Chapter 9

(W. E. G. F.)

MARBOT, JEAN BAPTISTE ANTOINE MARCELIN,Baron de(1782-1854), French soldier, son of General Jean Antoine de Marbot (1754-1800), who died in the defence of Genoa under Masséna, was born at La Rivière (Corrèze), on the 18th of August 1782. He joined the republican army as a volunteer in 1799, rose rapidly to commissioned rank, and was aide-de-camp to Marshal Augereau, commanding the VII. corps, in the war against Prussia and Russia in 1806-7. After this he served with great distinction in the Peninsular War under Lannes and Masséna, and showed himself to be a dashing leader of light cavalry in the Russian War of 1812 and the German campaign of the following year. After a slow recovery from the wounds he had received at Leipzig and Hanau, he was promoted general of brigade by Napoleon during the Hundred Days, and took part in, and was wounded at, the battle of Waterloo. He was exiled at the second restoration and only returned to France in 1819, after which, however, his intimacy with the duke of Orleans secured him important military positions. After the July restoration he was mademaréchal-de-camp, and in this rank he was present at the siege of Antwerp in 1832. He was promoted lieutenant-general in 1836. From 1835 to 1840 he served in various Algerian expeditions, and in 1845 he was made a member of the Chamber of Peers. Three years later, at the fall of Louis Philippe, he retired into private life. He died at Paris on the 16th of November 1854. Marbot wrote two pamphlets,Remarques critiques sur l’ouvrage de M. le général Roguet, intitulé Considérations sur l’art de la guerre(1820), andLa Nécessité d’augmenter les forces militaires de la France(1825), but his fame rests chiefly, if not indeed wholly, on the fascinating Memoirs of hisLife and Campaignswhich were published in Paris in 1891 (Eng. trans., 1902). To ordinary readers and to students of history alike these give a picture of the Napoleonic age of warfare which for vividness and romantic interest has never been surpassed.

His elder brother,Antoine Adolphe Marcelin de Marbot(1781-1844), was born at La Rivière, on the 22nd of March 1781, entered the army at an early age, obtained commissioned rank in the revolutionary wars and became aide-de-camp to Bernadotte. In 1802 he was arrested on the ground of being concerned in a plot of the Republicans against the Consulate, but he was released, though Napoleon continued to regard him as an opponent of the established régime. After a term of duty with the army in Santo Domingo he participated in the campaigns of 1806-7, and from 1808 to 1811 he was employed in the Peninsular War. In the Russian War of 1812 he was wounded and made prisoner. At the end of two years of captivity he returned to France at the general peace, was aide-de-camp to Marshal Davout during the Hundred Days, and thereafter passed into retirement, from which he did not emerge till 1830. He attained the rank ofmaréchal-de-campunder Louis Philippe, and died at Bra, near Tulle, on the 2nd of June 1844.

MARBURG,a town of Austria, in Styria, 41 m. S. of Graz by rail. Pop. (1900), 24,501. It is very picturesquely situated on the left bank of the river Drave, on a plain called the Pettauer-Feld, at the base of the well-wooded Bachergebirge. To the north of the town the train passes through the Leitersberg tunnel (725 yds. long), opened in 1846, while the Drave, which has here a width of 200 yds., is spanned by a magnificent iron bridge, built in 1845. The principal buildings are the cathedral, dating from the 16th century, the tower of which, erected in 1623, is 136 ft. high, and the old castle. Its situation in the midst of a fertile vine and fruit-growing district, connected by the navigable Drave with Hungary, and by railway with Vienna, Trieste, Tirol and Carinthia, makes it the centre of a considerable traffic in wine and grain. Its industrial products are leather, boots and shoes, iron and tin wares, liqueurs and sparkling wine, and it also contains the extensive workshops of the South Austrian railway. Marburg is the seat of the bishop of Lavant, and is the native town of the famous Austrian admiral, Baron Wilhelm of Tegetthoff (1827-1871). Near Marburg is the village of Mariarast, the church of which is a popular place of pilgrimage.

MARBURG,an ancient university town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, situated on the slope of a hill on the right bank of the Lahn, 60 m. by rail N. of Frankfort-on-Main, on the main line to Cassel. Pop. (1905), 20,137. On the opposite bank of the river, here spanned by two bridges, lie the suburb of Weidenhausen and the railway station of the Prussian state railway. The hill on which the town lies is crowned by the extensive old Schloss, a fine Gothic building, the most noteworthy parts of which are the Rittersaal, dating from 1277-1312, and the beautiful little chapel. This Schloss was formerly the residence of the landgraves of Hesse, served afterwards as a prison, and is now the repository of the historically interesting and valuable archives of Hesse. The chief architectural ornament of Marburg is, however, the Elisabethenkirche, a veritable gem of the purest Early Gothic style, erected by the grand master of the Teutonic Order in 1235-1283, to contain the tomb of St Elizabeth of Hungary. The remains of the saint were deposited in a rich silver-gilt sarcophagus, which may still be seen, and were afterwards visited by myriads of pilgrims, until the Protestant zeal of Landgrave Philip the Generous caused him to remove the body to some unknown spot in the church. The church also contains the tombs of numerous Hessian landgraves and knights of the Teutonic Order. The Lutheran church is another good Gothic edifice, dating mainly from the 15th century. The town-hall, built in 1512, and several fine houses in the Renaissance style, also deserve mention. The university of Marburg, founded by Philip the Magnanimous in 1527, was the first university established without papal privileges, and speedily acquired a great reputation throughout Protestant Europe. It has a library of 140,000 volumes, is admirably equipped with medical and other institutes, which form some of the finest modern buildings in the town, and was attended, in 1905, by 1576 students. Marburg also possesses a gymnasium, a “Realschule,” an agricultural school, a society of naturalists, a hospital, and an extensive lunatic asylum. It is the seat of a district court, and of superintendents of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Marburg pottery is renowned; and leather, iron wares and surgical instruments are also manufactured there. The environs are very picturesque.

Marburg is first historically mentioned in a document of the beginning of the 13th century, and received its municipal charter from the landgrave Louis of Thuringia in 1227. On his death it became the residence of his wife, Elizabeth of Hungary, who built a hospital there, and died in 1231, at the age of twenty-four, worn out with works of religion and charity. She was canonized in 1235 at the instance of the Teutonic Knights, who had settled in Marburg in 1233 and were zealous in promoting her cult. By 1247 Marburg had already become the second town of Hesse, and in the 15th and 16th centuries it alternated with Cassel asthe seat of the landgraves. In 1529 the famous conference between Luther and Zwingli on the subject of Transubstantiation took place there in the Rittersaal of the Schloss (seeMarburg, Colloquy of). During the Thirty Years’ and Seven Years’ Wars Marburg suffered considerably from sieges and famine. In 1806, and again in 1810, it was the centre of an abortive rising against the French, in consequence of which the fortifications of the castle were destroyed.

See Kolbe,Marburg im Mittelalter(Marb., 1879); Bücking,Mittheilungen aus Marburgs Vorzeit(Marb., 1886); Schoof,Marburg die Perle des Hessenlandes(2nd ed., 1903).

MARBURG, COLLOQUY OF(Marburger Religionsgespräch), the name given to a conference of divines held in 1529 in the interests of the unity of Protestant Germany. The circumstances in which it was held, the influence of the men who conducted its deliberations, and the result of its proceedings, combine to render it of no small importance for the history of the Reformation in Germany.

After the Imperial Diet of Spires in 1526 had decreed that all states of the empire should observe the Edict of Worms (1521), banning Luther and his adherents, in such a manner that they should not be afraid to answer it before God and the emperor, the reform movement had received such an access of strength that the Catholic party felt itself menaced in earnest, and in 1529 again passed a resolution at Spires, deigned not merely to preclude any further expansion of the Reformation, but even to prevent it from maintaining the ground already won. This decision was at once challenged, on the 19th of April, by the protest of the Evangelical states (whence the name Protestants); and the effect of this disclaimer was not small. Still, it was devoid of political significance, unless backed by the united force of all the princes and states subscribing to the Evangelical teaching; and this unity was wanting. The feud which raged round the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper had already broken out before the first diet of Spires, and had aroused great and immediate excitement. At a very early period, however, efforts were made to allay the dissension. Strassburg pronounced for conciliation: but the most powerful and zealous champion of peace was to be found in the landgrave Philip of Hesse, who recognized the absolute necessity—from a political standpoint—of the union of all German Protestants. It is probable that he had invited Luther to a religious conference as early as the year 1527; but on that occasion he met with a refusal. True, the impression conveyed by the attitude of the Catholic party at the second Diet of Spires had served to awaken the feeling for solidarity among the Evangelicals there assembled; and on the 22nd of April they had even secured the basis for a provisional alliance in the shape of a formula drawn up by Bucer and dealing with the Lord’s Supper. But it was obvious that a permanent coalition could not be expected unless some definite understanding on the debated point could be attained; and on the very same day the landgrave despatched to Zwingli an invitation to a colloquy, and received his prompt acquiescence. Melanchthon, who in the tension which prevailed at the synod had shown himself inclined to negotiation, became suspicious on his return, and endeavoured to influence the elector of Saxony and Luther in accordance with his views. The landgrave, however, was so far successful that the beginning of October (1529) saw the colloquy opened in the castle at Marburg. With Zwingli, who had arrived on the 27th of September, he had several interviews of considerable political importance before the Wittenberg divines made their appearance. These interviews settled the preliminaries of an alliance; but they rested on the assumption that the theological feud between Wittenberg and Zürich could be removed, or its violence at least abated.

The proceedings opened on the 1st of October with conferences between Luther and Oecolampadius, and Melanchthon and Zwingli: then on the two following days the discussion proper—confined almost entirely to Luther and Zwingli—was held before the landgrave and his guest Duke Ulrich of Württemberg, in the presence of more than fifty persons. As regards the main point of contention,i.e.the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, no agreement was found practicable; and the private conversations on the 4th of October, which formed the sequel of the debate, carried matters no farther. “You have another spirit,” said Luther. Since the landgrave, however, was reluctant to see the colloquy brought to an absolutely fruitless close, he requested Luther to draw up a list of the most important points of doctrine on which it might yet be possible to arrive at some degree of unanimity. This was done on the 4th of October; and a few alterations were introduced to meet the wishes of the Swiss deputies. TheArticles of Marburg, which thus came into being, contain the doctrine of the Trinity, of the personality of Christ, of faith and justification, of the Scriptures, of baptism, of good works, of confession, of government, of tradition, and of infant baptism. The fifteenth article, treating of the Lord’s Supper, defines the ground common to both parties even in this debateable region, recognizing the necessity of participation in both kinds, and rejecting the sacrifice of the Mass. It then proceeds to fix the point of difference in the fact that no agreement had been reached on the question “whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine” (“Nit vergleicht haben wir uns, ob der war leib und plut Christi leiblich im brot und wein sey”). Nevertheless, the adherents of each doctrine are recommended to display Christian charity to those of the other. These articles were signed by the ten official members of the colloquy: Luther, Jonas, Melanchthon, Osiander, Agricola, Brenz, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Hedio and Zwingli. The personal contact between Luther and Zwingli led to no mentalrapprochementbetween the two; but in the following year the Articles of Marburg did good service as one of the preliminaries to the Augsburg Confession, and remain a valuable document for the fundamental principles common to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.

See T. Kolde,s.v.“Marburger Religionsgespräch,” inRealencyklopädie f. protestant. Theologie, 3rd ed. xii. 248 seq.

(C. M.)

MARCA, PIERRE DE(1594-1662), French prelate and historian, was born at Gan, near Pau, on the 24th of January 1594. His family was known among judicial circles in the 16th century, and maintained the Roman Catholic faith after the official introduction of the Reformed religion into Navarre. After having studied law at the university of Toulouse he practised successfully at Pau. But he was ambitious, and turned to a larger sphere. He ardently called for the armed intervention of King Louis XIII. in Béarn, and on this occasion published his first writing,Discours d’un Béarnais, très fidèle sujet du roi, sur l’édit du rétablissement de l’exercice de la religion catholique dans tout le Béarn(1618). After the easy campaign of 1620, the possessions which had been taken by the Protestants were given back to the Roman Catholic church; this task was performed, under his supervision, with judgment and moderation. During the siege of La Rochelle he performed a mission which brought him in touch with Richelieu, who shortly afterwards nominated himintendant de justicein Béarn (1631), and in 1639 summoned him to Paris with the title of counsellor of state. The following year, the question of the intervention of kings in the election of bishops having been raised in a pamphlet by Charles Hersent (Optalus Gallus de cavendo schismate, 1640), Marca defended what were then called the liberties of the Gallican Church, in his celebrated treatiseDe concordia sacerdotii et imperii, seu de libertalibus ecclesiae gallicanae(1641). He was soon rewarded for this service. Although he had not yet taken even the minor holy orders, he was nominated bishop of Couserans by the king on the 28th of December 1641, but the pope refused to give his sanction. It was only after Marca had formally denied those propositions contained inDe concordiawhich were displeasing to Rome that he was proclaimed in the consistory (Jan. 13, 1648). During this time, and until 1651, he was governor of the province of Catalonia, then occupied by the French. After the Treaty of the Pyrenees, he was sent to direct the conference which had been formed to fix the limits of Roussillon, which had just been ceded to France (1660). Marca now interested himself in the fortunes of Mazarin, and remained faithful to him even during theFronde. As a recompense, he was nominated archbishop of Toulouse (May 28, 1652), but had to wait for the bulls of investiture till the 23rd of March 1654. It was difficult for him to please both pope and king. In the struggle against the Jansenists he used all the influence he had with the clergy to secure the passage of the apostolic constitution of the 31st of March 1653 (Relation de ce qui s’est fait depuis 1653 dans les assemblées des évêques au sujet des cinq propositions, 1657); but in the rebellion raised by Retz, archbishop of Paris, against the king, he took the part of the king against the pope. Michel Le Tellier having ordered him to refute a thesis of the college of Clermont on the infallibility of the pope, Marca wrote a treatise which was most Gallican in its ideas, but refused to publish it for fear of drawing down “the indignation of Rome.” These tactics were successful, and when Retz, weary of a struggle without definite results, resigned the archbishopric, Marca became his successor (Feb. 26, 1662). He did not derive much profit from this new favour, as he died on the 29th of June following, without his nomination having been sanctioned by the pope.

Marca, clever and covetous, was also an historian of note. When very young he showed his interest in the past history of his native land, and in 1617, at the age of twenty-three, he had set to work looking through archives, copying charters, and corresponding with the principal men of learning of his time, the brothers Dupuy, André Duchesne and Jean Besly, whom he visited in Poitou. HisHistoire de Béarnwas published at Paris in 1640. It was not so well received as hisDe concordia, but is more appreciated by posterity. If Marca’s criticism is too often undecided, both in the ancient epochs, where he supports the text by a certain amount of guesswork and in certain points where he touches on religion, yet he always gives the text correctly. A number of chapters end with an interesting collection of charters. It is to be regretted that this incomplete work does not go beyond 1300. During his long stay in Catalonia he made preparations for a geographical and historical description of this province, which was bound to France by so many political and literary associations. Baluze, who became his secretary in 1656, helped him with the work and finished it, adding clever appendices and publishing the whole in 1688 under the titleMarca hispanica.

Marca married Marguerite de Forgues on the 4th of June 1618, and had one son and three daughters. His son, Galactoire, who was president of the parlement of Navarre, died on the 10th of February 1689.

Marca’s biography was written in Latin by two of his intimate friends, Étienne Baluze, his secretary (Epistola ad Samuelem Sorbierium, de vita, gestis et scriptis Petri de Marca, Paris, 1663), and his cousin, Paul de Faget (at the beginning of a collection of Marca’s theological pamphlets, first published by Paul de Faget in 1668). This contained four treatises on the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the erection of the patriarchate of Constantinople (in Latin), and the sacrament of the Eucharist (in French). It was supposed to contain heretical propositions and caused a good deal of scandal, inciting Baluze against Faget, both of whom abused the other, to defend the memory of the prelate.See Bayle’s article in theDictionnaire historique et critique(s.v.“Marca”), and the Vie de Marca in theHistoire de Béarn(vol. i., 1894) of V. Dubarat.

See Bayle’s article in theDictionnaire historique et critique(s.v.“Marca”), and the Vie de Marca in theHistoire de Béarn(vol. i., 1894) of V. Dubarat.

MARCANTONIO[Marcantonio Raimondi], the chief Italian master of the art of engraving in the age of the Renaissance, and the first who practised it in order to reproduce, not designs of his own invention, as earlier craftsmen had commonly done, but those of other artists almost exclusively. The date of his birth is uncertain, nor is there any good authority for assigning it, as is commonly done, approximately to the year 1488. He was probably born some years at least earlier than this, inasmuch as he is mentioned by a contemporary writer, Achillini, as being an artist of repute in 1504. His earliest dated plate, illustrating the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, belongs to the following year, 1505. Marcantonio received his training in the workshop of the famous goldsmith and painter of Bologna, Francesco Raibolini, usually called Francia. “Having more aptitude in design,” says Vasari, “than his master, and managing the graver with facility and grace, he made waist-buckles and many other things in niello, such being then greatly in fashion, and made them most beautifully, as being in truth most excellent in that craft.” The real fame, however, of Marcantonio was destined to be founded on his attainments, not in the goldsmith’s art generally, but in that particular development of it which consists of engraving designs on metal plates for the purpose of reproduction by the printing press. This art was not new in Italy in the days of Marcantonio’s apprenticeship. It had been practised, in a more or less elementary form, for not less than forty or fifty years in the workshops alike of Venetia, the Emilia, Tuscany and Lombardy. But the technical aim of the Italian engravers had not hitherto been directed, like that of Schongauer or Dürer north of the Alps, towards securing such freedom and precision in the use of the burin as should impart to the impressions taken from their engraved plates both a striking decorative effect and a power of suggesting to the eye a complex variety of natural objects and surfaces in light and shade. The Italian masters had been satisfied with much more rudimentary effects. The Florentine primitives had been content either with very simple cloudy patches of cross-hatching in fine straight lines, or with broad open shadings in the manner of a bold pen-drawing. Mantegna and Pollaiuolo, the two chief original masters who practised the art, had used the latter method with great power but at the same time great simplicity.

By the beginning of the 16th century a desire for a more complicated kind of effects was already arising among the followers of the art in Italy. Both backgrounds and passages of foreground detail were often imitated, inartificially enough, from the works of the northern masters. Marcantonio himself was among the foremost in this movement. About eighty engravings can be referred to the first five or six years of his career (1505-1511). Their subjects are very various, including many of pagan mythology, and some of obscure allegory, along with those of Christian devotion. The types of figures and drapery, and the general character of the compositions, bespeak for the most part the inspiration, and sometimes the direct authorship, of Francia. But the influence of German example is very perceptible also, particularly in the landscape backgrounds, and in the endeavour to express form by means of light and shadow with greater freedom than had been hitherto the practice of the southern schools. In a few subjects also the figures themselves correspond to a coarse Teutonic, instead of to the refined Italian, ideal. But so far we find Marcantonio only indirectly leaning on the north for the sake of self-improvement. It must have been for the sake of commercial profit that he by-and-by produced a series of direct counterfeits on copper from Albert Dürer’s woodcuts. These facsimiles are sixty-nine in number, including seventeen of Dürer’s “Life of the Virgin,” thirty-seven of his “Little Passion,” on wood, and a number of single pieces. According to Vasari, Dürer’s indignation over those counterfeits was the cause of his journey to Venice, where he is said to have lodged a complaint against Marcantonio, and induced the Senate to prohibit the counterfeiting of his monogram, at any rate, upon any future imitations of the kind. Vasari’s account must certainly be mistaken, inasmuch as Dürer’s journey to Venice took place in 1506, and neither of the two series of woodcuts imitated by Marcantonio was published until 1511. The greater part of the designs for the “Life of the Virgin” had, it is true, been made and engraved seven years earlier than the date of their publication; and it is to be remarked that, whereas Marcantonio’s copies of the “Little Passion” leave out the monogram of Dürer, it is inserted in his copies of the “Life of the Virgin”; whence it would, after all, seem possible that he had seen and counterfeited a set of impressions of this series at the time when they were originally executed, and before their publication. But the real nature of the transaction, if transaction there was, which took place between Dürer and Marcantonio we cannot now hope to recover. Enough that the Bolognese engraver evidently profited, both in money and in education of the hand, by hiswork in imitating in a finer material the energetic characters of these northern woodcuts. He was soon to come under a totally different influence, and to turn the experience he had gained to account in interpreting the work of a master of a quite other stamp. Up till the year 1510 Marcantonio had lived entirely at Bologna, with the exception, it would appear, of a visit or visits to Venice. (A few of his early engravings are from drawings of the school of Giorgione.) Very soon afterwards he was attracted, for good and all, into the circle which surrounded Raphael at Rome. Where or when he had first made Raphael’s acquaintance is uncertain. His passage to Rome by way of Florence has been supposed to be marked by an engraving, dated 1510, and known as “The Climbers,”Les Grimpeurs(Bartsch, 487), in which he has reproduced a portion of the design of Michelangelo’s cartoon of the Soldiers surprised bathing, and has added behind the figures a landscape imitated from the then young Dutch engraver Lucas of Leiden. Contemporary or somewhat earlier than this is a large engraving done by him from a design by Baldassare Peruzzi, a Sienese artist drawn about the same time into the Raphael circle. The piece in which he is recorded to have first tried his hand after Raphael himself is the Lucretia (Bartsch 192). From that time until he disappears in the catastrophe of 1527, Marcantonio was almost exclusively engaged in reproducing by means of engraving the designs of Raphael or of his immediate pupils. Raphael, the story goes, was so delighted with the print of the Lucretia that he personally trained and helped Marcantonio afterwards. A printing establishment was set up under the charge of Raphael’s colour-grinder, Il Baviera, and the profits, in the early stage of the business, were shared between the engraver and the printer. The sale soon became very great; pupils gathered round about Marcantonio, of whom the two most distinguished were Marco Dente, known as Marco da Ravenna, and Agostino de’ Musi, known as Agostino Veneziano; and he and they, during the last ten years of Raphael’s life, and for several years following his death, gave forth a great profusion of engravings after the master’s work—not copying, in most instances, his finished paintings, but working up, with the addition of simple backgrounds and accessories, his first sketches and trials, which often give the composition in a different form from the finished work, and are all the more interesting on that account.

The best of these engravings produced in the workshop of Marcantonio—those, namely, done by his own hand, and especially those done during the first few years after he had attached himself to Raphael—count among the most prized and coveted examples of the art. In them he enters into the genius of his master, and loses little of the chastened science and rhythmical purity of Raphael’s contours, or of the inspired and winning sentiment of his faces; while in the parts where he is left to himself—the rounding and shading, the background and landscape—he manages his burin with all the skill and freedom which he had gained by the imitation of northern models, but puts away the northern emphasis and redundance of detail. His work, however, does not long remain at the height marked by pieces like the Lucretia, the Dido, the Judgment of Paris, the Poetry, the Philosophy, or the first Massacre of the Innocents. Marcantonio’s engravings after the works of Raphael’s later years are cold, ostentatious, and soulless by comparison. Still more so, as is natural, were those which he and his pupils produced after the designs of the degenerate scholars of Raphael and Michelangelo, of a Giulio Romano, a Polidoro, or a Bandinelli. Marcantonio’s association with Giulio Romano was the cause of his first great disaster in life. He engraved a series of obscene designs by that painter in illustration of theSonnetti lussuriosiof Pietro Aretino, and thereby incurred the anger of pope Clement VII., at whose order he was thrown into prison. Marcantonio’s ruin was completed by the calamities attendant on the sack of Rome in 1527. He had to pay a heavy ransom in order to escape from the hands of the Spaniards, and fled from Rome, in the words of Vasari, “all but a beggar.” It is said that he took refuge in his native city, Bologna; but he never again emerges from obscurity, and all we know with certainty is that in 1534 he was dead.

(S. C.)

MARCASITE,a mineral with the same chemical composition as pyrites, being iron disulphide FeS2, but crystallizing in the orthorhombic instead of in the cubic system. The name is of Arabic origin and was long applied to crystallized pyrites (q.v.); it was restricted to the present species by W. Haidinger in 1845. The mineral was known to G. Agricola in 1546 under the namesWasserkiesorWeisserkiesandLeberkies, and it has been variously known as white pyrites, hepatic pyrites, lamellar pyrites, radiated pyrites (GermanStrahlkies) and prismatic pyrites. The orthorhombic form of the crystals, as distinct from the cubic form of pyrites, was recognized by Romé de l’Isle in 1772, though later R. J. Haüy considered the crystals to be only distorted cubic forms.

The crystals are isomorphous with mispickel (q.v.), but only rarely are they distinctly developed and simple (fig.). Usually they are twinned on a prism plane, M, producing pentagonal stellate groups of five crystals; twinning on the plain g, in which the crystals intercross at angles of nearly 60°, is less common. This frequent twinning gives rise to characteristic forms, with many re-entrant angles, to which the names “spear pyrites” and “cockscomb pyrites” are applied. The commonest state of aggregation is that of radially arranged fibres, the external surface of the mass being globular, nodular or stalactitic in form.

Apart from crystalline form, the external characters of marcasite are very similar to those of pyrites, and when distinct crystals are not available the two species cannot always be easily distinguished. The colour is usually pale bronze-yellow, often rather lighter than that of pyrites; on freshly fractured surfaces of pure marcasite the colour is tin-white, but this rapidly tarnishes on exposure to air. The lustre is metallic and brilliant. The streak is greyish or brownish-black. The hardness (6-61⁄2) is the same as that of pyrites, and the specific gravity (4.8-4.9) as a rule rather less. Arsenical varieties of marcasite, containing up to 5% of arsenic, are known as lonchidite and kyrosite.

Marcasite readily oxidizes on exposure to moist air, with the production of sulphuric acid and a white fibrous efflorescence of ferrous sulphate, and in course of time specimens in collections often became completely disintegrated. In nature it is frequently altered to limonite with the separation of native sulphur. Marcasite is thus the less stable of the two modifications of iron disulphide. Many experiments have been made with a view to determining the difference in chemical constitution of marcasite and pyrites, but with no very definite results. It is a noteworthy fact that whilst pyrites has been prepared artificially, marcasite has not.Marcasite occurs under the same conditions as pyrites, but is much less common. Whilst pyrites is found abundantly in the older crystalline rocks and slates, marcasite is more abundant in clays, and has often been formed as a concretion around organic remains. It is abundant, for example, in the plastic clay of the Brown Coal formation at Littmitz, near Carlsbad, in Bohemia, at which place it has been extensively mined for the manufacture of sulphur and ferrous sulphate. In the Chalk of the south-east of England nodules of marcasite with a fibrous radiated structure are abundant, and in the Chalk Marl between Dover and Folkestone fine twinned groups of “spear pyrites” are common. The mineral is also met with in metalliferous veins, though much less frequently than pyrites; for example the “cockscomb pyrites” of the lead mines of Derbyshire and Cumberland.

Marcasite occurs under the same conditions as pyrites, but is much less common. Whilst pyrites is found abundantly in the older crystalline rocks and slates, marcasite is more abundant in clays, and has often been formed as a concretion around organic remains. It is abundant, for example, in the plastic clay of the Brown Coal formation at Littmitz, near Carlsbad, in Bohemia, at which place it has been extensively mined for the manufacture of sulphur and ferrous sulphate. In the Chalk of the south-east of England nodules of marcasite with a fibrous radiated structure are abundant, and in the Chalk Marl between Dover and Folkestone fine twinned groups of “spear pyrites” are common. The mineral is also met with in metalliferous veins, though much less frequently than pyrites; for example the “cockscomb pyrites” of the lead mines of Derbyshire and Cumberland.

(L. J. S.)

MARCEAU-DESGRAVIERS, FRANÇOIS SÉVERIN(1769-1796), French general, was born at Chartres on the 1st of March 1769. His father was a law officer, and he was educated for a legal career, but at the age of sixteen he enlisted in the regiment of Savoy-Carignan. Whilst on furlough in Paris Marceau joined in the attack on the Bastille (July 14, 1789); after that event he took his discharge from the regular army and returned to Chartres, but the embarrassments of his family soon compelled him to seek fresh military employment. He became drill instructor, and afterwards captain in the departmental (Eure-et-Loire) regiment of the National Guard. Earlyin March 1792 he was elected lieutenant-colonel of one of the battalions of the Eure-et-Loire; he took part in the defence of Verdun in 1792, and it fell to his lot to bear the proposals of capitulation to the Prussian camp. The spiritless conduct of the defenders excited the wrath of the revolutionary authorities, and Marceau was fortunate in escaping arrest and finding re-employment as a captain in the regular service. Early in 1793 he became with other officers “suspect,” and was for some time imprisoned. On his release he hurried to take part in the defence of Saumur against the Vendéan royalists, and distinguished himself at the combat of Saumur (June 10, 1793) by gallantly rescuing the representative Bourbotte from the hands of the insurgents. The Convention voted him the thanks of the country, and thenceforward his rise was rapid. His conduct at Chantonnay (Sept. 5) won him the provisional rank of general of brigade. On the 17th of October he bore a great part in the victory of Cholet, and on the field of this battle began his friendship with Kléber. For the victory of Cholet Kléber was made general of division and Marceau confirmed as general of brigade. Their advice was of the greatest value to the generals in command, and the military talents of each were the complement of the other’s. Marceau, who became general of division (Nov. 10), succeeded to the chief commandad interim, and with his friend won important victories near Le Mans (Dec 12-13) and Savenay (Dec. 23). After the battle of Le Mans, Marceau rescued and protected a young Royalist lady, Angélique des Mesliers. It is often supposed that he was in love with his prisoner; but the help even of the commander-in-chief did not avail to save her from the guillotine (Jan. 22, 1794). Marceau had already retired from the war, exhausted by the fatigues of the campaign, and he and Kléber were saved from arrest and execution only by the intervention of Bourbotte. Marceau became affianced about this time to Agathe Leprêtre de Châteaugiron, but his constant military employment, his broken health, and the opposition of the comte de Châteaugiron on the one hand and of Marceau’s devoted half-sister “Emira,” wife of the Republican politician Sergent, on the other, prevented the realization of his hopes. After spending the winter of 1793-1794 in Paris he took a command in the army under Jourdan, in which Kléber also served. He took part in the various battles about Charleroi, and at the final victory of Fleurus (June 26, 1794) he had a horse shot under him. He distinguished himself again at Jülich and at Aldenhoven, and stormed the fines of Coblenz on the 23rd of October. With the Army of the Sambre and Meuse he took his share in the campaign of 1795 on the Rhine and the Lahn, distinguishing himself particularly with Kléber in the fighting about Neuwied on the 18th and 19th of October, and at Sulzbach on the 17th of December. In the campaign of 1796 the famous invasion of Germany by the armies of Jourdan and Moreau ended in disaster, and Marceau’s men covered Jourdan’s retreat over the Rhine. He fought the desperate actions on the Lahn (Sept. 16 and 18), and at Altenkirchen on the 19th received a mortal wound, of which he died on the 21st, at the early age of twenty-seven. The Austrians vied with his own countrymen in doing honour to the dead general. His body was burned, and his ashes, which at the time were placed under a pyramid designed by Kléber, were transferred in 1889 to the Pantheon at Paris.

See Maze,Le Général Marceau(1889); Parfait,Le Général Marceau(1892); and T. C. Johnson,Marceau(London, 1896).

MARCEL, ÉTIENNE(d. 1358), provost of the merchants of Paris under King John II., belonged by birth to the wealthy Parisianbourgeoisie, being the son of a clothier named Simon Marcel and of Isabelle Barbou. He is mentioned as provost of the Grande-Confrérie of Notre Dame in 1350, and in 1354 he succeeded Jean de Pacy as provost of the Parisian merchants. His political career began in 1356, when John was made prisoner after the battle of Poitiers. In conjunction with Robert le Coq, bishop of Laon, he played a leading part in the states-general called together by the dauphin Charles on the 17th of October. A committee of eighty members, constituted on their initiative, pressed their demands with such insistence that the dauphin prorogued the states-general; but financial straits obliged him to summon them once more on the 3rd of February 1357, and the promulgation of a great edict of reform was the consequence. John the Good forbade its being put into effect, whereupon a conflict began between Marcel and the dauphin, Marcel endeavouring to set up Charles the Bad, king of Navarre, in opposition to him. The states-general assembled again on the 13th of January 1358, and on the 22nd of February the populace of Paris, led by Marcel, invaded the palace and murdered the marshals of Champagne and Normandy before the prince’s eyes. Thenceforward Marcel was in open hostility to the throne. After vainly hoping that the insurrection of the Jacquerie might turn to his advantage, he next supported the king of Navarre, whose armed bands infested the neighbourhood of Paris. On the night of the 31st of July Marcel was about to open the gates of the capital to them, but Jean Maillart prevented the execution of this design, and killed him before the Porte Saint-Antoine. During the following days his adherents were likewise put to death, and the dauphin was enabled to re-enter Paris. Étienne Marcel married first Jeanne de Dammartin, and secondly Marguerite des Essars, who survived him.

See F. T. Perrens,Étienne Marcel et le gouvernement de la bourgeoisie au xivesiècle(Paris, 1860); P. Frémaux,La Famille d’Étienne Marcel, in theMémoiresof theSociété de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île de France(1903), vol. xxx.; and Hon. R. D. Denman,Étienne Marcel(1898).

(J. V.*)

MARCELLINUS, ST,according to the Liberian catalogue, became bishop of Rome on the 30th of June, 296; his predecessor was Caius or Gaius. He is not mentioned in theMartyrologium hieronymianum, or in theDepositio episcoporum, or in theDepositio martyrum. TheLiber pontificalis, basing itself on the Acts of St Marcellinus, the text of which is lost, relates that during Diocletian’s persecution Marcellinus was called upon to sacrifice, and offered incense to idols, but that, repenting shortly afterwards, he confessed the faith of Christ and suffered martyrdom with several companions. Other documents speak of his defection, and it is probably this lapse that explains the silence of the ancient liturgical calendars. In the beginning of the 5th century Petilianus, the Donatist bishop of Constantine, affirmed that Marcellinus and his priests had given up the holy books to the pagans during the persecution and offered incense to false gods. St Augustine contents himself with denying the affair (Contra litt. Petiliani, ii. 202;De unico baptismo, 27). The records of the pseudo-council of Sinuessa, which were fabricated at the beginning of the 6th century, state that Marcellinus after his fall presented himself before a council, which refused to try him on the ground thatprima sedes a nemine iudicatur. According to theLiber pontificalis, Marcellinus was buried, on the 26th of April 304, in the cemetery of Priscilla, on the Via Salaria, 25 days after his martyrdom; the Liberian catalogue gives as the date the 25th of October. The fact of the martyrdom, too, is not established with certainty. After a considerable interregnum he was succeeded by Marcellus, with whom he has sometimes been confounded.

See L. Duchesne,Liber pontificalis, I. lxxiii.-lxxiv. 162-163, and II. 563.

(H. De.)

MARCELLO, BENEDETTO(1686-1739), Italian musical composer, was born in 1686, either on the 31st of July or on the 1st of August. He was of noble family (in his compositions he is frequently described as “Patrizio Veneto”), and although a pupil of Lotti and Gasparini, was intended by his father to devote himself to the law. In 1711 he was a member of the Council of Forty, and in 1730 went to Pola as Provveditore. His health having been impaired by the climate of Istria, he retired after eight years to Brescia in the capacity of Camerlengo, and died there on the 24th of July 1739.

Marcello is best remembered by hisEstro poetico-armonico(Venice, 1724-1727), a musical setting for voices and stringsof the first fifty Psalms, as paraphrased in Italian by G. Giustiniani. They were much admired by Charles Avison, who with John Garth brought out an edition with English words (London, 1757). Some extracts are to be found in Hawkins’sHistory of Music. His other works are chiefly cantatas, either for one voice or several; the library of the Brussels conservatoire possesses some interesting volumes of chamber-cantatas composed for his mistress. Although he produced an opera,La Fede riconosciuta, at Vicenza in 1702, he had little sympathy with this form of composition, and vented his opinions on the state of musical drama at the time in the satirical pamphletIl Teatro alla moda, published anonymously in Venice in 1720. This little work, which was frequently reprinted, is not only extremely amusing, but is also most valuable as a contribution to the history of opera.

A catalogue of his works is given inMonatshefte für Musikgeschichte, vol. xxiii. (1891).

MARCELLUS,the name of two popes.

Marcellus I.succeeded Marcellinus, after a considerable interval, most probably in May 308, under Maxentius. He was banished from Rome in 309 on account of the tumult caused by the severity of the penances he had imposed on Christians who had lapsed under the recent persecution. He died the same year, being succeeded by Eusebius. He is commemorated on the 16th of January.

Marcellus II.(Marcello Cervini), the successor of Julius III., was born on the 6th of May 1501, and was elected pope on the 9th of April 1555. He had long been identified with the rigorist party in the church, and as president of the Council of Trent had incurred the anger of the emperor by his jealous defence of papal prerogative. His motives were lofty, his life blameless, his plans for reform nobly conceived. But death removed him (April 30, 1555) before he could do more than give an earnest of his intentions. He was followed by Paul IV.

Contemporary lives are to be found in Panvinio, continuator of Platina,De vitis pontiff, rom.; and Ciaconius,Vitae et res gestae summorum pontiff. rom.(Rome, 1601-1602). P. Polidoro,De gestis, vita et moribus Marcelli II.(Rome, 1744), makes use of an unpublished biography of the pope by his brother, Alessandro Cervini. See also Brilli,Intorno alla vita e alle azioni di Marcello II.(Montepulciano, 1846); Ranke,Popes(Eng. trans., Austin), i. 284 seq.; A. von Reumont,Gesch. der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, 512, seq.

(T. F. C.)

MARCELLUS,a Roman plebeian family belonging to the Claudian gens. Its most distinguished members were the following:—

1.Marcus Claudius Marcellus(c.268-208B.C.), one of the Roman generals during the Second Punic War and conqueror of Syracuse. He first served against Hamilcar in Sicily. In his first consulship (222) he was engaged, with Cn. Cornelius Scipio as colleague, in war against the Insubrian Gauls, and won thespolia opimafor the third and last time in Roman history by slaying their chief Viridomarus or Virdumarus (Polybius ii. 34; Propertius v. 10, 39). In 216, after the defeat at Cannae, he took command of the remnant of the army at Canusium, and although he was unable to prevent Capua going over to Hannibal, he saved Nola and southern Campania. In 214 he was in Sicily as consul at the time of the revolt of Syracuse; he stormed Leontini and besieged Syracuse, but the skill of Archimedes repelled his attacks. After a two years’ siege he gradually forced his way into the city and took it in the face of strong Punic reinforcements. He spared the lives of the inhabitants, but carried off their art treasures to Rome, the first instance of a practice afterwards common. Consul again in 210, he took Salapia in Apulia, which had revolted to Hannibal, by help of the Roman party there, and put to death the Numidian garrison. Proconsul in 209, he attacked Hannibal near Venusia, and after a desperate battle retired to that town; he was accused of bad generalship, and had to leave the army to defend himself in Rome. In his last consulship (208), he and his colleague, while reconnoitring near Venusia, were unexpectedly attacked, and Marcellus was killed. His successes have been exaggerated by Livy, but the name often given to him, the “sword of Rome,” was well deserved.

Back to Index Next