Napoleon in France. At the Congress of Vienna the Powers awarded to her and her son the duchies of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, in conformity with the terms of the treaty of Fontainebleau (March, 1814); in spite of the determined opposition of Louis XVIII. she gained this right for herself owing largely to the support of the emperor Alexander, but she failed to make good the claims of her son to the inheritance (see NAPOLEON II.). She proceeded alone to Parma, where she fell more and more under the influence of the count von Neipperg, and had to acquiesce in the title “duke of Reichstadt” accorded to her son. Long before the tidings of the death of Napoleon at St Helena reached her she was living in intimate relations with Neipperg at Parma, and bore a son to him not long after that event. Napoleon on the other hand spoke of her in his will with marked tenderness, and both excused and forgave her infidelity to him. Thereafter Neipperg became her morganatic husband; and they had other children. In 1832, at the time of the last illness of the duke of Reichstadt, she visited him at Vienna and was there at the time of his death; but in other respects she shook off all association with Napoleon. Her rule in Parma, conjointly with Neipperg, was characterized by a clemency and moderation which were lacking in the other Italian states in that time of reaction. She preserved some of the Napoleonic laws and institutions; in 1817 she established the equality of women in heritage, and ordered the compilation of a civil code which was promulgated in January 1820. The penal code of November 1821 abolished many odious customs and punishments of the old code, and allowed publicity in criminal trials. On the death of Neipperg in 1829 his place was taken by Baron Werklein, whose influence was hostile to popular liberty. During the popular movements of 1831 Marie Louise had to take refuge with the Austrian garrison at Piacenza; on the restoration of her rule by the Austrians its character deteriorated, Parma becoming an outwork of the Austrian empire. She died at Vienna on the 18th of December 1847.

See Correspondance de Marie Louise 1799-1847 (Vienna, 1887); J. A. Baron von Helfert, Marie Louise (Vienna, 1873); E. Wertheimer, Die Heirath der Erzherzogin Marie Louise mit Napoléon I. (Vienna, 1882); and The Duke of Reichstadt (Eng. ed., London, 1905). See also the Memoirs of Bausset, Mme Durand Méneval and Metternich; and Max Billard, The Marriage Ventures of Marie Louise, English version by Evelyn duchess of Wellington (1910).

MARIENBAD, a town of Bohemia, Austria, 115 m. W. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900), 4588. It is one of the most frequented watering-places of Europe, lying on the outskirts of the Kaiserwald at an altitude of 2093 ft., and is 40 m. S.W. of Carlsbad by rail. Marienbad is enclosed on all sides except the south by gently sloping hills clad with fragrant pine forests, which are intersected by lovely walks. The principal buildings are: the Roman Catholic church, which was completed in 1851; the English church, the theatre, the Kurhaus, built in 1901, and several bathing establishments and hospitals. The mineral springs, which belong to the adjoining abbey of Tepl, are eight in number, and are used both for bathing and drinking, except the Marienquelle, which is used only for bathing. Some of them, like the Kreuzbrunnen and the Ferdinandsbrunnen, contain alkaline-saline waters which resemble those of Carlsbad, except that they are cold and contain nearly twice the quantity of purgative salts. Others, like the Ambrosiusbrunnen and the Karolinenbrunnen, are among the strongest iron waters in the world, while the Rudolfsbrunnen is an earthy-alkaline spring. The waters are used in cases of liver affections, gout, diabetes and obesity; and the patients must conform during the cure to a strictly regulated diet. Besides the mineral water baths there are also moor or mud-baths, and the peat used for these baths is the richest in iron in the world. About 1,000,000 bottles of mineral water are exported annually.

Amongst the places of interest round Marienbad is the basaltic rock of Podhorn (2776 ft.), situated about 3 m. to the east, from which an extensive view of the Böhmerwald, Fichtelgebirge and Erzgebirge is obtained. About 7 m. in the same direction lies the old and wealthy abbey of Tepl, founded in 1193. The actual building dates from the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, and contains a fine library with a collection of rare manuscripts and incunabula; near it is the small and old town of Tepl (pop. 2789). To the north-east of Marienbad lies the small watering-place of Königswart; near it is a castle belonging since 1618 to the princes of Metternich, which contains an interesting museum, created by the famous Austrian statesman in the first part of the 19th century. It contains, besides a fine library, a collection of the presents he received during his long career; numerous autographs, and other historical relics, a collection of rare coins, armour, portraits and various minerals.

Marienbad is among the youngest of the Bohemian watering-places, although its springs were known from of old. They appear in a document dating from 1341, where they are called “the Auschowitzer springs belonging to the abbey of Tepl;” but it was only through the efforts of Dr Josef Nehr, the doctor of the abbey, who from 1779 until his death in 1820 worked hard to demonstrate the curative properties of the springs, that the waters began to be used for medicinal purposes. The place obtained its actual name of Marienbad in 1808; became a watering-place in 1818, and received its charter as a town in 1868.

See Lang, Führer durch Marienbad und Umgebung (Marienbad, 1902); and Kisch, Marienbad, seine Umgebung und Heilmittel (Marienbad, 1895).

MARIENBERG, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony 16 m. S.E. of Chemnitz on the Flöha-Reitzenhain railway. Pop. (1905), 7603. It has an Evangelical church, a Roman Catholic church, a non-commissioned officers’ school and a preparatory school; and the industries comprise wool-spinning, flax-dressing, the making of lace, toys and cigars, and silver-mining.

MARIENBURG (Polish, Malborg), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of West Prussia, 30 m. by rail to the S.E. of Danzig in a fertile plain on the right bank of the Nogat, a channel of the Vistula, here spanned by a handsome railway bridge and by a bridge of boats. Pop. (1905), 13,095. Marienburg contains large chemical wool-cleaning works and several other factories, carries on a considerable trade in grain, wood, linen, feathers and brushes, and is the seat of important cattle, horse and wool markets. Its educational institutions include a gymnasium and a Protestant normal school. In the old market-place, many of the houses in which are built with arcades, stands a Gothic town-hall, dating from the end of the 14th century. The town is also embellished with a fine statue of Frederick the Great, who added this district to Prussia, and a monument commemorating the war of 1870-71. Marienburg is chiefly interesting from its having been for a century and a half the residence of the grand masters of the Teutonic order. The large castle of the order here was originally founded in 1274 as the seat of a simple commandery against the pagan Prussians, but in 1309 the headquarters of the grand master were transferred hither from Venice, and the “Marienburger Schloss” soon became one of the largest and most strongly fortified buildings in Germany. On the decline of the order in the middle of the 15th century, the castle passed into the hands of the Poles, by whom it was allowed to fall into neglect and decay. It came into the possession of Prussia in 1772, and was carefully restored at the beginning of the 19th century. This interesting and curious building consists of three parts, the Alt- or Hochschloss, the Mittelschloss, and the Vorburg. It is built of brick, in a style of architecture peculiar to the Baltic provinces, and is undoubtedly one of the most important secular buildings of the middle ages in Germany.

Of the numerous monographs published in Germany on the castle of Marienburg, it will suffice to mention here Büsching’s Schloss der deutschen Ritter zu Marienburg (Berlin, 1828); Voigt’s Geschichte von Marienburg (Königsberg, 1824); Bergau’s Ordenshaupthaus Marienburg (Berlin, 1871); and Steinbrecht, Schloss Marienburg in Preussen (8th ed., Berlin, 1905).

MARIENWERDER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of West Prussia, 3 m. E. of the Vistula, 23 m. S. of Marienburg by rail. Pop. (1905), 10,258. The town was founded in the year 1233 by the Teutonic order. It has a cathedral of the same century, a triple Gothic edifice, restored in 1874 and containing the tombs of several grand masters of the Teutonic order; a (Gothic) town-hall (1880); a Roman Catholic basilica (1858); a non-commissioned officers’ school; a monument of the war of 1870-71 (1897); an archaeological collection; and a seminary for female teachers. The industries include iron-foundries, saw-mills, sugar-refineries, breweries and printing-works.

MARIE THÉRÈSE (1638-1683), queen consort of France, was born on the 10th of September 1638 at the Escurial, being the daughter of Philip IV. of Spain and Elizabeth of France. By pretending to seek a bride for his master in Margaret of Savoy, Mazarin had induced the king of Spain to make proposals for the marriage of his daughter with Louis XIV., and the treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 stipulated for her marriage with the French king, Marie renouncing any claim to the Spanish succession. As the treaty, however, hinged on the payment of her dowry, which was practically impossible for Spain, Mazarin could evade the other terms of the contract. Marie Thérèse was married in June 1660, when Philip IV. with his whole court accompanied the bride to the Isle of Pheasants in the Bidassoa, where she was met by Louis. The new queen’s amiability and her undoubted virtues failed to secure her husband’s regard and affection. She saw herself neglected in turn for Louise de la Vallière, Mme. de Montespan and others; but Marie Thérèse was too pious and too humble openly to resent the position in which she was placed by the king’s avowed infidelities. With the growing influence of Madame de Maintenon over his mind and affections he bestowed more attention on his wife, which she repaid by lavishing kindness on the mistress. She had no part in political affairs except in 1672, when she acted as regent during Louis XIV.’s campaign in Holland. She died on the 30th of July 1683 at Versailles, not without suspicion of foul play on the part of her doctors. Of her six children only one survived her, the dauphin Louis, who died in 1711.

See the funeral oration of Bossuet (Paris, 1684), E. Ducéré, Le Mariage de Louis XIV. d’après les contemporains et des documents inédits (Bayonne, 1905); Dr Cabanès, Les Morts mystérieuses de l’histoire (1900), and the literature dealing with her rivals Louise de la Vallière, Madame de Montespan and Madame de Maintenon.

MARIETTA, a city and the county-seat of Cobb county, Georgia, U.S.A., in the N.W. of the state, about 17 m. N.W. of Atlanta. Pop. (1890), 3384; (1900), 4446, of whom 1928 were negroes; (1910), 5940. The city is served by the Louisville & Nashville, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis, and the Western & Atlantic railways, and is connected with Atlanta by an electric line. Marietta is situated about 1118 ft. above the sea, has a good climate, and is both a summer and a winter resort. The principal industries are the manufacture of chairs and paper, and the preparation of marble for the markets; there are also locomotive works, planing mills, a canning factory, a knitting mill, &c. At Marietta there is a national cemetery, in which more than 10,000 Federal soldiers are buried, and at Kenesaw Mountain (1809 ft.), about 21⁄2 m. west of the city, one of the fiercest battles of the Civil War was fought. After the Confederate retreat from Dalton in May 1864, General William T. Sherman, the Federal commander, made Marietta his next intermediate point in his Atlanta campaign, and the Confederate commander, General Joseph E. Johnston, established a line of defence west of the town. After several preliminary engagements Sherman on the 26th and 27th of June made repeated unsuccessful attempts to drive the Confederates from their defences at Kenesaw Mountain; he then resorted to a flanking movement which forced the Confederate general to retire (July 2) toward Atlanta. Marietta was settled about 1840, and was chartered as a city in 1852.

MARIETTA, a city and the county-seat of Washington county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Ohio River, at the mouth of the Muskingum, about 115 m. S.E. of Columbus. Pop. (1890), 8273; (1900), 13,348, including 679 foreign-born and 361 negroes; (1910), 12,923. It is served by the Pennsylvania (Marietta Division), the Baltimore & Ohio (Marietta & Parkersburg, Marietta & Zanesville, and Ohio River divisions) and the Marietta, Columbus & Cleveland railways, and by steamboat lines to several river ports; a bridge across the Ohio connects it with Williamstown, West Virginia. The city is in a hilly country of much natural beauty, and is of considerable historic interest. On the banks of the Muskingum is a public park, facing which stood the oldest church in the state; this was burned in 1905, but was subsequently rebuilt in the old style. Near by are some 18th century buildings, some interesting earthworks of the “mound-builders,” and a cemetery in which are buried many soldiers who fought in the War of Independence. Marietta is the seat of Marietta College, dating from 1830, which in 1908 had more than 500 students. It possesses a library of 60,000 volumes, including some rare collections, especially the Stimson collection of books bearing on the history of the North-West Territory. Petroleum, coal, and iron-ore abound in the neighbouring region, and the city has a considerable trade in these and in its manufactures of chairs, leather, flour, carriages, wagons, boats, boilers, bricks and glass. In 1905 the factory products were valued at $2,599,287.

Marietta, named in honour of Marie Antoinette, is the oldest settlement in the state and in the North-west Territory. It was founded in 1788 by a company of Revolutionary officers from New England under the leadership of General Rufus Putnam, and in the same year the North-West Territory was formally organized here. The pseudo-classicism of the period of Marietta’s foundation is indicated by the names—Capitolium for one of the public squares, Sacra Via for one of the principal streets, and Campus Martius for the fortification. The settlement was incorporated as a town in 1800 and chartered as a city in 1852. In 1800 the village of Harmar, including the site on which Fort Harmar was built in 1785, was annexed.

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

MARIETTE, AUGUSTE FERDINAND FRANÇOIS (1821-1881), French Egyptologist, was born on the 11th of February 1821 at Boulogne, where his father was town clerk. Educated at the Boulogne municipal college, where he distinguished himself and showed much artistic talent, he went to England in 1839 when eighteen as professor of French and drawing at a boys’ school at Stratford-on-Avon. In 1840 he became pattern-designer to a ribbon manufacturer at Coventry; but weary of ill-paid exile he returned the same year to Boulogne, and in 1841 took his degree at Douai. He now became a professor at his old college, and for some years supplemented his salary by giving private lessons and writing on historical and archaeological subjects for local periodicals. Meanwhile his cousin Nestor L’Hôte, the friend and fellow-traveller of Champollion, died, and upon Mariette devolved the task of sorting the papers of the deceased savant. He thenceforth became passionately interested in Egyptology, devoted himself to the study of hieroglyphs and Coptic, and in 1847 published a Catalogue analytique of the Egyptian Gallery of the Boulogne Museum; in 1849, being appointed to a subordinate position in the Louvre, he left Boulogne for Paris. Entrusted with a government mission for the purpose of seeking and purchasing Coptic, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic MSS. for the national collection, he started for Egypt in 1850; and soon after his arrival he made his celebrated discovery of the ruins of the Serapeum and the subterraneous catacombs of the Apisbulls. His original mission being abandoned, funds were now advanced for the prosecution of his researches, and he remained in Egypt for four years, excavating, discovering and despatching archaeological treasures to the Louvre, of which museum he was on his return appointed an assistant conservator. In 1858 he accepted the position of conservator of Egyptian monuments to the ex-khedive, Ismail Pasha, and removed with his family to Cairo. His history thenceforth becomes a chronicle of unwearied exploration and brilliant success. The museum at Bula was founded immediately. The pyramid-fields of Memphis and Sakkara, and the necropolis of Meydum, and those of Abydos and Thebes were examined; the great temples of Dendera and Edfu were disinterred; important excavations were carried out at Karnak, Medinet-Habu and Deir el-Bahri; Tanis (the Zoan of the Bible) was partially explored in the Delta; and even Gebel Barkal in the Sudan. The Sphinx was bared to the rock-level, and the famous granite and alabaster monument miscalled the “Temple of the Sphinx” was discovered. Mariette was raised successively to the rank of bey and pasha in his own service. Honours and orders were showered on him: the Legion of Honour and the Medjidie in 1852; the Red Eagle (first class) of Prussia in 1855; the Italian order of SS. Maurice and Lazarus in 1857; and the Austrian order of Francis-Joseph in 1858. In 1873 the Academy of Inscriptions decreed to him the biennial prize of 20,000 francs, and in 1878 he was elected a member of the Institute. He was also an honorary member of most of the learned societies of Europe. In 1877 his health broke down through overwork. He lingered for a few years, working to the last, and died at Cairo on the 19th of January 1881.

His chief published works are: Le Sérapéum de Memphis (1857 and following years); Dendérah, five folios and one 4to (1873-1875); Abydos, two folios and one 4to (1870-1880); Karnak, folio and 4to (1875); Deir el-Bahari, folio and 4to (1877); Listes géographiques des pylônes de Karnak, folio (1875); Catalogue du Musée de Boulaq (six editions 1864-1876); Aperçu de l’histoire d’Égypte (four editions, 1864-1874, &c.); Les Mastabas de l’ancien empire (edited by Maspero) (1883). See “Notice biographique,” by Maspero in Auguste Mariette. Œuvres diverses (tome 1, Paris, 1904), and art. Egypt: Exploration and Research.

MARIGNAC, JEAN CHARLES GALISSARD DE (1817-1894), Swiss chemist, was born at Geneva on the 24th of April 1817. When sixteen years old he began to attend the École Polytechnique in Paris, and from 1837 to 1839 studied at the École des Mines. Then, after a short time in Liebig’s laboratory at Giessen, and in the Sèvres porcelain factory, he became in 1841 professor of chemistry in the academy of Geneva. In 1845 he was appointed professor of mineralogy also, and held both chairs till 1878, when ill-health obliged him to resign. He died at Geneva on the 15th of April 1894. Marignac’s name is well known for the careful and exact determinations of atomic weights which he carried out for twenty-eight of the elements. In undertaking this work he had, like J. S. Stas, the purpose of testing Prout’s hypothesis, but he remained more disposed than the Belgian chemist to consider the possibility that it may have some degree of validity. Throughout his life he paid great attention to the “rare earths” and the problem of separating and distinguishing them; in 1878 he extracted ytterbia from what was supposed to be pure erbia, and two years later found gadolinia and samaria in the samarskite earths. In 1858 he pointed out the isomorphism of the fluostannates and the fluosilicates, thus settling the then vexed question of the composition of silicic acid; and subsequently he studied the fluosalts of zirconium, boron, tungsten, &c., and prepared silicotungstic acid, one of the first examples of the complex inorganic acids. In physical chemistry he carried out many researches on the nature and process of solution, investigating in particular the thermal effects produced by the dilution of saline solutions, the variation of the specific heat of saline solutions with temperature and concentration, and the phenomena of liquid diffusion.

A memorial lecture by P. T. Cleve, printed in the Journal of the London Chemical Society for 1895, contains a list of Marignac’s papers.

MARIGNAN, BATTLE OF, fought on the 13th and 14th of September 1515 between the French army under Francis I. and the Swiss. The scene of the battle—which was also that of a hard fought engagement in 1859 (see Italian Wars)—was the northern outskirts of the village of Melegnano, on the river Lambro, 10 m. S.E. of Milan. The circumstances out of which the battle of Marignan arose, almost inconceivable to the modern mind, were not abnormal in the conditions of Italian warfare and politics then prevailing. The young king of France had gathered an army about Lyons, wherewith to overrun the Milanese; his allies were the republics of Venice and Genoa. The duke of Milan, Maximilian Sforza, had secured the support of the emperor, the king of Spain, and the pope, and also that of the Swiss cantons, which then supplied the best and most numerous mercenary soldiers in Europe. The practicable passes of the Alps and the Apennines were held by Swiss and papal troops. Francis however boldly crossed the Col de l’Argentière (Aug. 1515) by paths that no army had hitherto used, and Marshal de La Palisse surprised and captured a papal corps at Villafranca near Pinerolo, whereupon the whole of the enemy’s troops fell back on Milan. The king then marching by Vercelli, Novara and Pavia, joined hands with Alviano, the Venetian commander, and secured a foothold in the Milanese. But in order to avoid the necessity of besieging Milan itself, he offered the Swiss a large sum to retire into their own country. They were about to accept his offer, not having received their subsidies from the pope and the king of Spain, when a fresh corps of mercenaries descended into Italy, desirous both of gaining booty and of showing their prowess against their new rivals the French and Lower Rhine “lansquenets” (Landsknechts) and against the French gendarmerie, whom (alluding to the “Battle of the Spurs” at Guinegatte in 1513) they called “hares in armour.” The French took position at Melegnano to face the Swiss, the Venetians at Lodi to hold in check the Spanish army at Piacenza. Alviano, who was visiting the king when the Swiss appeared before Melegnano, hurried off to bring thither his own army. Meantime the French and the Swiss engaged in an incredibly fierce struggle.

The king’s army was grouped in front of the village, facing in the direction of Milan, with a small stream separating it from the oncoming Swiss. On either side of the Milan road was a large body of landsknechts, a third being in reserve. The French and Gascon infantry (largely armed with arquebuses) was on the extreme right, the various bodies of gendarmerie in the centre. In front of all was the French artillery. The battle opened in the afternoon of the 13th of September. As the Swiss advanced in three huge columns, the French guns fired into them with terrible effect, but the assailants reached the intersected ground bordering the stream, and thus protected from the rush of the French gendarmerie, they debouched on the other side, and fell upon the landsknechts. The crowd of combatants, the gathering darkness, and the dust, prevented any general direction being given to the battle by the leaders of either side. Francis himself at the head of two hundred gendarmes charged and drove back two large bodies of Swiss which were pressing the landsknechts hard. The battle went on by moonlight till close on midnight, when the Swiss retired a short distance. Both sides spent the rest of the night on the battlefield, reorganizing their broken corps. Francis and his gendarmes were the outpost line of the French army, and remained all night mounted, lance in hand and helmet on head. Next morning at sunrise, the battle was renewed. The Swiss now left their centre inactive opposite the king and with two strong corps attempted to work round his flanks. That on the left made for the French baggage, but found it strongly guarded by landsknechts, who drove them back. The nearest French gendarmerie joined in the pursuit, but a detachment from the Swiss centre fell upon these and destroyed them. This detachment in turn followed up its advantage until as Francis himself expressed it, “the whole camp turned out” to aid the landsknechts and “hunted out” the Swiss. Meantime the Swiss left attack had closed with the French infantry bands and the “aventuriers” (afterwards the famous corps of Picardie and Piedmont), who were commanded on this day by the famous engineer Pedro Navarro. It was in the main struggle of arquebus against pike, but it was not the arquebus alone, or even principally, that gave the victory to the French. When the Swiss ranks had been disordered, the short pike and the sword came into play, and aided by the constable de Bourbon with a handful of the gendarmerie, the French right more than held its own until Alviano with the cavalry from Lodi rode on to the field and completed the rout of the Swiss. In the centre meanwhile the two infantries stood fast for eight hours, separated by the brook, while the artillery on both sides fired into it at short range. But the landsknechts, animated by the king, endured it as well as the Swiss; and at the last, Francis leading a final advance of his exhausted troops, the Swiss gave way and fled. Only 3000 Swiss escaped out of some 25,000 who fought. On the French side probably 8000 were killed or died of wounds. The battle lasted twenty-eight hours. Its tactical lesson was the efficacy of combining two arms against one. The French gendarmerie, burning to avenge the insult of “hares in armour,” made more than thirty charges by squadrons, and they were admirably supported by their light artillery. The landsknechts retrieved their first day’s defeat by their conduct on the second day. Nevertheless Marignan was in the main the work of the gendarmerie, the last and greatest triumph of the armoured lancer; and as a fitting close to the battle the young king was knighted by Bayard on the field.

MARIGNOLLI, GIOVANNI DE’, a notable traveller to the Far East in the 14th century, born probably before 1290, and sprung from a noble family in Florence. The family is long extinct, but a street near the cathedral (Via de’ Cerretani) formerly bore the name of the Marignolli. In 1338 there arrived at Avignon, where Benedict XII. held his court, an embassy from the great khan of Cathay (the Mongol-Chinese emperor), bearing letters to the pontiff from the khan himself, and from certain Christian nobles of the Alan race in his service. These latter represented that they had been eight years (since Monte Corvino’s death) without a spiritual guide, and earnestly desired one. The pope replied to the letters, and appointed four ecclesiastics as his legates to the khan’s court. The name of John of Florence, i.e. Marignolli, appears third on the letters of commission. A large party was associated with the four chief envoys; when in Peking the embassy still numbered thirty-two, out of an original fifty.

The mission left Avignon in December 1338; picked up the Tatar envoys at Naples; stayed nearly two months in Constantinople (Pera, May 1-June 24, 1339); and sailed across the Black Sea to Kaffa, whence they travelled to the court of Mahommed Uzbeg, khan of the Golden Horde, at Sarai on the Volga. The khan entertained them hospitably during the winter of 1339-1340 and then sent them across the steppes to Armalec, Almalig or Almaligh (Kulja), the northern seat of the house of Chaghatai, in what is now the province of Ili. “There,” says Marignolli, “we built a church, bought a piece of ground ... sung masses, and baptized several persons, notwithstanding that only the year before the bishop and six other minor friars had there undergone glorious martyrdom for Christ’s salvation.” Quitting Almaligh in 1341, they seem to have reached Peking (by way of Kamul or Hami) in May or June 1342. They were well received by the reigning khan, the last of the Mongol dynasty in China. An entry in the Chinese annals fixes the year of Marignolli’s presentation by its mention of the arrival of the great horses from the kingdom of Fulang (Farang or Europe), one of which was 11 ft. 6 in. in length, and 6 ft. 8 in. high, and black all over.

Marignolli stayed at Peking or Cambalec three or four years, after which he travelled through eastern China to Zayton or Amoy Harbour, quitting China apparently in December 1347, and reaching Columbum (Kaulam or Quilon in Malabar) in Easter week of 1348. At this place he found a church of the Latin communion, probably founded by Jordanus of Séverac, who had been appointed bishop of Columbum by Pope John XXII. in 1330. Here Marignolli remained sixteen months, after which he proceeded on what seems a most devious voyage. First he visited the shrine of St Thomas near the modern Madras, and then proceeded to what he calls the kingdom of Saba, and identifies with the Sheba of Scripture, but which seems from various particulars to have been Java. Taking ship again for Malabar on his way to Europe, he encountered great storms. They found shelter in the little port of Pervily or Pervilis (Beruwala or Berberyn) in the south-west of Ceylon; but here the legate fell into the hands of “a certain tyrant Coya Jaan (Khoja Jahān), a eunuch and an accursed Saracen,” who professed to treat him with all deference, but detained him four months, and plundered all the gifts and Eastern rarities that he was carrying home. This detention in Seyllan enables Marignolli to give a variety of curious particulars regarding Adam’s Peak, Buddhist monasticism, the aboriginal races of Ceylon, and other marvels. After this we have only fragmentary notices, showing that his route to Europe lay by Ormuz, the ruins of Babel, Bagdad, Mosul, Aleppo and thence to Damascus and Jerusalem. In 1353 he arrived at Avignon, and delivered a letter from the great khan to Pope Innocent VI. In the following year the emperor Charles IV., on a visit to Italy, made Marignolli one of his chaplains. Soon after, the pope made him bishop of Bisignano; but he seems to have been in no hurry to reside there. He appears to have accompanied the emperor to Prague in 1354-1355; in 1356 he is found acting as envoy to the Pope from Florence; and in 1357 he is at Bologna. We know not when he died. The last trace of Marignolli is a letter addressed to him, which was found in the 18th century among the records in the Chapter Library at Prague. The writer is an unnamed bishop of Armagh, easily identified with Richard Fitz Ralph, a strenuous foe of the Franciscans, who had broken lances in controversy with Ockham and Burley. The letter implies that some intention had been intimated from Avignon of sending Marignolli to Ireland in connexion with matters then in debate—a project which stirs Fitz Ralph’s wrath.

The fragmentary notes of Marignolli’s Eastern travels often contain vivid remembrance and graphic description, but combined with an incontinent vanity, and an incoherent lapse from one thing to another. They have no claim to be called a narrative, and it is with no small pains that anything like a narrative can be pieced out of them. Indeed the mode in which they were elicited curiously illustrates how little medieval travellers thought of publication The emperor Charles, instead of urging his chaplain to write a history of his vast journeys, set him to the repugnant task of recasting the annals of Bohemia; and he consoled himself by salting the insipid stuff by interpolations, à propos de bottes, of his recollections of Asiatic travel.

Nobody seems to have noticed the work till 1768, when the chronicle was published in vol. ii. of the Monumenta hist. Bohemiae nusquam antehac edita by Father Gelasius Dobner. But, though Marignolli was thus at last in type, no one seems to have read him till 1820, when an interesting paper on his travels was published by J. G. Meinert. Professor Friedrich Kunstmann of Munich also devoted to the subject one of his admirable series of papers on the ecclesiastical travellers of the middle ages.

See Fontes rerum bohemicarum, iii. 492-604 (1882, best text); G. Dobner’s Monumenta hist. boh., vol. ii. (Prague, 1768); J. G. Meinert, in Abhandl. der k. böhm. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften, vol. vii.; F. Kunstmann, in Historisch-politische Blätter von Phillips und Görres, xxxviii. 701-719, 793-813 (Munich, 1859); Luke Wadding, Annales minorum, A.D. 1338, vii. 210-219 (ed. of 1733, &c.); Sbaralea, Supplementum et castigatio ad scriptores trium ordinum S. Francisci a Waddingo, p. 436 (Rome, 1806); John of Winterthur, in Eccard, Corpus historicum medii aevi, vol. i., 1852; Mosheim, Historia Tartarorum ecclesiastica, part i., p. 115; Henry Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, ii. 309-394 (Hak. Soc., 1866); C. Raymond Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, iii. 142, 180-181, 184-185, 215, 231, 236, 288-309 (1906).

(H. Y.; C. R. B.)

MARIGNY, ENGUERRAND DE (1260-1315), French chamberlain, and minister of Philip IV. the Fair, was born at Lyons-la-Forêt in Normandy, of an old Norman family of the smaller baronage called Le Portier, which took the name of Marigny about 1200. Enguerrand entered the service of Hugues de Bonville, chamberlain and secretary of Philip IV., as a squire, and then was attached to the household of Queen Jeanne, who made him one of the executors of her will. He married her god-daughter, Jeanne de St Martin. In 1298 he received the custody of the castle of Issoudun. After the death of Pierre Flotte and Hugues de Bonville at the battle of Mons-en-Pevèle in 1304, he became Philip’s grand chamberlain and chief minister. In 1306 he was sent to preside over the exchequer of Normandy. He received numerous gifts of land and money from Philip as well as a pension from Edward II. of England. Possessed of an ingratiating manner, politic, learned and astute, he acted as an able instrument in carrying out Philip’s plans, and received corresponding confidence. He shared the popular odium which Philip incurred by debasing the coinage. He acted as the agent of Philip in his contest with Louis de Nevers, the son of Robert count of Flanders, imprisoning Louis and forcing Robert to surrender Lille, Douay and Béthune. He obtained for his half-brother Philip de Marigny in 1301 the bishopric of Cambray, and in 1309 the archbishopric of Sens, and for his brother Jean in 1312 the bishopric of Beauvais. Still another relative, Nicolas de Fréauville, became the king’s confessor and a cardinal. He addressed the estates general in 1314 and succeeded in getting further taxes for the Flemish war, incurring at the same time much ill will. This soon came to a head when the princes of the blood, eager to fight the Flemings, were disappointed by his negotiating a peace in September. He was accused of receiving bribes, and Charles of Valois denounced him to the king himself; but Philip stood by him and the attack was of no avail. The death of Philip IV. on the 29th of November 1314 was a signal for a reaction against his policy. The feudal party, whose power the king had tried to limit, turned on his ministers and chiefly on his chamberlain. Enguerrand was arrested by Louis X. at the instigation of Charles of Valois, and twenty-eight articles of accusation including charges of receiving bribes were brought against him. He was refused a hearing; but his accounts were correct, and Louis was inclined to spare him anything more than banishment to the island of Cyprus. Charles then brought forward a charge of sorcery which was more effectual. He was condemned at once and hanged on the public gallows at Montfaucon, protesting that in all his acts he had only been carrying out Philip’s commands (April 30, 1315). Louis X. seems to have repented of his treatment of Marigny, and left legacies to his children. When his chief enemy, Charles of Valois, lay dying in 1325, he was stricken with remorse and ordered alms to be distributed among the poor of Paris with a request to “pray for the souls of Enguerrand and Charles.” Marigny founded the collegiate church of Notre Dame d’Escoës near Rouen in 1313. He was twice married, first to Jeanne de St Martin, by whom he had three children, Louis, Marie and Isabelle (who married Robert, son of Robert de Tancarville); and the second time to Alips de Mons.

See contemporary chroniclers in vols. xx. to xxiii. of D. Bouquet, Historiens de la France; P. Clément, Trois drames historiques (Paris, 1857); Ch. Dufayard, La Réaction féodale sous les fils de Philippe le Bel, in the Revue historique (1894, liv. 241-272) and lv. 241-290.

MARIGNY, JEAN DE (d. 1350), French bishop, was a younger brother of the preceding. Entering the church at an early age, he was rapidly advanced until in 1313 he was made bishop of Beauvais. During the next twenty years he was one of the most notable of the members of the French episcopate, and was particularly in favour with King Philip VI. He devoted himself in 1335 to the completion of the choir of Beauvais Cathedral, the enormous windows of which were filled with the richest glass. But this building activity, which has left one of the most notable Gothic monuments in Europe, was broken into by the Hundred Years’ War. Jean de Marigny, a successful administrator and man of affairs rather than a saintly churchman, was made one of the king’s lieutenants in southern France in 1341 against the English invasion. His most important military operation, however, was when in 1346 he successfully held out in Beauvais against a siege by the English, who had overrun the country up to the walls of the city. Created archbishop of Rouen in 1347 as a reward for this defence, he enjoyed his new honours only three years; he died on the 26th of December 1350.

MARIGOLD. This name has been given to several plants, of which the following are the best known: Calendula officinalis, the pot-marigold; Tagetes erecta, the African marigold; T. patula, the French marigold; and Chrysanthemum segetum, the corn marigold. All these belong to the order Compositae; but Caltha palustris, the marsh marigold, belongs to the order Ranunculaceae.

The first-mentioned is the familiar garden plant with large orange-coloured blossoms, and is probably not known in a wild state. There are now many fine garden varieties of it. The florets are unisexual, the “ray” florets being female, the “disk” florets male. This and the double variety have been in cultivation for at least three hundred years, as well as a proliferous form, C. prolifera, or the “fruitful marigolde” of Gerard (Herball, p. 602), in which small flower-heads proceed from beneath the circumference of the flower. The figure of “the greatest double marigold,” C. multiflora maxima, given by Gerard (loc. cit. p. 600) is larger than most specimens now seen, being 3 in. in diameter. He remarks of “the marigolde” that it is called Calendula “as it is to be seene to flower in the calends of almost euerie moneth.” It was supposed to have several specific virtues, but they are non-existent. “The marigold, that goes to bed wi’ the sun,” is mentioned by Shakespeare, Winter’s Tale, iv. 3.

Tagetes patula, and T. erecta, the French and African marigolds, are natives of Mexico, and are equally familiar garden plants, having been long in cultivation. Gerard figures five varieties of Flos africanus, of the single and double kind (loc. cit., p. 609). Besides the above species the following have been introduced later, T. lucida, T. signata, also from Mexico, and T. tenuifolia from Peru.

Chrysanthemum segetum, the yellow corn marigold, is indigenous to Great Britain, and is frequent in corn-fields in most parts of England. When dried it has been employed as hay. It is also used in Germany for dyeing yellow. Gerard observes that in his day “the stalke and leaues of Corne Marigolde, as Dioscorides saith, are eaten as other potherbes are.”

Caltha palustris, the marsh marigold, or king-cups, the “winking Mary-buds” of Shakespeare (Cymb., ii. 3), is a common British plant in marshy meadows and beside water. It bears smooth heart-shaped leaves, and flowers with a golden yellow calyx but no corolla, blossoming in March and April. The flower-buds preserved in salted vinegar are a good substitute for capers. A double-flowered variety is often cultivated, and is occasionally found wild.

MARIINSK, a town of Russia, in West Siberia and the government of Tomsk, on the bank of the Kiya river and on the Siberian railway, 147 m. E.S.E. of Tomsk. Pop. (1897), 8300. It is built of timber, but has a stately cathedral. There are tanneries and soapworks; and Mariinsk is an entrepôt for the goldmines.

MARILLAC, CHARLES DE (c. 1510-1560), French prelate and diplomatist, came of a good family of Auvergne, and at the age of twenty-two was advocate at the parlement of Paris. Suspected, however, of sympathizing with the reformers, he deemed it prudent to leave Paris, and in 1535 went to the East with his cousin Jean de la Forêt, the first French ambassador at Constantinople. Cunning and ambitious, he soon made his mark, and his cousin having died during his embassy, Marillac was appointed his successor. He did not return from the East until 1538, when he was sent almost immediately to England, where he remained ambassador until 1543. He retained his influence during the reign of Henry II., fulfilling important missions in Switzerland and at the imperial court (1547-1551), and at the courts of the German princes (1553-1554). In 1555 he was one of the French deputies at the conferences held at Mark near Ardres to discuss peace with England. His two last missions were at Rome (1557) and at the Diet of Augsburg (1559). In 1550 he was given the bishopric of Vannes, and in 1557 the archbishopric of Vienne; he also became a member of the privy council. He distinguished himself as a statesman at the Assembly of Notables at Fontainebleau in 1560, when he delivered an exceedingly brilliant discourse, in which he opposed the policy of violence and demanded a national council and the assembly of the states general. Irritated by his opposition, the Guises compelled him to leave the court, and he died on the 2nd of December of the same year.

His works include: Discours sur la roupture de la Trefve en l’an 1556 (Paris, 1556), and “Sommaire de l’ambassade en Allemagne de feu Mr. l’archévesque de Vienne en l’an 1550,” published in Ranke’s Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, vol. vi. (Leipzig, 1882). See J. Kaulek, Correspondance politique de Castillon et Marillac (1537-1542) (Paris, 1885); P. de Vassière, Charles de Marillac (Paris, 1896).

MARINES (from Lat. mare, sea), the technical term for sea-soldiers, i.e. troops appropriated and specially adapted to the requirements of maritime war. This force—formerly (1694) styled “mariners”—is in origin, use and application peculiarly British. The only other nation possessing a special force discharging exactly similar functions is the United States (see below). In the armed forces of the great European Powers marines and marine artillery are mentioned, but these troops have little in common with British and American marines. In France their duties are to garrison military forts and colonies and take part in marine and other wars. In Germany they are used for coast defence. In Holland, Austria and Italy they have a military organization, but not as complements of sea-going ships.

The origin of the British marine force was an order in council 1664, directing “1200 Land souldgers to be forthwith rayzed to be in readiness to be distributed in His Majesty’s fleete prepared for sea service.” This body was named the “Admiral’s regiment.” At this period land warfare had developed a system and was waged by men organized, disciplined and trained. Sea warfare was left “to every man’s own conceit.” War-ships were built to be manned in a hurry, by “the press,” when needed. Men were thus obtained by force and grouped without organization or previous training in ships. When no longer required they were turned adrift. The administration of England’s fleet was “a prodigy of wastefulness, corruption and indolence; no estimate could be trusted, no contract was performed, no check was enforced.” Such officers as had been “bred to the sea seemed a strange and savage race.” They robbed the king and cheated the seamen. As regards land force, it was a violation of the law to keep at home in the king’s pay “any other body of armed men, save as a guard for the royal person.” On the other hand it was “illegal to land press men” in a foreign country, but soldiers “only required a little persuasion to land.” Thus by thrusting into naval chaos and confusion a nucleus of disciplined, trained and organized land troops, an expedient was found which offered a solution of the many political and administrative difficulties of the time. This “Admiral’s regiment.” was the germ which by a constant process of evolution during a period of over 235 years has produced not merely the marine forces, but the royal navy, organized, disciplined and trained as it is to-day. In 1668 the experiment of the Admiral’s regiment was extended. At a council held “to discourse about the fitness for entering men presently for manning the fleete,” King Charles II. “cried very civilly, ‘If ever you intend to man the fleet without being cheated by the captains and pursers, you may go to bed and resolve never to have it manned.’” This seems to throw some light on the council’s order a few days later “to draw out and furnish such numbers of His Majesty’s Foot Guards for His Majesty’s service at sea this summer, as H.R.H. the duke of York, lord high admiral of England, shall from time to time desire.” The men were to be paid and accounted for by their own officers. This maritime force subsequently disappeared, but two new regiments of “marines” were raised in 1694, the House of Commons directing they “were to be employed in the service of the navy only.” One regiment only was to be on shore at a time, and to be employed in the dockyards with extra pay. None of the officers were to be sea commanders, save two colonels. The intention was to make these regiments feeders for the navy, captains being ordered to report periodically “the names of such soldiers as shall in any measure be made seamen, and how far each of them is qualified toward being an able seaman.” In 1697 these regiments were disbanded, but early in the reign of Queen Anne a number of regiments of marines were raised, and independent companies of marines were also enlisted in the West Indies. At the peace of Utrecht (1713) the marines were disbanded, but reappeared in 1739 as part of the army; and in 1740 three regiments of marines were raised in America, the colonels being appointed by the crown, the captains by the provinces. In 1747 the marine regiments were transferred from the control of the secretary at war to that of the admiralty, and the next year once more wholly disappeared on the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748).

During the preceding period of fifty-four years the marine force appeared and disappeared with war. It was a military body, applied to naval purposes. Its main functions were three-fold—(1) for fighting in ships; (2) for seizing and holding land positions necessary or advantageous to the naval operations of war; (3) for maintaining discipline of the ships, and by “expertness in handling arms to incite our seamen to the imitation of them.” Incidentally the force came to be regarded as so good a feeder for the navy that Admiral Vernon (1739) urged “the necessity of converting most of our marching regiments into marines, and if, as they became seamen they were admitted to be discharged as such, that would make a good nursery for the breeding of them.”

The organization of the force was purely military. Regiments were embarked in fleets, and distributed in the ships. The officers were interchangeable with those of the guards and line. John Churchill (afterwards duke of Marlborough) and George Rooke (afterwards Admiral Sir George Rooke) were together at one time ensigns of marines. During this period the marines were never regarded as a reserve for the fleet. The navy in peace did without them. The necessities of maritime war demanded a mobile military force adapted to naval conditions and at naval disposal, and so in all naval operations during these eighty-four years the marines played a conspicuous part. The navy had been slowly groping towards a system. For example, sea officers had been granted a uniform, and a naval academy (1729) had been established for the education of young gentlemen for the sea service. But in its main features the navy remained in 1748 as it was in 1664. The sailor was kidnapped and forced into ships, to become an outcast when no longer wanted. The marine when not in a ship was comfortably housed and looked after by his officers in barracks on shore.

In 1755 the marine force once more reappeared under the Admiralty, and from that date its history has been continuous. But the regimental system was abandoned, and an entirely new principle of organization was applied. Companies were raised, and these companies were grouped into great depots, called divisions, at Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham. At these divisions this force could be increased and reduced at pleasure, without disturbing the basis of organization, and from them could be supplied as many or as few sea-soldiers as fleets or ships needed, while preserving in the varying units so provided all the essentials of uniformity of system, drill, training, ties of comradeship and esprit de corps. This force then and for ninety-eight years afterwards was the only continuously trained, disciplined and organized fighting force placed by the country at the disposal of naval officers. On the establishment of this new marine force the purchase of commissions was abolished, but interchange with the army was for a time permitted. When embarked, marines were under the naval code of discipline; when on shore, under the marine Mutiny Act, identical with that of the army. When the seamen of the fleet mutinied at the Nore, at the close of the 18th century, and turned their officers out of the ships, the marines, undaunted, stood firm by theirs.

Mutiny lurked beneath the deck of many a ship before and long years after that event. The control of admirals and captains over their own men was precarious in the extreme. This was the natural result of the country’s neglect of its seamen. The discipline of the fleet in those days rested on the firm bayonets of the marines. What England owes to them may be gathered from Lord St Vincent’s recorded testimony: “There never was an appeal made to them for honour, courage or loyalty, that they did not more than realize my highest expectation. If ever real danger should come to England, the marines will be found the country’s sheet-anchor.” At his earnest solicitation the marines were made a royal corps in 1802. It is worthy of note that in those days of masts, yards, sails and pure seamanship, this greatest of naval statesmen, this matchless naval strategist, whose practical experience of maritime war was unrivalled, strenuously advocated as the true policy for England what in these days of steam and mastless ships would be scouted and ridiculed. It was to make service afloat as marines a part of the duty of every regiment of the line in rotation.

Down to 1804 the marines were an infantry force; the improvement in artillery towards the close of the century had necessitated the occasional putting into the fleet of detachments of Royal Artillery. This, as regards gunnery duties in the fleet, was repeating on a smaller scale the expedient adopted in the time of Charles II. So much friction arose between the naval and the artillery officers that a special corps of Royal Marine Artillery was raised in 1804, on the recommendation of Nelson. This special corps fulfilled the expectations of its founders. It was charged with the care, equipment and working of the larger ordnance afloat and field-guns ashore, and was employed also as a body of gunnery instructors to the fleet. In 1831, a certain number of naval officers being thought to be sufficiently trained in gunnery, this corps, of which Napier wrote, “Never in my life have I seen soldiers like the Royal Marine Artillery,” was, without warning, abolished. Then the marine force ceased to be composed of two corps, artillery and infantry, and it reverted to a single one of infantry. Very soon afterwards, however, the Admiralty began to build up what they had so suddenly and ruthlessly destroyed, by ordering the conversion of one company of each infantry marine division into artillery. The number of these artillery companies gradually increased, and were grouped in a separate depot. Just as the wars from Charles II. to George III. had demanded marines, so the Crimean War led to their increase. Thus in 1859 the artillery companies of marines were formed into a separate division, and in 1862 the old name of Royal Marine Artillery was restored.

The marines thus became once more and still remain two corps, the official designation of the whole being Royal Marine Forces. In 1855 the marine infantry corps became light infantry, and in 1869 the Woolwich division (added in 1805) was abolished; and more recently a marine depot, as a feeder of the other divisions, was established at Walmer. The headquarters of the R.M.A. are at Eastney, Southsea. The divisions R.M.L.I. are at Gosport, Chatham and Devonport. The uniform of the R.M.A. is blue with red facings, that of R.M.L.I. red with blue facings. The badge of both corps is the globe surrounded with the laurel wreath, with the motto “Per mare per terram.” The Royal Marine Forces share with the 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards, the East Kent Regiment (formerly the Buffs), and the Royal London Militia the privilege of marching through the city of London with colours flying, bands playing and bayonets fixed. This is due to a common original association with the London train bands.

War Services.—To describe these would be to review the wars waged by England by sea and by land for over 200 years. In every sea fight, great or small, marines have taken part, and on every continent they have served in big and little wars, sometimes as part of the army, sometimes with naval contingents, sometimes alone.

Throughout the Napoleonic war the marines took part in every sort of operation afloat and ashore. During the Crimean War, mortar-boat flotillas in the Baltic and Black Sea were commanded and manned by R.M.A., while comrades in the same corps served with the Royal Artillery in the trenches before Sebastopol—a marine infantry brigade occupying the heights of Balaclava. During the Indian Mutiny, marines (artillery and infantry) served with the Naval Brigade under Peel. In the China wars batteries and brigades of the marine force played a prominent part, and likewise were represented in all the Egyptian and Sudan campaigns, 1881 to 1898. In one action the R.M.A. gunners came to the relief of the Royal Horse Artillery when exhausted, and fought their guns; in another the R.M.A., out of the débris of the enemy’s Krupp guns captured, built up one complete gun and fought it with effect; in the final campaign gunboats were brought up in pieces, put together and fought by a detachment of the R.M.A.

In 1899 in the Boer War the marine artillery and infantry took part with the Naval Brigade, maintaining their historic reputation, and at the battle of Enslin their losses were exceptionally severe.

Characteristics of Marine System.—The recruit first goes to the depot at Walmer, and is trained as a soldier before joining his division to complete instruction as a marine. His division is his permanent military home, from which he goes on service and to which he returns at its conclusion. Restrictions on marriage, necessary under the army system, are not necessary in the marine forces. The permanent home of the wife and family is not broken up by the marine going abroad; the wife thus can continue any local goodwill in any business her industry may secure. This fixed home enables a marine to learn a trade in the workshops of his division which supply the clothing, &c., to the corps. Marines are enlisted for 12 years, and if of good character they can re-engage to complete 21 years, entitling to pension. The periods of service abroad for marines are shorter (generally 3 years), but more constantly recurrent than for the army. The administrative, as distinct from the instructional, staff necessary for a marine division is more simple and less expensive than that of a numerical army equivalent expressed in regiments. The system of pay and accounts is also less complex. The following table shows the relative proportions of marine forces to the whole navy at different periods up to the South African War of 1899:—

Year. Navy
proper.
Officers
and Men. Marines.
Officers
and Men. Grand
Total. Maritime.
Peace or
War. Percent.
Marines
to Total
Forces. Nature of Ships.

1805 90,000 30,000 120,000 War 25 Sailing.

(Trafalgar)

1838 23,165 9,000 32,165 Peace 28 Sailing.

1858 40,219 14,919 55,138 27 Sailing with auxiliary steam.

1878 42,046 13,727 55,773 24 Steam with auxiliary sail.

1898 78,441 17,099 95,540 17 Steam and mastless ships.

The above table indicates a gradual change in naval policy and practice as regards marines. It will be observed that, concurrently with the gradual disappearance of masts, sails and yards, the proportion of marines has steadily declined. Down to very recent times the marine spent more time ashore than afloat. Now the reverse is the case.

By the introduction of the Continuous Service Act 1853, the blue-jacket was placed on exactly the same footing as the marine in respect of conditions of service and pension, and now the blue-jacket when not afloat is quartered in barracks. The main difference between the blue-jacket and marine is the dress and the pay. The blue-jacket is better paid than the marine. As regards opportunity of discipline, there is now no difference; and in short, all the reasons for the existence of a marine force have disappeared except as regards duties on shore incidental to naval operations of war, e.g. the holding of ports and the seizing of minor positions necessary to prosecution of maritime war. The facts that modern ships cannot now as formerly carry a supernumerary force sufficient for such purposes, and are more dependent on fixed bases of supply and repair than in old days, point to a different method of using and applying the marine force to the sole purpose for which they are now necessary as a distinct branch of the naval service. If employed at the headquarters of a naval station, their efficiency as marines could be preserved by occasional embarcation of the officers and men in rotation. The substitution of marine for army garrisons at coaling stations would also relieve the army of a class of duties incidental to naval warfare which the marine force formerly performed, and which prejudicially affects the organization and arrangement of the army as a mobile field force.

Marine Corps, United States.—This dates from the establishment of the American navy. It is a wholly separate military body, though under the control of the Navy Department. It was formed in 1775, and it has a history of brilliant services rendered by land and sea in all the wars of America since that date. The headquarters of the corps are at Washington, and the strength of the corps was fixed by Act of Congress (March 3, 1899) at 211 officers and 5920 non-commissioned officers and men. Its organization and system are based on the British model, and the dress corresponds to that of the United States army. The corps is commanded by a brigadier-general who bears to the secretary a relation similar to that of a chief of bureau. Although the organization closely follows the army system, regimental or even permanent battalion organizations are impracticable, owing to their numerous and widely-separated stations. Practically all shore stations have barracks where marines are enlisted and drilled. At these places they also do sentry, police and orderly duties. From such stations they are sent to ships for sea duty. Nearly all ships carry a body of marines known as the guard, varying in size from a few men commanded by a sergeant, on small ships, to eighty or more, with one or more commissioned officers, on large vessels. It is customary to cause all marines to serve at sea three of the four years of each enlistment. On board ship they perform sentry and orderly duty, and assist in police duties. They are also instructed in many exercises pertaining to the navy, as rowing, naval signalling, gun drill, &c. In action they act as riflemen, and on many ships serve a portion of the guns. When circumstances require a force to be landed from ships present to guard American interests in foreign countries, legations, &c., the marine guard is usually sent, though, if numerically insufficient, sailors are landed also. Marines also garrison places beyond the territorial limits of the United States which are under navy control. Candidates for first enlistment must be between the ages of 21 and 35 and unmarried, must be citizens of the United States, be able to read, write and speak English, and pass a physical examination. Second lieutenants are appointed from civil life after examination or from the graduates of the Naval Academy. Promotion is by seniority as in the navy.

Admiral Farragut’s opinion that “the marine guard is one of the great essentials of a man-of-war” is corroborated by that of Admiral Wilkes, who considered that “marines constituted the great difference between a man-of-war and a privateer.” In the famous battles between the “Bonhomme Richard” and “Serapis” in 1777, and in that between the “Chesapeake” and “Shannon,” the American marines displayed brilliant gallantry; and while on the one hand they at Derne in 1803 first planted the American flag on a fortress of the Old World, for which exploit “Tripoli” is inscribed on their colours, they on the other shared in the hard fighting of the Mexican War as well as all the important coast actions of the Civil War of 1861-65. A proposal to incorporate them with the army after the struggle met with universal condemnation from the authorities best qualified to judge of their value. A brigade of three battalions served in the Philippines in 1899. Their device is a globe resting on an anchor and surmounted by an eagle. “Ever faithful” is the title which Captain Luce, the historian of the force, appropriately applies to them.

(J. C. R. C.)

Including 22,289 of the engineer branch providing the locomotion of modern ships—just as seamen from 1805-1858 provided it for ships of the past.

MARINETTE, a city and the county-seat of Marinette county, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 162 m. N. of Milwaukee, on the W. shore of Green Bay, at the mouth of the Menominee River. Pop. (1890), 11,523; (1900), 16,195, of whom 5542 were foreign-born; (1905), 15,354; (1910), 14,610. It is served directly by the Wisconsin & Michigan, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, and the Chicago & North-Western railways, and by several steamboat lines connecting with lake ports; and is connected by ferry with Frankfort, Michigan (served by the Ann Arbor railroad). The city has a fine harbour and a considerable commerce in iron and lumber products. Five bridges connect Marinette with Menominee, Michigan, on the other side of the river. Marinette has a Federal building; the Stephenson public library, founded by Senator Isaac Stephenson (b. 1829), a local “lumber king”; a county agricultural school and training school for rural teachers, and three public parks. The Northern Chautauqua Assembly holds its annual summer session in Chautauqua Park, on the shore of Green Bay. The growth of Marinette began with the development of the neighbouring pine forests; and the manufacture of lumber and lumber products has always been its principal industry. The water-power of the Menominee River is largely utilized for the manufacture of paper and flour. Other manufactures are boxes, furniture and woodware, boats, boilers and agricultural machinery. In 1905 the factory products were valued at $3,633,399. The first white settlement was made here on the site of a Menominee Indian village in 1830, and the city was named in honour of the daughter of an Indian chief, Marinette (Jacobs), whose name was a composite of Marie and Antoinette. A city charter was granted in 1887.

MARINI (or Marino), GIAMBATTISTA (1560-1625), Italian poet, was born at Naples on the 18th of October 1569. After a somewhat disreputable youth, during which he became known for his Canzone de’ baci, he secured the powerful patronage of Cardinal Aldobrandini, whom he accompanied from Rome to Ravenna and Turin. An edition of his poems, La Lira, was published at Venice in 1602-1614. His ungoverned pen and disordered life compelled him to leave Turin and take refuge from 1615 to 1622 in Paris, where he was favourably recognized by Marie de’ Medici. There his long poem Adone was published in 1623. He died at Naples on the 25th of March 1625. The licence, extravagance and conceits of Marini, the chief of the school of “Secentisti” (see Italy: Literature), were characteristic of a period of literary decadence.

See M. Menghini, G. B. Marini (Rome, 1888).

MARINO, a town of Italy, in the province of Rome, 15 m. S.E. of it by rail, and also accessible by electric tramway. Pop. (1901), 7307. It is picturesquely situated on a spur of the Alban Hills, 1165 ft. above sea level, and occupies the site of the ancient Castrimoenium, a municipium of no great importance, though the surrounding district, which now produces much wine, is full of remains of ancient villas. The origin of the name is uncertain; perhaps it is derived from the medieval Morena (itself derived from the Latin Murena, from one of the Roman owners of the district), a name originally given to the lower ground between the 9th and 11th mile of the Via Latina. In the early 13th century it belonged to the Frangipani family, but passed into the hands of the Orsini in 1266. In 1378 a battle took place here between the partisans of Urban VI. and those of the anti-pope Clement VII. of Geneva (the Orsini having taken the side of the latter), who were, however, defeated; and in 1399 Marino was apparently under the Papacy. In 1408 it passed to the Colonna family, to whom it still belongs. There are some remains of the medieval fortifications.

See G. Tomassetti, La Via latina nel medio evo (Rome, 1886), p. 96 seq.; T. Ashby, in Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. iv. (1907).

(T. As.)

MARINUS, the name of two popes. Marinus I., sometimes called Martin II., pope from 882 to 884, was the son of a Tuscan priest, and entered the church at an early age, becoming a deacon about 862. Three successive popes sent him as legate to Constantinople, his mission in each case having reference to the controversy excited by Photius (q.v.); and having become an archdeacon and a bishop, he also negotiated on behalf of pope John VIII. with the emperor Charles the Fat. About the end of December 882 he succeeded John VIII. as pope, but his election did not pass unchallenged either in eastern or in western Europe. However, having secured his position, Marinus restored Formosus, cardinal-bishop of Porto, and anathematized Photius. This pope was on friendly terms with the English king, Alfred the Great. He died in May 884, and was succeeded by Adrian III.

Marinus II., sometimes called Martin III., pope from 942 to 946, was merely the puppet of Alberic (d. 954), prince and senator of the Romans. He died in May 946, and was succeeded by Agapetus II.

MARINUS, neo-Platonist philosopher, was born in Palestine and was early converted to the old Greek religion. He came to Athens at a time when, with the exception of Proclus, there was a great dearth of eminent men in the neo-Platonic school. It was for this reason rather than for any striking ability of his own that he succeeded to the headship of the school on the death of Proclus. During this period the professors of the old Greek religion suffered severe persecution at the hands of the Christians and Marinus was compelled to seek refuge at Epidaurus. His chief work was a biography of Proclus, which is extant. It was first published with the works of Marcus Antoninus in 1559; it was republished separately by Fabricius at Hamburg in 1700, and re-edited in 1814 by Boissonade with emendations and notes. Other philosophical works are attributed to him, including commentaries on Aristotle and on the Philebus. It is said that he destroyed the latter because Isidore, his successor, expressed disapproval of it.

MARINUS OF TYRE, geographer and mathematician, the founder of mathematical geography, flourished in the 2nd century A.D. He lived before Ptolemy, who acknowledges his great obligations to him. His chief merits were that he assigned to each place its proper latitude and longitude, and introduced improvements in the construction of his maps. He also carefully studied the works of his predecessors and the diaries of travellers. His geographical treatise is lost.

See A. Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, vol. i. (1842); E. H. Bunbury, Hist. of Ancient Geography (1879), ii. p. 519; and especially E. H. Berger, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen (1903).

MARIO, GIUSEPPE, Count of Candia (1810-1883), Italian singer, the most famous tenor of the 19th century, son of General di Candia, was born at Cagliari in 1810. His career as a singer was the result of accidental circumstances. While serving as an officer in the Sardinian army he was imprisoned at Cagliari for some trifling offence. When his period of confinement was over, he resigned his commission. His resignation was refused, and he fled to Paris. There his success as an amateur vocalist produced an offer of an engagement at the Opera. He studied singing for two years under M. Ponchard and Signor Bordogni, and made his début in 1838 as the hero of Meyerheer’s Robert le Diable. His success was immediate and complete, but he did not stay long at the Opera. In 1839 he joined the company of the Théâtre Italien, which then included Malibran, Sontag, Persiani and Grisi, Rubini, Tamburini and Lablache. His first appearance here was made in the character of Nemorino in Donizetti’s Elisir d’Amore. He sang in London for the first time in the same year. His success in Italian opera far surpassed that which he had won in French, and in a short time he acquired a European reputation. He had a handsome face and a graceful figure, and his voice, though less powerful than that of Rubini or that of Tamberlik, had a velvety softness and richness which have never been equalled. Experience gave him ease as an actor, but he never excelled in tragic parts. He was an ideal stage lover, and he retained the grace and charm of youth long after his voice had begun to show signs of decay. He created very few new parts, that of Ernesto in Don Pasquale (1843) being perhaps the only one deserving of mention. Among the most successful of his other parts were Otello in Rossini’s opera of that name, Gennaro in Lucrezia Borgia, Alamviva in Il Barbiere di Siviglia, Fernando in La Favorita, and Manrico in Il Trovatore. Mario made occasional appearances in oratorio singing at the Birmingham Festival of 1849 and at the Hereford Festival of 1855, and undertook various concert tours in the United Kingdom, but his name is principally associated with triumphs in the theatre. In 1856 he married Giulia Grisi, the famous soprano, by whom he had five daughters. Mario bade farewell to the stage in 1871. He died at Rome in reduced circumstances on the 11th of December 1883.

MARION, FRANCIS (1732-1795), American soldier, was born in 1732, probably at Winyah, near Georgetown, South Carolina, of Huguenot ancestry. In 1759 he settled on Pond Bluff plantation near Eutaw Springs, in St John’s parish, Berkeley county. In 1761 he served as a lieutenant under William Moultrie in a campaign against the Cherokees. In 1775 he was a member of the South Carolina Provincial Congress; and on the 21st of June was commissioned captain in the 2nd South Carolina regiment under W. Moultrie, with whom he served in June 1776 in the defence of Fort Sullivan (Fort Moultrie), in Charleston Harbor. In September 1776 the Continental Congress commissioned him a lieutenant-colonel. In the autumn of 1779 he took part in the siege of Savannah, and early in 1780, under General Benjamin Lincoln, was engaged in drilling militia. After the capture of Charleston (May 12,1780) and the defeats of General Isaac Huger at Monk’s Corner (Berkeley county, South Carolina) and Lieut.-Colonel Abraham Buford at the Waxhaws (near the North Carolina line, in what is now Lancaster county), Marion organized a small troop—which usually consisted of between 20 and 70 men—the only force then opposing the British in the state. Governor John Rutledge made him a brigadier-general of state troops, and in August 1780 Marion took command of the scanty militia, ill equipped and ill fed. With this force he was identified for almost all the remainder of the war in a partisan warfare in which he showed himself a singularly able leader of irregular troops. On the 20th of August he captured 150 Maryland prisoners, and about a score of their British guard; and in September and October repeatedly surprised larger bodies of Loyalists or British regulars. Colonel Banastre Tarleton, sent out to capture him, despaired of finding the “old swamp fox,” who eluded him by following swamp paths. When General Nathanael Greene took command in the south, Marion and Colonel Henry Lee were ordered in January 1781 to attack Georgetown, but they were unsuccessful. In April, however, they took Fort Watson and in May Fort Motte, and they succeeded in breaking communications between the British posts in the Carolinas. On the 31st of August Marion rescued a small American force hemmed in by Major C. Fraser with 500 British; and for this he received the thanks of Congress. He commanded the right wing under General Greene at Eutaw Springs. In 1782, during his absence as state senator at Jacksonborough, his brigade deteriorated and there was a conspiracy to turn him over to the British. In June of the same year he put down a Loyalist uprising on the banks of the Pedee river; and in August he left his brigade and returned to his plantation. He served several terms in the state Senate, and in 1784, in recognition of his services, was made commander of Fort Johnson, practically a courtesy title with a salary of £500 per annum. He died on his estate on the 27th of February 1795. Marion was small, slight and sickly-looking. As a soldier he was quick, watchful, resourceful and calm, the greatest of partisan leaders in the bitter struggle in the Carolinas.

See the Life (New York, 1844) by W. G. Simms; Edward McCrady, South Carolina in the Revolution (New York, 1901-1902); and a careful study of Marion’s ancestry and early life by “R. Y.” in vols. i. and ii. of the Southern and Western Monthly Magazine and Review (Charleston, 1845).

MARION, HENRI FRANÇOIS (1846-1896), French philosopher and educationalist, was born at Saint-Parize-en-Viry (Nièvre) on the 9th of September 1846. He studied at Nevers, and at the École Normale, where he graduated in 1868. After occupying several minor positions, he returned to Paris in 1875 as professor of the Lycée Henri IV., and in 1880 he became docteur-ès-lettres. In the same year he was elected a member of the Council of Public Instruction, and devoted himself to improving the scheme of French education, especially in girls’ schools. He was largely instrumental in the foundation of écoles normales in provincial towns, and himself gave courses of lectures on psychology and practical ethics in their early days. He died in Paris on the 5th of April 1896.

His chief philosophical works were an edition of the Théodicée of Leibnitz (1874), a monograph on Locke (1878), Devoirs et droits de l’homme (1880), Glissonius utrum Leibnitio de natura substantiae cogitanti quidquam tribuerit (1880); De La solidarité morale (4th ed., 1893). His lectures at Fontenoy have been published in two volumes entitled Leçons de psychologie appliquée à l’éducation, and Leçons de morale; those delivered at the Sorbonne are collected in L’Éducation dans l’université (1892).

MARION, a city and the county-seat of Grant county, Indiana, U.S.A., about 60 m. N.E. of Indianapolis, on the Mississinewa River. Pop. (1910), 19,359. It is served by the Chicago, Cincinnati & Louisville, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis, the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis, and the Toledo, St Louis & Western railways, and by interurban electric lines connecting with Indianapolis, Muncie, Fort Wayne, Kokomo and many other towns and cities. The city is the seat of the Marion Normal College and Business University, and has a Carnegie library. Marion lies in a good farming country and in the centre of the state’s natural gas region. Among the manufactures are glass, stoves, iron bedsteads, foundry and machine-shop products, steel, planing-mill products, paper and pulp, and leather. The total value of the factory products in 1905 was $4,290,166, the value of the glass product alone being $1,042,057, or 24.3% of the total. Marion was settled in 1832, and was named in honour of General Francis Marion.

MARION, a city and the county-seat of Marion county, Ohio, U.S.A., 44 m. N. by W. of Columbus. Pop. (1900), 11,862, including 782 foreign-born and 112 negroes; (1900), 18,232. Marion is served by the Pennsylvania, the Erie, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis, and the Hocking Valley railways, and by interurban electric railway to Columbus. It is the trade centre of a rich farming district. Limestone is abundant, and the city has various manufactures, including lime, foundry and machine-shop products, agricultural implements, planing-mill products, engines, steam shovels, dredges, pianos and silks. In 1905 the value of factory products was $3,227,712, being 33.1% greater than in 1900. Marion was laid out in 1821, and was chartered as a city in 1890.

MARIONETTES (probably from Ital. morio, a fool or buffoon, but also said to be derived from the mariolettes, or little figures of the Virgin Mary), Fantoccini (from fantino, a child) or Puppets (Fr. poupée Lat. pupa, a baby or doll), the names given to figures, generally below life-size, suspended by threads or wires and imitating with their limbs and heads the movements of living persons.

The high antiquity of puppets appears from the fact that figures with movable limbs have been discovered in the tombs of Egypt and among the remains of Etruria; they were also common among the Greeks, from whom they were imported to Rome. Plays in which the characters are represented by puppets or by the shadows of moving figures, worked by concealed performers who deliver the dialogue, are not only popular in India and China, but during several centuries past maintained an important position among the amusements of the people in most European countries. Goethe and Lessing deemed them worthy of attention; and in 1721 Le Sage wrote plays for puppets to perform.

The earliest performances in English were drawn or founded upon Bible narratives and the lives of the saints, in the same vein as the “morality” plays which they succeeded. Popular subjects in the 16th century were The Prodigal Son and Nineveh, with Jonah and the Whale. And in a pamphlet of 1641, describing Bartholomew Fair, we read, “Here a knave in a fool’s coat, with a trumpet sounding or a drum beating, invites you to see his puppets. Here a rogue like a wild woodman, or in an antic shape like an incubus, desires your company to view his motion.” In 1667 Pepys recorded how at Bartholomew Fair he found “my Lady Castlemaine at a puppet play, Patient Grizill.” Besides The Sorrows of Griselda, other puppet plays of the period were Dick Whittington, The Vagaries of Merry Andrew, and The Humours of Bartholomew Fair. Powell’s noted marionette show was the subject of an article in The Tatler, 1709, and again in The Spectator, 1711. The latter refers also to Pinkethman, a “motion-maker,” in whose scenes the divinities of Olympus ascended and descended to the strains of music. An idea of the class of representation may be gathered from an advertisement of Crawley, a rival of Pinkethman, which sets forth—“The Old Creation of the World, with the addition of Noah’s Flood,” also several fountains playing water during the time of the play. The best scene represented “Noah and his family coming out of the ark, with all the animals two by two, and all the fowls of the air seen in a prospect sitting upon trees; likewise over the ark is the sun rising in a gorgeous manner; moreover a multitude of angels in a double rank,” the angels ringing bells. “Likewise machines descending from above, double, with Dives rising out of hell and Lazarus seen in Abraham’s bosom; besides several figures dancing jiggs, sarabands, and country dances, with the merry conceits of Squire Punch and Sir John Spendall.” Yates showed a moving picture of a city, with an artificial cascade, and a temple—with mechanical birds in which attention was called to the exact imitation of living birds, the quick motion of the bills, just swelling of the throat, and fluttering of the wings. The puppets were wax figures 5 ft. in stature. Toward the end of the 18th century, Flockton’s show presented five hundred figures at work at various trades. Brown’s Theatre of Arts showed at country fairs, from 1830 to 1840, the battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon’s army crossing the Alps, and the marble palace of St Petersburg; and at a still later date Clapton’s similar exhibition presented Grace Darling rescuing the crew of the “Forfarshire” steamer wrecked on the Fern Islands, with many ingenious moving figures of quadrupeds, and, in particular, a swan which dipped its head into imitation water, opened its wings, and with flexible neck preened and trimmed its plumage. In these mechanical scenes the figures, painted upon a flat surface and cut out, commonly of pasteboard, are slid along grooves arranged transversely in front of the set scenery, the actions of legs and arms being worked by wires from the hands of persons below the stage, though sometimes use is made of clockwork. In recent days the literature for the marionette stage has had an important literary recruit in the person of the Belgian author Maurice Maeterlinck.

Marionettes proper, and the dolls exhibited in puppet shows (not including Punch and his companion actors), are constructed of wood or of pasteboard, with faces of composition, sometimes of wax; and each figure is suspended by a number of threads to a short bar of wood which is commonly held in one hand of the hidden performer while the finger of his other hand poses the figure or gives action to it by means of the threads. In the mode of constructing the joints, and the greater elaboration with which the several parts of the limbs are supported and moved, and especially in the fine degrees of movement given to the heads, marionettes have been so improved as to present very exact imitations of the gestures of actors and actresses, and the postures and evolutions of acrobats; and, in addition, ingenious exhibitors such as Theodon, who introduced many novelties in the ’sixties of the 19th century, have employed mechanical arrangements for accomplishing the tricks of pantomime harlequinade. Among the puppet personages presented in the small street shows are generally included a sailor who dances a hornpipe, a hoop-dancer, a dancer of the Highland fling, a wooden-legged pensioner, a vaulter on a pole also balancing two chairs, a clown playing with a butterfly, a dancing figure without head until the head rises out of the body, gradually displaying an enormously long neck, and a skeleton, seen at first in scattered parts lying about the stage, but piece successively flying to piece, the body first sitting up, then standing, and finally capped by the skull, when the completed figure begins to dance.

Ombres Chinoises are performances by means of the shadows of figures projected upon a stretched sheet of thin calico or a gauze scene painted as a transparency. The cardboard flat figures are held behind this screen, illuminated from behind—the performer supporting each figure by a long wire held in one hand while wires from all the movable parts terminate in rings in which are inserted the fingers of his other hand.

See also C. Magnin, Histoire des marionettes (1852; 2nd ed., 1862); L. de Neuville, Histoire des marionettes (1892).

MARIOTTE, EDME (c. 1620-1684), French physicist, spent most of his life at Dijon, where he was prior of St Martin sous Beaune. He was one of the first members of the Academy of Sciences founded at Paris in 1666. He died at Paris on the 12th of May 1684. The first volume of the Histoire et mémoires de l’Académie (1733) contains many original papers by him upon a great variety of physical subjects, such as the motion of fluids, the nature of colour, the notes of the trumpet, the barometer, the fall of bodies, the recoil of guns, the freezing of water, &c.

His Essais de physique, four in number, of which the first three were published at Paris between 1676 and 1679, are his most important works, and form, together with a Traité de la percussion des corps, the first volume of the Œuvres de Mariotte (2 vols., Leiden, 1717). The second of these essays (De La nature de l’air) contains the statement of the law that the volume of a gas varies inversely as the pressure, which, though very generally called by the name of Mariotte, had been discovered in 1660 by Robert Boyle. The fourth essay is a systematic treatment of the nature of colour, with a description of many curious experiments and a discussion of the rainbow, halos, parhelia, diffraction, and the more purely physiological phenomena of colour. The discovery of the blind spot is noted in a short paper in the second volume of his collected works.

MARIPOSAN, or Yokuts, a linguistic stock of North American Indians, including some 40 small tribes. Its former territory was in southern California, around Tulare lake. The Mariposans were fishers and hunters. Their villages consisted of a single row of wedge-shaped huts, with an awning of brush along the front. In 1850 they numbered some 3000; in 1905 there were 154 on the Tule river reservation.

MARIS, JACOB (1837-1899), Dutch painter, first studied at the Antwerp Academy, and subsequently in Hébert’s studio during a stay in Paris from 1865 till 1871. He returned to Holland when the Franco-Prussian War broke out, and died there in August 1899. Though he painted, especially in early life, domestic scenes and interiors invested with deeply sympathetic feeling, it is as a landscape painter that Maris will be famous. He was the painter of bridges and windmills, of old quays, massive towers, and level banks; even more was he the painter of water, and misty skies, and chasing clouds. In all his works, whether in water or oil colour, and in his etchings, the subject is always subordinate to the effect. His art is suggestive rather than decorative, and his force does not seem to depend on any preconceived method, such as a synthetical treatment of form or gradations of tone. And yet, though his means appear so simple, the artist’s mind seems to communicate with the spectator’s by directness of pictorial instinct, and we have only to observe the admirable balance of composition and truthful perspective to understand the sure knowledge of his business that underlies such purely impressionist handling. Maris has shown all that is gravest or brightest in the landscape of Holland, all that is heaviest or clearest in its atmosphere—for instance, in the “Grey Tower, Old Amsterdam,” in the “Landscape near Dordrecht,” in the “Sea-weed Carts, Scheveningen,” in “A Village Scene,” and in the numerous other pictures which have been exhibited in the Royal Academy, London, in Edinburgh (1885), Paris, Brussels and Holland, and in various private collections. “No painter,” says M. Philippe Zilcken, “has so well expressed the ethereal effects, bathed in air and light through floating silvery mist, in which painters delight, and the characteristic remote horizons blurred by haze; or again, the grey yet luminous weather of Holland, unlike the dead grey rain of England or the heavy sky of Paris.”

See Max Rooses, Dutch Painters of the Nineteenth Century (London, 1899); R. A. M. Stevenson, “Jacob Maris,” Magazine of Art (1900); Ph. Zilcken, Peintres Hollandais modernes (Amsterdam, 1893); Jan Veth, “Een Studie over Jacob Maris,” Onze Kunst (Antwerp, 1902).

MARITIME PROVINCE (Russ., Primorskaya Oblast), a province of Russia, in East Siberia. It consists of a strip of territory along the coast of the Pacific from Korea to the Arctic Ocean, including also the peninsula of Kamchatka, part of the island of Sakhalin, and several small islands along the coast. Its western boundary stretches northwards from a point S.W. of Peter the Great Bay (42° 40′ N.) by Lake Hanka or Khanka and along the Usuri, then goes due north from the mouth of the Usuri as far as 52° N., runs along the Stanovoi watershed, crosses the spurs of this plateau through barren tundras, and finally reaches the Arctic Ocean at Chaun Bay (70° N.). Area, 715,735 sq. m.

The northern part lies between the Arctic Ocean and the Seas of Bering and Okhotsk, and has the character of a barren plateau 1000 to 2000 ft. high, deeply indented by the rivers of the Anadyr basin and by long fiords, such as Kolyuchin Bay (the wintering-place of Nordenskjöld s “Vega”), the Gulf of Anadyr, and the Bays of Penzhina and Ghizhiga. To the north this plateau is bordered by a chain of mountains, several summits of which reach 8000 ft. (Makachinga peak), while the promontories by which the Asiatic continent terminates towards Bering Strait run up to 1000 to 2000 ft. Only lichens and mosses, with a few dwarf species of Siberian trees, grow in this district. The fauna, however, is far richer than might be expected. A few American birds and mammals cross the strait when it is frozen. This country, and the seas which surround it, have for the last two centuries supplied Siberian trade with its best furs. The blue fox and black sable have been nearly exterminated, and the whale has become very rare. The sea-otter is rapidly becoming extinct, as well as the sea-lion (Otaria stelleri); while the sea-cow (Rhytina stelleri) was completely extirpated in the course of forty years. The sea-bear (Otaria ursina), which at one time seemed likely to meet with the same fate, is now nearly domesticated, and multiplies rapidly. The middle part of the province is a narrow strip (40 to 60 m. wide) along the Sea of Okhotsk, including the basin of the Uda in the south. This area is occupied by rugged mountains, 4000 to 7000 ft. high, forming the eastern border of the high plateau of East Siberia. Thick forests of larch clothe the mountains half way up, as well as the deep valleys. The undulating hills of the basin of the Uda, which is a continuation to the south-west, between the Stanovoi and Bureya mountains, of the deep indentation of the Sea of Okhotsk, are covered with forests and marshes.

The southern part of the province includes two distinct regions. From the north-eastern extremity of the Bureya, or Little Khingan range, of which the group of the Shantar Islands is a continuation, a wide, deep depression runs south-west to the confluence of the Amur and the Usuri, and thence to the lowlands of the lower Sungari. This is for the most part less than 500 ft. above sea-level. The region on the right banks of the Amur and the Usuri, between these rivers and the coast, is occupied by several systems of mountains, usually represented as a single range, the Sikhota-alin. The summits reach 5150 ft. (Golaya Gora), and the average elevation of the few passes is about 2500 ft. There is, however, one depression occupied by Lake Kidzi, which may have been at one time an outflow of the Amur to the sea. The Sikhota-alin mountains are covered with impenetrable forests. The flora and fauna of this region (especially in the Usuri district) exhibit a striking combination of species of warm climates with those of subarctic regions; the wild vine clings to the larch and the cedar-pine, and the tiger meets the bear and the sable. The quantity of fish in the rivers is immense, and in August the Amur and the Usuri swarm with salmon.

The best part of the Maritime Province is at its southern extremity in the valley of the Suifeng river, which enters the Pacific in the Gulf of Peter the Great, and on the shores of the bays of the southern coast. But even there the climate is very harsh. The warm sea-current of the Kuro-Siwo does not reach the coasts of Siberia, while a cold current originating in the Sea of Okhotsk brings its icy water and chilling fogs to the coasts of Sakhalin, and flows along the Pacific shore to the eastern coast of Korea. The high mountains of the sea-coast and the monsoons of the Chinese Sea produce in the southern parts of the Maritime Province cold winters and wet summers. Accordingly, at Vladivostok (on the Gulf of Peter the Great), although it has the same latitude as Marseilles, the average yearly temperature is only 39.5° F., and the harbour is frozen for nearly three months in the year; the Amur and the Usuri are frozen in November. Towards the end of summer the moist monsoons bring heavy rains, which destroy the harvests and give rise to serious inundations of the Amur. The sea-coast farther north has a continental and arctic climate. At Nikolayevsk, temperatures as low as −41.5° F. are observed in winter, and as high as 94.6° in summer, the average yearly temperature being below zero (−0.9°). At Ayan (56° 27′ N.) the average temperature of the year is 25.5° (−0.4° in winter and 50.5° in summer), and at Okhotsk (59° 21′ N.) it is 23° (−6° in winter and 52.5° in summer).

Russian settlements occur throughout the whole of the province, but, with the exception of those on the banks of the Amur and the Usuri, and the southern ports of the sea-coast, they are mere centres of administration.

Okhotsk is one of the oldest towns of East Siberia, having been founded in 1649. Nikolayevsk, on the left bank of the Amur, was formerly the capital of the Maritime Province; but the difficulties of navigation and of communication with the interior, and the complete failure of the governmental colonization of the Amur, caused the seat of government to be transferred to Khabarovsk. Since the loss (1905) of Port Arthur to the Japanese, Vladivostok on Peter the Great Bay has again become the chief naval station of Russia on the Pacific. The trade is in the hands of the Chinese, who export stags’ horns, seaweed and mushrooms, and of the Germans, who import groceries and spirits.

The total population was 209,516 in 1897, of whom 57.7% were Russians, the others being Tunguses, Golds, Orochons, Lamuts, Chuvantses, Chukchis, Koryaks, Ghilyaks and Kamchadales. Their chief occupations are hunting and fishing; the Russians carry on agriculture and trade in furs. Active measures were taken in 1883-1897 for increasing the Russian population in the South Usuri district, the result being that over 29,000 immigrants, chiefly Little Russian peasants, settled there; while Cossacks from the Don and Orenburg came to settle among the Usuri Cossacks. Agriculture is gradually developing in the South Usuri region. Gold-mining has been started on the Amguñ, a tributary of the Amur. Coal is found near Vladivostok, as well as in Kamchatka. Roads exist only in the South Usuri district. A railway runs from Vladivostok to Nikolsk (69 m.), and thence to Khabarovsk along the right bank of the Usuri (412 m.). At Nikolsk the Manchurian railway begins.

(P. A. K.; J. T. Be.)

MARITIME TERRITORY, a term used in international law to denote coastal waters which are not Territorial Waters though in immediate contact with the sea. In the case of Territorial Waters (q.v.) the dominion of the adjacent state is subject to a limitation. Dominion over maritime territory is not subject to any limitation. Thus any strait through which the right of passage of foreign vessels can be forbidden (as the Solent or the Inland Sea of Japan), or bays so land-locked that they cannot be held to form part of any ocean-highway, are maritime territory.

MARIUPOL, a seaport of Russia, on the north shore of the Sea of Azov, at the mouth of the Kalmius, in the government of Ekaterinoslav, 67 m. W. of Taganrog. Pop. (1900), 52,770, including the inhabitants of two suburbs, Mariinsk and Kara-su. The place is said to have been inhabited in remote times under the name of Adamakha; the present town was built only in 1779, by Greek emigrants from the Crimea. Its inhabitants are engaged in agriculture, cattle-breeding, fishing, and the manufacture of leather, agricultural implements, iron goods and bricks. In export trade Mariupol ranks next to Taganrog among the ports of the Sea of Azov; but its harbour is open to the south-east and shallow, though it is being gradually deepened by systematic dredging. The principal articles of export are cereals, with some oilcake, phosphate and coal; but the total value is only about £2,000,000 annually. The imports do not reach a quarter of a million sterling.

MARIUS OF AVENCHES (or Aventicum) (d. 593 or 594), chronicler and ecclesiastic, was born in the neighbourhood of Autun probably in 530, and became bishop of Avenches about 573. In addition to being a good bishop, Marius was a clever goldsmith; he was present at the council of Mâcon in 585, and transferred the seat of his bishopric from Avenches to Lausanne. He died on the 31st of December 593 or 594. As a continuation of the Chronicon of Prosper of Aquitaine, Marius wrote a short Chronicon dealing with the period from 455 to 581; and although he borrowed from various sources his work has some importance for the history of Burgundy. Regarding himself and his land as still under the authority of the Roman empire, he dates his Chronicon according to the years of the Roman consuls and of the East Roman emperors.

The only extant manuscript of the Chronicon is in the British Museum. Among several editions may be mentioned the one in the Monumenta Germaniae historica, chronica minora, Band II. (1893), with introduction by T. Mommsen. See also W. Arndt, Bischof Marius von Aventicum (Leipzig, 1875); and W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, Bd. I. (1904).

MARIUS, GAIUS (155-86 B.C.), Roman general, of plebeian descent, the son of a small farmer of Cereatae (mod. Casamare, “home of Marius”) near Arpinum. He served first in Spain under the great Scipio Africanus, and rose from the ranks to be an officer. In 119 as tribune he proposed a law intended to limit the influence of the nobles at elections. This brought him into conflict with the aristocratic party, who prevented him from obtaining the aedileship. When about forty years of age he married a lady of patrician rank, Julia, the aunt of Julius Caesar. This gave him a new social status, and being at the same time a popular favourite and a brave, energetic soldier, he was in 115 elected praetor, in which capacity he effected the subjugation of the troublesome province of Further Spain. In the war with Jugurtha (109-106) he came to the front as lieutenant of the consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. When he had already achieved some important successes over Jugurtha (q.v.), in 107 he was elected consul for the first time (an almost unheard-of honour for a “new man”), his popularity with the army and people being sufficient to bear down all opposition. In the following year, in conjunction with Sulla, he brought the war to a triumphant issue, and passed two years in his province of Numidia, which he thoroughly subdued and annexed. The surrender of the person of Jugurtha to Sulla gave rise to the view that he, not Marius, had really ended the war, and so laid the foundation of the subsequent enmity between the two leaders.

By this time Marius was generally recognized as the ablest general of the day, and was appointed to the chief command against the Cimbri and Teutones. Two Roman armies had been destroyed near the Lake of Geneva, and it seemed as if a repetition of the disaster of the Allia and the capture of Rome itself might not be impossible. Marius, out of unpromising materials and a demoralized soldiery, organized a well-disciplined army, with which he inflicted on the invaders two decisive defeats, the first in 102 at Aquae Sextiae (Aix), 18 m. north of Marseilles, and the second in the following year on the Raudian plain near Vercellae (Vercelli), about midway between Turin and Milan. For some centuries afterwards Rome remained unmolested by northern barbarians. In 101 Marius was elected consul a fifth time (previously in 107, 104, 103, 102), hailed as the “saviour of his country,” and honoured with a triumph of unprecedented splendour.

The glorious part of his career was now over. Though a very able soldier, he was without the intellectual culture which the Gracchi, his political ancestors, possessed. As a politician he on the whole failed, though he retained the confidence of the popular party almost to the last. But he unfortunately associated himself with the demagogues Saturninus (q.v.) and Glaucia, in order to secure the consulship for the sixth time (100). The manner in which he turned against his former associates (although he probably had no choice in the matter) alienated the sympathies of the plebs; and Marius, feeling that his only chance of rehabilitation lay in war, left Rome for Asia, where he endeavoured to provoke Mithradates to hostilities. On his return he served as legate in the Social War (90), and defeated the Marsi on two occasions. In 88 war broke out with Mithradates, and Sulla was appointed by the senate to the chief command, which was eagerly desired by Marius. This led to a rupture. With the assistance of the tribune Sulpicius Rufus, Marius succeeded in getting the command transferred to himself. Sulla marched upon Rome and defeated Marius, who fled to the marshes of Minturnae in Latium. He was discovered and taken prisoner; and the local magistrates, in accordance with Sulla’s proclamation, resolved to put him to death. The Gallic trooper sent to strike off the old man’s head quailed, it is said, before the fire of his eyes, and fled exclaiming, “I cannot kill Gaius Marius.” The inhabitants out of compassion then allowed Marius to depart, and put him on board a ship which conveyed him to Carthage. When forbidden to land, he told the messenger to inform the governor that he had seen Marius sitting as a fugitive among the ruins of Carthage. Having been joined by his son, he took refuge in the island of Cercina. Meantime, Sulla having left Italy for the Mithradatic war, Cinna’s sudden and violent revolution put the senate at the mercy of the popular leaders, and Marius greedily caught at the opportunity of a bloody vengeance, which became in fact a reign of terror in which senators and nobles were slaughtered wholesale. He had himself elected consul for the seventh time, in fulfilment of a prophecy given to him in early manhood. Less than three weeks afterwards he died of fever, on the 13th of January 86.

Marius was not only a great general, but also a great military reformer. From his time a citizen militia was replaced by a professional soldiery, which had hitherto been little liked by the Roman people. He further made the cohort the military unit instead of the maniple, and his cavalry and light-armed troops were drawn from foreign countries, so that it may be said that Marius was the originator of the mercenary army. The Roman soldier was henceforth a man who had no trade but war. A great general could hardly fail to become the foremost man in the state. Marius, however, unlike Caesar, did not attempt to overturn the oligarchy by means of the army; he used rather such expedients as the constitution seemed to allow, though they had to be backed up by riot and violence. He failed as a political reformer because the merchants and the moneyed classes, whom the Gracchi had tried to conciliate, feared that they would themselves be swept away by a revolution of which the mob and its leaders would be the ultimate controllers. Marius had a decided tinge of fanaticism and superstition. In canvassing for the consulship he was guided by the counsels of an Etruscan soothsayer, and was accompanied in his campaigns by a Syrian prophetess. The fashionable accomplishments of the day, and the new Greek culture, were wholly alien to his taste.

For the life of Marius the original sources are numerous passages in Cicero’s works, Sallust’s Jugurtha, the epitomes of the lost books of Livy, Plutarch’s Lives of Sulla and Marius, Velleius Paterculus, Florus and Appian’s Bellum civite. See F. D. Gerlach, Marius und Sulla (Basel, 1856); I. Gilles, Campagne de Marius dans la Gaule (1870); W. Votsch, Marius als Reformator des römischen Heerwesens (with notes and references to ancient authorities, 1886); A. H. J. Greenidge, History of Rome, vol. i. (1904); also Rome: History, II. “The Republic.”

MARIVAUX, PIERRE CARLET DE CHAMBLAIN DE (1688-1763), French novelist and dramatist, was born at Paris on the 4th of February 1688. His father was a financier of Norman extraction whose real name was Carlet, but who assumed the surname of Chamblain, and then superadded that of Marivaux. M. Carlet de Marivaux was a man of good reputation, and he received the appointment of director of the mint at Riom in Auvergne, where and at Limoges the young Pierre was brought up. It is said that he developed literary tastes early, and wrote his first play, the Père prudent et équitable, when he was only eighteen; it was not, however, published till 1712, when he was twenty-four. His chief attention in those early days was paid to novel writing, not the drama. In the three years from 1713 to 1715 he produced three novels—Effets surprenants de la sympathie; La Voiture embourbée, and a book which had three titles—Pharsamon, Les Folies romanesques, and Le Don Quichotte moderne. All these books were in a curious strain, not in the least resembling the pieces which long afterwards were to make his reputation, but following partly the Spanish romances and partly the heroic novels of the preceding century, with a certain intermixture of the marvellous. Then Marivaux’s literary ardour took a new phase. He fell under the influence of Antoine Hondar[d] de La Motte, and thought to serve the cause of that ingenious paradoxer by travestying Homer, an ignoble task, which he followed up (perhaps, for it is not certain) by performing the same office in regard to Fénelon. His friendship for La Motte, however, introduced him to the Mercure, the chief newspaper of France, where in 1717 he produced various articles of the “Spectator” kind, which were distinguished by much keenness of observation and not a little literary skill. It was at this time that the peculiar style called Marivaudage first made its appearance in him. The year 1720 and those immediately following were very important ones for Marivaux; not only did he produce a comedy, now lost except in small part, entitled L’Amour et la vérité, and another and far better one entitled Arlequin poli par l’amour, but he wrote a tragedy, Annibal (printed 1737), which was and deserved to be unsuccessful. Meanwhile his worldly affairs underwent a sudden revolution. His father had left him a comfortable subsistence, but he was persuaded by friends to risk it in the Mississippi scheme, and after vastly increasing it for a time lost all that he had. His prosperity had enabled him to marry (perhaps in 1721) a certain Mlle Martin, of whom much good is said, and to whom he was deeply attached, but who died very shortly. His pen now became almost his sole resource. He had a connexion with both the fashionable theatres, for his Annibal had been played at the Comédie Française and his Arlequin poli at the Comédie Italienne, where at the time a company who were extremely popular, despite their imperfect command of French, were established. He endeavoured too to turn his newspaper practice in the Mercure to more account by starting a weekly Spectateur Français (1722-1723), to which he was the sole contributor. But his habits were the reverse of methodical; the paper appeared at the most irregular intervals; and, though it contained some excellent work, its irregularity killed it. For nearly twenty years the theatre, and especially the Italian theatre, was Marivaux’s chief support, for his pieces, though they were not ill received by the actors at the Français, were rarely successful there. The best of a very large number of plays (Marivaux’s theatre numbers between thirty and forty items) were the Surprise de l’amour (1722), the Triomphe de Plutus (1728), the Jeu de l’amour et du hasard (1730), Les Fausses confidences (1737), all produced at the Italian theatre, and Le Legs (1736), produced at the French. Meanwhile he had at intervals returned to both his other lines of composition. A periodical publication called L’Indigent philosophe appeared in 1727, and another called Le Cabinet du philosophe in 1734, but the same causes which had proved fatal to the Spectateur prevented these later efforts from succeeding. In 1731 Marivaux published the first two parts of his best and greatest work, Marianne, a novel of a new and remarkable kind. The eleven parts appeared in batches at intervals during a period of exactly the same number of years, and after all it was left unfinished. In 1735 another novel, Le Paysan parvenu, was begun, but this also was left unfinished. He was elected a member of the Academy in 1742. He survived for more than twenty years, and was not idle, again contributing occasionally to the Mercure, writing plays, “reflections” (which were seldom of much worth), and so forth. He died on the 12th February 1763, aged seventy-five years.

The personal character of Marivaux was curious and somewhat contradictory, though not without analogies, one of the closest of which is to be found in Goldsmith. He was, however, unlike Goldsmith, at least as brilliant in conversation as with the pen. He was extremely good-natured, but fond of saying very severe things, unhesitating in his acceptance of favours (he drew a regular annuity from Helvetius), but exceedingly touchy if he thought himself in any way slighted. He was, though a great cultivator of sensibilité, on the whole decent and moral in his writings, and was unsparing in his criticism of the rising Philosophes. This last circumstance, and perhaps jealousy as well, made him a dangerous enemy in Voltaire, who lost but few opportunities of speaking disparagingly of him. He had good friends, not merely in the rich, generous and amiable Helvetius, but in Mme de Tencin, in Fontenelle and even in Mme de Pompadour, who gave him, it is said, a considerable pension, of the source of which he was ignorant. His extreme sensitiveness is shown by many stories. He had one daughter, who took the veil, the duke of Orleans, the regent’s successor, furnishing her with her dowry.

The so-called Marivaudage is the main point of importance about Marivaux’s literary work, though the best of the comedies have great merits, and Marianne is an extremely important step in the legitimate development of the French novel—legitimate, that is, in opposition to the brilliant but episodic productions of Le Sage. Its connexion, and that of Le Paysan parvenu, with the work not only of Richardson but of Fielding is also an interesting though a difficult subject. The subject matter of Marivaux’s peculiar style has been generally and with tolerable exactness described as the metaphysic of love-making. His characters, in a happy phrase of Claude Prosper Jolyot Crébillon’s, not only tell each other and the reader everything they have thought, but everything that they would like to persuade themselves that they have thought. The style chosen for this is justly regarded as derived mainly from Fontenelle, and through him from the Précieuses, though there are traces of it even in La Bruyère. It abuses metaphor somewhat, and delights to turn off a metaphor itself in some unexpected and bizarre fashion. Now it is a familiar phrase which is used where dignified language would be expected; now the reverse. In the criticism of Crébillon’s already quoted occurs another happy description of Marivaux’s style as being “an introduction to each other of words which have never made acquaintance, and which think that they will not get on together,” a phrase as happy in its imitation as in its satire of the style itself. This kind of writing, of course, recurs at several periods of literature, and did so remarkably at the end of the 19th century in more countries than one. Yet this fantastic embroidery of language has a certain charm, and suits perhaps better than any other style the somewhat unreal gallantry and sensibilité which it describes and exhibits. The author possessed, moreover, both thought and observation, besides considerable command of pathos.

The best and most complete edition of Marivaux is that of 1781 in 12 vols. reprinted with additions 1825-1830. The plays had been published during the author’s lifetime in 1740 and 1748. There are modern editions by Paul de Saint Heylli Victor (1863), by G. d’Heylli (1876) and by E. Fournier (1878), while issues of selections and separate plays and novels are numerous. Of works concerning him J. Fleury’s Marivaux et le Marivaudage (Paris, 1881), G. Larroumet’s Marivaux, sa vie et ses œuvres (1882; new ed., 1894), the standard work on the subject, and G. Deschamps’s Marivaux (1897), in the Grands écrivains français, are the most important. Separate articles on him will be found in the collected essays of the chief modern French critics from Sainte-Beuve onwards.

(G. Sa.)

MARJORAM, (O. Fr. majorane, Med. Lat. majorana; not connected with major, greater, nor with amaracus), in botany, the common name for some aromatic herbs or undershrubs, belonging to the genus Origanum (natural order Labiatae). Wild marjoram is O. vulgare, a perennial common in England in dry copses and on hedge-banks, with many stout stems 1 to 3 ft. high, bearing short-stalked somewhat ovate leaves and clusters of purple flowers. Sweet or knotted marjoram, O. Marjorana, and pot marjoram, O. Onites, are cultivated for the use of their aromatic leaves, either green or dry, for culinary purposes; the tops are cut as the plants begin to flower and are dried slowly in the shade.

MARK, ST, the traditional author of the second Gospel. His name occurs in several books of the New Testament, and doubtless refers in all cases to the same person, though this has been questioned. In the Acts of the Apostles (xii. 12) we read of “John, whose surname was Mark,” and gather that Peter was a familiar visitor at the house of his mother Mary, which was a centre of Christian life in Jerusalem. That he was, as his Roman surname would suggest, a Hellenist, follows from the fact that he was also cousin (“nephew” is a later sense of ἀνεψιός, see J. B. Lightfoot on Col. iv. 10) of Barnabas, who belonged to Cyprus. When Barnabas and Paul returned from their relief visit to Judaea (c. A.D. 46), Mark accompanied them (xii. 25). Possibly he had shown in connexion with their relief work that practical capacity which seems to have been his distinctive excellence (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 11). When, not long after, they started on a joint mission beyond Syria, Mark went as their assistant, undertaking the minor personal duties connected with travel, as well as with their work proper (xiii. 5). As soon, however, as their plans developed, after leaving Cyprus and on arrival at Perga in Pamphylia (see Paul), Mark withdrew, probably on some matter of principle, and returned to Jerusalem (xiii. 13). When, then, Paul proposed, after the Jerusalem council of Acts xv., to revisit with Barnabas the scenes of their joint labours, he naturally demurred to taking Mark with them again, feeling that he could not be relied on should fresh openings demand a new policy. But Barnabas stood by his younger kinsman and “took Mark and sailed away to Cyprus” (xv. 38 seq.). Barnabas does not reappear, unless we trust the tradition which makes him an evangelist in Alexandria (Clem. Hom. i. 9 seq., cf. the attribution to him of the Alexandrine Epistle of Barnabas).

When Mark appears once more, it is in Paul’s company at Rome, as a fellow-worker joining in salutations to Christians at Colossae (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24). We gather, too, that his restoration to Paul’s confidence took place some time earlier, as the Colossians had already been bidden by oral message or letter to welcome him if he should visit them. This points to a reconciliation during Paul’s last sojourn in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Not long after Col. iv. 10 Mark seems to have been sent by Paul to some place in the province of Asia, lying on the route between Ephesus and Rome. For in 2 Tim. iv. 11 Paul bids Timothy, “Pick up Mark and bring him with thee, for he is useful to me for ministering.”

Once more Mark’s name occurs in the New Testament, this time with yet another leader, Peter, the friend of his earliest Christian years in Jerusalem, to whom he attached himself after the deaths of Barnabas and Paul. Peter’s words, “Mark, my son,” show how close was the spiritual tie between the older and the younger man (1 Pet. v. 13); and as he is writing from Rome (“Babylon,” since Paul’s death and the change of policy it implied), this forms a link between the New Testament and early tradition, which speaks of Mark as an Evangelist writing his Gospel under the influence of Peter’s preaching (in Rome). This is the essence of the tradition preserved from “the elders of former days” by Clement of Alexandria (in Eus. ii. 15, vi. 14), a tradition probably based on Papias’s record (cf. Eus. iii. 39) of the explanation given by “the Elder” (John) as to the contrast in form between Mark’s memoirs of Peter’s discourses and the Gospel of Matthew (see Gospels; Papias), but defining the place where these memoirs were written as Rome. That he acted to some degree as Peter’s interpreter or dragoman (ἑρμηνεύς), owing to the apostle’s imperfect mastery of Greek, is held by some but denied by others (e.g. by Zahn). His rôle throughout his career was servus servorum dei; and the fact that he was this successively to Barnabas, Paul and Peter, helps to show the essential harmony of their message.

The identification of the author of the second Gospel with Mark, which we owe to tradition, enables us to fill in our picture of him a little further. Thus it is possible that Mark was himself the youth (νεανίσκος) to whom his Gospel refers as present at Jesus’s arrest (xiv. 51 seq.; cf. his detailed knowledge as to the place of the last supper, 13 seq.). It is probably as evangelist, and not in his own person, that he became known as “he of the stunted extremities” (κολοβοδάκτυλος, “curt-fingered”), a title first found in Hippolytus (Haer. vii. 30), in a context which makes its metaphorical reference to his Gospel pretty evident. It was too as evangelist that he became personally a subject of later interest, and of speculative legends due to this, e.g. he was one of the Seventy (first found in Adamantius, Dial. de recta fide, 4th century), he was the founder of the Alexandrine Church (recorded as a tradition by Eusebius, ii. 16) and its first bishop (id. ii. 2), and was author of the local type of liturgy (cf. the Acts of Mark, ch. vii., not earlier than the end of the 4th century).

As to his last days and death nothing is really known. It is possible—even probable, if we accept the theory that he had already been there with Barnabas—that Alexandria was his final sphere of work, as the earliest tradition on the point implies (the Latin Prologue, and Eusebius as above, probably after Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century), and as was widely assumed in the 4th century. That he died and was buried there is first stated by Jerome (De vir. ill. 8), to which his Acts adds the glory of martyrdom (cf. Ps.-Hippolytus, De LXX Apostolis).

Literature.—H. B. Swete, The Gospel acc. to St Mark (1898), Introduction, § I., where the authorities are fully cited; also the art. in Hastings’s Dict. Bible. The Patristic and other legends are discussed at length by R. A. Lipsius, Die apokr. Apostelgesch. u.s.w. (1884), ii. 2, and T. Schermann, Propheten- und Apostellegenden (1907), 285 seq. (with special reference to Ps.-Hippolytus and Ps.-Dorotheus).

(J. V. B.)

Medieval Legends.

The majority of medieval writers on the subject state that Mark was a Levite; but this is probably no more than an inference from his supposed relationship to Barnabas. The Alexandrian tradition seems to have been that he was of Cyrenaean origin; and Severus, a writer of the 10th century, adds to this the statement that his father’s name was Aristobulus, who, with his wife Mary, was driven from the Pentapolis to Jerusalem by an invasion of barbarians (Severus Aschimon in Renaudot, Hist. patriarch. alex., p. 2). In the apocryphal Acts of Barnabas, which profess to be written by him, he speaks of himself as having been formerly a servant of Cyrillus, the high priest of Zeus, and as having been baptized at Iconium. The presbyter John, whom Papias quotes, says distinctly that “he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him” (Eusebius, loc. cit.); and this positive statement is fatal to the tradition, which does not appear until about two hundred and fifty years afterwards, that he was one of the seventy disciples (Epiphanius, pseudo-Origen De recta in Deum fide, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle). Various other results of the tendency to fill up blank names in the gospel history must be set aside on the same ground; it was, for example, believed that Mark was one of the disciples who “went back” because of the “hard saying” (pseudo-Hippolyt., De LXX Apostolis in Cod. Barocc. Migne, Patrol. graec. x. 955); there was an Alexandrian tradition that he was one of the servants at the miracle of Cana of Galilee, that he was the “man bearing a pitcher of water” in whose house the last supper was prepared, and that he was also the owner of the house in which the disciples met on the evening of the resurrection (Renaudot, loc. cit.); and even in modern times there has been the conjecture that he was the “certain young man” who “fled naked” from Gethsemane, Mark xiv. 51, 52 (Olshausen).

A tradition which was widely diffused, and which is not in itself improbable, was that he afterwards preached the gospel and presided over the church at Alexandria (the earliest extant testimony is that of Eusebius, H. E. ii. 16, 1; ii. 24; for the fully-developed legend of later times see Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita S. Marci, and Eutychius Origines ecclesiae Alexandrinae). There was another, though perhaps not incompatible, tradition that he preached the gospel and presided over the church at Aquileia in North Italy. The earliest testimony in favour of this tradition is the vague statement of Gregory of Nazianzus that Mark preached in Italy, but its existence in the 7th century is shown by the fact that in A.D. 629 Heraclius sent the patriarchal chair from Alexandria to Grado, to which city the patriarchate of Aquileia had been then transferred (Chron. patriarch. Gradens., in Ughelli, Italia sacra, tom. v. p. 1086; for other references to the general tradition see De Rubeis, Monum. eccles. aquileien., c. 1; Acta sanctorum, ad April, xxv.). It was through this tradition that Mark became connected with Venice, whither the patriarchate was further transferred from Grado; an early Venetian legend, which is represented in the Cappella Zen in the basilica of St Mark, antedates this connexion by picturing the evangelist as having been stranded on the Rialto, while it was still an uninhabited island, and as having had the future greatness of the city revealed to him (Danduli, Chron. iv. 1, ap. Muratori, Rer. ital. script. xii. 14).

The earliest traditions appear to imply that he died a natural death (Eusebius, Jerome, and even Isidore of Seville); but the Martyrologies claim him as a martyr, though they do not agree as to the manner of his martyrdom. According to the pseudo-Hippolytus he was burned; but Symeon Metaphrastes and the Paschal Chronicle represent him to have been dragged over rough stones until he died. But, however that may be, his tomb appears to have been venerated at Alexandria, and there was a firm belief at Venice in the middle ages that his remains had been translated thither in the 9th century (the fact of the translation is denied even by Tillemont; the weakness of the evidence in support of the tradition is apparent even in Molini’s vigorous defence of it, lib. ii. c. 2; the minute account which the same writer gives, lib., ii. c. 11, of the discovery of the supposed actual bones of the evangelist in A.D. 1811, is interesting). There was another though less widely accepted tradition, that the remains soon after their translation to Venice were retranslated to the abbey of Reichenau on Lake Constance; a circumstantial account of this retranslation is given in the treatise Ex miraculis S. Marci, in Pertz, Mon. hist. german. script., tom. iv. p. 449. It may be added that the Venetians prided themselves on possessing, not only the body of St Mark, but also the autograph of his Gospel; this autograph, however, proved on examination to be only part of a 6th-century book of the Gospels, the remainder of which was published by Bianchini as the Evangeliarium forojuliense; the Venetian part of this MS. was found some years ago to have been wholly destroyed by damp.

It has been at various times supposed that Mark wrote other works besides the Gospel. Several books of the New Testament have been attributed to him: viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews (Spanheim, Op. miscell. ii. 240), the Epistle of Jude (cf. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, p. 373), the Apocalypse (Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus, Zürich, 1843). The apocryphal Acta Barnabae purport to have been written by him. There is a liturgy which bears his name, and which exists in two forms; the one form was found in a MS. of the 12th century in Calabria, and is, according to Renaudot, the foundation of the three liturgies of St Basil, St Gregory Nazianzen and St Cyril; the other is that which is used by the Maronite and Jacobite Syrians. Both forms have been published by Renaudot, Liturg. oriental. collect, i. 127, and ii. 176, and in Neale’s History of the Holy Eastern Church; but neither has any substantial claim to belong to the ante-Nicene period of Christian literature.

The symbol by which Mark is designated in Christian art is usually that of a lion. Each of the “four living creatures” of Ezekiel and the Apocalypse has been attributed to each of the four evangelists in turn; Augustine and Bede think that Mark is designated by the “man”; Theophylact and others think that he is designated by the eagle; Anastasius Sinaita makes his symbol the ox; but medieval art acquiesced in the opinion of Jerome that he was indicated by the lion. Most of the martyrologies and calendars assign April 25 as the day on which he should be commemorated; but the Martyr. Hieron. gives the 23rd of September, and some Greek martyrologies give the 11th of January. This unusual variation probably arises from early differences of opinion as to whether there was one Mark or more than one.

See Canon Molini of Venice, De vita et lipsanis S. Marci Evangelistae, edited, after the author’s death, by S. Pieralisi, the librarian of the Barberini library (1864); R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgesch. und Apostellegenden (1883 foll). vol. ii. part 2, pp. 321-353.

The divergent lines of the later attempts at a literal interpretation—e.g. he amputated his thumb in order to escape the Levitical priesthood (Latin Prologue), or it was a natural defect (Cod. Tolet.)—suggest that all they had to start from was the epithet itself.

Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. Eccl. ii. 43, assumes this in his picturesque account of Mark’s preaching in a quarter of the city which seems to have contained the tomb of the early bishops of Alexandria (cf. his Acts).

MARK, a word of which the principal meanings are in their probable order of development,—boundary, an object set up to indicate a boundary or position; hence a sign or token, impression or trace. The word in O. Eng. is mearc, and appears in all Teutonic languages, cf. Du. merk, Ger. Mark, boundary, marke, sign, impression; Romanic languages have borrowed the word, cf. Fr. marque, Ital. marca. Cognate forms outside Teutonic have been found in Lat. margo, “margin,” and Pers. marz, boundary. Others would refer to the Lith. margas, striped, parti-coloured, and Sanskrit marga, trace, especially of hunted game. In the sense of boundary, or a tract of country on or near a boundary or frontier, “mark” in English usage proper is obsolete, and “march” (q.v.) has established itself. It still remains, however, to represent the German mark, a tract of land held in common by a village community (see Mark System), and also historically the name of certain principalities, such as the mark of Brandenburg. The Italian marca is also sometimes rendered by “mark,” as in the mark of Ancona.

Mark is also the name of a modern silver coin of the German empire. This is apparently a distinct word and not of Teutonic origin; it is found in all Teutonic and Romanic languages, Latinized as marca or marcus. The mark was originally a measure of weight only for gold and silver and was common throughout western Europe and was equivalent to 8 oz. The variations, however, throughout the middle ages were considerable (see Du Cange, Gloss. med. et infim. Lat., s.v. Marca for a full list). In England the “mark” was never a coin, but a money of account only, and apparently came into use in the 10th century through the Danes. It first was taken as equal to 100 pennies, but after the Norman Conquest was equal to 160 pennies (20 pennies to the oz.) = 2⁄3 of the pound sterling, or 13s. 4d., and therefore in Scotland 131⁄2d. English; the mark (merk) Scots was a silver coin of this value, issued first in 1570 and afterwards in 1663. The modern German mark was adopted in 1873 as the standard of value and the money of account. It is of the value of 6.146 grains of gold, 900 fine, and is equal to English standard gold of the value of 11.747 pence. The modern silver coin, nearly equal in value to the English shilling, was first issued in 1875. (See Numismatics, § iv.)

MARK, GOSPEL OF ST, the second of the four canonical Gospels of the Christian Church. Till quite recent times this Gospel, though nominally equal to the others in authority, has unquestionably not aroused the same interest or feelings of attachment as they have, partly from its not bearing the name of an apostle for its author, as the first and fourth do, partly, also, owing to the fact that the first and third, while they include most of what is found in it, contain much additional matter, which is of the highest value. Of late, however, it has acquired new importance through the critical inquiries which have led to the conclusion that the two other synoptic Gospels are based upon it, or upon a document which is upon the whole most truly represented in it (see Gospel), so that it possesses the advantage of being an earlier source of information, or at least of bringing us more fully into contact with such a source. The significance of all that we can learn as to the history of the composition of Mark’s Gospel is clearly enhanced by this consideration.

(1) Early Account of a Writing by Mark.—According to a fragment of Papias (ap. Eus. Hist. Eccl. III. 39) taken from a work probably written c. A.D. 140, Mark, who was the follower and interpreter of Peter, recorded after the latter’s decease the words of Christ and the narratives of His deeds which he had heard the Apostle deliver, but he could not arrange the matter “in order,” because he had not himself been a personal follower of Jesus. This account Papias had derived, he tells us, from an informant who had heard it repeatedly given by “the elder,” a Christian of the first generation.

There can be little doubt that the work to which Papias himself supposed this story to apply was the Gospel of Mark virtually as we know it. The tradition in regard to this work must have been continuous between his time and that of Irenaeus, who (c. A.D. 180) gives a similar account of its composition. It may be noted also that the same view of the origin of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been held by a contemporary of Papias, Justin Martyr. In his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 106) he cites a fact about the name of Peter from “his Memoirs,” and adds also another similar fact about the name given to the sons of Zebedee, just as they are stated in Mark iii. 16, 17, and nowhere else so far as we know. He may well have been ready to call the work “Peter’s,” though he believed that Mark actually composed it, on the ground that the latter recorded what the Apostle said (cf. ibid. c. 103).

But is our Gospel of Mark also to be identified with the writing by Mark spoken of by “the elder” whose account had been reported to Papias? Some confusion is here more conceivable; while, if it is supposed that such a writing was worked up in our second Gospel, this may seem sufficient to explain the connexion of Mark’s name with the latter.

In support of this view it is urged, though it is so much less often now than it used to be, that the description “not in order” does not fit our Gospel of Mark, the order in which is from an historical point of view as good as, if not better than, in the other Gospels. But from whomsoever the expression proceeds—whether from Papias, or his informant, or “the elder”—we may feel sure that considerations such as appeal to us from our training in historical criticism are not those which suggested it, but rather the want of agreement between this Gospel and some standard which on altogether different grounds was applied to it. This argument, then, for supposing that the original writing by Mark differed widely in form and contents from the Gospel which now bears his name appears to be without force. The question whether the two differed to any, and if so to what, extent can be decided only from an examination of the Gospel itself.

(2) The Question of the Integrity of the Gospel of Mark.—There are in a good many parts of this Gospel indications that the narrative has been derived from Simon Peter, or some one else who was a personal follower of Jesus in the days of His earthly ministry. It has been widely felt that the account of the call of the first four disciples and of the events which immediately followed (i. 15-39) at the opening of the Galilean ministry, bears strong marks of proceeding from Simon Peter. Other passages might be pointed out in which it is suitable to suppose that this disciple in particular was the informant. But we will content ourselves with noticing signs that the reminiscences of some eyewitness are recorded. (a) Traits appear which are wholly without importance, and upon which no stress is laid in the context, but which it was natural for a narrator who was actually present, and only for such a one to introduce, because he remembered them as associated with the principal events. The following are instances and others might be cited: the mention of “other boats,” iv. 36; the half-foolish remark made by Peter when in a dazed condition at the Transfiguration, ix. 5, 6; the young man who, when Jesus was arrested, followed, “having a linen cloth cast about him,” xiv. 51, 52; the fact that Simon of Cyrene was “coming from the country,” xv. 21. (b) There is great truth of local colouring. The references to places and the descriptions of natural features (the lake-shore, i. 16; ii. 13; iii. 7; the hills near at hand, iii. 13; v. 5, 13; vi. 46; the desert places among the hills or by the shore, i. 35, 45; vi. 31, 32) appear to be accurate; the routes indicated in the journeys that are taken are probable (vii. 24, 31; viii. 27; x. 17, 32, 46; xi. 1). Again, the term “village-towns” (i. 38) is a remarkably appropriate one (cf. Josephus, B. I. III. iii. 2). There would, indeed, be an exception to the general correctness of the topography if we were compelled to suppose that “country of the Gerasenes” (which is the best reading according to existing MS. evidence at Mark v. 1) must mean the territory of the city of Gerasa. But it is easy to imagine that some confusion may have arisen in the transliteration of the name into Greek, and that the place really indicated is Khersa, near the middle of the eastern shore of the lake. The pair of references (vi. 45, 53) which might also be adduced as an exception, will be noticed below. Further, the conditions of life and thought in Palestine at the time in question are faithfully represented, Aramaic words spoken on some important occasions are preserved (iii. 17; v. 41; xv. 34). And, to mention a point of a different kind, the parts played by different sections among the Jewish people are such as might be expected. The point of view of speakers and actors is throughout that belonging to the time of the ministry of Jesus, not to that when the Christian Church had come into existence. (c) The good order in this Gospel, i.e. the natural development of the narrative, will be indicated below. It has without good reason, as we have seen, been supposed to show that it cannot be the record by Mark referred to by Papias. And in reality it would be difficult to account for this feature except on the supposition that one who had lived through the events had been accustomed, when required to give a comprehensive sketch of the history of the ministry and sufferings of Jesus, to relate the facts in the main as they happened; and that a hearer of his has to a considerable extent reproduced them in the same order.

The last consideration seems to show that the general form and structure of the Gospel, and not merely certain portions of it, are original. In point of style, also, there is a large amount of uniformity. The chief exceptions are that, whereas some incidents are related in a very concise manner (e.g. i. 23-28, and 40-45), there is in other cases considerable amplitude of description (see esp. v. 1-20, 35-43 and ix. 14-27). But Mark’s own writing might exhibit this variety, according to what he had been told or could remember. Moreover, a tendency to amplitude of language may be noticed here and there in some of the more concise narratives. Further, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Mark, even if he relied chiefly on what he had heard Peter teach, would refrain from using any other sources of information which he possessed. Some have supposed that the same Logian document in Greek which was used by the first and third evangelists was also used by Mark. This is highly improbable, but he may have derived particular sayings from the Aramaic source itself of that document by independent translation; and may also have learned both sayings and narratives in other ways. It would seem also that the Discourse on the Last Things in ch. xiii., differing as it does both in its greater length and in its systematic structure from other discourses recorded by him, must have come to his hands in a written form. In it some genuine sayings of Christ appear to have been worked up along with matter taken from Jewish Apocalypses and in accordance with an Apocalyptic model.

There does not, then, seem to be good reason for thinking that the work which proceeded from the hands of Mark differed widely in character and contents from the Gospel which now bears his name. But there are indications that some passages have been interpolated in it: e.g. in Mark iv. 10 there is some want of fitness in the inquiry of the disciples as to the meaning of “the parables” after only one has been given, and again a want of agreement between that inquiry and the words of Jesus at v. 13, “Know ye not this parable, and how shall ye know all the parables?” We notice further that the two parables in vv. 26-32 are somewhat loosely appended. It looks as if they were insertions in the passage as it originally stood, and that the references to parables in the plural, together with the statement at vv. 33, 34, had been introduced in order to adapt the context to these additions. This view is confirmed by the fact that in Luke viii. 4 seq. only one parable, that of the sower, is given or referred to. This evangelist has probably here followed the original form of Mark. Similarly the collection of sayings after Mark ix. 40 (vv. 41-50) has probably been interpolated. They are thrown together in a way unusual with Mark, who is accustomed to place each important saying in a setting of its own. Here again we note that they do not appear at the corresponding point in Luke, though some of them are given by him in other contexts. The account of the crossing of the lake (vi. 45-53) after the feeding of the five thousand furnishes an instance of a different kind. The difficulty as to the position of Bethsaida, or (if εἰς τὸ πέραν, “unto the other side,” at v. 45 is taken to refer only to the crossing of a bay at the north-eastern corner of the lake) the discrepancy between “crossing” in this sense and in that of v. 53 would be explained if the narrative (which is not in Luke) may be held to be an interpolation by one not familiar with the localities. Once more, the account of the feeding of the four thousand (viii. 1-9) resembles that of the feeding of the five thousand (vi. 35-44) closely in all respects except that of the numbers given, about which differences might easily arise in tradition, and it looks therefore as if it might be a “doublet,” i.e. another form of the same narrative derived through a different channel. And it is not so likely that Mark should have mistaken it for a distinct incident as that an editor of his Gospel should have done so. Some other instances, of greater or less probability, might be mentioned.

In addition to such larger insertions, the text of the original document seems to have undergone a certain amount of revision. Some of the cases in which the first and third evangelist agree against Mark in a word or clause may be best accounted for by their both having reproduced the common source (an example may be seen under 4 below).

As we have found it necessary to distinguish between the original composition by Mark, to whom in the main the work appears to be due, and some enlargement and alteration which it subsequently underwent whereby it reached its present form, these stages must be borne in mind in considering dates that may be assigned in connexion with this Gospel. According to Papias, Mark wrote after the death of Peter, i.e. after A.D. 64, if we suppose, as it is usual to do, that Peter was martyred in the massacre by Nero after the burning of Rome. It would be natural for Mark to set himself to make his record soon after the Apostle’s death; and in confirmation of the view that he did so it may be pointed out that in the form of the prophecy in ch. xiii. of the calamities that were to come upon Jerusalem, no details occur of a kind to suggest that it had actually taken place. Further, Mark’s work may very probably have been used by Luke in its original form. On the other hand, it was known to our first evangelist very nearly in the form in which we have it. The chief revision of Mark would seem, then, to have taken place between the times of the composition of the first and third Gospels, which cannot be far removed from one another (see Matthew, Gospel of St). The last twelve verses were added later still, probably early in the 2nd century, probably to take the place of the ending which had been lost, or which was regarded as defective. (On the evidence that the last 12 verses are not by the same hand as the rest of the Gospels see Westcott and Hort’s New Testament in Greek, append., p. 29 seq. and Swete’s St Mark in loc. and p. xcvi. seq. of his introduction.)

(3) The Gospel History as represented in Mark.—After a (i) prefatory passage, i. 1-13, the Gospel deals with (ii) Christ’s ministry in Galilee and other parts of northern Palestine, i. 14-ix. 50. This portion of the history may suitably be divided into three periods: (a) Early period. From the opening of the work of Jesus to the first plot to destroy Him (i. 14-iii. 6). (b) Middle period. From the gathering of crowds from all parts and appointment of the Twelve to the sending forth of the Twelve to extend Christ’s work and the alarm of Herod (iii. 7-vi. 29). (c) Closing period. From Christ’s withdrawal with His disciples after their return from their mission to His final departure from Galilee (vi. 30-ix. 50). Throughout we can trace a development as to (a) the stir created and the attitude of men towards Jesus: i. 32-34, 37 (excitement at Capernaum); 38, 45 (fame spreads through a wide district); iii. 7, 8 (people from distant parts appear in the crowds); iv. 2 seq. (the word of the Kingdom is received in very various ways); viii. 28 (great diversity of opinions as to the claims of Jesus); (b) the opposition to Him, ii. 1-iii. 6-iii. 22 (scribes come from Jerusalem and a more heinous charge is preferred); (c) the formation of a band of disciples and the position accorded to them: i. 16-20 (four are called to follow Him); ii. 14 (yet another); iii. 14 (He “makes twelve” including those before called); vi. 7 seq (He sends them out to preach and work cures); (d) the methods which he adopts: i. 21, 39-iii. 1 (preaches in the synagogues, later more commonly by the lake-shore or on the mountain sides; or He teaches in a house where He happens to be); at iv. 1 seq. he adopts a new mode of address because a sifting-process was required; from vi. 45 onwards He mainly devotes Himself to the training of the Twelve, while seeking retirement from the multitude; (e) in the districts which he visits: i. 38 (tour in the neighbourhood of Capernaum); v. 1 (crosses to eastern shore of the lake); vi. 6b (a tour which includes Nazareth); vi. 45 (Bethsaida); vii. 31 (journey to Tyre and Sidon and back through Decapolis); viii. 22, 27 (is at Bethsaida and visits neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi); (f) His self-revelation; viii. 27 seq. (first unambiguous declaration of His Messiahship).

(iii) The Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, the Last Days, Passion and Resurrection, x. 1 to end. He goes first to “the borders of Judaea and beyond Jordan” (Peraea), and exercises His ministry there, x. 1-16. In connexion with the journey from this region to Jerusalem three striking incidents are recorded, x. 17-52. The account of the time in Jerusalem includes a series of conflicts with opponents xi. 27-xii. 40, and the discourse on the Last Things, xiii. The only notes of time in the Gospel occur in connexion with the conspiracy to kill Jesus (xiv. 1) and the Last Supper (verse 12).

(4) The Leading Ideas of St Mark.—Ch. i. 1, which stands as a title, was probably, even according to the short form of it which is supported by MS. evidence, due to a reviser of the original. Both Matthew and Luke show signs of having had a somewhat different beginning before them. Nevertheless, that title fitly describes the work. It is emphatically “the Gospel,” because it sets forth the person and work of the Christ. The evangelist is conscious of this aim. It appears not only at great moments of the history such as the Baptism (i. 11), the confession of Peter (viii. 29), the Transfiguration (ix. 7); nor again merely in the prominence given to the miracles of Jesus and in particular to the casting out of devils, but also in many of the sayings recorded in it, as in the great series contained in the narratives in ch. ii. 5, 10, 17, 19; and again in the reply of Jesus to those who charged Him with being in collusion with Satan (iii. 27). The character of the genuine disciples of the Christ and the demands that are made of them form, as it were, the complement to the representation of what He Himself is, and are set forth in other striking sayings, related along with the memorable occasions on which they were spoken: (iii. 34, 35; viii. 34-36; ix. 23, 29, 35-37; x. 14, 15, 42-45).

See Swete, Commentary on St Mark (2nd ed., 1902); A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (1901); D. W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständniss des Markusevangeliums (1901); E. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium (1903). Also bibliography to the article Gospel.

(V. H. S.)

MARKBY, SIR WILLIAM (1829- ), English jurist, the fourth son of the Rev. William Henry Markby, rector of Duxford St Peter’s, was born at Duxford, Cambridge, in 1829. He was educated at Bury St Edmunds and Merton College, Oxford, where he took his degree in 1850. In 1856 he was called to the bar, and in 1865 he became recorder of Buckingham. In 1866 he went to India as judge of the High Court of Calcutta. This post he held for twelve years, and on his retirement was appointed Reader in Indian Law at Oxford. In 1892 he was a member of the Commission to inquire into the administration of justice at Trinidad and Tobago. Besides Lectures on Indian Law, he wrote Elements of Law considered with reference to the General Principles of Jurisprudence. The latter, being intended in the first place for Indian students, calls attention to many difficulties in the definition and application of legal conceptions which are usually passed over in textbooks, and it ranks as one of the few books on the philosophy of law which are both useful to beginners and profitable to teachers and thinkers. In 1897 appeared The Indian Evidence Act, with Notes. Sir William Markby also contributed to the law magazines, articles on Law and Fact, German Jurists and Roman Law, Legal Fictions, &c., several of which are embodied in the later editions of the Elements. He was made D.C.L. of Oxford in 1879, and K.C.I.E. in 1889.

MARKET (Lat. mercatus, trade or place of trade). This term is used in two well-defined senses. (1) It means a definite place where (a) traders who are retail sellers of a specific class of commodity or commodities are in the habit of awaiting buyers every day in shops or stalls; or whither (b) they are in the habit of proceeding on specified days at more or less frequent regular intervals. Covent Garden market for fruit and flowers, and Leadenhall market for meat and poultry, are good examples in London of the kind of institution included in class (a). They are a very ancient economic phenomenon, dating from the earliest period of the development of organized communities of human beings, and in general characteristics have changed little since they began to exist. Markets of the type of class (b) are also of very ancient origin (see Fairs), but inasmuch as they are constituted essentially by the presence of persons, many of whom assemble from various places outside the place of meeting, they were capable of a little more development than those belonging to class (a), owing to increased facilities for locomotion. The nature of an ancient market of class (a), whither a citizen, say of Athens, or his chief slave, proceeded daily to make household purchases, differs little from the group of shops visited by the wives of the less wealthy citizens of modern states. In many places abroad, and not a few in England, actual markets still exist. It may be said that the huge collections of shops, such as the various cooperative stores, are only a revival of the old “market-place,” with its shops or booths gathered round a central area, adapted to the needs of modern big cities. (2) The term “market” has come to be used in another and more general sense in modern times. According to Jevons, a market is “any body of persons who are in intimate business relations, and carry on extensive transactions in any commodity.” He adds that “these markets may or may not be localized,” and he instances the money market as a case in which the term “market” denotes no special locality. As a rule, however, most of the business of a market is transacted at some particular place, such as the London Stock Exchange, the Baltic, the Bourse of Paris, the Chicago “Wheat-pit.” Even in the case of the London money market, merchants still meet twice a week at the Royal Exchange to deal in foreign bills, although a considerable part of the dealings in these securities is arranged daily at offices and counting-houses by personal visits or by telegraphic or telephonic communication. The markets in any important article are all closely interconnected. The submarine cable has long ago made Chicago as important an influence on the London corn market as Liverpool, or rather both London and Liverpool affect and are simultaneously affected by Chicago and other foreign markets. In like manner the Liverpool cotton market is influenced by the markets in New Orleans and other American cities separated from it widely in space. In a minor degree the dealers in all places where a cotton market exists affect the bigger markets to some extent. What is true of the cotton market is also true to some extent of all markets, though few markets are so highly organized or show such large transactions as that for cotton. Among other markets of the first class may be mentioned those for pig-iron, wheat, copper, coffee, and sugar. There are many articles the markets for which are of considerable dimensions at times, but are of an intermittent character, such as the London Wool Sales, which take place now in five “series” during the year. Formerly the number of “series” was four. (For “market overt,” see Sale of Goods and Stolen Goods.)

Characteristics of Markets.—The conditions required in order that the operations of a trading body may display the fully-developed features of a modern market, whether for commodities or securities, are:—

(1) A large number of parties dealing.

(2) A large amount of the commodities or securities to be dealt with.

(3) An organization by which all persons interested in the commodity or security can rapidly communicate with one another.

(4) Existence and frequent publication of statistical and other information as to the present and probable future supply of the commodity or security.

The movements which take place in prices in any market, whether fully organized or not, depend largely on changes of opinion among buyers and sellers. The changes of opinion may be caused by erroneous as well as by correct information. They may also be the result of wrong inferences drawn from correct information. In markets for commodities of the first importance, such as wheat, cotton, iron, and other articles which are dealt in daily, the state of opinion may vary much during a few hours. The broad characteristics of markets of this class are similar. There is a tendency in all of them to show phenomena of annual periodicity, due partly to the seasons, the activity of certain months being in normal years greater in the case of any given market than that of other months. This tendency was always liable to be interfered with by the special forces at work in particular years; and the great increase in the facilities of communication between dealers by telegraph, and of transportation of commodities between widely distant points, which was one of the marked features of the development of the economic organism in all actively commercial countries during the last thirty years of the 19th century, has still further interfered with it. Nevertheless, a tendency to annual periodicity is still perceptible, especially in markets for produce of the soil, the supply of which largely depends on the meteorological conditions of the areas where they are grown on a scale sufficient to furnish an appreciable proportion of the total produce.

Periodicity of another kind known as “cyclic,” and due to a different set of causes, is believed to exist by many persons competent to form a judgment; but although the evidence for this view is very strong, the theory expounding it is not yet in a sufficiently advanced state to admit of its being regarded as established.

Phenomena of Markets.—Bagehot said of the money market that it is “often very dull and sometimes extremely excited.” This classical description of the market for “money” applies to a large extent to all markets.

Every market is at every moment tending to an equilibrium between the quantity of commodities offered and that of commodities desired; supposing equilibrium to have been attained in a given market, and that for some appreciable period it is not disturbed, the price for the commodity dealt in, in the market, will remain practically unchanged during that period. Not that there will be no transactions going on, but that the amounts offered daily will be approximately equal to the amounts demanded daily.

We have briefly described the statical condition of a market; we must now briefly examine its dynamics. Disturbance may take place through a change in—

(1) Supply, or opinion as to future probable supply.

(2) Demand, or opinion as to future probable demand.

(3) In both simultaneously, but such a change that demand is increased or decreased more than the supply, or vice versa.

A moderate disturbance caused by one of the above changes, or a combination of them, will produce an immediate effect on the price of the commodity, which again will tend to react on both the supply and the demand by altering the opinions of sellers and buyers. If no further change tending to disturb the market takes place, the market will gradually settle down again to a state of equilibrium. But if the disturbance has been considerable, a relatively long time may elapse before the market becomes quiet; and very likely the level of price at which the new equilibrium is established will be very different from that ruling before the disturbance set in. Further scientific investigation of the dynamics of a market is in any case very difficult, and is impossible without a complete analysis of the statical condition, such as is found at length in the textbooks of mathematical economics; but it is possible to describe briefly certain dynamical phenomena of markets which are of a comparatively simple character, and are also of practical interest.

Every great market is organized with a view not merely to the purchase and sale of a commodity at once, or “on the spot,” but also with a view to the future requirements of buyers and sellers. This organization arises naturally from the necessities of business, since modern industry and commerce are carried on continuously, and provision has to be made for the requirements, say, of a spinning-mill, by arranging for the delivery of successive quantities of cotton, wool or silk over a period of months “ahead.” In the case of cotton, “forward deliveries” can be purchased six or seven months in advance, and the person who undertakes to deliver the cotton at the times stated is said in the language of the market to “sell forward.” If the quantity of cotton produced each year were always the same, no very remarkable results would follow from this mode of doing business, except the economy resulting to the spinner from not being compelled to lock up part of his capital in raw material before he could use it. But as the cotton and other crops vary considerably from year to year, some curious consequences follow from the practice of “selling forward.” The seller, of course, makes his bargain in the belief that he will be able to “cover” the sale he has made at a profit—that is, he hopes to be able to buy the cotton he has to deliver at a lower price than he undertook to deliver it at. If so, all is well for both parties, for the buyer has had the advantage of having insured a supply of cotton. But supposing something has happened to raise the price considerably, such as a great “shortage” of the crop, the seller may lose. If a great many other persons have taken the same mistaken view of the probabilities of the market, a condition of things may arise in which they may be “cornered.” (See Cotton.)

A “corner” in an exchangeable article is an abnormal condition of the market for it, in which, owing to a serious miscalculation of probable supply, many traders who have made contracts to deliver at a certain date are unable to fulfil them. In most cases the fact that the market is “oversold” becomes known some time before the date for the completion of the contracts, and other traders take advantage of the position to raise the price against those who are “short” of the article. A corner is therefore usually a result of the failure of a speculation for the fall. Theoretically a trader who has undertaken to deliver 100 tons of an article, but cannot, after every endeavour, obtain more than 90 tons, could be made to pay his whole capital in order to be relieved from the bargain. In practice he gets off more easily than this. Frequently when many traders have sold largely “forward” other traders deliberately try to use that position as a basis for creating a “corner.” Generally, however, they only succeed in causing great inconvenience to all parties, themselves included, for as a rule they are only able to make the “corner” effective by buying up so much of the article that when they have compelled their opponents to pay largely to be relieved of contracts to deliver, they are left with so big a stock of the article that they cannot sell it except at a loss, which is sometimes big enough to absorb the gain previously secured. In the case of very small markets “corners” may be complete, but in big markets they are never complete, something always happening to prevent the full realization of the operators’ plans. The idea of a “corner” is, however, so fascinating to the commercial mind, especially in the United States, that probably no year passes without an attempt at some operation of the kind, though the conditions may in most cases prevent any serious result.

“Corners” have what is called a “moral” aspect. It is curious to note that the indignation of the “market” at the disturbance to prices which results from operations of this kind is generally directed against the speculators for the fall, while that of the public, including trade consumers, is directed against the operator for the rise. The operator for the fall, or “bear,” is denounced for “selling what he has not got,” a very inaccurate description of his action, while the “bull” or operator for the rise is spoken of by a much wider circle as a heartless person who endeavours to make a profit out of the necessities of others. From a strict ethical standpoint there is really nothing to choose between the two.

The Money Market.—There is one market which presents features of so peculiar a character that it is necessary to describe it more particularly than other phenomena of the kind, and that is the money market. The term money is here used to denote “money-market money” or “bankers’ money,” a form of wealth which has existed from early times, but not in great abundance until within the last two or three hundred years. Immense wealth has existed in certain countries at various epochs, owing to the fertility of the soil, success in trade, or the plunder of other communities, and all states which have been great have at the time of their greatness possessed wealth; but the wealth which the countries, or a few fortunate individuals belonging to them, owned consisted largely of what is still called real property—that is, land and buildings—and of the produce of the soil or of mines. The balance consisted partly of merchandise of various kinds and shipping, and to a large extent of the precious metals in the form of coin or bullion, or of precious stones and jewelry. Where no settled government was established no one could become or remain very wealthy who was not in a position to defend himself by the strong hand or allied with those who were; and as a rule the only people who could so defend themselves were possessors of large areas of rich land, who were able to retain the services of those who dwelt on it either through their personal military qualities or in virtue of habit and custom. The inhabitants of wealthy cities were able to protect themselves to some extent, but they nearly always found it necessary to ally themselves with the neighbouring land-owners, whom they aided with money in return for military support.

A money market in the modern sense of the word could only exist in a rudimentary form under these conditions. There was a sort of money market, for there was a changing rate of interest and a whole code of law relating to it (Macleod, Banking, 3rd ed., p. 174) in republican Rome; but although large lending and borrowing transactions were part of the daily life of the Roman business world, as well as of those of the Greek cities and of Carthage and its dependencies, none of these communities presented the phenomena of a highly organised market. Money-lending was also a regular practice in Egypt, Chaldea and other ancient seats of civilization, as recent discoveries show. It was only in comparatively recent times, however, when Europe had formed itself into more or less organized states, with conditions fairly favourable to the steady growth of trade and industry, that organized money markets came into existence in places such as Venice, Genoa, Augsburg, Basel, the Hanse towns, and various cities in the Low Countries, Spain and Portugal, as well as in London. The financial strength of these rudimentary money markets was not very great, and as it depended a good deal on the possession by individuals of actual cash, the existence of these markets was precarious. “Hoarded ducats” were too often an attraction to needy princes, whose unwelcome attentions a rich merchant, even when an influential burgher of a powerful city, was less able to resist than the violence of a housebreaker, against whom strong vaults and well-secured chests situated in defensible mansions were a good protection. The necessitous potentate could often urge his desire for a “loan” by very persuasive methods. Occasionally, if his predecessors had acquired the confidence of the banking class sufficiently to induce them to place their cash reserves in one of his strong places “for safety” an unscrupulous ruler could help himself, as Charles II. helped himself to the stores of the London goldsmiths which were left in the Mint. The power of the banking class continued to grow, however, and a real market for money had come into existence in many cities of Europe by the middle of the 17th century. (See Banks and Banking.)

In the 18th century the “money market” consisted of the Bank of England and various banks and merchants, and distinction between the two being still not complete. Towards the end of that century arose an important class of dealers in credit, the bill brokers, and with their appearance the modern money market of London may be said to have assumed its present form, for though the process of development has not ceased, the changes have been of the nature of growth and not of the acquisition of new organs. The formation of joint-stock banks and discount companies, however, and the reconstitution of the Bank of England by the Act of 1844, exercised an important influence on the way in which the money market of London has developed. It must be explained that in the every-day talk of the City “the market” has a special meaning, by which only the banks and discount houses, or even only the latter in some cases, are denoted, as in the phrases constantly seen in the daily reports published in the newspapers towards the end of a quarter, “the market has to-day borrowed largely from the Bank of England,” or, “the market was obliged to renew part of the loans which fell due to the Bank to-day.” But this use of the term in a special sense, thoroughly understood by those to whom it is habitual, and resulting in no ambiguity in practice, is not in accord with the requirements of economic analysis.

The working organs of the money market of London at the beginning of the 20th century were:—

A. (1) The Bank of England.

(2) Banks, joint-stock and private, including several great foreign banks.

(3) Discount houses and bill-brokers.

B. (4) Certain members of the Stock Exchange.

(5) Certain great merchants and finance houses.

The institutions included in group A are the most constantly active organs of the money market; those included in group B are intermittently active, but in the case of section (4), though their activity is greater at some times than others, they are never wholly outside the market. Even in the case of (5) a certain amount of qualification is needed, which is indicated by the fact that most of the great merchant houses are “registered” as bankers, though they do not perform the functions usually associated with that term in the United Kingdom. Several of the great houses were originally and still are nominally merchants, but are largely concerned with finance business—that is, with the making of loans to foreign governments and the issue of capital on behalf of companies. These powerful capitalists often have large amounts of money temporarily in their hands, and lend it in the money market or on the Stock Exchange; one or two of them are large buyers of bills from time to time, and generally the members of this group may be said to be in sufficiently close touch with the active organs of the money market to form part of it.

The actual working of the money market has been described by Walter Bagehot in his Lombard Street, a work which has attained the rank of a classic. Most of what he said in 1873 is true now, but in certain minor respects developments have taken place, the most important being the greater extent to which money is “used up” every day, or rather every night. In Bagehot’s time the discount houses only quoted “allowance” rates for “loans at call and short notice,” based on the rate “allowed” by the banks for loans at seven days’ notice; but since then the bill-brokers have been obliged—(1) occasionally to fix their terms independently of the banks, and (2) to “allow” a rate for “money for the night.” This latter practice became usual about 1888 or 1889. The change it introduced was not a vital one, but has some importance from the point of view of the historian. A good deal of the “money” thus dealt with is derived from the group of traders included in class (5). It is (a) money which is temporarily in the hands of houses or institutions which have just received subscriptions to loans or other capital offered to the public; (b) balances left temporarily with finance houses or banks on behalf of foreign governments or other parties who have payments to make in London. In the former case the “money” is almost invariably only available for a short time, probably only for a few days; in the latter case also it probably will be only available for a few days, but may be available for months. Money derived from either of these sources is usually to be had cheap, but is not, in the slang of the City, “good,” because it is uncertain how long loans at call obtained from either of them will remain undisturbed. Nevertheless, there has been at times so much “money” of this fugitive character, and derived from such varied sources since about 1888, that its cheapness has been an attraction to the less wealthy bill-brokers, who have occasionally been able to go on using it profitably for many continuous weeks, or even months, in their business. The risk run by employing it is, of course, the certainty that it will be “called” from the borrower sooner or later, and probably at a time when it is very inconvenient to repay it. The more wealthy houses take money of this kind when it suits them, but never rely on it as a basis for business.