part ii

. of B. F. French's _Historical Collections of Louisiana_ (Philadelphia, 1850), and one by W. W. Howe in John F. Condon's edition of Martin's _History of Louisiana_ (New Orleans, 1882).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] His holographic will in favour of his brother (written in 1844 and devising property worth nearly $400,000) was unsuccessfully contested by the state of Louisiana on the ground that the will was void as being a legal and physical impossibility, or as being an attempted fraud on the state, as under it the state would not receive a 10% tax if the property went to the heirs of Martin (as intestate) in France.

MARTIN, HOMER DODGE (1836-1897), American artist, was born at Albany, New York, on the 28th of October 1836. A pupil for a short time of William Hart, his earlier work followed the lines of the Hudson River School. He was elected as associate of the National Academy of Design, New York, in 1868, and a full academician in 1874. During a trip to Europe in 1876 he was captivated by the Barbizon school, and from 1882 to 1886 he lived in France spending much of the time in Normandy. At Villerville he painted his "Harp of the Winds," now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Among his important canvases are "Westchester Hills," "Adirondack Scenery," "The Cinqueboeuf Church," "Sand Dunes," and "A Newport Landscape." Martin is generally spoken of as one of the great trio of American landscapists, the other two being Inness and Wyant, and examples of his work are in most of the important American collections. He died at St. Paul, Minnesota, on the 2nd of February 1897.

MARTIN, JOHN (1789-1854), English painter, was born at Haydon Bridge, near Hexham, on the 19th of July 1789. He was apprenticed by his father to a coachbuilder to learn heraldic painting, but owing to a quarrel the indentures were cancelled, and he was placed under Bonifacio Musso, an Italian artist, father of the enamel painter Charles Musso. With his master Martin removed to London in 1806, where he married at the age of nineteen, and supported himself by giving drawing lessons, and by painting in water colours, and on china and glass. His leisure was occupied in the study of perspective and architecture. His first picture, "Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion," was exhibited in the Royal Academy of 1812, and sold for fifty guineas. It was followed by the "Expulsion" (1813), "Paradise" (1813), "Clytie" (1814), and "Joshua" (1815). In 1821 appeared his "Belshazzar's Feast," which excited much favourable and hostile comment, and was awarded a prize of £200 at the British Institution, where the Joshua had previously carried off a premium of £100. Then came the "Destruction of Herculaneum" (1822), the "Creation" (1824), the "Eve of the Deluge" (1841), and a series of other Biblical and imaginative subjects. In 1832-1833 Martin received £2000 for drawing and engraving a fine series of designs to Milton, and with Westall he produced a set of Bible illustrations. He was also occupied with schemes for the improvement of London, and published various pamphlets and plans dealing with the metropolitan water supply, sewage, dock and railway systems. During the last four years of his life he was engaged upon his large subjects of "The Judgment," the "Day of Wrath," and the "Plains of Heaven." He was attacked with paralysis while painting, and died in the Isle of Man on the 17th of February 1854.

MARTIN, LUTHER (1748-1826), American lawyer, was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on the 9th of February 1748. He graduated at the college of New Jersey (now Princeton University) at the head of a class of thirty-five in 1766, and immediately afterwards removed to Maryland, teaching at Queenstown in that colony until 1770, and being admitted to the bar in 1771. He practised law for a short time in Virginia, then returned to Maryland, and became recognized as the leader of the Maryland bar and as one of the ablest lawyers in the United States. From 1778 to 1805 he was attorney-general of Maryland; in 1814-1816 he was chief judge of the court of Oyer and Terminer for the city of Baltimore; and in 1818-1822 he was attorney-general of Maryland. He was one of Maryland's representatives in the Continental Congress in 1784-1785 and in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia, but opposed the constitution and refused to affix his signature. He subsequently allied himself with the Federalists, and was an opponent of Thomas Jefferson, who in 1807 spoke of him as the "Federal Bull-Dog." His ability was shown in his famous defence of Judge Samuel Chase (q.v.) in the impeachment trial before the United States Senate in 1804-1805, and in his defence of Aaron Burr (q.v.) against the charge of treason in 1807. He has been described by the historian Henry Adams, writing of the Chase trial, as at that time the "most formidable of American advocates." Though he received a large income, he was so improvident that he was frequently in want, and on the 22nd of February 1822 the legislature of Maryland passed a remarkable resolution--the only one of the kind in American history--requiring every lawyer in the state to pay an annual licence fee of five dollars, to be handed over to trustees appointed "for the appropriation of the proceeds raised by virtue of this resolution to the use of Luther Martin." This resolution was rescinded on the 6th of February 1823. Martin died at the home of Aaron Burr in New York on the 10th of July 1826. In 1783 he had married a daughter of the Captain Michael Cresap (1742-1775), who was unjustly charged by Jefferson, in his _Notes on Virginia_, with the murder of the family of the Indian chief, John Logan, and whom Martin defended in a pamphlet long out of print.

See the biographical sketch by Henry P. Goddard, _Luther Martin, the Federal Bull-Dog_ (Baltimore, 1887), No. 24 of the "Peabody Fund Publications," of the Maryland Historical Society.

MARTIN, SIR THEODORE (1816-1909), British author and translator, the son of a solicitor, was born at Edinburgh on the 16th of September 1816, and educated at the Royal High School and the University, from which he subsequently received the honorary degree of LL.D. He practised for some time as a solicitor in Edinburgh, but in 1846 went to London, where he became senior partner in the firm of Martin & Leslie, parliamentary agents. He early contributed to _Fraser's Magazine_ and _Tait's Magazine_, under the signature of "Bon Gaultier," and in 1856, in conjunction with Professor Aytoun, he published the _Book of Ballads_ under the same pseudonym. This work at once obtained popular favour. In 1858 he published a volume of translations of the _Poems and Ballads of Goethe_, and this was followed by a rendering of the Danish poet Henrik Hertz's lyric drama, _King René's Daughter_. The principal character in this drama, Iolanthe, was sustained by Helena Faucit (q.v.), who in 1851 became the author's wife. Martin's translations of Öhlenschläger's dramas, _Correggio_ (1854) and _Aladdin, or the Wonderful Lamp_ (1857), widened the fame of the Danish poet in England. In 1860 appeared Martin's metrical translation of the _Odes of Horace_; and in 1870 he wrote a volume on _Horace_ for the series of "Ancient Classics for English Readers." In 1882 his Horatian labours were concluded by a translation of the poet's whole works, with a life and notes, in two volumes. A poetical translation of _Catullus_ was published in 1861, followed by a privately printed volume of _Poems, Original and Translated_, in 1863. Then came translations of the _Vita Nuova_ of Dante, and the first part of Goethe's _Faust_. A metrical translation of the second part of _Faust_ appeared in 1866. Martin wrote a memoir of his friend Aytoun in 1867, and while engaged upon this work he was requested by Queen Victoria, to whom he was introduced by his friend Sir Arthur Helps, to undertake the _Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort_. The first volume of this well-known work was published in 1874. In 1878 Martin's translation of Heine's _Poems and Ballads_ appeared. Two years later the _Life of the Prince Consort_ was brought to a successful conclusion by the publication of the fifth volume. A knighthood was then conferred upon him. In the following November he was elected lord rector of the university of St Andrews. Martin's _Life of Lord Lyndhurst_, based upon papers furnished by the family, was published in 1883. In 1889 appeared _The Song of the Bell, and other Translations from Schiller, Goethe, Uhland, and Others_; in 1804 _Madonna Pia, a Tragedy, and three Other Dramas_; a translation of Leopardi's poems in 1905; and in 1901 he published a biography of his wife. The kindly relations which subsisted between Queen Victoria and Sir Theodore Martin were continued after the completion of the _Life_ of the prince consort up to the queen's death. Sir Theodore's account of these relations was privately printed in 1902, and, with King Edward's consent, for general publication in 1908. This little book, _Queen Victoria as I knew her_, throws a good deal of light on the Queen's character and private life. Sir Theodore Martin died on the 18th of August 1909.

MARTIN, WILLIAM (1767-1810), English naturalist, the son of a hosier, was born at Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, in 1767. He studied drawing at an early age from James Bolton at Halifax, and gained from him a taste for the study of natural history. In 1805 he was appointed drawing master in the grammar school at Macclesfield. Meanwhile he cultivated his taste for natural history, and was in 1796 elected a fellow of the Linnaean Society. He is best known for his early works on British fossils, entitled _Petrifacta derbiensia or Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire_ (1809); and _Outlines of an Attempt to establish a Knowledge of Extraneous Fossils on Scientific Principles_ (1809). He died at Macclesfield on the 31st of May 1810.

MARTIN, SIR WILLIAM FANSHAWE (1801-1895), British admiral, son of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Thomas Byam Martin, comptroller of the navy, and grandson, on the mother's side, of Captain Robert Fanshawe, who commanded the "Namur" 90 in Rodney's victory of the 12th of April 1782, was born on the 5th of December 1801. Entering the navy at the age of twelve, his father's interest secured his rapid promotion: he was made a lieutenant on the 15th of December 1820; on the 8th of February 1823 he was promoted to be commander of the "Fly" sloop, his good service in which in support of the interests of British merchants at Callao secured his promotion as captain on the 5th of June 1824. He afterwards served in the Mediterranean and on the home station. In 1849-1852 he was commodore commanding the Channel squadron, and gave evidence of a remarkable aptitude for command. He was made rear-admiral in May 1853, and for the next four years was superintendent of Portsmouth dockyard. He was made vice-admiral in February 1858, and after a year as a lord of the admiralty, was appointed commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. The discipline of the navy was then bad. It was a tradition sprung from the wholesale shipment of gaol-birds during the old war, that the men were to be treated without consideration; moreover the ships had been largely filled up with "bounty men" bought into the service with a £10 note without training. Out of this unpromising material Martin formed the fleet which was at that time the ideal of excellence. He had no war service, and, beyond the Italian disturbance of 1860-61, no opportunity for showing diplomatic ability. But his memory lives as that of the reformer of discipline and the originator of a comprehensive system of steam manoeuvres. He became an admiral in November 1863, and on the 4th of December succeeded to the baronetcy which had been conferred on his grandfather. His last appointment was the command at Plymouth, 1866-1869, and in 1870 he was put on the retired list. In 1873 the G.C.B. was conferred on him, and in 1878 he was made rear-admiral. He died at Upton Grey, near Winchfield, on the 24th of March 1895. He was twice married, and left, besides daughters, one son, who succeeded to the baronetcy.

MARTIN OF TROPPAU, or MARTIN THE POLE (d. 1278), chronicler, was born at Troppau, and entered the order of St Dominic at Prague. Afterwards he went to Rome and became papal chaplain under Clement IV. and other popes. In 1278 Pope Nicholas III. appointed him archbishop of Gnesen, but he died at Bologna whilst proceeding to Poland to take up his new duties. Martin wrote some sermons and some commentaries on the canon law; but more important is his _Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum_, a history of the popes and emperors to 1277. Written at the request of Clement IV. the _Chronicon_ is jejune and untrustworthy, and was mainly responsible for the currency of the legend of Pope Joan, and the one about the institution of seven electors by the pope. Nevertheless it enjoyed an extraordinary popularity and found many continuators; but its value to students arises solely from the fact that it was used by numerous chroniclers during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. In the 15th century it was translated into French, and as part of the _Chronique martiniane_ was often quoted by controversialists. It has also been translated into German, Italian and Bohemian.

The Latin text is printed, with introduction by L. Weiland, in Band XXII. of the _Monumenta Germaniae historica_ (Hanover and Berlin, 1826 seq.). See G. Waitz, H. Brosien and others in the _Neues Archiv der Geseltschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde_ (Hanover, 1876 seq.); W. Wattenbach, _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen_, Band II. (Berlin, 1894); and A. Molinier, _Les Sources de l'histoire de France_, Tome III. (Paris, 1903).

MARTIN[1] (Fr. _Martinet_), the _Hirundo urbica_ of Linnaeus and _Chelidon urbica_ of modern ornithologists, a bird well known throughout Europe, including even Lapland, where it is abundant, retiring in winter to the south of Africa. It also inhabits the western part of Asia, and appears from time to time in large flocks in India. The martin (or house-martin, as it is often called, to distinguish it from the sand-martin) commonly reaches its summer quarters a few days later than the Swallow (q.v.), with which it is often confused in spite of the differences between them, the martin's white rump and lower parts being conspicuous as it flies or clings to its nest attached to houses. This nest, made of the same material as the swallow's, is, however, a more difficult structure to rear, and a week or more is often occupied in laying its foundations--the builders clinging to the wall while depositing the mud of which it is composed. The base once fixed, the superstructure is often quickly added, till the whole takes the shape of the half or quarter of a hemisphere, and is finished with a lining of feathers mixed with a few bents or straws. The martin builds soon after its return, and a nest that has outlasted the winter is almost at once reoccupied. The bird usually in the course of the summer raises a second, or rarely a third, brood of offspring--though the latest broods often die in the nest, apparently through failure of food. What seem to be adults are observed in England every year so late as November, and sometimes within a few days of the winter solstice, but these late birds are almost certainly strangers.

The sand-martin, _Hirundo riparia_ of Linnaeus and _Cotile riparia_ of modern writers, differs much in appearance and habits from the former. Its smaller size, mouse-coloured upper surface and jerking flight distinguish it from the other British _Hirundinidae_; but it is seldom discriminated, and, being the first of the family to return to its northern home, the so-called "early swallow" is nearly always of this species. Instead of the clay-built nest of the house-martin, this bird bores horizontal galleries in an escarpment. When beginning its excavation, it clings to the face of the bank, and with its bill loosens the earth, working from the centre outwards, and often hanging head downwards. The tunnel may extend to 4, 6, or even 9 ft. The gallery seems intended to be straight, but inequalities of the ground, and especially the meeting with stones, often causes it to take a sinuous course. At the end is formed a nest lined with a few grass-stalks and feathers. The sand-martin has several broods in the year, and is more regular than other _Hirundinidae_ in its departure for the south. The kind of soil needed for its nesting habits makes it somewhat local, but no species of the order _Passeres_ has a geographical range that can compare with this. In Europe it is found nearly to the North Cape, and thence to the Sea of Okhotsk. In winter it visits many parts of India and South Africa to the Transvaal. In America its range extends (having due regard to the season) from Melville Island to Caiçara in Brazil, and from Newfoundland to Alaska.

The purple martin of America, _Progne purpurea_, is a favourite in Canada and the United States. Naturally breeding in hollow trees, it readily adapts itself to the nest-boxes which are commonly set up for it; but its numbers are in some years and places diminished in a manner unexplained. The limits of its range in winter are not determined, chiefly owing to the differences of opinion as to the validity of certain supposed kindred species found in South America; but according to some authorities it reaches the border of Patagonia, while in summer it is known to inhabit lands within the Arctic Circle. The male is almost wholly of a glossy steel-blue, while the female is duller in colour above, and beneath of a brownish-grey.

Birds that may be called martins occur almost all over the world except in New Zealand, which is not regularly inhabited by any member of the family. The ordinary martin of Australia is the _Petrochelidon nigricans_ of most ornithologists, and another and more beautiful form is the ariel or fairy-martin of the same country, _Petrochelidon ariel_. This last builds a bottle-shaped nest of mud, as does also the rock-martin of Europe, _Cotile rupestris_. The eggs of martins are from four to seven in number, and generally white, while those of swallows usually have brown, grey or lilac markings. (A. N.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The older English form, martlet (French, _Martelet_), is, except in heralds' language, almost obsolete, and when used is now applied in some places to the Swift (q.v.). The bird called martin by French colonists in the Old World is a mynah (_Acridotheres_). (See GRACKLE.)

MARTINEAU, HARRIET (1802-1876), English writer, was born at Norwich, where her father was a manufacturer, on the 12th of June 1802. The family was of Huguenot extraction (see MARTINEAU, JAMES) and professed Unitarian views. The atmosphere of her home was industrious, intellectual and austere; she herself was clever, but weakly and unhappy; she had no sense of taste or smell, and moreover early grew deaf. At the age of fifteen the state of her health and nerves led to a prolonged visit to her father's sister, Mrs Kentish, who kept a school at Bristol. Here, in the companionship of amiable and talented people, her life became happier. Here, also, she fell under the influence of the Unitarian minister, Dr Lant Carpenter, from whose instructions, she says, she derived "an abominable spiritual rigidity and a truly respectable force of conscience strangely mingled together." From 1819 to 1830 she again resided chiefly at Norwich. About her twentieth year her deafness became confirmed. In 1821 she began to write anonymously for the _Monthly Repository_, a Unitarian periodical, and in 1823 she published _Devotional Exercises and Addresses, Prayers and Hymns_.

In 1826 her father died, leaving a bare maintenance to his wife and daughters. His death had been preceded by that of his eldest son, and was shortly followed by that of a man to whom Harriet was engaged. Mrs Martineau and her daughters soon after lost all their means by the failure of the house where their money was placed. Harriet had to earn her living, and, being precluded by deafness from teaching, took up authorship in earnest. Besides reviewing for the _Repository_ she wrote stories (afterwards collected as _Traditions of Palestine_), gained in one year (1830) three essay-prizes of the Unitarian Association, and eked out her income by needlework. In 1831 she was seeking a publisher for a series of tales designed as _Illustrations of Political Economy_. After many failures she accepted disadvantageous terms from Charles Fox, to whom she was introduced by his brother, the editor of the _Repository_. The sale of the first of the series was immediate and enormous, the demand increased with each new number, and from that time her literary success was secured. In 1832 she moved to London, where she numbered among her acquaintance Hallam, Milman, Malthus, Monckton Milnes, Sydney Smith, Bulwer, and later Carlyle. Till 1834 she continued to be occupied with her political economy series and with a supplemental series of _Illustrations of Taxation_. Four stories dealing with the poor-law came out about the same time. These tales, direct, lucid, written without any appearance of effort, and yet practically effective, display the characteristics of their author's style. In 1834, when the series was complete, Miss Martineau paid a long visit to America. Here her open adhesion to the Abolitionist party, then small and very unpopular, gave great offence, which was deepened by the publication, soon after her return, of _Society in America_ (1837) and a _Retrospect of Western Travel_ (1838). An article in the _Westminster Review_, "The Martyr Age of the United States," introduced English readers to the struggles of the Abolitionists. The American books were followed by a novel, _Deerbrook_ (1839)--a story of middle-class country life. To the same period belong a few little handbooks, forming parts of a _Guide to Service_. The veracity of her _Maid of All Work_ led to a widespread belief, which she regarded with some complacency, that she had once been a maid of all work herself.

In 1839, during a visit to the Continent, Miss Martineau's health broke down. She retired to solitary lodgings in Tynemouth, and remained an invalid till 1844. Besides a novel, _The Hour and the Man_ (1840), _Life in the Sickroom_ (1844), and the _Playfellow_ (1841), she published a series of tales for children containing some of her most popular work: _Settlers at Home_, _The Peasant and the Prince_, _Feats on the Fiord_, &c. During this illness she for a second time declined a pension on the civil list, fearing to compromise her political independence. Her letter on the subject was published, and some of her friends raised a small annuity for her soon after.

In 1844 Miss Martineau underwent a course of mesmerism, and in a few months was restored to health. She eventually published an account of her case, which had caused much discussion, in sixteen _Letters on Mesmerism_. On her recovery she removed to Ambleside, where she built herself "The Knoll," the house in which the greater part of her after life was spent. In 1845 she published three volumes of _Forest and Game Law Tales_. In 1846 she made a tour with some friends in Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and on her return published _Eastern Life, Present and Past_ (1848). This work showed that as humanity passed through one after another of the world's historic religions, the conception of the Deity and of Divine government became at each step more and more abstract and indefinite. The ultimate goal Miss Martineau believed to be philosophic atheism, but this belief she did not expressly declare. She published about this time _Household Education_, expounding the theory that freedom and rationality, rather than command and obedience, are the most effectual instruments of education. Her interest in schemes of instruction led her to start a series of lectures, addressed at first to the school children of Ambleside, but afterwards extended, at their own desire, to their elders. The subjects were sanitary principles and practice, the histories of England and North America, and the scenes of her Eastern travels. At the request of Charles Knight she wrote, in 1849, _The History of the Thirty Years' Peace, 1816-1846_--an excellent popular history written from the point of view of a "philosophical Radical," completed in twelve months.

In 1851 Miss Martineau edited a volume of _Letters on the Laws of Man's Nature and Development_. Its form is that of a correspondence between herself and H. G. Atkinson, and it expounds that doctrine of philosophical atheism to which Miss Martineau in _Eastern Life_ had depicted the course of human belief as tending. The existence of a first cause is not denied, but is declared unknowable, and the authors, while regarded by others as denying it, certainly considered themselves to be affirming the doctrine of man's moral obligation. Atkinson was a zealous exponent of mesmerism, and the prominence given to the topics of mesmerism and clairvoyance heightened the general disapprobation of the book, which caused a lasting division between Miss Martineau and some of her friends.

She published a condensed English version of the _Philosophie Positive_ (1853). To the _Daily News_ she contributed regularly from 1852 to 1866. Her _Letters from Ireland_, written during a visit to that country in the summer of 1852, appeared in that paper. She was for many years a contributor to the _Westminster Review_, and was one of the little band of supporters whose pecuniary assistance in 1854 prevented its extinction or forced sale. In the early part of 1855 Miss Martineau found herself suffering from heart disease. She now began to write her autobiography, but her life, which she supposed to be so near its close, was prolonged for twenty years. She died at "The Knoll" on the 27th of June 1876.

She cultivated a tiny farm at Ambleside with success, and her poorer neighbours owed much to her. Her busy life bears the consistent impress of two leading characteristics--industry and sincerity. The verdict which she records on herself in the autobiographical sketch left to be published by the _Daily News_ has been endorsed by posterity. She says--"Her original power was nothing more than was due to earnestness and intellectual clearness within a certain range. With small imaginative and suggestive powers, and therefore nothing approaching to genius, she could see clearly what she did see, and give a clear expression to what she had to say. In short, she could popularize while she could neither discover nor invent." Her judgment on large questions was clear and sound, and was always the judgment of a mind naturally progressive and Protestant.

See her _Autobiography, with Memorials by Maria Weston Chapman_ (1877) and Mrs. Fenwick Miller, _Harriet Martineau_ (1884, "Eminent Women Series").

MARTINEAU, JAMES (1805-1900), English philosopher and divine, was born at Norwich on the 21st of April 1805, the seventh child of Thomas Martineau and Elizabeth Rankin, the sixth, his senior by almost three years, being his sister Harriet (see above). He was descended from Gaston Martineau, a Huguenot surgeon and refugee, who married in 1693 Marie Pierre, and settled soon afterwards in Norwich. His son and grandson--respectively the great-grandfather and grandfather of James Martineau--were surgeons in the same city, while his father was a manufacturer and merchant. James was educated at Norwich Grammar School under Edward Valpy, as good a scholar as his better-known brother Richard. But the boy proving too sensitive for the life of a public day school, was sent to Bristol to the private academy of Dr Lant Carpenter, under whom he studied for two years. On leaving he was apprenticed to a civil engineer at Derby, where he acquired "a store of exclusively scientific conceptions,"[1] but also experienced the hunger of mind which forced him to look to religion for satisfaction. Hence came his "conversion," and the sense of vocation for the ministry which impelled him in 1822 to enter Manchester College, then lodged at York. Here he "woke up to the interest of moral and metaphysical speculations." Of his teachers, one, the Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, was, Martineau said, "a master of the true Lardner type, candid and catholic, simple and thorough, humanly fond indeed of the counsels of peace, but piously serving every bidding of sacred truth." "He never justified a prejudice; he never misdirected our admiration; he never hurt an innocent feeling or overbore a serious judgment; and he set up within us a standard of Christian scholarship to which it must ever exalt us to aspire."[2] The other, the Rev. John Kenrick, he described as a man so learned as to be placed by Dean Stanley "in the same line with Blomfield and Thirlwall,"[3] and as "so far above the level of either vanity or dogmatism, that cynicism itself could not think of them in his presence."[4]

On leaving the college in 1827 Martineau returned to Bristol to teach in the school of Lant Carpenter; but in the following year he was ordained for a Unitarian church in Dublin, whose senior minister was a relative of his own. But his career there was in 1832 suddenly cut short by difficulties growing out of the "regium donum," which had on the death of the senior minister fallen to him. He conceived it as "a religious monopoly" to which "the nation at large contributes," while "Presbyterians alone receive," and which placed him in "a relation to the state" so "seriously objectionable" as to be "impossible to hold."[5] The invidious distinction it drew between Presbyterians on the one hand, and Catholics, Friends, free-thinking Christians, unbelievers and Jews on the other, who were compelled to support a ministry they "conscientiously disapproved," offended his always delicate conscience; while possibly the intellectual and ecclesiastical atmosphere of the city proved uncongenial to his liberal magnanimity. From Dublin he was called to Liverpool, and there for a quarter of a century he exercised extraordinary influence as a preacher, and achieved a high reputation as a writer in religious philosophy. In 1840 he was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy and political economy in Manchester New College, the seminary in which he had himself been educated, and which had now removed from York to the city after which it was named. This position he held for forty-five years. In 1853 the college removed to London, and four years later he followed it thither. In 1858 he was called to occupy the pulpit of Little Portland Street chapel in London, which he did at first for two years in conjunction with the Rev. J. J. Tayler, who was also his colleague in the college, and then for twelve years alone. In 1866 the chair of the philosophy of mind and logic in University College, London, fell vacant, and Martineau became a candidate. But potent opposition was offered to the appointment of a minister of religion, and the chair went to George Croom Robertson--then an untried man--between whom and Martineau a cordial friendship came to exist. In 1885 he retired, full of years and honours, from the principalship of the college he had so long served and adorned. Martineau, who was in his youth denied the benefit of a university education, yet in his age found famous universities eager to confer upon him their highest distinctions. He was made LL.D. of Harvard in 1872, S.T.D. of Leiden in 1874, D.D. of Edinburgh in 1884, D.C.L. of Oxford in 1888 and D.Litt. of Dublin in 1891. He died in London on the 11th of January 1900.

The life of Martineau was so essentially the life of the thinker, and was so typical of the century in which he lived and the society within which he moved, that he can be better understood through his spoken mind than through his outward history. He was a man happy in his ancestry; he inherited the dignity, the reserve, the keen and vivid intellect, and the picturesque imagination of the French Huguenot, though they came to him chastened and purified by generations of Puritan discipline exercised under the gravest ecclesiastical disabilities, and of culture maintained in the face of exclusion from academic privileges. He had the sweet and patient temper which knew how to live, unrepining and unsoured, in the midst of the most watchful persecution, public and private; and it is wonderful how rarely he used his splendid rhetoric for the purposes of invective against the spirit and policy from which he must have suffered deeply, while, it may be added, he never hid an innuendo under a metaphor or a trope. He was fundamentally too much a man of strong convictions to be correctly described as open-minded, for if nature ever determined any man's faith, it was his; the root of his whole intellectual life, which was too deep to be disturbed by any superficial change in his philosophy, being the feeling for God. He has, indeed, described in graphic terms the greatest of the more superficial changes he underwent; how he had "carried into logical and ethical problems the maxims and postulates of physical knowledge," and had moved within the narrow lines drawn by the philosophical instructions of the class-room "interpreting human phenomena by the analogy of external nature"; how he served in willing captivity "the 'empirical' and 'necessarian' mode of thought," even though "shocked" by the dogmatism and acrid humours "of certain distinguished representatives";[6] and how in a period of "second education" at Berlin, "mainly under the admirable guidance of Professor Trendelenburg," he experienced "a new intellectual birth" which "was essentially the gift of fresh conceptions, the unsealing of hidden openings of self-consciousness, with unmeasured corridors and sacred halls behind; and, once gained, was more or less available throughout the history of philosophy, and lifted the darkness from the pages of Kant and even Hegel."[7] But though this momentous change of view illuminated his old beliefs and helped him to re-interpret and re-articulate them, yet it made him no more of a theist than he had been before. And as his theism was, so was his religion and his philosophy. Certainly it was true of him, in a far higher degree than of John Henry Newman, that the being of God and himself were to his mind two absolutely self-luminous truths--though both his God and his self were almost infinitely remote from Newman's. And as these truths were self-evident, so the religion he deduced from them was sufficient, not only for his own moral and intellectual nature, but also for man as he conceived him, for history as he knew it, and for society as he saw it.

We may, alternatively, describe Martineau's religion as his applied philosophy or his philosophy as his explicated religion, and both as the expression of his singularly fine ethical and reverent nature. But to understand these in their mutual and explanatory relations it will be necessary to exhibit the conditions under which his thought grew into consistency and system. His main function made him in his early life a preacher even more emphatically than a teacher. In all he said and all he thought he had the preacher's end in view. He was, indeed, no mere orator or speaker to multitudes. He addressed a comparatively small and select circle, a congregation of thoughtful and devout men, who cultivated reverence and loved religion all the more that their own beliefs were limited to the simplest and sublimest truths. He felt the majesty of these truths to be the greater that they so represented to him not only the most fundamental of human beliefs, but also all that man could be reasonably expected to believe, though to believe with his whole reason. Hence the beliefs he preached were never to him mere speculative ideas, but rather the ultimate realities of being and thought, the final truths as to the character and ways of God interpreted into a law for the government of conscience and the regulation of life. And so he became a positive religious teacher by virtue of the very ideas that made the words of the Hebrew prophets so potent and sublime. But he did more than interpret to his age the significance of man's ultimate theistic beliefs, he gave them vitality by reading them through the consciousness of Jesus Christ. His religion was what he conceived the personal religion of Jesus to have been; and He was to him more a person to be imitated than an authority to be obeyed, rather an ideal to be revered than a being to be worshipped.

Martineau's mental qualities fitted him to fulfil these high interpretative functions. He had the imagination that invested with personal being and ethical qualities the most abstruse notions. To him space became a mode of divine activity, alive with the presence and illuminated by the vision of God; time was an arena where the divine hand guided and the divine will reigned. And though he did not believe in the Incarnation, yet he held deity to be in a sense manifest in humanity; its saints and heroes became, in spite of innumerable frailties, after a sort divine; man underwent an apotheosis, and all life was touched with the dignity and the grace which it owed to its source. The 19th century had no more reverent thinker than Martineau; the awe of the Eternal was the very atmosphere that he breathed, and he looked at man with the compassion of one whose thoughts were full of God.

To his function as a preacher we owe some of his most characteristic and stimulating works, especially the discourses by which it may be said he won his way to wide and influential recognition--_Endeavours after the Christian Life_, 1st series, 1843; 2nd series, 1847; _Hours of Thought_, 1st series, 1876; 2nd series, 1879; the various hymn-books he issued at Dublin in 1831, at Liverpool in 1840, in London in 1873; and the _Home Prayers_ in 1891. But besides the vocation he had freely selected and assiduously laboured to fulfil, two more external influences helped to shape Martineau's mind and define his problem and his work; the awakening of English thought to the problems which underlie both philosophy and religion, and the new and higher opportunities offered for their discussion in the periodical press. The questions which lived in the earlier and more formative period of his life concerned mainly the idea of the church, the historical interpretation of the documents which described the persons who had created the Christian religion, especially the person and work of its founder; but those most alive in his later and maturer time chiefly related to the philosophy of religion and ethics. In one respect Martineau was singularly happy; he just escaped the active and, on the whole, belittling period of the old Unitarian controversy. When his ministry began its fires were slowly dying down, though the embers still glowed. We feel its presence in his earliest notable work, _The Rationale of Religious Enquiry_, 1836; and may there see the rigour with which it applied audacious logic to narrow premisses, the tenacity with which it clung to a limited literal supernaturalism which it had no philosophy to justify, and so could not believe without historical and verbal authority. This traditional conservatism survived in the statement, which, while it caused vehement discussion when the book appeared, was yet not so much characteristic of the man as of the school in which he had been trained, that "in no intelligible sense can any one who denies the supernatural origin of the religion of Christ be termed a Christian," which term, he explained, was used not as "a name of praise," but simply as "a designation of belief."[8] He censured the German rationalists "for having preferred, by convulsive efforts of interpretation, to compress the memoirs of Christ and His apostles into the dimensions of ordinary life, rather than admit the operation of miracle on the one hand, or proclaim their abandonment of Christianity on the other."[9] The echoes of the dying controversy are thus distinct and not very distant in this book, though it also offers in its larger outlook, in the author's evident uneasiness under the burden of inherited beliefs, and his inability to reconcile them with his new standpoint and accepted principles, a curious forecast of his later development, while in its positive premisses it presents a still more instructive contrast to the conclusions of his later dialectic. Nor did the sound of the ancient controversy ever cease to be audible to him. In 1839 he sprang to the defence of Unitarian doctrine, which had been assailed by certain Liverpool clergymen, of whom Fielding Ould was the most active and Hugh McNeill the most famous. As his share in the controversy, Martineau published five discourses, in which he discussed "the Bible as the great autobiography of human nature from its infancy to its perfection," "the Deity of Christ," "Vicarious Redemption," "Evil," and "Christianity without Priest and without Ritual."[10] He remained to the end a keen and vigilant apologist of the school in which he had been nursed. But the questions proper to the new day came swiftly upon his quick and susceptible mind--enlarged, deepened and developed it. Within his own fold new light was breaking. To W. E. Channing (q.v.), whom Martineau had called "the inspirer of his youth," Theodore Parker had succeeded, introducing more radical ideas as to religion and a more drastic criticism of sacred history. Blanco White, "the rationalist A'Kempis," who had dared to appear as "a religious sceptic in God's presence," had found a biographer and interpreter in Martineau's friend and colleague, John Hamilton Thom. Within the English Church men with whom he had both personal and religious sympathy rose--Whately, of whom he said, "We know no living writer who has proved so little and disproved so much";[11] and Thomas Arnold, "a man who could be a hero without romance";[12] F. D. Maurice, whose character, marked by "religious realism," sought in the past "the witness to eternal truths, the manifestation by time-samples of infinite realities and unchanging relations";[13] and Charles Kingsley, "a great teacher," though one "certain to go astray the moment he becomes didactic."[14] Beside these may be placed men like E. B. Pusey and J. H. Newman, whose mind Martineau said was "critical, not prophetic, since without immediateness of religious vision," and whose faith is "an escape from an alternative scepticism, which receives the _veto_ not of his reason but of his will,"[15] as men for whose teachings and methods he had a potent and stimulating antipathy. The philosophic principles and religious deductions of Dean Mansel he disliked as much as those of Newman, but he respected his arguments more. Apart from the Churches, men like Carlyle and Matthew Arnold--with whom he had much in common--influenced him; while Herbert Spencer in England and Comte in France afforded the antithesis needful to the dialectical development of his own views. He came to know German philosophy and criticism, especially the criticism of Baur and the Tübingen school, which affected profoundly his construction of Christian history. And these were strengthened by French influences, notably those of Renan and the Strassburg theologians. The rise of evolution, and the new scientific way of looking at nature and her creative methods, compelled him to rethink and reformulate his theistic principles and conclusions, especially as to the forms under which the relation of God to the world and His action within it could be conceived. Under the impulses which came from these various sides Martineau's mind lived and moved, and as they successively rose he promptly, by appreciation or criticism, responded to the dialectical issues which they raised.

In the discussion of these questions the periodical press supplied him with the opportunity of taking an effective part. At first his literary activity was limited to sectional publications, and he addressed his public, now as editor and now as leading contributor, in the _Monthly Repository_, the _Christian Reformer_, the _Prospective_, the Westminster and the _National Review_. Later, especially when scientific speculation had made the theistic problem urgent, he was a frequent contributor to the literary monthlies. And when in 1890 he began to gather together the miscellaneous essays and papers written during a period of sixty years, he expressed the hope that, though "they could lay no claim to logical consistency," they might yet show "beneath the varying complexion of their thought some intelligible moral continuity," "leading in the end to a view of life more coherent and less defective than was presented at the beginning."[16] And though it is a proud as well as a modest hope, no one could call it unjustified. For his essays are fine examples of permanent literature appearing in an ephemeral medium, and represent work which has solid worth for later thought as well as for the speculation of their own time. There is hardly a name or a movement in the religious history of the century which he did not touch and illuminate. It was in this form that he criticized the "atheistic mesmerism" to which his sister Harriet had committed herself, and she never forgave his criticism. But his course was always singularly independent, and, though one of the most affectionate and most sensitive of men, yet it was his fortune to be so fastidious in thought and so conscientious in judgment as often to give offence or create alarm in those he deeply respected or tenderly loved.

The theological and philosophical discussions which thus appeared he later described as "the tentatives which gradually prepared the way for the more systematic expositions of the _Types of Ethical_ _Theory_ and _The Study of Religion_, and, in some measure, of _The Seat of Authority in Religion_."[17] These books expressed his mature thought, and may be said to contain, in what he conceived as a final form, the speculative achievements of his life. They appeared respectively in 1885, 1888 and 1890, and were without doubt remarkable feats to be performed by a man who had passed his eightieth year. Their literary and speculative qualities are indeed exceptionally brilliant; they are splendid in diction, elaborate in argument, cogent yet reverent, keen while fearless in criticism. But they have also most obvious defects: they are unquestionably the books of an old man who had thought much as well as spoken and written often on the themes he discusses, yet who had finally put his material together in haste at a time when his mind had lost, if not its dialectic vigour, yet its freshness and its sense of proportion; and who had been so accustomed to amplify the single stages of his argument that he had forgotten how much they needed to be reduced to scale and to be built into an organic whole. In the first of these books his nomenclature is unfortunate; his division of ethical theories into the "unpsychological," "idiopsychological," and the "hetero-psychological," is incapable of historical justification; his exposition of single ethical systems is, though always interesting and suggestive, often arbitrary and inadequate, being governed by dialectical exigencies rather than historical order and perspective. In the second of the above books his idea of religion is somewhat of an anachronism; as he himself confessed, he "used the word in the sense which it invariably bore half a century ago," as denoting "belief in an ever-living God, a divine mind and will ruling the universe and holding moral relations with mankind." As thus used, it was a term which governed the problems of speculative theism rather than those connected with the historical origin, the evolution and the organization of religion. And these are the questions which are now to the front. These criticisms mean that his most elaborate discussions came forty years too late, for they were concerned with problems which agitated the middle rather than the end of the 19th century. But if we pass from this criticism of form to the actual contents of the two books, we are bound to confess that they constitute a wonderfully cogent and persuasive theistic argument. That argument may be described as a criticism of man and his world used as a basis for the construction of a reasoned idea of nature and being. Man and nature, thought and being, fitted each other. What was implicit in nature had become explicit in man; the problem of the individual was one with the problem of universal experience. The interpretation of man was therefore the interpretation of his universe. Emphasis was made to fall on the reason, the conscience and the will of the finite personality; and just as these were found to be native in him they were held to be immanent in the cause of his universe. What lived in time belonged to eternity; the microcosm was the epitome of the macrocosm; the reason which reigned in man interpreted the law that was revealed in conscience and the power which governed human destiny, while the freedom which man realized was the direct negation both of necessity and of the operation of any fortuitous cause in the cosmos.

It was not possible, however, that the theistic idea could be discussed in relation to nature only. It was necessary that it should be applied to history and to the forces and personalities active within it. And of these the greatest was of course the Person that had created the Christian religion. What did Jesus signify? What authority belonged to Him and to the books that contain His history and interpret His person? This was the problem which Martineau attempted to deal with in _The Seat of Authority in Religion_. The workmanship of the book is unequal: historical and literary criticism had never been Martineau's strongest point, although he had almost continuously maintained an amount of New Testament study, as his note-books show. In its speculative parts the book is quite equal to those that had gone before, but in its literary and historical parts there are indications of a mind in which a long-practised logic had become a rooted habit. While a comparison of his expositions of the Pauline and Johannine Christologies with the earlier Unitarian exegesis in which he had been trained shows how wide is the interval, the work does not represent a mind that had throughout its history lived and worked in the delicate and judicial investigations he here tried to conduct.

Martineau's theory of the religious society or church was that of an idealist rather than of a statesman or practical politician. He stood equally remote from the old Voluntary principle, that "the State had nothing to do with religion," and from the sacerdotal position that the clergy stood in an apostolic succession, and either constituted the Church or were the persons into whose hands its guidance had been committed. He hated two things intensely, a sacrosanct priesthood and an enforced uniformity. He may be said to have believed in the sanity and sanctity of the state rather than of the Church. Statesmen he could trust as he would not trust ecclesiastics. And so he even propounded a scheme, which fell still-born, that would have repealed uniformity, taken the church out of the hands of a clerical order, and allowed the coordination of sects or churches under the state. Not that he would have allowed the state to touch doctrine, to determine polity or discipline; but he would have had it to recognize historical achievement, religious character and capacity, and endow out of its ample resources those societies which had vindicated their right to be regarded as making for religion. His ideal may have been academic, but it was the dream of a mind that thought nobly both of religion and of the state.

See _Life and Letters_ by J. Drummond and C. B. Upton (2 vols., 1901); J. E. Carpenter, _James Martineau, Theologian and Teacher_ (1905); J. Crawford, _Recollections_ of James Martineau (1903); A. W. Jackson, _James Martineau, a Biography and a Study_ (Boston, 1900); H. Sidgwick, _Lectures on the Ethics of Green, Spencer and Martineau_ (1902); and J. Hunt, _Religious Thought in England in the 19th Century_. (A. M. F.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Types of Ethical Theory_, i. 8.

[2] _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_, iv. 54.

[3] Ibid. i. 397.

[4] _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_, i. 419.

[5] Martineau's "Letter to the Dissenting Congregation of Eustace Street" (Dublin).

[6] _Types of Ethical Theory_, i. pp. vii.-ix.

[7] Ibid. p. xiii.

[8] _Rationale_, 2nd ed., pref., p. vii.

[9] Ibid. p. 133.

[10] They stand as Lectures ii., v., vi., xi., xii. in the volume _Unitarianism Defended_, 1839.

[11] Essays, _Reviews and Addresses_, ii. 10.

[12] Ibid. i. 46.

[13] Ibid. i. 258, 262.

[14] Ibid. ii. 285.

[15] Ibid. i. 233.

[16] _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_, i., iii.

[17] Ibid, iii., pref., p. vi.

MARTINET, a military term (more generally used in a disparaging than in a complimentary sense) implying a strict disciplinarian or drill-master. The term originated in the French army about the middle of Louis XIV.'s reign, and was derived from Jean Martinet (d. 1672), who as lieutenant-colonel of the King's regiment of foot and inspector-general of infantry drilled and trained that arm in the model regular army created by Louis and Louvois between 1660 and 1670. Martinet seems also to have introduced the copper pontoons with which Louis bridged the Rhine in 1672. He was killed, as a _maréchal de camp_, at the siege of Duisburg in the same year, being accidentally shot by bis own artillery while leading the infantry assault. His death, and that of the Swiss captain Soury by the same discharge gave rise to a _bon mot_, typical of the polite ingratitude of the age, that Duisburg had only cost the king a martin and a mouse. The "martin" as a matter of fact shares with Vauban and other professional soldiers of Louis XIV. the glory of having made the French army the first and best regular army in Europe. Great nobles, such as Turenne, Condé and Luxemburg, led this army and inspired it, but their fame has obscured that of the men who made it manageable and efficient. It was about this time that the soldier of fortune, who joined a regiment with his own arms and equipment and had learned his trade by varied experience, began to give place to the soldier regularly enlisted as a recruit in permanent regiments and trained by his own officers. The consequence of this was the introduction of a uniform, or nearly uniform system of drill and training, which in all essentials has endured to the present day. Thus Martinet was the forerunner of Leopold of Dessau and Frederick William, just as Jean Jacques de Fourilles, the organizer of the cavalry, who was forced into an untimely charge at Seneffe (1674) by a brutal taunt of Condé, and there met his death, was the forerunner of Zieten and Seydlitz. These men, while differing from the creators of the Prussian army in that they contributed nothing to the tactics of their arms, at least made tactics possible by the thorough drilling and organization they imparted to the formerly heterogeneous and hardly coherent elements of an army.

MARTÍNEZ DE LA ROSA, FRANCISCO DE PAULA (1789-1862), Spanish statesman and dramatist, was born on the 10th of March 1789 at Granada, and educated at the university there. He won popularity with a series of epigrams on local celebrities published under the title of _El Cementerio de momo_. During the struggle against Napoleon he took the patriotic side, was elected deputy, and at Cadiz produced his first play, _Lo que puede un empleo_, a prose comedy in the manner of the younger Moratin. _La Viuda de Padilla_ (1814), a tragedy modelled upon Alfieri, was less acceptable to the Spanish public. Meanwhile the author became more and more engulfed in politics, and in 1814 was banished to Africa, where he remained till 1820, when he was suddenly recalled and appointed prime minister. During the next three years he was the most unpopular man in Spain; denounced as a revolutionist by the Conservatives and as a reactionary by the Liberals, he alienated the sympathies of all parties, and his rhetoric earned for him the contemptuous nickname of _Rosita la Pastelera_. Exiled in 1823, he took refuge in Paris, where he issued his _Obras literarias_ (1827), including his _Arte poética_, in which he exaggerated the literary theories already promulgated by Luzán. Returning to Spain in 1831, he became prime minister on the death of Ferdinand VII., but proved incapable of coping with the insurrectionary movement and resigned in 1834. He was ambassador at Paris in 1839-1840 and at Rome in 1842-1843, joined the Conservative party, held many important offices, and was president of congress and director of the Spanish academy at the time of his death, which took place at Madrid on the 7th of February 1862. As a statesman, Martínez de la Rosa never rose above mediocrity. It was his misfortune to be in place without real power, to struggle against a turbulent pseudo-democratic movement promoted by unscrupulous soldiers, and to contend with the intrigues of the king, the court camarilla and the clergy. But circumstances which hampered him in politics favoured his career in literature. He was not a great natural force; his early plays and poems are influenced by Moratin or by Meléndez Valdés; his _Espirítu del siglo_ (1835) is an elegant summary of all the commonplaces concerning the philosophy of history; his _Doña Isabel de Solís_ (1837-1846) is a weak imitation of Walter Scott's historical novels. Still his place in the history of Spanish literature is secure, if not eminent. Through the happy accident of his exile at Paris he was thrown into relations with the leaders of the French romantic movement, and was so far impressed with the innovations of the new school as to write in French a romantic piece entitled _Aben-Humeya_ (1830), which was played at the Porte Saint-Martin. The experiment was not unsuccessful, and on his return to Madrid Martínez de la Rosa produced _La Conjuratión de Venecia_ (April 23, 1834), which entitles him to be called the pioneer of the romantic drama in Spain. The play is more reminiscent of Casimir Delavigne than of Victor Hugo; but it was unquestionably effective, and smoothed the way for the bolder essays of Rivas, Garcia Gutiérrez and Hartzenbusch.

MARTINI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1706-1784), Italian musician, was born at Bologna on the 24th of April 1706. His father, Antonio Maria Martini, a violinist, taught him the elements of music and the violin; later he learned singing and harpsichord playing from Padre Pradieri, and counterpoint from Antonio Riccieri. Having received his education in classics from the fathers of the oratory of San Filippo Neri, he afterwards entered upon a noviciate at the Franciscan monastery at Lago, at the close of which he was received as a Minorite on the 11th of September 1722. In 1725, though only nineteen years old, he received the appointment of chapel-master in the Franciscan church at Bologna, where his compositions attracted attention. At the invitation of amateurs and professional friends he opened a school of composition at which several celebrated musicians were trained; as a teacher he consistently declared his preference for the traditions of the old Roman school of composition. Padre Martini was a zealous collector of musical literature, and possessed an extensive musical library. Burney estimated it at 17,000 volumes; after Martini's death a portion of it passed to the Imperial library at Vienna, the rest remaining in Bologna, now in the Liceo Rossini. Most contemporary musicians speak of Martini with admiration, and Mozart's father consulted him with regard to the talents of his son. Abt Vogler, however, makes reservations in his praise, condemning his philosophical principles as too much in sympathy with those of Fox, which had already been expressed by P. Vallotti. He died at Bologna on the 4th of August 1784. His _Elogio_ was published by Pietro della Valle at Bologna in the same year.

The greater number of Martini's sacred compositions remain unprinted. The Liceo of Bologna possesses the MSS. of two oratorios; and a requiem, with some other pieces of church music, are now in Vienna. _Litaniae atque antiphonae finales B. V. Mariae_ were published at Bologna in 1734, as also twelve _Sonate d'intavolatura_; six _Sonate per l'organo ed il cembalo_ in 1747; and Duetti da camera in 1763. Martini's most important works are his _Storia della musica_ (Bologna, 1757-1781) and his _Saggio di contrapunto_ (Bologna, 1774-1775). The former, of which the three published volumes relate wholly to ancient music, and thus represent a mere fragment of the author's vast plan, exhibits immense reading and industry, but is written in a dry and unattractive style, and is overloaded with matter which cannot be regarded as historical. At the beginning and end of each chapter occur puzzle-canons, wherein the primary part or parts alone are given, and the reader has to discover the canon that fixes the period and the interval at which the response is to enter. Some of these are exceedingly difficult, but Cherubini solved the whole of them. The _Saggio_ is a learned and valuable work, containing an important collection of examples from the best masters of the old Italian and Spanish schools, with excellent explanatory notes. It treats chiefly of the tonalities of the plain chant, and of counterpoints constructed upon them. Besides being the author of several controversial works, Martini drew up a _Dictionary of Ancient Musical Terms_, which appeared in the second volume of G. B. Doni's _Works_; he also published a treatise on _The Theory of Numbers as applied to Music_. His celebrated canons, published in London, about 1800, edited by Pio Cianchettini, show him to have had a strong sense of musical humour.

MARTINI, SIMONE (1283-1344), Sienese painter, called also Simone di Martino, and more commonly, but not correctly, Simon Memmi,[1] was born in 1283. He followed the manner of painting proper to his native Siena, as improved by Duccio, which is essentially different from the style of Giotto and his school, and the idea that Simone was himself a pupil of Giotto is therefore wide of the mark. The Sienese style is less natural, dignified and reserved than the Florentine; it has less unity of impression, has more tendency to pietism, and is marked by exaggerations which are partly related to the obsolescent Byzantine manner, and partly seem to forebode certain peculiarities of the fully developed art which we find prevalent in Michelangelo. Simone, in especial, tended to an excessive and rather affected tenderness in his female figures; he was more successful in single figures and in portraits than in large compositions of incident. He finished with scrupulous minuteness, and was elaborate in decorations of patterning, gilding, &c.

The first known fresco of Simone is the vast one which he executed in the hall of the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena--the "Madonna Enthroned, with the Infant," and a number of angels and saints; its date is 1315, at which period he was already an artist of repute throughout Italy. In S. Lorenzo Maggiore of Naples he painted a life-sized picture of King Robert crowned by his brother Lewis, bishop of Toulouse; this also is extant, but much damaged. In 1320 he painted for the high altar of the church of S. Caterina in Pisa the Virgin and Child between six saints; above are archangels, apostles and other figures. The compartmented portions of this work are now dispersed, some of them being in the academy of Siena. Towards 1321 he executed for the church of S. Domenico in Orvieto a picture of the bishop of Savona kneeling before the Madonna attended by saints, now in the Fabriceria of the cathedral. Certain frescoes in Assisi in the chapel of San Martino, representing the life of that saint, ascribed by Vasari to Puccio Capanna, are now, upon internal evidence, assigned to Simone. He painted also, in the south transept of the lower church of the same edifice, figures of the Virgin and eight saints. In 1328 he produced for the sala del consilio in Siena a striking equestrian portrait of the victorious general Guidoriccio Fogliani de' Ricci.

Simone had married in 1324 Giovanna, the daughter of Memmo (Guglielmo) di Filippuccio. Her brother, named Lippo Memmi, was also a painter, and was frequently associated with Simone in his work; and this is the only reason why Simone has come down to us with the family-name Memmi. They painted together in 1333 the "Annunciation" which is now in the Uffizi gallery. Simone kept a bottega (or shop), undertaking any ornamental work, and his gains were large. In 1339 he settled at the papal court in Avignon, where he made the acquaintance of Petrarch and Laura; and he painted for the poet a portrait of his lady, which gave occasion for two of Petrarch's sonnets, in which Simone is eulogized. He also illuminated for the poet a copy of the commentary of Servius upon Virgil, now preserved in the Ambrosian library of Milan. He was largely employed in the decorations of the papal buildings in Avignon, and several of his works still remain--in the cathedral, in the hall of the consistory, and, in the two chapels of the palace, the stories of the Baptist, and of Stephen and other saints. One of his latest productions (1342) is the picture of "Christ Found by his Parents in the Temple," now in the Liverpool Gallery. Simone died in Avignon in July 1344.

Some of the works with which Simone's name and fame have been generally identified are not now regarded as his. Such are the compositions, in the Campo Santo of Pisa, from the legend of S. Ranieri, and the "Assumption of the Virgin"; and the great frescoes in the Cappellone degli Spagnuoli, in S. Maria Novella, Florence, representing the Triumph of Religion through the work of the Dominican order, &c. (W. M. R.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The ordinary account of Simone is that given by Vasari, and since repeated in a variety of forms. Modern research shows that it is far from correct, the incidents being erroneous, and the paintings attributed to Simone in various principal instances not his. We follow the authority of Crowe and Cavalcaselle.

MARTINIQUE, an island of the West Indies, belonging to the chain of the Lesser Antilles, and constituting a French colony, between the British islands of Dominica and St Lucia, 25 m. S. of the one and 20 m. N. of the other, about 14° 40´ N., 61° W. Its length is 40 m., its greatest width 21 m.; and the area comprises 380 sq. m. A cluster of volcanic mountains in the north, a similar group in the south, and a line of lower heights between them, form the backbone of the island. Its deep ravines and precipitous escarpments are reduced in appearance to gentle undulations by the drapery of the forests. The massif of Mont Pelé in the north is the culminating point of the island (4430 ft.); that of Carbet is little inferior (3963 ft.), but the mountains in the south are much lower. Mont Pelé is notorious for an appalling eruption in May 1902.

Of the numerous streams which traverse the few miles of country between the watershed and the sea (the longest radiating from Mount Carbet), about seventy-five are of considerable size, and in the rainy season become deep and often destructive torrents. On the north-west and north the coast is elevated and bold; and similarly on the south, where a lateral range, branching from the backbone of the island, forms a blunt peninsula bounding the low-shored western bay of Fort de France on the south. Another peninsula, called Caravelle, projects from the middle part of the east coast, and south of this the coast is low and fretted, with many islets and cays lying off it. Coral reefs occur especially in this locality. Plains, most numerous and extensive in the south, occupy about one-third of the total area of the island.

The mean annual temperature is 80° F. in the coast region, the monthly mean for June being 83°, and that for January 77°. Of the annual rainfall of 87 in., August has the heaviest share (11.3 in.), though the rainy season extends from June to October; March, the driest month, has 3.7. Martinique enjoys a marked immunity from hurricanes. The low coastal districts are not very healthy for Europeans in the hotter months, but there are numerous sanatoria in the forest region at an elevation of about 1500 ft., where the average temperature is some 10° F. lower than that already quoted. The north winds which prevail from November to February are comparatively fresh and dry; those from the south (July to October) are damp and warm. From March to June easterly winds are prevalent.

The population increased from 162,861 in 1878 to 175,863 in 1888 and 203,781 in 1901. In 1902 the great eruption of Mont Pelé occurred, and in 1905 the population was only 182,024. The bulk of the population consists of Creole negroes and half-castes of various grades, ranging from the "Saccatra," who has retained hardly any trace of Caucasian blood, to the so-called "Sangmêlé," with only a suspicion of negro commixture. The capital of the island is Fort de France, on the west-coast bay of the same name, with a fine harbour defended by three forts, and a population of 18,000. The other principal centres of population are, on the west coast Lamentin, on the same bay as the capital, and on the east coast Le François and Le Robert. The colony is administered by a governor and a general council, and returns a senator and two deputies. There are elective municipal councils. The chief product is sugar, and some coffee, cocoa, tobacco and cotton are grown. The island is served by British, French and American steamship lines, and local communications are carried on by small coasting steamers and by subsidized mail coaches, as there are excellent roads. In 1905 the total value of the exports, consisting mainly of sugar, rum and cocoa, was £725,460, France taking by far the greater part, while imports were valued at £596,294, of which rather more than one-half by value came from France, the United States of America being the next principal importing country. In 1903, the year following the eruption of Mont Pelé, exports were valued at £604,163.

[Illustration: Map of Martinique.]

Martinique, the name of which may be derived from a native form Madiana or Mantinino, was probably discovered by Columbus on the 15th of June 1502; although by some authorities its discovery is placed in 1493. It was at that time inhabited by Caribs who had expelled or incorporated an older stock. It was not until the 25th of June 1635 that possession was taken of the island in the name of the French _Compagnie des Îles d'Amérique_. Actual settlement was carried out in the same year by Pierre Belain, Sieur d'Esnambuc, captain-general of the island of St Christopher. In 1637 his nephew Dyel Duparquet (d. 1658) became captain-general of the colony, now numbering seven hundred men, and subsequently obtained the seigneurie of the island by purchase from the company under the authority of the king of France. In 1654 welcome was given to three hundred Jews expelled from Brazil, and by 1658 there were at least five thousand people exclusive of the Caribs, who were soon after exterminated. Purchased by the French government from Duparquet's children for 120,000 livres, Martinique was assigned to the West India Company, but in 1674 it became part of the royal domain. The _habitants_ (French landholders) at first devoted themselves to the cultivation of cotton and tobacco; but in 1650 sugar plantations were begun, and in 1723 the coffee plant was introduced. Slave labour having been introduced at an early period of the occupation, there were 60,000 blacks in the island by 1736. This slavery was abolished in 1860. Martinique had a full share of wars. In early days the Caribs were not brought under subjection without severe struggles. In 1666 and 1667 the island was attacked by the British without success, and hostilities were terminated by the treaty of Breda. The Dutch made similar attempts in 1674, and the British again attacked the island in 1693. Captured by Rodney in 1762, Martinique was next year restored to the French; but after the conquest by Sir John Jervis and Sir Charles Grey in 1793 it was retained for eight years; and, seized again in 1809, it was not surrendered till 1814. The island was the birth-place of the Empress Josephine.

Martinique has suffered from occasional severe storms, as in 1767, when 1600 persons perished, and M. de la Pagerie, father of the Empress Josephine, was practically ruined, and in 1839, 1891 and 1903, when much damage was done to the sugar crop. Earthquakes have also been frequent, but the most terrible natural disaster was the eruption of Mont Pelé in 1902, by which the town of St Pierre, formerly the chief commercial centre of the island, was destroyed. During the earlier months of the year various manifestations of volcanic activity had occurred; on the 25th of April there was a heavy fall of ashes, and on the 2nd and 3rd of May a heavy eruption destroyed extensive sugar plantations north of St Pierre, and caused a loss of some 150 lives. A few days later the news that the Souffrière in St Vincent was in eruption reassured the inhabitants of St Pierre, as it was supposed that this outbreak might relieve the volcano of Pelé. But on the 8th of May the final catastrophe came without warning; a mass of fire, compared to a flaming whirlwind, swept over St Pierre, destroying the ships in the harbour, among which, however, one, the "Roddam" of Scrutton, escaped. A fall of molten lava and ashes followed the flames, accompanied by dense gases which asphyxiated those who had thus far escaped. The total loss of life was estimated at 40,000. Consternation was caused not only in the West Indies, but in France and throughout the world, and at first it was seriously suggested that the island should be evacuated, but no countenance was lent to this proposal by the French government. Relief measures were undertaken and voluntary subscriptions raised. The material losses were estimated at £4,000,000; but, besides St Pierre, only one-tenth of the island had been devastated, and although during July there was further volcanic activity, causing more destruction, the economic situation recovered more rapidly than was expected.

See _Annuaire de la Martinique_ (Fort de France); H. Mouet, _La Martinique_ (Paris, 1892); M. J. Guët, _Origines de la Martinique_ (Vannes, 1893); G. Landes, _Notice sur la Martinique_ (with full bibliography), (Paris, 1900); M. Dumoret, _Au pays du sucre_ (Paris, 1902); and on the eruption of 1902, A. Heilprin, _Mont Pelée and the Tragedy of Martinique_ (Philadelphia and London, 1903); A. Lacroix, _La Montagne Pelée et ses éruptions_ (Paris, 1904); and the report of Drs J. S. Flett and T. Anderson (November 20, 1902), who investigated the eruptions on behalf of the Royal Society; cf. T. Anderson, "Recent Volcanic Eruptions in the West Indies," in _Geographical Journal_, vol. xxi. (1903).

MARTINSBURG, a town and the county-seat of Berkeley county, West Virginia, U.S.A., about 74 m. W.N.W. of Washington, D.C. Pop. (1890) 7226; (1900) 7564 (678 negroes); (1910) 10,698. It is served by the Baltimore & Ohio and the Cumberland Valley railways; the former has repair shops here. It lies in the Lower Shenandoah Valley at the foot of Little North mountain, in the midst of a fruit-growing region, peaches and apples being the principal crops. Slate and limestone also abound in the vicinity. The town has a fine Federal Building and a King's Daughters' hospital. There are grain elevators, and various manufactures, including hosiery, woollen goods, dressed lumber, &c. Martinsburg owns its waterworks, the supply being derived from a neighbouring spring. A town was laid out here a short time before the War of Independence and was named Martinstown in honour of Colonel Thomas Bryan Martin, a nephew of Thomas, Lord Fairfax (1692-1782); in 1778 it was incorporated under its present name. During the Civil War Martinsburg was occupied by several different Union and Confederate forces.

MARTINS FERRY, a city of Belmont county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Ohio River, nearly opposite Wheeling, West Virginia. Pop. (1890), 6250; (1900), 7760, including 1033 foreign-born and 252 negroes; (1910), 9133. It is served by the Pennsylvania (Cleveland & Pittsburg Division), the Baltimore & Ohio, and the Wheeling & Lake Erie (Wabash System) railways, and by several steamboat lines. The city is situated on two plateaus; the lower is occupied chiefly by factories, the upper by dwellings. Coal mining and manufacturing are the principal industries; among factory products are iron, steel, tin, stoves, machinery and glassware. The municipality owns and operates the waterworks and an electric-lighting plant. A settlement was attempted here in 1785, but was abandoned on account of trouble with the Indians. In 1795 a town was laid out by Absalom Martin and was called Jefferson, but this, too, was abandoned, on account of its not being made the county-seat. The town was laid out again in 1835 by Ebenezer Martin (son of Absalom Martin) and was called Martinsville; the present name was substituted a few years later. The Martins and other pioneers are buried in Walnut Grove Cemetery within the city limits. Martins Ferry was incorporated as a town in 1865 and chartered as a city in 1885.

MARTINUZZI, GEORGE [GYÖRGY UTIE[VS]ENOVI['C]] (1482-1551), Hungarian statesman, who, since he usually signed himself "Frater Georgius," is known in Hungarian history as FRATER GYÖRGY or simply THE FRATER, was born at Kamicic in Croatia, the son of Gregory Utiesenovi['c], a Croatian gentleman. His mother was a Martinuzzi, a Venetian patrician family. From his eighth to his twentieth year he was attached to the court of John Corvinus; subsequently, entering the service of the Zapolya family, he saw something of warfare under John Zapolya but, tiring of a military life, he entered the Paulician Order in his twenty-eighth year. His historical career began when his old patron Zapolya, now king of Hungary, forced to fly before his successful rival Ferdinand, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand I., sent him on a diplomatic mission to Hungary. It was due to his tact and ability that John recovered Buda (1529), and henceforth Frater György became his treasurer and chief counsellor. In 1534 he became bishop of Grosswardein; in 1538 he concluded with Austria the peace of Grosswardein, whereby the royal title and the greater part of Hungary were conceded to Zapolya. King John left the Frater the guardian of his infant son John Sigismund, who was proclaimed and crowned king of Hungary, the Frater acting as regent. He frustrated all the attempts of the queen mother, Isabella, to bring in the Austrians, and when, in 1541, an Austrian army appeared beneath the walls of Buda, he arrested the queen and applied to the Porte for help. On the 28th of August 1541, the Frater did homage to the sultan, but during his absence with the baby king in the Turkish camp, the grand vizier took Buda by subtlety. Then only the Frater recognized the necessity of a composition with both Austria and Turkey. He attained it by the treaty of Gyula (Dec. 29, 1541), whereby western Hungary fell to Ferdinand, while Transylvania, as an independent principality under Turkish suzerainty, reverted to John Sigismund. It included, besides Transylvania proper, many Hungarian counties on both sides of the Theiss, and the important city of Kassa. It was the Frater's policy to preserve Transylvania neutral and intact by cultivating amicable relations with Austria without offending the Porte. It was a difficult policy, but succeeded brilliantly for a time. In 1545, encouraged by the growing unpopularity of Ferdinand, owing to his incapacity to defend Hungary against the Turks, the Frater was tempted to unite Austrian Hungary to Transylvania and procure the election of John Sigismund as the national king. But recognizing that this was impossible, he aimed at an alliance with Ferdinand on terms of relative equality, and to this system he adhered till his death. Queen Isabella, who hated the Frater and constantly opposed him, complained of him to the sultan, who commanded that either the traitor himself or his head should be sent to Constantinople (1550). A combination was then formed against him of the queen, the hospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia and the Turks; but the Frater shut the queen up in Gyula-Fehérvár, drove the hospodars out of Transylvania, defeated the Turks at Déva, and finally compelled Isabella to accept a composition with Austria very profitable to her family and to Transylvania, at the same time soothing the rage of the sultan by flatteries and gifts. This compact, a masterpiece of statesmanship, was confirmed by the diet of Kolozsvár in August 1551. The Frater retained the governorship of Transylvania, and was subsequently consecrated archbishop of Esztergom and received the red hat. Thus Hungary was once more reunited, but the inability of Ferdinand to defend it against the Turks, as promised, forced the Frater, for the common safety, to resume the payment of tribute to the Porte in December 1551. Unfortunately, the Turks no longer trusted a diplomatist they could not understand, while Ferdinand suspected him of an intention to secure Hungary for himself. When the Turks (in 1551) took Csanád and other places, the Frater and the imperial generals Castaldo and Pallavicini combined their forces against the common foe; but when the Frater privately endeavoured to mediate between the Turks and the Hungarians, Castaldo represented him to Ferdinand as a traitor, and asked permission to kill him if necessary. The Frater's secretary Marco Aurelio Ferrari was hired, and stabbed his master from behind at the castle of Alvinczy while reading a letter, on the 18th of December 1551; but the cardinal, though in his sixty-ninth year, fought for his life, and was only despatched with the aid of Pallavicini and a band of bravos. Ferdinand took the responsibility of the murder on himself. He sent to Julius III. an accusation of treason against the Frater in eighty-seven articles, and after long hesitation, and hearing one hundred and sixteen witnesses, the pope exonerated Ferdinand of blame.

See A. Bechet, _Histoire du ministère du cardinal Martinusius_ (Paris, 1715); O. M. Utiesenovi['c], _Lebensgeschichte des Cardinals Georg Utiesenovi['c]_ (Vienna, 1881); _Codex epistolaris Fratris Georgii 1535-1551_, ed. A. Károlyi (Budapest, 1881). But the most vivid presentation of Frater is to be found in M. Jókai's fine historical romance, _Brother George_ (Hung.) (Budapest, 1893). (R. N. B.)

MARTIUS, CARL FRIEDRICH PHILIPP VON (1794-1868), German botanist and traveller, was born on the 17th of April 1794 at Erlangen, where he graduated M.D. in 1814, publishing as his thesis a critical catalogue of plants in the botanic garden of the university. He afterwards devoted himself to botanical study, and in 1817 he and J. B. von Spix were sent to Brazil by the king of Bavaria. They travelled from Rio de Janeiro through several of the southern and eastern provinces of Brazil, and ascended the river Amazon to Tabatinga, as well as some of its larger affluents. On his return to Europe in 1820 he was appointed conservator of the botanic garden at Munich, and in 1826 professor of botany in the university there, and held both offices till 1864. He devoted his chief attention to the flora of Brazil, and in addition to numerous short papers he published the _Nova Genera et Species Plantarum Brasiliensium_ (1823-1832, 3 vols.) and _Icones selectae Plantarum Cryptogamicarum Brasiliensium_ (1827), both works being finely illustrated. An account of his travels in Brazil appeared in 3 vols. 4to, 1823-1831, with an atlas of plates, but probably the work by which he is best known is his _Historia Palmarum_ (1823-1850) in 3 large folio volumes, of which one describes the palms discovered by himself in Brazil. In 1840 he began the _Flora Brasiliensis_, with the assistance of the most distinguished European botanists, who undertook monographs of the various orders. Its publication was continued after his death under the editorship of A. W. Eichler (1839-1887) until 1887, and subsequently of Ignaz von Urban. He also edited several works on the zoological collections made in Brazil by Spix, after the death of the latter in 1826. On the outbreak of potato disease in Europe he investigated it and published his observations in 1842. He also published works and short papers on the aborigines of Brazil, on their civil and social condition, on their past and probable future, on their diseases and medicines, and on the languages of the various tribes, especially the Tupi. He died at Munich on the 13th of December 1868.

MARTOS, CHRISTINO (1830-1893), Spanish politician, was born at Granada on the 13th of September 1830. He was educated there and at Madrid University, where his Radicalism soon got him into trouble, and he narrowly escaped being expelled for his share in student riots and other demonstrations against the governments of Queen Isabella. He distinguished himself as a journalist on _El Tribuno_. He joined O'Donnell and Espartero in 1854 against a revolutionary cabinet, and shortly afterwards turned against O'Donnell to assist the Democrats and Progressists under Prim, Rivero, Castelar, and Sagasta in the unsuccessful movements of 1866, and was obliged to go abroad. His political career had not prevented Martos from rising into note at the bar, where he was successful for forty years. After remaining abroad three years, he returned to Spain to take his seat in the Cortes of 1869 after the revolution of 1868. Throughout the revolutionary period he represented in cabinets with Prim, Serrano and Ruiz Zorilla, and lastly under King Amadeus, the advanced Radical tendencies of the men who wanted to give Spain a democratic monarchy. After the abdication of Amadeus of Savoy, Martos played a prominent part in the proclamation of the federal republic, in the struggle between the executive of that republic and the permanent committee of the Cortes, backed by the generals and militia, who nearly put an end to the executive and republic in April 1873. When the republicans triumphed Martos retired into exile, and soon afterwards into private life. He reappeared for a few months after General Pavia's _coup d'état_ in January 1874, to join a coalition cabinet formed by Marshal Serrano, with Sagasta and Ulloa. Martos returned to the Bar in May 1874, and quietly looked on when the restoration took place at the end of that year. He stuck to his democratic ideals for some years, even going to Biarritz in 1881 to be present at a republican congress presided over by Ruiz Zorilla. Shortly afterwards Martos joined the dynastic Left organized by Marshal Serrano, General Lopez Dominguez, and Moret, Becerra, Balaguer, and other quondam revolutionaries. He sat in several parliaments of the reign of Alphonso XII. and of the regency of Queen Christina, joined the dynastic Liberals under Sagasta, and gave Sagasta not a little trouble when the latter allowed him to preside over the House of Deputies. Having failed to form a rival party against Sagasta, Martos subsided into political insignificance, despite his great talent as an orator and debater, and died in Madrid on the 16th of January 1893.

MARTOS, a town of southern Spain, in the province of Jaen, 16 m. W.S.W. of Jaen, by the Jaen-Lucena railway. Pop. (1900), 17,078. Martos is situated on an outlying western peak of the Jabalcuz mountains, which is surmounted by a ruined castle and overlooks the plain of Andalusia. In the neighbourhood are two sulphurous springs with bathing establishments. The local trade is almost exclusively agricultural.

Martos perhaps stands on or near the site of the _Tucci_ of Ptolemy, which was fortified and renamed _Colonia Augusta Gemella_ by the Romans. By Ferdinand III. it was taken from the Moors in 1225, and given to the knights of Calatrava; it was here that the brothers Carvajal, commanders of the order, were in 1312 executed by command of Ferdinand IV. Before their death they summoned Ferdinand to meet them within thirty days at the judgment-seat of God. Ferdinand died a month later and thus received the popular name of _el Emplazado_--"the Summoned."

MARTYN, HENRY (1781-1812), English missionary to India, was born on the 18th of February 1781, at Truro, Cornwall. His father, John Martyn, was a "captain" or mine-agent at Gwennap. The lad was educated at Truro grammar school under Dr Cardew, entered St John's College, Cambridge, in the autumn of 1797, and was senior wrangler and first Smith's prizeman in 1801. In 1802 he was chosen a fellow of his college. He had intended to go to the bar, but in the October term of 1802 he chanced to hear Charles Simeon speaking of the good done in India by a single missionary, William Carey, and some time afterwards he read the life of David Brainerd, the apostle of the Indians of North America. He resolved, accordingly, to become a Christian missionary. On the 22nd of October, 1803, he was ordained deacon at Ely, and afterwards priest, and served as Simeon's curate at the church of Holy Trinity, taking charge of the neighbouring parish of Lolworth. He was about to offer his services to the Church Missionary Society, when a disaster in Cornwall deprived him and his unmarried sister of the provision their father had made for them, and rendered it necessary that he should obtain a salary that would support her as well as himself. He accordingly obtained a chaplaincy under the East India Company and left for India on the 5th of July 1805. For some months he was stationed at Aldeen, near Serampur; in October 1806 he proceeded to Dinapur, where he was soon able to conduct worship among the natives in the vernacular, and established schools. In April 1809 he was transferred to Cawnpore, where he preached in his own compound, in spite of interruptions and threats. He occupied himself in linguistic study, and had already, during his residence at Dinapur, been engaged in revising the sheets of his Hindostani version of the New Testament. He now translated the whole of the New Testament into Hindi also, and into Persian twice. He translated the Psalms into Persian, the Gospels into Judaeo-Persic, and the Prayer-book into Hindostani, in spite of ill-health and "the pride, pedantry and fury of his chief munshi Sabat." Ordered by the doctors to take a sea voyage, he obtained leave to go to Persia and correct his Persian New Testament, whence he wished to go to Arabia, and there compose an Arabic version. Accordingly, on the 1st of October 1810, having seen his work at Cawnpore crowned on the previous day by the opening of a church, he left for Calcutta, whence he sailed on the 7th of January 1811, for Bombay, which he reached on his thirtieth birthday. From Bombay he set out for Bushire, bearing letters from Sir John Malcolm to men of position there, as also at Shiraz and Isfahan. After an exhausting journey from the coast he reached Shiraz, and was soon plunged into discussion with the disputants of all classes, "Sufi, Mahommedan, Jew, and Jewish-Mahommedan, even Armenian, all anxious to test their powers of argument with the first English priest who had visited them." Having made an unsuccessful journey to Tabriz to present the shah with his translation of the New Testament, he was seized with fever, and after a temporary recovery, had to seek a change of climate. On the 12th of September 1812, he started with two Armenian servants, crossed the Araxes, rode from Tabriz to Erivan, from Erivan to Kars, from Kars to Erzerum, from Erzerum to Chiflik, urged on from place to place by a thoughtless Tatar guide, and, though the plague was raging at Tokat (near Eski-Shehr in Asia Minor), he was compelled by prostration to stop there. On the 6th of October he died. Macaulay's youthful lines, written early in 1813, testify to the impression made by his career.

His _Journals and Letters_ were published by Samuel Wilberforce in 1837. See also _Lives_ by John Sargent (1819; new ed. 1885), and G. Smith (1892); and _The Church Quarterly Review_ (Oct. 1881).

MARTYN, JOHN (1699-1768), English botanist, was born in London on the 12th of September 1699. Originally intended for a business career, he abandoned it in favour of medical and botanical studies. He was one of the founders (with J. J. Dillen and others) and the secretary of a botanical society which met for a few years in the Rainbow Coffee-house, Watling Street; he also started the _Grub Street Journal_, a weekly satirical review, which lasted from 1730 to 1737. In 1732 he was appointed professor of botany in Cambridge University, but, finding little encouragement and hampered by lack of appliances, he soon discontinued lecturing. He retained his professorship, however, till 1762, when he resigned in favour of his son Thomas (1735-1825), author of _Flora rustica_ (1792-1794). Although he had not taken a medical degree, he long practised as a physician at Chelsea, where he died on the 29th of January 1768. His reputation chiefly rests upon his _Historia plantarum rariorum_ (1728-1737), and his translation, with valuable agricultural and botanical notes, of the _Eclogues_ (1749) and _Georgics_ (1741) of Virgil. On resigning the botanical chair at Cambridge he presented the university with a number of his botanical specimens and books.

See memoir by Thomas Martyn in _Memoirs of John Martyn and Thomas Martyn_, by G. C. Gorham (1830).

MARTYR (Gr. [Greek: martyr] or [Greek: martys]), a word meaning literally "witness" and often used in that sense in the New Testament e.g. Matt, xviii. 16; Mark xiv. 63. During the conflict between Paganism and Christianity when many Christians "testified" to the truth of their convictions by sacrificing their lives, the word assumed its modern technical sense. The beginnings of this use are to be seen in such passages as Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13, xiii. 6. During the first three centuries the fortitude of these "witnesses" won the admiration of their brethren. Ardent spirits craved the martyr's crown, and to confess Christ in persecution was to attain a glory inferior only to that won by those who actually died. Confessors were visited in prison, martyrs' graves were scenes of pilgrimage, and the day on which they suffered was celebrated as the birthday of their glory. Martyrology was the most popular literature in the early Church. While the honour paid to martyrdom was a great support to early champions of the faith, it was attended by serious evils. It was thought that martyrdom would atone for sin, and imprisoned confessors not only issued to the Churches commands which were regarded almost as inspired utterances, but granted pardons in rash profusion to those who had been excommunicated by the regular clergy, a practice which caused Cyprian and his fellow bishops much difficulty. The zeal of Ignatius (c. 115), who begs the Roman Church to do nothing to avert from him the martyr's death, was natural enough in a spiritual knight-errant, but with others in later days, especially in Phrygia and North Africa, the passion became artificial. Fanatics sought death by insulting the magistrates or by breaking idols, and in their enthusiasm for martyrdom became self-centred and forgetful of their normal duty. None the less it is true that these men and women endured torments, often unthinkable in their cruelty, and death rather than abandon their faith. The same phenomena have been witnessed, not only in the conflicts within the Church that marked the 13th to the 16th centuries, but in the different mission fields, and particularly in Madagascar and China.

See A. J. Mason, _The Historic Martyrs of the Primitive Church_ (London, 1905); H. B. Workman, _Persecution in the Early Church_ (London, 1906); Paul Allard, _Ten Lectures on the Martyrs_ (London, 1907); John Foxe, _The Book of Martyrs_; Mary I. Bryson, _Cross and Crown_ (London, 1904).

MARTYROLOGY, a catalogue or list of _martyrs_, or, more exactly, of saints, arranged in the order of their anniversaries. This is the now accepted meaning in the Latin Church. In the Greek Church the nearest equivalent to the martyrology is the Synaxarium (q.v.). As regards form, we should distinguish between simple martyrologies, which consist merely of an enumeration of names, and historical martyrologies, which also include stories or biographical details. As regards documents, the most important distinction is between local and general martyrologies. The former give a list of the festivals of some particular Church; the latter are the result of a combination of several local martyrologies. We may add certain compilations of a factitious character, to which the name of martyrology is given by analogy, e.g. the _Martyrologe universel_ of Châtelain (1709). As types of local martyrologies we may quote that of Rome, formed from the _Depositio martyrum_ and the _Depositio episcoporum_ of the chronograph of 354; the Gothic calendar of Ulfila's Bible, the calendar of Carthage published by Mabillon, the calendar of fasts and vigils of the Church of Tours, going back as far as Bishop Perpetuus (d. 490), and preserved in the _Historia francorum_ (xi. 31) of Gregory of Tours. The Syriac martyrology discovered by Wright (_Journal of Sacred Literature_, 1866) gives the idea of a general martyrology. The most important ancient martyrology preserved to the present day is the compilation falsely attributed to St Jerome, which in its present form goes back to the end of the 6th century. It is the result of the combination of a general martyrology of the Eastern Churches, a local martyrology of the Church of Rome, some general martyrologies of Italy and Africa, and a series of local martyrologies of Gaul. The task of critics is to distinguish between its various constituent elements. Unfortunately, this document has reached us in a lamentable condition. The proper names are distorted, repeated or misplaced, and in many places the text is so corrupt that it is impossible to understand it. With the exception of a few traces of borrowings from the Passions of the martyrs, the compilation is in the form of a simple martyrology. Of the best-known historical martyrologies the oldest are those which go under the name of Bede and of Florus (_Acta sanctorum Martii_, vol. ii.); of Wandelbert, a monk of Prüm (842); of Rhabanus Maurus (c. 845); of Ado (d. 875); of Notker (896); and of Wolfhard (c. 896 v. _Analecta bollandiana_, xvii. 11). The most famous is that of Usuard (c. 875), on which the Roman martyrology was based. The first edition of the Roman martyrology appeared at Rome in 1583. The third edition, which appeared in 1584, was approved by Gregory XIII., who imposed the Roman martyrology upon the whole Church. In 1586 Baronius published his annotated edition, which in spite of its omissions and inaccuracies is a mine of valuable information.

The chief works on the martyrologies are those of Rosweyde, who in 1613 published at Antwerp the martyrology of Ado (also edition of Giorgi, Rome, 1745); of Sollerius, to whom we owe a learned edition of Usuard (_Acta sanctorum Junii_, vols. vi. and vii.); and of Fiorentini, who published in 1688 an annotated edition of the _Martyrology of St Jerome_. The critical edition of the latter by J. B. de Rossi and Mgr. L. Duchesne, was published in 1894, in vol. ii. of the _Acta sanctorum Novembris_. The historical martyrologies taken as a whole have been studied by Dom Quentin (1908). There are also numerous editions of calendars or martyrologies of less universal interest, and commentaries upon them. Mention ought to be made of the famous calendar of Naples, commented on by Mazocchi (Naples, 1744) and Sabbatini (Naples, 1744).

See C. de Smedt, _Introductio generalis ad historiam ecclesiasticam_ (Gandavi, 1876), pp. 127-156; H. Matagne and V. de Buck in De Backer, _Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus_, 2nd ed., vol. iii. pp. 369-387; De Rossi-Duchesne, _Les Sources du martyrologe hiéronymien_ (Rome, 1885); H. Achelis, _Die Martyrologien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert_ (Berlin, 1900); H. Delehaye, "Le Témoignage des martyrologes," in _Analecta bollandiana_, xxvi. 78-99 (1907); H. Quentin, _Les Martyrologes historiques du moyen âge_ (Paris, 1908). (H. De.)

MARULLUS, MICHAEL TARCHANIOTA (d. 1500), Greek scholar, poet, and soldier, was born at Constantinople. In 1453, when the Turks captured Constantinople, he was taken to Ancona in Italy, where he became the friend and pupil of J. J. Pontanus, with whom his name is associated by Ariosto (_Orl. Fur._ xxxvii. 8). He received his education at Florence, where he obtained the patronage of Lorenzo de' Medici. He was the author of epigrams and _hymni naturales_, in which he happily imitated Lucretius. He took no part in the work of translation, then the favourite exercise of scholars, but he was understood to be planning some great work when he was drowned, on the 10th of April 1500, in the river Cecina near Volterra. He was a bitter enemy of Politian, whose successful rival he had been in the affections of the beautiful and learned Alessandra Scala. He is remembered chiefly for the brilliant emendations on Lucretius which he left unpublished; these were used for the Juntine edition (Munro's _Lucretius_, Introduction).

The hymns, some of the epigrams, and a fragment, _De Principum institutione_, were reprinted in Paris by C. M. Sathas in _Documents inédits relatifs à l'histoire de la Grèce au moyen âge_, vol. vii. (1888).

MARUM, MARTIN VAN (1750-1837), Dutch man of science, was born on the 20th of March 1750 at Groningen, where he graduated in medicine and philosophy. He began to practise medicine at Haarlem, but devoted himself mainly to lecturing on physical subjects. He became secretary of the scientific society of that city, and under his management the society was advanced to the position of one of the most noted in Europe. He was also entrusted with the care of the collection left to Haarlem by P. Teyler van der Hulst (1702-1778). His name is not associated with any discovery of the first order, but his researches (especially in connexion with electricity) were remarkable for their number and variety. He died at Haarlem on the 26th of December 1837.

MARUTS, in Hindu mythology, storm-gods. Their numbers vary in the different scriptures, usually thrice seven or thrice sixty. In the Vedas they are called the sons of Rudra. They are the companions of Indra, and associated with him in the wielding of thunderbolts, sometimes as his equals, sometimes as his servants. They are armed with golden weapons and lightnings. They split drought (_Vritra_) and bring rain, and cause earthquakes. Various myths surround their birth. A derivative word, Maruti or Maroti, is the popular name throughout the Deccan for Hanuman (q.v.).

MARVELL, ANDREW (1621-1678), English poet and satirist, son of Andrew Marvell and his wife Anne Pease, was born at the rectory house, Winestead, in the Holderness division of Yorkshire, on the 31st of March 1621. In 1624 his father exchanged the living of Winestead for the mastership of Hull grammar school. He also became lecturer at Holy Trinity Church and master of the Charterhouse in the same town. Thomas Fuller (_Worthies of England_, ed. 1811, i. 165) describes him as "a most excellent preacher." The younger Marvell was educated at Hull grammar school until his thirteenth year, when he matriculated on the 14th of December 1633 (according to a doubtful statement in Wood's _Athen. oxon._) at Trinity College, Cambridge. It is related by his early biographer, Thomas Cooke, that he was induced by some Jesuit priests to leave the university. After some months he was discovered by his father in a bookseller's shop in London, and returned to Cambridge.[1] He contributed two poems to the _Musa cantabrigiensis_ in 1637, and in the following year he received a scholarship at Trinity College, and took his B.A. degree in 1639. His father was drowned in 1640 while crossing the Humber in company with the daughter of a Mrs Skinner, almost certainly connected with the Cyriack Skinner to whom two of Milton's sonnets are addressed. It is said that Mrs Skinner adopted Marvell and provided for him at her death. The Conclusion Book of Trinity College, Cambridge, registers the decision (Sept. 24, 1641) that he with others should be excluded from further advantages from the college either because they were married, or did not attend their "days" or "acts." He travelled for four years on the Continent, visiting Holland, France, Italy and Spain. In Rome he met Richard Flecknoe, whom he satirized in the amusing verses on "Flecnoe, an English priest at Rome."

Although Marvell ranks as a great Puritan poet his sympathies were at first with Charles I., and in the lines on "Tom May's Death" he found no words too strong to express his scorn for the historian of the Long Parliament. He himself was no partisan, but had a passion for law and order. He acquiesced, accordingly, in the strong rule of Cromwell, but in his famous "Horatian Ode upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland" (1650)[2] he inserts a tribute to the courage and dignity of Charles I., which forms the best-known section of the poem. In 1650 he became tutor to Lord Fairfax's daughter Mary, afterwards duchess of Buckingham, then in her twelfth year. During his life with the Fairfaxes at Nunappleton, Yorkshire, he wrote the poems "Upon the Hill and Grove at Billborow" and "On Appleton House." Doubtless the other poems on country life, and his exquisite "garden poetry" may be referred to this period. "Clorinda and Damon" and "The Nymph complaining for the Death of her Faun" are good examples of the beauty and simplicity of much of this early verse. But he had affinities with John Donne and the metaphysical poets, and could be obscure on occasion.

Marvell was acquainted with Milton probably through their common friends, the Skinners, and in February 1653 Milton sent him with a letter to the lord president of the council, John Bradshaw, recommending him as "a man of singular desert for the state to make use of," and suggesting his appointment as assistant to himself in his duties as foreign secretary. The appointment was, however, given at the time to Philip Meadows, and Marvell became tutor to Cromwell's ward, William Dutton. In 1653 he was established with his pupil at Eton in the house of John Oxenbridge, then a fellow of the college, but formerly a minister in the Bermudas. No doubt the well-known verses, "Bermudas," were inspired by intercourse with the Oxenbridges. At Eton he enjoyed the society of John Hales, then living in retirement. He was employed by Milton in 1654 to convey to Bradshaw a copy of the _Defensio secunda_, and the letter to Milton in which he describes the reception of the gift is preserved. When the secretaryship again fell vacant in 1657 Marvell was appointed, and retained the appointment until the accession of Charles II. During this period he wrote many political poems, all of them displaying admiration for Cromwell. His "Poem upon the Death of his late Highness the Lord Protector" has been unfavourably compared to Edmund Waller's "Panegyric," but Marvell's poem is inspired with affection.

Marvell's connexion with Hull had been strengthened by the marriages of his sisters with persons of local importance, and in January 1659 he was elected to represent the borough in parliament. He was re-elected in 1660, again in 1661, and continued to represent the town until his death. According to Milton's nephew, Edward Phillips, the poet owed his safety at the Restoration largely to the efforts of Marvell, who "made a considerable party for him" in the House of Commons. From 1663 to 1665 he acted as secretary to Charles Howard, 1st earl of Carlisle, on his difficult and unsuccessful embassy to Muscovy, Sweden, and Denmark; and this is the only official post he filled during the reign of Charles. With the exception of this absence, for which he had leave from his constituents, and of shorter intervals of travel on private business which took him to Holland, Marvell was constant in his parliamentary attendance to the day of his death. He seldom spoke in the House, but his parliamentary influence is established by other evidence. He was an excellent man of affairs, and looked after the special interests of the port of Hull. He was a member of the corporation of Trinity House, both in London and Hull, and became a younger warden of the London Trinity House. His correspondence with his constituents, from 1660 to 1678, some 400 letters in all, printed by Dr Grosart (_Complete Works_, vol. ii.), forms a source of information all the more valuable because by a resolution passed at the Restoration the publication of the proceedings of the House without leave was forbidden. He made it a point of duty to write at each post--that is, every two or three days--both on local interests and on all matters of public interest. The discreet reserve of these letters, natural at a time when the post office was a favourite source of information to the government, contrasts curiously with the freedom of the few private letters which state opinions as well as facts. Marvell's constituents, in their turn, were not unmindful of their member. He makes frequent references to their presents, usually of Hull ale and of salmon, and he regularly drew from them the wages of a member, six-and-eightpence a day during session.

The development of Marvell's political opinions may be traced in the satirical verse he published during the reign of Charles II., and in his private letters. With all his admiration for Cromwell he had retained his sympathies with the royal house, and had loyally accepted the Restoration. In 1667 the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames, and Marvell expressed his wrath at the gross mismanagement of public affairs in "Last Instructions to a Painter," a satire which was published as a broadside and of course remained anonymous. Edmund Waller had published in 1665 a gratulatory poem on the duke of York's victory in that year over the Dutch as "Instructions to a Painter for the drawing up and posture of his Majesty's forces at sea...." A similar form was adopted in Sir John Denham's four satirical "Directions to a Painter," and Marvell writes on the same model. His indignation was well grounded, but he had no scruples in the choice of the weapons he employed in his warfare against the corruption of the court, which he paints even blacker than do contemporary memoir writers; and his satire often descends to the level of the lampoon. The most inexcusable of his scandalous verses are perhaps those on the duchess of York. In the same year he attacked Lord Clarendon, evidently hoping that with the removal of the "betrayer of England and Flanders" matters would improve. But in 1672 when he wrote his "Poem on the Statue in the Stocks-Market" he had no illusions left about Charles, whom he describes as too often "purchased and sold," though he concludes with "Yet we'd rather have him than his bigoted brother." "An Historical Poem," "Advice to a Painter," and "Britannia and Raleigh" urge the same advice in grave language. In the last-named poem, probably written early in 1674, Raleigh pleads that "'tis god-like good to save a fallen king," but Britannia has at length decided that the tyrant cannot be divided from the Stuart, and proposes to reform the state on the republican model of Venice. These and other equally bold satires were probably handed round in MS., or secretly printed, and it was not until after the Revolution that they were collected with those of other writers in _Poems on Affairs of State_ (3 pts., 1689; 4 pts., 1703-1707). Marvell's controversial prose writings are wittier than his verse satires, and are free from the scurrility which defaces the "Last Instructions to a Painter." A short and brilliant example of his irony is "His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament" (printed in _Grosart_, ii. 431 seq.), in which Charles is made to take the house into the friendliest confidence on his domestic affairs.

Marvell was among the masters of Jonathan Swift, who, in the "Apology" prefixed to the _Tale of a Tub_, wrote that his answer to Samuel Parker could be still read with pleasure, although the pamphlets that provoked it were long since forgotten. Parker had written a _Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politye_ (1670) and other polemics against Dissenters, to which Marvell replied in _The Rehearsal Transposed_ (2 pts., 1672 and 1673). The book contains some passages of dignified eloquence, and some coarse vituperation, but the prevailing tone is that of grave and ironical banter of Parker as "Mr Bayes." Parker was attacked, says Bishop Burnet (_Hist. of His Own Time_, ed. 1823, i. 451), "by the liveliest droll of the age, who writ in a burlesque strain, but with so peculiar and entertaining a conduct, that, from the king down to the tradesman, his books were read with great pleasure." He certainly humbled Parker, but whether this effect extended, as Burnet asserts, to the whole party, is doubtful. Parker had intimated that Milton had a share in the first part of Marvell's reply. This Marvell emphatically denied (_Grosart_, iii. 498). He points out that Parker had, like Milton, profited by the royal clemency, and that he had first met him at Milton's house. He takes the opportunity to praise Milton's "great learning and sharpness of wit," and to the second edition of _Paradise Lost_ (1674) he contributed some verses of just and eloquent praise.

His _Mr Smirke, or the Divine in Mode ..._ (1676) was a defence of Herbert Croft, bishop of Hereford, against the criticisms of Dr Francis Turner, master of St John's College, Cambridge. A far more important work was _An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England, more particularly from the Long Prorogation of Parliament ..._ (1677). This pamphlet was written in the same outspoken tone as the verse satires, and brought against the court the indictment of nursing designs to establish absolute monarchy and the Roman Catholic religion at the same time. A reward was offered for the author, whose identity was evidently suspected, and it is said that Marvell was in danger of assassination. He died on the 16th of August 1678 in consequence of an overdose of an opiate taken during an attack of ague. He was buried in the church of St Giles-in-the-Fields, London. Joint administration of his estate was granted to one of his creditors, and to his widow, Mary Marvell, of whom we have no previous mention.

As a humorist, and as a great "parliament man," no name is of more interest to a student of the reign of Charles II. than that of Marvell. He had friends among the republican thinkers of the times. Aubrey says that he was intimate with James Harrington, the author of _Oceana_, and he was probably a member of the "Rota" club. In the heyday of political infamy, he, a needy man, obliged to accept wages from his constituents, kept his political virtue unspotted, and he stood throughout his career as the champion of moderate and tolerant measures. There is a story that his old schoolfellow, Danby, was sent by the king to offer the incorruptible poet a place at court and a gift of £1000, which Marvell refused with the words: "I live here to serve my constituents: the ministry may seek men for their purpose; I am not one." When self-indulgence was the ordinary habit of town life, Marvell was a temperate man. His personal appearance is described by John Aubrey: "He was of a middling stature, pretty strong set, roundish faced, cherry cheeked, hazel eyed, brown haired. In his conversation he was modest and of very few words." ("Lives of Eminent Persons," printed in _Letters ... in the 17th and 18th Centuries_, 1813).

Among Marvell's works is also a _Defence of John Howe on God's Prescience ..._ (1678), and among the spurious works fathered on him are: _A Seasonable Argument ... for a new Parliament_ (1677), _A Seasonable Question and a Useful Answer ..._ (1676), _A Letter from a Parliament Man ..._ (1675), and a translation of _Suetonius_ (1672). Marvell's satires were no doubt first printed as broadsides, but very few are still extant in that form. Such of his poems as were printed during his lifetime appeared in collections of other men's works. The earliest edition of his non-political verse is _Miscellaneous Poems_ (1681), edited by his wife, Mary Marvell. The political satires were printed as _A Collection of Poems on Affairs of State, by A---- M----l, Esq. and other Eminent Wits_ (1689), with second and third parts in the same year. The works of Andrew Marvell contained in these two publications were also edited by Thomas Cooke (2 vols., 1726), who added some letters. Cooke's edition was reprinted by Thomas Davies in 1772. Marvell's next editor was Captain Thompson of Hull, who was connected with the poet's family, and made further additions from a commonplace book since lost. Other editions followed, but were superseded by Dr A. B. Grosart's laborious work, which, in spite of many defects of style, remains indispensable to the student. _The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Andrew Marvell, M.P._ (4 vols., 1872-1875) forms part of his "Fuller Worthies Library." See also the admirable edition of the _Poems and Satires of Andrew Marvell ..._ (2 vols., 1892) in the "Muses' Library," where a full bibliography of his works and of the commentaries on them is provided; also _The Poems and some Satires of Andrew Marvell_ (ed. Edward Wright, 1904), and _Andrew Marvell_ (1905), by Augustine Birrell in the "English Men of Letters" series.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] There is an allusion to this escapade addressed by another anxious parent to the elder Marvell in the Hull Corporation Records (No. 498) [see Grosart, i. xxviii.]. The document is without address or signature, but the identification seems safe.

[2] This poem has been highly praised by Goldwin Smith (T. H. Ward's _English Poets_, ii. 383 (1880)). It was first printed, so far as we know, in 1776, and the only external testimony to Marvell's authorship is the statement of Captain Thompson, who had included many poems by other writers in his edition of Marvell, that this ode was in poet's own handwriting. The internal evidence in favour of Marvell may, however, be accepted as conclusive.

MARX, HEINRICH KARL (1818-1883), German socialist, and head of the International Working Men's Association, was born on the 5th of May 1818 in Trèves (Rhenish Prussia). His father, a Jewish lawyer, in 1824 went over to Christianity, and he and his whole family were baptized as Christian Protestants. The son went to the high grammar school at Trèves, and from 1835 to the universities of Bonn and Berlin. He studied first law, then history and philosophy, and in 1841 took the degree of doctor of philosophy. In Berlin he had close intimacy with the most prominent representatives of the young Hegelians--the brothers Bruno and Edgar Bauer and their circle, the so-called "Freien." He at first intended to settle as a lecturer at Bonn University, but his Radical views made a university career out of the question, and he accepted work on a Radical paper, the _Rheinische Zeitung_, which expounded the ideas of the most advanced section of the Rhenish Radical _bourgeoisie_. In October 1842 he became one of the editors of this paper, which, however, after an incessant struggle with press censors, was suppressed in the beginning of 1843. In the summer of this year Marx married Jenny von Westphalen, the daughter of a high government official. Through her mother Jenny von Westphalen was a lineal descendant of the earl of Argyle, who was beheaded under James II. She was a most faithful companion to Marx during all the vicissitudes of his career, and died on the 2nd of December 1881; he outliving her only fifteen months.

Already in the _Rheinische Zeitung_ some socialist voices had been audible, couched in a somewhat philosophical strain. Marx, though not accepting these views, refused to criticize them until he had studied the question thoroughly. For this purpose he went in the autumn of 1843 to Paris, where the socialist movement was then at its intellectual zenith, and where he, together with Arnold Ruge, the well-known literary leader of Radical Hegelianism, was to edit a review, the _Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher_, of which, however, only one number appeared. It contained two articles by Marx--a criticism of Bruno Bauer's treatment of the Jewish question, and an introduction to a criticism of Hegel's philosophy of the law. The first concluded that the social emancipation of the Jews could only be achieved together with the emancipation of society from Judaism, i.e. commercialism. The second declared that in Germany no partial political emancipation was possible; there was now only one class from which a real and reckless fight against authority was to be expected--namely, the proletariate. But the proletariate could not emancipate itself except by breaking all the chains, by dissolving the whole constituted society, by recreating man as a member of the human society in the place of established states and classes. "Then the day of German resurrection will be announced by the crowing of the Gallican cock." Both articles thus relegated the solution of the questions then prominent in Germany to the advent of socialism, and so far resembled in principle other socialist publications of the time. But the way of reasoning was different, and the final words of the last quoted sentence pointed to a political revolution, to begin in France as soon as the industrial evolution had created a sufficiently strong proletariate. In contradistinction to most of the socialists of the day, Marx laid stress upon the political struggle as the lever of social emancipation. In some letters which formed part of a correspondence between Marx, Ruge, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Mikhail Bakunin, published as an introduction to the review, this opposition of Marx to socialistic "dogmatism" was enunciated in a still more pronounced form: "Nothing prevents us," he said, "from combining our criticism with the criticism of politics, from participating in politics, and consequently in real struggles. We will not, then, oppose the world like doctrinarians with a new principle: here is truth, kneel down here! We expose new principles to the world out of the principles of the world itself. We don't tell it: 'Give up your struggles, they are rubbish, we will show you the true war-cry.' We explain to it only the real object for which it struggles, and consciousness is a thing it must acquire even if it objects to it."

In Paris Marx met FRIEDRICH ENGELS (1820-1895), from whom the _Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher_ had two articles--a powerfully written outline of a criticism of political economy, and a letter on Carlyle's _Past and Present_. Engels, the son of a wealthy cotton-spinner, was born in 1820 at Barmen. Although destined by his father for a commercial career, he attended a classical school, and during his apprenticeship and whilst undergoing in Berlin his one year's military service, he had given up part of his free hours to philosophical studies. In Berlin he had frequented the society of the "Freien," and had written letters to the _Rheinische Zeitung_. In 1842 he had gone to England, his father's firm having a factory near Manchester, and had entered into connexion with the Owenite and Chartist movements, as well as with German communists. He contributed to Owen's _New Moral World an_d to the Chartist _Northern Star_, gave up much of his abstract speculative reasoning for a more positivist conception of things, and took to economic studies. Now, in September 1844, on a short stay in Paris, he visited Marx, and the two found that in regard to all theoretical points there was perfect agreement between them. From that visit dates the close friendship and uninterrupted collaboration and exchange of ideas which lasted during their lives, so that even some of Marx's subsequent works, which he published under his own name, are more or less also the work of Engels. The first result of their collaboration was the book _Die heilige Familie oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik, gegen Bruno Bauer und Konsorten_, a scathing exposition of the perverseness of the high-sounding speculative radicalism of Bauer and the other Berlin "Freie." By aid of an analysis, which, though not free from exaggeration and a certain diffuseness, bears testimony to the great learning of Marx and the vigorous discerning faculty of both the authors, it is shown that the supposed superior criticism--the "critical criticism" of the Bauer school, based upon the doctrine of a "self-conscious" idea, represented by or incarnated in the critic--was in fact inferior to the older Hegelian idealism. The socialist and working-class movements in Great Britain, France and Germany are defended against the superior criticism of the "holy" Bauer family.

In Paris, where he had very intimate intercourse with Heinrich Heine, who always speaks of him with the greatest respect, and some of whose poems were suggested by Marx, the latter contributed to a Radical magazine, the _Vorwärts_; but in consequence of a request by the Prussian government, nearly the whole staff of the magazine soon got orders to leave France. Marx now went to Brussels, where he shortly afterwards was joined by Engels. In Brussels he published his second great work, _La Misère de la philosophie_, a sharp rejoinder to the _Philosophie de la misère ou contradictions économiques_ of J. P. Proudhon. In this he deals with Proudhon, whom in the former work he had defended against the Bauers, not less severely than with the latter. It is shown that in many points Proudhon is inferior to both the middle-class economists and the socialists, that his somewhat noisily proclaimed discoveries in regard to political economy were made long before by English socialists, and that his main remedies, the "constitution of the labour-value" and the establishment of exchange bazaars, were but a repetition of what English socialists had already worked out much more thoroughly and more consistently. Altogether the book shows remarkable knowledge of political economy. In justice to Proudhon, it must be added that it is more often his mode of speaking than the thought underlying the attacked sentences that is hit by Marx's criticism. In Brussels Marx and Engels also wrote a number of essays, wherein they criticized the German literary representatives of that kind of socialism and philosophic radicalism which was mainly influenced by the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, and deduced its theorems or postulates from speculations on the "nature of man." They mockingly nicknamed this kind of socialism "German or True Socialism," and ridiculed the idea that by disregarding historical and class distinctions a conception of society and socialism superior to that of the English and French workers and theorists could be obtained. Some of these essays were published at the time, two or three, curiously enough, by one of the attacked writers in his own magazine; one, a criticism of Feuerbach himself, was in a modified form published by Engels in 1885, but others have remained in manuscript. They were at first intended for publication in two volumes as a criticism of post-Hegelian German philosophy, but the Revolution of 1848 postponed for a time all interest in theoretical discussions.

In Brussels Marx and Engels came into still closer contact with the socialist working-class movement. They founded a German workers' society, acquired a local German weekly, the _Brüsseller deutsche Zeitung_, and finally joined a communistic society of German workers, the "League of the Just," a secret society which had its main branches in London, Paris, Brussels and several Swiss towns. For this league, which till then had adhered to the rough-and-ready communism of the gifted German workman Wilhelm Weitling, but which now called itself "League of the Communists," and gave up its leanings towards conspiracy and became an educational and propagandistic body, Marx and Engels at the end of 1847 wrote their famous pamphlet, _Manifest der Kommunisten_. It was a concise exposition of the history of the working-class movement in modern society according to their views, to which was added a critical survey of the existing socialist and communist literature, and an explanation of the attitude of the Communists towards the advanced opposition parties in the different countries. Scarcely was the manifesto printed when, in February 1848, the Revolution broke out in France, and "the crowing of the Gallican cock" gave the signal for an upheaval in Germany such as Marx had prophesied. After a short stay in France, Marx and Engels went to Cologne in May 1848, and there with some friends they founded the _Neue rheinische Zeitung_, with the sub-title "An Organ of Democracy," a political daily paper on a large scale, of which Marx was the chief editor. They took a frankly revolutionary attitude, and directed their criticism to a great extent against the middle-class democratic parties, who, by evading all decisive issues, delayed the achievement of the upheaval. When in November 1848 the king of Prussia dissolved the National Assembly, Marx and his friends advocated the non-payment of taxes and the organization of armed resistance. Then the state of siege was declared in Cologne, the _Neue rheinische Zeitung_ was suspended, and Marx was put on trial for high treason. He was unanimously acquitted by a middle-class jury, but in May 1849 he was expelled from Prussian territory. He went to Paris, but was soon given the option of either leaving France or settling at a small provincial place. He preferred the former, and went to England. He settled in London, and remained there for the rest of his life.

At first he tried to reorganize the Communist League; but soon a conflict broke out in its ranks, and after some of its members had been tried in Germany and condemned for high treason, Marx, who had done everything to save the accused, dissolved the Communist League altogether. Nor was a literary enterprise, a review, also called the _Neue rheinische Zeitung_, more successful; only six numbers of it were issued. It contained, however, some very remarkable contributions; and a series of articles on the career of the French Revolution of 1848, which first appeared there, was in 1895 published by Engels in book form under the title of _Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich von 1848"_ by Karl Marx." Carlyle's _Latter Day Pamphlets_, published at that time, met with a very vehement criticism in the _Neue rheinische Zeitung_. The endeavours of Ernest Jones and others to revive the Chartist movement were heartily supported by Marx, who contributed to several of the Chartist journals of the period, mostly, if not wholly, without getting or asking payment. He lived at this time in great financial straits, occupied a few small rooms in Dean Street, Soho, and all his children then born died very young. At length he was invited to write letters for the _New York Tribune_, whose staff consisted of advanced democrats and socialists of the Fourierist school. For these letters he was paid at the rate of a guinea each. Part of them, dealing with the Eastern Question and the Crimean War, were republished in 1897 (London, Sonnenschein). Some were even at the time reprinted in pamphlet form. The co-operation of Marx, who was determinedly anti-Russian, since Russia was the leading reactionary power in Europe, was obtained by David Urquhart and his followers. A number of Marx's articles were issued as pamphlets by the Urquhartite committees, and Marx wrote a series of articles on the diplomatic history of the 18th century for the Urquhartite _Free Press_ (Sheffield and London, 1856-1857). When in 1859 the Franco-Austrian War about Italy broke out, Marx denounced it as a Franco-Russian intrigue, directed against Germany on the one hand and the revolutionary movement in France on the other. He opposed those democrats who supported a war which in their eyes aimed at the independence of the Italian nation and promised to weaken Austria, whose superiority in Germany was the hindrance to German unity. Violent derogatory remarks directed against him by the well-known naturalist Karl Vogt gave occasion to a not less violent rejoinder, _Herr Vogt_, a book full of interesting material for the student of modern history. Marx's contention, that Vogt acted as an agent of the Bonapartist clique, seems to have been well founded, whilst it must be an open question how far Vogt acted from dishonourable motives. The discussions raised by the war also resulted in a great estrangement between Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle. Lassalle had taken a similar view of the war to that advocated by Vogt, and fought tooth and nail for it in letters to Marx. In the same year, 1859, Marx published as a first result of his renewed economic studies the book _Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie_. It was the first part of a much larger work planned to cover the whole ground of political economy. But Marx found that the arrangement of his materials did not fully answer his purpose, and that many details had still to be worked out. He consequently altered the whole plan and sat down to rewrite the book, of which in 1867 he published the first volume under the title _Das Kapital_.

In the meantime, in 1864, the International Working Men's Association was founded in London, and Marx became in fact though not in name, the head of its general council. All its addresses and proclamations were penned by him and explained in lectures to the members of the council. The first years of the International went smoothly enough. Marx was then at his best. He displayed in the International a political sagacity and toleration which compare most favourably with the spirit of some of the publications of the Communist League. He was more of its teacher than an agitator, and his expositions of such subjects as education, trade unions, the working day, and co-operation were highly instructive. He did not hurry on extreme resolutions, but put his proposals in such a form that they could be adopted by even the more backward sections, and yet contained no concessions to reactionary tendencies. But this condition of things was not permitted to go on. The anarchist agitation of Bakunin, the Franco-German War, and the Paris Commune created a state of things before which the International succumbed. Passions and prejudices ran so high that it proved impossible to maintain any sort of centralized federation. At the congress of the Hague, September 1872, the general council was removed from London to New York. But this was only a makeshift, and in July 1876 the rest of the old International was formally dissolved at a conference held in Philadelphia. That its spirit had not passed away was shown by subsequent international congresses, and by the growth and character of socialist labour parties in different countries. They have mostly founded their programmes on the basis of its principles, but are not always in their details quite in accordance with Marx's views. Thus the programme which the German socialist party accepted at its congress in 1875 was very severely criticized by Marx. This criticism, reprinted in 1891 in the review _Die neue Zeit_, is of great importance for the analysis of Marx's conception of socialism.

The dissolution of the International gave Marx an opportunity of returning to his scientific work. He did not, however, succeed in publishing further volumes of _Das Kapital_. In order to make it--and especially the part dealing with property in land--as complete as possible, he took up, as Engels tells us, a number of new studies, but repeated illness interrupted his researches, and on the 14th of March 1883 he passed quietly away.

From the manuscripts he left Engels compiled a second and a third volume of _Das Kapital_ by judiciously and elaborately using complete and incomplete chapters, rough copies and excerpts, which Marx had at different times written down. Much of the copy used dates back to the 'sixties, i.e. represents the work as at first conceived by Marx, so that, e.g., the matter published as the third volume was in the main written much earlier than the matter which was used for compiling the second volume. The same applies to the fourth volume. Although the work thus comprises the four volumes promised in the preface to the book, it can only in a very restricted sense be regarded as complete. In substance and demonstration it must be regarded as a torso. And it is perhaps not quite accidental that it should be so. Marx, if he had lived longer and had enjoyed better health, would have given the world a much greater amount of scientific work of high value than is now the case. But it seems doubtful whether he would have brought _Das Kapital_, his main work, to a satisfactory conclusion.

_Das Kapital_ proposes to show up historically and critically the whole mechanism of capitalist economy. The first volume deals with the processes of producing capital, the second with the circulation of capital, the third with the movements of capital as a whole, whilst the fourth gives the history of the theories concerning capital. Capital is, according to Marx, the means of appropriating _surplus-value_ as distinguished from ground rent (rent on every kind of terrestrial property, such as land, mines, rivers, &c., based upon the monopolist nature of such property). Surplus-value is created in the process of production only, it is this part of the value of the newly created product which is not given to the workman as a return--the _wage_--of the labour-force he expended in working. If at first taken by the employer, it is in the different phases of economic intercourse split up into the profit of industrial enterprise, commercial or merchants' profit, interest and ground rent. The value of every commodity consists in the labour expended on it, and is measured according to the time occupied by the labour employed on its production. Labour in itself has no value, being only the measure of value, but the labour-force of the workman has a value, the value of the means required to maintain the worker in normal conditions of social existence. Thus, in distinction to other commodities, in the determination of the value of labour-force, besides the purely economical, a _moral_ and _historical_ element enter. If to-day the worker receives a wage which covers the bare necessaries of life, he is underpaid--he does not receive the real value of his labour-force. For the value of any commodity is determined by its socially necessary costs of production (or in this case, maintenance). "Socially necessary" means, further, that no more labour is embodied in a commodity than is required by applying labour-force, tools, &c., of average or normal efficiency, and that the commodity is produced in such quantity as is required to meet the effective demand for it. As this generally cannot be known in advance, the market value of a commodity only gravitates round its (abstract) value. But in the long run an equalization takes place, and for his further deductions Marx assumes that commodities exchange according to their value.

That part of an industrial capital which is employed for installations, machines, raw and auxiliary materials, is called by Marx _constant capital_, for the value of it or of its wear and tear reappears in equal proportions in the value of the new product. It is otherwise with labour. The new value of the product must by necessity be always higher than the value of the employed labour-force. Hence the capital employed in buying labour-force, i.e. in wages, is called _variable capital_. It is the tendency of capitalist production to reduce the amount spent in wages and to increase the amount invested in machines, &c. For with natural and social, legal and other limitations of the working day, and the opposition to unlimited reduction of wages, it is not possible otherwise to cheapen production and beat competition. According to the proportion of constant to variable capital, Marx distinguishes capitals of _lowest average_ and _highest composition_, the highest composition being that where proportionately the least amount of variable (wages) capital is employed.

The ratio of the wages which workmen receive to the surplus-value which they produce Marx calls the _rate of surplus-value_; that of the surplus-value produced to the whole capital employed is the _rate of profit_. It is evident, then, that at the same time the rate of surplus-value can increase and the rate of profit decrease, and this in fact is the case. There is a continuous tendency of the rates of profit to decrease, and only by some counteracting forces is their decrease temporarily interrupted, protracted, or even sometimes reversed. Besides, by competition and movement of capitals the rates of profit in the different branches of trade are pressed towards an _equalization_ in the shape of an _average rate of profits_. This average rate of profits, added to the actual cost price of a given commodity, constitutes its _price of production_, and it is this price of production which appears to the empirical mind of the business man as the value of the commodity. The real law of value, on the contrary, disappears from the surface in a society where, as to-day, commodities are bought and sold against money and not exchanged against other commodities. Nevertheless, according to Marx, it is also to-day this law of value ("labour-value") which in the last resort rules the prices and profits.

The tendency to cheapen production by increasing the relative proportion of constant capital--the fixed capital of the classical economist plus that portion of the circulating capital which consists of raw and auxiliary materials, &c.--leads to a continuous increase in the size of private enterprises, to their growing concentration. It is the larger enterprise that beats and swallows the smaller. The number of dependent workmen--"proletarians"--is thus continually growing, whilst employment only periodically keeps pace with their number. Capital alternately attracts and repels workmen, and creates a constant surplus-population of workmen--a _reserve-army_ for its requirements--which helps to lower wages and to keep the whole class in economic dependency. A decreasing number of capitalists usurp and monopolize all the benefits of industrial progress, whilst the mass of misery, of oppression, of servitude, of depravation, and of exploitation increases. But at the same time the working class continuously grows in numbers, and is disciplined, united and organized by the very mechanism of the capitalist mode of production. The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of the mode of production reach a point where they will become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Then the knell of capitalist private property will have been rung. Those who used to expropriate will be expropriated. Individual property will again be established based upon co-operation and common ownership of the earth and the means of production produced by labour.

These are the principal outlines of _Das Kapital_. Its purely economic deductions are dominated throughout by the _theory of surplus-value_. Its leading sociological principle is the _materialist conception of history_. This theory is in _Das Kapital_ only laid down by implication, but it has been more connectedly explained in the preface of _Zur Kritik_ and several works of Engels. According to it the material basis of life, the manner in which life and its requirements are produced, determines in the last instance the social ideas and institutions of the time or historical epoch, so that fundamental changes in the former produce in the long run also fundamental changes in the latter. A set of social institutions answer to a given mode of production, and periods where the institutions no longer answer to the mode of production are periods of social revolution, which go on until sufficient adjustment has taken place. The main _subjective_ forces of the struggle between the old order and the new are _the classes_ into which society is divided after the dissolution of the communistic or semi-communistic tribes and the creation of states. And as long as society is divided into classes a class war will persist, sometimes in a more latent or disguised, sometimes in a more open or acute form, according to circumstances. In advanced capitalist society the classes between whom the decisive war takes place are the capitalist owners of the means of production and the non-propertied or wage-earning workers, the "proletariate." But the proletariate cannot free itself without freeing all other oppressed classes, and thus its victory means the end of exploitation and political repression altogether. Consequently the state as a repressive power will die out, and a free association will take its place.

Almost from the first _Das Kapital_ and the publications of Marx and Engels connected with it have been subjected to all kinds of criticisms. The originality of its leading ideas has been disputed, the ideas themselves have been declared to be false or only partially true, and consequently leading to wrong conclusions; and it has been said of many of Marx's statements that they are incorrect, and that many of the statistics upon which he bases his deductions do not prove what he wants them to prove. In regard to the first point, it must be conceded that the _disjecta membra_ of Marx's value theory and of his materialist conception of history are already to be found in the writings of former socialists and sociologists. It may even be said that just those points of the Marxist doctrine which have become popular are in a very small degree the produce of Marx's genius, and that what really belongs to Marx, the methodical conjunction and elaboration of these points, as well as the finer deductions drawn from their application, are generally ignored. But this is an experience repeated over and over again in the history of deductive sciences, and is quite irrelevant for the question of Marx's place in the history of socialism and social science.

It must further be admitted that in several places the statistical evidence upon which Marx bases his deductions is insufficient or inconclusive. Moreover--and this is one of the most damaging admissions--it repeatedly happens that he points out all the phenomena connected with a certain question, but afterwards ignores some of them and proceeds as if they did not exist. Thus, e.g., he speaks at the end of the first volume, where he sketches the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation, of the decreasing number of magnates of capital as of an established fact. But all statistics show that the number of capitalists does not decrease, but increase; and in other places in _Das Kapital_ this fact is indeed fully admitted, and even accentuated. Marx was, as the third volume shows, also quite aware that limited liability companies play an important part in the distribution of wealth. But he leaves this factor, too, quite out of sight, and confuses the concentration of private enterprises with the centralization of fortunes and capitals. By these and other omissions, quite apart from developments he could not well foresee, he announces a coming evolution which is very unlikely to take place in the way described.

In this and in other features of his work a _dualism_ reveals itself which is also often observable in his actions in life--the alternating predominance of the spirit of the scholar and the spirit of the radical revolutionary. Marx originally entitled his great social work _Criticism of Political Economy_, and this is still the sub-title of _Das Kapital_. But the conception of _critic_ or _criticize_ has with Marx a very pronounced meaning. He uses them mostly as identical with fundamentally opposing. Much as he had mocked the "critical criticism" of the Bauers, he is in this respect yet of their breed and relapses into their habits. He retained in principle the Hegelian dialectical method, of which he said that in order to be rationally employed it must be "turned upside down," i.e. put upon a materialist basis. But as a matter of fact he has in many respects contravened against this prescription. Strict materialist dialectics cannot conclude much beyond actual facts. Dialectical materialism is revolutionary in the sense that it recognizes no finality, but otherwise it is necessarily positivist in the general meaning of that term. But Marx's opposition to modern society was fundamental and revolutionary, answering to that of the proletarian to the _bourgeois_. And here we come to the main and fatal contradiction of his work. He wanted to proceed, and to a very great extent did proceed, scientifically. Nothing was to be deduced from preconceived ideas; from the observed evolutionary laws and forces of modern society alone were conclusions to be drawn. And yet the final conclusion of the work, as already noted, is a preconceived idea; it is the announcement of a state of society logically opposed to the given one. Imperceptibly the dialectical movement of _ideas_ is substituted for the dialectical movement of facts, and the real movement of facts is only considered so far as is compatible with the former. Science is violated in the service of speculation. The picture given at the end of the first volume answers to a conception arrived at by speculative socialism in the 'forties. True, Marx calls this chapter "the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation," and "tendency" does not necessarily mean realization in every detail. But on the whole the language used there is much too absolute to allow of the interpretation that Marx only wanted to give a speculative picture of the goal to which capitalist accumulation would lead if unhampered by socialist counteraction. The epithet "historical" indicates rather that the passage in question was meant to give in the main the true outline of the forthcoming social revolution. We are led to this conclusion also by the fact that, in language which is not in the least conditional, it is there said that the change of capitalist property into social property will mean "only the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people." In short, the principal reason for the undeniable contradictions in _Das Kapital_ is to be found in the fact that where Marx has to do with details or subordinate subjects he mostly notices the important changes which actual evolution had brought about since the time of his first socialist writings, and thus himself states how far their presuppositions have been corrected by facts. But when he comes to general conclusions, he adheres in the main to the original propositions based upon the old uncorrected presuppositions. Besides, the complex character of modern society is greatly under-estimated, so that, e.g., such important features as the influence of the changes of traffic and aggregation on modern life are scarcely considered at all; and industrial and political problems are viewed only from the aspect of class antagonism, and never under their administrative aspect. With regard to the theory of surplus-value and its foundation, the theory of labour-value, so much may be safely said that, its premisses accepted, it is most ingeniously and most consistently worked out. And since its principal contention is in any case so far true that the wage-earning workers as a whole produce more than they receive, the theory has the great merit of demonstrating in an admirably lucid way the relations between wages and surplus-produce and the growth and movements of capital. But the theory of labour-value as the determining factor of the exchange or market value of commodities can with justification be disputed, and is surely not more true than those theories of value based on social demand or utility. Marx himself, in placing in the third volume what he calls the _law of value_ in the background and setting out the formation of the "price of production" as the empirical determinator of prices in modern society, justifies those who look upon the conception of labour-value as an abstract formula which does not apply to individual exchanges of commodities at all, but which only serves to show an imagined typical example of what in reality to-day is only true with regard to the production of the whole of social wealth. Thus understood, the conception of labour-value is quite unobjectionable, but it loses much of the significance attributed to it by most of the disciples of Marx and occasionally by Marx himself. It is a means of analysing and exemplifying surplus labour, but quite inconclusive as to the proof of the surplus value, or as an indication of the degree of the exploitation of the workers. This becomes the more apparent the more the reader advances in the second and third volumes of _Das Kapital_, where commercial capital, money capital and ground rent are dealt with. Though full of fine observations and deductions, they form, from a revolutionary standpoint, an anti-climax to the first volume. It is difficult to see how, after all that is explained there on the functions of the classes that stand between industrial employers and workers, Marx could have returned to those sweeping conclusions with which the first volume ends.

The great scientific achievement of Marx lies, then, not in these conclusions, but in the _details_ and yet more in the _method_ and _principles_ of his investigations in his _philosophy of history_. Here he has, as is now generally admitted, broken new ground and opened new ways and new outlooks. Nobody before him had so clearly shown the rôle of the productive agencies in historical evolution; nobody so masterfully exhibited their great determining influence on the forms and ideologies of social organisms. The passages and chapters dealing with this subject form, notwithstanding occasional exaggerations, the crowning parts of his works. If he has been justly compared with Darwin, it is in these respects that he ranks with that great genius, not through his value theory, ingenious though it be. With the great theorist of biological transformation he had also in common the indefatigable way in which he made painstaking studies of the minutest details connected with his researches. In the same year as Darwin's epoch-making work on the origin of species there appeared also Marx's work _Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie_, where he explains in concise sentences in the preface that philosophy of history which has for the theory of the transformation or evolution of social organisms the same significance that the argument of Darwin had for the theory of the transformation of biological organisms.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The main writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are as follow (we give only the titles of the original works and of their English translations): (1) Of Karl Marx alone: _La Misère de la philosophie, réponse à la philosophie de la misère de M. Proudhon_ (Paris, 1847; new ed., 1892; English ed., _The Poverty of Philosophy_, London, 1900); _Lohnarbeit und Kapital_, pamphlet, written 1848 (new ed., Berlin, 1891); English ed., _Wage, Labour and Capital_ (London, 1900); _Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich, 1848 to 1850_ (Berlin, 1895); _Der Achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte_ (New York, 1852; 3rd ed., Hamburg, 1889; Eng. ed., New York, 1889); _Enthüllungen über den Kölner Kommunistenprozess_ (Basel, 1852; new ed., Zürich-Berlin, 1885); "European Revolutions and Counter-Revolutions" (reprints from the _New York Tribune_, 1851-1852; London, 1897); "The Eastern Question" (reprints from the _New York Tribune_, 1853-1856; London, 1898); _Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie_ (Berlin, 1859; new ed., Stuttgart, 1897); _Herr Vogt_ (London, 1860); _Inaugural Address of the International Working Men's Association_ (London, 1864); _Value, Price and Profit_ (written 1865, published London, 1898); _Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie_ (3 vols., Hamburg, 1867, 1885 and 1895; Eng. ed. of 1st vol., 1886); _The Civil War in France, 1871_ (London, 1871; new ed., 1894); _L'Alliance de la démocratie socialiste_ (London, 1873); articles printed or reprinted in _Rheinische Zeitung_ (1842-1843), _Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher_ (Paris, 1844), _Das westphälische Dampfboot_ (Bielefeld und Paderborn, 1845-1848), _Der Gesellschaftsspiegel_ (Elberfeld, 1846), _Deutsche brüsseler Zeitung_ (Brussels, 1847), _Neue rheinische Zeitung_ (daily, Cologne, 1848-1849; monthly, Hamburg, 1850), _The People_ (London, 1852-1858), _The New York Tribune_ (New York, 1853-1860), _The Free Press_ (Sheffield and London, 1856-1857), _Das Volk_ (London, 1859), _Der Vorbote_ (Geneva, 1866-1875), _Der Volkstaat_ (Leipzig, 1869-1876), _Die Neue Zeit_ (Stuttgart, 1883, sqq.); _Sozialistische Monatshefte_ (Berlin, 1895, sqq.). (2) Of Friedrich Engels alone: _Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England_ (Leipzig, 1845; new ed., Stuttgart, 1892; Eng. ed., London, 1892); _Zur Wohnungsfrage_ (Leipzig, 1873-1874; new ed., Zürich-Berlin, 1887); _Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft_ (Leipzig, 1877; 3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1894). Three chapters of the first-named are published in English under the title Socialism, _Utopian and Scientific_ (London, 1892). _Der Ursprung des Eigenthums, der Familie und des Staates_ (Zürich and Stuttgart, 1885 and 1892); _Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie_ (Stuttgart, 1886). Introductions to most of the posthumous works of K. Marx and articles in the same periodicals as Marx. (3) Of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels together: _Die heilige Familie oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik_ (Frankfurt, 1845); _Manifest der kommunistischen Partei_ (London, 1848; Eng. ed., 1848 and 1888). (4) With regard to Marx generally, his theory and his school, see J. Stammhammer, _Bibliographie des Sozialismus und Kommunismus_ (Jena, 1893); and Th. G. Masaryk, _Die philosophischen und soziologischen Grundlagen des Marxismus_ (Vienna, 1899). Much biographical and bibliographical information on Marx and Engels is to be found in Dr Franz Mehring, _Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie_ (Stuttgart, 1897-1898), and in the collection, edited also by Dr Fr. Mehring, _Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle_ (Stuttgart, 1902). Of the criticisms of Marx's economics, one of the most comprehensive is E. von Boehm-Bawerk's _Karl Marx and the Close of his System_ (London, 1898). Marx's historic theory is, apart from Masaryk, very exhaustively analysed by R. Stammler in _Wirthschaft und Recht_ (Leipzig, 1896). (E. Bn.)

MARY[1] ([Greek: Maria, Mariam]), the mother of Jesus. At the time when the gospel history begins, she had her home in Galilee, at the village of Nazareth. Of her parentage nothing is recorded in any extant historical document of the 1st century, for the genealogy in Luke iii. (cf. i. 27) is manifestly that of Joseph. In early life she became the wife of Joseph (q.v.) and the mother of Jesus Christ; that she afterwards had other children is a natural inference from Matt. i. 25, which the evangelists, who frequently allude to "the brethren of the Lord," are at no pains to obviate. The few incidents mentioned in Scripture regarding her show that she followed our Lord to the very close of His earthly career with unfailing motherliness, but the "Magnificat" assigned to her in Luke i. is the only passage which would distinctly imply on her part a high prophetic appreciation of His divine mission. It is however doubtful whether Luke really intended to assign this hymn to Mary or to Elizabeth (cf. especially _Niceta of Remesiana_ by A. E. Burn, Cambridge, 1905; Harnack's "Das Magnificat der Elizabeth" in the _Sitzungsberichte_ of the Berlin Academy for 1900, and Burkitt's "Who spoke the Magnificat?" in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, Jan. 1906). The original text of Luke probably mentioned no name in introducing the Magnificat; scribes supplied the ambiguity by inserting, some Mary, others Elizabeth. It is doubtful which represents the intention of the writer: there is perhaps more to be said for the view that he meant to assign the Magnificat to Elizabeth. Mary was present at the Crucifixion, where she was commended by Jesus to the care of the apostle John (John xix. 26, 27), Joseph having apparently died before this time. Mary is mentioned in Acts i. 14 as having been among those who continued in prayer along with the apostles at Jerusalem during the interval between the Ascension and Pentecost. There is no allusion in the New Testament to the time or place of her death.

The subsequent growth of ecclesiastical tradition and belief regarding Mary will be traced must conveniently under the separate heads of (1) her perpetual virginity, (2) her absolute sinlessness, (3) her peculiar relation to the Godhead, which specially fits her for successful intercession on behalf of mankind.

_Her Perpetual Virginity._--This doctrine was, to say the least, of no importance in the eyes of the evangelists, and so far as extant writings go there is no evidence of its having been anywhere taught within the pale of the Catholic Church of the first three centuries. On the contrary, to Tertullian the fact of Mary's marriage after the birth of Christ is a useful argument for the reality of the Incarnation against gnostic notions, and Origen relies upon the references to the Lord's brethren as disproving the Docetism with which he had to contend. The [Greek: aeiparthenia] though very ancient, is in reality a doctrine of non-Catholic origin, and first occurs in a work proscribed by the earliest papal _Index librorum prohibitorum_ (attributed to Gelasius) as heretical,--the so-called _Protevangelium Jacobi_, written, it is generally admitted, within the 2nd century. According to this very early source, which seems to have formed the basis of the later _Liber de infantia Mariae et Christi salvatoris_ and _Evangelium de nativitate Mariae_, the name of Mary's father was Joachim (in the _Liber de infantia_ a shepherd of the tribe of Judah, living in Jerusalem); he had long been married to Anna her mother, whose continual childlessness had become a cause of much humiliation and sorrow to them both. The birth of a daughter was at last angelically predicted to each parent separately. From her third to her twelfth year "Mary was in the Temple as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel." When she became of nubile age a guardian was sought for her by the priests among the widowers of Israel "lest she should defile the sanctuary of the Lord"; and Joseph, an elderly man with a family, was indicated for this charge by a miraculous token. Some time afterwards the annunciation took place; when the Virgin's pregnancy was discovered, Joseph and she were brought before the high priest, and, though asserting their innocence in all sincerity, were acquitted only after they had been tried with "the water of the ordeal of the Lord" (Num. v. 11). Numerous details regarding the birth at Bethlehem are then given. The perpetual physical virginity of Mary, naïvely insisted upon in this apocryphon, is alluded to only with a half belief and a "some say" by Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. 16), but became of much importance to the leaders of the Church in the 4th century, as for example to Ambrose, who sees in Ezek. xliv. 1-3 a prophetic indication of so great a mystery.[2] Those who continued to believe that Mary, after the miraculous birth of Jesus, had become the mother of other children by Joseph came accordingly to be spoken of as her enemies--Antidicomarianitae (Epiphanius) or Antidicomaritae (Augustine)--and the first-mentioned author devotes a whole chapter (ch. 78) of his great work upon heresies to their confutation. For holding the same view Bonosus of Sardica was condemned by the synod of Capua in 391. To Jerome the perpetual virginity not only of Mary but even of Joseph appeared of so much consequence that while a young man he wrote (387) the long and vehement tract _Against Helvidius_, in which he was the first to broach the theory (which has since gained wide currency) that the brethren of our Lord were children neither of Mary by her husband nor of Joseph by a former marriage, but of another Mary, sister to the Virgin and wife of Clopas or Alphaeus. At last the epithet of [Greek: haei parthenos] was authoritatively applied to the Virgin by the council of Chalcedon in 451, and the doctrine implied has ever since been an undisputed point of orthodoxy both in the Eastern and in the Roman Churches, some even seeking to hold the Anglican Church committed to it on account of the general declaration (in the _Homilies_) of concurrence in the decisions of the first four general councils.

_Her Absolute Sinlessness._--While much of the apocryphal literature of the early sects in which she is repeatedly spoken of as "undefiled before God" would seem to encourage some such doctrine as this, many passages from the acknowledged fathers of the Church could be cited to show that it was originally quite unknown to Catholicism. Even Augustine repeatedly asserts that she was born in original sin (_De gen. ad lit._ x. 18); and the _locus classicus_ regarding her possible immunity from actual transgression, on which the subsequent doctrine of Lombardus and his commentators was based, is simply an extremely guarded passage (_De nat. et grat._ ch. 36), in which, while contradicting the assertion of Pelagius that many had lived free from sin, he wishes exception to be made in favour of "the holy Virgin Mary, of whom out of honour to the Lord I wish no question to be made where sins are treated of--for how do we know what mode of grace wholly to conquer sin may have been bestowed upon her who was found meet to conceive and bear Him of whom it is certain that He had no sin." A writer so late as Anselm (_Cur deus homo_, ii. 16), declares that "the Virgin herself whence He (Christ) was assumed was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did her mother conceive her, and with original sin was she born, because she too sinned in Adam in whom all sinned," and the same view was expressed by Damiani. For the growth of the modern Roman doctrine of the immaculate conception from the time in the 12th century, when the canons of Lyons sought to institute a festival in honour of her "holy conception," and were remonstrated with by Bernard, see IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. The epithets applied to her in the Greek Church are such as [Greek: amolyntos, panagnos, hagia, panagia]; but in the East generally no clear distinction is drawn between immunity from actual sin and original sinlessness.

_Her Peculiar Relation to the Godhead, which specially fits Her for Successful Intercession on Behalf of Mankind._--It seems probable that the epithet [Greek: theotokos] ("Mother of God") was first applied to Mary by theologians of Alexandria towards the close of the 3rd century; but it does not occur in any genuine extant writing of that period, unless we are to assign an early date to the apocryphal _Transitus Mariae_, in which the word is of frequent occurrence. In the 4th century it is met with frequently, being used by Eusebius, Athanasius, Didymus and Gregory of Nazianzus,--the latter declaring that the man who believes not Mary to have been [Greek: theotokos] has no part in God (_Orat._ li. p. 738).[3] If its use was first recommended by a desire to bring into prominence the divinity of the Incarnate Word, there can be no doubt that latterly the expression came to be valued as directly honourable to Mary herself and as corresponding to the greatly increased esteem in which she personally was held throughout the Catholic world, so that when Nestorius and others began to dispute its propriety, in the following century, their temerity was resented, not as an attack upon the established orthodox doctrine of the Nicene creed, but as threatening a more vulnerable and more tender part of the popular faith. It is sufficient in illustration of the drift of theological opinion to refer to the first sermon of Proclus, preached on a certain festival of the Virgin ([Greek: panêgyris parthenikê]) at Constantinople about the year 430 or to that of Cyril of Alexandria delivered in the church of the Virgin Mary at the opening of the council of Ephesus in 431. In the former the orator speaks of "the holy Virgin and Mother of God" as "the spotless treasure-house of virginity, the spiritual paradise of the second Adam; the workshop in which two natures were welded together ... the one bridge between God and men";[4] in the latter she is saluted as the "mother and virgin," "through whom ([Greek: di' hês]) the Trinity is glorified and worshipped, the cross of the Saviour exalted and honoured, through whom heaven triumphs, the angels are made glad, devils driven forth, the tempter overcome, and the fallen creature raised up even to heaven." The response which such language found in the popular heart was sufficiently shown by the shouts of joy with which the Ephesian mob heard of the deposition of Nestorius, escorting his judges with torches and incense to their homes, and celebrating the occasion by a general illumination. The causes which in the preceding century had led to this exaltation of the Mother of God in the esteem of the Catholic world are not far to seek. On the one hand the solution of the Arian controversy, however correct it may have been theoretically, undoubtedly had the practical effect of relegating the God-man redeemer for ordinary minds into a far away region of "remote and awful Godhead," so that the need for a mediator to deal with the very Mediator could not fail to be felt. On the other hand, the religious instincts of mankind are very ready to pay worship, in grosser or more refined forms, to the idea of womanhood; at all events many of those who became professing Christians at the political fall of Paganism entered the Church with such instincts (derived from the nature-religions in which they had been brought up) very fully developed. Probably it ought to be added that the comparative colourlessness with which the character of Mary is presented, not only in the canonical gospels but even in the most copious of the apocrypha, left greater scope for the untrammelled exercise of devout imagination than was possible in the case of Christ, in the circumstances of whose humiliation and in whose recorded utterances there were many things which the religious consciousness found difficulty in understanding or in adapting to itself. At all events, from the time of the council of Ephesus, to exhibit figures of the Virgin and Child became the approved expression of orthodoxy, and the relationship of motherhood in which Mary had been formally declared to stand to God[5] was instinctively felt to give the fullest and freest sanction of the Church to that invocation of her aid which had previously been resorted to only hesitatingly and occasionally. Previously to the council of Ephesus, indeed, the practice had obtained complete recognition, so far as we know, in those circles only in which one or other of the numerous redactions of the _Transitus Mariae_ passed current.[6] There we read of Mary's prayer to Christ: "Do Thou bestow Thine aid upon every man calling upon, or praying to, or naming the name of Thine handmaid"; to which His answer is, "Every soul that calls upon Thy name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and support and confidence both in the world that now is and in that which is to come in the presence of My Father in the heavens." But Gregory of Nazianzus also, in his panegyric upon Justina, mentions with incidental approval that in her hour of peril she "implored Mary the Virgin to come to the aid of a virgin in her danger."[7] Of the growth of the Marian cultus, alike in the East and in the West, after the decision at Ephesus it would be impossible to trace the history, however slightly, within the limits of the present article. Justinian in one of his laws bespeaks her advocacy for the empire, and he inscribes the high altar in the new church of St Sophia with her name. Narses looks to her for directions on the field of battle. The emperor Heraclius bears her image on his banner. John of Damascus speaks of her as the sovereign lady to whom the whole creation has been made subject by her son. Peter Damian recognizes her as the most exalted of all creatures, and apostrophizes her as deified and endowed with all power in heaven and in earth, yet not forgetful of our race.[8] In a word, popular devotion gradually developed the entire system of doctrine and practice which Protestant controversialists are accustomed to call by the name of Mariolatry. With reference to this much-disputed phrase it is always to be kept in mind that the directly authoritative documents, alike of the Greek and of the Roman Church, distinguish formally between _latria_ and _dulia_, and declare that the "worship" to be paid to the mother of God must never exceed that superlative degree of _dulia_ which is vaguely described as _hyperdulia_. But the comparative reserve shown by the council of Trent in its decrees, and even in its catechism,[9] on this subject has not been observed by individual theologians, and in view of the fact of the canonization of some of these (such as Liguori)--a fact guaranteeing the absence of erroneous teaching from their writings--it does not seem unfair, to hold the Roman Church responsible for the natural interpretations and just inferences which may be drawn even from apparently exaggerated expressions in such works as the well-known _Glories of Mary_ and others frequently quoted in controversial literature. There is a good _résumé_ of Catholic developments of the cultus of Mary in Pusey's _Eirenicon_.

The following are the principal feasts of the Virgin in the order in which they occur in the ecclesiastical year. (1) That of the Presentation (_Praesentatio B. V. M._, [Greek: ta eisodia tês theotokou]), to commemorate the beginning of her stay in the Temple, as recorded in the _Protevangelium Jacobi_. It is believed to have originated in the East in the 8th century, the earliest allusion to it being made by George of Nicomedia (9th century); Manuel Comnenus made it universal for the Eastern Empire, and in the modern Greek Church it is one of the five great festivals in honour of the Deipara. It was introduced into the Western Church late in the 14th century, and, after having been withdrawn from the calendar by Pius V., was restored by Sixtus V., the day observed in both East and West being the 21st of November. It is not mentioned in the English calendar. (2) The Feast of the Conception (_Conceptio B. V. M._, _Conceptio immaculata B. V. M._, [Greek: sullêpsis tês hagias Hannês]), observed by the Roman Catholic Church on the 8th of December, and by all the Eastern Churches on the 9th of December, has already been explained; in the Greek Church it only ranks as one of the middle festivals of Mary. (3) The Feast of the Purification (_Occursus_, _Obviatio_, _Praesentatio_, _Festum SS Simeonis et Annae_, _Purificatio_, _Candelaria_, [Greek: hupapantê], [Greek: hupantê]) is otherwise known as CANDLEMAS. (4) The Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary (_Annunciatio_, [Greek: Euaggelismos]). It may be mentioned that at the council of Toledo in 656 it was decreed that this festival should be observed on the 18th of December, in order to keep clear of Lent. (5) The Feast of the Visitation (_Visitatio B. V. M._) was instituted by Urban VI., promulgated in 1389 by Boniface IX., and reappointed by the council of Basel in 1441 in commemoration of the visit paid by Mary to Elizabeth. It is observed on the 2nd of July, and has been retained in the English calendar. (6) The Feast of the Assumption (_Dormitio_, _Pausatio_, _Transitus_, _Depositio_, _Migratio_, _Assumptio_, [Greek: kaimêsis], [Greek: metastasis], [Greek: analêpsis]) has reference to the apocryphal story related in several forms in various documents of the 4th century condemned by Pope Gelasius. Their general purport is that as the time drew nigh for "the most blessed Virgin" (who is also spoken of as "Holy Mary," "the queen of all the saints," "the holy spotless Mother of God") to leave the world, the apostles were miraculously assembled round her deathbed at Bethlehem on the Lord's Day, whereupon Christ descended with a multitude of angels and received her soul. After "the spotless and precious body" had been laid in the tomb, "suddenly there shone round them (the apostles) a miraculous light," and it was taken up into heaven. The first Catholic writer who relates this story is Gregory of Tours (c. 590); Epiphanius two centuries earlier had declared that nothing was known as to the circumstances of Mary's death and burial; and one of the documents of the council of Ephesus implies a belief that she was buried in that city. The Sleep of the Theotokos is observed in the Greek Church as a great festival on the 15th of August; the Armenian Church also commemorates it, but the Ethiopic Church celebrates her death and burial on two separate days. The earliest allusion to the existence of such a festival in the Western Church seems to be that found in the proceedings of the synod of Salzburg in 800; it is also spoken of in the thirty-sixth canon of the reforming synod of Mainz, held in 813. It was not at that time universal, being mentioned as doubtful in the capitularies of Charlemagne. The doctrine of the bodily assumption of the Virgin into heaven, although extensively believed, and indeed flowing as a natural theological consequence from that of her sinlessness, has never been declared to be "de fide" by the Church of Rome, and is still merely a "pia sententia." (7) The Nativity of Mary (_Nativitas_, [Greek: genethlion tês theotokou]) observed on the 8th of September, is first mentioned in one of the homilies of Andrew of Crete (c. 750), and with the Feasts of the Purification, the Annunciation and the Assumption, it was appointed to be observed by the synod of Salzburg in 800, but seems to have been unknown at that time in the Gallican Church, and even two centuries later it was by no means general in Italy. In the Roman Catholic Church a large number of minor festivals in honour of the Virgin are locally celebrated; and all the Saturdays of the year as well as the entire month of May are also regarded as sacred to her.

The chief apocryphal writings concerned with Mary are the following: (1) The _Portevangelium Jacobi_, with its derivatives the _De nativitate Mariae_, the _Evangelium Ps.-Matthaei_, the _Historia Josephi fabri lignarii_ (all edited by Tischendorf, _Evangelia apocrypha_; cf. Harnack, _Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur_, p. 20 seq. and _Chronologie_, i. 598 sqq.). (2) _Evangelium Mariae_ (see _Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen Akademie der Wissenschaften_ 1896, pp. 839-847). (3) [Greek: Iôannou tou theologou logos eis tên koimêsin tês theotokou], which appears in Latin under the title of the _Transitus Mariae_ (ed. Tischendorf, _Apocalypses apocryphae_ and _Evangelia apocrypha_, and see Bonnet, _Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol._, 1880, pp. 222-247). (J. S. Bl.; K. L.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The name (Heb. [Hebrew: Miriam]), that of the sister of Moses and Aaron, is of uncertain etymology; many interpretations have been suggested, including _Stella maris_ ("star of the sea"), which, though it has attained considerable currency through Jerome (the _Onomasticon_), may be at once dismissed. It seems to have been very common among the Jews in New Testament times: besides the subject of the present notice there are mentioned (1) "Mary (the wife) of Clopas," who was perhaps the mother of James "the little" ([Greek: ho mikros]) and of Joses; (2) Mary Magdalene, i.e. of Magdala; (3) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus; (4) Mary, the mother of Mark; and (5) Mary, an otherwise unknown benefactress of the apostle Paul (Rom. xvi. 6).

[2] _De Inst. Virg._, "quæ est hæc porta nisi Maria? ... per quam Christus intravit in hunc mundum, quando virginali fusus est partu et genitalia virginitatis claustra non solvit."

[3] See Gieseler (_KG._, Bd. i. Abth. 1), who points out instances in which anti-Arianizing zeal went so far as to call David [Greek: theopatôr] and James [Greek: adelphotheos].

[4] Labbé, _Conc._ iii. 51. Considerable extracts are given by Augusti (_Denkw._ iii.); see also Milman (_Lat. Christ._ i. 185), who characterizes much of it as a "wild labyrinth of untranslatable metaphor."

[5] The term [Greek: theotokas] does not actually occur in the canons of Ephesus. It is found, however, in the creed of Chalcedon.

[6] It is true that Irenaeus (_Haer._ v. 19, 1) in the passage in which he draws his well-known parallel and contrast between the first and second Eve (cf. Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._ 100), to the effect that "as the human race fell into bondage to death by a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin," takes occasion to speak of Mary as the "advocata" of Eve; but it seems certain that this word is a translation of the Greek [Greek: sunêgoros], and implies hostility and rebuke rather than advocacy.

[7] It is probable that the commemorations and invocations of the Virgin which occur in the present texts of the ancient liturgies of "St James" and "St Mark" are due to interpolation. In this connexion ought also to be noted the chapter in Epiphanius (_Haer._, 79) against the "Collyridians," certain women in Thrace, Scythia and Arabia, who were in the habit of worshipping the Virgin ([Greek: haei parthenon]) as a goddess, the offering of a cake ([Greek: kallurida tina]) being one of the features of their worship. He rebukes them for offering the worship which was due to the Trinity alone; "let Mary be held in honour, but by no means worshipped." The cultus was probably a relic of heathenism; cf. Jer. xliv. 19.

[8] "Numquid quia ita deificata, ideo nostrae humanitatis oblita es? Nequaquam, Domina.... Data est tibi omnis potestas in coelo et in terra. Nil tibi impossibile." _Serm. de nativ. Mariae_, ap. Gieseler, _KG._, Bd. ii. Abth. 1.

[9] The points taught in the catechism are--that she is truly the Mother of God, and the second Eve, by whose means we have received blessing and life; that she is the Mother of Pity, and very specially our advocate; that her merits are highly exalted, and that her dispositions towards us are extremely gracious; that her images are of the utmost utility. In the _Missal_ her intercessions (though alluded to in the canon and elsewhere) are seldom directly appealed to except in the Litany and in some of the later offices, such as those for the 8th of September and for the Festival of the Seven Sorrows (decree by Benedict XIII. in 1727). Noteworthy are the versicles in the office for the 8th of December (The Feast of the Immaculate Conception), "Tota pulchra es, Maria, et macula originalis non est in te," and "Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, Maria, quia fecit tibi magna qui potens est."

MARY, known as MARY MAGDALENE, a woman mentioned in the Gospels, first in Luke viii. 2, as one of a company who "healed of evil spirits and infirmities ... ministered unto them (Jesus and the apostles) of their substance." It is said that seven demons were cast out of her, but this need not imply simply one occasion. Her name implies that she came from Magdala (el-Mejdel, 3 m. N.W. from Tiberias: in Matt. XV. 39 the right reading is not Magdala by Magadan). She went with Jesus on the last journey to Jerusalem, witnessed the Crucifixion, followed to the burial, and returned to prepare spices. John XX. gives an account of her finding the tomb empty and of her interview with the risen Jesus. Mary of Magdala has been confounded (1) with the unnamed fallen woman who in Simon's house anointed Christ's feet (Luke vii. 37); (2) with Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha.

MARY I., queen of England (1516-1558), unpleasantly remembered as "the Bloody Mary" on account of the religious persecutions which prevailed during her reign, was the daughter of Henry VIII. and Catherine of Aragon, born in the earlier years of their married life, when as yet no cloud had darkened the prospect of Henry's reign. Her birth occurred at Greenwich, on Monday, the 18th February 1516, and she was baptized on the following Wednesday, Cardinal Wolsey standing as her godfather. She seems to have been a singularly precocious child, and is reported in July 1520, when scarcely four and a half years old, as entertaining some visitors by a performance on the virginals. When she was little over nine she was addressed in a complimentary Latin oration by commissioners sent over from Flanders on commercial matters, and replied to them in the same language "with as much assurance and facility as if she had been twelve years old" (Gayangos, iii. pt. 1, 82). Her father was proud of her achievements. About the same time that she replied to the commissioners in Latin he was arranging that she should learn Spanish, Italian and French. A great part, however, of the credit of her early education was undoubtedly due to her mother, who not only consulted the Spanish scholar Vives upon the subject, but was herself Mary's first teacher in Latin. She was also well instructed in music, and among her principal recreations as she grew up was that of playing on the virginals and lute.

It was a misfortune that she shared with high-born ladies generally in those days that her prospects in life were made a matter of sordid bargaining from the first. Mary was little more than two years old when she was proposed in marriage to the dauphin, son of Francis I. Three years afterwards the French alliance was broken off, and in 1522 she was affianced to her cousin the young emperor Charles V. by the Treaty of Windsor. No one, perhaps, seriously expected either of these arrangements to endure; and, though we read in grave state papers of some curious compliments and love tokens (really the mere counters of diplomacy) professedly sent by the girl of nine to her powerful cousin, not many years passed away before Charles released himself from this engagement and made a more convenient match. In 1526 a rearrangement was made of the royal household, and it was thought right to give Mary an establishment of her own along with a council on the borders of Wales, for the better government of the Marches. For some years she accordingly kept her court at Ludlow, while new arrangements were made for the disposal of her hand. She was now proposed as a wife, not for the dauphin as before, but for his father Francis I., who had just been redeemed from captivity at Madrid, and who was only too glad of an alliance with England to mitigate the severe conditions imposed on him by the emperor. Wolsey, however, on this occasion, only made use of the princess as a bait to enhance the terms of the compact, and left Francis free in the end to marry the emperor's sister.

It was during this negotiation, as Henry afterwards pretended, that the question was first raised whether Henry's own marriage with Catherine was a lawful one. Grammont, bishop of Tarbes, who was one of the ambassadors sent over by Francis to ask the princess in marriage, had, it was said, started an objection that she might possibly be considered illegitimate on account of her mother having been once the wife of her father's brother. The statement was a mere pretence to shield the king when the unpopularity of the divorce became apparent. It is proved to be untrue by the strongest evidence, for we have pretty full contemporary records of the whole negotiation. On the contrary, it is quite clear that Henry, who had already for some time conceived the project of a divorce, kept the matter a dead secret, and was particularly anxious that the French ambassadors should not know it, while he used his daughter's hand as a bait for a new alliance. The alliance itself, however, was actually concluded by a treaty dated Westminster, the 30th of April 1527, in which it was provided, as regards the Princess Mary, that she should be married either to Francis himself or to his second son Henry duke of Orleans. But the real object was only to lay the foundation of a perfect mutual understanding between the two kings, which Wolsey soon after went into France to confirm.

During the next nine years the life of Mary, as well as that of her mother, was rendered miserable by the conduct of Henry VIII. in seeking a divorce. During most of that period mother and daughter seem to have been kept apart. Possibly Queen Catherine had the harder trial; but Mary's was scarcely less severe. Removed from court and treated as a bastard, she was, on the birth of Anne Boleyn's daughter, required to give up the dignity of princess and acknowledge the illegitimacy of her own birth. On her refusal her household was broken up, and she was sent to Hatfield to act as lady-in-waiting to her own infant half-sister. Nor was even this the worst of her trials; her very life was in danger from the hatred of Anne Boleyn. Her health, moreover, was indifferent, and even when she was seriously ill, although Henry sent his own physician, Dr Buttes, to attend her, he declined to let her mother visit her. So also at her mother's death, in January 1536, she was forbidden to take a last farewell of her. But in May following another change occurred. Anne Boleyn, the real cause of all her miseries, fell under the king's displeasure and was put to death. Mary was then urged to make a humble submission to her father as the means of recovering his favour, and after a good deal of correspondence with the king's secretary, Cromwell, she actually did so. The terms exacted of her were bitter in the extreme, but there was no chance of making life tolerable otherwise, if indeed she was permitted to live at all; and the poor friendless girl, absolutely at the mercy of a father who could brook no contradiction, at length subscribed an act of submission, acknowledging the king as "Supreme Head of the Church of England under Christ," repudiating the pope's authority, and confessing that the marriage between her father and mother "was by God's law and man's law incestuous and unlawful."

No act, perhaps, in the whole of Henry's reign gives us a more painful idea of his revolting despotism. Mary was a high-spirited girl, and undoubtedly popular. All Europe looked upon her at that time as the only legitimate child of her father, but her father himself compelled her to disown the title and pass an unjust stigma on her own birth and her mother's good name. Nevertheless Henry was now reconciled to her, and gave her a household in some degree suitable to her rank. During the rest of the reign we hear little about her except in connexion with a number of new marriage projects taken up and abandoned successively, one of which, to the count palatine Philip, duke of Bavaria, was specially repugnant to her in the matter of religion. Her privy purse expenses for nearly the whole of this period have been published, and show that Hatfield, Beaulieu or Newhall in Essex, Richmond and Hunsdon were among her principal places of residence. Although she was still treated as of illegitimate birth, it was believed that the king, having obtained from parliament the extraordinary power to dispose of the crown by will, would restore her to her place in the succession, and three years before his death she was so restored by statute, but still under conditions to be regulated by her father's will.

Under the reign of her brother, Edward VI. she was again subjected to severe trials, which at one time made her seriously meditate taking flight and escaping abroad. Edward himself indeed seems to have been personally not unkind to her, but the religious revolution in his reign assumed proportions such as it had not done before, and Mary, who had done sufficient violence to her own convictions in submitting to a despotic father, was not disposed to yield an equally tame obedience to authority exercised by a factious council in the name of a younger brother not yet come to years of discretion. Besides, the cause of the pope was naturally her own. In spite of the forced declaration formerly wrung from herself, no one really regarded her as a bastard, and the full recognition of her rights depended on the recognition of the pope as head of the Church. Hence, when Edward's parliament passed an Act of Uniformity enjoining services in English and communion in both kinds, the law appeared to her totally void of authority, and she insisted on having Mass in her own private chapel under the old form. When ordered to desist, she appealed for protection to the emperor Charles V., who, being her cousin, intervened for some time not ineffectually, threatening war with England if her religious liberty was interfered with. But Edward's court was composed of factions of which the most violent eventually carried the day. Lord Seymour, the admiral, was attainted of treason and beheaded in 1549. His brother, the Protector Somerset, met with the same fate in 1552. Dudley, duke of Northumberland, then became paramount in the privy council, and easily obtained the sanction of the young king to those schemes for altering the succession which led immediately after his death to the usurpation of Lady Jane Grey. Dudley had, in fact, overawed all the rest of the privy council, and when the event occurred he took such energetic measures to give effect to the scheme that Lady Jane was actually recognized as queen for some days, and Mary had even to fly from Hunsdon into Norfolk. But the country was really devoted to her cause, as indeed her right in law was unquestionable, and before many days she was royally received in London, and took up her abode within the Tower.

Her first acts at the beginning of her reign displayed a character very different from that which she still holds in popular estimation. Her clemency towards those who had taken up arms against her was altogether remarkable. She released from prison Lady Jane's father, Suffolk, and had difficulty even in signing the warrant for the execution of Northumberland. Lady Jane herself she fully meant to spare, and did spare till after Wyatt's formidable insurrecti