FOOTNOTES:

[1] The "general idea" is a document, communicated to both sides,

containing such general information of the war--the supposed

frontiers, previous battles, &c.--as would be matters of common

knowledge. The "special idea" of each side comprises the instructions

upon which it is acting.

[2] Manoeuvres incidentally afford an excellent opportunity of

testing new patterns of equipment, transport or other matériel under

conditions approximating to those of active service.

MANOMETER (Gr. [Greek: manos], thin or loose; [Greek: metron], a

measure), an instrument for measuring the pressures exerted by gases or

vapours. An alternative name is pressure gauge, but this term may

conveniently be restricted to manometers used in connexion with

steam-boilers, &c. The principle of hydrostatics suggest the most common

forms. Suppose we have a U tube (fig. 1), containing a liquid: if the

pressures on the surfaces of the liquid be equal, then the surfaces will

be at the same height. If, on the other hand, the pressure in one limb

be greater than the pressure in the other, the surfaces will be at

different heights, the difference being directly proportional to the

difference of pressures and inversely as the specific gravity of the

liquid used.

[Illustration: Fig. 1.]

[Illustration: Fig. 2.]

Two forms are in use: (1) the "open-tube," in which the pressure in

one limb is equal to the atmospheric pressure, and (2) the

"closed-tube," in which the experimental pressure is balanced against

the liquid column and the air compressed into the upper part of a

closed limb of the tube. In the "open tube" form (fig. 1) the pressure

on the surface a is equal to the pressure on the surface at b (one

atmosphere) _plus_ the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the liquid

column of height a b. The liquid commonly used is mercury. If a scale

be placed behind the limbs of the tube, so that the difference a b can

be directly determined, then the pressure in a is at once expressible

as P + a b in millimetres or inches of mercury, where P is the

atmospheric pressure, known from an ordinary barometric observation.

In the "closed tube" form (fig. 2) the calculation is not so simple,

for the variation of pressure on the mercury surface in the closed

limb has to be taken into account. Suppose the length of the air

column in the closed limb be h when the mercury is at the same height

in both tubes. Applying the experimental pressure to the open end, if

this be greater than atmospheric pressure the mercury column will rise

and the air column diminish in the closed limb. Let the length of the

air column be h´, then its pressure is h/h´ atmospheres. The

difference in height of the mercury columns in the two limbs is 2(h -

h´), and the pressure in the open limb is obviously equal to that of a

column of mercury of length 2(h - h´), plus h/h´ atmospheres. These

instruments are equally serviceable for determining pressures less

than one atmosphere. In laboratory practice, e.g. when it is required

to determine the degree of exhaust of a water pump, a common form

consists of a vertical glass tube having its lower end immersed in a

basin of mercury, and its upper end connected by means of an

intermediate vessel to the exhaust. The mercury rises in the tube, and

the difference between the barometric height and the length of the

mercury column gives the pressure attained.

MANOR. Any definition of a manor, in land tenure, must take note of two

elements--economic and political. The manor has an estate for its basis,

although it need not coincide with an estate, but may be wider. It is

also a political unit, a district formed for purposes of government,

although the political functions made over to it may greatly vary. As a

lordship based on land tenure, the manor necessarily comprises a ruler

and a population dependent on him, and the characteristic trait of such

dependence consists not in ownership extending over persons, as in

slave-holding communities, nor in contractual arrangements, as in a

modern economic organization, but in various forms and degrees of

subjection, chiefly regulated by custom. In the sense mentioned the

manor is by no means a peculiarly English institution; it occurs in

every country where feudalism got a hold. Under other names we find it

not only in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, but also, to a certain

extent, in the Byzantine Empire, Russia, Japan, &c. It is especially

representative of an aristocratic stage in the development of European

nations. When tribal notions and arrangements ceased to be sufficient

for upholding their commonwealths, when social and political life had to

be built up on the basis of land-tenure, the type of manorial

organization came forward in natural course. It was closely connected

with natural economy, and was suited to a narrow horizon of economic

wants and political requirements. At the same time it provided links for

a kind of national federation of military estates. We shall only speak

of the course of manorial evolution in France and Germany, because this

presents the clearest expression of the fundamental principles of

manorial life and the best material for comparison with English facts.

One problem common to the entire European world has to be considered

from the very beginning. Does the manor date from the Roman Empire, or

not? Can its chief features be traced in Roman institutions? There can

be no doubt that at the end of the Roman period certain traits are

noticeable which might, under favourable conditions, develop into a

manorial combination. Great estates with political functions,

populations subjected to the political lordship of landowners, appear in

the closing centuries of the empire, and have to be reckoned with as

precursors of medieval manorial life. The original organization of the

ancient world was built up on the self-government of cities and on the

sharp distinction between citizens and slaves. Both features were

gradually modified by the Roman Empire. Self-government was atrophied by

bureaucratic interference; the economy based on the exploitation of

slaves began to give way before relations in which the elements of

freedom and serfdom were oddly mixed. During the last centuries of its

existence the Western Empire became more and more a conglomerate of

barbaric and half-civilized populations, and it is not strange that the

characteristic germs of feudalism began to show themselves within its

territory as well as outside it. As far as political institutions are

concerned, we notice that the central power, after claiming an absolute

sway over its subjects, is obliged more and more to lean on private

forces in order to maintain itself. One of its favourite resources in

the 4th and 5th centuries consists in making great landowners

responsible for the good behaviour of their tenants and even of their

less important neighbours. The _saltus_, the great domain, is

occasionally recognized as a separate district exempt from the ordinary

administration of the city, subordinated to its owner in respect of

taxes and police. Even in ordinary estates (_fundi_) there is a tendency

to make the landowner responsible for military conscription, for the

presentation of criminals to justice. On the other hand the incumbents

of ecclesiastical offices are nominated in accordance with the wishes of

patrons among the landowners; in the administration of justice the

influence of this same class makes itself felt more and more. Nor are

signs of a convergent evolution wanting on the economic side. Slaves are

used more and more as small householders provided with rural tenements

and burdened with rents and services. Free peasant farmers holding by

free agreement get more and more reduced to a status of half-free

settlers occupying their tenancies on the strength of custom and

traditional ascription to the glebe. Eventually this status is

recognized as a distinct class by imperial legislation. Ominous symptoms

of growing political disruption and of an aristocratic transformation of

society were visible everywhere at the close of the empire. Yet there

could be no talk of a manorial system as long as the empire and the

commercial intercourse protected by it continued to exist.

The fall of the empire hastened the course of evolution. It brought into

prominence barbaric tribes who were unable to uphold either the

political power or the economic system of the Romans. The Germans had

from old certain manorial features in the constitution of their

government and husbandry. The owner of a house had always been possessed

of a certain political power within its precincts, as well as within the

fenced area surrounding it: the peace of the dwelling and the peace of

the hedged-in yard were recognized by the legal customs of all the

German tribes. The aristocratic superiority of warriors over all classes

engaged in base peaceful work was also deeply engraved in the minds of

the fighting and conquering tribes. On the other hand the downfall of

complicated forms of civilization and civil intercourse rendered

necessary a kind of subjection in which tributary labourers were left to

a certain extent to manage their own affairs. The Germanic conqueror was

unable to move slaves about like draughts: he had no scope for a

complicated administration of capital and work. The natural outcome was

to have recourse to serfdom with its convenient system of tribute and

services.

But, as in the case of the Roman Empire, the formation of regular manors

was held back for a time in the early Germanic monarchies by the

lingering influence of tribal organization. In the second period of

medieval development in continental Europe, in the Carolingian epoch,

the features of the estate as a political unit are more sharply marked.

Notwithstanding the immense efforts of Charles Martel, Pippin and

Charlemagne to strengthen the tottering edifice of the Frankish Empire,

public authority had to compromise with aristocratic forces in order to

ensure regular government. As regards military organization this is

expressed in the recognition of the power of _seniores_, called upon to

lead their vassals in the host; as regards jurisdiction, in the increase

of the numbers of commended freemen who seek to interpose the powerful

patronage of lay and secular magnates between themselves and the Crown.

Great estates arose not only on the lands belonging to the king, but on

that of churches and of lay potentates, and the constitution of these

estates, as described for instance in the Polyptique of St Germain des

Près or in the "Brevium exempla ad describendas res ecclesiasticas et

fiscales" (_Capitularia_, ed. Boretius, i. 250), reminds us forcibly of

that of later feudal estates. They contain a home-farm, with a court and

a _casa indominicata_, or manor-house, some holdings (_mansi_) of free

men (_ingenuiles_), of serfs (_serviles_), and perhaps of half-free

people (_lidiles_). The rents and services of this dependent population

are stated in detail, as in later custumals, and there is information

about the agricultural implements, the stores and stock on the

home-farm. Thus the economic basis of the manor exists in more or less

complete order, but it cannot be said as yet to form the prevailing type

of land tenure in the country. Holdings of independent free men and

village organizations of ancient type still surround the great estates,

and in the case of ecclesiastical possessions we are often in a position

to watch their gradual extension at the expense of the neighbouring free

settlers, by way of direct encroachment, and by that of surrender and

commendation on the part of the weaker citizens. Another factor which

plays a great part in the gradual process of infeudation is the rise of

private jurisdictions, which falls chiefly into the 10th and 11th

centuries. The struggle against Northmen, Magyars and Slavs gave a

crowning touch to the process of localization of political life and of

the aristocratic constitution of society.

In order to describe the full-grown continental manor of the 11th

century it is better to take French examples than German, Italian or

Spanish. Feudalism in France attained the greatest extension and utmost

regularity, while in other European countries it was hampered and

intermixed with other institutional features. The expression best

corresponding to the English "manor," in the sense of an organized

district, was _seigneurie_. _Manoir_ is in use, and is, of course, a

French word corresponding to _manerium_, but it meant strictly "mansion"

or chief homestead in France. _Baronie_ is another term which might be

employed in some instances as an equivalent of the English manor, but,

in a sense, it designates only one species of a larger genus, the estate

of a full baron in contrast to a mere knight's fee, as well as to a

principality. Some of the attributes of a baron are, however, typical,

as the purest expression of manorial rights, and may be used in a

general characterization of the latter.

The _seigneurie_ may be considered from three points of view--as a

unit of administration, as an economic unit, and as a union of social

classes.

(a) In principle the disruption of political life brought about by

feudalism ought to have resulted in the complete administrative

independence of the manor. _Chaque baron est souverain dans sa

baronie_ is a proverb meant to express this radical view of manorial

separatism. As a matter of fact this separatism was never completely

realized, and even at the time of the greatest prevalence of feudalism

the little sovereigns of France were combined into a loose federation

of independent fiefs. Still, the proverb was not a mere play of words,

and it took a long time for the kings of France to break in

potentates, like the little Sire de Coucy in the immediate vicinity of

Paris, who sported in his crest the self-complacent motto: _Je ne suis

ni comte, ni marquis, je suis le sire de Coucy_. The institutional

expression of this aspect of feudalism in the life of the _seigneurie_

was the jurisdiction combined with the latter. The principal origin of

this jurisdiction was the dismemberment of royal justice, the

acquisition by certain landowners of the right of holding royal pleas.

The assumption of authority over public tribunals of any kind was

naturally considered as equivalent to such a transmission of royal

right. But other sources may be noticed also. It was assumed by French

feudal law that in all cases when land was granted by a _seigneur_ in

subinfeudation the recipients would be bound to appear as members of a

court of tenants for the settlement of conflicts in regard to land. A

third source may be traced in the extension of the patrimonial justice

of a person over his serfs and personal dependents to the classes of

free and half-free population connected with the _seigneurie_ in one

way or another. There arose in consequence of these assumptions of

jurisdiction a most bewildering confusion of tribunals and judicial

rights. It happened sometimes that the question as to who should be

the judge in some particular contest was decided by matter-of-fact

seizure--the holder of pleas who was the first on the spot to proclaim

himself judge in a case was deemed entitled to jurisdiction. In other

cases one _seigneur_ held the pleas in a certain place for six days in

the week, while some competitor of his possessed jurisdiction during

the seventh. A certain order was brought into this feudal chaos by the

classification of judiciary functions according to the four categories

of high, middle, low and tenurial justice. The scope of the first

three subdivisions is sufficiently explained by their names; the

fourth concerned cases arising from subinfeudation. As a rule the

baron or _seigneur_ sat in justice with a court of assessors or peers,

but the constitution of such courts varied a great deal. They

represented partly the succession of the old popular courts with their

_scabini_, partly courts of vassals and tenants. In strict feudal law

an appeal was allowed from a lower to a higher court only in a case of

a denial of justice (_dénie de justice_), not in error or revision of

sentence. This rule was, however, very often infringed, and gave way

ultimately before the restoration of royal justice.

(b) The economic fabric of the French _seigneurie_ varied greatly,

according to localities. In the north of France it was not unlike that

of the English manor. The capital messuage, or castle, and the

home-farm of the lord, were surrounded by dependent holdings,

_censives_, paying rent, and villein tenements burdened with services.

Between these tenancies there were various ties of neighbourhood and

economic solidarity recalling the open-field cultivation in England

and Germany. When the harvest was removed from the open strips they

returned to a state of undivided pasture in which the householders of

the village exercised rights of common with their cattle. Wild pasture

and woods were used more or less in the same fashion as in England

(_droit de pacage de vaine pâture_). The inhabitants often formed

courts and held meetings in order to settle the by-laws, and to

adjudicate as to trespasses and encroachments (_courts colongères_).

In the south, individual property was more prevalent and the villagers

were not so closely united by ties of neighbourhood. Yet even there

the dependent households were arranged into _mansi_ or _colonicae_,

subjected to approximately equal impositions in respect of rents and

services. In any case the characteristic dualism of manorial life, the

combined working of a central home-farm, and of its economic

satellites providing necessary help in the way of services, and

contributing towards the formation of manorial stores, is quite as

much a feature of French as of English medieval husbandry.

(c) The social relations between the manorial lord and his subjects

are marked by various forms of the exploitation of the latter by the

former. Apart from jurisdictional profits, rents and agricultural

services, dues of all kinds are exacted from the rural population.

Some of these dues have to be traced to servile origins, although they

were evidently gradually extended to groups of people who were not

descended from downright serfs but had lapsed into a state of

considerable subjection. The _main morte_ of rustic tenants meant that

they had no goods of their own, but held movable property on

sufferance without the right of passing it on to their successors. As

a matter of fact, sons were admitted to inheritance after their

fathers, and sometimes succession was extended to other relatives, but

the person taking inheritance paid a heavy fine for entering into

possession, or gave up a horse, an ox, or some other especially

valuable piece of property. The _formariage_ corresponded to the

English _merchetum_, and was exacted from rustics on the marriage of

their daughters. Although this payment assumed very different shapes,

and sometimes only appeared in case consorts belonged to different

lords, it was considered a badge of serfdom. _Chevage_ (_capitagium_)

might be exacted as a poll-tax from all the unfree inhabitants of a

_seigneurie_, or, more especially, from those who left it to look for

sustenance abroad. The power of the lord as a landowner was more

particularly expressed in his right of pre-emption (_retrait

seigneurial_), and in taxes on alienation (_lods et ventes_). As a

person wielding political authority, a kind of sovereignty, the lord

enjoyed divers rights which are commonly attributed to the state--the

right of coining money, of levying direct taxes and toll (_tallagium,

tolneta_) and of instituting monopolies. These latter were of common

occurrence, and might take the shape, for instance, of forcing the

inhabitants to make use of the lord's mill (_moulin banal_), or of his

oven (_four banal_), or of his bull (_taureau banal_).

In Germany the history of the manorial system is bound up with the

evolution of the _Grundherrschaft_ (landlordship) as opposed to

_Gutsherrschaft_ (estate-ownership). The latter need not include any

elements of public authority and aristocratic supremacy: the former is

necessarily connected with public functions and aristocratic standing.

The centre of the _Grundherrschaft_ was the _Hof_, the court or hall of

the lord, from which the political and economic rights of the lord

radiated. The struggle of the military aristocracy and of

ecclesiastical institutions with common freedom was more protracted than

in France or England; the lordships very often took the shape of

disparate rights over holdings and groups of population scattered over

wide tracts of country and intermixed with estates and inhabitants

subjected to entirely different authority. Therefore the aspect of

German manorialism is more confused and heterogeneous than that of the

French or English systems. One remarkable feature of it is the

consistent separation of criminal justice from other kinds of

jurisdiction on Church property. Episcopal sees and abbeys delegated

their share of criminal justice to lay magnates in the neighbourhood

(_Vogtei_), and this division of power became a source of various

conflicts and of many entangled relations. The main lines of German

manorialism are not radically different from those of France and

England. The communal element, the _Dorfverband_, is usually more

strongly developed than in France, and assumes a form more akin to the

English township. But there were regions, e.g. Westphalia, where the

population had settled in separate farms (_Hofsystem_), and where the

communal solidarity was reduced to a union for administrative purposes

and for the use of pasture.

It need hardly be added that every step in the direction of more active

economic intercourse and more efficient public authority tended to

lessen the influence of the manorial system in so far as the latter was

based on the localization of government, natural husbandry and

aristocratic authority.

See Fustel de Coulanges, _Histoire des institutions de la France_,

especially the volumes "L'Alleu et le domaine rural" and "L'Invasion

germanique"; Beaudouin, "Les Grands domaines dans l'empire romain"

(_Nouvelle revue de droit français et étranger_, 1898); T. Flach, _Les

Origines de l'ancienne France_, I., II., III. (1886); Paul Viollet,

_Histoire des institutions de la France_, I., II. (1890, 1898); A.

Luchaire, _Manuel des institutions françaises_ (1892); G. Waitz,

_Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte_, I.-VIII. (1865-1883); K. T. von

Inama-Sternegg, _Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte_, I., II. (1879-1891);

K. Lamprecht, _Deutsches Wirtschaftsleben_, I.-IV. (1885); A. Meitzen,

_Ansiedelungen, Wanderungen und Agrarwesen der Völker Europas_, I.-IV.

(1895 ff.); W. Wittich, _Die Grundherrschaft in Nordwestdeutschland_

(1896); G. F. von Maurer, _Geschichte der Mark-, Dorf- und

Hofverfassung in Deutschland_; and F. Seebohm, _The English Village

Community_ (1883). (P. Vi.)

Rights of Lord and Tenants.

Rights of Villeins.

Cotters.

_The Manor in England._--It will be most convenient to describe a

typical English manor in its best known period, the 13th century, and to

indicate briefly the modifications of the type which varying conditions

may produce. Topographically such a manor consisted partly of the houses

of the inhabitants more or less closely clustered together, and

surrounded by arable land divided into large fields, two or three in

number. Each of these fields was divided again into shots or furlongs,

and each of the shots was broken up into cultivated strips a pole wide,

each containing an acre, separated by narrow balks of turf. There were

also certain meadows for supplying hay; and beyond the cultivated land

lay the wood and waste of the manor. Portions of arable or meadow land

might be found apart from the organization of the remainder; the lord of

the manor might have a park, and each householder a garden, but the land

of the manor was the open fields, the meadows and the wastes or common.

The condition of the inhabitants of such a manor is as complex as its

geography. At the head of the society came the lord of the manor, with

his hall, court, or manor-house, and the land immediately about it, and

his demesne both in the fields and in the meadow land. The arable

demesne consisted of certain of the acre strips lying scattered over the

various furlongs; his meadow was a portion assigned to him each year by

the custom of the manor. He had also rights over the surrounding waste

paramount to those enjoyed by the other inhabitants. Part of his demesne

land would be granted out to free tenants to hold at a rent or by

military or other service; part would be in the lord's own hands, and

cultivated by him. Each part so granted out will carry with it a share

in the meadow land and in the profits of the waste. These rights of the

free tenants over the waste limited the lord's power over it. He could

not by enclosure diminish their interest in it. The statute of Merton in

1236 and the second statute of Westminster in 1285 marked the utmost

limit of enclosure allowed in the 13th century. Below the lord and the

free tenants came the villeins, natives, bondmen, or holders of virgates

or yard-lands, each holding a house, a fixed number of acre strips, a

share of the meadow and of the profits of the waste. The number of

strips so held was usually about thirty; but virgates of fifteen acres

or even eighty are not unknown. In any one manor, however, the holdings

of all the villeins were equal. Normally the holder of a virgate was

unfree; he had no rights in the eye of the law against his lord, who was

protected from all suits by the _exceptio villenagii_; he could not

without leave quit the manor, and could be reclaimed by process of law

if he did; the strict contention of law deprived him of all right to

hold property; and in many cases he was subject to certain degrading

incidents, such as _merchet_ (_merchetum_), a payment due to the lord

upon the marriage of a daughter, which was regarded as a special mark of

unfree condition. But there are certain limitations to be made. Firstly,

all these incidents of tenure, even merchet, might not affect the

personal status of the tenant; he might still be free, though holding by

an unfree tenure; secondly, even if unfree, he was not exposed to the

arbitrary will of his lord but was protected by the custom of the manor

as interpreted by the manor court. Moreover, he was not a slave, he was

not bought and sold apart from his holding. The hardship of his

condition lay in the services due from him. As a rule a villein paid for

his holding in money, in labour and in kind. In money he paid, firstly,

a small fixed rent called rent of assize; and, secondly, dues under

various names, partly in lieu of services commuted into money payments,

and partly for the privileges and profits enjoyed by him on the waste of

the manor. In labour he paid more heavily. Week by week he had to come

with his own plough and oxen to plough the lord's demesne; when

ploughing was done he had to harrow, to reap the crops, to thresh and

carry them, or do whatever might be required of him, until his allotted

number of days labour in the year was done. Beyond this his lord might

request of him extra days in harvest or other seasons of emergency, and

these requests could not be denied. Further, all the carriage of the

manor was provided by the villeins, even to places as much as a hundred

miles away from the manor. The mending of the ploughs, hedging,

ditching, sheepshearing and other miscellaneous work also fell upon him,

and it is sometimes hard to see what time remained to him to work upon

his own holding. In kind he usually rendered honey, eggs, chickens and

perhaps a ploughshare, but these payments were almost always small in

value. Another class of inhabitants remains to be mentioned--the

cotters. These are the poor of the manor, who hold a cottage and garden,

or perhaps one acre or half an acre in the fields. They were unfree in

condition, and in most manors their services were modelled upon those of

the villeins. From their ranks were usually drawn the shepherd of the

manor, the bee-keeper and other minor officials of the manor.

Staff.

A complicated organization necessarily involves administrators. Just as

the services of the tenants and even their names vary from manor to

manor, so does the nature of the staff. Highest in rank came the

steward; he was attached to no manor in particular, but controlled a

group, travelling from one to another to take accounts, to hold the

courts, and generally represent the lord. Under him are the officers of

the several manors. First came the bailiff or beadle, the representative

of the lord in the manor; his duty was to collect the rents and

services, to gather in the lord's crops and account for the receipts and

expenditure of the manor. Closely connected with him was the "messor" or

reaper; in many cases, indeed, "reaper" seems to have been only another

name for the bailiff. But the villeins were not without their own

officer, the provost or reeve. His duty was to arrange the distribution

of the services due from the tenants, and, as their representative, to

assist the bailiff in the management of the manor. Sometimes the same

man appears to have united both offices, and we find the reeve

accounting to the lord for the issues of the manor. To these important

officials may be added a number of smaller ones, the shepherd, the

swineherd, the bee-keeper, the cowherd, the ploughman and so on, mostly

selected from the cotters, and occupying their small holdings by the

services expressed in their titles. The number varies with the

constitution and needs of each estate, and they are often replaced by

hired labour.

Manor Court.

The most complicated structure in the system is the manor court. The

complication is, indeed, partly the work of lawyers interpreting

institutions they did not understand by formulae not adapted to describe

them. But beyond this there remain the facts that the court was the

meeting-point of the lord and the tenants both free and unfree, that any

question touching on the power and constitution of the court was bound

to affect the interests of the lord and the tenants, and that there was

no external power capable of settling such questions as did arise. Amid

this maze a few clear lines can be laid down. In the first place, so far

as the 13th century goes, all the discussion that has collected about

the terms court leet, court baron and court customary may be put aside;

it relates to questions which in the 13th century were only just

emerging. The manor court at that date exercised its criminal, civil, or

manorial jurisdiction as one court; its names may differ, the parties

before it may be free or unfree, but the court is the same. Its

president was the lord's steward; the bailiff was the lord's

representative and the public prosecutor; and the tenants of the manor,

both free and unfree, attended at the court and gave judgment in the

cases brought before it. To modern ears the constitution sounds

unfamiliar. The president of the court settled the procedure of the

court, carried it out, and gave the final sentence, but over the law of

the court he had no power. All that is comprised in the word "judgment"

was settled by the body of tenants present at the court. This attendance

was, indeed, compulsory, and absence subjected to a fine any tenant

owing and refusing the service known as "suit of court." It may be asked

who in these courts settled questions of fact. The answer must be that

disputed questions of fact could only be settled in one way, by ordeal;

and that in most manorial courts the method employed was the wager of

law. The business of the court may be divided into criminal, manorial

and civil. Its powers under the first head depended on the franchises

enjoyed by the lord in the particular manor; for the most part only

petty offences were triable, such as small thefts, breaches of the

assize of bread and ale, assaults, and the like; except under special

conditions, the justice of great offences remained in the king. But

offences against the custom of the manor, such as bad ploughing,

improper taking of wood from the lord's woods, and the like, were of

course the staple criminal business of the court. Under the head of

manorial business the court dealt with the choice of the manorial

officers, and had some power of making regulations for the management of

the manor; but its most important function was the recording of the

surrenders and admittances of the villein tenants. Into the history and

meaning of this form of land transfer it is not necessary to enter here.

But it must be noted that the conveyance of a villein's holding was

effected by the vendor surrendering his land to the lord, who thereupon

admitted the purchaser to the holding. The same procedure was employed

in all cases of transfer of land, and the transaction was regularly

recorded upon the rolls of the court among the records of all the other

business transacted there. Finally, the court dealt with all suits as to

land within the manor, questions of dower and inheritance, and with

civil suits not connected with land. But it need hardly be said that in

an ordinary rural manor very few of these would occur.

It will be clear on consideration that the manor court as here described

consisted of conflicting elements of very different origin and history.

Founded partly on express grants of franchises, partly on the inherent

right of a feudal lord to hold a court for his free tenants, partly on

the obscure community traceable among the unfree inhabitants of the

manor, it is incapable of strict legal definition. All these elements,

moreover, contain in themselves reasons for the decay which gradually

came over the system. The history of the decay of the manorial

jurisdictions in England has not yet been written. On the one hand were

the king's courts, with new and improved processes of law; on the other

hand the gradual disintegration which marks the history of the manor

during the 14th and 15th centuries. The criminal jurisdiction was the

first to disappear, and was closely followed by the civil jurisdiction

over the free tenants; and in modern times all that is left is the

jurisdiction over the customary tenants and their holdings, and that in

an attenuated form.

A few words must be given to the legal theories of the 15th century on

the manor court. It would seem to have become the law that to the

existence of the manor two courts were necessary--a court customary

for customary tenants, and a court baron for free tenants. In the

court customary the lord's steward is the judge; in the court baron

the freeholders are the judges. If the freeholders in the manor

diminish to less than two in number the court baron cannot be held,

and the manor perishes. Nor can it be revived by the grant of new

freehold tenures, because under the statute of _Quia Emptores_ such

new freeholders would hold not of the lord of the manor, but of his

lord. The customary tenants and the court customary may survive, but

the manor is only a reputed manor. Of the 13th century all this is

untrue, but even at that date the existence of free tenants was in a

measure essential to the existence of the manor court. If there were

none the jurisdiction of the court over free tenants of course

collapsed; but in addition to this the lord also lost his power of

exercising the highest criminal franchises, even if he otherwise

possessed them; he could, for instance, no longer hang a murderer on

his own gallows. Perhaps it may be said that to the exercise of the

feudal power and of the royal franchises the presence of free tenants

was necessary. But it is clear that no such condition was necessary to

the existence of the manor.

Apart from the change in the court of the manor, the most important

thread in its history is the process which converted the villein into

the copyholder. Here again the subject is imperfectly explored, and

part of it is still subject to controversy. In the strict view of

contemporary lawyers the holding of the villein tenant of the 13th

century was at the will of the lord, and the king's courts of law

would not protect him in his possession. If, however, the villein were

a tenant on the king's ancient demesne his condition was improved. The

writs of _monstraverunt_ and the little writ of right close protected

him from the improper exaction of services and from ejection by the

lord. But in ordinary manors there was no such immunity. That ejection

was common cannot be believed, but it was legally possible; and it was

not until the well-known decision of Danby, C. J., and Bryan, C. J.,

in 7 Edw. IV., that the courts of law would entertain an action of

trespass brought against his lord by a customary tenant. From that

date the courts, both of law and equity, begin to intervene; and the

records of the Courts of Star Chamber and Requests show that in the

Tudor period equitable suits brought by tenants against their lords

are not infrequent. Side by side with the alteration in the legal

condition of the manor there went on an economic change. The labour

rents and other services slowly disappeared, and were replaced by

money payments. The field divisions gave way before inclosures,

effected sometimes by the lords and sometimes by the tenants. Change

in legal and agricultural practice went on side by side, and finally

the manor ceased to be an important social form, and became only a

peculiar form of land tenure and the abode of antiquarian curiosities.

See G. L. von Maurer, _Einleitung in die Geschichte der Hof-, Mark-,

Dorf- und Stadtverfassung in Deutschland_ (Erlangen, 1856); G. Nasse,

_Zur Geschichte der mittelälterlichen Feldgemeinschaft in England_

(Bonn, 1869); H. S. Maine, _Village Communities in the East and West_

(Cambridge, 1872); F. Seebohm, _The English Village Community_ (1883);

W. J. Ashley, _English Economic History_, pts. i. ii. (1888-1893); F.

W. Maitland, _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_ (London, Selden

Society, 1888); P. Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_ (Cambridge,

1892); _The Growth of the Manor_ (1905) and _English Society in the

11th Century_ (1908); A. Meitzen, _Siedelung und Agrarwesen der

Westgermanen und Ostgermanen_ (Berlin, 1896); W. Cunningham, _Growth

of English Industry and Commerce_ (Cambridge, 1896); F. Pollock and F.

W. Maitland, _History of English Law_ (Cambridge, 1896); F. W.

Maitland, _Doomsday Book and Beyond_ (Cambridge, 1897); and C. M.

Andrews, _The Old English Manor_ (1892). (C. G. Cr.)

MANOR-HOUSE (Lat. _manerium_; Fr. _manoir_), in architecture, the name

given to the dwelling-house of the lord of the manor. The manor-house

was generally arranged for defence against robbers and thieves and was

often surrounded by a moat with drawbridge, but was not provided with a

keep or with towers or lofty curtain walls so as to stand a siege. The

early buildings were comparatively small, square in plan, comprising a

hall with one or two adjacent chambers; at a later period wings were

added, thus forming three sides of a quadrangle, like the house designed

by John Thorpe as his residence, the plan of which is among his drawings

in the Soane Museum. One of the most ancient examples is the

manor-house built by Richard Coeur de Lion at Southampton as a

rendezvous when he was about to cross into France. This consisted of a

hall and chapel on the first floor, with cellars on the ground floor;

the walls of this structure, with the chimney-piece, are still in

existence. The distinction between the "manor-house" and "castle" is not

always very clearly defined; in France such buildings as the castles of

Aydon (Northumberland) and of Stokesay (Shropshire) would be regarded as

manor-houses in that they were built as country houses and not as

fortresses, like Coucy and Pierrefonds; some of the smaller castles in

France were, in the 16th century, transformed into manor-houses by the

introduction of windows on the second floors of their towers and the

partial destruction of their curtain walls, as in the manor-houses of

Sedières (Corrèze), Nantouillet and Compiègne; and in the same century,

as at Chenonceaux, Blois and Chambord, though angle towers and

machicolated parapets still formed part of the design, they were

considered to be purely decorative features. The same is found in

England; thus in Thornbury and Hurstmonceaux castles, and in Cowdray

House, the fortifications were more for show than for use. There is an

interesting example of a French manor-house near Dieppe, known as the

Manoir-d'Ango, built in 1525, of which a great portion still exists,

where the proprietor Ango received François I., so that it must have

been of considerable size.

In England the principal examples of which remains exist are the

manor-houses of Appleton, Berkshire, with a moat; King John's house at

Warnford (Hampshire); Boothby Ragnell, Lincolnshire, with traces of

moat; Godmersham, Kent; Little Wenham Hall, Suffolk, built partly in

brick and flint, and one of the earliest in which the bricks, probably

imported from Flanders, are found; Charney Hall, Berkshire (T-shaped

in plan in two storeys); Longthorpe House, near Peterborough;

Stokesay, Shropshire, already referred to; Cottesford, Oxfordshire;

Woodcraft, Northamptonshire; Acton Burnell, Shropshire; Old Soar,

Plaxtol, Kent, in two storeys, the ground storey vaulted and used as

cellar and storehouse, and the upper floor with hall, solar and

chapel. The foundation of all these dates from the 13th century.

Ightham Mote, Kent, portions of which, with the moat, date from the

14th century, is one of the best preserved manor-houses; then follow

Norborough Hall, Northamptonshire; Creslow manor-house, Bucks, with

moat; Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire; the Court Lodge, Great Chart, Kent;

Stanton St Quentin, Great Chalfield, and South Wraxhall, all in Wilts;

Meare manor-house, Somerset; Ockwell, Berks; Kingfield manor-house,

Derbyshire; Kirby Muxloe, Leicestershire; Stoke Albany,

Northamptonshire; and, in the 16th century, Large Marney Hall, Essex

(1520); Sutton Place, Surrey (1530); the Vyne, Hampshire, already

influenced by the first Renaissance. In the 17th and 18th centuries

the manor-house is generally rectangular in plan, and, though well and

solidly built, would seem to have been erected more with a view to

internal comfort than to exterior embellishments. There is one other

type of manor-house, which partakes of the character of the castle in

its design, and takes the form of a tower, rectangular or square, with

angle turrets and in several storeys; in France it is represented by

the manor-houses of St Medard near Bordeaux and Camarsae (Dordogne),

and in England by Tattershall Castle, Lincolnshire and Middleton

Tower, Norfolk, both being in brick. (R. P. S.)

MANRESA, a town of north-eastern Spain, in the province of Barcelona, on

the river Cardoner and the Barcelona-Lérida railway. Pop. (1900),

23,252. Manresa is the chief town of the highlands watered by the

Cardoner and upper Llobregat, which meet below the town, and are also

connected by a canal 18 m. long. Two bridges, one built of stone and

dating from the Roman period, the other constructed of iron in 1804,

unite the older and larger part of Manresa with the modern suburbs on

the right bank of the river. The principal buildings are the collegiate

church of Santa Maria de la Séo, the Dominican monastery, and the church

of San Ignazio, built over the cavern (_cueva santa_) where Ignatius de

Loyola spent most of the year 1522 in penitentiary exercises and the

composition of his _Exercitia spiritualia_. Santa Maria is a fine

example of Spanish Gothic, and consists, like many Catalan churches, of

nave and chancel, aisles and ambulatory, without transepts. One of its

chief treasures is an exquisite 15th-century Florentine altar-frontal,

preserved in the sacristy. The Dominican monastery, adjoining the _cueva

santa_, commands a magnificent view of the Montserrat (q.v.), and is

used for the accommodation of the pilgrims who yearly visit the cavern

in thousands. Manresa has important iron-foundries and manufactures of

woollen, cotton and linen goods, ribbons, hats, paper, soap, chemicals,

spirits and flour. Building-stone is quarried near the town.

Manresa is probably the _Munorisa_ of the Romans, which was the capital

of the Jacetani or Jaccetani, an important tribe of the south-eastern

Pyrenees. A large portion of the town was burned by the French in 1811.

MANRIQUE, GÓMEZ (1412?-1490?), Spanish poet, soldier, politician and

dramatist, was born at Amusco. The fifth son of Pedro Manrique,

_adelantado mayor_ of León, and nephew of Santillana (q.v.), Gómez

Manrique was introduced into public life at an early age, took a

prominent part against the constable Álvaro de Luna during the reign of

John II., went into opposition against Miguel Lucas de Iranzo in the

reign of Henry IV., and declared in favour of the infanta Isabel, whose

marriage with Ferdinand he promoted. Besides being a distinguished

soldier, he acted as a moderating political influence and, when

appointed _corregidor_ of Toledo, was active in protecting the converted

Jews from popular resentment. His will was signed on the 31st of May

1490, and he is known to have died before the 16th of February 1491. He

inherited the literary taste of his uncle Santillana, and was greatly

esteemed in his own age; but his reputation was afterwards eclipsed by

that of his nephew Jorge Manrique (q.v.), whose _Coplas_ were

continually reproduced. Gómez Manrique's poems were not printed till

1885, when they were edited by Antonio Paz y Melia. They at once

revealed him to be a poet of eminent merit, and it seems certain that

his _Consejos_, addressed to Diego Arias de Avila, inspired the more

famous _Coplas_ of his nephew. His didactic verses are modelled upon

those of Santillana, and his satires are somewhat coarse in thought and

expression; but his place in the history of Spanish literature is secure

as the earliest Spanish dramatist whose name has reached posterity. He

wrote the _Representación del nascimiento de Nuestro Señor_, a play on

the Passion, and two _momos_, or interludes, played at court.

MANRIQUE, JORGE (1440?-1478), Spanish poet and soldier, was born

probably at Paredes de Nava. The fourth son of Rodrigo Manrique, count

de Paredes, he became like the rest of his family a fervent partisan of

Queen Isabel, served with great distinction in many engagements, and was

made _comendador_ of Montizón in the order of Santiago. He was killed in

a skirmish near the fortress of Garci-Muñoz in 1478, and was buried in

the church attached to the convent of Uclés. His love-songs, satires,

and acrostic verses are merely ingenious compositions in the taste of

his age; he owes his imperishable renown to a single poem, the _Coplas

por la muerte de su padre_, an elegy of forty stanzas on the death of

his father, which was apparently first printed in the _Cancionero

llamado de Fray Inigo de Mendoza_ about the year 1482. There is no

foundation for the theory that Manrique drew his inspiration from an

Arabic poem by Abu 'l-Baka Salih ar-Rundi; the form of the _Coplas_ is

influenced by the _Consejos_ of his uncle, Gómez Manrique, and the

matter derives from the Bible, from Boethius and from other sources

readily accessible. The great sonorous commonplaces on death are

vitalized by the intensely personal grief of the poet, who lent a new

solemnity and significance to thoughts which had been for centuries the

common property of mankind. It was given to Jorge Manrique to have one

single moment of sublime expression, and this isolated achievement has

won him a fame undimmed by any change of taste during four centuries.

The best edition of the _Coplas_ is that issued by R. Foulché-Delbosc

in the _Bibliotheca hispanica_; the poem has been admirably translated

by Longfellow. Manrique's other verses were mostly printed in Hernando

del Castillo's _Cancionero general_ (1511).

MANSE (Med. Lat. _mansa_, _mansus_ or _mansum_, from _manere_, to dwell,

remain), originally a dwelling-house together with a portion of land

sufficient for the support of a family. It is defined by Du Cange

(_Glossarium, s.v. Mansus_) as _... certam agri portionem quae coleretur

et in qua coloni aedes esset_. The term was particularly applied, in

ecclesiastical law, to the house and glebe to which every church was

entitled by common right, the rule of canon law being _sancitum est ut

unicuique ecclesiae unus mansus integer absque ullo servitio tribuatur_

(Phillimore, _Eccles. Law_, 1895, ii. 1125). The word is now chiefly

used for the residence of a minister of the Established Church of

Scotland; to this every minister of a rural parish is entitled, and the

landed proprietors must build and keep it up. "Manse" is also loosely

used for the residence of a minister of various Free Church

denominations (see GLEBE).

MANSEL, HENRY LONGUEVILLE (1820-1871), English philosopher, was born at

Cosgrove, Northamptonshire (where his father, also Henry Longueville

Mansel, fourth son of General John Mansel, was rector), on the 6th of

October 1820. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School and St John's

College, Oxford. He took a double first in 1843, and became tutor of his

college. He was appointed reader in moral and metaphysical philosophy at

Magdalen College in 1855, and Waynflete professor in 1859. He was a

great opponent of university reform and of the Hegelianism which was

then beginning to take root in Oxford. In 1867 he succeeded A. P.

Stanley as professor of ecclesiastical history, and in 1868 he was

appointed dean of St Paul's. He died on the 31st of July 1871.

The philosophy of Mansel, like that of Sir William Hamilton, was mainly

due to Aristotle, Kant and Reid. Like Hamilton, Mansel maintained the

purely formal character of logic, the duality of consciousness as

testifying to both self and the external world, and the limitation of

knowledge to the finite and "conditioned." His doctrines were developed

in his edition of Aldrich's _Artis logicae rudimenta_ (1849)--his chief

contribution to the reviving study of Aristotle--and in his _Prolegomena

logica: an Inquiry into the Psychological Character of Logical

Processes_ (1851, 2nd ed. enlarged 1862), in which the limits of logic

as the "science of formal thinking" are rigorously determined. In his

Bampton lectures on _The Limits of Religious Thought_ (1858, 5th ed.

1867; Danish trans. 1888) he applied to Christian theology the

metaphysical agnosticism which seemed to result from Kant's criticism,

and which had been developed in Hamilton's _Philosophy of the

Unconditioned_. While denying all knowledge of the supersensuous, Mansel

deviated from Kant in contending that cognition of the ego as it really

is is itself a fact of experience. Consciousness, he held--agreeing thus

with the doctrine of "natural realism" which Hamilton developed from

Reid--implies knowledge both of self and of the external world. The

latter Mansel's psychology reduces to consciousness of our organism as

extended; with the former is given consciousness of free will and moral

obligation. A summary of his philosophy is contained in his article

"Metaphysics" in the 8th edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_

(separately published, 1860). Mansel wrote also _The Philosophy of the

Conditioned_ (1866) in reply to Mill's criticism of Hamilton; _Letters,

Lectures, and Reviews_ (ed. Chandler, 1873), and _The Gnostic Heresies_

(ed. J. B. Lightfoot, 1875, with a biographical sketch by Lord

Carnarvon). He wrote a commentary on the first two gospels in the

_Speaker's Commentary_.

See J. W. Burgon, _Lives of Twelve Good Men_ (1888-1889); James

Martineau, _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_ (London, 1891), iii. 117

seq.; A. W. Benn, _History of Rationalism_ (1906), ii. 100-112;

Masson, _Recent British Philosophy_ (3rd ed., London, 1877), pp. 252

seq.; Sir Leslie Stephen in _Dict. Nat. Biog._

MANSFELD, the name of an old and illustrious German family which took

its name from Mansfeld in Saxony, where it was seated from the 11th to

the 18th century. One of its earliest members was Hoyer von Mansfeld (d.

1115), a partisan of the emperor Henry V. during his struggles with the

Saxons; he fought for Henry at Warnstädt and was killed in his service

at Welfesholz. Still more famous was Albert, count of Mansfeld

(1480-1560), an intimate friend of Luther and one of the earliest and

staunchest supporters of the Reformation. He helped to crush the rising

of the peasants under Thomas Munzer in Thuringia in 1525; he was a

member of the league of Schmalkalden, and took part in all the movements

of the Protestants against Charles V. With Albert was associated his

brother Gebhard, and another member of the family was Johann Gebhard,

elector of Cologne from 1558 to 1562. A scion of another branch of the

Mansfelds was Peter Ernst, Fürst von Mansfeld (1517-1604), governor of

Luxemburg, who unlike his kinsmen was loyal to Charles V. He went with

the emperor to Tunis and fought for him in France. He was equally loyal

to his son, Philip II. of Spain, whom he served at St Quentin and in the

Netherlands. He distinguished himself in the field and found time to

lead a body of troops to aid the king of France against the Huguenots.

In this capacity he was present in 1569 at the battle of Moncontour,

where another member of his family, Count Wolrad of Mansfeld (d. 1578)

was among the Huguenot leaders. The Mansfeld family became extinct in

1780 on the death of Josef Wenzel Nepomuk, prince of Fondi, the lands

being divided between Saxony and Prussia.

See L. F. Niemann, _Geschichte der Grafen von Mansfeld_ (Aschersleben,

1834).

MANSFELD, ERNST, GRAF VON (c. 1580-1626), German soldier, was an

illegitimate son of Peter Ernst, Fürst von Mansfeld, and passed his

early years in his father's palace at Luxemburg. He gained his earliest

military experiences in Hungary, where his half-brother Charles

(1543-1595,) also a soldier of renown, held a high command in the

imperial army. Later he served under the Archduke Leopold, until that

prince's ingratitude, real or fancied, drove him into the arms of the

enemies of the house of Habsburg. Although remaining a Roman Catholic he

allied himself with the Protestant princes, and during the earlier part

of the Thirty Years' War he was one of their foremost champions. He was

despatched by Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy, at the head of about 2000

men to aid the revolting Bohemians when war broke out in 1618. He took

Pilsen, but in the summer of 1619 he was defeated at Zablat; after this

he offered his services to the emperor Ferdinand II. and remained

inactive while the titular king of Bohemia, Frederick V., elector

palatine of the Rhine, was driven in headlong rout from Prague.

Mansfeld, however, was soon appointed by Frederick to command his army

in Bohemia, and in 1621 he took up his position in the Upper Palatinate,

successfully resisting the efforts made by Tilly to dislodge him. From

the Upper he passed into the Rhenish Palatinate. Here he relieved

Frankenthal and took Hagenau; then, joined by his master, the elector

Frederick, he defeated Tilly at Wiesloch in April 1622 and plundered

Alsace and Hesse. But Mansfeld's ravages were not confined to the lands

of his enemies; they were ruinous to the districts he was commissioned

to defend. At length Frederick was obliged to dismiss Mansfeld's troops

from his service. Then joining Christian of Brunswick the count led his

army through Lorraine, devastating the country as he went, and in August

1622 defeating the Spaniards at Fleurus. He next entered the service of

the United Provinces and took up his quarters in East Friesland,

capturing fortresses and inflicting great hardships upon the

inhabitants. A mercenary and a leader of mercenaries, Mansfeld often

interrupted his campaigns by journeys made for the purpose of raising

money, or in other words of selling his services to the highest bidder,

and in these diplomatic matters he showed considerable skill. About 1624

he paid three visits to London, where he was hailed as a hero by the

populace, and at least one to Paris. James I. was anxious to furnish him

with men and money for the recovery of the palatinate, but it was not

until January 1625 that Mansfeld and his army of "raw and poor rascals"

sailed from Dover to the Netherlands. Later in the year, the Thirty

Years' War having been renewed under the leadership of Christian IV.,

king of Denmark, he re-entered Germany to take part therein. But on the

25th of April 1626 Wallenstein inflicted a severe defeat upon him at the

bridge of Dessau. Mansfeld, however, quickly raised another army, with

which he intended to attack the hereditary lands of the house of

Austria, and pursued by Wallenstein he pressed forward towards Hungary,

where he hoped to accomplish his purpose by the aid of Bethlem Gabor,

prince of Transylvania. But when Gabor changed his policy and made peace

with the emperor, Mansfeld was compelled to disband his troops. He set

out for Venice, but when he reached Rakowitza he was taken ill, and

here he died on the 29th of November 1626. He was buried at Spalato.

See F. Stieve, _Ernst von Mansfeld_ (Munich, 1890); R. Reuss, _Graf

Ernst von Mansfeld im böhmischen Kriege_ (Brunswick, 1865); A. C. de

Villermont, _Ernest de Mansfeldt_ (Brussels, 1866); L. Graf Uetterodt

zu Schaffenberg, _Ernst Graf zu Mansfeld_ (Gotha, 1867); J. Grossmann,

_Des Grafen Ernst von Mansfeld letzte Pläne und Thaten_ (Breslau,

1870); E. Fischer, _Des Mansfelders Tod_ (Berlin, 1873); S. R.

Gardiner, _History of England_, vols. iv. and v. (1901); J. L. Motley,

_Life and Death of John of Barneveld_ (ed. 1904; vol. ii.).

MANSFIELD, RICHARD (1857-1907), American actor, was born on the 24th of

May 1857, in Berlin, his mother being Madame [Erminia] Rudersdorff

(1822-1882), the singer, and his father, Maurice Mansfield (d. 1861), a

London wine merchant. He first appeared on the stage at St George's

Hall, London, and then drifted into light opera, playing the

Major-General in _The Pirates of Penzance_, and the Lord High

Executioner in _The Mikado_, both in the English provinces and in

America. In 1883 he joined A. M. Palmer's Union Square theatre company

in New York, and made a great hit as Baron Chevrial in _A Parisian

Romance_. He appeared successfully in several plays adapted from

well-known stories, and his rendering (1887) of the doubled title-parts

in R. L. Stevenson's _Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde_ created a

profound impression. It was with this play that he made his London

reputation during a season (1888) at the Lyceum theatre, by invitation

of Henry Irving. He produced Richard III. the next year at the Globe.

Among his other chief successes were _Prince Karl_, _Cyrano de Bergerac_

and _Monsieur Beaucaire_. He was one of the earliest to produce G.

Bernard Shaw's plays in America, appearing in 1894 as Bluntschli in

_Arms and the Man_, and as Dick Dudgeon in _The Devil's Disciple_ in

1897. As a manager and producer of plays Mansfield was remarkable for

his lavish staging. He died in New London, Connecticut, on the 30th of

August 1907.

See the lives by Paul Wilstach (1908) and William Winter (1910).

MANSFIELD, WILLIAM MURRAY, 1ST EARL OF (1705-1793), English judge, was

born at Scone in Perthshire, on the 2nd of March 1705. He was a younger

son of David Murray, 5th Viscount Stormont (c. 1665-1731), the dignity

having been granted in 1621 by James I. to his friend and helper, Sir

David Murray (d. 1631), a Scottish politician of some note. Lord

Stormont's family was Jacobite in its politics, and his second son James

(c. 1690-1728), being apparently mixed up in some of the plots of the

time, joined the court of the exiled Stuarts and in 1721 was created

earl of Dunbar by James Edward, the Old Pretender.

William Murray was educated at Perth grammar school and Westminster

School, of which he was a king's scholar. Entering Christ Church,

Oxford, he graduated in 1727. A friend of the family, Lord Foley,

provided the funds for his legal training, and he became a member of

Lincoln's Inn on his departure from Oxford, being called to the bar in

1730. He was a good scholar and mixed with the best literary society,

being an intimate friend of Alexander Pope. His appearance in some

important Scottish appeal cases brought him into notice, and in Scotland

at least he acquired an immense reputation by his appearance for the

city of Edinburgh when it was threatened with disfranchisement for the

affair of the Porteous mob. His English practice had as yet been scanty,

but in 1737 a single speech in a jury trial of note placed him at the

head of the bar, and from this time he had all he could attend to. In

1738 he married Lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the earl of

Winchelsea. His political career began in 1742 with his appointment as

solicitor-general. During the next fourteen years he was one of the most

conspicuous figures in the parliamentary history of the time. By birth a

Jacobite, by association a Tory, he was nevertheless a Moderate, and his

politics were really dominated by his legal interests. Although holding

an office of subordinate rank, he was the chief defender of the

government in the House of Commons, and during the time that Pitt was in

opposition had to bear the brunt of his attacks. In 1754 he became

attorney-general, and for the next two years acted as leader of the

House of Commons under the administration of the duke of Newcastle. But

in 1756, when the government was evidently approaching its fall, an

unexpected vacancy occurred in the chief justiceship of the king's

bench, and he claimed the office, being at the same time raised to the

peerage as Baron Mansfield.

From this time the chief interest of his career lies in his judicial

work, but he did not wholly dissever himself from politics. He became by

a singular arrangement, only repeated in the case of Lord Ellenborough,

a member of the cabinet, and remained in that position through various

changes of administration for nearly fifteen years, and, although he

persistently refused the chancellorship, he acted as Speaker of the

House of Lords while the Great Seal was in commission. During the time

of Pitt's ascendancy he took but little part in politics, but while Lord

Bute was in power his influence was very considerable, and seems mostly

to have been exerted in favour of a more moderate line of policy. He was

on the whole a supporter of the prerogative, but within definite limits.

Macaulay terms him, justly enough, "the father of modern Toryism, of

Toryism modified to suit an order of things in which the House of

Commons is the most powerful body in the state." During the stormy

session of 1770 he came into violent collision with Chatham and Camden

in the questions that arose out of the Middlesex election and the trials

for political libel; and in the subsequent years he was made the subject

of the bitter attacks of Junius, in which his early Jacobite connexions,

and his apparent leanings to arbitrary power, were used against him with

extraordinary ability and virulence. In 1776 he was created earl of

Mansfield. In 1783, although he declined to re-enter the cabinet, he

acted as Speaker of the House of Lords during the coalition ministry,

and with this his political career may be said to have closed. He

continued to act as chief justice until his resignation in June 1788,

and after five years spent in retirement died on the 20th of March 1793.

He left no family, but his title had been re-granted in 1792 with a

direct remainder to his nephew David Murray, 7th Viscount Stormont

(1727-1796). The 2nd earl was ambassador to Vienna and then to Paris; he

was secretary of state for the southern department from 1779 to 1782,

and lord president of the council in 1783, and again from 1794 until his

death. In 1906 his descendant Alan David Murray (b. 1864) became 6th

earl of Mansfield.

Lord Mansfield's great reputation rests chiefly on his judicial career.

The political trials over which he presided, although they gave rise to

numerous accusations against him, were conducted with singular fairness

and propriety. He was accused with especial bitterness of favouring

arbitrary power by the law which he laid down in the trials for libel

which arose out of the publications of Junius and Horne Tooke, and which

at a later time he reaffirmed in the case of the dean of St Asaph (see

LIBEL). But we must remember that his view of the law was concurred in

by the great majority of the judges and lawyers of that time, and was

supported by undoubted precedents. In other instances, when the

government was equally concerned, he was wholly free from suspicion. He

supported Lord Camden's decision against general warrants, and reversed

the outlawry of Wilkes. He was always ready to protect the rights of

conscience, whether they were claimed by Dissenters or Catholics, and

the popular fury which led to the destruction of his house during the

Gordon riots was mainly due to the fact that a Catholic priest, who was

accused of saying Mass, had escaped the penal laws by his charge to the

jury. His chief celebrity, however, is founded upon the consummate

ability with which he discharged the civil duties of his office. He has

always been recognized as the founder of English mercantile law. The

common law as it existed before his time was wholly inadequate to cope

with the new cases and customs which arose with the increasing

development of commerce. The facts were left to the jury to decide as

best they might, and no principle was ever extracted from them which

might serve as a guide in subsequent cases. Mansfield found the law in

this chaotic state, and left it in a form that was almost equivalent to

a code. He defined almost every principle that governed commercial

transactions in such a manner that his successors had only to apply the

rules he had laid down. His knowledge of Roman and foreign law, and the

general width of his education, freed him from the danger of relying too

exclusively upon narrow precedents, and afforded him a storehouse of

principles and illustrations, while the grasp and acuteness of his

intellect enabled him to put his judgments in a form which almost always

commanded assent. A similar influence was exerted by him in other

branches of the common law; and although, after his retirement, a

reaction took place, and he was regarded for a while as one who had

corrupted the ancient principles of English law, these prejudices passed

rapidly away, and the value of his work in bringing the older law into

harmony with the needs of modern society has long been fully recognized.

See Holliday's _Life_ (1797); Campbell's _Chief Justices_; Foss's

_Judges_; Greville's _Memoirs, passim_; Horace Walpole's _Letters_;

and other memoirs and works on the period.

MANSFIELD, a market town and municipal borough in the Mansfield

parliamentary division of Nottinghamshire, England, on the small river

Mann or Maun; the junction of several branches of the Midland railway,

by which it is 142 m. N.N.W. from London. Pop. (1891), 13,094; (1901),

15,250. Area, 7068 acres. The church of St Peter is partly Early Norman,

and partly Perpendicular. There is a grammar school founded by Queen

Elizabeth in 1561, occupying modern buildings. Twelve almshouses were

founded by Elizabeth Heath in 1693, and to these six were afterwards

added. There are a number of other charities. The industries are the

manufacture of lace, thread, boots and machinery, iron-founding and

brewing. In the neighbourhood, as at Mansfield Woodhouse to the north,

there are quarries of limestone, sandstone and freestone. The town is

governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. During the heptarchy

Mansfield was occasionally the residence of the Mercian kings, and it

was afterwards a favourite resort of Norman sovereigns, lying as it does

on the western outskirts of Sherwood Forest. By Henry VIII. the manor

was granted to the earl of Surrey. Afterwards it went by exchange to the

duke of Newcastle, and thence to the Portland family. The town obtained

a fair from Richard II. in 1377. It became a municipal borough in 1891.

MANSFIELD, a city and the county-seat of Richland county, Ohio, U.S.A.,

about 65 m. S.W. of Cleveland. Pop. (1890), 13,473; (1900), 17,640, of

whom 1781 were foreign-born; (1910 census), 20,768. It is served by the

Pennsylvania (Pittsburg, Ft Wayne & Chicago division), the Erie, and the

Baltimore & Ohio railways. It is built on an eminence (1150 ft.), and

has two public parks, a substantial court-house, a soldiers' and

sailors' memorial building, a public library, a hospital and many fine

residences. It is the seat of the Ohio state reformatory. Mansfield has

an extensive trade with the surrounding agricultural country, but its

largest interests are in manufactures. The total factory product in 1905

was valued at $7,353,578. There are natural gas wells in the vicinity.

The waterworks and the sewage disposal plant are owned and operated by

the municipality. Mansfield was laid out in 1808, and was named in

honour of Lieut.-Colonel Jared Mansfield (1759-1830), United States

surveyor of Ohio and the North-west Territory in 1803-1812, and

professor of natural and experimental philosophy at West Point from 1812

to 1828. Mansfield was incorporated as a village in 1828 and was first

chartered as a city in 1857. It was the home of John Sherman from 1840

until his death.

MANSION (through O. Fr. _mansion_, mod. _maison_, from Lat. _mansio_,

dwelling-place, stage on a journey; _manere_, to remain), a term applied

in early English use to the principal house of the lord of a manor. By

the Settled Land Act 1890, § 10, subsec. 2, repealing § 15 of the act of

1882, "the principal mansion house ... on any settled land shall not be

sold or exchanged or leased by the tenant for life without the consent

of the trustees of the settlement or an order of the court." The

principles guiding an English court of law for making or refusing such

an order are laid down in _In re the Marquess of Ailesbury's Settled

Estate_ (1892), 1 Ch. 506, 546; A.C. 356. In general usage, the term

"mansion" is given to any large and important house in town or country;

and "mansion house" to the official residence, when provided, of the

mayor of a borough, particularly to that of the lord mayors of London

and Dublin. From the general meaning of a conspicuously large

dwelling-place comes the modern employment of the term "mansions," in

London and elsewhere, for large buildings composed of "flats."

MANSLAUGHTER (O. Eng., _mannslaeht_, from _mann_, man, and _slaeht_, act

of slaying, _sleán_, to slay, properly to smite; cf. Ger. _schlagen_,

_Schlacht_, battle), a term in English law signifying "unlawful homicide

without malice aforethought" (Stephen, _Digest of the Criminal Law_,

Art. 223). The distinction between manslaughter and murder and other

forms of homicide is treated under HOMICIDE.

MANSON, GEORGE (1850-1876), Scottish water-colour painter, was born in

Edinburgh on the 3rd of December 1850. When about fifteen he was

apprenticed as a woodcutter with W. & R. Chambers, with whom he remained

for over five years, diligently employing all his spare time in the

study and practice of art, and producing in his morning and evening

hours water-colours of much delicacy and beauty. In 1871 he devoted

himself exclusively to painting. His subjects were derived from humble

Scottish life--especially child-life, varied occasionally by

portraiture, by landscape, and by views of picturesque architecture. In

1873 he visited Normandy, Belgium and Holland; in the following year he

spent several months in Sark; and in 1875 he resided at St Lô, and in

Paris, where he mastered the processes of etching. Meanwhile in his

water-colour work he had been adding more of breadth and power to the

tenderness and richness of colour which distinguished his early

pictures, and he was planning more complex and important subjects. But

his health had been gradually failing, and he was ordered to Lympstone

in Devonshire, where he died on the 27th of February 1876.

A volume of photographs from his water-colours and sketches, with a

memoir by J. M. Gray, was published in 1880. For an account of

Manson's technical method as a wood engraver see P. G. Hamerton's

_Graphic Arts_, p. 311.

MANSUR (Arab. "victorious"), a surname (_laqab_) assumed by a large

number of Mahommedan princes. The best known are: (1) ABU JA'FAR IBN

MAHOMMED, second caliph of the Abbasid house, who reigned A.D. 754-775

(see CALIPHATE: § C, §2); (2) ABU TAHIR ISMA'IL IBN AL-QAIM, the third

Fatimite caliph of Africa (946-953) (see FATIMITES); (3) ABU YUSUF YA

'QUB IBN YUSUF, often described as Jacob Almanzor, of the Moorish

dynasty of the Almohades, conqueror of Alfonso III. in the battle of

Alarcos (1195); (4) IBN ABI 'AMIR MAHOMMED, commonly called Almanzor by

European writers, of an ancient but not illustrious Arab family, which

had its seat at Torrox near Algeciras. The last-named was born A.D. 939,

and began life as a lawyer at Cordova. In 967 he obtained a place at the

court of Hakam II., the Andalusian caliph, and by an unusual combination

of the talents of a courtier with administrative ability rapidly rose to

distinction, enjoying the powerful support of Subh, the favourite of the

caliph and mother of his heir Hisham. The death of Hakam (976) and the

accession of a minor gave fresh scope to his genius, and in 978 he

became chief minister. The weak young caliph was absorbed in exercises

of piety, but at first Mansur had to share the power with his

father-in-law Ghalib, the best general of Andalusia, and with the mother

of Hisham. At last a rupture took place between the two ministers.

Ghalib professed himself the champion of the caliph and called in the

aid of the Christians of Leon; but Mansur, anticipating the struggle,

had long before remodelled the army and secured its support. Ghalib fell

in battle (981); a victorious campaign chastised the Leonese; and on his

return to Cordova the victor assumed his regal surname of _al-Mansur

billah_, and became practically sovereign of Andalusia. The caliph was a

mere prisoner of state, and Mansur ultimately assumed the title as well

as the prerogatives of king (996). Unscrupulous in the means by which he

rose to power, he wielded the sovereignty nobly. His strict justice and

enlightened administration were not less notable than the military

prowess by which he is best known. His arms were the terror of the

Christians, and raised the Moslem power in Spain to a pitch it had never

before attained. In Africa his armies were for a time hard pressed by

the revolt of Ziri, viceroy of Mauretania, but before his death this

enemy had also fallen. Mansur died at Medinaceli on the 10th of August

1002, and was succeeded by his son Mozaffar.

MANSURA, the capital of the province of Dakahlia, Lower Egypt, near the

west side of Lake Menzala, and on the Cairo-Damietta railway. Pop.

(1907), 40,279. It dates from 1221, and is famous as the scene of the

battle of Mansura, fought on the 8th of February 1250, between the

crusaders commanded by the king of France, St Louis, and the Egyptians.

The battle was drawn, but it led to the retreat of the crusaders on

Damietta, and to the surrender of St Louis. Mansura has several

cotton-ginning, cotton, linen and sail-cloth factories.

MANT, RICHARD (1776-1848), English divine, was born at Southampton on

the 12th of February 1776, and was educated at Winchester and Trinity

College, Oxford. He was elected fellow of Oriel in 1798, and after

taking orders held a curacy at Southampton (1802), and then the vicarage

of Coggeshall, Essex (1810). In 1811 he was Bampton lecturer, in 1816

was made rector of St Botolph's, and in 1820 bishop of Killaloe and

Kilfenoragh (Ireland). In 1823 he was translated to Down and Connor, to

which Dromore was added in 1842. In connexion with the Rev. George

D'Oyly he wrote a commentary on the whole Bible. Other works by him were

the _Psalms in an English Metrical Version_ (1842) and a _History of the

Church of Ireland_ (1839-1841; 2 vols.).

MANTEGAZZA, PAOLO (1831-1910), Italian physiologist and anthropologist,

was born at Monza on the 31st of October 1831. After spending his

student-days at the universities of Pisa and Milan, he gained his M.D.

degree at Pavia in 1854. After travelling in Europe, India and America,

he practised as a doctor in the Argentine Republic and Paraguay.

Returning to Italy in 1858 he was appointed surgeon at Milan Hospital

and professor of general pathology at Pavia. In 1870 he was nominated

professor of anthropology at the Instituto di Studii Superiori,

Florence. Here he founded the first Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology

in Italy, and later the Italian Anthropological Society. From 1865 to

1876 he was deputy for Monza in the Italian parliament, subsequently

being elected to the senate. He became the object of bitter attacks on

the ground of the extent to which he carried the practice of

vivisection. His published works include _Fisiologia del dolore_ (1880);

_Fisiologia dell' amore_ (1896); _Elementi d' igiene_ (1875); _Fisonomia

e mimica_ (1883); _Le Estasi umane_ (1887).

MANTEGNA, ANDREA (1431-1506), one of the chief heroes in the advance of

painting in Italy, was born in Vicenza, of very humble parentage. It is

said that in his earliest boyhood Andrea was, like Giotto, put to

shepherding or cattle-herding; this is not likely, and can at any rate

have lasted only a very short while, as his natural genius for art

developed with singular precocity, and excited the attention of

Francesco Squarcione, who entered him in the gild of painters before he

had completed his eleventh year.

Squarcione, whose original vocation was tailoring, appears to have had a

remarkable enthusiasm for ancient art, and a proportionate faculty for

acting, with profit to himself and others, as a sort of artistic

middleman; his own performances as a painter were merely mediocre. He

travelled in Italy, and perhaps in Greece also, collecting antique

statues, reliefs, vases, &c., forming the largest collection then extant

of such works, making drawings from them himself, and throwing open his

stores for others to study from, and then undertaking works on

commission for which his pupils no less than himself were made

available. As many as one hundred and thirty-seven painters and

pictorial students passed through his school, established towards 1440,

which became famous all over Italy. Mantegna was, as he deserved to be,

Squarcione's favourite pupil. Squarcione adopted him as his son, and

purposed making him the heir of his fortune. Andrea was only seventeen

when he painted, in the church of S. Sofia in Padua, a Madonna picture

of exceptional and recognized excellence. He was no doubt fully aware of

having achieved no common feat, as he marked the work with his name and

the date, and the years of his age. This painting was destroyed in the

17th century.

As the youth progressed in his studies, he came under the influence of

Jacopo Bellini, a painter considerably superior to Squarcione, father of

the celebrated painters Giovanni and Gentile, and of a daughter

Nicolosia; and in 1454 Jacopo gave Nicolosia to Andrea in marriage. This

connexion of Andrea with the pictorial rival of Squarcione is generally

assigned as the reason why the latter became alienated from the son of

his adoption, and always afterwards hostile to him. Another suggestion,

which rests, however, merely on its own internal probability, is that

Squarcione had at the outset used his pupil Andrea as the unavowed

executant of certain commissions, but that after a while Andrea began

painting on his own account, thus injuring the professional interests of

his chief. The remarkably definite and original style formed by Mantegna

may be traced out as founded on the study of the antique in Squarcione's

atelier, followed by a diligent application of principles of work

exemplified by Paolo Uccello and Donatello, with the practical guidance

and example of Jacopo Bellini in the sequel.

Among the other early works of Mantegna are the fresco of two saints

over the entrance porch of the church of S. Antonio in Padua, 1452, and

an altar-piece of St Luke and other saints for the church of S.

Giustina, now in the Brera Gallery in Milan, 1453. It's probable,

however, that before this time some of the pupils of Squarcione,

including Mantegna, had already begun that series of frescoes in the

chapel of S. Cristoforo, in the church of S. Agostino degli Eremitani,

by which the great painter's reputation was fully confirmed, and which

remain to this day conspicuous among his finest achievements.[1] The now

censorious Squarcione found much to carp at in the earlier works of this

series, illustrating the life of St James; he said the figures were like

men of stone, and had better have been coloured stone-colour at once.

Andrea, conscious as he was of his own great faculty and mastery, seems

nevertheless to have felt that there was something in his old

preceptor's strictures; and the later subjects, from the legend of St

Christopher, combine with his other excellences more of natural

character and vivacity. Trained as he had been to the study of marbles

and the severity of the antique, and openly avowing that he considered

the antique superior to nature as being more eclectic in form, he now

and always affected precision of outline, dignity of idea and of figure,

and he thus tended towards rigidity, and to an austere wholeness rather

than gracious sensitiveness of expression. His draperies are tight and

closely folded, being studied (as it is said) from models draped in

paper and woven fabrics gummed. Figures slim, muscular and bony, action

impetuous but of arrested energy, tawny landscape, gritty with littering

pebbles, mark the athletic hauteur of his style. He never changed,

though he developed and perfected, the manner which he had adopted in

Padua; his colouring, at first rather neutral and undecided,

strengthened and matured. There is throughout his works more balancing

of colour than fineness of tone. One of his great aims was optical

illusion, carried out by a mastery of perspective which, though not

always impeccably correct, nor absolutely superior in principle to the

highest contemporary point of attainment, was worked out by himself with

strenuous labour, and an effect of actuality astonishing in those times.

Successful and admired though he was in Padua, Mantegna left his native

city at an early age, and never afterwards resettled there; the

hostility of Squarcione has been assigned as the cause. The rest of his

life was passed in Verona, Mantua and Rome--chiefly Mantua; Venice and

Florence have also been named, but without confirmation.

It may have been in 1459 that he went to Verona; and he painted, though

not on the spot, a grand altar-piece for the church of S. Zeno, a

Madonna and angels, with four saints on each side. The Marquis Lodovico

Gonzaga of Mantua had for some time been pressing Mantegna to enter his

service; and the following year, 1460, was perhaps the one in which he

actually established himself at the Mantuan court, residing at first

from time to time at Goito, but, from December 1466 onwards, with his

family in Mantua itself. His engagement was for a salary of 75 lire

(about £30) a month, a sum so large for that period as to mark

conspicuously the high regard in which his art was held. He was in fact

the first painter of any eminence ever domiciled in Mantua. He built a

stately house in the city, and adorned it with a multitude of paintings.

The house remains, but the pictures have perished. Some of his early

Mantuan works are in that apartment of the Castello which is termed the

Camera degli Sposi--full compositions in fresco, including various

portraits of the Gonzaga family, and some figures of genii, &c. In 1488

he went to Rome at the request of Pope Innocent VIII., to paint the

frescoes in the chapel of the Belvedere in the Vatican; the marquis of

Mantua (Federigo) created him a cavaliere before his departure. This

series of frescoes, including a noted "Baptism of Christ," was

ruthlessly destroyed by Pius VI. in laying out the Museo Pio-Clementino.

The pope treated Mantegna with less liberality than he had been used to

at the Mantuan court; but on the whole their connexion, which ceased in

1490, was not unsatisfactory to either party. Mantegna then returned to

Mantua, and went on with a series of works--the nine tempera-pictures,

each of them 9 ft. square, of the "Triumph of Caesar"--which he had

probably begun before his leaving for Rome, and which are now in Hampton

Court. These superbly invented and designed compositions, gorgeous with

all splendour of subject-matter and accessory, and with the classical

learning and enthusiasm of one of the master-spirits of the age, have

always been accounted of the first rank among Mantegna's works. They

were sold in 1628 along with the bulk of the Mantuan art treasures, and

were not, as is commonly said, plundered in the sack of Mantua in 1630.

They are now greatly damaged by patchy repaintings. Another work of

Mantegna's later years was the so-called "Madonna della Vittoria," now

in the Louvre. It was painted in tempera about 1495, in commemoration of

the battle of Fornovo, which Gianfrancesco Gonzaga found it convenient

to represent to his lieges as an Italian victory, though in fact it had

been a French victory; the church which originally housed the picture

was built from Mantegna's own design. The Madonna is here depicted with

various saints, the archangel Michael and St Maurice holding her mantle,

which is extended over the kneeling Gianfrancesco Gonzaga, amid a

profusion of rich festooning and other accessory. Though not in all

respects of his highest order of execution, this counts among the most

obviously beautiful and attractive of Mantegna's works--from which the

qualities of beauty and attraction are often excluded, in the stringent

pursuit of those other excellences more germane to his severe genius,

tense energy passing into haggard passion.

Vasari eulogizes Mantegna for his courteous, distinguished and

praiseworthy deportment, although there are indications of his having

been not a little litigious in disposition. With his fellow-pupils at

Padua he had been affectionate; and for two of them, Dario da Trevigi

and Marco Zoppo, he retained a steady friendship. That he had a high

opinion of himself was natural, for no artist of his epoch could produce

more manifest vouchers of marked and progressive attainment. He became

very expensive in his habits, fell at times into difficulties, and had

to urge his valid claims upon the marquis's attention. After his return

to Mantua from Rome his prosperity was at its height, until the death of

his wife. He then formed some other connexion, and became at an advanced

age the father of a natural son, Giovanni Andrea; and at the last,

although he continued launching out into various expenses and schemes,

he had serious tribulations, such as the banishment from Mantua of his

son Francesco, who had incurred the marquis's displeasure. Perhaps the

aged master and connoisseur regarded as barely less trying the hard

necessity of parting with a beloved antique bust of Faustina. Very soon

after this transaction he died in Mantua, on the 13th of September 1506.

In 1517 a handsome monument was set up to him by his sons in the church

of S. Andrea, where he had painted the altar-piece of the mortuary

chapel.

Mantegna was no less eminent as an engraver, though his history in

that respect is somewhat obscure, partly because he never signed or

dated any of his plates, unless in one single disputed instance, 1472.

The account which has come down to us is that Mantegna began engraving

in Rome, prompted by the engravings produced by Baccio Baldini of

Florence after Sandro Botticelli; nor is there anything positive to

invalidate this account, except the consideration that it would

consign all the numerous and elaborate engravings made by Mantegna to

the last sixteen or seventeen years of his life, which seems a scanty

space for them, and besides the earlier engravings indicate an earlier

period of his artistic style. It has been suggested that he began

engraving while still in Padua, under the tuition of a distinguished

goldsmith, Niccolò. He engraved about fifty plates, according to the

usual reckoning; some thirty of them are mostly accounted

indisputable--often large, full of figures, and highly studied. Some

recent connoisseurs, however, ask us to restrict to seven the number

of his genuine extant engravings--which appears unreasonable. Among

the principal examples are "Roman Triumphs" (not the same compositions

as the Hampton Court pictures), "A Bacchanal Festival," "Hercules and

Antaeus," "Marine Gods," "Judith with the Head of Holophernes," the

"Deposition from the Cross," the "Entombment," the "Resurrection," the

"Man of Sorrows," the "Virgin in a Grotto." Mantegna has sometimes

been credited with the important invention of engraving with the burin

on copper. This claim cannot be sustained on a comparison of dates,

but at any rate he introduced the art into upper Italy. Several of his

engravings are supposed to be executed on some metal less hard than

copper. The technique of himself and his followers is characterized by

the strongly marked forms of the design, and by the oblique formal

hatchings of the shadows. The prints are frequently to be found in two

states, or editions. In the first state the prints have been taken off

with the roller, or even by hand-pressing, and they are weak in tint;

in the second state the printing press has been used, and the ink is

stronger.

The influence of Mantegna on the style and tendency of his age was

very marked, and extended not only to his own flourishing Mantuan

school, but over Italian art generally. His vigorous perspectives and

trenchant foreshortenings pioneered the way to other artists: in solid

antique taste, and the power of reviving the aspect of a remote age

with some approach to system and consistency, he distanced all

contemporary competition. He did not, however, leave behind him many

scholars of superior faculty. His two legitimate sons were painters of

only ordinary ability. His favourite pupil was known as Carlo del

Mantegna; Caroto of Verona was another pupil, Bonsignori an imitator.

Giovanni Bellini, in his earlier works, obviously followed the lead of

his brother-in-law Andrea.

The works painted by Mantegna, apart from his frescoes, are not

numerous; some thirty-five to forty are regarded as fully

authenticated. We may name, besides those already specified--in the

Naples Museum, "St Euphemia," a fine early work; in Casa Melzi, Milan,

the "Madonna and Child with Chanting Angels" (1461); in the Tribune of

the Uffizi, Florence, three pictures remarkable for scrupulous finish;

in the Berlin Museum, the "Dead Christ with two Angels"; in the

Louvre, the two celebrated pictures of mythic allegory--"Parnassus"

and "Minerva Triumphing over the Vices"; in the National Gallery,

London, the "Agony in the Garden," the "Virgin and Child Enthroned,

with the Baptist and the Magdalen," a late example; the monochrome of

"Vestals," brought from Hamilton Palace; the "Triumph of Scipio" (or

Phrygian Mother of the Gods received by the Roman Commonwealth), a

tempera in chiaroscuro, painted only a few months before the master's

death; in the Brera, Milan, the "Dead Christ, with the two Maries

weeping," a remarkable _tour de force_ in the way of foreshortening,

which, though it has a stunted appearance, is in correct technical

perspective as seen from all points of view. With all its exceptional

merit, this is an eminently ugly picture. It remained in Mantegna's

studio unsold at his death, and was disposed of to liquidate debts.

Not to speak of earlier periods, a great deal has been written

concerning Mantegna of late years. See the works by Maud Crutwell

(1901), Paul Kristeller (1901), H. Thode (1897), Paul Yriarte (1901),

Julia Cartwright, _Mantegna and Francia_ (1881). (W. M. R.)