THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XVII SLICE VIII
Matter to Mecklenburg

Articles in This Slice

MATTER. Our conceptions of the nature and structure of matter have been profoundly influenced in recent years by investigations on the Conduction of Electricity through Gases (see [Conduction, Electric]) and on Radio-activity (q.v.). These researches and the ideas which they have suggested have already thrown much light on some of the most fundamental questions connected with matter; they have, too, furnished us with far more powerful methods for investigating many problems connected with the structure of matter than those hitherto available. There is thus every reason to believe that our knowledge of the structure of matter will soon become far more precise and complete than it is at present, for now we have the means of settling by testing directly many points which are still doubtful, but which formerly seemed far beyond the reach of experiment.

The Molecular Theory of Matter—the only theory ever seriously advocated—supposes that all visible forms of matter are collocations of simpler and smaller portions. There has been a continuous tendency as science has advanced to reduce further and further the number of the different kinds of things of which all matter is supposed to be built up. First came the molecular theory teaching us to regard matter as made up of an enormous number of small particles, each kind of matter having its characteristic particle, thus the particles of water were supposed to be different from those of air and indeed from those of any other substance. Then came Dalton’s Atomic Theory which taught that these molecules, in spite of their almost infinite variety, were all built up of still smaller bodies, the atoms of the chemical elements, and that the number of different types of these smaller bodies was limited to the sixty or seventy types which represent the atoms of the substance regarded by chemists as elements.

In 1815 Prout suggested that the atoms of the heavier chemical elements were themselves composite and that they were all built up of atoms of the lightest element, hydrogen, so that all the different forms of matter are edifices built of the same material—the atom of hydrogen. If the atoms of hydrogen do not alter in weight when they combine to form atoms of other elements the atomic weights of all elements would be multiples of that of hydrogen; though the number of elements whose atomic weights are multiples or very nearly so of hydrogen is very striking, there are several which are universally admitted to have atomic weights differing largely from whole numbers. We do not know enough about gravity to say whether this is due to the change of weight of the hydrogen atoms when they combine to form other atoms, or whether the primordial form from which all matter is built up is something other than the hydrogen atom. Whatever may be the nature of this primordial form, the tendency of all recent discoveries has been to emphasize the truth of the conception of a common basis of matter of all kinds. That the atoms of the different elements have a common basis, that they behave as if they consisted of different numbers of small particles of the same kind, is proved to most minds by the Periodic Law of Mendeléeff and Newlands (see [Element]). This law shows that the physical and chemical properties of the different elements are determined by their atomic weights, or to use the language of mathematics, the properties of an element are functions of its atomic weight. Now if we constructed models of the atoms out of different materials, the atomic weight would be but one factor out of many which would influence the physical and chemical properties of the model, we should require to know more than the atomic weight to fix its behaviour. If we were to plot a curve representing the variation of some property of the substance with the atomic weight we should not expect the curve to be a smooth one, for instance two atoms might have the same atomic weight and yet if they were made of different materials have no other property in common. The influence of the atomic weight on the properties of the elements is nowhere more strikingly shown than in the recent developments of physics connected with the discharge of electricity through gases and with radio-activity. The transparency of bodies to Röntgen rays, to cathode rays, to the rays emitted by radio-active substances, the quality of the secondary radiation emitted by the different elements are all determined by the atomic weight of the element. So much is this the case that the behaviour of the element with respect to these rays has been used to determine its atomic weight, when as in the case of Indium, uncertainty as to the valency of the element makes the result of ordinary chemical methods ambiguous.

The radio-active elements indeed furnish us with direct evidence of this unity of composition of matter, for not only does one element uranium, produce another, radium, but all the radio-active substances give rise to helium, so that the substance of the atoms of this gas must be contained in the atoms of the radio-active elements.

It is not radio-active atoms alone that contain a common constituent, for it has been found that all bodies can by suitable treatment, such as raising them to incandescence or exposing them to ultra-violet light, be made to emit negatively electrified particles, and that these particles are the same from whatever source they may be derived. These particles all carry the same charge of negative electricity and all have the same mass, this mass is exceedingly small even when compared with the mass of an atom of hydrogen, which until the discovery of these particles was the smallest mass known to science. These particles are called corpuscles or electrons; their mass according to the most recent determinations is only about 1⁄1700 of that of an atom of hydrogen, and their radius is only about one hundred-thousandth part of the radius of the hydrogen atom. As corpuscles of this kind can be obtained from all substances, we infer that they form a constituent of the atoms of all bodies. The atoms of the different elements do not all contain the same number of corpuscles—there are more corpuscles in the atoms of the heavier elements than in the atoms of the lighter ones; in fact, many different considerations point to the conclusion that the number of corpuscles in the atom of any element is proportional to the atomic weight of the element. Different methods of estimating the exact number of corpuscles in the atom have all led to the conclusion that this number is of the same order as the atomic weight; that, for instance, the number of corpuscles in the atom of oxygen is not a large multiple of 16. Some methods indicate that the number of corpuscles in the atom is equal to the atomic weight, while the maximum value obtained by any method is only about four times the atomic weight. This is one of the points on which further experiments will enable us to speak with greater precision. Thus one of the constituents of all atoms is the negatively charged corpuscle; since the atoms are electrically neutral, this negative charge must be accompanied by an equal positive one, so that on this view the atoms must contain a charge of positive electricity proportional to the atomic weight; the way in which this positive electricity is arranged is a matter of great importance in the consideration of the constitution of matter. The question naturally arises, is the positive electricity done up into definite units like the negative, or does it merely indicate a property acquired by an atom when one or more corpuscles leave it? It is very remarkable that we have up to the present (1910), in spite of many investigations on this point, no direct evidence of the existence of positively charged particles with a mass comparable with that of a corpuscle; the smallest positive particle of which we have any direct indication has a mass equal to the mass of an atom of hydrogen, and it is a most remarkable fact that we get positively charged particles having this mass when we send the electric discharge through gases at low pressures, whatever be the kind of gas. It is no doubt exceedingly difficult to get rid of traces of hydrogen in vessels containing gases at low pressures through which an electric discharge is passing, but the circumstances under which the positively electrified particles just alluded to appear, and the way in which they remain unaltered in spite of all efforts to clear out any traces of hydrogen, all seem to indicate that these positively electrified particles, whose mass is equal to that of an atom of hydrogen, do not come from minute traces of hydrogen present as an impurity but from the oxygen, nitrogen, or helium, or whatever may be the gas through which the discharge passes. If this is so, then the most natural conclusion we can come to is that these positively electrified particles with the mass of the atom of hydrogen are the natural units of positive electricity, just as the corpuscles are those of negative, and that these positive particles form a part of all atoms.

Thus in this way we are led to an electrical view of the constitution of the atom. We regard the atom as built up of units of negative electricity and of an equal number of units of positive electricity; these two units are of very different mass, the mass of the negative unit being only 1⁄1700 of that of the positive. The number of units of either kind is proportional to the atomic weight of the element and of the same order as this quantity. Whether this is anything besides the positive and negative electricity in the atom we do not know. In the present state of our knowledge of the properties of matter it is unnecessary to postulate the existence of anything besides these positive and negative units.

The atom of a chemical element on this view of the constitution of matter is a system formed by n corpuscles and n units of positive electricity which is in equilibrium or in a state of steady motion under the electrical forces which the charged 2n constituents exert upon each other. Sir J. J. Thomson (Phil. Mag., March 1904, “Corpuscular Theory of Matter”) has investigated the systems in steady motion which can be formed by various numbers of negatively electrified particles immersed in a sphere of uniform positive electrification, a case, which in consequence of the enormous volume of the units of positive electricity in comparison with that of the negative has much in common with the problem under consideration, and has shown that some of the properties of n systems of corpuscles vary in a periodic way suggestive of the Periodic Law in Chemistry as n is continually increased.

Mass on the Electrical Theory of Matter.—One of the most characteristic things about matter is the possession of mass. When we take the electrical theory of matter the idea of mass takes new and interesting forms. This point may be illustrated by the case of a single electrified particle; when this moves it produces in the region around it a magnetic field, the magnetic force being proportional to the velocity of the electrified particle.[1] In a magnetic field, however, there is energy, and the amount of energy per unit volume at any place is proportional to the square of the magnetic force at that place. Thus there will be energy distributed through the space around the moving particle, and when the velocity of the particle is small compared with that of light we can easily show that the energy in the region around the charged particle is μe2/3a, when v is the velocity of the particle, e its charge, a its radius, and μ the magnetic permeability of the region round the particle. If m is the ordinary mass of the particle, the part of the kinetic energy due to the motion of this mass is 1⁄2 mv2, thus the total kinetic energy is 1⁄2 (m + 2⁄3μe2/a). Thus the electric charge on the particle makes it behave as if its mass were increased by 2⁄3μe2/a. Since this increase in mass is due to the energy in the region outside the charged particle, it is natural to look to that region for this additional mass. This region is traversed by the tubes of force which start from the electrified body and move with it, and a very simple calculation shows that we should get the increase in the mass which is due to the electrification if we suppose that these tubes of force as they move carry with them a certain amount of the ether, and that this ether had mass. The mass of ether thus carried along must be such that the amount of it in unit volume at any part of the field is such that if this were to move with the velocity of light its kinetic energy would be equal to the potential energy of the electric field in the unit volume under consideration. When a tube moves this mass of ether only participates in the motion at right angles to the tube, it is not set in motion by a movement of the tube along its length. We may compare the mass which a charged body acquires in virtue of its charge with the additional mass which a ball apparently acquires when it is placed in water; a ball placed in water behaves as if its mass were greater than its mass when moving in vacuo; we can easily understand why this should be the case, because when the ball in the water moves the water around it must move as well; so that when a force acting on the ball sets it in motion it has to move some of the water as well as the ball, and thus the ball behaves as if its mass were increased. Similarly in the case of the electrified particle, which when it moves carries with it its lines of force, which grip the ether and carry some of it along with them. When the electrified particle is moved a mass of ether has to be moved too, and thus the apparent mass of the particle is increased. The mass of the electrified particle is thus resident in every part of space reached by its lines of force; in this sense an electrified body may be said to extend to an infinite distance; the amount of the mass of the ether attached to the particle diminishes so rapidly as we recede from it that the contributions of regions remote from the particle are quite insignificant, and in the case of a particle as small as a corpuscle not one millionth part of its mass will be farther away from it than the radius of an atom.

The increase in the mass of a particle due to given charges varies as we have seen inversely as the radius of the particle; thus the smaller the particle the greater the increase in the mass. For bodies of appreciable size or even for those as small as ordinary atoms the effect of any realizable electric charge is quite insignificant, on the other hand for the smallest bodies known, the corpuscle, there is evidence that the whole of the mass is due to the electric charge. This result has been deduced by the help of an extremely interesting property of the mass due to a charge of electricity, which is that this mass is not constant but varies with the velocity. This comes about in the following way. When the charged particle, which for simplicity we shall suppose to be spherical, is at rest or moving very slowly the lines of electric force are distributed uniformly around it in all directions; when the sphere moves, however, magnetic forces are produced in the region around it, while these, in consequence of electro-magnetic induction in a moving magnetic field, give rise to electric forces which displace the tubes of electric force in such a way as to make them set themselves so as to be more at right angles to the direction in which they are moving than they were before. Thus if the charged sphere were moving along the line AB, the tubes of force would, when the sphere was in motion, tend to leave the region near AB and crowd towards a plane through the centre of the sphere and at right angles to AB, where they would be moving more nearly at right angles to themselves. This crowding of the lines of force increases, however, the potential energy of the electric field, and since the mass of the ether carried along by the lines of force is proportional to the potential energy, the mass of the charged particle will also be increased. The amount of variation of the mass with the velocity depends to some extent on the assumptions we make as to the shape of the corpuscle and the way in which it is electrified. The simplest expression connecting the mass with the velocity is that when the velocity is v the mass is equal to 2⁄3μe2/a [1/(1 − v2/c2)1/2] where c is the velocity of light. We see from this that the variation of mass with velocity is very small unless the velocity of the body approaches that of light, but when, as in the case of the β particles emitted by radium, the velocity is only a few per cent less than that of light, the effect of velocity on the mass becomes very considerable; the formula indicates that if the particles were moving with a velocity equal to that of light they would behave as if their mass were infinite. By observing the variation in the mass of a corpuscle as its velocity changes we can determine how much of the mass depends upon the electric charge and how much is independent of it. For since the latter part of the mass is independent of the velocity, if it predominates the variation with velocity of the mass of a corpuscle will be small; if on the other hand it is negligible the variation in mass with velocity will be that indicated by theory given above. The experiment of Kaufmann (Göttingen Nach., Nov. 8, 1901), Bucherer (Ann. der Physik., xxviii. 513, 1909) on the masses of the β particles shot out by radium, as well as those by Hupka (Berichte der deutsch. physik. Gesell., 1909, p. 249) on the masses of the corpuscle in cathode rays are in agreement with the view that the whole of the mass of these particles is due to their electric charge.

The alteration in the mass of a moving charge with its velocity is primarily due to the increase in the potential energy which accompanies the increase in velocity. The connexion between potential energy and mass is general and holds for any arrangement of electrified particles; thus if we assume the electrical constitution of matter, there will be a part of the mass of any system dependent upon the potential energy and in fact proportional to it. Thus every change in potential energy, such for example as occurs when two elements combine with evolution or absorption of heat, must be attended by a change in mass. The amount of this change can be calculated by the rule that if a mass equal to the change in mass were to move with the velocity of light its kinetic energy would equal the change in the potential energy. If we apply this result to the case of the combination of hydrogen and oxygen, where the evolution of heat, about 1.6 × 1011 ergs per gramme of water, is greater than in any other known case of chemical combination, we see that the change in mass would only amount to one part in 3000 million, which is far beyond the reach of experiment. The evolution of energy by radio-active substances is enormously larger than in ordinary chemical transformations; thus one gramme of radium emits per day about as much energy as is evolved in the formation of one gramme of water, and goes on doing this for thousands of years. We see, however, that even in this case it would require hundreds of years before the changes in mass became appreciable.

The evolution of energy from the gaseous emanation given off by radium is more rapid than that from radium itself, since according to the experiments of Rutherford (Rutherford, Radio-activity, p. 432) a gramme of the emanation would evolve about 2.1 × 1016 ergs in four days; this by the rule given above would diminish the mass by about one part in 20,000; but since only very small quantities of the emanation could be used the detection of the change of mass does not seem feasible even in this case.

On the view we have been discussing the existence of potential energy due to an electric field is always associated with mass; wherever there is potential energy there is mass. On the electro-magnetic theory of light, however, a wave of light is accompanied by electric forces, and therefore by potential energy; thus waves of light must behave as if they possessed mass. It may be shown that it follows from the same principles that they must also possess momentum, the direction of the momentum being the direction along which the light is travelling; when the light is absorbed by an opaque substance the momentum in the light is communicated to the substance, which therefore behaves as if the light pressed upon it. The pressure exerted by light was shown by Maxwell (Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., p. 440) to be a consequence of his electro-magnetic theory, its existence has been established by the experiment of Lebedew, of Nichols and Hull, and of Poynting.

We have hitherto been considering mass from the point of view that the constitution of matter is electrical; we shall proceed to consider the question of weight from the same point of view. The relation between mass and weight Weight. is, while the simplest in expression, perhaps the most fundamental and mysterious property possessed by matter. The weight of a body is proportional to its mass, that is if the weights of a number of substances are equal the masses will be equal, whatever the substances may be. This result was verified to a considerable degree of approximation by Newton by means of experiments with pendulums; later, in 1830 Bessel by a very extensive and accurate series of experiments, also made on pendulums, showed that the ratio of mass to weight was certainly to one part in 60,000 the same for all the substances examined by him, these included brass, silver, iron, lead, copper, ivory, water.

The constancy of this ratio acquires new interest when looked at from the point of view of the electrical constitution of matter. We have seen that the atoms of all bodies contain corpuscles, that the mass of a corpuscle is only 1⁄1700 of the mass of an atom of hydrogen, that it carries a constant charge of negative electricity, and that its mass is entirely due to this charge, and can be regarded as arising from ether gripped by the lines of force starting from the electrical charge. The question at once suggests itself, Is this kind of mass ponderable? does it add to the weight of the body? and, if so, is the proportion between mass and weight the same as for ordinary bodies? Let us suppose for a moment that this mass is not ponderable, so that the corpuscles increase the mass but not the weight of an atom. Then, since the mass of a corpuscle is 1⁄1700 that of an atom of hydrogen, the addition or removal of one corpuscle would in the case of an atom of atomic weight x alter the mass by one part in 1700 x, without altering the weight, this would produce an effect of the same magnitude on the ratio of mass to weight and would in the case of the atoms of the lighter elements be easily measurable in experiments of the same order of accuracy as those made by Bessel. If the number of corpuscles in the atom were proportional to the atomic weight, then the ratio of mass to weight would be constant whether the corpuscles were ponderable or not. If the number were not proportional there would be greater discrepancies in the ratio of mass to weight than is consistent with Bessel’s experiments if the corpuscles had no weight. We have seen there are other grounds for concluding that the number of corpuscles in an atom is proportional to the atom weight, so that the constancy of the ratio of mass to weight for a large number of substances does not enable us to determine whether or not mass due to charges of electricity is ponderable or not.

There seems some hope that the determination of this ratio for radio-active substances may throw some light on this point. The enormous amount of heat evolved by these bodies may indicate that they possess much greater stores of potential energy than other substances. If we suppose that the heat developed by one gramme of a radio-active substance in the transformations which it undergoes before it reaches the non-radio-active stage is a measure of the excess of the potential energy in a gramme of this substance above that in a gramme of non-radio-active substance, it would follow that a larger part of the mass was due to electric charges in radio-active than in non-radio-active substances; in the case of uranium this difference would amount to at least one part in 20,000 of the total mass. If this extra mass had no weight the ratio of mass to weight for uranium would differ from the normal amount by more than one part in 20,000, a quantity quite within the range of pendulum experiments. It thus appears very desirable to make experiments on the ratio of mass to weight for radio-active substances. Sir J. J. Thomson, by swinging a small pendulum whose bob was made of radium bromide, has shown that this ratio for radium does not differ from the normal by one part in 2000. The small quantity of radium available prevented the attainment of greater accuracy. Experiments just completed (1910) by Southerns at the Cavendish Laboratory on this ratio for uranium show that it is normal to an accuracy of one part in 200,000; indicating that in non-radio-active, as in radio-active, substances the electrical mass is proportional to the atomic weight.

Though but few experiments have been made in recent years on the value of the ratio of mass to weight, many important investigations have been made on the effect of alterations in the chemical and physical conditions on the weight of bodies. These have all led to the conclusion that no change which can be detected by our present means of investigation occurs in the weight of a body in consequence of any physical or chemical changes yet investigated. Thus Landolt, who devoted a great number of years to the question whether any change in weight occurs during chemical combination, came finally to the conclusion that in no case out of the many he investigated did any measurable change of weight occur during chemical combination. Poynting and Phillips (Proc. Roy. Soc., 76, p. 445), as well as Southerns (78, p. 392), have shown that change in temperature produces no change in the weight of a body; and Poynting has also shown that neither the weight of a crystal nor the attraction between two crystals depends at all upon the direction in which the axis of the crystal points. The result of these laborious and very carefully made experiments has been to strengthen the conviction that the weight of a given portion of matter is absolutely independent of its physical condition or state of chemical combinations. It should, however, be noticed that we have as yet no accurate investigation as to whether or not any changes of weight occur during radio-active transformations, such for example as the emanation from radium undergoes when the atoms themselves of the substance are disrupted.

It is a matter of some interest in connexion with a discussion of any views of the constitution of matter to consider the theories of gravitation which have been put forward to explain that apparently invariable property of matter—its weight. It would be impossible to consider in detail the numerous theories which have been put forward to account for gravitation; a concise summary of many of these has been given by Drude (Wied. Ann. 62, p. 1);[2] there is no dearth of theories as to the cause of gravitation, what is lacking is the means of putting any of them to a decisive test.

There are, however, two theories of gravitation, both old, which seem to be especially closely connected with the idea of the electrical constitution of matter. The first of these is the theory, associated with the two fluid theory of electricity, that gravity is a kind of residual electrical effect, due to the attraction between the units of positive and negative electricity being a little greater than the repulsion between the units of electricity of the same kind. Thus on this view two charges of equal magnitude, but of opposite sign, would exert an attraction varying inversely as the square of the distance on a charge of electricity of either sign, and therefore an attraction on a system consisting of two charges equal in magnitude but opposite in sign forming an electrically neutral system. Thus if we had two neutral systems, A and B, A consisting of m positive units of electricity and an equal number of negative, while B has n units of each kind, then the gravitational attraction between A and B would be inversely proportional to the square of the distance and proportional to n m. The connexion between this view of gravity and that of the electrical constitution of matter is evidently very close, for if gravity arose in this way the weight of a body would only depend upon the number of units of electricity in the body. On the view that the constitution of matter is electrical, the fundamental units which build up matter are the units of electric charge, and as the magnitude of these charges does not change, whatever chemical or physical vicissitudes matter, the weight of matter ought not to be affected by such changes. There is one result of this theory which might possibly afford a means of testing it: since the charge on a corpuscle is equal to that on a positive unit, the weights of the two are equal; but the mass of the corpuscle is only 1⁄1700 of that of the positive unit, so that the acceleration of the corpuscle under gravity will be 1700 times that of the positive unit, which we should expect to be the same as that for ponderable matter or 981.

The acceleration of the corpuscle under gravity on this view would be 1.6 × 106. It does not seem altogether impossible that with methods slightly more powerful than those we now possess we might measure the effect of gravity on a corpuscle if the acceleration were as large as this.

The other theory of gravitation to which we call attention is that due to Le Sage of Geneva and published in 1818. Le Sage supposed that the universe was thronged with exceedingly small particles moving with very great velocities. These particles he called ultra-mundane corpuscles, because they came to us from regions far beyond the solar system. He assumed that these were so penetrating that they could pass through masses as large as the sun or the earth without being absorbed to more than a very small extent. There is, however, some absorption, and if bodies are made up of the same kind of atoms, whose dimensions are small compared with the distances between them, the absorption will be proportional to the mass of the body. So that as the ultra-mundane corpuscles stream through the body a small fraction, proportional to the mass of the body, of their momentum is communicated to it. If the direction of the ultra-mundane corpuscles passing through the body were uniformly distributed, the momentum communicated by them to the body would not tend to move it in one direction rather than in another, so that a body, A, alone in the universe and exposed to bombardment by the ultra-mundane corpuscles would remain at rest. If, however, there were a second body, B, in the neighbourhood of A, B will shield A from some of the corpuscles moving in the direction BA; thus A will not receive as much momentum in this direction as when it was alone; but in this case it only received just enough to keep it in equilibrium, so that when B is present the momentum in the opposite direction will get the upper hand and A will move in the direction AB, and will thus be attracted by B. Similarly, we see that B will be attracted by A. Le Sage proved that the rate at which momentum was being communicated to A or B by the passage through them of his corpuscles was proportional to the product of the masses of A and B, and if the distance between A and B was large compared with their dimensions, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them; in fact, that the forces acting on them would obey the same laws as the gravitational attraction between them. Clerk Maxwell (article “Atom,” Ency. Brit., 9th ed.) pointed out that this transference of momentum from the ultra-mundane corpuscles to the body through which they passed involved the loss of kinetic energy by the corpuscles, and if the loss of momentum were large enough to account for the gravitational attraction, the loss of kinetic energy would be so large that if converted into heat it would be sufficient to keep the body white hot. We need not, however, suppose that this energy is converted into heat; it might, as in the case where Röntgen rays are produced by the passage of electrified corpuscles through matter, be transformed into the energy of a still more penetrating form of radiation, which might escape from the gravitating body without heating it. It is a very interesting result of recent discoveries that the machinery which Le Sage introduced for the purpose of his theory has a very close analogy with things for which we have now direct experimental evidence. We know that small particles moving with very high speeds do exist, that they possess considerable powers of penetrating solids, though not, as far as we know at present, to an extent comparable with that postulated by Le Sage; and we know that the energy lost by them as they pass through a solid is to a large extent converted into a still more penetrating form of radiation, Röntgen rays. In Le Sage’s theory the only function of the corpuscles is to act as carriers of momentum, any systems which possessed momentum, moved with a high velocity and had the power of penetrating solids, might be substituted for them; now waves of electric and magnetic force, such as light waves or Röntgen rays, possess momentum, move with a high velocity, and the latter at any rate possess considerable powers of penetration; so that we might formulate a theory in which penetrating Röntgen rays replaced Le Sage’s corpuscles. Röntgen rays, however, when absorbed do not, as far as we know, give rise to more penetrating Röntgen rays as they should to explain attraction, but either to less penetrating rays or to rays of the same kind.

We have confined our attention in this article to the view that the constitution of matter is electrical; we have done so because this view is more closely in touch with experiment than any other yet advanced. The units of which matter is built up on this theory have been isolated and detected in the laboratory, and we may hope to discover more and more of their properties. By seeing whether the properties of matter are or are not such as would arise from a collection of units having these properties, we can apply to this theory tests of a much more definite and rigorous character than we can apply to any other theory of matter.

(J. J. T.)

[1] We may measure this velocity with reference to any axes, provided we refer the motion of all the bodies which come into consideration to the same axes.

[2] A theory published after Drude’s paper in that of Professor Osborne Reynolds, given in his Rede lecture “On an Inversion of Ideas as to the Structure of the Universe.”

MATTERHORN, one of the best known mountains (14,782 ft.) in the Alps. It rises S.W. of the village of Zermatt, and on the frontier between Switzerland (canton of the Valais) and Italy. Though on the Swiss side it appears to be an isolated obelisk, it is really but the butt end of a ridge, while the Swiss slope is not nearly as steep or difficult as the grand terraced walls of the Italian slope. It was first conquered, after a number of attempts chiefly on the Italian side, on the 14th of July 1865, by Mr E. Whymper’s party, three members of which (Lord Francis Douglas, the Rev. C. Hudson and Mr Hadow) with the guide, Michel Croz, perished by a slip on the descent. Three days later it was scaled from the Italian side by a party of men from Val Tournanche. Nowadays it is frequently ascended in summer, especially from Zermatt.

MATTEUCCI, CARLO (1811-1868), Italian physicist, was born at Forlì on the 20th of June 1811. After attending the École Polytechnique at Paris, he became professor of physics successively at Bologna (1832), Ravenna (1837) and Pisa (1840). From 1847 he took an active part in politics, and in 1860 was chosen an Italian senator, at the same time becoming inspector-general of the Italian telegraph lines. Two years later he was minister of education. He died near Leghorn on the 25th of June 1868.

He was the author of four scientific treatises: Lezioni di fisica (2 vols., Pisa, 1841), Lezioni sui fenomeni fisicochimici dei corpi viventi (Pisa, 1844), Manuale di telegrafia elettrica (Pisa, 1850) and Cours spécial sur l’induction, le magnetisme de rotation, &c. (Paris, 1854). His numerous papers were published in the Annales de chimie et de physique (1829-1858); and most of them also appeared at the time in the Italian scientific journals. They relate almost entirely to electrical phenomena, such as the magnetic rotation of light, the action of gas batteries, the effects of torsion on magnetism, the polarization of electrodes, &c., sufficiently complete accounts of which are given in Wiedemann’s Galvanismus. Nine memoirs, entitled “Electro-Physiological Researches,” were published in the Philosophical Transactions, 1845-1860. See Bianchi’s Carlo Matteucci e l’Italia del suo tempo (Rome, 1874).

MATTHEW, ST (Μαθθαῖος or Ματθαῖος, probably a shortened form of the Hebrew equivalent to Theodorus), one of the twelve apostles, and the traditional author of the First Gospel, where he is described as having been a tax-gatherer or customs-officer (τελώνης, x. 3), in the service of the tetrarch Herod. The circumstances of his call to become a follower of Jesus, received as he sat in the “customs house” in one of the towns by the Sea of Galilee—apparently Capernaum (Mark ii. 1, 13), are briefly related in ix. 9. We should gather from the parallel narrative in Mark ii. 14, Luke v. 27, that he was at the time known as “Levi the son of Alphaeus” (compare Simon Cephas, Joseph Barnabas): if so, “James the son of Alphaeus” may have been his brother. Possibly “Matthew” (Yahweh’s gift) was his Christian surname, since two native names, neither being a patronymic, is contrary to Jewish usage. It must be noted, however, that Matthew and Levi were sometimes distinguished in early times, as by Heracleon (c. 170 A.D.), and more dubiously by Origen (c. Celsum, i. 62), also apparently in the Syriac Didascalia (sec. iii.), V. xiv. 14. It has generally been supposed, on the strength of Luke’s account (v. 29), that Matthew gave a feast in Jesus’ honour (like Zacchaeus, Luke xix. 6 seq.). But Mark (ii. 15), followed by Matthew (ix. 10), may mean that the meal in question was one in Jesus’ own home at Capernaum (cf. v. 1). In the lists of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels and in Acts, Matthew ranks third or fourth in the second group of four—a fair index of his relative importance in the apostolic age. The only other facts related of Matthew on good authority concern him as Evangelist. Eusebius (H.E. iii. 24) says that he, like John, wrote only at the spur of necessity. “For Matthew, after preaching to Hebrews, when about to go also to others, committed to writing in his native tongue the Gospel that bears his name; and so by his writing supplied, for those whom he was leaving, the loss of his presence.” The value of this tradition, which may be based on Papias, who certainly reported that “Matthew compiled the Oracles (of the Lord) in Hebrew,” can be estimated only in connexion with the study of the Gospel itself (see below). No historical use can be made of the artificial story, in Sanhedrin 43a, that Matthew was condemned to death by a Jewish court (see Laihle, Christ in the Talmud, 71 seq.). According to the Gnostic Heracleon, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9), Matthew died a natural death. The tradition as to his ascetic diet (in Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. 16) maybe due to confusion with Matthias (cf. Mart. Matthaei, i.). The earliest legend as to his later labours, one of Syrian origin, places them in the Parthian kingdom, where it represents him as dying a natural death at Hierapolis (= Mabog on the Euphrates). This agrees with his legend as known to Ambrose and Paulinus of Nola, and is the most probable in itself. The legends which make him work with Andrew among the Anthropophagi near the Black Sea, or again in Ethiopia (Rufinus, and Socrates, H.E. i. 19), are due to confusion with Matthias, who from the first was associated in his Acts with Andrew (see M. Bonnet, Acta Apost. apocr., 1808, II. i. 65). Another legend, his Martyrium, makes him labour and suffer in Mysore. He is commemorated as a martyr by the Greek Church on the 16th of November, and by the Roman on the 21st of September, the scene of his martyrdom being placed in Ethiopia. The Latin Breviary also affirms that his body was afterwards translated to Salerno, where it is said to lie in the church built by Robert Guiscard. In Christian art (following Jerome) the Evangelist Matthew is generally symbolized by the “man” in the imagery of Ezek. i. 10, Rev. iv. 7.

For the historical Matthew, see Ency. Bibl. and Zahn, Introd. to New Test., ii. 506 seq., 522 seq. For his legends, as under [Mark].

(J. V. B.)

MATTHEW, TOBIAS, or Tobie (1546-1628), archbishop of York, was the son of Sir John Matthew of Ross in Herefordshire, and of his wife Eleanor Crofton of Ludlow. He was born at Bristol in 1546. He was educated at Wells, and then in succession at University College and Christ Church, Oxford. He proceeded B.A. in 1564, and M.A. in 1566. He attracted the favourable notice of Queen Elizabeth, and his rise was steady though not very rapid. He was public orator in 1569, president of St John’s College, Oxford, in 1572, dean of Christ Church in 1576, vice-chancellor of the university in 1579, dean of Durham in 1583, bishop of Durham in 1595, and archbishop of York in 1606. In 1581 he had a controversy with the Jesuit Edmund Campion, and published at Oxford his arguments in 1638 under the title, Piissimi et eminentissimi viri Tobiae Matthew, archiepiscopi olim Eboracencis concio apologetica adversus Campianam. While in the north he was active in forcing the recusants to conform to the Church of England, preaching hundreds of sermons and carrying out thorough visitations. During his later years he was to some extent in opposition to the administration of James I. He was exempted from attendance in the parliament of 1625 on the ground of age and infirmities, and died on the 29th of March 1628. His wife, Frances, was the daughter of William Barlow, bishop of Chichester.

His son, Sir Tobias, or Tobie, Matthew (1577-1655), is remembered as the correspondent and friend of Francis Bacon. He was educated at Christ Church, and was early attached to the court, serving in the embassy at Paris. His debts and dissipations were a great source of sorrow to his father, from whom he is known to have received at different times £14,000, the modern equivalent of which is much larger. He was chosen member for Newport in Cornwall in the parliament of 1601, and member for St Albans in 1604. Before this time he had become the intimate friend of Bacon, whom he replaced as member for St Albans. When peace was made with Spain, on the accession of James I., he wished to travel abroad. His family, who feared his conversion to Roman Catholicism, opposed his wish, but he promised not to go beyond France. When once safe out of England he broke his word and went to Italy. The persuasion of some of his countrymen in Florence, one of whom is said to have been the Jesuit Robert Parsons, and a story he heard of the miraculous liquefaction of the blood of San Januarius at Naples, led to his conversion in 1606. When he returned to England he was imprisoned, and many efforts were made to obtain his reconversion without success. He would not take the oath of allegiance to the king. In 1608 he was exiled, and remained out of England for ten years, mostly in Flanders and Spain. He returned in 1617, but went abroad again in 1619. His friends obtained his leave to return in 1621. At home he was known as the intimate friend of Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador. In 1623 he was sent to join Prince Charles, afterwards Charles I., at Madrid, and was knighted on the 23rd of October of that year. He remained in England till 1640, when he was finally driven abroad by the parliament, which looked upon him as an agent of the pope. He died in the English college in Ghent on the 13th of October 1655. In 1618 he published an Italian translation of Bacon’s essays. The “Essay on Friendship” was written for him. He was also the author of a translation of The Confessions of the Incomparable Doctor St Augustine, which led him into controversy. His correspondence was published in London in 1660.

For the father, see John Le Neve’s Fasti ecclesiae anglicanae (London, 1716), and Anthony Wood’s Athenae oxonienses. For the son, the notice in Athenae oxonienses, an abridgment of his autobiographical Historical Relation of his own life, published by Alban Butler in 1795, and A. H. Matthew and A. Calthrop, Life of Sir Tobie Matthew (London, 1907).

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF ST, the first of the four canonical Gospels of the Christian Church. The indications of the use of this Gospel in the two or three generations following the Apostolic Age (see [Gospel]) are more plentiful than of any of the others. Throughout the history of the Church, also, it has held a place second to none of the Gospels alike in public instruction and in the private reading of Christians. The reasons for its having impressed itself in this way and become thus familiar are in large part to be found in the characteristics noticed below. But in addition there has been from an early time the belief that it was the work of one of those publicans whose heart Jesus touched and of whose call to follow Him the three Synoptics contain an interesting account, but who is identified as Matthew (q.v.) only in this one (Matt. ix. 9-13 = Mark ii. 13-17 = Luke v. 27-32).

1. The Connexion of our Greek Gospel of Matthew with the Apostle whose name it bears.—The earliest reference to a writing by Matthew occurs in a fragment taken by Eusebius from the same work of Papias from which he has given an account of the composition of a record by Mark (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39; see [Mark, Gospel of St]). The statement about Matthew is much briefer and is harder to interpret. In spite of much controversy, the same measure of agreement as to its meaning cannot be said to have been attained. This is the fragment: “Matthew, however, put together and wrote down the Oracles (τὰ λόγια συνέγραψεν) in the Hebrew language, and each man interpreted them as he was able.” Whether “the elder” referred to in the passage on Mark, or some other like authority, was the source of this statement also does not appear; but it is probable that this was the case from the context in which Eusebius gives it. Conservative writers on the Gospels have frequently maintained that the writing here referred to was virtually the Hebrew original of our Greek Gospel which bears his name. And it is indeed likely that Papias himself closely associated the latter with the Hebrew (or Aramaic) work by Matthew, of which he had been told, since the traditional connexion of this Greek Gospel with Matthew can hardly have begun later than this time. It is reasonable also to suppose that there was some ground for it. The description, however, of what Matthew did suits better the making of a collection of Christ’s discourses and sayings than the composition of a work corresponding in form and character to our Gospel of Matthew.

The next reference in Christian literature to a Gospel-record by Matthew is that of Irenaeus in his famous passage on the four Gospels (Adv. haer. iii. i. r). He says that it was written in Hebrew; but in all probability he regarded the Greek Gospel, which stood first in his, as it does in our, enumeration, as in the strict sense a translation of the Apostle’s work; and this was the view of it universally taken till the 16th century, when some of the scholars of the Reformation maintained that the Greek Gospel itself was by Matthew.

The actual phenomena, however, of this Gospel, and of its relation to sources that have been used in it, cannot be explained consistently with either of the two views just mentioned. It is a composite work in which two chief sources, known in Greek to the author of our present Gospel, have, together with some other matter, been combined. It is inconceivable that one of the Twelve should have proceeded in this way in giving an account of Christ’s ministry. One of the chief documents, however, here referred to seems to correspond in character with the description given in Papias’ fragment of a record of the compilation of “the divine utterances” made by Matthew; and the use made of it in our first Gospel may explain the connexion of this Apostle’s name with it. In the Gospel of Luke also, it is true, this same source has been used for the teaching of Jesus. But the original Aramaic Logian document may have been more largely reproduced in our Greek Matthew. Indeed, in the case of one important passage (v. 17-48) this is suggested by a comparison with Luke itself, and there are one or two others where from the character of the matter it seems not improbable, especially vi. 1-18 and xxiii. 1-5, 7b-10, 15-22. On the whole, as will be seen below, what appears to be a Palestinian form of the Gospel-tradition is most fully represented in this Gospel; but in many instances at least this may well be due to some other cause than the use of the original Logian document.

2. The Plan on which the Contents is arranged.—In two respects the arrangement of the book itself is significant.

(a) As to the general outline in the first half of the account of the Galilean ministry (iv. 23-xi. 30). Immediately after relating the call of the first four disciples (iv. 18-22) the evangelist gives in iv. 23 a comprehensive summary of Christ’s work in Galilee under its two chief aspects, teaching and healing. In the sequel both these are illustrated. First, he gives in the Sermon on the Mount (v.-vii.) a considerable body of teaching, of the kind required by the disciples of Jesus generally, and a large portion of which probably also stood not far from the beginning of the Logian document. After this he turns to the other aspect. Up to this point he has mentioned no miracle. He now describes a number in succession, introducing all but the first of those told between Mark i. 23 and ii. 12, and also four specially remarkable ones, which occurred a good deal later according to Mark’s order (Matt. viii. 23-34 = Mark iv. 35-v. 20; Matt. ix. 18-26 = Mark v. 21-43); and he also adds some derived from another source, or other sources (viii. 5-13; ix. 27-34). Then, after another general description at ix. 35, similar to that at iv. 23, he brings strikingly before us the needs of the masses of the people and Christ’s compassion for them, and so introduces the mission of the Twelve (which again occurs later according to Mark’s order, viz. at vi. 7 seq.), whereby the ministry both of teaching and of healing was further extended (ix. 36-x. 42). Finally, the message of John the Baptist, and the reply of Jesus, and the reflections that follow (xi.), bring out the significance of the preceding narrative. It should be observed that examples have been given of every kind of mighty work referred to in the reply of Jesus to the messengers of the Baptist; and that in the discourse which follows their departure the perversity and unbelief of the people generally are condemned, and the faith of the humble-minded is contrasted therewith. The greater part of the matter from ix. 37 to end of xi. is taken from the Logian document. After this point, i.e. from xii. 1 onwards, the first evangelist follows Mark almost step by step down to the point (Mark xvi. 8), after which Mark’s Gospel breaks off, and another ending has been supplied; and gives in substance almost the whole of Mark’s contents, with the exception that he passes over the few narratives that he has (as we have seen) placed earlier. At the same time he brings in additional matter in connexion with most of the Marcan sections.

(b) With the accounts of the words of Jesus spoken on certain occasions, which our first evangelist found given in one or another of his sources, he has combined other pieces, taken from other parts of the same source or from different sources, which seemed to him connected in subject, e.g. into the discourse spoken on a mountain, when crowds from all parts were present, given in the Logian document, he has introduced some pieces which, as we infer from Luke, stood separately in that document (cf. Matt. vi. 19-21 with Luke xii. 33, 34; Matt. vi. 22, 23 with Luke xi. 34-36; Matt. vi. 24 with Luke xvi. 13; Matt. vi. 25-34 with Luke xii. 22-32; Matt. vii. 7-11 with Luke xi. 9-13). Again, the address to the Twelve in Mark vi. 7-11, which in Matthew is combined with an address to disciples, from the Logian document, is connected by Luke with the sending out of seventy disciples (Luke x. 1-16). Our first evangelist has also added here various other sayings (Matt. x. 17-39, 42). Again, with the Marcan account of the charge of collusion with Satan and Christ’s reply (Mark iii. 22-30), the first evangelist (xii. 24-45) combines the parallel account in the Logian document and adds Christ’s reply to another attack (Luke xi. 14-16, 17-26, 29-32). These are some examples. He has in all in this manner constructed eight discourses or collections of sayings, into which the greater part of Christ’s teaching is gathered: (1) On the character of the heirs of the kingdom (v.-vii.); (2) The Mission address (x.); (3) Teaching suggested by the message of John the Baptist (xi.); (4) The reply to an accusation and a challenge (xii. 22-45); (5) The teaching by parables (xiii.); (6) On offences (xviii.); (7) Concerning the Scribes and Pharisees (xxiii.); (8) On the Last Things (xxiv., xxv.). In this arrangement of his material the writer has in many instances disregarded chronological considerations. But his documents also gave only very imperfect indications of the occasions of many of the utterances; and the result of his method of procedure has been to give us an exceedingly effective representation of the teaching of Jesus.

In the concluding verses of the Gospel, where the original Marcan parallel is wanting, the evangelist may still have followed in part that document while making additions as before. The account of the silencing of the Roman guard by the chief priests is the sequel to the setting of this guard and their presence at the Resurrection, which at an earlier point arc peculiar to Matthew (xxvii. 62-66, xxviii. 4). And, further, this matter seems to belong to the same cycle of tradition as the story of Pilate’s wife and his throwing the guilt of the Crucifixion of Jesus upon the Jews, and the testimony borne by the Roman guard (as well as the centurion) who kept watch by the cross (xxvii. 15-26, 54), all which also are peculiar to this Gospel. It cannot but seem probable that these are legendary additions which had arisen through the desire to commend the Gospel to the Romans.

On the other hand, the meeting of Jesus with the disciples in Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16 seq.) is the natural sequel to the message to them related in Mark xvi. 7, as well as in Matt, xxviii. 7. Again, the commission to them to preach throughout the world is supported by Luke xxiv. 47, and by the present ending of Mark (xvi. 15), though neither of these mention Galilee as the place where it was given. The baptismal formula in Matt. xxviii. 19, is, however, peculiar, and in view of its non-occurrence in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament must be regarded as probably an addition in accordance with Church usage at the time the Gospel was written.

3. The Palestinian Element.—Teaching is preserved in this Gospel which would have peculiar interest and be specially required in the home of Judaism. The best examples of this are the passages already referred to near end of § 1, as probably derived from the Logian document. There are, besides, a good many turns of expression and sayings peculiar to this Gospel which have a Semitic cast, or which suggest a point of view that would be natural to Palestinian Christians, e.g. “kingdom of heaven” frequently for “kingdom of God”; xiii. 52 (“every scribe”); xxiv. 20 (“neither on a Sabbath”). See also v. 35 and xix. 9; x. 5, 23. Again, several of the quotations which are peculiar to this Gospel are not taken from the LXX., as those in the other Gospels and in the corresponding contexts in this Gospel commonly are, but are wholly or partly independent renderings from the Hebrew (ii. 6, 15, 18; viii. 17, xii. 17-21, &c.). Once more, there is somewhat more parallelism between the fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and this Gospel than is the case with Luke, not to say Mark.

4. Doctrinal Character.—In this Gospel, more decidedly than in either of the other two Synoptics, there is a doctrinal point of view from which the whole history is regarded. Certain aspects which are of profound significance are dwelt upon, and this without there being any great difference between this Gospel and the two other Synoptics in respect to the facts recorded or the beliefs implied. The effect is produced partly by the comments of the evangelist, which especially take the form of citations from the Old Testament; partly by the frequency with which certain expressions are used, and the prominence that is given in this and other ways to particular traits and topics.

He sets forth the restriction of the mission of Jesus during His life on earth to the people of Israel in a way which suggests at first sight a spirit of Jewish exclusiveness. But there are various indications that this is not the true explanation. In particular the evangelist brings out more strongly than either Mark or Luke the national rejection of Jesus, while the Gospel ends with the commission of Jesus to His disciples after His resurrection to “make disciples of all the peoples.” One may divine in all this an intention to “justify the ways of God” to the Jew, by proving that God in His faithfulness to His ancient people had given them the first opportunity of salvation through Christ, but that now their national privilege had been rightly forfeited. He was also specially concerned to show that prophecy is fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus, but the conception of this fulfilment which is presented to us is a large one; it is to be seen not merely in particular events or features of Christ’s ministry, but in the whole new dispensation, new relations between God and men, and new rules of conduct which Christ has introduced. The divine meaning of the work of Jesus is thus made apparent, while of the majesty and glory of His person a peculiarly strong impression is conveyed.

Some illustrations in detail of these points are subjoined. Where there are parallels in the other Gospels they should be compared and the words in Matthew noted which in many instances serve to emphasize the points in question.

(a) The Ministry of Jesus among the Jewish People as their promised Messiah, their rejection of Him, and the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The mission to Israel: Matt. i. 21; iv. 23 (note in these passages the use of ὁ λαός, which here, as generally in Matthew, denotes the chosen nation), ix. 33, 35, xv. 31. For the rule limiting the work of Jesus while on earth see xv. 24 (and note ἰξελθοῦσα in verse 22, which implies that Jesus had not himself entered the heathen borders), and for a similar rule prescribed to the disciples, x. 5, 6 and 23.

The rejection of Jesus by the people in Galilee, xi. 21; xiii. 13-15, and by the heads of “the nation,” xxvi. 3, 47 and by “the whole nation,” xxvii. 25; their condemnation xxiii. 38.

Mercy to the Gentiles and the punishment of “the sons of the kingdom” is foretold viii. 11, 12. The commission to go and convert Gentile peoples (ἔθνη) is given after Christ’s resurrection (xxviii. 19).

(b) The Fulfilment of Prophecy.—In the birth and childhood of Jesus, i. 23; ii. 6, 15, 18, 23. By these citations attention is drawn to the lowliness of the beginnings of the Saviour’s life, the unexpected and secret manner of His appearing, the dangers to which from the first He was exposed and from which He escaped.

The ministry of Christ’s forerunner, iii. 3. (The same prophecy, Isa. xl. 3, is also quoted in the other Gospels.)

The ministry of Jesus. The quotations serve to bring out the significance of important events, especially such as were turning-points, and also to mark the broad features of Christ’s life and work, iv. 15, 16; viii. 17; xii. 18 seq.; xiii. 35; xxi. 5; xxvii. 9.

(c) The Teaching on the Kingdom of God.—Note the collection of parables “of the Kingdom” in xiii.; also the use of ἡ βασιλεία (“the Kingdom”) without further definition as a term the reference of which could not be misunderstood, especially in the following phrases peculiar to this Gospel: τὁ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας (“the Gospel of the Kingdom”) iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; and ὁ λόγος τῆς βασιλείας (“the word of the kingdom”) xiii. 19. The following descriptions of the kingdom, peculiar to this Gospel, are also interesting ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὁς αὐτῶν (“the kingdom of their father”) xiii. 43 and τοῦ πατρός μου(“of my father”) xxvi. 29.

(d) The Relation of the New Law to the Old.—Verses 17-48, cf. also, addition at xxii. 40 and xix. 19b. Further, his use of δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) and δίκαιος(“righteous”) (specially frequent in this Gospel) is such as to connect the New with the Old; the standard in mind is the law which “fulfilled” that previously given.

(e) The Christian Ecclesia.—Chap. xvi. 18, xviii. 17.

(f) The Messianic Dignity and Glory of Jesus.—The narrative in i. and ii. show the royalty of the new-born child. The title “Son of David” occurs with special frequency in this Gospel. The following instances are without parallels in the other Gospels: ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; xxi. 9; xxi. 15. The title “Son of God” is also used with somewhat greater frequency than in Mark and Luke: ii. 15; xiv. 33; xvi. 16; xxii. 2 seq. (where it is implied); xxvii. 40, 43.

The thought of the future coming of Christ, and in particular of the judgment to be executed by Him then, is much more prominent in this Gospel than in the others. Some of the following predictions are peculiar to it, while in several others there are additional touches: vii. 22, 23; x. 23, 32, 33; xiii. 39-43; xvi. 27, 28; xix. 28; xxiv. 3, 27, 30, 31, 37, 39; xxv. 31-46; xxvi. 64.

The majesty of Christ is also impressed upon us by the signs at His crucifixion, some of which are related only in this Gospel, xxvii. 51-53, and by the sublime vision of the Risen Christ at the close, xxviii. 16-20.

(5) Time of Composition and Readers addressed.—The signs of dogmatic reflection in this Gospel point to its having been composed somewhat late in the 1st century, probably after Luke’s Gospel, and this is in accord with the conclusion that some insertions had been made in the Marcan document used by this evangelist which were not in that used by Luke (see [Luke, Gospel of St]). We may assign A.D. 80-100 as a probable time for the composition.

The author was in all probability a Jew by race, and he would seem to have addressed himself especially to Jewish readers; but they were Jews of the Dispersion. For although he was in specially close touch with Palestine, either personally or through the sources at his command, or both, his book was composed in Greek by the aid of Greek documents.

See commentaries by Th. Zahn (1903) and W. C. Allen (in the series of International Critical Commentaries, 1907); also books on the Four Gospels or the Synoptic Gospels cited at the end of [Gospel].

(V. H. S.)

MATTHEW CANTACUZENUS, Byzantine emperor, was the son of John VI. Cantacuzenus (q.v.). In return for the support he gave to his father during his struggle with John V. he was allowed to annex part of Thrace under his own dominion and in 1353 was proclaimed joint emperor. From his Thracian principality he levied several wars against the Servians. An attack which he prepared in 1350 was frustrated by the defection of his Turkish auxiliaries. In 1357 he was captured by his enemies, who delivered him to the rival emperor, John V. Compelled to abdicate, he withdrew to a monastery, where he busied himself with writing commentaries on the Scriptures.

MATTHEW OF PARIS (d. 1259), English monk and chronicler known to us only through his voluminous writings. In spite of his surname, and of his knowledge of the French language, his attitude towards foreigners attests that he was of English birth. He may have studied at Paris in his youth, but the earliest fact which he records of himself is his admission as a monk at St Albans in the year 1217. His life was mainly spent in this religious house. In 1248, however, he was sent to Norway as the bearer of a message from Louis IX. of France to Haakon VI.; he made himself so agreeable to the Norwegian sovereign that he was invited, a little later, to superintend the reformation of the Benedictine monastery of St Benet Holme at Trondhjem. Apart from these missions, his activities were devoted to the composition of history, a pursuit for which the monks of St Albans had long been famous. Matthew edited anew the works of Abbot John de Cella and Roger of Wendover, which in their altered form constitute the first part of his most important work, the Chronica majora. From 1235, the point at which Wendover dropped his pen, Matthew continued the history on the plan which his predecessors had followed. He derived much of his information from the letters of important personages, which he sometimes inserts, but much more from conversation with the eye-witnesses of events. Among his informants were Earl Richard of Cornwall and Henry III. With the latter he appears to have been on terms of intimacy. The king knew that Matthew was writing a history, and showed some anxiety that it should be as exact as possible. In 1257, in the course of a week’s visit to St Albans, Henry kept the chronicler beside him night and day, “and guided my pen,” says Paris, “with much good will and diligence.” It is therefore curious that the Chronica majora should give so unfavourable an account of the king’s policy. Luard supposes that Matthew never intended his work to see the light in its present form, and many passages of the autograph have against them the note offendiculum, which shows that the writer understood the danger which he ran. On the other hand, unexpurgated copies were made in Matthew’s lifetime; though the offending passages are duly omitted or softened in his abridgment of his longer work, the Historia Anglorum (written about 1253), the real sentiments of the author must have been an open secret. In any case there is no ground for the old theory that he was an official historiographer.

Matthew Paris was unfortunate in living at a time when English politics were peculiarly involved and tedious. His talent is for narrative and description. Though he took a keen interest in the personal side of politics he has no claim to be considered a judge of character. His appreciations of his contemporaries throw more light on his own prejudices than on their aims and ideas. His work is always vigorous, but he imputes motives in the spirit of a partisan who never pauses to weigh the evidence or to take a comprehensive view of the situation. His redeeming feature is his generous admiration for strength of character, even when it goes along with a policy of which he disapproves. Thus he praises Grosseteste, while he denounces Grosseteste’s scheme of monastic reform. Matthew is a vehement supporter of the monastic orders against their rivals, the secular clergy and the mendicant friars. He is violently opposed to the court and the foreign favourites. He despises the king as a statesman, though for the man he has some kindly feeling. The frankness with which he attacks the court of Rome for its exactions is remarkable; so, too, is the intense nationalism which he displays in dealing with this topic. His faults of presentment are more often due to carelessness and narrow views than to deliberate purpose. But he is sometimes guilty of inserting rhetorical speeches which are not only fictitious, but also misleading as an account of the speaker’s sentiments. In other cases he tampers with the documents which he inserts (as, for instance, with the text of Magna Carta). His chronology is, for a contemporary, inexact; and he occasionally inserts duplicate versions of the same incident in different places. Hence he must always be rigorously checked where other authorities exist and used with caution where he is our sole informant. None the less, he gives a more vivid impression of his age than any other English chronicler; and it is a matter for regret that his great history breaks off in 1259, on the eve of the crowning struggle between Henry III and the baronage.

Authorities.—The relation of Matthew Paris’s work to those of John de Cella and Roger of Wendover may best be studied in H. R. Luard’s edition of the Chronica majora (7 vols., Rolls series, 1872-1883), which contains valuable prefaces. The Historia Anglorum sive historia minor (1067-1253) has been edited by F. Madden (3 vols., Rolls series, 1866-1869). Matthew Paris is often confused with “Matthew of Westminster,” the reputed author of the Flores historiarum edited by H. R. Luard (3 vols., Rolls series, 1890). This work, compiled by various hands, is an edition of Matthew Paris, with continuations extending to 1326. Matthew Paris also wrote a life of Edmund Rich (q.v.), which is probably the work printed in W. Wallace’s St Edmund of Canterbury (London, 1893) pp. 543-588, though this is attributed by the editor to the monk Eustace; Vitae abbatum S Albani (up to 1225) which have been edited by W. Watts (1640, &c.); and (possibly) the Abbreviatio chronicorum (1000-1255), edited by F. Madden, in the third volume of the Historia Anglorum. On the value of Matthew as an historian see F. Liebermann in G. H. Pertz’s Scriptores xxviii. pp. 74-106; A. Jessopp’s Studies by a Recluse (London, 1893); H. Plehn’s Politische Character Matheus Parisiensis (Leipzig, 1897).

(H. W. C. D.)

MATTHEW OF WESTMINSTER, the name of an imaginary person who was long regarded as the author of the Flores Historiarum. The error was first discovered in 1826 by Sir F. Palgrave, who said that Matthew was “a phantom who never existed,” and later the truth of this statement was completely proved by H. R. Luard. The name appears to have been taken from that of Matthew of Paris, from whose Chronica majora the earlier part of the work was mainly copied, and from Westminster, the abbey in which the work was partially written.

The Flores historiarum is a Latin chronicle dealing with English history from the creation to 1326, although some of the earlier manuscripts end at 1306; it was compiled by various persons, and written partly at St Albans and partly at Westminster. The part from 1306 to 1326 was written by Robert of Reading (d. 1325) and another Westminster monk. Except for parts dealing with the reign of Edward I. its value is not great. It was first printed by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1567, and the best edition is the one edited with introduction by H. R. Luard for the Rolls series (London, 1890). It has been translated into English by C. D. Yonge (London, 1853). See Luard’s introduction, and C. Bémont in the Revue critique d’histoire (Paris, 1891).

MATTHEWS, STANLEY (1824-1889), American jurist, was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on the 21st of July 1824. He graduated from Kenyon College in 1840, studied law, and in 1842 was admitted to the bar of Maury county, Tennessee. In 1844 he became assistant prosecuting attorney of Hamilton county, Ohio; and in 1846-1849 edited a short-lived anti-slavery paper, the Cincinnati Herald. He was clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1848-1849, a judge of common pleas of Hamilton county in 1850-1853, state senator in 1856-1858, and U.S. district-attorney for the southern district of Ohio in 1858-1861. First a Whig and then a Free-Soiler, he joined the Republican party in 1861. After the outbreak of the Civil War he was commissioned a lieutenant of the 23rd Ohio, of which Rutherford B. Hayes was major; but saw service only with the 57th Ohio, of which he was colonel, and with a brigade which he commanded in the Army of the Cumberland. He resigned from the army in 1863, and was judge of the Cincinnati superior court in 1863-1864. He was a Republican presidential elector in 1864 and 1868. In 1872 he joined the Liberal Republican movement, and was temporary chairman of the Cincinnati convention which nominated Horace Greeley for the presidency, but in the campaign he supported Grant. In 1877, as counsel before the Electoral Commission, he opened the argument for the Republican electors of Florida and made the principal argument for the Republican electors of Oregon. In March of the same year he succeeded John Sherman as senator from Ohio, and served until March 1879. In 1881 President Hayes nominated him as associate justice of the Supreme Court, to succeed Noah H. Swayne; there was much opposition, especially in the press, to this appointment, because Matthews had been a prominent railway and corporation lawyer and had been one of the Republican “visiting statesmen” who witnessed the canvass of the vote of Louisiana[1] in 1876; and the nomination had not been approved when the session of Congress expired. Matthews was renominated by President Garfield on the 15th of March, and the nomination was confirmed by the Senate (22 for, 21 against) on the 12th of May. He was an honest, impartial and conscientious judge. He died in Washington, on the 22nd of March 1889.

[1] It seems certain that Matthews and Charles Foster of Ohio gave their written promise that Hayes, if elected, would recognize the Democratic governors in Louisiana and South Carolina.

MATTHIAE, AUGUST HEINRICH (1769-1835), German classical scholar, was born at Göttingen, on the 25th of December 1769, and educated at the university. He then spent some years as a tutor in Amsterdam. In 1798 he returned to Germany, and in 1802 was appointed director of the Friedrichsgymnasium at Altenburg, which post he held till his death, on the 6th of January 1835. Of his numerous important works the best-known are his Greek Grammar (3rd ed., 1835), translated into English by E. V. Blomfield (5th ed., by J. Kenrick, 1832), his edition of Euripides (9 vols., 1813-1829), Grundriss der Geschichte der griechischen und römischen Litteratur (3rd ed., 1834, Eng. trans., Oxford, 1841) Lehrbuch für den ersten Unterricht in der Philosophie (3rd ed., 1833), Encyklopädie und Methodologie der Philologie (1835). His Life was written by his son Constantin (1845).

His brother, Friedrich Christian Matthiae (1763-1822), rector of the Frankfort gymnasium, published valuable editions of Seneca’s Letters, Aratus, and Dionysius Periegetes.

MATTHIAS, the disciple elected by the primitive Christian community to fill the place in the Twelve vacated by Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 21-26). Nothing further is recorded of him in the New Testament. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I. xii.) says he was, like his competitor, Barsabas Justus, one of the seventy, and the Syriac version of Eusebius calls him throughout not Matthias but Tolmai, i.e. Bartholomew, without confusing him with the Bartholomew who was originally one of the Twelve, and is often identified with the Nathanael mentioned in the Fourth Gospel (Expository Times, ix. 566). Clement of Alexandria says some identified him with Zacchaeus, the Clementine Recognitions identify him with Barnabas, Hilgenfeld thinks he is the same as Nathanael.

Various works—a Gospel, Traditions and Apocryphal Words—were ascribed to him; and there is also extant The Acts of Andrew and Matthias, which places his activity in “the city of the cannibals” in Ethiopia. Clement of Alexandria quotes two sayings from the Traditions: (1) Wonder at the things before you (suggesting, like Plato, that wonder is the first step to new knowledge); (2) If an elect man’s neighbour sin, the elect man has sinned.

MATTHIAS (1557-1619), Roman emperor, son of the emperor Maximilian II. and Maria, daughter of the emperor Charles V., was born in Vienna, on the 24th of February 1557. Educated by the diplomatist O. G. de Busbecq, he began his public life in 1577, soon after his father’s death, when he was invited to assume the governorship of the Netherlands, then in the midst of the long struggle with Spain. He eagerly accepted this invitation, although it involved a definite breach with his Spanish kinsman, Philip II., and entering Brussels in January 1578 was named governor-general; but he was merely a cipher, and only held the position for about three years, returning to Germany in October 1581. Matthias was appointed governor of Austria in 1593 by his brother, the emperor Rudolph II.; and two years later, when another brother, the archduke Ernest, died, he became a person of more importance as the eldest surviving brother of the unmarried emperor. As governor of Austria Matthias continued the policy of crushing the Protestants, although personally he appears to have been inclined to religious tolerance; and he dealt with the rising of the peasants in 1595, in addition to representing Rudolph at the imperial diets, and gaining some fame as a soldier during the Turkish War. A few years later the discontent felt by the members of the Habsburg family at the incompetence of the emperor became very acute, and the lead was taken by Matthias. Obtaining in May 1605 a reluctant consent from his brother, he took over the conduct of affairs in Hungary, where a revolt had broken out, and was formally recognized by the Habsburgs as their head in April 1606, and was promised the succession to the Empire. In June 1606 he concluded the peace of Vienna with the rebellious Hungarians, and was thus in a better position to treat with the sultan, with whom peace was made in November. This pacific policy was displeasing to Rudolph, who prepared to renew the Turkish War; but having secured the support of the national party in Hungary and gathered an army, Matthias forced his brother to cede to him this kingdom, together with Austria and Moravia, both of which had thrown in their lot with Hungary (1608). The king of Hungary, as Matthias now became, was reluctantly compelled to grant religious liberty to the inhabitants of Austria. The strained relations which had arisen between Rudolph and Matthias as a result of these proceedings were temporarily improved, and a formal reconciliation took place in 1610; but affairs in Bohemia soon destroyed this fraternal peace. In spite of the letter of majesty (Majestätsbrief) which the Bohemians had extorted from Rudolph, they were very dissatisfied with their ruler, whose troops were ravaging their land; and in 1611 they invited Matthias to come to their aid. Accepting this invitation, he inflicted another humiliation upon his brother, and was crowned king of Bohemia in May 1611. Rudolph, however, was successful in preventing the election of Matthias as German king, or king of the Romans, and when he died, in January 1612, no provision had been made for a successor. Already king of Hungary and Bohemia, however, Matthias obtained the remaining hereditary dominions of the Habsburgs, and in June 1612 was crowned emperor, although the ecclesiastical electors favoured his younger brother, the archduke Albert (1559-1621).

The short reign of the new emperor was troubled by the religious dissensions of Germany. His health became impaired and his indolence increased, and he fell completely under the influence of Melchior Klesl (q.v.), who practically conducted the imperial business. By Klesl’s advice he took up an attitude of moderation and sought to reconcile the contending religious parties; but the proceedings at the diet of Regensburg in 1613 proved the hopelessness of these attempts, while their author was regarded with general distrust. Meanwhile the younger Habsburgs, led by the emperor’s brother, the archduke Maximilian, and his cousin, Ferdinand, archduke of Styria, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand II., disliking the peaceful policy of Klesl, had allied themselves with the unyielding Roman Catholics, while the question of the imperial succession was forcing its way to the front. In 1611 Matthias had married his cousin Anna (d. 1618), daughter of the archduke Ferdinand (d. 1595), but he was old and childless and the Habsburgs were anxious to retain his extensive possessions in the family. Klesl, on the one hand, wished the settlement of the religious difficulties to precede any arrangement about the imperial succession; the Habsburgs, on the other, regarded the question of the succession as urgent and vital. Meanwhile the disputed succession to the duchies of Cleves and Jülich again threatened a European war; the imperial commands were flouted in Cologne and Aix-la-Chapelle, and the Bohemians were again becoming troublesome. Having decided that Ferdinand should succeed Matthias as emperor, the Habsburgs had secured his election as king of Bohemia in June 1617, but were unable to stem the rising tide of disorder in that country. Matthias and Klesl were in favour of concessions, but Ferdinand and Maximilian met this move by seizing and imprisoning Klesl. Ferdinand had just secured his coronation as king of Hungary when there broke out in Bohemia those struggles which heralded the Thirty Years’ War; and on the 20th of March 1619 the emperor died at Vienna.

For the life and reign of Matthias the following works may be consulted: J. Heling, Die Wahl des römischen Königs Matthias (Belgrade, 1892); A. Gindely, Rudolf II. und seine Zeit (Prague, 1862-1868); F. Stieve, Die Verhandlungen über die Nachfolge Kaisers Rudolf II. (Munich, 1880); P. von Chlumecky, Karl von Zierotin und seine Zeit (Brünn, 1862-1879); A. Kerschbaumer, Kardinal Klesel (Vienna, 1865); M. Ritter, Quellenbeiträge zur Geschichte des Kaisers Rudolf II. (Munich, 1872); Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation und des dreissigjährigen Krieges (Stuttgart, 1887, seq.); and the article on Matthias in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, Bd. XX. (Leipzig, 1884); L. von Ranke, Zur deutschen Geschichte vom Religionsfrieden bis zum 30-jährigen Kriege (Leipzig, 1888); and J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volks seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (Freiburg, 1878 seq.), Eng. trans. by M. A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie (London, 1896, seq.).

MATTHIAS I., HUNYADI (1440-1490), king of Hungary, also known as Matthias Corvinus, a surname which he received from the raven (corvus) on his escutcheon, second son of János Hunyadi and Elizabeth Szilágyi, was born at Kolozsvár, probably on

the 23rd of February 1440. His tutors were the learned János Vitéz, bishop of Nagyvárad, whom he subsequently raised to the primacy, and the Polish humanist Gregory Sanocki. The precocious lad quickly mastered the German, Latin and principal Slavonic languages, frequently acting as his father’s interpreter at the reception of ambassadors. His military training proceeded under the eye of his father, whom he began to follow on his campaigns when only twelve years of age. In 1453 he was created count of Bistercze, and was knighted at the siege of Belgrade in 1454. The same care for his welfare led his father to choose him a bride in the powerful Cilli family, but the young Elizabeth died before the marriage was consummated, leaving Matthias a widower at the age of fifteen. On the death of his father he was inveigled to Buda by the enemies of his house, and, on the pretext of being concerned in a purely imaginary conspiracy against Ladislaus V., was condemned to decapitation, but was spared on account of his youth, and on the king’s death fell into the hands of George Poděbrad, governor of Bohemia, the friend of the Hunyadis, in whose interests it was that a national king should sit on the Magyar throne. Poděbrad treated Matthias hospitably and affianced him with his daughter Catherine, but still detained him, for safety’s sake, in Prague, even after a Magyar deputation had hastened thither to offer the youth the crown. Matthias was the elect of the Hungarian people, gratefully mindful of his father’s services to the state and inimical to all foreign candidates; and though an influential section of the magnates, headed by the palatine László Garai and the voivode of Transylvania, Miklós Ujlaki, who had been concerned in the judicial murder of Matthias’s brother László, and hated the Hunyadis as semi-foreign upstarts, were fiercely opposed to Matthias’s election, they were not strong enough to resist the manifest wish of the nation, supported as it was by Matthias’s uncle Mihály Szilágyi at the head of 15,000 veterans. On the 24th of January 1458, 40,000 Hungarian noblemen, assembled on the ice of the frozen Danube, unanimously elected Matthias Hunyadi king of Hungary, and on the 14th of February the new king made his state entry into Buda.

The realm at this time was environed by perils. The Turks and the Venetians threatened it from the south, the emperor Frederick III. from the west, and Casimir IV. of Poland from the north, both Frederick and Casimir claiming the throne. The Czech mercenaries under Giszkra held the northern counties and from thence plundered those in the centre. Meanwhile Matthias’s friends had only pacified the hostile dignitaries by engaging to marry the daughter of the palatine Garai to their nominee, whereas Matthias not unnaturally refused to marry into the family of one of his brother’s murderers, and on the 9th of February confirmed his previous nuptial contract with the daughter of George Poděbrad, who shortly afterwards was elected king of Bohemia (March 2, 1458). Throughout 1458 the struggle between the young king and the magnates, reinforced by Matthias’s own uncle and guardian Szilágyi, was acute. But Matthias, who began by deposing Garai and dismissing Szilágyi, and then proceeded to levy a tax, without the consent of the Diet, in order to hire mercenaries, easily prevailed. Nor did these complications prevent him from recovering the fortress of Galamboc from the Turks, successfully invading Servia, and reasserting the suzerainty of the Hungarian crown over Bosnia. In the following year there was a fresh rebellion, when the emperor Frederick was actually crowned king by the malcontents at Vienna-Neustadt (March 4, 1459); but Matthias drove him out, and Pope Pius II. intervened so as to leave Matthias free to engage in a projected crusade against the Turks, which subsequent political complications, however, rendered impossible. From 1461 to 1465 the career of Matthias was a perpetual struggle punctuated by truces. Having come to an understanding with his father-in-law Poděbrad, he was able to turn his arms against the emperor Frederick, and in April 1462 Frederick restored the holy crown for 60,000 ducats and was allowed to retain certain Hungarian counties with the title of king; in return for which concessions, extorted from Matthias by the necessity of coping with a simultaneous rebellion of the Magyar noble in league with Poděbrad’s son Victorinus, the emperor recognized Matthias as the actual sovereign of Hungary. Only now was Matthias able to turn against the Turks, who were again threatening the southern provinces. He began by defeating Ali Pasha, and then penetrated into Bosnia, and captured the newly built fortress of Jajce after a long and obstinate defence (Dec. 1463). On returning home he was crowned with the holy crown on the 29th of March 1464, and, after driving the Czechs out of his northern counties, turned southwards again, this time recovering all the parts of Bosnia which still remained in Turkish hands.

A political event of the first importance now riveted his attention upon the north. Poděbrad, who had gained the throne of Bohemia with the aid of the Hussites and Utraquists, had long been in ill odour at Rome, and in 1465 Pope Paul II. determined to depose the semi-Catholic monarch. All the neighbouring princes, the emperor, Casimir IV. of Poland and Matthias, were commanded in turn to execute the papal decree of deposition, and Matthias gladly placed his army at the disposal of the Holy See. The war began on the 31st of May 1468, but, as early as the 27th of February 1469, Matthias anticipated an alliance between George and Frederick by himself concluding an armistice with the former. On the 3rd of May the Czech Catholics elected Matthias king of Bohemia, but this was contrary to the wishes of both pope and emperor, who preferred to partition Bohemia. But now George discomfited all his enemies by suddenly excluding his own son from the throne in favour of Ladislaus, the eldest son of Casimir IV., thus skilfully enlisting Poland on his side. The sudden death of Poděbrad on the 22nd of March 1471 led to fresh complications. At the very moment when Matthias was about to profit by the disappearance of his most capable rival, another dangerous rebellion, headed by the primate and the chief dignitaries of the state, with the object of placing Casimir, son of Casimir IV., on the throne, paralysed Matthias’s foreign policy during the critical years 1470-1471. He suppressed this domestic rebellion indeed, but in the meantime the Poles had invaded the Bohemian domains with 60,000 men, and when in 1474 Matthias was at last able to take the field against them in order to raise the siege of Breslau, he was obliged to fortify himself in an entrenched camp, whence he so skilfully harried the enemy that the Poles, impatient to return to their own country, made peace at Breslau (Feb. 1475) on an uti possidetis basis, a peace subsequently confirmed by the congress of Olmütz (July 1479). During the interval between these peaces, Matthias, in self-defence, again made war on the emperor, reducing Frederick to such extremities that he was glad to accept peace on any terms. By the final arrangement made between the contending princes, Matthias recognized Ladislaus as king of Bohemia proper in return for the surrender of Moravia, Silesia and Upper and Lower Lusatia, hitherto component parts of the Czech monarchy, till he should have redeemed them for 400,000 florins. The emperor promised to pay Matthias 100,000 florins as a war indemnity, and recognized him as the legitimate king of Hungary on the understanding that he should succeed him if he died without male issue, a contingency at this time somewhat improbable, as Matthias, only three years previously (Dec. 15, 1476), had married his third wife, Beatrice of Naples, daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon.

The endless tergiversations and depredations of the emperor speedily induced Matthias to declare war against him for the third time (1481), the Magyar king conquering all the fortresses in Frederick’s hereditary domains. Finally, on the 1st of June 1485, at the head of 8000 veterans, he made his triumphal entry into Vienna, which he henceforth made his capital. Styria, Carinthia and Carniola were next subdued, and Trieste was only saved by the intervention of the Venetians. Matthias consolidated his position by alliances with the dukes of Saxony and Bavaria, with the Swiss Confederation, and the archbishop of Salzburg, and was henceforth the greatest potentate in central Europe. His far-reaching hand even extended to Italy. Thus, in 1480, when a Turkish fleet seized Otranto, Matthias, at the earnest solicitation of the pope, sent Balasz Magyar to recover the fortress, which surrendered to him on the 10th of May 1481. Again in 1488, Matthias took Ancona under his protection for a time and occupied it with a Hungarian garrison.

Though Matthias’s policy was so predominantly occidental that he soon abandoned his youthful idea of driving the Turks out of Europe, he at least succeeded in making them respect Hungarian territory. Thus in 1479 a huge Turkish army, on its return home from ravaging Transylvania, was annihilated at Szászváros (Oct. 13), and in 1480 Matthias recaptured Jajce, drove the Turks from Servia and erected two new military banates, Jajce and Srebernik, out of reconquered Bosnian territory. On the death of Mahommed II. in 1481, a unique opportunity for the intervention of Europe in Turkish affairs presented itself. A civil war ensued in Turkey between his sons Bayezid and Jem, and the latter, being worsted, fled to the knights of Rhodes, by whom he was kept in custody in France (see [Bayezid II.]). Matthias, as the next-door neighbour of the Turks, claimed the custody of so valuable a hostage, and would have used him as a means of extorting concessions from Bayezid. But neither the pope nor the Venetians would hear of such a transfer, and the negotiations on this subject greatly embittered Matthias against the Curia. The last days of Matthias were occupied in endeavouring to secure the succession to the throne for his illegitimate son János (see [Corvinus, János]); but Queen Beatrice, though childless, fiercely and openly opposed the idea and the matter was still pending when Matthias, who had long been crippled by gout, expired very suddenly on Palm Sunday, the 4th of April 1490.

Matthias Hunyadi was indisputably the greatest man of his day, and one of the greatest monarchs who ever reigned. The precocity and universality of his genius impress one the most. Like Napoleon, with whom he has often been compared, he was equally illustrious as a soldier, a statesman, an orator, a legislator and an administrator. But in all moral qualities the brilliant adventurer of the 15th was infinitely superior to the brilliant adventurer of the 19th century. Though naturally passionate, Matthias’s self-control was almost superhuman, and throughout his stormy life, with his innumerable experiences of ingratitude and treachery, he never was guilty of a single cruel or vindictive action. His capacity for work was inexhaustible. Frequently half his nights were spent in reading, after the labour of his most strenuous days. There was no branch of knowledge in which he did not take an absorbing interest, no polite art which he did not cultivate and encourage. His camp was a school of chivalry, his court a nursery of poets and artists. Matthias was a middle-sized, broad-shouldered man of martial bearing, with a large fleshy nose, hair reaching to his heels, and the clean-shaven, heavy chinned face of an early Roman emperor.

See Vilmós Fraknói, King Matthias Hunyadi (Hung., Budapest, 1890, German ed., Freiburg, 1891); Ignácz Acsády, History of the Hungarian Realm (Hung. vol. i., Budapest, 1904); József Teleki, The Age of the Hunyadis in Hungary (Hung., vols. 3-5, Budapest, 1852-1890); V. Fraknói, Life of János Vitéz (Hung. Budapest 1879); Karl Schober, Die Eroberung Niederösterreichs durch Matthias Corvinus (Vienna, 1879); János Huszár, Matthias’s Black Army (Hung. Budapest, 1890); Antonio Bonfini, Rerum hungaricarum decades (7th ed., Leipzig, 1771); Aeneas Sylvius, Opera (Frankfort, 1707); The Correspondence of King Matthias (Hung. and Lat., Budapest, 1893); V. Fraknói, The Embassies of Cardinal Carvajal to Hungary (Hung., Budapest, 1889); Marzio Galeotti, De egregie sapienter et jocose, dictis ac factis Matthiae regis (Script. reg. hung. I.) (Vienna, 1746). Of the above the first is the best general sketch and is rich in notes; the second somewhat chauvinistic but excellently written; the third the best work for scholars; the seventh, eighth and eleventh are valuable as being by contemporaries.

(R. N. B.)

MATTHISSON, FRIEDRICH VON (1761-1831), German poet, was born at Hohendodeleben near Magdeburg, the son of the village pastor, on the 23rd of January 1761. After studying theology and philology at the university of Halle, he was appointed in 1781 master at the classical school Philanthropin in Dessau. This once famous seminary was, however, then rapidly decaying in public favour, and in 1784 Matthisson was glad to accept a travelling tutorship. He lived for two years with the Swiss author Bonstetten at Nyon on the lake of Geneva. In 1794 he was appointed reader and travelling companion to the princess Louisa of Anhalt-Dessau. In 1812 he entered the service of the king of Württemberg, was ennobled, created counsellor of legation, appointed intendant of the court theatre and chief librarian of the royal library at Stuttgart. In 1828 he retired and settled at Wörlitz near Dessau, where he died on the 12th of March 1831. Matthisson enjoyed for a time a great popularity on account of his poems, Gedichte (1787; 15th ed., 1851; new ed., 1876), which Schiller extravagantly praised for their melancholy sweetness and their fine descriptions of scenery. The verse is melodious and the language musical, but the thought and sentiments they express are too often artificial and insincere. His Adelaide has been rendered famous owing to Beethoven’s setting of the song. Of his elegies, Die Elegie in den Ruinen eines alten Bergschlosses is still a favourite. His reminiscences, Erinnerungen (5 vols., 1810-1816), contain interesting accounts of his travels.

Matthisson’s Schriften appeared in eight volumes (1825-1829), of which the first contains his poems, the remainder his Erinnerungen; a ninth volume was added in 1833 containing his biography by H. Döring. His Literarischer Nachlass, with a selection from his correspondence, was published in four volumes by F. R. Schoch in 1832.

MATTING, a general term embracing many coarse woven or plaited fibrous materials used for covering floors or furniture, for hanging as screens, for wrapping up heavy merchandise and for other miscellaneous purposes. In the United Kingdom, under the name of “coir” matting, a large amount of a coarse kind of carpet is made from coco-nut fibre; and the same material, as well as strips of cane, Manila hemp, various grasses and rushes, is largely employed in various forms for making door mats. Large quantities of the coco-nut fibre are woven in heavy looms, then cut up into various sizes, and finally bound round the edges by a kind of rope made from the same material. The mats may be of one colour only, or they may be made of different colours and in different designs. Sometimes the names of institutions are introduced into the mats. Another type of mat is made exclusively from the above-mentioned rope by arranging alternate layers in sinuous and straight paths, and then stitching the parts together. It is also largely used for the outer covering of ships’ fenders. Perforated and otherwise prepared rubber, as well as wire-woven material, are also largely utilized for door and floor mats. Matting of various kinds is very extensively employed throughout India for floor coverings, the bottoms of bedsteads, fans and fly-flaps, &c.; and a considerable export trade in such manufactures is carried on. The materials used are numerous; but the principal substances are straw, the bulrushes Typha elephantina and T. angustifolia, leaves of the date palm (Phoenix sylvestris), of the dwarf palm (Chamaerops Ritchiana), of the Palmyra palm (Borassus flabelliformis), of the coco-nut palm (Cocos nucifera) and of the screw pine (Pandanus odoratissimus), the munja or munj grass (Saccharum Munja) and allied grasses, and the mat grasses Cyperus textilis and C. Pangorei, from the last of which the well-known Palghat mats of the Madras Presidency are made. Many of these Indian grass-mats are admirable examples of elegant design, and the colours in which they are woven are rich, harmonious and effective in the highest degree. Several useful household articles are made from the different kinds of grasses. The grasses are dyed in all shades and plaited to form attractive designs suitable for the purposes to which they are to be applied. This class of work obtains in India, Japan and other Eastern countries. Vast quantities of coarse matting used for packing furniture, heavy and coarse goods, flax and other plants, &c., are made in Russia from the bast or inner bark of the lime tree. This industry centres in the great forest governments of Viatka, Nizhniy-Novgorod, Kostroma, Kazan, Perm and Simbirsk.

MATTOCK (O.E. mattuc, of uncertain origin), a tool having a double iron head, of which one end is shaped like an adze, and the other like a pickaxe. The head has a socket in the centre in which the handle is inserted transversely to the blades. It is used chiefly for grubbing and rooting among tree stumps in plantations and copses, where the roots are too close for the use of a spade, or for loosening hard soil.

MATTO GROSSO, an inland state of Brazil, bounded N. by Amazonas and Pará, E. by Goyaz, Minas Geraes, São Paulo and Paraná, S. by Paraguay and S.W. and W. by Bolivia. It ranks next to Amazonas in size, its area, which is largely unsettled and unexplored, being 532,370 sq. m., and its population only 92,827 in 1890 and 118,025 in 1900. No satisfactory estimate of its Indian population can be made. The greater part of the state belongs to the western extension of the Brazilian plateau, across which, between the 14th and 16th parallels, runs the watershed which separates the drainage basins of the Amazon and La Plata. This elevated region is known as the plateau of Matto Grosso, and its elevations so far as known rarely exceed 3000 ft. The northern slope of this great plateau is drained by the Araguaya-Tocantins, Xingú, Tapajos and Guaporé-Mamoré-Madeira, which flow northward, and, except the first, empty into the Amazon; the southern slope drains southward through a multitude of streams flowing into the Paraná and Paraguay. The general elevation in the south part of the state is much lower, and large areas bordering the Paraguay are swampy, partially submerged plains which the sluggish rivers are unable to drain. The lowland elevations in this part of the state range from 300 to 400 ft. above sea-level, the climate is hot, humid and unhealthy, and the conditions for permanent settlement are apparently unfavourable. On the highlands, however, which contain extensive open campos, the climate, though dry and hot, is considered healthy. The basins of the Paraná and Paraguay are separated by low mountain ranges extending north from the sierras of Paraguay. In the north, however, the ranges which separate the river valleys are apparently the remains of the table-land through which deep valleys have been eroded. The resources of Matto Grosso are practically undeveloped, owing to the isolated situation of the state, the costs of transportation and the small population.

The first industry was that of mining, gold having been discovered in the river valleys on the southern slopes of the plateau, and diamonds on the head-waters of the Paraguay, about Diamantino and in two or three other districts. Gold is found chiefly in placers, and in colonial times the output was large, but the deposits were long ago exhausted and the industry is now comparatively unimportant. As to other minerals little is definitely known. Agriculture exists only for the supply of local needs, though tobacco of a superior quality is grown. Cattle-raising, however, has received some attention and is the principal industry of the landowners. The forest products of the state include fine woods, rubber, ipecacuanha, sarsaparilla, jaborandi, vanilla and copaiba. There is little export, however, the only means of communication being down the Paraguay and Paraná rivers by means of subsidized steamers. The capital of the state is Cuyabá, and the chief commercial town is Corumbá at the head of navigation for the larger river boats, and 1986 m. from the mouth of the La Plata. Communication between these two towns is maintained by a line of smaller boats, the distance being 517 m.

The first permanent settlements in Matto Grosso seem to have been made in 1718 and 1719, in the first year at Forquilha and in the second at or near the site of Cuyabá, where rich placer mines had been found. At this time all this inland region was considered a part of São Paulo, but in 1748 it was made a separate capitania and was named Matto Grosso (“great woods”). In 1752 its capital was situated on the right bank of the Guaporé river and was named Villa Bella da Santissima Trindade de Matto Grosso, but in 1820 the seat of government was removed to Cuyabá and Villa Bella has fallen into decay. In 1822 Matto Grosso became a province of the empire and in 1889 a republican state. It was invaded by the Paraguayans in the war of 1860-65.

MATTOON, a city of Coles county, Illinois, U.S.A., in the east central part of the state, about 12 m. south-east of Peoria. Pop. (1890), 6833; (1900), 9622, of whom 430 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 11,456. It is served by the Illinois Central and Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis railways, which have repair shops here, and by inter-urban electric lines. The city has a public library, a Methodist Episcopal Hospital, and an Old Folks’ Home, the last supported by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Mattoon is an important shipping point for Indian corn and broom corn, extensively grown in the vicinity, and for fruit and livestock. Among its manufactures are foundry and machine shop products, stoves and bricks; in 1905 the factory product was valued at $1,308,781, an increase of 71.2% over that in 1900. The municipality owns the waterworks and an electric lighting plant. Mattoon was first settled about 1855, was named in honour of William Mattoon, an early landowner, was first chartered as a city in 1857, and was reorganized under a general state law in 1879.

MATTRESS (O.Fr. materas, mod. matelas; the origin is the Arab. al-materah, cushion, whence Span. and Port. almadraque, Ital. materasso), the padded foundation of a bed, formed of canvas or other stout material stuffed with wool, hair, flock or straw; in the last case it is properly known as a “palliasse” (Fr. paille, straw; Lat. palea); but this term is often applied to an under-mattress stuffed with substances other than straw. The padded mattress on which lay the feather-bed has been replaced by the “wire-mattress,” a network of wire stretched on a light wooden or iron frame, which is either a separate structure or a component part of the bedstead itself. The “wire-mattress” has taken the place of the “spring mattress,” in which spiral springs support the stuffing. The term “mattress” is used in engineering for a mat of brushwood, faggots, &c., corded together and used as a foundation or as surface in the construction of dams, jetties, dikes, &c.

MATURIN, CHARLES ROBERT (1782-1824), Irish novelist and dramatist, was born in Dublin in 1782. His grandfather, Gabriel Jasper Maturin, had been Swift’s successor in the deanery of St Patrick. Charles Maturin was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and became curate of Loughrea and then of St Peter’s, Dublin. His first novels, The Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio (1807), The Wild Irish Boy (1808), The Milesian Chief (1812), were issued under the pseudonym of “Dennis Jasper Murphy.” All these were mercilessly ridiculed, but the irregular power displayed in them attracted the notice of Sir Walter Scott, who recommended the author to Byron. Through their influence Maturin’s tragedy of Bertram was produced at Drury Lane in 1816, with Kean and Miss Kelly in the leading parts. A French version by Charles Nodier and Baron Taylor was produced in Paris at the Théâtre Favart. Two more tragedies, Manuel (1817) and Fredolfo (1819), were failures, and his poem The Universe (1821) fell flat. He wrote three more novels, Women (1818), Melmoth, the Wanderer (1820), and The Albigenses (1824). Melmoth, which forms its author’s title to remembrance, is the best of them, and has for hero a kind of “Wandering Jew.” Honoré de Balzac wrote a sequel to it under the title of Melmoth réconcilié à l’église (1835). Maturin died in Dublin on the 30th of October 1824.

MATVYEEV, ARTAMON SERGYEEVICH (  -1682), Russian statesman and reformer, was one of the greatest of the precursors of Peter the Great. His parentage and the date of his birth are uncertain. Apparently his birth was humble, but when the obscure figure of the young Artamon emerges into the light of history we find him equipped at all points with the newest ideas, absolutely free from the worst prejudices of his age, a ripe scholar, and even an author of some distinction. In 1671 the tsar Alexius and Artamon were already on intimate terms, and on the retirement of Orduin-Nashchokin Matvyeev became the tsar’s chief counsellor. It was at his house, full of all the wondrous, half-forbidden novelties of the west, that Alexius, after the death of his first consort, Martha, met Matvyeev’s favourite pupil, the beautiful Natalia Naruishkina, whom he married on the 21st of January 1672. At the end of the year Matvyeev was raised to the rank of okolnichy, and on the 1st of September 1674 attained the still higher dignity of boyar. Matvyeev remained paramount to the end of the reign and introduced play-acting and all sorts of refining western novelties into Muscovy. The deplorable physical condition of Alexius’s immediate successor, Theodore III. suggested to Matvyeev the desirability of elevating to the throne the sturdy little tsarevich Peter, then in his fourth year. He purchased the allegiance of the stryeltsi, or musketeers, and then, summoning the boyars of the council, earnestly represented to them that Theodore, scarce able to live, was surely unable to reign, and urged the substitution of little Peter. But the reactionary boyars, among whom were the near kinsmen of Theodore, proclaimed him tsar and Matvyeev was banished to Pustozersk, in northern Russia, where he remained till Theodore’s death (April 27, 1682). Immediately afterwards Peter was proclaimed tsar by the patriarch, and the first ukaz issued in Peter’s name summoned Matvyeev to return to the capital and act as chief adviser to the tsaritsa Natalia. He reached Moscow on the 15th of May, prepared “to lay down his life for the tsar,” and at once proceeded to the head of the Red Staircase to meet and argue with the assembled stryeltsi, who had been instigated to rebel by the anti-Petrine faction. He had already succeeded in partially pacifying them, when one of their colonels began to abuse the still hesitating and suspicious musketeers. Infuriated, they seized and flung Matvyeev into the square below, where he was hacked to pieces by their comrades.

See R. Nisbet Bain, The First Romanovs (London, 1905); M. P. Pogodin, The First Seventeen Years of the Life of Peter the Great (Rus.), (Moscow, 1875); S. M. Solovev, History of Russia (Rus.), (vols. 12, 13, (St Petersburg, 1895, &c.); L. Shehepotev, A. S. Matvyeev as an Educational and Political Reformer (Rus.), (St Petersburg, 1906).

(R. N. B.)

MAUBEUGE, a town of northern France, in the department of Nord, situated on both banks of the Sambre, here canalized, 231⁄2 m. by rail E. by S. of Valenciennes, and about 2 m. from the Belgian frontier. Pop. (1906), town 13,569, commune 21,520. As a fortress Maubeuge has an old enceinte of bastion trace which serves as the centre of an important entrenched camp of 18 m. perimeter, constructed for the most part after the war of 1870, but since modernized and augmented. The town has a board of trade arbitration, a communal college, a commercial and industrial school; and there are important foundries, forges and blast-furnaces, together with manufactures of machine-tools, porcelain, &c. It is united by electric tramway with Hautmont (pop. 12,473), also an important metallurgical centre.

Maubeuge (Malbodium) owes its origin to a double monastery, for men and women, founded in the 7th century by St Aldegonde relics of whom are preserved in the church. It subsequently belonged to the territory of Hainault. It was burnt by Louis XI., by Francis I., and by Henry II., and was finally assigned to France by the Treaty of Nijmwegen. It was fortified at Vauban by the command of Louis XIV., who under Turenne first saw military service there. Besieged in 1793 by Prince Josias of Coburg, it was relieved by the victory of Wattignies, which is commemorated by a monument in the town. It was unsuccessfully besieged in 1814, but was compelled to capitulate, after a vigorous resistance, in the Hundred Days.

MAUCH CHUNK, a borough and the county-seat of Carbon county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the W. bank of the Lehigh river and on the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company’s Canal, 46 m. by rail W.N.W. of Easton. Pop. (1800), 4101; (1900), 4029 (571 foreign-born); (1910), 3952. Mauch Chunk is served by the Central of New Jersey railway and, at East Mauch Chunk, across the river, connected by electric railway, by the Lehigh Valley railway. The borough lies in the valley of the Lehigh river, along which runs one of its few streets and in another deeply cut valley at right angles to the river; through this second valley east and west runs the main street, on which is an electric railway; parallel to it on the south is High Street, formerly an Irish settlement; half way up the steep hill, and on the north at the top of the opposite hill is the ward of Upper Mauch Chunk, reached by the electric railway. An incline railway, originally used to transport coal from the mines to the river and named the “Switch-Back,” now carries tourists up the steep slopes of Mount Pisgah and Mount Jefferson, to Summit Hill, a rich anthracite coal region, with a famous “burning mine,” which has been on fire since 1832, and then back. An electric railway to the top of Flagstaff Mountain, built in 1900, was completed in 1901 to Lehighton, 4 m. south-east of Mauch Chunk, where coal is mined and silk and stoves are manufactured, and which had a population in 1900 of 4629, and in 1910 of 5316. Immediately above Mauch Chunk the river forms a horseshoe; on the opposite side, connected by a bridge, is the borough of East Mauch Chunk (pop. 1900, 3458; 1910, 3548); and 2 m. up the river is Glen Onoko, with fine falls and cascades. The principal buildings in Mauch Chunk are the county court house, a county gaol, a Young Men’s Christian Association building, and the Dimmick Memorial Library (1890). The borough was long a famous shipping point for coal. It now has ironworks and foundries, and in East Mauch Chunk there are silk mills. The name is Indian and means “Bear Mountain,” this English name being used for a mountain on the east side of the river. The borough was founded by the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company in 1818. This company began in 1827 the operation of the “Switch-Back,” probably the first railway in the country to be used for transporting coal. In 1831 the town was opened to individual enterprise, and in 1850 it was incorporated as a borough. Mauch Chunk was for many years the home of Asa Packer, the projector and builder of the Lehigh Valley railroad from Mauch Chunk to Easton.

MAUCHLINE, a town in the division of Kyle, Ayrshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901), 1767. It lies 8 m. E.S.E. of Kilmarnock and 11 m. E. by N. of Ayr by the Glasgow and South-Western railway. It is situated on a gentle slope about 1 m. from the river Ayr, which flows through the south of the parish of Mauchline. It is noted for its manufacture of snuff-boxes and knick-knacks in wood, and of curling-stones. There is also some cabinet-making, besides spinning and weaving, and its horse fairs and cattle markets have more than local celebrity. The parish church, dating from 1829, stands in the middle of the village, and on the green a monument, erected in 1830, marks the spot where five Covenanters were killed in 1685. Robert Burns lived with his brother Gilbert on the farm of Mossgiel, about a mile to the north, from 1784 to 1788. Mauchline kirkyard was the scene of the “Holy Fair”; at “Poosie Nansie’s” (Agnes Gibson’s)—still, though much altered, a popular inn—the “Jolly Beggars” held their high jinks; near the church (in the poet’s day an old, barn-like structure) was the Whiteford Arms inn, where on a pane of glass Burns wrote the epitaph on John Dove, the landlord; “auld Nanse Tinnock’s” house, with the date of 1744 above the door, nearly faces the entrance to the churchyard; the Rev. William Auld was minister of Mauchline, and “Holy Willie,” whom the poet scourged in the celebrated “Prayer,” was one of “Daddy Auld’s” elders; behind the kirkyard stands the house of Gavin Hamilton, the lawyer and firm friend of Burns, in which the poet was married. The braes of Ballochmyle, where he met the heroine of his song, “The Lass o’ Ballochmyle,” lie about a mile to the south-east. Adjoining them is the considerable manufacturing town of Catrine (pop. 2340), with cotton factories, bleach fields and brewery, where Dr Matthew Stewart (1717-1785), the father of Dugald Stewart—had a mansion, and where there is a big water-wheel said to be inferior in size only to that of Laxey in the Isle of Man. Barskimming House, 2 m. south by west of Mauchline, the seat of Lord-President Miller (1717-1789), was burned down in 1882. Near the confluence of the Fail and the Ayr was the scene of Burns’s parting with Highland Mary.

MAUDE, CYRIL (1862-  ), English actor, was born in London and educated at Charterhouse. He began his career as an actor in 1883 in America, and from 1896 to 1905 was co-manager with F. Harrison of the Haymarket Theatre, London. There he became distinguished for his quietly humorous acting in many parts. In 1906 he went into management on his own account, and in 1907 opened his new theatre The Playhouse. In 1888 he married the actress Winifred Emery (b. 1862), who had made her London début as a child in 1875, and acted with Irving at the Lyceum between 1881 and 1887. She was a daughter of Samuel Anderson Emery (1817-1881) and granddaughter of John Emery (1777-1822), both well-known actors in their day.

MAULE, a coast province of central Chile, bounded N. by Talea, E. by Linares and Nuble, and S. by Concepción, and lying between the rivers Maule and Itata, which form its northern and southern boundaries. Pop. (1895), 119,791; area, 2475 sq. m. Maule is traversed from north to south by the coast range and its surfaces are much broken. The Buchupureo river flows westward across the province. The climate is mild and healthy. Agriculture and stock-raising are the principal occupations, and hides, cattle, wheat and timber are exported. Transport facilities are afforded by the Maule and the Itata, which are navigable, and by a branch of the government railway from Cauquenes to Parral, an important town of southern Linares. The provincial capital, Cauquenes (pop., in 1895, 8574; 1902 estimate, 9895), is centrally situated on the Buchupureo river, on the eastern slopes of the coast cordilleras. The town and port of Constitución (pop., in 1900, about 7000) on the south bank of the Maule, one mile above its mouth, was formerly the capital of the province. The port suffers from a dangerous bar at the mouth of the river, but is connected with Talca by rail and has a considerable trade.

The Maule river, from which the province takes its name, is of historic interest because it is said to have marked the southern limits of the Inca Empire. It rises in the Laguna del Maule, an Andean lake near the Argentine frontier, 7218 ft. above sea-level, and flows westward about 140 m. to the Pacific, into which it discharges in 35° 18′ S. The upper part of its drainage basin, to which the Anuario Hydrografico gives an area of 8000 sq. m., contains the volcanoes of San Pedro (11,800 ft.), the Descabezado (12,795 ft.), and others of the same group of lower elevations. The upper course and tributaries of the Maule, principally in the province of Linares, are largely used for irrigation.

MAULÉON, SAVARI DE (d. 1236), French soldier, was the son of Raoul de Mauléon, vicomte de Thouars and lord of Mauléon (now Châtillon-sur-Sèvre). Having espoused the cause of Arthur of Brittany, he was captured at Mirebeau (1202), and imprisoned in the château of Corfe. But John set him at liberty in 1204, gained him to his side and named him seneschal of Poitou (1205). In 1211 Savari de Mauléon assisted Raymond VI. count of Toulouse, and with him besieged Simon de Montfort in Castelnaudary. Philip Augustus bought his services in 1212 and gave him command of a fleet which was destroyed in the Flemish port of Damme. Then Mauléon returned to John, whom he aided in his struggle with the barons in 1215. He was one of those whom John designated on his deathbed for a council of regency (1216). Then he went to Egypt (1219), and was present at the taking of Damietta. Returning to Poitou he was a second time seneschal for the king of England. He defended Saintonge against Louis VIII. in 1224, but was accused of having given La Rochelle up to the king of France, and the suspicions of the English again threw him back upon the French. Louis VIII. then turned over to him the defence of La Rochelle and the coast of Saintonge. In 1227 he took part in the rising of the barons of Poitiers and Anjou against the young Louis IX. He enjoyed a certain reputation for his poems in the langue d’oc.

See Chilhaud-Dumaine, “Savari de Mauléon,” in Positions des Thèses des élèves de l’École des Chartes (1877); Histoire littéraire de la France, xviii. 671-682.

MAULSTICK, or Mahlstick, a stick with a soft leather or padded head, used by painters to support the hand that holds the brush. The word is an adaptation of the Dutch maalstok, i.e. the painter’s stick, from malen, to paint.

MAUNDY THURSDAY (through O.Fr. mandé from Lat. mandatum, commandment, in allusion to Christ’s words: “A new commandment give I unto you,” after he had washed the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper), the Thursday before Easter. Maundy Thursday is sometimes known as Sheer or Chare Thursday, either in allusion, it is thought, to the “shearing” of heads and beards in preparation for Easter, or more probably in the word’s Middle English sense of “pure,” in allusion to the ablutions of the day. The chief ceremony, as kept from the early middle ages onwards—the washing of the feet of twelve or more poor men or beggars—was in the early Church almost unknown. Of Chrysostom and St Augustine, who both speak of Maundy Thursday as being marked by a solemn celebration of the Sacrament, the former does not mention the foot-washing, and the latter merely alludes to it. Perhaps an indication of it may be discerned as early as the 4th century in a custom, current in Spain, northern Italy and elsewhere, of washing the feet of the catechumens towards the end of Lent before their baptism. It was not, however, universal, and in the 48th canon of the synod of Elvira (A.D. 306) it is expressly prohibited (cf. Corp. Jur. Can., c. 104, caus. i. qu. 1). From the 4th century ceremonial foot-washing became yearly more common, till it was regarded as a necessary rite, to be performed by the pope, all Catholic sovereigns, prelates, priests and nobles. In England the king washed the feet of as many poor men as he was years old, and then distributed to them meat, money and clothes. At Durham Cathedral, until the 16th century, every charity-boy had a monk to wash his feet. At Peterborough Abbey, in 1530, Wolsey made “his maund in Our Lady’s Chapel, having fifty-nine poor men whose feet he washed and kissed; and after he had wiped them he gave every of the said poor men twelve pence in money, three ells of good canvas to make them shirts, a pair of new shoes, a cast of red herrings and three white herrings.” Queen Elizabeth performed the ceremony, the paupers’ feet, however, being first washed by the yeomen of the laundry with warm water and sweet herbs. James II. was the last English monarch to perform the rite. William III. delegated the washing to his almoner, and this was usual until the middle of the 18th century. Since 1754 the foot-washing has been abandoned, and the ceremony now consists of the presentation of Maundy money, officially called Maundy Pennies. These were first coined in the reign of Charles II. They come straight from the Mint, and have their edges unmilled. The service which formerly took place in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, is now held in Westminster Abbey. A procession is formed in the nave, consisting of the lord high almoner representing the sovereign, the clergy and the yeomen of the guard, the latter carrying white and red purses in baskets. The clothes formerly given are now commuted for in cash. The full ritual is gone through by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster, and abroad it survives in all Catholic countries, a notable example being that of the Austrian emperor. In the Greek Church the rite survives notably at Moscow, St Petersburg and Constantinople. It is on Maundy Thursday that in the Church of Rome the sacred oil is blessed, and the chrism prepared according to an elaborate ritual which is given in the Pontificale.

MAUPASSANT, HENRI RENÉ ALBERT GUY DE (1850-1893), French novelist and poet, was born at the Château of Miromesnil in the department of Seine-Inférieure on the 5th August 1850. His grandfather, a landed proprietor of a good Lorraine family, owned an estate at Neuville-Champ-d’Oisel near Rouen, and bequeathed a moderate fortune to his son, a Paris stockbroker, who married Mademoiselle Laure Lepoitevin. Maupassant was educated at Yvetot and at the Rouen lycée. A copy of verses entitled Le Dieu créateur, written during his year of philosophy, has been preserved and printed. He entered the ministry of marine, and was promoted by M. Bardoux to the Cabinet de l’Instruction publique. A pleasant legend says that, in a report by his official chief, Maupassant is mentioned as not reaching the standard of the department in the matter of style. He may very well have been an unsatisfactory clerk, as he divided his time between rowing expeditions and attending the literary gatherings at the house of Gustave Flaubert, who was not, as he is often alleged to be, connected with Maupassant by any blood tie. Flaubert was not his uncle, nor his cousin, nor even his godfather, but merely an old friend of Madame de Maupassant, whom he had known from childhood. At the literary meetings Maupassant seldom shared in the conversation. Upon those who met him—Tourgenieff, Alphonse Daudet, Catulle Mendès, José-Maria de Heredia and Émile Zola—he left the impression of a simple young athlete. Even Flaubert, to whom Maupassant submitted some sketches, was not greatly struck by their talent, though he encouraged the youth to persevere. Maupassant’s first essay was a dramatic piece twice given at Étretat in 1873 before an audience which included Tourgenieff, Flaubert and Meilhac. In this indecorous performance, of which nothing more is heard, Maupassant played the part of a woman. During the next seven years he served a severe apprenticeship to Flaubert, who by this time realized his pupil’s exceptional gifts. In 1880 Maupassant published a volume of poems, Des Vers, against which the public prosecutor of Etampes took proceedings that were finally withdrawn through the influence of the senator Cordier. From Flaubert, who had himself been prosecuted for his first book, Madame Bovary, there came a letter congratulating the poet on the similarity between their first literary experiences. Des Vers is an extremely interesting experiment, which shows Maupassant to us still hesitating in his choice of a medium; but he recognized that it was not wholly satisfactory, and that its chief deficiency—the absence of verbal melody—was fatal. Later in the same year he contributed to the Soirées de Médan, a collection of short stories by MM. Zola, J.-K. Huysmans, Henry Céard, Léon Hennique and Paul Alexis; and in Boule de suif the young unknown author revealed himself to his amazed collaborators and to the public as an admirable writer of prose and a consummate master of the conte. There is perhaps no other instance in modern literary history of a writer beginning, as a fully equipped artist, with a genuine masterpiece. This early success was quickly followed by another. The volume entitled La Maison Tellier (1881) confirmed the first impression, and vanquished even those who were repelled by the author’s choice of subjects. In Mademoiselle Fifi (1883) he repeated his previous triumphs as a conteur, and in this same year he, for the first time, attempted to write on a larger scale. Choosing to portray the life of a blameless girl, unfortunate in her marriage, unfortunate in her son, consistently unfortunate in every circumstance of existence, he leaves her, ruined and prematurely old, clinging to the tragic hope, which time, as one feels, will belie, that she may find happiness in her grandson. This picture of an average woman undergoing the constant agony of disillusion Maupassant calls Une Vie (1883), and as in modern literature there is no finer example of cruel observation, so there is no sadder book than this, while the effect of extreme truthfulness which it conveys justifies its sub-title—L’Humble vérité. Certain passages of Une Vie are of such a character that the sale of the volume at railway bookstalls was forbidden throughout France. The matter was brought before the chamber of deputies, with the result of drawing still more attention to the book, and of advertising the Contes de la bécasse (1883), a collection of stories as improper as they are clever. Au soleil (1884), a book of travels which has the eminent qualities of lucid observation and exact description, was less read than Clair de lune, Miss Harriet, Les Sœurs Rondoli and Yvette, all published in 1883-1884 when Maupassant’s powers were at their highest level. Three further collections of short tales, entitled Contes et nouvelles, Monsieur Parent, and Contes du jour et de la nuit, issued in 1885, proved that while the author’s vision was as incomparable as ever, his fecundity had not improved his impeccable form. To 1885 also belongs an elaborate novel, Bel-ami, the cynical history of a particularly detestable, brutal scoundrel who makes his way in the world by means of his handsome face. Maupassant is here no less vivid in realizing his literary men, financiers and frivolous women than in dealing with his favourite peasants, boors and servants, to whom he returned in Toine (1886) and in La Petite roque (1886). About this time appeared the first symptoms of the malady which destroyed him; he wrote less, and though the novel Mont-Oriol (1887) shows him apparently in undiminished possession of his faculty, Le Horla (1887) suggests that he was already subject to alarming hallucinations. Restored to some extent by a sea-voyage, recorded in Sur l’eau (1888), he went back to short stories in Le Rosier de Madame Husson (1888), a burst of Rabelaisian humour equal to anything he had ever written. His novels Pierre et Jean (1888), Fort comme la mort (1889), and Notre cœur (1890) are penetrating studies touched with a profounder sympathy than had hitherto distinguished him; and this softening into pity for the tragedy of life is deepened in some of the tales included in Inutile beauté (1890). One of these, Le Champ d’Oliviers, is an unsurpassable example of poignant, emotional narrative. With La Vie errante (1890), a volume of travels, Maupassant’s career practically closed. Musotte, a theatrical piece written in collaboration with M. Jacques Normand, was published in 1891. By this time inherited nervous maladies, aggravated by excessive physical exercises and by the imprudent use of drugs, had undermined his constitution. He began to take an interest in religious problems, and for a while made the Imitation his handbook; but his misanthropy deepened, and he suffered from curious delusions as to his wealth and rank. A victim of general paralysis, of which La Folie des grandeurs was one of the symptoms, he drank the waters at Aix-les-Bains during the summer of 1891, and retired to Cannes, where he purposed passing the winter. The singularities of conduct which had been observed at Aix-les-Bains grew more and more marked. Maupassant’s reason slowly gave way. On the 6th of January 1892 he attempted suicide, and was removed to Paris, where he died in the most painful circumstances on the 6th of July 1893. He is buried in the cemetery of Montparnasse. The opening chapters of two projected novels, L’Angélus and L’Ame étrangère, were found among his papers; these, with La Paix du ménage, a comedy in two acts, and two collections of tales, Le Père Milon (1898) and Le Colporteur (1899), have been published posthumously. A correspondence, called Amitié amoureuse (1897), and dedicated to his mother, is probably unauthentic. Among the prefaces which he wrote for the works of others, only one—an introduction to a French prose version of Mr Swinburne’s Poems and Ballads—is likely to interest English readers.

Maupassant began as a follower of Flaubert and of M. Zola, but, whatever the masters may have called themselves, they both remained essentially romantiques. The pupil is the last of the “naturalists”: he even destroyed naturalism, since he did all that can be done in that direction. He had no psychology, no theories of art, no moral or strong social prejudices, no disturbing imagination, no wealth of perplexing ideas. It is no paradox to say that his marked limitations made him the incomparable artist that he was. Undisturbed by any external influence, his marvellous vision enabled him to become a supreme observer, and, given his literary sense, the rest was simple. He prided himself in having no invention; he described nothing that he had not seen. The peasants whom he had known as a boy figure in a score of tales; what he saw in Government offices is set down in L’Héritage; from Algiers he gathers the material for Maroca; he drinks the waters and builds up Mont-Oriol; he enters journalism, constructs Bel-ami, and, for the sake of precision, makes his brother, Hervé de Maupassant, sit for the infamous hero’s portrait; he sees fashionable society, and, though it wearied him intensely, he transcribes its life in Fort comme la mort and Notre cœur. Fundamentally he finds all men alike. In every grade he finds the same ferocious, cunning, animal instincts at work: it is not a gay world, but he knows no other; he is possessed by the dread of growing old, of ceasing to enjoy; the horror of death haunts him like a spectre. It is an extremely simple outlook. Maupassant does not prefer good to bad, one man to another; he never pauses to argue about the meaning of life, a senseless thing which has the one advantage of yielding materials for art; his one aim is to discover the hidden aspect of visible things, to relate what he has observed, to give an objective rendering of it, and he has seen so intensely and so serenely that he is the most exact transcriber in literature. And as the substance is, so is the form: his style is exceedingly simple and exceedingly strong; he uses no rare or superfluous word, and is content to use the humblest word if only it conveys the exact picture of the thing seen. In ten years he produced some thirty volumes. With the exception of Pierre et Jean, his novels, excellent as they are, scarcely represent him at his best, and of over two hundred contes a proportion must be rejected. But enough will remain to vindicate his claim to a permanent place in literature as an unmatched observer and the most perfect master of the short story.

See also F. Brunetière, Le Roman naturaliste (1883); T. Lemaître, Les Contemporains (vols. i. v. vi.); R. Doumic, Ecrivains d’aujourd’hui (1894); an introduction by Henry James to The Odd Number ... (1891); a critical preface by the earl of Crewe to Pierre and Jean (1902); A. Symons, Studies in Prose and Verse (1904). There are many references to Maupassant in the Journal des Goncourt, and some correspondence with Marie Bashkirtseff was printed with Further Memoirs of that lady in 1901.

(J. F. K.)

MAUPEOU, RENÉ NICOLAS CHARLES AUGUSTIN (1714-1792), chancellor of France, was born on the 25th of February 1714, being the eldest son of René Charles de Maupeou (1688-1775), who was president of the parlement of Paris from 1743 to 1757. He married in 1744 a rich heiress, Anne de Roncherolles, a cousin of Madame d’Épinay. Entering public life, he was his father’s right hand in the conflicts between the parlement and Christophe de Beaumont, archbishop of Paris, who was supported by the court. Between 1763 and 1768, dates which cover the revision of the case of Jean Calas and the trial of the comte de Lally, Maupeou was himself president of the parlement. In 1768, through the protection of Choiseul, whose fall two years later was in large measure his work, he became chancellor in succession to his father, who had held the office for a few days only. He determined to support the royal authority against the parlement, which in league with the provincial magistratures was seeking to arrogate to itself the functions of the states-general. He allied himself with the duc d’Aiguillon and Madame du Barry, and secured for a creature of his own, the Abbé Terrai, the office of comptroller-general. The struggle came over the trial of the case of the duc d’Aiguillon, ex-governor of Brittany, and of La Chalotais, procureur-général of the province, who had been imprisoned by the governor for accusations against his administration. When the parlement showed signs of hostility against Aiguillon, Maupeou read letters patent from Louis XV. annulling the proceedings. Louis replied to remonstrances from the parlement by a lit de justice, in which he demanded the surrender of the minutes of procedure. On the 27th of November 1770 appeared the Édit de règlement et de discipline, which was promulgated by the chancellor, forbidding the union of the various branches of the parlement and correspondence with the provincial magistratures. It also made a strike on the part of the parlement punishable by confiscation of goods, and forbade further obstruction to the registration of royal decrees after the royal reply had been given to a first remonstrance. This edict the magistrates refused to register, and it was registered in a lit de justice held at Versailles on the 7th of December, whereupon the parlement suspended its functions. After five summonses to return to their duties, the magistrates were surprised individually on the night of the 19th of January 1771 by musketeers, who required them to sign yes or no to a further request to return. Thirty-eight magistrates gave an affirmative answer, but on the exile of their former colleagues by lettres de cachet they retracted, and were also exiled. Maupeou installed the council of state to administer justice pending the establishment of six superior courts in the provinces, and of a new parlement in Paris. The cour des aides was next suppressed.

Voltaire praised this revolution, applauding the suppression of the old hereditary magistrature, but in general Maupeou’s policy was regarded as the triumph of tyranny. The remonstrances of the princes, of the nobles, and of the minor courts, were met by exile and suppression, but by the end of 1771 the new system was established, and the Bar, which had offered a passive resistance, recommenced to plead. But the death of Louis XV. in May 1774 ruined the chancellor. The restoration of the parlements was followed by a renewal of the quarrels between the new king and the magistrature. Maupeou and Terrai were replaced by Malesherbes and Turgot. Maupeou lived in retreat until his death at Thuit on the 29th of July 1792, having lived to see the overthrow of the ancien régime. His work, in so far as it was directed towards the separation of the judicial and political functions and to the reform of the abuses attaching to a hereditary magistrature, was subsequently endorsed by the Revolution; but no justification of his violent methods or defence of his intriguing and avaricious character is possible. He aimed at securing absolute power for Louis XV., but his action was in reality a serious blow to the monarchy.

The chief authority for the administration of Maupeou is the compte rendu in his own justification presented by him to Louis XVI. in 1789, which included a dossier of his speeches and edicts, and is preserved in the Bibliothèque nationale. These documents, in the hands of his former secretary, C. F. Lebrun, duc de Plaisance, formed the basis of the judicial system of France as established under the consulate (cf. C. F. Lebrun, Opinions, rapports et choix d’écrits politiques, published posthumously in 1829). See further Maupeouana (6 vols., Paris, 1775), which contains the pamphlets directed against him; Journal hist. de la révolution opérée ... par M. de Maupeou (7 vols., 1775); the official correspondence of Mercy-Argenteau, the letters of Mme d’Épinay; and Jules Flammermont, Le Chancelier Maupeou et les parlements (1883).

MAUPERTUIS, PIERRE LOUIS MOREAU DE (1698-1759), French mathematician and astronomer, was born at St Malo on the 17th of July 1698. When twenty years of age he entered the army, becoming lieutenant in a regiment of cavalry, and employing his leisure on mathematical studies. After five years he quitted the army and was admitted in 1723 a member of the Academy of Sciences. In 1728 he visited London, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1736 he acted as chief of the expedition sent by Louis XV. into Lapland to measure the length of a degree of the meridian (see [Earth, Figure of]), and on his return home he became a member of almost all the scientific societies of Europe. In 1740 Maupertuis went to Berlin on the invitation of the king of Prussia, and took part in the battle of Mollwitz, where he was taken prisoner by the Austrians. On his release he returned to Berlin, and thence to Paris, where he was elected director of the Academy of Sciences in 1742, and in the following year was admitted into the Academy. Returning to Berlin in 1744, at the desire of Frederick II., he was chosen president of the Royal Academy of Sciences in 1746. Finding his health declining, he repaired in 1757 to the south of France, but went in 1758 to Basel, where he died on the 27th of July 1759. Maupertuis was unquestionably a man of considerable ability as a mathematician, but his restless, gloomy disposition involved him in constant quarrels, of which his controversies with König and Voltaire during the latter part of his life furnish examples.

The following are his most important works: Sur la figure de la terre (Paris, 1738); Discours sur la parallaxe de la lune (Paris, 1741); Discours sur la figure des astres (Paris, 1742); Éléments de la géographie (Paris, 1742); Lettre sur la comète de 1742 (Paris, 1742); Astronomie nautique (Paris, 1745 and 1746); Vénus physique (Paris, 1745); Essai de cosmologie (Amsterdam, 1750). His Œuvres were published in 1752 at Dresden and in 1756 at Lyons.

MAU RANIPUR, a town of British India in Jahnsi district, in the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 17,231. It contains a large community of wealthy merchants and bankers. A special variety of red cotton cloth, known as kharua, is manufactured and exported to all parts of India. Trees line many of the streets, and handsome temples ornament the town.

MAUREL, ABDIAS (d. 1705), Camisard leader, became a cavalry officer in the French army and gained distinction in Italy; here he served under Marshal Catinat, and on this account he himself is sometimes known as Catinat. In 1702, when the revolt in the Cévennes broke out, he became one of the Camisard leaders, and in this capacity his name was soon known and feared. He refused to accept the peace made by Jean Cavalier in 1704, and after passing a few weeks in Switzerland he returned to France and became one of the chiefs of those Camisards who were still in arms. He was deeply concerned in a plot to capture some French towns, a scheme which, it was hoped, would be helped by England and Holland. But it failed; Maurel was betrayed, and with three other leaders of the movement was burned to death at Nîmes on the 22nd of April 1705. He was a man of great physical strength; but he was very cruel, and boasted he had killed 200 Roman Catholics with his own hands.

MAUREL, VICTOR (1848-  ), French singer, was born at Marseilles, and educated in music at the Paris Conservatoire. He made his début in opera at Paris in 1868, and in London in 1873, and from that time onwards his admirable acting and vocal method established his reputation as one of the finest of operatic baritones. He created the leading part in Verdi’s Otello, and was equally fine in Wagnerian and Italian opera.

MAURENBRECHER, KARL PETER WILHELM (1838-1892), German historian, was born at Bonn on the 21st of December, 1838, and studied in Berlin and Munich under Ranke and Von Sybel, being especially influenced by the latter historian. After doing some research work at Simancas in Spain, he became professor of history at the university of Dorpat in 1867; and was then in turn professor at Königsberg, Bonn and Leipzig. He died at Leipzig on the 6th of November, 1892.

Many of Maurenbrecher’s works are concerned with the Reformation, among them being England im Reformationszeitalter (Düsseldorf, 1866); Karl V. und die deutschen Protestanten (Düsseldorf, 1865); Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der Reformationszeit (Leipzig, 1874); and the incomplete Geschichte der Katholischen Reformation (Nördlingen, 1880). He also wrote Don Karlos (Berlin, 1876); Gründung des deutschen Reiches 1859-1871 (Leipzig, 1892, and again 1902); and Geschichte der deutschen Königswahlen (Leipzig, 1889). See G. Wolf, Wilhelm Maurenbrecher (Berlin, 1893).

MAUREPAS, JEAN FRÉDÉRIC PHÉLYPEAUX, Comte de (1701-1781), French statesman, was born on the 9th of July 1701 at Versailles, being the son of Jérôme de Pontchartrain, secretary of state for the marine and the royal household. Maurepas succeeded to his father’s charge at fourteen, and began his functions in the royal household at seventeen, while in 1725 he undertook the actual administration of the navy. Although essentially light and frivolous in character, Maurepas was seriously interested in scientific matters, and he used the best brains of France to apply science to questions of navigation and of naval construction. He was disgraced in 1749, and exiled from Paris for an epigram against Madame de Pompadour. On the accession of Louis XVI., twenty-five years later, he became a minister of state and Louis XVI.’s chief adviser. He gave Turgot the direction of finance, placed Lamoignon-Malesherbes over the royal household and made Vergennes minister for foreign affairs. At the outset of his new career he showed his weakness by recalling to their functions, in deference to popular clamour, the members of the old parlement ousted by Maupeou, thus reconstituting the most dangerous enemy of the royal power. This step, and his intervention on behalf of the American states, helped to pave the way for the French revolution. Jealous of his personal ascendancy over Louis XVI., he intrigued against Turgot, whose disgrace in 1776 was followed after six months of disorder by the appointment of Necker. In 1781 Maurepas deserted Necker as he had done Turgot, and he died at Versailles on the 21st of November 1781.

Maurepas is credited with contributions to the collection of facetiae known as the Étrennes de la Saint Jean (2nd ed., 1742). Four volumes of Mémoires de Maurepas, purporting to be collected by his secretary and edited by J. L. G. Soulavie in 1792, must be regarded as apocryphal. Some of his letters were published in 1896 by the Soc. de l’hist. de Paris. His éloge in the Academy of Sciences was pronounced by Condorcet.

MAURER, GEORG LUDWIG VON (1790-1872), German statesman and historian, son of a Protestant pastor, was born at Erpolzheim, near Dürkheim, in the Rhenish Palatinate, on the 2nd of November 1790. Educated at Heidelberg, he went in 1812 to reside in Paris, where he entered upon a systematic study of the ancient legal institutions of the Germans. Returning to Germany in 1814, he received an appointment under the Bavarian government, and afterwards filled several important official positions. In 1824 he published at Heidelberg his Geschichte des altgermanischen und namentlich altbayrischen öffentlich-mündlichen Gerichtsverfahrens, which obtained the first prize of the academy of Munich, and in 1826 he became professor in the university of Munich. In 1829 he returned to official life, and was soon offered an important post. In 1832, when Otto (Otho), son of Louis I., king of Bavaria, was chosen to fill the throne of Greece, a council of regency was nominated during his minority, and Maurer was appointed a member. He applied himself energetically to the task of creating institutions adapted to the requirements of a modern civilized community; but grave difficulties soon arose and Maurer was recalled in 1834, when he returned to Munich. This loss was a serious one for Greece. Maurer was the ablest, most energetic and most liberal-minded member of the council, and it was through his enlightened efforts that Greece obtained a revised penal code, regular tribunals and an improved system of civil procedure. Soon after his recall he published Das griechische Volk in öffentlicher, kirchlicher, und privatrechtlicher Beziehung vor und nach dem Freiheitskampfe bis zum 31 Juli 1834 (Heidelberg, 1835-1836), a useful source of information for the history of Greece before Otto ascended the throne, and also for the labours of the council of regency to the time of the author’s recall. After the fall of the ministry of Karl von Abel (1788-1859) in 1847, he became chief Bavarian minister and head of the departments of foreign affairs and of justice, but was overthrown in the same year. He died at Munich on the 9th of May 1872. His only son, Conrad von Maurer (1823-1902), was a Scandinavian scholar of some repute, and like his father was a professor at the university of Munich.

Maurer’s most important contribution to history is a series of books on the early institutions of the Germans. These are: Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof-, Dorf-, und Stadtverfassung und der öffentlichen Gewalt (Munich, 1854); Geschichte der Markenverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen, 1856); Geschichte der Fronhöfe, der Bauernhöfe, und der Hofverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen, 1862-1863); Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen, 1865-1866); and Geschichte der Slädteverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen, 1869-1871). These works are still important authorities for the early history of the Germans. Among other works are, Das Stadt- und Landrechtsbuch Ruprechts von Freising, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Schwabenspiegels (Stuttgart, 1839); Über die Freipflege (plegium liberale), und die Entstehung der grossen und kleinen Jury in England (Munich, 1848); and Über die deutsche Reichsterritorial- und Rechtsgeschichte (1830).

Sec K. T. von Heigel, Denkwürdigkeiten des bayrischen Staatsrats G. L. von Maurer (Munich, 1903).

MAURETANIA, the ancient name of the north-western angle of the African continent, and under the Roman Empire also of a large territory eastward of that angle. The name had different significations at different times; but before the Roman occupation, Mauretania comprised a considerable part of the modern Morocco i.e. the northern portion bounded on the east by Algiers. Towards the south we may suppose it bounded by the Atlas range, and it seems to have been regarded by geographers as extending along the coast to the Atlantic as far as the point where that chain descends to the sea, in about 30 N. lat. (Strabo, p. 825). The magnificent plateau in which the city of Morocco is situated seems to have been unknown to ancient geographers, and was certainly never included in the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the Gaetulians to the south of the Atlas range, on the date-producing slopes towards the Sahara, seem to have owned a precarious subjection to the kings of Mauretania, as afterwards to the Roman government. A large part of the country is of great natural fertility, and in ancient times produced large quantities of corn, while the slopes of Atlas were clothed with forests, which, besides other kinds of timber, produced the celebrated ornamental wood called citrum (Plin. Hist. Nat. 13-96), for tables of which the Romans gave fabulous prices. (For physical geography, see [Morocco].)

Mauretania, or Maurusia as it was called by Greek writers, signified the land of the Mauri, a term still retained in the modern name of Moors (q.v.). The origin and ethnical affinities of the race are uncertain; but it is probable that all the inhabitants of this northern tract of Africa were kindred races belonging to the great Berber family, possibly with an intermingled fair-skinned race from Europe (see Tissot, Géographie comparée de la province romaine d’Afrique, i. 400 seq.; also [Berbers]). They first appear in history at the time of the Jugurthine War (110-106 B.C.), when Mauretania was under the government of Bocchus and seems to have been recognized as organized state (Sallust, Jugurtha, 19). To this Bocchus was given, after the war, the western part of Jugurtha’s kingdom of Numidia, perhaps as far east as Saldae (Bougie). Sixty years later, at the time of the dictator Caesar, we find two Mauretanian kingdoms, one to the west of the river Mulucha under Bogud, and the other to the east under a Bocchus; as to the date or cause of the division we are ignorant. Both these kings took Caesar’s part in the civil wars, and had their territory enlarged by him (Appian, B.C. 4, 54). In 25 B.C., after their deaths, Augustus gave the two kingdoms to Juba II. of Numidia (see under [Juba]), with the river Ampsaga as the eastern frontier (Plin. 5. 22; Ptol. 4. 3. 1). Juba and his son Ptolemaeus after him reigned till A.D. 40, when the latter was put to death by Caligula, and shortly afterwards Claudius incorporated the kingdom into the Roman state as two provinces, viz. Mauretania Tingitana to the west of the Mulucha and M. Caesariensis to the east of that river, the latter taking its name from the city Caesarea (formerly Iol), which Juba had thus named and adopted as his capital. Thus the dividing line between the two provinces was the same as that which had originally separated Mauretania from Numidia (q.v.). These provinces were governed until the time of Diocletian by imperial procurators, and were occasionally united for military purposes. Under and after Diocletian M. Tingitana was attached administratively to the dioicesis of Spain, with which it was in all respects closely connected; while M. Caesariensis was divided by making its eastern part into a separate government, which was called M. Sitifensis from the Roman colony Sitifis.

In the two provinces of Mauretania there were at the time of Pliny a number of towns, including seven (possibly eight) Roman colonies in M. Tingitana and eleven in M. Caesariensis; others were added later. These were mostly military foundations, and served the purpose of securing civilization against the inroads of the natives, who were not in a condition to be used as material for town-life as in Gaul and Spain, but were under the immediate government of the procurators, retaining their own clan organization. Of these colonies the most important, beginning from the west, were Lixus on the Atlantic, Tingis (Tangier), Rusaddir (Melila, Melilla), Cartenna (Tenes), Iol or Caesarea (Cherchel), Icosium (Algiers), Saldae (Bougie), Igilgili (Jijelli) and Sitifis (Setif). All these were on the coast but the last, which was some distance inland. Besides these there were many municipia or oppida civium romanorum (Plin. 5. 19 seq.), but, as has been made clear by French archaeologists who have explored these regions, Roman settlements are less frequent the farther we go west, and M. Tingitana has as yet yielded but scanty evidence of Roman civilization. On the whole Mauretania was in a flourishing condition down to the irruption of the Vandals in A.D. 429; in the Notitia nearly a hundred and seventy episcopal sees are enumerated here, but we must remember that numbers of these were mere villages.

In 1904 the term Mauretania was revived as an official designation by the French government, and applied to the territory north of the lower Senegal under French protection (see [Senegal]).

To the authorities quoted under [Africa, Roman], may be added here Göbel, Die West-küste Afrikas im Alterthum.

(W. W. F.*)

MAURIAC, a town of central France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Cantal, 39 m. N.N.W. of Aurillac by rail. Pop. (1906), 2558. Mauriac, built on the slope of a volcanic hill, has a church of the 12th century, and the buildings of an old abbey now used as public offices and dwellings; the town owes its origin to the abbey, founded during the 6th century. It is the seat of a sub-prefect and has a tribunal of first instance and a communal college. There are marble quarries in the vicinity.

MAURICE [or Mauritius], ST (d. c. 286), an early Christian martyr, who, with his companions, is commemorated by the Roman Catholic Church on the 22nd of September. The oldest form of his story is found in the Passio ascribed to Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, c. 450, who relates how the “Theban” legion commanded by Mauritius was sent to north Italy to reinforce the army of Maximinian. Maximinian wished to use them in persecuting the Christians, but as they themselves were of this faith, they refused, and for this, after having been twice decimated, the legion was exterminated at Octodurum (Martigny) near Geneva. In late versions this legend was expanded and varied, the martyrdom was connected with a refusal to take part in a great sacrifice ordered at Octodurum and the name of Exsuperius was added to that of Mauritius. Gregory of Tours (c. 539-593) speaks of a company of the same legion which suffered at Cologne.

The Magdeburg Centuries, in spite of Mauritius being the patron saint of Magdeburg, declared the whole legend fictitious; J. A. du Bordien La Légion thébéenne (Amsterdam, 1705); J. J. Hottinger in Helvetische Kirchengeschichte (Zürich, 1708); and F. W. Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Göttingen, 1845-1848) have also demonstrated its untrustworthiness, while the Bollandists, De Rivaz and Joh. Friedrich uphold it. Apart from the a priori improbability of a whole legion being martyred, the difficulties are that in 286 Christians everywhere throughout the empire were not molested, that at no later date have we evidence of the presence of Maximinian in the Valais, and that none of the writers nearest to the event (Eusebius, Lactantius, Orosius, Sulpicius Severus) know anything of it. It is of course quite possible that isolated cases of officers being put to death for their faith occurred during Maximinian’s reign, and on some such cases the legend may have grown up during the century and a half between Maximinian and Eucherius. The cult of St Maurice and the Theban legion is found in Switzerland (where two places bear the name in Valais, besides St Moritz in Grisons), along the Rhine, and in north Italy. The foundation of the abbey of St Maurice (Agaunum) in the Valais is usually ascribed to Sigismund of Burgundy (515). Relics of the saint are preserved here and at Brieg and Turin.

MAURICE (Mauricius Flavius Tiberius) (c. 539-602), East Roman emperor from 582 to 602, was of Roman descent, but a native of Arabissus in Cappadocia. He spent his youth at the court of Justin II., and, having joined the army, fought with distinction in the Persian War (578-581). At the age of forty-three he was declared Caesar by the dying emperor Tiberius II., who bestowed upon him the hand of his daughter Constantina. Maurice brought the Persian War to a successful close by the restoration of Chosroes II. to the throne (591). On the northern frontier he at first bought off the Avars by payments which compelled him to exercise strict economy in his general administration, but after 595 inflicted several defeats upon them through his general Crispus. By his strict discipline and his refusal to ransom a captive corps he provoked to mutiny the army on the Danube. The revolt spread to the popular factions in Constantinople, and Maurice consented to abdicate. He withdrew to Chalcedon, but was hunted down and put to death after witnessing the slaughter of his five sons.

The work on military art (στρατηγικά) ascribed to him is a contemporary work of unknown authorship (ed. Scheffer, Arriani tactica et Mauricii ars militaris, Upsala, 1664; see Max Jähns, Gesch. d. Kriegswissensch., i. 152-156).

See Theophylactus Simocatta, Vita Mauricii (ed. de Boor, 1887); E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. Bury, London, 1896, v. 19-21, 57); J. B. Bury, The Later Roman Empire (London, 1889, ii. 83-94); G. Finlay, History of Greece (ed. 1877, Oxford, i. 299-306).

MAURICE (1521-1553), elector of Saxony, elder son of Henry, duke of Saxony, belonging to the Albertine branch of the Wettin family, was born at Freiberg on the 21st of March 1521. In January 1541 he married Agnes, daughter of Philip, landgrave of Hesse. In that year he became duke of Saxony by his father’s death, and he continued Henry’s work in forwarding the progress of the Reformation. Duke Henry had decreed that his lands should be divided between his two sons, but as a partition was regarded as undesirable the whole of the duchy came to his elder son. Maurice, however, made generous provision for his brother Augustus, and the desire to compensate him still further was one of the minor threads of his subsequent policy. In 1542 he assisted the emperor Charles V. against the Turks, in 1543 against William, duke of Cleves, and in 1544 against the French; but his ambition soon took a wider range. The harmonious relations which subsisted between the two branches of the Wettins were disturbed by the interference of Maurice in Cleves, a proceeding distasteful to the Saxon elector, John Frederick; and a dispute over the bishopric of Meissen having widened the breach, war was only averted by the mediation of Philip of Hesse and Luther. About this time Maurice seized the idea of securing for himself the electoral dignity held by John Frederick, and his opportunity came when Charles was preparing to attack the league of Schmalkalden. Although educated as a Lutheran, religious questions had never seriously appealed to Maurice. As a youth he had joined the league of Schmalkalden, but this adhesion, as well as his subsequent declaration to stand by the confession of Augsburg, cannot be regarded as the decision of his maturer years. In June 1546 he took a decided step by making a secret agreement with Charles at Regensburg. Maurice was promised some rights over the archbishopric of Magdeburg and the bishopric of Halberstadt; immunity, in part at least, for his subjects from the Tridentine decrees; and the question of transferring the electoral dignity was discussed. In return the duke probably agreed to aid Charles in his proposed attack on the league as soon as he could gain the consent of the Saxon estates, or at all events to remain neutral during the impending war. The struggle began in July 1546, and in October Maurice declared war against John Frederick. He secured the formal consent of Charles to the transfer of the electoral dignity and took the field in November. He had gained a few successes when John Frederick hastened from south Germany to defend his dominions. Maurice’s ally, Albert Alcibiades, prince of Bayreuth, was taken prisoner at Rochlitz; and the duke, driven from electoral Saxony, was unable to prevent his own lands from being overrun. Salvation, however, was at hand. Marching against John Frederick, Charles V., aided by Maurice, gained a decisive victory at Mühlberg in April 1547, after which by the capitulation of Wittenberg John Frederick renounced the electoral dignity in favour of Maurice, who also obtained a large part of his kinsman’s lands. The formal investiture of the new elector took place at Augsburg in February 1548.

The plans of Maurice soon took a form less agreeable to the emperor. The continued imprisonment of his father-in-law, Philip of Hesse, whom he had induced to surrender to Charles and whose freedom he had guaranteed, was neither his greatest nor his only cause of complaint. The emperor had refused to complete the humiliation of the family of John Frederick; he had embarked upon a course of action which boded danger to the elector’s Lutheran subjects, and his increased power was a menace to the position of Maurice. Assuring Charles of his continued loyalty, the elector entered into negotiations with the discontented Protestant princes. An event happened which gave him a base of operations, and enabled him to mask his schemes against the emperor. In 1550 he had been entrusted with the execution of the imperial ban against the city of Magdeburg, and under cover of these operations he was able to collect troops and to concert measures with his allies. Favourable terms were granted to Magdeburg, which surrendered and remained in the power of Maurice, and in January 1552 a treaty was concluded with Henry II. of France at Chambord. Meanwhile Maurice had refused to recognize the Interim issued from Augsburg in May 1548 as binding on Saxony; but a compromise was arranged on the basis of which the Leipzig Interim was drawn up for his lands. It is uncertain how far Charles was ignorant of the elector’s preparations, but certainly he was unprepared for the attack made by Maurice and his allies in March 1552. Augsburg was taken, the pass of Ehrenberg was forced, and in a few days the emperor left Innsbruck as a fugitive. Ferdinand undertook to make peace, and the Treaty of Passau, signed in August 1552, was the result. Maurice obtained a general amnesty and freedom for Philip of Hesse, but was unable to obtain a perpetual religious peace for the Lutherans. Charles stubbornly insisted that this question must be referred to the Diet, and Maurice was obliged to give way. He then fought against the Turks, and renewed his communications with Henry of France. Returning from Hungary the elector placed himself at the head of the princes who were seeking to check the career of his former ally, Albert Alcibiades, whose depredations were making him a curse to Germany. The rival armies met at Sievershausen on the 9th of July 1553, where after a fierce encounter Albert was defeated. The victor, however, was wounded during the fight and died two days later.

Maurice was a friend to learning, and devoted some of the secularized church property to the advancement of education. Very different estimates have been formed of his character. He has been represented as the saviour of German Protestantism on the one hand, and on the other as a traitor to his faith and country. In all probability he was neither the one nor the other, but a man of great ambition who, indifferent to religious considerations, made good use of the exigencies of the time. He was generous and enlightened, a good soldier and a clever diplomatist. He left an only daughter Anna (d. 1577), who became the second wife of William the Silent, prince of Orange.

The elector’s Politische Korrespondenz has been edited by E. Brandenburg (Leipzig, 1900-1904); and a sketch of him is given by Roger Ascham in A Report and Discourse of the Affairs and State of Germany (London, 1864-1865). See also F. A. von Langenn, Moritz Herzog und Churfürst zu Sachsen (Leipzig, 1841); G. Voigt, Moritz von Sachsen (Leipzig, 1876); E. Brandenburg, Moritz von Sachsen (Leipzig, 1898); S. Issleib, Moritz von Sachsen als protestantischer Fürst (Hamburg, 1898); J. Witter, Die Beziehung und der Verkehr des Kurfürsten Moritz mit König Ferdinand (Jena, 1886); L. von Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Bde. IV. and V. (Leipzig, 1882); and W. Maurenbrecher in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, Bd. XXII. (Leipzig, 1885). For bibliography see Maurenbrecher; and The Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii. (Cambridge, 1903).

MAURICE, JOHN FREDERICK DENISON (1805-1872), English theologian, was born at Normanston, Suffolk, on the 29th of August, 1805. He was the son of a Unitarian minister, and entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1823, though it was then impossible for any but members of the Established Church to obtain a degree. Together with John Sterling (with whom he founded the Apostles’ Club) he migrated to Trinity Hall, whence he obtained a first class in civil law in 1827; he then came to London, and gave himself to literary work, writing a novel, Eustace Conyers, and editing the London Literary Chronicle until 1830, and also for a short time the Athenaeum. At this time he was much perplexed as to his religious opinions, and he ultimately found relief in a decision to take a further university course and to seek Anglican orders. Entering Exeter College, Oxford, he took a second class in classics in 1831. He was ordained in 1834, and after a short curacy at Bubbenhall in Warwickshire was appointed chaplain of Guy’s Hospital, and became thenceforward a sensible factor in the intellectual and social life of London. From 1839 to 1841 Maurice was editor of the Education Magazine. In 1840 he was appointed professor of English history and literature in King’s College, and to this post in 1846 was added the chair of divinity. In 1845 he was Boyle lecturer and Warburton lecturer. These chairs he held till 1853. In that year he published Theological Essays, wherein were stated opinions which savoured to the principal, Dr R. W. Jelf, and to the council, of unsound theology in regard to eternal punishment. He had previously been called on to clear himself from charges of heterodoxy brought against him in the Quarterly Review (1851), and had been acquitted by a committee of inquiry. Now again he maintained with great warmth of conviction that his views were in close accordance with Scripture and the Anglican standards, but the council, without specifying any distinct “heresy” and declining to submit the case to the judgment of competent theologians, ruled otherwise, and he was deprived of his professorships. He held at the same time the chaplaincy of Lincoln’s Inn, for which he had resigned Guy’s (1846-1860), but when he offered to resign this the benchers refused. Nor was he assailed in the incumbency of St. Peter’s, Vere Street, which he held for nine years (1860-1869), and where he drew round him a circle of thoughtful people. During the early years of this period he was engaged in a hot and bitter controversy with H. L. Mansel (afterwards dean of St Paul’s), arising out of the latter’s Bampton lecture upon reason and revelation.

During his residence in London Maurice was specially identified with two important movements for education. He helped to found Queen’s College for the education of women (1848), and the Working Men’s College (1854), of which he was the first principal. He strongly advocated the abolition of university tests (1853), and threw himself with great energy into all that affected the social life of the people. Certain abortive attempts at co-operation among working men, and the movement known as Christian Socialism, were the immediate outcome of his teaching. In 1866 Maurice was appointed professor of moral philosophy at Cambridge, and from 1870 to 1872 was incumbent of St Edward’s in that city. He died on the 1st of April 1872.

He was twice married, first to Anna Barton, a sister of John Sterling’s wife, secondly to a half-sister of his friend Archdeacon Hare. His son Major-General Sir J. Frederick Maurice (b. 1841), became a distinguished soldier and one of the most prominent military writers of his time.

Those who knew Maurice best were deeply impressed with the spirituality of his character. “Whenever he woke in the night,” says his wife, “he was always praying.” Charles Kingsley called him “the most beautiful human soul whom God has ever allowed me to meet with.” As regards his intellectual attainments we may set Julius Hare’s verdict “the greatest mind since Plato” over against Ruskin’s “by nature puzzle-headed and indeed wrong-headed.” Such contradictory impressions bespeak a life made up of contradictory elements. Maurice was a man of peace, yet his life was spent in a series of conflicts; of deep humility, yet so polemical that he often seemed biased; of large charity, yet bitter in his attack upon the religious press of his time; a loyal churchman who detested the label “Broad,” yet poured out criticism upon the leaders of the Church. With an intense capacity for visualizing the unseen, and a kindly dignity, he combined a large sense of humour. While most of the “Broad Churchmen” were influenced by ethical and emotional considerations in their repudiation of the dogma of everlasting torment, he was swayed by purely intellectual and theological arguments, and in questions of a more general liberty he often opposed the proposed Liberal theologians, though he as often took their side if he saw them hard pressed. He had a wide metaphysical and philosophical knowledge which he applied to the history of theology. He was a strenuous advocate of ecclesiastical control in elementary education, and an opponent of the new school of higher biblical criticism, though so far an evolutionist as to believe in growth and development as applied to the history of nations.

As a preacher, his message was apparently simple; his two great convictions were the fatherhood of God, and that all religious systems which had any stability lasted because of a portion of truth which had to be disentangled from the error differentiating them from the doctrines of the Church of England as understood by himself. His love to God as his Father was a passionate adoration which filled his whole heart. The prophetic, even apocalyptic, note of his preaching was particularly impressive. He prophesied in London as Isaiah prophesied to the little towns of Palestine and Syria, “often with dark foreboding, but seeing through all unrest and convulsion the working out of a sure divine purpose.” Both at King’s College and at Cambridge Maurice gathered round him a band of earnest students, to whom he directly taught much that was valuable drawn from wide stores of his own reading, wide rather than deep, for he never was, strictly speaking, a learned man. Still more did he encourage the habit of inquiry and research, more valuable than his direct teaching. In his Socratic power of convincing his pupils of their ignorance he did more than perhaps any other man of his time to awaken in those who came under his sway the desire for knowledge and the process of independent thought.

As a social reformer, Maurice was before his time, and gave his eager support to schemes for which the world was not ready. From an early period of his life in London the condition of the poor pressed upon him with consuming force; the enormous magnitude of the social questions involved was a burden which he could hardly bear. For many years he was the clergyman whom working men of all opinions seemed to trust even if their faith in other religious men and all religious systems had faded, and he had a marvellous power of attracting the zealot and the outcast.

His works cover nearly 40 volumes, often obscure, often tautological, and with no great distinction of style. But their high purpose and philosophical outlook give his writings a permanent place in the history of the thought of his time. The following are the more important works—some of them were rewritten and in a measure recast, and the date given is not necessarily that of the first appearance of the book, but of its more complete and abiding form: Eustace Conway, or the Brother and Sister, a novel (1834); The Kingdom of Christ (1842); Christmas Day and Other Sermons (1843); The Unity of the New Testament (1844); The Epistle to the Hebrews (1846); The Religions of the World (1847); Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy (at first an article in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1848); The Church a Family (1850); The Old Testament (1851); Theological Essays (1853); The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament (1853); Lectures on Ecclesiastical History (1854); The Doctrine of Sacrifice (1854); The Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament (1855); The Epistles of St John (1857); The Commandments as Instruments of National Reformation (1866); On the Gospel of St Luke (1868); The Conscience: Lectures on Casuistry (1868); The Lord’s Prayer, a Manual (1870). The greater part of these works were first delivered as sermons or lectures. Maurice also contributed many prefaces and introductions to the works of friends, as to Archdeacon Hare’s Charges, Kingsley’s Saint’s Tragedy, &c.

See Life by his son (2 vols., London, 1884), and a monograph by C. F. G. Masterman (1907) in “Leader of the Church” series; W. E. Collins in Typical English Churchmen, pp. 327-360 (1902), and T. Hughes in The Friendship of Books (1873).

MAURICE OF NASSAU, prince of Orange (1567-1625), the second son of William the Silent, by Anna, only daughter of the famous Maurice, elector of Saxony, was born at Dillenburg. At the time of his father’s assassination in 1584 he was being educated at the university of Leiden, at the expense of the states of Holland and Zeeland. Despite his youth he was made stadtholder of those two provinces and president of the council of 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:—

The 58 works in the above list comprise 199 great folio volumes and 39 in 4to or 8vo. The full Maurist bibliography contains the names of some 220 writers and more than 700 works. The lesser works in large measure cover the same fields as those in the list, but the number of works of purely religious character, of piety, devotion and edification, is very striking. Perhaps the most wonderful phenomenon of Maurist work is that what was produced was only a portion of what was contemplated and prepared for. The French Revolution cut short many gigantic undertakings, the collected materials for which fill hundreds of manuscript volumes in the Bibliothèque nationale of Paris and other libraries of France. There are at Paris 31 volumes of Berthereau’s materials for the Historians of the Crusades, not only in Latin and Greek, but in the oriental tongues; from them have been taken in great measure the Recueil des historiens des croisades, whereof 15 folio volumes have been published by the Académie des Inscriptions. There exist also the preparations for an edition of Rufinus and one of Eusebius, and for the continuation of the Papal Letters and of the Concilia Galliae. Dom Caffiaux and Dom Villevielle left 236 volumes of materials for a Trésor généalogique. There are Benedictine Antiquities (37 vols.), a Monasticon Gallicanum and a Monasticon Benedictinum (54 vols.). Of the Histories of the Provinces of France barely half a dozen were printed, but all were in hand, and the collections for the others fill 800 volumes of MSS. The materials for a geography of Gaul and France in 50 volumes perished in a fire during the Revolution.

When these figures were considered, and when one contemplates the vastness of the works in progress during any decade of the century 1680-1780; and still more, when not only the quantity but the quality of the work, and the abiding value of most of it is realized, it will be recognized that the output was prodigious and unique in the history of letters, as coming from a single society. The qualities that have made Maurist work proverbial for sound learning are its fine critical tact and its thoroughness.

The chief source of information on the Maurists and their work is Dom Tassin’s Histoire littéraire de la congregation de Saint-Maur (1770); it has been reduced to a bare bibliography and completed by de Lama, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la congr. de S.-M. (1882). The two works of de Broglie, Mabillon (2 vols., 1888) and Montfaucon (2 vols., 1891), give a charming picture of the inner life of the great Maurists of the earlier generation in the midst of their work and their friends. Sketches of the lives of a few of the chief Maurists will be found in McCarthy’s Principal Writers of the Congr. of S. M. (1868). Useful information about their literary undertakings will be found in De Lisle’s Cabinet des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat. Fonds St Germain-des-Prés. General information will be found in the standard authorities: Helyot, Hist. des ordres religieux (1718), vi. c. 37; Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (1907) i. § 36; Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexicon (ed. 2) and Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (ed. 3), the latter an interesting appreciation by the Protestant historian Otto Zöckler of the spirit and the merits of the work of the Maurists.

(E. C. B.)

[1] His festival is kept on the 15th of January. He founded the monastery of Glanfeuil or St Maur-sur-Loire.

[2] 14 vols. of materials collected for the continuation are at Paris.

[3] The printing of vol. ii. was impeded by the Revolution.

MAURITIUS, an island and British colony in the Indian Ocean (known whilst a French possession as the Île de France). It lies between 57° 18′ and 57° 49′ E., and 19° 58′ and 20° 32′ S., 550 m. E. of Madagascar, 2300 m. from the Cape of Good Hope, and 9500 m. from England via Suez. The island is irregularly elliptical—somewhat triangular—in shape, and is 36 m. long from N.N.E. to S.S.W., and about 23 m. broad. It is 130 m. in circumference, and its total area is about 710 sq. m. (For map see [Madagascar].) The island is surrounded by coral reefs, so that the ports are difficult of access.

From its mountainous character Mauritius is a most picturesque island, and its scenery is very varied and beautiful. It has been admirably described by Bernardin de St Pierre, who lived in the island towards the close of the 18th century, in Paul et Virginie. The most level portions of the coast districts are the north and north-east, all the rest being broken by hills, which vary from 500 to 2700 ft. in height. The principal mountain masses are the north-western or Pouce range, in the district of Port Louis; the south-western, in the districts of Rivière Noire and Savanne; and the south-eastern range, in the Grand Port district. In the first of these, which consists of one principal ridge with several lateral spurs, overlooking Port Louis, are the singular peak of the Pouce (2650 ft.), so called from its supposed resemblance to the human thumb; and the still loftier Pieter Botte (2685 ft.), a tall obelisk of bare rock, crowned with a globular mass of stone. The highest summit in the island is in the south-western mass of hills, the Piton de la Rivière Noire, which is 2711 ft. above the sea. The south-eastern group of hills consists of the Montagne du Bambou, with several spurs running down to the sea. In the interior are extensive fertile plains, some 1200 ft. in height, forming the districts of Moka, Vacois, and Plaines Wilhelms; and from nearly the centre of the island an abrupt peak, the Piton du Milieu de l’Île rises to a height of 1932 ft. Other prominent summits are the Trois Mamelles, the Montagne du Corps de Garde, the Signal Mountain, near Port Louis, and the Morne Brabant, at the south-west corner of the island.

The rivers are small, and none is navigable beyond a few hundred yards from the sea. In the dry season little more than brooks, they become raging torrents in the wet season. The principal stream is the Grande Rivière, with a course of about 10 m. There is a remarkable and very deep lake, called Grand Bassin, in the south of the island, it is probably the extinct crater of an ancient volcano; similar lakes are the Mare aux Vacois and the Mare aux Joncs, and there are other deep hollows which have a like origin.

Geology.—The island is of volcanic origin, but has ceased to show signs of volcanic activity. All the rocks are of basalt and greyish-tinted lavas, excepting some beds of upraised coral. Columnar basalt is seen in several places. The remains of ancient craters can be distinguished, but their outlines have been greatly destroyed by denudation. There are many caverns and steep ravines, and from the character of the rocks the ascents are rugged and precipitous. The island has few minerals, although iron, lead and copper in very small quantities have in former times been obtained. The greater part of the surface is composed of a volcanic breccia, with here and there lava-streams exposed in ravines, and sometimes on the surface. The commonest lavas are dolerites. In at least two places sedimentary rocks are found at considerable elevations. In the Black River Mountains, at a height of about 1200 ft., there is a clay-slate; and near Midlands, in the Grand Port group of mountains, a chloritic schist occurs about 1700 ft. above the sea, forming the hill of La Selle. This schist is much contorted, but seems to have a general dip to the south or south-east. Evidence of recent elevation of the island is furnished by masses of coral reef and beach coral rock standing at heights of 40 ft. above sea-level in the south, 12 ft. in the north and 7 ft. on the islands situated on the bank extending to the north-east.[1]

Climate.—The climate is pleasant during the cool season of the year, but oppressively hot in summer (December to April), except in the elevated plains of the interior, where the thermometer ranges from 70° to 80° F., while in Port Louis and on the coast generally it ranges from 90° to 96°. The mean temperature for the year at Port Louis is 78.6°. There are two seasons, the cool and comparatively dry season, from April to November, and the hotter season, during the rest of the year. The climate is now less healthy than it was, severe epidemics of malarial fever having frequently occurred, so that malaria now appears to be endemic among the non-European population. The rainfall varies greatly in different parts of the island. Cluny in the Grand Port (south-eastern) district has a mean annual rainfall of 145 in.; Albion on the west coast is the driest station, with a mean annual rainfall of 31 in. The mean monthly rainfall for the whole island varies from 12 in. in March to 2.6 in. in September and October. The Royal Alfred Observatory is situated at Pamplemousses, on the north-west or dry side of the island. From January to the middle of April, Mauritius, in common with the neighbouring islands and the surrounding ocean from 8° to 30° of southern latitude is subject to severe cyclones, accompanied by torrents of rain, which often cause great destruction to houses and plantations. These hurricanes generally last about eight hours, but they appear to be less frequent and violent than in former times, owing, it is thought, to the destruction of the ancient forests and the consequent drier condition of the atmosphere.

Fauna and Flora.—Mauritius being an oceanic island of small size, its present fauna is very limited in extent. When first seen by Europeans it contained no mammals except a large fruit-eating bat (Pteropus vulgaris), which is plentiful in the woods; but several mammals have been introduced, and are now numerous in the uncultivated region. Among these are two monkeys of the genera Macacus and Cercopithecus, a stag (Cervus hippelaphus), a small hare, a shrew-mouse, and the ubiquitous rat. A lemur and one of the curious hedgehog-like Insectivora of Madagascar (Centetes ecaudatus) have probably both been brought from the larger island. The avifauna resembles that of Madagascar; there are species of a peculiar genus of caterpillar shrikes (Campephagidae), as well as of the genera Pratincola, Hypsipetes, Phedina, Tchitrea, Zosterops, Foudia, Collocalia and Coracopsis, and peculiar forms of doves and parakeets. The living reptiles are small and few in number. The surrounding seas contain great numbers of fish; the coral reefs abound with a great variety of molluscs; and there are numerous land-shells. The extinct fauna of Mauritius has considerable interest. In common with the other Mascarene islands, it was the home of the dodo (Didus ineptus); there were also Aphanapteryx, a species of rail, and a short-winged heron (Ardea megacephala), which probably seldom flew. The defenceless condition of these birds led to their extinction after the island was colonized. Considerable quantities of the bones of the dodo and other extinct birds—a rail (Aphanapteryx), and a short-winged heron—have been discovered in the beds of some of the ancient lakes (see [Dodo]). Several species of large fossil tortoises have also been discovered; they are quite different from the living ones of Aldabra, in the same zoological region.

Owing to the destruction of the primeval forests for the formation of sugar plantations, the indigenous flora is only seen in parts of the interior plains, in the river valleys and on the hills; and it is not now easy to distinguish between what is native and what has come from abroad. The principal timber tree is the ebony (Diospyros ebeneum), which grows to a considerable size. Besides this there are bois de cannelle, olive-tree, benzoin (Croton Benzoe), colophane (Colophonia), and iron-wood, all of which arc useful in carpentry; the coco-nut palm, an importation, but a tree which has been so extensively planted during the last hundred years that it is extremely plentiful; the palmiste (Palma dactylifera latifolia), the latanier (Corypha umbraculifera) and the date-palm. The vacoa or vacois, (Pandanus utilis) is largely grown, the long tough leaves being manufactured into bags for the export of sugar, and the roots being also made of use; and in the few remnants of the original forests the traveller’s tree (Urania speciosa), grows abundantly. A species of bamboo is very plentiful in the river valleys and in marshy situations. A large variety of fruit is produced, including the tamarind, mango, banana, pine-apple, guava, shaddock, fig, avocado-pear, litchi, custard-apple and the mabolo (Diospyros discolor), a fruit of exquisite flavour, but very disagreeable odour. Many of the roots and vegetables of Europe have been introduced, as well as some of those peculiar to the tropics, including maize, millet, yams, manioc, dhol, gram, &c. Small quantities of tea, rice and sago, have been grown, as well as many of the spices (cloves, nutmeg, ginger, pepper and allspice), and also cotton, indigo, betel, camphor, turmeric and vanilla. The Royal Botanical Gardens at Pamplemousses, which date from the French occupation of the island, contain a rich collection of tropical and extra-tropical species.

Inhabitants.—The inhabitants consist of two great divisions, those of European blood, chiefly French and British, together with numerous half-caste people, and those of Asiatic or African blood. The population of European blood, which calls itself Creole, is greater than that of any other tropical colony; many of the inhabitants trace their descent from ancient French families, and the higher and middle classes are distinguished for their intellectual culture. French is more commonly spoken than English. The Creole class is, however, diminishing, though slowly, and the most numerous section of the population is of Indian blood.

The introduction of Indian coolies to work the sugar plantations dates from the period of the emancipation of the slaves in 1834-1839. At that time the negroes who showed great unwillingness to work on their late masters’ estates, numbered about 66,000. Immigration from India began in 1834, and at a census taken in 1846, when the total population was 158,462, there were already 56,245 Indians in the island. In 1851 the total population had increased to 180,823, while in 1861 it was 310,050. This great increase was almost entirely due to Indian immigration, the Indian population, 77,996 in 1851, being 192,634 in 1861. From that year the increase in the Indian population has been more gradual but steady, while the non-Indian population has decreased. From 102,827 in 1851 it rose to 117,416 in 1861 to sink to 99,784 in 1871. The figures for the three following census years were:—

Including the military and crews of ships in harbour, the total population in 1901 was 373,336.[2] This total included 198,958 Indo-Mauritians, i.e. persons of Indian descent born in Mauritius, and 62,022 other Indians. There were 3,509 Chinese, while the remaining 108,847 included persons of European, African or mixed descent, Malagasy, Malays and Sinhalese. The Indian female population increased from 51,019 in 1861 to 115,986 in 1901. In the same period the non-Indian female population but slightly varied, being 56,070 in 1861 and 55,485 in 1901. The Indo-Mauritians are now dominant in commercial, agricultural and domestic callings, and much town and agricultural land has been transferred from the Creole planters to Indians and Chinese. The tendency to an Indian peasant proprietorship is marked. Since 1864 real property to the value of over £1,250,000 has been acquired by Asiatics. Between 1881 and 1901 the number of sugar estates decreased from 171 to 115, those sold being held in small parcels by Indians. The average death-rate for the period 1873-1901 was 32.6 per 1000. The average birth-rate in the Indian community is 37 per 1000; in the non-Indian community 34 per 1000. Many Mauritian Creoles have emigrated to South Africa. The great increase in the population since 1851 has made Mauritius one of the most densely peopled regions of the world, having over 520 persons per square mile.

Chief Towns.—The capital and seat of government, the city of Port Louis, is on the north-western side of the island, in 20° 10′ S., 57° 30′ E. at the head of an excellent harbour, a deep inlet about a mile long, available for ships of the deepest draught. This is protected by Fort William and Fort George, as well as by the citadel (Fort Adelaide), and it has three graving-docks connected with the inner harbour, the depths alongside quays and berths being from 12 to 28 ft. The trade of the island passes almost entirely through the port. Government House is a three-storeyed structure with broad verandas, of no particular style of architecture, while the Protestant cathedral was formerly a powder magazine, to which a tower and spire have been added. The Roman Catholic cathedral is more pretentious in style, but is tawdry in its interior. There are, besides the town-hall, Royal College, public offices and theatre, large barracks and military stores. Port Louis, which is governed by an elective municipal council, is surrounded by lofty hills and its unhealthy situation is aggravated by the difficulty of effective drainage owing to the small amount of tide in the harbour. Though much has been done to make the town sanitary, including the provision of a good water-supply, the death-rate is generally over 44 per 1000. Consequently all those who can make their homes in the cooler uplands of the interior. As a result the population of the city decreased from about 70,000 in 1891 to 53,000 in 1901. The favourite residential town is Curepipe, where the climate resembles that of the south of France. It is built on the central plateau about 20 m. distant from Port Louis by rail and 1800 ft. above the sea. Curepipe was incorporated in 1888 and had a population (1901) of 13,000. On the railway between Port Louis and Curepipe are other residential towns—Beau Bassin, Rose Hill and Quatre Bornes. Mahébourg, pop. (1901), 4810, is a town on the shores of Grand Port on the south-east side of the island, Souillac a small town on the south coast.

Industries.—The Sugar Plantations: The soil of the island is of considerable fertility; it is a ferruginous red clay, but so largely mingled with stones of all sizes that no plough can be used, and the hoe has to be employed to prepare the ground for cultivation. The greater portion of the plains is now a vast sugar plantation. The bright green of the sugar fields is a striking feature in a view of Mauritius from the sea, and gives a peculiar beauty and freshness to the prospect. The soil is suitable for the cultivation of almost all kinds of tropical produce, and it is to be regretted that the prosperity of the colony depends almost entirely on one article of production, for the consequences are serious when there is a failure, more or less, of the sugar crop. Guano is extensively imported as a manure, and by its use the natural fertility of the soil has been increased to a wonderful extent. Since the beginning of the 20th century some attention has been paid to the cultivation of tea and cotton, with encouraging results. Of the exports, sugar amounts on an average to about 95% of the total. The quantity of sugar exported rose from 102,000 tons in 1854 to 189,164 tons in 1877. The competition of beet-sugar and the effect of bounties granted by various countries then began to tell on the production in Mauritius, the average crop for the seven years ending 1900-1901 being only 150,449 tons. The Brussels Sugar Convention of 1902 led to an increase in production, the average annual weight of sugar exported for the three years 1904-1906 being 182,000 tons. The value of the crop was likewise seriously affected by the causes mentioned, and by various diseases which attacked the canes. Thus in 1878 the value of the sugar exported was £3,408,000; in 1888 it had sunk to £1,911,000, and in 1898 to £1,632,000. In 1900 the value was £1,922,000, and in 1905 it had risen to £2,172,000. India and the South African colonies between them take some two-thirds of the total produce. The remainder is taken chiefly by Great Britain, Canada and Hong-Kong. Next to sugar, aloe-fibre is the most important export, the average annual export for the five years ending 1906 being 1840 tons. In addition, a considerable quantity of molasses and smaller quantities of rum, vanilla and coco-nut oil are exported. The imports are mainly rice, wheat, cotton goods, wine, coal, hardware and haberdashery, and guano. The rice comes principally from India and Madagascar; cattle are imported from Madagascar, sheep from South Africa and Australia, and frozen meat from Australia. The average annual value of the exports for the ten years 1896-1905 was £2,153,159; the average annual value of the imports for the same period £1,453,089. These figures when compared with those in years before the beet and bounty-fed sugar had entered into severe competition with cane sugar, show how greatly the island had thereby suffered. In 1864 the exports were valued at £2,249,000; in 1868 at £2,339,000; in 1877 at £4,201,000 and in 1880 at £3,634,000. And in each of the years named the imports exceeded £2,000,000 in value. Nearly all the aloe-fibre exported is taken by Great Britain, and France, while the molasses goes to India. Among the minor exports is that of bambara or sea-slugs, which are sent to Hong-Kong and Singapore. This industry is chiefly in Chinese hands. The great majority of the imports are from Great Britain or British possessions.

The currency of Mauritius is rupees and cents of a rupee, the Indian rupee (= 16d.) being the standard unit. The metric system of weights and measures has been in force since 1878.

Communications.—There is a regular fortnightly steamship service between Marseilles and Port Louis by the Messageries Maritimes, a four-weekly service with Southampton via Cape Town by the Union Castle, and a four-weekly service with Colombo direct by the British India Co.’s boats. There is also frequent communication with Madagascar, Réunion and Natal. The average annual tonnage of ships entering Port Louis is about 750,000 of which five-sevenths is British. Cable communication with Europe, via the Seychelles, Zanzibar and Aden, was established in 1893, and the Mauritius section of the Cape-Australian cable, via Rodriguez, was completed in 1902.

Railways connect all the principal places and sugar estates on the island, that known as the Midland line, 36 miles long, beginning at Port Louis crosses the island to Mahébourg, passing through Curepipe, where it is 1822 ft. above the sea. There are in all over 120 miles of railway, all owned and worked by the government. The first railway was opened in 1864. The roads are well kept and there is an extensive system of tramways for bringing produce from the sugar estates to the railway lines. Traction engines are also largely used. There is a complete telegraphic and telephonic service.

Government and Revenue.—Mauritius is a crown colony. The governor is assisted by an executive council of five official and two elected members, and a legislative council of 27 members, 8 sitting ex officio, 9 being nominated by the governor and 10 elected on a moderate franchise. Two of the elected members represent St Louis, the 8 rural districts into which the island is divided electing each one member. At least one-third of the nominated members must be persons not holding any public office. The number of registered electors in 1908 was 6186. The legislative session usually lasts from April to December. Members may speak either in French or English. The average annual revenue of the colony for the ten years 1896-1905, was £608,245, the average annual expenditure during the same period £663,606. Up to 1854 there was a surplus in hand, but since that time expenditure has on many occasions exceeded income, and the public debt in 1908 was £1,305,000, mainly incurred however on reproductive works.

The island has largely retained the old French laws, the codes civil, de procédure, du commerce, and d’instruction criminelle being still in force, except so far as altered by colonial ordinances. A supreme court of civil and criminal justice was established in 1831 under a chief judge and three puisne judges.

Religion and Education.—The majority of the European inhabitants belong to the Roman Catholic faith. They numbered at the 1901 census 117,102, and the Protestants 6644. Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Church of Scotland are helped by state grants. At the head of the Anglican community is the bishop of Mauritius; the chief Romanist dignitary is styled bishop of Port Louis. The Mahommedans number over 30,000, but the majority of the Indian coolies are Hindus.

The educational system, as brought into force in 1900, is under a director of public instruction assisted by an advisory committee, and consists of two branches (1) superior or secondary instruction, (2) primary instruction. For primary instruction there are government schools and schools maintained by the Roman Catholics, Protestants and other faiths, to which the government gives grants in aid. In 1908 there were 67 government schools with 8400 scholars and 90 grant schools with 10,200 scholars, besides Hindu schools receiving no grant. The Roman Catholic scholars number 67.72%; the Protestants 3.80%; Mahommedans 8.37%; and Hindus and others 20.11%. Secondary and higher education is given in the Royal College and associated schools at Port Louis and Curepipe.

Defence.—Mauritius occupies an important strategic position on the route between South Africa and India and in relation to Madagascar and East Africa, while in Port Louis it possesses one of the finest harbours in the Indian Ocean. A permanent garrison of some 3000 men is maintained in the island at a cost of about £180,000 per annum. To the cost of the troops Mauritius contributes 51⁄2% of its annual revenue—about £30,000.

History.—Mauritius appears to have been unknown to European nations, if not to all other peoples, until the year 1505, when it was discovered by Mascarenhas, a Portuguese navigator. It had then no inhabitants, and there seem to be no traces of a previous occupation by any people. The island was retained for most of the 16th century by its discoverers, but they made no settlements in it. In 1598 the Dutch took possession, and named the island “Mauritius,” in honour of their stadtholder, Count Maurice of Nassau. It had been previously called by the Portuguese “Ilha do Cerné,” from the belief that it was the island so named by Pliny. But though the Dutch built a fort at Grand Port and introduced a number of slaves and convicts, they made no permanent settlement in Mauritius, finally abandoning the island in 1710. From 1715 to 1767 (when the French government assumed direct control) the island was held by agents of the French East India Company, by whom its name was again changed to “Île de France.” The Company was fortunate in having several able men as governors of its colony, especially the celebrated Mahé de Labourdonnais (q.v.), who made sugar planting the main industry of the inhabitants.[3] Under his direction roads were made, forts built, and considerable portions of the forest were cleared, and the present capital, Port Louis, was founded. Labourdonnais also promoted the planting of cotton and indigo, and is remembered as the most enlightened and best of all the French governors. He also put down the maroons or runaway slaves who had long been the pest of the island. The colony continued to rise in value during the time it was held by the French crown, and to one of the intendants,[4] Pierre Poivre, was due the introduction of the clove, nutmeg and other spices. Another governor was D’Entrecasteaux, whose name is kept in remembrance by a group of islands east of New Guinea.

During the long war between France and England, at the commencement of the 19th century, Mauritius was a continual source of much mischief to English Indiamen and other merchant vessels; and at length the British government determined upon an expedition for its capture. This was effected in 1810; and upon the restoration of peace in 1814 the possession of the island was confirmed to Britain by the Treaty of Paris. By the eighth article of capitulation it was agreed that the inhabitants should retain their own laws, customs, and religion; and thus the island is still largely French in language, habits, and predilections; but its name has again been changed to that given by the Dutch. One of the most distinguished of the British governors was Sir Robert Farquhar (1810-1823), who did much to abolish the Malagasy slave trade and to establish friendly relations with the rising power of the Hova sovereign of Madagascar. Later governors of note were Sir Henry Barkly (1863-1871), and Sir J. Pope Hennessy (1883-1886 and 1888).

The history of the colony since its acquisition by Great Britain has been one of social and political evolution. At first all power was concentrated in the hands of the governor, but in 1832 a legislative council was constituted on which non-official nominated members served. In 1884-1885 this council was transformed into a partly elected body. Of more importance than the constitutional changes were the economic results which followed the freeing of the slaves (1834-1839)—for the loss of whose labour the planters received over £2,000,000 compensation. Coolies were introduced to supply the place of the negroes, immigration being definitely sanctioned by the government of India in 1842. Though under government control the system of coolie labour led to many abuses. A royal commission investigated the matter in 1871 and since that time the evils which were attendant on the system have been gradually remedied. One result of the introduction of free labour has been to reduce the descendants of the slave population to a small and unimportant class—Mauritius in this respect offering a striking contrast to the British colonies in the West Indies. The last half of the 19th century was, however, chiefly notable in Mauritius for the number of calamities which overtook the island. In 1854 cholera caused the death of 17,000 persons; in 1867 over 30,000 people died of malarial fever; in 1892 a hurricane of terrific violence caused immense destruction of property and serious loss of life; in 1893 a great part of Port Louis was destroyed by fire. There were in addition several epidemics of small-pox and plague, and from about 1880 onward the continual decline in the price of sugar seriously affected the islanders, especially the Creole population. During 1902-1905 an outbreak of surra, which caused great mortality among draught animals, further tried the sugar planters and necessitated government help. Notwithstanding all these calamities the Mauritians, especially the Indo-Mauritians, have succeeded in maintaining the position of the colony as an important sugar-producing country.

Dependencies.—Dependent upon Mauritius and forming part of the colony are a number of small islands scattered over a large extent of the Indian Ocean. Of these the chief is Rodriguez (q.v.), 375 m. east of Mauritius. Considerably north-east of Rodriguez lie the Oil Islands or Chagos archipelago, of which the chief is Diego Garcia (see [Chagos]). The Cargados, Carayos or St Brandon islets, deeps and shoals, lie at the south end of the Nazareth Bank about 250 m. N.N.E. of Mauritius. Until 1903 the Seychelles, Amirantes, Aldabra and other islands lying north of Madagascar were also part of the colony of Mauritius. In the year named they were formed into a separate colony (see [Seychelles]). Two islands, Farquhar and Coetivy, though geographically within the Seychelles area, remained dependent on Mauritius, being owned by residents in that island. In 1908, however, Coetivy was transferred to the Seychelles administration. Amsterdam and St Paul, uninhabited islands in the South Indian Ocean, included in an official list of the dependencies of Mauritius drawn up in 1880, were in 1893 annexed by France. The total population of the dependencies of Mauritius was estimated in 1905 at 5400.

Authorities.—F. Leguat, Voyages et aventures en deux isles désertes des Indes orientales (Eng. trans., A New Voyage to the East Indies; London, 1708); Prudham, “England’s Colonial Empire,” vol. i., The Mauritius and its Dependencies (1846); C. P. Lucas, A Historical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. i. (Oxford, 1888); Ch. Grant, History of Mauritius, or the Isle of France and Neighbouring Islands (1801); J. Milbert, Voyage pittoresque à l’Île-de-France, &c., 4 vols. (1812); Aug. Billiard, Voyage aux colonies orientales (1822); P. Beaton, Creoles and Coolies, or Five Years in Mauritius (1859); Paul Chasteau, Histoire et description de l’île Maurice (1860); F. P. Flemyng, Mauritius, or the Isle of France (1862); Ch. J. Boyle, Far Away, or Sketches of Scenery and Society in Mauritius (1867); L. Simonin, Les Pays lointains, notes de voyage (Maurice, &c.) (1867); N. Pike, Sub-Tropical Rambles in the Land of the Aphanapteryx (1873); A. R. Wallace. “The Mascarene Islands,” in ch. xi. vol. i. of The Geographical Distribution of Animals (1876); K. Möbius, F. Richter and E. von Martens, Beiträge zur Meeresfauna der Insel Mauritius und der Seychellen (Berlin, 1880); G. Clark, A Brief Notice of the Fauna of Mauritius (1881); A. d’Épinay, Renseignements pour servir à l’histoire de l’Île de France jusqu’à 1810 (Mauritius, 1890); N. Decotter, Geography of Mauritius and its Dependencies (Mauritius, 1892); H. de Haga Haig, “The Physical Features and Geology of Mauritius” in vol. li., Q. J. Geol. Soc. (1895); the Annual Reports on Mauritius issued by the Colonial Office, London; The Mauritius Almanack published yearly at Port Louis. A map of the island in six sheets on the scale of one inch to a mile was issued by the War Office in 1905.

(J. Si.*)

[1] See Geog. Journ. (June 1895), p. 597.

[2] The total population of the colony (including dependencies) on the 1st of January 1907 was estimated at 383,206.

[3] Labourdonnais is credited by several writers with the introduction of the sugar cane into the island. Leguat, however, mentions it as being cultivated during the Dutch occupation.

[4] The régime introduced in 1767 divided the administration between a governor, primarily charged with military matters, and an intendant.

MAURY, JEAN SIFFREIN (1746-1817), French cardinal and archbishop of Paris, the son of a poor cobbler, was born on the 26th of June 1746 at Valréas in the Comtat-Venaissin, the district in France which belonged to the pope. His acuteness was observed by the priests of the seminary at Avignon, where he was educated and took orders. He tried his fortune by writing éloges of famous persons, then a favourite practice; and in 1771 his éloge on Fénelon was pronounced next best to Laharpe’s by the Academy. The real foundation of his fortunes was the success of a panegyric on St Louis delivered before the Academy in 1772, which caused him to be recommended for an abbacy. In 1777 he published under the title of Discours choisis his panegyrics on Saint Louis, Saint Augustine and Fénelon, his remarks on Bossuet and his Essai sur l’éloquence de la chaire, a volume which contains much good criticism, and remains a French classic. The book was often reprinted as Principes de l’éloquence. He became a favourite preacher in Paris, and was Lent preacher at court in 1781, when King Louis XVI. said of his sermon: “If the abbé had only said a few words on religion he would have discussed every possible subject.” In 1781 he obtained the rich priory of Lyons, near Péronne, and in 1785 he was elected to the Academy, as successor of Lefranc de Pompignan. His morals were as loose as those of his great rival Mirabeau, but he was famed in Paris for his wit and gaiety. In 1789 he was elected a member of the states-general by the clergy of the bailliage of Péronne, and from the first proved to be the most able and persevering defender of the ancien régime, although he had drawn up the greater part of the cahier of the clergy of Péronne, which contained a considerable programme of reform. It is said that he attempted to emigrate both in July and in October 1789; but after that time he held firmly to his place, when almost universally deserted by his friends. In the Constituent Assembly he took an active part in every important debate, combating with especial vigour the alienation of the property of the clergy. His life was often in danger, but his ready wit always saved it, and it was said that one bon mot would preserve him for a month. When he did emigrate in 1792 he found himself regarded as a martyr to the church and the king, and was at once named archbishop in partibus, and extra nuncio to the diet at Frankfort, and in 1794 cardinal. He was finally made bishop of Montefiascone, and settled down in that little Italian town—but not for long, for in 1798 the French drove him from his retreat, and he sought refuge in Venice and St Petersburg. Next year he returned to Rome as ambassador of the exiled Louis XVIII. at the papal court. In 1804 he began to prepare his return to France by a well-turned letter to Napoleon, congratulating him on restoring religion to France once more. In 1806 he did return; in 1807 he was again received into the Academy; and in 1810, on the refusal of Cardinal Fesch, was made archbishop of Paris. He was presently ordered by the pope to surrender his functions as archbishop of Paris. This he refused to do. On the restoration of the Bourbons he was summarily expelled from the Academy and from the archiepiscopal palace. He retired to Rome, where he was imprisoned in the castle of St Angelo for six months for his disobedience to the papal orders, and died in 1817, a year or two after his release, of disease contracted in prison and of chagrin. As a critic he was a very able writer, and Sainte-Beuve gives him the credit of discovering Father Jacques Bridayne, and of giving Bossuet his rightful place as a preacher above Massillon; as a politician, his wit and eloquence make him a worthy rival of Mirabeau. He sacrificed too much to personal ambition, yet it would have been a graceful act if Louis XVIII. had remembered the courageous supporter of Louis XVI., and the pope the one intrepid defender of the Church in the states-general.

The Œuvres choisies du Cardinal Maury (5 vols., 1827) contain what is worth preserving. Mgr Ricard has published Maury’s Correspondance diplomatique (2 vols., Lille, 1891). For his life and character see Vie du Cardinal Maury, by Louis Siffrein Maury, his nephew (1828); J. J. F. Poujoulat, Cardinal Maury, sa vie et ses œuvres (1855); Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi (vol. iv.); Mgr Ricard, L’Abbé Maury (1746-1791), L’Abbé Maury avant 1789, L’Abbé Maury et Mirabeau (1887); G. Bonet-Maury, Le Cardinal Maury d’après ses mémoires et sa correspondance inédits (Paris, 1892); A. Aulard, Les Orateurs de la constituante (Paris, 1882). Of the many libels written against him during the Revolution the most noteworthy are the Petit carême de l’abbé Maury, with a supplement called the Seconde année (1790), and the Vie privée de l’abbé Maury (1790), claimed by J. R. Hébert, but attributed by some writers to Restif de la Bretonne. For further bibliographical details see J. M. Quérard, La France littéraire, vol. v. (1833).

MAURY, LOUIS FERDINAND ALFRED (1817-1892), French scholar, was born at Meaux on the 23rd of March 1817. In 1836, having completed his education, he entered the Bibliothèque Nationale, and afterwards the Bibliothèque de l’Institut (1844), where he devoted himself to the study of archaeology, ancient and modern languages, medicine and law. Gifted with a great capacity for work, a remarkable memory and an unbiassed and critical mind, he produced without great effort a number of learned pamphlets and books on the most varied subjects. He rendered great service to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, of which he had been elected a member in 1857. Napoleon III. employed him in research work connected with the Histoire de César, and he was rewarded, proportionately to his active, if modest, part in this work, with the positions of librarian of the Tuileries (1860), professor at the College of France (1862) and director-general of the Archives (1868). It was not, however, to the imperial favour that he owed these high positions. He used his influence for the advancement of science and higher education, and with Victor Duruy was one of the founders of the École des Hautes Études. He died at Paris four years after his retirement from the last post, on the 11th of February 1892.

Bibliography.—His works are numerous: Les Fées au moyen âge and Histoire des légendes pieuses au moyen âge; two books filled with ingenious ideas, which were published in 1843, and reprinted after the death of the author, with numerous additions under the title Croyances et légendes du moyen âge (1896); Histoire des grandes forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France (1850, a 3rd ed. revised appeared in 1867 under the title Les Forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France); La Terre et l’homme, a general historical sketch of geology, geography and ethnology, being the introduction to the Histoire universelle, by Victor Duruy (1854); Histoire des religions de la Grèce antique, (3 vols., 1857-1859); La Magie et l’astrologie dans l’antiquité et dans le moyen âge (1863); Histoire de l’ancienne académie des sciences (1864); Histoire de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (1865); a learned paper on the reports of French archaeology, written on the occasion of the universal exhibition (1867); a number of articles in the Encyclopédie moderne (1846-1851), in Michaud’s Biographie universelle (1858 and seq.), in the Journal des savants in the Revue des deux mondes (1873, 1877, 1879-1880, &c.). A detailed bibliography of his works has been placed by Auguste Longnon at the beginning of the volume Les Croyances et légendes du moyen âge.

MAURY, MATTHEW FONTAINE (1806-1873), American naval officer and hydrographer, was born near Fredericksburg in Spottsylvania county, Virginia, on the 24th of January 1806. He was educated at Harpeth academy, and in 1825 entered the navy as midshipman, circumnavigating the globe in the “Vincennes,” during a cruise of four years (1826-1830). In 1831 he was appointed master of the sloop “Falmouth” on the Pacific station, and subsequently served in other vessels before returning home in 1834, when he married his cousin, Ann Herndon. In 1835-1836 he was actively engaged in producing for publication a treatise on navigation, a remarkable achievement at so early a stage in his career; he was at this time made lieutenant, and gazetted astronomer to a South Sea exploring expedition, but resigned this position and was appointed to the survey of southern harbours. In 1839 he met with an accident which resulted in permanent lameness, and unfitted him for active service. In the same year, however, he began to write a series of articles on naval reform and other subjects, under the title of Scraps from the Lucky-Bag, which attracted much attention; and in 1841 he was placed in charge of the Dépôt of Charts and Instruments, out of which grew the United States Naval Observatory and the Hydrographie Office. He laboured assiduously to obtain observations as to the winds and currents by distributing to captains of vessels specially prepared log-books; and in the course of nine years he had collected a sufficient number of logs to make two hundred manuscript volumes, each with about two thousand five hundred days’ observations. One result was to show the necessity for combined action on the part of maritime nations in regard to ocean meteorology. This led to an international conference at Brussels in 1853, which produced the greatest benefit to navigation as well as indirectly to meteorology. Maury attempted to organize co-operative meteorological work on land, but the government did not at this time take any steps in this direction. His oceanographical work, however, received recognition in all parts of the civilized world, and in 1855 it was proposed in the senate to remunerate him, but in the same year the Naval Retiring Board, erected under an act to promote the efficiency of the navy, placed him on the retired list. This action aroused wide opposition, and in 1858 he was reinstated with the rank of commander as from 1855. In 1853 Maury had published his Letters on the Amazon and Atlantic Slopes of South America, and the most widely popular of his works, the Physical Geography of the Sea, was published in London in 1855, and in New York in 1856; it was translated into several European languages. On the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Maury threw in his lot with the South, and became head of coast, harbour and river defences. He invented an electric torpedo for harbour defence, and in 1862 was ordered to England to purchase torpedo material, &c. Here he took active part in organizing a petition for peace to the American people, which was unsuccessful. Afterwards he became imperial commissioner of emigration to the emperor Maximilian of Mexico, and attempted to form a Virginian colony in that country. Incidentally he introduced there the cultivation of cinchona. The scheme of colonization was abandoned by the emperor (1866), and Maury, who had lost nearly his all during the war, settled for a while in England, where he was presented with a testimonial raised by public subscription, and among other honours received the degree of LL.D. of Cambridge University (1868). In the same year, a general amnesty admitting of his return to America, he accepted the professorship of meteorology in the Virginia Military Institute, and settled at Lexington, Virginia, where he died on the 1st of February 1873.

Among works published by Maury, in addition to those mentioned, are the papers contributed by him to the Astronomical Observations of the United States Observatory, Letter concerning Lanes for Steamers crossing the Atlantic (1855); Physical Geography (1864) and Manual of Geography (1871). In 1859 he began the publication of a series of Nautical Monographs.

See Diana Fontaine Maury Corbin (his daughter), Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury (London, 1888).

MAUSOLEUM, the term given to a monument erected to receive the remains of a deceased person, which may sometimes take the form of a sepulchral chapel. The term cenotaph (κενός, empty, τάφος, tomb) is employed for a similar monument where the body is not buried in the structure. The term “mausoleum” originated with the magnificent monument erected by Queen Artemisia in 353 B.C. in memory of her husband King Mausolus, of which the remains were brought to England in 1859 by Sir Charles Newton and placed in the British Museum. The tombs of Augustus and of Hadrian in Rome are perhaps the largest monuments of the kind ever erected.

MAUSOLUS (more correctly Maussollus), satrap and practically ruler of Caria (377-353 B.C.). The part he took in the revolt against Artaxerxes Mnemon, his conquest of a great part of Lycia, Ionia and of several of the Greek islands, his co-operation with the Rhodians and their allies in the war against Athens, and the removal of his capital from Mylasa, the ancient seat of the Carian kings, to Halicarnassus are the leading facts of his history. He is best known from the tomb erected for him by his widow Artemisia. The architects Satyrus and Pythis, and the sculptors Scopas, Leochares, Bryaxis and Timotheus, finished the work after her death. (See [Halicarnassus].) An inscription discovered at Mylasa (Böckh, Inscr. gr. ii. 2691 c.) details the punishment of certain conspirators who had made an attempt upon his life at a festival in a temple at Labranda in 353.

See Diod. Sic. xv. 90, 3, xvi. 7, 4, 36, 2; Demosthenes, De Rhodiorum libertate; J. B. Bury, Hist. of Greece (1902), ii. 271; W. Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien (Marburg, 1892), pp. 226-256, and authorities under [Halicarnassus].

MAUVE, ANTON (1838-1888), Dutch landscape painter, was born at Zaandam, the son of a Baptist minister. Much against the wish of his parents he took up the study of art and entered the studio of Van Os, whose dry academic manner had, however, but little attraction for him. He benefited far more by his intimacy with his friends Jozef Israels and W. Maris. Encouraged by their example he abandoned his early tight and highly finished manner for a freer, looser method of painting, and the brilliant palette of his youthful work for a tender lyric harmony which is generally restricted to delicate greys, greens, and light blue. He excelled in rendering the soft hazy atmosphere that lingers over the green meadows of Holland, and devoted himself almost exclusively to depicting the peaceful rural life of the fields and country lanes of Holland—especially of the districts near Oosterbeck and Wolfhezen, the sand dunes of the coast at Scheveningen, and the country near Laren, where he spent the last years of his life. A little sad and melancholy, his pastoral scenes are nevertheless conceived in a peaceful soothing lyrical mood, which is in marked contrast to the epic power and almost tragic intensity of J. F. Millet. There are fourteen of Mauve’s pictures at the Mesdag Museum at the Hague, and two (“Milking Time” and “A Fishing Boat putting to Sea”) at the Ryks Museum in Amsterdam. The Glasgow Corporation Gallery owns his painting of “A Flock of Sheep.” The finest and most representative private collection of pictures by Mauve was made by Mr J. C. J. Drucker, London.

MAVROCORDATO, Mavrocordat or Mavrogordato, the name of a family of Phanariot Greeks, distinguished in the history of Turkey, Rumania and modern Greece. The family was founded by a merchant of Chios, whose son Alexander Mavrocordato (c. 1636-1709), a doctor of philosophy and medicine of Bologna, became dragoman to the sultan in 1673, and was much employed in negotiations with Austria. It was he who drew up the treaty of Karlowitz (1699). He became a secretary of state, and was created a count of the Holy Roman Empire. His authority, with that of Hussein Kupruli and Rami Pasha, was supreme at the court of Mustapha II., and he did much to ameliorate the condition of the Christians in Turkey. He was disgraced in 1703, but was recalled to court by Sultan Ahmed III. He left some historical, grammatical, &c. treatises of little value.

His son Nicholas Mavrocordato (1670-1730) was grand dragoman to the Divan (1697), and in 1708 was appointed hospodar (prince) of Moldavia. Deposed, owing to the sultan’s suspicions, in favour of Demetrius Cantacuzene, he was restored in 1711, and soon afterwards became hospodar of Walachia. In 1716 he was deposed by the Austrians, but was restored after the peace of Passarowitz. He was the first Greek set to rule the Danubian principalities, and was responsible for establishing the system which for a hundred years was to make the name of Greek hateful to the Rumanians. He introduced Greek manners, the Greek language and Greek costume, and set up a splendid court on the Byzantine model. For the rest he was a man of enlightenment, founded libraries and was himself the author of a curious work entitled Περὶ καθήκοντων (Bucharest, 1719). He was succeeded as grand dragoman (1709) by his son John (Ioannes), who was for a short while hospodar of Moldavia, and died in 1720.

Nicholas Mavrocordato was succeeded as prince of Walachia in 1730 by his son Constantine. He was deprived in the same year, but again ruled the principality from 1735 to 1741 and from 1744 to 1748; he was prince of Moldavia from 1741 to 1744 and from 1748 to 1749. His rule was distinguished by numerous tentative reforms in the fiscal and administrative systems. He was wounded and taken prisoner in the affair of Galati during the Russo-Turkish War, on the 5th of November 1769, and died in captivity.

Prince Alexander Mavrocordato (1791-1865), Greek statesman, a descendant of the hospodars, was born at Constantinople on the 11th of February 1791. In 1812 he went to the court of his uncle Ioannes Caradja, hospodar of Walachia, with whom he passed into exile in Russia and Italy (1817). He was a member of the Hetairia Philike and was among the Phanariot Greeks who hastened to the Morea on the outbreak of the War of Independence in 1821. He was active in endeavouring to establish a regular government, and in January 1822 presided over the first Greek national assembly at Epidaurus. He commanded the advance of the Greeks into western Hellas the same year, and suffered a defeat at Peta on the 16th of July, but retrieved this disaster somewhat by his successful resistance to the first siege of Missolonghi (Nov. 1822 to Jan. 1823). His English sympathies brought him, in the subsequent strife of factions, into opposition to the “Russian” party headed by Demetrius Ypsilanti and Kolokotrones; and though he held the portfolio of foreign affairs for a short while under the presidency of Petrobey (Petros Mavromichales), he was compelled to withdraw from affairs until February 1825, when he again became a secretary of state. The landing of Ibrahim Pasha followed, and Mavrocordato again joined the army, only escaping capture in the disaster at Sphagia (Spakteria), on the 9th of May 1815, by swimming to Navarino. After the fall of Missolonghi (April 22, 1826) he went into retirement, until President Capo d’Istria made him a member of the committee for the administration of war material, a position he resigned in 1828. After Capo d’Istria’s murder (Oct. 9, 1831) and the resignation of his brother and successor, Agostino Capo d’Istria (April 13, 1832), Mavrocordato became minister of finance. He was vice-president of the National Assembly at Argos (July, 1832), and was appointed by King Otto minister of finance, and in 1833 premier. From 1834 onwards he was Greek envoy at Munich, Berlin, London and—after a short interlude as premier in Greece in 1841—Constantinople. In 1843, after the revolution of September, he returned to Athens as minister without portfolio in the Metaxas cabinet, and from April to August 1844 was head of the government formed after the fall of the “Russian” party. Going into opposition, he distinguished himself by his violent attacks on the Kolettis government. In 1854-1855 he was again head of the government for a few months. He died in Aegina on the 18th of August 1865.

See E. Legrand, Genealogie des Mavrocordato (Paris, 1886).

MAWKMAI (Burmese Maukmè), one of the largest states in the eastern division of the southern Shan States of Burma. It lies approximately between 19° 30′ and 20° 30′ N. and 97° 30′ and 98° 15′ E., and has an area of 2,787 sq. m. The central portion of the state consists of a wide plain well watered and under rice cultivation. The rest is chiefly hills in ranges running north and south. There is a good deal of teak in the state, but it has been ruinously worked. The sawbwa now works as contractor for government, which takes one-third of the net profits. Rice is the chief crop, but much tobacco of good quality is grown in the Langkö district on the Têng river. There is also a great deal of cattle-breeding. The population in 1901 was 29,454, over two-thirds of whom were Shans and the remainder Taungthu, Burmese, Yangsek and Red Karens. The capital, Mawkmai, stands in a fine rice plain in 20° 9′ N. and 97° 25′ E. It had about 150 houses when it first submitted in 1887, but was burnt out by the Red Karens in the following year. It has since recovered. There are very fine orange groves a few miles south of the town at Kantu-awn, called Kadugate by the Burmese.

MAXENTIUS, MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS, Roman emperor from A.D. 306 to 312, was the son of Maximianus Herculius, and the son-in-law of Galerius. Owing to his vices and incapacity he was left out of account in the division of the empire which took place in 305. A variety of causes, however, had produced strong dissatisfaction at Rome with many of the arrangements established by Diocletian, and on the 28th of October 306, the public discontent found expression in the massacre of those magistrates who remained loyal to Flavius Valerius Severus and in the election of Maxentius to the imperial dignity. With the help of his father, Maxentius was enabled to put Severus to death and to repel the invasion of Galerius; his next steps were first to banish Maximianus, and then, after achieving a military success in Africa against the rebellious governor, L. Domitius Alexander, to declare war against Constantine as having brought about the death of his father Maximianus. His intention of carrying the war into Gaul was anticipated by Constantine, who marched into Italy. Maxentius was defeated at Saxa Rubra near Rome and drowned in the Tiber while attempting to make his way across the Milvian bridge into Rome. He was a man of brutal and worthless character; but although Gibbon’s statement that he was “just, humane and even partial towards the afflicted Christians” may be exaggerated, it is probable that he never exhibited any special hostility towards them.

See De Broglie, L’Église et l’empire Romain au quatrième siècle (1856-1866), and on the attitude of the Romans towards Christianity generally, app. 8 in vol. ii. of J. B. Bury’s edition of Gibbon (Zosimus ii. 9-18; Zonaras xii. 33, xiii. 1; Aurelius Victor, Epit. 40; Eutropius, x. 2).

MAXIM, SIR HIRAM STEVENS (1840-  ), Anglo-American engineer and inventor, was born at Sangerville, Maine, U.S.A., on the 5th of February 1840. After serving an apprenticeship with a coachbuilder, he entered the machine works of his uncle, Levi Stevens, at Fitchburg, Massachusetts, in 1864, and four years later he became a draughtsman in the Novelty Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company in New York City. About this period he produced several inventions connected with illumination by gas; and from 1877 he was one of the numerous inventors who were trying to solve the problem of making an efficient and durable incandescent electric lamp, in this connexion introducing the widely-used process of treating the carbon filaments by heating them in an atmosphere of hydrocarbon vapour. In 1880 he came to Europe, and soon began to devote himself to the construction of a machine-gun which should be automatically loaded and fired by the energy of the recoil (see [Machine-Gun]). In order to realize the full usefulness of the weapon, which was first exhibited in an underground range at Hatton Garden, London, in 1884, he felt the necessity of employing a smokeless powder, and accordingly he devised maximite, a mixture of trinitrocellulose, nitroglycerine and castor oil, which was patented in 1889. He also undertook to make a flying machine, and after numerous preliminary experiments constructed an apparatus which was tried at Bexley Heath, Kent, in 1894. (See [Flight].) Having been naturalized as a British subject, he was knighted in 1901. His younger brother, Hudson Maxim (b. 1853), took out numerous patents in connexion with explosives.

MAXIMA AND MINIMA, in mathematics. By the maximum or minimum value of an expression or quantity is meant primarily the “greatest” or “least” value that it can receive. In general, however, there are points at which its value ceases to increase and begins to decrease; its value at such a point is called a maximum. So there are points at which its value ceases to decrease and begins to increase; such a value is called a minimum. There may be several maxima or minima, and a minimum is not necessarily less than a maximum. For instance, the expression (x2 + x + 2)/(x − 1) can take all values from −∞ to −1 and from +7 to +∞, but has, so long as x is real, no value between -1 and +7. Here −1 is a maximum value, and +7 is a minimum value of the expression, though it can be made greater or less than any assignable quantity.

The first general method of investigating maxima and minima seems to have been published in A.D. 1629 by Pierre Fermat. Particular cases had been discussed. Thus Euclid in book III. of the Elements finds the greatest and least straight lines that can be drawn from a point to the circumference of a circle, and in book VI. (in a proposition generally omitted from editions of his works) finds the parallelogram of greatest area with a given perimeter. Apollonius investigated the greatest and least distances of a point from the perimeter of a conic section, and discovered them to be the normals, and that their feet were the intersections of the conic with a rectangular hyperbola. Some remarkable theorems on maximum areas are attributed to Zenodorus, and preserved by Pappus and Theon of Alexandria. The most noteworthy of them are the following:—

1. Of polygons of n sides with a given perimeter the regular polygon encloses the greatest area.

2. Of two regular polygons of the same perimeter, that with the greater number of sides encloses the greater area.

3. The circle encloses a greater area than any polygon of the same perimeter.