Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XI.djvu/200

 188 MARRACCI low that of duke. In Germany, whence it derives its origin, the corresponding title is Martyraf, in English margrave or lord of the marches; and the persons so called or created were originally military chieftains to whom was committed the guardianship of the marches or frontiers of a country. Hence the medi- aeval Latin word marchio. In continental Eu- rope the marchiones, from being mere life oc- cupants of their office, became at a compara- tively early period territorial potentates, trans- mitting their titles and possessions, until they were established as a powerful hereditary order of nobility. In England the lords or wardens of the marches were originally barons or earls, whose office it was to preserve the frontier (as on the borders of Wales or Scotland) free from the inroads of the enemy. The office was regarded for many centuries as a special or temporary one, and the term marquis, as distinguished from other titles of honor, was unknown till 1385, when Richard II. created his favorite Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, marquis of Dublin for life, and gave him pre- cedence between the degrees of earl and duke. The next creation was that of John de Beau- fort, earl of Somerset, who was in 1397 made marquis of Dorset, and who, after being de- graded in parliament, where he was only con- sidered as earl of Somerset, declined to have the new honor restored to him, on the ground that " the name of marquis was a strange one in the kingdom." It was not again conferred until 40 years afterward, in the reign of Henry VI. Thenceforth it continued to be occasion- ally bestowed, but was scarcely ever borne by more than three or four persons at a time until the latter half of the reign of George III., when the number of marquises was made equal to that of the dukes. In 1874 the number of marquises who sat under that title in the Brit- ish house of peers was 21. Of the 20 British dukes, 11 had also the secondary title of mar- quis in the English, Scottish, or Irish peerage. MARRACCI, LndovlfO, an Italian orientalist, born in Lucca in 1612, died in Rome, Feb. 5, 1700. He devoted himself from his youth to the study of languages, became a proficient in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic, and was appointed professor of Arabic in the Sapienza college, and afterward in the Propa- ganda, at Rome. Pope Innocent XI. chose him as his confessor, and would have advanced him to ecclesiastical dignities had not Marracci declined. He edited the Koran in the original And.ic, with a Latin translation (Padua, 1698). MARRIAGE, in law. the conjugal union of one man with one woman. In all Christian com- munities the marriage relation exists, and is considered as the most solemn of contracts ; and excepting in Protestant countries, it is rv_ran led as a sacrament. In England, although not a sacrament of the church, it is not only celebrated as a religious ceremony, but until very recently it fell almost exclusively under the cognizance of the ecclesiastical courts. MARRIAGE Since the statute 20 and 21 Victoria, c. 85, however, the new court of probate and divorce has exercised some of the functions heretofore belonging to the ecclesiastical courts, together with some others, especially in the matter of divorce, which are quite new in English law. In the United States marriage is, by law, only a civil contract; magistrates, equally with clergymen, have a right to solemnize it ; but it is the prevailing practice of the country to have it performed by a clergyman, and attended with religious ceremonies. One very grave question remains in a state of singular uncertainty ; it is ; What is necessary to constitute a complete and valid marriage? or rather, are the cere- monies and forms, or any of them, which are indicated by law or are customarily used for the solemnization of marriage, indispensable, or is the mere consent of the parties sufficient? That such a question as this should be unset- tled both in England and in this country may well occasion surprise. But the true explana- tion of the mystery is, we apprehend, that very few persons have trusted to their own mere consent for the validity of their marriage, and the question has therefore very seldom come directly before the courts. Recently, however, this precise question has passed through the English courts. It came first before the court of queen's bench in Ireland, upon a trial for bigamy. The defendant was found guilty, and then, the first of the marriages not having been solemnized according to the direction if not requirement of law, the question arose whether it was so complete and perfect as to make the crime of bigamy possible. There were four judges, and they were equally divided. The chief justice then (against his opinion) joined pro forma with the two who thought the mar- riage valid, and the crime of bigamy commit- ted, for the purpose of having a decision by a majority, from which an appeal could be made to the house of lords in England. On appeal the question of the validity of the marriage by mere consent was fully argued by the ablest counsel in England before the lords, and the six law peers gave their opinions severally, each at great length ; and they were equally divided, Lords Brougham, Denman, and Camp- bell being in favor of the validity of the mar- riage at common law, and Lords Lyndhurst, Cottenham, and Abinger against it. This equal division affirmed the judgment, and the defen- dant was sentenced. Almost at the same time, by an odd coincidence, the same question came before the supreme court of the United States, and Chief Justice Taney, in deciding the case (on other grounds), said : " Upon this point the court is equally divided, and no opinion can be given." Nevertheless, the steady tendency of American decisions is in the direction of the conclusion reached by Chancellor Walworth (Rose. Clark, 8 Paige, 574), "that any mutual agreement between the parties to be husband and wife in presenti, especially where it is fol- lowed by cohabitation, constitutes a valid and