Chapter 12

(J. M. M.)

1Capitolinus states that he was originally called Catilius Severus after his mother’s grandfather; if so the name was early discarded.2Aurelius has been severely criticized for sending Verus. Among various reasons, the most convincing is that the presence of Aurelius was required in Rome; moreover, the real leader was evidently Cassius.

1Capitolinus states that he was originally called Catilius Severus after his mother’s grandfather; if so the name was early discarded.

2Aurelius has been severely criticized for sending Verus. Among various reasons, the most convincing is that the presence of Aurelius was required in Rome; moreover, the real leader was evidently Cassius.

MARCY, WILLIAM LEARNED(1786-1857), American statesman, was born in Southbridge (then part of Sturbridge), Massachusetts, on the 12th of December 1786. He graduated at Brown University in 1808, studied law, was admitted to the bar in Troy, New York, and began practice there in 1810. During the War of 1812 he served first as a lieutenant and afterwards as a captain of volunteers, and on the 22nd of October 1812 took part in the storming of the British post at St Regis, Canada. In 1816 he became recorder of Troy, but as he sided with the Anti-Clinton faction of the Democratic-Republican Party, known as the “Bucktails,” he was removed from office in 1818 by his political opponents. As editor of the TroyBudget(daily) he was a vigorous supporter of Martin Van Buren, and when Van Buren’s followers acquired control of the legislature in 1821 Marcy was made adjutant-general of the New York militia. From 1823 to 1829 Marcy was comptroller of the state, an office then especially important on account of the large expenditures for internal improvements, and during this period he became the leading member of the famous “Albany Regency,” a group of able Democratic politicians who exerted a powerful influence throughout the state by their control of the party patronage and machinery. He was one of the associate justices of the New York Supreme Court from 1829 to 1831, presiding over the trial of the alleged murderers of William Morgan and in other important cases; and was a member of the United States Senate from December 1831 to July 1832, when he resigned to become governor of New York. In a speech in the Senate defending Van Buren against an attack by Henry Clay, Marcy made the unfortunate remark that “to the victors belong the spoils of the enemy,” and thereby became widely known as a champion of the proscription of political opponents. He served as governor of New York for six years (Jan. 1, 1833 to Dec. 31, 1838), but was defeated in 1838 by the Whig candidate, William H. Seward. As governor he checked the issue of bank charters by the legislature and secured the enactment, in 1838, of a general banking law, which abolished the monopoly features incident to the old banking system. In 1839-1842 Marcy was a member of a commission appointed by President Van Buren, in accordance with the treaty of 1839 between the United States and Mexico to “examine and decide upon” certain claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico. In 1843 he presided over the Democratic state convention at Syracuse, and in 1844-1845 he was recognized as one of the leaders of the “Hunkers,” or regular Democrats in New York, and an active opponent of the “Barnburners.” He was secretary of war under President Polk from 1845 to 1849, and as such, discharged with ability the especially onerous duties incident to the conduct of the Mexican War; he became involved, however, in controversies with Generals Scott and Taylor, who accused him, it seems very unjustly, of seeking to embarrass their operations in the field because they were political opponents of the administration. In the Democratic convention at Baltimore, in 1852, Marcy was a prominent candidate for the presidential nomination, and from 1853 to 1857 he was secretary of state in the cabinet of President Pierce. Few cabinet officers in time of peace have had more engrossing duties. His circular of the 1st of June 1853 to American diplomatic agents abroad, recommending that, whenever practicable, they should “appear in the simple dress of an American citizen,” created much discussion in Europe; in 1867 his recommendation was enacted into a law of Congress. One of the most important matters with which he was called upon to deal was the “Koszta Affair”;1his “Hülsemann letter” (1853), is an importantstate paper, and the principles it enunciates have been approved by leading authorities on international law. In the same year he secured the negotiation of the Gadsden Treaty (seeGadsden, James), by which the boundary dispute between Mexico and the United States was adjusted and a large area was added to the Federal domain; and in June 1854 he concluded with Lord Elgin, governor-general of Canada, acting for the British Government, a treaty designed to settle the fisheries question and providing for tariff reciprocity (as regards certain enumerated commodities) between Canada and the United States. In 1854 Marcy had to deal with the complications growing out of the bombardment of San Juan del Norte (Greytown), Nicaragua, by the United States sloop-of-war “Cyane” for insults offered the American minister by its inhabitants and for their refusal to make restitution for damages to American property. The expedition of William Walker (q.v.) to Nicaragua in 1855 further complicated the Central American question. The Crimean War, on account of the extensive recruiting therefor by British consuls in several American cities, in violation of American neutrality, led to a diplomatic controversy with Great Britain, and in May 1856 the British minister, John F. T. Crampton (1805-1886), received his passports, and the exequaturs of the British consuls at New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati were revoked. The incident created great excitement in England, but in 1857 the British government sent Sir Francis Napier to Washington to take Crampton’s place. To the Declaration of Paris of 1856, prescribing certain rules of naval warfare, Marcy on behalf of his government refused to subscribe, because Great Britain had rejected his proposed amendment exempting from seizure in time of war all private property not contraband. The diplomatic relations of the United States and Spain furnished, perhaps, the most perplexing of Marcy’s problems. Upon the seizure (on Feb. 28, 1854) of the American vessel “Black Warrior,” the confiscation of her cargo, and the fining of her captain by the Cuban authorities, on the ground that this vessel had violated the customs regulations of the port of Havana, slavery propagandists sought to force the administration into an attitude that would lead to war with Spain and make possible the seizure of Cuba; and it was largely due to Marcy’s influence that war was averted, Spain restoring the confiscated cargo and remitting the captain’s fine.2The secretary, however, was not averse to increasing his popularity and his chances for the presidency by obtaining Cuba in an honourable manner, and it was at his suggestion that James Buchanan, J. Y. Mason and Pierre Soulé, the ministers respectively to Great Britain, France and Spain, met at Ostend and Aix-la-Chapelle in October 1854 to discuss the Cuban question. But the remarkable “Ostend Manifesto” (seeBuchanan, James), the outcome of their conference, was quite unexpected, and Marcy promptly disavowed the document. Marcy died at Ballston Spa, New York, on the 4th of July 1857, a short time after the close of Pierce’s administration. In domestic affairs Marcy was a shrewd, but honest partisan; in diplomacy he exhibited the qualities of a broad-minded, patriotic statesman, endowed, however, with vigour, rather than brilliancy, of intellect.

For his early career, consult J. S. Jenkins,Lives of the Governors of New York(Auburn, New York, 1851), and for his work as secretary of state, see James Ford Rhodes,History of the United States(vols. i. and ii., New York, 1892), and an article by Sidney Webster, “Mr Marcy, the Cuban Question, and the Ostend Manifesto,” in vol. viii. of thePolitical Science Quarterly(New York, 1893).

1The “Koszta Affair” involved an interesting question of international law—i.e.the right of an alien domiciled in any country to the protection of that country—and has served as a precedent for the American government in somewhat similar cases that have arisen. Martin Koszta, a Hungarian revolutionist of 1848, had emigrated to the United States and had there taken the preliminary step for naturalization by formally declaring his intention to become a citizen of the United States. In 1853 he went on personal business to Smyrna, where he secured a passport from the American consul; the Austrian consul, however, caused him to be seized and detained on an Austrian brig-of-war. Soon afterward Captain Duncan N. Ingraham (1802-1891), in command of a United States sloop-of-war, arrived at Smyrna, and threatened to attack the Austrian vessel unless Koszta were released; and as a compromise Koszta was placed in the custody of the French consul. To Chevalier Hülsemann, then representing Austria at Washington, who had demanded from the United States the disavowal of the acts of its agents, the complete surrender of Koszta, and “satisfaction proportionate to the magnitude of the outrage,” Marcy wrote on the 26th of September 1853, that Koszta “when seized and imprisoned was invested with the nationality of the United States” and had a right to the protection of the United States government, and added: “Whenever by the law of nations an individual becomes clothed with our national character—he can claim the protection of this government, and it may respond to that claim without being obliged to explain its conduct to any foreign power; for it is its duty to make its nationality respected by other nations and respectable in every quarter of the globe.” Eventually Koszta was released and returned to the United States. The Hülsemann letter was published and greatly increased Marcy’s popularity.2See Henry L. James, “The Black Warrior Affair” in theAmerican Historical Review, vol. xii. (1907).

2See Henry L. James, “The Black Warrior Affair” in theAmerican Historical Review, vol. xii. (1907).

MARDIN,the chief town of a sanjak of the Diarbekr vilayet of Asiatic Turkey. It is a military station on the Diarbekr-Mosul road. It occupies a remarkable site on the south side of a conical hill of soft limestone, and the houses rise tier above tier. The streets are narrow and paved in steps, while often the roadway runs along the roof of the house in the tier below. The hill is almost surrounded by old walls, while on the summit are the remains of the famous castle of the Kaleh Shubha (Lat.MarideorMarde,) which from Roman times has played an important part in history. The Arab geographers considered it impregnable, and from its steep approaches and well-arranged defences it was able to offer a protracted resistance to the Mongolian conqueror Hulagu and to the armies of Timur. It was also for several centuries the residence of more or less independent princes of the Ortokid Turkoman dynasty. The climate is healthy and dry, and fruit grows well, but water is sometimes scanty in the summer. Mardin is the centre of a good corn-growing district, and is important chiefly as a border town for the Kurds on the north and the Arab tribes to the south. It is the chief centre of the Jacobite Christians, who have many villages in the Tor Abdin hills to the north-east, and whose patriarch lives at Deir Zaferan, a Syrian monastery of the 9th century not far off in the same direction. The population is estimated at 27,000, of whom about one-half are Christians of the Armenian, Chaldean, Jacobite, Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. Besides many mosques and churches there are three monasteries (Syrian, Franciscan and Capuchin), and an important American Mission station, with church, schools and a medical officer.

MARDUK(Bibl.Merodach1), the name of the patron deity of the city of Babylon, who, when Babylon permanently became the political centre of the united states of the Euphrates valley under Khammurabi (c.2250B.C.), rose to the position of the head of the Babylonian pantheon. His original character was that of a solar deity, and he personifies more specifically the sun of the spring-time who conquers the storms of the winter season. He was thus fitted to become the god who triumphs over chaos that reigned in the beginning of time. This earlier Marduk, however, was effaced by the reflex of the political development through which the Euphrates valley passed and which led to imbuing him with traits belonging to gods who at an earlier period were recognized as the heads of the pantheon. There are more particularly two gods—Ea and Bel—whose powers and attributes pass over to Marduk. In the case of Ea the transfer proceeds pacifically and without involving the effacement of the older god. Marduk is viewed as the son of Ea. The father voluntarily recognizes the superiority of the son and hands over to him the control of humanity. This association of Marduk and Ea, while indicating primarily the passing of the supremacy once enjoyed by Eridu to Babylon as a religious and political centre, may also reflect an early dependence of Babylon upon Eridu, not necessarily of a political character but, in view of the spread of culture in the Euphrates valley from the south to the north, the recognition of Eridu as the older centre on the part of the younger one. At all events, traces of a cult of Marduk at Eridu are to be noted in the religious literature, and the most reasonable explanation for the existence of a god Marduk in Eridu is to assume that Babylon in this way paid its homage to the old settlement at the head of the Persian Gulf.

While the relationship between Ea (q.v.) and Marduk is thus marked by harmony and an amicable abdication on the part of the father in favour of his son, Marduk’s absorption of the power and prerogatives of Bel of Nippur was at the expense of the latter’s prestige. After the days of Khammurabi, the cult of Marduk eclipses that of Bel (q.v.), and although during the five centuries of Cassite control in Babylonia (c.1750-1200B.C.), Nippur and the cult of the older Bel enjoy a period of renaissance, when the reaction ensued it marked the definite and permanent triumph of Marduk over Bel until the end of the Babylonian empire. The only serious rival to Marduk after 1200B.C.is Assur (q.v.) in Assyria. In the south Marduk reigns supreme, and his supremacy is indicated most significantly by making him theBel, “the lord,”par excellence.

The old myths in which Bel of Nippur was celebrated as the hero were transformed by the priests of Babylon in the interestof the Marduk cult with the chief rôle assigned to their favourite. The hymns once sung in the temple of Bel were re-edited and adapted to the cult of Babylon. In this process the older Bel was deliberately set aside, and the climax was reached when the conquest of the monster Tiamat, symbolizing the chaos prevailing in primeval days, was ascribed to Marduk instead of, as in the older form of the epic, to Bel. With this stroke Marduk became the creator of the world, including mankind—again setting aside the far older claims of Bel to this distinction.

Besides absorbing the prerogatives of Ea and Bel, Marduk was also imbued with the attributes of other of the great gods, such as Adad, Shamash, Nergal and Ninib, so that, more particularly as we approach the days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the impression is created that Marduk was the only real deity recognized, and that the other gods were merely the various forms under which he manifested himself. So far as one can speak of a monotheistic tendency in Babylonia it connects itself with this conception that was gradually crystallized in regard to the old solar deity of Babylon.

The history of the city of Babylon can now be traced back to the days of Sargon of Agade (before 3000B.C.) who appears to have given the city its name. There is every reason to assume, therefore, that the cult of Marduk existed already at this early period, though it must always be borne in mind that, until the days of Khammurabi, his jurisdiction was limited to the city of which he was the patron and that he was viewed solely as a solar deity.

On monuments and cylinders he is represented as armed with the weapon with which he despatched the monster Tiamat. At times this monster is also depicted lying vanquished at his feet, and occasionally the monster with the lance or the lance alone is reproduced instead of the god himself.

In the astral-theological system, Marduk is identified with the planet Jupiter. As the creator of the world, the New Year’s festival, known as Zagmuk and celebrated at the time of the vernal equinox, was sacred to him. The festival, which lasted for eleven days, symbolized the new birth of nature—a reproduction therefore of the creation of the world. The arbiter of all fates, Marduk, was pictured as holding an assembly of the gods during the New Year’s festival for the purpose of deciding the lot of each individual for the year to come. The epic reciting his wonderful deed in despatching the monster Tiamat and in establishing law and order in the world in the place of chaos was recited in his temple at Babylon known as E-Saggila, “the lofty house,” and there are some reasons for believing that the recital was accompanied by a dramatical representation of the epic.

The meaning of the name Marduk is unknown. By a species of word-play the name was interpreted as “the son of the chamber,” with reference perhaps to the sacred chamber of fate in which he sat in judgment on the New Year’s festival. Ideographically he is represented by two signs signifying “child of the day” (or “of the sun”) which is a distinct allusion to his original solar character. Other ideographic signs describe him as the “strong and universal ruler.” The name of his consort was Sarpanit,i.e.the shining or brilliant one—again an allusion to Marduk’s solar traits—and this name was playfully twisted by the Babylonian priests to mean “the seed-producing” (as though compounded ofzēr, seed, andbānit, producing), which was regarded as an appropriate appellation for the female counterpart of the creator of mankind and of life in general. The punning etymology betrays the evident desire of the priests to see in Marduk’s consort a form or manifestation of the great mother-goddess Ishtar (q.v.), just as in Assyria Ishtar frequently appears as the consort of the chief god of Assyria, known as Assur (q.v.).

(M. JA.)

1The name Mordecai denotes “belonging toMarduk.”

MARE,the English term for the female of any animal of the familyEquidae, of the ass, or zebra, but particularly of the horse. It is also used of the camel. To find a “mare’s nest” is an old proverbial saying for a purely imaginary discovery. In “night-mare,” an oppressive or terrifying dream, the termination is a word appearing asmar,maerandmarain various Teutonic languages for a goblin, supposed to sit on a sleeper’s chest and cause these dreams: cf. elf. This Teutonic word also appears in the Frenchcauchemar, the first part being fromcaucher, to tread or trample upon, Lat.calcare.

MARE CLAUSUMandMARE LIBERUM(Lat. for “closed sea” and “free sea”), in international law, terms associated with the historic controversy which arose out of demands on the part of different states to assert exclusive dominion over areas of the open or high sea. Thus Spain laid claim to exclusive dominion over whole oceans, Great Britain to all her environing narrow seas and so on. These claims gave rise to vigorous opposition by other powers and led to the publication of Grotius’s work (1609) calledMare liberum. InMare clausum(1635) John Selden endeavoured to prove that the sea was practically as capable of appropriation as territory. Owing to the conflict of claims which grew out of the controversy, maritime states had to moderate their demands and base their pretensions to maritime dominion on the principle that it extended seawards from land.

A formula was found by Bynkershoek in hisDe dominio maris(1702) for the restriction of dominion over the sea to the actual distance to which cannon range could protect it. This became universally adopted and developed into the three-mile belt (seeTerritorial Waters). In recent times controversies have arisen in connexion with the Baltic, the Black Sea and more especially the Bering Sea. In the latter case the United States, after the purchase of Alaska, vainly attempted to assert dominion beyond the three-mile limit. Still more recently the hardship of treating the greater part of Moray Firth as open sea to the exclusion of British and to the advantage of foreign fishermen has been raised (seeNorth Sea Fisheries Convention;Territorial Waters).

Conventions for the suppression of the slave trade, including the Brussels General Act of 1885, and the North Sea Fisheries Convention, have placed restrictions on the freedom of the high sea, and possibly, in the general interest, other agreements will bring it further under control, on the principle that what is the property of all nations must be used without detriment to its use by others (seeHigh Seas).

(T. Ba.)

MAREE, LOCH,a fresh-water lake in the county of Ross and Cromarty, Scotland. Its name—of which Maroy and Mourie are older variants—does not, as is often supposed, commemorate the Virgin, but St Maelrubha, who came from Bangor in Ireland in 671 and founded a monastery at Applecross and a chapel (now in ruins) on Isle Maree. Trending in a south-easterly to north-westerly direction, the lake has a length of 131⁄2m. from Kinlochewe at the head of the dam erected in the 16th century (or earlier) by the iron-smelters of the Cheardach Ruardh, or Red Smiddy, on the short but impetuous river Ewe by which it drains to the sea. It lies at a height of 32 ft. above sea-level; the greatest breadth is just over 2 m. at Slattadale, the mean breadth being9⁄10of a mile; and the greatest depth, 367 ft., occurs in the upper basin, the mean depth being 125 ft. Its waters cover an area of fully 11 sq. m., and its islands nearly 1 sq. m., while the drainage area is 171 sq. m. A remarkable feature is the large number (more than 30) and considerable area of the islands. Excepting Loch Cròcach, a small lake in the Assynt district of Sutherlandshire, its insularity (i.e.the ratio of the total area of the islands to that of the water surface) is higher than that of any other lake in Great Britain, Loch Lomond coming next. Nearly all the islands lie north and east of Slattadale, the largest being Eilean Subhainn, or St Swithin’s Isle, which contains a small lake 750 ft. long, 300 ft. broad and 64 ft. deep. For two-thirds of its length the loch is flanked by magnificent mountains. On the north-east the principal heights are Ben Slioch (3217 ft.), whose sugar-loaf form dominates the landscape, Ben Lair (2817) and Ben Airidh-a-Char (2593), and, on the south-west, the peaks of Ben Eay, four of which exceed 3000 ft.

MAREMMA(a corruption ofMarittima, “situated on the sea”), a marshy region of Tuscany, Italy, extending from the mouth of the Cecina to Orbetello and varying in breadth from 15 to 20 m. In Etruscan and Roman times the Maremma was apopulous and fertile coast plain, with considerable towns situated on the hills—Populonia, Russellae, Cosa, &c., and was drained by a complete system of subterranean canals which were brought to light by the excavations made in connexion with the railways passing through the district. But the decline of agriculture at the end of the Republic led to a conversion of the land to pasture, and later the unsettled state of affairs consequent on the fall of the Roman Empire resulted in neglect of the watercourses. Leopold II. of Tuscany (1822-1844) made the first successful efforts to counteract the malaria which has affected the district, by drainage, the filling up of swamps, and the establishment of new farms, and since his time continuous efforts have been made with considerable success.

MARENGO,a village of north Italy, on the road between Alessandria and Tortona, and 43⁄4m. E.S.E. of the gates of the former. It is situated on the Fontanone brook, a small affluent of the Tanaro which marks the western edge of the plain of Marengo, the scene of the great victory won by Napoleon over the Austrians under Baron Melas (1729-1806) on the 14th of June 1800. (The antecedents of the battle are described underFrench Revolutionary Wars).

The French army, in ignorance of its opponent’s position, had advanced westward from the Scrivia towards Alessandria on the 12th, and its outposts had reached the Bormida on the evening of the 13th. But contact with the main Austrian army was not obtained, and on the assumption that it was moving towards either Valenza or Genoa Napoleon weakened his army by considerable detachments sent out right and left to find the enemy and to delay his progress. Unknown, however, to Napoleon Melas’s army was still at Alessandria, and on the morning of the 14th of June it filed out of the fortress and began its advance into the great plain of Marengo, one of the few favourable cavalry battle-grounds in north Italy.

The dispersion of the French army allowed only a fragmentary, though most energetic, resistance to be offered to the Austrian onset. The latter, considerably delayed at first by the crossing of the river Bormida, broke up into two columns,1which advanced, the right by the main road on Marengo, the left on Castel Ceriolo. The former, personally commanded by Melas, was 20,000 strong, and General Victor, its immediate opponent, about 10,000, or including some 5000 of Lannes’ corps who fought on his right, about 15,000 strong; the Austrians were, moreover, greatly superior in guns and cavalry. The French disputed every yard of ground, holding their first line until they had by fire and counter-attack forced practically the whole of the Austrian right to deploy, and two hours passed before the Austrians managed to reach the Fontanone brook. But Victor’s troops, being disorganized and short of ammunition, had then to retire more rapidly across the plain. The retreat was orderly, according to Victor’s report, and made in échelon from the centre, and it is certain that at any rate the regiments held together, for the 6000 Austrian sabres found no opportunity to charge home. Many guns and wagons were, however, abandoned.

On the French right, opposed to the column of Lieut.-Field-Marshal Ott, was Lannes, with some 4000 men (excluding Watrin’s division which was with Victor) against 7500. He too was after a time forced to retire, with heavy losses. Thus, about 11 a.m. the First Consul, who was at some distance from the field, was at last convinced that he had to deal with Melas’s army. At once he sent out his staff officers to bring back his detachments, and pushed forward his only reserve, Monnier’s division, to support Lannes and Victor. But before this help arrived Lannes had been driven out of Castel Ceriolo, and Victor and Watrin forced back almost to San Giuliano. A little after 2 p.m. Monnier’s division (3500) came into action, and its impetuous advance drove the Austrians out of Castel Ceriolo. But after an hour it was forced back in its turn, and by 3 p.m. therefore, the 20,000 French troops, disordered and exhausted, and in one line without reserves,2held a ragged line of battle to the right and left of San Giuliano. The best that could be expected was a prolongation of the struggle till nightfall and a fairly orderly retreat. The Austrian general, believing that the battle was won, returned to Alessandria, leaving a younger man, his chief of staff Zach, to organize the pursuit.

Then followed one of the most dramatic events in military history. Of the two detachments sent away by Napoleon in search of the enemy, one only received its orders of recall. This was Boudet’s division of Desaix’s corps, away to the south at Rivalta and at noon heading for Pozzolo-Formigaro on the Alessandria-Genoa road. At 1 p.m. a brief message, “Revenez, au nom de Díeu!” altered the direction of the column, and between 4 and 5, after a forced march, the division, headed by Desaix, came on to the battle-field. It was deployed as a unit and moved forward at the word of command along the main road Alessandria-Tortona, the sight of their closed line giving fresh courage to the men of Lannes and Victor. Then, while on the other side Zach was arraying a deep column of troops to pursue along the main road, Napoleon and Desaix, themselves under fire, hastily framed a plan of attack. All arms were combined. First, Marmont with eight of Boudet’s guns and ten others (the rest had been abandoned in the retirement) came into action on the right of the road, replying to the fire of the Austrian guns and checking their advanced infantry; close in rear of the artillery was Desaix’s infantry with the remnants of Lannes’ and Victor’s troops rallying on its right and left; on Lannes’ right, still facing Ott’s column, was Monnier, supported by the Consular Guard of horse and foot; lastly 400 sabres of Kellermann’s cavalry brigade, which had already been engaged several times and had lost heavily, formed up on the right of Desaix. About 5 p.m. Desaix advanced against the head of the Austrian main column formed by Zach. He himself fell in the attack, but the onset of his intact troops drove back the leading Austrians upon their supports, and at the critical moment when the attack of Boudet’s single weak division had almost spent its force, Kellermann with his 400 sabres sallied out of the French line. Marmont had brought up two guns to assist the infantry, and as he fired his last round of case-shot the cavalry raced past him to the front, wheeled inwards against the flank of the great column, and rode through and through it. Zach was taken prisoner with more than 2000 men, and Kellermann, rallying some of his troopers, flung himself upon the astonished Austrian cavalry and with the assistance of the Consular Guard cavalry defeated it. The “will to conquer” spread along the whole French line, while the surprise of the Austrians suddenly and strangely became mere panic. Lannes, Victor and Monnier advanced afresh, pushing the Austrians back on Marengo. A few Austrian battalions made a gallant stand at that place, while Melas himself, as night came on, rallied the fugitives beyond. Next day the completely exhausted, but victorious,French army extorted from the dazed Austrians a convention by which all Italy up to the Mincio was evacuated by them. The respective losses were: French about 4000, Austrians 9500.

See the French officialCampagne de l’armée de réserve, vol. ii., by C. de Cugnac.

1A third column was sent out to the extreme right (3000 under O’Reilly). This destroyed a small French detachment on the extreme left, but took little or no part in the main battle.2The Austrians, too, fighting in “linear” formation had few reserves. About one-third only of the imperial forces in Italy was actually engaged in the battle.

1A third column was sent out to the extreme right (3000 under O’Reilly). This destroyed a small French detachment on the extreme left, but took little or no part in the main battle.

2The Austrians, too, fighting in “linear” formation had few reserves. About one-third only of the imperial forces in Italy was actually engaged in the battle.

MAREOTIS(ArabicMariut), the most westerly of the lakes in the Delta of Egypt. On the narrow strip of land separating the lake from the Mediterranean the city of Alexandria is built. (SeeEgypt; andAlexandria.)

MARE’S-TAIL,in botany, the popular name for an aquatic herb known botanically asHippuris vulgaris(natural order Haloragaceae). It grows on margins of lakes, ponds and similar localities, and has a submerged stout creeping rootstock from which spring many-jointed cylindrical stems bearing numerous narrow leaves close-set in whorls. The minute greenish flowers are borne in the leaf-axils. Like many fresh-water plants it has a wide distribution, occurring in arctic and temperate regions in the northern hemisphere and reappearing in antarctic South America.

MARET, HUGUES-BERNARD,Duc de Bassano(1763-1839), French statesman and publicist, was born at Dijon. After receiving a sound education, he entered the legal profession and became advocate at the King’s Council at Paris. The ideas of the French Revolution profoundly influenced him, and wholly altered his career. The interest aroused by the debates of the first National Assembly suggested to him the idea of publishing them, conjointly with Méjean, in theBulletin de l’Assemblée. The publicist Charles Joseph Panckoucke (1736-1798), owner of theMercure de Franceand publisher of the famousEncyclopédie(1781), persuaded him to merge this in a larger paper, theMoniteur universel, which gained a wide repute for correctness and impartiality. He was a member of the moderate club, the Feuillants; but after the overthrow of the monarchy on the 10th of August 1792 he accepted an office in the ministry of foreign affairs, where he sometimes exercised a steadying influence. On the withdrawal of the British legation from Paris Maret went on a mission to London, where he had a favourable interview with Pitt on the 2nd of December 1792. All hope of an accommodation was, however, in vain. After the execution of Louis XVI. (Jan. 21, 1793), the chief French diplomatic agent, Chauvelin, was ordered to leave England, while the French Convention declared war (Feb. 1, 1793). These events precluded the possibility of success attending a second mission of Maret to London in January. After a space, in which he held no diplomatic post, he became ambassador of the French Republic at Naples; but, while repairing thither with De Sémonville he was captured by the Austrians and was kept in durance by them for some thirty months, until, at the close of 1795, the two were set free in return for the liberation of the daughter of Louis XVI. For a time Maret betook himself to journalism; but he played a useful part in the negotiations for a peace with Great Britain which went on at Lille during the summer of 1797, until the victory of the Jacobins at Paris in thecoup d’étatof Fructidor (Sept. 1797) frustrated the hopes of Pitt for peace and inflicted on Maret another reverse of fortune. On the return of Bonaparte from Egypt in 1799 Maret joined the general’s party which came to power with thecoup d’étatof Brumaire (Nov. 9-10, 1799).

Maret now became one of the First Consul’s secretaries and shortly afterwards secretary of state. In this position his moderation, industry, good sense, knowledge of men and of affairs, made his services of great value. TheMoniteur, which became the official journal of the state in 1800, was placed under his control. He sometimes succeeded in toning down the hard, abrupt language of Napoleon’s communications, and in every way proved a useful intermediary. It is known that he had a share in the drawing up of the new constitutions for the Batavian and Italian Republics. In 1804 he became Minister; in 1807 he was named count, and in 1809 he received the title of duc de Bassano, an honour which marked the sense entertained by Napoleon of his strenuous toil, especially in connexion with the diplomatic negotiations and treaties of this period. His personal devotion to the emperor was of that absolute unwavering kind which Napoleon highly valued; it is seen in the attempt to defend the unworthy artifices adopted by the great man in April-May 1808 in order to make himself master of the destinies of Spain. Maret also assisted in drawing up the constitution destined for Spain, which the Spaniards at once rejected.

Maret accompanied Napoleon through most of his campaigns, including that of 1809; and at its close he expressed himself in favour of the marriage alliance with the archduchess Marie Louise of Austria, which took place in 1810. In the spring of 1811, the duc de Bassano replaced Champagny, duc de Cadore, as minister of Foreign Affairs. In this capacity he showed his usual industry and devotion, concluding the treaties between France and Austria and France and Prussia, which preceded the French invasion of Russia in 1812. He was with Napoleon through the greater part of that campaign; and after its disastrous conclusion helped to prepare the new forces with which Napoleon waged the equally disastrous campaign of 1813. But in November 1813 Napoleon replaced him by Caulaincourt, duc de Vicence, who was thought to be more devoted to the cause of peace and personally grateful to the emperor Alexander I. of Russia. Maret, however, as private secretary of the emperor, remained with his master through the campaign of 1814, as also during that of 1815. After the second restoration of the Bourbons he was exiled, and retired to Grätz where he occupied himself with literary work. In 1820 he was allowed to return to France, and after the Revolution of 1830, Louis Philippe, king of the French, made him a peer of France; he also held two high offices for a few days. He died at Paris in 1839. He shares with Daru the honour of being the hardest worker and most devoted supporter in Napoleon’s service; but it has generally been considered that he carried devotion to the length of servility, and thus often compromised the real interests of France. This view has been contested by Baron Ernouf in his workMaret, duc de Bassano, which is the best biography.

For Maret’s mission to England in 1792 and his work at Lille in 1797, see Augustus W. Miles,Letters on the French Revolution; J. H. Rose,The Life and Times of William Pitt, and for other incidents of Maret’s career, the memoirs of Bourrienne, Pasquier, Méneval and Savary (duc de Rovigo), may be consulted. Thiers’s account of Maret is in general hostile to him.

(J. Hl. R.)

MARGARET(Fr.Marguerite, It.Margherita, Ger.Margareta, andMargarete, with dim.Grete,Gretchen,Meta, fr. Lat.margarita, Gr.μαργαρίτης, a pearl), a female proper name, which became very popular in all Christian countries as that of the saint noticed below. Biographies of some who have borne it are arranged below in the following order: saints, queens of Scotland, queens of other countries, princesses and duchesses.

MARGARET, ST(Sancta Margarita), virgin and martyr, is celebrated by the Church of Rome on the 20th of July. According to the legend, she was a native of Antioch, daughter of a pagan priest named Aedesius. She was scorned by her father for her Christian faith, and lived in the country with a foster mother keeping sheep. Olybrius, the “praeses orientis,” offered her marriage as the price of her renunciation of Christianity. Her refusal led to her being cruelly tortured, and after various miraculous incidents, she was put to death. Among the Greeks she is known as Marina, and her festival is on the 17th of July. She has been identified with St Pelagia (q.v.)—Marina being the Latin equivalent of Pelagia—who, according to a legend, was also called Margarito. We possess no historical documents on St Margaret as distinct from St Pelagia. An attempt has been made, but without success, to prove that the group of legends with which that of St Margaret is connected is derived from a transformation of the pagan divinity Aphrodite into a Christian saint. The problem of her identity is a purely literary question. The cult of St Margaret was very widespread in England, where more than 250 churches are dedicated to her.

SeeActa sanctorum, July, v. 24-45;Bibliotheca hagiographica. Latina(Brussels, 1899), n. 5303-5313; Frances Arnold-Forster,Studies in Church Dedications(London, 1899), i. 131-133 and iii. 19.

(H. De.)

MARGARET, ST(c.1045-1093), the queen of Malcolm III. Canmore king of Scotland, was the daughter of the English prince Edward, son of Edmund Ironside, and sister of Edgar Ætheling, and was probably born in Hungary. In 1067 the widow and children of Edward fled from Northumberland with a large number of followers and sought the protection of the Scottish king. The marriage of Malcolm and Margaret soon took place and was followed by several invasions of Northumberland by the Scottish king, probably in support of the claims of his brother-in-law Edgar. These, however, had little result beyond the devastation of the province. Far more important were the effects of this alliance upon the history of Scotland. A considerable portion of the old Northumbrian kingdom had been reduced by the Scottish kings in the previous century, but up to this time the English population had little influence upon the ruling element of the kingdom. Malcolm’s marriage undoubtedly improved the condition of the English to a great extent, and under Margaret’s sons, Edgar, Alexander I. and David I., the Scottish court practically became anglicized. Margaret died on the 17th of November 1093, four days after her husband and her eldest son Edward, who were slain in an invasion of Northumberland. She rebuilt the monastery of Iona, and was canonized in 1251 on account of her great benefactions to the Church.

SeeChronicles of the Picts and Scots(Edinburgh, 1867), edited 1876, by W. F. Skene; and W. F. Skene,Celtic Scotland(Edinburgh).

MARGARET(1489-1541), queen of Scotland, eldest daughter of Henry VII., king of England, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV., was born at Westminster on the 29th of November 1489. Before she was six years old negotiations were opened, which dragged on for several years, for marrying the princess to James IV. of Scotland, whose support of the pretender Perkin Warbeck it was hoped to avert by such an alliance. Eventually the marriage was celebrated in Edinburgh on the 8th of August 1503. The avaricious Henry VII. gave his daughter a scanty dowry and quarrels on this head embittered the relations between the two kingdoms, which the marriage, although accompanied by a treaty of perpetual peace, did nothing to heal. The whole of Margaret’s life after her marriage with James IV. was an unending series of intrigues, first with one political faction then with another; at one time in favour of her native country, at another in hostility to it, her conduct being mainly influenced at all times by considerations affecting her pocket.

Margaret was crowned at Edinburgh in March 1504. Until 1507 she had no children; between that date and 1510 two sons and a daughter were born, all of whom died in infancy; in 1512 she gave birth to a son who succeeded his father as James V.; in 1514 she bore a posthumous son, Alexander, created duke of Ross, who died in the following year. A dispute with her brother Henry VIII. over a legacy claimed by Margaret was a contributory cause of the war which ended at Flodden, where James IV. was killed on the 9th of September 1513, having by his will appointed Margaret sole guardian of her infant son, now King James V. Scotland was divided mainly into two parties, one in favour of alliance with England, and the other with France. The leader of the latter was John Stewart, duke of Albany, next heir to the crown of Scotland after Margaret’s sons; Margaret herself for the most part inclined to the English faction; and when Albany returned to Scotland from France on the invitation of the Scottish parliament in the spring of 1514, the conflict grew almost to civil war. Various projects for Margaret’s remarriage had already been started, Louis XII. of France and the emperor Maximilian being proposed as suitable husbands for the young widow, when the queen privately married Archibald Douglas, earl of Angus, on the 6th of August 1514. The consequences of this marriage were to alienate many of the most powerful of the nobility, especially the earls of Arran and Home, and to make Margaret entirely dependent on the house of Douglas; while it furnished the council with a pretext for removing her from the regency and guardianship of the king in favour of Albany in July 1515. Albany had to blockade Margaret in Stirling Castle before she would surrender her sons. After being obliged to capitulate, Margaret returned to Edinburgh, and being no longer responsible for the custody of the king she fled to England in September, where a month later she bore to Angus a daughter, Margaret, who afterwards became countess of Lennox, mother of Lord Darnley and grandmother of James I. of England.

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

Back to Index Next