Page:EB1911 - Volume 17.djvu/463

 prices were then transcribed by John Pinkerton, who afterwards published them under the title of Ancient Scottish Poems (2 vols., 1786.)

For an account of the Maitland Folio MS. see Gregory Smith’s Specimens of Middle Scots, 1902 (p. lxxiii.). The Scottish Text Society has undertaken an edition of the entire manuscript. Maitland’s own poems were reprinted by Sibbald in his Chronicle of Scottish Poetry (1802), and in 1830 by the Maitland Club, named after him, and founded for the purpose of continuing his efforts to preserve the remains of early Scots literature. Sir Richard left in manuscript a history of the family of Seton, and a volume of legal decisions collected by him between the years 1550 and 1565. Both are preserved in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh; the former was published by the Maitland Club, in 1829.

 MAITLAND, WILLIAM (c. 1528–1573), Scottish statesman, eldest son of the preceding, was educated at St Andrews. At an early age he entered public life and began in various ways to serve the regent, Mary of Lorraine, becoming her secretary of state in 1558. In 1559, however, he deserted her and threw in his lot with the lords of the congregation, to whom his knowledge of foreign, and especially of English, politics and his general ability were assets of the highest value. The lords sent him to England to ask for assistance from Elizabeth, and his constant aim throughout his political career was to bring about a union between the two crowns. He appears to have feared the return of Mary Queen of Scots to Scotland, but after her arrival in 1561 he was appointed secretary of state, and for about six years he directed the policy of Scotland and enjoyed the confidence of the queen. His principal antagonist was John Knox; there were several tussles between them, the most famous, perhaps, being the one in the general assembly of 1564, and on the whole Maitland held his own against the preachers. He was doubtless concerned in the conspiracy against David Rizzio, and after the favourite’s murder he was obliged to leave the court and was himself in danger of assassination. In 1567, however, he was again at Mary’s side. He was a consenting party to the murder of Darnley, although he had favoured his marriage with Mary, but the enmity between Bothwell and himself was one of the reasons which drove him into the arms of the queen’s enemies, among whom he figured at Langside. He was one of the Scots who met Elizabeth’s representatives at York in 1568; here he showed a desire to exculpate Mary and to marry her to the duke of Norfolk, a course of action probably dictated by a desire to avoid all revelations about the Darnley murder. But this did not prevent him from being arrested in September 1569 on account of his share in the crime. He was, however, delivered from his captors by a ruse on the part of his friend, Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange, and was brought into Edinburgh Castle, while his trial was put off because the city was thronged with his adherents. Maitland now became the leader of the remnant which stood by the cause of the imprisoned queen. Already a physical wreck, he was borne into Edinburgh Castle in April 1571 and with Kirkcaldy he held this fortress against the regent Morton and his English auxiliaries. The castle surrendered in May 1573 and on the 7th or the 9th of June following Maitland died at Leith, there being very little evidence for the theory that he poisoned himself. “Secretary Maitland” was a man of great learning with a ready wit and a caustic tongue. He was reputed to be the most versatile and accomplished statesman of his age, and almost alone among his Scottish contemporaries he placed his country above the claims of either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant religions. Among the testimonies to his great abilities are those of Queen Elizabeth, of William Cecil and of Knox. By his second wife, Mary Fleming, one of Queen Mary’s ladies, whom he married in 1567, he had a son and daughter. His son James died without issue about 1620.

See John Skelton, Maitland of Lethington (1894); A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. ii. (1902).

 MAITLAND, EAST and WEST, adjoining municipalities in Northumberland county, New South Wales, Australia, 120 m. by rail N. of Sydney. Pop. (1901), West Maitland, 6798; East Maitland, 3287. These towns are situated in a valley on the Hunter River, which is liable to sudden floods, to guard against which the river is protected by stone embankments at West Maitland, while there are flood-gates at East Maitland. Maitland is the centre of the rich agricultural district of the Hunter Valley, which produces maize, wheat and other cereals, lucerne, tobacco, fruit and wine; excellent coal also is worked in the vicinity. East Maitland is the see of a Roman Catholic bishop, whose cathedral (St John’s), however, is situated in the larger town. Besides this, West Maitland contains several handsome public and commercial buildings.  MAITREYA, the name of the future Buddha. In one of the works included in the Pali canon, the Dīgha Nikāya, a prophecy is put into the Buddha’s mouth that after the decay of the religion another Buddha, named Metteyya, will arise who will have thousands of followers instead of the hundreds that the historical Buddha had. This is the only mention of the future Buddha in the canon. For some centuries we hear nothing more about him. But when, in the period just before and after the Christian era, some Buddhists began to write in Sanskrit instead of Pali, they composed new works in which Maitreya (the Sanskrit form of Metteyya) is more often mentioned, and details are given as to his birthplace and history. These are entirely devised in imitation of the details of the life of the historical Buddha, and have no independent value. Only the names differ. The document in which the original prophecy occurs was put together at some date during the 1st century after the Buddha’s death (see ). It is impossible to say whether tradition was, at that time, correct in attributing it to the Buddha. But whoever chose the name (it is a patronymic or family, not a personal name), had no doubt regard to the etymological connexion with the word for “love,” which is Mettā in Pali. This would only be one of those punning allusions so frequent in Indian literature.

Long afterwards, probably in the 6th or 7th century, a reformer in south India, at a time when the incoming flood of ritualism and superstition threatened to overwhelm the simple teaching of the earlier Buddhism, wrote a Pali poem, entitled the Anāgata Vaṃsa. In this he described the golden age of the future when, in the time of Metteyya, kings, ministers and people would vie one with the other in the maintenance of the original simple doctrine, and in the restoration of the good times of old. The other side also claimed the authority of the future Buddha for their innovations. Statues of Maitreya are found in Buddhist temples, of all sects, at the present day; and the belief in his future advent is universal among Buddhists.

Authorities.—Dīgha Nikāya, vol. iii., edited by J. E. Carpenter, (London, 1908); “Anāgata Vaṃsa,” edited by J. Minayeff in Journal of the Pali Text Society (1886); Watters on Yuan Chwang, edited by Rhys Davids and S. W. Bushell (London, 1904–1905).

 MAIWAND, a village of Afghanistan, 50 m. N.W. of Kandahar. It is chiefly notable for the defeat inflicted on a British brigade under General Burrows by Ayub Khan on the 27th of July 1880 during the second Afghan War (see ). Ayub Khan, Shere Ali’s younger son, who had been holding Herat during the British operations at Kabul and Kandahar, set out towards Kandahar with a small army in June 1880, and a brigade under General Burrows was detached from Kandahar to oppose him. Burrows advanced to the Helmund, opposite Girishk, to oppose Ayub Khan, but was there deserted by the troops of Shere Ali, the wali of Kandahar, and forced to retreat to Kushk-i-Nakhud, half way to Kandahar. In order to prevent Ayub passing to Ghazni, Burrows advanced to Maiwand on the 27th of July, and attacked Ayub, who had already seized that place. The Afghans, who numbered 25,000, outflanked the British, the artillery expended their ammunition, and the native portion of the Brigade got out of hand and pressed back on the few British infantry. The British were