__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 10: Mass Music-Newman Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias __________________________________________________________________ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D. EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES VOLUME 10 Mass Music to Newman New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Music of the Mass Music of the Mass Under 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: + 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; + 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. 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. I. ACCENTUS 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. 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): 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. 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. The Decree of 8 June, 1907, contains the following clauses: + 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. + The new typical chant must be inserted exactly in the same place as the old. + 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". + The Tract Sicut cervus of Holy Saturday must hereafter be printed with the words only, without chant notation. + 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. + 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). 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 Duesseldorf 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. 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. II. THE CONCENTUS 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. (a) The Ordinary 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 Sacre Coeur"), or musical association (e.g. Gounod's "Messe des Orpheonistes", 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"). 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. 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. 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. 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." 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 Gregorien" (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). (b) The Proper 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. 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): 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. H.T. HENRY Nuptial Mass Nuptial Mass "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). 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. 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. 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. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Sacrifice of the Mass Sacrifice of the Mass 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; + "The Lord's Supper" (coena dominica), + the "Sacrifice" (prosphora, oblatio), + "the gathering together" (synaxis, congregatio), + "the Mysteries", and + (since Augustine), "the Sacrament of the Altar". With the name "Love Feast" (agape) 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 Ite missa est. 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): In churches and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts, Missa est is said when the people are released from attendance. 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. I. THE EXISTENCE OF THE MASS 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. 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. 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. 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: + a sacrificial gift (res oblata), + a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus), + a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and + a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii). 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?". 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. A. Scriptural Proof 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. 1. Old Testament 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. 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.) 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: + The abolition of all Levitical sacrifices, and + the institution of an entirely new sacrifice. 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: + that the new sacrifice is to come about in the days of the Messiah; + that it is to be a true and real sacrifice, and + that it does not coincide formally with the Sacrifice of the Cross. 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 (Diaspora), 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. 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. 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. 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). 2. New Testament 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 altar 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). 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". 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: + 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. + 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. + 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. + I Cor., xi, 25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood. The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing + that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross; + that it was a true and real sacrifice; + that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church. 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. 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". 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. + 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. + 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. 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. 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). B. Proof from Tradition 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. II. THE NATURE OF THE MASS 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. A. The Physical Character of the Mass 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. 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). 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. 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. B. The Constituent Parts of the Mass 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. 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 Doellinger ("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. 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). 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 Eucharist). 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. B. The Metaphysical Character of the Sacrifice of the Mass 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: + 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; + 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; + 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; + 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. 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. (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. 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. 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. (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. 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. III. THE CAUSALITY OF THE MASS 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). A. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. B. The Manner of Efficacy of the Mass 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. (i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories of persons really participate. 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. 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. 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. 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. (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. (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 Sacrament). 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. C. Practical Questions Concerning the Mass 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. 1. Precepts for the Promotion of the Dignity of the Sacrifice (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. (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". 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. 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. (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. 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. 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. (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). 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. 2. Precepts to secure the Worthiness of the Celebrant 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. (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 Eucharist). 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 agape 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.) 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 (contritio), 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. 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. (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. 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 Bination). 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. 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" (Duesseldorf 1850). (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 Goepfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn, 1906). J. POHLE Massa Candida Massa Candida Under the date 24 August, the "Martyrologium Romanum" records this commemoration: 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. 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). 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 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 Apoc., vii, 13 and 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. (For the casuistry of the self-destruction of the Massa Candida, see SUICIDE.) E. MACPERSON Massa Carrara Massa Carrara DIOCESE OF MASSA CARRARA (MASSENSIS). 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 Cybo, 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 Cybo was Alberico I, who endowed his little state with a model code of law. The daughter of Alderamo, the last of the Cybos, 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. CAPPELLITTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, SV (Venice, 1857); FARSETTI, Ragionamento storico intorno alla citta de Modena; VIANI, Memorie della famiglia Cybo. U. BENIGNI Massachusetts Massachusetts 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. I. COLONIAL HISTORY A. Settlement 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. 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." 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. B. Colonial Legislation 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. C. Catholic Colonization 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.) II. MODERN MASSACHUSETTS A. Statistics of Population 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. B. Economic Conditions 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. C. Education 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. 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. 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. 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. D. Laws affecting Religion and Morals 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. 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. E. Religious Libery 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. F. Catholic Progress 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. 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.) 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.) 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). THOMAS F. HARRINGTON Guglielmo Massaia Guglielmo Massaia 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. MASSAIA, I miei trentacinque anni etc.; Analecta Ordinis FF. Min. Capp., V, 291 seq. FATHER CUTHBERT Massa Marittima Diocese of Massa Marittima (MASSANA) 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. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVII (Venice, 1862). U. BENIGNI. Enemond Masse Enemond Masse 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 -- Masse 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. T.J. CAMPBELL Bequest For Masses (Canada) Bequests for Masses (Canada) 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. Quebec 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. Ontario 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. British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan 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. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island 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. CHAS. J. DOHERTY. Bequests For Masses (England) Bequests for Masses (England) 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 -L-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 -L-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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). R. S. NOLAN. Devises and Bequests For Masses (United States) Devises and Bequests for Masses (United States) 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. 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. 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; + (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; + (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 + (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). 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). 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). 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: + (1) that it was a direct bequest to the church for its general uses; + (2) that it created a charitable use; or + (3) that it created a valid private trust. 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). 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). 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. 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). 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). 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. See the authorities quoted above. WALTER GEORGE SMITH. Jean-Baptiste Massillon Jean-Baptiste Massillon A celebrated French preacher and bishop; born 24 June, 1663; died 28 September, 1742. The son of Franc,ois Massillon, a notary of Hyeres 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 Pezenas, Marseilles, Montbrison, and, lastly, Vienne, where he taught philosophy and theology for six years (1689-95). 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 (conferences) 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. 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". 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 Careme" -- 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. 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. 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 conferences 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 Ecclesiastiques". 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, Fenelon, Flechier, 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 Trevoux (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 pensees choisies, and some fifty miscellaneous letters or notes. D'ALEMBERT, Eloge de Massillon in Histoire des membres de l'Academie franc,aise (Paris, 1787), I; V; BAYLE, Massilion (Paris, 1867); BLAMPIGNON, Massillon d'apres des documents inedits (Paris, 1879); L'episcopat de Massillon (Paris, 1884); ATTAIS, Etude sur Massillon (Toulouse, 1882); COHENDY, Correspondance Mandements de Massillon (Clermont, 1883); PAUTHE, Massillon (Paris, 1908). ANTOINE DEGERT. Massorah Massorah 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). 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. I. HISTORY OF MASSORAH 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. (1) The Consonantal Text 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. 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. (2) The Points 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. 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. II. CRITICAL VALUE OF MASSORAH 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. WALTER DRUM Antoine Massoulie Antoine Massoulie 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 Massoulie 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); "Meditationes de S.Thomas sur les trois vies, purgative, illuminative et unitive" (Toulouse, 1678); "Traite de la veritable oraison, ou les erreurs des Quietistes sont refutees" (Paris, 1699); "Traite de l'amour de Dieu" (Paris, 1703). D.J. KENNEDY Rene Massuet Rene Massuet 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 Pres 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 Fecamp. He spent the year 1702 in Rome in the study of Greek. The following year he was called to St. Germain des Pres 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. FRANCIS MERSHMANN Quentin Massys Quentin Massys (MESSYS, METZYS) 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 Marche-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. 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. Duerer 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. 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. Andre), 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. 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. 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 Duerer 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. 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 "Piet`a" 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. 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. 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, Niederlaendisches Kunstlerlexicon (Leipzig, 1906-10). LOUIS GILLET Master of the Sacred Palace Master of the Sacred Palace 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. REGINALD WALSH Bartholomew Mastrius Bartholomew Mastrius 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. GREGORY CLEARY Mataco Indians Mataco Indians (Or Mataguayo). 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, Macobi, 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 Arce, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). JAMES MOONEY Mater Mater 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 ("Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne", 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. S. VAILHE Materialism Materialism 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. 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. 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. 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'ame" 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 Volupte" and "L'art de jouer", he glorifies licentiousness. The most famous work of this period is the "Systeme 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. 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. 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 Buechner (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 Zuerich. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Koerper, 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). 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 Uexkuell, 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 roentgen 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. 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. 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. . ." 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". 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., Muenster, 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. 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. CONSTANTIN GUTBERLET Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 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. F. G. HOLWECK Mathathias Mathathias 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. Theodoros). In the Hebrew, the first four of these persons are called Mattith Jah (mtthyh). (1) Mathathias (B. Thamathia, A. Maththathias), 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. (2) Mathathias (Sept. Matthathias), one of the six who stood at the right of Esdras while he read the law to the people (II Esd., viii, 4). (3) Mathathias (Sept. Matthathias), 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). (4) Mathathias (Sept. Mattathias), a Levite, one of Asaph's musicians before the ark (I Par., xvi, 5). (5) Mathathias (I Par., xv, 18, 21; xxv, 3, 21; Heb. Mththyhw; A. Mattathias in first three, Matthias in last; B. Immatathia in first, Mettathias in second, Mattathias 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. (6) Mathathias (I Mach., ii passim; xiv, 29; Sept. Mattathias), the father of the five Machabees) who fought with the Seleucids for Jewish liberty. (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. (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. (9 and 10) Mathathias (Matthathias), two ancestors of Jesus (Luke, iii, 25, 26). Walter Drum Theobald Mathew Theobald Mathew 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. 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. 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". 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. 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". 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. FATHER AUGUSTINE Francois-Desire Mathieu Franc,ois-Desire Mathieu 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 seminaire) of Pont-A-Mousson, chaplain to the Dominicanesses at Nancy (1879), and parish priest of Saint-Martin at Pont-`a-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 Regime 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. ANTOINE DEGERT Methuselah Methuselah 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. 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. JOSEPH V. MOLLOY St. Matilda St. Matilda 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. 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. 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. 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. MICHAEL T. OTT Matilda of Canossa Matilda of Canossa 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. 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. 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. 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. 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); RenEe, La grande Italienne, Mathilde de Toscane (Paris, 1859); Overmann, Die Besitzungen der Grossgraefin Mathilde von Tuscien (Berlin, 1892); Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, v (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1886); Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbuecher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V. (6 vols., Leipzig, 1890-1907); Potthast, Bibl. hist. med. aevi, 2nd., II, 1486. J.P. Kirsch Matins Matins I. NAME 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.) II.ORIGIN (MATINS AND VIGILS) 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. 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 Baeumer-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). III.THE ELEMENTS OF MATINS FROM THE FOURTH TO THE SIXTH CENTURY 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. IV. MATINS IN THE ROMAN AND OTHER LITURGIES 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. The principal characteristics of this office which distinguish it from all the other offices are as follows: + 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. + 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. + The Invitatory and, on certain days, the Finale or Te Deum also form one of the principal characteristics of this Office. + 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. + 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). + In the Office of the Church of Jerusalem, of which the pilgrim AEtheria 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. 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. V. SIGNIFICATION AND SYMBOLISM 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 Breviaire", 3). The institution of the Saturday Vigil would consequently be as ancient as that of Sunday. 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. F. CABROL Matricula Matricula A term having several meanings in the field of Christian antiquity. (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). (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. (3) The house in which such pensioners were lodged was also known as matricula, which thus becomes synonymous with xenodochium. MAURICE M. HASSET Matteo Da Sienna Matteo da Sienna (Matteo di Giovanni di Bartolo). 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". 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. GASTON SORTAIS Matteo of Aquasparta Matteo of Aquasparta 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. 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 "Quaestiones disputatae", which treats of various subjects. Of this one book appeared at Quaracchi in 1903 (the editing and issue are discontinued for the present), namely: "Quaestiones disputatae selectae", in "Bibliotheca Franciscana scholastica medii aevi", I; the "Quaestiones" are preceded by a "Tractatus de excellentia S. Scripturae" (pp. 1-22), also by a "Sermo de studio S. Scripturae" (pp. 22-36); it is followed by "De processione Spiritus Sancti" (pp. 429-53). Five "Quaestiones de Cognitione" had already been edited in the collection called "De humanae cognitionis ratione anecdota quaedam" (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); "Concordantiae super 4 ll. Sententiarum"; "Postilla super librum Job"; "Postilla super Psalterium" (autograph); "In 12 Prophetas Minores"; "In Danielem"; "In Ev. Matthaei"; "In Apocalypsim" (autograph); "In Epist. ad Romanos"; "Sermones dominicales et feriales" (autograph). Cf. the editions referred to of the Qu st. 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 fuer 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. MICHAEL BIHL Matter Matter (Gr. hyle; Lat. materia; Fr. matiere; Ger. materie and stoff), the correlative of Form. See HYLOMORPHISM; FORM. Taking the term in its widest sense, matter signifies that out of which anything is made or composed. Thus the original meaning of hyle (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: (1) Secondary Matter (in accidental change); (2) Primordial Matter (in substantial change); (3) The Nature of Primordial Matter; (4) Privation; (5) Permanent Matter; (6) The Unity of Matter; (7) Matter as the Principle of Individuation; (8) The Causality of Matter; (9) Variant Theories. (1) Secondary Matter Accepting matter in the original sense given above, Aristotle defines the "material cause" hoion ho chalkos tou andriantos kai ho argyros tes phiales. 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 aetiology, 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. (2) Primordial Matter 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. (3) The Nature of Primordial Matter 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 Naturae) 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 Materiae, 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). 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. Naturae). 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 ti enyparchontos (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. (4) Privation 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 Naturae". (5) Permanent Matter " 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. (6) The Unity of Matter 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 Naturae). (7) Matter as the Principle of lndividuation 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. 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. 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 " hoec 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. Materiae, iii). (8) The Causality of Matter 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. (9) Variant Theories of Matter 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 (me on, apeiron: 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. 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): 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.' 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: + Materia primo prima, the universalized indeterminate element of contingent beings. This has real and numerical unity. + Materia secundo prima, united with "form" and quantified. + Materia tertio prima, subject of accidental change in existing bodies. 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. ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Opera (Lyons, 1851); ALEXANDER OF HALES, In duodecim Aristotelis Metaphysicoe libros (1572); IDEM, Universoe Theologioe Summa (Cologne, 1622): St. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera (Parma, 1852-72), especially the Opuscula De Natura Materioe, De Principio Individuationis, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, In Boethium de Trinitate, De Principiis Naturoe, 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 . . . Thomoe a Vio . . . Commentariis illustrata (Lyons, 1562); DE WULF, Histoire de la Philosophie Medievale (Louvain); FARGES, Matiere et Forme en presence 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, Philosophioe Theoreticoe Institutiones (Rome, 1896); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1904); SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); SAINT-HILAIRE, OEuvres 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). FRANCIS AVELING. Carlo Matteucci Carlo Matteucci 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. 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: + "Lezioni di fisica" (4th ed., Pisa, 1858); + "Lezioni sui fenomeni fisico-chimici dei corpi viventi" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1846); + "Manuale di telegrafia elettrica" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1851); + "Cours special sur l'induction, le magnetisme de rotation", etc. (Paris, 1854); + "Lettres sur l'instruction publique" (Paris, 1864); + "Traite des phenomenes electro-physiologiques des animaux" (Paris, 1844). WILLIAM FOX St. Matthew St. Matthew 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). Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenaeus 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. Matthaei in Ponto" and published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds that this "Martyrium S. Matthaei", 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. Matthaei, qui in AEthiopia praedicans 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 beatae Mariae 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. E. JACQUIER Gospel of St. Matthew Gospel of St. Matthew I. CANONICITY 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. 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. + 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. + 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.). + 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.). + 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. + The "Shepherd of Hermas" has several passages which bear close resemblance to passages of Matthew, but not a single literal quotation from it. + In his "Dialogue" (xcix, 8), St. Justin quotes, almost literally, the prayer of Christ in the Garden of Olives, in Matthew, xxvi, 39,40. + 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. + In his "Legatio pro christianis", xii, 11, Athenagoras (117) quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v, 44). + 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. + 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. + 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. + 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. + Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his "Diatesseron"; we shall quote below the testimonies of Papias and St. Irenaeus. 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. + 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). + 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. 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. II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL 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. A. TESTIMONY OF TRADITION 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. 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. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., 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. (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". (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. Irenaeus 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. Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenaeus (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, Pantaenus 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. Pantaenus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantaenus 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. B. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW 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. (1) The Language of the Gospel 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 paronomasiae (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. (2) General Character of the Gospel 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. (3) Quotations from the Old Testament 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. (4) Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke From a first comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the two other Synoptic Gospels we find + 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; + 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. + That the order of narrative is, with certain exceptions which we shall later indicate, almost the same in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 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: + that Mark is to be found almost complete in Matthew, with certain divergences which we shall note; + that Matthew records many of our Lord's discourses in common with Luke; + that Matthew has special passages which are unknown to Mark and Luke. Let us examine these three points in detail, in an endeavour to learn how the Gospel of Matthew was composed. (a) Analogy to Mark + 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. + 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. + 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. + 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). + 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. + 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. + 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. (b) Analogy to Luke 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. (c) Parts peculiar to Matthew 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. 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, Juelicher, 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 Juelicher, "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. 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. 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. III. PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE FIRST GOSPEL 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:- A. INTRODUCTION (1-2) 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. B. THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS (3-25) This may be divided into three parts, according to the place where He exercised it. (1) In Galilee (3-18) (a) Preparation for the public ministry of Jesus (3:1 to 4:11) John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the return to Galilee. (b) The preaching of the Kingdom of God (4:17 to 18:35) (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); (2) the propagation of the Kingdom in Galilee (viii, I-xviii, 35). He groups together: + 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); + 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); + finally, the parables of the Kingdom, of which Jesus makes known and explains the end (xiii, 3-52). (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 Caesarea, 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). (2) Outside Galilee or the way to Jerusalem (19-20) 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. (3) In Jerusalem (21-25) 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. C. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS (26-28) (1) The Passion (26-27) 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). (2) The Resurrection (28) 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. IV. OBJECT AND DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE FIRST GOSPEL 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: + Jesus is the Messias, and the kingdom He inaugurates is the Messianic kingdom foretold by the prophets; + because of their sins, the Jews, as a nation, shall have no part in this kingdom + the Gospel will be announced to all nations, and all are called to salvation. A. JESUS AS MESSIAS 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. B. EXCLUSION OF JEWS FROM MESSIANIC KINGDOM 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. C. UNIVERSAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL 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. V. DESTINATION OF THE GOSPEL The ecclesiastical writers Papias, St. Irenaeus, 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. Irenaeus (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". VI. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION 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 Irenaeus 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. 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; Conely, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of St. Irenaeus 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, Reville, between 69 and 96, Juelicher, 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. VII. HISTORIC VALUE OF THE FIRST GOSPEL (1) OF THE NARRATIVES 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 Jesus-Christ d'apres les evangiles canoniques" (Paris, 1907). (2) OF THE DISCOURSES 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. 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. 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. APPENDIX: DECISIONS OF THE BIBLICAL COMMISSION 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. 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. 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. E. JACQUIER Sir Tobie Matthew Sir Tobie Matthew 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. EDWIN BURTON Matthew of Cracow Matthew of Cracow 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, "Matthaeus 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. 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, "Beitraege zur Gesch. Des grossen Schismas", 1889, p. 91). 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. THOMAS KENNEDY St. Matthias St. Matthias Apostle. 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. 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, "Memoires pour servir `a l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siecles", 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. 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. E. JACQUIER Matthias Corvinus Matthias Corvinus 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). 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). A. ALDASY Matthias of Neuburg Matthias of Neuburg Also NEUENBURG (NEOBURGENSIS). 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", Koenigsberg, 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). POTTHAST, Bibliotheca (Berlin, 1896), 780 sq.; WEILAND, Introduction to the above-mentioned German version, pp. i-xxviii PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Maundy Thursday (Holy Thursday) Maundy Thursday 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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". 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). 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. H. LECLERCQ Auguste-Francois Maunoury Auguste-Franc,ois Maunoury Hellenist and exegete, b. at Champsecret, Orne, France, 30 Oct., 1811; d. at Seez, Orne, 17 Nov., 1898. He made brilliant classical studies at the preparatory seminary at Seez, 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 Seez; and the following year, he began to publish his commentaries on all the Epistles of the New Testament. These commentaries appeared in five volumes, as follows: (1) "Com. sur L'Epitre aux Romains" (Paris, 1878); (2) "Com. sur les deux Epitres aux Corinthiens" (Paris, 1879); (3) "Com. sur les Epitres aux Galates, aux Ephesiens, aux Phillippiens, aux Colossiens, et aux Thessaloniciens" (Paris, 1880); (4) "Com. sur les Epitres `a Timothee, `a Tite, `a Philemon, aux Hebreux" (Paris, 1882); (5) "Com. sur les Epitres 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 "Soirees d'Automne, ou la Religion prouvee aux gens du monde" (Paris, 1887). HURTER, Nomenclator; Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. FRANCIS E. GIGOT St. Maurice St. Maurice 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 Bagandae 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. See CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., s.v.; Histor. Jahrbuch, XIII, 782. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Maurice Maurice (Matricius, Maurikios). Roman Emperor, born in 539; died in November, 602. 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). 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. ADRIAN FORTESCUE The Maurists The Maurists 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 Benard, Prior of the College de Cluny in Paris, who inaugurated the reform in his own college. Thence it spread to St-Augustin de Limoges to Nouaille, 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 Tesniere (1618-21), it had included about a dozen great houses. By 1630 the congregation was divided into three provinces, and, under Dom Gregoire 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. 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. 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-Pres, 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. Constitution 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 Gregoire 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-Pres 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. 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 Martene, Bernard de Montfaucon, Maur Franc,ois 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 Litteraire de la France," for the De re Diplomatica" and "L'art de verifier les dates", for "L'antiquite expliquee 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 Gregoire 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. LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE Saint Maurus St. Maurus 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. FRANCIS MERSMAN Sylvester Maurus Sylvester Maurus 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. The following works of Father Maurus deserve mention: (1) "Quaestionum philosophicarum Sylvestri Mauri, Soc. Jesu, in Collegio Romano Philosophiae 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 quae extant omnia, brevi paraphrasi, ac litterae perpetuo inhaerente 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 Theologiae et Philosophiae scholasticae". (3) "Quaestionum 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. HURTER, Nomenclator; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la C. de J., V, c. 765 sq. A.J. MAAS Jean-Siffrein Maury Jean-Siffrein Maury Cardinal and statesman, born at Valreas, 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 Fenelon 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 Peronne 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 Abbe 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. 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." 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). T.B. SCANNELL Joannes Maxentius Joannes Maxentius 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. 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. N.A. WEBER Maxentius Marcus Aurelius Maxentius 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 Caesars 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. 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: touto nika (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. Schiller, Gesch. d. roemischen Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887); de Waal, Roma Sacra (Munich, 1905). Karl Hoeber Ven. Thomas Maxfield Ven. Thomas Maxfield ( Vere Macclesfield) 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 praetermissi 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. 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 Archaeological Society's Collections for a History of Staffordshire (London, 1882-1909), III, iii; V, ii, 207; new series, V, 128; XII, 248. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Maximianopolis Maximianopolis 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 Roum-meneh, nearly four miles to the south of Ledjun or Mageddo (see LEGIO). GUERIN, 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. S. VAILHE Maximianus Maximianus (MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS MAXIMIANUS, surnamed HERCULIUS.) 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. 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. 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. SCHILLER, Gesch. d. romischen Kaiserzeit; ALLARD, La persecution de Diocletien et le triomphe de l'eglise (Paris, 1890). KARL HOEBER Maximilian Maximilian The name of several martyrs. (1) Maximilian of Antioch 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. (2) Maximilian of Celeia 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. (3) Maximilian of Thebeste 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. 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. MICHAEL OTT Maximilian I Maximilian I 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. The small free city of Donauwoerth 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. 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 Luetzen (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. 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 Mariensaeule (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. 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 Liege. His private charities among the poor and needy of all descriptions were unlimited. 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. 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. PIUS WITTMANN St. Maximinus St. Maximinus 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. 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. MICHAEL OTT Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus 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. SCHILLER, Gesch. der romischen Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887). KARL HOEBER Maximinus Thrax Caius Julius Verus Maximinus Thrax 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. 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. 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). KARL HOEBER Maximopolis Maximopolis 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). S. VAILHE St. Maximus of Constantinople St. Maximus of Constantinople 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. 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: 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)." 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. 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 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. 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: 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. 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): 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. 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 the 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, 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? 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." 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: "Do you think," he said, "that the emperor will make a supplication to Rome?" "Yes," said the abbot, "if he will humble himself as God has humbled Himself." 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. "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). 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. 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 Combefis (P. G., XC, 206). A complete edition of his works was begun by the Dominican Combefis. 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. JOHN CHAPMAN St. Maximus of Turin St. Maximus of Turin 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. 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. 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. MICHAEL OTT William Maxwell William Maxwell 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. M.M. MAXWELL SCOTT Winifred Maxwell Winifred Maxwell 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. 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). M.M. MAXWELL SCOTT Maya Indians Maya Indians The most important of the cultured 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. I. HISTORY 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, Itzamna, 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, Itza and Chele. 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 Itza at Chichen-Itza, and the Chele at Izamal. To the Chele 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 Itza emigrated south to Lake Peten, in Guatemala, where they established a kingdom with their capital and sacred city of Flores Island, in the lake. 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, Merida. In 1546, however, there was a general revolt, and it was not until a year later that the conquest was assured. 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. 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 Merida 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. In 1561 Yucatan was made a diocese with its see at Merida. 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 Merida. 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. 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 Itza, in Lake Peten, Guatemala, was stormed by Governor Martin 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. 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. II. INSTITUTIONS, ARTS, AND LITERATURE 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. 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. 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 Itzamna 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-Itza, 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. 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. 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 Itza 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. 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 fac,ades 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-Itza, and Maypan. 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 Abbe 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 Merida (Mexico, 1746, and Merida, 1859); "Gramatica Yucateca" by Father Joaquin Ruz, of the Franciscan convent of Merida, also a native of Yucatan and "the most fluent of the writers in the Maya language that Yucatan has produced" (Merida, 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. 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 (Merida, 1866-77); and "Dictionnaire, Grammaire at Chrestomathie de la langue Maya", by the Abbe 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 Merida (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).) 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. JAMES MOONEY Christian Mayer Christian Mayer 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 Schroeter, 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 Hoell, in a work entitled "Gruendliche Vertheidigung neuer Beubachtungen von Fixstern-trabanten welche zu Mannheim auf der kurfuerstl. 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 Goettingen, 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 methode pour lever en peu de temps et `a peu de frais une carte generale et exacte de toute la Russie" (St. Petersburg, 1770); "Observations de la Comete de 1781" in the "Acts Acad. Petropolit." (1782), etc. HENRY M. BROCK Edward Mayhew Edward Mayhew 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). THOMAS KENNEDY Cuthbert Mayne Blessed Cuthbert Mayne 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. 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. 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. 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. John B. Wainwright Maynooth College Maynooth College 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. 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 -L-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. 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 -L-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 -L-9,500 (about $47,500) to -L-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 -L-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 -L-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. 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". 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). J.F. HOGAN School of Mayo School of Mayo (Irish Magh Eo, which means, according to Colgan, the Plain of the Oaks, and, according to O'Donovan, the Plain of the Yews). 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. 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". 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. 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.". 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. 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). JOHN HEALY Mayo Indians Mayo Indians 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. 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. ALEGRE, Hist. de la Compania 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). JAMES MOONEY John Mayor John Mayor (MAJOR, MAIR; also called JOANNES MAJORIS and HADDINGTONUS SCOTUS) 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). 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. MICHAEL OTT Mayoruna Indians Mayoruna Indians A noted and savage tribe of Panoan linguistic stock, ranging the forests between the Ucayali, the Yavari and the Maranon (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 "Maranones", 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 Senora 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). RODRIGUEZ, Amazonas y Maranon (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). JAMES MOONEY Mayotte, Nossi-Be, and Comoro Mayotte, Nossi-Be, and Comoro PREFECTURE APOSTOLIC OF MAYOTTE, NOSSI-BE, AND COMORO (MAYOTTAE, NOSSIBEAE, ET COMORAE). 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-Be (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-Be, a post of surveillance over Madagascar. All these islands now form a French colony. In 1844, Mayotte, Nossi-Be, 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-Be have resident missionaries; the other islands are regularly visited. 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. Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907). ALEXANDE LE ROY Beda Mayr Beda Mayr 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, l 766, 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 kuenftigen 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 natuerlichen, christlichen und katholischen Religion nach den Beduerfnissen 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. 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. MICHAEL OTT Francis Mayron Francis Mayron (DE MAYRONIS) 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. 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). 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. MICHAEL BIHL Jules Mazarin Jules Mazarin 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. 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'Orleans 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. 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 Lomenie 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. Mazarin continued Richelieu's policy against the House of Austria. Aided by the victories of Conde and Turenne, he succeeded in bringing the Thirty Years' War to a conclusion with the Treaties of Munster and Osnabrueck (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 proteges, 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 Moliere. 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 Abbe 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 Bibliotheque Mazarine. Mazarin's nieces made princely marriages: Anne Marie Martinozzi became the Princesse de Conti; Laura Martinozzi, the Duchesse de Modene; 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. CHERUEL AND D'AVENEL, eds., lettres du Cardinal Mazarin pendant son ministere (9 vols., Paris, 1872-1906); RAVENEL., ed., Iettres de Mazarin `a la reine, ecrites 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 supplement `a la bibliographie des Mazarinades (Paris, 1904); CHERUEL Hist. de France pendant la minorite de Louis XIV (4 vols., Paris, 1879-80); IDEM Hist. de France sous le ministere 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 negociations qui precederent le traite de Westphalie (Paris, 1727); IDEM, Hist. du traite de Westphalie (2 vols., Paris, 1744); COCHIN, Les Eglises calvinistes du Midi, le cardinal Mazarin et Cromwell, in Revue des Questions Historiques (July, 1904); RENEE, 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, Problemes historiques (Paris, 1867); COLQUHOUN-GRANT, Queen and Cardinal (London, 1906). GEORGES GOYAU Mazatec Indians Mazatec Indians 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 Ae-ae, 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 Cortes 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. 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. BANCROFT, Hist. Mexico, II (San Francisco, 1886); BAUER, Heidentum und Aberglaube, unter den Macatec,a-Indianern in Zeirschr. fuer Ethnologie XL (Berlin, 1908); BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); PIMENTEL, Cuadro . . . de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico (2 vols., Mexico, 1862-5); STARR, In Indian Mexico (Chicago, 1908). JAMES MOONEY Mazenod Charles Joseph Eugene de Mazenod 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. 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. 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. 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, eveque de Marseille (Paris, n. d.). A.G. Morice Mazzara Del Vallo Mazzara del Vallo DIOCESE OF MAZZARA DEL VALLO (MAZARIENSIS). 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. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857). U. BENIGNI Camillo Mazzella Camillo Mazzella 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 Fourvieres, 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. TIMOTHY BROSNAHAN Lodovico Mazzolini Lodovico Mazzolini (Also known as MAZZOLINI DA FERRARA, LODOVICO FERRARESA, and IL FERRARESE) 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 Gluehwurm", 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. 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. 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). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Sylvester Mazzolini Sylvester Mazzolini ( Mozolini, also Prierias) 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 Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis" (Rome, 1520); "Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum" (Perugia, 1519); "Errata et argumenta M. Lutheri" (Rome, 1520); "Summa Summarum, quae 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). QuEtif- Echard, SS. Ord. Praed. II, 55; Touron, Hommes illust. de l'Ordre de S. Dominique, III, 716; Michalski, De Sylv. Prieratis ... vita et scripta (Munster, 1892). D.J. Kennedy Pietro Francesco Mazzuchelli Pietro Francesco Mazzuchelli (Also known as IL MORAZZONE, MARAZZONE, and MORANZONE). 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. VASARI, G., Le Vite dei Pittori (Florence, 1878, 1885); ORLANDI, P. P., Abbecedario Pittorico (Bologna, 1719), also the Oretti, MS. (Bologna). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Mbaya Indians Mbaya Indians (Guaycurue) 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 Guaycurue proper, or Mbaya, the Macobi, 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 Guarani, signified "terrible", "bad", or "savage". The name, Guaycurue, 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. The Guaycurue were accustomed to prey upon the more sedentary Guarani 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 Nunez Cabec,a de Vaca, governor of Buenos Aires, with a detachment of Spaniards and and contingent of Guarani, inflicted upon them a signal defeat, chiefly by the terror of his field guns and horses, with both of which the Guaycurue 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 Guaycurue, 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 Concepcion, 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. 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 Guaycurue 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 Concepcion. Other bands known as Guaycurue 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 Guaycurue. In their primitive condition the men of the Guaycurue 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. BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. of Paraguay, I (London, 1796); DOBRIZHOFFER, Account of the Abipones (London, 1822); HERVAS, Catalogo 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). JAMES MOONEY Thomas Francis Meagher Thomas Francis Meagher 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. 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. THOMAS F. MEEHAN Meath Meath (MIDENSIS). 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 Alcala 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 -L-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. 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-Boinne. 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. [ Note: Oliver Plunket was canonized in 1975.] COGAN, Diocese of Meath (Dublin, 1862); HEALY, Ancient Schools of Ireland (Dublin, 1890); Irish Ecclesiastical Record (June, 1900); Irish Catholic Directory (Dublin, 1910). PATRICK E. DUFFY Diocese of Meaux Diocese of Meaux (MELDENSIS.) 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 Chalons. 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.) 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-Pourc,ain (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 Moralisees"; 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 Orleans; Guillaume Bric,onnet (1516-1534), ambassador of Francis I to Leo X, and during whose episcopate the Reformation was introduced by Farel and Gerard 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 Breze, twice bishop, first from 1554 to 1564, then from 1570 to 1589, during whose episcopate the diocese was greatly disturbed by religious wars; Dominique Seguier (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 chateau 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). 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. Fefre 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). 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 Pere Loriquet (1767-1845) was superior from 1812 to 1814 of the preparatory seminary of Chaage, 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 Pere 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 Abbe Bautain; finally, in 1867, the college returned into the hands of the new Congregation of the Oratory founded by the Abbe Petetot. In the salon of the Abbe de Salinis, at Juilly, was established in December, 1830, the Agence generale pour la defense de la liberte 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'Universite Catholique". Among the students at Juilly in the seventeenth century were the Marshals de Berwick and de Villars; in the nineteenth, Mgr de Merode and the famous lawyer, Berryer. 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 (fete de fous, fete do l'ane, fete 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 Chene de Preuilly, dating from the foundation of the Cistercian Abbey (1118); Notre Dame du Chene 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 Conde); Notre Dame de la Cave at Champigny; Notre Dame de Pitie 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. 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 Abbe 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 creches, 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. 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 eveques de Meaux (Meaux, 1876); NERET, Martyrs et confesseurs de la foi du diocese de Meaux, 1792 1795 (Meaux, 1905); HAMEL, Histoire de l'Eglise et du College de Juilly (3rd ed., Paris, 1888); THIERCELIN, Le monastere de Jouarre (Paris, 1861); CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibl., 1886-87. GEORGES GOYAU Mecca Mecca Mecca, the capital of Arabia and the sacred city of the Mohammedans, is situated in the district of Hijaz about 21DEG30' N. latitude and 40DEG20' 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. 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 Arafat, 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. 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 Christianity in Arabia. See the bibliography appended to the articles Arabia, Mohammed and Mohammedanism; 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). Gabriel Oussani Mechanism Mechanism 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. I. ARGUMENTS (1) Modem 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 Moliere 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. (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. 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 formulae, 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. (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. II. CRITICISM 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. (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. (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. (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. 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. III. CONCLUSION 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 formulae 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. 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 Weltraetsel (Freiburg, 1907); GEMELLI, L'Enigma della vita e i nuovi orizzonti della biologia (Florence, 1910); OSTWALD, Vorlesungen ueber Naturphilosophie (Leipzig, 1905); DRIESCH, Der Vitalismus als Gesch. u. als Lehre (Leipzig, 1905); DE MUNNYNCK, Les bases psychologiques du Mecanisme in Revue des sciences philos. et theol. (Kain, Belgium, 1907); BRUNHES, La Degradation de l'Energie (Paris, 1908). M.P. DE MUNNYNCK Mechitar Mechitar (MECHITHAR, MEKHITAR, MCHITAR or MOCHTOR, a word which means "Comforter") 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. 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). 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). Vita dell' abbate Mechitar (Venice, 1810); La vie du serviteur de Dieu Mechitar, fondateur de l'ordre des moines armeniens Mechitaristes de Venise, ainsi que La vie des abbes generaux et des moines les plus celebres de la congregation (Venice, 1901). J.C. ALMOND. Mechitarists Mechitarists 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 (Mocht`ar) as abbot. 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. 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. 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. 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 modem 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. 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). 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" Tuebingen, 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). TSCHAMTSCHENANZ, Compendiose notizie sulla congregazione dei monachi Armeni Mechitaristici (Venice, 1819) NEUMANN, Essai d'une histoire de la Litterature armenienne (Leipzig, 1836); KALEMKIAR, Une esquisse de l'activite litteraire-typographique de la congregation mechitariste `a Vienne; GOSCHLER, Dictionnaire encyclopedique de la Theol. Cathol., XIV, Art. Mechitaristes. J. C. ALMOND. Archdiocese of Mechline Mechlin (Lat. MECHLINIA; Fr. MALINES; MECHLINIENSIS). 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, Liege, 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-Liege, 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 Liege 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 Aywieres, 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). 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. 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); Desire Joseph Mercier (1906-), the chief originator of the neo-scholastic movement in Belgium. 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. The "Vie Diocesaine" 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. 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). A. KEMPENEER Johann Mechtel Johann Mechtel 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. CARL KNETSCH, Die Limburger Chronik des Johannes Mechtel (Wiesbaden, 1909), I-XXV. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER St. Mechtilde St. Mechtilde (MATILDA VON HACKEBORN-WIPPRA). 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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). GERTRUDE CASANOVA Mechtild of Magdeburg Mechtild of Magdeburg 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). 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. 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). MICHAEL OTT Mecklenburg Mecklenburg A division of the German Empire, consists of the two Grand Duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz. History 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 Ruegen. 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. 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. 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. Cruto, Prince of the Island of Ruegen, 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, Luebeck, 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. 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. 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. 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 Guestrow. 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. 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. After a brief reunion of the two principalities in 1610, they were again divided (1621) into Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Guestrow 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-Guestrow the most bitter intolerance of everything Catholic continued to prevail. 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. 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. Christian Ludwig II's son Frederick (1756-85) improved the primary schools, strengthened the University of Rostock, founded the high school at Buetzow, 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. 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. Statistics 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. 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. The Catholic Church in both grand duchies is under the supervision of the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions, the Bishop of Osnabrueck. 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. 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 Stoecken (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. 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. 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, Luepcke of Osnabrueck, 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. 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. 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. 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. BACHMANN, Die landeskundliche Literatur ueber die Grossherzogtuemer 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 Grossherzogtuemer Mecklenburg-Schwerin und Mecklenburg-Strelitz (3 vols., Berlin, 1907-10); Jahrbuecher des Vereins fuer Geschichte Mecklenburgs (Schwerin, 1836--); SCHLIS, Die Kunst- und Geschichtsdenkmaeler des Grossherzogtums Mecklenburg-Schwerin (5 vols., Schwerin, 1896-1902). JOSEPH LINS Jean Paul Medaille Jean Paul Medaille 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 Congregation 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. Prat, Le Disciple de St. Jean Francois Regis, notes supplementaires (Paris, 180), 180 sq.; de Guilhermy, Menologe de la Comp. de Jesus, Assistance de France, I (Paris, 1892), 631 sq. J.H. FISHER Devotional Medals Devotional Medals 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. IN THE EARLY CHURCH 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. 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. 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. DURING THE MIDDLE AGES 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: An hundred of ampulles on his hat seten, Signes of syse and shelles of Galice; And many a crouche on his cloke, and keyes of Rome, And the vernicle bifore, for men shulde knowe And see by his signes whom he sought hadde. 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. Then, as manner and custom is, signes there they bought . . . Each man set his silver in such thing as he liked, 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 histories", 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, "Plommes des Innocents," Lille, 1877). Better deserving of attention are the vast collection of jetons and mereaux 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, "Medailleurs 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 presence or mereaur, 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 "mereau d'estaing" bearing stamped upon it the name of Jesus, which the famous Frere 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 Jesus" 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 Medailleurs Franc,ais, 1902-1904, vol. I, page lii). IN MODERN TIMES 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). 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). 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. 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. (1) Plague medals 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.) (2) Medals commemorating Miracles of the Eucharist 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). (3) Private medals 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.) (4) Medals commemorative of special legends 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. 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. 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). 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). 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 Roemische Quartalschrift particularly 1889 On the papal medals see particularly Bonanni Numismata Pontificum Romanorum (2 vols., Rome, 1699); Venuti Ntimismata Pontificum Romanorum praestantiora (Rome, 1744). 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. HERBERT THURSTON Miraculous Medal 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. 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. JOSEPH GLASS St. Medardus St. Medardus 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. Baronius, Ann. (1957), 527, 80; 564, 31-4; Becu, Dissert. sur quelques dates et quelques faits contestes de la vie de St. Medard in Com. Arch. de Noyon, compt. rend. et mem., II (1867), 307-20; Chiffletius in Acta SS., June, II, 95-105; Corblet, Notice historique sur le culte de St. Medard in Bull. de la Soc. des ant. de Picardie (Amiens, 1856); Corblet, Hagiogr. du diocese d'Amiens, IV (1874), 524-31; Guenebault in Rev. archeol., XIII (Paris, 1857), 557-62; Lefebure, Saint Medard (Paris, 1864); Maitre, Le culte de S. Medard dans le diocese de Nantes in Ann. de Bretagne (1900), XV, 292-8; Surius, De vit. SS., III (Venice, 1551), 177-181. LEON CLUGNET Medea Medea 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 AEschylus (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-Kelissi in the vilayet of Adrianople; there are two thousand Greeks and some Turks. PTOLEMY, Geographiia s. v. Sallmydessos, ed. MULLER, I, 475; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, II, s. v. Salmydessus. S. VAILHE Medellin Medellin (MEDELLENSIS). Archdiocese in the Republic of Colombia, Metropolitan of Antioquia and Manizales, in the Departments of Medellin, 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., Medellin), 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 Medellin. 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. 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. Previous to 1804, the region was within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Bogota. 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 Medellin. On 29 Jan., 1873, the See of Antioquia (ANTIOQUIENSIS) was re-established, and on 11 April, 1900, a portion of the Diocese of Medellin 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 Medellin 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. MEDELLIN on the River Porce, 147 miles from Bogota, and 4600 feet above sea-level, is the capital of the Department of Medellin. In 1910 it had a population of 60,000. It was named in 1575 after the Count of Medellin 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 Medellin are "Registro Official", "Cronica Judicial", "El Preceptor", "El Elector", and "La Consigna". The See of Medellin 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. Jose de Cayzedo y Cuero, born in Bogota, 16 Nov., 1850; chosen Bishop of Pasto, 11 Feb., 1892; transferred to Popayan, 2 Dec., 1895; made archbishop 14 Dec., 1901; and transferred to Medellin 14 Dec., 1905, to succeed Mgr. Pardo Vergara, the first Archbishop of Medellin. 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. 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 Medellin, 22 March, 1846, and succeeded Mgr. Rueda as Bishop of Antioquia, 2 June, 1902. MANIZALES is about 100 miles from Bogota, 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. The Diocese of Manizales was created 11 April, 1900, from territory formerly belonging to the archdioceses of Popayan and Medellin. 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. PETRE, The Republic of Colombia (London, 1906); CASSANI, Historia de la Compania de Jesus; BORDA, Compendio de Historia de Colombia (Bogota, 1890); HOLTON, Twenty Months in the Andes (New York); NUNEZ, La Republique de Colombie (Brussels, 1883); Annuaire Pontifical (1910). J.C. GREY Media and Medes Media and Medes ( Media, Medoi). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Croesus, 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. Croesus 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 Achaemenian dynasty the history of Media becomes absorbed into that of Persia (q. v.), which will be treated in a separate article. Beurlier in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s. v. Medie; 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. James F. Driscoll Mediator (Christ As Mediator) Mediator (Christ as Mediator) The subject will be treated under the following heads: (1) Definition of the word mediator; (2) Christ the Mediator; (3) Christ's qualifications; (4) Performance; (5) Results. (1) Mediator defined 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). (2) Christ the Mediator 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) (3) Qualifications 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. 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. (4) Performance 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" (Summa Theologica 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. (5) Results 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). J. WILHELM Hieronymus Medices Hieronymus Medices (DE MEDICIS) 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 Quetif 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. 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". THOMAS A K. REILLY House of Medici House of Medici 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). EDMUND G. GARDNER Maria De' Medici Maria de' Medici 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 Conde and the Protestants, Louis XIII married the Infanta Anna on 28 November, 1615, and the revolt of the princes, following on the arrest of Conde (1 Sept., 1616), was the cause of the queen regent's summoning Richelieu, Bishop of Luc,on, to her council, as minister of war. Public opinion was aroused by the influence which Maria allowed her lady-in-waiting, Leonora Galigai, and Leonora's Florentine husband, Concini, Marechal 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. 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 Conde, 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 assemblees 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. 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 Angouleme 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 Ce 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'Orleans, she once -- "the Day of the Dupes", 12 November, 1630 -- thought herself successful in making Louis dismiss the cardinal. She was mistaken. Banished to Compiegne 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'Orleans; 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. ZELLER, La minorite de Louis XIII: Marie de Medicis et Sully (Paris, 1892); IDEM, La minorite de Louis XIII: Marie de Medicis et Villeroy (Paris, 1897); IDEM, Louis XIII, Marie de Medicis chef du conseil (Paris, 1898); IDEM, Louis XIII, Marie de Medicis, Richelieu minister (Paris, 1899); HANOTAUX, Hist. du card. Richelieu, I, II (Paris, 1893, 1896); PICOT, Hist. des =C9tats Generaux, IV (2nd ed., Paris, 1888); PERRENS, L'=C9glise et l'=C9tat en France sous le r=E8gne de Henri IV et la regence de Marie de Medicis (2 vols., Paris, 1873); BATIFFOL, La vie intime d'une reine de France au XVIIe si=E8cle (Paris, 1906); HAYEM, Le Marechal 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). GEORGES GOYAU History of Medicine History of Medicine 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. MYTHICAL, HOMERIC, AND PRE-HIPPOCRATIC TIMES 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 AEsculapius (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 AEsculapius, 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 AEsculapius, 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 AEseulapius", 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 AEseulapius 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. HIPPOCRATES AND THE SO-CALLED CORPUS HIPPOCRATICUM 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. THE DOGMATIC SCHOOL 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. 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. THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 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. THE METHODIZERS 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. GALEN 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. PEDANIUS DIOSCURIDES 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. CORNELIUS CELSUS 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. BYZANTINE PERIOD 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 AEgineta 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. ARABIAN MEDICINE 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. 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 AEgineta. 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-Kanun" (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 (Averroes, 1126 -98), of Cordova, is regarded as the complement of Avicenna. His book was also popular in the West and bears the title "Kitabel-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. CHRISTIANITY'S SHARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL SCIENCE 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". 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. FIRST UNIVERSITIES IN THE WEST 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. SCHOOL OF SALERNO 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 (AEgidius 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. 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. SPAIN AS THE TRANSMITTER OF ARABIAN MEDICINE 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. THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD 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. Albertus Magnus Albertus Magnus (Albert Count of Bollstaedt, 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. BOLOGNA 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. Bologna and the Study of Anatomy 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. PADUA 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. MONTPELLIER 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. SURGERY IN THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM 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 fistulae, 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. SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT: HUMANISM 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. 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. THE BLACK DEATH OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 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. HUMANISM AND MEDICAL SCIENCE IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES 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. 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). PROGRESS IN ANATOMY: ANDREAS VESALIUS 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. 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.). 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. 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). THE OPPONENTS OF GALEN AND THE ARABS 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. 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. THEOPHRASTUS PARACELSUS -- HIS ADHERENTS AND OPPONENTS 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 1514. 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. SURGERY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY: AMBROISE PARE 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 ("Buendth 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 Wuertz of Basle (1518-74). We are indebted to the French field-surgeon Ambroise Pare 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. DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD: WILLIAM HARVEY AND HIS TIME 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. IATROPHYSICISTS AND IATROCHEMISTS 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. 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 Boe 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. PIONEERS IN PRACTICAL MEDICINE: THOMAS SYDENHAM AND HERMANN BOERHAVE 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). 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 Goettingen as van Swieten school were: Paul Gottlieb Werlhof (1699-1767; intermittent fever) and Johann Georg Zimmermann (1728-95). ANATOMY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 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 Winsloew (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. SURGERY IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 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 (Frere 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. 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 Mareschal (1658-1736) and Franc,ois Gigot de la Peyronie (1678-1747). Of Frenchmen we must also name Jean Louis Petit (1674-1750), the inventor of the screw tourniquet, Henri Franc,ois 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), Franc,ois Chopart (1743-95, methods of amputation), and finally the monk and lithotomist Frere Come (Jean de St. Cosme, Baseilhac, 1703-81), the inventor of the lithotome-cache. 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 Charite school, and in 1795 the Pepiniere 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 Wuerzburg, and especially through August Gottlob Richter (1742-1812) at Goettingen (surgical library). A school for military surgeons was founded at Vienna in 1775 at the suggestion of Anton Stoerck (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). STUDY OF PHYSIOLOGY: ALBRECHT VON HALLER AND HIS TIME 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. MEDICAL SYSTEMS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 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 Roeschlaub (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. 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. 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. SOME SPECIAL BRANCHES OF MEDICINE AT THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Obstetrics 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 Roeslin (d. 1526), who, in addition to numerous drugs assisting delivery, mentions "version". Version was put into practice again by Ambroise Pare. 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, Franc,ois 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), Franc,ois 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). 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, Dusse, and Gregoire, the forceps passed into general practice. The most important accoucheurs of the eighteenth century were: in France, Andre Levret (1703-1780; inclination of the pelvis, forceps, combined examination), Francois Louis Joseph Solayres 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 Rene 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 Goettingen (Johann Georg Roederer, 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 College de S. Come 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. Ophthalmology 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. 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 Quarre 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). Pharmaceutics, Mineral Waters, Cold Water Cures 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. 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. 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. 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. VACCINATION -- EDWARD JENNER 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). Theodore 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. MEDICINE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 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 Mueller, in practical medicine, auscultation - Laennec, 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. General Anatomy A splendid basis for the further development of modern medicine was laid by Marie Franc,ois 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 Doellinger (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 Ruedinger (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. 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. Pathological Anatomy 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 Laennec, 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. Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), professor in Berlin and a pupil of Johannes Mueller and Johann Lucas Schoenlein, 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-Sequard (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. Bacteriology, Theory of lmmunity, Serotherapy, Disinfection 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 Mueller, 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 oequivoca), 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 (Abbe, Zeis), the method of colouration and pure cultures. 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. Physiology 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. Franc,ois 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 Franc,ois 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-Sequard (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). 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 Mueller (1801-58). Mueller'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 Mueller. Besides the above-mentioned investigators, Schwann, Koelliker, 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). 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 Mueller 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). 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. Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec (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). Laennec'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 Schoenlein (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 Laennec 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). 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 Juergensen (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). 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 Franc,ois Oliver Rayer (1793-1867), Johnson (1852), Julius Vogel (1814-80) and Hermann Senator (1896); diseases of the bladder by Josef Grunfeld (1872), Trouve (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-Sequard, 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. Psychiatry 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. 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 Franc,ois 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. Ophthalmology Ophthalmology, as an independent branch, was established in Germany first at Vienna and Goettingen. 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 Goettingen (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 Stoeber (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. 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. Obstetrics One of the most eminent obstetricians was Lukas Johann Boer 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 Joerg (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. Surgery 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 Zulema Amussat (1796-1856; lithotripsy), Auguste Vidal (1803-56, varicocele), Joseph Franc,ois Malgaigne (1806-65; fractures and dislocations) Auguste Nelaton (1807-73; lithotomy) Edouard Chassaignac (1805-79, ecrasement lineaire, 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). 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 Roentgen rays discovered by William Karl Roentgen in 1895 (Roentgen photography). LEOPOLD SENFELDER Medicine and Canon Law Medicine and Canon Law 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. 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. 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. 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. AICHNER, Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); FERRARIS, Bibliothcca Canonica (Rome, 1889), s. v. Clericus and Medicus. WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Bartholomew Medina Bartholomew Medina Dominican theologian, b. at Medina, 1527; d. at Salamanca, 1581. With Dominico Soto, Melchior Canus, and Dominico Banez 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). QUETIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 256; BOISDRON, Theories et systemes des probabitites en theologie morale (Fribourg, 1894), 6. D.J. KENNEDY Juan de Medina Juan de Medina 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 Alcala, 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: Complutense decus jacet hic, attente viator Ter tumultum lustra, ter pia thura crema Hoc moriente silet vox, qua non clarior unquam Compluti fulsit, nec fuit illa. 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, 158I; Brescia, 1590-l606; Cologne, l607 etc. GREGORY CLEARY Miguel de Medina Miguel de Medina 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 Alcala. 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 Alcala. 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 Valdes, Archbishop of Seville. Medina took up the defence of Ferus, which was published at Alcala (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" 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). GREGORY CLEARY Francisco Medrano Francisco Medrano 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 Leon. 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 Leon 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. Leon'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 Espanoles". Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, vols. XXXII, XXXV, and XLII (Madrid, 1848-86). VENTURA FUENTES Andras Medulic Andras Medulic 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". 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. 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). ANTHONY-LAWRENCE GANCEVIC Charles Patrick Meehan Charles Patrick Meehan 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. SILLARD in Catholic World (Sept., 1890). PETER A. SILLARD Megara Megara 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. REINGANUM, Dasalte Megaris (Berlin, 1825); LEAKE, Northern Greece, II, 388; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., II, 310-17. S. VAILHE Megarians Megarians 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. WILLIAM TURNER Antoine-Joseph Mege Antoine-Joseph Mege A Maurist Benedictine, born in 1625 at Clermont; died 15 April, 1691, at the monastery of St. Germain-des-Pres 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-Pres, where he divided his time between prayer and study. His most important literary production is "Commentaire sur la regle de S. Benoit" 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 Rance 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 chretienne" (Paris, 1661) a few ascetical writings and translations. MICHAEL OTT Trancribed by Joseph P. Thomas Mehrerau Mehrerau 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 Moetz, 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 Hergenroether (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 Mueller, has been issued since 1889. BERGMANN, Nekrologium Augioe majoris Brigantinoe Ord. S. Benedicti (Vienna, 1853); BRUNNER, Ein Benediktinerbuch (Wuerzburg, 1880), 10-18; IDEM, Ein Cistercienserbuch (Wuerzburg, 1881), 453-97, gives an account of Wettingen-Mehrerau; Cistercienserchronik (1904), 289-313; LINDNER, Album Augioe Brigantinoe (1904); Schematismus von Brixen (1910). JOSEPH LINS. Guillaume-Rene Meignan Guillaume-Rene Meignan Cardinal Archbishop of Tours, French apologist and Scriptural exegete, b. at Chauvigne, 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 lycee and at Chateau-Gontier, he studied philosophy in the seminary of Le Mans, where he received the subdiaconate in 1839. From this institution he passed to the College de Tesse, 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 Abbe Bercy, an Orientalist of some distinction, whose notice he attracted at Le Mans and later at Tesse, 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 Goerres, Doellinger, 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 Chalons, in 1882 transferred to the See of Arras, and in 1884 to the Archbishopric of Tours. 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 propheties messianiques. Le Pentateuque" (Paris). In 1860 appeared "M. Renan refute par les rationalistes allemands" (Paris) and "Les Evangiles et la critique au XIXe siecle" (Paris); in 1886 "De l'irreligion systematique, ses influences actuelles" (Paris); in 1890 "Salomon, son regne, ses ecrits" (Paris); in 1892 "Les prophetes d'Israel et le Messie, depuis Daniel jusqu'`a 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. BOISSONNOT, Le cardinal Meignan (Paris, 1899). E. MACPHERSON Jean-Baptiste Meilleur Jean-Baptiste Meilleur 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 medecine", he wrote textbooks on French and English grammar and correspondence, and on chemistry. His chief work is "Memorial 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. MORGAN, Bibliotheca canadensis (Ottawa, 1867); CHAUVEAU, L'Instruction publique du Canada (Quebec, 1876); Le Courrier du Canada (Quebec, 1878). LIONEL LINDSAY Blessed Meinwerk Blessed Meinwerk 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.) Acta SS., June, I,.500; STADLER, Heiligenlex.; WATTENBACH, Deutsche Geschichtsquellen, II, 27, 30; EBELING, Die deutschen Bischofe, II (Leipzig, 1858), 346. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Meissen Meissen 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. 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 Muehlberg 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. 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 Schoenberg (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 moegeln. 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.) Urkundbuch des Hochstifts Meissen, ed. GERSDORF (3 vols., Leipzig, 1864-67), in the Codex Diplomaticus Saxonioe Regioe; MACHATSCHEK, Gesch. der Bischoefe des Hochstifts Meissen (Dresden, 1884); VON BRUN (von KAUFFUNGEN), Das Domkapitel von M. im Mittelalter (Meissen, 1902); Mitteil. des Vereins fuer Gesch. der Stadt M. (8 vols., Meissen, 1882-1910); Neues Archiv fuer saechsische Gesch. (Dresden, 1880-). JOSEPH LINS. Ernest Meissonier Ernest Meissonier 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 "Chute d'un Ange" (1839), "Le Vicaire de Wakefield", and "Les Franc,ais peints par eux-memes" (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. There was on the other hand a small genre school to-day somewhat forgotten, that of Eugene Isabey, Eugene Lami, Celestin 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, Mieris, or Gerard 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. 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 musee. 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. 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 epopee. 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. 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. 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 "Pensees" of Pascal, yet giving at the same time the shock and the sensation of life. The difference was, however, that the "Pensees" 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 Societe Nationale. This unreasonable consequences and introduced into the school the anarchical system which for twenty years has gone on developing. 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 Bezanc,on; 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. 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). LOUIS GILLET Philipp Melancthon Philipp Melancthon Collaborator and friend of Luther, born at Bretten (in Unterpfalz, now Baden), 16 February, 1497; died at Wittenberg, 19 April, 1560. (1) His Rearing and Education 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 Tuebingen, 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 Tuebingen, 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. 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 Tuebingen, 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. (2) Melancthon and the German Reformation 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. (3) Melancthon as a Theologian 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. 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. (4) Melancthon as Professor and Pedagogue 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. 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 Tuebingen, 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". KLEMENS LOFFLER St. Melania (The Younger) St. Melania (the Younger) 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. 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. CHARLES SCHLITZ Melbourne Melbourne Archdiocese of Melbourne (Melburnen) 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. (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. 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. (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 -L-1,272,874. 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. -L-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. SUMMARY OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MELBOURNE 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. PATRICK PHELAN Paul Melchers Paul Melchers Cardinal, Archbishop of Cologne, b. 6 Jan., 1813, at Muenster, Westphalia; d. 14 December, 1895, at Rome. He studied law at Bonn (1830-33), and a few years practice at Muenster, took up theology at Munich under Klee, Goerres, Windischmann and Doellinger. 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 Osnabrueck (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. 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 Kuestrin 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. His principal publications are: "Erinnerungen An die Feier des 50 jaehrigen Bischofsjubilaeums des h. Vaters Pius IX" (Cologne, 1876); "Eine Unterweisung ueber das Gebet" (Cologne, 1876); "Einer Unterweisung ueber des heilige Messopfer" (Cologne, 1879); "Das Sendschriben des heilige Vaters Papst Leo XIII ueber den Socialismus" (Cologne, 1880); "Die katholiche Lehre von der Kirche" (Cologne, 1881); "Das enine Nothwendige" (Cologne, 1882); "De canonica dioecesium visitatione" (Rome, 1892). LUDWIGS, Kardinal Ertzbishof Dr. Paulus Melchers und die St. Pauluskirche in Koeln" (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). Melchisedech Melchisedech [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 + of his twofold dignity as priest and king, + by reason of his name, "king of justice", + by reason of the city over which he ruled, "King of Salem, that is, king of peace" (v. 2), and also + 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). 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. JOHN J. TIERNEY Melchisedechians Melchisedechians 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. 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.) JOHN CHAPMAN Melchites (Melkites) Melchites (Melkites). ORIGIN AND NAME Melchites are the people of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt who remained faithful to the Council of Chalcedon (451) when the greater part turned Monophysite. 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. 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). II. HISTORY BEFORE THE SCHISM 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. 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.) 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). 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. III. FROM THE SCHISM TO THE BEGINNING OF THE UNION 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. IV. EASTERN-RITE CATHOLICS 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. 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). 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. 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 (Jeraijiri, 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). V. CONSTITUTION OF THE MELCHITE CHURCH 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." 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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) A. FORTESCUE Juan Melendez Valdes Juan Melendez Valdes 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 Melendez 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. Melendez 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, Melendez 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, Melendez 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. Though Melendez 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, Melendez wrote a lyric poem on the creation, an epic entitled "La Caida de Luzbel", an ode to Winter, and a translation of the AEnid. Complete editions of the poems of Melendez, 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 Espanoles" (LXIII) reproduces the poems. QUINTANA, Notice sur la vie de Melendez Valdes (prefixed to the edition of the poet's works published at Madrid, 1820); Poesias ineditas in Revue hispanique (Paris, 1894-97). VENTURA FUENTES Meletius of Antioch Meletius of Antioch 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 Beroea 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 AEtius 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. AEtius 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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 role 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, Caesarea 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 Caesarea (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. 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 Caesarea 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. 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. 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. Allard, Julien l'Apostat (Paris, 1903); Hefele, Histoire des conciles, ed. Leclercq, ii, 1; Loofs in Realencyk. fuer prot. Theol. und Kirche, s. v.; Cavallera, Le schisme d'Antioche au IV et V siecle (Paris, 1905). H. Leclercq Meletius of Lycopolis Meletius of Lycopolis 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". 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 Nicaea (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. The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicaea. 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." 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 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. Ceillier, Histoire Generale des auteurs ecclesiastiques, III (Paris, 1732), 678-81), II (1765), 615-16; Hefele, Meletius in Kirchenlex., ed. Kaulen, VIII (1893), 1221 sq.; Achelis, Meletius von Lykopolis in Realencyclopaedie, ed. Hauck, XII (1903), 558-62; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, ed. Leclercq, (1907), 211-12, 488-503. H. Leclercq Melfi and Rapolla Melfi and Rapolla DIOCESE OF MELFI AND RAPOLLA (MELPHIENSIS ET RAPOLLENSIS) 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. CAPPELLETTI: Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857). U. BENIGNI Giovanni Meli Giovanni Meli 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. 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). EDMUND G. GARDNER Pius Melia Pius Melia 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 "Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jesus", 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. Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., V (Brussels and Paris, 1894); Lockhart, Life of Rosmini (London, 1886). WM. M. TALLON Melissus of Samos Melissus of Samos 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 Ionian School oF Philosophy), 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 Laertius 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. 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. WILLIAM TURNER Melitene Melitene 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 AEdificiis, 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 Notitiae episcopatuum", 579). The Monophysites had at that time seven sees in the vicinity of Melitene (Barhebraeus, 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. 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 role 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 chretien" (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. TEXIER, L'Asie Mineure (Paris, 1862), 587-590; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, II, 369-375; PIOLET, Les missions catholiques Franc,aises au XIX ^e siecle, I (Paris, 285-287); Missiones catholicoe (Rome, 1907), 757. S. VAILHE. St. Melito St. Melito 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. 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. 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. A.A. MACERLEAN Abbey and Congregation of Melk Abbey and Congregation of Melk (MOLCK, MELLICUM). 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, G?ttweich 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. Annales Mellicenses, ed. WATTENBACH, in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist. Script., IX (Hanover, 1851), 480-535; BERLIERE, La reforme de Melk au XVe Siecle in Revue Benedictine, XII (1895), 204-13, 289-309; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der Katholischen Kirche, I (Paderborn, 1907), 286-95, 344; H?LYOT, 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); WOLFSGRBER AND HBL, Abteien unde Kl?ster in Isterreich (Vienna, n. d.). LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE Melleray Melleray (MELLEARIUM) Melleray, situated in Brittany (Loire-Inferieure), 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 Citeaux), 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 Auverne, 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 Breze (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 Eugene, 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. Mount Melleray 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. New Melleray 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. 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). EDMOND M. OBRECHT Abbey of Mellifont Abbey of Mellifont 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. HENNESSEY, Mellifont Abbey, Its Ruins and Associations (Dublin, 1897); HAVTRY (1640), Triumphalia Chronologica Monasterii Sanctoe Crucis, ed. MURPHY (Dublin, 1891); De Cistercium Hibernorum Viris Illustribus (Dublin, 1895); JONGELINUS, Notitioe 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). EDMOND M. OBRECHT. St. Mellitus St. Mellitus 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). 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. 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. 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. G. ROGER HUDLESTON Melo, Uruguay Diocese of Melo 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, Tacuarembo, 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 Tacuarembo, has about 3000 inhabitants. The other centres of population are little more than hamlets. Handbook of Uruguay. Bur. of the Amer. Rep. (Washington, 1892); BRYSSEL. La republique orientale de l'Uruguay (1889); Publications of the Direccion de estadistica general (Montevideo); MULHALL, Handbook of the River Plate Republics (London, 1895). A. A. MacErlean. Melos Melos A titular see, suffragan of Naxos in the Cyclades. The name seems to have been derived from a Phoenician 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 Phoenicians 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 OEcumenical 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 aevi", 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. SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., II (London, 1870), s. v.; LACROIX, Iles de la Grece (Paris, 1858), 473-78. S. VAILHE. Melozzo Da Forli Melozzo da Forli An Italian painter of the Umbrian School, b. at Forl`i, 1438; d. there 1494. Lanzi's suggestion that Melozzo studied under Ansuino da Forl`i 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. 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. 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 Forl`i 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. 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 Forl`i (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 Forl`i (Rome, in press). LOUIS GILLET Melrose, Abbey of Abbey of Melrose 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 Citeaux. 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. Liber de Melros, ed. INNES (2 vols., Bannatyne Club, 1837); MORTON, Monastic Annals of Teviotdale (1832); Scottish Cistercian Houses in Dublin Review (April, 1902). MICHAEL BARRETT. Melrose, Chronicle of Chronicle of Melrose (CHRONICA DE MAILROS) 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 Cosmo Innes. STEVENSON, Chronica de Mailros (Edinburgh, 1835); INNES, Liber de S. Marie de Melros (Edinburgh, 1837); DOUGLAS, History of Roxburghshire. W. FORBES-LEITH. Melzi, Francesco Francesco Melzi Born at Milan, about 1490; died 1568. He was a mysterious personage. He was a friend of Leonardo da Vinci, and Vasari tells us that he was a Milanese nobleman, an exceedingly handsome young man, and that he possessed the principal part of the anatomical drawings of Leonardo. He inherited Leonardo's manuscripts, instruments, books, and drawings; he furnished both Vasari and Lomazzo with notes on the master's life, and to him we are indebted for the preservation of the wonderful collection of the artist's writings. Whether he was a painter, however, we are unable to state. There is not an actual authentic work by him that can be mentioned; Vasari does not say a word about his artistic talent. Lomazzo compliments Melzi in extravagant language, as a wonderful miniature painter, and it was suggested in 1523, in a letter from Bendedei, the ambassador at Milan, to his master Alfonso, Duke of Ferrara, that Melzi was a skilful painter; but the letter only implies that he painted as an amateur or as a dilettante. He has, however, by some writers been exalted into the position of being Leonardo's favourite and best pupil, most eminent and most skilful, and a picture of Vertumnus and Pomona in the Berlin Gallery, a Madonna at Bergamo, another Madonna at Vaprio, and two portraits at Isola Bella have been attributed to him, but all of them without definite authority. He is spoken of as Il Conte, and is mentioned more than once in letters written in France, dealing with Leonardo, as the master's friend, and once as a miniaturist, but in all probability he was merely a skilful amateur, devoted to Leonardo, and perhaps a clever draughtsman, who practised painting occasionally as an amusement. LOMAZZO, Trallato dell' Arte della Pittura (Milan, l584) IDEM, Grotteschi (Milan, 1587); DOLCE, Dialogo della Pittura (Venice, 1557; Florence, 1735); AMORETTI, Memorie di Leonardo da Vinci (Milan, 1804); MORELLI, Italian Masters in German Galleries (London, 1883); BURCKHARDT, The Cicerone. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON. Memberton Memberton Principal chief of the Micmac Indians of Nova Scotia at the time of the establishment of the French colony under de Monts and Poutrincourt in 1605, and noted in mission annals of the first Christian in the tribe. The French form Memberton is a dialectic corruption of the Micmac name Maopeltu, which is itself a contracted form of Maoi-Napeltu, "chief of all, i.e. "principal chief" from maoi (all) and napeltu (chief, or leader). On St. John's Day, 24 June, 1610, he was baptized with twenty others of his family by the secular priest Father Messire Jesse Fleche at Port Royal, now Annapolis, Nova Scotia, Poutrincourt and his son acting as sponsors for the King and Dauphin of France. He was given the name Henry, after Henry IV, he wife was named Marie after the queen regent, while his children and other relatives were called after members of the royal family. Then very old, although vigorous mentally and physically, he claimed to remember the first visit of Cartier to the St. Lawrence in 1534. For many years the acknowledged chief and war captain, medicine man and chief of tribal ceremonies, in the midst of paganism he led a temperate and moral life, even before baptism, limiting himself to one wife, where polygamy was the rule among great men, one chief having as many as eight. On account of their good offices in the serious illness of his son, he became strongly attached to the Jesuit missionaries Biard and Masse, who arrived in June, 1611, and proved an earnest, practical Christian frequently expressing a fervent hope for the conversion of his whole tribe. Towards the end of August, 1611, seized with his last illness, he was brought at his own request to Father Biard's house, where he died a week later having received every attention, and having given consent to be buried in the Christian cemetery as an example to his people, whom he repeatedly exhorted to maintain a friendship with the French, he was buried with full ecclesiastical ceremony, as befitted his rank and character. Father Biard says of him: "This was the greatest. most renown, and most formidable savage within the memory of man; of slender physique, taller and longer-limbed than is usual among them; bearded like a Frenchmen although scarcely any of the others have hair upon their chin; grave and reserved; feeling a proper sense of dignity for his position as commander, God impressed upon his soul a greater idea of Christianity that he had been able to form from hearing about it, and he often said to me in his savage tongue, 'Learn our language quickly, for as soon as thou knowest it and has taught me well I wish to become a preacher like thee.' Even before his conversion he never cared to have more than one living wife." In accordance with a universal Indian dislike to name the dead, his people referred to him after his death simply as the "Great Chief". At the Micmac mission town of Sainte-Anne de Ristigouche, Quebec, a monument was unveiled on the third centenary of his baptism to commemorate the beginnings of the Micmac mission. Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITES, I, II, III (Biard, Lescarrot, etc.) (Cleveland, 1896-1897). FATHER PACIFIQUE Membre, Zenobius Zenobius Membre Born 1645 at Bapaume, Department of Pas-de-Calais, France, he was a member of the Franciscan province of St. Antony. He arrived in Canada in 1675, and in 1679 he accompanied Robert de la Salle to the country of the Illinois, of which he wrote a description. Though Membre laboured zealously for the conversion of the natives, owing to their moral degradation the success was small. In 1681 be descended the Mississippi with La Salle to the Gulf of Mexico, returned with the leader of the expedition to Europe by way of Canada, and became superior of the Franciscan monastery in his native city. In 1684 Membre with two Franciscans and three Sulpicians followed La Salle into Texas. The commander erected Fort St. Louis at Espiritu Santo Bay in 1685, but Membre endeavoured to establish a mission among the Cenis Indians. In this he failed. After about two years of toil he was killed by the savages, along with Fr. Maximus Le Cerq, Rev. Chefdeville, and the small garrison which La Salle had left at the settlement. BARCIA, Ensayo Cronologico (Madrid, 1723); HENNEPIN, Description de la Louisiane (Paris, 1683); THWAITES, A New Discovery of a Vast Country (Chicago, 1903); SHEA, Cath. Church in Colonial Days (New York, 1886); Cath. Missions (New York, 1854); WALLACE, Illinois and Louisiana (Cincinnati, 1893). Z. ENGELHARDT. Hans Memling Hans Memling Flemish painter, b. about 1430-35; d. at Bruges 11 August, 1494. This date was discovered in 1889 by Pere Henri Dusart in a MS. chronicle of the library of St. Omer, which adds that this painter, "the best in Christendom", was born at Mainz (oriundus Moguntiaco), and that he was buried in the church of St. Gilles. This valuable text destroys the celebrated legend of Memling, which relates that this great painter, a soldier of Charles the Bold, was wounded at the battle of Granson, and was cared for at Bruges by the Hospitallers of St. John. Through gratitude the injured soldier painted the marvellous pictures still to be seen there. Here in an "Adoration of the Magi" is seen his own portrait, wan and bearded, wearing an invalid's cap. It was said at Bruges that he desired to be buried in the convent which held so many of his masterpieces, but another tradition relates that he died in Spain at the Carthusian monastery of Miraflores near Burgos, where a picture ascribed to him is found. These two accounts of a pleasing hagiographical tint are therefore mere fables, evidently the tales of sacristans, inspired by the pictures which they endeavoured to explain. They did not arise until the middle of the eighteenth century (cf. Descamps, "Vies des peintres Flamands", 1758, I, 12). On the other hand, the researches of Mr. James Weale show Memling under quite a different aspect. The wretched and pitiable soldier of Charles the Bold received by charity into a hospital of Bruges becomes in reality an important burgher of that prosperous city. If he had no official station at the court, it was because circumstances no longer permitted; he had nevertheless property of his own, being in 1480 the owner of three houses, one of them "a large stone house" (domus magna lapidea), and figuring on the fiscal registers among the two hundred and forty-seven highest taxed citizens. At this time he married Anne de Valkenaere (d. 1487), by whom he had three sons, Jean, Cornelius, and Nicholas. With a studio filled with pupils, he received commissions from the chief citizens of the town, such as Moreel and Floreins, and his fame reached beyond Flanders. The "Anonyme" of Morelli, who wrote in 1521, seems to know but two Flemish painters; every picture of this school at Bergamo, Venice, Padua, which he does not attribute to Jan van Eyck he attributes to Memling. The remainder of Memling's history is that of his works. The first certain date is 1467. In that year the painter executed the portrait, now at Antwerp, of the Italian medallist Nicolo Spinelli, then in the service of the Duke of Burgundy. The following year he executed the triptych of the Donne family, now at Chatsworth in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire. In fact Sir John must have formed part of the escort which accompanied Margaret of York at the time of her marriage with Charles the Bold. The following chronological list constitutes almost all our information: 1478, retable executed for the illuminator Guillaume Vrelant, now at the Academy of Turin; 1479, triptych of the "Adoration of the Magi", executed for Jean Floreins; triptych of the "Mystical Marriage of St. Catherine", with the "Life" of the two Saint Johns, both in the hospital of St. John at Bruges; 1480, retable for Peter Bultinc, now at the old Pinacothek of Munich; triptych of the Grocer's Guild, a lost picture; portraits of Guillaume Moreel and his wife (Museum of Brussels), and of their daughter Marie Moreel (the Sibyl Sambeth) in the hospital of St. John at Bruges; 1484, triptych of the Moreel family, at the Academy of Bruges; 1487, diptych of Martin van Nieuenhove, at the hospital of St. John at Bruges; portrait of a man in the Uffizi Museum, Florence; 1489, recovery of the shrine of St. Ursula, and placing of relics in this shrine; 1491, polyptych of the "Cathedral of Lubeck". By adding to these works several other pictures (the Louvre possesses the greatest number) we have a total of twenty exquisite paintings constituting the whole of Memling's authentic work. Some critics, like Kaemmerer (Memling, 1899) have sought, without good reason, to augment this catalogue by adding to it other works by analogy. Another school, that of Wuerzbach, refuses to admit that all the works cited above are the works of a single author. They withdraw from Memling, the pictures of Munich and Turin; the "Reliquary of St. Ursula "; the polyptychs of Lubeck and Dantzig, allowing him almost nothing except the portraits and pictures of the hospital of St. John, the Triptych of Chatsworth, and two or three others closely related. Such a discussion cannot be entered into here, but even if Memling were the author of only the few pictures in the hospital of Bruges, none the less is he one of the most delightful geniuses of painting, and the keenest poet of the whole Flemish school. Though he accomplished nothing comparable to Van Eyck's great painting, the retable of the "Mystic Lamb", there is in his work a rarer, nobler, and more touching quality. The general characteristics of Flemish painting are an unsurpassed technical perfection, a realism, a rigour in the study and imitation of facts, such as render it impossible to say whether this perfection is more the condition or the effect. As a craftsman Memling is inferior to none of his Flemish predecessors or imitators; he paints fabrics, velvets, flesh tints like Jan van Eyck himself. In sentiment he is far superior, or rather dwells in a finer atmosphere, for the price of the uncompromising realism of the Flemish is often ugliness and vulgarity. In some works of Jan van Eyck, as the "van der Paele Virgin" at the Academy of Bruges, the mediocrity of the types, the absence of imagination and taste, in a word the flatness, reach a painful degree. The same is true of the subsequent works, such as the celebrated "Nativity" of van der Goes in the Uffizi of Florence, in which the power of the "study" is only equalled by the insignificance or the triviality of its taste, and of those of the entire school from Petrus Christus and the Master of Flemalle to the pretentious Thierry Bouts and the early works of Gerard David. All these works are strong in execution but weak in feeling. It is true that Roger Van der Weyden attempted to introduce passion into this realism, but his painful intensity most frequently results in a convulsive, distorted, affected style. Emotionalism runs riot with him, producing the effect of nervous strain or disease. In the midst of this powerful but inartistic school the work of Memling astonishes by its subtle grace and refinement. In execution equal to anyone of his contemporaries, he transfigured all that he touched. Through all his portraits shines the radiance of the soul within. Compare, for example, the St. William of the Moreel triptych, in his black armour, that wonderful type of Christian knight and soldier monk, with the awkward St. George of the "van der Paele Virgin", that soldier so ill at ease in his role of saint, and measure the difference between the crudeness of Van Eyck and the psychological insight of Memling. This gift has made Memling the only Flemish painter who knew how to depict woman. He bestowed on her the same external luxury of draperies and attire, the same mantles, the same furs, the same wide skirts in majestic folds, with which the Flemish school in general loves to adorn her; but beneath this beautiful attire the Virgins of Van Eyck remain bourgeoises while those of Memling are young queens. His saints are princesses. He endows them with slender figures, white and graceful necks, sweet and long profiles, long drooping eyelashes, pure brows and clear temples, with that immaterial something which tolerates in its vicinity only virginal dreams and chaste thoughts. Whatsoever is too worldly in their grace he corrects by an ideal but natural atmosphere, by the familiar and serene charm of his landscapes. A delicate symmetry lends a mysterious rhythm to these peaceful compositions and dominates them with the harmony of unheard music. Angel lute players with blue and rose-coloured wings seem the expression of this unuttered song, the personified voice of the choir. Grace of figures, nobility and richness of decoration, serenity of landscapes, balancing of groups, melody of colours, lines, and sentiment all unite to produce a masterpiece of mystical poetry, pious romance, and supernatural beauty. But all these things, it must be repeated, are almost inexplicable in the Flemish school, at once the most natural and the most commonpIace. These characteristics have their origin elsewhere, and the very legend concerning Memling, the story of a man coming as a stranger to art by a special vocation, is an unhistorical attempt to account for this singularity. Mr. James Weale had already conjectured that Memling's name contained the key to the enigma and concealed the clew to the painter's origin; he thought that it was according to a frequent custom of the Middle Ages, the name of a country. As a matter of fact there was a borough called Memelynck near Alkmaar in Holland, and in the neighbourhood of Aschaffenburg in Germany there was another called Mumling or Momling. For a time it was difficult to decide which of these two was the painter's birthplace, but Pere Dusart's discovery has definitely cut short all uncertainty. The solution of the problem is that Memling was a German from Mainz, as is shown by his exclusively German Christian name, Hans. Before taking up his residence at Bruges he studied art at Cologne, for northern Europe the home and fatherland of Christian art. Vasari and Guicciardini relate that Memling was the pupil of Roger Van der Weyden, but the only work of Memling's with a trace of Roger's influence is after a Pieta, in a church of Cologne. His "Reliquary of St. Ursula" again proves that he lived a long time in that city; the views of Basle and Rome are fancifully depicted, whereas in those of Cologne the slightest details of the cathedral then in course of construction, the steeples of the churches of St. Martin and St. Pantaleon are reproduced with a fidelity which shows that the author had grown up in the familiar shadow of these monuments. Memling's whole work breathes a spirit of poetry rarely found in the fifteenth century save in a few painters of Cologne and Sienna. His favourite themes are the devotions honoured in Cologne, the city of the Magi and of the Eleven Thousand Virgins. The mystical peace and beauty which surrounds his figures, those calm brows and clear temples are not met with prior to him save in certain works of the Rhenish school such as the "Adoration of the Magi" of the great Stephen Lochner or in his "Virgin of the rosebush". This alliance of German spirituality with Flemish technic, this infusion of soul, of the spiritual, the immaterial, into the school best able to paint the real, constituted the genius and the role of Memling. Through him the Flemish school was rescued from the shallow naturalism where for fifty years it had grown barren. Memling's influence was as great as it was beneficial. When we compare the early works of Gerard David, so harsh and brutal, such as the "Justice of Otto" and the "Marriage of Cana" of the Louvre, with those which were later executed under Memling's influence, we can estimate the service which the stranger, the "duitscher Hans", rendered to the country of his adoption. There is no doubt that he owes to it a practical skill which he would not otherwise have had but in return he brought it the spirit which revivified it. The works of the next generation show this more clearly; the "Mystical Marriage" of the Museum of Brussels and the "Deposition" of Antwerp by Quentin Metzys. And when we remember that of all the masters of his country it was Metzys whom Rubens esteemed most, we can understand the importance of the role played in the destinies of the Flemish school by the young painter from Aschaffenburg who taught it poetry and idealism. CAREL VAN MANDER, Livre des Peintres (1604), ed. HYMANS (Paris, 1884); DESCAMPS, Vies des peintres flamands (1753); CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Les anciens peintres flamands, with notes and additions by RUELENS and PINCHART (1863); VITET, Etudes d'Art, III (1864); WEALE, Hans Memling (1865); FROMENTIN, Les Ma=EEtres d'autrefois (1876); KUGLER, Handbook of Painting, ed. CROWE (1879); CONWAY, Early Flemish Artists (1887); K=C4MMERER, Memling (Bielefeld, 1899); JAMES WEALE; Hans Memlinc (London, 1901); WYZEWA, Peintres de jadis et d'aujourd'hui (1908). LOUIS GILLET Memory Memory (Latin memoria) Memory is the capability of the mind, to store up conscious processes, and reproduce them later with some degree of fidelity. Strictly speaking, however, a revival conscious process is not remembered, unless it is, at the same time, recognized as something which occurred before. Memory therefore, involves a process of recognition. Voluntary reproduction of mental processes is frequently spoken of as recollection, and involuntary, as recall. DIVISIONS OF MEMORY St. Thomas distinguishes two kinds of memory, sensory and intellectual. He excludes, however, from the former the function of merely storing up the mental image; this he assigns to imagination. Sensory memory reserves that which can not be received by the special senses and yet is individual, and therefore does not belong to the intellectual memory, which takes cognizance of nothing but the universal. For instance, the utility of an object and its setting in past time; by the utility of an object must not be understood any abstract concept of its but only, the sensory experience which all acquire, that certain things are beneficial or harmful. Sensory memory is located by St. Thomas in the bodily organism (1, lxxviii, a. 4) The intellectual memory receives and stores up the abstract and universal. Its seat is the passive intellect's division,, or perhaps only an aspect of the faculty of understanding. he complement of the passive intellect is the intellectus agens, which is conceived of as actively working over the data of sense, abstracting from them the universal (species intelligibilis) which they contain and impressing it on the passive intellect. St. Thomas argues that there must be an intellectual memory, because that which is acted upon must retain the effect of the agent all the more perfectly in proportion to its own stability. Since the impressions of sense leave lasting traces on the bodily which is subject to decay, -- a fortiori the universal must, in some way, be stored up in the passive intellect, which is a spiritual faculty, permanent as the soul itself (I, Q., lxxix, a, 6-7). This argument assumes that them are cognitive processes specifically different from those of sensation, a doctrine which has received want recognition in modem psychology until quite recently. The tacit or expressed assumption of many experimental psychologists has been the very opposite, viz.: that all our cognitive processes are sensations or sensory complexes. Recently, however, the attempt has been made to demonstrate experimentally the existence of abstract thought, totally distinct from mental imagery (phantasms). Along with this admission of a difference between sensation and thought, experimental psychology is beginning to emphasize the distinction between sensory and intellectual memory. Sensory memory has long been subdivided by psychologists into several "types", chief among which are the auditory, visual, and motor. Anyone may remember at times by visual, auditory or other sensory images; but the prevailing character of his imagery determines his memory type. To wine extent the type depends on training; but there is evidence to show that it is in part determined by, anatomical or physiological conditions of the brain. This, however, does not exclude the modification of images by any exercise of memory in which they function; for the type is quite elastic (Watt, "Experimentelle Beitraege zu einer Theorie des Denkens" in "Archiv fuer die Ges. Psychol.", 1905, IV, 367-8). Besides sensory and intellectual memory, a third division, affective memory is often mentioned Meumann (Vorlesungen zur Einfurhung in die experimentelle Padagogik, I, 174) recognizes it as a distinct form, because in children under thirteen, it is but little developed; whereas other forms of memory are already far advanced. Meumann's view is based on the experiments of Netschajeff and Lobsien. Ribot, who was the first to make a special study of affective memory, maintained that to the visual, auditory, and motor types, we must add another, which is just as well defined, i.e. the affective type ("Affective La Psychologie des sentiments, 166). Titchener "Affective Memory" in "Philos. Review", IV, 1895), objected to the type theory of affective memory, on the ground that affections, unlike mental images, are recalled in company with ideational mental processes. They are not independent but dependent mental processes, and can to, or recalled in company with the ideational mental processes, of which they are but qualities or tones. Conclusive evidence is at present lacking, to decide whether or not feelings are dependent or independent processes. But the settlement of this problem is not necessary for the recognition of an affective memory of some kind. The expression "affective memory" is justified because affective processes are distinct from sensory and intellectual. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEMORY The growth of memory from childhood to maturity is dependent on the development of many mental faculties, and upon the is therefore a very complex affair. It is a growth of many memories, rather than of a single faculty. For purposes of experiment, the following forms of memory have been distinguished: (1) memory for special sensations, (2) for impressions of space and time, (3) for things and events of the outside world, (4) for numbers and abstract concepts, (5) for emotional states of mind. Each shows a period of rapid growth, followed by a standstill or even a retardation. The fourteenth and fifteenth year of childhood is especially unfavourable for the development of all kinds of memory. The order in which these forms of memory undergo their period of rapid development, is, for boys: (1) external objects, (2) words of visual content, (3) words of auditory content, (4) tones, (5) touch and sensations of movement, (6) numbers and abstract ideas, (7) emotions (cf. Meumann, Vorlesungen zur Einfahrung in die experimentelle Padagogik", I, 178). It is not true that the memory of children is better than that of adults. Except for a retardation at the ages of fourteen and fifteen, memory grows continuously, reaching a maximum between twenty and twenty-five. After that, for those in learned pursuits, it declines very, slowly, until about the fiftieth year, when it commences to fall off more rapidly. Ebbinghaus, who made continual tests of his powers of retention, could say, at the age of fifty-two, that for twenty years his memory remained almost constant. By analogy with the general biological law of exercise, Merman concludes that memory fails more slowly the more frequently it is used. THE METHOD OF MEMORIZING The experimental study of memory has, not been barren in results of practical value. It is now possible to give suggestions for the practical work of memorizing that are based upon very definite data. These suggestions refer primarily to the mechanical part of memory. Practical experience tells us that if we want to memorize any kind of connected narrative, we am greatly helped if we first analyse its logical sequence of thought. Memory systems for translating dates into words and memorizing the words which can be retranslated into dates, are so cumbersome that their value is doubtful. The results of experimental work aid us chiefly in the drudgery of memorizing -- just where conjecture about the best method is likely to fail. In learning a poem by heart, the usual method would by to read the first few lines several times, then read from the becoming on down a few lines further and so, little by little, commit the whole to memory. Another method would be to read it each, time, from beginning to end, until it was perfectly memorized. Although there is a prejudice in favour of the first method, it is the one that consumes the greatest amount of time. Several pieces of experimental work have shown that memorizing by reading from beginning to end, is the quicker and more permanent method. The reason is to be sought in the mechanics of association, by which one part of the piece memorized is bound to the other. When a series of words is memorized, it may be shown that a word is not merely associated the one that precedes and the one that follows it, but also with every other word of the series. Consequently the "total" method, avoids the trouble of connecting the separate sections of the partial method, makes the bonds between the divisions more secure, and gives to all the parts a certain equality of value by which the whole is better united. (Steffens, "Experimentelle Beitraege, etc.", Ch. III). One will, of course, combine at times the two methods. When certain portions of a piece present special difficulties, these parts will be more deeply impressed by a few special readings. It has also been found that, in memorizing, it is better to read half aloud than entirely to oneself. In memorizing poetry, it should be read with the rhythmic swing of the metre. As to the rate of reading, it has been found that, if one wants to learn a piece so as to be able to be able to repeat it, as soon as he has memorized it, he will save time by reading rapidly. But he will forget it more quickly than if he reads leisurely. Since one generally wants to remember what he has learned for some hours at least, it is better to read through the material at a leisurely rate. Meumann recommends that in the first part of the memorizing, one should read slowly, and more rapidly later on, as the material becomes familiar. THEORY OF MEMORY As a psychological process, memory includes three elements: (1) retention, (2) reproduction, (3) recognition. The process of recognition is usually treated more or less as a separate problem, so that the discussion of the theory of memory has centered around the question, how it is possible for ideas to be retained and reproduced. What becomes of the idea after it leaves the present state of consciousness? Does it continue to exist, preserving its own peculiar being, somewhere in the depths of the mind, and reappear when the occasion is propitious? Such was the opinion of the German philosopher and pedagogue Herbart (1776-1841). This would only be possible, if the idea were a substantial being which rose up from the depths of consciousness whenever the mind became aware of it, disappearing when it was forgotten -- a theory more picturesque than true. If the idea is not a substantial entity, it must be a kind of accident -- a transient something that continues to exist only in the traces that it leaves in passing. This is the common theory of memory, which takes on many forms, according as the "trace" is located and explained. Descartes located the trace primarily in the bodily organism. In remembering, the soul has to drive the "animal spirits" hither and thither in the brain, till they encounter the trace of the idea it wishes to recall. But, besides the cerebral traces, there are also, according to Descartes, vestiges left in thought itself. Leibnitz located the trace in the monad of the soul and conceived of it as becoming vanishingly small, but never equal to zero. For others again, the trace is entirely material. Some even go so far as to locate each image in a special ganglion cell of the cortex. On account of its definite character and picturesqueness, this theory has found many popular expositions. But there are facts that seem to make it untenable. For instance, disturbances of vision caused by unilateral lesion in one visual area of the cortex of a dog, wear off after about six weeks. This was explained by supposing that new memory images are deposited in the surrounding area. But it was shown by Loeb, that when dogs are kept in complete darkness after the operation (so that the acquisition of new visual images would be impossible), on being released after a period of six weeks, they are, nevertheless, entirely normal (Loeb, op. cit. infra, xvii). More recently, it has been maintained (Robertson, "Sur la dynamique du Systeme nerveux etc.", 438), that the trace is a chemical condition left in the brain by the passing activity of the original impression. This contention is not pure speculation, but is based upon experiments which aim to show that sensory processes are connected with the liberation of acids in the cerebral tissues. This leads to the assumption that the extent of the memory-trace is proportional to the amount of material transformed in a selfcatalysed chemical reaction, that the number of syllables memorized must be connected with the number of repetitions (or time of learning) according to the following function: Log. n=Kr + b; where n is the number of syllables memorized, r is the number of repetitions, and k and b are constants (that is, do not vary when n and r vary). ("Monist" 1909, XIX, 383). The quantity n also corresponds to the amount of substance transformed in the chemical reaction, and r to the time during which it goes on. Calculations based on this equation, compared with observed results, gave very small percentages of error: 0-46 per cent to 2-5 per cent. Such results seem to indicate that the term "sensory trace" will eventually receive a definite explanation, but they are far from affording us the basis of a complete explanation of memory. The insufficiency lies in the fundamental defect of all materialistic theories. They fall short of that which they start out to explain: the conscious processes of memory. It is not sufficient to show that there are cerebral traces. This has Iong been a priori evident, and it is to be supposed that at such traces will obey a definite law. Over and above this, a complete theory of memory must show how these cerebral traces recall definite conscious processes. This problem remains unsolved. In our haste to find some solution we must neither deny, with the materialist, the first facts known to us, our conscious processes, nor with the idealist refuse to allow one of the primary deductions from these facts, an external something that gives rise to our sensations. Scholastic philosophy has always recognized the fact of man's dual nature -- a fact which must be taken account of in any theory of memory. St. Thomas postulated the existence of physiological traces in the organism. But he also pointed out that there must be some kind of residue of the ideas left in the soul itself. Since the ideas are but acts of intelligence, and not intelligent substances -- transient activities of the soul itself -- and not complete beings on which the mind turns its gaze, they can only live on, as dynamic traces in the passive intellect, awaiting the time when they will exert their influence on some future process of thought -- apparently rising from the depths of consciousness, in the act of memory. The function of memory is further significant as evidence for the substantial nature of the soul. Since ideas are transient processes, there must be a permanent something in the mind to account for their retention and reappearance; and since they are recognized as ideas that were formerly in consciousness there must be something that identifies them and that consequently persists during their absence from consciousness (see Soul). The attempt to explain retention by means of psychical dispositions distinct from cerebral traces, is obviously futile unless it postulates a substance of mind in which such dispositions are preserved. St. Thomas Aquinas, I, Q, lxxviii, a. 4; lxxix, a, vi-vii; Expositio in librum Aristotlis De Memoria et Reminiscentia; Dubray, The theory of Psychical dispositions, Diss. (Washington, 1905); Lobsien, Experimentelle Untersuchungen uber die Gedachtnissentwickelung bei Schulkindern in Zeitschrift fur Psychol. (1902), XXVII, 34-76; Loeb, Comparative Physiology of the Brain (New York, 1900); Meumann, Vorlesungenzur Einuhrung in die experimentelle Padagogic (2 vols., Leipzig, 1907); Netsschajeff, Experimentelle Untersuchungen uber die Gedachtnissentwickelung bei Schulkindern in Zeitschrift fur Psychol. (1900) XXIV, 321-351; Ribot, La Psychologie des Sentiments (3rd ed., Paris, 1899), ch., xi; Robertson, Wur la dynamique chimique du systeme nerveux central in Arch. Internationales de physiologie (1908), VI, 388-454; A biochemical conception of the Phenomena of Memory and Sensation in The Monist (1909), XIX, 367-386; Steffens, Experimentelle Beitrage zur Lehre vom okonomichen Lernen. Diss. (Gottingen, Leipzig, 1900); Titchener, Affective Memory in Philos. Review (1895), IV, 65-76; Watt, Experimentelle Beitrage zu einer Theorie des Denkens in Archiv. Fur die Ges. Psychol. (1905), IV, 289-436. THOMAS V. MOORE Memphis Memphis Ancient capital of Egypt; diocese of the province of Arcadia or Heptanomos, suffragan of Oxyrynchus. Memphis was called in Egyptian Mennophir, "the good place". This name, at first reserved to the pyramid of Pharaoh Pepi I (sixth dynasty) afterward passed to the surrounding quarter, then to the whole city. It is called Aneb or Aneb-u, "the city of the wall" or "of the walls"; Aneb-hadj, "the white wall", an appellation properly signifying the citadel (Herodotus, III, 91); Ha-ka-Ptah, "the dwelling of the person of Ptah", an expression first applied to the temple of Ptah, then to the city and which according to certain authors became in the Greek tongue Aiguptos, Egypt; Kha-nofer, "the god crown"; Khu-to-ui, the "light of the two countries", i.e. of Upper and Lower Egypt; Ha-ka-knum-nuteru, "the house of the worship of the divine architects"; Ma-kha-to-ui, "the balance of the two countries", i.e., the dividing point between Upper and Lower Egypt. Memphis is considered to have been founded by Menes, a native of Thini (Herodotus, II, 99; Diod. Sic., I, 50, 51, 67). It was the capital of several dynasties (third, fourth, sixth, eighth, twenty-fourth). It was after Thebes, says Brugsch, the city "concerning which the epigraphical monuments and the papyri have most to teach us". Memphis is often mentioned in the Bible under the name of Mof or Nof (Osee, ix, 6; Is., xix, 13; Jer., ii, 16; xlvi, 14, 19; Ezech., xxx, 13, 16). The Prophets predicted in strong terms the destruction of this city, and the prophecies were so well fulfilled that the scholars of the French expedition could scarcely discover the true site of Memphis. Memphis has often, but incorrectly, been identified with the ancient Cairo, the Babylon of Egypt. It is now certain that Memphis extended into the plain where stand the villages of Bedrashen and Mit-Rahi-net, on the west bank of the Nile, about twelve and a half miles from Cairo. Its size must have been considerable. In this plain are sometimes exhumed colossal statues like that of Rameses II; but there remains none of the monuments of Memphis unless we except the neighbouring tombs of Saqqarah, where its inhabitants were formerly buried. Linant Pacha recovered the great dike built by the founder Menes to turn aside the course of the Nile; this must be the great dike of Cocheiche at present utilized. According to Revillout in "Le Nil" (1880), 19, 25, "terrible floods must have buried the great cities of Thebes and Memphis under enormous masses of clay". The great Egyptologist Mariette sees in this destruction of Memphis the verification of the prophetic predictions. "There is no city", he writes, "whose end was so lamentable as that of Memphis. It was formerly the chief of cities, the pride of Egypt. It astonished the world by the number and the magnificence of its buildings. To-day it is not even a ruin. Thus is fulfilled the word of the prophet (Jer., xlvi, 19): "Furnish thyself to go into captivity, thou daughter inhabitant of Egypt, for Memphis shall be made desolate and shall be forsaken and uninhabited" (Mariette, "Voyage en Haute-Egypte", 1878, I, 31). See in Le Quien, II, 585-88 (Gams,(461) the list of the known bishops of Memphis. John, the first on this list, was one of the opponents of St. Athanasius (Athan., "Apol. de fuga sua"; "Apol. contra Arianos"; "Epist. ad solitarios"; Sozomen, II, xxxi). Antiochus of Memphis took part in the Council of Nicaea. Palladius (Hist. laus., LXXVI) and Rufinus (Vit. Patrum, II, v) state that they saw in the neighbourhood of Memphis and Babylon innumerable multitudes of monks. Some Synaxaria mention for 5 Oct., the holy virgin St. Hierais of Memphis (Delehaye, "Synaxarium Eccles. Constantinop., Propylaea ad Acta Sanctor." 112, 8). Peter Martyr of Anghera, Legatio babylonica (1577), 434; Le Maschier, Description de l'Egypte d'apres les memoires de Maillet (Paris, 1735), 261 sq.; AEgypti historiae compendium (Oxford, 1789), 199 sq.; Description de l'Egypte, expedition de l'armee franc,aise, V; Abd- Allatif, Relation de l'Egypte (tr. Paris, 1810), 184-94; Brugsch, Dict. geog. de l'Egypte (Leipzig, 1879-80); Idem, Egypt under the Pharaohs (1881), I, 50; de RougE, Geog. ancienne de la Basse-Egypte (1891), 1-7; Annales du musee egyptien (Cairo, 1899), I, 149, 230, 280; II, 97, 240, 244, 285; III, I, 169, 182; IV, 76, etc.; Maspero, Mission archeol. institut. franc,ais, II, ii, 133; De Vit, Totius latinitatis onomasticon, IV (1887), cites all the passages from ancient authors, Greek and Latin, where mention is made of Memphis; Larrivaz in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Memphis; Le Quien, Oriens christ. (Paris, 1740), II, 585-88; Smith, Dict. of Greece and Roman Geogr., s. v. S. Salaville Juan de Mena Juan de Mena Spanish poet, born 1411 at Cordova; died 1456 at Torrelaguna. Prominent at the court of Juan II of Castile, Mena was for a while the monarch's secretario de cartas Latinas and then the royal historiographer. In his work as a poet he manifests little originality, and shows to a considerable degree the influence of Italian and classic Latin models, for the impress of the Renaissance is already clear in him. The Dantesque allegory gave form to his poem "La Coronacion", an allegorical vision in which he makes a journey to Parnassus to witness the coronation of his friend, the Marquis of Santillana, as poet and hero. Didactic and allegorizing tendencies are visible in his versified "Siete pecados mortales". Along with a paramount influence of Dante there is noticeable also a considerable influence of the Latin poet Lucan in his poetical masterpiece, the "Laberinto" (also termed Las Trecientas). Here the poet pictures himself as wandering in a forest where he is threatened by wild beasts. A beautiful woman (Providence) appears and offers to guide him and explain the secrets of life. A description of the universe is then given. It consists of three wheels of fate set within a number of circles or spheres. The wheels are those of the past, present, and future. That of the present is in motion, the other two are constantly moving. In these wheels are seen various personages, whom his guide points out to him, expatiating on their characteristics. The machinery is obviously borrowed from the Divine Comedy and especially from the Paradise. Certain passages are genuinely poetical. Of the prose works of Mena there may be mentioned his "Iliada", an arid compendium of the story of Troy, and his pedantic Commentary on his own poem "La Coronacion". His minor lyrics, found in the Cancioneros are of slight importance. Obras, ed. SANCHEZ (Madrid, 1804); Laberinto, ed. FOULCHE-DELBOSC (Macon, 1904); Revue Hispanique, IX, 75 sqq.; MENENDEZ Y PELAYO, Antologia, V, 165 sqq. J. D. M. FORD. Menaion Menaion ( menaion from men, "month") The Menaion is the name of the twelve books, one for every month, that contain the offices for immovable feasts in the Byzantine rite. As in the West, the Byzantine Calendar consists of two series of offices. First there are the movable days, the days of the ecclesiastical year turning around Easter (proprium de tempore); overlying this, as it were, are the feasts of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints that are fixed to certain days of the month of the civil year. The offices for these feasts are contained in the menaia, which therefore correspond to the proprium sanctorum in the Roman breviary. The origin and first compilation of the menaia is obscure. Apparently the various elements that make up the collection were put together gradually. It seems that the Synaxarion (now an extract from the menaia) was composed first. The Synaxarion contains only short accounts of the saints' lives, the history of the feast and so on, like the lessons of the second nocturn in the breviary. These lives of saints are attributed to Symeon Metaphrastes. The menaia include the Synaxarion and supply also all the other texts and poems (the Canons with their heirmoi, troparia, stichera, kontakia, and so on) required to complete the office. A great part of these poems are ascribed to Romanos, the chief hymn-writer of the Byzantine Church (fifth century). The menaia do not affect the holy liturgy (which is hardly influenced by the calendar), being used only in the Divine Office. The Byzantine ecclesiastical year begins with September. That month therefore forms the first menaion; there is then one for each month to August. The rules for coincidence of feasts and the manner of saying the office on any day must be sought in the typikon; but extracts from the typikon are printed in the menaia. Each office fills five or six small folio pages, the rubrics being printed in red. The general arrangement is this: first come the verses (stichera) sung at the Hesperinos, then the Biblical lessons with the prokeimena and any troparia that may be wanted. The Canon sung at the Orthros follows with all its odes and their troparia. The Synaxarion of the feast follows the sixth ode. The psalms and other unchanging matter are not given. They are found in the other books (Triodion, Parakletike, Oktoechos). The churches of the Byzantine rite that do not use Greek liturgically have translations of the menaia with additional offices for their special feasts and any other modifications they may have introduced. The Slavonic name for the book is mineja, Arabic minaiun, Rumenian mineiu. Parts of the menaia were translated into Syriac by the Melchites during the time that they used that language (a list in Charon: "Le Rite byzantin dans les Patriarcats melkites", Rome, 1908, pp. 33-44). The whole has not been translated into Arabic. The Orthodox and Melchites of Egypt and Syria use instead a selection from them called in Greek " Anthologion" (but "minaiun" in Arabic). The "Menology" (menologion) is either an ecclesiastical calendar or a kind of Synaxarion. The first printed edition of the menaia was made by Andrew and James Spinelli at Venice (1528-1596), and reprinted (1596-1607). The latest Greek editions were published at Venice, in 1873 (Orthodox), and at Rome, in 1888 (Uniate). Allatius, De libris eccles. Graecorum (Paris, 1645 and 1646); Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant. Litt. (Munich, 1897), 658-659; Nilles, Kalendarium manuale (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896); Maltzew, Die Nachtwache ... der Orth. kath. Kirche (Berlin, 1892); Neale, Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church, III (London, 1850); Selections from the Russian menaia in English are published by Orloff, The General Menaion (London, 1890), and The Ferial Menaion (London, 1900). Adrian Fortescue Leon Menard Leon Menard Writer, b. at Tarrascon, 12 Sept., 1706; d. in Paris, 1 Oct., 1767. When he had completed his humanities under the Jesuits at Lyons, he studied jurisprudence at Toulouse and became counsellor at the Superior Court of Nimes. From 1744 he was constantly in Paris busied with historical research. His first work concerned the history of his native city and its bishops, and was entitled "Histoire des Eveques de Nimes" (2 vols., The Hague, 1737). Later he enlarged this work, and between 1760 and 1758 he published at Paris the "Histoire Civile, Eccelesiastique et Litteraire de la ville de Nimes" in seven volumes with illustrations. An abridgement appeared at Paris in 1790, and one at Nimes in 3 vols., 1831-33. He also wrote: "Les Amours de Callisthene et de Chariclee", The Hague, 1740, Paris, 1753 (also Paris, 1765, under the title of "Callisthene ou le modele de l'amour et de l'amitie"); "Moeurs et usages des Grecs" (Lyons, 1743), a widely-read work which became the model of similar productions. In addition he wrote a number of articles for periodicals, especially on detached subjects of the history of France in Roman times. In 1762 the Magistracy of Avignon sent for him and confided to him the task of writing a history of that city. But after two years of work he was constrained by ill-health to leave it unfinished. He was a member of the Academie des Inscriptions, and several other learned bodies. LE BEAU, Eloge de Menard in Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscript. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Nicolas-Hugues Menard Nicolas-Hugues Menard Of the Congregation of St. Maur, b. in Paris, 1585; d. 21 Jan., 1644. His father was was private secretary to Catherine de Medici, his mother was a native of Blois. After a liberal education Menard entered the Order of St. Benedict, 3 Feb., 1607, at St. Denis, and made his religious profession 10 Sept., 1612. In the next year he joined the reform movement of St. Vannes in Verdun which some years later developed into the Congregation of St. Maur; and he became one of its main helps. After some time he was called to Paris, where he soon became a favourite preacher and frequently occupied the principal pulpits. For sixteen years he taught rhetoric at the College of Clugny. By word and deed he sought to induce his fellow religious to unite an exemplary life with love for study especially of Church history and patrology. On account of failing health he was placed by his superiors in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, where he lived in great seclusion. In his small circle of intimate friends the Jesuit Sirmond stood foremost. Menard is much praised for his profound learning, his great modesty and his wonderful memory. Works: "Martyrologium Sanctorum ordinis St. Benedicti", to which he added several biographies and explanatory notes which greatly enhance the value of the work (Paris, 1629); "Concordia regularum, auctore St. Benedicto Anianae abbate", from a manuscript found in the Abbey of Fleury, which is supplemented by a life of St. Benedict of Aniane (Paris, 1638); "St. Gregorii I Papae Liber Sacramentorum", from a manuscript Missal of St. Eligius (Paris, 1642). This also appears in the edition of the works of St. Gregory of the year 1705. The commentary on the book is highly praised by Muratori (Dissert. de rebus liturgicis, ch. 6), who states that Tomassi and Mabillon would have preferred the text of Pamelius but the Maurists, when publishing the notes of Menard had also to use his text "De unico Dionysio Areopagita Athenarum et Parisiorum episcopo", a defence of the identity of the Areopagite and first Bishop of Paris, written (at first anonymously) against Launoy, in defence of Millet (Paris, 1643); "S. Barnabae Apostoli (ut fertur) Epistola Catholica, ab antiquis olim ecclesiae patribus sub ejusdem nomine laudata et usurpata" (Paris, 1640). The Greek text had been found by Sirmond at Rome, and Menard discovered a Latin translation at the Abbey of Corvey. Kirchenlexicon, s. v.; TASSIN, Congr. von St. Maur (Frankfort, 1773), I, 27; Theologische Quartalschrift, XV, 391, 421; HURTER, Nomencl. (Innsbruck, 1907), III, 1148. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Rene Menard Rene Menard Missionary, b. at Paris, 1604, d. about 10 August, 1661, in what is now Wisconsin. After the usual course of studies he set out from Dieppe in the beginning of May, 1640. Arriving at Quebec he was assigned to work among the Hurons, labouring first, however, among the Nippisriens. After the destruction of the Huron Missions he went to Three Rivers, and on 17 May, started for the Iroquois country. He was sent to the Cayugas, where for the first two months he was brutally treated, but after that he won the affection of the savages. When the Iroquois missions were interrupted he again went to Three Rivers, but in 1659 started with 300 Ottowas for the Far West. He was then fifty-five years of age. In all probability the post he endeavoured to establish was at Keeweenaw, one hundred leagues west of Sault Ste. Marie. The story of his sufferings there forms one of the most pathetic pages of the "Relations". From Keeweenaw he set out to reach the Dacotahs, who, according to a letter written by him in July, 1661, lived three hundred leagues farther on. With him was a single Frenchman, not Guerin, the famous "Donne", but an armourer or blacksmith. They became separated in forests, and Menard was never heard from again. He was probably murdered at the first rapid of the Menominee. MENARD, Jesuit Relations (Cleveland); SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States, I (New York, s. d.); ROCHEMONTIEUX, Les Jesuites et la Nouvelle France; WINSOR, Narrative and Critical History of America. T.J. CAMPBELL St. Menas St. Menas Martyr under Diocletian, about 295. According to the Greek Acts published with Latin translation in "Analecta Bollandiana", III 258 (Surlus XI 241), Menas, a Christian and an Egyptian by birth, served in the Roman army under the tribune Firmilian. When the army came to Cotyaeus in Phrygia, Menas hearing of the impious edicts issued against the Christians by the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian left the army, retired to a solitude in the mountains and served God by fasting vigils and prayer. During tbe celebration of a great festival Menas appeared in the midst of tbe populace in the circus, and fearlessly professed bis faith. He was led before tbe prefect Pyrrhus, cruelly scourged, put to torture and finally beheaded. His body was brought to Egypt and the martyr was soon invoked in many needs and afllictions. The fame of the miracles wrought, spread far and wide and thousands of pilgrims came to the grave in the desert of Mareotis between Alexandria and the valley of Natron. For centuries Bumma (Karm-Abum-Abu Mina) was a national sanctuary and grew into a large city with costly temples a holy well, and baths. A beautiful basillca was erected by the Emperor Arcadius. Tbe cult was spread into other countries, perhaps by travelling merchants who honoured him as their patron. As a result of various vicissitudes the doctrinal disputes and the conquest of Egypt by the Arabians under Omar in 641 the sanctuary was neglected and ultimately forgotten. During 1905 Mgr C.M. Kaufmann of Frankfort led an expedition into Egypt which made excavations at Bumma. He found in a vast field of ruins, the grave, the well and thermae, the basilica, the monastery, numerous inscriptions on the walls imploring aid through the intercession of the saint, and thousands of little water pitchers and oil lamps. The rich finds are partIy in the Museum of AIexandria and Cairo, and partIy in Frankfort and Berlin. The monsignor published an official report of his expedition in 1908, "La decouverte des Sanctuaires de Menas dans le desert de Mareotis". His feast is celebrated on 11 November. Several saints of the name Menas were highly honoured in the ancient Church about whose identity or diversity much dispute is raised. Delahaye (Anal. Boll., XXIX, 117) comes to the conclusion that Menas of Mareotis, Menas of Cotyaes, and Menas of Constantinople, surnamed Kallikelados, are one and the same person, that he was an Egyptian and suffered martyrdom in his native place, that a basilica was built over his grave which became one of the great sanctuaries of Christendom, that churches were built in his honour at Cotyaeus and Constaninople, and gave rise to local legends. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Mencius Mencius (Latinized form of Chinese MENG-TZE, i.e. MENG THE SAGE). Philosopher, b. 371 or 372 B.C. He was a disciple of the grandson of Confucius, and ranks next to the great master as an expounder of Confucian wisdom. His work, known as the "Book of Mencius", or simply, "Mencius", is one of the four Shuh, or books, given the place of honour in Chinese literature after the King, or classics. Of Mencius' life only a meagre account has been handed down, and this is so like the story of Confucius in its main outlines, that one is tempted to question its strictly historical character. He is said to have lived to the advanced age of eighty-four years, being thus a contemporary of the great Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. His father died when he was very young. The care of his training was thrown upon his mother, and so well did she fulfil her task that she has been honoured ever since, among the Chinese of all classes, as the pattern of the true mother. After a thorough instruction in the doctrine of Confucius, Mencius was honoured with the position of minister of state to one of the feudal princes, Hsuean. But after some years, seeing that the prince was not disposed to follow his counsels, he reigned his charge, and for years went about from state to state, expounding the principles of Confucius. At last he was kindly received by Prince Hui, and was instrumental in promoting the welfare of his people through his wise measures of reform. After the death of the prince he retired to private life, and spent his last years instructing his disciples, and preparing with them the book that bears his name. The "Book of Mencius" consists of seven parts or books, and treats of the proper regulation of human conduct from the point of view of society and the state. Religion as a motive of right conduct seems to have concerned him much less than it did Confucius. He is interested in human conduct only in so far as it leads to the highest common weal. One of his recorded sayings runs: "The people are of the highest importance; the gods come second; the sovereign is of lesser weight." His work abounds in sententious utterances. If we may trust the records, he knew how to speak plainly and strongly. To Prince Hui, whom he found living in careless luxury, while his people were perishing for lack of economic reforms, he said: "In your kitchen there is fat meat, and in your stables there are sleek horses, while famine sits upon the faces of your people, and men die of hunger in the fields. This is to be a beast and prey on your fellow men." Mencius was a staunch champion of the Confucian principle that human nature tends to what is morally good, and only runs to evil by reason of the perverse influences of external enviroment. His treatise is one of the most noteworthy attempts to teach morality independently of religion. The "Book of Mencius" is generally accepted as genuine, though the evidence of its Mencian authorship is of a kind that would not be judged sufficient if it fell within the scope of modern historic criticism. In a Chinese history dating from 100 B.C., a short account of Mencius is given, in which he is declared to be the author of the work in seven books that bears his name. There are extant portions of literary works composed as early as 186-178 B.C., containing quotations from the "Book of Mencius". There remains still, somewhat more than a century to bridge over, but the reputation for accuracy of the Chinese annals is taken as a warrant that the work goes back to the days of Mencius and issued from his pen. A partial acquaintance with the teachings of Mencius was obtained by European scholars through the writings of the Jesuit missionaries to China in the eighteenth century. The "Book of Mencius" was translated into Latin by Stanislaus Julien in the early part of the last century. English readers have ready access to the sayings of Mencius in the admirable edition and version of the "Chinese Classics", by J. Legge. LEGGE, The Works of Mencius, Chinese Classics, II (London, 1861); JULIEN, Meng Tseu (Paris, 1829); FABER, The Mind of Mencius (Boston, 1882); GILES, A History of Chinese Literature (New York, 1901). CHARLES F. AIKEN Alvaro de Mendana de Neyra Alvaro de Mendana de Neyra A Spanish navigator and explorer, born in Saragossa, 1541; died in Santa Cruz, Solomon Islands, 18 October, 1596. Little is known of his early years, but about 1558 he went to Lima upon invitation of his uncle, Lope Garcia de Castro, who was then Viceroy of Peru. At that time the Spaniards were well aware that the Pacific offered an extensive field for exploration and discovery, and Garcia de Castro, wishing to explore that vast region, equipped an expedition of two ships at the head of which he placed his nephew Mendana. The expedition set out from Callao in November, 1567. In the course of about a year they discovered several islands of Oceanica, and returned to Peru in 1568. Mendana's travels did not awaken much interest at first, so he gave an elaborate and glowing description of the archipelago to which he gave the name of Solomon Islands, as it was supposed that here King Solomon had obtained the gold with which he had adorned the temple at Jerusalem. These reports of the wealth of the islands, some years later, caused the fitting out of a second expedition for the purpose of colonizing them. By order of Philip II, Mendana was placed in command, and the expedition sailed 11 April, 1595. Several groups of islands were discovered, among them the Marquesas Islands which he so named in honour of the wife of Garcia de Mendoza, Marquis of Canete, who was at the time Viceroy of Peru. The explorer Cook, in 1774, gave the name of Nukahiva to this group, that being the native name of the largest island of the archipelago. The expedition continued westward, visiting several other groups of islands, but Mendana died before he reached the end of the voyage. Before his death, he delegated his powers to his wife in whom he had great confidence and who was with him on the voyage. The widow, a very resolute woman, took charge, and led the expedition into Manila, where they arrived safely in February, 1596. Mendana left notes describing both of his voyages which were collected after his death by the historian Pedro Guerico de Victoria under the title of "Derrotero de Mendana de Neyra". The manuscript is now in the National Library in Paris. Mendana de Neyra in Bulletin de la Societe de Geographie (Paris, 1898); Discovery of the Solomon Islands in Scottish Geographical Magazine (Edinburgh, 1902); Discovery of the Solomon Islands in Publications of the Hakluyt Society (London, 1901). VENTURA FUENTES Diocese of Mende Diocese of Mende (MIMATENSIS) This diocese includes the department of Lozere, in France. Suffragan of Bourges under the old regime, it was re-established by the Concordat of 1801 as a suffragan of Lyons and united with the department of Ardeche. The See of Mende lost this second department in 1822 by the creation of the Diocese of Viviers and became a suffragan of Albi. According to late legends belonging to the Limousin cycle of legends relating to St. Martial, he passed through the territory of the Gabali (Gevaudan) of which Mende is the capital, and appointed as its first bishop, St. Severian his disciple, about the beginning of the first century. (See LIMOGES.) The first bishop known to history is Saint Privatus, who according to Gregory of Tours, died in a grotto of Mount Mimmat, a victim of the ill treatment he suffered at the time of the invasion of the Alamanni under their King Chrocus. Gregory of Tours places this event about 260; though Fredegarius puts the invasion of Chrocus at 407. Mgr. Duchesne places the invasion of Chrocus and the death of St. Privatus at the beginning of the reign of Constantine, perhaps before the Council of Arles. It is certain that there was an organized church in the country of the Gabali from about 314, since in that year it was represented at the Council of Arles. We do not know the exact date of the episcopate of Saint Firminus whom the church of Mende honours to-day. Other bishops of the Gabali, who doubtless resided at Javoulx, near Mende, were: Saint Hilary, present at the Council of Auvergne in 535, and founder of the monastery of Canourgue, and whose personality has been wrongly described in certain traditions concerning Saint Illier, and St. Frezal of Canourgue (ninth century) assassinated, it is said, under Louis le Debonnaire. Towards the year 1000 Mende became the seat of the bishopric. Under Venerable Aldebert III (1151-86), Alexander III passed some days at Mende in 1162; Aldebert Wrote two works, on the passion and on the miracles of St. Privatus whose relics were discovered at Mende in 1170. M. Leopold Delisle has shown us the historical interest of these two works of this bishop. Mende had later as bishops, Guillaume Durand (1285-96), the author of "Speculum juris", and of the "Rationale divinorum officiorum", who was secretary of the general council of Lyons in 1270, and his nephew, Durand le Jeune (1296-1328) who by the act called "Paringe", agreed upon with Philippe le Bel, definitively settled in Gevaudan the respective rights of king and bishop, and who left a work on the general councils and on the reform of abuses. Guillaume de Grimoard, born about 1310 at the castle of Grisac near Mende, was sickly and deformed, but was restored at the prayer of his godfather, St. Elzear de Sabran, who had come to baptise him. Elected pope in 1362 under the name of Urban V, he administered the Diocese of Mende himself from 1368 to 70 as it had been left vacant by the removal of his nephew to the See of Avignon. Among the bishops of Mende were: Guillaume de Chanac, who occupied the see but a few months, when he became cardinal in 1371; Pietro Riario (1473-74), nephew of Sixtus IV and a cardinal; Giuliano della Rovere (1478-83) later pope under the name of Julius II; and his nephews, Cardinal Clement della Rovere (1483-1504) and Francesco della Rovere (1504-24); Castellane (1768-92) massacred at Versailles, 9 Sept., 1792. Urban II visited the Diocese of Mende in 1095 and had consecrated in his presence the church of the monastery of Saint Sauveur de Chirac or of Monastier founded in 1062 and dependent on the Abbey of Saint Victor. Mende was captured for the first time by the Huguenots in 1562; the celebrated adventurer Merle from 1573-81 led into the region bands of Protestants who were masters of Mende for eighteen months, and destroyed a great part of the cathedral that Urban V had caused to be rebuilt. The Diocese of Mende was one of the regions where the insurrection of the Camisards (q. v.) broke out at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Cardinal Dominique de la Rochefoucauld, Archbishop of Rouen, who presided in 1789 over the last assembly of the clergy of France, was born in 1712 at Saint Chely d'Apcher, in the diocese. The chemist Chaptal (1756-1832) was one of the last of those who profited by the scholarships founded by Urban V for twelve young students at Montpellier. The following saints are specially venerated in the diocese: St. Ilpide, martyr (third century); the preacher St. Veran, Bishop of Cavaillon, a native of Gevaudan (sixth century); St. Lupentius, abbot of the basilica of St. Privatus, beheaded by order of Brunehaut whom he reproached for the irregularities of her life (sixth century); the nun St. Enimie, daughter of Clotaire II and sister of Dagobert (seventh century), foundress of a monastery of Benedictine nuns in the present St. Enimie. The principal pilgrimages of the diocese are: at Mende itself, Notre Dame de Mende where the statue of the Black Virgin was brought, perhaps in 1213, by the Crusaders of Gevaudan, and the hermitage of Saint Privatus; Notre Dame de la Carce, the origin of the city of Marvejols; Notre Dame de Quezac, a pilgrimage dating from 1052 and where Urban V founded a chapter-house of eight canons, and Our Lady All-powerful, at Langogne. There were in the diocese, before the application of the law of associations of 1901, various teaching orders of brothers and several teaching orders of nuns of a local origin: the Sisters of Christian Unity (L'Union chretienne), founded in 1696 (mother-house at Mende); the United Sisters of the Holy Family, founded at Palhers in 1750, transferred to Mende in 1824; the Sisters of Christian Doctrine (mother-house at Meyrueis) founded in 1837. The religious congregations in 1900 directed in the diocese fifteen infant schools, one orphan asylum for boys, four orphan asylums for girls, nine hospitals and almshouses, twelve religious houses for the care of those ill at home, and one insane asylum. In 1905 at the end of the regime of the Concordat, the diocese had 128,866 inhabitants, 26 parishes, 191 succursal churches, and 135 vicarages, supported by the state. Gallia christiana (nova 1715), I, 83-110, 295-6; instrumenta, 23-7, 202-3; DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux, II, 54-5 and 124-6; PASCAL, Gabalum christianum (Paris, 1853); CHARBONNEL, Origine et histoire abregee de l'eglise de Mende (Mende, 1859); LEOPOLD DELISLE, Un manuscrit de la cathedrale de Mende in Journal des Savants (Oct., 1908); OLLIER, Notice historique sur le Gevaudan, ed. REMIZE (Mende, 1908); IDEM, Histoire des guerres de religion en Gevaudan aux 16 ^e, 17 ^e et 18 ^e siecles (Tours, 1886); CHEVALIER, Topobibl., 1902-3. GEORGES GOYAU Mendel, Mendelism Mendel, Mendelism Gregor Johann Mendel (the first name was taken on entrance to his order), b. 22 July, 1822, at Heinzendorf near Odrau, in Austrian Silesia; d. 6 January 1884, at the Augustinian Abbey of St. Thomas, Brunn. His father was a small peasant-farmer, and the pecuniary resources of the family were very meagre, as is shown by the fact that a younger sister of Mendel's voluntarily gave up a large part of her dowry in order that the plans which his family had formed for his education might be carried out. The debt was afterwards repaid, and more than repaid, by Mendel. After a period of study at the school of Leipnik, Mendel distinguished himself so much that his parents made a great effort and sent him to the gymnasium at Troppau, and subsequently, for a year, to Olmutz. At the former place one of his teachers was an Augustinian, and, whether post or propter hoc, at the end of his period of study at the gymnasium Mendel applied to be admitted as a novice in the Abbey of St. Thomas at Brunn, commonly known as the "Koenigskloster". This was in 1843, and in 1847 he was ordained priest and seems to have occupied himself in teaching until 1851, when he was sent, for a two years' course of study in mathematics, physics, and the natural sciences, to the University of Vienna. When this course terminated, in 1853, he returned to his abbey, and was appointed a teacher, principally of physics, in the Realschule. He continued in this position for fifteen years and appears to have been genuinely devoted to teaching and to have gained the reputation of being extraordinarily successful in interesting his pupils in their work. In 1868 he was obliged to relinquish his educational labours on assuming the position of abbot of his monastery, to which office he was then elected. When appointed to this important post, Mendel, already much engrossed with his biological experiments hoped that he might have more time for his researches than was possible in the midst of his labours at the Realschule. But this was not to be. The jurisdiction and privileges of the abbey are somewhat extensive, and its abbot must, in ordinary times, find himself with plenty of occupation. Mendel, however, in addition to the multiplicity of his duties as abbot, became involved in a lengthy controversy with the Government which absorbed his attention and embittered the last years of his life. The Government had imposed special taxes on religious houses, and these Mendel refused to pay, alleging that, as all citizens were, or should be, equal in the eye of the law, it was unjust to ask one kind of institution to pay a tax from which another kind was free. At the commencement of the struggle several other monasteries sided with him but one by one they submitted, until at last Mendel was left alone in his opposition to the tax. Great efforts were made to induce him to yield but he refused, and even allowed the goods of the abbey to be distrained upon rather than submit. In the end -- though not till after Mendel's death -- the obnoxious tax was repealed. The result of all this strain, as may easily be understood, was a complete cessation in Mendel's scientific work. His appointment as abbot may have been an excellent thing for the monastery, but it cannot be denied that it was a great misfortune for science. The latter years of his life were rendered unhappy, not only by constant strife with the Government, and by the racial controversies which tore that part of Austria at the time in question, but also by constant ill-health due to the chronic nephritis of which he ultimately died. The result of these various troubles was to change that sunny cheerful nature, which had secured Mendel many friends, to a somewhat morose disposition and suspicious attitude of mind. A public monument to his memory was unveiled at Brunn, 2 October 1910. Mendel's experiments, on which his fame rests, were commenced while he was still a novice, and carried out in the large gardens attached to his monastery. Dissatisfied with the Darwinian views, then commencing to be known, he undertook a series of experiments on peas which occupied his spare time for eight years. The results of these observations were published in the "Transactions" of the Brunn Natural History Society in 1866, and a further paper on Hieracium appeared in the same periodical in 1869. Two short papers of less importance were published during the period of study at Vienna, and this seems to complete the list of the communications which he gave to the world, with the exception of his annual meteorological records, also published by the same society. It is, however, known that he devoted himself to various lines of investigation, bestowing much labour on the heredity of bees. He collected queen bees of all attainable races, European, Egyptian, and American, and made many crosses between the various races. Unfortunately, the notes which he is known to have made on this subject have completely disappeared, and it is not impossible that he may have destroyed them himself in some of the dark hours which he was called upon to endure during the last years of his life. The Bruenn Society was not a wholly unknown organization, but its Journal was scarcely one which could be expected to give the widest publicity to a new discovery or theory. It is perhaps largely on this account that Mendel's views seemed for a third of a century to have been still-born. Bateson, however, thinks that this would not so long have delayed his recognition, but that "the cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines", and Bateson's opinion, as that of the man who has done more than any other to make Mendel's views known, is worthy of all consideration. Whatever may have been the cause, the fact remains that Mendel's work was unrecognized until, in 1899, three men of science -- de Vries in Holland, Correns in Germany, and Tschermak of Austria-almost simultaneously called attention to his publications and started the interest in his line of investigations which has steadily continued to grow and increase since that date. Mendel himself, though grievously disappointed at the neglect of his views, never lost confidence in them, and was wont to exclaim to his friends, "Meine Zeit wird schon kommen". He was abundantly justified in his belief. It now remains to give some account of the theory put forward by Mendel and the influence of his work during the past ten years. Mendel himself confined his experiments to plants, and his most important observations were made on the garden pea, Pisum sativum. Later observers have dealt, not only with a number of other members of the vegetable kingdom, but also with a variety of animals, using that word in the widest possible sense. With the details of their publications it is not possible here to deal, but a short account of Mendel's own work will suffice to show the lines of his theory. He did not, as others had done and have since done, direct his attention to the entire group of characteristics making up the individual, but concentrated his attention on certain pairs of opposed features observable in certain plants. In the case of the pea, he observed that some were tall, some dwarf in habit; some had round seeds, others wrinkled; some had green endosperm, others yellow. For the purpose of his own observations he selected seven such characters and studied their behaviour under hybridization. From what occurred he was led to believe that the progeny of the various crosses behaved in regard to these characters, not in a haphazard manner, but in one which was reducible to the terms of a so-called "Natural Law". One instance given by Bateson will explain what happens: there are tall and short (or "Cupid") sweet peas, and in them we have plants showing a pair of marked and easily recognizable opposite characters. The tall and short forms are crossed with one another, and the seeds collected and sown. The resultant plants will be found to belong entirely to the tall variety, which has apparently wiped out the short. If, however, this generation of seeds is sown and the flowers of the resultant plants be self-fertilized, the result is that, when their seeds are sown, and have sprung up into plants, it is found that these are mixed, and mixed in definite proportions, for on the average, it will be found that there are three tall forms for every one of the short. It follows that the dwarfishness was not wiped out, but that it was temporarily obscured in the second generation, though present all the time potentially. To the character which alone appears in the first cross is given the name dominant (in this instance tallness is dominant), and to the hidden character that of recessive (dwarfishness, in the example). When the talls and dwarfs of the third generation are allowed to be self-fertilized, it is found that all the recessives (dwarfs) breed true and, what is more, will go on breeding true as long as uninterfered with. Not so the dominants, which, after self-fertilization, produce both talls and dwarfs. Some of the talls of this generation will breed true and continue to breed true; others will not, but will produce a mixed progeny. Hence, out of the first plants, seventy-five will be talls (dominants), and twenty-five dwarfs (recessives), these last being pure.. Of the seventy-five talls, twenty-five will be pure and will go on producing talls; fifty will be mixed, and their progeny will consist of pure dominants, mixed dominants, and recessives, as has been stated above. Davenport thus enunciates the laws underlying these facts: "Of the two antagonistic peculiarities possessed by two races that are crossed, the hybrid, or mongrel, exhibits only one; and it exhibits it completely, so that the mongrel is not distinguishable as regards this character from one of the parents. Intermediate conditions do not occur. . . . Second: in the formation of the pollen, or egg-cell, the two antagonistic peculiarities re segregated; so that each ripe germ-cell carries either one or the other of these peculiarities, but not both. It is a result of the second law that in the second generation of mongrels each of the two qualities of their grandparents shall crop out on distinct individuals, and that the recessive quality shall appear in twenty-five per cent of the individuals, the remaining seventy-five per cent having the dominant quality. Such recessive individuals, crossed inter se, should never produce anything but recessive offspring." Such, in brief, are the main outlines of Mendel's theory; but in the few years which have elapsed since it first engaged the attention of the scientific world, there has grown up an enormous literature on the subject which has much added to the complexity of the minor developments of the laws above enunciated, and has still more added to the difficulty of the terminology of Mendelism. With these developments it is imposiible to deal here: they will be found very fully treated in Bateson's work (see below). It would, however, be negligent to omit all mention of the estimation in which the theory itself is held by men of science of the present day. Bateson claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank with those which laid the foundation of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery was "of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton". Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of the chemist a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions. In either case the keynote has been Discontinuity-the discontinuity of atom and the discontinuity of the variations in living forms". It is a remarkable fact that Mendel's writings never appear to have come under the notice of Charles Darwin and many have speculated as to the effects which they might probably have exercised on that writer had he made their acquaintance. T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection, and others consider that his views, if finally proved to be correct, will at least demand a profound modification in the theories associated with the name of Darwin. It would not, however, be by any means correct to suppose that Mendel's views have been received with complete acceptance by the scientific world; indeed there is a sharp, and at times even embittered, controversy between the supporters of Mendel and his opponents, amongst whom the late Professor Weldon may perhaps be considered to have been one of the most important. The end of the controversy is not yet in sight, nor is it likely to be for some time, judging by the extraordinarily varied results which observers have drawn from even identical series of facts. For instance, from the same materials afforded by the colours of thoroughbred horses given in the pages of Weatherby's "General Sudbook of Horses", a Mendelian (Mr. Hurst) has deduced evidence in favour of the view which he upholds, and an anti-Mendelian (the late Professor Weldon) has arrived at a diametrically opposite conclusion. This, at least, may safely be said: that Mendel's views have been endorsed by a number -- it would probably be safe to say a steadily increasing number -- of scientific men; that they seem to be likely to exercise a profound influence on agriculture and on the scientific breeding of horses and stock; and that, with such modifications as farther experience may suggest, the main underlying principles of the work will probably become more and more firmly established. As above stated the papers in which Mendel's theories were made public are contained in the "Proceedings" of the Bruenn Society. They have been made available for English readers by the translation which appears in Bateson's work (see bibliography below). BATESON, Mendel's Principles of Heredity (Cambridge, 1909) (this is the most important work in English, and contains a translation of Mendel's papers and a biography as well as a full account of all recent work on Mendelian lines); PUNNETT, Mendelism (Cambridge, 1905), a good brief account of the subject; LOCK, Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity and Evolution (London, 1906); WALSH, Catholic Churchmen in Science (Philadelphia, 1906). See also Royal Society Reports on Evolution. In BATESON'S book, and in KELLOG, Darwinism To-Day (New York, 1907), many references to foreign periodical literature on the subject will be found. B.C.A. WINDLE Joao Mendes de Silva Joao Mendes de Silva Better known as Amadeus of Portugal, b. 1420, d. at Milan, 1482, began his religious life in the Hieronnymite monastery of Notre-Dame de Guadalupe (Spain), where he spent about ten years. Desirous of joining the Franciscans, he went to Italy, where after some delay he was received into the order and, living in various convents, chiefly at Milan, attracted attention by his virtue and miracles. Under the protection of the Archbishop of Milan, he established the convent of Notre-Dame de la Paix (1469) which became the centre of a Franciscan reform. The minister general of the order Francesco della Rovere, later pope under the name of Sixtus IV, extended his protection to him. Other foundations were made in Italy, among one at Rome. Supernatural favours obtained through his intercession aided in the spread of his cult, and the Bollandists testify to the authenticity of the title "Blessed" bestowed on him. He composed a yet published treatise entitled "De revelationibus et prophetiis", two copies of which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio. The work of another Amadeus, "Homilies on the Blessed Virgin", has been erroneously attributed to him. The convents he founded continued after his death to form a distinct branch of the Franciscans, the friars were called the Amadeans or Amadists, and they had twenty-eight houses in Italy, the chief one, Saint Peter de Montorio, in Rome. Innocent VIII gave them the convent of Saint Genesto near Cartagena in Spain (1493). The successors of Blessed Joao, Georges de Val-Camonique, Gilles de Montferrat, Jean Allemand, Bonaventura de Cremona, preserved his foundation in its original spirit until Saint Pius V suppressed it along with similar branches of the Franciscan Order uniting them into one great family of Friars Minor Observants (1568). Acta SS., August. II, .562-606; ANTONIO, Bibliotheca vetus hispana, II, 217-18; WADDING, Annales Minorum, VI, VII, VIII; HELYOT, Histoire des ordres religieux, VII, 106-12. J.M. BESSE Mendez and Gualaquiza Mendez and Gualaquiza Vicariate Apostolic established by Leo XIII on 3 February, 1893, in the southern part of the province of Oriente, Ecuador. It depends directly on the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. The vicar-Apostolic is Mgr Giacomo Costamagna, Salesian, titular Bishop of Colonia, elected, 18 March, 1895. The mission was entrusted to the Salesians, who sent thither three fathers, two scholastics, and one catechist. They were all expelled under the anti-clerical regime in 1895. The province of Oriente is populated almost exclusively by Indians of the Jibaro (q.v.) stock. In the eighteenth century many of the tribes had been converted by the Jesuits, but on the expulsion of the latter in 1767 the missionaries who replaced them failed in the work of evangelization and the natives relapsed into paganism. Oriente is estimated to contain 150,000 Indians. Wolf, Geog. y geologia del Ecuador (Leipzig, 1892). A.A. MACERLEAN Mendez and Gualaquiza Mendez and Gualaquiza Vicariate Apostolic, established by Leo XIII on 3 February, 1893, in the southern part of the province of Oriente, Ecuador. It depends directly on the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. The vicar-Apostolic is Mgr Giacomo Costamagna, Salesian, titular Bishop of Colonia, elected, 18 March, 1895. The mission was entrusted to the Salesians, who sent thither three fathers, two scholastics, and one catechist. They were all expelled under the anti-clerical regime in 1895. The province of Oriente is populated almost exclusively by Indians of the Jibaro (q.v.) stock. In the eighteenth century many of the tribes had been converted by the Jesuits, but on the expulsion of the latter in 1767 the missionaries who replaced them failed in the work of evangelization and the natives relapsed into paganism. Oriente is estimated to contain 150,000 Indians. Wolf, Geog. y geologia del Ecuador (Leipzig, 1892). A.A. MACERLEAN Mendicant Friars Mendicant Friars Mendicant Friars are members of those religious orders which, originally, by vow of poverty renounced all proprietorship not only individually but also (and in this differing from the monks) in common, relying for support on their own work and on the charity of the faithful. Hence the name of begging friars. There remain from the Middle Ages four great mendicant orders, recognized as such by the Second Council of Lyons, 1274, Sess. 23 (Mansi, XXIV, 96) -- the Order of Preachers, the Friars Minor, the Carmelites, and the Hermits of St. Augustine. Successively other congregations obtained the privilege of the mendicants. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, cap. iii) granted all the mendicant orders, except the Friars Minor and the Capuchins, the liberty of corporate possession (see FRIAR). The object of the present article is to outline (I) the origin and characteristics of the mendicants; (II) the opposition which they encountered. I. ORIGIN Historical reasons for the origin of the mendicants are obvious. Since the struggle regarding investitures a certain animosity against church property had remained. Arnold of Brescia (q.v.) preached that monks and clerics who possessed property could not a be saved. A little later John Valdes founded the "Poor Men of Lyons", soon followed by similar sects. The movement thus started in France and Italy had spread among the poorer classes at the beginning of the thirteenth century and threatened to become dangerous to the Church. By uniting utter poverty to entire subjection toward, St. Francis became with St. Dominic the bulwark of orthodoxy against the new heretics, and the two orders of Friars Minor and Preachers proved themselves a great help both to the inner and to the external life of the Church. Nor was absolute poverty the only characteristic of the new orders. They did not confine themselves to the sanctification of their own members; their maxim was non sibi soli vivere sed et aliis proficere (not to live for themselves only, but to serve others). At once contemplative and active, to the complete renunciation of all things they joined the exercise of the apostolic ministry, devoting themselves to the evangelization of the masses, and thus introducing another element into monastic life. A necessary consequence of their close contact with the people, the convents of the mendicants, unlike those of the Benedictines, Cistercians and of the monks generally, were situated in the towns, in which, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, communal life was rapidly developing. Now as Brewer (Monumenta Franciscana I, p. xvii) observes, and his words may be applied to al the mendicants, "it was to this class of the population, in first instance, that the attention of the Franciscan was directed; in these wretched localities (suburbs of the towns) his convent and order were seated. A glance at the more important will show the general correctness of this statement. In London, York, Warwick, Oxford, Bristol, Lynn and elsewhere, their convents stood in suburbs and abutted on the city walls". The work of the mendicants in the pulpit, in the confessional, in the service of the sick and the socially weak, in the foreign missions, had no parallel in the Middle Ages. This same apostolical activity had two consequences, which form further characteristics of the mendicant friars, a new organization of claustrul life and, the adoption of a special means of providing subsistence. The mendicants, unlike the monks, were not bound by a votum stabilatis (vow of permanancy) to one convent but enjoyed considerable liberty. Not only might they be called upon to exercise their ministry within the limits of a province, but, with permission of the general, they could be sent all over the world. The form of government itself was rather democratic, as for the most part the superiors were not elected for life and were subject to the General Chapter. From their apostolical ministry the mendicants derived the right of support from all Christian people: dignus est operarius mercede sua. (The labourer is worthy of his hire.) It was only just that having left everything in the world in obedience to Christ's counsel (Matt., xix, 21; xvi 24; Luke, ix, 1-6) in order to devote themselves to the well-being of the people, they should look to the people for their support. And in fact those alms were regarded as the due of their apostolic work. When later the Apostolici (q.v.) tried to live in the same way as the mendicants, without doing their work, Salimbene rebuked them indignantly: "They wish to live", he writes, "on the charity of the Christian people, although they do nothing for it, they hear no confessions, they do not preach, nor do they give edification, as do the Friars Minor and the Preachers" (Mon. Ger. Hist. Script. XXXII, 255-57, 259, 264). But provision for the necessities of life was not left to chance. Each convent had its limit or district (limes, terminus), in which brothers, generally two and two, made regular visits to solicit alms. This institution still exists in Catholic countries, as in Italy, Spain and some parts of Germany and in the Tyrol, while in others, even Catholic countries, it is forbidden by law, as in some parts of Austria-Hungary. II. OPPOSITION This new form of conventual life was not introduced without strong opposition. With what feelings the older orders occasionally regarded the rapid spread of the mendicants may be gathered from the it Chronica majora, ad an. 1243", ed. Luard, IV London., 1877, 279, 80; "ad. an. 1246", ibid.1 511-17. Still it is well known that St. Francis was indebted to the Benedictines for the "Portiuncula", the first church of his order. The chief opposition came from elsewhere; from the universities and from the bishops and secular clergy. The mendicants did not confine themselves to the sacred ministry, but had almost from the beginning learned members who claimed equality with other doctors at the universities. The Dominicans were the first religious order to introduce the higher studies as a special point in their statutes and if they probably owe their mendicancy to the influence of St. Francis over St. Dominic, the Friars Minor are probably indebted for their higher studies to the influence or at least to the example of the Preachers. On the other hand the Church appreciated the work of the new orders and exempted them from the jurisdiction of the bishops, granting them extensive faculties for preaching and hearing, confessions, together with the right of burial in their own churches, rights reserved hitherto to the secular clergy. It should be stated here that this opposition, was not inspired merely by envy or other mean motives, but rather from economical reasons. For the parish priests depended in great part for their income on the offerings of the faithful, which threatened to diminish through the great popularity enjoyed by the mendicants. On the whole it might be said that the Church protected the regulars against unjust attacks, while on the other hand she found means to redress abuses, tending to endanger the legitimate interests of the secular clergy. The opposition to the mendicants was particularly strong at the University of Paris, and in France generally, less violent at the University of Oxford and in England. Isolated cases are to be found also in other countries. As early as 1231-32 Gregory IX had to protect the mendicants against the pretensions, of some prelates, who wanted the friars to be subject to their jurisdiction like the ordinary faithful. See different forms of the Bull "Nimis iniqua" (Bull. Franc. I, 74-77) repeated by Innocent IV, 1245 (op. cit. 368). Although this Bull speaks in a general way and is addressed to different countries the abuses enumerated by it were probably of local character. The first great storm broke out at Paris, where the Dominicans had opened their schools (1229-30) and erected two chairs of theology; the Friars Minor followed them (1231). At first (1252) the opposition was directed against the Dominicans, the university wishing to grant them only one professorship [Denifle, "Chartularium" (see. below) I, 26]. The university sought allies and so drew the bishops and secular clergy into the struggle (Chartularium I, 252), with the result that Innocent IV, at first favourable to the mendicants (Chartularium 1, 247), took. away their privileges with regard to preaching, confession, and burial rights in the Bull "Etsi animonim" 21 Nov., 1254 (Chartularium 1, 1267). This sudden change of attitude towards the mendicants in Innocent IV has not yet been sufficiently explained. The first step of Alexander IV was to suspend the dispositions of his predecessor, Bull "Nee insolitium", 22 Dec., 1254 (Chartularium I, 1276), in which he promised new dispositions and forbade meanwhile to act against the mendicants. In these critical circumstances it was doubly unfortunate that Gerard di Borgo S. Donnino should publish his book "Introductorius in Evangelium Esternum" (1254), which besides many other Joachimite errors, attributed to the mendicants a special vocation, to take the place of the secular clergy in the near future (1260). The answer was not long delayed. William of St. Amour, the leader of the opposition against the mendicants, publicly attacked the treatise in his sermon "Qui amat (ed. Brown, "Fasciculus rerum expetendarum" . . London, 1690, II, 51; Guil. a S. Amore, "Opera omnia," Constance 1632, 491). It has been made evident of late that the professors extracted from Gerard's treatise and from Joachim's "Concordia" the thirty-one propositions, partly falsifying them (Matt. Parisiensis first ed., London, 1882, 335-39; "Chartularium 1; 1, 272), and denouncing them with the book to Innocent IV. William went farther and wrote his famous treatise against the mendicants, "De periculis novissimorum temporum" ("Opera om.", op. cit., 17-72; Brown, op cit 11, 18-41, here under a false title). The author starts from II Tim., iii sqq., and sees the fulfillment of those words in the rise of the mendicant friars, who however are not specified, though everybody knew the significance. The whole list of vices enumerated by the apostle is applied to the mendicants, whom William blames on all the points which formed their characteristic note. The danger, he goes on, is at our doors, and it is the duty of the bishops to avert it. In order that those impostors and pseudo-preachers, may be the more easily detected, William draws up forty-one signs, by which they are to be recognized. This treatise made an enormous impression. Alexander IV, however, in the Bull "Quasi lignum vitae", 14 April 1255 ("'Bull. Franc." II; "Bull. Traed." I, 276; "Chartularium" I, 279), settled the questions at issue between the university and the mendicants, independently of the case of Gerard di Borgo S. Donnino. The pope annulled the statutes of the university against the mendicants, who were authorized to continue their public schools, even with the two chairs of the Dominicans, as a part of the university. On the other hand, the Master General of the Dominicans wrote from Milan, May, 1255, to his brethren to be careful and not to provoke the secular clergy against the order ("Chartularium" I, 289; Reichert, "Monumenta Ord. Frat. Praedicatorum", V, Rome, 1900, 21). At the same time the common interests of the Preachers and Friars Minor inspired the beautiful letter of John of Parma (q. v.) and Humbert of Romans, Milan, May, 1255 (Reichert, op. cit., V, 25; Wadding, "Annals Ord=2E Min.", III, 380). The professors and students of Paris nevertheless did not accept the Bull "Quasi lignum vitae": they wrote 2 Oct., 1255 a sharp protest against it (Chartularium I, 292). Alexander IV, 23 Oct., 1255, condemned the "Introductorius in Evangelium aeternum" (Denifle, "Archiv. f. Litt. u Knichengesch.", I, 87 sqq.). Moreover 5 Out. 1256, he condemned the treatise "De Periculis novissimorum temporum" in the Bull "Romanus Pontifex" (Chartarium I, 1531). Reluctantly the university submitted to the orders of the pope. William alone resisted and having been banished from Paris and France, he wrote another attack against mendicants, "Liber de antichristo et eiusdem miristris" (ed. under a false name by Martene-Durand, "Vet. Scriptor. amplissima collectio", IX, Paris, 1733, 1271). This redoubtable attack against the mendicants, conducted by the most famous university, was met by the ablest writers from among the friars. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote " Contra impugnantes Dei cultum"; St. Bonaventure, "Quiestio disputata de paupertate" (Opera omnia, ed. Quaraccehi, V, 125), "Apologia paupernum" a (VII, 233), "De tribus quaestionibus" (VIII, 331). Directly against William's "De periculis" another Franciscan, Bertrand of Bayonne, or perhaps Thomas of York, wrote the treatise, "Manus contra omnipotentem" (Chartularium I, 415). John of Peckham, later Archbishop of Canterbury, took part in the controversy with his "De perfectione evangelica", partly ed. by Little in to Fratris Johannis Pecham. . . . tractatus tres do paupertate" (British Society of Franciscan Studies, II, Aberl 1910). The seculars continued the fight, even with popular compositions, of which the best known is the "Roman de la Rose". At the second Council of Lyons new attempts were made against the mendicants, partly because of the rise of other mendicant bodies, some of which were of objectionable form, as the " Apostolici " and the "Friars of the Sack" (Saccati) (see Salimbene, "Mon. Germ. Hist. Script.", XXXII, 245 sqq) All mendicants were abolished, but the four great orders were excepted on account of the manifest good they wrought. Martin IV, "Ad fructus uberes ", 13 Dec., 1281, and 10 Jan., 1282 (Bull. Franc., 111, 480) extended the privilege of the mendicants with regard to preaching and hearing confessions, a measure which caused much opposition among the bishops and clergy, especially in France. Only in late years have we come to know of the existence of a great transaction on this subject, at Paris 1290, where Cardinal Gaetano, later on Boniface VIII, skillfully defended the regulars (See Bibliography). Boniface VIII revised the legislation regarding the privileges of the mendicants in favour of the clergy. His Bull "Super Cathedram", 18 Feb. 1300 (c. 2 in " Clem." III, 7; "Extravag. Com." cap. 2, III, 6; "Bull Franc.", IV, 498) is in substance even now in force. The controversies between the mendicants and the secular priests in England and Ireland took an acrimonious form in the fourteenth century. We have a peculiarly interesting instance of this in the case of Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh (q.v.), who preached seven or eight times in London against the mendicants and in nine propositions attacked their poverty and their privileges interfering with parochial rights. Denounced at the papal court of Avignon, he was cited by Innocent VI and defended himself in a treatise, which he read in a public consistory, 8 Nov., 1357, printed under the title "Defensorium Curatorum" in Goldast, "Monarchia S. Romani Imperii. . .", II, Frankfort, 1614, 1391-1410 and in Brown, "Fasciculus rerum", II, 466-487., There is a compendium of the nine propositions in Old English in Howlett, "Monumenta Franciscana" II, 276-77. This curious document might be called a negative exposition of the rule of the Friars Minor. An English Franciscan, Richard Conway, defended the friars against Fitzralph; his treatise is edited by Goldast, op. cit., 11, 1410-44. Innocent VI gave a Bull, 1 Oct., 1358, in which he stated that a commission had been named to examine the differences between the Archbishop of Armagh and the mendicants and forbade meanwhile the prelates of England to hinder the four mendicant orders from exercising their rights (Bull. Franc., VI, 316). In the following year a Bull prescribing the observance of the Decretal "Super Cathedram" of Boniface VIII was directed to different bishops of the continent and to the Arch. bishop of York, 26 Nov., 1359 (Bull. Franc., VI, 322). Towards the end of the fourteenth century the mendicants in England were attacked more fiercely and on a broader scale by the Wicliffites. Wiclif himself at first, was not on bad terms with the friars; his enmity was confined to the last few years of his life. While Wiclif had only repeated the worn-out arguments against the mendicants, his disciples went much farther and accused them of the lowest vices. Nor did they confine their calumnies to learned treatises, but embodied them in popular poems and songs, mostly English, of which we have many examples in the two volumes published by Wright (see bibliography). The chief place of controversy was Oxford, where the friars were accused even of sedition. On 18 Feb., 1382, the heads of the four mendicant orders wrote a joint letter to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, protesting against the calumnies of the Wicliffites and stating that their chief enemy was Nicholas Hereford, Professor of Holy Scripture, who in a sermon announced that no religious should be admitted to any degree at Oxford. This letter is inserted in Thomas Netter's " Fasciduli Zizaniorum, magistri Job. Wyclif" (ed. Waddington, Rer. Brit. Script., London, 1858, 292-95). There are in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries many other instances of hostility with which the friars, especially the Minorites, were regarded by the University of Oxford. Though the Black Death and the Great Schism had evil effects on their general discipline, the mendicants, thanks to the rise of numerous branches of stricter observance, on the whole flourished until the Reformation. Notwithstanding the heavy losses sustained during that period, the mendicants have nevertheless continued to take their part, and that a considerable one, in the life of the Church down to the present day. For full bibliography see the several Mendicant Orders. Ripoll, Bullarium Ordinis FF. Praedicatorum (8 vols., Rome, 1720 sqq); Sbaralea-Eubel, Bullarium Franciscanum (7 vols., Rome, 1759 sqq.); Denifle-Chatelain Chartularium Univeristatis Parisiensis (Paris, 1889 sqq.); WRIGHT, Political Poems and Songs relating to English History in Rer. Brit. Scrtpt., 2 vols. (London. 1859-61); Brewer, Monumenta Franciscana, I (London 1858), II (ed=2E Howlett, London, 1882); Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford (London. 1892); Bryce, The Scottish Grey Friars, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1909); Denifle, Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom, Jahre 1228 in Archiv fur Litteratur und Kirthengemkinkto, I (Berlin 1885) 165-227, cf. V (Freiberg 1989), 530-64; Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'ordre des Friars Pricheurs, 4 vols. (Paris, 1903-W); Holzapfel, Manuals Hiatoriae Ordinis Fratrum Minorum (Freiburg, .1909); German ed, ibid; Koch, Die fruhesten Niederlassungen der Minoriten im Rheigebiete und ihre Wirkunqen auf d. kirch. u. polit. Leben (Leipzig, 1881); Paulus, Welt und 0rdensklerus beim Ausgang des XIII. Jahrhunderts im Kampfe um die Pfarr Rechte (Essen-Ruhr, 1900); Ott, Thomas von Aquin und das Mendikantentum (Freiburg. 1908); Wiesehoff, Die Stellung der Bettelorden in den deutschen freien Reichsstadten im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1905); Finke, Das Pariser Nationalkonzil vom Jahre 1290, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Bonifaz VIII und der Pariser Uinversitat in Romische Quartalschrift, IX (Rome,1895),171-82; Idem, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII - VII (Munster, 1902), 9-24; Mattioli, Antologia Agostiniana, I, Studio critco sopra Egidio Romano Colonna (Rome, 1896), 52-64; Eubel, Zu den Streitigkeiten bezuglich des jus parachiale im Mittelalter in Romische Quartalschrift, XI (Rome, 1895), 395-405; Idem, Die Stellung des Wuzburger Pfarrklerus zu den mendikantenorden wahrend des Mitelalters in Passauer theologish-praktischen Monatschrift, I, 481-94; Bernouilli, Die Kirchemgemeinden Basels vor der Reformation (Basle, 1895); RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, I (Oxford, 1898); Seppelt, Der Kamf der Bettelorden an der Universitat Paris seit der Mitte des 13 Jahrhunderts, part I in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, ed: Sdralek, III (Breslau, 1905), 197-244; part II, ibid., VI (Breslau, 1908), 73-140. LIVARIUS OLIGER Jeronimo Mendieta Jeronimo Mendieta A Spanish missionary; born at Vitoria, Spain, 1525; died in the City of Mexico, 9 May, 1604. While still a youth he took the habit of St. Francis at Bilbao, and arrived in New Spain at the end of June, 1554. Being desirous of helping in the conversion of the Indians, he applied himself with zeal to study the Mexican language, and it is said that, although a natural defect interfered with his speaking Castilian and kept him from preaching to Spaniards, yet, when he mounted the pulpit to address the Indians in their language, he spoke clearly and without stammering. At Tlaxcala he probably had for his father guardian F. Toribio de Motolinia, the last survivor of the first band of twelve Franciscans. He was so highly esteemed in his province that the provincials, Diego de Olarte and Miguel Navarro, took him with them on their visitation of the convents and the Indians, while the entire province, assembled in chapter, judged him capable of selecting at his own individual discretion all the provincial officers, a selection which in the event proved satisfactory to all. In 1569 Mendieta accompanied Miguel Navarro on his way to the general chapter in France, and while on his journey he remained in his native town, Vitoria. Here he put himself in communication with Juan de Ovando, the distinguished magistrate of the Council of the Inquisition, who had been nominated visitor of the Council of the Indies and was afterwards its president. Ovando no doubt already knew Mendieta by name, through his letters written from New Spain in 1562 and 1565 to the commissary, Bustamante, and to King Philip II. The questions propounded to Mendieta by Ovando concerned the civil as well as the religious administration, the two being, in consequence of the existing relation between Church and Crown, very closely interwoven; and Mendieta's replies reveal not merely isolated opinions, but a fairly complete and systematic theory of government. In his view the authority of the Viceroy of New Spain should be increased; that of the Audiencia diminished, and limited exclusively to judicial matters. In the administration of justice, except in criminal cases, he would desire separate tribunals for Spaniards and for Indians, particularly in suits concerning the possession of land. As to the question of compulsory Indian labour, in agriculture and mining, he was perplexed. The difficulty was a serious one: if the Indians were not compelled to work, then, perhaps content with their land and what little they obtained from it, they would not assist the Spaniards, and these latter could not by their own unaided efforts provide for themselves and for the other Spaniards who inhabited the cities, nor could they, without the Indians, derive from the mines the profit which they looked for. Lastly, however, Mendieta pointed out that in some cases the Indians voluntarily entered into contracts to work for hire, and that this ought to be wisely encouraged and facilitated. His love of the Indians impelled him to speak unfavourably of the Spanish colonists. He advocated complete separation of the two races in different towns and villages, saying that the Spaniards ought to have only such settlements as might be necessary to secure the country against foreign invasion; and he would have these Spanish settlements situated on the borders of the Chichimecas and the savage tribes, with the sole object of guarding the frontier. The Indians, he said, ought all to be confined to certain towns chosen by themselves, and some of these towns ought to be transferred from their actual sites to others more suitable. To Ovando's inquiry, by what means the friars and the bishops could be made to dwell together in peace, his answer clearly betrays his fiery character and the partiality of his views. He suggests the appointment of two bishops in each diocese, one for the Spaniards and one for the Indians, clearly giving it to be understood, at the same time, that the bishops ought all to be chosen from the religious orders. The secular clergy he treats without either mercy or justice, although it appears from the testimony of Bishop Montufar that at that time they were performing their duties correctly, that they knew the language of the aborigines, and were on good terms with the friars. Mendieta concluded by proposing that a commissary-general of the Indies should be appointed with residence at Seville, who should arrange all the affairs of his order with the Council of the Indies. This last was the only one of his suggestions which met with approval, the first commissary-general appointed being Francisco de Guzman, in 1572, to whom Mendieta immediately wrote his congratulations. On 26 June, 1571, his general ordered him back to New Spain, asking permission, as was usual, from the Council of the Indies. Jeronimo de Albornoz, Bishop of Tucuman, a member of the council, opposed the granting of the permission, but these difficulties were overcome in 1573, when Mendieta set out, taking with him several religious of his order. In 1575 and 1576 he was guardian of Xochimilco; in 1580 he was at Tlaltelolco, and in 1585 was superior of the convent of Tlaxcala. Soon after this he accompanied the commissary, Alonso Ponce, on visitations, and by his admirable tact and prudence kept himself out of those troubles which arose within the order from the opposition of the provincial and his partisans to Ponce's execution of his commission. In 1591 he was guardian in Santa Ana of Tlaxcala, and in 1597 of Xochimilco. He was buried in the convent of Mexico. Having undertaken to write the history of the Indies on his return from Spain, he was delayed in executing the work for twenty-five years by the large number of duties which he had to discharge, and, in addition, the consultations and negotiations with which he was charged by the Government. It is known, for instance, that, while he was guardian at Tlaxcala, he was busy with the work of removing four hundred families of Christian Indians, to colonize among the Chichimecas. Mendieta's principal work is his "Historia Eclesiastica Indiana". The general, Cristobal de Capitefontium, gave him the command to write on 27 June, 1571; the work was not completed until 1596. He sent it immediately to Spain, as he had been ordered to do, and never had any further knowledge of it. No writer later than Torquemada ever quoted it, until, through the exertions of Senor Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta the manuscript, acquired at Madrid, was printed in Mexico in 1870. It is divided into five books. The first book, consisting of seventeen chapters and a prologue, treats "Of the introduction of the Gospel and the Christian religion in the islands of Espanola and the neighbouring regions which were first discovered". The second, containing forty-one chapters and a prologue, tells "Of the rites and customs of the Indians of New Spain and their infidelity". The third, containing sixty chapters and a prologue, treats "Of the manner in which the Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ was introduced and planted among the Indians of New Spain". The fourth, containing forty-six chapters and a prologue, treats "Of the improvement of the Indians of New Spain and the progress of their conversion." The fifth book is divided into two parts: the first contains fifty-eight chapters, and "There are related the lives of the noble men, apostolic workers of this new conversion, who have ended in peace with a natural death"; the second part, only ten chapters, treats "Of the Friars Minor who have died for the preaching of the Gospel in this New Spain". In this work he displays, without fear or human respect, and even exaggerates at times, the vices, disorders, abuses, tyrannies, and wrongs done by the colonists; he goes so far as to flout the Government, not excepting the sovereign himself. The lofty spirit of rectitude and justice which dominates the work enhances the value of its simple, terse narration, while the vigour and freedom with which it is written, as well as its clarity and propriety of language, render it pleasing to the reader. MENDIETA, Historia Eclesiastica Indiana (Mexico, 1870); ICAZBALCETA, Obras (Mexico, 1905); BERISTAIN, Biblioteca hispano-americana septentrional (Amecameca, 1883); BETANCOURT, Menologio franciscano (Mexico, 1873). CAMILLUS CRIVELLI. Mendoza, Diego Hurtade De Diego Hurtade de Mendoza A Spanish diplomat and writer, and one of the greatest figures in the history of Spanish politics and letters; born in Granada, of noble parentage, about 1503; died in Madrid, 1575. He received his early education under private tutors and later at the University of Salamanca. A powerful personality, he was a man who carried to a successful termination whatever he undertook. He was destined originally for the Church, and acquired much knowledge suited to further his ecclesiastical advancement, both at home, where he learned to speak Arabic fluently, and at Salamanca, where he studied Latin, Greek, philosophy, civil and canon law. But he preferred politics and literature, and attracted the notice of Charles V, who sent him in 1530 as ambassador to the Republic of Venice. In 1543 the emperor sent him as one of his representatives to the Council of Trent, where he successfully sustained the imperial interests. While at the Council he was appointed in 1547 special ambassador to Rome and captain-general of Siena in Tuscany, whence he returned to Spain in 1554. As a poet Mendoza excelled in both the older Spanish and the new Italian measures, but his specimens of the latter show more richness of thought, and he probably exercised considerable influence in popularizing and securing the triumph of the Italian school of lyric poetry in Spain. In his "Guerra de Granada", published in Lisbon in 1627, he shows himself a master of prose. It was written during his exile at Granada (1568-1571), whither he had been sent by Philip II after some trouble with a noble at court, and is a masterly piece of Spanish prose writing. His "Lazarillo de Tormes" is a work of genius. He is said to have written it while he was at the university or soon after leaving it. It is the autobiography of a boy born on the banks of the Tormes near Salamanca, and its object is to satirize all classes of Spanish society. It is written in rich idiomatic Spanish, and after 1553, when it first appeared, it went through many editions, both in Spain and abroad. Like other books that enjoy great popularity, it led to many imitations. Just before his death he presented to Philip II for the Escurial library his valuable collection of books and manuscripts including the Arabic ones he had found in Granada, and they remain there to this day. La Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles (Madrid, 1848-86) publishes his "Lazarillo" in the third volume, his poems in the thirty-second, and selected works in the twenty-first and thirty-sixth volumes. TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literat. (Boston, 1866); FITZMAURICE-KELLY, History of Spanish Literat. (New York, 1906). VENTURA FUENTES. Francisco Sarmiento de Mendoza Francisco Sarmiento de Mendoza A Spanish canonist and bishop; b. of a noble family at Burgos; d. 1595, at Jaen. He made such progress in his studies at Salamanca that at the age of 21 years he already occupied a professorial chair in canon law. After being auditor for six years at Valladolid, he was appointed auditor of the rota in Rome and held this office for twelve years. In 1574 he became Bishop Astorga, whence he was transferred to the more important See of Jaen in 1580. He was a model bishop and extremely charitable. He wrote some works on canon law the best known of which are "Selectarum interpretationum libri VIII" (Rome, 1571, Burgos, 1573, 1575, Antwerp, 1616), and "De redditibus eccleciasticis" (Rome, 1569, Burgos, 1573, 1575). In the latter, which is dedicated to Pius V, he argues again the famous canonist Martin Azpilcueta, that clerics are not bound in justice, but only in charity, to give to the poor that part of their revenues which is not necessary for their own sustenance. His complete works were published in three volumes (Antwerp, 1616). ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hispana nova (Madrid, 1783-8), I, 476; SCHULTE, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonichen Rechtes (Stuttgart, 1880), I, 29. MICHAEL OTT Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza Cardinal and Primate of Spain, b. at Guadalajara, 3 May, 1428; d. there, 11 January, 1495. He came to the court of King Juan II of Castile in 1450, was made canon of Toledo the same year, and became Bishop of Calahorra on 28 November, 1453, and of Siguenza on 80 October 1467. On 7 May, 1473, he was created cardinal-deacon with the titular church of S. Maria in Dominica; on 9 May, 1474, he became Archbishop of Seville; on 6 July, 1478, cardinal-priest vrith the titular church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme; and finally, on 13 November, 1482, Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spain. From 8 July, 1482, to 15 January, 1483, he was also administrator of the Diocese of Osma. In 1473 he was appointed chancellor of King Henry IV of Castile and, after Henry's death in 1474, grand chancellor of Ferdinand and Isabella. In his younger days he lived a life of laxity, but, during the twenty-two years of his chancellorship, he used his great influence for the good of the Church and his country, being one of the few great men of Spain who advocated the cause of Columbus. His great revenues were consumed in the erection of magnificent churches and charitable institutions; at Valladolid he erected at his own expense the College of Santa Cruz for poor students, and at Toledo a hospital of the same name for foundlings. To the latter he bequeathed his entire fortune of 75,000 ducats. On his death-bed he recommended the great Ximenes as his successor. MEDINA Y MENDOZA, Vida del cardenal Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza in Memorial. histor. Espanol, VI (Madrid, 1853), 147-310; SALAZAR DE MENDOZA, Cronica de el gran cardenal de Espana, don Pedro Goncales de Mendoca (Toledo, 1625); PRESCOTT, Hist. of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, passim, especially pt. ii, chap. v. MICHAEL OTT Osorio Francisco Meneses Osorio Francisco Meneses Spanish painter, b. at Seville, 1630; d. probably in the same place, 1705. It is extraordinary that so very little is known of his history. He was not only a pupil of Murillo, but by far the most perfect of his imitators, and undoubtedly many of the works commonly attributed to the master came from the brush of his pupil. We know that he was regarded by Murillo as his triend, that he was an intimate acquaintance of Juan Garzon, with whom he worked that he was at one time secretary and later on president of the Academy of Sevillo, and that while in that city he had a high reputation, not only for his skill, but also for his personal devoutness. This reputation, it is said, was somewhat discounted after his death, because it was considered that some of his copies of Murillo's works were so accurate that he should have signed the master's name. It was in fact suggested that two of his copies had been accepted as genuine works by Muiillo. On the other hand, these statements are declared by one Spanish author to have been made only with a view of discrediting Meneses. His principal work was painted for the church of Saint Martin at Madrid, and represents the Prophet Elijah. There is a fine work by him in the museum at Cadiz and in the museum at Seville, a picture dealing with the Order of St. Francis. A work representing St Catherine, which is preserved at Cadiz, is said to have had a special devotion for St. Philip Neri, and to have been buried in the church dedicated to that saint. QUILLET, Dictionaire des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1816); PALOMINO DE CASTRO Y VELASCO, El Mundo Pictorico y Escala (Madrid, 1715); MAXWELL, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1848); HUARD, Vie Complete des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1839). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Diocese of Menevia Diocese of Menevia (MENEVENSIS) Menevia is said to be derived from Menapia, the name of an ancient Roman settlement supposed to have existed in Pembrokeshire, or Hen Meneu (vetus rubus) where St. David was born. From the time of the establishment of the four vicars Apostolic in England, in 1688, Wales belonged to the Vicariate of the Western District. In 1840 it was made a separate vicariate by Gregory XVI: in 1850 the Catholic hierarchy was re-established, and Wales was divided between the Dioceses of Shrewsbury and Newport. In 1895 the principality, with the exception of Glamorganshire was again formed into a separate vicariate Apostolic. Right Rev. Francis Joseph Mostyn, son of Sir Pyers Mostyn, eighth baronet, of Talacre in North Wales, was appointed first vicar Apostolic, his titular see being Ascalon. In 1898 he was transferred to Menevia when the vicariate was made a diocese by Leo XIII. The Bishop of Menevia is the only member of the hierarchy who holds one of the ancient titles of pre-Reformation times. The diocese is under the patronage of Our Lady Help of Christians, St. David, and St. Winefride, patrons of Wales. It covers 6500 square miles of country, most of which is rugged and mountainous; there are no large towns, so that the Catholic population of some 8500 souls is much scattered in country districts. To meet the spiritual needs of this little flock there are forty-three public churches, chapels, and stations, besides twelve chapels belonging to religious communities. The number of priests (in 1910) is eighty-two, twenty-eight seculars and fifty-four regulars; more than half this number of regulars is accounted for by the monastery of Breton Benedictines, at Caermaria, near Cardigan, the convent of Franciscan Capuchins at Pantasaph, and St. Beuno's College, the theologate of the English Jesuits. These religious, as well as Oblates of Mary Immaculate and Passionists, serve various missions throughout the diocese. There are convents of nine congregations of nuns, the Sisters of the Holy Ghost (White Sisters) having no less than seven. The church of Our Lady of Dolours, Wrexham, serves as pro-cathedral; on 10 August, 1909, a cathedral chapter, consisting of a provost and four canons, was erected. The diocese is rich in relics of the Ages of Faith, thickly strewn as it is with churches once Catholic, but now used for Protestant worship, and with ruins of ancient Catholic sanctuaries and holy wells named after the countless saints of the British Church; most famous of these is the holy well of St. Winefride (q. v.) at Holywell, which is and always has been in Catholic hands. This miraculous well has been a centre of pilgrimage from the earliest days of authentic Welsh history, and the saint still attracts her votaries to the shrine, and dispenses her miraculous favours even in this unbelieving age. The beautiful building which stands over the well was erected towards the close of the fifteenth century. The mission has been served by the Society of Jesus since about 1600. St. Mary's College is a small episcopal college in the town, for the education of boys to supply priests for the diocese; the Welsh language is a prominent feature in the curriculum. The Diocese of Menevia is the restoration of the ancient Catholic Diocese of St. David's, the foundation of which, in the latter half of the sixth century, is traditionally attributed to that saint. The contention of recent historians that there were no territorial bishops in Wales at so early a date, but only monastic bishops without sees, is considered baseless by Dr. Zimmer, no partisan authority. "Though monasticism was strong in it, it did not impart to the (Welsh) Church either its character or its form" (Realencyklopaedie, X, 224). The four independent Welsh sees were co-extensive with the four independent principalities that had come into being during the sixth century; Menevia with Dyfed, Llandaff with Gwent, St. Asaph with Powys, Bangor with Gwynedd. The records of the history of the diocese before Norman times are very fragmentary, consisting of a few chance references in old chronicles, such as "Annales Cambriae" and "Brut y Tywysogion" (Rolls Series). Originally corresponding with the boundaries of Dyfed (Demetia), St. David's eventually comprised all the country south of the River Dovey and west of the English border, with the exception of the greater part of Glamorganshire, in all some 3500 square miles. Though it was never an archbishopric, it is far from clear when St. David's came definitely under the metropolitan jurisdiction of Canterbury. About 1115, however, Henry I intruded a Norman, Bernard (1115-1147), into the see. Bernard's rule was wise and vigorous; but on the death of Henry he claimed metropolitan jurisdiction over Wales, and presented his suit unsuccessfully before six successive popes. This claim was afterwards revived in the time of Giraldus Cambrensis (q. v.). Among the more famous bishops who held the see before the Reformation may be mentioned Peter de Leia (1176-1203), who began the building of the present cathedral of St. David's; Henry Gower (1328-47); and Edward Vaughan (1509-23), who made considerable additions to the same; the learned John Thorshy (1347-50) afterwards transferred to the Archbishopric of York; Henry Chicheley (q. v.) (1408-14), afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury; and the notorious William Barlow (1536-48), the so-called consecrator of Archbishop Parker in 1559. The last Catholic bishop, Henry Morgan (1554-59), was, like the rest of the Catholic bishops, deprived of his see by Elizabeth, but was saved by death from sharing their imprisonment for the Faith. The oldest portions of the cathedral, dating from 1180 belong to the period of transition from the Early English to the Decorated style of architecture; the additions of Bishop Gower, including the beautiful stone rood screen, are excellent examples of the Decorated style, while to the north of the cathedral are the ruins of his magnificent episcopal palace. In 1862 a partial restoration of the cathedral was begun by Sir G. G. Scott. The shrine of St. David in the cathedral was a famous place of pilgrimage; it is said that by favour of Callistus II, who canonized the saint, two pilgrimages to St. David's were to be accounted equal to one to Rome: -- Meneviam pete bis, Roman adire si vis; Merces aequa tibi redditur hic et ibi; Roma semel, quantum dat bis Menevia, tantum (ancient lines found at the shrine by Archbishop Peckham, 1240-92). Catholic Directory (1840-1850; 1895-1910); FOLEY, Records of English Province S. J., IV (London, 1878), 528 (for Holywell); BEVAN, Diocesan Histories, St. David's (London, 1888); JONES AND FREEMAN, History of St. David's (Oxford, 1856); BARING GOULD AND FISHER, Lives of British Saints, II (London, 1908), 285; GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, De Jure et Statu Menevensis Ecclesioe (Rolls Series); ZIMMER in Realencykl. fuer prot. Theol. und Kirche, s. vv. Keltische Kirche in Britannien und Irland; Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Gower; Vaughan; Thoresby; Chicheley; Barlow. KENELM DIGBY BESTE. Gregario Mengarini Gregario Mengarini Pioneer missionary of the Flathead tribe and philologist of their language, b. in Rome, 21 July, 1811; d. at Santa Clara, California, 23 September, 1886. He entered the Jesuit novitiate in 1828, when barely seventeen, and later served as instructor in grammar, for which his philological bent particularly fitted him, at Rome, Medina, and Reggio. While studying at the Rome College in 1839, a letter of Bishop Rosati of St. Louis, voicing the appeal of the Flatheads for missionary priests, was read out in the refectory, and Mengarini was at once moved to volunteer for the work. Ordained in March, 1840, he sailed with Father Cotling, another volunteer, from Leghorn on 23 July, and after a tedious nine weeks' voyage landed at Philadelphia. From Baltimore the missionaries found their way to the University of Georgetown, District of Columbia, and a little later to St. Louis, where it was decided Father Cotling should remain. Mengarini was chosen for the distant mission of the upper Missouri, partly on account of his voice and knowledge of music -- possessions of no little value in Indian mission work. On 24 April, 1841, Father de Smet, Mengarini, and Point, with the lay brother Specht, Huett, and Classens, and nine other companions, began the long journey by river and overland trail to Fort Hall, Idaho, then a trading post, where they arrived on the feast of the Assumption (15 August) and found a party of Flatheads waiting to conduct them to their final destination. It was nearly a month later when they arrived at the chosen site on St. Mary's river, Montana, in the Flathead country, and began the foundations of the log mission, the missionaries themselves leading the work of cutting the frozen earth with axes. The church and house were of logs plastered between with clay, and were thatched with weeds, the rooms being partitioned with curtains of deerskin and thin scraped deerskin being used in lieu of glass for the windows. The winter cold was so intense that the buffalo skin robes in which they wrapped themselves at night were frozen stiff and had to be thawed out each morning. To the native of sunny Italy these early winters in Montana mountains were among the most vivid recollections of later years. The missionaries at once began the study of the language, translating into it simple prayers and hymns. Mengarini composed a Salish grammar which is still the standard for the cognate dialects. He taught the children to sing in Salish hymns of his own composition, and even trained an Indian band for service on feat days. The work progressed until 1849, when in consequence of the inroads of the Blackfeet and the defection and relapse of a large part of the Flathead tribe under a rival claimant for the chieftainship it was decided to close the mission, and Mengarini was summoned to join Father Accolti, the superior of the north-western Jesuit missions, in Oregon. About a year later, on request of Archbishop Alemany of San Francisco for Jesuit workers, he was sent to aid in establishing at Santa Clara the Californian mission which was the nucleus of the present college. In the mean time the repentant Flatheads had sent to Oregon to ask for his return. They were told this was impossible as he was assigned to another station, but on their urgent desire, the Flathead mission was re-established at St. Ignatius in 1851. Mengarini was stationed at Santa Clara for the rest of his life, acting for thirty years as treasurer or vice-president, until a stroke of apoplexy and failing sight caused his retirement from active duties. The hardest trial came when his eyes became too weak to allow him to read Mass. A third stroke of apoplexy ended his life's work in his seventy-sixth year. Mengarini's principal contribution to philology is his "Selish or Flathead Grammar: Grammatica linguae Selicae" -- published by the Cromoisy Press (New York, 1861) from the third manuscript copy, the first two, laboriously written out by him, having been lost by Indian carelessness or accident. Originally intended solely for the use of the missionaries, it was written in Latin, and he himself always said the first draft was the most correct. He also furnished vocabularies of the cognate Salishan languages -- of Shw oyelpi (Colville), S'chitzui (Coeur d'Alene) and Salish proper (Flathead) in Powell's "Contributions to North American Ethnology", I (Washington, 1877), and of the Santa Clara dialect of California in Powers's "Tribes of California", volume III of the same series, published in the same year. He contributed some linguistic notes in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute of New York", I (1871-2). His interesting personal memoir, "The Rocky Mountains", published in the Woodstock Letters for 1888, was dictated a few months before his death. In addition to the memoir just mentioned, consult Obituary Notice in Woodstock Letters XVI (Woodstock, Maryland, 1887); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., Bibliogr., V (new ed., Brussels and Paris, 1894); PILING, Bibliography of the Salishan Languages in Bur. Amer. Ethnology (Washington, 1893); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1864). JAMES MOONEY MENOCHIO Anthon Rafael Mengs Anthon Rafael Mengs A Bohemian painter, usually regarded as belonging to the Italian or Spanish school, b. at Aussig in Bohemia, 12 March, 1728; d. in Rome, 29 June, 1779. He received his instruction from his father, Ismael Mengs, who went to Dresden while his son was quite young, and in 1741 moved to Rome, where he copied in miniature some works of Raphael for the Elector of Sasony, which were intended for Dresden. From his youth Mengs was an energetic and skilful artist, and he was appointed a painter to the Elector of Saxony before he was sixteen years old, his skill in crayon portraiture having attracted attention in Dresden. He did not, however, feel disposed to accept the position, and declined it with becoming modesty, returning to Rome, devoting himself to his studies, and working with his father for four years. In Rome he married Margarita Quazzi, a poor and virtuous peasant girl who had sat for him as a model. At the same time Mengs became a Catholic and the marriage took place in the Catholic church. Shortly afterwards he returned again to Dresden with his father, but speedily had a serious difficulty with him, being turtled with his wife and daughter into the street. The King of Poland, who was then Elector of Saxony, promptly named him a second time as a painter in ordinary to the Royal household, and employed him to decorate the Catholic church in Dresden. Owing to difficulties in the king's finances, Mengs went again to Rome in 1752, and was there employed by the Duke of Northumberland to make copies of several important pictures by Raphael still in the possession of the present holder of the title, and to be seen at Albury and Alnwick. For many years Mengs supported himself in Rome by various commissions as all his income from Dresden had been stopped, the emperor Frederick having driven the King of Poland out of Saxony. It was at this time that Mengs painted a superb fresco on the dome of the church of St. Eusebius in Rome, and another very important work in the Villa Albani. He then went on to Naples, and executed various commissions, painting an important altar-piece for Caserta, and some portraits, but quickly returned to Rome for a short time, and was then pressed to enter the service of the Spanish King, Charles III. He arrived at Madrid in 1761. Here he carried out a very large number of commissions, and was a member, and eventually the director of the Academy of St. Ferdinand. Once more he went back to Rome for the sake of his health, and was employed by Clement XIV in the Vatican. He then returned to Madrid in 1773, and painted "the Apotheosis of Trajan" in the royal palace, and several other pictures for Charles III. Again his health broke down, and he finally returned to Rome, where his wife died. He also died there, and was buried in the church of San Michele, where tbere is a bronze monument to his memory. Mengs was a skilful writer, as well as a clever painter, but a man of melancholy dispositions, and of strange, stern habits, too sparing in his diet, and given to over-exertion. He was an affectionate father and husband, but somewhat improvident, and had so little faith in his own profession that he refused to allow his children to be educated for it. As a copyist he had extraordinary merit, and his original pictures are eclectic in their composition and technique, correct in design, smooth in execution, but somewhat too sweet and a trifle insipid. As a portrait painter, he had great success, and his works in pastel and crayon are amongst his finest creations. There are many of his paintings in Dresden and Vienna, and in the former city are some excellent miniature portraits and some copies in miniature of paintings by Raphael. QUILLIET, Dict. des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1816); PALOMINO DE CASTRO Y VELASCO, El Museo Pictorico y Escala (Madrid, 1715); STIRLING-MAXWELL, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1848); HUARD, Vie Complete des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1839). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Mennas Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople from 536 to 552. Early in 536 Pope St. Agapetus came to Constantinople on a political mission forced on him by the Gothic king, Theodahad. Anthimus, Archbishop of Trebizond, had just been transferred to Constantinople through the influence of the Empress Theodora, with whose Monophysite leanings he was in sympathy. Agapetus promptly deposed Anthimus and he consecrated Mennas patriarch. Anthimus was deposed partly because his transfer from one see to another was uncanonical, and partly on account of his doubtful orthodoxy. The question next arose whether he should be allowed to return to his old see. Agapetus was preparing to deal with this question when he died. Mennas proceeded with the affair at a synod held in Constantinople the same year, 536, presiding over it the place of honour on his right hand being assigned to five Italian bishops who represented the Apostolic See. The result was that Anthimus, who failed to appear and vindicate his orthodoxy, was excommunicated together with several of his adherents. In 543 the Emperor Justinian acting with the approval, if not under the prompting of Mennas and the Roman representative, Pelagius, issued his celebrated edict against the teaching of Origen, at the same time directing Mennas to hold a local council to consider the matter. No record of this synod had been preserved, but Hefele demonstrates it to be more than probable that the celebrated Fifteen Anathematisms of Origen, mistakenly ascribed to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, were there promulgated. We now come to the part played by Mennas the initial stage of the Three Chapters controversy (see CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF). The first from whom the emperor Justinian demanded subscription to the edict anathematizing the Three Chapters was Mennas. He hesitated, but eventually gave way on the understanding that his subscription should be returned to him if the pope disapproved. Later on he compelled his suffragans to subscribe. Many of them complained to the papal legate Stephen of the constraint put upon them. Stephen broke off communion with Mennas. When Pope Vigilius arrived at Constantinople in 547, he cut Mennas off from Church communion for four months. Mennas retorted by striking the pope's name off the diptychs. When Vigilius issued his "Judicatum", the two were reconciled. In 551 Mennas was again excommunicated. When Vigilius and Justinian came to terms, Mennas once more made his peace with the former, asking pardon for having communicated with those whom the pope had excommunicated. He died in August, 552. All that is known about Mennas will be found in HEFELE, Councils, IV (Eng. tr.). The most important of the originals sources are the Acta of the synod at Constantinople in 536 HARDOUIN, II, Mansi, VIII, and FACUNDUS, Pro defensione trium Capitulorum (P.L., LXVII, Gallandi, XI). F.J. BACCHUS Mennonites Mennonites A Protestant denomination of Europe and America which arose in Switzerland in the sixteenth century and derived its name from Menno Simons, its leader in Holland. Menno Simons was born in 1492 at Witmarsum in Friesland. In 1515 or 1516 he was ordained to the Catholic priesthood and appointed assistant at Pingjum not far from Witmarsum. aater (1532) he was named pastor of his native place, but 12 January, 1536, resigned his charge and became an Anabaptist elder. The rest of his life was devoted to the interests of the new sect which he had joined. Though not an imposing personality he exercised no small influence as a speaker and more particularly as a writer among the more moderate holders of Anabaptist views. His death occurred 13 January, 1559, at Wustenfelde in Holstein. The opinions held by Menno Simons and the Mennonites originated in Switzerland. In 1525 Grebel and Manz founded an Anabaptist community at Zurich. Persecution followed upon the very foundation of the new sect, and was exercised against its members until 1710 in various parts of Switzerland. It was powerless to effect suppression and a few communities exist even at present. About 1620 the Swiss Mennonites split into Amish or Upland Mennonites and Lowland Mennonites. The former differ from the latter in the belief that excommunication dissolves marriage, in their rejection of buttons and of the practice of shaving. During Menno's lifetime his followers in Holland divided (1554) into "Flemings" and "Waterlanders", on account of their divergent views on excommunication. The former subsequently split up into different parties and dwindled into insignificance, not more than three congregations remaining at present in Holland. Division also weakened the "Waterlanders" until in 1811 they united, dropped the name of Mennonites and called themselves "Doopsgezinde" (Baptist persuasion), their present official designation in Holland. Menno founded congregations exclusively in Holland and Northwestern Germany. Mennonite communities existed at an early date, however in South Germany where they were historically connected with the Swiss movement, and are found at present in other parts of the empire, chiefly in eastern Prussia. The offer of extensive land and the assurance of religious liberty caused a few thousand German Mennonites to emigrate to Southern Russia (1788). This emigration movement continued until 1824, and resulted in the foundation of comparatively important Mennonite colonies. In America the first congregation was founded in 1683 at Germantown, Pennsylvania. Subsequently immigration from Germany, Holland, Switzerland, and since 1870 from Russia, considerably increased the number of the sect in North America. There are twelve different branches in the United States in some of which the membership does not reach 1000. Among the peculiar views of the Mennonites are the following: repudiation of infant baptism, oaths, law-suits, civil office-holding and the bearing of arms. Baptism of adults and the Lord's Supper, in which Jesus Christ is not really present, are retained, but not as sacraments properly so-called. Non-resistance to violence is an important tenet and an extensive use is made of excommunication. All these views, however, are no longer universally held, some Mennonites now accepting secular offices. The polity is congregational, with bishops, elders, and deacons. The aggregate membership of the Mennonites is now usually given as about 250,000; of these there are some 60,000 in Holland; 18,000 in Germany; 70,000 in Russia; 1500 in Switzerland; 20,000 in Canada, and according to Dr. Carroll (Christian Advocate, New York, 27 January, 1910), 55,007 in the United States. CRAMER, Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, II and V (The Hague, 1903, sqq.); CARROLL, Religious Forces of the United States (New York, 1896), 206-220; WEDEL, Geschichte der Mennoniten (Newton, Kansas, 1900-1904); SMITH, The Mennonites of America (Goshen, Indiana, 1909); CRAMER and HORSCH in New Schaff-Herzog Encycl. s.v. (New York, 1910). N.A. WEBER Giovanni Stefano Menochio Giovanni Stefano Menochio Jesuit biblical scholar, b. at Padua, 1575; d. in Rome, 4 Feb., 1655. He entered the Society of Jesus, 25 May, 1594. After the usual years of training and teaching the classics, he became professor of sacred scripture and then of moral theology at Milan; thereafter began his long life of superiorship. He was successively superior of Cremona, Milan, and Genoa, rector of the Roman College, provincial of the provinces of Milan and Rome, assistant of Italy, and admonitor to the Fathers-General Caraffa and Piccolomini. The exegetical work of Menochio is still deservedly famous. His first essay along this line was a politico-Biblical study: "Hieropoliticon, sive Institutiones Politicae e Sacris Scripturis depromptae", 956 pages (Lyon, 1625). This book on theocratic politics was dedicated to Cardinal Alessandro Orsini. A second edition (Cologne, 1826) was dedicated to Ferdinand III. The Jesuit poet Sarbewski made this study the subject of an ode (see "Lyrica", II, n. 18). The next year there appeared an economic study of the Bible: "Institutiones Oeconomicae ex Sacris Litteris depromptae", 543 pages (Lyon, 1627). The author translated into Italian these lessons on the care of one's own household; this translation was a posthumous publication: "Economia Christiana", 542 pages (Venice, 1656). The work by which Menochio lives and will live is his "Brevis Explicatio Sensus Literalis Sacrae Scripturae optimus quibusque Auctoribus per Epitomen Collecta", 3 vols., 115 pages, 449, 549+29 (Cologne, 1830). Many other editions of this commentary have been published in many lands: Cologne, 1659; Antwerp, 1679; Lyons, 1683, 1697, 1703; the revised edition of Tournemine, S. J., published at Paris, 1719, 1721, 1731; Avignon, 1768; Ghent, 1829; the enlarged and revised edition of Zaccaria, S. J., published at Venice, 1743, 1755, 1761. The scholia of Menochio are introduced into the "Bibla Magna" and the "Bibla Maxima" of de La Haye; the "Bibla Sacra" of Lucas Brugensis; the "Cursus Script. Sacr." of Migne; fourteen editions of the "Sainte Bible" of Carriere, S. J.; and "La Sainte Bible" of Drioux (Paris, 1873). The clearness, brevity, and critical acumen of Menochio have won him the praise of friend and foe. The father of modern criticism, Simon, though not at all in sympathy with the orthodoxy of the Jesuit, says "C'est un des plus judicieux scoliates que nous a yons tant sur le Vieux que sur le Nouveau Testament" (Hist. Crit. du N. T., xliv). Reusch (Kirchenlex) prefers the notes of Menochio to those of Sa and Mariana. The method of this great commentator was that of the great Catholic exegetes of to-day: a method which sought to find the literal meaning of the Holy Writ in the Bible and the Fathers. Menochio studied the text in its original, and brought to bear upon that study a vast store of knowledge of Jewish antiquities. Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de J., V, IX. WALTER DRUM Men of Understanding Men of Understanding (HOMINES INTELLIGENTIAE). Name assumed by a heretical sect which in 1410-11 was cited before the Inquisition at Brussels. Its leaders were Egidius Cantoris, an illiterate layman, and the Carmelite William of Hildernissen, near Bergen-op-Zoom. The sect was doctrinally related with the earlier Brethren of the Free Spirit. It taught the eventual salvation of all human beings and even of the demons, maintained that the soul of man cannot be defiled by bodily sin, and believed in a mystical state of illumination and union with God so perfect that it exempted from all subjection to moral and ecclesiastical laws and was an infallible pledge of salvation. Both leaders gloried in the visions with which they claimed to have been favoured. Cantoris in a moment of religious exaltation went so far as to run nude through the streets of Brussels declaring himself the saviour of mankind. About 1410 Peter d'Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, seems to have taken the first steps towards the suppression of the heresy. William of Hildernissen consented to a retractation, the sincerity of which appeared doubtful. In 1411, a second investigation resulted in another retractation, but also in a sentence compelling William to return permanently to an extra-diocesan Carmelite monastery after three years' detention in one of the episcopal castles. No information has reached us respecting the result of the inquisitorial procedure against the other members of the sect. FREDERICQ, Corpus documentorum inquisitionis Neerlandicae, I, 267-79 (Ghent, 1889); HAUPT in Realenc. f. prot. Theol., VIII, 311-12; LEA, History of the Inquisition, II, 405-06 (New York, 1888). N.A. WEBER Menologium Menologium Although the word Menologium (in English also written Menology and Menologe) has been in some measure, as we shall see, adopted for Western use, it is originally and in strictness a name describing a particular service-book of the Greek Church. From its derivation the term Menologium (menologion, from men "a month") means "month-set", in other words, a book arranged according to the months. Like a good many other liturgical terms, e.g. lectionary, the word has been used in several quite distinct senses by writers of authority, and the main purpose of the present notice must be to try to elucidate this confusion. (1) In the first place Menologium is not unfrequently used as synonymous with Menaion (menaion). The Menaia usually in twelve volumes, one to each month, but sometimes bound in three, form an office-book, which in the Greek Church, corresponds, though very roughly, to the Proprium Sanctorum of the Breviary. They include all the movable parts of the services connected with the commemoration of saints and in particular the canons sung in the Orthros, the office which corresponds with our Lauds, including the synaxaries, i. e. the historical notices regarding the saints of the day, which are always inserted between the sixth and seventh odes of the canon. The Synaxaries are read in this place very much as the Martyrologium for the day is interpolated in the choral recitation of Prime in the offices of Western Christendom. (2) Secondly and more frequently, the term Menologium is used to denote the bare collection of those historical notices just mentioned, without the odes and the other matter of the canons in which they are inserted. Such a collection, consisting as it does purely of historical matter, bears a considerable resemblance, as will be readily understood, to our Martyrology, although the notices of the saints are for the most part considerably larger and fuller than those found in our Martyrology, while on the other hand the number of entries is smaller. The "Menology of Basil", a work of early date often referred to in connexion with the history of the Greek Offices, is a book of this class. (3) Thirdly, it frequently happens that the tables of scriptural lessons, arranged according to months and saints' days, which are often found at the beginning of manuscripts of the gospels or other lectionaries, are described as menologia. The saints' days are briefly named and the readings indicated beside each; thus the document so designated corresponds much more closely to a calendar than anything else of Western use to which we can compare it. (4) Lastly the word Menologium is very widely applied to the collections of long lives of the saints of the Greek Church, whenever these lives, as commonly happens, are arranged according to months and days of the month. This arrangement has always been a favourite one also in the great Legendaria of the West, and it might be illustrated from the "Acta Sanctorum" or the well-known Lives of the Saints by Surius. The Greek compilers however regard September as the first and August as the last month of the ecclesiastical year. As for propriety of usage it must be confessed that the question is primarily one of convenience; but on the whole it seems desirable that the term Menologium should be limited to the fourth acceptation among those just given. One of the most important collections of this kind is that made by a writer in the second half of the tenth century known to us as Symeon Metaphrastes. Something more than ten years ago Father Delehaye and Professor Albert Ehrhard working independently succeeded for the first time in correctly grouping together the works which are really attributable to this author, but great uncertainty still remains as to the provenance of his materials, and as to the relation between this collection and certain contracted biographies many of which exist among the manuscripts of our great libraries. The synaxaries, or histories for liturgical use, are nearly all extracted from the older Menologia, but Fr. Delehaye who has given special attention to the study of this class of documents, considers that the authors of these compendia have added, though sparsely, materials of their own, derived from various sources. (See Delehaye in his preface to the "Synaxarium Eccles. Cp.", published as a Propylaeum to the "Acta SS." for November, lix-lxvi.) Menologies in the West The fact that the word Martyrology was already consecrated to a liturgical or quasi-liturgical compilation arranged according to months and days, and including only canonized saints and festivals universally received, probably led to the employment of the term Menologium for works of a somewhat analogous character, of private authority, not intended for liturgical use and including the names and elogia of persons in repute for sanctity but not in any sense canonized Saints. In most of the religious orders it became the custom to commemorate the memory of their dead brethren specially renowned for holiness or learning. In more than one such order during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the collection of these short eulogistic biographies was printed under the name of Menologium and generally so arranged as to form a selection for each day of the year. Since they were made by private authority which could not pronounce judgment on the sanctity of those so commemorated, the Church prohibited the reading of these compilations as part of the Divine Office; but this did not prevent the formation of such menologies for private use or even the reading of them aloud in the chapter-house or refectory. Thus the collection made by the Franciscan Fortunatus Hueber of the abbreviated lives of those of the Friars Minor who had died in the odour of sanctity, printed in 1691 under the title of "Menologium Franciscanum", was evidently intended for public recitation. In lieu of the concluding formula "Et alibi aliorum" etc. of the Roman Martyrology, the compiler suggests (364) as the ferialis terminatio cuiuscumque diei the three verses of the Apocalypse (vii, 9-11) beginning: "Post haec vidi turbam magnam". The earliest printed work of this kind is possibly that which bears the title "Menologium Carmelitanum" compiled by the Carmelite, Saracenus, and printed at Bologna in 1627; but this is not arrranged day by day in the order of the ecclesiastical year, and it does not include members of the order yet uncanonized. A year or two later, in 1630, Father Henriquez published at Antwerp his "Menologium Cisterciense". That no general custom then existed of reading the Menology at table appears from his remark: "It would not appear unsuitable if it (the Menologium) were read aloud in public or in chapter or at least in the refectory at the beginning of dinner or supper". Again quite a number of works have been printed under the name Menologium by Fathers of the Society of Jesus, one or other of which it has been and still is the custom of the order to read aloud in the refectory during part of the evening meal. Though Fathers Nuremberg and Nadasi compiled collections of a similar character, they did not bear the name Menologium. The earliest Jesuit compilation which is so styled seems to have been printed in the year 1669. A more elaborate Menologium was that compiled by Father Patrignani in 1730, and great collections were made during the last century by Father de Guilhermy for the production of a series of such menologies, divided according to the groups of provinces of the Society called "Assistencies". The author did not live to complete his task, but the menologies have been published by other hands since his death. The term Menologium is also loosely used for any calendar divided into months, as, for example, the "Anglo-Saxon Menologium" first published by Hickes. The whole subject of the Greek Menologia has been treated in fullest detail by Father Delehaye in the Anal. Bolland. (1895), 396 sqq., (1897), 311 sqq., (1898), 448 sqq., as well as in the Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum which forms the Propylaeum of the Acta SS. for November. Consult also Nilles, Calendarium Utriusque Ecclesiae (Innsbruck, 1896); Maltzew, Das Menologion (2 vols., Berlin, 1900); Kellner, Heortology (Eng. trans., London, 1908). Herbert Thurston Menominee Indians Menominee Indians A considerable tribe of Algonquian linguistic stock, formerly ranging over north-eastern Wisconsin to the west of Menominee River and Green Bay, and now occupying a reservation in Shawano and Oconto counties within the same territory. The name by which they are commonly known (translated Folles Avoines by the French) is taken from their term for the wild rice, menomin, Lat. Zizania aquatica, which grows abundantly in the small lakes, and forms a staple food of the tribes of that region. Before their first contact with the whites the Menominee may have numbered about 3000 souls; in 1909 they were officially reported at 1487. The earliest known explorer among the Menominee was Champlain's interpreter, Jean nicolet, who visited the tribes about Green Bay in 1634, being probably the first white man within the present State of Wisconsin. In 1640 they are mentioned under the name of Maroumine by the Jesuit Le Jeune, as one of the tribes still without missionaries. In the "Relation" for 1657-8 they are spoken of as Malouminek, allied with the Noukek and Winnebago and "reaping without sowing" a wild rye considered superior to corn, the first notice of the now well-known wild rice. In May, 1670, the Jesuit explorer Claude Allouez visited them near the mouth of the Menominee River. They were then greatly reduced by wars, probably with their heriditary enemies, the Sioux. They listened to his teaching and asked him to remain. A small mission, St. Michel, was established, and placed under the jurisdiction of the central Potawatomi mission of St. Francis Xavier on Green Bay. In 1673 the Jesuit Louis Andre arrived and ministered for several years both to the Menominee and to other tribes, travelling in summer by bark canoe and in winter over the ice. Soon after his arrival he found set up an image of the sun, with a number of net floaters attached, as a sacrifice to the sun for a prosperous fishing season, their exertions having been thus far disappointing. After explaining that the sun was not a god, he persuaded them to allow him to substitute a crucifix. The next morning the fish entered the river in such abundance that the Indians, firmly convinced of the efficacy of his teaching, crowded to be instructed every evening on their return from their fishing. Following up this victory, he induced them to abandon their superstitious dream ceremonies on setting out against the Sioux, although apparently he was unable to prevent the expedition. Among his converts was a principal medicine-man, who was accustomed to invoke it with songs and naked antics during storms. Father Andre was slow to baptize adults, however, and records how one man thus baptized on fervid assurances of change of heart had called in the medicine-man on his death-bed. In 1673 Father Marquette visited the Menominee on his way to the Mississippi, and describes in detail their manner of gathering and preparing the wild rice. Three years later Father Andre's cabin, with all that it contained, was burned by an Indian whose two small children, after one had been baptized, had been killed by an enemy, the grief-stricken father, in Indian fashion, attributing his misfortune to the ceremony. The Menominee mission grew and flourished until the outbreak of the long war inaugurated by the Foxes against the French (1712), which continued some thirty years, and resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Fox tribe and the ruin of the Wisconsin missions. Close upon this came the seven years' French and Indian War (1754-60); the Pontiac war (1763-4); the Revolution and its Indian aftermath (1775-95); and finally Tippecanoe and the War of 1812 (1811-15). In all of these the Menominee, like the other tribes of the central region, had their part, fighting on the French side until the fall of Quebec and afterwards supporting the English against the United States. In 1817 they made their peace with the United States, and by various subsequent treaties, have disposed of all of their ancient territory excepting their present reservation of about 360 square miles. In 1762 the Jesuit missions had been suppressed by the French Government, and "for thirty years there was no priest west of Detroit" (Shea quoting McCabe). Deprived of their teachers and for sixty years compelled to make almost constant war against the advancing whites, a large part of the former mission Indians in all the tribes relapsed into paganism, while still cherishing an affection for their former friends. In 1823 the Ottawa tribe of lower Michigan addressed to Congress two remarkable petitions asking to have Jesuit missionaries again sent among them. No response came, but in 1825 Father J. V. Badin made a tour of the lake tribes, in 1827 Father Dejean visited the Ojibwa at Mackinaw and in 1829 founded the new Ottawa mission at Arbre Croche (Harbor Springs, Michigan), and in 1830 Father Samuel Mazzuchelli established a school and church among the Menominee at Green Bay, for which the Government, in accordance with the policy of that period, made an appropriation. Soon afterwards Father Mazzuchelli extended his labours to the Winnebago. A church for the few ehite residents had already been begun by Father Gabriel Richard in 1823. Father Mazzuchelli was assisted in the school by two sisters and by Mrs. Rosalie Dousman (1831), who continued in the work for a number of years. Later missionaries of the same period were Father Simon Saenderl, Redemptorist, and T. J. Van den Broeck. In 1827 an Episcopal mission was started, but was discontinued in 1838 owing to non-attendance of the Indians. In 1844 Fr. Van den Broeck established a second mission, St. Francis, at Lake Powahegan on the Wolf River, which within a short time had 400 Indians. In 1847 he succeeded by Father F. J. Bonduel, who added anothe rschool, and who in turn was succeeded in 1852 by Fr. Otho Skolla, the first of the Franciscans, to which order the Menominee work has now been confided for nearly two generations. The present mission of St. Michael's, at Keshena, Wisconsin, in charge of Reverend Blase Krake, assisted by two other Franciscan fathers, counts upon its rolls about two-thirds of the tribe, being the whole Christian body. The attached St. Joseph's industrial school, conducted by eleven Sisters of St. Joseph and three Franciscan brothers, is in a prosperous condition. The official reports of Agent Ellis (1847) and Superintendent Murray (1852) exhibit the high appreciation of the civil authorities. Physically the Menominee are among the finest of the native tribes of America, being well formed, straight, and of a rathe rlight complexion, with manly, intelligent, and mild expression. In their primitive condition they derived their subsistence chiefly from the wild rice, fishing and hunting, wild berries, and the syrup and sugar prepared according to the Indian method from the maple. WIld rice still constitutes an important part of their diet, being boiled with meat and seasoned with syrup. They do but little farming, and devote their chief energies to lumbering. Their houses were formerly circular frameworks covered with bark or mats or rushes, but log houses are not the rule. The art of making pottery has become extinct among the Menominee, but their women still produce basketware, mats of rushes and cedar bark, and beautifully woven bead and porcupine quill work. The primitive weapons were the bow, knife, and hatchet. They had both bark and dugout canoes. Snowshoes were used for winter travel. Their amusements included the ball game (lacrosse), dice, hunt the button, foot races, and several minor dances. Their dead were usually buried in bark coffins, over which was built a roof, with an opening through which food was inserted for the spirit. The corpse, dressed in its best attire, was sometimes placed in a sitting position facing west, over it being erected a bark shelter on which was carved or painted an inverted figure indicating the totem, or gens, to which the deceased had belonged. Their mythology and religious belief and ritual closely resembled that of their neighbours, the Ojibwa, centering about Manabush, the "Green Rabbit", or dawn god, and the songs and ceremonies of the secret society of the Midewiwin or "Grand Medicine", which still flourishes among the pagan members of the tribe. They had the clan, or gentile, system, with (as now existing) twenty-four gentes grouped into three phraties, the Bear, Big Thunder, and Wolf. In ancient times, it is said, they had twenty-two gentes in five phratries. The members of the same gens weere considered near relatives, and were not allowed to intermarry. Descent and inheritance were in the female line. The tribe council included a principal chief, a war chief, and a number of subordinate band or gentile chiefs, and chieftainship was usually hereditary. Among distinguished chiefs have been Thomas Carron, a French Canadian half-breed (d. 1780), his son Tomah (i.e. Thomas, d. 1818); Keshena (Swift Flyer); Oshkosh (Claws; d. 1858); and Niopet (Four-in-a-den), his son and successor elected in 1875. The literature of the Menominee language, which is distinct from all others of its kindred Algonquian stock, consists chiefly of a series of prayer books and hymn collections by Father Zephyrin (Charles Anthony) Engelhardt, former Franciscan missionary in the tribe; these were issued between 1881 and 1884, the hymn book being printed by the author upon a small hand press. Father Engelhardt is also the author of a collection of Menominee translations of the Gospel, a volume of sermons and instructions, an extended vocabulary and several linguistic treatises on the language, all still in manuscript. His present successor at the mission, Father Blase Krake of the same order, is also a master of the language, of which he has written a manuscript grammar and dictionary. A vocubulary of some thirty pages accompanies Hoffman's monograph. JAMES MOONEY Mensa, Mensal Revenue Mensa, Mensal Revenue (Lat., Mensa, table). The Latin word mensa has for its primitive signification "a table for meals"; it designates by extension the expenses, or better, the necessary resources of sustenance, and generally, all the resources for personal support. He who lives at the expense of another, and at his table, is his "commensal". In ecclesiastical language, the mensa is that portion of the property of a church which is appropriated to defraying the expenses either of the prelate or of the community which serves the church, and is administered at the will of the one or the other. Thus, in a cathedral, to which both the bishop and the chapeter belong, the bishop's mensa is distinct from that of the chapter, the former consisting of property the revenues of which are enjoyed by the prelate, the latter by the chapter. The capitular mensa consists chiefly of individual property, for the primitive mensa of the chapter has almost everywhere been divided among the canons, each of whom has his personal share under the designation of a "prebend". Similarly, in the case of abbeys given in commendam (cf. c. Edoceri, 21, De rescriptis), the abbatial mensa, which the abbot enjoys, is distinct from the conventual mensa, which is applied to the maintenance of the religious community. The curial mensa, which is of later origin, is of the same nature: the property reserved for the personal maintenance of the parish priest, as distinct from that applied to the expenses of worship or to the support of other clergy, has been regarded as curial mensa. To constitute a mensa in the canonical sense, therefore, it is not enough that a certain portion of church property be appropriated to the maintenance of the clergy (for in that case every benefice would be a mensa, which is untrue); it is necessary that there be a partition made in the property of one particular church so as to appropriate certain property to the maintenance of the prelate or rector, or of the clergy subject to him; it follows, therefore, that the administration of this property belongs to those who enjoy it. Thus the bishop, the secular abbot, the chapter, the religious community, administer, each within appropriate limits, the property of their respective mensae, without being liable to any accounting for the employment of its revenues; this is true of the parish priest who has a curial mensa. The other resources of the cathedral or parish church, or monastery, destined for religious worship, pious works, the maintenance of buildings, etc., are subject to the general or special rules for the administration of church property, whether this be done by church committees, trustees, or other administrative organ, or by the rector of the church as sole administrator; in all cases an accounting is due to the bishop and, in general, to the ecclesiastical authorities, for the administration of such property. There are, however, some exceptions to this principle. Since mensae, particularly episcopal mensae, are legal entities, property and foundations have in the course of centuries often been annexed to them for purposes other than the maintenance of prelates; these properties or foundations may be real "opera pia" or pious works in the canonical sense. In this way some episcopal mensae control property and houses for the benefit of aged or infirm priests, also for educational and other establishements; to some curial mensae schools or hospitals are attached, and for these various good works administrative rules may be provided at the time of their foundation. But such cases it is easily seen are later extensions, foreign to the primary and chief aim of the mensae. Even in respect to these properties the old rule applies, in the sense that they are not common ecclesiastical possessions and are not administered as such, but after the manner of mensal property. Although appropriated to the maintenance of certain defininte persons, mensal property is nevertheless church property, and its administrator is bound to observe the canonical rules concerning it. As to the administration strictly speaking, he must keep the property in good condition and execute all works expedient to that end; in short, he must act like a good head of a household. But he cannot do anything that would infringe upon proprietary rights, for he is not the proprietor: any alienation, or any contract which the law regards as similar to alienation, is forbidden him, excepting under prescribed juridical formalities, under pain of excommunication (Extrav. Ambitiosae, "De reb. eccl. non alienandis"; see also Benefice; Property, Alienation of Church). The chief of these prescribed formalities is the Apostolic authorization, given either directly or by Indult, and that only when the alienation or similar contract is to the advantage of the Church. For the alienation of mensal property, or for making any similar contract, the bishop is, in particular, bound to safeguard himself with the consent of the chapter (S. C. Concilii, 25 July, 1891). HISTORY Like all ecclesiastical institutions, the mensa has reached its present juridical status as the result of various modifications. In the first ages, all the church property of a diocese formed but one mass connected, like everything else, with the principal, or cathedral church. The administration of it belonged to the bishop alone, who administered it himself or through his oeconomus or his deacons. The clergy received a portion of the revenues of this property, sometimes fixed (one-fourth in Italy, one-third in Spain; see the collected texts, c. 23-30, C., XII, q. ii; c. 1-3, C., X, q. iii), sometimes left to the equitable decision of the bishop. Soon the churches outside of the episcopal city had distinct administrations of their own, and the wealth appropriated to religious worship or to the support of the clergy was regarded as their property. After the fifth century we find bishops granting to certain clerics church property, by way of "praecarium", i. e. property revocable at will, which such clerics used for their own support. So long as the bishop, the abbot, or the rector of the church remained faithfully in residence and discharged his ecclesiastical functions, there was no reason for surrendering to the inferior clergy, or the monks, a part of the ecclesiastical wealth that they might thence draw their support. But when the early Carlovingians, especially Charles Martel, habitually gave abbeys and churches to their companions in arms, and when bishops nominated by royal favour ceased to reside habitually at their sees, there arose a kind of division and opposition between the prelate, abbot, or bishop and the community of monks or clerics, who were on more than one occasion left in want by greedy or negligent superiors. The remedy for this was the institution of mensae. To secure what was necessary to the community, the beneficiary was compelled to reserve for its use a sufficient portion of the property of the church or monastery. Thus the superior's administration was made lighter for him, while he could enjoy in peace and quiet the balance of the property reserved for his own proper use (indominicatum); on the other hand the community gained, besides material security, a renovation of religious life, since material privation was inevitably a cause of relaxation of discipline. The Carlovingian reforms, notably those of Louis the Pious, were chiefly responsible for the establishment of mensae properly imposed and regulated in regard to monasteries; as to cathedrals the mensa was more commonly a benevolent concession on the part of the bishop, who in this way fostered community life (vita canonica) among his clergy. This community life becoming more and more rare after the end of the ninth century, each canon received his own share of the mensal revenues-his "prebend". Later on, indeed, the canons often had the separate administration of their respective properties, either as the result of partition or, more particularly, in pursuance of provisions made in the foundation. The mensae, of whatever character, were legally capable of acquiring additions. It was through them that church property, intended, as before the division, not only for the support of the clergy, but for all religious and charitable works, was re-established. Lesne, L'origine des menses dans le temporal des eglises et des monasteres de France au ix ^e siecle (Paris, 1910); POeschi, Bischofsgut und Mensa Episcopalis (2 vols., Bonn, 1908-1909); Thomassin, Vetus et nova disciplina, pars III, lib. ii; SAegmUeller, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1909), 244, 874; Taunton, Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v.; see Benefice; Property, Ecclesiastical. A. Boudinhon Mensing, John John Mensing (MENSINGK) A theologian and celebrated opponent of Luther, born according to some at Zuetphen, Holland, but more probably at Magdeburg, Saxony, date unknown; died about 1541. In 1495 he entered the Dominican Order and made part of his theological studies in the studium of his province. Matriculating at the university of Wittenberg in 1515, he received there in 1517 the licentiate in theology, and the following year received in Frankfort-on-the-Oder the doctorate in theology from the hands of the general of his order. According to the Dominican historian, Quetif, he taught theology in 1514 in the monastery at Ulm, but it is highly improbable that Mensing, belonging to the province of Saxony, should act as professor in another province which had no studium generale of its own. He lived at a time when controversy was rife, when men, abandoning beaten paths, began to set up systems of their own. The heretical teachings of the reformers spread rapidly throughout Germany. No province seemed exempt from the invasions of Luther's emissaries. To prevent these doctrinal innovations from gaining a foothold in his province, Mensing zealously entered into all the controversies with the sectaries. From 1522 to 1524 he occupied the pulpit in the cathedral of Magdeburg, where he also composed his first apologetic works on the Sacrifice of the Mass. Notwithstanding his efforts, the boldness of the enemy forced him to leave and seek other fields of labour. Upon the invitation of the Princess Margaretha von Anhalt, who ruled during the minority of her sons, he proceeded to Dessau to support her in her efforts against heresy in her territory. In 1529 he was professor in the University of Frankfort-on-the-Oder and preacher in the cathedral. The following year he attended, as theologian to the Elector Joachim von Anhalt, the Diet of Augsburg, and secured from Charles V a renewal of the letter of protection for the Dominican Order in Germany which Charles IV had granted them in 1355 and 1359. In 1534 he was elected provincial of his own province, but before the termination of his office Paul III made him suffragan Bishop of Halberstadt. In 1540 and 1541 he attended the theological conferences of Worms and Ratisbon, where with Eck, the vice-chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt, and Pelargus, he took a leading part in the deliberations. His vast theological knowledge and remarkable command of the German language made him one of the foremost controversialists of the first half of the sixteenth century. A complete list of his works, all of which bear a polemical tinge, is given by Streber in the "Kirchenlexikon", QUETIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Proed., II, 84; PAULUS, Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther (Freiburg, 1903), 16-45; PAULUS, Katholik (1893), II, 21-36, 120-139. JOSEPH SCHROEDER. Mental Reservation Mental Reservation The name applied to a doctrine which has grown out of the common Catholic teaching about lying and which is its complement. The Catholic Doctrine on Lying According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied. The Doctrine of Wide Mental Reservation The doctrine was broached tentatively and with great diffidence by St. Raymund of Pennafort, the first writer on casuistry. In his "Summa" (1235) St. Raymund quotes the saying of St. Augustine that a man must not slay his own soul by lying in order to preserve the life of another, and that it would be a most perilous doctrine to admit that we may do a less evil to prevent another doing a greater. And most doctors teach this, he says, though he allows that others teach that a lie should be told when a man's life is at stake. Then he adds: I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other's silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say 'He is not at home,' or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods. Such expressions as "He is not at home" were called equivocations, or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase "He is not at home" was restricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, "He is not at home for you, or to see you." Hence equivocations and amphibologies came to be called mental restrictions or reservations. It was commonly admitted that an equivocal expression need not necessarily be used when the words of the speaker receive a special meaning from the circumstances in which he is placed, or from the position which he holds. Thus, if a confessor is asked about sins made known to him in confession, he should answer "I do not know," and such words as those when used by a priest mean "I do not know apart from confession," or "I do not know as man," or "I have no knowledge of the matter which I can communicate." All Catholic writers were, and are, agreed that when there is good reason, such expressions as the above may be made use of, and that they are not lies. Those who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true, but their self-deception may be permitted by the speaker for a good reason. If there is no good reason to the contrary, veracity requires all to speak frankly and openly in such a way as to be understood by those who are addressed. A sin is committed if mental reservations are used without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth. The Doctrine of Strict Mental Reservation In the sixteenth century a further development of this commonly received doctrine began to be admitted even by some theologians of note. We shall probably not be far wrong if we attribute the change to the very difficult political circumstances of the time due to the wars of religion. Martin Aspilcueta, the "Doctor Navarrus," as he was called, was one of the first to develop the new doctrine. He was nearing the end of a long life, and was regarded as the foremost living authority on canon law and moral theology, when he was consulted on a case of conscience by the fathers of the Jesuit college at Valladolid. The case sent to him for solution was drawn up in these terms: Titius, who privately said to a woman 'I take thee for my wife' without the intention of marrying her, answered the judge who asked him whether he had said those words that he did not say them, understanding mentally that he did not say them with the intention of marrying the woman. Navarrus was asked whether Titius told a lie, whether he had committed perjury, or whether he committed any sin at all. He drew up an elaborate opinion on the case and dedicated it to the reigning pontiff, Gregory XII. Navarrus maintained that Titius neither lied, nor committed perjury, nor any sin whatever, on the supposition that he had a good reason for answering as he did. This theory became known as the doctrine of strict mental reservation, to distinguish it from wide mental reservation with which we have thus far been occupied. In the strict mental reservation the speaker mentally adds some qualification to the words which he utters, and the words together with the mental qualification make a true assertion in accordance with fact. On the other hand, in a wide mental reservation, the qualification comes from the ambiguity of the words themselves, or from the circumstances of time, place, or person in which they are uttered. The opinion of Navarrus was received as probable by such contemporary theologians of different schools as Salon, Sayers, Suarez, and Lessius. The Jesuit theologian Sanchez formulated it in clear and distinct terms, and added the weight of his authority on the side of the defenders. Laymann, however, another Jesuit theologian of equal or greater weight, rejected the doctrine, as did Azor, S.J., the Dominican Soto, and others. Laymann shows at considerable length that such reservations are lies. For that man tells a lie who makes use of words which are false with the intention of deceiving another. And this is what is done when a strict mental reservation is made use of. The words uttered do not express the truth as known to the speaker. They are at variance with it and therefore they constitute a lie. The opinion of Navarrus was freely debated in the schools for some years, and was acted upon by some of the Catholic confessors of the Faith in England in the difficult circumstances in which they were frequently placed. It was, however, condemned as formulated by Sanchez by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679 (propositions 26, 27). After this condemnation by the Holy See no Catholic theologian has defended the lawfulness of strict mental reservations. T. SLATER Johannes Mentelin Johannes Mentelin (MENTEL) Born c. 1410; died 12 Dec., 1478; an eminent German typographer of the fifteenth century, and the first printer and bookseller at Strasburg (Alsace). He belonged to a respected family at Schlettstadt. After 1447 he was a "gold-schreiber" (illuminator) at Strasburg, where he became a burgess and member of the painters' and goldsmiths' guilds. It was as an illuminator that he became connected with printing; and he received his printer's training at Mainz: he began printing at Strasburg before 1460. His establishment at once developed great activity; in a few years at produced quite a number of immense folio volumes with a masterly finish. He also procured the sale of his prints by means of printed catalogues. These "publisher's catalogues" have proved a very valuable means of identifying and ascertaining facts about Mentelin's prints, because he usually appended neither name, place nor date to his works. His type is nearly always conspicuous as being a simplified Gothic round-hand (the minuscule used in the books of the period). Though they cannot compare either in design or technical finish with those of Gutenberg and Schoffer, they are not without some original features especially in the capital letters, which occur both in flourishing Gothic and in the simple Roman lapidary style. Of his large printed works, about 30 in number, including at least 35 large folio volumes, the following are the most conspicuous: the Latin edition of the Bible of 1460, and 1463; the German Bible, about 1466, also the first editions of the writings of St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Aristotle, Isidore, and the "Canon" of Avicenna. The business was carried on by his Adolf Rusch, and afterwards by Johann Pruss. Although Mentelin cannot be reckoned the inventor the art of printing books, as his grandson Johan Schott claimed in 1521, he was nevertheless one of the most skilful of the early typographers. SCHMIDT, Gesch. der altest Bibliotheken und der ersten Buchdrucker zu Strassburg (1882); Allg. deutsch. Biog., XXI (Leipzig, 1885). HEINRICH WILH. WALLAU Benedetto Menzini Benedetto Menzini Priest and poet, b. at Florence, 1646; d. at Rome, 7 Sept., 1704. His family being poor, he early gave himself up to teaching, becoming a professor of belles-lettres at Florence and Prato. He was already in Holy Orders. In 1681 he failed to obtain the chair of rhetoric in the University of Pisa partly because of the jealousy of other clerics and partly because of the acrimony constantly shown by him in his words and acts. In 1685 he went to Rome and enjoyed the favour of Queen Christina of Sweden, until her death in 1689. Pope Innocent XII then gave him a canonry, and appointed him to a chair of rhetoric in one of the institutions of the city of Rome Following the models provided by the poems of Chiabrera and Testi, Menzini wrote his Pindaric "Canzoni eroiche e morali" (1674-80). These observe the Greek division -- strophe, antistrophe, and deal with subjects that were also engaging the attention of the contemporary poet Filicaja, e.g., the freeing of Venice, the taking of Budapest. Some seventeen of his elegies treat of matters of various interest. The poem "Il Paradiso terrestre" is almost continuation of the "Mondo creato" of Tasso, Menzini's favourite poet. In the "Academia Turculana" in mingled prose and verse, he introduces leading spirits of the time, who discuss subjects of many sorts. The pastoral note was struck by him with no little success in his "Sonetti pastorali" and in his "Canzonette anacreontiche" he produced a number of graceful little lyrics. Perhaps the most famous work of Menzini is his satires, some thirteen in number, in which he assails in acrid terms the hypocrisy prevailing in Tuscany in the last years of the Medici rule. In like fashion he lashes in his "Arte poetica" the artificiality and the uncouthness of the versifiers of his time. Opere (4 vols., Florence, 1731); Satire (Amsterdam, 1728) and Borghini, III (1876); PAOLUCCI, Vita di Benedetto Menzini (FIorence, 1732); Magrini, Studio critico su Benedetto Menzini (Naples, 1885); TONCHINI, Benedetto Menzini e le sue opere (Cairo, 1893). For more recent edition of his work see Satire, rime e lettere scelte di Benedetto Menzini (Florence, 1874). J.D.M. FORD Eustache Mercade Eustache Mercade French dramatic poet of the fifteenth century. The dates of his birth and death are not known. In 1414 he was official of the Abbey of Corble near Amiens. According to a document that has been discovered quite recently, he was removed from his office in 1427 but was reinstated in 1437, in accordance with a decision of the court of the Chatelet which was ratified by the Parliament of Paris on 2 May, 1439. Martin Franc, or "le Franc", who wrote in the middle of the fifteenth century, mentions Mercade as one of the most famous "rhetoricians" of the time. In the "Mystery" that he composed, the author mentioned on the back of the last but one sheet: Ustasse Mercade, Docteur en decret, Bachelier en theologie, Official de Corbie. The complete title of the Mystery to which he has attached his name is: "La Vie, la Passion et la Vengeance de Jesus Christ." It is kept in the library of Arras under No. 625; the last part only, or the Vengeance, should be considered as the work of Mercade. It contains 312 characters, of whom 112 have a speaking part. PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Les Mysteres (Paris, 1880), CREIZENACH, Geschichte des neuern Dramas (Halle,1893), Memoires des Antiquaires de Picardie, VIII. P.J. MARIQUE Mercedarians Mercedarians (Order of Our Lady of Mercy). A congregation of men founded in 1218 by St. Peter Nolasco, born 1189, at Mas-des-Saintes-Puelles, Department of Aude, France. Joining Simon de Montfort's army, then attacking the Albigenses, he was appointed tutor to the young king, James of Aragon, who had succeeded to the throne after the death of his father, Pedro II, killed at the battle of Muret. Peter Nolasco followed his pupil to his capital, Barcelona, in 1215. From the year 1192 certain noblemen of that city had formed a confraternity for the purpose of caring for the sick in hospitals, and also for rescuing Christian captives from the Moors. Peter Nolasco was requested by the Blessed Virgin in a vision to found an order especially devoted to the ransom of captives. His confessor, St Raymond of Pennafort, the canon of Barcelona, encouraged and assisted him in this project; and King James also extended his protection. The noblemen already referred to were the first monks of the order, and their headquarters was the convent St. Eulalie of Barcelona, erected 1232. They had both religious in holy orders, and lay monks or knights; the choir monks were clothed in tunic, scapular, and cape of white. These religious followed the rule drawn up for them by St Raymond of Pennafort. The order was approved, first by Honorius III and then by Gregory IX (1230), the latter, at the request of St Raymond Nonnatus presented by St Peter Nolasco, granted a Bull of confirmation and prescribed the Rule of St. Augustine, the former rule now forming the constitutions (1235). St. Peter was the first superior, with the title of Commander-General; he also filled the office of Ransomer, a title given to the monk sent into the lands subject to the Moors to arrange for the ransom of prisoners. The holy founder died in 1256, seven years after having resigned his superiorship; he was succeeded by Guillaume Le Bas. The development of the order was immediate and widespread throughout France, England, Germany, Portugal, and Spain. As the Moors were driven back, new convents of Mercy were established. Houses were founded at Montpelier, Perpignan, Toulouse, and Vich. The great number of houses, however, had a weakening effect on the uniformity of observance of the rule. To correct this, Bernard de Saint-Romain, the third commander general (1271), codified the decisions of the general chapters. In the fourteenth century, disputes arose from the rivalry between the convents of Barcelona and Puy, and from the discord between the priests and knights, which ended in the latter's suppression, disturbed the peace of the order. Christopher Columbus took some members of the Order of Mercy with him to America, where they founded a great many convents in Latin America, throughout Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Ecuador. These formed no less than eight provinces, whereas they only had three in Spain and one in France. This order took a very active part in the conversion of the Indians. At the beginning of the seventeenth century Father Gonzales, who had made his profession in the convent of Olmedo in 1573, conceived the idea of a reform, at that time necessary. The commander-general, Alfonso de Montoy, at first supported this scheme, but ended by opposing it. In this undertaking, Gonzales was assisted by the Countess of Castellan, who obtained for him the necessary authorization from Clement VIII, and presented him with three convents for the reformed monks (at Viso, Diocese of Seville; Almoragha, Diocese of Cadiz; Ribas). The reform was confirmed at the provincial chapter of Guadelajara in 1603. Father Gonzales took the name of John Baptist of the Blessed Sacrament, and died at Madrid in 1618. Paul V approved his reform in 1606; in 1621 Gregory XV declared it independent of the monks of the Great Observance. Their convents formed two provinces, with houses at Madrid, Salamanca, Seville, and Alcala, with a few foundations in Sicily. Father Antoine Velasco founded a convent of nuns of Our Lady of Mercy at Seville in 1568, of which the first superioress was Blessed Ann of the Cross. This foundation had been authorized by Pius V. The reformed branch also established houses of barefooted nuns, or Nuns of the Recollection, at Lura, Madrid, Santiago de Castile, Fuentes, Thoro, and elsewhere. The female tertiaries go back to the very beginning of the order (1265). Two widows of Barcelona, Isabel Berti and Eulalie Peins, whose confessor was Blessed Bernard of Corbario, prior of the convent there, were the foundresses. They were joined by several companions, among them St. Mary of Succour (d. 31 Decemb., 1281), the first superior of the community. Blessed Mary Anne of Jesus (d. 1624) founded another community of tertiaries, under the jurisdiction of the reformed branch. The Order of Mercy of late years has much decreased in membership. The restoration of the reformed convent at Thoro, Diocese of Zamora, Spain, is worthy of note (1888). At present the order has one province and one vice-province in Europe, and four provinces and two vice-provinces in America, with thirty-seven convents and five to six hundred members. The Mercedarian convents are in Palermo; Spain; Venezuela (Caracas, Maracaibo); Peru (Lima); Chile (Santiago); Argentina (Cordova, Mendoza); Ecuador (Quito); and Uruguay. The Mercedarians of Cordova publish "Revista Mercedaria". Besides the founder, St. Peter Nolasco, the following illustrious members of the order may be mentioned: St. Raymond Nonnatus (d. 1240), the most famous of the monks who gave themselves up to the work of ransoming captives; Blessed Bernard of Corbario, already mentioned; St. Peter Paschal, Bishop of Jaen, who devoted all his energies to the ransom of captives and the conversion of the Musselmans, martyred in 1300; St. Raymond was a cardinal, as also were Juan de Luto and Father de Salazar. It is unnecessary to enumerate the archbishops and bishops. Writers were numerous, especially in Spain and Latin America in the seventeenth century. To mention only a few: Alfonso Henriquez de Almendaris, Bishop of Cuba, who founded a college for his order at Seville, and from whom Philip III received an interesting report on the spiritual and temporal condition of his diocese in 1623; Alfonso de Monroy, who drew up the constitutions of the reform, and who was a bishop in America; Alfonso Ramon, theologian, preacher, and annalist of his order; Alfonso Velasquez de Miranda (1661), who took a considerable part in political affairs; Fernando de Orio, general of the order, who translated and learnedly commented on Tertullian's treatise "De Poenitentia"; Fernando de Santiago (1639), one of the favourite preachers of his time; Francisco Henriquez; Francisco de Santa Maria; Francisco Zumel; Gabriel de Adarzo (1674), theologian, preacher, and statesman; Gabreil Tellez (1650), dramatic author; Gaspar de Torrez, Bishop of the Canary Islands; Pedro de Ona, whom Philip III sent on important missions both in America and in the Kingdom of Naples. J. M. BESSE Louis-Honore Mercier Louis-Honore Mercier A French Canadian statesman, b. 15 October, 1840, at Ibervile, Quebec, of a family of farmers; d. 30 October, 1894. He received his classical education at the Jesuit college, Montreal, and prepared for the Bar in the employ of a prominent legal firm of St-Hyacinthe, acting meanwhile (1862), when only 22, as editor of "Le Courrier de St-Hyacinthe". His view were then opposed to the confederation of the provinces, which he considered as the death-blow to French Canadian influence. In his later years he inclined towards annexation to the United States. In 1873 Rouville county elected him for the Federal Parliament; and, in 1881, St-Hyacinthe returned him to the local House of Assembly, Quebec. The general indignation caused among the Canadians of French origin by the execution of the half-breed leader, louis Riel, at Regina, an act rightly attributed to Orange fanaticism and vindictiveness, provided Mercier with the opportunity of founding the National party (1885) which comprised elements from the ranks of both Liberals and Conservatives. It was during his premiership (1887 to 1892), that was passed the famous Jesuit Estate Bill, partly indemnifying the Society for the properties confiscated by the British Crown after the cession of Canada. It was Mercier's honour and merit to have brought to a successful conclusion the negotiations to that effect pursued under his predecessors in office -- an event almost unparalelled in modern legislation, and to which the Ottawa Federal Parliament, with its conservative majority, lent its concurrence. His devotedness in behalf of the interests of his former teachers proved is fidelity and attachment to his Alma Mater. In recognition of this act of justice, he was knighted by Leo XIII. A vigorous and redoubtable debater rather than an eloquent orator, Mercier spoke with great clearness and force. He possessed a remarkable talent of exposition and argumentation, which gave him a prominent rank in the Canadian Bar. Certain utterances in some of his published speeches unfortunately betray the influence of a reprehensible school of thought and too great intimacy with the literature of its representative minds. The Legislature of Quebec has voted (1910) a monument to his memory. PELLAND, Biographie, discours, conferences, etc., de l'Hon. Honore Mercier (Montreal, 1890); Le Courrier du Canada (Quebec, 1894). LIONEL LINDSAY Geronimo Mercuriali Geronimo Mercuriali Better known by his Latin name Mercurialis, famous philologist and physician, b. at Forli, 30 September, 1530; d. there, 13 November, 1606. His preliminary studies and some of his medical courses were taken at Bologna, but he received his degree at Padua and then settled down to practice in Forli. He was sent by his townfolk on a political mission to Paul IV and made such good friends at Rome that he was persuaded to take up his residence there. He studied the old classic medical writers for some seven years and then wrote is "De arte gymnastica", in which he gathered all that the ancients had taught with regard to the use of natural methods for the cure of disease. This gave him a great reputation throughout Europe. Appreciation of it by the Venetian senators led to his call to the chair of medicine of Padua in 1569. Here he devoted himself to the critical study of the works of Hippocrates. His exhaustive monograph, "Censura e dispositio operum Hippocratis" (Venice, 1583), enhanced his reputation and he began the preparation of a critical study of Hippocrates' works in Greek and Latin, which was published at Venice, 1588. In the meantime his reputation had gone abroad, and in 1573 he was called to Vienna for consultation during the illness of Emperor Maximilian. The emperor was so pleased with his service that he made him Count Palatine. After the publication of further works on the medical classics, he was called in 1587 to the chair of medicine in Bologna. The Grand Duke of Tuscany was sparing no effort to increase the prestige of the University of Pisa, so he tempted Mercurialis to accept the chair of medicine there by the offer of a salary probably the largest ever paid to a professor up to this time, 1800 gold crowns to become 2000 crowns after the second year. He remained at Pisa till his seventy-fifth year when he retired to Forli. His great merit is his critical study of the ancient medical classics, especially Hippocrates and his disciples. He wrote many other medical works including text books of the diseases of children, of women, of the skin, and on practical medicine; all of which were widely read and used in many of the medical schools of his time. Dictionnaire historique de la Medecine (Mons, 1778); BRAMBILLA, Storia delle scoperte fatte dagli uomini illustri Italiani (Milan, 1780); Biographie medicale (Paris, 1824). JAMES J. WALSH Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy Founded at Mechlin in 1839 by Canon J. B. Cornelius Scheppers for the instruction and care of prisoners and of the sick. They were invited to S. Balbina in Perugia by Cardinal Pecci, afterwards Leo XIII, who had witnessed their work while he was nuncio at Brussels. It was at his instance that Pius IX confirmed the institution of the brothers in 1854. In 1855 Cardinal Manning invited them to London, where they have undertaken the care of the prisoners in Catholic reformatories and are also occupied with the education of the children of the poor. They are under simple vows and the term of the novitiate is one year. They wear a black habit and scapular with a brown cross on the breast. BLANCHE M. KELLY Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy Mercy as it is here contemplated is said to be a virtue influencing one's will to have compassion for, and, if possible, to alleviate another's misfortune. It is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that although mercy is as it were the spontaneous product of charity, yet it is to be reckoned a special virtue adequately distinguishable from this latter. In fact the Scholastics in cataloguing it consider it to be referable to the quality of justice mainly because, like justice, it controls relations between distinct persons. It is as they say ad alterum. Its motive is the misery which one discerns in another, particularly in so far as this condition is deemed to be, in some sense at least, involuntary. Obviously the necessity which is to be succoured can be either of body or soul. Hence it is customary to enumerate both corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The traditional enumeration of the corporal works of mercy is as follows: + To feed the hungry; + To give drink to the thirsty; + To clothe the naked; + To harbour the harbourless; + To visit the sick; + To ransom the captive; + To bury the dead. The spiritual works of mercy are: + To instruct the ignorant; + To counsel the doubtful; + To admonish sinners; + To bear wrongs patiently; + To forgive offences willingly; + To comfort the afflicted; + To pray for the living and the dead. It will be seen from these divisions that the works of mercy practically coincide with the various forms of almsgiving. It is thus that St. Thomas regards them. The word alms of course is a corruption of the Greek elenmosyne (mercy). The doing of works of mercy is not merely a matter of exalted counsel; there is as well a strict precept imposed both by the natural and the positive Divine law enjoining their performance. That the natural law enjoins works of mercy is based upon the principle that we are to do to others as we would have them do to us. The Divine command is set forth in the most stringent terms by Christ, and the failure to comply with it is visited with the supreme penalty of eternal damnation (Matthew 25:41): "Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, in everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in; naked, and you covered me not; sick and in prison, and you did not visit me", etc. Here it is true there is mention directly and explicitly of only the corporal works of mercy. As, however, the spiritual works of mercy deal with a distress whose relief is even more imperative as well as more effective for the grand purpose of man's creation, the injunction must be supposed to extend to them also. Besides there are the plain references of Christ to such works as fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15) as well as the forgiveness of injuries (Matthew 6:14). It has to be remembered however that the precept is an affirmative one, that is, it is of the sort which is always binding but not always operative, for lack of matter or occasion or fitting circumstances. It obliges, as the theologians say, semper sed non pro semper. Thus in general it may be said that the determination of its actual obligatory force in a given case depends largely on the degree of distress to be aided, and the capacity or condition of the one whose duty in the matter is in question. There are easily recognizable limitations which the precept undergoes in practice so far as the performance of the corporal works of mercy are concerned. These are treated in the article on Alms and Almsgiving. Likewise the law imposing spiritual works of mercy is subject in individual instances to important reservations. For example, it may easily happen that an altogether special measure of tact and prudence, or, at any rate, some definite superiority is required for the discharge of the oftentimes difficult task of fraternal correction. Similarly to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, and console the sorrowing is not always within the competency of every one. To bear wrongs patiently, to forgive offences willingly, and to pray for the living and the dead are things from which on due occasion no one may dispense himself on the pleas that he has not some special array of gifts required for their observance. They are evidently within the reach of all. It must not be forgotten that the works of mercy demand more than a humanitarian basis if they are to serve as instruments in bringing about our eternal salvation. The proper motive is indispensable and this must be one drawn from the supernatural order. Finally it is interesting to note that for the exercise of the sixth among the corporal works of mercy two religious orders have at different times in the history of the Church been instituted. In the year 1198 the Trinitarians were founded by St. John of Matha and St. Felix of Valois, and just twenty years later St. Peter Nolasco and St. Raymond of Pennafort established the Order of Our Lady of Ransom. Both of these communities had as their chief scope the recovery of Christians who were held captive by the infidels. In the religious body which owes its origin to St. Peter Nolasco, the members took a fourth vow to surrender their own persons in place of those whom they were not otherwise able to redeem from slavery. SPIRAGO, The Cathechism Explained (New York, 1899); WALSH, The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries (New York, 1907); LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg, 1887); BILLUART, Summa Sancti Thomae (Paris); ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica (Turin, 1885). JOSEPH F. DELANY Sisters of Mercy Sisters of Mercy A congregation of women founded in Dublin, Ireland, in 1827, by Catherine Elizabeth McAuley, born 29 September, 1787, at Stormanstown House, County Dublin. Descended from an ancient and distinguished Catholic family, she was the eldest of three children. At a time when Catholicism was crushed, Mr. McAuley strove as much as was possible to keep the faith alive in those who had so many inducements to relinquish it, and engaged in many charitable works. In these he was little assisted by Mrs. McAuley, whose charm and accomplishments made her a favourite in society. After Mr. McAuley's death (1794) the pecuniary affairs of the family became so involved that the widow sold Stormanstown House and removed to Dublin. Here the family came so completely under the influence of Protestant fashionable society that all, with the exception of Catherine, became Protestants. She revered the memory of her father too greatly to embrace a religion he abhorred. Mrs. McAuley did not long survive her husband, and after her death the orphans passed into the family of a relative who invested their patrimony for their benefit. From one relative to another the orphans passed, each guardian doing all in his power to strengthen the children in the Protestant religion. Catherine, however, could not be induced by threats or promises to join in Protestant worship, for she clung with strange pertinacity to the very name Catholic; but having no one to consult in her doubts, she finally became unsettled in her religious ideas. Precocious and serious beyond her years, she grew daily more alive to the insecurity of her spiritual position, and finally acceded to the desires of her friends to examine the religion she saw practised among her truly virtuous relatives. The more she read, the more she thought and studied, the stronger her doubts in regard to Protestantism became. Its dissensions and contradictions, the coldness and the barrenness of its spiritual life, repelled her and all thought of becoming a Protestant died away. Catherine is described as being beautiful, her complexion was very fair, her eyes blue, and her hair golden; her nature was singularly unselfish, amiable, and affectionate. Though several advantageous alliances were proposed, nothing could induce her to marry. More and more attracted to the faith of her father, Catherine became acquainted with Dean Lube of St. James' Church, Dublin, and Dr. Betagh, whose friendship greatly aided her. About this time a distant relative of her mother's, returning from India, purchased Coolock House, a few miles from Dublin, and being attracted by Catherine's appearance, desired to adopt her; consequently, in the year 1803 Catherine removed to her new and beautiful home. Catherine's interior disquietude now became such that she determined to follow the dictates of her conscience. She sought an interview with Rev. Dr. Murray, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin, and shortly after was received into the Church. Her kind guardians allowed her to practise the charitable works to which she felt inclined and even provided her with the necessary means; but they were so opposed to everything having an appearance of Catholicism that they would not allow a crucifix, religious picture, or any pious article in the house, nor did they make any provision for fast days. Her sacrifices and prayers were rewarded by the conversion of Mrs. Callahan, on her death bed; and in 1822 Mr. Callahan also, when dying, was duly reconciled. To Catherine he left his entire fortune. She immediately devised a system of distributing food and clothing to the poor who flocked to Coolock House, and her time was fully devoted to these works of charity, to visiting the sick and to instructing the poor. When Catherine came into full possession of her property, she felt that God required her to do something permanent for the poor, and she was now able to carry out her early visions of founding an institution in which women might, when out of work, find a temporary home. In this undertaking Rev. Dr. Blake and Rev. Dr. Armstrong were her advisors. After some deliberation, these clergymen selected a site for the new building at the junction of lower Baggot and Herbert Streets, Dublin, and in June, 1824, the corner-stone was laid by the Rev. Dr. Blake. As Dr. Blake was called to Rome soon after, the Rev. Edward Armstrong undertook to assist her, but died before the work was completed. On the feast of Our Lady of Mercy, 24 September, 1827, the new institution for destitute women, orphans, and poor schools was opened and Catherine, with two companions, undertook its management. There was no idea then of founding a religious institution; on the contrary, the foundress's plan was to establish a society of secular ladies who would spend a few hours daily in instructing the poor. Gradually the interior life of these associates and their external occupations and relations became too much like the monastic life to be allowed to remain under secular rule. The ladies had already assumed a sombre dress and playfully called each other "Sister"; moreover, they occasionally took a meal on the premises and even at times remained over night. In 1828 the archbishop permitted the staff of the institute to assume a distinctive dress and to publicly visit the sick. The uniform adopted was a black dress and cape of the same material reaching to the belt, a white collar and a lace cap and veil -- such a costume as is now worn by the postulants of the congregation. In the same year the archbishop desired Miss McAuley to choose some name by which the little community might be known, and she chose that of "Sisters of Mercy", having the design of making the works of mercy the distinctive feature of the institute. She was, moreover, desirous that the members should combine with the silence and prayer of the Carmelite, the active labours of a Sister of Charity. The position of the institute was anomalous, its members were not bound by vows nor were they restrained by rules and Dr. Blake held a consultation with the archbishop in which it was decided that the Sisters of Mercy must declare their intentions as to the future of their institute, whether it was to be classed as a religious congregation or to become secularized. The associates unanimously decided to become religious. It was deemed better to have this congregation unconnected with any already existing community. The Sisters of Mercy were now bound to the laborious duties of instructing the ignorant, visiting the sick and imprisoned, managing hospitals, orphanages, and homes for distressed women; in fact to every work of mercy. They were to make perpetual vows, observe choir, and spend some six or seven hours daily in spiritual exercises and about three weeks altogether in strict retreat; the midsummer retreat proper covering eight full days, a triduum occupying the last three days of each year, and the first Sunday of every month except two being devoted in silence to a preparation for death. On the Octave of the Ascension 1829 the archbishop blessed the chapel of the institution and dedicated it to Our Lady of Mercy. This combination of the contemplative and the active life necessary for the duties of the congregation called forth so much opposition that it seemed as though the community, now numbering twelve, must disband; but it was settled that several of the sisters should make their novitiates in some approved religious house and after their profession return to the institute to train the others to religious life. In June, 1830, the institute received from Pope Pius VIII a Rescript of Indulgences dated 23 May, 1830. The Presentation Order, whose rules are based upon those of St. Austin, seemed the one best adapted for the training of the first novices of the new congregation and Miss Catherine McAuley, Miss Elizabeth Harley, and Miss Anna Maria Doyle began their novitiate at George's Hill, Dublin, on 8 Sept., 1830. On the second day of the Octave of the Immaculate Conception 1830 the three postulants received the habit and on 12 December, 1831, they pronounced the usual three vows to which they added a fourth, that of persevering in the congregation until death. Miss McAuley, now known as Sister Mary Catherine, was appointed first superior of the congregation, an office which she held for the remainder of her life. The office of superior of each mother-house of the congregation is held for three years except in the case of a foundress when it may be held for six years. The costume adopted by the sisters consists of a habit of black material falling in folds from the throat to the feet and lengthened into a train behind, which is worn looped up except in the chapel, the community-room, and the parlour. The habit is confined to the waist by a leather girdle, or cincture, from which depends a black rosary with the ebony cross of the congregation. The sleeves are long and wide with close-fitting undersleeves of the same material as the habit. The veil is black, long, and flowing. The novices wear shorter veils of white cambric, otherwise their dress is the same as that of the professed sisters. Church cloaks of white woollen material are worn on great feasts in the chapel and for certain ceremonies. The gimp is a white linen collar, very deep in front. The coif is of white linen. The rule and constitutions of the congregation were not completed until 1834, nor approved until 1835, yet they contained in substance only that which had been observed from the year 1827. The basis of the rule was that of St. Austin although circumstances required many alterations before its approval. Kingstown was the first place outside the capital in which a house of the congregation was opened, and outside of the archdiocese Tullamore was the first town to welcome the sisters. In 1838, at the suggestion of Rev. Peter Butler of Bermondsey, some English ladies came to Ireland to serve a novitiate for the purpose of introducing the congregation into England. Upon their return, Mother M. Clare Moore was appointed the superior of the Bermondsey Convent. Lady Barbara Eyre, daughter of the Catholic Earl of Newburgh, was the first one to be received into the new congregation. As Sister Mary de Sales, she made her vows in 1841 and after a very edifying life died in 1849. From England the congregation rapidly spread, beginning with Guernsey, one of the Channel Islands (1868). Through the efforts of Bishop Murdock, the sisters from Limerick opened a house in Glasgow (1849). Under the patronage of Dr. Brady, Bishop of Perth, the sisters were introduced into Australia (1846). Three years later, Bishop Pompallier, of New Zealand, brought a band from Carlow, Ireland. In May, 1842, at the request of Bishop Flemming, a small colony of Sisters of Mercy crossed the Atlantic to found the congregation at St. John's, New Foundland. In September, 1843, Bishop O'Connor, of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, U. S. A., applied to Carlow for a colony of Sisters of Mercy for his diocese. Seven religious were appointed for this mission of whom Mother Francis Warde (see WARDE), was the first superior. On the 22 December, 1843, the sisters opened the first house of the congregation in the United States. In 1844 they opened the parochial school attached to the cathedral. In 1845 St. Xavier's Academy and Boarding-school was begun. In 1846 the sisters took charge of the orphans, and on the first day of the year 1847 the first hospital in Western Pennsylvania was opened under their management. In 1846 Oittsburg sent out its first foundation to Chicago under Mother M. Agatha O'Brien. This was in reality the second house of the congregation asked for in the United States, although it could not be opened until several months after the New York community had crossed the ocean. In 1850 at the request of Bishop O'Reilly of Pittsburg, the sisters opened a school in Providence, Rhode Island. This state was considered the most bitter opponent of Catholicism in the Union, and the most bitter people in the state were thought to be concentrated in its capital; accordingly this foundation called for heroic souls, and one of the foremost of these was Rev. Mother Warde, who had just resigned the office of superior in the Pittsburg community. In 1855 Pittsburg sent out its third foundation to Baltimore at the solicitation of the Rev. Edward McColgan. Towards the close of 1845 Bishop Hughes of New York applied to Baggot Street, the mother-house of the entire congregation, for sisters for his diocese. This was a difficult request to grant, as that house had been greatly diminished by the many calls made upon it. The bishop was referred to Mother M. Agnes O'Connor, who had gone to England for the purpose of opening a new convent there and then returning to Dublin. Upon her consent to return with the bishop, five sisters, a novice, and a postulant from different houses formed her band. Arriving in New York City, 14 May, 1846, the sisters found a temporary home in Washington Place; but two years later secured a larger house at the corner of Houston and Mulberry Streets. In 1869 St. Joseph's Industrial Home for girls was opened on Madison Avenue, corner of Eighty-first Street. They have also opened a Home for Boys in Tarrytown-on-the-Hudson and a Home for Business Women in West One Hundred and Sixth Street, New York City. Later the community moved to a new building adjoining their Industrial Home for Girls on Madison Avenue. From New York, houses have been established in St. Louis, Brooklyn, Worcester, Greenbush (now Rensselaer), and in Eureka, California. The first American postulant to enter the New York house was Josephine, second daughter of Mother Seton, foundress of the Sisters of Charity of Emmitsburg, Maryland. In 1854 the Rev. Hugh Gallagher visited Kinsale Convent, Ireland, on the part of Bishop Allemany to procure the Sisters of Mercy for his diocese of San Francisco, California. Among those selected for this mission was Sister Mary Baptist Russell, a sister of Lord Chief Justice Russell of Killowen. From these beginnings, the Sisters of Mercy have spread throughout the world. In Ireland, England, the United States, in Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South America, Mexico, and the West Indies their name is well known. Statistics Number of Sisters of Mercy in the United States of America, 4732; pupils in parochial schools, 104,726; orphans and children in institutions, 3834; pupils in academies and high schools, 9967; hospitals conducted by Sisters of Mercy, 53; orphanages, 67. Annals of the Sisters of Mercy; MURPHY, Sketches of Irish Nunneries (London, 1866); CARROLL, Life of Catherine McAuley (London, s. d.); MEMBER OF THE ORDER OF MERCY, Life of Catherine McAuley. MARY STANISLAS AUSTIN. Sisters of Mercy of St. Borromeo Sisters of Mercy of St. Borromeo Originally a pious association of ladies formed in 1626 for the care of the sick in the hospital of St. Charles at Nancy, but constituted a religious community in 1652 after being generously endowed by the father of Emmanuel Chauvenel, a young advocate who had given his life in the service of the sick. The members placed themselves under the patronage of St. Charles Borromeo, the Apostle of Charity, and adapted the rules and constitutions drawn up by Pere Epiphane Louys, Abbot of Estival and Vicar-General of the Reformed Premonstratensians. By the middle of the eighteenth century the congregation was in charge of numerous hospitals, and shortly afterwards took up as an additional task the Christian education of children. During the Revolutionary period the members, although dispersed and deprived of their garb, continued their work so heroically as to win the encomiums of their persecutors. On 22 July, 1804, they reassumed their religious habit, obtained the approval of Napoleon, and were soon in a flourishing condition. Their rule, based on that of St. Augustine, received papal approbation in 1859, and additional constitutions were confirmed by Leo XIII in 1892. Their work includes the direction of all manner of charitable institutions, such as domestic and trade schools, homes for first communicants, protectories, poor-houses, homes for defectives, and female reformatories, as well as the care of the sick in their homes. They also have charge of schools, including a number of normal institutes in Austria. Candidates must spend one year as postulants and from three to four and a half years as novices before being admitted to the congregation. The auxiliary sisters for the care of the sick renew their vows annually. There are several entirely independent branches of Borromean Sisters. In 1838 one was established by Aloysius Joseph Freiherr von Schrenk, Prince-Bishop of Prague (died 1849), which was confirmed as a separate congregation in 1841, and now numbers 900 members in 102 houses, chiefly in Bohemia, Moravia, and Upper and Lower Austria. In 1848 Melchior Freiherr von Diepenbrock, Prince-Bishop of Breslau, invited the Prague Borromeans to found a house at Neisse, which, in 1857, was raised to the rank of the mother-house of a separate congregation. Later the mother-house was transferred to Trebnitz, and temporarily, during the Kulturkampf, to Teschen, where a provincial house for Austria was later established (1889). A house of this congregation founded at Alexandria in 1884 was, in 1894, made a provincial mother-house and a novitiate for the Orient, with the direction of schools, an asylum for the aged, and a hospice for German pilgrims. Affiliated foundations have been made at Jerusalem (1886), Haifa (1888), Cairo (1904), and Emmaus. The members of the Trebnitz congregation number 1900, in 211 houses. In 1811 a foundation was made from Nancy at Trier whence the congregation spread to other cities of Western Germany. In 1849 a provincial house was erected at Trier which by decree of Pius IX (18 September, 1872), was made the mother-house of an independent congregation. A famous Borromean institution is St. Hedwig's Hospital at Berlin, founded in 1846 by Angelika Eschweiler. The Trier branch comprises over 1200 sisters in 70 houses. A foundation was also made at Maastricht in 1837 by Peter Anton van Baer. Hist. de la cong. des soeurs de St. Charles (Nancy, 1898); HORN, Die Nancy-Trierer Borromaerinnen (1899); IDEM, Barmherzige Schwestern von hl. Karl Borromaeus 1652-1900 (1900); HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen (2 vols., 1896). Florence Rudge McGahan. Edward Meredith Edward Meredith English Catholic controversialist, b. in 1648, was a son of the rector of Landulph, Cornwall. He studied with distinction at Westminster School and in 1665 was elected to a scholarship at Christ Church, Oxford. In 1668 he went to Spain as secretary of the ambassador, Sir William Godolphin, and while residing there embraced the Catholic faith. He returned to England after three years and engaged in a religious controversy with Stillingfleet (8 August, 1671). In this discussion, an account of which he published in 1684, he was aided by Edmund Coleman, who was executed seven years later for alleged complicity in the Titus Oates plot. In 1682 Meredith wrote a reply to one Samuel Johnson, who had libelled the Duke of York in a work entitled "Julian the Apostle". on 7 September 1684, he entered the Jesuit novitiate at Watten, Flanders, under the name of Langford (or Langsford). He evidently returned in a few years to England, where he published several controversial pamphlets. On the fall of James II, he withdrew to Saint-Germain. He was resident in Rome during the years 1700 and 1701: the year of his death is uncertain, but his will, dated 1715, is said to be preserved in the archives of the English College, Rome. He translated from the Latin a devotional work under the title "A Journal of Meditations for every day of the year" (London, 1687). FOLEY, Collectanea Eng. Prov. S.J., part I (London. 1882), 502. A.A. MACERLEAN Merida Diocese of Merida (EMERITENSIS IN INDIIS) A suffragan see of Santiago of Venezuela or Caracas, comprises the State of Los Andes, and part of Zulia and Zamora. It lies in the north-western portion of the republic, to the south of Lake Maracaibo. Until 17 Jan., 1905, it included the territory of the Goajira. Merida was first erected into a bishopric on 17 Feb., 1777. Its first bishop, Juan Ramos de Lora, a Franciscan, born at Palacios y Villafranca, Diocese of Seville, in 1722, was nominated in the consistory of 23 Sept., 1782, and was a suffragan of Santa Fe de Bogota. His immediate successors were Emanuelo Candido de Terrissos in 1791; and in 1795 Antonio Espinosa, of Corvera in the Diocese of Saragossa. In 1801 Pius VII appointed Jaime Hernandez Milanes of Nieza, in the Diocese of Salamanca. By a Bull of the same pontiff, "In Universalis Ecclesiae", 24 Oct., 1803, Merida became suffragan to Caracas, which had just been raised to the archiepiscopal rank. In 1816 Rafael Laso de La Vega was elected bishop. Owing to the troubles consequent on the rebellion against Spain, Leo XII nominated Bonaventura Arias in the consistory of 2 Oct., 1826, as auxiliary bishop. When Bishop Laso was transferred to Quito, 15 Dec., 1828, Mgr Arias continued to govern the diocese till Gregory XVI declared him a vicar Apostolic. His successor, Jose Vicente Unda of Guanara, was nominated in the consistory of 11 July, 1836, and on his death, 27 Jan., 1842, Juan Ilario Boset, of Puerto de Gueya, was elected. The present occupant of the see is Mgr Antonio Raymondo Silva, born at Caracas, 26 June, 1850, and elected 21 May, 1894. The diocese contains 15 vicariates, 108 parishes, 150 churches and chapels, 100 priests, and a population of about 450,000, all Catholics except about 20,000 pagans, Timotes and Mucuchic Indians, and 300 Protestants and Jews. There are only two religious congregations in the diocese at the present time (1910): + the Sisters of Saint Rosa of Lima, at Merida, San Cristobal, and Rubio, a diocesan order devoted to hospital and orphanage work; + the Servants of the Holy Family, with houses at La Grita, San Cristobal, and Tariba. The fine cathedral is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. The city of Merida stands at an elevation of 5500 feet on the right bank of the Rio Chamo in a valley of the Sierra Nevada, which here rises to about 15,000 feet. It is about 60 miles from Lake Maracaibo and 300 from Caracas. The city was founded by Juan Rodriguez Suarez in 1558 under the name of Santiago de los Caballeros. It suffered severely from earthquakes, notably in 1644, 1812, and 1894, notwithstanding which it is a thriving business town with 12,000 inhabitants. The old seminary was changed into a university in 1810, and still flourishes, besides that of Caracas. Boletin de Estadistica de los Estados Unidos de Venezuela (Caracas, 1905), 224-27. A.A. MACERLEAN Merit Merit By merit (meritum) in general is understood that property of a good work which entitles the doer to receive a reward (proemium, merces) from him in whose service the work is done. By antonomasia, the word has come to designate also the good work itself, in so far as it deserves a reward from the person in whose service it was performed. In the theological sense, a supernatural merit can only be a salutary act (actus salutaris), to which God in consequence of his infallible promise owes a supernatural reward, consisting ultimately in eternal life, which is the beatific vision in heaven. As the main purpose of this article is to vindicate the Catholic doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, the subject is treated under the four following heads: + I. Nature of Merit; + II. Existence of Merit; + III. Conditions of Merit, and + IV. Objects of Merit. I. NATURE OF MERIT (a) If we analyse the definition given above, it becomes evident that the property of merit can be found only in works that are positively good, whilst bad works, whether they benefit or injure a third party, contain nothing but demerit (demeritum) and consequently deserve punishment. Thus the good workman certainly deserves the reward of his labour, and the thief deserves the punishment of his crime. From this it naturally follows that merit and reward, demerit and punishment, bear to each other the relation of deed and return; they are correlative terms of which one postulates the other. Reward is due to merit, and the reward is in proportion to the merit. This leads to the third condition, viz., that merit supposes two distinct persons, the one who acquires the merit and the other who rewards it; for the idea of self-reward is just as contradictory as that of self-punishment. Lastly, the relation between merit and reward furnishes the intrinsic reason why in the matter of service and its remuneration the guiding norm can be only the virtue of justice, and not disinterested kindness or pure mercy; for it would destroy the very notion of reward to conceive of it as a free gift of bounty (cf. Rom., xi, 6). If, however, salutary acts can in virtue of the Divine justice give the right to an eternal reward, this is possible only because they themselves have their root in gratuitous grace, and consequently are of their very nature dependent ultimately on grace, as the Council of Trent emphatically declares (Sess. VI, cap. xvi, in Denzinger, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 810): "the Lord . . . whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things, which are His own gifts, be their merits." Ethics and theology clearly distinguish two kinds of merit: + Condign merit or merit in the strict sense of the word (meritum adoequatum sive de condigno), and + congruous or quasi-merit (meritum inadoequatum sive de congruo). Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, "Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter," Muenster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex oequitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum). Hence the reward of congruous merit always depends in great measure on the kindness and liberality of the giver, though not purely and simply on his good will. In applying these notions of merit to man's relation to God it is especially necessary to keep in mind the fundamental truth that the virtue of justice cannot be brought forward as the basis of a real title for a Divine reward either in the natural or in the supernatural order. The simple reason is that God, being self-existent, absolutely independent, and sovereign, can be in no respect bound in justice with regard to his creatures. Properly speaking, man possesses nothing of his own; all that he has and all that he does is a gift of God, and, since God is infinitely self-sufficient, there is no advantage or benefit which man can by his services confer upon Him. Hence on the part of God there can only be question of a gratuitous promise of reward for certain good works. For such works He owes the promised reward, not in justice or equity, but solely because He has freely bound himself, i.e., because of His own attributes of veracity and fidelity. It is on this ground alone that we can speak of Divine justice at all, and apply the principle: Do ut des (cf. St. Augustine, Serm. clviii, c. ii, in P. L., XXXVIII, 863). (b) There remains the distinction between merit and satisfaction; for a meritorious work is not identical, either in concept or in fact, with a satisfactory work. In the language of theology, satisfaction means: + atoning by some suitable service for an injury done to another's honour or for any other offence, in somewhat the same fashion as in modern duelling outraged honour is satisfied by recourse to swords or pistols; + paying off the temporal punishment due to sin by salutary penitential works voluntarily undertaken after one's sins have been forgiven. Sin, as an offence against God, demands satisfaction in the first sense; the temporal punishment due to sin calls for satisfaction in the second sense (see PENANCE). Christian faith teaches us that the Incarnate Son of God by His death on the cross has in our stead fully satisfied God's anger at our sins, and thereby effected a reconciliation between the world and its Creator. Not, however, as though nothing were now left to be done by man, or as though he were now restored to the state of original innocence, whether he wills it or not; on the contrary, God and Christ demand of him that he make the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross his own by personal exertion and co-operation with grace, by justifying faith and the reception of baptism. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that man before, in, and after justification derives his whole capability of meriting and satisfying, as well as his actual merits and satisfactions, solely from the infinite treasure of merits which Christ gained for us on the Cross (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi; Sess. XIV, cap. viii). The second kind of satisfaction, that namely by which temporal punishment is removed, consists in this, that the penitent after his justification gradually cancels the temporal punishments due to his sins, either ex opere operato, by conscientiously performing the penance imposed on him by his confessor, or ex opere operantis, by self-imposed penances (such as prayer, fasting, almsgiving, etc.) and by bearing patiently the sufferings and trials sent by God; if he neglects this, he will have to give full satisfaction (satispassio) in the pains of purgatory (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, can. xiii, in Denzinger, n. 923). Now, if the concept of satisfaction in its twofold meaning be compared with that of merit as developed above, the first general conclusion will be that merit constitutes a debtor who owes a reward, whilst satisfaction supposes a creditor whose demands must be met. In Christ's work of redemption merit and satisfaction materially coincide almost to their full extent, since as a matter of fact the merits of Christ are also works of satisfaction for man. But, since by His Passion and Death He truly merited, not only graces for us, but also external glory for His own Person (His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, His sitting at the right hand of the Father, the glorification of His name of Jesus, etc.), it follows that His personal merit extends further than His satisfaction, as He had no need of satisfying for Himself. The substantial and conceptual distinction between merit and satisfaction holds good when applied to the justified Christian, for every meritorious act has for its main object the increase of grace and of eternal glory, while satisfactory works have for their object the removal of the temporal punishment still due to sin. In practice and generally speaking, however, merit and satisfaction are found in every salutary act, so that every meritorious work is also satisfactory and vice versa. It is indeed also essential to the concept of a satisfactory work of penance that it be penal and difficult, which qualities are not connoted by the concept of merit; but since, in the present state of fallen nature, there neither is nor can be a meritorious work which in one way or another has not connected with it difficulties and hardships, theologians unanimously teach that all our meritorious works without exception bear a penal character and thereby may become automatically works of satisfaction. Against how many difficulties and distractions have we not to contend even during our prayers, which by right should be the easiest of all good works! Thus, prayer also becomes a penance, and hence confessors may in most cases content themselves with imposing prayer as a penance. (Cf. De Lugo, "De poenitentia," disp. xxiv, sect. 3.) (c) Owing to the peculiar relation between and material identity of merit and satisfaction in the present economy of salvation, a twofold value must in general be distinguished in every good work: the meritorious and the satisfactory value. But each preserves its distinctive character, theoretically by the difference in concepts, and practically in this, that the value of merit as such, consisting in the increase of grace and of heavenly glory, is purely personal and is not applicable to others, while the satisfactory value may be detached from the meriting agent and applied to others. The possibility of this transfer rests on the fact that the residual punishments for sin are in the nature of a debt, which may be legitimately paid to the creditor and thereby cancelled not only by the debtor himself but also by a friend of the debtor. This consideration is important for the proper understanding of the usefulness of suffrages for the souls in purgatory (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, Decret. de purgat., in Denzinger, n. 983). When one wishes to aid the suffering souls, one cannot apply to them the purely meritorious quality of his work, because the increase of grace and glory accrues only to the agent who merits. But it has pleased the Divine wisdom and mercy to accept the satisfactory quality of one's work under certain circumstances as an equivalent of the temporal punishment still to be endured by the faithful departed, just as if the latter had themselves performed the work. This is one of the most beautiful and consoling aspects of that grand social organization which we call the "Communion of Saints", and moreover affords us an insight into the nature of the "heroic act of charity" approved by Pius IX, whereby the faithful on earth, out of heroic charity for the souls in Purgatory, voluntarily renounce in their favour the satisfactory fruits of all their good works, even all the suffrages which shall be offered for them after their death, in order that they may thus benefit and assist the souls in purgatory more quickly and more efficaciously. The efficacy of the prayer of the just be it for the living or for the dead, calls for special consideration. In the first place it is evident that prayer as a pre-eminently good work has in common with other similar good works, such as fasting and almsgiving, the twofold value of merit and satisfaction. Because of its satisfactory character, prayer will also obtain for the souls in purgatory by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii) either a diminution or a total cancelling of the penalty that remains to be paid. Prayer has, moreover, the characteristic effect of impetration (effectus impetratorius), for he who prays appeals solely to the goodness, love, and liberality of God for the fulfilment of his desires, without throwing the weight of his own merits into the scale. He who prays fervently and unceasingly gains a hearing with God because he prays, even should he pray with empty hands (cf. John, xiv 13 sq.; xvi, 23). Thus the special efficacy of prayer for the dead is easily explained, since it combines efficacy of satisfaction and impetration, and this twofold efficacy is enhanced by the personal worthiness of the one who, as a friend of God, offers the prayer. Since the meritoriousness of good works supposes the state of justification, or, what amounts to the same, the possession of sanctifying grace, supernatural merit is only an effect or fruit of the state of grace (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi). Hence, it is plain that this whole article is really only a continuation and a completion of the doctrine of sanctifying grace (see GRACE). II. THE EXISTENCE OF MERIT (a) According to Luther justification consists essentially in the mere covering of man's sins, which remain in the soul, and in the external imputation of Christ's justice; hence his assertion that even "the just sin in every good work" (see Denzinger, n. 771), as also that "every work of the just is worthy of damnation [ damnabile] and a mortal sin [ peccatum mortale], if it be considered as it really is in the judgment of God" (see Moehler, "Symbolik", 22). According to the doctrine of Calvin (Instit., III, ii, 4) good works are "impurities and defilement" (inquinamenta et sordes), but God covers their innate hideousness with the cloak of the merits of Christ, and imputes them to the predestined as good works in order that He may requite them not with life eternal, but at most with a temporal reward. In consequence of Luther's proclamation of "evangelical liberty", John Agricola (died 1566) asserted that in the New Testament it was not allowed to preach the "Law", and Nicholas Amsdorf (died 1565) maintained that good works were positively harmful. Such exaggerations gave rise in 1527 to the fierce Antinomian controversy, which, after various efforts on Luther's part, was finally settled in 1540 by the recantation forced from Agricola by Joachim II of Brandenburg. Although the doctrine of modem Protestantism continues obscure and indefinite, it teaches generally speaking that good works are a spontaneous consequence of justifying faith, without being of any avail for life eternal. Apart from earlier dogmatic declarations given in the Second Synod of Orange of 529 and in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (see Denzinger, 191, 430), the Council of Trent upheld the traditional doctrine of merit by insisting that life everlasting is both a grace and a reward (Sess. VI, cap. xvi, in Denzinger, n. 809). It condemned as heretical Luther's doctrine of the sinfulness of good works (Sess. VI, can. xxv), and declared as a dogma that the just, in return for their good works done in God through the merits of Jesus Christ, should expect an eternal reward (loc. cit., can. xxvi). This doctrine of the Church simply echoes Scripture and Tradition. The Old Testament already declares the meritoriousness of good works before God. "But the just shall live for evermore: and their reward is with the Lord" (Wis., v, 16). "Be not afraid to be justified even to death: for the reward of God continueth for ever" (Ecclus., xviii, 22). Christ Himself adds a special reward to each of the Eight Beatitudes and he ends with this fundamental thought: "Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven" (Matt. v, 12) In His description of the Last Judgment, He makes the possession of eternal bliss depend on the practice of the corporal works of mercy (Matt. xxv, 34 sqq.). Although St. Paul insists on nothing more strongly than the absolute gratuitousness of Christian grace, still he acknowledges merits founded on grace and also the reward due to them on the part of God, which he variously calls "prize" (Phil., iii, 14; I Cor., ix 24) "reward" (Col., iii, 24; I Cor., iii, 8), "crown of justice" (II Tim., iv, 7 sq.; cf. James, i, 12). It is worthy of note that, in these and many others good works are not represented as mere adjuncts of justifying faith, but as real fruits of justification and part causes of our eternal happiness. And the greater the merit, the greater will be the reward in heaven (cf. Matt., xvi, 27; I Cor., iii, 8; II Cor., ix, 6). Thus the Bible itself refutes the assertion that "the idea of merit is originally foreign to the Gospel" (" Realencyklopaedie fuer protest. Theologie," XX, 3rd ed. Leipzig, 1908, p. 501). That Christian grace can be merited either by the observance of the Jewish law or by mere natural works (see GRACE) this alone is foreign to the Bible. On the other hand, eternal reward is promised in the Bible to those supernatural works which are performed in the state of grace, and that because they are meritorious (cf. Matt., xxv, 34 sqq.; Rom., ii, 6 sqq.; II Cor., v, 10). Even Protestants concede that, in the oldest literature of the Apostolic Fathers and Christian Apologists, "the idea of merit was read into the Gospel," and that Tertullian by defending "merit in the strict sense gave the key-note to Western Catholicism" (Realencykl., pp. 501, 502). He was followed by St. Cyprian with the declaration: "You can attain to the vision of God, if you deserve it by your life and works" ("De op. et elemos.", xiv, ed. Hartel, I, 384). With St. Ambrose (De offic., I, xv, 57) and St. Augustine (De morib. eccl., I, xxv), the other Fathers of the Church took the Catholic doctrine on merit as a guide in their teaching, especially in their homilies to the faithful, so that uninterrupted agreement is secured between Bible and Tradition, between patristic and scholastic teaching, between the past and the present. If therefore "the reformation was mainly a struggle against the doctrine of merit" (Realencyklopaedie, loc. cit., p. 506) this only proves that the Council of Trent defended against unjustified innovations the old doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, founded alike on Scripture and Tradition. (b) This doctrine of the Church, moreover, fully accords with natural ethics. Divine Providence, as the supreme lawgiver, owes it to itself to give efficacious sanction to both the natural and the supernatural law with their many commandments and prohibitions, and to secure their observance by holding out rewards and punishments. Even human laws are provided with sanctions, which are often very severe. He who denies the meritoriousness of good works performed by the just must necessarily also deny the culpability and demerit of the sinner's misdeeds; must hold that sins remain without punishment, and that the fear of hell is both groundless and useless. If there be no eternal reward for an upright life and no eternal chastisement for sin, it will matter little to the majority of people whether they lead a good or a bad life. It is true that, even if there were neither reward nor punishment, it would be contrary to rational nature to lead an immoral life; for the moral obligation to do always what is right, does not of itself depend on retribution. But Kant undoubtedly went too far when he repudiated as immoral those actions which are performed with a view to our personal happiness or to that of others, and proclaimed the "categorical imperative," i. e., frigid duty clearly perceived, as the only motive of moral conduct. For, though this so-called "autonomy of the moral will" may at first sight appear highly ideal, still it is unnatural and cannot be carried out in practical life, because virtue and happiness, duty and merit (with the claim to reward), are not mutually exclusive, but, as correlatives, they rather condition and complete each other. The peace of a good conscience that follows the faithful performance of duty is an unsought-for reward of our action and an interior happiness of which no calamity can deprive us, so that, as a matter of fact, duty and happiness are always linked together. (c) But is not this continual acting "with one eye on heaven", with which Professor Jodl reproaches Catholic moral teaching, the meanest "mercenary spirit" and greed which necessarily vitiates to the core all moral action? Can there be any question of morality, if it is only the desire for eternal bliss or simply the fear of hell that determines one to do good and avoid evil? Such a disposition is certainly far from being the ideal of Catholic morality. On the Contrary, the Church proclaims to all her children that pure love of God is the first and supreme commandment (cf. Mark, xii, 30). It is our highest ideal to act out of love. For he who truly loves God would keep His commandments, even though there were no eternal reward in the next life. Nevertheless, the desire for heaven is a necessary and natural consequence of the perfect love of God; for heaven is only the perfect possession of God by love. As a true friend desires to see his friend without thereby sinking into egotism so does the loving soul ardently desire the Beatific Vision, not from a craving for reward, but out of pure love. It is unfortunately too true that only the best type of Christians, and especially the great saints of the Church, reach this high standard of morality in everyday life. The great majority of ordinary Christians must be deterred from sin principally by the fear of hell and spurred on to good works by the thought of an eternal reward, before they attain perfect love. But, even for those souls who love God, there are times of grave temptation when only the thought of heaven and hell keeps them from falling. Such a disposition, be it habitual or only transitory, is morally less perfect, but it is not immoral. As, according to Christ's doctrine and that of St. Paul (see above), it is legitimate to hope for a heavenly reward, so, according to the same doctrine of Christ (cf. Matt., x, 28), the fear of hell is a motive of moral action, a "grace of God and an impulse of the Holy Ghost" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. iv, in Denzinger, n. 898). Only that desire for remuneration (amor mercenarius) is reprehensible which would content itself with an eternal happiness without God, and that "doubly servile fear" (timor serviliter servilis) is alone immoral which proceeds from a mere dread of punishment without at the same time fearing God. But the dogmatic as well as the moral teaching of the Church avoids both of these extremes (see ATTRITION). Besides blaming the Church for fostering a "craving for reward," Protestants also accuse her of teaching "justification by works". External works alone, they allege, such as fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimages, the recitation of the rosary etc., make the Catholic good and holy, the intenor intention and disposition being held to no account. "The whole doctrine of merit, especially as explained by Catholics is based on the erroneous view which places the essence of morality in the individual action without any regard for the interior disposition as the habitual direction of the personal will" (Realencyklopaedie, loc. cit., p. 508). Only the grossest ignorance of Catholic doctrine can prompt such remarks. In accord with the Bible the Church teaches that the external work has a moral value only when and in so far as it proceeds from a right interior disposition and intention (cf. Matt., vi, 1 sqq.; Mark, xii, 41 sqq.; I Cor., x, 31, etc.). As the body receives its life from the soul, so must external actions be penetrated and vivified by holiness of intention. In a beautiful play on words St. Augustine says (Serm. iii, n. xi): Bonos mores faciunt boni amores. Hence the Church urges her children to forming each morning the "good intention", that they may thereby sanctify the whole day and make even the indifferent actions of their exterior life serve for the glory of God; "all for the greater glory of God", is the constant prayer of the faithful Catholic. Not only does the moral teaching of the Catholic Church attribute no moral value whatever to the mere external performance of good works without a corresponding good intention, but it detests such performance as hyprocrisy and pretence. On the other hand, our good Intention, provided it be genuine and deep-rooted, naturally spurs us on to external works, and without these works it would be reduced to a mere semblance of life. A third charge against the Catholic doctrine on merit is summed up in the word "self-righteousness", as if the just man utterly disregarded the merits of Christ and arrogated to himself the whole credit of his good works. If any Catholic has ever been so pharisaical as to hold and practise this doctrine, he has certainly set himself in direct opposition to what the Church teaches. The Church has always proclaimed what St. Augustine expresses in the words: "Non Dens coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua, sed tanquam dona sua" (De grat. et lib. arbitrio, xv), i. e., God crowns thy merits, not as thine earnings, but as His gifts. Nothing was more strong and frequently inculcated by the Council of Trent than the proposition that the faithful owe their entire capability of meriting and all their good works solely to the infinite merits of the Redeemer Jesus Christ. It is indeed clear that meritorious works, as "fruits of the justification", cannot be anything but merits due to grace, and not merits due to nature (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi). The Catholic certainly must rely on the merits of Christ, and, far from boasting of his own self-righteousness, he must acknowledge in all humility that even his merits, acquired with the help of grace, are full of imperfections, and that his justification is uncertain (see GRACE). Of the satisfactory works of penance the Council of Trent makes this explicit declaration: "Thus, man has not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Christ, in whom we live, move, and make satisfaction, bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from Him have their efficacy, are by Him offered to the Father, and through Him find with the Father acceptance" (Sess. XIV, cap. viii, in Denzinger, n. 904). Does this read like self-righteousness? III. CONDITIONS OF MERIT For all true merit (vere mereri; Council of Trent, Sess. VI, can. xxxii), by which is to be understood only meritum de condigno (see Pallavicini, "Hist. Concil. Trident.", VIII, iv), theologians have set down seven conditions, of which four regard the meritorious work, two the agent who merits, and one God who rewards. (a) In order to be meritorious a work must be morally good, morally free, done with the assistance of actual grace, and inspired by a supernatural motive. As every evil deed implies demerit and deserves punishment, so the very notion of merit supposes a morally good work. St. Paul teaches that "whatsoever good thing [ bonum] any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free" (Eph. vi, 8). Not only are more perfect works of supererogation, such as the vow of perpetual chastity, good and meritorious but also works of obligation, such as the faithful observance of the commandments. Christ Himself actually made the attainment of heaven depend on the mere observance of the ten commandments when he answered the youth who was anxious about his salvation: "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments" (Matt., xix, 17). According to the authentic declaration of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) the married state is also meritorious for heaven: "Not only those who live in virginity and continence, but also those who are married, please God by their faith and good works and merit eternal happiness" (cap. Firmiter, in Denzinger, n. 430). As to morally indifferent actions (e. g., exercise and play, recreation derived from reading and music), some moralists hold with the Scotists that such works may be indifferent not only in the abstract but also practically; this opinion, however is rejected by the majority of theologians. Those who hold this view must hold that such morally indifferent actions are neither meritorious nor demeritorious, but become meritorious in proportion as they are made morally good by means of the "good intention". Although the voluntary omission of a work of obligation, such as the hearing of Mass on Sundays, is sinful and thereby demeritorious, still, according to the opinion of Suarez (De gratia, X, ii, 5 sqq.), it is more than doubtful whether conversely the mere omission of a bad action is in itself meritorious. But the overcoming of a temptation would be meritorious, since this struggle is a positive act and not a mere omission. Since the external work as such derives its entire moral value from the interior disposition, it adds no increase of merit except in so far as it reacts on the will and has the effect of intensifying and sustaining its action (cf. De Lugo, "De poenit.", disp. xxiv, sect. 6). As to the second requisite, i. e., moral liberty, it is clear from ethics that actions, due to external force or internal compulsion, can deserve neither reward nor punishment. It is an axiom of criminal jurisprudence that no one shall be punished for a misdeed done without free will; similarly, a good work can only then be meritorious and deserving of reward when it proceeds from a free determination of the will. This is the teaching of Christ (Matt., xix, 21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." The necessity of the third condition, i. e., of the influence of actual grace, is clear from the fact that every act meriting heaven must evidently be supernatural just as heaven itself is supernatural, and that consequently it cannot be performed without the help of prevenient and assisting grace, which is necessary even for the just. The strictly supernatural destiny of the Beatific Vision, for which the Christian must strive, necessitates ways and means which lie altogether beyond what is purely natural (see GRACE). Finally, a supernatural motive is required because good works must be supernatural, not only as regards their object and circumstances, but also as regards the end for which they are performed (ex fine). But, in assigning the necessary qualities of this motive, theologians differ widely. While some require the motive of faith (motivum fidei) in order to have merit, others demand in addition the motive of charity (motivum caritatis), and thus, by rendering the conditions more difficult, considerably restrict the extent of meritorious works (as distinguished from merely good works). Others again set down as the only condition of merit that the good work of the just man, who already has habitual faith and charity, be in conformity with the Divine law, and require no other special motive. This last opinion, which is in accordance with the practice of the majority of the faithful, is tenable, provided faith and charity exert at least an habitual (not necessarily virtual or actual) influence upon the good work, which influence essentially consists in this, that man at the time of his conversion makes an act of faith and of love of God, thereby knowingly and willingly beginning his supernatural journey towards God in heaven; this intention habitually retains its influence as long as it has not been revoked by mortal sin. And, since there is a grave obligation to make acts of faith, hope, and charity from time to time, these two motives will thereby be occasionally renewed and revived. For the controversy regarding the motive of faith see Chr. Pesch, "Praelect. dogmat.", V, 3rd ed. (1908), 225 sqq.; on the motive of charity, see Pohle, "Dogmatik" II 4th ed. (1909), 565 sqq. (b) The agent who merits must fulfil two conditions: He must be in the state of pilgrimage (status vioe) and in the state of grace (status gratioe). By the state of pilgrimage is to be understood our earthly life; death as a natural (although not an essentially necessary) limit, closes the time of meriting. The time of sowing is confined to this life; the reaping is reserved for the next, when no man will be able to sow either wheat or cockle. Comparing the earthly life with day and the time after death with night, Christ says: "The night cometh, when no man can work [ operari]" (John, ix, 4; cf. Eccl., xi, 3; Ecclus., xiv, 17). The opinion proposed by a few theologians (Hirscher, Schell), that for certain classes of men there may still be a possibility of conversion after death, is contrary to the revealed truth that the particular judgment (judicium particulare) determines instantly and definitively whether the future is to be one of eternal happiness or of eternal misery (cf. Kleutgen, "Theologie der Vorzeit", II, 2nd ed., Muenster, 1872, pp. 427 sqq.). Baptized children, who die before attaining the age of reason, are admitted to heaven without merits on the sole title of inheritance (titulus hoereditatis); in the case of adults, however, there is the additional title of reward (titulus mercedis), and for that reason they will enjoy a greater measure of eternal happiness. In addition to the state of pilgrimage, the state of grace (i. e., the possession of sanctifying grace) is required for meriting, because only the just can be "sons of God" and "heirs of heaven" (cf. Rom., viii, 17). In the parable of the vine Christ expressly declares the "abiding in him" a necessary condition for "bearing fruit": "He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit" (John, xv, 5); and this constant union with Christ is effected only by sanctifying grace. In opposition to Vasquez, most theologians are of opinion that one who is holier will gain greater merit for a given work than one who is less holy, although the latter perform the same work under exactly the same circumstances and in the same way. The reason is that a higher degree of grace enhances the godlike dignity of the agent, and this dignity increases the value of the merit. This explains why God, in consideration of the greater holiness of some saints specially dear to Him, has deigned to grant favours which otherwise He would have refused (Job, xlii, 8; Dan., iii, 35). (c) Merit requires on the part of God that He accept (in actu secundo) the good work as meritorious, even though the work in itself (in actu primo) and previous to its acceptance by God, be already truly meritorious. Theologians, however, are not agreed as to the necessity of this condition. The Scotists hold that the entire condignity of the good work rests exclusively on the gratuitous promise of God and His free acceptance, without which even the most heroic act is devoid of merit, and with which even mere naturally good works may become meritorious. Other theologians with Suarez (De gratia, XIII, 30) maintain that, before and without Divine acceptance, the strict equality that exists between merit and reward founds a claim of justice to have the good works rewarded in heaven. Both these views are extreme. The Scotists almost completely lose sight of the godlike dignity which belongs to the just as "adopted children of God", and which naturally impresses on their supernatural actions the character of meritoriousness; Suarez, on the other hand, unnecessarily exaggerates the notion of Divine justice and the condignity of merit, for the abyss that lies between human service and Divine remuneration is ever so wide that there could be no obligation of bridging it over by a gratuitous promise of reward and the subsequent acceptance on the part of God who has bound himself by His own fidelity. Hence we prefer with Lessius (De perfect. moribusque div., XIII, ii) and De Lugo (De incarnat. disp. 3, sect. 1 sq.) to follow a middle course. We therefore say that the condignity between merit and reward owes its origin to a twofold source: to the intrinsic value of the good work and to the free acceptance and gratuitous promise of God (cf. James, i, 12). See Schiffini, "De gratia divina" (Freiburg, 1901), pp. 416 sqq. IV. THE OBJECTS OF MERIT Merit in the strict sense (meritum de condigno) gives a right to a threefold reward: increase of sanctifying grace, heavenly glory, and the increase thereof; other graces can be acquired only in virtue of congruous merit (meritum de conqruo). (a) In its Sixth Session (can. xxxii), the Council of Trent declared: "If any one saith . . . that the justified man by good works . . . does not truly merit [ vere mereri] increase of grace eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life -- if so be, however, that he depart in grace -- and also an increase in glory; let him be anathema." The expression "vere mereri" shows that the three objects mentioned above can be merited in the true and strict sense of the word, viz., de condigno. Increase of grace (augmentum gratioe) is named in the first place to exclude the first grace of justification concerning which the council had already taught: "None of those things, which precede justification -- whether faith or works -- merit the grace itself of justification" (Sess. VI, cap. viii). This impossibility of meriting the first habitual grace is as much a dogma of our Faith as the absolute impossibility of meriting the first actual grace (see GRACE). The growth in sanctifying grace, on the other hand, is perfectly evident from both Scripture and Tradition (cf. Ecclus., xviii, 22; II Cor., ix, 10; Apoc., xxii, 11 sq.). To the question whether the right to actual graces needed by the just be also an object of strict merit, theologians commonly answer that, together with the increase of habitual grace, merely sufficient graces may be merited de condigno, but not efficacious graces. The reason is that the right to efficacious graces would necessarily include the strict right to final perseverance, which lies completely outside the sphere of condign merit although it may be obtained by prayer (see GRACE). Not even heroic acts give a strict right to graces which are always efficacious or to final perseverance, for even the greatest saint is still obliged to watch, pray, and tremble lest he fall from the state of grace. This explains why the Council of Trent purposely omitted efficacious grace and the gift of perseverance, when it enumerated the objects of merit. Life everlasting (vita oeterna) is the second object of merit; the dogmatical proof for this assertion has been given above in treating of the existence of merit. It still remains to inquire whether the distinction made by the Council of Trent between vita oeterna and vitoe oeternoe consecutio is meant to signify a twofold reward: "life everlasting" and "the attainment of life everlasting", and hence a twofold object of merit. But theologians rightly deny that the council had this in view, because it is clear that the right to a reward coincides with the right to the payment of the same. Nevertheless, the distinction was not useless or superfluous because, notwithstanding the right to eternal glory, the actual possession of it must necessarily be put off until death, and even then depends upon the condition: "si tamen in gratin decesserit" (provided he depart in grace). With this last condition the council wished also to inculcate the salutary truth that sanctifying grace may be lost by mortal sin, and that the loss of the state of grace ipso facto entails the forfeiture of all merits however great. Even the greatest saint, should he die in the state of mortal sin, arrives in eternity as an enemy of God with empty hands, just as if during life he had never done anything, meritorious. All his former rights to grace and glory are cancelled. To make them revive a new justification is necessary. On this "revival of merits" (reviviscentia meritorum) see Schiffini, "De gratia divina" (Freiburg, 1901), pp. 661 sqq.; this question is treated in detail by Pohle, "Dogmatik", III (4th ed., Paderborn, 1910), pp. 440 sqq. As the third object of merit the council mentions the "increase of glory" (glorioe augmentum) which evidently must correspond to the increase of grace, as this corresponds to the accumulation of good works. At the Last Day, when Christ will come with his angels to judge the world, "He will render to every man according to his works [ secundum opera eius]" (Matt., xvi, 27; cf Rom., ii, 6). And St. Paul repeats the same (I Cor., iii, 8): "Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour [ secundum suum laborem]". This explains the inequality that exists between the glory of the different saints. (b) By his good works the just man may merit for himself many graces and favours, not, however, by right and justice (de condigno), but only congruously (de congruo). Most theologians incline to the opinion that the grace of final perseverance is among the objects of congruous merit, which grace, as has been shown above, is not and cannot be merited condignly. It is better, however, and safer if, with a view to obtaining this great grace on which our eternal happiness depends, we have recourse to fervent and unremitting prayer, for Christ held out to us that above all our spiritual needs he would infallibly hear our prayer for this great gift (cf. Matt., xxi, 22; Mark, xi, 24; Luke, xi, 9; John, xiv, 13, etc.). For further explanation see Bellarmine, "De justif.", V, xxii; Tepe, "Instit. theol.", III (Paris, 1896), 258 sqq. It is impossible to answer with equal certainty the question whether the just man is able to merit in advance the grace of conversion, if perchance he should happen to fall into mortal sin. St. Thomas denies this absolutely: "Nullus potest sibi mereri reparationem post lapsum futurum neque merito condigni neque merito congrui" (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cxiv, a. 7). But because the Prophet Jehu declared to Josaphat, the wicked King of Juda (cf. II Par., xix, 2 sqq.), that God had regard for his former merits, almost all other theologians consider it a "pious and probable opinion" that God, in granting the grace of conversion does not entirely disregard the merits lost by mortal sin, especially if the merits previously acquired surpass in number and weight the sins, which, perhaps, were due to weakness, and if those merits are not crushed, as it were, by a burden of iniquity (cf. Suarez, "De gratia", XII, 38). Prayer for future conversion from sin is indeed morally good and useful (cf. Ps., lxx, 9), because the disposition by which we sincerely wish to be freed as soon as possible from the state of enmity with God cannot but be pleasing to Him. Temporal blessings, such as health, freedom from extreme poverty, success in one's undertakings, seem to be objects of congruous merit only in so far as they are conducive to eternal salvation; for only on this hypothesis do they assume the character of actual graces (cf. Matt., vi, 33). But, for obtaining temporal favours, prayer is more effective than meritorious works, provided that the granting of the petition be not against the designs of God or the true welfare of him who prays . The just man may merit de congruo for others (e. g., parents, relatives, and friends) whatever he is able to merit for himself: the grace of conversion, final perseverance, temporal blessings, nay even the very first prevenient grace (gratia prima proeveniens), (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cxiv, a. 6) which he can in no wise merit for himself. St. Thomas gives as reason for this the intimate bond of friendship which sanctifying grace establishes between the just man and God. These effects are immeasurably strengthened by prayer for others; as it is beyond doubt that prayer plays an important part in the present economy of salvation. For further explanation see Suarez, "De gratia", XII, 38. Contrary to the opinion of a few theologians (e. g., Billuart), we hold that even a man in mortal sin, provided he co-operate with the first grace of conversion, is able to merit de congruo by his supernatural acts not only a series of graces which will lead to conversion, but finally justification itself; at all events it is certain that he may obtain these graces by prayer, made with the assistance of grace (cf. Ps., l, 9; Tob., xii, 9; Dan., iv, 24; Matt., vi, 14). For the concept of merit see TAPARELLI, Saggio teoretico del diritto naturale (Palermo, 1842); Summa theol., I-II, Q. xxi, aa. 3-4; WIRTH, Der Begriff des Meritum bei Tertullian (Leipzig, 1892); IDEM, Der Verdienstbegriff in der christl. Kirche nach seiner geschichtl. Entwickelung. II: Der Verdienstbegriff bei Cyprian (Leipzig, 1901). For the Jewish conception of merit see WEBER-SCHNEDEMANN, Juedische Theol. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1897). For merit itself cf. Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cix, a. 5; Q. cxiv, aa. 1 sqq.; BELLARMINE, De justific., V, i-xxii; SUAREZ, De gratia, XII, i sqq.; RIPALDA, De ente supernaturali, disp. lxxi-xcvi; BILLUART, De gratia, dissert. viii, aa. 1-5; SCHIFFINI, De gratia divina (Freiburg, 1901), pp. 594 sqq.; PESCH, Proel. dogmat., V (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1908), 215 sqq.; HEINRICH-GUTBERLET, Dogmat. Theologie, VIII (Mainz, 1897); POHLE, Dogmatik (4th ed., Paderborn, 1909); ATZBERGER, Gesch. der christl. Eschatologie (Freiburg, 1896); KNEIB, Die Heteronomie der christl. Moral (Vienna, 1903); IDEM, Die "Lohnsucht" der christl. Moral (Vienna, 1904); IDEM, Die Jenseitsmoral im Kampfe um ihre Grundlagen (Freiburg, 1906); ERNST, Die Notwendigkeit der guten Meinung. Untersuchungen ueber die Gottesliebe als Prinzip der Sittlichkeit und Verdienstlichkeit (Freiburg, 1905); STREHLER, Das Ideal der kathol. Sittlichkeit (Breslau, 1907); CATHREIN, Die kathol. Weltanschauung in ihren Grundlinien mit besonderer Beruecksichtigung der Moral (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1910). J. POHLE. Gaspard Mermillod Gaspard Mermillod Bishop of Lausanne and cardinal, born at Carouge, Switzerland, 22 September, 1824; died in Rome, 23 February, 1892. He studied at the Jesuit College at Freiburg, Switzerland; became a priest in 1847, and was soon after a curate in Geneva, where he established two periodicals: "L'observateur Catholique" and "Les Annales Catholiques". In 1857 he became parish priest of Geneva and at the same time Vicar-General of the Bishop of Lausanne for the canton of Geneva. The splendid edifice of Notre-Dame, still the principal church of Geneva, was built by him from 1851 to 1859. The funds were subscribed from all parts of Christendom. In 1864 he became titular Bishop of Hebron, and auxiliary of the Bishop of Lausanne for the canton of Geneva, with residence at Geneva. For seven years he pursued without hindrance his episcopal functions, and was especially active for Catholic education, founding with Marie de Sales Chappuis the female Oblates of Saint Francis de Sales at Troyes for the protection of poor working girls. When the Holy See made him independent Administrator of Geneva, the Radical Government of the canton protested, and a long and serious conflict ensued. He was at first forbidden to exercise any episcopal functions whatever, and later was declared deposed even as regarded his functions as a parish-priest. When the Bishop of Lausanne renounced unconditionally the title of the See of Geneva, the pope appointed Mermillod to be Vicar-Apostolic of Geneva. The City Council, then, caused his expulsion from Switzerland, whereupon he repaired to Ferney, in French territory, from which place he governed his diocese as best he could. At the cessation of the religious conflict Leo XIII made the newly elected Bishop of Lausanne also Bishop of Geneva, without, however, depriving Mermillod of his office. The Government did not, however, alter its tactics, and Mermillod could return to Switzerland only after the death of the bishop whose successor he became. The conflict was, however, by no means at an end, for the canton of Geneva refused to recognize him as bishop, and normal relations were resumed only when Mermillod became cardinal in 1890. Cardinal Mermillod was one of the great preachers of modern times. In his far-sighted policy he founded in 1885 the "Union Catholique d'etudes sociales et economiques". His Lettres `a un Protestant sur l'autorite de l'eglise et le schisme" (Paris, 1860) made a great impression. Another important work was his "De la vie surnaturelle dans les ames" (Lyons, 1865; Paris, 1881). His collected works were edited by Grospellier (Paris, 1893) in three volumes. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Merneptah I (Pharaoh) Merneptah I (1234?-1214 B.C.), the fourth king of the nineteenth Egyptian dynasty and the supposed Pharaoh of the Exodus, was the thirteenth son of Rameses II whom he succeeded in or about 1234 B.C., being then long past middle age. His rule lasted some twenty years, during which he carried on considerable building operations in the Delta, and notably at Tanis (Zoan), where, indeed as elsewhere, he usurped a number of some of his predecessors' monuments. His original works are comparatively few and insignificant. His name is constantly found on the monuments of his father; it appears also in Nubia, and in the old quarries in the Sinaitic peninsula. In his third year, he quelled a revolt to the northeast, possibly excited by the Hittites' and in his fifth year, he repelled an invasion of Egypt by the Lybians and their allies, which victory is boastfully described on a black granite stela found in 1896 in his funeral temple at Thebes, and bearing the earliest known reference to Israel. He is commonly regarded as the Pharaoh of the Exodus on the following grounds. + On the one hand, Egyptian discoveries have shown that Rameses II founded the cities represented in Exodus., i, 11, as built by the oppressed Hebrews, and therefore point to him as the Pharaoh of the oppression. + On the other hand, Ex., ii, 23; iv, 19, imply that the immediate successor of that Pharaoh was on the throne when Moses returned to Egypt where he soon delivered his people. Whence it is not unnaturally inferred that Merneptah I, Rameses son and successor, is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The chief objection to this view is that it seems to contradict the final strophe of Merneptah's "Hymn of Victory" over the Lybians inscribed on the granite stela already referred to. After relating the subjection of Chanaan and of Ascalon by the Egyptians, this inscription adds: "Israel is spoiled, his seed is not; Palestine has become a widow for Egypt." How can Merneptah I be the Pharaoh of the Exodus since according to the obvious meaning of this passage, the Israelites when defeated by him were already settled in Palestine, a settlement which as we know from the Bible was effected only after a forty years' wandering and therefore after Merneptah's death? This difficulty has led many scholars to consider an earlier king as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, while others have answered it in various ways. The following is its most probably solution. Scholars not expecting the exact truth to be told in an Egyptian inscription concerning the Exodus disaster, and noticing that in the final strophe of Merneptah's "Hymn of Victory" an actual boastful misrepresentation of his relation to the Hittittes, precedes almost immediately the distinct reference to Israel as "spoiled", will readily think that the glory therein claimed by Merneptah over the Israelites is to be taken as a boastful misrepresentation of what really happened to him as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Merneptah's mummy was discovered in 1896 and identified in 1900. The find does not disproved the identity of that monarch with the Pharaoh of the Exodus, for nothing in the Sacred Text requires the admission that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites in person, or was drowned as a result. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Frederic-Francois-Xavier Ghislain de Merode Frederic-Franc,ois-Xavier Ghislain de Merode A Belgian prelate and statesman, born at Brussels, 1820; died at Rome, 1874. The son of Felix de Merode-Westerloo who held successively the portfolios of foreign affairs, war, and finances under King Leopold, and of Rosalie de Grammont, he was allied to the best names of France, -- Lafayette, Montmorency, Clemont-Tonnerre, etc.; the Merode family claimed saints like Elizabeth of Hungary, founders like Werner who endowed the monastery of Schwartzenbroch, and a long line of captains from that Raymond-Berenger who took the cross at St. Bernard's call, to Frederic, Xavier's grandfather, who gave his life for the autonomy of Belgium. Bereft of his mother at the age of three, Xavier was brought up at Villersexel, in Franche-Comte, by his aunt Philippine de Grammont, attended for a time the Jesuit College of Namur, then entered the College de Juilly presided over by de Salinis, whence he passed (1839) to the Military Academy of Brussels. Graduating with the rank of second lieutenant, after a short service at the armoury of Liege, he joined (1844) as foreign attache the staff of Marechal Bugeaud in Algeria, taking a brilliant part in the most daring engagements and winning the cross of the Legion d'honneur. In 1847, he abruptly resigned the military career and went to study for the priesthood in Rome, where he was ordained (1849). Assigned, after his ordination, as chaplain to the French garrison of Viterbo, he was being pressed by his family to return to Belgium when Pius IX, with a view to attach him permanently to his court, made him cameriere segreto (1850), an office which entailed the direction of the Roman prisons. The excellent work done by de merode for the material, moral, and religious betterment of the penitentiary system in Rome is described by Lefebvre (Des etablissements charitables de Rome, p. 245.) and Maguire (Rome, Its Ruler and Institutions, p. 238); de Rayneval, the French envoy at Rome, praised it in an official report to his government (see "Daily News ", 18 March, 1848); Joachim Pecci, Archbishop of Perugia, wanted the young cameriere to inaugurate similar work in his metropolis, and the Piedmontese, despite their bias against everything papal, found nothing to change in the regulations introduced by de Merode. In 1860, when it became evident that the insincere policy of Napoleon III was a poor safeguard against the greed of Piedmont, de Merode, much against the views of the Roman Prelature, headed by Cardinal Antonelli, persuaded Pius IX to form a papal army and succeeded in enlisting the services of Lamoriciere (q. v.) as commander-in-chief and was himself appointed minister of war. The task assumed by de Merode and Lamoriciere was difficult and well-nigh impossible; yet, the disasters of Castelfidardo and Ancona were due, not to the incompetence of the chiefs, nor solely to the heterogeneous nature of the recruits and the lack of proper supplies, but to the treachery of the Piedmontese who, while feigning to curb the Garibaldian bands, led them to the assault of the Papal States. The ensuing years of comparative quiet de Merode spent in various public works; the building at his own expense of the campo pretoriano outside the Porta Pia, the clearing of the approaches of Santa Maria degli Angeli, the opening of streets in the new section of Rome, the sanitation of the old quarters by the Tiber, etc. His impetuous temperament and progressive views made him enemies among the old traditional Roman element just as the vehemence with which he branded the French Emperor's duplicity turned against him the heads of the French army of occupation. Lamoriciere's death (19 Sept., 1865) became the signal of open hostility. Pius IX was forced to discharge his minister whose continuance in office, it was freely asserted, meant the withdrawal of the French troops. Reduced to a simple cameriere, de Merode was not forgotten by Pius IX on Hohenlohe's promotion to the cardinalate, he was given the vacant place of papal almoner and (22 June, 1866) consecrated titular Archbishop of Melitene. His new duties were to distribute the papal alms and to confirm children in danger of death and he acquitted himself with a liberality and zeal that won him the love of the poor and afflicted. At the Vatican Council, he showed the influence exercised over him by his brother-in-law, de Montalembert, and sided with the minority that deemed the definition of papal infallibility inopportune and even dangerous, but submitted the day the dogma was defined. After the capture of Rome by the Piedmontese (20 Sept., 1870) he followed his master into the retirement of the Vatican, leaving it only to fight the Piedmontese government's pretensions on the campo pretoriano or to share de Rossi's work in the excavations of Tor Marancino which resulted in the discovery of the Basilica of St. Petronilla. It is there he welcomed (14 June, 1874) the pilgrims from the United States and his last public utterances were for them. Speaking of his kinsman Lafayette, he regretted his defection from the purity of the Catholic Faith, but remarked that the country which the great general had so loyally served was yielding precious elements for the upbuilding of the Church; then, pointing to a Damasian inscription recently found, "Credite per Damasum possit quid gloria Christi", he added with pathos that the edifying spectacle of American loyalty to Pius IX justified him in saying, "Credite per Pium possit quid gloria Christi". He died of acute pneumonia in the arms of Pius IX, only a few months before the Consistory in which he was to have been made a cardinal. His remains were laid to rest in the Flemish Cemetery near the Vatican, amid a vast concourse of people, the poor he had so generously assisted mingling with the prelates, ambassadors, and princes. De Merode, in spite of his faults, will be remembered as a model of unswerving loyalty to the Holy See. Such was his popularity that when Don Margotti, in "l'Unit`a Cattolica", suggested in his behalf a world-wide tribute of prayers, the subscriber's names filled a large album published at Turin, 1875. LAMY, Monseigneur de Merode (Louvain, 1874); BESSON, F. F. X. de Merode, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1886); LE POITEVIN, Mgr. de Merode in Les Contemporains (Paris, s. d.); VEUILLOT, Celebrites Catholigues Contemporains; FLORNOY, Lamoriciere (Paris, 1904). J. F. SOLLIER. Marin Mersenne Marin Mersenne French theologian, philosopher, and mathematician; b. 8 September, 1588, near Oize (now Department of Sarthe); d. 1 September, 1648 at Paris. He studied at Le Mans and at the Jesuit College of La Fleche, where a lifelong friendship with Descartes, his fellow student, originated. Mersenne entered the novitiate of the Minims at Nigeon near Paris (1611), was sent to Nevers as professor of philosophy (1614-1620), and returned to Paris. His first publications were theological and polemical studies against Atheism and Scepticism, but later, Mersenne devoted his time almost exclusively to science, making personal experimental researches, and publishing a number of works on mathematical sciences. His chief merit, however, is rather the encouragement which he gave to scientists of his time, the interest he took in their work, and the stimulating influence of his suggestions and questions. Gassendi and Galileo were among his friends; but, above all, Mersenne is known to-day as Descartes's friend and adviser. In fact, when Descartes began to lead a free and dissipated life, it was Mersenne who brought him back to more serious pursuits and directed him toward philosophy. In Paris, Mersenne was Descartes's assiduous correspondent, auxiliary, and representative, as well as his constant defender. The numerous and vehement attacks against the "Meditations" seem, for a moment, to have aroused Malebranche's suspicions; but Descartes's answers to his critics gave him full satisfaction as to his friend's orthodoxy and sincere Christian spirit. Mersenne asked that, after his death, an autopsy be made on his body, so as to serve to the last the interests of science. Mersenne's works are: "Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim" (Paris, 1623), against Atheists and Deists; a part only has been published, the rest being still in manuscript, as also a "Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel"; "L'impiete des deistes et des plus subtils libertins decouverte et refutee par raisons de theologie et de philosophie" (Paris, 1624); "La verite des sciences contre les sceptiques et les pyrrhoniens" (Paris, 1625); "Questions theologiques, physiques, morales et mathematiques" (Paris, 1634); "Questions inouies, ou recreations des savants" (Paris, 1634); "Les mecaniques de Galilee" (Paris, 1634), a translation from the Italian; "Harmonie universelle, contenant la theorie et la pratique de la musique" (Paris, 1936-7); "Nouvelles decouvertes de Galilee", and "Nouvelles pensees de Galilee sur les mecaniques" (Paris, 1639), both translations; "Cogitata physico-mathematica" (Paris, 1644); "Euclidis elementorum libri, Apollonii Pergae conica, Sereni de sectione coni, etc." (Paris, 1626), selections and translations of ancient mathematicians, published again later with notes and additions under the title, "Universae geometriae mixtaeque mathematicae synopsis" (Paris, 1644). DE COSTE, Vie du R. P. Mersenne (Paris, 1649); POTE Eloge de Mersenne (Le Mans, 1816); BAILLET, Vie de Descartes (Paris, 1691); HAUREAU, Histoire litteraire de Maine, I, 321. C. A. DUBRAY Mesa Mesa (Gr. Mosa; Moabite Stone, ms; Heb., mys, meaning "deliverance" according to Gesenius). A King of Moab in the ninth century b.c., whose history is given in IV Kings, iii. He paid tribute to Achab, King of Israel, "a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams with their fleeces" (verse 4). This seems to have been paid annually, and was possible since Moab was rich in pastures; accordingly Mesa is styled nqd, which, though left untranslated in the Greek text, means "sheep-owner" (Gesenius). After Achab's death Mesa refused to pay tribute, on which account Joram, King of Israel, Josaphat, King of Juda and the King of Edom entered into an alliance against him. They went by the southern route passing through an arid country, where they would have perished of drought, had not the prophet Eliseus miraculously supplied them with water. The ditches they had dug by command of the prophet were filled, and at sunrise the Moabites "saw the waters over against them red, like blood" (verse 22). Thinking their enemies had killed one another, they rushed to the camp with the cry "Moab to the spoils" (verse 23), only to be driven back with great slaughter. The allies followed. Mesa having tried, with seven hundred warriors, to cut his way through the besiegers and failed, took his eldest son, and upon the wall of the city, in sight of all, put him to death. "There was great indignation in Israel", so that for reasons not given in detail, "they departed from him". The Moabite Stone, perhaps the greatest Biblical discovery of modern times, throws some light on the period referred to. Through the learning and enterprise of M. Clermont-Ganneau, the inscription on the stone was published, and the stone itself is now one of the treasures of the Louvre, Paris. The monument, discovered in 1868 at Khiban (Dibon) in the land of Moab, is of basalt, about three feet eight inches by two feet three inches and fourteen inches thick. It resembles a head-stone, and is inscribed with thirty-four lines of writing, in which Mesa gives us the chief events of his reign. The stone was unfortunately broken by the Arabs as soon as they saw Europeans taking an interest in it; but squeezes had been taken previously, so that the inscription is almost intact. The fragments were collected, and missing parts supplied by plaster. A writer in Smith's "Dict. of the Bible" (s. v. Moab), knowing nothing about the Moabite Stone, says: "From the origin of the nation and other considerations, we may perhaps conjecture that their language was more a dialect of Hebrew than a different tongue". This conjecture the Moabite Stone makes a certainty. "The historical allusions and geographical names which we find in this inscription of Mesha tally so well with the O. T. that a suspicion could be aroused as to the genuineness of the stone" (Jour. of the Am. Or. Soc., XXII, 61). Suspicions have been aroused, but scholars almost unanimously set them aside as groundless. From the evidence furnished by the stone, we may conclude that Josaphat, King of Juda, and Mesa, King of Moab, might have conversed, each in his own tongue, and understood each other. The old Phoenician character (found also in the Siloam inscription), the words, the grammatical forms and peculiarities of syntax in the two languages are nearly identical. The difference of pronunciation we cannot, of course, estimate since the vowels were not written. While the stone seems to be somewhat at variance with Scripture, yet the two substantially agree: Mesa says "Omri (Amri) King of Israel oppressed Moab", mentions his own revolt and adds, "Chemosh (Chamos) delivered me from all kings". He also describes his work of fortifying Moab, and as this made the north very strong, we see why the allies took the route south of the Dead Sea to attack him. The Bible hints at some disaster to the invaders, who withdrew suddenly on the very point of taking the city; while Mesa, like all Oriental monarchs in their records, may have magnified his victories, and either omitted or minimized his defeats. The discrepancies therefore are only apparent, and chronological difficulties would be explained with better knowledge of the history of the period. Clermont- Ganneau, La Stele de Mesa, Roi de Moab (1870): the first public notice of the stone; Ginsburg, The Moabite Stone (2nd ed., London, 1871); Bennett in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Moab, gives inscription, linguistic features, various readings, etc.; Geikie, Hours with the Bible: chap. IV, Rehoboam to Hezekiah; Vigouroux, La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes, 3rd ed., IV, Book II, ch. iv; Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments (1894); Hommel, The Ancient Heb. Trad. (tr. 1897), 273 sq.; 361 sq.; Driver in Ency. Bib., s. v. Mesha, gives history of inscription, text, references, etc.; Josephus, Ant., IX, iii. John J. Tierney Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, and Armenia Delegation Apostolic of Mesopotamia, Kurdistan, and Armenia Created by Gregory XVI on 17 Dec., 1832. Mgr. Trioche, Archbishop of Babylon or Bagdad, became its first titular; he resided habitually in Bagdad. Resigning in 1850; Mgr. Trioche returned to France, retaining his title of Archbishop of Bagdad, but losing that of Apostolic delegate which passed to other bishops. These, while having charge of the administration of the Archdiocese of Bagdad, resided at Mosul, where they could better discharge their duties as Apostolic delegates in behalf of the Chaldeans, Syrians, and Armenians. Four out of six, from 1850 to 1887, were Dominicans. When Mgr. Trioche died in France 27 Nov., 1887, the delegate Apostolic, Mgr Altmayer, received the title of Archbishop of Babylon or Bagdad, but continued to reside at Mossul. In 1902 he resigned and was replaced in the See of Bagdad by a Carmelite, Mgr. Drure, who on 5 March, 1904, received the title of delegate Apostolic of Mesopotamia and still bears it. He usually resides at Mossul. The Delegation Apostolic of Mesopotamia has almost the same boundaries as the Archdiocese of Bagdad, but comprises part of the mission of Greater Armenia and the Nestorians of Turkish Kurdistan, which mission is confided to the Dominicans of Mossul. (See BAGDAD; MOSSUL.) PIOLET, Les Missions, I (Paris, 1900), 236-44. S. VAILHE. Mesrob Mesrob (Also called MASHTOTS) One of the greatest figures in Armenian history, he was born about 361 at Hassik in the Province of Taron; died at Valarsabad, 441. He was the son of Vartan of the family of the Mamikonians. Goriun, his pupil and biographer, tells us that Mesrob received a liberal education, and was versed in the Greek, Syriac, and Persian languages. On account of his piety and learning Mesrob was appointed secretary to King Chosroes III. His duty was to write in Greek, Persian, and Syriac characters the decrees and edicts of the sovereign, for, at this time, there was no national alphabet. But Mesrob felt called to a more perfect life. Leaving the court for the service of God, he took Holy orders, and withdrew to a monastery with a few chosen companions. There, says Goriun, he practised great austerities, enduring hunger and thirst, cold and poverty. He lived on vegetables, wore a hair shirt, slept upon the ground, and often spent whole nights in prayer and the study of the Holy Scriptures. This life he continued for a few years, preparing himself for the great work to which Providence was soon to call him. Indeed both Church and State needed his services. Armenia, so long the battle-ground of Romans and Persians, lost its independence in 387, and was divided between the Byzantine Empire and Persia, about four-fifths being given to the latter. Western Armenia was governed by Greek generals, while an Armenian king ruled, but only as feudatory, over Persian Armenia. The Church was naturally influenced by these violent political changes, although the loss of civil independence and the partition of the land could not destroy its organization or subdue its spirit. Persecution only quickened it into greater activity, and had the effect of bringing the clergy, the nobles, and the common people closer together. The principal events of this period are the invention of the Armenian alphabet, the revision of the liturgy, the creation of an ecclesiastical and national literature, and the readjustment of hierarchical relations. Three men are prominently associated with this stupendous work: Mesrob, Patriarch Isaac, and King Vramshapuh, who succeeded his brother Chosroes III in 394. Mesrob, as we have noted, had spent some time in a monastery preparing for a missionary life. With the support of Prince Shampith, he preached the Gospel in the district of Golthn near the Araxes, converting many heretics and pagans. However, he experienced great difficulty in instructing the people, for the Armenians had no alphabet of their own, but used the Greek, Persian, and Syriac scripts, none of which was well suited for representing the many complex sounds of their native tongue. Again, the Holy Scriptures and the liturgy, being written in Syriac, were, to a large extent, unintelligible to the faithful. Hence the constant need of translators and interpreters to explain the Word of God to the people. Mesrob, desirous to remedy this state of things, resolved to invent a national alphabet, in which undertaking Isaac and King Vramshapuh promised to assist him. It is hard to determine exactly what part Mesrob had in the fixing of the new alphabet. According to his Armenian biographers, he consulted Daniel, a bishop of Mesopotamia, and Rufinus, a monk of Samosata, on the matter. With their help and that of Isaac and the king, he was able to give a definite form to the alphabet, which he probably adapted from the Greek. Others, like Lenormant, think it derived from the Zend. Mesrob's alphabet consisted of thirty-six letters; two more (long O and F) were added in the twelfth century. The invention of the alphabet (406) was the beginning of Armenian literature, and proved a powerful factor in the upbuilding of the national spirit. "The result of the work of Isaac and Mesrob", says St. Martin (Histoire du Bas-Empire de Lebeau, V, 320), "was to separate for ever the Armenians from the other peoples of the East, to make of them a distinct nation, and to strengthen them in the Christian Faith by forbidding or rendering profane all the foreign alphabetic scripts which were employed for transcribing the books of the heathens and of the followers of Zoroaster. To Mesrob we owe the preservation of the language and literature of Armenia; but for his work, the people would have been absorbed by the Persians and Syrians, and would have disappeared like so many nations of the East". Anxious that others should profit by his discovery, and encouraged by the patriarch and the king, Mesrob founded numerous schools in different parts of the country, in which the youth were taught the new alphabet. But his activity was not confined to Eastern Armenia. Provided with letters from Isaac he went to Constantinople and obtained from the Emperor Theodosius the Younger permission to preach and teach in his Armenian possessions. He evangelized successively the Georgians, Albanians, and Aghouanghks, adapting his alphabet to their languages, and, wherever he preached the Gospel, he built schools and appointed teachers and priests to continue his work. Having returned to Eastern Armenia to report on his missions to the patriarch, his first thought was to provide a religious literature for his countrymen. Having gathered around him numerous disciples, he sent some to Edessa, Constantinople, Athens, Antioch, Alexandria, and other centres of learning, to study the Greek language and bring back the masterpieces of Greek literature. The most famous of his pupils were John of Egheghiatz, Joseph of Baghin, Eznik, Goriun, Moses of Chorene, and John Mandakuni. The first monument of this Armenian literature is the version of the Holy Scriptures. Isaac, says Moses of Chorene, made a translation of the Bible from the Syriac text about 411. This work must have been considered imperfect, for soon afterwards John of Egheghiatz and Joseph of Baghin were sent to Edessa to translate the Scriptures. They journeyed as far as Constantinople, and brought back with them authentic copies of the Greek text. With the help of other copies obtained from Alexandria the Bible was translated again from the Greek according to the text of the Septuagint and Origen's Hexapla. This version, now in use in the Armenian Church, was completed about 434. The decrees of the first three councils -- Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus -- and the national liturgy (so far written in Syriac) were also translated into Armenian, the latter being revised on the liturgy of St. Basil, though retaining characteristics of its own. Many works of the Greek Fathers also passed into Armenian. The loss of the Greek originals has given some of these versions a special importance; thus, the second part of Eusebius's "Chronicle", of which only a few fragments exist in the Greek, has been preserved entire in Armenian. In the midst of his literary labours Mesrob did not neglect the spiritual needs of the people. He revisited the districts he had evangelized in his earlier years, and, after the death of Isaac in 440, looked after the spiritual administration of the patriarchate. He survived his friend and master only six months. The Armenians read his name in the Canon of the Mass, and celebrate his memory on 19 February. SMITH AND WACE, Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Mesrobs; LANGLOIS, Collection des Historiens de l'Armenie, II (Paris, 1869); WEBER, Die kathol. Kirche in Armenien (1903); NEUMANN. Versuch einer Gesch, der armen. Litteratur (Leipzig, 1836); GARDTHAUSEN, Ueber den griech. Ursprung der armen. Schrift in Zeitschr. der deutsch. morgenlaend. Gesellschaft, XXX (1876); LENORMANT, Essai sur la propagation de l'alphabet phenicien, I (1872). A. A. VASCHALDE. Messalians Messalians (Praying folk; participle Pa'el of the Aramaic word meaning "to pray"). An heretical sect which originated in Mesopotamia about 360 and survived in the East until the ninth century. They are also called Euchites from the Greek translation of their Oriental name (euchetai from euchomai, to pray); Adelphians from their first leader; Lampetians from Lampetius, their first priest (ordained about 458); Enthusiasts from their peculiar tenet of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost by Whom they thought themselves inspired or possessed (enthous). The non-Christian sect of the Euphemites were also called Messalians, and Epiphanius (Haer., lxxx), our sole informant about these, considers them the forerunners of the Christian Messalians. The non-Christian Messalians are said to have admitted a plurality of gods, but to have worshipped only one, the Almighty (Pantokrator). They were forcibly suppressed by Christian magistrates and many of them put to death. Hence they became self-styled Martyriani. The Christian Messalians were a kind of Eastern Circumcellions or vagrant Quietists. Sacraments they held to be useless, though harmless, the only spiritual power being prayer, by which one drove out the evil spirit which baptism had not expelled, received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and arrived at union with God, becoming so perfect that the passions ceased to trouble. They disregarded discipline in the matter of fasting, wandered from placa to place, and in summer were accustomed to sleep in the streets. To avoid persecution they would conform to ecclesias6tical usages, profess orthodoxy, and deny any heretical doctrines ascribed to them. They engaged in no occupations, were solely occupied in prayer, as they said, or rather in sleep, as Theodoret sarcastically remarks. The intensity of their prayer brought them into immediate communication with the Godhead. When they had reached the passionless state (apatheia, "apathy"), they saw the Trinity, the three Divine Persons becoming one and dwelling within them. They likewise saw the evil spirits that go through the world for the ruin of souls, and trod them under foot. In fact every man had within him a demon, who could only be replaced by the Holy Ghost. Even Christ's body was full of demons once. Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, tried to suppress them in his city about 376. By feigning sympathy he made Adelphius disclose his real doctrines; and then he banished him and his followers. They then wandered to the south-east of Asia Minor. Amphilochius of Iconium caused them to be again condemned at the Synod of Side (388 or 390). Letoius, Bishop of Melitene, finding some monasteries tainted with this Quietism, burnt them and drove the wolves from the sheepfold, as Theodoret narrates. The "Asceticus", "that filthy book of this heresy", as it is called in the public acts of the Third General Council (431), was condemned at Ephesus, after it had already been condemned by a Council of Constantinople in 426 and by the local council at which Amphilochius of Side presided. Yet the sect continued to exist. At first it included only laymen. Lampetius, one of the leaders after the middle of the fifth century was a priest, having been ordained by Alypius of Caesarea. He was degraded from his priesthood on account of unpriestly conduct. He wrote a book called "The Testament". Salmon refers to a fragment of an answer by Severus of Antioch to this work of Lampetius (Wolf, "Anecdota Grfca", III, 182). In Armenia in the middle of the fifth century strict decrees were issued against them, and they were especially accused of immorality; so that their very name in Armenian became the equivalent for "filthy". The Nestorians in Syria did their best to stamp out the evil by legislation; the Messalians ceased to exist under that name, but revived under that of the Bogomili. In the West they seem hardly to have been known; when the Marcianists, who held somewhat the same tenets as the Messalians, were mentioned to Gregory the Great, he professed never to have heard of the Marcian heresy. Bibliography. EPIPHANICUS, Haer., lxxx; THEODORET, Hist. Ec., IV, x; IDEM, Haer. fab., IV, xi; CYRIL OF ALEX., De Adorat. in Spir. et Verit., III in P.G., LXVIII, 282; TIMOTHEUS in Eccles. Grfc. mon., III, 400 sqq.; TER-MKRTTSCHIAN, Die Paulikianer im byz. Kaiserreich (Leipzig, 1893); PHOTIUS in P.G., CIII, 187 sqq. J.P. ARENDZEN Messene Messene A titular see, suffragan to Corinth, in Achaia. Under this name at least, the city dates only from the fourth century B.C. When Epaminondas had crushed the Spartans at Leuctra, he recalled the scattered Messenians and caused them to build, on the slopes of Mount Ithome, a new capital which they called Messene (370 B.C.). The fortified walls surrounding this city were over five and a half miles in length, and were accounted the best in Greece. The portion of them which still remains justifies this reputation. Christianity early took root there, though only a few of its bishops are known (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", II, 195-98). At the beginning of the tenth century the "Notitia episcopatuum" of Leo the Wise gives Messene as an independent archbishopric (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum", 551); and the same is true for the beginning of the fourteenth century (op. cit., 612). As this diocese does not figure in the "Notitia" of the fifteenth century, it may be assumed that it had then ceased to exist. The little village of Mavromati, with a population of 600, the capital of the Deme of Ithome, now stands upon the ruins of ancient Messene. LEAKE, Morea, I, 336; MURE, Tour in Greece, II, 264; CURTIUS, Peloponnesos, II, 138; SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, II, 338-340. S. VAILHE Messiah Messiah (Or Messias.) The Greek form Messias is a transliteration of the Hebrew, Messiah, "the anointed". The word appears only twice of the promised prince (Daniel 9:26; Psalm 2:2); yet, when a name was wanted for the promised one, who was to be at once King and Saviour, it was natural to employ this synonym for the royal title, denoting at the same time the King's royal dignity and His relation to God. The full title "Anointed of Jahveh" occurs in several passages of the Psalms of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Baruch, but the abbreviated form, "Anointed" or "the Anointed", was in common use. When used without the article, it would seem to be a proper name. The word Christos so occurs in several passages of the Gospels. This, however, is no proof that the word was generally so used at that time. In the Palestine Talmud the form with the article is almost universal, while the common use in the Babylonian Talmud without the article is not a sufficient argument for antiquity to prove that in the time of Christ it was regarded as a proper name. It is proposed in the present article: I, to give an outline of the prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah; II, to show the development of the prophetic ideas in later Judaism; and III, to show how Christ vindicated His right to this title. I. THE MESSIAH OF PROPHECY The earlier prophecies to Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 18:17-19; 26:4-5) speak merely of the salvation that shall come through their seed. Later the royal dignity of the promised deliverer becomes the prominent feature. He is described as a king of the line of Jacob (Numbers 24:19), of Juda (Genesis 49:10: "The sceptre shall not pass from Juda until he comes to whom it belongs"), and of David (II Kings 7:11-16). It is sufficiently established that this last passage refers at least typically to the Messiah. His kingdom shall be eternal (II Kings 7:13), His sway boundless (Psalm 71:8); all nations shall serve Him (Psalm 71:11). In the type of prophecy we are considering, the emphasis is on His position as a national hero. It is to Israel and Juda that He will bring salvation (Jeremiah 23:6), triumphing over their enemies by force of arms (cf. the warrior-king of Psalm 45). Even in the latter part of Isaias there are passages (e.g. 61:5-8) in which other nations are regarded as sharing in the kingdom rather as servants than as heirs, while the function of the Messiah is to lift up Jerusalem to its glory and lay the foundations of an Israelitic theocracy. But in this part of Isaias also occurs the splendid conception of the Messiah as the Servant of Jahveh. He is a chosen arrow, His mouth like a sharp sword. The Spirit of the Lord is poured out upon Him, and His word is put into His mouth (42:1; 49:1 sq.). The instrument of His power is the revelation of Jahveh. The nations wait on His teaching; He is the light of the Gentiles (42:6). He establishes His Kingdom not by manifestation of material power, but by meekness and suffering, by obedience to the command of God in laying down His life for the salvation of many. "If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a posterity and prolong his days" (53:10); "Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked" (53:12). His Kingdom shall consist of the multitude redeemed by His vicarious satisfaction, a satisfaction confined to no race or time but offered for the redemption of all alike. (For the Messianic application of these passages, especially Isaiah 52:13 to 53, cf. Condamin or Knabenbauer, in loc.) In spite, however, of Justin's use of the last-mentioned passage in "Dial. cum Tryphone", 89, it would be rash to affirm that its reference to the Messiah was at all widely realized among the Jews. In virtue of his prophetic and priestly offices the title of "the Anointed" naturally belonged to the promised one. The Messianic priest is described by David in Psalm 109, with reference to Genesis 14:14-20. That this psalm was generally understood in a Messianic sense is not disputed, while the universal consent of the Fathers puts the matter beyond question for Catholics. As regards its Davidic authorship, the arguments impugning it afford no warrant for an abandonment of the traditional view. That by the prophet described in Deuteronomy 18:15-22, was also understood, at least at the beginning of our era, the Messiah is clear from the appeal to his gift of prophecy made by the pseudo-Messiah Theudas (cf. Josephus, "Antiq.", XX, v. 1) and the use made of the passage by St. Peter in Acts 3:22-23. Special importance attaches to the prophetic description of the Messiah contained in Daniel 7, the great work of later Judaism, on account of its paramount influence upon one line of the later development of Messianic Doctrine. In it the Messiah is described as "like to a Son of Man", appearing at the right hand of Jahveh in the clouds of heaven, inaugurating the new age, not by a national victory or by vicarious satisfaction, but by exercising the Divine right of judging the whole world. Thus, the emphasis is upon the personal responsibility of the individual. The consummation is not an earth-won ascendancy of the chosen people, whether shared with otter nations or not, but a vindication of the holy by the solemn judgment of Jahveh and his Anointed One. Upon this prophecy were mainly based the various apocalyptic works which played so prominent a part in the religious life of the Jews during the last two centuries before Christ. Side by side with all these prophecies speaking of the establishment of a kingdom under the sway of a divinely-appointed legate, was the series foretelling the future rule of Jahveh himself. Of these Is., xl, may be taken as an example: "Lift up thy voice with strength thou that bringest good tidings to Sion: lift it up, fear not. Say to the cities of Juda: Behold your God. Behold the Lord your God himself shall come with strength and his arm shall rule." The reconciliation of these two series of prophecies was before the Jews in the passages--notably Ps. ii and Is., vii-xi--which clearly foretold the Divinity of the promised legate. "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"--titles all used elsewhere of Jahveh Himself (cf. Davidson, "0.T. Prophecy", p. 367). But there seems to have been little realization of the relation between these two series of prophecy until the full light of the Christian dispensation revealed their reconciliation in the mystery of the Incarnation. II. MESSIANIC DOCTRINE IN LATE JUDAISM (See also APOCRYPHA). Two quite distinct and parallel lines are discernible in the later development of Messianic doctrine among the Jews, according as the writers clung to a national ideal, based on the literal interpretation of the earlier prophecies, or an apocalyptic ideal, based principally on Daniel. The national ideal looked to the establishment on earth of the Kingdom of God under the Son of David, the conquest and subjugation of the heathen, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the gathering in of the Dispersed. The apocalyptic ideal drew a sharp distinction between aion outos and aion mellon. The future age was to be ushered in by the Divine judgment of mankind preceded by the resurrection of the dead. The Messiah, existing from the beginning of the world, should appear at the consummation, and then should be also manifested the heavenly Jerusalem which was to be the abode of the blessed. National Ideal The national ideal is that of official Pharisaism. Thus, the Talmud has no trace of the apocalyptic ideal. The scribes were mainly busied with the Law, but side by side with this was the development of the hope of the ultimate manifestation of God's Kingdom on earth. Pharisaic influence is clearly visible in vv. 573-8O8 of Sibyl. III, describing the national hopes of the Jews. A last judgment, future happiness, or reward are not mentioned. Many marvels are foretold of the Messianic wars which bring in the consummation--lighted torches falling from heaven, the darkening of the sun, the falling of meteors-but all have for end a state of earthly prosperity. The Messiah, coming from the East, dominates the whole, a triumphant national hero. Similar to this is the work called the Psalms of Solomon, written probably about 40 B.C. It is really the protest of Pharisaism against its enemies, the later Asmoneans. The Pharisees saw that the observance of the law was not of itself a sufficient bulwark against the enemies of Israel, and, as their principles would not allow them to recognize in the secularized hierarchy the promised issue of their troubles, they looked forward to the miraculous intervention of God through the agency of a Davidic Messiah. The seventeenth Psalm describes his rule: He is to conquer the heathen, to drive them from their land, to allow no injustice in their midst; His trust is not to be in armies but in God; with the word of his mouth he is to slay the wicked. Of earlier date we have the description of the final glories of the holy city in Tobias (c. xiv), where, as well as in Ecclesiasticus, there is evidence of the constant hope in the future gathering in of the Diaspora. These same nationalist ideas reappear along with a highly developed system of eschatology in the apocalyptic works written after the destruction of Jerusalem, which are referred to below. Apocalyptic Ideal The status of the apocalyptic writers as regards the religious life of the Jews has been keenly disputed. Though they had small influence in Jerusalem, the stronghold of Rabbinism, they probably both influenced and reflected the religious feeling of the rest of the Jewish world. Thus, the apocalyptic ideal of the Messiah would seem not to be the sentiment of a few enthusiasts, but to express the true hopes of a considerable section of the people. Before the Asmonean revival Israel had almost ceased to be a nation, and thus the hope of a national Messiah had grown very dim. In the earliest apocalyptic writings, consequently, nothing is said of the Messiah. In the first part of the Book of Henoch (i-xxxvi) we have an example of such a work. Not the coming of a human prince, but the descent of God upon Sinai to judge the world divides all time into two epochs. The just shall receive the gift of wisdom and become sinless. They will feed on the tree of life and enjoy a longer span than the patriarchs. The Machabean victories roused both the national and religious sentiment. The writers of the earlier Asmonean times, seeing the ancient glories of their race reviving, could no longer ignore the hope of a personal Messiah to rule the kingdom of the new age. The problem arose how to connect their present deliverers, of the tribe of Levi, with the Messiah who should be of the tribe of Juda. This was met by regarding the present age as merely the beginning of the Messianic age. Apocalyptic works of the period are the Book of Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve patriarchs, and the Vision of Weeks of Henoch. In the Book of Jubilees the promises made to Levi, and fulfilled in the Asmonean priest-kings, outshadow those made to Juda. The Messiah is but a vague figure, and little stress is laid on the judgment. The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs is a composite work. The foundation portion, conspicuous from its glorification of the priesthood, dates from before 100 B. C.; there are, however, later Jewish additions, hostile in tone to the priesthood, and numerous Christian interpolations, Controversy has arisen as to the principal figure in this work. According to Charles (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, p. xcviii) there is pictured as the Messiah a son of Levi who realizes all the lofty spiritual ideals of the Christian Saviour. La range on the other hand (Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, pp. 69 sqq.) insists that, in so far as this is the case, the portrait is the result of Christian interpolations; these removed, there remains only a laudation of the part played by Levi, in the person of the Asmoneans, as the instrument of national and religious liberation. A conspicuous instance in point is Test. Lev., Ps. xviii. While Charles says this ascribes the Messianic characteristics to the Levite, Lagrange and Bousset deny that it is Messianic at all. Apart from the interpolations, it is merely natural praise of the new royal priesthood. There can be no question indeed as to the pre-eminence of Levi; he is compared to the sun and Juda to the moon. But there is in fact a description of a Messiah descended from Juda in Test. Jud., Ps. xxiv, the original elements of which belong to the foundation part of the book. He appears also in the Testament of Joseph, though the passage is couched in an allegorical form difficult to follow. The Vision of Weeks of Henoch, dating probably from the same period, differs from the last-mentioned work principally in its insistence on the judgment, or rather judgments, to which three of the world's ten weeks are devoted. Messianic times again open with the prosperity of Asmonean days, and develop into the foundation of the Kingdom of God. Thus the Asmonean triumphs had produced an eschatology in which a personal Messiah figured, while the present was glorified into a commencement of the days of Messianic blessings. Gradually, however, the national and apocalyptic ideals. The Apocalypse of Baruch, written probably in imitation, contains a similar picture of the Messiah. This system of eschatology finds reflection also in the chiliasm of certain early Christian writers. Transferred to the second coming of the Messiah, we have the reign of peace and holiness for a thousand years upon earth before the just are transported to their eternal home in heaven (cf. Papias in Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix). III. THE VINDICATION OF THE MESSIANIC DIGNITY BY CHRIST This point may be treated under two heads (a) Christ's explicit claim to be the Messiah, and (b) the implicit claim shown in His words and actions throughout His life. Christ's explicit claim to be the Messiah Under this heading we may consider the confession of Peter in Matthew 16 and the words of Christ before his judges. These incidents involve, of course, far more than a mere claim to the Messiahship; taken in their setting, they constitute a claim to the Divine Sonship. The words of Christ to St. Peter are too clear to need any comment. The silence of the other Synoptists as to some details of the incident concern the proof from this passage rather of the Divinity than of Messianic claims. As regards Christ's claim before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, it might appear from the narratives of Matthew and Luke that He at first refused a direct reply to the high priest's question: "Art thou the Christ?" But although His answer is given merely as su eipas (thou hast said it), yet that recorded by St. Mark, ego eimi (I am), shows clearly how this answer was understood by the Jews. Dalman (Words of Jesus, pp. 309 sqq.) gives instances from Jewish literature in which the expression, "thou hast said it", is equivalent to "you are right"; his comment is that Jesus used the words as an assent indeed, but as showing that He attached comparatively little importance to this statement. Nor is this unreasonable, as the Messianic claim sinks into insignificance beside the claim to Divinity which immediately follows, and calls from the high priest the horrified accusation of blasphemy. It was this which gave the Sanhedrin a pretext, which the Messianic claim of itself did not give, for the death sentence. Before Pilate on the other hand it was merely the assertion of His royal dignity which gave ground for His condemnation. Christ's implicit claim shown in His words and actions throughout His life It is in His consistent manner of acting rather than in any specific claim that we see most clearly Christ's vindication of His dignity. At the outset of His public life (Luke, iv, 18) He applies to Himself in the synagogue of Nazareth the words relating to the Servant of Jahveh in Isaiah 61:1. It is He whom David in spirit called "Lord!" He claimed to judge the world and to forgive sins. He was superior to the Law, the Lord of the Sabbath, the Master of the Temple. In His own name, by the word of His mouth, He cleansed lepers, He stilled the sea, He raised the dead. His disciples must regard all as well lost merely to enjoy the privilege of following Him. The Jews, while failing to see all that these things implied, a dignity and power not inferior to those of Jahveh Himself, could not but perceive that He who so acted was at least the Divinely accredited representative of Jahveh. In this connection we may consider the title Christ used of Himself, "Son of Man". We have no evidence that this was then commonly regarded as a Messianic title. Some doubt as to its meaning in the minds of Christ's hearers is possibly shown by John, xii, 34: "Who is this Son of man?" The Jews, while undoubtedly seeing in Daniel, vii, a portrait of the Messiah, probably failed to recognize in these words a definite title at all. This is the more probable from the fact that, while this passage exercised great influence upon the apocalyptists, the title "Son of Man" does not appear in their writings except in passages of doubtful authenticity. Now, Christ not merely uses the name, but claims for Himself the right to judge the world (Matt., xxv 31-46), which is the most marked note of Daniel's Messiah. A double reason would lead Him to assume this particular designation: that He might speak of Himself as the Messiah without making His claim conspicuous to the ruling powers till the time came for His open vindication, and that as far as possible He might hinder the people from transferring to Him their own material notions of Davidic kingship. Nor did His claim to the dignity merely concern the future. He did not say, "I shall be the Messiah", but "I am the Messiah". Thus, besides His answer to Caiphas and His approval of Peter's affirmation of His present Messiahship, we have in Matt., xi, 5, the guarded but clear answer to the question of the Baptist's disciples: "Art thou ho erchomenos?" In St. John the evidence is abundant. There is no question of a future dignity in His words to the Samaritan woman (John, iv) or to the man born blind (ix, 5), for He was already performing the works foretold of the Messiah. Though but as a grain of mustard seed, the Kingdom of God upon earth was already established; He had already begun the work of the Servant of Jahveh, of preaching, of suffering, of saving men. The consummation of His task and His rule in glory over the Kingdom were indeed still in the future, but these were the final crown, not the sole constituents, of the Messianic dignity. For those who, before the Christian dispensation, sought to interpret the ancient prophecies, some single aspect of the Messiah sufficed to fill the whole view. We, in the light of the Christian revelation, see realized and harmonized in Our Lord all the conflicting Messianic hopes, all the visions of the prophets. He is at once the Suffering Servant and the Davidic King, the Judge of mankind and its Saviour, true Son of Man and God with us. On Him is laid the iniquity of us all, and on Him, as God incarnate, rests the Spirit of Jahveh, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Fortitude, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Fear of the Lord. L.W. GEDDES Messina, Antonello Da Antonello da Messina Born at Messina, about 1430; died 1497. After studying for some time in Sicily he crossed over to Naples, where, we are told, he became the pupil of an unknown artist, Antonio Colantonio. It was here, according to Vasari, that Messina, on seeing a painting of John Van Eyck, belonging to Alphonsus of Aragon, determined to devote himself to the study of the Flemish Masters. It would seem too that he set out for Bruges with this purpose; others, however, maintain that he need not have left Italy to ground himself in the new technic as several Flemish artists of renown had already, through the patronage of the princes Rene of Anjou and Alphonsus of Aragon, won for their pictures no slight reputation. The question will remain a debated point until the discovery of some authentic document shall decide definitively whether the Sicilian painter did or did not sail for Flanders. It is certain, however, that he mastered perfectly the methods followed by the disciples of Van Eyck in oil-painting methods that had eclipsed all the efforts made by the Italian school. On his return to Messina, Antonello evinced remarkable skill in handling oils in a triptych, unfortunately destroyed in the recent earthquake, representing the Blessed Virgin with St. Gregory and St. Benedict on either side and two angels holding a crown over Our Lady's head. Later, Messina went to Venice, where in 1473 he executed an altar screen, no longer extant, for the church of San Cassiano. By making known the secret of the Van Eycks, Antonello quickly won success; for the introduction of the new technic, singularly adapted to bring out brilliant colour effects and at the same time ensure their permanency, suited admirably the tastes of the Venetians "already so richly endowed with a feeling for the charm of colour", and "was destined to make Venice the most renowned school in Italy for the study of colouring" (Le Cicerone, II, 610). The new style was eagerly followed by Bartholomew and Louis Vivarini, John and Gentile Bellini, Carpaccio and Cima. Assailed by homesickness, Antonello returned to Messina to leave it no more until his death (cf. Lionello Venturi, loc. cit. infra). Messina rivals the Flemings in transparency of colouring, though occasionally he may justly be censured for the use of "a dark brown in his flesh-tints" (Muentz, II, 778). If he imitates their careful execution of details, he surpasses them by the distinction and nobility of his figures, a trait in which one recognizes the Italian. He excels only as a portrait painter, and especially in his portraiture of men. Of his work in this department he has left us some masterpieces that evince in a striking degree truth to nature and strength of conception and execution: in the Academy of Venice, a half-length portrait of a man; in the Museum of Berlin, a head of a young man; in the house of the Marquis Trivulci at Milan, the head of a man in the prime of life; in the Civic Museum of Milan, an excellent bust-painting of a poet with flowing hair crowned by a wreath; above all the painting entitled "Condottiere" preserved in the Louvre. Not so successful in religious paintings, at Venice, he reproduced without conviction and almost slavishly Madonnas of the type of G. Bellini. In the National Gallery there is a half-length portrait of the year 1465 representing Christ with His hand raised in blessing. In conclusion let us call special attention to the large studies, entitled "St. Sebastian", "St. Jerome in his Study", "The Crucifixion". "St. Sebastian", in the Museum of Dresden, represents a beautiful young man, almost life-size, naked, of striking figure, and standing out against a background of a landscape brilliantly illuminated. In accordance with the Venetian or Paduan taste the painter has added a certain number of secondary motives, the better to set off the leading theme. This study in the nude is doubly shocking, since it is out of place in a devotional picture, and is nothing but a pretext for displaying his knowledge of anatomy. "St. Jerome", also preserved in the National Gallery, is a carefully executed picture, pleasing to the eye; the studio is vaulted, the window, set high up in the wall and lighting up the studio, has all the charm of a chapel window. On the side may be seen the outlines of a pleasant cloister; another opening discloses a vista of a distant landscape. The learned Doctor, seated in a wooden armchair on a platform slightly elevated, is absorbed in the reading of a book lying open on a desk before him; in the foreground, a beautiful peacock and a little bird. In "The Crucifixion" of the Museum of Antwerp, we are struck by certain realistic touches which Antonello learned from the Flemish school. Skulls are scattered along the ground; the two thieves, fastened not to crosses but to trees, are writhing in pain. The Italian is discernible in the nobility with which Messina invests the figures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and St. John. Antonello has been praised for "a feeling, sometimes quite correct, for large strongly lighted landscapes", and the "Crucifixion" witnesses to the truth of this criticism, for the landscape which forms the setting of this pathetic scene on Calvary, in spite of the multiplicity of details, preserves a harmonious unity. VASARI, Le Vite de' piu eccellenti pittori, ed. MILANESI, II (Florence, 1878), 563-89; EASTLAKE, Materials for a History of Oil-painting (Paris, 1847); BLANC, Histoire des peintres de toutes les ecoles (Paris, 1865-77); CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, History of Painting in North Italy, II, ii (London, 1871), 77-100; LUeBKE, Gesch. der italienischen Malerei, I (Stuttgart, 1878), 558 sq.; LAFENESTRE, La Peinture italienne jusqu'`a la fin du XV ^e siecle (Paris, 1885), 283-84; MUeNTZ, Histoire de l'art pendant la Renaissance, II (Paris, 1891), 777-79; BURCKHARDT AND BODE, Le Cicerone, II, l'Art moderne, French tr. GERARD (Paris, 1892), 610; D'AMICO, Antonello d'Antonia, Le sue opere e l'invenzione della pittura al olio (Messina, 1906); VENTURI, Antonello da Messina in THIEME AND BECKER, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kuenstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1907), 567 sq. GASTON SORTAIS. Archdiocese of Messina Archdiocese of Messina (MESSINENSIS) Located in Sicily. The city is situated, in the shape of an amphitheatre, along the slope of the Hills of Neptune, on an inlet of the sea at the Strait of Messina, which separates Sicily from the peninsula. Its harbour, with its size and fine situation, is one of the most important in Italy after those of Genoa and of Naples. Nevertheless, the hopes entertained for its commerce, in view of the opening of the Suez Canal, were disappointed, for, between 1887 and 1894, the commerce of Messina decreased from 940,000 tons to 350,000 tons; still, in 1908, it grew again to 551,000 tons. The neighbouring seas are rich in coral, molluscs, and fish; and from the mountains are obtained calcic sulphate, alabaster, sulphates of argentiferous lead, antimony, iron, and copper. Messina is said to have been founded by some pirates from Cumae, a very ancient Greek colony, and to have received from its founders the name of Zancle (sickle) on account of the semicircular shape of the port. In 735 a colony of Messenians was taken there by Gorgos, a son of King Aristomenes, the brave but unfortunate defender of the Messenians against the Spartans. Thereafter, the population of the city was increased by fugitives from Chalcis, Samos, and Euboea, who had escaped from the Persian invasion; they became preponderant in the town and made it join the Ionian League. In 493 b.c. Anaxilas, tyrant of Rhegium, also a Messenian colony, drove the Samians from Zancle, took the town, and called it Messana (the a of the Doric dialect, which becomes n in the Ionic coming later to be pronounced as English e). In 426 the city was retaken by the Ionians under the Athenian Laches, who, however, lost it in 415; an attempt of another Athenian, Nicias, to recover it failed. In consequence of the rivalry of the Athenians and the Carthaginians for the possession of Sicily, Messina was pillaged and destroyed by the Carthaginians in 396, but was rebuilt by Dionysius. In 312 the town was taken by Agathocles, and at his death the Campanian mercenaries of his army, called Mamertines, took possession of the city, and established there a military republic; having been defeated by Hiero II near Mylae (Milazzo) in 269, and then besieged in the town itself, a part of them sought the assistance of the Carthaginians, and a part that of the Romans. The Carthaginians under Hanno were the first to arrive, but in 264 the consul, Appius Claudia Caudex, took the city, repelling Carthaginians and Syracusans. This brought about the Punic Wars. Other events of the pre-Christian history of Messina are the victory of Piso over the slaves in 133; and the naval victory of Agrippa over Pompey in 36. In the Gothic wars Messina had a considerable part; while, in A. D. 831, it fell into the hands of the Arabs. In the Norman conquest of Sicily, Messina was naturally the basis of operations. In 1038 the Byzantine general, George Maniakes, assisted by the Normans, captured the town, but it was lost again, on the recall of that general. In 1060 Count Roger made his first expedition, and in the following year was master of Messina, which from that time followed the fortunes of the Kingdom of Naples. There was a serious revolt against Frederick II in 1232; and in 1282 Messina also had its "Vespers", and on that account was besieged by King Charles II, who was, however, compelled to retreat, and left Sicily to the King of Aragon. In 1676, the Messenians rebelled against Spanish domination, and were assisted by a French fleet, sent by Louis XIV; Viscount Duquesne obtained a naval victory over the Spaniards, but soon a royal order obliged the French to leave the city. Messina had a part in the wars for the union of Italy: it was bombarded in 1848; and in 1860, after a long resistance was taken by Garibaldi. The city has often been a prey to earthquakes, the most disastrous of which were those of 1783 and of 1908; the latter, on 28 December of that year, destroyed Messina almost entirely. The most beautiful of the palaces and of the churches were overthrown, among them the cathedral, a structure of three naves, containing six great columns of Egyptian marble that came from the ruins of Cape Faro (the ancient Pelorum Promontorium); the chief entrance of this temple was a jewel of Roman art, rich in little columns, fretwork, spirals, bas-reliefs, and statuettes; the marble pulpit, a work of Gagini, was in the shape of a chalice; the tribune was adorned with mosaics of the time of Frederick II; and the walls were decorated with frescoes and oil paintings of great masters. The residence of the canons, and the sacristy also, had paintings by such masters as Salvo d'Antonio, Quagliata, Rodriguez, Catalano, Alibrandi, Fiammingo, etc. On the cathedral square, before the fac,ade of the Franciscan convent, was a monumental fountain, the work of Gian Angelo da Montorsoli (1551). The most beautiful church of Messina is that of the Madonna of Montevergine; other interesting churches are those of San Francesco dei Mercadanti; the church and monastery of San Giorgio with pictures by Guercino and by other masters; Santa Maria dell' Alto where is preserved the only known picture by Cardillo (about 1200); the church of San Francesco d'Assisi, built in the Gothic style, but disfigured in 1721; lastly, the churches of San Nicolo and of San Domenico, the latter containing the mausoleum of the family of Cicala by Montorsoli and a fine Piet`a in marble. The episcopal palace, spared by the last earthquake, and the adjoining seminary, are interesting buildings; likewise, the city hail, with its Fountain of Neptune by Montorsoli, and the university dating from 1549, which had a most valuable library of 3000 editiones principes, 241 manuscripts, and 10 parchments with miniature paintings, a gallery of pictures, and a collection of coins, all of which is yet buried under the ruins. The hospital of La Piet`a and the fortifications, constructed mostly under Charles V, were ornaments of the city. According to the legend, Christianity was brought hither by Saints Peter and Paul, and there is still preserved at Messina a letter attributed to the Blessed Virgin, which, it is claimed, was written by her to the Messenians when Our Lady heard of their conversion by St. Paul. St. Bachiritis or Bacchilus is venerated as the first Bishop of Messina. There is record of several bishops of Messene in the fourth and fifth centuries, but it is not known whether it be Messina, or Messene in Greece, to which reference is made; Eucarpus, a contemporary of Pope Symmachus (498), is the first Bishop of Messina of known date; the bishops who are known to have followed him were Felix (about 600), Peregrinus (649), Benedict (682), Gaudiosus (787), and Gregory (868); the latter was for some time a follower of Photius. Nothing is known of the episcopal see during the time of the Saracen occupation. In 1090, Roger established there, as bishop, Robert, who built the cathedral. Under Bishop Nicholas (1166) Messina was made an archbishopric. Among other bishops of this see may be mentioned the Englishman, Richard Palmer (1182); Archbishop Lando, often an intermediary between Gregory IX and Frederick II; Francesco Fontana (1288), expelled by the Messenians; Guidotto dei Tabiati (1292), whose mausoleum was one of the works of art of the cathedral; Cardinal Antonio Cerdani (1447); in 1473 the chapter elected the Basilian archimandrite, Leontios, and he not being acceptable to the pope or to the king, the friar, Jacob da Santa Lucia, was appointed in his stead, but was not received; Cardinal Pietro Sveglie (1510), who had served on several occasions as pontifical legate; Cardinal Innocenzo Cibo (1538); Cardinal Gianandrea de Mercurio (1550), who had a controversy with the Greek bishop, Pamphilius, the latter claiming jurisdiction over the Greek priests of the archdiocese; Andrea Mastrilli (1618), convoked many synods, and rebuilt the episcopal palace and the seminary; the Dominican, Tommaso Moncada (1743), who at the same time was Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Archbishop of Messina is also Archimandrite of San Salvatore; this convent of Greek Monks of St. Basil was founded by Count Roger in 1094, and its archimandrite had jurisdiction over all the Basilian monasteries of the kingdom, of which there were forty-four, as well as over many parishes. In 1421, the archimandritate was secularized and was given in commendam to secular prelates, of whom Bessarion was one. In time the monastery fell into decadence; a fortification was erected on its site (1538), and the monks moved to the church of La Misericordia. Urban VIII made the archimandritate and its territory immediately subject to the Holy See, and Leo XIII in 1883 united it with the Archdiocese of Messina. The collegiate church of Santa Maria del Graffeo, called the "Cattolica", is noteworthy in Messina: the so-called Graeco-Latin Rite is used there, its characteristics being a combination of Latin vestments, unleavened bread, etc., with the Greek language: on solemn occasions, the Epistle and the Gospel are read, first in Latin and then in Greek. In certain functions, the canons of the cathedral and those of the "Graffeo" officiate together, either at the latter church or at the cathedral. The clergy of the "Graffeo" have at their head a protopope who is under the jurisdiction of the archbishop. Formerly, the Greek Rite was in use in other churches of Messina, introduced there probably during the Byzantine domination. The archdiocese and the Abbey of San Salvatore together had 179 parishes, with 250,000 inhabitants, 22 religious houses of men, and 26 of women. The seminary was uninjured by the earthquake, and since then the Jesuits reopened a college. There is a Catholic journal that appears three times each week. Within the territory of the archdiocese is the proelatura nullius of Santa Lucia del Melo, which has 7 parishes, with nearly 15,000 inhabitants. The suffragan sees of Messina are those of Lipari, Nicosia, and Patti. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1870), 558-71; MORABITO, Series episcoporum messanensium (Naples, 1669); PIRRI, Sicilia sacra, I-III (1633 sqq.); LA FARINA, Messina e i suoi monumenti (Messina, 1840). U. BENIGNI. Thomas Messingham Thomas Messingham An Irish hagiologist, born in the Diocese of Meath, and studied in the Irish College, Paris, proceeding to the degree of S.T.D. Among the Franciscan Manuscripts in Dublin is an interesting tract sent by David Rothe, Vice-Primate of All Ireland, addressed to my "loving friend Mr. Thomas Messingham at his chambers in Paris", dated 1615. It is evident that at this date Messingham was one of the staff of the Irish College in that city, and was commencing his studies on Irish saints. In 1620 he published Offices of SS. Patrick, Brigid, Columba, and other Irish saints; and in the following year was appointed rector of the Irish College, Paris, in succession to his friend and diocesan, Thomas Dease, who was promoted to the Bishopric of Meath, on 5 May, 1621. Messingham was honoured by the Holy See, and was raised to the dignity of prothonotary Apostolic, and acted as agent for many of the Irish bishops. Though diligent in the quest for materials with a view to an ecclesiastical history of Ireland, Messingham proved a most able and judicious rector of the Irish College, and he thoroughly organized the course of studies with a view of sending forth capable missionaries to work in their native country. He got the college affiliated formally to the University of Paris, and, in 1626, got the approbation of the Archbishop of Paris for the rules he had drawn up for the government of the Irish seminary. In 1624 he published, at Paris, his famous work on Irish saints, "Florilegium Insulae Sanctorum", containing also an interesting treatise on St. Patrick's Purgatory, in Lough Derg. In the same year he was appointed by the Holy See to the Deanery of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, in succession to Henry Byrne, but this position was merely honorary, inasmuch as all the temporalities were enjoyed by the Protestant dean, by patent from the Crown. Messingham had a lengthy correspondence with Father Luke Wadding, O.F.M., and was frequently consulted by the Roman authorities in the matter of selecting suitable ecclesiastics to fill the vacant Irish sees. On 15 July, 1630, he wrote to Wadding that he feared it was in vain to hope for any indulgences in religious disabilities from King Charles I. Between the years 1632 and 1638 he laboured for the Irish Church in various capacities, but his name disappears after the latter year, whence we may conclude that he either resigned or died in 1638. JOURDAIN, Histoire de l'UniversitE de Paris (Paris, 1866); BOYLE, The Irish College in Paris (London, 1901); Report on Franciscan Manuscripts, Hist. Manuscripts Com. (Dublin, 1905). W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD. Metalwork Metalwork in the Service of the Church 10218agx.jpg From the earliest days the Church has employed utensils and vessels of metal in its liturgical ceremonies. This practice increased during the Middle Ages. The history of the metalwork of the Church in the Middle Ages is in fact the history of the art of metalworking in general, and this is not only because the Church was the foremost patron of such works and because almost all the works that have been preserved from the Middle Ages are ecclesiastical in character, but also because until the twelfth century the works of the goldsmith were also almost exclusively manufactured by monks and clerics. But in the period of the Renaissance also the manufacture of church metalwork formed a very important branch of the goldsmith's art, and even in our own day these works are counted among those in the production of which that art can be most profitably developed; but not only the goldsmith's art, that is the artistic treatment of the precious metal, had its growth and development in the service of the Church, the base metals also, especially iron, bronze, and brass, have been largely used. As we are dealing, however, with the historical development of the metalwork in the service of the Church, we shall confine ourselves more particularly to works in the precious metals, without however entirely excluding those in the inferior metals from our consideration. I. ANTIQUITY Beginning with antiquity, we must first prove that the Church did in fact make use of valuable works of metal in the most ancient times. Honorius of Autun (d. 1145) makes the remark that the Apostles and their followers had employed wooden chalices in the celebration of the holy Mass, but that Pope Zephyrinus had ordered the use of glass and Pope Urban I of silver and gold vessels (Gemma animae, P. L., CLXXII, 573). This opinion seems to have been widely disseminated during the Middle Ages; it is nevertheless untenable. Recourse to chalices made of wood or some other cheap material was undoubtedly often made necessary in antiquity as the result of a lack of the more valuable materials or during the stormy times of the persecutions, but this custom cannot have been general. If the earliest Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and of this there can be no doubt, they assuredly also made offering of their most precious vessels in order that the Sacred Mysteries might be worthily celebrated. The earliest positive notices of the use of metalwork in the service of the Church date from the third and fourth centuries. It is especially the "Liber pontificalis", which is now accessible in the critical editions of Duchesne and Mommsen from which we derive the most interesting information concerning the subject under discussion. Here we first meet with the statement that Pope Urban had the sacred vessels made of silver, which does not by any means imply that before that time they were all made of glass. Of greater importance are the accounts of the magnificent donations of valuable works in metal made by Emperor Constantine to the Roman basilicas. It would take up too much space to enumerate them all, and we shall content ourselves with mentioning a few examples. + To the Vatican basilica he presented seven large chalices (scyphi) of the purest gold, each of which weighed ten (Roman) pounds; furthermore forty smaller chalices of pure gold, each weighing one pound. + The church of St. Agnes received a chalice of solid gold weighing ten pounds, five silver chalices of ten pounds each, and two silver patens (metal plates for the Eucharistic bread) of thirty pounds each. + The patens are often mentioned in connection with the chalices; thus the Lateran basilica received seven gold and sixteen silver patens of thirty pounds each. Though not to the same extent, the other churches also were in possession of valuable metalwork for the liturgical service. The Church of Carthage, according to the testimony of Optatus, possessed so many valuables of gold and silver, that it was no easy matter to remove or hide them at the time of the persecutions (Contra Parmen., I, xviii). Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, was accused at the Council of Chalcedon (451) of having purloined a valuable chalice set with precious stones, which a pious man had presented to the church. As to the various kinds of metalwork used in the Church, the "Liber pontificalis" mentions the following in addition to chalice and paten as in use in the lifetime of Pope Sylvester: + a silver bowl of ten pounds, which was intended for the reception of the chrism at baptisms and confirmations, + a silver baptismal vessel of twenty pounds, + a golden lamb weighing thirty pounds, which was set up in the baptistery beside the Lateran. + seven silver stags that spouted water, each of which weighed eighty pounds, and especially + numerous vessels for wine, e.g., in the Vatican basilica two specimens of the purest gold, each of a weight of fifty pounds. + Of importance to us also is the statement that beside the golden lamb just mentioned there stood silver statues, five feet in height, of the Redeemer and St. John, weighing 180 and 125 pounds respectively. + Furthermore mention must be made of the metal caskets, crosses, reliquaries, and book-covers, which were likewise made either entirely or in part of precious metal. With this enumeration the number of metallic utensils employed in Christian antiquity is by no means complete. The centre of Christian worship is the sacrifice and the altar, for this reason it was early made of valuable material or at least covered with it. Metal plates were furthermore used to adorn the confession and the immediate surroundings of the altar. Great wealth of the precious metals was spent upon the superstructure of the altar, or ciborium, which was decorated with metal statues, with chalices and votive crowns. When Leo III had the ciborium, presented by the Emperor Constantine, restored, he employed for that purpose 2704 1/2 pounds of silver. A large amount of metal was also used for the iconostasis, a screen connecting from two to six columns; thus Leo III had the iconostasis in the church of St. Paul recovered at an expenditure of 1452 pounds of silver. A large amount of metalwork is also required for the illumination of the basilica. Constantine alone presented to the Lateran church 174 separate articles of the greatest variety intended for this purpose. It is sufficient here to make mention merely of the chandeliers or lustres (coronae), the candelabra and lamps; they were made of bronze, silver, or gold. The Lateran church received among the rest a chandelier with fifty lamps of the purest gold, weighing 120 pounds, and a candelabrum of the same material, with eighty lamps. Even the vessels for storing the oil were sometimes made of precious metal. The Lateran basilica was the owner of three such vessels of silver, weighing 900 pounds. Practically nothing however of all these treasures has come down to us only a few small chandeliers of bronze, dating from the fifth to the eighth centuries, have been found, most of them in Egypt. There remains one more article of metal that was much used in the service of the Church from the earliest centuries, the censer. According to the "Liber pontificalis" the baptistery of St. John at the Lateran had a censer of gold weighing fifteen pounds, which was ornamented with green precious stones. If we take account then of all these articles, the conclusion naturally follows that the use of articles of metal in the service of the Church had attained extraordinary proportions in Christian antiquity. More difficult than the enumeration of the works in metal is the description of their decoration and the technical processes employed in their manufacture, because on this point our literary sources are almost wholly silent, while of the old Christian works, which might enlighten us, but very few are extant. We must therefore, in this case also, confine ourselves particularly to the statements of the "Liber pontificalis". Here we find numerous references to images (imagines) of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the Angels, and Apostles; in most cases it is impossible to determine whether the works were carved or cast, certain it is that both methods were employed. The statues of Christ and the Apostles on the ciborium presented by Constantine to the Lateran church were undoubtedly carved. In some cases the core of the statue was of wood which was overlaid or covered with silver or gold. Painted images also were sometimes decorated with reliefs of silver or gold. Gregory III, for example, employed five pounds of pure gold and precious stones in the decoration of a statue of the Madonna in S. Maria Maggiore. Precious stones in particular were a favourite form of decoration for articles made of metal golden statues were at times completely covered with them. When Sixtus I provided the confession of the Vatican basilica with costlier furnishings, Valentinian presented a tablet in relief with the images of Christ and the Apostles which was studded with precious stones. The baptistery too beside the Lateran church possessed a censer which was adorned with precious stones. The works in bronze were often inlaid with silver decorations. Thus the chapels of St. John received doors with silver ornamentation. This was probably a kind of niello. To obtain colour effects enamel and verroterie cloisonee were likewise employed; of these a more detailed account will be given later. We shall call attention here only to the best-known specimen that has been preserved, the pentaptych in the treasury of Milan cathedral the central division of this is ornamented by this process with the paschal lamb and the cross. Finally, as to the workshops from which the Church derived its metalwork, there can be no doubt that they existed in all the larger cities of the civilized countries of ancient Christendom; but the cities of the Eastern Roman Empire, and especially Byzantium, seem to have been pre-eminent. There is a tendency even at the present day to consider almost all of the larger works that have been preserved as products of Eastern art. In fact a large number of works in metal were brought from the Orient to the Western countries. We mention here only a reliquary cross in St. Peter's at Rome, a present of the Byzantine emperor Justin II. II. MIDDLE AGES A. Byzantine metalwork We begin the Middle Ages with the Byzantine metalwork, in order to remove at the outset the impression that the term Byzantine is used to express a definite period of time; it is used rather to denote a definite geographical circle of art and culture, that is to say, Byzantium with its immediate and more distant surroundings. There were two factors that exerted a powerful influence upon the Byzantine work: first, the almost boundless extravagance which prevailed at the imperial Court, and which, as a result of the intimate relations existing between State and Church, made itself felt also in the latter; second, the close contact with the art of the inland provinces, particularly with Persian art. The Persian, or, to use a more general term, the Oriental, influence gave rise to an extravagant seeking after colour effects in the art of metalworking accompanied by a suppression of the main object, namely the production of plastic works. To understand the latter change, we must briefly explain a few technical terms. To give artistic form to the shapeless mass of metal the processes employed are casting and hammering or chiselling. In the former process the metal is brought to a liquid state and poured into a hollow form, which has previously been prepared by pressing a solid model into a yielding mass. Although casting must be regarded as the original mode of treating metals, nevertheless, so far as giving artistic form to gold and silver is concerned, hammering was of greater importance. By means of hammers the sheet of metal is hollowed out and in this way given plastic form. Very closely connected with hammering is the art of engraving this consists in directing the blow of the hammer not directly upon the metal but transmitting it by means of small steel chisels. It is these two latter processes that we have chiefly in mind when we speak of the goldsmith's art. By means of these the ancient art of the Occident produced its most beautiful works in metal. A different state of affairs existed in the Orient, and particularly in the home of the Mesopotamio-Persian and Syrian art, where, so to say, the hand had less plastic training than the eye a gift for colour. The glittering gold here received additional decoration by means of coloured enamels. This preference for coloured representation instead of the plastic was transmitted to Byzantium also. But it will always remain to the credit of the Byzantine goldsmith's art that it produced magnificent works in metal for the service of the Church. The process employed in the Orient and Byzantium is known as cloisonne enamel (email cloisonne); it consists in soldering very thin strips of gold on the gold baseplate so as to form cells into which the coloured enamel paste is pressed and fused in place, the enamel combining with the metal during fusion. In Byzantium cloisonne enamel forced the art of hammering and chiselling into a very subordinate position; enamel was used to decorate secular articles, such as bowls and swords, but especially the metalwork of the Church. The ornamentation consisted partly of decorative designs partly of figurative representations. Among the works that have come down to us there are many of a miniature- like purity, which in spite of their small size are truly monumental in conception. Of the larger works only a very small number have been preserved, the most famous is the golden altar-front (Pala d'oro) of St. Mark's at Venice. The remaining pieces are for the most part relic-cases which were suspended from the neck or placed upon the altar (examples at Velletri and Cosenza), crosses and book covers (a magnificent specimen in the royal jewel-room at Munich). From the period in which this art reached its highest perfection, the tenth and eleventh centuries, we have the so-called staurotheca (a reliquary tablet) in the cathedral at Limburg on the Lahn the reliquary of Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) in the convent of Lavra (Athos), and the lower band of the so-called crown of St. Stephen in the crown treasures at Budapest (1076-77). The terrible pillaging of the capital by the western crusaders, 1204, dealt the deathblow to this flourishing art. Although the examples of Byzantine metalwork decorated with enamel are by far the most numerous, specimens of hammered work are not entirely lacking. In the first place we may mention two architectural relic-cases which are in the form of a central structure surmounted by a dome (at Aachen and Venice). The reliquary tablets with carved reliefs are either in the form of a small folding-altar or of a cross, which often bears the portraits of the emperor, Constantine, and his mother on the obverse, and on the reverse, the crucifixion. A distinct type of the Greek goldsmith's art are the icons; one of the most valuable is in the Swenigorodskoi collection (St. Petersburg). A rare specimen with excellent chasing, a gilded silver pyx with the crucifixion of Christ, is in the cathedral at Halberstadt (eleventh century). At only one place in the West is it possible at the present day to get an idea of the magnificence and costliness of the Byzantine metalwork, in the treasures and library of St. Mark's at Venice, which still possesses a portion of the booty of the year 1204. B. Barbarian metalwork Though the manufacture of artistic metalwork for the Church was accompanied by no difficulties in the countries of the older civilization conditions were much more unfavourable among the barbarian nations which embraced Christianity. Nevertheless we know that among them articles of metal were much used in the service of the Church. Gregory of Tours in one place speaks of sixty chalices fifteen patens, twenty encolpia of pure gold, which King Childebert took as booty in the year 531 in a campaign against the Visigoths. When St. Patrick came to Ireland, he had in his retinue, among others, three workers in metal namely Mac Cecht, Laebhan, and Fortchern. There are still in existence fifty-three small bells, tubular and box-shaped, which belong to this Irish art of metalworking; among the Franks Saint Eligius of Noyon (588-659), a goldsmith, was even consecrated bishop. Here the interesting question arises, how these "barbarians" succeeded in producing artistic work in metal. The works themselves that have been preserved alone can answer this question. There are, it is true, but few of these the most important to be considered here are a chalice and a paten which were found near Gourdon (Burgundy) and are now preserved in the National Library of Paris, a relic-case also Burgundian, in St Maurice (Switzerland), the famous votive-crowns of the Visigothic kings from Guarrazar, especially those of Recesvinth and Svintila (631), a Gospel-cover of Queen Theodolinda in Monza, a reliquary in purse form from Hereford (now in Berlin), a Gospel-cover from Lindau (later purchased by J. Pierpont Morgan) and the Tassilo chalice in Kremsmuenster (Austria); there may further be assigned to this period, because of their style the St. Cuthbert cross in the cathedral at Durham, the chalice of Ardagh, the shrines of several old Irish bells, and a number of croziers and crosses in the collection of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, and in the British Museum, London. When we consider that these works extend over a period of more than four centuries and are the products of several races it is at once apparent that we can give but a faint intimation of the character and decoration of the metalwork of the Church among barbarian nations. The material used in the manufacture of these works is almost exclusively gold, while their artistic decoration consists for the most part of the so-called verroterie cloisonnee, a glass mosaic. The process employed in this decoration is akin to that of cloisonne enamel; the setting of the semiprecious stones or paste gems is done in one of two ways: they are either bedded between thin bands of metal like cloisonne enamel, or set in openings which are cut into the gold plate itself. At times the gold plate is completely covered with the stones. Chased ornamentation on the other hand is of rarer occurrence it is found in a crude fashion on the Hereford reliquary. That niello was not unknown to the "barbarian" nations is proved by the chalice in Kremsmuenster, a present of Tassilo, Duke of Bavaria (about 780). In Irish art filigree also found a very delicate development one of the most valuable examples, one that displays a concentration of all the processes with which the native masters were conversant, is the chalice of Ardagh. C. Carolingian and Othonian metalwork The second period embraces the age of the Carolingian and Othonian emperors, i.e., in round numbers a period of 200 years. While it can hardly be said that this period added anything essentially new to the metalwork of the previous centuries, it is nevertheless true that it gave new forms and a further development to many of the articles already in use. We now also more frequently meet with works cast in bronze, whereas in the so-called "style of the period of migrations" of the preceding age it was not necessary even to mention them. With the increase in the wealth of the Church, there arose also the necessity for an increased amount of valuable metalwork, this was especially the case in the large monasteries which counted among their own members metalworkers of great artistic skill. The manufacture of the metalwork for the Church during the tenth and eleventh centuries was in fact so largely in the hands of the monks that this entire period has been designated as the period of monastic art. While France had led in the development during the ninth century, from the tenth century it gradually fell behind Germany. One of the causes that helped to bring about this result was the lively interest which several of the prominent ecclesiastical princes took in the art of metalworking as developed within the Church, the most deserving of mention in this connection is Archbishop Egbert of Trier and after him Bishops Meinwerk of Paderborn and Bernward of Hildesheim. In France the art of metalworking flourished especially in Reims, but also in Corbie Tours, and Metz. In Germany the centres of the goldsmith's art of the Church were, besides Trier, especially the monasteries at Ratisbon, Reichenau, Essen, Hildesheim, and Helmershausen. The characteristic feature of the art of the period of migrations, the verroterie cloisonnee, gradually disappears and yields precedence to the Byzantine cloisonne enamel which flourished especially at Trier and Reichenau. The revival of the plastic tendency in metalworking was of greater importance. We have from the period under discussion even at this day several altar-decorations and book-covers with figural representations, which reveal a truly amazing skill in metal-hammering; such is the valuable antipendium of Henry II from Basle. The primitive method of covering a wooden core with thin sheets of metal was also still practiced. A Madonna in the collegiate church at Essen (Rheinland) and an image of St. Fides (Foy) at Conques, France, are the two best known examples of this art. In Italy the most important work of this period is the decoration of the high altar in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan the work of Wolvinus, executed under Archbishop Angelbert II (824-66). Prominent examples of the French metal work are the portable altar, shaped like a ciborium, and the binding of a copy of the Gospels in the royal jewel-room at Munich, which were probably made at Reims and were brought to Germany as early as the reign of King Arnulf (d. 899). Germany possesses, as evidence of a more advanced art of metalworking, four crosses in the collegiate church at Essen which reveal the powerful influence of the Byzantine art. Closely connected with Essen are the school of the monastery at Helmershausen, where the monk Rogerus wrote the first handbook of the industrial arts, "Schedula diversarum artium", and the school of Hildesheim, which through the activity of Bishop Bernward became the centre of the metalworker art in Northern Germany; the folding-doors of the cathedral with crude reliefs, a column, which is patterned after Trajan's Column in Rome, and two candle-sticks belong to this period. In France scarcely a single work of any size has been preserved; in Italy several bronze doors, for instance, those of the basilica of St. Paul at Rome (1070) and Monte Gargano (1070), are noteworthy, because they were procured from Byzantium and show the influence of the Byzantine art. D. Romanesque metalwork The golden age of the metalwork of the Church is the Romanesque period (1050-1250). We have already, it is true, mentioned above several works belonging to this age, because the various styles of art often overlap, and sharp distinctions can be drawn only by force. The characteristic which at once distinguishes the metalworks of the Romanesque period from the older works is their large size; this distinction is most noticeable in the reliquaries. For, while the receptacles for relics had up to that time been uniformly of small dimensions, they grew in the Romanesque period into large shrines, for the transport of which three or four men were necessary. Several new varieties of metalwork also were added to the old, especially the aquamanile, i.e., a vessel in the form of an animal, used for washing the hands, and the metal structures placed upon the altar; other articles assumed new forms. These changes are in part due to the evolution of the liturgy. Almost to the close of the tenth century, for instance, neither cross nor candlestick was permitted upon the altar, only small reliquary caskets being tolerated; the altar itself up to this time had preserved the shape of a table or sarcophagus. As soon as these regulations were broken and candlestick, cross, and superfrontal found a place upon the altar. this change necessarily exerted a strong influence upon the manufacture and decoration of the articles mentioned. The material employed in the manufacture of the metalwork of the Church also experienced a change, as copper took the place of gold. Furthermore the cloisonne enamel was supplanted by the champleve. The champleve enamel differs from the cloisonne by the small cells intended to receive the enamel not being made in the Byzantine fashion by means of strips of flat gold wire soldered to the gold plate, but by being dug out of the plate with a burin. A peculiarity of the workshops of Limoges (France) was the affixing of the heads of persons or even of the entire figure in high relief. The design in the figures themselves was for the most part filled out with coloured enamel. A second difference consists in the more frequent occurrence of plastic ornamentations in silver. Of course plastic decorations, as we have already seen, were not lacking in the earlier periods, but the Romanesque period gave a mighty impulse to this branch of the metal worker's art and can show many extraordinary productions, for instance on the shrine of the Three Kings at Cologne. Lastly, a third difference is apparent in the ornamentation, in that secular types of decoration are now more and more used on articles intended for the Church. On a reliquary at Siegburg (near Cologne), for example, apes, deer, dogs, and naked men are represented; the well-known fabulous creatures of the Romanesque art also win a place for themselves in the art of metalworking. The evolution in style may be briefly characterized as follows: the monastic art of the previous period with its Byzantine tendencies is subdued but not entirely supplanted by the popular tendency; the two rather enter into a close union which we designate as Romanesque art. Monuments of the Romanesque art in metals still exist in large numbers, but these are almost exclusively works of ecclesiastical origin. This is due not merely to the fact that the churches, which have been correctly called the oldest museums, have guarded their treasures more carefully than the worldly owners; it is rather to be ascribed to the fact that at that time the metalwork for secular purposes was a practically negligible factor. We must not infer from this, however, that in the Romanesque period, as in the preceding, it was monks and clerics who were the principal manufacturers of the metalwork for the Church. During this period the art of metalworking, as well as the plastic arts in general, gradually passed into the hands of the laity. A number of Benedictine monasteries, it is true, still clung to the old traditions of the order, and remained centres of artistic pursuits By far the largest amount of ecclesiastical metalwork of the Romanesque period is to be found in Germany, where the art of metalworking created magnificent works in the districts bordering on the Rhine and the Meuse. On the Rhine the Benedictine monks Eilbert (1130) and Friedericus (1180) of the Benedictine monastery of St. Pantaleon produced several reliquaries and portable altars which they decorated for the most part with enamel. They were far surpassed by the laymen Godefroi de Claire and Nicholas of Verdun, who combined plastic ornamentation and enamelling with amazing perfection. They are the creators of the two most beautiful reliquaries of this whole period; Godefroi wrought the shrine of St. Heribert at Deutz (1185), and Nicholas the shrine of the Three Kings at Cologne. In France likewise the art of enamelling was zealously cultivated, especially in Limoges, where small articles of metal for church use were manufactured in large quantities and exported in all directions. The art of casting also can show several famous names such as Reiner of Huy, who cast the well-known baptismal font at Liege, and Riquinus of Magdeburg in whose workshop the gate of the cathedral at Novgorod was probably manufactured (1150). All these works are surpassed by the beautiful baptismal font at Hildesheim, the work of an unknown master. Italy has almost nothing to show from this period, except a few bronze doors, which enlighten us to the position of casting in bronze; such are the doors of Barifano of Trani in Ravello (1179), and the doors of Monreale (1189) and of Bonano at Pisa (1180). E. Gothic metalwork 10218act.jpg The Gothic epoch (1250-1500) brought numerous changes and new requirements, also in church metal vessels. In this period the feast of Corpus Christi was first introduced (1312), and thereby a new metal vessel, the monstrance or ostensory, made necessary. For this purpose a vessel was employed like those which up to that time had been in general use for exhibiting relics. Another vessel, which came into use at this time and upon whose manufacture great stress was laid, is the "pax", or "osculatorium" (instrumentum pacis). The growing veneration of saints and relics required an increase of reliquaries. One of the results of this was that these were no longer made as large and costly as in the Romanesque epoch. Combined with this was the striving for constantly new forms of reliquaries, among which busts in particular now became very popular. The early Gothic altars with double folds or wings became in fact small galleries of busts of the saints. The number of cast statues of the saints and of the Blessed Virgin also increases very considerably from the fourteenth century. The material as well as the technique and decoration of the works of the goldsmith again experience a change. Copper, which has been almost a necessity for the bulky Romanesque reliquaries, now gives way to silver; this is employed especially for the figures in relief which were then much used, and which served more frequently than in the Romanesque period as statuettes for the decoration of shrines. Very intimately connected with this change of material was an alternation in the mode of ornamentation. The champleve enamel had lost its power of attraction, and indeed it could not very well be used upon the thin sheets of silver translucent enamel therefore took its place; this was applied by cutting the relief-like representation in the silver ground and pouring a transparent enamel over the relief, so that the different parts according as they are higher or lower produce the effect of light and shade in their various gradations. Siena has long been regarded as the starting point of this new mode of ornamentation, because a chalice in Assisi made by the Sienese Guccio Manaja about 1290 is the oldest example of this process. From Italy it early spread to Germany, where it flourished especially on the Upper Rhine, and to France. 10218adt.jpg The features of the religious metalwork of this age that more than any other distinguish it from the earlier productions are the superstructure and construction; the same difference prevails as between a Romanesque and a Gothic church. The ponderous Romanesque style is replaced by a pleasing lightness and mobility of form. However in the art of metalworking as in the other arts we must carefully distinguish within this period between the early Gothic work and the late Gothic. Only the early Gothic work may be described as possessing so to say, an aristocratic character, a certain ideal striving after the sublime; like the fairest period of chivalry, however, this striving lasts but a short time; it soon gives way to the homely and real actuality. The late Gothic metalwork throughout lacks the idealism of the early Gothic. This likewise is connected with the cultural development. The common people, who had grown in power, took pride, as the nobility had done before, in securing for themselves a lasting memorial by means of religious foundations and presents to churches. To dedicate magnificent, artistically executed works, however, their means were in many cases insufficient, thus giving rise to many works in metal of poor workmanship, especially chalices, monstrances, and reliquaries. So far as lightness of the structure in particular is concerned, this peculiarity is again best recognized in the reliquary and also in the monstrance. Very frequently since the fourteenth century the form chosen is that of two angels kneeling upon a base-plate and supporting the reliquary, sometimes holding it in a horizontal position as a casket, sometimes vertically as a tower. In Germany there are two excellent examples of this inverted position, two reliquaries in the cathedral treasures of Aachen which are constructed in the form of chapels with towers abounding in openwork, and are borne by saints. Reliquaries in general assumed the form of churches in miniature; gabled hood-mouldings, pinnacles, finials, crockets, rampant arches and buttresses, in short the whole architectural scaffolding of the early Gothic cathedral are found in the shrines, of which the most important is the reliquary of St. Gertrude in Nivelles, the work of Nicholas in Douai and Jacquemon de Nivelles (1295). The same is true of the remaining works in metal. The architectural ornaments forced themselves also upon articles on which we would not expect them; thus the knob (nodus) of the chalice often became a small chapel with many sharp corners and edges making the handling of the chalice more difficult. Likewise, the popular plastic figures were placed upon articles of use that require a heavy formation, such as book-covers. A beautiful silver book-cover from the Benedictine convent of St. Blasien in the Black Forest is studded in this way with numerous figures of saints; they are found even upon the smaller articles of use, as upon a cloak-clasp in the cathedral of Aachen. The manufacture of the religious works is taken more and more out of the hands of the monks and clerics, who now furnish only the ideas, and gradually passes altogether into the hands of the lay goldsmiths. By this statement of course we do not wish to imply that there were not individual artists still active in the convents, for that remains true even to the present day, but for the development of an entire period they are of no moment. Among the few works of France, that have been preserved, the so-called "golden horse of Altoetting" attained great fame; it is a half-worldly, half-religious ornament representing the veneration of the Madonna by King Charles VI, whose horse in the lower part of the picture is held by a squire (1404). In Germany we can find no evidence of such exactly defined schools of art as in the Romanesque age; the works still in existence are exceedingly numerous, especially busts of saints and chalices. In contrast with the preceding epochs Italy now took a pronounced lead in the execution of artistic metalwork for the Church; the Italian works are compact, they favour a strong substructure, which permits the application of the favourite translucent enamel; there is evident also a tendency to excessive ornamentation, whereby the fixed forms are almost suffocated. Among the schools of Italy Siena was at first pre-eminent; from this city the goldsmith Boninsegna was called to Venice in 1345 to make repairs there to the Pala d'Oro of St. Mark's. Sienese masters also began in 1287 the silver altar in the cathedral at Pistoia, which was finally completed in 1399 by Florentine goldsmiths and is the largest piece of work of this kind. The masterpiece of the Florentine school, the silver altar of the baptistery, was begun in 1366 by Leonardo di Ser Giovanna and Berto di Geri; this too was not completed until one hundred years later, when the Renaissance had already fully entered into Italian art. Bronze casting also continued to produce numerous works for the service of the Church. North Germany and the Netherlands (Dinant) were most prominently active in this field. Here we must mention first of all the numerous baptismal fonts of bronze, which are decorated on their outer sheathing with representations in relief and architectural ornament, next the seven-armed candelabra, door-knobs, water-vessels (aquamanile), lecterns, especially the beautiful eagle-lecterns. In Germany the names of many of the masters have been handed down; in Wittenberg, Wilkin (1342), in Elbing, Bernhuser, and in Lubeck and Kiel, Hans Apengeter. Lastly mention should be made of the bells which were also cast in bronze. While Germany distinguished itself by its religious works cast in bronze, it was surpassed by France in another branch of the metalworker's art. Here in the beginning of the thirteenth century the art of the smith passed through its first period of full vigour. At that time, thanks to the highly developed technical processes, France produced metalwork for the doors of churches such as has never been produced since. Germany, England, and the Netherlands felt the favourable influence of the French art, which produced its magnificent works on the cathedrals at Rouen, Sens, Noyon and especially on the cathedral at Paris. Here every wing of the folding doors has three iron bands, that serve also as hinges, divided into a thousand branches and decorated with birds of every kind and fantastic creatures. In addition to the metalwork of the doors the blacksmith furnished the Church with artistic chandeliers, railings, pedestals for the Easter candle, lamps, and lecterns. The first place in the manufacture of artistic railings undoubtedly belongs to Italy, where the high perfection attained by the art of the Italian blacksmiths may best be seen in Florence (Sta Croce), Verona, and Siena. III. RENAISSANCE While the religious metalwork in the Gothic style had increased in quantity often at the expense of quality, a decided retrogression in respect to quantity is noticeable during the Renaissance. This is especially true of Germany. The distressing religious agitations, the defection of many of the faithful from the old religion and the increasing indifference to religious faith had the effect of reducing the production of articles for church use to very small proportions. In Italy, it is true, we know the names of numerous artist goldsmiths -- there are about 1000 of them -- but there also the number of religious works of the Renaissance is very small. At the head of the new movement in metalwork for the Church we find the most distinguished sculptors, in fact the leading masters of the Renaissance preferred to execute their work in metal (bronze); we need mention here only the names of Ghiberti and Donatello, the former the creator of the famous bronze doors of the baptistery at Florence, the latter the maker of the high altar in bronze in II Santo at Padua as these works however belong to the domain of sculpture we must leave them out of consideration here. The changes in style follow the course of the general evolution in art. The vertical forms of the Gothic style give way to the horizontal tendency, the forms become more vigorous and compact, the vessels acquire a more flexible silhouette. However, the early Renaissance left the forms of the commonest vessels, the chalices and crosses, almost untouched, inasmuch as the tradition of a thousand years made them appear sacred; we have numerous chalices of the Renaissance the base of which shows the Moorish and Gothic foils and the knob, the Gothic rotuli. Not until the late Renaissance were the circular forms and volutes generally employed. In other respects the customary Renaissance ornaments, which are by no means the least charm of this style, are employed in ecclesiastical and worldly articles indifferently. Putti, hermae, caryatides, garlands, grotesques, acanthus leaves, furthermore the elements taken from architecture, such as columns, pillars, capitals, entablatures, balusters form an inexhaustible source of constant change. Silver during the Renaissance no longer maintains the position it won for itself during the Gothic period. Several distinguished religious works in silver have been preserved, but they are far surpassed both numerically and artistically by the works in bronze; the latter are often covered with silver or gold. The artistic ornamentation of both ecclesiastical and secular metalwork consists especially of delicately executed representations in relief, which at first appear in moderation at the more important points, but later presumptuously cover the entire surface. At the same time enamel is very frequently employed, sometimes the previously mentioned translucent enamel, which completely covers the portions in relief with a coloured surface, sometimes also the Venetian enamel, which flourished from about 1500-1550. It was used to coat jugs and bowls, candlesticks, candelabra, and ciboria. Another favourite form of decoration consisted in the combination of metals and crystals this type of decoration occurs during the Middle Ages, but was more systematically and artistically carried out in the Renaissance. The art of gem engraving likewise was again practiced after ancient models upon cameos and gems. The ecclesiastical works of the Renaissance therefore often represent an enormous value. We need mention here only the value of a few papal tiaras. A tiara, which Sixtus IV had made by the Venetian goldsmith Bartolomeo di Tomaso, was valued at 110,000 ducats. Julius II confided to the Milanese jeweller Caradossa the making of a tiara valued at 200,000 ducats (nearly 200,000 dollars). Hardly any works of really marked importance, if we except the previously mentioned altars in Florence and Pistoia, the completion of which falls in this period, have been preserved from the Renaissance. We may again mention a few reliquaries at Siena, which reveal a pronounced change compared with the monumental shrines of the Romanesque and Gothic periods. They are silver caskets with sides in openwork, permitting a view of the relics. The use of crystals is exemplified in a beautiful pax from Monte Cassino (now in Berlin). Elsewhere the influence of the Renaissance upon church metalwork was early apparent. In the beginning only the non-essentials were borrowed from the Italian Renaissance; it was the ornament that was copied; the fundamental forms long remained Gothic. To the above-mentioned types the Germans added especially the scroll work, which was by preference combined with the Moresque and then served as a pattern for the surface; it is not unknown in Italy, but in Germany it held almost undisputed sway for about thirty or forty years. In Germany during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the cities of Augsburg and Nuremberg gained extraordinary fame by the manufacture of artistic metalwork; their products were eagerly sought after throughout the entire world. The Augsburg goldsmith, George Seld, in 1492 furnished one of the first Renaissance works in Germany, a silver altar in the Reichen Kapelle at Munich; here we find nude putti, flowers growing out of acanthus calyces, friezes, and panels which breathe wholly the spirit of the Italian Renaissance. A goldsmith of Nuremburg, Melchior Bayo, in 1538, by order of King Sigismund I of Poland, made an altar of chased silver which is in the chapel of the Jagellons in the cathedral at Krakow. Besides these there are no religious works of any importance from this period. As is proved by the "Book of Holy Objects" of Cardinal Albrecht of Mayence, a few prelates indeed were intent on increasing the treasures of their churches in the new style, but as a rule the exigencies of the times did not permit the manufacture of larger works in metal. So far as the smaller utensils are concerned, these, even as late as the middle of the sixteenth century, still show Gothic forms as, for instance, a chalice of the well-known Gebhard von Mansfeld, Archbishop of Cologne, in the "gruenen Gewoelbe" at Dresden (about 1560). All the works of this period are surpassed by the productions which the goldsmith Anton Eisenhoit made about the year 1590 for Theodor am Fuerstenberg, Prince-Bishop of Paderborn; these are a chalice, crucifix, book-cover and a vessel for holy water. The articles are most exquisitely ornamented with noble Renaissance forms done in flat chasing. The most beautiful works of the Renaissance in Southern Germany, reliquaries, chalices, monstrances, etc., are in the Reichen Kapelle at Munich. France, like Italy, has a large amount of documentary evidence of the manufacture of metalwork for the Church, but the endless wars of Louis XIV and the Revolution consigned them almost without exception to the melting-pot. A chalice in the church of St-Jean du Doigt (about 1540), which has a stout knob transformed into a chapel, and the cup and base being covered with clumsy tendrils, is the only work which we are able to name here. Besides the works of the goldsmith's art, the productions in base metal must not remain entirely unnoticed. These came not rarely from the workshops of the goldsmiths. The most important founderies were in Florence and Padua. It is not always easy to distinguish between the works of sculpture and those of the industrial arts. Certainly a large number of magnificent bronze railings belong to the latter -- the most beautiful is in the cathedral at Prato, the work of Bruno di Ser Lapo Mazzei (1444) -- as do also the candelabra, which, because of their elegance of form and delicate ornamentation, are very effective. The best known specimen is the excessively ornamented candelabrum in Il Santo at Padua, the masterpiece of Riccio (1516). From bronze there were also manufactured for the service of the Church Sanctus bells, candlesticks, vessels for holy water, hanging lamps, about the details of which we need not here concern ourselves. We merely add that the works in iron are confined more particularly to the railings in the side-chapels of the larger churches; they are of no interest, however, from the standpoint of the history of art. The last periods of church metalwork can be concisely described. Like the whole of the baroque art, the metalwork of the Church of this epoch, when compared with the delicately balanced regularity of the Renaissance, also shows a certain clumsiness and unrest, which in the rococo develops onesidedly into absolute irregularity, to be changed in the Classicism which followed, into the exact opposite, a pedantic, inflexible rigidity. These peculiarities of the new styles do not, of course, find expression in the goldsmith's art to the same extent as in the plastic arts. Nevertheless this evolution is not wholly lacking even in the smaller church utensils it may, for instance, be clearly observed in the chalice, which in the baroque style is overloaded with broad, clumsy ornaments; in the rococo the forms become more delicate, all the parts assumed wavy lines, false and genuine gems and porcelain paintings formed the decoration; Classicism discarded these baubles and produced chalices of the severest forms and with straight lines. In France, which during this epoch set the fashion in Europe, the Court and a number of prominent individuals devoted enormous sums to provide valuable church furniture, at times in such a way that true art was lost in splendid display. In a completely equipped "chapel", which Cardinal Richelieu presented to the crown in 1636, there was a cross, ornamented with 2516 diamonds of various kinds, a chalice and a paten with 2113 diamonds, a madonna with 1253 diamonds, altogether 9000 diamonds and 224 rubies were employed in furnishing the chapel. The Sainte-Chapelle at Paris was presented by the "Chambres de comptes" with a reliquary one metre in length, for which they paid 13,060 livres. New metalwork was at that time produced in larger quantities in Germany, which in this art especially maintained its pre-eminence. Indeed it is the time of the so-called Counter-Reformation, which in Southern Germany and Austria beheld the erection of so many magnificent churches. The new houses of God, however, required new metal furniture. To the present day the treasure rooms of many a cathedral -- and convent -- church are filled with the crosses, candlesticks, and antipendia that were made at that time; they are remarkable, however, for their size rather than their artistic qualities; the material is mostly silver. But works of art of great excellence are not entirely lacking. The Abbey of St. Blasien formerly owned an antipendium portraying the passage of the imperial army through the Black Forest in the year 1678, a most beautiful piece of work (now in Vienna). Other examples of the zeal employed in the manufacture of precious metalwork are the reliquary shrine of St. Engelbert in Cologne, dating from 1633, which shows the saint lying prostrate on the cover, and statues of bishops on the sides, but otherwise only architectural forms; also the shrine of St. Fridolin at Saeckingen (Baden), characterized by the complete mobility of its lines, and furthermore the valuable monstrance in Klosterneuburg near Vienna, which is in the form of an elder-tree (1720). Probably at no time was so little money expended upon religious furniture as during the period of Classicism; it is the age of barren Rationalism, which was practically devastating in its effect upon the liturgy and religious life. To devote large sums to the acquisition of precious furniture was not in consonance with the spirit of this age. For this reason candlesticks and even monstrances were not infrequently made of tin or wood, but to preserve appearances, often coated with silver or gold. We do not desire, however to leave this period with this gloomy picture. In the baroque period the art of the blacksmith reached its second climax in Germany and France. Under the hammer of the smith the inert mass began to sprout and blossom. The superb choir-railings, lanterns, candle-stands, and chandeliers show to the present day that the art of the blacksmith in the service of the Church was at that time spurred on to the highest endeavours. The revival of the styles of the Middle Ages during the nineteenth century proved beneficial to the religious metalwork also. At the present day candlesticks, chalices, monstrances are manufactured, which in costliness and purity of style are not inferior to the best works of ancient art. Moreover the tendency toward the creation of a new style is noticeable also in the art of metalworking. Whether this is to be crowned with lasting success, is a question for the future to decide. BEDA KLEINSCHMIDT Symeon Metaphrastes Symeon Metaphrastes ( Sumeon 'o metaphrastes). The principal compiler of the legends of saints in the Menologia of the Byzantine Church. Through the importance of this collection his name has become one of the most famous among those of medieval Greek writers. The epithet Metaphrastes may be rendered Compiler; it is given to him from the usual name for such arrangements of saints' lives (metaphrasis, compilation). Little is known for certain about his life. His period is the latter half of the tenth century. In one of his legends (the Life of St. Samson) he tells of the saint's miracles continued down to his own time; that time is the reign of Romanus II (959-63) and of John I Tzimiskes (969-76). Michael Psellus (1018-78), who wrote the life of Symeon, afterwards added to those of the other saints in the collection, says he was a Logothete. In this case it means one of the Secretaries of State with the title Magister. Psellus also tells us that Symeon was a favourite of the emperor, at whose command he made his collection of legends. Ehrhard says that this emperor was Constantine VII (Porphyrogenetos, 912-59) who organized a compilation of all kinds of learning to form a kind of universal encyclopaedia by the scholars of his Court (Krumbacher, "Byz. Lit.", 200). Ehrhard (loc. cit.) and most authorities now identify the Metaphrast with Symeon Magister the Logothete who wrote a chronicle under Nicephorus Phocas (963-9). Besides the identity of name and period there is internal evidence from the two works (Chronicle and Legends) for this. A certain Arab chronicler, Yahya ibn Said of Antioch, in the eleventh century refers to "Simon, Secretary and Logothete, who composed the stories of the saints and their feasts) (Delehaye in "Revue des questions hist.", X, 84). Another point that fixes his time as the latter half of the tenth century is that, as Ehrhard has proved, the speech made by Constantine VII at the translation of the portrait of Christ from Edessa on 16 August, 944, is contained in Symeon's part of the Menology ("Die Legendsammlung", etc., pp. 48, 73). Formerly his period was generally thought to be earlier. In his life of St. Theoctistus of Lesbos he gives what seems to be a passage about himself, in which he says that he took part in the expedition of Admiral Himerios to Crete in 902. It is now proved that Symeon simply copied all this life, including the autobiographical note, from an earlier writer, Niketas (Ehrhard, "Byz. Lit.", p. 200). Symeon's chief work, the one to which he owes his great reputation in the Byzantine Church, is the collection of Legends. But it is not easy to say how much of the Menology was really composed by him. On the one hand, in many cases he simply copied existing lives of saints; on the other, the collection has grown considerably since his time and all of it without discrimination goes by his name. Leo Allatius (op. cit.) ascribes 122 legends only to Symeon, Delehaye ("Les menologes grecs" in the "Analecta Bollandiana", XVI, 311-29) thinks that 148 or 150 are authentic and original. It may be noticed that the authentic ones are chiefly those in the early months of the year, from September (the Byzantine Calendar begins in September; the saints in the Menology are arranged as their feasts occur). It is certain, that a number of these legends were written by Symeon from such sources as he found (partly oral tradition). The sifting of these from the rest still needs to be done (Ehrhard, l. c., 201-2). His reputation as an author has been restored by the latest students. At one time his name was a byword for absurd fabrications. Ehrhard, Dobschuetz and others have now shown him to be a conscientious compiler who made the best use of his material that he could. The often absurd stories in his lives were already contained in the sources from which he wrote them; he is not responsible for these, since his object was simply to collect and arrange the legends of the saints as they existed in his time. He has often been compared to the great Western compiler of legends, Jacobus de Voragine (d. 1298). Some (Kondakoff, "Histoire de l'art byzantin," Paris, 1886, I, 46) prefer Symeon of the two. His legends were translated into Latin by Lippomanus, "Vita ss. priscorum patrum" (Venice, vols. V-VII, 1556-1558). Supposing the identity of the Metaphrast and Symeon Magister, we have other works by him, a Chronicle not extant in its original form, but altered and supplemented in the Chronicle that goes by his name, in the Corpus of Bonn (Theophanes continuatus, Bonn, 1828, 603-760), reprinted in P. G., CIX, 663-822; also an Epitome of Canons (P. G., CXIV, 236-292), collections of maxims from St. Basil (P. G., XXXII, 1116-1381) and Macarius of Egypt (P. G., XXXIV, 841-965), some prayers and poems (P. G., CXIV, 209-225) and nine letters (P. G., CXIV, 282-236). Symeon Metaphrastes is a saint in the Orthodox Church. His feast is 28 November. The collection of legends in P. G., CXIV-CXVI, Vol. CXIV, 185-205, contains Michael Psellus's encomium and office for Symeon's feast, the first sources for his life. Allatius, De Symeonum scriptis diatriba (Paris, 1664); Hanke, De byzant. rerum scriptoribus (1677), 418-60; Oudin, Comment. de script. eccles., II (1722), 1300-83; Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzantinischen Litteratur (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 200-3; Ehrhard, Die Legendensammlung des Symeon Metaphrastes u. ihr urspruengliche Bestand (Rome, 1897); Idem, Symeon Metaphrastes u. die griechische Hagiographie in the Roem. Quartalschrift (1897), 531-53; Delehaye, Les menologes grecs in the Anal. Bolland., XVI (1897), 312-29; Idem, Le Menologe de Metaphraste, ib., XVII (1898), 448-52; Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876), 308-11; Rambaud, L'empire grec au X ^e siecle (Paris, 1870). Adrian Fortescue Metaphysics Metaphysics I. The Name. II. The Definition. III. The Rejection of Metaphysics. IV. Relation of Metaphysics to Other Sciences. V. Relation of Metaphysics to Theology. VI. The Method of Metaphysics. VII. History of Metaphysics. (1) Hindu philosophy. (2) Greek philosophy. (3) Early Christian philosophy. (4) Medieval philosophy. (5) Modern philosophy. VIII. Doctrine of Being. Metaphysics is that portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge. I. THE NAME The word metaphysics is formed from the Greek meta ta phusika, a title which, about the year A.D. 70, was related by Andronicus of Rhodes to that collection of Aristotelean treatises which since then goes by the name of the "Metaphysics". Aristotle himself had referred to that portion of philosophy as "the theological science" (theologike), because it culminated in the consideration of the nature of God, and as "first philosophy" (prote philosophia), both because it considered the first causes of things, and because, in his estimation, it is first in importance. The editor, however, overlooked both these titles, and, because he believed that that part of the Aristotelean corpus came naturally after the physical treatises, he entitled it "after the physics". This is the historical origin of the term. However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness. For instance, it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature", that is, the science of the immaterial. Again, it was understood to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among our philosophical studies, so that the "metaphysical sciences would mean, those which we study after having mastered the sciences which deal with the physical world" (St. Thomas, "In Lib, Boeth. de Trin.", V, 1). In the widespread, though erroneous, use of the term in current popular literature, there is a remnant of the notion that metaphysical means ultraphysical: thus, "metaphysical healing" means healing by means of remedies which are not physical. II. DEFINITION The term metaphysics, as used by one school of philosophers, is narrowed down to mean the science of mental phenomena and of the laws of mind, In this sense, it is employed, for instance, by Hamilton ("Lectures on Metaph.", Lect. VII) as synonynous with psychology. Hamilton holds that empirical psychology, or the phenomenology of mind, treats of the facts of consciousness, rational psychology, or the nomology of mind, treats of the laws of mental phenomena, and metaphysics, or inferential psychology, treats of the results derived from the study of the facts and laws of mind. This use of the term metaphysics is unfortunate because it rests on Descartes's false assumption that the method in metaphysics is subjective, in other words, that all the conclusions of metaphysics are based on the study of subjective, or mental, phenemona. Taking a wider view of the scope and method of metaphysics, the followers of Aristotle and many who do not acknowledge Aristotle as a leader in philosophy define the science in terms of all reality, both objective and subjective. Here five forms of definition are offered which ultimately mean one and the same thing: (1) Metaphysics is the science of being as being. This is Aristotle's definition (peri tou ontos e on) -- Met., VI, 1026 a, 31). In this definition metaphysics is placed in the genus "science". As a science, it has, in common with other sciences, this characteristic that it seeks a knowledge of things in their causes. What is peculiar to metaphysics is the difference "of being as being". In this phrase are combined at once the material object and the formal object of metaphysics. The material object is being, the whole world of reality, whether subjective or objective, possible or actual, abstract or concrete, immaterial or material, infinite or finite. Everything that exists comes within the scope of metaphysical inquiry. Other sciences are restricted to one or several departments of being: physics has its limited field of inquiry, mathematics is concerned only with tbose things which have quantity. Metaphysics knows no such restrictions. Its domain is all reality. For instance, the human soul and God, because they have neither colour nor weight, thermic nor electric properties, do not fall within the scope of the physicist's investigation; because they are devoid of quantity, they do not come within the field of inquiry of the mathematician. But, since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation. The material object of metaphysics is, therefore, alI being. As Aristotle says (Met., IV, 1004 a, 34): "It is the function of the philosopher to be able to investigate all things." Its formal object is also "being", or "beingness." The formal object of any science is that particular phase, quality, or aspect of things which interests that science in a specific way. Man, for instance, is the material object of psychology, ethics, sociology, anthropology, philology, and various other sciences. The formal object, however, of each of these is different. The formal object of psychology is mental phenomena and the subject of them; the formal object of ethics is man's relation to his ultimate destiny; that of sociology is man's relation to his fellow-men in institutions, laws, customs, etc.; that of anthropology is the origin of man, distinction of races, etc.; that of philology is man's use of articulate speech. The formal object of the physical group generally is the so-called physical properties of bodies, such as light, sound, heat, molecular constitution, in general, etc. The formal object of the mathematical group is quantity; what interests the mathematician is not the colour, heat, etc., of an object, but its size or bulk. Similarly the metaphysician is interested in a specific way neither in the physical nor the mathematical qualities of things, but in their entity or beingness. If, then, physics is the science of being as affected by physical properties, and mathematics is the science of being as possessing quantity, metaphysics is the science of being as being. Since the material object of metaphysics is all being, the metaphysician is interested in everything that is or can be. Since the formal object of his study is, again, being, the point of view of metaphysics is different from that of the other sciences. The metaphysician studies all reality; still, the resulting science is not a summing up of the departmental sciences which deal with portions of reality, because his point of view is different from that of the student of the departmental sciences. (2) Metaphysics is the science of immaterial being. The first science", says Aristotle (Met., VI, 1026 a, 16), "deals with things which are both separate (from matter) and unmovable". In this connection the scholastics (cf. St. Thom., ibid.), distinguished two kinds of immaterial: + immaterial quoad esse or immaterial beings, such as God and the human soul, which exist without matter; + immaterial quoad conceptum, or concepts, such as substance, cause, quality, into the comprehension of which matter does not enter. Metaphysics, in so far as it treats of immaterial beings, is called special metaphysics and is divided into rational psychology, which treats of the human soul, rational theology, which treats of the existence and attributes of God, and cosmology, which treats of the ultimate principles of the universe. Metaphysics in so far as it treats of immaterial concepts, of those general notions in which matter is not included, is called general metaphysics, or ontology, that is, the science of Being. Taking the term now in its widest sense, so as to include both general and special metaphysics, when we say that metaphysics is the science of the immaterial, we mean that whatever exists whether it is an immaterial being or a material being so long as it offers to our consideration immaterial concepts, such as substance or cause, is the object of metaphysical investigation. In this way, it becomes evident that this definition coincides with that given in the preceding paragraph. (3) Metaphysics is the science of the most abstract conceptions. All science, according to the scholastics deals with the abstract. The knowledge of the concrete individual objects of our experience, with their ever changing qualities and the particular individuating characteristics which make them to be individual (for instance, the knowledge of this tree, of that flower, of this particular animal or person) may be very useful knowledge, but it is not scientific. Scientific knowledge begins, when we abstract from what makes the thing to be individual, when we know it in the general principles that constitute it. The first degree of abstraction is found in the physical sciences which abstract merely from the particularizing, individuating characteristics, and consider the general laws, or principles, of motion, light, heat, substantial change, etc. The mathematical sciences ascend higher in the scale of abstraction. They leave out of consideration not only the individuating qualities but also the physical qualities of things, and consider only quantity and its laws. The metaphysical sciences reach the highest point of abstraction. They prescind, or abstract, not only from those qualities physics and mathematics abstract from, but also leave out of consideration the determination of quantity. They consider only Being and its highest determinations, such as substance, cause, quality, action etc. "There is a science", says Aristotle (Met. IV 1003 a, 21) "which investigates being as being, and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature" (ta touto huparchonta kath hauto). The objection therefore, that metaphysics is an abstract science would, in the estimation of the scholastics, militate not only against metaphysics but against all the other sciences as well. The peculiarity of metaphysics is not that it is abstract, but that it carries the process of abstraction farther than do the other sciences. This, however, does not make it to be unreal. On the contrary, what is left out of consideration in metaphysics namely individuating qualities, physical movement and specific quantity, derive whatever reality they have as conceptions from the coneept, Being, which is the object of metaphysics. Metaphysics, in fact, is the most real of all the sciences precisely because by abstracting from everything eise, it has centred, so to speak, its thought on Being, which is the source and root of reality everywhere else in the other sciences. (4) Metaphysics is the science of the most universal conceptions. This would follow from the consideration offered in the preceding paragraph because, by a well known law of logic, the less the comprehension the greater the extension of a term or concept. The science which deals with the most abstract conceptions must, therefore, be the science of the most universal conceptions. Among our ideas the most universal are Being, and the determinations of it which are called transcendental, namely unity, truth, goodness, and beauty, each of which is coextensive with being itself, according to the formulas, "Every being is one", "Every being is true", etc. Next in universality come the highest determinations of Being in the supreme genera, substance and accident, or, if Being be analyzed in the order of metaphysical constitution, essence and existence, potency and actuality. Very high up in the scale of extension will be cause and effect. All these are included within the range of metaphysical inquiry, and are dealt with in every scholastic manual of metaphysics. "Being in its highest determinations" is, then, another way of describing the object of metaphysics. Where, however, shall we draw the line? What determinations are not highest? For instance, are space and time determinations of Being, which are general enough to be considered in metaphysics? The answer to these questions is to be decided according to the dictates of practical convenience. Many of the problems sometimes included in general metaphysics may conveniently be treated in special parts, such as cosmology and psychology. (5) Metaphysics is the science of the first principles. This definition also is given by Aristotle (Met. IV, 1003 a, 26). Every science is an inquiry into the causes and principles of things; this science inquires into the first principles and highest causes, not only in the order of existence, but also in the order of thought. It belongs, then, to metaphysics + to inquire into the nature of cause and principle in general and to determine the meaning of the different kinds of causality, formal, material, efficient, and final: + to investigate the first principles in the order of knowledge, and establish the validity, for instance, of the principles of identity and contradiction. All these definitions are expressions of the Aristotelean doctrine that metaphysics, like physics and mathematics, is a science of reality, it being beyond the scope of metaphysics to inquire whether reality is, or is not, given in experience. This question, which is a fundamentally important one in modern philosophy was discussed by the scholastics in that portion of logic which they called critical, major logic, or applied logic, but which is now generally called epistemology (see LOGIC). Nowadays however, the epistemological problem, by a fatal mistake of method, is assigned to metaphysics, and the result is a confusion between the two branches of philosophy, viz. metaphysics and epistemology. In works like Fullerton's "System of Metaphysics" (New York, 1906) and Hodgson's "Metaphysics of Experience" (London, 1898) no attempt is made to separate the two. III. THE REJECTION OF METAPHYSICS The Rejection of Metaphysics, by many schools of philosophy in modern times, is one of the most remarkable developments of post-Cartesian philosophy. A difference in the point of view leads to a very great divergence in the estimate based on metaphysical studies. On the one side we have the verdict that metaphysics is nothing but "transcendental moonshine", on the other, the opinion that it is "organized common sense", or "an unusually obstinate effort to think accurately". Materialism, naturally, objects to the claim of metaphysics to be a science of the immaterial. If nothing exists except matter, a science of the immaterial has no justification. Materialists, however, forget that the assertion, "Nothing exists except matter", is either a summing up of the individual experience of the materialist himself, meaning that he as never experienced anything except matter and manifestations of matter, and then the assertion is merely of biographical interest; or it is an affirmation regarding possible human experience, a declaration of the impossibility of immaterial existence, and in that sense it is a statement which in itself has a metaphysical import. Materialism is, in fact, a metaphysical theory of reality and is a contribution to the science which it professes to reject. Philosophical agnosticism, which is derived ultimately from Kant's doctrine of the unknowableness of noumenal reality (Ding an sich), rejects metaphysics on tbe ground that while the immaterial does, indeed, exist, it is unknown and must remain unknowable to the speculative reason. Kant maintained that all metaphysical reasoning, since it attempts by means of tbe speculative reason to go beyond experience, is doomed to failure, because the a priori forms which the understanding imposes on the empirical data of knowledge modify the quality of that knowledge by making it to be transcendental, but do not extend it beyond the realm of actual sense experience. The followers of Kant stigmatize as intellectual formalism the view that the speculative reason does actually attain ultra-empirical knowledge. This is the contention of the modernists and other Catholic writers who are more or less influenced by Kant. These decry rational metaphysics and offer as a substitute a metaphysics based on sentiment, vital activity, or some other non-rational foundation. The answer to this line of thought is a denial of its fundamental tenet, the doctrine, namely, that the rational faculty cannot attain a knowledge of the essential or noumenal natures of things. Gratuitous assertion is often best refuted by categorical denial. The rejection of metaphysics by the materialist and the Kantian agnostic does not meet the full approval of the idealist. Instead of banishing metaphysics from the republic of the sciences, the idealist, having deprived it of its scientific character, elevates it to the rank of aesthetic preeminence side by side with poetry. He considers that it furnishes a point of view from which to contemplate the beauty, harmony, and value of those things which science merely explains. He holds that it is not the province of metaphysics to assign reasons or causes, but to furnish motives for action and enhance the value of reality. For him, its uplifting and regenerating function is entirely independent of its alleged ability to explain: he considers metaphysics to be, not an ontology, or science of reality, but a teleology, or application of the principle of purpose. That this is a function of metaphysics no one will deny. It is only one function, however, and unless the doctrine of final causes has its foundation in a doctrine of formal and efficient causes, teleological metaphysics is a castle in the air. Finally, the positivist, and the scientist whom the positivist has influenced, reject metaphysics because all our knowledge is confined to facts and the relations among facts. To attempt to go beyond facts and the succession or concomitance of facts is to essay the impossible. Causes, essences, and so forth, are terms which clothe in fictitious garb our ignorance of the real scientific explanation. The whole gist of positivism is contained in Hume's verdict that "it is impossible to go beyond experience". This psychological dictum is accepted by the philosophical positivist, as the death sentence of metaphysics. With the scientist, however, other considerations weigh more than the psychological argument. The scientist points to the present condition of metaphysics; he calls attention to the fact that, while the physical sciences have advanced by leaps and bounds, metaphysics is still grappling with the most fundamental problems and has not even settled the questions on which its very existence depends. The condition of metaphysics is, indeed, such as to invite the contempt and provoke the disdain of the scientist; the fault, however, may lie not so much in the claims of metaphysics as in the vagaries of the metaphysicians. IV. RELATION OF METAPHYSICS TO OTHER SCIENCES The consideration of the relation in which metaphysics stands, or ought to stand, to the other sciences should result in a refutation of the positivist contention that metaphysics is useless. In the first place, metaphysics is the natural co-ordinating science which crowns the unifying efforts of the other sciences. It accomplishes in the highest plane of knowledge that process of unification towards which the human mind tends irresistibly. Without it, the explanations and co-ordinations attained in the lower sciences would be, perhaps, satisfactory within the limits of those sciences, but would fail to meet the requirements of that unifying instinct which the mind tends to apply to knowledge in general. So long as the mind of the knower is one, it is impossible not to attempt to bring under the most general conceptions and principles the conclusions of the various sciences. That is the task of metaphysics. Whenever we look around among the contents of the mind and try to discover order and hierarchical arrangement among them, we are attempting a system of metaphysics. In the next place, the process of explanation which belongs to each of the lower sciences, if pursued far enough, brings us face to face with the demand for a metaphysical explanation. Thus, the chemical problem of atomic or proto-atomic constitution of bodies leads inevitably to the question, "What is matter?" The biological problem of the nature and origin of life brings us to the point where it is imperative to answer the query, "What is life?" The questions: "What is substance? What is a cause? What is quantity?" are additional examples of problems to which physics, mathematics, etc., finally lead. Indeed, the world of science is completely surrounded by the metaphysical world, and every path of investigation brings us to a highroad of inquiry which sooner or later crosses the border and leads us into metaphysics. When therefore, the scientist rejects metaphysics, he suppresses a natural and ineradicable tendency of the individual mind towards unification and, at the same time, he tries to put up in every highway and byway of his own science a barrier against further progress in the direction of rational explanation. Besides, the cultivation of the metaphysical habit of mind is productive of excellent results in the sphere of general culture. The faculty of appreciating principles as well as facts is a quality which cannot be absent from the mind without detriment to that symmetry of development wherein true culture consists. The scientist who objects to metaphysics, rightly condemns the metaphysician who disdains to consider facts. He himself, unless he cultivate the metaphysical powers of his mind, is in danger of reaching the point where he is incapable of appreciating principles. Both the empirical talent for ascertaining facts and the metaphysical grasp of principles and laws are necessary for the rounding out of man's mental powers, and there is no reason why they should not both be cultivated. V. RELATION OF METAPHYSICS TO THEOLOGY The nature of metaphysics determines its essential and intimate relation to theology. Theology, it need hardly he said, derives its conclusions from premises which are revealed, and in so far as it does this it rises above all schools of philosophy or metaphysics. At the same time, it is a human science, and, as such, it must formulate its premises in exact terminology and must employ processes of human reasoning in attaining its conclusions. For this, it depends on metaphysics. Sometimes, indeed, as when it deals with the supernatural mysteries of faith, theology acknowledges that metaphysical conceptions are inadequate and metaphysical formulae incompetent to express the truths discussed. Nevertheless, if theology had no metaphysical formularies to rely upon, it could neither express its premises nor deduce its conclusion in a scientific manner. Again, theology relies on metaphysics to prove certain truths, called the preambula, which are not revealed but are nevertheless presupposed before revelation can be considered reasonable or possible. These truths are not the foundation on which we rest our supernatural faith. If they should fail, faith would not suffer, though theology should then be rebuilt on another foundation. Furthermore, metaphysics, as Aristotle pointed out, culminates in the discussion of the existence and nature of God. God is the object of theology. It is only natural, therefore, that metaphysics and theology should have many points of contact, and that the latter should rely on the former. Finally, since all truth is one, both in the source from which it is derived, and in the subject, the human mind, which it adorns, there must be a kinship between two sciences which, like theology and metaphysics, treat of the most important conceptions of the human mind. The difference in the manner of treatment, theology relying on revelation, and metaphysics on reason alone, does not affect the unity of purpose and the final harmony of the conclusions of the two sciences. But, while theology thus derives assistance from metaphysics, there can be no doubt that metaphysics has derived advantages from its close association with theology. Pre-Christian philosophy failed to arrive at precise metaphysical determinations of the notions of substance and person. This defect was corrected in part by Origen, Clement, and Athanasius, and in part by their successors, the scholastics, the impulse in both cases being given to philosophical definition by the requirements of theological speculation concerning the Blessed Trinity. Pre-Christian philosophy failed to give a coherent, satisfactory account of the origin of the world: Plato's myths and Aristotle's doctrine of the eternity of matter could not long continue to satisfy the Christian mind. It was, once more, the Alexandrian School of Christian metaphysics that, by elaborating the Biblical conception of creation ex nihilo, gave an explanation of the origin of the universe which is satisfactory to the metaphysician as well as to the theologian. Finally, the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, as discussed by the scholastics, gave occasion for a more definite and detailed determination of the metaphysical conception of accident in general and of quantity in particular. VI. THE METHOD OF METAPHYSICS Among the objections most frequently urged against metaphysics, especially against scholastic metaphysics, is the unscientific character of its method. The metaphysician, we are told, pursues the a priori path of knowledge; he neglects or even condemns the use of the a posteriori empirical method which is employed with so much profit in the investigation of nature; he spins as Bacon says, the threads of his metaphysical fabric from the contents of his own mind, as the spider spins her web from the substance of her body, instead of gathering from every source in the world around him the materials for his study, and then working them up into metaphysical principles, as the bee gathers nectar from the flowers and elaborates it into honey. In order to clear up the misunderstanding which underlies this objection, it is necessary to remark that there are three kinds of method: + the a priori, which, assuming certain self-evident postulates, maxims, and definitions to be true, proceeds deductively to draw conclusions implicated in those assumptions; + The subjective a posteriori method, which, from an examination of the phenomena of consciousness builds up empirically, that is, inductively, conclusions based on those phenomena; + the objective a posteriori method, which builds on the facts of experience in general in the same way as the subjective method builds on the facts of introspection. The second method is pre-eminently the method of the Cartesians, who, like their leader, Descartes, strive to build the whole edifice of philosophy on the foundation furnished by reflection on our thought-processes: Cogito, ergo sum. It is also the method of the Kantians, who, rejecting the psychological basis of metaphysics as unsafe, build on the moral basis, the categorical imperative: their line of reasoning is "I ought, therefore I am free", etc. The third is the method of those who, rejecting the Aristotelean conceptions, essence, substance, cause etc., substitute so-called empirical conceptions of force mass, and so forth, under which they attempt to subsume in a system of empirico-critical metaphysics the conceptions peculiar to the various sciences. The first method is admittedly unscientific (in the popular sense of the word) and is adopted only by those philosophers who, like Plato, consider that the true source of philosophical knowledge is above us not in the world around and beneath us. If the formula universalia ante rem (see UNIVERSALS) is taken in the exclusive sense, then we may not look to experience, but to intuition of a higher order of truth, for our metaphysical principles. It is a calumny which originated in ignorance perhaps, more than in prejudice, that the scholastics followed this a priori method in metaphysics. True, the scholastic philosopher often invokes such principles as "Agere sequitur esse" "Quidquid recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur" etc. and therefrom deduces metaphysical conclusions. If, however, we examine more closely, if we go back from the "Summa", or text-book, where the adage is quoted without proof, to the "Commentary on Aristotle" where the axiom is first introduced, we shall find that it is proved by inductive or empirical argument, and is therefore a legitimate premise from which to deduce other truths. In point of fact, the scholastics use a method which is at once a priori and a posteriori, and the latter both in the objective and the subjective sense. In their exposition of truth they naturally use the a priori, or deductive, method, In their investigation of truth they explore empirically both the world of mental phenomena within us, and the world of physical phenomena without us, for the purpose of building up inductively those metaphysical principles from which they proceed. It may be conceded that many of the later scholastics are too ready to invoke authority instead of investigating; it may be conceded, even, that the greatest of the scholastics were too dependent on books, especially on Aristotle's works, for their knowledge of nature. But, in principle, at least, the best representatives of scholasticism recognized that in philosophy the argument from authority is the weakest argument, and if the circumstances in which they lived and wrote made it imperative on them to master the contents of Aristotle's writings on natural science, it must, nevertheless, be granted by every fair minded critic that in metaphysics at least they improved on the doctrines of the Stagyrite. VII. HISTORY OF METAPHYSICS The history of metaphysics naturally falls into the same divisions as the history of philosophy in general. In a brief outline of the course which metaphysical speculation has followed, it will be possible to consider only the principal stages, namely (1) Hindu philosophy, (2) Greek philosophy, (3) Early Christian philosophy, (4) Medieval philosophy, (5) Modern philosophy. (1) Hindu Philosophy Of all the peoples of antiquity, the Hindus were the most successful in rising immediately from the mythological explanation of the universe to an explanation in terms of metaphysics. Apparently without passing through the intermediary stage of scientific explanation, they reached at once the heights of the metaphysical point of view. From polytheism or monotheism they proceeded very early to pantheism, and from that to a monistic metaphysical conception of reality. Their starting-point was the realization that man is born into a state of bondage and that his chief business in life is to deliver himself from that condition by means of knowledge. The knowledge, they taught, which avails most in the struggle for freedom is this: the world of sense phenomena is an illusion (maya), all real things are identical in the one supreme substance, the soul is part of this real substance, and will ultimately return to the Whole. The real substance is, as Max Mueller remarks, spoken of as a neuter, and in this doctrine "is contained in nuce a whole system of philosophy" ("Six Systems of Indian Philosophy", London, 1899, p. 60). The first, and most important of all truths, then, is that reality is one, and each of us is identical with the All: "That art thou" is the highest expression of self-knowledge, and the gate to all salutary truth. Thus, the Hindus, actuated by an ethical, or ascetic, motive, attained a metaphysical formula to which they reduced all reality. (2) Greek Philosophy The first Greek philosophers were students of nature. They were actuated not by an ethical motive, but by a kind of scientific curiosity to know the origins of things. There was no metaphysician among the Ionians (see IONIAN SCHOOL OF PHlLOSOPHY). Out of the problem of origins, however, the metaphysical problem was developed by the Eleatics and Heraclitus. These philosophers considered that the explanations of the Ionians -- that the world originated from water or air -- were too naive, relied too much on the verdict of the senses. Consequently, they began to contrast the real truth which the mind (nous) sees, and the illusory truth (doxa) which appears to the senses. The Eleatics, on the one hand, asserted that the permanent element, which they called Being, alone exists, and that change, motion, and multiplicity are illusions. Heraclitus, on the other hand, reached the conclusion that what mind reveals is change, which alone is real, while permanency is only apparent, is, in fact, an illusion of the senses. Thus, these thinkers thrust into the foreground the problem of change and permanency. They themselves, were not, however, wholly free from the limitations which confined the earlier Ionians to a physical view of the problems of philosophy. They formulated metaphysical principles of reality, but both in the language which they used and in the mode of thought which they adopted, they seemed to be unable to rise above the consideration of matter and material principles. Nevertheless, they did immense service to metaphysics by bringing out clearly the problem of change. Socrates was primarily an ethical teacher. Still, in laying the foundation of ethics he formulated a theory of knowledge which had immediate application to the problem of metaphysics. He taught that the contrast and apparently irreconcilable contradiction between the verdict of the mind and the deliverance of the senses disappear if we determine the scientific conditions of true knowledge. He held that these conditions are summed up in the processes of induction and definition. His conclusion, therefore, is, that out of the data of the senses, which are contingent and particular, we may form concepts, which are the elements of true scientific knowledge. He himself applied the doctrine to ethics. Plato, the pupil of Socrates, carried the Socratic teaching into the region of metaphysics. If knowledge through concepts is the only true knowledge, it follows, says PIato, that the concept represents the only reality, and all the reality, in the object of our knowledge. The sum of the reality of a thing, is therefore the Idea. Corresponding to the internal, or psychological, world of our concepts is not only the world of our sense experience (the shadow-world of phenomena), but also the world of Ideas, of which our world of concepts is only a reflection, and the world of sense phenomena, a shadow merely. That which makes anything to be what it is, the essence, as we should call it, is the Idea of that thing existing in the world above us. In the "thing" itself, the phenomenon presented by the senses, there is a participation of the Idea, limited, disfigured and debased by union with a negative principle of limitation called matter. The metaphysical constituents of reality are, therefore, the Ideas as positive factors and this negative principle. From the Ideas comes all that is positive, permanent, intelligible, eternal in the world. From the negative principle come imperfection, negation, change, and liability to dissolution. Thus, profiting by the epistemological doctrines of Socrates, without losing sight of the antagonistic teachings of the Eleatics and of Heraclitus, Plato evolved his theory of Ideas as a metaphysical solution of the problem of change, which had a baffled his predecessors. Aristotle also was a follower of Socrates. He was influenced, too, by the theory of Ideas advocated by his master, Plato. For, although he rejected that theory, he did so after a study of it which enabled him to view the problem of change in the light of metaphysical principles. Like Plato, he accepted the Socratic doctrine that the only true knowledge is knowledge of concepts. Like Plato, too, he inferred from this that the concept must represent the reality of a thing. But unlike Plato, he made at this point an important distinction. The reality, he taught, which the concept represents is in the thing which it constitutes, not as an Idea, but as an essence. He considers that the Platonic world of Ideas is a meaningless duplication of things: the world of essences is in, not above, nor beyond, the world of phenomena: there is, consequently, no contradiction between sense experience and intellectual knowledge: the metaphysical principles of things are known by abstraction from those individuating qualities, which are presented in sense knowledge; the knowledge of them is ultimately empirical, and not to be explained by an intuition which we are alleged to have enjoyed in a previous existence. In the essence of material things Aristotle further distinguished a twofold principle, namely the Form, which is the source of perfection, determinateness, activity and of all positive qualities, and the Matter, which is the source of imperfection, indetermination, passivity and of all the limitations and privations of a thing. Coming now to the borderland of metaphysics and physics, Aristotle defined the nature of causality, and distinguished four supreme kinds of cause, Material, Formal, Efficient and Final (see CAUSE). In addition to these contributions to the solution of the problem of change, which had, by historical evolution, become the central problem of metaphysics, Aristotle contributed to metaphysics a discussion of the nature of Being in general, and drew up a scheme of classification of things which is known as his system of Categories. He is least satisfactory in his treatment of the problem of the existence and nature of God, a question in which, as he himself admits, all metaphysical speculation culminates. After the time of Aristotle, philosophy among the Greeks became centered in problems of human destiny and human conduct. The Stoics and the Epicureans, who were the chief representatives of this tendency, devoted attention to questions of metaphysics, only in so far as they considered that such questions may influence human happiness. As a result of this subordination of metaphysics to ethics, the pantheistic materialism of the Stoics and the materialistic monism of the Epicureans fall far short of the perfection which the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle attained. Contemporaneously with the Stoic and Epicurean schools, a new school of Platonism, generally called Neo-Platonism, interested itself very much in problems of asceticism and mysticism, and, in connection with these problems, gave a new turn to the drift of metaphysical speculation. The Neo-Platonists, influenced by the monotheism of the Orientals, and, later by that of the Christians, took up the task of explaining how the manifold, diversified, imperfect world originated from the One, Unchangeable, and Perfect Being. They exaggerated the Platonic doctrine of matter to the point of maintaining that all evil, moral as well as physical, originates from a material source. At the same time, they ascribed to the spiritualized Ideas which they called daimones (spirits) all actuality, intelligence, and force in the whole universe. These intelligences were derived, they said, from the One by a process of emanation, which is akin to the "streaming forth" of light from the illuminating body. This system of metaphysics teaches, therefore, that the One, and intelligences derived from the One, are the only positive principles, while matter is the only negative principle of things. This is the system which was most widely accepted in pagan circles during the first centuries of the Christian era. (3) Early Christian Philosophy The first heretics among the Christian thinkers were influenced in their philosophy by Neo-Platonism. For the most part, they adopted the Gnostic view (see GNOSTICISM) that in the last appeal, the test of Christian truth is not the official teaching of the Church or the exoteric doctrine of the gospels, but a secret gnosis, a body of doctrine imparted by Christ to the chosen few. This body of doctrine was in reality a modified Neo-Platonism. Its most salient point was the theory that evil is not a creation of God but the work of the devil. The problem of evil thus came to occupy an important place in the philosophical systems of orthodox Christian thinkers down to the time of St. Augustine. Other problems, too, claimed special attention, notably the question of the origin of the universe. From the theological controversies concerning the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, arose the discussion of the meaning of nature, substance, and person. From all these sources sprang the Christian Neo-Platonism of the great Alexandrian School, which included Clement and Origen, and the later phase of Christian Platonism exemplified by St. Augustine. In the philosophy of St. Augustine we have the greatest constructive effort of the Christian mind during the Patristic Era. It is a philosophy which centres in the problems arising from the nature of God, and the nature and destiny of the human soul: The most crucial of these problems is that of the existence of evil. How can evil exist in a world created and governed by a God, Who is at once supremely good and all-powerful? Rejecting the Manichean theory that evil has an origin distinct from God, St. Augustine devotes all his efforts to showing, from the nature of evil, that it does not demand a direct efficient act on the part of God, but only a permissive act and that this toleration of evil is justified by the gradation of beings which results from the existence of imperfection, and which is essential to the harmony and variety of the universe in general. Another question which attains a good deal of prominence in St. Augustine's metaphysics is that of the origin of the world. All things, he teaches, were created at the beginning, material creatures as well as angels, and the subsequent appearance of plants, animals, and men in a chronological series is merely the development in time of those "seeds of things" which were implanted in the material world at the beginning. However, St. Augustine is careful to make an exception in the case of the individual human soul. He avoids the doctrine of preexistence which Origen had taught, and maintains that the individual soul originates at the same time as the body, although he is not prepared to decide definitively whether it originates by a distinct creative act or is derived from the souls of the child's parents (see TRADUCIANISM). (4) Medieval Philosophy The first scholastic philosophers devoted their attention to the discussion of logical problems arising out of the interpretation of the texts which were studied in the schools, such as Porphyry's "Isagoge", and Boethius's translation of portions of Aristotle's "Organon". From these discussions they passed to problems of psychology, but it was not until the end of the twelfth century, when Aristotle's metaphysical treatise and his works on psychology became accessible in Latin, that scholastic metaphysics rose to the dignity and proportions of a system. By way of exception, John the Scot (see ERIUGENA), as early as the first half of the ninth century, developed a highly wrought system of metaphysical speculation characterized by idealism, pantheism, and Neo-Platonic mysticism. In the eleventh century the school of Chartres, under the influence of Platonism, discussed in a metaphysical spirit the problems of the nature of reality and the origin of the universe. The philosophy of the thirteenth century, represented by Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, St. Thomas, and Duns Scotus, accorded to metaphysics its place as the science which completes and crowns the efforts of the mind to attain a knowledge of things human and divine. It acknowledged the importance of the relation which metaphysics bears, on the one hand, to the other portions of philosophy, and, on the other hand, to the science of theology. Fundamentally Aristotelean in its conception of method and scope, the metaphysics of the golden age of scholasticism departed from Aristotle's teaching only to supply the defects and correct the faults which it detected in Aristotle's philosophy. Thus, it worked out on Aristotelean lines the problems of person and nature, substance and accident, cause and effect; it took up and carried to higher systematic development St. Augustine's reconciliation of evil with the goodness of God; it elaborated in detail the question of the nature of matter and the origin of the universe by God's creative act. At the same time, the metaphysics of the schools was obliged to face new problems which were thrust on the attention of the schoolmen by the exegetical and educational activity of the Arabians. Thus, it drew the line of distinction between Theism and Pantheism, discussed the question of fatalism and free will, and rejected the Arabian interpretation of Aristotle which jeopardized the doctrine of personal immortality. Towards the end of the scholastic period the appearance of the anti-metaphysicai nominalism of Occam, Durandus, and others had the effect of driving some of the later schoolmen to adopt an extreme a priorism in philosophy, which more than any other single cause contributed to bring about the antagonism between metaphysics and natural science, which marks the era of scientific discovery. This condition, though widespread, was not, however, universal. Men like Suarez and other great commentators continued down to the seventeenth century to present in their metaphysical treatises the best traditions of the scholasticism of the thirteenth century. (5) Modern Philosophy At the beginning of the modern era we find a divergence of opinion concerning the scope and value of metaphysical speculation. On the one hand, Bacon, while himself retaining the name metaphysics to designate the science of the essential properties of bodies, is opposed to the metaphysical philosophy of the scholastics, and chiefly because that philosophy gave too much prominence to final causes and the study of the mind. On the other hand, Descartes, while declaring that "philosophy is a tree, which has metaphysics for its root", understands that the science of metaphysics is based exclusively on the data of the subjective consciousness. Spinoza accepts this restriction, implicitly at least, although his explicit main philosophy is ethical, namely to present that view of reality which will lead to the deliverance of the soul from bondage. Leibniz takes a more objective view. He tries to adopt a definition of reality which will reconcile the idealism of Plato with the results of scientific research, and he aims at harmonizing the materialism of the atomists with the spiritualism of the scholastics. Locke, by limiting all our knowledge to the two sources, sensation and reflection precludes the possibility of metaphysical speculation beyond the facts of experience and of consciousness. In fact, he maintains (Essay, IV, 8) that all metaphysical formulae, when they are not merely tautological and, therefore "trifling", have only a hypothetical formulae. This line of thought is taken up by Hume who emphatically declares that "it is impossible to go beyond experience", and by Mill, who maintains the hypothetical nature of all so-called necessary truth, mathematical as well as metaphysical. The same position is taken by the French sensists and materialists of the eighteenth century. Berkeley, although his professed aim was merely "to remove the mist and veil of words" which hindered the clear vision of the truth, passed from empirical immaterialism to a system of Platonic mysticism based on the metaphysical principle of causality. Beginning with Kant, the question of the existence and scope of metaphysical science assumes a new phase. Metaphysics is now the science which claims to know things in themselves, and as Kant sees it, all post-Cartesian metaphysics is wrong in its starting-point. Kant holds that both the empiricist's rejection of metaphysics and the dogmatist's defence of it are wrong. The empiricist is wrong in asserting that we cannot go beyond experience: the dogmatist is wrong in affirming that we can go beyond experience by means of the theoretical reason. The practical reason, the faculty of moral consciousness, can alone take us beyond experience, and lead us to a knowledge of things in themselves. Practical reason, therefore, or the moral law, of which we are immediately conscious, is the only foundation of metaphysical science. Tbe successors of Kant, namely, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Von Hartmann, no matter how much they may differ in other respects, hold that the aim of metaphysics is to attain the ultra-empirical, or absolute, reality, whether this be called self (Fichte), the absolute of indifference (Schelling), the dynamic absolute, spirit or Idea (Hegel), the Will (Schopenhauer), or the Unconscious (Von Hartmann). Another group, the empiro-critics, who also acknowledge their dependence on Kant, assign to metaphysics the task of discussing the fundamental principles of knowledge by means of a critical examination of experience. Finally, there is among German philosophers of our own day an inclination to use the word metaphysics to designate any view of reality which, transcending the limits of the particular sciences, strives to combine and relate the results of those sciences in a synthetic formula (Weltanschauung). English philosophers either define metaphysics in terms of mental phenomena, as Hamilton does, or restrict its field of inquiry to the problem of the value of knowledge, thus confounding it with epistemology, or go over to the Hegelian point of view that metaphysics is the science of the genesis and development of dynamic categories of reality. The evolutionist school, represented by Herbert Spencer, while they deny the cogency of "metaphysical reasonings", attempt a general synthesis of all truth under the evolutionist formula, which is in reality metaphysics in disguise. Their effort in this direction is, at least, an acknowledgement of the justice of the scholastic claim that there must be a hegemonic science which unifies and co-ordinates in an articulate system the conclusions of the various sciences, and which corrects the tendencies of those sciences towards a specialization which ends in fragmentation. In so far as pragmatism, represented by James, Dewey, and Schiller, rejects absolute truth, it may he said to cut the ground from under metaphysics. Nevertheless, the latest phase of pragmatism, in which interest is shifted from the epistemological problem to the question, What is reality? is manifestly a step towards a rehabilitation of metaphysics. An analysis of reality is followed inevitably by an attempt to synthesize. The pragmatic synthesis, naturally, will have for its foundation neither the law of entity, as that being is being, nor the law of contradiction, that being is not not-being, but some principle of "value", akin to that of the Werth-Theorie of Lotze. Of quite special interest is the attempt on the part of Professor Royce to interpret reality in terms of loyalty. With the exception, then, of Trendelenburg's "Studies", and critical expositions of the text of Aristotle, the only philosophical literature in recent times which adopts the Aristotelean view of the nature and scope of metaphysics, is that which has come from the pens of the Neo-Scholastics. The Neo-Scholastic doctrine on at least one point in metaphysics is given in the following paragraph. VIII. DOCTRINE OF BEING The three ideas which are most important in any system of metaphysics are Being, Substance, and Cause. These have a decisive influence, and may he said to determine the character of a metaphysical system. Substance and Cause are treated elsewhere under separate titles (see CAUSE and SUBSTANCE). It will, therefore, be sufficient here to give the outlines of the scholastic doctrine of Being, which, indeed, is the most fundamental of the three, and decides, so to speak, beforehand, what the scholastics teach regarding Substance and Cause. (1) Description of Being Being cannot he defined (a) because a definition, according to tbe scholastic formula, must be "by proximate genus and ultimate difference", and Being, having the widest extension, cannot be included in any genus; (b) because a definition is the analysis of tbe comprehension of a Concept, and Being, having the least comprehension, is, as it were, indivisible in its comprehension, resisting all efforts to resolve it into simpler thought elements. Nevertheless, Being may be described. Tbe word "Being", taken either as a participle or as a noun, has reference to the "act" of existence. Whatever exists, therefore, is a Being, whether it exists in the mind or outside the mind, whether it is actual or only potential, whether it requires a subject in which to inhere or is capable of subsisting without a subject of inherence. Thus, the broadest division of Being is into, notional, which exists only in the mind (ens rationis), and, real, which exists independently of the created world (ens reale). Real Being is further divided into tbe potential and the actual. This is an important point of scholastic teaching, which is sometimes overlooked in the exposition and still more in the criticism of scholasticism. For the scholastics, the real world extends far beyond the actual world of our experience or even of possible experience. Beyond the realm of actually existing things they see a world of tendencies, potencies, and possibilities which are truly real. The oak is really present, though only potentially, in the acorn; the painting is really, though only potentially, present, in the mind of the artist; and so, in every case, before the effect becomes actual it is really present in the cause in the measure in which its actual existence depends on the cause. (2) Relation of Being to Other Concepts Scholastic psychology, adopting Aristotle's doctrine that all our ideas are acquired through the senses, teaches that the first knowledge which we acquire is sense-knowledge. Out of the material furnished by the senses the mind elaborates ideas or concepts. The first of these ideas is the most general, the poorest in representative content, namely, the idea of "Being". In this sense, therefore, the idea of being, or, more correctly, perhaps, the idea of "something", is the first of all our ideas. Turning, now, to the logical relation, how, ask the scholastics, is the idea of Being predicated of the lower or less general concepts, such as substance, accident, body, plant, tree, etc.? In the first place, the predicate being is never univocally affirmed of lower concepts, because it is not a genus. Neither is it predicated equivocally, because its meaning when predicated of substance, for example, is not entirely distinct from its meaning when predicated of accident. The predication is, therefore, analogical. What, then, is the relation, in comprehension, between Being and the lower concepts? It is obvious that the lower concept has greater comprehension than Being. But can it be said that the lower concept adds to the comprehension of Being? Manifestly, that is impossible, because if anything distinct from being is added to being, what is added is nothing, and there is no addition. The schoolmen, therefore, teach that the lower concept simply brings out in an explicit manner a mode or modes of being which are contained implicitly but not expressed in the higher concept, Being. The comprehension, for example, of substance is greater than that of being. Nevertheless it is not correct to say that, Substance = Being + a; for if a is distinct from the term Being, to which it is added, it must be Nothing. The truth, then, is that Substance brings out explicitly a mode (namely the power of existing without a subject in which to inhere) which is neither explicitly affirmed nor explicitly denied but only implicitly contained in the concept of Being. (3) Being and Nothing Being, therefore, has a comprehension, which, though it is the least of all comprehensions, is definite. It is not a bare, empty concept, and, therefore, equal to "nothing", as the Hegelians teach. This doctrine of the scholastics is the line of demarcation between Aristoteleanism on the one hand and Hegelianism on the other. Aristotle teaches that being has a definite comprehension, that, therefore, the fundamental law of thought as well as the basic principle of reality is the identity of Being with itself: Being = Being, A is A, or Everything is what it is. Hegel does not deny that this Aristotelean principle is true. He holds, however, that Being has an indeterminate comprehension, a comprehension which is dynamic or, as it were, fluent. Therefore, he says, the principle Being = Being, A is A, or Everything is what it is, is only part of the truth, for Being is also equal to Nothing, A not-A, Everything is its opposite. The full truth is: Being is Becoming; no static or fixed formula is true; everything is constantly passing into its opposite. The consequences which follow from this fundamental divergence of doctrine regarding Being are enormous. Not the least serious of these is the Hegelian conclusion that all reality is dynamic and that God Himself is a process. (4) Being, Existence, and Essence As wisdom (sapientia) is that by which a person is wise (sapere), so essence (essentia) is that by which a thing is (esse). If one inquires what is the intrinsic cause of a person being wise, the answer is, wisdom; if one asks what is the intrinsic cause of existence, the answer is, essence. Essence, therefore, is that by which a thing is what it is. It is the source of all the necessary and universal properties of a thing, and is itself necessary, universal, eternal, and unchangeable. The act to which it refers is existence, in the same way as the act to which wisdom refers, is the exercise of wisdom (sapere). Both existence and essence are realities, the one in the entitative order, the other in the quiddative order. Of course, the existence of a notional being (ens rationis) is only notional; its essence, too, is notional. But in the case of a real, created Being, the existence is one kind of reality, a real actuality, and the essence is another kind of reality, a reality in the potential order. This doctrine of the real distinction between essence and existence in real created beings is not admitted by all scholastic philosophers. Suarez, for instance, and his school, hold that the distinction is only logical or notional; the Scotists, too, maintain that the distinction in question is less than real. The Thomists, on the contrary, hold that in God alone essence and existence are identical, that in all creatures there is a real distinction, because in creatures existence is participated, diversified, and multiplied, not by reason of itself but by reason of the essence which it actualizes. There is much controversy not only over the question itself, but also concerning the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas, although there seems very little ground for denying that in the work "De Ente et Essentia" the Angelic Doctor holds a real distinction betwecn essence and existence. (5) Transcendental Properties of Being Equally extensive with the concept of Being are the concepts good, true, one, and beautiful. Every being is good, true, one, and beautiful, in the metapysical sense, or as the scholastics expressed it, Being and Good are convertible, Being and True are convertible, etc. (Bonum et ens convertuntur, etc.). Goodness, in this sense, means the fullness of entity or perfection which belongs to each being in its own order of existence; truth means the correspondence of a thing to the idea of it, which exists in the Divine Mind; oneness means the lack of actual division, and beauty means that completeness, harmony or symmetry of essential nature which is only an aspect of truth and goodness. These properties, goodness, trnth, oneness, and beauty, are called transcendental, because they transcend, or exceed in extension, all the lower classes into which reality is divided. (6) The Categories Real Being is divided (not by strict logical division, but by a process analogous to it) into Finite and Infinite. Finite Being is divided into the supreme genera, Substance and Accident. Accident is further divided into Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, "Passion", Place, Time, Posture, and Habit (or possession). These nine Accidents, together with the supreme genus, substance, are the ten Aristotelean Categories into which, as supreme classes, all Being is divided. I. ARISTOTELEAN METAPHYSICS: -- ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics in the Berlin edition, Aristotetis Opera Graece et Latine Berlin, 1823-7), tr. MCMANON (London, 1878, New York, 1887), tr. Ross (Oxford, 1908); commentaries by ST. THOMAS, S. Thomae Opera Omnia, XXIV (Paris, 1875); SYLVESTER MAURUS, Aristotetis Opera (Rome, 1668), etc.; WALLACE, Outlines of Phil. of Arist. (Cambridge, 1894); PIAT, Aristote (Paris, 1903). II. SCHOLASTIC METAPHYSICS: -- ST. THOMAS, op. cit., and De Ente et Essentia, with CAJETAN's commentary, in Quaestiones Dispp., IV (Rome, 1883); SUAREZ, Dispp., Metaphysicae in Opera Omnia, XXV (Paris, 1866); scholastic manuals, ZIGLIARA, LIBERATORE, LORENZELLI; VALLET, REINSTADTLER, GREDT, HICKEY, etc., in Latin; HARPER, Metaphysics of the Schools (3 vols., London, 1879-84; RICKABY, General Metaphysics (London, 1890); HILL, Elements of Philosophy (Baltimore, 1873); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 4th ed., 1905); GUTBERLET, Allgemeine Metaphysik (Muenster, 1906). III. Hegelian: -- Hegel's Werke (18 vols., Berlin, 1832-40); HALDANE, Pathway to Reality (2 vols., London, 1903); BRADLEY, Appearance and Reality (London, 1902); STIRLING, The Secret of Hegel (London, 1865); MCTAGART, Absolute Relativism (London, 1887). IV. The following include psychology and epistemology in Metaphysics: HAMILTON, Lectures on Metaphysics (4 vols., Ediburgh, 1859, London, 1881); Hodgson, The Metaphysics of Experience (4 vols., New York, 1898); FULLERTON, System of Metaphysics (New York, 1904); LADD, Theory of Reality (New York, 1899). V. VARlOUS TENDENCIES: -- BOWNE, Metaphysics (New York, 1898); TAYLOR, Elements of Metaphysics (London, 1903); DAY, Ontological Science (New York, 1878); RIEHL, Science and Metaphysics, tr. FAIRBANKS (London, 1894); LOTZE, Metaphysik, tr. BOSANQUET (2 vols., London, 1887); JAMES, A Pluralistic Universe (New York, 1909): SCHILLER, Studies in Humanism (London, 1883); ROYCE, Philosophy of Loyalty (New York, 1908). Consult also, the various "Introductions", for example, KUeLPE, Introduction to Philosophy, tr. PILLSBURY and TITCHNER (London, 1901); WATSON, Outline of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (Glasgow, 1898); PAULSEN, Introduction to Philosophy, tr. THILLY (New York, 1898); MARVIN, Introduction to Systematic Philosophy (New York, 1903); LADD, Introduction to Philosophy (New York, 1901). VI. HISTORY OF METAPHYSICS: -- VON HARTMANN, Gesch. der Metaphysik (3 vols., Berlin, 1899-1900); WlLLMANN, Gesch. des Idealismus (3 vols., Brunswick, 1894-97); and general histories of Philosophy, such as, STOeCKL, History of Philosophy, tr. FINLAY (Dublin, 1888-1903); TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903). WILLIAM TURNER Pietro Metastasio Pietro Metastasio Italian poet, b. at Rome, 1698; d. at Vienna, 1782. Of humble origins, his father, once a Papal soldier, was later a pork-butcher; Metastasio was placed in the shop of a goldsmith to learn his craft. By some chance he attracted the attention of the jurisconsult and litterateur, Vincenzo Gravina, who took him in charge, and Graecizing his name of Trapassi, into the synonymous Metastasio, gave him a solid education. At his death in 1718 he left to his protege a considerable sum of money, which the latter soon dissipated. Then he was compelled to apprentice himself at Naples to a lawyer, who, however, found the apprentice more prone to verse writing than to study legal codes. The beginning of Matastasio's real career is marked by the composition, at the request of the Viceroy of Naples, of his musical drama, the "Orti Esperidi", which had signal success. The leading part therein was played by the famous actress, la Romanina (Marianna Benti-Bulgarelli). She at once became attached to the young poet, commissioned him to write a new play, the "Didone abbandonata", had him taught music by a noted teacher, and took him to Rome and Venice with her on her professional tours. At Vienna the Italian melodramatist, Apostolo Zeno, was about to relinquish his post as imperial poet, and in 1730 he recommended that Metastasio be appointed his successor. With this recommendation and with the aid of the Countess of Althann, who remained his patroness during her lifetime, he obtained the appointment. Thereafter, and especially during the decade between 1730 and 1740, Metastasio was engaged in the composition of his many melodramas (over seventy in number), his oratorios, cantate, canzonette, etc. Among the most noted of his melodramas -- which announce the coming opera -- are: "Endimione", "Orti Esperidi", "Galatea", "Angelica", "Didone", "Siroe", "Catone", "Artaserse", "Adriano", "Demetrio", "Issipile", "Demofoonte", "Clemenza di Tito", "Semiramide", "Olimpiade", "Temistocle", and the "Attilio Regolo". The last-named is regarded as his masterpiece. All the pieces of Metastasio took the popular fancy, chiefly because he sedulously avoided all unhappy denouements, and, enlivening his efficacious dialogue with common sense aphorisms, he combined them with arias and ariettas that appealed to the many. His Letters are important in connexion with any study of his artistic development. The best edition of his works is that of Paris, 1780-82. Additions are found in the Opere Postume, Vienna, 1795. (See also the editions of Florence, 1820 and 1826). His letters were edited by Carducci (Bologna, 1883), and by Antona Traversi (Rome, 1886.) J.M.D. FORD Metcalfe, Edward Edward Metcalfe Born in Yorkshire, 1792; died a martyr of charity at Leeds, 7 May, 1847. He entered the Benedictine monastery at Ampleforth in 1811, and was ordained five years later. He distinguished himself early as a linguist. From 1822 to 1824, he served on the mission at Kilvington. About this time, at the request of Bishop Baines, he and some other members of the community left Ampleforth to establish a monastery at Prior Park, near Bath. On 13 March, 1830, the Holy See authorized them to transfer their obedience to the vicar Apostolic; a little later, owing to some misunderstanding, they were secularized. In 1831 Father Metcalfe was made chaplain to Sir E. Mostyn, of Talacre, Flint, and soon acquired a knowledge of the Welsh language, so as to minister to the Welsh population. After five years he was transferred to Newport, and in 1844 to Bristol. Arrangements were almost completed for his re-admission into the Benedictines in 1847, when an outbreak of fever in Leeds, inspired him to offer his services to the bishop of that city; he hastened to the plague-stricken populace, and in a short time fell a victim to the epidemic. His principal works are: a Welsh translation of Challoner's two works, "Think well on't" and "The Garden of the Soul" (Llyfr Gweddi y Catholig); also "Crynoad o'r Athrawiaeth Cristionogol" (Rhyl, 1866). GILLOW, Biog. Dict. of Eng. Cath.; Dolman's Magazine, V, 65; The Tablet, IV, 790; SHEPHERD, Reminiscences of Prior Park, passim. A. A. MacErlean. Metellopolis Metellopolis A titular see of Phrygia Pacatiana, in Asia Minor. The inscriptions make known a Phrygian town named Motella which name is connected with the Phrygian feminine proper name Motalis and the Cilician masculine Motales, as also with Mutalli, or Mutallu, the name of an ancient Hittite king of Northern Commagene. One of these inscriptions was found in the village of Medele, in the vilayet of Broussa, which evidently preserves the ancient name. Motella seems to be the town which Hierocles (Synecdemus, 668, 6) calls Pulcherianopolis; it may be supposed to have been raised to the rank of a bishopric by the Empress Puleheria (414-53). Shortly before 553, perhaps in 535, Justinian raised Hierapolis to metropolitan rank, and attached to it a certain number of suffragan sees previously dependent on Laodicea. Among these the "Notitiae Episcopatuum" mention, from the ninth to the twelfth or thirteenth century, this same Motella, which they call Metellopolis, and even once Metallopolis. An inscription informs us of Bishop Michael, in 556; and another, of Bishop Cyriacus, perhaps in 667. At the Council of Nicaea, 787, the see was represented by Eudoxius, a priest and monk. Bishop Michael attended the two councils of Constantinople in 869 and 879. LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, I, 826 (very incomplete); RAMSAY, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 109, 121, 141, 158, 541. S. PETRIDES. Metempsychosis Metempsychosis (Gr. meta empsychos, Lat. metempsychosis: Fr. metempsychose: Ger. seelenwanderung). Metempsychosis, in other words the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, teaches that the same soul inhabits in succession the bodies of different beings, both men and animals. It was a tenet common to many systems of philosophic thought and religious belief widely separated from each other both geographically and historically. Although in modern times it is associated among civilized races almost exclusively with the countries of Asia and particularly with India, there is evidence that at one period or another it has flourished in almost every part of the world; and it still prevails in various forms among savage nations scattered over the globe. This universality seems to mark it as one of those spontaneous or instinctive beliefs by which man's nature responds to the deep and urgent problems of existence; whilst the numerous and richly varied forms which it assumes in different systems, and the many-coloured mythology in which it has clothed itself, show it to be capable of powerfully appealing to the imagination, and of adapting itself with great versatility to widely different types of mind. The explanation of this success seems to lie partly in its being an expression of the fundamental belief in immortality, partly in its comprehensiveness, binding together, as for the most part it seems to do, all individual existences in one single, unbroken scheme; partly also in the unrestrained liberty which it leaves to the mythologizing fancy. HISTORY Egypt Herodotus tells us in a well-known passage that "the Egyptians were the first to assert the immortality of the soul, and that it passes on the death of the body into another animal; and that when it has gone the round of all forms of life on land, in water, and in air, then it once more enters a human body born for it; and this cycle of the soul takes place in three thousand years" (ii. 123). That the doctrine first originated with the Egyptians is unlikely. It almost certainly passed from Egypt into Greece, but the same belief had sprung up independently in many nations from a very early date. The accounts of Egyptian metempsychosis vary considerably: indeed such a doctrine was bound to undergo modifications according to changes in the national religion. In the "Book of the Dead", it is connected with the notion of a judgment after death, transmigration into infra-human forms being a punishment for sin. Certain animals were recognized by the Egyptians as the abode of specially wicked persons and were on this account, according to Plutarch, preferred for sacrificial purposes. In Herodotus' account given above, this ethical note is absent, and transmigration is a purely natural and necessary cosmic process. Plato's version mediates between these two views. He represents the Egyptians as teaching that ordinary mortals will, after a cycle of ten thousand years, return to the human form, but that an adept in philosophy may hope to accomplish the process in three thousand years. There was also a pantheistic form of Egyptian metempsychosis, the individual being regarded as an emanation from a single universal principle to which it was destined to return after having completed its "cycle of necessity". There are traces of this doctrine of a cosmic cycle in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil. It has been thought that the custom of embalming the dead was connected with this form of the doctrine, the object being to preserve the body intact for the return of the soul. It is probable, indeed, that the belief in such a return helped to confirm the practice, but it can hardly have provided the sole motive, since we find that other animals were also frequently embalmed. Greece Greece, as already stated, probably borrowed the theory of transmigration from Egypt. According to tradition, it had been taught by Musaeus and Orpheus, and it was an element of the Orphic and other mystic doctrines. Pindar represents it in this relation (cf. 2nd Ol. Ode). The introduction of metempsychosis as a philosophical doctrine is due to Pythagoras, who, we are told, gave himself out as identical with the Trojan hero Euphorbos, and added copious details of his subsequent soul-wanderings. Vegetarianism and a general regard for animals was the practical Pythagorean deduction from the doctrine. Plato's metempsychosis was learnt from the Pythagoreans. He gave the doctrine a philosophic standing such as it never before possessed; for Plato exhibits the most elaborate attempt in the history of philosophy to find in the facts of actual experience justification for the theory of the pre-existence of the soul. In particular, sundry arguments adopted later on to prove immortality were employed by him to establish pre-existence. Such were the proofs from universal cognitions and the natural attraction of the soul towards the One, the Permanent, and the Beautiful. Plato ascribes to these arguments a retrospective as well as a prospective force. He seeks to show that learning is but a form of reminiscence, and love but the desire for reunion with a once-possessed good. Man is a fallen spirit, "full of forgetfulness". His sole hope is, by means of education and philosophy, to recover his memory of himself and of truth, and thus free himself from the chains of irrationality that bind him. Thus only can he hasten his return to his "true fatherland" and his perfect assimilation to the Divine. Neglect of this will lead to further and perhaps permanent degradation in the world beyond. The wise man will have an advantageous transmigration because he has practised prudence, and the choice of his next life will be put into his own hands. The vicious, ignorant, and passion-blinded man will, for the contrary reason, find himself bound to a wretched existence in some lower form. Plato's scheme of metempsychosis is conspicuous for the scope it allows to human freedom. The transmigration of the individual soul is no mere episode of a universal world-movement, predestined and unchangeable. Its course is really influenced by character, and character in turn is determined by conduct. A main object of his theory was to guarantee personal continuity of the soul's life, the point in which most other systems of transmigration fail. Besides Plato and Pythagoras, the chief professors of this doctrine among the Greeks were Empedocles, Timaeus of Locri, and the Neoplatonists, none of whom call for detailed notice. Apollonius of Tyana also taught it. India The doctrine of transmigration is not found in the oldest of the sacred books of India, viz., the Rig-Veda; but in the later works it appears as an uncontested dogma, and as such it has been received by the two great religions of India. (1) Brahmanism In Brahmanism, we find the doctrine of world-cycles, of annihilations and restorations destined to recur at enormous intervals of time; and of this general movement the fortunes of the soul are but an incident. At the same time, transmigrations are determined by moral worth. Every act has its award in some future life. By irreversible law, evil deeds beget unhappiness, sooner or later; these, indeed, are nothing else but the slowly-ripened fruit of conduct, which every man must eat. Thus they explain the anomalies of experience presented in the misfortunes of the good and the prosperity of the wicked: each is "eating the fruit of his past actions ", actions done perhaps in some far-remote existence. Such a belief may tend to patience and resignation in present suffering, but it has s distinctly unpleasant effect upon the Brahmanical out-look on the future. A pious Brahman cannot assure himself of happiness in his next incarnation; there may be the penalty of great unknown sin still to be faced. Beatitude is union with Brahma and emancipation from the series of births, but no degree of actual holiness can guarantee this, since one is always exposed to the danger of being thrown back either by sin past or sin to come, the fruit of which will have to be eaten, and so on, we might be tempted to imagine, ad infinitum. Hence a great fear of re-incarnation prevails. (2) Buddhism Brahminism is bound up with caste, and is therefore strongly aristocratic, insisting much on innate superiorities. Buddhism, on the contrary, cuts through caste-divisions and asserts the paramount importance of "works", of individual effort, though always with a background of fatalism which the denial of a personal Providence entails. According to the Buddhist doctrine, the ambition to rise to the summit of existence must infallibly be fulfilled; and the mission of Gautama was to teach the way to its attainment, i.e., to Buddhaship and Nirvana. It is only through a long series of existences that this consummation can be reached. Gautama himself had as many as five hundred and fifty transmigrations in various forms of life. The characteristic feature in Buddhistic metempsychosis is the doctrine of Karma, which is a subtle substitute for the conception of personal continuity. According to this view it is not the concrete individuality of the soul that survives, and migrates into a new life, but only the karma, or action, i.e., the sum of the man's deeds, his merits, the ethical resultant of his previous life, its total value, stripped of its former individuation, which is regarded as accidental. As the karma is greater or less, so will the next transmigration be a promotion or a degradation. At times the degradation may be so extreme that karma is embodied in an inanimate form, as in the case of Gautama's disciple who, for negligence in his master's service, was reduced after death to the form of a broomstick. Later Jewish Teaching The notion of soul-wandering is familiar to the Jewish Rabbins. They distinguish two kinds of transmigrations, + Gilgul Neshameth, in which the soul was tied down to a life-tenancy of a single body: + Ibbur, in which souls may inhabit bodies by temporary possession without passing through birth and death. Josephus tells us that transmigration was a doctrine of the Pharisees, who taught that the righteous should be allowed to return to life, while the wicked were to be doomed to eternal imprisonment. It was their gloomy conception of Sheol, like the gloomy Greek conception of Hades, that forced them to this shift for a compensation to virtue. On the other hand, some of the Talmudists invoke endless transmigration as a penalty for crime. The descriptions of the soul's journeys over land and sea are elaborated with a wealth of imagination, frequently verging on the grotesque. The retributive purpose was rigorously maintained. "If a man hath committed one sin more than his good works, he is condemned to transformation into some shape of lower life." Not only so, but if his guilt had been extreme, he might be doomed to an inanimate existence. The following is a sample of what awaits the "guiltiest of the guilty". "The dark tormentors rush after them with goads and whips of fire; their chase is ceaseless; they hunt them from the plain to the mountain, from the mountain to the river, from the river to the ocean, from the ocean round the circle of the earth. Thus, the tormented fly in terror, and the tormentors follow in vengeance until the time decreed is done. Then the doomed sink into dust and ashes. Another beginning of existence, the commencement of a second trial, awaits them. They become clay, they take the nature of the stone and the mineral; they are water, fire, air; they roll in the thunder; they float in the cloud; they rush in the whirlwind. They change again; they enter into the shapes of the vegetable tribes; they live in the shrub, the flower, the tree. Ages on ages pass. Another change comes. They enter into the shape of the beast, the bird, the fish, the insect. . . . Then at last they are suffered to enter into the rank of human beings once more." After still further probations in various grades of human life, the soul will at length come to inhabit a child of Israel. If in this state it should fall again, it is lost eternally. How far these and such like descriptions were really believed, how far they were conscious fable, is difficult to determine. That there was a fairly widespread belief in the doctrine of pre-existence in some form, seems likely enough. Christian Ages St. Jerome tells us that metempsychosis was a secret doctrine of certain sectaries in his day, but it was too evidently opposed to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption ever to obtain a settled footing. It was held, however, in a Platonic form by the Gnostics, and was so taught by Origen in his great work, Peri archon. Bodily existence, according to Origen, is a penal and unnatural condition, a punishment for sin committed in a previous state of bliss, the grossness of the sin being the measure of the fall. Another effect of that sin is inequality; all were created equal. He speaks only of rational creatures, viz., men and demons, the two classes of the fallen. He does not seem to have considered it necessary to extend his theory to include lower forms of life. Punishment for sin done in the body is not vindictive or eternal, but temporal and remedial. Indeed, Origen's theory excludes both eternal punishment and eternal bliss; for the soul which has been restored at last to union with God will again infallibly decline from its high state through satiety of the good, and be again relegated to material existence; and so on through endless cycles of apostasy, banishment, and return (see ORIGEN). The Manichaeans (q. v.) combine metempsychosis with belief in eternal punishment. After death, the sinner is thrust into the place of punishment till partially cleansed. He is then reclaimed to the light and given another trial in this world. If after ten such experiments he is still unfit for bliss he is condemned forever. The Manichaean system of metempsychosis was extremely consistent and thorough-going; St. Augustine in his "De Moribus Manichaeorum" ridicules the absurd observances to which it gave rise. For traces of the doctrine in the Middle Ages see articles on the Albigensians and the Cathari. These sects inherited many of the cardinal doctrines of Manichaeanism, and may be considered, in fact, as Neo-Manichaeans. Advocates of metempsychosis have not been wanting in modern times, but there is none who speaks with much conviction. The greatest name is Lessing, and his critical mind seems to have been chiefly attracted to the doctrine by its illustrious history, the neglect into which it had fallen, and the inconclusiveness of the arguments used against it. It was also maintained by Fourier in France and Soame Jenyns in England. Leibnitz and others have maintained that all souls were created from the beginning of the world; but this does not involve migrations. Savage Races It remains to touch very briefly on the abundant data furnished by modern anthropological research. Belief in transmigration has been found, as stated above, in every part of the globe and at every stage of culture. It must have been almost universal at one time among the tribes of North America, and it has been found also in Mexico, Brazil, and other parts of the American continent; likewise among the aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, in the Sandwich Islands and many parts of Africa. It often takes the form of a belief in the return of long-departed ancestors, and thus provides a simple explanation of the strange facts of heredity. On the birth of a child the parents eagerly examine it for traces of its identity, which, when discovered, will determine the name of the child and its place in their affections. Sometimes the mother is informed beforehand in a dream which ancestor of the house is about to be born of her. The belief in the soul as an independent reality is common among savage races. The departed soul was thought to hover round the place of burial at least for a time after death. Hence, e.g., among the Algonquins, if a speedy return was desired, as in the case of little children, the body was buried by the wayside that it might find a mother in some of the passers-by. A curious freak of superstition is the belief of many of the dark races, e.g., in Australia, that their fair-skinned brethren from Europe are re-incarnations of people of their own race. Among the uneducated classes of India, as Sir A. Lyall tells us, the notion that witches and sorcerers, living or dead, have the power of possessing the bodies of animals still prevails. A similar idea prompted the Sandwich Islanders to throw the bodies of their dead to the sharks in the hope of thus rendering them less hostile to mankind. In the face of a belief at first sight so far-fetched and yet at the same time so widely diffused, we are led to anticipate some great general causes which have worked together to produce it. A few such causes may be mentioned: (1) The practically universal conviction that the soul is a real entity distinct from the body and that it survives death; (2) connected with this, there is the imperative moral demand for an equitable future retribution of rewards and punishments in accordance with good or ill conduct here. The doctrine of transmigration satisfies in some degree both these virtually instinctive faiths. (3) As mentioned above, it offers a plausible explanation of the phenomena of heredity. (4) It also provides an explanation of some features of the infra-rational creation which seems to ape in so many points the good and evil qualities of human nature. It appears a natural account of such phenomena to say that these creatures, are, in fact, nothing else than embodiments of the human characters which they typify. The world thus seems to become, through and through, moral and human. Indeed, where the belief in a personal Providence is unfamiliar or but feebly grasped, some form of metempsychosis, understood as a kind of ethical evolutionary process, is almost a necessary makeshift. HARDY, Manual of Buddhism (London, 1853); BEAUSOBRE, Histoire du Manicheisme (Amsterdam, 1734 - 9); DUBOIS, People of India; BASNAGE, History of the Jews, tr. TAYLOR (London, 1883); Traditions of the Rabbins (Quarterly Review, April, 1833); MAX MUELLER, Chips from a German Workshop (London, 1857); ALGER, Doctrine of a Future Life (New York, 1866); STOCKL, History of Philosophy, tr. FINLAY (Dublin, 1887); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (London, 1871); WILKINSON, Ancient Egyptians (London, 1841); LYALL, Asiatic Studies (London, 1882); MACDONNELL, The Ancient Indian Conception of the Soul in Journal of Theological Studies (1900). MICHAEL MAHER Sir Thomas Metham Sir Thomas Metham A knight, confessor of the Faith, died in York Castle, 1573. He was eldest son of Thomas Metham, of Metham, Yorkshire, and Grace, daughter of Thomas Pudsey, of Barford, and was twice married; first, to Dorothy, daughter of George, Lord Darcy and Meinill, and then to Edith, daughter of Nicholas Palmes of Naburn. He was dubbed a knight of the carpet, 2 Oct., 1553, the day after Queen Mary's coronation. Through his second son hy his first wife, George, he was grandfather of Father Thomas Metham, S.J., one of the Dilati. By 16 August, 1565, he and his second wife had been sent to gaol "for contempt of Her Majesty's ordinances concerning the administration of divine service and the sacraments". On 6 Feb. 1569-70 an unknown correspondent writes to Sir William Cecil from York -- "We have here Sir Thomas Metham, a most wilful papist, who utterly refuses to come to service, receive the Communion or read any books except approved by the Church of Rome, or to be conferred with at all. He refuses to be tried before the Commissioners for causes ecclesiastical; he uses the corrupt Louvaine books, and maintains at Louvaine two of his sons, with whom he corresponds. It is four years since he and Dame Edith, his wife, were first committed to ward, since which he has daily grown more wealthy, and wilful, and now seems utterly incorrigible. He does much hurt here, and is reverenced by the papists as a pillar of their faith. I caused him to be committed to the Castle, where he remains and does harm, yet would have done more if he had lived at large. If you would be a means of his removal, you would take away a great occasion of evil in these parts." In 1587 Lady Metham was still a recusant. GREEN, Cal. State Papers Dom. Add. 1547-65 (London etc., 1870), 571; Cal. State Papers Dom. Add. 1566-79 (London etc., 1871), 224; FOSTER, Glover's Visitation of Yorks (London, privately printed, 1875), 253; STRYPE, Memorials (Oxford, 1822), III, ii, 181; IDEM, Annals (Oxford, 1824), III, ii, 597; POLLEN, English Martyrs 1584-1603 (London, 1908, privately printed for Cath. Rec. Soc.), 193. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT. Methodism Methodism A religious movement which was originated in 1739 by John Wesley in the Anglican Church, and subsequently gave rise to numerous separate denominations. I. DOCTRINAL POSITION AND PECULIARITIES The fact that John Wesley and Methodism considered religion primarily as practical, not dogmatic, probably accounts for the absence of any formal Methodist creed. The "General Rules", issued by John and Charles Wesley on 1 May, 1743, stated the conditions of admission into the societies organized by them and known as the "United Societies". They bear an almost exclusively practical character, and require no doctrinal test of the candidates. Methodism, however, developed its own theological system as expressed in two principal standards of orthodoxy. The first is the "Twenty-five Articles" of religion. They are an abridgment and adaptation of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and form the only doctrinal standard strictly binding on American Methodists. Twenty-four of these articles were prepared by John Wesley for the Church in America and adopted at the Conference of Baltimore in 1784. The article which recognizes the political independence of the United States (Article XXIII) was added in 1804. The second standard is the first fifty-three of Wesley's published sermons and his "Notes on the New Testament". These writings were imposed by him on the British Methodists in his "Deed of Declaration" and accepted by the "Legal Hundred". The American Church, while not strictly bound to them, highly esteemed and extensively uses them. More fundamental for all Methodists than these standards are the inspired Scriptures, which are declared by them to be the sole and sufficient rule of belief and practice. The dogmas of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ are upheld. The universality of original sin and the consequent partial deterioration of human nature find their efficacious remedy in the universal distribution of grace. Man's free co-operation with this Divine gift is necessary for eternal salvation, which is offered to all, but may be freely rejected. There is no room in Methodism for the rigorous doctrine of predestination as understood by Calvinism. While the doctrine of justification by faith alone is taught, the performance of good works enjoined by God is commended, but the doctrine of works of supererogation is condemned. Only two sacraments are admitted: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism does not produce sanctifying grace in the soul, but strengthens its faith, and is the sign of a regeneration which has already taken place in the recipient. Its administration to infants is commanded because they are already members of the Kingdom of God. The Eucharist is a memorial of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, who is not really present under the species of bread and wine, but is received in a spiritual manner by believers. The sacrament is administered under both kinds to the laity. The "witness of the Spirit" to the soul of the individual believer and the consequent assurance of salvation are distinctive doctrines of Methodism. This assurance is a certainty of present pardon, not of final perseverance. It is experienced independently of the sacraments through the immediate testimony of the Holy Spirit, and does not preclude the possibility of future transgressions. Transgressions of an involuntary character are also compatible with another characteristic doctrine of Methodism, that of perfection or complete sanctification. The Christian, it is maintained, may in this life reach a state of holiness which excludes all voluntary offence against God, but still admits of growth in grace. It is therefore a state of perfectibility rather than of stationary perfection. The invocation of saints and the veneration of relics and images are rejected. While the existence of purgatory is denied in the Twenty-five Articles (Article XIV), an intermediate state of purification, for persons who never heard of Christ, is admitted today by some Methodists. In its work of conversion Methodism is aggressive and largely appeals to religious sentiment; camp-meetings and revivals are important forms of evangelization, at least in America. Among the practices which Wesley imposed upon his followers were the strict observance of the Lord's Day, the use of few words in buying and selling, and abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, from all purely worldly amusements and from costly apparel. The church service which he prepared for them was an abridgment and modification of the Book of Common Prayer, but it never came into universal use, sentiment among Methodists being rather unfavourable to any set form of liturgy. In America the ministry is divided into two orders; the deacons and the elders or presbyters; in Great Britain and her colonies only one order exists, the elders. The name of bishop used in the episcopal bodies is a title of office, not of order; it expresses superiority to elders not in ordination, but in the exercise of administrative functions. No Methodist denomination recognizes a difference of degree between episcopal and presbyterial ordination. A characteristic institution of Methodism are the love-feasts which recall the agape of Christian antiquity. In these gatherings of believers bread and water are handed round in token of brotherly union, and the time is devoted to singing and the relating of religious experiences. II. ORGANIZATION Admission to full membership in the Methodist bodies was until recently usually granted only after the successful termination of a six months' probationary period. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has completely done away with this system. Both probationers and full members are divided into small bands known as "classes". These hold weekly meetings under the direction of the "class-leader". They secure for each member individual spiritual care and facilitate the collection of church funds. The financial contributions taken up by the class-leader are remitted to the "stewards" of the" society, which is the next administrative unit. The "society" corresponds to the parish or local church in other denominations. The appropriateness of the term will readily appear, if it be remembered that Methodism was originally a revival movement, and not a distinct denomination. Several societies (or at times only one) form a "circuit". Among the officially recognized officers of this twofold division are: (1) the "exhorters", who are commissioned to hold meetings for exhortation and prayer; (2) the "local preachers", laymen who, without renouncing their secular avocation, are licensed to preach; (3) the "itinerant preachers", who devote themselves exclusively to the ministry. At the head of the circuit is the superintendent. In some American Methodist branches the "circuit", in the sense described, does not exist. But they maintain the division into "districts", and the authority over each of these is vested in a "presiding elder", or "district superintendent". In the Methodist Episcopal Church his appointment is limited to a period not exceeding six years, and is in the hands of the bishop. The latter is the only church official who is named for life. The permanent character of his position is the more remarkable from the fact that "itinerancy" has from the very beginning been a distinctive feature of Methodism. This peculiarity denotes the missionary character of the Wesleyan movement, and calls for the frequent transfer of the ministers from one charge to another by the bishop or the stationing committee. In the English Wesleyan Church ministers cannot be continued for more than three years in the same charge. In the Methodist Episcopal Church the pastoral term, originally