Chapter 4

See also F. BrunetiÃ¨re,Le Roman naturaliste(1883); T. LemaÃ®tre,Les Contemporains(vols. i. v. vi.); R. Doumic,Ecrivains dâ€™aujourdâ€™hui(1894); an introduction by Henry James toThe Odd Number... (1891); a critical preface by the earl of Crewe toPierre and Jean(1902); A. Symons,Studies in Prose and Verse(1904). There are many references to Maupassant in theJournal des Goncourt, and some correspondence with Marie Bashkirtseff was printed withFurther Memoirsof that lady in 1901.

(J. F. K.)

MAUPEOU, RENÃ‰ NICOLAS CHARLES AUGUSTIN(1714-1792), chancellor of France, was born on the 25th of February 1714, being the eldest son of RenÃ© Charles de Maupeou (1688-1775), who was president of the parlement of Paris from 1743 to 1757. He married in 1744 a rich heiress, Anne de Roncherolles, a cousin of Madame dâ€™Ã‰pinay. Entering public life, he was his fatherâ€™s right hand in the conflicts between the parlement and Christophe de Beaumont, archbishop of Paris, who was supported by the court. Between 1763 and 1768, dates which cover the revision of the case of Jean Calas and the trial of the comte de Lally, Maupeou was himself president of the parlement. In 1768, through the protection of Choiseul, whose fall two years later was in large measure his work, he became chancellor in succession to his father, who had held the office for a few days only. He determined to support the royal authority against the parlement, which in league with the provincial magistratures was seeking to arrogate to itself the functions of the states-general. He allied himself with the duc dâ€™Aiguillon and Madame du Barry, and secured for a creature of his own, the AbbÃ© Terrai, the office of comptroller-general. The struggle came over the trial of the case of the duc dâ€™Aiguillon, ex-governor of Brittany, and of La Chalotais, procureur-gÃ©nÃ©ral of the province, who had been imprisoned by the governor for accusations against his administration. When the parlement showed signs of hostility against Aiguillon, Maupeou read letters patent from Louis XV. annulling the proceedings. Louis replied to remonstrances from the parlement by alit de justice, in which he demanded the surrender of the minutes of procedure. On the 27th of November 1770 appeared theÃ‰dit de rÃ¨glement et de discipline, which was promulgated by the chancellor, forbidding the union of the various branches of the parlement and correspondence with the provincial magistratures. It also made a strike on the part of the parlement punishable by confiscation of goods, and forbade further obstruction to the registration of royal decrees after the royal reply had been given to a first remonstrance. This edict the magistrates refused to register, and it was registered in alit de justiceheld at Versailles on the 7th of December, whereupon the parlement suspended its functions. After five summonses to return to their duties, the magistrates were surprised individually on the night of the 19th of January 1771 by musketeers, who required them to sign yes or no to a further request to return. Thirty-eight magistrates gave an affirmative answer, but on the exile of their former colleagues bylettres de cachetthey retracted, and were also exiled. Maupeou installed the council of state to administer justice pending the establishment of six superior courts in the provinces, and of a new parlement in Paris. Thecour des aideswas next suppressed.

Voltaire praised this revolution, applauding the suppression of the old hereditary magistrature, but in general Maupeouâ€™s policy was regarded as the triumph of tyranny. The remonstrances of the princes, of the nobles, and of the minor courts, were met by exile and suppression, but by the end of 1771 the new system was established, and the Bar, which had offered a passive resistance, recommenced to plead. But the death of Louis XV. in May 1774 ruined the chancellor. The restoration of the parlements was followed by a renewal of the quarrels between the new king and the magistrature. Maupeou and Terrai were replaced by Malesherbes and Turgot. Maupeou lived in retreat until his death at Thuit on the 29th of July 1792, having lived to see the overthrow of theancien rÃ©gime. His work, in so far as it was directed towards the separation of the judicial and political functions and to the reform of the abuses attaching to a hereditary magistrature, was subsequently endorsed by the Revolution; but no justification of his violent methods or defence of his intriguing and avaricious character is possible. He aimed at securing absolute power for Louis XV., but his action was in reality a serious blow to the monarchy.

The chief authority for the administration of Maupeou is thecompte renduin his own justification presented by him to Louis XVI. in 1789, which included a dossier of his speeches and edicts, and is preserved in the BibliothÃ¨que nationale. These documents, in the hands of his former secretary, C. F. Lebrun, duc de Plaisance, formed the basis of the judicial system of France as established under the consulate (cf. C. F. Lebrun,Opinions, rapports et choix dâ€™Ã©crits politiques, published posthumously in 1829). See furtherMaupeouana(6 vols., Paris, 1775), which contains the pamphlets directed against him;Journal hist. de la rÃ©volution opÃ©rÃ©e ... par M. de Maupeou(7 vols., 1775); the official correspondence of Mercy-Argenteau, the letters of Mme dâ€™Ã‰pinay; and Jules Flammermont,Le Chancelier Maupeou et les parlements(1883).

MAUPERTUIS, PIERRE LOUIS MOREAU DE(1698-1759), French mathematician and astronomer, was born at St Malo on the 17th of July 1698. When twenty years of age he entered the army, becoming lieutenant in a regiment of cavalry, and employing his leisure on mathematical studies. After five years he quitted the army and was admitted in 1723 a member of the Academy of Sciences. In 1728 he visited London, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1736 he acted as chief of the expedition sent by Louis XV. into Lapland to measure the length of a degree of the meridian (seeEarth, Figure of), and on his return home he became a member of almost all the scientific societies of Europe. In 1740 Maupertuis went to Berlin on the invitation of the king of Prussia, and took part in the battle of Mollwitz, where he was taken prisoner by the Austrians. On his release he returned to Berlin, and thence to Paris, where he was elected director of the Academy of Sciences in 1742, and in the following year was admitted into the Academy. Returning to Berlin in 1744, at the desire of Frederick II., he was chosen president of the Royal Academy of Sciences in 1746. Finding his health declining, he repaired in 1757 to the south of France, but went in 1758 to Basel, where he died on the 27th of July 1759. Maupertuis was unquestionably a man of considerable ability as a mathematician, but his restless, gloomy disposition involved him in constant quarrels, of which his controversies with KÃ¶nig and Voltaire during the latter part of his life furnish examples.

The following are his most important works:Sur la figure de la terre(Paris, 1738);Discours sur la parallaxe de la lune(Paris, 1741);Discours sur la figure des astres(Paris, 1742);Ã‰lÃ©ments de la gÃ©ographie(Paris, 1742);Lettre sur la comÃ¨te de 1742(Paris, 1742);Astronomie nautique(Paris, 1745 and 1746);VÃ©nus physique(Paris, 1745);Essai de cosmologie(Amsterdam, 1750). HisÅ’uvreswere published in 1752 at Dresden and in 1756 at Lyons.

MAU RANIPUR,a town of British India in Jahnsi district, in the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 17,231. It contains a large community of wealthy merchants and bankers. A special variety of red cotton cloth, known askharua, is manufactured and exported to all parts of India. Trees line many of the streets, and handsome temples ornament the town.

MAUREL, ABDIAS(d. 1705), Camisard leader, became a cavalry officer in the French army and gained distinction in Italy; here he served under Marshal Catinat, and on this account he himself is sometimes known as Catinat. In 1702, when the revolt in the CÃ©vennes broke out, he became one of the Camisard leaders, and in this capacity his name was soon known and feared. He refused to accept the peace made by Jean Cavalier in 1704, and after passing a few weeks in Switzerland he returned to France and became one of the chiefs of those Camisards who were still in arms. He was deeply concerned in a plot to capture some French towns, a scheme which, it was hoped, would be helped by England and Holland. But it failed; Maurel was betrayed, and with three other leaders of the movement was burned to death at NÃ®mes on the 22nd of April 1705. He was a man of great physical strength; but he was very cruel, and boasted he had killed 200 Roman Catholics with his own hands.

MAUREL, VICTOR(1848-â€ƒâ€ƒ), French singer, was born at Marseilles, and educated in music at the Paris Conservatoire. He made his dÃ©but in opera at Paris in 1868, and in London in 1873, and from that time onwards his admirable acting and vocal method established his reputation as one of the finest of operatic baritones. He created the leading part in Verdiâ€™sOtello, and was equally fine in Wagnerian and Italian opera.

MAURENBRECHER, KARL PETER WILHELM(1838-1892), German historian, was born at Bonn on the 21st of December, 1838, and studied in Berlin and Munich under Ranke and Von Sybel, being especially influenced by the latter historian. After doing some research work at Simancas in Spain, he became professor of history at the university of Dorpat in 1867; and was then in turn professor at KÃ¶nigsberg, Bonn and Leipzig. He died at Leipzig on the 6th of November, 1892.

Many of Maurenbrecherâ€™s works are concerned with the Reformation, among them beingEngland im Reformationszeitalter(DÃ¼sseldorf, 1866);Karl V. und die deutschen Protestanten(DÃ¼sseldorf, 1865);Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der Reformationszeit(Leipzig, 1874); and the incompleteGeschichte der Katholischen Reformation(NÃ¶rdlingen, 1880). He also wroteDon Karlos(Berlin, 1876);GrÃ¼ndung des deutschen Reiches 1859-1871(Leipzig, 1892, and again 1902); andGeschichte der deutschen KÃ¶nigswahlen(Leipzig, 1889). See G. Wolf,Wilhelm Maurenbrecher(Berlin, 1893).

MAUREPAS, JEAN FRÃ‰DÃ‰RIC PHÃ‰LYPEAUX,Comte de(1701-1781), French statesman, was born on the 9th of July 1701 at Versailles, being the son of JÃ©rÃ´me de Pontchartrain, secretary of state for the marine and the royal household. Maurepas succeeded to his fatherâ€™s charge at fourteen, and began his functions in the royal household at seventeen, while in 1725 he undertook the actual administration of the navy. Although essentially light and frivolous in character, Maurepas was seriously interested in scientific matters, and he used the best brains of France to apply science to questions of navigation and of naval construction. He was disgraced in 1749, and exiled from Paris for an epigram against Madame de Pompadour. On the accession of Louis XVI., twenty-five years later, he became a minister of state and Louis XVI.â€™s chief adviser. He gave Turgot the direction of finance, placed Lamoignon-Malesherbes over the royal household and made Vergennes minister for foreign affairs. At the outset of his new career he showed his weakness by recalling to their functions, in deference to popular clamour, the members of the old parlement ousted by Maupeou, thus reconstituting the most dangerous enemy of the royal power. This step, and his intervention on behalf of the American states, helped to pave the way for the French revolution. Jealous of his personal ascendancy over Louis XVI., he intrigued against Turgot, whose disgrace in 1776 was followed after six months of disorder by the appointment of Necker. In 1781 Maurepas deserted Necker as he had done Turgot, and he died at Versailles on the 21st of November 1781.

Maurepas is credited with contributions to the collection of facetiae known as theÃ‰trennes de la Saint Jean(2nd ed., 1742). Four volumes ofMÃ©moires de Maurepas, purporting to be collected by his secretary and edited by J. L. G. Soulavie in 1792, must be regarded as apocryphal. Some of his letters were published in 1896 by theSoc. de lâ€™hist. de Paris. HisÃ©logein the Academy of Sciences was pronounced by Condorcet.

MAURER, GEORG LUDWIG VON(1790-1872), German statesman and historian, son of a Protestant pastor, was born at Erpolzheim, near DÃ¼rkheim, in the Rhenish Palatinate, on the 2nd of November 1790. Educated at Heidelberg, he went in 1812 to reside in Paris, where he entered upon a systematic study of the ancient legal institutions of the Germans. Returning to Germany in 1814, he received an appointment under the Bavarian government, and afterwards filled several important official positions. In 1824 he published at Heidelberg hisGeschichte des altgermanischen und namentlich altbayrischen Ã¶ffentlich-mÃ¼ndlichen Gerichtsverfahrens, which obtained the first prize of the academy of Munich, and in 1826 he became professor in the university of Munich. In 1829 he returned to official life, and was soon offered an important post. In 1832, when Otto (Otho), son of Louis I., king of Bavaria, was chosen to fill the throne of Greece, a council of regency was nominated during his minority, and Maurer was appointed a member. He applied himself energetically to the task of creating institutions adapted to the requirements of a modern civilized community; but grave difficulties soon arose and Maurer was recalled in 1834, when he returned to Munich. This loss was a serious one for Greece. Maurer was the ablest, most energetic and most liberal-minded member of the council, and it was through his enlightenedefforts that Greece obtained a revised penal code, regular tribunals and an improved system of civil procedure. Soon after his recall he publishedDas griechische Volk in Ã¶ffentlicher, kirchlicher, und privatrechtlicher Beziehung vor und nach dem Freiheitskampfe bis zum 31 Juli 1834(Heidelberg, 1835-1836), a useful source of information for the history of Greece before Otto ascended the throne, and also for the labours of the council of regency to the time of the authorâ€™s recall. After the fall of the ministry of Karl von Abel (1788-1859) in 1847, he became chief Bavarian minister and head of the departments of foreign affairs and of justice, but was overthrown in the same year. He died at Munich on the 9th of May 1872. His only son, Conrad von Maurer (1823-1902), was a Scandinavian scholar of some repute, and like his father was a professor at the university of Munich.

Maurerâ€™s most important contribution to history is a series of books on the early institutions of the Germans. These are:Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof-, Dorf-, und Stadtverfassung und der Ã¶ffentlichen Gewalt(Munich, 1854);Geschichte der Markenverfassung in Deutschland(Erlangen, 1856);Geschichte der FronhÃ¶fe, der BauernhÃ¶fe, und der Hofverfassung in Deutschland(Erlangen, 1862-1863);Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland(Erlangen, 1865-1866); andGeschichte der SlÃ¤dteverfassung in Deutschland(Erlangen, 1869-1871). These works are still important authorities for the early history of the Germans. Among other works are,Das Stadt- und Landrechtsbuch Ruprechts von Freising, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Schwabenspiegels(Stuttgart, 1839);Ãœber die Freipflege(plegium liberale),und die Entstehung der grossen und kleinen Jury in England(Munich, 1848); andÃœber die deutsche Reichsterritorial- und Rechtsgeschichte(1830).Sec K. T. von Heigel,DenkwÃ¼rdigkeiten des bayrischen Staatsrats G. L. von Maurer(Munich, 1903).

Sec K. T. von Heigel,DenkwÃ¼rdigkeiten des bayrischen Staatsrats G. L. von Maurer(Munich, 1903).

MAURETANIA,the ancient name of the north-western angle of the African continent, and under the Roman Empire also of a large territory eastward of that angle. The name had different significations at different times; but before the Roman occupation, Mauretania comprised a considerable part of the modern Moroccoi.e.the northern portion bounded on the east by Algiers. Towards the south we may suppose it bounded by the Atlas range, and it seems to have been regarded by geographers as extending along the coast to the Atlantic as far as the point where that chain descends to the sea, in about 30 N. lat. (Strabo, p. 825). The magnificent plateau in which the city of Morocco is situated seems to have been unknown to ancient geographers, and was certainly never included in the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the Gaetulians to the south of the Atlas range, on the date-producing slopes towards the Sahara, seem to have owned a precarious subjection to the kings of Mauretania, as afterwards to the Roman government. A large part of the country is of great natural fertility, and in ancient times produced large quantities of corn, while the slopes of Atlas were clothed with forests, which, besides other kinds of timber, produced the celebrated ornamental wood calledcitrum(Plin.Hist. Nat.13-96), for tables of which the Romans gave fabulous prices. (For physical geography, seeMorocco.)

Mauretania, or Maurusia as it was called by Greek writers, signified the land of the Mauri, a term still retained in the modern name of Moors (q.v.). The origin and ethnical affinities of the race are uncertain; but it is probable that all the inhabitants of this northern tract of Africa were kindred races belonging to the great Berber family, possibly with an intermingled fair-skinned race from Europe (see Tissot,GÃ©ographie comparÃ©e de la province romaine dâ€™Afrique, i. 400 seq.; alsoBerbers). They first appear in history at the time of the Jugurthine War (110-106B.C.), when Mauretania was under the government of Bocchus and seems to have been recognized as organized state (Sallust,Jugurtha, 19). To this Bocchus was given, after the war, the western part of Jugurthaâ€™s kingdom of Numidia, perhaps as far east as Saldae (Bougie). Sixty years later, at the time of the dictator Caesar, we find two Mauretanian kingdoms, one to the west of the river Mulucha under Bogud, and the other to the east under a Bocchus; as to the date or cause of the division we are ignorant. Both these kings took Caesarâ€™s part in the civil wars, and had their territory enlarged by him (Appian,B.C.4, 54). In 25B.C., after their deaths, Augustus gave the two kingdoms to Juba II. of Numidia (see underJuba), with the river Ampsaga as the eastern frontier (Plin. 5. 22; Ptol. 4. 3. 1). Juba and his son Ptolemaeus after him reigned tillA.D.40, when the latter was put to death by Caligula, and shortly afterwards Claudius incorporated the kingdom into the Roman state as two provinces, viz. Mauretania Tingitana to the west of the Mulucha and M. Caesariensis to the east of that river, the latter taking its name from the city Caesarea (formerly Iol), which Juba had thus named and adopted as his capital. Thus the dividing line between the two provinces was the same as that which had originally separated Mauretania from Numidia (q.v.). These provinces were governed until the time of Diocletian by imperial procurators, and were occasionally united for military purposes. Under and after Diocletian M. Tingitana was attached administratively to thedioicesisof Spain, with which it was in all respects closely connected; while M. Caesariensis was divided by making its eastern part into a separate government, which was called M. Sitifensis from the Roman colony Sitifis.In the two provinces of Mauretania there were at the time of Pliny a number of towns, including seven (possibly eight) Roman colonies in M. Tingitana and eleven in M. Caesariensis; others were added later. These were mostly military foundations, and served the purpose of securing civilization against the inroads of the natives, who were not in a condition to be used as material for town-life as in Gaul and Spain, but were under the immediate government of the procurators, retaining their own clan organization. Of these colonies the most important, beginning from the west, were Lixus on the Atlantic, Tingis (Tangier), Rusaddir (Melila, Melilla), Cartenna (Tenes), Iol or Caesarea (Cherchel), Icosium (Algiers), Saldae (Bougie), Igilgili (Jijelli) and Sitifis (Setif). All these were on the coast but the last, which was some distance inland. Besides these there were many municipia oroppida civium romanorum(Plin. 5. 19 seq.), but, as has been made clear by French archaeologists who have explored these regions, Roman settlements are less frequent the farther we go west, and M. Tingitana has as yet yielded but scanty evidence of Roman civilization. On the whole Mauretania was in a flourishing condition down to the irruption of the Vandals inA.D.429; in theNotitianearly a hundred and seventy episcopal sees are enumerated here, but we must remember that numbers of these were mere villages.In 1904 the term Mauretania was revived as an official designation by the French government, and applied to the territory north of the lower Senegal under French protection (seeSenegal).To the authorities quoted underAfrica, Roman, may be added here GÃ¶bel,Die West-kÃ¼ste Afrikas im Alterthum.

In the two provinces of Mauretania there were at the time of Pliny a number of towns, including seven (possibly eight) Roman colonies in M. Tingitana and eleven in M. Caesariensis; others were added later. These were mostly military foundations, and served the purpose of securing civilization against the inroads of the natives, who were not in a condition to be used as material for town-life as in Gaul and Spain, but were under the immediate government of the procurators, retaining their own clan organization. Of these colonies the most important, beginning from the west, were Lixus on the Atlantic, Tingis (Tangier), Rusaddir (Melila, Melilla), Cartenna (Tenes), Iol or Caesarea (Cherchel), Icosium (Algiers), Saldae (Bougie), Igilgili (Jijelli) and Sitifis (Setif). All these were on the coast but the last, which was some distance inland. Besides these there were many municipia oroppida civium romanorum(Plin. 5. 19 seq.), but, as has been made clear by French archaeologists who have explored these regions, Roman settlements are less frequent the farther we go west, and M. Tingitana has as yet yielded but scanty evidence of Roman civilization. On the whole Mauretania was in a flourishing condition down to the irruption of the Vandals inA.D.429; in theNotitianearly a hundred and seventy episcopal sees are enumerated here, but we must remember that numbers of these were mere villages.

In 1904 the term Mauretania was revived as an official designation by the French government, and applied to the territory north of the lower Senegal under French protection (seeSenegal).

To the authorities quoted underAfrica, Roman, may be added here GÃ¶bel,Die West-kÃ¼ste Afrikas im Alterthum.

(W. W. F.*)

MAURIAC,a town of central France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Cantal, 39 m. N.N.W. of Aurillac by rail. Pop. (1906), 2558. Mauriac, built on the slope of a volcanic hill, has a church of the 12th century, and the buildings of an old abbey now used as public offices and dwellings; the town owes its origin to the abbey, founded during the 6th century. It is the seat of a sub-prefect and has a tribunal of first instance and a communal college. There are marble quarries in the vicinity.

MAURICE[orMauritius],ST(d.c.286), an early Christian martyr, who, with his companions, is commemorated by the Roman Catholic Church on the 22nd of September. The oldest form of his story is found in thePassioascribed to Eucherius, bishop of Lyons,c.450, who relates how the â€œThebanâ€ legion commanded by Mauritius was sent to north Italy to reinforce the army of Maximinian. Maximinian wished to use them in persecuting the Christians, but as they themselves were of this faith, they refused, and for this, after having been twice decimated, the legion was exterminated at Octodurum (Martigny) near Geneva. In late versions this legend was expanded and varied, the martyrdom was connected with a refusal to take part in a great sacrifice ordered at Octodurum and the name of Exsuperius was added to that of Mauritius. Gregory of Tours (c.539-593) speaks of a company of the same legion which suffered at Cologne.

TheMagdeburg Centuries, in spite of Mauritius being the patron saint of Magdeburg, declared the whole legend fictitious; J. A. du BordienLa LÃ©gion thÃ©bÃ©enne(Amsterdam, 1705); J. J. Hottinger inHelvetische Kirchengeschichte(ZÃ¼rich, 1708); and F. W. Rettberg,Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands(GÃ¶ttingen, 1845-1848) have also demonstrated its untrustworthiness, while the Bollandists, De Rivaz and Joh. Friedrich uphold it. Apart from the a priori improbability of a whole legion being martyred, the difficulties are that in 286 Christians everywhere throughout the empire were not molested, that at no later date have we evidence of the presence of Maximinian in the Valais, and that none of the writers nearest to the event (Eusebius, Lactantius, Orosius, Sulpicius Severus) know anything of it. It is of course quite possible that isolated cases of officers being put to death for their faith occurred during Maximinianâ€™s reign, and on some such cases the legend may have grown up during the century and a half between Maximinian and Eucherius. The cult of St Maurice and the Theban legion is found in Switzerland (where two places bear the name in Valais,besides St Moritz in Grisons), along the Rhine, and in north Italy. The foundation of the abbey of St Maurice (Agaunum) in the Valais is usually ascribed to Sigismund of Burgundy (515). Relics of the saint are preserved here and at Brieg and Turin.

MAURICE(Mauricius Flavius Tiberius) (c.539-602), East Roman emperor from 582 to 602, was of Roman descent, but a native of Arabissus in Cappadocia. He spent his youth at the court of Justin II., and, having joined the army, fought with distinction in the Persian War (578-581). At the age of forty-three he was declared Caesar by the dying emperor Tiberius II., who bestowed upon him the hand of his daughter Constantina. Maurice brought the Persian War to a successful close by the restoration of Chosroes II. to the throne (591). On the northern frontier he at first bought off the Avars by payments which compelled him to exercise strict economy in his general administration, but after 595 inflicted several defeats upon them through his general Crispus. By his strict discipline and his refusal to ransom a captive corps he provoked to mutiny the army on the Danube. The revolt spread to the popular factions in Constantinople, and Maurice consented to abdicate. He withdrew to Chalcedon, but was hunted down and put to death after witnessing the slaughter of his five sons.

The work on military art (ÏƒÏ„ÏÎ±Ï„Î·Î³Î¹ÎºÎ¬) ascribed to him is a contemporary work of unknown authorship (ed. Scheffer,Arriani tactica et Mauricii ars militaris, Upsala, 1664; see Max JÃ¤hns,Gesch. d. Kriegswissensch., i. 152-156).See Theophylactus Simocatta,Vita Mauricii(ed. de Boor, 1887); E. Gibbon,The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire(ed. Bury, London, 1896, v. 19-21, 57); J. B. Bury,The Later Roman Empire(London, 1889, ii. 83-94); G. Finlay,History of Greece(ed. 1877, Oxford, i. 299-306).

See Theophylactus Simocatta,Vita Mauricii(ed. de Boor, 1887); E. Gibbon,The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire(ed. Bury, London, 1896, v. 19-21, 57); J. B. Bury,The Later Roman Empire(London, 1889, ii. 83-94); G. Finlay,History of Greece(ed. 1877, Oxford, i. 299-306).

MAURICE(1521-1553), elector of Saxony, elder son of Henry, duke of Saxony, belonging to the Albertine branch of the Wettin family, was born at Freiberg on the 21st of March 1521. In January 1541 he married Agnes, daughter of Philip, landgrave of Hesse. In that year he became duke of Saxony by his fatherâ€™s death, and he continued Henryâ€™s work in forwarding the progress of the Reformation. Duke Henry had decreed that his lands should be divided between his two sons, but as a partition was regarded as undesirable the whole of the duchy came to his elder son. Maurice, however, made generous provision for his brother Augustus, and the desire to compensate him still further was one of the minor threads of his subsequent policy. In 1542 he assisted the emperor Charles V. against the Turks, in 1543 against William, duke of Cleves, and in 1544 against the French; but his ambition soon took a wider range. The harmonious relations which subsisted between the two branches of the Wettins were disturbed by the interference of Maurice in Cleves, a proceeding distasteful to the Saxon elector, John Frederick; and a dispute over the bishopric of Meissen having widened the breach, war was only averted by the mediation of Philip of Hesse and Luther. About this time Maurice seized the idea of securing for himself the electoral dignity held by John Frederick, and his opportunity came when Charles was preparing to attack the league of Schmalkalden. Although educated as a Lutheran, religious questions had never seriously appealed to Maurice. As a youth he had joined the league of Schmalkalden, but this adhesion, as well as his subsequent declaration to stand by the confession of Augsburg, cannot be regarded as the decision of his maturer years. In June 1546 he took a decided step by making a secret agreement with Charles at Regensburg. Maurice was promised some rights over the archbishopric of Magdeburg and the bishopric of Halberstadt; immunity, in part at least, for his subjects from the Tridentine decrees; and the question of transferring the electoral dignity was discussed. In return the duke probably agreed to aid Charles in his proposed attack on the league as soon as he could gain the consent of the Saxon estates, or at all events to remain neutral during the impending war. The struggle began in July 1546, and in October Maurice declared war against John Frederick. He secured the formal consent of Charles to the transfer of the electoral dignity and took the field in November. He had gained a few successes when John Frederick hastened from south Germany to defend his dominions. Mauriceâ€™s ally, Albert Alcibiades, prince of Bayreuth, was taken prisoner at Rochlitz; and the duke, driven from electoral Saxony, was unable to prevent his own lands from being overrun. Salvation, however, was at hand. Marching against John Frederick, Charles V., aided by Maurice, gained a decisive victory at MÃ¼hlberg in April 1547, after which by the capitulation of Wittenberg John Frederick renounced the electoral dignity in favour of Maurice, who also obtained a large part of his kinsmanâ€™s lands. The formal investiture of the new elector took place at Augsburg in February 1548.

The plans of Maurice soon took a form less agreeable to the emperor. The continued imprisonment of his father-in-law, Philip of Hesse, whom he had induced to surrender to Charles and whose freedom he had guaranteed, was neither his greatest nor his only cause of complaint. The emperor had refused to complete the humiliation of the family of John Frederick; he had embarked upon a course of action which boded danger to the electorâ€™s Lutheran subjects, and his increased power was a menace to the position of Maurice. Assuring Charles of his continued loyalty, the elector entered into negotiations with the discontented Protestant princes. An event happened which gave him a base of operations, and enabled him to mask his schemes against the emperor. In 1550 he had been entrusted with the execution of the imperial ban against the city of Magdeburg, and under cover of these operations he was able to collect troops and to concert measures with his allies. Favourable terms were granted to Magdeburg, which surrendered and remained in the power of Maurice, and in January 1552 a treaty was concluded with Henry II. of France at Chambord. Meanwhile Maurice had refused to recognize theInterimissued from Augsburg in May 1548 as binding on Saxony; but a compromise was arranged on the basis of which the LeipzigInterimwas drawn up for his lands. It is uncertain how far Charles was ignorant of the electorâ€™s preparations, but certainly he was unprepared for the attack made by Maurice and his allies in March 1552. Augsburg was taken, the pass of Ehrenberg was forced, and in a few days the emperor left Innsbruck as a fugitive. Ferdinand undertook to make peace, and the Treaty of Passau, signed in August 1552, was the result. Maurice obtained a general amnesty and freedom for Philip of Hesse, but was unable to obtain a perpetual religious peace for the Lutherans. Charles stubbornly insisted that this question must be referred to the Diet, and Maurice was obliged to give way. He then fought against the Turks, and renewed his communications with Henry of France. Returning from Hungary the elector placed himself at the head of the princes who were seeking to check the career of his former ally, Albert Alcibiades, whose depredations were making him a curse to Germany. The rival armies met at Sievershausen on the 9th of July 1553, where after a fierce encounter Albert was defeated. The victor, however, was wounded during the fight and died two days later.

Maurice was a friend to learning, and devoted some of the secularized church property to the advancement of education. Very different estimates have been formed of his character. He has been represented as the saviour of German Protestantism on the one hand, and on the other as a traitor to his faith and country. In all probability he was neither the one nor the other, but a man of great ambition who, indifferent to religious considerations, made good use of the exigencies of the time. He was generous and enlightened, a good soldier and a clever diplomatist. He left an only daughter Anna (d. 1577), who became the second wife of William the Silent, prince of Orange.

The electorâ€™sPolitische Korrespondenzhas been edited by E. Brandenburg (Leipzig, 1900-1904); and a sketch of him is given by Roger Ascham inA Report and Discourse of the Affairs and State of Germany(London, 1864-1865). See also F. A. von Langenn,Moritz Herzog und ChurfÃ¼rst zu Sachsen(Leipzig, 1841); G. Voigt,Moritz von Sachsen(Leipzig, 1876); E. Brandenburg,Moritz von Sachsen(Leipzig, 1898); S. Issleib,Moritz von Sachsen als protestantischer FÃ¼rst(Hamburg, 1898); J. Witter,Die Beziehung und der Verkehr des KurfÃ¼rsten Moritz mit KÃ¶nig Ferdinand(Jena, 1886); L. von Ranke,Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Bde. IV. and V. (Leipzig, 1882); and W. Maurenbrecher in theAllgemeine deutsche Biographie, Bd. XXII. (Leipzig, 1885). Forbibliography see Maurenbrecher; andThe Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii. (Cambridge, 1903).

MAURICE, JOHN FREDERICK DENISON(1805-1872), English theologian, was born at Normanston, Suffolk, on the 29th of August, 1805. He was the son of a Unitarian minister, and entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1823, though it was then impossible for any but members of the Established Church to obtain a degree. Together with John Sterling (with whom he founded the Apostlesâ€™ Club) he migrated to Trinity Hall, whence he obtained a first class in civil law in 1827; he then came to London, and gave himself to literary work, writing a novel,Eustace Conyers, and editing theLondon Literary Chronicleuntil 1830, and also for a short time theAthenaeum. At this time he was much perplexed as to his religious opinions, and he ultimately found relief in a decision to take a further university course and to seek Anglican orders. Entering Exeter College, Oxford, he took a second class in classics in 1831. He was ordained in 1834, and after a short curacy at Bubbenhall in Warwickshire was appointed chaplain of Guyâ€™s Hospital, and became thenceforward a sensible factor in the intellectual and social life of London. From 1839 to 1841 Maurice was editor of theEducation Magazine. In 1840 he was appointed professor of English history and literature in Kingâ€™s College, and to this post in 1846 was added the chair of divinity. In 1845 he was Boyle lecturer and Warburton lecturer. These chairs he held till 1853. In that year he publishedTheological Essays, wherein were stated opinions which savoured to the principal, Dr R. W. Jelf, and to the council, of unsound theology in regard to eternal punishment. He had previously been called on to clear himself from charges of heterodoxy brought against him in theQuarterly Review(1851), and had been acquitted by a committee of inquiry. Now again he maintained with great warmth of conviction that his views were in close accordance with Scripture and the Anglican standards, but the council, without specifying any distinct â€œheresyâ€ and declining to submit the case to the judgment of competent theologians, ruled otherwise, and he was deprived of his professorships. He held at the same time the chaplaincy of Lincolnâ€™s Inn, for which he had resigned Guyâ€™s (1846-1860), but when he offered to resign this the benchers refused. Nor was he assailed in the incumbency of St. Peterâ€™s, Vere Street, which he held for nine years (1860-1869), and where he drew round him a circle of thoughtful people. During the early years of this period he was engaged in a hot and bitter controversy with H. L. Mansel (afterwards dean of St Paulâ€™s), arising out of the latterâ€™s Bampton lecture upon reason and revelation.

During his residence in London Maurice was specially identified with two important movements for education. He helped to found Queenâ€™s College for the education of women (1848), and the Working Menâ€™s College (1854), of which he was the first principal. He strongly advocated the abolition of university tests (1853), and threw himself with great energy into all that affected the social life of the people. Certain abortive attempts at co-operation among working men, and the movement known as Christian Socialism, were the immediate outcome of his teaching. In 1866 Maurice was appointed professor of moral philosophy at Cambridge, and from 1870 to 1872 was incumbent of St Edwardâ€™s in that city. He died on the 1st of April 1872.

He was twice married, first to Anna Barton, a sister of John Sterlingâ€™s wife, secondly to a half-sister of his friend Archdeacon Hare. His son Major-General Sir J. Frederick Maurice (b. 1841), became a distinguished soldier and one of the most prominent military writers of his time.

Those who knew Maurice best were deeply impressed with the spirituality of his character. â€œWhenever he woke in the night,â€ says his wife, â€œhe was always praying.â€ Charles Kingsley called him â€œthe most beautiful human soul whom God has ever allowed me to meet with.â€ As regards his intellectual attainments we may set Julius Hareâ€™s verdict â€œthe greatest mind since Platoâ€ over against Ruskinâ€™s â€œby nature puzzle-headed and indeed wrong-headed.â€ Such contradictory impressions bespeak a life made up of contradictory elements. Maurice was a man of peace, yet his life was spent in a series of conflicts; of deep humility, yet so polemical that he often seemed biased; of large charity, yet bitter in his attack upon the religious press of his time; a loyal churchman who detested the label â€œBroad,â€ yet poured out criticism upon the leaders of the Church. With an intense capacity for visualizing the unseen, and a kindly dignity, he combined a large sense of humour. While most of the â€œBroad Churchmenâ€ were influenced by ethical and emotional considerations in their repudiation of the dogma of everlasting torment, he was swayed by purely intellectual and theological arguments, and in questions of a more general liberty he often opposed the proposed Liberal theologians, though he as often took their side if he saw them hard pressed. He had a wide metaphysical and philosophical knowledge which he applied to the history of theology. He was a strenuous advocate of ecclesiastical control in elementary education, and an opponent of the new school of higher biblical criticism, though so far an evolutionist as to believe in growth and development as applied to the history of nations.

As a preacher, his message was apparently simple; his two great convictions were the fatherhood of God, and that all religious systems which had any stability lasted because of a portion of truth which had to be disentangled from the error differentiating them from the doctrines of the Church of England as understood by himself. His love to God as his Father was a passionate adoration which filled his whole heart. The prophetic, even apocalyptic, note of his preaching was particularly impressive. He prophesied in London as Isaiah prophesied to the little towns of Palestine and Syria, â€œoften with dark foreboding, but seeing through all unrest and convulsion the working out of a sure divine purpose.â€ Both at Kingâ€™s College and at Cambridge Maurice gathered round him a band of earnest students, to whom he directly taught much that was valuable drawn from wide stores of his own reading, wide rather than deep, for he never was, strictly speaking, a learned man. Still more did he encourage the habit of inquiry and research, more valuable than his direct teaching. In his Socratic power of convincing his pupils of their ignorance he did more than perhaps any other man of his time to awaken in those who came under his sway the desire for knowledge and the process of independent thought.As a social reformer, Maurice was before his time, and gave his eager support to schemes for which the world was not ready. From an early period of his life in London the condition of the poor pressed upon him with consuming force; the enormous magnitude of the social questions involved was a burden which he could hardly bear. For many years he was the clergyman whom working men of all opinions seemed to trust even if their faith in other religious men and all religious systems had faded, and he had a marvellous power of attracting the zealot and the outcast.His works cover nearly 40 volumes, often obscure, often tautological, and with no great distinction of style. But their high purpose and philosophical outlook give his writings a permanent place in the history of the thought of his time. The following are the more important worksâ€”some of them were rewritten and in a measure recast, and the date given is not necessarily that of the first appearance of the book, but of its more complete and abiding form:Eustace Conway, or the Brother and Sister, a novel (1834);The Kingdom of Christ(1842);Christmas Day and Other Sermons(1843);The Unity of the New Testament(1844);The Epistle to the Hebrews(1846);The Religions of the World(1847);Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy(at first an article in theEncyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1848);The Church a Family(1850);The Old Testament(1851);Theological Essays(1853);The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament(1853);Lectures on Ecclesiastical History(1854);The Doctrine of Sacrifice(1854);The Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament(1855);The Epistles of St John(1857);The Commandments as Instruments of National Reformation(1866);On the Gospel of St Luke(1868);The Conscience: Lectures on Casuistry(1868);The Lordâ€™s Prayer, a Manual(1870). The greater part of these works were first delivered as sermons or lectures. Maurice also contributed many prefaces and introductions to the works of friends, as to Archdeacon Hareâ€™sCharges, Kingsleyâ€™sSaintâ€™s Tragedy, &c.SeeLifeby his son (2 vols., London, 1884), and a monograph by C. F. G. Masterman (1907) in â€œLeader of the Churchâ€ series; W. E. Collins inTypical English Churchmen, pp. 327-360 (1902), and T. Hughes inThe Friendship of Books(1873).

As a social reformer, Maurice was before his time, and gave his eager support to schemes for which the world was not ready. From an early period of his life in London the condition of the poor pressed upon him with consuming force; the enormous magnitude of the social questions involved was a burden which he could hardly bear. For many years he was the clergyman whom working men of all opinions seemed to trust even if their faith in other religious men and all religious systems had faded, and he had a marvellous power of attracting the zealot and the outcast.

His works cover nearly 40 volumes, often obscure, often tautological, and with no great distinction of style. But their high purpose and philosophical outlook give his writings a permanent place in the history of the thought of his time. The following are the more important worksâ€”some of them were rewritten and in a measure recast, and the date given is not necessarily that of the first appearance of the book, but of its more complete and abiding form:Eustace Conway, or the Brother and Sister, a novel (1834);The Kingdom of Christ(1842);Christmas Day and Other Sermons(1843);The Unity of the New Testament(1844);The Epistle to the Hebrews(1846);The Religions of the World(1847);Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy(at first an article in theEncyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1848);The Church a Family(1850);The Old Testament(1851);Theological Essays(1853);The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament(1853);Lectures on Ecclesiastical History(1854);The Doctrine of Sacrifice(1854);The Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament(1855);The Epistles of St John(1857);The Commandments as Instruments of National Reformation(1866);On the Gospel of St Luke(1868);The Conscience: Lectures on Casuistry(1868);The Lordâ€™s Prayer, a Manual(1870). The greater part of these works were first delivered as sermons or lectures. Maurice also contributed many prefaces and introductions to the works of friends, as to Archdeacon Hareâ€™sCharges, Kingsleyâ€™sSaintâ€™s Tragedy, &c.

SeeLifeby his son (2 vols., London, 1884), and a monograph by C. F. G. Masterman (1907) in â€œLeader of the Churchâ€ series; W. E. Collins inTypical English Churchmen, pp. 327-360 (1902), and T. Hughes inThe Friendship of Books(1873).

MAURICE OF NASSAU,prince of Orange (1567-1625), the second son of William the Silent, by Anna, only daughter of the famous Maurice, elector of Saxony, was born at Dillenburg. At the time of his fatherâ€™s assassination in 1584 he was being educated at the university of Leiden, at the expense of the states of Holland and Zeeland. Despite his youth he was made stadtholder of those two provinces and president of the council ofstate. During the period of Leicesterâ€™s governorship he remained in the background, engaged in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the military art, and in 1586 the States of Holland conferred upon him the title of prince. On the withdrawal of Leicester from the Netherlands in August 1587, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, the advocate of Holland, became the leading statesman of the country, a position which he retained for upwards of thirty years. He had been a devoted adherent of William the Silent and he now used his influence to forward the interests of Maurice. In 1588 he was appointed by the States-General captain and admiral-general of the Union, in 1590 he was elected stadtholder of Utrecht and Overysel, and in 1591 of Gelderland. From this time forward, Oldenbarneveldt at the head of the civil government and Maurice in command of the armed forces of the republic worked together in the task of rescuing the United Netherlands from Spanish domination (for details seeHolland). Maurice soon showed himself to be a general second in skill to none of his contemporaries. He was especially famed for his consummate knowledge of the science of sieges. The twelve yearsâ€™ truce on the 9th of April 1609 brought to an end the cordial relations between Maurice and Oldenbarneveldt. Maurice was opposed to the truce, but the advocateâ€™s policy triumphed and henceforward there was enmity between them. The theological disputes between the Remonstrants and contra-Remonstrants found them on different sides; and the theological quarrel soon became a political one. Oldenbarneveldt, supported by the states of Holland, came forward as the champion of provincial sovereignty against that of the states-general; Maurice threw the weight of his sword on the side of the union. The struggle was a short one, for the army obeyed the general who had so often led them to victory. Oldenbarneveldt perished on the scaffold, and the share which Maurice had in securing the illegal condemnation by a packed court of judges of the aged patriot must ever remain a stain upon his memory.

Maurice, who had on the death of his elder brother Philip William, in February 1618, become prince of Orange, was now supreme in the state, but during the remainder of his life he sorely missed the wise counsels of the experienced Oldenbarneveldt. War broke out again in 1621, but success had ceased to accompany him on his campaigns. His health gave way, and he died, a prematurely aged man, at the Hague on the 4th of April 1625. He was buried by his fatherâ€™s side at Delft.

Back to Index Next