Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/580

 MAOMBSZA

533

MAGNISH

his enemies by appealing to his suzerain, thepoDe, and sending abroad for mercenary troops. By a Bull dated 24 Au^^ist at Anagni, Innocent III revoked the charter and later on excommunicated the rebellious barons. The motives of Innocent's action are not far to seek. To begin with, he was probably misled as^to the facts, and trusted too much to the king's account of what had happened. He was naturally inclined to protect the interests of a professed crusader and a vassal, and he took up the position that the barons could not be judges in their own cause but should have referred the matter to him, the king's suzerain, for arbitration. But, more than this, he maintained quite correctly that the king had made the concessions under compul- sion, and that the barons were in open rebellion against the Crown. It is indeed manifest that the charter could not have b^n a final settlement; it was accepted as such by neither extreme party, and, even before the gathering at Rimn3rmede had separated, the archbishop and the moderates had grown suspi- cious of the executive committee of twenty-five. War broke out almost at once, the revolted barons brought over the French king's son, and, during the sixteen troubled months that intervened between the signing of the charter and the end of the reign, John had on the whole the advantage.

Shortly after the accession of the yoimg Henry III, the charter was reissued by the regent, William Marshall. This Charter of 1216 differed in a good many respects from that accepted by John at Runnymede. To begin with, the clauses dealing with the royal forests were formed into a separate charter, the Charter of the Forests; the other clauses were considerably modified, points were more accurately defined, matters of a temporary nature, including naturally the old execu- tive clause, were left out, but the chief change was to restore to the Crown a number of powers which had been abandoned during the previous year. Amongst these the most important was the right of taxation, chapters xii and xi v being omitted. On the other hand, there is this all-important difference that the new char- ter was a genuine grant by the Crown. It may be called a piece of honest legislation ; and to this charter the papal legate gave the fullest consent. A few fur- ther changes were introduced in 1217, and for a third time the Magna Carta was reissued in 1225. The form it then received was final, and the charters which the Crown was so repeatedly asked to confirm for many years to come, meant the Charter of Liberties of 1225 and the Forest Charter.

In time the Charters became almost symbolical; the precise meaning of many of the clauses was forgotten, and much more was read into some of them thtm their authors had ever intended to imply. They came to represent, like the *'Laws of Good King Edward" in an earlier age, the ancient liberties of Englishmen, and, when in Stuart days men looked behind the Tudor absolutism to a time of greater independence, lawyers like Sir E. Coke continual the process of ideal- ization which had been begun even in the thirteenth century. This symbolical use of the Great Charter has

Elayed a great part in English constitutional history, ut it would have been impossible, had not the original document in its original sense been a thorough, an intelligent, and, in the main, a moderate expression of the determination of Englishmen to be ruled by law and tradition and not by arbitrary will. The most convenient text of the Great Charter is that printed in B^mont's "Chartes des Libert^s anglaises" (Paris, 1892), but it will also be found in Stubbs's "Select Charters "and similar compilations. W. S. McKechnie (" Magna Carta ", Glasgow, 1905) has published a very thorough commentary J clause by clause, together with an historical introduction and a discussion of the criti- cisms brought against the Charter. His book also contains a bibliography. The ordinary histories of the period natunJIy contaioi much

on the subject, espeoi&IIy Stubbs. Constitulional History (Ox- ford. 1883); lonut hUrodiu^iona to the RoUa Series; Noroatb, John Lackland (London, 1905). and Davis, Norman and An- gevin England. See also Petzt-Dutailus, notes to the FrKidi translation of Stubbs, Comtitutional History. These notes have b6en translated and published separately as Studies Sup- plementary to Stubbs ConstittUional History ^ I, in Manchester University Historical Series (1908).

F. F. Urquhart.

Magpesia, a titular see in Lydia, suffragan of Ephe- sus, l3nng about 40 miles north-east of Smyrna and supposed to have been founded by the Ma^eti of Thessalv in the fifth century f. c. Lucius Scipio de- feated Antiochus, King of Syria, there in 190 b. c. It was ruined by an earthquake in the reign of Tiberius, but recovered and prospered. It is now known as Manisa, a flourishing town of 35,000 inhabitants in the sanjak of Sarakhan, containing twenty mosques, and a Greek and an Armenian church. The following bishops are known: Eusebius, at Ephesus (431) ; Alex- ander, at Chalcedon (553) ; Stephen at Constantinople (680); Basil at Nicsea (787); Athanasius at Con- stantinople (869); Luke at the synod held there in 879.

There was another see in Asia called Magnesia ad Msd- andrum, which was situated on the Meaider in Ionia. Said to have been built by Leudppus, it was the site of the celebrated temple of Diana Leucophryne, erected by Hermogenes, which was granted the privi- lege of asylum by Scipio, on account of the fidekty of the inhabitants. Eight of its bishops are known: Damasus (second century); Eusebius at Philoppolis (343); Macarius, contemporary of St. ChrysbstCHn; Daphnus at Ephesus (431) ; Leontius at the Robber- Council (449) ; Patritius at the synod in Trullo (692) ; Basil at Nic«a (787) ; Theophilus at Constantinople (879) ; Basil and Eusebius may be those referred to in speaking of the Lydian Magnesia.

Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, I, ©97, 736.

A. A. MacErlean.

Magnien, Alphonse, educator of the clergy, b. at Bleymard, in the Diocese of Mende, France, 9 June, 1837; d. 21 December, 1902. As a student of classics at Chirac, and of philosophy and theology at Orleans (1857-1862), he was distinguished for sound and bril- Uant talents and a noble, attractive character. He had become affiliated to the Diocese of Orleans in response to Mgr Dupanloup's appeal for clerical recruits. In the seminary he developed a Sulpician vocation; but the bishop postponed the fulfilment of his desire, employ- ing him for two years after his ordination in 1862 as professor in the preparatory seminary of La Chapelle St-Mesmin. He then became successively, under the direction of his Sulpician superiore, professor of sciences at Nantes (1864-65), and professor of theol- ogy and Holy Scripture at Rodez (1866-69). At length, in the fall of 1869, Father Magnicn began the work at Baltimore which made him so well known to the priests of America. He soon revealed himself at St. Mary's as a bom teacher, first in his course of phi- losophv and, later, of Holy Scripture and dogma. He seemed instinctively to grasp the vital part of a auies- tion and rested content only when he nad founa the truth.

After the death of Dr. Dubreul, superior of the seminary, in 1878, Father Magnien was appointed to the succession. As superior of St. Mary's Seminary dur- ing a quarter of a century. Father Magnien exercised the widest influence on the formation of the American clergy. He was richly endowed for his predestined work. He was a naturally upright, frank, manly character; and above all he was a true priest, de- voted to the Church and supremely interested in the spread of religion. He spoke to the seminarians out of the abundance of a priestly heart and from a full knowledge of priestly life. Nowhere was he so much, at home as on the rostrum. Tci ^'^fcsSs.^JicaNss^^flapi <s^