THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XVII SLICE VIII

Matter to Mecklenburg

Articles in This Slice

891

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 892 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 893 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 894 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 895 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.

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.

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 896 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.

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.

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 897 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.

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.

(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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 900 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.

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 901 in league with Poděbrad’s son Victorinus, the emperor recognized Matthias as the actual sovereign of Hungary. Only now was Matthias able to turn against the Turks, who were again threatening the southern provinces. He began by defeating Ali Pasha, and then penetrated into Bosnia, and captured the newly built fortress of Jajce after a long and obstinate defence (Dec. 1463). On returning home he was crowned with the holy crown on the 29th of March 1464, and, after driving the Czechs out of his northern counties, turned southwards again, this time recovering all the parts of Bosnia which still remained in Turkish hands.

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

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

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

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

MATTHISSON, FRIEDRICH VON (1761-1831), German poet, was born at Hohendodeleben near Magdeburg, the son of the village pastor, on the 23rd of January 1761. After studying theology and philology at the university of Halle, he was appointed in 1781 master at the classical school Philanthropin in Dessau. This once famous seminary was, however, then rapidly decaying in public favour, and in 1784 Matthisson was glad to accept a travelling tutorship. He lived for two years with the Swiss author Bonstetten at Nyon on the lake of Geneva. 902 In 1794 he was appointed reader and travelling companion to the princess Louisa of Anhalt-Dessau. In 1812 he entered the service of the king of Württemberg, was ennobled, created counsellor of legation, appointed intendant of the court theatre and chief librarian of the royal library at Stuttgart. In 1828 he retired and settled at Wörlitz near Dessau, where he died on the 12th of March 1831. Matthisson enjoyed for a time a great popularity on account of his poems, Gedichte (1787; 15th ed., 1851; new ed., 1876), which Schiller extravagantly praised for their melancholy sweetness and their fine descriptions of scenery. The verse is melodious and the language musical, but the thought and sentiments they express are too often artificial and insincere. His Adelaide has been rendered famous owing to Beethoven’s setting of the song. Of his elegies, Die Elegie in den Ruinen eines alten Bergschlosses is still a favourite. His reminiscences, Erinnerungen (5 vols., 1810-1816), contain interesting accounts of his travels.

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

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

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

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

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

MATTOON, a city of Coles county, Illinois, U.S.A., in the east central part of the state, about 12 m. south-east of Peoria. Pop. (1890), 6833; (1900), 9622, of whom 430 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 11,456. It is served by the Illinois Central and Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis railways, which have repair shops here, and by inter-urban electric lines. The 903 city has a public library, a Methodist Episcopal Hospital, and an Old Folks’ Home, the last supported by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Mattoon is an important shipping point for Indian corn and broom corn, extensively grown in the vicinity, and for fruit and livestock. Among its manufactures are foundry and machine shop products, stoves and bricks; in 1905 the factory product was valued at $1,308,781, an increase of 71.2% over that in 1900. The municipality owns the waterworks and an electric lighting plant. Mattoon was first settled about 1855, was named in honour of William Mattoon, an early landowner, was first chartered as a city in 1857, and was reorganized under a general state law in 1879.

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

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

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

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

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

MAUCH CHUNK, a borough and the county-seat of Carbon county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the W. bank of the Lehigh river and on the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company’s Canal, 46 m. by rail W.N.W. of Easton. Pop. (1800), 4101; (1900), 4029 (571 foreign-born); (1910), 3952. Mauch Chunk is served by the Central of New Jersey railway and, at East Mauch Chunk, across the river, connected by electric railway, by the Lehigh Valley railway. The borough lies in the valley of the Lehigh river, along which runs one of its few streets and in another deeply cut valley at right angles to the river; through this second valley east and west runs the main street, on which is an electric railway; parallel to it on the south is High Street, formerly an Irish settlement; half way up the steep hill, and on the north at the top of the opposite hill is the ward of Upper Mauch Chunk, reached by the electric railway. An incline railway, originally used to transport coal from the mines to the river and named the “Switch-Back,” now carries tourists up the steep slopes of Mount Pisgah and Mount Jefferson, to Summit Hill, a rich anthracite coal region, with a famous “burning mine,” which has been on fire since 1832, and then back. An electric railway to the top of Flagstaff Mountain, built in 1900, was completed in 1901 to Lehighton, 4 m. south-east 904 of Mauch Chunk, where coal is mined and silk and stoves are manufactured, and which had a population in 1900 of 4629, and in 1910 of 5316. Immediately above Mauch Chunk the river forms a horseshoe; on the opposite side, connected by a bridge, is the borough of East Mauch Chunk (pop. 1900, 3458; 1910, 3548); and 2 m. up the river is Glen Onoko, with fine falls and cascades. The principal buildings in Mauch Chunk are the county court house, a county gaol, a Young Men’s Christian Association building, and the Dimmick Memorial Library (1890). The borough was long a famous shipping point for coal. It now has ironworks and foundries, and in East Mauch Chunk there are silk mills. The name is Indian and means “Bear Mountain,” this English name being used for a mountain on the east side of the river. The borough was founded by the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company in 1818. This company began in 1827 the operation of the “Switch-Back,” probably the first railway in the country to be used for transporting coal. In 1831 the town was opened to individual enterprise, and in 1850 it was incorporated as a borough. Mauch Chunk was for many years the home of Asa Packer, the projector and builder of the Lehigh Valley railroad from Mauch Chunk to Easton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAUNDY THURSDAY (through O.Fr. mandé from Lat. mandatum, commandment, in allusion to Christ’s words: “A new commandment give I unto you,” after he had washed the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper), the Thursday before Easter. Maundy Thursday is sometimes known as Sheer or Chare Thursday, either in allusion, it is thought, to the “shearing” of heads and beards in preparation for Easter, or more probably in the word’s Middle English sense of “pure,” in allusion to the ablutions of the day. The chief ceremony, as kept from the early middle ages onwards—the washing of the feet of twelve or more poor men or beggars—was in the early Church almost unknown. Of Chrysostom and St Augustine, who both speak of Maundy Thursday 905 as being marked by a solemn celebration of the Sacrament, the former does not mention the foot-washing, and the latter merely alludes to it. Perhaps an indication of it may be discerned as early as the 4th century in a custom, current in Spain, northern Italy and elsewhere, of washing the feet of the catechumens towards the end of Lent before their baptism. It was not, however, universal, and in the 48th canon of the synod of Elvira (A.D. 306) it is expressly prohibited (cf. Corp. Jur. Can., c. 104, caus. i. qu. 1). From the 4th century ceremonial foot-washing became yearly more common, till it was regarded as a necessary rite, to be performed by the pope, all Catholic sovereigns, prelates, priests and nobles. In England the king washed the feet of as many poor men as he was years old, and then distributed to them meat, money and clothes. At Durham Cathedral, until the 16th century, every charity-boy had a monk to wash his feet. At Peterborough Abbey, in 1530, Wolsey made “his maund in Our Lady’s Chapel, having fifty-nine poor men whose feet he washed and kissed; and after he had wiped them he gave every of the said poor men twelve pence in money, three ells of good canvas to make them shirts, a pair of new shoes, a cast of red herrings and three white herrings.” Queen Elizabeth performed the ceremony, the paupers’ feet, however, being first washed by the yeomen of the laundry with warm water and sweet herbs. James II. was the last English monarch to perform the rite. William III. delegated the washing to his almoner, and this was usual until the middle of the 18th century. Since 1754 the foot-washing has been abandoned, and the ceremony now consists of the presentation of Maundy money, officially called Maundy Pennies. These were first coined in the reign of Charles II. They come straight from the Mint, and have their edges unmilled. The service which formerly took place in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, is now held in Westminster Abbey. A procession is formed in the nave, consisting of the lord high almoner representing the sovereign, the clergy and the yeomen of the guard, the latter carrying white and red purses in baskets. The clothes formerly given are now commuted for in cash. The full ritual is gone through by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster, and abroad it survives in all Catholic countries, a notable example being that of the Austrian emperor. In the Greek Church the rite survives notably at Moscow, St Petersburg and Constantinople. It is on Maundy Thursday that in the Church of Rome the sacred oil is blessed, and the chrism prepared according to an elaborate ritual which is given in the Pontificale.

MAUPASSANT, HENRI RENÉ ALBERT GUY DE (1850-1893), French novelist and poet, was born at the Château of Miromesnil in the department of Seine-Inférieure on the 5th August 1850. His grandfather, a landed proprietor of a good Lorraine family, owned an estate at Neuville-Champ-d’Oisel near Rouen, and bequeathed a moderate fortune to his son, a Paris stockbroker, who married Mademoiselle Laure Lepoitevin. Maupassant was educated at Yvetot and at the Rouen lycée. A copy of verses entitled Le Dieu créateur, written during his year of philosophy, has been preserved and printed. He entered the ministry of marine, and was promoted by M. Bardoux to the Cabinet de l’Instruction publique. A pleasant legend says that, in a report by his official chief, Maupassant is mentioned as not reaching the standard of the department in the matter of style. He may very well have been an unsatisfactory clerk, as he divided his time between rowing expeditions and attending the literary gatherings at the house of Gustave Flaubert, who was not, as he is often alleged to be, connected with Maupassant by any blood tie. Flaubert was not his uncle, nor his cousin, nor even his godfather, but merely an old friend of Madame de Maupassant, whom he had known from childhood. At the literary meetings Maupassant seldom shared in the conversation. Upon those who met him—Tourgenieff, Alphonse Daudet, Catulle Mendès, José-Maria de Heredia and Émile Zola—he left the impression of a simple young athlete. Even Flaubert, to whom Maupassant submitted some sketches, was not greatly struck by their talent, though he encouraged the youth to persevere. Maupassant’s first essay was a dramatic piece twice given at Étretat in 1873 before an audience which included Tourgenieff, Flaubert and Meilhac. In this indecorous performance, of which nothing more is heard, Maupassant played the part of a woman. During the next seven years he served a severe apprenticeship to Flaubert, who by this time realized his pupil’s exceptional gifts. In 1880 Maupassant published a volume of poems, Des Vers, against which the public prosecutor of Etampes took proceedings that were finally withdrawn through the influence of the senator Cordier. From Flaubert, who had himself been prosecuted for his first book, Madame Bovary, there came a letter congratulating the poet on the similarity between their first literary experiences. Des Vers is an extremely interesting experiment, which shows Maupassant to us still hesitating in his choice of a medium; but he recognized that it was not wholly satisfactory, and that its chief deficiency—the absence of verbal melody—was fatal. Later in the same year he contributed to the Soirées de Médan, a collection of short stories by MM. Zola, J.-K. Huysmans, Henry Céard, Léon Hennique and Paul Alexis; and in Boule de suif the young unknown author revealed himself to his amazed collaborators and to the public as an admirable writer of prose and a consummate master of the conte. There is perhaps no other instance in modern literary history of a writer beginning, as a fully equipped artist, with a genuine masterpiece. This early success was quickly followed by another. The volume entitled La Maison Tellier (1881) confirmed the first impression, and vanquished even those who were repelled by the author’s choice of subjects. In Mademoiselle Fifi (1883) he repeated his previous triumphs as a conteur, and in this same year he, for the first time, attempted to write on a larger scale. Choosing to portray the life of a blameless girl, unfortunate in her marriage, unfortunate in her son, consistently unfortunate in every circumstance of existence, he leaves her, ruined and prematurely old, clinging to the tragic hope, which time, as one feels, will belie, that she may find happiness in her grandson. This picture of an average woman undergoing the constant agony of disillusion Maupassant calls Une Vie (1883), and as in modern literature there is no finer example of cruel observation, so there is no sadder book than this, while the effect of extreme truthfulness which it conveys justifies its sub-title—L’Humble vérité. Certain passages of Une Vie are of such a character that the sale of the volume at railway bookstalls was forbidden throughout France. The matter was brought before the chamber of deputies, with the result of drawing still more attention to the book, and of advertising the Contes de la bécasse (1883), a collection of stories as improper as they are clever. Au soleil (1884), a book of travels which has the eminent qualities of lucid observation and exact description, was less read than Clair de lune, Miss Harriet, Les Sœurs Rondoli and Yvette, all published in 1883-1884 when Maupassant’s powers were at their highest level. Three further collections of short tales, entitled Contes et nouvelles, Monsieur Parent, and Contes du jour et de la nuit, issued in 1885, proved that while the author’s vision was as incomparable as ever, his fecundity had not improved his impeccable form. To 1885 also belongs an elaborate novel, Bel-ami, the cynical history of a particularly detestable, brutal scoundrel who makes his way in the world by means of his handsome face. Maupassant is here no less vivid in realizing his literary men, financiers and frivolous women than in dealing with his favourite peasants, boors and servants, to whom he returned in Toine (1886) and in La Petite roque (1886). About this time appeared the first symptoms of the malady which destroyed him; he wrote less, and though the novel Mont-Oriol (1887) shows him apparently in undiminished possession of his faculty, Le Horla (1887) suggests that he was already subject to alarming hallucinations. Restored to some extent by a sea-voyage, recorded in Sur l’eau (1888), he went back to short stories in Le Rosier de Madame Husson (1888), a burst of Rabelaisian humour equal to anything he had ever written. His novels Pierre et Jean (1888), Fort comme la mort (1889), and Notre cœur (1890) are penetrating studies touched with a profounder sympathy than had hitherto distinguished him; and this softening into pity for the tragedy of life is deepened in some of the tales included in Inutile beauté (1890). One of these, Le Champ d’Oliviers, is an unsurpassable example of 906 poignant, emotional narrative. With La Vie errante (1890), a volume of travels, Maupassant’s career practically closed. Musotte, a theatrical piece written in collaboration with M. Jacques Normand, was published in 1891. By this time inherited nervous maladies, aggravated by excessive physical exercises and by the imprudent use of drugs, had undermined his constitution. He began to take an interest in religious problems, and for a while made the Imitation his handbook; but his misanthropy deepened, and he suffered from curious delusions as to his wealth and rank. A victim of general paralysis, of which La Folie des grandeurs was one of the symptoms, he drank the waters at Aix-les-Bains during the summer of 1891, and retired to Cannes, where he purposed passing the winter. The singularities of conduct which had been observed at Aix-les-Bains grew more and more marked. Maupassant’s reason slowly gave way. On the 6th of January 1892 he attempted suicide, and was removed to Paris, where he died in the most painful circumstances on the 6th of July 1893. He is buried in the cemetery of Montparnasse. The opening chapters of two projected novels, L’Angélus and L’Ame étrangère, were found among his papers; these, with La Paix du ménage, a comedy in two acts, and two collections of tales, Le Père Milon (1898) and Le Colporteur (1899), have been published posthumously. A correspondence, called Amitié amoureuse (1897), and dedicated to his mother, is probably unauthentic. Among the prefaces which he wrote for the works of others, only one—an introduction to a French prose version of Mr Swinburne’s Poems and Ballads—is likely to interest English readers.

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

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

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

907

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAURER, GEORG LUDWIG VON (1790-1872), German statesman and historian, son of a Protestant pastor, was born at Erpolzheim, near Dürkheim, in the Rhenish Palatinate, on the 2nd of November 1790. Educated at Heidelberg, he went in 1812 to reside in Paris, where he entered upon a systematic study of the ancient legal institutions of the Germans. Returning to Germany in 1814, he received an appointment under the Bavarian government, and afterwards filled several important official positions. In 1824 he published at Heidelberg his Geschichte des altgermanischen und namentlich altbayrischen öffentlich-mündlichen Gerichtsverfahrens, which obtained the first prize of the academy of Munich, and in 1826 he became professor in the university of Munich. In 1829 he returned to official life, and was soon offered an important post. In 1832, when Otto (Otho), son of Louis I., king of Bavaria, was chosen to fill the throne of Greece, a council of regency was nominated during his minority, and Maurer was appointed a member. He applied himself energetically to the task of creating institutions adapted to the requirements of a modern civilized community; but grave difficulties soon arose and Maurer was recalled in 1834, when he returned to Munich. This loss was a serious one for Greece. Maurer was the ablest, most energetic and most liberal-minded member of the council, and it was through his enlightened 908 efforts that Greece obtained a revised penal code, regular tribunals and an improved system of civil procedure. Soon after his recall he published Das griechische Volk in öffentlicher, kirchlicher, und privatrechtlicher Beziehung vor und nach dem Freiheitskampfe bis zum 31 Juli 1834 (Heidelberg, 1835-1836), a useful source of information for the history of Greece before Otto ascended the throne, and also for the labours of the council of regency to the time of the author’s recall. After the fall of the ministry of Karl von Abel (1788-1859) in 1847, he became chief Bavarian minister and head of the departments of foreign affairs and of justice, but was overthrown in the same year. He died at Munich on the 9th of May 1872. His only son, Conrad von Maurer (1823-1902), was a Scandinavian scholar of some repute, and like his father was a professor at the university of Munich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAURICE OF NASSAU, prince of Orange (1567-1625), the second son of William the Silent, by Anna, only daughter of the famous Maurice, elector of Saxony, was born at Dillenburg. At the time of his father’s assassination in 1584 he was being educated at the university of Leiden, at the expense of the states of Holland and Zeeland. Despite his youth he was made stadtholder of those two provinces and president of the council of 911 state. During the period of Leicester’s governorship he remained in the background, engaged in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the military art, and in 1586 the States of Holland conferred upon him the title of prince. On the withdrawal of Leicester from the Netherlands in August 1587, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, the advocate of Holland, became the leading statesman of the country, a position which he retained for upwards of thirty years. He had been a devoted adherent of William the Silent and he now used his influence to forward the interests of Maurice. In 1588 he was appointed by the States-General captain and admiral-general of the Union, in 1590 he was elected stadtholder of Utrecht and Overysel, and in 1591 of Gelderland. From this time forward, Oldenbarneveldt at the head of the civil government and Maurice in command of the armed forces of the republic worked together in the task of rescuing the United Netherlands from Spanish domination (for details see Holland). Maurice soon showed himself to be a general second in skill to none of his contemporaries. He was especially famed for his consummate knowledge of the science of sieges. The twelve years’ truce on the 9th of April 1609 brought to an end the cordial relations between Maurice and Oldenbarneveldt. Maurice was opposed to the truce, but the advocate’s policy triumphed and henceforward there was enmity between them. The theological disputes between the Remonstrants and contra-Remonstrants found them on different sides; and the theological quarrel soon became a political one. Oldenbarneveldt, supported by the states of Holland, came forward as the champion of provincial sovereignty against that of the states-general; Maurice threw the weight of his sword on the side of the union. The struggle was a short one, for the army obeyed the general who had so often led them to victory. Oldenbarneveldt perished on the scaffold, and the share which Maurice had in securing the illegal condemnation by a packed court of judges of the aged patriot must ever remain a stain upon his memory.

Maurice, who had on the death of his elder brother Philip William, in February 1618, become prince of Orange, was now supreme in the state, but during the remainder of his life he sorely missed the wise counsels of the experienced Oldenbarneveldt. War broke out again in 1621, but success had ceased to accompany him on his campaigns. His health gave way, and he died, a prematurely aged man, at the Hague on the 4th of April 1625. He was buried by his father’s side at Delft.

MAURISTS, a congregation of French Benedictines called after St Maurus (d. 565), a disciple of St Benedict and the legendary introducer of the Benedictine rule and life into Gaul.1 At the end of the 16th century the Benedictine monasteries of France had fallen into a state of disorganization and relaxation. In the abbey of St Vaune near Verdun a reform was initiated by Dom Didier de la Cour, which spread to other houses in Lorraine, and in 1604 the reformed congregation of St Vaune was established, the most distinguished members of which were Ceillier and Calmet. A number of French houses joined the new congregation; but as Lorraine was still independent of the French crown, it was considered desirable to form on the same lines a separate congregation for France. Thus in 1621 was established the famous French congregation of St Maur. Most of the Benedictine monasteries of France, except those belonging to Cluny, gradually joined the new congregation, which eventually embraced nearly two hundred houses. The chief house was Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris, the residence of the superior-general and centre of the literary activity of the congregation. The primary idea of the movement was not the undertaking of literary and historical work, but the return to a strict monastic régime and the faithful carrying out of Benedictine life; and throughout the most glorious period of Maurist history the literary work was not allowed to interfere with the due performance of the choral office and the other duties of the monastic life. Towards the end of the 18th century a tendency crept in, in some quarters, to relax the monastic observances in favour of study; but the constitutions of 1770 show that a strict monastic régime was maintained until the end. The course of Maurist history and work was checkered by the ecclesiastical controversies that distracted the French Church during the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of the members identified themselves with the Jansenist cause; but the bulk, including nearly all the greatest names, pursued a middle path, opposing the lax moral theology condemned in 1679 by Pope Innocent XI., and adhering to those strong views on grace and predestination associated with the Augustinian and Thomist schools of Catholic theology; and like all the theological faculties and schools on French soil, they were bound to teach the four Gallican articles. It seems that towards the end of the 18th century a rationalistic and free-thinking spirit invaded some of the houses. The congregation was suppressed and the monks scattered at the revolution, the last superior-general with forty of his monks dying on the scaffold in Paris. The present French congregation of Benedictines initiated by Dom Guéranger in 1833 is a new creation and has no continuity with the congregation of St Maur.

The great claim of the Maurists to the gratitude and admiration of posterity is their historical and critical school, which stands quite alone in history, and produced an extraordinary number of colossal works of erudition which still are of permanent value. The foundations of this school were laid by Dom Tarisse, the first superior-general, who in 1632 issued instructions to the superiors of the monasteries to train the young monks in the habits of research and of organized work. The pioneers in production were Ménard and d’Achery.

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

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

The rivers are small, and none is navigable beyond a few hundred yards from the sea. In the dry season little more than brooks, they become raging torrents in the wet season. The principal stream is the Grande Rivière, with a course of about 10 m. There is a remarkable and very deep lake, called 913 Grand Bassin, in the south of the island, it is probably the extinct crater of an ancient volcano; similar lakes are the Mare aux Vacois and the Mare aux Joncs, and there are other deep hollows which have a like origin.

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

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

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

History.—Mauritius appears to have been unknown to European nations, if not to all other peoples, until the year 1505, when it was discovered by Mascarenhas, a Portuguese navigator. It had then no inhabitants, and there seem to be no traces of a previous occupation by any people. The island was retained for most of the 16th century by its discoverers, but they made no settlements in it. In 1598 the Dutch took possession, and named the island “Mauritius,” in honour of their stadtholder, Count Maurice of Nassau. It had been previously called by the Portuguese “Ilha do Cerné,” from the belief that it was the island so named by Pliny. But though the Dutch built a fort at Grand Port and introduced a number of slaves and convicts, they made no permanent settlement in Mauritius, finally abandoning the island in 1710. From 1715 to 1767 (when the French government assumed direct control) the island was held by agents of the French East India Company, by whom its name was again changed to “Île de France.” The Company was fortunate in having several able men as governors of its colony, especially the celebrated Mahé de Labourdonnais (q.v.), who made sugar 915 planting the main industry of the inhabitants.3 Under his direction roads were made, forts built, and considerable portions of the forest were cleared, and the present capital, Port Louis, was founded. Labourdonnais also promoted the planting of cotton and indigo, and is remembered as the most enlightened and best of all the French governors. He also put down the maroons or runaway slaves who had long been the pest of the island. The colony continued to rise in value during the time it was held by the French crown, and to one of the intendants,4 Pierre Poivre, was due the introduction of the clove, nutmeg and other spices. Another governor was D’Entrecasteaux, whose name is kept in remembrance by a group of islands east of New Guinea.

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

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

MAURY, JEAN SIFFREIN (1746-1817), French cardinal and archbishop of Paris, the son of a poor cobbler, was born on the 26th of June 1746 at Valréas in the Comtat-Venaissin, the district in France which belonged to the pope. His acuteness was observed by the priests of the seminary at Avignon, where he was educated and took orders. He tried his fortune by writing éloges of famous persons, then a favourite practice; and in 1771 his éloge on Fénelon was pronounced next best to Laharpe’s by the Academy. The real foundation of his fortunes was the success of a panegyric on St Louis delivered before the Academy in 1772, which caused him to be recommended for an abbacy. In 1777 he published under the title of Discours choisis his panegyrics on Saint Louis, Saint Augustine and Fénelon, his remarks on Bossuet and his Essai sur l’éloquence de la chaire, a volume which contains much good criticism, and remains a French classic. The book was often reprinted as Principes de l’éloquence. He became a favourite preacher in Paris, and was Lent preacher at court in 1781, when King Louis XVI. said of his sermon: “If the abbé had only said a few words on religion he would have discussed every possible subject.” In 1781 he obtained the rich priory of Lyons, near Péronne, and in 1785 he was elected to the Academy, as successor of Lefranc de Pompignan. His morals were as loose as those of his great rival Mirabeau, but he was famed in Paris for his wit and gaiety. In 1789 he was elected a member of the states-general by the clergy of the bailliage of Péronne, and from the first proved to be the most able and persevering defender of the ancien régime, although he had drawn up the greater part of the cahier of the clergy of Péronne, which contained a considerable programme of reform. It is said that he attempted to emigrate both in July and in October 1789; but after that time he held firmly to his place, when almost universally deserted by his friends. In the Constituent Assembly he took an active part in every important debate, combating with especial vigour the alienation of the property of the clergy. His life was often in danger, but his ready wit always saved it, and it was said that one bon mot would preserve him for a month. 916 When he did emigrate in 1792 he found himself regarded as a martyr to the church and the king, and was at once named archbishop in partibus, and extra nuncio to the diet at Frankfort, and in 1794 cardinal. He was finally made bishop of Montefiascone, and settled down in that little Italian town—but not for long, for in 1798 the French drove him from his retreat, and he sought refuge in Venice and St Petersburg. Next year he returned to Rome as ambassador of the exiled Louis XVIII. at the papal court. In 1804 he began to prepare his return to France by a well-turned letter to Napoleon, congratulating him on restoring religion to France once more. In 1806 he did return; in 1807 he was again received into the Academy; and in 1810, on the refusal of Cardinal Fesch, was made archbishop of Paris. He was presently ordered by the pope to surrender his functions as archbishop of Paris. This he refused to do. On the restoration of the Bourbons he was summarily expelled from the Academy and from the archiepiscopal palace. He retired to Rome, where he was imprisoned in the castle of St Angelo for six months for his disobedience to the papal orders, and died in 1817, a year or two after his release, of disease contracted in prison and of chagrin. As a critic he was a very able writer, and Sainte-Beuve gives him the credit of discovering Father Jacques Bridayne, and of giving Bossuet his rightful place as a preacher above Massillon; as a politician, his wit and eloquence make him a worthy rival of Mirabeau. He sacrificed too much to personal ambition, yet it would have been a graceful act if Louis XVIII. had remembered the courageous supporter of Louis XVI., and the pope the one intrepid defender of the Church in the states-general.

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

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

917

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

918

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

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

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

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

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

Serenus of Antissa investigated the somewhat trifling problem of finding the triangle of greatest area whose sides are formed by the intersections with the base and curved surface of a right circular cone of a plane drawn through its vertex.

The next problem on maxima and minima of which there appears to be any record occurs in a letter from Regiomontanus to Roder (July 4, 1471), and is a particular numerical example of the problem of finding the point on a given straight line at which two given points subtend a maximum angle. N. Tartaglia in his General trattato de numeri et mesuri (c. 1556) gives, without proof, a rule for dividing a number into two parts such that the continued product of the numbers and their difference is a maximum.

Fermat investigated maxima and minima by means of the principle that in the neighbourhood of a maximum or minimum the differences of the values of a function are insensible, a method virtually the same as that of the differential calculus, and of great use in dealing with geometrical maxima and minima. His method was developed by Huygens, Leibnitz, Newton and others, and in particular by John Hudde, who investigated maxima and minima of functions of more than one independent variable, and made some attempt to discriminate between maxima and minima, a question first definitely settled, so far as one variable is concerned, by Colin Maclaurin in his Treatise on Fluxions (1742). The method of the differential calculus was perfected by Euler and Lagrange.

John Bernoulli’s famous problem of the “brachistochrone,” or curve of quickest descent from one point to another under 919 the action of gravity, proposed in 1696, gave rise to a new kind of maximum and minimum problem in which we have to find a curve and not points on a given curve. From these problems arose the “Calculus of Variations.” (See Variations, Calculus of.)

The only general methods of attacking problems on maxima and minima are those of the differential calculus or, in geometrical problems, what is practically Fermat’s method. Some problems may be solved by algebra; thus if y = ƒ(x) ÷ φ(x), where ƒ(x) and φ(x) are polynomials in x, the limits to the values of yφ may be found from the consideration that the equation yφ(x) − ƒ(x) = 0 must have real roots. This is a useful method in the case in which φ(x) and ƒ(x) are quadratics, but scarcely ever in any other case. The problem of finding the maximum product of n positive quantities whose sum is given may also be found, algebraically, thus. If a and b are any two real unequal quantities whatever {1⁄2(a + b)}2 > ab, so that we can increase the product leaving the sum unaltered by replacing any two terms by half their sum, and so long as any two of the quantities are unequal we can increase the product. Now, the quantities being all positive, the product cannot be increased without limit and must somewhere attain a maximum, and no other form of the product than that in which they are all equal can be the maximum, so that the product is a maximum when they are all equal. Its minimum value is obviously zero. If the restriction that all the quantities shall be positive is removed, the product can be made equal to any quantity, positive or negative. So other theorems of algebra, which are stated as theorems on inequalities, may be regarded as algebraic solutions of problems on maxima and minima.

For purely geometrical questions the only general method available is practically that employed by Fermat. If a quantity depends on the position of some point P on a curve, and if its value is equal at two neighbouring points P and P′, then at some position between P and P′ it attains a maximum or minimum, and this position may be found by making P and P′ approach each other indefinitely. Take for instance the problem of Regiomontanus “to find a point on a given straight line which subtends a maximum angle at two given points A and B.” Let P and P′ be two near points on the given straight line such that the angles APB and AP′B are equal. Then ABPP′ lie on a circle. By making P and P′ approach each other we see that for a maximum or minimum value of the angle APB, P is a point in which a circle drawn through AB touches the given straight line. There are two such points, and unless the given straight line is at right angles to AB the two angles obtained are not the same. It is easily seen that both angles are maxima, one for points on the given straight line on one side of its intersection with AB, the other for points on the other side. For further examples of this method together with most other geometrical problems on maxima and minima of any interest or importance the reader may consult such a book as J. W. Russell’s A Sequel lo Elementary Geometry (Oxford, 1907).

MAXIMIANUS, a Latin elegiac poet who flourished during the 6th century A.D. He was an Etruscan by birth, and spent his youth at Rome, where he enjoyed a great reputation as an orator. At an advanced age he was sent on an important mission to the East, perhaps by Theodoric, if he is the Maximianus to whom that monarch addressed a letter preserved in Cassiodorus (Variarum, i. 21). The six elegies extant under his name, written in old age, in which he laments the loss of his youth, contain descriptions of various amours. They show the author’s familiarity with the best writers of the Augustan age.

MAXIMIANUS, MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS, surnamed Herculius, Roman emperor from A.D. 286 to 305, was born of humble parents at Sirmium in Pannonia. He achieved distinction during long service in the army, and having been made Caesar by Diocletian in 285, received the title of Augustus in the following year (April 1, 286). In 287 he suppressed the rising of the peasants (Bagaudae) in Gaul, but in 289, after a three years’ struggle, his colleague and he were compelled to acquiesce in the assumption by his lieutenant Carausius (who had crossed over to Britain) of the title of Augustus. After 293 Maximianus left the care of the Rhine frontier to Constantius Chlorus, who had been designated Caesar in that year, but in 297 his arms achieved a rapid and decisive victory over the barbarians of Mauretania, and in 302 he shared at Rome the triumph of Diocletian, the last pageant of the kind ever witnessed by that city. On the 1st of May 305, the day of Diocletian’s abdication, he also, but without his colleague’s sincerity, divested himself of the imperial dignity at Mediolanum (Milan), which had been his capital, and retired to a villa in Lucania; in the following year, however, he was induced by his son Maxentius to reassume the purple. In 307 he brought the emperor Flavius Valerius Severus a captive to Rome, and also compelled Galerius to retreat, but in 308 he was himself driven by Maxentius from Italy into Illyricum, whence again he was compelled to seek refuge at Arelate (Arles), the court of his son-in-law, Constantine. Here a false report was received, or invented, of the death of Constantine, at that time absent on the Rhine. Maximianus at once grasped at the succession, but was soon driven to Massilia (Marseilles), where, having been delivered up to his pursuers, he strangled himself.

MAXIMILIAN I. (1573-1651), called “the Great,” elector and duke of Bavaria, eldest son of William V. of Bavaria, was born at Munich on the 17th of April 1573. He was educated by the Jesuits at the university of Ingolstadt, and began to take part in the government in 1591. He married in 1595 his cousin, Elizabeth, daughter of Charles II., duke of Lorraine, and became duke of Bavaria upon his father’s abdication in 1597. He refrained from any interference in German politics until 1607, when he was entrusted with the duty of executing the imperial ban against the free city of Donauwörth, a Protestant stronghold. In December 1607 his troops occupied the city, and vigorous steps were taken to restore the supremacy of the older faith. Some Protestant princes, alarmed at this action, formed a union to defend their interests, which was answered in 1609 by the establishment of a league, in the formation of which Maximilian took an important part. Under his leadership an army was set on foot, but his policy was strictly defensive and he refused to allow the league to become a tool in the hands of the house of Habsburg. Dissensions among his colleagues led the duke to resign his office in 1616, but the approach of trouble brought about his return to the league about two years later.

Having refused to become a candidate for the imperial throne in 1619, Maximilian was faced with the complications arising from the outbreak of war in Bohemia. After some delay he made a treaty with the emperor Ferdinand II. in October 1619, and in return for large concessions placed the forces of the league at the emperor’s service. Anxious to curtail the area of the struggle, he made a treaty of neutrality with the Protestant Union, and occupied Upper Austria as security for the expenses of the campaign. On the 8th of November 1620 his troops under Count Tilly defeated the forces of Frederick, king of Bohemia and count palatine of the Rhine, at the White Hill near Prague. In spite of the arrangement with the union Tilly then devastated the Rhenish Palatinate, and in February 1623 Maximilian was formally invested with the electoral dignity and the attendant office of imperial steward, which had been enjoyed since 1356 by the counts palatine of the Rhine. After receiving the Upper Palatinate and restoring Upper Austria to Ferdinand, Maximilian became leader of the party which sought to bring about Wallenstein’s dismissal from the imperial service. At the diet of Regensburg in 1630 Ferdinand was compelled to assent to this demand, but the sequel was disastrous both for Bavaria and its ruler. Early in 1632 the Swedes marched into the duchy and occupied Munich, and Maximilian could only obtain the assistance of the imperialists by placing himself under the orders of Wallenstein, now restored to the command of the emperor’s forces. The ravages of the Swedes and their French allies induced the elector to enter into negotiations for peace with Gustavus Adolphus and Cardinal Richelieu. He also proposed to disarm the Protestants by modifying the Restitution edict of 1629; but these efforts were abortive. In March 1647 he concluded an armistice with France and Sweden at Ulm, but the entreaties of the emperor Ferdinand III. led him to disregard his undertaking. Bavaria was again ravaged, and the elector’s forces defeated in May 1648 at Zusmarshausen. But the peace of Westphalia soon put an end to the struggle. By this treaty it was agreed that Maximilian should retain the electoral dignity, which was made hereditary in his family; and the Upper Palatinate was incorporated with Bavaria. The elector died at Ingolstadt on the 27th of September 1651. By his second wife, 921 Maria Anne, daughter of the emperor Ferdinand II., he left two sons, Ferdinand Maria, who succeeded him, and Maximilian Philip. In 1839 a statue was erected to his memory at Munich by Louis I., king of Bavaria. Weak in health and feeble in frame, Maximilian had high ambitions both for himself and his duchy, and was tenacious and resourceful in prosecuting his designs. As the ablest prince of his age he sought to prevent Germany from becoming the battleground of Europe, and although a rigid adherent of the Catholic faith, was not always subservient to the priest.

MAXIMILIAN I. (Maximilian Joseph) (1756-1825), king of Bavaria, was the son of the count palatine Frederick of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld, and was born on the 27th of May 1756. He was carefully educated under the supervision of his uncle, Duke Christian IV. of Zweibrücken, took service in 1777 as a colonel in the French army, and rose rapidly to the rank of major-general. From 1782 to 1789 he was stationed at Strassburg, but at the outbreak of the revolution he exchanged the French for the Austrian service, taking part in the opening campaigns of the revolutionary wars. On the 1st of April 1795 he succeeded his brother, Charles II., as duke of Zweibrücken, and on the 16th of February 1799 became elector of Bavaria on the extinction of the Sulzbach line with the death of the elector Charles Theodore.

The sympathy with France and with French ideas of enlightenment which characterized his reign was at once manifested. In the newly organized ministry Count Max Josef von Montgelas (q.v.), who, after falling into disfavour with Charles Theodore, had acted for a time as Maximilian Joseph’s private secretary, was the most potent influence, an influence wholly “enlightened” and French. Agriculture and commerce were fostered, the laws were ameliorated, a new criminal code drawn up, taxes and imposts equalized without regard to traditional privileges, while a number of religious houses were suppressed and their revenues used for educational and other useful purposes. In foreign politics Maximilian Joseph’s attitude was from the German point of view less commendable. With the growing sentiment of German nationality he had from first to last no sympathy, and his attitude throughout was dictated by wholly dynastic, or at least Bavarian, considerations. Until 1813 he was the most faithful of Napoleon’s German allies, the relation being cemented by the marriage of his daughter to Eugène Beauharnais. His reward came with the treaty of Pressburg (Dec. 26, 1805), by the terms of which he was to receive the royal title and important territorial acquisitions in Swabia and Franconia to round off his kingdom. The style of king he actually assumed on the 1st of January 1806.

The new king of Bavaria was the most important of the princes belonging to the Confederation of the Rhine, and remained Napoleon’s ally until the eve of the battle of Leipzig, when by the convention of Ried (Oct. 8, 1813) he made the guarantee of the integrity of his kingdom the price of his joining the Allies. By the first treaty of Paris (June 3, 1814), however, he ceded Tirol to Austria in exchange for the former duchy of Würzburg. At the congress of Vienna, too, which he attended in person, Maximilian had to make further concessions to Austria, ceding the quarters of the Inn and Hausruck in return for a part of the old Palatinate. The king fought hard to maintain the contiguity of the Bavarian territories as guaranteed at Ried; but the most he could obtain was an assurance from Metternich in the matter of the Baden succession, in which he was also doomed to be disappointed (see Baden: History, iii. 506).

At Vienna and afterwards Maximilian sturdily opposed any reconstitution of Germany which should endanger the independence of Bavaria, and it was his insistence on the principle of full sovereignty being left to the German reigning princes that largely contributed to the loose and weak organization of the new German Confederation. The Federal Act of the Vienna congress was proclaimed in Bavaria, not as a law but as an international treaty. It was partly to secure popular support in his resistance to any interference of the federal diet in the internal affairs of Bavaria, partly to give unity to his somewhat heterogeneous territories, that Maximilian on the 26th of May 1818 granted a liberal constitution to his people. Montgelas, who had opposed this concession, had fallen in the previous year, and Maximilian had also reversed his ecclesiastical policy, signing on the 24th of October 1817 a concordat with Rome by which the powers of the clergy, largely curtailed under Montgelas’s administration, were restored. The new parliament proved so intractable that in 1819 Maximilian was driven to appeal to the powers against his own creation; but his Bavarian “particularism” and his genuine popular sympathies prevented him from allowing the Carlsbad decrees to be strictly enforced within his dominions. The suspects arrested by order of the Mainz Commission he was accustomed to examine himself, with the result that in many cases the whole proceedings were quashed, and in not a few the accused dismissed with a present of money. Maximilian died on the 13th of October 1825 and was succeeded by his son Louis I.

In private life Maximilian was kindly and simple. He loved to play the part of Landesvater, walking about the streets of his capital en bourgeois and entering into conversation with all ranks of his subjects, by whom he was regarded with great affection. He was twice married: (1) in 1785 to Princess Wilhelmine Auguste of Hesse-Darmstadt, (2) in 1797 to Princess Caroline Friederike of Baden.

MAXIMILIAN II. (1811-1864), king of Bavaria, son of king Louis I. and of his consort Theresa of Saxe-Hildburghausen, was born on the 28th of November 1811. After studying at Göttingen and Berlin and travelling in Germany, Italy and Greece, he was introduced by his father into the council of state (1836). From the first he showed a studious disposition, declaring on one occasion that had he not been born in a royal cradle his choice would have been to become a professor. As crown prince, in the château of Hohenschwangau near Füssen, which he had rebuilt with excellent taste, he gathered about him an intimate society of artists and men of learning, and devoted his time to scientific and historical study. When the abdication of Louis I. (March 28, 1848) called him suddenly to the throne, his choice of ministers promised a liberal régime. The progress of the revolution, however, gave him pause. He strenuously opposed the unionist plans of the Frankfort parliament, refused to recognize the imperial constitution devised by it, and assisted Austria in restoring the federal diet and in carrying out the federal execution in Hesse and Holstein. Although, however, from 1850 onwards his government tended in the direction of absolutism, he refused to become the tool of the clerical reaction, and even incurred the bitter criticism of the Ultramontanes by inviting a number of celebrated men of learning and science (e.g. Liebig and Sybel) to Munich, regardless of their religious views. Finally, in 1859, he dismissed the reactionary ministry of von der Pfordten, and met the wishes of his people for a moderate constitutional government. In his German policy he was guided by the desire to maintain the union of the princes, and hoped to attain this as against the perilous rivalry of Austria and Prussia by the creation of a league of the “middle” and small states—the so-called Trias. In 1863, however, seeing what he thought to be a better way, he supported the project of reform proposed by Austria at the Fürstentag of Frankfort. The failure of this proposal, and the attitude of Austria towards the Confederation and in the Schleswig-Holstein question, undeceived him; but 922 before he could deal with the new situation created by the outbreak of the war with Denmark he died suddenly at Munich, on the 10th of March 1864.

Maximilian was a man of amiable qualities and of intellectual attainments far above the average, but as a king he was hampered by constant ill-health, which compelled him to be often abroad, and when at home to live much in the country. By his wife, Maria Hedwig, daughter of Prince William of Prussia, whom he married in 1842, he had two sons, Louis II., king of Bavaria, and Otto, king of Bavaria, both of whom lost their reason.

MAXIMILIAN I. (1459-1519), Roman emperor, son of the emperor Frederick III. and Leonora, daughter of Edward, king of Portugal, was born at Vienna Neustadt on the 22nd of March 1459. On the 18th of August 1477, by his marriage at Ghent to Mary, who had just inherited Burgundy and the Netherlands from her father Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, he effected a union of great importance in the history of the house of Habsburg. He at once undertook the defence of his wife’s dominions from an attack by Louis XI., king of France, and defeated the French forces at Guinegatte, the modern Enguinegatte, on the 7th of August 1479. But Maximilian was regarded with suspicion by the states of Netherlands, and after suppressing a rising in Gelderland his position was further weakened by the death of his wife on the 27th of March 1482. He claimed to be recognized as guardian of his young son Philip and as regent of the Netherlands, but some of the states refused to agree to his demands and disorder was general. Maximilian was compelled to assent to the treaty of Arras in 1482 between the states of the Netherlands and Louis XI. This treaty provided that Maximilian’s daughter Margaret should marry Charles, the dauphin of France, and have for her dowry Artois and Franche-Comté, two of the provinces in dispute, while the claim of Louis on the duchy of Burgundy was tacitly admitted. Maximilian did not, however, abandon the struggle in the Netherlands. Having crushed a rebellion at Utrecht, he compelled the burghers of Ghent to restore Philip to him in 1485, and returning to Germany was chosen king of the Romans, or German king, at Frankfort on the 16th of February 1486, and crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 9th of the following April. Again in the Netherlands, he made a treaty with Francis II., duke of Brittany, whose independence was threatened by the French regent, Anne of Beaujeu, and the struggle with France was soon renewed. This war was very unpopular with the trading cities of the Netherlands, and early in 1488 Maximilian, having entered Bruges, was detained there as a prisoner for nearly three months, and only set at liberty on the approach of his father with a large force. On his release he had promised he would maintain the treaty of Arras and withdraw from the Netherlands; but he delayed his departure for nearly a year and took part in a punitive campaign against his captors and their allies. On his return to Germany he made peace with France at Frankfort in July 1489, and in October several of the states of the Netherlands recognized him as their ruler and as guardian of his son. In March 1490 the county of Tirol was added to his possessions through the abdication of his kinsman, Count Sigismund, and this district soon became his favourite residence.

Meanwhile the king had formed an alliance with Henry VII. king of England, and Ferdinand II., king of Aragon, to defend the possessions of the duchess Anne, daughter and successor of Francis, duke of Brittany. Early in 1490 he took a further step and was betrothed to the duchess, and later in the same year the marriage was celebrated by proxy; but Brittany was still occupied by French troops, and Maximilian was unable to go to the assistance of his bride. The sequel was startling. In December 1491 Anne was married to Charles VIII., king of France, and Maximilian’s daughter Margaret, who had resided in France since her betrothal, was sent back to her father. The inaction of Maximilian at this time is explained by the condition of affairs in Hungary, where the death of king Matthias Corvinus had brought about a struggle for this throne. The Roman king, who was an unsuccessful candidate, took up arms, drove the Hungarians from Austria, and regained Vienna, which had been in the possession of Matthias since 1485; but he was compelled by want of money to retreat, and on the 7th of November 1491 signed the treaty of Pressburg with Ladislaus, king of Bohemia, who had obtained the Hungarian throne. By this treaty it was agreed that Maximilian should succeed to the crown in case Ladislaus left no legitimate male issue. Having defeated the invading Turks at Villach in 1492, the king was eager to take revenge upon the king of France; but the states of the Netherlands would afford him no assistance. The German diet was indifferent, and in May 1493 he agreed to the peace of Senlis and regained Artois and Franche-Comté.

In August 1493 the death of the emperor left Maximilian sole ruler of Germany and head of the house of Habsburg; and on the 16th of March 1494 he married at Innsbruck Bianca Maria Sforza, daughter of Galeazzo Sforza, duke of Milan (d. 1476). At this time Bianca’s uncle, Ludovico Sforza, was invested with the duchy of Milan in return for the substantial dowry which his niece brought to the king. Maximilian harboured the idea of driving the Turks from Europe; but his appeal to all Christian sovereigns was ineffectual. In 1494 he was again in the Netherlands, where he led an expedition against the rebels of Gelderland, assisted Perkin Warbeck to make a descent upon England, and formally handed over the government of the Low Countries to Philip. His attention was next turned to Italy, and, alarmed at the progress of Charles VIII. in the peninsula, he signed the league of Venice in March 1495, and about the same time arranged a marriage between his son Philip and Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Aragon. The need for help to prosecute the war in Italy caused the king to call the diet to Worms in March 1495, when he urged the necessity of checking the progress of Charles. As during his father’s lifetime Maximilian had favoured the reforming party among the princes, proposals for the better government of the empire were brought forward at Worms as a necessary preliminary to financial and military support. Some reforms were adopted, the public peace was proclaimed without any limitation of time and a general tax was levied. The three succeeding years were mainly occupied with quarrels with the diet, with two invasions of France, and a war in Gelderland against Charles, count of Egmont, who claimed that duchy, and was supported by French troops. The reforms of 1495 were rendered abortive by the refusal of Maximilian to attend the diets or to take any part in the working of the new constitution, and in 1497 he strengthened his own authority by establishing an Aulic Council (Reichshofrath), which he declared was competent to deal with all business of the empire, and about the same time set up a court to centralize the financial administration of Germany.

In February 1499 the king became involved in a war with the Swiss, who had refused to pay the imperial taxes or to furnish a contribution for the Italian expedition. Aided by France they defeated the German troops, and the peace of Basel in September 1499 recognized them as virtually independent of the empire. About this time Maximilian’s ally, Ludovico of Milan, was taken prisoner by Louis XII., king of France, and Maximilian was again compelled to ask the diet for help. An elaborate scheme for raising an army was agreed to, and in return a council of regency (Reichsregiment) was established, which amounted, in the words of a Venetian envoy, to a deposition of the king. The relations were now very strained between the reforming princes and Maximilian, who, unable to raise an army, refused to attend the meetings of the council at Nuremberg, while both parties treated for peace with France. The hostility of the king rendered the council impotent. He was successful in winning the support of many of the younger princes, and in establishing a new court of justice, the members of which were named by himself. The negotiations with France ended in the treaty of Blois, signed in September 1504, when 923 Maximilian’s grandson Charles was betrothed to Claude, daughter of Louis XII., and Louis, invested with the duchy of Milan, agreed to aid the king of the Romans to secure the imperial crown. A succession difficulty in Bavaria-Landshut was only decided after Maximilian had taken up arms and narrowly escaped with his life at Regensburg. In the settlement of this question, made in 1505, he secured a considerable increase of territory, and when the king met the diet at Cologne in 1505 he was at the height of his power. His enemies at home were crushed, and their leader, Berthold, elector of Mainz, was dead; while the outlook abroad was more favourable than it had been since his accession.

It is at this period that Ranke believes Maximilian to have entertained the idea of a universal monarchy; but whatever hopes he may have had were shattered by the death of his son Philip and the rupture of the treaty of Blois. The diet of Cologne discussed the question of reform in a halting fashion, but afforded the king supplies for an expedition into Hungary, to aid his ally Ladislaus, and to uphold his own influence in the East. Having established his daughter Margaret as regent for Charles in the Netherlands, Maximilian met the diet at Constance in 1507, when the imperial chamber (Reichskammergericht) was revised and took a more permanent form, and help was granted for an expedition to Italy. The king set out for Rome to secure his coronation, but Venice refused to let him pass through her territories; and at Trant, on the 4th of February 1508, he took the important step of assuming the title of Roman Emperor Elect, to which he soon received the assent of pope Julius II. He attacked the Venetians, but finding the war unpopular with the trading cities of southern Germany, made a truce with the republic for three years. The treaty of Blois had contained a secret article providing for an attack on Venice, and this ripened into the league of Cambray, which was joined by the emperor in December 1509. He soon took the field, but after his failure to capture Padua the league broke up; and his sole ally, the French king, joined him in calling a general council at Pisa to discuss the question of Church reform. A breach with pope Julius followed, and at this time Maximilian appears to have entertained, perhaps quite seriously, the idea of seating himself in the chair of St Peter. After a period of vacillation he deserted Louis and joined the Holy League, which had been formed to expel the French from Italy; but unable to raise troops, he served with the English forces as a volunteer and shared in the victory gained over the French at the battle of the Spurs near Thérouanne on the 16th of August 1513. In 1500 the diet had divided Germany into six circles, for the maintenance of peace, to which the emperor at the diet of Cologne in 1512 added four others. Having made an alliance with Christian II., king of Denmark, and interfered to protect the Teutonic Order against Sigismund I., king of Poland, Maximilian was again in Italy early in 1516 fighting the French who had overrun Milan. His want of success compelled him on the 4th of December 1516 to sign the treaty of Brussels, which left Milan in the hands of the French king, while Verona was soon afterwards transferred to Venice. He attempted in vain to secure the election of his grandson Charles as king of the Romans, and in spite of increasing infirmity was eager to lead the imperial troops against the Turks. At the diet of Augsburg in 1518 the emperor heard warnings of the Reformation in the shape of complaints against papal exactions, and a repetition of the complaints preferred at the diet of Mainz in 1517 about the administration of Germany. Leaving the diet, he travelled to Wels in Upper Austria, where he died on the 12th of January 1519. He was buried in the church of St George in Vienna Neustadt, and a superb monument, which may still be seen, was raised to his memory at Innsbruck.

MAXIMILIAN II. (1527-1576), Roman emperor, was the eldest son of the emperor Ferdinand I. by his wife Anne, daughter of Ladislaus, king of Hungary and Bohemia, and was born in Vienna on the 31st of July 1527. Educated principally in Spain, he gained some experience of warfare during the campaign of Charles V. against France in 1544, and also during the war of the league of Schmalkalden, and soon began to take part in imperial business. Having in September 1548 married his 924 cousin Maria, daughter of Charles V., he acted as the emperor’s representative in Spain from 1548 to 1550, returning to Germany in December 1550 in order to take part in the discussion over the imperial succession. Charles V. wished his son Philip (afterwards king of Spain) to succeed him as emperor, but his brother Ferdinand, who had already been designated as the next occupant of the imperial throne, and Maximilian objected to this proposal. At length a compromise was reached. Philip was to succeed Ferdinand, but during the former’s reign Maximilian, as king of the Romans, was to govern Germany. This arrangement was not carried out, and is only important because the insistence of the emperor seriously disturbed the harmonious relations which had hitherto existed between the two branches of the Habsburg family; and the estrangement went so far that an illness which befell Maximilian in 1552 was attributed to poison given to him in the interests of his cousin and brother-in-law, Philip of Spain. About this time he took up his residence in Vienna, and was engaged mainly in the government of the Austrian dominions and in defending them against the Turks. The religious views of the king of Bohemia, as Maximilian had been called since his recognition as the future ruler of that country in 1549, had always been somewhat uncertain, and he had probably learned something of Lutheranism in his youth; but his amicable relations with several Protestant princes, which began about the time of the discussion over the succession, were probably due more to political than to religious considerations. However, in Vienna he became very intimate with Sebastian Pfauser (1520-1569), a court preacher with strong leanings towards Lutheranism, and his religious attitude caused some uneasiness to his father. Fears were freely expressed that he would definitely leave the Catholic Church, and when Ferdinand became emperor in 1558 he was prepared to assure Pope Paul IV. that his son should not succeed him if he took this step. Eventually Maximilian remained nominally an adherent of the older faith, although his views were tinged with Lutheranism until the end of his life. After several refusals he consented in 1560 to the banishment of Pfauser, and began again to attend the services of the Catholic Church. This uneasiness having been dispelled, in November 1562 Maximilian was chosen king of the Romans, or German king, at Frankfort, where he was crowned a few days later, after assuring the Catholic electors of his fidelity to their faith, and promising the Protestant electors that he would publicly accept the confession of Augsburg when he became emperor. He also took the usual oath to protect the Church, and his election was afterwards confirmed by the papacy. In September 1563 he was crowned king of Hungary, and on his father’s death, in July 1564, succeeded to the empire and to the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia.

The new emperor had already shown that he believed in the necessity for a thorough reform of the Church. He was unable, however, to obtain the consent of Pope Pius IV. to the marriage of the clergy, and in 1568 the concession of communion in both kinds to the laity was withdrawn. On his part Maximilian granted religious liberty to the Lutheran nobles and knights in Austria, and refused to allow the publication of the decrees of the council of Trent. Amid general expectations on the part of the Protestants he met his first Diet at Augsburg in March 1566. He refused to accede to the demands of the Lutheran princes; on the other hand, although the increase of sectarianism was discussed, no decisive steps were taken to suppress it, and the only result of the meeting was a grant of assistance for the Turkish War, which had just been renewed. Collecting a large and splendid army Maximilian marched to defend his territories; but no decisive engagement had taken place when a truce was made in 1568, and the emperor continued to pay tribute to the sultan for Hungary. Meanwhile the relations between Maximilian and Philip of Spain had improved; and the emperor’s increasingly cautious and moderate attitude in religious matters was doubtless due to the fact that the death of Philip’s son, Don Carlos, had opened the way for the succession of Maximilian, or of one of his sons, to the Spanish throne. Evidence of this friendly feeling was given in 1570, when the emperor’s daughter, Anne, became the fourth wife of Philip; but Maximilian was unable to moderate the harsh proceedings of the Spanish king against the revolting inhabitants of the Netherlands. In 1570 the emperor met the diet at Spires and asked for aid to place his eastern borders in a state of defence, and also for power to repress the disorder caused by troops in the service of foreign powers passing through Germany. He proposed that his consent should be necessary before any soldiers for foreign service were recruited in the empire; but the estates were unwilling to strengthen the imperial authority, the Protestant princes regarded the suggestion as an attempt to prevent them from assisting their coreligionists in France and the Netherlands, and nothing was done in this direction, although some assistance was voted for the defence of Austria. The religious demands of the Protestants were still unsatisfied, while the policy of toleration had failed to give peace to Austria. Maximilian’s power was very limited; it was inability rather than unwillingness that prevented him from yielding to the entreaties of Pope Pius V. to join in an attack on the Turks both before and after the victory of Lepanto in 1571; and he remained inert while the authority of the empire in north-eastern Europe was threatened. His last important act was to make a bid for the throne of Poland, either for himself or for his son Ernest. In December 1575 he was elected by a powerful faction, but the diet which met at Regensburg was loath to assist; and on the 12th of October 1576 the emperor died, refusing on his deathbed to receive the last sacraments of the Church.

By his wife Maria he had a family of nine sons and six daughters. He was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Rudolph, who had been chosen king of the Romans in October 1575. Another of his sons, Matthias, also became emperor; three others, Ernest, Albert and Maximilian, took some part in the government of the Habsburg territories or of the Netherlands, and a daughter, Elizabeth, married Charles IX. king of France.

MAXIMILIAN (1832-1867), emperor of Mexico, second son of the archduke Francis Charles of Austria, was born in the palace of Schönbrunn, on the 6th of July 1832. He was a particularly clever boy, showed considerable taste for the arts, and early displayed an interest in science, especially botany. He was trained for the navy, and threw himself into this career with so much zeal that he quickly rose to high command, and was mainly instrumental in creating the naval port of Trieste and the fleet with which Tegethoff won his victories in the Italian War. He had some reputation as a Liberal, and this led, in February 1857, to his appointment as viceroy of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom; in the same year he married the Princess Charlotte, daughter of Leopold I., king of the Belgians. On the outbreak of the war of 1859 he retired into private life, chiefly at Trieste, near which he built the beautiful chateau of Miramar. In this same year he was first approached by Mexican exiles with the proposal to become the candidate 925 for the throne of Mexico. He did not at first accept, but sought to satisfy his restless desire for adventure by a botanical expedition to the tropical forests of Brazil. In 1863, however, under pressure from Napoleon III., and after General Forey’s capture of the city of Mexico and the plebiscite which confirmed his proclamation of the empire, he consented to accept the crown. This decision was contrary to the advice of his brother, the emperor Francis Joseph, and involved the loss of all his rights in Austria. Maximilian landed at Vera Cruz on the 28th of May 1864; but from the very outset he found himself involved in difficulties of the most serious kind, which in 1866 made apparent to almost every one outside of Mexico the necessity for his abdicating. Though urged to this course by Napoleon himself, whose withdrawal from Mexico was the final blow to his cause, Maximilian refused to desert his followers. Withdrawing, in February 1867, to Querétaro, he there sustained a siege for several weeks, but on the 15th of May resolved to attempt an escape through the enemy’s lines. He was, however, arrested before he could carry out this resolution, and after trial by court-martial was condemned to death. The sentence was carried out on the 19th of June 1867. His remains were conveyed to Vienna, where they were buried in the imperial vault early in the following year. (See Mexico.)

MAXIMINUS, GAIUS JULIUS VERUS, Roman emperor from A.D. 235 to 238, was born in a village on the confines of Thrace. He was of barbarian parentage and was brought up as a shepherd. His immense stature and enormous feats of strength attracted the attention of the emperor Septimius Severus. He entered the army, and under Caracalla rose to the rank of centurion. He carefully absented himself from court during the reign of Heliogabalus, but under his successor Alexander Severus, was appointed supreme commander of the Roman armies. After the murder of Alexander in Gaul, hastened, it is said, by his instigation, Maximinus was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers on the 19th of March 235. The three years of his reign, which were spent wholly in the camp, were marked by great cruelty and oppression; the widespread discontent thus produced culminated in a revolt in Africa and the assumption of the purple by Gordian (q.v.). Maximinus, who was in Pannonia at the time, marched against Rome, and passing over the Julian Alps descended on Aquileia; while detained before that city he and his son were murdered in their tent by a body of praetorians. Their heads were cut off and despatched to Rome, where they were burnt on the Campus Martius by the exultant crowd.

MAXIMINUS [Maximin], GALERIUS VALERIUS, Roman emperor from A.D. 308 to 314, was originally an Illyrian shepherd named Daia. He rose to high distinction after he had joined the army, and in 305 he was raised by his uncle, Galerius, to the rank of Caesar, with the government of Syria and Egypt. In 308, after the elevation of Licinius, he insisted on receiving the title of Augustus; on the death of Galerius, in 311, he succeeded to the supreme command of the provinces of Asia, and when Licinius and Constantine began to make common cause with one another Maximinus entered into a secret alliance with Maxentius. He came to an open rupture with Licinius in 313, sustained a crushing defeat in the neighbourhood of Heraclea Pontica on the 30th of April, and fled, first to Nicomedia and afterwards to Tarsus, where he died in August following. His death was variously ascribed “to despair, to poison, and to the divine justice.” Maximinus has a bad name in Christian annals, as having renewed persecution after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, but it is probable that he has been judged too harshly.

MAXIMS, LEGAL. A maxim is an established principle or proposition. The Latin term maxima is not to be found in Roman law with any meaning exactly analogous to that of a legal maxim in the modern sense of the word, but the treatises of many of the Roman jurists on Regulae definitiones, and Sententiae juris are, in some measure, collections of maxims (see an article on “Latin Maxims in English Law” in Law Mag. and Rev. xx. 285); Fortescue (De laudibus, c. 8) and Du Cange treat maxima and regula as identical. The attitude of early English commentators towards the maxims of the law was one of unmingled adulation. In Doctor and Student (p. 26) they are described as “of the same strength and effect in the law as statutes be.” Coke (Co. Litt. 11 A) says that a maxim is so called “Quia maxima est ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxime omnibus probetur.” “Not only,” observes Bacon in the Preface to his Collection of Maxims, “will the use of maxims be in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of the whole law.” A similar note was sounded in Scotland; and it has been well observed that “a glance at the pages of Morrison’s Dictionary or at other early reports will show how frequently in the older Scots law questions respecting the rights, remedies and liabilities of individuals were determined by an immediate reference to legal maxims” (J. M. Irving, Encyclo. Scots Law, s.v. “Maxims”). In later times less value has been attached to the maxims of the law, as the development of civilization and the increasing complexity of business relations have shown the necessity of qualifying the propositions which they enunciate (see Stephen, Hist. Crim. Law, ii. 94 n: Yarmouth v. France, 1887, 19 Q.B.D., per Lord Esher, at p. 653, and American authorities collected in Bouvier’s Law Dict. s.v. “Maxim”). But both historically and practically they must always possess interest and value.

MAXIMUS, the name of four Roman emperors.

I. M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus, joint emperor with D. Caelius Calvinus Balbinus during a few months of the year A.D. 238. Pupienus was a distinguished soldier, who had been proconsul of Bithynia, Achaea, and Gallia Narbonensis. At the advanced age of seventy-four, he was chosen by the senate with Balbinus to resist the barbarian Maximinus. Their complete equality is shown by the fact that each assumed the titles of pontifex maximus and princeps senatus. It was arranged that Pupienus should take the field against Maximinus, while Balbinus remained at Rome to maintain order, a task in which he signally failed. A revolt of the praetorians was not repressed till much blood had been shed and a considerable part of the city reduced to ashes. On his march, Pupienus, having received the news that Maximinus had been assassinated by his own troops, returned in triumph to Rome. Shortly afterwards, when both emperors were on the point of leaving the city on an expedition—Pupienus against the Persians and Balbinus against the Goths—the praetorians, who had always resented the appointment of the senatorial emperors and cherished the memory of the soldier-emperor Maximinus, seized the opportunity of revenge. When most of the people were at the Capitoline games, they forced their way into the palace, dragged Balbinus and Pupienus through the streets, and put them to death.

II. Magnus Maximus, a native of Spain, who had accompanied Theodosius on several expeditions and from 368 held high military rank in Britain. The disaffected troops having proclaimed Maximus emperor, he crossed over to Gaul, attacked Gratian (q.v.), and drove him from Paris to Lyons, where he was murdered by a partisan of Maximus. Theodosius being unable to avenge the death of his colleague, an agreement was made (384 or 385) by which Maximus was recognized as Augustus and sole emperor in Gaul, Spain and Britain, while Valentinian II. was to remain unmolested in Italy and Illyricum, Theodosius retaining his sovereignty in the East. In 387 Maximus crossed the Alps, Valentinian was speedily put to flight, while the invader established himself in Milan and for the time became master of Italy. Theodosius now took vigorous measures. Advancing with a powerful army, he twice defeated the troops of Maximus—at Siscia on the Save, and at Poetovio on the Danube. He then hurried on to Aquileia, where Maximus had shut himself up, and had him beheaded. Under the name of Maxen Wledig, Maximus appears in the list of Welsh royal heroes (see R. Williams, Biog. Dict. of Eminent Welshmen, 1852; “The Dream of Maxen Wledig,” in the Mabinogion).

III. Maximus Tyrannus, made emperor in Spain by the Roman general, Gerontius, who had rebelled against the usurper Constantine in 408. After the defeat of Gerontius at Arelate (Arles) and his death in 411 Maximus renounced the imperial title and was permitted by Constantine to retire into private life. About 418 he rebelled again, but, failing in his attempt, was seized, carried into Italy, and put to death at Ravenna in 422.

IV. Petronius Maximus, a member of the higher Roman nobility, had held several court and public offices, including those of praefectus Romae (420) and Italiae (439-441 and 445), and consul (433, 443). He was one of the intimate associates of Valentinian III., whom he assisted in the palace intrigues which led to the death of Aëtius in 454; but an outrage committed on the wife of Maximus by the emperor turned his friendship into hatred. Maximus was proclaimed emperor immediately after Valentinian’s murder (March 16, 455), but after reigning less than three months, he was murdered by some Burgundian mercenaries as he was fleeing before the troops of Genseric, who, invited by Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian, had landed at the mouth of the Tiber (May or June 455).

MAXIMUS, ST (c. 580-662), abbot of Chrysopolis, known as “the Confessor” from his orthodox zeal in the Monothelite (q.v.) controversy, or as “the monk,” was born of noble parentage at Constantinople about the year 580. Educated with great care, he early became distinguished by his talents and acquirements, and some time after the accession of the emperor Heraclius in 610 was made his private secretary. In 630 he abandoned the secular life and entered the monastery of Chrysopolis (Scutari), actuated, it was believed, less by any longing for the life of a recluse than by the dissatisfaction he felt with the Monothelite leanings of his master. The date of his promotion to the abbacy is uncertain. In 633 he was one of the party of Sophronius of Jerusalem (the chief original opponent of the Monothelites) at the council of Alexandria; and in 645 he was again in Africa, when he held in presence of the governor and a number of bishops the disputation with Pyrrhus, the deposed and banished patriarch of Constantinople, which resulted in the (temporary) conversion of his interlocutor to the Dyothelite view. In the following year several African synods, held under the influence of Maximus, declared for orthodoxy. In 649, after the accession of Martin I., he went to Rome, and did much to fan the zeal of the new pope, who in 927 October of that year held the (first) Lateran synod, by which not only the Monothelite doctrine but also the moderating ecthesis of Heraclius and typus of Constans II. were anathematized. About 653 Maximus, for the part he had taken against the latter document especially, was apprehended (together with the pope) by order of Constans and carried a prisoner to Constantinople. In 655, after repeated examinations, in which he maintained his theological opinions with memorable constancy, he was banished to Byzia in Thrace, and afterwards to Perberis. In 662 he was again brought to Constantinople and was condemned by a synod to be scourged, to have his tongue cut out by the root, and to have his right hand chopped off. After this sentence had been carried out he was again banished to Lazica, where he died on the 13th of August 662. He is venerated as a saint both in the Greek and in the Latin Churches. Maximus was not only a leader in the Monothelite struggle but a mystic who zealously followed and advocated the system of Pseudo-Dionysius, while adding to it an ethical element in the conception of the freedom of the will. His works had considerable influence in shaping the system of John Scotus Erigena.

MAXIMUS OF SMYRNA, a Greek philosopher of the Neo-platonist school, who lived towards the end of the 4th century A.D. He was perhaps the most important of the followers of Iamblichus. He is said to have been of a rich and noble family, and exercised great influence over the emperor Julian, who was commended to him by Aedesius. He pandered to the emperor’s love of magic and theurgy, and by judicious administration of the omens won a high position at court. His overbearing manner made him numerous enemies, and, after being imprisoned on the death of Julian, he was put to death by Valens. He is a representative of the least attractive side of Neoplatonism. Attaching no value to logical proof and argument, he enlarged on the wonders and mysteries of nature, and maintained his position by the working of miracles. In logic he is reported to have agreed with Eusebius, Iamblichus and Porphyry in asserting the validity of the second and third figures of the syllogism.

MAXIMUS OF TYRE (Cassius Maximus Tyrius), a Greek rhetorician and philosopher who flourished in the time of the Antonines and Commodus (2nd century A.D.). After the manner of the sophists of his age, he travelled extensively, delivering lectures on the way. His writings contain many allusions to the history of Greece, while there is little reference to Rome; hence it is inferred that he lived longer in Greece, perhaps as a professor at Athens. Although nominally a Platonist, he is really an Eclectic and one of the precursors of Neoplatonism. There are still extant by him forty-one essays or discourses (διαλέξεις) on theological, ethical, and other philosophical commonplaces. With him God is the supreme being, one and indivisible though called by many names, accessible to reason alone; but as animals form the intermediate stage between plants and human beings, so there exist intermediaries between God and man, viz. daemons, who dwell on the confines of heaven and earth. The soul in many ways bears a great resemblance to the divinity; it is partly mortal, partly immortal, and, when freed from the fetters of the body, becomes a daemon. Life is the sleep of the soul, from which it awakes at death. The style of Maximus is superior to that of the ordinary sophistical rhetorician, but scholars differ widely as to the merits of the essays themselves.

Maximus of Tyre must be distinguished from the Stoic Maximus, tutor of Marcus Aurelius.

MAX MÜLLER, FRIEDRICH (1823-1900), Anglo-German orientalist and comparative philologist, was born at Dessau on the 6th of December 1823, being the son of Wilhelm Müller (1794-1827), the German poet, celebrated for his phil-Hellenic lyrics, who was ducal librarian at Dessau. The elder Müller had endeared himself to the most intellectual circles in Germany by his amiable character and his genuine poetic gift; his songs had been utilized by musical composers, notably Schubert; and it was his son’s good fortune to meet in his youth with a succession of eminent friends, who, already interested in him for his father’s sake, and charmed by the qualities which they discovered in the young man himself, powerfully aided him by advice and patronage. Mendelssohn, who was his godfather, dissuaded him from indulging his natural bent to the study of music; Professor Brockhaus of the University of Leipzig, where Max Müller matriculated in 1841, induced him to take up Sanskrit; Bopp, at the University of Berlin (1844), made the Sanskrit student a scientific comparative philologist; Schelling at the same university, inspired him with a love for metaphysical speculation, though failing to attract him to his own philosophy; Burnouf, at Paris in the following year, by teaching him Zend, started him on the track of inquiry into the science of comparative religion, and impelled him to edit the Rig Veda; and when, in 1846, Max Müller came to England upon this errand, Bunsen, in conjunction with Professor H. H. Wilson, prevailed upon the East India Company to undertake the expense of publication. Up to this time Max Müller had lived the life of a poor student, supporting himself partly by copying manuscripts, but Bunsen’s introductions to Queen Victoria and the prince consort, and to Oxford University, laid the foundation for him of fame and fortune. In 1848 the printing of his Rig Veda at the University Press obliged him to settle in Oxford, a step which decided his future career. He arrived at a favourable conjuncture: the Tractarian strife, which had so long thrust learning into the background, was just over, and Oxford was becoming accessible to modern ideas. The young German excited curiosity and interest, and it was soon discovered that, although a genuine scholar, he was no mere bookworm. Part of his social success was due to his readiness to exert his musical talents at private parties. Max Müller was speedily subjugated by the genius loci. He was appointed deputy Taylorian professor of modern languages in 1850, and the German government failed to tempt him back to Strassburg. In the following year he was made M.A. and honorary fellow of Christ Church, and in 1858 he was elected a fellow of All Souls. In 1854 the Crimean War gave him the opportunity of utilizing his oriental learning in vocabularies and schemes of transliteration. In 1857 he successfully essayed another kind of literature in his beautiful story Deutsche Liebe, written both in German and English. He had by this time become an extensive contributor to English periodical literature, and had written several of the essays subsequently collected as Chips from a German Workshop. The most important of them was the fascinating essay on “Comparative Mythology” in the Oxford Essays for 1856. His valuable History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the primitive religion of the Brahmans (and hence the Vedic period only), was published in 1850.

Though Max Müller’s reputation was that of a comparative philologist and orientalist, his professional duties at Oxford were long confined to lecturing on modern languages, or at least their medieval forms. In 1860 the death of Horace Hayman Wilson, professor of Sanskrit, seemed to open a more congenial sphere to him. His claims to the succession seemed incontestable, for his opponent, Monier Williams, though well qualified as a Sanskritist, lacked Max Müller’s brilliant versatility, and although educated at Oxford, had held no University 928 office. But Max Müller was a Liberal, and the friend of Liberals in university matters, in politics, and in theology, and this consideration united with his foreign birth to bring the country clergy in such hosts to the poll that the voice of resident Oxford was overborne, and Monier Williams was elected by a large majority. It was the one great disappointment of Max Müller’s life, and made a lasting impression upon him. It was, nevertheless, serviceable to his influence and reputation by permitting him to enter upon a wider field of subjects than would have been possible otherwise. Directly, Sanskrit philology received little more from him, except in connexion with his later undertaking of The Sacred Books of the East; but indirectly he exalted it more than any predecessor by proclaiming its commanding position in the history of the human intellect by his Science of Language, two courses of lectures delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863. Max Müller ought not to be described as “the introducer of comparative philology into England.” Prichard had proved the Aryan affinities of the Celtic languages by the methods of comparative philology so long before as 1831; Winning’s Manual of Comparative Philology had been published in 1838; the discoveries of Bopp and Pott and Pictet had been recognized in brilliant articles in the Quarterly Review, and had guided the researches of Rawlinson. But Max Müller undoubtedly did far more to popularize the subject than had been done, or could have been done, by any predecessor. He was on less sure ground in another department of the study of language—the problem of its origin. He wrote upon it as a disciple of Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason he translated. His essays on mythology are among the most delightful of his writings, but their value is somewhat impaired by a too uncompromising adherence to the seductive generalization of the solar myth.

Max Müller’s studies in mythology led him to another field of activity in which his influence was more durable and extensive, that of the comparative science of religions. Here, so far as Great Britain is concerned, he does deserve the fame of an originator, and his Introduction to the Science of Religion (1873: the same year in which he lectured on the subject, at Dean Stanley’s invitation, in Westminster Abbey, this being the only occasion on which a layman had given an address there) marks an epoch. It was followed by other works of importance, especially the four volumes of Gifford lectures, delivered between 1888 and 1892; but the most tangible result of the impulse he had given was the publication under his editorship, from 1875 onwards, of The Sacred Books of the East, in fifty-one volumes, including indexes, all but three of which appeared under his superintendence during his lifetime. These comprise translations by the most competent scholars of all the really important non-Christian scriptures of Oriental nations, which can now be appreciated without a knowledge of the original languages. Max Müller also wrote on Indian philosophy in his latter years, and his exertions to stimulate search for Oriental manuscripts and inscriptions were rewarded with important discoveries of early Buddhist scriptures, in their Indian form, made in Japan. He was on particularly friendly terms with native Japanese scholars, and after his death his library was purchased by the university of Tôkyô.

In 1868 Max Müller had been indemnified for his disappointment over the Sanskrit professorship by the establishment of a chair of Comparative Philology to be filled by him. He retired, however, from the actual duties of the post in 1875, when entering upon the editorship of The Sacred Books of the East. The most remarkable external events of his latter years were his delivery of lectures at the restored university of Strassburg in 1872, when he devoted his honorarium to the endowment of a Sanskrit lectureship, and his presidency over the International Congress of Orientalists in 1892. But his days, if uneventful, were busy. He participated in every movement at Oxford of which he could approve, and was intimate with nearly all its men of light and leading; he was a curator of the Bodleian Library, and a delegate of the University Press. He was acquainted with most of the crowned heads

of Europe, and was an especial favourite with the English royal family. His hospitality was ample, especially to visitors from India, where he was far better known than any other European Orientalist. His distinctions, conferred by foreign governments and learned societies, were innumerable, and, having been naturalized shortly after his arrival in England, he received the high honour of being made a privy councillor. In 1898 and 1899 he published autobiographical reminiscences under the title of Auld Lang Syne. He was writing a more detailed autobiography when overtaken by death on the 28th of October 1900. Max Müller married in 1859 Georgiana Adelaide Grenfell, sister of the wives of Charles Kingsley and J. A. Froude. One of his daughters, Mrs Conybeare, distinguished herself by a translation of Scherer’s History of German Literature.

Though undoubtedly a great scholar, Max Müller did not so much represent scholarship pure and simple as her hybrid types—the scholar-author and the scholar-courtier. In the former capacity, though manifesting little of the originality of genius, he rendered vast service by popularizing high truths among high minds. In his public and social character he represented Oriental studies with a brilliancy, and conferred upon them a distinction, which they had not previously enjoyed in Great Britain. There were drawbacks in both respects: the author was too prone to build upon insecure foundations, and the man of the world incurred censure for failings which may perhaps be best indicated by the remark that he seemed too much of a diplomatist. But the sum of foibles seems insignificant in comparison with the life of intense labour dedicated to the service of culture and humanity.

MAXWELL, the name of a Scottish family, members of which have held the titles of earl of Morton, earl of Nithsdale, Lord Maxwell, and Lord Herries. The name is taken probably from Maccuswell, or Maxwell, near Kelso, whither the family migrated from England about 1100. Sir Herbert Maxwell won great fame by defending his castle of Carlaverock against Edward I. in 1300; another Sir Herbert was made a lord of the Scottish parliament before 1445; and his great-grandson John, 3rd Lord Maxwell, was killed at Flodden in 1513. John’s son Robert, the 4th lord (d. 1546), was a member of the royal council under James V.; he was also an extraordinary lord of session, high admiral, and warden of the west marches, and was taken prisoner by the English at the rout of Solway Moss in 1542. Robert’s grandson John, 7th Lord Maxwell (1553-1593), was the second son of Robert, the 5th lord (d. 1552), and his wife Beatrix, daughter of James Douglas, 3rd earl of Morton. After the execution of the regent Morton, the 4th earl, in 1581 this earldom was bestowed upon Maxwell, but in 1586 the attainder of the late earl was reversed and he was deprived of his new title. He had helped in 1585 to drive the royal favourite James Stewart, earl of Arran, from power, and he made active preparations to assist the invading Spaniards in 1588. His son John, the 8th lord (c. 1586-1613), was at feud with the Johnstones, who had killed his father in a skirmish, and with the Douglases over the earldom of Morton, which he regarded as his inheritance. After a life of exceptional and continuous lawlessness he escaped from Scotland and in his absence was sentenced to death; having returned to his native country he was seized and was beheaded in Edinburgh. In 1618 John’s brother and heir Robert (d. 1646) was restored to the lordship of Maxwell, and in 1620 was created earl of Nithsdale, surrendering at this time his claim to the earldom of Morton. He and his son Robert, afterwards the 2nd earl, fought under Montrose for Charles I. during the Civil War. Robert died without sons in October 1667, when a cousin John Maxwell, 7th Lord Herries (d. 1677), became third earl.

William, 5th earl of Nithsdale (1676-1744), a grandson of the third earl, was like his ancestor a Roman Catholic and was attached to the cause of the exiled house of Stuart. In 1715 he joined the Jacobite insurgents, being taken prisoner at the battle of Preston and sentenced to death. He escaped, however, 929 from the Tower of London through the courage and devotion of his wife Winifred (d. 1749), daughter of William Herbert, 1st marquess of Powis. He was attainted in 1716 and his titles became extinct, but his estates passed to his son William (d. 1776), whose descendant, William Constable-Maxwell, regained the title of Lord Herries in 1858. The countess of Nithsdale wrote an account of her husband’s escape, which is published in vol. i. of the Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

MAXWELL, JAMES CLERK (1831-1879), British physicist, was the last representative of a younger branch of the well-known Scottish family of Clerk of Penicuik, and was born at Edinburgh on the 13th of November 1831. He was educated at the Edinburgh Academy (1840-1847) and the university of Edinburgh (1847-1850). Entering at Cambridge in 1850, he spent a term or two at Peterhouse, but afterwards migrated to Trinity. In 1854 he took his degree as second wrangler, and was declared equal with the senior wrangler of his year (E. J. Routh, q.v.) in the higher ordeal of the Smith’s prize examination. He held the chair of Natural Philosophy in Marischal College, Aberdeen, from 1856 till the fusion of the two colleges there in 1860. For eight years subsequently he held the chair of Physics and Astronomy in King’s College, London, but resigned in 1868 and retired to his estate of Glenlair in Kirkcudbrightshire. He was summoned from his seclusion in 1871 to become the first holder of the newly founded professorship of Experimental Physics in Cambridge; and it was under his direction that the plans of the Cavendish Laboratory were prepared. He superintended every step of the progress of the building and of the purchase of the very valuable collection of apparatus with which it was equipped at the expense of its munificent founder the seventh duke of Devonshire (chancellor of the university, and one of its most distinguished alumni). He died at Cambridge on the 5th of November 1879.

For more than half of his brief life he held a prominent position in the very foremost rank of natural philosophers. His contributions to scientific societies began in his fifteenth year, when Professor J. D. Forbes communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh a short paper of his on a mechanical method of tracing Cartesian ovals. In his eighteenth year, while still a student in Edinburgh, he contributed two valuable papers to the Transactions of the same society—one of which, “On the Equilibrium of Elastic Solids,” is remarkable, not only on account of its intrinsic power and the youth of its author, but also because in it he laid the foundation of one of the most singular discoveries of his later life, the temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress. Immediately after taking his degree, he read to the Cambridge Philosophical Society a very novel memoir, “On the Transformation of Surfaces by Bending.” This is one of the few purely mathematical papers he published, and it exhibited at once to experts the full genius of its author. About the same time appeared his elaborate memoir, “On Faraday’s Lines of Force,” in which he gave the first indication of some of those extraordinary electrical investigations which culminated in the greatest work of his life. He obtained in 1859 the Adams prize in Cambridge for a very original and powerful essay, “On the Stability of Saturn’s Rings.” From 1855 to 1872 he published at intervals a series of valuable investigations connected with the “Perception of Colour” and “Colour-Blindness,” for the earlier of which he received the Rumford medal from the Royal Society in 1860. The instruments which he devised for these investigations were simple and convenient, but could not have been thought of for the purpose except by a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity. One of his greatest investigations bore on the “Kinetic Theory of Gases.” Originating with D. Bernoulli, this theory was advanced by the successive labours of John Herapath, J. P. Joule, and particularly R. Clausius, to such an extent as to put its general accuracy beyond a doubt; but it received enormous developments from Maxwell, who in this field appeared as an experimenter (on the laws of gaseous friction) as well as a mathematician. He wrote an admirable textbook of the Theory of Heat (1871), and a very excellent elementary treatise on Matter and Motion (1876).

But the great work of his life was devoted to electricity. He began by reading, with the most profound admiration and attention, the whole of Faraday’s extraordinary self-revelations, and proceeded to translate the ideas of that master into the succinct and expressive notation of the mathematicians. A considerable part of this translation was accomplished during his career as an undergraduate in Cambridge. The writer had the opportunity of perusing the MS. of “On Faraday’s Lines of Force,” in a form little different from the final one, a year before Maxwell took his degree. His great object, as it was also the great object of Faraday, was to overturn the idea of action at a distance. The splendid researches of S. D. Poisson and K. F. Gauss had shown how to reduce all the phenomena of statical electricity to mere attractions and repulsions exerted at a distance by particles of an imponderable on one another. Lord Kelvin (Sir W. Thomson) had, in 1846, shown that a totally different assumption, based upon other analogies, led (by its own special mathematical methods) to precisely the same results. He treated the resultant electric force at any point as analogous to the flux of heat from sources distributed in the same manner as the supposed electric particles. This paper of Thomson’s, whose ideas Maxwell afterwards developed in an extraordinary manner, seems to have given the first hint that there are at least two perfectly distinct methods of arriving at the known formulae of statical electricity. The step to magnetic phenomena was comparatively simple; but it was otherwise as regards electro-magnetic phenomena, where current electricity is essentially involved. An exceedingly ingenious, but highly artificial, theory had been devised by W. E. Weber, which was found capable of explaining all the phenomena investigated by Ampère as well as the induction currents of Faraday. But this was based upon the assumption of a distance-action between electric particles, the intensity of which depended on their relative motion as well as on their position. This was, of course, even more repugnant to Maxwell’s mind than the statical distance-action developed by Poisson. The first paper of Maxwell’s in which an attempt at an admissible physical theory of electromagnetism was made was communicated to the Royal Society in 1867. But the theory, in a fully developed form, first appeared in 1873 in his great treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. This work was one of the most splendid monuments ever raised by the genius of a single individual. Availing himself of the admirable generalized co-ordinate system of Lagrange, Maxwell showed how to reduce all electric and magnetic phenomena to stresses and motions of a material medium, and, as one preliminary, but excessively severe, test of the truth of his theory, he pointed out that (if the electro-magnetic medium be that which is required for the explanation of the phenomena of light) the velocity of light in vacuo should 930 be numerically the same as the ratio of the electro-magnetic and electrostatic units. In fact, the means of the best determinations of each of these quantities separately agree with one another more closely than do the various values of either.

One of Maxwell’s last great contributions to science was the editing (with copious original notes) of the Electrical Researches of the Hon. Henry Cavendish, from which it appeared that Cavendish, already famous by many other researches (such as the mean density of the earth, the composition of water, &c.), must be looked on as, in his day, a man of Maxwell’s own stamp as a theorist and an experimenter of the very first rank.

In private life Clerk Maxwell was one of the most lovable of men, a sincere and unostentatious Christian. Though perfectly free from any trace of envy or ill-will, he yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing to reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of uncaused events.

MAXWELLTOWN, a burgh of barony and police burgh of Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901), 5796. It lies on the Nith, opposite to Dumfries, with which it is connected by three bridges, being united with it for parliamentary purposes. It has a station on the Glasgow & South-Western line from Dumfries to Kirkcudbright. Its public buildings include a court-house, the prison for the south-west of Scotland, and an observatory and museum, housed in a disused windmill. The chief manufactures are woollens and hosiery, besides dyeworks and sawmills. It was a hamlet known as Bridgend up till 1810, in which year it was erected into a burgh of barony under its present name. To the north-west lies the parish of Terregles, said to be a corruption of Tir-eglwys (terra ecclesia, that is, “Kirk land”). The parish contains the beautiful ruin of Lincluden Abbey (see Dumfries), and Terregles House, once the seat of William Maxwell, last earl of Nithsdale. In the parish of Lochrutton, a few miles south-west of Maxwelltown, there is a good example of a stone circle, the “Seven Grey Sisters,” and an old peel-tower in the Mains of Hills.

MAY, PHIL (1864-1903), English caricaturist, was born at Wortley, near Leeds, on the 22nd of April 1864, the son of an engineer. His father died when the child was nine years old, and at twelve he had begun to earn his living. Before he was fifteen he had acted as time-keeper at a foundry, had tried to become a jockey, and had been on the stage at Scarborough and Leeds. When he was about seventeen he went to London with a sovereign in his pocket. He suffered extreme want, sleeping out in the parks and streets, until he obtained employment as designer to a theatrical costumier. He also drew posters and cartoons, and for about two years worked for the St Stephen’s Review, until he was advised to go to Australia for his health. During the three years he spent there he was attached to the Sydney Bulletin, for which many of his best drawings were made. On his return to Europe he went to Paris by way of Rome, where he worked hard for some time before he appeared in 1892 in London to resume his interrupted connexion with the St Stephen’s Review. His studies of the London “guttersnipe” and the coster-girl rapidly made him famous. His overflowing sense of fun, his genuine sympathy with his subjects, and his kindly wit were on a par with his artistic ability. It was often said that the extraordinary economy of line which was a characteristic feature of his drawings had been forced upon him by the deficiencies of the printing machines of the Sydney Bulletin. It was in fact the result of a laborious process which involved a number of preliminary sketches, and of a carefully considered system of elimination. His later work included some excellent political portraits. He became a regular member of the staff of Punch in 1896, and in his later years his services were retained exclusively for Punch and the Graphic. He died on the 5th of August 1903.

MAY, THOMAS (1595-1650), English poet and historian, son of Sir Thomas May of Mayfield, Sussex, was born in 1595. He entered Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1609, and took his B.A. degree three years later. His father having lost his fortune and sold the family estate, Thomas May, who was hampered by an impediment in his speech, made literature his profession. In 1620 he produced The Heir, an ingeniously constructed comedy, and, probably about the same time, The Old Couple, which was not printed until 1658. His other dramatic works are classical tragedies on the subjects of Antigone, Cleopatra, and Agrippina. F. G. Fleay has suggested that the more famous anonymous tragedy of Nero (printed 1624, reprints in A. H. Bullen’s Old English Plays and the Mermaid Series) should also be assigned to May. But his most important work in the department of pure literature was his translation (1627) into heroic couplets of the Pharsalia of Lucan. Its success led May to write a continuation of Lucan’s narrative down to the death of Caesar. Charles I. became his patron, and commanded him to write metrical histories of Henry II. and Edward III., which were completed in 1635. When the earl of Pembroke, then lord chamberlain, broke his staff across May’s shoulders at a masque, the king took him under his protection as “my poet,” and Pembroke made him an apology accompanied with a gift of £50. These marks of the royal favour seem to have led May to expect the posts of poet-laureate and city chronologer when they fell vacant on the death of Ben Jonson in 1637, but he was disappointed, and he forsook the court and attached himself to the party of the Parliament. In 1646 he is styled one of the “secretaries” of the Parliament, and in 1647 he published his best known work, The History of the Long Parliament. In this official apology for the moderate or Presbyterian party, he professes to give an impartial statement of facts, unaccompanied by any expression of party or personal opinion. If he refrained from actual invective, he accomplished his purpose, according to Guizot, by “omission, palliation and dissimulation.” Accusations of this kind were foreseen by May, who says in his preface that if he gives more information about the Parliament men than their opponents it is that he was more conversant with them and their affairs. In 1650 he followed this with another work written with a more definite bias, a Breviary of the History of the Parliament of England, in Latin and English, in which he defended the position of the Independents. He stopped short of the catastrophe of the king’s execution, and it seems likely that his subservience to Cromwell was not quite voluntary. In February 1650 he was brought to London from Weymouth under a strong guard for having spread false reports of the Parliament and of Cromwell. He died on the 13th of November in the same year, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, but after the Restoration his remains were exhumed and buried in a pit in the yard of St Margaret’s, Westminster. May’s change of side made him many bitter enemies, and he is the object of scathing condemnation from many of his contemporaries.

MAY, or Mey(e), WILLIAM (d. 1560), English divine, was the brother of John May, bishop of Carlisle. He was educated at Cambridge, where he was a fellow of Trinity Hall, and in 1537, president of Queen’s College. May heartily supported the Reformation, signed the Ten Articles in 1536, and helped in the production of The Institution of a Christian Man. He had close connexion with the diocese of Ely, being 931 successively chancellor, vicar-general and prebendary. In 1545 he was made a prebendary of St Paul’s, and in the following year dean. His favourable report on the Cambridge colleges saved them from dissolution. He was dispossessed during the reign of Mary, but restored to the deanery on Elizabeth’s accession. He died on the day of his election to the archbishopric of York.

MAY, the fifth month of our modern year, the third of the old Roman calendar. The origin of the name is disputed; the derivation from Maia, the mother of Mercury, to whom the Romans were accustomed to sacrifice on the first day of this month, is usually accepted. The ancient Romans used on May Day to go in procession to the grotto of Egeria. From the 28th of April to the 2nd of May was kept the festival in honour of Flora, goddess of flowers. By the Romans the month was regarded as unlucky for marriages, owing to the celebration on the 9th, 11th and 13th of the Lemuria, the festival of the unhappy dead. This superstition has survived to the present day.

In medieval and Tudor England, May Day was a great public holiday. All classes of the people, young and old alike, were up with the dawn, and went “a-Maying” in the woods. Branches of trees and flowers were borne back in triumph to the towns and villages, the centre of the procession being occupied by those who shouldered the maypole, glorious with ribbons and wreaths. The maypole was usually of birch, and set up for the day only; but in London and the larger towns the poles were of durable wood and permanently erected. They were special eyesores to the Puritans. John Stubbes in his Anatomy of Abuses (1583) speaks of them as those “stinckyng idols,” about which the people “leape and daunce, as the heathen did.” Maypoles were forbidden by the parliament in 1644, but came once more into favour at the Restoration, the last to be erected in London being that set up in 1661. This pole, which was of cedar, 134 ft. high, was set up by twelve British sailors under the personal supervision of James II., then duke of York and lord high admiral, in the Strand on or about the site of the present church of St Mary’s-in-the-Strand. Taken down in 1717, it was conveyed to Wanstead Park in Essex, where it was fixed by Sir Isaac Newton as part of the support of a large telescope, presented to the Royal Society by a French astronomer.

MAY, ISLE OF, an island belonging to Fifeshire, Scotland, at the entrance to the Firth of Forth, 5 m. S.E. of Crail and Anstruther. It has a N.W. to S.E. trend, is more than 1 m. long, and measures at its widest about 1⁄3 m. St Adrian, who had settled here, was martyred by the Danes about the middle of the 9th century. The ruins of the small chapel dedicated to him, which was a favourite place of pilgrimage, still exist. The place where the pilgrims—of whom James IV. was often one—landed is yet known as Pilgrims’ Haven, and traces may yet be seen of the various wells of St Andrew, St John, Our Lady, and the Pilgrims, though their waters have become brackish. In 1499 Sir Andrew Wood of Largo, with the “Yellow Carvel” and “Mayflower,” captured the English seaman Stephen Bull, and three ships, after a fierce fight which took place between the island and the Bass Rock. In 1636 a coal beacon was lighted on the May and maintained by Alexander Cunningham of Barns. The oil light substituted for it in 1816 was replaced in 1888 by an electric light.

MAYA, an important tribe and stock of American Indians, the dominant race of Yucatan and other states of Mexico and part of Central America at the time of the Spanish conquest. They were then divided into many nations, chief among them being the Maya proper, the Huastecs, the Tzental, the Pokom, the Mame and the Cakchiquel and Quiché. They were spread over Yucatan, Vera Cruz, Tabasco, Campeche, and Chiapas in Mexico, and over the greater part of Guatemala and Salvador. In civilization the Mayan peoples rivalled the Aztecs. Their traditions give as their place of origin the extreme north; thence a migration took place, perhaps at the beginning of the Christian era. They appear to have reached Yucatan as early as the 5th century. From the evidence of the Quiché chronicles, which are said to date back to about A.D. 700, Guatemala was shortly afterwards overrun. Physically the Mayans are a dark-skinned, round-headed, short and sturdy type. Although they were already decadent when the Spaniards arrived they made a fierce resistance. They still form the bulk of the inhabitants of Yucatan. For their culture, ruined cities, &c. see Central America and Mexico.

MAYAGUEZ, the third largest city of Porto Rico, a seaport, and the seat of government of the department of Mayaguez, on the west coast, at the mouth of Rio Yaguez, about 72 m. W. by S. of San Juan. Pop. of the city (1899), 15,187, including 1381 negroes and 4711 of mixed races; (1910), 16,591; of the municipal district, 35,700 (1899), of whom 2687 were negroes and 9933 were of mixed races. Mayaguez is connected by the American railroad of Porto Rico with San Juan and Ponce, and it is served regularly by steamboats from San Juan, Ponce and New York, although its harbour is not accessible to vessels drawing more than 16 ft. of water. It is situated at the foot of Las Mesas mountains and commands picturesque views. The climate is healthy and good water is obtained from the mountain region. From the shipping district along the water-front a thoroughfare leads to the main portion of the city, about 1 m. distant. There are four public squares, in one of which is a statue of Columbus. Prominent among the public buildings are the City Hall (containing a public library), San Antonio Hospital, Roman Catholic churches, a Presbyterian church, the court-house and a theatre. The United States has an agricultural experiment station here, and the Insular Reform School is 1 m. south of the city. Coffee, sugar-cane and tropical fruits are grown in the surrounding country; and the business of the city consists chiefly in their export and the import of flour. Among the manufactures are sugar, tobacco and chocolate. Mayaguez was founded about the middle of the 18th century on the site of a hamlet which was first settled about 1680. It was incorporated as a town in 1836, and became a city in 1873. In 1841 it was nearly all destroyed by fire.

MAYAVARAM, a town of British India, in the Tanjore district of Madras, on the Cauvery river; junction on the South Indian railway, 174 m. S.W. of Madras. Pop. (1901), 24,276. It possesses a speciality of fine cotton and silk cloth, known as Kornad from the suburb in which the weavers live. During October and November the town is the scene of a great pilgrimage to the holy waters of the Cauvery.

MAYBOLE, a burgh of barony and police burgh of Ayrshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901), 5892. It is situated 9 m. S. of Ayr and 501⁄4 m. S.W. of Glasgow by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. It is an ancient place, having received a charter from Duncan II. in 1193. In 1516 it was made a burgh of regality, but for generations it remained under the subjection of the Kennedys, afterwards earls of Cassillis and marquesses of Ailsa, the most powerful family in Ayrshire. Of old Maybole was the capital of the district of Carrick, and for long its characteristic feature was the family mansions of the barons of Carrick. The castle of the earls of Cassillis still remains. The public buildings include the town-hall, the Ashgrove and the Lumsden fresh-air fortnightly homes, and the Maybole combination poorhouse. The leading manufactures are of boots and shoes and agricultural implements. Two miles to the south-west are the ruins of Crossraguel (Cross of St Regulus) Abbey, founded about 1240. Kirkoswald, where Burns spent his seventeenth year, learning land-surveying, lies a little farther west. In the parish churchyard lie “Tam o’ Shanter” (Douglas Graham) and “Souter Johnnie” (John Davidson). Four miles to the west of Maybole on the coast is Culzean Castle, the chief seat of the marquess of Ailsa, dating from 1777; it stands on a basaltic cliff, beneath which are the Coves of Culzean, once the retreat of outlaws and a resort of the fairies. Farther south are the ruins of Turnberry Castle, where Robert Bruce is said to have been born. A few miles to the north of Culzean are the ruins of Dunure Castle, an ancient stronghold of the Kennedys.

932

MAYEN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the northern declivity of the Eifel range, 16 m. W. from Coblenz, on the railway Andernach-Gerolstein. Pop. (1905), 13,435. It is still partly surrounded by medieval walls, and the ruins of a castle rise above the town. There are some small industries, embracing textile manufactures, oil mills and tanneries, and a trade in wine, while near the town are extensive quarries of basalt. Having been a Roman settlement, Mayen became a town in 1291. In 1689 it was destroyed by the French.

MAYENNE, CHARLES OF LORRAINE, Duke of (1554-1611), second son of Francis of Lorraine, second duke of Guise, was born on the 26th of March 1554. He was absent from France at the time of the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, but took part in the siege of La Rochelle in the following year, when he was created duke and peer of France. He went with Henry of Valois, duke of Anjou (afterwards Henry III.), on his election as king of Poland, but soon returned to France to become the energetic supporter and lieutenant of his brother, the 3rd duke of Guise. In 1577 he gained conspicuous successes over the Huguenot forces in Poitou. As governor of Burgundy he raised his province in the cause of the League in 1585. The assassination of his brothers at Blois on the 23rd and 24th of December 1588 left him at the head of the Catholic party. The Venetian ambassador, Mocenigo, states that Mayenne had warned Henry III. that there was a plot afoot to seize his person and to send him by force to Paris. At the time of the murder he was at Lyons, where he received a letter from the king saying that he had acted on his warning, and ordering him to retire to his government. Mayenne professed obedience, but immediately made preparations for marching on Paris. After a vain attempt to recover the persons of those of his relatives who had been arrested at Blois he proceeded to recruit troops in his government of Burgundy and in Champagne. Paris was devoted to the house of Guise and had been roused to fury by the news of the murder. When Mayenne entered the city in February 1589 he found it dominated by representatives of the sixteen quarters of Paris, all fanatics of the League. He formed a council general to direct the affairs of the city and to maintain relations with the other towns faithful to the League. To this council each quarter sent four representatives, and Mayenne added representatives of the various trades and professions of Paris in order to counterbalance this revolutionary element. He constituted himself “lieutenant-general of the state and crown of France,” taking his oath before the parlement of Paris. In April he advanced on Tours. Henry III. in his extremity sought an alliance with Henry of Navarre, and the allied forces drove the leaguers back, and had laid siege to Paris, when the murder of Henry III. by a Dominican fanatic changed the face of affairs and gave new strength to the Catholic party.

Mayenne was urged to claim the crown for himself, but he was faithful to the official programme of the League and proclaimed Charles, cardinal of Bourbon, at that time a prisoner in the hands of Henry IV., as Charles X. Henry IV. retired to Dieppe, followed by Mayenne, who joined his forces with those of his cousin Charles, duke of Aumale, and Charles de Cossé, comte de Brissac, and engaged the royal forces in a succession of fights in the neighbourhood of Arques (September 1589). He was defeated and out-marched by Henry IV., who moved on Paris, but retreated before Mayenne’s forces. In 1590 Mayenne received additions to his army from the Spanish Netherlands, and took the field again, only to suffer complete defeat at Ivry (March 14, 1590). He then escaped to Mantes, and in September collected a fresh army at Meaux, and with the assistance of Alexander Farnese, prince of Parma, sent by Philip II., raised the siege of Paris, which was about to surrender to Henry IV. Mayenne feared with reason the designs of Philip II., and his difficulties were increased by the death of Charles X., the “king of the league.” The extreme section of the party, represented by the Sixteen, urged him to proceed to the election of a Catholic king and to accept the help and the claims of their Spanish allies. But Mayenne, who had not the popular gifts of his brother, the duke of Guise, had no sympathy with the demagogues, and himself inclined to the moderate side of his party, which began to urge reconciliation with Henry IV. He maintained the ancient forms of the constitution against the revolutionary policy of the Sixteen, who during his absence from Paris took the law into their own hands and in November 1591 executed one of the leaders of the more moderate party, Barnabé Brisson, president of the parlement. He returned to Paris and executed four of the chief malcontents. The power of the Sixteen diminished from that time, but with it the strength of the League.1

Mayenne entered into negotiations with Henry IV. while he was still appearing to consider with Philip II. the succession to the French crown of the Infanta Elizabeth, granddaughter, through her mother Elizabeth of Valois, of Henry II. He demanded that Henry IV. should accomplish his conversion to Catholicism before he was recognized by the leaguers. He also desired the continuation to himself of the high offices which had accumulated in his family and the reservation of their provinces to his relatives among the leaguers. In 1593 he summoned the States General to Paris and placed before them the claims of the Infanta, but they protested against foreign intervention. Mayenne signed a truce at La Villette on the 31st of July 1593. The internal dissensions of the league continued to increase, and the principal chiefs submitted. Mayenne finally made his peace only in October 1595. Henry IV. allowed him the possession of Chalon-sur-Saône, of Seurre and Soissons for three years, made him governor of the Isle of France and paid a large indemnity. Mayenne died at Soissons on the 3rd of October 1611.

MAYENNE, a department of north-western France, three-fourths of which formerly belonged to Lower Maine and the remainder to Anjou, bounded on the N. by Manche and Orne, E. by Sarthe, S. by Maine-et-Loire and W. by Ille-et-Vilaine. Area, 2012 sq. m. Pop. (1906), 305,457. Its ancient geological formations connect it with Brittany. The surface is agreeably undulating; forests are numerous, and the beauty of the cultivated portions is enhanced by the hedgerows and lines of trees by which the farms are divided. The highest point of the department, and indeed of the whole north-west of France, is the Mont des Avaloirs (1368 ft.). Hydrographically Mayenne belongs to the basins of the Loire, the Vilaine and the Sélune, the first mentioned draining by far the larger part of the entire area. The principal stream is the Mayenne, which passes successively from north to south through Mayenne, Laval and Château-Gontier; by means of weirs and sluices it is navigable below Mayenne, but traffic is inconsiderable. The chief affluents are the Jouanne on the left, and on the right the Colmont, the Ernée and the Oudon. A small area in the east of the department drains by the Erve into the Sarthe; the Vilaine rises in the west, and in the north-west two small rivers flow into the Sélune. The climate of Mayenne is generally healthy except in the neighbourhood of the numerous marshes. The temperature is lower and the moisture of the atmosphere greater than in the neighbouring departments; the rainfall (about 32 in. annually) is above the average for France.

MAYENNE, a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Mayenne, 19 m. N.N.E. of Laval by rail. Pop., town 7003, commune 10,020. Mayenne is an old feudal town, irregularly built on hills on both sides of the river Mayenne. Of the old castle overlooking the river several towers remain, one of which has retained its conical roof; the vaulted chambers and chapel are ornamented in the style of the 13th century; the building is now used as a prison. The church of Notre-Dame, beside which there is a statue of Joan of Arc, dates partly from the 12th century; the choir was rebuilt in the 19th century. In the Place de Cheverus is a statue, by David of Angers, to Cardinal Jean de Cheverus (1768-1836), who was born in Mayenne. Mayenne has a subprefecture, tribunals of first instance and of commerce, a chamber of arts and manufactures, and a board of trade-arbitration. There is a school of agriculture in the vicinity. The chief industry of the place is the manufacture of tickings, linen, handkerchiefs and calicoes.

Mayenne had its origin in the castle built here by Juhel, baron of Mayenne, the son of Geoffrey of Maine, in the beginning of the 11th century. It was taken by the English in 1424, and several times suffered capture by the opposing parties in the wars of religion and the Vendée. At the beginning of the 16th century the territory passed to the family of Guise, and in 1573 was made a duchy in favour of Charles of Mayenne, leader of the League.

MAYER, JOHANN TOBIAS (1723-1762), German astronomer, was born at Marbach, in Würtemberg, on the 17th of February 1723, and brought up at Esslingen in poor circumstances. A self-taught mathematician, he had already published two original geometrical works when, in 1746, he entered J. B. Homann’s cartographic establishment at Nuremberg. Here he introduced many improvements in map-making, and gained a scientific reputation which led (in 1751) to his election to the chair of economy and mathematics in the university of Göttingen. In 1754 he became superintendent of the observatory, where he laboured with great zeal and success until his death, on the 20th of February 1762. His first important astronomical work was a careful investigation of the libration of the moon (Kosmographische Nachrichten, Nuremberg, 1750), and his chart of the full moon (published in 1775) was unsurpassed for half a century. But his fame rests chiefly on his lunar tables, communicated in 1752, with new solar tables, to the Royal Society of Göttingen, and published in their Transactions (vol. ii.). In 1755 he submitted to the English government an amended body of MS. tables, which James Bradley compared with the Greenwich observations, and found to be sufficiently accurate to determine the moon’s place to 75″, and consequently the longitude at sea to about half a degree. An improved set was afterwards published in London (1770), as also the theory (Theoria lunae juxta systema Newtonianum, 1767) upon which the tables are based. His widow, by whom they were sent to England, received in consideration from the British government a grant of £3000. Appended to the London edition of the solar and lunar tables are two short tracts—the one on determining longitude by lunar distances, together with a description of the repeating circle (invented by Mayer in 1752), the other on a formula for atmospheric refraction, which applies a remarkably accurate correction for temperature.

Mayer left behind him a considerable quantity of manuscript, part of which was collected by G. C. Lichtenberg and published in one volume (Opera inedita, Göttingen, 1775). It contains an easy and accurate method for calculating eclipses; an essay on colour, in which three primary colours are recognized; a catalogue of 998 zodiacal stars; and a memoir, the earliest of any real value, on the proper motion of eighty stars, originally communicated to the Göttingen Royal Society in 1760. The manuscript residue includes papers on atmospheric refraction (dated 1755), on the motion of Mars as affected by the perturbations of Jupiter and the Earth (1756), and on terrestrial magnetism (1760 and 1762). In these last Mayer sought to explain the magnetic action of the earth by a modification of Euler’s hypothesis, and made the first really definite attempt to establish a mathematical theory of magnetic action (C. Hansteen, Magnetismus der Erde, i. 283). E. Klinkerfuss published in 1881 photo-lithographic reproductions of Mayer’s local charts and general map of the moon; and his star-catalogue was re-edited by F. Baily in 1830 (Memoirs Roy. Astr. Soc. iv. 391) and by G. F. J. A. Auvers in 1894.

MAYER, JULIUS ROBERT (1814-1878), German physicist, was born at Heilbronn on the 25th of November 1814, studied medicine at Tübingen, Munich and Paris, and after a journey to Java in 1840 as surgeon of a Dutch vessel obtained a medical post in his native town. He claims recognition as an independent a priori propounder of the “First Law of Thermodynamics,” but more especially as having early and ably applied that law to the explanation of many remarkable phenomena, both cosmical and terrestrial. His first little paper on the subject, “Bemerkungen über die Kräfte der unbelebten Natur,” appeared in 1842 in Liebig’s Annalen, five years after the republication, in the same journal, of an extract from K. F. Mohr’s paper on the nature of heat, and three years later he published Die organische Bewegung in ihren Zusammenhange mit dem Stoffwechsel.

MAYFLOWER, the vessel which carried from Southampton, England, to Plymouth, Massachusetts, the Pilgrims who established the first permanent colony in New England. It was of about 180 tons burden, and in company with the “Speedwell” sailed from Southampton on the 5th of August 1620, the two having on board 120 Pilgrims. After two trials the “Speedwell” was pronounced unseaworthy, and the “Mayflower” sailed alone from Plymouth, England, on the 6th of September with the 100 (or 102) passengers, some 41 of whom on the 11th of November (O.S.) signed the famous “Mayflower Compact” in Provincetown Harbor, and a small party of whom, including William Bradford, sent to choose a place for settlement, landed at what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts, on the 11th of December (21st N.S.), an event which is celebrated, as Forefathers’ Day, on the 22nd of December. A “General Society of Mayflower Descendants” was organized in 1894 by lineal descendants of passengers of the “Mayflower” to “preserve their memory, their records, their history, and all facts relating to them, their ancestors and their posterity.” Every lineal descendant, over eighteen years of age, of any passenger of the “Mayflower” is eligible to membership. Branch societies have since been organized in several of the states and in the District of Columbia, and a triennial congress is held in Plymouth.

MAY-FLY. The Mayflies belong to the Ephemeridae, a remarkable family of winged insects, included by Linnaeus in his order Neuroptera, which derive their scientific name from ἐφήμερος, in allusion to their very short lives. In some species it is possible that they have scarcely more than one day’s existence, but others are far longer lived, though the extreme limit is probably rarely more than a week. The family has very sharply defined characters, which separate its members at once from all other neuropterous (or pseudo-neuropterous) groups.

These insects are universally aquatic in their preparatory states. The eggs are dropped into the water by the female in large masses, resembling, in some species, bunches of grapes in miniature. Probably several months elapse before the young larvae are excluded. The sub-aquatic condition lasts a considerable time: in Cloeon, a genus of small and delicate species, Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury) proved it to extend over more than six months; but in larger and more robust genera (e.g. Palingenia) there appears reason to believe that the greater part of three years is occupied in preparatory conditions.

When the aquatic insect has reached its full growth it emerges from the water or seeks its surface; the thorax splits down the back and the winged form appears. But this is not yet perfect, although it has all the form of a perfect insect and is capable of flight; it is what is variously termed a “pseud-imago,” “sub-imago” or “pro-imago.” Contrary to the habits of all other insects, there yet remains a pellicle that has to be shed, covering every part of the body. This final moult is effected soon after the insect’s appearance in the winged form; the creature seeks a temporary resting-place, the pellicle splits down the back, and the now perfect insect comes forth, often differing very greatly in colours and markings from the condition in which it was only a few moments before. If the observer takes up a suitable position near water, his coat is often seen to be covered with the cast sub-imaginal skins of these insects, which had chosen him as a convenient object upon which to undergo their final change. In some few genera of very low type it appears probable that, at any rate in the female, this final change is never effected and that the creature dies a sub-imago.

Ephemeridae are found all over the world, even up to high northern latitudes. F. J. Pictet, A. E. Eaton and others have 935 given us valuable works or monographs on the family; but the subject still remains little understood, partly owing to the great difficulty of preserving such delicate insects; and it appears probable they can only be satisfactorily investigated as moist preparations. The number of described species is less than 200, spread over many genera.

From the earliest times attention has been drawn to the enormous abundance of species of the family in certain localities. Johann Anton Scopoli, writing in the 18th century, speaks of them as so abundant in one place in Carniola that in June twenty cartloads were carried away for manure! Polymitarcys virgo, which, though not found in England, occurs in many parts of Europe (and is common at Paris), emerges from the water soon after sunset, and continues for several hours in such myriads as to resemble snow showers, putting out lights, and causing inconvenience to man, and annoyance to horses by entering their nostrils. In other parts of the world they have been recorded in multitudes that obscured passers-by on the other side of the street. And similar records might be multiplied almost to any extent. In Britain, although they are often very abundant, we have scarcely anything analogous.

Fish, as is well known, devour them greedily, and enjoy a veritable feast during the short period in which any particular species appears. By anglers the common English species of Ephemera (vulgata and danica, but more especially the latter, which is more abundant) is known as the “may-fly,” but the terms “green drake” and “bastard drake” are applied to conditions of the same species. Useful information on this point will be found in Ronalds’s Fly-Fisher’s Entomology, edited by Westwood.

Ephemeridae belong to a very ancient type of insects, and fossil imprints of allied forms occur even in the Devonian and Carboniferous formations.

There is much to be said in favour of the view entertained by some entomologists that the structural and developmental characteristics of may-flies are sufficiently peculiar to warrant the formation for them of a special order of insects, for which the names Agnatha, Plectoptera and Ephemeroptera have been proposed. (See Hexapoda, Neuroptera.)

MAYHEM (for derivation see Maiming), an old Anglo-French term of the law signifying an assault whereby the injured person is deprived of a member proper for his defence in fight, e.g. an arm, a leg, a fore tooth, &c. The loss of an ear, jaw tooth, &c., was not mayhem. The most ancient punishment in English law was retaliative—membrum pro membro, but ultimately at common law fine and imprisonment. Various statutes were passed aimed at the offence of maiming and disfiguring, which is now dealt with by section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Mayhem may also be the ground of a civil action, which had this peculiarity that the court on sight of the wound might increase the damages awarded by the jury.

MAYHEW, HENRY (1812-1887), English author and journalist, son of a London solicitor, was born in 1812. He was sent to Westminster school, but ran away to sea. He sailed to India, and on his return studied law for a short time under his father. He began his journalistic career by founding, with Gilbert à Beckett, in 1831, a weekly paper, Figaro in London. This was followed in 1832 by a short-lived paper called The Thief; and he produced one or two successful farces. His brothers Horace (1816-1872) and Augustus Septimus (1826-1875) were also journalists, and with them Henry occasionally collaborated, notably with the younger in The Greatest Plague of Life (1847) and in Acting Charades (1850). In 1841 Henry Mayhew was one of the leading spirits in the foundation of Punch, of which he was for the first two years joint-editor with Mark Lemon. He afterwards wrote on all kinds of subjects, and published a number of volumes of no permanent reputation—humorous stories, travel and practical handbooks. He is credited with being the first to “write up” the poverty side of London life from a philanthropic point of view; with the collaboration of John Binny and others he published London Labour and London Poor (1851; completed 1864) and other works on social and economic questions. He died in London, on the 25th of July 1887. Horace Mayhew was for some years sub-editor of Punch, and was the author of several humorous publications and plays. The books of Horace and Augustus Mayhew owe their survival chiefly to Cruikshank’s illustrations.

MAYHEW, JONATHAN (1720-1766), American clergyman, was born at Martha’s Vineyard on the 8th of October 1720, being fifth in descent from Thomas Mayhew (1592-1682), an early settler and the grantee (1641) of Martha’s Vineyard. Thomas Mayhew (c. 1616-1657), the younger, his son John (d. 1689) and John’s son, Experience (1673-1758), were active missionaries among the Indians of Martha’s Vineyard and the vicinity. Jonathan, the son of Experience, graduated at Harvard in 1744. So liberal were his theological views that when he was to be ordained minister of the West Church in Boston in 1747 only two ministers attended the first council called for the ordination, and it was necessary to summon a second council. Mayhew’s preaching made his church practically the first “Unitarian” Congregational church in New England, though it was never officially Unitarian. In 1763 he published Observations on the Charter and Conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, an attack on the policy of the society in sending missionaries to New England contrary to its original purpose of “Maintaining Ministers of the Gospel” in places “wholly destitute and unprovided with means for the maintenance of ministers and for the public worship of God;” the Observations marked him as a leader among those in New England who feared, as Mayhew said (1762), “that there is a scheme forming for sending a bishop into this part of the country, and that our Governor,1 a true churchman, is deeply in the plot.” To an American reply to the Observations, entitled A Candid Examination (1763), Mayhew wrote a Defense; and after the publication of an Answer, anonymously published in London in 1764 and written by Thomas Seeker, archbishop of Canterbury, he wrote a Second Defense. He bitterly opposed the Stamp Act, and urged the necessity of colonial union (or “communion”) to secure colonial liberties. He died on the 9th of July 1766. Mayhew was Dudleian lecturer at Harvard in 1765, and in 1749 had received the degree of D.D. from the University of Aberdeen.

MAYHEW, THOMAS, English 18th century cabinet-maker. Mayhew was the less distinguished partner of William Ince (q.v.). The chief source of information as to his work is supplied by his own drawings in the volume of designs, The universal system of household furniture, which he published in collaboration with his partner. The name of the firm appears to have been Mayhew and Ince, but on the title page of this book the names are reversed, perhaps as an indication that Ince was the more extensive contributor. In the main Mayhew’s designs are heavy and clumsy, and often downright extravagant, but he had a certain lightness of accomplishment in his applications of the bizarre Chinese style. Of original talent he possessed little, yet it is certain that much of his Chinese work has been attributed to Chippendale. It is indeed often only by reference to books of design that the respective work of the English cabinet-makers of the second half of the 18th century can be correctly attributed.

MAYMYO, a hill sanatorium in India, in the Mandalay district of Upper Burma, 3500 ft. above the sea, with a station on the 936 Mandalay-Lashio railway 422 m. from Rangoon. Pop. (1901), 6223. It consists of an undulating plateau, surrounded by hills, which are covered with thin oak forest and bracken. Though not entirely free from malaria, it has been chosen for the summer residence of the lieutenant-governor; and it is also the permanent headquarters of the lieutenant-general commanding the Burma division, and of other officials.

MAYNARD, FRANÇOIS DE (1582-1646), French poet, was born at Toulouse in 1582. His father was conseiller in the parlement of the town, and François was also trained for the law, becoming eventually president of Aurillac. He became secretary to Margaret of Valois, wife of Henry IV., for whom his early poems are written. He was a disciple of Malherbe, who said that in the workmanship of his lines he excelled Racan, but lacked his rival’s energy. In 1634 he accompanied the Cardinal de Noailles to Rome and spent about two years in Italy. On his return to France he made many unsuccessful efforts to obtain the favour of Richelieu, but was obliged to retire to Toulouse. He never ceased to lament his exile from Paris and his inability to be present at the meetings of the Academy, of which he was one of the earliest members. The best of his poems is in imitation of Horace, “Alcippe, reviens dans nos bois.” He died at Toulouse on the 23rd of December 1646.

MAYNE, JASPER (1604-1672), English author, was baptized at Hatherleigh, Devonshire, on the 23rd of November 1604. He was educated at Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he had a distinguished career. He was presented to two college livings in Oxfordshire, and was made D.D. in 1646. During the Commonwealth he was dispossessed, and became chaplain to the duke of Devonshire. At the Restoration he was made canon of Christ Church, archdeacon of Chichester and chaplain in ordinary to the king. He wrote a farcical domestic comedy, The City Match (1639), which is reprinted in vol. xiii. of Hazlitt’s edition of Dodsley’s Old Plays, and a fantastic tragi-comedy entitled The Amorous War (printed 1648). After receiving ecclesiastical preferment he gave up poetry as unbefitting his profession. His other works comprise some occasional gems, a translation of Lucian’s Dialogues (printed 1664) and a number of sermons. He died on the 6th of December 1672 at Oxford.

MAYNOOTH, a small town of county Kildare, Ireland, on the Midland Great Western railway and the Royal Canal, 15 m. W. by N. of Dublin. Pop. (1901), 948. The Royal Catholic College of Maynooth, founded by an Act of the Irish parliament in 1795, is the chief seminary for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. The building is a fine Gothic structure by A. W. Pugin, erected by a parliamentary grant obtained in 1846. The chapel, with fine oak choir-stalls, mosaic pavements, marble altars and stained glass, and with adjoining cloisters, was dedicated in 1890. The average number of students is about 500—the number specified under the act of 1845—and the full course of instruction is eight years. Near the college stand the ruins of Maynooth Castle, probably built in 1176, but subsequently extended, and formerly the residence of the Fitzgerald family. It was besieged in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., and during the Cromwellian Wars, when it was demolished. The beautiful mansion of Carton is about a mile from the town.

MAYO, RICHARD SOUTHWELL BOURKE, 6th Earl of (1822-1872), British statesman, son of Robert Bourke, the 5th earl (1797-1867), was born in Dublin on the 21st of February, 1822, and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin. After travelling in Russia he entered parliament, and sat successively for Kildare, Coleraine and Cockermouth. He was chief secretary for Ireland in three administrations, in 1852, 1858 and 1866, and was appointed viceroy of India in January 1869. He consolidated the frontiers of India and met Shere Ali, amir of Afghanistan, in durbar at Umballa in March 1869. His reorganization of the finances of the country put India on a paying basis; and he did much to promote irrigation, railways, forests and other useful public works. Visiting the convict settlement at Port Blair in the Andaman Islands, for the purpose of inspection, the viceroy was assassinated by a convict on the 8th of February 1872. His successor was his son, Dermot Robert Wyndham Bourke (b. 1851) who became 7th earl of Mayo.

MAYO, a western county of Ireland, in the province of Connaught, bounded N. and W. by the Atlantic Ocean, N.E. by Sligo, E. by Roscommon, S.E. and S. by Galway. The area is 1,380,390 acres, or about 2157 sq. m., the county being the largest in Ireland after Cork and Galway. About two-thirds of the boundary of Mayo is formed by sea, and the coast is very much indented, and abounds in picturesque scenery. The principal inlets are Killary Harbour between Mayo and Galway; Clew Bay, in which are the harbours of Westport and Newport; Blacksod Bay and Broad Haven, which form the peninsula of the Mullet; and Killala Bay between Mayo and Sligo. The islands are very numerous, the principal being Inishturk, near Killary Harbour; Clare Island, at the mouth of Clew Bay, where there are many islets, all formed of drift; and Achill, the largest island off Ireland. The coast scenery is not surpassed by that of Donegal northward and Connemara southward, and there are several small coast-towns, among which may be named Killala on the north coast, Belmullet on the isthmus between Blacksod Bay and Broad Haven, Newport and Westport on Clew Bay, with the watering-place of Mallaranny. The majestic cliffs of the north coast, however, which reach an extreme height in Benwee Head (892 ft.), are difficult of access and rarely visited. In the eastern half of the county the surface is comparatively level, with occasional hills; the western half is mountainous. Mweelrea (2688 ft.) is included in a mountain range lying between Killary Harbour and Lough Mask. The next highest summits are Nephin (2646 ft.), to the west of Lough Conn, and Croagh Patrick (2510 ft.), to the south of Clew Bay. The river Moy flows northwards, forming part of the boundary of the county with Sligo, and falls into Killala Bay. The courses of the other streams are short, and except when swollen by rains their volume is small. The principal lakes are Lough Mask and Lough Corrib, on the borders of the county with Galway, and Loughs Conn in the east, Carrowmore in the north-west, Beltra in the west, and Carra adjoining Lough Mask. These loughs and the smaller loughs, with the streams generally, afford admirable sport with salmon, sea-trout and brown trout, and Ballina is a favourite centre.

Population and Administration.—The population was 218,698 in 1891, and 199,166 in 1901. The decrease of population and the number of emigrants are slightly below the average of the Irish counties. Of the total population about 97% are rural, and about the same percentage are Roman Catholics. The chief towns are Ballina (pop. 4505), Westport (3892) and Castlebar (3585), the county town. Ballaghaderreen, Claremorris (Clare), Crossmolina and Swineford are lesser market towns; and Newport and Westport are small seaports on Clew Bay. The county includes nine baronies. Assizes are held at Castlebar, and quarter sessions at Ballina, Ballinrobe, Belmullet, Castlebar, Claremorris, Swineford and Westport. In the Irish parliament two members were returned for the county, and two for the borough of Castlebar, but at the union Castlebar was disfranchised. The division since 1885 is into north, south, east and west parliamentary divisions, each returning one member. The county is in the Protestant diocese of Tuam and the Roman Catholic dioceses of Taum, Achonry, Galway and Kilmacduagh, and Killala.

History and Antiquities.—Erris in Mayo was the scene of the landing of the chief colony of the Firbolgs, and the battle which is said to have resulted in the overthrow and almost annihilation of this tribe took place also in this county, at Moytura near Cong. At the close of the 12th century what is now the county of Mayo was granted, with other lands, by king John to William, brother of Hubert de Burgh. After the murder of William de Burgh, 3rd earl of Ulster (1333), the Bourkes (de Burghs) of the collateral male line, rejecting the claim of William’s heiress (the wife of Lionel, son of King Edward III.) to the succession, succeeded in holding the bulk of the De Burgh possessions, what is now Mayo falling to the branch known by the name of “MacWilliam Oughter,” who maintained their virtual independence till the time of Elizabeth. Sir Henry Sydney, during his first viceroyalty, after making efforts to improve communications between Dublin and Connaught in 1566, arranged for the shiring of that province, and Mayo was made shire ground, taking its name from the monastery of Maio or Mageo, which was the seat of a bishop. Even after this period the MacWilliams continued to exercise very great authority, which was regularized in 1603, when “the MacWilliam Oughter,” Theobald Bourke, surrendered his lands and received them back, to hold them by English tenure, with the title of Viscount Mayo (see Burgh, De). Large confiscations of the estates in the county were made in 1586, and on the termination of the wars of 1641; and in 1666 the restoration of his estates to the 4th Viscount Mayo involved another confiscation, at the expense of Cromwell’s settlers. Killala was the scene of the landing of a French squadron in connexion with the rebellion of 1798. In 1879 the village of Knock in the south-east acquired notoriety from a story that the Virgin Mary had appeared in the church, which became the resort of many pilgrims.

There are round towers at Killala, Turlough, Meelick and Balla, and an imperfect one at Aughagower. Killala was formerly a bishopric. The monasteries were numerous, and many of them of considerable importance: the principal being those at Mayo, Ballyhaunis, Cong, Ballinrobe, Ballintober, Burrishoole, Cross or Holycross in the peninsula of Mullet, Moyne, Roserk or Rosserick and Templemore or Strade. Of the old castles the most notable are Carrigahooly near Newport, said to have been built by the celebrated Grace O’Malley, and Deel Castle near Ballina, at one time the residence of the earls of Arran.

MAYOR, JOHN EYTON BICKERSTETH (1825-  ), English classical scholar, was born at Baddegama, Ceylon, on the 28th of January 1825, and educated in England at Shrewsbury School and St John’s College, Cambridge. From 1863 to 1867 he was librarian of the university, and in 1872 succeeded H. A. J. Munro in the professorship of Latin. His best-known work, an edition of thirteen satires of Juvenal, is marked by an extraordinary wealth of illustrative quotations. His Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature (1873), based on E. Hübner’s Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die römische Litteraturgeschichte is a valuable aid to the student, and his edition of Cicero’s Second Philippic is widely used. He also edited the English works of J. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, i. (1876); Thomas Baker’s History of St John’s College, Cambridge (1869); Richard of Cirencester’s Speculum historiale de gestis regum Angliae 447-1066 (1863-1869); Roger Ascham’s Schoolmaster (new ed., 1883); the Latin Heptateuch (1889); and the Journal of Philology.

His brother, Joseph Bickersteth Mayor (1828-  ), classical scholar and theologian, was educated at Rugby and St John’s College, Cambridge, and from 1870 to 1879 was professor of classics at King’s College, London. His most important classical works are an edition of Cicero’s De natura deorum (3 vols., 1880-1885) and Guide to the Choice of Classical Books (3rd ed., 1885, with supplement, 1896). He also devoted attention to theological literature and edited the epistles of St James (2nd ed., 1892), St Jude and St Peter (1907), and the Miscellanies of Clement of Alexandria (with F. J. A. Hort, 1902). From 1887 to 1893 he was editor of the Classical Review. His Chapters on English Metre (1886) reached a second edition in 1901.

MAYOR (Lat. major, greater), in modern times the title of a municipal officer who discharges judicial and administrative functions. The French form of the word is maire. In Germany the corresponding title is Bürgermeister, in Italy sindico, and in Spain alcalde. “Mayor” had originally a much wider significance. Among the nations which arose on the ruins of the Roman empire of the West, and which made use of the Latin spoken by their “Roman” subjects as their official and legal language, major and the Low Latin feminine majorissa were found to be very convenient terms to describe important officials of both sexes who had the superintendence of others. Any female servant or slave in the household of a barbarian, whose business it was to overlook other female servants or slaves, would be quite naturally called a majorissa. So the male officer who governed the king’s household would be the major domus. In the households of the Frankish kings of the Merovingian line, the major domus, who was also variously known as the gubernator, rector, moderator or praefectus palatii, was so great an officer that he ended by evicting his master. He was the “mayor of the palace” (q.v.). The fact that his office became hereditary in the family of Pippin of Heristal made the fortune of the Carolingian line. But besides the major domus (the major-domo), there were other officers who were majores, the major cubiculi, mayor of the bedchamber, and major equorum, mayor of the horse. In fact a word which could be applied so easily and with accuracy in so many circumstances was certain to be widely used by itself, or in its derivatives. The post-Augustine majorinus, “one of the larger kind,” was the origin of the medieval Spanish merinus, who in Castillian is the merino, and sometimes the merino mayor, or chief merino. He was a judicial and administrative officer of the king’s. The gregum merinus was the superintendent of the flocks of the corporation of sheep-owners called the mesta. From him the sheep, and then the wool, have come to be known as merinos—a word identical in origin with the municipal title of mayor. The latter came directly from the heads of gilds, and other associations of freemen, who had their banner and formed a group on the populations of the towns, the majores baneriae or vexilli.

In England the major is the modern representative of the lord’s bailiff or reeve (see Borough). We find the chief magistrate of London bearing the title of portreeve for considerably more than a century after the Conquest. This official was elected by popular choice, a privilege secured from king John. By the beginning of the 11th century the title of portreeve1 gave way to that of mayor as the designation of the chief officer of 938 London,2 and the adoption of the title by other boroughs followed at various intervals.

MAYOR OF THE PALACE.—The office of mayor of the palace was an institution peculiar to the Franks of the Merovingian period. A landowner who did not manage his own estate placed it in the hands of a steward (major), who superintended the working of the estate and collected its revenues. If he had several estates, he appointed a chief steward, who managed the whole of the estates and was called the major domus. Each great personage had a major domus—the queen had hers, the king his; and since the royal house was called the palace, this officer took the name of “mayor of the palace.” The mayor of the palace, however, did not remain restricted to domestic functions; he had the discipline of the palace and tried persons who resided there. Soon his functions expanded. If the king were a minor, the mayor of the palace supervised his education in the capacity of guardian (nutricius), and often also occupied himself with affairs of state. When the king came of age, the mayor exerted himself to keep this power, and succeeded. In the 7th century he became the head of the administration and a veritable prime minister. He took part in the nomination of the counts and dukes; in the king’s absence he presided over the royal tribunal; and he often commanded the armies. When the custom of commendation developed, the king charged the mayor of the palace to protect those who had commended themselves to him and to intervene at law on their behalf. The mayor of the palace thus found himself at the head of the commendati, just as he was at the head of the functionaries.

It is difficult to trace the names of some of the mayors of the palace, the post being of almost no significance in the time of Gregory of Tours. When the office increased in importance the mayors of the palace did not, as has been thought, pursue an identical policy. Some—for instance, Otto, the mayor of the palace of Austrasia towards 640—were devoted to the Crown. On the other hand, mayors like Flaochat (in Burgundy) and Erkinoald (in Neustria) stirred up the great nobles, who claimed the right to take part in their nomination, against the king. Others again, sought to exercise the power in their own name both against the king and against the great nobles—such as Ebroïn (in Neustria), and, later, the Carolingians Pippin II., Charles Martel, and Pippin III., who, after making use of the great nobles, kept the authority for themselves. In 751 Pippin III., fortified by his consultation with Pope Zacharias, could quite naturally exchange the title of mayor for that of king; and when he became king, he suppressed the title of mayor of the palace. It must be observed that from 639 there were generally separate mayors of Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundy, even when Austrasia and Burgundy formed a single kingdom; the mayor was a sign of the independence of the region. Each mayor, however, sought to supplant the others; the Pippins and Charles Martel succeeded, and their victory was at the same time the victory of Austrasia over Neustria and Burgundy.

MAYORUNA, a tribe of South American Indians of Panoan stock. Their country is between the Ucayali and Javari rivers, north-eastern Peru. They are a fine race, roaming the forests and living by hunting. They cut their hair in a line across the forehead and let it hang down their backs. Many have fair skins and beards, a peculiarity sometimes explained by their alleged descent from Ursua’s soldiers, but this theory is improbable. They are famous for the potency of their blow-gun poison.

MAYO-SMITH, RICHMOND (1854-1901), American economist, was born in Troy, Ohio, on the 9th of February 1854. Educated at Amherst, and at Berlin and Heidelberg, he became assistant professor of economics at Columbia University in 1877. He was an adjunct professor from 1878 to 1883, when he was appointed professor of political economy and social science, a post which he held until his death on the 11th of November 1901. He devoted himself especially to the study of statistics, and was recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the subject. His works include Emigration and Immigration (1890); Sociology and Statistics (1895), and Statistics and Economics (1899).

MAYOTTE, one of the Comoro Islands, in the Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and the African mainland. It has belonged to France since 1843 (see Comoro Islands).

MAYOW, JOHN (1643-1679), English chemist and physiologist, was born in London in May 1643. At the age of fifteen he went up to Wadham College, Oxford, of which he became a scholar a year later, and in 1660 he was elected to a fellowship at All Souls. He graduated in law (bachelor, 1665, doctor, 1670), but made medicine his profession, and “became noted for his practice therein, especially in the summer time, in the city of Bath.” In 1678, on the proposal of R. Hooke, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society. The following year, after a marriage which was “not altogether to his content,” he died in London in September 1679. He published at Oxford in 1668 two tracts, on respiration and rickets, and in 1674 these were reprinted, the former in an enlarged and corrected form, with three others “De sal-nitro et spiritu nitro-aereo,” “De respiratione foetus in 939 utero et ovo,” and “De motu musculari et spiritibus animalibus” as Tractatus quinque medico-physici. The contents of this work, which was several times republished and translated into Dutch, German and French, show him to have been an investigator much in advance of his time.

MAYSVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Mason county, Kentucky, U.S.A., on the Ohio river, 60 m. by rail S.E. of Cincinnati. Pop. (1890) 5358; (1900) 6423 (1155 negroes); (1910) 6141. It is served by the Louisville & Nashville, and the Chesapeake & Ohio railways, and by steamboats on the Ohio river. Among its principal buildings are the Mason county public library (1878), the Federal building and Masonic and Odd Fellows’ temples. The city lies between the river and a range of hills; at the back of the hills is a fine farming country, of which tobacco of excellent quality is a leading product. There is a large plant of the American Tobacco Company at Maysville, and among the city’s manufactures are pulleys, ploughs, whisky, flour, lumber, furniture, carriages, cigars, foundry and machine-shop products, bricks and cotton goods. The city is a distributing point for coal and other products brought to it by Ohio river boats. Formerly it was one of the principal hemp markets of the country. The place early became a landing point for immigrants to Kentucky, and in 1784 a double log cabin and a blockhouse were erected here. It was then called Limestone, from the creek which flows into the Ohio here, but several years later the present name was adopted in honour of John May, who with Simon Kenton laid out the town in 1787, and who in 1790 was killed by the Indians. Maysville was incorporated as a town in 1787, was chartered as a city in 1833, and became the county-seat in 1848.

MAZAGAN (El Jadīda), a port on the Atlantic coast of Morocco in 33° 16′ N. 8° 26′ W. Pop. (1908), about 12,000, of whom a fourth are Jews and some 400 Europeans. It is the port for Marrákesh, from which it is 110 m. nearly due north, and also for the fertile province of Dukálla. Mazagan presents from the sea a very un-Moorish appearance; it has massive Portuguese walls of hewn stone. The exports, which include beans, almonds, maize, chick-peas, wool, hides, wax, eggs, &c., were valued at £360,000 in 1900, £364,000 in 1904, and £248,000 in 1906. The imports (cotton goods, sugar, tea, rice, &c.) were valued at £280,000 in 1900, £286,000 in 1904, and £320,000 in 1906. About 46% of the trade is with Great Britain and 34% with France. Mazagan was built in 1506 by the Portuguese, who abandoned it to the Moors in 1769 and established a colony, New Mazagan, on the shores of Para in Brazil.

MAZAMET, an industrial town of south-western France in the department of Tarn, 41 m. S.S.E. of Albi by rail. Pop. (1906), town, 11,370; commune, 14,386. Mazamet is situated on the northern slope of the Montagnes Noires and on the Arnette, a small sub-tributary of the Agout. Numerous establishments are employed in wool-spinning and in the manufacture of “swan-skins” and flannels, and clothing for troops, and hosiery, and there are important tanneries and leather-dressing, glove and dye works. Extensive commerce is carried on in wool and raw hides from Argentina, Australia and Cape Colony.

MAZANDARAN, a province of northern Persia, lying between the Caspian Sea and the Elburz range, and bounded E. and W. by the provinces of Astarabad and Gilan respectively, 220 m. in length and 60 m. in (mean) breadth, with an area of about 10,000 sq. m. and a population estimated at from 150,000 to 200,000. Mazandaran comprises two distinct natural regions presenting the sharpest contrasts in their relief, climate and products. In the north the Caspian is encircled by the level and swampy lowlands, varying in breadth from 10 to 30 m., partly under impenetrable jungle, partly under rice, cotton, sugar and other crops. This section is fringed northwards by the sandy beach of the Caspian, here almost destitute of natural harbours, and rises somewhat abruptly inland to the second section, comprising the northern slopes and spurs of the Elburz, which approach at some points within 1 or 2 m. of the sea, and are almost everywhere covered with dense forest. The lowlands, rising but a few feet above the Caspian, and subject to frequent floodings, are extremely malarious, while the highlands, culminating with the magnificent Demavend (19,400 ft.), enjoy a tolerably healthy climate. But the climate, generally hot and moist in summer, is everywhere capricious and liable to sudden changes of temperature, whence the prevalence of rheumatism, dropsy and especially ophthalmia, noticed by all travellers. Snow falls heavily in the uplands, where it often lies for weeks on the ground. The direction of the long sandbanks at the river mouths, which project with remarkable uniformity from west to east, shows that the prevailing winds blow from the west and north-west. The rivers themselves, of which there are as many as fifty, are little more than mountain torrents, all rising on the northern slopes of Elburz, flowing mostly in independent channels to the Caspian, and subject to sudden freshets and inundations along their lower course. The chief are the Sardab-rud, Chalus, Herhaz (Lar in its upper course), Babul, Tejen and Nika, and all are well stocked with trout, salmon (azad-mahi), perch (safid-mahi), carp (kupur), bream (subulu), sturgeon (sag-mahi) and other fish, which with rice form the staple food of the inhabitants; the sturgeon supplies the caviare for the Russian market. Near their mouths the rivers, running counter to the prevailing winds and waves of the Caspian, form long sand-hills 20 to 30 ft. high and about 200 yds. broad, behind which are developed the so-called múrd-áb, or “dead waters,” stagnant pools and swamps characteristic of this coast, and a main cause of its unhealthiness.

The chief products are rice, cotton, sugar, a little silk, and fruits in great variety, including several kinds of the orange, lemon and citron. Some of the slopes are covered with extensive thickets of the pomegranate, and the wild vine climbs to a great height round the trunks of the forest trees. These woodlands 940 are haunted by the tiger, panther, bear, wolf and wild boar in considerable numbers. Of the domestic animals, all remarkable for their small size, the chief are the black, humped cattle somewhat resembling the Indian variety, and sheep and goats.

MAZARIN, JULES (1602-1661), French cardinal and statesman, elder son of a Sicilian, Pietro Mazarini, the intendant of the household of Philip Colonna, and of his wife Ortensia Buffalini, a connexion of the Colonnas, was born at Piscina in the Abruzzi on the 14th of July 1602. He was educated by the Jesuits at Rome till his seventeenth year, when he accompanied Jerome Colonna as chamberlain to the university of Alcala in Spain. There he distinguished himself more by his love of gambling and his gallant adventures than by study, but made himself a thorough master, not only of the Spanish language and character, but also of that romantic fashion of Spanish love-making which was to help him greatly in after life, when he became the servant of a Spanish queen. On his return to Rome, about 1622, he took his degree as Doctor utriusque juris, and then became captain of infantry in the regiment of Colonna, which took part in the war in the Valtelline. During this war he gave proofs of much diplomatic ability, and Pope Urban VIII. entrusted him, in 1629, with the difficult task of putting an end to the war of the Mantuan succession. His success marked him out for further distinction. He was presented to two canonries in the churches of St John Lateran and Sta Maria Maggiore, although he had only taken the minor orders, and had never been consecrated priest; he negotiated the treaty of Turin between France and Savoy in 1632, became vice-legate at Avignon in 1634, and nuncio at the court of France from 1634 to 1636. But he began to wish for a wider sphere than papal negotiations, and, seeing that he had no chance of becoming a cardinal except by the aid of some great power, he accepted Richelieu’s offer of entering the service of the king of France, and in 1639 became a naturalized Frenchman.

In 1640 Richelieu sent him to Savoy, where the regency of Christine, the duchess of Savoy, and sister of Louis XIII., was disputed by her brothers-in-law, the princes Maurice and Thomas of Savoy, and he succeeded not only in firmly establishing Christine but in winning over the princes to France. This great service was rewarded by his promotion to the rank of cardinal on the presentation of the king of France in December 1641. On the 4th of December 1642 Cardinal Richelieu died, and on the very next day the king sent a circular letter to all officials ordering them to send in their reports to Cardinal Mazarin, as they had formerly done to Cardinal Richelieu. Mazarin was thus acknowledged supreme minister, but he still had a difficult part to play. The king evidently could not live long, and to preserve power he must make himself necessary to the queen, who would then be regent, and do this without arousing the suspicions of the king or the distrust of the queen. His measures were ably taken, and when the king died, on the 14th of May 1643, to everyone’s surprise her husband’s minister remained the queen’s. The king had by a royal edict cumbered the queen-regent with a council and other restrictions, and it was necessary to get the parlement of Paris to overrule the edict and make the queen absolute regent, which was done with the greatest complaisance. Now that the queen was all-powerful, it was expected she would at once dismiss Mazarin and summon her own friends to power. One of them, Potier, bishop of Beauvais, already gave himself airs as prime minister, but Mazarin had had the address to touch both the queen’s heart by his Spanish gallantry and her desire for her son’s glory by his skilful policy abroad, and he found himself able easily to overthrow the clique of Importants, as they were called. That skilful policy was shown in every arena on which the great Thirty Years’ War was being fought out. Mazarin had inherited the policy of France during the Thirty Years’ War from Richelieu. He had inherited his desire for the humiliation of the house of Austria in both its branches, his desire to push the French frontier to the Rhine and maintain a counterpoise of German states against Austria, his alliances with the Netherlands and with Sweden, and his four theatres of war—on the Rhine, in Flanders, in Italy and in Catalonia.

During the last five years of the great war it was Mazarin alone who directed the French diplomacy of the period. He it was who made the peace of Brömsebro between the Danes and the Swedes, and turned the latter once again against the empire; he it was who sent Lionne to make the peace of Castro, and combine the princes of North Italy against the Spaniards, and who made the peace of Ulm between France and Bavaria, thus detaching the emperor’s best ally. He made one fatal mistake—he dreamt of the French frontier being the Rhine and the Scheldt, and that a Spanish princess might bring the Spanish Netherlands as dowry to Louis XIV. This roused the jealousy of the United Provinces, and they made a separate peace with Spain in January 1648; but the valour of the French generals made the skill of the Spanish diplomatists of no avail, for Turenne’s victory at Zusmarshausen, and Condé’s at Lens, caused the peace of Westphalia to be definitely signed in October 1648. This celebrated treaty belongs rather to the history of Germany than to a life of Mazarin; but two questions have been often asked, whether Mazarin did not delay the peace as long as possible in order to more completely ruin Germany, and whether Richelieu would have made a similar peace. To the first question Mazarin’s letters, published by M. Chéruel, prove a complete negative, for in them appears the zeal of Mazarin for the peace. On the second point, Richelieu’s letters in many places indicate that his treatment of the great question of frontier would have been more thorough, but then he would not have been hampered in France itself.

At home Mazarin’s policy lacked the strength of Richelieu’s. The Frondes were largely due to his own fault. The arrest of Broussel threw the people on the side of the parlement. His avarice and unscrupulous plundering of the revenues of the realm, the enormous fortune which he thus amassed, his supple ways, his nepotism, and the general lack of public interest in the great foreign policy of Richelieu, made Mazarin the especial object of hatred both by bourgeois and nobles. The irritation of the latter was greatly Mazarin’s own fault; he had tried consistently to play off the king’s brother Gaston of Orleans against Condé, and their respective followers against each other, and had also, as his carnets prove, jealously kept any courtier from getting into the good graces of the queen-regent except by his means, so 941 that it was not unnatural that the nobility should hate him, while the queen found herself surrounded by his creatures alone. Events followed each other quickly; the day of the barricades was followed by the peace of Ruel, the peace of Ruel by the arrest of the princes, by the battle of Rethel, and Mazarin’s exile to Brühl before the union of the two Frondes. It was while in exile at Brühl that Mazarin saw the mistake he had made in isolating himself and the queen, and that his policy of balancing every party in the state against each other had made every party distrust him. So by his counsel the queen, while nominally in league with De Retz and the parliamentary Fronde, laboured to form a purely royal party, wearied by civil dissensions, who should act for her and her son’s interest alone, under the leadership of Mathieu Molé, the famous premier president of the parlement of Paris. The new party grew in strength, and in January 1652, after exactly a year’s absence, Mazarin returned to the court. Turenne had now become the royal general, and out-manœuvred Condé, while the royal party at last grew to such strength in Paris that Condé had to leave the capital and France. In order to promote a reconciliation with the parlement of Paris Mazarin had again retired from court, this time to Sedan, in August 1652, but he returned finally in February 1653. Long had been the trial, and greatly had Mazarin been to blame in allowing the Frondes to come into existence, but he had retrieved his position by founding that great royal party which steadily grew until Louis XIV. could fairly have said “L’État, c’est moi.” As the war had progressed, Mazarin had steadily followed Richelieu’s policy of weakening the nobles on their country estates. Whenever he had an opportunity he destroyed a feudal castle, and by destroying the towers which commanded nearly every town in France, he freed such towns as Bourges, for instance, from their long practical subjection to the neighbouring great lord.

The Fronde over, Mazarin had to build up afresh the power of France at home and abroad. It is to his shame that he did so little at home. Beyond destroying the brick-and-mortar remains of feudalism, he did nothing for the people. But abroad his policy was everywhere successful, and opened the way for the policy of Louis XIV. He at first, by means of an alliance with Cromwell, recovered the north-western cities of France, though at the price of yielding Dunkirk to the Protector. On the Baltic, France guaranteed the Treaty of Oliva between her old allies Sweden, Poland and Brandenburg, which preserved her influence in that quarter. In Germany he, through Hugues de Lionne, formed the league of the Rhine, by which the states along the Rhine bound themselves under the headship of France to be on their guard against the house of Austria. By such measures Spain was induced to sue for peace, which was finally signed in the Isle of Pheasants on the Bidassoa, and is known as the Treaty of the Pyrenees. By it Spain recovered Franche Comté, but ceded to France Roussillon, and much of French Flanders; and, what was of greater ultimate importance to Europe, Louis XIV. was to marry a Spanish princess, who was to renounce her claims to the Spanish succession if her dowry was paid, which Mazarin knew could not happen at present from the emptiness of the Spanish exchequer. He returned to Paris in declining health, and did not long survive the unhealthy sojourn on the Bidassoa; after some political instruction to his young master he passed away at Vincennes on the 9th of March 1661, leaving a fortune estimated at from 18 to 40 million livres behind him, and his nieces married into the greatest families of France and Italy.

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, a town of Afghanistan, the capital of the province of Afghan Turkestan. Owing to the importance of the military cantonment of Takhtapul, and its religious sanctity, it has long ago supplanted the more ancient capital of Balkh. It is situated in a malarious, almost desert plain, 9 m. E. of Balkh, and 30 m. S. of the Pata Kesar ferry on the Oxus river. In this neighbourhood is concentrated most of the Afghan army north of the Hindu Kush mountains, the fortified cantonment of Dehdadi having been completed by Sirdar Ghulam Ali Khan and incorporated with Mazar. Mazar-i-Sharif also contains a celebrated mosque, from which the town takes its name. It is a huge ornate building with minarets and a lofty cupola faced with shining blue tiles. It was built by Sultan Ali Mirza about A.D. 1420, and is held in great veneration by all Mussulmans, and especially by Shiites, because it is supposed to be the tomb of Ali, the son-in-law of Mahomet.

MAZARRÓN, a town of eastern Spain, in the province of Murcia, 19 m. W. of Cartagena. Pop. (1900), 23,284. There are soap and flour mills and metallurgic factories in the town, and iron, copper and lead mines in the neighbouring Sierra de Almenara. A railway 5 m. long unites Mazarron to its port on the Mediterranean, where there is a suburb with 2500 inhabitants (mostly engaged in fisheries and coasting trade), containing barracks, a custom-house, and important leadworks. Outside of the suburb there are saltpans, most of the proceeds of which are exported to Galicia.

MAZATLÁN, a city and port of the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, 120 m. (direct) W.S.W. of the city of Durango, in lat. 23° 12′ N., long 106° 24′ W. Pop. (1895), 15,852; (1900), 17,852. It is 942 the Pacific coast terminus of the International railway which crosses northern Mexico from Ciudad Porfirio Diaz, and a port of call for the principal steamship lines on this coast. The harbour is spacious, but the entrance is obstructed by a bar. The city is built on a small peninsula. Its public buildings include a fine town-hall, chamber of commerce, a custom-house and two hospitals, besides which there is a nautical school and a meteorological station, one of the first established in Mexico. The harbour is provided with a sea-wall at Olas Altas. A government wireless telegraph service is maintained between Mazatlán and La Paz, Lower California. Among the manufactures are saw-mills, foundries, cotton factories and ropeworks, and the exports are chiefly hides, ixtle, dried and salted fish, gold, silver and copper (bars and ores), fruit, rubber, tortoise-shell, and gums and resins.

MAZE, a network of winding paths, a labyrinth (q.v.). The word means properly a state of confusion or wonder, and is probably of Scandinavian origin; cf. Norw. mas, exhausting labour, also chatter, masa, to be busy, also to worry, annoy; Swed. masa, to lounge, move slowly and lazily, to dream, muse. Skeat (Etym. Dict.) takes the original sense to be probably “to be lost in thought,” “to dream,” and connects with the root ma-man-, to think, cf. “mind,” “man,” &c. The word “maze” represents the addition of an intensive suffix.

MAZEPA-KOLEDINSKY, IVAN STEPANOVICH (1644?-1709), hetman of the Cossacks, belonging to a noble Orthodox family, was born possibly at Mazeptsina, either in 1629 or 1644, the latter being the more probable date. He was educated at the court of the Polish king, John Casimir, and completed his studies abroad. An intrigue with a Polish married lady forced him to fly into the Ukraine. There is a trustworthy tradition that the infuriated husband tied the naked youth to the back of a wild horse and sent him forth into the steppe. He was rescued and cared for by the Dnieperian Cossacks, and speedily became one of their ablest leaders. In 1687, during a visit to Moscow, he won the favour of the then all-powerful Vasily Golitsuin, from whom he virtually purchased the hetmanship of the Cossacks (July 25). He took a very active part in the Azov campaigns of Peter the Great and won the entire confidence of the young tsar by his zeal and energy. He was also very serviceable to Peter at the beginning of the Great Northern War, especially in 1705 and 1706, when he took part in the Volhynian campaign and helped to construct the fortress of Pechersk. The power and influence of Mazepa were fully recognized by Peter the Great. No other Cossack hetman had ever been treated with such deference at Moscow. He ranked with the highest dignitaries in the state; he sat at the tsar’s own table. He had been made one of the first cavaliers of the newly established order of St Andrew, and Augustus of Poland had bestowed upon him, at Peter’s earnest solicitation, the universally coveted order of the White Eagle. Mazepa had no temptations to be anything but loyal, and loyal he would doubtless have remained had not Charles XII. crossed the Russian frontier. Then it was that Mazepa, who had had doubts of the issue of the struggle all along, made up his mind that Charles, not Peter, was going to win, and that it was high time he looked after his own interests. Besides, he had his personal grievances against the tsar. He did not like the new ways because they interfered with his old ones. He was very jealous of the favourite (Menshikov), whom he suspected of a design to supplant him. But he proceeded very cautiously. Indeed, he would have preferred to remain neutral, but he was not strong enough to stand alone. The crisis came when Peter ordered him to co-operate actively with the Russian forces in the Ukraine. At this very time he was in communication with Charles’s first minister, Count Piper, and had agreed to harbour the Swedes in the Ukraine and close it against the Russians (Oct. 1708). The last doubt disappeared when Menshikov was sent to supervise Mazepa. At the approach of his rival the old hetman hastened to the Swedish outposts at Horki, in Severia. Mazepa’s treason took Peter completely by surprise. He instantly commanded Menshikov to get a new hetman elected and raze Baturin, Mazepa’s chief stronghold in the Ukraine, to the ground. When Charles, a week later, passed Baturin by, all that remained of the Cossack capital was a heap of smouldering mills and ruined houses. The total destruction of Baturin, almost in sight of the Swedes, overawed the bulk of the Cossacks into obedience, and Mazepa’s ancient prestige was ruined in a day when the metropolitan of Kiev solemnly excommunicated him from the high altar, and his effigy, after being dragged with contumely through the mud at Kiev, was publicly burnt by the common hangman. Henceforth Mazepa, perforce, attached himself to Charles. What part he took at the battle of Poltava is not quite clear. After the catastrophe he accompanied Charles to Turkey with some 1500 horsemen (the miserable remnant of his 80,000 warriors). The sultan refused to surrender him to the tsar, though Peter offered 300,000 ducats for his head. He died at Bender on the 22nd of August 1709.

MAZER, the name of a special type of drinking vessel, properly made of maple-wood, and so-called from the spotted or “birds-eye” marking on the wood (Ger. Maser, spot, marking, especially on wood; cf. “measles”). These drinking vessels are shallow bowls without handles, with a broad flat foot and a knob or boss in the centre of the inside, known technically as the “print.” They were made from the 13th to the 16th centuries, and were the most prized of the various wooden cups in use, and so were ornamented with a rim of precious metal, generally of silver or silver gilt; the foot and the “print” being also of metal. The depth of the mazers seems to have decreased in course of time, those of the 16th century that survive being much shallower than the earlier examples. There are examples with wooden covers with a metal handle, such as the Flemish and German mazers in the Franks Bequest in the British Museum. On the metal rim is usually an inscription, religious or bacchanalian, and the “print” was also often decorated. The later mazers sometimes had metal straps between the rim and the foot.

MAZURKA (Polish for a woman of the province of Mazovia), a lively dance, originating in Poland, somewhat resembling the polka.It is danced in couples, the music being in 3⁄8 or 3⁄4 time.

MAZZARA DEL VALLO, a town of Sicily, in the province of Trapani, on the south-west coast of the island, 32 m. by rail S. of Trapani. Pop. (1901), 20,130. It is the seat of a bishop; the cathedral, founded in 1093, was rebuilt in the 17th century. The castle, at the south-eastern angle of the town walls, was erected in 1073. The mouth of the river, which bears the same name, serves as a port for small ships only. Mazzara was in origin a colony of Selinus: it was destroyed in 409, but it is mentioned again as a Carthaginian fortress in the First Punic War and as a post station on the Roman coast road, though whether it had municipal rights is doubtful.1 A few inscriptions of the imperial period exist, but no other remains of importance. On the west bank of the river are grottoes cut in the rock, of uncertain date: and there are quarries in the neighbourhood resembling those of Syracuse, but on a smaller scale.

MAZZINI, GIUSEPPE (1805-1872), Italian patriot, was born on the 22nd of June 1805 at Genoa, where his father, Giacomo Mazzini, was a physician in good practice, and a professor in the university. His mother is described as having been a woman of great personal beauty, as well as of active intellect and strong affections. During infancy and childhood his health was extremely delicate, and it appears that he was nearly six years of age before he was quite able to walk; but he had already begun to devour books of all kinds and to show other signs of great intellectual precocity. He studied Latin with his first tutor, 943 an old priest, but no one directed his extensive course of reading. He became a student at the university of Genoa at an unusually early age, and intended to follow his father’s profession, but being unable to conquer his horror of practical anatomy, he decided to graduate in law (1826). His exceptional abilities, together with his remarkable generosity, kindness and loftiness of character, endeared him to his fellow students. As to his inner life during this period, we have only one brief but significant sentence; “for a short time,” he says, “my mind was somewhat tainted by the doctrines of the foreign materialistic school; but the study of history and the intuitions of conscience—the only tests of truth—soon led me back to the spiritualism of our Italian fathers.”

The natural bent of his genius was towards literature, and, in the course of the four years of his nominal connexion with the legal profession, he wrote a considerable number of essays and reviews, some of which have been wholly or partially reproduced in the critical and literary volumes of his Life and Writings. His first essay, characteristically enough on “Dante’s Love of Country,” was sent to the editor of the Antologia fiorentina in 1826, but did not appear until some years afterwards in the Subalpino. He was an ardent supporter of romanticism as against what he called “literary servitude under the name of classicism”; and in this interest all his critiques (as, for example, that of Giannoni’s “Exile” in the Indicatore Livornese, 1829) were penned. But in the meantime the “republican instincts” which he tells us he had inherited from his mother had been developing, and his sense of the evils under which Italy was groaning had been intensified; and at the same time he became possessed with the idea that Italians, and he himself in particular, “could and therefore ought to struggle for liberty of country.” Therefore, he at once put aside his dearest ambition, that of producing a complete history of religion, developing his scheme of a new theology uniting the spiritual with the practical life, and devoted himself to political thought. His literary articles accordingly became more and more suggestive of advanced liberalism in politics, and led to the suppression by government of the Indicatore Genovese and the Indicatore Livornese successively. Having joined the Carbonari, he soon rose to one of the higher grades in their hierarchy, and was entrusted with a special secret mission into Tuscany; but, as his acquaintance grew, his dissatisfaction with the organization of the society increased, and he was already meditating the formation of a new association stripped of foolish mysterious and theatrical formulae, which instead of merely combating existing authorities should have a definite and purely patriotic aim, when shortly after the French revolution of 1830 he was betrayed, while initiating a new member, to the Piedmontese authorities. He was imprisoned in the fortress of Savona on the western Riviera for about six months, when, a conviction having been found impracticable through deficiency of evidence, he was released, but upon conditions involving so many restrictions of his liberty that he preferred the alternative of leaving the country. He withdrew accordingly into France, living chiefly in Marseilles.

While in his lonely cell at Savona, in presence of “those symbols of the infinite, the sky and the sea,” with a greenfinch for his sole companion, and having access to no books but “a Tacitus, a Byron, and a Bible,” he had finally become aware of the great mission or “apostolate” (as he himself called it) of his life; and soon after his release his prison meditations took shape in the programme of the organization which was destined soon to become so famous throughout Europe, that of La Giovine Italia, or Young Italy. Its publicly avowed aims were to be the liberation of Italy both from foreign and domestic tyranny, and its unification under a republican form of government; the means to be used were education, and, where advisable, insurrection by guerrilla bands; the motto was to be “God and the people,” and the banner was to bear on one side the words “Unity” and “Independence” and on the other “Liberty,” “Equality,” and “Humanity,” to describe respectively the national and the international aims. In April 1831 Charles Albert, “the ex-Carbonaro conspirator of 1821,” succeeded Charles Felix on the Sardinian throne, and towards the close of that year Mazzini, making himself, as he afterwards confessed, “the interpreter of a hope which he did not share,” wrote the new king a letter, published at Marseilles, urging him to take the lead in the impending struggle for Italian independence. Clandestinely reprinted, and rapidly circulated all over Italy, its bold and outspoken words produced a great sensation, but so deep was the offence it gave to the Sardinian government that orders were issued for the immediate arrest and imprisonment of the author should he attempt to cross the frontier. Towards the end of the same year appeared the important Young Italy “Manifesto,” the substance of which is given in the first volume of the Life and Writings of Mazzini; and this was followed soon afterwards by the society’s Journal, which, smuggled across the Italian frontier, had great success in the objects for which it was written, numerous “congregations” being formed at Genoa, Leghorn, and elsewhere. Representations were consequently made by the Sardinian to the French government, which issued in an order for Mazzini’s withdrawal from Marseilles (Aug. 1832); he lingered for a few months in concealment, but ultimately found it necessary to retire into Switzerland.

From this point it is somewhat difficult to follow the career of the mysterious and terrible conspirator who for twenty years out of the next thirty led a life of voluntary imprisonment (as he himself tells us) “within the four walls of a room,” and “kept no record of dates, made no biographical notes, and preserved no copies of letters.” In 1833, however, he is known to have been concerned in an abortive revolutionary movement which took place in the Sardinian army; several executions took place, and he himself was laid under sentence of death. Before the close of the same year a similar movement in Genoa had been planned, but failed through the youth and inexperience of the leaders. At Geneva, also in 1833, Mazzini set on foot L’Europe Centrale, a journal of which one of the main objects was the emancipation of Savoy; but he did not confine himself to a merely literary agitation for this end. Chiefly through his agency a considerable body of German, Polish and Italian exiles was organized, and an armed invasion of the duchy planned. The frontier was actually crossed on the 1st of February 1834, but the attack ignominiously broke down without a shot having been fired. Mazzini, who personally accompanied the expedition, is no doubt correct in attributing the failure to dissensions with the Carbonari leaders in Paris, and to want of a cordial understanding between himself and the Savoyard Ramorino, who had been chosen as military leader.

In April 1834 the “Young Europe” association “of men believing in a future of liberty, equality and fraternity for all mankind, and desirous of consecrating their thoughts and actions to the realization of that future” was formed also under the influence of Mazzini’s enthusiasm; it was followed soon afterwards by a “Young Switzerland” society, having for its leading idea the formation of an Alpine confederation, to include Switzerland, Tyrol, Savoy and the rest of the Alpine chain as well. But La Jeune Suisse newspaper was compelled to stop within a year, and in other respects the affairs of the struggling patriot became embarrassed. He was permitted to remain at Grenchen in Solothurn for a while, but at last the Swiss diet, yielding to strong and persistent pressure from abroad, exiled him about the end of 1836. In January 1837 he arrived in London, where for many months he had to carry on a hard fight with poverty and the sense of spiritual loneliness, so touchingly described by himself in the first volume of the Life and Writings. Ultimately, as he gained command of the English language, he began to earn a livelihood by writing review articles, some of which have since been reprinted, and are of a high order of literary merit; they include papers on “Italian Literature since 1830” and “Paolo Sarpi” in the Westminster Review, articles on “Lamennais,” “George Sand,” “Byron and Goethe” in the Monthly Chronicle, and on “Lamartine,” “Carlyle,” and “The Minor Works of Dante” in the British and Foreign Review. In 1839 he entered into relations with the revolutionary committees sitting in Malta and Paris, and in 1840 he originated a working 944 men’s association, and the weekly journal entitled Apostolato Popolare, in which the admirable popular treatise “On the Duties of Man” was commenced. Among the patriotic and philanthropic labours undertaken by Mazzini during this period of retirement in London may be mentioned a free evening school conducted by himself and a few others for some years, at which several hundreds of Italian children received at least the rudiments of secular and religious education. He also exposed and combated the infamous traffic carried on in southern Italy, where scoundrels bought small boys from poverty-stricken parents and carried them off to England and elsewhere to grind organs and suffer martyrdom at the hands of cruel taskmasters.

The most memorable episode in his life during the same period was perhaps that which arose out of the conduct of Sir James Graham, the home secretary, in systematically, for some months, opening Mazzini’s letters as they passed through the British post office, and communicating their contents to the Neapolitan government—a proceeding which was believed at the time to have led to the arrest and execution of the brothers Bandiera, Austrian subjects, who had been planning an expedition against Naples, although the recent publication of Sir James Graham’s life seems to exonerate him from the charge. The prolonged discussions in parliament, and the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the matter, did not, however, lead to any practical result, unless indeed the incidental vindication of Mazzini’s character, which had been recklessly assailed in the course of debate. In this connexion Thomas Carlyle wrote to The Times: “I have had the honour to know Mr Mazzini for a series of years, and, whatever I may think of his practical insight and skill in worldly affairs, I can with great freedom testify that he, if I have ever seen one such, is a man of genius and virtue, one of those rare men, numerable unfortunately but as units in this world, who are worthy to be called martyr souls; who in silence, piously in their daily life, practise what is meant by that.”

Mazzini did not share the enthusiastic hopes everywhere raised in the ranks of the Liberal party throughout Europe by the first acts of Pius IX., in 1846, but at the same time he availed himself, towards the end of 1847, of the opportunity to publish a letter addressed to the new pope, indicating the nature of the religious and national mission which the Liberals expected him to undertake. The leaders of the revolutionary outbreaks in Milan and Messina in the beginning of 1848 had long been in secret correspondence with Mazzini; and their action, along with the revolution in Paris, brought him early in the same year to Italy, where he took a great and active interest in the events which dragged Charles Albert into an unprofitable war with Austria; he actually for a short time bore arms under Garibaldi immediately before the reoccupation of Milan, but ultimately, after vain attempts to maintain the insurrection in the mountain districts, found it necessary to retire to Lugano. In the beginning of the following year he was nominated a member of the short-lived provisional government of Tuscany formed after the flight of the grand-duke, and almost simultaneously, when Rome had, in consequence of the withdrawal of Pius IX., been proclaimed a republic, he was declared a member of the constituent assembly there. A month afterwards, the battle of Novara having again decided against Charles Albert in the brief struggle with Austria, into which he had once more been drawn, Mazzini was appointed a member of the Roman triumvirate, with supreme executive power (March 23, 1849). The opportunity he now had for showing the administrative and political ability which he was believed to possess was more apparent than real, for the approach of the professedly friendly French troops soon led to hostilities, and resulted in a siege which terminated, towards the end of June, with the assembly’s resolution to discontinue the defence, and Mazzini’s indignant resignation. That he succeeded, however, for so long a time, and in circumstances so adverse, in maintaining a high degree of order within the turbulent city is a fact that speaks for itself. His diplomacy, backed as it was by no adequate physical force, naturally showed at the time to very great disadvantage, but his official correspondence and proclamations can still be read with admiration and intellectual pleasure, as well as his eloquent vindication of the revolution in his published “Letter to MM. de Tocqueville and de Falloux.” The surrender of the city on the 30th of June was followed by Mazzini’s not too precipitate flight by way of Marseilles into Switzerland, whence he once more found his way to London. Here in 1850 he became president of the National Italian Committee, and at the same time entered into close relations with Ledru-Rollin and Kossuth. He had a firm belief in the value of revolutionary attempts, however hopeless they might seem; he had a hand in the abortive rising at Mantua in 1852, and again, in February 1853, a considerable share in the ill-planned insurrection at Milan on the 6th of February 1853, the failure of which greatly weakened his influence; once more, in 1854, he had gone far with preparations for renewed action when his plans were completely disconcerted by the withdrawal of professed supporters, and by the action of the French and English governments in sending ships of war to Naples.

The year 1857 found him yet once more in Italy, where, for complicity in short-lived émeutes which took place at Genoa, Leghorn and Naples, he was again laid under sentence of death. Undiscouraged in the pursuit of the one great aim of his life by any such incidents as these, he returned to London, where he edited his new journal Pensiero ed Azione, in which the constant burden of his message to the overcautious practical politicians of Italy was: “I am but a voice crying Action; but the state of Italy cries for it also. So do the best men and people of her cities. Do you wish to destroy my influence? Act.” The same tone was at a somewhat later date assumed in the letter he wrote to Victor Emmanuel, urging him to put himself at the head of the movement for Italian unity, and promising republican support. As regards the events of 1859-1860, however, it may be questioned whether, through his characteristic inability to distinguish between the ideally perfect and the practically possible, he did not actually hinder more than he helped the course of events by which the realization of so much of the great dream of his life was at last brought about. If Mazzini was the prophet of Italian unity, and Garibaldi its knight errant, to Cavour alone belongs the honour of having been the statesman by whom it was finally accomplished. After the irresistible pressure of the popular movement had led to the establishment not of an Italian republic but of an Italian kingdom, Mazzini could honestly enough write, “I too have striven to realize unity under a monarchical flag,” but candour compelled him to add, “The Italian people are led astray by a delusion at the present day, a delusion which has induced them to substitute material for moral unity and their own reorganization. Not so I. I bow my head sorrowfully to the sovereignty of the national will; but monarchy will never number me amongst its servants or followers.” In 1865, by way of protest against the still uncancelled sentence of death under which he lay, Mazzini was elected by Messina as delegate to the Italian parliament, but, feeling himself unable to take the oath of allegiance to the monarchy, he never took his seat. In the following year, when a general amnesty was granted after the cession of Venice to Italy, the sentence of death was at last removed, but he declined to accept such an “offer of oblivion and pardon for having loved Italy above all earthly things.” In May 1869 he was again expelled from Switzerland at the instance of the Italian government for having conspired with Garibaldi; after a few months spent in England he set out (1870) for Sicily, but was promptly arrested at sea and carried to Gaeta, where he was imprisoned for two months. Events soon made it evident that there was little danger to fear from the contemplated rising, and the occasion of the birth of a prince was seized for restoring him to liberty. The remainder of his life, spent partly in London and partly at Lugano, presents no noteworthy incidents. For some time his health had been far from satisfactory, but the immediate cause of his death was an attack of pleurisy with which he was seized at Pisa, and which terminated fatally on the 10th of March 1872. The Italian parliament by a unanimous vote expressed the national sorrow with which the tidings of his death had been received, the president pronouncing an eloquent 945 eulogy on the departed patriot as a model of disinterestedness and self-denial, and one who had dedicated his whole life ungrudgingly to the cause of his country’s freedom. A public funeral took place at Pisa on the 14th of March, and the remains were afterwards conveyed to Genoa.

MAZZONI, GIACOMO (1548-1598), Italian philosopher, was born at Cesena and died at Ferrara. A member of a noble family and highly educated, he was one of the most eminent savants of the period. He occupied chairs in the universities of Pisa and Rome, was one of the founders of the Della Crusca Academy, and had the distinction, it is said, of thrice vanquishing the Admirable Crichton in dialectic. His chief work in philosophy was an attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, and in this spirit he published in 1597 a treatise In universam Platonis et Aristotelis philosophiam praecludia. He wrote also De triplici hominum vita, wherein he outlined a theory of the infinite perfection and development of nature. Apart from philosophy, he was prominent in literature as the champion of Dante, and produced two works in the poet’s defence: Discorso composto in difesa della comedia di Dante (1572), and Della difesa della comedia di Dante (1587, reprinted 1688). He was an authority on ancient languages and philology, and gave a great impetus to the scientific study of the Italian language.

MAZZONI, GUIDO (1859-  ), Italian poet, was born at Florence, and educated at Pisa and Bologna. In 1887 he became professor of Italian at Padua, and in 1894 at Florence. He was much influenced by Carducci, and became prominent both as a prolific and well-read critic and as a poet of individual distinction. His chief volumes of verse are Versi (1880), Nuove poesie (1886), Poesie (1891), Voci della vita (1893).

MEAD, LARKIN GOLDSMITH (1835-  ), American sculptor, was born at Chesterfield, New Hampshire, on the 3rd of January 1835. He was a pupil (1853-1855) of Henry Kirke Brown. During the early part of the Civil War he was at the front for six months, with the army of the Potomac, as an artist for Harper’s Weekly; and in 1862-1865 he was in Italy, being for part of the time attached to the United States consulate at Venice, while William D. Howells, his brother-in-law, was consul. He returned to America in 1865, but subsequently went back to Italy and lived at Florence. His first important work was a statue of Ethan Allen, now at the State House, Montpelier, Vermont. His principal works are: the monument to President Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois; “Ethan Allen” (1876), National Hall of Statuary, Capitol, Washington; an heroic marble statue, “The Father of Waters,” New Orleans; and “Triumph of Ceres,” made for the Columbian Exposition, Chicago.

His brother, William Rutherford Mead (1846-  ), graduated at Amherst College in 1867, and studied architecture in New York under Russell Sturgis, and also abroad. In 1879 he and J. F. McKim, with whom he had been in partnership for two years as architects, were joined by Stanford White, and formed the well-known firm of McKim, Mead & White.

MEAD, RICHARD (1673-1754), English physician, eleventh child of Matthew Mead (1630-1699), Independent divine, was born on the 11th of August 1673 at Stepney, London. He studied at Utrecht for three years under J. G. Graevius; having decided to follow the medical profession, he then went to Leiden and attended the lectures of Paul Hermann and Archibald Pitcairne. In 1695 he graduated in philosophy and physic at Padua, and in 1696 he returned to London, entering at once on a successful practice. His Mechanical Account of Poisons appeared in 1702, and in 1703 he was admitted to the Royal Society, to whose Transactions he contributed in that year a paper on the parasitic nature of scabies. In the same year he was elected physician to St Thomas’s Hospital, and appointed to read anatomical lectures at the Surgeons’ Hall. On the death of John Radcliffe in 1714 Mead became the recognized head of his profession; he attended Queen Anne on her deathbed, and in 1727 was appointed physician to George II., having previously served him in that capacity when he was prince of Wales. He died in London on the 16th of February 1754.

MEAD. (1) A word now only used more or less poetically for the commoner form “meadow,” properly land laid down for grass and cut for hay, but often extended in meaning to include pasture-land. “Meadow” represents the oblique case, maédwe, of O. Eng. maéd, which comes from the root seen in “mow”; the word, therefore, means “mowed land.” Cognate words appear in other Teutonic languages, a familiar instance being Ger. matt, seen in place-names such as Zermatt, Andermatt, &c. (See Grass.) (2) The name of a drink made by the fermentation of honey mixed with water. Alcoholic drinks made from honey were common in ancient times, and during the middle ages throughout Europe. The Greeks and Romans knew of such under the names of ὁδρόμελι and hydromel; mulsum was a form of mead with the addition of wine. The word is common to Teutonic languages (cf. Du. mede, Ger. Met or Meth), and is cognate with Gr. μέθυ, wine, and Sansk. mádhu, sweet drink. “Metheglin,” another word for mead, properly a medicated or spiced form of the drink, is an adaptation of the Welsh meddyglyn, which is derived from meddyg, healing (Lat. medicus) and llyn, liquor. It therefore means “spiced or medicated drink,” and is not etymologically connected with “mead.”

MEADE, GEORGE GORDON (1815-1872), American soldier, was born of American parentage at Cadiz, Spain, on the 31st of December 1815. On graduation at the United States Military Academy in 1835, he served in Florida with the 3rd Artillery against the Seminoles. Resigning from the army in 1836, he 946 became a civil engineer and constructor of railways, and was engaged under the war department in survey work. In 1842 he was appointed a second lieutenant in the corps of the topographical engineers. In the war with Mexico he was on the staffs successively of Generals Taylor, J. Worth and Robert Patterson, and was brevetted for gallant conduct at Monterey. Until the Civil War he was engaged in various engineering works, mainly in connexion with lighthouses, and later as a captain of topographical engineers in the survey of the northern lakes. In 1861 he was appointed brigadier-general of volunteers, and had command of the 2nd brigade of the Pennsylvania Reserves in the Army of the Potomac under General M’Call. He served in the Seven Days, receiving a severe wound at the action of Frazier’s Farm. He was absent from his command until the second battle of Bull Run, after which he obtained the command of his division. He distinguished himself greatly at the battles of South Mountain and Antietam. At Fredericksburg he and his division won great distinction by their attack on the position held by Jackson’s corps, and Meade was promoted major-general of volunteers, to date from the 29th of November. Soon afterwards he was placed in command of the V. corps. At Chancellorsville he displayed great intrepidity and energy, and on the eve of the battle of Gettysburg was appointed to succeed Hooker. The choice was unexpected, but Meade justified it by his conduct of the operations, and in the famous three days’ battle he inflicted a complete defeat on General Lee’s army. His reward was the commission of brigadier-general in the regular army. In the autumn of 1863 a war of manœuvre was fought between the two commanders, on the whole favourably to the Union arms. Grant, commanding all the armies of the United States, joined the Army of the Potomac in the spring of 1864, and remained with it until the end of the war; but he continued Meade in his command, and successfully urged his appointment as major-general in the regular army (Aug. 18, 1864), eulogizing him as the commander who had successfully met and defeated the best general and the strongest army on the Confederate side. After the war Meade commanded successively the military division of the Atlantic, the department of the east, the third military district (Georgia and Alabama) and the department of the south. He died at Philadelphia on the 6th of November, 1872. The degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him by Harvard University, and his scientific attainments were recognized by the American Philosophical Society and the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. There are statues of General Meade in Philadelphia and at Gettysburg.

MEADE, WILLIAM (1789-1862), American Protestant Episcopal bishop, the son of Richard Kidder Meade (1746-1805), one of General Washington’s aides during the War of Independence, was born on the 11th of November 1789, near Millwood, in that part of Frederick county which is now Clarke county, Virginia. He graduated as valedictorian in 1808 at the college of New Jersey (Princeton); studied theology under the Rev. Walter Addison of Maryland, and in Princeton; was ordained deacon in 1811 and priest in 1814; and preached both in the Stone Chapel, Millwood, and in Christ Church, Alexandria, for some time. He became assistant bishop of Virginia in 1829; was pastor of Christ Church, Norfolk, in 1834-1836; in 1841 became bishop of Virginia; and in 1842-1862 was president of the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia, near Alexandria, delivering an annual course of lectures on pastoral theology. In 1819 he had acted as the agent of the American Colonization Society to purchase slaves, illegally brought into Georgia, which had become the property of that state and were sold publicly at Milledgeville. He had been prominent in the work of the Education Society, which was organized in 1818 to advance funds to needy students for the ministry of the American Episcopal Church, and in the establishment of the Theological Seminary near Alexandria, as he was afterwards in the work of the American Tract Society, and the Bible Society. He was a founder and president of the Evangelical Knowledge Society (1847), which, opposing what it considered the heterodoxy of many of the books published by the Sunday School Union, attempted to displace them by issuing works of a more evangelical type. A low Churchman, he strongly opposed Tractarianism. He was active in the case against Bishop Henry Ustick Onderdonk (1789-1858) of Pennsylvania, who because of intemperance was forced to resign and was suspended from the ministry in 1844; in that against Bishop Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk (1791-1861) of New York, who in 1845 was suspended from the ministry on the charge of intoxication and improper conduct; and in that against Bishop G. W. Doane of New Jersey. He fought against the threatening secession of Virginia, but acquiesced in the decision of the state and became presiding bishop of the Southern Church. He died in Richmond, Virginia, on the 14th of March 1862.

MEADVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Crawford county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on French Creek, 36 m. S. of Erie. Pop. (1900), 10,291, of whom 912 were foreign-born and 173 were negroes; (1910 census) 12,780. It is served by the Erie, and the Bessemer & Lake Erie railways. Meadville has three public parks, two general hospitals and a public library, and is the seat of the Pennsylvania College of Music, of a commercial college, of the Meadville Theological School (1844, Unitarian), and of Allegheny College (co-educational), which was opened in 1815, came under the general patronage of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1833, and in 1909 had 322 students (200 men and 122 women). Meadville is the commercial centre of a good agricultural region, which also abounds in oil and natural gas. The Erie Railroad has extensive shops here, which in 1905 employed 46.7% of the total number of wage-earners, and there are various manufactures. The factory product in 1905 was valued at $2,074,600, being 24.4% more than that of 1900. Meadville, the oldest settlement in N.W. Pennsylvania, was founded as a fortified post by David Mead in 1793, laid out as a town in 1795, incorporated as a borough in 1823 and chartered as a city in 1866.

MEAGHER, THOMAS FRANCIS (1823-1867), Irish nationalist and American soldier, was born in Waterford, Ireland, on the 3rd of August 1823. He graduated at Stonyhurst College, Lancashire, in 1843, and in 1844 began the study of law at Dublin. He became a member of the Young Ireland Party in 1845, and in 1847 was one of the founders of the Irish Confederation. In March 1848 he made a speech before the Confederation which led to his arrest for sedition, but at his trial the jury failed to agree and he was discharged. In the following July the Confederation created a “war directory” of five, of which Meagher was a member, and he and William Smith O’Brien travelled through Ireland for the purpose of starting a revolution. The attempt proved abortive; Meagher was arrested in August, and in October was tried for high treason before a special commission at Clonmel. He was found guilty and was condemned to death, but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in Van Diemen’s Land, whither he was transported in the summer of 1849. Early in 1852 he escaped, and in May reached New York City. He made a tour of the cities of the United States as a popular lecturer, and then studied law and was admitted to the New York bar in 1855. He made two unsuccessful ventures in journalism, and in 1857 went to Central America, where he acquired material for another series of lectures. In 1861 he was captain of a company (which he had raised) in the 69th regiment of New York volunteers and fought at the first battle of Bull Run; he then organized an Irish brigade, of whose first regiment he was colonel until the 3rd of February 1862, when he was appointed to the command of this organization with the rank of brigadier-general. He took part in the siege of Yorktown, the battle of Fair Oaks, the seven days’ battle before 947 Richmond, and the battles of Antietam, Fredericksburg, where he was wounded, and Chancellorsville, where his brigade was reduced in numbers to less than a regiment, and General Meagher resigned his commission. On the 23rd of December 1863 his resignation was cancelled, and he was assigned to the command of the military district of Etowah, with headquarters at Chattanooga. At the close of the war he was appointed by President Johnson secretary of Montana Territory, and there, in the absence of the territorial governor, he acted as governor from September 1866 until his death from accidental drowning in the Missouri River near Fort Benton, Montana, on the 1st of July 1867. He published Speeches on the Legislative Independence of Ireland (1852).

MEAL. (1) (A word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Ger. Mehl, Du. meel; the ultimate source is the root seen in various Teutonic words meaning “to grind,” and in Eng. “mill,” Lat. mola, molěre, Gr. μύλη), a powder made from the edible part of any grain or pulse, with the exception of wheat, which is known as “flour.” In America the word is specifically applied to the meal produced from Indian corn or maize, as in Scotland and Ireland to that produced from oats, while in South Africa the ears of the Indian corn itself are called “mealies.” (2) Properly, eating and drinking at regular stated times of the day, as breakfast, dinner, &c., hence taking of food at any time and also the food provided. The word was in O.E. mael, which also had the meanings (now lost) of time, mark, measure, &c., which still appear in many forms of the word in Teutonic languages; thus Ger. mal, time, mark, cf. Denkmal, monument, Mahl, meal, repast, or Du. maal, Swed. mal, also with both meanings. The ultimate source is the pre-Teutonic root me- ma-, to measure, and the word thus stood for a marked-out point of time.

MEALIE, the South African name for Indian corn or maize. The word as spelled represents the pronunciation of the Cape Dutch milje, an adaptation of milho (da India), the millet of India, the Portuguese name for millet, used in South Africa for maize.

MEAN, an homonymous word, the chief uses of which may be divided thus. (1) A verb with two principal applications, to intend, purpose or design, and to signify. This word is in O.E. maenan, and cognate forms appear in other Teutonic languages, cf. Du. meenen, Ger. meinen. The ultimate origin is usually taken to be the root men-, to think, the root of “mind.” (2) An adjective and substantive meaning “that which is in the middle.” This is derived through the O. Fr. men, meien or moien, modern moyen, from the late Lat. adjective medianus, from medius, middle. The law French form mesne is still preserved in certain legal phrases (see Mesne). The adjective “mean” is chiefly used in the sense of “average,” as in mean temperature, mean birth or death rate, &c.

“Mean” as a substantive has the following principal applications; it is used of that quality, course of action, condition, state, &c., which is equally distant from two extremes, as in such phrases as the “golden (or happy) mean.” For the philosophic application see Aristotle and Ethics.

In mathematics, the term “mean,” in its most general sense, is given to some function of two or more quantities which (1) becomes equal to each of the quantities when they themselves are made equal, and (2) is unaffected in value when the quantities suffer any transpositions. The three commonest means are the arithmetical, geometrical, and harmonic; of less importance are the contraharmonical, arithmetico-geometrical, and quadratic.

From the sense of that which stands between two things, “mean,” or the plural “means,” often with a singular construction, takes the further significance of agency, instrument, &c., of which that produces some result, hence resources capable of producing a result, particularly the pecuniary or other resources by which a person is enabled to live, and so used either of employment or of property, wealth, &c. There are many adverbial phrases, such as “by all means,” “by no means,” &c., which are extensions of “means” in the sense of agency.

The word “mean” (like the French moyen) had also the sense of middling, moderate, and this considerably influenced the uses of “mean” (3). This, which is now chiefly used in the sense of inferior, low, ignoble, or of avaricious, penurious, “stingy,” meant originally that which is common to more persons or things than one. The word in O. E. is gemaéne, and is represented in the modern Ger. gemein, common. It is cognate with Lat. communis, from which “common” is derived. The descent in meaning from that which is shared alike by several to that which is inferior, vulgar or low, is paralleled by the uses of “common.”

In astronomy the “mean sun” is a fictitious sun which moves uniformly in the celestial equator and has its right ascension always equal to the sun’s mean longitude. The time recorded by the mean sun is termed mean-solar or clock time; it is regular as distinct from the non-uniform solar or sun-dial time. The “mean moon” is a fictitious moon which moves around the earth with a uniform velocity and in the same time as the real moon. The “mean longitude” of a planet is the longitude of the “mean” planet, i.e. a fictitious planet performing uniform revolutions in the same time as the real planet.

MEASLES, (Morbilli, Rubeola; the M. E. word is maseles, properly a diminutive of a word meaning “spot,” O.H.G. māsa, cf. “mazer”; the equivalent is Ger. Masern; Fr. Rougeole), an acute infectious disease occurring mostly in children. It is mentioned in the writings of Rhazes and others of the Arabian physicians in the 10th century. For long, however, it was held to be a variety of small-pox. After the non-identity of these two diseases had been established, measles and scarlet-fever continued to be confounded with each other; and in the account given by Thomas Sydenham of epidemics of measles in London in 1670 and 1674 it is evident that even that accurate observer had not as yet clearly perceived their pathological distinction, although it would seem to have been made a century earlier by Giovanni Filippo Ingrassias (1510-1580), a physician of Palermo. The specific micro-organism responsible for measles has not been definitely isolated.

Its progress is marked by several stages more or less sharply defined. After the reception of the contagion into the system, there follows a period of incubation or latency during which scarcely any disturbance of the health is perceptible. This period generally lasts for from ten to fourteen days, when it is followed by the invasion of the symptoms specially characteristic of measles. These consist in the somewhat sudden onset of acute catarrh of the mucous membranes. At this stage minute white spots in the buccal mucous membrane frequently occur; when they do, they are diagnostic of the disease. Sneezing, accompanied with a watery discharge, sometimes bleeding, from the nose, redness and watering of the eyes, cough of a short, frequent, and noisy character, with little or no expectoration, hoarseness of the voice, and occasionally sickness and diarrhoea, are the chief local phenomena of this stage. With these there is well-marked febrile disturbance, the temperature being elevated (102°-104° F.), and the pulse rapid, while headache, thirst, and restlessness are usually present. In some instances, these initial symptoms are slight, and the child is allowed to associate with 948 others at a time when, as will be afterwards seen, the contagion of the disease is most active. In rare cases, especially in young children, convulsions usher in, or occur in the course of, this stage of invasion, which lasts as a rule for four or five days, the febrile symptoms, however, showing some tendency to undergo abatement after the second day. On the fourth or fifth day after the invasion, sometimes later, rarely earlier, the characteristic eruption appears on the skin, being first noticed on the brow, cheeks, chin, also behind the ears, and on the neck. It consists of small spots of a dusky red or crimson colour, just like flea-bites, slightly elevated above the surface, at first isolated, but tending to become grouped into patches of irregular, occasionally crescentic, outline, with portions of skin free from the eruption intervening. The face acquires a swollen and bloated appearance, which, taken with the catarrh of the nostrils and eyes, is almost characteristic, and renders the diagnosis at this stage a matter of no difficulty. The eruption spreads downwards over the body and limbs, which are soon thickly studded with the red spots or patches. Sometimes these become confluent over a considerable surface. The rash continues to come out for two or three days, and then begins to fade in the order in which it first showed itself, namely from above downwards. By the end of about a week after its first appearance scarcely any trace of the eruption remains beyond a faint staining of the skin. Usually during convalescence slight peeling of the epidermis takes place, but much less distinctly than is the case in scarlet fever. At the commencement of the eruptive stage the fever, catarrh, and other constitutional disturbance, which were present from the beginning, become aggravated, the temperature often rising to 105° or more, and there is headache, thirst, furred tongue, and soreness of the throat, upon which red patches similar to those on the surface of the body may be observed. These symptoms usually decline as soon as the rash has attained its maximum, and often there occurs a sudden and extensive fall of temperature, indicating that the crisis of the disease has been reached. In favourable cases convalescence proceeds rapidly, the patient feeling perfectly well even before the rash has faded from the skin.

Measles may, however, occur in a very malignant form, in which the symptoms throughout are of urgent character, the rash but feebly developed, and of dark purple hue, while there is great prostration, accompanied with intense catarrh of the respiratory or gastro-intestinal mucous membrane. Such cases are rare, occurring mostly in circumstances of bad hygiene, both as regards the individual and his surroundings. On the other hand, cases of measles are often of so mild a form throughout that the patient can scarcely be persuaded to submit to treatment.

Measles as a disease derives its chief importance from the risk, by no means slight, of certain complications which are apt to arise during its course, more especially inflammatory affections of the respiratory organs. These are most liable to occur in the colder seasons of the year and in very young and delicate children. It has been already stated that irritation of the respiratory passages is one of the symptoms characteristic of measles, but that this subsides with the decline of the eruption. Not unfrequently, however, these symptoms, instead of abating, become aggravated, and bronchitis of the capillary form (see Bronchitis), or pneumonia, generally of the diffuse or lobular variety (see Pneumonia), supervene. By far the greater proportion of the mortality in measles is due to its complications, of which those just mentioned are the most common, but which also include inflammatory affections of the larynx, with attacks resembling croup, and also diarrhoea assuming a dysenteric character. Or there may remain as direct results of the disease chronic ophthalmia, or discharge from the ears with deafness, and occasionally a form of gangrene affecting the tissues of the mouth or cheeks and other parts of the body, leading to disfigurement and gravely endangering life.

Apart from those immediate risks there appears to be a tendency in many cases for the disease to leave behind a weakened and vulnerable condition of the general health, which may render children, previously robust, delicate and liable to chest complaints, and is in not a few instances the precursor of some of those tubercular affections to which the period of childhood and youth is liable. These various effects or sequelae of measles indicate that although in itself a comparatively mild ailment, it should not be regarded with indifference. Indeed it is doubtful whether any other disease of early life demands more careful watching as to its influence on the health. Happily many of those attending evils may by proper management be averted.

Measles is a disease of the earlier years of childhood. Like other infectious maladies, it is admittedly rare, though not unknown, in nurslings or infants under six months old. It is comparatively seldom met with in adults, but this is due to the fact that most persons have undergone an attack in early life. Where this has not been the case, the old suffer equally with the young. All races of men appear liable to this disease, provided that which constitutes the essential factor in its origin and spread exists, namely, contagion. Some countries enjoy long immunity from outbreaks of measles, but it has frequently been found in such cases that when the contagion has once been introduced the disease extends with great rapidity and virulence. This was shown by the epidemic in the Faroe Islands in 1846, where, within six months after the arrival of a single case of measles, more than three-fourths of the entire population were attacked and many perished; and the similarly produced and still more destructive outbreak in Fiji in 1875, in which it was estimated that about one-fourth of the inhabitants died from the disease in about three months. In both these cases the great mortality was due to the complications of the malady, specially induced by overcrowding, insanitary surroundings, the absence of proper nourishment and nursing for the sick, and the utter prostration and terror of the people, and to the disease being specially malignant, occurring on what might be termed virgin soil.1 It may be regarded as an invariable rule that the first epidemic of any disease in a community is specially virulent, each successive attack conferring a certain immunity.

In many lands, such as the United Kingdom, measles is rarely absent, especially from large centres of population, where sporadic cases are found at all seasons. Every now and then epidemics arise from the extension of the disease among those members of a community who have not been in some measure protected by a previous attack. There are few diseases so contagious as measles, and its rapid spread in epidemic outbreaks is no doubt due to the well-ascertained fact that contagion is most potent in the earlier stages, even before its real nature has been evinced by the characteristic appearances on the skin. Hence the difficulty of timely isolation, and the readiness with which the disease is spread in schools and families. The contagion is present in the skin and the various secretions. While the contagion is generally direct, it can also be conveyed by the particles from the nose and mouth which, after being expelled, become dry and are conveyed as dust on clothes, toys, &c. Fortunately the germs of measles do not retain their virulence long under such conditions, comparing favourably with those of some other diseases.

Treatment.—The treatment embraces the preventive measures to be adopted by the isolation of the sick at as early a period as possible. Epidemics have often, especially in limited localities, been curtailed by such a precaution. In families with little house accommodation this measure is frequently, for the reason given regarding the communicable period of the disease, ineffectual; nevertheless where practicable it ought to be tried. The unaffected children should be kept from school for a time (probably about three weeks from the outbreak in the family would suffice if no other case occur in the interval), and all clothing in contact with the patient or nurses should be disinfected. In extensive epidemics it is often desirable to close the schools for a time. As regards special treatment, in an ordinary case of measles little is required beyond what is necessary in febrile conditions generally. Confinement to bed in a somewhat darkened room, into which, however, air is freely 949 admitted; light, nourishing, liquid diet (soups, milk, &c.), water almost ad lib. to drink, and mild diaphoretic remedies such as the acetate of ammonia or ipecacuanha, are all that is necessary in the febrile stage. When the fever is very severe, sponging the body generally or the chest and arms affords relief. The serious chest complications of measles are to be dealt with by those measures applicable for the relief of the particular symptoms (see Bronchitis; Pneumonia). The preparations of ammonia are of special efficacy. During convalescence the patient must be guarded from exposure to cold, and for a time after recovery the state of the health ought to be watched with a view of averting the evils, both local and constitutional, which too often follow this disease.

MEAT, a word originally applied to food in general, and so still used in such phrases as “meat and drink”; but now, except as an archaism, generally used of the flesh of certain domestic animals, slaughtered for human food by butchers, “butcher’s meat,” as opposed to “game,” that of wild animals, “fish” or “poultry.” Cognate forms of the O. Eng. mete are found in certain Teutonic languages, e.g. Swed. mat, Dan. mad and O. H. Ger. Maz. The ultimate origin has been disputed; the New English Dictionary considers probable a connexion with the root med-, “to be fat,” seen in Sansk. mēda, Lat. madere, “to be wet,” and Eng. “mast,” the fruit of the beech as food for pigs.

MEATH (pronounced with th soft, as in the), a county of Ireland in the province of Leinster, bounded E. by the Irish Sea, S.E. by Dublin, S. by Kildare and King’s County, W. by Westmeath, N.W. by Cavan and Monaghan, and N.E. by Louth. Area 579,320 acres, or about 905 sq. m. In some districts the surface is varied by hills and swells, which to the west reach a considerable elevation, although the general features of a fine champain country are never lost. The coast, low and shelving, extends about 10 m., but there is no harbour of importance. Laytown is a small seaside resort, 5 m. S.E. of Drogheda. The Boyne enters the county at its south-western extremity, and flowing north-east to Drogheda divides it into two almost equal parts. At Navan it receives the Blackwater, which flows south-west from Cavan. Both these rivers are noted for their trout, and salmon are taken in the Boyne. The Boyne is navigable for barges as far as Navan whence a canal is carried to Trim. The Royal Canal passes along the southern boundary of the county from Dublin.

History and Antiquities.—A district known as Meath (Midhe), and including the present county of Meath as well as Westmeath and Longford, with parts of Cavan, Kildare and King’s County, was formed by Tuathal (c. 130) into a kingdom to serve as mensal land or personal estate of the Ard Ri or over-king of Ireland. Kings of Meath reigned until 1173, and the title was claimed as late as the 15th century by their descendants, but at the date mentioned Hugh de Lacy obtained the lordship of the country and was confirmed in it by Henry II. Meath thus came into the English “Pale.” But though it was declared a county in the reign of Edward I. (1296), and though it came by descent into the possession of the Crown in the person of Edward IV., it was long before it was fully subdued and its boundaries clearly defined. In 1543 Westmeath was created a county apart from that of Meath, but as late as 1598 Meath was still regarded as a province by some, who included in it the counties Westmeath, East Meath, Longford and Cavan. In the early part of the 17th century it was at last established as a county, and no longer considered as a fifth province of Ireland.

There are two ancient round towers, the one at Kells and the other in the churchyard of Donaghmore, near Navan. By the river Boyne near Slane there is an extensive ancient burial-place called Brugh. Here are some twenty burial mounds, the largest of which is that of New Grange, a domed tumulus erected above a circular chamber, which is entered by a narrow passage enclosed by great upright blocks of stone, covered with carvings. The mound is surrounded by remains of a stone circle, and the whole forms one of the most remarkable extant erections of its kind. Tara (q.v.) is famous in history, especially as the seat of a royal palace referred to in the well-known lines of Thomas Moore. Monastic buildings were very numerous in Meath, among the more important ruins being those of Duleek, which is said to have been the first ecclesiastical building in Ireland of stone and mortar; the extensive remains of Bective Abbey; and those of Clonard, where also were a cathedral and a famous college. Of the old fortresses, the castle of Trim still presents an imposing appearance. There are many fine old mansions.

MEAUX, a town of northern France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Seine-et-Marne, and chief town of the agricultural region of Brie, 28 m. E.N.E. of Paris by rail. Pop. (1906), 11,089. The town proper stands on an eminence on the right bank of the Marne; on the left bank lies the old suburb of Le Marché, with which it is united by a bridge of the 16th century. Two rows of picturesque mills of the same period are built across the river. The cathedral of St Stephen dates from the 12th to the 16th centuries, and was restored in 950 the 19th century. Of the two western towers, the completed one is that to the north of the façade, the other being disfigured by an unsightly slate roof. The building, which is 275 ft. long and 105 ft. high, consists of a short nave, with aisles, a fine transept, a choir and a sanctuary. The choir contains the statue and the tomb of Bossuet, bishop from 1681 to 1704, and the pulpit of the cathedral has been reconstructed with the panels of that from which the “eagle of Meaux” used to preach. The transept terminates at each end in a fine portal surmounted by a rose-window. The episcopal palace (17th century) has several curious old rooms; the buildings of the choir school are likewise of some archaeological interest. A statue of General Raoult (1870) stands in one of the squares.

Meaux is the centre of a considerable trade in cereals, wool, Brie cheeses, and other farm-produce, while its mills provide much of the flour with which Paris is supplied. Other industries are saw-milling, metal-founding, distilling, the preparation of vermicelli and preserved vegetables, and the manufacture of mustard, hosiery, plaster and machinery. There are nursery-gardens in the vicinity. The Canal de l’Ourcq, which surrounds the town, and the Marne furnish the means of transport. Meaux is the seat of a bishopric dating from the 4th century, and has among its public institutions a sub-prefecture, and tribunals of first instance and of commerce.

In the Roman period Meaux was the capital of the Meldi, a small Gallic tribe, and in the middle ages of the Brie. It formed part of the kingdom of Austrasia, and afterwards belonged to the counts of Vermandois and Champagne, the latter of whom established important markets on the left bank of the Marne. Its communal charter, received from them, is dated 1179. A treaty signed at Meaux in 1229 after the Albigensian War sealed the submission of Raymond VII., count of Toulouse. The town suffered much during the Jacquerie, the peasants receiving a severe check there in 1358; during the Hundred Years’ War; and also during the Religious Wars, in which it was an important Protestant centre. It was the first town which opened its gates to Henry IV. in 1594. On the high-road for invaders marching on Paris from the east of France, Meaux saw its environs ravaged by the army of Lorraine in 1652, and was laid under heavy requisitions in 1814, 1815 and 1870. In September 1567 Meaux was the scene of an attempt made by the Protestants to seize the French king Charles IX., and his mother Catherine de’ Medici. The plot, which is sometimes called the “enterprise of Meaux,” failed, the king and queen with their courtiers escaping to Paris. This conduct, however, on the part of the Huguenots had doubtless some share in influencing Charles to assent to the massacre of St Bartholomew.

MECCA (Arab. Makkah),1 the chief town of the Hejaz in Arabia, and the great holy city of Islām. It is situated two camel marches (the resting-place being Bahra or Hadda), or about 45 m. almost due E., from Jidda on the Red Sea. Thus on a rough estimate Mecca lies in 21° 25′ N., 39° 50′ E. It is said in the Koran (Sur. xiv. 40) that Mecca lies in a sterile valley, and the old geographers observe that the whole Haram or sacred territory round the city is almost without cultivation or date palms, while fruit trees, springs, wells, gardens and green valleys are found immediately beyond. Mecca in fact lies in the heart of a mass of rough hills, intersected by a labyrinth of narrow valleys and passes, and projecting into the Tehāma or low country on the Red Sea, in front of the great mountain wall that divides the coast-lands from the central plateau, though in turn they are themselves separated from the sea by a second curtain of hills forming the western wall of the great Wādi Marr. The inner mountain wall is pierced by only two great passes, and the valleys descending from these embrace on both sides the Mecca hills.

Holding this position commanding two great routes between the lowlands and inner Arabia, and situated in a narrow and barren valley incapable of supporting an urban population, Mecca must have been from the first a commercial centre.2 In the palmy days of South Arabia it was probably a station on the great incense route, and thus Ptolemy may have learned the name, which he writes Makoraba. At all events, long before Mahomet we find Mecca established in the twofold quality of a commercial centre and a privileged holy place, surrounded by an inviolable territory (the Haram), which was not the sanctuary of a single tribe but a place of pilgrimage, where religious observances were associated with a series of annual fairs at different points in the vicinity. Indeed in the unsettled state of the country commerce was possible only under the sanctions of religion, and through the provisions of the sacred truce which prohibited war for four months of the year, three of these being the month of pilgrimage, with those immediately preceding and following. The first of the series of fairs in which the Meccans had an interest was at Okaz on the easier road between Mecca and Taif, where there was also a sanctuary, and from it the visitors moved on to points still nearer Mecca (Majanna, and finally Dhul-Majāz, on the flank of Jebel Kabkab behind Arafa) where further fairs were held,3 culminating in the special religious ceremonies of the great feast at ‘Arafa, Quzaḥ (Mozdalifa), and Mecca itself. The system of intercalation in the lunar calendar of the heathen Arabs was designed to secure that the feast should always fall at the time when the hides, fruits and other merchandise were ready for market,4 and the Meccans, who knew how to attract the Bedouins by hospitality, bought up these wares in exchange for imported goods, and so became the leaders of the international trade of Arabia. Their caravans traversed the length and breadth of the peninsula. Syria, and especially Gaza, was their chief goal. The Syrian caravan intercepted, on its return, at Badr (see Mahomet) represented capital to the value of £20,000, an enormous sum for those days.5

The victory of Mahommedanism made a vast change in the position of Mecca. The merchant aristocracy became satraps or pensioners of a great empire; but the seat of dominion was removed beyond the desert, and though Mecca and the Hejāz strove for a time to maintain political as well as religious predominance, the struggle was vain, and terminated on the death of Ibn Zubair, the Meccan pretendant to the caliphate, when the city was taken by Hajjāj (A.D. 692). The sanctuary and feast of Mecca received, however, a new prestige from the victory of Islām. Purged of elements obviously heathen, the Ka‘ba became the holiest site, and the pilgrimage the most sacred ritual observance of Mahommedanism, drawing worshippers from so wide a circle that the confluence of the petty traders of the desert was no longer the main feature of the holy season. The pilgrimage retained its importance for the commercial well-being of Mecca; to this day the Meccans live by the Hajj—letting rooms, acting as guides and directors in the sacred ceremonies, as contractors and touts for land and sea transport, as well as exploiting the many benefactions that flow to the holy city; while the surrounding Bedouins derive support from the camel-transport it demands and from the subsidies by which they are engaged to protect or abstain from molesting the pilgrim caravans. But the ancient “fairs of heathenism” were given up, and the traffic of the pilgrim season, sanctioned by the Prophet in Sur. ii. 194, was concentrated at Minā and Mecca, where most of the pilgrims still have something to buy or sell, so that Minā, after the sacrifice of the feast day, presents the aspect of a huge international fancy 951 fair.6 In the middle ages this trade was much more important than it is now. Ibn Jubair (ed. Wright, p. 118 seq.) in the 12th century describes the mart of Mecca in the eight days following the feast as full of gems, unguents, precious drugs, and all rare merchandise from India, Irāk, Khorāsān, and every part of the Moslem world.

The hills east and west of Mecca, which are partly built over and rise several hundred feet above the valley, so enclose the city that the ancient walls only barred the valley at three points, where three gates led into the town. In the time of Ibn Jubair the gates still stood though the walls were ruined, but now the gates have only left their names to quarters of the town. At the northern or upper end was the Bāb el Mā‘lā, or gate of the upper quarter, whence the road continues up the valley towards Minā and Arafa as well as towards Zeima and the Nejd. Beyond the gate, in a place called the Hajūn, is the chief cemetery, commonly called el Mā‘lā, and said to be the resting-place of many of the companions of Mahomet. Here a cross-road, running over the hill to join the main Medina road from the western gate, turns off to the west by the pass of Kadā, the point from which the troops of the Prophet stormed the city (A.H. 8).7 Here too the body of Ibn Zubair was hung on a cross by Ḥajjāj. The lower or southern gate, at the Masfala quarter, opened on the Yemen road, where the rain-water from Mecca flows off into an open valley. Beyond, there are mountains on both sides; on that to the east, commanding the town, is the great castle, a fortress of considerable strength. The third or western gate, Bāb el-Omra (formerly also Bāb el-Zāhir, from a village of that name), lay almost opposite the great mosque, and opened on a road leading westwards round the southern spurs of the Red Mountain. This is the way to Wādi Fātima and Medīna, the Jidda road branching off from it to the left. Considerable suburbs now lie outside the quarter named after this gate; in the middle ages a pleasant country road led for some miles through partly cultivated land with good wells, as far as the boundary of the sacred territory and gathering place of the pilgrims at Tanīm, near the mosque of Ayesha. This is the spot on the Medīna road now called the Omra, from a ceremonial connected with it which will be mentioned below.

The length of the sinuous main axis of the city from the farthest suburbs on the Medina road to the suburbs in the extreme north, now frequented by Bedouins, is, according to Burckhardt, 3500 paces.8 About the middle of this line the longitudinal thoroughfares are pushed aside by the vast courtyard and colonnades composing the great mosque, which, with its spacious arcades surrounding the Ka‘ba and other holy places, and its seven minarets, forms the only prominent architectural feature of the city. The mosque is enclosed by houses with windows opening on the arcades and commanding a view of the Ka‘ba. Immediately beyond these, on the side facing Jebel Abu Kobais, a broad street runs south-east and north-west across the valley. This is the Mas‘ā (sacred course) between the eminences of Safā and Merwa, and has been from very early times one of the most lively bazaars and the centre of Meccan life. The other chief bazaars are also near the mosque in smaller streets. The general aspect of the town is picturesque; the streets are fairly spacious, though ill-kept and filthy; the houses are all of stone, many of them well-built and four or five storeys high, with terraced roofs and large projecting windows as in Jidda—a style of building which has not varied materially since the 10th century (Mukaddasī, p. 71), and gains in effect from the way in which the dwellings run up the sides and spurs of the mountains. Of public institutions there are baths, ribāṭs, or hospices, for poor pilgrims from India, Java, &c., a hospital and a public kitchen for the poor.

The mosque is at the same time the university hall, where between two pilgrim seasons lectures are delivered on Mahommedan law, doctrine and connected branches of science. A poorly provided public library is open to the use of students. The madrassehs or buildings around the mosque, originally intended as lodgings for students and professors, have long been let out to rich pilgrims. The minor places of visitation for pilgrims, such as the birthplaces of the prophet and his chief followers, are not notable.9 Both these and the court of the great mosque lie beneath the general level of the city, the site having been gradually raised by accumulated rubbish. The town in fact has little air of antiquity; genuine Arab buildings do not last long, especially in a valley periodically ravaged by tremendous floods when the tropical rains burst on the surrounding hills. The history of Mecca is full of the record of these inundations, unsuccessfully combated by the great dam drawn across the valley by the caliph Omar (Kutbeddin, p. 76), and later works of Mahdī.10

The fixed population of Mecca in 1878 was estimated by Assistant-Surgeon ‘Abd el-Razzāq at 50,000 to 60,000; there is a large floating population—and that not merely at the proper season of pilgrimage, the pilgrims of one season often beginning to arrive before those of the former season have all dispersed. At the height of the season the town is much overcrowded, and the entire want of a drainage system is severely felt. Fortunately good water is tolerably plentiful; for, though the wells are mostly undrinkable, and even the famous Zamzam water only available for medicinal or religious purposes, the underground conduit from beyond Arafa, completed by Sultan Selim II. in 1571, supplies to the public fountains a sweet and light water, containing, according to ‘Abd el-Razzāq, a large amount of chlorides. The water is said to be free to townsmen, but is sold to the pilgrims at a rather high rate.11

Medieval writers celebrate the copious supplies, especially of fine fruits, brought to the city from Tāif and other fertile parts of Arabia. These fruits are still famous; rice and other foreign products are brought by sea to Jidda; mutton, milk and butter are plentifully supplied from the desert.12 The industries all centre in the pilgrimage; the chief object of every Meccan—from the notables and sheikhs, who use their influence to gain custom for the Jidda speculators in the pilgrim traffic, down to the cicerones, pilgrim brokers, lodging-house keepers, and mendicants at the holy places—being to pillage the visitor in every possible way. The fanaticism of the Meccan is an affair of the purse; the mongrel population (for the town is by no means purely Arab) has exchanged the virtues of the Bedouin for the worst corruptions of Eastern town life, without casting off the ferocity of the desert, and it is hardly possible to find a worse certificate of character than the three parallel gashes on each cheek, called Tashrīṭ, which are the customary mark of birth in the holy city. The unspeakable vices of Mecca are a scandal to all Islām, and a constant source of wonder to pious pilgrims.13 The slave trade has connexions with the pilgrimage which are not thoroughly clear; but under cover of the pilgrimage a great deal of importation and exportation of slaves goes on.

Since the fall of Ibn Zubair the political position of Mecca 952 has always been dependent on the movements of the greater Mahommedan world. In the splendid times of the caliphs immense sums were lavished upon the pilgrimage and the holy city; and conversely the decay of the central authority of Islām brought with it a long period of faction, wars and misery, in which the most notable episode was the sack of Mecca by the Carmathians at the pilgrimage season of A.D. 930. The victors carried off the “black stone,” which was not restored for twenty-two years, and then only for a great ransom, when it was plain that even the loss of its palladium could not destroy the sacred character of the city. Under the Fatimites Egyptian influence began to be strong in Mecca; it was opposed by the sultans of Yemen, while native princes claiming descent from the Prophet—the Hāshimite amīrs of Mecca, and after them the amīrs of the house of Qatāda (since 1202)—attained to great authority and aimed at independence; but soon after the final fall of the Abbasids the Egyptian overlordship was definitely established by sultan Bībars (A.D. 1269). The Turkish conquest of Egypt transferred the supremacy to the Ottoman sultans (1517), who treated Mecca with much favour, and during the 16th century executed great works in the sanctuary and temple. The Ottoman power, however, became gradually almost nominal, and that of the amīrs or sherīfs increased in proportion, culminating under Ghālib, whose accession dates from 1786. Then followed the wars of the Wahhābīs (see Arabia and Wahhābīs) and the restoration of Turkish rule by the troops of Mehemet ‘Ali. By him the dignity of sherīf was deprived of much of its weight, and in 1827 a change of dynasty was effected by the appointment of Ibn ‘Aun. Afterwards Turkish authority again decayed. Mecca is, however, officially the capital of a Turkish province, and has a governor-general and a Turkish garrison, while Mahommedan law is administered by a judge sent from Constantinople. But the real sovereign of Mecca and the Hejāz is the sherīf, who, as head of a princely family claiming descent from the Prophet, holds a sort of feudal position. The dignity of sherīf (or grand sherīf, as Europeans usually say for the sake of distinction, since all the kin of the princely houses reckoning descent from the Prophet are also named sherīfs), although by no means a religious pontificate, is highly respected owing to its traditional descent in the line of Hasan, son of the fourth caliph ‘Ali. From a political point of view the sherīf is the modern counterpart of the ancient amīrs of Mecca, who were named in the public prayers immediately after the reigning caliph. When the great Mahommedan sultanates had become too much occupied in internecine wars to maintain order in the distant Hejāz, those branches of the Hassanids which from the beginning of Islam had retained rural property in Arabia usurped power in the holy cities and the adjacent Bedouin territories. About A.D. 960 they established a sort of kingdom with Mecca as capital. The influence of the princes of Mecca has varied from time to time, according to the strength of the foreign protectorate in the Hejāz or in consequence of feuds among the branches of the house; until about 1882 it was for most purposes much greater than that of the Turks. The latter were strong enough to hold the garrisoned towns, and thus the sultan was able within certain limits—playing off one against the other the two rival branches of the aristocracy, viz. the kin of Ghālib and the house of Ibn‘Aun—to assert the right of designating or removing the sherīf, to whom in turn he owed the possibility of maintaining, with the aid of considerable pensions, the semblance of his much-prized lordship over the holy cities. The grand sherīf can muster a considerable force of freedmen and clients, and his kin, holding wells and lands in various places through the Hejāz, act as his deputies and administer the old Arabic customary law to the Bedouin. To this influence the Hejāz owes what little of law and order it enjoys. During the last quarter of the 19th century Turkish influence became preponderant in western Arabia, and the railway from Syria to the Hejāz tended to consolidate the sultan’s supremacy. After the sherīfs, the principal family of Mecca is the house of Shaibah, which holds the hereditary custodianship of the Ka‘ba.

The Great Mosque and the Ka‘ba.—Long before Mahomet the chief sanctuary of Mecca was the Ka‘ba, a rude stone building without windows, and having a door 7 ft. from the ground; and so named from its resemblance to a monstrous astragalus (die) of about 40 ft. cube, though the shapeless structure is not really an exact cube nor even exactly rectangular.14 The Ka‘ba has been rebuilt more than once since Mahomet purged it of idols and adopted it as the chief sanctuary of Islām, but the old form has been preserved, except in secondary details;15 so that the “Ancient House,” as it is titled, is still essentially a heathen temple, adapted to the worship of Islām by the clumsy fiction that it was built by Abraham and Ishmael by divine revelation as a temple of pure monotheism, and that it was only temporarily perverted to idol worship from the time when ‘Amr ibn Lohai introduced the statue of Hobal from Syria16 till the victory of Islam. This fiction has involved the superinduction of a new mythology over the old heathen ritual, which remains practically unchanged. Thus the chief object of veneration is the black stone, which is fixed in the external angle facing Safā. The building is not exactly oriented, but it may be called the south-east corner. Its technical name is the black corner, the others being named the Yemen (south-west), Syrian (north-west), and Irāk (north-east) corners, from the lands to which they approximately point. The black stone is a small dark mass a span long, with an aspect suggesting volcanic or meteoric origin, fixed at such a height that it can be conveniently kissed by a person of middle size. It was broken by fire in the siege of A.D. 683 (not, as many authors relate, by the Carmathians), and the pieces are kept together by a silver setting. The history of this heavenly stone, given by Gabriel to Abraham, does not conceal the fact that it was originally a fetish, the most venerated of a multitude of idols and sacred stones which stood all round the sanctuary in the time of Mahomet. The Prophet destroyed the idols, but he left the characteristic form of worship—the ṭawāf, or sevenfold circuit of the sanctuary, the worshipper kissing or touching the objects of his veneration—and besides the black stone he recognized the so-called “southern” stone, the same presumably as that which is still touched in the ṭawāf at the Yemen corner (Muh. in Med. pp. 336, 425). The ceremony of the ṭawāf and the worship of stone fetishes was common to Mecca with other ancient Arabian sanctuaries.17 It was, as it still is, a frequent religious exercise of the Meccans, and the first duty of one who returned to the city or arrived there under a vow of pilgrimage; and thus the outside of the Ka‘ba was and is more important than the inside. Islām did away with the worship of idols; what was lost in interest by their suppression 953 has been supplied by the invention of spots consecrated by recollections of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar, or held to be acceptable places of prayer. Thus the space of ten spans between the black stone and the door, which is on the east side, between the black and Irāk corners, and a man’s height from the ground, is called the Multazam, and here prayer should be offered after the ṭawāf with outstretched arms and breast pressed against the house. On the other side of the door, against the same wall, is a shallow trough, which is said to mark the original site of the stone on which Abraham stood to build the Ka‘ba. Here the growth of the legend can be traced, for the place is now called the “kneading-place” (Ma‘jan), where the cement for the Ka‘ba was prepared. This name and story do not appear in the older accounts. Once more, on the north side of the Ka‘ba, there projects a low semicircular wall of marble, with an opening at each end between it and the walls of the house. The space within is paved with mosaic, and is called the Ḥijr. It is included in the ṭawāf, and two slabs of verde antico within it are called the graves of Ishmael and Hagar, and are places of acceptable prayer. Even the golden or gilded mīzāb (water-spout) that projects into the Ḥijr marks a place where prayer is heard, and another such place is the part of the west wall close to the Yemen corner.

The feeling of religious conservatism which has preserved the structural rudeness of the Ka‘ba did not prohibit costly surface decoration. In Mahomet’s time the outer walls were covered by a veil (or kiswa) of striped Yemen cloth. The caliphs substituted a covering of figured brocade, and the Egyptian government still sends with each pilgrim caravan from Cairo a new kiswa of black brocade, adorned with a broad band embroidered with golden inscriptions from the Korān, as well as a richer curtain for the door.18 The door of two leaves, with its posts and lintel, is of silver gilt.

The interior of the Ka‘ba is now opened but a few times every year for the general public, which ascends by the portable staircase brought forward for the purpose. Foreigners can obtain admission at any time for a special fee. The modern descriptions, from observations made under difficulties, are not very complete. Little change, however, seems to have been made since the time of Ibn Jubair, who describes the floor and walls as overlaid with richly variegated marbles, and the upper half of the walls as plated with silver thickly gilt, while the roof was veiled with coloured silk. Modern writers describe the place as windowless, but Ibn Jubair mentions five windows of rich stained glass from Irāk. Between the three pillars of teak hung thirteen silver lamps. A chest in the corner to the left of one entering contained Korans, and at the Irāk corner a space was cut off enclosing the stair that leads to the roof. The door to this stair (called the door of mercy—Bāb el-Raḥma) was plated with silver by the caliph Motawakkil. Here, in the time of Ibn Jubair, the Maqām or standing stone of Abraham was usually placed for better security, but brought out on great occasions.19

The houses of ancient Mecca pressed close upon the Ka‘ba, the noblest families, who traced their descent from Ḳoṣai, the reputed founder of the city, having their dwellings immediately round the sanctuary. To the north of the Ka‘ba was the Dār el-Nadwa, or place of assembly of the Koreish. The multiplication of pilgrims after Islām soon made it necessary to clear away the nearest dwellings and enlarge the place of prayer around the Ancient House. Omar, Othmān and Ibn Jubair had all a share in this work, but the great founder of the mosque in its present form, with its spacious area and deep colonnades, was the caliph Mahdī, who spent enormous sums in bringing costly pillars from Egypt and Syria. The work was still incomplete at his death in A.D. 785, and was finished in less sumptuous style by his successor. Subsequent repairs and additions, extending down to Turkish times, have left little of Mahdī’s work untouched, though a few of the pillars probably date from his days. There are more than five hundred pillars in all, of very various style and workmanship, and the enclosure—250 paces in length and 200 in breadth, according to Burckhardt’s measurement—is entered by nineteen archways irregularly disposed.

After the Ka‘ba the principal points of interest in the mosque are the well Zamzam and the Maqām Ibrāhīm. The former is a deep shaft enclosed in a massive vaulted building paved with marble, and, according to Mahommedan tradition, is the source (corresponding to the Beer-lahai-roi of Gen. xvi. 14) from which Hagar drew water for her son Ishmael. The legend tells that the well was long covered up and rediscovered by ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib, the grandfather of the Prophet. Sacred wells are familiar features of Semitic sanctuaries, and Islām, retaining the well, made a quasi-biblical story for it, and endowed its tepid waters with miraculous curative virtues. They are eagerly drunk by the pilgrims, or when poured over the body are held to give a miraculous refreshment after the fatigues of religious exercise; and the manufacture of bottles or jars for carrying the water to distant countries is quite a trade. Ibn Jubair mentions a curious superstition of the Meccans, who believed that the water rose in the shaft at the full moon of the month Shaban. On this occasion a great crowd, especially of young people, thronged round the well with shouts of religious enthusiasm, while the servants of the well dashed buckets of water over their heads. The Maqām of Abraham is also connected with a relic of heathenism, the ancient holy stone which once stood on the Ma‘jan, and is said to bear the prints of the patriarch’s feet. The whole legend of this stone, which is full of miraculous incidents, seems to have arisen from a misconception, the Maqām Ibrāhīm in the Korān meaning the sanctuary itself; but the stone, which is a block about 3 spans in height and 2 in breadth, and in shape “like a potter’s furnace” (Ibn Jubair), is certainly very ancient. No one is now allowed to see it, though the box in which it lies can be seen or touched through a grating in the little chapel that surrounds it. In the middle ages it was sometimes shown, and Ibn Jubair describes the pious enthusiasm with which he drank Zamzam water poured on the footprints. It was covered with inscriptions in an unknown character, one of which was copied by Fākihī in his history of Mecca. To judge by the facsimile in Dozy’s Israeliten te Mekka, the character is probably essentially one with that of the Syrian Safā inscriptions, which extended through the Nejd and into the Ḥejāz.20

MECHANICS. The subject of mechanics may be divided into two parts: (1) theoretical or abstract mechanics, and (2) applied mechanics.

1. Theoretical Mechanics

Historically theoretical mechanics began with the study of practical contrivances such as the lever, and the name mechanics (Gr. τὰ μηχανικά), which might more properly be restricted to the theory of mechanisms, and which was indeed used in this narrower sense by Newton, has clung to it, although the subject has long attained a far wider scope. In recent times it has been proposed to adopt the term dynamics (from Gr. δύναμις force,) as including the whole science of the action of force on bodies, whether at rest or in motion. The subject is usually expounded under the two divisions of statics and kinetics, the former dealing with the conditions of rest or equilibrium and the latter with the phenomena of motion as affected by force. To this latter division the old name of dynamics (in a restricted sense) is still often applied. The mere geometrical description and analysis of various types of motion, apart from the consideration of the forces concerned, belongs to kinematics. This is sometimes discussed as a separate theory, but for our present purposes it is more convenient to introduce kinematical motions as they are required. We follow also the traditional practice of dealing first with statics and then with kinetics. This is, in the main, the historical order of development, and for purposes of exposition it has many advantages. The laws of equilibrium are, it is true, necessarily included as a particular case under those of motion; but there is no real inconvenience in formulating as the basis of statics a few provisional postulates which are afterwards seen to be comprehended in a more general scheme.

The whole subject rests ultimately on the Newtonian laws of motion and on some natural extensions of them. As these laws are discussed under a separate heading (Motion, Laws of), it is here only necessary to indicate the standpoint from which the present article is written. It is a purely empirical one. Guided by experience, we are able to frame rules which enable us to say with more or less accuracy what will be the consequences, or what were the antecedents, of a given state of things. These rules are sometimes dignified by the name of “laws of nature,” but they have relation to our present state of knowledge and to the degree of skill with which we have succeeded in giving more or less compact expression to it. They are therefore liable to be modified from time to time, or to be superseded by more convenient or more comprehensive modes of statement. Again, we do not aim at anything so hopeless, or indeed so useless, as a complete description of any phenomenon. Some features are naturally more important or more interesting to us than others; by their relative simplicity and evident constancy they have the first hold on our attention, whilst those which are apparently accidental and vary from one occasion to another arc ignored, or postponed for later examination. It follows that for the purposes of such description as is possible some process of abstraction is inevitable if our statements are to be simple and definite. Thus in studying the flight of a stone through the air we replace the body in imagination by a mathematical point endowed with a mass-coefficient. The size and shape, the complicated spinning motion which it is seen to execute, the internal strains and vibrations which doubtless take place, are all sacrificed in the mental picture in order that attention may be concentrated on those features of the phenomenon which are in the first place most interesting to us. At a later stage in our subject the conception of the ideal rigid body is introduced; this enables us to fill in some details which were previously wanting, but others are still omitted. Again, the conception of a force as concentrated in a mathematical line is as unreal as that of a mass concentrated in a point, but it is a convenient fiction for our purpose, owing to the simplicity which it lends to our statements.

The laws which are to be imposed on these ideal representations are in the first instance largely at our choice. Any scheme of abstract dynamics constructed in this way, provided it be self-consistent, is mathematically legitimate; but from the physical point of view we require that it should help us to picture the sequence of phenomena as they actually occur. Its success or failure in this respect can only be judged a posteriori by comparison of the results to which it leads with the facts. It is to be noticed, moreover, that all available tests apply only to the scheme as a whole; owing to the complexity of phenomena we cannot submit any one of its postulates to verification apart from the rest.

It is from this point of view that the question of relativity of motion, which is often felt to be a stumbling-block on the very threshold of the subject, is to be judged. By “motion” we mean of necessity motion relative to some frame of reference which is conventionally spoken of as “fixed.” In the earlier stages of our subject this may be any rigid, or apparently rigid, structure fixed relatively to the earth. If we meet with phenomena which do not fit easily into this view, we have the alternatives either to modify our assumed laws of motion, or to call to our aid adventitious forces, or to examine whether the discrepancy can be reconciled by the simpler expedient of a new basis of reference. It is hardly necessary to say that the latter procedure has hitherto been found to be adequate. As a first step we adopt a system of rectangular axes whose origin is fixed in the earth, but whose directions are fixed by relation to the stars; in the planetary theory the origin is transferred to the sun, and afterwards to the mass-centre of the solar system; and so on. At each step there is a gain in accuracy and comprehensiveness; and the conviction is cherished that some system of rectangular axes exists with respect to which the Newtonian scheme holds with all imaginable accuracy.

A similar account might be given of the conception of time as a measurable quantity, but the remarks which it is necessary to make under this head will find a place later.

956

Part I.—Statics

§ 1. Statics of a Particle.—By a particle is meant a body whose position can for the purpose in hand be sufficiently specified by a mathematical point. It need not be “infinitely small,” or even small compared with ordinary standards; thus in astronomy such vast bodies as the sun, the earth, and the other planets can for many purposes be treated merely as points endowed with mass.

A force is conceived as an effort having a certain direction and a certain magnitude. It is therefore adequately represented, for mathematical purposes, by a straight line AB drawn in the direction in question, of length proportional (on any convenient scale) to the magnitude of the force. In other words, a force is mathematically of the nature of a “vector” (see Vector Analysis, Quaternions). In most questions of pure statics we are concerned only with the ratios of the various forces which enter into the problem, so that it is indifferent what unit of force is adopted. For many purposes a gravitational system of measurement is most natural; thus we speak of a force of so many pounds or so many kilogrammes. The “absolute” system of measurement will be referred to below in Part II., Kinetics. It is to be remembered that all “force” is of the nature of a push or a pull, and that according to the accepted terminology of modern mechanics such phrases as “force of inertia,” “accelerating force,” “moving force,” once classical, are proscribed. This rigorous limitation of the meaning of the word is of comparatively recent origin, and it is perhaps to be regretted that some more technical term has not been devised, but the convention must now be regarded as established.

Fig. 1.

The fundamental postulate of this part of our subject is that the two forces acting on a particle may be compounded by the “parallelogram rule.” Thus, if the two forces P,Q be represented by the lines OA, OB, they can be replaced by a single force R represented by the diagonal OC of the parallelogram determined by OA, OB. This is of course a physical assumption whose propriety is justified solely by experience. We shall see later that it is implied in Newton’s statement of his Second Law of motion. In modern language, forces are compounded by “vector-addition”; thus, if we draw in succession vectors HK>, KL> to represent P, Q, the force R is represented by the vector HL> which is the “geometric sum” of HK>, KL>.

By successive applications of the above rule any number of forces acting on a particle may be replaced by a single force which is the vector-sum of the given forces: this single force is called the resultant. Thus if AB>, BC>, CD> ..., HK> be vectors representing the given forces, the resultant will be given by AK>. It will be understood that the figure ABCD ... K need not be confined to one plane.

Fig. 2.

If, in particular, the point K coincides with A, so that the resultant vanishes, the given system of forces is said to be in equilibrium—i.e. the particle could remain permanently at rest under its action. This is the proposition known as the polygon of forces. In the particular case of three forces it reduces to the triangle of forces, viz. “If three forces acting on a particle are represented as to magnitude and direction by the sides of a triangle taken in order, they are in equilibrium.”

A sort of converse proposition is frequently useful, viz. if three forces acting on a particle be in equilibrium, and any triangle be constructed whose sides are respectively parallel to the forces, the magnitudes of the forces will be to one another as the corresponding sides of the triangle. This follows from the fact that all such triangles are necessarily similar.

Fig. 3.

Just as two or more forces can be combined into a single resultant, so a single force may be resolved into components 957 acting in assigned directions. Thus a force can be uniquely resolved into two components acting in two assigned directions in the same plane with it by an inversion of the parallelogram construction of fig. 1. If, as is usually most convenient, the two assigned directions are at right angles, the two components of a force P will be P cos θ, P sin θ, where θ is the inclination of P to the direction of the former component. This leads to formulae for the analytical reduction of a system of coplanar forces acting on a particle. Adopting rectangular axes Ox, Oy, in the plane of the forces, and distinguishing the various forces of the system by suffixes, we can replace the system by two forces X, Y, in the direction of co-ordinate axes; viz.—

X = P1 cos θ1 + P2 cos θ2 + ... = Σ (P cos θ),
Y = P1 sin θ1 + P2 sin θ2 + ... = Σ (P sin θ).

These two forces X, Y, may be combined into a single resultant R making an angle φ with Ox, provided

X = R cos φ,   Y = R sin φ,

whence

R2 = X2 + Y2, tan φ = Y/X.

For equilibrium we must have R = 0, which requires X = 0, Y = 0; in words, the sum of the components of the system must be zero for each of two perpendicular directions in the plane.

Fig. 5.

A similar procedure applies to a three-dimensional system. Thus if, O being the origin, OH> represent any force P of the system, the planes drawn through H parallel to the co-ordinate planes will enclose with the latter a parallelepiped, and it is evident that OH> is the geometric sum of OA>, AN>, NH>, or OA>, OB>, OC>, in the figure. Hence P is equivalent to three forces Pl, Pm, Pn acting along Ox, Oy, Oz, respectively, where l, m, n, are the “direction-ratios” of OH>. The whole system can be reduced in this way to three forces

X = Σ (Pl),   Y = Σ (Pm),   Z = Σ (Pn),

acting along the co-ordinate axes. These can again be combined into a single resultant R acting in the direction (λ, μ, ν), provided

X = Rλ,   Y = Rμ,   Z = Rν.

If the axes are rectangular, the direction-ratios become direction-cosines, so that λ2 + μ2 + ν2 = 1, whence

R2 = X2 + Y2 + Z2.

The conditions of equilibrium are X = 0, Y = 0, Z = 0.

§ 2. Statics of a System of Particles.—We assume that the mutual forces between the pairs of particles, whatever their nature, are subject to the “Law of Action and Reaction” (Newton’s Third Law); i.e. the force exerted by a particle A on a particle B, and the force exerted by B on A, are equal and opposite in the line AB. The problem of determining the possible configurations of equilibrium of a system of particles subject to extraneous forces which are known functions of the positions of the particles, and to internal forces which are known functions of the distances of the pairs of particles between which they act, is in general determinate. For if n be the number of particles, the 3n conditions of equilibrium (three for each particle) are equal in number to the 3n Cartesian (or other) co-ordinates of the particles, which are to be found. If the system be subject to frictionless constraints, e.g. if some of the particles be constrained to lie on smooth surfaces, or if pairs of particles be connected by inextensible strings, then for each geometrical relation thus introduced we have an unknown reaction (e.g. the pressure of the smooth surface, or the tension of the string), so that the problem is still determinate.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

§ 3. Plane Kinematics of a Rigid Body.—The ideal rigid body is one in which the distance between any two points is invariable. For the present we confine ourselves to the consideration of displacements in two dimensions, so that the body is adequately represented by a thin lamina or plate.

Fig. 9.

The position of a lamina movable in its own plane is determinate when we know the positions of any two points A, B of it. Since the four co-ordinates (Cartesian or other) of these two points are connected by the relation which expresses the invariability of the length AB, it is plain that virtually three independent elements are required and suffice to specify the position of the lamina. For instance, the lamina may in general be fixed by connecting any three points of it by rigid links to three fixed points in its plane. The three independent elements may be chosen in a variety of ways (e.g. they may be the lengths 958 of the three links in the above example). They may be called (in a generalized sense) the co-ordinates of the lamina. The lamina when perfectly free to move in its own plane is said to have three degrees of freedom.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

By a theorem due to M. Chasles any displacement whatever of the lamina in its own plane is equivalent to a rotation about some finite or infinitely distant point J. For suppose that in consequence of the displacement a point of the lamina is brought from A to B, whilst the point of the lamina which was originally at B is brought to C. Since AB, BC, are two different positions of the same line in the lamina they are equal, and it is evident that the rotation could have been effected by a rotation about J, the centre of the circle ABC, through an angle AJB. As a special case the three points A, B, C may be in a straight line; J is then at infinity and the displacement is equivalent to a pure translation, since every point of the lamina is now displaced parallel to AB through a space equal to AB.

Next, consider any continuous motion of the lamina. The latter may be brought from any one of its positions to a neighbouring one by a rotation about the proper centre. The limiting position J of this centre, when the two positions are taken infinitely close to one another, is called the instantaneous centre. If P, P′ be consecutive positions of the same point, and δθ the corresponding angle of rotation, then ultimately PP′ is at right angles to JP and equal to JP·δθ. The instantaneous centre will have a certain locus in space, and a certain locus in the lamina. These two loci are called pole-curves or centrodes, and are sometimes distinguished as the space-centrode and the body-centrode, respectively. In the continuous motion in question the latter curve rolls without slipping on the former (M. Chasles). Consider in fact any series of successive positions 1, 2, 3... of the lamina (fig. 11); and let J12, J23, J34... be the positions in space of the centres of the rotations by which the lamina can be brought from the first position to the second, from the second to the third, and so on. Further, in the position 1, let J12, J′23, J′34 ... be the points of the lamina which have become the successive centres of rotation. The given series of positions will be assumed in succession if we imagine the lamina to rotate first about J12 until J′23 comes into coincidence with J23, then about J23 until J′34 comes into coincidence with J34, and so on. This is equivalent to imagining the polygon J12 J′23 J′34 ..., supposed fixed in the lamina, to roll on the polygon J12 J23 J34 ..., which is supposed fixed in space. By imagining the successive positions to be taken infinitely close to one another we derive the theorem stated. The particular case where both centrodes are circles is specially important in mechanism.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13.

The matter may of course be treated analytically, but we shall only require the formula for infinitely small displacements. If the origin of rectangular axes fixed in the lamina be shifted through a space whose projections on the original directions of the axes are λ, μ, and if the axes are simultaneously turned through an angle ε, the co-ordinates of a point of the lamina, relative to the original axes, are changed from x, y to λ + x cos ε − y sin ε, μ + x sin ε + y cos ε, or λ + x − yε, μ + xε + y, ultimately. Hence the component displacements are ultimately

δx = λ − yε, δy = μ + xε

If we equate these to zero we get the co-ordinates of the instantaneous centre.

§ 4. Plane Statics.—The statics of a rigid body rests on the following two assumptions:—

(i) A force may be supposed to be applied indifferently at any point in its line of action. In other words, a force is of the nature of a “bound” or “localized” vector; it is regarded as resident in a certain line, but has no special reference to any particular point of the line.

(ii) Two forces in intersecting lines may be replaced by a force which is their geometric sum, acting through the intersection. The theory of parallel forces is included as a limiting case. For if O, A, B be any three points, and m, n any scalar quantities, we have in vectors

m · OA> + n · OB> = (m + n) OC>,

provided

m · CA> + n · CB> = 0.

Hence if forces P, Q act in OA, OB, the resultant R will pass through C, provided

m = P/OA, n = Q/OB;

also

R = P·OC/OA + Q·OC/OB,

and

P · AC : Q·CB = OA : OB.

These formulae give a means of constructing the resultant by means of any transversal AB cutting the lines of action. If we now imagine the point O to recede to infinity, the forces P, Q and the resultant R are parallel, and we have

R = P + Q,   P·AC = Q·CB.

Fig. 14.

When P, Q have opposite signs the point C divides AB externally on the side of the greater force. The investigation fails when P + Q = 0, since it leads to an infinitely small resultant acting in an infinitely distant line. A combination of two equal, parallel, but oppositely directed forces cannot in fact be replaced by anything simpler, and must therefore be recognized as an independent entity in statics. It was called by L. Poinsot, who first systematically investigated its properties, a couple.

We now restrict ourselves for the present to the systems of forces in one plane. By successive applications of (ii) any 959 such coplanar system can in general be reduced to a single resultant acting in a definite line. As exceptional cases the system may reduce to a couple, or it may be in equilibrium.

Fig. 15.

Fig. 16.

The moment of a force about a point O is the product of the force into the perpendicular drawn to its line of action from O, this perpendicular being reckoned positive or negative according as O lies on one side or other of the line of action. If we mark off a segment AB along the line of action so as to represent the force completely, the moment is represented as to magnitude by twice the area of the triangle OAB, and the usual convention as to sign is that the area is to be reckoned positive or negative according as the letters O, A, B, occur in “counter-clockwise” or “clockwise” order.

The sum of the moments of two forces about any point O is equal to the moment of their resultant (P. Varignon, 1687). Let AB, AC (fig. 16) represent the two forces, AD their resultant; we have to prove that the sum of the triangles OAB, OAC is equal to the triangle OAD, regard being had to signs. Since the side OA is common, we have to prove that the sum of the perpendiculars from B and C on OA is equal to the perpendicular from D on OA, these perpendiculars being reckoned positive or negative according as they lie to the right or left of AO. Regarded as a statement concerning the orthogonal projections of the vectors AB> and AC> (or BD), and of their sum AD>, on a line perpendicular to AO, this is obvious.

It is now evident that in the process of reduction of a coplanar system no change is made at any stage either in the sum of the projections of the forces on any line or in the sum of their moments about any point. It follows that the single resultant to which the system in general reduces is uniquely determinate, i.e. it acts in a definite line and has a definite magnitude and sense. Again it is necessary and sufficient for equilibrium that the sum of the projections of the forces on each of two perpendicular directions should vanish, and (moreover) that the sum of the moments about some one point should be zero. The fact that three independent conditions must hold for equilibrium is important. The conditions may of course be expressed in different (but equivalent) forms; e.g. the sum of the moments of the forces about each of the three points which are not collinear must be zero.

Fig. 17.

The particular case of three forces is of interest. If they are not all parallel they must be concurrent, and their vector-sum must be zero. Thus three forces acting perpendicular to the sides of a triangle at the middle points will be in equilibrium provided they are proportional to the respective sides, and act all inwards or all outwards. This result is easily extended to the case of a polygon of any number of sides; it has an important application in hydrostatics.

Fig. 18.

Just as a system of forces is in general equivalent to a single force, so a given force can conversely be replaced by combinations of other forces, in various ways. For instance, a given force (and consequently a system of forces) can be replaced in one and only one way by three forces acting in three assigned straight lines, provided these lines be not concurrent or parallel. Thus if the three lines form a triangle ABC, and if the given force F meet BC in H, then F can be resolved into two components acting in HA, BC, respectively. And the force in HA can be resolved into two components acting in BC, CA, respectively. A simple graphical construction is indicated in fig. 19, where the dotted lines are parallel. As an example, any system of forces acting on the lamina in fig. 9 is balanced by three determinate tensions (or thrusts) in the three links, provided the directions of the latter are not concurrent.

Fig. 19.

Fig. 20.

The sum of the moments of the two forces of a couple is the same about any point in the plane. Thus in the figure the sum of the moments about O is P·OA − P·OB or P·AB, which is independent of the position of O. This sum is called the moment of the couple; it must of course have the proper sign attributed to it. It easily follows that any two couples of the same moment are equivalent, and that any number of couples can be replaced by a single couple whose moment is the sum of their moments. Since a couple is for our purposes sufficiently represented by its moment, it has been proposed to substitute the name torque (or twisting effort), as free from the suggestion of any special pair of forces.

A system of forces represented completely by the sides of a plane polygon taken in order is equivalent to a couple whose 960 moment is represented by twice the area of the polygon; this is proved by taking moments about any point. If the polygon intersects itself, care must be taken to attribute to the different parts of the area their proper signs.

Fig. 21.

Again, any coplanar system of forces can be replaced by a single force R acting at any assigned point O, together with a couple G. The force R is the geometric sum of the given forces, and the moment (G) of the couple is equal to the sum of the moments of the given forces about O. The value of G will in general vary with the position of O, and will vanish when O lies on the line of action of the single resultant.

Fig. 22.

The formal analytical reduction of a system of coplanar forces is as follows. Let (x1, y1), (x2, y2), ... be the rectangular co-ordinates of any points A1, A2, ... on the lines of action of the respective forces. The force at A1 may be replaced by its components X1, Y1, parallel to the co-ordinate axes; that at A2 by its components X2, Y2, and so on. Introducing at O two equal and opposite forces ±X1 in Ox, we see that X1 at A1 may be replaced by an equal and parallel force at O together with a couple −y1X1. Similarly the force Y1 at A1 may be replaced by a force Y1 at O together with a couple x1Y1. The forces X1, Y1, at O can thus be transferred to O provided we introduce a couple x1Y1 − y1X1. Treating the remaining forces in the same way we get a force X1 + X2 + ... or Σ(X) along Ox, a force Y1 + Y2 + ... or Σ(Y) along Oy, and a couple (x1Y1 − y1X1) + (x2Y2 − y2X2) + ... or Σ(xY − yX). The three conditions of equilibrium are therefore

Σ(X) = 0,   Σ(Y) = 0,   Σ(xY − yX) = 0.

If O′ be a point whose co-ordinates are (ξ, η), the moment of the couple when the forces are transferred to O′ as a new origin will be Σ{(x − ξ) Y − (y − η) X}. This vanishes, i.e. the system reduces to a single resultant through O′, provided

−ξ·Σ(Y) + η·Σ(X) + Σ(xY − yX) = 0.

If ξ, η be regarded as current co-ordinates, this is the equation of the line of action of the single resultant to which the system is in general reducible.

If the forces are all parallel, making say an angle θ with Ox, we may write X1 = P1 cos θ, Y1 = P1 sin θ, X2 = P2 cos θ, Y2 = P2 sin θ, .... The equation (9) then becomes

{Σ(xP) − ξ·Σ(P)} sin θ − {Σ(yP) − η·Σ(P)} cos θ = 0.

If the forces P1, P2, ... be turned in the same sense through the same angle about the respective points A1, A2, ... so as to remain parallel, the value of θ is alone altered, and the resultant Σ(P) passes always through the point

which is determined solely by the configuration of the points A1, A2, ... and by the ratios P1 : P2 : ... of the forces acting at them respectively. This point is called the centre of the given system of parallel forces; it is finite and determinate unless Σ(P) = 0. A geometrical proof of this theorem, which is not restricted to a two-dimensional system, is given later (§ 11). It contains the theory of the centre of gravity as ordinarily understood. For if we have an assemblage of particles whose mutual distances are small compared with the dimensions of the earth, the forces of gravity on them constitute a system of sensibly parallel forces, sensibly proportional to the respective masses. If now the assemblage be brought into any other position relative to the earth, without alteration of the mutual distances, this is equivalent to a rotation of the directions of the forces relatively to the assemblage, the ratios of the forces remaining unaltered. Hence there is a certain point, fixed relatively to the assemblage, through which the resultant of gravitational action always passes; this resultant is moreover equal to the sum of the forces on the several particles.

Fig. 23.

The theorem that any coplanar system of forces can be reduced to a force acting through any assigned point, together with a couple, has an important illustration in the theory of the distribution of shearing stress and bending moment in a horizontal beam, or other structure, subject to vertical extraneous forces. If we consider any vertical section P, the forces exerted across the section by the portion of the structure on one side on the portion on the other may be reduced to a vertical force F at P and a couple M. The force measures the shearing stress, and the couple the bending moment at P; we will reckon these quantities positive when the senses are as indicated in the figure.

If the remaining forces acting on the portion of the structure on either side of P are known, then resolving vertically we find F, and taking moments about P we find M. Again if PQ be any segment of the beam which is free from load, Q lying to the right of P, we find

FP = FQ,   MP − MQ = −F·PQ;

(12)

hence F is constant between the loads, whilst M decreases as we travel to the right, with a constant gradient −F. If PQ be a short segment containing an isolated load W, we have

FQ − FP = −W, MQ = MP;

(13)

Fig. 24.

hence F is discontinuous at a concentrated load, diminishing by an amount equal to the load as we pass the loaded point to the right, whilst M is continuous. Accordingly the graph of F for any system of isolated loads will consist of a series of horizontal lines, whilst that of M will be a continuous polygon.

To pass to the case of continuous loads, let x be measured horizontally along the beam to the right. The load on an element δx of the beam may be represented by wδx, where w is in general a function of x. The equations (12) are now replaced by

δF = −wδx,   δM = −Fδx,

whence

FQ − FP = − ∫QP w dx,   MQ − MP = − ∫QP F dx.

(14)

Fig. 25.

The latter relation shows that the bending moment varies as the area cut off by the ordinate in the graph of F. In the case of uniform load we have

F = −wx + A,   M = 1⁄2wx2 − Ax + B,

(15)

where the arbitrary constants A,B are to be determined by the conditions of the special problem, e.g. the conditions at the ends of the beam. The graph of F is a straight line; that of M is a parabola with vertical axis. In all cases the graphs due to different distributions of load may be superposed. The figure shows the case of a uniform heavy beam supported at its ends.

Fig. 26.

§ 5. Graphical Statics.—A graphical method of reducing a plane system of forces was introduced by C. Culmann (1864). It involves the construction of two figures, a force-diagram and a funicular polygon. The force-diagram is constructed by placing end to end a series of vectors representing the given forces in 961 magnitude and direction, and joining the vertices of the polygon thus formed to an arbitrary pole O. The funicular or link polygon has its vertices on the lines of action of the given forces, and its sides respectively parallel to the lines drawn from O in the force-diagram; in particular, the two sides meeting in any vertex are respectively parallel to the lines drawn from O to the ends of that side of the force-polygon which represents the corresponding force. The relations will be understood from the annexed diagram, where corresponding lines in the force-diagram (to the right) and the funicular (to the left) are numbered similarly. The sides of the force-polygon may in the first instance be arranged in any order; the force-diagram can then be completed in a doubly infinite number of ways, owing to the arbitrary position of O; and for each force-diagram a simply infinite number of funiculars can be drawn. The two diagrams being supposed constructed, it is seen that each of the given systems of forces can be replaced by two components acting in the sides of the funicular which meet at the corresponding vertex, and that the magnitudes of these components will be given by the corresponding triangle of forces in the force-diagram; thus the force 1 in the figure is equivalent to two forces represented by 01 and 12. When this process of replacement is complete, each terminated side of the funicular is the seat of two forces which neutralize one another, and there remain only two uncompensated forces, viz., those resident in the first and last sides of the funicular. If these sides intersect, the resultant acts through the intersection, and its magnitude and direction are given by the line joining the first and last sides of the force-polygon (see fig. 26, where the resultant of the four given forces is denoted by R). As a special case it may happen that the force-polygon is closed, i.e. its first and last points coincide; the first and last sides of the funicular will then be parallel (unless they coincide), and the two uncompensated forces form a couple. If, however, the first and last sides of the funicular coincide, the two outstanding forces neutralize one another, and we have equilibrium. Hence the necessary and sufficient conditions of equilibrium are that the force-polygon and the funicular should both be closed. This is illustrated by fig. 26 if we imagine the force R, reversed, to be included in the system of given forces.

It is evident that a system of jointed bars having the shape of the funicular polygon would be in equilibrium under the action of the given forces, supposed applied to the joints; moreover any bar in which the stress is of the nature of a tension (as distinguished from a thrust) might be replaced by a string. This is the origin of the names “link-polygon” and “funicular” (cf. § 2).

If funiculars be drawn for two positions O, O′ of the pole in the force-diagram, their corresponding sides will intersect on a straight line parallel to OO′. This is essentially a theorem of projective geometry, but the following statical proof is interesting. Let AB (fig. 27) be any side of the force-polygon, and construct the corresponding portions of the two diagrams, first with O and then with O′ as pole. The force corresponding to AB may be replaced by the two components marked x, y; and a force corresponding to BA may be represented by the two components marked x′, y′. Hence the forces x, y, x′, y′ are in equilibrium. Now x, x′ have a resultant through H, represented in magnitude and direction by OO′, whilst y, y′ have a resultant through K represented in magnitude and direction by O′O. Hence HK must be parallel to OO′. This theorem enables us, when one funicular has been drawn, to construct any other without further reference to the force-diagram.

Fig. 27.

The complete figures obtained by drawing first the force-diagrams of a system of forces in equilibrium with two distinct poles O, O′, and secondly the corresponding funiculars, have various interesting relations. In the first place, each of these figures may be conceived as an orthogonal projection of a closed plane-faced polyhedron. As regards the former figure this is evident at once; viz. the polyhedron consists of two pyramids with vertices represented by O, O′, and a common base whose perimeter is represented by the force-polygon (only one of these is shown in fig. 28). As regards the funicular diagram, let LM be the line on which the pairs of corresponding sides of the two polygons meet, and through it draw any two planes ω, ω′. Through the vertices A, B, C, ... and A′, B′, C′, ... of the two funiculars draw normals to the plane of the diagram, to meet ω and ω′ respectively. The points thus obtained are evidently the vertices of a polyhedron with plane faces.

Fig. 28.

Fig. 29.

To every line in either of the original figures corresponds of course a parallel line in the other; moreover, it is seen that concurrent lines in either figure correspond to lines forming a closed polygon in the other. Two plane figures so related are called reciprocal, since the properties of the first figure in relation to the second are the same as those of the second with respect to the first. A still simpler instance of reciprocal figures is supplied by the case of concurrent forces in equilibrium (fig. 29). The theory of these reciprocal figures was first studied by J. Clerk Maxwell, who showed amongst other things that a reciprocal can always be drawn to any figure which is the orthogonal projection of a plane-faced polyhedron. If in fact we take the pole of each face of such a polyhedron with respect to a paraboloid of revolution, these poles will be the vertices of a second polyhedron whose edges are the “conjugate lines” of those of the former. If we project both polyhedra orthogonally on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the paraboloid, we obtain two figures which are reciprocal, except that corresponding lines are orthogonal instead of parallel. Another proof will be indicated later (§ 8) in connexion with the properties of the linear complex. It is 962 convenient to have a notation which shall put in evidence the reciprocal character. For this purpose we may designate the points in one figure by letters A, B, C, ... and the corresponding polygons in the other figure by the same letters; a line joining two points A, B in one figure will then correspond to the side common to the two polygons A, B in the other. This notation was employed by R. H. Bow in connexion with the theory of frames (§ 6, and see also Applied Mechanics below) where reciprocal diagrams are frequently of use (cf. Diagram).

When the given forces are all parallel, the force-polygon consists of a series of segments of a straight line. This case has important practical applications; for instance we may use the method to find the pressures on the supports of a beam loaded in any given manner. Thus if AB, BC, CD represent the given loads, in the force-diagram, we construct the sides corresponding to OA, OB, OC, OD in the funicular; we then draw the closing line of the funicular polygon, and a parallel OE to it in the force diagram. The segments DE, EA then represent the upward pressures of the two supports on the beam, which pressures together with the given loads constitute a system of forces in equilibrium. The pressures of the beam on the supports are of course represented by ED, AE. The two diagrams are portions of reciprocal figures, so that Bow’s notation is applicable.

Fig. 30.

Fig. 31.

A graphical method can also be applied to find the moment of a force, or of a system of forces, about any assigned point P. Let F be a force represented by AB in the force-diagram. Draw a parallel through P to meet the sides of the funicular which correspond to OA, OB in the points H, K. If R be the intersection of these sides, the triangles OAB, RHK are similar, and if the perpendiculars OM, RN be drawn we have

HK·OM = AB·RN = F·RN,

which is the moment of F about P. If the given forces are all parallel (say vertical) OM is the same for all, and the moments of the several forces about P are represented on a certain scale by the lengths intercepted by the successive pairs of sides on the vertical through P. Moreover, the moments are compounded by adding (geometrically) the corresponding lengths HK. Hence if a system of vertical forces be in equilibrium, so that the funicular polygon is closed, the length which this polygon intercepts on the vertical through any point P gives the sum of the moments about P of all the forces on one side of this vertical. For instance, in the case of a beam in equilibrium under any given loads and the reactions at the supports, we get a graphical representation of the distribution of bending moment over the beam. The construction in fig. 30 can easily be adjusted so that the closing line shall be horizontal; and the figure then becomes identical with the bending-moment diagram of § 4. If we wish to study the effects of a movable load, or system of loads, in different positions on the beam, it is only necessary to shift the lines of action of the pressures of the supports relatively to the funicular, keeping them at the same, distance apart; the only change is then in the position of the closing line of the funicular. It may be remarked that since this line joins homologous points of two “similar” rows it will envelope a parabola.

The “centre” (§ 4) of a system of parallel forces of given magnitudes, acting at given points, is easily determined graphically. We have only to construct the line of action of the resultant for each of two arbitrary directions of the forces; the intersection of the two lines gives the point required. The construction is neatest if the two arbitrary directions are taken at right angles to one another.

§ 6. Theory of Frames.—A frame is a structure made up of pieces, or members, each of which has two joints connecting it with other members. In a two-dimensional frame, each joint may be conceived as consisting of a small cylindrical pin fitting accurately and smoothly into holes drilled through the members which it connects. This supposition is a somewhat ideal one, and is often only roughly approximated to in practice. We shall suppose, in the first instance, that extraneous forces act on the frame at the joints only, i.e. on the pins.

On this assumption, the reactions on any member at its two joints must be equal and opposite. This combination of equal and opposite forces is called the stress in the member; it may be a tension or a thrust. For diagrammatic purposes each member is sufficiently represented by a straight line terminating at the two joints; these lines will be referred to as the bars of the frame.

Fig. 32.

In structural applications a frame must be stiff, or rigid, i.e. it must be incapable of deformation without alteration of length in at least one of its bars. It is said to be just rigid if it ceases to be rigid when any one of its bars is removed. A frame which has more bars than are essential for rigidity may be called over-rigid; such a frame is in general self-stressed, i.e. it is in a state of stress independently of the action of extraneous forces. A plane frame of n joints which is just rigid (as regards deformation in its own plane) has 2n − 3 bars, for if one bar be held fixed the 2(n − 2) co-ordinates of the remaining n − 2 joints must just be determined by the lengths of the remaining bars. The total number of bars is therefore 2(n − 2) + 1. When a plane frame which is just rigid is subject to a given system of equilibrating extraneous forces (in its own plane) acting on the joints, the stresses in the bars are in general uniquely determinate. For the conditions of equilibrium of the forces on each pin furnish 2n equations, viz. two for each point, which are linear in respect of the stresses and the extraneous forces. This system of equations must involve the three conditions of equilibrium of the extraneous forces which are already identically satisfied, by hypothesis; there remain therefore 2n − 3 independent relations to determine the 2n − 3 unknown stresses. A frame of n joints and 2n − 3 bars may of course fail to be rigid owing to some parts being over-stiff whilst others are deformable; in such a case it will be found that the statical equations, apart from the three identical relations imposed by the equilibrium of the extraneous forces, are not all independent but are equivalent to less than 2n − 3 relations. Another exceptional case, known as the critical case, will be noticed later (§ 9).

A plane frame which can be built up from a single bar by successive steps, at each of which a new joint is introduced by two 963 new bars meeting there, is called a simple frame; it is obviously just rigid. The stresses produced by extraneous forces in a simple frame can be found by considering the equilibrium of the various joints in a proper succession; and if the graphical method be employed the various polygons of force can be combined into a single force-diagram. This procedure was introduced by W. J. M. Rankine and J. Clerk Maxwell (1864). It may be noticed that if we take an arbitrary pole in the force-diagram, and draw a corresponding funicular in the skeleton diagram which represents the frame together with the lines of action of the extraneous forces, we obtain two complete reciprocal figures, in Maxwell’s sense. It is accordingly convenient to use Bow’s notation (§ 5), and to distinguish the several compartments of the frame-diagram by letters. See fig. 33, where the successive triangles in the diagram of forces may be constructed in the order XYZ, ZXA, AZB. The class of “simple” frames includes many of the frameworks used in the construction of roofs, lattice girders and suspension bridges; a number of examples will be found in the article Bridges. By examining the senses in which the respective forces act at each joint we can ascertain which members are in tension and which are in thrust; in fig. 33 this is indicated by the directions of the arrowheads.

Fig. 33.

Fig. 34.

When a frame, though just rigid, is not “simple” in the above sense, the preceding method must be replaced, or supplemented, by one or other of various artifices. In some cases the method of sections is sufficient for the purpose. If an ideal section be drawn across the frame, the extraneous forces on either side must be in equilibrium with the forces in the bars cut across; and if the section can be drawn so as to cut only three bars, the forces in these can be found, since the problem reduces to that of resolving a given force into three components acting in three given lines (§ 4). The “critical case” where the directions of the three bars are concurrent is of course excluded. Another method, always available, will be explained under “Work” (§ 9).

Fig. 35.

§ 7. Three-dimensional Kinematics of a Rigid Body.—The position of a rigid body is determined when we know the positions of three points A, B, C of it which are not collinear, for the position of any other point P is then determined by the three distances PA, PB, PC. The nine co-ordinates (Cartesian or other) of A, B, C are subject to the three relations which express the invariability of the distances BC, CA, AB, and are therefore equivalent to six independent quantities. Hence a rigid body not constrained in any way is said to have six degrees of freedom. Conversely, any six geometrical relations restrict the body in general to one or other of a series of definite positions, none of which can be departed from without violating the conditions in question. For instance, the position of a theodolite is fixed by the fact that its rounded feet rest in contact with six given plane surfaces. Again, a rigid three-dimensional frame can be rigidly fixed relatively to the earth by means of six links.

Fig. 36.	Fig. 37.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 38.

Fig. 39.

We proceed to sketch the theory of the finite displacements of a rigid body. It was shown by Euler (1776) that any displacement 964 in which one point O of the body is fixed is equivalent to a pure rotation about some axis through O. Imagine two spheres of equal radius with O as their common centre, one fixed in the body and moving with it, the other fixed in space. In any displacement about O as a fixed point, the former sphere slides over the latter, as in a “ball-and-socket” joint. Suppose that as the result of the displacement a point of the moving sphere is brought from A to B, whilst the point which was at B is brought to C (cf. fig. 10). Let J be the pole of the circle ABC (usually a “small circle” of the fixed sphere), and join JA, JB, JC, AB, BC by great-circle arcs. The spherical isosceles triangles AJB, BJC are congruent, and we see that AB can be brought into the position BC by a rotation about the axis OJ through an angle AJB.

It is convenient to distinguish the two senses in which rotation may take place about an axis OA by opposite signs. We shall reckon a rotation as positive when it is related to the direction from O to A as the direction of rotation is related to that of translation in a right-handed screw. Thus a negative rotation about OA may be regarded as a positive rotation about OA′, the prolongation of AO. Now suppose that a body receives first a positive rotation α about OA, and secondly a positive rotation β about OB; and let A, B be the intersections of these axes with a sphere described about O as centre. If we construct the spherical triangles ABC, ABC′ (fig. 38), having in each case the angles at A and B equal to 1⁄2α and 1⁄2β respectively, it is evident that the first rotation will bring a point from C to C′ and that the second will bring it back to C; the result is therefore equivalent to a rotation about OC. We note also that if the given rotations had been effected in the inverse order, the axis of the resultant rotation would have been OC′, so that finite rotations do not obey the “commutative law.” To find the angle of the equivalent rotation, in the actual case, suppose that the second rotation (about OB) brings a point from A to A′. The spherical triangles ABC, A′BC (fig. 39) are “symmetrically equal,” and the angle of the resultant rotation, viz. ACA′, is 2π − 2C. This is equivalent to a negative rotation 2C about OC, whence the theorem that the effect of three successive positive rotations 2A, 2B, 2C about OA, OB, OC, respectively, is to leave the body in its original position, provided the circuit ABC is left-handed as seen from O. This theorem is due to O. Rodrigues (1840). The composition of finite rotations about parallel axes is a particular case of the preceding; the radius of the sphere is now infinite, and the triangles are plane.

In any continuous motion of a solid about a fixed point O, the limiting position of the axis of the rotation by which the body can be brought from any one of its positions to a consecutive one is called the instantaneous axis. This axis traces out a certain cone in the body, and a certain cone in space, and the continuous motion in question may be represented as consisting in a rolling of the former cone on the latter. The proof is similar to that of the corresponding theorem of plane kinematics (§ 3).

It follows from Euler’s theorem that the most general displacement of a rigid body may be effected by a pure translation which brings any one point of it to its final position O, followed by a pure rotation about some axis through O. Those planes in the body which are perpendicular to this axis obviously remain parallel to their original positions. Hence, if σ, σ′ denote the initial and final positions of any figure in one of these planes, the displacement could evidently have been effected by (1) a translation perpendicular to the planes in question, bringing σ into some position σ″ in the plane of σ′, and (2) a rotation about a normal to the planes, bringing σ″ into coincidence with σ (§ 3). In other words, the most general displacement is equivalent to a translation parallel to a certain axis combined with a rotation about that axis; i.e. it may be described as a twist about a certain screw. In particular cases, of course, the translation, or the rotation, may vanish.

Fig. 16.

In mechanics we are specially concerned with the theory of infinitesimal displacements. This is included in the preceding, but it is simpler in that the various operations are commutative. An infinitely small rotation about any axis is conveniently represented geometrically by a length AB measures along the axis and proportional to the angle of rotation, with the convention that the direction from A to B shall be related to the rotation as is the direction of translation to that of rotation in a right-handed screw. The consequent displacement of any point P will then be at right angles to the plane PAB, its amount will be represented by double the area of the triangle PAB, and its sense will depend on the cyclical order of the letters P, A, B. If AB, AC represent infinitesimal rotations about intersecting axes, the consequent displacement of any point O in the plane BAC will be at right angles to this plane, and will be represented by twice the sum of the areas OAB, OAC, taken with proper signs. It follows by analogy with the theory of moments (§ 4) that the resultant rotation will be represented by AD, the vector-sum of AB, AC (see fig. 16). It is easily inferred as a limiting case, or proved directly, that two infinitesimal rotations α, β about parallel axes are equivalent to a rotation α + β about a parallel axis in the same plane with the two former, and dividing a common perpendicular AB in a point C so that AC/CB = β/α. If the rotations are equal and opposite, so that α + β = 0, the point C is at infinity, and the effect is a translation perpendicular to the plane of the two given axes, of amount α·AB. It thus appears that an infinitesimal rotation is of the nature of a “localized vector,” and is subject in all respects to the same mathematical laws as a force, conceived as acting on a rigid body. Moreover, that an infinitesimal translation is analogous to a couple and follows the same laws. These results are due to Poinsot.

The analytical treatment of small displacements is as follows. We first suppose that one point O of the body is fixed, and take this as the origin of a “right-handed” system of rectangular 965 co-ordinates; i.e. the positive directions of the axes are assumed to be so arranged that a positive rotation of 90° about Ox would bring Oy into the position of Oz, and so on. The displacement will consist of an infinitesimal rotation ε about some axis through O, whose direction-cosines are, say, l, m, n. From the equivalence of a small rotation to a localized vector it follows that the rotation ε will be equivalent to rotations ξ, η, ζ about Ox, Oy, Oz, respectively, provided

ξ = lε,   η = mε,   ζ = nε,

and we note that

ξ2 + η2 + ζ2 = ε2.

Thus in the case of fig. 36 it may be required to connect the infinitesimal rotations ξ, η, ζ about OA, OB, OC with the variations of the angular co-ordinates θ, ψ, φ. The displacement of the point C of the body is made up of δθ tangential to the meridian ZC and sin θ δψ perpendicular to the plane of this meridian. Hence, resolving along the tangents to the arcs BC, CA, respectively, we have

ξ = δθ sin φ − sin θ δψ cos φ,   η = δθ cos φ + sin θ δψ sin φ.

(3)

Fig. 40.

Again, consider the point of the solid which was initially at A′ in the figure. This is displaced relatively to A′ through a space δψ perpendicular to the plane of the meridian, whilst A′ itself is displaced through a space cos θ δψ in the same direction. Hence

ζ = δφ + cos θ δψ.

(4)

To find the component displacements of a point P of the body, whose co-ordinates are x, y, z, we draw PL normal to the plane yOz, and LH, LK perpendicular to Oy, Oz, respectively. The displacement of P parallel to Ox is the same as that of L, which is made up of ηz and −ζy. In this way we obtain the formulae

δx = ηz − ζy,   δy = ζx − ξz,   δz = ξy − ηx.

The most general case is derived from this by adding the component displacements λ, μ, ν (say) of the point which was at O; thus

The displacement is thus expressed in terms of the six independent quantities ξ, η, ζ, λ, μ, ν. The points whose displacements are in the direction of the resultant axis of rotation are determined by δx : δy : δz = ξ : η : ζ, or

(λ + ηz − ζy)/ξ = (μ + ζx − ξz)/η = (ν + ξy − ηx)/ζ.

These are the equations of a straight line, and the displacement is in fact equivalent to a twist about a screw having this line as axis. The translation parallel to this axis is

lδx + mδy + nδz = (λξ + μη + νζ)/ε.

The linear magnitude which measures the ratio of translation to rotation in a screw is called the pitch. In the present case the pitch is

(λξ + μη + νζ) / (ξ2 + η2 + ζ2).

Since ξ2 + η2 + ζ2, or ε2, is necessarily an absolute invariant for all transformations of the (rectangular) co-ordinate axes, we infer that λξ + μη + νζ is also an absolute invariant. When the latter invariant, but not the former, vanishes, the displacement is equivalent to a pure rotation.

If the small displacements of a rigid body be subject to one constraint, e.g. if a point of the body be restricted to lie on a given surface, the mathematical expression of this fact leads to a homogeneous linear equation between the infinitesimals ξ, η, ζ, λ, μ, ν, say

Aξ + Bη + Cζ + Fλ + Gμ + Hν = 0.

(10)

The quantities ξ, η, ζ, λ, μ, ν are no longer independent, and the body has now only five degrees of freedom. Every additional constraint introduces an additional equation of the type (10) and reduces the number of degrees of freedom by one. In Sir R. S. Ball’s Theory of Screws an analysis is made of the possible displacements of a body which has respectively two, three, four, five degrees of freedom. We will briefly notice the case of two degrees, which involves an interesting generalization of the method (already explained) of compounding rotations about intersecting axes. We assume that the body receives arbitrary twists about two given screws, and it is required to determine the character of the resultant displacement. We examine first the case where the axes of the two screws are at right angles and intersect. We take these as axes of x and y; then if ξ, η be the component rotations about them, we have

λ = hξ,   μ = kη,   ν = 0,

(11)

where h, k, are the pitches of the two given screws. The equations (7) of the axis of the resultant screw then reduce to

x/ξ = y/η,   z(ξ2 + η2) = (k − h) ξη.

(12)

Hence, whatever the ratio ξ : η, the axis of the resultant screw lies on the conoidal surface

z (x2 + y2) = cxy,

(13)

where c = 1⁄2(k − h). The co-ordinates of any point on (13) may be written

x = r cos θ,   y = r sin θ,   z = c sin 2θ;

(14)

hence if we imagine a curve of sines to be traced on a circular cylinder so that the circumference just includes two complete undulations, a straight line cutting the axis of the cylinder at right angles and meeting this curve will generate the surface. This is called a cylindroid. Again, the pitch of the resultant screw is

p = (λξ + μη) / (ξ2 + η2) = h cos2 θ + k sin2 θ.

(15)

From Sir Robert S. Ball’s Theory of Screws.

Fig. 41.

The distribution of pitch among the various screws has therefore a simple relation to the pitch-conic

hx2 + ky2 = const;

(16)

viz. the pitch of any screw varies inversely as the square of that diameter of the conic which is parallel to its axis. It is to be noticed that the parameter c of the cylindroid is unaltered if the two pitches h, k be increased by equal amounts; the only change is that all the pitches are increased by the same amount. It remains to show that a system of screws of the above type can be constructed so as to contain any two given screws whatever. In the first place, a cylindroid can be constructed so as to have its axis coincident with the common perpendicular to the axes of the two given screws and to satisfy three other conditions, for the position of the centre, the parameter, and the orientation about the axis are still at our disposal. Hence we can adjust these so that the surface shall contain the axes of the two given screws as generators, and that the difference of the corresponding pitches shall have the proper value. It follows that when a body has two degrees of freedom it can twist about any one of a singly infinite system of screws whose axes lie on a certain cylindroid. In particular cases the cylindroid may degenerate into a plane, the pitches being then all equal.

§ 8. Three-dimensional Statics.—A system of parallel forces can be combined two and two until they are replaced by a single resultant equal to their sum, acting in a certain line. As special cases, the system may reduce to a couple, or it may be in equilibrium.

In general, however, a three-dimensional system of forces cannot be replaced by a single resultant force. But it may be reduced to simpler elements in a variety of ways. For example, it may be reduced to two forces in perpendicular skew lines. For consider any plane, and let each force, at its intersection with the plane, be resolved into two components, one (P) normal to the plane, the other (Q) in the plane. The assemblage of parallel forces P can be replaced in general by a single force, and the coplanar system of forces Q by another single force.

966

If the plane in question be chosen perpendicular to the direction of the vector-sum of the given forces, the vector-sum of the components Q is zero, and these components are therefore equivalent to a couple (§ 4). Hence any three-dimensional system can be reduced to a single force R acting in a certain line, together with a couple G in a plane perpendicular to the line. This theorem was first given by L. Poinsot, and the line of action of R was called by him the central axis of the system. The combination of a force and a couple in a perpendicular plane is termed by Sir R. S. Ball a wrench. Its type, as distinguished from its absolute magnitude, may be specified by a screw whose axis is the line of action of R, and whose pitch is the ratio G/R.

Fig. 42.

To define the moment of a force about an axis HK, we project the force orthogonally on a plane perpendicular to HK and take the moment of the projection about the intersection of HK with the plane (see § 4). Some convention as to sign is necessary; we shall reckon the moment to be positive when the tendency of the force is right-handed as regards the direction from H to K. Since two concurrent forces and their resultant obviously project into two concurrent forces and their resultant, we see that the sum of the moments of two concurrent forces about any axis HK is equal to the moment of their resultant. Parallel forces may be included in this statement as a limiting case. Hence, in whatever way one system of forces is by successive steps replaced by another, no change is made in the sum of the moments about any assigned axis. By means of this theorem we can show that the previous reduction of any system to a wrench is unique.

From the analogy of couples to translations which was pointed out in § 7, we may infer that a couple is sufficiently represented by a “free” (or non-localized) vector perpendicular to its plane. The length of the vector must be proportional to the moment of the couple, and its sense must be such that the sum of the moments of the two forces of the couple about it is positive. In particular, we infer that couples of the same moment in parallel planes are equivalent; and that couples in any two planes may be compounded by geometrical addition of the corresponding vectors. Independent statical proofs are of course easily given. Thus, let the plane of the paper be perpendicular to the planes of two couples, and therefore perpendicular to the line of intersection of these planes. By § 4, each couple can be replaced by two forces ±P (fig. 43) perpendicular to the plane of the paper, and so that one force of each couple is in the line of intersection (B); the arms (AB, BC) will then be proportional to the respective moments. The two forces at B will cancel, and we are left with a couple of moment P·AC in the plane AC. If we draw three vectors to represent these three couples, they will be perpendicular and proportional to the respective sides of the triangle ABC; hence the third vector is the geometric sum of the other two. Since, in this proof the magnitude of P is arbitrary, It follows incidentally that couples of the same moment in parallel planes, e.g. planes parallel to AC, are equivalent.

Fig. 43.

Fig. 44.

Hence a couple of moment G, whose axis has the direction (l, m, n) relative to a right-handed system of rectangular axes, is equivalent to three couples lG, mG, nG in the co-ordinate planes. The analytical reduction of a three-dimensional system can now be conducted as follows. Let (x1, y1, z1) be the co-ordinates of a point P1 on the line of action of one of the forces, whose components are (say) X1, Y1, Z1. Draw P1H normal to the plane zOx, and HK perpendicular to Oz. In KH introduce two equal and opposite forces ±X1. The force X1 at P1 with −X1 in KH forms a couple about Oz, of moment −y1X1. Next, introduce along Ox two equal and opposite forces ±X1. The force X1 in KH with −X1 in Ox forms a couple about Oy, of moment z1X1. Hence the force X1 can be transferred from P1 to O, provided we introduce couples of moments z1X1 about Oy and −y1X1, about Oz. Dealing in the same way with the forces Y1, Z1 at P1, we find that all three components of the force at P1 can be transferred to O, provided we introduce three couples L1, M1, N1 about Ox, Oy, Oz respectively, viz.

L1 = y1Z1 − z1Y1,   M1 = z1X1 − x1Z1,   N1 = x1Y1 − y1X1.

It is seen that L1, M1, N1 are the moments of the original force at P1 about the co-ordinate axes. Summing up for all the forces of the given system, we obtain a force R at O, whose components are

X = Σ(Xr),   Y = Σ(Yr),   Z = Σ(Zr),

and a couple G whose components are

L = Σ(Lr),   M = Σ(Mr),   N = Σ(Nr),

where r = 1, 2, 3 ... Since R2 = X2 + Y2 + Z2, G2 = L2 + M2 + N2, it is necessary and sufficient for equilibrium that the six quantities X, Y, Z, L, M, N, should all vanish. In words: the sum of the projections of the forces on each of the co-ordinate axes must vanish; and, the sum of the moments of the forces about each of these axes must vanish.

If any other point O′, whose co-ordinates are x, y, z, be chosen in place of O, as the point to which the forces are transferred, we have to write x1 − x, y1 − y, z1 − z for x1, y1, z1, and so on, in the preceding process. The components of the resultant force R are unaltered, but the new components of couple are found to be

By properly choosing O′ we can make the plane of the couple perpendicular to the resultant force. The conditions for this are L′ : M′ : N′ = X : Y : Z, or

967

These are the equations of the central axis. Since the moment of the resultant couple is now

the pitch of the equivalent wrench is

(LX + MY + NZ) / (X2 + Y2 + Z2).

It appears that X2 + Y2 + Z2 and LX + MY + NZ are absolute invariants (cf. § 7). When the latter invariant, but not the former, vanishes, the system reduces to a single force.

The analogy between the mathematical relations of infinitely small displacements on the one hand and those of force-systems on the other enables us immediately to convert any theorem in the one subject into a theorem in the other. For example, we can assert without further proof that any infinitely small displacement may be resolved into two rotations, and that the axis of one of these can be chosen arbitrarily. Again, that wrenches of arbitrary amounts about two given screws compound into a wrench the locus of whose axis is a cylindroid.

When parallel forces of given magnitudes act at given points, the resultant acts through a definite point, or centre of parallel forces, which is independent of the special direction of the forces. If Pr be the force at (xr, yr, zr), acting in the direction (l, m, n), the formulae (6) and (7) reduce to

X = Σ(P)·l,   Y = Σ(P)·m,   Z = Σ(P)·n,

and

L = Σ(P)·(ny − mz),   M = Σ(P)·(lz − nx),   N = Σ(P)·(mx − ly),

provided

These are the same as if we had a single force Σ(P) acting at the point (x, y, z), which is the same for all directions (l, m, n). We can hence derive the theory of the centre of gravity, as in § 4. An exceptional case occurs when Σ(P) = 0.

Fig. 45.

§ 9. Work.—The work done by a force acting on a particle, in any infinitely small displacement, is defined as the product of the force into the orthogonal projection of the displacement on the direction of the force; i.e. it is equal to F·δs cos θ, where F is the force, δs the displacement, and θ is the angle between the directions of F and δs. In the language of vector analysis (q.v.) it is the “scalar product” of the vector representing the force and the displacement. In the same way, the work done by a force acting on a rigid body in any infinitely small displacement of the body is the scalar product of the force into the displacement of any point on the line of action. This product is the same whatever point on the line of action be taken, since the lengthwise components of the displacements of any two points A, B on a line AB are equal, to the first order of small quantities. To see this, let A′, B′ be the displaced positions of A, B, and let φ be the infinitely small angle between AB and A′B′. Then if α, β be the orthogonal projections of A′, B′ on AB, we have

Aα − Bβ = AB − αβ = AB (1 − cos φ) = 1⁄2AB·φ2,

ultimately. Since this is of the second order, the products F·Aα and F·Bβ are ultimately equal.

Fig. 46.	Fig. 47.

The total work done by two concurrent forces acting on a particle, or on a rigid body, in any infinitely small displacement, is equal to the work of their resultant. Let AB, AC (fig. 46) represent the forces, AD their resultant, and let AH be the direction of the displacement δs of the point A. The proposition follows at once from the fact that the sum of orthogonal projections of AB>, AC> on AH is equal to the projection of AD>. It is to be noticed that AH need not be in the same plane with AB, AC.

It follows from the preceding statements that any two systems 968 of forces which are statically equivalent, according to the principles of §§ 4, 8, will (to the first order of small quantities) do the same amount of work in any infinitely small displacement of a rigid body to which they may be applied. It is also evident that the total work done in two or more successive infinitely small displacements is equal to the work done in the resultant displacement.

The work of a couple in any infinitely small rotation of a rigid body about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the couple is equal to the product of the moment of the couple into the angle of rotation, proper conventions as to sign being observed. Let the couple consist of two forces P, P (fig. 47) in the plane of the paper, and let J be the point where this plane is met by the axis of rotation. Draw JBA perpendicular to the lines of action, and let ε be the angle of rotation. The work of the couple is

P·JA·ε − P·JB·ε = P·AB·ε = Gε,

if G be the moment of the couple.

The analytical calculation of the work done by a system of forces in any infinitesimal displacement is as follows. For a two-dimensional system we have, in the notation of §§ 3, 4,

Again, for a three-dimensional system, in the notation of §§ 7, 8,

This expression gives the work done by a given wrench when the body receives a given infinitely small twist; it must of course be an absolute invariant for all transformations of rectangular axes. The first three terms express the work done by the components of a force (X, Y, Z) acting at O, and the remaining three terms express the work of a couple (L, M, N).

Fig. 48.

Considering a rigid body in any given position, we may contemplate the whole group of infinitesimal displacements which might be given to it. If the extraneous forces are in equilibrium the total work which they would perform in any such displacement would be zero, since they reduce to a zero force and a zero couple. This is (in part) the celebrated principle of virtual velocities, now often described as the principle of virtual work, enunciated by John Bernoulli (1667-1748). The word “virtual” is used because the displacements in question are not regarded as actually taking place, the body being in fact at rest. The “velocities” referred to are the velocities of the various points of the body in any imagined motion of the body through the position in question; they obviously bear to one another the same ratios as the corresponding infinitesimal displacements. Conversely, we can show that if the virtual work of the extraneous forces be zero for every infinitesimal displacement of the body as rigid, these forces must be in equilibrium. For by giving the body (in imagination) a displacement of translation we learn that the sum of the resolved parts of the forces in any assigned direction is zero, and by giving it a displacement of pure rotation we learn that the sum of the moments about any assigned axis is zero. The same thing follows of course from the analytical expression (2) for the virtual work. If this vanishes for all values of λ, μ, ν, ξ, η, ζ we must have X, Y, Z, L, M, N = 0, which are the conditions of equilibrium.

The principle can of course be extended to any system of particles or rigid bodies, connected together in any way, provided we take into account the internal stresses, or reactions, between the various parts. Each such reaction consists of two equal and opposite forces, both of which may contribute to the equation of virtual work.

The proper significance of the principle of virtual work, and of its converse, will appear more clearly when we come to kinetics (§ 16); for the present it may be regarded merely as a compact and (for many purposes) highly convenient summary of the laws of equilibrium. Its special value lies in this, that by a suitable adjustment of the hypothetical displacements we are often enabled to eliminate unknown reactions. For example, in the case of a particle lying on a smooth curve, or on a smooth surface, if it be displaced along the curve, or on the surface, the virtual work of the normal component of the pressure may be ignored, since it is of the second order. Again, if two bodies are connected by a string or rod, and if the hypothetical displacements be adjusted so that the distance between the points of attachment is unaltered, the corresponding stress may be ignored. This is evident from fig. 45; if AB, A′B′ represent the two positions of a string, and T be the tension, the virtual work of the two forces ±T at A, B is T(Aα − Bβ), which was shown to be of the second order. Again, the normal pressure between two surfaces disappears from the equation, provided the displacements be such that one of these surfaces merely slides relatively to the other. It is evident, in the first place, that in any displacement common to the two surfaces, the work of the two equal and opposite normal pressures will cancel; moreover if, one of the surfaces being fixed, an infinitely small displacement shifts the point of contact from A to B, and if A′ be the new position of that point of the sliding body which was at A, the projection of AA′ on the normal at A is of the second order. It is to be noticed, in this case, that the tangential reaction (if any) between the two surfaces is not eliminated. Again, if the displacements be such that one curved surface rolls without sliding on another, the reaction, whether normal or tangential, at the point of contact may be ignored. For the virtual work of two equal and opposite forces will cancel in any displacement which is common to the two surfaces; whilst, if one surface be fixed, the displacement of that point of the rolling surface which was in contact with the other is of the second order. We are thus able to imagine a great variety of mechanical systems to which the principle of virtual work can be applied without any regard to 969 the internal stresses, provided the hypothetical displacements be such that none of the connexions of the system are violated.

If the system be subject to gravity, the corresponding part of the virtual work can be calculated from the displacement of the centre of gravity. If W1, W2, ... be the weights of a system of particles, whose depths below a fixed horizontal plane of reference are z1, z2, ..., respectively, the virtual work of gravity is

W1δ·z1 + W2δz2 + ... = δ(W1z1 + W2z2 + ...) = (W1 + W2 + ...) δz,

where z is the depth of the centre of gravity (see § 8 (14) and § 11 (6)). This expression is the same as if the whole mass were concentrated at the centre of gravity, and displaced with this point. An important conclusion is that in any displacement of a system of bodies in equilibrium, such that the virtual work of all forces except gravity may be ignored, the depth of the centre of gravity is “stationary.”

The question as to stability of equilibrium belongs essentially to kinetics; but we may state by anticipation that in cases where gravity is the only force which does work, the equilibrium of a body or system of bodies is stable only if the depth of the centre of gravity be a maximum.

Consider, for instance, the case of a bar resting with its ends on two smooth inclines (fig. 18). If the bar be displaced in a vertical plane so that its ends slide on the two inclines, the instantaneous centre is at the point J. The displacement of G is at right angles to JG; this shows that for equilibrium JG must be vertical. Again, the locus of G is an arc of an ellipse whose centre is in the intersection of the planes; since this arc is convex upwards the equilibrium is unstable. A general criterion for the case of a rigid body movable in two dimensions, with one degree of freedom, can be obtained as follows. We have seen (§ 3) that the sequence of possible positions is obtained if we imagine the “body-centrode” to roll on the “space-centrode.” For equilibrium, the altitude of the centre of gravity G must be stationary; hence G must lie in the same vertical line with the point of contact J of the two curves. Further, it is known from the theory of “roulettes” that the locus of G will be concave or convex upwards according as

cos φ	=	1	+	1	,
h		ρ		ρ′

(8)

Fig. 49.

where ρ, ρ′ are the radii of curvature of the two curves at J, φ is the inclination of the common tangent at J to the horizontal, and h is the height of G above J. The signs of ρ, ρ′ are to be taken positive when the curvatures are as in the standard case shown in fig. 49. Hence for stability the upper sign must obtain in (8). The same criterion may be arrived at in a more intuitive manner as follows. If the body be supposed to roll (say to the right) until the curves touch at J′, and if JJ′ = δs, the angle through which the upper figure rotates is δs/ρ + δs/ρ′, and the horizontal displacement of G is equal to the product of this expression into h. If this displacement be less than the horizontal projection of JJ′, viz. δs cosφ, the vertical through the new position of G will fall to the left of J′ and gravity will tend to restore the body to its former position. It is here assumed that the remaining forces acting on the body in its displaced position have zero moment about J′; this is evidently the case, for instance, in the problem of “rocking stones.”

The principle of virtual work is specially convenient in the theory of frames (§ 6), since the reactions at smooth joints and the stresses in inextensible bars may be left out of account. In particular, in the case of a frame which is just rigid, the principle enables us to find the stress in any one bar independently of the rest. If we imagine the bar in question to be removed, equilibrium will still persist if we introduce two equal and opposite forces S, of suitable magnitude, at the joints which it connected. In any infinitely small deformation of the frame as thus modified, the virtual work of the forces S, together with that of the original extraneous forces, must vanish; this determines S.

As a simple example, take the case of a light frame, whose bars form the slides of a rhombus ABCD with the diagonal BD, suspended from A and carrying a weight W at C; and let it be required to find the stress in BD. If we remove the bar BD, and apply two equal and opposite forces S at B and D, the equation is

Fig. 50.

W·δ(2l cosθ) + 2S·δ (l sin θ) = 0,

where l is the length of a side of the rhombus, and θ its inclination to the vertical. Hence

S = W tan θ = W · BD/AC.

(8)

The method is specially appropriate when the frame, although just rigid, is not “simple” in the sense of § 6, and when accordingly the method of reciprocal figures is not immediately available. To avoid the intricate trigonometrical calculations which would often be necessary, graphical devices have been introduced by H. Müller-Breslau and others. For this purpose the infinitesimal displacements of the various joints are replaced by finite lengths proportional to them, and therefore proportional to the velocities of the joints in some imagined motion of the deformable frame through its actual configuration; this is really (it may be remarked) a reversion to the original notion of “virtual velocities.” Let J be the instantaneous centre for any bar CD (fig. 12), and let s1, s2 represent the virtual velocities of C, D. If these lines be turned through a right angle in the same sense, they take up positions such as CC′, DD′, where C′, D′ are on JC, JD, respectively, and C′D′ is parallel to CD. Further, if F1 (fig. 51) be any force acting on the joint C, its virtual work will be equal to the moment of F1 about C′; the equation of virtual work is thus transformed into an equation of moments.

Fig. 12.	Fig. 51.

Fig. 52.

Consider, for example, a frame whose sides form the six sides of a hexagon ABCDEF and the three diagonals AD, BE, CF; and suppose that it is required to find the stress in CF due to a given system of extraneous forces in equilibrium, acting on the joints. Imagine the bar CF to be removed, and consider a deformation in which AB is fixed. The instantaneous centre of CD will be at the intersection of AD, BC, and if C′D′ be drawn parallel to CD, the lines CC′, DD′ may be taken to represent the virtual velocities of C, D turned each through a right angle. Moreover, if we draw D′E′ parallel to DE, and E′F′ parallel to EF, the lines CC′, DD′, EE′, FF′ will represent on the same scale the virtual velocities of the points C, D, E, F, respectively, turned each through a right angle. The equation of virtual work is then formed by taking moments about C′, D′, E′, F′ of the extraneous forces which act at C, D, E, F, respectively. Amongst these forces we must include the two equal and opposite forces S which take the place of the stress in the removed bar FC.

The above method lends itself naturally to the investigation of the critical forms of a frame whose general structure is given. We have seen that the stresses produced by an equilibrating system of extraneous forces in a frame which is just rigid, according to the criterion of § 6, are in general uniquely determinate; in particular, when there are no extraneous forces the bars are in general free from stress. It may however happen that owing to some special relation between the lengths of the bars the frame admits of an infinitesimal deformation. The simplest case is that of a frame of three bars, when the three joints A, B, C fall into a straight line; a small displacement of the joint B at right angles to AC would involve changes in the lengths of AB, BC which are only of the second order of small quantities. Another example is shown in fig. 53. The graphical method leads at once to the detection of such cases. Thus in the hexagonal frame of fig. 52, if an infinitesimal deformation is possible without removing the bar CF, the instantaneous centre of CF (when AB is fixed) will be at the intersection of AF and BC, and since CC′, FF′ represent the virtual velocities of the points C, F, turned each through a right angle, C′F′ must be parallel to CF. Conversely, if this condition be satisfied, an infinitesimal deformation is possible. The result may be generalized into the statement that a frame has a critical form whenever a frame of the same structure can be designed 970 with corresponding bars parallel, but without complete geometric similarity. In the case of fig. 52 it may be shown that an equivalent condition is that the six points A, B, C, D, E, F should lie on a conic (M. W. Crofton). This is fulfilled when the opposite sides of the hexagon are parallel, and (as a still more special case) when the hexagon is regular.

Fig. 53.

When a frame has a critical form it may be in a state of stress independently of the action of extraneous forces; moreover, the stresses due to extraneous forces are indeterminate, and may be infinite. For suppose as before that one of the bars is removed. If there are no extraneous forces the equation of virtual work reduces to S·δs = 0, where S is the stress in the removed bar, and δs is the change in the distance between the joints which it connected. In a critical form we have δs = 0, and the equation is satisfied by an arbitrary value of S; a consistent system of stresses in the remaining bars can then be found by preceding rules. Again, when extraneous forces P act on the joints, the equation is

Σ(P·δp) + S·δs = 0,

where δp is the displacement of any joint in the direction of the corresponding force P. If Σ(P·δp) = 0, the stresses are merely indeterminate as before; but if Σ (P·δp) does not vanish, the equation cannot be satisfied by any finite value of S, since δs = 0. This means that, if the material of the frame were absolutely unyielding, no finite stresses in the bars would enable it to withstand the extraneous forces. With actual materials, the frame would yield elastically, until its configuration is no longer “critical.” The stresses in the bars would then be comparatively very great, although finite. The use of frames which approximate to a critical form is of course to be avoided in practice.

A brief reference must suffice to the theory of three dimensional frames. This is important from a technical point of view, since all structures are practically three-dimensional. We may note that a frame of n joints which is just rigid must have 3n − 6 bars; and that the stresses produced in such a frame by a given system of extraneous forces in equilibrium are statically determinate, subject to the exception of “critical forms.”

§ 10. Statics of Inextensible Chains.—The theory of bodies or structures which are deformable in their smallest parts belongs properly to elasticity (q.v.). The case of inextensible strings or chains is, however, so simple that it is generally included in expositions of pure statics.

It is assumed that the form can be sufficiently represented by a plane curve, that the stress (tension) at any point P of the curve, between the two portions which meet there, is in the direction of the tangent at P, and that the forces on any linear element δs must satisfy the conditions of equilibrium laid down in § 1. It follows that the forces on any finite portion will satisfy the conditions of equilibrium which apply to the case of a rigid body (§ 4).

Fig. 54.

We will suppose in the first instance that the curve is plane. It is often convenient to resolve the forces on an element PQ (= δs) in the directions of the tangent and normal respectively. If T, T + δT be the tensions at P, Q, and δψ be the angle between the directions of the curve at these points, the components of the tensions along the tangent at P give (T + δT) cos ψ − T, or δT, ultimately; whilst for the component along the normal at P we have (T + δT) sin δψ, or Tδψ, or Tδs/ρ, where ρ is the radius of curvature.

Suppose, for example, that we have a light string stretched over a smooth curve; and let Rδs denote the normal pressure (outwards from the centre of curvature) on δs. The two resolutions give δT = 0, Tδψ = Rδs, or

T = const.,   R = T/ρ.

The tension is constant, and the pressure per unit length varies as the curvature.

Next suppose that the curve is “rough”; and let Fδs be the tangential force of friction on δs. We have δT ± Fδs = 0, Tδψ = Rδs, where the upper or lower sign is to be taken according to the sense in which F acts. We assume that in limiting equilibrium we have F = μR, everywhere, where μ is the coefficient of friction. If the string be on the point of slipping in the direction in which ψ increases, the lower sign is to be taken; hence δT = Fδs = μTδψ, whence

T = T0 eμψ,

if T0 be the tension corresponding to ψ = 0. This illustrates the resistance to dragging of a rope coiled round a post; e.g. if we put μ = .3, ψ = 2π, we find for the change of tension in one turn T/T0 = 6.5. In two turns this ratio is squared, and so on.

Again, take the case of a string under gravity, in contact with a smooth curve in a vertical plane. Let ψ denote the inclination to the horizontal, and wδs the weight of an element δs. The tangential and normal components of wδs are −s sinψ and −wδs cosψ. Hence

δT = wδs sin ψ,   Tδψ = wδs cos ψ + Rδs.

If we take rectangular axes Ox, Oy, of which Oy is drawn vertically upwards, we have δy = sin ψ δs, whence δT = wδy. If the string be uniform, w is constant, and

T = wy + const. = w (y − y0),

say; hence the tension varies as the height above some fixed level (y0). The pressure is then given by the formula

In the case of a chain hanging freely under gravity it is usually convenient to formulate the conditions of equilibrium of a finite portion PQ. The forces on this reduce to three, viz. the weight of PQ and the tensions at P, Q. Hence these three forces will be concurrent, and their ratios will be given by a triangle of forces. In particular, if we consider a length AP beginning at the lowest point A, then resolving horizontally and vertically we have

T cos ψ = T0,   T sinψ = W,

where T0 is the tension at A, and W is the weight of PA. The former equation expresses that the horizontal tension is constant.

Fig. 55.

If the chain be uniform we have W = ws, where s is the arc AP: hence ws = T0 tan ψ. If we write T0 = wa, so that a is the length of a portion of the chain whose weight would equal the horizontal tension, this becomes

s = a tan ψ.

This is the “intrinsic” equation of the curve. If the axes of x and y be taken horizontal and vertical (upwards), we derive

x = a log (sec ψ + tan ψ),   y = a sec ψ.

Eliminating ψ we obtain the Cartesian equation

of the common catenary, as it is called (fig. 56). The omission of the additive arbitrary constants of integration in (8) is equivalent to a special choice of the origin O of co-ordinates; viz. O is at a distance a vertically below the lowest point (ψ = 0) of the curve. The horizontal line through O is called the directrix. The relations

971

Fig. 56.

which are involved in the preceding formulae are also noteworthy. It is a classical problem in the calculus of variations to deduce the equation (9) from the condition that the depth of the centre of gravity of a chain of given length hanging between fixed points must be stationary (§ 9). The length a is called the parameter of the catenary; it determines the scale of the curve, all catenaries being geometrically similar. If weights be suspended from various points of a hanging chain, the intervening portions will form arcs of equal catenaries, since the horizontal tension (wa) is the same for all. Again, if a chain pass over a perfectly smooth peg, the catenaries in which it hangs on the two sides, though usually of different parameters, will have the same directrix, since by (10) y is the same for both at the peg.

As an example of the use of the formulae we may determine the maximum span for a wire of given material. The condition is that the tension must not exceed the weight of a certain length λ of the wire. At the ends we shall have y = λ, or

λ = a cosh	x	,
	a

(11)

and the problem is to make x a maximum for variations of a. Differentiating (11) we find that, if dx/da = 0,

x	tanh	x	= 1.
a		a

(12)

It is easily seen graphically, or from a table of hyperbolic tangents, that the equation u tanh u = 1 has only one positive root (u = 1.200); the span is therefore

2x = 2au = 2λ/sinh u = 1.326 λ,

and the length of wire is

2s = 2λ/u = 1.667 λ.

The tangents at the ends meet on the directrix, and their inclination to the horizontal is 56° 30′.

Fig. 57.

The relation between the sag, the tension, and the span of a wire (e.g. a telegraph wire) stretched nearly straight between two points A, B at the same level is determined most simply from first principles. If T be the tension, W the total weight, k the sag in the middle, and ψ the inclination to the horizontal at A or B, we have 2Tψ = W, AB = 2ρψ, approximately, where ρ is the radius of curvature. Since 2kρ = (1⁄2AB)2, ultimately, we have

k = 1⁄8W · AB/T.

(13)

The same formula applies if A, B be at different levels, provided k be the sag, measured vertically, half way between A and B.

In relation to the theory of suspension bridges the case where the weight of any portion of the chain varies as its horizontal projection is of interest. The vertical through the centre of gravity of the arc AP (see fig. 55) will then bisect its horizontal projection AN; hence if PS be the tangent at P we shall have AS = SN. This property is characteristic of a parabola whose axis is vertical. If we take A as origin and AN as axis of x, the weight of AP may be denoted by wx, where w is the weight per unit length at A. Since PNS is a triangle of forces for the portion AP of the chain, we have wx/T0 = PN/NS, or

y = w · x2/2T0,

which is the equation of the parabola in question. The result might of course have been inferred from the theory of the parabolic funicular in § 2.

Fig. 58.

For investigations relating to the equilibrium of a string in three dimensions we must refer to the textbooks. In the case of a string stretched over a smooth surface, but in other respects free from extraneous force, the tensions at the ends of a small element δs must be balanced by the normal reaction of the surface. It follows that the osculating plane of the curve formed by the string must contain the normal to the surface, i.e. the curve must be a “geodesic,” and that the normal pressure per unit length must vary as the principal curvature of the curve.

§ 11. Theory of Mass-Systems.—This is a purely geometrical subject. We consider a system of points P1, P2 ..., Pn, with which are associated certain coefficients m1, m2, ... mn, respectively. In the application to mechanics these coefficients are the masses of particles situate at the respective points, and are therefore all positive. We shall make this supposition in what follows, but it should be remarked that hardly any difference is made in the theory if some of the coefficients have a different sign from the rest, except in the special case where Σ(m) = 0. This has a certain interest in magnetism.

In a given mass-system there exists one and only one point G such that

Σ(m·GP>) = 0.

For, take any point O, and construct the vector

Then

Σ(m·GP>) = Σ {m(GO> + OP>)} = Σ(m)·GO> + Σ(m)·OP> = 0.

Also there cannot be a distinct point G′ such that Σ(m·G′P) = 0, for we should have, by subtraction,

Σ {m(GP> + PG>′)} = 0,   or Σ(m)·GG′ = 0;

i.e. G′ must coincide with G. The point G determined by (1) is called the mass-centre or centre of inertia of the given system. It is easily seen that, in the process of determining the mass-centre, any group of particles may be replaced by a single particle whose mass is equal to that of the group, situate at the mass-centre of the group.

If through P1, P2, ... Pn we draw any system of parallel planes meeting a straight line OX in the points M1, M2 ... Mn, the collinear vectors OM>1, OM>2 ... OM>n may be called the “projections” of OP>1, OP>2, ... OP>n on OX. Let these projections be denoted algebraically by x1, x2, ... xn, the sign being positive or negative according as the direction is that of OX or the reverse. Since the projection of a vector-sum 972 is the sum of the projections of the several vectors, the equation (2) gives

if x be the projection of OG>. Hence if the Cartesian co-ordinates of P1, P2, ... Pn relative to any axes, rectangular or oblique be (x1, y1, z1), (x2, y2, z2), ..., (xn, yn, zn), the mass-centre (x, y, z) is determined by the formulae

If we write x = x + ξ, y = y + η, z = z + ζ, so that ξ, η, ζ denote co-ordinates relative to the mass-centre G, we have from (6)

Σ(mξ) = 0,   Σ(mη) = 0,   Σ(mζ) = 0.

The formula (2) shows that a system of concurrent forces represented by m1·OP>1, m2·OP>2, ... mn·OP>n will have a resultant represented hy Σ(m)·OG>. If we imagine O to recede to infinity in any direction we learn that a system of parallel forces proportional to m1, m2,... mn, acting at P1, P2 ... Pn have a resultant proportional to Σ(m) which acts always through a point G fixed relatively to the given mass-system. This contains the theory of the “centre of gravity” (§§ 4, 9). We may note also that if P1, P2, ... Pn, and P1′, P2′, ... Pn′ represent two configurations of the series of particles, then

Σ(m·PP>′) = Sigma(m)·GG>′,

where G, G′ are the two positions of the mass-centre. The forces m1·P>1P1′, m2·P>2P2′, ... mn·P>nPn′, considered as localized vectors, do not, however, as a rule reduce to a single resultant.

We proceed to the theory of the plane, axial and polar quadratic moments of the system. The axial moments have alone a dynamical significance, but the others are useful as subsidiary conceptions. If h1, h2, ... hn be the perpendicular distances of the particles from any fixed plane, the sum Σ(mh2) is the quadratic moment with respect to the plane. If p1, p2, ... pn be the perpendicular distances from any given axis, the sum Σ(mp2) is the quadratic moment with respect to the axis; it is also called the moment of inertia about the axis. If r1, r2, ... rn be the distances from a fixed point, the sum Σ(mr2) is the quadratic moment with respect to that point (or pole). If we divide any of the above quadratic moments by the total mass Σ(m), the result is called the mean square of the distances of the particles from the respective plane, axis or pole. In the case of an axial moment, the square root of the resulting mean square is called the radius of gyration of the system about the axis in question. If we take rectangular axes through any point O, the quadratic moments with respect to the co-ordinate planes are

Ix = Σ(mx2),   Iy = Σ(my2),   Iz = Σ(mz2);

those with respect to the co-ordinate axes are

Iyz = Σ {m (y2 + z2)},   Izx = Σ {m (z2 + x2)},   Ixy = Σ {m (x2 + y2)};

whilst the polar quadratic moment with respect to O is

I0 = Σ {m (x2 + y2 + z2)}.

We note that

Iyz = Iy + Iz,   Izx = Iz + Ix,   Ixy = Ix + Iy,

and

I0 = Ix + Iy + Iz = 1⁄2 (Iyz + Izx + Ixy).

If φ(x, y, z) be any homogeneous quadratic function of x, y, z, we have

Σ {mφ (x, y, z)} = Σ {mφ (x + ξ, y + η, z + ζ) }
= Σ {mφ (x, y, z)} + Σ {mφ (ξ, η, ζ)},

since the terms which are bilinear in respect to x, y, z, and ξ, η, ζ vanish, in virtue of the relations (7). Thus

Ix = Iξ + Σ(m)x2,

Iyz = Iηζ + Σ(m) · (y2 + z2),

with similar relations, and

IO = IG + Σ(m) · OG2.

The formula (16) expresses that the squared radius of gyration about any axis (Ox) exceeds the squared radius of gyration about a parallel axis through G by the square of the distance between the two axes. The formula (17) is due to J. L. Lagrange; it may be written

and expresses that the mean square of the distances of the particles from O exceeds the mean square of the distances from G by OG2. The mass-centre is accordingly that point the mean square of whose distances from the several particles is least. If in (18) we make O coincide with P1, P2, ... Pn in succession, we obtain

If we multiply these equations by m1, m2 ... mn, respectively, and add, we find

ΣΣ (mrms · PrPs2) = Σ (m) · Σ (m · GP2),

provided the summation ΣΣ on the left hand be understood to include each pair of particles once only. This theorem, also due to Lagrange, enables us to express the mean square of the distances of the particles from the centre of mass in terms of the masses and mutual distances. For instance, considering four equal particles at the vertices of a regular tetrahedron, we can infer that the radius R of the circumscribing sphere is given by R2 = 3⁄8a2, if a be the length of an edge.

Another type of quadratic moment is supplied by the deviation-moments, or products of inertia of a distribution of matter. Thus the sum Σ(m·yz) is called the “product of inertia” with respect to the planes y = 0, z = 0. This may be expressed In terms of the product of inertia with respect to parallel planes through G by means of the formula (14); viz.:—

Σ (m · yz) = Σ (m · ηζ) + Σ (m) · yz

973

The quadratic moments with respect to different planes through a fixed point O are related to one another as follows. The moment with respect to the plane

λx + μy + νz = 0,

where λ, μ, ν are direction-cosines, is

Σ {m (λx + μy + νz)2} = Σ (mx2)·λ2 + Σ (my2)·μ2 + Σ (mz2)·ν2 + 2Σ (myz)·μν + 2Σ (mzx)·νλ + 2Σ (mxy)·λμ,

and therefore varies as the square of the perpendicular drawn from O to a tangent plane of a certain quadric surface, the tangent plane in question being parallel to (22). If the co-ordinate axes coincide with the principal axes of this quadric, we shall have

Σ(myz) = 0,   Σ(mzx) = 0,   Σ(mxy) = 0;

and if we write

Σ(mx2) = Ma2,   Σ(my2) = Mb2,   Σ(mz2) = Mc2,

where M = Σ(m), the quadratic moment becomes M(a2λ2 + b2μ2 + c2ν2), or Mp2, where p is the distance of the origin from that tangent plane of the ellipsoid

which is parallel to (22). It appears from (24) that through any assigned point O three rectangular axes can be drawn such that the product of inertia with respect to each pair of co-ordinate planes vanishes; these are called the principal axes of inertia at O. The ellipsoid (26) was first employed by J. Binet (1811), and may be called “Binet’s Ellipsoid” for the point O. Evidently the quadratic moment for a variable plane through O will have a “stationary” value when, and only when, the plane coincides with a principal plane of (26). It may further be shown that if Binet’s ellipsoid be referred to any system of conjugate diameters as co-ordinate axes, its equation will be

provided

Σ(mx′2) = Ma′2,   Σ(my′2) Mb′2,   Σ(mz′2) = Mc′2;

also that

Σ(my′z′) = 0,   Σ(mz′x′) = 0,   Σ(mx′y′) = 0.

Let us now take as co-ordinate axes the principal axes of inertia at the mass-centre G. If a, b, c be the semi-axes of the Binet’s ellipsoid of G, the quadratic moment with respect to the plane λx + μy + νz = 0 will be M(a2λ2 + b2μ2 + c2ν2), and that with respect to a parallel plane

λx + μy + νz = p

will be M (a2λ2 + b2μ2 + c2ν2 + p2), by (15). This will have a given value Mk2, provided

p2 = (k2 − a2) λ2 + (k2 − b2) μ2 + (k2 − c2) ν2.

Hence the planes of constant quadratic moment Mk2 will envelop the quadric

and the quadrics corresponding to different values of k2 will be confocal. If we write

k2 = a2 + b2 + c2 + θ,
b2 + c2 = α2,   c2 + a2 = β2,   a2 + b2 = γ2

the equation (31) becomes

for different values of θ this represents a system of quadrics confocal with the ellipsoid

which we shall meet with presently as the “ellipsoid of gyration” at G. Now consider the tangent plane ω at any point P of a confocal, the tangent plane ω′ at an adjacent point N′, and a plane ω″ through P parallel to ω′. The distance between the planes ω′ and ω″ will be of the second order of small quantities, and the quadratic moments with respect to ω′ and ω″ will therefore be equal, to the first order. Since the quadratic moments with respect to ω and ω′ are equal, it follows that ω is a plane of stationary quadratic moment at P, and therefore a principal plane of inertia at P. In other words, the principal axes of inertia at P arc the normals to the three confocals of the system (33) which pass through P. Moreover if x, y, z be the co-ordinates of P, (33) is an equation to find the corresponding values of θ; and if θ1, θ2, θ3 be the roots we find

θ1 + θ2 + θ3 = r2 − α2 − β2 − γ2,

where r2 = x2 + y2 + z2. The squares of the radii of gyration about the principal axes at P may be denoted by k22 + k32, k32 + k12, k12 + k22; hence by (32) and (35) they are r2 −θ1, r2 − θ2, r2 − θ3, respectively.

To find the relations between the moments of inertia about different axes through any assigned point O, we take O as origin. Since the square of the distance of a point (x, y, z) from the axis

is x2 + y2 + z2 − (λx + μy + νz)2, the moment of inertia about this axis is

I = Σ [m { (λ2 + μ2 + ν2) (x2 + y2 + z2) − (λx + μy + νz)2} ]
= Aλ2 + Bμ2 + Cν2 − 2Fμν − 2Gνλ − 2Hλμ,

provided

A = Σ {m (y2 + z2)},   B = Σ {m (z2 + x2)},   C = Σ {m (x2 + y2)},
F = Σ (myz),   G = Σ (mzx),   H = Σ (mxy);

i.e. A, B, C are the moments of inertia about the co-ordinate axes, and F, G, H are the products of inertia with respect to the pairs of co-ordinate planes. If we construct the quadric

Ax2 + By2 + Cz2 − 2Fyz − 2Gzx − 2Hxy = Mε4

where ε is an arbitrary linear magnitude, the intercept r which it makes on a radius drawn in the direction λ, μ, ν is found by putting x, y, z = λr, μr, νr. Hence, by comparison with (37),

I = Mε4 / r2.

The moment of inertia about any radius of the quadric (39) therefore varies inversely as the square of the length of this radius. When referred to its principal axes, the equation of the quadric takes the form

Ax2 + By2 + Cz2 = Mε4.

The directions of these axes are determined by the property (24), and therefore coincide with those of the principal axes of inertia at O, as already defined in connexion with the theory of plane quadratic moments. The new A, B, C are called the principal moments of inertia at O. Since they are essentially positive the quadric is an ellipsoid; it is called the momental ellipsoid at O. Since, by (12), B + C > A, &c., the sum of the two lesser principal moments must exceed the greatest principal moment. A limitation is thus imposed on the possible forms of the momental ellipsoid; e.g. in the case of symmetry about an axis it appears that the ratio of the polar to the equatorial diameter of the ellipsoid cannot be less than 1/√2.

If we write A = Mα2, B = Mβ2, C = Mγ2, the formula (37), when referred to the principal axes at O, becomes

I = M (α2λ2 + β2μ2 + γ2ν2) = Mp2,

if p denotes the perpendicular drawn from O in the direction (λ, μ, ν) to a tangent plane of the ellipsoid

This is called the ellipsoid of gyration at O; it was introduced into the theory by J. MacCullagh. The ellipsoids (41) and (43) are reciprocal polars with respect to a sphere having O as centre.

If A = B = C, the momental ellipsoid becomes a sphere; all axes through O are then principal axes, and the moment of inertia is the same for each. The mass-system is then said to possess kinetic symmetry about O.

If all the masses lie in a plane (z = 0) we have, in the notation of (25), c2 = 0, and therefore A = Mb2, B = Ma2, C = M(a2 + b2), so that the equation of the momental ellipsoid takes the form

b2x2 + a2y2 + (a2 + b2) z2 = ε4.

(44)

The section of this by the plane z = 0 is similar to

x2	+	y2	= 1,
a2		b2

(45)

which may be called the momental ellipse at O. It possesses the property that the radius of gyration about any diameter is half the distance between the two tangents which are parallel to that diameter. In the case of a uniform triangular plate it may be shown that the momental ellipse at G is concentric, similar and similarly situated 974 to the ellipse which touches the sides of the triangle at their middle points.

Fig. 59.

The graphical methods of determining the moment of inertia of a plane system of particles with respect to any line in its plane may be briefly noticed. It appears from § 5 (fig. 31) that the linear moment of each particle about the line may be found by means of a funicular polygon. If we replace the mass of each particle by its moment, as thus found, we can in like manner obtain the quadratic moment of the system with respect to the line. For if the line in question be the axis of y, the first process gives us the values of mx, and the second the value of Σ(mx·x) or Σ(mx2). The construction of a second funicular may be dispensed with by the employment of a planimeter, as follows. In fig. 59 p is the line with respect to which moments are to be taken, and the masses of the respective particles are indicated by the corresponding segments of a line in the force-diagram, drawn parallel to p. The funicular ZABCD ... corresponding to any pole O is constructed for a system of forces acting parallel to p through the positions of the particles and proportional to the respective masses; and its successive sides are produced to meet p in the points H, K, L, M, ... As explained in § 5, the moment of the first particle is represented on a certain scale by HK, that of the second by KL, and so on. The quadratic moment of the first particle will then be represented by twice the area AHK, that of the second by twice the area BKL, and so on. The quadratic moment of the whole system is therefore represented by twice the area AHEDCBA. Since a quadratic moment is essentially positive, the various areas are to taken positive in all cases. If k be the radius of gyration about p we find

k2 = 2 × area AHEDCBA × ON ÷ αβ,

Fig. 60.

where αβ is the line in the force-diagram which represents the sum of the masses, and ON is the distance of the pole O from this line. If some of the particles lie on one side of p and some on the other, the quadratic moment of each set may be found, and the results added. This is illustrated in fig. 60, where the total quadratic moment is represented by the sum of the shaded areas. It is seen that for a given direction of p this moment is least when p passes through the intersection X of the first and last sides of the funicular; i.e. when p goes through the mass-centre of the given system; cf. equation (15).

Part II.—Kinetics

§ 12. Rectilinear Motion.—Let x denote the distance OP of a moving point P at time t from a fixed origin O on the line of motion, this distance being reckoned positive or negative according as it lies to one side or the other of O. At time t + δt let the point be at Q, and let OQ = x + δx. The mean velocity of the point in the interval δt is δx/δt. The limiting value of this when δt is infinitely small, viz. dx/dt, is adopted as the definition of the velocity at the instant t. Again, let u be the velocity at time t, u + δu that at time t + δt. The mean rate of increase of velocity, or the mean acceleration, in the interval δt is then δu/δt. The limiting value of this when δt is infinitely small, viz., du/dt, is adopted as the definition of the acceleration at the instant t. Since u = dx/dt, the acceleration is also denoted by d2x/dt2. It is often convenient to use the “fluxional” notation for differential coefficients with respect to time; thus the velocity may be represented by ẋ and the acceleration by u̇ or ẍ. There is another formula for the acceleration, in which u is regarded as a function of the position; thus du/dt = (du/dx) (dx/dt) = u(du/dx). The relation between x and t in any particular case may be illustrated by means of a curve constructed with t as abscissa and x as ordinate. This is called the curve of positions or space-time curve; its gradient represents the velocity. Such curves are often traced mechanically in acoustical and other experiments. A, curve with t as abscissa and u as ordinate is called the curve of velocities or velocity-time curve. Its gradient represents the acceleration, and the area (∫u dt) included between any two ordinates represents the space described in the interval between the corresponding instants (see fig. 62).

So far nothing has been said about the measurement of time. From the purely kinematic point of view, the t of our formulae may be any continuous independent variable, suggested (it may be) by some physical process. But from the dynamical standpoint it is obvious that equations which represent the facts correctly on one system of time-measurement might become seriously defective on another. It is found that for almost all purposes a system of measurement based ultimately on the earth’s rotation is perfectly adequate. It is only when we come to consider such delicate questions as the influence of tidal friction that other standards become necessary.

The most important conception in kinetics is that of “inertia.” It is a matter of ordinary observation that different bodies acted on by the same force, or what is judged to be the same force, undergo different changes of velocity in equal times. In our ideal representation of natural phenomena this is allowed for by endowing each material particle with a suitable mass or inertia-coefficient m. The product mu of the mass into the velocity is called the momentum or (in Newton’s phrase) the quantity of motion. On the Newtonian system the motion of a particle entirely uninfluenced by other bodies, when referred to a suitable base, would be rectilinear, with constant velocity. If the velocity changes, this is attributed to the action of force; and if we agree to measure the force (X) by the rate of change of momentum which it produces, we have the equation

From this point of view the equation is a mere truism, its real importance resting on the fact that by attributing suitable values to the masses m, and by making simple assumptions as to the value of X in each case, we are able to frame adequate representations of whole classes of phenomena as they actually occur. The question remains, of course, as to how far the measurement of force here implied is practically consistent with the gravitational method usually adopted in statics; this will be referred to presently.

The practical unit or standard of mass must, from the nature of the case, be the mass of some particular body, e.g. the imperial pound, or the kilogramme. In the “C.G.S.” system a subdivision of the latter, viz. the gramme, is adopted, and is associated with the centimetre as the unit of length, and the mean solar second as the unit of time. The unit of force implied in (1) is that which produces unit momentum in unit time. On the C.G.S. system it is that force which acting on one gramme for one second produces a velocity of one centimetre per second; this unit is known as the dyne. Units of this kind are called absolute on account of their fundamental and invariable character as contrasted with gravitational units, which (as we shall see presently) vary somewhat with the locality at which the measurements are supposed to be made.

If we integrate the equation (1) with respect to t between the limits t, t′ we obtain

mu′ − mu = ∫t′t X dt.

The time-integral on the right hand is called the impulse of the force on the interval t′ − t. The statement that the increase of 975 momentum is equal to the impulse is (it maybe remarked) equivalent to Newton’s own formulation of his Second Law. The form (1) is deduced from it by putting t′ − t = δt, and taking δt to be infinitely small. In problems of impact we have to deal with cases of practically instantaneous impulse, where a very great and rapidly varying force produces an appreciable change of momentum in an exceedingly minute interval of time.

In the case of a constant force, the acceleration u̇ or ẍ is, according to (1), constant, and we have

say, the general solution of which is

x = 1⁄2 αt2 + At + B.

The “arbitrary constants” A, B enable us to represent the circumstances of any particular case; thus if the velocity ẋ and the position x be given for any one value of t, we have two conditions to determine A, B. The curve of positions corresponding to (4) is a parabola, and that of velocities is a straight line. We may take it as an experimental result, although the best evidence is indirect, that a particle falling freely under gravity experiences a constant acceleration which at the same place is the same for all bodies. This acceleration is denoted by g; its value at Greenwich is about 981 centimetre-second units, or 32.2 feet per second. It increases somewhat with the latitude, the extreme variation from the equator to the pole being about 1⁄2%. We infer that on our reckoning the force of gravity on a mass m is to be measured by mg, the momentum produced per second when this force acts alone. Since this is proportional to the mass, the relative masses to be attributed to various bodies can be determined practically by means of the balance. We learn also that on account of the variation of g with the locality a gravitational system of force-measurement is inapplicable when more than a moderate degree of accuracy is desired.

We take next the case of a particle attracted towards a fixed point O in the line of motion with a force varying as the distance from that point. If μ be the acceleration at unit distance, the equation of motion becomes

the solution of which may be written in either of the forms

x = A cos σt + B sin σt, x = a cos (σt + ε),

Fig. 61.

where σ= √μ, and the two constants A, B or a, ε are arbitrary. The particle oscillates between the two positions x = ±a, and the same point is passed through in the same direction with the same velocity at equal intervals of time 2π/σ. The type of motion represented by (6) is of fundamental importance in the theory of vibrations (§ 23); it is called a simple-harmonic or (shortly) a simple vibration. If we imagine a point Q to describe a circle of radius a with the angular velocity σ, its orthogonal projection P on a fixed diameter AA′ will execute a vibration of this character. The angle σt + ε (or AOQ) is called the phase; the arbitrary elements a, ε are called the amplitude and epoch (or initial phase), respectively. In the case of very rapid vibrations it is usual to specify, not the period (2π/σ), but its reciprocal the frequency, i.e. the number of complete vibrations per unit time. Fig. 62 shows the curves of position and velocity; they both have the form of the “curve of sines.” The numbers correspond to an amplitude of 10 centimetres and a period of two seconds.

The vertical oscillations of a weight which hangs from a fixed point by a spiral spring come under this case. If M be the mass, and x the vertical displacement from the position of equilibrium, the equation of motion is of the form

provided the inertia of the spring itself be neglected. This becomes identical with (5) if we put μ = K/M; and the period is therefore 2π√(M/K), the same for all amplitudes. The period is increased by an increase of the mass M, and diminished by an increase in the stiffness (K) of the spring. If c be the statical increase of length which is produced by the gravity of the mass M, we have Kc = Mg, and the period is 2π√(c/g).

Fig. 62.

The small oscillations of a simple pendulum in a vertical plane also come under equation (5). According to the principles of § 13, the horizontal motion of the bob is affected only by the horizontal component of the force acting upon it. If the inclination of the string to the vertical does not exceed a few degrees, the vertical displacement of the particle is of the second order, so that the vertical acceleration may be neglected, and the tension of the string may be equated to the gravity mg of the particle. Hence if l be the length of the string, and x the horizontal displacement of the bob from the equilibrium position, the horizontal component of gravity is mgx/l, whence

The motion is therefore simple-harmonic, of period τ = 2π√(l/g). This indicates an experimental method of determining g with considerable accuracy, using the formula g = 4π2l/τ2.

In acoustics we meet with the case where a body is urged towards a fixed point by a force varying as the distance, and is also acted upon by an “extraneous” or “disturbing” force which is a given function of the time. The most important case is where this function is simple-harmonic, so that the equation (5) is replaced by

where σ1 is prescribed. A particular solution is

This represents a forced oscillation whose period 2π/σ1, coincides with that of the disturbing force; and the phase agrees with that of the force, or is opposed to it, according as σ12 < or > μ; i.e. according as the imposed period is greater or less than the natural period 2π/√μ. The solution fails when the two periods agree exactly; the formula (12) is then replaced by

which represents a vibration of continually increasing amplitude. Since the equation (12) is in practice generally only an approximation (as in the case of the pendulum), this solution can only 976 be accepted as a representation of the initial stages of the forced oscillation. To obtain the complete solution of (11) we must of course superpose the free vibration (6) with its arbitrary constants in order to obtain a complete representation of the most general motion consequent on arbitrary initial conditions.

A simple mechanical illustration is afforded by the pendulum. If the point of suspension have an imposed simple vibration ξ = a cos σt in a horizontal line, the equation of small motion of the bob is

mẍ = −mg	x − ξ	,
	l

or

ẍ +	gx	= g	ξ	.
	l		l

(14)

Fig. 63.

This is the same as if the point of suspension were fixed, and a horizontal disturbing force mgξ/l were to act on the bob. The difference of phase of the forced vibration in the two cases is illustrated and explained in the annexed fig. 63, where the pendulum virtually oscillates about C as a fixed point of suspension. This illustration was given by T. Young in connexion with the kinetic theory of the tides, where the same point arises.

We may notice also the case of an attractive force varying inversely as the square of the distance from the origin. If μ be the acceleration at unit distance, we have

u	du	= −	μ
	dx		x2

(15)

whence

u2 =	2μ	+ C.
	x

(16)

In the case of a particle falling directly towards the earth from rest at a very great distance we have C = 0 and, by Newton’s Law of Gravitation, μ/a2 = g, where a is the earth’s radius. The deviation of the earth’s figure from sphericity, and the variation of g with latitude, are here ignored. We find that the velocity with which the particle would arrive at the earth’s surface (x = a) is √(2ga). If we take as rough values a = 21 × 106 feet, g = 32 foot-second units, we get a velocity of 36,500 feet, or about seven miles, per second. If the particles start from rest at a finite distance c, we have in (16), C = − 2μ/c, and therefore

dx	= u = − √ {	2μ (c − x)	},
dt		cx

(17)

the minus sign indicating motion towards the origin. If we put x = c cos2 1⁄2φ, we find

t =	c3/2	(φ + sin φ),
	√(8μ)

(18)

no additive constant being necessary if t be reckoned from the instant of starting, when φ = 0. The time t of reaching the origin (φ = π) is

t1 =	π c3/2	.
	√(8μ)

(19)

This may be compared with the period of revolution in a circular orbit of radius c about the same centre of force, viz. 2πc3/2 / √μ (§ 14). We learn that if the orbital motion of a planet, or a satellite, were arrested, the body would fall into the sun, or into its primary, in the fraction 0.1768 of its actual periodic time. Thus the moon would reach the earth in about five days. It may be noticed that if the scales of x and t be properly adjusted, the curve of positions in the present problem is the portion of a cycloid extending from a vertex to a cusp.

In any case of rectilinear motion, if we integrate both sides of the equation

which is equivalent to (1), with respect to x between the limits x0, x1, we obtain

1⁄2 mu12 − 1⁄2 mu02 = ∫x1x0 X dx.

We recognize the right-hand member as the work done by the force X on the particle as the latter moves from the position x0 to the position x1. If we construct a curve with x as abscissa and X as ordinate, this work is represented, as in J. Watt’s “indicator-diagram,” by the area cut off by the ordinates x = x0, x = x1. The product 1⁄2mu2 is called the kinetic energy of the particle, and the equation (21) is therefore equivalent to the statement that the increment of the kinetic energy is equal to the work done on the particle. If the force X be always the same in the same position, the particle may be regarded as moving in a certain invariable “field of force.” The work which would have to be supplied by other forces, extraneous to the field, in order to bring the particle from rest in some standard position P0 to rest in any assigned position P, will depend only on the position of P; it is called the statical or potential energy of the particle with respect to the field, in the position P. Denoting this by V, we have δV − Xδx = 0, whence

The equation (21) may now be written

1⁄2 mu12 + V1 = 1⁄2 mu02 + V0,

which asserts that when no extraneous forces act the sum of the kinetic and potential energies is constant. Thus in the case of a weight hanging by a spiral spring the work required to increase the length by x is V = ∫x0 Kx dx = 1⁄2Kx2, whence 1⁄2Mu2 + 1⁄2Kx2 = const., as is easily verified from preceding results. It is easily seen that the effect of extraneous forces will be to increase the sum of the kinetic and potential energies by an amount equal to the work done by them. If this amount be negative the sum in question is diminished by a corresponding amount. It appears then that this sum is a measure of the total capacity for doing work against extraneous resistances which the particle possesses in virtue of its motion and its position; this is in fact the origin of the term “energy.” The product mv2 had been called by G. W. Leibnitz the “vis viva”; the name “energy” was substituted by T. Young; finally the name “actual energy” was appropriated to the expression 1⁄2mv2 by W. J. M. Rankine.

For purposes of mathematical treatment a force which produces a finite change of velocity in a time too short to be appreciated is regarded as infinitely great, and the time of action as infinitely short. The whole effect is summed up in the value of the instantaneous impulse, which is the time-integral of the force. Thus if an instantaneous impulse ξ changes the velocity of a mass m from u to u′ we have

mu′ − mu = ξ.

The effect of ordinary finite forces during the infinitely short duration of this impulse is of course ignored.

We may apply this to the theory of impact. If two masses m1, m2 moving in the same straight line impinge, with the result that the velocities are changed from u1, u2, to u1′, u2′, then, since the impulses on the two bodies must be equal and opposite, the total momentum is unchanged, i.e.

m1u1′ + m2u2′ = m1u1 + m2u2.

The complete determination of the result of a collision under given circumstances is not a matter of abstract dynamics alone, but requires some auxiliary assumption. If we assume that there is no loss of apparent kinetic energy we have also

m1u1′2 + m2u2′2 = m1u12 + m2u22.

Hence, and from (38),

u2′ − u1′ = −(u2 − u1),

i.e. the relative velocity of the two bodies is reversed in direction, but unaltered in magnitude. This appears to be the case very approximately with steel or glass balls; generally, however, there is some appreciable loss of apparent energy; this is accounted for by vibrations produced in the balls and imperfect elasticity of the materials. The usual empirical assumption is that

u2′ − u1′ = −e (u2 − u1),

where e is a proper fraction which is constant for the same two bodies. It follows from the formula § 15 (10) for the internal kinetic energy of a system of particles that as a result of the impact this energy is diminished by the amount

The further theoretical discussion of the subject belongs to Elasticity.

This is perhaps the most suitable place for a few remarks on the theory of “dimensions.” (See also Units, Dimensions of.) In any absolute system of dynamical measurement the fundamental units are those of mass, length and time; we may denote them by the symbols M, L, T, respectively. They may be chosen quite arbitrarily, e.g. on the C.G.S. system they are the gramme, centimetre and second. All other units are derived from these. Thus the unit of velocity is that of a point describing the unit of length in the unit of time; it may be denoted by LT−1, this symbol indicating that the magnitude of the unit in question varies directly as the unit of length and inversely as the unit of time. The unit of acceleration is the acceleration of a point which gains unit velocity in unit time; it is accordingly denoted by LT−2. The unit of momentum is MLT−1; the unit force generates unit momentum in unit time and is therefore denoted by MLT−2. The unit of work on the same principles is ML2T−2, and it is to be noticed that this is identical with the unit of kinetic energy. Some of these derivative units have special names assigned to them; thus on the C.G.S. system the unit of force is called the dyne, and the unit of work or energy the erg. The number which expresses a physical quantity of any particular kind will of course vary inversely as the magnitude of the corresponding unit. In any general dynamical equation the dimensions of each term in the fundamental units must be the same, for a change of units would otherwise alter the various terms in different ratios. This principle is often useful as a check on the accuracy of an equation.

Fig. 64.

§ 13. General Motion of a Particle.—Let P, Q be the positions of a moving point at times t, t + δt respectively. A vector OU> drawn parallel to PQ, of length proportional to PQ/δt on any convenient scale, will represent the mean velocity in the interval δt, i.e. a point moving with a constant velocity having the magnitude and direction indicated by this vector would experience the same resultant displacement PQ> in the same time. As δt is indefinitely diminished, the vector OU> will tend to a definite limit OV>; this is adopted as the definition 978 of the velocity of the moving point at the instant t. Obviously OV> is parallel to the tangent to the path at P, and its magnitude is ds/dt, where s is the arc. If we project OV> on the co-ordinate axes (rectangular or oblique) in the usual manner, the projections u, v, w are called the component velocities parallel to the axes. If x, y, z be the co-ordinates of P it is easily proved that

The momentum of a particle is the vector obtained by multiplying the velocity by the mass m. The impulse of a force in any infinitely small interval of time δt is the product of the force into δt; it is to be regarded as a vector. The total impulse in any finite interval of time is the integral of the impulses corresponding to the infinitesimal elements δt into which the interval may be subdivided; the summation of which the integral is the limit is of course to be understood in the vectorial sense.

Newton’s Second Law asserts that change of momentum is equal to the impulse; this is a statement as to equality of vectors and so implies identity of direction as well as of magnitude. If X, Y, Z are the components of force, then considering the changes in an infinitely short time δt we have, by projection on the co-ordinate axes, δ(mu) = Xδt, and so on, or

For example, the path of a particle projected anyhow under gravity will obviously be confined to the vertical plane through the initial direction of motion. Taking this as the plane xy, with the axis of x drawn horizontally, and that of y vertically upwards, we have X = 0, Y = −mg; so that

The solution is

x = At + B,   y = −1⁄2gt2 + Ct + D.

If the initial values of x, y, ẋ, ẏ are given, we have four conditions to determine the four arbitrary constants A, B, C, D. Thus if the particle start at time t = 0 from the origin, with the component velocities u0, v0, we have

x = u0t,   y = v0t − 1⁄2gt2.

Eliminating t we have the equation of the path, viz.

This is a parabola with vertical axis, of latus-rectum 2u02/g. The range on a horizontal plane through O is got by putting y = 0, viz. it is 2u0v0/g. we denote the resultant velocity at any instant by ṡ we have

ṡ2 = ẋ2 + ẏ2 = ṡ02 − 2gy.

Another important example is that of a particle subject to an acceleration which is directed always towards a fixed point O and is proportional to the distance from O. The motion will evidently be in one plane, which we take as the plane z = 0. If μ be the acceleration at unit distance, the component accelerations parallel to axes of x and y through O as origin will be −μx, −μy, whence

The solution is

x = A cos nt + B sin nt,   y = C cos nt + D sin nt,

where n = √μ. If P be the initial position of the particle, we may conveniently take OP as axis of x, and draw Oy parallel to the direction of motion at P. If OP = a, and ṡ0 be the velocity at P, we have, initially, x = a, y = 0, ẋ = 0, ẏ = ṡ0 whence

x = a cos nt,   y = b sin nt,

if b = ṡ0/n. The path is therefore an ellipse of which a, b are conjugate semi-diameters, and is described in the period 2π/√μ; moreover, the velocity at any point P is equal to √μ·OD, where OD is the semi-diameter conjugate to OP. This type of motion is called elliptic harmonic. If the co-ordinate axes are the principal axes of the ellipse, the angle nt in (10) is identical with the “excentric angle.” The motion of the bob of a “spherical pendulum,” i.e. a simple pendulum whose oscillations are not confined to one vertical plane, is of this character, provided the extreme inclination of the string to the vertical be small. The acceleration is towards the vertical through the point of suspension, and is equal to gr/l, approximately, if r denote distance from this vertical. Hence the path is approximately an ellipse, and the period is 2π √(l/g).

Fig. 65.	Fig. 66.

It is sometimes convenient to resolve the accelerations in directions having a more intrinsic relation to the path. Thus, in a plane path, let P, Q be two consecutive positions, corresponding to the times t, t + δt; and let the normals at P, Q meet in C, making an angle δψ. Let v (= ṡ) be the velocity at P, v + δv that at Q. In the time δt the velocity parallel to the tangent at P changes from v to v + δv, ultimately, and the tangential acceleration at P is therefore dv/dt or s̈. Again, the velocity parallel to the normal at P changes from 0 to vδψ, ultimately, so that the normal acceleration is v dψ/dt. Since

where ρ is the radius of curvature of the path at P, the tangential and normal accelerations are also expressed by v dv/ds and v2/ρ, respectively. Take, for example, the case of a particle moving on a smooth curve in a vertical plane, under the action of gravity and the pressure R of the curve. If the axes of x and y be drawn horizontal and vertical (upwards), and if ψ be the inclination of the tangent to the horizontal, we have

The former equation gives

v2 = C − 2gy,

and the latter then determines R.