Chapter 14

SeeP. et V. Margueritte(1905) by E. Pilon, in the series ofCélébrités d’aujourd’hui, and A. France,La Vie littéraire(4th series, 1892).

MARHEINEKE, PHILIP KONRAD(1780-1846), German Protestant divine, was born at Hildesheim, Hanover, on the 1st of May 1780. He studied at Göttingen, and in 1805 was appointed professor extraordinarius of philosophy at Erlangen; in 1807 he moved to Heidelberg. In 1811 he became professor ordinarius at Berlin, where from 1820 he was also preacher at Trinity Church and worked with Schleiermacher. When he died, on the 31st of May 1846, he was a member of the supreme consistorial council. At first influenced by Schelling, Marheineke found a new master in Hegel, and came to be regarded as the leader of the Hegelian Right. He sought to defend and explain all the orthodox doctrines of the Church in an orthodox way in the terms of Hegel’s philosophy. The dogmatic system that resulted from this procedure was inevitably more Hegelian than Christian; it was in fact an essentially new form of Christianity. Marheineke’s developed views on dogmatics are given in the third edition (1847) of hisDie Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik als Wissenschaft. When he published the first edition (1819) he was still under the influence of Schelling; the second edition (1827) marked his change of view. His works on symbolics show profound scholarship, keen critical insight, and rare impartiality. TheChristliche Symbolik(1810-1814) has been pronounced his masterpiece.

His other works includeInstitutiones symbolicae(1812; 3rd ed., 1830),Geschichte der deutschen Reformation(1816; 2nd ed., 1831-1834);Die Reformation, ihre Entstehung und Verbreitung in Deutschland(1846; 2nd ed., 1858), and the posthumousTheol. Vorlesungen(1847-1849).See F. Lichtenberger,History of German Theology(1889); A. Weber,Le Système dogmatique de Marheineke(1857); and cf. O. Pfleiderer,Development of Theology in Germany(1890).

See F. Lichtenberger,History of German Theology(1889); A. Weber,Le Système dogmatique de Marheineke(1857); and cf. O. Pfleiderer,Development of Theology in Germany(1890).

MARIANA, JUAN DE(1536-1624), Spanish historian, was born at Talavera. He studied at the university of Alcalá, and was admitted at the age of seventeen into the Society of Jesus. In 1561 he went to teach theology in Rome, reckoning among his pupils Robert Bellarmine, afterwards cardinal; then passed into Sicily; and in 1569 he was sent to Paris, where his expositions of the writings of Thomas Aquinas attracted large audiences. In 1574, owing to ill health, he obtained permission to return to Spain; the rest of his life being passed at the Jesuits’ house in Toledo in vigorous literary activity. He died at Madrid, on the 17th of February 1624.

Mariana’s great work,Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, first appeared in twenty books at Toledo in 1592; ten books were subsequently added (1605), bringing the work down to the accession of Charles V. in 1519, and in a still later abstract of events the author completed it to the accession of Philip IV. in 1621. It was so well received that Mariana was induced to translate it into Spanish (the first part in 1601; completed, 1609; Eng. trans., by J. Stevens, 1699). Mariana’sHistoriae, though in many parts uncritical, is justly esteemed for its research, accuracy, sagacity and style. Of his other works the most interesting is the treatiseDe rege et regis institutione(Toledo, 1598). In its sixth chapter the question whether it is lawful to overthrow a tyrant is freely discussed and answered in the affirmative, a circumstance which brought much odium upon the Jesuits, especially after the assassination of Henry IV. of France, in 1610. A volume entitledTractatus VII. theologici et historici(published by Mariana at Cologne, in 1609, containing in particular a tract, “De morte et immortalitate,” and another,”De mutatione monetae”) was put upon the index expurgatorius, and led to the confinement of its author by the Inquisition. During his confinement there was found among his papers a criticism upon the Jesuits, which was printed after his death asDiscursus de erroribus qui in forma gubernationis societatis Jesu occurrunt(Bordeaux, 1625), and was reprinted by order of Charles III. when he banished the Jesuits from Spain.See L. von Ranke,Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber(Leipzig, 1874), and Cirot,Études sur les historiographes espagnols;Mariana, historien(Bordeaux, 1905).

See L. von Ranke,Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber(Leipzig, 1874), and Cirot,Études sur les historiographes espagnols;Mariana, historien(Bordeaux, 1905).

MARIANAO,a city of the province of Havana, Cuba, 6 m. W. by S. of the city of Havana, with which it is connected by the Marianao railway. Pop. (1899), 5416; (1907), 9332. Marianao is on a range of hills about 1500 ft. above the sea, is noted for its salubrious climate, and is mainly a place of residence for the families of prosperous business men of Havana. On the neighbouring coast is Marianao Beach, a popular bathing resort. The city dates from about 1830.

MARIANAS,Mariannes, orLadrones(Ger.Marianen), an archipelago in the north-western Pacific Ocean, in about 12° to 21° N. and 145° E. With the exception of the island of Guam (United States) it belongs to Germany, and administratively forms part of the New Guinea protectorate. It consists of two groups—a northern of ten volcanic main islands, of which only four (Agrigan, Anatahan, Alamagan and Pagan) are inhabited; and a southern of five coralline limestone islands (Rota, Guam, Aguijan, Tinian and Saypan), all inhabited save Aguijan. In the volcanic group an extreme elevation of about 2700 ft. is reached, and there are craters showing signs of activity, while earthquakes are not uncommon. Coral reefs fringe the coasts of the southern isles, which are of slight elevation. The total area, excluding Guam, is about 245 sq. m. and the population 2500, mostly descendants of the Tagal immigrants from the Philippines. All the islands except Farallon de Medinilla and Urracas or Mangs (in the northern group) are more or less densely wooded, and the vegetation is luxuriant, much resembling that of the Carolines, and also of the Philippines, whence many species of plants have been introduced. Owing to the humidity of the soil cryptogams are numerous, as also most kinds of grasses. Coco-nut and areca palms, yams, sweet potatoes, manioc, coffee, cocoa, sugar, cotton, tobacco and mother-of-pearl are the chief products, and copra is the principal export. Agriculture is neglected, in spite of the exceptional advantages offered by the climate and soil. On most of the islands there is a plentiful supply of water. The native population known to the early Spanish colonists as Chamorros has died out as a distinct people, though their descendants have intermarried with the immigrant Tagals and natives of the Carolines. At the Spanish occupation in 1668 the Chamorros were estimated at 40,000 to 60,000, butless than a century later only 1800 remained. They were typical Micronesians, with a considerable civilization. In the island of Tinian are some remarkable remains attributed to them, consisting of two rows of massive square stone columns, about 5 ft. 4 in. broad and 14 ft. high, with heavy round capitals. According to early Spanish accounts cinerary urns were found imbedded in the capitals.

The fauna of the Marianas, though inferior in number and variety, is similar in character to that of the Carolines, and certain species are indigenous to both colonies. Swine and oxen run wild, and are hunted when required: the former were known to the earlier inhabitants; the latter with most other domestic animals were introduced by the Spaniards. The climate though damp is healthy, while the heat, being tempered by the trade winds, is milder than that of the Philippines; the variations of temperature are not great.

The discovery of this archipelago is due to Magellan, who on the 6th of March 1521 observed the two southernmost islands, and sailed between them (O. Peschel,Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877). The nameIslas de los Ladrones(or “Islands of the Thieves”) was given them by the ship’s crew of Magellan on account of the thieving propensity of the inhabitants; and the islands are still commonly called the Ladrones. Magellan himself styled themIslas de las Velas Latinas(“Islands of the Lateen Sails”). San Lazarus archipelago, Jardines and Prazeres are among the names applied to them by later navigators. They received the nameLas Marianasin 1668 in honour of Maria Anna of Austria, widow of Philip IV. of Spain. Research in the archipelago was carried out by Commodore Anson, who in August 1742 landed upon the island of Tinian (George, Lord Anson,Voyage round the World, bk. iii., 1748). The Ladrones were visited by Byron in 1765, Wallis in 1767 and Crozet in 1772. The entire archipelago (except Guam) together with the Caroline and Pelew Islands was sold by Spain to Germany for £837,500 in 1899.See Anson,op. cit.; L. de Freycinet,Voyage autour du monde(Paris, 1826-1844); “The Marianas Islands” inNautical Magazine, xxxiv., xxxv. (London, 1865-1866); O. Finsch,Karolinen und Marianen(Hamburg, 1900); Costenoble,”Die Marianen”in Globus, lxxxviii. (1905).

See Anson,op. cit.; L. de Freycinet,Voyage autour du monde(Paris, 1826-1844); “The Marianas Islands” inNautical Magazine, xxxiv., xxxv. (London, 1865-1866); O. Finsch,Karolinen und Marianen(Hamburg, 1900); Costenoble,”Die Marianen”in Globus, lxxxviii. (1905).

MARIANAS,orMaranhas, a tribe of South American Indians on the river Jutahy, north-western Brazil. They wear small pieces of wood in their ears and lips, but are not tattooed. Marianas are also found on the upper reaches of the Putumayo across to the Yapurá.

MARIANUS SCOTUS(1028-1082 or 1083), chronicler (who must be distinguished from his namesake Marianus Scotus, d. 1088, abbot of St Peter’s, Regensburg), was an Irishman by birth, and called Moelbrigte, or servant of Bridget. He was educated by a certain Tigernach, and having become a monk he crossed over to the continent of Europe in 1056, and his subsequent life was passed in the abbeys of St Martin at Cologne and of Fulda, and at Mainz. He died at Mainz, on the 22nd of December 1082 or 1083.

Marianus wrote aChronicon, which purports to be a universal history from the creation of the world to 1082. TheChroniconwas very popular during the middle ages, and in England was extensively used by Florence of Worcester and other writers. It was first printed at Basel in 1559, and has been edited with an introduction by G. Waitz for theMonumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores(Bd. v.). See also W. Wattenbach,Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen(Bd. ii., 1894).

MARIA STELLA,the self-styled legitimate daughter of Philip, duke of Orleans. According to her, Louis Philippe was not the son of Philip duke of Orleans, but a suppositious child, his father being one Lorenzo Chiappini, constable at the village of Modigliana in Tuscany. The story is that the duke and duchess of Orleans, travelling under the incognito of Comte and Comtesse de Joinville, were at this village in April 1773, when the duchess gave birth to a daughter; and that the duke, desiring a son in order to prevent the rich Penthièvre inheritance from reverting to his wife’s relations in the event of her death, bribed the Chiappinis to substitute their newly-born male child for his own.

Maria Stella, the supposed daughter of Chiappini, went on the stage at Florence, where her putative parents had settled, and there at the age of thirteen became the wife of the first Lord Newborough, after whose death she married the Russian Count Ungern-Sternberg. On the death of her putative father in 1821 she received a letter, written by him shortly before his death, in which he confessed that she was not his daughter, adding “Heaven has repaired my fault, since you are in a better position than your real father, though he was of almost similar rank” (i.e.a French nobleman). Maria Stella henceforward devoted her time and fortune to establishing her identity. Her first success was the judgment of the episcopal court at Faenza, which in 1824 declared that the Comte Louis de Joinville exchanged his daughter for the son of Lorenzo Chiappini, and that the Demoiselle de Joinville had been baptized as Maria Stella, “with the false statement that she was the daughter of L. Chiappini and his wife.” The discovery that Joinville was a countship of the Orleans family, and a real or fancied resemblance of Louis Philippe to Chiappini, convinced her that the duke of Orleans was the person for whose sake she had been cheated of her birthright, a conviction strengthened by the striking resemblance which many people discovered in her to the princesses of the Orleans family. In 1830 she published her proofs under the titleMaria Stella ou un échange d’une demoiselle du plus haut rang contre un garçon de plus vile condition(reprinted 1839 and 1849). This coincided with the advent of Louis Philippe to the throne, and her claim became a weapon for those who wished to throw discredit and ridicule on the “bourgeois monarch.” He for his part treated the whole thing with amused contempt, and Baroness Newborough-Sternburg de Joinville, or Marie Étoile d’Orléans, as she called herself, was suffered to live in Paris until on the 23rd of December 1843 she died in poverty and obscurity.

In spite of much discussion and investigation, the case of Maria Stella remains one of the unsolved problems of history. Sir Ralph Payne Gallwey’sMystery of Maria Stella, Lady Newborough(London, 1907), is founded on her own accounts and argues in favour of her point of view. More convincing, however, is Maurice Vitrac’sPhilippe-Egalité et M. Chiappini(Paris, 1907), which is based on unpublished material in theArchives nationales. M. Vitrac seeks to overthrow Maria Stella’s case by an alibi. The duke and duchess of Chartres could not have been at Modigliana in April 1773, for the simple reason that they can be proved at that time to have been in Paris. On the 8th of April the duke, according to the officialGazette de France, took part in the Maundy Thursday ceremonies at Versailles; from the 7th to the 14th he was in constant attendance at the lodge of Freemasons of which he had just been elected grand master. Moreover, it was impossible for the first prince of the blood royal to leave France without the royal permission, and his absence would certainly have been remarked. Lastly, the duchess’s accouchement, a semi-public function in the case of royal princesses, did not take place till the 6th of October. M. Vitrac identifies the real father of Maria Stella with Count Carlo Battaglini of Rimini, who died in 1796 without issue: the case being not one of substitution, but of ordinary “farming out” to avoid a scandal.

MARIA THERESA(1717-1780), archduchess of Austria, queen of Hungary and Bohemia, and wife of the Holy Roman emperor Francis I., was born at Vienna on the 13th of May 1717. She was the eldest daughter of the Emperor Charles VI. (q.v.) and his wife Elizabeth of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. On the 12th of February 1736 she was married to her cousin Francis of Lorraine (q.v.), then grand duke of Tuscany, and afterwards emperor. Five sons and eleven daughters were born of this marriage. From the date of her father’s death on the 20th of October 1740, till her own death in 1780, Maria Theresa was one of the central figures in the wars and politics of Europe. But unlike some sovereigns, whose reigns have been agitated, but whose personal character has left little trace, Maria Theresa had a strong and in the main a noble individuality. Her great qualities were relieved by human traits which make her more sympathetic. It must be allowed that she was fairly open to the criticism implied in a husbandly jest attributed to Francis I. While they were returning from the opera house at Vienna she said to him that the singer they had just heard was the greatest actress who had ever lived, and he answered “Next to you, Madam.” Maria Theresa had undoubtedly an instinctive histrionic sense of the perspective of the theatre, and could adopt the appropriate attitude and gesture, passionate, dignified or pathetic, required to impress those she wished to influence. But there was no affectation in her assumption of a becoming bearing or in her picturesque words. The common story, that she appeared before the Hungarian magnates in the diet at Pressburg in 1741 with her infant son, afterwardsJoseph II., in her arms, and so worked on their feelings that they shoutedMoriamur pro rege nostro Maria Theresia, is only mythically true. But during the delicate negotiations which were required to secure the support of the Hungarian nobles she undoubtedly did appeal to them with passionate eloquence, and, we may believe, with a very pardonable sense of the advantage she obtained from her youth, her beauty and her sex. Her beauty, inherited from her mother, was of an open and noble German type. The official portrait by Muytens, engraved by Petit, gives a less convincing impression that an excellent chalk drawing of the head by Gabriel Mattei. In the conflict between her sense of what was morally just and her sense of duty to the state she laid herself open to the scoffing taunt of Frederick of Prussia, who said that in the first partition of Polandelle pleurait et prenait toujours. But the king of Prussia’s taunt is deprived of its sting by the almost incredible candour of her own words to Kaunitz, that if she was to lose her reputation before God and man for respecting the rights of others it must not be for a small advantage—if, in fact, Austria was to share in the plunder of Poland, she was to be consoled for the distress caused to her feelings by the magnitude of her share of the booty. There was no hypocrisy in the tears of the empress. Her intellectual honesty was as perfect as Frederick’s own, and she was as incapable as he was of endeavouring to blind herself to the quality of her own acts. No ruler was ever more loyal to a conception of duty. Maria Theresa considered herself first and foremost as the heiress of the rights of the house of Austria. Therefore, when her inheritance was assailed at the beginning of her reign, she fought for it with every weapon an honest woman could employ, and for years she cherished the hope of recovering the lost province of Silesia, conquered by Frederick. Her practical sense showed her the necessity of submitting to spoliation when she was overpowered. She accepted the peace of Berlin in 1742 in order to have a free hand against her Bavarian enemy, the emperor Charles VII. (q.v.). When Frederick renewed the war she accepted the struggle cheerfully, because she hoped to recover her own. Down to the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 she went on fighting for Silesia or its equivalent. In the years following the peace she applied herself to finding allies in France and Russia who would help her to recover Silesia. Here, as later in the case of Poland, she subordinated her feelings to her duty to the state. Though she denied that she had ever written directly to Madame de Pompadour, it is certain that she allowed her ministers to make use of the favourite’s influence over the French king. When fate decided against her in the Seven Years’ War she bowed to the inevitable, and was thenceforward a resolute advocate of peace.

In her internal government she showed herself anxious to promote the prosperity of her people, and to give more unity to an administration made up by the juxtaposition of many states and races with different characters and constitutions. Her instincts, like those of her enemy Frederick and her son Joseph II., were emphatically absolutist. She suspended the meetings of the estates in most parts of her dominions. She was able to do so because the mass of her subjects found her hand much lighter than that of the privileged classes who composed these bodies. Education, trade, religious toleration, the emancipation of the agricultural population from feudal burdens—all had her approval up to a certain point. She would favour them, but on the distinct condition that nothing was to be done to weaken the bonds of authority. She took part in the suppression of the Jesuits, and she resisted the pope in the interest of the state. Her methods were those of her cautious younger son, Leopold II., and not of her eldest son and immediate successor, Joseph II. She did not give her consent even to the suppression of torture in legal procedure without hesitation, lest the authority of the law should be weakened. Her caution had its reward, for whatever she did was permanently gained, whereas her successor in his boundless zeal for reform brought his empire to the verge of a general rebellion.

In her private life Maria Theresa was equally the servant of the state and the sovereign of all about her. She was an affectionate wife to her husband Francis I.; but she was always the queen of Hungary and Bohemia and archduchess of Austria, like her ancestress, Isabella the Catholic, who never forgot, nor allowed her husband to forget, that she was “proprietary queen” of Castile and Leon. She married her daughters in the interest of Austria, and taught themnotto forget their people and their father’s house. In the case of Marie Antoinette (q.v.), who married the dauphin, afterwards Louis XVI., she gave an extraordinary proof of her readiness to subordinate everything to the reason of state. She instructed her daughter to show a proper respect to her husband’s grandfather, Louis XV., by behaving with politeness to his mistresses, in order that the alliance between the two courts might run no risk. The signing of the peace of Teschen, which averted a great war with Prussia, on the 13th of May 1779, was the last great act of her reign, and so Maria Theresa judged it to be in a letter to Prince Kaunitz; she said that she had now finished her life’s journey and could sing aTe Deum, for she had secured the repose of her people at whatever cost to herself. The rest, she said, would not last long. Her fatal illness developed in the autumn of the following year, and she died on the 28th of November 1780. When she lay painfully on her deathbed her son Joseph said to her, “You are not at ease,” and her last words were the answer, “I am sufficiently at my ease to die.”

See A. von Arneth,Geschichte Maria Theresas(Vienna, 1863-1879) and J. F. Bright,Maria Theresa(London, 1897); also the articleAustria.

MARIAZELL,a village of Austria, in Styria, 89 m. N. of Graz. Pop. (1900), 1499. It is picturesquely situated in the valley of the Salza, amid the north Styrian Alps. Its entire claim to notice lies in the fact that it is the most frequented sanctuary in Austria, being visited annually by about 200,000 pilgrims. The object of veneration is a miracle-working image of the Virgin, carved in lime-tree wood, and about 18 in. high. This was presented to the place in 1157, and is now enshrined in a chapel lavishly adorned with objects of silver and other costly materials. The large church of which the chapel forms part was erected in 1644 as an expansion of a smaller church built by Louis I., king of Hungary, after a victory over the Turks in 1363. In the vicinity of Mariazell is the pretty Alpine lake of Erlafsee.

See M. M. Rabenlehrer,Mariazell, Österreichs Loreto(Vienna, 1891); and O. Eigner,Geschichte des aufgeshobenen Benedictinerstiftes Mariazell(Vienna, 1900).

MARIE AMÉLIE THÉRÈSE(1782-1866), queen of Louis Philippe, king of the French, was the daughter of Ferdinand IV., king of Naples, and the archduchess Maria Carolina, daughter of the empress Maria Theresa, and belonged to the house of Bourbon. She was born at Caserta, on the 26th of April 1782, and received a careful education which developed the naturally pious and honourable disposition that earned for her in the family circle the nickname of La Santa. Driven from Naples in 1798, the Neapolitan royal family fled to Palermo, and the years from 1800 to 1802 were spent by Marie Amélie with her mother at the Austrian court. In 1806 they were again in flight before the armies of Masséna, and it was during the second residence of her father’s court at Palermo that she met the exiled Louis Philippe, then duke of Orleans, whom she married in November 1809. Returning to France in 1814, the duke and duchess of Orleans had barely established themselves in the Palais Royal in Paris when the Hundred Days drove them into exile. Marie Amélie took refuge with her four children in England, where she spent two years at Orleans House, Twickenham. Again in France in 1817, her life at Neuilly until 1828 was the happiest period of her existence. Neither then nor at any other time did she take any active share in politics; but she was not without indirect influence on affairs, because her strong royalist and legitimist traditions prevented the court from including her in the suspicion with which her husband’s liberal views were regarded. Her attention was absorbed by the care and education of her numerous family, even after the revolution of 1830 had made her queen of the French, a position accepted by her with forebodings of disaster justified by her early experience ofrevolutions. During her second exile, from 1848 to the end of her life, she lived at Claremont, where her charity and piety endeared her to the many English friends of the Orleans family. Marie Amélie died at Claremont, on the 24th of March 1866.

See A. Trognon,Vie de Marie Amélie(1872); A. L. Baron Imbert de St Amand,La Jeunesse de Marie Amélie(1891),Marie Amélie au Palais Royal(1892),Marie Amélie et la cour de Palerme(1891),Marie Amélie et la cour des Tuileries(1892),Marie Amélie et l’apogée de règne de Louis Philippe(1893),Marie Amélie et la société française en 1847(1894), andMarie Amélie et la duchesse d’Orleans(1893).

MARIE ANTOINETTE(1755-1793), queen of France, ninth child of Maria Theresa and the emperor Francis I., was born at Vienna, on the 2nd of November 1755. She was brought up under a simple and austere régime and educated with a view to the French marriage arranged by Maria Theresa, the abbé Vermond being appointed as her tutor in 1769. Her marriage with the dauphin, which took place at Versailles on the 16th of May 1770, was intended to crown the policy of Choiseul and confirm the alliance between Austria and France. This fact, combined with her youth and the extreme corruption of the French court, made her position very difficult. Madame du Barry, whose influence over Louis XV. was at that time supreme, formed the centre of a powerful anti-Choiseul cabal, which succeeded in less than a year after the dauphin’s marriage in bringing about the fall of Choiseul and seriously threatening the stability of the Austrian alliance. Thus the young princess was surrounded by enemies both at court and in the dauphin’s household, and came to rely almost entirely upon the Austrian ambassador, the comte de Mercy-Argenteau, whom Maria Theresa had instructed to act as her mentor, at the same time arranging that she herself should be kept informed of all that concerned her daughter, so that she might at once advise her and safeguard the alliance. Hence arose the famous secret correspondence of Mercy-Argenteau, an invaluable record of all the details of Marie Antoinette’s life from her marriage in 1770 till the death of Maria Theresa in 1780.

Marie Antoinette soon won the affection and confidence of the dauphin and endeared herself to the king, but her position was precarious, and both Mercy and Maria Theresa had continually to urge her to conquer her violent dislike for the favourite and try to conciliate her.

The accession of the young king and queen on the death of Louis XV. (May 10, 1774), was hailed with great popular enthusiasm. But her first steps brought Marie Antoinette into open hostility with the anti-Austrian party. She was urgent in obtaining the dismissal of d’Aiguillon, and did all in her power to secure the recall of Choiseul, though without success. Thus from the very first she appeared in the light of a partisan, having against her all the enemies of Choiseul and of the Austrian alliance, and was already given the nickname of “l’autrichienne” by mesdames the king’s aunts. At the same time her undisguised impatience of the cumbrous court etiquette shocked many people, and her taste for pleasure led her to seek the society of the comte d’Artois and his young and dissolute circle. But the greatest weakness in her position lay in her unsatisfactory relations with her husband. The king, though affectionate, was cold and apathetic, and it was not till seven years after her marriage that there was any possibility of her bearing him an heir. This fact naturally decreased her popularity, and as early as September 1774, was made the subject of offensive pamphlets and the like, as in the case of theaffaire Beaumarchais. (SeeBeaumarchais.)

The end of the period of mourning for the late king was the signal for a succession of gaieties, during which the queen displayed a passion for amusement and excitement which led to unfortunate results. Being childless, and with a husband who could not command her respect, her longing for affection led her to form various intimate friendships, above all with the princesse de Lamballe and the comtesse Jules de Polignac, who soon obtained such an empire over her affections that no favour was too great for them to ask, and often to obtain. Thus for the benefit of Madame de Lamballe the queen revived the superfluous and expensive office of superintendent of her household, which led to constant disagreements and jealousies among her ladies and offended many important families. In frequenting the salons of her friends the queen not only came in contact with a number of the younger and more dissipated courtiers, whose high play and unseemly amusements she countenanced, but she fell under the influence of various ambitious intriguers, such as the baron de Bésenval, the comte de Vaudreuil, the duc de Lauzun and the comte d’Adhémar, whose interested manœuvres she was induced to further by her affection for her favourites. Thus she was often led to interfere for frivolous reasons in public affairs, sometimes with serious results, as in the case of the trial of the comte de Guines (1776), when her interference was responsible for the fall of Turgot. At the same time her extravagance in dress, jewelry and amusements (including the gardens and theatricals at Trianon, of the cost of which such exaggerated reports were spread about) and her presence at horse-races and masked balls in Paris without the king, gave rise to great scandal, which was seized upon by her enemies, among whom were Mesdames, the count of Provence, and the duke of Orleans and the Palais Royal clique.

At this critical period her brother, the emperor Joseph II., decided to visit France. As the result of his visit he left with the queen a memorandum in which he pointed out to her in plain terms the dangers of her conduct.1He also took advantage of his visit to advise the king, with such success that at last, in 1778, the queen had the hope of becoming a mother. For a time the emperor’s remonstrances had some effect, and after the birth of her daughter, Marie Thérèse Charlotte (afterwards duchesse d’Angoulême) in December 1778, the queen lived a more quiet life. The death of Maria Theresa (Nov. 29, 1780) deprived her of a wise and devoted friend, and by removing all restraint on the rashness of Joseph II. was bound to increase the dislike of the Austrian alliance and cause embarrassment to Marie Antoinette. Her position was very much strengthened by the birth (Oct. 22, 1781) of a dauphin, Louis Joseph Xavier François, and on the death of Maurepas, which left the king without a chief minister, she might have exerted a considerable influence in public affairs had she taken a consistent interest in them; but her repugnance to serious matters triumphed, and she preferred to occupy herself with the education of her children, to whom she was a wise and devoted mother,2and with her friends and amusements at Trianon. Personal motives alone would lead her to interfere in public affairs, especially when it was a question of obtaining places or favours for her favourites and their friends. The influence of the Polignacs was now at its height, and they obtained large sums of money, a dukedom, and many nominations to places. It was Madame de Polignac who obtained the appointment of Calonne as controller-general of the finances,3and who succeeded Madame de Guéménée as “governess of the children of France” after the bankruptcy of the prince de Guéménée in 1782.4Again, in response to Mercy and Joseph II.’s urgent representations, Marie Antoinette exerted herself on behalf of Austria in the affairs of the opening of the Scheldt (1783-1784) and the exchange of Bavaria (1785), in which, though she failed to provoke active interference on the part of France, she succeeded in obtaining the payment of considerable indemnities to Austria, a fact which led to the popular legend of her having sent millions to Austria, and aroused much indignation against her. Later, on the recommendation of Mercy and Vermond, she supported the nomination of Loménie de Brienne in 1787, an appointment which, though widely approved at the time, was laid to the queen’s blame when it ended in failure.

Two more children were born to her; Louis Charles, duke of Normandy, afterwards dauphin, on the 27th of March 1785, and Sophie Hélène Beatrix (d. June 19, 1787), on the 9th of July 1786. In 1785-1786 the affair of the Diamond Necklace (q.v.)revealed the depth of the hatred which her own follies and the calumnies of her enemies had aroused against her. The public held her responsible for the bankrupt state of the country; and though in 1788, following the popular outcry, she prevailed upon the king to recall Necker, it was impossible for him to avert the Revolution. The year 1789 was one of disaster for Marie Antoinette; on the 10th of March her brother Joseph II. died, and on the 4th of June her eldest son. The same year saw the assembling of the States-general, which she had dreaded; the taking of the Bastille, and the events leading to the terrible days of the 5th and 6th of October at Versailles and the removal of the royal family to the Tuileries. Then began the negotiations with Mirabeau, whose high estimate of the queen is well-known (e.g.his famous remark, “The king has only one man on his side, and that is his wife”). But the queen was violently prejudiced against him, believing him among other things to be responsible for the events of the 5th and 6th of October, and he never gained her full confidence. She was naturally incapable of seeing the full import of the Revolution, and merely temporised with Mirabeau. She dreaded the thought of civil war; and even when she had realized the necessity for decisive action the king’s apathy and indecision made it impossible for her to persuade him to carry into effect Mirabeau’s plan of leaving Paris and appealing to the provinces. Her difficulties were increased by the departure of Mercy for the Hague in September 1790, for Montmorin who now took his place in the negotiations had not her confidence to the same extent. Feeling herself helpless and almost isolated in Paris, she now relied chiefly on her friends outside France—Mercy, Count Axel Fersen, and the baron de Breteuil; and it was by their help and that of Bouillé that after the death of Mirabeau, on the 8th of April 1791, the plan was arranged of escaping to Montmédy, which ended in the flight to Varennes (June 21, 1791).

After the return from Varennes the royal family were closely guarded, but in spite of this they still found channels of communication with the outside world. The king being sunk in apathy, the task of negotiation devolved upon the queen; but in her inexperience and ignorance of affairs, and the uncertainty of information from abroad, it was hard for her to follow any clear policy. Her courageous bearing during the return from Varennes had greatly impressed Barnave, and he now approached her on behalf of the Feuillants and the constitutional party. For about a year she continued to negotiate with them, forwarding to Mercy and the emperor Leopold II. letters and memoranda dictated by them, while at the same time secretly warning her friends not to accept these letters as her own opinions, but to realize that she was dependent on the Constitutionals.5She agreed with their plan of an armed congress, and on this idea both she and Fersen insisted with all their might, Fersen leaving Brussels and going on a mission to the emperor to try and gain support and checkmate theémigrés, whose desertion the queen bitterly resented, and whose rashness threatened to frustrate her plans and endanger the lives of her family.

As to the acceptance of the constitution (Sept. 1791), “tissue of absurdities” though the queen thought it, and much as she would have preferred a bolder course, she considered that in the circumstances the king was bound to accept it in order to inspire confidence.6Mercy was also in correspondence with the Constitutionals, and in letter after letter to him and the emperor, the queen, strongly supported by Fersen, insisted that the congress should be formed as soon as possible, her appeals increasing in urgency as she saw that Barnave’s party would soon be powerless against the extremists. But owing to the lengthy negotiations of the powers the congress was continually postponed. On the 1st of March 1792 Leopold II. died, and was succeeded by the young Francis II. Marie Antoinette’s actions were now directed entirely by Fersen, for she suspected Mercy and the emperor of sacrificing her to the interests of Austria (Fersen, i. 251; Arneth, pp. 254, 256, &c.). The declaration of war which the king was forced to make (April 20) threw her definitely into opposition to the Revolution, and she betrayed to Mercy and Fersen the plans of the French generals (Arneth, p. 259;Fersen, ii. 220, 289, 308, 325, 327). She was now certain that the life of the king was threatened, and the events of the 20th of June added to her terrors. She considered their only hope to lie in the intervention of the powers and in the appeal to force, and endorsed the suggestion of a threatening manifesto7which should hold the National Assembly and Paris responsible for the safety of the king and royal family. Immediately after Brunswick’s manifesto followed the storming of the Tuileries and the removal of the royal family to the Temple (Aug. 10). During all these events and the captivity in the Temple Marie Antoinette showed an unvarying courage and dignity, in spite of her failing health and the illness of her son. After the execution of the king (Jan. 17, 1793) several unsuccessful attempts were made by her friends to rescue her and her children, among others by Jarjayes, Toulan and Lepître, and the “baron de Batz,” and negotiations for her release or exchange were even opened with Danton; but as the allied armies approached her trial and condemnation became a certainty. She had already been separated from her son, the sight of whose ill-treatment added terribly to her sufferings; she was now parted from her daughter and Madame Elizabeth, and removed on the 1st of August 1793 to the Conciergerie. Even here, where she was under the closest guard and subjected to the most offensive espionnage, attempts were made to rescue her, among others Michonis’ “Conspiration de l’oeillet.”

On the 14th of October began her trial, her defence being entrusted to Chauveau-Lagarde and Tronson-Ducourdray. Her noble attitude, even in the face of the atrocious accusations of Fouquier-Tinville, commanded the admiration even of her enemies, and her answers during her long examination were clear and skilful. The following were the questions finally put to the jury:—

(1) Is it established that manœuvres and communications have existed with foreign powers and other external enemies of the republic, the said manœuvres, &c., tending to furnish them with assistance in money, give them an entry into French territory, and facilitate the progress of their armies?(2) Is Marie Antoinette of Austria, the widow Capet, convicted of having co-operated in these manœuvres and maintained these communications?(3) Is it established that a plot and conspiracy has existed tending to kindle civil war within the republic, by arming the citizens against one another?(4) Is Marie Antoinette, the widow Capet, convicted of having participated in this plot and conspiracy?

(2) Is Marie Antoinette of Austria, the widow Capet, convicted of having co-operated in these manœuvres and maintained these communications?

(3) Is it established that a plot and conspiracy has existed tending to kindle civil war within the republic, by arming the citizens against one another?

(4) Is Marie Antoinette, the widow Capet, convicted of having participated in this plot and conspiracy?

The jury decided unanimously in the affirmative, and on the 16th of October 1793 Marie Antoinette was led to the guillotine, leaving behind her a touching letter to Madame Elizabeth, known as her “Testament.”

As to the justice of these charges, we have seen how the queen was actually guilty of betraying her country, though it was only natural for her to identify the cause of the monarchy with that of France. To civil war she was consistently opposed, and never ceased to dissociate herself from the plans of theémigrés, but here again her very position made her an enemy of the republic. In any case, all her actions had as their aim—firstly, the safeguarding of the monarchy and the king’s position, and later, when she saw this to be impossible, that of securing the safety of her husband and her son.

For a bibliographical study see: M. Tourneux,Marie Antoinette devant l’histoire. Essai bibliographique(2nd ed., Paris, 1901); id.Bibliogr. de la ville de Paris ...(vol. iv. 1906), nos. 20980-21338; alsoBibliogr. de femmes célèbres(Turin and Paris, 1892, &c.). The most important material for her life is to be found in her letters and in the correspondence of Mercy-Argenteau, but a large number of forgeries have found their way into certain of the collections, such as those of Paul Vogt d’Hunolstein (Correspondance inédite de Marie Antoinette, (3rd ed., Paris, 1864), and F. Feuillet des ConchesLouis XVI., Marie Antoinette et Madame Élisabeth, lettres et documents inédits(6 vols., Paris, 1864-1873), while most of the works on Marie Antoinette published before the appearance of Arneth’s publications (1865, &c.) are based partly on these forgeries. For a detailed examination of the question of the authenticity of the letters see the introduction toLettres de Marie Antoinette. Recueil des lettres authentiques de la reine, publié pour la société d’histoire contemporaine, par M. de la Rocheterie et le marquis de Beaucourt(2 vols., Paris, 1895-1896); also A. Geffroy,Gustave III. et la cour de France(2 vols., Paris, 1869), vol. ii., appendix. Of the highest importance are the letters from the archives of Vienna published by Alfred von Arneth and others: A. von Arneth,Maria Theresia und Marie Antoinette, ihr Briefwechsel1770-1780 (Paris and Vienna, 1865); id.,Marie Antoinette, Joseph II. und Leopold II. ihr Briefwechsel(Leipzig, Paris and Vienna, 1866); id. and A. Geffroy,Correspondance secrète de Marie-Thérèse et du comte de Mercy-Argenteau(3 vols., Paris, 1874); id. and J. Flammermont,Correspondance secrète du comte de Mercy-Argenteau avec Joseph II. et le prince de Kaunitz(2 vols., Paris, 1889-1891); for further letters see Comte de Reiset,Lettres de la reine Marie Antoinette à la landgrave Louise de Hesse-Darmstadt(1865); id.Lettres inédites de Marie Antoinette et de Marie-Clotilde, reine de Sardaigne(1877). See alsoCorrespondance entre le comte de Mirabeau et le comte de la Marck, 1789-1791, recueillie ... par F. de Bacourt(3 vols., Paris, 1857), and Baron R. M. de Klinckowström,Le Comte de Fersen et la cour de France(2 vols., Paris, 1877-1878).Memoirs: See most contemporary memoirs,e.g.those of the prince de Ligne, Choiseul, Ségur, Bouillé, Dumouriez, &c. Some, such as those of Madame Campan, Weber, Cléry, Mme de Tourzel, are prejudiced in her favour; others, such as those of Besenval, Lauzun, Soulavie, are equally prejudiced against her. M. Tourneux (op. cit.) discusses the authenticity of the memoirs of Tilly, Cléry, Lauzun, &c. The chief of these memoirs are: Mme Campan,Mémoires sur la vie privée de Marie Antoinette(5th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1823, Eng. trans. 1887), the inaccuracy of which is clearly demonstrated by J. Flammermont inÉtudes critiques sur les sources de l’histoire du xviiiesiècle: Les Mémoires de Mme Campan, in theBulletin de la Faculté des lettres de Poitiers(4th year, 1886, pp. 56, 109); J. Weber,Mémoires concernant Marie Antoinette(3 vols., London, 1804-1809; Eng. trans., 3 vols., London, 1805-1806);Mémoires de M. le baron de Besenval(3 vols., Paris, 1805);Mémoires de M. le duc de Lauzun(2nd ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1822); E. Bavoux,Méms. secrets de J. M. Augeard, secrétaire des commandements de la reine M. Antoinette(Paris, 1866); Mme Vigée-Le-Brun,Mes souvenirs(2 vols., Paris, 1867);Mémoires de Mme la duchesse de Tourzel, ed. by the duc de Cars (2 vols., Paris, 1883);Mémoires de la baronne d’Oberkirch(2 vols., Paris, 1853).General Works:—See the general works on the period and on Louis XVI., and bibliographies to articlesLouis XVI.andFrench Revolution. A. Sorel,L’Europe et la Rév. fr.(ii.passim) contains a good estimate of Marie Antoinette. See also E. and J. de Goncourt,Histoire de Marie Antoinette(Paris, 1859); P. de Nolhac,Marie Antoinette, dauphine(Paris, 1897); id.La Reine Marie Antoinette(8th cd., 1898), which gives good descriptions of Versailles, Trianon, &c.; M. de la Rocheterie,Histoire de Marie Antoinette(2 vols., Paris, 1890); A. L. Bicknell,The Story of Marie Antoinette; R. Prölss,Königin Marie Antoinette, Bilder aus ihrem Leben(Leipzig, 1894); G. Desjardins,Le Petit-Trianon(Versailles, 1885). For her trial and death, see E. Campardon,Marie Antoinette à la Conciergerie(1863). H. Belloc’sMarie Antoinette(London, 1909) is very biassed and sometimes misleading.

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

Back to Index Next