Chapter VII: Part 7

The life of Martineau was so essentially the life of the thinker, and was so typical of the century in which he lived and the society within which he moved, that he can be better understood through his spoken mind than through his outward history. He was a man happy in his ancestry; he inherited the dignity, the reserve, the keen and vivid intellect, and the picturesque imagination of the French Huguenot, though they came to him chastened and purified by generations of Puritan discipline exercised under the gravest ecclesiastical disabilities, and of culture maintained in the face of exclusion from academic privileges. He had the sweet and patient temper which knew how to live, unrepining and unsoured, in the midst of the most watchful persecution, public and private; and it is wonderful how rarely he used his splendid rhetoric for the purposes of invective against the spirit and policy from which he must have suffered deeply, while, it may be added, he never hid an innuendo under a metaphor or a trope. He was fundamentally too much a man of strong convictions to be correctly described as open-minded, for if nature ever determined any man's faith, it was his; the root of his whole intellectual life, which was too deep to be disturbed by any superficial change in his philosophy, being the feeling for God. He has, indeed, described in graphic terms the greatest of the more superficial changes he underwent; how he had "carried into logical and ethical problems the maxims and postulates of physical knowledge," and had moved within the narrow lines drawn by the philosophical instructions of the class-room "interpreting human phenomena by the analogy of external nature"; how he served in willing captivity "the 'empirical' and 'necessarian' mode of thought," even though "shocked" by the dogmatism and acrid humours "of certain distinguished representatives";[6] and how in a period of "second education" at Berlin, "mainly under the admirable guidance of Professor Trendelenburg," he experienced "a new intellectual birth" which "was essentially the gift of fresh conceptions, the unsealing of hidden openings of self-consciousness, with unmeasured corridors and sacred halls behind; and, once gained, was more or less available throughout the history of philosophy, and lifted the darkness from the pages of Kant and even Hegel."[7] But though this momentous change of view illuminated his old beliefs and helped him to re-interpret and re-articulate them, yet it made him no more of a theist than he had been before. And as his theism was, so was his religion and his philosophy. Certainly it was true of him, in a far higher degree than of John Henry Newman, that the being of God and himself were to his mind two absolutely self-luminous truths--though both his God and his self were almost infinitely remote from Newman's. And as these truths were self-evident, so the religion he deduced from them was sufficient, not only for his own moral and intellectual nature, but also for man as he conceived him, for history as he knew it, and for society as he saw it.

We may, alternatively, describe Martineau's religion as his applied
philosophy or his philosophy as his explicated religion, and both as
the expression of his singularly fine ethical and reverent nature.
But to understand these in their mutual and explanatory relations it
will be necessary to exhibit the conditions under which his thought
grew into consistency and system. His main function made him in his
early life a preacher even more emphatically than a teacher. In all he
said and all he thought he had the preacher's end in view. He was,
indeed, no mere orator or speaker to multitudes. He addressed a
comparatively small and select circle, a congregation of thoughtful
and devout men, who cultivated reverence and loved religion all the
more that their own beliefs were limited to the simplest and sublimest
truths. He felt the majesty of these truths to be the greater that
they so represented to him not only the most fundamental of human
beliefs, but also all that man could be reasonably expected to
believe, though to believe with his whole reason. Hence the beliefs he
preached were never to him mere speculative ideas, but rather the
ultimate realities of being and thought, the final truths as to the
character and ways of God interpreted into a law for the government of
conscience and the regulation of life. And so he became a positive
religious teacher by virtue of the very ideas that made the words of
the Hebrew prophets so potent and sublime. But he did more than
interpret to his age the significance of man's ultimate theistic
beliefs, he gave them vitality by reading them through the
consciousness of Jesus Christ. His religion was what he conceived the
personal religion of Jesus to have been; and He was to him more a
person to be imitated than an authority to be obeyed, rather an ideal
to be revered than a being to be worshipped.

Martineau's mental qualities fitted him to fulfil these high
interpretative functions. He had the imagination that invested with
personal being and ethical qualities the most abstruse notions. To him
space became a mode of divine activity, alive with the presence and
illuminated by the vision of God; time was an arena where the divine
hand guided and the divine will reigned. And though he did not believe
in the Incarnation, yet he held deity to be in a sense manifest in
humanity; its saints and heroes became, in spite of innumerable
frailties, after a sort divine; man underwent an apotheosis, and all
life was touched with the dignity and the grace which it owed to its
source. The 19th century had no more reverent thinker than Martineau;
the awe of the Eternal was the very atmosphere that he breathed, and
he looked at man with the compassion of one whose thoughts were full
of God.

To his function as a preacher we owe some of his most characteristic
and stimulating works, especially the discourses by which it may be
said he won his way to wide and influential recognition--_Endeavours
after the Christian Life_, 1st series, 1843; 2nd series, 1847; _Hours
of Thought_, 1st series, 1876; 2nd series, 1879; the various
hymn-books he issued at Dublin in 1831, at Liverpool in 1840, in
London in 1873; and the _Home Prayers_ in 1891. But besides the
vocation he had freely selected and assiduously laboured to fulfil,
two more external influences helped to shape Martineau's mind and
define his problem and his work; the awakening of English thought to
the problems which underlie both philosophy and religion, and the new
and higher opportunities offered for their discussion in the
periodical press. The questions which lived in the earlier and more
formative period of his life concerned mainly the idea of the church,
the historical interpretation of the documents which described the
persons who had created the Christian religion, especially the person
and work of its founder; but those most alive in his later and maturer
time chiefly related to the philosophy of religion and ethics. In one
respect Martineau was singularly happy; he just escaped the active
and, on the whole, belittling period of the old Unitarian controversy.
When his ministry began its fires were slowly dying down, though the
embers still glowed. We feel its presence in his earliest notable
work, _The Rationale of Religious Enquiry_, 1836; and may there see
the rigour with which it applied audacious logic to narrow premisses,
the tenacity with which it clung to a limited literal supernaturalism
which it had no philosophy to justify, and so could not believe
without historical and verbal authority. This traditional conservatism
survived in the statement, which, while it caused vehement discussion
when the book appeared, was yet not so much characteristic of the man
as of the school in which he had been trained, that "in no
intelligible sense can any one who denies the supernatural origin of
the religion of Christ be termed a Christian," which term, he
explained, was used not as "a name of praise," but simply as "a
designation of belief."[8] He censured the German rationalists "for
having preferred, by convulsive efforts of interpretation, to compress
the memoirs of Christ and His apostles into the dimensions of ordinary
life, rather than admit the operation of miracle on the one hand, or
proclaim their abandonment of Christianity on the other."[9] The
echoes of the dying controversy are thus distinct and not very distant
in this book, though it also offers in its larger outlook, in the
author's evident uneasiness under the burden of inherited beliefs, and
his inability to reconcile them with his new standpoint and accepted
principles, a curious forecast of his later development, while in its
positive premisses it presents a still more instructive contrast to
the conclusions of his later dialectic. Nor did the sound of the
ancient controversy ever cease to be audible to him. In 1839 he sprang
to the defence of Unitarian doctrine, which had been assailed by
certain Liverpool clergymen, of whom Fielding Ould was the most active
and Hugh McNeill the most famous. As his share in the controversy,
Martineau published five discourses, in which he discussed "the Bible
as the great autobiography of human nature from its infancy to its
perfection," "the Deity of Christ," "Vicarious Redemption," "Evil,"
and "Christianity without Priest and without Ritual."[10] He remained
to the end a keen and vigilant apologist of the school in which he had
been nursed. But the questions proper to the new day came swiftly upon
his quick and susceptible mind--enlarged, deepened and developed it.
Within his own fold new light was breaking. To W. E. Channing (q.v.),
whom Martineau had called "the inspirer of his youth," Theodore Parker
had succeeded, introducing more radical ideas as to religion and a
more drastic criticism of sacred history. Blanco White, "the
rationalist A'Kempis," who had dared to appear as "a religious sceptic
in God's presence," had found a biographer and interpreter in
Martineau's friend and colleague, John Hamilton Thom. Within the
English Church men with whom he had both personal and religious
sympathy rose--Whately, of whom he said, "We know no living writer who
has proved so little and disproved so much";[11] and Thomas Arnold, "a
man who could be a hero without romance";[12] F. D. Maurice, whose
character, marked by "religious realism," sought in the past "the
witness to eternal truths, the manifestation by time-samples of
infinite realities and unchanging relations";[13] and Charles
Kingsley, "a great teacher," though one "certain to go astray the
moment he becomes didactic."[14] Beside these may be placed men like
E. B. Pusey and J. H. Newman, whose mind Martineau said was "critical,
not prophetic, since without immediateness of religious vision," and
whose faith is "an escape from an alternative scepticism, which
receives the _veto_ not of his reason but of his will,"[15] as men for
whose teachings and methods he had a potent and stimulating antipathy.
The philosophic principles and religious deductions of Dean Mansel he
disliked as much as those of Newman, but he respected his arguments
more. Apart from the Churches, men like Carlyle and Matthew
Arnold--with whom he had much in common--influenced him; while Herbert
Spencer in England and Comte in France afforded the antithesis needful
to the dialectical development of his own views. He came to know
German philosophy and criticism, especially the criticism of Baur and
the Tübingen school, which affected profoundly his construction of
Christian history. And these were strengthened by French influences,
notably those of Renan and the Strassburg theologians. The rise of
evolution, and the new scientific way of looking at nature and her
creative methods, compelled him to rethink and reformulate his
theistic principles and conclusions, especially as to the forms under
which the relation of God to the world and His action within it could
be conceived. Under the impulses which came from these various sides
Martineau's mind lived and moved, and as they successively rose he
promptly, by appreciation or criticism, responded to the dialectical
issues which they raised.

In the discussion of these questions the periodical press supplied him
with the opportunity of taking an effective part. At first his
literary activity was limited to sectional publications, and he
addressed his public, now as editor and now as leading contributor, in
the _Monthly Repository_, the _Christian Reformer_, the _Prospective_,
the Westminster and the _National Review_. Later, especially when
scientific speculation had made the theistic problem urgent, he was a
frequent contributor to the literary monthlies. And when in 1890 he
began to gather together the miscellaneous essays and papers written
during a period of sixty years, he expressed the hope that, though
"they could lay no claim to logical consistency," they might yet show
"beneath the varying complexion of their thought some intelligible
moral continuity," "leading in the end to a view of life more coherent
and less defective than was presented at the beginning."[16] And
though it is a proud as well as a modest hope, no one could call it
unjustified. For his essays are fine examples of permanent literature
appearing in an ephemeral medium, and represent work which has solid
worth for later thought as well as for the speculation of their own
time. There is hardly a name or a movement in the religious history of
the century which he did not touch and illuminate. It was in this form
that he criticized the "atheistic mesmerism" to which his sister
Harriet had committed herself, and she never forgave his criticism.
But his course was always singularly independent, and, though one of
the most affectionate and most sensitive of men, yet it was his
fortune to be so fastidious in thought and so conscientious in
judgment as often to give offence or create alarm in those he deeply
respected or tenderly loved.

The theological and philosophical discussions which thus appeared he
later described as "the tentatives which gradually prepared the way
for the more systematic expositions of the _Types of Ethical_
_Theory_ and _The Study of Religion_, and, in some measure, of _The
Seat of Authority in Religion_."[17] These books expressed his mature
thought, and may be said to contain, in what he conceived as a final
form, the speculative achievements of his life. They appeared
respectively in 1885, 1888 and 1890, and were without doubt remarkable
feats to be performed by a man who had passed his eightieth year.
Their literary and speculative qualities are indeed exceptionally
brilliant; they are splendid in diction, elaborate in argument, cogent
yet reverent, keen while fearless in criticism. But they have also
most obvious defects: they are unquestionably the books of an old man
who had thought much as well as spoken and written often on the themes
he discusses, yet who had finally put his material together in haste
at a time when his mind had lost, if not its dialectic vigour, yet its
freshness and its sense of proportion; and who had been so accustomed
to amplify the single stages of his argument that he had forgotten how
much they needed to be reduced to scale and to be built into an
organic whole. In the first of these books his nomenclature is
unfortunate; his division of ethical theories into the
"unpsychological," "idiopsychological," and the
"hetero-psychological," is incapable of historical justification; his
exposition of single ethical systems is, though always interesting and
suggestive, often arbitrary and inadequate, being governed by
dialectical exigencies rather than historical order and perspective.
In the second of the above books his idea of religion is somewhat of
an anachronism; as he himself confessed, he "used the word in the
sense which it invariably bore half a century ago," as denoting
"belief in an ever-living God, a divine mind and will ruling the
universe and holding moral relations with mankind." As thus used, it
was a term which governed the problems of speculative theism rather
than those connected with the historical origin, the evolution and the
organization of religion. And these are the questions which are now to
the front. These criticisms mean that his most elaborate discussions
came forty years too late, for they were concerned with problems which
agitated the middle rather than the end of the 19th century. But if we
pass from this criticism of form to the actual contents of the two
books, we are bound to confess that they constitute a wonderfully
cogent and persuasive theistic argument. That argument may be
described as a criticism of man and his world used as a basis for the
construction of a reasoned idea of nature and being. Man and nature,
thought and being, fitted each other. What was implicit in nature had
become explicit in man; the problem of the individual was one with the
problem of universal experience. The interpretation of man was
therefore the interpretation of his universe. Emphasis was made to
fall on the reason, the conscience and the will of the finite
personality; and just as these were found to be native in him they
were held to be immanent in the cause of his universe. What lived in
time belonged to eternity; the microcosm was the epitome of the
macrocosm; the reason which reigned in man interpreted the law that
was revealed in conscience and the power which governed human destiny,
while the freedom which man realized was the direct negation both of
necessity and of the operation of any fortuitous cause in the cosmos.

It was not possible, however, that the theistic idea could be
discussed in relation to nature only. It was necessary that it should
be applied to history and to the forces and personalities active
within it. And of these the greatest was of course the Person that had
created the Christian religion. What did Jesus signify? What authority
belonged to Him and to the books that contain His history and
interpret His person? This was the problem which Martineau attempted
to deal with in _The Seat of Authority in Religion_. The workmanship
of the book is unequal: historical and literary criticism had never
been Martineau's strongest point, although he had almost continuously
maintained an amount of New Testament study, as his note-books show.
In its speculative parts the book is quite equal to those that had
gone before, but in its literary and historical parts there are
indications of a mind in which a long-practised logic had become a
rooted habit. While a comparison of his expositions of the Pauline and
Johannine Christologies with the earlier Unitarian exegesis in which
he had been trained shows how wide is the interval, the work does not
represent a mind that had throughout its history lived and worked in
the delicate and judicial investigations he here tried to conduct.

Martineau's theory of the religious society or church was that of an idealist rather than of a statesman or practical politician. He stood equally remote from the old Voluntary principle, that "the State had nothing to do with religion," and from the sacerdotal position that the clergy stood in an apostolic succession, and either constituted the Church or were the persons into whose hands its guidance had been committed. He hated two things intensely, a sacrosanct priesthood and an enforced uniformity. He may be said to have believed in the sanity and sanctity of the state rather than of the Church. Statesmen he could trust as he would not trust ecclesiastics. And so he even propounded a scheme, which fell still-born, that would have repealed uniformity, taken the church out of the hands of a clerical order, and allowed the coordination of sects or churches under the state. Not that he would have allowed the state to touch doctrine, to determine polity or discipline; but he would have had it to recognize historical achievement, religious character and capacity, and endow out of its ample resources those societies which had vindicated their right to be regarded as making for religion. His ideal may have been academic, but it was the dream of a mind that thought nobly both of religion and of the state.

See _Life and Letters_ by J. Drummond and C. B. Upton (2 vols., 1901);
J. E. Carpenter, _James Martineau, Theologian and Teacher_ (1905); J.
Crawford, _Recollections_ of James Martineau (1903); A. W. Jackson,
_James Martineau, a Biography and a Study_ (Boston, 1900); H.
Sidgwick, _Lectures on the Ethics of Green, Spencer and Martineau_
(1902); and J. Hunt, _Religious Thought in England in the 19th
Century_. (A. M. F.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Types of Ethical Theory_, i. 8.

[2] _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_, iv. 54.

[3] Ibid. i. 397.

[4] _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_, i. 419.

[5] Martineau's "Letter to the Dissenting Congregation of Eustace
Street" (Dublin).

[6] _Types of Ethical Theory_, i. pp. vii.-ix.

[7] Ibid. p. xiii.

[8] _Rationale_, 2nd ed., pref., p. vii.

[9] Ibid. p. 133.

[10] They stand as Lectures ii., v., vi., xi., xii. in the volume
_Unitarianism Defended_, 1839.

[11] Essays, _Reviews and Addresses_, ii. 10.

[12] Ibid. i. 46.

[13] Ibid. i. 258, 262.

[14] Ibid. ii. 285.

[15] Ibid. i. 233.

[16] _Essays, Reviews and Addresses_, i., iii.

[17] Ibid, iii., pref., p. vi.

MARTINET, a military term (more generally used in a disparaging than in a complimentary sense) implying a strict disciplinarian or drill-master. The term originated in the French army about the middle of Louis XIV.'s reign, and was derived from Jean Martinet (d. 1672), who as lieutenant-colonel of the King's regiment of foot and inspector-general of infantry drilled and trained that arm in the model regular army created by Louis and Louvois between 1660 and 1670. Martinet seems also to have introduced the copper pontoons with which Louis bridged the Rhine in 1672. He was killed, as a _maréchal de camp_, at the siege of Duisburg in the same year, being accidentally shot by bis own artillery while leading the infantry assault. His death, and that of the Swiss captain Soury by the same discharge gave rise to a _bon mot_, typical of the polite ingratitude of the age, that Duisburg had only cost the king a martin and a mouse. The "martin" as a matter of fact shares with Vauban and other professional soldiers of Louis XIV. the glory of having made the French army the first and best regular army in Europe. Great nobles, such as Turenne, Condé and Luxemburg, led this army and inspired it, but their fame has obscured that of the men who made it manageable and efficient. It was about this time that the soldier of fortune, who joined a regiment with his own arms and equipment and had learned his trade by varied experience, began to give place to the soldier regularly enlisted as a recruit in permanent regiments and trained by his own officers. The consequence of this was the introduction of a uniform, or nearly uniform system of drill and training, which in all essentials has endured to the present day. Thus Martinet was the forerunner of Leopold of Dessau and Frederick William, just as Jean Jacques de Fourilles, the organizer of the cavalry, who was forced into an untimely charge at Seneffe (1674) by a brutal taunt of Condé, and there met his death, was the forerunner of Zieten and Seydlitz. These men, while differing from the creators of the Prussian army in that they contributed nothing to the tactics of their arms, at least made tactics possible by the thorough drilling and organization they imparted to the formerly heterogeneous and hardly coherent elements of an army.

MARTÍNEZ DE LA ROSA, FRANCISCO DE PAULA (1789-1862), Spanish statesman and dramatist, was born on the 10th of March 1789 at Granada, and educated at the university there. He won popularity with a series of epigrams on local celebrities published under the title of _El Cementerio de momo_. During the struggle against Napoleon he took the patriotic side, was elected deputy, and at Cadiz produced his first play, _Lo que puede un empleo_, a prose comedy in the manner of the younger Moratin. _La Viuda de Padilla_ (1814), a tragedy modelled upon Alfieri, was less acceptable to the Spanish public. Meanwhile the author became more and more engulfed in politics, and in 1814 was banished to Africa, where he remained till 1820, when he was suddenly recalled and appointed prime minister. During the next three years he was the most unpopular man in Spain; denounced as a revolutionist by the Conservatives and as a reactionary by the Liberals, he alienated the sympathies of all parties, and his rhetoric earned for him the contemptuous nickname of _Rosita la Pastelera_. Exiled in 1823, he took refuge in Paris, where he issued his _Obras literarias_ (1827), including his _Arte poética_, in which he exaggerated the literary theories already promulgated by Luzán. Returning to Spain in 1831, he became prime minister on the death of Ferdinand VII., but proved incapable of coping with the insurrectionary movement and resigned in 1834. He was ambassador at Paris in 1839-1840 and at Rome in 1842-1843, joined the Conservative party, held many important offices, and was president of congress and director of the Spanish academy at the time of his death, which took place at Madrid on the 7th of February 1862. As a statesman, Martínez de la Rosa never rose above mediocrity. It was his misfortune to be in place without real power, to struggle against a turbulent pseudo-democratic movement promoted by unscrupulous soldiers, and to contend with the intrigues of the king, the court camarilla and the clergy. But circumstances which hampered him in politics favoured his career in literature. He was not a great natural force; his early plays and poems are influenced by Moratin or by Meléndez Valdés; his _Espirítu del siglo_ (1835) is an elegant summary of all the commonplaces concerning the philosophy of history; his _Doña Isabel de Solís_ (1837-1846) is a weak imitation of Walter Scott's historical novels. Still his place in the history of Spanish literature is secure, if not eminent. Through the happy accident of his exile at Paris he was thrown into relations with the leaders of the French romantic movement, and was so far impressed with the innovations of the new school as to write in French a romantic piece entitled _Aben-Humeya_ (1830), which was played at the Porte Saint-Martin. The experiment was not unsuccessful, and on his return to Madrid Martínez de la Rosa produced _La Conjuratión de Venecia_ (April 23, 1834), which entitles him to be called the pioneer of the romantic drama in Spain. The play is more reminiscent of Casimir Delavigne than of Victor Hugo; but it was unquestionably effective, and smoothed the way for the bolder essays of Rivas, Garcia Gutiérrez and Hartzenbusch.

MARTINI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1706-1784), Italian musician, was born at Bologna on the 24th of April 1706. His father, Antonio Maria Martini, a violinist, taught him the elements of music and the violin; later he learned singing and harpsichord playing from Padre Pradieri, and counterpoint from Antonio Riccieri. Having received his education in classics from the fathers of the oratory of San Filippo Neri, he afterwards entered upon a noviciate at the Franciscan monastery at Lago, at the close of which he was received as a Minorite on the 11th of September 1722. In 1725, though only nineteen years old, he received the appointment of chapel-master in the Franciscan church at Bologna, where his compositions attracted attention. At the invitation of amateurs and professional friends he opened a school of composition at which several celebrated musicians were trained; as a teacher he consistently declared his preference for the traditions of the old Roman school of composition. Padre Martini was a zealous collector of musical literature, and possessed an extensive musical library. Burney estimated it at 17,000 volumes; after Martini's death a portion of it passed to the Imperial library at Vienna, the rest remaining in Bologna, now in the Liceo Rossini. Most contemporary musicians speak of Martini with admiration, and Mozart's father consulted him with regard to the talents of his son. Abt Vogler, however, makes reservations in his praise, condemning his philosophical principles as too much in sympathy with those of Fox, which had already been expressed by P. Vallotti. He died at Bologna on the 4th of August 1784. His _Elogio_ was published by Pietro della Valle at Bologna in the same year.

The greater number of Martini's sacred compositions remain unprinted.
The Liceo of Bologna possesses the MSS. of two oratorios; and a
requiem, with some other pieces of church music, are now in Vienna.
_Litaniae atque antiphonae finales B. V. Mariae_ were published at
Bologna in 1734, as also twelve _Sonate d'intavolatura_; six _Sonate
per l'organo ed il cembalo_ in 1747; and Duetti da camera in 1763.
Martini's most important works are his _Storia della musica_ (Bologna,
1757-1781) and his _Saggio di contrapunto_ (Bologna, 1774-1775). The
former, of which the three published volumes relate wholly to ancient
music, and thus represent a mere fragment of the author's vast plan,
exhibits immense reading and industry, but is written in a dry and
unattractive style, and is overloaded with matter which cannot be
regarded as historical. At the beginning and end of each chapter
occur puzzle-canons, wherein the primary part or parts alone are
given, and the reader has to discover the canon that fixes the period
and the interval at which the response is to enter. Some of these are
exceedingly difficult, but Cherubini solved the whole of them. The
_Saggio_ is a learned and valuable work, containing an important
collection of examples from the best masters of the old Italian and
Spanish schools, with excellent explanatory notes. It treats chiefly
of the tonalities of the plain chant, and of counterpoints constructed
upon them. Besides being the author of several controversial works,
Martini drew up a _Dictionary of Ancient Musical Terms_, which
appeared in the second volume of G. B. Doni's _Works_; he also
published a treatise on _The Theory of Numbers as applied to Music_.
His celebrated canons, published in London, about 1800, edited by Pio
Cianchettini, show him to have had a strong sense of musical humour.

MARTINI, SIMONE (1283-1344), Sienese painter, called also Simone di Martino, and more commonly, but not correctly, Simon Memmi,[1] was born in 1283. He followed the manner of painting proper to his native Siena, as improved by Duccio, which is essentially different from the style of Giotto and his school, and the idea that Simone was himself a pupil of Giotto is therefore wide of the mark. The Sienese style is less natural, dignified and reserved than the Florentine; it has less unity of impression, has more tendency to pietism, and is marked by exaggerations which are partly related to the obsolescent Byzantine manner, and partly seem to forebode certain peculiarities of the fully developed art which we find prevalent in Michelangelo. Simone, in especial, tended to an excessive and rather affected tenderness in his female figures; he was more successful in single figures and in portraits than in large compositions of incident. He finished with scrupulous minuteness, and was elaborate in decorations of patterning, gilding, &c.

The first known fresco of Simone is the vast one which he executed in the hall of the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena--the "Madonna Enthroned, with the Infant," and a number of angels and saints; its date is 1315, at which period he was already an artist of repute throughout Italy. In S. Lorenzo Maggiore of Naples he painted a life-sized picture of King Robert crowned by his brother Lewis, bishop of Toulouse; this also is extant, but much damaged. In 1320 he painted for the high altar of the church of S. Caterina in Pisa the Virgin and Child between six saints; above are archangels, apostles and other figures. The compartmented portions of this work are now dispersed, some of them being in the academy of Siena. Towards 1321 he executed for the church of S. Domenico in Orvieto a picture of the bishop of Savona kneeling before the Madonna attended by saints, now in the Fabriceria of the cathedral. Certain frescoes in Assisi in the chapel of San Martino, representing the life of that saint, ascribed by Vasari to Puccio Capanna, are now, upon internal evidence, assigned to Simone. He painted also, in the south transept of the lower church of the same edifice, figures of the Virgin and eight saints. In 1328 he produced for the sala del consilio in Siena a striking equestrian portrait of the victorious general Guidoriccio Fogliani de' Ricci.

Simone had married in 1324 Giovanna, the daughter of Memmo (Guglielmo) di Filippuccio. Her brother, named Lippo Memmi, was also a painter, and was frequently associated with Simone in his work; and this is the only reason why Simone has come down to us with the family-name Memmi. They painted together in 1333 the "Annunciation" which is now in the Uffizi gallery. Simone kept a bottega (or shop), undertaking any ornamental work, and his gains were large. In 1339 he settled at the papal court in Avignon, where he made the acquaintance of Petrarch and Laura; and he painted for the poet a portrait of his lady, which gave occasion for two of Petrarch's sonnets, in which Simone is eulogized. He also illuminated for the poet a copy of the commentary of Servius upon Virgil, now preserved in the Ambrosian library of Milan. He was largely employed in the decorations of the papal buildings in Avignon, and several of his works still remain--in the cathedral, in the hall of the consistory, and, in the two chapels of the palace, the stories of the Baptist, and of Stephen and other saints. One of his latest productions (1342) is the picture of "Christ Found by his Parents in the Temple," now in the Liverpool Gallery. Simone died in Avignon in July 1344.

Some of the works with which Simone's name and fame have been
generally identified are not now regarded as his. Such are the
compositions, in the Campo Santo of Pisa, from the legend of S.
Ranieri, and the "Assumption of the Virgin"; and the great frescoes in
the Cappellone degli Spagnuoli, in S. Maria Novella, Florence,
representing the Triumph of Religion through the work of the Dominican
order, &c. (W. M. R.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The ordinary account of Simone is that given by Vasari, and since
repeated in a variety of forms. Modern research shows that it is far
from correct, the incidents being erroneous, and the paintings
attributed to Simone in various principal instances not his. We
follow the authority of Crowe and Cavalcaselle.

MARTINIQUE, an island of the West Indies, belonging to the chain of the Lesser Antilles, and constituting a French colony, between the British islands of Dominica and St Lucia, 25 m. S. of the one and 20 m. N. of the other, about 14° 40´ N., 61° W. Its length is 40 m., its greatest width 21 m.; and the area comprises 380 sq. m. A cluster of volcanic mountains in the north, a similar group in the south, and a line of lower heights between them, form the backbone of the island. Its deep ravines and precipitous escarpments are reduced in appearance to gentle undulations by the drapery of the forests. The massif of Mont Pelé in the north is the culminating point of the island (4430 ft.); that of Carbet is little inferior (3963 ft.), but the mountains in the south are much lower. Mont Pelé is notorious for an appalling eruption in May 1902.

Of the numerous streams which traverse the few miles of country
between the watershed and the sea (the longest radiating from Mount
Carbet), about seventy-five are of considerable size, and in the rainy
season become deep and often destructive torrents. On the north-west
and north the coast is elevated and bold; and similarly on the south,
where a lateral range, branching from the backbone of the island,
forms a blunt peninsula bounding the low-shored western bay of Fort de
France on the south. Another peninsula, called Caravelle, projects
from the middle part of the east coast, and south of this the coast is
low and fretted, with many islets and cays lying off it. Coral reefs
occur especially in this locality. Plains, most numerous and extensive
in the south, occupy about one-third of the total area of the island.

The mean annual temperature is 80° F. in the coast region, the monthly
mean for June being 83°, and that for January 77°. Of the annual
rainfall of 87 in., August has the heaviest share (11.3 in.), though
the rainy season extends from June to October; March, the driest
month, has 3.7. Martinique enjoys a marked immunity from hurricanes.
The low coastal districts are not very healthy for Europeans in the
hotter months, but there are numerous sanatoria in the forest region
at an elevation of about 1500 ft., where the average temperature is
some 10° F. lower than that already quoted. The north winds which
prevail from November to February are comparatively fresh and dry;
those from the south (July to October) are damp and warm. From March
to June easterly winds are prevalent.

The population increased from 162,861 in 1878 to 175,863 in 1888 and 203,781 in 1901. In 1902 the great eruption of Mont Pelé occurred, and in 1905 the population was only 182,024. The bulk of the population consists of Creole negroes and half-castes of various grades, ranging from the "Saccatra," who has retained hardly any trace of Caucasian blood, to the so-called "Sangmêlé," with only a suspicion of negro commixture. The capital of the island is Fort de France, on the west-coast bay of the same name, with a fine harbour defended by three forts, and a population of 18,000. The other principal centres of population are, on the west coast Lamentin, on the same bay as the capital, and on the east coast Le François and Le Robert. The colony is administered by a governor and a general council, and returns a senator and two deputies. There are elective municipal councils. The chief product is sugar, and some coffee, cocoa, tobacco and cotton are grown. The island is served by British, French and American steamship lines, and local communications are carried on by small coasting steamers and by subsidized mail coaches, as there are excellent roads. In 1905 the total value of the exports, consisting mainly of sugar, rum and cocoa, was £725,460, France taking by far the greater part, while imports were valued at £596,294, of which rather more than one-half by value came from France, the United States of America being the next principal importing country. In 1903, the year following the eruption of Mont Pelé, exports were valued at £604,163.

Martinique, the name of which may be derived from a native form Madiana or Mantinino, was probably discovered by Columbus on the 15th of June 1502; although by some authorities its discovery is placed in 1493. It was at that time inhabited by Caribs who had expelled or incorporated an older stock. It was not until the 25th of June 1635 that possession was taken of the island in the name of the French _Compagnie des Îles d'Amérique_. Actual settlement was carried out in the same year by Pierre Belain, Sieur d'Esnambuc, captain-general of the island of St Christopher. In 1637 his nephew Dyel Duparquet (d. 1658) became captain-general of the colony, now numbering seven hundred men, and subsequently obtained the seigneurie of the island by purchase from the company under the authority of the king of France. In 1654 welcome was given to three hundred Jews expelled from Brazil, and by 1658 there were at least five thousand people exclusive of the Caribs, who were soon after exterminated. Purchased by the French government from Duparquet's children for 120,000 livres, Martinique was assigned to the West India Company, but in 1674 it became part of the royal domain. The _habitants_ (French landholders) at first devoted themselves to the cultivation of cotton and tobacco; but in 1650 sugar plantations were begun, and in 1723 the coffee plant was introduced. Slave labour having been introduced at an early period of the occupation, there were 60,000 blacks in the island by 1736. This slavery was abolished in 1860. Martinique had a full share of wars. In early days the Caribs were not brought under subjection without severe struggles. In 1666 and 1667 the island was attacked by the British without success, and hostilities were terminated by the treaty of Breda. The Dutch made similar attempts in 1674, and the British again attacked the island in 1693. Captured by Rodney in 1762, Martinique was next year restored to the French; but after the conquest by Sir John Jervis and Sir Charles Grey in 1793 it was retained for eight years; and, seized again in 1809, it was not surrendered till 1814. The island was the birth-place of the Empress Josephine.

Martinique has suffered from occasional severe storms, as in 1767, when 1600 persons perished, and M. de la Pagerie, father of the Empress Josephine, was practically ruined, and in 1839, 1891 and 1903, when much damage was done to the sugar crop. Earthquakes have also been frequent, but the most terrible natural disaster was the eruption of Mont Pelé in 1902, by which the town of St Pierre, formerly the chief commercial centre of the island, was destroyed. During the earlier months of the year various manifestations of volcanic activity had occurred; on the 25th of April there was a heavy fall of ashes, and on the 2nd and 3rd of May a heavy eruption destroyed extensive sugar plantations north of St Pierre, and caused a loss of some 150 lives. A few days later the news that the Souffrière in St Vincent was in eruption reassured the inhabitants of St Pierre, as it was supposed that this outbreak might relieve the volcano of Pelé. But on the 8th of May the final catastrophe came without warning; a mass of fire, compared to a flaming whirlwind, swept over St Pierre, destroying the ships in the harbour, among which, however, one, the "Roddam" of Scrutton, escaped. A fall of molten lava and ashes followed the flames, accompanied by dense gases which asphyxiated those who had thus far escaped. The total loss of life was estimated at 40,000. Consternation was caused not only in the West Indies, but in France and throughout the world, and at first it was seriously suggested that the island should be evacuated, but no countenance was lent to this proposal by the French government. Relief measures were undertaken and voluntary subscriptions raised. The material losses were estimated at £4,000,000; but, besides St Pierre, only one-tenth of the island had been devastated, and although during July there was further volcanic activity, causing more destruction, the economic situation recovered more rapidly than was expected.

See _Annuaire de la Martinique_ (Fort de France); H. Mouet, _La
Martinique_ (Paris, 1892); M. J. Guët, _Origines de la Martinique_
(Vannes, 1893); G. Landes, _Notice sur la Martinique_ (with full
bibliography), (Paris, 1900); M. Dumoret, _Au pays du sucre_ (Paris,
1902); and on the eruption of 1902, A. Heilprin, _Mont Pelée and the
Tragedy of Martinique_ (Philadelphia and London, 1903); A. Lacroix,
_La Montagne Pelée et ses éruptions_ (Paris, 1904); and the report of
Drs J. S. Flett and T. Anderson (November 20, 1902), who investigated
the eruptions on behalf of the Royal Society; cf. T. Anderson, "Recent
Volcanic Eruptions in the West Indies," in _Geographical Journal_,
vol. xxi. (1903).

MARTINSBURG, a town and the county-seat of Berkeley county, West Virginia, U.S.A., about 74 m. W.N.W. of Washington, D.C. Pop. (1890) 7226; (1900) 7564 (678 negroes); (1910) 10,698. It is served by the Baltimore & Ohio and the Cumberland Valley railways; the former has repair shops here. It lies in the Lower Shenandoah Valley at the foot of Little North mountain, in the midst of a fruit-growing region, peaches and apples being the principal crops. Slate and limestone also abound in the vicinity. The town has a fine Federal Building and a King's Daughters' hospital. There are grain elevators, and various manufactures, including hosiery, woollen goods, dressed lumber, &c. Martinsburg owns its waterworks, the supply being derived from a neighbouring spring. A town was laid out here a short time before the War of Independence and was named Martinstown in honour of Colonel Thomas Bryan Martin, a nephew of Thomas, Lord Fairfax (1692-1782); in 1778 it was incorporated under its present name. During the Civil War Martinsburg was occupied by several different Union and Confederate forces.

MARTINS FERRY, a city of Belmont county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Ohio River, nearly opposite Wheeling, West Virginia. Pop. (1890), 6250; (1900), 7760, including 1033 foreign-born and 252 negroes; (1910), 9133. It is served by the Pennsylvania (Cleveland & Pittsburg Division), the Baltimore & Ohio, and the Wheeling & Lake Erie (Wabash System) railways, and by several steamboat lines. The city is situated on two plateaus; the lower is occupied chiefly by factories, the upper by dwellings. Coal mining and manufacturing are the principal industries; among factory products are iron, steel, tin, stoves, machinery and glassware. The municipality owns and operates the waterworks and an electric-lighting plant. A settlement was attempted here in 1785, but was abandoned on account of trouble with the Indians. In 1795 a town was laid out by Absalom Martin and was called Jefferson, but this, too, was abandoned, on account of its not being made the county-seat. The town was laid out again in 1835 by Ebenezer Martin (son of Absalom Martin) and was called Martinsville; the present name was substituted a few years later. The Martins and other pioneers are buried in Walnut Grove Cemetery within the city limits. Martins Ferry was incorporated as a town in 1865 and chartered as a city in 1885.

MARTINUZZI, GEORGE [GYÖRGY UTIE[VS]ENOVI['C]] (1482-1551), Hungarian statesman, who, since he usually signed himself "Frater Georgius," is known in Hungarian history as FRATER GYÖRGY or simply THE FRATER, was born at Kamicic in Croatia, the son of Gregory Utiesenovi['c], a Croatian gentleman. His mother was a Martinuzzi, a Venetian patrician family. From his eighth to his twentieth year he was attached to the court of John Corvinus; subsequently, entering the service of the Zapolya family, he saw something of warfare under John Zapolya but, tiring of a military life, he entered the Paulician Order in his twenty-eighth year. His historical career began when his old patron Zapolya, now king of Hungary, forced to fly before his successful rival Ferdinand, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand I., sent him on a diplomatic mission to Hungary. It was due to his tact and ability that John recovered Buda (1529), and henceforth Frater György became his treasurer and chief counsellor. In 1534 he became bishop of Grosswardein; in 1538 he concluded with Austria the peace of Grosswardein, whereby the royal title and the greater part of Hungary were conceded to Zapolya. King John left the Frater the guardian of his infant son John Sigismund, who was proclaimed and crowned king of Hungary, the Frater acting as regent. He frustrated all the attempts of the queen mother, Isabella, to bring in the Austrians, and when, in 1541, an Austrian army appeared beneath the walls of Buda, he arrested the queen and applied to the Porte for help. On the 28th of August 1541, the Frater did homage to the sultan, but during his absence with the baby king in the Turkish camp, the grand vizier took Buda by subtlety. Then only the Frater recognized the necessity of a composition with both Austria and Turkey. He attained it by the treaty of Gyula (Dec. 29, 1541), whereby western Hungary fell to Ferdinand, while Transylvania, as an independent principality under Turkish suzerainty, reverted to John Sigismund. It included, besides Transylvania proper, many Hungarian counties on both sides of the Theiss, and the important city of Kassa. It was the Frater's policy to preserve Transylvania neutral and intact by cultivating amicable relations with Austria without offending the Porte. It was a difficult policy, but succeeded brilliantly for a time. In 1545, encouraged by the growing unpopularity of Ferdinand, owing to his incapacity to defend Hungary against the Turks, the Frater was tempted to unite Austrian Hungary to Transylvania and procure the election of John Sigismund as the national king. But recognizing that this was impossible, he aimed at an alliance with Ferdinand on terms of relative equality, and to this system he adhered till his death. Queen Isabella, who hated the Frater and constantly opposed him, complained of him to the sultan, who commanded that either the traitor himself or his head should be sent to Constantinople (1550). A combination was then formed against him of the queen, the hospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia and the Turks; but the Frater shut the queen up in Gyula-Fehérvár, drove the hospodars out of Transylvania, defeated the Turks at Déva, and finally compelled Isabella to accept a composition with Austria very profitable to her family and to Transylvania, at the same time soothing the rage of the sultan by flatteries and gifts. This compact, a masterpiece of statesmanship, was confirmed by the diet of Kolozsvár in August 1551. The Frater retained the governorship of Transylvania, and was subsequently consecrated archbishop of Esztergom and received the red hat. Thus Hungary was once more reunited, but the inability of Ferdinand to defend it against the Turks, as promised, forced the Frater, for the common safety, to resume the payment of tribute to the Porte in December 1551. Unfortunately, the Turks no longer trusted a diplomatist they could not understand, while Ferdinand suspected him of an intention to secure Hungary for himself. When the Turks (in 1551) took Csanád and other places, the Frater and the imperial generals Castaldo and Pallavicini combined their forces against the common foe; but when the Frater privately endeavoured to mediate between the Turks and the Hungarians, Castaldo represented him to Ferdinand as a traitor, and asked permission to kill him if necessary. The Frater's secretary Marco Aurelio Ferrari was hired, and stabbed his master from behind at the castle of Alvinczy while reading a letter, on the 18th of December 1551; but the cardinal, though in his sixty-ninth year, fought for his life, and was only despatched with the aid of Pallavicini and a band of bravos. Ferdinand took the responsibility of the murder on himself. He sent to Julius III. an accusation of treason against the Frater in eighty-seven articles, and after long hesitation, and hearing one hundred and sixteen witnesses, the pope exonerated Ferdinand of blame.

See A. Bechet, _Histoire du ministère du cardinal Martinusius_ (Paris,
1715); O. M. Utiesenovi['c], _Lebensgeschichte des Cardinals Georg
Utiesenovi['c]_ (Vienna, 1881); _Codex epistolaris Fratris Georgii
1535-1551_, ed. A. Károlyi (Budapest, 1881). But the most vivid
presentation of Frater is to be found in M. Jókai's fine historical
romance, _Brother George_ (Hung.) (Budapest, 1893). (R. N. B.)

MARTIUS, CARL FRIEDRICH PHILIPP VON (1794-1868), German botanist and traveller, was born on the 17th of April 1794 at Erlangen, where he graduated M.D. in 1814, publishing as his thesis a critical catalogue of plants in the botanic garden of the university. He afterwards devoted himself to botanical study, and in 1817 he and J. B. von Spix were sent to Brazil by the king of Bavaria. They travelled from Rio de Janeiro through several of the southern and eastern provinces of Brazil, and ascended the river Amazon to Tabatinga, as well as some of its larger affluents. On his return to Europe in 1820 he was appointed conservator of the botanic garden at Munich, and in 1826 professor of botany in the university there, and held both offices till 1864. He devoted his chief attention to the flora of Brazil, and in addition to numerous short papers he published the _Nova Genera et Species Plantarum Brasiliensium_ (1823-1832, 3 vols.) and _Icones selectae Plantarum Cryptogamicarum Brasiliensium_ (1827), both works being finely illustrated. An account of his travels in Brazil appeared in 3 vols. 4to, 1823-1831, with an atlas of plates, but probably the work by which he is best known is his _Historia Palmarum_ (1823-1850) in 3 large folio volumes, of which one describes the palms discovered by himself in Brazil. In 1840 he began the _Flora Brasiliensis_, with the assistance of the most distinguished European botanists, who undertook monographs of the various orders. Its publication was continued after his death under the editorship of A. W. Eichler (1839-1887) until 1887, and subsequently of Ignaz von Urban. He also edited several works on the zoological collections made in Brazil by Spix, after the death of the latter in 1826. On the outbreak of potato disease in Europe he investigated it and published his observations in 1842. He also published works and short papers on the aborigines of Brazil, on their civil and social condition, on their past and probable future, on their diseases and medicines, and on the languages of the various tribes, especially the Tupi. He died at Munich on the 13th of December 1868.