less than a century later only 1800 remained. They were typical Micronesians, with a considerable civilization. In the island of Tinian are some remarkable remains attributed to them, consisting of two rows of massive square stone columns, about 5 ft. 4 in. broad and 14 ft. high, with heavy round capitals. According to early Spanish accounts cinerary urns were found imbedded in the capitals.
The fauna of the Marianas, though inferior in number and variety, is similar in character to that of the Carolines, and certain species are indigenous to both colonies. Swine and oxen run wild, and are hunted when required: the former were known to the earlier inhabitants; the latter with most other domestic animals were introduced by the Spaniards. The climate though damp is healthy, while the heat, being tempered by the trade winds, is milder than that of the Philippines; the variations of temperature are not great.
The discovery of this archipelago is due to Magellan, who on the 6th of March 1521 observed the two southernmost islands, and sailed between them (O. Peschel, Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877). The name Islas de los Ladrones (or “Islands of the Thieves”) was given them by the ship’s crew of Magellan on account of the thieving propensity of the inhabitants; and the islands are still commonly called the Ladrones. Magellan himself styled them Islas de las Velas Latinas (“Islands of the Lateen Sails”). San Lazarus archipelago, Jardines and Prazeres are among the names applied to them by later navigators. They received the name Las Marianas in 1668 in honour of Maria Anna of Austria, widow of Philip IV. of Spain. Research in the archipelago was carried out by Commodore Anson, who in August 1742 landed upon the island of Tinian (George, Lord Anson, Voyage round the World, bk. iii., 1748). The Ladrones were visited by Byron in 1765, Wallis in 1767 and Crozet in 1772. The entire archipelago (except Guam) together with the Caroline and Pelew Islands was sold by Spain to Germany for £837,500 in 1899.
See Anson, op. cit.; L. de Freycinet, Voyage autour du monde (Paris, 1826-1844); “The Marianas Islands” in Nautical Magazine, xxxiv., xxxv. (London, 1865-1866); O. Finsch, Karolinen und Marianen (Hamburg, 1900); Costenoble, “Die Marianen” in Globus, lxxxviii. (1905).
MARIANAS, or Maranhas, a tribe of South American Indians on the river Jutahy, north-western Brazil. They wear small pieces of wood in their ears and lips, but are not tattooed. Marianas are also found on the upper reaches of the Putumayo across to the Yapurá.
MARIANUS SCOTUS (1028-1082 or 1083), chronicler (who must be distinguished from his namesake Marianus Scotus, d. 1088, abbot of St Peter’s, Regensburg), was an Irishman by birth, and called Moelbrigte, or servant of Bridget. He was educated by a certain Tigernach, and having become a monk he crossed over to the continent of Europe in 1056, and his subsequent life was passed in the abbeys of St Martin at Cologne and of Fulda, and at Mainz. He died at Mainz, on the 22nd of December 1082 or 1083.
Marianus wrote a Chronicon, which purports to be a universal history from the creation of the world to 1082. The Chronicon was very popular during the middle ages, and in England was extensively used by Florence of Worcester and other writers. It was first printed at Basel in 1559, and has been edited with an introduction by G. Waitz for the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores (Bd. v.). See also W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (Bd. ii., 1894).
MARIA STELLA, the self-styled legitimate daughter of Philip, duke of Orleans. According to her, Louis Philippe was not the son of Philip duke of Orleans, but a suppositious child, his father being one Lorenzo Chiappini, constable at the village of Modigliana in Tuscany. The story is that the duke and duchess of Orleans, travelling under the incognito of Comte and Comtesse de Joinville, were at this village in April 1773, when the duchess gave birth to a daughter; and that the duke, desiring a son in order to prevent the rich Penthièvre inheritance from reverting to his wife’s relations in the event of her death, bribed the Chiappinis to substitute their newly-born male child for his own.
Maria Stella, the supposed daughter of Chiappini, went on the stage at Florence, where her putative parents had settled, and there at the age of thirteen became the wife of the first Lord Newborough, after whose death she married the Russian Count Ungern-Sternberg. On the death of her putative father in 1821 she received a letter, written by him shortly before his death, in which he confessed that she was not his daughter, adding “Heaven has repaired my fault, since you are in a better position than your real father, though he was of almost similar rank” (i.e. a French nobleman). Maria Stella henceforward devoted her time and fortune to establishing her identity. Her first success was the judgment of the episcopal court at Faenza, which in 1824 declared that the Comte Louis de Joinville exchanged his daughter for the son of Lorenzo Chiappini, and that the Demoiselle de Joinville had been baptized as Maria Stella, “with the false statement that she was the daughter of L. Chiappini and his wife.” The discovery that Joinville was a countship of the Orleans family, and a real or fancied resemblance of Louis Philippe to Chiappini, convinced her that the duke of Orleans was the person for whose sake she had been cheated of her birthright, a conviction strengthened by the striking resemblance which many people discovered in her to the princesses of the Orleans family. In 1830 she published her proofs under the title Maria Stella ou un échange d’une demoiselle du plus haut rang contre un garçon de plus vile condition (reprinted 1839 and 1849). This coincided with the advent of Louis Philippe to the throne, and her claim became a weapon for those who wished to throw discredit and ridicule on the “bourgeois monarch.” He for his part treated the whole thing with amused contempt, and Baroness Newborough-Sternburg de Joinville, or Marie Étoile d’Orléans, as she called herself, was suffered to live in Paris until on the 23rd of December 1843 she died in poverty and obscurity.
In spite of much discussion and investigation, the case of Maria Stella remains one of the unsolved problems of history. Sir Ralph Payne Gallwey’s Mystery of Maria Stella, Lady Newborough (London, 1907), is founded on her own accounts and argues in favour of her point of view. More convincing, however, is Maurice Vitrac’s Philippe-Egalité et M. Chiappini (Paris, 1907), which is based on unpublished material in the Archives nationales. M. Vitrac seeks to overthrow Maria Stella’s case by an alibi. The duke and duchess of Chartres could not have been at Modigliana in April 1773, for the simple reason that they can be proved at that time to have been in Paris. On the 8th of April the duke, according to the official Gazette de France, took part in the Maundy Thursday ceremonies at Versailles; from the 7th to the 14th he was in constant attendance at the lodge of Freemasons of which he had just been elected grand master. Moreover, it was impossible for the first prince of the blood royal to leave France without the royal permission, and his absence would certainly have been remarked. Lastly, the duchess’s accouchement, a semi-public function in the case of royal princesses, did not take place till the 6th of October. M. Vitrac identifies the real father of Maria Stella with Count Carlo Battaglini of Rimini, who died in 1796 without issue: the case being not one of substitution, but of ordinary “farming out” to avoid a scandal.
MARIA THERESA (1717-1780), archduchess of Austria, queen of Hungary and Bohemia, and wife of the Holy Roman emperor Francis I., was born at Vienna on the 13th of May 1717. She was the eldest daughter of the Emperor Charles VI. (q.v.) and his wife Elizabeth of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. On the 12th of February 1736 she was married to her cousin Francis of Lorraine (q.v.), then grand duke of Tuscany, and afterwards emperor. Five sons and eleven daughters were born of this marriage. From the date of her father’s death on the 20th of October 1740, till her own death in 1780, Maria Theresa was one of the central figures in the wars and politics of Europe. But unlike some sovereigns, whose reigns have been agitated, but whose personal character has left little trace, Maria Theresa had a strong and in the main a noble individuality. Her great qualities were relieved by human traits which make her more sympathetic. It must be allowed that she was fairly open to the criticism implied in a husbandly jest attributed to Francis I. While they were returning from the opera house at Vienna she said to him that the singer they had just heard was the greatest actress who had ever lived, and he answered “Next to you, Madam.” Maria Theresa had undoubtedly an instinctive histrionic sense of the perspective of the theatre, and could adopt the appropriate attitude and gesture, passionate, dignified or pathetic, required to impress those she wished to influence. But there was no affectation in her assumption of a becoming bearing or in her picturesque words. The common story, that she appeared before the Hungarian magnates in the diet at Pressburg in 1741 with her infant son, afterwards