VOLUME XVII SLICE VI Map to Mars (continued 8)

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

(C. B. P.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARIE DE FRANCE (fl. c. 1175-1190), French poet and fabulist. In the introduction (c. 1240) to his Vie Seint Edmund le Rey1 Denis Pyramus says she was one of the most popular of authors with counts, barons and knights, but especially with ladies. She is also mentioned by the anonymous author of the Couronnement Renart. Her lays were translated into Norwegian2 by order of Haakon IV.; and Thomas Chestre, who is generally supposed to have lived in the reign of Henry VI., gave a version of Lanval.3 Very little is known about her history, and until comparatively recently the very century in which she lived remained a matter of dispute. In spite of her own statement in the epilogue to her fables: “Marie ai num, si suis de France,” generally interpreted to mean that Marie was a native of the Île de France, she seems to have been of Norman origin, and certainly spent most of her life in England. Her language, however, shows little trace of Anglo-Norman provincialism. Like Wace, she used a literary dialect which probably differed very widely from common Norman speech. The manuscripts in which Marie’s poems are preserved date from the late 13th or even the 14th century, but the language fixes the date of the poems in the second half of the 12th century. The Lais are dedicated to an unknown king, who is identified as Henry II. of England; and the fables, her Ysopet, were written according to the Epilogus for a Count William, generally recognized to be William Longsword, earl of Salisbury. The author of Couronnement Renart, says that Marie had dedicated her poem to the count William to whom the unknown poet addresses himself. This is William of Dampierre (d. 1251), the husband of the countess Margaret of Flanders, and his identification with Marie’s count William is almost certainly an error. Marie lived and wrote at the court of Henry II., which was very literary and purely French. Queen Eleanor was a Provençal, and belonged to a family in which the patronage of poetry was a tradition. There is no evidence to show whether Marie was of noble origin or simply pursued the profession of a trouvère for her living.

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

The Lais which may be definitely attributed to Marie are: Guigemar, Equitan, Le Frêne, Le Bisclavret (the werewolf), Les Deux amants, Laustic, Chaitivel, Lanval, Le Chèvrefeuille, Milon, Yonec and Eliduc. The other similar lays are anonymous except the Lai d’Ignaure by Renant and the Lai du cor of Robert Biket, two authors otherwise unknown. They vary in length from some twelve thousand lines to about a hundred. Le Chèvrefeuille, a short episode of the Tristan story, telling how Tristan makes known his presence in the wood to Iseult, is the best known of them all. Laustic4 (Le Rossignol) is almost as short and simple. In Yonec a mysterious bird visits the lady kept in durance by an old husband, and is turned into a valiant knight. The lover is killed by the husband, but in due time is avenged by his son. The scene of the story is partly laid in Chester, but the fable in slightly different forms occurs in the folk-lore of many countries.5 Lanval6 is a fairy story, and the hero vanishes eventually with his fairy princess to the island of Avallon or Avilion. Eliduc is more elaborately planned than any of these, and the action is divided between Exeter and Brittany. Here again the story of the man with two brides is not new, but the three characters of the story are so dealt with that each wins the reader’s sympathy. The resignation of the wife of Eliduc and her reception of the new bride find a parallel in another of the lays, Le Frêne. The story is in both cases more human and less repugnant than the, in some respects, similar story of Griselda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Cf. the Oiseau bleu of Mme d’Aulnoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Trafalgar)

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

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

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

1898 78,4411 17,099 95,540 17 Steam and mastless ships.

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

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

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

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

(J. C. R. C.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(T. As.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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