The Catholic Encyclopedia

U nder this heading will be considered exclusively the texts of the Mass (and not, therefore, the Asperges, Vidi aquam, Litanies, Prophecies, etc., which in the Roman Missal are found more or less closely associated with the Mass in certain seasons of the Church Year), which receive a musical treatment. These texts comprise those which are sung (that is, recited in musical monotone with occasional cadences or inflections) by the celebrant and the sacred ministers (who will be referred to as priest, deacon, and sub-deacon) and which are styled "Accentus"; and those which are assigned to the choir and which are styled "Concentus". For the sake of convenience of reference the Concentus may be divided into the following classes:

2 first, those which are found in the section of the Roman Missal under the heading "Ordinarium Missae" (namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei) and which will be briefly referred to as the Ordinary;

3 second, those texts which are found under the headings "Proprium de Tempore", "Proprium Sanctorum", "Commune Sanctorum" (namely, Introit, Gradual, Alleluia Verse, Sequence, Tract, Offertory, Communion) and which will be referred to briefly as the Proper, a serviceable but ambiguous term frequently used to describe these texts.

4 The "Graduale Romanum" (together with the Missal) provides plainsong melodies for all the texts syled Accentus or Concentus. The Accentus must be plainsong, and must be that plainsong which is found in the present typical edition, styled the Vatican Edition, of the "Roman Gradual". The Concentus, if sung to plainsong melodies, must also be in the approved form found in the Vatican Edition of the "Gradual"; but these texts may employ "modern" (as opposed to "medieval") music, provided the musical treatment is in every way appropriate as indicated in the "Instruction on Sacred Music", commonly styled the "Motu Proprio", issued by Pius X on the Feast of St. Cecilia, Patron of Church Music (22 Nov., 1903). This "modern" or "figured" music is customarily styled in Church decrees simply musica, and the plain chant or plain song is styled cantus (chant). The serviceable distinction will be employed throughout this article: chant, chanting, chanted, will refer to plainsong melodies; music, musical, to figured music.

5 I. Accentus

6 These chants should never be accompanied by the organ or any other instrument. The priest intones the Gloria (Gloria in excelsis Deo) and the Credo (Credo in unum Deum). The choir must not repeat these words of the intonation, but must begin with Et in terra pax, etc., and Patrem omnipotentem, etc., respectively. The priest also sings the Collects and post-Communions and the Dominus vobiscum and Oremus preceding them. Amen is sung by the choir at the end of these prayers, as also after the Per omnia saecula saeculorum preceding the Preface, the Pater noster and the Pax Domini . . . vobiscum. The choir responds with Et cum spiritu tuo to the Dominus vobiscum preceding the prayers, the Gospel, and the Preface. Both of these choir responses vary from the usual monotone when occurring before the Preface; and the Amen receives an upward inflection before the Pax Domini, etc. Indeed, the Dominus vobiscum and its response vary in melody for all the three forms of the Preface (the Tonus Solemnis, the Tonus Ferialis, the Tonus Solemnior found in the "Cantus Missalis Romani"), as do also the chants and responses of the Sursum corda, etc., preceding the Preface. It would be highly desirable that choirs be well practised in these special "tones" since exact correspondence with the form used by the priest is not only of aesthetic but of practical value; for any deviation from one of the "tones" into another may easily lead the priest astray and produce a lamentable confusion of forms which ought to be kept distinct.

7 At the end of the priest's chant of the Pater noster the choir responds with Sed libera nos a malo. The sub-deacon chants the Epistle, the deacon the Gospel. The respective responses (Deo Gratias and Laus tibi Christe) are merely to be said by the ministers of the Mass, and are not to be sung or recited by the choir. This is clear from the fact that the "Roman Gradual" does not assign any notation to these responses. To the deacon's chant of the Ite missa est (or Benedicamus Domino) the choir responds with Deo gratias. A Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites permits the organ to supply for this response wherever this is customary, provided the response be "recited" in a clear voice. The chant melodies for all these choir-responses are given in the Vatican "Gradual" under the heading "Toni Communes Missae". It is customary in many churches to harmonize the chant-responses and even to depart in some details from the melodies officially assigned to the chant-responses. In summing up the legislation in this matter, the "Motu Proprio" says (No. 12):

8 > With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung only in Gregorian chant, and without the accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of Levites, and, therefore, singers in church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.

9 But while the choir is thus permitted to respond in music or in harmonized chant, good taste might suggest the desirability of responding in unharmonized chant according to the exact melodies provided in the "Toni Communes Missae". Inasmuch as the Vatican "Gradual" is meant merely for the use of the choir, the complete Accentus of the celebrant and ministers will not be found there. The Missal contains these chants in full (except, of course, the chants for the prayers, prophecies, etc., which are to be recited or sung according to certain general forms which are indicated in the "Toni Com. Mis.") However, a number of changes made in the Missal melodies by order of the Vatican Commission on Chant were comprised in a separate publication entitled "Cantus Missalis Romani" (Rome, Vatican Press, 1907), which was edited in various styles by competent publishers of liturgical books. After that no publisher was permitted to print or publish an edition of the Missal Containing the melodies in use prior to that, but were to insert the new melodies according to the scheme found in the "Cantus Missalis Romani". Some of the newer forms were to appear in the places occupied, in the typical edition of the Missal (1900), by the forms previously used, while some were to be placed in an Appendix.

10 The Decree of 8 June, 1907, contains the following clauses:

11 Dating from this day, the proofs containing the new typical chant of the Missal are placed by the Holy See without special conditions, at the disposal of the publishers, who can no longer print or publish the chant of Missals in use at present.

12 The new typical chant must be inserted exactly in the same place as the old.

13 It may, however, be published separately or it may be placed at the end of the older Missals now in print, and in both of these cases may bear the general title, "Cantus missalis Romani iuxta editionem Vaticanam".

14 The Tract Sicut cervus of Holy Saturday must hereafter be printed with the words only, without chant notation.

15 The intonations or chants ad libitum, Asperges me, Gloria in excelsis, and the more solemn tones of the Prefaces must not be placed in the body of the Missal, but only at the end, in the forms of a supplement or appendix; to them (the ad libitum intonations or chants) may be added, either in the Missals or in separate publications of the chanted parts, the chants of the "Toni communes", already published in the "Gradual", which have reference to the sacred ministers.

16 No change is made in the words of the text or in the rubrics which, therefore, must be reproduced without modification, as in the last typical edition (1900).

17 In the midst of the perplexities inevitably associated with such modifications of or additions to the former methods of rendering the Accentus, Dom Johner, O.S.B., of the Beuron Congregation, has come to the assistance of clerics, by collecting into one conveniently arranged manual ("Cantus Ecclesiastici iuxta editionem Vaticanam", Ratishon, 1909: 146 pages. 12 mo.) all of the Accentus (including the responses found in the "Toni Communes Missae" of the "Gradule Romanum" (1908) and in the "Cantus Missalis Romani" (1908). These he has illustrated with appropriate extracts from the "Rubriae Missalis Romani", and has added comments and explanations of his brackets in order to distinguish them from official matter (e.g. pp. 14, 15, when discussing the festal tone of the Oratio). While such a volume is appropriate for the study or the class-room, the intonatlons of the priest and deacon have been issued for use in the sanctuary, in various forms. At Tournai Belgium, is published "Intonationes celebrantis in Missa ad exemplar editionis Vaticanae" (containing the Asperges, Vidi aquam, Gloria and Credo, Ite Missa est, Benedicamus Domino, for all the masses contained in the "Kyriale") on seven cards of Bristolboard which are enclosed in a case and also in form of a pamphlet bound in cloth. At Düsseldorf is issued a collection of the intonations (under the title of "Tabula Intonationum") of the Gloria (15), Credo (4), Ite Missa est and Benedicamus (17), and Requiescant in pace, pasted on thin but strong cardboard (cloth-covered) of four pages. These are given here merely as illustrations of the practical means at hand for actually inaugurating the reform of the Accentus; other publishers of the official editions of the chant books may be consulted for other forms for use in the sanctuary.

18 Some of these forms of chant-intonations are for use ad libitum. The various intonations of the Gloria and Credo bear a close relation to the succeeding chant of the choir, with those of these Missa est or Benedicamus are frequently in melody with the chant of the Kyrie eleison. Nominally, these chants and intonations are assigned to definite seasons of the Church Year or to peculiar kinds of rite (solemn double, semi-double, ferial, etc.), but in as much as permission has been given to use the chants of the "Kyriale" indifferently for any rite or season , the requirement to be met by the priest is the artistic one, of singing the intonation of the Mass which the choir will actually render in chant. Thus it will be seen that the many intonations furnished do not represent an obligatory burden but merely a large liberty of choice. The chant of the Ite missa est by the deacon would seem similarly to be a matter of artistic appropriateness rather than of liturgical law.

19 II. the Concentus

20 These texts may be sung in chant or music. If chant be used, it must be either that contained in the "Vatican Gradual", or some other approved form of the "traditional melodies" (see "Motu Proprio" of 25 April, 1904, d; the Decree of the S.R.C., 11 August, 1905, VI; the decree prefixed to the "Kyriale", dated 14 August 1905, closing paragraph); if the setting be musical it must meet all the requirements summarily indicated in the "Motu Proprio" of 22 November, 1903 (see Ecclesiastical Music). Under the heading of Concentus must be considered (a) the Ordinary, (b) the Proper.

21 (a) The Ordinary

22 The texts are those of the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Benedictus, the Agnus Dei. A collection of these, or a portion of them, is styled simply a "Mass". When several "Masses" are written by the same composer, they are differentiated numerically (e.g. Mozart's No. 1, No. 2, No. 17) or by dedication to some particular feast (e.g. Gounod's "Messe de Paques") or saint (e.g. Gounod's "St. Cecilia" Mass), or devotion (e.g. Gounod's "Messe du Sacré Coeur"), or musical association (e.g. Gounod's "Messe des Orphéonistes", Nos. I, II), or musical patron (e.g. Palestrina's "Missa Papae Marcelli"), or special occasion (e.g. Cherubini's "Third Mass in A" entitled the "Coronation Mass", as it was for the coronation of King Charles X). The title Missa Brevis is sometimes employed for a Mass requiring only a moderate time for its rendition (e.g. Palestrina's "Missa Brevis"; Andrea Gabrieli's printed in Vol. I of Proske's "Musica Divina") although the term scarcely applies, save in another sense, to J.S. Bach's "Missa Brevis" (in A) comprising in its forty-four closely printed pages only the music of the Kyrie and Gloria. In some Masses the place of the Benedictus is taken by an O Salutaris. A polyphonic Mass composed, not upon themes taken from chant melodies (as was the custom), was styled "sine nomine". Those founded upon chant subjects were thus styled (e.g. Palestrina's "Ecce Sacerdos Magnus", "Virtute magna", etc.) or when founded on secular song themes unblushingly bore the appropriate title (e.g. Palestrina's "L'homme arme"). Masses were sometimes styled by the name of the chant-mode in which they were composed (e.g. "Primi Toni") or, founded on the hexachordal system, were styled "Missa super voces musicales" (Missa Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La); or bore as title the number of voices employed (e.g. "Missa Quatuor Vocum").

23 This is not the place to rehearse the story of the gradual development and corruption of ecclesiastical music, of the many attempts at reform, and of the latest pronouncements of the Holy See which oblige consciences with all the force of liturgical law. An excellent summary of this history is given by Dr. Rockstro in Grove's "Dictionary of music and musians" (s. v. Mass), which may be supplemented by the recent abundant literature of the reform-movement in Church Music. It is of more immediate and practical importance to indicate the various catalogues or lists of music compiled by those who are seeking to reform the music of the Mass. It is interesting to reflect that in his earlier legislation on this subject, Leo XIII recommended a diocesan commission to draw up a diocesan Index of Repertoires, or at least to sanction the performances of pieces therein indicated, whether published or unpublished. In the later Regolamento of 6 July, 1894, the S. C. of Rites does not refer any such index but merely requires bishops to exercise appropriate supervision over the pastors so that appropriate music may not be heard in their churches. The present pope has nowhere indicated the necessity, or even the advisability, of compiling such an index or catalogue, but has required the appointment, in every diocese, of a competent commission which shall supervise musical matters and see that the legislation of the "Motu Proprio" be properly carried out.

24 Nevertheless, it was the stimulus of the Regolamento of 1894 which led to the compilation, in the Diocese of Cincinnati, of a highly informing "First Official Catalogue" of that commission, which was made obligatory by Archbishop Elder in a letter dated 26 July, 1899, and which was to go into operation on the First Sunday of Advent (3 Dec.) of that year. The commission requested pastors to submit the music used for inspection by the commission. The catalogue does not content itself with approving certain of these compositions but takes the trouble both to mark "rejected" after the various titles and to give, usually, the reason for the rejection. In the following year it issued its "Second Official Catalogue". Both catalogues are important as illustrating the exact musical conditions of one great diocese, and show forth more searchingly than many arguments the need of reform. These catalogues have been rendered obsolete by the more stringent recent legislation.

25 But, although that legislation has not prescribed the compilation of lists of approved music, many such catalogues or lists have been compiled. They all pay great attention to the music of the Mass, and should prove of the greatest assistance to choir-masters. Correct and appropriate music for Mass, for all degrees of musical ability or choral attainment and of the greatest abundance and freshness and individuality of style, can now be easily obtained.

26 In selecting a Mass it is always advisable to read the text in order to see that it is both complete and liturgically correct; that there should be no alteration or inversion of the words, no undue repetition, no breaking of syllables. In addition, the "Motu Proprio" specifies [No 11 (a)]: The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc., of the Mass must preserve the unity of composition proper to their text. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose them in separate pieces, in such a way that each of those pieces may form a complete composition in itself, and be capable of being detached from the rest and substituted by another". It further remarks (No. 22): "It is not lawful to keep the priest at the altar waiting on amount of the chant or the music for a length of time not allowed by the liturgy. According to the ecclesiastical prescriptions the Sanctus of the Mass should be the Elevation and therefore the priest must have regard to the singers. The Gloria and Credo ought, according to the Gregorian tradition, to be relatively short."

27 Something remains to be said of the chant of the Ordinary which is found in the separate small volume entitled "Kyriale". It is issued by the various competent publishers in all styles of printing, paper, binding in large and small forms; in medieval and in modern notation; with and without certain "rhythmical signs". The eighteen "Masses" it contains are nominally assigned to various qualities of rite; but, in accordance with ancient tradition and with the unanimous agreement of the pontifical Commission on the Chant, liberty has been granted to select any "Mass" for any quality of rite (see the note "Quoslibet cantus" etc., p. 64 of the Vatican Edition of the "Kyriale": "Any chant assigned in this ordinarium to one mass may be used in any other; in the same way, according to the quality of the Mass or the degree of solemnity, any one of those which follow [that is, in the section styled "Cantus ad libitum"] may be taken"). The decrees relating to the publishing of editions based on this typical edition, and to its promulgation, are given in Latin and English translation in "Church Music", March, 1906, pp. 250-256. It is noteworthy that this typical edition gives no direction about singing the Benedictus after the Elevation, but prints both chants in such juxtapostion as to suggest that the Benedictus might be sung before the Elevation. In the "Revue du Chant Grégorien" (Aug.-Oct., 1905), its editor, Canon Grospellier, who was one of the Consultors of the Gregorian Commission, said that he was inclined to think that, where time allows, the Benedictus might be sung immediately at its meeting at Appuldurcombe, in 1904, unanimously accepted a resolution to this effect. The preface to the Vatican "Gradual", while giving minute directions for the ceremonial rendering of the chants merely says: "When the preface is finished, the choir goes on with the Sanctus, etc." At the elevation of the Blessed Sacrament, the choir is silent like every one else. Nevertheless, in as much as the "Gradual" does not declare that the Benedictus is to be chanted after the Elevation, the "etc." is understood to imply that it should be sung immediately after the Sanctus. The "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" however, directs that it be sung (after elevation of the chalice". The apprarent conflict of authorities may be harmonized by supposing that the "Caeremoniale" legislated for the case of musically developed (e.g. polyphonic) settings of the Sanctus and the Benedictus, whose length would necessitate their separation from each other, while the "Gradual" contemplates, of course, the much briefer settings of the plainsong (see "Church Music", Jan., l909, p. 87).

28 (b) The Proper

29 While the texts of the Ordinary do not (with the exception of the Agnus Dei, which is altered in Requiem Mass) change, those which commonly, but somewhat ambiguously, are called the "Proper", change in accordance with the character of the feast or Sunday or ferial day. These texts are the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia-Verse, Sequence, Tract, Offertory, Communion. Not all of these will be found in any one Mass. Thus, e.g. Holy Saturday has no Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion; from Low Sunday to Trinity Sunday, the Gradual is replaced by all Alleluia-Verse; from Septuagesima to Easter, as well as on certain penitential days, the Allehlia-Verse which ordinarily follows the Gradual, is replaced by a Tract; in only a few Masses is a Sequence used; there is no Introit on Whitsun Eve, while the customary Gloria Patri after the Introit is omitted during Passion-tide. In Requiem Masses the Gloria Patri is omitted after the Introit, a Tract and a Sequence follow the Gradual. Nor do the texts differ for every feast, as is illustrated by the division of the Sanctorale into the "Proprium de Sanctis" and the "Commune Sanctorum", this latter division grouping the feasts into classes, such as the feasts of confessors-Bishops, confessors-not-bishops, martyrs, virgins, etc., in which the texts of the "Proper" serve for many feasts of the "Propers" in many churches. They are, however, an integral part of the duty of the choir, and must be sung, or at least "recited", in a clear and intelligible voice, the organ meanwhile sustaining appropriate chords.

30 In a Rescript dated 8 August, 1906, the S.R.C. answering questions proposed by the Abbot of Santa Maria Maggiore in Naples, declares that in solemn Mass, when the organ is used, the Gradual, Offertory Comunion, when not sung, must be recited in a high and intelligible voice, and that the Deo Gratias following the Ite missa est should receive the same treatment. Previous answers of the S.R.C. were of similar tenor. Thus (Coimbra 14 April, 1753): in a "Community Mass" it is always necessary to sing the Gloria, Credo, all of the Gradual, the Preface, Pater noster, so, too, a question from Chioggia in 1875, as to whether the custom introduced into that diocese of omitting the chant of the Gradual, the Tract, the Sequence, the Offertory, the Benedictus the Communion was contrary to the rubrics and decisions of the S.R.C., was answered affirmatively, and the questioner was remit ted to the Coimbra decision. A specific difficulty was offered for solution by a bishop who declared that in his diocese where a single chanter was used, and where the people had to hurry to their daily work, the custom had obtained (throughout almost the whole diocese) of omitting, in stipendiary Masses, the Gloria, Gradual, Tract, Sequenee, Credo. He was answered (29 Dec., 1884) that the custom was an abuse that must be absolutely eliminated. The spirit of the Church legislation is summed up in the "Motu Proprio" (22 Nov., 1903, No. 8):

31 > As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others collected at will, or to omit them entirely or even in part, except when the rubrics allow that some versicles are simply recited in choir. It is permissible, however, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted after the Offertory prescribed for the Mass has been sung, to execute during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the Church.

32 A practical difficulty is encountered in the fact that many choirs have met the limit of their capacity in preparing the chant or music of the Ordinary, whose texts are fixed and repeated frequently. How shall such choirs prepare for a constantly changing series of Proper texts whether in chant or in music? Several practical solutions of the difficulty have been offered. There is, first of all, the easy device of recitation. Then there is the solution offered in the excellent and laborious work of Dr. Edmund Tozer, who prepared simple psalm-like settings which could be easily mastered by a fairly equipped choir. The work "The Proper of the Mass for Sundays and Holidays" (New York, 1907-1908, Vol. II, No. 2926) is reviewed in "Church Music" Jan., 1907, 127-128; Mar., 1908, 171-178; see also June, 1906, "One Outcome of the Discussion", 409-415, including a specimen-four-page of Dr. Tozer's method of treatment of the Proper text. A third volume which will comprise various local texts is in course of preparation. Another method is that undertaken by Marcello Capra, of Turin, Italy, which provides musical settings for the Proper of the principal feasts for one or two voices, and with easy organ accompaniment. Still another method is that of Giulio Bas who has compiled a volume, "Gradualis Versus Alleluia et Tractus" (Dusseldorf, 1910), of plainsong settings from the Ambrosian, Aquileian, Greek, Mozarabic chant, for Sundays and Double Feasts in order to facilitate the rendering of the more difficult portions of the Proper.

33 However rendered, these chants of the Proper must not be omitted or curtailed. But apart from this liturgical necessity they challlenge admiration because of their devotional, poetic, aesthetic perfection: "If we pass in review before our musical eye the wonderful thoughts expressed in the Introits, Graduals, Alleluia, Verses, Tracts, Offertories, and Communions of the whole ecclesiastical year, from the first Sunday in Advent to the last Sunday after Pentecost, as well as those of the numerous Masses of the saints, apostles,martyrs, confessors, virgins, we must feel that in the Roman Church we have an anthology worthy of our highest admiration" (Rev. H. Bewerunge, ("Address at London Eucharistic Congress"). It should be a part of a choirmaster's business to translate and explain these texts to his choir, that they may be recited or sung with the understanding as well as with the voice. To this end the "Missal for the Laity", with its Latin and parallel English version, might be used. The spirit of the liturgy might also be largely acquired from the volumes of Dom Gueranger's "Liturgical Year". As this is, however, such an extensive work, the much briefer and more direct treatments of the texts of the Proper with comment on the spirit, which ran serially through the issues of "Church Music", would prove highly serviceable.

34 With respect to the plainsong setting, two typical chants should be studied carefully (see Dom Eudine's articles in "Church Music", March, 1906, 222-235, on "the Gradual for Easter", "the Haec dies", and June, l906, 360- 373, on "the Introit Gaudeamus", which give the plainsong notation with transcription into modern notation, rhythmical and dynamical analyses, etc.). Such a study will encourage the present day musician to acquire a greater familiarity with the plainsong of the Proper which present-day choirs should have: "First, there is the Gregorian Chant. The more one studies these ancient melodies the more one is impressed by their variety and rare beauty. Take the distinctiveness of their forms, the characteristic style which distinguishes an Introit from a Gradual, an Offertory from a Communion. Then within each class what variety of expression, what amazing interpretation of the words, and above all what sublime beauty and mystical spirit of prayer! Certainly, anyone who has tasted the sweetness of these chants must envy the few privileged places where there is high Mass every day and thus a chance is given of hearing all of these divine strains at least once a year" (Bewerunge).

35 There is a large body of settings of the classical polyphonic schools, and of modern polyphony, as also much illustration of modern homophonic music, of the proper texts. Care should be taken to see that the texts thus treated are verbally correct. For in the return to the traditional melodies of the chants, the commission found it necessary to restore, in very many instances, omitted portions of text, and in various ways to restore to use the more ancient forms of the texts. In the "Proprium de Tempore", for instance, there are about 200 textual changes. A summary view of their general character is given in "Church Music" (July, 1908), pp. 232-235. Since these altered texts differ from those still retained in the Missal, choirs which "recite" the texts will do so from the Vatican "Gradual", and not from the Missal. When the "Gradual" was first issued, it was noticed that the Propers of some American feasts (as also, of course, the Propers of many foreign dioceses as well) were omitted (see "Church Music," March, 1908, 138-134). Some publishers have added these Propers for America, in an appendix bound in with the volume. Doubtless a similar process will be adopted in the case of many foreign dioceses.

36 Many questions which touch the musical part of the services at Mass belong to the general subject of the reform movement in Church Music, and will be more appropriately treated under the heading MUSIC, ECCLESIASTICAL. Such are, e.g. the long debated matter of the use of women's voices in our gallery choirs; the capabilities of chorister boys for the proper rendition of the Ordinary and the Proper, the use of chants with rhythmical signs added; the character of the rhythm to be used ("oratorical" or "measured") the character of accompaniment best suited to the chant; the use of musical instruments in chanted or musical Masses; the status of women as organists; the adoption of a sanctuary choir, whether in place of, or in conjunction with, the gallery choir. Historically the reform movement in the chant was signalized by the issuance, first of all, of the "Kyriale", which contains the Ordinary chants and then of the "Graduale", which comprises all the chants for Mass, but this matter also belongs to a more general treatment.

37 H.T. Henry

Nuptial Mass

4 "Missa pro sponso et sponsa", the last among the votive Masses in the Missal. It is composed of lessons and chants suitable to the Sacrament of Matrimony, contains prayers for persons just married and is interwoven with part of the marriage rite, of which in the complete form it is an element. As the Mass was looked upon as the natural accompaniment of any solemn function (ordination, consecration of churches, etc.), it was naturally celebrated as part of the marriage service. Tertullian (d. about 220; ad Uxor., II, 9) mentions the oblation that confirms marriage (matrimonium quod ecclesia conciliat et confirmat oblatio). All the Roman Sacramentaries contain the nuptial Mass (The Leonine, ed. Feltoc, 140-142; The Gelasian, ed. Wilson, 265-267; The Gregorian, P. L., LXXVIII, 261-264), with our present prayers and others (a special Hanc Igitur and Preface). The Gelasian Sacramentary (loc. cit.) contains, moreover, the blessing now said after the Ite missa est, then said after the Communion, a Gallican addition (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", Paris, ed. 2, 1898 n. 417). Pope Nicholas I (858-867) in his instruction for the Bulgars, in 866, describes the whole rite of marriage, including the crowning of the man and wife that is still the prominent feature of the rite in the Byzantine Church; this rite contains a Mass at which the married persons make the offertory and receive communion (Rasp. ad cons, Bulgarorum, iii, quoted by Duchesne op. cit., 413- 414).

5 The present rules for a nuptial Mass are; first, that it may not be celebrated in the closed time for marriages, that is from Advent Sunday till after the octave of the Epiphany and from Ash Wednesday till after Low Sunday. During these times no reference to a marriage may be made in Mass; if people wish to be married then they must be content with the little service in the Ritual, without music or other solemnities. This is what is meant by the rubric: " claudun tur nuptiarum solemnia "; it is spoken of usually as the closed season. During the rest of the year the nuptial Mass may be said at a wedding any day except Sundays and feasts of obligation, doubles of the first and second class and such privileged ferias and octaves as exclude a double. It may not displace the Rogation Mass at which the procession is made, nor may it displace at least one Requiem on All Souls day. On these occasions its place is taken by the Mass of the day to which commemorations of the nuptial Mass are added in the last place and at which the blessings are inserted in their place. The nuptial blessing is considered as part of the nuptial Mass. It may never be given except during this Mass or during a Mass that replaces it (and commemorates it) when it cannot be said, as above. The nuptial Mass and blessing may be celebrated after the closed time for people married during it. So nuptial Mass and blessing always go together; either involves the other. One Mass and blessing may be held for several pairs of married people, who must all be present. The forms, however, remain in the singular as they are in the Missal. The Mass and blessing may not be held if the woman has already received this blessing in a former marriage. This rule only affects the woman, for whom the blessing is more specially intended (see the prayer Deus qui potestate). It must be understood exactly as stated. A former marriage without this blessing, or the fact that children had been born before the marriage, is no hindrance. Nor may the nuptial Mass and blessing be held in cases of mixed marriages (mixta religio) inspite of any dispensation. According to the Con stitution "Etsi sanctissimus Dominus" of Pius IX (15 November, 1858), mixed marriages must be celebrated outside the church (in England and America this is understood as meaning outside the sanctuary and choir), without the blessing of the ring or of the spouses without any ecclesiastical rite or vestment, without proclamation of banns.

6 The rite of the nuptial Mass and blessing is this: The Mass has neither Gloria nor Creed. It counts as a votive Mass not for a grave matter; therefore it has three collects, its own, the commemoration of the day, and the third which is the one chosen for semi-doubles at that time of the year unless there be two commemorations. At the end Benedicamus Domino and the Gospel of St. John are said. The colour is white. The bridegroom and bride assist near the altar (just outside the sanctuary), the man on the right. After the Pater noster the celebrant genuflects and goes to epistle side. Meanwhile the bridegroom and bride come up and kneel before him. Turning to them he says the two prayers Propitiare Domine and Deus qui potestate (as in the Missal) with folded hands. He then goes back to the middle and continues the Mass. They go back to their places. He gives them Communion at the usual time. This implies that they are fasting and explains the misused name "wedding breakfast" afterwards. But the Communion is strict law (S.R.C., no 5582, 21 March, 1874). Immediately after the Benedicamus Domino and its answer the celebrant again goes to the Epistle side and the bridegroom and kneel before him as before. The celebrant turning to them says the prayer Deus Abraham (without Oremus). He is then told to warn them "with grave words to be faithful to one another". The rest of the advice suggested in the rubric of the Missal is now generally left out. He sprinkles them with holy water; they retire, he goes back to the middle of the altar, says Placeat tibi, gives the blessing and finishes Mass as usual.

7 In the cases in which the "Missa pro sponso et sponsa" may not be said but may be commemorated, the special prayers and blessing are inserted in the Mass in the same way. But the colour must be that of the day. During the closed time it is, of course, quite possible for the married people to have a Mass said for their intention, at which they receive Holy Communion. The nuptial Blessing in this Mass is quite different thing from the actual celebration of the marriage which must always precede it. The blessing is given to people already married, as the prayers imply. It need not be given (nor the Mass said ) by the parish priest, who assisted at the marriage. But both these functions (assitance and blessing) are rights of the parish priests, which no one else may undertake without delegation from him. Generally they are so combined that the marrige takes place immediately before the Mass; in this case the priest at the marriage in Mass vestments, but without the maniple. In England and other countries where a civil declaration is required by law, this is usually made in the sacristy between the marriage and the Mass. Canon Law in England orders that marriages be made only in churches that have a district with the cure of souls (Conc. prov. Westm. I, decr. XXII, 4). This implies as a general rule, but does not command absolutely, that the nuptial Mass also be celebrated in such a church.

8 Adrian Fortescue

Sacrifice of the Mass

7 The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the West after the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the early Church having used the expression the "breaking of bread" (fractio panis) or "liturgy" (Acts 13:2, leitourgountes); the Greek Church has employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries. There were current in the early days of Christianity other terms;

8 "The Lord's Supper" (coena dominica),

9 the "Sacrifice" (prosphora, oblatio),

10 "the gathering together" (synaxis, congregatio),

11 "the Mysteries", and

12 (since Augustine), "the Sacrament of the Altar".

13 With the name "Love Feast" () the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily connected. Etymologically, the word missa is neither (as Baronius states) from a Hebrew word, nor from the Greek mysis, but is simply derived from missio, just as oblata is derived from oblatio, collecta from collectio, and ulta from ultio. The reference was however not to a Divine "mission", but simply to a "dismissal" (dimissio) as was also customary in the Greek rite (cf. "Canon. Apost.", VIII, xv: apolyesthe en eirene), and as is still echoed in the phrase . This solemn form of leave-taking was not introduced by the Church as something new, but was adopted from the ordinary language of the day, as is shown by Bishop Avitus of Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX, 199):

14 > In churches and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts, is said when the people are released from attendance.

15 In the sense of "dismissal", or rather "close of prayer", missa is used in the celebrated "Peregrinatio Silvae" at least seventy times (Corpus scriptor. eccles. latinor., XXXVIII, 366 sq.) and Rule of St. Benedict places after Hours, Vespers, Compline, the regular formula: Et missae fiant (prayers are ended). Popular speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was expressed in both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic Sacrifice, the whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of such an application is found in Ambrose (Ep. xx, 4, in P. L. XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our consideration of the Mass in its existence, essence, and causality.

16 I. the Existence of the Mass

17 Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed, to call the communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the Anglican form of celebration.

18 The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.

19 The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture, e.g. in Ecclus., xxxv, 4: "All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice"; and in Ps. cxl, 2: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice." These figurative offerings, however, necessarily presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture presupposes its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors — a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Osee, xiv, 3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Heb., xiii, 15) — expressions which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the Old Law bears witness. It is true that we may and must recognize with St. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God. Hence, the holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit" (Ps. I, 18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.

20 If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice:

21 a sacrificial gift (res oblata),

22 a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),

23 a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and

24 a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).

25 In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God. As regards the person offering, it is not permitted that any and every individual should offer sacrifice on his own account. In the revealed religion, as in nearly all heathen religions, only a qualified person (usually called priest, sacerdos, lereus), who has been given the power by commission or vocation, may offer up sacrifice in the name of the community. After Moses, the priests authorized by law in the Old Testament belonged to the tribe of Levi, and more especially to the house of Aaron (Heb., v, 4). But, since Christ Himself received and exercised His high priesthood, not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of a Divine call, there is still greater need that priests who represent Him should receive power and authority through the Sacrament of Holy Orders to offer up the sublime Sacrifice of the New Law. Sacrifice reaches its outward culmination in the sacrificial act, in which we have to distinguish between the proximate matter and the real form. The form lies, not in the real transformation or complete destruction of the sacrificial gift, but rather in its sacrificial oblation, in whatever way it may be transformed. Even where a real destruction took place, as in the sacrificial slayings of the Old Testament, the act of destroying was performed by the servants of the Temple, whereas the proper oblation, consisting in the "spilling of blood" (aspersio sanguinis), was the exclusive function of the priests. Thus the real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross consisted neither in the killing of Christ by the Roman soldiers nor in an imaginary self-destruction on the part of Jesus, but in His voluntary surrender of His blood shed by another's hand, and in His offering of His life for the sins of the world. Consequently, the destruction or transformation constitutes at most the proximate matter; the sacrificial oblation, on the other hand, is the physical form of the sacrifice. Finally, the object of the sacrifice, as significant of its meaning, lifts the external offering beyond any mere mechanical action into the sphere of the spiritual and Divine. The object is the soul of the sacrifice, and, in a certain sense, its "metaphysicial form". In all religions we find, as the essential idea of sacrifice, a complete surrender to God for the purpose of union with Him; and to this idea there is added, on the part of those who are in sin, the desire for pardon and reconcillation. Hence at once arises the distinction between sacrifices of praise and expiation (sacrificium latreuticum et propitiatorium), and sacrifices of thanksgiving and petition (sacrificium eucharisticum et impetratorium); hence also the obvious inference that under pain of idolatry, sacrifice is to be offered to God alone as the begining and end of all things. Rightly does St. Augustine remark (De civit. Dei, X, iv): "Who ever thought of offering sacrifice except to one whom he either knew, or thought, or imagined to be God?".

26 If then we combine the four constituent ideas in a definition, we may say: "Sacrifice is the external oblation to God by an authorized minister of a sense-perceptible object, either through its destruction or at least through its real transformation, in acknowledgement of God's supreme dominion and of the appeasing of His wrath." We shall demonstrate the applicability of this definition to the Mass in the section devoted to the nature of the sacrifice, after settling the question of its existence.

27 A. Scriptural Proof

28 It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established, one might almost say, with greater certainty by means of the Old Testament than by means of the New.

29 1. Old Testament

30 The Old Testament prophecies are recorded partly in types, partly in words. Following the precedent of many Fathers of the Church (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", v, 6), the Council of Trent especially (Sess. XXII, cap. i) laid stress on the prophetical relation that undoubtedly exists between the offering of bread and wine by Melchisedech and the Last Supper of Jesus. The occurrence was briefly as follows: After Abraham (then still called "Abram") with his armed men had rescued his nephew Lot from the four hostile kings who had fallen on him and robbed him, Melchisedech, King of Salem (Jerusalem), "bringing forth [proferens] bread and wine for he was a priest of the Most High God, blessed him [Abraham] and said: Blessed be Abram by the Most High God . . . And he [Abraham] gave him the tithes of all" (Gen., xiv, 18-20). Catholic theologians (with very few exceptions) have from the beginning rightly emphasized the circumstance that Melchisedech brought out bread and wine, not merely to provide refreshment for Abram's followers wearied after the battle, for they were well supplied with provisions out of the booty they had taken (Gen., xiv, 11, 16), but to present bread and wine as food-offerings to Almighty God. Not as a host, but as "priest of the Most High God", he brought forth bread and wine, blessed Abraham, and received the tithes from him. In fact, the very reason for his "bringing forth bread and wine" is expressly stated to have been his priesthood: "for he was a priest". Hence, proferre must necessarily become offerre, even if it were true that the Hiphil word is not an hieratic sacrificial term; but even this is not quite certain (cf. Judges vi, 18 sq.). Accordingly, Melchisedech made a real food-offering of bread and wine.

31 Now it is the express teaching of Scripture that Christ is "a priest for ever according to the order [kata ten taxin] of Melchisedech" (Ps. cix, 4; Heb., v, 5 sq; vii, 1 sqq ). Christ, however, in no way resembled his priestly prototype in His bloody sacrifice on the Cross, but only and solely at His Last Supper. On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody food-offering, only that, as Antitype, He accomplished something more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, namely the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the mere forms of bread and wine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before by the "good things to come" would have been more perfect than the things themselves, and the antitype at any rate no richer in reality than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual repetition, commanded by Christ Himself, of the Sacrifice accomplished at the Last Supper, it follows that the Sacrifice of the Mass partakes of the New testament fulfilment of the prophecy of Melchisedech. (Concerning the Paschal Lamb as the second type of the Mass, see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", V, vii; cf. also von Cichowski, "Das altestamentl. Pascha in seinem Verhaltnis zum Opfer Christi", Munich, 1849.)

32 Passing over the more or less distinct references to the Mass in other prophets (Ps. xxi, 27 sqq., Is., lxvi, 18 sqq.), the best and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is undoubtedly that of Malachias, who makes a threatening announcement to the Levite priests in the name of God: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the down, my name is great among the Gentiles [heathens, non-Jews], and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Mal., i, 10-11). According to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers of the Church (see Petavius, "De incarn.", xii, 12), the prophet here foretells the everlasting Sacrifice of the New Dispensation. For he declares that these two things will certainly come to pass:

33 The abolition of all Levitical sacrifices, and

34 the institution of an entirely new sacrifice.

35 As God's determination to do away with the sacrifices of the Levites is adhered to consistently throughout the denunciation, the essential thing is to specify correctly the sort of sacrifice that is promised in their stead. In regard to this, the following propositions have to be established:

36 that the new sacrifice is to come about in the days of the Messiah;

37 that it is to be a true and real sacrifice, and

38 that it does not coincide formally with the Sacrifice of the Cross.

39 It is easy to show that the sacrifice referred to by Malachias did not signify a sacrifice of his time, but was rather to be a future sacrifice belonging to the age of the Messiah. For though the Hebrew participles of the original can be translated by the present tense (there is sacrifice; it is offered), the mere universality of the new sacrifice — "from the rising to the setting", "in every place", even "among the Gentiles", i.e. heathen (non-Jewish) peoples — is irrefragable proof that the prophet beheld as present an event of the future. Wherever Jahwe speaks, as in this case, of His glorification by the "heathen", He can, according to Old Testament teaching (Ps. xxi, 28; lxxi, 10 sqq.; Is., xi, 9; xlix, 6; lx 9, lxvi, 18 sqq.; Amos, ix, 12; Mich., iv. 2. etc.) have in mind only the kingdom of the Messiah or the future Church of Christ; every other explanation is shattered by the text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the time of the prophet himself be thought of. Nor could there be any idea of is a sacrifice among the genuine heathens, as Hitzig has suggested, for the sacrifices of the heathen, associated with idolatry and impurity, are unclean and displeasing to God (I Cor., x, 20). Again, it could not be a sacrifice of the dispersed Jews (), for apart from the fact that the existence of such sacrifices in the Diaspora is rather problematic, they were certainly not offered the world over, nor did they possess the unusual significance attaching to special modes of honouring God. Consequently, the reference is undoubtedly to some entirely distinctive sacrifice of the future. But of what future? Was it to be a future sacrifice among genuine heathens, such as the Aztecs or the native Africans? This is as impossible as in the case of other heathen forms of idolatry. Perhaps then it was to be a new and more perfect sacrifice among the Jews? This also is out of the question, for since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), the whole system of Jewish sacrifice is irrevocably a thing of the past; and the new sacrifice moreover, is to be performed by a priesthood of an origin other than Jewish (Is., lxvi, 21). Everything, therefore, points to Christianity, in which, as a matter of fact, the Messiah rules over non-Jewish peoples.

40 The second question now presents itself: Is the universal sacrifice thus promised "in every place" to be only a purely spiritual offering of prayer, in other words a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, such as Protestanism is content with; or is it to be a true sacrifice in the strict sense, as the Catholic Church maintains? It is forthwith clear that abolition and substitution must correspond, and accordingly that the old real sacrifice cannot be displaced by a new unreal sacrifice. Moreover, prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., are far from being a new offering, for they are permanent realities common to every age, and constitute the indispensable foundation of every religion whether before or after the Messiah.

41 The last doubt is dispelled by the Hebrew text, which has no fewer than three classic sacerdotal declarations referring to the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the possibility of interpreting it metaphorically. Especially important is a substantive Hebrew word for "sacrifice". Although in its origin the generic term for every sacrifice, the bloody included (cf.Gen., iv, 4 sq.; I Kings, ii, 17), it was not only never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a prayer offering), but even became the technical term for an unbloody sacrifice (mostly food offerings), in contradistinction to the bloody sacrifice which is given the name of Sebach.

42 As to the third and last proposition, no lengthy demonstration is needed to show that the sacrifice of Malachias cannot be formally identified with the Sacrifice of the Cross. This interpretation is at once contradicted by the Minchah, i.e. unbloody (food) offering. Then, there are other cogent considerations based on fact. Though a real sacrifice, belonging to the time of the Messiah and the most powerful means conceivable for glorifying the Divine name, the Sacrifice of the Cross, so far from being offered "in every place" and among non-Jewish peoples, was confined to Golgotha and the midst of the Jewish people. Nor can the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was accomplished by the Saviour in person without the help of a human representative priesthood, be identified with that sacrifice for the offering of which the Messiah makes use of priests after the manner of the Levites, in every place and at all times. Furthermore, he wilfully shuts his eyes against the light, who denies that the prophecy of Malachias is fulfilled to the letter in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In it are united all the characteristics of the promised sacrifice: its unbloody sacrificial rite as genuine Minchah, its universality in regard to place and time its extension to non-Jewish peoples, its delegated priesthood differing from that of the Jews, its essential unity by reason of the identity of the Chief Priest and the Victim (Christ), and its intrinsic and essential purity which no Levitical or moral uncleanliness can defile. Little wonder that the Council of Trent should say (Sess XXII, cap.i): "This is that pure oblation, which cannot be defiled by unworthiness and impiety on the part of those who offer it, and concerning which God has predicted through Malachias, that there would be offered up a clean oblation in every place to His Name, which would be great among the Gentiles (see Denzinger, n. 339).

43 2. New Testament

44 Passing now to the proofs contained in the New Testament, we may begin by remarking that many dogmatic writers see in the dialogue of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well a prophetic reference to the Mass (John, iv, 21 sqq ): Woman believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain [Garizim] nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.... But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth." Since the point at issue between the Samaritans and the Jews related, not to the ordinary, private offering of prayer practised everywhere, but to the solemn, public worship embodied in a real Sacrifice, Jesus really seems to refer to a future real sacrifice of praise, which would not be confined in its liturgy to the city Jerusalem but would captivate the whole world (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar., v, 11). Not without good reason do most commentators appeal to Heb., xiii, 10: We have an altar [Thysiastesion, altare], whereof they have no power to eat [Phagein, edere], who serve the tabernacle." Since St. Paul has just contrasted the Jewish food offering (Bromasin, escis) and Christian altar food, the partaking of which was denied to the Jews, the inference is obvious: where is an altar, there is a sacrifice. But the Eucharist is the food which the Christians alone are permitted to eat: therefore there is a Eucharistic sacrifice. The objection that, in Apostolic times, the term was not yet used in the sense of the "Lord's table" (cf. I Cor., x, 21) is clearly a begging of the question, since Paul might well have been the first to introduce the name, it being adopted from him by later writers (e.g. Ignatius of Antioch died A.D. 107).

45 It can scarcely be denied that the entirely mystical explanation of the "spiritual food from the altar of the cross", favoured by St. Thomas Aquinas, Estius, and Stentrup, is far-fetched. It might on the other hand appear still more strange that in the passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ and Melchisedech are compared, the two food offerings should be only not placed in prophetical relation with each other but not even mentioned. The reason, however, is not far to seek: parallel lay entirely outside the scope of the argument. All that St. Paul desired to show was that the high priesthood of Christ was superior to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament (cf. Heb., vii, 4 sqq.), and this is fully demonstrated by proving that Aaron and his priesthood stood far below the unattainable height of Melchisedech. So much the more, therefore, must Christ as "priest according to the order of Melchisedech" excel the Levitical priesthood. The peculiar dignity of Melchisedech, however, was manifested not through the fact that he made a food offering of bread and wine, a thing which the Levites also were able to do, but chiefly through the fact that he blessed the great "Father Abraham and received the tithes from him".

46 The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread. For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in Greek and English:

47 Matt., xxvi, 28: Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

48 Mark, xiv, 24: Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon. This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.

49 Luke, xxii, 20: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

50 I Cor., xi, 25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

51 The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing

52 that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;

53 that it was a true and real sacrifice;

54 that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.

55 The present form of the participle ekchynnomenon in conjunction with the present estin establishes the first point. For it is a grammatical rule of New Testament Greek, that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass, "Grammatik des N. T. Griechisch", p. 193, Gottingen, 1896). This rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, as when Christ says earlier (John, xiv, 12): I go (poreuomai) to the father". Alleged exceptions to the rule are not such in reality, as, for instance, Matt., vi, 30: "And if the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven (ballomenon) God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much more you, O ye of little faith?" For in this passage it is a question not of something in the future but of something occurring every day. When the Vulgate translates the Greek participles by the future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancient codices. The accuracy of this exegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke: to poterion . . . ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in the chalice, and therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumed that there is here a grammatical mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the "shedding" with the chalice (poterion), instead of with "blood" (to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as though he were a school boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents.

56 As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing Protestants and Anglicans readily admit that the phrase: "to shed one's blood for others unto the remission of sins" is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf. Lev., vii 14; xiv, 17; xvii, 11; Rom. iii, 25, v, 9; Heb. ix, 10, etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation not to what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the double consecration of bread and wine mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in a chalice itself poured out this Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. If the "pouring out of the chalice" is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk". As, however, it really reads "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission of sins," the double character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", the sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new testament", moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the 0ld Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with the true blood of an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Ex., xxiv, 8): "This is the blood of the covenant (Sept.: idou to aima tes diathekes) which the Lord hath made with you". St. Paul, however, (Heb., ix, 18 sq.) after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix, 11 sq) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior Himself, with equal solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new testament ". It follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins. With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in the Church, is also established. For the duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament. Christ's Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine institution whereby the Mass is established in His Church. St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Savior the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me".

57 We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper sense Christ's words of consecration over the bread. Since only St. Luke and St. Paul have made additions to the sentence, "This is My Body", it is only on them that we can base our demonstration.

58 Luke, xxii, 19: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; touto esti to soma mou to uper umon didomenon; This is my body which is given for you.

59 I Cor., xi, 24: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; touto mou esti to soma to uper umon [klomenon]; This is my body which shall be broken for you.

60 Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical "giving of the body" (in organic unity of course with the "pouring of blood" in the chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to soma he adds the present participle, didomenon by which he describes the "giving of the body" as something happening in the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future.

61 The reading klomenon in St. Paul is disputed. According to the best critical reading (Tischendorf, Lachmann) the participle is dropped altogether so that St. Paul probably wrote: to soma to uper umon (the body for you, i.e. for your salvation). There is good reason, however, for regarding the word klomenon (from klan to break) as Pauline, since St. Paul shortly before spoke of the "breaking of bread" (I Cor, x, 16), which for him meant "to offer as food the true body of Christ". From this however we may conclude that the "breaking of the body" not only confines Christ's action to the strictly present, especially as His natural Body could not be "broken" on the cross (cf. Ex, xii, 46; John, xix, 32 sq ), but also implies the intention of offering a "body broken for you" (uper umon) i.e. the act constituted in itself a true food offering. All doubt as to its sacrificial character is removed by the expresslon didomenon in St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time quite correctly translates into the present: "quod pro vobis datur." But "to give one's body for others" is as truly a Biblical expression for sacrifice (cf. John, vi, 52; Rom., vii, 4; Col., i, 22: Heb, x, 10, etc.) as the parallel phrase, "the shedding of blood". Christ, therefore, at the least Supper offered up His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is clear from the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxxii, 19; I Cor, xi, 24).

62 B. Proof from Tradition

63 Harnack is of opinion that the early Church up to the time of Cyprian (d. 258) the contented itself with the purely spiritual sacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving and that it did not possess the sacrifice of the Mass, as Catholicism now understands it. In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, a Catholic priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from other theologians, that the early Christians confined the essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic prayer of thanksgiving, till Irenaeus (d. 202) brought forward the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially of bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely new idea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements) which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated.

64 Were this assertion correct, the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii), according to which in the Mass "the priests offer up, in obedience to the command of Christ, His Body and Blood" (see Denzinger, "Enchir", n. 949), could hardly take its stand on Apostolic tradition; the bridge between antiquity and the present would thus have broken by the abrupt intrusion of a completely contrary view. An impartial study of the earliest texts seems indeed to make this much clear, that the early Church paid most attention to the spiritual and subjective side of sacrifice and laid chief stress on prayer and thanksgiving in the Eucharistic function.

65 This admission, however, is not identical with the statement that the early Church rejected out and out the objective sacrifice, and acknowledged as genuine only the spiritual sacrifice as expressed in the "Eucharistic thanksgiving". That there has been an historical dogmatic development from the indefinite to the definite, from the implicit to the explicit, from the seed to the fruit, no one familiar with the subject will deny. An assumption so reasonable, the only one in fact consistent with Christianity, is, however, fundamently different from the hypothesis that the Christian idea of sacrifice has veered from one extreme to the other. This is a priori improbable and unproved in fact. In the Didache or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", the oldest post-Biblical literary monument (c. A.D. 96), not only is the" breaking of bread" (cf. Acts, xx, 7) referred to as a "sacrifice" (Thysia) and mention made of reconciliation with one's enemy before the sacrifice (cf. Matt., v, 23), but the whole passage is crowned with an actual quotation of the prophecy of Malachias, which referred, as is well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c. xiv). The early Christians gave the name of "sacrifice"; not only to the Eucharistic "thanksgiving," but also to the entire ritual celebration including the liturgical "breaking of bread", without at first distinguishing clearly between the prayer and the gift (Bread and Wine, Body and Blood). When Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), a disciple of the Apostles, says of the Eucharist: "There is only one flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, only one chalice containing His one Blood, one altar (en thysiasterion), as also only one bishop with the priesthood and the deacons" (Ep., ad. Philad. iv), he here gives to the liturgical Eucharistic celebration, of which alone he speaks, by his reference to the "altar" an evidently sacrificial meaning, often as he may use the word "altar" in other contexts in a metaphorical sense.

66 A heated controversy had raged round the conception of Justin Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (c. 117) he characterizes "prayer and thanksgiving" (euchai kai eucharistiai) as the "one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God" (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai). Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior real sacrifice of the Eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same "Dialogue" (c. 41) he says the "food offering" of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf. Levit, xiv), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the Eucharist, which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His sufferings." He then goes on: "of the sacrifices which you (the Jews) formerly offered, God through Malachias said: 'I have no pleasure, etc'. By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which we Gentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of Eucharist and likewise of the chalice Eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him". Here "bread and chalice" are by the use of toutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the Christian sacrifice. If the other apologists (Aristides, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Arnobius) vary the thought a great deal — God has no need of sacrifice; the best sacrifice is the knowledge of the Creator; sacrifice and altars are unknown to the Christians — it is to be presumed not only that under the imposed by the disciplina arcani they withheld the whole truth, but also that they rightly repudiated all connection with pagan idolatry, the sacrifice of animals, and heathen altars. Tertullian bluntly declared: "we offer no sacrifice (non sacrificamus) because we cannot eat both the Supper of God and that of demons" (De spectac., c., xiii). And yet in another passage (De orat., c., xix) he calls Holy Communion "participation in the sacrifice" (participatio sacrificii), which is accomplished "on the altar of God" (ad aram Dei); he speaks (De cult fem., II, xi) of a real, not a mere metaphorical, "offering up of sacrifice" (sacrificium offertur); he dwells still further as a Montanist (de pudicit, c., ix) as well on the "nourishing power of the Lord's Body" (opimitate dominici corporis) as on the "renewal of the immolation of Christ" (rursus illi mactabitur Christus).

67 With Irenaeus of Lyons there comes a turning point, in as much as he, with conscious clearness, first puts forward "bread and wine" as objective gift offerings, but at the same time maintains that these elements become the "body and blood" of the Word through consecration, and thus by simply combining these two thoughts we have the Catholic Mass of today. According to him (Adv. haer., iv, 18, 4) it is the Church alone "that offers the pure oblation" (oblationem puram offert), whereas the Jews "did not receive the Word, which is offered (or through whom an offering is made) to God" (non receperunt Verbum quod [aliter, per quod] offertur Deo). Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the disciplina arcani, involved their writings in mystic obscurity, we make particular mention of Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) whose celebrated fragment Achelis has wrongly characterized as spurious. He writes (Fragm. in Prov., ix, i, P. G., LXXX, 593), "The Word prepared His Precious and immaculate Body (soma) and His Blood (aima), that daily kath'ekasten) are set forth as a sacrifice (epitelountai thyomena) on the mystic and Divine table (trapeze) as a memorial of that ever memorable first table of the mysterious supper of the Lord". Since according to the judgment of even Protestant historians of dogma, St. Cyprian (d. 258) is to be regarded as the "herald" of Catholic doctrine on the Mass, we may likewise pass him over, as well as Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) and Chrysostom (d. 407) who have been charged with exaggerated "realism", and whose plain discourses on the sacrifice rival those of Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394) and Ambrose (d. 397). Only about Augustine (d. 430) must a word be said, since, in regard to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is cited as favouring the "symbolical" theory. Now it is precisely his teaching on sacrifice that best serves to clear away the suspicion that he inclined to a merely spiritual interpretation.

68 For Augustine nothing is more certain than that every religion, whether true or false, must have an exterior form of celebration and worship (Contra Faust., xix, 11). This applies as well to Christians (l. c., xx, 18), who "commemorate the sacrifice consummated (on the cross) by the holiest oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ" (celebrant sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi). The Mass is, in his eyes (De Civ. Dei, X, 20), the "highest and true sacrifice" (summum verumque sacrificium), Christ being at once "priest and victim" (ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio) and he reminds the Jews (Adv. Jud, ix, 13) that the sacrifice of Malachias is now made in every place (in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum). He relates of his mother Monica (Confess., ix, 13) that she had asked for prayers at the altar (ad altare) for her soul and had attended Mass daily. From Augustine onwards the current of the Church's tradition flows smoothly along in a well-ordered channel, without check or disturbance, through the Middle Ages to our own time. Even the powerful attempt made to stem it through the Reformation had no effect.

69 A briefer demonstration of the existence of the Mass is the so-called proof from prescription, which is thus formulated: A sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than the oldest attack made on it by heretics cannot be decried as "idolatry", but must be referred back to the Founder of Christianity as a rightful heritage of which He was the originator. Now the Church's legitimate possession as regards the Mass can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity. It follows that the Mass was Divinely instituted by Christ. Regarding the minor proposition, the proof of which alone concerns us here, we may begin at once with the Reformation, the only movement that utterly did away with the Mass. Psychologically, it is quite intelligible that men like Zwingli, Karlstadt and Oecolampadius should tear down the altars, for they denied Christ's real presence in the Sacrament. Calvinism also in reviling the "papistical mass" which the Heidelberg catechism characterized as "cursed idolatry" was merely self-consistent since it admitted only a "dynamic" presence. It is rather strange on the other hand that, in spite of his belief in the literal meaning of the words of consecration, Luther, after a violent "nocturnal disputation with the devil", in 1521, should have repudiated the Mass. But it is exactly these measures of violence that best show to what a depth the institution of the Mass had taken root by that time in Church and people. How long had it been taking root? The answer, to begin with is: all through the Middle Ages back to Photius, the originator of the Eastern Schism (869). Though Wycliffe protested against the teaching of the Council of Constance (1414-18), which maintained that the Mass could be proved from Scripture; and though the Albigenses and Waldenses claimed for the laity also the power to offer sacrifice (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", 585 and 430), it is none the less true that even the schismatic Greeks held fast to the Eucharistic sacrifice as a precious heritage from their Catholic past. In the negotiations for reunion at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) they showed moreover that they had kept it intact; and they have faithfully safeguarded it to this day. From all which it is clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long before Photius, a conclusion borne out by the monuments of Christian antiquity.

70 Taking a long step backwards from the ninth to the fourth century, we come upon the Nestorians and Monophysites who were driven out of the Church during the fifth century at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). From that day to this they have celebrated in their solemn liturgy the sacrifice of the New Law, and since they could only have taken it with them from the old Christian Church, it follows that the Mass goes back in the Church beyond the time of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Indeed, the first Nicene Council (325) in its celebrated eighteenth canon forbade priests to receive the Eucharist from the hands of deacons for the very obvious reason that "neither the canon nor custom have handed down to us, that those, who have not the power to offer sacrifice (prospherein) may give Christ's body to those who offer (prospherousi)". Hence it is plain that for the celebration of the Mass there was required the dignity of a special priesthood, from which the deacons as such were excluded. Since, however, the Nicene Council speaks of a "custom that takes us at once into the third century, we are already in the age of the Catacombs with their Eucharistic pictures, which according to the best founded opinions represent the liturgical celebration of the Mass. According to Wilpert, the oldest representation of the Holy Sacrifice is the "Greek Chapel" in the Catacomb of St. Priscilla (c. 150). The most convincing evidence, however, from those early days is furnished by the liturgies of the West and the East, the basic principles of which reach back to Apostolic times and in whch the sacrifical idea of the Eucharistic celebration found unadulterated and decisive expression (see LITURGIES). We have therefore traced the Masses from the present to the earliest times, thus establishing its Apostolic origin, which in turn goes back again to the Last Supper.

71 II. the Nature of the Mass

72 In its denial of the true Divinity of Christ and of every supernatural institution, modern unbelief endeavours, by means of he so-called historico-religious method, to explain the character of the Eucharist and the Eucharist sacrifice as the natural result of a spontaneous process of development in the Christian religion. In this connection it is interesting to observe how these different and conflicting hypotheses refute one another, with the rather startling result at the end of it all that a new, great, and insoluble problem looms of the investigation. While some discover the roots of the Mass in the Jewish funeral feasts (O. Holtzmann) or in Jewish Essenism (Bousset, Heitmuller, Wernle), others delve in the underground strata of pagan religions. Here, however, a rich variety of hypotheses is placed at their disposal. In this age of Pan-Babylonism it is not at all surprising that the germinal ideas of the Christian communion should be located in Babylon, where in the Adapa myth (on the tablet of Tell Amarna) mention has been found of "water of life" and "food of life" (Zimmern). Others (e.g. Brandt) fancy they have found a still more striking analogy in the "bread and water" (Patha and Mambuha) of the Mandaean religion. The view most widely held today among upholders of the historico-religious theory is that the Eucharist and the Mass originated in the practices of the Persian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Robertson, etc.). "In the Mandaean mass" writes Cumont ("Mysterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p.118), "the celebrant consecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed Haoma-juice, and ate this food while performing the functions of divine service". Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of Christian rites to the "devil" and observed in astonishment (De prescript haeret, C. xl): "celebrat (Mithras) et panis oblationem." This is not the place to criticize in detail these wild creations of an overheated imagination. Let it suffice to note that all these explanations necessarily lead to impenetrable night, as long as men refuse to believe in the true Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass.

73 A. The Physical Character of the Mass

74 In regard to the physical character there arises not only the question as to the concrete portions of the liturgy, in which the real offering lies hidden, but also the question regarding the relation of the Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. To begin with the latter question as much the more important, Catholics and believing Protestants alike acknowledge that as Christians we venerate in the bloody sacrifice of the Cross the one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the world. And this indeed is true in a double sense first, because among all the sacrifices of the past and future the Sacrifice on the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely independent of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality and unity in itself; second because every grace, means of grace and sacrifice, whether belonging to the Jewish, Christian or pagan economy, derive their whole undivided strength, value, and efficiency singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the Cross. The first consideration implies that all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, as well as the Sacrifice of the Mass, bear the essential mark of relativity, in so far as they are necessarily related to the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the periphery of a circle to the centre. From the second consideration it follows that all other Sacrifices, the Mass included, are empty, barren and void of effect, so far and so long as they are not supplied from the mainstream of merits (due to the suffering) of the Crucified. Let us deal briefly with this double relationship.

75 Regarding the qualification of relativity, which adheres to every sacrifice other than the sacrifice of the Cross, there is no doubt that the sacrifices of the Old Testament by their figurative forms and prophetic significance point to the sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfilment. The Epistle to the Hebrews (viii-x) in particular develops grandly the figurative character of the Old Testament. Not only was the Levitie priesthood, as a "shadow of the things to come" a faint type of the high priesthood of Christ, but the complex sacrificial cult, broadly spread out in its parts, prefigured the one sacrifice of the Cross. Serving only the legal "cleansing of the flesh" the Levitical sacrifices could effect no true "forgiveness of sins"; by their very inefficacy however they point prophetically to the perfect Sacrifice of propitiation on Golgotha. Just for that reason their continual repetition as well as their great diversity was essential to them, as a means of keeping alive in the Jews the yearning for the true sacrifice of expiation which the future was to bring. This longing was satiated only by the single Sacrifice of the Cross, which was never again to be repeated. Naturally the Mass, too, if it is to have the character of a legitimate sacrifice must be in accord with this inviolable rule, no longer Indeed as a type prophetic of future things, but rather as the living realization and renewal of the past. Only the Last Supper, standing midway as it were between the figure and its fulfilment, still looked to the future, in so far as it was an anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. In the discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the "giving of the body" and the "Shedding of the Blood" were of necessity related to the physical separation of the blood from the body on the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at the Last Supper would be inconceivable. The Fathers of the Church, such as Cyprian (Ep., lxiii, 9), Ambrose (De offic., I, xlviii), Augustine (Contra Faust., XX, xviii) and Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, lviii), insist that the Mass in its essential nature must be that which Christ Himself characterized as a "commemoration" of Him (Luke, xxii, 19) and Paul as the "showing of the death of the Lord" (I Cor, xi, 26).

76 Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its singleness and its power, Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holier having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb., ix 12). This does not mean that mankind is suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence in Paradise and set above the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption. Otherwise children would be in no need of baptism nor adults of justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion" spoken of by Paul can therefore refer only to the objective side of redemption, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst after justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction between objective and subjective redemption, which belongs to the essence of Christianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ". This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice exactly as the sacraments do it without the use of sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed or its value enhanced.

77 The only distinction between the Mass and the sacrament lies in this: that the latter applies to the individual the fruits of the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by a specific offering. In both, the Church draws upon the one Sacrifice on the Cross. This is and remains the one Sun, that gives life, light and warmth to everything; the sacraments and the Mass are only the planets that revolve round the central body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is annihilated not one whit less than the sacraments. On the other hand, without these two the Sacrifice on the Cross would reign as independently as, conceivably the sun without the planets. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. iv) therefore rightly protested against the reproach that "the Mass is a blasphemy against or a derogation from the Sacrifice on the Cross" (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", 951). Must not the same reproach be cast upon the Sacraments also? Does it not apply to baptism and communion among Protestants? And how can Christ Himself put blasphemy and darkness in the way of His Sacrifice on the Cross when He Himself is the High Priest, in whose name and by whose commission His human representative offers sacrifice with the words: "This is my Body, this is my Blood"? It is the express teaching of the Church (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass is in its very nature a "representation" (representatio), a "commemoration" (memoria) and an "application" (applicatio) of the Sacrifice of the Cross. When indeed the Roman Catechism (II, c. iv, Q. 70) as a fourth relation, adopts the daily repetition (instauratio), it means that such a repetition is to be taken not in the sense of multiplication, but simply of an application of the merits of the Passion. Just as the Church repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of both sacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice — the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess. XXII, ii): "Una enim eademque est hostia idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sofa offerendi ratione diversa". In as much as the sacrificing priest (offerens) and the sacrificial victim (hostia) in both sacrifices are Christ Himself, their same amounts even to a numerical identity. In regard to the manner of the sacrifice (offerendi ratio) on the other hand, it is naturally a question only of a specific identity or unity that includes the possibility of ten, a hundred, or a thousand masses.

78 B. The Constituent Parts of the Mass

79 Turning now to the other question as to the constituent parts of the liturgy of the Mass in which the real sacrifice is to be looked for we need only take into consideration its three chief parts: the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion. The antiquated view of Johann Eck, according to which the act of sacrifice was comprised in the prayer "Unde et memores . . . offerimus", is thus excluded from our discussion, as is also the of Melchior Canus, who held that the sacrifice is accomplished in the symbolical ceremony of the breaking of the Host and its commingling with the Chalice. The question therefore arises first: Is the sacrifice comprised in the Offertory? From the wording of the prayer this much at least is clear that bread and wine constitute the secondary sacrificial elements of the Mass, since the priest in the true language of sacrifice, offers to God bread as an unspotted host (immaculatam hostiam) and wine as the chalice of salvation (calicem salutaris). But the very significance of this language proves that attention is mainly directed to the prospective transubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements. Since the Mass is not a mere offering of bread and wine, like the figurative food offering of Melchisedech, it is clear that only the Body and Blood of Christ can be the primary matter of the sacrifice as was the case at the Last Supper (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i, can. 2; Denzinger, n. 938, 949). Consequently the sacrifice is not in the Offertory. Does it consist then in the priest's Communion? There were and are theologians who favour that view. They can be ranged in two classes, according as they see in the Communion the essential or the co-essentlal.

80 Those who belong to the first category (Dominicus Soto, Renz, Bellord) had to beware of the heretical doctrine proscribed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1), viz., that Mass and Communion were identical. In American and English circles the so-called "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord once created some stir (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905, 258 sq ). According to that view, the essence of the sacrifice was not to be looked for in the offering of a gift to God, but solely in the Communion. Without communion there was no sacrifice. Regarding pagan sacrifices Döllinger ("Heidentum und Judentum", Ratisbon 1857) had already demonstrated the incompatibility of this view. With the complete shedding of blood pagan sacrifices ended, so that the supper which sometimes followed it was expressive merely of the satisfaction felt at the reconciliation with gods. Even the horrible human sacrifices had as their object the death of the victim only and not a cannibal feast. As to the Jews, only a few Levitical sacrifices, such as the peace offering, had feasting connected with them; most, and especially the burnt offerings (holocausta), were accomplished without feasting (cf. Levlt., vi, 9 sq.). Bishop Bellord, having cast in his lot with the "banquet theory", could naturally find the essence of the Mass in the priests' Communion only. He was indeed logically bound to allow that the Crucifixion itself had the character of a sacrifice only in conjunction with the Last Supper, at which alone food was taken; for the Crucifixion excluded any ritual food offering. These disquieting consequences are all the more serious in that they are devoid of any scientific basis.

81 Harmless, even though improbable, is that other view (Bellarmine, De Lugo, Tournely, etc.) which includes the Communion as at least a co-essential factor in the constitution of the Mass; for the consumption of the Host and of the contents of the Chalice, being a kind of destruction, would appear to accord with the conception of the sacrifice developed above. But only in appearance; for the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take place on the altar, and not in the body of the celebrant, while the partaking of the two elements can at most represent the burial and not the sacrificial death of Christ. The Last Supper also would have been a true sacrifice only on condition that Christ had given the Communion not only to His apostles but also to Himself. There is however no evidence that such a Communion ever took place, probable as it may appear. For the rest, the Communion of the priest is not the sacrifice, but only the completion of, and participation in, the sacrifice, it belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of the sacrifice. And this integrity is also preserved absolutely even in the so-called "private Mass" at which the priest alone communicates; private Masses are allowed for that reason (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. 8). When the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786), proclaiming the false principle that "participation in the sacrifice is essential to the sacrifice", demanded at least the making of a "spiritual communion" on the part of the faithful as a condition of allowing private Masses, it was denied by Pius VI in his Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) (see Denzinger, n. 1528).

82 After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the part in which the true sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body; this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered as the moment of consecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into practice after Apostolic times (see ). The sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant. While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the twofold consecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable. Not only older theologlans such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread or cider, the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold conscration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice.

83 B. The Metaphysical Character of the Sacrifice of the Mass

84 The physical essence of the Mass having been established in the consecration of the two species, the metaphysical question arises as to whether and in what degree the scientific concept of sacrifice is realized in this double consecration. Since the three ideas, sacrificing priest, sacrificial gift, and sacrificial object, present no difficulty to the understanding, the problem is finally seen to lie entirely in the determination of the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed not so much in the form of this act as in the matter, since the glorified Victim, in consequence of Its impassibility, cannot be really transformed, much less destroyed. In their investigation of the idea of destruction, the post-Tridentine theologians have brought into play all their acuteness, often with brilliant results, and have elaborated a series of theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which, however, we can discuss only the most notable and important. But first, that we may have at hand a reliable, critical standard wherewith to test the validity or invalidity of the various theories, we maintain that a sound and satisfactory theory must satisfy the following four conditions:

85 the twofold consecration must show not only the relative, but also the absolute moment of sacrifice, so that the Mass will not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in itself a real sacrifice;

86 the act of sacrifice (actio sacrifica), veiled in the double consecration, must refer directly to the sacrificial matter — i.e. the Eucharistic Christ Himself — not to the elements of bread and wine or their unsubstantial species;

87 the sacrifice of Christ must somehow result in a kenosis, not in a glorification, since this latter is at most the object of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself;

88 since this postulated kenosis, however, can be no real, but only a mystical or sacramental one, we must appraise intelligently those moments which approximate in any degree the "mystical slaying" to a real exinanition, instead of rejecting them.

89 With the aid of these four criteria it is comparatively easy to arrive at a decision concerning the probability or otherwise of the different theories concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.

90 (i) The Jesuit Gabriel Vasquez, whose theory was supported by Perrone in the last century, requires for the essence of an absolute sacrifice only — and thus, in the present case, for the Sacrifice of the Cross — a true destruction or the real slaying of Christ, whereas for the idea of the relative sacrifice of the Mass it suffices that the former slaying on the Cross be visibly represented in the separation of Body and Blood on the altar. This view soon found a keen critic in Cardinal de Lugo, who, appealing to the Tridentine definition of the Mass as a true and proper sacrifice, upbraided Vasquez for reducing the Mass to a purely relative sacrifice. Were Jephta to arise again today with his daughter from the grave, he argues (De Euchar, disp. xix, sect. 4, n. 58), and present before our eyes a living dramatic reproduction of the slaying of his daughter after the fashion of a tragedy, we would undoubtedly see before us not a true sacrifice, but a historic or dramatic representation of the former bloody sacrifice. Such may indeed satisfy the notion of a relative sacrifice, but certainly not the notion of the Mass which includes in itself both the relative and the absolute (in opposition to the merely relative) sacrificial moment. If the Mass is to be something more than an Ober-Ammergau Passion Play, then not only must Christ appear in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed on that very altar. The theory of Vasquez thus fails to fulfil the first condition which we have named above.

91 To a certain extent the opposite of Vasquez's theory is that of Cardinal Cienfuegos, who, while exaggerating the absolute moment of the Mass, undervalues the equally essential relative moment of the sacrifice. The sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic Christ he would find in the voluntary suspension of the powers of sense (especially of sight and hearing), which the sacramental mode of existence implies, and which lasts from the consecration to the mingling of the two Species. But, apart from the fact that one may not constitute a hypothetical theologumenon the basis of a theory, one can no longer from such a standpoint successfully defend the indispensability of the double consecration. Equally difficult is it to find in the Eucharistic Christ's voluntary surrender of his sensitive functions the relative moment of sacrifice, i.e. the representation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. The standpoint of Suarez, adopted by Scheeben, is both exalting and imposing; the real transformation of the sacrificial gifts he refers to the destruction of the Eucharistic elements (in virtue of the transubstantiation) at their conversion into the Precious Body and Blood of Christ (immulatio perfectiva), just as, in the sacrifice of incense in the Old Testament, the grains of incense were transformed by fire into the higher and more precious form of the sweetest odour and fragrance. But, since the antecedent destruction of the substance of bread and wine can by no means be regarded as the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, Suarez is finally compelled to identify the substantial production of the Eucharistic Victim with the sacrificing of the same. Herein is straightway revealed a serious weakness, already clearly perceived by De Lugo. For the production of a thing can never be identical with its sacrifice; otherwise one might declare the gardener's production of plants or the farmer's raising of cattle a sacrifice. Thus, the idea of kenosis which in the minds of all men is intimately linked with the notion of sacrifice, and which we have given above as our third condition, is wanting in the theory of Suarez. To offer something as a sacrifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though this self-divestment may finally lead to exaltation.

92 In Germany the profound, but poorly developed theory of Valentin Thalhofer found great favour. We need not, however, develop it here, especially since it rests on the false basis of a supposed "heavenly sacrifice" of Christ, which, as the virtual continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, becomes a temporal and spatial phenomenon in the Sacrifice of the Mass. But, as practically all other theologians teach, the existence of this heavenly sacrifice (in the strict sense) is only a beautiful theological dream, and at any rate cannot be demonstrated from the Epistle to the Hebrews.

93 (ii) Disavowing the above-mentioned theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, theologians of today are again seeking a closer approximation to the pre-Tridentine conception, having realized that post-Tridentine theology had perhaps for polemical reasons needlessly exaggerated the idea of destruction in the sacrifice. The old conception, which our catechisms even today proclaim to the people as the most natural and intelligible, may be fearlessly declared the patristic and traditional view; its restoration to a position of general esteem is the service of Father Billot (De sacram., I, 4th ed., Rome, 1907, pp. 567 sqq.). Since this theory refers the absolute moment of the sacrifice to the (active) "sacramental mystical slaying", and the relative to the (passive) "separation of Body and Blood", it has indeed made the "two-edged sword" of the double consecration the cause from which the double character of the Mass as an absolute (real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We have an absolute sacrifice, for the Victim is — not indeed in specie propria, but in specie aliena — sacramentally slain, we have also a relative sacrifice, since the sacramental separation of Body and Blood represents perceptibly the former shedding of Blood on the Cross.

94 While this view meets every requirement of the metaphysical nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we do not think it right to reject offhand the somewhat more elaborate theory of Lessius instead of utilizing it in the spirit of the traditional view for the extension of the idea of a "mystical slaying". Lessius (De perfect. moribusque div. XII, xiii) goes beyond the old explanation by adding the not untrue observation that the intrinsic force of the double consecration would have as result an actual and true shedding of blood on the altar, if this were not per accidens impossible in consequence of the impassibility of the transfigured Body of Christ. Since ex vi verborum the consecration of the bread makes really present only the Body, and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this view, the celebrated statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes of special importance ("Ep. clxxi, ad Amphil." in P. G., XXXVII, 282): "Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with bloodless stroke [anaimakto tome] thou separatest [temnes] the Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [phonen echon to Xiphos]." As an old pupil of Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., p. II, thes. xvi, Rome, 1887), the present writer may perhaps speak a good word for the once popular, but recently combatted theory of Cardinal De Hugo, which Franzelin revived after a long period of neglect; not however that he intends to proclaim the theory in its present form as entirely satisfactory, since, with much to recommend it, it has also serious defects. We believe, however, that this theory, like that of Lessius, might be most profitably utilized to develop, supplement, and deepen the traditional view. Starting from the principle that the Eucharistic destruction can be, not a physical but only a moral one, De Lugo finds this exinanition in the voluntary reduction of Christ to the condition of food (reductio ad statum cibi el potus), in virtue of which the Saviour, after the fashion of lifeless food, leaves himself at the mercy of mankind. That this is really equivalent to a true kenosis no one can deny. Herein the Christian pulpit has at its disposal a truly inexhaustible source of lofty thoughts wherewith to illustrate in glowing language the humility and love, the destitution and defencelessness of Our Saviour under the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submission to irreverence, dishonour, and sacrilege, and wherewith to emphasize that even today that fire of self-sacrifice which once burned on the Cross, still sends forth its tongues of flame in a mysterious manner from the Heart of Jesus to our altars. While, in this incomprehenslble condescension, the absolute moment of sacrifice is disclosed in an especially striking manner, one is reluctantly compelled to recognize the absence of two of the other requisites: in the first place, the necessity of the double consecration is not made properly apparent, since a single consecration would suffice to produce the condition of food, would therefore achieve the sacrifice; secondly, the reduction to the state of articles of food reveals not the faintest analogy to the blood — shedding on the Cross, and thus the relative moment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not properly dealt with. De Lugo's theory seems, therefore, of no service in this connection. It renders, howover, the most useful service in extending the traditional idea of a "mystical slaying", since indeed the reduction of Christ to food is and purports to be nothing else than the preparation of the mystically slain Victim for the sacrificial feast in the Communion of the priest and the faithful.

95 III. the Causality of the Mass

96 In this section we shall treat: (a) the effects (effectus) of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which practically coincide with the various ends for which the Sacrifice is offered, namely adoration, thanksgiving, impetration, and expiation; (b) the manner of its efficacy (modus efliciendi), which lies in part objectively in the Sacrifice of the Mass itself (ex opere operato), and partly depends subjectively on the personal devotion and piety of man (ex opere operantis).

97 A. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass

98 The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection, properly appraised above that the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and of Christendom and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the symbolical or figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, and Melanchthon resented the charge that Protestants had entirely abolished it. What they most bitterly opposed was the Catholic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving, but also of impetration and atonement, whose fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a sacrament as such can profit merely the recipient. Here the Council of Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, n. 950). In this canon, which gives a summary of all the sacrificial effects in order, the synod emphasizes the propitiatory and impetratory nature of the sacrifice. Propitiation (propitiatio) and petition (impetratio) are distinguishable from each other, in as much as the latter appeals to the goodness and the former to the mercy of God. Naturally, therefore, they differ also as regards their objects, since, while petition is directed towards our spiritual and temporal concerns and needs of every kind, propitiation refers to our sins (peccata) and to the temporal punishments (poenae), which must be expiated by works of penance or satisfaction (satisfactiones) in this life, or otherwise by a corresponding suffering in purgatory. In all these respects the impetratory and expiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is of the greatest utility, both for the living and the dead.

99 Should a Biblical foundation for the Tridentine doctrine be asked for, we might first of all argue in general as follows: Just as there were in the Old Testament, in addition to sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, propitiatory and impetratory sacrifices (cf. Lev., iv. sqq ; II Kings, xxiv, 21 sqq., etc.), the New Testament, as its antitype, must also have a sacrifice which serves and suffices for all these objects. But, according to the prophecy of Malachias, this is the Mass, which is to be celebrated by the Church in all places and at all times. Consequently, the Mass is the impetratory and propitiatory sacrifice. As for special reference to the propitiatory character, the record of instituation states expressly that the Blood of Christ is in the chalice "unto remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi, 28).

100 The chief source of our doctrine, however, is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory value of the Sacrifice of the Mass. According to Tertullian (Ad scapula, ii), the Christians sacrificed "for the welfare of the emperor" (pro salute imperatoris); according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxi in Act. Apost., n. 4), "for the fruits of the earth and other needs". St Cyril of Jerusalem (d .386)) describes the liturgy of the Mass of his day as follows ("Catech. myst." v, n. 8, in P. G., XXXIII, 1115): "After the spritual Sacrifice [pneumatike thysia], the unbloody service [anaimaktos latreia] is completed; we pray to God, over this sacrifice of propitiation [epi tes thysias ekeines tou ilasmou] for the universal peace of the churches, for the proper guidance of the world, for the emperor, soldiers and companions, for the infirm and the sick, for those stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need of help we pray and offer up this sacrifice [tauten prospheromen ten thysian]. We then commemorate the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God may, at their prayers and intercessions graciously accept our supplication. We afterwards pray for the dead . . . since we believe that it will be of the greatest advantage [megisten onesin esesthai], if we in the sight of the holy and most awesome Victim [tes hagias kai phrikodestates thysias] discharge our prayers for them. The Christ, who was slain for our sins, we sacrifice [Christon esphagmenon yper ton emeteron amartematon prospheromen] to propitiate the merciful God for those who are gone before and for ourselves." This beautiful passage, which reads like a modern prayer-book, is of interest in more than one connection. It proves in the first place that Christian antiquity recognized the offering up of the Mass for the deceased, exactly as the Church today recognizes requiem Masses — a fact which is confirmed by other independent witnesses, e.g. Tertullian (De monog., x), Cyprian (Ep. lxvi, n. 2), and Augustine (Confess., ix, 12). In the second place, it informs us that our so-called Masses of the Saints also had their prototype among the primitive Christians, and for this view we likewise find other testimonies — e.g. Tertullian (De Cor., iii) and Cyprian (Ep. xxxix, n. 3). By a Saint's Mass is meant, not the offering up of the Sacrifice of the Mass to a saint which would be impossible without most shameful idolatry, but a sacrifice, which, while offered to God alone, on the one hand thanks Him for the triumphal coronation of the saints, and on the other aims at procuring for us the saint's efficacious intercession with God. Such is the authentic explanation of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap, iii, in Denzinger, n. 941). With this threefold limitation, Masses "in honour of the saints" are certainly no base "deception", but are morally allowable, as the Council of Trent specifically declares (loc. cit. can. v); "If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema". The general moral permissibility of invoking the intercession of the saints, concerning which this is not the place to speak, is of course assumed in the present instance.

101 While adoration and thanksgiving are effects of the Mass which relate to God alone, the success of impetration and expiation on the other hand reverts to man. These last two effects are thus also called by theologians the "fruits of the Mass" (fructus missae) and this distinction leads us to the discussion of the difficult and frequently asked question as to whether we are to impute infinite or finite value to the Sacrifice of the Mass. This question is not of the kind which may be answered with a simple yes or no. For, apart from the already indicated distinction between adoration and thanksgiving on the one hand and impetration and expiation on the other, we must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. Here however, we must once more strongly emphasize the fact that the ever-continued sacrificial activity of Christ in Heaven does not and cannot serve to accumulate fresh redemptory merits and to assume new objective value; it simply stamps into current coin, so to speak, the redemptory merits definitively and perfectly obtained in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and sets them into circulation among mankind. This also is the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap. ii): "of which bloody oblation the fruits are most abundantly obtained through this unbloody one [the Mass]." For, even in its character of a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, the Mass draws its whole value and all Its power only from the Sacrifice of the Cross which Christ makes of unceasing avail in Heaven (cf. Rom. viii, 34; Heb., vii, 25). There is, however, no reason why this intrinsic value of the Mass derived from the Sacrifice of the Cross, in so far as it represents a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, should not also operate outwardly to the full extent of its infinity, for it seems inconceivable that the Heavenly Father could accept with other than infinite satisfaction the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son. Consequently God, as Malachias had already prophesied, is in a truly infinite degree honoured, glorified, and praised in the Mass; through Our Lord Jesus Christ he is thanked by men for all his benefits in an infinite manner, in a manner worthy of God.

102 But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called "fruits of the Mass" is limited. Just as a tiny chip of wood can not within it the whole energy of the sun, so also, and in a still greater degree, is man incapable of converting the boundless value of the impetratory and expiatory sacrifice into an infinite effect for his soul. Wherefore, in practice, the impetratory value of the sacrifice is always as limited as is its propitiatory and satisfactory value. The greater or less measure of the fruits derived will naturally depend very much on the pesonal efforts and worthiness, the devotion and fervour of those who celebrate or are present at Mass. This limitation of the fruits of the Mass must, however, not be misconstrued to mean that the presence of a large congregation causes a diminution of the benefits derived from the Sacrifice by the individual, as if such benefits were after some fashion divided into so many aliquot parts. Neither the Church nor the Christian people has any tolerance for the false principle: "The less the number of the faithful in the church, the richer the fruits". On the contrary the Bride of Christ desires for every Mass a crowded church, being rightly convinced that from the unlimited treasures of the Mass much more grace win result to the individual from a service participated in by a full congregation, than from one attended merely by a few of the faithful. This relative infinite value refers indeed only to the general fruit of the Mass (fructus generalis), and not to the special (fructus specialis) two terms whose distinction will be more clearly characterized below. Here, however, we may remark that by the special fruit of the Mass is meant that for the application of which according to a special intention a priest may accept a stipend.

103 The question now arises whether in this connection the applicable value of the Mass is to be regarded as finite or infinite (or, more accurately, unlimited). This question is of importance in view of the practical consequences it involves. For, if we decide in favour of the unlimited value, a single Mass celebrated for a hundred persons or intentions is as efficacious as a hundred Masses celebrated for a single person or intention. On the other hand, it is clear that, if we incline towards a finite value, the special fruit is divided pro rata among the hundred persons. In their quest for a solution of this question, two classes of theologians are distinguished according to their tendencies: the minority (Gotti, Billuart, Antonio Bellarini, etc.) are inclined to uphold the certainty or at least the probability of the former view, arguing that the infinite dignity of the High Priest Christ can not be limited by the finite sacrificial activity of his human representative. But, since the Church has entirely forbidden as a breach of strict justice that a priest should seek to fulfil, by reading a single Mass, the obligations imposed by several stipends (see Denzinger, n. 1110) these theologians hasten to admit that their theory is not to be translated into practice, unless the priest applies as many individual Masses for all the intentions of the stipend-givers as he has received stipends. But in as much as the Church has spoken of strict justice (justitia commutativa), the overwhelming majority of theologians incline even theoretically to the conviction that the satisfactory — and, according to many, also the propitiatory and impetratory — value of a Mass for which a stipend has been taken, is so strictly circumscribed and limited from the outset, that it accrues pro rata (according to the greater or less number of the living or the dead for whom the Mass is offered) to each of the individuals. Only on such a hypothesis is the custom prevailing among the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for the deceased or for their intentions intelligible. Only on such a hypothesis can one explain the widely established "Mass Association", a pious union whose members voluntarily bind themselves to read or get read at least one Mass annually for the poor souls in purgatory. As early as the eighth century we find in Germany a so-called "Totenbund" (see Pertz, "Monum. Germaniae hist.: Leg.", II, i, 221). But probably the greatest of such societies is the Messbund of Ingolstadt, founded in 1724; it was raised to a confraternity (Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception) on 3 Feb., 1874, and at present counts 680,000 members (cf. Beringer, "Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen u. ihr Gebrauch", 13th ed., Paderborn, 1906, pp. 610 sqq.). Tournely (De Euch. q. viii, a. 6) has also sought in favour of this view important internal grounds of probability, for example by adverting to the visible course of Divine Providence: all natural and supernatural effects in general are seen to be slow and gradual, not sudden or desultory, wherefore it is also the most holy intention of God that man should, by his personal exertions, strive through the medium of the greatest possible number of Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

104 B. The Manner of Efficacy of the Mass

105 In theological phrase an effect "from the work of the action" (ex opere operato) signifies a grace conditioned exclusively by the objective bringing into activity of a cause of the supernatural order, in connection with which the proper disposition of the subject comes subsequently into account only as an indispensable antecedent condition (conditio sine qua non), but not as a real joint cause (concausa). Thus, for example, baptism by its mere ministration produces ex opere operato interior grace in each recipient of the sacrament who in his heart opposes no obstacle (obez) to the reception of the graces of baptism. On the other hand, all supernatural effects, which, presupposing the state of grace are accomplished by the personal actions and exertions of the subject (e.g. everything obtained by simple prayer), are called effects "from the work of the agent"; (ex opere operantis). we are now confronted with the difficult question: In what manner does the Eucharistic Sacrifice accomplish its effects and fruits? As the early scholastics gave scarcely any attention to this problem, we are indebted for almost all the light thrown upon it to the later scholastics.

106 (i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories of persons really participate.

107 At the head of all stands of course the High Priest, Christ Himself; to make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us and to secure its application, He offers Himself as a sacrifice, which is quite independent of the merits or demerits of the Church, the celebrant or the faithful present at the sacrifice, and is for these an opus operatum.

108 Next after Christ and in the second place comes the Church as a juridical person, who, according to the express teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), has received from the hands of her Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also the commission to ordain constantly priests and to have celebrated by these the most venerable Sacrifice. This intermediate stage between Christ and the celebrant may be neither passed over nor eliminated, since a bad and immoral priest, as an ecclesiastical official, does not offer up his own sacrifice — which indeed could only be impure — but the immaculate Sacrifice of Christ and his spotless Bride, which can be soiled by no wickedness of the celebrant. But to this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the sacrifice together with Christ, must also correspond a special ecclesiastico-human merit as a fruit, which, although in itself an opus operantis of the Church, is yet entirely independent of the worthiness of the celebrant and the faithful and therefore constitutes for these an opus operatum. When, however, as De Lugo rightly points out, an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrates in defiance of the prohibition of the Church, this ecclesiastieal merit is always lost, since such a priest no longer acts in the name and with the commission of the Church. His sacrifice is nevertheless valid, since, by virtue of his priestly ordination, he celebrates in the name of Christ, even though in opposition to His wishes, and, as the self-sacrifice of Christ, even such a Mass remains essentially a spotless and untarnished sacrifice before God. We are thus compelled to concur in another view of De Lugo, namely that the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the World, and that for this reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might under certain circumstances easily be very small.

109 With Christ and His Church is associated in third place the celebrating priest, since he is the representative through whom the real and the mystical Christ offer up the sacrifice. If, therefore, the celebrant be a man of great personal devotion, holiness, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit which will benefit not himself alone, but also those in whose favour he applies the Mass. The faithful are thus guided by sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for their intentions by an upright and holy priest rather than by an unworthy one, since, in addition to the chief fruit of the Mass, they secure this special fruit which springs ex opera operantis, from the piety of the celebrant.

110 Finally, in the fourth place, must be mentioned those who participate actively in the Sacrifice of the Mass, e.g., the servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and the whole congregation joining in the sacrifice. The priest, therefore, prays also in their name: Offerimus (i.e. we offer). That the effect resulting from this (metaphorical) sacrificial activity is entirely dependent on the worthiness and piety of those taking part therein and thus results exclusively ex opere operantis is evident without further demonstration. The more fervent the prayer, the richer the fruit. Most intimate is the active participation in the Sacrifice of those who receive Holy Communion during the Mass since in their case the special fruits of the Communion are added to those of the Mass. Should sacramental Communion be impossible, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. cap. vi) advises the faithful to make at least a "spiritual communion" (spirituali effectu communicare), which consists in the ardent desire to receive the Eucharist. However, as we have already emphasized, the omission of real or spiritual Communion on the part of the faithful present does not render the Sacrifice of the Mass either invalid or unlawful, wherefore the Church even permits "private Masses", which may on reasonable grounds be celebrated in a chapel with closed doors.

111 (ii) In addition to the active, there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the persons in whose favour — it may be even without their knowledge and in opposition to their wishes — the Holy Sacrifice is offered. They fall into three categories: the community, the celebrant, and the person (or persons) for whom the Mass is specially applied. To each of these three classes corresponds ex opere operato a special fruit of the Mass, whether the same be an impetratory effect of the Sacrifice of Petition or a propitiatory and satisfactory effect of the Sacrifice of Expiation. Although the development of the teaching concerning the threefold fruit of the Mass begins only with Scotus (Quaest. quodlibet, xx), it is nevertheless based on the very essence of the Sacrifice itself. Since, according to the wording of the Canon of the Mass, prayer and sacrifice is offered for all those present, the whole Church, the pope, the diocesan bishop, the faithful living and dead, and even "for the salvation of the whole world", there must first of all result a "general fruit" (fructus generalis) for all mankind, the bestowal of which lies immediately in the will of Christ and His Church, and can thus be frustrated by no contrary intention of the celebrant. In this fruit even the excommunicated, heretics, and infidels participate, mainly that their conversion may thus be effected. The second kind of fruit (fructus personalis, specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the celebrant, since it were unjust that he — apart from his worthiness and piety (opus operantis) — should come empty-handed from the sacrifice. Between these two fruits lies the third, the so-called "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis, medius, or ministerialis), which is usually applied to particular living or deceased persons according to the intention of the celebrant or the donor of a stipend. This "application" rests so exclusively in the hands of the priest that even the prohibition of the Church cannot render it inefficacious, although the celebrant would in such a case sin through disobedience. For the existence of the special fruit of the Mass, rightly defended by Pius VI against the Jansenistic Synod of Pistoia (1786), we have the testimony also of Christian antiquity, which offered the Sacrifice for special persons and intentions. To secure in all cases the certain effect of this fructus specialis, Suarez (De Euch., disp. lxxix, Sect. 10) gives priests the wise advice that they should always add to the first a "second intention" (intentio secunda), which, should the first be inefficacious, will take its place.

112 (iii) A last and an entirely separate problem is afforded by the special mode of efficacy of the Sacrifice of Expiation. As an expiatory sacrifice, the Mass has the double function of obliterating actual sins, especially mortal sins (effectus stricte propitiatorius), and also of taking away, in the case of those already in the state of grace, such temporal punishments as may still remain to be endured (effectus satisfactorius). The main question is: Is this double effect ex opere operato produced mediately or immediately? As regards the actual forgiveness of sin, it must, in opposition to earlier theologians (Aragon, Casalis, Gregory of Valentia), be maintained as undoubtedly a certain principle, that the expiatory sacrifice of the Mass can never accomplish the forgiveness of mortal sins otherwise than by way of contrition and penance, and therefore only mediately through procuring the grace of conversion (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. ii: "donum paenitentiae concedens"). With this limitation, however, the Mass is able to remit even the most grievous sins (Council of Trent, 1. c., "Crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit"). Since, according to the present economy of salvation, no sin whatsoever, grievous or trifling, can be forgiven without an act of sorrow, we must confine the efficacy of the Mass, even in the case of venial sins, to obtaining for Christians the grace of contrition for less serious sins (Sess. XXII, cap. i). It is indeed this purely mediate activity which constitutes the essential distinction between the sacrifice and the sacrament. Could the Mass remit sins immediately ex opere operato, like Baptism or Penance, it would be a sacrament of the dead and cease to be a sacrifice (see ). Concerning the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, however, which appears to be effected in an immediate manner, our judgment must be different. The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction between sin and its punishment. Without the personal cooperation and sorrow of the sinner, all forgiveness of sin by God is impossible; this cannot however be said of a mere remission of punishment. One person may validly discharge the debts or fines of another, even without apprising the debtor of his intention. The same rule may be applied to a just person, who, after his justification, is still burdened with temporal punishment consequent on his sins. It is certain that, only in this immediate way, can assistance be given to the poor souls in purgatory through the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they are henceforth powerless to perform personal works of satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, de purgat.). From this consideration we derive by analogy the legitimate conclusion that the case exactly the same as regards the living.

113 C. Practical Questions Concerning the Mass

114 From the exceedingly high valuation, which the Church places on the Mass as the unbloody Sacrifice of the God-Man, issue, as it were spontaneously all those practical precepts of a positive or a negative nature, which are given in the Rubrics of the Mass, in Canon Law, and in Moral Theology. They may be conveniently divided into two categories, according as they are intended to secure in the highest degree possible the objective dignity of the Sacrifice or the subjective worthiness of the celebrant.

115 1. Precepts for the Promotion of the Dignity of the Sacrifice

116 (a) One of the most important requisites for the worthy celebration of the Mass is that the place in which the all-holy Mystery is to be celebrated should be a suitable one. Since, in the days of the Apostolic Church, there were no churches or chapels, private houses with suitable accommodation were appointed for the solemnization of "the breaking of bread" (cf. Acts, ii, 46; xx, 7 sq.; Col., iv, 15; Philem., 2). During the era of the persecutions the Eucharistic services in Rome were transferred to the catacombs, where the Christians believed themselves secure from government agents. The first "houses of God" reach back certainly to the end of the second century, as we learn from Tertullian (Adv. Valent., iii) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, i). In the second half of the fourth century (A.D. 370), Optatus of Mileve (De Schism. Donat. II, iv) could already reckon more than forty basilicas which adorned the city of Rome. From this period dates the prohibition of the Synod of Laodicea (can. lviii) to celebrate Mass in private houses. Thenceforth the public churches were to be the sole places of worship. In the Middle Ages the synods granted to bishops the right of allowing house-chapels within their dioceses. According to the law of today (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, de reform.), the Mass may be celebrated only in Chapels and public (or semi-public) oratories, which must be consecrated or at least blessed. At present, private chapels may be erected only in virtue of a special papal indult (S.C.C., 23 Jan., 1847, 6 Sept., 1870). In the latter case, the real place of sacrifice is the consecrated altar (or altar-stone), which must be placed in a suitable room (cf. Missale Romanum, Rubr. gen., tit. xx). In times of great need (e.g. war, persecution of Catholics), the priest may celebrate outside the church, but naturally only in a becoming place, provided with the most necessary utensils. On reasonable grounds the bishop may, in virtue of the so-called "quinquennial faculties", allow the celebration of Mass in the open air, but the celebration of Mass at sea is allowed only by papal indult. In such an indult it is usually provided that the sea be calm during the celebration, and that a second priest (or deacon) be at hand to prevent the spilling of the chalice in case of the rocking of the ship.

117 (b) For the worthy celebration of Mass the circumstance of time is also of great importance. In the Apostolic age the first Christians assembled regularly on Sundays for "the breaking of bread" (Acts, xx, 7: "on the first day of the week"), which day the "Didache" (c. xiv), and later Justin Martyr (I Apol., lxvi), already name "the Lord's day".

118 Justin himself seems to be aware only of the Sunday celebration, but Tertullian adds the fast-days on Wednesday and Friday and the anniversaries of the martyrs ("De cor. mil.", iii; "De orat.", xix). As Tertullian calls the whole paschal season (until Pentcost) "one long feast", we may conclude with some justice that during this period the faithful not only communicated daily, but were also present at the Eucharistic Liturgy. As regards the time of the day, there existed in the Apostolic age no fixed precepts regarding the hour at which the Eucharistic celebration should take place. The Apostle Paul appears to have on occasion "broken bread" about midnight (Acts, xx, 7). But Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (died A.D. 114), already states in his official report to Emperor Trajan that the Christians assembled in the early hours of the morning and bound themselves by a sacramentum (oath), by which we can understand today only the celebration of the mysteries. Tertullian gives as the hour of the assembly the time before dawn (De cor. mil., iii: antelucanis aetibus). When the fact was adverted to that the Saviour's Resurrection occurred in the morning before sunrise, a change of the hour set in, the celebration of Mass being postponed until this time. Thus Cyprian writes of the Sunday celebration (Ep., lxiii): "we celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord in the morning." Since the fifth century the "third hour" (i.e. 9 a.m.) was regarded as "canonical" for the Solemn Mass on Sundays and festivals. When the Little Hours (Prime, Terce, Sext, None) began in the Middle Ages to lose their significance as "canonical hours", the precepts governing the hour for the conventual Mass received a new meaning. Thus, for example, the precepts that the conventual Mass should be held after None on fast days does not signify that it be held between midday and evening, but only that "the recitation of None in choir is followed by the Mass". It is in general left to the discretion of the priest to celebrate at any hour between dawn and midday (ab aurora usque ad meridiem). It is proper that he should read beforehand Matins and Lauds from his breviary.

119 The sublimity of the Sacrifice of the Mass demands that the priest should approach the altar wearing the sacred vestments (amice, stole, cincture, maniple, and chasuble). Whether the priestly vestments are historical developments from Judaism or paganism, is a question still discussed by archaeologists. In any case the "Canones Hippolyti" require that at Pontifical Mass the deacons and priests appear in "white vestments", and that the lectors also wear festive garments. No priest may celebrate Mass without light (usually two candles), except in case of urgent necessity (e.g. to consecrate a Host as the Viaticum for a person seriously ill). The altar-cross is also necessary as an indication that the Sacrifice of the Mass is nothing else than the unbloody reproduction of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Usually, also, the priest must be attended at the altar by a server of the male sex. The celebration of Mass without a server is allowed only in case of need (e.g. to procure the Viaticum for a sick person, or to enable the faithful to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass). A person of the female sex may not serve at the altar itself, e.g. transfer the missal, present the cruets, etc. (S.R.C., 27 August, 1836). Women (especially nuns) may, however, answer the celebrant from their places, if no male server be at hand. During the celebration of Mass a simple priest may not wear any head-covering — whether biretta, pileolus, or full wig (comae fictitiae) — but the bishop may allow him to wear a plain perruque as a protection for his hairless scalp.

120 (c) To preserve untarnished the honour of the most venerable sacrifice, the Church has surrounded with a strong rampart of special defensive regulations the institution of "mass-stipends"; her intention is on the one hand to keep remote from the altar all base avarice, and on the other, to ensure and safeguard the right of the faithful to the conscientious celebration of the Masses bespoken.

121 By a mass-stipend is meant a certain monetary offering which anyone makes to the priest with the accompaning obligation of celebrating a Mass in accordance with the intentions of the donor (ad intentionem dantis). The obligation incurred consists, concretely speaking, in the application of the "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis), the nature of which we have alreadly described in detail (A, 3). The idea of the stipend emanates from the earliest ages, and its justification lies incontestably in the axiom of St. Paul (I Cor., ix, 13): "They that serve the altar, partake with the altar". Originally consisting of the necessaries of life, the stipend was at first considered as "alms for a Mass" (eleemosyna missarum), the object being to contribute to the proper support of the clergy. The character of a pure alms has been since lost by the stipend, since such may be accepted by even a wealthy priest. But the Pauline principle applies to the wealthy priest just as it does to the poor. The now customary money-offering, which was introduced about the eighth century and was tacitly approved by the Church, is to be regarded merely as the substitute or commutation of the earlier presentation of the necessaries of life. In this very point, also, a change from the ancient practice has been introduced, since at present the individual priest receives the stipend personally, whereas formerly all the clergy of the particular church shared among them the total oblations and gifts. In their present form, the whole matter of stipends has been officially taken by the Church entirely under her protection, both by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, de ref. ) and by the dogmatic Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) of Pius VI (Denzinger, n. 1554). Since the stipend, in its origin and nature, claims to be and can be nothing else than a lawful contribution towards the proper support of the clergy, the false and foolish views of the ignorant are shown to be without foundation when they suppose that a Mass may he simoniacally purchased with money (Cf. Summa Theologica II-II:100:2). To obviate all abuses concerning of the amount of the stipend, there exists in each diocese a fixed "mass-tax" (settled either by ancient custom or by an episcopal regulation), which no priest may exceed, unless extraordinary inconvenience (e.g. long fasting or a long journey on foot) justifies a somewhat larger sum. To eradicate all unworthy greed from among both laity and clergy in connection with a thing so sacred, Pius IX in his Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of 12 Oct., 1869, forbade under penalty of excommunication the commercial traffic in stipends (mercimonium missae stipendiorum). The trafficking consists in reducing the larger stipend collected to the level of the "tax", and appropriating the surplus for oneself. Into the category of shameful traffic in stipends also falls the reprehensible practice of booksellers and tradesmen, who organize public collections of stipends and retain the money contributions as payment for books, merchandise, wines, etc., to be delivered to the clergy (S.C.C., 31 Aug., 1874, 25 May, 1893). As special punishment for this offence, suspensio a divinis reserved to the pope is proclaimed against priests, irregularity against other clerics, and excommunication reserved to the bishop, against the laity.

122 Another bulwark against avarice is the strict regulation of the Church, binding under pain of mortal sin, that priests shall not accept more intentions than they can satisfy within a reasonable period (S.C.C, 1904). This regulation was emphasized by the additional one which forbade stipends to be transferred to priests of another diocese without the knowledge of their ordinaries (S.C.C., 22 May, 1907). The acceptance of a stipend imposes under pain of mortal sin the obligation not only of reading the stipulated Mass, but also of fulfilling conscientiously all other appointed conditions of an important character (e.g. the appointed day, altar, etc.). Should some obstacle arise, the money must either be returned to the donor or a substitute procured. In the latter case, the substitute must be given, not the usual stipend, but the whole offering received (cf. Prop. ix damn. 1666 ab Alex. VIII in Denzinger, n. 1109), unless it be indisputably clear front the circumstances that the excess over the usual stipend was meant by the donor for the first priest alone. There is tacit condition which requires the reading of the stipulated Mass as soon as possible. According to the common opinion of moral theologians, a postponement of two months is in less urgent cases admissible, even though no lawful impediment can be brought forward. Should, however, a priest postpone a Mass for a happy delivery until after the event, he is bound to return the stipends. However, since all these precepts have been imposed solely in the interests of the stipend-giver, it is evident that he enjoys the right of sanctioning all unusual delays.

123 (d) To the kindred question of "mass-foundations" the Church has, in the interests of the founder and in her high regard for the Holy Sacrifice, devoted the same anxious care as in the case of stipends. Mass-foundations (fundationes misssarum) are fixed bequests of funds or real property, the interest or income from which is to procure for ever the celebration of Mass for the founder or according to his intentions. Apart from anniversaries, foundations of Masses are divided, accordlng to the testamentary arrangement of the testator, into monthly, weekly, and daily foundations. As ecclesiastical property, mass-foundations are subject to the administration of the ecclesiastical authorities, especially of the diocesan bishop, who must grant hls permission for the acceptance of such and must appoint for them the lowest rate. Only when episcopal approval has been secured can the foundation be regarded as completed; thenceforth it is unalterable for ever. In places where the acquirement of ecclesiastical property is subject to the approval of the State (e.g. in Austria), the establishment of a mass-foundation must also be submitted to the secular authorities. The declared wishes of the founder are sacred and decisive as to the manner of fulfillment. Should no special intention be mentioned in the deed of foundation, the Mass must be applied for the founder himself (S.C.C., I8 March, 1668). To secure punctuality in the execution of the foundation, Innocent XII ordered in 1697 that a list of the mass-foundations, arranged according to the months, be kept in each church possessing such endowments. The administrators of pious foundations are bound under pain of mortal sin to forward to the bishop at the end of each year a list of all founded Masses left uncelebrated together with the money therefor (S.C.C., 25 May, 18 ).

124 The celebrant of a founded Mass is entitled to the full amount of the foundation, unless it is evident from the circumstances of the foundation or from the wording of the deed that an exception is justifiable. Such is the case when the foundation serves also as the endowment of a benefice, and consequently in such a case the beneficiary is bound to pay his substitute only the regular tax (S.C.C., 25 July, 1874). Without urgent reason, founded Masses may not be celebrated in churches (or on altars) other than those stipulated by the foundation. Permanent transference of such Masses is reserved to the pope, but in isolated instances the dispensation of the bishop suffices (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXI de ref.; Sess. XXV de ref.). The unavoidable loss of the income of a foundation puts an end to all obligations connected with it. A serious diminution of the foundation capital, owing to the depreciation of money or property in value, also the necessary increase of the mass-tax, scarcity of priests, poverty of a church or of the clergy may constiutute just grounds for the reduction of the number of Masses, since it may be reasonably presumed that the deceased founder would not under such difficult circumstance insist upon the obligation. On 21 June, 1625, the right of reduction, which the Council of Trent had conferred on bishops, abbots, and the generals of religious orders, was again reserved by Urban VIII to the Holy See.

125 2. Precepts to secure the Worthiness of the Celebrant

126 Although, as declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), the venerable, pure, and sublime Sacrifice of the God-man "cannot be stained by any unworthiness or impiety of the celebrant", still ecclesiastical legislation has long regarded it as a matter of special concern that priests should fit themselves for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice by the cultivation of integrity, purity of heart, and other qualities of a personal nature.

127 (a) In the first place it may be asked: Who may celebrate Mass? Since for the validity of the sacrifice the office of a special priesthood is essential, it is clear, to begin with, that only bishops and priests (not deacons) are qualified to offer up the Holy Sacrifice (see ). The fact that even at the beginning of the second century the regular officiator at the Eucharistic celebration seems to have been the bishop will be more readily understood when we remember that at this early period there was no strict distinction between the offices of bishop and priest. Like the "Didache" (xv), Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., xl-xlii) speaks only of the bishop and his deacon in connection with the sacrifice. Ignatius of Antioch, indeed, who bears irrefutable testimony to the existence of the three divisions of the hierarchy — bishop (episkopos), priests (presbyteroi) and deacons (diakonoi) — confines to the bishop the privilege of celebrating thanksgiving Divine Service when he says: "It is unlawful to baptize or to hold the without the bishop." The "Canones Hippolyti", composed probably about the end of the second century, first contain the regulation (can. xxxii): "If, in the absence of the bishop, a priest be at hand, all shall devolve upon him, and he shall be honoured as the bishop is honoured. "Subsequent tradition recognizes no other celebrant of the Mystery of the Eucharist than the bishops and priests, who are validly ordained "according to the keys of the Church," (secundum claves Ecclesiae). (Cf. Lateran IV, cap. "Firmiter" in Denzinger, n. 430.)

128 But the Church demands still more by insisting also on the personal moral worthiness of the celebrant. This connotes not alone freedom from all ecclesiastical censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict), but also a becoming preparation of the soul and body of the priest before he approaches the altar. To celebrate in the state of mortal sin has always been regarded by the Church as an infamous sacrifice (cf. I Cor., xi, 27 sqq.). For the worthy (not for the valid) celebration of the Mass it is, therefore, especially required that the celebrant be in the state of grace. To place him in this condition, the awakening of perfect sorrow is no longer sufficient since the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. vii in Denzinger, n. 880), for there is a strict eccleciastical precept that the reaction of the Sacrament of Penance must precede the celebration of Mass. This rule applies to all priests, even when they are bound by their office (ex officio) to read Mass, e.g. on Sundays for their parishioners. Only in instances when no confessor can be procured, may they content themselves with reciting an act of perfect sorrow (), and they then incur the obligation of going to confession "as early as possible" (quam primum), which in canon law, signifies within three days at furthest. In addition to the pious preparation for the Mass (accessus), there is prescribed a correspondingly long thanksgiving after Mass (recessus), whose length is fixed by moral theologians between fifteen minutes and half an hour, although in this connection the particular official engagements of the priest must be considered. As regards the length of the Mass itself, the duration is naturally variable, according as a Solemn High Mass is sung or a Low Mass celebrated. To perform worthily all the ceremonies and pronounce clearly all the prayers in Low Mass requires on an average about half an hour. Moral theologians justly declare that the scandalous haste necessary to finish Mass in less than a quarter of an hour is impossible without grievous sin.

129 With regard to the more immediate preparation of the body, custom has declared from time immemorial, and positive canon law since the Council of Constance (1415), that the faithful, when receiving the Sacrament of Altar, and priests, when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, must be fasting (jejunium naturale) which means that they must have partaken of no food or drink whatsoever from midnight. Midnight begins with the first stroke of the hour. In calculating the hour, the so-called "mean time" (or local time) must be used: according to a recent decision (S.C.C., 12 July, 1893), Central-European time may be also employed, and, in North America, "zone time". The movement recently begun among the German clergy, favouring a mitigation of the strict regulation for weak or overworked priests with the obligation of duplicating, has serious objections, since a general relaxation of the ancient strictness might easily result in lessening respect for the Blessed Sacrament and in a harmful reaction among thoughtless members of the laity. The granting of mitigations in general or in exceptional cases belongs to the Holy See alone. To keep away from the altar irreverent adventurers and unworthy priests, the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) issued the decree, made much more stringent in later times, that an unknown priest without the Celebret may not be allowed to say Mass in any church.

130 (b) A second question may be asked: "Who must say Mass?" In the first place, if this question be considered identical with the enquiry as to whether a general obligation of Divine Law binds every priest by reason of his ordination, the old Scholastics are divided in opinion. St. Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus, and Anthony of Bologna certainly maintained the existence of such an obligation; on the other hand, Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Gabriel Biel, and Cardinal Cajetan declared for the opposite view. Canon law teaches nothing on the subject. In the absence of a decision, Suarez (De Euchar., disp. lxxx, sect. 1, n. 4) believes that one who conforms to the negative view, may be declared free from grievous sin. Of the ancient hermits we know that they did not celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in the desert, and St. Ignatius Loyola, guided by high motives, abstained for a whole year from celebrating. Cardinal De Lugo (De Euchar., disp. xx, sect. 1, n. 13) takes a middle course, by adopting theoretically the milder opinion, while declaring that, in practice, omission through lukewarmness and neglect may, on account of the scandal caused, easily amount to mortal sin. This consideration explains the teaching of the moral theologians that every priest is bound under pain of mortal sin to celebrate at least a few times each year (e.g. at Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, the Epiphany). The obligation of hearing Mass on all Sundays and holy days of obligation is of course not abrogated for such priests. The spirit of the Church demands — and it is today the practically universal custom — that a priest should celebrate daily, unless he prefers to omit his Mass occasionally through motives of reverence.

131 Until far into the Middle Ages it was left to the discretion of the priest, to his personal devotion and his zeal for souls, whether he should read more than one Mass on the same day. But since the twelfth century canon law declares that he must in general content himself with one daily Mass, and the synods of the thirteenth century allow, even in case of necessity, at most a duplication (see ). In the course of time this privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice twice on the same day was more and more curtailed. According to the existing law, duplication is allowed, under special conditions, only on Sundays and holy days, and then only in the interests of the faithful, that they may be enabled to fulfil their obligation of hearing Mass. For the feast of Christmas alone have priests universally been allowed to retain the privilege of three Masses, in Spain and Portugal this privilege was extended to All Souls' Day (2 Nov.) by special Indult of Benedict XIV (1746). Such customs are unknown in the East.

132 This general obligation of a priest to celebrate Mass must not be confounded with the special obligation which results from the acceptance of a Mass-stipend (obligatio ex stipendio) or from the cure of souls (obligatio ex cura animarum). Concerning the former sufficient has been already said. As regards the claims of the cure of souls, the obligation of Divine Law that parish priests and administrators of a parish should from time to time celebrate Mass for their parishioners, arises from the relations of pastor and flock. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.) has specified this duty of application more closely, by directing that the parish priest should especially apply the Mass, for which no stipend may be taken, for his flock on all Sundays and holy days (cf. Benedict XIX, "Cum semper oblatas", 19 Aug., 1744). The obligation to apply the Mass pro populo extends also to the holy days abrogated by the Bull of Urban VIII, "Universa per orbem", of 13 Sept., 1642; for even today these remain "canonically fixed feast days", although the faithful are dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass and may engage in servile works. The same obligation of applying the Mass falls likewise on bishops, as pastors of their dioceses, and on those abbots who exercize over clergy and people a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Titular bishops alone are escepted, although even in their case the application is to be desired (cf. Leo XIII, "In supremacy, 10 June, 1882). As the obligation itself is not only personal, but also real, the application must, in case of an impediment arising either be made soon afterwards, or be effected through a substitute, who has a right to a mass stipend as regulated by the tax. Concerning this whole question, see Heuser, "Die Verpflichtung der Pfarrer, die hl. Messe fur die Gemeinde zu applicieren" (Düsseldorf 1850).

133 (c) For the sake of completeness a third and last question must te touched on in this section: For whom may Mass be celebrated? In general the answer may be given: For all those and for those only, who are fitted to participate in the fruits of the Mass as an impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory sacrifice. From this as immediately derived the rule that Mass may not be said for the damned in Hell or the blessed in Heaven, since they are incapable of receiving the fruits of the Mass; for the same reason children who die unbaptized are excluded from the benefits of the Mass. Thus, there remain as the possible participants only the living on earth and the poor souls in purgatory (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. iii; Sess. XXV, decret. de purgat.). Partly out of her great veneration of the Sacrifice, however, and partly to avoid scandal, the Church has surrounded with certain conditions, which priests are bound in obedience to observe, the application of Mass for certain classes of the living and dead. The first class are non-tolerated excommunicated persons, who are to be avoided by the faithful (excommunicati vitandi). Although, according to various authors, the priest is not forbidden to offer up Mass for such unhappy persons in private and with a merely mental intention, still to announce publicly such a Mass or to insert the name of the excommunicated person in the prayers, even though he may be in the state of grace owing to perfect sorrow or may have died truly repentant, would be a "communicatio in divinis", and is strictly forbidden under penalty of excommunication (cf. C. 28, de sent. excomm., V, t. 39). It is likewise forbidden to offer the Mass publicly and solemnly for deceased non-Catholics, even though they were princes (Innoc. III C. 12, X 1. 3, tit. 28). On the other hand it is allowed, in consideration of the welfare of the state, to celebrate for a non-Catholic living ruler even a public Solemn Mass. For living heretics and schismatics also for the Jews, Turks, and heathens, Mass may be privately applied (and even a stipend taken) with the object of procuring for them the grace of conversion to the true Faith. For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate Mass privately for deceased catechumens is permissible, since we may assume that they are already justified by their desire of Baptism and are in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is intended to benefit all who are in purgatory. For further details see Göpfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906).

134 J. Pohle

Massa Candida

10 Under the date 24 August, the "Martyrologium Romanum" records this commemoration:

11 > At Carthage, of three hundred holy martyrs in the time of Valerian and Gallienus. Among other torments, the governor ordering a limekiln to be lighted and live coals with incense to be set near by, said to these confessors of the Faith: "Choose whether you will offer incense to Jupiter or be thrown down into lime." And they, armed with faith, confessing Christ, the Son of God, with one swift impulse hurled themselves into the fire, where in the fumes of the burning lime, they were reduced to a powder. Hence this band of blessed ones in white raiment have been held worthy of the name, White Mass.

12 The date of this event may be placed between A.D. 253, when Gallienus was associated with his father in the imperial office and A.D. 260 when Valerian was entrapped and made prisoner by Sapor, King of Persia. As to the exact place, St. Augustine [Ser. cccvi (al. cxii), 2] calls these martyrs the "White Mass of Utica", indicating that there they were specially commemorated. Utica was only 25 miles from the city of Carthage, which was the capital of a thickly populated district, and the three hundred may have been brought from Utica to be judged by the procurator (Galerius Maximus).

13 The fame of the Massa Candida has been perpetuated chiefly through two early references to them: that of St. Augustine, and that of the poet Prudentius (q.v.). The latter, in the thirteenth hymn of his peri stephanon collection, has a dozen lines describing "the pit dug in the midst of the plain, filled nearly to the brim with lime that emitted choking vapours", how the "stones vomit fire, and the snowy dust burns." After telling how they faced this ordeal, he concludes: "Whiteness [candor] possesses their bodies; purity [candor] bears their minds [or, souls] to heaven. Hence it [the "head-long swarm" to which the poet has referred in a preceding line] has merited to be forever called the Massa Candida." Both St. Augustine and Prudentius were at the height of their activity before the end of the fourth century. Moreover, St. Augustine was a native and a resident of this same Province of Africa, while Prudentius was a Spaniard. It is natural to suppose that the glorious tale of the three hundred of Carthage had become familiar to both writers through a fresh and vivid tradition — no older than the traditions of the Civil War now [1911] are in, say, the American South. It is not even probable that either of them originated the metaphor under which the martyrs of the limekiln have been known to later generation: the name Massa Candida had, most likely been long in use among the faithful of Africa and Spain. As Christians, they would have been reminded of Apocalypse 7:13-14, by every commemoration of a martyrdom; as Romans — at least in language and habit of thought — they were aware that candidates (candidati) for office were said to have been so called in Republican Rome from the custom of whitening the toga with chalk or lime (calx) when canvassing for votes. Given the Apocalyptic image and the Latin etymology (candor — candidus — candidatus; cf. in the "Te Deum", "Candidatus martyrum exercitus") , it was almost inevitable that this united body of witnesses for Christ, together winning their heavenly white raiment in the incandescent lime, which reduced their bodies to a homogeneous mass, should, by the peculiar form of their agony, have suggested this name to the African and Spanish Christians.

14 (For the casuistry of the self-destruction of the Massa Candida, see SUICIDE.)

15 E. Macpherson.

Diocese of Massa Carrara

13 Diocese of Massa Carrara (Massensis).

14 Diocese in Central Italy (Lunigiana and Garfagnana). The city is located on the Frigido, in a district rich in various mines but especially famous for its pure white marble, which the Romans preferred to those of Paros and Pentelius. Massa Carrara is the "Mansio ad Taberna Frigida" of the "Tabula Peutingeriana". In the ninth century it belonged to the bishops of Luni, and was confirmed to them by Otto I and by Frederick Barbarossa, though really at that time subject to the Malaspina, counts of Lunigiana. It passed from Lucca to Pisa, was held by the Visconti and the Fieschi, again by Lucca, and was later a free commune under the protectorate of Florence. In 1434 it took the marquis Antonio Alberico Malaspina for its lord; in 1548 the marquisate passed to the House of Cybò, through the marriage of Lorenzo of that name with Riccarda Malaspina. In 1568, Carrara became a principality, and in 1664 a duchy. The most famous prince of the house of Cybò was Alberico I, who endowed his little state with a model code of law. The daughter of Alderamo, the last of the Cybòs, married Rinaldo Ercole d'Este, and by this marriage the duchy became united with that of Modena; in 1806 it was given to Elisa Bacchiochi, and in 1814 to Maria Beatrice, daughter of Rinaldo Ercole, at whose death the duchy returned to Modena. The name of Carrara comes from Carraria, a stone quarry. An academy of sculpture founded by Duchess Maria Teresa (1741) has its seat at Carrara in the old but magnificent ducal palace. The fine cathedral dates from 1300. Carrara is the birthplace of the sculptors Tacca, Baratta, Finelli, and Tenerani, and of the statesman Pellegrino Rossi. The see was created in 1822 at the instance of Duchess Maria Beatrice, and its first bishop was Francesco Maria Zappi; it was then suffragen of Pisa, but since 1855 has been suffragen of Modena. The sanctuary of Santa Maria dei Quercioli, founded in 1832, is in the Diocese of Carrera. The latter has 213 parishes, 155,400 inhabitants, one religious house of men, seven of women, and four educational institutes for male students, and as many for girls.

15 CAPPELLITTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, SV (Venice, 1857); FARSETTI, Ragionamento storico intorno alla citta de Modena; VIANI, Memorie della famiglia Cybò.

16 U. Benigni

Massachusetts

16 One of the thirteen original United States of America. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts covers part of the territory originally granted to the Plymouth Company of England. It grew out of the consolidation (in 1692) of the two original colonies, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. The settlement at Plymouth began with the landing of the Pilgrims, 22 December 1620; the Colony of Massachusetts Bay was established under John Endicott at Salem in 1628. The royal province created by this ocnsolidation included also the District of Maine and so remained until the present state of Maine was set off from Massachusetts by Congress, 3 March 1820. No authentic and complete survey of the State of Massachusetts exists, but it is generally believed to include an area of about 8040 square miles, with a population of rather more than three millions. Of this number 1,373,752 are Catholics, distributed among the three Dioceses of Boston (the Archdiocese), Fall River, and Springfield, which are the actual ecclestical divisions of the state. Classified by nationalities, this Catholic population comprises more than 7000 Germans, 50,000 Portuguese, 100,000 Italians 150,000 French Canadians, 10,000 Lituanians, 3000 Syrians, 25,000 Poles, 1000 Negroes, 81 Chinese, 3000 Bravas, the remainder—more than 1,000,000—being principally Irish or of Irish parentage.

17 I. Colonial History

18 A. Settlement

19 The explorations and settlements of the Northmen upon the shores of Massachusetts, the voyages of the Cabots, the temporary settlement (1602) of the Gosnold party on one of the Elizabeth Islands of Buzzard's Bay, and the explorations and the mapping of the New England coast by Captain John Smith are usually passed over as more or less conjectural. The undisputed history of Massachusetts begins with the arrival of the "Mayflower" in December, 1620. Nevertheless the due appreciation of these precious events gives a ready and logical explanation of many acts, customs and laws of the founders of this commonwealth which, in general, are imperfectly understood. The early maps (1582) mark the present territory of New England under the name "Norumbega", and show that the coast had been visited by Christian mariners—whether by fishermen in search of the fisheries set forth by Cabot, or by the daring Drakes, Frosibers, and Hawkinses of Elizabeth's reign, does not seem clear. It is an accepted fact that, when Gosnold set out in 1602, there was not a single English settlement on the Continent. France did not acknowledge the claim of England over the whole territory. A French colony had been established where now is northern Virginia, under the name of "New France." This was after Verazzano's expedition made by order of Francis I. A French explorer, too, the Huguenot Sieur de Monts, had been to Canada, and knew much about the resources of that country, especially the fur trade of the Indian tribes. Henry IV had given De Monts a patent to all the country now included in New England, also a monopoly of the fur trade. All this is important, because it entered into the conditions of the early permanent settlement here.

20 For a quarter of a century prior to the coming of the Pilgrims, the French and the Dutch resented the encroachments of the English. "The Great Patent for New England", of 1620, granted to Gorges and his forty associates, has been called a "despotic as well as a gigantic commerical monopoly." This grant included the New netherlands of the Dutch, the French Acadia and indeed, nearly all the present inhabited British possessions in North America, besides all New England, the State of New York, half of New Jersey, nearly all of Pennsylvania, and the country to the west—in short, all the territory from the fortieth degree of north latitude to the forty-eighth and from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The English increased the enmity of the French by destroying the Catholic settlements of St.-Croix and at Port-Royal, and had aroused the suspicion and hostility of the Indians by the treachery of Hunt, an act described by Mather as "one which constrained the English to suspend their trade and abandon their prospects of a settlement in New England."

21 The religious conditions were no less ominous for the Pilgrims. At the opening of the sixteenth century, all Christian Europe, with slight exceptions, was Catholic and loyal to the papacy; at the close of that century England herself was the mother of three antipapacy sects: the State Church and its two divisions; the Nonconformists, or Puritans; and the Separatists, or Pilgrims. At the time of the sailing of the "Mayflower", the Puritans had become as fully disenfranchised by the Anglican Church as the Pilgrims had estranged themselves from both; each distrusted the others; all three hated the Church of Rome. Gorges and his associated had found the French and their Jesuit missionaries a stumbling-block in the way of securing fur-trading privileges from the Indians. The alleged gold and copper mines of Smith and of Gosnold were now regarded as myths; unless something could be done at once, the opportunities offered by their charter monopoly would be worthless. A permanent English settlement in America was the only sure way of preventing the French and the Dutch from acquiring the Virginia territory. The Gorges company knew of the cherished hopes of the Pilgrims to find a home away from their English persecutors, and, after much chicanery on the part of the promoters, the company agreed to found a home for the Pilgrims in the new world. The articles of agreement were wholly commercial, and the "Mayflower" sailed for Virginia. History differs in its interpretation of the end of that voyage, but all agree that the Pilgrims, in landing at Plymouth, 22 December, 1620, were outside any jurisdiction of their patrons, the Virginia Company. The Pilgrims themselves recognized their difficulty, and the famous "Compact" was adopted, before landing, as a basis of government by mutual agreement. Gorges protected his company's investment by obtaining from James I the new charter of 1620 which controlled, on a commercial basis, all religious colonization in America. The struggle of race against, race, tribe against tribe, neighbour against neighbour were all encouraged so long as the warfare brought gain to the mercenary adventurers at home. The Pilgrims, finding themselves deserted by the instigators of this ill-feeling, were forced by the law of self-preservation to continue religious intolerance and the extermination of the Indians. Thus it is that we find the laws, the customs and the manners of these first English settlers so interwoven with the religio-commercial principle. The coming of the Puritans, in 1629-30, added the factor of politics, which resulted in establishing in America the very thing against which these "Purists" had fought at home, namely, the union of Church and State. Here, again, at Puritan Salem, Gorges and Mason cloaked their commercialism under religion, as the accounts of La Tour and Winslow attest, and so effective were their machinations that, as early as 1635, Endicott's zeal had not left a set of the king's colours intact with the red cross thereon — that relic of popery insufferable in a Puritan community.

22 B. Colonial Legislation

23 The legality of the early acts of the colonists depends, to a great degree, on whether the charters granted to the two colonies were for the purpose of instituting a corporation for trading purposes, or whether they are regarded as constitutions and foundations af a government. This much-controversial point has never been settled satisfactorily. The repeated demands from the king, often with threat of prosecution, for the return of the charters were ignored, so that, until 1684, the colony was practically a free state, independent of England, and professing little, if any, loyalty. Judging from the correspondence, it is more than probable that the intention of the Crown in granting the charter was that the corporation should have a local habitation in England, and it is equally evident that the colony did not possess the right to make its own laws. It is plainly stated, in the patent granted to the Puritans, who the governor and other officials of the colony should be, showing thereby that the Crown retained the right of governing. A new charter was granted in 1692 covering Massachusetts, Plymouth, Maine, Nova Scotia, and the intervening territory, entitled "The Province of Massachusetts Bay in New England"; nevertheless it was not until the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, that the proceedings on the part of the home Government, to assert the Crown's rights, abated notably. During the half-century in which the Puritans ignored the terms of their charter, and made laws in accordance with their own selfish interests, many of those acts ocurred which history has since condemned. At the first meeting of the general Court held 30 August, 1630, it was voted to build a house for the minister and maintain it at the state's expense—an act of described by Benedict, in his History of the Baptists, as the first dangerous act performed by the rulers of this incipent government which led to innumerable evils, hardships, and privations to all who had the misfortune to dissent from the ruling power in after times.—The Viper in Embryo; here was an importation and establishment, in the outset of the settlement, of the odious doctrine of Church and State which had thrown empires into convulsions, had caused rivers of blood to be shed, had crowded prisons with innocent victims, and had driven the Pilgrims (he means Puritans) themselves who were now engaged in the mistaken legislation, from all that was dear in their native homes. This union of Church and State controlled the electorate and citizenship of the colony, made the school a synonym of both, excluded Catholic priests and prohibited the entrance of Jesuits, condemned witches to death, banished Roger Williams and the Quakers, established the pillory, and in other ways left to posterity many chapters of uncharitableness intolerance, and curelty. After the War of Independence, the old colonial government took a definite constitutional form under the Union, in 1780, and the first General Court of the sovereign State of Massachusetts convened in October of that year. This constitution was revised in 1820.

24 C. Catholic Colonization

25 The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies were composed principally of English. Near the close of the reign of Charles I, however, the forced emigration of the Irish brought many of that race to these shores; their number is hard to estimate, first, because the law made it obligatory that all sailings must take place from English ports, so that there are no records of those who came from Ireland with English sailing registry; secondly, because the law, under heavy penalties, obliged all Irishmen in certain towns of Ireland to take English surnames—the names of some small town, of a colour, of a particular trade or office, or of a certain art or craft. Children in Ireland were separated forcibly from their parents and under new names sent into the colonies. Men and women, from Cork and its vicinity, were openly sold into slavery for America. Connaught, which was nine-tenths Catholic, was depopulated. The frequently published statement in justification of Cromwell's persecution, that the victimes of this white slave-traffic were criminals, finds no corroboration in the existence of a single penal colony in this country. In 1634 the General Court of Massachusetts Bay also granted land for an irish settlement on the banks of the Merrimac River. (See ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON; IRISH IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN IRELAND.)

26 II. Modern Massachusetts

27 A. Statistics of Population

28 In 1630 the population of Plymouth and Massachusetts Colonies was estimated at 8000 white people; in 1650, at 16,000; in 1700, at 70,000; while in 1750 it was placed at 220,000. In 1790 the population of the State of Massacusetts was 378, 787; in 1905 it was 3,003,680. The density of population increased from 47 to the square mile, in 1790, to 373, in 1905. In 1790 over nine-tenths of the population lived in rural communities, while in 1905 less than one-fourth (22.26 per cent) of the total populatiion lived in communities of 8000 or less. The great tide of Irish immigration began in 1847. This has since conspicously modified the population of Massachusetts. In 1905 the ratio of increase in the native and in the foreign-born of the population was 6.46 per cent and 8.47 per cent respectively; the number of native-born in the total population being 2, 085,636, and that of the foreign-born being 918,044, an increase of the latter of 459.7 per cent since 1850. This foreign-born population is mostly (83.91 per cent) in cities and towns with populations of more than 8000. Ireland has furnished 25.75 per cent of the total foreign-born. Canada (exclusive of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and prince Edward Island) is second, with a population of 12.88 per cent of the total foreign-born population. At present Russia supplies the largest increase in foreign-born, having risen fron one-half of one per cent, in 1885, to 6.43 per cent, in 1905. Italy's contribution in the same period rose from 76 per cent to 5.51 per cent. Almost sixty per cent of the entire population of Massachusetts is now of foreign parentage. In the cities of Fall River and Lawrence it runs as high as four-fifths of the entire population, while in Holyoke, Lowell, and Chicopee it is more than three-fourths. In Boston the population of foreign parentage forms 60.03 per cent, while at New Bedford it rises to 72.34 per cent, at Worcester to 65.64 percent, at Cambridge to 65.16 per cent, at Woburn to 63.63 per cent, and at Salem to 61.10 per cent. The Greeks have increased in Massachusetts 1242.7 per cent since 1895, a greater rapidity of increase than all peoples of foreign parentage in the population. Austria comes next, and italy is third. In the city of Boston, Irish parentage gives 174,770 out of a total census of 410,960 persons of foreign parentage, and this nationality predominates in every ward except the eighth, where Russian parentage stands first. The transformation in the racial and national population in Massachusetts has likewise changed the religious prominence of the various denominations. The present order of denominations in this state is: Catholics, 69.2 per cent; Congregationalist, 7.6 per cent, Baptists, 5.2 per cent; Methodists, 4.2 per cent; Protestant Episcopalians, 3.3 per cent.

29 B. Economic Conditions

30 Massachusetts was not favoured by nature for an agricultural centre. The soil is sandy in the level areas and clayey in the hill sections. The valleys of the streams are rich in soil favourable to vegetable- and fruit-production. The early industries were cod and mackerel fisheries. At the outbreak of the Revolutiion, commerce was the most profitable occupation, and after the declaration of peace, Massachusetts sent its ships to all parts of the world. The European wars helped this commerce greatly until the War of 1812, with its embargo and non-intercourse laws, which forced the American vessels to stay at home. It had its recompense however, in the birth of manufactures, an industry attempted as early as 1631 and 1644 but subsequently suppressed by the mother country. The first cotton mill was established at Beverly in 1787. It was not until 1840, however, that the cotton and leather industries attained permanent leadership. According to the published statistics of 1908, Massachusetts had 6044 manufacturing establishments, with a yearly product valued at $1,172,808,782. The boot and shoe industry was the leading industry of the State, with a yearly production of $213,506,562. This industry produced 18.2 per cent of the product value of the State, and one-half of all the product in this line in the United States. The cotton manufactures were 13.51 per cent of the State's total product. The total capital devoted to production in the state was $717,787,955. More than 480,000 wage-earners were employed (323,308 males; 156,826 females) in the various manufacturing industries of the State, the two leading industries employing 35.22 per cent of the aggregate average number of all employees. The average yearly earning for each operative is $501.71. The Massachusetts laws prohibit more than fifty-eight hours weekly employment in mercantile establishments, and limit the day's labour to ten hours. No woman or minor can be employed for purposes of manufacturing between the hours of ten o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m.; no minor under eighteen years and no woman can be employed in any textile factory between six o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m.; no child under fourteen years of age can be employed during the hours when the public schools are in session, nor between seven o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m. Children under fourteen years, and children over fourteen years and under sixteen years, who cannot read at sight and write legible simple sentences in the English language, shall be permitted to work on Saturdays between six o'clock a.m. and seven o'clock p.m. only. Transportation facilities have kept pace with the growth of the industries. Two main railroad systems connect with the West, and, by means of the interstate branches, these connect with all the leading industrial cities. One general railroad system with its subdivisions connects witht he South, via New York. The means of transportation by water are no less complete thant hose by rail, and offer every facility to bring coal and other supplies of the world into connection with the various railroad terminals for distribution.

31 C. Education

32 All education in Massachusetts was at first religious. We read of the establishment in 1636 of Harvard College, "lest an illiterate ministry might be left to the churches," and "to provide for the instruction of the people in piety, morality, and learning." The union of Church and State was accepted, and the General Court agreed to give 400 pounds towards the establishment of the college. Six years later it was resolved, "taking into consideration the great neglect of many parents and guardians in training up their children in learning and labor and other employment which may be profitable to the Commonwealth . . . that chosen men in every town are to redress this evil, are to have power to take account of parents, masters, and of their children, especially of their ability to read and understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of the country." This was the origin of compulsory education in Massacusetts. In 1647 every town was ordered, under penalty of a fine, to build and support a school for the double purpose of religious instruction and of citizenship; every large town of one hundred families to build a grammar school to fit the youths for the university. Thus was established the common free school. The union of Church and State was as pronounced in education as in civic affairs. When the grants from the legislature—colonial, provincial, and state—failed to meet the expenses of salaries and maintenance, lotteries were employed. The last grant to Harvard College from the public treasury was in 1814. Congregationalism had controlled education and legislation, and the corporation of Harvard College was limited to state officials and a specified number of Congregational clergymen. It was not until 1843 that other than Congregationalists were eligible for election as overseers of the college.

33 The original system of state education, as outlined above, was uninterrupted until the close of the Revolution. The burdens of the war, with its poverty and taxation, reduced the "grammar school" to a very low standard. Men of ability found a more lucrative occupation than teaching. Private schools sprang into existence about this time, and the legacies of Dummer, Philips, Williston, and others made their foundations the prparatory schools for Harvard. In 1789 the legislature passed an act substituting six months for the constant instruction provided for towns of fifty families; and the law required a grammar-teacher of determined qualifications for towns of 200 families, instead of the similar requirements for all towns of half that population. In 1797 the Legislature formally adopted all the incorporated academies as public state schools, and thus denominational education almost entirely replaced the grammar schools founded in 1647. The act of 1789 was repealed in 1824. This aided greatly the private denominational schools and gave to them a false and fictious social, intellectual, and moral standing. The American Institute of Instruction was formed in 1830 at Boston as a protest against the low standard of teaching in the public schools. Three years prior to this (1827) the Legislature had established the State Board of Education, which remained unchanged in form until 1909. That same year was made historic by the Legislature voting to make it unlawful to use the common schools, or to teach anything in the schools, in order to turn the children to a belief in any particular sect. This was the first show of strength Unitarianism had manifestd in Massachusetts, and it had retained its control of the educational policy of the state since that date. In 1835 the civil authorities at Lowell authorized the establishment of separate Catholic schools with Catholic teachers and with all textbooks subject to the pastor's approval. The municipality paid all the expenses except the rent of rooms. This experiment was a great success. The general wave of religious fanaticism, which swept the country a few years later, was responsible for the acceptance of the referendum vote of 21, May, 1855, which adopted the constitutional amendment that "all moneys thus raised by taxation in town, or appropriated by the state, shall never be appropriated to any religious sect for the maintenance exclusively of its own schools." The Civil War resulted in a saner view of many questions which had ben blurred by by passion and prejudice, and in 1862 (and again in 1880) the statute law was modiefied so that "Bible reading is required, but without written note or oral comment; a pupil is exempt from taking part in any such exercise if his parent or guardian so wishes; any version is allowed, and no committee may purchase or order to be used in any public school books calculated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians." This, in brief, is the process by which the secularization of the public schools came about, a complete repudiation of the law of 1642.

34 Massachusetts has ten state normal schools with over 2000 pupils and a corps of 130 teachers. In the 17,566 public schools there are 524,319 pupils with an average attendance of 92 per cent. The proportion of teachers is 1281 male and 13, 497 female. The total support of the public schools amounts annually to $14, 697,774. There are forty-two academies with an enrolment of over 6000 pupils, and 344 private schools with a registration of 91,772. The local annual tax for school support per chhild between the ages of five to fifteen years is $26. The total valuation of all schools fifteen years is $26. The total valuation of all schools in Massachusetts is $3, 512, 557,604. There are within the state eighteen colleges or universities, six of them devoted to the education of women only. Massachusetts has also eight schools of theology, three law schools, four medical schools, two dental schools, one school of pharmacy, and three textile schools. The only colleges in Massachusetts (except textile schools) receiving state or deferal subsidies are the State Agricultural Colleges and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the latter receiving both. The number of public libraries in Massachusetts exceeds that of any other state. The list includes 2586 libraries with 10,810,974 volumes valued at $12,657,757. There are 623 reading rooms, of which 301 are free. There are thirty schools for the dependent and the afflicted.

35 The growth of the Catholic schools has been notable. Besides Holy Cross College at Worcester, and Boston College at Boston, there are in the Diocese of Boston seventy-nine grammar schools and twenty-six high schools with a teaching staff of 1075 persons and an enrolment of 52,143. This represents an investment of more than $2,700.000, a yearly interest of $135,000. More than a third of the parishes in this diocese now maintain parochial schools. In the Diocese of Fall River there are over 12,000 pupils in 28 parochial schools, besides a commercial school with 363 pupils. In the Diocese of Springfield there are 24, 562 pupils in 56 parochial schools.

36 D. Laws affecting Religion and Morals

37 Elsewhere in this article we have traced colonial laws and legislation. The Constitution of the United States gave religious liberty. The State Constitution of 1780 imposed a religious test as a qualification for office and it authorized the legislature to tax the towns, if necessary "for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religiion, and morality." The former law was repealed in 1821, and the latter in 1833. Complete religious equality has existed since the latter date. The observance of the Lord's Day is amply safeguarded, but entertainments for charitable purposes given by charitable or religious societies are permitted. The keeping of open shop or engaging in work or business not for charitable purposes is forbidden. Many of the rigid laws of colonial days are yet unrepealed. There is no law authorizing the use of prayer in the Legislature; custom, however, has made it a rule to open each session with prayer. This same custom has become the rule in opening the several sittings of the higher courts. Catholic priests have officiated at times at the former. The present Archbishop of Boston offered prayer at the opening of at least one term of the Superior Court, being the first Catholic to perform this office. The courts and the judiciary have full power to administer oaths.

38 The legal holidays in Massachusetts are 22 February, 19 April (Patriot's Day), 30 May, 4 July, the first Monday in September (Labor Day), 12 Oct. (Columbus Day), Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The list does not include Good Friday. The seal of confession is not recognized by law, although in practice sacramental confession is generally treated as a privileged conversation. Incorporation of churches and of charitable institutions is authorized by statute. Such organizations may make their own laws and elect their own officers. Every religious society so organized shall constitute a body corporate with the powers given to corporations, body corporate with the powers given to corporations. Section 44, chapter 36, of the Public Statutes provide that the Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop, the vicar-general of the diocese, and the pastor of the church for the time being, or a majority of these, may associate with themselves two laymen, communications of the church, may form a body corporate, the signers of the certificate of incorporation becoming the trustees. Such corporation may receive, hold, and manage all real and personal property belonging to the church, sell, transfer, hold trusts, bequests, etc., but all property belonging to any church or parish, or held by such a corporation, shall never exceed one hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of church buildings. All church property and houses of religious worship (except that part of such houses appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or instruction) are exempt from taxation. This exemption extends to the property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific institutions and temperance societies; also to legacies, cemeteries, and tombs. Clergymen are exempt from service as constables, from jury service, and service in the militia. Clergymen are permitted by law to have access to prisoners after death sentence, and are among those designated as "officials" who may be present at executions. The statutes prohibit marriage between relatives, and recognize marriage by civil authorities and by rabbis. The statutory grounds for divorce recognized are adulter, impotency, desertion continued for three consecutive years, confirmed habits of intoxication by liquor, opium, or drugs, cruel and abusive treatment; also if either party is sentenced for life to hard labour, or five or more years in state prison, jail, or house of correction. The Superior Court hears all divorce libels. After a decree of divorce has become absolute, either party may marry again as if the other were dead; except that the party from whom the decree was granted shall not marry within two years. The sale of intoxicating liquors is regulated by law. Each community, city or town votes annually upon the question, whether or not licence to sell liquor shall be issued in that municipality. Special boards are appointed to regulate the conditions of such licences. The number of licences that may be granted in each town or city is limited to one to each thousand persons, though Boston has a limitation of one license to five hundred of the population. The hours of opening and closing bars are regulated by law. Any person owning property can object to the granting of a licence to sell intoxicating liquors within twenty-five feet of his property. A licence cannot be granted to sell intoxicating liquors on the same street as or within four hundred feet of a public school.

39 E. Religious Libery

40 In the beginning Massachusetts was Puritan against the Catholic first, against all non-conformists to their version of established religion next. The Puritan was narrow in mind and for the most part limited in education, a type of man swayed easily to extremes. England was at that period intensely anti-papal. In Massachusetts, however, the antipathy early became racial: first against the French Catholic, later against the Irish Catholic. This racial religious bigotry has not disappeared wholly in Massachusetts. Within the pale of the Church racial schisms have been instigated from time to time in order that the defeat of Catholicism might be accomplished when open antagonism from without failed to accomplish the end sought. In politics it is often the effective shibboleth. Congregationalism soon took form in the colony and as early as 1631 all except Puritans were excluded by law from the freedom of the body politic. In 1647 the law became more specific and excluded priests from the colony. This act was reaffirmed in 1770. Bowdoin College preserves the cross and Harvard College the "Indian Dictionary" of Sebastian Rasle, the priest executed under the provision of the law. In 1746 a resolution and meeting at Faneuil Hall bear testimony that Catholics must prove, as well as affirm, their loyalty to the colony. Washington himself was called upon to suppress the insult of Pope Day at the siege of Boston. Each of these events was preceded by a wave of either French or Irish immigration, a circumstance which was repeated in the religious fanaticism of the middle of the nineteenth centruy. Cause and effect seem well established and too constant to be incidental. In all the various anti-Catholic uprisings, from colonial times to the present, there is not one instance where the Catholics were the aggressors by word or deed: their patience and forbearance have always been in marked contrast to the conduct of their non-Catholic contemporaries. In every one of the North Atlantic group of states, the Catholics now constitute the most numerous religiious denomination. In Massachusetts the number of the leading denominations is as follows: Catholics 1,373,752; Congregationalists 119,196; Baptists 80,894; Methodists, 6,498; Protestant Episcopalians 51,636, Presbyterians 8559.

41 F. Catholic Progress

42 Throughout the account of the doings among the colonists, there are references to the coming, short stay, and departure of some Irish priest or French Jesuit. In the newspaper account of the departure of the French from Boston, in 1782, it is related that the clergy and the selectmen paraded through the streets preceded by a cross-bearer. It was some fifty years later that the prosperity and activity of the Church aroused political demagoguery and religious bigotry. Massachusetts, as well as new York and Philadelphia, experienced the storm: a convent was burned, churches were threatened, monuments to revered heroes of the Church were razed, and cemeteries descrated. The consoling memory, however, of this period, is that Massachusetts furnished the Otises, the Lees, the Perkinses, Everetts, and Lorings—all non-Catholics—whose voices and pens were enlisted heartily in the cause of justice, toleration, and unity.

43 In 1843, Rhode Island and Connecticut were set off from the original Diocese of Boston. Maine and New Hampshire, also under the jurisdiction of Boston, were made a new diocese ten years later, with the episcopal see at Portland. This was the period of the great Irish immigration, and Boston received a large quota. This new influx was, as in the previous century, looked upon as an intrusion and the usual result followed. New England had now become what Lowell was pleased to call "New Ireland". This religious and racial transformation, made the necessity for churches, academics, schools, asylums, priests, and teachers an imperative one. The work of expansion, both material and spiritual went forward apace. The great influx of Canadian Catholics added much to the Catholic population, which had now reached more than a million—souls over sixty-nine percent of the total religious population of the state. The era was not without its religious strife, this time within public and charitable institutions, state and municipal. This chapter reads like those efforts of proselytizing in the colonial days when names of Catholic children were changed, paternity denied, maternity falsified—all in the hope of destroying the true religiious inheritance of the state wards. The influence of Catholics in the governing of institutions, libraries, and schools has since then increased somewhat. The spiritual necessities of the vast Catholic communities are provided for abundantly; orphans are well housed; unfortunates securely protected; the poor greatly succoured; and the sick have the sacraments at their very door. Schools, academies, colleges, and convents, wherein Catholic education is given, are now within the reach of all. The whole period of Archbishop William's administration (1866-1907) has been appropriately called "the brick and mortar age of the Catholic Church in New England." (See ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON.)

44 Upon the death of Archbiship Williams, in the summer of 1907, his coadjutor, the Most Reverend William H. O'Connell, D.D. (the present archbiship), was promoted to the metropolitan see. This archbiship invited the National Convention of the federation of Catholic Societies to meet in Boston with resulting interest, activity, and strength to that society, in which, indeed, he has shown a special interest. To develop the solidarity of priests and people, of races and nations, of the cultured and the unlettered—a unity of all the interests of the Church, the archbiship needed a free press: he purchased "The Pilot", secured able and fearless writers and placed it at a nominal cost within the reach of all. The dangers to the immigrant in a new and fascination enviroment are all anticipated, and safeguards are being strengthened daily. At the same time, the inherited misunderstanding of Puritan Massachusetts, and the evil machinations of those who would use religion and charity for selfish motives or aggrandizement are still active. The Catholic mind is aroused, however, and the battle for truth is being waged; Catholic Massachusetts moves forward, all under one banner—French Canadian, Italian, Pole, German, Portuguese, Greek, Scandinavian, and Irish—each vying with the other for an opportunity to prove his loyalty to the Church, to its priests, and to their spiritual leader. In every diocese and in each county well-organized branches of the Federation, exist, temperance and church societies flourish, educational and charitable associations are alive and active. The Church's ablest laymen are enlisted, and all are helping mightily to accomplish the avowed intention of the Archbishop of Boston, to make Massachusetts the leading Catholic state in the country. (See also CHEVERUS, JEAN LOUIS DE; FALL RIVER, DIOCESE OF; SPRINGFIELD, DIOCESE OF.)

45 AUSTIN, History of Massachusetts (Boston, 1876); BANCROFT, History of the United States, I (London, 1883-84); BARRY, History of New England, I (Boston, 1855); Boston Town Records (Boston, 1772); BRADFORD, History of Plymouth Plantation; DAVIS, The New England States, III (Boston, 1897); DRAKE, The Making of New England, 1584-1643 (New York), 1886); DWIGHT, Travels in New England, I (New Haven, 1821), 22; EMERSON, Education in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical Collection (Boston, 1869); HALE, Review of the Proceedings of the Nunnery Committee (Boston, 1855); HARRINGTON, History of Harvard Medical School, III (New York, 1905); Irish Historical Proceedings, II (Boston, 1899); LEARY, History of the Catholic Church in New England States, I (Boston, 1899); Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 1st ser., V. (Boston, 1788); Proceedings, 2d ser., III (Boston, 1810) McGee, The Irish Settlers in America (Boston, 1851); PARKER, The First Charter and the Early Religious Legislation of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical Collection (1869); WALSH, The Early Irish Catholic Schools of Lowell, Mass.,1835-1865 (Boston, 1901); IDEM, Am. Cath. Q. Rev. (January, 1904).

46 Thomas F. Harrington

Guglielmo Massaia

19 A Cardinal, born 9 June, 1809, at Piova in Piedmont, Italy; died at Cremona, 6 August, 1889. His baptismal name was Lorenzo; that of Guglielmo was given him when he became a religious. He was first educated at the Collegio Reale at Asti under the care of his elder brother Guglielmo, a canon and precentor of the cathedral of that city. On the death of his brother he passed as a student to the diocesan seminary; but at the age of sixteen entered the Capuchin Franciscan Order, receiving the habit on 25 September, 1825. Immediately after his ordination to the priesthood, he was appointed lector of theology; but even whilst teaching he acquired some fame as a preacher and was chosen confessor to Prince Victor Emmanuel, afterwards King of Italy, and Ferdinand, Duke of Genoa. The royal family of Piedmont would have nominated him on several occasions to an episcopal see, but he strenuously opposed their project, being desirous of joining the foreign missions of his order. He obtained his wish in 1846. That year the Congregation of Propaganda, at the instance of the traveller Antoine d'Abbadie, determined to establish a Vicariate-Apostolic for the Gallas in Abyssinia. The mission was confided to the Capuchins, and Massaia was appointed first vicar-apostolic, and was consecrated in Rome on 24 May of that year. On his arrival in Abyssinia he found the country in a state of religious agitation. The heretical Coptic bishop, Cyril, was dead and there was a movement amongst the Copts towards union with Rome. Massaia, who had received plenary faculties from the pope, ordained a number of native priests for the Coptic Rite; he also obtained the appointment by the Holy See of a vicar-apostolic for the Copts, and himself consecrated the missionary Giustino de Jacobis to this office. But this act aroused the enmity of the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt, who sent a bishop of his own, Abba Salama, to Abyssinia. As a result of the ensuing political agitation, Massaia was banished from the country and had to flee under an assumed name. In 1850 he visited Europe to gain a fresh band of missionaries and means to develop his work: he had interviews with the French Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris, and with Lord Palmerston in London. On his return to the Gallas he founded a large number of missions; he also established a school at Marseilles for the education of Galla boys whom he had freed from slavery; besides this he composed a grammar of the Galla language which was published at Marseilles in 1867. During his thirty-five years as a missionary he was exiled seven times, but he always returned to his labours with renewed vigour. However, in 1880 he was compelled by ill-health to resign his mission. In recognition of his merit, Leo XIII raised him to the titular Archbishopric of Stauropolis, and on 10 November, 1884, to the dignity of cardinal of the title of S. Vitalis. At the command of the pope he wrote an account of his missionary labours, under the title, "I miei trentacinque anni di missione nell' alta Etiopia", the first volume of which was published simultaneously at Rome and Milan in 1883, and the last in 1895. In this work he deals not only with the progress of the mission, but with the political and economic conditions of Abyssinia as he knew them.

20 MASSAIA, I miei trentacinque anni etc.; Analecta Ordinis FF. Min. Capp., V, 291 seq.

21 Father Cuthbert.

Diocese of Massa Marittima

22 (Massana)

23 Massa Marittima, in the Province of Grosseto, in Tuscany, first mentioned in the eighth century. It grew at the expense of Populonia, an ancient city of the Etruscans, the principal port of that people, and important on account of its iron, tin, and copper works. Populonia was besieged by Sulla, and in Strabo's time was already decadent; later it suffered at the hands of Totila, of the Lombards, and in 817 of a Byzantine fleet. After this, the bishops of Populonia abandoned the town, and in the eleventh century, established their residence at Massa. In 1226 Massa became a commune under the protection of Pisa. In 1307 it made an alliance with Siena, which was the cause of many wars between the two republics that brought about the decadence of Massa. The town has a fine cathedral. The first known Bishop of Populonia was Atellus (about 495); another was Saint Cerbonius (546), protector of the city, to whom Saint Gregory refers in his Dialogues. Among the bishops of Massa were the friar Antonio (1430), a former general of the Franciscans, and legate of Boniface IX; Leonardo Dati (1467), author of poetic satires; Alessandro Petrucci (1601), who embellished the cathedral and the episcopal palace; the Camaldolese Eusebio da Ciani (1719), who governed the diocese for fifty-one years. This see was at first suffragan of Pisa, but since 1458 of Siena. It has 29 parishes, 68,200 inhabitants, one religious house of men and four of women.

24 CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVII (Venice, 1862).

25 U. Benigni.

Enemond Massé

25 One of the first Jesuits sent to New France; born at Lyons, 1574; died at Sillery, l2 May, 1646. He went to Acadia with Father Biard, and when it was found impossible to effect any good there, they established a new mission at the present Bar Harbor, Maine, which was soon after destroyed by the English — Massé being set adrift on the sea in an open boat. He succeeded in reaching a French ship and returned to France. In 1625 he again set sail for Canada, and remained there until the fall of Quebec. He returned a third time in 1632, but, as he was in advanced in age, he no longer laboured among the savages, but lived mostly at Sillery, which he built as a reservation for the converted Indians. A monument has recently been erected to his honour at this place on the site of the old Jesuit Church which stood on the bank of the St. Lawrence a short distance above Quebec.

26 T.J. Campbell

Bequests for Masses (Canada)

28 The law governing bequests, being concerned with "property and civil rights", falls within the legislative competency of the provincial legislatures, not of the Dominion Parliament. The basic law in all the provinces is, however, not the same. Any question concerning bequests is, therefore, one of provincial, not Dominion law. There is no statute enacted by any of the legislatures specially affecting bequests for Masses.

29 Quebec

30 In this province there is no question of the validity of such bequests. The basic law is the French law as in force in the province at the time of the cession (1759-63). Whether such bequests were or are valid under English statutory or Common Law, is immaterial. Under article 869 of the Civil Code a testator may make bequests for charitable or other lawful purposes. The freedom of the practice of the Catholic religion being not only recognized but guaranteed, as well under the Treaty of Cession (1763) as under the terms of the Quebec Act (1774), and subsequent Provincial Legislation (14 & 15 Vic., Can., c. 175) having confirmed that freedom, a bequest for the saying of Masses is clearly for a lawful purpose.

31 Ontario

32 In this province the law of England, as in force on 15 October, 1792, introduced "so far as it was not from local circumstances inapplicable", under powers conferred by the statute of 1791, which divided the old Province of Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada, is the basic law. That Act preserved to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada the rights as regards their religion secured to them under the Act of 1774. The provincial legislation cited as regards Quebec being enacted after the reunion of Upper and Lower Canada, was also law in this province. The validity of bequests for the saying of Masses was upheld in the case of Elmsley and Madden (18 Grant Chan. R. 386). The court held that the English law, as far as under it such dispositions may have been invalid, was inapplicable under the circumstances of the province, wherein the Catholic religion was tolerated. This case has been accepted as settling the law.

33 British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan

34 In British Columbia the civil law of England, as it existed on 19 November, 1858, and in the three other of these provinces, that law as it existed on 15 July, 1870, "so far as not from local circumstances inapplicable", is the basic law. The Ontario judgment above cited is in practice accepted as settling the question under consideration.

35 In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island

36 Though there is no statutory enactment making the English law applicable, it has, since the acquisition of Acadia by Great Britain, been recognized as being in force. In these provinces, however, that law in so far as it may treat as void dispositions for the purpose in question as being for superstitious uses, has always been treated as inapplicable. The validity of such bequests was maintained in an elaborate judgment of Hodgins, Master of the Rolls, in an unreported case of Gillis and Gillis in Prince Edward Island in 1894.

37 Chas J. Doherty.

Bequests for Masses (England)

31 Before the Reformation dispositions of property, whether real or personal, for the purposes of Masses, were valid, unless where, in the case of real property, they might happen to conflict with the Mortmain laws by being made to religious congregations. There was a tenure of land known as tenure by divine service, an incident of which was the saying of Masses and of prayers for the dead. The Statute of Westminster, 31 Edward III, c. 11, contained a provision that the administrators of an intestate should be able to recover by action debts due to the intestate and that they should administer and dispense for the soul of the dead. The wills of various great people who lived in those ages contain bequests for Masses. Henry VII left £250 for 10,000 Masses to be said for his and other souls. The will of Henry VIII, made on 30 December, 1546, contains a provision for an altar over his tomb in St. George's Chapel in Windsor where daily Mass shall be said "as long as the world shall indure", and it sets out a grant to the dean and canons of the chapel of lands to the value of £600 a year for ever to find two priests to say Mass and to keep four obits yearly and to give alms for the King's soul: and it contains other provisions for requiem masses and prayers for his soul. But in A. D. 1531, by the statute 23 Henry VIII, c. 10, all subsequent assurances or dispositions of land to the use of a perpetual obit (i. e. a service for the dead to be celebrated at certain fixed periods) or the continual service of a priest were to be void if the use was to extend over more than twenty years, but if the use was limited to that or a less period the dispositions were to be valid. That even private Masses, were at that time approved by the state is shown by the six articles passed in A. D. 1539 (32 Henry VIII, c. 14), which constituted the denial of their expediency a felony. Henry VIII died 28 January A. D. 1547. The change of religion became much more marked in the following reign, and the government fostered the establishment in England of the Protestant doctrines which had begun to spread on the continent. In the same year the Six Articles were repealed and the Statute of Chauntries (1 Edward VI, c. 14) was passed from which the invalidity of bequests for requiem Masses has been deduced. The preamble to the statute recites that "a great part of the superstition and errors in the Christian religion hath been brought into the minds and estimation of men by reason of the ignorance of their very true and perfect salvation through the death of Jesus Christ and by devising and phantasying vain opinions of purgatory and masses satisfactory to be done for them which be departed, the which doctrine and vain opinion by nothing more is maintained and upholden than by the abuse of trentals, chauntries and other provisions made for the continuance of the said blindness and ignorance." The statute, after further reciting that the property given to such uses ought to be devoted to the founding of schools and other good purposes, enacted that property given to such uses, which had been so used within the preceding five years, should be given to the king. The statute only applied to past dispositions of property and it did not declare the general illegality of bequests for requiem Masses, nor has any other statute ever so declared (Cary v. Abbot, 1802, 7 Ves. 495). Nevertheless, the establishment of that principle has been deduced from it (West v. Shuttleworth, 1835, 2 M. & K. 679; Heath v. Chapman, 1854, 2 Drew 423).

32 The statute was not repealed under Mary, and by 1 Eliz., c. 24, all property devoted to such uses in Mary's reign was given to the crown. There is a series of cases on the question decided under Elizabeth, notably that of Adams v. Lambert, decided in 1602, in the report of which the other cases are cited. Some of these decisions are slightly conflicting, but the main points to be drawn from the series are, first, that uses for Masses or prayers for the dead were held to be superstitions and unlawful, but, second, that the question of their unlawfulness was considered according as they came within the provisions of the Statute 1 Edward VI, c. 14. In that and the following century the Catholic religion was proscribed and any devise or bequest for the promotion of it was illegal and, as regarded the purpose thereof, void (Re Lady Portington 1692, 1 Salk 162). In the report of that case, as also in other later cases, the terms "superstitious" and "unlawful" appear to be applied indifferently to purposes for the maintenance of the Catholic religion. But dispositions for Catholic poor or Catholic schools or other Catholic purposes which might come under the general construction of "charity", passed to the crown to be devoted to other lawful charitable purposes (Cary v. Abbot above). In 1829 the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed, which contained, however, in some of its sections still unrepealed, certain penal provisions against members of religious orders of men by reason of which the status of these orders in the United Kingdom is illegal. In 1832 the Roman Catholic Charities Act (2 and 3 William IV, c. 115) was passed. By it Catholics were, as regards their charitable purposes, put in the same position as that of Protestant dissenters. Therefore now, seemingly, a bequest for the celebration of Masses with no intention for souls departed would be valid, and, moreover, it would constitute a good charitable bequest, and so, it would be valid though made in perpetuity (Re Michel's Trusts, 1860, 28 Beav. 42). But it has been held that the act has not validated bequests for requiem Masses, that the law still regards them as "superstitious" (West v. Shuttleworth above), that they do not constitute charitable bequests and that, accordingly, the property given under them passes to the person otherwise entitled (Heath v. Chapman above).

33 This is the position of the law today with the exception made by the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1860, which provides that no lawful devise or bequest to any Catholic or Catholic Charity is to be invalidated because the estate devised or bequeathed is, also, subject to any trust deemed to be superstitious or prohibited through being to religious orders of men, but such latter trust may be apportioned by the Court or the Charity Commissioners to some other lawful Catholic charitable trust. Thus, a trust for requiem Masses is as such invalid, and where no question of apportionment can arise, for instance, where there is a specific legacy of money for the purpose only of such Masses, the estate which is subject to the trust does not pass to any charity but to the person otherwise entitled to it (Re Fleetwood, Sidgreaves v. Brewer, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 609). Also, a legacy for requiem Masses is invalid even though the legacy be payable in a country where it would be legally valid (Re Elliot, 1891, 39 W. R. 297). The grounds on which this position of the law is based appear rather unsatisfactory. Admittedly, there is no direct statutory illegality. In the case of Heath v. Chapman (above) Kindersley V. C. stated that the Statute I Edward VI, c. 14, assumed that trusts for Masses were already illegal - that they were in fact so - and that the statute has stamped on all such trusts, whether made before or since it, the character of illegality on the ground of being superstitious. Seeing that the statute was passed in the year of the death of Henry VIII, within eight years of the passing of the Six Articles, and that during that time there had been no statutory abolition of the Mass or condemnation of the doctrine of purgatory, it is not easy to discern how the legal invalidity of such bequests had already become established. In West v. Shuttleworth (above), which is the leading case on the subject, Pepys M. R. stated that it was by analogy to the statute that the illegality of these bequests had become established. This would seem to mean that their illegality was based upon the general policy of the law and upon principles resulting from such a change in the national system as must have arisen in that age from the complete change in the national church. In that case, since the policy applied to the whole realm including Ireland, where Protestantism became the established church and an even more vigorous anti-Catholic policy was pursued by the legislature, one would expect to find the illegality of bequests for Masses established in Ireland also, though the statute itself did not apply to Ireland. Thus, in the case of the Attorney-General v. Power, 1809 (1 B. & Ben. 150) Lord Manners, Irish Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment with regard to a bequest to a school by a Catholic testator, stated that he would not act upon the presumption that it was for the endowment of a Catholic school, and that such a bequest would by the law of England be deemed void either as being contrary to the provisions of the statute of Edward VI or as being against public policy. Yet the same Lord Chancellor, in the case of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. Walsh, 1823, 7 Ir. Eq. 32, after a prolonged argument before him, held a bequest for requiem Masses to be good.

34 The ground of public policy in respect of this question seems no longer to hold good. There is no longer any public policy against Catholicism as such. As mentioned above, seemingly, a bequest for the mere celebration of Masses with no intention for souls departed would be valid. Moreover, seemingly, a bequest for the propagation of the doctrine of purgatory would be a good charitable bequest (Thornton v. Howe, 1862, 31 Beav. 19). Thus, since the Roman Catholic Charities Act 1832, putting Catholics as regards "their . . . charitable purposes" in the same position as other persons, the holding a bequest for Masses for the dead to be invalid appears necessarily to imply that the bequest is not to a charitable purpose and thereby to involve the inconsistency that it is not a "charity" to practise by the exercise of a "charity" the doctrine which it is a "charity" to propagate. Yet this is so even though, by the bequest being for Masses to be said for the departed generally, there is evidence of an intention on the part of the testator of promoting more than his own individual welfare. Thus, apparently, the real basis of the legal view of these bequests is that the law may not recognize the purpose of a spiritual benefit to one's fellow-creatures in an after existence intended by a person believing in the possibility of such a benefit. But such an attitude, apart from the inconsistency mentioned, seems to be opposed to the present policy of the law with regard to religious opinions, especially when the act of worship directed by the bequest, when viewed apart from the particular believed effect, is approved by the law as a charity. Doubt as to the soundness of the present law on the subject was expressed by Romilly M. R. in the case Re Michels Trusts (above), where he upheld a bequest for a Jewish prayer to be recited on the testator's anniversary in perpetuity, there being no evidence that the prayer was to be recited for the benefit of the testator's soul, and in the case re Blundell's Trusts, 1861 (30 Beav. 362), where he considered himself compelled, in compliance with the judgment in West v. Shuttleworth (above), to disallow a bequest by a Catholic testator for requiem Masses, stating that the law declaring such bequests to be invalid had now become so established that only a judgment of the House of Lords could alter it. It would be desirable that the decision of that tribunal should be obtained on this question.

35 In Ireland bequests for requiem Masses have long been regarded as valid, and, by a recent decision given upon exhaustive consideration of the question by the Irish Court of Appeal, the law is settled that such bequests, even when the Masses are to be said in private, constitute good charitable gifts and so may be made in perpetuity (O'Hanlon v. Logue, 1906, 1 Ir. 247). But in Ireland, also, religious orders of men are illegal and any bequest for Masses to such an order which is to go to the benefit of the order is illegal and void (Burke v. Power, 1905, 1 Ir. 123). But such a bequest was allowed in one recent case, and in cases where the bequest for Masses contains no indication that the money is to go to the order itself the Court will allow the bequest (Bradshaw v. Jackman, 1887, 21 L. R. Ir. 15). The decisions show a strong general tendency to seek any means of escaping those penal provisions of the Catholic Relief Act, 1829, which, though never actively enforced, still remain on the statute book. This statutory illegality of any bequest to a religious order of men to go to the benefit of the order applies, of course, equally to England and to Scotland, where these provisions against religious orders are also law, but there does not appear to be any report of any decision on the point in either of these countries.

36 In Scotland the position seems, otherwise, to be as follows: though, in the centuries succeeding the Reformation the public policy was distinctly anti-Catholic and there was legislation (like the anti-Popery Act passed in 1700, which, amongst other provisions, penalized the hearing of Mass) directed against the Catholic religion, yet there seems to have been no Statute which has given rise to the question of "superstition" on the special point of gifts for prayers for the dead. By an Act passed in 1793 Catholics in Scotland, who had made a declaration now no longer required, were put upon the same footing as other persons. The Catholic Charities Act, 1832, applied also to Scotland. The term "charity" is even rather more widely interpreted in Scottish law than in English law. Thus, in Scotland through the repeal of the legislation against Catholics and the legalization of bequests to their charitable purposes, legacies for requiem Masses seem to pass unquestioned. There is little doubt that, if they were to be challenged, the Courts would uphold them. In a recent case where there was a bequest for the celebration of Mass in perpetuity (there was no mention of any intention for the dead) the validity of the bequest was not in any way called in question (Marquess of Bute's Trustees v. Marquess of Bute, 1904, 7 F. 42). The law as to superstitious uses prevailing in England is not taken to be imported into the laws of British colonies or possessions (Yeap v. Ong, 1875, L. R. 6 C. P. 396). In Australia, though by an Act of the British Parliament passed in 1828, all the laws and statutes in force in England at that date were, as far as possible, to be applied to the administration of justice in the Courts of the new Australasian Colonies, the law as to superstitious uses has been held by the Supreme Court of Victoria not to apply there (In the Will of Purcell, 1895, 21, V. L. R. 249). This decision was followed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1907 (Re Hartnett, 7 S. R. 463). There is little doubt that the law which these cases declare would be followed in all other Australian Colonies and in New Zealand. In India bequests for requiem Masses are valid (Das Merces v. Cones, 1864, 2 Hyde 65; Judah v. Judah, 1870, 2 B. L. R. 433).

37 COKE on Littleton 96 (b); NICHOL, Wills of the Kings and Queens of England and of members of the Blood Royal from William the Conqueror to Henry VII (London, 1780); Will of King Henry the Eighth from an authentic copy in the Hands of an Attorney (London, 1793); DUKE on the Law of Charitable Uses, edited by BRIDGMAN (London, 1805).

38 R. S. Nolan.

Devises and Bequests for Masses (United States)

34 Prior to the period of the Reformation in England in 1532, Masses for the repose of the souls of the donors of property given for that purpose were upheld in England, but during that year a statute was passed providing that thereafter all uses declared of land, except leaseholds of twenty years, to the intent to have perpetual or the continued service of a priest, or other like uses, should be void. In the reign of Edward VI (1547), another statute was passed declaring the king entitled to all real and certain specified personal property theretofore disposed of for the perpetual finding of a priest or maintenance of any anniversary or obit, or other like thing, or any light or lamp at any church or chapel. These statutes did not make disposition of personal property to such uses void, and the statute of Henry VIII was prospective and applied only to assurances of land to churches and chapels, and that of Edward VI was limited to dispositions of property, real and personal, theretofore made. But the English chancellors and the English judges, in the absence of any express statute, determined all dispositions of property, whether real or personal, given or devised for uses specified in the two statutes, to be absolutely void as contrary to public policy, being for superstitious uses. The decision covered legacies such as to priests to pray for the soul of the donor or for the bringing up of poor children in the Roman Catholic faith.

35 It has been expressly decided that these statutes and the doctrine of superstitious uses as enunciated by the English judges do not apply in the United States, although the first colonies from which the States grew were established subsequently to the dates of the adoption of the statutes referred to, and this, notwithstanding the fact that in some of the states statutes were passed adopting the common law and statutes of England so far as the same might be applicable to the altered condition of the settlers in the colonies. It has been pointed out that it is a maxim of law in the United States that a man may do what he will with his own, so long as he does not violate the law by so doing or devote his property to an immoral purpose; consequently, since there is a legal equality of sects and all are thus in the eyes of the law equally orthodox, to discriminate between what is a pious and what a superstitious use would be to infringe upon the constitutional guarantee of perfect freedom and equality of all religions (see opinion of Tuley, J., in the case o Kehoe v. Kehoe, reported as a note to Gilman v. McArdle, 12 Abb. N. C., 427 New York). In none of the states of the Union, therefore, are bequests or devises of property for Masses for the dead invalid on the ground of being superstitious, but there is a diversity among the decisions as to the circumstances under which such bequests or devises will be sustained.

36 In New York the law of England on the subject of charitable and religious trusts has been completely abrogated by statute, it being intended that there should be no system of public charities in that state except through the medium of corporate bodies. The policy has been to enact from time to time general and special laws specifying and sanctioning the particular object to be promoted, restricting the amount of property to be enjoyed, carefully keeping the subject under legislative control, and always providing a competent and ascertained donee to take and use the charitable gifts (Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y,, 97; Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y., 312). In accordance with this policy a general act was passed regulating the incorporation of religious bodies, and empowering the trustees to take into their possession property whether the same has been given, granted or devised directly to a church, congregation or society, or to any other person for their use (Laws of 1813, c. 60, s. 4, III; Cummings and Gilbert, "Gen. Laws and other Statutes of N. Y.", p. 3401). By the provisions of other statutes Roman Catholic churches come under this act (Laws of 1862, c. 45; Cummings and Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 3425). Therefore a bequest of real property for Masses will be upheld if it comply with the statutory requirements, which are;

37 (1) that the gift be to a corporation duly authorized by its charter or by statute to take gifts for such purpose and not to a private person;

38 (2) that the will by which the gift is made shall have been properly executed at least two months before the testator's death (Cummings and Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 4470; Laws of 1848, c. 319; Laws of 1860, c. 360: Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y., 434), and

39 (3) that if the testator have a wife, child, or parent the bequest shall not exceed one-half of his property after his debts are paid (ibid., see Hagenmeyer's Will, 12 Abb. N. C., 432).

40 Every trust of personal property, which is not contrary to public policy and is not in conflict with the statute regulating the accumulation of interest and protecting the suspension of absolute ownership in property of that character, is valid when the trustee is competent to take and a trust is for a lawful purpose well defined so as to be capable of being specifically executed by the court (Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y., 332). "If then a Catholic desire to make provision by will for saying of Masses for his soul, there is not the shadow of a doubt but that every court in the State [New York], if not in the Union, would uphold the bequest if the mode of making it were agreeable to the law" (see careful article written in 1886 by F. A. McCloskey in "Albany Law Journal", XXXII, 367).

41 For similar reasons in Wisconsin, where all trusts are abolished by statute except certain specified trusts with a definite beneficiary, a gift for Masses, to be good, must not be so worded as to constitute a trust. Thus a bequest in the following language: "I do give and bequeath unto the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, the sum of $4150, the said sum to be used and applied as follows: For Masses for the repose of my soul, two thousand dollars, for Masses for the repose of the soul of my deceased wife, etc., etc." The court held that a trust was created by this language, and says: "It is evident that such a trust is not capable of execution, and no court would take cognizance of any question in respect to it for want of a competent party to raise and litigate any question of abuse or perversion of the trust." But it adds: "We know of no legal reason why any person of the Catholic faith, believing in the efficacy of Masses, may not make a direct gift or bequest to any bishop or priest of any sum out of his property or estate for Masses for the repose of his soul or the souls of others, as he may choose. Such gifts or bequests, when made in clear, direct, and legal form, should be upheld; and they are not to be considered as impeachable or invalid under the rule that prevailed in England by which they were held void as gifts to superstitious uses" (72 N. W. Rep., 631).

42 The same view was taken by the Supreme Court of Alabama, where a bequest to a church to be used in solemn Masses for the repose of the soul of the testator was held invalid inasmuch as it did not respond to any one of the following tests:

43 (1) that it was a direct bequest to the church for its general uses;

44 (2) that it created a charitable use; or

45 (3) that it created a valid private trust.

46 It was not a charity inasmuch as it was "for the benefit alone of his own soul, and cannot be upheld as a public charity without offending every principle of law by which such charities are supported and it was not valid as a private trust for want of a living beneficiary to support it (Festorazzi v. St. Joseph's R. C. Church of Mobile, 25 Law. Rep. Ann., 360).

47 In Illinois an opposite conclusion is reached, it being held distinctly that a devise for Masses for the repose of the soul of the testator, or for the repose of the souls of other named persons, is valid as a charitable use, and the devise for such purpose will not be allowed to fail for want of a competent trustee, but the court will appoint a trustee to take the gift and apply it to the purposes of the trust. Such a bequest s distinctly held to be within the definition of charities which are to be sustained irrespective of the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, or of the lack of trustees, or the fact that the trustees appointed are not competent to take; and it is not derived from the Statute of Charitable Uses (43 Elizabeth, c. 4), but existed prior to and independent of that statute. The court quotes with approval the definition of a charity as given by Mr. Justice Gray of Massachusetts: "A charity in a legal sense may be more fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting and maintaining public buildings or works, or otherwise lessening the burthen of government. It is immaterial whether the purpose is called charitable in the gift itself, if it be so described as to show that it is charitable in its nature" (Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539). The court proceeds to show that the Mass is intended to be a repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross, and is the chief and central act of worship in the Catholic Church; that it is public. It points out the Catholic belief on the subject of Purgatory, and holds that the adding of a particular remembrance in the Mass does not change the character of the religious service and render it a mere private benefit; and further, that the bequest is an aid to the support of the clergy (Hoeffer v. Clogan, 49 N. E. Rep., 527).

48 In Pennsylvania bequests and devises for Masses are distinctly held to be gifts for religious uses, the Supreme Court of that state having expressed the same view of the law subsequently adopted in Illinois. The court uses the following language: "According to the Roman Catholic system of faith there exists an intermediate state of the soul, after death and before final judgment, during which guilt incurred during life and unatoned for must be expiated; and the temporary punishments to which the souls of the penitent are thus subjected may be mitigated or arrested through the efficacy of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. Hence the practice of offering Masses for the departed. It cannot be doubted that, in obeying the injunction of the testator, intercession would be specially invoked in behalf of the testator alone. The service is just the same in kind whether it be designed to promote the spiritual welfare of one or many. Prayer for the conversion of a single impenitent is as purely a religious act as a petition for the salvation of thousands. The services intended to be performed in carrying out the trust created by the testator's will, as well as the objects designed to be attained, are all essentially religious in their character" (Rhymer's Appeal, 93 Pa., 142). In Pennsylvania care must be taken to observe the provisions of the Act of 26 April, 1855, P. L., 332, which prohibits devises or legacies for charitable or religious uses, unless by will executed at least one month before the death of the testator. A gift to be expended for Masses, being a religious use, would come within this statute. The provisions of the law relating to attesting witnesses, requiring two credible and disinterested witnesses when any gift is made by will for religious or charitable uses, should also be noted.

49 In Massachusetts the courts take the same view as those of Pennsylvania, that gifts for Masses are to be sustained as for religious uses (Re Schouler, 134 Mass., 126).

50 In Iowa the Supreme Court has sustained a bequest "to the Catholic priest who may be pastor of the R. Catholic Church when this will shall be executed, three hundred dollars that Masses may be said for me", as being valid, though it contains no element of a charitable use. The court says: "We have said that this bequest, if the priest should accept the money, is a private trust: and we think it possesses the essential elements of such a trust, as much as it would if the object were the erection of a monument or the doing of any other act intended alone to perpetuate the memory or name of the testator. But even if there is a technical departure because of no living beneficiary, still the bequest is valid. We have also said that it is not a charity, and we can discover no element of a charity in it. It seems to be a matter entirely personal to the testator. In one or more cases the courts have felt the necessity in order to sustain such a bequest, to denominate it a charity because charitable bequests have had the sanction of the law. We know of no such limitation on testamentary acts as that bequests or devises must be in the line of other such acts, if otherwise lawful" (Moran v. Moran, 73 N. W. Rep., 617).

51 It follows then that there is no legal inhibition on bequests for Masses in any of the United States either on the ground of public policy or because they offend against any inherent principle of right. But care must be taken in drafting the will to observe the statutes, where any exist, in relation to devises or bequests in trust for any purpose as well as the current of decisions where cases have arisen. The language should be clear and drawn in accordance with legal rules. It should not be left to the chances of interpretation.

52 See the authorities quoted above.

53 Walter George Smith.

Jean-Baptiste Massillon

37 A celebrated French preacher and bishop; born 24 June, 1663; died 28 September, 1742. The son of François Massillon, a notary of Hyères in Provence, he began his studies in the college of that town and completed them in the college of Marseilles, both under the Oratorians. He entered the Congregation of the Oratory at the age of eighteen. After his novitiate and theological studies, he was sent as professor to the colleges of the congregation at Pèzenas, Marseilles, Montbrison, and, lastly, Vienne, where he taught philosophy and theology for six years (1689-95).

38 Ordained priest in 1691, he commenced preaching in the chapel of the Oratory at Vienne and in the vicinity of that city. Upon the death of Villeroy, Archbishop of Lyons (1693), he was called upon to deliver the funeral oration, and six months later that of M. de Villars, Archbishop of Vienne. Joining the Lyons Oratory in 1695, and summoned to Paris in the following year, to be director of the Seminary of Saint-Magloire, he was thenceforward able to devote himself exclusively to preaching. As director of this seminary he delivered those lectures (conférences) to young clerics which are still highly esteemed. But a year later he was removed from his position at Saint-Magloire for having occupied himself too exclusively with preaching. Having preached the Lent at Montpellier in 1698, he preached it the next year at the Oratory of Paris. His eloquence in this series of discourses was very much approved, and, although he aimed at preaching in a style unlike that of his predecessors, public opinion already hailed him as the successor of Bossuet and Bourdaloue who were at that time reduced to silence by age. At the end of this year he preached the Advent at the court of Louis XIV - an honour which was in those days highly coveted as the consecration of a preacher's fame. He justified every hope, and the king wittily declared that, where he had formerly been well pleased with the preachers, he was now very ill pleased with himself. Massillon, by command, once more appeared in the chapel of Versailles for the Lent of 1701. Bossuet, who, according to his secretary, had thought Massillon very far from the sublime in 1699, this time declared himself very well satisfied, as was the king. Massillon was summoned again for the Lent of 1704. This was the apogee of his eloquence and his success. The king assiduously attended his sermons, and in the royal presence Massillon delivered that discourse "On the Fewness of the Elect", which is considered his masterpiece. Nevertheless, whether because the compromising relations of the orator with certain great families had produced a bad impression on the king, or because Louis ended by believing him inclined - as some of his brethren of the Oratory were thought to be - to Jansenism, Massillon was never again summoned to preach at the Court during the life of Louis XIV, nor was he even put forward for a bishopric. Nevertheless he continued, from 1704 to 1718, to preach Lent and Advent discourses with great success in various churches of Paris. Only in the Advent of 1715 did he leave those churches to preach before the Court of Stanislas, King of Lorraine.

39 In the interval he preached, with only moderate success, sermons at ceremonies of taking the habit, panegyrics, and funeral orations. Of his funeral orations that on Louis XIV is still famous, above all for its opening: "God alone is great" - uttered at the grave of a prince to whom his contemporaries had yielded the title of "The Great".

40 After the death of this king Massillon returned to favour at Court. In 1717 the regent nominated him to the Bishopric of Clermont (Auvergne) and caused him to preach before the young king, Louis XV, the Lenten course of 1718, which was to comprise only ten sermons. These have been published under the title of "Le Petit Carême" - Massillon's most popular work. Finally, he was received, a few months later, into the French Academy, where Fleury, the young king's preceptor, pronounced his eulogy.

41 But Massillon, consecrated on 21 December, 1719, was in haste to take possession of his see. With its 29 abbeys, 224 priories, and 758 parishes, the Diocese of Clermont was one of the largest in France. The new bishop took up his residence there, and left it only to assist, by order of the regent, in the negotiations which were to decide the case of Cardinal de Noailles (q. v.) and certain bishops suspected of Jansenism, in accepting the Bull "Unigenitus", to assist at the coronation of Louis XV, and to preach the funeral sermon of the Duchess of Orleans, the regent's mother.

42 He made it his business to visit one part of his diocese each year, and at his death he had been through the whole diocese nearly three times, even to the poorest and remotest parishes. He set himself to re-establish or maintain ecclesiastical discipline and good morals among his clergy. From the year 1723 on, he annually assembled a synod of the priests; he did this once more in 1742, a few days before his death. In these synods and in the retreats which followed them he delivered the synodal discourses and conférences which have been so much, and so justly, admired. If he at times displayed energy in reforming abuses, he was generally tender and fatherly towards his clergy; he was willing to listen to them; he promoted their education, by attaching benefices to his seminaries, and assured them a peaceful old age by building a house of retirement for them. He defended his clergy against the king's ministers, who wished to increase their fiscal burdens, and he never ceased to guard them against the errors and subterfuges of the Jansenists, who, indeed, assailed him sharply in their journal "Les Nouvelles Ecclésiastiques".

43 Thoroughly devoted to all his diocesan flock, he busied himself in improving their condition. This is apparent in his correspondence with the king's intendants and ministers, in which he does his utmost to alleviate the lot of the Auvergne peasantry whenever there is a disposition to increase their taxation, or the scourge of a bad season afflicts their crops. The poor were always dear to him: not only did he plead for them in his sermons, but he assisted them out of his bounty, and at his death he instituted the hospital of Clermont for his universal heirs, the poor. His death was lamented, as his life had been blessed and admired by his contemporaries. Posterity has numbered him with Bossuet, Fénelon, Fléchier, and Mascaron, among the greatest French bishops of the eighteenth century. As an orator, no one was more appreciated by the eighteenth century, which placed him easily - at least as to preaching properly so called - above Bossuet and Bourdaloue. Our age places him rather lower. Massillon has neither the sublimity of Bossuet nor the logic of Bourdaloue: with him the sermon neglects dogma for morality, and morality loses its authority, and sometimes its security, in the eyes of Christians. For at times he is so severe as to render himself suspect of Jansenism, and again he is so lax as to be accused of complaisancy for the sensibilities and the philosophism of his time. His chief merit was to have excelled in depicting the passions, to have spoken to the heart in a language it always understood, to have made the great, and princes, understand the loftiest teachings of the Gospel, and to have made his own life and his work as a bishop conform to those teachings. During Massillon's lifetime only the funeral oration on the Prince de Conti was published (1709); he even disavowed a collection of sermons which appeared under his name at Trévoux (1705, 1706, 1714). The first authentic edition of his works appeared in 1745, published by his nephew, Father Joseph Massillon, of the Oratory; it has been frequently reprinted. But the best edition was that of Blampignon, Bar-le-Duc, 1865-68, and Paris, 1886, in four vols. It comprises ten sermons for Advent, forty-one for Lent, eight on the mysteries, four on virtues, ten panegyrics, six funeral orations, sixteen ecclesiastical conferences, twenty synodal discourses, twenty-six charges, paraphrases on thirty psalms, some pensées choisies, and some fifty miscellaneous letters or notes.

44 D'ALEMBERT, Eloge de Massillon in Histoire des membres de l'Académie française (Paris, 1787), I; V; BAYLE, Massilion (Paris, 1867); BLAMPIGNON, Massillon d'après des documents inédits (Paris, 1879); L'épiscopat de Massillon (Paris, 1884); ATTAIS, Etude sur Massillon (Toulouse, 1882); COHENDY, Correspondance Mandements de Massillon (Clermont, 1883); PAUTHE, Massillon (Paris, 1908).

45 Antoine Dégert.

Massorah

40 The textual tradition of Hebrew Bible, an official registration of its words, consonants, vowels and accents. It is doubtful whether the word should be pointed from the New Hebrew verb "to hand down," or from the verb meaning "to bind." The former pointing is seen in Ezech. xx, 37; the latter is due to the fact that in the Mishna, the word's primary meaning is "tradition". Our chief witness to Massorah is the actual text of manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. Other witnesses are several collections of Massorah and the numerous marginal notes scattered over Hebrew manuscripts. The upper and lower margins and the end of the manuscript contain the Greater Massorah, such as lists of words; the side margins contain the lesser Massorah such as variants. The best collection of Massorah is that of Ginsburg, "The Massorah compiled from manuscripts alphabetically and lexically arranged" (3 vols. London, 1880-85).

41 This article will treat: (I) the history and (II) the critical value of Massorah. For the number and worth of Massoretic manuscripts, see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE.

42 I. History of Massorah

43 Their sacred books were to the Jews an inspired code and record, a God-intended means to conserve the political and religious unity; and fidelity of the nation. It was imperative upon them to keep those books intact. So far back as the first century B.C., copyists and revisers were trained and employed to fix the Hebrew text. All had one purpose, — to copy, i.e. according to the face-value of the Massorah. To reproduce their exemplar perfectly, to hand down the Massorah — only this and nothing more was purposed by the official copyist of the Hebrew Bible. Everything new was shunned. There is evidence that false pronunciations were fixed by Massorah centuries before the invention of points such as are seen in our present Massoretic text. At times such early translations as those of Aquila, Theodotion, the Septuagint and the Peshitto give evidence of precisely the same erroneous pronunciation as is found at the pointed Hebrew text of to-day.

44 (1) The Consonantal Text

45 Hebrew had no vowels in its alphabet. Vowel sounds were for the most part handed down by tradition. Certain consonants were used to express some long vowels, these consonants were called Matres lectionis, because they determined the pronunciation. The efforts of copyists would seem to have become more and more minute and detailed in the perpetuation of the consonantal text. These copyists (grammateis) were at first called Sopherim (from the Hebrew word meaning "to count"), because, as the Talmud says, "they counted all the letters in the Torah" (Kiddushin, 30a). It was not till later on that the name Massoretes, was given to the preservers of Massorah. In the Talmudic period (c. A.D.300-500), the rules for perpetuating Massorah were extremely detailed. Only skins of clean animals must be used for parchment rolls and fastenings thereof. Each column must be of equal length, not more than sixty nor less than forty-eight lines. Each line must contain thirty letters, written with black ink of a prescribed make-up and in the square letters which were the ancestors of our present Hebrew text letters. The copyist must have before him an authentic copy of the text; and must not write from memory a single letter, not even a yod — every letter must be copied from the exemplar, letter for letter. The interval between consonants should be the breadth of a hair, between words, the breadth of narrow consonant; between sections, the breadth of nine consonants; between books, the breadth of three lines.

46 Such numerous and minute rules, though scrupulously observed, were not enough to satisfy the zeal to perpetuate the consonantal text fixed and unchanged. Letters were omitted which had surreptitiously crept in, variants and conjectural readings were indicated inside-margins — words, "read but not written" (Qere), "written but not read" (Kethibh), "read one way but written another". These marginal critical notes went on increasing with time. Still more was done to fix the consonantal text. The words and letters of each book and of every section of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible were counted. The middle words and rnidddle letters of books and sections were noted. In the Talmud, we see how one rabbi was wont to pester the other with such trivial textual questions as the juxtaposition of certain letters in this or that section, the half-section in which this consonant or that was, etc. The rabbis counted the number of times certain words and phrases occurred in the several books and in the whole Bible; and searched for mystic meanings in that number of times. On the top and bottom margins of manuscripts, they grouped various peculiarities of the text and drew up alphabetical lists of words which occurred equally often — for instance, of those which appeared once with and once without waw. In Cod. Babylon. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916), we have many critical marginal notes of such and of other peculiarities, v.g. a list of fourteen words written with final He which are to be read with Waw, and of eight words written with final Waw, which are to be read with He. Such were some of the painstaking means employed to preserve the consonantal text of the Massorah.

47 (2) The Points

48 Rolls that were destined for use in the synagogue were always unpointed. Rolls that were for other use came in time to receive vowel-points and accents; these latter indicated the interrelation of words and modulation of the voice in public cantillation. One scribe wrote the consonantal text; another put in vowel-points and accents of Massorah. The history of vocalization of the text is utterly unknown to us. It has been suggested that dogmatic interpretation clearly led to certain punctuations; but it is likelier that the pronunciation was part of Massorah long before the invention of punctuation. The very origin of this invention is doubtful. Bleek assigns it to the eighth century (cf. "Introd. to O.T." I, 109, London, 1894). Points were certainly unused in St. Jerome's time; he had no knowledge whatsoever of them. The punctuation of the traditional text was just as certainly complete in the nineth century; for R. Saadia Gaon (d. 942), of Fayum in Egypt, wrote treatises thereon. The work of punctuating must have gone on for years and been done by a large number of scholars who laboured conjointly and authoritatively. Strack (see "Text of O.T.", in Hastings, "Dict. of Bib.") says it is practically certain that the points came into Massorah by Syriac influence. Syrians strove, by such signs, to perpetuate the correct vocalization and intonation of their Sacred text. Their efforts gave an impulse to Jewish zeal for the traditional vocalization of the Hebrew Bible. Bleek ("Introd. to 0.T.", I, 110, London, 1894) and others are equally certain that Hebrew scholars received their impulse to punctuation from the Moslem method of preserving the Arabic vocalization of the Koran. That Hebrew scholars were influenced by either Syriac or Arabic punctuation is undoubted. Both forms and names of the Massoretic points indicate either Syriac or Arabic origin. What surprises us is the absence of any vestige of opposition to this introduction into Massorah of points that were most decidedly not Jewish. The Karaite Jews surprise us still more, since, during a very brief period, they transliterated the Hebrew text in Arabic characters.

49 At least two systems of punctuation are Massoretic: the Western and the Eastern. The Western is called Tiberian, after the far famed school of Massorah at Tiberias. It prevailed over the Eastern system and is followed in most manuscripts as well as in all printed editions of the Massoretic text. By rather complicated and ingenious combinations of dots and dashes, placed either above or below the consonants, the Massoretes accurately represented ten vowel sounds (long and short a, e, i, o, u) together with four half-vowels or Shewas. These latter corresponded to the very much obscured English sounds of e, a, and o. The Tiberian Massoretes also introduced a great many accents to indicate the tone-syllable of a word, the logical correlation of words and the voice modulation in public reading. The Eastern or Babylonian system of punctuation shows dependence on the Western and is found in a few manuscripts — chiefest of which is Cod. Babylon. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916). It was the punctuation of Yemen till the eighteenth century. The vowel signs are all above the consonants and are formed from the Matres lectionis. Disjunctive accents of this supralinear punctuation have signs like the first letter of their name; zaqeph; tarha. A third system of punctuation has been found in two fragments of the Bible lately brought to light in Egypt and now in the Bodleian Library (cf. Kahle in "Zeitschrift fur die Alttestam. Wissensehaft", 1901; Friedlander, "A third system of symbols for the Hebrew vowels and accents" in "Jewish Quarterly Review", 1895). The invention of points greatly increased the work of scribes; they now set themselves to list words with a view to perpetuating not only the consonants but the vowels Cod Babyl. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916), for instance, lists eighteen words beginning with Lamed and either Shewa or Hireq followed by Shewa; eighteen words beginning with Lamed and Pathah; together with an alphabetical list of words, which occur only once.

50 II. Critical Value of Massorah

51 During the seventeenth century, many Protestant theologians, such as the Buxtorfs, defended the Massoretic text as infallible; and considered that Esdras together with the men of the Great Synagogue had, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not only determined the Hebrew canon but fixed forever the text of the Hebrew Bible, its vowel points and accents, its division into verses and paragraphs and books. Modern text critics value Massorah, just as the Itala and Peshitto, only as one witness to a text of the second century. The pointed Massoretic text is witness to a text which is not certainly earlier than the eighth century. The consonantal text is a far better witness; unfortunately the tradition of this text was almost absolutely uniform. There were different schools of Massoretes, but their differences have left us very few variants of the consonantal text (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE). The Massoretes were slaves to Massorah and handed down one and one only text. Even textual peculiarities clearly due to error or accident, were perpetuated by rabbis who puzzled their brains to ferret out mystical interpretations of these peculiarities. Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small or too large, dots that were out of place — all such vagaries were slavishly handed down as if God-intended and full of Divine meaning.

52 Walter Drum

Antoine Massoulié

43 Theologian, born at Toulouse, 28 Oct., 1632; died at Rome, 23 Jan., 1706. At an early age he entered the order of St. Dominic, in which he held many important offices; but above all these, he prized study, teaching, and writing, for the love of which he refused a bishopric and asked to be relieved of distracting duties. It was said that he knew by heart the Summa of St Thomas. He devoted himself with such earnestness to the study of Greek and Hebrew that he could converse fluently in both of these languages. His knowledge of Hebrew enabled him to overcome in public debate two Jewish Rabbis, one at Avignon in 1659, the other at Florence in l695. The latter became an exemplary Christian, his conversion being modestly ascribed by Massoulié to prayer more than to successful disputation. His published works and some unpublished manuscripts (preserved in the Casanatense Library at Rome) may be divided into two classes: those written in defence of the Thomistic doctrine of physical premotion, relating to God's action on free agents, and those written against the Quietists, whom he strenuously opposed, both by attacking their false teaching and also by explaining the true doctrine according to the principles of St. Thomas. His principal works are: "Divus Thomas sui interpres de divina motione et libertate creata" (Rome, 1692); "Oratio ad explicandam Summan theologicam D. Thomae" (Rome, 1701); "Méditationes de S.Thomas sur les trois vies, purgative, illuminative et unitive" (Toulouse, 1678); "Traité de la véritable oraison, où les erreurs des Quiétistes sont réfutées" (Paris, 1699); "Traité de l'amour de Dieu" (Paris, 1703).

44 D.J. Kennedy

René Massuet

46 Benedictine patrologist, of the Congregation of St. Maur; born 13 August, 1666, at St. Ouen de Mancelles in the diocese of Evreux; died 11 Jan. 1716, at St. Germain des Prés in Paris. He made his solemn profession in religion in 1682 at Notre Dame de Lire, and studied at Bonnenouvelle in Orleans, where he showed more than ordinary ability. After teaching philosophy in the Abbey of Bee, and theology at St. Stephen 's, in Caen, he attended the lectures of the University and obtained the degrees of bachelor and licentiate in law. After this he taught a year at Jumieges and three years at Fécamp. He spent the year 1702 in Rome in the study of Greek. The following year he was called to St. Germain des Prés and taught theology there to the end of his life. His principal work, which he undertook rather reluctantly, is the edition of the writings of St. Irenaeus, Paris, 1710. An elegant edition of these writings had appeared at Oxford, 1702, but the editor, John Ernest Grabe was less intent on an accurate rendering of the text than on making Irenaeus favour Anglican views. Massuet enriched his edition with valuable dissertations on the heresies inpugned by St. Irenaeus and on the life, writings, and teaching of the saint. He also edited the fifth volume of the "Annales Ord. S. Ben". of Mabillon, with some additions and a preface inclusive of the biographies of Mabillon and Ruinart. We owe hirn, moreover, a letter to John B. Langlois, S.J., in defence of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine, and five letters addressed to Bernard Pez found in Schelhorn's "Amoenitates Literariae". He left in manuscript a work entitled "Augustinus Graecus", in which he quotes all the passages of St. John Chrysostom on grace.

47 Francis Mershmann

Quentin Massys

49 (Messys, Metzys)

50 A painter, born at Louvain in 1466; died at Antwerp in 1530 (bet. 13 July and 16 September), and not in 1529, as his epitaph states (it dates from the seventeenth century). The life of this great artist is all adorned, or obscured, with legends. It is a fact that he was the son of a smith. There is nothing to prove, but it is not impossible that he first followed his father's trade. In any case he was a "bronzier" and medalist. On 29 March, 1528, Erasmus wrote to Boltens that Massys had engraved a medallion of him (Effigiem meam fudit aere). This was perhaps the medal dated 1519, a copy of which is at the Museum of Basle. In 1575 Molanas in his history of Louvain states that Quentin is the author of the standard of the baptismal fonts at St-Pierre, but his account is full of errors. As for the wrought iron dome over the well in the Marché-aux-Gants at Antwerp, which popular tradition attributes to him, the attribution is purely fanciful. Tradition also states that the young smith, in love with a young woman of Antwerp, became a painter for her sake. Indeed this pretty fable explains the poetical character of Massys. All his works are like love songs. Facts tell us only that the young man, an orphan since he was fifteen, was emancipated by his mother 4 April, 1491, and that in the same year he was entered as a painter on the registers of the Guild of Antwerp. He kept a studio which four different pupils entered from 1495 to 1510.

51 He had six children by a first marriage with Alyt van Tuylt. She died in 1507. Shortly afterwards, in 1508 or 1509, he married Catherine Heyns, who bore him, according to some, ten children, according to others, seven. He seems to have been a respected personage. As has been seen, he had relations with Erasmus, whose portrait he painted in 1517 (the original, or an ancient copy, is at Hampton Court), and with the latter's friend, Petrus Egidius (Peter Gillis), magistrate of Antwerp, whose portrait by Massys is preserved by Lord Radnor at Longford. Dürer went to visit him immediately on his return from his famous journey to the Low Countries in 1519. On 29 July of that year Quentin had purchased a house, for which he had perhaps carved a wooden statue of his patron saint. In 1520 he worked together with 250 other artists on the triumphal arches for the entry of Emperor Charles V. In 1524 on the death of Joachim Patenier he was named guardian of the daughters of the deceased. This is all we learn from documents concerning him. He led a quiet, well-ordered, middle-class, happy life, which scarcely tallies with the legendary figure of the little smith becoming a painter through love.

52 Nevertheless, in this instance also, the legend is right. For nothing explains better the appearance in the dull prosaic Flemish School of the charming genius of this lover-poet. It cannot be believed, as Molanus asserts, that he was the pupil of Rogier van der Weyden, since Rogier died in 1484, two years before Quentin's birth. But the masters whom he might have encountered at Louvain such as Gonts, or even Dirck, the best among them, distress by a lack of taste and imagination a dryness of ideas and style which is the very opposite of Massys's manner. Add to this that his two earliest known works, in fact the only two which count, the "Life of St. Anne" at Brussels and the Antwerp triptych, the "Deposition from the Cross", date respectively from 1509 and 1511, that is from a period when the master was nearly fifty years old. Up to that age we know nothing concerning him. The "Banker and His Wife" (Louvre) and the "Portrait of a Young Man" (Collection of Mme. André), his only dated works besides his masterpieces, belong to 1513 and 1514 (or 1519). We lack all the elements which would afford us an idea of his formation. He seems like an inexplicable, miraculous flower.

53 When it is remembered that his great paintings have been almost ruined by restorations, it will be understood that the question of Massys contains insoluble problems. In fact the triptych of St. Anne at Brussels is perhaps the most gracious, tender and sweet of all the painting of the North. And it will always be mysterious, unless the principal theme, which represents the family or the parents of Christ, affords some light. It is the theme, dear to Memling, of "spiritual conversations", of those sweet meetings of heavenly persons, in earthly costumes, in the serenity of a Paradisal court. This subject, whose unity is wholly interior and mystic, Memling, as is known, had brought from Germany, where it had been tirelessly repeated by painters, especially by him who was called because of this, the Master der Heiligen Sippe. Here the musical, immaterial harmony, resulting from a composition which might be called symphonic, was enhanced by a new harmony, which was the feeling of the circulation of the same blood in all the assembled persons. It was the poem arising from the quite Germanic intimacy of the love of family. One is reminded of Suso or of Tauler. The loving, tender genius of Massys would be stirred to grave joy in such a subject. The exquisite history of St. Anne, that poem of maternity, of the holiness of the desire to survive in posterity, has never been expressed in a more penetrating, chaste, disquieting art.

54 Besides, it was the beginning of the sixteenth century and Italian influences were making themselves felt everywhere. Massys translated them into his brilliant architecture, into the splendour of the turquoise which he imparted to the blue summits of the mountains, to the horizons of his landscapes. A charming luxury mingles with his ideas and disfigures them. It was a unique work, a unique period; that of an ephemeral agreement between the genius of the North and that of the Renaissance, between the world of sentiment and that of beauty. This harmony which was at the foundation of all the desires of the South, from Dürer to Rembrandt and Goethe, was realized in the simple thought of the ancient smith. By force of candour, simplicity, and love he found the secret which others sought in vain. With still greater passion the same qualities are found in the Antwerp "Deposition". The subject is treated, not in the Italian manner, as in the Florentine or Umbrian "Pietas", but with the familiar and tragic sentiment which touches the Northern races. It is one of the "Tombs" compositions, of which the most famous are those of Saint Mihiel and Solesmes. The body of Christ is one of the most exhausted, the most "dead", the most moving that painting has ever created. All is full of tenderness and desolation.

55 Massys has the genius of tears. He loves to paint tears in large pearls on the eyes, on the red cheeks of his holy women, as in his wonderful "Magdalen" of Berlin or his "Pietà" of Munich. But he had at the same time the keenest sense of grace. His Herodiases, his Salomes (Antwerp triptych) are the most bewitching figures of all the art of his time. And this excitable nervousness made him particularly sensitive to the ridiculous side of things. He had a sense of the grotesque, of caricature, of the droll and the hideous, which is displayed in his figures of old men, of executioners. And this made him a wonderful genre painter. His "Banker" and his "Money Changers" inaugurated in the Flemish School the rich tradition of the painting of manners. He had a pupil in this style, Marinus, many of whose pictures still pass under his name.

56 Briefly, Massys was the last of the great Flemish artists prior to the Italian invasion. He was the most sensitive, the most nervous, the most poetical, the most comprehensive of all, and in him is discerned the tumultuous strain which was to appear 100 years later in the innumerable works of Rubens.

57 VAN MANDER, Le Livre des Peintres, ed. HYMANS (Paris, 1884); WAAGEN, Treasures of Art in England (London, 1854); HYMANS, Quentin Metzys in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1888); COHEN, Studien zu Quentin Metzys (Bonn, 1894); DE BOSSCHERE, Quentin Metzys (Brussels, 1907); WURZBACH, Niederländisches Kunstlerlexicon (Leipzig, 1906-10).

58 Louis Gillet

Master of the Sacred Palace

52 This office (which has always been entrusted to a Friar Preacher) may briefly be described as being that of the pope's theologian. St. Dominic, appointed in 1218, was the first Master of the Sacred Palace (Magister Sacri Palatii). Among the eighty-four Dominicans who have succeeded him, eighteen were subsequently created cardinals, twenty-four were made archbishops or bishops (including some of the cardinals), and six were elected generals of the order. Several are famous for their works on theology, etc., but only Durandus, Torquemada, Prierias, Mamachi, and Orsi can be mentioned here. As regards nationality: the majority have been Italians; of the remainder ten have been Spaniards and ten Frenchmen, one has been a German and one an Englishman (i.e. William de Boderisham, or Bonderish, 1263-1270?). It has sometimes been asserted that St. Thomas of Aquin was a Master of the Sacred Palace. This is due to a misconception. He was Lector of the Sacred Palace. The offices were not identical. (See Bullarium O. P., III, 18.) Though he and two other contemporary Dominicans, namely his teacher Bl. Albert the Great and his fellow pupil Bl. Ambrose Sansedonico (about both of whom the same assertion has been made) held successively the office of Lecturer on Scripture or on Theology in the papal palace school, not one of them was Master of the Sacred Palace. Their names do not occur in the official lists. While all Masters of the Sacred Palace were Dominicans, several members of other orders were Lectors of the Sacred Palace (e.g. Peckham O.S.F., who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1279).

53 St. Dominic's work as Master of the Sacred Palace consisted partly at least in expounding the Epistles of St. Paul (Colonna, O.P., c: 1255, who says that the commentary was then extant; Flaminius; S. Antonius; Malvenda, in whose time the MS. of the Epistles used by the Saint as Master of the Sacred Palace was preserved in Toulouse; Echard; Renazzi; Mortier, etc.). These exegetical lectures were delivered to prelates and to the clerical attendants of cardinals who, as the saint observed, had been accustomed to gather in the antechamber and to spend the time in gossip while their masters were having audiences with the pope. According to Renazzi (I, 25), St. Dominic may be regarded as the founder of the papal palace school, since his Biblical lectures were the occasion of its being established. Catalanus, who, however, is not guilty of the confusion alluded to above, says he was the first Lector of the Sacred Palace as well as the first Master of the Sacred Palace. In the thirteenth century the chief duty of the Master of the Sacred Palace was to lecture on Scripture and to preside over the theological school in Vatican: "in scholae Romanae et Pontificiae regimine et in publica sacrae scripturae expositione" (Echard). The Lectores or Magistri scholarum S. Palatii taught under him. It became customary for the Master of the Sacred Palace, according to Cardinal de Luca, to preach before the pope and his court in Advent and Lent. This had probably been sometimes done by St. Dominic. Up to the sixteenth century the Master of the Sacred Palace preached, but after it this work was permanently entrusted to his companion (a Dominican). A further division of labour was made by Benedict XIV (Decree, "Inclyta Fratrum", 1743); at present the companion preaches to the papal household, and a Capuchin preaches to the pope and to the cardinals.

54 But the work of the Master of the Sacred Palace as papal theologian continues to the present day. As it has assumed its actual form by centuries of development, we may give a summary of the legislation respecting it and the various functions it comprises and also of the honours attaching to it. The "Acta" (or "Calenda") of the Palatine officials in 1409 (under Alexander V) show that on certain days the Master of the Sacred Palace was bound to deliver lectures and on other days was expected, if called upon, either to propose or to answer questions at the theological conference which was held in the pope's presence. On 30 October, 1439, Eugene IV decreed that the Master of the Sacred Palace should rank next to the dean of the Rota, that no one should preach before the pope whose sermon had not been previously approved of by him, and that in accordance with ancient usage no one could be made a doctor of theology in Rome but by him (Bullarium O. P., III, 81). Callistus III (13 November, 1455) confirmed and amplified the second part of this decree, but at the same time exempted cardinals from its operation (ibid., p. 356). At present it has fallen into disuse. In the Fifth Lateran Council (sess. x, 4 May, 1513) Leo X ordained that no book should be printed either in Rome or in its district without leave from the cardinal vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace (ibid., IV, 318). Paul V (11 June, 1620) and Urban VIII added to the obligations imposed by this decree. So did Alexander VII in 1663 (Bullarium, passim). All these later enactments regard the inhabitants of the Roman Province or of the Papal States. They were renewed by Benedict XIV (1 Sept., 1744). And the permission of the Master of the Sacred Palace must be got not only to print, but to publish, and before the second permission is granted, three printed copies must be deposited with him, one for himself, another for his companion, a third a for the cardinal vicar. The Roman Vicariate never examines work intended for publication. For centuries the imprimatur of the Master of the Sacred Palace who always examines them followed the Si videbitur Reverendissimo Magistro Sacri Palatii of the cardinal vicar; now in virtue of custom but not of any ascertained law, since about the year 1825 the cardinal vicar gives an imprimatur, and it follows that of the Master of the Sacred Palace. At present the obligation once incumbent on cardinals of presenting their work to the Master of the Sacred Palace for his imprimatur has fallen into disuse, but through courtesy many cardinals do present their works. In the Constitution "Officiorum ac munerum" (25 Jan., 1897), Leo XIII declared that all persons residing in Rome may get leave from the Master of the Sacred Palace to read forbidden books, and that if authors who live in Rome intend to get their works published elsewhere, the joint imprimatur of the cardinal vicar and the Master of the Sacred Palace renders it unnecessary to ask any other approbation. As is well known, if an author not resident in Rome desires to have his work published there, provided that an agreement with the author's Ordinary has been made and that the Master of the Sacred Palace judges favourably of the work, the imprimatur will be given. In this case the book is known by its having two title pages: the one bearing the name of the domiciliary, the other of the Roman publisher.

55 Before the establishment of the Congregations of the Inquisition (in 1542) and Index (1587), the Master of the Sacred Palace condemned books and forbade reading them under censure. Instances of his so doing occur regularly till about the middle of the sixteenth century; one occurred as late as 1604, but by degrees this task has been appropriated to the above-mentioned congregations of which he is an ex-officio member. The Master of the Sacred Palace was made by Pius V (29 July, 1570; see "Bullarium", V, 245) canon theologian of St. Peter's, but this Bull was revoked by his successor Gregory XIII (11 March, 1575). From the time when Leo X recognized the Roman University or "Sapienza" (5 November, 1513; by the decree "Dum suavissimos") he transferred to it the old theological school of the papal palace. The Master of the Sacred Palace became the president of the new theological faculty. The other members were the pope's grand sacristan (an Augustinian), the commissary of the Holy Office (a Dominican), the procurators general of the five Mendicant Orders, i.e. Dominican, Franciscan (Conventual), Augustinian, Carmelite, and Servite, and the professors who succeeded to the ancient Lectors of the Sacred Palace. Sixtus V is by some regarded as the founder of this college or faculty, but he may have only given its definite form. He is said to have confirmed the prerogative enjoyed by the Master of the Sacred Palace of conferring all degrees of philosophy and theology. Instances of papal diplomas implying this power of the Master of the Sacred Palace occur in the "Bullarium" passim (e.g. of Innocent IV, 6 June, 1406). The presidential authority of the Master of the Sacred Palace over this, the greatest theological faculty in Rome, was confirmed by Leo XII in 1824.

56 Since the occupation of Rome in 1870 the Sapienza has been laicized and turned into a state university, so that on the special occasions when the Master of the Sacred Palace holds an examination, e.g. for the purpose of examining all that are to be appointed to sees in Italy, or again of conferring the title of S.T.D., he does so, with the assistance of the high dignitaries just mentioned, in his apartment in the Vatican. He is also examiner in the concursus for parishes in Rome which are held in the Roman Vicariate. Before Eugene IV issued the Bull referred to above, the Master of the Sacred Palace was in processions, etc., the dignitary immediately under the Apostolic subdeacons, but when this pope raised the auditors of the Rota to the rank of Apostolic subdeacons, he gave the Master of the Sacred Palace the place immediately next to the dean who was in charge of the papal mitre. In 1655, Alexander VII put the other auditors of the Rota above the Master of the Sacred Palace. This was done, according to Cardinal de Luca, solely because one white and black habit looked badly among several violet soutanes. One of the occasional duties of the Master of the Sacred Palace is performed in conjunction with the auditors of the Rota; namely to watch over the three apertures or "drums" through which during a conclave the cardinals receive all communications. In papal processions, the Master of the Sacred Palace walks next to the auditors, immediately behind the bearer of the tiara.

57 Though he has, as we have seen, gradually lost some of his ancient authority and rank, nevertheless at the present day the Master of the Sacred Palace is a very high official. He is one of the three Palatine prelates (the others being the Maggiordomo and the Grand Almoner) to whom as to bishops, the papal guards present arms. He is always addressed, even by cardinals, as "Most Reverend". In the Dominican Order he ranks next to the general, ex-general, and vicar-general. He is ex-officio consultor of the Holy Office, prelate-consultor of Rites, and perpetual assistant of the Index. He is consultor of the Biblical Commission, and is frequently consulted on various matters by the pope as his theologian. His offical audience occurs once a fortnight. The offical apartment of the Master of the Sacred Palace was in the Quirinal, and until recently it contained the unbroken series of portraits of the Masters of the Sacred Palace, from St. Dominic down. These frescoes have been effaced by the present occupants of the Quirinal, but copies of them are to be seen in the temporary apartment of the Master of the Sacred Palace in the Vatican.

58 Bullarium O.P., VIII (Rome, 1730-1740); MSS. in Vatican, Dominican Order, and Minerva Archives; ANTONIUS, Chronicon, III (Lyons, 1586); MALVENDA, Annales Ordinis Praedicatorum (Naples, 1627); fontANA, Syllabus Magistrorum Sacri Palatii Apostolici (Rome, 1663); DE LUCA, Romanae Curiae Relatio (Cologne, 1683); CATALANUS, De Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici libri duo (Rome, 1761); QUETIF-ECHARD, Scriptor. Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719); CARAFFA, De Gymnasio (Rome, 1751), 135-145; RENAZZI, Storia dell' Universita Romana, etc. (Rome, 1803-1806), passim; MORTIER, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs (Paris, 1903, in progress); BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pont. Cath. (1901), 473-482.

59 Reginald Walsh.

Bartholomew Mastrius

55 Franciscan, philosopher and theologian, born near Forli, at Meldola, ltaly, in 1602; died 3 January, 1673. He was one of the most prominent writers of his time on philosophy and theology. He received his early education at Cesena, and took degrees at the University of Bologna. He also frequented the Universities of Padua and Rome before assuming the duties of lecturer. He acquired a profound knowledge of scholastic philosophy and theology, being deeply versed in the writings of Scotus. He was an open-minded and independent scholar. As a controversialist he was harsh and arrogant towards his opponents, mingling invective with his arguments. His opinions on some philosophical questions were fiercely combatted by many of his contemporaries and especially by Matthew Ferchi and the Irish Franciscan, John Ponce. When presenting the second volume of his work on the "Sentences" to Alexander VII, to whom he had dedicated it, the pope asked him where he had learned to treat his opponent Ferchi in such a rough manner: Mastrius answered, "From St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who in defence of their respective opinions on the interpretation of Holy Scripture fought hard and not without reason": the pope smilingly remarked, "From such masters other things could be learned". Ponce in his treatise on Logic holds that with qualifying explanations God may be included in the Categories. Mastrius in combatting this opinion characteristically says, "Hic Pontius male tractat Deum sicut et alter". Mastrius had a well-ordered intellect which is seen in the clearness and precision with which he sets forth the subject-matter of discussion. His arguments for and against a proposition show real critical power and are expressed in accurate and clear language. His numerous quotations from ancient and contemporary authors and various schools of thought are a proof of his extensive reading. His works shed light on some of the difficult questions in Scotistic philosophy and theology. His "Philosophy" in five volumes folio, his "Commentaries" on the "Sentences" in four volumes, and his Moral Theology "ad mentem S. Bonaventurae" in one volume were all published in Venice.

56 Gregory Cleary

Mataco Indians

58 (Or Mataguayo).

59 A group of wide tribes of very low culture, ranging over a great part of the Chaco region, about the headwaters of the Vermejo and the Picomayo, in the Argentine province of Salta and the Bolivian province of Tarija, and noted for the efforts made by Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries in their behalf in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The group consists, or formerly consisted, of about a dozen tribes speaking the same language with slight dialectic differences, and together constituting a distinct linguistic stock, the Matacoan or Mataguayan, which, however, Quevedo suspects to be connected to the Quaycuran stock, to which belong the Toba, Macobí, and the famous Abipon tribes. Of the Matacoan group, the principle tribes were the Mataco, Mataguayo, and Vejoz. At present the names in most general use are Mataco in Argentina and Nocten (corrupted from the Chiriguano name) in Bolivia. From 60,000 (estimated) in the mission period they are now reduced to about 20,000 souls. In 1690, Father Arcé, from the Jesuit college of Tarija, attempted the first mission among the Mataguayo and Chiriguano, but with little result, owing to their wandering habit. "Houses and churches were built, but the natives poured in and out, like water through a bottomless barrel", and at last, weary of the remonstrances of the missionaries, burned the missions, murdered several of the priests, and drove the others out of the country. At a later period, in 1756, the Jesuit mission of San Ignacio de Ledesma on the Rio Grande, a southern head stream of the Vermejo, was founded for Toba and Mataguayo, of whom 600 were enrolled here at the time of the expulsion of the order in 1767.

60 About the end of the eighteenth century, the Franciscans of Tarija undertook to restore the mission work in the Chaco, founding a number of establishments, among which were Selenas, occupied by Mataguayo and Chiriguani, and Centa (now Oran, Salta province), occupied by Mataguayo and the Vejoz, the two missions in 1799 containing nearly 900 Indians, with 7300 cattle. With the decline of the Spanish power these missions also fell into decay, and the Indians scattered to their forests. In 1895 father Gionnecchini, passing by the place of the old Centa mission, found a cattle coral where the church had been. An interesting account of the present condition of the wild Mataco is quoted by Quevedo from a letter by Father Alejandro Corrado, Franciscan, Tarija. Their houses are light brush structures, scattered through the forest, hardly high enough to allow of standing upright, and are abandoned for others set up in another place, as often as insects or accumulation of filth make necessary. The only furniture is a wooden mortar with a few earthen pots and some skins for sleeping. Men and women shave their heads and wear a single garment about the lower part of the body. The men also pluck out the beard and paint the face and body. They live chiefly upon fish and the fruit of the algarroba, a species of mesquit or honey-locust, but will eat anything that is not poisonous, even rats and grasshoppers. From the algarroba they prepare an intoxicating liquor which rouses them to a fighting frenzy. Their principal ceremony is in connection with the ripening of the algarroba, when the priests in fantastic dress go about the trees, dancing and singing at the top of their voices to the sound of a wooden drum, keeping up the din day and night. A somewhat similar ceremony takes place when a young girl arrives at puberty. Everything is in common, and a woman divides her load of fruits or roots with her neighbours without even a word of thanks. They recognize no authority, even of parents over their children. The men occupy themselves with fishing or occasional hunting, their arms being the bow or club. The women do practically all the other work.

61 Marriage is simple and at the will of the young people, the wife usually going to live with her husband's relatives. Polygamy and adultery are infrequent, but divorce is easy. The woman receives little attention in pregnancy or childbirth, but on the other hand the father conforms to the couvade. Children are named when two or three years old. Abortion is very frequent; infanticide more rare, but the infant is often buried alive on the breast of the dead mother.

62 Disease is driven off by the medicine men with singing and shaking of rattles. They believe in a good spirit to whom they seem to pay no worship; and, in a malevolent night spirit whom they strive to propitiate. They believe that the soul, after death, enters into the body of some animal. The best work upon the language of the Mataco tribes is the grammar and dictionary of the Jesuit missionary, Father Joseph Araoz, with Quevedo's studies of the Nocten and Vejoz dialects, from various sources.

63 ARAOZ, Grammar and Dictionary; BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. du Paraguay, 3 vols. (Paris, 1756), Eng. tr., 2 vols. (London, 1769); HERVAS, Catalogo de la Lenguas, I (Madrid, 1800); LOZANO, Descrepcion Chorographica del Gran Chaco (Cordoba, 1733); PAGE, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay (New York, 1859); PELLESCHI, Otto Mesi nel Gran Ciacco (Florence, 1881), tr., Eight Months on the Gran Chaco (London, 1886); QUEVEDO, Lenguas Argentinas (Dialecto Nocten, Dialecto Vejoz) in Bol. del Instituto Geografico Argentino, XVI-XVII (Buenos Aires, 1896).

64 James Mooney

Mater

61 A titular bishopric in the province of Byzantium, mentioned as a free city by Pliny under the name of Matera (Hist. natur., V, iv, 5). Mgr. Toulotte ("Géographie de l'Afrique chrétienne", proconsulaire, 197) cites only two occupants of this see: Rusticianus, who died shortly before 411, and Quintasius, who succeeded him. Gams (Series episcoporum, 467) mentions four: Rusticianus, Cultasius for Quintasius, Adelfius in 484, and Victor about the year 556. Mater is now known as Mateur, a small town of 4000 inhabitants, in great part Christian, and is situated in Tunis. The modern town is encircled with a wall, with three gates; it is situated on the railway from Tunis to Bizerta, not far from the lake to which it has given its name.

62 S. VAILHÉ

Materialism

64 As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul. It is diametrically opposed to Spiritualism and Idealism, which, in so far as they are one-sided and exclusive, declare that everything in the world is spiritual, and that the world and even matter itself are mere conceptions or ideas in the thinking subject. Materialism is older than Spiritualism, if we regard the development of philosophy as beginning in Greece. The ancient Indian philosophy, however, is idealistic; according to it there is only one real being, Brahma; everything else is appearance, Maja. In Greece the first attempts at philosophy were more or less materialistic; they assumed the existence of a single primordial matter — water, earth, fire, air — or of the four elements from which the world was held to have developed. Materialism was methodically developed by the Atomists. The first and also the most important systematic Materialist was Democritus, the "laughing philosopher". He taught that out of nothing comes nothing; that everything is the result of combination and division of parts (atoms); that these atoms, separated by empty spaces, are infinitely numerous and varied. Even to man he extended his cosmological Materialism, and was thus the founder of Materialism in the narrow sense, that is the denial of the soul. The soul is a complex of very fine, smooth, round, and fiery atoms: these are highly mobile and penetrate the whole body, to which they impart life. Empedocles was not a thorough-going Materialist, although be regarded the four elements with love and hatred as the formative principles of the universe, and refused to recognize a spiritual Creator of the world. Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without the Nous (intelligence); he regarded Protagoras, who first introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the inebriated.

65 The Socratic School introduced a reaction against Materialism. A little later, however, Materialism found a second Democritus in Epicurus, who treated the system in greater detail and gave it a deeper foundation. The statement that nothing comes from nothing, he supported by declaring that otherwise everything might come from everything. This argument is very pertinent, since if there were nothing, nothing could come into existence, i.e. if there were no cause. An almighty cause can of itself through its power supply a substitute for matter, which we cannot create but can only transform. Epicurus further asserted that bodies alone exist; only the void is incorporeal. He distinguished, however, between compound bodies and simple bodies or atoms, which are absolutely unchangeable. Since space is infinite, the atoms must likewise be infinitely numerous. This last deduction is not warranted, since, even in infinite space, the bodies might be limited in number — in fact, they must be, as otherwise they would entirely fill space and therefore render movement impossible. And yet Epicurus ascribes motion to the atoms, i.e. constant motion downwards. Since many of them deviate from their original direction, collisions result and various combinations are formed. The difference between one body and another is due solely to different modes of atomic combination; the atoms themselves have no quality, and differ only in size, shape, and weight. These materialistic speculations contradict directly the universally recognized laws of nature. Inertia is an essential quality of matter, which cannot set itself in motion, cannot of itself fix the direction of its motion, least of all change the direction of the motion once imparted to it. The existence of all these capabilities in matter is assumed by Epicurus: the atoms fall downwards, before there is either "up" or "down"; they have weight, although there is as yet no earth to lend them heaviness by its attraction. From the random clash of the atoms could result only confusion and not order, least of all that far-reaching design which is manifested in the arrangement of the world, especially in organic structures and mental activities. However, the soul and its origin present no difficulty to the Materialist. According to him the soul is a kind of vapour scattered throughout the whole body and mixed with a little heat. The bodies surrounding us give off continually certain minute particles which penetrate to our souls through our sense-organs and excite mental images. With the dissolution of the body, the corporeal soul is also dissolved. This view betrays a complete misapprehension of the immaterial nature of psychical states as opposed to those of the body — to say nothing of the childish notion of sense-perception, which modern physiology can regard only with an indulgent smile.

66 Epicurean Materialism received poetic expression and further development in the didactic poem of the Roman Lucretius. This bitter opponent of the gods, like the modern representatives of Materialism, places it in outspoken opposition to religion. His cosmology is that of Epicurus; but Lucretius goes much further, inasmuch as he really seeks to give an explanation of the order in the world, which Epicurus referred unhesitatingly to mere chance. Lucretius asserts that it is just one of the infinitely numerous possibilities in the arrangement of the atoms; the present order was as possible as any other. He takes particular pains to disprove the immortality of the soul, seeking thus to dispel the fear of death, which is the cause of so much care and crime. The soul (anima) and the mind (animus) consist of the smallest, roundest, and most mobile atoms. That "feeling is an excitement of the atoms", he lays down as a firmly established principle. He says: "When the flavour of the wine vanishes, or the odour of the ointment passes away in the air, we notice no diminution of weight. Even so with the body when the soul has disappeared." He overlooks the fact that the flavour and odour are not necessarily lost, even though we cannot measure them. That they do not perish is now certain and, we must therefore conclude, still less does the spiritual soul cease to exist. However, the soul is no mere odour of a body, but a being with real activity; consequently, it must itself be real, and likewise distinct from the body, since thought and volition are incorporeal activities, and not movement which, according to Lucretius at least, is the only function of the atoms.

67 Christianity reared a mighty dam against Materialism, and it was only with the return to antiquity in the so-called restoration of the sciences that the Humanists again made it a powerful factor. Giordano Bruno, the Pantheist, was also a Materialist: "Matter is not without its forms, but contains them all; and since it carries what is wrapped up in itself, it is in truth all nature and the mother of all the living." But the classical age of Materialism began with the eighteenth century, when de la Mettrie (1709-51) wrote his "Histoire naturelle de l'âme" and "L'homme machine." He holds that all that feels must be material: "The soul is formed, it grows and decreases with the organs of the body, wherefore it must also share in the latter's death" — a palpable fallacy, since even if the body is only the soul's instrument, the soul must be affected by the varying conditions of the body. In the case of this Materialist we find the moral consequences of the system revealed without disguise. In his two works, "La Volupté" and "L'art de jouer", he glorifies licentiousness. The most famous work of this period is the "Système de la nature" of Baron Holbach (1723-89). According to this work there exists nothing but nature, and all beings, which are supposed to be beyond nature, are creatures of the imagination. Man is a constituent part of nature; his moral endowment is simply a modification of his physical constitution, derived from his peculiar organization. Even Voltaire found himself compelled to offer a determined opposition to these extravagant attacks on everything spiritual.

68 In Germany Materialism was vigorously assailed, especially by Leibniz (q.v.). As, however, this philosopher sought to replace it with his doctrine of monads, an out-and-out spiritualistic system, he did not give a real refutation. On the other hand, Kant was supposed to have broken definitively the power of Materialism by the so-called idealistic argument, which runs: Matter is revealed to us only in consciousness; it cannot therefore be the cause or the principle of consciousness. This argument proves absolutely nothing against Materialism, unless we admit that our consciousness creates matter, i.e. that matter has no existence independent of consciousness. If consciousness or the soul creates matter, the latter cannot impart existence to the soul or to any psychical activity. Materialism would indeed be thus utterly annihilated: there would be no matter. But, if matter is real, it may possess all kinds of activities, even psychical, as the Materialists aver. As long as the impossibility of this is not demonstrated, Materialism is not refuted. Idealism or Phenomenalism, which entirely denies the existence of matter, is more absurd than Materialism. There is, however, some truth in the Kantian reasoning. Consciousness or the psychical is far better known to us than the material; what matter really is, no science has yet made clear. The intellectual or the psychical, on the other hand, is presented immediately to our consciousness; we experience our thoughts, volitions, and feelings; in their full clearness they stand before the eye of the mind. From the Kantian standpoint a refutation of Materialism is out of the question. To overcome it we must show that the soul is an entity, independent of and essentially distinct from the body, an immaterial substance; only as such can it be immortal and survive the dissolution of the body. For Kant, however, substance is a purely subjective form of the understanding, by means of which we arrange our experiences. The independence of the soul would thus not be objective; it would be simply an idea conceived by us. Immortality would also be merely a thought-product; this the Materialists gladly admit, but they call it, in plainer terms, a pure fabrication.

69 The German Idealists, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, seriously espoused the Phenomenalism of Kant, declaring that matter, and, in fact, the whole universe, is a subjective product. Thereby indeed Materialism is entirely overcome, but the Kantian method of refutation is reduced to absurdity. The reaction against this extravagant Spiritualism was inevitable, and it resulted by a sort of necessary consequence in the opposite extreme of outspoken Materialism. Repelled by these fantastic views, so contrary to all reality, men turned their whole energy to the investigation of nature. The extraordinary success achieved in this domain led many investigators to overestimate the importance of matter, its forces, and its laws, with which they believed they could explain even the spiritual. The chief representatives of Materialism as a system during this period are Büchner (1824-99), the author of "Kraft und Stoff"; K. Vogt (1817-95), who held that thought is "secreted" by the brain, as gall by the liver and urine by the kidneys: Czolbe (1817-73); Moleschott, to whom his Materialism brought political fame. Born on 9 August, 1822, at Herzogenbusch, North Brabant, he studied medicine, natural science, and the philosophy of Hegel at Heidelberg from 1842. After some years of medical practice in Utrecht, he qualified as instructor in physiology and anthropology at the University of Heidelberg. His writings, especially his "Kreislauf des Lebens" (1852), created a great sensation. On account of the gross materialism, which he displayed both in his works and his lectures, he received a warning from the academic senate by command of the Government, whereupon he accepted in 1854 a call to the newly founded University of Zürich. In 1861 Cavour, the Italian premier, granted him a chair at Turin, whence fifteen years later he was called to the Sapienza in Rome, which owed its foundation to the popes. Here death suddenly overtook him in 1893, and, just as he had had burnt the bodies of his wife and daughter who had committed suicide, he also appointed in his will that his own body should be reduced to ashes. The most radical rejection of everything ideal is contained in the revised work "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (1845; 3rd ed., 1893) of Max Stirner, which rejects everything transcending the particular Ego and its self-will.

70 The brilliant success of the natural sciences gave Materialism a powerful support. The scientist, indeed, is exposed to the danger of overlooking the soul, and consequently of denying it. Absorption in the study of material nature is apt to blind one to the spiritual; but it is an evident fallacy to deny the soul, on the ground that one cannot experimentally prove its existence by physical means. Natural science oversteps its limits when it encroaches on the spiritual domain and claims to pronounce there an expert decision, and it is a palpable error to declare that science demonstrates the non-existence of the soul. Various proofs from natural science are of course brought forward by the Materialists. The "closed system of natural causation" is appealed to: experience everywhere finds each natural phenomenon based upon another as its cause, and the chain of natural causes would be broken were the same brought in. On the other hand, Sigwart (1830-1904) justly observes that the soul has its share in natural causation, and is therefore included in the system. At most it could be deduced from this system that a pure spirit, that God could not interfere in the course of nature; but this cannot be proved by either experience or reason. On the contrary it is clear that the Author of nature can interfere in its course, and history informs us of His many miraculous interventions. In any case it is beyond doubt that our bodily conditions are influenced by our ideas and volitions, and this influence is more clearly perceived by us than the causality of fire in the production of heat. We must therefore reject as false the theory of natural causation, if this means the exclusion of spiritual causes.

71 But modern science claims to have given positive proof that in the human body there is no place for the soul. The great discovery by R. Mayer (1814-78), Joule (1818-89), and Helmholtz (1821-94) of the conservation of energy proves that energy cannot disappear in nature and cannot originate there. But the soul could of itself create energy, and there would also be energy lost, whenever an external stimulus influenced the soul and gave rise to sensation, which is not a form of energy. Now recent experiment has shown that the energy in the human body is exactly equivalent to the nutriment consumed. In these facts, however, there is absolutely nothing against the existence of the soul. The law of the conservation of energy is an empirical law, not a fundamental principle of thought; it is deduced from the material world and is based on the activity of matter. A body cannot set itself in motion, can produce no force; it must be impelled by another, which in the impact loses its own power of movement. This is not lost, but is changed into the new movement. Thus, in the material world, motion, which is really kinetic energy, can neither originate nor altogether cease. This law does not hold good for the immaterial world, which is not subject to the law of inertia. That our higher intellectual activities are not bound by the law is most plainly seen in our freedom of will, by which we determine ourselves either to move or to remain at rest. But the intellectual activities take place with the cooperation of the sensory processes; and, since these latter are functions of the bodily organs, they are like them subject to the law of inertia. They do not enter into activity without some stimulus; they cannot stop their activity without some external influence. They are, therefore, subject to the law of the conservation of energy, whose applicability to the human body, as shown by biological experiment, proves nothing against the soul. Consequently, while even without experiment, one must admit the law in the case of sentient beings, it can in no wise affect a pure spirit or an angel. The "Achilles" of materialistic philosophers, therefore, proves nothing against the soul. It was accordingly highly opportune when the eminent physiologist, Dubois Reymond (1818-96), called a vigorous halt to his colleague by his "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus". In his lectures, "Ueber die Grenzen der Naturerkenntniss" (Leipzig, 1872), he shows that feeling, consciousness, etc., cannot be explained from the atoms. He errs indeed in declaring permanently inexplicable everything for which natural science cannot account; the explanation must be furnished by philosophy.

72 Even theologians have defended Materialism. Thus, for example, F.D. Strauss in his work "Der alte und neue Glaube" (1872) declares openly for Materialism, and even adopts it as the basis of his religion; the material universe with its laws, although they occasionally crush us, must be the object of our veneration. The cultivation of music compensates him for the loss of all ideal goods. Among the materialistic philosophers of this time, Ueberweg (1826-71), author of the well-known "History of Philosophy", deserves mention; it is noteworthy that he at first supported the Aristotelean teleology, but later fell away into materialistic mechanism. There is indeed considerable difficulty in demonstrating mathematically the final object of nature; with those to whom the consideration of the marvellous wisdom displayed in its ordering does not bring the conviction that it cannot owe its origin to blind physical forces, proofs will avail but little. To us, indeed, it is inconceivable how any one can overlook or deny the evidences of design and of the adaptation of means for the attainment of manifold ends.

73 The teleological question, so awkward for Materialism, was thought to be finally settled by Darwinism which, as K. Vogt cynically expressed it, God was shown the door. The blind operation of natural forces and laws, without spiritual agencies, was held to explain the origin of species and their purposiveness as well. Although Darwin himself was not a Materialist, his mechanical explanation of teleology brought water to the mill of Materialism, which recognizes only the mechanism of the atoms. This evolution of matter from the protozoon to man, announced from university chairs as the result of science, was eagerly taken up by the social democrats, and became the fundamental tenet of their conception of the world and of life. Although officially socialists disown their hatred of religion, the rejection of the higher destiny of man and the consequent falling back on the material order serve them most efficiently in stirring up the deluded and discontented masses. Against this domination of Materialism among high and low there set in towards the end of the nineteenth century a reaction, which was due in no small measure to the alarming translation of the materialistic theory into practice by the socialists and anarchists. At bottom, however, it is but another instance of what the oldest experience shows: the line of progress is not vertical but spiral. Overstraining in one direction starts a rebound in the opposite extreme. The spiritual will not be reduced to the material, but it frequently commits the error of refusing to tolerate the coexistence of matter.

74 Thus at present the reaction against Materialism leads in many instances to an extreme Spiritualism or Phenomenalism, which regards matter merely as a projection of the soul. Hence also the widely-echoed cry: "Back to Kant". Kant regarded matter as entirely the product of consciousness, and this view is outspokenly adopted by L. Busse, who, in his work "Geist und Körper, Seele und Leib" (Leipzig, 1903), earnestly labours to discredit Materialism. He treats exhaustively the relations of the psychical to the physical, refutes the so-called psycho-physical parallelism, and decides in favour of the interaction of soul and body. His conclusion is the complete denial of matter. "Metaphysically the world-picture changes . . . . The corporeal world as such disappears — it is a mere appearance for the apprehending mind — and is succeeded by something spiritual. The idealistic-spiritualistic metaphysics, whose validity we here tacitly assume without further justification, recognizes no corporeal but only spiritual being. 'All reality is spiritual', is its verdict" (p. 479).

75 How little Materialism has to fear from Kantian rivalry is plainly shown, among others, by the natural philosopher Uexk ll. In the "Neue Rundschau" of 1907, Umrisse einer neuen Weltanschauung, he most vigorously opposes Darwinism and Haeckelism, but finally rejects with Kant the substantiality of the soul, and even falls back into the Materialism which he so severely condemns. He says: "The disintegrating influence of Haeckelism on the spiritual life of the masses comes, not from the consequences which his conception of eternal things calls forth, but from the Darwinian thesis that there is no purpose in nature. Really, one might suppose that on the day, when the great discovery of the descent of man from the ape was made the call went forth: 'Back to the Ape'." The walls, which confine Materialism, still stand in all their firmness: it is impossible to explain the purposive character of life from material forces." "We are so constituted that we are capable of recognizing certain purposes with our intellect, while others we long for and enjoy through our sense of beauty. One general plan binds all our spiritual and emotional forces into a unity." "This view of life Haeckel seeks to replace by his senseless talk about cell-souls and soul-cells, and thinks by his boyish trick to annihilate the giant Kant. Chamberlain's words on Haeckelism will find an echo in the soul of every educated person: 'It is not poetry, science, or philosophy, but a still-born bastard of all three'." But what does the "Giant Kant" teach? That we ourselves place the purpose in the things, but that it is not in the things! This view is also held by Materialists. Uexk ll finds the refutation of Materialism in the "empirical scheme of the objects", which is formed from our sense-perceptions. This is for him, indeed, identical with the Bewegungsmelodie (melody of motion), to which he reduces objects. Thus again there is no substance but only motion, which Materialism likewise teaches. We shall later find the Kantian Uexk ll among the outspoken Materialists.

76 Philosophers of another tendency endeavour to refute Materialism by supposing everything endowed with life and soul. To this class belong Fechner, Wundt, Paulsen, Haeckel, and the botanist Franc , who ascribe intelligence even to plants. One might well believe that this is a radical remedy for all materialistic cravings. The pity is that Materialists should be afforded an opportunity for ridicule by such a fiction. That brute matter, atoms, electrons should possess life is contrary to all experience. It is a boast of modern science that it admits only what is revealed by exact observation; but the universal and unvarying verdict of observation is that, in the inorganic world, everything shows characteristics opposite to those which life exhibits. It is also a serious delusion to believe that one can explain the human soul and its unitary consciousness on the supposition of cell-souls. A number of souls could never have one and the same consciousness. Consciousness and every psychic activity are immanent, they abide in the subject and do not operate outwardly; hence each individual soul has its own consciousness, and of any other knows absolutely nothing. A combination of several souls into one consciousness is thus impossible. But, even if it were possible, this composite consciousness would have a completely different content from the cell-souls, since it would be a marvel if all these felt, thought, and willed exactly the same. In this view immortality would be as completely done away with as it is in Materialism.

77 We have described this theory as an untenable fiction. R. Semon, however, undertakes to defend the existence of memory in all living beings in his work "Die Mneme als erhaltendes Prinzip im Wechsel des organischen Geschehens" (Leipzig, 1905). He says: "The effect of a stimulus on living substance continues after the stimulation, it has an engraphic effect. This latter is called the engram of the corresponding stimulus, and the sum of the engrams, which the organism inherits or acquires during its life, is the mneme, or memory in the widest sense." Now, if by this word the persistence of psychic and corporeal states were alone signified, there would be little to urge against this theory. But by memory is understood a psychic function, for whose presence in plants and minerals not the slightest plea can be offered. The persistence is even more easily explained in the case of inorganic nature. This Hylozoism, which, as Kant rightly declares, is the death of all science, is also called the "double aspect theory" (Zweiseitentheorie). Fechner indeed regards the material as only the outer side of the spiritual. The relation between them is that of the convex side of a curve to the concave; they are essentially one, regarded now from without an again from within — the same idea expressed in different words. By this explanation Materialism is not overcome but proclaimed. For as to the reality of matter no sensible man can doubt; consequently, if the spiritual is merely a special aspect of matter, it also must be material. The convex side of a ring is really one thing with the concave; there is but the same ring regarded from two different sides. Thus Fechner, in spite of all his disclaimers of Materialism, must deny the immortality of the soul, since in the dissolution of the body the soul must also perish, and he labours to no effect when he tries to bolster up the doctrine of survival with all kinds of fantastic ideas.

78 Closely connected with this theory is the so-called "psycho-physical parallelism", which most modern psychologists since Fechner, especially Wundt and Paulsen, energetically advocate. This emphasizes so strongly the spirituality of the soul that it rejects as impossible any influence of the soul on the body, and thus makes spiritual and bodily activities run side by side (parallel) without affecting each other. Wundt, indeed, goes so far as to make the whole world consist of will-units, and regards matter as mechanized spiritual activity. Paulsen, on the other hand, endeavours to explain the concurrence of the two series of activities by declaring that the material processes of the body are the reflection of the spiritual. One might well think that there could not be a more emphatic denial of Materialism. Yet this exaggerated Spiritualism and Idealism agrees with the fundamental dogma of the Materialists in denying the substantiality and immortality of the soul. It asserts that the soul is nothing else than the aggregate of the successive internal activities without any psychical essence. This declaration leads inevitably to Materialism, because activity without an active subject is inconceivable; and, since the substantiality of the soul is denied, the body must be the subject of the spiritual activities, as otherwise it would be quite impossible that to certain physical impressions there should correspond perceptions, volitions, and movements. In any case this exaggerated Spiritualism, which no intelligent person can accept, cannot be regarded as a refutation of Materialism. Apart from Christian philosophy no philosophical system has yet succeeded in successfully combatting Materialism. One needs but a somewhat accurate knowledge of the recent literature of natural science and philosophy to be convinced that the "refutation" of Materialism by means of the latest Idealism is idle talk. Thus, Ostwald proclaims his doctrine of energy the refutation of Materialism, and, in his "Vorlesungen ber Naturphilosophie", endeavours "to fill the yawning chasm, which since Descartes gapes between spirit and matter", by subordinating the ideas of matter and spirit under the concept of energy. Thus, consciousness also is energy, the nerve-energy of the brain. He is inclined "to recognize consciousness as an essential characteristic of the energy of the central organ, just as space is an essential characteristic of mechanical energy and time of kinetic energy." Is not this Materialism pure and simple?

79 Entirely materialistic also is the widely accepted physiological explanation of psychical activities, especially of the feelings, such as fear, anger etc. This is defended (e.g.) by Uexküll, whom we have already referred to as a vigorous opponent of Materialism. He endeavours to found, or at least to illustrate this by the most modern experiments. In his work "Der Kampf um die Tierseele" (1903), he says: "Suppose that with the help of refined röntgen rays we could project magnified on a screen in the form of movable shadow-waves the processes in the nervous system of man. According to our present knowledge, we might thus expect the following. We observe the subject of the experiment, when a bell rings near by, and we see the shadow on the screen (representing the wave of excitation) hurry along the auditory nerve to the brain. We follow the shadow into the cerebrum, and, if the person makes a movement in response to the sound, centrifugal shadows are also presented to our observation. This experiment would be in no way different from any physical experiment of a similar nature, except that in the case of the brain with its intricate system of pathways the course of the stimulus and the transformation of the accumulated energy would necessarily form a very complicated and confused picture." But what will be thereby proved or even illustrated? Even without r ntgen rays we know that, in the case of hearing, nerve waves proceed to the brain, and that from the brain motor effects pass out to the peripheral organs. But these effects are mere movements, not psychical perception; for consciousness attests that sensory perception, not to speak of thought and volition, is altogether different from movements, in fact the very opposite. We can think simultaneously of opposites (e. g. existence and nonexistence, round and angular), and these opposites must be simultaneously present in our consciousness, for otherwise we could not compare them, nor perceive and declare their oppositeness. Now, it is absolutely impossible that a nerve or an atom of the brain should simultaneously execute opposite movements. And, not merely in the case of true opposites, but also in the judgment of every distinction, the nerve elements must simultaneously have different movements, of different rapidity and in different directions.

80 An undisguised Materialism is espoused by A. Kann in his "Naturgeschichte der Moral und die Physik des Denkens", with the sub-title "Der Idealismus eines Materialisten" (Vienna and Leipzig, 1907). He says: "To explain physically the complicated processes of thought, it is above all necessary that the necessity of admitting anything 'psychical' be eliminated. Our ideas as to what is good and bad are for the average man so intimately connected with the psychical that it is a prime necessity to eliminate the psychical from our ideas of morality, etc. Only when pure, material science has built up on its own foundations the whole structure of our morals and ethics can one think of elaborating for unbiased readers what I call the 'Physics of Thinking'. To prepare the ground for the new building, one must first 'clear away the debris of ancient notions', that is 'God, prayer, immortality (the soul)'." The reduction of psychical life to physics is actually attempted by J. Pikler in his treatise "Physik des Seelenlebens" (Leipzig, 1901). He converses with a pupil of the highest form, at first in a very childish way, but finally heavy guns are called into action. "That all the various facts, all the various phenomena of psychical life, all the various states of consciousness are the self-preservation of motion, has not yet, I think, been explained by any psychologist." Such is indeed the case, for, generally speaking, gross Materialism has been rejected. Materialism refers psychical phenomena to movements of the nerve substance; but self-preservation of motion is motion, and consequently this new psycho-physics is pure Materialism. In any case, matter cannot "self-preserve" its motion; motion persists on its own account in virtue of the law of the conservation of energy. Therefore, according to this theory, all matter ought to exhibit psychical phenomena.

81 Still more necessary and simple was the evolution of the world according to J. Lichtneckert (Neue wissenschaftl. Lebenslehre der Weltalls, Leipzig, 1903). His "Ideal oder Selbstzweckmaterialismus als die absolute Philosophie" (Ideal or End-in-itself Materialism as the Absolute Philosophy) offers "the scientific solution of all great physical, chemical, astronomical, and physiological world-riddles." Let us select a few ideas from this new absolutist philosophy. "That God and matter are absolutely identical notions, was until to-day unknown." "Hitherto Materialism investigated the external life of matter, and Idealism its internal life. From the fusion of these two conceptions of life and the world, which since the earliest times have walked their separate ways and fought each other, issues the present 'Absolute Philosophy.' Heretofore Materialism has denied, as a fundamental error, teleology or the striving for an end, and hence also the spiritual or psychical qualities of matter, while Idealism has denied the materiality of the soul or of God. Consequently, a complete and harmonious world-theory could not be reached. The Ideal or End-in-itself Materialism, or Monism, is the crown or acme of all philosophies, since in it is contained the absolute truth, to which the leading intellects of all times have gradually and laboriously contributed. Into it flow all philosophical and religious systems, as streams into the sea." "Spirit or God is matter, and, vice versa, matter is spirit or God. Matter is no raw, lifeless mass, as was hitherto generally assumed, since all chemico-physical processes are self-purposive. Matter, which is the eternal, unending, visible, audible, weighable, measurable etc. deity, is gifted with the highest evolutionary and transforming spiritual or vital qualities, and indeed possesses power to feel, will, think, and remember. All that exists is matter or God. A non-material being does not exist. Even space is matter. . ."

82 One needs only to indicate such fruits of materialistic science to illustrate in their absurdity the consequences of the pernicious conception of man and the universe known as Materialism. But we cite these instances also as a positive proof that the much-lauded victory of modern Idealism over Materialism has no foundation in fact. To our own time may be applied what the well-known historian of Materialism, Friedrich Albert Lange (Geschichte des Materialismus u. Kritik seiner Bedeutung in der Gegenwart), wrote in 1875: "The materialistic strife of our day thus stands before us as a serious sign of the times. To-day, as in the period before Kant and the French Revolution, a general relaxation of philosophical effort, a retrogression of ideas, is the basic explanation of the spread of Materialism." What he says indeed of the relaxation of philosophical effort is no longer true to-day; on the contrary, seldom has there been so much philosophizing by the qualified and the unqualified as at the beginning of the present and the end of the last century. Much labour has been devoted to philosophy and much has been accomplished, but, in the words of St. Augustine, it is a case of magni gressus praeter viam (i.e. long strides on the wrong road). We find simply philosophy, without ideas, for Positivism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, Psychologism, and the numerous other modern systems are all enemies of ideas. Even Kant himself, whom Lange invokes as the bulwark against Materialism, is very appropriately called by the historian of Idealism, O. Willman, "the lad who throws stones at ideas".

83 The idea, whose revival and development, as Lange expects, "will raise mankind to a new level is, as we have shown, not to be sought in non-Christian philosophy. Only a return to the Christian view of the world, which is founded on Christian philosophy and the teachings of the Socratic School, can prevent the catastrophes prophesied by Lange, and perhaps raise mankind to a higher cultural level. This philosophy offers a thorough refutation of cosmological and anthropological Materialism, and raises up the true Idealism. It shows that matter cannot of itself be uncreated or eternal, which indeed may be deduced from the fact that of itself it is inert, indifferent to rest and to motion. But it must be either at rest or in motion if it exists; if it existed of itself, in virtue of its own nature, it would be also of itself in either of those conditions. If it were of itself originally in motion, it could have never come to rest, and it would not be true that its nature is indifferent to rest and to motion and could be equally well in either of the two conditions. With this simple argument the fundamental error is confuted. An exhaustive refutation will be found in the present author's writings: "Der Kosmos" (Paderborn, 1908); "Gott u. die Sch pfung" (Ratisbon, 1910); "Die Theodizee" (4th ed., 1910); "Lehrbuch der Apologetik", I (3rd ed., Münster, 1903). Anthropological Materialism is completely disproved by demonstrating for psychical activities a simple, spiritual substance distinct from the body — i.e. the soul. Reason assumes the existence of a simple being, since a multiplicity of atoms can possess no unitary, indivisible thought, and cannot compare two ideas or two psychical states. That which makes the comparison must have simultaneously in itself both the states. But a material atom cannot have two different conditions simultaneously, cannot for example simultaneously execute two different motions. Thus, it must be an immaterial being which makes the comparison. The comparison itself, the perception of the identity or difference, likewise the idea of necessity and the idea of a pure spirit, are so abstract and metaphysical that a material being cannot be their subject.

84 For a full refutation of anthropological Materialism see Gutberlet, Lehrbuch der Psychologie (4th ed., Munster, 1904); Idem, Der Kampf um die Seele (2 vols., 2nd ed., Mains, 1903). Consult also Fabri, Briefe gegen den M. (Stuttgart, 1864); Prat, L'impuissance du M. (Paris, 1868); Moigno, Le M. et la force (2nd ed., Paris, 1873); Hertling, Ueber d. Grenzen d. mechanischen Naturerkl rung (Bonn, 1875); Flint, Antitheistic Theories (London, 1879); Bowne, Some Difficulties of M. in Princeton Rev. (1881), pp. 344-372; Dressler, Der belebte u. der unbelebte Stoff (Freiburg, 1883); Lilly, Materialism and Morality in Fortnightly Review (1886), 573-94; (1887), 276-93; Bossu, Refutation du mat rialisme (Louvain, 1890); Dreher, Der M. eine Verirrung d. menschlichen Geistes (Berlin, 1892); Corrance, Will M. be the Religion of the Future? In Dublin Review (1899), 86-96; Courbet, Faillete du M. (Paris, 1899); Fullerton, The Insufficiency of M. in Psychol. Review, IX (1902), 156-73; Pesch, Die grossen Weltrathsel (Freiburg, 1883; 3rd ed., 1907); Stockl, Der M. gepruft in seinen Lehrsatzen u. deren Consequenzen (Mainz, 1878). See also bibliography under God, Soul, Spiritualism, World.

85 Constantin Gutberlet

Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

67 Second Sunday in October. The object of this feast is to commemorate the dignity of the Mary as Mother of God. Mary is truly the Mother of Christ, who in one person unites the human and divine nature. This title was solemnly ratified by the Council of Ephesus, 22 June, 431. The hymns used in the office of the feast also allude to Mary's dignity as the spiritual mother of men. The love of Mary for all mankind was that of a mother, for she shared all the feelings of her son whose love for men led Him to die for our redemption (Hunter, Dogm.Theo. 2, 578). The feast was first granted, on the petition of King Joseph Manuel, to the dioceses of Portugal and to Brasil and Algeria, 22 January, 1751, together with the feast of the Purity of Mary, and was assigned to the first Sunday in May, dupl. maj. In the following year both feasts were extended to the province of Venice, 1778 to the kingdom of Naples, and 1807 to Tuscany. At present the feast is not found in the universal calendar of the church, but nearly all diocesan calendars have adopted it. In the Roman Breviary the feast of the Maternity is commemorated on the second, and the feast of the Purity on the third, Sunday in October. In Rome, in the Church of S. Augustine, it is celebrated as a dupl. 2. classis with an octave, in honour of the miraculous statue of the Madonna del Parto by Sansovino. This feast is also the titular feast of the Trinitarians under the invocation of N. S. de los Remedios. At Mesagna in Apulia it is kept 20 February in commemoration of the earthquake, 20 February 1743.

68 F. G. Holweck

Mathathias

70 The name of ten persons of the Bible, variant in both Hebrew and Greek of Old Testament and in Greek of New Testament; uniform in Vulgate. The meaning of the name is "gift of Jah", or "of Jahweh" (cf. Theódoros). In the Hebrew, the first four of these persons are called Mattith Jah (mtthyh).

71 (1) MATHATHIAS (B. Thamathía, A. Maththathías), one of the sons of Nebo who married an alien wife (I Est., x, 41) and later repudiated her; he is called Mazitias in III Esd., ix, 35.

72 (2) MATHATHIAS (Sept. Matthathías), one of the six who stood at the right of Esdras while he read the law to the people (II Esd., viii, 4).

73 (3) MATHATHIAS (Sept. Matthathías), a Levite of Corite stock and eldest son of Sellum; he had charge of the frying of cakes for the temple-worship (I Par., ix, 31).

74 (4) MATHATHIAS (Sept. Mattathías), a Levite, one of Asaph's musicians before the ark (I Par., xvi, 5).

75 (5) MATHATHIAS (I Par., xv, 18, 21; xxv, 3, 21; Heb. Mththyhw; A. Mattathías in first three, Matthías in last; B. Immatathía in first, Mettathías in second, Mattathías in last two), a Levite of the sons of Idithun, one of the musicians who played and sung before the ark on its entrance into Jerusalem, later the leader of the fourteenth group of musicians of King David.

76 (6) MATHATHIAS (I Mach., ii passim; xiv, 29; Sept. Mattathías), the father of the five Machabees) who fought with the Seleucids for Jewish liberty.

77 (7) MATHATHIAS (I Mach., xi, 70), the son of Absalom and a captain in the army of Jonathan the Machabee; together with Judas the son of Calphi, he alone stood by Jonathan's side till the tide of battle turned in the plain of Asor.

78 (8) MATHATHIAS (I Mach., xvi, 14), a son of Simon the high priest; he and his father and brother Judas were murdered by Ptolemee, the son of Abobus, at Doch.

79 (9 and 10) MATHATHIAS (Matthathías), two ancestors of Jesus (Luke, iii, 25, 26).

80 Walter Drum

Theobald Mathew

73 Apostle of Temperance, born at Thomastown Castle, near Cashel, Tipperary, Ireland, 10 October, 1790; died at Queenstown, Cork, 8 December, 1856. His father was James Mathew, a gentleman of good family; his mother was Anne, daughter of George Whyte of Cappaghwhyte. At twelve he was sent to St. Canice's Academy, Kilkenny. There he spent nearly seven years, during which time he became acquainted with two Capuchin Fathers, who seem to have influenced him deeply. In September, 1807, he went to Maynooth College, and in the following year joined the Capuchin Order in Dublin. Having made his profession and completed his studies, he was ordained priest by Archbishop Murray of Dublin on Easter Sunday, 1814. His first mission was in Kilkenny, where he spent twelve months. He was then transferred to Cork where he spent twenty-four years before beginning his great crusade against intemperance. During these years he ministered in the "Little Friary", and organized schools, industrial classes, and benefit societies at a time when there was no recognized system of Catholic education in Ireland. He also founded a good library, and was foremost in every good work for the welfare of the people. In 1830 he took a long lease of the Botanic Gardens as a cemetery for the poor. Thousands, who died in the terrible cholera of 1832, owed their last resting-place as well as relief and consolation in their dying hours to Father Mathew. ln 1828 he was appointed Provincial of the Capuchin Order in Ireland a position which he held for twenty-three years.

74 In 1838 came the crisis of his life. Drunkenness had become widespread, and was the curse of all classes in Ireland. Temperance efforts had failed to cope with the evil, and after much anxious thought and prayer, in response to repeated appeals from William Martin, a Quaker, Father Mathew decided to inaugurate a total abstinence movement. On 10 April, 1838, the first meeting of the Cork Total Abstinence Society was held in his own schoolhouse. He presided, delivered a modest address, and took the pledge himself. Then with the historic words, "Here goes in the Name of God", he entered his signature in a large book lying on the table.

75 About sixty followed his example that night and signed the book. Meetings were held twice a week, in the evenings and after Mass on Sundays. The crowds soon became so great that the schoolhouse had to be abandoned and the Horse Bazaar, a building capable of holding 4000, became the future meeting-place. Here, night after night, Father Mathew addressed crowded assemblies. In three months he had enrolled 25,000 in Cork alone; in five months the number had increased to 130,000. The movement now assumed a new phase. Father Mathew decided to go forth and preach his crusade throughout the land. ln Dec., 1839, he went to Limerick and met with an extraordinary triumph. Thousands came in from the adjoining counties and from Connaught. In four days he gave the pledge to 150,000. In the same month he went to Waterford, where in three days he enrolled 80,000. In March, 1840, he enrolled 70,000 in Dublin. In Maynooth College he reaped a great harvest, winning over 8 professors and 250 students, whilst in Maynooth itself, and the neighbourhood, he gained 36,000 adherents. In January, 1841, he went to Kells, and in two days and a half enrolled 100,000. Thus in a few years he travelled through the whole of Ireland, and in February, 1843, was able to write to a friend in America: "I have now, with the Divine Assistance, hoisted the banner of Temperance in almost every parish in Ireland".

76 He did not confine himself to the preaching of temperance alone. He spoke of the other virtues also, denounced crime of every kind, and secret societies of every description. Crime diminished as his movement spread, and neither crime nor secret societies ever flourished where total abstinence had taken root. He was of an eminently practical, as well as of a spiritual turn of mind. Thackeray, who met him in Cork in 1842 wrote of him thus: "Avoiding all political questions, no man seems more eager than he for the practical improvement of this country. Leases and rents, farming improvements, reading societies, music societies — he was full of these, and of his schemes of temperance above all." Such glorious success having attended his efforts at home, he now felt himself free to answer the earnest invitations of his fellow-country-men in Great Britain. On 13 August, 1842, he reached Glasgow, where many thousands joined the movement. In July, 1843, he arrived in England and opened his memorable campaign in Liverpool. From Liverpool he went to Manchester and Salford, and, having visited the chief towns of Lancashire, he went on to Yorkshire, where he increased his recruits by 200,000. His next visit was to London where he enrolled, 74,000. During three months in England he gave the pledge to 600,000.

77 He then returned to Cork where trials awaited him. In July, l845, the first blight destroyed the potato crop, and in the following winter there was bitter distress. Father Mathew was one of the first to warn the government of the calamity which was impending. Famine with all its horrors reigned throughout the country during the years 1846-47. During those years, the Apostle of Temperance showed himself more than ever the Apostle of Charity. In Cork he organized societies for collecting and distributing food supplies. He stopped the building of his own church and gave the funds in charity. He spent 600 pounds ($3000) a month in relief, and used his influence in England and America to obtain food and money. Ireland lost 2,000,000 inhabitants during those two years. All organization was broken up, and the total abstinence movement received a severe blow. In 1847 Father Mathew was placed first on the list for the vacant Bishopric of Cork, but Rome did not confirm the choice of the clergy. In the early part of 1849, in response to earnest invitations, he set sail for America. He visited New York, Boston, New Orleans, Washington, Charlestown, Mobile, and many other cities, and secured more than 500,000 disciples. After a stay of two and a half years he returned to Ireland in Dec., 1851. Men of all creeds and politics have borne important testimony to the wonderful progress and the beneficial effects of the movement he inaugurated. It is estimated that he gave the total abstinence pledge to 7,000,000 people, and everyone admits that in a short time he accomplished a great moral revolution. O'Connell characterized it as "a mighty miracle", and often declared that he would never have ventured to hold his Repeal "monster meetings" were it not that he had the teetotalers "for his policemen".

78 His remains rest beneath the cross in "Father Mathew's Cemetery" at Queenstown. On 10 October, 1864, a fine bronze statue by Foley was erected to his memory in Cork, and during his centenary year a marble statue was erected in O'Connell Street, Dublin. The influence of Father Mathew's movement is still felt in many a country and especially in his own. In 1905 the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland assembled at Maynooth unanimously decided to request the Capuchin Fathers to preach a Temperance Crusade throughout the country. In carrying out this work their efforts have been crowned with singular success. The Father Mathew Memorial Hall, Dublin, is a centre of social, educative, and temperance work, and is modelled on the Temperance Institute, founded and maintained by the Apostle of Temperance himself. The Father Mathew Hall, Cork, is doing similar work. The Dublin Hall publishes a monthly magazine called "The Father Mathew Record", which has a wide circulation. A special organization called "The Young Irish Crusaders" was founded in Jan., 1909, and its membership is already over 100,000.

79 Father Augustine

François-Désiré Mathieu

76 Bishop and cardinal, born 27 May, 1839; died 26 October, 1908. Born of humble family at Einville, Department of Meurthe and Moselle, France, he made his studies in the diocesan school and the seminary of the Diocese of Nancy, and was ordained priest in 1863. He was engaged successively as professor in the school (petit séminaire) of Pont-A-Mousson, chaplain to the Dominicanesses at Nancy (1879), and parish priest of Saint-Martin at Pont-à-Mousson (1890). Meanwhile, he had won the Degree of Doctor of Letters with a Latin and a French thesis, the latter being honoured with a prize from the French Academy for two years. On 3 January, 1893, he was nominated to the Bishopric of Angers, was preconized on 19 January, and consecrated on 20 March. He succeeded Mgr Freppel, one of the most remarkable bishops of his time, and set himself to maintain all his predecessor's good works. To these he added the work of facilitating the education of poor children destined for the priesthood. He inaugurated the same pious enterprise in the Diocese of Toulouse, to which he was transferred three years later (30 May, 1896) by a formal order of Leo XIII. In his new See he laboured, in accordance with the views of this pontiff, to rally Catholics to the French Government. With this aim he wrote the "Devoir des catholiques", an episcopal charge which attracted wide attention and earned for him the pope's congratulations. In addition he was summoned to Rome to be a cardinal at the curia (19 June, 1899). Having resigned the See of Toulouse (14 December, 1899), his activities were thenceforward absorbed in the work of the Roman congregations and some diplomatic negoti ations which have remained secret. Nevertheless, he found leisure to write on the Concordat of 1801 and the conclave of 1903. In 1907 he was admitted to the French Academy with a discourse which attracted much notice. Death came to him unexpectedly next year in London, whither he had gone to assist at the Eucharistic Congress. Under a somewhat common place exterior he had rich and active nature, an inquiring and open mind, a fine and well-cultivated intelligence which did credit to the French clergy. His works include "De Joannis abbatis Gorziensis vita" (Nancy 1878); "L'Ancien Régime dans la Province de Lorraine et Barrois" (Paris, 1871; 3rd ed., 1907); "Le Concordat de 1801" (Paris, 1903); "Les derniers jours de Leon XIII et le conclave de 1903" (Paris, 1904); a new edition of his works began to appear in Paris, July, 1910.

77 Antoine Dégert.

Mathusala

79 One of the Hebrew patriarchs, mentioned in Genesis 5. The word is variously given as Mathusale (1 Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:37) and Mathusala. Etymologists differ with regard to the signification of the name. Holzinger gives "man of the javelin" as the more likely meaning; Hommel and many with him think that it means "man of Selah", Selah being derived from a Babylonian word, given as a title to the god, Sin; While Professor Sayee attributes the name to a Babylonian word which is not understood. The author of Genesis traces the patriarch's descent through his father Henoch to Seth, a son of Adam and Eve. At the time of his son's birth Henoch was sixty-five years of age. When Methuselah had reached the great age of one hundred and eighty-seven years he became the father of Lamech. Following this he lived the remarkable term of seven hundred and eighty-two years, which makes his age at his death nine hundred and sixty-nine years. It follows thus that his death occurred in the year of the Deluge. There is no record of any other human being having lived as long as this for which reason the name, Methuselah, has become a Synonym for longevity.

80 The tendency of rationalists and advanced critics of different creeds leads them to deny outright the extraordinary details of the ages of patriarchs. Catholic commentators, however, find no difficulty in accepting the words of the Genesis. Certain exegetes solve the difficulty to their own satisfaction by declaring that the year meant by the sacred writer is not the equivalent of our year. In the Samaritan text Methuselah was sixty-seven at Lamech's birth, and 720 at his death.

81 Joseph V. Molloy.

St. Matilda

82 Queen of Germany, wife of King Henry I (The Fowler), b. at the Villa of Engern in Westphalia, about 895; d. at Quedlinburg, 14 March, 968. She was brought up at the monastery of Erfurt. Henry, whose marriage to a young widow, named Hathburg, had been declared invalid, asked for Matilda's hand, and married her in 909 at Walhausen, which he presented to her as a dowry. Matilda became the mother of: Otto I, Emperor of Germany; Henry, Duke of Bavaria; St. Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne; Gerberga, who married Louis IV of France; Hedwig, the mother of Hugh Capet. In 912 Matilda's husband succeeded his father as Duke of Saxony, and in 918 he was chosen to succeed King Conrad of Germany. As queen, Matilda was humble, pious, and generous, and was always ready to help the oppressed and unfortunate. She wielded a wholesome influence over the king. After a reign of seventeen years, he died in 936. He bequeathed to her all his possessions in Quedlinburg, Poehlden, Nordhausen, Grona, and Duderstadt.

83 It was the king's wish that his eldest son, Otto, should succeed him. Matilda wanted her favourite son Henry on the royal throne. On the plea that he was the first-born son after his father became king, she induced a few nobles to cast their vote for him, but Otto was elected and crowned king on 8 August, 936. Three years later Henry revolted against his brother Otto, but, being unable to wrest the royal crown from him, submitted, and upon the intercession of Matilda was made Duke of Bavaria. Soon, however, the two brothers joined in persecuting their mother, whom they accused of having impoverished the crown by her lavish almsgiving. To satisfy them, she renounced the possessions the deceased king had bequeathed to her, and retired to her villa at Engern in Westphalia. But afterwards, when misfortune overtook her sons, Matilda was called back to the palace, and both Otto and Henry implored her pardon.

84 Matilda built many churches, and founded or supported numerous monasteries. Her chief foundations were the monasteries at Quedlinburg, Nordhausen, Engern, and Poehlden. She spent many days at these monasteries and was especially fond of Nordhausen. She died at the convents of Sts. Servatius and Dionysius at Quedlinburg, and was buried there by the side of her husband. She was venerated as a saint immediately after her death. Her feast is celebrated on 14 March.

85 Two old Lives of Matilda are extant; one, Vita antiquior, written in the monastery of Nordhausen and dedicated to the Emperor Otto II; edited by KOEPKE in Mon. Germ. Script., X, 575-582, and reprinted in MIGNE, P.L., CLI, 1313-26. The other, Vita Mahtildis reginae, written by order of the Emperor Henry II, is printed in mon. Germ. Script., IV, 283-302, and in MIGNE, P.L., CXXXV, 889-9220. CLARUS, Die heilige Mathilde, ihr Gemahl Heinrich I, und ihre Sohne Otto I, Heinrich und Bruno (Munster, 1867); SCHWARZ, Die heilige Mathilde, Gemahlin Heinrichs I. Konigs von Deutschland (Ratisbon, 1846); Acta SS., March, II, 351-65.

86 Michael T. Ott

Matilda of Canossa

85 Countess of Tuscany, daughter and heiress of the Marquess Boniface of Tuscany, and Beatrice, daughter of Frederick of Lorraine, b. 1046; d. 24 July, 1114. In 1053 her father was murdered. Duke Gottfried of Lorraine, an opponent of the Emperor Henry III, went to Italy and married the widowed Beatrice. But, in 1055, when Henry III entered Italy he took Beatrice and her daughter Matilda prisoners and had them brought to Germany. Thus the young countess was early dragged into the bustle of these troublous times. That, however, did not prevent her receiving an excellent training; she was finely educated, knew Latin, and was very fond of serious books. She was also deeply religious, and even in her youth followed with interest the great ecclesiastical questions which were then prominent. Before his death in 1056 Henry III gave back to Gottfried of Lorraine his wife and stepdaughter. When Matilda grew to womanhood she was married to her stepbrother Gottfried of Lower Lorraine, from whom, however, she separated in 1071. He was murdered in 1076; the marriage was childless, but it cannot be proved that it was never consummated, as many historians asserted. From 1071 Matilda entered upon the government and administration of her extensive possessions in Middle and Upper Italy. These domains were of the greatest importance in the political and ecclesiastical disputes of that time, as the road from Germany by way of Upper Italy to Rome passed through them. On 22 April, 1071, Gregory VII became pope, and before long the great battle for the independence of the Church and the reform of ecclesiastical life began. In this contest Matilda was the fearless, courageous, and unswerving ally of Gregory and his successors.

86 Immediately on his elevation to the papacy Gregory entered into close relations with Matilda and her mother. The letters to Matilda (Beatrice d. 1076) give distinct expression to the pope's high esteem and sympathy for the princess. He called her and her mother "his sisters and daughters of St. Peter" (Regest., II, ix), and wished to undertake a Crusade with them to free the Christians in the Holy Land (Reg., I, xi). Matilda and her mother were present at the Roman Lenten synods of 1074 and 1075, at which the pope published the important decrees on the reform of ecclesiastical life. Both mother and daughter reported to the pope favourably on the disposition of the German king, Henry IV, and on 7 December, 1074, Gregory wrote to him, thanking him for the friendly reception of the papal legate, and for his intention to co- operate in the uprooting of simony and concubinage from among the clergy. However, the quarrel between Gregory and Henry IV soon began. In a letter to Beatrice and Matilda (11 Sept., 1075) the pope complained of the inconstancy and changeableness of the king, who apparently had no desire to be at peace with him. In the next year (1076) Matilda's first husband, Gottfried of Lorraine, was murdered at Antwerp. Gregory wrote to Bishop Hermann of Metz, 25 August, 1076, that he did not yet know in which state Matilda "the faithful handmaid of St. Peter" would, under God's guidance, remain.

87 On account of the action of the Synod of Worms against Gregory (1076), the latter was compelled to lay Henry IV under excommunication. As the majority of the princes of the empire now took sides against the king, Henry wished to be reconciled with the pope, and consequently travelled to Italy in the middle of a severe winter, in order to meet the pope there before the latter should leave Italian soil on his journey to Germany. Gregory, who had already arrived in Lombardy when he heard of the king's journey, betook himself at Matilda's advice to her mountain stronghold of Canossa for security. The excommunicated king had asked the Countess Matilda, his mother- in-law Adelaide, and Abbot Hugh of Cluny, to intercede with the pope for him. These fulfilled the king's request, and after long opposition Gregory permitted Henry to appear before him personally at Canossa and atone for his guilt by public penance. After the king's departure the pope set out for Mantua. For safety Matilda accompanied him with armed men, but hearing a rumour that Archbishop Wibert of Ravenna, who was unfriendly to Gregory, was preparing an ambush for him, she brought the pope back to Canossa. Here she drew up a first deed of gift, in which she bequeathed her domains and estates from Ceperano to Radicofani to the Roman Church. But as long as she lived she continued to govern and administer them freely and independently. When, soon after, Henry again renewed the contest with Gregory, Matilda constantly supported the pope with soldiers and money. On her security the monastery of Canossa had its treasure melted down, and sent Gregory seven hundred pounds of silver and nine pounds of gold as a contribution to the war against Henry. The latter withdrew from the Romagna to Lombardy in 1082, and laid waste Matilda's lands in his march through Tuscany. Nevertheless the countess did not desist from her adherence to Gregory. She was confirmed in this by her confessor, Anselm, Bishop of Lucca.

88 In similar ways she supported the successors of the great pope in the contest for the freedom of the Church. When in 1087, shortly after his coronation, Pope Victor III was driven from Rome by the antipope Wibert, Matilda advanced to Rome with an army, occupied the Castle of Sant'Angelo and part of the city, and called Victor back. However, at the threats of the emperor the Romans again deserted Victor, so that he was obliged to flee once more. At the wish of Pope Urban II Matilda married in 1089 the young Duke Welf of Bavaria, in order that the most faithful defender of the papal chair might thus obtain a powerful ally. In 1090 Henry IV returned to Italy to attack Matilda, whom he had already deprived of her estates in Lorraine. He laid waste many of her possessions, conquered Mantua, her principal stronghold, by treachery in 1091, as well as several castles. Although the vassals of the countess hastened to make their peace with the emperor, Matilda again promised fidelity to the cause of the pope, and continued the war, which now took a turn in her favour. Henry's army was defeated before Canossa. Welf, Duke of Bavaria, and his son of the same name, Matilda's husband, went over to Henry in 1095, but the countess remained steadfast. When the new German king, Henry V, entered Italy in the autumn of 1110, Matilda did homage to him for the imperial fiefs. On his return he stopped three days with Matilda in Tuscany, showed her every mark of respect, and made her imperial vice-regent of Liguria. In 1112, she reconfirmed the donation of her property to the Roman Church that she had made in 1077 (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Legum, IV, i, 653 sqq.). After her death Henry went to Italy in 1116, and took her lands — not merely the imperial fiefs, but also the freeholds. The Roman Church, though, put forward its legitimate claim to the inheritance. A lengthy dispute now issued over the possession of the dominions of Matilda, which was settled by a compromise between Innocent II and Lothair III in 1133. The emperor and Duke Henry of Saxony took Matilda's freeholds as fiefs from the pope at a yearly rent of 100 pounds of silver. The duke took the feudal oath to the pope; after his death Matilda's possessions were to be restored wholly to the Roman Church. Afterwards there were again disputes about these lands, and in agreements between the popes and emperors of the twelfth century this matter is often mentioned. In 1213 the Emperor Frederick II recognized the right of the Roman Church to the possessions of Matilda.

89 DONIZO, Vita Mathildis, ed. BETHMANN in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XII, 348-409; Vita alia in MURATORI,Scriptores rer. Italicorum, V, 389-397; Libelli de lite in Mon. Germ. Hist., I-III; HUDDY, Matilda, Countess of Tuscany (London, 1905); FIORENTINI, Memorie di Matilda, la gran contessa di Toscana (Lucca, 1642; new ed., 1756); TOSTI, La contessa Matilde e i Romani Pontefici (Florence, 1859; new ed., Rome, 1886);RENÉE, La grande Italienne, Mathilde de Toscane (Paris, 1859); OVERMANN, Die Besitzungen der Grossgräfin Mathilde von Tuscien (Berlin, 1892); HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte, v (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1886); MEYER VON KNONAU, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V. (6 vols., Leipzig, 1890-1907); POTTHAST, Bibl. hist. med. ævi, 2nd., II, 1486.

90 J.P. Kirsch

Matins

88 I. Name

89 The word "Matins" (Lat. Matutinum or Matutinae), comes from Matuta, the Latin name for the Greek goddess Leucothae or Leucothea, white goddess, or goddess of the morning (Aurora): Leucothee graius, Matuta vocabere nostris, Ovid, V, 545. Hence Matutine, Matutinus, Matutinum tempus, or simply Matutinum (i.e. tempus); some of the old authors prefer Matutini Matutinorum, or Matutinae. In any case the primitive signification of the word under these different forms was Aurora, sunrise. It was at first applied to the office Lauds, which, as a matter of fact, was said at dawn (see LAUDS), its liturgical synonym being the word Gallicinium (cock-crow), which also designated this office. The night-office retained its name of Vigils, since, as a rule, Vigils and Matins (Lauds) were combined, the latter serving, to a certain extent, as the closing part of Vigils. The name Matins was then extended to the office of Vigils, Matins taking the name of Lauds, a term which, strictly speaking, only designates the last three psalms of that office, i.e. the "Laudate" psalms. At the time when this change of name took place, the custom of saying Vigils at night was observed scarcely anywhere but in monasteries, whilst elsewhere they were said in the morning, so that finally it did not seem a misapplication to give to a night Office a name which, strictly speaking, applied only to the office of day-break. The change, however, was only gradual. St. Benedict (sixth century) in his description of the Divine Office, always refers to Vigils as the Night Office, whilst that of day-break he calls Matins, Lauds being the last three psalms of that office (Regula, cap. XIII-XIV; see LAUDS). The Council of Tours in 567 had already applied the title "Matins" to the Night Office: ad Matutinum sex antiphonae; Laudes Matutinae; Matutini hymni are also found in various ancient authors as synonymous with Lauds. (Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles", V, III, 188, 189.)

90 Ii.origin (Matins and Vigils)

91 The word Vigils, at first applied to the Night Office, also comes from a Latin source, both as to the term and its use, namely the Vigiliae or nocturnal watches or guards of the soldiers. The night from six o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the morning was divided into four watches or vigils of three hours each, the first, the second, the third, and the fourth vigil. From the liturgical point of view and in its origin, the use of the term was very vague and elastic. Generally it designated the nightly meetings, synaxes, of the Christians. Under this form, the watch (Vigil) might be said to date back as early as the beginning of Christianity. It was either on account of the secrecy of their meetings, or because of some mystical idea which made the middle of the night the hour par excellence for prayer, in the words of the psalm: media nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi, that the Christians chose the night time for their synaxes, and of all other nights, preferably the Sabbath. There is an allusion to it in the Acts of the Apostles (xx, 4), as also in the letter of Pliny the Younger. The liturgical services of these synaxes was composed of almost the same elements as that of the Jewish Synagogue: readings from the Books of the Law, singing of psalms, divers prayers. What gave them a Christian character was the fact that they were followed by the Eucharistic service, and that to the reading from the Law, the apostles and the Acts of the Apostles was very soon added, as well as the Gospels and sometimes other books which were non-canonical, as, for example, the Epistles of Saint Clement, that of Saint Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Saint Peter, etc.

92 The more solemn watches, which were held on the anniversaries of martyrs or on certain feasts, were also known by this title, especially during the third and fourth centuries. The Vigil in this case was also called pannychis, because the greater part of the night was devoted to it. Commenced in the evening, they only terminated the following morning, and comprised, in addition to the Eucharistic Supper, homilies, chants, and divers offices. These last Vigils it was that gave rise to certain abuses, and they were finally abolished in the Church (see VIGILS). Notwithstanding this, however, the Vigils, in their strictest sense of Divine Office of the Night, were maintained and developed. Among writers from the fourth to the sixth century we find several descriptions of them. The "De Virginitate", a fourth-century treatise, gives them as immediately following Lauds. The author, however, does not determine the number of psalms which had to be recited. Methodius in his "Banquet of Virgins" (Symposion sive Convivium decem Virginum) subdivided the Night Office or pannychis into watches, but it is difficult to determine what he meant by these nocturnes. St. Basil also gives a very vague description of the Night Office or Vigils, but in terms which permit us to conclude that the psalms were sung, sometimes by two choirs, and sometimes as responses. Cassian gives us a more detailed account of the Night Office of the fifth century monks. The number of psalms, which at first varied, was subsequently fixed at twelve, with the addition of a lesson from the Old and another from the New Testament. St. Jerome defended the Vigils against the attacks of Vigilantius, but it is principally concerning the watches at the Tombs of the Martyrs that he speaks in his treatise, "Contra Vigilantium". Of all the descriptions the most complete is that in the "Peregrinatio AEtheriae", the author of which assisted at Matins in the Churches of Jerusalem, where great solemnity was displayed. (For all these texts, see Bäumer-Biron, loc. cit., p. 79, 122, 139, 186, 208, 246, etc.) Other allusions are to be found in Caesaurius of Arles, Nicetiuis or Nicetae of Treves, and Gregory of Tours (see Baumer-Biron, loc. cit., I, 216, 227, 232).

93 Iii.the Elements of Matins from the Fourth to the Sixth Century

94 In all the authors we have quoted, the form of Night Prayers would appear to have varied a great deal. Nevertheless in these descriptions, and in spite of certain differences, we find the same elements repeated: the psalms generally chanted in the form of responses, that is to say by one or more cantors, the choir repeating one verse, which served as a response, alternately with the verses of psalms which were sung by the cantors; readings taken from the Old and the New Testament, and later on, from the works of the Fathers and doctors; litanies or supplications; prayer for the divers members of the Church, clergy, faithful, neophytes, and catechumens; for emperors; travellers; the sick; and generally for all the necessities of the Church, and even prayer for Jews and for heretics. [Baumer, Litanie u. Missal, in "Studien des Benediktinerordens", II (Raigern, 1886), 287, 289.] It is quite easy to find these essential elements in our modern Matins.

95 IV. Matins in the Roman and Other Liturgies

96 In the modern Roman Liturgy, Matins, on account of its length, the position it occupies, and the matter of which it is composed, may be considered as the most important office of the day, and for the variety and richness of its elements the most remarkable. It commences more solemnly than the other offices, with a psalm (Ps. xciv) called the Invitatory, which is chanted or recited in the form of a response, in accordance with the most ancient custom. The hymns, which have been but tardily admitted into the Roman Liturgy, as well as the hymns of the other hours, form part of a very ancient collection which, so far at least as some of them are concerned, may be said to pertain to the seventh or even to the sixth century. As a rule they suggest the symbolic signification of this Hour (see No. V), the prayer of the middle of the night. This principal form of the Office should be distinguished from the Office of Sunday, of Feasts, and the ferial or week day Office. The Sunday Office is made up of the invitatory, hymn, three nocturns, the first of which comprises twelve psalms, and the second and third three psalms each; nine lessons, three to each nocturn, each lesson except the ninth being followed by a response; and finally, the canticle Te Deum, which is recited or sung after the ninth lesson instead of a response. The Office of Feasts is similar to that of Sunday, except that there are only three psalms to the first nocturn instead of twelve. The week-day or ferial office and that of simple feasts are composed of one nocturn only, with twelve psalms and three lessons. The Office of the Dead and that of the three last days of Holy Week are simpler, the absolutions, benedictions, and invitatory being omitted, at least for the three last days of Holy Week, since the invitatory is said in the Offices of the Dead.

97 The principal characteristics of this office which distinguish it from all the other offices are as follows:

98 The Psalms used at Matins are made up of a series commencing with Psalm i and running without intermission to Psalm cviii inclusive. The order of the Psalter is followed almost without interruption, except in the case of feasts, when the Psalms are chosen according to their signification, but always from the series i-cviii, the remaining Psalms being reserved for Vespers and the other Offices.

99 The Lessons form a unique element, and in the other Offices give place to a Capitulum or short lesson. This latter has possibly been introduced only for the sake of symmetry, and in its present form, at any rate, gives but a very incomplete idea of what the true reading or lesson is. The Lessons of Matins on the contrary are readings in the proper sense of the term: they comprise the most important parts of the Old and the New Testament, extracts from the works of the principal doctors of the Church, and legends of the martyrs or of the other saints. The lessons from Holy Scripture are distributed in accordance with certain fixed rules (rubrics) which assign such or such books of the Bible to certain seasons of the year. In this manner extracts from all the Books of the Bible are read at the Office during the year. The idea, however, of having the whole Bible read in the Office, as proposed by several reformers of the Breviary, more especially during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, has never been regarded favourably by the Church, which views the Divine Office as a prayer and not as an object of study for the clergy.

100 The Invitatory and, on certain days, the Finale or Te Deum also form one of the principal characteristics of this Office.

101 The Responses, more numerous in this Office, recall the most ancient form of psalmody; that of the psalm chanted by one alone and answered by the whole choir, as opposed to the antiphonic form, which consists in two choirs alternately reciting the psalms.

102 The division into three or two Nocturns is also a special feature of Matins, but it is impossible to say why it has been thought by some to be a souvenir of the military watches (there were not three, but four, watches) or even of the ancient Vigils, since ordinarily there was but one meeting in the middle of the night. The custom of rising three times for prayer could only have been in vogue, as exceptional, in certain monasteries, or for some of the more solemn feasts (see Nocturns).

103 In the Office of the Church of Jerusalem, of which the pilgrim Ætheria gives us a description, the Vigils on Sundays terminate with the solemn reading of the Gospel, in the Grotto of the Holy Sepulchre. This practice of reading the Gospel has been preserved in the Benedictine Liturgy. It is a matter for regret that in the Roman Liturgy this custom, so ancient and so solemn, is no longer represented but by the Homily.

104 The Ambrosian Liturgy, better perhaps than any other, has preserved traces of the great Vigils or pannychides, with their complex and varied display of processions, psalmodies, etc. (cf. Dom Cagin; "Paleographie Musicale", vol. VI, p. 8, sq.; Paul Lejay; Ambrosien (rit.) in "Dictionnaire d'Archeol. Chret. et de Liturgie", vol. I, p. 1423 sq.). The same Liturgy has also preserved Vigils of long psalmody. This Nocturnal Office adapted itself at a later period to a more modern form, approaching more and more closely to the Roman Liturgy. Here too are found the three Nocturns, with Antiphon, Psalms, Lessons, and Responses, the ordinary elements of the Roman Matins, and with a few special features quite Ambrosian. In the Benedictine Office, Matins, like the text of the Office, follows the Roman Liturgy quite closely. The number of psalms, viz. twelve, is always the same, there being three or two Nocturns according to the degree of solemnity of the particular Office celebrated. Ordinarily there are four Lessons, followed by their responses, to each Nocturn. The two most characteristic features of the Benedictine Matins are: the Canticles of the third Nocturn, which are not found in the Roman Liturgy, and the Gospel, which is sung solemnly at the end, the latter trait, as already pointed out, being very ancient. In the Mozarabic Liturgy (q.v.), on the contrary, Matins are made up of a system of Antiphons, Collects, and Versicles which make them quite a departure from the Roman system.

105 V. Signification and Symbolism

106 From the foregoing it is clear that Matins remains the principal Office of the Church, and the one which, in its origin, dates back the farthest, as far as the Apostolic ages, as far even as the very inception of the Church. It is doubtless, after having passed through a great many transformations, the ancient Night Office, the Office of the Vigil. In a certain sense it is, perhaps, the Office which was primitively the preparation for the Mass, that is to say, the Mass of the Catechumens, which presents at any rate the same construction as that Office:—the reading from the Old Testament, then the epistles and the Acts, and finally the Gospel—the whole being intermingled with psalmody, and terminated by the Homily (cf. Cabrol: "Les Origines Liturgiques", Paris, 1906, 334 seq.). If for a time this Office appeared to be secondary to that of Lauds or Morning Office, it is because the latter, originally but a part of Matins, drew to itself the solemnity, probably on account of the hour at which it was celebrated, permitting all the faithful to be present. According to another theory suggested by the testimony of Lactantius, St. Jerome, and St. Isidore, the Christians, being ignorant of the date of Christ's coming, thought He would return during the middle of the night, and most probably the night of Holy Saturday or Easter Sunday, at or about the hour when He arose from the sepulchre. Hence the importance of the Easter Vigil, which would thus have become the model or prototype of the other Saturday Vigils, and incidentally of all the nightly Vigils. The idea of the Second Advent would have given rise to the Easter Vigil, and the latter to the office of the Saturday Vigil (Batiffol, "Hist. du Bréviaire", 3). The institution of the Saturday Vigil would consequently be as ancient as that of Sunday.

107 BONA, De Divina Psalmodia in Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1677), 693 sq.; GRANCOLAS, Commentarius historicus in Rom. Breviar., 100; PROBST, Brevier und Breviergebet (Tubingen, 1854), 143 sq.; BAUMER, Histoire du Breviaire, tr. BIRON, I (Paris, 1905), 60 sq.; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (1904), 448, 449; BATIFFOL, Histoire du Breviaire, 3 sq.; THALHOFER, Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik, II, 434, 450; GASTOUE, Les Vigiles Nocturnes (Paris, 1908) (Collection Bloud); see HOURS (CANONICAL); LAUDS; VIGILS; BREVIARY.

108 F. Cabrol.

Matricula

91 A term having several meanings in the field of Christian antiquity.

92 (1) The word is applied first to the catalogue or roll of the clergy of a particular church; thus Clerici immatriculati denoted the elergy entitled to maintenance from the resources of the church to which they were attached. Allusions to matricula in this sense are found in the second and third canons of the Council of Agde and in canon 13 of the Council of Orleans (both of the sixth century).

93 (2) This term was also applied to the ecclesiastical list of poor pensioners who were assisted from the church revenues; hence the names matricularii, matriculariae, by which persons thus assisted, together with those who performed menial services about the church, were known.

94 (3) The house in which such pensioners were lodged was also known as matricula, which thus becomes synonymous with xenodochium.

95 Maurice M. Hassett

Matteo da Siena

94 (Matteo di Giovanni di Bartolo).

95 Painter, born at Borgo San Sepolcro, c. 1435; died 1495. His common appellation was derived from his having worked chiefly in the city of Siena. In the fourteenth century the masters of the Sienese school rivalled the Florentine painters; in the fifteenth, the former school, resisting the progress achieved at Florence, allowed itself to be outstripped by its rival. Although in this period it gives the impression of a superannuated art, Sienese painting still charms with its surviving line traditional qualities — its sincerity of feeling, the refined grace of its figures, its attention to minutiae of dress and of architectural background, and its fascinating frankness of execution. Of these qualities Matteo has his share, but he is furthermore dlstinguished by the dignity of his female figures, the gracious presence of his angels, and the harmony of a colour scheme at once rich and brilliant. For this reason critics pronounce him the best of the fifteenth century Sienese painters. The earliest authentic work of Matteo is dated 1470, a Virgin enthroned, with angels, painted for the Servites, and now in the Academy of Siena. In 1487 he executed for the high altar of Santa Maria de' Servi del Borgo — the Servite church of his native village — an "Assumption" with the Apostles and other saints looking on; on the predella he has painted the history of the Blessed Virgin. According to G. Milanesi (in his edition of Vasari, II, Florence, 1878, p. 493, note 3), the main portion of this painting is still to be seen in the church, while the lateral portions have been removed to the sacristy. Some other Madonnas of his, deserve particular rnention: one in the Palazzo Tolomei at Siena, the Virgin and Infant Jesus painted, in 1484 for the city palace of Sienna, on a pilaster in the hall decorated by Spinello Aretino; in the duomo of Pienza, a Virgin and Child enthroned between St. Mathew and St. Catherine, St. Bartholomew and St. Luke. On the lunette Matteo painted the Flagellation, and on the predella three medallions — "Ecce Homo", the Virgin, and an Evangelist. The signature reads : "Opus Mathei Johannis de Senis". As decoration for the pavement of the cathedral of Sienna, he designed three subjects : "The Sibyl of Samos", "The Deliverance of Bethulia", and "The Massacre of the Innocents".

96 In 1477 he painted his "Madonna della Neve" (Our Lady of Snow), for the church under that invocation at Sienna. On comparing this with the Servite Madonna of 1470, it is seen to surpass the earlier work in beauty of types, symmetry of proportions, and colour-tone. The St. Barbara, a composition made for the church of San Domenico at Siena, is also remarkable work: tvvo angels are gracefully laying a crown on the saint's head, while others, accompanied by St. Mary Magdalen and St. Catherine of Alexandria and playing instruments, surround her. When Matteo treats subjects involving lively action, he loses a great deal of his power. The incidental scenes are combined in a confused way, the expression of feeling is forced, and degenerates into grimace, and the general result is affected and caricature-like.

97 Gaston Sortais

Matteo of Aquasparta

97 A celebrated Italian Franciscan, born at Aquasparta in the Diocese of Todi, Umbria, about 1235; died at Rome, 29 October, 1302. He was a member of the Bentivenghi family, to which Cardinal Bentivenga (d. 1290), also a Franciscan, belonged. Matteo entered the Franciscan Order at Todi, took the degree of Master of Theology at Paris, and taught also for a time at Bologna. The Franciscan, John Peckham, having become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1279, Matteo was in 1280 made Peckham's successor as Lecter sacri Patatii apostolici, i.e. he was appointed reader (teacher) of theology to the papal Curia. In 1287 the chapter held at Montpellier elected him general in succession to Arlotto of Prato. When Girolamo Masci (of Ascoli), who had previously been general of the Franciscan Order, became pope as Nicholas IV, 15 Feb., 1288, he created Matteo cardinal of the title of San Lorenzo in Damaso in May of that year. After this Matteo was made Cardinal Bishop of Porto, and p nitentiarius maior (Grand Penitentiary). He still, however, retained the direction of the order until the chapter of 1289. Matteo had summoned this chapter to meet at Assisi, but Nicholas IV caused it to be held in his presence at Rieti; here Raymond Gaufredi, a native of Provence, was elected general. As general of the order Matteo maintained a moderate, middle course; among other things he reorganized the studies pursued in the order. In the quarrel between Boniface VIII and the Colonna, from 1297 onwards, he strongly supported the pope, both in official memorials and in public sermons. Boniface VIII appointed him, both in 1297 and 1300, to an important embassy to Lombardy, the Romagna, and to Florence, where the Blacks (Neri) and the Whites (Bianchi), that is, the Guelphs and Ghibellines, were violently at issue with each other. In 1301 Matteo returned to Florence, following Charles of Valois, but neither peace nor reconciliation was brought about. The Blacks finally obtained the upper hand, and the chiefs of the Ghibelline party were obliged to go into exile; among these was the poet Dante. In a famous passage of the "Divina Commedia" (Paradiso, XII, 124-26), Dante certainly speaks as an extreme Ghibelline against Matteo of Aquasparta. Matteo, however, had died before this. He was buried in the Franciscan church of Ara C li, where his monument is still to be seen.

98 Matteo was a very learned philosopher and theologian; he was further a personal pupil of St. Bonaventure, whose teaching, in general, he followed, or rather developed. In this respect he was one of what is known as the older Franciscan school, who preferred Augustinianism to the more pronounced Aristoteleanism of St. Thomas Aquinas. His principal work is the acute "Quæstiones disputatæ", which treats of various subjects. Of this one book appeared at Quaracchi in 1903 (the editing and issue are discontinued for the present), namely: "Quæstiones disputatæ selectæ", in "Bibliotheca Franciscana scholastica medii ævi", I; the "Quæstiones" are preceded by a "Tractatus de excellentia S. Scripturæ" (pp. 1-22), also by a "Sermo de studio S. Scripturæ" (pp. 22-36); it is followed by "De processione Spiritus Sancti" (pp. 429-53). Five "Quæstiones de Cognitione" had already been edited in the collection called "De humanæ cognitionis ratione anecdota quædam" (Quaracchi, 1883), 87-182. The rest of his works, still unedited are to be found at Assisi and Todi. Among them are: "Commentarius in 4 libros Sententiarum" (autograph); "Concordantiæ super 4 ll. Sententiarum"; "Postilla super librum Job"; "Postilla super Psalterium" (autograph); "In 12 Prophetas Minores"; "In Danielem"; "In Ev. Matthæi"; "In Apocalypsim" (autograph); "In Epist. ad Romanos"; "Sermones dominicales et feriales" (autograph).

99 Cf. the editions referred to of the Quæst. disput. (1903), pp. v-xvi, and De Hum. Cognit., pp. xiv-xv; Chronica XXIV Min'str. General O. Min. in Analecta Franciscana, III (Quaracchi, 1897), 406-19, 699, 703; WADDING, Scriptores Ord. Min. (Rome, 1650), 252, (1806), 172, (1906), 269-70; SBARALEA, Suppl. ad Script. O. M. (Rome, 1806), 525; DENIFLE-CHATELAIN, Chartular. Univ. Paris., II (Paris, 1891), 59; EHRLE in Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie, VII (Innsbruck, 1883), 46; GRABMANN, Die philosophische und theologische Erkenntnislehre des Kardinals Matth us von Aquasparta (Vienna, 1906); Theologische Studien der Leo Gesellschaft, Pt. XIV.

100 Michael Bihl

Matter

100 (Gr. ὕλη; Lat. materia; Fr. matière; Ger. materie and stoff), the correlative of Form. See HYLOMORPHISM; FORM.

101 Taking the term in its widest sense, matter signifies that out of which anything is made or composed. Thus the original meaning of ὕλη (Homer) is "wood", in the sense of "grove" or "forest"; and hence, derivatively, "wood cut down" or timber. The Latin materia, as opposed to lignum (wood used for fuel), has also the meaning of timber for building purposes. In modern languages this word (as signifying raw material) is used in a similar way. Matter is thus one of the elements of the becoming and continued being of an artificial product. The architect employs timber in the building of his house; the shoemaker fashions his shoes from leather. It will be observed that, as an intrinsic element, matter connotes composition, and is most easily studied in a consideration of the nature of change. This is treated ex professo in the article on CAUSE (q. v.). It will, however, be necessary to touch upon it briefly again here, since matter can only be rationally treated in so far as it is a correlate. The present article will therefore be divided into paragraphs giving the scholastic doctrine under the following heads:

102 (1) Secondary Matter (in accidental change);

103 (2) Primordial Matter (in substantial change);

104 (3) The Nature of Primordial Matter;

105 (4) Privation;

106 (5) Permanent Matter;

107 (6) The Unity of Matter;

108 (7) Matter as the Principle of Individuation;

109 (8) The Causality of Matter;

110 (9) Variant Theories.

111 (1) Secondary Matter

112 Accepting matter in the original sense given above, Aristotle defines the "material cause" οἷον ὁ χαλκὸς τοῦ ἀνδριάντος καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος τῆς φιαλῆς. That the form of the statue is realized in the bronze, that the bronze is the subject of the form, is sensibly evident. These two elements of the statue or bowl are the intrinsic "causes" of its being what it is. With the addition of the efficient and final cause (and of privation) they constitute the whole doctrine of its ætiology, and are invoked as a sufficient explanation of "accidental" change. There is no difficulty in understanding such a doctrine. The determinable "matter" (here, in scholastic terminology, more properly substance) is the concrete reality - brass or white metal - susceptible of determination to a particular mode of being. The determinant is the artificial shape or form actually visible. The "matter" remains substantially the same before, throughout, and after its fashioning.

113 (2) Primordial Matter

114 The explanation is not so obvious when it is extended to cover substantial change. It is indeed true that already in speaking ot the "matter" of accidental change (substance), we go beyond the experience given in sense perception. But, when we attempt to deal with the elements of corporeal substance, we proceed still farther in the process of abstraction. It is impossible to represent to ourselves either primordial matter or substantial form. Any attempt to do so inevitably results in a play of imagination that tends to falsify their nature, for they are not imaginable. The proper objects of our understanding are the essences of those bodies with which we are surrounded (cf. S. Thomas, "De Principio Individuationis"). We have, however, no intuitive knowledge of these, nor of their principles. We may reason about them, indeed, and must so reason if we wish to explain the possibility of change; but to imagine is to court the danger of arriving at entirely false conclusions. Hence whatever may be asserted with regard to primordial matter must necessarily be the result of pure and abstract reasoning upon the concrete data furnished by sense. It is an inexisting principle invoked to account for substantial alteration. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, whatever knowledge of it we may acquire is reached only by its analogy to "form" (ibid.). The two are the inseparable constituents of corporeal beings. The teaching of Aquinas may be briefly set out here as embodying that also of Aristotle, with which it is in the main identical. It is the teaching commonly received in the School; though various other opinions, to which allusion will be made later, are to be found advanced both before and after its formulation by Aquinas.

115 (3) The Nature of Primordial Matter

116 For St. Thomas primordial matter is the common ground of substantial change, the element of indetermination in corporeal beings. It is a pure potentiality, or determinability, void of substantiality, of quality, of quantity, and of all the other accidents that determine sensible being. It is not created, neither is it creatable, but rather concreatable and concreated with Form, (q. v.), to which it is opposed as a correlate, as one of the essential "intrinsic constituents" (De Principiis Naturæ) of those corporeal beings in whose existence the act of creation terminates. Similarly it is not generated, neither does it corrupt in substantial change, since all generation and corruption is a transition in which one substance becomes another, and consequently can only take place in changes of composite subjects. It is produced out of nothing and can only cease to be by falling back into nothingness (De Natura Materiæ, i). Its potentiality is not a property superadded to its essence, for it is a potentiality towards substantial being (In I Phys., Lect. 14). A stronger statement is to be found in "QQ. Disp.", III, Q. iv., a. 2 ad 4: "The relation of primordial matter . . . to passive potentiality is as that of God . . . to active (potentiam activam). Therefore matter is its passivity as God is His activity". It is clear throughout that St. Thomas has here in view primordial matter in the uttermost degree of abstraction. Indeed, he is explicit upon the point. "That is commonly called primordial matter which is in the category of substance as a potentiality cognized apart from all species and form, and even from privation; yet susceptive of forms and privations" (De spiritual. creat., Q. i, a. 1).

117 If we were "obliged to define its essence, it would have for specific difference its relation to form, and for genus its substantiality" (Quod., IX, a. 6. 3). And again: "It has its being by reason of that which comes to it, since in itself it has incomplete, or rather no being at all" (De Princip. Naturæ). Such information is mainly negative in character, and the phrases employed by St. Thomas show that there is a certain difficulty in expressing exactly the nature of the principle under consideration. This difficulty evidently arises from the imagination, and with imagination the philosophy of matter has nothing to do. We must begin with the real, the concrete being. To explain this, and the changes it is capable of undergoing, we must infer the coexistence of matter and form determinable and determinant. We may then strip matter, by abstraction, of this or that determination; we may consider it apart from all its determinations. But once attempt to consider it apart from that analogy by which alone we can know it, once strip it mentally of its determinability by form, and nothing - absolute nothing - remains. For matter is neither realizable nor thinkable without its correlative. The proper object of intelligence, and likewise the subject of being, is Ens, Verum. Hence St. Thomas teaches further that primordial matter is "a substantial reality" (i. e., a reality reductively belonging to the category of substance), "potential towards all forms, and, under the action of a fit and proportioned efficient cause, determinable to any species of corporeal substance" (In VII Met., sect. 2); and, again: "It is never stripped of form and privation; now it is under one form now under another. Of itself it can never exist" (Do Princip. Natur.) . What has been said may appear to deny to matter the reality that is predicated of it. This is not the case. As the determinable element in corporeal substance it must have a reality that is not that of the determining form. The mind by abstraction may consider it as potential to any form, but can never overstep the limit of its potentiality as inexistent (cf. Aristotle's τι ἐνυπάρχοντος (Phys., iii, 194b, 16) and realized in bodies without finding itself contemplating absolute nothingness. Of itself matter can never exist, and consequently of itself it can never be thought.

118 (4) Privation

119 The use of the term "privation" by Aquinas brings us to an exceedingly interesting consideration. While primordial matter, as "understood" without any form or privation, is an indifferent potentiality towards information by any corporeal form, the same matter, considered as realized by a given form, and actually existing, does not connote this indefinite capacity of information. There is, in fact, a certain rhythmic evolution of forms observable in nature. By electrolysis only oxygen and hydrogen can be obtained from water; from oxygen and hydrogen in definite proportions only water is generated. This fact St. Thomas expresses in the physical terms of his time: "If any particular matter, e. g. fire or air, were despoiled of its form, it is manifest that the potentiality towards other educible forms remaining in it would not be so ample, as is the case in regard to matter (considered) universally" (De Nat. Mat., v). The consideration gives us the signification of "privation", as used in the theory of substantial change. Matter is "deprived" of the form or forms towards which alone it is potential when actually existing in some one or other state of determination. Hence the distinction that is found in the Opuscule "Do Principiis Naturæ".

120 (5) Permanent Matter

121 " Matter that does not connote a privation is permanent, whereas that which does is transient". The connotation of a privation limits primordial matter to that which is realized by a form disposing it towards realization by certain other definite forms. "Privation" is the absence of those forms. Permanent matter is matter considered in the highest degree of abstraction, and connoting thereby no more than its correlation to form in general.

122 (6) The Unity of Matter

123 Further, this (permanent) matter is said to be one; not however, in the sense of a numerical unity. Every corporeal being is held to result from the union of matter and form. There are in consequence as many distinct individual realized portions of matter as there are distinct bodies (atoms, for example) in the universe. Nevertheless, when the severally determining principles and privations are abstracted from, when matter is cognized in its greatest abstraction, it is cognized as possessing a logical unity. It is understood without any of those dispositions that make it differ numerically with the multiplication of bodies (De Principiis Naturæ).

124 (7) Matter as the Principle of lndividuation

125 More important is the doctrine that grounds in matter the numerical distinction of specifically identical corporeal beings. In the general doctrine of St. Thomas, the individual - "this thing" (hoc aliquid) - is a primordial substance, individualized by the fact that it is what it is ("Substantia individuatur per seipsam": Summa, Pars I, Q. xxix, a. 1). It is intrinsically complete, capable of subsisting in itself as the subject of accidents in the ontological order, and of predicates in the logical. It is undivided in itself, distinct from all other, incommunicable (cf. De Principio Individuationis). These characteristic notes are realized in the case of two substances that differ by essence. Thus, for St. Thomas, no two angels (q. v.) are specifically identical (Summa, Pars I, Q. 1, a. 4). More than this, even a corporeal form, however material and low in the hierarchy of forms, would not be other than unique in its species, if it could exist (or be thought), apart from its relation to matter (cf. De Spiritual. Creaturis, Q. i, a. 8). Whiteness, if it could subsist without any subject, would be unique. If a plurality of such accidental forms could subsist they also would differ specifically - as whiteness, redness, etc. But this distinction evidently does not obtain in the case of a number of individuals belonging to one species. They are essentially identical. How is it, then, that they can constitute a plurality? The answer given by St. Thomas to this question is his doctrine of the Principle of Individuation. Whereas the plurality of simple substances, or "forms", is due to a real difference of their essences (as a triangle differs from a circle), the plurality of identical essences, or "forms", supposes an intrinsic principle of individuation for each (as two triangles realized in two pieces of wood) . Thus, simple substances differ by reason of their nature, formally; while composite ones differ by reason of an inherent principle, materially. They are multiplied within a given species by reason of matter.

126 At this point a peculiarly delicate question arises. The abstract essence of man connotes matter. If, then, primordial matter be the principle of individuation, it would seem that the abstract essence is already individualized. Wherein would lie the admitted difference between the species and the individual? On the other hand, if that be not the case, it would appear equally evident that, in adding to the individual a principle not contained in the abstract essence, it would no longer be an object of classification in the species. It would not be merely the concrete realization of the essence, but something more. In either case the doctrine would seem to be incompatible with modern Realism. St. Thomas avoids the difficulty by teaching that matter is the principle of individuation, but only as correlated to quantity. The expressions that he uses are "materia signata", "materia subjecta dimensioni" (In Boeth. de Trin., Q. iv, a. 2), "materia sub certis dimensionibus" (De Nat. Mat., iii) . This needs some explanation. Quantity, as such, is an accident; and it is evident that no accident can account for the individuality of its own subject. But quantity results in corporeal substance by reason of matter. Primordial matter, then, considered as such, has a relation to quantity consequent upon its necessary relation to form (De Nat. Mat., iv). When actuated by form it has dimensions - the "inseparable concomitants that determine it in time and place" (De Princip. Individ.). The abstract essence, then, embracing matter as it does form, will connote an aptitude or potentiality towards a quantitative determination, necessarily resultant in each concrete subject realized.

127 Here, as formerly, the fact must not be lost sight of that the reasoning begins with the concrete bodies actually existing in nature. It is by an abstraction that we consider matter without the actual quantity that it always exhibits when realized in corporeal substance. Peter, as a matter of fact, differs from Paul, yet they are specifically identical as rational animals. Peter is "this" man, and Paul is "that", but "this" and "that", because "here" and "there". "Form is not individuated in that it is received in matter, but only in that it is received in this or that distinct matter, and determined to here and now" (In Boeth. de Trin. Q. iv, a. 1). It is evident that "here" and "now" are the immediate and inseparable signs for us of the individual. They indicate "hœc caro et ossa". And they are only possible by reason of (informed) matter, the ground of divisibility and location in space. Still, it must be noted that "materia signata quantitate" is not to be understood as primordial matter having an aptitude towards fixed and invariable dimensions. The determined dimensions that are found in the existing subject are to be attributed, St. Thomas teaches, to matter as "individuated by indeterminate dimensions preunderstood in it" (" In Boeth. de Trin.", Q. iv, a. 2; "De Nat. Mat.", vii). This remark explains how an individual (as Peter) can vary in dimension without varying in identity; and at the same time gives the reply of Aquinas to the difficulty raised above. Primordial matter, as connoted in the essence, has am aptitude towards indeterminate dimensions. These dimensions when realized are the ground of the determined dimensions (ibid.) that make the individual hic et nunc an object of sense-perception (De Nat. Materiæ, iii).

128 (8) The Causality of Matter

129 Since Primordial Matter is numbered among the causes of corporeal being, the mature of its causality remains to be considered. (See CAUSE.) All scholastics admit its concurrence with form, as an intrinsic cause; but they are not unanimous as to the precise part it plays. For Suarez it is unitive; for John of St. Thomas receptive. The Conimbricences place its causality in both notes. It would, perhaps, seem more consonant with the doctrine of St. Thomas to adopt Cardinal Mercier's opinion that the causality of matter is first receptive and second unitive; provided always that its essential potentiality be never lost sight of.

130 (9) Variant Theories of Matter

131 The teaching of Aquinas has been given as substantially identical with that of Aristotle. The main point of divergence lies in the opinion of Aristotle that the world - and consequently matter - is eternal. St. Thomas, in accepting the doctrine of Creation, denies the eternity of primordial matter. It is interesting to note how this doctrine of matter, as the potential, or determinable, element in change, unites and corrects the views of Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato. The perpetual flux of the first is found in the continual transformations that take place in material nature. The changeless "one" of the second is recognized in the abstract essences eternally identical with themselves. And the world of "ideas" of Plato is assigned its place as a world of intellectual abstractions practised upon the bodies that fall under the observation of the senses. The universal is immanent in the individual and multiplied by reason of its matter. In the system of Plato, matter (μὴ ὄν, ἄπειρον: the "formless and invisible") is also the condition under which being becomes the object of the senses. It gives to being all its imperfections. It is by a mixture of being and nothingness, rather than by the realization of a potentiality, that sensible things exist. While for Aristotle matter is a real element of being, for Plato it is not. Of Neoplatonists, Philo (following Plato and the Stoics) also considered matter the principle of imperfection, of limitation and of evil; Plotinus made it empty space, or a pure possibility of Being.

132 These systems are mentioned here because through them St. Augustine drew his knowledge of Greek philosophy. And in the doctrine of St. Augustine we find the source of an important current of thought that ran through the Middle Ages. He puts forward at different times two views as to the nature of matter. It is first, corporeal substance in a chaotic state; second, an element of complete indetermination, approaching to the me on of Plato. St. Augustine was not directly acquainted with the works of Aristotle, yet he seems to have approached very closely to this thought (probably through the Latin writings of the Neoplatonists) in certain passages of the "Confessions" (cf. Lib. XIII v and xxxiii):

133 > For the changeableness of changeable things is capable of all those forms to which the changeable are changed. And what is this? Is it soul? Or body? If it could be said: 'Nothing: something that is and is not', that would I say . . . 'For from nothing they were made by Thee, yet not of Thee: nor of anything not Thine, or which was before, but of concreated matter, because Thou didst create its informity without any interposition of time.'

134 St. Augustine does not teach the dependence of quantity upon matter; and he admits a quasimatter in the angels. Moreover, his doctrine of the rationes seminales (of Stoical origin), which found many adherents among later scholastics, clearly assigns to matter something more than the character of pure potentiality attributed to it by St. Thomas. It may noted that Albert the Great, the predecessor of St. Thomas, also taught this doctrine and, further, was of the opinion that the angelic "forms" must be held to have a fundamentum, or ground of differentiation, analogous to matter in corporeal beings. Following St. Augustine, Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure, with the Franciscan School as a whole, teach that matter is one of the intrinsic elements of all creatures. Matter and form together are the principles of individuation for St. Bonaventure. Duns Scotus is more characteristically subtle on the point, which is a capital one in his synthesis. Matter is to be distinguished as:

135 Materia primo prima, the universalized indeterminate element of contingent beings. This has real and numerical unity.

136 Materia secundo prima, united with "form" and quantified.

137 Materia tertio prima, subject of accidental change in existing bodies.

138 For Scotus, who acknowledges his indebtedness to Avicebron for the doctrine (De rerum princip., Q. viii, a. 4), Materia primo prima is homogeneous in all creatures without exception. His system is dualistic. Among later notable scholastics Suarez may be cited as attributing an existence to primordial matter. This is a logical consequence of his doctrine that no real distinction is to be admitted between essence and existence. God could, he teaches, "preserve matter without a form as He can a form without matter" (Disput. Metaph., xv, sec. 9). In his opinion, also, quantified matter no longer appears as the principle of individuation. A considerable number of theologians and philosophers have professed his doctrine upon both these points.

139 ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Opera (Lyons, 1851); ALEXANDER OF HALES, In duodecim Aristotelis Metaphysicœ libros (1572); IDEM, Universœ Theologiœ Summa (Cologne, 1622): St. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera (Parma, 1852-72), especially the Opuscula De Natura Materiœ, De Principio Individuationis, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, In Boethium de Trinitate, De Principiis Naturœ, Quodlibet, IX, Q. iv, De Mixtione Elementorum; ARISTOTLE, Opera (Paris, 1619); ST. AUGUSTINE, Opera (Antwerp, 1679-1703); ST. BONAVENTURE, Opera (Paris, 1864-71); CAIETAN, Summa . . . Thomœ a Vio . . . Commentariis illustrata (Lyons, 1562); DE WULF, Histoire de la Philosophie Médiévale (Louvain); FARGES, Matière et Forme en présence des Sciences modernes (Paris, 1892); GROTE, Aristotle (London, 1873); IDEM, Plato and the other companions of Socrates (London, 1865); HARPER, The Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879); LORENZELLI, Philosophiœ Theoreticœ Institutiones (Rome, 1896); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1904); SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); SAINT-HILAIRE, Œuvres d'Aristote (Paris, 1837-92); SUAREZ; Metaphysicarum disputationum (Mainz, 1605); UEREEWEG: History of Philosophy, tr. MORRIS (1872); WINDELBAND, A History of Philosophy, tr. TUFTS (New York, 1893).

140 Francis Aveling.

Carlo Matteucci

103 Physicist, born at Forli, in the Romagna, 21 June, 1811; died at Ardenza, near Leghorn, 25 July, 1868. He studied mathematics at the University of Bologna, receiving his doctorate in 1829. Then he went to the Paris Ecole Polytechnique for two years as a foreign student. In 1831 he returned to Forli and began to experiment in physics. In taking up the Voltaic pile he took sides against Volta's contact theory of electricity. He remained at Florence until his father's death in 1834, when he went to Ravenna and later to Pisa. His study of the Voltaic battery led him to announce the law that the decomposition in the electrolytic cell corresponds to the work developed in the elements of the pile. From the external effect it became possible to calculate the material used up in the pile. In 1837 he was invited by his friend Buoninsegni, president of the Ravenna Hospital, to take charge of its chemical laboratory and at the same time assume the title and rank of professor of physics at the college. There he did most excellent work and soon became famous. Arago, hearing of the vacancy in the chair of physics at the University of Pisa, wrote to Humboldt asking him to recommend Matteucci to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany. This application was successful and there at Pisa he continued his researches. Beginning with Arago's and Faraday's discoveries he developed by ingenious experiments our knowledge of electrostatics, electro-dynamics, induced currents, and the like, but his greatest achievements however were in the field of electro-physiology, with frogs, torpedoes, and the like.

104 He was also successful as a politician. In 1848 Commissioner of Tuscany to Charles Albert; sent to Frankfort to plead the cause of his country before the German Assembly; 1849 in Pisa, director of the telegraphs of Tuscany; 1859 provisional representative of Tuscany at Turin, and then sent to Paris with Peruzzi and Neri Corsini to plead the annexation of Piedmont; 1860 Inspector-General of the telegraph lines of the Italian Kingdom. Senator at the Tuscan Assembly in 1848, and again in the Italian Senate in 1860; Minister of Public Instruction, 1862, in the cabinet of Rattazzi. He won the Copley medal of the Royal Society of London, and was made corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1844. He published a great deal in English, French, and Italian journals of science. His larger works were:

105 "Lezioni di fisica" (4th ed., Pisa, 1858);

106 "Lezioni sui fenomeni fisico-chimici dei corpi viventi" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1846);

107 "Manuale di telegrafia elettrica" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1851);

108 "Cours spécial sur l'induction, le magnétisme de rotation", etc. (Paris, 1854);

109 "Lettres sur l'instruction publique" (Paris, 1864);

110 "Traité des phénomènes electro-physiologiques des animaux" (Paris, 1844).

111 William Fox

St. Matthew

106 Apostle and evangelist. The name Matthew is derived from the Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, B D, and sometimes Matthaios, CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings is the original. Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as "sitting in the custom house", and "named Matthew" is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as "sitting at the receipt of custom". The account in the three Synoptics is identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios legomenos of Matthew 9:9, would indicate this. The fact of one man having two names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews. It is true that the same person usually bears a Hebrew name such as "Shaoul" and a Greek name, Paulos. However, we have also examples of individuals with two Hebrew names as, for instance, Joseph-Caiaphas, Simon-Cephas, etc. It is probable that Mattija, "gift of Iaveh", was the name conferred upon the tax-gatherer by Jesus Christ when He called him to the Apostolate, and by it he was thenceforth known among his Christian brethren, Levi being his original name. Matthew, the son of Alpheus (Mark 2:14) was a Galilean, although Eusebius informs us that he was a Syrian. As tax-gatherer at Capharnaum, he collected custom duties for Herod Antipas, and, although a Jew, was despised by the Pharisees, who hated all publicans. When summoned by Jesus, Matthew arose and followed Him and tendered Him a feast in his house, where tax-gatherers and sinners sat at table with Christ and His disciples. This drew forth a protest from the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in these consoling words: "I came not to call the just, but sinners". No further allusion is made to Matthew in the Gospels, except in the list of the Apostles. As a disciple and an Apostle he thenceforth followed Christ, accompanying Him up to the time of His Passion and, in Galilee, was one of the witnesses of His Resurrection. He was also amongst the Apostles who were present at the Ascension, and afterwards withdrew to an upper chamber, in Jerusalem, praying in union with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:10 and 1:14).

107 Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria. According to Heracleon, who is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add, however, that the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto" and published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds that this "Martyrium S. Matthæi", which contains traces of Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century. There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology simply says: "S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est". Various writings that are now considered apocryphal, have been attributed to St. Matthew. In the "Evangelia apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document entitled: "De Ortu beatæ Mariæ et infantia Salvatoris", supposedly written in Hebrew by St. Matthew the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the priest. It is an abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of St. James, which was a Greek apocryphal of the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the sixth century. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthew on 21 September, and the Greek Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented under the symbol of a winged man, carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem.

108 E. Jacquier.

Gospel of St. Matthew

109 I. Canonicity

110 The earliest Christian communities looked upon the books of the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture, and read them at their religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which contained the words of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the same authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippus (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", IV, xxii, 3), who tells us that in every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the law, the prophets, and the Lord. A book was acknowledged as canonical when the Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the canonicity of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate primitive Christian tradition for the use that was made of this document, and for indications proving that it was regarded as Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the Old Testament.

111 The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because post-Apostolic writers quoted the texts with a certain freedom, and principally because it is difficult to say whether the passages thus quoted were taken from oral tradition or from a written Gospel. The first Christian document whose date can be fixed with comparative certainty (95-98), is the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It contains sayings of the Lord which closely resemble those recorded in the First Gospel (Clement, xvi, 17 = Matt., xi, 29; Clem., xxiv, 5 = Matt., xiii, 3), but it is possible that they are derived from Apostolic preaching, as, in chapter xiii, 2, we find a mixture of sentences from Matthew, Luke, and an unknown source. Again, we note a similar commingling of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the same Epistle of Clement, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in the Epistle of Polycarp, and in Clement of Alexandria. Whether these these texts were thus combined in oral tradition or emanated from a collection of Christ's utterances, we are unable to say.

112 The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew ("Ad Polyc.", ii, 2 = Matt., x, 16; "Eph.", xiv, 2 = Matt., xii, 33, etc.). In his "Epistle to the Philadelphians" (v, 12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded as Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it.

113 In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages from St. Matthew quoted literally (xii, 3 = Matt.,v. 44; vii, 2 = Matt., xxvi, 41, etc.).

114 The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (viii, 2 = Matt., vi, 7-13; vii, I = Matt., xxviii 19; xi, 7 = Matt., xii, 31, etc.).

115 In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old Testament.

116 The "Shepherd of Hermas" has several passages which bear close resemblance to passages of Matthew, but not a single literal quotation from it.

117 In his "Dialogue" (xcix, 8), St. Justin quotes, almost literally, the prayer of Christ in the Garden of Olives, in Matthew, xxvi, 39,40.

118 A great number of passages in the writings of St. Justin recall the Gospel of Matthew, and prove that he ranked it among the Memoirs of the Apostles which, he said, were called Gospels (I Apol., lxvi), were read in the services of the Church (ibid., @i), and were consequently regarded as Scripture.

119 In his "Legatio pro christianis", xii, 11, Athenagoras (117) quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v, 44).

120 Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol., III, xiii-xiv) quotes a passage from Matthew (v, 28, 32), and, according to St. Jerome (In Matt. Prol.), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

121 We find in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—drawn up, according to some critics, about the middle of the second century—numerous passages that closely resemble the Gospel of Matthew (Test. Gad, v, 3; vi, 6; v, 7 = Matt., xviii, 15, 35; Test. Jos., i, 5, 6 = Matt., xxv, 35, 36, etc.), but Dr. Charles maintains that the Testaments were written in Hebrew in the first century before Jesus Christ, and translated into Greek towards the middle of the same century. In this event, the Gospel of Matthew would depend upon the Testaments and not the Testaments upon the Gospel. The question is not yet settled, but it seems to us that there is a greater probability that the Testaments, at least in their Greek version, are of later date than the Gospel of Matthew, they certainly received numerous Christian additions.

122 The Greek text of the Clementine Homilies contains some quotations from Matthew (Hom. iii, 52 = Matt., xv, 13); in Hom. xviii, 15, the quotation from Matt., xiii, 35, is literal.

123 Passages which suggest the Gospel of Matthew might be quoted from heretical writings of the second century and from apocryphal gospels—the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc., in which the narratives, to a considerable extent, are derived from the Gospel of Matthew.

124 Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his "Diatesseron"; we shall quote below the testimonies of Papias and St. Irenæus. For the latter, the Gospel of Matthew, from which he quotes numerous passages, was one of the four that constituted the quadriform Gospel dominated by a single spirit.

125 Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, ii) asserts, that the "Instrumentum evangelicum" was composed by the Apostles, and mentions Matthew as the author of a Gospel (De carne Christi, xii).

126 Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, xiii) speaks of the four Gospels that have been transmitted, and quotes over three hundred passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which he introduces by the formula, en de to kata Maththaion euaggelio or by phesin ho kurios.

127 It is unnecessary to pursue our inquiry further. About the middle of the third century, the Gospel of Matthew was received by the whole Christian Church as a Divinely inspired document, and consequently as canonical. The testimony of Origen ("In Matt.", quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxv, 4), of Eusebius (op. cit., III, xxiv, 5; xxv, 1), and of St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", iii, "Prolog. in Matt.,") are explicit in this repsect. It might be added that this Gospel is found in the most ancient versions: Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian. Finally, it stands at the head of the Books of the New Testament in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea (363) and in that of St. Athanasius (326-73), and very probably it was in the last part of the Muratorian Canon. Furthermore, the canonicity of the Gospel of St. Matthew is accepted by the entire Christian world.

128 II. Authenticity of the First Gospel

129 The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts.

130 A. Testimony of Tradition

131 According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

132 Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative, that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the "answer of oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in Philo, "oracles of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In the New Testament the signification of the word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning "oracles" is the more natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias—e. g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., I, viii, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, cccxcii), and Origen (De Princip., IV, xi)—have used it to designate facts and savings. The work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles" [logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 9). On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no connection between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe that here logion comprises all that Christ said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the author intended to emphasize a difference between them, by implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia means deeds and teachings.

133 (2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could".

134 (3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

135 Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.

136 B. Examination of the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew

137 Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may not have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of Matthew, we shall here treat them in full.

138 (1) The Language of the Gospel

139 St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew's Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5, and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek expressions.

140 (2) General Character of the Gospel

141 Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of subject-matter, and a simple, easy style—much purer than that of Mark—suggest an original rather than a translation. When the First Gospel is compared with books translated from the Hebrew, such as those of the Septuagint, a marked difference is at once apparent. The original Hebrew shines through every line of the latter, whereas, in the First Gospel Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and are merely such as might be looked for in a book written by a Jew and reproducing Jewish teaching. However, these observations are not conclusive in favour of a Greek original. In the first place, the unity of style that prevails throughout the book, would rather prove that we have a translation. It is certain that a good portion of the matter existed first in Aramaic—at all events, the sayings of Christ, and thus almost three-quarters of the Gospel. Consequently, these at least the Greek writer has translated. And, since no difference in language and style can be detected between the sayings of Christ and the narratives that are claimed to have been composed in Greek, it would seem that these latter are also translated from the Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the fact that they are of the same origin as the discourses. The unity of plan and the artificial arrangement of subject-matter could as well have been made in Matthew's Aramaic as in the Greek document; the fine Greek construction, the lapidary style, the elegance and good order claimed as characteristic of the Gospel, are largely a matter of opinion, the proof being that critics do not agree on this question. Although the phraseology is not more Hebraic than in the other Gospels, still it not much less so. To sum up, from the literary examination of the Greek Gospel no certain conclusion can be drawn against the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of which our First Gospel would be a translation; and inversely, this examination does not prove the Greek Gospel to be a translation of an Aramaic original.

142 (3) Quotations from the Old Testament

143 It is claimed that most of the quotations from the Old Testament are borrowed from the Septuagint, and that this fact proves that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek. The first proposition is not accurate, and, even if it were, it would not necessitate this conclusion. Let us examine the facts. As established by Stanton ("The Gospels as Historical Documents", II, Cambridge, 1909, p. 342), the quotations from the Old Testament in the First Gospel are divided into two classes. In the first are ranged all those quotations the object of which is to show that the prophecies have been realized in the events of the life of Jesus. They are introduced by the words: "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet," or other similar expressions. The quotations of this class do not in general correspond exactly with any particular text. Three among them (ii, 15; viii, 17; xxvii, 9, 10) are borrowed from the Hebrew; five (ii, 18; iv, 15, 16; xii, 18-21; xiii, 35; xxi, 4, 5) bear points of resemblance to the Septuagint, but were not borrowed from that version. In the answer of the chief priests and scribes to Herod (ii, 6), the text of the Old Testament is slightly modified, without, however, conforming either to the Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Prophet Micheas writes (v, 2): "And thou Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda"; whereas Matthew says (ii, 6): "And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda". A single quotation of this first class (iii, 3) conforms to the Septuagint, and another (i, 23) is almost conformable. These quotations are to be referred to the first Evangelist himself, and relate to facts, principally to the birth of Jesus (i, ii), then to the mission of John the Baptist, the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus in Galilee, the miracles of Jesus, etc. It is surprising that the narratives of the Passion and the Resurrection of Our Lord, the fulfilment of the very clear and numerous prophecies of the Old Testament, should never be brought into relation with these prophecies. Many critics, e. g. Burkitt and Stanton, think that the quotations of the first class are borrowed from a collection of Messianic passages, Stanton being of opinion that they were accompanied by the event that constituted their realization. This "catena of fulfilments of prophecy", as he calls it, existed originally in Aramaic, but whether the author of the First Gospel had a Greek translation of it is uncertain. The second class of quotations from the Old Testament is chiefly composed of those repeated either by the Lord or by His interrogators. Except in two passages, they are introduced by one of the formula: "It is written"; "As it is written"; "Have you not read?" "Moses said". Where Matthew alone quotes the Lord's words, the quotation is sometimes borrowed from the Septuagint (v, 21 a, 27, 38), or, again, it is a free translation which we are unable to refer to any definite text (v, 21 b, 23, 43). In those Passages where Matthew runs parallel with Mark and Luke or with either of them, all the quotations save one (xi, 10) are taken almost literally from the Septuagint.

144 (4) Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke

145 From a first comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the two other Synoptic Gospels we find

146 that 330 verses are peculiar to it alone; that it has between 330 and 370 in common with both the others, from 170 to 180 with Mark's, and from 230 to 240 with Luke's;

147 that in like parts the same ideas are expressed sometimes in identical and sometimes in different terms; that Matthew and Mark most frequently use the same expressions, Matthew seldom agreeing with Luke against Mark. The divergence in their use of the same expressions is in the number of a noun or the use of two different tenses of the same verb. The construction of sentences is at times identical and at others different.

148 That the order of narrative is, with certain exceptions which we shall later indicate, almost the same in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

149 These facts indicate that the three Synoptists are not independent of one another. They borrow their subject-matter from the same oral source or else from the same written documents. To declare oneself upon this alternative, it would be necessary to treat the synoptic question, and on this critics have not vet agreed. We shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to what concerns the Gospel of St. Matthew. From a second comparison of this Gospel with Mark and Luke we ascertain:

150 that Mark is to be found almost complete in Matthew, with certain divergences which we shall note;

151 that Matthew records many of our Lord's discourses in common with Luke;

152 that Matthew has special passages which are unknown to Mark and Luke.

153 Let us examine these three points in detail, in an endeavour to learn how the Gospel of Matthew was composed. (a) Analogy to Mark

154 Mark is found complete in Matthew, with the exception of numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes: Mark, i, 23-28, 35-39; iv, 26-29; vii, 32-36; viii, 22-26; ix, 39, 40; xii, 41-44. In all, 31 verses are omitted.

155 The general order is identical except that, in chapters v-xiii, Matthew groups facts of the same nature and savings conveying the same ideas. Thus, in Matt., viii, 1-15, we have three miracles that are separated in Mark; in Matthew, viii, 23-ix, 9, there are gathered together incidents otherwise arranged in Mark, etc. Matthew places sentences in a different environment from that given them by Mark. For instance, in chapter v, 15, Matthew inserts a verse occurring in Mark, iv, 21, that should have been placed after xiii, 23, etc.

156 In Matthew the narrative is usually shorter because he suppresses a great number of details. Thus, in Mark, we read: "And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm", whereas in Matthew the first part of the sentence is omitted. All unnecessary particulars are dispensed with, such as the numerous picturesque features and indications of time, place, and number, in which Mark's narrative abounds.

157 Sometimes, however, Matthew is the more detailed. Thus, in chapter xii, 22-45, he gives more of Christ's discourse than we find in Mark, iii, 20-30, and has in addition a dialogue between Jesus and the scribes. In chapter xiii, Matthew dwells at greater length than Mark, iv, upon the object of the parables, and introduces those of the cockle and the leaven, neither of which Mark records. Moreover, Our Lord's apocalyptic discourse is much longer in Matthew, xxiv-xxv (97 verses), than in Mark, xiii (37 verses).

158 Changes of terms or divergences in the mode of expression are extremely frequent. Thus, Matthew often uses eutheos, when Mark has euthus; men . . . de, instead of kai, as in Mark, etc.; the aorist instead of the imperfect employed by Mark. He avoids double negatives and the construction of the participle with eimi; his style is more correct and less harsh than that of Mark; he resolves Mark's compound verbs, and replaces by terms in current use the rather unusual expressions introduced by Mark, etc.

159 He is free from the lack of precision which, to a slight extent, characterizes Mark. Thus, Matthew says "the tetrarch" and not "the king" as Mark does, in speaking of Herod Antipas; "on the third day" instead.of "in three days". At times the changes are more important. Instead of "Levi, son of Alpheus," he says: "a man named Matthew"; he mentions two demoniacs and two blind persons, whereas Mark mentions only one of each, etc.

160 Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark, iii, 5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark, iii, 21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does not say, like Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix, 3 1; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of profound amazement, because "they understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded" (vi, 52), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or alterations of this kind are very numerous. It must, however, be remarked that between Matthew and Mark there are many points of resemblance in the construction of sentences (Matt., ix, 6 Mark, ii, 10; Matt., xxvi, 47 = Mark, xiv, 43, etc.); in their mode of expression, often unusual. and in short phrases (Matt.. ix, 16 = Mark. ii, 21; Matt., xvi, 28 Mark, ix, 1: Matt., xx, 25 = Mark, x, 42); in some pericopes, narratives, or discourses, where the greater part of the terms are identical (Matt., iv, 18-22 Mark, i, 16-20; Matt., xxvi, 36-38 = Mark, xiv, 32-34; Matt., ix, 5, 6 = Mark, ii, 9-11), etc.

161 (b) Analogy to Luke

162 A comparison of Matthew and Luke reveals that they have but one narrative in common, viz., the cure of the centurion's servant (Matt., viii, 5-13 = Luke, vii, 1-10). The additional matter common to these Evangelists, consists of the discourses and sayings of Christ. In Matthew His discourses are usually gathered together, whereas in Luke they are more frequently scattered. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke have in common the following discourses: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v-vii the Sermon in the Plain, Luke, vi); the Lord's exhortation to His disciples whom He sends forth on a mission (Matt., x, 19-20, 26-33 = Luke, xii, 11-12, 2-9); the discourse on John the Baptist (Matt., xi = Luke, vii); the discourse on the Last Judgment (Matt., xxiv Luke, xvii). Moreover, these two Evangelists possess in common a large number of detached sentences, e. g., Matt., iii, 7b-19, 12 = Luke. iii, 7b-9, 17; Matt., iv, 3-11 = Luke, iv, 3-13; Matt., ix, 37, 38 = Luke x, 2; Matt., xii, 43-45 = Luke, xi, 24-26 etc. (cf. Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp. 134-70). However, in these parallel passages of Matthew and Luke there are numerous differences of expression, and even some divergences in ideas or in the manner of their presentation. It is only necessary to recall the Beatitudes (Matt., v, 3-12 = Luke, vi, 20b-25): in Matthew there are eight beatitudes, whereas in Luke there are only four, which, while approximating to Matthew's In point of conception, differ from them in general form and expression. In addition to having in common parts that Mark has not, Matthew and Luke sometimes agree against Mark in parallel narratives. There have been counted 240 passages wherein Matthew and Luke harmonize with each other, but disagree with Mark in the way of presenting events, and particularly in the use of the same terms and the same grammatical emendations. Matthew and Luke omit the very pericopes that occur in Mark.

163 (c) Parts peculiar to Matthew

164 These are numerous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are distinctly his own. Sometimes long passages occur, such as those recording the Nativity and early Childhood (i, ii), the cure of the two blind men and one dumb man (ix, 27-34), the death of Judas (xxvii, 3-10), the guard placed at the Sepulchre (xxvii, 62-66), the imposture of the chief priests (xxviii, 11-15), the apparition of Jesus in Galilee (xxviii, 16-20), a great portion of the Sermon on the Mount (v, 17-37; vi, 1-8; vii, 12-23), parables (xiii, 24-30; 35-53; xxv, 1-13), the Last Judgment (xxv, 31-46), etc., and sometimes detached sentences, as in xxiii, 3, 28, 33; xxvii, 25, etc. (cf. Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp.171-97). Those passages in which Matthew reminds us that facts in the life of Jesus are the fulfilment of the prophecies, are likewise noted as peculiar to him, but of this we have already spoken.

165 These various considerations have given rise to a great number of hypotheses, varying in detail, but agreeing fundamentally. According to the majority of present critics—H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Jülicher, Wernle, von Soden, Wellhausen, Harnack, B. Weiss, Nicolardot, W. Allen, Montefiore, Plummer, and Stanton—the author of the First Gospel used two documents: the Gospel of Mark in its present or in an earlier form, and a collection of discourses or sayings, which is designated by the letter Q. The repetitions occurring in Matthew (v, 29, 30 = xviii, 8, 9; v, 32 xix, 9; x, 22a = xxiv, 9b; xii, 39b = xvi, 4a, etc.) may be explained by the fact that two sources furnished the writer with material for his Gospel. Furthermore, Matthew used documents of his own. In this hypothesis the Greek Gospel is supposed to be original. and not the translation of a complete Aramaic Gospel. It is admitted that the collection of sayings was originally Aramaic, but it is disputed whether the Evangelist had it in this form or in that of a Greek translation. Critics also differ regarding the manner in which Matthew used the sources. Some would have it that Matthew the Apostle was not the author of the First Gospel, but merely the collector of the sayings of Christ mentioned by Papias. "However", says Jülicher, "the author's individuality is so strikingly evident in his style and tendencies that it is impossible to consider the Gospel a mere compilation". Most critics are of a like opinion. Endeavours have been made to reconcile the information furnished by tradition with the facts resulting from the study of the Gospel as follows: Matthew was known to have collected in Aramaic the sayings of Christ, and, on the other hand, there existed at the beginning of the second century a Gospel containing the narratives found in Mark and the sayings gathered by Matthew in Aramaic. It is held that the Greek Gospel ascribed to Matthew is a translation of it, made by him or by other translators whose names it was later attempted to ascertain.

166 To safeguard tradition further, while taking into consideration the facts we have already noted, it might be supposed that the three Synoptists worked upon the same catechesis, either oral or written and originally in Aramaic, and that they had detached portions of this catechesis, varying in literary condition. The divergences may be explained first by this latter fact, and then by the hypothesis of different translations and by each Evangelist's peculiar method of treating the subject-matter, Matthew and Luke especially having adapted it to the purpose of their Gospel. There is nothing to prevent the supposition that Matthew worked on the Aramaic catechesis; the literary emendations of Mark's text by Matthew may have been due to the translator, who was more conversant with Greek than was the popular preacher who furnished the catechesis reproduced by Mark. In reality, the only difficulty lies in explaining the similarity of style between Matthew and Mark. First of all, we may observe that the points of resemblance are less numerous than they are said to be. As we have seen, they are very rare in the narratives at all events, much more so than in the discourses of Christ. Why, then, should we not suppose that the three Synoptists, depending upon the same Aramaic catechesis, sometimes agreed in rendering similar Aramaic expressions in the same Greek words? It is also possible to suppose that sayings of Christ, which in the three Synoptic Gospels (or in two of them) differed only in a few expressions, were unified by copyists or other persons. To us it seems probable that Matthew's Greek translator used Mark's Greek Gospel, especially for Christ's discourses. Luke, also, may have similarly utilized Matthew's Greek Gospel in rendering the discourses of Christ. Finally, even though we should suppose that Matthew were the author only of the Logia, the full scope of which we do not know, and that a part of his Greek Gospel is derived from that of Mark, we would still have a right to ascribe this First Gospel to Matthew as its principal author.

167 Other hypotheses have been put forth. In Zahn's opinion, Matthew wrote a complete Gospel in Aramaic; Mark was familiar with this document, which he used while abridging it. Matthew's Greek translator utilized Mark, but only for form, whereas Luke depended upon Mark and secondary sources, but was not acquainted with Matthew. According to Belser, Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, a Greek translation of it being made in 59-60, and Mark depended on Matthew's Aramaic document and Peter's preaching. Luke made use of Mark, of Matthew (both in Aramaic and Greek), and also of oral tradition. According to Camerlynck and Coppieters, the First Gospel in its present form was composed either by Matthew or some other Apostolic writer long before the end of the first century, by combining the Aramaic work of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

168 III. Plan and Contents of the First Gospel

169 The author did not wish to compose a biography of Christ, but to demonstrate, by recording His words and the deeds of His life, that He was the Messias, the Head and Founder of the Kingdom of God, and the promulgator of its laws. One can scarcely fail to recognize that, except in a few parts (e. g. the Childhood and the Passion), the arrangement of events and of discourses is artificial. Matthew usually combines facts and precepts of a like nature. Whatever the reason, he favours groups of three (thirty-eight of which may be counted)—three divisions in the genealogy of Jesus (i, 17), three temptations (iv, 1-11), three examples of justice (vi, 1-18), three cures (viii, 1-15), three parables of the seed (xiii, 1-32), three denials of Peter (xxvi, 69-75), etc.; of five (these are less numerous)—five long discourses (v-vii, 27; x; xiii, 1-52; xviii; xxiv-xxv), ending with the same formula (Kai egeneto, ote etelesen ho Iesous), five examples of the fulfilment of the law (v, 21-48), etc.; and of seven—seven parables (xiii), seven maledictions (xxiii), seven brethren (xxii, 25), etc. The First Gospel can be very naturally divided as follows:-

170 A. Introduction (1-2)

171 The genealogy of Jesus, the prediction of His Birth, the Magi, the Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents, the return to Nazareth, and the life there.

172 B. the Public Ministry of Jesus (3-25)

173 This may be divided into three parts, according to the place where He exercised it.

174 (1) In Galilee (3-18)

175 (a) Preparation for the public ministry of Jesus (3:1 to 4:11)

176 John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the return to Galilee.

177 (b) The preaching of the Kingdom of God (4:17 to 18:35)

178 (1) the preparation of the Kingdom by the preaching of penance, the call of the disciples, and numerous cures (iv, 17-25), the promulgation of the code of the Kingdom of God in the Sermon on the Mount (v, I-vii, 29);

179 (2) the propagation of the Kingdom in Galilee (viii, I-xviii, 35). He groups together:

180 the deeds by which Jesus established that He was the Messias and the King of the Kingdom: various cures, the calming of the tempest, missionary journeys through the land, the calling of the Twelve Apostles, the principles that should guide them in their missionary travels (viii, 1-x, 42);

181 various teachings of Jesus called forth by circumstances: John's message and the Lord's answer, Christ's confutation of the false charges of the Pharisees, the departure and return of the unclean spirit (xi, 1-xii, 50);

182 finally, the parables of the Kingdom, of which Jesus makes known and explains the end (xiii, 3-52).

183 (3) Matthew then relates the different events that terminate the preaching in Galilee: Christ's visit to Nazareth (xiii, 53-58), the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on the lake, discussions with the Pharisees concerning legal purifications, the confession of Peter at Cæsarea, the Transfiguration of Jesus, prophecy regarding the Passion and Resurrection, and teachings on scandal, fraternal correction, and the forgiveness of injuries (xiv, 1-xviii, 35).

184 (2) Outside Galilee or the way to Jerusalem (19-20)

185 Jesus leaves Galilee and goes beyond the Jordan; He discusses divorce with the Pharisees; answers the rich young man, and teaches self-denial and the danger of wealth; explains by the parable of the labourers how the elect will be called; replies to the indiscreet question of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and cures two blind men of Jericho.

186 (3) In Jerusalem (21-25)

187 Jesus makes a triumphal entry into Jerusalem; He curses the barren fig tree and enters into a dispute with the chief priests and the Pharisees who ask Him by what authority He has banished the sellers from the Temple, and answers them by the parables of the two sons, the murderous husbandmen, and the marriage of the king's son. New questions are put to Jesus concerning the tribute, the resurrection of the dead, and the greatest commandment. Jesus anathematizes the scribes and Pharisees and foretells the events that will precede and accompany the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world.

188 C. the Passion and the Resurrection of Jesus (26-28)

189 (1) The Passion (26-27)

190 Events are now hurrying to a close. The Sanhedrin plots for the death of Jesus, a woman anoints the feet of the Lord, and Judas betrays his Master. Jesus eats the pasch with His disciples and institutes the Eucharist. In the Garden of Olives, He enters upon His agony and offers up the sacrifice of His life. He is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Peter denies Christ; Judas hangs himself. Jesus is condemned to death by Pilate and crucified; He is buried, and a guard is placed at the Sepulchre (xxvi, 1-xxvii, 66).

191 (2) The Resurrection (28)

192 Jesus rises the third day and appears first to the holy women at Jerusalem, then in Galilee to His disciples, whom He sends forth to propagate throughout the world the Kingdom of God.

193 IV. Object and Doctrinal Teaching of the First Gospel

194 Immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, Peter preached that Jesus, crucified and risen, was the Messias, the Saviour of the World, and proved this assertion by relating the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. This was the first Apostolic teaching, and was repeated by the other preachers of the Gospel, of whom tradition tells us that Matthew was one. This Evangelist proclaimed the Gospel to the Hebrews and, before his departure from Jerusalem, wrote in his mother tongue the Gospel that he had preached. Hence the aim of the Evangelist was primarily apologetic. He wished to demonstrate to his readers, whether these were converts or still unbelieving Jews, that in Jesus the ancient prophecies had been realized in their entirety. This thesis includes three principal ideas:

195 Jesus is the Messias, and the kingdom He inaugurates is the Messianic kingdom foretold by the prophets;

196 because of their sins, the Jews, as a nation, shall have no part in this kingdom

197 the Gospel will be announced to all nations, and all are called to salvation.

198 A. Jesus as Messias

199 St. Matthew has shown that in Jesus all the ancient prophesies on the Messias were fulfilled. He was the Emmanuel, born of a Virgin Mother (i, 22, 23), announced by Isaias (vii, 14); He was born at Bethlehem (ii, 6), as had been predicted by Micheas (v, 2), He went to Egypt and was recalled thence (ii, 15) as foretold by Osee (xi, 1). According to the prediction of Isaias (xl, 3), He was heralded by a precursor, John the Baptist (iii, 1 sqq.); He cured all the sick (viii, 16 so.), that the Prophecy of Isaias (liii, 4) might be fulfilled; and in all His actions He was indeed the same of whom this prophet had spoken (xiii, 1). His teaching in parables (xiii, 3) was conformable to what Isaias had said (vi, 9). Finally, He suffered, and the entire drama of His Passion and Death was a fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture (Isaias, liii, 3-12; Ps. xxi, 13-22). Jesus proclaimed Himself the Messias by His approbation of Peter's confession (xvi, 16, 17) and by His answer to the high priest (xxvi, 63, 64). St. Matthew also endeavours to show that the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus Christ is the Messianic Kingdom. From the beginning of His public life, Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand (iv, 17); in the Sermon on the Mount He promulgates the charter of this kingdom, and in parables He speaks of its nature and conditions. In His answer to the envoys of John the Baptist Jesus specifically declares that the Messianic Kingdom, foretold by the Prophets, has come to pass, and He describes its characteristics: "The blind see, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them." It was in these terms, that Isaias had described the future kingdom (xxxv, 5, 6; loci, 1). St. Matthew records a very formal expression of the Lord concerning the coming of the Kingdom: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (xii, 28). Moreover, Jesus could call Himself the Messias only inasmuch as the Kingdom of God had come.

200 B. Exclusion of Jews from Messianic Kingdom

201 The Jews as a nation were rejected because of their sins, and were to have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. This rejection had been several times predicted by the prophets, and St. Matthew shows that it was because of its incredulity that Israel was excluded from the Kingdom, he dwells on all the events in which the increasing obduracy of the Jewish nation is conspicuous, manifested first in the princes and then in the hatred of the people who beseech Pilate to put Jesus to death. Thus the Jewish nation itself was accountable for its exclusion from the Messianic kingdom.

202 C. Universal Proclamation of the Gospel

203 That the pagans were called to salvation instead of the Jews, Jesus declared explicitly to the unbelieving Israelites: "Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof" (xxi, 43); "He that soweth the good seed, is the Son of man. And the field is the world" (xiii, 37-38). "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come" (xxiv, 14). Finally, appearing to His Apostles in Galilee, Jesus gives them this supreme command: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations" (xxviii 18, 19). These last words of Christ are the summary of the First Gospel. Efforts have been made to maintain that these words of Jesus, commanding that all nations be evangelized, were not authentic, but in a subsequent paragraph we shall prove that all the Lord's sayings, recorded in the First Gospel, proceed from the teaching of Jesus.

204 V. Destination of the Gospel

205 The ecclesiastical writers Papias, St. Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, whose testimony has been given above (II, A), agree in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews. Everything in this Gospel proves, that the writer addresses himself to Jewish readers. He does not explain Jewish customs and usages to them, as do the other Evangelists for their Greek and Latin readers, and he assumes that they are acquainted with Palestine, since, unlike St. Luke he mentions places without giving any indication of their topographical position. It is true that the Hebrew words, Emmanuel, Golgotha, Eloi, are translated, but it is likely that these translations were inserted when the Aramaic text was reproduced in Greek. St. Matthew chronicles those discourses of Christ that would interest the Jews and leave a favourable impression upon them. The law is not to be destroyed, but fulfilled (v, 17). He emphasizes more strongly than either St. Mark or St. Luke the false interpretations of the law given by the scribes and Pharisees, the hypocrisy and even the vices of the latter, all of which could be of interest to Jewish readers only. According to certain critics, St. Irenæus (Fragment xxix) said that Matthew wrote to convert the Jews by proving to them that Christ was the Son of David. This interpretation is badly founded. Moreover, Origen (In Matt., i) categorically asserts that this Gospel was published for Jews converted to the Faith. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. III, xxiv) is also explicit on this point, and St. Jerome, summarizing tradition, teaches us that St. Matthew published his Gospel in Judea and in the Hebrew language, principally for those among the Jews who believed in Jesus, and did not observe even the shadow of the Law, the truth of the Gospel having replaced it (In Matt. Prol.). Subsequent ecclesiastical writers and Catholic exegetes have taught that St. Matthew wrote for the converted Jews. "However," says Zahn (Introd. to the New Testament, II, 562), "the apologetical and polemical character of the book, as well as the choice of language, make it extremely probable that Matthew wished his book to be read primarily by the Jews who were not yet Christians. It was suited to Jewish Christians who were still exposed to Jewish influence, and also to Jews who still resisted the Gospel".

206 VI. Date and Place of Composition

207 Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension—i. e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v, 2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel, as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive conclusion.

208 In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e. g. Patrizi) go back to 36-39 or (e. g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42; Conély, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of St. Irenæus and Eusebius, and on the remark inserted parenthetically in the discourse of Jesus in chapter xxiv, 15: "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place": here the author interrupts the sentence and invites the reader to take heed of what follows, viz.: "Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." As there would have been no occasion for a like warning had the destruction of Jerusalem already taken place, Matthew must have written his Gospel before the year 70 (about 65-70 according to Batiffol). Protestant and Liberalistic critics also are greatly at variance as regards the time of the composition of the First Gospel. Zahn sets the date about 61-66, and Godet about 60-66; Keim, Meyer, Holtzmann (in his earlier writings), Beyschlag, and Maclean, before 70, Bartiet about 68-69; W. Allen and Plummer, about 65-75; Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann (in his later writings), soon after 70; B. Weiss and Harnack, about 70-75; Renan, later than 85, Réville, between 69 and 96, Jülicher, in 81-96, Montefiore, about 90-100, Volkmar, in 110; Baur, about 130-34. The following are some of the arguments advanced to prove that the First Gospel was written several years after the Fall of Jerusalem. When Jesus prophesies to His Apostles that they will be delivered up to the councils, scourged in the synagogues, brought before governors and kings for His sake; that they will give testimony of Him, will for Him be hated and driven from city to city (x, 17-23) and when He commissions them to teach all nations and make them His disciples, His words intimate, it is claimed, the lapse of many years, the establishment of the Christian Church in distant parts, and its cruel persecution by the Jews and even by Roman emperors and governors. Moreover, certain sayings of the Lord—such as: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" (xi, 18), "If he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell the Church" (xviii, 10)—carry us to a time when the Christian Church was already constituted, a time that could not have been much earlier than the year 100. The fact is, that what was predicted by Our Lord, when He announced future events and established the charter and foundations of His Church, is converted into reality and made coexistent with the writing of the First Gospel. Hence, to give these arguments a probatory value it would be necessary either to deny Christ's knowledge of the future or to maintain that the teachings embodied in the First Gospel were not authentic.

209 VII. Historic Value of the First Gospel

210 (1) Of the Narratives

211 Apart from the narratives of the Childhood of Jesus, the cure of the two blind men, the tribute money, and a few incidents connected with the Passion and Resurrection, all the others recorded by St. Matthew are found in both the other Synoptists, with one exception (viii, 5-13) which occurs only in St. Luke. Critics agree m declaring that, regarded as a whole, the events of the life of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are historic. For us, these facts are historic even in detail, our criterion of truth being the same for the aggregate and the details. The Gospel of St. Mark is acknowledged to be of great historic value because it reproduces the preaching of St. Peter. But, for almost all the events of the Gospel, the information given by St. Mark is found in St. Matthew, while such as are peculiar to the latter are of the same nature as events recorded by St. Mark, and resemble them so closely that it is hard to understand why they should not be historic, since they also are derived from the primitive catechesis. It may be further observed that the narratives of St. Matthew are never contradictory to the events made known to us by profane documents, and that they give a very accurate account of the moral and religious ideas, the manners and customs of the Jewish people of that time. In his recent work, "The Synoptic Gospels" (London, 1909), Montefiore, a Jewish critic, does full justice to St. Matthew on these different points. Finally all the objections that could possibly have been raised against their veracity vanish, if we but keep in mind the standpoint of the author, and what he wished to demonstrate. The comments we are about to make concerning the Lord's utterances are also applicable to the Gospel narratives. For a demonstration of the historic value of the narratives of the Holy Childhood, we recommend Father Durand's scholarly work, "L'enfance de Jésus-Christ d'après les évangiles canoniques" (Paris, 1907).

212 (2) Of the Discourses

213 The greater part of Christ's short sayings are found in the three Synoptic Gospels and consequently spring from the early catechesis. His long discourses, recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, also formed part of an authentic catechesis, and critics in general are agreed in acknowledging their historic value. There are, however some who maintain that the Evangelist modified his documents to adapt them to the faith professed in Christian communities at the time when he wrote his Gospel. They also claim that, even prior to the composition of the Gospels, Christian faith had altered Apostolic reminiscences. Let us first of all observe that these objections would have no weight whatever, unless we were to concede that the First Gospel was not written by St. Matthew. And even assuming the same point of view as our adversaries, who think that our Synoptic Gospels depend upon anterior sources, we maintain that these changes, whether attributable to the Evangelists or to their sources (i. e. the faith of the early Christians), could not have been effected.

214 The alterations claimed to have been introduced into Christ's teachings could not have been made by the Evangelists themselves. We know that the latter selected their subject-matter and disposed of it each in his own way, and with a special end in view, but this matter was the same for all three, at least for the whole contents of the pericopes, and was taken from the original catechesis, which was already sufficiently well established not to admit of the introduction into it of new ideas and unknown facts. Again, all the doctrines which are claimed to be foreign to the teachings of Jesus are found in the three Synoptists, and are so much a part of the very framework of each Gospel that their removal would mean the destruction of the order of the narrative. Under these conditions, that there might be a substantial change in the doctrines taught by Christ, it would be necessary to suppose a previous understanding among the three Evangelists, which seems to us impossible, as Matthew and Luke at least appear to have worked independently of each other and it is in their Gospels that Christ's longest discourses are found. These doctrines, which were already embodied in the sources used by the three Synoptists, could not have resulted from the deliberations and opinions of the earliest Christians. First of all, between the death of Christ and the initial drawing up of the oral catechesis, there was not sufficient time for originating, and subsequently enjoining upon the Christian conscience, ideas diametrically opposed to those said to have been exclusively taught by Jesus Christ. For example, let us take the doctrines claimed, above all others, to have been altered by the belief of the first Christians, namely that Jesus Christ had called all nations to salvation. It is said that the Lord restricted His mission to Israel, and that all those texts wherein He teaches that the Gospel should be preached throughout the entire world originated with the early Christians and especially with Paul. Now, in the first place, these universalist doctrines could not have sprung up among the Apostles. They and the primitive Christians were Jews of poorly developed intelligence, of very narrow outlook, and were moreover imbued with particularist ideas. From the Gospels and Acts it is easy to see that these men were totally unacquainted with universalist ideas, which had to be urged upon them, and which, even then, they were slow to accept. Moreover, how could this first Christian generation, who, we are told, believed that Christ's Second Coming was close at hand, have originated these passages proclaiming that before this event took place the Gospel should be preached to all nations? These doctrines do not emanate from St. Paul and his disciples. Long before St. Paul could have exercised any influence whatever over the Christian conscience, the Evangelical sources containing these precepts had already been composed. The Apostle of the Gentiles was the special propagator of these doctrines, but he was not their creator. Enlightened by the Holy Spirit, he understood that the ancient prophecies had been realized in the Person of Jesus and that the doctrines taught by Christ were identical with those revealed by the Scriptures.

215 Finally, by considering as a whole the ideas constituting the basis of the earliest Christian writings, we ascertain that these doctrines, taught by the prophets, and accentuated by the life and words of Christ, form the framework of the Gospels and the basis of Pauline preaching. They are, as it were, a kind of fasces which it would be impossible to unbind, and into which no new idea could be inserted without destroying its strength and unity. In the prophecies, the Gospels the Pauline Epistles, and the first Christian writings an intimate correlation joins all together, Jesus Christ Himself being the centre and the common bond. What one has said of Him, the others reiterate, and never do we hear an isolated or a discordant voice. If Jesus taught doctrines contrary or foreign to those which the Evangelists placed upon His lips, then He becomes an inexplicable phenomenon, because, in the matter of ideas, He is in contradiction to the society in which He moved, and must be ranked with the least intelligent sections among the Jewish people. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that the discourses of Christ, recorded in the First Gospel and reproducing the Apostolic catechesis, are authentic. We my however, again observe that, his aim being chiefly apologetic, Matthew selected and presented the events of Christ's life and also these discourses in a way that would lead up to the conclusive proof which he wished to give of the Messiahship of Jesus. Still the Evangelist neither substantially altered the original catechesis nor invented doctrines foreign to the teaching of Jesus. His action bore upon details or form, but not upon the basis of words and deeds.

216 Appendix: Decisions of the Biblical Commission

217 The following answers have been given by the Biblical Commission (q.v.) to inquiries about the Gospel of St. Matthew: In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices, most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils, and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name. The belief that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native language of the Jews then in Palestine, is to be considered as based on Tradition.

218 The preparation of this original text was not deferred until after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it contains about this might be written after the event; nor is the alleged uncertain and much disputed testimony of Irenaeus convincing enough to do away with the opinion most conformed to Tradition, that their preparation was finished even before the coming of Paul to Rome. The opinion of certain Modernists is untenable, viz., that Matthew did not in a proper and strict sense compose the Gospel, as it has come down to us, but only a collection of some words and sayings of Christ, which, according to them, another anonymous author used as sources.

219 The fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, and even the Church itself from the very beginning, have used as canonical the Greek text of the Gospel known as St. Matthew's, not even excepting those who have expressly handed down that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, proves for certain that this very Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the Gospel written by the same Apostle in his native language. Although the author of the first Gospel has the dogmatic and apologetic purpose of proving to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the house of David, and although he is not always chronological in arranging the facts or sayings which he records, his narration is not to be regarded as lacking truth. Nor can it be said that his accounts of the deeds and utterances of Christ have been altered and adapted by the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the conditions of the growing Church, and that they do not therefore conform to historical truth. Notably unfounded are the opinions of those who cast doubt on the historical value of the first two chapters, treating of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, or on certain passages of much weight for certain dogmas, such as those which concern the primacy of Peter (xvi, 17-19), the form of baptism given to the Apostles with their universal missions (xxviii, 19-20), the Apostles' profession of faith in Christ (xiv, 33), and others of this character specially emphasized by Matthew.

220 E. Jacquier.

Sir Tobie Matthew

112 English priest, born at Salisbury, 3 October, 1577, died at Ghent, 13 October, 1655. He was the son of Dr. Tobie Matthew, then Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, afterwards Anglican Bishop of Durham, and finally Archbishop of York, and Frances, daughter of William Barlow, Anglican Bishop of Chichester. Tobie Matthew matriculated from Christ Church, Oxford, 13 March, 1589-90, and became M.A. 5 July, 1597. He seems to have been harshly treated by his parents, who were angered at his youthful extravagance. On 15 May, 1599, he was admitted at Gray's Inn, where he began his close intimacy with Sir Francis Bacon, and two years later became M.P. for Newport, Cornwall. During this period of his life he frequented the dissolute court of Elizabeth. On the accession of James I he sat in Parliament for St. Alban's, and joined the new court, receiving a large grant from the Crown which amply provided for his future. Having always desired to travel, he left England in November, 1604, visiting France on his way to Florence, though he had promised his father he would not go to Italy. At Florence he came into the society of several Catholics and ended by being received into the Church. A new persecution was raging in England, but he determined to return. He was imprisoned in the Fleet for six months, and every effort was made to shake his resolution. Finally he was allowed to leave England, and he travelled in Flanders and Spain. In 1614 he studied for the priesthood at Rome and was ordained by Cardinal Bellarmine (20 May). The king allowed him to return to England in 1617, and he stayed for a time with Bacon whose essays he translated into Italian. From 1619 to 1622 he was again exiled, but on his return was favourably received by the king, and acted as an agent at court to promote the marriage of Prince Charles with the Spanish Infanta. In the same cause James sent him to Madrid and on his return knighted him, 20 Oct., 1623. During the reign of Charles I he remained in high favour at court where he laboured indefatigably for the Catholic cause. When the Civil War broke out in 1640 he, now an old man, took refuge with the English Jesuits at their house at Ghent, where he died. He was always an ardent supporter of the Jesuits. and. though it has long been denied that he was ever himself a Jesuit, papers recently discovered at Oulton Abbey show strong reason for supposing that he was in fact a member of the Society. Besides the Italian version of Bacon's "Essays", he translated St. Augustine's "Confessions" (1620), the Life of St. Teresa written by herself (1623), and Father Arias's "Treatise of Patience" (1650). His original works were: "A Relation of the death of Troilo Severe, Baron of Rome" (1620); "A Missive of Consolation sent from Flanders to the Catholics of England" (1647): "A True Historical Relation of the Conversion of Sir Tobie Matthew to the Holie Catholic Faith" (first published in 1904), some manuscript works (see Gillow, " Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.", IV, 541-42). His letters were edited by Dr. John Donne in 1660.

113 Edwin Burton

Matthew of Cracow

115 Renowned scholar and preacher of the fourteenth century, b. at Cracow about 1335, d. at Pisa, 5 March, 1410. The view, once generally held, that he was descended from the Pomeranian noble family of Crakow, is now entirely discredited (cf. Sommererlad, "Matthäus von Krakow", 1891). His father was probably a notary in Cracow. Entering the University of Prague, Matthew graduated bachelor of arts in 1355 and master in 1357, and later filled for several terms the office of dean in the same faculty. In 1387 we first find documentary reference to him as professor of theology, and one manuscript speaks of him as "city preacher of Prague". About 1382 he headed an embassy from his university to Urban VI, before whom he delivered a dissertation in favour of reform. Accepting an invitation from the University of Heidelberg, he joined its professorial staff in 1395, and a year later was appointed rector. In 1395 he was named councillor to Ruprecht II, and the raising of Ruprecht III to the dignity of King of Rome in 1400 marks the beginning of Matthew's career as a statesman. Frequently employed by the king both at court and on embassies, he appeared at Rome in 1403 to solicit Boniface IX's confirmation of Reprechet's claims. On the elevation of Innocent VII to the papal throne in 1404, Matthew greeted him on behalf of Ruprecht. During the same year Matthew was appointed Bishop of Worms, but, beyond his settling of the dispute between the people and clergy of that city, we know little of his episcopal activity.

116 That he continued to reside in Heidelberg is very probable, and also that he continued to act as professor. Gregory XII wished to name him Cardinal Priest of S. Cyriaci in Thermis, but Matthew declined the honour. As ambassador of Ruprecht to the Council of Pisa, he displayed the greatest zeal on behalf of Gregory XII, whom he regarded as the legitimate occupant of the papal throne. He was a very prolific theological writer. Apart from Biblical commentaries, sermons, and works on current topics, the most important of his writings are: "De consolatione theologiae"; "De modo confitendi"; "De puritate conscientiae"; "De corpore Christi"; "De celebratione Missae". That he wrote "De arte moriendi"-to be distinguished from a similar work by Cardinal Capran-cannot be maintained with certainty, and recent investigation has shown beyond doubt that the work "De squaloribus curiae Romanae" is not from his hands (Scheuffgen, "Beiträge zur Gesch. Des grossen Schismas", 1889, p. 91).

117 In addition to the works already mentioned, consult SOMMERFELDT, Zu M.' kanzelredner. Schriften in Deutsche Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., XXII (Tubingen, 1901), 465-84; XXV (1904), 604-25; LOFFEN, Staat u. Kirche in der Pfalz am Ausgange des M. A. (1907), 45 sqq; BLIEMETZRIEDER, Matthaus v. K., der Verfasser der Postillen in Studien u. Mitteil. aus dem Benediktiner- u. dem Cisterzienerorden, XXV (1904), 544-56; FINKE in Kirchenlex, s.v. Matthaus von Krakau.

118 Thomas Kennedy

St. Matthias

118 Apostle.

119 The Greek Matthias (or, in some manuscripts, Maththias), is a name derived from Mattathias, Heb. Mattithiah, signifying "gift of Yahweh." Matthias was one of the seventy disciples of Jesus, and had been with Him from His baptism by John to the Ascension (Acts i, 21, 22). It is related (Acts, i, 15-26) that in the days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate. Two disciples, Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were selected, and lots were drawn, with the result in favour of Matthias, who thus became associated with the eleven Apostles. Zeller has declared this narrative unhistoric, on the plea that the Apostles were in Galilee after the death of Jesus. As a matter of fact they did return to Galilee, but the Acts of the Apostles clearly state that about the feast of Pentecost they went back to Jerusalem.

120 All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in interiore AEthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena brought the relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics that are in Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who was Bishop of Jerusalem about the year 120, and whose history would seem to have been confounded with that of the Apostle. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias on 24 February and the Greek Church on 9 August. [Note: After this article was written, the Latin Church moved the feast of St. Matthias to 14 May.]

121 Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, 4) records a sentence that the Nicolaitans ascribe to Matthias: "we must combat our flesh, set no value upon it, and concede to it nothing that can flatter it, but rather increase the growth of our soul by faith and knowledge". This teaching was probably found in the Gospel of Matthias which was mentioned by Origen (Hom. i in Lucam); by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 25), who attributes it to heretics; by St. Jerome (Praef. in Matth.), and in the Decree of Gelasius (VI, 8) which declares it apocryphal. It is at the end of the list of the Codex Barrocciamus (206). This Gospel is probably the document whence Clement of Alexandria quoted several passages, saying that they were borrowed from the traditions of Matthias, Paradoseis, the testimony of which he claimed to have been invoked by the heretics Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides (Strom., VII, 17). According to the Philosophoumena, VII, 20, Basilides quoted apocryphal discourses, which he attributed to Matthias. These three writings: the gospel, the Traditions, and the Apocryphal Discourses were identified by Zahn (Gesch. des N. T. Kanon, II, 751), but Harnack (Chron. der altchrist. Litteratur, 597) denies this identification. Tischendorf ("Acta apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, l85I) published after Thilo, 1846, "Acta Andreae et Matthiae in urbe anthropophagarum ", which, according to Lipsius, belonged to the middle of the second century. This apocrypha relates that Matthias went among the cannibals and, being cast into prison, was delivered by Andrew. Needless to say, the entire narrative is without historical value. Moreover, it should be remembered that, in the apocryphal writings, Matthew and Matthias have sometimes been confounded.

122 E. Jacquier.

Matthias Corvinus

121 King of Hungary, son of Janos Hunyady and Elizabeth Szilagyi of Horogssey, was born at Kolozsvar 23 Feb., 1440; d. at Vienna, 6 April, 1490. In the house of his father he received along with his brother Ladislaus, a careful education under the supervision of Gregor Sanocki, who taught him the humanities. Johann Vitez, Bishop of Grosswardein from 1445, the friend of Matthias's father when a boy, and himself an enthusiastic patron and promoter of classical studies, had a decided influence on his education. The checkered career of his father likewise left its imprint on the life of Matthias. On political grounds he was betrothed in 1455 to Elizabeth, the daughter of Count Ulric Czilley, his father's deadly enemy, with the aim of effecting the reconciliation of the two families. The early death of Elizabeth interfered with this plan, and after the death of Janos Hunyady, Czilley's emnity was directed against the sons. At the instigation of Czilley and his accomplices, who accused Ladislaus and Matthias Hunyadi of a conspiracy against King Ladislaus V, both were arrested, Ladislaus being executed, and Matthias being taken to Vienna to the court of the king. Later he followed the king to Prague. After the death of King Ladislaus at Prague, Matthias settled down at the court of the Bohemian king, George Podiebrad, who betrothed him to his daughter Catharine. On 23 Jan., 1458, Matthias was proclaimed King of Hungary at Buda, his uncle Michael Szilagyi at the same time being appointed governor for five years. Matthias soon freed himself, however, from the regency of Szilagyi, and took the reins of government into his own hands. At the very beginning of his reign he had to contend with a movement among discontented Hungarians, who offered the crown to the Emperor Frederick III, who had assumed the title of King of Hungary. The quarrel with Frederick lasted till 1462, when an agreement was made by which, among other things, it was settled that if Matthias should die without leaving an heir, Frederick would be authorized to bear the title of King of Hungary as long as he lived. At the same time, Frederick adopted Matthias as his son, and pledged himself to deliver up the Hungarian crown which he had in his possession. The treaty was confirmed by the Hungarian Reichstag and Matthias was crowned king in 1463. Not long before he had married Catharine, the daughter of the Bohemian king Podiebrad, who, however, died at the beginning of 1464. Relations with the Emperor Frederick again became strained; political conditions and, in particular, the question of the Bohemian crown, affected them considerably. The friction between the Holy See and King Podiebrad led to the deposition of the latter, and Matthias was now called upon by the pope to take up arms against the deposed king. In 1468 came the Bohemian expedition of Matthias, elected king by the Catholics of Bohemia. The war continued till the death of Podiebrad in 1471, when the Bohemians, defeating Matthias, chose Wladislaw, son of Casimir, King of Poland, as king. The years up to 1474 were marked by indecisive battles with the Bohemian king and with the Emperor Frederick. An armistice caused a brief cessation of hostilities, but from 1476 relations with the Emperor Frederick grew continually more strained. In 1477 Matthias, invading Austria, besieged Vienna. Peace was effected between Matthias and Frederick by the intervention of the papal legate in 1477, but war soon broke out again, and in 1485 Matthias took Vienna. In the war with the Emperor Frederick, Matthias had in view the Roman crown. In this connexion he was led not merely by the aim of securing for Hungary a leading position in the West of Europe, but also by the design to unite the powers of Europe in a crusade against the Turks. He was obliged, however, to abandon this scheme. Equally fruitless was the plan of a crusade against the Turks; nevertheless he managed to fix a limit to the advance of the Turks, and to strengthen the supremacy of Hungary over Bosnia. In 1463 Bosnia fell again into the hands of the Turks. The victory of Matthias over the Turks in Servia, Bosnia, and Transylvania resulted in 1483 in a truce with the Sultan Bajazet. Matthias's relations with the Catholic church were good till the year 1471; but the second part of his reign was marked by a series of most serious blunders and acts of violence. In spite of legal enactments, he gave bishoprics to foreigners, and rewarded political services with gifts of church property, which he dealt with as though it were the property of the state. His relations with the Holy See were at first decidedly cordial, but later there was danger of a rupture, which was happily avoided. Under Matthias the humanities made their entry into Hungary. His library in Buda, the Bibliotheca Corviniana, wins just admiration even to-day by virtue of the remnants of it scattered over Europe. During his reign the first printing press in Hungary was established, that at Buda, the first known production of which is the "Chronicle of Buda", printed in 1473. The arts too, found in Matthias a generous Maecenas. Matthias introduced reforms in the army, in finance, and in the administration of the courts and the law. The reorganization of military affairs was based on the principle of a standing army. With this body, the so-called black troops, he defeated the Turks and the Hussite troops of Giskra, which were laying waste Upper Hungary. In financial affairs, a reform in the mode of taxation was introduced, while his enactments in judicial affairs earned for him among the people the title of "The Just". In 1476 he married Beatrice, the daughter of the King of Naples, but the union was childless. His exertions to secure the throne for his illegitimate son, Johann Corvinus, were rendered futile by the opposition of Hungary and the plotting of Beatrice. Matthias was buried at Szekes-Fehervar (Stuhlweissenburg).

122 TELEKI, A Hunyadyak kora Magyarorszagon (Pesth, 1852), in Hungarian; i. e. The Age of the Hunyadys in Hungary, 9 vols.; CSANKI, Magyarorszag torteneti folrajza a Hunyadyak koraban (Budapest, 1890), i. e. The Historical Geography of Hungary in the Age of the Hunyadys, 3 vols. have appeared; FRAKNOI, A Hunyadyak es Jagellok kora 1440-56 (Budapest, 1896), Hungarian: i. e. The Age of the Hunyadys and Jagellons; IDEM, Matthias Corvinus, Konig von Ungarn Freiburg im Br., 1891). For information as to church conditions in Hungary see the bibliography of HUNGARY. For Matthias's relations with the Holy See, see the Latin introduction to Monumenta Vaticana Hungarica; Mathiae Corvini Hungariae regis epistolae ad Romanos pontifices datae et ab eis acceptae (Budapest, 1891). For the foreign politics of Matthias see Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Acta extera, 1458-90 (Budapest, 1875); Matyas Kiraly levelei Kulugyi osztaly (Budapest, 1893-95), i. e. Letters of King Matthias, foreign section, 2 vols.. For information concerning Joannes Corvinus see SCHONHERR, Corvin Janos (Budapest, 1894); concerning Queen Beatrice see BERZEVICZY, Beatrix kiralyne (Budapest, 1908).

123 A. Aldasy

Matthias of Neuburg

124 Also NEUENBURG (NEOBURGENSIS).

125 Chronicler, born towards the close of the thirteenth century, possibly at Neuburg, in Baden; died between 1364 and 1370, probably at Strasburg, in Alsace. He studied jurisprudence at Bologna, and later received minor orders, but never became a priest. In 1327 we meet him as solicitor of the episcopal court at Basle, and shortly after, while clerk to Bishop Berthold von Buchecke, holding a similar position in Strasburg. At present he is generally considered the author of a Latin chronicle from 1243 to 1350, and of its first continuation from 1350 to 1355. Later, three other writers carried on the work to 1368, 1374, and 1378 respectively. It is an important contribution to Alsatian and Habsburg history and for the times in which Matthias lived; indeed, the part covering the period between 1346 and 1350 is one of the best authorities, not only for the history of his own country, but that of the entire empire. It has been attributed to different writers, among them to the Speyer notary, Jacob of Mainz (cf. Wichert, "Jacob von Mainz", Königsberg, 1881), also to Albert of Strasburg, especially by earlier editors, while those of later times attribute it to Matthias of Neuburg. For the voluminous literature on this controversy see Potthast, "Bibliotheca Kin. Med. Aevi." (Berlin, 1896). Among the editions may be mentioned: "Alberti Argentinensis Chronici fragmentum", an appendix to Cuspinian's work "De consulibus Romanorum commentarii" (Basle, 1553), 667-710, very much abridged; G. Studer, "Matthiae Neoburgensis chronica cum continuatione et vita Berchtoldi"; "Die Chronik des Matthias von Neuenburg", from the Berne and Strasburg manuscripts (Berne, 1866); A. Huber, "Mathiae Neuwenburgensis Cronica, 1273-1350" in Bohmer, "Fontes rerum Germanicarum", IV (Stuttgart, 1868), 149-276; "Continuationes", 276-297. It has also been edited from a Vienna and a Vatican manuscript in "Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften", xxxvii-viii (Gottingen, 1891-2), and translated into German by Grandaur (Leipzig, 1892).

126 POTTHAST, Bibliotheca (Berlin, 1896), 780 sq.; WEILAND, Introduction to the above-mentioned German version, pp. i-xxviii

127 Patricius Schlager

Maundy Thursday

127 The feast of Maundy (or Holy) Thursday solemnly commemorates the institution of the Eucharist and is the oldest of the observances peculiar to Holy Week. In Rome various accessory ceremonies were early added to this commemoration, namely the consecration of the holy oils and the reconciliation of penitents, ceremonies obviously practical in character and readily explained by the proximity of the Christian Easter and the necessity of preparing for it. Holy Thursday could not but be a day of liturgical reunion since, in the cycle of movable feasts, it brings around the anniversary of the institution of the Liturgy. On that day, whilst the preparation of candidates was being completed, the Church celebrated the Missa chrismalis of which we have already described the rite (see HOLY OILS) and, moreover, proceeded to the reconciliation of penitents. In Rome everything was carried on in daylight, whereas in Africa on HoIy Thursday the Eucharist was celebrated after the evening meal, in view of more exact conformity with the circumstances of the Last Supper. Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage dispenses the faithful from fast before communion on Holy Thursday, because, on that day, it was customary take a bath, and the bath and fast were considered incompatible. St. Augustine, too, speaks of this custom (Ep. cxviii ad Januarium, n. 7); he even says that as certain persons did not fast on that day, the oblation was made twice, morning and evening, and in this way those who did not observe the fast could partake of the Eucharist after the morning meal, whilst those who fasted awaited the evening repast.

128 Holy Thursday was taken up with a succession of ceremonies of a joyful character. the baptism of neophytes, the reconciliation of penitents, the consecration of the holy oils, the washing of the feet, and commemoration of the Blessed Eucharist, and because of all these ceremonies, the day received different names, all of which allude to one or another of solemnities.

129 Redditio symboli was so called because, before being admitted to baptism, the catechumens had to recite creed from memory, either in presence of bishop or his representative.

130 Pedilavium (washing of the feet), traces of which are found in the most ancient rites, occurred in many churches on Holy Thursday, the capitilavium (washing of the head) having taken place on Palm Sunday (St. Augustine, " Ep. cxviii, cxix", e. 18).

131 Exomologesis, and reconciliation of penitents: letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius of Gubbio, testifies that in Rome it was customary "quinta feria Pascha" to absolve penitents from their mortal and venial sins, except in cases of serious illness which kept them away from church (Labbe, "Concilia" II, col. 1247; St. Ambrose, "Ep. xxxiii ad Marcellinam"). The penitents heard the Missa pro reconciliatione paenitentium, and absolution was given them before the offertory. The "Sacramentary" of Pope Gelasius contains an Ordo agentibus publicam poenitentiam (Muratori, "Liturgia romana vetus", I, 548-551).

132 Olei exorcizati confectio. In the fifth century the custom was established of consecrating on Holy Thursday all the chrism necessary for the anointing of the newly baptized. The "Comes Hieronymi", the Gregorian and Gelasian sacramentaries and the "Missa ambrosiana" of Pamelius, all agree upon the confection of the chrism on that day, as does also the "Ordo romanus I".

133 Anniversarium Eucharistiae. The nocturnal celebration and the double oblation early became the object of increasing disfavour, until in 692 the Council of Trullo promulgated a formal prohibition. The Eucharistic celebration then took place in the morning, and the bihsop reserved a part of the sacred species for the communion of the morrow, Missa praesanctificatorum (Muratori, "Liturg. rom. Vetus", II, 993).

134 Other observances. On Holy Thursday the ringing of bells ceases, the altar is stripped after vespers, and the night office is celebrated under the name of Tenebrae.

135 H. Leclercq

Auguste-François Maunoury

130 Maunoury, Auguste-François, Hellenist and exegete, b. at Champsecret, Orne, France, 30 Oct., 1811; d. at Séez, Orne, 17 Nov., 1898. He made brilliant classical studies at the preparatory seminary at Séez, to which institution he returned after his theological course, and where he spent the whole of his long priestly career. Until 1852, he taught the classics with great success, and then became professor of rhetoric, a position which he occupied for twenty-two years. During this period, keeping abreast of the progress of Hellenistic studies in France and Germany, he composed, published, and revised those of his works ("Grammaire de la Langue Grecque"; "Chrestomathie" etc.) which proved him to be one of the best Greek scholars of his day. Towards 1866, Maunoury began his work as a commentator of Holy Writ, by treating some sections of the Gospel in the "Semaine Catholique" of his native diocese; but it was only after 1875, that he gave himself fully to the pursuit of Biblical studies. In 1877, he became canon of the cathedral of Séez; and the following year, he began to publish his commentaries on all the Epistles of the New Testament.

131 These commentaries appeared in five volumes, as follows: (1) "Com. sur L'Epître aux Romains" (Paris, 1878); (2) "Com. sur les deux Epîtres aux Corinthiens" (Paris, 1879); (3) "Com. sur les Epîtres aux Galates, aux Ephésiens, aux Phillippiens, aux Colossiens, et aux Thessaloniciens" (Paris, 1880); (4) "Com. sur les Epîtres à Timothée, à Tite, à Philémon, aux Hébreux" (Paris, 1882); (5) "Com. sur les Epîtres Catholiques de St Jacques, St. Pierre, St. Jean et St. Jude" (Paris, 1888). In explaining the Sacred Text he made an excellent use of his great familiarity with Greek grammar and authors, availed himself chiefly of the commentaries of St. John Chrysostom and Theodoret, and always remained an enlightened and safe theologian. In 1894, he published his "Com. in Psalmos" (2 vols., Paris), a Latin work, written with elegance, almost exclusively on the basis of the Vulgate and the Septuagint. His only contribution to apologetics is a volume entitled "Soirées d'Automne, ou la Religion prouvée aux gens du monde" (Paris, 1887).

132 HURTER, Nomenclator; Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.

133 Francis E. Gigot

St. Maurice

133 Leader (primicerius) of the Theban Legion, massacred at Agaunum, about 287 (286, 297, 302, 303), by order of Maximian Herculius. Feast, 22 Sept. The legend (Acta SS., VI, Sept., 308, 895) relates that the legion, composed entirely of Christians, had been called from Africa to suppress a revolt of the Bagandæ in Gaul. The soldiers were ordered to sacrifice to the gods in thanksgiving but refused. Every tenth was then killed. Another order to sacrifice and another refusal caused a second decimation and then a general massacre. (On the value of the legend, etc., see Agaunum and Theban Legion.) St. Maurice is represented as a knight in full armour (sometimes as a Moor), bearing a standard and a palm; in Italian paintings with a red cross on his breast, which is the badge of the Sardinian Order of St. Maurice. Many places in Switzerland, Piedmont, France, and Germany have chosen him as celestial patron, as have also the dyers, clothmakers, soldiers, swordsmiths, and others. He is invoked against gout, cramps, etc.

134 See CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., s.v.; Histor. Jahrbuch, XIII, 782.

135 Francis Mershman

Maurice

136 (Matricius, Maurikios). Roman Emperor, born in 539; died in November, 602.

137 He sprang from an old Roman (Latin) family settled in Cappadocia, and began his career as a soldier. Under the Emperor Tiberius II (578-582) he was made commander of a new legion levied from allied barbarians, with which he did good service against the Persians. When he returned triumphant to Constantinople, Tiberius gave him his daughter Constantina in marriage and appointed him his successor (578). Almost immediately afterwards (Theophylact, infra, says the next day) Tiberius died and Maurice succeeded peaceably. At his accession he found that through the reckless extravagance of his predecessor the exchequer was empty and the State bankrupt. In order to remedy this Maurice established the expenses of the court on a basis of strict economy. He gained a reputation for parsimony that made him very unpopular and led eventually to his fall. The twenty years of his reign do not in any way stand out conspicuously from early Byzantine history. The forces at work since Justinian, or even Constantine, continued the gradual decay of the Empire under Maurice, as under Tiberius his predecessor and Phocas his successor. For the first ten years the long war with the Persians continued; then a revolution among the enemy brought a respite and the Roman Emperor was invoked by Chosroes II to restore him to his throne. Unfortunately Maurice was not clever enough to draw any profit for the Empire from this situation. The Avars and Slavs continued their invasion of the northern provinces. The Slavs penetrated even to the Peloponnesus. The Lombards ravaged Italy with impunity. As the Empire could do nothing to protect the Italians, they invited the Franks to their help (584). This first invasion of Italy by the Franks began the process that was to end in the separation of all the West from the old Empire and the establishment of the rival line of Emperors with Charles the Great (800). Maurice had to buy of the Avars with a heavy bribe that further reduced his scanty resources and made economy still more imperative. The emperor became more and more unpopular. In 599 he could not or would not ransom 12,000 Roman soldiers taken prisoners by the Avars, and they were all murdered. Further harassing regulation made for the army with a view to more economy caused a revolt that be came a revolution. In 602 the soldiers drove away their officers, made a certain centurion, Phocas, their leader and marched on Constantinople. Maurice, finding that he could not organize a resistance, fled across the Bosporus with his family. He was overtaken at Chalcedon and murdered with his five sons. Phocas then began his tyrannical reign (602-610).

138 In Church history Maurice has some importance through his relations with Gregory I (590-604). As soon as Gregory was elected, he wrote to the emperor begging him to annul the election. The fact has often been quoted as showing Gregory's acceptance of an imperial right of veto. Later the pope's organization of resistance against the Lombards was very displeasing to the emperor, though the government at Constantinople did nothing to protect Italy. Further trouble was caused by the tyranny of the imperial exarch at Ravenna, Romanus. Against this person the pope took the Italians under his protection. On the other hand the exarch and the emperor protected the bishops in the North of Italy who still kept up the schism that began with the Three Chapters quarrel (Pope Vigilius, 540-555). The assumption of the title of "ecumenical patriarch" by John IV of Constantinople caused more friction. All this explains St. Gregory's unfriendly feeling towards Maurice, and it also helps to explain his ready and friendly recognition of Phocas which has been alleged by some to be a blot in the great pope's career. But it is quite probable that the pope was misinformed and not placed in full possession of all the circumstances attending the change of government in the distant East.

139 Adrian Fortescue

Maurists

139 A congregation of Benedictine monks in France, whose history extends from 1618 to 1818. It began as an offshoot from the famous reformed Congregation of St-Vannes. The reform had spread from Lorraine into France through the influence of Dom Laurent Bénard, Prior of the Collège de Cluny in Paris, who inaugurated the reform in his own college. Thence it spread to St-Augustin de Limoges to Nouaillé, to St-Faron de Meaux, to Jumieges, and to the Blancs-Manteaux in Paris. In 1618 a general chapter of the Congregation of St-Vannes was held at St-Mansuet de Toul, whereat it was decided that an independent congregation should be erected for the reformed houses in France, having its superior residing within that kingdom. This proposal was supported by Louis XIII as well as by Cardinals de Retz and Richelieu; letters patent were granted by the king, and the new organization was named the Congregation of St-Maur in order to obviate any rivalry between its component houses. It was formally approved by Pope Gregory XV on 17 May, 1621, an approval that was confirmed by Urban VIII six years later. The reform was welcomed by many of great influence at the Court as well as by some of the greater monastic houses in France. Already, under the first president of the congregation, Dom Martin Tesnière (1618-21), it had included about a dozen great houses. By 1630 the congregation was divided into three provinces, and, under Dom Grégoire Tarisse, the first Superior-General (1630-48), it included over 80 houses. Before the end of the seventeenth century the number had risen to over 180 monasteries, the congregations being divided into six provinces: France, Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Chezal-Benoit, and Gascony.

140 In its earlier years, however, the new congregation was forced, by Cardinal Richelieu, into an alliance with the Congregation of Cluny. Richelieu desired an amalgamation of all the Benedictines in France and even succeeded in bringing into existence, in 1634, an organisation that was called the "Congregation of St. Benedict" or "of Cluny and St-Maur". This arrangement, however, was short-lived, and the two congregations were separated by Urban VIII in 1644. From that date the Congregation of St-Maur grew steadily both in extent and in influence. Although the twenty-one superior-generals who succeeded Dom Tarisse steadily resisted all attempts to establish the congregation beyond the borders of France, yet its influence was widespread. In several of its houses schools were conducted for the sons of noble families, and education was provided gratuitously at St-Martin de Vertou for those who had become poor. But from the beginning the Maurists refused to admit houses of nuns into the congregation, the only exception being the Abbey of Chelles, where, through Richelieu's influence, a house was established with six monks to act as confessors to the nuns.

141 The congregation soon attracted to its ranks many of the most learned scholars of the period, and though its greatest glory undoubtedly lies in the seventeenth century, yet, throughout the eighteenth century also, it continued to produce works whose solidity and critical value still render them indispensable to modern students. It is true that the Maurists were not free from the infiltration of Jansenist ideas, and that the work of some of its most learned sons was hampered and coloured by the fashionable heresy and by the efforts of ecclesiastical superiors to eradicate it. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, also, there had crept into at least the central house, St-Germain-des-Prés, a desire for some relaxation of the strict regularity that had been the mark of the congregation; a desire that was vigorously opposed by other houses. And, though there is reason to believe that the laxity was much less serious than it was represented to be by the rigorists, the dissensions caused thereby and by the taint of Jansenism had weakened the congregation and lowered it in public esteem when the crash of the Revolution came. Yet, right up to the suppression of the religious orders in 1790, the Maurists worked steadily at their great undertakings, and some of their publications were, by general consent, carried on by learned Academies after the disturbance of the Revolution had passed. In 1817 some of the survivors of those who had been driven from France in 1790 returned, and an attempt was made to restore the congregation. The project, however, did not meet with the approbation of the Holy See and the congregation ceased to exist. The last surviving member, Dom Brial, died in 1833. In 1837, when Gregory XVI established the Congregation of France under the governance of the Abbey of Solesmes, the new congregation was declared the successor of all the former congregations of French Benedictines, including that of St-Maur.

142 Constitution

143 The early Maurists, like the Congregation of St-Vannes from which they sprang imitated the constitution of the reformed Congregation of Monte Cassino. But before many years the need of new regulations more suitable to France was recognized and Dom Grégoire Tarisse, the first Superior-General, was entrusted with the task of drawing them up. Dom Maur Dupont, who was elected president in 1627, had already made an attempt to accomplish this; but the Chapter of 1630 appointed a commission, of which Dom Tarisse was the chief member, to reconstruct the whole work. The result of their labours was first submitted to Dom Athanase de Mongin in 1633, then again to Dom Tarisse and three others in 1639, and was finally confirmed by the General Chapter of 1645. Under these constitutions the president (now styled "superior-general") and the priors of the commendatory houses of the congregation were to be elected every three years. They were eligible for re-election. The superior-general was to reside at the Abbey of St-Germain-des-Prés and was to be subject only to the general chapter, which met every three years. With him, however, were associated two "assistants" and six "visitors", one for each province. These also resided at St-Germain-des-Pres, were elected by the general chapter every three years, and constituted, with the superior-general, the executive council of the congregation. Besides these officials, the general chapter was composed of three priors and three conventuals from each province. Every three years, there were chosen from its ranks nine "definitors" who appointed the six visitors, the heads of all the houses that possessed no regular abbot, the novice-masters, the procurator in curia, the preachers, professors, etc., of the congregation. Each province also possessed its provincial chapter, which was presided over by the visitor, and consisted of the priors and one elected representative from each house. In each province there were to be two novitiates. Those who desired to embrace the monastic state spent one year as "postulants", a second as "novices", and then, when they had completed the five years' course of philosophy and theology, spent a "year of recollection" before they were admitted to the priesthood. The discipline was marked by a return to the strict rule of St. Benedict. All laboured with their hands, all abstained from flesh-meat, all embraced regular poverty; the Divine Office was recited at the canonical hours with great solemnity, silence was observed for many hours, and there were regular times for private prayer and meditation. And this discipline was uniform throughout every house of the congregation. None were dispensed from its strict observance save the sick and the infirm. Until the movement towards relaxation at the end of the eighteenth century, the Maurists were as renowned for the austerity of their observance as for the splendour of their intellectual achievements.

144 To the great body of students, indeed, the Maurists are best known by their services to ecclesiastical and literary history, to patrology, to Biblical studies, to diplomatics, to chronology and to liturgy. The names of DD. Luc d'Achery, Jean Mabillon, Thierry, Ruinart, Francois Lami, Pierre Coustant, Denys de Sainte-Marthe, Edmond Martène, Bernard de Montfaucon, Maur François Dantine, Antoine Rivet de la Grange and Martin Bouquet recall some of the most scholarly works ever produced. To these and to their confreres we are indebted for critical and still indispensable editions of the great Latin and Greek Fathers, for the history of the Benedictine Order and the lives of its saints, for the "Gallia Christiana" and the Histoire Littéraire de la France," for the De re Diplomatica" and "L'art de vérifier les dates", for "L'antiquité expliquée et representee" and the "Paleographia Graeca", for the "Recueil des historiens des Gaules", the "Veterum scriptorum amplissima collectio", the "Thesaurus Anecdotorum", the "Spicilegium veterum scriptorum", the "Museum Italicum", the "Voyage litteraire", and numerous other works that are the foundation of modern historical and liturgical studies. For nearly two centuries the great works that were the result of the foresight and high ideals of Dom Grégoire Tarisse, were carried on with an industry, a devotion, and a mastery that aroused the admiration of the learned world. To this day all who labour to elucidate the past ages and to understand the growth of Western Christendom, must acknowledge their indebtedness to the Maurist Congregation.

145 Leslie A. St. L. Toke

St. Maurus

142 Deacon, son of Equitius, a nobleman of Rome, but claimed also by Fondi, Gallipoli, Lavello etc.; died 584. Feast, 15 Jan. He is represented as an abbot with crozier, or with book and censer, or holding the weights and measures of food and drink given him by his holy master. He is the patron of charcoalburners, coppersmiths etc. — in Belgium of shoemakers — and is invoked against gout, hoarseness etc. He was a disciple of St. Benedict, and his chief support at Subiaco. By St. Gregory the Great (Lib. Dialog., II) he is described as a model of religious virtues, especially of obedience. According to the Vita ("Acta SS." II Jan., 320, and Mabillon "Acta SS. O.S.B.", I, 274) he went to France in 543 and became the founder and superior of the abbey at Glanfeuil, later known by his name. This Vita ascribed to a companion, the monk Faustus of Monte Cassino, has been severely attacked. Delehaye (loc. cit., 106) calls it a forgery of Abbot Odo of Glanfeuil in the ninth century but Adlhoch (Stud. u. Mittheil ., 1903, 3, 1906, l85) makes a zealous defence. On the Signum S. Mauri, a blessing of the sick with invocation of St. Maurus given in the Appendix of Rituale Romanum, see "Studien u. Mittheil." (1882), 165.

143 Francis Mershman

Sylvester Maurus

145 Writer on philosophy and theology, b. at Spoleto, 31 Dec., 1619; d. in Rome, 13 Jan., 1687. He entered the Society of Jesus, 21 April, 1636. After finishing his course of studies and teaching humanities at the College of Macerata, he held in the same place the chair of philosophy for three years, and subsequently in Rome for several years. Then he was promoted to the chair of theology at the Roman College, and remained in this position for a considerable number of years. For a period he was also rector of the latter institution. The mental endowment of Father Maurus was a happy combination of the speculative and the practical turn of mind. His doctrine was noted for its soundness and solidity; at the same time, he constantly put in practice St. Paul's principle, "not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety". Though he was a good philosopher and theologian, he was a better religious. Those well acquainted with him are convinced that he never lost his baptismal innocence. Neither his holiness nor his learning made him a disagreeable companion or an undesirable friend. It would be hard to say whether he was more admired or loved by those who came into contact with him.

146 The following works of Father Maurus deserve mention: (1) "Quæstionum philosophicarum Sylvestri Mauri, Soc. Jesu, in Collegio Romano Philosophiæ Professoris ". This work is divided into four books, and appeared at Rome in 1658. A second edition was issued in 1670. The latest edition, in three volumes, is prefaced by a letter of Father Liberatore, and appeared in Le Mans, 1875-76. (2) "Aristotelis opera quæ extant omnia, brevi paraphrasi, ac litteræ perpetuo inhærente explanatione illustrata". The work appeared in six volumes, Rome, 1668. The second volume, containing Aristotle's moral philosophy, was edited anew in 1696-98. The whole work was published again in Paris, 1885-87, by Fathers Ehrle, Felchlin, and Beringer; this edition formed part of the collection entitled "Bibliotheca Theologiæ et Philosophiæ scholasticæ". (3) "Quæstionum theologicarum ll. 6", published at Rome, 1676-79; this work contains all the principal theological treatises. (4) "Opus theologicum", published in three folio volumes at Rome, 1687, treats of all the main questions of theology accurately, concisely, and clearly. The first volume contains some information concerning the author, and also his picture engraved by Louis Lenfant.

147 Hurter, Nomenclator; Sommervogel, Bibliothéque de la C. de J., V, c. 765 sq.

148 A.J. Maas

Jean-Siffrein Maury

148 Cardinal and statesman, born at Valréas, near Avignon, 26 June, 1746; died at Rome on 10 May, 1817. He made his early studies in his native town and at Avignon, and by the age of nineteen had completed his theological course. He then proceeded to Paris and entered the College de France. Ordained in 1769, he attracted the attention of a grand-nephew of Fénelon by a eulogy of the great archbishop, and was appointed Vicar-General of the Diocese of Lombez in Gascony. In 1772 he was selected by the Academy to preach the panegyric of St. Louis at the Louvre. His success was such that the audience interrupted him with loud applause. As a reward he received a benefice and appointment as royal preacher. At the General Synod of 1776 he fearlessly exposed the failings of the court bishops, and in 1784, preaching on St. Vincent of Paul, he denounced the ingratitude of France towards one of her worthiest sons. These two sermons have been preserved, the remainder were burnt by Maury himself - to save, as he said, his reputation. Nevertheless, it was owing to them that he obtained a seat in the Academy (1784). In 1789 he was elected by the clergy of Péronne to be their deputy in the States-General, and soon became the acknowledged leader of the Court and Church party. Mirabeau's name at once occurs whenever the National Assembly is mentioned. Little is heard of the Abbé Maury, who was the great tribune's most doughty adversary, and who, though always defeated on the vote, was not seldom the conqueror in the debate. In September, 1791 the Assembly was dissolved, and Maury quitted France for Coblenz, the headquarters of the emigrants. Here he was received by the king's brothers with extraordinary attention. Pius VI invited him to reside in Rome, and created him Archbishop of Nicaea (April, 1792). Soon afterwards he represented the Holy See at the Diet of Frankfort, where Francis II was elected emperor. The royal and noble personages assembled there vied with one another in showing him honour. On his return he was made cardinal and Archbishop of Montefiascone. When the Republican armies overran Italy in 1798, Maury fled to Venice and took a prominent part, as representative of Louis XVIII, in the conclave at which Pius VII was elected (1800). He did his best to stop the drawing up of the Concordat, but this did not prevent him from deserting his royal master and returning to Paris. Just as he had given his whole energies to the royal cause, so now he devoted himself entirely to Napoleon. In the difficult question of the divorce he sided with the emperor, and it was he who suggested a means of dispensing with the papal institution of the bishops. He accepted from Napoleon in this way the See of Paris, though he never styled himself anything but archbishop-elect. At the fall of the Empire (April 1814) he was ordered to quit France, and was suspended by the pope. During the Hundred Days he was confined in the Castle of St. Angelo. Consalvi obtained his release, and brought about his reconciliation with Pius VII. His position as cardinal was restored to him, and he was made a member of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Maury did not live long to enjoy his restoration to papal favour. The hardships of his prison life had destroyed his constitution, and aggravated the malady from which he had long been suffering. Early in May, 1817, his strength had so failed that the Last Sacraments were administered to him. During the night of 10 May his attendants found him lying dead with his rosary still in his grasp.

149 Louis XVIII had obstinately refused all reconciliation, and now forbade his body to be buried in his titular church, Trinita dei Monti. By order of the pope the remains were laid before the high altar of the Chiesa Nuova, by the side of Baronius and Tarugi. When Pius VII heard of his death he said: "He committed many faults, but who is there that has not done the like? I myself have committed many grave ones."

150 Oeuvres Chosies (Paris, 1827); POUJOULAT, Le Cardinal Maury: sa Vie et ses Oeuvres (Paris, 1855); RICARD, L'Abbe Maury, 1746-1791 (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Correspondance Diplomatique et Memoires inedits du Cardinal Maury, 1792-1817 (Lille, 1891); BONET-MAURY, Le Cardinal Maury d'apres sa Correspondance et ses Memoires inedits (Paris, 1892); SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du Lundi IV (Paris, 1853); SCANNELL in Irish Eccl. Record (1892).

151 T. B. Scannell.

Joannes Maxentius

151 Joannes Maxentius, leader of the so-called Scythian monks, appears in history at Constantinople in 519 and 520. These monks adapted the formula: "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" to exclude Nestorianism and Monophysitism, and they sought to have the works of Faustus of Riez condemned as being tainted with Pelagianism. On both these points they met with opposition. John Maxentius presented an appeal to the papal legates than at Constantinople (Ep. ad legatos sedis apostolicae, P. G. LXXXVI, i, 75-86); but it failed to bring forth a favourable decision. Some of the monks (not Maxentius, however) proceeded, therefore, to Rome to lay the case before Pope Hormisdas. As the latter delayed his decision, they addressed themselves to some African bishops, banished to Sardinia, and St. Fulgentius, answering in the name of these prelates, warmly endorsed their cause (Fulg. ep., xvii in P.L., LXV, 451-93). Early in August, 520, the monks left Rome. Shortly after, 13 August, 520, Hormisdas addressed a letter to the African bishop, Possessor, then at Constantinople, in which he severely condemned the conduct of the Scythian monks, also declaring that the writings of Faustus were not received among the authoritative works of the Fathers and that the sound doctrine on grace was contained in the works of St. Augustine (Hormisdae ep., cxxiv in Thiel, p. 926). Maxentius assailed this letter in the strongest language as a document written by heretics and circulated under the pope's name (Ad epistulam Hormisdae responsio, P. G. LXXXVI, i, 93-112). This is the last trace of the Scythian monks and their leader in history. The identification of John Maxentius with the priest John to whom Fulgentius addressed his "De veritate praedestinationis etc" and with the priest and archminandrite, John, to whom the African bishops sent their "Epistula synodica", rests on a baseless assumption. Maxentius is also the author of: (1) two dialogues against the Nestorians; (2) twelve anathematisms against the Nestorians; (3) a treatise against the Acephali (Monophysites). As to the "Professio de Christo", printed as a separate work, it is but a part of the "Epistola ad legatos sedis apostolicae". His works, originally written in Latin, have reached us in a rather unsatisfactory condition. They were first published by Cochlaeus (Basle and Hagenau, 1520), reprinted in P.G., LXXXVI, i, 75-158.

152 NORIS, Opera Omnia (Verona, 1729), I, 474-504; III, 775-942; LOOFS, Leontius von Byzanz, 228-61, in Texte unde Untersuch, III (Leipzig, 1887); DAVIDS in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Maxentius (4); BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1908), 548-49.

153 N.A. Weber

Marcus Aurelius Maxentius

154 Roman Emperor 306-12, son of the Emperor Maximianus Herculius and son-in-law of the chief Emperor Galerius. After his father's abdication he lived in Rome as a private citizen; but when Galerius established in Rome and Italy the new poll and land taxes decreed by Diocletian he was elected (28 October, 306) rival emperor. Maxentius owed his elevation not to personal merit but to the senators and pretorians who, because of the unusual measures of the emperor, feared lest they should lose their privileged position. Maxentius's adherents then summoned his father from Campania to Rome; and the young ruler invested him with the purple as co-regent. Thus the Roman empire had six rulers. Severus, the Augustus of the West, received a commission from Galerius to expel the youthful usurper from Rome; but when he reached the capital, part of his army deserted to their old commander, Maximian. Severus with a few followers escaped to Ravenna so as to maintain military relations with Galerius. He then made terms with Maximian and surrendered to him, expecting honourable treatment, but he was imprisoned soon afterwards and, Galerius approaching from Illyria with an army, he was forced to commit suicide. Alarmed at Galerius's intervention, Maximian on behalf of Maxentius, negotiated with Constantine to whom he gave his daughter Fausta as bride. Meanwhile Galerius with his Illyrian legions pushed forward to the neighbourhood of Rome, but finding that he was unable to occupy it or any of the fortified places, he withdrew his forces. At his suggestion a conference of all the Cæsars took place at Carnuntum on the Danube (306) in which the prestige of Diocletian had great influence. Maxentius retained his imperial dignity. Though it is true that soon after this he put an end to the persecution of the Christians in Italy and Africa, his reign was stained with acts of debauchery and cruelty.

155 After his father's death, Maxentius and Maximin, Emperor of the East, fearing the political alliance of Constantine and Licinius, came to an understanding unfriendly to Constantine. Maxentius made extensive military preparations, and destroyed the statues and paintings of Constantine. Constantine advanced over what is now Mont Cenis with a comparatively small but well-drilled army and, victorious in several battles, occupied Upper Italy; he then marched against Rome, where his opponent, strongly entrenched behind the Tiber and the walls of Aurelius, hoped to resist him successfully. Thoughtlessly and shortsightedly, Maxentius, abandoning this excellent position, made a bridge of boats across the Tiber (near the Milvian Bridge, now Ponte Molle), and awaited the troops of Constantine on the right bank of the river. It was then that occurred the miracle related by Eusebius (Vita Constant. I, 28-30), that when Constantine implored supernatural aid, a fiery cross appeared over the sun with the legend: toúto níka (conquer with this). Further, he had been advised by Christ, in a dream the previous night, to go into battle armed with this sign. Maxentius's soldiers were thrown into confusion by the impetuosity of the Gallic horsemen, and in the efforts of the retreating masses to escape over the narrow bridge, many were thrown into the river and drowned, among them Maxentius (28 October, 312). His son and counsellors were put to death, but his officials and dependents retained their positions.

156 SCHILLER, Gesch. d. römischen Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887); DE WAAL, Roma Sacra (Munich, 1905).

157 Karl Hoeber

Ven. Thomas Maxfield

157 (Vere Macclesfield)

158 English priest and martyr, b. in Stafford gaol, about 1590, martyred at Tyburn, London, Monday, 1 July, 1616. He was one of the younger sons of William Macclesfield of Chesterton and Maer and Aston, Staffordshire (a firm recusant, condemned to death in 1587 for harbouring priests, one of whom was his brother Humphrey), and Ursula, daughter of Francis Roos, of Laxton, Nottinghamshire. William Macclesfield is said to have died in prison and is one of the prætermissi as William Maxfield; but, as his death occurred in 1608, this is doubtful. Thomas arrived at the English College at Douai on 16 march, 1602-3, but had to return to England 17 May, 1610, owing to ill health. In 1614 he went back to Douai, was ordained priest, and in the next year came to London. Within three months of landing he was arrested, and sent to the Gatehouse, Westminster. After about eight months' imprisonment, he tried to escape by a rope let down from the window in his cell, but was captured on reaching the ground. This was at midnight 14- 15 June, 1616. For seventy hours he was placed in the stocks in a filthy dungeon at the Gatehouse, and was then on Monday night (17 June) removed to Newgate, where he was set amongst the worst criminals, two of whom he converted. On Wednesday, 26 June, he was brought to the bar at the Old Bailey, and the next day was condemned solely for being a priest, under 27 Eliz., c, 2. The Spanish ambassador did his best to obtain a pardon, or at least a reprieve; but, finding his efforts unavailing, had solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in his chapel during the martyr's last night on earth. The procession to Tyburn early on the following morning was joined by many devout Spaniards, who, in spite of insults and mockery, persisted in forming a guard of honour for the martyr. Tyburn-tree itself was found decorated with garlands, and the ground round about strewn with sweet herbs. The sheriff ordered the martyr to be cut down alive, but popular feeling was too strong, and the disembowelling did not take place till he was quite senseless. Half of his relics are now at Downside Abbey, near Bath.

159 Life and Martyrdom of Mr. Maxfield, Priest 1616, ed. Pollen, in Catholic Record Society, III, 30-58; Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, II (Manchester, 1803), 51; Pollard in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; Stanton, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 298; The William Salt Archæological Society's Collections for a History of Staffordshire (London, 1882-1909), III, iii; V, ii, 207; new series, V, 128; XII, 248.

160 John B. Wainewright.

Maximianopolis

160 A titular see of Palestina Secunda, suffragan of Scythopolis. Its ancient name, Adad-Remmon, according to the Vulgate (according to the Hebrew, Hadad-Rimmon) is found in Zach., xii, 11: ". . .there shall be a great lamentation in Jerusalem like the lamentation of Adadremmon in the plain of Mageddon," an allusion to the death of Josias, King of Jerusalem, killed by the Pharaoh Nechao in the battle fought near this place (IV Kings, xxiii, 29; II Par. xxxv, 20-25). In the time of the so-called "Pilgrim of Bordeaux" (ed. Geyer, 19, 27) and of St. Jerome ("Comment. in Zachar.", ad cap. xii, 11; "Comment. In Oz.", 5), Adad-Remmon already bore the name of Maximianopolis. Three of its ancient bishops are known: Paul, in 325 (Gelzer, "Patrum Nicaenorum nomina", lxi)—not Maximus, as Le Quien gives it in "Oriens Christianus", III, 703; Megas, in 518, and Domnus, in 536 (Le Quien, op. cit., 703-06). Maximianopolis has resumed its ancient name of Rimmon, and is now the almost deserted little village of Roummaneh, nearly four miles to the south of Ledjun or Mageddo (see LEGIO).

161 GUÉRIN, Description de la Palestine: Samarie (Paris, 1875), II, 228-230; GELZER, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani (Leipzig, 1890), 193-96; LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Adadremmon.

162 S. VAILHÉ

Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus

163 (MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS MAXIMIANUS, surnamed HERCULIUS.)

164 Roman Emperor, was adopted by Diocletian and named his co-regent in 285, because by this division of the sovereignty the danger of the warriors' mutiny, the ambitious efforts of the usurpers, and the attacks of foreign enemies seemed to be prevented in the surest way. Diocletian gave him, who had been hitherto his brother-in-arms and was now his fellow regent, the surname Herculius, in remembrance of the help which the mythological Hercules rendered his father Jupiter in the latter's struggle against the giants. Like Diocletian, Maximianus came from Illyria, from the neighbourhood of Sirmium; as the son of a simple peasant, he possessed only very little education; he was violent and brutal, but was a brave fighter. For this reason, when Diocletian was struggling with the Persians in Asia, Maximianus was entrusted with the leadership of the punitive expedition against the peasants and field slaves (Bagaudans) in Gaul who, driven by economical causes, had risen against Diocletian. The new emperor soon restored peace, and received from Diocletian, in token of the latter's gratitude, the title of Augustus on 1 April, 286. However, only the administration of the empire was divided; the sovereignty remained centralized now as ever, and the will of the emperor-in-chief, Diocletian, was absolute. While Maximianus, having established his head-quarters at Mainz, was successful in the struggles with the Burgundians and the Alamanni, who had crossed the frontier and the Rhine, he found many obstacles in repulsing the Menapian pirate chief Carausius. Originally commander-in-chief of the Roman navy, Carausius had pursued and conquered the pirates of the German ocean; then, driven by greed and ambition, he had forced Britain to do homage to him, and seized the whole trade in Gaul and Britain. In 286, he even appropriated the title of Augustus, and caused coins to be struck which bore his own portrait. Even Diocletian, by a compromise in 290, was forced to recognize Carausius as the legal emperor, while the latter agreed to supply Diocletian with corn, as had been the custom.

165 As Diocletian left Syria to enter the countries of the Lower Danube, he met Maximianus, and both the emperors crossed the Alps in the beginning of 291 in order to attend a conference at Milan, there to discuss the better administration of the empire and the improvement of the constitution. Henceforward two substitutes, called Caesars, were to supplement the two governing emperors. Constantius and Galerius were proclaimed Caesars 1 March, 293; the first was forced to marry the stepdaughter of Maximianus, Theodora, after the exile of his mother Helena. Maximianus now took charge of the administration of Italy, Africa, and Spain. His residence was Milan, where he was surrounded by 6000 Illyrian picked troops, called Herculians. Constantius on his part was now successful in his struggle with Carausius. The war came quickly to an end, as Carausius was assassinated by Allectus, prefect of his guard, in 293. Constantius then reunited Britain with the Roman Empire, while Maximianus protected the frontiers of Gaul against the Teutons on the Upper Rhine. When Constantius had returned from Britain, Maximianus went in 297 to Africa, where he successfully made war upon the rebellious tribes of the Moors, and sent a great many captives into the other provinces. In 302 he celebrated a great triumph with Diocletian in Rome; seventeen times he had borne the title of Imperator. The persecution of the Christians, which Diocletian had conducted with reckless brutality in the East since 303, was also taken up by Maximianus in the western provinces, of which he was governor.

166 It is said that during these persecution—it is impossible to state the time correctly—the Christian soldiers of the Theban legion also suffered martyrdom in Agaunum (St-Maurice, Canton of Valais, Switzerland) in the then Diocese of Octodurum. The Christian soldiers of this legion refused to execute his orders when Maximianus, on a march over what is now the Great St. Bernard, commanded them to punish the Christians living in these districts; for this refusal the legion was twice decimated by the sword, and, as the survivors held out to the last, all the soldiers were massacred by order of the emperor. Because Rome was degraded by Diocletian more and more to the position of a provincial town, and because Galerius's new and hard system of taxes was to be extended also to Italy and to Rome, the senators and the pretorians proclaimed as Caesar M. Aurelius Maxentius, the son of Maximianus; the latter laid down the purple at Milan. But the new emperor proved to be incapable of governing, and Maximianus, who was popular with the army, was recalled to restore order for the new Augustus. This he did not accomplish, and the old Diocletian, living as a private person in Salona, called a meeting of all the members of the dynasties at Carnuntum for the end of the year 307. Maximianus had to renounce the purple for the second time. He now went to Gaul, and gave his youngest daughter Fausta in marriage to Constantine. As his hope to regain his former imperial dignity failed here also, he returned to his son Maxentius in Italy. Repulsed by the latter and spurned by Galerius on account of his ambitions, he departed once more for Gaul and donned the imperial purple for the third time. When the news of Constantine's approach reached his own soldiers, they surrendered him to his rival and opponent at Marsilia. Although Constantine in his generosity pardoned him, he returned to the forging of nefarious schemes against his son-in-law, and finally was compelled to take his own life in 310.

167 SCHILLER, Gesch. d. römischen Kaiserzeit; ALLARD, La persecution de Diocletien et le triomphe de l'eglise (Paris, 1890).

168 Karl Hoeber

Maximilian

166 The name of several martyrs.

167 (1) Maximilian of Antioch

168 A soldier, martyred at Antioch, Jan. 353, with Bonosus, a fellow soldier, of the Herculean cohort; they were standard-bearers, and refused to remove the chrismon (monogram of Christ) from the standard, as had been ordered by Julian the Apostate. Count Julian, uncle of the emperor, commanded them to replace the chrismon with images of idols, and, upon their refusal, had them tortured and beheaded. The Roman martyrology and most other calendars mention them on 21 August, while in a few martyrologies and in the heading which is prefixed to their Acts, 21 Sept. (XII Kal. Oct.) is designated as the day of their martyrdom. Both dates are wrong, as is evident from the Acts of the two martyrs, which represent Count Julian as infected with an ugly disease, contracted at the martyrdom of St. Theodoret 23 Oct., 362.

169 (2) Maximilian of Celeia

170 His Acts, composed in the thirteenth century and unreliable, say he was b. at Celeia (Cilli, Styria), made a pilgrimage to Rome, went as missionary to Noricum, became Archbishop of Laureacum (Lorch, near Passau), and suffered martyrdom under Numerianus (283-4). It is historically certain that Maximilian was a missionary in Noricum during the latter half of the third century, founded the church of Lorch, and suffered martyrdom. His cult dates at least from the eighth century. In that century, St. Rupert built a church in his honour at Bischofshofen, and brought his relics thither. They were transferred to Passau in 985. His feast is celebrated 12 Oct., at some places 29 Oct.

171 (3) Maximilian of Thebeste

172 Martyred at Thebeste near Carthage, 12 March, 295. Thinking a Christian was not permitted to be a soldier, he refused to enter the army and was beheaded. Since death was not then the legal punishment for those who refused to join the army (Arrius Menander, Digest XLIX, xvi, 4 P. 10), it is probable that he was beheaded because he gave his Christianity as the reason of his refusal. He was buried at Carthage by the noble matron Pompejana.

173 Acta SS., Aug., IV, 425-430; Ruinart, Acta Martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 609-12; LECLERCQ, Les Martyrs, III (Paris, 1904), 100-04; Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l'hist. eccles. des six premiers siecles, VII (Paris, 1700), 405-09; TAMAYO, Discursos apologeticos de las reliquias d. S. Bonoso y Maximiliano (Baeza, 1632). (2) Vita ac legenda S. Maximiliani in PEZ, Script. rerum Austr., I, 22-34. Concerning its value see RETTBERG, Kirschengesch. Deutschl., I (Gottingen, 1846), 158 sq. RATZINGER, Forsch. zur Bayr. Gesch. (Kempten, 1898), 325 sq.; KERSCHBAUMER, Gesch. des Bist. St. Poelten (1875), I, 61-78. (3) ALLARD, La persecution de Diocletien, I (Paris, 1908), 99-105; HARNACK Militia Christi (Tubingen, 1905), 114 sq.; Ruinart, Acta Martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 340-2, Fr. tr. LECLERCQ, Les Martyrs, II (Paris, 1903), 152-5.

174 Michael Ott

Maximilian I

169 Duke of Bavaria, 1598-1622, Elector of Bavaria and Lord High Steward of the Holy Roman Empire, 1623-1651; b. at Munich, 17 April, 1573; d. at Ingolstadt, 27 September, 1651. The lasting services he rendered his country and the Catholic Church justly entitle him to the surname of "Great". He was the son of zealous Catholic parents, William V, the Pious, of Bavaria, and Renate of Lorraine. Mentally well endowed, Maximilian received a strict Catholic training from private tutors and later (1587-91) studied law, history, and mathematics at the University of Ingolstadt. He further increased his knowledge by visits to foreign courts, as Prague and Naples, and to places of pilgrimage including Rome, Loretto, and Einsiedeln. Thus equipped Maximilian assumed (15 Oct., 1597) the government of the small, thinly populated country at his father's wish during the latter's lifetime. Owing to the over-lenient rule of the two preceding rulers the land was burdened with a heavy debt. By curtailing expenditure and enlarging the revenues, chiefly by working the salt-mines himself and by increasing the taxes without regard to the complaints of the powerless estates, the finances were not only brought into a better condition, but it was also possible to collect a reserve fund which, in spite of the unusually difficult conditions of the age, was never quite exhausted. At the same time internal order was maintained by a series of laws issued in 1616. Maximilian gave great attention to military matters. No other German prince of that time possessed an army so well organized and equipped. Its commander was the veteran soldier from the Netherlands Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly, who, austere himself, knew how to maintain discipline among his troops. The fortifications at Ingolstadt on the Danube were greatly strengthened, and Munich and other towns were surrounded by walls and moats. Well-filled arsenals were established in different places as preparation for time of need. Opportunity for the use of this armament soon offered itself.

170 The small free city of Donauwörth fell under the imperial ban for violating the religious peace. In executing the imperial decree Maximilian not only succeeded in bringing this city into subjection to Bavaria but also in re-establishing the Catholic Church as the one and only religion in it. This led to the forming (1608) of the Protestant Union, an offensive and defensive confederation of Protestant princes, in opposition to which arose in 1609 the Catholic League organized by Maximilian. Oddly enough, both coalitions were headed by princes of the Wittelsbach line: Maximilian I as head of the League, Frederick IV of the Palatinate, of the Union. The Thirty Years' War, during which Bavaria suffered terribly, broke out in 1619. Under Tilly's leadership the Bohemian revolt was crushed at the battle of the White Mountain (Weissen Berg) near Prague, 8 November, 1620, and the newly elected King of Bohemia, Frederick V, forced to flee. His allies, the Margrave of Baden and the Duke of Brunswick, were defeated by the forces of Bavaria and the League at Wimpfen and Hochst (1622), as was also at a later date (1626) King Christian of Denmark. Conditions, however, changed when Maximilian, through jealousy of the House of Hapsburgh, was led in 1630 to seek the dismissal of the head of the imperial army, Wallenstein. The youthful Swedish king, Gustavus Adolphus, defeated Tilly, the veteran leader of the army of the League at Breitenfeld (1631), and in a battle with Gustavus Adolphus near the Lech, 16 April, 1632, Tilly was again vanquished, receiving a wound from which he died two weeks later at Ingolstadt. Although the siege of this city by the Swedes was unsuccessful, Gustavus plundered the Bavarian towns and villages, laid waste the country and pillaged Munich.

171 Maximilian, who since 1623 had been both Elector and ruler of the Upper Palatinate, implored Wallenstein, now once more the head of the imperial forces, for help in vain until he agreed to place himself and his army under Wallenstein's command. The united forces under Wallenstein took up an entrenched position near Nuremberg where Wallenstein repulsed the Swedish attacks; by advancing towards Saxony he even forced them to evacuate Maximilian's territories. The relief to Bavaria, however, was not of long duration. After the death of Gustavus Adolphus at the battle of Lützen (1632) Bernhard of Weimar, unmolested by Wallenstein, ravaged Bavaria until he received a crushing defeat the battle of Nordlingen (6 Sept., 1634). Even in the last ten years of the war the country was not spared from hostile attacks. Consequently Maximilian sought by means of a truce with the enemy (1647) to gain for Bavaria an opportunity to recover. The desired result, however, not being attained, he united his forces to those of the imperial army, but the allied troops were not sufficient to overthrow the confederated French and Swedes, and once more suffered all the terrors of a pitiless invasion. The fighting ended with the capture of the Swedish generals, 6 Oct., 1648, and the Peace of Westphalia was signed at Munster, 24 Oct. of the same year. The material benefits derived by Maximilian from his attitude in politics were meagre: the Electoral dignity, the office of Lord High Steward, and the Upper Palatinate. The abstract gains, on the other hand, appear far greater. Not only since then has Bavaria had the second place among the Catholic principalities of Germany, ranking next to Austria, but for centuries a strong bulwark was opposed to the advance of Protestantism, and the latter was, at times, even driven back. A few years after the Peace of Westphalia and eighteen months after the administration of Bavaria had been transferred to his still minor son Ferdinand Maria, Maximilian's eventful and troublesome life closed. He was buried in the church of St. Michael at Munich. A fine equestrian statue, designed by Thorwaldsen and cast by Stiglmayer, was erected at Munich by King Louis I in 1839.

172 Although there was almost incessant war during his reign, and Bavaria in the middle of the seventeenth century was like a desert, nevertheless Maximilian did much for the arts, e.g. by building the palace, the Mariensäule (Mary Column), etc. Learning also, especially at the University of Ingolstadt, had in this era distinguished representatives. The Jesuit Balde was a brilliant writer both of Latin and German verse and Father Scheiner, another member of the same order, was the first to discover the spots on the sun; historians also, such as Heinrich Canisius, Matthias Rader, etc., produced important works of lasting merit.

173 Maximilian, however, gave for more attention to the advancement of religion among the people than to art and learning. He founded five Jesuit colleges: Amberg, Burghausen, Landshut, Mindelheim, and Straubing. Besides establishing a monastery for the Minims and one for the Carmelites at Munich, he founded nine monasteries for Franciscans and fourteen for Capuchins who venerate him as one of their greatest benefactors. He also founded at Munich a home for aged and infirm Court officials, and gave 30,000 guldens for the Chinese missions, as well as large sums to the Scotch-English college of the Jesuits at Liège. His private charities among the poor and needy of all descriptions were unlimited.

174 Maximilian was endowed with an uncommon ability for work. He was also sincerely religious and rigidly moral in conduct; he even went beyond the permissible in his efforts to uphold and spread the faith. Maintaining like all princes of his time the axiom "Cujus regio ejus religio", he not only put down every movement in opposition to the Church in his country but also exterminated Calvinism and Lutheranism root and branch in the territories he had acquired. Where admonition and instruction were not sufficient the soldier stepped in, and the poor people, who had already been obliged to change their faith several times with change of ruler, had now no choice but return to the Church or exile. Maximilian, in addition, never lost sight of secular advantage, as is shown by his numerous acquisitions of territory. Especially valuable was the purchase of two-thirds of the countship of Helfenstein, now a part of Wurtemberg, which as a Bavarian dependence was preserved to the Church and has remained Catholic up to the present time, notwithstanding its Protestant surroundings. Maximilian was twice married. The first marriage was childless. By his second wife Maria, daughter of the Emperor Ferdinand II, whom he married 15 July, 1635, he had two sons; the elder of these, Ferdinand Maria, as already mentioned, succeeded him.

175 STIEVE, Maximilian I in Allgem. Deutsche Biog., XXI (1885)21 sq., gives bibliography before 1885; cf. the statements in DOBERL, Entwicklungsgeschichte Bayerns, I (2nd ed., 1908).—HAGL, Die Bekehrung der Oberpfalz (2 vols., 1903); RABEL, Das ehemaliga Benediktiner-Adelstift Weissenohe in Jahrb. des Hist. Vereins Bomberg (1908).—For the founding of monasteries by Maximilian: EBERL, Gesch. d. bay. Kapuzinerodensprovinz 1593-1902 (1902).—DEUTINGER, Beitrage zur Geschichte des Erzbisthums Munchen-Freising, New Series, I (1901).—LAVISSE-RAMBAUD, Histoire generale, V, 508 sqq.; HIMLY, Hist. de la formation territoriale des etats de l'Europe centrale, II (1876), 164 sqq.; CORREARD, Precis d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, 36 sqq.

176 Pius Wittmann.

St. Maximinus

172 Bishop of Trier, b. at Silly near Poitiers, d. there, 29 May, 352 or 12 Sept., 349. He was educated and ordained priest by St. Agritius, whom he succeeded as Bishop of Trier in 332 or 335. At that time Trier was the government seat of the Western Emperor and, by force of his office, Maximinus stood in close relation with the Emperors Constantine II and Constans. He was a strenuous defender of the orthodox faith against Arianism and an intimate friend of St. Athanasius, whom he harboured as an honoured guest during his exile of two years and four months (336-8) at Trier. He likewise received with honours the banished patriarch Paul of Constantinople in 341 and effected his recall to Constantinople. When four Arian bishops came from Antioch to Trier in 342 with the purpose of winning Emperor Constans to their side, Maximinus refused to receive them and induced the emperor to reject their proposals. In conjunction with Pope Julius I and Bishop Hosius of Cordova, he persuaded the Emperor Constans to convene the Synod of Sardica in 343 and probably took part in it. That the Arians considered him as one of their chief opponents is evident from the fact that they condemned by name along with Pope Julius I and Hosius of Cordova at their heretical synod of Philippopolis in 343 (Mans, "Sacrorum Conc. nova et ampl. Coll.", III, 136 sq.). In 345 he took part in the Synod of Milan and is said to have presided over a synod held at Cologne in 346, where Bishop Euphratas of Cologne was deposed on account of his leanings toward Arianism. {Concerning the authenticity of the Acts of this synod see the new French translation of Hefele's "Conciliengeschichte", I, ii (Paris, 1907), pp. 830-34.} He also sent Sts. Castor and Lubentius as missionaries to the valleys of the Mosel and the Lahn. It is doubtful whether the Maximinus whom the usurper Magnentius sent as legate to Constantinople in the interests of peace is identical with the Bishop of Trier (Athanasius, "Apol. ad Const. Imp.", 9). His cult began right after his death. His feast is celebrated on 29 May, on which day his name stands in the martyrologies of St. Jerome, St. Bede, St. Ado, and others. Trier honours him as its patron. In the autumn of 353 his body was buried in the church of St. John near Trier, where in the seventh century was founded the famous Benedictine abbey of St. Maximinus, which flourished till 1802.

173 A life, full of fabulous accounts, by a monk of St. Maximinus in the eighth century, is printed in Acta SS., May, VII, 21-24. The same life, revised by SERVATUS LUPUS, is found in MIGNE, P.L. CXIX, 21-24, and in Mon. Germ. Script. rerum Merov., III, 74-82; DIEL, Der heilige Maximinus und der heilige Paulinus, Bischofe von Trier (Trier, 1875); CHAMARD, St. Maximin de Treves, St. Athenase et les semi-Ariens in Revue des Quest. hist., II (Paris, 1867), 66-96; BENNETT in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v.

174 Michael Ott

Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus

175 Under his uncle Augustus Galerius, the Caesar of Syria and Egypt, from the year 305; in 307 following the example of Constantine, he assumed the title of Augustus. When Galerius died in 311, the Caesar, Licinius, set out for the Hellespont to besiege the provinces of the Near East. Maximinus obtained the sympathy of the population by granting a remission of taxation to the threatened provinces; also, he had in his power Galerius's widow and Valeria, Diocletian's daughter. An agreement was made fixing the Aegean Sea and the straits between Europe and Asia as the boundaries of the dominions and as no new Caesars were appointed, there were three legal emperors. Thus Diocletian's plan of governing the empire was abandoned. Maximinus, a fanatical idolater and tyrant, continued the persecution of the Christians in his part of the empire with especial severity and persistency, even where the cruel Galerius had ceased. Besides sanguinary measures for the suppression of Christianity, he made attempts to establish in both town and country a heathen organization similar to the Christian Church. The emperor made the heathen high-priests and magicians of equal rank with the governors of provinces. His attempt to achieve renown by a war against the Persians in Armenia was frustrated by pestilence and bad harvests (Eusebius). When Constantine and Licinius published the edict of toleration for the Christians at Milan in 312, and Maximinus was asked to promulgate it in his part of the empire, he did so, because he saw clearly that it was directed against his anti-Christian policy. When in the winter of 312 Constantine's Gallic troops were withdrawn from Italy, and Licinius was still at Milan, Maximinus pushed on by forced marches to the capital, Byzantium, and captured it together with Heraclea. Licinius, taken by surprise, offered to make terms with him, which Maximinus trusting to gain an easy victory refused. Contrary to his expectation, and in spite of the superiority in numbers of his troops, he was defeated near Adrianople, 30 April, 313, and fled precipitately to Nicomedia to endeavor to rally his army. Licinius harassing him incessantly, published an edict of toleration for the Christians of Nicomedia so that Maximinus was obliged to withdraw to the Taurus where he entrenched himself in the passes. He then tried to win the Christians by issuing an edict of toleration; but his military situation was hopeless and he took poison (313). Licinius exterminated the Jovian family, murdering all the relatives of Diocletian who were at the court of Maximin. The edicts of the deceased emperor were cancelled, and decrees favourable to the Christians were now promulgated in the East.

176 SCHILLER, Gesch. der römischen Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887).

177 Karl Hoeber

Caius Julius Verus Maximinus Thrax

178 Roman Emperor 235-8, son of a Goth and an Alanic mother. When the Emperor Septimius Severus was returning through Thrace in 202, Maximinus, a shepherd of enormous stature and strength, distinguished himself in a contest with the soldiers by such Herculean strength and bravery that the emperor enrolled him in the Roman body-guard. Refusing to serve under the worthless emperors, Macrinus and Heliogabalus, he withdrew from the army; but under the righteous Alexander Severus he was entrusted with the command of the newly raised Pannonian troops. These, desiring a real warrior at their head instead of the youthful and timid Alexander, who was entirely subject to his mother Julia Mamaea, invested him with the purple at Mainz, in March, 235, at the same time proclaiming his son Maximus co-regent. The adherents of the former Syrian dynasty and of the senate tried unsuccessfully to overthrow him. Maximinus taking the field with great energy and persistence against the Germans across the Rhine, regained the district of the Agri Decumates and then waged successful war against the Sarmatians and the Dacians on the Danube. Assuming the names of Germanicus and Sarmaticus, he proceeded with sentences of death and confiscation against the patrician Romans, who disliked him as a wild and uncultured barbarian; on the other hand he distributed the State revenues among the soldiers who were devoted to him. He had the bronze statues of the gods and their treasures melted down and coined; he plundered cities and temples, and caused so much discontent that a rebellion broke out in February, 238, among the peasantry in Africa. The procurator and octogenarian consul at Carthage were killed.

179 M. Antonius Gordianus and his son of the same name, were made co-regent emperors. The Roman senate willingly recognized them, because they promised, like the Antonines in former times, to govern according to its decisions; the people despising Maximinus, who had never once set foot in the capital of the empire, agreed with the senate. Maximinus was outlawed, and his death was rumoured, but he sent Capellianus, Procurator of Numidia, against the adherents of the Gordiani, and in the struggle, the younger Gordian lost his life whereupon the senior hanged himself in despair. Their reign had lasted little more than a month. The senate now decided to elect two emperors with equal authority, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus who was to exercise the military power de facto, and Decimus Caelius Balbinus who was to direct the civil government in the capital. The Romans dissatisfied with this arrangement, for they had expected great advantages from the rule of the African emperors, raised to the rank of Caesar the elder Gordian's twelve year old grandson (afterwards Gordian III), then residing in Rome. Severe street fighting occurred in Rome between the veterans of Maximinus and the people. Owing to scanty commissariat Maximinus could only move his troops slowly from Pannonia. Meanwhile the senate levied troops, constructed arsenals, and by creating twenty military districts, placed Italy in a satisfactory defensive position. When Maximinus arrived in Upper Italy, he could not at once cross the Isonzo on account of the floods and his attacks on the stronghold of Aquileia were repulsed. Under the foolish impression that his officers were the cause of his misfortunes, he had several of them executed, thereby arousing discontent among the soldiers, especially in the Second Parthian Legion whose wives and children were in the power of the Roman Senate at Albano. A mutiny suddenly occurring, Maximin and his son were murdered. Pupienus, who hastened thither from Ravenna, rewarded the troops liberally and administered to them the oath of fidelity on behalf of the three senator emperors resident in Rome.

180 MOMMSEN, Romische Geschichte, V (Berlin, 1885); SCHILLER, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit, vol. I, pt. II (Gotha, 1883); DOMASZEWSKI, Gesch. der rom. Kaiserzeit, II (Leipzig, 1909).

181 Karl Hoeber

Maximopolis

181 A titular see of Arabia, suffragan of Bostra. The true name of the city is Maximianopolis, and so it appears in the "Notitia episcopatuum" of the Patriarch Anastasius in the sixth century ("Echos d'Orient", X, Paris, 1907, 145). Pursuant to a decree of the Propaganda (1885), the title is to be suppressed in future; Torquato Amellini having confounded this town with Maximianopolis in Palestina Secunda ("Catalogo dei vescovati titolari", Rome, 1884, appendix 8). Its last titular was consecrated in 1876. Two ancient bishops of this see are known: Severus, a signatory of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Mansi, "Coll. Conc.", VII, 168), and Peter, known by an inscription (Waddington, "Inscriptions grecques et latines de Grece et l'Asie-Mineure", no. 2361). The name which preceded that of Maximianopolis is not known, and we are equally ignorant of its actual identification, though many authorities place it at Sheikh-Miskin, a locality in the Hauran, famous for the extent and beauty of its ruins, where an inscription has been found bearing the name of Bishop Thomas ("Bulletin de corresp. hellenique," Paris, 1897, 52).

182 S. VAILHÉ

St. Maximus of Constantinople

184 Known as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662. He is one of the chief names in the Monothelite controversy one of the chief doctors of the theology of the Incarnation and of ascetic mysticism, and remarkable as a witness to the respect for the papacy held by the Greek Church in his day. This great man was of a noble family of Constantinople. He became first secretary to the Emperor Heraclius, who prized him much, but he quitted the world and gave himself up to contemplation in a monastery at Chrysopolis, opposite Constantinople. He became abbot there- but seems to have left this retreat on account of its insecurity from hostile attacks. He speaks of the Palestinian ascetic St. Sophronius afterwards Patriarch of Jerusalem, as his master, father, and teacher (Ep. 13), so that he probably passed some time with him, and he was with him in Africa with other monks during the preparations which issued in the "watery union" by which Cyrus the Patriarch reconciled a number of Monophysites to the Church by rejecting the doctrine of "two operations" in Christ (see MONOTHELITISM) . The first action of St. Maximus that we know of in this affair is a letter sent by him to Pyrrhus, then an abbot at Chrysopolis, a friend and supporter of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the patron of the Monothelite expression "two operations" . As the letter is said to have entailed a long voyage on the monks who carried it St. Maximus was perhaps already in Africa when he wrote it. Pyrrhus had published a work on the Incarnation, for which St. Maximus gives him rather fulsome praise, as an introduction to the question (which he puts with much diffidence and many excuses) what Pyrrhus means by one energeia or energema. Maximus is clearly anxious to get him to withdraw or explain the mistaken expression, without exasperating him by contradiction.

185 The Ecthesis of Heraclius was published in 638, and Sergius and Pope Honorius both died in that year. A letter of Maximus tells us on the authority of his friends at Constantinople, that the Roman apocrisiarii who had come thither to obtain the emperor's confirmation for the newly elected Pope Severinus, were met by the clergy of Constantinople with the demand that they should promise to obtain the pope's signature to the Ecthesis, otherwise they should receive no assistance in the matter for which they had made so long a voyage:

186 > Having discovered the tenor of the document, since by refusing they would have caused the first and Mother of Churches, and the city, to remain so long a time in widowhood, they replied quietly: We cannot act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith. But we assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated, and if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his slgnature to it. But do not therefore place any obstacle in our way now, or do violence to us by delaying us and keeping us here. For none has a right to use violence especially when faith is in question. For herein even the weakest waxes mighty and the meek becomes a warrior, and by comforting his soul with the Divine Word, is hardened against the greatest attack. How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. And so when without fear but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is, of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome, had so replied to the clergy of the royal city, they were seen to have conciliated them and to have acted prudently, that the others might be humble and modest, while they made known the orthodoxy and purity of their own faith from the beginning. But those of Constantinople, admiring their piety, thought that such a deed ought to be recompensed; and ceasing from urging the document on them, they promised by their diligence to procure the issue of the emperor's order with regard to the episcopal election . . Of the aforesaid document a copy has been sent to me also. They have explained in it the cause for being silent about the natural operations in Christ our God, that is, in His natures, of which and in which He is believed to be, and how in future neither one nor two are to be mentioned. It is only to be allowed to confess that the divine and human (works) proceeded from the same Word of God incarnate, and are to be attributed to one and the same (person)."

187 This passage does not call the prohibition of "two operations" yet by the name of heresy and does not mention the "one Will" confessed in the Ecthesis. But it gives verv clearly St. Maximus's view that the smallest point of faith is to be held at the risk of one's life, and it demonstrates the ample admission made at Constantinople, before the struggles began, of the prerogatives of Rome.

188 When in 641 John IV wrote his defence of Pope Honorius, it was re-echoed by St. Maximus in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus. He declares that Honorius, when he confessed one will of our Lord, only meant to deny that Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence, since he was conceived and born without stain of sin. Maximus appeals to the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius. Pyrrhus was now Sergius's successor, but on the accession of the Emperor Constans in 642 he was exiled. Maximus then sent a letter to the patrician Peter, apparently the Governor of Syria and Palestine who had written to him concerning Pyrrhus, whom he now calls simply abbot. Pyrrhus was in Palestine and Peter had restrained him from putting forward his heretical views. Pyrrhus had declared that he was ready to satisfy Maximus as to his orthodoxy. The latter says he would have written to Peter before

189 > but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws, if I were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law.

190 The new Ecthesis is worse than the old heresies- Pyrrhus and his predecessor have accused Sophronius of error- they persuaded Heraclius to give his name to the Ecthesis:

191 > they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.

192 Pyrrhus thought he might regain his see by the help of the pope. He came to Africa, and in July, 645, a public disputation took place between him and Maximus, in the presence of the Governor Gregory (called George in the MSS. of St. Maximus), who was a friend and correspondent of the saint. The minutes are interesting. Pyrrhus argues that two wills must imply two Persons willing- Maximus replies that in that case there must be three wills in the Holy Trinity. He shows that the will belongs to the Nature, and distinguishes between will as a faculty and will as the act of the faculty. Pyrrhus then admits two wills, on account of the two natures, but adds that we should also confess one will on account of the perfect union. Maximus replies that this would lead us to confess one nature on account of the perfect union. He then cites many passages of Scripture for two wills and two operations. Pyrrhus puts forward Honorius and Vigilius. Maximus defends the former from the charge of teaching two wills, and denies that the latter ever rece*ed the letter of Mennas, the authenticity of which is assumed. He complains of the changeableness of Sergius. Lastly the famous "new theandric operation" of the Pseudo-Dionysius is discussed, and i8 explained and defended by St. Maximus. Then Pyrrhus gives in, and consents to go to Rome, where in fact he condemned his former teaching, and was reconciled to the Church by the pope. But the revolt of aregory, who made himself emperor in Africa, but was defeated in 647, brought Maximus into disfavour at court, and destroyed the hope of restoring Pyrrhus a8 orthodox patriarch. After the Ecthesis had been withdrawn, and the Type, Typos, substituted by the Emperor Constans, St. Maximus was present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some years):

193 > The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.

194 Pope Martin was dragged from Rome in 653, and died of ill treatment at Inkerman in March, 655. It was probably later in that year that an official named Gregory came to Rome to get Pope Eugene to receive the Type. He came to the cell of St. Maximus, who argued with him and denounced the Type. As the saint was recognized as t,he leader of the orthodox Easterns, he was sent to Constantinople at the end of 655 (not, as is commonly stated, at the same time as St. Martin). He was now seventy-five years old. The acts of his trials have been preserved by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. He was accused of conspiring with the usurper Gregory, together with Pope Theodore, and it was said that he had caused the loss to the empire of Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis, and Africa. He refused to communicate with the See of Constantinople,

195 > because they have cast out the four holy councils by the propositions made at Alexandria, by the Ecthesis and by the Type . . . and because the dogmas which they asserted in the propositions they damned in the Ecthesis, and what they proclaimed in the Ecthesis they annulled in the Type, and on each occasion they deposed themselves. What mysteries I ask, do they celebrate, who have condemned themselves and have been condemned by the Romans and by the (Lateran) synod, and stripped of their sacerdotal dignity?

196 He disbelieved the statement made to him that the envoys of the pope had accepted the confession of "two wills on account of the diversity and one will on account of the union," and pointed out that the union not being a substance could have no will. He wrote on this account to his disciple the Abbot Anastasius, who was able to send a letter to warn "the men of elder Rome firm as a rock" of the deceitful confession which the Patriarch Peter was despatching to the pope. On the day of the first trial a council of clergy was held, and the emperor was persuaded to send Maximus to Byzia in Thrace, and his disciples, Abbot Anastasius and Anastasius the papal apocrisiarius, to Perberis and Mesembria. They suffered greatly from cold and hunger. On 24 September, 656, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, visited Maximus by the emperor's command, accompanied by the consuls, Theodosius and Paul. The saint confounded his visitors with the authority of the Fathers, and declared that he would never accept the Type. The bishop then replied: "We declare to you in response that if you will communicate, our master the emperor will annul the Type." Maximus answered that the Ecthesis, though taken down, had not been disowned and that the canons of the Lateran Council must be formally accepted before he would communicate. The Byzantine bishop unblushingly urged: "The synod is invalid, since it was held without the Ernperor's orders." Maximus retorts: "If it is not pious faith but the order of the emperor that validates synods, let them accept the synods that were held against the Homoousion at Tyre, at Antioch, at Seleucia, and the Robber council of Ephesus."

197 The bishop is ready to consent to two wills and two operations: but St. Maximus says he is himself but a monk and cannot receive his declaration- the bishop, and also the emperor, and the patriarch and his synod, must send a supplication to the pope. Then all arose with joy and tears, and knelt down and prayed, and kissed the Gospels and the crucifix and the image of the Mother of God, and all embraced. But the consul doubted:

198 "Do you think," he said, "that the emperor will make a supplication to Rome?"

199 "Yes," said the abbot, "if he will humble himself as God has humbled Himself."

200 The bishop gave him money and a tunic, but the tunic was seized by the Bishop of Byzia. On 8 September, the abbot was honourably sent to Rhegium, and next day two patricians arrived in state with Bishop Theodosius and offered the saint great honour if he would accept the Type and communicate with the emperor. Maximus solemnly turned to the bishop and reminded him of the day of judgment.

201 "What could I do if the emperor took another view?" whispered the miserable man. The abbot was struck and spat upon. The patrician Epiphanius declared that all now accepted two wills and two operations, and that the Type was only a compromise. Maximus reiterated the Roman view that to forbid the use of an expression was to deny it. Next morning, 19 September, the saint was stripped of his money and even of his poor stock of clothes, and was conveyed to Salembria, and thence to Perberis (Perbera).

202 Six years later, in 662, Maximus and the two Anastasii were brought to trial at Constantinople. They were anathematized, and with them St. Martin and St. Sophronius. The prefect was ordered to beat them, to cut out their tongues and lop off their right hands, to exhibit them thus mutilated in every quarter of the city, and to send them to perpetual exile and imprisonment. A long letter of the Roman Anastasius tells us of their sufferings on the journey to Colchis where they were imprisoned in different forts. He tells us that St. Maxirmus foresaw in a vision the day of his death, and that miraculous lights appeared nightly at his tomb. The monk Anastasius had died in the preceding month; the Roman lived on until 666.

203 Thus St. Maximus died for orthodoxy and obedience to Rome. He has always been considered one of the chief theological writers of the Greek Church, and has obtained the honourable title of the Theologian. He may be said to complete and close the series of patristic writings on the Incarnation, as they are summed up by St. John of Damascus. His style is unfortunately very obscure, but he is accurate in his thought and deeply learned in the Fathers. His exegetical works explain Holy Scripture allegorically. We have commentaries on Psalm 59, on the Lord's Prayer, and a number of explanations of different texts. These are principally intended for the use of monks, and deal much with mystical theology. More professedly mystical are his "Scholia" on Pseudo-Dionysius, his explanations of difficulties in Dionysius and St. Gregory Nazianzen and his "Ambigua" on St. Gregory. This last work was translated into Latin by Scotus Erigena at the request of Charles the Bald. The polemical writings include short treatises against the Monophysites, and a more important series against the Monothelites, beside which must be placed the letters and the disputation with Pyrrhus. The numerous ascetical writings have always received great honour in Eastern monasteries. The best known is a beautiful dialogue between an abbot and a young monk on the spiritual life; there are also various collections of sententiae, ethical and devotional, for use in the cloister. The "Mystagogia" is an explanation of ecclesiastical symbolism, of importance for liturgical history. Three hymns are preserved, and a chronological work (published in Petavius's "Uranologium", Paris, 1630, and in P. G., XIX). Some writings exist only in MS. St. Maximus's literary labours had thus a vast range. He was essentially a monk, a contemplative, a mystic, thoroughly at home in the Platonism of Dionysius. But he was also a keen dialectician, a scholastic theologian, a controversialist. His influence in both lines has been very great. His main teaching may be summed up under two heads, the union of God with humanity by the Incarnation, and the union of man with God by the practice of perfection and contemplation. St. Maximus is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on 13 August, and in the Greek Menaea on 21 January and 12 and 13 August. His Greek office is given by Combéfis (P. G., XC, 206).

204 A complete edition of his works was begun by the Dominican Combéfis. Two volumes appeared (Paris 1675), but the third is wanting In the reprint by Migne (P. G., XC-XCI) there is added the "De Locis difficilibus Dionysii et Gregorii", from Oehler's edition (Halle, 1857), and the hymns from Daniel "Thesaurus Hymnolog." III. Anastasius Bibliothecarius has preserved some letters and other documents in Latin in his "Collectanea" (P. L., CXXIX, and Mansi, X). The "Scholia" on Dionysius the Areopagite are printed with the works of the latter (P. G., IV). The ancient "Vita et certamen" (P. G., XC- Acta SS., 13 Aug.) is not contemporary and cannot be trusted.

205 John Chapman.

St. Maximus of Turin

187 Bishop and theological writer, b. probably in Rhaetia, about 380; d. shortly after 465. Only two dates are historically established in his life. In 451 he was at the synod of Milan where the bishops of Northern Italy accepted the celebrated letter (epistola dogmatica) of Leo I, setting forth the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation against the Nestorians and Eutychians (Mansi, "SS. Conc. Coll. Ampl.", VI, 143). Among nineteen subscribers Maximus is the eighth, and since the order was determined by age, Maximus must then have been about seventy years old. The second established date is 465, when he was at the Synod of Rome. (Mansi, VII, 959, 965 sq.) Here the subscription of Maximus follows immediately after the pope's, showing he was the oldest of the forty-eight bishops present. The approximate time and place of his birth may be surmised from a passage in Sermo 81 (P.L., LVII, 695), where he designates himself as a witness of the martyrdom of three missionary priests in 397 at Anaunia in the Rhaetian Alps. History does not mention him after 465. He is the first known bishop of Turin, then a suffragan see of Milan. His successor was St. Victor. His name is in the Roman martyrology on 25 June, and the city of Turin honours him as its patron. A life which, however, is entirely unreliable, was written after the eleventh century, and is printed in "Acta SS.", June, VII, 3rd ed., 44-46. It states that a cleric one day followed him with an evil intention to a retired chapel, where the saint was wont to pray. The cleric suddenly became so thirsty that he implored Maximus for help. A roe happened to pass which the saint caused to stop, so that the cleric could partake of its milk. This legend accounts for the fact that St. Maximus is represented in art as pointing at a roe.

188 He is the author of numerous discourses, first edited by Bruni, and published by order of Pius VI at the Propaganda in 1784 (reprinted in P.L., LVII). These discourses, delivered to the people by the saint, consist of one hundred and eighteen homilies, one hundred and sixteen sermons, and six treatises (tractatus). Homilies 1-63 are de tempore, i.e. on the seasons of the ecclesiastical year and on the feasts of Our Lord; 64-82, de sanctis, i.e. on the saints whose feast was commemorated on the day on which they were delivered; 83-118, de diversis, i.e. exegetical, dogmatical or moral. Sermons 1-55 are de tempore; 56-93, de sanctis; 93-116, de diversis. Three of the treatises are on baptism, one against the Pagans, and one against the Jews. The last two are extant only in fragments, and their genuineness is doubtful. The sixth treatise, whose genuineness is also doubtful, contains short discourses on twenty-three topics taken from the Four Gospels. An appendix contains writings of uncertain authorship; thirty-one sermons, three homilies, and two long epistles addressed to a sick friend. Many writings, however, which Bruni ascribes to Maximus are of doubtful origin. The discourses are usually very brief, and couched in forcible, though at times over flowery language. Among the many facts of liturgy and history touched on in the discourses are: abstinence during Lent (hom. 44), no fasting or kneeling at prayers during paschal time (hom. 61), fasting on the Vigil of Pentecost (hom. 62), the synod of Milan in 389 at which Jovinianus was condemned (hom. 9), the impending barbarian invasion (hom. 86-92), the destruction of the Church of Milan by the barbarians (hom. 94), various pagan superstitions still prevalent at his time (hom. 16, 100-02), the supremacy of St. Peter (hom. 54, 70, 72, serm. 114). All his discourses manifest his solicitude for the eternal welfare of his flock, and in many he fearlessly rebukes the survivals of paganism and defends the orthodox faith against the inroads of heresy.

189 Ferreri, S. Massimo, vescovo di Torino e i suoi tempi (3rd ed., Turin, 1868); Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia (Turin, 1899), 283-294; Fessler-Jungmann, Institutiones Patrologiae, II (Innsbruck, 1892), ii, 256-76; Argles in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Maximus (I6); Bardenhewer, Patrology, tr. Shahan (St. Louis, 1908), 527-8.

190 Michael Ott

William Maxwell

190 Fifth Earl of Nithsdale (Lord Nithsdale signed as Nithsdaill) and fourteenth Lord Maxwell, b. in 1676; d. at Rome, 2 March, 1744. He succeeded his father at the early age of seven. His mother, a daughter of the House of Douglas, a clever energetic woman, educated him in sentiments of devotion to the Catholic faith and of loyalty to the House of Stuart, for which his family was famous. When he was about twenty-three, Lord Nithsdale visited the French Court to do homage to King James, and there met and wooed Lady Winifred Herbert, youngest daughter of William, first Marquis of Powis. The marriage contract is dated 2 March, 1699. The young couple resided chiefly at Terregles, in Dumfriesshire, and here probably their five children were born. Until I715 no special event marked their lives, but in that year Lord Nithsdale's principles led him to join the rising in favour of Prince James Stuart, and he shared in the disasters which attended the royal cause, being taken prisoner at Preston and sent to the Tower. In deep anxiety Lady Nithsdale hastened to London and there made every effort on behalf of her husband, including a personal appeal to George I, but no sort of hope was held out to her. She, therefore, with true heroism, planned and carried out his escape on the eve of the day fixed for his execution. Lord Nithsdale had prepared himself for death like a good Catholic and loyal servant of his king, as his "Dying Speech" and farewell letter to his family attest. After his escape he fled in disguise to France. He and Lady Nithsdale spent their last years in great poverty, in Rome, in attendance on their exiled king.

191 M. M. Maxwell Scott.

Winifred Maxwell

193 Countess of Nithsdale, d. at Rome, May, 1749. She was the daughter of William, first Marquis of Powis, who followed James II into exile. She is famous in history for the heroic deliverance of her husband from the Tower on 23 Feb., 1716. Her married life was passed chiefly at the family seat of Terregles, and here she received the fatal news of her husband's defeat at Preston. After concealing the family papers in a spot still pointed out, she hastened to London to intercede for her husband, having little hope however, for, to use her own words: "A Catholic upon the borders and one who had a great following and whose family had ever upon all occasions stuck to the royal family, could not look for mercy". And so it proved; even her personal appeal to George I was disregarded, and Lord Nithsdale was to owe his safety to her alone. With great courage and ingenuity she contrived his escape from the Tower in female dress — on the eve of the day appointed for his execution, according to Lady Cowper's "Diary," 1st ed., p. 85, a reprieve was signed for Lord Nithsdale on the very night of his escape — and after concealing him in London and arranging for his journey to France, this heroic lady returned again to Scotland to secure the family papers which she knew would be of vital importance to her son. In fact her zeal made Lady Nithsdale's position a hazardous one, and King George declared she had done him "more mischief than any woman in Christendom". As soon as she was able she joined Lord Nithsdale abroad and they spent their long exile in Rome, where she survived her husband for about five years. The autograph letter in which Lady Nithsdale gives the account of her husband's escape, and the brown cloak worn by him on the occasion, are now in possession of the Duchess of Norfolk, who represents the Nithsdales in the female line.

194 FRASER, Book of Caerlareroch (Edinburgh, 1873); PAUL, The Scots Peerage (Edinburgh, 1909), VI; MAXWELL SCOTT, The Making of Abbotsford and Incidents in Scottish History (London, 1897).

195 M. M. Maxwell Scott.

Maya Indians

196 The most important of the dead native peoples of North America, both in the degree of their civilization and in population and resources, formerly occupying a territory of about 60,000 square miles, including the whole of the peninsula of Yucatan, Southern Mexico, together with the adjacent portion of Northern Guatemala, and still constituting the principal population of the same region outside of the larger cities. Their language, which is actually supplanting Spanish to a great extent, is still spoken by about 300,000 persons, of whom two-thirds are pure Maya, the remainder being whites and of mixed blood. The Mayan linguistic stock includes some twenty tribes, speaking closely related dialects, and (excepting the Huastec of northern Vera Cruz and south-east San Luis Potosi, Mexico) occupying contiguous territory in Tabasco, Chiapas, and the Yucatan peninsula, a large part of Guatemala, and smaller portion of Honduras and Salvador. The ancient builders of the ruined cities of Palenque and Copan were of the same stock. The most important tribes or nations, after the Maya proper, were the Quiche and Cakchiquel of Guatemala. All the tribes of this stock were of high culture, the Mayan civilization being the most advanced and probably the most ancient, in aboriginal North America. They still number altogether about two million souls.

197 I. History

198 The Maya proper seem to have entered Yucatan from the west. As usual with ancient nations, it is difficult in the beginning to separate myth from history, their earliest mentioned leader and deified hero, Itzamná, being considered by Brinton to be simply the sun-god common to the whole Mayan stock. He is represented as having led the first migration from the Far East, beyond the ocean, along a pathway miraculously opened through the waters. The second migration, which seems to have been historic, was led from the west by Kukulcan, a miraculous priest and teacher, who became the founder of the Maya kingdom and civilization. Fairly good authority, based upon study of the Maya chronicles and calendar, places this beginning near the close of the second century of the Christian Era. Under Kukulcan the people were divided into four tribes, ruled by as many kingly families: the Cocom, Tutul-xiu, Itzá and Chelé. To the first family belonged Kukulcan himself, who established his residence at Mayapan, which thus became the capital of the whole nation. The Tutul-xiu held vassal rule at Uxmal, the Itzá at Chichen-Itzá, and the Chelé at Izamal. To the Chelé was appointed the hereditary high priesthood, and their city became the sacred city of the Maya. Each provincial king was obliged to spend a part of each year with the monarch at Mayapan. This condition continued down to about the eleventh century, when, as the result of a successful revolt of the provincial kings, Mayapan was destroyed, and the supreme rule passed to the Tutul-xiu at Uxmal. Later on Mayapan was rebuilt and was again the capital of the nation until about the middle of the fifteenth century, when, in consequence of a general revolt against the reigning dynasty, it was finally destroyed, and the monarchy was split up into a number of independent petty states, of which eighteen existed on the peninsula at the arrival of the Spaniards. In consequence of this civil war a part of the Itzá emigrated south to Lake Petén, in Guatemala, where they established a kingdom with their capital and sacred city of Flores Island, in the lake.

199 On his second voyage Columbus heard of Yucatan as a distant country of clothed men. On his fifth voyage (1503-04) he encountered, south-west of Cuba, a canoe-load of Indians with cotton clothing for barter, who said that they came from the country of Maya. In 1506 Pinzon sighted the coast, and in 1511 twenty men under Valdivia were wrecked on the shores of the sacred island of Cozumel, several being captured and sacrificed to the idols. In 1517 an expedition under Francisco de Cordova landed on the north coast, discovering well-built cities, but, after several bloody engagements with the natives, was compelled to retire. Father Alonso Gonzalez, who accompanied this expedition, found opportunity at one landing to explore a temple, and bring off some of the sacred images and gold ornaments. In 1518 a strong expedition under Juan de Grijalva, from Cuba, landed near Cozumel and took formal possession for Spain. For Father Juan Diaz, who on this occasion celebrated Mass upon the summit of one of the heathen temples, the honour is also claimed of having afterwards been the first to celebrate mass in the City of Mexico. Near Cozumel, also, was rescued the young monk Aguilar, one of the two survivors of Valdivia's party, who, though naked to the breech-cloth, still carried his Breviary in a pouch. Proceeding northwards, Grijaba made the entire circuit of the peninsula before returning, having had another desperate engagement with the Maya near Campeche. After the conquest of Mexico in 1521, Francisco de Montejo, under commission as Governor of Yucatan, landed (1527) to effect the conquest of the country, but met with such desperate resistance that after eight years of incessant fighting every Spaniard had been driven out. In 1540, after two more years of the same desperate warfare, his son Francisco established the first Spanish settlement at Campeche. In the next year, in a bloody battle at Tihoo, he completely broke the power of Maya resistance, and a few months later (Jan., 1542) founded on the site of the ruined city the new capital, Mérida. In 1546, however, there was a general revolt, and it was not until a year later that the conquest was assured.

200 In the original commission to Montejo it had been expressly stipulated that missionaries should accompany all his expeditions. This, however, he had neglected to attend to, and in 1531 (or 1534), by special order, Father Jacobo de Testera and four others were sent to join the Spanish camp near Campeche. They met a kindly welcome from the Indians, who came with their children to be instructed, and thus the conquest of the country might have been effected through spiritual agencies but for the outrages committed by a band of Spanish outlaws, in consequence of which the priests were forced to withdraw. In 1537 five more missionaries arrived and met the same willing reception, remaining about two years in spite of the war still in progress. About 1545 a large number of missionaries were sent over from Spain. Several of these-apparently nine, all Franciscans-under the direction of Father Luis de Villalpando, were assigned to Yucatan. Landing at Campeche, the governor explained their purpose to the chiefs, the convent of St. Francis was dedicated on its present site, and translations were begun into the native language. The first baptized convert was the chief of Campeche, who learned Spanish and thereafter acted as interpreter for the priests.

201 Here, as elsewhere, the missionaries were the champions of the rights of the Indians. In consequence of their repeated protests a royal edict was issued, in 1549, prohibiting Indian slavery in the province, while promising compensation to the slave owners. As in other cases, local opposition defeated the purpose of this law; but the agitation went on, and in 1551 another royal edict liberated 150,000 male Indian slaves, with their families, throughout Mexico. In 1557 and 1558 the Crown intervened to restrain the tyranny of the native chiefs. Within a very short time Father Villalpando had at his mission station at Mérida over a thousand converts, including several chiefs. He himself, with Father Malchior de Benavente, then set out, barefoot, for the city of Mani in the mountains farther south, where their success was so great that two thousand converts were soon engaged in building them a church and dwelling. All went well until they began to plead with the chiefs to release their vassals from certain hard conditions, when the chiefs resolved to burn them at the altar. On the appointed night the chiefs and their retainers approached the church with this design, but were awed from their purpose on finding the two priests, who had been warned by an Indian boy, calmly praying before the crucifix. After remaining all night in prayer, the fathers were fortunately rescued by a Spanish detachment which, almost miraculously, chanced to pass that way. Twenty-seven of the conspirators were afterwards seized and condemned to death, but were all saved by the interposition of Villalpando. In 1548-49 other missionaries arrived from Spain, Villalpando was made custodian of the province, and a convent was erected near the site of his chapel at Mani. The Yucatan field having been assigned to the Franciscans, all the missionary work among the Maya was done by priests of that order.

202 In 1561 Yucatan was made a diocese with its see at Mérida. In the next year the famous Diego de Landa, Franciscan provincial, and afterwards bishop (1573-79), becoming aware that the natives throughout the peninsula still secretly cherished their ancient rites, instituted an investigation, which he conducted with such cruelties of torture and death that the proceedings were stopped by order of Bishop Toral Franciscan provincial of Mexico, immediately upon his arrival, during the same summer, to occupy the See of Mérida. Before this could be done, however, there had been destroyed, as is asserted, two million sacred images and hundreds of hieroglyphic manuscripts-practically the whole of the voluminous native Maya literature. As late as 1586 a royal edict was issued for the suppression of idolatry. In 1575-77 a terrible visitation of a mysterious disease, called matlalzahuatl, which attacked only the Indians, swept over Southern Mexico and Yucatan, destroying, as was estimated, over two million lives. This was its fourth appearance since the conquest. At its close it was estimated that the whole Indian population of Mexico had been reduced to about 1,700,000 souls. In 1583 and 1597 there were local revolts under chiefs of the ancient Cocom royal family. By this latter date it was estimated that the native population of Mexico had declined by three-fourths since the discovery, through massacre, famine, disease, and oppression. Up to 1593 over 150 Franciscan monks had been engaged in missionary work in Yucatan.

203 The Maya history of the seventeenth century is chiefly one of revolts, viz., 1610-33, 1636-44, 1653, 1669, 1670, and about 1675. Of all these, that of 1636-44 was the most extensive and serious, resulting in a temporary revival of the old heathen rites. In 1697 the island capital of the Itzá, in Lake Petén, Guatemala, was stormed by Governor Martín de Ursua, and with it fell the last stronghold of the independent Maya. Here, also, the manuscripts discovered were destroyed. In 1728 Bishop Juan Gomez Parada died, beloved by the Indians for the laws which he had procured mitigating the harshness of their servitude. The reimposition of the former hard conditions brought about another revolt in 1761, led by the chief Jacinto Canek, and ending, as usual, in the defeat of the Indians, the destruction of their chief stronghold, and the death of their leader under horrible torture.

204 In 1847, taking advantage of the Government's difficulties with the United States, and urged on by their "unappeasable hatred toward their ruler from the earliest time of the Spanish conquest", the Maya again broke out in general rebellion, with the declared purpose of driving all the whites, half-breeds and negroes from the peninsula, in which they were so far successful that all the fugitives who escaped the wholesale massacres fled to the coast, whence most of them were taken off by ships from Cuba. Arms and ammunition for the rising were freely supplied to the Indians by the British traders of Belize. In 1851 the rebel Maya established their headquarters at Chan-Santa-Cruz in the eastern part of the peninsula. In 1853 it seemed as if a temporary understanding had been reached, but next year hostilities began again. Two expeditions against the Maya stronghold were repulsed, Valladolid was besieged by the Indians, Yecax taken, and more than two thousand whites massacred. In 1860 the Mexican Colonel Acereto, with 3,000 men occupied Chan-Santa-Cruz, but was finally compelled to retire with the loss of 1,500 men killed, and to abandon his wounded-who were all butchered-as well as his artillery and supplies and all but a few hundred stand of small arms. The Indians burned and ravaged in every direction, nineteen flourishing towns being entirely wiped out, and the population in three districts being reduced from 97,000 to 35,000. The war of extermination continued, with savage atrocities, through 1864, when it gradually wore itself out, leaving the Indians still unsubdued and well supplied with arms and munitions of war from Belize. In 1868 it broke out again in resistance to the Juarez government. In 1871 a Mexican force again occupied Chan-Santa-Cruz, but retired without producing any permanent result. In 1901, after long preparation, a strong Mexican force invaded the territory of the independent Maya both by land and sea, stormed Chan-Santa-Cruz and, after determined resistance, drove the defenders into the swamps. The end is not yet, however, for, even in this year of 1910, Mexican troops are in the field to put down a serious rising in the northern part of the peninsula.

205 II. Institutions, Arts, and Literature

206 Under the ancient system, the Maya Government was an hereditary absolute monarchy, with a close union of the spiritual and temporal elements, the hereditary high priest, who was also king of the sacred city of Izamal, being consulted by the monarch on all important matters, besides having the care of ritual and ceremonials. On public occasions the king appeared dressed in flowing white robes, decorated with gold and precious stones, wearing on his head a golden circlet decorated with the beautiful quetzal plumes reserved for royalty, and borne upon a canopied palanquin. The provincial governors were nobles of the four royal families, and were supreme within their own governments. The rulers of towns and villages formed a lower order of nobility, not of royal blood. The king usually acted on the advice of a council of lords and priests. The lords alone were military commanders, and each lord and inferior official had for his support the produce of a certain portion of land which was cultivated in common by the people. They received no salary, and each was responsible for the maintenance of the poor and helpless of his district. The lower priesthood was not hereditary, but was appointed through the high priest. There was also a female priesthood, or vestal order, whose head was a princess of royal blood. The plebeians were farmers, artisans, or merchants; they paid taxes and military service, and each had his interest in the common land as well as his individual portion, which descended in the family and could not be alienated. Slaves also existed, the slaves being chiefly prisoners of war and their children, the latter of whom could become freemen by putting a new piece of unoccupied ground under cultivation. Society was organized upon the clan system, with descent in the male line, the chiefs being rather custodians for the tribe than owners, and having no power to alienate the tribal lands. Game, fish, and the salt marshes were free to all, with a certain portion to the lords. Taxes were paid in kind through authorized collectors. On the death of the owner, the property was divided equally among his nearest male heirs.

207 The more important cases were tried by a royal council presided over by the king, and lesser cases by the provincial rulers or local judges, according to their importance, usually with the assistance of a council and with an advocate for the defense. Crimes were punished with death-frequently by throwing over a precipice- enslavement, fines, or rarely, by imprisonment. The code was merciful, and even murder could sometimes be compounded by a fine. Children were subject to parents until of an age to marry, which for boys was about twenty. The children of the common people were trained only in the occupation of their parents, but those of the nobility were highly educated, under the care of the priests, in writing, music, history, war, and religion. The daughters of nobles were strictly secluded, and the older boys in each village lived and slept apart in a public building. Birthdays and other anniversaries were the occasions of family feasts.

208 Marriage between persons of the same gen was forbidden, and those who violated this law were regarded as outcasts. Marriage within certain other degrees of relationship-as with the sister of a deceased wife, or with a mother's sister-was also prohibited. Polygamy was unknown, but concubinage was permitted, and divorce was easy. Marriages were performed by the priests, with much ceremonial rejoicing, and preceded by a solemn confession and a baptismal rite, known as the "rebirth", without which there could be no marriage. No one could marry out of his own rank or without the consent of the chief of the district. Religious ritual was elaborate and imposing, with frequent festival occasions in honour of the gods of the winds, the rain, the cardinal points, the harvest, of birth, death, and war, with special honours to the deified national heroes Itzamná and Kukulcan. The whole country was dotted with temples, usually great stone-built pyramids, while certain places-as the sacred city of Izamal and the island of Cozumel-were places of pilgrimage. There was a special "feast of all the gods". The prevailing mildness of the Maya cult was in strong contrast to the bloody ritual of the Aztec. Human sacrifice was forbidden by Kukulcan, and crept in only in later years. It was never a frequent or prominent feature, excepting at Chichen-Itzá, where it at least became customary, on occasion of some great national crisis, to sacrifice hundreds of voluntary victims of their own race, frequently virgins, by drowning them in one of the subterranean rock wells or cenotes, after which the bodies were drawn out and buried.

209 The Maya farmer cultivated corn, beans, cacao, chile, maguey, bananas, and cotton, besides giving attention to bees, from which he obtained both honey and wax. Various fermented drinks were prepared from corn, maguey, and honey. They were much given to drunkenness, which was so common as hardly to be considered disgraceful. Chocolate was the favourite drink of the upper classes. Cacao beans, as well as pieces of copper, were a common medium of exchange. Very little meat was eaten, except at ceremonial feasts, although the Maya were expert hunters and fishers. A small "barkless" dog was also eaten. The ordinary garment of men was a cotton breechcloth wrapped around the middle, with sometimes a sleeveless shirt, either white or dyed in colors. The women wore a skirt belted at the waist, and plaited their hair in long tresses. Sandals were worn by both sexes. Tattooing and head-flattening were occasionally practised, and the face and body were always painted. The Maya, then as now, were noted for personal neatness and frequent use of both cold and hot baths. They were expert and determined warriors, using the bow and arrow, the dart with throwing-stick, the wooden sword edged with flints, the lance, sling, copper axe, shield of reeds, and protective armour of heavy quilted cotton. They understood military tactics and signalling with drum and whistle, and knew how to build barricades and dig trenches. Noble prisoners were usually sacrificed to the gods, while those of ordinary rank became slaves. Their object in war was rather to make prisoners than to kill. As the peninsula had no mines, the Maya were without iron or any metal excepting a few copper utensils and gold ornaments imported from other countries. Their tools were almost entirely of flint or other stone, even for the most intricate monumental carving. For household purposes they used clay pottery, dishes of shell, or gourds. Their pottery was of notable excellence, as were also their weaving, dyeing, and feather work. Along the coast they had wooden dugout canoes capable of holding fifty persons.

210 They had a voluminous literature, covering the whole range of native interests either written, in their own peculiar "calculiform" hieroglyphic characters, in books of maguey paper or parchment which were bound in word, or carved upon the walls of their public buildings. Twenty-seven parchment books were publicly destroyed by Bishop Landa at Mani in 1562, others elsewhere in the peninsula, others again at the storming of the Itzá capital in 1697, and almost all that have come down to us are four codices, as they are called, viz., the "Codex Troano", published at Paris in 1869; another codex apparently connected with the first published at Paris in 1882; the "Codex Peresianus", published at Paris in 1869-71; and the "Dresden Codex", originally mistakenly published as an Aztec book in Kingsborough's great work on the "Antiquities of Mexico" (London, 1830-48). Besides these pre-Spanish writings, of which there is yet no adequate interpretation, we have a number of later works written in the native language by Christianized Maya, shortly after the conquest. Several of these have been brought together by Brinton in his "Maya Chronicles". The intricate calendar system of the Maya, which exceeded in elaboration that of the Aztec, Zapotec, or any other of the cultured native races, has been the subject of much discussion. It was based on a series of katuns, or cycles, consisting of 20 (or 24), 52, and 260 years, and by its means they carried their history down for possibly thirteen centuries, the completion of each lesser katun being noted by the insertion of a memorial stone in the wall of the great temple at Mayapan.

211 The art in which above all the Maya excelled, and through which they are best known, is architecture. The splendid ruins of temples, pyramids, and great cities-some of which were intact and occupied at the time of the conquest-scattered by scores and hundreds throughout the forests of Yucatan, have been the wonder and admiration of travellers for over half a century, since they were first brought prominently to notice by Stephens. Says Brinton: "The material was usually a hard limestone, which was polished and carved, and imbedded in a firm mortar. Such was also the character of the edifices of the Quiches and Cakchiquels of Guatemala. In view of the fact that none of these masons knew the plumb-line or the square, the accuracy of the adjustments is remarkable. Their efforts at sculpture were equally bold. They did not hesitate to attempt statues in the round of life size and larger, and the façades of the edifices were covered with extensive and intricate designs cut in high relief upon the stones. All this was accomplished without the use of metal tools, as they did not have even the bronze chisels familiar to the Aztecs." The interior walls were also frequently covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions carved in the stone or wood, or painted upon the plaster. Among the most noted of the Maya ruins are those of Palenque (in Chiapas), Uxmal, Chichen-Itzá, and Maypan.

212 The Maya language has received much attention from missionaries and scientists from an early period. Of grammars the earliest is the "Arte y Vocabulario de la lengua de Yucatan" of Luis de Villalpando, published about 1555. Others of note are "Arte de la Lengua Maya" by Father Gabriel San Buenaventura (Mexico, 1684), and republished by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg in volume two of the "Mission Scientifique au Mexique" (Paris, 1870); "Arte de el Idioma Maya" by Father Padro de Santa Rosa Maria Beltran, a native of Yucatan and instructor in the Maya language in the Franciscan convent of Mérida (Mexico, 1746, and Mérida, 1859); "Gramática Yucateca" by Father Joaquin Ruz, of the Franciscan convent of Mérida, also a native of Yucatan and "the most fluent of the writers in the Maya language that Yucatan has produced" (Mérida, 1844), and republished in an English translation by the Baptist missionary, Rev. John Kingdom (Belize, 1847). Each of these writers was also the author of other works in the language.

213 Of published dictionaries may be mentioned: first and earliest, a "Diccionario", credited to Father Villalpando (Mexico, 1571); then "Diccionario de la Lengua Maya", by Juan Perez (Mérida, 1866-77); and "Dictionnaire, Grammaire at Chrestomathie de la langue Maya", by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourgourg (Paris, 1872). The most valuable dictionaries of the language are still in manuscript. Chief is the one known as the Diccionario del Convento de Motul" from the name of the Franciscan convent in Yucatan in which it was found; it is now in the Carter Brown Library at Providence. It is beautifully written and is supposed to be a copy of an original written by a Franciscan priest, who was evidently a master of the language, about 1590. "In extent the dictionary is not surpassed by that of any aboriginal language of America" (Bartlett). Other manuscript dictionaries are those of the Convent of Mérida (about 1640); and one by the Convent of Ticul (about 1690); and one by the Rev. Alexander Henderson, a Methodist missionary of Belize (1859-66), now the property of the Bureau of American Ethnology. (See also Brinton, "Maya Chronicles", and Maya titles in Pilling, "Bibliography, Proofsheets" (Washington, 1885).)

214 Physically, the Maya are dark, short, muscular, and broad-headed. Intellectually, they are alert, straight-forward, reliable, of a cheerful disposition, and neat and orderly habits. Their wars with Mexico have been waged, however, with the utmost savagery, the provocation being as great on the other side. Their daily life differs little from that of the ordinary Mexican peasant, their ordinary dwellings being thatched huts, their dress the common white shirt and trousers, with sandals and straw hat, for men, and for women white embroidered skirt and sleeveless gown. They cultivate the ordinary products of the region, including sugar and hennequin hemp, while the independent bands give considerable attention to hunting. While they are all now Catholics, with resident priests in all the towns, that fact in no way softens their animosity toward the conquering race. They still keep up many of their ancient rites, particularly those relating to the planting and harvesting of the crops. Many of these survivals are described by Brinton in a chapter of his "Essays of an Americanist". The best recent account (1894) of the independent Maya is that of the German traveler Sapper, who praises in the highest terms their honesty, punctuality, hospitality, and peaceful family life. A translation of it is given in the Bowditch collection. At that time the Mexican government officially recognized three independent Maya states, or tribes in Southern and Eastern Yucatan, the most important being the hostiles of the Chan-Santa-Cruz district, estimated at not more than 10,000 souls as against about 40,000 at the outbreak of the rebellion of 1847. The other two bands together numbered perhaps as many, having decreased in about the same ratio.

215 James Mooney

Christian Mayer

199 Moravian astronomer, born at Mederizenhi in Moravia, 20 Aug., 1719, died at Heidelberg, 16 April, 1783. He entered the Society of Jesus at Mannheim on 26 Sept., 1745, and after completing his studies taught the humanities for some tirne at Aschaffenburg. He likewise cultivated his taste for mathematics, and later was appointed professor of mathematics and physics in the University of Heidelberg. In 1755 he was invited by the Elector Palatine Charles Theodore to construct and take charge of astronomical observatory at Mannheim. Here as well as at Schwetzingen, where he had also built an observatory, he carried on his observations which led to numerous memoirs, some of which were published in the "Philosophical Transactions" of London. One of his observations, recorded in the "Tables d'aberration et de mutation" (Mannheim, 1778) of his assistant Mesge, gave rise to much discussion. He claimed to have discovered that many of the more conspicuous stars in the southern heavens were surrounded by smaller stars, which he regarded as satellites. His contemporaries, including Herschel and Schröter, who were provided with much more powerful telescopes, failed to verify his observations. Mayer, however, defended their reality and replied to one of his critics, the well-known astronomer Father Höll, in a work entitled "Gründliche Vertheidigung neuer Beubachtungen von Fixstern-trabanten welche zu Mannheim auf der kurfürstl. Sternwarte endecket wordern sind", (Mannheim, 1778). In the following year he published a Latin work on the same subject. The observations, which were made in good faith, were evidently due to an optical illusion. Mayer spent some time at Paris in the interests of his science, and visited Germany in company with Cassini. Upon the invitation of Empress Catherine of Russia, he went to St. Petersburg to observe the transit of Venus in 1769. He was a member of numerous learned societies, including those of Mannheim, Munich, London, Bologna Göttingen, and Philadelphia. He published a number of memoirs, among which may be mentioned "Basis Palatina" (Mannheim, 1763), "Expositio de transitu Veneris" (St. Petersburg, 1769), "Pantometrum Pacechianum, seu instrumentum novum pro elicienda ex una statione distantia loci inaccessi" (Mannheim, 1762); "Nouvelle méthode pour lever en peu de temps et à peu de frais une carte générale et exacte de toute la Russie" (St. Petersburg, 1770); "Observations de la Comète de 1781" in the "Acts Acad. Petropolit." (1782), etc.

200 Henry M. Brock

Edward Mayhew

202 Born in 1569; died 14 September, 1625. He belonged to the old English family of Mayhew or Mayow of Winton, near Salisbury, Wiltshire, which had endured much persecution for the Faith. On 10 July, 1583, he entered with his elder brother Henry, the English College at Reims, where he displayed conspicuous talents, and received the tonsure and minor orders on 22 August, 1590. Thence proceeding to Rome, he there continued his studies until his ordination, after which he left for the English missions in 1595. Having served for twelve years on the mission as a secular priest, he joined the Benedictine Order, being professed by Dom Sigelbert Buckley, the sole survivor of the English congregation, in his cell at the Gatehouse prison, Westminster, on 21 November 1607. The old English congregation would thus have ended with Dom Buckley, had not Mayhez and other secular priest, Father Robert Sadler, sought profession, thus preserving its continuity to the present day. Under these two new members the English congregation began to revive. Becoming affiliated with the Spanish congregation in 1612, it was given an equal share in St. Lawrence's monastery at Dieulwart, Lorraine, henceforth the centre of the English congregation. Retiring from the English mission in 1613, Mayhew took up his residence at Dieulwart, where he filled the office of prior from 1613 to 1620. The union of the three congregations engaged on the English missions had for some time been canvassed, in 1617 Mayhew was appointed one of the nine definitors to bring this about. That of the English and Spanish congregations was accomplished by the Apostolic Brief, "Ex incumbenti", of August, 1619, but the members of the Italian congregation refused to become united. The zeal for the strict observance of the Benedictine Rule, so characteristic of Dieulwart, was in great part due to Mayhew's religious earnestness and strength of character. From 1623 until his death he acted as vicar to the nuns at Cambrai. His remains lie in the parish church at St. Vedast. The most important of Mayhew's works are: "Sacra Institutio Baptizandi etc." (Douai, 1604); "Treatise on the Groundes of the Olde and Newe Religion etc." (s. l., 1608); "Congregationis Anglicanae Ordinis S. Benedicti Trophaea" (2 vols., Reims, 1619, 1625).

203 Thomas Kennedy

Bl. Cuthbert Mayne

205 Martyr, b. at Yorkston, near Barnstaple, Devonshire (baptized 20 March, 1543-4); d. at Launceston, Cornwall, 29 Nov., 1577. He was the son of William Mayne; his uncle was a schismatical priest, who had him educated at Barnstaple Grammar School, and he was ordained a Protestant minister at the age of eighteen or nineteen. He then went to Oxford, first to St. Alban's Hall, then to St. John's College, where he took the degree of M.A. in 1570. He there made the acquaintance of Blessed Edmund Campion, Gregory Martin, the controversialist, Humphrey Ely, Henry Shaw, Thomas Bramston, O.S.B., Henry Holland, Jonas Meredith, Roland Russell, and William Wiggs. The above list shows how strong a Catholic leaven was still working at Oxford. Late in 1570 a letter from Gregory Martin to Blessed Cuthbert fell into the Bishop of London's hands. He at once sent a pursuivant to arrest Blessed Cuthbert and others mentioned in the letter. Blessed Cuthbert was in the country, and being warned by Blessed Thomas Ford, he evaded arrest by going to Cornwall, whence he arrived at Douai in 1573. Having become reconciled to the Church, he was ordained in 1575; in Feb., 1575-6 he took the degree of S.T.B. at Douai University; and on 24 April, 1576 he left for the English mission in the company of Blessed John Payne. Blessed Cuthbert took up his abode with the future confessor, Francis Tregian, of Golden, in St. Probus's parish, Cornwall. This gentleman suffered imprisonment and loss of possessions for this honour done him by our martyr. At his house our martyr was arrested 8 June, 1577, by the high sheriff, Grenville, who was knighted for the capture. He was brought to trial in September; meanwhile his imprisonment was of the harshest order. His indictment under statutes of 1 and 13 Elizabeth was under five counts: first, that he had obtained from the Roman See a "faculty", containing absolution of the queen's subjects; second, that he had published the same at Golden; third, that he had taught the ecclesiastical authority of the pope in Launceston Gaol; fourth, that he had brought into the kingdom an Agnus Dei and had delivered the same to Mr. Tregian; fifth, that he had said Mass.

206 As to the first and second counts, the martyr showed that the supposed "faculty" was merely a copy printed at Douai of an announcement of the Jubilee of 1575, and that its application having expired with the end of the jubilee, he certainly had not published it either at Golden or elsewhere. As to the third count, he maintained that he had said nothing definite on the subject to the three illiterate witnesses who asserted the contrary. As to the fourth count, he urged that the fact that he was wearing an Agnus Dei at the time of his arrest was no evidence that he had brought it into the kingdom or delivered it to Mr. Tregian. As to the fifth count, he contended that the finding of a Missal, a chalice, and vestments in his room did not prove that he had said Mass.

207 Nevertheless the jury found him guilty of high treason on all counts, and he was sentenced accordingly. His execution was delayed because one of the judges, Jeffries, altered his mind after sentence and sent a report to the Privy Council. They submitted the case to the whole Bench of Judges, which was inclined to Jeffries's view. Nevertheless, for motives of policy, the Council ordered the execution to proceed. On the night of 27 November his cell was seen by the other prisoners to be full of a strange bright light. The details of his martyrdom must be sought in the works hereinafter cited. It is enough to say that all agree that he was insensible, or almost so, when he was disembowelled. A rough portrait of the martyr still exists; and portions of his skull are in various places, the largest being in the Carmelite Convent, Lanherne, Cornwall.

208 Camm, Lives of the English Martyrs, II (London, 1905), 204-222, 656; Pollen, Cardinal Allen's Briefe Historief (London, 1908), 104-110; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, I; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council (London, 1890-1907), IX, 375, 390; X, 6, 7, 85.

209 John B. Wainewright.

Maynooth College

208 The National College of Saint Patrick, at Maynooth in County Kildare, about twelve miles from Dublin, founded in the year 1795. Ireland at that date still had her own Parliament; and, although Catholics could not sit in it, the spirit of toleration and liberty which had swept over the United States and France could not be excluded from its debates. Several relaxations had already been granted in the application of the penal laws, and it is to the credit of Irish Protestants that during their short period of Parliamentary liberty (1782-1801), they could have entered so heartily on the path of national brotherhood, and have given to the world two such illustrious names as Edmund Burke and Henry Grattan. It was to these two men, more than to any statesmen of their time, that the foundation of Maynooth College may be ascribed. Other circumstances were also favourable. On the one hand, the programme of the "United Irishmen" (1798) proclaimed the doctrine of universal toleration and liberty of conscience. On the other hand, the British Government was glad of an opportunity to withdraw young Irish ecclesiastics as far as possible from the revolutionary influences to which they were exposed on the Continent. Moreover, soldiers were needed at a time when war was raging or threatening on all sides, and it had become necessary to conciliate the class from amongst whom the best Irish soldiers could be recruited.

209 In 1794 a memorial was presented to the Irish viceroy by Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, on behalf of all the Catholic prelates of Ireland. This memorial set forth that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland had never been charged with disaffection to the State or irregularity in their conduct; that, on the contrary, they had been complimented more than once for inculcating obedience to the laws and veneration of His Majesty's royal person and government. It was then pointed out that the foreign colleges, in which about 400 students were educated for the Irish mission, had been closed, and their funds confiscated; and that, even had they remained open, it would no longer be safe to send Irish students abroad, "lest they should be contaminated with the contagion of sedition and infidelity" and thus become the means of introducing into Ireland the pernicious maxims of a licentious philosophy. The memorial was favourably received, and, in the following year Mr. Pelham, the Secretary of State, introduced his Bill for the foundation of a Catholic college. The Bill passed rapidly through all its stages and received the royal assent on 5 June, 1795. The management of the institution was given to a Board of Trustees who were to appoint all the officers, the president, masters, fellows, and scholars, to fix their salaries and make all necessary by-laws, rules, and statutes. No Catholic could act as trustee, or fill any other office, or be admitted as a student, who did not first take the oath of allegiance prescribed for Catholics in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of George III. No Protestant or son of a Protestant could be received in the new Academy under the severest pains and penalties. The Lord Chancellor, however, and several judges of the high courts, were to act as Trustees ex officio. The endowment voted by Parliament was £8,000 (about $40,000) year. Dr. Thomas Hussey, a graduate of the Irish College of Salamanca, who had long been chaplain to the Spanish Embassy in London, was appointed first president. The next step was to fix upon the site. At first Dublin, or the suburbs of Dublin, seemed to offer the chief advantages; finally, however, after a variety of proposals had been considered, Maynooth was chosen, because it was considered favourable to the morals and studies of a college; also, because the Duke of Leinster, who had always been a friend of the Catholics, wished to have the new institution on his estate. The money granted by Parliament was voted for a Catholic college for the education of the Irish clergy: that was the express intention of the Government, but, as the Act was drawn in general terms, the trustees proceeded to erect a college for laymen in connection with the ecclesiastical establishment. This college was suppressed by the Government in 1801. Another lay college was then erected in the immediate vicinity of the ecclesiastical college, and was continued up to 1817 under lay trustees. The establishment of various colleges in other parts of the country for the education of laymen made it unnecessary. Not long after the foundation of Maynooth, the whole country being convulsed by the rebellion of 1798, the general disturbance found an echo in the new institution. Of its sixty-nine students no fewer than eighteen or twenty were expelled for having taken the rebel oath.

210 A valuable endowment was obtained for the new college on the death of John Butler, twelfth Baron Dunboyne, who had been Bishop of Cork from 1763 to 1786. On the death of his nephew, Pierce Butler, the eleventh baron, the bishop succeeded to the title and estates. This temporal dignity, however, proved his undoing; he gave up his bishopric, abjured the Catholic Faith, and took a wife. In his last illness he repented and endeavoured to make reparation for his conduct by willing his property in Meath, valued at about £1,000 (about $5,000) a year, to the newly founded college. The will was disputed at law by the next of kin. The case of the college was pleaded by John Philpot Curran, and a compromise was effected by which about one half of the property was secured to the college. The income from the bequest became the foundation of a fund for the maintenance of a higher course of ecclesiastical studies in the case of such students as should have distinguished themselves in the ordinary course. This is still known as the "Dunboyne Establishment". After the union with England the financial subsidy to Maynooth from the State underwent various changes and gave rise to debates of considerable acrimony in the House of Commons. In 1845, however, the government of Sir Robert Peel raised the grant from £9,500 (about $47,500) to £26,000 ($230,000) a year and placed on the consolidated fund, where it formed part of the ordinary national debt and was free from annual discussion on the estimates. Sir Robert Peel also granted a sum of £30,000 (about $150,000) for suitable buildings; and it was then that the Gothic structure designed by Pugin, one of the handsomest college buildings in Europe, was erected. The disestablishment of the Irish Church by Mr. Gladstone in 1869, had serious financial results for Maynooth which was also disendowed; but a sum of about £370,000 (about $1,850,000) was given once for all to enable the college to continue its work. This sum was invested for the most part in land, and has been very ably managed by the trustees. Some of the most prominent Catholic laymen in the country, such as the Earls of Fingall and Kenmare, had acted as Trustees up to the date of the disendowment; from that time no further lay trustees were appointed.

211 Among the most distinguished of the past presidents of Maynooth were Hussey, Renehan, and Russell, a full account of whom is to be found the College History by the Most Rev. Dr. Heavy, Archbishop of Tuam. Dr. Hussey was the first president, and to his tact, judgment and skill the success of the original project was mainly due. Dr. Renehan was a distinguished Irish scholar, who did a great deal to rescue Irish manuscripts from destruction. Dr. Russell is chiefly known for his "Life of Cardinal Mezzofanti" and for the part he took in the conversion of Cardinal Newman. Amongst the most distinguished teachers and men of letters who shed lustre on the college during its first century were John MacHale, Paul O'Brien, Daniel Murray, Edmond O'Reilly, Nicholas Callan, Patrick Murray, Mathew Kelly, John O'Hanlon, William Jennings, James O'Kane, and Gerald Molloy. It is interesting to notice that, on the staff of the college in its early years, were four French refugees—the Rev. Peter J. Delort, the Rev. Andrew Darre, the Rev. Louis Delahogue and the Rev. Francis Anglade—all Doctors of the Sorbonne. On the original staff may also be found the name of the Rev. John C. Eustace, author of the well-known "Classical Tour in Italy". Amongst the distinguished personages who have visited the college were Thackeray, Montalembert, Carlyle, Robert Owen, Cardinal Perraud, Huxley, the late Empress of Austria, and King Edward VII. The college possesses several memorials of the Empress of Austria, who lived in the neighbourhood during her visits to Ireland. The Centenary of the foundation of the college was celebrated in 1895, on which occasion congratulations were sent from all the Catholic educational centres in the world. The college library contains upwards of 40,000 volumes. It possesses a great many rare and precious works and some very valuable manuscripts. The Aula Maxima which was opened about the year 1893 was the gift to his Alma Mater of the Right Rev. Mgr. MacMahon of the Catholic University at Washington, D. C., and previously of New York. The chapel which has just been completed is a work of rare beauty both in design and ornamentation. Maynooth has already sent out into the world upwards of 7,000 priests. Her alumni are in all lands and in almost every position that an ecclesiastic could occupy. The average number of students in recent years is about 600. The ordinary theological course is four years, and the extra course of the "Dunboyne Establishment" three years more. Students in arts and philosophy have to graduate in the National University of which Maynooth is now a "recognized College".

212 HEALY, Maynooth College, Its Centenary History (Dublin, 1895); Calendarium Collegii Sancti Patricii (Dublin); A Record of the Centenary Celebration. . .Maynooth College (Dublin, 1895); Cornwallis Correspondence: Memoirs of Viscount Castlereagh; Life and Times of Henry Grattan; Hansard's Parliamentary Debates; Correspondence of Edmund Burke; GLADSTONE, The State in its Relation to the Church; HOGAN, Maynooth College and the Laity (Dublin).

213 J.F. Hogan

School of Mayo

211 (Irish Magh Eo, which means, according to Colgan, the Plain of the Oaks, and, according to O'Donovan, the Plain of the Yews).

212 The School of Mayo was situated in the present parish of Mayo, County Mayo, almost equidistant from the towns of Claremorris and Castlebar. The founder, St. Colman, who flourished about the middle of the seventh century, was in all probability a native of the West of Ireland, and made his ecclesiastical studies at Iona during the abbacy of the renowned Segenius. After the death of Finian, the second Bishop of Lindisfarne, Colman was appointed to succeed him. His episcopate was much disturbed by a fierce renewal of the Easter Controversy. Colman vigorously advocated the old Irish custom, and cited the example of his predecessors, but all to no effect. At a synod specially summoned to meet at Whitby in 664, the Roman method of calculation triumphed, and Colman, unwilling to abandon the practice of the "holy elders of the Irish Church", resolved to quit Lindisfarne forever.

213 In 668 he crossed the seas to his native land again, and in a remote island on the western coast called Inishbofin, he built a monastery and school. These things are clearly set out in the "Historia Ecclesiastica" of Bede, who then proceeds to describe how they led to the founding of the great school of Mayo. "Colman, the Irish Bishop", says Bede, "departed from Britain and took with him all the Irish that he had assembled in the Island of Lindisfarne, and also about thirty of the English nation who had been instructed in the monastic life. . . .Afterwards he retired to a small island which is to the west of Ireland, and at some distance from the coast, called in the language of the Irish, Inishbofinde [island of the white cow]. Arriving there he built a monastery, and placed in it the monks he brought with him of both nations".

214 It appears, however, the Irish and English monks could not agree. "Then Colman sought to put an end to their dissensions, and travelling about at length found a place in Ireland fit to build a monastery, which in the language of the Irish is called Magh Eo (Mayo)". Later on we are told by the same historian that this monastery became an important and flourishing institution, and even an episcopal see.

215 Though Colman, we may assume, lived mainly with his own countrymen at Inishbofin, he took a deep and practical interest in his new foundation at Mayo—"Mayo of the Saxons", as it came to be called. In the year 670, with his consent, its first canonical abbot was appointed. This was St. Gerald, the son of a northern English king, who, annoyed at the way Colman's most cherished convictions had been slighted at Whitby, resolved to follow him to Ireland. The school gained greatly in fame for sanctity and learning under this youthful abbot. About 679 St. Adamnan, the illustrious biographer of St. Columba, visited Mayo and according to some writers, ruled there for seven years after Gerald's death. This latter statement is not, on the face of it, improbable if Gerald, as Colgan thinks, did not live after 697; but the Four Masters give the date of his death as 13 March, 726, and the "Annals of Ulster" put the event as late as 731. After Gerald's death we have only the record of isolated facts concerning the school he ruled so wisely and loved so well, but they are often facts of considerable interest and importance. We read, for example, that the monastery was burned in 783, and again in 805; also—but only in the old Life of St. Gerald—that it was plundered by Turgesius the Dane in 818. That the monastic grounds were regarded as exceptionally holy we can gather from the entry that Domhnall, son of Torlough O'Conor, Lord of North Connacht, "the glory and the moderator and the good adviser of the Irish people" (d. 1176), was interred therein. That it had the status of an episcopal see long after the Synod of Kells (1152), is clear from the entry under the date of 1209, recording the death of "Cele O'Duffy, Bishop of Magh Eo of the Saxons.".

216 Mayo, like the other ancient Irish monastic schools, suffered from the raids of native and foreigner, especially during the fourteenth century. But it survived them all, for the death under date 1478 is recorded of a bishop—"Bishop Higgens of Mayo of the Saxons". The time at which the See of Mayo, on the ground that it contained not a cathedral but a parochial church, was annexed to Tuam, cannot with certainty be ascertained, but as far back as 1217, during the reign of Honorius III, the question was before the Roman authorities for discussion. It was probably not settled definitively for centuries after. James O'Healy, "Bishop of Mayo of the Saxons", was put to death for the Catholic Faith at Kilmallock in 1579.

217 BEDE, Historia Eccleiastica (London, 1907); COLGAN, Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae (Louvain, 1645); O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, s.d.); HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (5th ed., Dublin, 1906).

218 John Healy

Mayo Indians

214 An important tribe occupying some fifteen towns on Mayo and Fuerte rivers, southern Sonora and northern Sinaloa, Mexico. Their language is known as Cahita, being the same as that spoken, with dialectic differences, by their neighbours, the Tehueco, and Yaqui, and belonging to the Piman branch of the great Shoshonean stock. The name Mayo is said by Ribas to be properly that of their principal river and to signify "boundary". The known history of the tribe begins in 1532 with the naval expedition of Diego Hertado de Mendoza, who landing at the mouth of the Fuerte, went up the river to the villages, where he was killed with his companions while asleep. In 1533 a land expedition under Diego de Guzman crossed through their country and penetrated to beyond the Yaqui river in the north. In 1609-10 they aided the Spaniards against the Yaqui, the two tribes being hereditary enemies, and on the suppression of the revolt, it was made a condition of the agreement that the Yaqui should live at peace with the Mayo. In 1613, at their own request, the first mission was established in their territory by the Jesuit Father Pedro Mendez, who had visited them some years before, over 3000 persons receiving baptism within fifteen days in a population variously estimated at from nine to twenty thousand. Within a short time seven mission churches was built in as many towns of the tribe. This was the beginning of regular mission work in Sonora.

215 In 1740 the Mayo, hitherto friendly as a tribe, joined the Yaqui in revolt, apparently at the instance of Spanish officials jealous of missionary influence. The churches were burned, priests and settlers driven out of the country; and although the rising w as put down in the following year after hard fighting, it marked the beginning of the decline of the missions which culminated with the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767. After their departure, the Indians were for some time without religious teachers, but are now served by secular priests. In 1825-7, they again joined the Yaqui, led by the famous Bandera (Juzucanea) in revolt against Mexican aggression, and have several times since taken occasion to show their sympathies with their fighting kinsmen. The Mayo are sedentary and industrious farmers and mine labourers, and skillful artisans in the towns. They cultivate corn, squash, beans, tobacco, cotton and maguey, from which last they distill the mescal intoxicant. Their houses are light structures of cane and poles, thatched with palm leaves. They are all Catholic and very much Mexicanized, though they retain their language, and have many of the old Indian ideas still latent in them. Their principal town is Santa Cruz de Mayo, and they are variously estimated at from 7,000 to 10,000 souls. The most important study of the language, the Cahita, is a grammar (Arte) by an anonymous Jesuit published in Mexico in 1737.

216 ALEGRE, Hist. de la Compañia de Jesus (Mexico, 1841); BANCRFOFT, North Mexico States (San Francisco, 1886-9); RIBAS, Triumphos de Neustra Santa Fe (Madrid, 1645); Ward, Mexico in 1827 (London, 1828).

217 James Mooney

John Mayor

217 (MAJOR, MAIR; also called JOANNES MAJORIS and HADDINGTONUS SCOTUS)

218 A Scotch philosopher and historian, b. at Gleghornie near Haddington, 1496; d. at St. Andrew's, 1550. He studied at Oxford, Cambridge, and Paris, where he was graduated as master of arts in the College of St. Barbe in 1494 and as doctor of theology in the College of Montaigu in 1505. He spent the greater part of his remaining life as professor of logic and theology; from 1505-18 at the University of Paris, from 1518-23 at the University of Glasgow, from 1523-5 at the University of St. Andrew's, and from 1525-1530 again at Paris. In 1530 he returned to St. Andrew's and was made provost of St. Salvator's College, a position which he occupied until his death. One of the greatest scholastic philosophers of his times, he had among his pupils the future Scotch reformers John Knox, Patrick Hamilton, and George Buchanan. In philosophy he was the chief exponent of the nominalistic or terministic tendency which was then prevalent at the University of Paris, while, as a canonist, he held that the chief ecclesiastical authority does not reside in the pope but in the whole Church. In like manner he held that the source of civil authority lies with the people who transfer it to the ruler and can wrest it from him, even by force, if necessary. He remained a Catholic until his death, though in 1549 he advocated a national Church for Scotland. His numerous literary productions were all written in Latin. His chief work, "Historia majoris Britannae, tam Angliae quam Scotiae" (Paris, 1521 and Edinburgh, 1740), translated into English for the first time by Archibald Constable, "History of the Greater Britain, both England and Scotland" (Edinburgh, 1892), is written in barbarous Latin, but truthfully and faithfully portrays the author's vigour and spirit of independence. His other works are mostly philosophical, viz: a commentary on Peter Lombard's Books of Sentences (Paris, 1508), "Introductorium" or a commentary on Aristotle's dialectics (Paris, 1508), the lectures which he delivered on logic in the College of Montaigu (Lyons, 1516), commentaries on Aristotle's physical and ethical writings (Paris, 1526), "Quaestiones logicales" (Paris, 1528), a commentary on the four Gospels (Paris, 1529). He was also the first to edit the so-called "Reportia Parisiensia" of Duns Scotus (Paris, 1517-8).

219 MACKAY, Life of John Major, prefixed to Constable's tr. of Mayor's History (Edinburgh, 1892). The preceding work contains also a complete list of works written by Major, and an estimate of them by the translator; BROWN, George Buchanan, Humanist and Reformer (Edinburgh, 1890), 38-41; LAW, John Major in Scottish Review, July 1892.

220 Michael Ott

Mayoruna Indians

220 A noted and savage tribe of Panoan linguistic stock, ranging the forests between the Ucayali, the Yavari and the Marañon (Amazon) rivers in north-east Peru and the adjacent portions of Brazil. From the fact that some of them are of light skin and wear beards, a legend has grown up that they are descended from Spanish soldiers of Ursua's expedition (1569), but it is probable that the difference comes from later admixture of captive blood. As a tribe they are full-blooded and typically Indian. It has been suggested that the story may have originated from the confusion of "Marañones", the name given to the followers of Ursau and Aguirre, with Mayorunas, which seems to be from the Quicha language of Peru. Markham interprets the name as "Men of Muyu" (Muyu-runa), indicating an ancient residence about Moyobamba (Muyubamba), farther to the west. One of their subtribes is known as "Barbudo" (Spanish, Bearded). Other subtribes are Itacule, Musimo or Musquima, Urarina. The Mayoruna tribes were among those gathered into the missions of the Mainas province (see MAINA INDIANS) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, being represented in the missions of San Joaquin (Mayoruna proper), Nuestra Señora del Carmen (Mayoruna proper), and San Xavier (Urarina and Itucale. By the repeated attacks of the Portuguese slave-hunters (see MAMELUCO) between 1680 and 1710, and the revolts of the mission Indians in 1695 and 1767 the Mayoruna were driven to take refuge in their forests and are now wholly savage and particularly hostile to either whites or Indians who enter their territory, even successfully repelling a joint government exploring expedition in 1866. In person they are tall and well-formed, with rather delicate features, going perfectly naked, with flowing hair cut across the forehead. Instead of bows they use spears, clubs, and blowguns, and are famous for the strength of the deadly curari poison with which they tip their arrows. They avoid river banks and do not use canoes. The charge of cannibalism has not been proven. (See also PANO).

221 RODRIGUEZ, Amazonas y Marañon (Madrid, 1684); HERVAS, Catalogo de las Lenguas (Madrid, 1800); MARKHAM, Tribes in the Valleys of the Amazons in Journ. Anth. Inst., XXIV (London, 1885); BRINTON, The American Race (New York, 1891).

222 James Mooney

Prefecture Apostolic of Mayotte, Nossi-Bé, and Comoro

223 Prefecture Apostolic of Mayotte, Nossi-Be, and Comoro (MAYOTTÆ, NOSSIBEÆ, ET COMORÆ).

224 Mayotte is the farthest south and most important of the group of Comoro Islands: Mayotte (Maote), Anjuan (Inzuani), Mohilla (Moheli), and Great Comoro (Komoro, i.e. where there is fire, or Angazidya). These islands, with Nossi-Bé (large island) and Santa Maria (Nossi Burai, Nossi Ibrahim), form the archipelago known as "the Satellites of Madagascar". The Comoro Islands, with their craggy evergreen shores, look like the cones of submerged groves separated from the mainland by deep abysses. The summits are not all of the same altitude; the highest point of Mayotte is not over 1800 feet, where the highest peak of Anjuan is about 5000 feet, while the central cone of Great Comoro, whose volcanic activity is not yet exhausted, rises to over 7000 feet. Two monsoons, consequently two seasons, alternately affect the climate of the archipelago, which is sometimes visited by cyclones. The soil of these islands is very fertile, and produces in abundance vanilla, cloves, sugar-cane, coffee, etc. The total population is about 80,000, mostly African negroes, often erroneously called Makoas (a Mozambique tribe). There are also some Sakalavas from Madagascar, mostly former slaves freed when the islands were occupied by the French. This Comoro Archipelago was for many centuries an Arabian colony and was once very prosperous. As they navigated along the African coast, the merchants of Idumea and Yemen created a special and interesting type, the Comorinos. Commingled with these Arabian half-breeds, once the sole owners of the country, there are now Banians from Cutch and Hindus from Bombay, who carry on almost the entire commerce. There are also a few European or creole planters and officials from Reunion or Mauritius. In 1843 the French Government, called in by the sultan, took possession of Mayotte, which became, with Nossi-Bé, a post of surveillance over Madagascar. All these islands now form a French colony. In 1844, Mayotte, Nossi-Bé, and the Comoros were made an Apostolic prefecture and confided to the Fathers of the Holy Ghost. In 1898, when the same missionaries were given the ecclesiastical administration of Northern Madagascar, these smaller islands and Santa Maria were attached to the Apostolic Vicariate at Diego Suarez. Santa Maria and Nossi-Bé have resident missionaries; the other islands are regularly visited.

225 The population of these islands is largely Mohammedan and therefore strongly anti-Christian; for this reason little religious progress is made. In all of the islands there are hardly three or four thousand Catholics. There are no Protestants.

226 Missiones Catholicæ (Rome, 1907).

227 Alexandre Le Roy

Beda Mayr

226 A Bavarian Benedictine philosopher, apologist, and poet, b. 15 January, 1742 at Daiting near Augsburg; d. 28 April, 1794, in the monastery of Heillgenkreuz in Donauworth. After studying at Scheyern, Augsburg, Munich and Freiburg im Breisgau, he took vows in the Benedictine monastey of Heiligenkreuz on 29 September, 1762, studied theology at the common study-house of the Bavarian Benedictines in Benediktbeuern, was ordained priest on January, 1766, taught mathematics, philosophy, rhetoric, theology arld canon law at his monastery, where he was also librarian and, for some time, prior. The last 28 years of his life he spent in his monastery, with the exception of four years during which he was pastor of Mundling. He was an exemplary religious and a popular preacher, but, as a philosopher, he was imbued with the subjectivistic criticism of Kant and, as a theologian, he was irenic beyond measure. In a letter to Henry Braun, superintendent of the Bavarian schools, he sets forth the opinion that a unification of the Catholic and the Protestant religion is possible. Braun published this letter without the consent of the author under the title "Der erste Schritt zur künftigen Vereinigung der katholischen und evangelischen Kirche" (Munich, 1778). In consequence Mayr was censured by the Bishop of Augsburg and temporarily forbidden to teach theology. His chief work, "Vertheidigung der natürlichen, christlichen und katholischen Religion nach den Bedürfnissen unserer Zeiten" in three parts (Augsburg, 1787-90)) is equally irenic and permeated with the philosophy of Kant. It was placed on the Index in 1792 and ably refuted by the ex-Jesuit Hochbichler ex-Jesuit Hoehbichler (Augsburg, 1790). Lindner (infra) enumerates 58 literary productions of Mayr. They include 21 dramas, four volumes of sermons (Augsburg, 1777), numerous occasional poems, and various treatises on philosophical, theological, and mathematical subjects.

227 BAADER, Lexikon verstorbener baierischer Schriftsteller des 18 u .19 Jahrh., I, ii (Augsburg u. Leipzig, 1825) 12-16; LINDNER, Die Schriftsteller des Benediktiner Ordens im heutigen Konigreich Bayern seit 1750, II (Ratisbon, 1880), 137-41.

228 Michael Ott

Francis Mayron

229 (De Mayronis)

230 Born about 1280, probably at Mayronnes, Department of Basses-Alpes, he entered the Franciscan order at the neighbouring Digne (or Sisteron). He had been teaching at the University of Paris for a long time as bachelor of theology when, on 24 May, 1323, John XXII at the request of King Robert of Naples, commanded the chancellor of the university to confer the degree of master of theology upon him. On 27 Sept., 1317, St. Elzear de Sabran died at Paris in Francis's arms. Francis was afterwards sent to Italy, and died at Piacenza, probably 26 July, 1327. It is generally accepted that Mayron introduced the famous "Actus Sorbonicus" into the University of Paris. This occurred at a disputation lasting from 5 a. m. to 7 p. m., in which the advocate had to defend his theses against any and all opponents who might offer to attack them, without any assistance and without either food or drink. Denifle has, however, denied this ("Chartularium Universit. Paris", II, Paris, 1891, 273), though only for this reason, that no "document" mentions anything about any such introduction by Mayron. Mayron was a distinguished pupil of Duns Scotus, whose teaching he usually followed. He was surnamed Doctor acutus, or Doctor illuminatus, also Magister abstractionum. His "Scripta super 4 libros Sententiarum" appeared at Venice, in 1507-8, 1519-20, 1520, 1526, 1556, 1567.

231 The treatises added thereto, "De formalitatibus", "De primo principio", "Explanatio divinorum terminorum", are not his, but have been collected from his teachings. The "De univocatione entis", edited with other writings at Ferrara before 1490, is Mayron's. His work "Conflatus", on the sentences, appeared at Treviso in 1476; Basle, 1489, 1579(?); Cologne, 1510. Distinct from the latter are the "Conflatile", Lyons, 1579; "Passus super Universalia", "Praedicamenta", etc., Bologna, 1479, Lerida, 1485, Toulouse, 1490, Venice, 1489; "Sermones de tempore cum Quadragesimali", two editions without place or date, probably Brussels, 1483, and Cologne, Venice, I491; "Sermones de Sanctis", Venice, 1493, Basle, 1498 (with fourteen dissertations); "Tractatus de Conceptione B.M.V.", ed. Alva and Astorga in "Monumenta Seraphica pro Immaculata Conceptione", Louvain, 1665; "Theologicae Veritates in St. Augustinum de Civitate Dei", Cologne,1473, Treviso, 1476, Toulouse, 1488, Venice, 1489 (?); "Veritates ex libris St. Augustini de Trinitate", Lyons,1520. There are many other unedited writings on the works of St. Augustine, and philosophical and theological works, which testify to the extensive knowledge and the penetrating intellect of this eminent pupil of Duns Scotus. The treatise "De celebratione Missae", is also probably by him (cf. Ad. Franz, "Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter", Freiburg, 1902, 493-5).

232 RINONICO A PISIS, Liber Conformitatum in Analecta Francis cana, IV(Quaracchi, 1906), 339, 523, 540, 544; WADDING, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum (Rome, 1650), 123-5; ibid. (1806), 84; ibid. (1906), 85-6; SBARALEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores O. M., (Rome, 1806), 267-72 2nd. ed., ibid. 1908), 283-88; JOH. A. S. ANTONIO, Bibliotheca universa franciscana, I (Madrid, 1732), 405 sq.; FERET, La Faculte de Theologie de Paris, III, 323-30 (Paris, 1884—); STOCKL, Geschite der Philosophie im Mittelalter, II (Mainz, 1865), II, 868; HAUREAU, Histoire la Philosophie scolastique, II, ii (Paris, 1880), 298sq.; HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, II (Innsbruck, 1906), 522- 25; CHEVALIER, Repertoire de sources hist., II (Paris, 1907), 3271.

233 Michael Bihl

Jules Mazarin

232 Born either at Rome or at Piscina in the Abruzzi, of a very old Sicilian family, 14 July, 1602; died at Vincennes, 9 March, 1661. His father was majordomo to the Colonna family at Rome. One of his uncles, Giulio Mazarini (1544-1622), a Jesuit, enjoyed a great reputation in Italy, particularly at Bologna, as a preacher, and published several volumes of sacred eloquence.

233 His youth was full of excitement: he accompanied the future Cardinal Colonna to Madrid; he was in turn a captain of pontifical troops and then a pontifical diplomat in the Valtelline War (1624) and the Mantuan War of Succession (1628-30). The truce which he negotiated (26 October, 1630) between the French, on one side, and the Spaniards and the Duke of Savoy, on the other, won for him the esteem of Richelieu, who was well pleased at his letting Pignerol fall into the hands of the French. The Spaniards tried to injure him with Pope Urban VIII, but the influence of Cardinal Antonio Barberini and a letter from Richelieu saved him. He became canon of St. John Lateran, vice-legate at Avignon (1632), and nuncio extraordinary in France (1634). The Spaniards complained that in this last post Mazarin made it his exclusive business to support Richelieu's policy, and he was dismissed from the nunciature by Urban VIII (17 Jan., 1636). Soon after leaving the papal service, he went to Paris, placed himself at Richelieu's disposition, and was naturalized as a French subject in April, 1639. Richelieu commissioned him, late in 1640, to sign a secret treaty between France and Prince Thomas of Savoy, and caused him to be made a cardinal on 16 Dec., 1641. Shortly before Richelieu's death, Mazarin by a piece of clever management, had been able to effect the reoccupation of Sedan by French troops, and Richelieu on his deathbed (4 Dec., 1642) recommended him to the king. On the death of Louis XIII (14 May, 1642), Anne of Austria, leaving the Duc d'Orléans the shadowy title of lieutenant-general of the kingdom gave the reality of power to Mazarin, who first pretended to be on the point of setting out for Italy, and then pretended that his acceptance of office was only provisional, until such time as the peace of Europe should be re-established.

234 But Mazarin, like Richelieu, was, in the event, to retain power until his death, first under the queen regent and then under the king after Louis XIV (q. v.) had attained his majority. His very humble appearance and manner, his gentle and kindly ways, had contributed to his elevation, and Anne's affection for him was the best guarantee of his continuance in office. The precise character of his relations with Anne of Austria is one of the enigmas of history. Certain letters of Anne of Austria to Mazarin, published by Cousin, and admissions made by Anne to Mme de Brienne and recorded in the Memoirs of Loménie de Brienne, prove that the queen regent was deeply attached to the cardinal. Still, "my sensibilities have no part in it", she said to Mme de Brienne. Few historians give credence to Anne's assertion on this point, and some go so far as to accept the allegations of the Princess Palatine in her letters of 1717, 1718, and 1722, according to which Anne of Austria and Mazarin were married. M. Loiseleur, who has made a careful study of the problem, believes that Mazarin was never married; it is certain that he retained the title and insignia of a cardinal until his death; probably he was even a cardinal-priest, though he never visited Rome after his elevation to the purple and seems never to have received the hat. And in any case he held the title of Bishop of Metz from 1653 to 1658.

235 Mazarin continued Richelieu's policy against the House of Austria. Aided by the victories of Condé and Turenne, he succeeded in bringing the Thirty Years' War to a conclusion with the Treaties of Munster and Osnabrück (Treaty of Westphalia), which gave Alsace (without Strasburg) to France; and in 1659 he ended the war with Spain in the Peace of the Pyrenees, which gave to France Roussillon, Cerdagne, and part of the Low Countries. Twice, in 1651 and 1652, he was driven out of the country by the Parliamentary Fronde and the Fronde of the Nobles, with the innumerable pamphlets (Mazarinades) which they published against him, but the final defeat of both Frondes was the victory of royal absolutism, and Mazarin thus prepared the way for Louis XIV's omnipotence. Lastly, in 1658, he placed Germany, in some sort, under the young king's protection, by forming the League of the Rhine, which was destined to hold the House of Austria in check. Thus did he lay the foundation of Louis XIV's greatness. His foreign policy was, as Richelieu's had often been, indifferent to the interests of Catholicism: the Peace of Westphalia gave its solemn sanction to the legal existence of Calvinism in Germany, and, while the nuncio vainly protested, Protestant princes were rewarded with secularized bishoprics and abbacies for their political opposition to Austria. Neither did it matter much to him whether the monarchical principle was respected or contemned in a foreign country: he was Cromwell's ally. Towards the Protestants he pursued an adroit policy. In 1654 Cromwell opened negotiations with the Calvinists of the South of France, who, the year before, had taken up arms in Ardeche to secure certain liberties for themselves. Mazarin knew how to keep the Calvinists amused with fine words, promises, and calculated delays: for six years they believed themselves to be on the eve of recovering their privileges, and in the end they obtained nothing. The cardinal well knew how to retain in the king's service valuable Protestants like Turenne and Gassion. His personal relations with the Holy See were hardly cordial. He could not prevent Cardinal Pamfili, a friend of Spain, from being elected pope (15 Sept., 1644) as Innocent X. He received in France, one after the other, Cardinals Antonio and Francesco Barberini, nephews of the late pope, and the Bull of 21 February, 1646, fulminated by Innocent X against the cardinals, who were absenting themselves without authorization, (by the tenor of which Bull Mazarin himself was bound to repair to Rome), was voted by the Parliament of Paris "null and abusive". Mazarin obtained a decree of the Royal Council forbidding money to be remitted to Rome for expediting Bulls, there was a show of preparing an expedition against Avignon, and Innocent X, yielding to these menaces, ended by restoring their property and dignities to Mazarin's protégés, the Barberini. Following up his policy of bullying the pope, Mazarin sent two fleets to the Neapolitan coast to seize the Spanish presidios nearest to the papal frontiers. Apart from this, he had no Italian policy, properly speaking, and his demonstrations in Italy had no other object than to compel Spain to keep her troops there, and to bring the pope to a complaisant attitude towards France and towards Mazarin's own relations. The elevation of his brother Michael Mazarin to the cardinalate (October, 1647) was one of his diplomatic victories. Though not interested in questions of theology, Mazarin detested the Jansenists for the part taken by some of them — disavowed, however, by Antoine Arnauld — in the Fronde, and for their support of Cardinal de Retz (q. v.). A declaration of the king in July, 1653, and an assembly of bishops in May, 1655, over which Mazarin presided, gave executive force to the decrees of Innocent X against Jansenism. The order condemning Pascal's "Provinciales" to be burnt, the order for the dismissal of pupils, novices, and postulants from the two convents of Port-Royal, the formula prepared by the Assembly of the Clergy against the "Augustinus" (1661), which formula all ecclesiastics had to sign — all these must be regarded as episodes of Mazarin's anti-Jansenist policy. On his deathbed he warned the king "not to tolerate the Jansenist sect, not even their name". Having little by little become "as powerful as God the Father when the world began", enjoying the revenues of twenty-seven abbacies, always ready to enrich himself by whatever means, and possessing a fortune equivalent to about $40,000,000 in twentieth century American money, Mazarin, towards the end of his life, multiplied in Paris the manifestations of his wealth. He organized a free lottery, at his own expense, with prizes amounting to more than a million francs, collected in his own palace more wonderful things than the king's palace contained, had no objection to presiding at tournaments, exhibitions of horsemanship, and ballets, and patronized the earliest efforts of the comic poet Molière. The young Louis XIV entertained a profound affection for him and, what is more, fell in love with the cardinal's two nieces, Olympe Mancini and Marie Mancini, one after the other. Mazarin sent Marie away, to prevent the king from entertaining the idea of marrying her. But if, for reasons of state, he refused to become the uncle of the King of France, it seems that there were moments when he dreamed of the tiara: the Abbé Choisy asserts that Mazarin died "in the vision of being made pope". One reminiscence at least of the old political ideas of Christian Europe is to be found in his will: he left the pope a fund (600,000 livres) to prosecute the war against the Turks. The cardinal, who throughout his life had given but little thought to the interests of Christianity, seems to have sought pardon by remembering them on his deathbed. The same will directed the foundation of the College of the Four Nations, for the free education of sixty children from those provinces which he had united to France. To this college he bequeathed the library now known as the Bibliothèque Mazarine. Mazarin's nieces made princely marriages: Anne Marie Martinozzi became the Princesse de Conti; Laura Martinozzi, the Duchesse de Modène; Laure Mancini died in 1657, Duchesse de Mercoeur; Olympe Mancini became Comtesse de Soissons; Hortense Mancini, Marquise de la Meilleraie and Duchesse de Mazarin; Marie Mancini, Countess Colonna; Marie Anne Mancini, Duchesse de Bouillon. All these women, and particularly the last four, had singularly stormy careers.

236 CHÉRUEL AND D'AVENEL, eds., lettres du Cardinal Mazarin pendant son ministère (9 vols., Paris, 1872-1906); RAVENEL., ed., Iettres de Mazarin à la reine, écrites durant sa retraite hors de France en 1651 et 1652 (Paris, 1836); COUSIN, ed., Carnets de Mazarin in Journal des Savants (1855); MOREAU, Bibliographie des Mazarinades (3 vols., Paris, 1849-51); IDEM, Choix de Mazarinades (2 vols., Paris, 1852-58); LABADIE, Nouveau supplément à la bibliographie des Mazarinades (Paris, 1904); CHÉRUEL Hist. de France pendant la minorité de Louis XIV (4 vols., Paris, 1879-80); IDEM Hist. de France sous le ministère de Mazarin (1651-1661) (3 vols., Paris, 1883); PERKINS, France under Mazarin (2 vols., New York, 1886); HASSALL., Mazarin, (London, 1903); BOUGEANT, Hist. des guerres et des négociations qui précédèrent le traité de Westphalie (Paris, 1727); IDEM, Hist. du traité de Westphalie (2 vols., Paris, 1744); COCHIN, Les Eglises calvinistes du Midi, le cardinal Mazarin et Cromwell, in Revue des Questions Historiques (July, 1904); RENÉE, Les nieces de Mazarin (Paris, 1856); CHANTELAUZE, Ies derniers jours de Mazarin in Correspondant (10 July, 10 August, 1881); COUSIN, Mme de Hautefort (5th ed., Paris, 1886), 393-404; LOISELEUR, Problèmes historiques (Paris, 1867); COLQUHOUN-GRANT, Queen and Cardinal (London, 1906).

237 Georges Goyau

Mazatec Indians

235 An important Mexican tribe of Zapotecan linguistic stock, occupying the mountain region of north-east Oaxaca, chiefly in the districts of Cuicatlan and Teotitlan, and estimated to number from 18,000 to 20,000 souls. Their chief town, Huantla, with its dependent villages, has a population of about 7,000. Their popular name "Mazateca" is that given them by the Aztec, and is said to mean "Lords of the Deer"; they call themselves Ä-ä, with nasal pronunciation (Bauer). Although closely related to their neighbours, the formerly highly cultured Zapotec and Mixtec, the Mazatec were of ruder habit, as became a race of mountaineers. Like the Zapotec also they maintained their independence against the powerful Aztec empire, with which they maintained almost constant defensive war. The principal portion of the present state of Oaxaca was brought under Spanish dominion by Cortés in 1521. In 1535 it was established as a diocese, with Father Juan Lopez de Barate, of the Dominicans, as its first bishop, through whose influence the conversion of the natives was entrusted to missionaries of that order, by whom it was successfully accomplished despite the extreme devotion of the Indians to their sacred rites, even to secreting their sacred images beneath the very altar that they might unsuspected do reverence to the one while appearing the venerate the other. In 1575 the Jesuits reinforced the Dominicans. Even to-day, while outwardly conforming to the rules of the church and manifesting the greatest deference and affection toward the resident priests, the Mazatec retain most of their ancient beliefs and many of their ceremonies. By tolerance of the Mexican Government they maintained their tribal autonomy under their hereditary chiefs up to 1857, as also a professional keeper of their sacred traditions, the last of whom, a descendant of their ancient kings, died in 1869.

236 Their native cult, still kept to a large extent in combination with the newer rites, was an animal worship, the snake, panther, alligator, and eagle being most venerated. The soul after death went to the "kingdom of the animals", where for a long time it w andered about being assisted or attacked by the animals, according as the dead person had been kind or cruel to them in life. At one point in the journey the soul was assisted across a wide stream by a black dog. It seems to have been held that the soul was finally reincarnated as an animal. Hence in many villages black dogs are still kept in almost every family and buried in the grave with the owner. The ancient sowing and harvest rites are still kept up, with invocation of the animal gods and spirits of the mountain, and burial of curious sacred bundles in the fields. Marriages and baptisms are solemnized in regular church form by the priest, but the baptism is followed later by a house festival, of which a principal feature is the washing of the godfather's hands in order to cleanse him from the sin which has come to upon him from holding the infant in his arms during the baptism. The occupations of the Mazatec are farming and the simple trades. The women are expert weavers of cotton. The houses are light huts daubed with clay and thatched with palm leaves. Men and women are fully dressed, woman being picturesque in shawls and gowns of their own weaving, decorated with ribbons and worked with human and animal figures, particularly that of the eagle. They have still their own calendar of thirteen months, with days bearing animal names. The second volume of Pimentel's "Cuadro" contains a sketch of the language. See also ZAPOTEC.

237 BANCROFT, Hist. Mexico, II (San Francisco, 1886); BAUER, Heidentum und Aberglaube, unter den Macateça-Indianern in Zeirschr. für Ethnologie XL (Berlin, 1908); BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); PIMENTEL, Cuadro . . . de las Lenguas Indigenas de México (2 vols., Mexico, 1862-5); STARR, In Indian Mexico (Chicago, 1908).

238 James Mooney

Charles Joseph Eugene de Mazenod

238 Bishop of Marseilles, and founder of the Congregation of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, b. at Aix, in Provence, 1 August, 1782; d. at Marseilles 21 May, 1861. De Mazenod was the offspring of a noble family of southern France, and even in his tender years he showed unmistakable evidence of a pious disposition and a high and independent spirit. Sharing the fate of most French noblemen at the time of the Revolution, he passed some years as an exile in Italy, after which he studied for the priesthood, though he was the last representative of his family. On 21 December, 1811, he was ordained priest at Amiens, whither he had gone to escape receiving orders at the hands of Cardinal Maury, who was then governing the archdiocese of Paris against the wishes of the pope. After some years of ecclesiastical labours at Aix, the young priest, bewailing the sad fate of religion resulting among the masses from the French Revolution, gathered together a little band of missionaries to preach in the vernacular and to instruct the rural populations of Provence. He commenced, 25 January, 1816, his Institute which was immediately prolific of much good among the people, and on 17 February, 1826, was solemnly approved by Leo XII under the name of Congregation of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

239 After having aided for some time his uncle, the aged Bishop of Marseilles, in the administration of his diocese, Father De Mazenod was called to Rome and, on 14 October, 1832, consecrated titular Bishop of Icosium, which title he had, in the beginning of 1837, to exchange for that of Bioshop of Marseilles. His episcopate was marked by measures tending to the restoration in all its integrity of ecclesiastical discipline. De Mazenod unceasingly strove to uphold the rights of the Holy See, somewhat obscured in France by the pretensions of the Gallican Church. He favoured the moral teachings of Blessed (now Saint) Alphonsus Liguori, whose theological system he was the first to introduce in France, and whose first life in French he caused to be written by one of his disciples among the Oblates. At the same time he watched with a jealous eye over the education of youth, and, in spite of the susceptibilities of the civil power, he never swerved from what he considered the path of justice. In fact, by the apostolic freedom of his public utterances he deserved to be compared to St. Ambrose. He was ever a strong supporter of papal infallibility and a devout advocate of Mary's immaculate conception, in the solemn definition of which (1854) he took an active part. In spite of his well-known outspokenness, he was made a Peer of the French Empire, and in 1851 Pius IX gave him the pallium.

240 Meanwhile he continued as Superior General of the religious family he had founded and whose fortunes will be found described in the article on the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Such was the esteem in which he was held at Rome that the pope had marked him out as one of the cardinals he was to create when death claimed him at the ripe age of almost seventy-nine.

241 Cooke, Sketches of the Life of Mgr de Mazenod, Bishop of Marseilles (London and Dublin, 1879); Rambert, Vie de Mgr D. J. E. De Mazenod (Tours, 1883); Ricard, Mgr de Mazenod, évêque de Marseille (Paris, n. d.).

242 A. G. Morice.

Diocese of Mazzara del Vallo

241 Diocese of Mazzara del Vallo (Mazariensis).

242 The city is situated in the province of Trepani, Sicily, on the Mediterranean, at the mouth of the Mazzara River. It carries on a large lemon trade, has several mineral springs in the vicinity, and occupies the site of the emporium of ancient Silinus. The port very early attracted a Megarian colony (630 B.C.); in 409 B.C. it was taken by the Carthaginians; and in 249 was completely destroyed and its inhabitants deported to Lilybaeum (Marsala). Gradually there arose around the port a new city, captured by Sarcarens in 827. It was later made the capital of one of the three great valli into which the Saracens divided Sicily. In the struggle of the Saracens against the Normans for the possession of the island, Mazzara was hotly contested, especially in 1075 when the Saracens were completely routed by Count Roger. The episcopal See of Lilybaeum was then transferred to Mazzara. Of the bishops of Lilybaeum the best known is Paschasinus, legate of Leo I at the Council of Chalcedon (451). The first Bishop of Mazzara was Stefano de Ferro, a relative of Count Roger (1093). The cathedral was then founded, and later embellished by Bishop Tristiano (1157). Other noteworthy bishops were Cardinal Bessarion (1449); Giovanni de Monteaperto( 1470), who restored the cathedral and founded a library; Bernardo Gasco (1579), of Toledo, founder of the seminary; Cardinal Gian Domenico Spinola (1637); the Franciscan Francesco M. Graffeo (1685). In 1844 the newly erected diocese of Marsala was separated from Mazzara. Mazzara is a suffragan of Palermo, has 23 parishes, 430 priests, 5 religious houses of men and 29 of women, 3 schools for boys and 25 for girls, and a population of 276,000.

243 CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857).

244 U. Benigni

Camillo Mazzella

244 Theologian and cardinal, born at Vitulano, 10 Feb., 1833; d. at Rome, 26 March, 1900. He entered the ecclesiastical seminary of Benevento when about eleven years of age, completed his classical, philosophical, and theological studies before his twenty-fourth year, and was ordained priest in Sept., 1855, a dispensation for defect of canonical age having been granted by Pius IX. For two years after his ordination he remained at Vitulano, attending to the duties of canon in the parish church, a position he held from his family. Resigning this office he entered the Society of Jesus, 4 Sept., 1857. On the expulsion of the Jesuits from Italy in 1860 he was sent to Fourvières, where after reviewing his theology for a year and making a public defense "de universa theologia", he taught dogmatic theology for three years, and moral theology for two. In the early autumn of 1867 he came to America and taught theology for two years to the members of the Society of Jesus at Georgetown University, Washington. On the opening of Woodstock College, Maryland, he was appointed prefect of studies and professor of dogmatic theology. While there he published four volumes: "De Religione et Ecclesia", "De Deo Creante", "De Gratia Christi", and "De virtutibus infusis", which went through several editions. In October, 1878, he was called to Rome by Leo XIII to fill the chair of theology at the Gregorian University left vacant by Father Franzeline's elevation to the cardinalate, and shortly afterwards, on the retirement of Father Kleutgen, was made prefect of studies. On 7 June, 1886, Leo XIII created Father Mazella a cardinal deacon. Ten years later he became cardinal priest. Not quite a year afterwards (18 April, 1897), at the express wish of the pope, he became cardinal bishop of Palestrina, to the government of which he applied himself with untiring energy. He was the first Jesuit on whom was bestowed the dignity of cardinal bishop. As cardinal he took an active part in the deliberations of a number of Congregations, was for several years the president of the Academy of St. Thomas, and, at various times, prefect of the Congregations of the Index, of Studies, and of Rites.

245 Timothy Brosnahan

Lodovico Mazzolini

247 (Also known as MAZZOLINI DA FERRARA, LODOVICO FERRARESA, and IL FERRARESE)

248 Italian painter, b. in Ferrara in 1480, d., according to one account, in 1528, and to another, in 1530; place of death unknown. This artist is generally represented as having been a pupil of Lorenzo Costa, and has having come under the influence of Ercole Roberti, but should be more correctly described as a pupil of Panetti. Morelli called him "the Glow-worm", "der Glühwurm", from his brilliant gem-like colour and luminous sparkling quality, and he proved that Mazzolini was a pupil of Panetti rather than Costa, by the form of the ear and hand in his paintings, by his landscape backgrounds with deep conical blue mountains and streaks of dazzling white, and by his scheme of colour. Comparing Lorenzo Costa with Perugino, Morelli compares Panetti with Pintorrichio, although he says as an artist the Perugian far surpassed the somewhat dry and narrow-minded artist of Ferrara, but it is perfectly clear that it was to this dry and so-called narrow-minded man that Mazzolini owed his excellent work. The architectural backgrounds of his pictures are their specially distinctive feature, and notably the creamy-toned marble. Attention should further be directed to his use of gold in the high lights of his draperies.

249 Of his personal history we know nothing, save that he worked both in Ferrara and Bologna, and that he married in 1521 Giovanna, the daughter of Bartolomeo Vacchi, a Venetian painter. His most notable picture represents Christ disputing with the doctors, is dated 1524, and to be seen at Berlin. It is in his pictures with small figures that he displays the power of imparting pleasure, as his gift was rather in the direction of genre than of historical painting, and to most observers there is something curiously Flemish about his work. There is a second important picture of his in Berlin, a Virgin and Child, two at the Louvre, one in Ferrara, three in the National Gallery, and three in Florence, other examples in Munich, and in various private collections. The chief work of his in England is one belonging to Lord Wimborne. He is also represented in the galleries of Turin, St. Petersburg, The Hague, and in the Capitol of Rome, the Doria, and the Borghese.

250 BARUFFALDI GIROLAMO, Vite dei Pittori Ferraesi (Ferrara), in MS, also the Oretti MS. (Bologna); ORLANDI, Abbecedario Pittorico (Bologna, 1719); VASARI, Le Vite dei Pittori (Florence, 1878, 1885).

251 George Charles Williamson

Sylvester Mazzolini

250 (MOZOLINI, also PRIERIAS)

251 Theologian, b. at Priero, Piedmont, 1460; d. at Rome, 1523-sometimes confounded with Sylvester Ferrariensis (d. 1526). At the age of fifteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic. Passing brilliantly through a course of studies he taught theology at Bologna, Pavia (by invitation of the senate of Venice), and in Rome, whither he was called by Julius II in 1511. In 1515 he was appointed Master of the Sacred Palace, filling that office until his death. His writings cover a vast range, including treatises on the planets, the power of the demons, history, homiletics, the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the primacy of the popes. He is credited with being the first theologian who by his writings attacked publicly the subversive errors of Martin Luther. John Tetzel's productions against the arch-reformer are called by Echard scattered pages (folia volitantia), and Mazzolini stands forth as the first champion of Roman Pontiffs against Luther. The heresiarch replied to Mazzolini's arguments; the latter published rejoinders, and there was a regular controversy between the innovator and the defender of the ancient Faith. The necessity of promptness in attack and defence will account for defects of style in some of his writings. His principal works are: "De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanæ Ecclesiæ Romanique Pontificis" (Rome, 1520); "Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum" (Perugia, 1519); "Errata et argumenta M. Lutheri" (Rome, 1520); "Summa Summarum, quæ Sylvestrina dicitur" (Rome, 1516), reprinted forty times; an alphabetical encyclopedia of theological questions; "Rosa aurea" (Bologna, 1510) an exposition of the Gospels of the year; "In theoricas planetarum" (Venice, 1513).

252 QUÉTIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Præd. II, 55; TOURON, Hommes illust. de l'Ordre de S. Dominique, III, 716; MICHALSKI, De Sylv. Prieratis ... vita et scripta (Munster, 1892).

253 D.J. Kennedy

Pietro Francesco Mazzuchelli

253 (Also known as IL MORAZZONE, MARAZZONE, and MORANZONE).

254 Milanese painter, b. at Moranzone near Milan, either in 1571 or 1575; d. at Piacenza in 1626. In the early part of his life, this painter resided in Rome, where he painted various altar-pieces, then he passed on to Venice, and made a profound study of the work of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese, so enterely altering his and improving his scheme of colour, that the pictures he painted when he came to Milan, although representing subjects similar to those he had carried out in Rome, could hardly be recognized as having come from the same hand. He was patronized by Cardinal Borommeo, and from the Duke of Savoy received the honour of knighthood and the order of St. Maurice. In 1626 he was called to Piacenza to paint the cupola of the cathedral, but was not able to finish this work, which he commenced in a grand and vigorous style, and died, it is believed, from an accident in connection with the scaffolding, in consequence of which Guercino was called in to complete the work. The chief painting by Mazzuchelli is that in the church of San Giovanni at Como, and represents St. Michael and the angels.

255 VASARI, G., Le Vite dei Pittori (Florence, 1878, 1885); ORLANDI, P. P., Abbecedario Pittorico (Bologna, 1719), also the Oretti, MS. (Bologna).

256 George Charles Williamson

Mbaya Indians

256 (Guaycurü)

257 A predatory tribe formerly ranging on both sides of the Paraguay River, on the north and northwestern Paraguay frontier, and in the adjacent portion of the province of Matto Grosso, Brazil. They are one of a group of equestrian warlike and savage tribes, constituting a distinct linguistic stock, the Guaycuran, formerly roving over northern Paraguay and the upper Chaco region, and of which the best known are the Abipon, made famous by the missionary Dobrizhoffer, the Guaycurü proper, or Mbaya, the Macobí, and the still savage and powerful Toba. The Lengua, sometimes included under the same name, are now known to be a branch of the Chiquito of Bolivia. The name, Mbaya, given to them by the more peaceful Guaraní, signified "terrible", "bad", or "savage". The name, Guaycurü, now most commonly used, is said to mean "runner". They have also been called Caballeros by the Spaniards, on account of their fine horsemanship. According to Father Lozano they had three main divisions: Epicua-yiqui (Epiguayegi) in the North, Napin-yiqui in the West, and Taqui-yiqui in the South. Iolis, another authority, gives a different list of six divisions.

258 The Guaycurü were accustomed to prey upon the more sedentary Guaraní tribes, making sudden raids with quick retreats into their own country, where tangled forests and treacherous swamps made pursuit difficult and subjection almost impossible. In 1542, Alvar Nuñez Cabeça de Vaca, governor of Buenos Aires, with a detachment of Spaniards and and contingent of Guaraní, inflicted upon them a signal defeat, chiefly by the terror of his field guns and horses, with both of which the Guaycurü were still unacquainted. The acquisition of horses soon transformed them into a race of expert and daring equestrians, and for two centuries they continued their raids upon the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay River and the neighbouring missions. As early as 1610 the Jesuits unsuccessfully attempted their conversion. About the middle of the eighteenth century a peace was arranged which, according to Dobrizhoffer, was faithfully kept by the Indians. The Jesuit Joseph Sanchez Labrador was then sent, at his own request, to work among these Guaycurü, who had been considered the wildest and most dangerous tribe of the region. Having made good progress in their difficult language, he established for them, in 1670, the mission of Virgen de Belen (now Belen), east of the present Concepción, in Paraguay. They were impatient of restraint, and, although many infants and dying adults received baptism, according to Dobrizhoffer, "the rest did little else than wander over the plains". The mission influence, however, effectually tamed their ferocity. At the expulsion of the Jesuits, in 1767, the Belen mission contained 260 Christian Indians, eight of the nine bands still remaining in the forests.

259 In this same year was established by Father Manuel Duran the last of the Paraguay Jesuit foundations, the mission of San Juan Nepomucino, on the east bank of the river, among the Guana, or Chana, a numerous agricultural or pedestrian tribe of the same territory, subject to the Mbaya. When the missionaries were driven out, this station contained 600 Indians. The conversion of the Guana had been undertaken more than a century before by Father Pedro Romero, who lost his life in 1645 at the hands of a neighbouring wide tribe. Among the Guana, infanticide, polygamy, and intoxication were unknown, and the men and women worked together in the fields. About the close of the eighteenth century, the Franciscans took up the work begun by the Jesuits, and in the next fifty years gathered a number of Guaycurü and Guana into missions, which continued until the tribes themselves diminished or were assimilated. Lieutenant Page, who commanded a mission sent by the United States Government to explore the Paraguay river, gives an interesting and extended account of his visit to one of these mission, Nossa Senhora de Bon Conselho, near Albuquerque, Brazil, in 1853 (Page, "Report to the Secretary of the Navy", Washington, 1855). Here the Christian Guanas cultivated vegetables for the market afforded by the neighbouring white settlements. Under the care, both temporal and spiritual, of a Franciscan Father, these aborigines who, only a few years earlier, had been wandering savages, now were a remarkably neat, orderly, and thrifty community of husbandmen. Fronting upon a public square, there stood the village church, a school house, and a number of well-constructed thatched dwellings, each dwelling having a frontage of twenty feet, with interiors partitioned with curtains and fitted with raised platforms to serve either as tables or beds. Among the vegetables cultivated was a native rice, which they harvested in canoes. Cotton, too, was grown, spun, dyed, and woven by the women of the settlement. The men wore trousers and ponchos; the women, a chemise girdled at the waist; the boys were exercised in military tactics, and the children in general were not only taught "the rudiments of a general education, but made some progress in music and dancing". A few of the Mbaya proper still exist on the western bank of the Paraguay in the neighbourhood of the town of Concepción. Other bands known as Guaycurü roam over the adjacent districts of Matto Grosso, Brazil and may number perhaps 1500 souls as against and estimated 15,000 or 18,000 a century ago. The Guana, on the Taquari and Miranda Rivers in the same region are now labourers among the whites, although still claimed as dependents by the Guaycurü.

260 In their primitive condition the men of the Guaycurü went entirely naked, while the women wore only a short skirt. The men trimmed their hair in a circular tuft. Girls had the head closely shaven. The men painted their bodies and wore rings in the lower lip. Boys were painted black until about fourteen years old, then red for two years, when they were subjected to a painful ordeal, before taking their station as warriors. War was their chief business, their weapons being the bow, club, and bone knife. The children born of captives were sold as slaves. Their chief tribal ceremony was in honour of the Pleiades, and was accompanied by a short battle between the men and the women, ending with general intoxication. They buried their dead in the ground, and voluntary human victims were sacrificed when a chief died. Polygamy was unknown, but separation was frequent, and infanticide common. They subsisted by fishing and hunting. Their villages consisted each of a single communal structure in three large rooms, the middle of which was reserved for the chief and head men, and for the storage of weapons. The chief had great authority, and with his head men, seems to have belonged to a different clan, or gens, from the common warriors. Captives and their descendants constituted a permanent slave class. As a people they were tall and strongly built. Those still remaining show the admixture of white captive blood and are gradually assimilating to the settled population.

261 BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. of Paraguay, I (London, 1796); DOBRIZHOFFER, Account of the Abipones (London, 1822); HERVÁS, Catálogo de las lenguas. I (Madrid, 1800); LOZANO, Descripcion Chorographica de la Gran Chaco (Cordoba, 1733); PAGE, La Plata, the Argentine Federation, and Paraguay (New York, 1859); RECLUS, South America, II: Amazonia and La Plata (New York, 1897).

262 James Mooney

Thomas Francis Meagher

259 Soldier, politician, b. at Waterford, Ireland, 3 August, 1823; accidentally drowned in the Missouri River, Montana Territory, U.S.A., 1 July, 1867. Educated in the Jesuit colleges of Clongowes and Stonyhurst, he finished his college career in 1843 with a reputation for great oratorical ability which he devoted at once, under O'Connell, to the cause of Repeal. His impetuous nature chafed under the restraint of constitutional agitation, and his impassioned eloquence stimulated the more radical revolutionary efforts of the young Irelanders, who, in 1848, broke away from O'Connell's leadership. In the spring of that year he went with William Smith O'Brien to France as member of a deputation to Lamartine to congratulate the people of France on the establishment of a republic. A trial for "exciting the people to rise in rebellion", the following May resulted in a disagreement of the jury, but in the abortive rebellion in July he was among those arrested, tried for high treason, and sentenced on 23 October to be hanged. This was commuted to penal servitude for life and on 29 July, 1849, with O'Brien and Terence Bellew MacManus, he was transported to Tasmania. Escaping from this penal colony in 1852, he landed in New York, where his countrymen gave him a hearty welcome. His popularity as a lecturer was immediate; he also studied law and, admitted to the bar in 1855, started a paper called the "Irish News" (12 April, 1856), in which he published his "Personal Recollections". Two years later he undertook an exploring expedition in Central America; his narrative was printed in "Harper's Magazine". When the Civil War broke out he espoused the cause of the Union, raised a company of Zouaves, went to the front with the Sixty-Ninth New York Volunteers, and participated in the first battle of Bull Run. He then organized the famous Irish Brigade, of which he was commissioned brigadier-general, and with it participated in the operations of the Army of the Potomac, in which it specially distinguished itself in the battles of Fair Oak (1 June, 1862), the seven days' fight before Richmond, Antietam, Fredericksburg (13 Dec., 1862), where it was almost annihilated, and Chancellorsville (1863). He then resigned his command because, he said, "it was perpetrating a public deception to keep up a brigade so reduced in numbers, and which he had been refused permission to withdraw from service and recruit". A command of a military district in Tennessee was at once given him, which he resigned after a short time. At the close of the war he was made (July, 1865) Territorial Secretary of Montana. During a trip made in the course of his administration of this office he fell from a steamer into the Missouri River at night and was drowned. His body was never found.

260 CAVANAGH, Memorial of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher (Worcester, Mass., 1892); CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns (New York, 1867); SAVAGE, '98 and '48 (New York, 1856); DUFFY, Young Ireland (London, 1880); Four Years of Irish History (London, 1883); McCARTHY, History of Our Own Times, II (New York, 1887); Irish American (New York), files.

261 Thomas F. Meehan

Diocese of Meath

262 (Midensis).

263 Diocese in Ireland, suffragan of Armagh. In extent it is the largest diocese in Ireland, and includes the greater part of the counties Meath, Westmeath, King's, and a small portion of the counties Longford, Dublin, and Cavan. The present Diocese of Meath anciently comprised eight episcopal sees, the chief of which was Clonard, founded in the middle of the sixth century by St. Finian, "Tutor of the Saints of Erin". At the national Synod of Kells, in 1172, over which Cardinal Paparo presided as legate of Eugene III, it was decided that these sees be joined together. The united see was assigned as first suffragan to Armagh, and ranks immediately after the metropolitan sees in Ireland. In his "Hibernia Dominicana" De Burgo says that Meath is the foremost suffragan of Armagh, and has precedence even though its bishop be the youngest of the Irish prelates in order of consecration. Meath being the country of the Pale, many Englishmen were appointed bishops of Meath, among them the notorious Staples who apostatized in the reign of Edward VI, and was deposed in 1554. Dr. Walsh, a Cistercian monk, succeeded, and more than repaired the scandal caused by his recreant predecessor. This noble confessor of the Faith bravely withstood all the threats and blandishments of Queen Elizabeth and her agents. He spent thirteen years in a dungeon in Dublin Castle, and finally died an exile at Alcalá in Spain. His name is reckoned in more than one Irish Martyrology. Like honour is paid to him by his own order, and his Cistercian biographer contends that the martyr's crown is his as truly as if he had died in torments. The succession of bishops in the See of Meath has been continued without interruption to the present day, except during a few brief interregnums in the penal days. It is a noteworthy fact that, omitting Dr. Logan's short reign of a few years, but three bishops ruled the Diocese of Meath from 1779 to 1899, Drs. Plunket, Cantwell, and Nulty. Dr. Plunket, who had been professor and superior in the Irish College of the Lombards, Paris, was consecrated bishop by the papal nuncio at Paris in 1779. The vessel in which he returned to Ireland was attacked and plundered by the famous Paul Jones, the American privateer, who, however, to his credit be it said, afterwards restored the episcopal property. For eight and forty years, with a truly Apostolic spirit, this great bishop traversed the whole diocese yearly, visiting every parish, preaching, catechizing, giving seasonable counsel to the clergy and suitable instruction to the people, so that in his declining years he was fittingly called, by the Primate of Armagh, "the ornament and father of the Irish Church". The catechism compiled by Dr. Plunket cannot easily be improved, and is still used in the schools of the diocese. He died in January, 1827, in his eighty-ninth year. His successor, Dr. Logan, lived only a few years, and was succeeded by Dr. Cantwell, the steadfast friend of Daniel O'ConneII. With great energy Dr. Cantwell gathered the scattered stones of the sanctuary, and re-erected the temples levelled in the penal days. Dr. Nulty became bishop in 1864, and during his episcopate of thirty-four years spent himself in the service of God and his people. A profound theologian and ardent student, he put before his priests a high intellectual standard; at the same time he did much to overthrow landlordism and to root the people firmly in their native soil. The population of the Diocese of Meath at the last census (1901) was 143,164, of whom 132,892 were Catholics. Since 1871 the population of the diocese has decreased 27 per cent.; during the same period the non-Catholic population decreased 35 per cent. There are 144 churches and 66 parishes, 155 secular priests and 12 regulars, 3 monastic houses of men with 17 members, and 13 convents of nuns with 134 members. St. Finian's College, an imposing structure erected in Mullingar and opened in 1908, replaces the old building in Navan, which had held, for more than one hundred years, an honoured place among the schools of Ireland. The new college, which cost over £340,000, has accommodation for 150 students and is intended both as a seminary to prepare priests for the diocese, and to impart a sound Catholic liberal education to those intended for worldly pursuits. There is a Jesuit novitiate and college at Tullamore, and a house of Carmelite Fathers at Moate. The Franciscans of the Irish province have a monastery and preparatory school at Multyfarnham, near the cathedral town of Mullingar. The Abbey of Multyfarnham has been in Franciscan hands since pre-Reformation times, and has witnessed the good and evil fortunes of the friars in Ireland. The Franciscan Brothers have a school at Clara, and the Christian Brothers have a school at Mullingar (500 pupils) and at Clara (200 pupils). At Rochfortbridge, St. Joseph's Institute for the Deaf and Dumb is conducted by the Sisters of Mercy. The Loreto Nuns have educational houses in Navan and Mullingar, which have won favourable recognition. The Presentation Sisters have foundations in Mullingar and Rahan, where they have charge of the primary schools, while the Sisters of Mercy have orphanages at Navan and Kells, take care of the hospitals in Tullamore, Trim, Mullingar, Drogheda, and Navan, and at the same time conduct national schools in the principal towns of the diocese.

264 The Diocese of Meath, often called the "royal diocese", is rich in historic associations, pagan and Christian. In Meath was Tara "of the kings", the palace of the Ard-righ, whither came the chieftains and princes, the bards and brehons of Erin. The principal cemetery of the pagan kings of Ireland was at Brugh-na-Bóinne. Competent authorities declare that the surrounding tumuli are among the oldest in Europe. Close at hand is Rosnaree, where Cormac Mac Art, the first Christian King of Ireland, who refused to be buried in pagan Brugh, awaits the last summons. Uisneach in Westmeath, Tlachtgha, or the Hill of Ward, and Teltown were celebrated for their royal palaces, their solemn conventions, their pagan games, and their druidic ceremonies, and in Christian times were sanctified by the labours of St. Patrick and St. Brigid. Slane reminds us of St. Patrick's first Holy Saturday in Ireland, when he lit the paschal fire, symbolizing the lamp of Faith which has never since been extinguished. Trim, founded by St. Loman, one of the first disciples of St. Patrick, still retains in its many ruins striking evidences of its departed glories. Kells, with its round tower, its splendid sculptured crosses, and the house of Columcille, reminds us of that "Dove of the Irish Church", whose memory is also cherished in his beloved Durrow. Finally, Meath is the birthplace of the Venerable Oliver Plunket, the martyred Primate of Armagh, the last victim publicly sacrificed in England for the Faith.

265 [Note: Oliver Plunket was canonized in 1975.]

266 COGAN, Diocese of Meath (Dublin, 1862); HEALY, Ancient Schools of Ireland (Dublin, 1890); Irish Ecclesiastical Record (June, 1900); Irish Catholic Directory (Dublin, 1910).

267 Patrick E. Duffy

Diocese of Meaux

265 (Meldensis.)

266 Meaux comprises the entire department of Seine and Marne, suffragan of Sens until 1622, and subsequently of Paris. The Concordat of 1801 had given to the Diocese of Meaux the department of Marne, separated from it in 1821 and 1822 by the establishment of the archiepiscopal See of Reims and the episcopal See of Châlons. The present Diocese of Meaux is made up of the greater part of the former Diocese of Meaux, a large part of the former Diocese of Sens, a part of the former Diocese of Paris, and a few parishes of the former Dioceses of Troyes, Soissons and Senlis. Hildegaire, who lived in the ninth century, says in his "Life of St. Faro" (Burgundofaro), that this bishop was the twentieth since St. Denis. According to the tradition accepted by Hildegaire, St. Denis was the first Bishop of Meaux, and was succeeded by his disciple St. Saintin, who in turn was succeeded by St. Antoninus; and another saint, named Rigomer, occupied the See of Meaux at the close of the fifth century. In 876 or 877, Hincmar showed Charles the Bald a document which he claimed had been transcribed from a very old copy and according to which St. Antoninus and St. Saintin, disciples of St. Denis, had brought to Pope Anacletus the account of the martyrdom of St. Denis, and on their return to Gaul had successively occupied the See of Meaux. (For these traditions see PARIS.)

267 According to Mgr. Duchesne, the first Bishop of Meaux historically known is Medovechus, present at two councils in 549 and 552. Of the bishops of Meaux the following may be mentioned (following Mgr. Allou's chronology): St. Faro (626-72), whose Sister St. Fara founded the monastery of Faremoutiers, and who himself built at Meaux the monastery of St-Croix; St. Hildevert (672-680); St. Pathus, who died about 684 before being consecrated; St. Ebrigisilus (end of the seventh century); St. Gilbert (first half of the eleventh century); Durand de St-Pourçain (1326-1334), commentator on the "Book of Sentences", known as the "resolutive doctor"; Philippe de Vitry (1351-1361), friend of Petrarch and author of the "Metamorphoses d'Ovide Moralisées"; Pierre Fresnel (1390-1409), several times ambassador of Charles VI; Pierre de Versailles (1439-1446), charged with important missions by Eugene IV, and who, when commissioned by Charles VII in 1429 to examine Joan of Arc, had declared himself convinced of the Divine mission of the Maid of Orléans; Guillaume Briçonnet (1516-1534), ambassador of Francis I to Leo X, and during whose episcopate the Reformation was introduced by Farel and Gérard Roussel, whom he had personally called to his diocese for the revival of studies; Cardinal Antoine du Prat (1534-1535), who had an active share in the drawing up of the concordat between Francis I and Leo X; the controversial writer and historian Jean du Tillet (1564-1570); Louis de Brézé, twice bishop, first from 1554 to 1564, then from 1570 to 1589, during whose episcopate the diocese was greatly disturbed by religious wars; Dominique Séguier (1637-1659), the first French bishop to establish "ecclesiastical conferences" in his diocese; the great Bossuet (1681-1704); Cardinal de Bissy (1705-1737), celebrated for his conflict with the Jansenists; De Barral (1802-1805), later Grand Almoner of Empress Josephine and Archbishop of Tours, who took a prominent part in 1810 and 1811 in the negotiations between Napoleon and Pius VII. In 1562 most of the inhabitants of Meaux had become Protestants, and Joachim de Montluc, sent by the king, proceeded with rigour against them. They were still sufficiently powerful in 1567 to attempt to carry off, in the vicinity of Meaux, Catherine de Medici and Charles IX; and so for that reason, shortly after St. Bartholomew's day, Charles IX ordered the massacre of the Protestants of Meaux. At the château of Fontainebleau, built by Francis I, was held the theological conference of 4 May, 1600, between the Catholics (Cardinal du Perron, de Thou, Pithou) and the Calvinists (du Plessis Mornay, Philippe Canaye, Isaac Casaubon).

268 A number of saints are found in the history of this diocese: St. Autharius, a relative of St. Faro, who received St. Columbanus in his domain at Ussy-sur-Marne, and father of Blessed Ado, who founded about 630 the two monasteries of Jouarre, and of St. Ouen who founded the monastery of Rebais in 634 and subsequently became Bishop of Rouen; the anchorite St. Féfre or Fiacre, and the missionary St. Chillen, both Irishmen, contemporaries of St. Faro (first half of the seventh century); St. Aile (Agilus), monk of Luxeuil who became in 634 the first Abbot of Rebais; St. Telchilde, died about 660, first Abbess of Jouarre; St. Aguilberte, second Abbess of Jouarre, a sister of St. Ebrigisilus (end of seventh century); St. Bathilde, wife of Clovis II, foundress of the abbey of Chelles, died in 680; St. Bertille, first Abbess of Chelles, and St. Etheria, first Abbess of Notre-Dame of Soissons (658), both of them pupils at the abbey of Jouarre; finally, St. Vincent Madelgaire (or Mauger), founder of the monasteries of Haumont and Soignies; his wife, St. Waldetrude, foundress of the monastery of Mons; St. Aldegonde, sister of St. Waldetrude, first Abbess of Maubeuge; St. Landry, Abbot of Soignies, claimed by some as a Bishop of Meaux; St. Adeltrude and St. Malberte, nuns of Maubeuge, the last three being children of St. Vincent Madelgaire and St. Waldetrude (seventh century).

269 Eugene III stayed some days at Meaux in 1147. In 1664 Blessed Eudes preached for two months at Meaux, Mine Guyon passed the first six months of 1695 at the Visitation convent of Meaux, where Bossuet had frequent conferences with her, but failed to make her abandon her peculiar views. The celebrated Père Loriquet (1767-1845) was superior from 1812 to 1814 of the preparatory seminary of Châage, in the Diocese of Meaux. The Paris massacres on 2 and 3 September, 1792, at the prisons of the Carmes and the Abbaye had their counterpart at Meaux where seven priests were massacred in prison on 4 September. The Abbey of Notre Dame de Juilly of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine was established in 1184, and adopted the rule of the Abbey of St-Victor of Paris. Cardinal de Joyeuse was abbot from 1613-1615. In 1637 Père de Condren, Superior of the Oratory, took possession of it, and in 1638 the house of Juilly became a royal academy for the education of young men. The new order of studies approved by Richelieu marked a pedagogical revolution: the Latin grammars written in Latin were abandoned and French textbooks were used in the study of the dead languages. The college became national property in 1791, and was re-purchased in 1796 by a few Oratorians; in 1828 by Salinis, future Bishop of Amiens and Scorbiac, chaplain-general of the university; in 1840 by the Abbé Bautain; finally, in 1867, the college returned into the hands of the new Congregation of the Oratory founded by the Abbé Pétetot. In the salon of the Abbé de Salinis, at Juilly, was established in December, 1830, the Agence générale pour la défense de la liberté religieuse. Lamennais resided at Juilly while editor of "L'Avenir". It was at Juilly, in 1836, that the future bishop, Gerbet, founded the review "L'Université Catholique". Among the students at Juilly in the seventeenth century were the Marshals de Berwick and de Villars; in the nineteenth, Mgr de Mérode and the famous lawyer, Berryer.

270 A council convoked in 845 at Meaux by Charles the Bald adopted important measures for the re-establishment of discipline in the three ecclesiastical provinces of Sens, Bourges, and Reims. Other councils were held at Meaux in 962, 1082, 1204, 1229 (ended in Paris), where the Count of Toulouse was reconciled with the Church; in 1240 a council was held in which the sentence of excommunication was pronounced against Frederick II by Joannes of Palestrina, legate of Gregory IX; there was held an important council in 1523. Four councils were held at Melun, in 1216, 1225, 1232, 1300. The city of Provins was famous in the Middle Ages for its burlesque ceremonies (fête de fous, fête do l'âne, fête des Innocents) held in the church. The cathedral of St-Etienne de Meaux is a fine Gothic edifice begun about 1170. The church of Champigny has a magnificent crypt dating from the thirteenth century. The principal pilgrimages of the diocese are: Notre Dame do Lagny, dating from 1128; Notre Dame du Chêne de Preuilly, dating from the foundation of the Cistercian Abbey (1118); Notre Dame du Chêne at Crouy-sur-Ourcq, dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century; Notre Dame de Bon Secours near Fontainebleau (the pilgrimage was established in 1661 by d'Auberon, an officer of the great Condé); Notre Dame de la Cave at Champigny; Notre Dame de Pitié at Verdelot; Notre Dame de Melun at Melun; Notre Dame du Puy at Sigy. The head of St. Veronica at Pomponne has long been the object of a pilgrimage, greatly furthered by the Jesuits in 1670; the cloak (chape) of St. Martin of which a large portion is preserved at Bussy-St-Martin, also attracts pilgrims.

271 Before the application of the Associations Law of 1901 religious communities were represented in the diocese by the Lazarists, Oratorians, Little Brothers of Mary, Fathers and Brothers of St. Mary of Tinchebray, School Brothers of the Christian Doctrine. Of the congregations of women the following may be mentioned: the Celestine Sisters, a teaching and nursing order founded in 1839 (mother-house at Provins); the Sisters of St. Louis, a nursing and teaching order, founded in 1841 by the Abbé Bautain (mother-house at Juilly), the Carmelites of Meaux, called Carmel of Pius IX, founded 30 August, 1860. The Benedictines of the Sacred Heart of Mary, devoted to teaching and contemplation, restored in 1837 the ancient abbey of Jouarre. The religious congregations had under their care: 4 crèches, 52 day nurseries, 1 orphanage for boys, 15 orphanages for girls, 14 industrial rooms, 10 houses of mercy, 26 hospitals or asylums, 19 houses for the care of the sick in their own homes, 1 house of retreat. In 1908 the Diocese of Meaux had 361,939 inhabitants, 39 parishes, 402 succursal parishes, 8 vicariates.

272 Gallia Christiana (nova, 1744), VIII, 1596-1670, instrumenta, 547-574; DUCHESNE, Fastes Episcopaux, II, 471-475; DU PLESSIS, Histoire de l'Eglise de Meaux (2 vols., Meaux, 1731); CARRO, Histoire de Meaux et du pays Meldois (Meaux, 1865); ALLOU, Chronique des évêques de Meaux (Meaux, 1876); NÉRET, Martyrs et confesseurs de la foi du diocèse de Meaux, 1792 1795 (Meaux, 1905); HAMEL, Histoire de l'Eglise et du Collège de Juilly (3rd ed., Paris, 1888); THIERCELIN, Le monastère de Jouarre (Paris, 1861); CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibl., 1886-87.

273 Georges Goyau

Mecca

268 Mecca, the capital of Arabia and the sacred city of the Mohammedans, is situated in the district of Hijaz about 21°30' N. latitude and 40°20' E. longitude, some seventy miles east of the Red Sea. It lies in a sandy valley surrounded by rocky hills from two hundred to five hundred feet in height, barren and destitute of vegetation.

269 The birthplace of Mohammed and the seat of the famous Kaaba, it was celebrated even in pre-Islamic times as the chief sanctuary of the Arabs, and visited by numerous pilgrims and devotees. The city presents an aspect more pleasing than that of the ordinary Eastern town, with comparatively wide streets and stone houses, usually of three stories, and well aired and lighted. The inhabitants, numbering about 60,000, are with few exceptions Arabians whose chief employment consists in lodging the pilgrims and serving the temple, although no inconsiderable amount of trade is carried on with the Bedouins of the surrounding desert. Mecca, the seat of government during the reign of the first five Khalifs, is now governed by a Sharif, chosen by the people from the Sayyids or the descendants of Mohammed, but under the immediate authority of the Sultan of Turkey (Hughes, "Dictionary of Islam", q.v.). Mecca is annually visited by some 80,000 pilgrims from all over the Mohammedan world. On their way the pilgrims pass through Medina, the second sacred town of Arabia, and on approaching Mecca they undress, laying aside even their headgear, and put on aprons and a piece of cloth over the left shoulder. Then they perform the circuit of the Kaaba, kiss the Black Stone, hear the sermon on Mount Arafât, pelt Satan with stones in the valley of Mina, and conclude their pilgrimage with a great sacrificial feast. In a year or two Mecca will be reached by the Hijaz Railway already completed as far as Medina (about eight hundred and fifty miles from Damascus). From Medina to Mecca the distance is two hundred and eighty miles, and from Mecca to Damascus about one thousand one hundred and ten miles. The railway passes through the old caravan route, Damascus, Mezarib, Maan, Medawara, Tebuk, Madain Saleh, El-Ula, Medina, and Mecca.

270 The early history of Mecca is shrouded in obscurity, although Mohammedan writers have preserved an abundance of legendary lore according to which the city dates back to Abraham who is said to have there worshipped the true God. It is also stated that after the death of Abraham, the inhabitants of Mecca, owing to the evil influence of the heathen Amalekites, fell into idolatry and paganism, and the Kaaba itself became surrounded with their idols. Hundreds of these idols were destroyed by Mohammed on his entrance into the city at the head of a Moslem army in the eighth year of the Hejira, or A.D. 629. During the century before Mohammed, we find the tribe of Quraish in undisputed possession of the city and the acknowledged guardians of the Kaaba. The leading events in Mecca at that period, such as the Abyssinian expedition against Yemen and the utter defeat of Arabia's army at the hand of the Meccans, have been already discussed in the article .

271 See the bibliography appended to the articles , ; BURKHARDT, Travels in Arabia (London, 1830); BURTON, Personal narrative of a Pilgrimage to El Medina and Mecca (London, 1857); HURGRONJE, SNOUCK, Mecca, mit Bilder Atlas, II (The Hague, 1888); IDEM, Het Mekkanische Feest (Leyden, 1888).

272 Gabriel Oussani

Mechanism

271 There is no constant meaning in the history of philosophy for the word Mechanism. Originally, the term meant that cosmological theory which ascribes the motion and changes of the world to some external force. In this view material things are purely passive, while according to the opposite theory (i. e., Dynamism), they possess certain internal sources of energy which account for the activity of each and for its influence on the course of events; These meanings, however, soon underwent modification. The question as to whether motion is an inherent property of bodies, or has been communicated to them by some external agency, was very often ignored. With a large number of cosmologists the essential feature of Mechanism is the attempt to reduce all the qualities and activities of bodies to quantitative realities, i. e. to mass and motion. But a further modification soon followed. Living bodies, as is well known, present at first sight certain characteristic properties which have no counterpart in lifeless matter. Mechanism aims to go beyond these appearances. It seeks to explain all "vital" phenomena as physical and chemical facts; whether or not these facts are in turn reducible to mass and motion becomes a secondary question, although Mechanists are generally inclined to favour such reduction. The theory opposed to this biological mechanism is no longer Dynamism, but Vitalism or Neo-vitalism, which maintains that vital activities cannot be explained, and never will be explained, by the laws which govern lifeless matter. As Mechanism professes to furnish a complete system of the world, its extreme partisans apply it to psychical manifestations and even to social phenomena; but here it is at best only tentative and the result very questionable. Its advocates merely connect, more or less thoroughly, psychological and social facts with the general laws or leading hypotheses of biology. It is preferable, therefore, in the present state of our knowledge, to disregard these features of mechanistic doctrine, which are certainly of a provisional character. In a word then, Mechanism in its various forms shows a tendency to interpret phenomena of a higher order in terms of the Lower and less complex, and to carry this reduction down to the simplest attainable forms, i. e. to those quantitative realities which we call mass and motion. Psychology and sociology derive their explanation from biology; biology derives its explanation from the physical and chemical sciences, while these in turn borrow their explanation from mechanics. The science of mechanics becomes by a very simple process a particular phase of mathematical analysis, so that the ideal of Mechanism is Mathematism, that is to say, the representation of all phenomena by mathematical equations. Hence it is plain that Mechanism tends to eliminate from science and from reality all "qualitative" aspects, all "forms" and "ends". We shall first state the arguments brought forward in support of the theory, and then subject it to criticism.

272 I. Arguments

273 (1) Modern Mechanism, which unquestionably goes back to Descartes, arose, it is said, from a legitimate reaction against the errors of decadent Scholasticism. The latter had abused the old theory of forms and latent qualities. Whenever a phenomenon called for explanation, it was furnished by endowing the substance with a new quality; and, as Molière jestingly puts it, "the poppy made one sleep because it has the sleep-inducing property". Each thing was what it was by virtue of an appropriate form; man by the human form, a pebble by its pebble form; and each thing performed its characteristic functions by some "virtue". Thus, it is alleged, all explanations fell into tautology, and science was doomed a priori to pursue a monotonous round in complete sterility. If Mechanism did nothing more than deliver us from this absurd logomachy, it would possess at least a negative value, emphasizing by its opposition the weakness of qualitative explanations.

274 (2) The general laws of applied logic are cited in favour of the principles of Mechanism. The scientific fact is not the initial fact of observation. The scientist is not satisfied with seeing, he must understand; and the only way to understand is to explain. Now there is but one conceivable method of explaining the new reality; the things which are not understood must be reduced to known antecedents. The barrenness of formal and final causes is, according to the Mechanists, at once manifest. The form is what makes a thing what it is, but the fact or thing which is to be explained does not become intelligible by reason of its being what it is. Therefore, to allege the form as an explanation is to explain a thing by itself. The interpretations based on "ends" are not more productive of scientific results. Aside from the anthropomorphic illusions to which such interpretations are liable, the ends help us no better than the forms to avoid tautology. The end of a thing is only the action towards which it tends, the term of its development. But this action and this term can be known only through further observation; they constitute new facts which require an explanation of their own. We learn nothing from them as to the nature of the original thing; they do not tell us how or by what internal factors it performs its action or reaches its term. To explain the eye by declaring that it was made to see, is to state that it is an eye but nothing more. To understand the eye it is necessary to know by what internal structure, and under what sort of stimulation the organ performs its visual functions.

275 Hence, say the Mechanists, all ends and final causes must be banished from scientific systematizations. The unknown can be explained only by reduction, to the known, the new by reduction to the anterior, the complex by reduction to the simple. Now, if we look for the only genuinely scientific explanation, we cannot stop until we reach mass and motion. Such indeed is human intelligence, that we first grasp the most general and the simplest realities, and we grasp these the best. Take for example the very general phenomenon of life. To explain it by a vital force or principle would simply be not to explain it at all. We must, if we would understand life, reduce it to something which is not life, to something simpler and better known. We must therefore, the Mechanist asserts, have recourse to the physical and chemical phenomena, and our understanding of life is measured by the possibilities of this reduction. It may be that we have not explained by this method everything connected with vital phenomena, since their reduction to physical laws is as yet incomplete: but this does not justify the assumption of a latent quality; it only means that our biological knowledge is far from perfect. Chemical phenomena and physical qualities must likewise be accounted for. Under pain of fruitless tautology, we must reduce them to that which is already known. But we find here only quantitative matter and motion, realities which may be reduced to mathematical formulæ, thus bringing us to a practically pure idea of quantity. Beyond this we cannot go, for if we suppress quantity our mind loses all hold on the real. It apparently follows that by the very requirements of logic, Mechanism alone has an indisputable claim to a place in the realm of science. Any other system, the Mechanists claim, must necessarily be provisional, tautological, and therefore misleading.

276 (3) There is another consideration which is said to outweigh all reasoning a priori: Mechanism succeeds. Its explanations, we are told, are clear and precise to a degree unattainable in any other theory, and they satisfy the mind with a synthetic view of reality. They alone have delivered us from an intolerable pluralism in the cosmic system, secured that unity of thought which seems to be an imperative need of our mind, and brought under control phenomena which had defied all analysis and which had to be accepted as primary data. Furthermore, the doctrines of Mechanism have enabled us to anticipate observation and to make forecasts which facts in nature have actually confirmed. Herein is a guarantee which, for the Mechanists, is well worth all theoretical proofs. Such, in the main, is the line of reasoning followed by the adherents of Mechanism. That it is not conclusive will appear quite clearly from the following examination into its value.

277 II. Criticism

278 It cannot be denied that mechanistic ideas have played a useful and creditable part in science. Whatever one may think of the Cartesian revolution in the realm of philosophy, it has certainly stimulated research in the scientific field. This service cannot be overlooked, even though one be convinced of the inability of Mechanism to provide us with a formula of the universe. It is none the less true, however, that Mechanism as a cosmic theory must be rejected.

279 (1) First of all, there is in the progress of natural phenomena a fundamental fact which Mechanism is unable to account for, the irreversibility of cosmic events. All motion is reversible: when a moving object has covered the distance from A to B, we at once understand that it can go back over the path from B to A. If, therefore, everything that happens is motion, it is not clear why events in nature should not at times retrace their march, why the fruit should not return to the flower, the flower to the bud, the tree itself to the plant and finally to the seed. True, it is shown that this reversion, even in the mechanistic hypothesis, is exceedingly improbable, but it would not be impossible. Now such reversion, in the case of certain phenomena at least, is more than improbable; it is inconceivable, for instance, that our limbs should be bruised before the fall which causes the bruise. This irreversibility of cosmic processes is undoubtedly, as the Mechanists themselves admit, the chief difficulty against their system.

280 (2) When we enter within the field of biology, the difficulties against Mechanism multiply. Granted that this doctrine has served as a guide to many successful investigators, what have they attained in the last analysis? They have not advanced one step nearer to the "formula of life." All the biological facts so far examined and understood have been brought into the category of physico-chemical activities — indeed, this might have been expected; but that is not life. A particular phase is isolated for examination, and the characteristic mark of life is thereby destroyed. For that which characterizes life experimentally considered, is the unity, the solidarity of all these particular activities; all converge to one common purpose, the constitution of the living being in its undeniable individuality. Its explanation surely cannot be found in disintegrating it by analysis. The conflict with Mechanism has now been carried into the experimental field, and the last few years have yielded an ever increasing number of observations which seem to defy all mechanistic reduction. These are chiefly concerned with abnormal conditions which are brought about during the first stages of individual development. Sea urchin embryos, taken when they have progressed far enough to permit the determination of the normal growth of each part, and divided into two or three segments, produce as many animals as there were artificial segments. Must not the conclusion be that there exists in each embryo a simple principle — an entelechy as Driesch says, using Aristotle's term — which is one in the whole organism and is entire within each part? Is not this the very contrary of Mechanism which claims to reduce everything to the movements (interwoven of course, but really independent) of the parts? It is not surprising, therefore, that the adherents of neo-Vitalism should now be numerous, and that their ranks are growing fast.

281 (3) But it is principally before logical and philosophical criticism, that Mechanism seems to give way completely. Those very ideas on the nature of explanation, according to which it is attempted to reduce all reality to terms of the supposed primary notions of mass and motion, preclude Mechanism from ever attaining the whole of reality. The present must be reduced to the past, the new to that which is already known, the complex to the more simple; but this original datum remains, that the complex and the simple are not identical, that the new fact is not the fact which was already known. If we suppose all that was contained in the complex to have been reduced by analysis to simple elements already known, we have still to explain their combination, their unity in the complex; and it is just these that have been destroyed by the explanatory analysis. Given that there is something to explain, something unknown, it is clear that there is something beyond the known and the old, and there must inevitably be some principle which moulds into unity the numerous elements, and which either for the species or for the individual, may in a very broad sense be called the "form". Explanations based on analysis do not discover the form, because they begin by destroying it. It may be said, in a particular but entirely acceptable sense, that "form" explains nothing, because to explain is to reduce, and form is by its very nature irreducible. But from this to the denial of form is a very far cry. The scholastics of the decadent period erred in regarding forms as explanatory principles, but Mechanism distorts the reality by reducing it to its "matter", by ignoring its specific and its individual unity. For the same reason, the mechanical interpretations of the dynamic aspect of things, that is to say of cosmic evolution, prove futile. It is of course instructive in the highest degree to know what previous state of the universe accounts for the present state of things; but to look on those anterior efficient causes of things as the adequate representations of their effects, is to lose sight of the fact that these latter are effects, while the former were causes; the consequence is an absolute "statism" and a denial of all causality.

282 Similar observations might be made on the subject of final causes. The meaning itself of the word finality has undergone singular changes since Aristotle and the thirteenth century. Let it suffice to note that finality has its basis in the intellectual nature of an efficient cause, or in the internal tendency of a form viewed from the standpoint of activity, of dynamism. The decadent Scholastics weakened their position when they relied on forms and ends only as means of scientific explanations strictly so called, while Mechanists are clearly in error when they seek in these same scientific explanations for an account of reality to the exclusion of forms and ends. More might be said of the manifest inadequacy of quantitative images, of cosmological Mathematism which reduces all continuity to discontinuity and all time to coincidences without duration, and of the anti-mechanistic reaction which asserts itself under the name of Energism, and with which the researches of Ostwald and of Duhem are associated. But these are complex and general problems. We may now resume and draw our conclusions.

283 III. Conclusion

284 Mechanism is a cosmological theory which holds that all phenomena in nature are reducible to simple phenomena in such a manner that the ultimate realities of the material world are mass and motion. This system has rendered signal service; it exhibits in great clearness the material causes or phenomena; indeed, this explains why its formulæ may, in exceptional cases, provide a formula applicable to some fact as yet unknown. But it is impossible to regard Mechanism as a real representation of our universe. It wrought its own ruin when it claimed a scope and a significance which are denied it by the reality of things and the exigencies of logic.

285 All general treatises on philosophy give at least a few pages to Mechanism. See also: MERCIER, Psychologie, I (Louvain, 1905); NYS, Cosmologie (2nd ed., Louvain, 1906); TILMANN PESCH, Die grossen Welträtsel (Freiburg, 1907); GEMELLI, L'Enigma della vita e i nuovi orizzonti della biologia (Florence, 1910); OSTWALD, Vorlesungen über Naturphilosophie (Leipzig, 1905); DRIESCH, Der Vitalismus als Gesch. u. als Lehre (Leipzig, 1905); DE MUNNYNCK, Les bases psychologiques du Mécanisme in Revue des sciences philos. et théol. (Kain, Belgium, 1907); BRUNHES, La Dégradation de l'Energie (Paris, 1908).

286 M. P. de Munnynck.

Mechitar

274 (MECHITHAR, MEKHITAR, MCHITAR or MOCHTOR, a word which means "Comforter")

275 Mechitar is the name taken by Peter Manuk, founder of the religious order of Mechitarists, when he became a monk. A native of Sebaste (Sivas) in Lesser Armenia, born 7 February, 1676, of parents reputed noble, he was left until the age of fifteen in the care of two pious nuns. Then he entered the cloister of the Holy Cross near Sebaste, and the same year (1691), was ordained deacon by Bishop Ananias. Shortly afterwards, impelled by his thirst for knowledge, he left the cloister- putting off the habit or infringing his vows (the Eastern monk could, for a proper reason, lawfully leave the enclosure) and set forth, in the company of a doctor of that city, for Etchmiadzin, the capital of Greater Armenia, persuaded that it was the centre of civilization and the home of all the sciences. During the journey he met with a European missionary and a fellow Armenian, whose accounts of the wonders of the West changed the course of his life. Stirred with an admiration of Western culture and the desire to introduce it among his countrymen, he wandered from place to place, earning a scanty living by teaching. After eighteen months he returned to Sebaste where he remained for some time, still ambitious to study Western civilization. Even then he had conceived the idea of founding a religious society-, doubtless, by the well-intentioned but long since suppressed association of the "United Brothers"- would labour to introduce Western ideas and Western influence into Armenia. This would imply a formal reunion of the Armenian Church with Rome, and there would be an end of that wavering between Constantinople and Rome, so injurious to the spiritual and intellectual welfare of his country. At Sebaste, he devoted himself to the reading of the Armenian sacred writers and the Syrian and Greek Fathers in translations, and, after a vain attempt to reach Europe from Alexandria, he was ordained priest (1696) in his own city, and (1699) received the title and staff of doctor (Vartabed) . Then he began to preach, and went to Constantinople with the intention of founding an Armenian College. He continued his preaching there, generally in the church of St. George, gathered some disciples around him, and distinguished himself by his advocacy of union with the Holy See. Serious trouble ensued with a violent persecution of the Catholics by the Turks excited by the action of Count Ferrol, minister of Louis XIV at Stamboul, who carried off to Paris the anti-Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople. Naturally, the fervour of Mechitar and his disciples in the Catholic cause, and the success of their preaching singled them out for special attention. The two patriarchs, urged by a schismatic, Avedik, led the attack. Mechitar wisely dismissed his disciples and himself took refuge in a Capuchin convent under French protection. Pursued by his enemies, he escaped to the Morea, thence to Venetian territory, finding shelter in a Jesuit house. He attributed his safety to our Blessed Lady, under whose protection, on 8 Sept., the Feast of her Nativity, he had solemnly placed himself and his society.

276 The Venetians kindly gave him some property at Modon (1701), where he built a church and convent, and laid the foundations of the Mechitarist Order. Clement XI gave it formal approval in 1712, and appointed Mechitar Abbot. Three years later war broke out between Venice and the Porte, and the new abbey was in jeopardy. The abbot, leaving seventy of his monks behind, crossed over to Venice with sixteen companions with the intention of beginning a second foundation. It was well that he did so for the Venetians were defeated and the Morea was regained by the Turks. Modon was taken, the monastery destroyed and the monks dispersed. The house rented at Venice proved too small and Mechitar exerted all his influence to obtain the gift of San Lazzaro, an island about two miles south-east of the city, not far from the Lido. His request granted, he restored the old ruined church, and a second time built a monastery for his monks. This establishment has remained undisturbed in the hands of the Mechitarists to the present day. At S. Lazzaro he devised many schemes for the regeneration of his country. An accusation brought against him at Rome- a personal charge but one connected with the labours undertaken by the order- in a better understanding with the Holy See, and the personal friendship of the pope. He lived at S. Lazzaro for thirty years, busy with his printing-press and his literary labours, and died at the age of seventy-four, on 16 April, 1749. Since his death he is always spoken of by his children as the Abbas Pater, Abbai hairm (see MECHITARISTS).

277 The most important of his literary works are the following: "Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew" (1737); "Commentary on Ecclesiasticus" (Venice); "Armenian Grammar"; "Armenian Grammar of the Vulgar Tongue"; "Armenian Dictionary" (1744, and in two volumes, Venice, 1749-69); "Armenian Catechism", both in the literary and vulgar tongues; "A Poem on the Blessed Virgin"; "Armenian Bible" (1734).

278 Vita dell' abbate Mechitar (Venice, 1810); La vie du serviteur de Dieu Mechitar, fondateur de l'ordre des moines arméniens Mechitaristes de Venise, ainsi que La vie des abbés généraux et des moines les plus célébres de la congrégation (Venice, 1901).

279 J. C. Almond.

Mechitarists

277 Armenian Benedictines, founded by Mechitar in 1712. In its inception the order was looked upon merely as an attempted reform of Eastern monachism. P. Filippo Bonanni, S.J., writes at Rome, in 1712 when the order received its approval, of the arrival of P. Elias Martyr and P. Joannes Simon, two Armenian monks sent by Mechitar to Pope Clement XI to offer His Holiness the most humble subjection of himself and convent (Ut ei se cum suis religiosis humillime subjiceret). There is no mention, at the moment, of the Benedictine rule. The monks, such as St. Anthony instituted in Egypt (quos St. Antonius in Aegypto instituerat), have begun a foundation in Modon with Mechitar (Mochtàr) as abbot.

278 After two years' noviceship, they take the usual vows, with a fourth in addition - "to give obedience to the preceptor or master deputed by their superior to teach them the dogmas of the Catholic Faith". Many of them vow themselves also to missionary work in Armenia, Persia, and Turkey, where they live on alms and wear as a badge, beneath the tunic, a cross of red cloth, on which are certain letters signifying their desire to shed their blood for the Catholic Faith. They promise on oath to work together in harmony so that they may the better win the schismatics back to God. They elect an abbot for life, who has the power to dismiss summarily any of his monks who should prove disorderly. They wear the beard, Oriental fashion, and have a black habit - tunic, cloak and hood. In the engraving attached to the description, the Mechitarist would be undistinguishable from a regular hermit of St. Augustine, except for his beard. When however, Pope Clement XI gave them his approval, it was as monks under the rule of St. Benedict, and he appointed Mechitar the first abbot. This was a great innovation; nothing less than the introduction of Western monasticism into the East. There, up to this time a monk undertook no duties but to fill his place in the monastery. He admitted no vocation but to save his soul in the cloister. He had, in theory, at least, broken off all relations with the outside world. He had no idea of making himself useful to mankind, or of any good works whatsoever save his choir duties, his prayers, his fastings, and the monastic observance. He belonged to no religious order but was simply a monk. Now, as a Benedictine, he would be expected to devote himself to some useful work and take some thought of his neighbour. It is clear, from P. Bonanni's description, that Mechitar and his monks wished this change and had already adopted the Western idea of the monk's vocation. The adoption of the Benedictine rule, therefore, was merely a recognition of their desire to devote themselves to apostolic work among their schismatic brethren, to instruct their ignorance, excite their devotion and bring them back into the communion of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church. And it was also a security that they would not afterwards lapse into the apathy and inactivity associated in the Eastern mind with the life of the cloister. It is not quite accurate to speak of them as a Benedictine "Congregation", though it is their customary description. They are a new "Order" of monks living under the rule of St. Benedict, as distinct from the parent order as the Cistercians, Camaldolese, Silvestrines, or Olivetans. Hence we do not find them classed among the numerous congregations of the Benedictine order.

279 Missionaries, writers, and educationists, devoted to the service of their Armenian brethren wherever they might be found, such were and are these Benedictines of the Eastern Church. Their subjects usually enter the convent at an early age, eight or nine years old, receive in it their elementary schooling, spend about nine years in philosophical and theological study, at the canonical age of twenty-five, if sufficiently prepared, are ordained priests by their bishop-abbot, and are then employed by him in the various enterprises of the order. First, there is the work of the mission - not the conversion of the heathen, but priestly ministry to the Armenian communities settled in most of the commercial centres of Europe. With this is joined, where needed and possible, the apostolate of union with Rome. Next there is the education of the Armenian youth and, associated with this, the preparation and publication of good and useful Armenian literature.

280 The parent abbey is that of St. Lazzaro at Venice; next in importance is that at Vienna, founded in 1810; there is a large convent and college for lay-students at Padua, the legacy of a pious Armenian who died at Madras; in the year 1846 another rich benefactor, Samuel Morin, founded a similar establishment at Paris. Other houses are in Austria-Hungary, Russia, Persia and Turkey - fourteen in all, according to the latest statistics, with one hundred and fifty-two monks, the majority of whom are priests. Not a great development for an order two hundred years old; but its extension is necessarily restricted because of its exclusive devotion to persons and things Armenian. Amongst their countrymen the influence of the monks has been not only directive in the way of holiness and true service to God and His Church, but creative of a wholesome national ambition and self-respect. Apostles of culture and progress, they may be said, with strict justice, to have preserved from degradation and neglect the language and literature of their country, and in so doing, have been the saviours of the Armenian race. Individually, the monks are distinguished by their linguistic accomplishments, and the Vienna establishment has attracted attention by the institution of a Literary Academy, which confers honorary membership without regard to race or religion.

281 In every one of their many undertakings their founder, Mechitar, personally showed them the way. To him they owe the initiative in the study of the Armenian writings of the fourth and fifth centuries, which has resulted in the development and adoption of a literary 1anguage, nearly as distinct from the vulgar tongue as Latin is from Italian. Thus the modern Armenian remains in touch with a distinguished and inspiring past, and has at his service a rich and important literature which otherwise would have been left, unknown or unheeded, to decay. Mechitar, with his Armenian "Imitation" and "Bible", began that series of translations of great books, continued unceasingly during two centuries, and ranging from the early Fathers of the Church and the works of St. Thomas of Aquin (one of their first labours) to Homer and Virgil and the best known poets and historians of later days.

282 At one period, in connexion with their Vienna house, there existed an association for the propagation of good books, which is said to have distributed nearly a million volumes, and printed and published six new works each year. To him also they owe the guidance of their first steps in exegesis - the branch of learning in which they have won most distinction - and the kindred studies of the Liturgy and the religious history of their country. At S. Lazzara he founded the printing press from which the most notable of their productions have been issued, and commenced there the collection of Armenian manuscripts for which their library has become famous. To any but members of the order the history of the Mechitarists has been uneventful, because of the quiet, untiring plodding along ancient, traditional paths, and the admirable fidelity to the spirit and ideals of their founder (see MECHITAR).

283 It has been principally by means of the Mechitarists' innumerable periodicals, pious manuals, Bibles, maps, engravings, dictionaries, histories, geographies and other contributions to educational and popular literature, that they have done good service to the Armenian Church and nation. Following are the most valuable of their contributions to the common cause of learning. First, there is the recovery, in ancient Armenian translations, of some lost works of the Fathers of the Church. Among them may be noted "Letters (thirteen) of St. Ignatius of Antioch" and a fuller and more authentic "History of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius"; some works of St. Ephrem the Syrian, notably a sort of "Harmony of the Gospels" and a "Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul"; an exceptionally valuable edition of "Eusebius's History". The publication of these works is due to the famous Mechitarist Dom J. B. Aucher, who was assisted in the last of them by Cardinal Mai. To Aucher also we are indebted for a German translation of the "Armenian Missal" Tübingen, 1845) and "Dom Johannis philosophi Ozniensis Armeniorum Catholici (A. D., 718) Opera" (Venice, 1534). Two original historical works may also be noted: "The History of Armenia", by P. Michel Tschamtschenanz (1784-6) and the "Quadro della storia letteraria di Armenia" by Mgr. Pl. Sukias Somal (Venice, 1829).

284 TSCHAMTSCHENANZ, Compendiose notizie sulla congregazione dei monachi Armeni Mechitaristici (Venice, 1819) NEUMANN, Essai d'une histoire de la Littérature arménienne (Leipzig, 1836); KALEMKIAR, Une esquisse de l'activité littéraire-typographique de la congrégation méchitariste à Vienne; GOSCHLER, Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Théol. Cathol., XIV, Art. Mechitaristes.

285 J. C. Almond.

Archdiocese of Mechlin

280 (Lat. MECHLINIA; Fr. MALINES; MECHLINIENSIS).

281 Archdiocese comprising the two Belgian provinces of Antwerp and Brabant. This diocese derives its present configuration from the French Concordat of 1801. The ecclesiastical province of Mechlin is coextensive with the Belgian Kingdom (suffragan bishoprics: Tournai, Liège, Namur, Gand, Bruges); it extended to the Rhine under Napoleon I. The city of Mechlin, prior to 1559, belonged to the deanery of Brussels and to the archdeaconry of the same name in the diocese of Cambrai. Its importance ecclesiastically was due to the ancient Chapter of Canons of the collegiate church of St. Rombaut. Paul IV, by his bull "Super universi orbis ecclesias" (12 May, 1559) created a new hierarchy in the Netherlands composed of three metropolitan (Mechlin, Cambrai, Utrecht) and fifteen episcopal sees. The Archbishop of Mechlin was raised to the dignity of primate by the Constitutions of Pius IV in 1560 and 1561. The Christian Faith was zealously preached in the present diocese during the seventh and eighth centuries. It is known that Antwerp was visited by St. Eligius, Bishop of Tournai (d. 660), and by St. Amand, the Apostle of Flanders and Bishop of Maestricht (d. 679). The latter's successors in the see of Tongres-Maestricht-Liège, St. Lambert (d. about 700) and St. Hubert (d. 727) are said to have visited Mechlin and Brabant. This evangelical work was followed up by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries St. Willibrord (d. 738) and St. Rumold or Rombaut (d. about 775). St. Rombaut was martyred at Mechlin, and became the city's patron saint, and subsequently the patron of the whole diocese. Among the saints of this diocese are several members of Pepin of Landen's family, his widow St. Itta, foundress of the Abbey of Nivelles, his daughters, St. Gertrude (d. 659) and St. Begga (d. 698); the two sisters St. Gudule (d. 712) and St. Rainelde; in the ninth century St. Libert of Mechlin and St. Guidon of Anderlecht; St. Wivine, foundress of the Benedictine abbey of Grand Bigard (d. 1170); St. Albert of Louvain, Prince Bishop of Liège and martyr (d. 1192); St. Marie d'Orignies (d. 1232); St. Lutgard (d. 1246), and Blessed Alice (d. 1250), both Cistercian nuns, the former in Aywières, the latter at la Cambre; St. Boniface of Brussels, Bishop of Lausanne (d. 1265); Blessed Jean de Ruysbroeck, an Augustinian monk of Groenendael, because of his mystical writings known as the "divine and admirable doctor" (d. 1381); several priests put to death by the Calvinists at Gorcum (1572); the Jesuits, St. John Berchmans of Diest, patron of student youth (d. 1621), and Venerable Leonard Leys (Lessius) of Brecht, renowned for his piety and his theological works (d. 1623).

282 It was at the beginning of the twelfth century that Tanchelm, a native of Zealand, became known, chiefly in Antwerp, for his violent attacks on the hierarchy, and the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist. He shared the pernicious errors of the Adamites, and gave an example of the worst kind of debauchery. Toward the middle of the century, Bishop Nicolas of Cambrai excommunicated Jonas, one of the promoters of Catharism in Brabant. A little later numerous Beghards and Beguines fell into the errors of the sect known as the Brothers of the Free Spirit. To this sect also belonged the nun, Sister Hadewijc (Hedwig) or Bloemardine, who gained numerous partisans in Brussels. Her writings were refuted by Jean de Ruysbroeck. Bloemardine died about 1336, but her followers lived on, and as late as about 1410 Pierre d'Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, was compelled to take measures against them. The Black Plague of 1349 gave rise to the processions of Flagellants. These hailed from Germany and traversed the country practicing the mortification from which their name has arisen. The ecclesiastical authorities were obliged to intervene on behalf of the Jews detested by the Flagellants. On the other hand, religious sentiment manifested itself in numerous monastic institutions. Afflighem, the principal Benedictine abbey, dates from 1086. The people of Antwerp, whom Tanchelm had fanaticized, were brought back by St. Norbert to a Christian mode of life. Soon arose in Brabant many Premonstratensian abbeys: St. Michel at Antwerp (1124), Tongerloo (1128), le Parc near Louvain (1129), Heylissem (1130), Grimberghen (1131), Averbode (1132), Dieligem and Postel (1140). Among other abbeys for men may be mentioned: the Benedictine abbeys of Vlierbeek (1125); the noble abbey of St. Gertrude at Louvain, belonging to the Augustinian canons; the Cistercian abbeys of Villers (1147) and of St. Bernard (1237). Some of the numerous colleges of Austin Canons are: St. Jacques sur Caudenberg at Brussels, Hanswijck at Mechlin, Corssendonck, Groenendael, Rougecloitre and Septfontaines, all three in the forest of Soignes. In most places of consequence Augustinians, Franciscans, Carmelites and Dominicans were established. The military orders were represented at the Teutonic Commandery of Pitzemburg in Mechlin and in Becquevoort. The leading abbeys for women were: Grand Bigard and Cortenberg (Benedictines); la Cambre, Roosendael, Nazareth (Cistercians). The semi-monastic institution of the Beguinages (q. v.), small settlements in the heart of cities or just outside city walls, is a peculiar feature of religious life in the Netherlands. They were once numerous (the number of Beguines who went forth from Mechlin to greet Charles the Bold, on the occasion of his joyful entry in 1467, was 900), and still endure, though much reduced in numbers, at Mechlin, Antwerp, Louvain, Diest, Lierre, Turnhout, Hoogstraeten and Herenthals. The increase of the secular clergy and its improved material conditions caused the chapters of Canons to grow in number, and eventually the collegiate churches of the diocese reached a total of twenty. Public instruction was conducted by parochial and chapter schools. Finally Martin V, by his bull of 9 December, 1425, erected a university at Louvain.

283 At the close of the Middle Ages, it is well known, both faith and morals suffered a notable decay. More or less rightly, Jean Pupper de Goch (d. 1475), superior of the Thabor Convent at Mechlin, has been styled the precursor of Luther, who soon found numerous partisans in the diocese, especially at Antwerp where his Augustinian brethren declared in his favour. Protestantism, though vigorously opposed by Charles V, was again menacing at the end of his reign, when Lutheranism gave way to Calvinism. The creation in 1559 of new sees, though an indispensable measure, brought about a coalition of all discontented parties. Philip II, by removing the first Archbishop of Mechlin, Cardinal de Granvelle, deprived the Catholic and monarchical cause of its ablest champion, and thereby hastened the impending revolution. In 1556 the iconoclastic mob put to death both religious and priests, and sacked the churches and monasteries. Disorder continued until the advent of the Archduke Albert and Isabella. The people remained loyal to Catholicism and the University of Louvain proved a valiant defender, though Protestant theories exercised at the university a certain influence particularly on Baius and Jansenius. The Archbishop of Mechlin, Jacques Boonen (1621-55), evaded the publication of the constitution "In eminenti", by which Urban VIII condemned the "Augustinus"; he was even temporarily suspended by Innocent X. Boonen's submission did not put an end to the Jansenistic quarrels in the diocese. Oratorians, brought in by him, were inclined to rigorism. They opened colleges for the education of youth and found themselves both in this field, and in their Jansenistic views, in rivalry with the Jesuits already active in anti-Protestant controversy. The partisans and the adversaries of Jansenius took sides at once with one or other of the conflicting parties. The firmness of the archbishops at Precipiano (1690-1711) and of Cardinal d'Alsace (1715-59) repelled Jansenism, which endured however in Josephinism and Febronianism. Joseph II suppressed many convents (1783), and created the General Seminary of Louvain (1786), the doctrines of which were condemned by Cardinal de Frankenberg (1759-1801). Persecution broke out afresh in the wake of the French Revolution; Catholic worship was abolished, churches were pillaged, a multitude of ecclesiastics exiled, among them Cardinal de Frankenberg. The anti-Concordat schism of the Stevenists arose under Napoleon Bonaparte. Later, King William revived the General Seminary under the name of Philosophical College, but met with as much opposition as Joseph II. The Belgian Revolution of 1830 freed the Church from these fetters. For the later history of Mechlin see BELGIUM. The following archbishops of Mechlin were made cardinals: Antoine Perrenot de Granvella, first archbishop (1560-83) and a remarkable statesman (q. v.); Thomas Philippe d'Alsace (1716-59); Henri de Frankenberg (1759-1801); Engelbert Sterckx (1832-67); Victor Auguste Dechamps, theologian and pulpit orator (q. v.) (1867-83); Pierre Lambert Goossens (1884- 1906); Désiré Joseph Mercier (1906-), the chief originator of the neo-scholastic movement in Belgium.

284 Religious monuments: numerous edifices especially of Gothic style (Roman: St. Germain at Tirlemont, St. Gertrude at Nivelles). At Mechlin is the metropolitan church of St. Rombaut (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), with a tower 318 feet high. There is also Notre Dame, and St. Pierre (Jesuit style). Principal other edifices: churches of Lierre, Hoogstraeten, Tirlemont, Hal, Diest; and the ruins of the Abbey of Villers, the most striking monastic ruins in Belgium. The ornamentation has suffered greatly from the disorders of the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, particularly the organ gallery at Lierre, the tabernacle at Leau, the tombs at Hoogstraeten and the stained glasses in Lierre and Hoogstraeten. Of the paintings still preserved, many belong to the Antwerp School. At Mechlin there are works of Rubens in the churches of Notre Dame and St. Jean. See ANTWERP, BRUSSELS, LOUVAIN. Pilgrimages: St. Sang at Hoogstraeten, St. Sauveur at Haekendover (Tirlemont), Notre Dame at Montaigu, at Hal, at Hanswyck (Mechlin). Population (1909): 2,450,680 inhabitants; 745 parishes; 51 deaneries; one theological seminary; 3 petits seminaires; 24 episcopal colleges; 108 convents for men, and 726 for women.

285 The "Vie Diocésaine" is a monthly periodical founded in 1907. The "Theologia Mechliniensis" fundamental and sacramental theology, with treatises on virtues, indulgences, and reserved cases fills ten volumes; notable also are the "Scripture Commentary" of Ceulemans (nine volumes) on the Psalms and New Testament, and the work of Van der Stappen (five volumes) on the Liturgy.

286 Gallia Christiana, V (Paris, 1731); VAN GESTEL, Historia sacra et profana archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis (La Haye, 1725); CLAESSENS, Histoire des archeveque de Malines, II (Louvain, 1881); GODENNE, Malines jadis et aujourd'hui (Mechlin, 1908); FOPPENS, Historia episcopatus Antverpiensis (Brussels, 1717).

287 A. Kempeneer.

Johann Mechtel

283 Chronicler; b. 1562 at Pfalzel near Trier (Germany); d. after 1631, perhaps as late as 1653 at Trier. He is often named Pfalzel after his native town where he first studied and then went to the university at Trier, conducted by the Jesuits, where the historian Christopher Brote acquired a lasting influence over him. After his ordination (about 1587), he was appointed pastor at Eltz, near Limburg; in 1592 he became canon at Limburg and as such administered for two years the troublesome parish of Camberg. In 1604 he was appointed dean, but soon got into difficulties with his canons and finally, by request of the elector of Trier in order to restore peace, he resigned, and accepted the canonry at St. Paulinus in Trier. In Limburg as well as in Trier he studied history assiduously and carefully, and conscientiously collected documents and records, as well as inscriptions on monuments. Many of his sources are now lost therefore his works almost possess the value of originals for us. Of his writings may be mentioned: "Limburg Chronicle", the "Pagus Lohenahe", and the "Introductio in Pagum Lohenahe." His chief work, the "Limburg Chronicle", was begun in 1610 and finished in 1612, but it was not edited until 1757 by Hontheim in his "Prodromus historiae Trevirensis", II, 1046-1166. This edition, marked by many mistakes and omissions, was published in its entirety by Knetsch, in the "Publications of the Historical Commission for Nassau", VI (Wiesbaden, 1909). It is a revision and continuation of the old Limburg chronicle, begun by the town clerk, Tilemann, but utilizes also many other sources both printed and unprinted. His chronicle is of great value because Mechtel utilizes various accounts which contain important information as to social conditions, the price of corn and wine, the cultivation of the vine, climatic conditions and wages. In treating German and early medieval history he does not rise above the level of the historians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Both his other works are as yet unpublished; Knetsch reviews their contents in his edition of the chronicle X-XVI.

284 CARL KNETSCH, Die Limburger Chronik des Johannes Mechtel (Wiesbaden, 1909), I-XXV.

285 Patricius Schlager

St. Mechtilde

286 (Matilda von Hackeborn-Wippra).

287 Benedictine; born in 1240 or 1241 at the ancestral castle of Helfta, near Eisleben, Saxony; died in the monastery of Helfta, 19 November, 1298. She belonged to one of the noblest and most powerful Thuringian families, while here sister was the saintly and illustrious Abbess Gertrude von Hackeborn. Some writers have considered that Mechtilde von Hackeborn and Mechtilde von Wippra were two distinct persons, but, as the Barons of Hackeborn were also Lords of Wippra, it was customary for members of that family to take their name indifferently from either, or both of these estates. So fragile was she at birth, that the attendants, fearing she might die unbaptized, hurried her off to the priest who was just then preparing to say Mass. He was a man of great sanctity, and after baptizing the child, uttered these prophetic words: "What do you fear? This child most certainly will not die, but she will become a saintly religious in whom God will work many wonders, and she will end her days in a good old age." When she was seven years old, having been taken by her mother on a visit to her elder sister Gertrude, then a nun in the monastery of Rodardsdorf, she became so enamoured of the cloister that her pious parents yielded to her entreaties and, acknowledging the workings of grace, allowed her to enter the alumnate. Here, being highly gifted in mind as well as in body, she made remarkable progress in virtue and learning.

288 Ten years later (1258) she followed her sister, who, now abbess, had transferred the monastery to an estate at Helfta given her by her brothers Louis and Albert. As a nun, Mechtilde was soon distinguished for her humility, her fervour, and that extreme amiability which had characterized her from childhood and which, like piety, seemed hereditary in her race. While still very young, she became a valuable helpmate to Abbess Gertrude, who entrusted to her direction the alumnate and the choir. Mechtilde was fully equipped for her task when, in 1261, God committed to her prudent care a child of five who was destined to shed lustre upon the monastery of Helfta. This was that Gertrude who in later generations became known as St. Gertrude the Great. Gifted with a beautiful voice, Mechtilde also possessed a special talent for rendering the solemn and sacred music over which she presided as domna cantrix. All her life she held this office and trained the choir with indefatigable zeal. Indeed, Divine praise was the keynote of her life as it is of her book; in this she never tired, despite her continual and severe physical sufferings, so that in His revelations Christ was wont to call her His "nightingale". Richly endowed, naturally and supernaturally, ever gracious, beloved of all who came within the radius of her saintly and charming personality, there is little wonder that this cloistered virgin should strive to keep hidden her wondrous life. Souls thirsting for consolation or groping for light sought her advice; learned Dominicans consulted her on spiritual matters. At the beginning of her own mystic life it was from St. Mechtilde that St. Gertrude the Great learnt that the marvellous gifts lavished upon her were from God.

289 Only in her fiftieth year did St. Mechtilde learn that the two nuns in whom she had especially confided had noted down the favours granted her, and, moreover, that St. Gertrude had nearly finished a book on the subject. Much troubled at this, she, as usual, first had recourse to prayer. She had a vision of Christ holding in His hand the book of her revelations, and saying: "All this has been committed to writing by my will and inspiration; and, therefore you have no cause to be troubled about it." He also told her that, as He had been so generous towards her, she must make Him a like return, and that the diffusion of the revelations would cause many to increase in His love; moreover, He wished this book to be called "The Book of Special Grace", because it would prove such to many. When the saint understood that the book would tend to God's glory, she ceased to be troubled, and even corrected the manuscript herself. Immediately after her death it was made public, and copies were rapidly multiplied, owing chiefly to the widespread influence of the Friars Preachers. Boccaccio tells how, a few years after the death of Mechtilde, the book of her revelations was brought to Florence and popularized under the title of "La Laude di donna Matelda". It is related that the Florentines were accustomed to repeat daily before their sacred images the praises learned from St. Mechtilde's book. St. Gertrude, to whose devotedness we owe the "Liber Specialis Gratiae" exclaims: "Never has there arisen one like to her in our monastery; nor, alas! I fear, will there ever arise another such!" — little dreaming that her own name would be inseparably linked with that of Mechtilde. With that of St. Gertrude, the body of St. Mechtilde most probably still reposes at Old Helfta thought the exact spot is unknown. Her feast is kept 26 or 27 February in different congregations and monasteries of her order, by special permission of the Holy See. (For an account of the general life at Helfta and the estimate of the writings of St. Mechtilde, see GERTRUDE OF HACKEBORN; GERTRUDE THE GREAT, SAINT.)

290 There is another honour, inferior certainly to that of sanctity, yet great in itself and worthy of mention here: the homage of a transcendent genius was to be laid at the feet of St. Mechtilde. Critics have long been perplexed as to one of the characters introduced by Dante in his "Purgatorio" under the name of Matelda. After ascending seven terraces of a mountain, on each of which the process of purification is carried on, Dante, in Canto xxvii, hears a voice singing: "Venite, benedicti patris mei"; then later, in Canto xxviii, there appears to him on the opposite bank of the mysterious stream a lady, solitary, beautiful, and gracious. To her Dante addresses himself; she it is who initiates him into secrets, which it is not given to Virgil to penetrate, and it is to her that Beatrice refers Dante in the words: "Entreat Matilda that she teach thee this." Most commentators have identified Matilda with the warrior-Countess of Tuscany, the spiritual daughter and dauntless champion of St. Gregory VII, but all agree that beyond the name the two have little or nothing in common. She is no Amazon who, at Dante's prayer that she may draw nearer to let him understand her song, turns towards him "not otherwise than a virgin that droppeth her modest eyes". In more places than one the revelations granted to the mystics of Helfta seem in turn to have become the inspirations of the Florentine poet. All writers on Dante recognize his indebtedness to St. Augustine, the Pseudo-Dionysius, St. Bernard, and Richard of St. Victor. These are precisely the writers whose doctrines had been most assimilated by the mystics of Helfta, and thus they would the more appeal to the sympathies of the poet. The city of Florence was among the first to welcome St. Mechtilde's book. Now Dante, like all true poets, was a child of his age, and could not have been a stranger to a book which was so popular among his fellow-citizens. The "Purgatorio" was finished between 1314 and 1318, or 1319 — just about the time when St. Mechtilde's book was popular. This interpretation is supported by the fact that St. Mechtilde in her "Book of Special Grace" (pt. I, c. xiii) describes the place of purification under the same figure of a seven-terraced mountain. The coincidence of the simile and of the name, Matelda, can scarcely be accidental. For another among many points of resemblance between the two writers compare "Purgatorio", Canto xxxi, where Dante is drawn by Matelda through the mysterious stream with pt. II, c. ii. of the "Liber Specialis Gratiae". The serene atmosphere which seems to cling about the gracious and beautiful songstress, her virgin modesty and simple dignity, all seem to point to the recluse of Helfta rather than to the stern heroine of Canossa, whose hand was thrice bestowed in marriage. Besides, in politics Dante, as an ardent Ghibelline, supported the imperial pretensions and he would have been little inclined to sing the praises of the Tuscan Countess. The conclusion may therefore be hazarded that this "Donna Matelda" of the "Purgatorio" personifies St. Mechtilde as representing mystic theology.

291 ST. MECHTILDIS, Liber specialis gratiae; ST. GERTRUDIS, Legatus divine pictatis; Preface to Revelationes Gertrudianae ac Mechtildinae, I, II (Paris and Poitiers, 1875); LEDOS, Ste. Gertrude (Paris, 1907); ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Lit. Bened. (Vienna, 1754); PREGER, Gesch. Deutsch. Mystik. I (Leipzig, 1874); Revelations de S. Mechtilde (Paris and Poitiers, 1909).

292 Gertrude Casanova.

Mechtild of Magdeburg

289 A celebrated medieval mystic, b. of a noble family in Saxony about 1210; d. at the Cistercian nunnery of Helfta near Eisleben, c. 1285. She experienced her first inspirations at the age of twelve, when, as she herself states, she was greeted by the Holy Ghost. From that time, the greeting was repeated daily. Under this inspiration she desired to be despised by all without, however, deserving it, and for this purpose left her home, where she had always been loved and respected, to become a Beguine at Mageleburg in 1230. Here, under the spiritual guidance of the Dominicans she led a life of prayer and extreme mortification. Her heavenly inspirations and ecstatic visions became more frequent and were of such a nature that they dispelled from the mind of her confessor all doubt as to their Divine origin. By his order she reluctantly wrote her visions. Shortly after 1270 she joined the Cistercian nuns at Helfta, where she spent the remaining twelve years of her life, highly respected as one signally favoured by God, especially by her namesake St. Mechtilde of Hackeborn and by St. Gertrude the Great. Mechtild left to the world a most wonderful book, in which she recorded her manifold inspirations and visions. According to her assertion, God ordered the title of the book to be "Vliessende lieht miner gotheit in allu die herzen die da lebent ane valscheit", i.e. "Light of my divinity, flowing into all hearts that live without guile". The work is commonly styled "Das fliessende Licht der Gottheit". She wrote her inspirations on separate sheets of paper, which she handed to the Dominican, Henry of Halle, lector in Rupin. The original, which was written in Low German, is not extant, but a South German translation, which was prepared by Henry of Nordlingen about the year 1344 is still preserved in the original manuscript in the library of Einsiedeln, Codex 277. Mechtild began the work in 1250 and finished the sixth volume at Magdeburg in 1264, to which she added a seventh volume at Helfta. A Latin translation of the six volumes written at Magdeburg was made by a Dominican, about the year 1290, and is reprinted, together with a translation of the seventh volume, in "Revelationes Gertrudianse ac Mechtildianae", II (Paris, 1877), 435-707. The manuscript of Einsiedeln was edited by Gall Morel, O.S.B., who also translated it into modern German (Ratisbon, 1809). Other modern German translations were prepared by J. Muller (Ratisbon, 1881) and Eseherich (Berlin, 1909).

290 Mechtild's language is generally forcible and often exceedingly flowery. Her prose is occasionally interspered with beautiful original pieces of poetry, which manifest that she had all the natural gifts of a poet. She is never at a loss to give vent to her feelings of joy and grief in the most impressive form. Often also she delights in aphoristic and abrupt sentences. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain just how far her narrations are faithful reproductions of her visions, and how far they are additions made by her own poetic fancy. This is especially true of her realistic description of the hereafter. Writing on hell, she says, "I saw a horrible and wretched place; its name is 'Eternal Hatred'." She then represents Lucifer as chained by his sins in the lowest abyss of hell, all sin, agony, pestilence and ruin, that fill hell, purgatory, and earth, flowing from his burning heart and mouth. She divides hell into three parts; the lowest and most horrible is filled with condemned Christians, the middle with Jews, and the highest with Pagans. Hell, purgatory and heaven are situated one immediately above the other. The lowest portion of purgatory is filled with devils, who torment the souls in the most horrible manner, while the highest portion of purgatory is identical with the lowest portion of heaven. Many a soul in the lowest Purgatory does not know whether it will ever be saved. The last statement was condemned in the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, as one of the errors of Luther: "Animae in purgatorio non sunt securae de earum salute, saltem omnes". Mechtild's conception of the hereafter is believed by some to be the basis of Dante's "Divine Comedy", and the poet's Matelda ("Purgatory", Canto 27-33) to be identical with our Mechtild (see Preger, "Dante's Matelda", Munich, 1873). Whatever we may think of these and other statements in the work of Mechtild, much of it no doubt, has all the signs of a special inspiration from above. That she did not seek the favour of man is evident from her fearless denunciation of the vices of the clergy in general and especially the clergy of Magdeburg. Some authors call her saint, though she has not been canonized and apparently has never received any public cult.

291 MICHAEL, Kulturzustande des deutschen Volkes wahrend des 13. Jahrhunderts, III (Freiburg im Br., 1903), 187-199; IDEM in Zeischrift fur Kath. Theologie XXV (Innsbruck, 1901), 177-180; GREITH, Die deutsche Mystik im Predigerorden (Freiburg, im Br., 1861), 207-277; STRAUCH, Kleine Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Mystik in Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, XXVII (Berlin, 1883), 368-381; PREGER, Geschichte der deutschen Mystik im Mittelater, I (Leipzig, 1874), 91-112; STIERLING, Studien zu Mechtild v. Magd. (Gottingen, 1909).

292 Michael Ott

Mecklenburg

292 A division of the German Empire, consists of the two Grand Duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

293 History

294 At the beginning of the Christian era, Mecklenburg was inhabited by Germanic tribes, but as early as the second century they began to leave the district; Slavonic tribes poured in, and by about A. D. 600 they had complete possession of the land. These Slavonic tribes were principally Wends, of whom the Obotrites occupied the western parts, the Lusici, or Wilzen, the eastern. Their chief occupations were forestry, cattle-raising, hunting, and fishing. Their religion was a pure worship of nature. The chief god was Radegast Zuarasici, whose sanctuary at Rethra was the centre of his worship for the whole of Mecklenburg until it was destroyed in the twelfth century, and replaced by Svantevit, the "holy oracle", whose temple was at Arkona on the Island of Rügen. After Charlemagne had brought the Saxons into subjection, the tribes of Mecklenburg became the immediate neighbours of the Frankish Empire, with which an active trade soon sprang up. Commerce was still further developed under the Saxon emperors (919-1024), the most important mart for the Slays being Bardowiek.

295 Charlemagne's conquests in this region were lost soon after his death. Henry I of Germany (916-36) was the first to force the Slavonic territory again to pay tribute (about 928); he also placed it under the jurisdiction of Saxon counts. With the dominion of the Germans, Christianity found ingress into the land. Bishop Adalward of Verden brought the first Obotrite prince into the Church. Otto the Great (936-973) divided the territory of Mecklenburg between the two margravates he had formed. Ecclesiastically, the land belonged partly to the Dioceses of Havelberg and Brandenburg, partly to the Diocese of Oldenburg, that was erected in 968. However, there can hardly be said to have been a systematic attempt at conversion to Christianity, for the German authority had no secure foundation. The early successes in conversion to Christianity were swept away by an insurrection of the Slavs, after the defeat of the Emperor Otto II in Calabria in 928. The Obotrites under Mistiwoi, who had previously accepted Christianity, plundered and burned Hamburg, ravaged the whole of North Albingia (Holstein), crossed the Elbe and advanced as far as Milde. Every trace of Christianity was destroyed. There was much strife between German and Wend in the succeeding decades. It was not until the reign of Henry II (1002-1024) that the Lusici and Obotrites became allies of the German Empire against the Polish Duke Boleslaw. Towards the end of his life Mistiwoi turned in repentance once more to Christianity, and ended his days in the monastery of Bardowiek.

296 Archbishop Unwanus of Hamburg (from 1013) laboured with energy and success; but the Saxon dukes exacted a heavy tribute, which was the chief reason why the Christian teaching protected by them was regarded with little favour, even though the Wendic rulers Udo and Ratibor became Christians. Udo's son Gottschalk faithfully supported Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen, and frequently explained Christian doctrine at church to his people. Churches and monasteries rapidly appeared. New dioceses were founded in addition to the Diocese of Oldenburg, namely, Ratzeburg under Bishop Aristo, and Mecklenburg under Bishop John, a Scot. The conversion of the entire country to Catholicity seemed assured. But the ferment of the old antagonism to the tribute to the empire and the Saxon dukes led to a heathen reaction. The first victim was Gottschalk himself, in 1066. On 15 July of the same year the twenty-eight monks of the Benedictine monastery at Ratzeburg were stoned to death; in Mecklenburg the aged Bishop John and many other Christians were slain, and in a few months the German supremacy was thrown off. The Wends even plundered the Christian cities of Schleswig and Hamburg, the bishop of the latter being obliged to transfer his see to Bremen. The bloody national god Radegast of Rethra became once more dominant.

297 Cruto, Prince of the Island of Rügen, ruled the country for nearly thirty years. Finally in 1093, Cruto having been murdered, Gottschalk's son, Henry, was able to gain his inheritance. Although a Christian he never attempted to force Christianity upon the Wends. The only church was in his capital, Lübeck, where St. Vicelin proclaimed the word of God from 1126. Soon after Henry's death (1126) his family became extinct, and the Emperor Lothair granted the vacant territory in fief to Henry's Danish cousin, Knut Laward, Duke of Schleswig. Claims were also made by Henry's nephew Pribislaw, and by Niklot, an Obotrite noble. These two divided the rulerless land between them when in 1131 Knut Laward was killed by his cousin Magnus. Pribislaw, however, could not maintain himself long against the German advance. He was obliged to surrender in 1142 to Count Adolf of Schauenburg, who repeopled the almost desolate territory with colonists from Flanders, Holland, Westphalia, and Frisia. Niklot, on the other hand, preserved his independence until, after a protracted struggle, he was subdued by Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony. Upon agreeing to accept Christianity and to acknowledge German supremacy, Niklot was allowed to retain his possessions (1147). However, he subsequently headed a revolt, which ended in his overthrow (1160). After Niklot's son, Pribislaw II, the ancestor of the reigning dynasty, had been baptized in the year 1167, he was established as ruler.

298 Hartwig of Stade, Bishop of Bremen, soon provided for the restoration of the former Wendic dioceses. In 1150 he consecrated Vicelin Bishop of Oldenburg, and Emmehard Bishop of Mecklenburg, Schwerin now becoming the see of the latter. Hartwig had not waited to secure an endowment sufficient for them from the Saxon duke. Henry the Lion, therefore, was soon able to obtain for himself what otherwise only belonged to the emperor, the right of investiture for the Obotrite dioceses. This privilege was granted by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1189), who regarded Henry as one of the most trustworthy supporters of his power. At the same time Henry was empowered to found dioceses and churches in the region on the farther side of the Elbe and to endow them with imperial domains, which was what the conquered Slavonic territory was held to be. In 1154 Henry re-established the Diocese of Ratzeburg, appointing as bishop Evermod, cathedral provost of Magdeburg. A number of Christian Germans came into the region, and the Wends were brought to accept Christianity. The land was rapidly covered with churches, parishes, and monasteries. Besides the Cistercian monastery of Dobberan that Pribislaw endowed largely with lands, there were founded monasteries of Benedictines, Franciscans, Premonstratensians, of the religious orders of Knights Hospitallers, of St. Anthony, etc.

299 In 1170 Frederick Barbarossa raised Pribislaw to the dignity of a prince of the empire. On Pribislaw's death in 1178, however, domestic disputes broke out, and the overthrow of Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony in 1180 weakened German power in the northern part of the empire. Denmark was thus enabled to bring under its authority large portions of North Germany, Mecklenburg being obliged to recognize Danish supremacy in the reign of Henry Burwy I (1178-1227). In 1227 Henry Burwy, in confederation with the Counts of Schwerin, the Archbishop of Bremen, and the city of Lubeck, cast off the Danish yoke. Thereupon the influx of German colonists received a new impetus, and, in the first half of the thirteenth century, a German municipality had already developed there. After the death of Henry Burwy, the territory was divided (1229) into four principalities: Mecklenburg, Werle, Rostock, and Parchim. The two latter lines died out in 1314 and 1316 respectively; that of Werle flourished until 1430. The main branch of the Mecklenburg line was founded by John II (1226-64). One of its members, Henry the Pilgrim (1264-1302) was captured at Cairo in 1271, while on a crusade, and kept prisoner until 1297. His son, Henry the Lion, obtained the district of Stargard as dowry with his wife, Beatrice of Brandenburg, and, on the Rostock line becoming extinct, forced the Danes to recognize him as the hereditary possessor of the city and territory of Rostock, then under Danish supremacy. Henry's two sons, Albert II (died 1379) and John I (died 1392), were made dukes and princes of the empire by the Emperor Charles IV. The partition of 1352 led to the founding of the Stargard line, which became extinct in 1471.

300 In 1358 Albert succeeded in obtaining the County of Schwerin by purchase; his scheme to place his eldest son, Henry III, on the Danish throne failed completely, but his second son, Albert III, was elected King of Sweden in 1363. However, soon after Albert III had succeeded his father in the government of Mecklenburg (1383), a rival claimant of the throne of Sweden appeared in the person of Queen Margaret of Denmark. In 1389 Margaret took Albert prisoner, and did not release him until, after six years of captivity, he renounced all claims to the Swedish throne. His son, Albert V (1412-22), was followed by his own cousin, Henry the Fat (1422-77), who, after the Stargard line - to which the foundation of a university at Rostock in 1418 is due - had become extinct, reigned over the whole of Mecklenburg. thus once more united under a single ruler (1471). Henry's successor, Magnus (1477-1503), was a very energetic prince. The cities had, under the weak rule of his predecessor, become insubordinate; Magnus directed his efforts towards bringing them under the control of the ruler and evolving a unified state out of a confused medley of districts, cities, and estates. For a time his sons, Henry V (1503-52) and Albert VII (1503-47), reigned jointly so as to maintain the country undivided. In 1523 the prelates, knighthood, and cities formed a Landesunion, which was the basis of the present constitution, and established a common diet for all the divisions of the territory without regard to any partitions. In 1536 the brothers divided their dominions, Henry becoming Duke of Schwerin and Albert Duke of Güstrow.

301 The Reformation in Mecklenburg was entirely the work of the two joint rulers, Henry V and Albert VII. Even Protestant historians have testified that before the Reformation the country had excellent bishops, a pious clergy, and a genuinely Catholic population. Both dukes were early won over to Luther's cause by the Humanist Konrad Pegel, whom Henry had called from the University of Rostock as tutor for his son Magnus, the postulated Bishop of Schwerin. The duke had permitted Pegel to go to Wittenberg, whence the latter returned an ardent adherent of Luther. Albert, indeed, soon abandoned the new doctrine and maintained the old faith in his part of the country. On the other hand, from 1524 Henry allowed the new doctrine to be proclaimed in the chapel of the castle at Schwerin, and protected the preachers even in his brother's domains. Henry's chief desire was to obtain the Bishopric of Schwerin. Its administrator, his son Magnus, who had married in 1543, died childless in 1550, and Henry saw to it that the chapter elected as successor his nephew Ulrich.

302 When after Albert's death in the year 1547 his son John Albert (1547-76) came to power, the Reformation was completely established. John Albert was first sole ruler in is father's dominions, then in 1552 he also succeeded his uncle in Schwerin, but he resigned the latter principality in 1555 to his brother Ulrich. In 1549 the joint diet at Sternberg proclaimed the Lutheran Faith to be the religion of the state, and from 1552 the monasteries were secularized, except Dobbedin, Malchow, and Ribnitz, which in 1572, in exchange for assuming the ducal debts, were kept in existence for the unmarried daughters of the nobility, and have so continued to the present day. The administration of the now Protestant Dioceses of Schwerin and Ratzeburg was carried on by members of the ruling dynasty. The Mass, pilgrimages, vows of religion etc., were forbidden, and by a consistorial decree of 1570 the public profession of the Catholic Faith was prohibited.

303 After a brief reunion of the two principalities in 1610, they were again divided (1621) into Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Güstrow by John Albert's grandsons, Adolf Frederick I and John Albert II. They still retained, however, in common the diet (held now in Sternberg and now in Malchow), the University of Rostock, and the consistory. During the Thirty Years' War both dukes formed a brief alliance with King Christian IV of Denmark. For this they were placed under a ban by the Emperor Ferdinand IV in 1628, and their territories, from which they were expelled, were granted to Wallenstein in 1629 as an imperial fief. In 1631 Gustavus Adolphus restored them their lands, and in 1635, after the fall of Wallenstein, they were again recognized by the emperor. During the war Mecklenburg suffered terribly from the oppression of both the Swedish and the imperial forces, and also from pestilence and famine. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) assigned the Dioceses of Schwerin and Ratzeburg as principalities to Schwerin, in return for which the city of Wismar and the districts of Poel and Neukloster were yielded to Sweden. Adolf Frederick I was succeeded in Mecklenburg-Schwerin by Christian Ludwig (1658-92), who, both before and after his succession, lived mainly at Paris, where he became a Catholic in 1663. Though this step opened Mecklenburg once more to Catholics (see below), it gave them no secure legal footing even in Schwerin, while in Mecklenburg-Güstrow the most bitter intolerance of everything Catholic continued to prevail.

304 When Christian Ludwig I died childless in 1692, his nephew Frederick William laid claim to the succession, and was opposed by Adolf Frederick II of Strelitz, the only brother of Christian then living. After a long dispute, the Hamburg Compact was made in 1701, through the mediation of the Emperor Leopold. Adolf Frederick II received the Principality of Ratzeburg, and other territories; the remaining territory (by far the greater part) was given to Frederick William. As the latter selected Schwerin for his residence, and Adolf Frederick Strelitz, the two ruling houses have since always been distinguished as Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

305 In Mecklenburg-Schwerin Frederick William and his successor Charles Leopold had to contend with the estates, especially with the landed proprietors (Ritterschaft), who since the Thirty Years' War had secured the farms of most of the peasants for themselves, and by oppression had forced the peasants into serfdom. With the aid of Russia the duke drove the estates out of the country. These applied to the Emperor Charles VI for help; after the Russians withdrew, an imperial commission with an army to execute its demands entered the country, and the duke was forced in 1719 to flee. For many years war was waged in Mecklenburg between the imperial army and the duke, who was supported by Prussia and other powers. The ruler and the estates, in the reign of Charles Leopold's successor Christian Ludwig II (1747-56), finally came to an agreement in 1755; this compact, still essentially the basis of the constitution of the country, gave the estates a large share in the enactment of laws and extensive rights in the voting of supplies. By this agreement feudalism won a complete victory over the power of the prince, in contrast to most of the other divisions of Germany, where at that era the absolutism of the ruler had retained its supremacy.

306 Christian Ludwig II's son Frederick (1756-85) improved the primary schools, strengthened the University of Rostock, founded the high school at Bützow, and by the Peace of Teschen obtained the Privilegium de non appellando (i. e., there could be no appeal to the imperial courts), against which the landed proprietors vehemently protested. In 1803 his nephew, Frederick Francis I (1785-1835) received the city of Wismar and the counties of Neukloster from Sweden as pledges for a loan of 1,250,000 talers (approximately $937,500); in 1903 Sweden finally relinquished its right of redemption. At the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the two dukes became independent sovereigns. In 1808 both princes entered the Confederation of the Rhine, but joined the Allies opposed to Napoleon in good time in 1813; in 1815 both took the title of grand duke and entered the German Confederation.

307 The movement of 1848 spread rapidly in both grand duchies, especially in the cities. A proclamation of 23 March, 1848, of Archduke Frederick Francis I of Mecklenhurg-Schwerin (1842-83) acknowledged the necessity of a reform in the constitution - an example followed by Duke George of Strelits (1816-60). An extraordinary diet (1848-9) drew up a liberal constitution, to which the Grand Duke of Schwerin swore in August, 1849, but against which the Grand Duke of Strelitz, the agnates of both houses, and also Prussia, on account of its rights of inheritance of 1442, protested. In September, 1850, a court of arbitration of the German Confederation decided in favour of the claimants, and on 14 September the Grand Duke of Schwerin annulled the new constitution and the old, semi-feudal constitution came again into force. In the war of 1866 both princes sided with Prussia against Austria; on 21 August of the same year they signed the Prussian draft of the North German Confederation, and in 1867 joined this confederacy. In 1866 both states became members of the Customs Union, and in 1871 they became constituent parts of the German Empire. Since their union with the German Empire in 1871, unceasing efforts have been made for a reasonable reform of their obsolete constitution, which is no longer in accord with the new empire. So far all attempts have failed, owing to the opposition of the estates especially of the landed proprietors (Ritterschaft) who have held to their privileges with unusual obstinacy. The present Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin is Frederick Francis IV, succeeded 1897; the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz is Adolf Frederick V, succeeded 1904.

308 Statistics

309 Mecklenburg-Schwerin has an area of about 5068 sq. miles. In 1905 it had 625,045 inhabitants, of whom 609,914 were Lutherans, 12,835 Catholics, and 1482 Jews. Mecklenburg-Strelitz has an area of about 1131 sq. miles. In 1905 it had 103,451 inhabitants, of whom 100,314 were Lutherans, 2627 Catholics, and 298 Jews. Both grand duchies are hereditary monarchies; from 1523 they have had a common assembly or diet made up of the landed proprietors (Ritterschaft), and the burgomasters of specified towns (Landschaft). The Ritterschaft consists of about 750 owners, whether noble or not, of about 1200 landed properties which carry with them the right to a vote in the assembly. The Landschaft is composed of the burgomasters of the cities of Rostock and Wismar, and the municipal authorities of the forty inland cities of Schwerin and the seven inland cities of Strelitz. The principality of Ratzeburg, which has an assembly of estates of its own, is not represented in the general estates, neither are the city of Neustrelitz, nor the inhabitants of the crown domain (domanium), that is, the land personally owned by the ruler, in which he is still absolute sovereign in making laws and levying taxes. The crown domain includes about 43 per cent of the area and about 32 per cent of the inhabitants. The estates have an important share in legislation and a deciding vote in questions of taxation, and in all questions pertaining to their rights; in other matters their opinion has to be obtained.

310 The Lutheran Church has a consistorial constitution. The head of the church is the sovereign, who exercises his rights in Mecklenburg-Schwerin by means of an upper consistory; in Mecklenburg-Strelitz by a consistory. Mecklenburg-Schwerin is divided into 7 superintendencies and 36 provostships or deaneries; Mecklenburg-Strelitz into 1 superintendency and 7 synods.

311 The Catholic Church in both grand duchies is under the supervision of the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions, the Bishop of Osnabrück. After the Reformation Catholicism was almost extinguished in Mecklenburg, and its public exercise threatened with punishment. For nearly a hundred years it could only be practised in secret. The conversion of Duke Christian Ludwig I in 1663 produced the first change of conditions. Notwitstanding the protests of his ducal brothers and the estates, he called Catholic priests into the country and granted them the castle chapel at Schwerin for the celebration of Mass. The right to do this was confirmed to him in 1666 by the imperial Diet. Many of the chief nobility followed at that time, the example of their ruler, and returned to the Church of their forefathers, as the hereditary Marshal Joachim Christian Hahn, of the same family as that from which the convert Ida, Countess Hahn-Hahn, came.

312 The Catholic Faith, notwithstanding this, did not attain a legal position, and the duke never permitted a Catholic church to be built, although the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions, Nicholas Steno, who lived in Schwerin from 1685, made every exertion to gain his consent. Consequently, when Christian Ludwig died the Catholic services ceased. The only church services now allowed were held in the private chapel of the chancellor of the next duke, Count Horn, who had become a Catholic. With the death of the count this privilege expired. It was not until 1701 that the free exercise of the Catholic religion was again permitted, this time in the chapel of the imperial ambassador von Egk. In 1702, when the ambassador left Schwerin, Duke Frederick William transferred this right to a Catholic lady, Frau von Bibow. Through her efforts the Jesuits were entrusted with the mission in Schwerin; from 1709 they established themselves here permanently. Father von Stöcken (1730-43) was able to bring it about that in 1731 a house was secured for the mission, and that the church service, which up to then had been private, could be a public one. He also succeeded by unwearied effort in founding a school at Schwerin, where five to seven boys could be prepared for the Collegium Nordicum at Linz in Upper Austria.

313 From 1764 a priest from Schwerin was able to distribute communion to the Catholic soldiers at Rostock in the hall of the exchange, and to hold Mass for Catholics who attended the market there at Pentecost. Although Christian Ludwig II had granted permission for the building of a church, Frederick, who inclined to a rigorous pietism, forbade its erection. The preparatory school at Schwerin came to an end when the Emperor Joseph II suppressed the Collegium Nordicum. Frederick Francis I, two of whose children became Catholics, gave the money to build the Catholic church at Ludwigslust. On entering the Confederation of the Rhine, Frederick had agreed to place the exercise of the Catholic religion on a legal parity with that of the Lutheran, and in 1811 this was done.

314 From that time on the Catholics in reality enjoyed complete freedom, and in the year 1842 for the first time since the Reformation a Catholic bishop, Lüpcke of Osnabrück, was able to hold a confirmation at Schwerin. However, the conversion, from 1848 onwards, of many important men, among them von Vogelsang, von Bulow, von der Kettenburg, Professor Maassen, etc., gave an opportunity to the intolerant party to withdraw the freedom granted the Catholics, to which action both estates and Government gave their aid. In 1852 extension to other localities of the Catholic services was forbidden, also the coming into Mecklenburg of priests not natives of the country; these measures were so strictly enforced that the private chaplain of Herr von der Kettenburg was taken over the boundary by gendarmes.

315 In 1857 permission to bury the dead according to the Catholic ceremonial, and the right to celebrate Mass publicly were limited to Schwerin and Ludwigslust. The Government of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was still more intolerant. For many years, even in the nineteenth century, no priest was permitted to have a permanent residence in its territory; all that was conceded was that the Catholic priest at Wittstock in Brandenburg could stay at Neustrelitz one week of each month for ecclesiastical functions. This persecution of Catholics was kept up, not by the rulers, who were generally well inclined, but by the narrow-minded estates. Public opinion, even outside of Catholic Germany, repeatedly arose against this persecution, and was often expressed in sharp protest in the German Diet.

316 The Governments of the two duchies were finally forced by pressure from the empire to grant the Catholics a certain, yet still entirely insufficient, amount of freedom. There is however no equality as there should be to bring Mecklenburg into accord with the constitution of the empire or with a modern civilized state. Although an ordinance of 5 January, 1903 granted to Catholics the public exercise of their religion everywhere, nevertheless the permission of the ruler is necessary for the erection and alteration of parishes, the building of churches and chapels, appointment of priests, for the settling in the country of orders and congregations, and for the holding of processions; nor have the Catholics any legal redress if this consent is refused.

317 Furthermore in regard to educational matters, Catholics are not on an equality with Protestants. They must indeed contribute to the expenses of the schools, but for their purely private Catholic schools they receive no allowance from the civil communes, often indeed they are not allowed to use the state schools for giving instruction. There is no higher Catholic education in either grand duchy. Mecklenburg-Schwerin has two Catholic parishes, one each at Schwerin and Ludwigslust, and dependent churches at Rostock and Wismar; the priests altogether number 8. Mecklenburg-Strelitz has 1 parish with 2 priests. The spiritual care of the summer farm-labourers presents great difficulties. These men, who number about 20,000-22,000 and are chiefly Poles, sojourn in Mecklenburg annually from March until September in order to work on the farms and estates.

318 BACHMANN, Die landeskundliche Literatur über die Grossherzogtümer Mecklenburg (Wismar, 1890); LISCH, Mecklenburger Urkunden (3 vols., Schwerin, 1837-41); WIGGERS, Kirchengeschichte Mecklenburgs (Parchim and Ludwigslust, 1840); Mecklenburger Urkundenbuch (22 vols., Schwerin, 1863-1907); BOLL, Geschichte Mecklenburgs (2 pts., Neubrandenburg, 1855-56); PENTZ, Geschichte Mecklenburgs (2 pts., Wismar, 1872); LESKER, Aus Mecklenburgs Vergangenheit (Ratisbon, 1880); RAABE. Mecklenburgische Vaterlandskunde (2nd ed., 3 vols., 1893-96); Mecklenburgische Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen (12 pts., Berlin, 1899-1910); SCHMIDT, Mecklenburgisches Kirchenrecht (Berlin, 1908); SCHLESINGER, Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht des Grossherzogtums Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Hanover, 1909); BRUNSWIG, Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht des Grossherzogtums Mecklenburg-Strelits (Hanover, 1910); WITTE, Mecklenburgische Geschichte (Wismar, 1909); SCHNELL, Das Unterrichtswesen der Grossherzogtümer Mecklenburg-Schwerin und Mecklenburg-Strelitz (3 vols., Berlin, 1907-10); Jahrbücher des Vereins für Geschichte Mecklenburgs (Schwerin, 1836-); SCHLIS, Die Kunst- und Geschichtsdenkmäler des Grossherzogtums Mecklenburg-Schwerin (5 vols., Schwerin, 1896-1902).

319 Joseph Lins

Jean Paul Medaille

295 Jesuit missionary; b. at Carcassonne, the capital of the Department of Aude, France, 29 January, 1618; d. at Auch, the capital of the Department of Gers, France, 15 May, 1689. He entered the Society of Jesus, 15 August, 1640, and after completing his studies spent a number of years in the classroom, teaching both the lower and higher studies of the college courses and particularly, for the space of six years, philosophy. Later he was applied to the work of preaching, which may be regarded as his life work; to this he gave himself up almost exclusively for eighteen years, until advancing age and the infirmities brought on by his laborious and austere life forced him to devote himself to the less fatiguing work of directing sodalities and of hearing confessions, especially of the poor. He was one of the number of illustrious missioners formed in the school of St. Francis Regis of the Society of Jesus, and spent the best years of his life in the evangelization of Velay, Auvergne, Languedoc, and Aveyron. His apostolic labours were attended with greater and more lasting fruit, because he established wherever he preached fervent sodalities of men and women who, by all sorts of works of charity, such as instructing children, visiting the sick, helping the poor, perpetuated and extended the fruits of his missions. These pious sodalities, however, lacked certain elements which Father Medaille regarded as necessary for the stabliity of his work. Their members, although devoted, were hampered in many ways and by many ties in the exercise of their zeal. Father Medaille resolved, therefore, to start a congregation of nuns who should give themselves up wholly and unreservedly to all the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Having matured his plans, he laid them before Mgr de Maupas, who gave them his fullest approval. Shortly after, Father Medaille founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph. The general idea of the congregation was drawn, at least to a certain extent, from the works of St. Francis de Sales, but the details of its practical development were based almost entirely on the constitutions of the Society of Jesus. It is as the founder of this congregation that Father Medaille is best known. His active life left him no time for writing; consequently we have nothing from his pen, aside from some correspondence, except the "Constitutions pour la Congrégation des Soeurs de Saint Joseph". These consitutions have been incorrectly attibuted to Father Peter Medaille, S.J. It is true that Father Peter Medaille contributed much in later years to the establishment on a firm basis and to the spread of the congregation, but at the time of its foundation he was still a novice and had neither the experience nor the authority necessary for so responsible a work.

296 Prat, Le Disciple de St. Jean Francois Regis, notes supplémentaires (Paris, 180), 180 sq.; de Guilhermy, Ménologe de la Comp. de Jésus, Assistance de France, I (Paris, 1892), 631 sq.

297 J. H. Fisher.

Devotional Medals

298 Medals, Devotional.—A medal may be defined to be a piece of metal, usually in the form of a coin, not used as money, but struck or cast for a commemorative purpose, and adorned with some appropriate effigy, device, or inscription. In the present article we are concerned only with religious medals. These are more varied even than secular medals, for they are produced not only to commemorate persons (e.g. Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints), places (e.g. famous shrines) and past historical events (e.g. dogmatic definitions, miracles, dedications etc.) as well as personal graces like First Communion, Ordination, etc., but they are also often concerned with the order of ideas (e.g. they may recall the mysteries of our Faith, such as the Blessed Sacrament or the Divine Attributes), they are used to inculcate lessons of piety, are specially blessed to serve as badges of pious associations or to consecrate and protect the wearer, and finally are often enriched with indulgences.

299 In the Early Church

300 It was at one time doubted whether anything in the nature of a purely devotional medal was known in the early ages of Christianity. Certain objects of this kind were described and figured by seventeenth-century writers on the Catacombs, and a few such were preserved in museums. All these; however, were regarded with much suspicion before the appearance of an epoch-making article by de Rossi in the "Bullettino di Archeologia, Cristiana" for 1869, since which time the question has been practically set at rest and the authenticity of some at least of these specimens has remained undisputed. A moment's consideration will establish the intrinsic probability of the existence of such objects. The use of amulets in pagan antiquity was widespread. The word amuletum itself occurs in Pliny, and many monuments show how talismans of this kind were worn around the neck by all classes. That the early Church should have found the abuse ineradicable and should have striven to counteract it by suggesting or tolerlating some analogous practice of an innocent character, is in itself highly probable. Many parallel concessions of this kind might be quoted. The letter of Gregory the Great to St. Mellitus about the dedication of pagan temples, preserved to us by Bede (Hist. Eccl., I, xxx), supplies perhaps the most famous example. Moreover we know that the same St. Gregory sent to Theodolind, Queen of the Lombards, two phylacteria, -- the cases are still Preserved at Monza -- containing a relic of the True Cross and a sentence from the Gospels, which her child Adulovald was to wear around his neck.

301 This, however, and the practice of wearing "encolpia", little pectoral crosses, lent itself to abuses when magical formulae began to be joined to Christian symbols, as was regularly the practice of the Gnostics. Hence we find many of the fathers of the fourth and later centuries protesting more or less vigorously against these phylacteries (cf. St. Jerome, "In Matt.", iv, 33; P.L., XXVI, 174). But that Christians of good name did wear such objects of piety around their necks is certain, and it is consequently probable that Christian devices, should have been cast in metal for a similar purpose. In Africa (see "Bullettino di Arch. Crist.", 1891), the moulds have been found in which little crosses were cast with rings to hang them by. It follows therefore that certain coin-like objects, for which there exists good evidence of their being actually discovered in the Catacombs must be regarded as genuine relics of the devotional practices of the early Church. Two or three of these are specially famous. One, which de Rossi attributes to the close of the fourth century, bears upon both faces the legend Successa Vivas, an "acclamation" which probably indicates that the medal was cast for a certain Successa to commemorate, perhaps, her dedication to God. On one side we see represented the martyrdom of a saint, presumably St. Lawrence, who is being roasted upon a gridiron in the presence of the Roman magistrate. The Christian character of the scene is shown by the chi-rho chrisma, the alpha and omega, and the martyr's crown. On the reverse is depicted a cancellated structure, no doubt the tomb of St. Lawrence, while a figure stands in a reverent attitude before it holding aloft a candle.

302 A second remarkable medal, which bean the name of Gaudentianus on the obverse and Urbicus on the reverse, depicts seemingly on one face the sacrifice of Abraham; on the other we see apparently a shrine or altar, above which three candles are burning, towards which a tall figure carrying a chalice in one hand is conducting a little child. The scene no doubt represents the consecration to God of the child as an oblate (q.v.) by his father before the shrine of some martyr, a custom for which there is a good deal of early evidence. Other medals are much more simple, bearing only the chrisma with a name or perhaps a cross. Others impressed with more complicated devices can only be dated with difficulty, and some are either spurious, or, as in the case particularly of some representations of the adoration of the Magi which seem to show strong traces of Byzantine influence, they belong to a much later epoch. Some of the medals or medallions reputedly Christian are stamped upon one side only, and of this class is a famous bronze medallion of very artistic execution discovered by Boldeti in the cemetery of Domitilla and now preserved in the Vatican Library. It bears two portrait types of the heads of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, and is assigned by de Rossi to the second century. Other medallions with the (confronted) heads of the two apostles are also known and a lively controversy largely based on these medallic materials has been carried on regarding the probability of their having preserved the tradition of an authentic likeness (See particularly Weis-Liebersdorf, "Christus und Apostelbilder", pp. 83 sq.) Certain supposed early medals with the head of our Saviour are distinctly open to suspicion. How far the use of such medal of devotion extended in the early Church it is not easy to decide. One or two passages in the works of St. Zeno of Verona have suggested that a medal of this kind was commonly given as a memorial of baptism, but the point is doubtful. In the life of St. Genevieve, which, despite the opinion of B. Krusch, is of early date, we read that St. Germanus of Auxerre hung around her neck a perforated bronze coin marked with the sign of the cross, in memo of her having consecrated her virginity to God (Mon. Ger. Hist.: Script. Merov., III, 217). The language seems to suggest that an ordinary coin was bored for the purpose, and when we recall how many of the coins of the late empire were stamped with the chrisma, or with the figure of the Saviour, it is easy to believe that the ordinary currency may often have been used for similar pious purposes.

303 During the Middle Ages

304 Although it is probable that the traditions formed by the class of objects which we have been considering, and which were equally familiar at Rome and at Constantinople, never entirely died out, still little evidence exists of the use of medals in the Middle Ages. No traces of such objects survive remarkable either for artistic skill or for the value of the metal, and to speak positively of the date of certain objects of lead and pewter which may have been hung round the neck, with a religious intent, is not always easy. But in the course of the twelfth century, if not earlier, a very general practice grew tip at well-known places of pilgrimage, of casting tokens in lead, and sometimes probably in other metals, which served the pilgrim as a souvenir and stimulus to devotion and at the same time attested the fact that he had duly reached his destination. These signacula (enseignes) known in English as "pilgrims' signs" often took a metallic form and were carried in a conspicuous way upon the hat or breast. Giraldus Cambrensis referring to a journey he made to Canterbury about the year 1180, ten years after the martyrdom of St. Thomas, describes himself and his companions returning to London "cum signaculis Beati Thormae a collo suspensis" [with the tokens of St. Thomas hanging round their neck] (Opera, Rolls Series, I, p. 53). Again the author of Piers the Plowman writes of his imaginary pilgram:

305 > An hundred of ampulles on his hat seten,

306 > Signes of syse and shelles of Galice;

307 > And many a crouche on his cloke, and keyes of Rome,

308 > And the vernicle bifore, for men shulde knowe

309 > And see by his signes whom he sought hadde.

310 The "ampulles" probably represent Canterbury, but may have been tokens of the Holy Tear of Vendome (see Forgeais, "Collection", IV, 65 sq.); Syse stands for Assisi. The "shelles of Galice", i.e. the scallop-shells of St=2E James of Compostella; the crouche, or cross, of the Holy Land; the keys of St. Peter; the "vernicle", or figure of the Veronica, etc. are all very familiar types, represented in most collections of such objects. The privilege of casting and selling these pilgrim's signs was a very valuable one and became a regular source of income at most places of religious resort.

311 > Then, as manner and custom is, signes there they bought . . .

312 > Each man set his silver in such thing as he liked,

313 writes a fourteenth-century satirist of one of these shrines. Moreover we find that the custom was firmly established in Rome itself, and Pope Innocent III, by a letter of 18 Jan., 1200 (Pottbast, "Regesta", n. 939), grants to the canons of St. Peter's the monopoly of casting and selling those "signs of lead or pewter impressed with the image of the Apostles Peter and Paul with which those who visit their thresholds [limina] adorn themselves for the increase of their own devotion and in testimony of the journey which they have accomplished", and the pope's language implies that this custom had existed for some time. In form and fashion these pilgrims' signs are very various and a considerable literature exists upon the subject (see especially the work of Forgeais, "Collection de Plombs historiés", 5 vols., Paris, 1864). From about the twelfth century the casting of these devotional objects continued until the close of the Middle Ages and even later, but in the sixteenth or seventeenth century they began to be replaced by medals properly so called in bronze or in silver, often with much greater pretensions to artistic execution. With these leaden Signs should be noted the custom of casting coin-like tokens in connection with the Feast of Fools, the celebration of the Boy Bishop and the Innocents. The extant specimens belong mostly to the sixteenth century, but the practice must be much older. Though there is often a burlesque element introduced, the legends and devices shown by such pieces are nearly all religious; e.g., Ex Ore Infancium Perfecisti Laudem; Innocens Vous Aidera, etc. (see Vanhende, "Plommés des Innocents," Lille, 1877).

314 Better deserving of attention are the vast collection of jetons and méreaux which, beginning in the thirteenth century, continued to be produced all through the Middle Ages and lasted on in some places down to the French Revolution. The jetons were strictly speaking counters, i.e., they were thin pieces of metal, mostly latten, a sort of brass, stamped an both sides with some device and originally used in conjunction with a comptoir (i.e., an abacus or counting board) to perform arithmetical computations. The name comes from jeter, through the form jectoir, because they were "thrown down" upon this board (see Rondot, "Médailleurs Francais", Paris, 1904, p. 48). It soon became the fashion for every personage of distinction, especially those who had anything to do with finance, to have special jetons bearing his own device, and upon some of these considerable artistic skill was lavished. These pieces served various purposes besides that for which they were originally designed, and they were often used in the Middle Ages where we should now use a ticket or printed card. As might be expected, they tended to take a religious tone. Upon nearly half the medieval jetons which survive pious mottoes are found and often pious devices (Rouyer, "Histoke du Jeton", p. 30). Among the commonest of these mottoes, which however vary infinitely, we Might name AVE MARIA GRATIA PLENA; AMES DIEU ET LO (i.e. aimez dieu et louez le); IHS Son Gre Soit Fait Ci; Virgo Mater Ecclesie Eterne Porta, Domine Dominus Noster, etc. Often these jetons were given as presents or "pieces de plaisir "especially to persons of high consideration, and on such occasions they were often specially struck in gold or silver. One particular and very common use of jetons was to serve as vouchers for attendance at the cathedral offices and meetings of various kinds. In this case they often carried with them a title to certain rations or payments of money, the amount being sometimes stamped on the piece. The tokens thus used were known as jetons de présence or méreaur, and they were largely used, especially at a somewhat later date, to secure the due attendance of the canons at the cathedral offices, etc. What, however, specially justifies their mention in the present place is the fact that in many cases the pious device they bore was as much or even more considered than the use to which they were put, and they seem to have discharged a function analogous to the Child-of-Mary medals, the scapulars, the badges and even the pious pictures of our own day. One famous example is the "méreau d'estaing" bearing stamped upon it the name of Jesus, which the famous Frère Richard, whose name is closely if not too creditably associated with the history of Blessed Joan of Arc, distributed to his followers in Paris, 1429 (see Rouyer, "Le Nom de Jésus" in "Revue Belge de Numis.", 1896-7). These jetons stamped with the Name, were very numerous and were probably closely connected with the apostolate of St. Bernardine of Siena. Finally it is to be noted that for the purpose of largess at royal coronations or for the Maundy, pieces were often struck which perhaps are rather to be regarded as medals than actual money (see Mazerolle, "Les Médailleurs Français, 1902-1904, vol. I, page lii).

315 In Modern Times

316 Although roughly speaking it is correct to say that medals were unknown in the Middle Ages, still their introduction belongs to the early Renaissance period, and it is only when we consider them as a form of popular devotion, that we can describe them as of post-Reformation origin. Medals properly so called, i.e. pieces of metal struck or cast with a commemorative purpose, began, though there are only a few rare specimens, in the last years of the fourteenth century (Rondot, loc. cit., 60-62). The first certainly known medal was struck for Francesco Carrara (Novello) on the occasion of the capture of Padua in 1390, but practically the vogue of this form of art was created by Vittore Pisano, called Pisanello (c. 138O-1451), and its first developments were all Italian. These early Renaissance medals, magnificent as they are, belong to civil life and only touch upon our immediate subject, but though not religious in intent many of them possess a strong religious colouring. Nothing more devotional could be imagined than the beautiful reverse of Pisano's medal of Malatesta Novello, where the mail-clad warrior dismounting from his horse is represented as kneeling before the crucifix. So again the large medal, in the Brittish Museum, of Savonarola holding the crucifix, probably executed by Andrea della Robbia, portrays with rare fidelity "his deep-set glowing eye, his bony cheeks, the strong nose and protruding lips" (Fabriczy, "Italian Medals", p. 133), while the reverse displays the avenging sword of God and the Holy Ghost hovering over the doomed city of Florence. Wonderful again in their religious feeling are Antonio Marescotti's (c. 1453) superb medals of San Bernardino da Siena, while among the series of early papal medals we have such masterpieces as the portrait of Sixtus IV by Andrea Guazzalotti (1435-95).

317 But it was long before this new art made its influence so far widely felt as to bring metal representations of saints and shrines, of mysteries and miracles, together with emblems and devices of all kinds, in a cheap form into the hands of the people. Undoubtedly the gradual substitution of more artistic bronze and silver medals for the rude pilgrim's signs at such great sanctuaries as Loreto or St. Peter's, did much to help on the general acceptance of medals as objects of devotion. Again the papal jubilee medals which certainly began as early as 1475, and which from the nature of the case were carried into all parts of the world, must have helped to make the idea familiar. But this was not all. At some time during the sixteenth century the practice was adopted, possibly following an usage long previously in vogue in the case of Agnus Deis (q.v.) of giving a papal blessing to medals and even of enriching them with indulgences. On the other hand it is noteworthy that among the benediction forms of the Middle Ages no single example is found of a blessing for numismata. A pilgrim's "insignia" were often blessed no doubt, but by this term were only meant his scrip and staff (see Franz, "Kirchlichen Benedictionen im Mittelalter", II, 271-89), not the leaden tokens spoken of above. The story runs that the use of blessed medals began with the revolt of the Gueux in Flanders, A.D 1566. A certain medal or rather set of medals bearing on the obverse, the head of Philip II with the motto EN TOUT FIDELES AU ROI and on the reverse a beggar's wallet and the words JUSQUE A PORTER LA BESACE, Wag used by the Gueux faction as a badge. To this the Spaniards replied by striking a medal with the head of our Saviour and on the reverse the image of our Lady of Hal, and Pius V granted an indulgence to those who wore this medal in their hats (Simonis, "Art du Medailleur en Belgique", 1904, II, pp. 76-80).

318 From this the custom of blessing and indulgencing medals is said to have rapidly extended under the sanction of the popes. Certain it is that Sixtus V attached indulgences to some ancient coins discovered in the foundations of the buildings at the Scala Santa, which coins he caused to be richly mounted and sent to persons of distinction. Thus encouraged, and stimulated further by the vogue of the jubilee and other papal medals of which we have still to speak, the use of these devotional objects spread to every part of the world. Austria and Boherma seem to have taken the lead in introducing the fashion into central Europe, and some exceptionally fine specimens were produced under the inspiration of the Italian artists whom the Emperor Maximilian invited to his court. Some of the religious medals cast by Antonio Abondio and his pupils at Vienna are of the highest order of excellence. But in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries almost every considerable city in Catholic Europe came to have craftsmen of its own who followed the industry, and the tradition created by such Italian artists as Lesne Leoni at Brussels, with men, like Jonghelinck and Stephen of Holland for his pupils, and by John de Candida, Nicholas Of Florence and Benvenuto Cellini in France, was bound to have lasting effects.

319 The number and variety of the religious pieces produced at a later date, as Domanig (Die deutsch Privat-Medaille, p. 29) is fain to attest, defies all classification. Only one writer the Benedictine L. Kuncze (in his, "Systematik der Weihmuzen" Raab, 1885), seems to have seriously grappled with the task and his success is very moderate. As an indication of the vast complexity of the subject, we may note that in the thirty-first of his fifty divisions, the section devoted to medals commemorative of churches and sanctuaries of the Blessed Virgin, he enumerates over 700 such shrines of which he has found some record -- the number is probably immensely greater -- while in connection with the majority of these, special medals have at some time been struck, often, e.g. at Loreto, in an almost endless series. Under these circumstances, all that can be done is to point out a few illustrative groups rather apart from the common rum of pious medals; those connected with places, confraternities religious orders, saints, mysteries, miracles, devotions, &c., are types with which everyone is familiar.

320 (1) Plague medals

321 Struck and blessed as a protection against pestilence. The subjects are very various e.g., the figure of St. Sebastian and St. Roch, and different shrines of the Blessed Virgin, often also with a view of some particular city. Round them are commonly inscribed mysterious letters analogous to those depicted on the famous medal of St. Benedict. For example +. z +. D. I. A. etc. These letters stand for "Crux Christi salva, nos"; "Zelus domus Dei libera me", "Crux Christi vincit et regnat per lignum crucis libera me Domine ab, hac peste Deus meus expelle pestem et libera me, etc. (See Beierlein "Munzer bayerischer Kloster", and the monographs devoted to this subject by Pfeiffer and Ruland, "Pestilentia, in Nummis", Tubingen, 1882, and "Die deutschen Pestainulette", Lei zig, 1885.)

322 (2) Medals commemorating Miracles of the Eucharist

323 There were a very large number of these struck for jubilees, centenaries, etc., in the different places where these miracles were believed to have happened, often adorned with very quaint devices. There is one for example, commemorative of the miracle at Seefeld, upon which the story is depicted of a nobleman who demanded to receive a large host at communion like the priest's. The priest complies, but as a punishment for the nobleman's presumption the ground opens and swallows him up (see Pachinger, "Wallfahrts Medafflen der Tirol", Vienna, 1908).

324 (3) Private medals

325 These form a very large class, but particular specimens are often extremely scarce, for they were struck to commemorate life of individuals, and were only distributed to friends. Baptisms, marriages, first communions, deaths formed the principal occasions for striking these private medals. The baptismal or a sponsor medals (pathen medaillen) are particularly interesting, and often contain precise details as to the hour of birth which would the child's horoscope to be calculated. (See Domanig, "Die deutsche Privat-Medaille", Vienna, 1893, 3, pp 25-26.)

326 (4) Medals commemorative of special legends

327 Of this class the famous Cross of St. Ulrich of Augsburg may serve as a specimen. A cross is supposed to have been brought by an angel to St. Ulrich that he might bear it in his hands in the great battle against the Huns, A.D. 955. Freisenegger in his monograph "Die Ulrichs-kreuze" (Augsburg, 1895), enumerates 180 types of this object of devotion sometimes in cross sometimes in medal form, often associated with the medal of St. Benedict.

328 Papal medals do not immediately belong to this place, for they are not precisely devotional in purpose, but a very large number of these pieces are ultimately associated with ecclesiastical functions of various kinds, and more particularly with the opening and closing of the Holy Door in the years of Jubilee. The series with the pontificate of Martin V, in 1417, and continues down to the present day. Some types professing to commemorate the acts of earlier popes, e.g. the Jubilee of Boniface VIII, are reconstructions (i.e. fabrications) of later date. Nearly all the most noteworthy actions of each pontificate for the last five hundred years have been commemorated by medals in this manner, and some of the most famous artists such as Benvenuto Cellini, Carsdosso, and others have been employed in designing them, The wonderful family of the Hamerani, who from 1605 down to about 1807 acted as papal medallists and supplied the greater proportion of that vast series, deserve to be specially mentioned for the uniform excellence of their work.

329 Other semi-devotional medals are those which have been struck by important religious association, as for example by the Knights of Malta, by certain abbeys in commemoration of their abbots, or in connection with particular orders of knighthood. On some of these series of medals useful monographs have been written, as for example the work ofCanon H. C. Schembri, on "The Coins and Medals of the Knights Of Malta", (London, 1908). It has been said above that Agnus Deis seem to have been blessed by the popes With more or less solemnity from an early period, and similar forms of benediction were used in connexion with the Golden Rose, the Sword and Cap, and other objects given by the popes as presents. In the sixteenth century this practice was greatly developed. The custom grew up not only of bringing objects which had touched certain relies or shrines to the pope to be blessed, but also of the pontiff blessing, rosaries, "grains" medals, enriching them with indulgences and sending them, through his privileged missionaries or envoys, to be distributed to Catholics in England. On these occasions a paper of instructions was often drawn up defining exactly the nature of these indulgences and the conditions on which they could be gained. Several papers of this kind -- one in favour of Mary Queen of Scots (1576) and others for English Catholics north of the Alps -- have been preserved, emanating from Gregory XIII. One is printed by Knox in the "Douay Diaries", P. 367: The Apostolic Indulgences attached to medals, rosaries and similar objects by all priests duly authorized, are analogous to these. They are imparted by making a simple sign of the cross, but for certain other objects, e.g. the medal of St. Benedict, more special faculties are required, and an elaborate form of benediction is provided. Quite recently [1911] Pius X has sanctioned the use of a blessed medal to be worn in place of the brown and other scapulars. The concession was originally made for the benefit of the native Christians in the missions of the Congo, but the Holy Father has expressed his readiness to grant to other priests who apply, the faculty of blessing medals which may be worn in place of the scapular (see "Le Canoniste Contemporain", Feb., 1910, p. 115).

330 Almost the only attempt at a systematic classification of devotional medals In general seems to have been made by KUNCZE Systematik der Weihnsfingen (Raab, 1885), but the work is neither scholarly nor scientific. Much more satisfactory in every way, so far as regards the limited ground covered, are the researches Of PACHINGER, who has published a valuable series of studies on the Wallfahrts-Bruderschafts -- und GnadenMedaillen of various districts. These are concerned with Bavaria (1904), Duchy of Austria 1904), Salzburg (1908), and the Tyrol (1909), with some other more general articles. Other miscellaneous works are Corbierre, Numismaitique Benedictine. (Rome, s.d.); Idem, Numismatique et Iconographie mariale (Rome, s.d.); Blanchet, Nouveau Manuel de Numismatique (Paris, 1890); a series of articles by Rouyer (especially in 1896-97) and by De Witte (especially 1905-1910) in the Revue Belge de Numismatique; Migne, Encyclopedie, Series II, XXXII, Numismatique (Paris, 1850) -- Merzbacher, katalog der Bayrischem Wallfahrts-Koster -- und Kirchon-Medaillen; (Munich, 1895): VON HOHENVEST. Weihmunzen fur Samssler (Gras 1893; this is a slender pamphlet on the classification religious medals -SCHRATZ, Die Denk und Weihmunzen der eheden h. Wolfgang (Brunn, 1890); Beirlein, Munzen der Bayerischen Kloster &c. (Munich, 1857-1879).

331 Upon early Christian medals, see De Rossi's various articles in Upon early Christian medals, see De Rossi's various articles in Bullettino di Archeologicia Cristiana, especially in 1869, 1871, and 1891; Lecleroq in Dictionnaire d'archeologie chre tienne, a. v. Amulettes; Babington in Dict. of Christ. Antiq. a.v. Money; and Heuser in the Realencyclopadie f. christ. Altertums s.v. Modaillen and various articles in the Römische Quartalschrift particularly 1889 On the papal medals see particularly Bonanni Numismata Pontificum Romanorum (2 vols., Rome, 1699); Venuti Ntimismata Pontificum Romanorum praestantiora (Rome, 1744).

332 Other works dealing with the general history of Medals in modern times, but which also have many notices to the students of religious medals, are Forrer, Biographical Dictionary of Medalists (London 1904-1910); DOMANIG, Die deutsche Medaalle in Kunst und Kulturhistorischer Hinsicht Vienna, 1907), a work magnificently illustrated; Heiss, Les Medailleurs do la Renaissance (8 vols., Paris, 1881-1892), also finely illustrated; Rondot, Los Medailleurs et Graveurs de Monnaies en France (Paris, 1904), with admirable illustrations. Several other works have been mentioned in the course of the article.

333 Herbert Thurston.

334 Miraculous Medal.—The devotion commonly known as that of the Miraculous Medal owes its origin to Zoe Labore, a member of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, known in religion as Sister Catherine [Note: She was subsequently canonized], to whom the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared three separate times in the year 1830, at the mother-house of the community at Paris. The first of these apparitions occurred 18 July, the second 27 November, and the third a short time later. On the second occasion, Sister Catherine records that the Blessed Virgin appeared as if standing on a globe, and bearing a globe in her hands. As if from rings set with precious stones dazzling rays of light were emitted from her fingers. These, she said, were symbols of the graces which would be bestowed on all who asked for them. Sister Catherine adds that around the figure appeared an oval frame bearing in golden letters the words "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee"; on the back appeared the letter M, surmounted by a cross, with a crossbar beneath it, and under all the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the former surrounded by a crown of thorns, and the latter pierced by a sword.

335 At the second and third of these visions a command was given to have a medal struck after the model revealed, and a promise of great graces was made to those who wear it when blessed. After careful investigation, M. Aladel, the spiritual director of Sister Catherine, obtained the approval of Mgr. de Quelen, Archbishop of Paris, and on 30 June, 1832, the first medals were struck and with their distribution the devotion spread rapidly. One of the most remarkable facts recorded in connection with the Miraculous Medal is the conversion of a Jew, Alphonse Ratisbonne (q.v.) of Strasburg, who had resisted the appeals of a friend to enter the Church. M. Ratisbonne consented, somewhat reluctantly, to wear the medal, and being in Rome, he entered, by chance, the church of Sant' Andrea delle Fratte and beheld in a vision the Blessed Virgin exactly as she is represented on the medal; his conversion speedily followed. This fact has received ecclesiastical sanction, and is recorded in the office of the feast of the Miraculous Medal. In 1847, M. Etienne, superior-general of the Congregation of the Mission, obtained from Pope Pius IX the privilege of establishing in the schools of the Sisters of Charity a confraternity under the title of the Immaculate Conception, with all the indulgences attached to a similar society established for its students at Rome by the Society of Jesus. This confraternity adopted the Miraculous Medal as its badge, and the members, known as the Children of Mary, wear it attached to a blue ribbon. On 23 July, 1894, Pope Leo XIII, after a careful examination of all the facts by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, instituted a feast, with a special Office and Mass, of the Manifestation of the Immaculate Virgin under the title of the Miraculous Medal, to be celebrated yearly on 27 November by the Priests of the Congregation of the Mission, under the rite of a double of the second class. For ordinaries and religious communities who may ask the privilege of celebrating the festival, its rank is to be that of a double major feast. A further decree, dated 7 September, 1894, permits any priest to say the Mass proper to the feast in any chapel attached to a house of the Sisters of Charity.

336 Joseph Glass.

St. Medardus

301 Bishop of Noyon, b. at Salency (Oise) about 456; d. in his episcopal city 8 June, about 545. His father, Nectardus, was of Frankish origin, while his mother, named Protagia, was Gallo-Roman. It is believed that St. Gildardus, Bishop of Rouen, was his brother. His youth was entirely consecrated to the practise of Christian virtues and to the study of sacred and profane letters. He often accompanied his father on business to Vermand and to Tournai, and frequented the schools, carefully avoiding all worldly dissipation. His exemplary piety and his knowledge, considerable for that time, decided the Bishop of Vermand (d. 530) to confer on him Holy Orders, and caused him to be chosen as his successor. Forced, in spite of his objections, to accept this heavy charge, he devoted himself zealously to his new duties, and to accomplish them in greater security, since Vermand and the northern part of France in general were then generally troubled by wars and exposed to the incursions of the barbarians, he removed his episcopal see in 531 from Vermand, a little city without defence, to Noyon, the strongest place in that region. The year following, St. Eleutherius, Bishop of Tournai, having died, St. Medardus was invited to assume the direction of that diocese also. He refused at first, but being urged by Clotaire himself he at last accepted. This union of the two dioceses lasted until 1146, when they were again separated. Clotaire, who had paid him a last visit at Noyon, had his body transferred to the royal manor of Crouy at the gates of the city of Soissons. Over the tomb of St. Medardus was erected the celebrated Benedictine abbey which bears his name. St. Medardus was one of the most honoured bishops of his time, his memory has always been popularly venerated in the north of France, and he soon became the hero of numerous legends. The Church celebrates his feast on 8 June.

302 Baronius, Ann. (1957), 527, 80; 564, 31-4; Bécu, Dissert. sur quelques dates et quelques faits contestés de la vie de St. Médard in Com. Arch. de Noyon, compt. rend. et mém., II (1867), 307-20; Chiffletius in Acta SS., June, II, 95-105; Corblet, Notice historique sur le culte de St. Médard in Bull. de la Soc. des ant. de Picardie (Amiens, 1856); Corblet, Hagiogr. du diocèse d'Amiens, IV (1874), 524-31; Guénebault in Rev. archéol., XIII (Paris, 1857), 557-62; Lefébure, Saint Médard (Paris, 1864); Maitre, Le culte de S. Médard dans le diocèse de Nantes in Ann. de Bretagne (1900), XV, 292-8; Surius, De vit. SS., III (Venice, 1551), 177-181.

303 LÉON CLUGNET

Medea

304 A titular see of Thrace, suffragan of Heraclea. This name and the modern name (Midieh) are derived from the ancient Salmydessos or Alydessos, Herodotus (IV, 93) says that the inhabitants yielded to Darius after some resistance; Xenophon and his companions in arms subjugated it with much difficulty (Anab., VII, 5, 12). The city is also mentioned by Sophocles (Antig., 969) by Æschylus (Prom. 726), who places it wrongly in Asia, Diodorus Siculus (XIV 37), Strabo (VII, vi, 1; XII, iii, 3; I, iii, 4, 7), Ptolemy (VII, xi, etc.), who all agree in locating its harbour on the Black Sea and very much exposed to the winds; moreover, the shore was sandy and unfavourable for navigation. Theophanes (Chronogr., an. m. 6255) mentions it under the name Medeia in the year 763. The Emperor Joannes Cantacuzenus, having taken it in 1352, was almost killed there by the Turks (Histor., IV, 10); it is also frequently mentioned in official acts (Miklosich and Muller), "Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitan", Vienna, II, 600). Medea is mentioned as a suffragan of Heraclea towards 900 in the "Notitia" of Leo the Wise (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitae episcopatuum", 552); it is mentioned in the same way in the "Notitia" of Manuel Comnenus about 1170 and of Michael VIII about 1270 (Parthey, "Hieroclis Syneedemus", 104, 204). Shortly after, under Andronicus II, Medea was made an autocephalous archbishopric, and towards 1330 a metropolitan see (Gelzer, op. cit., 601). In 1627 the metropolitan sees of Medea and Sozopolis were united, to be again separated in 1715. A little later Medea was united with Bizya, at least among the Orthodox Greeks, and it is so still. Le Quein (Oriens christianus, I, 1143-1146) gives the names of five Greek metropolitans, and Eubel (Hierarchia catholics medii aevi, I, 355) mentions two Latin titularies of the fourteenth century. To-day Medea or Midieh is a part of the sanjak of Kirk-Kélissi in the vilayet of Adrianople; there are two thousand Greeks and some Turks.

305 PTOLEMY, Geographiia s. v. Sallmydessos, ed. MULLER, I, 475; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, II, s. v. Salmydessus.

306 S. VAILHÉ

Archdiocese of Medellín

307 (Medellensis).

308 Archdiocese in the Republic of Colombia, Metropolitan of Antioquia and Manizales, in the Departments of Medellín, Antioquia, and Manizales. Prior to 1908, when a new civil territorial division was adopted, the limits of the archdiocese were conterminous with the former Department of Antioquia (from native words meaning the "hill or mountain of gold") which lay in the basins of the Magdalena, Cauca, and Atrato rivers, had an area of over 22,000 square miles, and was divided into ten civil provinces, Aures (capital, Sonson), Centro (cap., Medellín), Fredonia (cap., Fredonia), Nordeste (cap., Sta Rosa de Osos), Norte (cap., Yarumal), Occidente (cap. Antioquia), Oriente (cap., Maranilla), Sopetran (cap., Sopetran), Sur (cap., Manizales), Uraba (cap., Frontino). The territory of the Diocese is comprised in the Andes region; means of communication are poor, owing to the mountainous nature of the country; a railway, however, is being built from Puerto Berrio to Medellín. The Catholic religion is universally professed, but the exercise of all cults not contrary to Christian morality is permitted. The language is Spanish, and the inhabitants are descendants of the Spanish conquistadores, of the mestizos and negroes. There is no race antagonism, chiefly because of the influence and teaching of the Catholic religion. The Indians of the Cauca valley were originally cannibals.

309 Education is gratuitous and as far as possible compulsory; there are 400 primary schools with 35,000 pupils, besides many schools conducted by religious. During the civil disturbances of the past, many of the monasteries were confiscated, and are still used as public buildings; but the relations between Church and State were amicably settled by the Concordat of 1887.

310 Previous to 1804, the region was within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Bogotá. On 31 August, 1804, the See of Antioquia was erected, and on 4 February, 1868, the title of the diocese was removed from Antioquia to the growing town of Medellín. On 29 Jan., 1873, the See of Antioquia (ANTIOQUIENSIS) was re-established, and on 11 April, 1900, a portion of the Diocese of Medellín went to constitute the newly erected See of Manizales (MANIZALENSIS). As the civil districts are now constituted, the Department of Antioquia embraces an area of 11,517 square miles with a population of 160,000; that of Medellín an area of 12,137 with a population of 275,000; that of Manizales an area of 4439 with a population of 242,000 (The Statesman's Year-Book, 1910). There are about 5000 savage Indians scattered in these regions.

311 MEDELLIN on the River Porce, 147 miles from Bogotá, and 4600 feet above sea-level, is the capital of the Department of Medellín. In 1910 it had a population of 60,000. It was named in 1575 after the Count of Medellín in Spain, but did not begin to prosper until the gold and silver mines were discovered in the neighbourhood early in the nineteenth century. It has 7 churches, 2 chapels, and a pro-cathedral; a new cathedral is being constructed in the Plaza de Bolivar. Among important institutions in the town are a seminary, a university, the College of St. Ignatius, under the Jesuits (founded by Father Friere in the eighteenth century), and the College of St. Joseph, under the Christian Brothers. The Presentation Nuns conduct schools for girls; the Sisters of Charity have charge of a hospital; and the Discalced Carmelites have a convent. Among the periodicals published in Medellín are "Registro Official", "Crónica Judicial", "El Preceptor", "El Elector", and "La Consigna".

312 The See of Medellín was raised to metropolitan rank on 24 Feb., 1902. The archdiocese has 363,710 inhabitants, 110 priests, 15 regulars, 75 churches and chapels, 141 Catholic schools, in which 16,035 pupils are being educated. The present archbishop is Mgr. Em. José de Cayzedo y Cuero, born in Bogotá, 16 Nov., 1850; chosen Bishop of Pasto, 11 Feb., 1892; transferred to Popayan, 2 Dec., 1895; made archbishop 14 Dec., 1901; and transferred to Medellín 14 Dec., 1905, to succeed Mgr. Pardo Vergara, the first Archbishop of Medellín.

313 ANTIOQUIA on the Cauca was founded by Jorge Robledo in 1542; until 1826 it was the capital of the Department of Antioquia. Its population is estimated at 10,077. In 1720 a Jesuit college was established at Antioquia under the auspices of Bishop Gomez Friar, of Popayan, and on 5 Feb., 1727, a royal charter was granted to the college, and the fathers were given charge of the church of St. Barbara. A few years later they opened a second college at Buga. Among the more important buildings of the city are the cathedral, the bishop's house, the Jesuit college, and a hospital. On account of malaria the seminary has been removed from Antioquia to San Pedro.

314 The diocese has a population of 211,315; 75 priests; 80 churches and chapels. The present bishop is Mgr. Em. Ant. Lopez de Mesa, born at Rio Negro in the Diocese of Medellín, 22 March, 1846, and succeeded Mgr. Rueda as Bishop of Antioquia, 2 June, 1902.

315 MANIZALES is about 100 miles from Bogotá, and 7000 feet above sea-level. Founded in 1848 it has developed rapidly owing to the gold mining operations in the neighbourhood; population in 1905, 20,000. The town suffered severely from earthquakes in 1875 and 1878.

316 The Diocese of Manizales was created 11 April, 1900, from territory formerly belonging to the archdioceses of Popayan and Medellín. The cathedral is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The present and first bishop is Mgr. Gregory Hoyos, born at Vahos, 1 Dec; 1849; appointed 11 May, 1901.

317 PETRE, The Republic of Colombia (London, 1906); CASSANI, Historia de la Compañía de Jesus; BORDA, Compendio de Historia de Colombia (Bogotá, 1890); HOLTON, Twenty Months in the Andes (New York); NUÑEZ, La République de Colombie (Brussels, 1883); Annuaire Pontifical (1910).

318 J. C. Grey.

Media and Medes

310 (Medía, Mêdoi).

311 An ancient country of Asia and the inhabitants thereof. The Hebrew and Assyrian form of the word Media is mdy (Madai) which corresponds to the Mada by which the land is designated in the earliest Persian cuneiform texts. The origin and significance of the word are unknown. In Gen., x, 2, Madai is mentioned among the sons of Japheth, between Magog (probably the Gimirrhi and the Lydians) and Javan, i.e. the Ionians. In IV Kings, xvii, 6 (cf. xviii, 11) we read that Salmanasar, King of the Assyrians "took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria; and he placed them in Hala and Habor by the river of Gozan, in the cities of the Medes". Reference is made to the Medes in Jer., xiii, 17 (cf. xxi, 2) as enemies and future destroyers of Babylon, and again in chapter xxv, verse 25, the "kings of the Medes" are mentioned in a similar connection. The only reference to the Medes in the New Testament is in Acts, ii, 9, where they are mentioned between the Parthians and the Elamites.

312 The earliest information concerning the territory occupied by the Medes, and later in part by the Persians, is derived from the Babylonian and Assyrian texts. In these it is called Anshan, and comprised probably a vast region bounded on the north-west by Armenia, on the north by the Caspian Sea, on the east by the great desert, and on the south by Elam. It included much more than the territory originally known as Persia, which comprised the south-eastern portion of Anshan, and extended to Carmania on the east, and southward to the Persian Gulf. Later, however, when the Persian supremacy eclipsed that of the Medes, the name of Persia was extended to the whole Median territory.

313 Ethnological authorities are agreed that the heterogeneous peoples who under the general name of Medes occupied this vast region in historic times, were not the original inhabitants. They were the successors of a prehistoric population as in the case of the historic empires of Egypt and Assyria; and likewise, little or nothing is known of the origin or racial ties of these earlier inhabitants. If the Medes who appear at the dawn of history had a written literature, which is hardly probable, no fragments of it have been preserved, and consequently nothing is directly known concerning their language. Judging, however, from the proper names that have come down to us, there is reason to infer that it differed only dialectically from the Old Persian. They would thus be of Aryan stock, and the Median empire seems to be the result of the earliest attempt on the part of the Aryans to found a great conquering monarchy.

314 The first recorded mention of the people whom the Greeks called Medes occurs in the cuneiform inscription of Shalmaneser II, King of Assyria, who claims to have vanquished the Madai in his twenty-fourth campaign, about 836 B.C. Whatever may have been the extent of this conquest, it was by no means permanent, for the records of the succeeding reigns down to that of Asshurbanipal (668-625), who vainly strove to hold them in check, constantly refers to the "dangerous Medes" (so they are called in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser IV, 747-727), in terms which show that their aggressive hostility had become a grave and ever-increasing menace to the power of the Assyrians. During that period the power of Anshan was gradually strengthened by the accession and assimilation of new peoples of Aryan stock, who established themselves in the territory once held by the Assyrians east of the Tigris. Thus after the year 640 B. C. the names of the native rulers of Elam disappear from the inscriptions and in their place we find reference to the kings of Anshan. The capital of the kingdom was Ecbatana (the Agamatanu of the Babylonian inscriptions) the building of which is attributed by the author of the Book of Judith (i, 1) to "Arphaxad king of the Medes." Assuming that it is the city called Amadana in an inscription of Tiglath Pileser I, its origin would go back to the twelfth century B. C. At variance with this, however, is the Greek tradition represented by Herodotus, who asciribes the origin of Ecbatana to Deiokes (the Daiukku of the Assyrian inscriptions, about 710 B. C.), who is described as the first great ruler of the Median empire. The "building of the city" is, of course, a rather elastic expression which may well have been used to designate the activities of monarchs who enlarged or fortified the already existing stronghold; and it is scarcely necessary to recall that most of these ancient records, though containing elements of truth, are to a certain extent artificial. At all events, it is with the reign of Deiokes that the Median empire emerges into the full light of history, and henceforward the Greek sources serve to check or corroborate the information derived from the native monuments.

315 According to the somewhat questionable account of Herodotus, Deiokes reigned from 700 to 647 B. C. and was succeeded by Phraortes (646-625), but of the latter no mention is made in the inscriptions thus far discovered. His successor Cyaxares (624-585), after breaking the Scythian power, formed an alliance with the Babylonians, who were endeavouring to regain their long lost domination over Assyria. In league with Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, he captured and destroyed Ninive (606 B.C.) and conquered all the northern portion of Mesopotamia. Enriched by the spoils of the great Assyrian capital, Cyaxares pushed his conquering armies westward, and soon the dominion of the Medes extended from the confines of Elam to the river Halys in Asia Minor. Astyages (584-550 B. C.), the son and successor of Cyaxares, failed to maintain the friendly relations with Babylon, and when Nabonidus succeeded to the throne of the latter kingdom, the Medes and Babylonians were at war.

316 In the meantime a great internal movement was preparing the way for a change in the destinies of the empire. It was due to the rising influence of another branch of the Aryan race, and in history it is generally known as the transition from the Median to the Persian rule. At this distance both terms are rather vague and indefinite, but there is no doubt as to the advent of a new dynasty, of which by far the most conspicuous ruler is Cyrus, who first appears as King of Anshan, and who is later mentioned as King of Persia. Doubtless in the earlier part of his reign he was but a vassal king dependent on the Median monarch, but in 549 B. C. he vanquished Astyages and made himself master of the vast empire then comprising the kingdoms of Anshan, Persia, and Media. He is known to Oriental history as a great and brilliant conqueror, and his fame in this respect is confirmed by the more or less fantastic legends associated with his name by the Greek and Roman writers. His power soon became a menace to all western Asia, and in order to withstand it a coalition was formed into which entered Nabonidus, King of Babylonia, Amasis, King of Egypt, and Crœsus, King of Lydia. But even this formidable alliance was unable to check the progress of Cyrus who, after having reduced to subjection the whole of the Median empire, led his forces into Asia Minor. Crœsus was defeated and taken prisoner in 546, and within a year the entire peninsula of Asia Minor was divided into satrapies, and annexed to the new Persian empire. The west being fully subdued, Cyrus led his victorious armies against Babylonia. Belshazzar, the son of the still reigning Nabonidus, was sent as general in chief to defend the country, but he was defeated at Opis. After this disaster the invading forces met with little or no resistance, and Cyrus entered Babylon, where he was received as a deliverer, in 539 B. C. The following year he issued the famous decree permitting the Hebrew captives to return to Palestine and rebuild the temple (I Esd., i). It is interesting to note in this connexion that he is often alluded to in Isaias (xl-xlviii, passim), where according to the obvious literal meaning he is spoken of as the Lord's anointed. With the accession of the Achæmenian dynasty the history of Media becomes absorbed into that of Persia (q. v.), which will be treated in a separate article.

317 BEURLIER in VIGOUROUX, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s. v. Médie; ROGERS in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, s. v. Medo-Persia; JACKSON, Persia Past and Present (New York, 1906); SAYCE in HASTINGS, A Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Medes.

318 James F. Driscoll

Mediator (Christ as Mediator)

313 The subject will be treated under the following heads:

314 (1) Definition of the word mediator;

315 (2) Christ the Mediator;

316 (3) Christ's qualifications;

317 (4) Performance;

318 (5) Results.

319 (1) Mediator defined

320 A mediator is one who brings estranged parties to an amicable agreement. In New Testament theology the term invariably implies that the estranged beings are God and man, and it is appropriated to Christ, the One Mediator. When special friends of God — angels, saints, holy men — plead our cause before God, they mediate "with Christ"; their mediation is only secondary and is better called intercession (q.v.). Moses, howover, is the proper mediator of the Old Testament (Gal, iii, 19-20).

321 (2) Christ the Mediator

322 St. Paul writes to Timothy (I Tim., ii, 3-6) . . . "God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times." The object of the mediatorship is here pointed out as the salvation of mankind, and the imparting of truth about God. The mediator is named: Christ Jesus; His qualification for the office is implied in His being described as man, and the performance of it is ascribed to His redeeming sacrifice and His testifying to the truth. All this originates in the Divine Will of "God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved". Christ's mediatorship, therefore, occupies the central position in the economy of salvation: all human souls are both for time and eternity dependent on Christ Jesus for their whole supernatural life. "Who [God the Father] hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature . . . all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy: Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fulness should dwell; And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven". (Col., i, 13-20)

323 (3) Qualifications

324 The perfection of a mediator is measured by his influence with the parties he has to reconcile, and this power flows from his connection with both: the highest possible perfection would be reached if the mediator were substantially one with both parties. A mother, for instance, is the best mediator between her husband and her son. But the matrimonial union of "two in one flesh", and the union of mother and child are inferior in perfection to the hypostatic union of the Son of God with human nature. Husband, mother, son, are three persons; Jesus Christ, God and man, is only one person, identical with God, identical with man. Moreover, the hypostatic union makes Him the Head of mankind and, therefore, its natural representative. By His human origin Christ is a member of the human family, a partaker of our flesh and blood (Heb., ii, 11-15); by reason of His Divine Personality, He is "the image and likeness of God" to a degree unapproached by either man or angel. The Incarnation establishing between the First-born and His brethren a real kinship or affinity, Christ becomes the Head of the human family, and the human family acquires a claim to participate in the supernatural privileges of their Head, "Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Eph., v, 30.). Such was the expressed will of God: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal., iv, 4-5; also Rom., viii, 29.) The man Christ Jesus, therefore, who was designed by God to mediate between Him and mankind, and whose mediatorship was not accidental and delegated, but inherent in His very being, was endowed with all the attributes are required in a perfect mediator.

325 Christ's function as mediator necessarily proceeds from His human nature as principium quo operandi; yet it obtains its mediating efficacy from the Divine nature, i.e. from the dignity of an acting person. Its first object, as commonly stated, is the remission of sin and the granting of grace, whereby the friendship between God and man is restored. This object is attained by the worship of infinite value which is offered to God by and through Christ. Christ, however, is mediator on the side of God as well as on the side of man: He reveals to man Divine truth and Divine commands; He distributes the Divine gifts of grace and rules the world. St. Paul sums up this two-sided mediation in the words: ". . . consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus" (Heb. iii, I); Jesus is the Apostle sent by God to us, the high priest leading us to God.

326 (4) Performance

327 How do we benefit by Christ's mediation? Christ is more than an enlightening teacher and a bright example of holiness; He destroys sin and restores grace. Our salvation is not due exclusively to the Mediator's intercession for us in His heaven; Christ administers in heaven the fruits of His work on earth (Heb., vii, 25). Scripture compels us to regard the work of the Mediator as an efficient cause of our salvation: His merits and satisfaction, as being those of our representative, have obtained for us salvation from God. The oldest expression of the dogma in the Church formularies is in the Nicene Creed: "crucified also for us". "Vicarious satisfaction", a term now in vogue, is not found expressly in the Church formularies, and us not an adequate expression of Christ's mediation. For His mediation partly replaces, partly renders possible and efficacious the saving work of man himself, on the other hand, it is a condition of, and it merits, the saving work of God. It begins with obtaining the goodwill of God towards man, and appeasing the offended God by interceding for man. This intercession, however, differs from a mere asking in this, that Christ's work has merited what is asked for: salvatlon is its rightful equivalent. Further : to effect man's salvation from sin, the Saviour had to take upon Himself the sins of mankind and make satisfaction for them to God. But though His atonement gives God more honour than sin gives dishonour, it is but a step towards the most essential part of Christ's saving work - the friendship of God which it merits for man. Taken together, the expiation of sin and the meriting of Divine friendship are the end of a real sacrifice, i,e. of "an action performed in order to give God the honour due to Him alone, and so to gain the Divine favour" III:48:3). Peculiar to Christ's sacrifice are the infinite value of Victim, which give the sacrifice an infinite value of expiation and as merit. Moreover, it consists of suffering voluntarily accepted. The sinner deserves death, having forfeited the end for which he was created; and hence Christ accepted death as the chief feature of His atoning sacrifice.

328 (5) Results

329 Christ's saving work did not at once blot out every individual sin and transform every sinner into a saint, it only procured the means thereto. Personal sanctification is effected the special acts, partly Divine, partly human; it is secured by loving God, and man as the Saviour did. Christianus alter Christus: every Christian is another Christ, a son of God, an heir to the eternal Kingdom. Finally, in the fulness of time all things that are in heaven and on earth shall be re-established, restored, in God through Christ (Eph., i, 9-10). The meaning of the promise is that the whole of creation, bound up together and perfected in christ as its Head, shall be led back in the most perfect manner to God, from whom sin had partly led it away. Christ is the Crown the Centre, and the Fountain of a new and higher order of things: "for all are yours; And you are Christ's; and Christ is God's." (I Cor, iii, 22-23).

330 J. Wilhelm

Hieronymus Medices

316 (De Medicis)

317 Illustrious as a scholastic of acumen and penetration, b. at Camerino in Umbria, 1569, whence the surname de Medicis a Camerino. He was clothed with the Dominican habit at Ancona. He first distinguished himself as professor of philosophy and theology in various houses of the Province of Lombardy, whence he was advanced to a professorship in the more important theological school at Bologna. He was approved by the general chapter of his Order held at Paris, 1611, and raised to the mastership and doctorate. He was then performing the duties of general censor for the tribunal of the Inquisition established at Mantua, for which reason he is said eventually to have secured the transfer of his affiliation to the convent of that place (1618). His laborious and fruitful career closed in 1622. It had been marked by a studious application to the doctrines of St. Thomas. Just as the Paris chapter was acknowledging his intellectual ability, he completed the first part of the invaluable "Summae theologiae S. Thomae Aquinatis doctoris angelici formalis explicatio". In this work he puts into syllogistic form the whole Summa. Aiming primarily at the enlightenment of beginners, he contributes notably to the instruction of others more advanced. The first part was not published until the first section of the second part was ready (Venice), 1614. Three years later followed the second section, but it was not until 1622 that the third part appeared at Salo, instead of Venice. The supplement had preceded the third part by a year (Venice, 1621); it was not published at Mantels in 1623. Other more correct editions have followed even as late as (Vici) 1858-1862. It is to Jacobus Quétif that credit is due for having improved the original in accuracy. He reproduced the work in five tomes, folio (Paris), in 1657. The chief advantage to be derived from the arrangement of St. Thomas in syllogistic form is a quickness of grasp with an easiness of assimilation not otherwise obtainable. In the Vici edition certain additions have been made which, although raising the value of the work as a manual, are outside the scope of the original. They serve as appendices to each question and, under the caption "Utilitas pro Ecclesia S. Dei", furnish the student with practical applications of the original matter in view of dogmas subsequently developed or contemporary heresy.

318 QUETIF-ECHARD, Scriptores O. P. (Paris, 1721), II, 425 b; HUNTER, NOMENCLATOR (Innsbruck, 1892) I, 257 b.; MORGOTT in Kirchenlexion (Freiburg im Br., 1893), treats more fully of the new features of the VICI ed. of the "Explicatio".

319 Thomas A. K. Reilly.

House of Medici

319 A Florentine family, the members of which, having acquired great wealth as bankers, rose in a few generations to be first the unofficial rulers of the republic of Florence and afterwards the recognized sovereigns of Tuscany.

320 Cosimo the Elder. Born 1389, died 1 August, 1464, the founder of their power and so-called "Padre della Patria", was the son of Giovanni di Averardo de' Medici, the richest banker in Italy. He obtained the virtual lordship of Florence in 1434 by the overthrow and expulsion of the leaders of the oligarchical faction of the Albizzi. While maintaining republican forms and institutions, he held the government by banishing his opponents and concentrating the chief magistracies in the hands of his own adherents. His foreign policy, which became traditional with the Medici throughout the fifteenth century until the French invasion of 1494, aimed at establishing a balance of power between the five chief states of the Italian peninsula, by allying Florence with Milan and maintaining friendly relations with Naples, to counterpoise the similar understanding existing between Rome and Venice. He was a munificent and discerning patron of art and letters, a thorough humanist, and through Marsilio Ficino, the founder of the famous Neo-Platonic academy. Sincerely devoted to religion in his latter days, he was closely associated with St. Antoninus and with the Dominican friars of San Marco, his favourite foundation. His son and successor, Piero il Gottoso, the husband of Lucrezia Tornabuoni, a man of magnanimous character but whose activities were crippled by illness, contented himself with following in his footsteps.

321 Lorenzo and Giuliano. On Piero's death in 1469, his sons Lorenzo, b. 1449, d. 8 April, 1492, and Giuliano, b. 1453, d. 26 April, 1478, succeeded to his power. The latter, a genial youth with no particular aptitude for politics, was murdered in the Pazzi conspiracy of 1478, leaving an illegitimate son Giulio, who afterwards became Pope Clement VII. Among those executed for their share in the conspiracy was the Archbishop of Pisa. A war with Pope Sixtus IV and King Ferrante of Naples followed, in which Florence was hard pressed, until, Lorenzo, as Machiavelli says, "exposed his own life to restore peace to his country", by going in person to the Neapolitan sovereign to obtain favourable terms, in 1480. Henceforth until his death Lorenzo was undisputed master of Florence and her dominions, and, while continuing and developing the foreign and domestic policy of his grandfather, he greatly extended the Medicean influence throughout Italy. His skillful diplomacy was directed to maintaining the peace of the peninsula, and keeping the five chief states united in the face of the growing danger of an invasion from beyond the Alps. Guicciardini writes of him that it would not have been possible for Florence to have had a better or a more pleasant tyrant, and certainly the world has seen no more splendid a patron of artists and scholars. The poets, Pulci and Poliziano, the philosopher and mystic, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and a whole galaxy of great artists, such as Botticelli and Ghirlandaio, shed glory over his reign.

322 Posterity has agreed to call Lorenzo "the Magnificent", but this is, in part, a misunderstanding of the Italian title "magnifico", which was given to all the members of his family, and, indeed, during the fifteenth century, applied to most persons of importance in Italy to whom the higher title of "Excellence" did not pertain. Lorenzo sums up the finest culture of the early Renaissance in his own person. Unlike many of the humanists of his epoch, he throughly appreciated the great Italian classics of the two preceding centuries; in his youth he wrote a famous epistle on the subject to Federigo of Aragon, which accompanied a collection of early Italian lyrics. His own poems in the vernacular rank very high in the literature of the fifteenth century. They are remarkably varied in style and subject, ranging from Petrarcan canzoni and sonnets with a prose commentary in imitation of the "Vita Nuova" to the semiparody of Dante entitled "I Beoni". His canzoni a ballo, the popular dancing songs of the Florentines, have the true lyrical note. Especially admirable are his compositions in ottava rima: the "Caccia col Falcone", with its keen feeling for nature; the "Ambra", a mythological fable of the Florentine country-side; and the "Nencia da Barberino:, an idyllic picture of rustic love. His "Altercazione", six cantos in terza rima, discusses the nature of true felicity, and closes in an impressive prayer to God, somewhat Platonic in tone. To purely religious poetry belong his "Laude", and a miracle-play, the "Rapresentazione di san Giovanni e san Paolo", with a curiously modern appreciation of the Emperor Julian. In striking contrast to these are his carnival-songs, canti carnascialeschi, so immoral as to lend colour to the accusation that he strove to undermine the morality of the Florentines in order the more easily to enslave them.

323 At the close of his life, Lorenzo was brought into conflict with Savonarola, but the legend of the latter refusing him absolution on his deathbed unless he restored liberty to Florence is now generally rejected by historians. By his wife, Clarice Orsini, Lorenzo had three sons: Piero, Giuliano, and Giovanni, of whom the third rose to the papacy as Leo X. Although a man of immoral life, his relations with his family show him under a favourable aspect, and, in a letter from one of the ladies of the Mantuan court, a charming account is given of how, on his way to the congress of Cremona in 1483, Lorenzo visited the Gonzaga children and sat among them in their nursery.

324 Piero di Lorenzo. Lorenzo's eldest son, b. 1471, d. 1503, a licentious youth with none of his father's ability, proved a most incompetent ruler, and, on the French invasion of 1494, he was expelled from Florence by the people, led by the patriotic Piero Capponi. After several fruitless attempts to recover his position, he was drowned at the battle of the Garigliano while serving in the French army. On the restoration of the Medici in 1512, his son Lorenzo was made ruler of Florence. With him, in 1519, the legitimate male descent of Cosimo the Elder came to an end. By his wife, Madeleine de la Tour d'Auvergne, he was the father of Caterina de' Medici, afterwards Queen of France.

325 The Medici were again expelled from Florence, and the republic once more established, in 1527. But in 1530, after the famous siege, the city was compelled to surrender to the imperial forces, and Charles V made Alessandro de' Medici, an illegitimate son of the younger Lorenzo, hereditary head of the Florentine government. All republican forms and offices were swept away, and Alessandro ruled as duke until, in 1537, he was assassinated by his kinsman, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, who fled to Venice without attempting either to assert his own claims to the succession or to restore the republican regime.

326 Cosimo de' Medici. Usually known as Cosimo I, b. 1519, d. 1574, was the descendant of a brother of Cosimo the Elder and representative of the younger Medicean line. He was the son of Giovanni delle Bande Nere, the great soldier, and Maria Salviati. On the murder of Alessandro, he came into Florence, and was formally recognized as head of the government both by the citizens and by the emperor. At the outset, with the aid of imperial troops, he crushed the last efforts of the republicans, who were led by Baccio Valori and Filippo Strozzi. Various constitutional checks were at first put upon him, but these he soon discarded, and openly used the title of Duke of Florence. Although ruthless and implacable, he proved himself the ablest Italian ruler of the sixteenth century, and gave a permanent form to the government of Florence, finally developing the shapeless remains of the fallen republic into a modern monarchical state. He thoroughly reorganized the laws and administration, created a small but efficient fleet to defend the shores of Tuscany, and raised a national army out of the old Florentine militia. He married a Spanish wife, the noble and virtuous Eleonora da Toledo, and in foreign affairs leaned to a large extent upon Spain, by which power, however, he was prevented from accepting the crown of Corsica. His great desire of absorbing the neighbouring republics of Lucca and Siena into his dominions was fulfilled only the case of the latter state; he conquered Siena in 1555, and in 1557 received it as a fief from the King of Spain.

327 Tradition has invested Cosimo's name with a series of horrible domestic crimes and tragedies, all of which have been completely disproved by recent research. After the death of Eleonora da Toledo in 1562, he appears to have abandoned himself to vice. A few years later he married his mistress, Cammilla Martelli. In 1570 he was crowned in Rome by Pius V as Grand Duke of Tuscany, thereby taking place among the sovereigns of Europe. The title was confirmed to his son and successor, Francis I, in 1575, by the Emperor Maximilian II. Cosimo's descendants reigned as Grand Dukes of Tuscany in an unbroken line until 1737, when, on the death of Gian Gastone de' Medici, their dominions passed to the House of Austria.

328 CAPPONI, Storia della Repubblica di Firenze (Florence, 1888); PELLEGRINI, La Repubblica Fiorentina a tempo di Cosimo il vecchio (Pisa, 1899); EWART, Cosimo de' Medici (London, 1899); ROSCOE, The Life of Lorenzo de' Medici (London, 1795, etc.); REUMONT, Lorenzo de' Medici il Magnifico (Leipzig, 1874); Opere di Lorenzo de' Medici detto il Magnifico (4 vols., Florence, 1825); CARDUCCI, Poesie di Lorenzo de' Medici (Florence, 1859); ROSSI, Il Quattrocento (Milan, 1900); VILLARI, La Storia di Girolamo Savonarola (Florence, 1887); GALLUZZI, Storia del Granducato di Toscana sotto il governo della Casa Medici (Florence, 1781, etc.); Storia Fiorentina di Benedetto Varchi, ed. MILANESI (Florence, 1857); ARMSTRONG, Lorenzo de' Medici (London and New York, 1897); SALTINI, Tragedie Medicee domestiche (Florence, 1898); FERRAI, Lorenzino de' Medici (Milan, 1891); GAUTHIEZ, L'Italie du xvi Siecle (Paris, 1901); YOUNG, The Medici (London, 1909); GARDNER, The Story of Florence (London and New York, new ed., 1910).

329 Edmund G. Gardner.

Maria de' Medici

322 Queen of France; b. at Florence, 26 April, 1573; d. at Cologne, 3 July, 1642. She was a daughter of the Grand Duke Francis I of Tuscany and the Archduchess Joan of Austria, and married Henry IV of France, 5 October, 1600. In March, 1610, Henry IV, who was preparing to lead an expedition into Germany, against the Spaniards and the Imperialists, appointed Maria de' Medici regent, with a council of fifteen; yielding to her insistence, he also caused her to be crowned queen on 13 May, 1610. Two hours after the assassination of Henry IV (14 May, 1610), the Duc d'Epernon went to the Parliament and had Maria de' Medici declared regent, the little Louis XIII being not yet nine years of age. The policy of Henry IV, who, had he lived, would have striven more and more to secure alliances with Protestant powers, was replaced by a Catholic policy, aiming at a Spanish alliance. The first act in this direction was the betrothal of Louis XIII to the Infanta Anna (afterwards known as Anne of Austria), and of Elizabeth of France to the Infant Philip (1612). There was agitation among the princes and the Protestants. The States General, convoked by the queen regent in 1614, as a concession to the princes, was the last attempt under the old monarchy to associate representatives of the nation in the national government, and the attempt succeeded ill. FinalIy, defying the susceptibilities of Condé and the Protestants, Louis XIII married the Infanta Anna on 28 November, 1615, and the revolt of the princes, following on the arrest of Condé (1 Sept., 1616), was the cause of the queen regent's summoning Richelieu, Bishop of Luçon, to her council, as minister of war. Public opinion was aroused by the influence which Maria allowed her lady-in-waiting, Leonora Galigaï, and Leonora's Florentine husband, Concini, Maréchal d'Ancre, to obtain over her; Concini was assassinated, 24 April, 1617, and thenceforward the influence of Albert de Luynes, a favourite of the young king, predominated. Maria de' Medici had to leave Paris, 2 May, 1617, and it was through the intervention of Richelieu that she was allowed to establish her household at Blois.

323 The regency of Maria de' Medici is interesting from the point of view of religious history because of the Gallican agitation which marked it. After the condemnation by the Parliament of Paris of Bellarmine's treatise on the temporal power of the pope (1610), Edmond Richer, syndic of the faculty of theology, developed, in his "Libellus de Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate ", the theory that the government of the Church should be aristocratical, not monarchical. Maria de' Medici decidedly opposed Richer, and, when he had been condemned by an assembly of bishops held at Sens under the presidency of Cardinal du Perron, she had him deposed, and a new syndic elected (1612). When Harlay had resigned the presidency of the Parliament, she refused to appoint in his place de Thou, a Gallican, and appointed instead Nicolas de Verdun, an Ultramontane. In the States General of 1614, the Third Estate, through its spokesman, Miron, made a declaration of Gallican principles, and tried, with the support of the Protestant Condé, to introduce into its cahier an article on the power of kings, which aimed at the Ultramontanes; Maria de' Medici ended the business by ordering this article to be taken out of the cahier, and forbidding any further discussion of the question. Another interesting event of this regency was the Assembly of Saumur (1611), in which the Protestants, anxious to preserve and develop the political privileges given them by the Edict of Nantes, set about organizing all over France a vast network of provincial assemblies to watch over the interests of Protestantism, and assemblées de cercles, combining several provinces, which would be able to impose their will on the State. It was thus that, through the initiative of Henri de Rohan, Sully's son-in-law, there began to form within the French State a sort of separate Protestant party, to which Richelieu was to put an end.

324 After 1617, Maria de' Medici lived, with many vicissitudes, a life full of intrigue, which she sometimes carried to conspiracy. Escaping from Blois, 22 Feb., 1619, she made her way into Angoulême and obtained from Luynes the government of Anjou, which became a rallying-point for malcontents. The troops who supported her met those of the king at Les Ponts de Cé and were beaten (August, 1620). On the death of Luynes (15 December, 1621), she regained some of her influence; she caused Richelieu to be admitted to the council (1624), and was even entrusted with the regency during the war in Italy. But as Richelieu's hostility to Spain became more marked, she sought his dismissal. Allying herself with Gaston d'Orléans, she once — "the Day of the Dupes", 12 November, 1630 — thought herself successful in making Louis dismiss the cardinal. She was mistaken. Banished to Compiègne in February, 1631, she vainly endeavoured to obtain admission to the stronghold of La Capelle, whence she might have dictated terms to the king. At last she went into exile, to wait for the triumph of Gaston d'Orléans; but Gaston was beaten, and Maria de' Medici never more set foot in France. From 1631 to 1638 she spent her time in the Low Countries, sending across the French frontier manifestos which no one read. After that, taking refuge in England (1638-41) with her son-in-law Charles I, she was as a Catholic an object of suspicion to the Protestants of that country. Last of all, she betook herself to Germany, where she died, a helpless onlooker at the triumph of that foreign policy of Richelieu which was the exact opposite of what she had followed during her regency. The haughty queen, whose luxury and splendour had been blazoned in Rubens's immense canvases, possessed but a moderate fortune at the time of her death.

325 ZELLER, La minorité de Louis XIII: Marie de Médicis et Sully (Paris, 1892); IDEM, La minorité de Louis XIII: Marie de Médicis et Villeroy (Paris, 1897); IDEM, Louis XIII, Marie de Médicis chef du conseil (Paris, 1898); IDEM, Louis XIII, Marie de Médicis, Richelieu minister (Paris, 1899); HANOTAUX, Hist. du card. Richelieu, I, II (Paris, 1893, 1896); PICOT, Hist. des =C9tats Généraux, IV (2nd ed., Paris, 1888); PERRENS, L'=C9glise et l'=C9tat en France sous le r=E8gne de Henri IV et la régence de Marie de Médicis (2 vols., Paris, 1873); BATIFFOL, La vie intime d'une reine de France au XVIIe si=E8cle (Paris, 1906); HAYEM, Le Maréchal d'Ancre et Leonora Galiga=EF (Paris, 1910); PARDOE, Life of Mary de Medicis (London, 1852); LORD, The Regency of Marie de Medicis (London, 1904).

326 Georges Goyau

History of Medicine

325 The history of medical science, considered as a part of the general history of civilization, should logically begin in Mesopotamia, where tradition and philological investigation placed the cradle of the human race. But, in a condensed article such as this, there are important reasons which dictate the choice of another starting point. Modern medical science rests upon a Greek foundation, and whatever other civilized peoples may have accomplished in this field lies outside our inquiry. It is certain that the Greeks brought much with them from their original home, and also that they learned a great deal from their intercourse with other civilized countries, especially Egypt and India; but the Greek mind assimilated knowledge in such a fashion that its origin can rarely be recognized.

326 Mythical, Homeric, and Pre-Hippocratic Times

327 Greek medical science, like that of all civilized peoples, shows in the beginning a purely theurgical character. Apollo is regarded as the founder of medical science, and, in post-Homeric times, his son Æsculapius (in Homer, a Thessalian prince) is represented, as the deity whose office it is to bring about man's restoration to health by means of healing oracles. His oldest place of worship was at Tricca in Thessaly. The temples of Æsculapius, of which those at Epidaurus and Cos are the best known, were situated in a healthy neighbourhood. The sick pilgrims went thither that, after a long preparation of prayer, fasting and ablutions, they might, through of mediation of the priests, receive in their dreams the healing oracles. This kind of medical science already shows a rational basis, for the priests interpreted the dreams and prescribed a suitable treatment, in most cases purely dietetic. Important records of sicknesses were made and left as votive-tablets in the temples. Side by side with the priestly caste, and perhaps out of it there arose the order of temple physicians, who, as supposed descendants of the god Æsculapius, were known as the Asclepiadae, and formed a kind of guild or corporation. This separation of offices must have occurred at an early time, for even in Homer we find lay physicians mentioned, especially "the sons of Æseulapius", Machaon and Podalirius. In the vegetable drugs of Egyptian origin mentioned in Homer we recognize the early influence of the country of the Pharaohs upon Greek medical science. The schools of the philosophers likewise exerted no small influence upon development, medical problems being studied by Pythagoras of Samos, Alcmaeon of Crotona, Parmenides of Elea, Heraclitus of Ephesus (sixth century B.C.), Empedocles of Agrigentum, and Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (fifth century B.C.). The earliest medical schools were at Cyrene in Northern Africa, Crotona, Cnidus and Cos. From Cnidus came Euryphon and also Ctesias the geographer, who was at first physician in the army of Cyrus and, after the battle of Cunaxa (401 B.C.), to Artaxerxes Memnon. Of greater interest is the medical school adjoining the shrine of Æseulapius at Cos, for from it arose the man who first placed medicine upon a scientific basis, and whose name is even today well known to all physicians, Hippocrates.

328 Hippocrates and the So-Called Corpus Hippocraticum

329 Tradition knows seven physicians named Hippocrates, of whom the second is regarded as the most famous. Of his life we know but little. He was born at Cos in 460 or 459 B.C., and died at Larissa about 379. How great his fame was during his lifetime is shown by the fact that Plato compares him with the artists Polycletus and Phidias. Later he was called "the Great" or "the Divine". The historical kernel is probably as follows: a famous physician of this name from Cos flourished in the days of Pericles, and subsequently many things, which his ancestors or his descendants or his school accomplished, were attributed to him as the hero of medical science. The same was true of his writings. What is now known under the title of "Hippocratis Opera" represents the work, not of an individual, but of several persons of different periods and of different schools. It has thus become customary to designate the writings ascribed to Hippocrates by the general title of the "Hippocratic Collection" (Corpus Hippocraticum), and to divide them according to their origin into the works of the schools of Cnidus and of Cos, and of the Sophists. How difficult it is, however, to determine their genuineness is shown that even in the third century before Christ the Alexandrian librarians, who for the first time collected the anonymous scrolls scattered through Hellas, could not reach a definite conclusion. For the development of medical science it is of little consequence who composed the works of the school of Cos for they are more or less permeated by the spirit of one great master. The secret of his immortality rests on the fact that he pointed out the means whereby medicine became a science. His first rule was the observation of individual patients, individualizing in contradistinction to the schematizing of the school of Cnidus. By the observation of all the principles were gradually derived from experience, and these, uniformly arranged, led by induction to a knowledge of the nature of the disease, its course, and its treatment. This is the origin of the famous "Aphorismi", short rules which contain at times principles derived from experience and at times conclusions drawn from the same source. They form the valuable part of the collection. The school of Cos and its adherents, the Hippocratics, looked upon medical science from a purely practical standpoint; they regarded it as the art of healing the sick, and therefore laid most stress on prognosis and treatment by aiding the powers of nature through dietetic means, while the whole school of Cnidus prided itself upon its scientific diagnosis and, in harmony with money with the East, adopted a varied medicinal treatment. The method which the school of Cos established more than 2000 years ago has proved to be the only one, and thus Hippocratic medial science celebrated its renascence in the eighteenth century with Boerhaave at Leyden and subsequently with Gerhard van Swieten at Vienna. In his endeavour to the truth the earnest investigation often reaches an impassable barrier. There is nothing more tempting than to seek an outlet by means of reflection and deduction. Such a delusive course may easily become fatal to the physicist; but a medical system, erected upon the results of speculative investigation, carries the germ of death within itself.

330 The Dogmatic School

331 In their endeavour to complete the doctrine of their great master, the successors of the Hippocratics fell victims to the snares of speculation. In spite of this, we owe to this so-called "dogmatic school" some fruitful investigation. Diocles Carystius advanced the knowledge of anatomy, and tried to fathom the causal connection between symptom and disease, in which endeavours he was imitated by Praxagoras of Cos, who established the diagnostic importance of the pulse.

332 Unfortunately, there already began with Aristotle (38-22 B.C.) that tendency — later rendered so fatal through Galen's teaching - to regard organic structure and function not in accordance with facts but from the teleological standpoint.

333 The Alexandrian Period

334 The desire to give to medicine a scientific basis found rich nourishment in the ancient civilized soil of Egypt under the Ptolemies. Herophilus of Chalcedon (about 300 B.C.) and Erasistratus of Iulis (about 330-240 B.C.) are mentioned in this connection. As anatomists, they were the first systematic investigators, and, following Hippocrates, they tried to complete clinical experience by exact methods. This tendency was opposed by the empires, whose services lay solely in the field of drugs and toxicology. Erasistratus as well as Philinus, the empiric, attacked the doctrine of humors (humoral pathology), which developed out of the Hippocratic tendency. The former alone was a serious opponent since, as an anatomist, he looked for the seat of the disease in the solid parts, rather than in the four fundamental humors (blood, mucus, black and yellow gall) and their different mixtures.

335 The Methodizers

336 One of the opponents of humoral pathology was Asclepiades of Prusa in Bithynia (born about 124 B.C.). He tried to use in medicine the atomistic theory of Epicurus and Heracleides of Pontus. He taught that health and disease depend upon the motion of the atoms in the fine capillaries or pores, which, endowed with sensation, pass through the entire body. With Themison as their leader, the followers of Asclepiades simplified his doctrine by supposing disease to be only a contraction or relaxation, and later only a mixed condition (partly contracted, partly relaxed) of the pores. This simple and convenient explanation of all diseases without regard to anatomy and physiology, taken in conjunction with its allied system of physical dietetic therapeutics, explains why this doctrine enjoyed so long a life, and why the works of the methodist, Caelius Aurelianus of Sicca in Numidia (beginning of fifth century A.D.), were diligently studied down to the seventh century.

337 Galen

338 Departure from the Hippocratic observation of nature led physicians to form numerous mutually opposing sects. A man of great industry and comprehensive knowledge, Galen of Pergamum (about A.D. 130-201), tried to rescue medical science from this labyrinth. He chose the path of eclecticism, on which he built his (as he thought) infallible system. Whatever sense-perception and clinical observation left obscure, he tried to explain in a speculative manner. That this system of teaching could hold medicine in bondage until modern times shows the genius of the master, who understood how to cover up the gaps by brilliancy of style. Galen took the entire anatomical knowledge of his time, and out of it produced a work the substance of which was for centuries regarded as inviolable. His anatomy was to a large extent based upon the dissection of mammals, especially of monkeys, and, like his physiology, was under teleological influence. His presentation of things lacks dispassionateness. Instead of explaining the functions of organs on the basis of their structure, Galen chose this reverse method. His anatomy and physiology were the most vulnerable part of his system, and an earnest re-examination of these fields must necessarily have shaken his entire scheme of teaching. Galen expressed the greatest respect for Hippocrates, published his most important works with explanatory notes, but never entered into the spirit of the school of Cos, although he adopted many of its doctrines. Galen is the culminating point and end of ancient Greek medical science. In his vanity he thought he had completed all investigation, and that his successors had only to accept without effort what he had discovered. As will be shown in the following paragraph, his advice was, unfortunately for science, followed literally.

339 Pedanius Dioscurides

340 Pedanus Dioscurides, who was from Anazarbe and lived in the time of Nero and Vespasian, may be mentioned here as the most important pharmaceutical writer of ancient times. He simplified greatly the pharmacopoeia, which had then assumed unwieldy dimensions, and freed it from ridiculous, superstitious remedies. Our modern pharmacology is based on his work, Ta ton tylikon biblia.

341 Cornelius Celsus

342 Cornelius Celsus (about 25-30 B.C. to A.D. 45-50) is the only Roman who worked with distinction in the medical field, but it is doubtful whether he was a physician. His work, "De re medica libri viii", which is written in classical Latin, and for which he used seventy-two works lost to posterity, gives a survey of medical science from Hippocrates to imperial times. Very famous is his description lithotomy. Celsus was altogether forgotten until the fifteenth century, when Pope Nicholas V (1447-55) is said to have discovered a manuscript of his works.

343 Byzantine Period

344 In Byzantine times medicine shows but little originality, and is of small importantance in the history of medical development. The work handed down to us are all compilations, but as they frequently contain excerpts from lost works they are of some historical value. The notable writers of this period are: Oreibasios (325-403), physician in ordinary to Julian the Apostate; and Aetius of Amida, a Christian physician under Justinian {597-66). A little more originality than these men exhibited was shown by Alexander of Tralles (525-605), and Paulus Ægineta of the first half of the seventh century, of whose seven books, the sixth, dealing with surgery, was greatly valued in Arabian medicine. Paulus lived at Alexandria, and was one of the last to come from its once famous school, which became extinct after the capture of the city by Omar in 640. At the end of the thirteenth century Nicolaus Myrepsus, living at the court in Nicaea, made a collection of prescriptions which was extensively used. In the time of Emperor Andronicus III (1328-42) lived a highly gifted physician, Joannes Actuarius, and the mention of his writings closes the account of this period.

345 Arabian Medicine

346 Arabian medical science forms an important chapter in the history of the development of medicine, not because it was especially productive but because it preserved Greek medical science with that of its most important representative Galen. It was, however, strongly influenced by oriental elements of later times. The adherents of the heretic Nestorius, who in 431 settled in Edessa, were the teachers of the Arabs. After the expulsion these Nestorians settled in Dschondisapor in 489, and there founded a medical school. After the conquest of Persia by the Arabs in 650, Greek culture was held in great esteem, and learned Nestorian, Jewish, and even Indian physicians worked diligently as translators of the Greek writings. In Arabian Spain conditions similarly developed from the seventh century. Among important physicians in the first period of Greek-Arabic medicine — the period of dependence and of translations — come first the Nestorian family Bachtischua of Syria, which flourished until the eleventh century; Abu Zakerijja Jahja ben Maseweih (d. 875), known as Joannes Damascenus, Mesue the Elder, a Christian who was a director of the hospital at Bagdad, did independent work, and supervised the translation of Greek authors, Abu Jusuf Jacub ben Ishak ben el-Subbah el-Kindi (Alkindus, 813-73), who wrote a work about compound drugs, and the Nestorian Abu Zeid Honein ben Ishak ben Soliman ben Ejjub el 'Ibadi (Joannitius, 809-about 873), a teacher in Baghdad who translated Hippocrates and Dioscurides, and whose work "Isagoge in artem parvam Galeni", early translated into Latin, was much read in the Middle Ages. Wide activity and independent observation — based, however, wholly upon the doctrine of Galen — were shown by Abu Bekr Muhammed ben Zakarijia er-Razi (Rhazes, about 850-923), whose chief work, however, "El-Hawi fi'l Tib" (Continens) is a rather unsystematic compilation. In the Middle Ages his "Ketaab altib Almansuri" (Liber medicinalis Almansoris) was well known and had many commentators. The most valuable of the thirty-six productions of Rhazes which have come down to us is "De variolis et morbillis", a book based upon personal experience. We ought also to mention the dietetic writer Abu Jakub Ishak ben Soleiman el-Israili (Isaac Judaeus, 830-about 932), an Egyptian Jew; the Persian, Ali ben el Abbas Ala ed-Din el-Madschhusi (Ali Abbas, d. 994) author of "El-Maliki" (Regalis dispositio, Pantegnum). Abu Dshafer Ahmed ben Ibrahim ben Abu Chalid Ihn el-Dshezzar (d. 1009) wrote about the causes of the plague in Egypt. A work on pharmaceutics was written by the physician in ordinary to the Spanish Caliph Hisham II (976-1013), Abu Daut Soleiman ben Hassan Ibn Dsholdschholl.

347 Of the surgical authors, Abu'l Kasim Chalaf ben Abbas el-Zahrewi of el-Zahra near Cordova (Abulkasem, about 912-1013) alone deserves mention, and he depends absolutely on Paulus Ægineta. While he received scant attention at home, since surgery was little cultivated by the Arabs, his work, written in a clear and perspicuous style, became known in the West through the Latin translation by Gerardus of Cremona (1187), and was extensively used even in later days. Arabian medicine reached its culmination with the Persian Abu Ali el-Hosein ben Abdallah Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980-1037), who based his system entirely upon the teaching of Galen and tried in various ways to supplement the latter. His chief work, "El-Kanûn" (Canon Medicinae), written in a brilliant style and treating all branches of medical science, soon supplanted in the West the works of the Greeks and, until the time of the Humanists, served as the most important textbook for physicians, but in Arabian Spain his fame was small. One of his chief rivals was Abu-Merwan Abd el-Malik ben Abul-Ala Zohr ben Abd el-Malik Ibn Zohr (Avenzoar, 1113-62) from the neighbourhood of Seville. His friend, the philosopher and physician Abul-Welid Muhammed ben-Ahmed Ibn Roshd el-Maliki (Averroës, 1126 -98), of Cordova, is regarded as the complement of Avicenna. His book was also popular in the West and bears the title "Kitâbel-Kolijjat" (Colliget). With the decline of Arabian rule began the decay of medicine. In the Orient this decline began after the capture of Cordova in 1236, decay becoming complete after the loss of Granada in 1492. The predominance of Arabian medicine, which lasted scarcely three centuries, seriously delayed the development of our science. A brief survey of this period shows that the Arabs bent in slavish reverence before the works of Aristotle and Galen without examinig them critically. No other Greek physician obtained such a hold on the Arabs as Galen, whose system, perfect in form, pleased them in philosophy. Nowhere did dialectics play a greater part in medicine than among the Arabs and their later followers in the West. Independent investigation in the fields of exact science, anatomy, and physiology was forbidden by the laws of the Koran. Symptomatology (semiotics) at the bedside, especially prognosis, based on the pulse and the of the urine, were developed by them with an equally exaggerated and fruitless subtlety. Much, and perhaps the only credit due to them is in the field of pharmaceutics. We are indebted to them for a series of simple and compound drugs of oriental and Indian origin, previously unknown, and also for the polypharmacy of later times. Until the discovery of America the Venetian drug-trade was controlled by Arabian dealers.

348 Christianity's Share in the Development of Medical Science

349 As long as the cruel persecution the Church lasted throughout the Roman Empire, it was impossible for Christians to take direct part in the development of medical science. But provision had been made for medical aid within the community, because the priest, like the rabbi of small Jewish communities in the late Middle Ages, was also a physician. This is clear from the story of the two brothers, Sts. Cosmas and Damian, who studied medicine in Syria and were martyred under Diocletian. The exercise of practical charity under the direction of deacons of the churches gave rise to systematic nursing and hospitals. In recent times it has, indeed been alleged that the existence of hospitals among the Buddhists, even in the third century before Christ, and their existence in ancient Mexico at the time of its discovery is demonstrable, and that hospitals had their origin in general philanthropy; but nobody denies that the nursing of the sick, especially during epidemics, had never before been so widespread, so well organized, so self-sacrificing as in the early Christian communities. Christianity tended the sick and devised and executed extensive schemes for the care of deserted children (foundling, orphans), of the feeble and infirm, of those out of work and of pilgrims. The era of persecution ended, we find large alms-houses and hospitals like that of St. Basilius in Caesarea (370), those of the Roman Lady Fabiola in Rome and Ostia (400), that of St. Samson adjoining the church of St. Sofia in Constantinople in the sixth century, the foundling asylum of Archbishop Datheus of Milan in 787, and many others. In 1198 Pope Innocent III rebuilt the pilgrims' shelter, which had been founded in 726 by a British king, but had been repeatedly destroyed by fire. He turned it into a refuge for travellers and a hospital, and entrusted it to the Brothers of the Holy Ghost established by Guy de Montpellier. Mention must also be made here of the religious orders of knights and the houses for lepers of later times. The great hospitals of the Arabs in Dschondisapor and Bagdad were built after Christian models. The celebrated ecclesiastical writer Tertullian (born A.D. 160) possessed a wide knowledge of medicine, which, following the custom of his time, he calls a "sister of philosophy". Clement of Alexandria, about the middle of the century, lays down valuable hygienic laws in his "Paedagogus". Lactantius in the fourth century speaks in his work "De Opificio Dei" about the structure of the human body. One of the most learned priests of his time, St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), treats of medicine in the fourth book of his "Origines S. Etymologiae". St. Benedict of Nursia (480) made it a duty for the sciences, and among them medicine, as aids to the exercise of hospitality. Cassiodorus gave his monks direct instructions in the study in medicine. Bertharius, Abbot of Monte Cassino in the ninth century, was famous as a physician. Walafrid Strabo (d. 849), Abbot of Reichenau the oldest medical writer on German soil, describes in a poem (Hortulus) the value of native medicinal plants, and also the method of teaching medicine in monasteries. We must mention, furthermore, the "Physica", a description of drugs from the three kingdoms of nature, written by St. Hildegarde (1099-1179), abbess of a monastery near Bingen-on-the-Rhine. The curative properties of minerals are described by Marbodus of Angers, Bishop of Rennes (d. 1123), in his "Lapidarius".

350 How diligently medicine was studied in the monasteries is shown by the numerous manuscripts (many still unedited) in the old cathedral libraries and by those which were taken from the suppressed monasteries and are now to be found in the national libraries of various countries. Priests who possessed a knowledge ot medicine served as physicians-in-ordinary to princes as late as the fifteenth century, although they were forbidden to practice surgery by the Fourth Synod of the Lateran (1213). Thus, Master Gerhard, parish priest in Felling, who founded the Hospital of the Holy Ghost at Vienna (1211), was physician-in-ordinary to Duke Leopold VI of Austria, and Sigismund Albicus, who afterward became Archbishop of Prague (1411), held the same office at the court of King Wenzel of Bohemia (1391-1411). From this time, we constantly meet with priests possessing a knowledge of medicine and writing on medical subjects. The popes, the most important patrons of all the sciences, were friendly also to the development of medicine. That they ever at any time forbade the practice of anatomical investigation is a fable. Pope Boniface VIII in 1299-1300 forbade the practice then prevalent of boiling the corpses of noble persons who had died abroad, in order that their bones might be more conveniently transported to the distant ancestral tomb. This prohibitory rule had reference only to cases of death in Christian countries, while in the Orient (e.g. during the Crusades) the usage seems to have been tacitly allowed to continue.

351 First Universities in the West

352 Having voluntarily undertaken the education of the young in all branches of learning, the monasteries were aided in their endeavours by both Church and State. The foundation of state schools is the work of Charlemagne (768-814), whose activity, especially in the Germanic countries, was stimulated by the decree of the Synod of Aachen (789), that each monastery and each cathedral chapter should institute a school. According to the Capitulary of Charlemagne at Diedenhofen (Thionville) in 806, medicine was commonly taught in these schools. At the diocesan school in Reims, we find Gerbert d'Aurillac, later Pope Sylvester II (999-1003), long active as a teacher of medicine. Simultaneously with the rise of the cities there sprang up higher municipal schools, as for instance the Burgerschule at St. Stephan's in Vienna (about 1237). Out of the secular and religious schools, the curriculum of which institutions comprised the entire learning of the times, the first universities developed themselves partly under imperial and partly under papal protection, according as they sprang from the lay and the cathedral or monastic schools.

353 School of Salerno

354 This is regarded as the oldest medical school of the West. Salerno on the Tyrrhenian Sea, originally probably a Doric colony, was from the sixth to the eleventh century under the rule of the Lombards, and from 1075 to 1130 under that of the Normans. In 1130 it became a part of the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily. The origin of the school is obscure, but, contrary to former belief, it was not a religious foundation, though very many priests were engaged there as teachers of medicine. Women and even Jews were admitted to these studies. Salerno was destined to cultivate for a long time Greek medical science in undimmed purity, until the twelfth century saw the school fall a victim to the all-powerful Arab influence. One of its oldest physicians was Alpuhans, later (1058-85) Archbishop of Salerno. With him worked the Lombard Gariopontus (d. 1050), whose "Passionarius" is based upon Hippocrates, Galen, and Caelius Aurelianus. Contemporary with him was the female physician Trotula who worked also in the literary field, and who is said to have been the wife of the physician Joannes Platearius. Perhaps the best known literary work of this school is the anonymous "Regimen sanitatis Salernitanum" a didactic poem consisting of 364 stanzas, which has been translated into all modern languages. It is said to have been dedicated to Prince Robert, son of William the Conqueror, upon his departure from S. Salerno in 1101. An important change in the intellectual tendency of the "Civitas Hippocratica", as this school called itself, was brought about by the physician Constantine of Carthage (Constantinus Africanus), a man learned in the Oriental languages and a teacher of medicine at Salerno, who died in 1087 a monk of Monte Cassino. While hitherto the best works of Greek antiquity had been known only in mediocre Latin translations, Constantine in the solitude of Monte Cassino began to translate to translate from the Arabic, Greek authors (e.g. the "Aphorisms" of Hippocrates and the "Ars parva" of Galen), as well as such Arabic writer as were accessible to him (Isaak, Ali Abbas). As he brought to the knowledge of his contemporaries first-class Greek authors, but only secondary Arab writers, the study of the former became more profound, while on the other hand an interest was awakened in the hitherto unknown Arabic literature. His pupils were Bartholomaeus, whose "Practica" was translated into German as early as the thirteenth century, and Johannes Afflacius (De febribus et urinis). To the twelfth century, when Arabian polypharmacy was introduced, belong Nicolaus Praepositus (about 1140), whose "Antidotarium", a collection of compounded pharmaceutical formulae, became a model for later works of this kind, and Matthaeus Platearius, who, towards the end of the century, wrote a commentary on the above-named "Antidotarium" (Glossae) and a work about simple drugs (Circa instans). Similar productions appeared from the hand of an otherwise unknown Magister Solernitanus. Maurus, following Arabian sources, wrote on uroscopy. Here must be also mentioned Petrus Musandinus (De cibis et potibus febricitantium), the teacher of Pierre Giles of Corbeil (Ægidius Corboliensis), who later became a canon and the physician-in-ordinary to Philip Augustus of France (1180-1223), and who even at this day began to complain about the decay of the school.

355 Its first misfortune dates from the death of King Roger III (1193), when the army of King Henry VI captured the city. The establishment of the University of Naples by Frederick II in 1224, the preponderance of Arabian influence, and the rise of the Montpellier school, all exerted so unfavourable an influence that by the fourteenth century Salerno was well-nigh forgotten. Salerno is the oldest school having a curriculum prescribed by the state. In 1140 King Roger II ordered a state examination to test the proficiency of prospective physicians, and Frederick II in 1240 prescribed five years of study besides a year of practical experience. When we consider the proximity of Northern Africa, that the neighbouring Sicily had been under Saracenic rule from the ninth to the eleventh century, and that the Norman kings, and to a far greater degree Frederick II, gave powerful protection to Arabian art and science, it seems wonderful that this oasis of Graeco-Roman culture endured so long. Down to the twelfth century this school was ruled by a purely Hippocratic spirit, especially in practical medicine, by its diagnosis and by the treatment of acute diseases dietetically. Arabian influence makes itself felt first of all in therapeutics, a fact which is easily explained by the proximity of Amalfi, where the Arabian drug-dealers used to land. Local conditions (resulting from the Crusades) explain how surgery, especially the treatment of wounds received in war, was diligently cultivated. In Rogerius we find a Salernitan surgeon armed with independent experience, but showing, nevertheless, reminiscences of Abulhasem. His "Practica Chirurgiae" dates from the year 1180. Although Salerno finally succumbed to Arabian influences, this school did not hand down to us a knowledge of the best Arabian authors.

356 Spain as the Transmitter of Arabian Medicine

357 Its focus was the city of Toledo, which was taken from the Moors in 1085 by Alfonso VI of Castile and Leon. Here Archbishop Raimund (1130-50) founded an institution for translations, in which Jewish scholars were the chief workers. Here lived Gerard of Cremona (1114-87, properly Carmona, near Seville), the translator of Rhazes and Avicenna. A later translator of Rhases (about 1279) was the Jew Faradsch ben Salem (Faragius), who was educated at Salerno.

358 The Scholastic Period

359 When in the twelfth century all the Aristotelean works gradually became known, one of the results was the development of Scholasticism, that logically arranged systematic treatment and explanation of rational truths based upon the Aristotelean speculative method. Even though this tendency led to the growth of many excrescences in medicine and confirmed the predominance of Galen's system, also largely based on speculation, it is wrong to hold Scholasticism responsible for the mistakes which its disciples made in consequence of their faulty apprehension of the system, because Scholasticism, far from excluding the observation of nature, directly promotes it. The best proof of this is the fact that the most important scholastic of the thirteenth century, St. Albertus Magnus, was likewise the most important physicist of his time. He thus imitated his model, Aristotle, in both directions. The famous scholastic Roger Bacon (1214-94), an English Franciscan, lays chief stress his theory of cognition upon experience as far as the natural sciences are concerned, and this with even greater emphasis than Albertus Magnus.

360 Albertus Magnus

361 Albertus Magnus (Albert Count of Bollstädt, 1193-1280) was a Dominican. For medical science his works about animals, plants, and minerals alone concern us. Formerly a work called "De secretis mulierum" was wrongly attributed to him. Albertus's most eminent service to medicine was in pointing out the way to an independent observation of nature. The following books were to a certain degree based upon the writings of Albertus: the encyclopedic works on natural history of the Franciscan Bartholomaeus Anglicus (about 1260), of Thomas of Cantimpre (1204-80), canon of Cambrai, of Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264), the "Book of Nature" by Kunrad von Megenberg (1307-74), canon of Ratisbon, and the natural history of Meinau composed towards the end of the thirteenth century at the Monastery of Meinau on the Lake of Constance. In the medical schools the influence of scholasticism made itself felt, but this influence was always favourable. The scholastic physician, the philosopher at the bedside, with his compendious works of needy contents, with his endless game of question and answer, must not, however, be misjudged; he preserved interest in the observation of nature and was, as is freely conceded, a skilful practitioner, although he laid excessive stress upon formalism, and medicine in his hands made no special progress.

362 Bologna

363 Bologna was the principal home of scholastic medicine, and, as early as the twelfth century, a medical school existed there. The most famous physician there was Thaddeus Alderotti (Th. Florentinus,1215-95), who even at that time gave practical clinical instruction and enjoyed great fame as a physician. Among his pupils were the four Varignana, Dino and Tommaso di Garbo, and Pietro Torrigiano Rustichelli — later a Carthusian monk — all well-known expounders of the writings of Galen. Indirect disciples were Pietro de Tussignana (d. 1410), who first described the baths at Bormio, and Bavarius de Bavariis (d. about 1480) who was for a long time physician to Pope Nicholas V.

364 Bologna and the Study of Anatomy

365 Bologna has stained incomparable glory from the fact that Mondino de Liucci (about 1275-1326), the reviver of anatomy, taught there. There, for the first time since the Alexandrian period (nearly 1500 years), he dissected a human corpse, and wrote a treatise on anatomy based upon personal observation — a work which, for nearly two and a half centuries, remained the official textbook of the universities. Although Mondino's work which appeared in 1316, contains many defects and errors, if nevertheless marked an advance and incited men to further investigation.

366 Padua

367 Padua, the famous rival of Bologna, received a university in 1222 from Frederick II. Just as the University Of Leipzig originated in consequence of the migration of students and professors from the University of Prague in 1409, so Padua came into existence through a secession from Bologna. Bologna was soon surpassed by the daughter institution, and, from the foundation of the University of Vienna in 1365 until the middle of the eighteenth century, Padua remained a shininng model for the medical school of Bologna. The first teacher of repute was Pietro d' Abano (Petrus Aponensis, 1250 to about 1320), known as the "great Lombard" — an honorary title received during his residence at the Universlty of Paris. On account of his too liberalistic opinions and his derision of Christian teaching in his "Conciliator differentiarum", his chief medical work, he was accused of being a heretic. From this period also date the "Aggregator Brixiensis" of Guglielmo Corvi (1250-1326), a work in even greater demand in later times, and the "Consilia" of Gentile da Foligno (d. 1348), who, in 1341, performed the first anatomical dissection in Padua. The fame of the school of Padua was greatly advanced by the family of physicians, the Santa Sophia, which about 1292 emigrated from Constantinople, and whose most famous members were Marsilio (d. 1405) and Galeazzo (d. 1427). The latter, one of the first teachers in Vienna (about 1398-1407), and later professor at Padua, wrote in Vienna a pharmacopoeia which indicates absolutely independent observation in the field of botany. His antithesis and contemporary was Giacomo dalla Torre of Forli (Jacobus Foroliviensis, d. 1413), professor at Padua, known for his commentary on the "Ars parva" of Galen. Giacomo de Dondi (1298-1359), author of the "Aggregator Paduanus do medicinis simplicibus", tried to disengage a salt from the thermal waters of Abano, near Padua. As anatomist and practitioner we must mention Bartholomaeus de Montagnana (d.1460), and the grandfather of the unfortunate Savonarola, Giovanni Michele Savonarola (1390-1462), author of the "Practica Major", who worked along the same lines.

368 Montpellier

369 The earliest information about the medical school of this place dates from the twelfth century. Like Salerno, Montpellier developed great independence as far as the other schools were concerned, and laid the greatest stress upon practical medicine. With the decay of Salerno, Montpellier gained in importance. The chief representative of this school is the Spaniard, Arnold of Villanova (1235-about 1312). His greatest merit is that, inclining more towards the Hippocratic school, he did not follow unconditionally the teachings of Galen and Avicenna, but relied upon his own observation and experience, while employing in therapeutics a more dietetic treatment as opposed to Arabian tenets. To him we are indebted for the systematic use of alcohol in certain diseases. A very doubtful merit is his popularizing of alchemy to the study of which he was very much devoted. Other Montpellier representatives of purely practical medicine are Bernard of Gordon (d. 1314; "Lilium medicinae", 1305) a Scot educated in Salerno; Gerardus de Solo (about 1320; "Introductorium juvenurn"); Johannes de Tornamira (end of the fourteenth century, "Clarificatorium juvenum"), and the Portuguese Valeseus de Taranta ("Philonium pharmaceuticum et chirurgicum", 1418). The medical school of Paris, founded in 1180, remained far behind Montpellier in regard to the practice of medicine.

370 Surgery in the Age of Scholasticism

371 Surgery exhibited during this period in many respects a more independent development than practical medicine, especially in Bologna. The founder of the school there was Hugo Borgognoni of Lucca (d. about 1258). A more important figure was his son Teodorico, chaplain, penitentiary, and physician-in-ordinary to Pope Innocent IV, later Bishop of Cervia. In his "Surgery", completed in 1266, he recommends the simplification of the treatment of wounds, fractures, and dislocations. Guilielmo Saliceto from Piacenza (Guil. Placentinus), first of Bologna, then at Verona, where he completed his surgery in 1275, shows great individuality and a kneen diagnostic eye. Similarly his pupil Lanfranchi strongly recommended the reunion of surgery and internal medicine. Lanfranchi, banished in 1290 from his native city, Milan, transplanted Italian surgery to Paris. There the surgeons, like the physicians of the faculty, had, since 1260, been formed into a corporation, the College de St. Cosme (since 1713 Academie de Chirurgie), to which Lanfranchi was admitted. His "Chirurgia magna" (Ars completa), finished in 1296, is full of casuistic notes and shows us the author as an equally careful and lucky operator. The first important French surgeon is Henri de Mondeville (1260-1320), originally a teacher of anatomy at Montpellier whose treatise, although for the most part a compilation, does not lack originality and perspicuity. The culminating point in French surgery at this period is marked by the appearance of Guy de Chauliac (Chaulhac, d. about 1370). He completed his studies at Bologna, Montpellier, and Paris; later he entered the ecclesiastical state (canon of Reims, 1358), and was physician-in-ordinary to popes Clement VI, Innocent VI, and Urban V. From him we have a description of the terrible plague which he witnessed in 1348 at Avignon. His "Chirurgia magna" treated the subject with a completeness never previously attained, and gave its author during the following centuries the rank of a first-class authority. Among contemporary surgeons in other civilized countries we must mention John Ardern (d. about 1399), an Englishman, who studied at Montpellier and lived subsequently in London, famous for his skill in operating for anal fistulæ, and Jehan Yperman of the Netherlands (d. about 1329), who studied in Paris under Lanfranchi. Besides these surgeons where is no doubt that there were then in Italy many a number of itinerant practitioners who offered their services at fairs; as, specializing usually in certain operations (hernia and lithotomy), they often possessed great skill, and their advice and assistence of a wrong tendency in medicine, but they sought by people of the upper classes.

372 Signs of Improvement: Humanism

373 A short of the survey of the scholastic period gives us the following picture: On the appearance of Arabic literature in Latin translations, Hippocratic medicine was driven from its last stronghold, Salerno. Then came the rule of Arabism, of the system of Galen in Arabic form equipped with all sorts of sophistic subtleties. The works of Rhazes and Avicenna possessed the greatest authority. The latter's "Canon", written in clear language and covering the entire field of medicine became the gospel of physicians. The literature of these times is rich in writings but very poor in thought; for people were content when the long-winded commentaries gave them a better understanding of the Arabs, whom they deemed infallible. A good many things were incomprehensible, first of all the names of diseases and drugs, which translators rendered incorrectly. A comparative investigation of the Greek authors was practically impossible, as both their works and a knowledge of the Greek language had disappeared from among the Romance nations. Thus it happened that special books had to be written from which were learned foreign words and their meanings. The "Synonyma Medicinae" (Clavis sanationis) by the physician Sirnon of Genoa (Januensis, 1270-1303) and the "Pandectae medicinae" of Matthaeus Sylvaticus (d. 1342), both of which were alphabetically arranged, were in vogue. Woe to the physician who dared to doubt the authority of the Arabs! Only men of strong mind could successfully carry out such a dangerous undertaking. The influence of scholasticism in medicine was manifold. It encouraged the observation of nature at the bedside and logical thinking, but it also stimulated the love of disputation, wherein the main object was to force a possibly independent idea into the strait-jacket of the ruling system, and thus avoid all imputation of medical heresy. Signs of improvement are noticed first in anatomy (Mondino) and subsequently in surgery, which is based upon it.

374 The impulse to follow a new path came, however from without, first of all from a study of the Greek language, and then directly through the famous poet Francesco Petrarca (1304-74), the zealous patron of humanistic studies and thus of the Renaissance. Petrarch's instructor in the Greek language was the monk Barlaam, who procured for his pupil, Leontius Pilatus, a position as public teacher of the language in Florence in 1350. In later times, especially after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, numerous Greek scholars came to Italy. With the spread of a knowledge of Greek and the enthusiasm for the Hellenic masterpieces in art and science, there arose also an interest in classical Latin and a diligent search for manuscripts of Graeco-Roman antiquity, and efforts along these lines were, as is well known, energetically supported by the popes. The West now became acquainted with the works of the old Greek pre-Aristotelean philosophers and physicians in their original tongue, a fact which marks the beginning of the fall of the Arabian teaching. Petrarch fought as champion along the whole line of battle, especially against scholasticism and the medicine of that period. There is no doubt that his zeal was exaggerated in many respects. He blames the physicians of his time because they philosophize and do not cure. Medicine, he says is a practical art and, therefore, may not be treated according to the same methods for the investigation of truth as philosophy. The greatest misfortune had been the appearance of Arabism with all its superstitions (astrology, alchemy, uroscopy). On the other hand, he speaks with great respect of surgery; the reason for this is patent, since he was a friend of the most important surgeon of his time, Guy de Chauliac. There is no doubt that there were then in Italy many excellent physicians who, like Petrarch, recognized the existence of a wrong tendency in medicine, but they were far too weak to break the fetters of Arabism. The road to improvement had already been pointed out by Mondino, the anatomist of Bologna, but a complete change of view did not occur until the sixteenth century.

375 The Black Death of the Fourteenth Century

376 Associated with the name of Petrarch is the memory of the most terrible epidemic of historic times. The Black Death (bubonic plague with pulmonary infection), originating in Eastern Asia, passed through India to Asia Minor, Arabia, Egypt, Northern Africa, and directly to Europe by the Black Sea. In Europe the epidemic began in 1346, and spread first of all in the maritime cities of Italy (especially Genoa) and Sicily, in 1347 it appeared in Constantinople, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Sardinia and Corsica, and, towards the end of the year, at Marseilles; in 1348 in Spain, Southern France (Avignon), Paris, the Netherlands, Italy, Southern England and London, Scbleswig-Holstein and Norway, and in December, in Dalmatia and Jutland; in 1349 in the Austrian Alpine countries, Vienna, and Poland; in 1350 in Russia, where in 1353 the last traces disappeared on the shores of the Black Sea. The entire period was preceded by peculiar natural phenomena, as floods, tidal waves, and abnormally damp weather. Petrarch, who witnessed the plague at Florence, declared that posterity would regard the description of all its horrors as fables. The loss of human life in Europe, the population of which is estimated to have been 100 millions, is said to have amounted to twenty-five millions. The disease usually began suddenly and death occurred within three days, and often after a few hours. Physicians were quite powerless in face of the enormous extent of the pestilence. Great self-sacrifice was shown by the clergy, especially by the Franciscans, who are said to have lost 100,000 (?) members through the epidemic. Concerning this terrible period we have reports from the jurist of Piacenza, Gabriel de Mussis; from Cantacuzenus and Nicephorus about the epidemic in Constantinople; from Boccaccio and Petrarch (Florence), from the physician Dionysius Colle of Belluno (Italy) the Belgian Simon of Covino (Montpellier), Guy de Chauliac (Avignon), and also from some Spanish physicians. Less voluminous accounts are to be found in the chronicles of the different countries. Europe has since been repeatedly visited by the plague, which has, however, never been so violent nor extended so widely. The last great epidemics occurred in Central Europe in 1679 and 1713.

377 Humanism and Medical Science in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

378 The terrors of the Black Death, and the conviction which it brought of the powerlessness of current medicine, undoubtedly helped to effect a gradual change. The greatest influence, however, was exerted by the humanistic tendency which had found many adherents, especially among physicians. The desire after general cultivation in the natural sciences was substantially promoted by the great voyages of discovery made towards the end of the fifteenth century. It is worthy of mention that, at a time when the gifted Christopher Columbus was still ridiculed as a dreamer by the learned, the Florentine astronomer and physician, Toscanelli, and the house-physician of the Franciscan monastery of Santa Maria de Rabida, Garcia Fernandes, both heartily encouraged him and gave him material aid. The scientific endeavours for the reform of medicine are characterized by the activity of the translators, by the critical treatment and explanation of old authors, and by independent investigation especially in the field of botany. Concerning translations, those which had reference to the Hippocratic writings were of prime importance. Among the translators and commentators of these works we find Nicola Leoniceno of Vicenza (1428-1524), the Spaniard Franciscus Valesius (end of the sixteenth century), the Frenchman Jacques Houllier (Hollerius, 1498-1562), Johann Hagenbut of Saxony (Cornarus 1500-58), the two Paris professors, Jean de Gorris (Gorraeus, 1505-77), and Louis Duret (1527-86), and Anutius Foesius (1528-91), a physician of Metz. As investigators of Pliny there are Ermolao Barbaro (1454-93), later Patriarch of Aquileia, and Filippo Beroaldo (1453-1505). Students of other authors were Giovanni Manardo of Ferrara (1462-1536; Galen, Mesue), the Paduan professor Giovanni Battista de Monte (Montanus, 1498-1552; Galen, Rhazes, Avicenna), and the Englishmen Thomas Linacre (1461-1524), and John Kaye (1506-73), Wilhelm Copus, town physician of Basle (1471-1521), and Theodore Zwinger of Switzerland (1533-88), all students of Galen. As may be seen, the system of Galen still formed the central point of medical studies, but it must be regarded as an advance that people now read his works in the original or in accurate translations, not as before in their Arabic form, for in this way many changes and conflicting views introduced by the Arabs were detected. But the full beauty of the Hippocratic works could not be appreciated as long as Galen reigned supreme.

379 The first fruit of Humanism in medicine was primarily of a purely formal nature, the main stress being now laid upon philological subtleties and elegant diction. No longer content with prose, authors often recorded their thoughts in verse. Petrarch had blamed the physicians of his time because they knew how to construct syllogisms, but did not know how to cure; and now the place of the philosophizing practitioners was taken by the poet physicians. A more satisfactory sign of the times is the great number of medical botanists whose works show more or less independent investigation, and always regard the needs of the physician at the bedside. Among these we must mention the town physician of Bern, Otto Brunfels (d. 1534), Leonard Fuchs (1501-66) professor at Ingolstadt, Hieronymus Tragus (Bock) of Heiderbach (1498-1554), and his pupil Jacobus Theodorus Tabernaemontanus (d. 1590). The most important, however, is the Zurich physician Conrad Gesner (1516-65; Tabulae phytographicae), who was the first to experiment vvith tobacco brought from America. Only Andrea Cesalpini, professor art that Spienza in Rome, can be regarded as his equal. The interest taken in study of natural science in Germany by Hapsburg emperors, Ferdinand I (1522-64) and Maximilian (1564-76), was of great advantage to it. The physician-in-ordinary to the Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol, Petrus Andreas Mathiolus of Siena (1500-77), published a translation of Dioscurides with a commentary, a work which was most highly valued until recent times. The special favour of Maximilian II was enjoyed by Rembert Dodoens (Dodonaeus) of Mechlin (1517-85), and by the founder of scientific botany, Charles de l'Ecluse (Clusius) of Antwerp (1525-1609). The latter was appointed professor in Leyden, and for a time lived in Vienna, where he found zealous followers in the physicians Johann Aicholtz (d. 1588) and Paul Fabricus (d. 1589).

380 Progress in Anatomy: Andreas Vesalius

381 From the time of Mondino, anatomy had been diligently cultivated at the universities, especially in Italy. In Bologna, Giovanni de Concoreggi (d. 1438) issued a work on anatomy. As commentators of Mondino we must mention Alessandro Achillini (1463-1512) and Jacopo Berengerio da Carpi (about 1470-1530). Anatomy made special progress because of the artists. Thus Raphael Sanzio (1488-1520) already makes use of the human skeleton when making his sketches, so as to give his figures the proper posture. We possess numerous anatomical descriptions and sketches by Leonardo da Vinci (1442-1519) which were intended partly for all anatomy planned by Marcantonio della Torre (Turrianus, 1473-1506), and partly for a work of his own. The great Michelangelo (1475-1564) left sketehes of the muscles and in 1495, in the monastery of Santo Spirito at Florence, made studies for a picture of the Crucified with cadavers as models.

382 As an indication of how much the popes endeavoured to advance the study of anatomy we may recall that the priest Gabriel de Zerbis for a time taught anatomy in Rome (towards the end of the fifteenth century) that Paul III (1534-49) appointed the surgeon Alfonso Ferri to teach this subject at the Sapienza in 1535, that the physician-in-ordinary of Julius III (1550-55), Giambattista Cannani, crowned his anatomical studies by discovering the valves in the veins; that Paul IV (1555-9) called to Rome the famous Realdo Colombo the teacher of Michelangelo, and that Colombo's sons dedicated their father's work, "De re anatomica", to Pope Pius IV (1559-1565). Foremost among the universities stood Padua, the stronghold of medical science whence was to issue the light which disclosed the weakness of Galen's system. In Padua, where Bartolomeo Montagna (d. 1460) performed no less than fourteen dissections, there existed since 1446 an anatomical theatre which in 1490 was rebuilt under Alessandro Benedetti (1460-1525). en reigned supreme. Of the anatomists who worked outside of Italy we may mention Guido Guidi (Vidus Vidius) of Florence (d. 1569), until 1531 professor at Paris; his successor Francois Jacques Dubois (Sylvius, d. 1551) and Gunther von Andernach (1487-1574), professor at Louvain. The two latter were the teachers of the great reformer of anatomy, Andreas Vesalius (q.v.).

383 Vesalius (b. 1514), studied at Louvain, Montpellier and Paris, then became imperial field-surgeon. His eagerness to learn went so far that he stole corpses from the gallows to work on at night in his room. He soon became convinced of the weakness and falsity of the anatomy of Galen. His anatomical demonstrations on the cadaver, which he performed in several cities and which attracted attention, soon earned him a call to Padua where he had recently graduated and where, with some interruptions, he taught from 1539 to 1546. His chief work, "De corporis humani fabrica libri vii", which appeared at Basle in 1543, brought him great fame, but likewise aroused violent hostility, especially on the part of his former teacher, Sylvius. The supreme service of Vesalius is that he for the first time, with information derived from the direct study of the dead body, attacked with keen criticism the hitherto unassailable Galen, and thus brought about his overthrow, for soon after this serious weaknesses in other parts of Galen's medical science vvere also disclosed. Vesalius is the founder of scientific anatomy and of the technique of modern dissection. Unfortunately, he himself destroyed a part of his manuscripts on learning that his enemies intended to submit his work to ecclesiastical censure. While engaged on a pilgrimage, he received word in Jerusalem of his reappointment as professor in Padua, but he was shipwrecked in Zant and died there in great need on 15 October, 1565.

384 The authority of Galen was, however, still so deeprooted among physicians that Vesalius found opponents even among his own more intimate pupils. Nevertheless, the path which he had pointed out was further explored and anatomy enriched by new discoveries. His immediate successors as teacher in Padua were, in 1546, Realdo Colombo (d. 1569), later professor in Rome, the discoverer of the lesser circulation of the blood (pulmonary circulation); from 1551 the versatile Gabriele Fallopio (1523-62), an admirer of Versalius, who among other things described the organ of hearing; Girolamo Fabrizio of Acquapendente (Fabr. ab Aquapendente, 1537-1619), who worked in the field of embryogeny and studied carefully the valves in the veins, and finally Giulio Casserio (1561-1619), who published a series of anatomical charts. A similar undertaking was planned by Bartolommeo Eustacchi at the Sapienza in Rome, but he died before the completion of the work in 1574. Pope Clement XI (1700-21) caused his physician-in-ordinary, Giovanni Maria Lancisi, to print the rediscovered copper plates and to supply them with an explanatory text. Adrian van den Spieghel of Brussels (Spigelius, 1578-1625) worked on the anatomy of the liver and to the nervous system. In comparison with the excellent productions of Italy, the anatomical activity of Germanic countries appears slight. It was considered sufficient at the universities, if a surgeon now and then dissected a corpse, while a physician explained the functions of different organs. The only laudable exceptions were two physicians who rendered services both to anatomy and botany — Felix Platter (1536-1614), professor in Basle, and his successor, Kaspar Bauhinus (1560-1624), the discoverer of the valve in the caecum named after him (Bauhin's valve).

385 The Opponents of Galen and the Arabs

386 Violent attacks upon ancient traditions were not confined to the domain of medicine, but also found expression in the general upheaval caused hy Humanists, by the discovery of new countries, by the opening up new sources of knowledge, by the dissemination of education through the invention of printing, and by the schism of the Church brought about by Luther. Authority, both ecclesiastical and civil, had been considerably weakened. The investigations of Vesalius probably dealt the most serious blow to the teaching of Galen, but it was neither the first nor the only one; for even before Vesalius' critics had attacked the theories of Galen and the Arabs, although not quite so energetically as the anatomists attacked them. The chief representatives of these times down to the end of sixteenth century can be classed respectively into anti-Galenists or anti-Arabists and positive Hippocratics. The climax of this revolution was reached on the appearance of Theophrastus Paracelsus and his adherents although the Italian schools remained uninfluenced by this. The physician and philosopher, Geronimo Cardano of Milan (1501-76), attacked principally Galen's explanation of the origin of catarrhs of the brain, and also the validity of the therapeutical principle, Contraria contrariis curantur. Similar was the tendency shown by Bernadino Telesio of Piacenza (1508-88), Giovanni Argenterio of Piedmont (1513-72), and the chancellor of Montpellier, Laurent Joubert (1529-83), while Jean Fernel (1485-1558), made an attempt to modernize the system of Galen in accordance with the results of anatomical investigation.

387 A lively exchange of opinions was caused by the controversy on bleeding, which was begun by the Paris physician Pierre Brissot (1478-1522). Brissot assailed the Arabian doctrine that inflammatory diseases, especially pleurisy, should be treated by bleeding on the side opposite to the seat of inflammation, and favoured the Hippocratic doctrine of bleeding as near as possible to it. The controversy was decided in favour of the Hippocratics, who did not discard the doctrines of Galen as long as they agreed with Hippocratic views, but rejected the principles of Galen as modified by the Arabs. This is clearly shown by the importance attached to the state of the pulse and of the urine, upon which the Arabs laid much more stress than the Greeks. Of the great number of positive Hippocratics let us call attention to the above-mentioned de Monte, who introduced clinical instruction in Padua; to his successors Vellore Trincavella (1496-1568), Albertino Bottoni (d. about 1596), Marco degli Oddi (d. 1598), Giovanni Manardo (1462-1526), Prospero Alpino (1533-1617); to the Spaniards, Cristobal de Vega (1510 to about 1580) and Luis Mercado (1520-1606); to the Frenchman Guillaume Baillou (Ballonius, 1538-1616); to the Netherlanders, Peter Foreest (1522-97) and Jan van Heurne (1543-1601), who will be mentioned subsequently; Franz Emerich (1496-1560), the organizer of clinical instruction at Vienna; Johann Crato of Crafftheim (1519-85), and Johann Schenck von Grafenberg (1530-98). Epidemiological works were written by Antonio Brassavola (1500-55) on syphilis; Girolamo Fracastoro (1483-1553) on petechial fever and syphilis, Girolamo Dorzellini (d. 1558), and Alessandro Massaria (1510-98) on plagues; Jan van den Kasteele (about 1529) on "the English sweat"; and the Viennese physician, Thomas Jordanus (1540-85), on purple or petechial fever.

388 THEOPHRASTUS PARACELSUS — HIS ADHERENTS AND OPPONENTS

389 Theophrastus Bombast of Hohenheim (Paracelsus), the son of a physician, was born near Einsiedeln, Switzerland, in 1493. In 1506 he went to the University of Basle; from Trithemius he learned chemistry and metallurgy in the smelting houses at Schwaz (Tyrol), and he visited the principal universities of Italy and France. In 1526 he became town physician of Basle, and could as such give lectures. His first appearance is characteristic of him. He publicly burned the works of Avicenna and Galen and showed respect only to the "Aphorisms" of Hippocrates. He was the first to give lectures in the German language. But as early as 1528, he was compelled, on account of the hostility he evoked, to leave Basle secretly. After this he travelled through various countries working constantly at his numerous writings, until death overtook him at Salzburg in 1541. Paracelsus, like a blazing meteor, rose and disappeared; he shared the fate of those who have a violent desire to destroy the old without having any substitute to offer. Passing over his philosophic views, which were based upon neo-Platonism, we find practical medicine indebted to him in various ways, e.g. for the theory of the causes of disease (etiology) for the introduction of chemical therapeutics, and for his insistence on the usefulness of mineral waters and native vegetable drugs. He exaggerates indeed the value of experience. His classification and diagnosis of diseases are quite unscientific, anatomy and physiology being wholly neglected. He thought that for each disease there should exist a specific remedy, and that to discover this is the chief object of medical art. With him diagnosis hung upon the success of this or that remedy, and because of this he named the diseases according to their specific remedies. Directly repudiated by the Italian schools, Paracelsus found adherents mainly in Germany, among them being the Wittenberg professor Oswald Croll (about 1560-1609). He also found numerous friends among the travelling physicians and quacks. His teachings met with the most hostile reception from the Paris faculty. Although the further progress of anatomy and physiology indicated clearly to physicians the right path, we meet even in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with two men who start directly from Paracelsus: Samuel Friedrich Hahnemann (1755-1843), the originator of homeopathy, and Johann Gottfried Rademacher (1772-1850), advocate of empiricism.

390 SURGERY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY: AMBROISE PARÉ

391 The first fruits of the progress in anatomy were enjoyed by surgery, especially since most Italian anatomists were practical surgeons. After the introduction of firearms in war, the treatment of gunshot wounds was especially studied. While surgery had always enjoyed a high rank in Italy and France, in Germany it was in the hands of barbers and surgeons unconnected with the universities and poorly educated; hence it is readily understood why the best surgeons lived in the cities nearest the Romance countries, especially Strasburg. With the member of the Teutonic Order, Heinrich von Pfolspeundt ("Bündth Ertzney", 1460), the most important representatives were the Strasburg surgeons, Hieronymus Brunschwig (d. about 1534), and Hans von Gersdorff ("Feldtbuch der Wundtartzney", 1517). Their equal was a somewhat younger man, Felix Würtz of Basle (1518-74). We are indebted to the French field-surgeon Ambroise Paré for a marked change in the treatment of gunshot wounds and arterial hemorrhage. He abandoned the Arabic method of work with a red-hot knife, declared that supposedly poisoned gunshot wounds were simple contused wounds, and proceeded to bandage them without using hot oil. He was the first to employ the ligature in the case of arterial hemorrhage. Next to him in importance stands Pierre Franco (about 1560), known as the perfecter of the operation of lithotomy and that for hernia. Gaspare Tagliacozzi of Bologna (1546-99) deserves credit for reintroducing and improving the ancient plastic operations. In the sixteenth century the Caesarean operation (Sectio caesarea, laparotomy) was performed on living persons.

392 Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood: William Harvey and His Time

393 Galen's theory, according to which the left heart and the arteries contained air, the blood being generated in the liver, had long been regarded as improbable, but in spite of every effort no one had as yet discovered the truth about circulation. The solution of this problem, which brought about complete fall of Galen's system and a revolution in physiology, came from the English physician William Harvey of Folkstone (1578-1657), a pupil of Fabricius ab Aquapendente. Harvey's discovery published in 1628, that the heart is the centre of the circulation of the blood must return to the heart, at first received scant notice and was even directly opposed by Galen's adherents; but further investigation soon made truth victorious. Even as early as 1622, Gaspare Aselli (1581-1626) found the chyle vessels, but correct explanation was possible only after the discovery of the thoracic duct (ductus thoracius) and its opening into the circulation by Jean Pacquet (1622-74) and Johann van Horne (1621-70), and of the lymphatic vessels by Olaus Rudbeck (1630-1702) and Thomas Baltholinus (1616-80). A new field of investigation was opened by the invention of the microscope, by which Marcello Malpighi (1628-94) discovered the smaller blood-vessels and the blood corpuscles. From Harvey's time starts a series of important anatomists and physiologists, among them the Englishmen Thomas Wharton (1614-73; glands) and Thomas Willis (1621—75; brain); the Netherlanders Peter Paaw (1564-1617), his pupil Nikolas Pieterz Tulp (1593-1678), both teachers of anatomy at Leyden, and Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) and Johann Swammnerdam (1647-80), microscopists, Reinier de Graaf (1641-73; ovary); Nikolaus Steno of Copenhagen (1638-86), and the Germans, Moriz Hofman (1621-98) and George Wirsung, who investigated the pancreas.

394 Iatrophysicists and Iatrochemists

395 The doctrine of the circulation is based to a large extent upon the laws of physics. Consequently among a number of physicians, influenced by the works of Alfonso Borelli (1608-78) on animal motion, there was a marked effort to explain all physiological processes according to the laws of physics (iatrophysicists). Opposed to them was a party, which, influenced by the progress in chemistry, sought to make use of it for explaining medical facts (iatrochemists). This tendency goes back to Paracelsus and his adherent Johann Baptist von Helmont (1578-1644). Helmont, who was an important chemist (the discoverer of carbonic acid), recognized the importance of anatomy, and deserves credit for his work in therapeutics, although his failure to appraise the needs of his time prevented his doctrine from influencing the development of medicine. Iatrophysics was cultivated mainly in Italy and England; iatrochemistry in the Netherlands and Germany. The chief adherent of iatrophysics in Italy was Giorgio Baglivi (d. 1707), professor at the Sapienza in Rome; in practical medicine, however, he held mainly to Hippocratic principles, while the Englishman, Archibald Pitcairn (1652-1713), tried to follow out iatrophysics to its utmost consequences.

396 Owing to the greater progress made in physics, iatrochemistry found fewer followers, and that it took root at all is the service of its chief representative Franz de le Boë Sylvius (1614-72), who in 1658 became professor of practical medicine at Leyden. At the school there, founded in 1575, Jan Heurne had already tried to establish a clinic after the Paduan model, but it was not till 1637 that his son Otto was able to carry out his scheme. The immediate successors of the latter, Albert Kyper (d. 1658), and Ewald Schrevelius (1576-1646), continued this institution in the Hippocratic spirit. Before Sylvius began to teach there, the Leyden clinic had already gained worldwide fame. One of the first adherents of Harvey, Sylvius, depending in part on Paracelsus and Belmont sought to explain physiological processes by suggesting fermentation (molecular motion of matter) and "vital spirits" as moving forces. Through "effervescence" acid and alkaline juices are formed, and through their abnormal mixture hyperacidity and hyperalkalinity (i.e., sickness) originate. This simple doctrine, supported by the clinical activity of Sylvius, found numerous adherents especially in Germany, but it made just as many opponents among the iatrophysicists who were able to refute in part these untenable hypotheses. The two theories are, however, not absolutely opposed to each other, for both physics and chemistry offer the means necessary for an explanation of physiological processes and may form the basis for the construction of an exact medical science. At this time, however, physics and chemistry (especially the latter) were still too little developed for this purpose and therefore the endeavour to create a system is much more apparent among the iatrochemists. Fortunately, the two parties found a common point of union in practical medicine, where the doctrines of the Hippocratic school were predominant.

397 Pioneers in Practical Medicine: Thomas Sydenham and Hermann Boerhave

398 Both renounce all systems, and lay most stress upon the perfection of practical medicine. Thomas Sydenham (1624-89), physician at Westminster and known as the "English Hippocrates", laid down the principle that, just as in the natural sciences so in medicine the inductive method should be authoritative. The main object of medicine, healing, would be possible only when the chances Iying at the root of disease and the laws governing its course had been investigated. Then also would the proper remedies be found. Following the idea of Hippocrates, he seeks the cause of disease in the change of the fundamental humours (humoral pathology). The activity of the physician was mainly to assist "nature". A man of the same intellectual build as Sydenham was Hermann Boerhave (1668-1738), the most famous practitioner of his time, who in 1720 became clinical professor at Leyden. Being an iatrophysicist, he regards Hippocratism as able to live only if the results of investigation in anatomy, physiology, physics, and chemistry are properly used. He tries to explain most physiological processes as purely mechanical. In contradistinction to the two professors of Halle, Friedrich Hoffmann (1660-1742) and George Ernst Stahl (1660-1734), of whom former supposed the ether (Leibniz's doctrine of monads) and latter the "soul" to be moving power, Boerhave did not care at all about any moving force that might possibly be present. With his death Leyden lost its importance as a nursery of medicine. His illustrious pupil and commentator, Gerhard van Swieten (1700-72), was called as teacher to Vienna in 1745, and there laid the foundation of the fame of the school whose most important representatives are Anton de Haen (1704-76) and his successor as teacher, Maximilian Stoll (1742-88). Under the eye of van Swieten and de Haen but without recognition from them, a simple hospital physician, Leopold Auenbrugger (1722-1809), published his epoch-making discovery that, by striking or rapping on the chest (percussion) disease of the lungs and heart may be diagnosed from the various sounds elicited by such percussion. An important member of the Vienna school was Johann Peter Frank (1745-1821), director of the general hospital, who was celebrated as a practitioner and as the author of a work, unequalled until then (System einer vollstandigen medizinischen Polizey", 1779-1819).

399 Among important practitioners outside of the school of Leyden were: the papal physician-in-ordinary, Giovanni Maria Lancisi (1654-1720), who established a clinic in Rome after the model of Leyden; Giovanni Battista Borsieri (Burserius de Kanifeld, 1725-85), professor at Pavia; James Keill (1673-1718); Richard Mead (1673-1754); John Freind (1675-1728), smallpox); John Pringle (1707-82) and John Huxham (1694-1768), investigations in epidemiology; John Fothergill (1712-80); diphtheria and intermittent fever). Albrecht von Haller developed an important school in Göttingen as van Swieten school were: Paul Gottlieb Werlhof (1699-1767; intermittent fever) and Johann Georg Zimmermann (1728-95).

400 Anatomy in the Eighteenth Century

401 During this period normal and pathological anatomy were more cultivated than microscopy. The greater number of investigators that we have to consider won fame in the field of surgery. Starting from the school of Leyden the following deserve mention: Govert Bidloo (1649-1713) and Bernhard Sigmund Albinus (1697-1770; anatomical charts); in Amsterdam, Friedrich Ruysch (1638-1721), and Pieter Camper (1722-89), the inventer of craniometry and of the elastic truss for hermia; in Italy, Antonio Maria Valsalva (1666-1723; eye and ear) and Giovanni Domenico Santorini (1681-1737); in Paris, the Dane Jakob Benignus Winslöw (1669-1760; topographical anatomy); in England James Doug!as (1675-1742; peritoneum); Alexander Munroe (1732-1817; bursa mucosa), and William (1718-83) John Hunter (1728-93) both known also as surgeons; finally in Germany, the anatomist, surgeon, and botanist, Lorenz Heister (1683-1758), Johann Gottfried Zinn (1727-59; eye); Johann Nathanael Lieberkuhn (1711-65; intestine); Heinrich August Wrisberg (1739-1808; larynx), and Samuel Thomas Sommering (1755-1830). Abnormal anatomical changes in organs had been recorded since the time of Vesalius, but these were for the most part merely incidental observations and nobody had tried to trace systematically the connection between them and the symptoms occurring in the living body. The best survey of the achievements of the earlier centuries is offered in Theophil Bonet's "Sepulchretum anatomicum" (1709). As the scientific founder of pathological anatomy we must mention Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682-1771), professor at Padua, whose famous work, "De sedibus et causis morborum" (1761), usually contains, besides the results of post-mortem examinations, a corresponding history of the diseases. This field was cultivated in France especially by Joseph Lieutaud (1703-80) and Vicq d' Azyr (1748-94), and in Leyden by Eduard Sandifort (1742-1814). Germany had an important investigtor in the days before Morgagni viz. Johann Jakob Wepfer in Schaffhausen (1620-95). In Vienna, autopsies on those who died in the clinic were first regularly made by Anton de Haen. For a strictly systematic treatment of the whole field we are indebted to the London physician, Matthew Baillie (1761-1823), who published the first pictorial work on pathological anatomy.

402 Surgery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

403 The eminent surgeons of the seventeenth century are: Cesare Magati (1579 to about 1648) professor in Ferrala and later a Capuchin monk who simplified the treatment of wounds; Marc' Aurelio Severino (1580-1656; treatment of abscesses, resection of ribs); the already mentioned anatomist, Fabrizio ab Aquapendente (re-introduction of tracheotomy, improvement of herniotomy); Antonio Ciucci (about 1650, re-introduction of lithotripsy); in France, Bartholomaeus Saviard (1656-1702; digital compression of arteries) Jacques Beaulieu (1651-1714), a travelling surgeon and later a hermit (Frère Jacques), who improved the method of lateral lithotomy, and helped people for a "God-bless-you"; in Amsterdam, Abraham Cyprianus (about 1695; lithotomy). The most important German surgeon is Wilhelm Fabry of Hilden (Fabricius Hildanus, 1560-1634; simplified treatment of wounds, amputation); next to him Johann Schultes (Schultetus, 1595-1646), author of "Arma mentarium chirurgicum", and Matthias Gottfried Purmann (1648-1721; field surgery). Of English surgeons Richard wiseman, (about 1652; amputation, compression of aneurisms), John Woodall (about 1613), and Lowdham (about 1679) are the most eminent.

404 In the eighteenth century surgery was essentially stimulated by the numerous wars: in France also through the establishment of an academy in 1731 by Georges Maréschal (1658-1736) and François Gigot de la Peyronie (1678-1747). Of Frenchmen we must also name Jean Louis Petit (1674-1750), the inventor of the screw tourniquet, Henri François le Dran (1685-1770; lithotomy, lacerations of scalp), Pierre Joseph Boucher (1715-93; amputation); Toyssaint Bordenave (1728-82; amputation), Antoine Louis (1723-92, operation for harelip, bronchotomy, simplification of instruments), Pierre Joseph Desault (1744-95, founder of the Paris surgical clinic, ligature of vessels, treatment of aneurism, dislocations, fractures), François Chopart (1743-95, methods of amputation), and finally the monk and lithotomist Frère Côme (Jean de St. Cosme, Baseilhac, 1703-81), the inventor of the lithotome-caché. The founder of modern English surgery is William Cheselden (1688-1752; lateral lithotomy, artificial pupil). Samuel Shalp (about 1700-78) wrote a text-book; William Bromfield (1712-92), invented an artery-retractor and the double gorgeret; and Percival Pott (1713-88) established the doctrine of arthrocace (malum potti). The most eminent and versatile surgeon is the already-mentioned John Hunter (treatment of aneurisms, theory of inflammation, gunshot wounds, syphilis. Surgery was on a much lower plane in the Germanic countries. For the better training of the Prussian military surgeons and on the proposal of Surgeon-General Ernst Konrad Holtzendorff (1688-1751), there was founded in Berlin a Collegium medico-chirurgicum in 1714; later in 1726 the Charité school, and in 1795 the Pepinière academy. Surgery made great progress through Johann Zacharias Platner (1694-1747) at Leipzig; Johann Ulrich Bilguer (1720-96) and Christian Ludwig Mursinna (1744-1833) at Berlin, Karl Kasper Siebold (1736-1807) at Würzburg, and especially through August Gottlob Richter (1742-1812) at Göttingen (surgical library). A school for military surgeons was founded at Vienna in 1775 at the suggestion of Anton Störck (1731-1803), ten years after which was established the Josephinum academy under the direction of the army Surgeon-in-chief Johann Alexander von Brambilla (1728-1800).

405 Study of Physiology: Albrecht von Haller and His Time

406 The great discoveries in the field of gross and minute (microscopic) anatomy naturally impelled men to investigate also the vital functions, but the results of the efforts of both iatrophysicists and iatrochemists were far from satisfactory, since scientific aid was sadly lacking. Physiology for the first time received systematic treatment at the hands of the versatile scholar, Albrecht von Haller of Bern (1708-77), professor in Gottingen from 1737 to 1753 (Elementa physiologiae, 1757-66). Haller, a pupil of Albinus and Boerhave, was the first to recognize the importance of experiments on animals. We are indebted to him for the best description of the vascular system and for studies in haemodynamics, in which field, however, the English clergyman, Stephen Hales (d. 1761), had already broken the soil. He correctly recognized the mechanism of respiration without being able to investigate its physiological importance (exchange of gases), since Joseph Priestley did not discover oxygen until 1774. He disproved the view that there was air between the lungs and the pleura by a simple experiment on animals. Haller became best known through the discovery of irritability and sensibility. When external stimuli are applied to tissues, especially muscles, the latter react either by contracting and moving (irritability), or by experiencing sensation or sense of pain (sensibility) or at times by both. Sensibility disappears when the corresponding nerve is cut, while irritability persists independent of the nerves and even continues some time after death. This theory met with great opposition especially among the practical physicians (Anton de Haen), who did not, however, take the trouble to repeat the experiments on animals. Even though Haller knew neither the central cause of the two phenomena, nor the correct structure of the tissues, it nevertheless stands to his credit that he was the first to point out the facts and open up new roads for physiology. Haller's investigation was generally welcomed, especially in Italy by Abbate Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-99), the first scientific opponent of spontaneous generation. His experiments along the lines of artificial fertilization of frogs' eggs, and concerning digestion are famous. Felice Fontana (1730-1805), repeating the experiments concerning irritability, reached the same results as Haller. William Hewson (1729-74) studied the qualities of the blood (coagulation). The most important German physiologist after Haller is Kasper Friedrich Wolff (1735-94), known for his investigations in the field of evolution and for pointing out the fact that both animals and plants are composed of the same elements, which he called little "bubbles" or "globules". Joseph Priestley's discovery of "dephlogisticated air" (1774), as oxygen was then called, was of the highest importance in the development of the theory of respiration, of the process of tissue-decomposition, of formation of the blood, and of metabolic phenomena.

407 Medical Systems in the Eighteenth Century

408 The three great discoveries in the second half of the century (oxygen, galvanism, and irritability), contrary to what one might expect, led scientists astray, and gave rise to systems whose foundations were of a purely hypothetical nature. Especially interesting are the neuro-pathological theories, connected to some extent with irritability. William Cullen (1712-90) accepting irritability as his starting-point, supposes a "tonus" or fluid inherent in the nerves (Newton's ether), whose stronger or weaker motions produce either a spasm or atony. In addition "weakness" of the brain and "vital power" played a great part in his explanation of diseases. Cullen's pupil, John Brown (about 1735-88), modified this doctrine by explaining that all living creatures possess excitability, located in the nerves and muscles, which are excited to activity by external and internal influences (stimuli). Diseases occur according to increase or dimunition of the stimuli causing increased excitability, (sthenia) and weak stimuli diminished excitability (asthenia). Death is caused either by an increase of excitability with a lack of stimuli, or by exhaustion of excitability from too strong stimuli. Brown's theory was little noticed in England and France, but in Germany it was highly lauded. Christoph Girtanner (1760-1800) and Joseph Frank (1771-1842) spread its fame. Out of this Brunonianism Johann Andreas Röschlaub (1768-1835) developed the so-called (theory of excitability which was so energetically opposed by Alexander von Humboldt and Christian Wilhem Hufeland (1762-1836). Giovanni Rasori (1762-1837), building also on Brown's theory, developed his contra-stimulistic system, namely that there are influences which directly diminish excitement (contra-stimuli) or remove existing stimuli (indirect contra-stimuli); he, therefore, distinguishes two groups of diseases — diathesis of the stimulus and that of the contra-stimulus.

409 Another group of systematizers, the Vitalists, basing their views upon Stahl's doctrine of the soul (Animism) and Haller's irritability, consider vital energy to be the foundation of all organic processes. The chief representatives of Vitalism, a system developed especially in France and later predominant in Germay, are: Theophile Bordeu (1722-76), Paul Joseph Bartilez (1734-1806), Philippe Pinel (1755-1826), Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) and Johann Christian Reil (1759-1813). But, while these physicians adhered to Hippocratism in practice and (e.g. Reil) were eminently active in developing anatomy and phlysiology, the same may not be said of the three Germans, Mesmer, Hahnemann, and Rademacher, who were the last followers of Paracelsus. The doctrine of animal magnetism (Mesmerism), established by Friedrich Anton Mesmer (1734-1815), is connected with Vitalism in so far as Mesmer presupposes a magnetic power to exist in the body, and accordingly tries, at first by means of magnets and later by touching and stroking the body, to effect an interchange of forces, a transfusion or cure. Mesmer through his manipulations very likely induced real hypnotic sleep in many cases. His doctrine, however, which at first met with a sharp rebuff and was subsequently characterized in many circles as a fraud, was degraded by his immediate followers to somnambulism and clairvoyance, and in later times it became altogether discredited from having fallen into the hands of quacks. Nevertheless, mesmerism forms a basis for hypnotism, which in 1841 was established by James Braid.

410 Homeopathy, founded by Samuel Friedrich Christian Hahnemann, seems to have the promise of a long lease of life. Hahnemann regards disease as a disturbance of vital energy. The latter in itself has no power to heal, for a cure can take place only when a similar set of symptoms. The best way to produce such a disease is to give highly diluted drugs which are capable of producing a similar set of symptoms. The rest of this "drug-disease" is destroyed by the vital energy, which is possible only when the doses are small. As chief principle, therefore, Hahnemann sets up the doctrine that like cures like. Since he denies the posssibility of investigating the nature of disease, and completely disregards pathological anatormy, it is necessary to know all simple drugs which produce a set of symptoms similar to those of the existing disease. With his pupils Hahnemann undertook the task of testing the effects of all simple drugs, but the result of this gigantic piece of work could not be absolutely objective, since it is based upon the purely subjective feeling of the experimentalists. Never before had a physician built a system upon so many purely arbitrary hypotheses as Hahnemann. Paracelsus also had declared war upon the old medicine, and had attributed little value to anatomical and physiological investigation, which, however, was still in its initial period of development; but, with his reverence for Hippocrates, he neverthelss ranks higher than Hahnemann, who is the representative of empiricism and the despiser of all the positive successes which medicine had previously attained. Hahnemann's more sensible pupils did not follow their master blindly, but regarded his method as that which under the most favourable circumstances it may be, viz., a purely therapeutical method that does not disregard clinical science. To this rational standpoints together with eclecticism, homeopathy owes its long life and wide dissemination. One service of physicians of this school is that they simplified prescriptions, and appreciatively studied obsolete, but nevertheless valuable vegetable drugs. Hahnemann's pupil, Lux, extended homeopathy to isotherapy, which in modern times celebrated its renascence in organotherapy. Widely removed from scientific progess was the "empirical medical doctrine" of Johann Gottfried Rademacher (1772-1850), which is today completely discredited. Starting from the doctrine of nostrums of Paracelsus, he names the diseases according to the effective drug (e.g. nux-vomica strychina, liver disease), and classifies diseases as universal and organic in accordance with universal and organic drugs. His therapeutics was a purely empirical one, uninfuenced by pathology or clinical diagnosis.

411 Some Special Branches of Medicine at the End of the Eighteenth Century

412 Obstetrics

413 Down to the sixteenth century obstetrics was almost exclusively in the hands of midwives, who were trained for it as for a trade. Only in rare cases was a surgeon called in. All the achievements of ancient times seemed forgotten, and it was only after anatomical studies had been resumed and surgery had made some progress that things began to improve. The most important accounts of the condition of ancient operative obstetrics are found in the Hippocratic writings (position of the child, version or turning, dismemberment of the fetus, parturition chair for facilitating delivery) and in later times in the works of Soranus of Ephesus (second century A.D.; protection of the perinaeum), Galen, Celsus, A¨tius, and in those of the female physician Trotula of Salerno. The oldest book on midwifery in the Middle Ages (Rosengarten) was written by Eucharius Röslin (d. 1526), who, in addition to numerous drugs assisting delivery, mentions "version". Version was put into practice again by Ambroise Paré. In the sixteenth century attempts were made to perform the Caesarean operation on the living (Jakob Nufer, a Swiss, c. 1500); in ancient times it was done only after the death of the mother. The first work about this operation was published by the Paris surgeon, François Rousset (1581). In the domain of practical obstetrics, Giulio Casare Aranzio (1530-89) was the first to point out those malformations of the pelvis which exactly indicated the necessity for the Caesarean section. Much was done to extend the study of this branch of medicine by the works of Jacques Guillemeau (1560 to about 1609), Scipione Mereurio (1595, German translation by Gottflied Welsch, 1653), François Mauriceau (1637-1709), Pierre Dionis, and Guillaume Manquest de la Motte (1655-1737), pelycologists. The splendid development of obstetrics in France explains why male assistance was more and more sought there, especially after Jules Clement had been called in 1673 to the court of Louis XIV. The most important accoucheur in the Netherlands was Hendrik van Deventer (1651-1724; axis of the pelvis, placenta praevia, asphyxia neonatorum). In Germany Siegemundin, the most famous German midwife, published in 1690 a text book based upon wide experience (Chur-Brandenburgische Hoff-Wehe-Mutter).

414 In the first half of the seventeenth century Hugh Chamberlen invented the obstetrical forceps, selling it to Dutch physicians about 1688. Jean Palfyn of Ghent (1650-1730) constructed independently a similar instrument (Main de Palfyn), which he submitted to the Paris Academy about 1723. After various improvements by Lorenz Heister, Dussé, and Gregoire, the forceps passed into general practice. The most important accoucheurs of the eighteenth century were: in France, André Levret (1703-1780; inclination of the pelvis, forceps, combined examination), Francois Louis Joseph Solayrés de Renhac (1737-72; mechanism of delivery), Jean Louis Baudelocque (1746-1810; pelvimetry), opponent of artificial premature delivery and symphyseotomy; in England, Fielding Ould (1710-89; mechanism of delivery, perforation), William Smellie (1697-1763; mechanism of delivery, use of forceps, pelvimetry), William Hunter (1718-93) opponent of the forceps and the Caesarean operation, Thomas Denman (1733-1815), the first to recommend artificial premature delivery, and William Osborn (1732-1808), opponent of symphyseotomy and of the Caesarean section. The well-founded doubts which in preaseptic times many accoucheurs entertained concerning the Caesarean operation, led to so-called symphyseotomy (Jean René Siegualt, 1768) which by widening the pelvis would permit delivery of the fetus. This operation, which from the very outset met with vigorous opposition in England, is now forgotten. The introduction of scientific obstetrics in Germanic countries was comparatively late. Special schools for midwives were instituted, in 1728 at Strasburg (Johann Jakob Fried, 1689-1769), in 1751 at Berlin (Johann Friedrich Meckel, 1724-74) and Göttingen (Johann Georg Röderer, d. 1763), and in 1754 at Vienna (Johann Nep. Crantz, 1756; Valentin von Lebmacher, 1797; Raphael Steidele, 1816). While the Parisian midwives belonged to the Collège de S. Côme as early as 1560 and received a methodical training, those in Gerrnany could receive only private instruction. Examination by physicians mentioned at Ratisbon since 1555 and at Vienna since 1642.

415 Ophthalmology

416 Ophthalmology gained importance much later than obstetrics. In addition to inflammation of the eye and operations on the eyelid, the Hippocratic writings mention amblyopia, nyctalopia, and glaucoma. Celsus describes an operation for cataract (sclerotico-nyxis). Galen gives us the beginnings of physiological optics. The slight ophthalmological knowledge of the Greeks was borrowed by the Arabs, but their lack of anatomical knowledge prevented all progress. No improvement set in until after the rise of anatomy under Vesalius. Fortunately, this branch had been almost completely in the hands of travelling physicians (cataract operators), but henceforth surgeons with a fixed abode (e.g. Ambroise Pare, Jacques Gulliemeau) began to turn their attention to it. In Germany Georg Bartisch (about 1535-1606), "Court eye specialist" at Dresden, wrote the first monograph, a work very highly valued even in later days. Among other things he mentions spectacles for curing squint, eyeglasses and, among operations is the first to describe extirpation of the pupil. The invention of convex spectacles is by some attributed to the Dominican Alexander da Spina (d. 1313), by others to Salvino degli Armati of Florence (d. 1317). Concave glasses did not appear until the sixteenth century.

417 The foundations for further progress in ophthalmology were laid by the anatomists and physicists of the seventeenth century. In the first group let us mention the works of Friedrich Ruysch (choroid), van Leeuwenhoek (lens) Heinrich Meibom (1678-1740; glands of the eyelids), and Stenon (lachrymal apparatus). Investigations of physicists were of great importance, especially those of the two astronomers, Johann Keppler (1571-1630) and the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner (1575-1659), concerning accommodation, refraction of light, and the retinal image; Rene Descartes (1596-1650; comparison of the eye with the camera obscura, accommodation); Edmund Marriott (d. 1684; blind spot, choroid); Isaac Newton (1642-1727; dispersion of light and origin of colours). In the eighteenth century, besides anatomy and physiology, the practical side of ophthalmology was also cultivated. Among anatomists were Winslow, Petit, Zinn, Demours (cornea and sclerotic); Buzzi and Sommering (retina); La Hire, J. H. Hoin, Camper, and Reil (lens). The theory of the sensibility of the retina to light, established by Haller, was further developed by Porterfield and Thomas Young (1773-1829). The latter also described astigmatism and colour-blindness, and discovered that accommodation depended upon a change in the shape of the lens. Boerhave was the first to give clinical lectures on ophthalmology. From him we have the exact definition of myopia and presbyopia. Gray cataract (cataracta) was first located in the lens by Francois Quarré and Remi Lasnier, a view which was corroborated by the anatomist, Werner Rolfink (1599-1673). Francois Pourfour du Petit (1644-1741), Lorenz Heister, and others also worked on cataract in 1745. Of other practitioners we must mention: Brisseau (theory of glaucoma), William Cheselden (1668-1752; articial pupil), Baron Wenzel the elder (1780; iridectomy), Charles de St. Yves (ablatio retinae, asthenopia, staphyloma, strabismus), John Taylor (1708-60; operation to correct oblique vision, ceratoconus), Dominique Anel (cathederism of the lachrymal fistula, 1713), G.E. Stahl, Boerhave, Jonathan Wathen, Lorenz Heister, Johann Zacharias Platner (1691-1747), and August Gottlob Richter (studies on the lachrymal fistula).

418 Pharmaceutics, Mineral Waters, Cold Water Cures

419 Pharmacy had remained the most backward of all the branches of medicine, for it was longest under the influence of the Arabs. A large part of the drugs came from the Orient to Venice and Flemish harbours. Besides simple drugs there were also a great many compound remedies. But, in the latter class, there was great confusion resulting from the many adulterations, and from the fact that not only did individual authors give different compositions for the same remedy, but also under the same name an entirely different preparation was understood by different authors. The most famous panacea, which dated from Roman imperial times and was used as late as the eighteenth century, was theriac, a mixture consisting of numerous ingredients, among them being the flesh of vipers. This composition originally came from the Orient, but was made later at Venice, Augsburg, and Vienna. To get some order into the treasury of drugs and to enable apothecaries to compound their remedies, the college of physicians in Florence published a pharmacopoeia (Riceptario) in 1498. The oldest work of this kind in Germany was written by Valerius Cordus, a Nuremberg physician (Dispensatorium, 1546); then followed the Dispensatorium of Adolph Occo in 1564, written at the request of the city of Augsburg, the Dispensatorium of Cologne in 1565, and finally in 1572 a similar work in Vienna, which, however, was not printed. Not until 1618 did Vienna receive a dispensatorium prepared from that of Augsburg, which had become a model for all Germany.

420 The Oriental trade in drugs was greatly facilitated by the discovery of the sea route to the East Indies. Uninfluenced by exotic remedies of scholastic medicine, popular medicine offered poor people, in addition to repulsive and superstitious remedies, a series of valuable remedies, derived from native plants and minerals. A long-known and popular remedy for syphilis was mercury, introduced into scientific therapeutics by Paracelsus. To his adherents we are indebted for the use of preparations of antimony and arsenic, a popular remedy for skin diseases since ancient times. The first-mentioned preparations gave rise to a violent struggle on the part of the Paris faculty, which opposed every form of progress. Guaiac wood, regarded as a specific remedy for syphilis, was brought from America in the sixteenth century. The most important drugs introduced in the seventeenth century were ipecacuanha and Peruvian bark. The latter, coming from Peru, became known in Europe between 1630 and 1640. No remedy has had such a beneficial effect, but none has met with such opposition on the part of many physicians as this, because its effect (reduction of fever without subsequent intestinal evacuation) was a direct contradiction of Galenic doctrine. Peruvian bark was introduced generally into therapeutics only after a long struggle, principally because important men like Sydenham advocated it. The latter as well as the Leyden school under Boerhave discontinued to a large extent the old Arab drugs, preferring in general simple remedies with a corresponding dietetic treatment. Besides the improvement in lead preparations by Thomas Goulard (1750; aqua Goulardi), we may mention the pharmacological investigations of cornium, aconite, stramonium, etc., by Anton Storck (1731-1803), in Vienna. Hahnemann's services in investigating native medicinal plants have been previously mentioned.

421 The impulse to study mineral springs was in modern times given by Paracelsus. The majority of the modern European watering places of worldwide fame were already known to the Romans, but their curative properties were too little valued during the Middle Ages. Petrus de Tussignana wrote, about 1336, concerning the famous thermae of Bormio; Giacomo de Dondi in 1340 about Abano; the Vienna physician Wolfgang Windberger (Anemorinus) in 1511, about the sulphur springs at Baden near Vienna; Paracelsus about Pfafers, St. Moritz in the Engadine, Teplitz. Karlsbad in Bohemia was much frequented towards the close of the sixteenth century, as were Vichy and Plombieres. Helmont, who was the first to prove the existence of carbonic acid and of fixed alkalies, wrote about Spa. Highly meritorious also was the work in this field of Johann Phillip Seip (Pyrmont) and of Friedrich Hoffmann, who wrote about Spa, Selters, Schwalbach and Karlsbad, and taught the preparation of Seidlitz salt (Bittersalz), artificial Rarlsbad, and of artificial mineral waters.

422 Cold-water cures were introduced in ancient Rome for the first time by Asclepiades, but they were soon forgotten. In sporadic cases cold water was employed therapeutically in later times, e.g. by Rhazes for smallpox, by Edward Baynard in 1555 against the plague by John Floyer (1649-1734) for mania, and by several others. Cold water was not used systematically until the eighteeth century. The brothers Johann Sigismund and Johann Gottfried, and their father Sigismund Hahn (1662-1742), who in 1737 made extensive experiments during an epidemic of petechial fever in Breslau, may be regarded as the founders of the cold water cure. The work of John Sigismund (Unterricht von der kraft und Wirkung des kalten Wassers) is the best known, and laid the foundation of modern hydrotherapeutics. Towards the end of the eighteeth century Johann Dietrich Brandis obtained good results in the treatment of febrile diseases by means of tepid lotions. The subsequent development of hydrotherapeutics was largely influenced by the results obtained by William Wright (1736-1819), and James Currie (1750-1805) in the epidemics of petechial fever in the years 1787-92.

423 VACCINATION — EDWARD JENNER

424 Even in the oldest times people seem to have possessed an efficient preservative against one of the most destructive epidemics, smallpox (variola). From remote antiquity the Brahmins of Hindustan are said to have transferred the smallpox poison (secretion of the pustules) to healthy persons by incising the skin with the object of protecting them against further infection by causing a local illness. In China people stopped up their noses with the incrustations of smallpox. A peculiar transfer with a needle (inoculation) was in use among the Circassians and Georgians. This so-called Greek method became generally known in Constantinople towards the end of the seventeenth century, and was introduced into England by Lady Wortley Montague wife of the English ambassador, who had had her own son successfully vaccinated in 1717. Despite the loud approval of the court and aristocracy, inoculation met with violent resistance from the physicians and clergy. Carelessness, quackery, and its ill-repute caused the method to be forgotten, until in 1746 Bishop Isaac Maddox of Worcester, by popular teaching and the establishment of institutions for inoculation, once more proclaimed its value. Among physicians who favoured inoculation were Richard Mead (1673-1754). Robert and Daniel Sutton (1760, 1767), Thomas Disdale (1767). Théodore Tronchin (1709-1781), and Haller. In Austria it was introduced by van Swieten, at whose suggestion Maria Theresa, in 1768, called to Vienna the famous naturalist Jan Ingen-Housz (1730-99), in spite of the opposition of the clinical professor de Haen. In the meantime another opponent of inoculation appeared. In countries devoted to cattle-raising it was observed that those who came in contact with cows suffering from smallpox frequently fell sick and had pustules on their fingers, but such persons were immune against the human smallpox. This incited the physician Edward Jenner (1749-1823) to further experimentation, which he continued for twenty years. On 14 May, 1796, he performed his first inoculation with the lymph of cowpox (vaccination), an experiment of worldwide importance. Jenner's discovery was everywhere received with enthusiastic approval. The first vaccinations on the continent were performed at Vienna by Jean de Caro in in 1799, and by his contemporaries Alois Careno (d. 1811) and Paschalis Joseph von Ferro (d. 1809); in Germany, by Germany, by Georg Friedrich Ballhorn (1772-1805) and Christian Friedrich Stromeyer (1761-1824); in France, by Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. Protective inoculation with vaccine has been introduced into almost every civilized state in the course of the nineteenth century, partly from free choice and partly by laws enforcing compulsory vaccination.

425 Medicine in the Nineteenth Century

426 The powerful political position of France in the first thirty years of the nineteenth century finds medicine in an especially high state of development in that country. After this period followed the golden period of the Vienna school and in a wider sense, of German medicine. The development of modern medicine is the work of all civilized nations; yet all will regard Rudolf Virchow unqualifiedly as the chief worker. Not to encroach upon the domain of the special articles, let us summarize in a few brief words the most important achievements of recent times: in anatomy, theory of tissues — Bichat; in pathological anatomy and pathology cellular, pathology — Virchow; in physiology — Johannes Müller, in practical medicine, auscultation - Laënnec, Skoda; in surgery, treatment of wounds — Joseph Lister; narcosis — Jackson, Simpson; obstetrics, cause of puerperal fever Semmelweiss; in ophthalmology — Albrecht von Grafe and (speculum oculi) Helmholtz; in bacteriology and serotheraphy — Pasteur, Koch, and Behring. The subject of skin diseases was most ingeniously elaborated by Ferdinand Hebra.

427 General Anatomy

428 A splendid basis for the further development of modern medicine was laid by Marie François Xavier Bichat (1771-1802), through his investigation of the vital qualities of tissues. What Haller had tried to do for the muscles, Bichat attempted to accomplish for all the tissues of the body. Bichat was the first to promulgate the idea that each tissue might by itself become diseased, and that the symptoms of diseased organs depend upon tissue changes. Gilbert Breschet (1784-1845) worked on the lympathic vessels and the history of developments and Isidore Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire (1772-1884) on comparative anatomy. Of Italian and English anatomists are to be mentioned: Paolo Mascagni (1752-1815; lymphatic vessels, comparative anatomy), Antonio Scarpa (1747-1832; structure of the bones, organs of sense), the brothers John and Charles Ball, the latter (1774-1842) known also as a physiologist (brain, nerves); and Robert Knox (1793-1862; comparative anatomy). Germany performed the greatest services in perfecting anatomy and allied branches. The first to be named in this connection is Theodor Schwann (1810-82), the discoverer of the cell as the fundamental element of the body of plants and animals. Johann Ev. Purkynje (1787-1869) worked along the same lines, and Rudolph Albert Kolliker (b. 1817; pensioned 1901) followed close in their wake. Work in comparative anatomy was done by Johann Friedrieh Blumenbach (1752-1840), Iganz Blumenbach (1752-1850), Ignaz Döllinger (1770-1841), Karl Asmund Rudolphi (1771-1832), and Johann Friedrich Meckel (1781-1833). Friedrich Gustav Jakob Henle (1809-85), and Wilhelm Menke (1834-96) were prominent teachers of general anatomy and histology, Friedrich Tiedemann (1781-1861) was an eminent brain anatomist, while Nikolaus Rüdinger (1832-96; injection of carbolic for the preservation of corpses in the dissecting room), Friedrich Sigmud Merkel (b. 1845; topographical anatomy) and Wilhelm His (b. 1831; history of development), must also be mentioned.

429 Following the reform of studies under van Swieten in 1749, anatomy was cultivated in Vienna more than ever before. The more important men were Lorenz Gasser (professor 1757-65; trigeminus), Joseph Barth (technique of injection), George Prochaska (1749-1820; muscle and nerves), Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828), the well-known phrenologist and founder of the modern the theory of cerebral localization, and Joseph Berres (1796-1844); microscopic anatomy). The founder of the modern anatomical school of Vienna was the highly gifted Joseph Hyrtl (1811-94); technique of injection and corrosion, organ of hearing, comparative and topographical anatomy), known as a pre-eminent teacher, investigator, and a man of noble character. Karl Langer (1819-87; mechanism of the joints), Karl Toldt (b. 1840 histology, anthropometry) and Karl Wedl (1815-91; normal and pathological histology) are others of this School. The professors at present teaching this subject in the Austrian universities still belong chiefly to the school of Hyrtl-Langer. In North America anatomy was cultivated especially in Philadelphia where besides the school founded in 1764, there existed from 1820 to 1875 a private institution established by John Balentine O'Brien Lawrence (d. 1823), "The Philadelphia School of Anatomy". In 1775 Japan became acquainted for the first time with the anatomical knowledge of Europe through a translation of a work by the German Johann Adam Kulmus which had appeared in 1725. A diligent study of anatomy and of medicine in general began when the University of Tokio was established in 1871.

430 Pathological Anatomy

431 Pathological anatomy was placed upon a new basis by Bichat's theory of the tissues, and it was later greatly advanced by physiology, physiological chemistry, and by improved means of investigation (compound achromatic objective lens of the microscope). The increased attention, which clinical physicians bestowed on this subject, exercised no small influence on its progress. Among these must be especially mentioned Laënnec, who defined tuberculosis and studied the pathological anatomy of lung diseases, especially of phthisis. Numerous though the able investigators were who performed meritorious services in perfecting this branch, the development of modern pathological anatomy will forever be intimately connected with the names of the pioneers, Rokitansky and Virchow. The first pathological prosectorship at Vienna was held by Alois Rudolph Vetter from 1796 to 1803, well known as the author of the first German work on pathological anatomy. In 1832, after the death of Joseph Wagner, Karl Rokitansky (1804-78; later Freiherr von) became prosector and professor. He was educated in the views of Johann Friedrich Meckel (1781-1833), Johann Georg Christian Freidrich Martin Lolstein (1777-1835), but particularly of Gabriel Andral of Paris (1797-1876), a leading representative of humoral pathology. Rokitansky's training was thus based upon the French school, but he subsequently brought about a still closer connection between anatomical and physical diagnostics. His endeavour to become acquainted with the entire course of development of pathological changes was greatly assisted by the valuable material for dissecting which the metropolis afforded. His excellence is seen in his descriptions of pathological changes; he replaced the previous symptomatic pictures of disease by creating an anatomical pathology and anatomical types of disease. He was not so successful in establishing his doctrine of crasis based upon humoral pathology and just here Virchow's fruitful activity begins.

432 Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), professor in Berlin and a pupil of Johannes Müller and Johann Lucas Schönlein, early became acquainted with the cellular doctrine of Schwann. Virchow is the creator of cellular pathology, which today is universally recognized, a pathology based strictly upon natural science which definitively extinguished Hippocratic speculative humoral pathology. According to Virchow, there is life in the smallest units of the body in the cells which increase by fission (omnis cellula e cellula). He applied his doctrine to the various tissues, and showed their behavior under normal and abnormal conditions of life. Diseases thus represent a reaction of the sum of the cells which form the body against harmful influences, the causes of diseases. Virchow's chief work" Die Cellularpathologie" appeared in 1858. Greater attention was now paid not alone to pathological anatomy, but to its sister sciences, pathological chemistry, experimental pathology, and bacteriology. The chief representatives of experimental pathology were: in France, Claude Bernard (1813-78), Charles Edouard Brown-Séquard (1818-95), and Etienne Jules Marey (b. 1830); in Germany, Ludwig Traube (1818-76), Rudolph Virchow, and Julius Cohnheim (1839-84); in Vienna, Salomon Striker (d.1898) and Philip Knoll (1841-1900). Experiments on animals are extensively made today in this field of investigation.

433 Bacteriology, Theory of lmmunity, Serotherapy, Disinfection

434 The first to suspect that living beings invade the organism and exist in the blood and pus was the learned Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1671), although there is no doubt that the "little worms" observed by him were really blood-corpuscles. With the help of his improved microscope Leeuwenhoek discovered a number of bacteria. The idea that infectious diseases were caused by a living contagion invading the body from without was first expressed in 1762 by the Vienna physician Markus Antonius Plenciz (d. 1786). Otto Friedrich Müller, in 1786, was the first to doubt that the microscopical living beings, then comprised under the name of infusoria, really belonged to the animal kingdom. In 1838, Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg gave a description of the finer structure of the "infusoria" but it was Ferdinad Cohn, who in 1854 first ascertained with certainty that bacteria belonged to the vegetable kingdom. From the studies that were now made concerning the vital qualities of these infinitesimal living beings of the vegetable kingdom, Louis Pasteur (1822-95) definitely settled the controversy about spontaneous generation (generatio œquivoca), and proved the materialistic view to be without foundation. What Plenciz had only suspected was now clearly formulated by Henle, who defined the conditions under which bacteria are to be regarded as direct causes of disease. The untiring activity of Robert Koch (d. 1910) from about 1878 succeeded in bringing bacteriology to such a state of development that it could be made of service to practical medicine. Apart from ascertaining the bacterial origin of cholera and tuberculosis, Koch's greatest achievements are the improvement of the microscope (Abbé, Zeis), the method of colouration and pure cultures.

435 Jenner's success with the lymph of cowpox, a weakened poison as a protection against a full poison, as well as the old experience that those who had once recovered from an infectious disease usually became immune from new infection, led savants to look for the cause of the phenomena. In 1880 Pasteur, on the basis of his experiments concerning chicken cholera, looked for the cause in the exhaustion of the nutritive material necessary for the bacteria in the body (theory of exhaustion), while Chauveau believed in a residue of metabolic products which prevented a new settlement of bacteria or new infection (retention theory). The investigation of Metschnikoff, and in 1889 of Buchner, advanced the idea that blood-serurn possesses a certain hostility to bacteria. In 1890 Von Behring proved that the blood-serum of animals which has been made immune against diphtheria, if injected into another animal, would make the latter also immune against diphtheria. That element in the serum hostile to bacteria he called antitoxin. The introduction of antitoxin into the therapeutics of diphtheria in 1892 was so far the greatest practical success of bacteriology. Efforts were naturally made to secure by similar methods protection against other infectious diseases, efforts only partly crowned with success (tetanus, plague, cholera, snake poison). Following Jenner's method of producing immunity by means of living, weakened causes of infection, Pasteur (1885) found a protection against lyssa, while Haffkine made experiments in 1895 to combat cholera with killed germs, and in 1897 similar experiments with the plague. From 1891 dates Koch's experimentation with extracts of bacteria against tuberculosis. By means of preparations of pure bacteria-cultures, made according to Koch's method, it became possible to devise exact methods for destroying bacteria. In the field of the modern theory of disinfection, Koch also worked as a pioneer, not only in precisely defining the difference between prevention of development and the killing of bacteria, but also by subjecting physical and chemical disinfectants to new tests. The modern steam sterilizers are based upon the discovery of Koch that steam under the ordinary pressure of the atmosphere is sufficient to kill even resistant lasting forms. He pointed out the ineffectiveness of alcohol, glycerine, and other substances upon the spores of anthrax, and the diminished effect of carbolic acid in an oily or alcoholic solution. Von Behring's experiments showed a diminution of power of some disinfectants in the presence of albumen, concerning which Kr¨nig and Paul made a special study.

436 Physiology

437 Physiology is indebted for its perfection to the progress of minute anatomy (doctrine of tissues) to the improved means of investigation (microscope, chemical and physical apparatus), but especially to the fact that experiments on animals (vivisection) were once more extensively made. The principal physiologists of the past century were in France and in Germany. François Magendie (1783-1855), opposing Bichat (vitalism), maintained that there is no uniform vital energy, and that the vital qualities of the different organs are to be explained upon a physical and chemical basis and by means of experiments. His investigations in haemodynamics and the functions of the nervous system (roots of the spinal column), in which he supplemented the work of Charles Bell (Law of Bell-Magendie) are very important. Marie Jean Pierre Flourens (1794-1867) is known by his studies in disturbances of co-ordination, nutrition of the bones, and localization of the centre of respiration in the medulla oblongata, and François Achille Longet (1811-71) by his work on the functions of the anterior and posterior columns of the spinal cord, the innervation of the larynx, the nerves of the brain, and the law of the contraction of the muscles. The most famous French physiologist, a pioneer in the field of physiological chemistry, is Claude Bernard (glycogenic function of the liver, the consumption of glycogen through work of the muscles, the discovery of vascular nerves, the chemistry of the bile and the urine, theory of diabetes mellitus, assimiliation of sugar, atrophy of the pancreas, the power of the pancreatic juice to digest albumen, and the theory of animal heat). The physiology of the circulation was elaborated by Etienne Jules Marey (b. 1830; blood pressure, mechanism of the heart and the invention of the sphygmograph). The relation of muscles and nerves to electricity was studied by Guillaume Benjamin Duchenne (1806-75), awhile Charles Edouard Brown-Séquard (1818-94), the founder of modern organo-therapeutics, investigated the reflex irritability of the spinal cord, the blood, respiration, and animal heat. In Great Britain were Marshall Hall (1780-1857; theory of reflex action), William Bowman (1816-92, structure of the striated muscles, and theory of the secretion of urine), Alfred Henry Garrod (1846-79; sphygmography physics of the nerves), Augustus Volney Waller (1816-70; diapedesis of the red corpuscles of the blood, studies on nerve-fibres and ganglia, Waller's degeneration) and William Prout (1785-1869; discovery of free hydrochloric acid in the gastric juice).

438 The Bohemian Johann Evangelist Purkyje (1787-1869) founded at Breslau the first German physiological institute. His most important studies were concerned with the physiology of the organs of sense, especially of sight, the physiology of the muscles and nerves, the ciliary movement of the epithelium of the mucous membrane, the structure of the nerve-fibre (axis-cylinder) of the ganglia, the glands secreting gastric juice, the sympathetic nervous system, and the history of development (discovery of the germinal spot). Fundamental work in physiological physics was done by the brothers Weber, Ernest Heinrich (1795-1878), and Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm (1806-71), both physicians, and the physicist Wilhelm Eduard (1804-91); mechanism of the human organs of walking (Wilhelm and Eduard), experiments in irritability by means of induction currents, and the irritation of the pneumogastric and sympathetic nerves and its influence upon the heart (Ernst and Eduard). Physiological chemistry is represented by Friedrich Tiedemann and Leopold Gemlin (1788-1853; digestion, absorption and assimilation the importance of the lymphatic system for absorption), Friedrich Wohler (1800-82; artificial preparation of urea), and Karl Bogislav Reichert (1811-83; crystallization of blood pigment). We must also mention the nerve physiologist Rudolf Wagner (1805-64), discoverer of the tactile corpuscles. The greatest credit for developing modern physiology is due to the school of the versalile Johannes Müller (1801-58). Müller's importance comparable to that of Albrecht von Haller, is due on the one hand to the results of his own investigations (studies on the physiology of the organs of sense, the sympathetic nervous system, the theory of reflex action, the production of voice in the larynx, and the description of the cartilage-nucleus), and on the other hand to his activity in all branches of physiology and in his grasp of the entire field of physiological knowledge. The most important investigators of the century in the domain of histology, physiological chemistry, and physics, were pupils of Müller. Besides the above-mentioned investigators, Schwann, Kölliker, and Virchow, attention may be called to Robert Remak (1815-65; description of the marrowless nerve fibres, of the course of the fibres in the brain and the spinal cord); sympathetic nerve system, nerves of the heart, metabolism).

439 The doctrine of metabolism was advanced by the famous chemist, Justus Freiherr von Liebig (1803-73; excretion of nitrogen in the form of urea, importance of uric acid, albumen as a source of muscular strength), Theodor Ludwig Wilhelm Bischoff (1807-32; urea) and Karl von Voit (b. 1831; metabolism of nitrogen and organic albumen). The latter, together with Max von Pettenkofer (1818-1901), made numerous experiments in the change of gases in man during rest and work. Georg Meissner (b. 1829; Schwann (discoverer of pepsin), Karl Gotthelf Lehmann (1812-65; pepton). The chemistry of blood was investigated by Ernest Felix Josef Hoppe-Seyler (1825-65; blood pigment, blood gases, chemistry of cell and tissue), Jules Robert Meyer (1814-78; mechanism of heat), Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821-94; physiological optics), and Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818-96; animal electrical phenomena, physics of the muscles and nerves). Just as versatile as Johannes Müller were Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig (1816-95; physiology of the circulation and excretions, theory of the functions of the kidneys, endosmosis, discovery of the nerves of secretion) and Ernest Wihelm Ritter von Brucke (1819-92; studies of the ciliary muscle as a muscle of accommodation, theory of colours, physiology of the voice, structure of the muscle-fibres, biliary capillaries, digestion, absorption). Karl von Vierordt (1818-83) is associated with the chemistry of respiration and the counting of the blood corpuscles; Adolf Fick (1829-1901) with physiology of the muscles and nerves; Moritz Schiff (1823-16) with the nervous system, discovery of the harmful results of the extirpation of the thyroid gland, function of the base of the brain and the cerebellum; Rudolf Heidenhain (1834-97) with the physiology of the glands; Alexander Rollett (b.1834) with the glands of the stomach, blood; Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm Pfluger (b. 1829) with the gases of the blood, processes of oxidation in the body; Ewald Hering (b. 1834) with the theory of self-regulation of the act breathing sensitiveness of retina to colours, and Theodor Wilhlem Engelman (b. 1834), with electro-physiology, motion of the ciliary epithelium, physiology of the heart and of the organs of sense. The localization of the brain was investigated especially by Gustav Fritsch (b. 1838), Eduard Hitzig (b. 1838), Leopold Goltz (1835-1902), and Sigmund Exner (b.1846). Of eminent physiologists outside of Germany we may mention the Dutchmen Franz Cornelis Donders (1818-89); physiological optics, determination of refraction) and Jakob Moleschott (1822-93; metabolism and doctrine of foods).

440 Owing to the progress of the theoretical auxiliary sciences, practical medicine reached a high state of development, especially in diagnosis, but also to a certain extent in therapeutics. A general revolution was effected by the establishment of physical diagnosis. Auenbrugger's epoch making discovery, percussion (1761), passed over in silence by van Swieten and de Haen, the leading spirits of the Vienna school, and mentioned only in timid fashion by Maximilian Stoll, might have been altogether forgotten, if Jean Nicolas Corvisart de Marest (1755-1821), after an objective examination, had not translated Auenbrugger's "Inventum novum" into French, and published it in 1808 with a commentary. René Theophile Hyacinthe Laënnec (1781-1826) enriched the physical method of examination by the invention of auscultation (noting the different tones and noises in the chest by placing the ear against it). His pupil Pierre Adolphe Piorry (1794-1879) perfected percussion (definition of the borders and outlines of the organs, invention of the plessimeter, improvement of the stethoscope). Laënnec's invention attracted attention but slowly. His chief opponent was Francois Joseph Victor Broussais (1772-1838), but in England John Forbes (1787-1861) and William Stokes (1804-78), and in Germany, Christian Friedrich Nasse (1778-1851), Peter Krukenbeg (1787-1865), Johann Lukas Schönlein (1793-1864), and others assumed a friendly attitude. Auscultation and percussion came into general use in the Germanic countries much later than in England and France but they were then brought to great perfection by the Vienna physician Joseph Skoda (1805-81), who in 1839 treated physical diagnosis scientifically and fundamentally (auscultation and percussion). The new methods made possible the exact clinical diagnosis of diseases of the heart and the lungs to a degree never previously imagined. Besides Laënnec and Skoda must be mentioned among the great number of investigators: Jean Baptiste Bouillaud (1796-1881), and James Johnson (1777-1845), who investigated affections of the heart and rheumatism of the joints. August Fancois Chomei (1788-1855; pericarditis and rhumatism), James Hope (1801-41; valvular insufficiency), Hermann Lebert (1813-78), Johann Oppolzer (1808-91), Felix Niemeyer (1820-71), Ludwig Traube (1818-76), Heinrich von Bamberger (1822-88), and Adalbert Duchek (1824-82).

441 Among therapeutical aids the introduction of digitalis purpurea by Traube deserves special mention. M.J. Oertel (d. 1897), tried to cure certain affections (fatty degeneration of the heart obesity) by means of dietetic mechanical treatment (Terrainkur); and the brothers August and Theodor Schott established the so-called Nauheim method (carbonic acid baths and gymnastics). Great credit in connection with the dignosis of lung disease is due to M. Anton Wintrich (1812-82; pleuritis), Karl August Wunderlich (1815-78; range of temperature in pneumonia) Leon Jean Baptiste Cruveilhier (1791-1875; pneumonia in children), Theodor Jürgensen (infectious nature of pneumonia), Robert Bree (1807; bronchial asthma), Biermer (1870), Leyden (1875; crystals of asthma) and Curschmann (1883; spirals). The subject of pulmo nary tuberculosis was profoundly treated by Gaspard Laurent Bayle (1774-1816; 1810 (discovery of miliary tuberculosis, tuberculosis a general disease); Virchow defined the anatomic character of tuberculosis; Villemin in 1865-8 proved its contagiousness, and his experiments were re-examined and confirmed among others by Lebert (1866), Klebs (1868), Baumgarten (1880), Teppeiner (1877), and Weichselbaum (1882). With the discovery of the tubercle bacillus by R. Koch in 1882, the path to the suppression of tuberculosis was indicated. Cornet in 1888 showed the danger of the sputum, which resulted in prohibition of spitting and the placing of cuspidors with disinfecting solutions. In 1890 Koch appeared with his remedy tuberculin, which he improved in 1897 and 1901. In 1902 Behring began his experiments on cows to secure immunity. Of late the treatment on tuberculosis is chiefly dietetic. Diagnosis and therapeutics of the diseases of the larynx were greatly advanced by the invention of the laryngoscope in 1860 (Ludwig Turck 1810-68, Vienna; and Johann Nepomuk Czermak, 1828-73). The taking of temperature, which was diligently cultivated by de Haen and later by James Currie (1733-1819), was systematically done for the first time by Friedrich Wilhelm Felix von Barensprug (1822-64), Traube, and Wunderlich. In the treatment of metabolic diseases we must mention the noteworthy zeal of Friedrich Theodor von Frerichs (1819-85).

442 Diagnosis and therapeutics of diseases of the stomach were advanced by the introduction of the pump invented by the English surgeon Bush in 1822, an instrument recommended and used since 1869 by Adolf Kussmaul (d. 1902), in enlargement of the stomach, and for the examination of the stomach with a speculum. Faradization was employed by Karl Friedrich Canstatt in 1846, Duchenne, and later by Kussmaul (1877), the stomach catheter was used for diagnostic purposes by Wilhelm Leube in 1871. The subject of typhlitis and perityphlitis was investigated among others by Puchelt (1829), Burne, Smith, Bamberger, and Oppolzer, diseases of the kidneys by Richard Bright (1827), Pierre François Oliver Rayer (1793-1867), Johnson (1852), Julius Vogel (1814-80) and Hermann Senator (1896); diseases of the bladder by Josef Grunfeld (1872), Trouvé (1878) Max Nitze (1879; endoscopy), Rovsing (1890, 1898), Krogius (1890, 1894), Guyon, Leube, and Robert Ultzmann (inflammation of the bladder, formation of stone). The development of modern diagnosis and the therapeutics of nervous diseases are connected with the names of eminent physiologists and clinical physicians. Of the latter we may mention Moriz Heinrich Romberg (1795-1873), Wilhelm Griessinger (1817-68), Duchenne, and the universal Jean Martin Charcot (d. 1893). Faradization (1831), as a therapeutical means specially against lameness, was introduced by Duchenne in 1847. Among special studies of individual diseases were: on tabes dorsalis by Romberg, Duchenne, Armand Trousseau (1801-66), Nikolaus Friedreich (b. 1882), Leyden (d. 1910), Karl Friedrich Westphal (b. 1833), Charcot, and Alfred Fournier, who in 1876 pointed out the connection between tabes and lues; on myelitis by Brown-Séquard, Oppolzer, Friedreich, Westphal, Charcot. A peculiar complex of symptoms was described for the first time by Robert James Graves (d. 1853), later (1840) by Karl von Basedow (Basedow's Disease). The picture of neurasthenia was given for the first time in detail in 1869 by Georg Beard; Weir-Mitchell together with Playfair proposed for it the so-called fattening cure.

443 Psychiatry

444 As to progress in psychiatry, there is now a more humane conception of the care for the insane compared with that obtaining in former times. This movement originated principally in England (Thomas Arnold, d. 1816; William Perfect, b. 1740; Alexander Crichton, 1763-1856), and France (Philippe Pinel, 1755-1826; Jean Etienne Dominique Esquirol, 1772-1840), and found in Italy in Vincenzo Chiarugi (d.1822) and in Germany in Johann Christian Reil (1759-1813), zealous supporters. With this movement came a general and profounder study of the subject stimulated by the results of pathological anatomy, more judicious therapeutics conscious of its aim, proper physical occupation of the insane, and the discontinuance of the isolation system. Special attention is paid to the etiology and therapeutics of diseases occurring most frequently, cretinism, hysteria, progressive paralysis, as well as to psychosis of intoxication, alcoholism, morphinism, etc. Hydro-therapeutics, which is especially effective in the case of neurosis and psychosis, was much cultivated by Anton Frohlich (1760-1846) and the two laymen, Eucharius Ferdinand Oertel and the Silesian, Vincenz Priessnitz (1790-1851). It was treated scientifically by Wilhelm Winternitz, who wisely reduced within due bounds a great deal of the harshness in the laymen's hydrotherapy.

445 Modern dermatology begins with the endeavours of Johann Jakob Plenk (1738-1807) at Vienna to establish a classification of skin diseases on a basis of external clinical appearance. Work of a similar nature was done by Anne Charles Lorry (1777), Robert Willan (1798), Thomas Bateman (1815), all of whom introduced simplifications into Plenk's system, Laurent Beilt (1781-1840), and Camille Melchior Gibert (1797-1866). Jean Louis Alibert (1766-1837) made a classification according to pathological principles, while Pierre François Oliver Rayer used anatomy and physiology as a basis. The pathological-anatomical method, introduced by Julius Rosenbaum (1807-74) was established by Ferdinand Hebra in Vienna (1816-80). Its chief merits consist in creating a classification of twelve groups, valid in its substantial form even today, in a definition of the general course of the disease, and in simplifying therapeutics. His chief special studies are concerned with itch, lepra, and eczema. With him we must mention Friedrich Wilhelm Felix von Barensprung (1822-64, eczema marginatum, erythrasma caused by fungus, and herpes zoster) and his successor, Georg Lewin (1807-78) worked along the same lines as Hebra (parasitical and constitutional skin diseases, erythema induratum). Hebra's most important pupils are Heinrich Auspitz (1835-86; venous stagnation, soap therapeutics), Moriz Kaposi (1837-1902; pigment sarcoma, sarcoid swellings), and Ernst Ludwig Schwimmer (1837-98; neuropathic dermatosis). For a number of valuable special investigations we are indebted to Tilbury Fox (1836-79; impetigo contagiosa, dermatitis herpetiformis), and on lepra to D.C. Daniellssen (1815-94) and Karl Wilhelm Boeck (1808-75). In recent times we notice an endeavour to define more closely the course of the disease, a movement started by Paul Gerson Unna in Hamburg (b.1850; histodermatology, histotherapy, bacteriology of acne, eczema, impetigo, and favus.

446 Ophthalmology

447 Ophthalmology, as an independent branch, was established in Germany first at Vienna and Göttingen. In Vienna the anatomist Josef Barth (1755-1818) gave ophthalmological lectures as early as 1774, but two of his pupils, Johann Adam Schmidt (1759-1809; studies on iritis xerophthalmus and the lachrymal organs) and Georg Josef Beer (1763-1821; method of extraction of cataract, staphyloma, pannus), were the first to receive special professorships, the former in 1795 at the military academy and the latter at the university. Of Beer's school may be mentioned among others Konrad Johann Martin Langenbeck (1776-1851; ceratonyxis, formation of the pupil, amaurosis, entropium), Karl Friedrich von Grafe (1787-1840; teleangiectasis in the eye), Friedrich Jager (1784-1871; upper cutting of the cornea in the operation for cataract), Johann Nepomuk Fischer (1787-1847; pyaemic inflammation of the eye), and finally the most eminent English ophthalmologist of his time, William Mackenzie (1791-1868; choroiditis, accommodation, asthenopy, scotoma). A contemporary of Beer was Carl Himly of Göttingen (1772-1837; introduction of mydriatics). Among his pupils were Friedrich August von Ammon (1799-1861; iritis) and Christian Georg Theodor Ruete (1810-67), who deserves credit chiefly for the introduction into practice of the speculum oculi. In ltaly the progress of ophthalmology begins with Antonio Scarpa (1747-1832; staphyloma of the cornea). We must also mention Paolo Assalini (1759-1840; extraction of cataract, artificial pupil, Egyptian inflammation of the eye, 1811), Giovanni Battista Quadri, the first professor in Naples (1815) and likewise the professors of the clinics established at Padua and Pavia in 1819, Anton von Rosas (1719-1855), a pupil of Beer, and Franz Flarer, (trichiasis iritis, 1841). In England, besides Mackenzie, John Cunningharn Saunders (1773-1810) of the German school, John Vetch (Egyptian inflammation of the eye, 1807), George James Guthrie (artificial pupil, extraction of cataract, 1818), and William Lawrence (1785-1867), author of a textbook, deserve mention. In North America are George Frick of the Viennese school, author of a textbook (Baltimore, 1823), and Isaac Hays of Philadelphia. More than anywhere else was German influence felt in France, and here we must mention in the first place the pupils of Jager: Viktor Stöber (1803-71), professor at Strasburg, and Julius Sichel of Paris (1802-58; choroiditis, glaucoma, cataract, staphyloma). Besides these we have Carron du Villards, a pupil of Scarpa and author of a textbook (1838), and Desmarres.

448 Helmnholtz, Arlt, and Grafe are regarded as the founders of modern ophthalmology. Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821-94) opened an entirely new field for diagnosis by inventing the speculum oculi in 1851. Just as important is his theory of accommodation and sensation of colours. Ferdinand von Arlt of Vienna (1812-87), an eminent operator (trichiasis symblepharon) and teacher, founder of ophthalmopathology, recognized the true cause of myopia (elongation of the eye-ball) and introduced a chart of letters, later improved by Snellen. Albrecht von Grafe (1828-70) of Berlin, a pupil of Arlt but in many respects outshining his master, is known principally through his work on the connection between brain and blindness, on glaucoma, iridectomy, and linear extraction of the lens. Besides the above-mentioned Donders we must call attention to Alexander Pagenstecher (1827-79; operation for cataract), Eduard Jager von Jaxthal (1818-84; letter chart), Karl Stellwag von Carion (1823-1904; defects of accommodation, innervation of the iris), Julius Jacobson (1828-89; diphtheritis conjunctivae), Otto Becker (1828-90; pathological topography of the eye, lens), Josef Ritter von Hasner (1819-92; forensic injury of the eye), Ludwig Mauthner (1840-94; optical defects of the eye, glaucoma), Albrecht Nagel (1833-95; strychnia in the case of amblyopia), Rudolf Berlin (1833-97; word-blindness), Richard Forster (1825-1902; perimeter, glaucoma, general diseases and maladies of the eye), William Bowman (1816-92; diseases of the lachrymal sac), George Critchett (1817-82; iridodesis), Cornelius Agnew, New York (1830-88; strabismus, paracentesis of the cornea, canthoplastics), the Russian Alexander Ivanoff (1836-80; inflammation of the retina and the optic nerves, glass eye), and Victor Felix Szokalski (1811-91; textbook). The introduction of local anesthesia by means of cocaine in 1884 by Rudolf Koller of Vienna, greatly facilitated operation on the eye.

449 Obstetrics

450 One of the most eminent obstetricians was Lukas Johann Boër of Vienna (1751-1835), who upon the request of the emperor studied in Paris and London from 1785 to 1788. He represented the so-called "waiting method", using instruments as rarely as possible, taught rational dietetics during pregnancy and confinement, and was the first to employ electricity for reviving asphyxiated children. Work of a similar nature was done by his contemporary, Wilhelm Josef Schmitt (1760-1824; forceps operation in the longitudinal position, methods of examination mechanism of parturition). In contradistinction to Boer, Friedrich Benjamin Osiander (1759-1822) represented the most extreme operative tendencies while Adam Elias von Siebold (1775-1828) took a middle course. Mechanism of parturition and pelyeology was treated by Ferdinand Franz August von Ritgen (1787-1867) and Franz Karl von Nagele (1778-1851); physiology of pregnancy by Franz Kiwisch von Rotterau (1814-52) and Johann Christian Gottfried von Jörg (1779-1856). The founder of the modern theory of labour pains is Justus Heinrich Wigand (1769-1817). A new period of development begins in 1847 with James Young Simpson (1811-70) the inventor of the English forceps and cranioclast; he was the first to employ narcosis (first with ether and in the same year also with chloroform) for women in labour, but at present this is done only in case of operations. Of far greater importance is the simultaneous discovery of the cause of puerperal fever (pyaemia) by Ignaz Philipp Semmelweiss of Vienna (1818-65). He introduced the practice of disinfecting hands and instruments with a solution of chloride of lime, and thereby reduced the mortality of lying-in women from 9.92 to 1.27 percent. This most important discovery that external infection causes puerperal fever was used in general practice only at a late period. Propositions similar to those of Semmelweiss had been made as early as 1843 by Oliver Wendell Holmes of Boston, but they were not known in Europe. Important advances in modern times are marked by descriptions of the narrow pelvis by Gustav Adolph Michaelis (1798-1848) and Karl Konrad Theodor Litzmann in 1851, and of the oblique oval pelvis by Litzmann in 1853; artificial premature birth in the case of such a pelvis by Spiegelberg in 1870; the manual removal of the placenta in 1853, and prophylaxis against blemorrhoea of the newly born by Crede in 1884; axial traction forceps by Chassagny in 1861; combined turning by Braxton hicks in 1860-3; the mechanism of delivery by Hofmeier in 1888; pregnancy of the oviduct by Veit in 1884; extra-uterine pregnancy by Werth in 1887; asphyxia of the newborn by Schwartz in 1858 and by Schultze in 1864. The classical Caesarean operation, as previously performed, consisted in opening but leaving in the uterus, whereupon death usually resulted from sepsis. Porro of Pavia in 1875 performed it, therefore, with the subsequent removal of the uterus and ovaries, and thus obtained much more favourable results. With the perfection of antiseptic, or rather aseptic, treatment in modern times, the classical Caesarean operation is being again performed. The total removal of the ovaries (ovariotomy) on account of their degeneration was performed for the first time in 1809 by Ephraim MacDowell at Danville, Kentucky, the technique of the operation being perfected by Hutchinson in 1859, Spencer Wells and Marion Sims in 1873, Freund in 1878, and Czerny in 1879. Total extirpation of the uterus is performed especially in the case of cancer.

451 Surgery

452 Of all the branches of medicine, surgery made the greatest progress, first in France and England, later also in Germany. Side by side with the renowned surgeon-in-chief, of the Napoleonic armies, Jean Dominique Larry (1766-1842), we have, as the most versatile, Guillaume Dupuytren (1777-1835); next to him Philibert Joseph Roux (1780-1854, resections), Jacques Lisfranc (1790-1847; exarticulations), Alfred Armand Louise Marie Velpeau (1795-1868; treatment of hernia by injection of iodine), Jacques Mathurin Delpech (1777-1832; studies about phagedaenas, gangraena nosocomialis tenotomy of the tendo Achillis), Jean Zuléma Amussat (1796-1856; lithotripsy), Auguste Vidal (1803-56, varicocele), Joseph François Malgaigne (1806-65; fractures and dislocations) Auguste Nélaton (1807-73; lithotomy) Edouard Chassaignac (1805-79, écrasement linéaire, drainage), and Charles Gabriel Pravaz (1791-1853; orthopaedia subcutaneous injection). Of English surgeons we must mention the brothers Bell, John (collateral circulation after ligation) and Charles (operative surgery); John Abernethy (1763-1831; ligation); James Syme (1799-1870; exarticulation of the hip joint); the famous surgeon, Astley Patson Cooper (1768-1841; textbook), and William Lawrence (1785-1867). In America we may note the chief surgeon of the War of Independence, John Collins Warren (1753-1815), Philipp Syng Physick (1760-1837; new formations), Willard Parker (1800-84; cystotomy), and Frank Hastings Hamilton (1813-86; fractures and dislocations). Passing to the German surgeons let us mention first of all Vincenz von Kern of Vienna (1760-1829; open treatment of wounds) his successor, Joseph von Wattman (1789-1866; lithotomy), and Franz Schuh (1805-65; new formations, hernia); in Germany Louis Strohmayer (1804-76; myotomy, tenotomy, resections), Johnnn Friedrich Dieffenbach (1794-1847; plastic operations), and Albert Theodor Middeldorpf (1824-68; galvanocautery).

453 A new epoch of progress begins in 1846 with the introduction of narcosis. The discoverer of the narctic effect of ether is the American physician and chemist, Charles Jackson (1805-80), who together with William Morton, made experiments upon his own person. The first narcosis was undertaken in 1846 by Warren, and in the same year in London by Robert Liston. Simpson first employed ether in an obstetric operation in 1847, but soon afterwards introduced into practice chloroform. In modern times a mixture of ether and chloroform is generally used. Besides general narcosis we must also mention local anesthesis (evaporation of ether, injection of cocaine, bromoethyl). Of still greater importance than narcosis was the treatment of wounds with carbolic acid by the Englishman Lister in 1867 (antiseptic treatment of wounds). In the course of time carbolic acid was replaced by other antiseptic method (careful protection of the field of operation against infecting germs). A third achievement of modern times is operating with an artificial absence of blood (operations on the extremities), mentioned for the first time by Friedrich Esmarch in 1873. Narcosis and antiseptics now make possible a series of daring operations, before impossible, with essentially better chances of success. In the recent development of German surgery Bernhard von Langenbeck (1810-87), known especially as a military surgeon, holds a leading position. Of his school we have among others Adolf von Bardeleben (1819-95), author of a textbook, Karl Thiersch, (1822-95; transplantation), Johann Nepomuk von Nussbaum (1829-90; transplantation of bones, extension of nerves), Theodor von Billroth (1829-94; extirpation of the larynx and struma, resection of the pylorus) and Richard von Volkmann (1830-89; surgery of the joints). A very important means of locating foreign bodies (e.g. projectiles), in the human body, and for the examination of fractures is the Röntgen rays discovered by William Karl Röntgen in 1895 (Röntgen photography).

454 Leopold Senfelder.

Medicine and Canon Law

328 In the early centuries the practice of medicine by clerics, whether secular or regular, was not treated with disapproval by the Church, nor was it at all uncommon for them to devote a considerable part of their time to the medical avocation. Abuses, however, arose, and in the twelfth century ecclesiastical canons were framed which became more and more adverse to clerics practising the art of medicine. The "Corpus Juris Canonici" contains a decree prohibiting secular clerics and regulars from attending public lectures at the universities in medicine and law (cap. Nam magnopere, 3, Ne clerici aut monachi). The reason adduced is, lest through such sciences, spiritual men be again plunged into world cares. They were not hereby forbidden to make private studies in medicine or to teach it publicly. The Council of Tours (1163), in issuing a similar prohibition, had especially in view monks who left their cloisters under pretext of attending university lectures, and in this were imitated by secular priests, who thus violated their obligations of residence. This law was extended by Honorius III to all clerics having ecclesiastical dignities. It is not binding, consequently, on the lower clergy, or on those clerics who pursue the sciences only as private studies. The penalty imposed for violation was excommunication ipso facto.

329 As to the practice of medicine by clerics, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) forbade its employment when cutting or burning was involved. In the decree (c. Sententiam 9, Ne cler. vel mon.), it is said: "Let no subdeacon, deacon or priest exercise any art of medicine which involves cutting or burning". This was especially prohibited to regulars (cap. tua nos, 19, De Homicid.), and they are also forbidden to exercise the science of medicine in any form (c. Ad aures, 7, de aet. et qual.). This general prohibition is extended to all clerics, inasmuch as the art of medicine is of its nature secular and, moreover, involves the danger of incurring an irregularity (c. 9, X, V, 12). Canonists, however, generally hold that in case of necessity and where danger to life is not involved, clerics can practise medicine through pity and charity towards the poor, in default of ordinary practitioners. The Sacred Congregations have on several occasions granted permission to priests to make and distribute medical confections, and allowed priests who had formerly been physicians to practise the art, but with the clause "gratis and through love of God towards all and on account of the absence of other physicians". A clause is likewise sometimes added that they may accept recompense if spontaneously offered, but never from the poor. In cases where a cleric had formerly been a physician, he may not practise medicine except through necessity, without obtaining a papal indult, which is generally not granted except for an impelling cause (Bened. XIV, "De Syn. Dioec.", I. 13, c. 10). This has been frequently insisted on in decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. The regulations of some dioceses (e.g. Brixen, 1857) explicitly mention that homoeopathy likewise falls under the prohibition of exercising the medical art. Priests are reminded that it is preferable to study theology and become expert physicians of souls rather than to cure bodies, which is a secular profession. The main reason why clerics should not practice medicine arises form the danger of incurring the irregularity which is caused by accidental homicide or mutilation. Even accidental homicide induces irregularity if the perpetrator be at fault. The decretals give certain rules to determine whether such action is culpable. Thus, if a person in the performance of a licit act does not employ proper diligence and as a consequence the death or mutilation of the patient ensues, he becomes irregular if he could have foreseen the gravity of his act and if his want of diligence was gravely culpable. Again, if a person performs an illicit act from which the death of another follows, he becomes irregular even though he employed all diligence in averting a fatal result, provided there was a natural connection between the illicit act and the danger of death, so that the act was both illicit and imputable. It is to be noted that, according to this first rule, all physicians and surgeons contact irregularity for possible future sacred orders if any of their patients die through want of proper diligence or of due study of the art of medicine on the part of the physician. Hence, Benedict XIV (De Syn. Dioec., I. 13, c. 10) declares that in general when physicians wish to enter the clerical state, a dispensation should be obtained ad cautelam, as they can never certainly know that they have always used all the means prescribed by medical science in behalf of those patients who died under their treatment. According to the second decretal rule, all are irregular who practise medicine or surgery rashly, through want of proper knowledge and experience, if they thus cause the death of another. Particularly as regards clerics, this irregularity is declared to be incurred by regulars who have received tonsure and by seculars in sacred orders who practise medicine in a forbidden manner, with burning and cutting, and thereby bring about a fatal result. Irregularity is also contracted by mutilation, which consists in the severing of any principal member of the body, that is, one having a distinct and peculiar function. Even those who mutilate themselves, even it if be done through indiscreet zeal, incur canonical irregularity. As regards physicians and surgeons who are not clerics, they incur no irregularity for counselling or performing mutilation, because the canonical "defect of mildness" (see IRREGULARITY) does not apply to them. Should they afterwards wish to receive sacred orders, they should be dispensed ad cautelam.

330 The ecclesiatical canons contain many and various prescriptions concerning lay physicians, which are enumerated at length by Ferraris (op. cit. infra). Thus physicians are warned that they must endeavour to persuade their patients to make sacramental confession of their sins (cap. Cum Infirmitas, 13, depoenit.). St. Pius V decreed that no physician should receive the doctorate unless he took oath not to visit a sick person longer than three days without calling a confessor, unless there was some reasonable excuse. If he violated this oath, he fell under excommunication. Canonist and moralists (among them St. Alphonsus Liguori), however, declare that this is not binding in places where it never became an established usage. They also teach that even where it had been received, it applied only to cases of mortal sickness, or where there was danger that it might become mortal and that it sufficed for the physician to give this warning by means of a third party. The canons also declare that when a physician is paid by the public community, he is bound to treat ecclesiastics gratis, though the bishop may allow them to make voluntary contributions. Likewise, the precept of charity binds medical practitioners to give their services to the poor free of charge. Physicians who prescribe remedies involving infractions of the Decalogue, are themselves guilty of grave sin. This is also the case if they experiment on a sick person with unknown medicines, unless all hope has been given up and there is at least a possibility of doing them good. Physicians are to be reminded that they have no dispensing power concerning the fast and abstinence prescribed by the Church. They may however give their prudent judgment as to whether a sick person, owing to grave danger or inconvenience to his health, is obliged by the ecclesiastical precept. They are warned that, if they declare unnecessarily that a person is not obliged to fast, they themselves commit grave sin. They also sin mortally if the attempt, without being forced bynecessity, to cure a serious illness, when they are aware that through their own culpable ignorance or inexperience, they may be the cause of grave harm to the patient. Physicians who are assigned to the care of convents of nuns should be not less than fifty years of age, and younger practitioners are not to be employed unless those of the prescribed age are not obtainable. When they have the ordinary care of nuns, they are to have general license to enter the cloister, even at night in cases of great urgency. They are not, however, to be alone with the patient. Physicians who are not ordinary require special faculties to enter the cloister.

331 Regulars living in missionary countries have the privilege, especially by the Bull of Clement XII, "Cum Sicut", of practising medicine. To make use of this privilege, however, they must be skilled in the art of medicine and prescribe their remedies gratuitously. They must also abstain from cutting and burning (citra sectionem et adustionem). It is required, however, that regular missionaries abstain from medical practice where there is a sufficient number of proper physicians. Regulars who according to their institute have care of hospitals may not exercise the art of medicine outside of their own institutions. Indults for clerics to engage in medical practice are not ordinarily conceded until the bishop's testimony concerning the medical skill of the applicant and the want of lay practitioners has been considered. The religious superior of the regular in question must also add his testimonial concerning the moral qualities of the candidate. An indult to practice surgery is much more difficult to obtain than one for practising medicine, and it is granted only when there is no other local surgeon.

332 AICHNER, Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); FERRARIS, Bibliothcca Canonica (Rome, 1889), s. v. Clericus and Medicus.

333 William H.W. Fanning

Bartholomew Medina

331 Dominican theologian, b. at Medina, 1527; d. at Salamanca, 1581. With Dominico Soto, Melchior Canus, and Dominico Bañez he studied theology at the University of Salamanca under the celebrated professor Francis Vittoria. His life was devoted almost entirely to teaching theology at Salamanca, first in the chair of Durandus, afterwards as principal professor. He was appointed to the "cathedra primaria" after a successful concursus, in public, against the learned Augustinian, John of Guevara. Although he was well versed in Greek and Hebrew, he loved theology more, and all his writings preserved are theological, being principally commentaries on the Summa of St. Thomas. He is usually called the Father of Probabilism. Writers are divided as to his teaching on this important question of moral theology. Some hold that he did not introduce, but merely formulated, Probabilism when he wrote: "It seems to me that if an opinion is probable, it may be followed, even though the opposite opinion be more probable" (I-II, q. xix, a. 6). Others say he proposed that principle in the abstract (speculative), restricting it in practice so that there was no departure from rules of conduct formerly followed. Others still, e.g. Echard, followed by Billuart, maintain that the system proposed by Medina differed greatly from Probabilism as it has been explained by its later defenders, and they cite its definition: "that opinion is probable which is held by wise men and is supported by first-class arguments". Hurter (Nomencl.) writes: "He seems to have led the way to Probabilism". Echard admits, with Vincent Baron, O.P., that Medina opened the way for a flood of probabilistic theories, and closes with the declaration: St. Thomas is our Master, others only in so far as they follow his teaching. Probabiliorists are unwilling to admit that Medina is against them; probabilists are loath to admit that he proposed a new doctrine, or do not wish to give to him all the credit of introducing a new system for forming the conscience in doubtful cases. The following is a list of his most important works: "Commentaria in primam secundae" (Salamanca, 1577); "Commentaria in tertiam partem, a Q. I ad 60" (Salamanca, 1584); "Breve instruction de comme se ha administrar el sacramento de la penitencia" (Salamanca, 1580).

332 QUETIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 256; BOISDRON, Theories et systemes des probabitites en theologie morale (Fribourg, 1894), 6.

333 D.J. Kennedy

Juan de Medina

334 Theologian; born 1490; died 1547; he occupied the first rank among the theologians of the sixteenth century. He was born at Medina de Pomar in the Province of Burgos, and not at Alcala as some writers state. Very little has been written about his life though he is repeatedly quoted and praised by several theologians of his time. He entered the College of St. Ildefonsus at Alcalá, 20 May, 1516, took doctor's degrees in philosophy and theology, and soon after was made canon and master of theology at the university. He was selected as primary professor of theology in the College of St. Ildefonsus in succession to Michael Carasco, whom Cardinal Ximenes wished to be made perpetual Rector of the College: "Ximenes perpetuum rectorem esse voluerit". From about 1526 and for the space of twenty years, Medina filled his position with the greatest distinction. Alvarez Gomez says that Medina had a wonderful power of presenting the most intricate questions in a simple and clear style so that his pupils had no difficulty in understanding him - "nihil esset tam perplexum aut obscurum quod vel tardissimus non assequeretur". His love of study impaired his health he died at the age of fifty-seven years. Medina's works are principally on moral theology and ethics. Some of his opinions were not in accordance with the doctrine propounded at the Council of Trent. The "Diccionario Enciclop. Hispano Americano" says that his treatise "de Poenitientia" was put on the Index published in 1707; the edition of the Index printed in 1711 does not give Medina's work, nor does any of the subsequent editions. The Council of Trent declares that at the hour of death there is no "reservatio" and that all priests can absolve "in articulo mortis". Medina says "that absolution given by an excommunicated priest is invalid"; and again, "at a time of necessity (arliculo necessitatis) any priest, not suspended or excommunicated can absolve any person". His opinions on the "materia" for sacramental absolution, and on the "Copia confessariorum" seem opposed to the teaching of the council on these points. Alvarez Gomez and Andrea Schott state that Media was buried in the church of St. Ildefonsus. The first lines of the epitaph on his tomb are:

335 > Complutense decus jacet hic, attente viator

336 > Ter tumultum lustra, ter pia thura crema

337 > Hoc moriente silet vox, qua non clarior unquam

338 > Compluti fulsit, nec fuit illa.

339 Many editions of Medina's works were printed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. His brother John de Medina brought out the theological books at Alcala in 1544 and sqq.; Salamanca, 1555; Ingoldstadt, 1581; Brescia, 1590–1606; Cologne, 1607 etc.

340 Gregory Cleary

Miguel de Medina

337 Theologian, born at Belalcazar, Spain, 1489; died at Toledo, May, 1578. He entered the Franciscan order in the convent of S. Maria de Angelis at Hornachuelos, in the Sierra Morena. After his profession he went to the college of SS. Peter and Paul at Alcalá. He received the doctor's degree from the city of Toledo; and in 1550 he was unanimously elected to the chair of Holy Scripture in the University of Alcalá. In 1560 Philip II sent him to the Council of Trent; on his return he became superior of St. John's of the Kings at Toledo. In 1553 the "Commentaries" of John Ferus were published in Rome after a strict examination. Dominicus a Soto published at Salamanca a work censuring Ferus's commentaries, selecting sixty-seven passages as deserving censure, and dedicated them to Valdés, Archbishop of Seville. Medina took up the defence of Ferus, which was published at Alcalá (1567, 1578), and Mainz (1572). This literary controversy — for no doubts were entertained of the orthodoxy of Medina —agitated the Spanish people. A process was instituted against Medina in the tribunal of the Inquisition at Toledo. He was cast in prison, where for more than five years he was subjected to great suffering and privations. His temporal afflictions and the rigour of his life brought on a severe illness and the inquisitor-general gave orders that Modina was to be conveyed to the Convent of St.John's of the Kings, where everything possible was to be done to preserve his life. Before the Blessed Sacrament, he made his profession of faith, calling God to witness that he never believed anything or taught anything opposed to the doctrines of the Church "the pillar and the ground of truth". His last words were: "In te Domine speravi non confundar in aeternum"

338 Soon after his death, the supreme tribunal of the Inquisition issued a decree declaring that the accusations brought against Medina were without foundation. His principal works are: "Christianae paraenesis sive de recta in Deum fide libri septem" (Venice, 1564); "Disputationes de indulgentiis adversus nostri temporis haereticos ad PP. s. Concilii Trident." (Venice, 1564); "De sacrorum hominum continentia libri V" (Venice, 1569j, written against those who advocated the necessity of permitting the German priests to follow the example of the Greeks in this matter; "De igne purgatorio" (Venice, 1569), "De la verdadera y cristiana humilidad" (Toledo, 1559).

339 Gregory Cleary

Francisco Medrano

340 A Spanish lyric poet, b. in Seville, not to be confounded with Sebastian Francisco de Medrano who was also a poet and lived at about the same time. The dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he lived during the latter part of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries. Little is known of his life except that he visited Rome. His works were published at Palermo (1617) as an appendix to the imitation of Ovid's "De Remedio Amoris" by Pedro Venegas, a poet of Seville. According to the Spanish critic Adolfo de Castro, Medrano is the best of the Spanish imitators of Horace, comparing favourably in that respect with Fray Luis de Léon. Endowed with literary taste, he writes in good Spanish, and his style is free from the gongorism of his time. Among the odes of Medrano, his "La profecia del Tajo" is very similar to one of Fray Luis de Léon of the same title. Although both are based upon Horace's ode to Mark Antony in which he would separate him and Cleopatra, there is a great difference between them. Léon's ode departs from the original of Horace, while Medrano's is an imitation of the latter so close as to amount almost to a translation. The poems of Medrano are reprinted in "La Biblioteca de Autores Españoles".

341 Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, vols. XXXII, XXXV, and XLII (Madrid, 1848-86).

342 Ventura Fuentes.

Andreas Medulic

343 A Croatian painter and engraver, called by Italian authors Medola, Medula, Schiavone, Schiaon, etc., b. at Sibenik, Dalmatia, 1522; d. at Venice 1582. The son of poor parents, Andreas was accustomed, while still a boy, to study closely the pictures and woodwork on the walls of the churches and public buildings of his native town, and, on his return home, to sketch on paper all that he had seen. So tireless was his devotion to his drawing that his father took him to Venice, and there entrusted him to his godfather, Rocco, a painter of very little merit. Under Rocco Medulic, first as apprentice and then as salaried assistant, compelled to work from early morning till evening to procure bare nourishment and clothing, strove to perfect himself in his art. He began by studying and copying the works of the then renowned painter, Francesco Mazzuola (known as Parmigiano), and the paintings of Titian. From these celebrated painters Medulic learned that grace and delicate lightness of touch, that animation of colour, which constitute the pre-eminent characteristics of his own pictures. While still young in years, chance procured for him the acquaintance of Pietro Aretino, commonly known as the "Divine" and the "scourge of princes" (Flagellum principum), from whom Medulic received always a most friendly reception and much valuable instruction. About this time Medulic began to copy the engravings of Parmigiano, the first to execute pictures on copper with nitric acid. J. Paolo Lomazzo, contemporary painter and writer, states that Parmigiano was Medulic's instructor in this branch. Medulic, however, was no mere imitator; the individual character of his painting gave rise to a special school in Venice, the "Scuola di Schiavone".

344 Tintoretto was not ashamed to work with the needy youth, to assist him, and even to study his beautiful style of colouring, recommending in writing all painters to study colour from Medulic's pictures, adding every painter is blameworthy, who does not possess at least one picture of Medulic's in his studio". Among those who occasionally purchased his pictures and greatly prized them, was Titian himself who when commissioned by the Venetian Government to choose the best painters in Venice to decorate with mural paintings the public library of St. Mark, included Medulic's name with those of Tintoretto, Paul Veronese, Battista Zelotti, Giuseppe Salviati, and Battista Franco. Medulic retained throughtout life great veneration for Titian and is indeed proclaimed by many authors (Filibeau, Rahmdor, Nagler) his most celebrated imitator. For the Ruzzini family in Venice, Medulic painted the "Baptism of Jesus", but the subdued colouring cannot bear comparison with his other artistic achievements. For the Pellegrini he painted: "Jesus at Emmaus with Luke and Cleophas", for colour one of the greatest masterpieces of the Venetian school; "Pilate Washing his Hands", an equally typical example of Medulic's style; "Madonna with Child in the Desert, with St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist". For the Gussoni he painted "St. Cecilia Playing the Organ" (half length), with two attendant angels, and "Madonna Presenting her Son to Holy Simeon". In the house of the Priuli in the Via San Salvadore, Medulic painted in fresco some scenes from the life of St. John; for the Foscarini the "Descent of the Holy Ghost". A great number of works, now scattered throughout the world, were painted for the churches of Venice and other cities and for individual collections. On 22 May, 1563, the judges appointed from among the celebrated painters of were Titian, Jacob of Pistoia, Andreas Medulic, Paul Veronese, and Tintoretto. Medulic also worked with nitric acid on copper, and, according to some authorities, was the first to engrave with a dry needle. His etchings are highly for their elegance, beauty, and vigour; among his best works of this class may be mentioned, "Moses Saved by Pharaoh's Daughter", "Abduction of the Trojan Helen", "Sts. Peter and Paul", "Curing of the Lame Man", (after Raphael). Medulic died in poverty, leaving scarcely sufficient to pay for his interment in the church of St. Luke at Venice. The following works must be placed in the same rank as the pictures of Titian himself "The Last Supper" in the Berghese Palace, Rome; "Madonna and Child, with Sts. Francis and Jerome" in the Royal Academy of Arts, Venice; "Jesus Bound Between a Malefactor and Two Soldiers" at Paris; "Pilate Washing his Hands" in the Royal Academy, Venice.

345 CAODRY, Description of the Pictures at the Earl of Pembroke's House at Wilton (London, 1751); PILKINGTON, The Gentleman's and Connoisseurs Dictionary of Painters (London, 1798); FOREL, Etchings after Drawings and Engravings by Parmegianino and Meldolla (London, 1822); BASAN, Dictionnaire des graveurs anciens et modernes (Paris, 1767); BRULLIOT, Dictionnaire de Monogrammes, etc. (Munich, 1832); HIRSCHING, Nachrichten von sehenswurdigen Gemalden und Kupferstisammlugen in Deutschland (Erlangen, 1786); NAGLER, Neues allgemeines Kunstlerlexikon (Munich, 1835-52); KUKULJEVIC, Andreas Medulic Schiavone (Zagrab, 1863); PEZZOLI, Eligio di Andrea Schiavone (Venice, 1840).

346 Anthony-Lawrence Gancević.

Charles Patrick Meehan

346 Irish historical writer and translator, b. in Dublin, 12 July, 1812; d. there 14 March 1890. His parents, natives of Ballymahon Co., Longford, where his ancestors for thirteen centuries were custodians of the Shrine of St. Molaise, now one of the most famous relics in the royal Irish Academy, Dublin, sent him to the Irish College, Rome, to study for the priesthood. Ordained priest in 1834, he returned to Ireland, then in enjoyment of five years of Catholic Emancipation. His first mission was the rural parish of Rathdrum in Wicklow, from which he was soon transferred to the metropolitan parish of Sts. Michael and John, where he remained until his death. While working zealously in the ministry, he was untiring in historical research. From materials gathered while in Wicklow, he compiled a "History of the O'Tooles, Lords Powerscourt", published without his name and long out of print. His other works, with date of publication, are: "History of the Confederation of Kilkenny" (1846); "The Geraldines, their Rise, Increase and Ruin" (1847); translation of Manzoni's "La Monaca di Monza" (1848), out of print; "Portrait of a Christian Bishop, Life and Death of the Most Rev. Francis Kirwan, Bishop of Killala, translated from the Latin of Archdeacon John Lynch" (1848); "Lives of the most eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, of the Order of St. Dominic, translated from the Italian of Vincenzo Marchese" (1852), out of print; "Fate and Fortunes of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell" (1868); "Rise and Fall of the Irish Franciscan Monasteries and Memoirs of the Irish Hierarchy in the Seventeenth Century" (1870). These works, all published in Dublin, have earned renown, and, except those marked out of print, have gone through numerous revised editions. Father Meehan wrote "Tales for the Young", and translated others which he named "Flowers from Foreign Fields". He edited Davis's "Essays" (1883), Mangan's "Essays and Poems" (1884), and Madden's "Literary Remains of the United Irishmen" (1887). He also wrote some graceful verse, which is to be found in various anthologies.

347 SILLARD in Catholic World (Sept., 1890).

348 Peter A. Sillard.

Megara

349 A titular see, suffragan to Corinth, in Achaia. The city, which was built on an arid strip of land between two rocks, had two ports, on the Savonic Gulf and the Gulf of Corinth respectively. In the eighth and seventh centuries, B.C., Megara became the metropolis of flourishing colonies, the chief of which were Megara Hyblaea, and Selinus, in Sicily, Selymbria, Chalcedon, Astakos, Byzantium, and the Pontic Heraclea. The exclusion of Megara from the Attic market by Pericles, in 432, was one cause of the Peloponnesian War. The Megarian territory, already very poor, was then ravaged year after year, and in 427 Nicias even established a permanent post in the island of Minoa over against Nisea. Shortly before this Megara had become the birthplace of the Sophist, Eucleides, a disciple of Socrates, who, about the year 400 B.C., founded the philosophic school of Megara, chiefly famous for the cultivation of dialectic. It subsequently shared the political vicissitudes of the other Greek cities. About the end of the fifth century after Christ, under the Emperor Anastasius I, its fortifications were restored. The names of some early Greek bishops of Megara are given in Le Quien, "Oriens Christianus", II, 205. In the "Notitia episcopatuum" of Leo the Wise (c. 900), the earliest authority of the kind for this region, the name of Megara does not appear. Numerous Latin bishops in the Middle Ages are mentioned in Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii aevi", I, 348; II, 208. Megara is now a town of 6500 inhabitants, the capital of a deme of the same name. On Easter Sunday the women there perform an antique dance which people come from Athens to see. Not a vestige remains of the temples which Pausanias described. Efforts are made to locate the acropoles of Minoa and Nisea on various little eminences along the coast.

350 REINGANUM, Dasalte Megaris (Berlin, 1825); LEAKE, Northern Greece, II, 388; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., II, 310-17.

351 S. VAILHÉ

Megarians

352 The Megarian School is one of the imperfectly Socratic Schools, so called because they developed in a one-sided way the doctrines of Socrates. The Megarians, of whom the chief representatives were Euclid, the founder of the school, and Stilpo, flourished at Athens, during the first half of the fourth century B.C. Borrowing from the Eleatics, especially from Parmenides, the doctrine that there is no change or multiplicity in the world, they combined this principle with the Socratic teaching that knowledge by means of concepts is the only true knowledge. It follows from this that the only reality is the unchangeable essential nature, that the world of our sense experience is an illusion, and that there is nothing possible except what actually exists. The affirmation of the existence of "bodiless forms", which seems to have been the Megarian designation for the unchangeable essential natures of things, is the school's most important contribution to speculative thought. Its analogy with the Platonic doctrine of ideas is evident. In the practical portion of their teaching the Megarians emphasized the supremacy of the notion of goodness. Knowledge, Socrates taught, is the only virtue; it is identical with moral excellence. The highest object of knowledge is the highest good. But, as the Eleatics taught, the highest object of knowledge is the highest reality, being. Therefore, the Megarians conclude, the highest good and the highest reality are one and the same. Whatever Parmenides predicated of being, namely oneness, immutability, etc., may be predicated of the good also. The good is insight, reason, God; it alone exists. In order to defend these tenets, which to the popular mind seemed not only untrue but absurd, the Megarians developed to a high degree the art of disputation. This art (the eristic method, or method of strife, as it was called in contradistinction to the heuristic method, or method of finding, advocated by Socrates), was introduced into philosophy by the Eleatic, Zeno, surnamed the Dialectician. It was adopted by the Megarian School, and carried by the followers of Euclid to a point where it ceased to serve any useful or even serious purpose. To Euclid himself we owe the use of the method of argumentation known as the reductio ad absurdum, which consists in attacking, not the premises, but the conclusion, of the opponent's argument and showing the absurd consequences which follow if his contention is admitted. This method, however, was germinally contained in Zeno's procedure by which, in a series of specious fallacies he had striven to show that motion, change, and multiplicity are illusions.

353 William Turner

Antoine-Joseph Mège

355 A Maurist Benedictine, born in 1625 at Clermont; died 15 April, 1691, at the monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés near Paris. On 17 March, 1643, he became a Benedictine at the monastery of Vendome. In 1659 he taught theology at the Abbey of St. Denis and afterwards devoted himself to preaching. In 1681 he was made prior of the monastery at Rethel in Champagne. Towards the end of his life he withdrew to St. Germain-des-Prés, where he divided his time between prayer and study. His most important literary production is "Commentaire sur la règle de S. Benoît" and a manuscript history of the congregation of St. Maur from 1610 till 1653 (Paris, 1687). This commentary is an attack upon the rigoristic interpretation of the rule by Abbot Rancé of La Trappe, and was forbidden in 1689 by a chapter of the Maurist superiors at the instance of Bossuet. His other works are a translation of St. Ambrose's treatise "On Virginity" (Paris, 1655), "La Morale chrétienne" (Paris, 1661) a few ascetical writings and translations.

356 Michael Ott

Mehrerau

358 Formerly a Benedictine, now a Cistercian Abbey, is situated on Lake Constance, west of Bregenz, in the district of Vorarlberg, Austria. The original monastery was founded by St. Columbanus who, driven from Luxeuil, settled about 611 at this spot and built a monastery after the model of Luxeuil. A convent for women soon arose near the monastery for men. Little has been preserved of the early history of either foundation up to 1079. In this year the monastery was reformed by the monk Gottfried, sent by Abbot William of Hirsau, and the Benedictine rule was introduced. It is probable that when the reform was effected the convent for women was suppressed. In 1097-98 the abbey was rebuilt by Count Ulrich of Bregenz, its secular administrator and protector. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the abbey acquired much landed property; up to the middle of the sixteenth century it had the right of patronage for sixty-five parishes. In the era of the Reformation the abbey was a strong support of the old Faith in Vorarlberg. In particular Ulrich Mötz, afterwards abbot, exerted much influence in Bregenzerwald (a mountainous district of northern Vorarlberg) by preaching with great energy against the spread of religious innovations while he was provost of Lingenau (1515-33). During the Thirty Years War the abbey suffered from the devastation wrought by the Swedes, from the quartering upon it of soldiers, and from forced contributions; it was also robbed of nearly all its revenues. Nevertheless, it often offered a free refuge to religious expelled from Germany and Switzerland. At a later date it was once more in a very flourishing condition; in 1738 the church was completely rebuilt, and in 1774-81 the monastic buildings were also entirely reconstructed. The existence of Mehrerau was threatened, as was that of other religious foundations, by the attacks upon monasteries in the reign of the Emperor Joseph II. However, Abbot Benedict was able to obtain the withdrawal of the decree of suppression, although it had already been signed. The Peace of Presburg (1805) gave Vorarlberg, and with it the abbey, to Bavaria, which in April, 1806, took an inventory of the abbey. In reply to the last attempt to save the abbey, namely the offer to turn it into a training-school for male teachers, the State declared in August, 1806, that on 1 September the monastic organization would be dissolved and the monks would have to leave the abbey. The valuable library was scattered, part of it was burnt. The forest and agricultural lands belonging to the monastery were taken by the State; in February, 1807, the church was closed, and the other buildings were sold at auction. In 1808-09 the church was taken down and the material used to build the harbour of Landau. When the district came again under the rule of Austria, the monastic buildings were used for various purposes. In 1853 they were bought from the last owner, along with some pieces of land connected with them, by the abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Wettingen in Switzerland. This monastery had been forcibly suppressed by the Canton of Aargau in 1841, and for thirteen years the abbot had been seeking a new home; on 18 October, 1854, the Cistercian Abbey of Wettingen-Mehrerau was formally opened. In the same year a monastery school was started. In 1859 a new Romanesque church was built; its greatest ornament is the monument to Cardinal Hergenröther (died 1890), who is buried there. About the middle of the last century, during the fifties and sixties, the buildings were gradually enlarged. In 1910 besides the abbot (from 1902 Eugene Notz) the abbey had 32 priests; including those that had been connected with the abbey but were at that date engaged in work outside, 64 priests; in addition there were 5 clerics, 30 lay brothers, and 4 novices. The monastery has a house of studies, and a college, in which some 200 pupils are taught by the monks of the abbey. The periodical "Cistercienserchronik", edited by Father Gregor Müller, has been issued since 1889.

359 BERGMANN, Nekrologium Augiœ majoris Brigantinœ Ord. S. Benedicti (Vienna, 1853); BRUNNER, Ein Benediktinerbuch (Würzburg, 1880), 10-18; IDEM, Ein Cistercienserbuch (Würzburg, 1881), 453-97, gives an account of Wettingen-Mehrerau; Cistercienserchronik (1904), 289-313; LINDNER, Album Augiœ Brigantinœ (1904); Schematismus von Brixen (1910).

360 Joseph Lins

Guillaume-René Meignan

361 Cardinal Archbishop of Tours, French apologist and Scriptural exegete, b. at Chauvigné, France, 12 April, 1817; d. at Tours, 20 January 1896. Having ascertained his vocation to the priesthood, on the completion of his academic studies at the Angers lycée and at Château-Gontier, he studied philosophy in the seminary of Le Mans, where he received the subdiaconate in 1839. From this institution he passed to the Collège de Tessé, which belonged to the Diocese of Le Mans, where, while teaching in one of the middle grades, he continued his own ecclesiastical studies. All through his career he seems to have been blessed with the friendship and sympathetic counsel of the most eminent men among the Catholics of his time and country. The Abbé Bercy, an Orientalist of some distinction, whose notice he attracted at Le Mans and later at Tessé, advised him to make scriptural exegis his special study. Mgr Bouvier ordained him priest (14 June, 1840) and sent him to Paris for a further course in philosophy under Victor Cousin. Meignan made the acquaintance of Ozanam, Montalembert, and others like them, who urged him to prepare for the special controversial needs of the day by continuing his studies in Germany. Following this advice, he became the pupil at Munich of such teachers as Görres, Döllinger, and Windschmann; and when his earlier attraction for Scriptural studies was thoroughly reawakened under the stimulus of the then fresh Tubingen discussions, he repaired to Berlin where he attended the lectures of Neander, Hengstenberg, and Schelling. In, or soon after May, 1843, Meignan returned to Paris to be numbered among the clergy of the archdiocese, but was soon (1845) obliged to visit Rome for the good of his health, which had become impaired. He seemed to recover immediately, and was able to prosecute his sacred studies so successfully that he won a Doctorate of Theology at the Sapienza (March, 1846). Here again he was helped by the friendly interest and advice of many eminent men, of Perrone and Gerbet, as well as by the teaching of Passaglia, Patrizzi, and Theiner. Between this period and 1861, when he became professor of Sacred Scripture at the Sorbonne, he filled various academical positions in the Archdiocese of Paris, of which Mgr Darboy made him vicar-general in 1863. In 1864 he was elevated to the Bishopric of Châlons, in 1882 transferred to the See of Arras, and in 1884 to the Archbishopric of Tours.

362 By the logic of circumstances he was one of the chief antagonists of Ernest Renan. In his work he aimed to enlighten the lay mind on current topics of controversy and, while giving a knowledge of the assured results of criticism, to supply his readers with the Christian point of view. His aggressive and triumphant career as an apologist began as early as 1856 with the publication of "Les prophéties messianiques. Le Pentateuque" (Paris). In 1860 appeared "M. Renan réfuté par les rationalistes allemands" (Paris) and "Les Evangiles et la critique au XIXe siècle" (Paris); in 1886 "De l'irréligion systématique, ses influences actuelles" (Paris); in 1890 "Salomon, son règne, ses écrits" (Paris); in 1892 "Les prophètes d'Israël et le Messie, depuis Daniel jusqu'à Jean-Baptiste" (Paris). He wrote many other works on kindred topics. His treatment of Messianic prophecy extends far beyond mere verbal exegis, and includes a critical examination of historical events and conditions. Like other great Catholic controversialists of his time, he had to suffer adverse criticism; these criticisms were finally answered by the action of Leo XIII, who raised him to the cardinalate, 15 Dec., 1892.

363 BOISSONNOT, Le cardinal Meignan (Paris, 1899).

364 E. Macpherson.

Jean-Baptiste Meilleur

364 French Canadian physician and educator, b. at St. Laurent, P.Q., 9 May, 1796; d. 7 Dec., 1878. He studied the classics at the Sulpician college of Montreal, philosophy at Middlebury, N.H., and medicine at Castletown, Vt. He was one of the founders of the flourishing college of L'Assomption, P.Q. In 1834 he edited "L'Echo du pays" and was returned the same year to the Lower Canadian Parliament. He was the first superintendent of education for that province, an office which he held from 1842 to 1855. He assumed the arduous task of enforcing the educational law framed by the Act of Union of the two Canadas (1841), a law which, owing to prejudice and to undue political influence, was highly unpopular. Meilleur thoroughly organized the Department of Education, and witnessed, before retiring from office, the remarkable progress achieved by education, both primary and classical, thanks, in a great measure, to the generous and devoted co-operation of the clergy. Besides contributing to different periodicals, articles on education, agriculture, botany, and geology, and on medicine to the "Journal de médecine", he wrote textbooks on French and English grammar and correspondence, and on chemistry. His chief work is "Mémorial de l'Education" (1860), a history of education in Canada. He died the very day on which he was publicly to receive the insignia of Officer of Public Instruction of France.

365 MORGAN, Bibliotheca canadensis (Ottawa, 1867); CHAUVEAU, L'Instruction publique du Canada (Quebec, 1876); Le Courrier du Canada (Quebec, 1878).

366 Lionel Lindsay

Bl. Meinwerk

367 Tenth Bishop of Paderborn, d. 1036: Meinwerk (Meginwerk) was born of the noble family of the Immedinger and related to the royal house of Saxony. His father was Imad (Immeth), Count of Teisterbant and Radichen, and his mother's name was Adela (Adala, Athela). In early youth he was dedicated by his parents to serve God in the priesthood. He began his secular and ecclesiastical studies at the church of St. Stephen in Halberstadt and finished them at the cathedral school of Hildesheim, where he had as schoolmate St. Bernward of Hildesheim and probably the later Emperor Henry II. After his ordination he became a canon at Halberstadt, then chaplain at the Court of Otto III. Henry II, who greatly esteemed him, named him Bishop of Paderborn, for the express purpose of raising the financial condition of the impoverished church. He was consecrated at Goslar, 13 March, 1009, by Archbishop Willigis of Mainz. For twenty-seven years he laboured with restless energy and zeal, and deserves the title of second founder of the diocese. His cathedral and a large portion of Paderborn had been destroyed by a conflagration in 1000; he rebuilt the cathedral on a much grander scale and consecrated it on 15 Sept., 1015. He employed Greek workmen to build the chapel of St. Bartholomew, which was considered a work of art. In 1031 he founded the Abbey of Abdinghof, for which he obtained thirteen Benedictine monks from the Abbey of Cluny. Between the years 1033 - 36, he established the collegiate church for canons-regular at Bussdorf. He built an episcopal palace and new walls for the city. He divided his diocese into parishes, caused the erection of many churches and chapels, held frequent visitations, insisted on a clerical life among his priests, observance of rules in the monasteries, and was much interested, not only in the spiritual welfare of his subjects, but also in their temporal well-being, for which he introduced improved methods in agriculture, etc. According to his biography his own education was not of a high grade, but he did much for the spread of knowledge; he called in noted teachers of mathematics, astronomy, and of other sciences and put his cathedral school into a flourishing condition, which it retained for many years after his death, many prominent men receiving their education in it, among others, Altmann of Passau, Anno of Cologne, Frederic of Munster, and others. To defray the expenses of his buildings and charitable works, he made use of church festivals, social gatherings, and other occasions to call upon the generosity of kings and princes, of the rich and noble, of the clergy and of the laity, frequently importuned the emperor himself, relying upon his friendship and often appealing to his own labours for the state; but he also very liberally used his personal means for the benefit of the Church. Towards his subjects Meinwerk was frequently harsh, but kind at heart, and, if any serious offence had been given, he would conciliate the party by presents. Twice he made a journey to Rome, the first time in 1014, to assist at the coronation of Henry II, then, in 1026, as companion of Otto III. On this trip he received from Wolfgang, Patriarch of Aquileia, the body of St. FeIix for Abdinghof. Similarly he obtained for his diocese, entirely or in part, the relics of Sts. Valerian, Minias, Philip, Juvenal, and of the great martyr-bishop Blasius. His body was buried, according to his wish, in the crypt of the church of Abdinghof. Abbot Conrad von Allenhause raised the relics and 25 April, 1376, placed them in a beautiful monument in the sanctuary. This has been considered equal to a canonization, but his feast is not in the Proprium of Paderborn of 1884, nor does the schema of the diocese for 1909 show any church, chapel, or altar dedicated to his name. On the secularization of Abdinghof, 1803, the remains were brought to the church of Bussdorf. The "Vita," (Mon. Germ. SS., XI, 104), written anonymously by a monk of Abdinghof, soon after 1150, is a history, not a legend, though somewhat ornamented by legendary additions. (Giesebrecht, "Deutsche Kaiserzeit", II, 578.)

368 Acta SS., June, I,.500; STADLER, Heiligenlex.; WATTENBACH, Deutsche Geschichtsquellen, II, 27, 30; EBELING, Die deutschen Bischofe, II (Leipzig, 1858), 346.

369 Francis Mershman

Meissen

370 A former see of north-east Germany. The present city of Meissen, situated in the Kingdom of Saxony on both banks of the Elbe, owes its origin to a castle built by King Henry I about 928 to protect German colonists among the Wends. To insure the success of the Christian missions, Otto I suggested at the Roman Synod of 962 the creation of an archiepiscopal see at Magdeburg. To this proposal John XII consented, and, shortly before the execution of the plan in 968, it was decided at the Synod of Ravenna (967) to create three other sees - namely Meissen, Mersburg, and Zeitz - as suffragans of Magdeburg. The year in which the Diocese of Meissen was established is not known, the oldest extant records being forgeries; however, the record of endowment by Otto I in 971 is genuine. The first bishop, Burchard (died 969), established a foundation (monasterium) which in the course of the eleventh century developed a chapter of canons. In 1346 the diocese stretched from the Erzgebirge in the south to the mouth of the Neisse and to the Queis, on the east to the Oder, on the north to the middle course of the Spree. It embraced the five provostries of Meissen, Riesa, Wurzen, Grossenhain, and Bautzen, the four archdeaneries of Nisani (Meissen), Chemnitz, Zschillen (Wechselburg), and Niederlausitz, and the two deaneries of Meissen and Bautzen. Poorly endowed in the beginning, it appears to have acquired later large estates under Otto III and Henry II.

371 The chief task of the bishops of the new see was the conversion of the Wends, to which Bishops Volkold (died 992) and Eido (died 1015) devoted themselves with great zeal; but the work of evangelization was slow, and was yet incomplete when the investiture conflict threatened to arrest it effectively. St. Benno (1066-1106), bishop at the time when these troubles were most serious, was appointed by Henry IV and appears to have been in complete accord with the emperor until 1076; in that year, however, although he had taken no part in the Saxon revolt, he was imprisoned by Henry for nine months. Escaping, he joined the Saxon princes, espoused the cause of Gregory VII, and in 1085 took part in the Gregorian Synod of Quedlinburg, for which he was deprived of his office by the emperor, a more imperially disposed bishop being appointed in his place. On the death of Gregory, Benno made peace with Henry, and, being reappointed to his former see in 1086, devoted himself entirely to missionary work among the Slavs. Among his successors, Herwig (died 1119) sided with the pope, Godebold with the emperor. In the thirteenth century the pagan Wends were finally converted to Christianity, chiefly through the efforts of the great Cistercian monasteries, the most important of which were Dobrilugk and Neuzelle. Among the convents of nuns Heiligenkreuz at Meissen, Mariental near Zittau, Marienstern on the White Elster, and Mühlberg deserve mention. Among the later bishops, who were after the thirteenth century princes of the empire, the most notable are Wittigo I (1266-93) and John I of Eisenberg (1340-71). The former began the magnificent Gothic cathedral, in which are buried nine princes of the House of Wettin; the latter, as notary and intimate friend of the Margrave of Meissen, afterwards the Emperor Charles IV, protected the interests of his church and increased the revenues of the diocese. During the latter's administration, in 1344, Prague was made an archiepiscopal see.

372 In 1365 Urban V appointed the Archbishop of Prague legatus natus, or perpetual representative of the Holy See, for the Dioceses of Meissen, Bamberg, and Regensburg (Ratisbon); the opposition of Magdeburg made it impossible to exercise in Meissen the privileges of this office, and Meissen remained, though under protest, subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Magdeburg. John's successor, John II of Jenstein (1376-9), who resigned Meissen on his election to the See of Prague, Nicholas I (1379-92), John III (1393-8), and Thimo of Colditz (1399-1410) were appointed directly from Rome, which set aside the elective rights of the cathedral chapter. Thimo, a Bohemian by birth, neglected the diocese and ruined it financially. Margrave William I of Saxony prevailed on Boniface IX in 1405 to free Meissen from the authority of the metropolitan and to place it directly under the Holy See. The illustrious Bishop Rudolf von der Planitz (1411-27), through wise regulations and personal sacrifices, brought order out of chaos. The Hussite wars caused great damage to the diocese, then ruled over by John IV Hofmann (1427-51); under the government of the able brothers Caspar (1451-63) and Dietrich of Schönberg (1461-76), it soon recovered and on Dietrich's death there was a fund of 8800 gold forms in the episcopal treasury. John V of Weissenbach (1476-87) through his mania for building and his travels soon spent this money, and left a heavy burden of debt on the diocese. John VI of Salhausen (1488-1518) further impoverished the diocese through his obstinate attempt to obtain full sovereignty over his see, which brought him into constant conflict with Duke George of Saxony; his spiritual administration was also open to censure. John VII of Schleinitz (1518-37) was a resolute opponent of Luther, whose revolt began in the neighbouring Wittenberg, and, conjointly with George of Saxony, endeavoured to crush the innovations. The canonization of Benno (1523), urged by him, was intended to offset the progress of the Lutheran teaching. John VIII of Maltitz (1537-49) and Nicholas II of Carlowitz (1549-55) were unable to withstand the ever-spreading Reformation, which, after the death of Duke George (1539), triumphed in Saxony and gained ground even among the canons of the cathedral, so that the diocese was on the verge of dissolution. The last bishop, John of Haugwitz (1555-81), placed his resignation in the hands of the cathedral chapter, in virtue of an agreement with Elector Augustus of Saxony, went over to Protestantism, married, and retired to the castle of Ruhetal near mögeln. The electors of Saxony took over the administration of the temporalities of the diocese which in 1666 were finally adjudged to them. The canons turned Protestant, and such monasteries as still existed were secularized, their revenues and buildings being devoted principally to educational works. (For the present Prefecture Apostolic of Lausitz-Meissen see SAXONY.)

373 Urkundbuch des Hochstifts Meissen, ed. GERSDORF (3 vols., Leipzig, 1864-67), in the Codex Diplomaticus Saxoniœ Regiœ; MACHATSCHEK, Gesch. der Bischöfe des Hochstifts Meissen (Dresden, 1884); VON BRUN (von KAUFFUNGEN), Das Domkapitel von M. im Mittelalter (Meissen, 1902); Mitteil. des Vereins für Gesch. der Stadt M. (8 vols., Meissen, 1882-1910); Neues Archiv für sächsische Gesch. (Dresden, 1880-).

374 Joseph Lins

Ernest Meissonier

373 French painter, b. at Lyons 21 February,1815; d. at Paris, 31 January, 1891. If the Lyonese genius in painting is found in such artists as Chenavard, Flandrin, Puvis de Chavannes, and in such landscape painters as Ravier, Meissonier does not belong to this family. At an early age his parents took him to Paris where they set up chemical works in the Marais. A family friend introduced him to the much frequented studio of Leon Cogniet (1794-1880). His first efforts date from 1831. These are portraits, generally busts, of the bourgeois of the neighbourhood (there is one at the Louvre), life-size, and somewhat commonplace in execution. At the Salon of 1834 there appeared a more significant picture, the "Visit to the Burgomaster's", three middle-class Hollanders in eighteenth century costume, seated at a table and smoking. Herein the painter for the first time attempted those small genre subjects in costumes of the past whose pleasing picturesqueness was to contribute so much to his fame. But fame was to be delayed for ten years Meissonier has to earn his living by illustration; and so he made vignettes for a number of works to-day much sought after as "romantic editions", "Paul et Virginie", Lamartine's "Chûte d'un Ange" (1839), "Le Vicaire de Wakefield", and "Les Français peints par eux-mêmes" (1840- 42). By degrees, however, the young artist attracted attention. Between the "classicists", or partisans of Ingres and the "romanticists" ardent followers of Delacroix, he found favour with a public rather indifferent to the quarrels of the schools and very willing to become acquainted with a style of art which did not require so much thought. In fact Meissonier seems to have quite ignored these great movements. A contemporary of many artistic controversies, e.g. the renovation of art by the school of Barbizon and the wonderful naturalistic revolution inaugurated by Paul Huet, Carot, and Rousseau, he seems a stranger to all these interests and passions.

374 There was on the other hand a small genre school to-day somewhat forgotten, that of Eugène Isabey, Eugène Lami, Célestin Nanteuil, and the brothers Johannot, which was occupied with representing small scenes of manners in the quaint every-day costume of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. They were pleasing extemporizers, skillful and brilliant story-tellers who put on canvas, often with spirit, the historic bric-a-brac popularized by Walter Scott. To this important school Meissonier attached himself. But he did so in a very original manner, bringing with him individual methods, aims, and talents, which marked him out among his contemporaries. He was obviously inspired by the Dutch, and he set himself to paint with the same composure, conscientiousness, and perfection as Terborch, Miéris, or Gérard Dow. It was a stroke of genius to choose as models these men who are among the best masters of painting, and this at a time when Romanticism had begun to overload its canvases with violence and excesses. Besides, these artists had been for a long time greatly esteemed by collectors, and by suggesting relationshup with them Meissonier increased his chances of success with amateurs. Moreover no other manner suited so well the special faculties of Meissonier, his extraordinary gift of observation and his almost absolute lack of imagination. But he was clever enough to restore genre painting and to blend imitation with invention, thus for Dutch subjects he substituted those of the Regency or of the sixteenth century. Above all he excelled in microscopic canvases, wherein the wonderful reproduction of the minutest details is a perpetual source of astonishment. In painting, the "finished" product is always sure to appeal to the philistine, and when found together with smallness, and when to the pleasure of accuracy is joined that of a feat of skill admiration knows no bounds. No more is needed to explain the incredible success of Meissonier.

375 In 1842 began that series of small thumb-nail pictures, the reputation of which so long outshone that of his larger works. First came "The Young Man playing the Bass-viol", then the "Painter in his studio" (1843), the "Guard-room", the "Readers", the "Smokers", the "Bravi" (1847), the "Reading at the House of Diderot" , the "Bowling-party", "La Rixe" or "The Quarrel" (1855). This year which marked the first Universal Exhibition marked also the apogee of Meissonier's triumphs. He was already the favourite painter of his tirne, he now became the most illustrious. He was compared with the classic artists and the masters of the genre, this was an exaggeration, and to-day we find much to criticize in him. His art dealt only with what had been already observed. It is regrettable that he did not make better use of his own gifts of observation; that he did not take his subjects directly from life, as did Daumier, instead of treating scenes of mere curiosity; that he did not create something "new" instead of giving us a modernized antique and giving his pictures the false appearance of a tableau de musée. This criticism is perhaps unjust; sixteenth century scenes have nothing better to show than "La Rixe" and "The Bravi"; and neither Stendhal nor Merimee is reproached for his Renaissance style of novels. Nevertheless it is true that despite superficial resemblances Meissonier is far inferior to the Dutch masters. To compare him with Terborch is to pay him too great an honour. His sharp facetted drawing, engraved with painful precision (cf. Fromentin, "Les Maitres d'autrefois", 1876, 228), his barren, dry painting, swarming with trifles, without aim or restraint, his indefinite analysis of a host of insignificant objects, all grouped in the compass of an amazingly small space, go to make up a series of quaint harsh works, unattractive and useless, like those pieces of embroidery which distress us when we realize the immense waste of labour they give proof of. What is wanting in these pictures is that which constitutes the value of art, emotion and life.

376 In 1859 Meissonier was charged to paint the "Battle of Solferino" (Louvre). This was the beginning of a new series of works, which date from the Second Empire, and in which the artist undertook to celebrate the glories of the first Empire. Renouncing his small interiors and subjects of fantasy he attempted historical and open air subjects, movements of crowds and armies, and set himself the task of painting the great scenes of the imperial épopée. In 1864 he submitted his "1814" (Louvre); in 1867 his "Desaix to the Army of the Rhine"; next came "1805", "1807" (Metropolitan Museum, New York), and a large number of other military pictures. This style, which answered the public demand after the events of 1870, brought the artist increased popularity. For his "1814" Chauchard paid a million of francs. It is true that in these new subjects the artist displayed the same scrupulous conscientiousness of which he had given proof in his earlier manner. He painted from nature, even to the very sods of earth. To convey the impression of a broken road, he selected a corner of his garden, had it trampled by men and horses, had trucks and carts drawn over its and sprinkled the whole with flour to imitate melting snow. To paint Napoleon, he made use of the grey cloak and the very hat the emperor wore. But in spite of it all he falls short of the lithographs of Raffet with their prodigious mystery and their breath of the heroic.

377 What will last of these curious pictures is the fabulous amount of studies and sketches accumulated by the painter in preparation for his pictures. One is filled with respect before the mass of observations; there are drawings, studies of soldiers, of equipments, of horses, which are priceless documents. It is remarkable that nothing is more rare than an ensemble study, there is never more than a detail, a gesture a movement, a muscle, caught and reproduced with unheard of precision and strength, as by the surest and most infallible instruments. There is no other example - even if we count Menzel himself - of a similar power of analysis applied to the realm of facts. To unravel a detail from the confusion of nature Meissonier was without an equal. He had an eye constructed like the lens of a magnifying glass, or like the eye of a primitive man capable of registering thousands of sensations which our civilized retina no longer perceives. For example, he was successful in catching the movement of a running horse, which no one has been able to do since the caveman, and later the cinematograph confirmed the marvellous truth of his observations. Only everything remained for him in a fragmentary state. His was the eye of a myopic, the eye of a fly, cut like a crystal into millions of facets, the most astounding instrument known for decomposing everything into its elements, for seeing distinctly into the world of the infinitesimal, but this prodigious power of decomposition left him incapable of putting anything together again.

378 It is not astonishing that his "1807" cost him fourteen years of labour; he was no longer able to weld together his scraps, his extracts from nature. He scrutinized, rummaged, ransacked to infinity, and found himself powerless to give life to anything. He spoke truly when he wished to do nothing but design and when he dreamed of a picture which should be no more than a collection of sketches, of fragments and disconnected events, like the "Pensées" of Pascal, yet giving at the same time the shock and the sensation of life. The difference was, however, that the "Pensées" were to become a book. Meissonier, overwhelmed by his materials, never succeeded in producing a great work, and not even in giving the impression that he had clearly conceived one. So this man loaded with honours, wealth and glory, was perpetually unhappy and discontended. His pride and his suspicious sensitiveness were proverbial. This sickly self-love was the chief cause of the division among the French artists in 1889 when to the traditional Salon Meissonier opposed the Salon of the "Champ-de-Mars" or of the Société Nationale. This unreasonable consequences and introduced into the school the anarchical system which for twenty years has gone on developing.

379 Such was this eminent and most unfinished of artists, assuredly little deserving of the mark of honour paid him by erecting his statue in the Garden of the Louvre, but still less deserving of the unjust criticisms he has since had to bear in expiation of his great glory. He was in reality the victim no less than the product of a valuable faculty carried to hypertrophia and monstrosity. He may perhaps be more equitably judged by the less known portions of his work, in which his faculties for analysis and observation found their true use, as in the small portraits such as that of "The Younger Dumas" (Louvre), those of "Stanford" or "Vanderbilt", or again his small studies from nature as in his "Views of Venice" at the Louvre, and especially his peerless collection of drawings at the Luxembourg. If these are not a great work, or their author a great artist, they are at least the materials the remains or the fragments thereof. On 13 October 1838, he married Jenny Steinheil, who died in June, 1888; in August, 1890, he married Mlle Bezançon; he died 31 January, 1891, and after a Requiem Mass at the Madeleine, 3 February, 1891, he was buried at Poissy where a monument was erected to him in 1894.

380 GREARD, Meissonier (1897); GAUTIER, Les Beaux-Arts en Europe, II (1856); Salons (not collected in vols.): PLANCHE, Salons (1855); CHESNEAU, Les nations rivales dans l'art (1868); MICHEL, Notes sur l'art moderne (1896); BRETON, Nos peintres du siecle; ALEXANDRE, La Peintre militaire en France; MUTHER, Ein Jahrhundert franzosischer Maleri (1901).

381 Louis Gillet

Philipp Melanchthon

376 Collaborator and friend of Luther, born at Bretten (in Unterpfalz, now Baden), 16 February, 1497; died at Wittenberg, 19 April, 1560.

377 (1) His Rearing and Education

378 Melancthon was of respectable and well-to-do parentage. His father, Georg Schwarzerd (Schwarzert) was a celebrated armourer, while his pious and intelligent mother was the daughter of Reuter, the burgomaster of Bretten. He received his first instruction at home from a private tutor, and in 1507 he went to Pforzheim, where he lived with his grandmother Elizabeth, sister of the great humanist, Johann Reuchlin. Here the rector, Georg Simler, made him acquainted with the Greek and Latin poets, and with the philosophy of Aristotle. But of greater influence still was his intercourse with Reuchlin, his grand-uncle, who gave a strong impetus to his studies. It was Reuchlin also who persuaded him to translate his name Schwarzerd into the Greek Melancthon, (written Melanthon after 1531). In 1509 Melancthon, not yet 13 years of age, entered the University of Heidelberg. This institution had already passed its humanistic prime under Dalberg and Agricola (see HUMANISM). It is true that Pallas Spangel, Melancthon's eminent teacher, was also familiar with humanists and humanism, but he was nonetheless an able scholastic and adherent of Thomism. Melancthon studied rhetoric under Peter Gunther, and astronomy under Conrad Helvetius, a pupil of Caesarius. Meanwhile he continued eagerly his private studies, the reading of ancient poets and historians as well as of the neo-Latins, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics. He obtained the baccalaureate in 1511, but his application for the master's degree in 1512 was rejected because of his youth. He therefore went to Tübingen, where the scientific spirit was in full vigour, and he became there a pupil of the celebrated Latinist Heinrich Bebel, and, for a second time, of Georg Simler, who was then teaching humanities in Tübingen, and was later professor of jurisprudence. He studied astronomy and astrology under Stoffler. With Franciscus Stadianus he planned an edition of the genuine text of Aristotle, but nothing ever came of this. His thirst for knowledge led him into jurisprudence, mathematics, and even medicine.

379 In 1514 he won the master's degree as first among eleven candidates, and he was made an instructor in the university. His subjects were Vergil and Terence; later he was assigned the lectureship on eloquence and expounded Cicero and Livy. He also became (1514) press-corrector in the printing office of Thomas Anshelm, pursued his private studies, and at last turned to theology. For the antiquated scholastic methods of this science as taught at Tübingen, and for Dr. Jacob Lemp, who, as Melancthon said, had attempted to picture transubstantiation on the blackboard, he had, later on, only words of derision. He studied patristics on his own account and took up the New Testament in the original text, but did not at this time reach any definite theological view; in this branch of knowledge, as he himself afterwards repeatedly declared, his intellectual father was Luther. He naturally took Reuchlin's part in the latter's controversy with the Cologne professors (see HUMANISM), and wrote in 1514 a preface to the "Epistolae clarorum virorum"; but he did not come prominently to the fore. His own earliest publications were an edition of Terence (1516), and a Greek grammar (1518). In 1518 he was offered, on Reuchlin's recommendation, a professorship of Greek at Wittenberg. "I know of no one among the Germans who is superior to him", wrote Reuchlin to the Elector of Saxony, "save only Erasmus Roterodamus, and he is a dutchman". The first impression made by the simple, bashful and frail-looking youth was not favourable. But his opening address: "De corrigendis adolescentiae studiis" (29 Aug., 1518), elicited enthusiastic applause. He extolled the return to the authentic sources of genuine science as a signal merit of the new humanistic and scientific spirit, and he promised to apply this method to the study of theology.

380 (2) Melancthon and the German Reformation

381 Luther was a strong believer in making humanism serve the cause of the "Gospel", and it was not long before the still plastic Melancthon fell under the sway of Luther's powerful personality. He accompanied the latter to his Leipzig disputation in 1519; though he did not participate in the discussion itself, he seconded with his knowledge Luther's preparatory labours. After the disputation he composed, with the co-operation of Oecolampadius, a report which was the occasion of an attack upon him by Eck to whom he replied with his "Defensio Phil. Melancthonis contra Joh. Eckium professorem". He was now persuaded by Luther to take up theological lectures, and became in 1519 a Bachelor of Theology, then a professor of the same science. For 42 years he laboured at Wittenberg in the very front rank of university professors. His theological courses were folowed by 500 or 600, later by as many as 1500 students, whereas his philological lectures were often but poorly attended. Yet he persistently refused the title of Doctor of Divinity, and never accepted ordination; nor was he ever known to preach. His desire was to remain a humanist, and to the end of his life he continued his work on the classics, along with his exegetical studies. And yet he became the father of evangelical theology. He composed the first treatise on "evangelical" doctrine (Loci communes rerum theologicarum, 1521). It deals principally with practical religious questions, sin and grace, law and gospel, justification and regeneration. This work ran through more than 100 editions before his death. He was a friend and supporter of Luther the Reformer, and defended him, e.g., against the Italian Dominican, Thomas Radinus of Piacenza, and the Sorbonne in Paris (1521).

382 But he was not qualified to play the part of a leader amid the turmoil of a troublous period. The life which he was fitted for was the uiet existence of the scholar. He was always of a retiring and timid disposition, temperate, prudent, and peace-loving, with a pious turn of mind and a deeply religious training. He never completely lost his attachment for the Catholic Church and for many of her ceremonies. His limitations first became apparent when, during Luther's stay on the Wartburg, 1521, he found himself in Wittenberg confronted with the task of maintaining order against the Zwickau fanatics, with their wild notions as to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom upon earth, communism and so forth. What Luther accomplished in a few days on his return had proved impossible to Melancthon. On the other hand he showed his ability as an organizer when he undertook the reorganization of Church affairs in Saxony which then appeared to be in a very bad state. For the visitations ordered by the Elector, Melancthon drew up the "Instructions for Visitors of the parochial clergy" (printed, 1528), which work is remarkable for its practical sense and simplicity. Here also appears the difference between Luther and Melancthon, for Melancthon warns against reviling pope or bishop; whereas Luther remarks: "You must denounce vehemently the papacy and its followers, for it is already doomed by God even as the devil and his kingdom". Melancthon, it is true, preached the doctrine that faith alone justifies and that "God will forgive sins for the sake of Christ, and without works on our part"; but he added: "We must nevertheless do good works, which God has commanded." Later he invariably sought to preserve peace as long as might be possible, and no one took so much to heart as he the break between the churches.

383 While Luther in the Smalkaldic Articles (1537), described the pope as Antichrist and other theologians subscribed to this declaration, Melancthon wrote: "My idea of the pope is this, that if he would give due recognition to the Gospel, his supremacy over the bishops, which he enjoys by human consent (not by Divine ordinance) should also be acknowledged by us for the sake of peace and of the unity of those Christians who are now, and in the future may be, subject to him." He had made a diplomatic plea for the Reformation at the Reichstag in Speyer (1529). He hoped that it would be recognized without difficulty by the emperor and the Catholic party, but unstead of this, a resolution was adopted to carry out vigorously the Edict of Worms (1521) which prohibited all innovations. The evangelical element, "a small handful," protested against this (whence the name, "Protestants"), and Melancthon felt grave concern over this "terrible state of things". At a religious conference with the Zwinglians in Marburg (autumn of 1529), he joined hands with Luther in opposing a union with Zwingli. The latter's views on the Eucharist seemed to him an "impious doctrine". Melancthon composed for the Reichstag of Augsburg (1530) the Augsburg Confession (confessio Augustana) in which he aimed to prove that the Protestants, in spite of the innovations, still belonged to the Catholic Church and had a right to remain in her fold. To this end he alleged in defence of Protestant doctrine the Scriptures and statements of recognized Catholic authorities. The innovations in question were represented as merely a reformation of abuses which had crept into the Church. The tenor of the Confession in general and its wording in particular, were the work of Melancthon. Luther saw its outline and gave it his approval. It received numerous additions and changes at Augsburg, and its final form was determined by common agreement of theologians from all the evangelical bodies.

384 Melancthon's desire for peace appears even in this basic document of Protestantism, and he has often been reproached with lack of vigour in his opposition to the Catholic Church. Luther himself explained (only, it is true, after the hopes of obtaining for the Confession the ear of the emperor and of Catholics proved vain), that he had no intention of showing "servile submission", and that he regretted the omission of an attack on Purgatory, the veneration of the Saints and the Papacy. The formal merits of the Confession, its simple, clear, calm, and terse statement of doctrine won the unanimous praise of the Evangelical party. His "masterful clearness and vigorous doctrine" were also admired in the "Apology" for the Augsburg Confession, which is more decided in tone because written at a later date (when Melancthon himself had determined "to throw aside moderation") and directed against the Catholic "Confutatio". On the other hand, Melancthon was sharply criticized for his personal conduct in the Reichstag, for his apprehension and concern, his failure to take a firm and dignified attitude against the Catholic party. He himself once declared, in justification of his course: "I know that the people decry our moderation; but it does not become us to heed the clamour of the multitude. We must labour for peace and for the future It will prove a great blessing for us all if unity be restored in Germany." He feared the overthrow of all order. Hence he made decided concessions to the Catholics at the subsequent conferences and debates on religion. He seems to have been lured by some dream of an Evangelical-Catholic Church. He thought it possible to remain within the Catholic Church, even with the new theology. But he was never a Cryptocatholic, as has been laid to his charge, and while evincing in every other way a spirit of reconciliation, he held fast to the "purified doctrine", and repeatedly qualified as blasphemy the lending of a hand, even in the cause of peace, to any suppression of the truth.

385 The story that when his mother asked which was the better of the two religions, he replied that the modified one was the more plausible, while the old one was the surer, is nothing but a ridiculous invention. His attempt to bring about a reconciliation between the two brought him, instead of thanks, only mortification and abuse. From the age of 30 to that of 50, Melancthon was at the height of his career as spokesman and advocate of the Reformation, which, as had formerly been the case in Hesse and Prussia, was introduced under his guidance into Wurtemberg, Brandenburg, and Saxony. He never absented himself from a convention of theologians or statesmen, but found himself differing from Luther on many points, for as time went on Melancthon emancipated himself more and more from Luther's teaching. More eventful still and more painful was the last portion of his life, following the death of Luther (1546). He rejected the Augsburg Interim (1548) which was to regulate Church affairs until they should be definitively settled by the Council, on the ground that it did not harmonize with Evangelical principles. On the other hand he was prevailed upon to take part in a conference for a modified interim, the so-called Leipzig Interim, and he addressed on this occasion a letter (28 April, 1548) to Minister Carlowitz, of Saxony, which once more provoked bitter criticism. He lamented therein the thraldom in which he had been held by the violence of Luther, and again showed himself favourable to the Catholic system of church organization and was even ready to accept Catholic practices, though he desired to hold fast to the "evangelical" doctrines.

386 A result of this Adiaphora controversy, in which Melancthon declared Catholic practices adiaphorous (indifferent things, neither good nor bad), hence permissible provided that the proper doctrine were maintained and its import made clear to the people. Matthias Flacius Illyricus and other zealots objected that these practices had heretofore been the centres of impiety and superstition, and Melancthon was attacked and reviled by Flacius, Amsdorf, and the other "Gnesiolutherans", as a renegade and a heretic. The Lutheran theologians met at Weimar in 1556, and declared their adhesion to Luther's teaching as to good works and the Last Supper. Melancthon participated in the religious discussion which took place at Worms, in 1557, between Catholic and Protestant theologians. His Lutheran opponents' behaviour toward him here proved grossly insulting. The last ten years of his life (1550-60) were almost completely taken up with theological wrangles (adiaphoristic, osiandric, stankaristic, majoristic, Calvinistic, and cryptocalvinistic) and with attempts to compose these various differences. He continued in spite of all to labour for his Church and for her peace. But one readily understands why, a few days before he died, he gave as a reason for not fearing death: "thou shalt be freed from the theologians' fury (a rabie theologorum)." His last wish was that the Churches might become reunited in Christ. He died praying, quietly and peacefully, without apparent struggle.

387 (3) Melancthon as a Theologian

388 Melancthon considered it his mission to bring together the religious thoughts of the Reformation, to coordinate them and give them a clear and intelligible form. He did not feel himself called upon to seek out their original premises or to speculate on their logical results. His theology bears the substantial impress of his humanistic thought, for he saw in ancient philosophy a precursor of Christianity and sought to reconcile it with Christian Revelation. Even in dogma he took up whatever adapted itself most easily to the general trend of humanistic religious thought, and his dogmatic departures from Luther were a softening of doctrine. His theological system is contained in the "Loci Communes", as revised by him; in substance it was brought to completion by the edition of 1535. As late as 1521 he had upheld the harsh tenets of fatalism with regard to all events and of determinism with regard to the human will. He subsequently gave "Synergism" his support, as against the deterministic tendency of the Reformation. That God is not the cause of sin, and that man is responsible for his acts, must be firmly maintained. Man's salvation can only be wrought out with the cooperation of his own will, although there can be no question of merit on his part. Likewise he emphasized the necessity of good works from the practical, ethical standpoint. He went so far as to say, in the Loci of 1535, that good works are necessary for eternal life, inasmuch as they must necessarily follow reconciliation with God. This was again attenuated later on: what is necessary, he said, is a new spiritual life or sense of duty. i.e., a righteous conscience.

389 As years went by he even abandoned Luther's doctrine as to the Last Supper, and looked on Christ's spiritual communication of Himself to the faithful and their internal union with Him as the essential feature of the Sacrament; i.e., he inclined towards Calvin's theory. In 1560 his teachings were introduced into all the churches of Saxony, through the "Corpus Philippicum" (a collection of Melancthonian doctrinal writings). But there came a change fourteen years after his death. The Philippists or Crypto-Calvinists were thrown into prison and sent into exile. They subsequently identified themselves more and more with Calvinism, even on the question of predestination. Lutheranism, narrow and harsh, won the day with its Formula of Concord (1580). So strong indeed was the opposition that the saying ran: better a Catholic than a Calvinist. From that time on until well into the eighteenth century, Melancthon's memory was assailed and reviled, even in Wittenberg. It is said that Leonard Hutter, the leading theologian there at the beginning of the seventeenth century, was so enraged by an appeal to Melancthon as an authority, made in the course of a public disputation, that he had the latter's portrait torn down from the wall and trampled underfoot before the eyes of all. It was not until the period of the Enlightenment that Melancthon was again appreciated and recognized as the real founder of a German-Evangelical theology. Indeed, he carried his labours into all the other theological fields, in some of which he worked as a pioneer, while in all he toiled at least as a contributor. He promoted the study of the Scriptures not only by his own active work thereon from first to last, but also by his teachings and by his exhortations to the clergy. Like Luther, he laid particular stress on the necessity of a thorough philological training, as well as of a knowledge of history and archaeology, for the prper interpretation of the Bible. He assisted Luther constantly in his German translation of the Bible, and also, it is said, in the production of the Latin translation which appeared at Wittenberg, in 1529. In exegesis he stood out vigorously for one sense, and that the literal, (sensus literalis), as against the "four senses" of the Scholastics. Beyond this, he held, there was nothing to be sought in the words of the Bible save the dogmatic and practical applications and development. His commentaries on the Old Testament are not as important as those which he wrote on the New. The most noteworthy are those on the Epistle to the Romans and the Colossians, which have been published repeatedly. These are largely given to the discussion of facts and of dogmatic and polemical matters, and they have considerable influence on the history of Protestant doctrines. The impulse also which he gave to the study of theology by historical methods, was felt for a long time. In his handling of the Chronicle of Cario he treated of the history of the Church jointly with that of the state, and thereby set an example which found many imitators. He was also the first to attempt a history of dogma, and led the way in Christian biography. In homiletics he was early recognized as the originator of a more methodical form of pulpit oratory, as contrasted with the "heroic" sermons of Luther. He did not himself appear as a preacher, but was content with expounding selections from the Gospel on Sundays and Feast-days, in his house or in a lecture hall, using for this purpose the Latin tongue for the benefit of the Hungarian students who did not understand the German sermons preached in church. This was the origin of his "Postillen" (homilies). Finally he was the author of the first Protestant treatise on the method of theological study.

390 (4) Melancthon as Professor and Pedagogue

391 Melancthon was the embodiment of the entire intellectual culture of his time. His learning covered all the branches of knowledge as it then existed, and what is more remarkable, he possessed the gift of imparting his knowledge always in the simplest, clearest and most practical form. On this account the numerous manuals and guides to the Latin and Greek grammars, to dialectics, rhetoric, ethics, physics, politics, and history, which he produced in addition to his many editions of, and commentaries on, classical authors, were quickly adopted, and were retained for more than a century. The exposition shows the utmost care; the style is natural and clear. In his academic training also, he disdained all rhetorical devices. His power lay not in brilliant oratory, but in clearness and in the choice of the most appropriate expression (proprietas sermonis). He did not look upon learning and literature as ends in themselves, but as means for inculcating morality and religion. The union of knowledge with the spirit of religion, of humanism with the "Gospel", was ever the keynote of his public activity, and through him it became for centuries the educational ideal of "Evangelical" Germany, even, in a certain sense, of Germany as a whole. It is not easy therefore to overrate Melancthon's importance in this field. By this many-sided practical activity and his work as an organizer he became the founder of higher education in "Evangelical" Germany; the elementary school lay outside his sphere. Numerous Latin schools and universities owed to him their establishment or reorganization; and in numberless cases he was written to for advice, or was called on to recommend competent instructors, to settle controversies, or to give his opinion on the advantage or necessity of courses of study. His ideas on teaching in the three-class Latin schools are more fully set forth in the "Unterricht der Visitatoren" (1528) already referred to, and the "Wittenberger Kirchen-und Schulordnung" (1533). Their novelty lies partly in the selection of subjects, but chiefly in the method. Latin naturally holds the place of honour.

392 Melancthon put an end to grammatical torture and the "Doctrinale" of Alexander de Villa Dei; grammar exercises were appended to the texts. He himself had a Latin school, the Schola Privata,in his own house for ten years, in which he prepared a few boys for the university. In 1526, he founded a second grade of the more advanced school, the Obere Schule, in Nuremburg near St. Aegidien. He looked on this as a connecting link between the Latin school and the university. It comprised dialectics and rhetoric, readings from the poets, mathematics, and Greek. This type of school, however, did not meet with any great success. The reorganization of universities, as advocated by Melancthon, affected chiefly the arts and theological courses. The faculty of Arts became wholly humanistic. Logic, till then dominant in education, gave way to the languages, and Greek and Hebrew assumed more prominence. As sources of philology the classic authors replaced the writers of the Middle Ages. For the scholastic study of the liberal arts a more simple and practical course in dialectics and rhetoric was substituted. Likewise in theology, Scriptural interpretation was brought to the fore. Dogmatic principles were developed by exegesis; to these were gradually added special lectures on dogma. The essential fact was a decided return to original sources. This transformation was wrought not only in the University of Wittenberg, but also in that of Tübingen, where Melancthon himself took part in the work of reform, in those of Frankfort, Leipzig, Rostock, and Heidelberg, where in 1557 he took part in the deliberations concerning the university statutes. Wherever he could not appear in person he sent his advice in writing, while his disciples, for whom he obtained professorships taught in accordance with his ideals and his method. The new universities of Marburg (1527), Konigsberg (1544), and Jena (1548), which were founded under the Reformation, also found in Melancthon a guide and a counsellor. Hence his title "Praeceptor Germaniae".

393 Klemens Löffler.

St. Melania (the Younger)

379 Born at Rome, about 383; died in Jerusalem, 31 December, 439. She was a member of the famous family of Valerii. Her parents were Publicola and Albina, her paternal grandmother of the same name is known as Melania, Senior. Little is known of the saint's childhood, but after the time of her marriage, which occurred in her thirteenth year, we have more definite information. Through obedience to her parents she married one of her relatives, Pinianus a patrician. During her married life of seven years she had two children who died young. After their death Melania's inclination toward a celibate life reasserting itself, she secured her husband's consent and entered upon the path of evangelic perfection, parting little by little with all her wealth. Pinianus, who now assumed a brotherly position toward her, was her companion in all her efforts toward sanctity. Because of the Visigothic invasions of Italy, she left Rome in 408, and for two years lived near Messina in Sicily. Here, their life of a monastic character was shared by some former slaves. In 410 she went to Africa where she and Pinianus lived with her mother for seven years, during which time she grew well acquainted with St. Augustine and his friend Alypius. She devoted herself to works of charity and piety, especially in her zeal for souls, to the foundation of a nunnery of which she became superior, and of a cloister of which Pinianus took charge. In 417, Melania, her mother, and Pinianus went to Palestine by way of Alexandria. For a year they lived in a hospice for pilgrims in Jerusalem, where she met St. Jerome. She again made generous donations, upon the receipt of money from the sale of her estates in Spain. About this time she travelled in Egypt, where she visited the principal places of monastic and eremetical life, and upon her return to Jerusalem she lived for twelve years, in a hermitage near the Mount of Olives. Before the death of her mother (431), a new series of monastic foundations had begun. She started with a convent for women on the Mount of Olives, of which she assumed the maintenance while refusing to be made its superior. After her husband's death she built a cloister for men, then a chapel, and later, a more pretentious church. During this last period (Nov., 436), she went to Constantinople where she aided in the conversion of her pagan uncle, Volusian, ambassador at the Court of Theodosius II, and in the conflict with Nestorianism. An interesting episode in her later life is the journey of the Empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius, to Jerusalem in 438. Soon after the empress's return Melania died.

380 The Greek Church began to venerate her shortly after her death, but she was almost unknown in the Western Church for many years. She has received greater attention since the publication of her life by Cardinal Rampolla (Rome, 1905). In 1908, Pius X granted her office to the congregation of clergy at Somascha. This may be considered as the beginning of a zealous ecclesiastical cult, to which the saint's life and works have entitled her. Melania's life has been shrouded in obscurity nearly up to the present time; many people having wholly or partially confounded her with her grandmother Antonia Melania. The accurate knowledge of her life we owe to the discovery of two manuscripts; the first, in Latin, was found by Cardinal Rampolla in the Escorial in 1884, the second, a Greek biography, is in the Barberini library. Cardinal Rampolla published both these important discoveries at the Vatican printing-office.

381 Charles Schlitz

Archdiocese of Melbourne

382 Archdiocese of Melbourne (Melburnen)

383 Located in the state of Victoria, Southeastern Australia. Its history is closely interwoven with the rise and progress of the state of Victoria. When the first Catholic Bishop of Melbourne was consecrated in 1848, the present metropolis, from which the see takes its name, was known as the Port Philip Settlement, and was part of the ecclesiastical province of Sydney. Dr. Polding, the newly consecrated bishop of that see, placed the Rev. Patrick Bonaventure Geoghegan in charge of Port Philip in 1839; and the first Mass was celebrated in Melbourne on Pentecost Sunday, 15 May, of that year. The entire population of Port Philip in 1841 was 11,738, and the Catholics numbered 2411.

384 (1) Most Rev. James Alypius Goold, the first bishop, an Irishman, journeyed overland from Sydney after his consecration, arriving in Melbourne 4 October, 1848. In April, 1850, he laid the foundation of St. Patrick's cathedral, and this event was followed in a few months by a declaration by the imperial authorities which changed the Settlement of Port Philip into the independent colony of Victoria. The discovery of goldfields at Ballarat, Bendigo, and Castlemaine at this period was responsible for a large increase in the population. Ireland found in Victoria a refuge and a home for many of her exiled children. The Catholic population, in 1851 only 18,000, had by 1857 grown to 88,000.

385 During the next decade and a half large centres of population had sprung up in places so remote from Melbourne that it was utterly impossible for Bishop Goold to attend to the wants of his widely scattered flock. When at Rome in 1874 he placed his difficulties before the Holy See, and had the northern and western portions of Victoria cut off from Melbourne and formed into the dioceses of Sandhurst and Ballarat, and received the pallium as first archbishop of Melbourne and Metropolitan of Victoria. The strain of getting through ecclesiastical work in the pioneering days of Australia demanded a strength and a mental firmness of no ordinary capacity. The work accomplished by Archbishop Goold from 1848 to 1886 proves him a man of wonderful endurance and great organizing ability. He made five voyages to Rome, and introduced several religious orders devoted to education and works of charity, the Jesuit fathers, the Christian Brothers, Sisters of Mercy, Good Shepherd Nuns, Presentation Order, Faithful Companions of Jesus, and Little Sisters of the Poor. The most important action of Dr. Goold and most far-reaching in its consequences was the determined and consistent fight he made against the state system of purely secular education. The zeal he displayed in the erection of Catholic schools, and the sacrifice he demanded of his people in maintaining them, show how fully convinced he was that religious instruction can never be separated from education. When the denominational system in 1872 gave way to a system from which the name of God was banished, the bishop proclaimed that no matter what the cost, or what the sacrifice involved, the Catholic children of Victoria should be provided with a Catholic education. When Archbishop Goold died, 11 June, 1886, there were 11,661 children receiving Catholic education without costing a penny to the state, while their parents were contributing their share as taxpayers to the state system.

386 (2) Most Rev. Thomas Joseph Carr, on the solid foundation laid by his predecessor, the first Bishop of Melbourne, has raised a stately and imposing edifice. The present Archbishop was transferred from the ancient see of Galway, and arrived in Melbourne on the first anniversary of Dr. Goold's death, 11 June, 1887. The years after his arrival he undertook the great task of completing St. Patrick's cathedral. For over forty years the building of this magnificent temple absorbed every thought of the first Vicar-General, the Right Rev. John Fitzpatrick, D. D. Yet a sum of one hundred thousand pounds was requested to carry out the original design, exclusive of the towers which are still unfinished. On the death of Dr. Fitzpatrick in 1889 the archbishop enlisted the practical sympathy and hearty co-operation of the clergy and laity of the archdiocese in this large undertaking. On 31 October, 1897, the cathedral was consecrated, entirely free from debt. The total cost from the day the foundation stone was laid in April, 1850, to the day of dedication was two hundred thirty thousand pounds. No modern cathedral in Ireland approaches the Melbourne fane, and even the two ancient cathedrals, Christ's church and St. Patrick's, Dublin, fall far short in seating accommodation and massive beauty. The episcopal silver jubilee of the archbishop was celebrated 26 August, 1907, with unbounded enthusiasm, while 10,000 found standing or sitting room with the walls of the cathedral. The clergy and laity took occasion of this celebration to mark their appreciation of Archbishop Carr's great services to the Church in Australia during the twenty years of his rule. Because of his deeply rooted objection to a personal testimonial, a debt of eight thousand pounds was cleared off the cathedral hall and a thousand pounds over-subscribed handed him for educational purposes. In connection with that event, a review was made, and official statistics compiled, of the growth and progress of the Church in that period. The number of clergy had increased from 66 to 142, 30 new churches had been built, old churches had been replaced by substantial and stately edifices, and the existing ones improved in ornamentation and equipment, and the number of parishes had risen from 26 to 56. The total cost of the erection of the churches, schools, presbyteries, halls, educational and charitable institutions amounted to the enormous sum (considering the population) of £1,272,874.

387 The development of Catholic education and the increase in the number of schools not only kept pace with the general growth, but led the van of progress. The archbishop adhered religiously to the principles of his predecessor in his endeavour to provide, as far as possible, Catholic education for every Catholic child. To make effective and permanent provision in the department of education, new teaching orders were introduced. In addition to those already fighting the educational battle, the archbishop, within a few years, had the Marist Brothers, the Sisters of Charity, the Sacred Heart Sisters, the Sisters of Loretto, the Sisters of St. Joseph, and the Sisters of the Good Samaritan. £500,679 was expended during these twenty years on school buildings and residence for religious engaged in Catholic education. In 1887 the number of pupils attending the Catholic schools of the archdiocese was 11,661, as compared with 25,369 at the close of 1908. The building and maintaining of a separate school system means a double tax on the Catholic community; as rate payers they contribute their share of State education, and as Catholics they pay for their own; and count the cost as nothing compared with the eternal interests at stake. When the purely secular system of education was introduced into Victoria in 1872, some anti-Catholics leagued together, and declared that the new system would "rend the Catholic church asunder". The opposite had been the result. The very sufferings and disabilities associated with the maintenance of their own schools have united solidly the Catholic body; while the absence of religion from the state schools has "rent asunder" Protestantism in producing a generation of non-believers. No review of the Archdiocese of Melbourne would be complete without reference to the growth of Catholic literature, particularly in recent years. To stem the tide of irreligious reading, splendid efforts have been made in Melbourne to provide Catholic homes with Catholic literature. When the Archbishop came to Melbourne (1887), there was only one Catholic paper, "The Advocate", in Victoria. Since then a monthly magazine, the "Austral Light", under his direction (1892), and the Australian Catholic Truth Society (1904), have come into existence and are doing great apostolic work in diffusing Catholic truth. The Catholics of the archdiocese are almost all Irish or of Irish origin. The priesthood was exclusively Irish till recent years, when vocations among the native born are rapidly on the increase. The religious, teaching in the school or conducting the charitable institutions, were in the early days Irish, but are now largely Australian.

388 Summary of the Archdiocese of Melbourne

389 Districts, 57; Churches, 168; Secular Clergy, 113; Regular Clergy, 38; Religious Brothers, 54; Nuns, 851; Superior Schools, for Boys, 8; for Girls, 28; number of pupils, 3443; Parochial Primary Schools, 107; number of pupils, 21,926; Total number of pupils in Parochial and High Schools, 25,369; Orphanages, 4; Industrial Schools for Boys, 1; for Girls, 1; Reformatory School for Girls, 1; Magdalene Asylums for Penitent Women, 2; Home for Neglected Children, 1; Home for the Poor, 1; Home for Women and Girls Out of Employment, 1; Foundling Hospital, 1; Receiving Home in Connection with Foundling Hospital, 1; Catholic population of the archdiocese according to Government census returns of 1901, 145,333.

390 Patrick Phelan

Paul Melchers

385 Cardinal, Archbishop of Cologne, b. 6 Jan., 1813, at Münster, Westphalia; d. 14 December, 1895, at Rome. He studied law at Bonn (1830-33), and a few years practice at Münster, took up theology at Munich under Klee, Görres, Windischmann and Döllinger. Ordained in 1841, he was assigned to duty in the village of Haltren. In 1844 he became vice-rector of the diocesan seminary, rector (1851), canon of the cathedral (1852), vicar-general (1854). Pius IX appointed him Bishop of Osnabrück (1857) and Archbishop of Cologne (1966). Here he laboured zealously and, moreover, inaugurated (1867) at Fulda, those annual reunions of the German bishops which have since produced such excellent results. Though he had always accepted and taught the doctrine of papal infallibility, he regarded its formal definition as untimely, a conviction which he, with thirteen other bishops, expressed in a letter to the pope, 4 Sept., 1869. At the same time, however, the bishops, in a pastoral letter which they signed without ex ception, warned the faithful against reports unfavourable to the future (Vatican) Council and exhorted them to await calmly its decisions. In the Council itself Archbishop Melchers took a prominent part. At the session of 13 July, 1870, he voted negatively on the question of papal infallibility; but he refused to sign an address in which fifty-five other members of the minority notified the pope of their immediate departure and reiterated their non placet. He left Rome before the fourth solemn session, givi ng as his reason the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, and declaring his readiness to abide by the decisions of the Council. On his return to Cologne he proclaimed in an elegant address (24 July) the dogma defined 18 July. As a means of insuring obedience to the Council, the bishops assembled by him at Fulda, published (1 Sept.) a joint letter, which produced a deep and salutary impression, and for which Pius IX (20 Oct.) expressed his gratitude to Archbishop Melchers. To eliminate the opposition at Bonn, the archbishop (20 Sept. and 8 Oct.) called on professors Dieringer, Reusch, Langen, and Knoodt to sign a declaration accepting the Vatican decree and pledging conformity thereto in their teaching. Dieringer alone complied; the others were suspended and eventually (12 March, 1872) excommunicated.

386 The encroachment and repressive measures of the Kulturkampf (q. v.) were firmly resisted by Archbishop Melchers. In June, 18973, he excommunicated two priests who had joined the Old Catholics; for this and other administrative acts he was fined and imprisoned for six months (12 March-Oct., 1874). On 2 December, 1875, the President of the Rhine Province demanded his resignation on pain of deposition; he refused, but learning that preparations were being made to deport him to Küstrin he escaped (13 Dec.) to Maestritch and took refuge with the Franciscans. From their monastery he administered his dioceses for ten years. Knowing, however, the temper of the German Government, and fearing that his absence from his see would prove injurious to religion, he on different occasions informed Leo XIII of his willingness to resign for the general good. The pope at last reluctantly consented, but called him to Rome, and created him cardinal (27 July, 1885). In 1892 during a serious illness he was received into the Society of Jesus and lived as a Jesuit until his death three years later. He was laid to rest in the cathedral of Cologne amidst obsequies that attested to the people's admiration and love. St. Paul's church in the same city, completed in 1908, fittingly commemorates Melcher's heroic struggle for the liberty of the Church.

387 His principal publications are: "Erinnerungen An die Feier des 50 jährigen Bischofsjubiläums des h. Vaters Pius IX" (Cologne, 1876); "Eine Unterweisung über das Gebet" (Cologne, 1876); "Einer Unterweisung über des heilige Messopfer" (Cologne, 1879); "Das Sendschriben des heilige Vaters Papst Leo XIII über den Socialismus" (Cologne, 1880); "Die katholiche Lehre von der Kirche" (Cologne, 1881); "Das enine Nothwendige" (Cologne, 1882); "De canonica dioecesium visitatione" (Rome, 1892).

388 LUDWIGS, Kardinal Ertzbishof Dr. Paulus Melchers und die St. Pauluskirche in Köln" (Cologne, 1809); GRANDERAH-KIRCH, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils, I, II, III (Freiburg, 1903-1906); GRANDERATH, Acta et Decreta S. S. conciliorum recentiorum, tom. VII (Freiburg, 1890).

389 J. Forget.

Melchisedech

388 [Gr. Melchisedek, from the Hebrew meaning "King of righteousness (Gesenius)] was King of Salem (Gen. xiv, 18-20) who, on Abraham's return with the booty taken from the four kings, "bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him", and received from him "the tithes of all" (v. 20). Josephus, with many others, identifies Salem with Jerusalem, and adds that Melchisedech "supplied Abram's army in a hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance. . .and when Abram gave him the tenth part of his prey, he accepted the gift" (Ant., I, x, 2). Cheyne says "it is a plausible conjecture that he is a purely fictitious personage" (Encyc. Bib., s.v.), which "plausible conjecture" Kaufmann, however, rightly condemns (Jew. Encyc., s.v.). The Rabbins identified Melchisedech with Sem, son of Noe, rather for polemic than historic reasons, since they wished to set themselves against what is said of him as a type of Christ "without father, without mother, without genealogy" (Heb., vii, 3). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the typical character of Melchisedech and its Messianic import are fully explained. Christ is "a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb., vii, 6; Ps., cix, 4); "a high priest forever", etc (Heb., vi, 20), i.e. order or manner (Gesenius), not after the manner of Aaron. The Apostle develops his teaching in Heb., vii: Melchisedech was a type by reason

389 of his twofold dignity as priest and king,

390 by reason of his name, "king of justice",

391 by reason of the city over which he ruled, "King of Salem, that is, king of peace" (v. 2), and also

392 because he "without father without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever." (v. 3).

393 The silence of Scripture about the facts of Melchisedech's birth and death was part of the divine plan to make him prefigure more strikingly the mysteries of Christ's generation, the eternity of His priesthood. Abraham, patriarch and father of nations, paid tithes to Melchisedech and received his blessing. This was all the more remarkable since the priest-king was a stranger, to whom he was not bound to pay tithes, as were the children of Israel to the priests of the Aaronic line. Abraham, therefore, and Levi "in the loins of his father" (Heb. vii, 9), by acknowledging his superiority as a type of Christ (for personally he was not greater than Abraham), thereby confessed the excellence of Christ's priesthood. Neither can it be fairly objected that Christ was in the loins of Abraham as Levi was, and paid tithes to Melchisedech; for, though descended from Abraham, he had no human father, but was conceived by the Holy Ghost. In the history of Melchisedech St. Paul says nothing about the bread and wine which the "priest of the most High" offered, and on account of which his name is placed in the Canon of the Mass. The scope of the Apostle accounts for this; for he wishes to show that the priesthood of Christ was in dignity and duration superior to that of Aaron, and therefore, since it is not what Melchisedech offered, but rather the other circumstances of his priesthood which belonged to the theme, they alone are mentioned. MCEVILLY, An Expos. Of the Eps. Of St. Paul (Heb., vii); PICONIO, Triplex Expositio (Heb., vii); HOONAKER, Le Sacerdoce Levitique (1899), 281-287; HASTINGS, Dict. Of the Bible, s.v.; Rabibinic references in Jew. Ency., s.v.; St. Thomas, III, Q. xxii, a. 6; HOMMEL, The ancient Heb. Tradition (tr. From the Ger., 1897), 146.

394 John J. Tierney

Melchisedechians

391 A branch of the Monarchians, founded by Theodotus the banker. (See MONARCHIANS.) Another quite distinct sect or party is refuted by Marcus Eremita, who seems to have been a disciple of St. John Chrysostom. His book Eis ton Melchisedek, or according to Photius "Against the Melchisedekites" (P.G., lxv, 1117), speaks of these new teachers as making Melchisedech an incarnation of the Logos. They were anathematized by the bishops, but would not cease to preach. They seem to have been otherwise orthodox. St. Jerome (Ep. 73) refutes an anonymous work which identified Melchisedech with the Holy Ghost. About A.D. 600, Timotheus, Presbyter of Constantinople, in his book De receptione Haereticorum (Cotelier, "Monumenta eccles. Graeca", III, 392; P.G., LXXXVI, 34) adds at the end of his list of heretics who need rebaptism the Melchisedechians, "now called Athingani" (Intangibles). They live in Phrygia, and are neither Hebrews nor Gentiles. They keep the Sabbath, but are not circumcised. They will not touch any man. If food is offered to them, they ask for it to be placed on the ground; then they come and take it. They give to others with the same precautions. Nothing more is known of this curious sect.

392 For the Monarchian Melchisedechians, the ancient authorities are PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN, Praescript., liii; PHILASTRIUS, Haer., lii; EPIPHANUS, Haer., lv; AUGUSTINE, Haer., xxxiv; PRAEDESTINATUS, Haer., xxxiv; THEODORET, Haer. Fab., II, vi. Also see KUNZE, Marcus Eremita (Leipzig, 1896); Idem in Realencycl. S.V. (See MONARCHIANS.)

393 John Chapman.

Melchites

394 (Melkites).

395 Origin and Name

396 Melchites are the people of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt who remained faithful to the Council of Chalcedon (451) when the greater part turned Monophysite.

397 The original meaning of the name therefore is an opposition to Monophysism. The Nestorians had their communities in eastern Syria till the Emperor Zeno (474-491) closed their school at Edessa in 489, and drove them over the frontier into Persia. The pople of western Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were either Melchites who accepted Chalcedon, or Monophysites (also called Jacobites in Syria and Palestine, Copts in Egypt) who rejected it, till the Monothelete heresy in the seventh century further complicated the situation. But Melchite remained the name for those who were faithful to the great Church, Catholic and Orthodox, till the Schism of Photius (867) and Cerularius (1054) again divided them. From that time there have been two kinds of Melchites in these countries, the Catholic Melchites who kept the communion of Rome, and schismatical (Orthodox) Melchites who followed Constantinople and the great mass of eastern Christians into schism. Although the name has been and still is occasionally used for both these groups, it is now commonly applied only to the Eastern-Rite Catholics. For the sake of clearness it is better to keep to this use; the name Orthodox is sufficient for the others, whereas among the many groups of Catholics, Latin and Eastern, of various rites, we need a special name for this group. It would be, indeed, still more convenient if we could call all Byzantine-Rite Catholics "Melchite." But such a use of the word has never obtained. One could not with any propriety call Ruthenians, the Eastern Catholics of southern Italy or Rumania, Melchites. One must therefore keep the name for those of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, all of whom speak Arabic.

398 We define a Melchite then as any Christian of these lands in communion with Rome, Constantinople, and the great Church of the Empire before the Photian schism, or as a Christian of the Byzantine Rite in communion with Rome since. As the word implied opposition to the Monophysites originally, so it now marks the distinction between these people and all schismatics on the one hand, between them and Latins or Catholics of other rites (Maronites, Armenians, Syrians, etc.) on the other. The name is easily explained philologically. It is a Semitic (presumably Syriac) root with a Greek ending, meaning imperialist. Melk is Syriac for king (Heb. melek, Arab. malik). The word is used in all the Semitic languages for the Roman Emperor, like the Greek basileus. By adding the Greek ending — ites we have the form melkites, equal to basilikos. It should be noted that the third radical of the Semitic root is kaf: there is no guttural. Therefore the correct form of the word is Melkite, rather than the usual form Melchite. The pure Syriac word is malkoyo (Arab. malakiyyu; vulgar, milkiyyu).

399 II. History Before the Schism

400 The decrees of the Fourth General Council (Chalcedon, 451) were unpopular in Syria and still more in Egypt. Monophysism began as an exaggeration of the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d.444), the Egyptian national hero, against Nestorius. In the Council of Chalcedon the Egyptians and their friends in Syria saw a betrayal of Cyril, a concession to Nestorianism. Still more did national, anti-imperial feeling cause opposition to it. The Emperor Marcian (450-457) made the Faith of Chalcedon the law of the empire. Laws passed on 27 February and again on 13 March, 452, enforced the decrees of the council and threatened heavy penalties against dissenters. From that time Dyophysism was the religion of the court, identified with loyalty to the emperor. In spite of the commpromising concessions of later emperors, the Faith of Chalcedon was always looked upon as the religion of the state, demanded and enforced on all subjects of Caesar. So the long-smouldering disloyalty of these two provinces broke out in the form of rebellion against Chalcedon. For centuries (till the Arab conquest) Monophysism was the symbol of national Egyptian and Syrian patriotism. The root of the matter was always political. The people of Egypt and Syria, keeping their own languages and their consciousness of being separate races, had never been really amalgamated with the Empire, originally Latin, now fast becoming Greek. They had no chance of political independence, their hatred of Rome found a vent in this theological question. The cry of the faith of Cyril, "one nature in Christ", no betrayal of Ephesus, meant really no submissoin to the foreign tyrant on the Bosphorus. So the great majority of the population in these lands turned Monophysite, rose in continual rebellion against the creed of the Empire, committed savage atrocities against the Chalcedonian bishops and officials, and in return were fiercely persecuted.

401 The beginning of these troubles in Egypt was the deposition of the Monophysite Patriarch Dioscur, and the election by the government party of Proterius as his successor, immediately after the council. The people, especially the lower classes and the great crowd of Egyptian monks, refused to acknowledge Proterius, and began to make tumults and riots that 2000 soldiers sent from Constantinople could hardly put down. When Dioscur died in 454 a certain Timothy, called the Cat or Weasel (ailouros), was ordained by the Monophysites as his successor. In 457 Proterius was murdered; Timothy drove out the Chalcedonian clergy and so began the organized Coptic (Monophysite) Church of Egypt. In Syria and Palestine there was the same opposition to the council and the government. The people and monks drove out the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Martyrius, and set up one Peter the Dyer (gnapheus, fullo), a Monophysite as his successor. Juvenal of Jerusalem, once a friend of Dioscur, gave up his heresy at Chalcedon. When he came back to his new patriarchate he found the whole country in rebellion against him. He too was driven out and a Monophysite monk Theodosius was set up in his place. So began the Monophysite national churches of these provinces. Their opposition to the court and rebellion lasted two centuries, till the Arab conquest (Syria, 637; Egypt, 641). During this time the government, realizing the danger of the disaffection of the frontier provinces, alternated fierce persecution of the heretics with vain attempts to conciliate them by compromises (Zeno's Henotikon in 482, the Acacian Schism, 484-519, etc.) It should be realized that Egypt was much more consistently Monophysite than Syria or Palestine. Egypt was much closer knit as one land than the other provinces, and so stood more uniformly on the side of the national party. (For all this see MONOPHYSISM.)

402 Meanwhile against the nationalist party stood the minority on the side of the government and the council. These are the Melchites. Why they were so-called is obvious: they were the loyal Imperialists, the emperor's party. The name occurs first in a pure Greek form as basilikos. Evagrius says of Timothy Sakophakiolos (The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria set up by the government when Timothy the Cat was driven out in 460) that some called him the Imperialist (on oi men ekaloun basilikon) (H.E., II,11). These Melchites were naturally for the most part the government officials, in Egypt almost entirely so, while in Syria and Palestine a certain part of the native population was Melchite too. Small in numbers, they were until the Arab conquest strong through the support of the government and the army. The contrast between Monophysites and Melchites (Nationalists and Imperialists) was expressed in their language. The Monophysites spoke the national language of the country (Coptic in Egypt, Syriac in Syria and Palestine), Melchites for the most part were foreigners sent out from Constantinople who spoke Greek. For a long time the history of these countries is that of a continual feud between Melchites and Monophysites; sometimes the government is strong, the heretics are persecuted, the patriarchate is occupied by a Melchite; then again the people get the upper hand, drive out the Melchite bishops, set up Monophysites in their place and murder the Greeks. By the time of the Arab conquest the two Churches exist as rivals with rival lines of bishoops. But the Monophysites are much the larger party, especially in Egypt, and form the national religion of the country. The difference by new expresses itself to a great extent in liturgical language. Both parties used the same liturgies (St. Mark in Egypt, St. James in Syria and Palestine), but while the Monophysites made a point of using the national language in church (Coptic and Syriac) the Melchites generally used Greek. It seems, however, that this was less the case than has been thought; the Melchites, too, used the vulgar tongue to a considerable extent (Charon, Le Rite byzantin, 26-29).

403 When the Arabs came in the seventh century, the Monophysites, true to their anti-imperial policy, rather helped than hindered the invaders. But they gained little by their treason; both churches received the usual terms granted to Christians; they became two sects of Rayas under the Moslem Khalifa, both were equally persecuted during the repeated outbursts of Moslem fanaticism, of which the reign of Al-Hakim in Egypt (996-1021) is the best known instance. In the tenth century part of Syria was conquered back by the empire (Antioch reconquered in 968-969, lost again to the Seljuk Turks in 1078-1081). This caused for a time a revival of the Melchites and an increase of enthusiasm for Constantinople and everything Greek among them. Under the Moslems the characteristic notes of both churches became, if possible, stronger. The Monophysites (Copts and Jacobites) sank into isolated local sects. On the other hand, the Melchite minorities clung all the more to their union with the great church that reigned free and dominant in the empire. This expressed itself chiefly in loyalty to Constantinople. Rome and the West were far off; the immediate object of their devotion was the emperor's court and the emperor's patriarch. The Melchite patriarchs under Moslem rule became insignificant people, while the power of the Patriarach of Constantinople grew steadily. So, looking always to the capital for guidance, they gradually accepted the position of being his dependents, almost suffragans. When the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch" it was not his Melchite brothers who protested. This attitude explains their share in his schism. The quarrels between Photius and Pope Nicholas I, between Michael Cerularius and Leo IX were not their affair; they hardly understood what was happening. But naturally, almost inevitably, when the schism broke out, in spite of some protests [Peter III of Antioch (1053-1076?) protested vehemently against Cerularius's schism; see Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, 189-192], the Melchites followed their leader, and when orders came from Constantinople to strike the pope's name from their diptychs they quietly obeyed.

404 III. from the Schism to the Beginning of the Union

405 So all the Melchites in Syria, Palestine and Egypt broke with Rome and went into schism at the command of Constantinople. Here, too, they justified their name of Imperialist. From this time to almost our own day there is little to chronicle of their history. They existed as a "nation" (millet) under the Khalifa; when the Turks took Constantinople (1453) they made the patriarch of that city head of this "nation" (Rum millet, i.e., the Orthodox Church) for civil affairs. Other bishops, or even patriarchs, could only approach the government through him. This further increased his authority and influence over all the Orthodox in the Turkish Empire. During the dark ages that follow, the Ecumenical Patriarch continually strove (and generally managed) to assert ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Melchites (Ort. Eastern Ch., 240, 285-289, 310, etc.). Meanwhile the three patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), finding little to do among their diminished flocks, for long periods came to live at Constantinople, idle ornaments of the Phanar. The lists of these patriarchs will be found in Le Quien (loc. cit. Below). Gradually all the people of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine since the Arab conquest forgot their original languages and spoke only Arabic, as they do still. This further affected their liturgies. Little by little Arabic began to be used in church. Since the seventeenth century at the latest, the native Orthodox of these countries use Arabic for all services, though the great number of Greeks among them keep their own language.

406 But already a much more important change in the liturgy of the Melchites had taken place. We have seen that the most characteristic note of these communities was their dependence on Constantinople. That was the difference between them and their old rivals the Monophysites, long after the quarrel about the nature of Christ had practically been forgotten. The Monophysites, isolated from the rest of Christendom, kept the old rites of Alexandria and Antioch-Jerusalem pure. They still use these rites in the old languages (Coptic and Syriac). The Melchites on the other hand submitted to Byzantine influence in their liturgies. The Byzantine litanies (Synaptai), the service of the Ptoskomide and other elements were introduced into the Greek Alexandrine Rite before the twelfth or thirteenth centuries; so also in Syria and Palestine the Melchites admitted a number of Byzantine elements into their services (Charon, op. Cit., 9-25).

407 Then in the thirteenth century came the final change. The Melchites gave up their old rites altogether and adopted that of Constantinople. Theodore IV (Balsamon) of Antioch (1185-1214?) marks the date of this change. The crusaders held Antioch in his name, so he retired to Constantinople and lived there under the shadow of the Ecumenical Patriarch. While he was there he adopted the Byzantine Rite. In 1203, Mark II of Alexandria (1195-c.1210) wrote to Theodore asking various questions about the liturgy. Theodore in his answer insists onn; both churches received the usual terms granted to Christians; they became two sects of Rayas under the Moslem Khalifa, both were equally persecuted during the repeated outbursts of Moslem fanaticism, of which the reign of Al-Hakim in Egypt (996-1021) is the best known instance. In the tenth century part of Syria was conquered back by the empire (Antioch reconquered in 968-969, lost again to the Seljuk Turks in 1078-1081). This caused for a time a revival of the Melchites and an increase of enthusiasm for Constantinople and everything Greek among them. Under the Moslems the characteristic notes of both churches became, if possible, stronger. The Monophysites (Copts and Jacobites) sank into isolated local sects. On the other hand, the Melchite minorities clung all the more to their union with the great church that reigned free and dominant in the empire. This expressed itself chiefly in loyalty to Constantinople Rome and the West were far off; the immediate object of their devotion was the emperor's court an the use of Constantinople as the only right one, for all the Orthodox, and Mark undertook to adopt it (P.G., CXXXVIII, 935 sq.) When Thheodosius IV of Antioch (1295-1276) was able to set up his throne again in his own city he imposed the Byzantine Rite on all his clergy. At Jerusalem the old liturgy disappeared at about the same time. (Charon, op. Cit., 11-12, 21, 23).

408 We have then for the liturgies of the Melchites these periods: first the old national rites in Greek, but also in the languages of the country, especially in Syria and Palestine, gradually Byzantinized till the thirteenth century. Then the Byzantine Rite alone in Greek in Egypt, in Greek and Syriac in Syria and Palestine, with gradually increasing use of Arabic to the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Lastly the same rite in Arabic only by the natives, in Greek by the foreign (Greek) patriarchs and bishops.

409 The last development we notice is the steady increase of this foreign (Greek) element in all the higher places of the clergy. As the Phanar at Constantinople grew more and more powerful over the Melchites, so did it more and more, inruthless defiance of the feeling of the people, send them Greek patriarchs, metropolitans, and archmandrites from its own body. For centuries the lower married clergy and simple monks have been natives, speaking Arabic and using Arabic in the liturgy, while all the prelates have been Greeks, who often do not even know the language of the country. At last, in our own time, the native Orthodox have rebelled against this state of things. At Antioch they have now succeeded in the recognition of their native Patriarch, Gregory IV (Hadad) after a schism with Constantinople. The troubles caused by the same movement at Jerusalem are still fresh in everyone's mind. It is certain that as soon as the present Greek patriarchs of Jerusalem (Damianos V) and Alexandria (Photios) die, there will be a determined effort to appoint natives as their successors. But these quarrels affect the modern Orthodox of these lands who do not come within the limit of this article inasmuch as they are no longer Melchites.

410 IV. Eastern-Rite Catholics

411 We have said that in modern times since the foundation of Byzantine Catholic churches in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, only these Uniates should be called Melchites. Why the old name is now reserved for them it is impossible to say. It is, however, a fact that it is so. One still occasionally in a western book finds all Christians of the Byzantine Rite in these countries called Melchites, with a further distinction between Catholic and Orthodox Melchites; but the present writer's experience is that this is never the case among themselves. The man in union with the great Eastern Church in those parts never now calls himself or allows himself to be called a Melchite. He is simply "Orthodox" in Greek or any Western language, Rumi in Arabic. Everyone there understands by Melchite a Uniate. It is true that even for them the word is not very commonly used. They are more likely to speak of themselves as rumi kathuliki or in French Grecs catholiques; but the name Melchite, if used at all, always means to Eastern people these Catholics. It is convenient for us too to have a definite name for them less entirely wrong than "Greek Catholic" for they are Greeks in no sense at all. A question that has often been raised is whether there is any continuity of these Byzantine Catholics since before the great schism, whether there are any communities that have never lost communion with Rome. There are such communities certainly in the south of Italy, Sicily, and Corsica. In the case of the Melchite lands there are none. It is true that there have been approaches to reunion continually since the eleventh century, individual bishops have made their submission at various times, the short-lived unions of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) included the Orthodox of these countries too. But there is no continuous line; when the union of Florence was broken all the Byzantine Christians in the East fell away. The present Melchite Church dates from the eighteenth century.

412 Already in the seventeenth century tentative efforts at reunion were made by some of the Orthodox bishops of Syria. A certain Euthymius, Metropolitan of Tyre and Sidon, then the Antiochene Patriarchs Athanasius IV (1700-1728) and the famous Cyril of Berrhoea (d. 1724, the rival of Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople, who for a time was rival Patriarch of Antioch) approached the Holy See and hoped to receive the pallium. But the professions of faith which they submitted were considered insuffiecient at Rome. The latinizing tendency of Syria was so well known that in 1722 a synod was held at Constantinople which drew up and sent to the Antiochene bishops a warning letter with a list of Latin heresies (in Assemani, "Bibl. Orient.", III, 639). However, in 1724 Seraphim Tanas, who had studied at the Roman Propaganda, was elected Patriarch of Antioch by the latinizing party. He at once made his submission to Rome and sent a Catholic profession of faith. He took the name Cyril (Cyril VI, 1274-1759); with him begins the line of Melchite patriarchs in the new sense (Uniates). In 1728 the schismatics elected Sylvester, a Greek monk from Athos. He was recognized by the Phanar and the other Orthodox churches; through him the Orthodox line continues. Cyril VI suffered considerable persecution from the Orthodox, and for a time had to flee to the Lebanon. He received the pallium from Benedict XIV in 1744. In 1760, wearied by the continual struggle against the Orthodox majority, he resigned his office. Ignatius Jauhar was appointed to succeed him, but the appointment was rejected at Rome and Clement XIII appointed Maximus Hakim, Metropolitan of Baalbek, as patriarch (Maximus II, 1760-1761). Athanasius Dahan of Beruit succeeded by regular election and confirmation after Maximus's death and became Theodosius VI (1761-1788). But in 1764 Ignatius Jauhar succeeded in being re-elected patriarch. The pope excommunicated him, and persuaded the Turkish authorities to drive him out. In 1773 Clement XIV united the few scattered Melchites of Alexandria and Jerusalem to the jurisdiction of the Melchite patriarch of Antioch. When Theodosius VI died, Ignatius Jauhar was again elected, this time lawfully, and took thename Athanasius V (1788-1794).

413 Then followed Cyril VII (Siage, 1794-1796), Agapius III (Matar, formerly Metropolitan of Tyre and Sidon, patriarch 1796-1812). During this time there was a movement of Josephinism and Jansenism in the sense of the synod of Pistoia (1786) among the Melchites, led by Germanus Adam, Metropolitan of Baalbek. This movement for a time invaded nearly all the Melchite Church. In 1806 they held a synod at Qarqafe which approved many of the Pistoian decrees. The acts of the synod were published without authority from Rome in Arabic in 1810; in 1835 they were censured at Rome. Pius VII had already condemned a catechism and other works written by Germanus of Baalbek. Among his errors was the Orthodox theory that consecration is not effected by the words of institution in the liturgy. Eventually the patriarch (Agapius) and the other Melchite bishops were persuaded to renounce these ideas. In 1812 another synod established a seminary at Ain-Traz for the Melchite "nation." The next patriarchs were Ignatius IV (Sarruf, Feb.-Nov., 1812, murdered), Athanasius VI (Matar, 1813), Macarius IV (Tawil, 1813-1815), Ignatius V (Qattan, 1816-1833). He was followed by the famous Maximus III (Mazlum, 1833-1855). His former name was michael. He had been infected with the ideas of Germanus of Baalbek, and had been elected Metropolitan of Aleppo, but his election had not been confirmed at Rome. Then he renounced these ideas and became titular Metropolitan of Myra, and procurator of his patriarch at Rome. During this time he founded the Melchite church at Marseilles (St. Nicholas), and took steps at the courts of Vienna and Paris to protect the Melchites from their Orthodox rivals.

414 Hitherto the Turkish government had not recognized the Uniates as a separate millet; so all their communications with the State, the berat given to their bishops and so on, had to be made through the Orthodox. They were still officially, in the eyes of the law, members of the rum millet, that is of the Orthodox community under the Patriarch of Constantinople. This naturally gave the Orthodox endless opportunities of annoying them, which were not lost. In 1831 Mazlum went back to Syria, in 1833 after the death of Ignatius V he was elected patriarch, and was confirmed at Rome fter many dificulties in 1836. His reign was full of disputes. In 1835 he leld a national synod at Ain-Traz, which laid down twenty-five canons for the regulation of the affairs of the Melchite Church; the synod was approved at Rome and is published in the Collectio Lacensis (II, 579-592). During his reign at last the Melchites obtained recognition as a separate millet from the Porte. Maximus III obtained from Rome for himself and his successors the additional titles of Alexandria and Jerusalem, which sees his predecessors had administered since Theodosius VI. In 1849 he held a synod at Jerusalem in which he renewed many of the errors of Germanus Adam. Thus he got into new difficulties with Rome as well as with his people. But these difficulties were gradually composed and the old patriarch died in peace in 1855. He is the most famous of the line of Melchite patriarchs. He was succeded by Clement I (Bahus, 1856-1864), Gregory II (Yussef, 1865-1879), Peter IV (Jeraïjiri, 1897-1902), and Cyril VIII (Jeha, the reigning patriarch, who was elected 27 June, 1903, confirmed at once by telegram from Rome, enthroned in the patriarchal church at Damascus, 8 August, 1903).

415 V. Constitution of the Melchite Church

416 The head of the Melchite church, under the supreme authority of the pope, is the patriarch. His title is "Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and all the East." "Antioch and all the East" is the old title used by all patriarchs of Antioch. It is less arrogant than it sounds; the "East" means the original Roman Prefecture of the East (Praefectura Orentis) which corresponded exactly to the patriarchate before the rise of Constantinople (Fortescue, Orth. Eastern Church, 21). Alexandria and Jerusalem were added to the title under Maximus III. It should be noted that these come after Antioch, although normally Alexandria has precedence over it. This is because the patriarch is fundamentally of Antioch only; he traces his succession through Cyril VI to the old line of antioch. He is in some sort only the administrator of Alexandria and Jerusalem until the number of Melchites in Egypt and Palestine shall justify the erection of separate patriarchates for them. Meanwhile he rules equally over his nation in the three provinces. There is also a grander title used in Polychronia and for special solemn occasions in which he is acclaimed as "father of Fathers, Shehpherd of Shepherds, High Priest of High Priests and Thirteenth Apostle."

417 The patriarch is elected by the bishops, and is nearly always chosen from their number. The election is submitted to the Congregation for Eastern Rites joined to Propaganda; if it is canonical the patriarch-elect sends a profession of faith and a petition for confirmation and for the pallium of the pope. He must also take an oath of obedience to the pope. If the election is invalid, nomination devolves on the pope. The patriarch may not resign without the pope's consent. He must make his visit ad limina, personally or by deputy, every ten years. The patriarch has ordinary jurisdiction over all his church. He confirms the election of and consecrates all bishops; he can translate or depose them, according to the canons. He founds parishes and (with consent of Rome) dioceses, and has considerable rights of the nature of dispensation from fasting and so on. The patriarch resides at the house next to the patriarchal church at Damascus (near the Eastern Gate). He has also residences at Alexandria and Jerusalem, where he spends at least some weeks each year; he is often at the seminary at Ain-Traz, not far from Beirut, in the Lebanon.

418 The bishops are chosen according to the bull Reversurus, 12 July, 1867. LAll the other bishops in synod with the patriarch choose three names, of which the pope selects one. All bishops must be celibate, but they are by no means necessarily monks. Priests who are notmonks may keep wives married before ordination, but as in all uniate churches celibacy is very common, and the married clergy are looked upon rather askance. There are seminaries at Ain-Traz, Jerusalem (the College of St. Ann under Cardinal Lavigerie's White Fathers), Beirut, etc. Many students go to the Jesuits at Beirut, the Greek College at Rome, or St. Sulpice at Paris. The monks follow the Rule of St. Basil. They are divided into two great congregations, that of St. John the Baptist at Shuweir in the Lebanon and that of St. Saviour, near Sidon. Both have numerous daughter-houses. The Shuweirites have a further distinction, i.e. between those of Allepo and the Baladites. There are also convents of Basilian nuns.

419 Practically all Melchites are natives of the country, Arabs in tongue. Their rite is that of Constantinople, almost always celebrated in Arabic with a few versicles and exclamations (proschomen sophia orthoi, etc.) in Greek. But on certain solemn occasions the liturgy is celebrated entirely in Greek.

420 The sees of the patriarchate are: the patriarchate itself, to which is joined Damascus, administered by a vicar; then two metropolitan dioceses, Tyre and Aleppo; two archdioceses, Bosra with Hauran, and Horus with Hama; seven bishoprics, Sidon, Beirut (with Jebail), Tripolis, Acre, Furzil (with Zahle), and the Beqaa, Paneas, and Baalbek. The patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria are administered for the patriarch by vicars. The total number of Melchites is estimated at 130,000 (Silbernagl) or 114,080 (Werner).

421 For the origin and history see any history of the Monophysite heresy. NEALE, History of the Holy Eastern Church (London, 1848-1850), IV and V: The Patriaarchate of Alexandria supplementary volume: The Patriarchate of Antioch, ed. Williams (London, 1873); Charon, Histoire des Patriarcats Melkites (Rome, in course of publication), a most valuable work; RABBATH, Documents inedits pour servir a l'histoire du christianisme en Orient (3 vols., Paris, 1907); Le Quien, Oriens Christianus (Paris, 1740), II, 385-512 (Alexandrine Patriarchs), 699-730 (Antioch), III, 137-527).

422 For the present constitution: SILBERNAGL, Verfassung u. gegenwartiger Bestand samtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904), 334-341; WERNER, Orbis Terrarum Catholicus (Freiburg, 1890), 151-155.; Echos d'Orient (Paris, since 1897), articles by Charon and others; Kohler, Die Katholischen Kirchen des Morgenlands (Darmstadt, 1896), 124-1128; Charon, Le Rite byzantin dans les Patriarcats Melkites (extrait de chrysostomika) du Chant dans l'Eglise Grecque (Paris, 1906)

423 A. Fortescue

Juan Meléndez Valdés

397 Spanish poet and politician, b. at Ribera del Fresno (Badajoz) 11 March, 1754; d. in exile at Montpelier, France, 24 May, 1817. He studied law at Salamanca and while there, began his poetical career. In 1780, with his "Batilo", he won a prize offered by the Spanish Academy for the best ecologue on the pleasures of life in the country. In 1781 he went to Madrid where he made the acquaintance of the minister and author, Jovelannos, whose favour he enjoyed, and who had him appointed to a chair in the University of Salamanca. In 1784 Meléndez was one of over fifty competitors for a prize offered by the city of Madrid for the best dramatic composition. His comedy, "Las bodas de Camacho el rico" founded on the famous story of Cervantes, was awarded the prize and presented, but, as a stage production, it was not successful. This failure gave his detractors opportunity for much unfavourable criticism. Meléndez answered by publishing in 1785 the first volume of his poems which met with such success that it quickly ran through several editions and firmly established his literary reputation. He now entered upon a political career which was to prove his ruin. Through the favour of his friend Jovellanos, he obtained the posts successively of judge of the court of Saragossa in 1789, judicial chancellor at Valladolid in 1791, and fiscal of the supreme court in Madrid in 1797. On the fall of Jovellanos, Meléndez was ordered to leave Madrid, and after brief stays in Medina del Campo and Zamora, he finally established his residence at Salamanca. After the revolution of 1808, Meléndez accepted from the government of Joseph Bonaparte the post of councillor of state, and late patriotism naturally involved him in trouble with his countrymen, so that when the Spaniards returned to power in 1813, he was compelled to flee to France. Here he passed four years amid misery and misfortune, and died at Montpellier poor and neglected in his sixty-fourth year.

398 Though Meléndez cannot be considered a great poet, he was not lacking in talent. His poems are characterized by delicacy of expression and grace, rather than by vigour and great flights of fancy. He shows to best advantage in his eclogues and romances, which are distinguished for their easy flow and facility. In spite of the fact that he is but little read to-day, he undeniably exercised some influences in the literary restoration during the reign of Charles III, and has sometimes been called by admiring Spaniards "Restaurador del Parnaso" (Restorer of Parnassus). Besides the works already mentioned, Meléndez wrote a lyric poem on the creation, an epic entitled "La Caida de Luzbel", an ode to Winter, and a translation of the Ænid. Complete editions of the poems of Meléndez, with a life of the author by Quintana, were published in Madrid in 1820 (4 volumes) and in Barcelona in 1838. "La Biblioteca de Autores Españoles" (LXIII) reproduces the poems.

399 QUINTANA, Notice sur la vie de Meléndez Valdes (prefixed to the edition of the poet's works published at Madrid, 1820); Poesias ineditas in Revue hispanique (Paris, 1894-97).

400 Ventura Fuentes

Meletius of Antioch

400 Bishop, b. in Melitene, Lesser Armenia; d. at Antioch, 381. Before occupying the see of Antioch he had been Bishop of Sebaste, capital of Armenia Prima. Socrates supposes a transfer from Sebaste to Berœa and thence to Antioch; his elevation to Sebaste may date from the year 358 or 359. His sojourn in that city was short and not free from vexations owing to popular attachment to his predecessor Eustathius. Asia Minor and Syria were troubled at the time by theological disputes of an Arian, or semi-Arian character. Under Eustathius (324-330) Antioch had been one of the centres of Nicene orthodoxy. This great man was set aside, and his first successors, Paulinus and Eulalius held the see just a short time (330-332). Others followed, most of them unequal to their task, and the Church of Antioch was rent in twain by schism. The Eustathians remained an ardent and ungovernable minority in the orthodox camp, but details of this division escape us until the election of Leonatius (344-358). His sympathy for the Arian heresy was open, and his disciple Ætius preached pure Arianism which did not hinder his being ordained deacon. This was too much for the patience of the orthodox under the leadership of Flavius and Diodorus. Ætius had to be removed. On the death of Leontius, Eudoxius of Germanicia, one of the most influential Arians, speedily repaired to Antioch, and by intrigue secured his appointment to the vacant see. He held it only a short time, was banished to Armenia, and in 359 the Council of Seleucia appointed a successor named Annanius, who was scarcely installed when he was exiled. Eudoxius was restored to favour in 360, and made Bishop of Constantinople, whereby the Antiochene episcopal succession was re-opened. From all sides tbishops assembled for the election. The Acacians were the dominant party. Nevertheless the choice seems to have been a compromise. Meletius, who had resigned his see of Sebaste and who was a personal friend of Acacius, was elected. The choice was generally satisfactory, for Meletius had made promises to both parties so that orthodox and Arians thought him to be on their side.

401 Meletius doubtless believed that truth lay in delicate distinctions, but his formula was so indefinite that even to-day, it is difficult to seize it with precision. He was neither a thorough Nicene nor a decided Arian. Meanwhile he passed alternately for an Anomean, an Homoiousian, an Homoian, or a Neo-Nicene, seeking always to remain outside any inflexible classification. It is possible that he was yet uncertain and that he expected from the contemporary theological ferment some new and ingenious doctrinal combination, satisfactory to himself, but above all non-committal. Fortune had favoured him thus far; he was absent from Antioch when elected, and had not been even sounded concerning his doctrinal leanings. Men were weary of interminable discussion, and the kindly, gentle temper of Meletius seemed to promise the much- desired peace. He was no Athanasius, nor did unheroic Antioch wish for a man of that stamp. The qualities of Meletius were genuine; a simple life, pure morals, sincere piety and affable manners. He had no transcendent merit, unless the even harmonious balance of his Christian virtues might appear transcendent. The new bishop held the affection of the large and turbulent population he governed, and was esteemed by such men as St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and even his adversary St. Epiphanius. St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that he was a very pious man, simple and without guile, full of godliness; peace shone on his countenance, and those who saw him trusted and respected him. He was what he was called, and his Greek name revealed it, for there was honey in his disposition as well as his name. On his arrival at Antioch he was greeted by an immense concourse of Christians and Jews; every one wondered for which faction he would proclaim himself, and already the report was spread abroad that he was simply a partisan of the Necene Creed. Meletius took his own time. He began by reforming certain notorious abuses and instructing his people, in which latter work he might have aroused enmity had he not avoided all questions in dispute. Emperor Constans, a militant Arian, called a conference calculated to force from Meletius his inmost thought. The emperor invited several bishops then at Antioch to speak upon the chief test in the Arian controversy. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way" (Prov., viii, 22).

402 In the beginning Meletius was somewhat long and tedious, but exhibited a great Scriptural knowledge. He cautiously declared that Scripture does not contradict itself, that all language is adequate when it is a question of explaining the nature of God's only begotten Son. One does not get beyond an approximation which permits us to understand to a certain extent, and which brings us gently and progressively from visible things to hidden ones. Now, to believe in Christ is to believe that the Son is like unto the Father, His image, Who is in everything, creator of all; and not an imperfect but an adequate image, even as the effect corresponds to the cause. The generation of the only begotten Son, anterior to all time, carries with it the concepts of subsistence, stability, and exclusivism. Meletius then turned to moral considerations, but he had satisfied his hearers, chiefly by refraining from technical language and vain discussion. The orthodoxy of the bishop was fully established, and his profession of faith was a severe blow for the Arian party. St. Basil wrote the hesitating St. Epiphanius that "Meletius was the first to speak freely in favour of the truth and to fight the good fight in the reign of Constans". As Meletius ended his discourse his audience asked him for a summary of his teaching. He extended three fingers towards the people, then closed two and said, "Three Persons are conceived in the mind but it as though we addressed one only". This gesture remained famous and became a rallying sign. The Arians were not slow to avenge themselves. On vague pretexts the emperor banished Meletius to his native Armenia. He had occupied his see less than a month.

403 This exile was the immediate cuase of a long and deplorable schism between the Catholics of Antioch, henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians. The churches remaining in the hands of the Arians, Paulinus governed the Eustathians, while Flavius and Diodorus were the chiefs of the Meletian flock. In every family one child bore the name of Meletius, whose portrait was engraved on rings, reliefs, cups, and the walls of apartments. Meletius went into exile in the early part of the year 361. A few months later Emperor Constans died suddenly, and one of the first measures of his successor Julian was to revoke his predecessor's decrees of banishment. Meletius quite probably returned at once to Antioch, but his position was a difficult one in presence of the Eustathians. The Council of Alexandria (362) tried to re-establish harmony and put an end to the schism, but failed. Both parties were steadfast in their claims, while the vehemence and injudiciousness of the orthodox mediator increased the dissension, and ruined all prospects of peace. Though the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the hot-headed Lucifer Cagliari yielded to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead of temporizing and awaiting Meletius's approaching return from exile, assisted by two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader, Paulinus. This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established the schism. Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar injustice of history that this division should be known as the Meletian schism when the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for it. Meletius's return soon followed, also the arrival of Eusebius of Vercelli, but he could accomplish nothing under the circumstances. The persecution of Emperor Julian, whose chief residence was Antioch, brought new vexations. Both factions of the orthodox party were equally harassed and tormented, and both bore bravely their trials.

404 An unexpected incident made the Meletians prominent. An anti-Christian writing of Julian was answered by the aforesaid Meletian Diodorus, whom the emperor had coarsely reviled. "For many years", said the imperial apologist of Hellenism, "his chest has been sunken, his limbs withered, his cheeks flabby, his countenance livid". So intent was Julian upon describing the morbid symptoms of Diodorus that he seemed to forget Bishop Meletius. The latter doubtless had no desire to draw attention and persecution upon himself, aware that his flock was more likely to lose than to gain by it. He and two of his chorepiscopi, we are told, accompanied to the place of martyrdom two officers, Bonosus and Maximilian. Meletius also is said to have sent a convert from Antioch to Jerusalem. This, and a mention of the flight of all Antiochene ecclesiastics, led to the arbitrary supposition that the second banishment of Meletius came during Julian's reign. Be that as it may, the sudden end of the persecuting emperor and Jovian's accession must have greatly shortened the exile of Meletius. Jovian met Meletius at Antioch and showed him great respect. Just then St. Athanasius came to Antioch by order of the emperor, and expresed to Meletius his wish of entering into communion with him. Meletius, ill-advised, delayed answering him, and St. Athanasius went away leaving with Paulinus, whom he had not yet recognized as bishop, the declaration that he admitted him to his communion. Such blundering resulted in sad consequences for the Meletian cause. The moderation constantly shown by Athanasius, who thoroughly believed in Meletius's orthodoxy, was not found in his successor, Peter of Alexandria, who did not conceal his belief that Meletius was an heretic. For a long time the position of Meletius was contested by the very ones who, it seemed, should have established it more firmly. A council of 26 bishops at Antioch presided over by Meletius was of more consequence, but a pamphlet ascribed to Paulinus again raised doubts as to the orthodoxy of Meletius. Moreover, new and unsuspected difficulties soon arose.

405 Jovian's death made Arianism again triumphant and a violent persecution broke out under Emperor Valens. At the same time the quiet but persistent rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch helped the cause of Meletius. However illustrious an Egyptian patriarch might be, the Christian episcopate of Syria and Asia Minor was too national or racial, too self-centered, to seek or accept his leadership. Athanasius, indeed, remained an authoritative power in the East, but only a bishop of Antioch could unite all three who were now ready to frankly accept the Nicene Creed. In this way the rôle of Meletius became daily more prominent. While in his own city a minority contested his right to the see and questioned his orthodoxy, his influence was spreading in the East, and from various parts of the empire bishops accepted his leadership. Chalcedon, Ancyra, Melitene, Pergama, Cæsarea of Cappadocia, Bostra, parts of Syria and Palestine, looked to him for direction, and this movement grew rapidly. In 363 Meletius could count on 26 bishops, in 379 more than 150 rallied around him. Theological unity was at least restored in Syria and Asia Minor. Meletius and his disciples, however, had not been spared by the Arians. While Paulinus and his party were seemingly neglected by them, Meletius was again exiled (May, 365) to Armenia. His followers expelled from the churches, sought meeting places for worship wherever they could. This new exile, owing to a lull in the persecution, was of short duration, and probably in 367 Meletius took up again the government of his see. It was then that John, the future Chrysostom, entered the ranks of the clergy. The lull was soon over. In 371 persecution raged anew in Antioch, where Valens resided almost to the time of his death. At this time St. Basil occupied the see of Cæsarea (370) and was a strong supporter of Meletius. With rare insight Basil thoroughly understood the situation, which made impossible the restoration of religious peace in the East. It was clear that the antagonism between Athanasius and Meletius protracted endlessly the conflict. Meletius, the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch, was the only acceptable one for the East; unfortunately he was going into exile for the third time. In these circumstances Basil began negotiations with Meletius and Athanasius for the pacification of the East.

406 Aside from the inherent difficulties of the situation, the slowness of communication was an added hindrance. Not only did Basil's representative have to travel from Cæsarea to Armenia, and from Armenia to Alexandria, he also had to go to Rome to obtain the sanction of Pope Damasus and the acquiescence of the West. Notwithstanding the blunder committed at Antioch in 363, the generous spirit of Athanasius gave hope of success, his sudden death, however (May, 373), caused all efforts to be abandoned. Even at Rome and in the West, Basil and Meletius were to meet with disappointement. While they wrought persistently to restore peace, a new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius, increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the disputes. There were now three Antiochene churches that formally adopted the Nicene Creed. The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately, and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil. Though disheartened, the latter did not entirely give up hope of bringing the West, especially the pope, to a fuller understanding of the situation of the Antiochene Church. But the West did not grasp the complex interests and personal issues, nor appreciate the violence of the persecution against which the orthodox parties were struggling. In order to enlighten these well-intentioned men, closer relations were needed and deputies of more heroic character; but the difficulties were great and the "statu quo" remained.

407 After many disheartening failures, there was finally a glimpse of hope. Two legates sent to Rome, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, returned in the spring of 377, bringing with them cordial declarations which St. Basil instantly proceeded to publish everywhere. These declarations pronounced anathemas against Arius and the heresy of Apollinaris then spreading at Antioch, condemnations all the more timely, as theological excitement was then at its highest in Antioch, and was gradually reaching Palestine. St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but which the pope did not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations against Meletius and his following. In 378 Dorotheus and Sanctissimus returned from Rome, bearers of a formal condemnation of the errors pointed out by the Orientals; this decree definitively united the two halves of the Christian world. It seemed as though St. Basil was but waiting for this object of all his efforts, for he died 1 Jan., 379. The cause he had served so well seemed won, and Emperor Valens's death five months earlier warranted a hopeful outlook. One of the first measures of the new emperor, Gratian, was the restoration of peace in the Church and the recall of the banished bishops. Meletius therefore was reinstated (end of 378), and his flock probably met for worship in the "Palaia" or old church. It was a heavy task for the aged bishop to re-establish the shattered fortunes of the orthodox party. The most urgent step was the ordination of bishops for the sees which had become vacant during the persecution. In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement. Meanwhile, a great council of Eastern bishops was convoked at Constantinople to appoint a bishop for the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.

408 In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius who enthroned him. The Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith, but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and peaced. The death of one whose firmness and gentleness had kindled great expectations caused universal sorrow. The obsequies, at which Emperor Theodosius was present, took place in the church of the Apostles. The funeral panegyrics were touching and magnificent. His death blasted many hopes and justified grave forebodings. The body was transferred from Constantinople to Antioch, where, after a second and solemn funeral service, the body of the aged bishop was laid beside his predecessor St. Babylas. But his name was to live after him, and long remained for the Eastern faithful a rallying sign and a synonym of orthodoxy.

409 ALLARD, Julien l'Apostat (Paris, 1903); HEFELE, Histoire des conciles, ed. LECLERCQ, ii, 1; LOOFS in Realencyk. für prot. Theol. und Kirche, s. v.; CAVALLERA, Le schisme d'Antioche au IV et V siècle (Paris, 1905).

410 H. Leclercq

Meletius of Lycopolis

403 Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt, gave his name to a schism of short duration. There is uncertainty as to the dates of his birth, his death, and his episcopate. It is known, however, that he was bishop of the above-mentioned city as early as 303, since in a council held about 306 at Alexandria by Peter, archbishop of that city, Meletius was deposed for several reasons, among others for sacrificing to idols. Meagre references by St. Athanasius were our only source of information until important documents were discovered in the eighteenth century by Scipio Maffei at Verona in a manuscript dealing with the Meletian schism in Egypt. The three documents preserved in Latin are undoubtedly authentic. There is first, a letter of protest by four Egyptian bishops, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore, and Phileas, dating at the latest from 307, from the very beginning of the schism of Meletius, and before the excommunication of the latter who was termed by the bishops, dilectus comminister in Domino (beloved fellow minister in the Lord). "We have heard", said the bishops, "grievous reports regarding Meletius who is accused of troubling the divine law and ecclesiastical rules. Quite recently, a number of witnesses having confirmed the reports, we feel compelled to write this letter. Meletius is undoubtedly aware of the very ancient law which forbids a bishop to ordain outside his own diocese. Nevertheless, without regard for this law, and without consideration for the great bishop and father, Peter of Alexandria, and the incarcerated bishops, he has created general confusion. To vindicate himself he will perhaps declare that he was compelled to act thus, as the congregations were without pastors. Such a defence however, is worthless, as a number of visitors (circumeuntes) had been appointed. Were they neglectful of their duties, their case should have been presented before the incarcerated bishops. If the latter had been martyred, he could have appealed to Peter of Alexandria, and thus have obtained the authority to ordain". Second, an anonymous note added to the foregoing letter and worded thus: "Meletius having received the letter and read it, paid no attention to the protest and presented himself neither before the incarcerated bishops, nor Peter of Alexandria. After all these bishops, priests, and deacons had died in their dungeons at Alexandria, he immediately repaired to that city. Among other intriguers there were two, a certain Isidore and one Arius, seemingly honourable, both of them desirous of being admitted to the priesthood. Aware of the ambition of Meletius and what he sought, they hastened to him, and gave him the names of the visitors (circumeuntes) appointed by Peter. Meletius excommunicated them and ordained two others, one of them detained in prison, the other in the mines." On learning this, Peter wrote to his Alexandrian flock. Here comes the third document, in which occurs the phrase interpreted as follows: "Having heard", said Peter, "that Meletius, without considering the letter of the blessed bishops and martyrs, has intruded himself into my diocese, and deprived my deputies of their power, and consecrated others, I advise you to avoid all communion with him until I can bring him before me face to face in the presence of prudent men, and investigate this affair".

404 The conduct of Meletius was all the more reprehensible in as much as his insubordination was that of one in very high office. St. Epiphanius and Theodore tell us that Meletius stood next in rank to Peter of Alexandria, of whom he was jealous and whom he was basely endeavouring to supplant at the moment, when Peter was forced to flee from persecution and live in hiding. It was not only against Peter, but also against his immediate successors, Achillas and Alexander, that Meletius maintained his false position. This we know from St. Athanasius, an authoritative witness. Comparing the information given us by St. Athanasius with that furnished by the documents above, the date of the beginning of the Meletian schism may be determined with fair accuracy. It was evidently during the episcopate of Peter, who occupied the See of Alexandria from 300 to 311. Now St. Athanasius in his "Epistola ad episcopos" states positively that "the Meletians were declared schismatics over fifty-five years ago". Unfortunately the date of this letter is contested; the choice lies between 356 or 361. However, St. Athanasius adds: "The Arians were declared heretical thirty-six years ago", i. e. at the Council of Nicæa (325). Apparently, therefore, Athanasius was writing in 361. If now we deduct fifty-five years, we have the year 306 for the condemnation of the Meletian schism; and as the persecution of Diocletian raged bitterly between 303 and 305, the beginnings of the schism seem to belong to the year 304, or 305. St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus gives a circumstantial account (Haer. lxviii) in contradiction with the foregoing narrative. According to him, the schism arose from a disagreement between Meletius and Peter regarding the reception of certain of the faithful, particularly of ecclesiastics, who had abjured the Faith during the persecution. This account, preferred by some historians to the statement of St. Athanasius, is no longer credible since the discovery of the aforesaid documents by Maffei at Verona. How, then, explain the origin of the account given by Epiphanius? It seems to us it arose in this manner: after Peter's death Meletius was arrested and sent to the mines; on his way, he stopped at Eleutheropolis, and there founded a church of his sect; Eleutheropolis being the native town of Epiphanius, the latter naturally came in contact with Meletians in his early days. They would of course represent in a most favourable light the origin of their sect; and thus their partial and misleading narrative was afterwards inserted by Epiphanius in his great work on heresies. Finally, the references to the Meletian schism by Sozomen and Theodoret quite accord with the original documents discovered at Verona, and more or less with what St. Athanasius has upon the same subject. As to St. Augustine, he merely mentions the schism in passing and very likely follows St. Epiphanius.

405 The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicæa. Its decree has been preserved in the synodical epistle addressed to the Egyptian bishops. Meletius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of Lycopolis, but without exercising authority or the power of ordaining; moreover he was forbidded to go into the environs of the town or to enter another diocese for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. He retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the imposition of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Throughout the diocese where they were found, those ordained by him were always to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, nor were they to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander. In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or eccclesiastic, the vacant preferment might be given to a Meletian, provided he were worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. As to Meletius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him owing to his incorrigible habit of everywhere exciting confusion. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Meletians joined the Arians and did more harm than ever, being among the worst enemies of St. Athanasius. Referring to this attempt at reunion the latter said: "Would to God it had never happened."

406 About 325 the Meletians counted in Egypt twenty-nine bishops, Meletius included, and in Alexandria itself, four priests, three deacons, and one army chaplain. Conformably to the Nicene decree, Meletius lived first at Lycopolis in the Thebaid, but after Bishops Alexander's death he took a personal part in the negotiations which united his party to the Arians. The date of his death is not known. He nominated his friend, John, as his successor. Theodoret mentions very superstitious Meletian monks who practised Jewish ablutions. The Meletians died out after the middle of the fifth century.

407 CEILLIER, Histoire Générale des auteurs ecclésiastiques, III (Paris, 1732), 678-81), II (1765), 615-16; HEFELE, Meletius in Kirchenlex., ed. KAULEN, VIII (1893), 1221 sq.; ACHELIS, Meletius von Lykopolis in Realencyclopædie, ed. HAUCK, XII (1903), 558-62; HEFELE, Histoire des Conciles, ed. LECLERCQ, (1907), 211-12, 488-503.

408 H. Leclercq

Diocese of Melfi and Rapolla

406 Diocese of Melfi and Rapolla (Melphiensis Et Rapollensis)

407 Diocese in the province of Potenza, in Basilicata, southern Italy. Melfi is situated on a pleasant hill, on the slopes of Mt. Volture. The origin of the city is not well known; but the town became famous in 1043, when it was chosen capital of the new military state created in southern Italy by the twelve Norman counts, founders of the Kingdom of Naples. Nicholas II made it a diocese immediately dependent on the Holy See, its first bishop was Baldwin. Its beautiful cathedral, a work of Bishop Roger, son of Robert Guiscard (1155), was destroyed by the earthquake of 1851. Among its other bishops, mention should be made of Fra Alessandro de San Elpidio, a former general of the Augustinians (1328), and a learned theologian. In 1528, Clement VII, in view of the scarcity of its revenues, united the Diocese of Rapolla to that of Melfi, "aeque principaliter". Rapolla is a city founded by the Lombards, on the banks of the Olivento River. The Normans took it from the Greeks in 1042, and fortified it with works still to be seen. The town, which has a beautiful cathedral, was an episcopal see, suffragan of Siponto, in the time of Gregory VII. Other bishops were Cardinal Giovanni Vincenzo Acquaviva (1537), who gave a noble organ to the cathedral, and Lazzro Caraffini (1622), founder of the seminary. Several councils were held at Melfi; one in 1048; another 1059, under Nicholas II, important on account of the prohibition of the marriage of priests, the deposition of the Bishop of Trani, promoter of the schism of Cerularius, and the investiture of Robert Guiscard of the Ducy of Apulia and Calabria; the council of 1067, the one of 1089, against simony and the concubinage of priests, and for the freedom of the Church; lastly, the council of 1100. The united sees have 14 parishes, with 40,000 inhabitants, 66 priests, 5 religious houses of women, and 1 school for boys and 1 for girls.

408 CAPPELLETTI: Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857).

409 U. Benigni

Giovanni Meli

409 Sicilian poet, b. at Palermo, 4 March, 1740, d. 20 Dec., 1815. He was the son of a goldsmith of Spanish origin, and received his first education from the Jesuits. He afterwards studied natural science and medicine, and practised as a physician in the hamlet of Cinisi and later at Palermo itself, where for nineteen years he held the chair of chemistry at the university. Towards the end of his life he took minor orders. In childhood he had been let to poetry by reading Ariosto, and in poetical exposition founded relief from domestic unhappiness. His poems are written in the Sicilian dialect, and as a vernacular poet of this kind he has no rival in Italian literature. His longer works, "La Fata Galanti", "Don Chisciotti e Sanciu Panza", "L'origini di lu Munnu", are fantastic poems in ottava rima in imitation of Berni. The "Buccolica", eclogues and idylls of the four seasons of the year, is full of Sicilian colour, and has won him the title of "the modern Theocritus". Meli was a staunch supporter of the Bourbon regime, and among his lyrics "Anacreontiche" and "Odi", is an ode in honour of Nelson, which however, he is said to have suppressed after the latter's execution of the Neapolitan patriots. His last work, the "Favuli morali" is a collection of Esopian fables in verse with an underlying allegorical or satirical meaning.

410 Opere di GIOVANNI MELI (Palermo, 1857); La Buccolica, la Lirica, le Satire, e l'Elegie di GIOVANNI MELI ridotte dal sicilano in italiano da AGNOSTO GALLO (Salerno, 1858); NAVANTARI, Studio critico su Giovanni Meli (Palermo, 1904).

411 Edmund G. Gardner

Pius Melia

412 Italian theologian, b. at Rome, 12 Jan., 1800; d. in London, June 1883. He entered the Society of Jesus on 14 Aug., 1815, taught literature at Reggio, and afterwards was engaged in preaching. He left the Society in 1853. He wrote two books: "Alcune ragioni del P. Pio Melia della C. di G." (Lucca, 1847), a defence of the Society of Jesus, and "Alcune affirmazioni del Sig. Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (Pisa, s. d.), an attack upon Rosmini (q. v.). In his "Life of Rosmini", Fr. Lockhart merely declares that the latter work was written by certain Italian Jesuits; Father de Backer, in his "Dictionnaire des Antonymes", attributed it to Passaglia, but his "Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus", re-edited by Sommervogel, follows Beorchia, who attributes it to Melia. Melia, who attacked especially Rosmini's doctrine on original sin, was answered by Rosmini (Milan, 1841) and Pagani (Milan, 1842); then began a bitter controversy which had to be ended by a direct command of Pius IX.

413 Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., V (Brussels and Paris, 1894); Lockhart, Life of Rosmini (London, 1886).

414 Wm. M. Tallon

Melissus of Samos

415 A Greek philosopher, of the Eleatic School, b. at Samos about 470 B C. It is probable that he was a disciple of Parmenides, and that he is identical with the Melissus who, according to Plutarch (Pericles, 26), commanded the Samian fleet which defeated the Athenians off the coast of Samos in 442. He wrote a work which is variously entitled peri tou ontos, peri physeos, etc., and of which only a few fragments have come down to us. In attempting to combine the doctrines of Parmenides with those of the earliest philosophers of Greece (see ), Melissus, through he fell into many contradictions, forestalled, in a sense, Aristotle's more successful effort to define the infinite and the incorporeal. Like Parmenides, he depreciated sense-knowledge, and held that change, motion, and multiplicity are illusions. At the same time, he was influenced by the Ionians, especially by Heraclitus, to attach value to the question of origins. He definitely predicates infinity of being, and assets that reality "has no body". By the infinite he understands "that which has neither beginning nor end", and in his conception of "that which has no body", he does not, as Aristotle points out (Metaph. I, 5, 986 b.) attain a correct understanding of the immaterial. The physical doctrines ascribed to Melissus by Philoponus, Stoboeus, Epiphanius,, and others do not seem to have been held by him. There is, however, a possibility that, as Diogenes Laërtius informs us, Melissus avoided all mention of the gods because we can know nothing about them. Like Plato, Aristotle, and some of the other Greek philosopher, he probably thought it wisest to take refuge in a profession of ignorance regarding the gods, so as to avoid the imputation of hostility to the popular mythology.

416 FAIRBANKS, First Philosophers of Greece (New York, 1898), 120 sq., gives fragments of Melissus's work, with translations of references to him in Aristotle, Epiphanius, etc.; PABST, De Melissi fragmentis (Bonn, 1880); KERN, Zur Wurdigung des Melissus (Stettin, 1880); ZELLER, Pro-Socratic Philosophy, tr. ALLEYNE, I (Lond., 1881), 627 sq.; TANNERY, Pour l'histoire de la science hellene (Paris, 1887), 262 sq.; TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), 51 sq.

417 William Turner

Melitene

418 The residence of an Armenian Catholic see, also a titulary archbishopric. According to Pliny (Nat. Hist. VI, 3), the city was founded by Queen Semiramis at a little distance from the Euphrates; the earliest mention of it is found in Tacitus (Annal., XV, 26). A Roman camp was there under Nero, and Trajan made it the principal stronghold of this frontier. Its name is probably derived from the river Melas which empties into the Euphrates. Under Marcus Aurelius the Legio XII fulminata was stationed there (Eusebius, H, E. V, v, 4); to this legion belonged the forty martyrs of Sebaste. Ptolemy (V, vi, 21) and Strabo (XII i, 2, 4; see also XI, xii, 2; XI, xiv, 2) make it one of the ten provinces of Cappadocia. Justinian fortified it and filled it with magnificent monuments (Procopius, De Ædificiis, III, 4), which have all disappeared. In 577 the Romans gained a great victory over the Persians in the vicinity of Melitene; two years before the city had been burned by the Shah Chosroes. Towards the middle of the seventh century Melitene again became Byzantine; it was afterwards taken by the Arabs and later recaptured by Emperor Constantine Copronymus in 751. The latter transported the Christian population to Thrace, dispersed the Mussulmans of the province, destroyed the city and razed the walls. In 760 Caliph Al-Manzur took possession of it and restored to it something of its former importance. In the tenth century the Byzantines re-established their domination and in 965 the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas successfully undertook to colonize the region. The Greek Government had faithfully promised not to molest the Monophysites, whether Armenian or Syrian; but it did not keep its promise. In the eleventh century the city counted no less than fifty-six churches, and was able to furnish 60,000 armed men from among its own citizens and its environs, an index of its great prosperity. The number of suffragan sees increased at this time and was suddenly changed from three to nine (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitiæ episcopatuum", 579). The Monophysites had at that time seven sees in the vicinity of Melitene (Barhebræus, H. E. II, 460). The city fell afterwards into the power of the Seljuk Turks of Iconium; then of the Mongols in 1235; of the Osmanlis in 1396; of Timur in 1401; then of different Turkish princes. Finally, at the beginning of the sixteenth century it was annexed to the Ottoman Empire, of which it is still a part.

419 Christianity seems to have reached Melitene very early. The Roman soldier, St. Polyeuctus, immortalized by Corneille, was martyred there in 254 or 259. Another third century martyr is known, St. Eudoxius, whose relics were found in 966, as indicated by an inscription carved on the door of a church. St. Meletius, the celebrated Bishop of Antioch, was a native of Melitene, as was also Saint Euthymius, to whom was chiefly due the organization of monastic life in Palestine during the fifth century. A council against the Arians was held there in 363. Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, I, 439-46) gives a long list of its Greek bishops, the last of whom belongs to the year 1193. Among them are St. Acacius, who died about 438; and Saint Domitian, first cousin to the Emperor Maurice, who played a most important rôle in the religious and political life of the second half of the sixth century. For its Jacobite bishops see Le Quien (II, 1451-58) and "Revue de l'Orient chrétien" (VI, 201). To-day the city of Malatia forms a sanjak of the vilayet of Mamouret-ul-Aziz; it numbers about 30,000 inhabitants of whom 16,000 are Turks; 4500 Kurds; 6500 Kizil Bach (a Mussulman sect); and about 3000 Armenians. Among the last mentioned are 800 Catholics. The Capuchins have established there a mission with a church built in 1884 and an orphan asylum. The city, which was disturbed by an earthquake in 1893, was still more sorely troubled by the massacres of 1895, during which 500 houses were burned and 1000 Christians massacred. About five miles from Malatia is the village of Eski-Malatia on the site of the ancient Melitene; a part of the walls is still preserved. The whole region is like an immense fruit garden in a delightful climate and a well-watered land. The Catholic Armenian diocese numbers 5100 souls, 9 priests, 10 churches and chapels, 7 stations, 9 primary schools, and an establishment of Armenian Sisters of the Immaculate Conception. The schismatic Armenian diocese is under the Catholicos of Sis. There is also established there a Protestant mission.

420 TEXIER, L'Asie Mineure (Paris, 1862), 587-590; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, II, 369-375; PIOLET, Les missions catholiques Françaises au XIXe siècle, I (Paris, 285-287); Missiones catholicœ (Rome, 1907), 757.

421 S. VAILHÉ.

St. Melito

421 Bishop of Sardis, prominent ecclesiastical writer in the latter half of the second century. Few details of his life are known. A letter of Polyerates of Ephesus to Pope Victor about 194 (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", V, xxiv) states that "Melito the eunuch [this is interpreted "the virgin" by Rufinus in his translation of Eusebius], whose whole walk was in the Holy Spirit", was interred at Sardis, and had been one of the great authorities in the Church of Asia who held the Quartodeciman theory. His name is cited also in the "Labyrinth" of Hippolytus as one of the second-century writers who taught the duality of natures in Jesus. St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian's statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful.

422 Of Melito's numerous works almost all have perished, fortunately, Eusebius has preserved the names of the majority and given a few extracts (Hist. Eccl., IV, xiii, xxvi). They are (1) "An Apology for the Christian Faith", appealing to Marcus Aurelius to examine into the accusations against the Christians and to end the persecution (written apparently about 172 or before 177). This is a different work from the Syriac apology attributed to Melito, published in Svriae and English by Cureton from a British Museum manuscript. The latter, a vigorous confutation of idolatry and polytheism addressed to Antoninus Caesar, seems from internal evidence to be of Syrian origin, though some authorities have identified it with Melito's Peri aletheias. (2) Peri tou pascha, on Easter, written probably in 167-8. A fragment cited by Eusebius refers to a dispute that had broken out in Laodicea regarding Easter, but does not mention the precise matter in controversy. (3) Eklogai, six books of extracts from the Law and the Prophets concerning Christ and the Faith, the passage cited by Eusebius contains a canon of the Old Testament. (4) He kleis, for a long time considered to be preserved in the "Melitonis clavis sanctae scripturae", which is now known to be an original Latin compilation of the Middle Ages. (5) Peri ensomatou theou, on the corporeity of God, of which some Syriac fragments have been preserved. It is referred to by Origen (In Gen., i, 26) as showing Melito to have been an Anthropomorphite, the Syriac fragments, however, prove that the author held the opposite doctrine.

423 Fourteen additional works are cited by Eusebius. Anastasius Sinaita in his Hodegos (P.G., LXXXIX) quotes from two other writings: Eis to pathos (on the Passion), and Peri sarkoseos (on the Incarnation), a work in three books, probably written against the Marcionites. Routh (see below) has published four scholia in Greek from a Catena on the Sacrifice of Isaac as typifying the Sacrifice of the Cross, probably taken from a corrupt version of the Eklogai. Four Syriac fragments from works on the Body and Soul, the Cross, and Faith, are apparently compositions of Melito, though often referred to Alexander of Alexandria. Many spurious writings have been attributed to Melito in addition to the "Melitonis clavis sanctae scripturae" already mentioned e.g., a "Let ter to Eutrepius, "Catena in Apocalypsin", a manifest forgery compiled after A.D. 1200; "De passione S. Joannis Evangelistae" (probably not earlier than the seventh century), "De transitu Beatae Mariae Virginis" (see Apocrypha in I, 607). Melito's feast is observed on 1 April.

424 A. A. MacErlean.

Abbey and Congregation of Melk

424 (Molck, Mellicum).

425 Situated on an isolated rock commanding the Danube, Melk has been a noted place since the days of the Romans. A Slav settlement, Magalicha, replaced the Roman fort, and in its turn was destroyed by a Magyar invasion about 955, when it received the name Eisenburg. The Magyars, however, were driven out by Luitpold the Illustrious, first Margrave of Austria, who here fixed his capital and founded a church for secular canons. These having become lax, were replaced by twelve monks of Subiaco, whom Luitpold II brought from Lambach with Sijibold as their abbot in 1089. Melk was much favoured by St. Luitpold III, and the new foundation rapidly grew and flourished, its corn tithes being so abundant that the folk-name for Melk was "at the full bushel". It became a place of pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Coloman, and was famed for its great relic of the Holy Cross. By the fifteenth century monastic observance at Melk had become relaxed, but in 1418, at the request of Albert V, Archduke of Austria, Martin V sent the Ven. Nicholas of Magen with five other monks of Subiaco from the Council of Constance to begin a reform of the monasteries of Lower Austria. The Abbot of Melk, John of Flemming, voluntarily resigned, and Nicholas, elected in his stead, soon so reformed the observance in accordance with the constitutions of Subiaco that the abbey became a model for other houses in Austria. Several monasteries followed its example, among them Obenburg, Salzburg, Mariazell, the Scottish abbey at Vienna, Kremsmunster, Ratisbon, and Tegernsee. All these houses followed the same observance and styled themselves the Congregation of Melk. They in no way depended, however, on Melk, nor had they any general superior, soliciting visitors when needful from the pope. The Abbey of Melk continued in its first fervour of reform, and several attempts were made from 1460 onwards to effect a more formal union. In 1470 seventeen abbots of various neighbouring dioceses met at Erfurt and decided to establish in their monasteries the common observance and ceremonial of Melk. Nothing more definite occurred until Gaspar, Abbot of Melk, in 1618 invited the abbots of Austria to meet at Melk and form a congregation. The negotiations continued until 1623, when the Abbots of Melk, Kremsmunster, Garsten, the Scots' Abbey of Vienna, Altenburg, Göttweich and Mariazell signed the constitutions agreed upon for the new congregation. These were confirmed by Urban VIII in 1625. In addition the congregation included the houses of Lambach, Monsee, Leittenstaden and Kleinck. It was governed by a superior general, elected every two years, who acted as visitor of all the monasteries of the congregation. Each province also had its own visitor. In 1630 there was an attempt to form a united congregation of all the monasteries of the empire, but the Swedish invasion frustrated this project, though many of the German monasteries thenceforth observed the constitutions of Melk. In the fourteenth century Melk, by permission of Duke Frederic I, had been fortified, and was thus able to resist successive sieges by Matthias Corvinus, by the revolted peasantry, by the Protestant States of Austria and by the Turks, though on each occasion the property of the abbey suffered. Great losses, too, were sustained at the hands of Napoleon's troops. In 1889 the Abbey of Melk was included by Leo XIII in the Austrian Congregation of the Immaculate Conception. In 1905 the congregation numbered 85, of whom 75 were priests. The present abbot, Joseph Charles (b. 1824, appointed 1875), exercises jurisdiction over 29 parishes, with 45,145 souls.

426 Annales Mellicenses, ed. WATTENBACH, in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist. Script., IX (Hanover, 1851), 480-535; BERLIÈRE, La réforme de Melk au XVe Siècle in Revue Bénédictine, XII (1895), 204-13, 289-309; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der Katholischen Kirche, I (Paderborn, 1907), 286-95, 344; HÉLYOT, Dictionnaire des . . . ordres religeux, II (Paris, 1863), 1033-39; KATSCHTHALER, Melk (Vienna, 1905); KEIBLINGER, Geschichte des Benediktinerstifts Melk (Vienna, 1851-69); KROPF, Bibliotheca Mellicensis (Vienna, 1747); MABILLON, Annales O. S. B., V (Lucca, 1740), 248-9; PEZ, Ephemerides rerum in Monasterio Mellicensi . . . gestarum . . . 1741-46, ed. STAUFER in Studien O. S. B., VIII-X (1886-9); SCHRAMB, Chronicon Mellicense (Vienna, 1702); WOLFSGRÜBER AND HÜBL, Abteien unde Klöster in 'sterreich (Vienna, n. d.).

427 Leslie A. St. L. Toke

428 (Molck, Mellicum).

429 Situated on an isolated rock commanding the Danube, Melk has been a noted place since the days of the Romans. A Slav settlement, Magalicha, replaced the Roman fort, and in its turn was destroyed by a Magyar invasion about 955, when it received the name Eisenburg. The Magyars, however, were driven out by Luitpold the Illustrious, first Margrave of Austria, who here fixed his capital and founded a church for secular canons. These having become lax, were replaced by twelve monks of Subiaco, whom Luitpold II brought from Lambach with Sijibold as their abbot in 1089. Melk was much favoured by St. Luitpold III, and the new foundation rapidly grew and flourished, its corn tithes being so abundant that the folk-name for Melk was "at the full bushel". It became a place of pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Coloman, and was famed for its great relic of the Holy Cross. By the fifteenth century monastic observance at Melk had become relaxed, but in 1418, at the request of Albert V, Archduke of Austria, Martin V sent the Ven. Nicholas of Magen with five other monks of Subiaco from the Council of Constance to begin a reform of the monasteries of Lower Austria. The Abbot of Melk, John of Flemming, voluntarily resigned, and Nicholas, elected in his stead, soon so reformed the observance in accordance with the constitutions of Subiaco that the abbey became a model for other houses in Austria. Several monasteries followed its example, among them Obenburg, Salzburg, Mariazell, the Scottish abbey at Vienna, Kremsmunster, Ratisbon, and Tegernsee. All these houses followed the same observance and styled themselves the Congregation of Melk. They in no way depended, however, on Melk, nor had they any general superior, soliciting visitors when needful from the pope. The Abbey of Melk continued in its first fervour of reform, and several attempts were made from 1460 onwards to effect a more formal union. In 1470 seventeen abbots of various neighbouring dioceses met at Erfurt and decided to establish in their monasteries the common observance and ceremonial of Melk. Nothing more definite occurred until Gaspar, Abbot of Melk, in 1618 invited the abbots of Austria to meet at Melk and form a congregation. The negotiations continued until 1623, when the Abbots of Melk, Kremsmunster, Garsten, the Scots' Abbey of Vienna, Altenburg, Göttweich and Mariazell signed the constitutions agreed upon for the new congregation. These were confirmed by Urban VIII in 1625. In addition the congregation included the houses of Lambach, Monsee, Leittenstaden and Kleinck. It was governed by a superior general, elected every two years, who acted as visitor of all the monasteries of the congregation. Each province also had its own visitor. In 1630 there was an attempt to form a united congregation of all the monasteries of the empire, but the Swedish invasion frustrated this project, though many of the German monasteries thenceforth observed the constitutions of Melk. In the fourteenth century Melk, by permission of Duke Frederic I, had been fortified, and was thus able to resist successive sieges by Matthias Corvinus, by the revolted peasantry, by the Protestant States of Austria and by the Turks, though on each occasion the property of the abbey suffered. Great losses, too, were sustained at the hands of Napoleon's troops. In 1889 the Abbey of Melk was included by Leo XIII in the Austrian Congregation of the Immaculate Conception. In 1905 the congregation numbered 85, of whom 75 were priests. The present abbot, Joseph Charles (b. 1824, appointed 1875), exercises jurisdiction over 29 parishes, with 45,145 souls.

430 Annales Mellicenses, ed. WATTENBACH, in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist. Script., IX (Hanover, 1851), 480-535; BERLIÈRE, La réforme de Melk au XVe Siècle in Revue Bénédictine, XII (1895), 204-13, 289-309; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der Katholischen Kirche, I (Paderborn, 1907), 286-95, 344; HÉLYOT, Dictionnaire des . . . ordres religeux, II (Paris, 1863), 1033-39; KATSCHTHALER, Melk (Vienna, 1905); KEIBLINGER, Geschichte des Benediktinerstifts Melk (Vienna, 1851-69); KROPF, Bibliotheca Mellicensis (Vienna, 1747); MABILLON, Annales O. S. B., V (Lucca, 1740), 248-9; PEZ, Ephemerides rerum in Monasterio Mellicensi . . . gestarum . . . 1741-46, ed. STAUFER in Studien O. S. B., VIII-X (1886-9); SCHRAMB, Chronicon Mellicense (Vienna, 1702); WOLFSGRÜBER AND HÜBL, Abteien unde Klöster in 'sterreich (Vienna, n. d.).

431 Leslie A. St. L. Toke

Melleray

427 (Mellearium)

428 Melleray, situated in Brittany (Loire-Inférieure), Diocese of Nantes, in the vicinity of Chateaubriand, was founded about the year 1134. Foulques, Abbot of Pontron, in Anjou, founded from Loroux (a daughter of Cîteaux), sent monks for the foundation of a monastery in Brittany. They were delighted with the solitude of a place near Old Melleray, shown them by Rivallon, pastor of Auverné, which Alain de Moisdon, proprietor of the place, donated to them. Guitern, the first abbot, erected the original monastery in 1145, but the church was not completed until 1183, under Geffroy, the fourth abbot. Melleray, a small monastery built for about twelve religious, remained regular until during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when relaxation prevailed as a result of the acquisition of great wealth and the introduction of the system of commendatory abbots. Etienne de Brezé (1544) was the first commendatory abbot, and from his time both spiritual and temporal welfare declined, until toward the end of the seventeenth century when, through the efforts of Dom Jouard, vicar-general of the order, the rule of St. Bernard was re-introduced, and the monastic buildings restored. In 1791 it was suppressed, and the few religious were dispersed. This, however, was not the end of Melleray. The Trappists, expelled from France, took refuge at Val Sainte, Switzerland; from there, urged by their rapid increase, and for fear of the spread of the revolution, Dom Augustine de Lestrange established them in various parts of the world. Through the generosity of Sir Thomas Weld, a wealthy English Catholic, the father of Cardinal Weld, they settled (1795) at Lulworth, Dorsetshire, England. Their monastery was soon created an abbey, and Dom Antoine was elected the first abbot (1813). In 1817, with changed conditions and the restoration of the Bourbons, the monks of Lulworth returned to Melleray. The restored abbey flourished, increasing from fifty-seven to one hundred and ninety-two members in twelve years. During the Revolution of 1830 they were again persecuted, especially those of foreign birth, of whom they had a great number. To make homes for these they founded Mount Melleray (1833) in Ireland and Mount Saint Bernard (1835) in England. Dom Antoine (d. 1839) was succeeded first by Dom Maxime, then by a second Dom Antoine, and finally by Dom Eugene Vachette, the present abbot. Under Dom Antoine II several monasteries were established, among them Gethsemani, in the United States. Dom Eugène, elected in 1875, was for many years the vicar-general of the Congregation of La Grande Trappe, and was instrumental in effecting the reunion of the three congregations into one order (1892). Since then he has been vicar to the Most Reverend General of the Reformed Cistercians. Recently he has established an annex to his monastery in Woodbarton, Diocese of Plymouth, England.

429 Mount Melleray

430 Situated on the slopes of the Knockmealdown Mountains, near Cappoquin, Diocese of Waterford, Ireland, was founded in 1833. Father Vincent Ryan was chosen leader of the religious sent by Dom Antoine, Abbot of Melleray, for this foundation. After many efforts to locate his community he accepted the offer of Sir Richard Keane, of Cappoquin, to rent a tract of barren mountain waste, some five hundred acres, subsequently increased to seven hundred. In the work of reclaiming the soil, they were assisted by the country folk; entire parishes, led by their pastors, came, each in turn, to give free a full day's work. In 1833 the corner-stone was laid by Sir Richard Keane, in the presence of the bishop and a large concourse of clergy and people. In 1835 the monastery was created an abbey, and Father Vincent, unanimously elected, received the abbatial blessing from Dr. Abraham, bishop of the diocese, this being the first abbatial blessing in Ireland since the Reformation. Abbot Vincent vigorously undertook the work of completing the abbey, but died 9 Dec., 1845. Under the short rule of his successor, Dom M. Joseph Ryan, but little was accomplished, as he resigned after only two years. To Don Bruno Fitzpatrick, who succeeded as abbot in September, 1848, it remained to consolidate and perfect the work so well begun. He also founded, in 1849, the monastery of New Melleray, near Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A., and, in 1878, Mount Saint Joseph, Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, Ireland. But the most conspicuous of Abbot Bruno's works was the founding of the Ecclesiastical Seminary of Mount Melleray. Originating in a small school formed by Abbot Vincent in 1843, it was developed by Abbot Bruno and his successors, until it attained its present rank. Abbot Bruno died 4 Dec., 1893, and was succeeded by Dom Carthage Delaney, who was blessed 15 Jan., 1894, and presided over Mount Melleray for thirteen years; his successor, Dom Maurus Phelan, solemnly blessed by Dr. Sheahan, Bishop of Waterford, 15 Aug., 1908, is the present abbot. The community numbers thirty-eight choir religious (of whom twenty-nine are priests) and twenty-nine lay brothers.

431 New Melleray

432 Mount Melleray having become crowded, it was decided to attempt a new foundation. While plans were being discussed, Bishop Lorans, of Dubuque, Iowa, visited the abbey (1849). He expressed a strong desire to have a colony of Trappists in his diocese, and offered a tract of land about twelve miles from Dubuque. Abbot Bruno immediately sent two of his religious to inspect the land, and receiving a favourable report, he accepted the offer. Later in the same year he laid the foundation of New Melleray Abbey, appointing, as its first superior, Father James O'Gorman (later consecrated first bishop of Omaha, Nebraska). Father Clement Smyth, the third superior, was also elected bishop, being placed in charge of the Diocese of Dubuque. In 1859 the monastery was made an abbey, and Father Ephraim McDonald elected its first abbot. The second abbot, still in office, is Dom Alberic Dunlea, whose community now numbers thirty-six members.

433 MANRIQUE, "Annales Cistercienses" (Lyons, 1642); JANAUSCHEK, "Originum Cistercienium" (Vienna, 1877); HAUREAU, "Gallia Christiana", XIV (1856); MORICE, "Preuves de l'Histoire de Bretagne"; FELIX, "Notice sur l'Abbaye de Melleray" (Nantes, 1884); DE CORSON, "L'Abbaye de Melleray avant la Revolution" (St. Brieuc, 1895); "Vie du R. P. D. Antoine" (Paris, 1840); GAILLARDIN, "Les Trappistes de l'ordre de Citeaux au XIXe s." (2 vols., Paris, 1845); RICHER, "Voyage par un Trappiste de 7 Fons" (Paris, 1870); "Grandmaison y Bruno" (Paris, 1852); "Archives of Mount Melleray"; RYAN, "Hist. of the Foundation and First Six Years of Mt. Melleray Abbey"; HENNESSEY, "Mellifont Abbey, Its Ruins and Associations" (Dublin, 1897); HAVTRY (1640), "Triumphalia Chronologica Monast. S. Crucis", ed. MURPHY (Dublin, 1891); ROBERT, "Concise Hist. of the Cistercian Order" (London, 1852).

434 Edmond M. Obrecht

Abbey of Mellifont

430 Located three miles from Drogheda, Co. Louth, Diocese of Armagh, it was the first Cistercian monastery established in Ireland. In the year 1140, St. Malachy, en route for Rome, visited St. Bernard at Clairvaux, and was so edified that he resolved to establish a similar monastery in his own diocese of Armagh. He therefore left several of his companions at Clairvaux, to make their novitiate under the direction of St. Bernard. In 1142 they returned to found Mellifont under Christian O'Conarchy, who had been Archdeacon of Down and who became the first abbot. A French monk, Father Robert, an able architect, directed the construction of the monastic buildings according to the plans of the Abbey of Clairvaux. The consecration of the church in 1157 was the occasion of great religious celebrations. So numerous were the postulants that six important monasteries were founded during the first ten years: Bective (1146); Boyle (1148); Monasternenagh (1148); Baltinglas (1148); Schrule (1150); Newry (1153). In 1150 the venerable Abbot Christian was appointed Bishop of Lismore, and Pope Eugene III, who had been his fellow-novice at Clairvaux, named him legate for Ireland. Soon after his death (1186) his name was inscribed in the calendar of the saints, and he has long been venerated as one of the most powerful protectors of his country. His brother Malchus, equally illustrious for his science and sanctity, succeeded him. For sixty years Mellifont rejoiced in great prosperity, and when the English invaded Ireland there were already twenty-five great Cistercian abbeys. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the rivalries between the English and Irish exerted a baneful influence, peace gave way to discord, and in more than one case the general chapter, and even the sovereign pontiff, were forced to intervene. Not until the fifteenth century did Mellifont regain its ancient prestige, which was maintained until its suppression by Henry VIII on 23 July, 1539, when one hundred and fifty monks were compelled to leave with Richard Contour, the last Abbot of Mellifont. The king seized the treasures of the abbey, and the annals were either lost or destroyed, and with them the names of many remarkable men. Several religious continued to live in the environs, which explains why, in 1623, the title of Abbot of Mellifont was granted, by Apostolic Brief, to Patrick Barnewall, and again in 1648 to John Devreux when the title disappears. In 1566 the abbey, with its dependencies, was given to Edward Moore, chief of the family Drogheda, and passed, in 1727, to Balfour of Townley Hall, during whose term of ownership all fell to the speedy decay and desolate ruin of the present day.

431 HENNESSEY, Mellifont Abbey, Its Ruins and Associations (Dublin, 1897); HAVTRY (1640), Triumphalia Chronologica Monasterii Sanctœ Crucis, ed. MURPHY (Dublin, 1891); De Cistercium Hibernorum Viris Illustribus (Dublin, 1895); JONGELINUS, Notitiœ Abbatianum O. Cist. (Cologne, 1840); JANAUSCHEK, Originum Cisterciensium (Vienna, 1877); MANRIQUE, Annales Cistercienses (Lyons, 1642); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, VI, part 2 (London, 1830); ARCHDALL, Monasticum Hibernicum (London, 1786).

432 Edmond M. Obrecht.

St. Mellitus

433 Bishop of London and third Archbishop of Canterbury, d. 24 April, 624. He was the leader of the second band of missionaries whom St. Gregory sent from Rome to join St. Augustine at Canterbury in 601. Venerable Bede (Hist. Eccl., II, vii) describes him as of noble birth, and as he is styled abbot by the pope (Epp. Gregorii, xi, 54, 59), it is thought he may have been Abbot of the Monastery of St. Andrew on the Coelian Hill, to which both St. Gregory and St. Augustine belonged. Several commendatory epistles of the pope recommending Mellitus and his companions to various Gallic bishops have been preserved (Epp., xi, 54-62). With the band he sent also "all things needed for divine worship and the Church's service, viz. sacred vessels and altar cloths, vestments for priests and clerics, and also relics of the holy apostles and martyrs, with many books" (Bede, "Hist. Eccl.", I, 29).

434 The consecration of Mellitus as bishop by Augustine took place soon after his arrival in England, and his first missionary efforts were among the East Saxons. Their king was Sabert, nephew to Ethelbert, King of Kent, and by his support, Mellitus was able to establish his see in London, the East Saxon capital, and build there the church of St. Paul. On the death of Sabert his sons, who had refused Christianity, gave permission to their people to worship idols once more. Moreover, on seeing Mellitus celebrating Mass one day, the young princes demanded that he should give them also the white bread which he had been wont to give their father. When the saint answered them that this was impossible until they had received Christian baptism, he was banished from the kingdom. Mellitus went to Kent, where similar difficulties had ensued upon the death of Ethelbert, and thence retired to Gaul about the year 616.

435 After an absence of about a year, Mellitus was recalled to Kent by Laurentius, Augustine's successor in the See of Canterbury. Matters had improved in that kingdom owing to the conversion of the new king Eadbald, but Mellitus was never able to regain possession of his own See of London. In 619, Laurentius died, and Mellitus was chosen archbishop in his stead. He appears never to have received the pallium, though he retained the see for five years-a fact which may account for his not consecrating any bishops. During this time, he suffered constantly from ill-health. He consecrated a church to the Blessed Mother of God in the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul at Canterbury, and legend attributes to him the foundation of the Abbey of St. Peter at Westminster, but this is almost certainly incorrect. Among the many miracles recorded of him is the quelling of a great fire at Canterbury which threatened to destroy the entire city. The saint, although too ill to move, had himself carried to the spot where the fire was raging and, in answer to his prayer, a strong wind arose which bore the flames southwards away from the city. Mellitus was buried in the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, afterwards St. Augustine's, Canterbury. Some relics of the saint were preserved in London in 1298. The most reliable account of his life is that given by Bede in "Hist. Eccl.", I, 29, 30; II, 3-7. Elmham in his "Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Cantuar.", edited by Hardwick, gives many additional details, but the authenticity of these is more than questionable. His feast is observed on April 24.

436 BEDE, Hist. Eccl., I, xxix, xxx; II, iii-vii, in P.L., XCV; Acta SS., April, III, 280; BARONIUS, Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1599), ad an. 624; CAPGRAVE, Nova legenda Angliae (London, 1516), 228; HADDON AND STUBBS, Councils and Eccl. Documents relating to Great Britain, III (Oxford, 1871), 62-71; HARDY, Descriptive catalogue of MSS. relating to the history of Great Britain and Ireland, I (Rolls Series, London, 1862), i, 219-220; MABILLON, Acta Sanctorum Bened. (Paris, 1669), II, 90-94; STANTON, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), 178; CHALLONER, Britannia Sancta, I (London, 1745), 255-258.

437 G. Roger Hudleston

Diocese of Melo

436 Located in Uruguay. It was decided in 1897 to erect two sees suffragan to Montevideo, one of which was to be Melo, but, owing to political causes, no appointments have been made as yet. However, negotiations for a renewal of diplomatic relations between the Republic and the Holy See are now in progress, and as the recognition of the new dioceses by the State is a condition of their resumption, this probably will be shortly accorded. The Diocese of Melo is to embrace the north-eastern part of Uruguay and so will include, in part or in whole, the Departments of Cerro Largo, Riviera, Tacuarembó, and Treinta y Tres. This region has an area of about 19,600 square miles; the population, practically all Catholic, barely numbers 145,000 (1906). The district is very fertile, but there is little agriculture, most of the inhabitants, a large and the most important element of whom are Brazilians, being engaged in cattle breeding. The town of Melo, founded in 1796, is the capital of Cerro Largo and contains about 7000 persons. It is situated near the Tacumari River about 315 miles north of Montevideo. It has a fine church and also a pretty chapel of our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Artigas (2500 inhabitants) lies 60 miles north of Melo, on the Brazilian frontier. San Fructuoso, the capital of Tacuarembó, has about 3000 inhabitants. The other centres of population are little more than hamlets.

437 Handbook of Uruguay. Bur. of the Amer. Rep. (Washington, 1892); BRYSSEL. La république orientale de l'Uruguay (1889); Publications of the Dirección de estadística general (Montevideo); MULHALL, Handbook of the River Plate Republics (London, 1895).

438 A. A. MacErlean.

Melos

439 A titular see, suffragan of Naxos in the Cyclades. The name seems to have been derived from a Phœnician navigator, Melos, though others ascribe it to its rounded or apple shape, Melos. The island has had different names: Zephyria, Memblis, Mimallis, Siphis, Acyton, Byblis, etc. The Phœnicians seem to bave been the first to colonize the island; then came the Dorians from Laconia in the twelfth century B. C. This Dorian colony lasted for seven hundred years, when the Athenians, jealous of their fidelity to the Spartans, took possession of the island in 416 B. C. All the men were massacred and replaced by five hundred Athenian colonists; the women and children were carried captive to Attica. Later on, when these children were grown, they returned to occupy the island. Melos then passed under the domination of the Macedonians, then under that of the Romans, and finally under that of the Byzantines, who retained possession of it until 1207, when Marco Sanudo annexed it to the Italian Duchy of Naxos. In 1537 it was taken by the corsair Barbarossa and joined to the Ottoman Empire. The island continued to prosper, serving as a market and even as a refuge to the corsairs of the West, especially the French; it was so until the eighteenth century, when it began to decline because of a volcano which arose in the vicinity. From 20,000 inhabitants the population decreased to about 2000; united to Greece in 1827 the island now contains 5000 souls. The chief town, called Plaka, possesses a very fine harbour; nearby are the ruins of ancient Melos, with a cemetery, two citadels, a temple of Dionysius, a necropolis, and a theatre. Near the theatre was found in 1820 the celebrated Venus of Melos, now at the Museum of the Louvre at Paris, the work of a sculptor of Antioch on the Meander, in the second century B. C. The earliest known Bishop of Melos, Eutychius, assisted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681. Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, I, 945) mentions a number of Greek titulars, especially at the beginning of the sixteenth century, after the expulsion of the Venetians. The Greek diocese was a suffragan of Rhodes. A very long list of the Latin residential or titular bishops is found in Le Quien, op. cit., III, 1055-58, and in Eubel, "Hierarchia Catholica medii ævi", Munich, I, 355; II, 211. Melos had Latin bishops until 1700, in which year John Anthony de Camillis died. The see was then joined to that of Naxos until 1830, when the island was made a part of the Diocese of Santorin. The Bishop of Santorin now ministers to the few Catholics who live there.

440 SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., II (London, 1870), s. v.; LACROIX, Iles de la Grèce (Paris, 1858), 473-78.

441 S. VAILHÉ.

Melozzo da Forlí

442 An Italian painter of the Umbrian School, b. at Forlì, 1438; d. there 1494. Lanzi's suggestion that Melozzo studied under Ansuino da Forlì appears to rest on no foundation. Little is known of this Ansuino, save the slight part he took in the frescoes of the Eremitani Chapel at Padua, which were finished prior to 1460. He would thus have brought to his pupil the teachings of Mantegna, but it is more probable that Melozzo fell under no influence other than that of Piero della Francesca. Piero was always engaged engrossed with perspective, and has even left us a treatise on it; therefore it is to him that Melozzo owes his mastery of the subject, as well as his love for large tableaux and the heroic character of his work. Melozzo was one of the artists summoned to the Court of Urbino by the magnificent Signor Federigo da Montefeltro, to whom perhaps he was introduced by Giovanni Santi, the father of Raphael. None of the work he did there has reached us. However, the Barberini Palace (Rome) contains a part of the Urbino series, and among them a few pictures that adorned the duke's study and which, like the incrustations, date from 1476. The "Federigo in armour, with his Son Guidobaldo" is attributed to Melozzo. A charming bust "Guidobaldo, when a child", in the Colonna Palace, is attributed by some to Giovanni Santi, but Berenson thinks it a Melozzo. The famous allegories of the "Arts" and "Sciences" (two paintings in Berlin and two in London) and the busts of the "Philosophers" (in the Louvre and in the Barberini), formerly in Federigo's palace, are probably not by Melozzo but by the Fleming, Justus of Ghent. It was doubtless through Federigo that the artist was recommended to Sixtus IV. The importance of this pope's part in the history of art is well known, for he was the first of the Renaissance popes, the herald of Julius II and Leo X, and the founder of the Sixtine Chapel and the Vatican Library. Melozzo became more or less his official painter. With him he opened the Academy of St. Luke.

443 The Sixtine chapel was already decorated when Melozzo arrived, but the pope associated him with two other great undertakings. In 1477 he ordered him to paint a picture commemorating the inauguration of the Vatican. This fresco, now in the Pinacoteca of the Vatican, shows the jurisconsult Platina kneeling before the pope and receiving from him the keys of the library. Grouped around are the pope's four nephews, among whom are the prothonotary, Giulio Riario, in a monk's robe, and Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, the future Julius II. The scene is set in a hall of marvellous Renaissance style. The beauty of the architecture, the splendour of the decoration, the vigour of the portraits, the calm and dignity of the composition, and the importance of the persons it deals with, make this magnificent work an incomparable page of history. Art has no creation of more unconstrained majesty, so realistically and nobly alive. It is a perfect picture of the papacy of those days, a vision of the court life of the pontiff, who was the first to make Rome the capital of the arts, and the intellectual metropolis of the world, to crown it with the sciences and the masterpieces of art and to invent nepotism. Sixtus IV also commanded Melozzo to paint an "Ascension" for the choir of the church of the Apostles. It was a remarkable painting and Vasari speaks admiringly of it, but unfortunately it was destroyed in 1711 when Clement IX enlarged the choir. He was unwilling, however, that such a work of art should be completely lost, so a few detached figures from the group were saved, of which that of "Christ Triumphant" may be seen on the Quirinal staircase. It is one of the earliest known examples of perspective applied to the human figure on roof or ceiling decoration; that is to say, a figure viewed from below. This foreshortened method, a great novelty at that time, has been surpassed a hundredfold, and by third-rate painters, since the day of Correggio.

444 Melozzo's chief merit is that he created a type of supple and nobly sensuous juvenile beauty, and gave expression to it with inspired ease and lyric swing. This quality stands out more prominently in other fragments of the same fresco, preserved in the larger sacristy at St. Peter's, especially in the choral angels, whose faces are irresistible. No artist of that period, and very few since, would have been able to conceive these poetical and vigorous forms, in which womanly charm blends with virile strength, which are so full of health, joy of life, movement, and passion. This wonderful work was executed in 1482. A less important one (1478), of "Christ as Judge of the World", can be seen in the Minerva. This power of giving pleasing expression to a life full of richness and harmony, this incomparable gift of plasticity, claims for Melozzo a place apart. Not so great and, especially, not so profound as Mantegna or Signorelli, he has nevertheless a truly Italian charm all his own, in which the other two masters are lacking. This charm he knew how to utilize even in depicting the everyday occurrences of life. To illustrate this, Vasari cites in the fresco work of the church of the Apostles a frieze of vine-gatherers which resembles the genre painting of Benozzo Gozzoli (see his fresco in the Campo Santo at Pisa), but which is treated with quite a new power and with all the grace and technique of a painter of genius. This frieze has been lost, but we can imagine what it was like from a little picture in the College of Forlì which shows a druggist's apprentice ("Pesta, Pepe") pounding sugar in a mortar. Never was the joy of living expressed in so bewitching a manner. The paintings in the Treasury Chapel at Loretto were merely outlined and begun by Melozzo; their execution is almost entirely the work of his pupil Palmezzano.

445 VASARI, ed. MILANESI, III (Florence, 1878); CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, A new history of painting in Italy (London, 1864-66); BURCKHARDT, Le Cicerone, Fr. tr. (Paris, 1892); SCHMARZOW, Melozzo da Forlì (Berlin, 1886); STEINMANN, Rom in der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1899); BERENSON, The Central Italian painters of the Renaissance (3rd ed., London and New York, 1900); RICCI, Melozzo da Forlì (Rome, in press).

446 Louis Gillet

Abbey of Melrose

445 Located in in Roxburghshire, founded in 1136 by King David I, was the earliest Cistercian monastery established in Scotland. Its first community came from Rielvaux, the Yorkshire house colonized from Cîteaux. In less than ten years St. Mary's Abbey, Melrose, had been completely built. It stood in a broad glen south of the Tweed, two miles distant from the Celtic monastery of Old Melrose, where St. Cuthbert had lived five centuries before. Melrose Abbey suffered greatly from hostile incursions of more than one English monarch; the soldiers of Edward II desecrated, pillaged, and burned the church; Richard II in 1385 laid waste the surrounding country and set fire to the abbey. Mainly through the generosity of Robert the Bruce, a more stately church was begun in 1326, and scarcely completed by the sixteenth century. Cruciform in shape, built in English Perpendicular, Decorated, and Flamboyant styles, two hundred and fifty feet in length, Melrose was distinguished for the fairy-like lightness of its carvings and window-tracery, finished with exquisite care. Not only the royal founder, but succeeding sovereigns, and countless benefactors, nobles and commoners, so richly endowed Melrose with lands and possessions that its annual revenue is computed at one hundred thousand pounds of present money value. One example of the application of such revenues is told in twelfth century records. During a time of famine four thousand starving people were fed by the monastery for three months. Many of the abbots were men of distinction: Abbot Waltheof (1148), stepson of David I, and honoured as a saint; Abbot Joscelin, afterwards Bishop of Glasgow (1175), took a prominent part in the erection of the fine cathedral of that city, as a shrine for the body of St. Mungo; Abbot Robert (1268) had been formerly Chancellor of Scotland; Abbot Andrew (1449) became Lord High Treasurer; many others were raised to the episcopate. The English troops of Henry VIII burned Melrose in 1544. Although the monks once numbered two hundred, and there were one hundred and thirty as late as twenty years before the Reformation, eleven only received pensions at the dissolution, so quickly must they have been dispersed. After many vicissitudes, the possessions of the abbey came finally to the Buccleuch family. The ruins were further devastated by a fanatical mob in 1569, when statues and carvings were ruthlessly destroyed; but more wanton still was the subsequent carting away of the sacred stones in great numbers to serve as building materials. The result is seen in the carved religious emblems still appearing upon surrounding houses. The ruins of the once noble abbey form a strikingly beautiful picture from the North British Railway, about thirty-seven miles south of Edinburgh.

446 Liber de Melros, ed. INNES (2 vols., Bannatyne Club, 1837); MORTON, Monastic Annals of Teviotdale (1832); Scottish Cistercian Houses in Dublin Review (April, 1902).

447 Michael Barrett.

Chronicle of Melrose

448 (Chronica de Mailros)

449 It opens with the year 735, ends abruptly in 1270, and is founded solely upon the Cottonian Manuscript, Faustina B. ix, in the British Museum, the only ancient copy preserved. All others are transcripts from this one original. The names of its authors are unknown, but some expressions used by them prove this chronicle to have been written in the abbey, whilst evidence from writing shows it to have been the work of monks who were inmates of Melrose in successive periods. The first portion, namely from the commencement to about the year 1140, is a compilation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other existing histories by Simeon of Durham and Hoveden. This portion should, therefore, be used with caution. The second portion, namely from about the year 1140 to the abrupt termination of the Chronicle in 1270, is considered by historians to be possessed of the highest credibility. The information is then quite original and the numerous and progressive variations in the handwriting show that it is generally, if not always, contemporaneous. The Manuscript, now in the British Museum, was probably carried off from Melrose at the time of the Reformation. It was edited in 1835 by J. Stevenson, S.J., for the Bannatyne Club. The Oxford edition issued in 1684 by Fulman is by no means satisfactory, as the editor had no opportunity of collating the Oxford transcript with the original. Besides its chronicle, Melrose has handed down hundreds of charters and royal writs, dating from the reign of David I to that of Bruce, and forming a most valuable collection, rich in illustrations of the social life and economy of the period. They were edited by Author:Cosmo Innes.

450 STEVENSON, Chronica de Mailros (Edinburgh, 1835); INNES, Liber de S. Marie de Melros (Edinburgh, 1837); DOUGLAS, History of Roxburghshire.

451 W. Forbes-Leith.