Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/40

 by Seleucus I. and his son Antiochus I. In 221, the satrap Molon tried to make himself independent (there exist bronze coins with his name and the royal title), together with his brother Alexander, satrap of Persis, but they were defeated and killed by Antiochus the Great. In the same way, in 161, the Median satrap Timarchus took the diadem and conquered Babylonia; on his coins he calls himself “the great king Timarchus”; but this time again the legitimate king, Demetrius I., succeeded in subduing the rebellion, and Timarchus was slain. But with Demetrius I. the dissolution of the Seleucid Empire begins, which was brought on chiefly by the intrigues of the Romans, and shortly afterwards, about 150, the Parthian king, I. (q.v.), conquered Media (Justin xli. 6). From this time Media remained subject to the Arsacids, who changed the name of Rhagae, or Europus, into Arsacia (Strabo xi. 524), and divided the country into five small provinces (Isidorus Charac.). From the Arsacids or Parthians, it passed in 226 to the Sassanids, together with Atropatene. By this time the old tribes of Aryan Iran had lost their character and had been amalgamated into the one nation of the Iranians. The revival of Zoroastrianism, which was enforced everywhere by the Sassanids, completed this development. It was only then that Atropatene became a principal seat of fire-worship, with many fire-altars. Rhagae now became the most sacred city of the empire and the seat of the head of the Zoroastrian hierarchy; the Sassanid Avesta and the tradition of the Parsees therefore consider Rhagae as the home of the family of the Prophet. Henceforth the name of Media is used only as a geographical term and begins to disappear from the living language; in Persian traditions it occurs under the modern form Māh (Armen. Mai; in Syriac the old name Madai is preserved; cf. Marquart, Eranshahr, 18 seq.).

For Mahommedan history see ; for later history and.

 MEDIATION (Lat. medius, middle), in the international sense, the intervention of a third power, on the invitation or with the consent of two other powers, for the purpose of arranging differences between the latter without recourse to war. Mediation may also take place after war has broken out, with a view to putting an end to it on terms. In either case the mediating power negotiates on behalf of the parties who invoke or accept its aid, but does not go farther. Unlike an arbitrating power the mediator limits his intervention to suggestion and advice. His action is liable to be arrested at any time at the will of either party unless otherwise agreed, in which case to arrest it prematurely would be a breach of good faith. The difference between mediation and arbitration may be stated in the words of the Digest (lib. iv. tit. 8, § 13): “Recepisse autem arbitrium videtur, ut ait Pedius, qui judicis partes suscepit finemque se sua sententia controversiis impositurum pollicetur. Quod si hactenus intervenit ut experiretur an concilio suo vel auctoritate discuti litem paterentur, non videtur arbitrium recepisse.”

Some writers distinguish mediation from “good offices,” but the distinction is of little practical value. We may, if we please, regard “good offices” as inchoate mediation, and “mediation” as good offices brought to the birth. Thus we may say that a third power renders “good offices” when it brings the parties together so as to make diplomatic negotiations between them possible; whilst if it takes an active part in those negotiations it becomes for the time being a mediator. The spontaneous yet successful effort made by President Roosevelt in 1905 to bring together the Russian and Japanese governments, and to secure their appointing delegates to discuss terms of peace, although not strictly mediation, was closely akin to it.

Of successful mediation in the strict sense there have been many instances: that of Great Britain, in 1825, between Portugal and Brazil; of France, in 1849–1850, when differences arose between Great Britain and Greece; of the Great Powers, in 1868–1869, when the relations of Greece and Turkey were strained to breaking-point by reason of the insurrection in Crete; of

Pope Leo XIII., in 1885, between Germany and Spain in the matter of the Caroline Islands. In these cases mediation averted war. The Austro-Prussian War of 1866, the war between Chile and Peru in 1882, and that between Greece and Turkey in 1897, are instances of wars brought to a close through the mediation of neutral powers. Mediation has also been occasionally employed where differences have arisen as to the interpretation of treaties or as to the mode in which they ought to be carried out: as when Great Britain mediated between France and the United States with regard to the Treaty of Paris of the 4th of July 1830. In one case at least mediation has been successful after a proposal for arbitration had failed. In 1844, when war between Spain and Morocco was threatened by reason of the frequent raids by the inhabitants of the Rif on the Spanish settlement of Ceuta, Spain declined arbitration on the ground that her rights were too clear for argument. But both she and Morocco subsequently accepted joint mediation at the hands of Great Britain and France.

The cause of mediation was considerably advanced by the Declaration of Paris of 1856. The plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, Austria, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey recorded in a protocol, at the instance of Lord Clarendon, their joint wish that “states between which any misunderstanding might arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse so far as circumstances might allow (en tant que les circonstances l’admettraient) to the good offices of a friendly power.” Article 8 of the Treaty of Paris, concluded in the same year, stipulated that “if there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the other signing powers any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Porte and each of such powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other contracting parties the opportunity of preventing such as extremity, by means of mediation.” These precedents (in which it will be seen that “good offices” and “mediation” are used interchangeably) were followed in the general act agreed to at the Conference held at Berlin in 1884–1885 the object of which was to secure religious and commercial liberty and to limit warlike operations in the Congo basin.

A special form of mediation was proposed by a delegate from the United States at the Peace Conference held at the Hague in 1899, and was approved by the representatives of the powers there assembled. The clause in which this proposal was embodied provided in effect that, whenever there is danger of a rupture between two powers, each of them shall choose a third power to which these differences shall be referred, and that, pending such reference, for a period not exceeding thirty days (unless the time is extended by agreement) the powers at issue shall cease to negotiate with each other and leave the dispute entirely in the hands of the mediating powers. The powers thus appealed to occupy a position analogous to that of seconds in a duel, who are authorized to arrange an “affair of honour” between their principals. This novel device has the advantage of toning down, if not of eliminating, personal and national prejudices by which controversy is frequently embittered. It also gets over the difficulty, often met with in arbitration, of choosing a referee satisfactory to both parties. The closer the relations between states become, the more their commercial interests are intertwined, the larger the part which mediation seems destined to play. It is true that states which have accepted the intervention of a mediator remain free to adopt or reject any advice he may give, but the advice of a disinterested power must always add considerable moral weight to the side towards which it inclines.

 MEDIATIZATION (Ger. Mediatisierung, from Lat. mediatus, mediate, middle), the process by which at the beginning of the 19th century, a number of German princes, hitherto sovereign as holding immediately of the emperor, were deprived of their sovereignty and mediatized by being placed under that of other sovereigns. This was first done on a large scale in 1803, when by a recess of the imperial diet many of the smaller fiefs were mediatized, in order to compensate those German princes who had been forced to cede their territories on the left bank of the