VOLUME XVII SLICE VI Map to Mars (continued 9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(G. Sa.)

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

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

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

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

The identification of the author of the second Gospel with Mark, which we owe to tradition, enables us to fill in our picture of him a little further. Thus it is possible that Mark was himself the youth (νεανίσκος) to whom his Gospel refers as present at Jesus’s arrest (xiv. 51 seq.; cf. his detailed knowledge as to the place of the last supper, 13 seq.). It is probably as evangelist, and not in his own person, that he became known as “he of the stunted extremities” (κολοβοδάκτυλος, “curt-fingered”), a title first found in Hippolytus (Haer. vii. 30), in a context which makes its metaphorical reference to his Gospel pretty evident.1 It was too as evangelist that he became personally a subject of later interest, and of speculative legends due to this, e.g. he was one of the Seventy (first found in Adamantius, Dial. de recta fide, 4th century), he was the founder of the Alexandrine Church (recorded as a tradition by Eusebius, ii. 16) and its first bishop (id. ii. 2), and was author of the local type of liturgy (cf. the Acts of Mark, ch. vii., not earlier than the end of the 4th century).

As to his last days and death nothing is really known. It is possible—even probable, if we accept the theory that he had already2 been there with Barnabas—that Alexandria was his final sphere of work, as the earliest tradition on the point implies (the Latin Prologue, and Eusebius as above, probably after Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century), and as was widely assumed in the 4th century. That he died and was buried there is first stated by Jerome (De vir. ill. 8), to which his Acts adds the glory of martyrdom (cf. Ps.-Hippolytus, De LXX Apostolis).

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

(J. V. B.)

Medieval Legends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(V. H. S.)

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

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

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

(1) A large number of parties dealing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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