For a description of the town in 1769 see theTravelsof James Bruce. At that time the governor, though appointed by the Turks, paid one half of the customs receipts to the negus of Abyssinia in return for the protection of that monarch.
For a description of the town in 1769 see theTravelsof James Bruce. At that time the governor, though appointed by the Turks, paid one half of the customs receipts to the negus of Abyssinia in return for the protection of that monarch.
MASSÉNA, ANDRÉ,orAndrea, duke of Rivoli, prince of Essling (1756-1817), the greatest of Napoleon’s marshals, son of a small wine merchant, it is said of Jewish origin, was born at Nice on the 6th of May 1756. His parents were very poor, and he began life as a cabin boy, but he did not care much for the sea, and in 1775 he enlisted in the Royal-Italien regiment. He quickly rose to be under-officer-adjutant; but, finding his birth would prevent his ever getting a commission, he left the army in 1789, retired to his native city, and married. At the sound of war, however, and the word republic, his desire to see service increased, and he once more left Italy, and joined the 3rd battalion of the volunteers of the Var in 1791. In those days when men elected their officers, and many of the old commissioned officers had emigrated, promotion to a man with a knowledge of his drill was rapid, and by February 1792 Masséna was a lieutenant-colonel. His regiment was one of those in the army which occupied Nice, and in the advance to the Apennines which followed, his knowledge of the country, of the language, and of the people was so useful that in December 1793 he was already a general of division. In command of the advanced guard he won the battle of Saorgio in August 1794, capturing ninety guns, and after many successes he at last, on the 23rd of November 1795, with the right wing of the army of Italy, had the greatest share in the victory of Loano, won by Schérer over the Austrians and Sardinians. In Bonaparte’s great campaign of 1796-97 Masséna was his most trusted general of division; in each battle he won fresh laurels, up to the crowning victory of Rivoli, from which he afterwards took his title. It was during this campaign that Bonaparte gave him the title ofenfant gâté de la victoire, which he was to justify till he met the English in 1810. In 1798 he commanded the army of Rome for a short time, but was displaced by the intrigues of his subordinate Berthier. Masséna’s next important service was in command of the army in Switzerland, which united the army in Germany under Moreau, and that in Italy under Joubert. There he proved himself a great captain, as he had already proved himself a great lieutenant; the archduke Charles and Suvarov had each been successful in Germany and in Italy, and now turned upon Masséna in Switzerland. That general held his ground well against the archduke, and then suddenly, leaving Soult to face the Austrians, he transported his army to Zürich, where, on the 26th of September 1799, he entirely defeated Korsakov, taking 200 guns and 5000 prisoners. This campaign and battle placed his reputation on a level with that of his compatriot Bonaparte, and he might have made the revolution of Brumaire, but he was sincerely attached to the republic, and had no ambition beyond a desire to live well and to have plenty of money to spend. Bonaparte, now First Consul, sent him to Genoa to command the débris of the army of Italy, and he nobly defended Genoa from February to June to the very last extremity, giving time for Bonaparte to strike his great blow at Marengo. He now went to Paris, where he sat in the Corps Législatif in 1803, and actually defended Moreau without drawing upon himself the ill-will of Napoleon, who well knew his honesty and lack of ambition.
In 1804 he was made one of the first marshals of France of the new régime, and in 1805 was decorated with the Grand Eagle of the Legion of Honour. In that year Napoleon needed an able general to keep in check the archduke Charles in Italy, while he advanced through Germany with the grand army. Masséna was chosen; he kept the archduke occupied till he received news of the surrender of Ulm, and then on the 30th of October defeated him in the battle of Caldiero. After the peace of Pressburg had been signed, Masséna was ordered to take possession of the kingdom of Naples, and to place Joseph Bonaparte on the throne. This task done, Napoleon summoned Masséna to Poland, where he as usual distinguished himself, and where he for the time gave up his republican principles. In 1808 he was made duke of Rivoli. In 1808 he was accidentally wounded by his old enemy Berthier when both were in attendance on the emperor at a shooting party, and he lost the sight of one eye. In the campaign in 1809 he covered himself with glory at Landshut and at Eckmühl, and finally at the battle of Aspern-Essling his magnificent leadership made what would without him have been an appalling disaster into a mere reverse of which the enemy could make no use. On the field of Wagram Masséna, though too ill to ride, directed from his carriage the movements of the right wing. For his great services he was created prince of Essling, and given the princely castle of Thouars. He was then ordered to Spain to “drive the English into the sea.†(For the campaigns of 1810 and 1811, the advance to and the retreat from Torres Vedras seePeninsular War.) Masséna himself, with some justice, ascribed his failure to the frequent disobedience of his subordinates Ney, Reynier and Junot, and public opinion attributed this disobedience to the presence with the army of Masséna’s mistress, and to the resentment thereat felt by the wives of the three generals. Still, unsuccessful as he was, Masséna displayed the determination of the defence of Genoa and the fertility in expedients of the campaign of Zürich, and kept his army for five weary months close up to Wellington’s impregnable position before retiring. His retreat through a devastated country was terrible, but his force of character kept his men together, and Ney having shown the worst side of his character now showed the best in the frequent and brilliant rearguard actions, until a new act of insubordination at last made the old marshal dismiss Ney from his command. Soon Masséna was once again ready to try his fortune, and he nearly defeated Wellington at Fuentes d’Oñoro, though much hampered by Bessières. But his recall soon followed this and he returned home to find his prestige gone. The old marshal felt he had a right to complain of Ney and of Napoleon himself, and, it is said, opened communications with Fouché and the remnant of the republican party. Whether this be true or not, Napoleon gave his greatest marshal no more employment in the field, but made him merely a territorial commandant at Marseilles. This command he still held at the restoration, when Louis XVIII. confirmed him in it, and with true Bourbon stupidity gave him letters of naturalization, as if the great leader of the French armies had not ceased to be an Italian. When Napoleon returned from Elba, Masséna, probably by the advice of Fouché, kept Marseilles quiet to await events, the greatest service he could do the royalists, but afterwards imputed to him as a fault. After the second restoration Masséna was summoned to sit on the court-martial which tried Marshal Ney, but, though he had been on bad terms with that general, and attributed his own disgrace to him, the old soldier would not be his comrade’s judge. This refusal was used by the royalists to attack the marshal, against whom they raked up every offence they could think of. This annoyance shortened his life, and on the 4th of April 1817 the old hero died. He was buried in Père-la-Chaise, with only the word “Masséna†upon his tombstone.
In private life indolent, greedy, rapacious, ill-educated and morose, in war Masséna was, like Napoleon, the incarnation of battle. Only his indolence and his consequent lack of far-ranging imagination prevented him being as great in strategy as in tactics. His genius needed the presence of the enemy to stimulate it, but once it sprang to life Masséna became an ideal leader, absolutely brave, resourceful, unrelenting and indefatigable. He was as great a master of the strategy of forces in immediate contact—of gathering up as it were the threads of the fugue into a “stretto.†For the planning of a whole perfect campaign hehad neither knowledge nor inclination, and he falls short therefore of the highest rank amongst great generals; but his place amongst the greatest of soldiers is beyond challenge.
See Thiébault’sÉloge funèbre, and Koch’sMémoires de Masséna(4 vols., 1849), a valuable work, carefully compiled. In more modern times E. Gachot has produced several important works dealing with Masséna’s campaigns.
See Thiébault’sÉloge funèbre, and Koch’sMémoires de Masséna(4 vols., 1849), a valuable work, carefully compiled. In more modern times E. Gachot has produced several important works dealing with Masséna’s campaigns.
MASSENBACH, CHRISTIAN KARL AUGUST LUDWIG VON(1758-1827), Prussian soldier, was born at Schmalkalden on the 16th of April 1758, and educated at Heilbronn and Stuttgart, devoting himself chiefly to mathematics. He became an officer of the Württemberg army in 1778, and left this for the service of Frederick the Great in 1782. The pay of his rank was small, and his appointment on the quartermaster-general’s staff made it necessary to keep two horses, so that he had to write mathematical school-books in his spare time to eke out his resources. He was far however from neglecting the science and art of war, for thus early he had begun to make his name as a theorist as well as a mathematician. After serving as instructor in mathematics to the young prince Louis, he took part with credit in the expedition into Holland, and was given the orderPour le mérite. On returning to Prussia he became mathematical instructor at the school of military engineering, leaving this post in 1792 to take part as a general staff officer in the war against France. He was awarded a prebend at Minden for his services as a topographical engineer on the day of Valmy, and after serving through the campaigns of 1793 and 1794 he published a number of memoirs on the military history of these years. He was chiefly occupied however with framing schemes for the reorganization of the then neglected general staff of the Prussian army, and many of his proposals were accepted. Bronsart von Schellendorf in hisDuties of the General Staffsays of Massenbach’s work in this connexion, “the organization which he proposed and in the main carried out survived even the catastrophes of 1806-1807, and exists even at the present moment in its original outline.†This must be accounted as high praise when it is remembered how much of the responsibility for these very disasters must be laid to Massenbach’s account. The permanent gain to the service due to his exertions was far more than formal, for it is to him that the general staff owes its tradition of thorough and patient individual effort. But the actual doctrine taught by Massenbach, who was now a colonel, may be summarized as the doctrine of positions carried to a ludicrous excess; the claims put forward for the general staff, that it was to prepare cut-and-dried plans of operations in peace which were to be imposed on the troop leaders in war, were derided by the responsible generals; and the memoirs on proposed plans of campaign to suit certain political combinations were worked out in quite unnecessary detail. It was noteworthy that none of the proposed plans of campaign considered France as an enemy.
In 1805 came threats of the war with Napoleon which Massenbach had strongly opposed. He was made quartermaster-general (chief of staff) to Prince Hohenlohe, over whom he soon obtained a fatal ascendancy. War was averted for a moment by the result of the battle of Austerlitz, but it broke out in earnest in October 1806. Massenbach’s influence clouded all the Prussian operations. The battles of Jena and Auerstädt were lost, and the capitulation of Prince Hohenlohe’s army was negotiated. Even suggestions of disloyalty were not wanting; an attempt to try him by court-martial was only frustrated by Prince Hohenlohe’s action in taking upon himself, as commander-in-chief, the whole responsibility for Massenbach’s actions. He then retired to his estate in the Posen province, and occupied himself in writing pamphlets, memoirs, &c. When his estates passed into the grand duchy of Warsaw, he chose to remain a Prussian subject, and on the outbreak of the war of liberation he asked in vain for a post on the Prussian staff. After the fall of Napoleon he took part in Württemberg politics, was expelled from Stuttgart and Heidelberg, and soon afterwards arrested at Frankfurt, delivered over to the Prussian authorities and condemned to fourteen years’ fortress imprisonment for his alleged publication of state secrets in his memoirs. He was kept in prison till 1826, when Frederick William III., having recovered from an accident, pardoned those whom he considered to have wronged him most deeply. He died on the 21st of November 1827, at his estate of Bialokoscz, Posen.
The obituary inNeuer Nekrolog der Deutschen, pt. ii. (Ilmenau, 1827) is founded on a memoir (Der Oberst C. v. Massenbach) which was published at the beginning of his imprisonment.
The obituary inNeuer Nekrolog der Deutschen, pt. ii. (Ilmenau, 1827) is founded on a memoir (Der Oberst C. v. Massenbach) which was published at the beginning of his imprisonment.
MASSENET, JULES ÉMILE FRÉDÉRIC(1842-  ), French composer, was born at Montaud, on the 12th of May 1842. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire, where he obtained the Grand Prix de Rome in 1863 with the cantataDavid Rizzio. Massenet became one of the most prolific composers of his time. His operas include the following:La Grande tante, one act, opéra comique (1867);Don César de Bazan, three acts, opéra comique (1872);Le Roi de Lahore, five acts, opera (1877);Hérodiade, five acts (Brussels, 1881);Manon, five acts, opéra comique (1884);Le Cid, four acts, opera (1885);Esclarmonde, four acts, opéra comique (1889);Le Mage, five acts, opera (1891);Werther, four acts (Vienna, 1892);Thaïs, three acts, opera (1894);Le Portrait de Manon, one act, opéra comique (1894);La Navarraise, two acts (Covent Garden, 1894);Sapho, opéra comique (1897);Cendrillon, opéra comique (1900);Grisélidis, opéra comique (1901);Le Jongleur de Notre Dame(Mentone, 1902). Of these the most popular is Manon. Massenet’s other works includeMarie Madeleine, sacred drama (1873);Eve, a mystery (1875);La Vierge, sacred legend (1880); six orchestral suites entitledScènes hongroises,Scènes pittoresques,Scènes dramatiques,Scènes napolitaines,Scènes de féerie,Scènes alsaciennes; music to the tragedyLes Erynnies, toThéodora,Le Crocodile,L’Hetman; a requiem,Narcisse; an idyll,Biblis; aScène antique; several sets of songs, entitledPoème d’avril,Poème d’amour,Poème d’hiver,Poème d’octobre,Poème pastoral,Poème du souvenir; also a large number of detached songs. He was professor of composition at the Conservatoire from 1878 to 1896, among his pupils being Hillemacher, Marty, Bruneau, Vidal, Pierné, Leroux and Charpentier. Massenet undoubtedly possesses a style of his own. He is at his best in music descriptive of the tender passion, and many of the love scenes in his operas are very beautiful.
MASSEREENE, JOHN CLOTWORTHY,1st Viscount(d. 1665), Anglo-Irish politician, was a son of Sir Hugh Clotworthy, sheriff of county Antrim. He was elected to the Irish parliament as member for county Antrim in 1634, and was a member both of the Short and of the Long Parliament in England. Clotworthy was a vehement opponent of the earl of Stafford, in whose impeachment he took an active share. He also took part in the prosecution of Archbishop Laud. Having unsuccessfully negotiated with Ormond for the surrender of Dublin to the Parliamentary forces in 1646, he was accused in the following year of having betrayed his cause, and also of embezzlement; in consequence of these charges he fled to the Continent, but returned to parliament in June 1648. On the 12th of December in that year he was arrested, and remained in prison for nearly three years. Having taken an active part in forwarding the Restoration, he was employed in Ireland in arranging the affairs of the soldiers and other adventurers who had settled in Ireland Clotworthy in no way abated his old animosity against “papists†and high Anglicans, and he championed the cause of the Irish Presbyterians; but being personally agreeable to Charles II., his ecclesiastical views were overlooked, and on the 21st of November 1660 he was created Baron Loughneagh and Viscount Massereene in the Irish peerage, with remainder in default of male heirs to his son-in-law, Sir John Skeffington. Massereene died without male issue in September 1665, and the title devolved on Skeffington, whose great-grandson, the fifth viscount, was created earl of Massereene in 1756. The earldom became extinct on the death of the fourth earl without male issue in 1816, the viscounty and barony of Loughneagh descending to his daughter Harriet, whose husband, Thomas Foster, took the name of Skeffington, and inherited from his mother in 1824 the titles of Viscount Ferrard and Baron Oriel of Collon in the Irish peerage, and from his father in 1828 that of Baron Oriel of Ferrard in the peerage of the United Kingdom.
MASSEY, SIR EDWARD(c.1619-c.1674), English soldier in the Great Rebellion, was the son of John Massey of Coddington, Cheshire. Little is known of his early life, but it is said that he served in the Dutch army against the Spaniards. In 1639 he appears as a captain of pioneers in the army raised by Charles I. to fight against the Scots. At the outbreak of the Great Rebellion he was with the king at York, but he soon joined the Parliamentary army. As lieutenant-colonel under the earl of Stamford he became deputy governor of Gloucester, where he remained till towards the end of the first Civil War, becoming governor early in 1643. He conducted minor operations against numerous small bodies of Royalists, and conducted the defence of Gloucester against the king’s main army in August 1643, with great steadiness and ability, receiving the thanks of parliament and a grant of £1000 for his services. In 1644 Massey continued to keep the field and to disperse the local Royalists, and on several occasions he measured swords with Prince Rupert. In May 1644 he was made general of the forces of the Western Association. In 1645 he took the offensive against Lord Goring and the western Royalists, advanced to the relief of Taunton, and in the autumn co-operated effectively with Sir Thomas Fairfax and the New Model army in the Langport campaign. After taking part in the desultory operations which closed the first war, he took his seat in the House of Commons as member for Gloucester. He then began to take an active part in politics on the Presbyterian side, and was one of the generals who was impeached by the army on the ground that they were attempting to revive the Civil War in the Presbyterian interests. Massey fled from England in June 1647, and though he resumed his seat in the house in 1648 he was again excluded by Pride’s Purge, and after a short imprisonment escaped to Holland. Thence, taking the side of the king openly and definitely like many other Presbyterians, he accompanied Charles II. to Scotland. He fought against Cromwell at the bridge of Stirling and Inverkeithing, and commanded the advanced guard of the Royalist army in the invasion of England in 1651. It was hoped that Massey’s influence would win over the towns of the Severn valley to the cause of the king, and the march of the army on Worcester was partly inspired by this expectation. However, he effected little, and after riding with the king for some distance from the field of Worcester, fell into the hands of his former comrades and was lodged in the Tower. He again managed to escape to Holland. While negotiating with the English Presbyterians for the restoration of Charles, he visited England twice, in 1654 and 1656. In 1660 he was active in preparing for Charles’s return, and was rewarded by a knighthood and a grant of £3000. The rest of his life was spent in political, and occasionally in military and administrative business, and he is said to have died in Ireland in 1674 or 1675.
MASSEY, GERALD(1828-1907), English poet, was born near Tring, Hertfordshire, on the 29th of May 1828. His parents were in humble circumstances, and Massey was little more than a child when he was set to hard work in a silk factory, which he afterwards deserted for the equally laborious occupation of straw-plaiting. These early years were rendered gloomy by much distress and deprivation, against which the young man strove with increasing spirit and virility, educating himself in his spare time, and gradually cultivating his innate taste for literary work. He was attracted by the movement known as Christian Socialism, into which he threw himself with whole-hearted vigour, and so became associated with Maurice and Kingsley. His first public appearance as a writer was in connexion with a journal called theSpirit of Freedom, of which he became editor, and he was only twenty-two when he published his first volume of poems,Voices of Freedom and Lyrics of Love. These he followed in rapid succession byThe Ballad of Babe Christabel(1854),War Waits(1855),Havelock’s March(1860), andA Tale of Eternity(1869). Many years afterwards in 1889, he collected the best of the contents of these volumes, with additions, into a two-volume edition of his poems calledMy Lyrical Life. He also published works dealing with spiritualism, the study of Shakespeare’s sonnets (1872 and 1890), and theological speculation. It is generally understood that he was the original of George Eliot’sFelix Holt. Massey’s poetry has a certain rough and vigorous element of sincerity and strength which easily accounts for its popularity at the time of its production. He treated the theme of Sir Richard Grenville before Tennyson thought of using it, with much force and vitality. Indeed, Tennyson’s own praise of Massey’s work is still its best eulogy, for the Laureate found in him “a poet of fine lyrical impulse, and of a rich half-Oriental imagination.†The inspiration of his poetry is essentially British; he was a patriot to the core. It is, however, as an Egyptologist that Gerald Massey is best known in the world of letters. He first publishedThe Book of the Beginnings, followed byThe Natural Genesis; but by far his most important work isAncient Egypt: The Light of the World, published shortly before his death. He died on the 29th of October 1907.
See an article by J. Churton Collins in theContemporary Review(May 1904).
See an article by J. Churton Collins in theContemporary Review(May 1904).
MASSICUS, MONS,a mountain ridge of ancient Italy, in the territory of the Aurunci, and on the border of Campania and Latium adjectum—attributed by most authors to the latter. It projects south-west from the volcanic system of Rocca Monfina (seeSuessa Aurunca) as far as the sea, and separates the lower course of the Liris from the plain of Campania. It consists of limestone, with a superstratum of pliocenic and volcanic masses, and was once an island; its highest point is 2661 ft. above sea-level.
It was very famous for its wine in ancient times. There was just room along the coast for the road to pass through; the pass was guarded by the Auruncan town of Vescia (probably on the mountain side), which ceased to exist in 314B.C.after the defeat of the Ausones, but left its name to the spot. Its successor, Sinuessa, on the coast, a station on the Via Appia, was constructed in 312B.C., and a colony was founded there in 295B.C.It is not infrequently mentioned by classical writers as a place in which travellers halted. Here Virgil joined Horace on the famous journey to Brundusium. Domitian considerably increased its importance by the construction of the Via Domitiana, which left the Via Appia here and ran to Cumae and Puteoli, and it was he, no doubt, who raised it to the position ofcolonia Flavia. The town was destroyed by the Saracens, but some ruins of it are still visible two miles north-west of the modern village of Mondragone. The mineral springs which still rise here were frequented in antiquity.
It was very famous for its wine in ancient times. There was just room along the coast for the road to pass through; the pass was guarded by the Auruncan town of Vescia (probably on the mountain side), which ceased to exist in 314B.C.after the defeat of the Ausones, but left its name to the spot. Its successor, Sinuessa, on the coast, a station on the Via Appia, was constructed in 312B.C., and a colony was founded there in 295B.C.It is not infrequently mentioned by classical writers as a place in which travellers halted. Here Virgil joined Horace on the famous journey to Brundusium. Domitian considerably increased its importance by the construction of the Via Domitiana, which left the Via Appia here and ran to Cumae and Puteoli, and it was he, no doubt, who raised it to the position ofcolonia Flavia. The town was destroyed by the Saracens, but some ruins of it are still visible two miles north-west of the modern village of Mondragone. The mineral springs which still rise here were frequented in antiquity.
MASSIF,a French term, adopted in geology and physical geography for a mountainous mass or group of connected heights, whether isolated or forming part of a larger mountain system. A “massif†is more or less clearly marked off by valleys.
MASSILLON, JEAN BAPTISTE(1663-1742), French bishop and preacher, was born at Hyères on the 24th of June 1663, his father being a royal notary of that town. At the age of eighteen he joined the Congregation of the Oratory and taught for a time in the colleges of his order at Pézenas, and Montbrison and at the Seminary of Vienne. On the death of Henri de Villars, archbishop of Vienne, in 1693, he was commissioned to deliver a funeral oration, and this was the beginning of his fame. In obedience to Cardinal de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, he left the Cistercian abbey of Sept-Fonds, to which he had retired, and settled in Paris, where he was placed at the head of the famous seminary of Saint Magloire. He soon gained a wide reputation as a preacher and was selected to be the Advent preacher at the court of Versailles in 1699. He was made bishop of Clermont in 1717, and two years later was elected a member of the French Academy. The last years of his life were spent in the faithful discharge of his episcopal duties; his death took place at Clermont on the 18th of September 1742. Massillon enjoyed in the 18th century a reputation equal to that of Bossuet and of Bourdaloue, and has been much praised by Voltaire, D’Alembert and kindred spirits among theEncyclopaedists. His popularity was probably due to the fact that in his sermons he lays little stress on dogmatic questions, but treats generally of moral subjects, in which the secrets of the human heart and the processes of man’s reason are described with poetical feeling. He has usually been contrasted with his predecessor Bourdaloue, the latter having the credit of vigorous denunciation, Massillon that of gentle persuasiveness. Besides thePetit Carême, a sermon which hedelivered before the young king Louis XV. in 1718, his sermons on the Prodigal Son, on the small number of the elect, on death, for Christmas Day, and for the Fourth Sunday in Advent, may be perhaps cited as his masterpieces. His funeral oration on Louis XIV. is only noted now for the opening sentence: “Dieu seul est grand.†But in truth Massillon is singularly free from inequality. His great literary power, his reputation for benevolence, and his known toleration and dislike of doctrinal disputes caused him to be much more favourably regarded than most churchmen by thephilosophesof the 18th century.
The first edition of Massillon’s complete works was published by his nephew, also an Oratorian (Paris, 1745-1748), and upon this, in the absence of MSS., succeeding reprints were based. The best modern edition is that of the Abbé Blampignon (Paris, 1865-1868, 4 vols.; new ed. 1886).See Abbé Blampignon,Massillon, d’après des documents inédits(Paris, 1879); andL’Épiscopat de Massitlon d’après des documents inédits, suivi de sa correspondance(Paris, 1884); F. Brunetière “L’Éloquence de Massillon†inÉtudes critiques(Paris, 1882); Père Ingold,L’Oratoire et le jansénisme au temps de Massitlon(Paris, 1880); and Louis Petit de Julleville’sHistoire de la langue et de la littérature française, v. 372-385 (Paris, 1898).
The first edition of Massillon’s complete works was published by his nephew, also an Oratorian (Paris, 1745-1748), and upon this, in the absence of MSS., succeeding reprints were based. The best modern edition is that of the Abbé Blampignon (Paris, 1865-1868, 4 vols.; new ed. 1886).
See Abbé Blampignon,Massillon, d’après des documents inédits(Paris, 1879); andL’Épiscopat de Massitlon d’après des documents inédits, suivi de sa correspondance(Paris, 1884); F. Brunetière “L’Éloquence de Massillon†inÉtudes critiques(Paris, 1882); Père Ingold,L’Oratoire et le jansénisme au temps de Massitlon(Paris, 1880); and Louis Petit de Julleville’sHistoire de la langue et de la littérature française, v. 372-385 (Paris, 1898).
MASSILLON,a city of Stark county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Tuscarawas river and the Ohio canal, 8 m. W. of Canton, and about 50 m. S. by E. of Cleveland. Pop. (1900), 11,944 (1693 foreign-born); (1910), 13,879. It is served by the Pennsylvania (Pittsburg, Ft Wayne & Chicago Division), the Baltimore & Ohio and the Wheeling & Lake Erie railways. Massillon is built among hills in a part of the state noted for its large production of coal and wheat and abounding in white sandstone, iron ore and potter’s clay. The city has various manufactures, including iron, engines, furnaces, reapers, threshers and bottles. The total value of the factory products in 1905 was $3,707,013, an increase of 34.8% over that of 1900. The first settlement was made in 1825; in 1826 the town was laid out and named in honour of Jean Baptiste Massillon; it was incorporated a village in 1853, and became a city in 1868.
MASSIMO,orMassimi, a Roman princely family of great antiquity, said to be descended from the ancient Maximi of republican Rome. The name is first mentioned in 1012 in the person of Leo de Maximis, and the family played a considerable part in the history of the city in the middle ages. The brothers Pietro and Francesco Massimi acquired fame by protecting and encouraging the German printer Ulrich Hahn, who came to Rome in 1467. In the 16th century the Massimi were the richest of the Roman nobles. A marquisate was conferred on them in 1544, and the lordship of Arsoli in 1574. To-day there are two branches of the Massimi, viz. the Principi Massimo, descended from Camillo Massimiliano (1770-1840), and the dukes of Rignano, descended from Francesco Massimo (1773-1844). One of the sons of the present Prince Camillo Carlo Alberto, Don Fabrizio, married Princess Beatrice, daughter of Don Carlos of Bourbon (duke of Madrid), the pretender to the Spanish throne. The Palazzo Massimo in Rome was built by Baldassare Peruzzi by order of Pietro Massimo, on the ruins of an earlier palace destroyed in the sack of Rome in 1527.
See F. Gregorovius,Geschichte der Stadt Rom(Stuttgart, 1880); A. von Reumont,Geschichte der Stadt Rom(Berlin, 1868);Almanach de Gotha; J. H. Douglas,The Principal Noble Families of Rome(Rome, 1905).
See F. Gregorovius,Geschichte der Stadt Rom(Stuttgart, 1880); A. von Reumont,Geschichte der Stadt Rom(Berlin, 1868);Almanach de Gotha; J. H. Douglas,The Principal Noble Families of Rome(Rome, 1905).
MASSINGER, PHILIP(1583-1640), English dramatist, son of Arthur Massinger or Messanger, was baptized at St Thomas’s, Salisbury, on the 24th of November 1583. He apparently belonged to an old Salisbury family, for the name occurs in the city records as early as 1415. He is described in his matriculation entry at St Alban Hall, Oxford (1602), as the son of a gentleman. His father, who had also been educated at St Alban Hall, was a member of parliament, and was attached to the household of Henry Herbert, 2nd earl of Pembroke, who recommended him in 1587 for the office of examiner in the court of the marches. The 3rd earl of Pembroke, the William Herbert whose name has been connected with Shakespeare’s sonnets, succeeded to the title in 1601. It has been suggested that he supported the poet at Oxford, but the significant omission of any reference to him in any of Massinger’s prefaces points to the contrary. Massinger left Oxford without a degree in 1606. His father had died in 1603, and he was perhaps dependent on his own exertions. The lack of a degree and the want of patronage from Lord Pembroke may both be explained on the supposition that he had become a Roman Catholic. On leaving the university he went to London to make his living as a dramatist, but his name cannot be definitely affixed to any play until fifteen years later, whenThe Virgin Martyr(ent. at Stationers’ Hall, Dec. 7, 1621) appeared as the work of Massinger and Dekker. During these years he worked in collaboration with other dramatists. A joint letter, from Nathaniel Field, Robert Daborne and Philip Massinger, to Philip Henslowe, begs for an immediate loan of five pounds to release them from their “unfortunate extremitie,†the money to be taken from the balance due for the “play of Mr Fletcher’s and ours.†A second document shows that Massinger and Daborne owed Henslowe £3 on the 4th of July 1615. The earlier note probably dates from 1613, and from this time Massinger apparently worked regularly with John Fletcher, although in editions of Beaumont and Fletcher’s works his co-operation is usually unrecognized. Sir Aston Cokayne, Massinger’s constant friend and patron, refers in explicit terms to this collaboration in a sonnet addressed to Humphrey Moseley on the publication of his folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher (Small Poems of Divers Sorts, 1658), and in an epitaph on the two poets he says:—
“Plays they did write together, were great friends,And now one grave includes them in their ends.â€
“Plays they did write together, were great friends,
And now one grave includes them in their ends.â€
After Philip Henslowe’s death in 1616 Massinger and Fletcher began to write for the King’s Men. Between 1623 and 1626 Massinger produced unaided for the Lady Elizabeth’s Men then playing at the Cockpit three pieces,The Parliament of Love,The BondmanandThe Renegado. With the exception of these plays andThe Great Duke of Florence, produced in 1627 by the Queen’s servants, Massinger continued to write regularly for the King’s Men until his death. The tone of the dedications of his later plays affords evidence of his continued poverty. Thus in the preface toThe Maid of Honour(1632) he wrote, addressing Sir Francis Foljambe and Sir Thomas Bland: “I had not to this time subsisted, but that I was supported by your frequent courtesies and favours.†The prologue toThe Guardian(licensed 1633) refers to two unsuccessful plays and two years of silence, when the author feared he had lost the popular favour. S. R. Gardiner, in an essay on “The Political Element in Massinger†(Contemp. Review, Aug. 1876), maintained that Massinger’s dramas are before all else political, that the events of his day were as openly criticized in his plays as current politics are in the cartoons ofPunch. It is probable that this break in his production was owing to his free handling of public matters. In 1631 Sir Henry Herbert, the master of the revels, refused to license an unnamed play by Massinger because of “dangerous matter as the deposing of Sebastian, King of Portugal,†calculated presumably to endanger good relations between England and Spain. There is little doubt that this was the same piece asBelieve as You List, in which time and place are changed, Antiochus being substituted for Sebastian, and Rome for Spain. In the prologue Massinger ironically apologizes for his ignorance of history, and professes that his accuracy is at fault if his picture comes near “a late and sad example.†The obvious “late and sad example†of a wandering prince could be no other than Charles I.’s brother-in-law, the elector palatine. An allusion to the same subject may be traced inThe Maid of Honour. In another play by Massinger, not extant, Charles I. is reported to have himself struck out a passage put into the mouth of Don Pedro, king of Spain, as “too insolent.†The poet seems to have adhered closely to the politics of his patron, Philip Herbert, earl of Montgomery, and afterwards 4th earl of Pembroke, who had leanings to democracy and was a personal enemy of the duke of Buckingham. InThe Bondman, dealing with the history of Timoleon, Buckingham is satirized as Gisco. The servility towards the Crown displayed in Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays reflected the temper of the court of James I. The attitude of Massinger’s heroes and heroines towards kingsis very different. Camiola’s remarks on the limitations of the royal prerogative (Maid of Honour, act iv. sc. v.) could hardly be acceptable at court.
Massinger died suddenly at his house near the Globe theatre, and was buried in the churchyard of St Saviour’s, Southwark, on the 18th of March 1640. In the entry in the parish register he is described as a “stranger,†which, however, implies nothing more than that he belonged to another parish.
The supposition that Massinger was a Roman Catholic rests upon three of his plays,The Virgin Martyr(licensed 1620),The Renegado(licensed 1624) andThe Maid of Honour(c.1621). The religious sentiment is certainly such as would obviously best appeal to an audience sympathetic to Roman Catholic doctrine.The Virgin Martyr, in which Dekker probably had a large share, is really a miracle play, dealing with the martyrdom of Dorothea in the time of Diocletian, and the supernatural element is freely used. Little stress can be laid on this performance as elucidating Massinger’s views. It is not entirely his work, and the story is early Christian, not Roman Catholic. InThe Renegado, however, the action is dominated by the beneficent influence of a Jesuit priest, Francisco, and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is enforced. InThe Maid of Honoura complicated situation is solved by the decision of the heroine, Camiola, to take the veil. For this she is held up “to all posterity a fair example for noble maids to imitate.†Among all Massinger’s heroines Camiola is distinguished by genuine purity and heroism.
His plays have generally an obvious moral intention. He sets himself to work out a series of ethical problems through a succession of ingenious and effective plots. In the art of construction he has, indeed, few rivals. But the virtue of his heroes and heroines is rather morbid than natural, and often singularly divorced from common-sense. Hisdramatis personaeare in general types rather than living persons, and their actions do not appear to spring inevitably from their characters, but rather from the exigencies of the plot. The heroes are too good, and the villains too wicked to be quite convincing. Moreover their respective goodness and villainy are too often represented as extraneous to themselves. This defect of characterization shows that English drama had already begun to decline.
It seems doubtful whether Massinger was ever a popular playwright, for the best qualities of his plays would appeal rather to politicians and moralists than to the ordinary playgoer. He contributed, however, at least one great and popular character to the English stage. Sir Giles Overreach, inA New Way to Pay Old Debts, is a sort of commercial Richard III., a compound of the lion and the fox, and the part provides many opportunities for a great actor. He made another considerable contribution to the comedy of manners inThe City Madam. In Massinger’s own judgmentThe Roman Actorwas “the most perfect birth of his Minerva.†It is a study of the tyrant Domitian, and of the results of despotic rule on the despot himself and his court. Other favourable examples of his grave and restrained art areThe Duke of Milan,The BondmanandThe Great Duke of Florence.
Massinger was a student and follower of Shakespeare. The form of his verse, especially in the number of run-on lines, approximates in some respects to Shakespeare’s later manner. He is rhetorical and picturesque, but rarely rises to extraordinary felicity. His verse is never mean, but it sometimes comes perilously near to prose, and in dealing with passionate situations it lacks fire and directness.
The plays attributed to Massinger alone are:The Duke of Milan, a Tragedy(c.1618, pr. 1623 and 1638);The Unnatural Combat, a Tragedy(c.1619, pr. 1639);The Bondman, an Antient Storie(licensed 1623, pr. 1624);The Renegado, a Tragaecomedie(lic. 1624, pr. 1630);The Parliament of Love(lic. 1624; ascribed, no doubt erroneously, in the Stationers’ Register, 1660, to W. Rowley; first printed by Gifford from an imperfect MS. in 1805);A New Way to Pay Old Debts, a Comoedie(c.1625, pr. 1632);The Roman Actor. A Tragaedie(lic. 1626, pr. 1629);The Maid of Honour(dating perhaps from 1621, pr. 1632);The Picture, a Tragecomedie(lic. 1629, pr. 1630);The Great Duke of Florence, a Comicall Historie(lic. 1627, pr. 1635);The Emperor of the East, a Tragaecomoedie(lic. and pr. 1631), founded on the story of Theodosius the Younger;Believe as You List(rejected by the censor in January, but licensed in May, 1631; pr. 1848-1849 for the Percy Society);The City Madam, a Comedie(lic. 1632, pr. 1658), which Mr Fleay (Biog. Chron. of the Eng. Drama, i. 226), however, considers to be arifaciamentoof an older play, probably by Jonson;The Guardian(lic. 1633, pr. 1655); andThe Bashful Lover(lic. 1636, pr. 1655).A Very Woman, or The Prince of Tarent, licensed in 1634 as the work of Massinger alone, is generally referred to his collaboration with Fletcher. The “exquisite temperance and justice†of this piece are, according to Swinburne, foreign to Fletcher’s genius, and afford a striking example of Massinger’s artistic skill and moderation.Twelve plays of Massinger are said to be lost, but the titles of some of these may be duplicates of those of existing plays. Five of these lost plays were MSS. used by John Warburton’s cook for pie-covers. The numerous plays in which Massinger’s co-operation with John Fletcher is generally assumed are dealt with underBeaumont and Fletcher. But it may be here noted that Mr R. Boyle has constructed an ingenious case for the joint authorship by Fletcher and Massinger of the two “Shakespearian†plays,Henry VIII.andTwo Noble Kinsmen(see the New Shakspere Society’sTransactions, 1884 and 1882). Mr Boyle sees the touch of Massinger in the first two acts of theSecond Maiden’s Tragedy(Lansdowne MS., lic. 1611), a play with which the names of Fletcher and Tourneur are also associated by different critics.The Fatall Dowry, a Tragedy(c.1619, pr. 1632), which was adapted without acknowledgment by Nicholas Rowe in hisFair Penitent, was written in conjunction with Nathaniel Field; andThe Virgin Martir, a Tragedie(lic. 1620, pr. 1621), with Thomas Dekker.Massinger’s independent works were collected by Coxeter (4 vols., 1759, revised edition with introduction by Thomas Davies, 1779), by J. Monck Mason (4 vols., 1779), by William Gifford (4 vols., 1805, 1813), by Hartley Coleridge (1840), by Lieut.-Colonel Cunningham (1867), and selections by Mr Arthur Symons in theMermaid Series(1887-1889). Gifford’s remains the standard edition, and formed the basis of Cunningham’s text. It contains “An Essay on the Dramatic Writings of Massinger†by Dr John Ferriar.Massinger has been the object of a good deal of criticism. A metrical examination of the plays in which Massinger was concerned is given inEnglische Studien(Halle, v. 74, vii. 66, viii. 39, ix. 209 and x. 383), by Mr R. Boyle, who also contributed the life of the poet in theDictionary of National Biography. The sources of his plays are dealt with by E. Koeppel inQuellen Studien zu den Dramen Chapman’s, Massinger’s und Ford’s(Strassburg, 1897). For detailed criticism, beside the introductions to the editions quoted, see A. W. Ward,Hist. of Eng. Dram. Lit.(1899), iii. 1-47, and F. G. Fleay,Biog. Chron. of the Eng. Drama(1891), underFletcher; a general estimate of Massinger, dealing especially with his moral standpoint, is given in Sir Leslie Stephen’sHours in a Library(3rd series, 1879); Swinburne, in theFortnightly Review(July 1889), while acknowledging the justice of Sir L. Stephen’s main strictures, found much to say in praise of the poet.
The plays attributed to Massinger alone are:The Duke of Milan, a Tragedy(c.1618, pr. 1623 and 1638);The Unnatural Combat, a Tragedy(c.1619, pr. 1639);The Bondman, an Antient Storie(licensed 1623, pr. 1624);The Renegado, a Tragaecomedie(lic. 1624, pr. 1630);The Parliament of Love(lic. 1624; ascribed, no doubt erroneously, in the Stationers’ Register, 1660, to W. Rowley; first printed by Gifford from an imperfect MS. in 1805);A New Way to Pay Old Debts, a Comoedie(c.1625, pr. 1632);The Roman Actor. A Tragaedie(lic. 1626, pr. 1629);The Maid of Honour(dating perhaps from 1621, pr. 1632);The Picture, a Tragecomedie(lic. 1629, pr. 1630);The Great Duke of Florence, a Comicall Historie(lic. 1627, pr. 1635);The Emperor of the East, a Tragaecomoedie(lic. and pr. 1631), founded on the story of Theodosius the Younger;Believe as You List(rejected by the censor in January, but licensed in May, 1631; pr. 1848-1849 for the Percy Society);The City Madam, a Comedie(lic. 1632, pr. 1658), which Mr Fleay (Biog. Chron. of the Eng. Drama, i. 226), however, considers to be arifaciamentoof an older play, probably by Jonson;The Guardian(lic. 1633, pr. 1655); andThe Bashful Lover(lic. 1636, pr. 1655).A Very Woman, or The Prince of Tarent, licensed in 1634 as the work of Massinger alone, is generally referred to his collaboration with Fletcher. The “exquisite temperance and justice†of this piece are, according to Swinburne, foreign to Fletcher’s genius, and afford a striking example of Massinger’s artistic skill and moderation.
Twelve plays of Massinger are said to be lost, but the titles of some of these may be duplicates of those of existing plays. Five of these lost plays were MSS. used by John Warburton’s cook for pie-covers. The numerous plays in which Massinger’s co-operation with John Fletcher is generally assumed are dealt with underBeaumont and Fletcher. But it may be here noted that Mr R. Boyle has constructed an ingenious case for the joint authorship by Fletcher and Massinger of the two “Shakespearian†plays,Henry VIII.andTwo Noble Kinsmen(see the New Shakspere Society’sTransactions, 1884 and 1882). Mr Boyle sees the touch of Massinger in the first two acts of theSecond Maiden’s Tragedy(Lansdowne MS., lic. 1611), a play with which the names of Fletcher and Tourneur are also associated by different critics.The Fatall Dowry, a Tragedy(c.1619, pr. 1632), which was adapted without acknowledgment by Nicholas Rowe in hisFair Penitent, was written in conjunction with Nathaniel Field; andThe Virgin Martir, a Tragedie(lic. 1620, pr. 1621), with Thomas Dekker.
Massinger’s independent works were collected by Coxeter (4 vols., 1759, revised edition with introduction by Thomas Davies, 1779), by J. Monck Mason (4 vols., 1779), by William Gifford (4 vols., 1805, 1813), by Hartley Coleridge (1840), by Lieut.-Colonel Cunningham (1867), and selections by Mr Arthur Symons in theMermaid Series(1887-1889). Gifford’s remains the standard edition, and formed the basis of Cunningham’s text. It contains “An Essay on the Dramatic Writings of Massinger†by Dr John Ferriar.
Massinger has been the object of a good deal of criticism. A metrical examination of the plays in which Massinger was concerned is given inEnglische Studien(Halle, v. 74, vii. 66, viii. 39, ix. 209 and x. 383), by Mr R. Boyle, who also contributed the life of the poet in theDictionary of National Biography. The sources of his plays are dealt with by E. Koeppel inQuellen Studien zu den Dramen Chapman’s, Massinger’s und Ford’s(Strassburg, 1897). For detailed criticism, beside the introductions to the editions quoted, see A. W. Ward,Hist. of Eng. Dram. Lit.(1899), iii. 1-47, and F. G. Fleay,Biog. Chron. of the Eng. Drama(1891), underFletcher; a general estimate of Massinger, dealing especially with his moral standpoint, is given in Sir Leslie Stephen’sHours in a Library(3rd series, 1879); Swinburne, in theFortnightly Review(July 1889), while acknowledging the justice of Sir L. Stephen’s main strictures, found much to say in praise of the poet.
MASSINISSA(c.238-149B.C.), king of Massylian or eastern Numidia. He was educated, like many of the Numidian chiefs, at Carthage, learnt Latin and Greek, and was an accomplished as well as a naturally clever man. Although his kingdom was nominally independent of Carthage, it really stood to it in a relation of vassalage; it was directly under Carthaginian influences, and was imbued to a very considerable extent with Carthaginian civilization. It was to this that Massinissa owed his fame and success; he was a barbarian at heart, but he had a varnish of culture, and to this he added the craft and cunning in which Carthaginian statesmen were supposed to excel. While yet a young man (212) he forced his neighbour Syphax, prince of western Numidia, who had recently entered into an alliance with Rome, to fly to the Moors in the extreme west of Africa. Soon afterwards he appeared in Spain, fighting for Carthage with a large force of Numidian cavalry against the Romans under the two Scipios. The defeat of the Carthaginian army in 206 led him to cast in his lot with Rome. Scipio Africanus is said to have cultivated his friendship. Massinissa now quitted Spain for a while for Africa, and was again engaged in a war with Syphax in which he was decidedly worsted. Scipio’s arrival in Africa in 204 gave him another chance, and no sooner had he joined the Roman general than he crushed his old enemy Syphax, and captured his capital Cirta (Constantine). Here occurs the romantic story of Sophonisba, daughter of the Carthaginian Hasdrubal, who had been promised in marriage to Massinissa, but had subsequently become the wife of Syphax. Massinissa, according to the story, married Sophonisba immediately after his victory, but was required by Scipio to dismiss her as a Carthaginian, and consequently an enemy to Rome.To save her from such humiliation he sent her poison, with which she destroyed herself. Massinissa was now accepted as a loyal ally of Rome, and was confirmed by Scipio in the possession of his kingdom. In the battle of Zama (202) (seePunic Wars), he commanded the cavalry on Scipio’s right wing, and materially assisted the Roman victory. For his services he received the kingdom of Syphax, and thus under Roman protection he became master of the whole of Numidia, and his dominions completely enclosed the Carthaginian territories, now straitened and reduced at the close of the Second Punic War. It would seem that he had thoughts of annexing Carthage itself with the connivance of Rome. In a war which soon followed he was successful; the remonstrances of Carthage with Rome on the behaviour of her ally were answered by the appointment of Scipio as arbitrator; but, as though intentionally on the part of Rome, no definite settlement was arrived at, and thus the relations between Massinissa and the Carthaginians continued strained. Rome, it is certain, deliberately favoured her ally’s unjust claims with the view of keeping Carthage weak, and Massinissa on his part was cunning enough to retain the friendship of the Roman people by helping them with liberal supplies in their wars against Perseus of Macedon and Antiochus. As soon as Carthage seemed to be recovering herself, and some of Massinissa’s partisans were driven from the city into exile, his policy was to excite the fears of Rome, till at last in 149 war was declared—the Third Punic War, which ended in the final overthrow of Carthage. The king took some part in the negotiations which preceded the war, but died soon after its commencement in the ninetieth year of his age and the sixtieth of his reign.
Massinissa was an able ruler and a decided benefactor to Numidia. He converted a plundering tribe into a settled and civilized population, and out of robbers and marauders made efficient and disciplined soldiers. To his sons he bequeathed a well-stored treasury, a formidable army, and even a fleet. Cirta (q.v.), his capital, became a famous centre of Phoenician civilization. In fact Massinissa changed for the better the whole aspect of a great part of northern Africa. He had much of the Arab nature, was singularly temperate, and equal to any amount of fatigue. His fidelity to Rome was merely that of temporary expediency. He espoused now one side, and now the other, but on the whole supported Rome, so that orators and historians could speak of him as “a most faithful ally of the Roman people.â€