VOLUME XVII SLICE VIII Matter to Mecklenburg

Articles in This Slice

MATTER MAX MÜLLER, FRIEDRICH

MATTERHORN MAXWELL

MATTEUCCI, CARLO MAXWELL, JAMES CLERK

MATTHEW, ST MAXWELLTOWN

MATTHEW, TOBIAS MAY, PHIL

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF ST MAY, THOMAS

MATTHEW CANTACUZENUS MAY, WILLIAM

MATTHEW OF PARIS MAY (month)

MATTHEW OF WESTMINSTER MAY, ISLE OF

MATTHEWS, STANLEY MAYA

MATTHIAE, AUGUST HEINRICH MAYAGUEZ

MATTHIAS (disciple) MAYAVARAM

MATTHIAS (Roman emperor) MAYBOLE

MATTHIAS I., HUNYADI MAYEN

MATTHISSON, FRIEDRICH VON MAYENNE, CHARLES OF LORRAINE

MATTING MAYENNE (department of France)

MATTOCK MAYENNE (town of France)

MATTO GROSSO MAYER, JOHANN TOBIAS

MATTOON MAYER, JULIUS ROBERT

MATTRESS MAYFLOWER

MATURIN, CHARLES ROBERT MAY-FLY

MATVYEEV, ARTAMON SERGYEEVICH MAYHEM

MAUBEUGE MAYHEW, HENRY

MAUCH CHUNK MAYHEW, JONATHAN

MAUCHLINE MAYHEW, THOMAS

MAUDE, CYRIL MAYMYO

MAULE MAYNARD, FRANÇOIS DE

MAULÉON, SAVARI DE MAYNE, JASPER

MAULSTICK MAYNOOTH

MAUNDY THURSDAY MAYO, RICHARD SOUTHWELL BOURKE

MAUPASSANT, HENRI RENÉ ALBERT GUY DE MAYO

MAUPEOU, RENÉ NICOLAS CHARLES AUGUSTIN MAYOR, JOHN EYTON BICKERSTETH

MAUPERTUIS, PIERRE LOUIS MOREAU DE MAYOR

MAU RANIPUR MAYOR OF THE PALACE

MAUREL, ABDIAS MAYORUNA

MAUREL, VICTOR MAYO-SMITH, RICHMOND

MAURENBRECHER, KARL PETER WILHELM MAYOTTE

MAUREPAS, JEAN FRÉDÉRIC PHÉLYPEAUX MAYOW, JOHN

MAURER, GEORG LUDWIG VON MAYSVILLE

MAURETANIA MAZAGAN

MAURIAC MAZAMET

MAURICE, ST MAZANDARAN

MAURICE (Roman emperor) MAZARIN, JULES

MAURICE (elector of Saxony) MAZAR-I-SHARIF

MAURICE, JOHN FREDERICK DENISON MAZARRÓN

MAURICE OF NASSAU MAZATLÁN

MAURISTS MAZE

MAURITIUS MAZEPA-KOLEDINSKY, IVAN STEPANOVICH

MAURY, JEAN SIFFREIN MAZER

MAURY, LOUIS FERDINAND ALFRED MAZURKA

MAURY, MATTHEW FONTAINE MAZZARA DEL VALLO

MAUSOLEUM MAZZINI, GIUSEPPE

MAUSOLUS MAZZONI, GIACOMO

MAUVE, ANTON MAZZONI, GUIDO

MAVROCORDATO MEAD, LARKIN GOLDSMITH

MAWKMAI MEAD, RICHARD

MAXENTIUS, MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS MEAD

MAXIM, SIR HIRAM STEVENS MEADE, GEORGE GORDON

MAXIMA AND MINIMA MEADE, WILLIAM

MAXIMIANUS MEADVILLE

MAXIMIANUS, MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS MEAGHER, THOMAS FRANCIS

MAXIMILIAN I. (elector of Bavaria) MEAL

MAXIMILIAN I. (king of Bavaria) MEALIE

MAXIMILIAN II. (king of Bavaria) MEAN

MAXIMILIAN I. (Roman emperor) MEASLES

MAXIMILIAN II. (Roman emperor) MEAT

MAXIMILIAN (emperor of Mexico) MEATH

MAXIMINUS, GAIUS JULIUS VERUS MEAUX

MAXIMINUS, GALERIUS VALERIUS MECCA

MAXIMS, LEGAL MECHANICS

MAXIMUS MECHANICVILLE

MAXIMUS, ST MECHITHARISTS

MAXIMUS OF SMYRNA MECKLENBURG

MAXIMUS OF TYRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J. J. T.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J. V. B.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(V. H. S.)

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

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

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

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

(H. W. C. D.)

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

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

MATTHEWS, STANLEY (1824-1889), American jurist, was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on the 21st of July 1824. He graduated from Kenyon College in 1840, studied law, and in 1842 was admitted to the bar of Maury county, Tennessee. In 1844 he became assistant prosecuting attorney of Hamilton county, Ohio; and in 1846-1849 edited a short-lived anti-slavery paper, the Cincinnati Herald. He was clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1848-1849, a judge of common pleas of Hamilton county in 1850-1853, state senator in 1856-1858, and U.S. district-attorney for the southern district of Ohio in 1858-1861. First a Whig and then a Free-Soiler, he joined the Republican party in 1861. After the outbreak of the Civil War he was commissioned a lieutenant of the 23rd Ohio, of which Rutherford B. Hayes was major; but saw service only with the 57th Ohio, of which he was colonel, and with a brigade which he commanded in the Army of the Cumberland. He resigned from the army in 1863, and was judge of the Cincinnati superior court in 1863-1864. He was a Republican presidential elector in 1864 and 1868. In 1872 he joined the Liberal Republican movement, and was temporary chairman of the Cincinnati convention which nominated Horace Greeley for the presidency, but in the campaign he supported Grant. In 1877, as counsel before the Electoral Commission, he opened the argument for the Republican electors of Florida and made the principal argument for the Republican electors of Oregon. In March of the same year he succeeded John Sherman as senator from Ohio, and served until March 1879. In 1881 President Hayes nominated him as associate justice of the Supreme Court, to succeed Noah H. Swayne; there was much opposition, especially in the press, to this appointment, because Matthews had been a prominent railway and corporation lawyer and had been one of the Republican “visiting statesmen” who witnessed the canvass of the vote of Louisiana1 in 1876; and the nomination had not been approved when the session of Congress expired. Matthews was renominated by President Garfield on the 15th of March, and the nomination was confirmed by the Senate (22 for, 21 against) on the 12th of May. He was an honest, impartial and conscientious judge. He died in Washington, on the 22nd of March 1889.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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