state. During the period of Leicester’s governorship he remained in the background, engaged in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the military art, and in 1586 the States of Holland conferred upon him the title of prince. On the withdrawal of Leicester from the Netherlands in August 1587, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, the advocate of Holland, became the leading statesman of the country, a position which he retained for upwards of thirty years. He had been a devoted adherent of William the Silent and he now used his influence to forward the interests of Maurice. In 1588 he was appointed by the States-General captain and admiral-general of the Union, in 1590 he was elected stadtholder of Utrecht and Overysel, and in 1591 of Gelderland. From this time forward, Oldenbarneveldt at the head of the civil government and Maurice in command of the armed forces of the republic worked together in the task of rescuing the United Netherlands from Spanish domination (for details see Holland). Maurice soon showed himself to be a general second in skill to none of his contemporaries. He was especially famed for his consummate knowledge of the science of sieges. The twelve years’ truce on the 9th of April 1609 brought to an end the cordial relations between Maurice and Oldenbarneveldt. Maurice was opposed to the truce, but the advocate’s policy triumphed and henceforward there was enmity between them. The theological disputes between the Remonstrants and contra-Remonstrants found them on different sides; and the theological quarrel soon became a political one. Oldenbarneveldt, supported by the states of Holland, came forward as the champion of provincial sovereignty against that of the states-general; Maurice threw the weight of his sword on the side of the union. The struggle was a short one, for the army obeyed the general who had so often led them to victory. Oldenbarneveldt perished on the scaffold, and the share which Maurice had in securing the illegal condemnation by a packed court of judges of the aged patriot must ever remain a stain upon his memory.
Maurice, who had on the death of his elder brother Philip William, in February 1618, become prince of Orange, was now supreme in the state, but during the remainder of his life he sorely missed the wise counsels of the experienced Oldenbarneveldt. War broke out again in 1621, but success had ceased to accompany him on his campaigns. His health gave way, and he died, a prematurely aged man, at the Hague on the 4th of April 1625. He was buried by his father’s side at Delft.
Bibliography.—I. Commelin, Wilhelm en Maurits v. Nassau, pr. v. Orangien, haer leven en bedrijf (Amsterdam, 1651); G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 1e série, 9 vols. (Leiden, 1841–1861); G. Groen van Prinsterer, Maurice et Barneveldt (Utrecht, 1875); J. L. Motley, Life and Death of John of Barneveldt (2 vols., The Hague, 1894); C. M. Kemp, v.d. Maurits v. Nassau, prins v. Oranje in zijn leven en verdiensten (4 vols., Rotterdam, 1845); M. O. Nutting, The Days of Prince Maurice (Boston and Chicago, 1894).
MAURISTS, a congregation of French Benedictines called after St Maurus (d. 565), a disciple of St Benedict and the legendary introducer of the Benedictine rule and life into Gaul.[1] At the end of the 16th century the Benedictine monasteries of France had fallen into a state of disorganization and relaxation. In the abbey of St Vaune near Verdun a reform was initiated by Dom Didier de la Cour, which spread to other houses in Lorraine, and in 1604 the reformed congregation of St Vaune was established, the most distinguished members of which were Ceillier and Calmet. A number of French houses joined the new congregation; but as Lorraine was still independent of the French crown, it was considered desirable to form on the same lines a separate congregation for France. Thus in 1621 was established the famous French congregation of St Maur. Most of the Benedictine monasteries of France, except those belonging to Cluny, gradually joined the new congregation, which eventually embraced nearly two hundred houses. The chief house was Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris, the residence of the superior-general and centre of the literary activity of the congregation. The primary idea of the movement was not the undertaking of literary and historical work, but the return to a strict monastic régime and the faithful carrying out of Benedictine life; and throughout the most glorious period of Maurist history the literary work was not allowed to interfere with the due performance of the choral office and the other duties of the monastic life. Towards the end of the 18th century a tendency crept in, in some quarters, to relax the monastic observances in favour of study; but the constitutions of 1770 show that a strict monastic régime was maintained until the end. The course of Maurist history and work was checkered by the ecclesiastical controversies that distracted the French Church during the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of the members identified themselves with the Jansenist cause; but the bulk, including nearly all the greatest names, pursued a middle path, opposing the lax moral theology condemned in 1679 by Pope Innocent XI., and adhering to those strong views on grace and predestination associated with the Augustinian and Thomist schools of Catholic theology; and like all the theological faculties and schools on French soil, they were bound to teach the four Gallican articles. It seems that towards the end of the 18th century a rationalistic and free-thinking spirit invaded some of the houses. The congregation was suppressed and the monks scattered at the revolution, the last superior-general with forty of his monks dying on the scaffold in Paris. The present French congregation of Benedictines initiated by Dom Guéranger in 1833 is a new creation and has no continuity with the congregation of St Maur.
The great claim of the Maurists to the gratitude and admiration of posterity is their historical and critical school, which stands quite alone in history, and produced an extraordinary number of colossal works of erudition which still are of permanent value. The foundations of this school were laid by Dom Tarisse, the first superior-general, who in 1632 issued instructions to the superiors of the monasteries to train the young monks in the habits of research and of organized work. The pioneers in production were Ménard and d’Achery.
The following tables give, divided into groups, the most important Maurist works, along with such information as may be useful to students. All works are folio when not otherwise noted:—
| I.—The Editions of the Fathers | ||||
| Epistle of Barnabas (editio princeps) |
Ménard | 1645 | 1 | in 4to |
| Lanfranc | d’Achery | 1648 | 1 | |
| Guibert of Nogent | d’Achery | 1651 | 1 | |
| Robert Pulleyn and Peter of Poitiers |
Mathou | 1655 | 1 | |
| Bernard | Mabillon | 1667 | 2 | |
| Anselm | Gerberon | 1675 | 1 | |
| Cassiodorus | Garet | 1679 | 1 | |
| Augustine (see Kukula, Die Mauriner-Ausgabe des Augustinus, 1898) |
Delfau, Blampin, Coustant, Guesnie |
1681–1700 | 11 | |
| Ambrose | du Frische | 1686–1690 | 2 | |
| Acta martyrum sincera | Ruinart | 1689 | 1 | |
| Hilary | Coustant | 1693 | 1 | |
| Jerome | Martianay | 1693–1706 | 5 | |
| Athanasius | Loppin and Montfaucon | 1698 | 3 | |
| Gregory of Tours | Ruinart | 1699 | 1 | |
| Gregory the Great | Sainte-Marthe | 1705 | 4 | |
| Hildebert of Tours | Beaugendre | 1708 | 1 | |
| Irenaeus | Massuet | 1710 | 1 | |
| Chrysostom | Montfaucon | 1718–1738 | 13 | |
| Cyril of Jerusalem | Touttée and Maran | 1720 | 1 | |
| Epistolae romanorum pontificum[2] |
Coustant | 1721 | 1 | |
| Basil | Garnier and Maran | 1721–1730 | 3 | |
| Cyprian | (Baluze, not a Maurist) finished by Maran |
1726 | 1 | |
| Origen | Ch. de la Rue (1, 2, 3) V. de la Rue (4) |
1733–1759 | 4 | |
| Justin and the Apologists | Maran | 1742 | 1 | |
| Gregory Nazianzen[3] | Maran and Clémencet | 1778 | 1 | |
