Chapter XVI: Part 16

MARIUS, GAIUS (155-86 B.C.), Roman general, of plebeian descent, the son of a small farmer of Cereatae (mod. _Casamare_, "home of Marius") near Arpinum. He served first in Spain under the great Scipio Africanus, and rose from the ranks to be an officer. In 119 as tribune he proposed a law intended to limit the influence of the nobles at elections. This brought him into conflict with the aristocratic party, who prevented him from obtaining the aedileship. When about forty years of age he married a lady of patrician rank, Julia, the aunt of Julius Caesar. This gave him a new social status, and being at the same time a popular favourite and a brave, energetic soldier, he was in 115 elected praetor, in which capacity he effected the subjugation of the troublesome province of Further Spain. In the war with Jugurtha (109-106) he came to the front as lieutenant of the consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. When he had already achieved some important successes over Jugurtha (q.v.), in 107 he was elected consul for the first time (an almost unheard-of honour for a "new man"), his popularity with the army and people being sufficient to bear down all opposition. In the following year, in conjunction with Sulla, he brought the war to a triumphant issue, and passed two years in his province of Numidia, which he thoroughly subdued and annexed. The surrender of the person of Jugurtha to Sulla gave rise to the view that he, not Marius, had really ended the war, and so laid the foundation of the subsequent enmity between the two leaders.

By this time Marius was generally recognized as the ablest general of the day, and was appointed to the chief command against the Cimbri and Teutones. Two Roman armies had been destroyed near the Lake of Geneva, and it seemed as if a repetition of the disaster of the Allia and the capture of Rome itself might not be impossible. Marius, out of unpromising materials and a demoralized soldiery, organized a well-disciplined army, with which he inflicted on the invaders two decisive defeats, the first in 102 at Aquae Sextiae (_Aix_), 18 m. north of Marseilles, and the second in the following year on the Raudian plain near Vercellae (_Vercelli_), about midway between Turin and Milan. For some centuries afterwards Rome remained unmolested by northern barbarians. In 101 Marius was elected consul a fifth time (previously in 107, 104, 103, 102), hailed as the "saviour of his country," and honoured with a triumph of unprecedented splendour.

The glorious part of his career was now over. Though a very able soldier, he was without the intellectual culture which the Gracchi, his political ancestors, possessed. As a politician he on the whole failed, though he retained the confidence of the popular party almost to the last. But he unfortunately associated himself with the demagogues _Saturninus_ (q.v.) and Glaucia, in order to secure the consulship for the sixth time (100). The manner in which he turned against his former associates (although he probably had no choice in the matter) alienated the sympathies of the plebs; and Marius, feeling that his only chance of rehabilitation lay in war, left Rome for Asia, where he endeavoured to provoke Mithradates to hostilities. On his return he served as legate in the Social War (90), and defeated the Marsi on two occasions. In 88 war broke out with Mithradates, and Sulla was appointed by the senate to the chief command, which was eagerly desired by Marius. This led to a rupture. With the assistance of the tribune Sulpicius Rufus, Marius succeeded in getting the command transferred to himself. Sulla marched upon Rome and defeated Marius, who fled to the marshes of Minturnae in Latium. He was discovered and taken prisoner; and the local magistrates, in accordance with Sulla's proclamation, resolved to put him to death. The Gallic trooper sent to strike off the old man's head quailed, it is said, before the fire of his eyes, and fled exclaiming, "I cannot kill Gaius Marius." The inhabitants out of compassion then allowed Marius to depart, and put him on board a ship which conveyed him to Carthage. When forbidden to land, he told the messenger to inform the governor that he had seen Marius sitting as a fugitive among the ruins of Carthage. Having been joined by his son, he took refuge in the island of Cercina. Meantime, Sulla having left Italy for the Mithradatic war, Cinna's sudden and violent revolution put the senate at the mercy of the popular leaders, and Marius greedily caught at the opportunity of a bloody vengeance, which became in fact a reign of terror in which senators and nobles were slaughtered wholesale. He had himself elected consul for the seventh time, in fulfilment of a prophecy given to him in early manhood. Less than three weeks afterwards he died of fever, on the 13th of January 86.

Marius was not only a great general, but also a great military reformer. From his time a citizen militia was replaced by a professional soldiery, which had hitherto been little liked by the Roman people. He further made the cohort the military unit instead of the maniple, and his cavalry and light-armed troops were drawn from foreign countries, so that it may be said that Marius was the originator of the mercenary army. The Roman soldier was henceforth a man who had no trade but war. A great general could hardly fail to become the foremost man in the state. Marius, however, unlike Caesar, did not attempt to overturn the oligarchy by means of the army; he used rather such expedients as the constitution seemed to allow, though they had to be backed up by riot and violence. He failed as a political reformer because the merchants and the moneyed classes, whom the Gracchi had tried to conciliate, feared that they would themselves be swept away by a revolution of which the mob and its leaders would be the ultimate controllers. Marius had a decided tinge of fanaticism and superstition. In canvassing for the consulship he was guided by the counsels of an Etruscan soothsayer, and was accompanied in his campaigns by a Syrian prophetess. The fashionable accomplishments of the day, and the new Greek culture, were wholly alien to his taste.

For the life of Marius the original sources are numerous passages in
Cicero's works, Sallust's _Jugurtha_, the epitomes of the lost books
of Livy, Plutarch's _Lives_ of Sulla and Marius, Velleius Paterculus,
Florus and Appian's _Bellum civite_. See F. D. Gerlach, _Marius und
Sulla_ (Basel, 1856); I. Gilles, _Campagne de Marius dans la Gaule_
(1870); W. Votsch, _Marius als Reformator des römischen Heerwesens_
(with notes and references to ancient authorities, 1886); A. H. J.
Greenidge, _History of Rome_, vol. i. (1904); also ROME: _History_,
II. "The Republic."

MARIVAUX, PIERRE CARLET DE CHAMBLAIN DE (1688-1763), French novelist and dramatist, was born at Paris on the 4th of February 1688. His father was a financier of Norman extraction whose real name was Carlet, but who assumed the surname of Chamblain, and then superadded that of Marivaux. M. Carlet de Marivaux was a man of good reputation, and he received the appointment of director of the mint at Riom in Auvergne, where and at Limoges the young Pierre was brought up. It is said that he developed literary tastes early, and wrote his first play, the _Père prudent et équitable_, when he was only eighteen; it was not, however, published till 1712, when he was twenty-four. His chief attention in those early days was paid to novel writing, not the drama. In the three years from 1713 to 1715 he produced three novels--_Effets surprenants de la sympathie_; _La Voiture embourbée_, and a book which had three titles--_Pharsamon_, _Les Folies romanesques_, and _Le Don Quichotte moderne_. All these books were in a curious strain, not in the least resembling the pieces which long afterwards were to make his reputation, but following partly the Spanish romances and partly the heroic novels of the preceding century, with a certain intermixture of the marvellous. Then Marivaux's literary ardour took a new phase. He fell under the influence of Antoine Hondar [d] de La Motte, and thought to serve the cause of that ingenious paradoxer by travestying Homer, an ignoble task, which he followed up (perhaps, for it is not certain) by performing the same office in regard to Fénelon. His friendship for La Motte, however, introduced him to the _Mercure_, the chief newspaper of France, where in 1717 he produced various articles of the "Spectator" kind, which were distinguished by much keenness of observation and not a little literary skill. It was at this time that the peculiar style called Marivaudage first made its appearance in him. The year 1720 and those immediately following were very important ones for Marivaux; not only did he produce a comedy, now lost except in small part, entitled _L'Amour et la vérité_, and another and far better one entitled _Arlequin poli par l'amour_, but he wrote a tragedy, _Annibal_ (printed 1737), which was and deserved to be unsuccessful. Meanwhile his worldly affairs underwent a sudden revolution. His father had left him a comfortable subsistence, but he was persuaded by friends to risk it in the Mississippi scheme, and after vastly increasing it for a time lost all that he had. His prosperity had enabled him to marry (perhaps in 1721) a certain Mlle Martin, of whom much good is said, and to whom he was deeply attached, but who died very shortly. His pen now became almost his sole resource. He had a connexion with both the fashionable theatres, for his _Annibal_ had been played at the Comédie Française and his _Arlequin poli_ at the Comédie Italienne, where at the time a company who were extremely popular, despite their imperfect command of French, were established. He endeavoured too to turn his newspaper practice in the _Mercure_ to more account by starting a weekly _Spectateur Français_ (1722-1723), to which he was the sole contributor. But his habits were the reverse of methodical; the paper appeared at the most irregular intervals; and, though it contained some excellent work, its irregularity killed it. For nearly twenty years the theatre, and especially the Italian theatre, was Marivaux's chief support, for his pieces, though they were not ill received by the actors at the Français, were rarely successful there. The best of a very large number of plays (Marivaux's theatre numbers between thirty and forty items) were the _Surprise de l'amour_ (1722), the _Triomphe de Plutus_ (1728), the _Jeu de l'amour et du hasard_ (1730), _Les Fausses confidences_ (1737), all produced at the Italian theatre, and _Le Legs_ (1736), produced at the French. Meanwhile he had at intervals returned to both his other lines of composition. A periodical publication called _L'Indigent philosophe_ appeared in 1727, and another called _Le Cabinet du philosophe_ in 1734, but the same causes which had proved fatal to the _Spectateur_ prevented these later efforts from succeeding. In 1731 Marivaux published the first two parts of his best and greatest work, _Marianne_, a novel of a new and remarkable kind. The eleven parts appeared in batches at intervals during a period of exactly the same number of years, and after all it was left unfinished. In 1735 another novel, _Le Paysan parvenu_, was begun, but this also was left unfinished. He was elected a member of the Academy in 1742. He survived for more than twenty years, and was not idle, again contributing occasionally to the _Mercure_, writing plays, "reflections" (which were seldom of much worth), and so forth. He died on the 12th February 1763, aged seventy-five years.

The personal character of Marivaux was curious and somewhat
contradictory, though not without analogies, one of the closest of
which is to be found in Goldsmith. He was, however, unlike Goldsmith,
at least as brilliant in conversation as with the pen. He was
extremely good-natured, but fond of saying very severe things,
unhesitating in his acceptance of favours (he drew a regular annuity
from Helvetius), but exceedingly touchy if he thought himself in any
way slighted. He was, though a great cultivator of _sensibilité_, on
the whole decent and moral in his writings, and was unsparing in his
criticism of the rising _Philosophes_. This last circumstance, and
perhaps jealousy as well, made him a dangerous enemy in Voltaire, who
lost but few opportunities of speaking disparagingly of him. He had
good friends, not merely in the rich, generous and amiable Helvetius,
but in Mme de Tencin, in Fontenelle and even in Mme de Pompadour, who
gave him, it is said, a considerable pension, of the source of which
he was ignorant. His extreme sensitiveness is shown by many stories.
He had one daughter, who took the veil, the duke of Orleans, the
regent's successor, furnishing her with her dowry.

The so-called Marivaudage is the main point of importance about
Marivaux's literary work, though the best of the comedies have great
merits, and _Marianne_ is an extremely important step in the
legitimate development of the French novel--legitimate, that is, in
opposition to the brilliant but episodic productions of Le Sage. Its
connexion, and that of _Le Paysan parvenu_, with the work not only of
Richardson but of Fielding is also an interesting though a difficult
subject. The subject matter of Marivaux's peculiar style has been
generally and with tolerable exactness described as the metaphysic of
love-making. His characters, in a happy phrase of Claude Prosper
Jolyot Crébillon's, not only tell each other and the reader everything
they have thought, but everything that they would like to persuade
themselves that they have thought. The style chosen for this is justly
regarded as derived mainly from Fontenelle, and through him from the
Précieuses, though there are traces of it even in La Bruyère. It
abuses metaphor somewhat, and delights to turn off a metaphor itself
in some unexpected and bizarre fashion. Now it is a familiar phrase
which is used where dignified language would be expected; now the
reverse. In the criticism of Crébillon's already quoted occurs another
happy description of Marivaux's style as being "an introduction to
each other of words which have never made acquaintance, and which
think that they will not get on together," a phrase as happy in its
imitation as in its satire of the style itself. This kind of writing,
of course, recurs at several periods of literature, and did so
remarkably at the end of the 19th century in more countries than one.
Yet this fantastic embroidery of language has a certain charm, and
suits perhaps better than any other style the somewhat unreal
gallantry and _sensibilité_ which it describes and exhibits. The
author possessed, moreover, both thought and observation, besides
considerable command of pathos.

The best and most complete edition of Marivaux is that of 1781 in 12
vols. reprinted with additions 1825-1830. The plays had been published
during the author's lifetime in 1740 and 1748. There are modern
editions by Paul de Saint Heylli Victor (1863), by G. d'Heylli (1876)
and by E. Fournier (1878), while issues of selections and separate
plays and novels are numerous. Of works concerning him J. Fleury's
_Marivaux et le Marivaudage_ (Paris, 1881), G. Larroumet's _Marivaux,
sa vie et ses oeuvres_ (1882; new ed., 1894), the standard work on the
subject, and G. Deschamps's _Marivaux_ (1897), in the _Grands
écrivains français_, are the most important. Separate articles on him
will be found in the collected essays of the chief modern French
critics from Sainte-Beuve onwards. (G. Sa.)

MARJORAM, (O. Fr. _majorane_, Med. Lat. _majorana_; not connected with _major_, greater, nor with _amaracus_), in botany, the common name for some aromatic herbs or undershrubs, belonging to the genus _Origanum_ (natural order Labiatae). Wild marjoram is _O. vulgare_, a perennial common in England in dry copses and on hedge-banks, with many stout stems 1 to 3 ft. high, bearing short-stalked somewhat ovate leaves and clusters of purple flowers. Sweet or knotted marjoram, _O. Marjorana_, and pot marjoram, _O. Onites_, are cultivated for the use of their aromatic leaves, either green or dry, for culinary purposes; the tops are cut as the plants begin to flower and are dried slowly in the shade.

MARK, ST, the traditional author of the second Gospel. His name occurs in several books of the New Testament, and doubtless refers in all cases to the same person, though this has been questioned. In the Acts of the Apostles (xii. 12) we read of "John, whose surname was Mark," and gather that Peter was a familiar visitor at the house of his mother Mary, which was a centre of Christian life in Jerusalem. That he was, as his Roman surname would suggest, a Hellenist, follows from the fact that he was also cousin ("nephew" is a later sense of [Greek: anepsios], see J. B. Lightfoot on Col. iv. 10) of Barnabas, who belonged to Cyprus. When Barnabas and Paul returned from their relief visit to Judaea (c. A.D. 46), Mark accompanied them (xii. 25). Possibly he had shown in connexion with their relief work that practical capacity which seems to have been his distinctive excellence (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 11). When, not long after, they started on a joint mission beyond Syria, Mark went as their assistant, undertaking the minor personal duties connected with travel, as well as with their work proper (xiii. 5). As soon, however, as their plans developed, after leaving Cyprus and on arrival at Perga in Pamphylia (see PAUL), Mark withdrew, probably on some matter of principle, and returned to Jerusalem (xiii. 13). When, then, Paul proposed, after the Jerusalem council of Acts xv., to revisit with Barnabas the scenes of their joint labours, he naturally demurred to taking Mark with them again, feeling that he could not be relied on should fresh openings demand a new policy. But Barnabas stood by his younger kinsman and "took Mark and sailed away to Cyprus" (xv. 38 seq.). Barnabas does not reappear, unless we trust the tradition which makes him an evangelist in Alexandria (Clem. _Hom._ i. 9 seq., cf. the attribution to him of the Alexandrine _Epistle of Barnabas_).

When Mark appears once more, it is in Paul's company at Rome, as a fellow-worker joining in salutations to Christians at Colossae (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24). We gather, too, that his restoration to Paul's confidence took place some time earlier, as the Colossians had already been bidden by oral message or letter to welcome him if he should visit them. This points to a reconciliation during Paul's last sojourn in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Not long after Col. iv. 10 Mark seems to have been sent by Paul to some place in the province of Asia, lying on the route between Ephesus and Rome. For in 2 Tim. iv. 11 Paul bids Timothy, "Pick up Mark and bring him with thee, for he is useful to me for ministering."

Once more Mark's name occurs in the New Testament, this time with yet another leader, Peter, the friend of his earliest Christian years in Jerusalem, to whom he attached himself after the deaths of Barnabas and Paul. Peter's words, "Mark, my son," show how close was the spiritual tie between the older and the younger man (1 Pet. v. 13); and as he is writing from Rome ("Babylon," since Paul's death and the change of policy it implied), this forms a link between the New Testament and early tradition, which speaks of Mark as an Evangelist writing his Gospel under the influence of Peter's preaching (in Rome). This is the essence of the tradition preserved from "the elders of former days" by Clement of Alexandria (in Eus. ii. 15, vi. 14), a tradition probably based on Papias's record (cf. Eus. iii. 39) of the explanation given by "the Elder" (John) as to the contrast in form between Mark's memoirs of Peter's discourses and the Gospel of Matthew (see GOSPELS; PAPIAS), but defining the place where these memoirs were written as Rome. That he acted to some degree as Peter's interpreter or dragoman ([Greek: hermêneus]), owing to the apostle's imperfect mastery of Greek, is held by some but denied by others (e.g. by Zahn). His rôle throughout his career was _servus servorum dei_; and the fact that he was this successively to Barnabas, Paul and Peter, helps to show the essential harmony of their message.

The identification of the author of the second Gospel with Mark, which we owe to tradition, enables us to fill in our picture of him a little further. Thus it is possible that Mark was himself the youth ([Greek: neaniskos]) to whom his Gospel refers as present at Jesus's arrest (xiv. 51 seq.; cf. his detailed knowledge as to the place of the last supper, 13 seq.). It is probably as evangelist, and not in his own person, that he became known as "he of the stunted extremities" ([Greek: kolobodaktulos], "curt-fingered"), a title first found in Hippolytus (_Haer._ vii. 30), in a context which makes its metaphorical reference to his Gospel pretty evident.[1] It was too as evangelist that he became personally a subject of later interest, and of speculative legends due to this, e.g. he was one of the Seventy (first found in Adamantius, _Dial. de recta fide_, 4th century), he was the founder of the Alexandrine Church (recorded as a tradition by Eusebius, ii. 16) and its first bishop (id. ii. 2), and was author of the local type of liturgy (cf. the _Acts of Mark_, ch. vii., not earlier than the end of the 4th century).

As to his last days and death nothing is really known. It is possible--even probable, if we accept the theory that he had already[2] been there with Barnabas--that Alexandria was his final sphere of work, as the earliest tradition on the point implies (the Latin _Prologue_, and Eusebius as above, probably after Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century), and as was widely assumed in the 4th century. That he died and was buried there is first stated by Jerome (_De vir. ill._ 8), to which his _Acts_ adds the glory of martyrdom (cf. Ps.-Hippolytus, _De LXX Apostolis_).

LITERATURE.--H. B. Swete, _The Gospel acc. to St Mark_ (1898),
Introduction, § I., where the authorities are fully cited; also the
art. in Hastings's _Dict. Bible_. The Patristic and other legends are
discussed at length by R. A. Lipsius, _Die apokr. Apostelgesch.
u.s.w._ (1884), ii. 2, and T. Schermann, _Propheten- und
Apostellegenden_ (1907), 285 seq. (with special reference to
Ps.-Hippolytus and Ps.-Dorotheus). (J. V. B.)

_Medieval Legends._

The majority of medieval writers on the subject state that Mark was a
Levite; but this is probably no more than an inference from his
supposed relationship to Barnabas. The Alexandrian tradition seems to
have been that he was of Cyrenaean origin; and Severus, a writer of
the 10th century, adds to this the statement that his father's name
was Aristobulus, who, with his wife Mary, was driven from the
Pentapolis to Jerusalem by an invasion of barbarians (Severus
Aschimon in Renaudot, _Hist. patriarch. alex._, p. 2). In the
apocryphal Acts of Barnabas, which profess to be written by him, he
speaks of himself as having been formerly a servant of Cyrillus, the
high priest of Zeus, and as having been baptized at Iconium. The
presbyter John, whom Papias quotes, says distinctly that "he neither
heard the Lord nor accompanied Him" (Eusebius, _loc. cit._); and this
positive statement is fatal to the tradition, which does not appear
until about two hundred and fifty years afterwards, that he was one of
the seventy disciples (Epiphanius, pseudo-Origen _De recta in Deum
fide_, and the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_). Various other
results of the tendency to fill up blank names in the gospel history
must be set aside on the same ground; it was, for example, believed
that Mark was one of the disciples who "went back" because of the
"hard saying" (pseudo-Hippolyt., _De LXX Apostolis_ in Cod. Barocc.
Migne, _Patrol. graec._ x. 955); there was an Alexandrian tradition
that he was one of the servants at the miracle of Cana of Galilee,
that he was the "man bearing a pitcher of water" in whose house the
last supper was prepared, and that he was also the owner of the house
in which the disciples met on the evening of the resurrection
(Renaudot, _loc. cit._); and even in modern times there has been the
conjecture that he was the "certain young man" who "fled naked" from
Gethsemane, Mark xiv. 51, 52 (Olshausen).

A tradition which was widely diffused, and which is not in itself
improbable, was that he afterwards preached the gospel and presided
over the church at Alexandria (the earliest extant testimony is that
of Eusebius, _H. E._ ii. 16, 1; ii. 24; for the fully-developed legend
of later times see Symeon Metaphrastes, _Vita S. Marci_, and Eutychius
_Origines ecclesiae Alexandrinae_). There was another, though perhaps
not incompatible, tradition that he preached the gospel and presided
over the church at Aquileia in North Italy. The earliest testimony in
favour of this tradition is the vague statement of Gregory of
Nazianzus that Mark preached in Italy, but its existence in the 7th
century is shown by the fact that in A.D. 629 Heraclius sent the
patriarchal chair from Alexandria to Grado, to which city the
patriarchate of Aquileia had been then transferred (_Chron. patriarch.
Gradens._, in Ughelli, _Italia sacra_, tom. v. p. 1086; for other
references to the general tradition see De Rubeis, _Monum. eccles.
aquileien._, c. 1; _Acta sanctorum_, ad April, xxv.). It was through
this tradition that Mark became connected with Venice, whither the
patriarchate was further transferred from Grado; an early Venetian
legend, which is represented in the Cappella Zen in the basilica of St
Mark, antedates this connexion by picturing the evangelist as having
been stranded on the Rialto, while it was still an uninhabited island,
and as having had the future greatness of the city revealed to him
(Danduli, _Chron._ iv. 1, ap. Muratori, _Rer. ital. script._ xii. 14).

The earliest traditions appear to imply that he died a natural death
(Eusebius, Jerome, and even Isidore of Seville); but the Martyrologies
claim him as a martyr, though they do not agree as to the manner of
his martyrdom. According to the pseudo-Hippolytus he was burned; but
Symeon Metaphrastes and the _Paschal Chronicle_ represent him to have
been dragged over rough stones until he died. But, however that may
be, his tomb appears to have been venerated at Alexandria, and there
was a firm belief at Venice in the middle ages that his remains had
been translated thither in the 9th century (the fact of the
translation is denied even by Tillemont; the weakness of the evidence
in support of the tradition is apparent even in Molini's vigorous
defence of it, lib. ii. c. 2; the minute account which the same writer
gives, lib., ii. c. 11, of the discovery of the supposed actual bones
of the evangelist in A.D. 1811, is interesting). There was another
though less widely accepted tradition, that the remains soon after
their translation to Venice were retranslated to the abbey of
Reichenau on Lake Constance; a circumstantial account of this
retranslation is given in the treatise _Ex miraculis S. Marci_, in
Pertz, _Mon. hist. german. script._, tom. iv. p. 449. It may be added
that the Venetians prided themselves on possessing, not only the body
of St Mark, but also the autograph of his Gospel; this autograph,
however, proved on examination to be only part of a 6th-century book
of the Gospels, the remainder of which was published by Bianchini as
the _Evangeliarium forojuliense_; the Venetian part of this MS. was
found some years ago to have been wholly destroyed by damp.

It has been at various times supposed that Mark wrote other works
besides the Gospel. Several books of the New Testament have been
attributed to him: viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews (Spanheim, _Op.
miscell._ ii. 240), the Epistle of Jude (cf. Holtzmann, _Die
synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 373), the Apocalypse (Hitzig, _Ueber
Johannes Marcus_, Zürich, 1843). The apocryphal _Acta Barnabae_
purport to have been written by him. There is a liturgy which bears
his name, and which exists in two forms; the one form was found in a
MS. of the 12th century in Calabria, and is, according to Renaudot,
the foundation of the three liturgies of St Basil, St Gregory
Nazianzen and St Cyril; the other is that which is used by the
Maronite and Jacobite Syrians. Both forms have been published by
Renaudot, _Liturg. oriental. collect_, i. 127, and ii. 176, and in
Neale's _History of the Holy Eastern Church_; but neither has any
substantial claim to belong to the ante-Nicene period of Christian
literature.

The symbol by which Mark is designated in Christian art is usually
that of a lion. Each of the "four living creatures" of Ezekiel and the
Apocalypse has been attributed to each of the four evangelists in
turn; Augustine and Bede think that Mark is designated by the "man";
Theophylact and others think that he is designated by the eagle;
Anastasius Sinaita makes his symbol the ox; but medieval art
acquiesced in the opinion of Jerome that he was indicated by the lion.
Most of the martyrologies and calendars assign April 25 as the day on
which he should be commemorated; but the _Martyr. Hieron._ gives the
23rd of September, and some Greek martyrologies give the 11th of
January. This unusual variation probably arises from early differences
of opinion as to whether there was one Mark or more than one.

See Canon Molini of Venice, _De vita et lipsanis S. Marci
Evangelistae_, edited, after the author's death, by S. Pieralisi, the
librarian of the Barberini library (1864); R. A. Lipsius, _Die
apokryphen Apostelgesch. und Apostellegenden_ (1883 foll). vol. ii.
part 2, pp. 321-353.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The divergent lines of the later attempts at a literal
interpretation--e.g. he amputated his thumb in order to escape the
Levitical priesthood (Latin _Prologue_), or it was a natural defect
(_Cod. Tolet._)--suggest that all they had to start from was the
epithet itself.

[2] Nicephorus Callistus, _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 43, assumes this in his
picturesque account of Mark's preaching in a quarter of the city
which seems to have contained the tomb of the early bishops of
Alexandria (cf. his _Acts_).

MARK, a word of which the principal meanings are in their probable order of development,--boundary, an object set up to indicate a boundary or position; hence a sign or token, impression or trace. The word in O. Eng. is _mearc_, and appears in all Teutonic languages, cf. Du. _merk_, Ger. _Mark_, boundary, _marke_, sign, impression; Romanic languages have borrowed the word, cf. Fr. _marque_, Ital. _marca_. Cognate forms outside Teutonic have been found in Lat. _margo_, "margin," and Pers. _marz_, boundary. Others would refer to the Lith. _margas_, striped, parti-coloured, and Sanskrit _marga_, trace, especially of hunted game. In the sense of boundary, or a tract of country on or near a boundary or frontier, "mark" in English usage proper is obsolete, and "march" (q.v.) has established itself. It still remains, however, to represent the German _mark_, a tract of land held in common by a village community (see MARK SYSTEM), and also historically the name of certain principalities, such as the mark of Brandenburg. The Italian _marca_ is also sometimes rendered by "mark," as in the mark of Ancona.

Mark is also the name of a modern silver coin of the German empire. This is apparently a distinct word and not of Teutonic origin; it is found in all Teutonic and Romanic languages, Latinized as _marca_ or _marcus_. The mark was originally a measure of weight only for gold and silver and was common throughout western Europe and was equivalent to 8 oz. The variations, however, throughout the middle ages were considerable (see Du Cange, _Gloss. med. et infim. Lat., s.v. Marca_ for a full list). In England the "mark" was never a coin, but a money of account only, and apparently came into use in the 10th century through the Danes. It first was taken as equal to 100 pennies, but after the Norman Conquest was equal to 160 pennies (20 pennies to the oz.) = 2/3 of the pound sterling, or 13s. 4d., and therefore in Scotland 13½d. English; the mark (merk) Scots was a silver coin of this value, issued first in 1570 and afterwards in 1663. The modern German _mark_ was adopted in 1873 as the standard of value and the money of account. It is of the value of 6.146 grains of gold, 900 fine, and is equal to English standard gold of the value of 11.747 pence. The modern silver coin, nearly equal in value to the English shilling, was first issued in 1875. (See NUMISMATICS, § iv.)

MARK, GOSPEL OF ST, the second of the four canonical Gospels of the Christian Church. Till quite recent times this Gospel, though nominally equal to the others in authority, has unquestionably not aroused the same interest or feelings of attachment as they have, partly from its not bearing the name of an apostle for its author, as the first and fourth do, partly, also, owing to the fact that the first and third, while they include most of what is found in it, contain much additional matter, which is of the highest value. Of late, however, it has acquired new importance through the critical inquiries which have led to the conclusion that the two other synoptic Gospels are based upon it, or upon a document which is upon the whole most truly represented in it (see GOSPEL), so that it possesses the advantage of being an earlier source of information, or at least of bringing us more fully into contact with such a source. The significance of all that we can learn as to the history of the composition of Mark's Gospel is clearly enhanced by this consideration.

(1) _Early Account of a Writing by Mark._--According to a fragment of Papias (ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ III. 39) taken from a work probably written c. A.D. 140, Mark, who was the follower and interpreter of Peter, recorded after the latter's decease the words of Christ and the narratives of His deeds which he had heard the Apostle deliver, but he could not arrange the matter "in order," because he had not himself been a personal follower of Jesus. This account Papias had derived, he tells us, from an informant who had heard it repeatedly given by "the elder," a Christian of the first generation.

There can be little doubt that the work to which Papias himself supposed this story to apply was the Gospel of Mark virtually as we know it. The tradition in regard to this work must have been continuous between his time and that of Irenaeus, who (c. A.D. 180) gives a similar account of its composition. It may be noted also that the same view of the origin of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been held by a contemporary of Papias, Justin Martyr. In his _Dialogue with Trypho_ (c. 106) he cites a fact about the name of Peter from "his Memoirs," and adds also another similar fact about the name given to the sons of Zebedee, just as they are stated in Mark iii. 16, 17, and nowhere else so far as we know. He may well have been ready to call the work "Peter's," though he believed that Mark actually composed it, on the ground that the latter recorded what the Apostle said (cf. ibid. c. 103).

But is our Gospel of Mark also to be identified with the writing by Mark spoken of by "the elder" whose account had been reported to Papias? Some confusion is here more conceivable; while, if it is supposed that such a writing was worked up in our second Gospel, this may seem sufficient to explain the connexion of Mark's name with the latter.

In support of this view it is urged, though it is so much less often now than it used to be, that the description "not in order" does not fit our Gospel of Mark, the order in which is from an historical point of view as good as, if not better than, in the other Gospels. But from whomsoever the expression proceeds--whether from Papias, or his informant, or "the elder"--we may feel sure that considerations such as appeal to us from our training in historical criticism are not those which suggested it, but rather the want of agreement between this Gospel and some standard which on altogether different grounds was applied to it. This argument, then, for supposing that the original writing by Mark differed widely in form and contents from the Gospel which now bears his name appears to be without force. The question whether the two differed to any, and if so to what, extent can be decided only from an examination of the Gospel itself.

(2) _The Question of the Integrity of the Gospel of Mark._--There are in a good many parts of this Gospel indications that the narrative has been derived from Simon Peter, or some one else who was a personal follower of Jesus in the days of His earthly ministry. It has been widely felt that the account of the call of the first four disciples and of the events which immediately followed (i. 15-39) at the opening of the Galilean ministry, bears strong marks of proceeding from Simon Peter. Other passages might be pointed out in which it is suitable to suppose that this disciple in particular was the informant. But we will content ourselves with noticing signs that the reminiscences of some eyewitness are recorded. (a) Traits appear which are wholly without importance, and upon which no stress is laid in the context, but which it was natural for a narrator who was actually present, and only for such a one to introduce, because he remembered them as associated with the principal events. The following are instances and others might be cited: the mention of "other boats," iv. 36; the half-foolish remark made by Peter when in a dazed condition at the Transfiguration, ix. 5, 6; the young man who, when Jesus was arrested, followed, "having a linen cloth cast about him," xiv. 51, 52; the fact that Simon of Cyrene was "coming from the country," xv. 21. (b) There is great truth of local colouring. The references to places and the descriptions of natural features (the lake-shore, i. 16; ii. 13; iii. 7; the hills near at hand, iii. 13; v. 5, 13; vi. 46; the desert places among the hills or by the shore, i. 35, 45; vi. 31, 32) appear to be accurate; the routes indicated in the journeys that are taken are probable (vii. 24, 31; viii. 27; x. 17, 32, 46; xi. 1). Again, the term "village-towns" (i. 38) is a remarkably appropriate one (cf. Josephus, B. I. III. iii. 2). There would, indeed, be an exception to the general correctness of the topography if we were compelled to suppose that "country of the Gerasenes" (which is the best reading according to existing MS. evidence at Mark v. 1) must mean the territory of the city of Gerasa. But it is easy to imagine that some confusion may have arisen in the transliteration of the name into Greek, and that the place really indicated is Khersa, near the middle of the eastern shore of the lake. The pair of references (vi. 45, 53) which might also be adduced as an exception, will be noticed below. Further, the conditions of life and thought in Palestine at the time in question are faithfully represented, Aramaic words spoken on some important occasions are preserved (iii. 17; v. 41; xv. 34). And, to mention a point of a different kind, the parts played by different sections among the Jewish people are such as might be expected. The point of view of speakers and actors is throughout that belonging to the time of the ministry of Jesus, not to that when the Christian Church had come into existence. (c) The good order in this Gospel, i.e. the natural development of the narrative, will be indicated below. It has without good reason, as we have seen, been supposed to show that it cannot be the record by Mark referred to by Papias. And in reality it would be difficult to account for this feature except on the supposition that one who had lived through the events had been accustomed, when required to give a comprehensive sketch of the history of the ministry and sufferings of Jesus, to relate the facts in the main as they happened; and that a hearer of his has to a considerable extent reproduced them in the same order.

The last consideration seems to show that the general form and structure of the Gospel, and not merely certain portions of it, are original. In point of style, also, there is a large amount of uniformity. The chief exceptions are that, whereas some incidents are related in a very concise manner (e.g. i. 23-28, and 40-45), there is in other cases considerable amplitude of description (see esp. v. 1-20, 35-43 and ix. 14-27). But Mark's own writing might exhibit this variety, according to what he had been told or could remember. Moreover, a tendency to amplitude of language may be noticed here and there in some of the more concise narratives. Further, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Mark, even if he relied chiefly on what he had heard Peter teach, would refrain from using any other sources of information which he possessed. Some have supposed that the same Logian document in Greek which was used by the first and third evangelists was also used by Mark. This is highly improbable, but he may have derived particular sayings from the Aramaic source itself of that document by independent translation; and may also have learned both sayings and narratives in other ways. It would seem also that the Discourse on the Last Things in ch. xiii., differing as it does both in its greater length and in its systematic structure from other discourses recorded by him, must have come to his hands in a written form. In it some genuine sayings of Christ appear to have been worked up along with matter taken from Jewish Apocalypses and in accordance with an Apocalyptic model.

There does not, then, seem to be good reason for thinking that the work which proceeded from the hands of Mark differed widely in character and contents from the Gospel which now bears his name. But there are indications that some passages have been interpolated in it: e.g. in Mark iv. 10 there is some want of fitness in the inquiry of the disciples as to the meaning of "the parables" after only one has been given, and again a want of agreement between that inquiry and the words of Jesus at _v._ 13, "Know ye not _this_ parable, and how shall ye know all the parables?" We notice further that the two parables in _vv._ 26-32 are somewhat loosely appended. It looks as if they were insertions in the passage as it originally stood, and that the references to parables in the plural, together with the statement at vv. 33, 34, had been introduced in order to adapt the context to these additions. This view is confirmed by the fact that in Luke viii. 4 seq. only one parable, that of the sower, is given or referred to. This evangelist has probably here followed the original form of Mark. Similarly the collection of sayings after Mark ix. 40 (vv. 41-50) has probably been interpolated. They are thrown together in a way unusual with Mark, who is accustomed to place each important saying in a setting of its own. Here again we note that they do not appear at the corresponding point in Luke, though some of them are given by him in other contexts. The account of the crossing of the lake (vi. 45-53) after the feeding of the five thousand furnishes an instance of a different kind. The difficulty as to the position of Bethsaida, or (if [Greek: eis to peran], "unto the other side," at v. 45 is taken to refer only to the crossing of a bay at the north-eastern corner of the lake) the discrepancy between "crossing" in this sense and in that of v. 53 would be explained if the narrative (which is not in Luke) may be held to be an interpolation by one not familiar with the localities. Once more, the account of the feeding of the four thousand (viii. 1-9) resembles that of the feeding of the five thousand (vi. 35-44) closely in all respects except that of the numbers given, about which differences might easily arise in tradition, and it looks therefore as if it might be a "doublet," i.e. another form of the same narrative derived through a different channel. And it is not so likely that Mark should have mistaken it for a distinct incident as that an editor of his Gospel should have done so. Some other instances, of greater or less probability, might be mentioned.

In addition to such larger insertions, the text of the original document seems to have undergone a certain amount of revision. Some of the cases in which the first and third evangelist agree against Mark in a word or clause may be best accounted for by their both having reproduced the common source (an example may be seen under 4 below).

As we have found it necessary to distinguish between the original composition by Mark, to whom in the main the work appears to be due, and some enlargement and alteration which it subsequently underwent whereby it reached its present form, these stages must be borne in mind in considering dates that may be assigned in connexion with this Gospel. According to Papias, Mark wrote after the death of Peter, i.e. after A.D. 64, if we suppose, as it is usual to do, that Peter was martyred in the massacre by Nero after the burning of Rome. It would be natural for Mark to set himself to make his record soon after the Apostle's death; and in confirmation of the view that he did so it may be pointed out that in the form of the prophecy in ch. xiii. of the calamities that were to come upon Jerusalem, no details occur of a kind to suggest that it had actually taken place. Further, Mark's work may very probably have been used by Luke in its original form. On the other hand, it was known to our first evangelist very nearly in the form in which we have it. The chief revision of Mark would seem, then, to have taken place between the times of the composition of the first and third Gospels, which cannot be far removed from one another (see MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF ST). The last twelve verses were added later still, probably early in the 2nd century, probably to take the place of the ending which had been lost, or which was regarded as defective. (On the evidence that the last 12 verses are not by the same hand as the rest of the Gospels see Westcott and Hort's _New Testament in Greek_, append., p. 29 seq. and Swete's _St Mark in loc._ and p. xcvi. seq. of his introduction.)

(3) _The Gospel History as represented in Mark._--After a (i)
prefatory passage, i. 1-13, the Gospel deals with (ii) _Christ's
ministry in Galilee and other parts of northern Palestine_, i. 14-ix.
50. This portion of the history may suitably be divided into three
periods: (a) _Early period._ From the opening of the work of Jesus to
the first plot to destroy Him (i. 14-iii. 6). (b) _Middle period._
From the gathering of crowds from all parts and appointment of the
Twelve to the sending forth of the Twelve to extend Christ's work and
the alarm of Herod (iii. 7-vi. 29). (c) _Closing period._ From
Christ's withdrawal with His disciples after their return from their
mission to His final departure from Galilee (vi. 30-ix. 50).
Throughout we can trace a development as to (a) the stir created and
the attitude of men towards Jesus: i. 32-34, 37 (excitement at
Capernaum); 38, 45 (fame spreads through a wide district); iii. 7, 8
(people from distant parts appear in the crowds); iv. 2 seq. (the word
of the Kingdom is received in very various ways); viii. 28 (great
diversity of opinions as to the claims of Jesus); (b) the opposition
to Him, ii. 1-iii. 6-iii. 22 (scribes come from Jerusalem and a more
heinous charge is preferred); (c) the formation of a band of disciples
and the position accorded to them: i. 16-20 (four are called to follow
Him); ii. 14 (yet another); iii. 14 (He "makes twelve" including those
before called); vi. 7 seq (He sends them out to preach and work
cures); (d) the methods which he adopts: i. 21, 39-iii. 1 (preaches in
the synagogues, later more commonly by the lake-shore or on the
mountain sides; or He teaches in a house where He happens to be); at
iv. 1 seq. he adopts a new mode of address because a sifting-process
was required; from vi. 45 onwards He mainly devotes Himself to the
training of the Twelve, while seeking retirement from the multitude;
(e) in the districts which he visits: i. 38 (tour in the neighbourhood
of Capernaum); v. 1 (crosses to eastern shore of the lake); vi. 6b (a
tour which includes Nazareth); vi. 45 (Bethsaida); vii. 31 (journey to
Tyre and Sidon and back through Decapolis); viii. 22, 27 (is at
Bethsaida and visits neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi); (f) His
self-revelation; viii. 27 seq. (first unambiguous declaration of His
Messiahship).

(iii) _The Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, the Last Days, Passion
and Resurrection_, x. 1 to end. He goes first to "the borders of
Judaea and beyond Jordan" (Peraea), and exercises His ministry there,
x. 1-16. In connexion with the journey from this region to Jerusalem
three striking incidents are recorded, x. 17-52. The account of the
time in Jerusalem includes a series of conflicts with opponents xi.
27-xii. 40, and the discourse on the Last Things, xiii. The only notes
of time in the Gospel occur in connexion with the conspiracy to kill
Jesus (xiv. 1) and the Last Supper (verse 12).

(4) _The Leading Ideas of St Mark._--Ch. i. 1, which stands as a title, was probably, even according to the short form of it which is supported by MS. evidence, due to a reviser of the original. Both Matthew and Luke show signs of having had a somewhat different beginning before them. Nevertheless, that title fitly describes the work. It is emphatically "the Gospel," because it sets forth the person and work of the Christ. The evangelist is conscious of this aim. It appears not only at great moments of the history such as the Baptism (i. 11), the confession of Peter (viii. 29), the Transfiguration (ix. 7); nor again merely in the prominence given to the miracles of Jesus and in particular to the casting out of devils, but also in many of the sayings recorded in it, as in the great series contained in the narratives in ch. ii. 5, 10, 17, 19; and again in the reply of Jesus to those who charged Him with being in collusion with Satan (iii. 27). The character of the genuine disciples of the Christ and the demands that are made of them form, as it were, the complement to the representation of what He Himself is, and are set forth in other striking sayings, related along with the memorable occasions on which they were spoken: (iii. 34, 35; viii. 34-36; ix. 23, 29, 35-37; x. 14, 15, 42-45).

See Swete, _Commentary on St Mark_ (2nd ed., 1902); A. Menzies, _The
Earliest Gospel_ (1901); D. W. Wrede, _Das Messiasgeheimniss in den
Evangelien, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständniss des
Markusevangeliums_ (1901); E. J. Weiss, _Das älteste Evangelium_
(1903). Also bibliography to the article GOSPEL. (V. H. S.)

MARKBY, SIR WILLIAM (1829- ), English jurist, the fourth son of the Rev. William Henry Markby, rector of Duxford St Peter's, was born at Duxford, Cambridge, in 1829. He was educated at Bury St Edmunds and Merton College, Oxford, where he took his degree in 1850. In 1856 he was called to the bar, and in 1865 he became recorder of Buckingham. In 1866 he went to India as judge of the High Court of Calcutta. This post he held for twelve years, and on his retirement was appointed Reader in Indian Law at Oxford. In 1892 he was a member of the Commission to inquire into the administration of justice at Trinidad and Tobago. Besides _Lectures on Indian Law_, he wrote _Elements of Law considered with reference to the General Principles of Jurisprudence_. The latter, being intended in the first place for Indian students, calls attention to many difficulties in the definition and application of legal conceptions which are usually passed over in textbooks, and it ranks as one of the few books on the philosophy of law which are both useful to beginners and profitable to teachers and thinkers. In 1897 appeared _The Indian Evidence Act, with Notes_. Sir William Markby also contributed to the law magazines, articles on _Law and Fact_, _German Jurists and Roman Law_, _Legal Fictions_, &c., several of which are embodied in the later editions of the _Elements_. He was made D.C.L. of Oxford in 1879, and K.C.I.E. in 1889.