VOLUME XVII SLICE VII Mars to Matteawan (continued 10)

After the outbreak of the war a somewhat indefinite, heterogeneous provisional government was in power till a constitution was adopted in 1780, when John Hancock became the first governor. Governor James Bowdoin in 1786-1787 put down with clemency an almost bloodless insurrection in the western counties (there was strong disaffection, however, as far east as Middlesex), known as the Shays Rebellion, significant of the rife ideas of popular power, the economic distress, and the unsettled political conditions of the years of the Confederation. Daniel Shays (1747-1825), the leader, was a brave Revolutionary captain of no special personal importance. The state debt was large, taxation was heavy, and industry was unsettled; worthless paper money was in circulation, yet some men demanded more; debtors were made desperate by prosecution; the state government seemed weak, the Federal government contemptibly so; the local courts would not, or from intimidation feared to, punish the turbulent, and demagogues encouraged ideas of popular power. A convention of delegates representing the malcontents of numerous towns in Worcester county met at Worcester on the 15th of August 1786 to consider grievances, and a week later a similar convention assembled at Hatfield, Hampshire county. Encouraged by these and other conventions in order to obstruct the collection of debts and taxes, a mob prevented a session of the Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions of the Peace at Northampton on the 29th of August, and in September other mobs prevented the same court from sitting in Worcester, Middlesex and Berkshire counties. About 1000 insurgents under Shays assembled at Springfield on the 26th of September to prevent the sitting there of the Supreme Court, from which they feared indictments. To protect the court and the national arsenal at Springfield, for which the Federal government was powerless to provide a guard, Major-General William Shepard (1737-1817) ordered out the militia, called for volunteers, and supplied them with arms from the arsenal, and the court sat for three days. The Federal government now attempted to enlist recruits, ostensibly to protect the western frontier from the Indians, but actually for the suppression of the insurrection; but the plan failed from lack of funds, and the insurgents continued to interrupt the procedure of the courts. In January 1787, however, Governor Bowdoin raised an army of 4400 men and placed it under the command of Major-General Benjamin Lincoln (1733-1810). While Lincoln was at Worcester Shays planned to capture the arsenal at Springfield, but on the 25th of January Shepard’s men fired upon Shays’s followers, killing four and putting the rest to flight. Lincoln pursued them to Petersham, Worcester county, where on the 4th of February he routed them and took 150 prisoners. Subsequently the insurgents gathered in small bands in Berkshire county; but here, a league having been formed to assist the government, 84 insurgents were captured at West Stockbridge, and the insurrection practically terminated in an action at Sheffield on the 27th of February, in which the insurgents lost 2 killed and 30 wounded and the militia 2 killed and 1 wounded. Two of the insurgent leaders, Daniel Shays and Eli Parsons, escaped to Vermont soon after the rout at Petersham. Fourteen other insurgents who were tried by the Supreme Court in the spring of 1787 were found guilty of treason and sentenced to death. They were, however, held rather as hostages for the good behaviour of worse offenders who had escaped, and were pardoned in September. In February 1788 Shays and Parsons petitioned for pardon, and this was granted by the legislature in the following June. The outcome of the uprising was an encouraging test of loyalty to the commonwealth; and the insurrection is regarded as having been very potent in preparing public opinion throughout the country for the adoption of a stronger national government. The Federal Constitution was ratified by Massachusetts by only a small majority on the 6th of February 1788, after its rejection had been at one time imminent; but Massachusetts became a strong Federalist state. Indeed, the general interest of her history in the quarter-century after the adoption of the Constitution lies mainly in her connexion with the fortunes of that great political party. Her leading politicians were out of sympathy with the conduct of national affairs (in the conduct of foreign relations, the distribution of political patronage, naval policy, the question of public debt) from 1804—when Jefferson’s party showed its complete supremacy—onward; and particularly after the passage of the Embargo Act of 1807, which caused great losses to Massachusetts commerce, and, so far from being accepted by her leaders as a proper diplomatic weapon, seemed to them designed in the interests of the Democratic party. The Federalist preference for England over France was strong in Massachusetts, and her sentiment was against the war with England of 1812-15. New England’s discontent culminated in the Hartford Convention (Dec. 1814), in which Massachusetts men predominated. The state, however, bore her full part in the war, and much of its naval success was due to her sailors.

During the interval till the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Massachusetts held a distinguished place in national life and politics. As a state she may justly be said to have been foremost in the struggle against slavery.22 She opposed the policy that led to the Mexican War in 1846, although a regiment was raised in Massachusetts by the personal exertions of Caleb Cushing. The leaders of the ultra non-political abolitionists (who opposed the formation of the Liberty party) were mainly Massachusetts men, notably W. L. Garrison and Wendell Phillips. The Federalist domination had been succeeded by Whig rule in the state; but after the death of the great Whig, Daniel Webster, in 1852, all parties disintegrated, re-aligning themselves gradually in an aggressive anti-slavery party and the temporizing Democratic party. First, for many years the Free-Soilers gained strength; then in 1855 in an extraordinary party upheaval the Know-Nothings quite broke up Democratic, Free-Soil and Whig organizations; the Free-Soilers however captured the Know-Nothing organization and directed it to their own ends; and by their junction with the anti-slavery Whigs there was formed the Republican party. To this the original Free-Soilers contributed as leaders Charles Sumner and C. F. Adams; the Know-Nothings, Henry Wilson and N. P. Banks; and later, the War Democrats, B. F. Butler—all men of mark in the history of the state. Charles Sumner, the most eminent exponent of the new party, was the state’s senator in Congress (1851-1874). The feelings which grew up, and the movements that were fostered till they rendered the Civil War inevitable, received something of the same impulse from Massachusetts which she had given a century before to the feelings and movements forerunning the War of American Independence. When the war broke out it was her troops who first received hostile fire in Baltimore, and turning their mechanical training to account opened the obstructed railroad to Washington. In the war thus begun she built, equipped and manned many vessels for the Federal navy, and furnished from 1861 to 1865 26,163 (or, including final credits, probably more than 30,000) men for the navy. During the war all but twelve small townships raised troops in excess of every call, the excess throughout the state amounting in all to more than 15,000 men; while the total recruits to the Federal army (including re-enlistments) numbered, according to the adjutant-general of the state, 159,165 men, of which less than 7000 were raised by draft.23 The state, as such, and the townships spent $42,605,517.19 in the war; and private contributions of citizens are reckoned in addition at about $9,000,000, exclusive of the aid to families of soldiers, paid then and later by the state.

Since the close of the war Massachusetts has remained generally steadfast in adherence to the principles of the Republican party, and has continued to develop its resources. Navigation, which was formerly the distinctive feature of its business prosperity, has under the pressure of laws and circumstances given place to manufactures, and the development of carrying facilities on the land rather than on the sea.

In the Spanish-American War of 1898 Massachusetts furnished 11,780 soldiers and sailors, though her quota was but 7388; supplementing from her own treasury the pay accorded them by the national government.

No statement of the influence which Massachusetts has exerted upon the American people, through intellectual activity, and even through vagary, is complete without an enumeration of the names which, to Americans at least, are the signs of this influence and activity. In science the state can boast of John Winthrop, the most eminent of colonial scientists; Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford); Nathaniel Bowditch, the translator of Laplace; Benjamin Peirce and Morse the electrician; not to include an adopted citizen in Louis Agassiz. In history, Winthrop and Bradford laid the foundations of her story in the very beginning; but the best example of the colonial period is Thomas Hutchinson, and in later days Bancroft, Sparks, Palfrey, Prescott, Motley and Parkman. In poetry, a pioneer of the modern spirit in American verse was Richard Henry Dana; and later came Bryant, Longfellow, Whittier, Lowell and Holmes. In philosophy and the science of living, Jonathan Edwards, Franklin, Channing, Emerson and Theodore Parker. In education, Horace Mann; in philanthropy, S. G. Howe. In oratory, James Otis, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, junr., Webster, Choate, Everett, Sumner, Winthrop and Wendell Phillips; and, in addition, in statesmanship, Samuel Adams, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. In fiction, Hawthorne and Mrs Stowe. In law, Story, Parsons and Shaw. In scholarship, Ticknor, William M. Hunt, Horatio Greenough, W. W. Story and Thomas Ball. The “transcendental movement,” which sprang out of German affiliations and produced as one of its results the well-known community of Brook Farm (1841-1847), under the leadership of Dr George Ripley, was a Massachusetts growth, and in passing away it left, instead of traces of an organization, a sentiment and an aspiration for higher thinking which gave Emerson his following. When Massachusetts was called upon to select for Statuary Hall in the capitol at Washington two figures from the long line of her worthies, she chose as her fittest representatives John Winthrop, the type of Puritanism and state-builder, and Samuel Adams (though here the choice was difficult between Samuel Adams and John Adams) as her greatest leader in the heroic period of the War of Independence.

Governors of Plymouth Colony

(Chosen annually by the people).

John Carver 1620-1621

William Bradford 1621-1633

Edward Winslow 1633-1634

Thomas Prence (or Prince) 1634-1635

William Bradford 1635-1636

Edward Winslow 1636-1637

William Bradford 1637-1638

Thomas Prence (or Prince) 1638-1639

William Bradford 1639-1644

Edward Winslow 1644-1645

William Bradford 1645-1657

Thomas Prence (or Prince) 1657-1673

Josiah Winslow 1673-1680

Thomas Hinckley 1680-1686

Sir Edmund Andros 1686-1689

Thomas Hinckley 1689-1692

Governors of Massachusetts

(Under the First Charter—chosen annually)

John Endecott24 1629-1630

John Winthrop 1630-1634

Thomas Dudley 1634-1635

John Haynes 1635-1636

Henry Vane 1636-1637

John Winthrop 1637-1640

Thomas Dudley 1640-1641

Richard Bellingham 1641-1642

John Winthrop 1642-1644

John Endecott 1644-1645

Thomas Dudley 1645-1646

John Winthrop 1646-1649

John Endecott 1649-1650

Thomas Dudley 1650-1651

John Endecott 1651-1654

Richard Bellingham 1654-1655

John Endecott 1655-1665

Richard Bellingham 1665-1672

John Leverett (acting, 1672-1673) 1672-1679

Simon Bradstreet 1679-1686

———————

Sir Edmund Andros 1686-1689

Simon Bradstreet 1689-1692

Under Second Charter—appointed by the Crown25

Sir William Phips 1692-1694

William Stoughton (acting) 1694-1699

Richard Coote, earl of Bellomont 1699-1700

William Stoughton (acting) 1700-1701

Joseph Dudley 1702-1715

William Tailer (acting) 1715-1716

Samuel Shute 1716-1722

William Dummer (acting) 1722-1728

William Burnet 1728-1729

William Dummer (acting) 1729-1730

William Tailer (acting) 1730

Jonathan Belcher 1730-1741

William Shirley 1741-1749

Spencer Phips (acting) 1749-1753

William Shirley 1753-1756

Spencer Phips (acting) 1756-1757

Thomas Pownal 1757-1760

Thomas Hutchinson (acting) 1760

Sir Francis Bernard, Bart 1760-1769

Thomas Hutchinson (acting) 1769-1771

Thomas Hutchinson 1771-1774

Thomas Gage26 1774-1775

Under the Constitution

John Hancock 1780-1785

James Bowdoin 1785-1787

John Hancock 1787-1793

Samuel Adams (acting) 1793-1794

Samuel Adams 1794-1797

Increase Sumner Federalist 1797-1799

Moses Gill (lieut-governor; acting) ” 1799-1800

Caleb Strong ” 1800-1807

Jas Sullivan Democratic-Republican 1807-1808

Levi Lincoln (acting) ” 1808-1809

Christopher Gore Federalist 1809-1810

Elbridge Gerry Democratic-Republican 1810-1812

Caleb Strong Federalist 1812-1816

John Brooks ” 1816-1823

William Eustis Democratic-Republican 1823-1825

Levi Lincoln ” 1825-1834

John Davis Whig 1834-1835

Edward Everett ” 1836-1840

Marcus Morton Democrat 1840-1841

John Davis Whig 1841-1843

Marcus Morton Democrat 1843-1844

George N Briggs Whig 1844-1851

George S Boutwell Free-Soil Democrat 1851-1853

John H Clifford Whig 1853-1854

Emory Washburn ” 1854-1855

Henry J Gardner Know-Nothing 1855-1858

Nathaniel P Banks Republican 1858-1861

Marcus Morton Democrat 1840-1841

John A. Andrew Republican 1861-1866

Alexander H. Bullock ” 1866-1869

William Claflin ” 1869-1872

William B. Washburn ” 1872-1874

Thomas Talbot (acting) ” 1874-1875

William Gaston Democrat 1875-1876

Alexander H. Rice Republican 1876-1879

Thomas Talbot ” 1879-1880

John Davis Long ” 1880-1883

Benjamin F. Butler Democrat 1883-1884

George D. Robinson Republican 1884-1887

Oliver Ames ” 1887-1890

John Q. A. Brackett ” 1890-1891

William E. Russell Democrat 1891-1894

Frederic T. Greenhalge Republican 1894-1896

Roger Wolcott ” 1896-1897

Roger Wolcott ” 1897-1900

W. Murray Crane ” 1900-1903

John L. Bates ” 1903-1905

William L. Douglas Democrat 1905-1906

Curtis L. Guild Republican 1906-1909

Eben S. Draper ” 1909-1911

Eugene N. Foss Democrat 1911-

Bibliography.—For Topography: W. M. Davis, Physical Geography of Southern New England (New York, 1895), and for the western counties, R. D. Mallary, Lenox and the Berkshire Highlands (New York-London, 1902); also Inland Massachusetts, Illustrated ... (Springfield, 1890); C. F. Warner, Picturesque Berkshire (also Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Northampton, 1890-1893); U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 116, H. Gannett, “Geographic Dictionary of Massachusetts.” On Minerals: U.S. Census, 1900, and U.S. Geological Survey, annual volume on Mineral Resources. On Agriculture: U.S. Census and reports of Mass. Census (alternating with Federal census), and reports and bulletins of the Board of Agriculture (1852) and the Agricultural College (1867), and Experiment Station (1883) at Amherst. On Manufactures, &c.: See Reports of state and Federal censuses; also Annual Reports (1869) of the state Bureau of Statistics of Labor, which contain a wealth of valuable material (e.g. 1903, “Race in Industry”; 1902, “Sex in Industry”; 1885, “Wages and Prices, 1752-1863,” &c.); W. R. Bagnall, The Textile Industries of the United States (vol. i., 1639-1810, Cambridge, 1893); J. L. Hayes, “American Textile Machinery: its Early History, &c.” (Cambridge, 1870; Bulletin of National Association of Wool Manufacturers), and literature therein referred to. On Commerce and Communications: U.S. Census, 1902 (vol. on “Electric Railways”); U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission, annual Statistics of Railways; publications of the State Board of Trade; W. Hill on “First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States” in American Economic Association Publications, vol. viii., no. 6 (1893). On Population: Census reports, state and Federal, publications of Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Board of Health (1869-; the Annual Report of 1896 contains an exhaustive analysis of vital statistics, 1856-1895); Board of Charity (1878- ), &c. On Administration: G. H. Haynes, Representation and Suffrage in Massachusetts, 1620-1691, in Johns Hopkins University, Studies in History, xii.; Manual for the General Court (Annual); R. H. Whitten, Public Administration in Massachusetts, in Columbia University, Studies in History, vol. viii. (1898); H. R. Spencer, Constitutional Conflict in Provincial Massachusetts (Columbus, O., 1905); and the annual Public Documents of Massachusetts, embracing the reports of all state officers and institutions. On Taxation: See especially the official “Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Expediency of Revising and Amending the Laws ... Relating to Taxation” (1897), and vol. xi. of the Report of the United States Industrial Commission (Wash., 1901); H. G. Friedman, The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts (New York, 1907); and C. J. Bullock, Historical Sketch of the Finances and Financial Policy of Massachusetts (1907). On Education: See Annual Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education; G. G. Bush, History of Higher Education in Massachusetts (Washington, U.S. Bureau of Education, 1891); article on Harvard University. On History: Elaborate bibliography is given in J. Winsor’s Narrative and Critical History of America and in his Memorial History of Boston. The colonial historical classics are William Bradford, History of Plimoth Plantation (pub. by the commonwealth, 1898; also edited by Charles Deane, in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1856, series 4, vol. iii.); J. Winthrop, History of New England 1630-1649, edited by J. Savage (Boston, 2 vols. 1825-1826, new ed., 1853); S. E. Sewall, Diary, 1674-1729 (3 vols., Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, series 5, vols. v.-vii., 1878-1882), a fascinating and microscopic picture of colonial life; T. Hutchinson, History of ... Massachusetts (3 vols., respectively Boston, 1764, 1767, London, 1828); also the very valuable Hutchinson Papers (2 vols., Prince Society, Boston, 1865). For the period 1662-1666, when Massachusetts was investigated by royal commissioners, see Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, series 2, vol. viii., 1819; on the Andros period, 1689-1691, see the Andros Tracts (3 vols., Prince Society Publications, v.-vii., Boston, 1868-1874), ed. by J. H. Whitmore. The one-time-standard general history was that of J. G. Palfrey, History of New England (5 vols., Boston, 1858-1890), to the War of Independence. It is generally accurate in facts but written in an unsatisfactorily eulogistic vein. Of importance in more modern views is a volume of Lectures Delivered ... before the Lowell Institute ... by Members of the Massachusetts Historical Society on Subjects Relating to the Early History of Massachusetts (Boston, 1869), perhaps especially the lectures of G. E. Ellis, later expanded, and in the process somewhat weakened, into his Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, 1629-1685 (Boston, 1888; 3rd ed., 1891). See C. F. Adams, Massachusetts: its Historians and its History (Boston, 1893), for a critique of the “filiopietistic” traditions of Massachusetts writers; also his Three Episodes of Massachusetts History,—namely, Settlement of the Colony, Antinomianism, and church and town government in Quincy from 1634-1888 (2 vols., Boston, 1892). On town government see further E. Channing in Johns Hopkins University, Studies in History vol. ii. (1884); P. E. Aldrich in American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, new series, vol. 3, pp. 111-124; and C. F. Adams and others in Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 2nd series, vol. vii (1892). On the Pilgrims and Puritans: See article Plymouth; also E. H. Byington, The Puritan in England and America (Boston, 1896) and The Puritan as Colonist and Reformer (Boston, 1899). On the Quaker Persecution: R. P. Hallowell, The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts (Boston, 1883; rev. ed., 1887). On Witchcraft: See C. W. Upham, Witchcraft in Salem (2 vols., Boston, 1867); S. G. Drake, Annals of Witchcraft (Boston, 1869) and The Witchcraft Delusion in New England (3 vols., Roxbury, 1866), this last a reprint of accounts of the time by Cotton Mather and R. Calef; W. F. Poole, “Cotton Mather and Salem Witchcraft” (North American Review, April 1869); and controversy of A. C. Goodell and G. H. Moore in Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings. On Slavery: G. H. Moore, Notes on the History of Slavery (New York, 1866); E. Washburn in Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, series 4, iv., 333-346; C. Deane in same, pp. 375-442, and in Proceedings, American Antiquarian Society, new series, iv., 191-222. In the essays of J. R. Lowell are two on “New England two Centuries Ago” and “Witchcraft.” For economic history, W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789 (2 vols., Boston, 1890); C. H. J. Douglas, The Financial History of Massachusetts ... to the American Revolution (in Columbia University Studies, vol i., 1892). On the revolutionary epoch, Mellen Chamberlain, John Adams... with other Essays and Addresses (Boston, 1898); T. Hutchinson, Diary and Letters (2 vols., Boston, 1884-1886); H. A. Cushing, Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts (Columbia University Studies in History, vol. iii., 1896); S. B. Harding, Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in Massachusetts (Harvard University Studies, New York, 1896); and on the Shays Rebellion compare J. P. Warren in American Historical Review (Oct., 1905). On New England discontent preceding 1812, Henry Adams, Documents Relating to New England Federalism, 1780-1815 (Boston, 1877); T. W. Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the War of 1861-65 (Official, Boston, 2 vols., 1896). For a list of the historical societies of the state consult A. M. Davis in Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, vol. i.; the most important are the Massachusetts Historical Society, established 1791, publishing Collections and Proceedings (Boston) and the American Antiquarian Society, established 1812, publishing Proceedings (Worcester). In many cases the most valuable material on various periods is indicated under the biographies (or autobiographies in some cases) of the public men named in the above article, to which add Timothy Pickering, George Cabot, Joseph Warren, Elbridge Gerry, Benjamin F. Butler, G. S. Boutwell and George F. Hoar. Many townships have published their local records, and many township and county histories contain valuable matter of general interest (e.g. as showing in detail township action before the War of Independence), though generally weighted heavily with genealogy and matters of merely local interest. In American works of fiction, particularly of New England authors, the reader will find a wealth of description of Massachusetts and New England life, past and present, as in the writings of William D. Howells, Sarah O. Jewett, Mary E. Wilkins-Freeman, Harriet B. Stowe and others.

1 At least seventy hills in the state, mainly in this quarter, have an elevation of 1500 ft. (twenty-four above 2000 ft.).

2 In some localities it is not easy to establish irrefutably and in detail the inter-arrangement of drainage and rock structure that proves it to be a subaerial peneplain instead of an uplifted submarine platform; but the general proof is very clear.

3 The yield of cereals and of such other crops in 1907 as are recorded in the Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture was as follows: Indian corn, 1,584,000 bushels; oats, 245,000 bushels; barley, 64,000 bushels; buckwheat, 42,000 bushels; potatoes, 3,600,000 bushels; hay, 760,000 tons; tobacco, 7,167,500 ℔. In the same year, according to the same authority, there were in the state 196,000 milch cows, 92,000 other neat cattle, 45,000 sheep and 70,000 swine.

4 The Green Schists and Associated Granites and Porphyries of Rhode Island, Bulletin, U.S. Geological Survey, No. 311, 1907.

5 In 1905 Massachusetts produced 60.7% of the writing paper manufactured in the country. Besides writing paper, book paper and building paper are made in the state, but very little newspaper.

6 It must be noted, however, that the first successful construction of cards, drawing and roving, and of spindles, on the Arkwright principle was by S. Slater at Pawtucket, Rhode Island in 1790.

7 The tax valuation on ships engaged in foreign trade was lowered between 1884 and 1900 from $2,801,405 to $147,768.

8 The population of the state was 378,787 in 1790; 422,845 in 1800; 472,040 in 1810; 523,287 in 1820; 610,408 in 1830; 737,699 in 1840; 994,514 in 1850; 1,231,066 in 1860; 1,457,351 in 1870; 1,783,085 in 1880; 2,238,943 in 1890; and 2,805,346 in 1900. In 1905, according to the state census, the population was 3,003,680, or about 7.7% more than in 1900.

9 In 1910 the following townships each had populations of more than 15,000: Revere, Leominster, Westfield, Attleborough, Peabody, Hyde Park.

10 The birth-rates every fifth (census) year up to 1895 varied for natives from 14.48 to 19.49; for foreigners from 45.87 to 66.68. The marriage rates in quinquennial periods up to 1905 were 19.6, 18.6, 21.0, 19.8, 15.6, 18.6, 18.6, 18.6, 17.4 and 17.4; the ratio of marriages to the marriageable population was for males (above 16 years) 61.5, for females (above 14) 46.0; the fecundity of marriages seemed to have increased, being about twice as high for foreigners as for natives. See Annual Report of the Board of Health (1896), by S. W. Abbott; and Sixty-fourth Report of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Massachusetts (1906).

11 The number of representatives from 1832 to 1908 varied from 240 to 635, and the length of session from 58 to 206 days (since 1867 none of under 100 days), with an almost continual increase in both respects.

12 However, every office-holder was, and every subject might be, required to take (though this was not a condition of the franchise) the oaths enjoined by parliament in the first year of the reign of William and Mary as a substitute for the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; and the same still applies to the signing of the Declaration.

13 From 1887-1900, out of 290 cases settled, only 107 were formal arbitrations, 124 agreements were effected by the mediation of the Board, 100 were effected otherwise while proceedings were pending, and in 59 cases the Board interposed when the parties preferred hostilities.

14 For a summary statement of state labour laws in the United States in 1903 see Bulletin 54 of the United States Bureau of Labor, September 1904; and for a summary of labour laws in force at the end of 1907 see 22nd Annual Report (for 1907) of the U.S. Commissioner of Labor (Washington, 1908).

15 The usual allotment of the cost of this work is as follows: 65% is paid by the railway company, 25% by the commonwealth and 10% by the municipality in which the crossing is located.

16 The cost was apportioned between the commonwealth and the local government in the proportion of 3 to 1.

17 Boston remained a township, governed by town-meetings, until 1822, when it had a population of some 47,000. The government of Brookline (pop. in 1905, 23,436) is an interesting example of the adaptation of the township system to urban conditions. The town is frequently referred to as a model residential suburb; its budgets are very large, its schools are excellent, and, among other things, it has established a township gymnasium. The town hall is not large enough for an assemblage of all the voters, but actually the attendance is usually limited to about 200, and since 1901 there has been in force a kind of referendum, under which any measure passed by a town-meeting attended by 700 or more voters may be referred, upon petition of 100 legal voters, to a regular vote at the polls. Much of the work of the town-meetings is done through special committees.

18 E. G. Brown, in Monographs on Education in the United States prepared for the Paris Exposition of 1900 and edited by N. M. Butler.

19 This is an especially honourable distinction, for William T. Harris has said that “The history of education since the time of Horace Mann is very largely an account of the successive modifications introduced into elementary schools through the direct or indirect influence of the normal school.”

20 In 1869 the personalty valuation was 60% that of realty; but it steadily fell thereafter, amounting in 1893 to 32%. From 1874-1882 the assessment of realty increased nearly twelve times as much as personalty. In the intervening period the assessed valuation of realty in Boston increased more than 100%, while that of personalty slightly diminished (the corresponding figures for the entire United States from 1860 to 1890 being 172% and 12%), yet the most competent business and expert opinions regarded the true value of personalty as at least equal to and most likely twice as great as that of realty.

21 In this document, whose democracy is characteristic of differences between the Plymouth Colony and that of Massachusetts Bay, the signatories “solemnly and mutually ... covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame—[laws]—unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.” This was signed 11/21 of November 1620 by 41 persons.

22 Slavery had existed as a social fact from the earliest years, and legally after 1641; but it was never profitable, and was virtually abolished long before the War of American Independence; still it was never abolished explicitly by Massachusetts, though the slave trade was prohibited in 1788, and though a number of negroes were declared free after the adoption of the constitution of 1780 on the strength of the sweeping declaration of human rights in that instrument.

23 According to the final report of the U.S. Adjutant-General in 1885, the enlistments were 146,730 men, of whom 13,942 died in war. These figures are probably less accurate than those of the state.

24 Endecott, by commission dated the 30th of April 1629, was made “governor of London’s plantation in the Massachusetts Bay.” Matthew Cradock, first governor of the Company, from the 4th of March 1629 to the 20th of October 1629, was succeeded on the latter date by John Winthrop, who, on reaching Salem on the 12th of June 1630 with the charter, superseded Endecott.

25 During three periods, 1701-1702, in February 1715, and from April to August 1757 the affairs of the colony were administered by the Executive Council.

26 General Gage was military governor, Hutchinson remaining nominally civil governor.

MASSACRE, a wholesale indiscriminate killing of persons, and also, in a transferred sense, of animals. The word is adopted from the French; but its origin is obscure. The meaning and the old form macecle seem to point to it being a corruption of the Lat. macellum, butcher’s shop or shambles, hence meat market; this is probably from the root mac-, seen in μάχεσθαι, to fight, μάχαιρα, sword, and Lat. mactare, to sacrifice. Another derivation connects with the Old Low Ger. matsken, to cut in pieces; cf. mod. Ger. metzeln, to massacre.

MASSAGE. The word massage has of late years come into general use to signify the method of treating disease or other physical conditions by manipulating the muscles and joints. According to Littré the word is derived from the Arabic mass, and has the specific meaning of “pressing the muscular parts of the body with the hands, and exercising traction on the joints in order to give suppleness and stimulate vitality.” It was probably adopted from the Arabian physicians by the French, who have played a leading part in reviving this method of treatment, which has been practised from time immemorial, and by the most primitive people, but has from time to time fallen into disuse among Western nations. In the Odyssey the women are described as rubbing and kneading the heroes on their return from battle. In India, under the name “shampoo” (tshāmpuā), the same process has formed part of the native system of medicine from the most remote times; professional massers were employed there by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C. In China the method is also of great antiquity, and practised by a professional class; the Swedish gymnastic system instituted by Pehr Henrik Ling is derived from the book of Cong-Fou, the bonze of Tao-Sse. Hippocrates describes and enjoins the use of manipulation, especially in cases of stiff joints, and he was followed by other Greek physicians. Oribasius gives an account of the application of friction with the bare hands, which exactly corresponds with the modern practice of massage. It is worthy of note that the treatment, after being held in high esteem by the leading Greek physicians, fell into disrepute with the profession, apparently on account of its association with vicious abuses. The same drawback has made itself felt in the present day, and can only be met by the most scrupulous care in the choice of agents and the manner of their employment. Among the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and later the Turks, massage came to be part of the ordinary procedure of the bath without any special therapeutic intention, and the usage has survived until to-day; but that mode of application was no doubt a refinement of civilized life. Medical rubbing is older and more elementary than bathing, as we see from its employment by savages. Probably it was evolved independently among different races from the natural instinct—shared by the lower animals—which teaches to rub, press or lick any part of the body in which uneasiness is felt, and is therefore the oldest of all therapeutic means.

According to Weiss, the therapeutic use of massage was revived in Europe by Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente (1537-1619), who applied it to stiff joints and similar conditions. Paracelsus in his De medicina Aegyptiorum (1591), gives a description of methodical massage as practised by the Egyptians quite on modern lines. Thereafter it appears to have been adopted here and there by individual practitioners, and various references are made to it, especially by French writers. The word “massage” occurs in an essay written by Pierre Adolphe Piorry (1794-1879) for a large encyclopaedia which appeared in 1818, but it was probably used before. The practice was gradually advocated by an increasing number of medical men. In Great Britain it was called “medical rubbing,” and at Edinburgh Beveridge had a staff of eight trained male rubbers. A book published by Estradère in 1863 attracted much attention, but the man who contributed most to the modern popularity of massage was Metzger of Amsterdam, who began to use it tentatively in 1853, and then proceeded to study and apply it methodically. He published an essay on the subject in 1868. The modern refinements of the treatment are chiefly due to him. At the same time, its application by Dr Silas Weir Mitchell to hysterical and other nervous conditions, in conjunction with the “rest cure,” has done much to make it known.

Massage, as now practised, includes several processes, some of which are passive and others active. The former are carried out by an operator, and consist of rubbing and kneading the skin and deeper tissues with the hands, and exercising the joints by bending the patient’s limbs. The active movements consist of a special form of gymnastics, designed to exercise particular muscles or groups of muscles. In what is called “Swedish massage” the operator moves the limbs while the patient resists, thus bringing the opposing muscles into play. Some writers insist on confining the word “massage” to the rubbing processes, and use the general term “manipulation” to cover all the movements mentioned; but this is a verbal subtlety of no importance. It is evident that alike among the Greeks, the Orientals, and savage races, the two processes have always been applied as part of the same treatment, and the definition quoted above from Littré goes to show that the word “massage” is properly applied to both.

Rubbing has been subdivided into several processes, namely (1) stroking, (2) kneading, (3) rubbing, and (4) tapping, and some practitioners attach great importance to the application of a particular process in a particular way. As a rule, oils and other lubricants are not used. But, however it may be applied, the treatment acts essentially by increasing circulation and improving nutrition. It has been shown by Lauder Brunton that more blood actually flows through the tissues during and after rubbing. The number of red corpuscles, and, to some extent, their haemoglobin value, are also said to be increased (Mitchell). At the same time the movement of the lymph stream is accelerated. In order to assist the flow of blood and lymph, stroking is applied centripetally, that is to say, upwards along the limbs and the lower part of the body, downwards from the head. The effects of the increased physiological activity set up are numerous. Functional ability is restored to exhausted muscles by the removal of fatigue products and the induction of a fresh blood supply; congestion is relieved; collections of serous fluid are dispersed; secretion and excretion are stimulated; local and general nutrition are improved. These effects indicate the conditions in which massage may be usefully applied. Such are various forms of paralysis and muscular wasting, chronic and subacute affections of the joints, muscular rheumatism, sciatica and other neuralgias, local congestions, sprains, contractions, insomnia and some forms of headache, in which downward stroking from the head relieves cerebral congestion. It has also been used in anaemia, hysteria and “neurasthenia,” disorders of the female organs, melancholia and other forms of insanity, morphinism, obesity, constipation, inflammatory and other affections of the eye, including even cataract. General massage is sometimes applied, as a form of passive exercise, to indolent persons whose tissues are overloaded with the products of incomplete metabolism.

As with other methods of treatment, there has been a tendency on the part of some practitioners to exalt it into a cure-all, and of others to ignore it altogether. Of its therapeutic value, when judiciously used, there is no doubt, but it is for the physician or surgeon to say when and how it should be applied. Affections to which it is not applicable are fevers, pregnancy, collections of pus, acute inflammation of the joints, inflamed veins, fragile arteries, wounds of the skin and, generally speaking, those conditions in which it is not desirable to increase the circulation, or in which the patient cannot bear handling. In such conditions it may have a very injurious and even dangerous effect, and therefore should not be used in a haphazard manner without competent advice.

The revival of massage in Europe and America has called into existence a considerable number of professional operators, both male and female, who may be regarded as forming a branch of the nursing profession. Some of these are trained in hospitals or other institutions, some by private practitioners and some not at all. Similarly some are attached to organized societies or institutions while others pursue their calling independently. Several things are required for a good operator. One is physical strength. Deep massage is very laborious work, and cannot be carried on for an hour, or even half an hour, without unusual muscular power. Feeble persons cannot practise it effectively at all. The duration of a sitting may vary from five or ten minutes to an hour. For general massage at least half an hour is required. A masser should have strength enough to do the work without too obvious exhaustion, which gives the patient an unpleasant impression. A second requirement is tactile and muscular sensibility. A person not endowed with a fine sense of touch and resistance is liable to exert too great or too little pressure; the one hurts the patient, the other is ineffective. Then skill and knowledge, which can only be acquired by a course of instruction, are necessary. Finally, some guarantee of cleanliness and character is almost indispensable. Independent massers may possess all these qualifications in a higher degree than those connected with an institution, but they may also be totally devoid of them, whereas connexion with a recognized hospital or society is a guarantee for a certain standard of efficiency. In London there are several such institutions, which train and send out both male and female massers. The fee is 5s. an hour, or from two to four guineas a week. On the European continent, where trained massers are much employed by some practitioners, the fee is considerably lower; in the United States it is higher. For reasons mentioned above, it is most desirable that patients should be attended by operators of their own sex. If this is not insisted upon, a valuable therapeutic means will be in danger of falling into disrepute both with the medical profession and the general public.

(A. Sl.)

MASSAGETAE, an ancient warlike people described by Herodotus (i. 203-216; iv. 22, 172) as dwelling beyond the Araxes (i.e. the Oxus) in what is now Balkh and Bokhara. It was against their queen Tomyris that Cyrus undertook the expedition in which according to one story he met his end. In their usages some tribes were nomads like the people of Scythia (q.v.), others with their community of wives and habit of killing and eating their parents recalled the Issedones (q.v.); while the dwellers in the islands of the river were fish-eating savages. Probably the name denoted no ethnic unity, but included all the barbarous north-eastern neighbours of the Persians. Herodotus says they only used gold and copper (or bronze), not silver or iron. Their lavish use of gold has caused certain massive ornaments from southern Siberia, now in the Hermitage at St Petersburg, to be referred to the Massagetae.

(E. H. M.)

MASSA MARITTIMA, a town and episcopal see of the province of Grosseto, Tuscany, Italy, 24 m. N.N.W. of Grosseto direct and 16 m. by rail N.E. of Follonica (which is 28 m. N.W. of Grosseto on the main coast railway), 1444 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901), (town) 9219; (commune) 17,519. It has a cathedral of the 13th century containing a Romanesque font (1267 with a cover of 1447) and a Gothic reliquary (1324) of the saint Cerbone, to whom the cathedral is dedicated. The battlemented municipal palace of the 13th century is picturesque. There are mineral springs, mines of iron, mercury, lignite and copper, with foundries, ironworks and olive-oil mills. At Follonica on the coast, but in this commune, are the furnaces in which are smelted the iron ore of Elba.

MASSAWA, or Massowah, a fortified town on the African coast of the Red Sea, chief port of the Italian colony of Eritrea, in 15° 36′ N. and 39° 28′ E. Pop. about 10,000. The town stands at the north end of the bay of Massawa and is built partly on a coral island of the same name—where was the original settlement—and partly on the islets of Tautlub and Sheik Said, and the neighbouring mainland. Massawa Island is from 20 to 25 ft. above the sea, its length does not exceed ½ m. and its breadth is about ¼ m. The harbour is formed by the channel between the island and the mainland. It affords good anchorage in from 5 to 9 fathoms. The town possesses several good public buildings, chiefly built of coral, as are the houses of the principal European and Arab merchants. Landward the town is guarded by forts erected by the Italians since 1885. Water was formerly scarce; but in 1872 an ancient aqueduct from Mokullu (5 m. distant westward) was restored and continued by an embankment to the town. A railway connects Massawa with Asmara, the capital of the colony. Besides the Abyssinians, who speak a Tigré dialect corrupted with Arabic, the inhabitants comprise Italian officials and traders, Greeks, Indians, Arabs from Yemen and Hadramut, Gallas and Somalis. Massawa is the natural port for northern Abyssinia but commerce is undeveloped owing to the lack of rapid means of communication. The trade done consists mainly in exporting hides, butter, Abyssinian coffee and civet, and importing European and Indian cotton goods and silks. It increased in value from about £65,000 per annum in 1865 (the last year of Turkish control) to from £240,000 to £280,000 between 1879 and 1881, when under the administration of Egypt. Under the Italians trade greatly developed. The returns for the five years 1901-1905 showed an average annual value of £1,800,000, about two-thirds being imports.

The island of Massawa has probably been inhabited from a very early date. It appears to have formed part of the Abyssinian dominions for many centuries. It was at Massawa (Matzua, as it is called by the Portuguese chroniclers) that Christopher da Gama and his comrades landed in July 1541 on their way to aid the Abyssinians against the Moslem invaders. Captured by the Turks in 1557, the island remained a Turkish possession over two hundred years. A military colony of Bosnians settled at Arkiko (a port on the bay 4 m. south of Massawa Island) was appointed not only to defend it in case of attack from the mainland, but to keep it supplied with water in return for $1400 per month from the town’s customs. For some time at the close of the 18th century Massawa was held by the sherif of Mecca, and it afterwards passed to Mehemet Ali of Egypt. The Turks were reinstated about 1850, but in 1865 they handed the island back to Egypt for an annual tribute of 2½ million piastres. In February 1885 Massawa was occupied by an Italian force, the Egyptian garrison stationed there being withdrawn in the November following (see Egypt; Italy; Abyssinia). The port was the capital of the Italian colony until 1900 when the seat of administration was removed to Asmara (see Eritrea).

For a description of the town in 1769 see the Travels of James Bruce. At that time the governor, though appointed by the Turks, paid one half of the customs receipts to the negus of Abyssinia in return for the protection of that monarch.

MASSÉNA, ANDRÉ, or Andrea, duke of Rivoli, prince of Essling (1756-1817), the greatest of Napoleon’s marshals, son of a small wine merchant, it is said of Jewish origin, was born at Nice on the 6th of May 1756. His parents were very poor, and he began life as a cabin boy, but he did not care much for the sea, and in 1775 he enlisted in the Royal-Italien regiment. He quickly rose to be under-officer-adjutant; but, finding his birth would prevent his ever getting a commission, he left the army in 1789, retired to his native city, and married. At the sound of war, however, and the word republic, his desire to see service increased, and he once more left Italy, and joined the 3rd battalion of the volunteers of the Var in 1791. In those days when men elected their officers, and many of the old commissioned officers had emigrated, promotion to a man with a knowledge of his drill was rapid, and by February 1792 Masséna was a lieutenant-colonel. His regiment was one of those in the army which occupied Nice, and in the advance to the Apennines which followed, his knowledge of the country, of the language, and of the people was so useful that in December 1793 he was already a general of division. In command of the advanced guard he won the battle of Saorgio in August 1794, capturing ninety guns, and after many successes he at last, on the 23rd of November 1795, with the right wing of the army of Italy, had the greatest share in the victory of Loano, won by Schérer over the Austrians and Sardinians. In Bonaparte’s great campaign of 1796-97 Masséna was his most trusted general of division; in each battle he won fresh laurels, up to the crowning victory of Rivoli, from which he afterwards took his title. It was during this campaign that Bonaparte gave him the title of enfant gâté de la victoire, which he was to justify till he met the English in 1810. In 1798 he commanded the army of Rome for a short time, but was displaced by the intrigues of his subordinate Berthier. Masséna’s next important service was in command of the army in Switzerland, which united the army in Germany under Moreau, and that in Italy under Joubert. There he proved himself a great captain, as he had already proved himself a great lieutenant; the archduke Charles and Suvarov had each been successful in Germany and in Italy, and now turned upon Masséna in Switzerland. That general held his ground well against the archduke, and then suddenly, leaving Soult to face the Austrians, he transported his army to Zürich, where, on the 26th of September 1799, he entirely defeated Korsakov, taking 200 guns and 5000 prisoners. This campaign and battle placed his reputation on a level with that of his compatriot Bonaparte, and he might have made the revolution of Brumaire, but he was sincerely attached to the republic, and had no ambition beyond a desire to live well and to have plenty of money to spend. Bonaparte, now First Consul, sent him to Genoa to command the débris of the army of Italy, and he nobly defended Genoa from February to June to the very last extremity, giving time for Bonaparte to strike his great blow at Marengo. He now went to Paris, where he sat in the Corps Législatif in 1803, and actually defended Moreau without drawing upon himself the ill-will of Napoleon, who well knew his honesty and lack of ambition.

In 1804 he was made one of the first marshals of France of the new régime, and in 1805 was decorated with the Grand Eagle of the Legion of Honour. In that year Napoleon needed an able general to keep in check the archduke Charles in Italy, while he advanced through Germany with the grand army. Masséna was chosen; he kept the archduke occupied till he received news of the surrender of Ulm, and then on the 30th of October defeated him in the battle of Caldiero. After the peace of Pressburg had been signed, Masséna was ordered to take possession of the kingdom of Naples, and to place Joseph Bonaparte on the throne. This task done, Napoleon summoned Masséna to Poland, where he as usual distinguished himself, and where he for the time gave up his republican principles. In 1808 he was made duke of Rivoli. In 1808 he was accidentally wounded by his old enemy Berthier when both were in attendance on the emperor at a shooting party, and he lost the sight of one eye. In the campaign in 1809 he covered himself with glory at Landshut and at Eckmühl, and finally at the battle of Aspern-Essling his magnificent leadership made what would without him have been an appalling disaster into a mere reverse of which the enemy could make no use. On the field of Wagram Masséna, though too ill to ride, directed from his carriage the movements of the right wing. For his great services he was created prince of Essling, and given the princely castle of Thouars. He was then ordered to Spain to “drive the English into the sea.” (For the campaigns of 1810 and 1811, the advance to and the retreat from Torres Vedras see Peninsular War.) Masséna himself, with some justice, ascribed his failure to the frequent disobedience of his subordinates Ney, Reynier and Junot, and public opinion attributed this disobedience to the presence with the army of Masséna’s mistress, and to the resentment thereat felt by the wives of the three generals. Still, unsuccessful as he was, Masséna displayed the determination of the defence of Genoa and the fertility in expedients of the campaign of Zürich, and kept his army for five weary months close up to Wellington’s impregnable position before retiring. His retreat through a devastated country was terrible, but his force of character kept his men together, and Ney having shown the worst side of his character now showed the best in the frequent and brilliant rearguard actions, until a new act of insubordination at last made the old marshal dismiss Ney from his command. Soon Masséna was once again ready to try his fortune, and he nearly defeated Wellington at Fuentes d’Oñoro, though much hampered by Bessières. But his recall soon followed this and he returned home to find his prestige gone. The old marshal felt he had a right to complain of Ney and of Napoleon himself, and, it is said, opened communications with Fouché and the remnant of the republican party. Whether this be true or not, Napoleon gave his greatest marshal no more employment in the field, but made him merely a territorial commandant at Marseilles. This command he still held at the restoration, when Louis XVIII. confirmed him in it, and with true Bourbon stupidity gave him letters of naturalization, as if the great leader of the French armies had not ceased to be an Italian. When Napoleon returned from Elba, Masséna, probably by the advice of Fouché, kept Marseilles quiet to await events, the greatest service he could do the royalists, but afterwards imputed to him as a fault. After the second restoration Masséna was summoned to sit on the court-martial which tried Marshal Ney, but, though he had been on bad terms with that general, and attributed his own disgrace to him, the old soldier would not be his comrade’s judge. This refusal was used by the royalists to attack the marshal, against whom they raked up every offence they could think of. This annoyance shortened his life, and on the 4th of April 1817 the old hero died. He was buried in Père-la-Chaise, with only the word “Masséna” upon his tombstone.

In private life indolent, greedy, rapacious, ill-educated and morose, in war Masséna was, like Napoleon, the incarnation of battle. Only his indolence and his consequent lack of far-ranging imagination prevented him being as great in strategy as in tactics. His genius needed the presence of the enemy to stimulate it, but once it sprang to life Masséna became an ideal leader, absolutely brave, resourceful, unrelenting and indefatigable. He was as great a master of the strategy of forces in immediate contact—of gathering up as it were the threads of the fugue into a “stretto.” For the planning of a whole perfect campaign he had neither knowledge nor inclination, and he falls short therefore of the highest rank amongst great generals; but his place amongst the greatest of soldiers is beyond challenge.

See Thiébault’s Éloge funèbre, and Koch’s Mémoires de Masséna (4 vols., 1849), a valuable work, carefully compiled. In more modern times E. Gachot has produced several important works dealing with Masséna’s campaigns.

MASSENBACH, CHRISTIAN KARL AUGUST LUDWIG VON (1758-1827), Prussian soldier, was born at Schmalkalden on the 16th of April 1758, and educated at Heilbronn and Stuttgart, devoting himself chiefly to mathematics. He became an officer of the Württemberg army in 1778, and left this for the service of Frederick the Great in 1782. The pay of his rank was small, and his appointment on the quartermaster-general’s staff made it necessary to keep two horses, so that he had to write mathematical school-books in his spare time to eke out his resources. He was far however from neglecting the science and art of war, for thus early he had begun to make his name as a theorist as well as a mathematician. After serving as instructor in mathematics to the young prince Louis, he took part with credit in the expedition into Holland, and was given the order Pour le mérite. On returning to Prussia he became mathematical instructor at the school of military engineering, leaving this post in 1792 to take part as a general staff officer in the war against France. He was awarded a prebend at Minden for his services as a topographical engineer on the day of Valmy, and after serving through the campaigns of 1793 and 1794 he published a number of memoirs on the military history of these years. He was chiefly occupied however with framing schemes for the reorganization of the then neglected general staff of the Prussian army, and many of his proposals were accepted. Bronsart von Schellendorf in his Duties of the General Staff says of Massenbach’s work in this connexion, “the organization which he proposed and in the main carried out survived even the catastrophes of 1806-1807, and exists even at the present moment in its original outline.” This must be accounted as high praise when it is remembered how much of the responsibility for these very disasters must be laid to Massenbach’s account. The permanent gain to the service due to his exertions was far more than formal, for it is to him that the general staff owes its tradition of thorough and patient individual effort. But the actual doctrine taught by Massenbach, who was now a colonel, may be summarized as the doctrine of positions carried to a ludicrous excess; the claims put forward for the general staff, that it was to prepare cut-and-dried plans of operations in peace which were to be imposed on the troop leaders in war, were derided by the responsible generals; and the memoirs on proposed plans of campaign to suit certain political combinations were worked out in quite unnecessary detail. It was noteworthy that none of the proposed plans of campaign considered France as an enemy.

In 1805 came threats of the war with Napoleon which Massenbach had strongly opposed. He was made quartermaster-general (chief of staff) to Prince Hohenlohe, over whom he soon obtained a fatal ascendancy. War was averted for a moment by the result of the battle of Austerlitz, but it broke out in earnest in October 1806. Massenbach’s influence clouded all the Prussian operations. The battles of Jena and Auerstädt were lost, and the capitulation of Prince Hohenlohe’s army was negotiated. Even suggestions of disloyalty were not wanting; an attempt to try him by court-martial was only frustrated by Prince Hohenlohe’s action in taking upon himself, as commander-in-chief, the whole responsibility for Massenbach’s actions. He then retired to his estate in the Posen province, and occupied himself in writing pamphlets, memoirs, &c. When his estates passed into the grand duchy of Warsaw, he chose to remain a Prussian subject, and on the outbreak of the war of liberation he asked in vain for a post on the Prussian staff. After the fall of Napoleon he took part in Württemberg politics, was expelled from Stuttgart and Heidelberg, and soon afterwards arrested at Frankfurt, delivered over to the Prussian authorities and condemned to fourteen years’ fortress imprisonment for his alleged publication of state secrets in his memoirs. He was kept in prison till 1826, when Frederick William III., having recovered from an accident, pardoned those whom he considered to have wronged him most deeply. He died on the 21st of November 1827, at his estate of Bialokoscz, Posen.

The obituary in Neuer Nekrolog der Deutschen, pt. ii. (Ilmenau, 1827) is founded on a memoir (Der Oberst C. v. Massenbach) which was published at the beginning of his imprisonment.

MASSENET, JULES ÉMILE FRÉDÉRIC (1842- ), French composer, was born at Montaud, on the 12th of May 1842. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire, where he obtained the Grand Prix de Rome in 1863 with the cantata David Rizzio. Massenet became one of the most prolific composers of his time. His operas include the following: La Grande tante, one act, opéra comique (1867); Don César de Bazan, three acts, opéra comique (1872); Le Roi de Lahore, five acts, opera (1877); Hérodiade, five acts (Brussels, 1881); Manon, five acts, opéra comique (1884); Le Cid, four acts, opera (1885); Esclarmonde, four acts, opéra comique (1889); Le Mage, five acts, opera (1891); Werther, four acts (Vienna, 1892); Thaïs, three acts, opera (1894); Le Portrait de Manon, one act, opéra comique (1894); La Navarraise, two acts (Covent Garden, 1894); Sapho, opéra comique (1897); Cendrillon, opéra comique (1900); Grisélidis, opéra comique (1901); Le Jongleur de Notre Dame (Mentone, 1902). Of these the most popular is Manon. Massenet’s other works include Marie Madeleine, sacred drama (1873); Eve, a mystery (1875); La Vierge, sacred legend (1880); six orchestral suites entitled Scènes hongroises, Scènes pittoresques, Scènes dramatiques, Scènes napolitaines, Scènes de féerie, Scènes alsaciennes; music to the tragedy Les Erynnies, to Théodora, Le Crocodile, L’Hetman; a requiem, Narcisse; an idyll, Biblis; a Scène antique; several sets of songs, entitled Poème d’avril, Poème d’amour, Poème d’hiver, Poème d’octobre, Poème pastoral, Poème du souvenir; also a large number of detached songs. He was professor of composition at the Conservatoire from 1878 to 1896, among his pupils being Hillemacher, Marty, Bruneau, Vidal, Pierné, Leroux and Charpentier. Massenet undoubtedly possesses a style of his own. He is at his best in music descriptive of the tender passion, and many of the love scenes in his operas are very beautiful.

MASSEREENE, JOHN CLOTWORTHY, 1st Viscount (d. 1665), Anglo-Irish politician, was a son of Sir Hugh Clotworthy, sheriff of county Antrim. He was elected to the Irish parliament as member for county Antrim in 1634, and was a member both of the Short and of the Long Parliament in England. Clotworthy was a vehement opponent of the earl of Stafford, in whose impeachment he took an active share. He also took part in the prosecution of Archbishop Laud. Having unsuccessfully negotiated with Ormond for the surrender of Dublin to the Parliamentary forces in 1646, he was accused in the following year of having betrayed his cause, and also of embezzlement; in consequence of these charges he fled to the Continent, but returned to parliament in June 1648. On the 12th of December in that year he was arrested, and remained in prison for nearly three years. Having taken an active part in forwarding the Restoration, he was employed in Ireland in arranging the affairs of the soldiers and other adventurers who had settled in Ireland Clotworthy in no way abated his old animosity against “papists” and high Anglicans, and he championed the cause of the Irish Presbyterians; but being personally agreeable to Charles II., his ecclesiastical views were overlooked, and on the 21st of November 1660 he was created Baron Loughneagh and Viscount Massereene in the Irish peerage, with remainder in default of male heirs to his son-in-law, Sir John Skeffington. Massereene died without male issue in September 1665, and the title devolved on Skeffington, whose great-grandson, the fifth viscount, was created earl of Massereene in 1756. The earldom became extinct on the death of the fourth earl without male issue in 1816, the viscounty and barony of Loughneagh descending to his daughter Harriet, whose husband, Thomas Foster, took the name of Skeffington, and inherited from his mother in 1824 the titles of Viscount Ferrard and Baron Oriel of Collon in the Irish peerage, and from his father in 1828 that of Baron Oriel of Ferrard in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

MASSEY, SIR EDWARD (c. 1619-c. 1674), English soldier in the Great Rebellion, was the son of John Massey of Coddington, Cheshire. Little is known of his early life, but it is said that he served in the Dutch army against the Spaniards. In 1639 he appears as a captain of pioneers in the army raised by Charles I. to fight against the Scots. At the outbreak of the Great Rebellion he was with the king at York, but he soon joined the Parliamentary army. As lieutenant-colonel under the earl of Stamford he became deputy governor of Gloucester, where he remained till towards the end of the first Civil War, becoming governor early in 1643. He conducted minor operations against numerous small bodies of Royalists, and conducted the defence of Gloucester against the king’s main army in August 1643, with great steadiness and ability, receiving the thanks of parliament and a grant of £1000 for his services. In 1644 Massey continued to keep the field and to disperse the local Royalists, and on several occasions he measured swords with Prince Rupert. In May 1644 he was made general of the forces of the Western Association. In 1645 he took the offensive against Lord Goring and the western Royalists, advanced to the relief of Taunton, and in the autumn co-operated effectively with Sir Thomas Fairfax and the New Model army in the Langport campaign. After taking part in the desultory operations which closed the first war, he took his seat in the House of Commons as member for Gloucester. He then began to take an active part in politics on the Presbyterian side, and was one of the generals who was impeached by the army on the ground that they were attempting to revive the Civil War in the Presbyterian interests. Massey fled from England in June 1647, and though he resumed his seat in the house in 1648 he was again excluded by Pride’s Purge, and after a short imprisonment escaped to Holland. Thence, taking the side of the king openly and definitely like many other Presbyterians, he accompanied Charles II. to Scotland. He fought against Cromwell at the bridge of Stirling and Inverkeithing, and commanded the advanced guard of the Royalist army in the invasion of England in 1651. It was hoped that Massey’s influence would win over the towns of the Severn valley to the cause of the king, and the march of the army on Worcester was partly inspired by this expectation. However, he effected little, and after riding with the king for some distance from the field of Worcester, fell into the hands of his former comrades and was lodged in the Tower. He again managed to escape to Holland. While negotiating with the English Presbyterians for the restoration of Charles, he visited England twice, in 1654 and 1656. In 1660 he was active in preparing for Charles’s return, and was rewarded by a knighthood and a grant of £3000. The rest of his life was spent in political, and occasionally in military and administrative business, and he is said to have died in Ireland in 1674 or 1675.

MASSEY, GERALD (1828-1907), English poet, was born near Tring, Hertfordshire, on the 29th of May 1828. His parents were in humble circumstances, and Massey was little more than a child when he was set to hard work in a silk factory, which he afterwards deserted for the equally laborious occupation of straw-plaiting. These early years were rendered gloomy by much distress and deprivation, against which the young man strove with increasing spirit and virility, educating himself in his spare time, and gradually cultivating his innate taste for literary work. He was attracted by the movement known as Christian Socialism, into which he threw himself with whole-hearted vigour, and so became associated with Maurice and Kingsley. His first public appearance as a writer was in connexion with a journal called the Spirit of Freedom, of which he became editor, and he was only twenty-two when he published his first volume of poems, Voices of Freedom and Lyrics of Love. These he followed in rapid succession by The Ballad of Babe Christabel (1854), War Waits (1855), Havelock’s March (1860), and A Tale of Eternity (1869). Many years afterwards in 1889, he collected the best of the contents of these volumes, with additions, into a two-volume edition of his poems called My Lyrical Life. He also published works dealing with spiritualism, the study of Shakespeare’s sonnets (1872 and 1890), and theological speculation. It is generally understood that he was the original of George Eliot’s Felix Holt. Massey’s poetry has a certain rough and vigorous element of sincerity and strength which easily accounts for its popularity at the time of its production. He treated the theme of Sir Richard Grenville before Tennyson thought of using it, with much force and vitality. Indeed, Tennyson’s own praise of Massey’s work is still its best eulogy, for the Laureate found in him “a poet of fine lyrical impulse, and of a rich half-Oriental imagination.” The inspiration of his poetry is essentially British; he was a patriot to the core. It is, however, as an Egyptologist that Gerald Massey is best known in the world of letters. He first published The Book of the Beginnings, followed by The Natural Genesis; but by far his most important work is Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, published shortly before his death. He died on the 29th of October 1907.

See an article by J. Churton Collins in the Contemporary Review (May 1904).

MASSICUS, MONS, a mountain ridge of ancient Italy, in the territory of the Aurunci, and on the border of Campania and Latium adjectum—attributed by most authors to the latter. It projects south-west from the volcanic system of Rocca Monfina (see Suessa Aurunca) as far as the sea, and separates the lower course of the Liris from the plain of Campania. It consists of limestone, with a superstratum of pliocenic and volcanic masses, and was once an island; its highest point is 2661 ft. above sea-level.

It was very famous for its wine in ancient times. There was just room along the coast for the road to pass through; the pass was guarded by the Auruncan town of Vescia (probably on the mountain side), which ceased to exist in 314 B.C. after the defeat of the Ausones, but left its name to the spot. Its successor, Sinuessa, on the coast, a station on the Via Appia, was constructed in 312 B.C., and a colony was founded there in 295 B.C. It is not infrequently mentioned by classical writers as a place in which travellers halted. Here Virgil joined Horace on the famous journey to Brundusium. Domitian considerably increased its importance by the construction of the Via Domitiana, which left the Via Appia here and ran to Cumae and Puteoli, and it was he, no doubt, who raised it to the position of colonia Flavia. The town was destroyed by the Saracens, but some ruins of it are still visible two miles north-west of the modern village of Mondragone. The mineral springs which still rise here were frequented in antiquity.

MASSIF, a French term, adopted in geology and physical geography for a mountainous mass or group of connected heights, whether isolated or forming part of a larger mountain system. A “massif” is more or less clearly marked off by valleys.

MASSILLON, JEAN BAPTISTE (1663-1742), French bishop and preacher, was born at Hyères on the 24th of June 1663, his father being a royal notary of that town. At the age of eighteen he joined the Congregation of the Oratory and taught for a time in the colleges of his order at Pézenas, and Montbrison and at the Seminary of Vienne. On the death of Henri de Villars, archbishop of Vienne, in 1693, he was commissioned to deliver a funeral oration, and this was the beginning of his fame. In obedience to Cardinal de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, he left the Cistercian abbey of Sept-Fonds, to which he had retired, and settled in Paris, where he was placed at the head of the famous seminary of Saint Magloire. He soon gained a wide reputation as a preacher and was selected to be the Advent preacher at the court of Versailles in 1699. He was made bishop of Clermont in 1717, and two years later was elected a member of the French Academy. The last years of his life were spent in the faithful discharge of his episcopal duties; his death took place at Clermont on the 18th of September 1742. Massillon enjoyed in the 18th century a reputation equal to that of Bossuet and of Bourdaloue, and has been much praised by Voltaire, D’Alembert and kindred spirits among the Encyclopaedists. His popularity was probably due to the fact that in his sermons he lays little stress on dogmatic questions, but treats generally of moral subjects, in which the secrets of the human heart and the processes of man’s reason are described with poetical feeling. He has usually been contrasted with his predecessor Bourdaloue, the latter having the credit of vigorous denunciation, Massillon that of gentle persuasiveness. Besides the Petit Carême, a sermon which he delivered before the young king Louis XV. in 1718, his sermons on the Prodigal Son, on the small number of the elect, on death, for Christmas Day, and for the Fourth Sunday in Advent, may be perhaps cited as his masterpieces. His funeral oration on Louis XIV. is only noted now for the opening sentence: “Dieu seul est grand.” But in truth Massillon is singularly free from inequality. His great literary power, his reputation for benevolence, and his known toleration and dislike of doctrinal disputes caused him to be much more favourably regarded than most churchmen by the philosophes of the 18th century.

The first edition of Massillon’s complete works was published by his nephew, also an Oratorian (Paris, 1745-1748), and upon this, in the absence of MSS., succeeding reprints were based. The best modern edition is that of the Abbé Blampignon (Paris, 1865-1868, 4 vols.; new ed. 1886).

See Abbé Blampignon, Massillon, d’après des documents inédits (Paris, 1879); and L’Épiscopat de Massitlon d’après des documents inédits, suivi de sa correspondance (Paris, 1884); F. Brunetière “L’Éloquence de Massillon” in Études critiques (Paris, 1882); Père Ingold, L’Oratoire et le jansénisme au temps de Massitlon (Paris, 1880); and Louis Petit de Julleville’s Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française, v. 372-385 (Paris, 1898).

MASSILLON, a city of Stark county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Tuscarawas river and the Ohio canal, 8 m. W. of Canton, and about 50 m. S. by E. of Cleveland. Pop. (1900), 11,944 (1693 foreign-born); (1910), 13,879. It is served by the Pennsylvania (Pittsburg, Ft Wayne & Chicago Division), the Baltimore & Ohio and the Wheeling & Lake Erie railways. Massillon is built among hills in a part of the state noted for its large production of coal and wheat and abounding in white sandstone, iron ore and potter’s clay. The city has various manufactures, including iron, engines, furnaces, reapers, threshers and bottles. The total value of the factory products in 1905 was $3,707,013, an increase of 34.8% over that of 1900. The first settlement was made in 1825; in 1826 the town was laid out and named in honour of Jean Baptiste Massillon; it was incorporated a village in 1853, and became a city in 1868.

MASSIMO, or Massimi, a Roman princely family of great antiquity, said to be descended from the ancient Maximi of republican Rome. The name is first mentioned in 1012 in the person of Leo de Maximis, and the family played a considerable part in the history of the city in the middle ages. The brothers Pietro and Francesco Massimi acquired fame by protecting and encouraging the German printer Ulrich Hahn, who came to Rome in 1467. In the 16th century the Massimi were the richest of the Roman nobles. A marquisate was conferred on them in 1544, and the lordship of Arsoli in 1574. To-day there are two branches of the Massimi, viz. the Principi Massimo, descended from Camillo Massimiliano (1770-1840), and the dukes of Rignano, descended from Francesco Massimo (1773-1844). One of the sons of the present Prince Camillo Carlo Alberto, Don Fabrizio, married Princess Beatrice, daughter of Don Carlos of Bourbon (duke of Madrid), the pretender to the Spanish throne. The Palazzo Massimo in Rome was built by Baldassare Peruzzi by order of Pietro Massimo, on the ruins of an earlier palace destroyed in the sack of Rome in 1527.

See F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Stuttgart, 1880); A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1868); Almanach de Gotha; J. H. Douglas, The Principal Noble Families of Rome (Rome, 1905).

MASSINGER, PHILIP (1583-1640), English dramatist, son of Arthur Massinger or Messanger, was baptized at St Thomas’s, Salisbury, on the 24th of November 1583. He apparently belonged to an old Salisbury family, for the name occurs in the city records as early as 1415. He is described in his matriculation entry at St Alban Hall, Oxford (1602), as the son of a gentleman. His father, who had also been educated at St Alban Hall, was a member of parliament, and was attached to the household of Henry Herbert, 2nd earl of Pembroke, who recommended him in 1587 for the office of examiner in the court of the marches. The 3rd earl of Pembroke, the William Herbert whose name has been connected with Shakespeare’s sonnets, succeeded to the title in 1601. It has been suggested that he supported the poet at Oxford, but the significant omission of any reference to him in any of Massinger’s prefaces points to the contrary. Massinger left Oxford without a degree in 1606. His father had died in 1603, and he was perhaps dependent on his own exertions. The lack of a degree and the want of patronage from Lord Pembroke may both be explained on the supposition that he had become a Roman Catholic. On leaving the university he went to London to make his living as a dramatist, but his name cannot be definitely affixed to any play until fifteen years later, when The Virgin Martyr (ent. at Stationers’ Hall, Dec. 7, 1621) appeared as the work of Massinger and Dekker. During these years he worked in collaboration with other dramatists. A joint letter, from Nathaniel Field, Robert Daborne and Philip Massinger, to Philip Henslowe, begs for an immediate loan of five pounds to release them from their “unfortunate extremitie,” the money to be taken from the balance due for the “play of Mr Fletcher’s and ours.” A second document shows that Massinger and Daborne owed Henslowe £3 on the 4th of July 1615. The earlier note probably dates from 1613, and from this time Massinger apparently worked regularly with John Fletcher, although in editions of Beaumont and Fletcher’s works his co-operation is usually unrecognized. Sir Aston Cokayne, Massinger’s constant friend and patron, refers in explicit terms to this collaboration in a sonnet addressed to Humphrey Moseley on the publication of his folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher (Small Poems of Divers Sorts, 1658), and in an epitaph on the two poets he says:—

“Plays they did write together, were great friends, And now one grave includes them in their ends.”

After Philip Henslowe’s death in 1616 Massinger and Fletcher began to write for the King’s Men. Between 1623 and 1626 Massinger produced unaided for the Lady Elizabeth’s Men then playing at the Cockpit three pieces, The Parliament of Love, The Bondman and The Renegado. With the exception of these plays and The Great Duke of Florence, produced in 1627 by the Queen’s servants, Massinger continued to write regularly for the King’s Men until his death. The tone of the dedications of his later plays affords evidence of his continued poverty. Thus in the preface to The Maid of Honour (1632) he wrote, addressing Sir Francis Foljambe and Sir Thomas Bland: “I had not to this time subsisted, but that I was supported by your frequent courtesies and favours.” The prologue to The Guardian (licensed 1633) refers to two unsuccessful plays and two years of silence, when the author feared he had lost the popular favour. S. R. Gardiner, in an essay on “The Political Element in Massinger” (Contemp. Review, Aug. 1876), maintained that Massinger’s dramas are before all else political, that the events of his day were as openly criticized in his plays as current politics are in the cartoons of Punch. It is probable that this break in his production was owing to his free handling of public matters. In 1631 Sir Henry Herbert, the master of the revels, refused to license an unnamed play by Massinger because of “dangerous matter as the deposing of Sebastian, King of Portugal,” calculated presumably to endanger good relations between England and Spain. There is little doubt that this was the same piece as Believe as You List, in which time and place are changed, Antiochus being substituted for Sebastian, and Rome for Spain. In the prologue Massinger ironically apologizes for his ignorance of history, and professes that his accuracy is at fault if his picture comes near “a late and sad example.” The obvious “late and sad example” of a wandering prince could be no other than Charles I.’s brother-in-law, the elector palatine. An allusion to the same subject may be traced in The Maid of Honour. In another play by Massinger, not extant, Charles I. is reported to have himself struck out a passage put into the mouth of Don Pedro, king of Spain, as “too insolent.” The poet seems to have adhered closely to the politics of his patron, Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, and afterwards 4th earl of Pembroke, who had leanings to democracy and was a personal enemy of the duke of Buckingham. In The Bondman, dealing with the history of Timoleon, Buckingham is satirized as Gisco. The servility towards the Crown displayed in Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays reflected the temper of the court of James I. The attitude of Massinger’s heroes and heroines towards kings is very different. Camiola’s remarks on the limitations of the royal prerogative (Maid of Honour, act iv. sc. v.) could hardly be acceptable at court.

Massinger died suddenly at his house near the Globe theatre, and was buried in the churchyard of St Saviour’s, Southwark, on the 18th of March 1640. In the entry in the parish register he is described as a “stranger,” which, however, implies nothing more than that he belonged to another parish.

The supposition that Massinger was a Roman Catholic rests upon three of his plays, The Virgin Martyr (licensed 1620), The Renegado (licensed 1624) and The Maid of Honour (c. 1621). The religious sentiment is certainly such as would obviously best appeal to an audience sympathetic to Roman Catholic doctrine. The Virgin Martyr, in which Dekker probably had a large share, is really a miracle play, dealing with the martyrdom of Dorothea in the time of Diocletian, and the supernatural element is freely used. Little stress can be laid on this performance as elucidating Massinger’s views. It is not entirely his work, and the story is early Christian, not Roman Catholic. In The Renegado, however, the action is dominated by the beneficent influence of a Jesuit priest, Francisco, and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is enforced. In The Maid of Honour a complicated situation is solved by the decision of the heroine, Camiola, to take the veil. For this she is held up “to all posterity a fair example for noble maids to imitate.” Among all Massinger’s heroines Camiola is distinguished by genuine purity and heroism.

His plays have generally an obvious moral intention. He sets himself to work out a series of ethical problems through a succession of ingenious and effective plots. In the art of construction he has, indeed, few rivals. But the virtue of his heroes and heroines is rather morbid than natural, and often singularly divorced from common-sense. His dramatis personae are in general types rather than living persons, and their actions do not appear to spring inevitably from their characters, but rather from the exigencies of the plot. The heroes are too good, and the villains too wicked to be quite convincing. Moreover their respective goodness and villainy are too often represented as extraneous to themselves. This defect of characterization shows that English drama had already begun to decline.

It seems doubtful whether Massinger was ever a popular playwright, for the best qualities of his plays would appeal rather to politicians and moralists than to the ordinary playgoer. He contributed, however, at least one great and popular character to the English stage. Sir Giles Overreach, in A New Way to Pay Old Debts, is a sort of commercial Richard III., a compound of the lion and the fox, and the part provides many opportunities for a great actor. He made another considerable contribution to the comedy of manners in The City Madam. In Massinger’s own judgment The Roman Actor was “the most perfect birth of his Minerva.” It is a study of the tyrant Domitian, and of the results of despotic rule on the despot himself and his court. Other favourable examples of his grave and restrained art are The Duke of Milan, The Bondman and The Great Duke of Florence.

Massinger was a student and follower of Shakespeare. The form of his verse, especially in the number of run-on lines, approximates in some respects to Shakespeare’s later manner. He is rhetorical and picturesque, but rarely rises to extraordinary felicity. His verse is never mean, but it sometimes comes perilously near to prose, and in dealing with passionate situations it lacks fire and directness.

The plays attributed to Massinger alone are: The Duke of Milan, a Tragedy (c. 1618, pr. 1623 and 1638); The Unnatural Combat, a Tragedy (c. 1619, pr. 1639); The Bondman, an Antient Storie (licensed 1623, pr. 1624); The Renegado, a Tragaecomedie (lic. 1624, pr. 1630); The Parliament of Love (lic. 1624; ascribed, no doubt erroneously, in the Stationers’ Register, 1660, to W. Rowley; first printed by Gifford from an imperfect MS. in 1805); A New Way to Pay Old Debts, a Comoedie (c. 1625, pr. 1632); The Roman Actor. A Tragaedie (lic. 1626, pr. 1629); The Maid of Honour (dating perhaps from 1621, pr. 1632); The Picture, a Tragecomedie (lic. 1629, pr. 1630); The Great Duke of Florence, a Comicall Historie (lic. 1627, pr. 1635); The Emperor of the East, a Tragaecomoedie (lic. and pr. 1631), founded on the story of Theodosius the Younger; Believe as You List (rejected by the censor in January, but licensed in May, 1631; pr. 1848-1849 for the Percy Society); The City Madam, a Comedie (lic. 1632, pr. 1658), which Mr Fleay (Biog. Chron. of the Eng. Drama, i. 226), however, considers to be a rifaciamento of an older play, probably by Jonson; The Guardian (lic. 1633, pr. 1655); and The Bashful Lover (lic. 1636, pr. 1655). A Very Woman, or The Prince of Tarent, licensed in 1634 as the work of Massinger alone, is generally referred to his collaboration with Fletcher. The “exquisite temperance and justice” of this piece are, according to Swinburne, foreign to Fletcher’s genius, and afford a striking example of Massinger’s artistic skill and moderation.

Twelve plays of Massinger are said to be lost, but the titles of some of these may be duplicates of those of existing plays. Five of these lost plays were MSS. used by John Warburton’s cook for pie-covers. The numerous plays in which Massinger’s co-operation with John Fletcher is generally assumed are dealt with under Beaumont and Fletcher. But it may be here noted that Mr R. Boyle has constructed an ingenious case for the joint authorship by Fletcher and Massinger of the two “Shakespearian” plays, Henry VIII. and Two Noble Kinsmen (see the New Shakspere Society’s Transactions, 1884 and 1882). Mr Boyle sees the touch of Massinger in the first two acts of the Second Maiden’s Tragedy (Lansdowne MS., lic. 1611), a play with which the names of Fletcher and Tourneur are also associated by different critics. The Fatall Dowry, a Tragedy (c. 1619, pr. 1632), which was adapted without acknowledgment by Nicholas Rowe in his Fair Penitent, was written in conjunction with Nathaniel Field; and The Virgin Martir, a Tragedie (lic. 1620, pr. 1621), with Thomas Dekker.

Massinger’s independent works were collected by Coxeter (4 vols., 1759, revised edition with introduction by Thomas Davies, 1779), by J. Monck Mason (4 vols., 1779), by William Gifford (4 vols., 1805, 1813), by Hartley Coleridge (1840), by Lieut.-Colonel Cunningham (1867), and selections by Mr Arthur Symons in the Mermaid Series (1887-1889). Gifford’s remains the standard edition, and formed the basis of Cunningham’s text. It contains “An Essay on the Dramatic Writings of Massinger” by Dr John Ferriar.

Massinger has been the object of a good deal of criticism. A metrical examination of the plays in which Massinger was concerned is given in Englische Studien (Halle, v. 74, vii. 66, viii. 39, ix. 209 and x. 383), by Mr R. Boyle, who also contributed the life of the poet in the Dictionary of National Biography. The sources of his plays are dealt with by E. Koeppel in Quellen Studien zu den Dramen Chapman’s, Massinger’s und Ford’s (Strassburg, 1897). For detailed criticism, beside the introductions to the editions quoted, see A. W. Ward, Hist. of Eng. Dram. Lit. (1899), iii. 1-47, and F. G. Fleay, Biog. Chron. of the Eng. Drama (1891), under Fletcher; a general estimate of Massinger, dealing especially with his moral standpoint, is given in Sir Leslie Stephen’s Hours in a Library (3rd series, 1879); Swinburne, in the Fortnightly Review (July 1889), while acknowledging the justice of Sir L. Stephen’s main strictures, found much to say in praise of the poet.

MASSINISSA (c. 238-149 B.C.), king of Massylian or eastern Numidia. He was educated, like many of the Numidian chiefs, at Carthage, learnt Latin and Greek, and was an accomplished as well as a naturally clever man. Although his kingdom was nominally independent of Carthage, it really stood to it in a relation of vassalage; it was directly under Carthaginian influences, and was imbued to a very considerable extent with Carthaginian civilization. It was to this that Massinissa owed his fame and success; he was a barbarian at heart, but he had a varnish of culture, and to this he added the craft and cunning in which Carthaginian statesmen were supposed to excel. While yet a young man (212) he forced his neighbour Syphax, prince of western Numidia, who had recently entered into an alliance with Rome, to fly to the Moors in the extreme west of Africa. Soon afterwards he appeared in Spain, fighting for Carthage with a large force of Numidian cavalry against the Romans under the two Scipios. The defeat of the Carthaginian army in 206 led him to cast in his lot with Rome. Scipio Africanus is said to have cultivated his friendship. Massinissa now quitted Spain for a while for Africa, and was again engaged in a war with Syphax in which he was decidedly worsted. Scipio’s arrival in Africa in 204 gave him another chance, and no sooner had he joined the Roman general than he crushed his old enemy Syphax, and captured his capital Cirta (Constantine). Here occurs the romantic story of Sophonisba, daughter of the Carthaginian Hasdrubal, who had been promised in marriage to Massinissa, but had subsequently become the wife of Syphax. Massinissa, according to the story, married Sophonisba immediately after his victory, but was required by Scipio to dismiss her as a Carthaginian, and consequently an enemy to Rome. To save her from such humiliation he sent her poison, with which she destroyed herself. Massinissa was now accepted as a loyal ally of Rome, and was confirmed by Scipio in the possession of his kingdom. In the battle of Zama (202) (see Punic Wars), he commanded the cavalry on Scipio’s right wing, and materially assisted the Roman victory. For his services he received the kingdom of Syphax, and thus under Roman protection he became master of the whole of Numidia, and his dominions completely enclosed the Carthaginian territories, now straitened and reduced at the close of the Second Punic War. It would seem that he had thoughts of annexing Carthage itself with the connivance of Rome. In a war which soon followed he was successful; the remonstrances of Carthage with Rome on the behaviour of her ally were answered by the appointment of Scipio as arbitrator; but, as though intentionally on the part of Rome, no definite settlement was arrived at, and thus the relations between Massinissa and the Carthaginians continued strained. Rome, it is certain, deliberately favoured her ally’s unjust claims with the view of keeping Carthage weak, and Massinissa on his part was cunning enough to retain the friendship of the Roman people by helping them with liberal supplies in their wars against Perseus of Macedon and Antiochus. As soon as Carthage seemed to be recovering herself, and some of Massinissa’s partisans were driven from the city into exile, his policy was to excite the fears of Rome, till at last in 149 war was declared—the Third Punic War, which ended in the final overthrow of Carthage. The king took some part in the negotiations which preceded the war, but died soon after its commencement in the ninetieth year of his age and the sixtieth of his reign.

Massinissa was an able ruler and a decided benefactor to Numidia. He converted a plundering tribe into a settled and civilized population, and out of robbers and marauders made efficient and disciplined soldiers. To his sons he bequeathed a well-stored treasury, a formidable army, and even a fleet. Cirta (q.v.), his capital, became a famous centre of Phoenician civilization. In fact Massinissa changed for the better the whole aspect of a great part of northern Africa. He had much of the Arab nature, was singularly temperate, and equal to any amount of fatigue. His fidelity to Rome was merely that of temporary expediency. He espoused now one side, and now the other, but on the whole supported Rome, so that orators and historians could speak of him as “a most faithful ally of the Roman people.”

See Livy xxiv. 49, xxviii. 11, 35, 42, xxix. 27, xxx. 3, 12, 28, 37, xlii. 23, 29, xliii. 3; Polybius iii. 5, ix. 42, xiv. 1, xxxii. 2, xxxvii. 3; Appian, Hisp. 37, Punica, 11, 27, 105; Justin xxxiii. 1; A. H. J. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome (London, 1904).

MASSON, DAVID (1822-1907), Scottish man of letters, was born at Aberdeen on the 2nd of December 1822, and educated at the grammar school there and at Marischal College. Intending to enter the Church, he proceeded to Edinburgh University, where he studied theology under Dr Chalmers, whose friendship he enjoyed until the divine’s death in 1847. However, abandoning his project of the ministry, he returned to his native city to undertake the editorship of the Banner, a weekly paper devoted to the advocacy of Free Kirk principles. After two years he resigned this post and went back to the capital, bent upon pursuing a purely literary career. There he wrote a great deal, contributing to Fraser’s Magazine, Dublin University Magazine (in which appeared his essays on Chatterton) and other periodicals. In 1847 he went to London, where he found wider scope for his energy and knowledge. He was secretary (1851-1852) of the “Society of the Friends of Italy.” In a famous interview with Mrs Browning at Florence he contested her admiration for Napoleon III. He had known De Quincey, whose biography he contributed in 1878 to the “English Men of Letters” series, and he was an enthusiastic friend and admirer of Carlyle. In 1852 he was appointed professor of English literature at University College, London, in succession to A. H. Clough, and from 1858 to 1865 he edited the newly established Macmillan’s Magazine. In 1865 he was selected for the chair of rhetoric and English literature at Edinburgh, and during the early years of his professorship actively promoted the movement for the university education of women. In 1879 he became editor of the Register of the Scottish Privy Council, and in 1893 was appointed Historiographer Royal for Scotland. Two years later he resigned his professorship. His magnum opus in his Life of Milton in Connexion with the History of His Own Time in six volumes, the first of which appeared in 1858 and the last in 1880. He also edited the library edition of Milton’s Poetical Works (3 vols., 1874), and De Quincey’s Collected Works (14 vols., 1889-1890). Among his other publications are Essays, Biographical and Critical (1856, reprinted with additions, 3 vols., 1874), British Novelists and their Styles (1859), Drummond of Hawthornden (1873), Chatterton (1873) and Edinburgh Sketches (1892). He died on the 6th of October 1907. A bust of Masson was presented to the senate of the university of Edinburgh in 1897. Professor Masson had married Rosaline Orme. His son Orme Masson became professor of chemistry in the university of Melbourne, and his daughter Rosaline is known as a writer and novelist.

MASSON, LOUIS CLAUDE FRÉDÉRIC (1847- ), French historian, was born at Paris on the 8th of March 1847. His father, Francis Masson, a solicitor, was killed on the 23rd of June 1848, when major in the garde nationale. Young Masson was educated at the college of Sainte Barbe, and at the lycée Louis-le-Grand, and then travelled in Germany and in England; from 1869 to 1880 he was librarian at the Foreign Office. At first he devoted himself to the history of diplomacy, and published between 1877 and 1884 several volumes connected with that subject. Later he published a number of more or less curious memoirs illustrating the history of the Revolution and of the empire. But he is best known for his books connected with Napoleon. In Napoléon inconnu (1895), Masson, together with M. Guido Biagi, brought out the unpublished writings (1786-1793) of the future emperor. These were notes, extracts from historical, philosophical and literary books, and personal reflections in which one can watch the growth of the ideas later carried out by the emperor with modifications necessitated by the force of circumstances and his own genius. But this was only one in a remarkable series: Joséphine de Beauharnais, 1763-1796 (1898); Joséphine, impératrice et reine (1899); Joséphine répudiée 1809-1814 (1901); L’Impératrice Marie Louise (1902); Napoléon et les femmes (1894); Napoléon et sa famille (9 vols., 1897-1907); Napoléon et son fils (1904); and Autour de l’Île d’Elbe (1908). These works abound in details and amusing anecdotes, which throw much light on the events and men of the time, laying stress on the personal, romantic and dramatic aspects of history. The author was made a member of the Académie française in 1903. From 1886 to 1889 he edited the review Arts and Letters, published in London and New York.