Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 15.djvu/579

Rh A R M A R 551 hs had at intervals returned to both his other lines of composition. A periodical publication called Ulndigent Philosophe appeared in 1727, and another called Le Cabinet du Philosophe in 1734, but the same causes which had proved fatal to the Spectateur prevented these later efforts from succeeding. In 1731 Marivaux published the first two parts of his best and greatest work, Marianne, a novel of a new and remarkable kind. As was usual, how ever, with him when he ventured on any considerable task, he was very slow with it. The eleven parts appeared in batches at intervals during a period of exactly the same number of years, and after all it was left unfinished. In 1735 another novel, the Paysan Parvenu, was begun, but this also was left unfinished. The year afterwards Marivaux, who was then nearly fifty years of age, was elected of the Academy. He survived for more than twenty years, and was not idle, again contributing occasionally to the Hfercure, writing plays, &quot;reflexions&quot; (which were seldom of much worth), and so forth. He died on the 12th February 1763, aged seventy-five years. The personal character of Marivaux was curious and somewhat contradictory, though not without analogies, one of the closest of which is to be found in Goldsmith. He was, however, unlike Goldsmith, at least as brilliant in conversation as with the pen. He was extremely good-natured, but forid of saying very severe things, unhesitating in his acceptance of favours (he drew a regular annuity from Helvetius), but exceedingly touchy if he thought himself in any way slighted. He was, though a great cultivator of sensibilitt, on the whole decent and moral in his writings, and was unsparing in his criticism of the rising Philosophcs. This last circumstance, and perhaps jealousy as well, made him a dangerous enemy in Voltaire, who lost but few opportunities of speaking disparagingly of him. Not very much is known of his life, though anecdotes of his sayings are not uncommon. He had good friends, not merely, as has been said, in the rich, generous, and amiable Helvetius, but in Madame de Tencin, in Fontenelle, and even in Madame de Pompadour, who gave him, it is said, a considerable pension, of the source of which he was ignorant. It is even asserted that annoyance at the discovery of the origin of a benefit which he thought camo directly from the king hastened his death ; and, though this is scarcely likely, his extreme sensitiveness is shown by many stories, one of which carries out in real life and almost to the letter Farquhar s famous mot as to &quot;laughing consumedly. &quot; He had one daughter, who took the veil, the duke of Orleans, the regent s successor, furnishing her with her dowry. We have no space here for a detailed criticism of Marivaux s extensive work. The so-called Marivaudage is the main point of importance about it, though the best of the comedies have great merits, and Marianne is an extremely important step in the legitimate development of the French novel, legitimate, that i., in opposition to the brilliant but episodic productions of Le Sage. The subject-matter of Marivaux s peculiar style has been generally and with tolerable exactness described as the metaphysic of love-making. His characters, in a happy phrase of Crebillon s, not only tell each other and the reader everything they have thought, but everything that they would like to persuade themselves that they have thought. The style chosen for this is justly regarded as derived mainly from Fontenelle, and through him from the Precieuses, though there are traces of it even in La Bruyere. It abuses metaphor somewhat, and delights to turn off a metaphor itself in some unexpected and bizarre fashion. Now it is a familiar phrase which is used where dignified language would be expected ; now the reverse. In the same criticism of Crebillon s which has been already quoted occurs another happy description of Marivaux s style as being &quot;an intro duction to each other of words which have never made acquaintance, and which think that they will not get on together,&quot; a phrase as happy in its imitation as in its satire of the style itself. Yet this fantastic embroidery of language has a certain charm, and suits perhaps better than any other style the somewhat unreal gallantry and scnsibilite which it describes and exhibits. Tha author possessed, moreover, both thought and observation, besides considerable com mand of pathos. He is not, and is never any more likely to be, generally popular, but he is one of the authors in whom those who do like them are sure to take particular delight. The best and most complete edition of Marivaux is that of 1781, 12 vols. 8vo. There is a good modern edition of the plays by E. Fonmier, and another of Marianne and the Paysan Parvenu in two volumes. J. Fleury s Marivaux et le Mariraudaf/e (Paris, 18bl) is worth consulting by those who are interested in the subject, (G. SA.) MARK, the traditional name of the author of the Second Gospel. The name Mark occurs in several books of the New Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles, chap. xii. mention is made of &quot;John whose surname was Mark,&quot; to the house of whose mother, Mary, at Jerusalem, Peter went when miraculously released from prison. 1 This John Mark went with Barnabas and Paul on their missionary journey, as far as Perga in Pamphylia, and then, &quot; departing from them, returned to Jerusalem&quot; (Acts xii. 25; xiii. 13). His departure was afterwards the occasion of a &quot; sharp contention&quot; between Paul and Barnabas; the former &quot; thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work &quot; ; the latter &quot; took Mark, and sailed away into Cyprus &quot; (Acts xv. 38, 39). On the subsequent history of Mark the Acts of the Apostles are silent. The same name Mark occurs in three Pauline epistles. (1) In Col. iv. 10 the writer enumerates Mark among bis fellow-workers, mentioning also that he was a nephew (some translate &quot; cousin &quot;) of Barnabas, and implying that he was a Jew (&quot;of the circumcision&quot;), He is evidently about to send him, in accordance with a previous intimation, on a special mission to the Colossians ; but there is no evidence, except the statement of the Coptic subscription to the epistle, to show whether the contemplated journey took place. (2) In Philemon 24 the writer also mentions Mark as one of his fellow-workers, i.e., probably in preaching the gospel during his imprisonment at Rome. (3) In 2 Tim. iv. 11 the writer gives the charge to Timothy, &quot;Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is useful to me for ministering.&quot; It is a plausible conjecture that this is a request that Mark might be brought back to Rome after his mission to Colossse. The same name also occurs in 1 Peter v. 13, &quot; Mark, my son.&quot; This expression has sometimes been taken literally ; but it is more usually understood in a metaphorical sense, as meaning that Peter had converted Mark. Those who take &quot; Babylon &quot; in the same passage to mean Rome necessarily infer that Mark was with Peter at Rome ; a tradition to the same effect is mentioned in fragments of Clement of Alexandria, preserved in Eusebius, H. E.,i. 15 ; vi. 14. The preponderance of patristic and mediaeval tradition is in favour of the hypothesis that the same person is designated in all these passages of the New Testament. But other hypotheses have found favour, especially among those writers of various schools w r ho have felt a difficulty in under standing how the same person should be an intimate com panion at once of St Paul and of St Peter. It has been supposed (1) that the John Mark of the Acts is the Mark of the Pauline epistles, but not the Mark of 1 Peter; (2) that the John Mark of the Acts, the Mark of the Pauline epistles, and the Mark of 1 Peter are all different ; (3) that the John Mark of the Acts is the Mark of 1 Peter, but not the Mark of the Pauline epistles. Into the arguments for these several hypotheses it is unnecessary to enter here ; they are of course complicated by the prior question of the authenticity and date of the books of the New Testament in which the name occurs. The most elaborate modern discussion of the question, which arrives at the conclusion that the first of the three hypotheses just mentioned is the true one, is contained in the work of Molini, whose title is given below. But, whether there was only one Mark or more than one, there is a general belief, which rests ulti mately on the testimony of the presbyter (John) who is quoted by Papias (ap. Euseb., //. E., iii. 39, 15), that the second canonical Gospel, or its original, is to be ascribed to the Mark who was the disciple of St Peter. 2 Of this Mark 1 This double name, the one Jewish, the other Roman, may be com pared with the double name &quot;Saul, who is also called Paul, succeeding chapters of the Acts ; sometimes the double name, so times one or other of the single names, is used. 2 Most of the arguments by which Kienlen (Stud. u. Ant., 1848, pp 423 sq.) endeavours to show that the Gospel is the work o: