Chapter LXVIII: Part 68

Maria, Queen of Sicily, 1377-1402.

Maria I., Queen of Portugal, 1777-1807.

Maria II., Queen of Portugal, 1826-1853.

Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and
Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.

MARIA THERESA, The military order of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

MARIANA.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MARIANDYNIANS, The.

See BITHYNIANS.

MARIANS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARICOPAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARIE ANTOINETTE,
Imprisonment, trial and execution of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST);
and 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's marriage to.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

Marie de Medicis, The regency and the intrigues of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1630-1632.

Marie.

See, also, MARY.

MARIETTA, OHIO:
The Settlement and Naming of the town.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

MARIGNANO, OR MELIGNANO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MARINUS, Pope.

See MARTIN.

MARIOLATRY, Rise of.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

MARION, Francis, and the partisan warfare in the Carolinas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and 1780-1781.

MARIPOSAN F AMIL Y, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

MARITIME PROVINCES.

The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred
to as the Maritime Provinces.

MARIUS AND SULLA, The civil war of.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARIZZA, Battle of the (1363).

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

MARJ DABIK, Battle of (1516).

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MARK.

A border.

See MARCH, MARK.

MARK, The.

"The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in
its later form, the free village community, has been an
accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for
more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the
writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken
up by later English writers and given wide currency through
the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been
accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this
side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become
a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and
important as has been its work, it is almost universally
conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be
the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough
and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before
all questions can be answered which this study brings to
light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this
subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political
thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis
forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern
thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that
in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are
unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which
they live. The free village community, as it is commonly
understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history
is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that
reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.
{2089}
But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable
hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind
of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was
wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to
conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,
historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought
tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who
felt in this interpretation the influence of the German
writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined
boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen
and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of
families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal
ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were
composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support
and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land
within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having
nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,
until by continual expansion they either federated or
coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in
size covered England, internally differing only in minor
details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark
had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer
in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's
work, there was published the first of the series of volumes
which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of
the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were
built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,
but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."

_C. McL. Andrews,
The Old English Manor,
pages 1-6._

ALSO IN:
_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 1, chapter 2._

_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest,
chapter 3, section 2._

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1)._

See, also, MANOR.

MARKLAND.

See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

MARKS, Spanish.

See SPANISH COINS.

MARLBOROUGH, John Churchill, Duke of;
and the fall of the English Whigs.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

Campaigns.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 17101712;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

----------MAROCCO: Start--------

MAROCCO:
Ancient.

See MAURETANIA.

MAROCCO:
The Arab conquest, and since.

The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa
(see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in
698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn
resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered,
submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a
facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they
still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over
into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of
Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of
their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on
which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the
Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the
glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a
reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the
libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the
learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike,
who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the
score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their
greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than
the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and
allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own
places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of
their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The
intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened
monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions
flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the
general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in
Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife
between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth
century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never
afterwards appear in the history of the country except under
the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed
[11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which
the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and
again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th
century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In
the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the
centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the
declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its
final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged
themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of
Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable
that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the
entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King
Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the
banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A.
D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history,
and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at
Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the
rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of
civilizing the country, which from that period gradually
relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years
the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian
family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed
masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the
earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out
from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish
affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by
the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D.
1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the
subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the
Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan.
These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states,
and brought about a great improvement in the position of
Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in
effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official,
while possessing complete authority over those beneath him,
must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme
power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all
things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution
of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. …
European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same
mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric
of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco,
whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of
Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."

_H. E. M. Stutfield,
El Maghreb,
chapter 16._

See, also, BARBARY STATES.

----------MAROCCO: End--------

{2090}

MARONITES, The.

See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

MAROONS.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MARQUIS.

See MARGRAVE.

MARRANA, The.

An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a
channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.

_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.,
volume 2, page 50._

MARRANOS.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

MARRIAGE, Republican.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARRUCINIANS, The.

See SABINES.

MARS' HILL.

See AREOPAGUS.

MARSAGLIA, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

MARSCHFELD.

See MARCHFELD.

MARSEILLAISE, The.
Origin of the Song.
Its introduction into Paris.

In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which
overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun
in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of
their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as
volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and
immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had
planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from
Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July.
"This battalion has been described by every historian as a
collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a
great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles,
where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their
character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown
that these Marseillais were picked men from the national
guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained
the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the
city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on
July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing
the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The
'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April
24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of
Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican,
but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it
was very sad that all the national war songs of France could
not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated
of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of
the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle,
who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,'
and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable.
The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night
he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the
following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous
song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic.
Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de
Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre
pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in
Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced
republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons
la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking
one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of
France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles.
… There are many legends on the origin of the
'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by
Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité
sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is
confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the
time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de
Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."

_H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, page 114-115._

A quite different but less trustworthy
version of the story may be found in

_A. de Lamartine
History of the Girondists,
book 16, section 26-30 (volume 1)._

----------MARSEILLES: Start--------

MARSEILLES:
The founding of.

See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539,
and PHOCÆANS.

MARSEILLES: B. C. 49.
Conquest by Cæsar.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

MARSEILLES: 10th Century.
In the kingdom of Aries.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

MARSEILLES: 11th Century.
The Viscounts of.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

MARSEILLES: 12th Century.
Prosperity and freedom.

See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1792.
The Marseillais sent to Paris, and their war-song.

See MARSEILLAISE.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1795.
Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
The White Terror.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

----------MARSEILLES: End--------

MARSHAL, The.

See CONSTABLE.

MARSHALL, John,
and the Federal Constitution of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789;
and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARSI, The.

See SAXONS; also, FRANKS.

MARSIAN WAR, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

MARSIANS, The.

See SABINES;
also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

MARSIGNI, The.

The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what
is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."

_Tacitus,
Germany;
Oxford translation, foot-note. _

MARSTON MOOR, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

MARTHA'S VINEYARD:
Named by Gosnold.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MARTIN,
King of Aragon, A. D. 1395-1410;

King of Sicily, A. D. 1409-1410.

Martin I., Pope, 649-655.

Martin I., King of Sicily, 1402-1409.

Martin II. (or Marinus I.), Pope, 882-884.

Martin II., King of Sicily, 1409-1410.

Martin III. (or Marinus II.), Pope, 942-946.

Martin IV., Pope, 1281-1285.

Martin V., Pope, 1417-1431 (elected by the Council of Constance).

{2091}

MARTLING MEN.

In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political
followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and
were forming an alliance to that end with the political
friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards
called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New
York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a
long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state
by the name of Martling Men."

_J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, page 230._

MARY
(called Mary Tudor), Queen of England, A. D. 1553-1558.

Mary of Burgundy, The Austrian marriage of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

Mary II., Queen of England
(with King William III., her consort), 1689-1694.

Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1567.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548, to 1561-1568;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

Mary.

See, also, MARIE.

----------MARYLAND: Start--------

MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.
An American palatinate.

"Among those who had become interested in the London or
Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir
George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon
the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by
the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government
of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a
Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his
religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in
which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic
church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no
longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on
him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the
instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had
adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The
king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as
a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created
him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of
intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws
against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and
cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his
religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this;
and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude
and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land
and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and
every man might worship God according to his own heart, in
peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on
New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been
interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship,
he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few
years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the
name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and
soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing
community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the
south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the
intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more
probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in
order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival
within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities
tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which,
as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore
refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of
allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to
accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to
leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the
settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded
country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of
the great bay, and determined there to found his principality.
… He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I,
who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne.
Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by
the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who
desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members
of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be
issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before
it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,
and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who
succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and
estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and
the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named
'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."

_J. McSherry,
History of Maryland,
introduction._

"The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
made absolute lord of the land and water within his
boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
colonists and their descendants were to remain English
subjects. …
{2092}
The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
the people of the province. … This charter, by which
Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
abeyance, the charter was never revoked."

_W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 2._

The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is
distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,
which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as
ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any
bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of
Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,
held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,
held, use, or enjoy."

_J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
volume 2, page. 11. _

ALSO IN:
_H. W. Preston,
Documents Illustrative of American History,
page 62._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.
The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.

"Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for
Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's
plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,
and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the
foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were
induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom
they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were
not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have
been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so
absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George
Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had
taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill
repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of
reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to
take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the
Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took
over any minister of religion, nor for several years after
Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On
behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to
Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits
in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,
to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who
were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy
no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission
field where they were to look for no support from the
proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It
was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen
adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands
like others, from which they were to draw their support. …
The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the
lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20
other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey
these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,
the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,
a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being
captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley
and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After
many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed
from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in
safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor
in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they
named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and
celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her
altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March
25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were
made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White
at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the
river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met
Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over
that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the
savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then
the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,
emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For
the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who
had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a
mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian
town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had
already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict
justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the
werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The
Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the
colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had
gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with
Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither
attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the
other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home
in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name
of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon
at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were
planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel
was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a
fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by
the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of
the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore
and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent
Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of
Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too
limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be
reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share
their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next
year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the
Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is
preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the
missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his
arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,
sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the
original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's
scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,
and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less
than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little
colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of
January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to
attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was
disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion
was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as
impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."

_J. G. Shea,
The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
chapter 1_

_W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapters 3-4._

{2093}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.
The troubles with Clayborne.

William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the
Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to
trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The
King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of
English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild
land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right
there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real
injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians
generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so
strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was
soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend
his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was
unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,
captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a
rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble
should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who
had been in difficulties himself on account of his
lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,
however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once
to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On
his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the
King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not
only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a
large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good
deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse
decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon
all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to
wait for better times."

_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies in America,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
volume 2, chapter 1._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.

The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the
monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in
Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its
substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of
the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644
the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert
commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the
Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had
begun to be active, since only three months later we find the
Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard
Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of
Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while
Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent
Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the
Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,
but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party
was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the
most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and
Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an
effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers
landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the
government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the
value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert
returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.
The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its
supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute
between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at
least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out
somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was
brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in
less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,
1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing
position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a
fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.
As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic
priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges
beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed
his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a
successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was
a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two
Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord
Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest
any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they
accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman
Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this
protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also
intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only
acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to
make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by
a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The
internal condition of the colony had now been substantially
changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan
party there had received an important addition. … A number
of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves
on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which
was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of
Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of
Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration
cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their
settlement was important enough to be made into a separate
county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed
two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon
140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of
fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even
that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled
and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed
to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding
political views openly at variance with those of the
Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent
were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.
But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that
in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable
body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the
Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the
proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."

_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 5._

{2094}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
The Act of Toleration.

Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law
of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration
existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in
the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.
But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from
the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or
indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person
whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus
Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers
supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am
inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented
edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the
charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the
earliest practice of the government presents the first, the
official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649
the third, and to advocates of a republican government the
most important phasis, in the history of the general
Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to
take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.
Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act
Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever
since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative
annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to
guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';
to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to
establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing
between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,
freedom as well as protection to all believers in
Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every
sort of reproach or ignominy."

_G. L. Davis,
The Daystar of American Freedom,
chapters 4-7._

"In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a
compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.
… It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,
and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the
age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had
been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the
foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's
rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power
was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked
so soon as he was reinstated."

_W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapter 8._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.
In Puritan times, and after.

"To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
… Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
expense of the lord proprietary.
{2095}
In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
would have been difficult to find at that time better
governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."

_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. Grahame,
History of the United States (Colonial),
book 3 (volume 1)._

_D. R. Randall,
A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6)._

_W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapters 8-9._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
Change of faith and restoration of his son.
Intolerance revived.

Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his
government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly
attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his
charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a
suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and
jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and
peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the
error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its
friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct
to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost
equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal
authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to
every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the
honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to
desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he
had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than
king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his
jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,
which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his
descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were
restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the
legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy
them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that
province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the
liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old
administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of
all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;
they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of
England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating
new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to
the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and
good sense of the government in England did not set some
bounds to their bigotry."

_E. Burke,
Account of the European Settlements in America,
part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2)._

"We may now place side by side the three tolerations of
Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty
years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before
the law, and all support to churches or ministers was
voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and
included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held
objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty
years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,
connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."

_W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 11._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
King William's War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
The founding of Baltimore.

"Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen
Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were
founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at
once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.
… St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other
waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the
first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was
the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and
more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew
off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined
away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein
slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on
the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At
least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,
and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly
existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In
1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a
convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act
was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,
whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the
river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were
bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.
The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,
and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken
up."

_W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 12._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War.

See
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

{2096}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
Mason and Dixon's line.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
The end of proprietary and royal government.
Formation and adoption of a state constitution.

"In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered
peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony
enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The
Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last
was treated with forbearance. … The political power was
vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and
provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much
under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs
that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former
instructions against independence. … The popular leaders
determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll
of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from
Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of
independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the
counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,
except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the
decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,
pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new
government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously
resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the
Congress equally delegated by the people of the United
Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,
support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read
the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,
'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'
Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag
of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;
the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the
series of royal governors on Maryland soil."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
pp. 525-527._

"Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of
August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a
constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August
this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of
rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the
constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections
ordered to carry it into effect."

J. McSherry,
History of Maryland,
chapter 10.

See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.
The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Secession activity.
Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.
Lee's second invasion.
Gettysburg.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.
Early's invasion.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.
The founding of Johns Hopkins University.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

----------MARYLAND: End----------

MARZOCCO.

"'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone
figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name
shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be
derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or
aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"

_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
volume 4, page 103, foot-note._

MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MASKOUTENS, MASCONTENS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.

MASNADA,

See CATTANI.

MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.