Chapter 6

Authorities.—The MSS. of Martial are divided by editors into three families according to the recension of the text which they offer. Of these the oldest and best is represented by three MSS. which contain only selected extracts. The second family is derived from an inferior source, a MS. which was edited inA.D.401 by Torquatus Gennadius; it comprises four MSS. and contains the whole of the text. The third family, of which the MSS. are very numerous, also contains the whole of the text in a recension slightly different from that of the other two; the best representative of this family is the MS. preserved in the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh.The best separate edition of the text is that of Lindsay (Oxford, 1902); earlier editions of importance are those of Schneidewin (1842 and 1853), and of Gilbert (Leipzig, 1886). The best commentary is that of L. Friedländer (Leipzig, 1886) in two volumes with German notes) and in the same scholar’sSittengeschichte Romsmuch will be found that explains and illustrates Martial’s epigrams. There is a large selection from the epigrams with English notes by Paley and Stone (1875), a smaller selection with notes by Stephenson (1880); see also Edwin Post,Selected Epigrams of Martial(1908), with introduction and notes. The translation into English verse by Elphinston (London, 1782) is famous for its absurdity, which drew an epigram from Burns.

The best separate edition of the text is that of Lindsay (Oxford, 1902); earlier editions of importance are those of Schneidewin (1842 and 1853), and of Gilbert (Leipzig, 1886). The best commentary is that of L. Friedländer (Leipzig, 1886) in two volumes with German notes) and in the same scholar’sSittengeschichte Romsmuch will be found that explains and illustrates Martial’s epigrams. There is a large selection from the epigrams with English notes by Paley and Stone (1875), a smaller selection with notes by Stephenson (1880); see also Edwin Post,Selected Epigrams of Martial(1908), with introduction and notes. The translation into English verse by Elphinston (London, 1782) is famous for its absurdity, which drew an epigram from Burns.

(W. Y. S.)

MARTIALIS, QUINTUS GARGILIUS,a Latin writer on horticultural subjects. He has been identified by some with the military commander of the same name, mentioned in a Latin inscription ofA.D.260 (C. I. L.viii. 9047) as having lost his life in the colony of Auzia (Aumale) in Mauretania Caesariensis. Considerable fragments of his work (probably calledDe hortis), which treated of the cultivation of trees and vegetables, and also of their medicinal properties, have survived, chiefly in the body of and as an appendix to theMedicina Plinii(an anonymous 4th century handbook of medical recipes based upon Pliny,Nat. Hist.xx.-xxxii.). Extant sections treat of apples, peaches, quinces, almonds and chestnuts. Gargilius also wrote a treatise on the tending of cattle (De curis boum), and a biography of the emperor Alexander Severus is attributed by two of the Scriptores historiae Augustae (Aelius Lampridius and Flavius Vopiscus) to a Gargilius Martialis, who may be the same person.

Bibliography.—Gargilii Martialis ... fragmenta, ed. A. Mai (1846);Plinii secundi quae fertur medicina, ed. V. Rose (1876);De curis boum, ed. E. Lommatzsch (1903) with Vegetius Renatus’sMulomedicina; “Gargilius Martialis und die Maurenkriege,” C. Cichorius in G. Curtius,Leipziger Studien, x. (1887), where the inscription referred to above is fully discussed: see also Teuffel-Schwabe,Hist. of Roman Literature(Eng. trans.), § 380.

MARTIAL LAW.“Martial law” is an unfortunate term and in a sense a misnomer. It describes a suspension of ordinary law, rendered necessary by circumstances of war or rebellion. The confusion arose from the fact that the marshal’s court administered military law before the introduction of articles of war, which were in their turn merged in the Army Act. But martial law is not a law in the proper sense of the term. It is the exercise of the will of the military commander, who takes upon himself the responsibility of suspending ordinary law in order to ensure the safety of the state. It is declared, by a proclamation issued by the executive, that ordinary law is inadequate to cope with the circumstances, and provides exceptional means of arrest and punishment of persons who resist the government or aid the enemy. But such a proclamation, while invariably issued in order to give publicity to the suspension of ordinary law, does not invest the step with the force of law. It is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war, and is limited by military necessity. Yet in reality it is part of common law which justifies acts done by necessity for the defence of the commonwealth when there is war. H. W. Halleck in his work on International Law (i. 544), says, “Martial law originates either in the prerogative of the crown, as in Great Britain, or from the exigency of the occasion, as in other states: it is one of the rights of sovereignty, and is essential to the existence of a state, as is the right to declare or to carry on war.”

This opinion, however, must be read, as regards the British Empire, with the passage in the Petition of Right which is reproduced in the preamble of each annual Army Act, and asserts the illegality of martial law in time of peace in the following terms:—“No man shall be fore-judged or subjected in time of peace to any kind of punishment within this realm by martial law.” Therefore, whilst martial law is declared illegal in time of peace, it is indirectly declared lawful in time of war and intestinal commotion when the courts are closed, or when there is no time for their cumbrous action. C. M. Clode, inMilitary Forces of the Crown, argues that the words of the Petition of Right and of the Military Act since the reign of Anne are plain in this respect “that ... the crown possessesthe right of issuing commissions in war and rebellion.” But he rightly adds that the military commander may permit the usual courts to continue their jurisdiction upon such subjects as he thinks proper. Legislative enactments have also sanctioned this special jurisdiction at various times, notably in 1798, 1799, 1801, and in 1803. These enactments lay down that exceptional powers may be exercised “whether the ordinary courts shall or shall not be open.” As an invariable rule an act of indemnity has been passed on the withdrawal of martial law, but only to protect any person in charge of the execution of martial law who has exceeded his powers in good faith.

There has been much discussion as to whether, in districts where martial law has not been proclaimed, a person can be sent for trial from such district into a district where martial law was in operation. It is argued that if the ordinary courts were open and at work in the non-proclaimed district recourse should be had to them. The Privy Council in 1902 (reMarais) refused leave to appeal where the Supreme Court of Cape Colony had declined to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus in these circumstances. Mr Justice Blackburn in his charge inR.v.Eyresays, “I have come to the conclusion that, looking at what martial law was, the bringing of a person into the proclaimed district to be tried might, in a proper case, be justified.” The learned judge admits that there should be a power of summary trial, observing all the substantials of justice, in order to stamp out an insurrection by speedy trial.

Whilst martial law is the will of the commanders, and is only limited by the customs of war and the discretion of those who administer it, still, as far as practicable, the procedure of military law is followed, and a military court is held on the same lines as a court-martial. Charges are simply framed without technicalities. The prisoner is present, the evidence of prosecution and prisoner is taken on oath, the proceedings are recorded, and the sentence of the court must be confirmed according to the rules of the Army Act. Sentences of death and penal servitude must be referred to headquarters for confirmation. In the South African War (1899-1902) these limits of procedure were observed, and when possible will always be.

Entering more into detail, the term martial law has been employed in several senses:—(1) As applied to the military forces of the crown, apart from the military law under the old Mutiny Acts, and the present annualDifferent Applications of Martial Law.Army Acts. (2) As applied to the enemy. (3) As applied to rebels. (4) As applied to civilian subjects who are not in rebellion, but in a district where the ordinary course of civil life cannot be maintained owing to war or rebellion.

1. In regard to the military forces of the crown, the superseding of justice as administered under the Army Act could only occur in a time of great need;e.g.mutiny of five or six regiments in the field, with no time to take the opinion of any executive authority. The officer in command would then be bound to take measures for the purpose of suppressing such mutiny, even to putting soldiers to death if necessary. It would be a case where necessity forced immediate action.

2. Martial law as applied to the enemy or the population of the enemy’s country, is in the words of the duke of Wellington, “the will of the general of the army, though it must be administered in accordance with the customs of war.”

3, 4. But it is as affecting the subjects of the crown in rebellion that the subject of martial law really obtains its chief importance; and it is in this sense that the term is generally used;i.e.the suspension of ordinary law and the temporary government of the country, or parts of it, or all of it, by military tribunals. It has often been laid down that martial law in this sense is unknown to the law of England. A. V. Dicey, for instance, restricts martial law to only another expression for “the common right of the crown and its servants to repel force by force, in the case of invasion, insurrection, or riot, or generally of any violent resistance.” But more than this is understood by the term martial law.

When the proposition was laid down that martial law in this sense is unknown to the law of England, it is to be remembered that fortunately in England there never had been a state at all similar to that prevailing in Cape Colony in 1900-1902, and it may perhaps be questioned whether the statement would have been made with such certainty if similar events had been present to the writers’ minds.

In the charge delivered by Mr Justice Blackburn in the Jamaica case the law as affecting the general question of martial law is well set out.

“By the laws of this country,” said Mr Justice Blackburn, “beginning at Magna Carta and getting more and more established, down to the time of the Revolution, when it was finally and completely established, the general rule was that a subject was not to be tried or punished except by due course of law; all crimes are to be determined by juries subject to the guidance of the judge; that is the general rule, and is established law. But from the earliest times there was this also which was the law, and is the law still, that when there was a foreign invasion or an insurrection, it was the duty of every good subject, in obedience to the officers and magistrates, to resist the rebels, ... in such a case as that of insurrection prevailing so far that the courts of law cannot sit, there must really be anarchy unless there is some power to keep the people in order, ... before that principle the crown claimed the prerogative to exercise summary proceedings by martial law ... in time of war when this disturbance was going on, over others than the army. And further than that, the crown made this further claim against the insurgents, that whilst it existed, pending the insurrection and for a short time afterwards, the crown had ... the power to proclaim martial law in the sense of using summary proceedings, to punish the insurgents and to check and stop the spread of the rebellion by summary proceedings against the insurgents, so as ... to stamp out the rebellion. Now no doubt the extent to which the crown had power to do that has never been yet decided. Our law has been declared from time to time and has always been a practical science, that is, the judges have decided so much as was necessary for the particular case, and that has become part of the law. But it never has come to be decided what this precise power is.”

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the need has never arisen. It has always been found possible to employ the ordinary courts directly the rebels have been defeated in the field and have been made prisoners or surrendered. “Fortunately in England only three occasions have arisen since the Revolution when the authority of the civil power was for a time, and then only partially, suspended,” 1715, 1745 and 1780. Clode,Military Forces, ii. 163, says: “Upon the threat of invasion followed by rebellion in 1715, the first action of the government was to issue a proclamation authorizing all officers, civil and military, by force of arms (if necessary) to suppress the rebellion.” This, therefore, would only seem to fall within the limited sense in which Dicey understands martial law to be legal, “the right of the crown and its servants to repel force by force.” There was no attempt to bring persons before courts-martial who ought to be tried by the common law, and all the extraordinary acts of the crown were sanctioned by parliament. After the rebellion had been suppressed two statutes were passed, one for indemnity and the other for pardon. Before the revolution of 1745 similar action was adopted, a proclamation charging civil magistrates to do their utmost to prevent and suppress all riots, and acts of parliament suspending Habeas Corpus, providing for speedy trials; and of indemnity. In the Gordon Riots of 1780 a very similar course was pursued, and nothing was done which would not fall within Dicey’s limitation. No prisoners were tried by martial law.

In Ireland the ordinary law was suspended in 1798-1801 and in 1803. In 1798 an order in Council was issued to all general officers commanding H.M. forces to punish all persons acting in, aiding, or in any way assisting the rebellion, according tomartial law, either by death or otherwise, as to them should seem expedient for the suppression and punishment of all rebels; but the order was communicated to the Irish houses of parliament, who expressed their approval by addresses to the viceroy. It was during the operation of this order that Wolfe Tone’s case arose. Tone, a subject of the king, was captured on board a French man-of-war, and condemned to death by a court-martial. Curran, his counsel, applied to the king’sbench at Dublin for a Habeas Corpus, on the grounds that only when war was raging could courts-martial be endured, not while the court of king’s bench sat. The court granted his application; but no ultimate decision was ever given, as Tone died before it could be arrived at.

In 1799 application was made to parliament for express sanction to martial law. The preamble of the act declared that “The Rebellion still continues ... and stopped the ordinary course of justice and of the common law; and that many persons ... who had been taken by H.M. forces ... have availed themselves of such partial restoration of the ordinary course of the common law to evade the punishment of their crimes, whereby it had become necessary for parliament to interfere.” The act declared that martial law should prevail and be put in force whether the ordinary courts were or were not open, &c. And nothing in the act could be held to take away, abridge or eliminate the acknowledged prerogative of war, for the public safety to resort to the exercise of martial law against open enemies or traitors, &c.

After the suppression of the rebellion an act of indemnity was passed in 1801.

In 1803 a similar act was passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom as it was after the Act of Union. In introducing it Mr Pitt stated: “The bill is not one to enable the government in Ireland to declare martial law in districts where insurrection exists, for that is a power which His Majesty already possesses—the object will be to enable the lord-lieutenant, when any persons shall be taken in rebellion, to order them to be tried immediately by a court-martial.”

During the 19th century martial law was proclaimed by the British government in the following places:—1. Barbados, 1805-1816.6. Cephalonia, 1848.2. Demerara, 1823.7. Cape of Good Hope, 1834; 1849-1851.3. Jamaica, 1831-1832; 1865.8. St Vincent, 1863.4. Canada, 1837-1838.9. South Africa, 1899-1901.5. Ceylon, 1817 and 1848.The proclamation was always based on the grounds of necessity, and where any local body of a representative character existed it would seem that its assent was given, and an act of indemnity obtained after the suppression of the rebellion. (Jno. S.)

During the 19th century martial law was proclaimed by the British government in the following places:—

The proclamation was always based on the grounds of necessity, and where any local body of a representative character existed it would seem that its assent was given, and an act of indemnity obtained after the suppression of the rebellion. (Jno. S.)

MARTIGNAC, JEAN BAPTISTE SYLVERE GAY,Vicomte de(1778-1832), French statesman, was born at Bordeaux on the 20th of June 1778. In 1798 he acted as secretary to Sieyès; then after serving for a while in the army, he turned to literature, producing several light plays. Under the Empire he practised with success as an advocate at Bordeaux, where in 1818 he became advocate-general of thecour royale. In 1819 he was appointedprocureur-généralat Limoges, and in 1821 was returned for Marmande to the Chamber of Deputies, where he supported the policy of Villèle. In 1822 he was appointed councillor of state, in 1823 he accompanied the due d’Angoulême to Spain as civil commissary; in 1824 he was created a viscount and appointed director-general of registration. In contact with practical politics his ultra-royalist views were gradually modified in the direction of the Doctrinaires, and on the fall of Villèle he was selected by Charles X. to carry out the new policy of compromise. On the 4th of January 1828 he was appointed minister of the interior, and, though not bearing the title of president, became the virtual head of the cabinet. He succeeded in passing the act abolishing the press censorship, and in persuading the king to sign the ordinances of the 16th of June 1828 on the Jesuits and the little seminaries. He was exposed to attack from both the extreme Left and the extreme Right, and when in April 1829 a coalition of these groups defeated him in the chamber, Charles X., who had never believed in the policy he represented, replaced him by the prince, de Polignac. In March 1830 Martignac voted with the majority for the address protesting against the famous ordinances; but during the revolution that followed he remained true to his legitimist principles. His last public appearance was in defence of Polignac in the Chamber of Peers in December 1830. He died on the 3rd of April 1832.

Martignac publishedBordeaux au mois de Mars 1815(Paris, 1830), and anEssai historique sur les révolutions d’Espagne et l’intervention française de 1823(Paris, 1832). See also E. Daudet,Le Ministère de M. de Martignac(Paris, 1875).

MARTIGUES,a port of south-eastern France in the department of Bouches-du-Rhône, on the southern shore of the lagoon of Berre, and at the eastern extremity of that of Caronte, by which the former is connected with the Mediterranean. Pop. (1906), 4,178. Martigues is 23 m. W.N.W. of Marseilles by rail. Divided into three quarters by canals, the place has been called the Venice of Provence. It has a harbour (used by coasting and fishing vessels), marine workshops, oil and soap manufactures and cod-drying works. A special industry consists in the preparation ofboutarguefrom the roes of the grey mullet caught in the salt lagoons, which rivals Russian caviare.

Built in 1232 by Raymond Bérenger, count of Provence, Martigues was made a viscountship by Joanna I., queen of Naples. Henry IV. made it a principality, in favour of a princess of the house of Luxembourg. It afterwards passed into the hands of the duke of Villars.

MARTIN, ST(c.316-400), bishop of Tours, was born of heathen parents at Sabaria (Stein am Agger) in Pannonia, about the year 316. When ten years old he became a catechumen, and at fifteen he reluctantly entered the army. While stationed at Amiens he divided his cloak with a beggar, and on the following night had the vision of Christ making known to his angels this act of charity to Himself on the part of “Martinus, still a catechumen.” Soon afterwards he received baptism, and two years later, having left the army, he joined Hilary of Poitiers, who wished to make him a deacon, but at his own request ordained him to the humbler office of an exorcist. On a visit home he converted his mother, but his zeal against the Arians roused persecution against him and for some time he lived an ascetic life on the desert island of Gallinaria near Genoa. Between 360 and 370 he was again with Hilary at Poitiers, and founded in the neighbourhood the monasterium locociagense (Licugé). In 371-372 the people of Tours chose him for their bishop. He did much to extirpate idolatry from his diocese and from France, and to extend the monastic system. To obtain privacy for the maintenance of his personal religion, he established the monastery of Marmoutier-les-Tours (Martini monasterium) on the banks of the Loire. At Trèves, in 385, he entreated that the lives of the Priscillianist heretics should be spared, and he ever afterwards refused to hold ecclesiastical fellowship with those bishops who had sanctioned their execution. He died at Candes in the year 400, and is commemorated by the Roman Church on the 11th of November (duplex). He left no writings, the so-calledConfessiobeing spurious. He is the patron saint of France and of the cities of Mainz and Würzburg. TheLifeby his disciple Sulpicius Severus is practically the only source for his biography, but it is full of legendary matter and chronological errors. Gregory of Tours gives a list of 206 miracles wrought by him after his death; Sidonius Apollinaris composed a metrical biography of him. The Feast of St Martin (Martinmas) took the place of an old pagan festival, and inherited some of its usages (such as theMartinsmännchen,Martinsfeuer,Martinshornand the like, in various parts of Germany); by this circumstance is probably to be explained the fact that Martin is regarded as the patron of drinking and jovial meetings, as well as of reformed drunkards.

See A. Dupuy,Geschichte des heiligen Martins(Schaffhausen, 1855); J. G. Cazenove inDict. chr. biog.iii. 838.

MARTIN(Martinus), the name of several popes.

Martin I.succeeded Theodore I. in June or July 649. He had previously acted as papal apocrisiarius at Constantinople, and was held in high repute for learning and virtue. Almost his first official act was to summon a synod (the first Lateran) for dealing with the Monothelite heresy. It met in the Lateran church, was attended by one hundred and five bishops (chiefly from Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, a few being from Africa and other quarters), held five sessions or “secretarii” from the 5th to the 31st of October 649, and in twenty canons condemned the Monothelite heresy, its authors, and the writings by whichit had been promulgated. In this condemnation were included, not only theEcthesisor exposition of faith of the patriarch Sergius for which the emperor Heraclius had stood sponsor, but also the Typus of Paul, the successor of Sergius, which had the support of the reigning emperor (Constans II.). Martin published the decrees of his Lateran synod in an encyclical, and Constans replied by enjoining his exarch to seize the pope and send him prisoner to Constantinople. Martin was arrested in the Lateran (June 15, 653), hurried out of Rome, and conveyed first to Naxos and subsequently to Constantinople (Sept. 17, 654). He was ultimately banished to Cherson, where he arrived on the 26th of March 655, and died on the 16th of September following. His successor was Eugenius I.

(L. D.*)

A full account of the events of his pontificate will be found in Hefele’sConciliengeschichte, vol. iii. (1877).

Martin II., the name commonly given in error to Marinus I. (q.v.).

Martin III., see Marinus II.

Martin IV.(Simon Mompitié de Brion), pope from the 22nd of February 1281 to the 28th of March 1285, should have been named Martin II. He was born about 1210 in Touraine. He became a priest at Rouen and canon of St Martin’s at Tours, and was made chancellor of France by Louis IX. in 1260 and cardinal-priest of Sta Cecilia by Urban IV. in 1261. As papal legate in France he held several synods for the reformation of the clergy and conducted the negotiations for the assumption of the crown of Sicily by Charles of Anjou. It was through the latter’s influence that he succeeded Nicholas III., after a six-months’ struggle between the French and Italian cardinals. The Romans at first declined to receive him, and he was consecrated at Orvieto on the 23rd of March 1281. Peaceful and unassuming, he relied completely on Charles of Anjou, and showed little ability as pope. His excommunication of the emperor Michael Palaeologus (Nov. 1281), who stood in the way of the French projects against Greece, weakened the union with the Eastern Christians, dating from the Lyons Council of 1274. He unduly favoured his own countrymen, and for three years after the Sicilian Vespers (Mar. 31, 1282) he employed all the spiritual and material resources at his command on behalf of his patron against Peter of Aragon. He was driven from Rome by a popular uprising and died at Perugia. His successor was Honorius IV.

(C. H. Ha.)

His registers have been published in theBibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome(Paris, 1901).See A. Potthast,Regesta pontif. roman., vol. 2 (Berlin, 1875); K. J. von Hefele,Conciliengeschichte, Bd. 6, 2nd ed.; F. Gregorovius,Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 5, trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); H. H. Milman,Latin Christianity, vol. 6 (London, 1899); W. Norden,Das Papsttum u. Byzanz(Berlin, 1903); E. Choullier, “Recherches sur la vie du pape Martin IV.,” inRevue de Champagne, vol. 4 (1878);Processo istorico dell’ insurrezione di Sicilia dell’ anno 1282, ed. by G. di Marzo (Palermo, 1882).

His registers have been published in theBibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome(Paris, 1901).

See A. Potthast,Regesta pontif. roman., vol. 2 (Berlin, 1875); K. J. von Hefele,Conciliengeschichte, Bd. 6, 2nd ed.; F. Gregorovius,Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 5, trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); H. H. Milman,Latin Christianity, vol. 6 (London, 1899); W. Norden,Das Papsttum u. Byzanz(Berlin, 1903); E. Choullier, “Recherches sur la vie du pape Martin IV.,” inRevue de Champagne, vol. 4 (1878);Processo istorico dell’ insurrezione di Sicilia dell’ anno 1282, ed. by G. di Marzo (Palermo, 1882).

Martin V.(Otto Colonna) (1417-1431) was elected at Constance on St Martin’s Day, in a conclave composed of twenty-three cardinals and thirty delegates from the five different “nations” of the council. Son of Agapito Colonna, who had himself become a bishop and cardinal, the new pope belonged to one of the greatest Roman families; to Urban VI. had been due his entry, asreferendarius, upon an ecclesiastical career. Having become a cardinal under Innocent VII., he had seceded from Gregory XII. in 1408, and together with the other cardinals at Pisa, had taken part in the election of Alexander V. and afterwards of John XXIII. At Constance, his rôle had been chiefly that of an arbiter; he was a good and gentle man, leading a simple life, free from intrigue. While refraining from making any pronouncement as to the validity of the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions, which had seemed to proclaim the superiority of the council over the pope, Martin V. nevertheless soon revealed his personal feelings by having a constitution read in consistory which forbade any appeal from the judgment of the sovereign pontiff in matters of faith (May 10, 1418). As to the reform, of which everybody felt the necessity, the fathers in council had not succeeded in arriving at any agreement. Martin V. himself settled a great number of points, and then passed a series of special concordats with Germany, France, Italy, Spain and England. Though this was not the thorough reform of which need was felt, the council itself gave the pope asatisfecit. When the council was dissolved Martin V. made it his task to regain Italy. After staying for long periods at Mantua and Florence, where the deposed pope, Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII.), came and made submission to him, Martin V. was enabled to enter Rome (Sept. 30, 1420) and measure the extent of the ruins left there by the Great Schism of the West. He set to work to restore some of these ruins, to reconstitute and pacify the Papal State, to put an end to the Schism, which showed signs of continuing in Aragon and certain parts of southern France; to enter into negotiations, unfortunately unfruitful, with the Greek Church also with a view to a return to unity, to organize the struggle against heresy in Bohemia; to interpose his pacific mediation between France and England, as well as between the parties which were rending France; and, finally, to welcome and act as patron to saintly reformers like Bernardino of Siena and Francesca Romana, foundress of the nursing sisterhood of the Oblate di Tor de’ Specchi (1425).

In accordance with the decreeFrequens, and the promises which he had made, Martin V., after an interval of five years, summoned a new council, which was almost immediately transferred from Pavia to Siena, in consequence of an epidemic (1423). But the small number of fathers who attended at the latter town, and above all, the disquieting tendencies which began to make themselves felt there, induced the pope to force on a dissolution of the synod. Pending the reunion of the new council which had been summoned at Basel for the end of a period of seven years, Martin V. himself endeavoured to effect a reformation in certain points, but he was carried off by apoplexy (Feb. 20, 1431), just as he had designated the young and brilliant Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini to preside in his place over the council of Basel.

See L. Pastor,Geschichte der Päpste(1901), i. 205-279; J. Guiraud,L’État pontifical après le Grand Schisme(1896); Müntz,Les Arts à la cour des papes pendant le xveet le xviesiècle(1878); N. Valois,La Crise religieuse du xvesiècle; le pape et le concile(1909), vol. i. p. i.-xxix., 1-93.

(N. V.)

MARTIN, BON LOUIS HENRI(1810-1883), French historian, was born on the 20th of February 1810 at St Quentin (Aisne), where his father was a judge. Trained as a notary, he followed this profession for some time but having achieved success with an historical romance,Wolfthurm(1830), he applied himself to historical research. Becoming associated with Paul Lacroix (“le Bibliophile Jacob”), he planned with him a history of France, to consist of excerpts from the chief chroniclers and historians, with original matter filling up gaps in the continuity. The first volume, which appeared in 1833, encouraged the author to make the work his own, and hisHistoire de France, in fifteen volumes (1833-1836), was the result. Thismagnum opus, rewritten and further elaborated (4th ed., 16 vols. and index, 1861-1865) gained for the author in 1856 the first prize of the Academy, and in 1869 the grand biennial prize of 20,000 francs. A popular abridgment in seven volumes was published in 1867. This, together with the continuation,Histoire de France depuis 1789 jusqu’à nos jours(6 vols. 1878-1883), gives a complete history of France, and superseded Sismondi’sHistoire des Français.

This work is in parts defective; Martin’s descriptions of the Gauls are based rather on romance than on history, and in this respect he was too much under the influence of Jean Reynaud and his cosmogonic philosophy. However he gave a great impetus to Celtic and anthropological studies. His knowledge of themiddleages is inadequate, and his criticisms are not discriminating. As a free-thinking republican, his prejudices often biassed his judgment on the political and religious history of theancien régime. The last six volumes, devoted to the 17th and 18th centuries, are superior to the earlier ones. Martin sat in theassemblée nationaleas deputy for Aisne in 1871,and was elected life senator in 1878, but he left no mark as a politician. He died in Paris on the 14th of December 1883.

Among his minor works may be mentioned:—De la France, de son génie et de ses destinées(1847);Daniel Manin(1860),La Russie et l’Europe(1866);Études d’archéologie celtique(1872);Les Napoléon et les frontières de la France(1874). See his biography by Gabriel Hanotaux,Henri Martin; sa vie, ses œuvres, son temps(1885).

MARTIN, CLAUD(1735-1800), French adventurer and officer in the army of the English East India Company, was born at Lyons on the 4th of January 1735, the son of a cooper. He went out to India in 1751 to serve under Dupleix and Lally in the Carnatic wars. When Pondicherry fell in 1761, he seems, like others of his countrymen, to have accepted service in the Bengal army of the English, obtaining an ensign’s commission in 1763, and steadily rising to the rank of major-general. He was employed on the building of the new Fort William at Calcutta, and afterwards on the survey of Bengal under Rennell. In 1776 he was allowed to accept the appointment of superintendent of the arsenal of the nawab of Oudh at Lucknow, retaining his rank but being ultimately placed on half pay. He acquired a large fortune, and on his death (Sept. 13, 1800) he bequeathed his residuary estate to found institutions for the education of European children at Lucknow, Calcutta and Lyons, all known by the name of “La Martinière.” That at Lucknow is the best known. It was housed in the palace that he had built called Constantia, which, though damaged during the Mutiny, retains many personal memorials of its founder.

See S. C. Hill,The Life of Claud Martin(Calcutta, 1901).

MARTIN, FRANÇOIS XAVIER(1762-1846), American jurist and author, was born in Marseilles, France, on the 17th of March 1762, of Provençal descent. In 1780 he went to Martinique, and before the close of the American war of Independence went to North Carolina, where (in New Bern) he taught French and learnt English, and set up as a printer. He studied law, and was admitted to the North Carolina bar in 1789. He published various legal books, and editedActs of the North Carolina Assembly from 1715 to 1803(2nd ed., 1809). He was a member of the lower house of the General Assembly in 1806-1807. In 1809 he was commissioned a judge of the superior court of the territory of Mississippi, and in March 1810 became judge of the superior court of the territory of Orleans. Here the law was in a chaotic condition, what with French law before O’Reilly’s rule, then a Spanish code, and in 1808 the Digest of the Civil Laws, an adaptation by James Brown and Moreau Lislet of the code of Napoleon, which repealed the Spanish fueros, partidas, recopilationes and laws of the Indies only as they conflicted with its provisions. Martin published in 1811 and 1813 reports of cases decided by the superior court of the territory of Orleans. For two years from February 1813 Martin was attorney-general of the newly established state of Louisiana, and then until March 1846 was a judge and (from 1836 to 1846) presiding judge of the supreme court of the state. For the period until 1830 he published reports of the decisions of the supreme court; and in 1816 he published two volumes, one French and one English, ofA General Digest of the Acts of Legislatures of the Late Territory of Orleans and of the State of Louisiana. He won the name of the “father of Louisiana jurisprudence” and his work was of great assistance to Edward Livingston, Pierre Derbigny and Moreau Lislet in the Louisiana codification of 1821-1826. Martin’s eyesight had begun to fail when he was seventy, and after 1836 he could no longer write opinions with his own hand.1He died in New Orleans on the 11th of December 1846.

Martin translated Robert J. PothierOn Obligations(1802), and wroteThe History of Louisiana from the Earliest Period(2 vols. 1827-1829) andThe History of North Carolina(2 vols., 1829). There is a memoir by Henry A. Bullard in part ii. of B. F. French’sHistorical Collections of Louisiana(Philadelphia, 1850), and one by W. W. Howe in John F. Condon’s edition of Martin’sHistory of Louisiana(New Orleans, 1882).

1His holographic will in favour of his brother (written in 1844 and devising property worth nearly $400,000) was unsuccessfully contested by the state of Louisiana on the ground that the will was void as being a legal and physical impossibility, or as being an attempted fraud on the state, as under it the state would not receive a 10% tax if the property went to the heirs of Martin (as intestate) in France.

MARTIN, HOMER DODGE(1836-1897), American artist, was born at Albany, New York, on the 28th of October 1836. A pupil for a short time of William Hart, his earlier work followed the lines of the Hudson River School. He was elected as associate of the National Academy of Design, New York, in 1868, and a full academician in 1874. During a trip to Europe in 1876 he was captivated by the Barbizon school, and from 1882 to 1886 he lived in France spending much of the time in Normandy. At Villerville he painted his “Harp of the Winds,” now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Among his important canvases are “Westchester Hills,” “Adirondack Scenery,” “The Cinquebœuf Church,” “Sand Dunes,” and “A Newport Landscape.” Martin is generally spoken of as one of the great trio of American landscapists, the other two being Inness and Wyant, and examples of his work are in most of the important American collections. He died at St. Paul, Minnesota, on the 2nd of February 1897.

MARTIN, JOHN(1789-1854), English painter, was born at Haydon Bridge, near Hexham, on the 19th of July 1789. He was apprenticed by his father to a coachbuilder to learn heraldic painting, but owing to a quarrel the indentures were cancelled, and he was placed under Bonifacio Musso, an Italian artist, father of the enamel painter Charles Musso. With his master Martin removed to London in 1806, where he married at the age of nineteen, and supported himself by giving drawing lessons, and by painting in water colours, and on china and glass. His leisure was occupied in the study of perspective and architecture. His first picture, “Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion,” was exhibited in the Royal Academy of 1812, and sold for fifty guineas. It was followed by the “Expulsion” (1813), “Paradise” (1813), “Clytie” (1814), and “Joshua” (1815). In 1821 appeared his “Belshazzar’s Feast,” which excited much favourable and hostile comment, and was awarded a prize of £200 at the British Institution, where the Joshua had previously carried off a premium of £100. Then came the “Destruction of Herculaneum” (1822), the “Creation” (1824), the “Eve of the Deluge” (1841), and a series of other Biblical and imaginative subjects. In 1832-1833 Martin received £2000 for drawing and engraving a fine series of designs to Milton, and with Westall he produced a set of Bible illustrations. He was also occupied with schemes for the improvement of London, and published various pamphlets and plans dealing with the metropolitan water supply, sewage, dock and railway systems. During the last four years of his life he was engaged upon his large subjects of “The Judgment,” the “Day of Wrath,” and the “Plains of Heaven.” He was attacked with paralysis while painting, and died in the Isle of Man on the 17th of February 1854.

MARTIN, LUTHER(1748-1826), American lawyer, was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on the 9th of February 1748. He graduated at the college of New Jersey (now Princeton University) at the head of a class of thirty-five in 1766, and immediately afterwards removed to Maryland, teaching at Queenstown in that colony until 1770, and being admitted to the bar in 1771. He practised law for a short time in Virginia, then returned to Maryland, and became recognized as the leader of the Maryland bar and as one of the ablest lawyers in the United States. From 1778 to 1805 he was attorney-general of Maryland; in 1814-1816 he was chief judge of the court of Oyer and Terminer for the city of Baltimore; and in 1818-1822 he was attorney-general of Maryland. He was one of Maryland’s representatives in the Continental Congress in 1784-1785 and in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia, but opposed the constitution and refused to affix his signature. He subsequently allied himself with the Federalists, and was an opponent of Thomas Jefferson, who in 1807 spoke of him as the “Federal Bull-Dog.” His ability was shown in his famous defence of Judge Samuel Chase (q.v.) in the impeachment trial before the United States Senate in 1804-1805, and in his defence of AaronBurr (q.v.) against the charge of treason in 1807. He has been described by the historian Henry Adams, writing of the Chase trial, as at that time the “most formidable of American advocates.” Though he received a large income, he was so improvident that he was frequently in want, and on the 22nd of February 1822 the legislature of Maryland passed a remarkable resolution—the only one of the kind in American history—requiring every lawyer in the state to pay an annual licence fee of five dollars, to be handed over to trustees appointed “for the appropriation of the proceeds raised by virtue of this resolution to the use of Luther Martin.” This resolution was rescinded on the 6th of February 1823. Martin died at the home of Aaron Burr in New York on the 10th of July 1826. In 1783 he had married a daughter of the Captain Michael Cresap (1742-1775), who was unjustly charged by Jefferson, in hisNotes on Virginia, with the murder of the family of the Indian chief, John Logan, and whom Martin defended in a pamphlet long out of print.

See the biographical sketch by Henry P. Goddard,Luther Martin, the Federal Bull-Dog(Baltimore, 1887), No. 24 of the “Peabody Fund Publications,” of the Maryland Historical Society.

MARTIN, SIR THEODORE(1816-1909), British author and translator, the son of a solicitor, was born at Edinburgh on the 16th of September 1816, and educated at the Royal High School and the University, from which he subsequently received the honorary degree of LL.D. He practised for some time as a solicitor in Edinburgh, but in 1846 went to London, where he became senior partner in the firm of Martin & Leslie, parliamentary agents. He early contributed toFraser’s MagazineandTait’s Magazine, under the signature of “Bon Gaultier,” and in 1856, in conjunction with Professor Aytoun, he published theBook of Balladsunder the same pseudonym. This work at once obtained popular favour. In 1858 he published a volume of translations of thePoems and Ballads of Goethe, and this was followed by a rendering of the Danish poet Henrik Hertz’s lyric drama,King René’s Daughter. The principal character in this drama, Iolanthe, was sustained by Helena Faucit (q.v.), who in 1851 became the author’s wife. Martin’s translations of Öhlenschläger’s dramas,Correggio(1854) andAladdin, or the Wonderful Lamp(1857), widened the fame of the Danish poet in England. In 1860 appeared Martin’s metrical translation of theOdes of Horace; and in 1870 he wrote a volume onHoracefor the series of “Ancient Classics for English Readers.” In 1882 his Horatian labours were concluded by a translation of the poet’s whole works, with a life and notes, in two volumes. A poetical translation ofCatulluswas published in 1861, followed by a privately printed volume ofPoems, Original and Translated, in 1863.Thencame translations of theVita Nuovaof Dante, and the first part of Goethe’sFaust. A metrical translation of the second part ofFaustappeared in 1866. Martin wrote a memoir of his friend Aytoun in 1867, and while engaged upon this work he was requested by Queen Victoria, to whom he was introduced by his friend Sir Arthur Helps, to undertake theLife of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort. The first volume of this well-known work was published in 1874. In 1878 Martin’s translation of Heine’sPoems and Balladsappeared. Two years later theLife of the Prince Consortwas brought to a successful conclusion by the publication of the fifth volume. A knighthood was then conferred upon him. In the following November he was elected lord rector of the university of St Andrews. Martin’sLife of Lord Lyndhurst, based upon papers furnished by the family, was published in 1883. In 1889 appearedThe Song of the Bell, and other Translations from Schiller, Goethe, Uhland, and Others; in 1804Madonna Pia, a Tragedy, and three Other Dramas; a translation of Leopardi’s poems in 1905; and in 1901 he published a biography of his wife. The kindly relations which subsisted between Queen Victoria and Sir Theodore Martin were continued after the completion of theLifeof the prince consort up to the queen’s death. Sir Theodore’s account of these relations was privately printed in 1902, and, with King Edward’s consent, for general publication in 1908. This little book,Queen Victoria as I knew her, throws a good deal of light on the Queen’s character and private life. Sir Theodore Martin died on the 18th of August 1909.

Back to Index Next