Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

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 ([Greek: ta logia synegrapsen]) in the Hebrew language, and each man interpreted them as he was able." Whether "the elder" referred to in the passage on Mark, or some other like authority, was the source of this statement also does not appear; but it is probable that this was the case from the context in which Eusebius gives it. Conservative writers on the Gospels have frequently maintained that the writing here referred to was virtually the Hebrew original of our Greek Gospel which bears his name. And it is indeed likely that Papias himself closely associated the latter with the Hebrew (or Aramaic) work by Matthew, of which he had been told, since the traditional connexion of this Greek Gospel with Matthew can hardly have begun later than this time. It is reasonable also to suppose that there was some ground for it. The description, however, of what Matthew did suits better the making of a collection of Christ's discourses and sayings than the composition of a work corresponding in form and character to our Gospel of Matthew.

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

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

2. _The Plan on which the Contents is arranged._--In two respects the arrangement of the book itself is significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercy to the Gentiles and the punishment of "the sons of the kingdom"
is foretold viii. 11, 12. The commission to go and convert Gentile
peoples ([Greek: ethnê]) is given after Christ's resurrection (xxviii.
19).

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

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

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

(c) _The Teaching on the Kingdom of God._--Note the collection of
parables "of the Kingdom" in xiii.; also the use of [Greek: hê
basileia] ("the Kingdom") without further definition as a term the
reference of which could not be misunderstood, especially in the
following phrases peculiar to this Gospel: [Greek: to euangelion tês
basileias] ("the Gospel of the Kingdom") iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; and
[Greek: ho logos tês basileias] ("the word of the kingdom") xiii. 19.
The following descriptions of the kingdom, peculiar to this Gospel,
are also interesting [Greek: hê basileia tou patros autôn] ("the
kingdom of their father") xiii. 43 and [Greek: tou patros mou]("of my
father") xxvi. 29.

(d) _The Relation of the New Law to the Old._--Verses 17-48, cf. also,
addition at xxii. 40 and xix. 19b. Further, his use of [Greek:
dikaiosynê] ("righteousness") and [Greek: dikaios]("righteous")
(specially frequent in this Gospel) is such as to connect the New with
the Old; the standard in mind is the law which "fulfilled" that
previously given.

(e) _The Christian Ecclesia._--Chap. xvi. 18, xviii. 17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHORITIES.--The relation of Matthew Paris's work to those of John de
Cella and Roger of Wendover may best be studied in H. R. Luard's
edition of the _Chronica majora_ (7 vols., Rolls series, 1872-1883),
which contains valuable prefaces. The _Historia_ _Anglorum sive
historia minor_ (1067-1253) has been edited by F. Madden (3 vols.,
Rolls series, 1866-1869). Matthew Paris is often confused with
"Matthew of Westminster," the reputed author of the _Flores
historiarum_ edited by H. R. Luard (3 vols., Rolls series, 1890). This
work, compiled by various hands, is an edition of Matthew Paris, with
continuations extending to 1326. Matthew Paris also wrote a life of
Edmund Rich (q.v.), which is probably the work printed in W. Wallace's
_St Edmund of Canterbury_ (London, 1893) pp. 543-588, though this is
attributed by the editor to the monk Eustace; _Vitae abbatum S Albani_
(up to 1225) which have been edited by W. Watts (1640, &c.); and
(possibly) the _Abbreviatio chronicorum_ (1000-1255), edited by F.
Madden, in the third volume of the _Historia Anglorum_. On the value
of Matthew as an historian see F. Liebermann in G. H. Pertz's
_Scriptores_ xxviii. pp. 74-106; A. Jessopp's _Studies by a Recluse_
(London, 1893); H. Plehn's _Politische Character Matheus Parisiensis_
(Leipzig, 1897). (H. W. C. D.)

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

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

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

FOOTNOTE:

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

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

His brother, FRIEDRICH CHRISTIAN MATTHIAE (1763-1822), rector of the Frankfort gymnasium, published valuable editions of Seneca's _Letters_, Aratus, and Dionysius Periegetes.

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

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

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

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

For the life and reign of Matthias the following works may be
consulted: J. Heling, _Die Wahl des römischen Königs Matthias_
(Belgrade, 1892); A. Gindely, _Rudolf II. und seine Zeit_ (Prague,
1862-1868); F. Stieve, _Die Verhandlungen über die Nachfolge Kaisers
Rudolf II._ (Munich, 1880); P. von Chlumecky, _Karl von Zierotin und
seine Zeit_ (Brünn, 1862-1879); A. Kerschbaumer, _Kardinal Klesel_
(Vienna, 1865); M. Ritter, _Quellenbeiträge zur Geschichte des Kaisers
Rudolf II._ (Munich, 1872); _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
Gegenreformation und des dreissigjährigen Krieges_ (Stuttgart, 1887,
seq.); and the article on Matthias in the _Allgemeine deutsche
Biographie_, Bd. XX. (Leipzig, 1884); L. von Ranke, _Zur deutschen
Geschichte vom Religionsfrieden bis zum 30-jährigen Kriege_ (Leipzig,
1888); and J. Janssen, _Geschichte des deutschen Volks seit dem
Ausgang des Mittelalters_ (Freiburg, 1878 seq.), Eng. trans. by M. A.
Mitchell and A. M. Christie (London, 1896, seq.).

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

the 23rd of February 1440. His tutors were the learned János Vitéz, bishop of Nagyvárad, whom he subsequently raised to the primacy, and the Polish humanist Gregory Sanocki. The precocious lad quickly mastered the German, Latin and principal Slavonic languages, frequently acting as his father's interpreter at the reception of ambassadors. His military training proceeded under the eye of his father, whom he began to follow on his campaigns when only twelve years of age. In 1453 he was created count of Bistercze, and was knighted at the siege of Belgrade in 1454. The same care for his welfare led his father to choose him a bride in the powerful Cilli family, but the young Elizabeth died before the marriage was consummated, leaving Matthias a widower at the age of fifteen. On the death of his father he was inveigled to Buda by the enemies of his house, and, on the pretext of being concerned in a purely imaginary conspiracy against Ladislaus V., was condemned to decapitation, but was spared on account of his youth, and on the king's death fell into the hands of George Podebrad, governor of Bohemia, the friend of the Hunyadis, in whose interests it was that a national king should sit on the Magyar throne. Podebrad 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 Podebrad, 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 Podebrad, he was able to turn his arms against the emperor Frederick, and in April 1462 Frederick restored the holy crown for 60,000 ducats and was allowed to retain certain Hungarian counties with the title of king; in return for which concessions, extorted from Matthias by the necessity of coping with a simultaneous rebellion of the Magyar noble in league with Podebrad'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. Podebrad, 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 Podebrad on the 22nd of March 1471 led to fresh complications. At the very moment when Matthias was about to profit by the disappearance of his most capable rival, another dangerous rebellion, headed by the primate and the chief dignitaries of the state, with the object of placing Casimir, son of Casimir IV., on the throne, paralysed Matthias's foreign policy during the critical years 1470-1471. He suppressed this domestic rebellion indeed, but in the meantime the Poles had invaded the Bohemian domains with 60,000 men, and when in 1474 Matthias was at last able to take the field against them in order to raise the siege of Breslau, he was obliged to fortify himself in an entrenched camp, whence he so skilfully harried the enemy that the Poles, impatient to return to their own country, made peace at Breslau (Feb. 1475) on an _uti possidetis_ basis, a peace subsequently confirmed by the congress of Olmütz (July 1479). During the interval between these peaces, Matthias, in self-defence, again made war on the emperor, reducing Frederick to such extremities that he was glad to accept peace on any terms. By the final arrangement made between the contending princes, Matthias recognized Ladislaus as king of Bohemia proper in return for the surrender of Moravia, Silesia and Upper and Lower Lusatia, hitherto component parts of the Czech monarchy, till he should have redeemed them for 400,000 florins. The emperor promised to pay Matthias 100,000 florins as a war indemnity, and recognized him as the legitimate king of Hungary on the understanding that he should succeed him if he died without male issue, a contingency at this time somewhat improbable, as Matthias, only three years previously (Dec. 15, 1476), had married his third wife, Beatrice of Naples, daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon.

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

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

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

See Vilmós Fraknói, _King Matthias Hunyadi_ (Hung., Budapest, 1890,
German ed., Freiburg, 1891); Ignácz Acsády, _History of the Hungarian
Realm_ (Hung. vol. i., Budapest, 1904); József Teleki, _The Age of the
Hunyadis in Hungary_ (Hung., vols. 3-5, Budapest, 1852-1890); V.
Fraknói, _Life of János Vitéz_ (Hung. Budapest 1879); Karl Schober,
_Die Eroberung Niederösterreichs durch Matthias Corvinus_ (Vienna,
1879); János Huszár, _Matthias's Black Army_ (Hung. Budapest, 1890);
Antonio Bonfini, _Rerum hungaricarum decades_ (7th ed., Leipzig,
1771); Aeneas Sylvius, _Opera_ (Frankfort, 1707); _The Correspondence
of King Matthias_ (Hung. and Lat., Budapest, 1893); V. Fraknói, _The
Embassies of Cardinal Carvajal to Hungary_ (Hung., Budapest, 1889);
Marzio Galeotti, _De egregie sapienter et jocose, dictis ac factis
Matthiae regis (Script. reg. hung. I.)_ (Vienna, 1746). Of the above
the first is the best general sketch and is rich in notes; the second
somewhat chauvinistic but excellently written; the third the best work
for scholars; the seventh, eighth and eleventh are valuable as being
by contemporaries. (R. N. B.)

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

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