[1] In the 17th century both "Martha's Vineyard" and "Martin's
Vineyard" were used, and the latter appears in a book as early as
1638 and in another as late as 1699, and on a map as late as 1670. It
seems probable that the original form was _Martin_ the name of one of
Gosnold's crew; according to some authorities the name Martha's
Vineyard was adopted by Mayhew in honour of his wife or daughter.
[2] Mayhew was born at Tisbury, Wiltshire, was a merchant in
Southampton, emigrated to Massachusetts about 1633, settled at
Watertown, Mass., in 1635; was a member of the Massachusetts General
Court in 1636-1644, and after 1644 or 1645 lived on Martha's
Vineyard.
[3] It appears from a letter from Mayhew to Governor Andros in 1675
that about 1641 Mayhew obtained a conveyance to Martha's Vineyard
from Richard Vines, agent of Gorges. See F. B. Hough, _Papers
Relating to the Island of Nantucket, with Documents Relating to the
Original Settlement of that Island, Martha's Vineyard, &c._ (Albany,
N.Y., 1856).
[4] In 1901, a boulder memorial was erected to the younger Mayhew on
the West Tisbury road, between the village of that name and
Edgartown, marking the spot where the missionary bade farewell to
several hundred Indians. The Martha's Vineyard Indians were subject
to the Wampanoag tribe, on the mainland, were expert watermen, and
were very numerous when the whites first came. Nearly all of them
were converted to Christianity by the Mayhews, and they were friendly
to the settlers during King Philip's war. By 1698 their numbers had
been reduced to about 1000, and by 1764 to about 300. Soon after this
they began to intermarry with negroes, and now only faint traces of
them remain.
MARTÍ, JUAN JOSÉ (1570?-1604), Spanish novelist, was born at Orihuela
(Valencia) about 1570. He graduated as bachelor of canon law at Valencia
in 1591, and in 1598 took his degree as doctor of canon law; in the
latter year he was appointed co-examiner in canon law at Valencia
University, and held the post for six years. He died at Valencia, and
was buried in the cathedral of that city on the 22nd of December 1604.
Martí joined the Valencian _Academia de los nocturnos_, under the name
of "Atrevimiento," but is best known by another pseudonym, Mateo Luján
de Sayavedra, under which he issued an apocryphal continuation (1602) of
Alemán's _Guzmán de Alfarache_ (1599). Marti obtained access to Alemán's
unfinished manuscript, and stole some of his ideas; this dishonesty
lends point to the sarcastic congratulations which Alemán, in the
genuine sequel (1604) pays to his rival's sallies: "I greatly envy them,
and should be proud that they were mine." Martí's book is clever, but
the circumstances in which it was produced account for its cold
reception and afford presumption that the best scenes are not original.
It has been suggested that Martí is identical with Avellaneda, the
writer of a spurious continuation (1614) to _Don Quixote_; but he died
before the first part of _Don Quixote_ was published (1605).
MARTIAL (MARCUS VALERIUS MARTIALIS), Latin epigrammatist, was born, in
one of the years A.D. 38-41, for in book x., of which the poems were
composed in the years 95-98, he is found celebrating his fifty-seventh
birthday (x. 24). Our knowledge of his career is derived almost entirely
from himself. Reference to public events enables us approximately to fix
the date of the publication of the different books of epigrams, and from
these dates to determine those of various important events in his life.
The place of his birth was Bilbilis, officially Augusta Bilbilis, in
Spain. His name seems to imply that he was born a Roman citizen, but he
speaks of himself as "sprung from the Celts and Iberians, and a
countryman of the Tagus;" and, in contrasting his own masculine
appearance with that of an effeminate Greek, he draws especial attention
to "his stiff Spanish hair" (x. 65, 7). His parents, Fronto and
Flaccilla, appear to have died in his youth (v. 34). His home was
evidently one of rude comfort and plenty, sufficiently in the country to
afford him the amusements of hunting and fishing, which he often recalls
with keen pleasure, and sufficiently near the town to afford him the
companionship of many comrades, the few survivors of whom he looks
forward to meeting again after his four-and-thirty years' absence (x.
104). The memories of this old home, and of other spots, the rough names
and local associations which he delights to introduce into his verse,
attest the enjoyment which he had in his early life, and were among the
influences which kept his spirit alive in the routine of social life in
Rome. But his Spanish home could impart, not only the vigorous vitality
which was one condition of his success as a wit and poet, but the
education which made him so accomplished a writer. The literary
distinction obtained by the Senecas, by Lucan, by Quintilian, who
belonged to a somewhat older generation, and by his friends and
contemporaries, Licinianus of Bilbilis, Decianus of Emerita, and Canius
of Gades, proves how eagerly the novel impulse of letters was received
in Spain in the first century of the empire. The success of his
countrymen may have been the motive which induced Martial to remove to
Rome when he had completed his education. This he did in A.D. 64, one
year before the fall of Seneca and Lucan, who were probably his earliest
patrons.
Of the details of his life for the first twenty years or so after he
came to Rome we do not know much. He published some juvenile poems of
which he thought very little in his maturer years, and he laughs at a
foolish bookseller who would not allow them to die a natural death (i.
113). Martial had neither youthful passion nor youthful enthusiasm to
make him precociously a poet. His faculty ripened with experience and
with the knowledge of that social life which was both his theme and his
inspiration; and many of his best epigrams are among those written in
his last years. From many answers which he makes to the remonstrances of
friends--among others to those of Quintilian--it may be inferred that he
was urged to practise at the bar, but that he preferred his own lazy
Bohemian kind of life. He made many influential friends and patrons, and
secured the favour both of Titus and Domitian. From them he obtained
various privileges, among others the _semestris tribunatus_, which
conferred on him equestrian rank. He failed, however, in his application
to the latter for more substantial advantages, although he commemorates
the glory of having been invited to dinner by him, and also the fact
that he procured the privilege of citizenship for many persons in whose
behalf he appealed to him. The earliest of his extant works, that known
by the name of _Liber spectaculorum_, was first published at the opening
of the Colosseum in the reign of Titus, and relates to the theatrical
performances given by him; but the book as it now stands was given to
the world in or about the first year of Domitian, i.e. about A.D. 81.
The favour of the emperor procured him the countenance of some of the
worst creatures at the imperial court--among them of the notorious
Crispinus, and probably of Paris, the supposed author of Juvenal's
exile, for whose monument Martial afterwards wrote a eulogistic epitaph.
The two books, numbered by editors xiii. and xiv., and known by the
names of _Xenia_ and _Apophoreta_--inscriptions in two lines each for
presents,--were published at the Saturnalia of 84. In 86 he gave to the
world the first two of the twelve books on which his reputation rests.
From that time till his return to Spain in A.D. 98 he published a volume
almost every year. The first nine books and the first edition of book x.
appeared in the reign of Domitian; and book xi. at the end of A.D. 96,
shortly after the accession of Nerva. A revised edition of book x., that
which we now possess, appeared in A.D. 98, about the time of the
entrance of Trajan into Rome. The last book was written after three
years' absence in Spain, shortly before his death, which happened about
the year A.D. 102 or 103.
These twelve books bring Martial's ordinary mode of life between the age
of five-and-forty and sixty very fully before us. His regular home for
five-and-thirty years was Rome. He lived at first up three pairs of
stairs, and his "garret" overlooked the laurels in front of the portico
of Agrippa. He had a small villa and unproductive farm near Nomentum, in
the Sabine territory, to which he occasionally retired from the bores
and noises of the city (ii. 38, xii. 57). In his later years he had also
a small house on the Quirinal, near the temple of Quirinus. At the time
when his third book was brought out he had retired for a short time to
Cisalpine Gaul, in weariness, as he tells us, of his unremunerative
attendance on the levées of the great. For a time he seems to have felt
the charm of the new scenes which he visited, and in a later book (iv.
25) he contemplates the prospect of retiring to the neighbourhood of
Aquileia and the Timavus. But the spell exercised over him by Rome and
Roman society was too great; even the epigrams sent from Forum Corneli
and the Aemilian Way ring much more of the Roman forum, and of the
streets, baths, porticos and clubs of Rome, than of the places from
which they are dated. So too his motive for his final departure from
Rome in A.D. 98 was a weariness of the burdens imposed on him by his
social position, and apparently the difficulties of meeting the
ordinary expenses of living in the metropolis (x. 96); and he looks
forward to a return to the scenes familiar to his youth. The well-known
epigram addressed to Juvenal (xii. 18) shows that for a time his ideal
was realized; but the more trustworthy evidence of the prose epistle
prefixed to book xii. proves that his contentment was of short duration,
and that he could not live happily away from the literary and social
pleasures of Rome. The one consolation of his exile was the society of a
lady, Marcella, of whom he writes rather as if she were his
patroness--and it seems to have been a necessity of his being to have
always a patron or patroness--than his wife or mistress.
During his life at Rome, although he never rose to a position of real
independence, and had always a hard struggle with poverty, he seems to
have known everybody, especially every one of any eminence at the bar or
in literature. In addition to Lucan and Quintilian, he numbered among
his friends or more intimate acquaintances Silius Italicus, Juvenal, the
younger Pliny; and there were many others of high position whose society
and patronage he enjoyed. The silence which he and Statius, although
authors writing at the same time, having common friends and treating
often of the same subjects, maintain in regard to one another may be
explained by mutual dislike or want of sympathy. Martial in many places
shows an undisguised contempt for the artificial kind of epic on which
Statius's reputation chiefly rests; and it seems quite natural that the
respectable author of the _Thebaid_ and the _Silvae_ should feel little
admiration for either the life or the works of the Bohemian
epigrammatist.
Martial's faults are of the most glaring kind, and are exhibited without
the least concealment. Living under perhaps the worst of the many bad
emperors who ruled the world in the 1st century, he addresses him and
his favourites with the most servile flattery in his lifetime, censures
him immediately after his death (xii. 6), and offers incense at the
shrine of his successor. He is not ashamed to be dependent on his
wealthy friends and patrons for gifts of money, for his dinner, and even
for his dress. We cannot feel sure that even what seem his sincerest
tributes of regard may not be prompted by the hope of payment. Further,
there are in every book epigrams which cannot be read with any other
feelings than those of extreme distaste.
These faults are so unmistakable and undeniable that many have formed
their whole estimate of Martial from them, and have declined to make any
further acquaintance with him. Even those who greatly admire his genius,
and find the freshest interest in his representation of Roman life and
his sketches of manners and character, do not attempt to palliate his
faults, though they may partially account for them by reference to the
morals of his age and the circumstances of his life. The age was one
when literature had either to be silent or to be servile. Martial was
essentially a man of letters: he was bound either to gain favour by his
writings or to starve. Even Statius, whose writings are in other
respects irreproachable, is nearly as fulsome in his adulation. The
relation of client to patron had been recognized as an honourable one by
the best Roman traditions. No blame had attached to Virgil or Horace on
account of the favours which they received from Augustus and Maecenas,
or of the return which they made for these favours in their verse. That
old honourable relationship had, however, greatly changed between
Augustus and Domitian. Men of good birth and education, and sometimes
even of high official position (Juv. i. 117), accepted the dole
(_sportula_). Martial was merely following a general fashion in paying
his court to "a lord," and he made the best of the custom. In his
earlier career he used to accompany his patrons to their villas at Baiae
or Tibur, and to attend their morning levées. Later on he went to his
own small country house, near Nomentum, and sent a poem, or a small
volume of his poems, as his representative at the early visit. The fault
of grossness Martial shares with nearly all ancient and many modern
writers who treat of life from the baser or more ridiculous side. That
he offends more than perhaps any of them is not, apparently, to be
explained on the ground that he had to amuse a peculiarly corrupt
public. Although there is the most cynical effrontery and want of
self-respect in Martial's use of language, there is not much trace of
the satyr in him--much less, many readers will think, than in Juvenal.
It remains to ask, What were those qualities of nature and intellect
which enable us to read his best work--even the great body of his
work--with the freshest sense of pleasure in the present day? He had the
keenest capacity for enjoyment, the keenest curiosity and power of
observation. He had also a very just discernment. It is rare to find any
one endowed with so quick a perception of the ridiculous who is so
little of a caricaturist. He was himself singularly free from cant,
pedantry or affectation of any kind. Though tolerant of most vices, he
had a hearty scorn of hypocrisy. There are few better satirists of
social and literary pretenders in ancient or modern times. Living in a
very artificial age, he was quite natural, hating pomp and show, and
desiring to secure in life only what really gave him pleasure. To live
one's own life heartily from day to day without looking before or after,
and to be one's self without trying to be that for which nature did not
intend him, is the sum of his philosophy. Further, while tolerant of
much that is bad and base--the characters of Crispinus and Regulus, for
instance--he shows himself genuinely grateful for kindness and
appreciative of excellence. He has no bitterness, malice or envy in his
composition. He professes to avoid personalities in his
satire;--"Ludimus innocui" is the character he claims for it. Pliny, in
the short tribute which he pays to him on hearing of his death, says,
"He had as much good-nature as wit and pungency in his writings" (_Ep._
iii. 21).
Honour and sincerity (_fides_ and _simplicitas_) are the qualities which
he most admires in his friends. Though many of his epigrams indicate a
cynical disbelief in the character of women, yet others prove that he
could respect and almost reverence a refined and courteous lady. His own
life in Rome afforded him no experience of domestic virtue; but his
epigrams show that, even in the age which is known to modern readers
chiefly from the _Satires_ of Juvenal, virtue was recognized as the
purest source of happiness. The tenderest element in Martial's nature
seems, however, to have been his affection for children and for his
dependents.
The permanent literary interest of Martial's epigrams arises not so much
from their verbal brilliancy, though in this they are unsurpassed, as
from the amount of human life and character which they contain. He,
better than any other writer, enables us to revive the outward spectacle
of the imperial Rome. If Juvenal enforces the lesson of that time, and
has penetrated more deeply into the heart of society, Martial has
sketched its external aspect with a much fairer pencil and from a much
more intimate contact with it. Martial was to Rome in the decay of its
ancient virtue and patriotism what Menander was to Athens in its
decline. They were both men of cosmopolitan rather than of a national
type, and had a closer affinity to the life of Paris or London in the
18th century than to that of Rome in the days of the Scipios or of
Athens in the age of Pericles. The form of epigram was fitted to the
critical temper of Rome as the comedy of manners was fitted to the
dramatic genius of Greece. Martial professes to be of the school of
Catullus, Pedo, and Marsus, and admits his inferiority only to the
first. But, though he is a poet of a less pure and genuine inspiration
he is a greater epigrammatist even than his master. Indeed the epigram
bears to this day the form impressed upon it by his unrivalled skill.
AUTHORITIES.--The MSS. of Martial are divided by editors into three
families according to the recension of the text which they offer. Of
these the oldest and best is represented by three MSS. which contain
only selected extracts. The second family is derived from an inferior
source, a MS. which was edited in A.D. 401 by Torquatus Gennadius; it
comprises four MSS. and contains the whole of the text. The third
family, of which the MSS. are very numerous, also contains the whole
of the text in a recension slightly different from that of the other
two; the best representative of this family is the MS. preserved in
the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh.
The best separate edition of the text is that of Lindsay (Oxford,
1902); earlier editions of importance are those of Schneidewin (1842
and 1853), and of Gilbert (Leipzig, 1886). The best commentary is that
of L. Friedländer (Leipzig, 1886) in two volumes with German notes)
and in the same scholar's _Sittengeschichte Roms_ much will be found
that explains and illustrates Martial's epigrams. There is a large
selection from the epigrams with English notes by Paley and Stone
(1875), a smaller selection with notes by Stephenson (1880); see also
Edwin Post, _Selected Epigrams of Martial_ (1908), with introduction
and notes. The translation into English verse by Elphinston (London,
1782) is famous for its absurdity, which drew an epigram from Burns.
(W. Y. S.)
MARTIALIS, QUINTUS GARGILIUS, a Latin writer on horticultural subjects.
He has been identified by some with the military commander of the same
name, mentioned in a Latin inscription of A.D. 260 (_C. I. L._ viii.
9047) as having lost his life in the colony of Auzia (_Aumale_) in
Mauretania Caesariensis. Considerable fragments of his work (probably
called _De hortis_), which treated of the cultivation of trees and
vegetables, and also of their medicinal properties, have survived,
chiefly in the body of and as an appendix to the _Medicina Plinii_ (an
anonymous 4th century handbook of medical recipes based upon Pliny,
_Nat. Hist._ xx.-xxxii.). Extant sections treat of apples, peaches,
quinces, almonds and chestnuts. Gargilius also wrote a treatise on the
tending of cattle (_De curis boum_), and a biography of the emperor
Alexander Severus is attributed by two of the Scriptores historiae
Augustae (Aelius Lampridius and Flavius Vopiscus) to a Gargilius
Martialis, who may be the same person.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Gargilii Martialis ... fragmenta_, ed. A. Mai (1846);
_Plinii secundi quae fertur medicina_, ed. V. Rose (1876); _De curis
boum_, ed. E. Lommatzsch (1903) with Vegetius Renatus's
_Mulomedicina_; "Gargilius Martialis und die Maurenkriege," C.
Cichorius in G. Curtius, _Leipziger Studien_, x. (1887), where the
inscription referred to above is fully discussed: see also
Teuffel-Schwabe, _Hist. of Roman Literature_ (Eng. trans.), § 380.
MARTIAL LAW. "Martial law" is an unfortunate term and in a sense a
misnomer. It describes a suspension of ordinary law, rendered necessary
by circumstances of war or rebellion. The confusion arose from the fact
that the marshal's court administered military law before the
introduction of articles of war, which were in their turn merged in the
Army Act. But martial law is not a law in the proper sense of the term.
It is the exercise of the will of the military commander, who takes upon
himself the responsibility of suspending ordinary law in order to ensure
the safety of the state. It is declared, by a proclamation issued by the
executive, that ordinary law is inadequate to cope with the
circumstances, and provides exceptional means of arrest and punishment
of persons who resist the government or aid the enemy. But such a
proclamation, while invariably issued in order to give publicity to the
suspension of ordinary law, does not invest the step with the force of
law. It is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the
laws and usages of war, and is limited by military necessity. Yet in
reality it is part of common law which justifies acts done by necessity
for the defence of the commonwealth when there is war. H. W. Halleck in
his work on International Law (i. 544), says, "Martial law originates
either in the prerogative of the crown, as in Great Britain, or from the
exigency of the occasion, as in other states: it is one of the rights of
sovereignty, and is essential to the existence of a state, as is the
right to declare or to carry on war."
This opinion, however, must be read, as regards the British Empire, with
the passage in the Petition of Right which is reproduced in the preamble
of each annual Army Act, and asserts the illegality of martial law in
time of peace in the following terms:--"No man shall be fore-judged or
subjected in time of peace to any kind of punishment within this realm
by martial law." Therefore, whilst martial law is declared illegal in
time of peace, it is indirectly declared lawful in time of war and
intestinal commotion when the courts are closed, or when there is no
time for their cumbrous action. C. M. Clode, in _Military Forces of the
Crown_, argues that the words of the Petition of Right and of the
Military Act since the reign of Anne are plain in this respect "that ...
the crown possesses the right of issuing commissions in war and
rebellion." But he rightly adds that the military commander may permit
the usual courts to continue their jurisdiction upon such subjects as he
thinks proper. Legislative enactments have also sanctioned this special
jurisdiction at various times, notably in 1798, 1799, 1801, and in 1803.
These enactments lay down that exceptional powers may be exercised
"whether the ordinary courts shall or shall not be open." As an
invariable rule an act of indemnity has been passed on the withdrawal of
martial law, but only to protect any person in charge of the execution
of martial law who has exceeded his powers in good faith.
There has been much discussion as to whether, in districts where martial
law has not been proclaimed, a person can be sent for trial from such
district into a district where martial law was in operation. It is
argued that if the ordinary courts were open and at work in the
non-proclaimed district recourse should be had to them. The Privy
Council in 1902 (_re_ Marais) refused leave to appeal where the Supreme
Court of Cape Colony had declined to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus in
these circumstances. Mr Justice Blackburn in his charge in _R._ v.
_Eyre_ says, "I have come to the conclusion that, looking at what
martial law was, the bringing of a person into the proclaimed district
to be tried might, in a proper case, be justified." The learned judge
admits that there should be a power of summary trial, observing all the
substantials of justice, in order to stamp out an insurrection by speedy
trial.
Whilst martial law is the will of the commanders, and is only limited by
the customs of war and the discretion of those who administer it, still,
as far as practicable, the procedure of military law is followed, and a
military court is held on the same lines as a court-martial. Charges are
simply framed without technicalities. The prisoner is present, the
evidence of prosecution and prisoner is taken on oath, the proceedings
are recorded, and the sentence of the court must be confirmed according
to the rules of the Army Act. Sentences of death and penal servitude
must be referred to headquarters for confirmation. In the South African
War (1899-1902) these limits of procedure were observed, and when
possible will always be.
Different Applications of Martial Law.
Entering more into detail, the term martial law has been employed in
several senses:--(1) As applied to the military forces of the crown,
apart from the military law under the old Mutiny Acts, and the present
annual Army Acts. (2) As applied to the enemy. (3) As applied to rebels.
(4) As applied to civilian subjects who are not in rebellion, but in a
district where the ordinary course of civil life cannot be maintained
owing to war or rebellion.
1. In regard to the military forces of the crown, the superseding of
justice as administered under the Army Act could only occur in a time of
great need; e.g. mutiny of five or six regiments in the field, with no
time to take the opinion of any executive authority. The officer in
command would then be bound to take measures for the purpose of
suppressing such mutiny, even to putting soldiers to death if necessary.
It would be a case where necessity forced immediate action.
2. Martial law as applied to the enemy or the population of the enemy's
country, is in the words of the duke of Wellington, "the will of the
general of the army, though it must be administered in accordance with
the customs of war."
3, 4. But it is as affecting the subjects of the crown in rebellion that
the subject of martial law really obtains its chief importance; and it
is in this sense that the term is generally used; i.e. the suspension of
ordinary law and the temporary government of the country, or parts of
it, or all of it, by military tribunals. It has often been laid down
that martial law in this sense is unknown to the law of England. A. V.
Dicey, for instance, restricts martial law to only another expression
for "the common right of the crown and its servants to repel force by
force, in the case of invasion, insurrection, or riot, or generally of
any violent resistance." But more than this is understood by the term
martial law.
When the proposition was laid down that martial law in this sense is
unknown to the law of England, it is to be remembered that fortunately
in England there never had been a state at all similar to that
prevailing in Cape Colony in 1900-1902, and it may perhaps be questioned
whether the statement would have been made with such certainty if
similar events had been present to the writers' minds.
In the charge delivered by Mr Justice Blackburn in the Jamaica case the
law as affecting the general question of martial law is well set out.
"By the laws of this country," said Mr Justice Blackburn, "beginning
at Magna Carta and getting more and more established, down to the time
of the Revolution, when it was finally and completely established, the
general rule was that a subject was not to be tried or punished except
by due course of law; all crimes are to be determined by juries
subject to the guidance of the judge; that is the general rule, and is
established law. But from the earliest times there was this also which
was the law, and is the law still, that when there was a foreign
invasion or an insurrection, it was the duty of every good subject, in
obedience to the officers and magistrates, to resist the rebels, ...
in such a case as that of insurrection prevailing so far that the
courts of law cannot sit, there must really be anarchy unless there is
some power to keep the people in order, ... before that principle the
crown claimed the prerogative to exercise summary proceedings by
martial law ... in time of war when this disturbance was going on,
over others than the army. And further than that, the crown made this
further claim against the insurgents, that whilst it existed, pending
the insurrection and for a short time afterwards, the crown had ...
the power to proclaim martial law in the sense of using summary
proceedings, to punish the insurgents and to check and stop the spread
of the rebellion by summary proceedings against the insurgents, so as
... to stamp out the rebellion. Now no doubt the extent to which the
crown had power to do that has never been yet decided. Our law has
been declared from time to time and has always been a practical
science, that is, the judges have decided so much as was necessary for
the particular case, and that has become part of the law. But it never
has come to be decided what this precise power is."
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the need has never arisen. It
has always been found possible to employ the ordinary courts directly
the rebels have been defeated in the field and have been made prisoners
or surrendered. "Fortunately in England only three occasions have arisen
since the Revolution when the authority of the civil power was for a
time, and then only partially, suspended," 1715, 1745 and 1780. Clode,
_Military Forces_, ii. 163, says: "Upon the threat of invasion followed
by rebellion in 1715, the first action of the government was to issue a
proclamation authorizing all officers, civil and military, by force of
arms (if necessary) to suppress the rebellion." This, therefore, would
only seem to fall within the limited sense in which Dicey understands
martial law to be legal, "the right of the crown and its servants to
repel force by force." There was no attempt to bring persons before
courts-martial who ought to be tried by the common law, and all the
extraordinary acts of the crown were sanctioned by parliament. After the
rebellion had been suppressed two statutes were passed, one for
indemnity and the other for pardon. Before the revolution of 1745
similar action was adopted, a proclamation charging civil magistrates to
do their utmost to prevent and suppress all riots, and acts of
parliament suspending Habeas Corpus, providing for speedy trials; and of
indemnity. In the Gordon Riots of 1780 a very similar course was
pursued, and nothing was done which would not fall within Dicey's
limitation. No prisoners were tried by martial law.
In Ireland the ordinary law was suspended in 1798-1801 and in 1803. In
1798 an order in Council was issued to all general officers commanding
H.M. forces to punish all persons acting in, aiding, or in any way
assisting the rebellion, according to _martial law_, either by death or
otherwise, as to them should seem expedient for the suppression and
punishment of all rebels; but the order was communicated to the Irish
houses of parliament, who expressed their approval by addresses to the
viceroy. It was during the operation of this order that Wolfe Tone's
case arose. Tone, a subject of the king, was captured on board a French
man-of-war, and condemned to death by a court-martial. Curran, his
counsel, applied to the king's bench at Dublin for a Habeas Corpus, on
the grounds that only when war was raging could courts-martial be
endured, not while the court of king's bench sat. The court granted his
application; but no ultimate decision was ever given, as Tone died
before it could be arrived at.
In 1799 application was made to parliament for express sanction to
martial law. The preamble of the act declared that "The Rebellion still
continues ... and stopped the ordinary course of justice and of the
common law; and that many persons ... who had been taken by H.M. forces
... have availed themselves of such partial restoration of the ordinary
course of the common law to evade the punishment of their crimes,
whereby it had become necessary for parliament to interfere." The act
declared that martial law should prevail and be put in force whether the
ordinary courts were or were not open, &c. And nothing in the act could
be held to take away, abridge or eliminate the acknowledged prerogative
of war, for the public safety to resort to the exercise of martial law
against open enemies or traitors, &c.
After the suppression of the rebellion an act of indemnity was passed in
1801.
In 1803 a similar act was passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom
as it was after the Act of Union. In introducing it Mr Pitt stated: "The
bill is not one to enable the government in Ireland to declare martial
law in districts where insurrection exists, for that is a power which
His Majesty already possesses--the object will be to enable the
lord-lieutenant, when any persons shall be taken in rebellion, to order
them to be tried immediately by a court-martial."
During the 19th century martial law was proclaimed by the British
government in the following places:--
1. Barbados, 1805-1816.
2. Demerara, 1823.
3. Jamaica, 1831-1832; 1865.
4. Canada, 1837-1838.
5. Ceylon, 1817 and 1848.
6. Cephalonia, 1848.
7. Cape of Good Hope, 1834; 1849-1851.
8. St Vincent, 1863.
9. South Africa, 1899-1901.
The proclamation was always based on the grounds of necessity, and
where any local body of a representative character existed it would
seem that its assent was given, and an act of indemnity obtained after
the suppression of the rebellion. (Jno. S.)
MARTIGNAC, JEAN BAPTISTE SYLVERE GAY, VICOMTE de (1778-1832), French
statesman, was born at Bordeaux on the 20th of June 1778. In 1798 he
acted as secretary to Sieyès; then after serving for a while in the
army, he turned to literature, producing several light plays. Under the
Empire he practised with success as an advocate at Bordeaux, where in
1818 he became advocate-general of the _cour royale_. In 1819 he was
appointed _procureur-général_ at Limoges, and in 1821 was returned for
Marmande to the Chamber of Deputies, where he supported the policy of
Villèle. In 1822 he was appointed councillor of state, in 1823 he
accompanied the due d'Angoulême to Spain as civil commissary; in 1824 he
was created a viscount and appointed director-general of registration.
In contact with practical politics his ultra-royalist views were
gradually modified in the direction of the Doctrinaires, and on the fall
of Villèle he was selected by Charles X. to carry out the new policy of
compromise. On the 4th of January 1828 he was appointed minister of the
interior, and, though not bearing the title of president, became the
virtual head of the cabinet. He succeeded in passing the act abolishing
the press censorship, and in persuading the king to sign the ordinances
of the 16th of June 1828 on the Jesuits and the little seminaries. He
was exposed to attack from both the extreme Left and the extreme Right,
and when in April 1829 a coalition of these groups defeated him in the
chamber, Charles X., who had never believed in the policy he
represented, replaced him by the prince, de Polignac. In March 1830
Martignac voted with the majority for the address protesting against the
famous ordinances; but during the revolution that followed he remained
true to his legitimist principles. His last public appearance was in
defence of Polignac in the Chamber of Peers in December 1830. He died on
the 3rd of April 1832.
Martignac published _Bordeaux au mois de Mars 1815_ (Paris, 1830), and
an _Essai historique sur les révolutions d'Espagne et l'intervention
française de 1823_ (Paris, 1832). See also E. Daudet, _Le Ministère de
M. de Martignac_ (Paris, 1875).
MARTIGUES, a port of south-eastern France in the department of
Bouches-du-Rhône, on the southern shore of the lagoon of Berre, and at
the eastern extremity of that of Caronte, by which the former is
connected with the Mediterranean. Pop. (1906), 4,178. Martigues is 23 m.
W.N.W. of Marseilles by rail. Divided into three quarters by canals, the
place has been called the Venice of Provence. It has a harbour (used by
coasting and fishing vessels), marine workshops, oil and soap
manufactures and cod-drying works. A special industry consists in the
preparation of _boutargue_ from the roes of the grey mullet caught in
the salt lagoons, which rivals Russian caviare.
Built in 1232 by Raymond Bérenger, count of Provence, Martigues was
made a viscountship by Joanna I., queen of Naples. Henry IV. made it a
principality, in favour of a princess of the house of Luxembourg. It
afterwards passed into the hands of the duke of Villars.
MARTIN, ST (c. 316-400), bishop of Tours, was born of heathen parents at
Sabaria (Stein am Agger) in Pannonia, about the year 316. When ten years
old he became a catechumen, and at fifteen he reluctantly entered the
army. While stationed at Amiens he divided his cloak with a beggar, and
on the following night had the vision of Christ making known to his
angels this act of charity to Himself on the part of "Martinus, still a
catechumen." Soon afterwards he received baptism, and two years later,
having left the army, he joined Hilary of Poitiers, who wished to make
him a deacon, but at his own request ordained him to the humbler office
of an exorcist. On a visit home he converted his mother, but his zeal
against the Arians roused persecution against him and for some time he
lived an ascetic life on the desert island of Gallinaria near Genoa.
Between 360 and 370 he was again with Hilary at Poitiers, and founded in
the neighbourhood the monasterium locociagense (Licugé). In 371-372 the
people of Tours chose him for their bishop. He did much to extirpate
idolatry from his diocese and from France, and to extend the monastic
system. To obtain privacy for the maintenance of his personal religion,
he established the monastery of Marmoutier-les-Tours (Martini
monasterium) on the banks of the Loire. At Trèves, in 385, he entreated
that the lives of the Priscillianist heretics should be spared, and he
ever afterwards refused to hold ecclesiastical fellowship with those
bishops who had sanctioned their execution. He died at Candes in the
year 400, and is commemorated by the Roman Church on the 11th of
November (duplex). He left no writings, the so-called _Confessio_ being
spurious. He is the patron saint of France and of the cities of Mainz
and Würzburg. The _Life_ by his disciple Sulpicius Severus is
practically the only source for his biography, but it is full of
legendary matter and chronological errors. Gregory of Tours gives a list
of 206 miracles wrought by him after his death; Sidonius Apollinaris
composed a metrical biography of him. The Feast of St Martin (Martinmas)
took the place of an old pagan festival, and inherited some of its
usages (such as the _Martinsmännchen_, _Martinsfeuer_, _Martinshorn_ and
the like, in various parts of Germany); by this circumstance is probably
to be explained the fact that Martin is regarded as the patron of
drinking and jovial meetings, as well as of reformed drunkards.
See A. Dupuy, _Geschichte des heiligen Martins_ (Schaffhausen, 1855);
J. G. Cazenove in _Dict. chr. biog._ iii. 838.
MARTIN (Martinus), the name of several popes.
MARTIN I. succeeded Theodore I. in June or July 649. He had previously
acted as papal apocrisiarius at Constantinople, and was held in high
repute for learning and virtue. Almost his first official act was to
summon a synod (the first Lateran) for dealing with the Monothelite
heresy. It met in the Lateran church, was attended by one hundred and
five bishops (chiefly from Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, a few being from
Africa and other quarters), held five sessions or "secretarii" from the
5th to the 31st of October 649, and in twenty canons condemned the
Monothelite heresy, its authors, and the writings by which it had been
promulgated. In this condemnation were included, not only the _Ecthesis_
or exposition of faith of the patriarch Sergius for which the emperor
Heraclius had stood sponsor, but also the Typus of Paul, the successor
of Sergius, which had the support of the reigning emperor (Constans
II.). Martin published the decrees of his Lateran synod in an
encyclical, and Constans replied by enjoining his exarch to seize the
pope and send him prisoner to Constantinople. Martin was arrested in the
Lateran (June 15, 653), hurried out of Rome, and conveyed first to Naxos
and subsequently to Constantinople (Sept. 17, 654). He was ultimately
banished to Cherson, where he arrived on the 26th of March 655, and died
on the 16th of September following. His successor was Eugenius I. (L.
D.*)
A full account of the events of his pontificate will be found in
Hefele's _Conciliengeschichte_, vol. iii. (1877).
MARTIN II., the name commonly given in error to Marinus I. (q.v.).
MARTIN III., see Marinus II.
MARTIN IV. (Simon Mompitié de Brion), pope from the 22nd of February
1281 to the 28th of March 1285, should have been named Martin II. He was
born about 1210 in Touraine. He became a priest at Rouen and canon of St
Martin's at Tours, and was made chancellor of France by Louis IX. in
1260 and cardinal-priest of Sta Cecilia by Urban IV. in 1261. As papal
legate in France he held several synods for the reformation of the
clergy and conducted the negotiations for the assumption of the crown of
Sicily by Charles of Anjou. It was through the latter's influence that
he succeeded Nicholas III., after a six-months' struggle between the
French and Italian cardinals. The Romans at first declined to receive
him, and he was consecrated at Orvieto on the 23rd of March 1281.
Peaceful and unassuming, he relied completely on Charles of Anjou, and
showed little ability as pope. His excommunication of the emperor
Michael Palaeologus (Nov. 1281), who stood in the way of the French
projects against Greece, weakened the union with the Eastern Christians,
dating from the Lyons Council of 1274. He unduly favoured his own
countrymen, and for three years after the Sicilian Vespers (Mar. 31,
1282) he employed all the spiritual and material resources at his
command on behalf of his patron against Peter of Aragon. He was driven
from Rome by a popular uprising and died at Perugia. His successor was
Honorius IV. (C. H. Ha.)
His registers have been published in the _Bibliothèque des écoles
françaises d'Athènes et de Rome_ (Paris, 1901).
See A. Potthast, _Regesta pontif. roman._, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1875); K.
J. von Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_, Bd. 6, 2nd ed.; F. Gregorovius,
_Rome in the Middle Ages_, vol. 5, trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton
(London, 1900-1902); H. H. Milman, _Latin Christianity_, vol. 6
(London, 1899); W. Norden, _Das Papsttum u. Byzanz_ (Berlin, 1903); E.
Choullier, "Recherches sur la vie du pape Martin IV.," in _Revue de
Champagne_, vol. 4 (1878); _Processo istorico dell' insurrezione di
Sicilia dell' anno 1282_, ed. by G. di Marzo (Palermo, 1882).
MARTIN V. (Otto Colonna) (1417-1431) was elected at Constance on St
Martin's Day, in a conclave composed of twenty-three cardinals and
thirty delegates from the five different "nations" of the council. Son
of Agapito Colonna, who had himself become a bishop and cardinal, the
new pope belonged to one of the greatest Roman families; to Urban VI.
had been due his entry, as _referendarius_, upon an ecclesiastical
career. Having become a cardinal under Innocent VII., he had seceded
from Gregory XII. in 1408, and together with the other cardinals at
Pisa, had taken part in the election of Alexander V. and afterwards of
John XXIII. At Constance, his rôle had been chiefly that of an arbiter;
he was a good and gentle man, leading a simple life, free from intrigue.
While refraining from making any pronouncement as to the validity of the
decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions, which had seemed to proclaim
the superiority of the council over the pope, Martin V. nevertheless
soon revealed his personal feelings by having a constitution read in
consistory which forbade any appeal from the judgment of the sovereign
pontiff in matters of faith (May 10, 1418). As to the reform, of which
everybody felt the necessity, the fathers in council had not succeeded
in arriving at any agreement. Martin V. himself settled a great number
of points, and then passed a series of special concordats with Germany,
France, Italy, Spain and England. Though this was not the thorough
reform of which need was felt, the council itself gave the pope a
_satisfecit_. When the council was dissolved Martin V. made it his task
to regain Italy. After staying for long periods at Mantua and Florence,
where the deposed pope, Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII.), came and made
submission to him, Martin V. was enabled to enter Rome (Sept. 30, 1420)
and measure the extent of the ruins left there by the Great Schism of
the West. He set to work to restore some of these ruins, to reconstitute
and pacify the Papal State, to put an end to the Schism, which showed
signs of continuing in Aragon and certain parts of southern France; to
enter into negotiations, unfortunately unfruitful, with the Greek Church
also with a view to a return to unity, to organize the struggle against
heresy in Bohemia; to interpose his pacific mediation between France and
England, as well as between the parties which were rending France; and,
finally, to welcome and act as patron to saintly reformers like
Bernardino of Siena and Francesca Romana, foundress of the nursing
sisterhood of the Oblate di Tor de' Specchi (1425).
In accordance with the decree _Frequens_, and the promises which he had
made, Martin V., after an interval of five years, summoned a new
council, which was almost immediately transferred from Pavia to Siena,
in consequence of an epidemic (1423). But the small number of fathers
who attended at the latter town, and above all, the disquieting
tendencies which began to make themselves felt there, induced the pope
to force on a dissolution of the synod. Pending the reunion of the new
council which had been summoned at Basel for the end of a period of
seven years, Martin V. himself endeavoured to effect a reformation in
certain points, but he was carried off by apoplexy (Feb. 20, 1431), just
as he had designated the young and brilliant Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini
to preside in his place over the council of Basel.
See L. Pastor, _Geschichte der Päpste_ (1901), i. 205-279; J. Guiraud,
_L'État pontifical après le Grand Schisme_ (1896); Müntz, _Les Arts à
la cour des papes pendant le xv^e et le xvi^e siècle_ (1878); N.
Valois, _La Crise religieuse du xv^e siècle; le pape et le concile_
(1909), vol. i. p. i.-xxix., 1-93. (N. V.)
MARTIN, BON LOUIS HENRI (1810-1883), French historian, was born on the
20th of February 1810 at St Quentin (Aisne), where his father was a
judge. Trained as a notary, he followed this profession for some time
but having achieved success with an historical romance, _Wolfthurm_
(1830), he applied himself to historical research. Becoming associated
with Paul Lacroix ("le Bibliophile Jacob"), he planned with him a
history of France, to consist of excerpts from the chief chroniclers and
historians, with original matter filling up gaps in the continuity. The
first volume, which appeared in 1833, encouraged the author to make the
work his own, and his _Histoire de France_, in fifteen volumes
(1833-1836), was the result. This _magnum opus_, rewritten and further
elaborated (4th ed., 16 vols. and index, 1861-1865) gained for the
author in 1856 the first prize of the Academy, and in 1869 the grand
biennial prize of 20,000 francs. A popular abridgment in seven volumes
was published in 1867. This, together with the continuation, _Histoire
de France depuis 1789 jusqu'à nos jours_ (6 vols. 1878-1883), gives a
complete history of France, and superseded Sismondi's _Histoire des
Français_.
This work is in parts defective; Martin's descriptions of the Gauls are
based rather on romance than on history, and in this respect he was too
much under the influence of Jean Reynaud and his cosmogonic philosophy.
However he gave a great impetus to Celtic and anthropological studies.
His knowledge of the middle ages is inadequate, and his criticisms are
not discriminating. As a free-thinking republican, his prejudices often
biassed his judgment on the political and religious history of the
_ancien régime_. The last six volumes, devoted to the 17th and 18th
centuries, are superior to the earlier ones. Martin sat in the
_assemblée nationale_ as deputy for Aisne in 1871, and was elected life
senator in 1878, but he left no mark as a politician. He died in Paris
on the 14th of December 1883.
Among his minor works may be mentioned:--_De la France, de son génie
et de ses destinées_ (1847); _Daniel Manin_ (1860), _La Russie et
l'Europe_ (1866); _Études d'archéologie celtique_ (1872); _Les
Napoléon et les frontières de la France_ (1874). See his biography by
Gabriel Hanotaux, _Henri Martin; sa vie, ses oeuvres, son temps_
(1885).
MARTIN, CLAUD (1735-1800), French adventurer and officer in the army of
the English East India Company, was born at Lyons on the 4th of January
1735, the son of a cooper. He went out to India in 1751 to serve under
Dupleix and Lally in the Carnatic wars. When Pondicherry fell in 1761,
he seems, like others of his countrymen, to have accepted service in the
Bengal army of the English, obtaining an ensign's commission in 1763,
and steadily rising to the rank of major-general. He was employed on the
building of the new Fort William at Calcutta, and afterwards on the
survey of Bengal under Rennell. In 1776 he was allowed to accept the
appointment of superintendent of the arsenal of the nawab of Oudh at
Lucknow, retaining his rank but being ultimately placed on half pay. He
acquired a large fortune, and on his death (Sept. 13, 1800) he
bequeathed his residuary estate to found institutions for the education
of European children at Lucknow, Calcutta and Lyons, all known by the
name of "La Martinière." That at Lucknow is the best known. It was
housed in the palace that he had built called Constantia, which, though
damaged during the Mutiny, retains many personal memorials of its
founder.
See S. C. Hill, _The Life of Claud Martin_ (Calcutta, 1901).
MARTIN, FRANÇOIS XAVIER (1762-1846), American jurist and author, was
born in Marseilles, France, on the 17th of March 1762, of Provençal
descent. In 1780 he went to Martinique, and before the close of the
American war of Independence went to North Carolina, where (in New Bern)
he taught French and learnt English, and set up as a printer. He studied
law, and was admitted to the North Carolina bar in 1789. He published
various legal books, and edited _Acts of the North Carolina Assembly
from 1715 to 1803_ (2nd ed., 1809). He was a member of the lower house
of the General Assembly in 1806-1807. In 1809 he was commissioned a
judge of the superior court of the territory of Mississippi, and in
March 1810 became judge of the superior court of the territory of
Orleans. Here the law was in a chaotic condition, what with French law
before O'Reilly's rule, then a Spanish code, and in 1808 the Digest of
the Civil Laws, an adaptation by James Brown and Moreau Lislet of the
code of Napoleon, which repealed the Spanish fueros, partidas,
recopilationes and laws of the Indies only as they conflicted with its
provisions. Martin published in 1811 and 1813 reports of cases decided
by the superior court of the territory of Orleans. For two years from
February 1813 Martin was attorney-general of the newly established state
of Louisiana, and then until March 1846 was a judge and (from 1836 to
1846) presiding judge of the supreme court of the state. For the period
until 1830 he published reports of the decisions of the supreme court;
and in 1816 he published two volumes, one French and one English, of _A
General Digest of the Acts of Legislatures of the Late Territory of
Orleans and of the State of Louisiana_. He won the name of the "father
of Louisiana jurisprudence" and his work was of great assistance to
Edward Livingston, Pierre Derbigny and Moreau Lislet in the Louisiana
codification of 1821-1826. Martin's eyesight had begun to fail when he
was seventy, and after 1836 he could no longer write opinions with his
own hand.[1] He died in New Orleans on the 11th of December 1846.
Martin translated Robert J. Pothier _On Obligations_ (1802), and wrote
_The History of Louisiana from the Earliest Period_ (2 vols.
1827-1829) and _The History of North Carolina_ (2 vols., 1829). There
is a memoir by Henry A. Bullard in part ii. of B. F. French's
_Historical Collections of Louisiana_ (Philadelphia, 1850), and one by
W. W. Howe in John F. Condon's edition of Martin's _History of
Louisiana_ (New Orleans, 1882).