545 



MAUNDY THURSDAY. 



MAUSOLEUM. 



548 



order to reconcile these facts with the statements of the early writers* 

 Bengel long ago, and others since, have supposed that there were tu'o 

 originals of the Gospel, one written in Hebrew for the Jewish converts, 

 and the other in Greek for general use. This belief is gaining ground, 

 and is supported by the facts that Greek was the common language 

 of literature and business, and that Josephus wrote his history in both 

 languages. 



The date of St. Matthew's Gospel has been the subject of as much 

 dispute as its original language. If it were written at first for the use 

 of the Christians in Judsca, the date would probably be early ; and it 

 has been remarked that the exhortations which it contains to patience 

 under persecution would be most acceptable to the Jewish Christians 

 in their persecution by the Sanhedrim soon after the ascension of 

 Christ. None of the early writers, except Irenscus, give any explicit 

 testimony on the subject, but their statements appear to imply that 

 this was the first written of the four Gospels, and also, what indeed 

 Eusebius expressly asserts, that it was composed before Matthew left 

 Judica. On these grounds, and from the supposed improbability of 

 the Christians remaining long without some written account of the 

 life of Jesus, the general opinion has assigned it the date of about 

 A.D. 41. 



But Irenieus says that it was put forth while Peter and Paul were 

 preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of a church there. 

 (' Adv. H<er.,' iii. 1, in Euseb., ' Hist. Ecc.,' v. 8.) On the strength of 

 this testimony Michaelis, Lardner, and others have fixed the date at 

 A.D. 61 or 63, and Lardner has drawn an elaborate argument in favour 

 of this date from the internal evidence of the book itself, in which he 

 endeavours to show that Matthew understood many points in the 

 Christian system which the Apostles did not understand till some 

 considerable time after Christ's ascension. But as in these passages 

 Matthew is recording the words and actions of Jesus, and not his own 

 opinions, we cannot see any force in the argument. 



Some of the advocates for a double original refer the Hebrew copy 

 to the earlier date, and the Greek to the later. 



The genuineness, authenticity, and canonical authority of this Gospel 

 aie established beyond dispute by the unanimous testimony of Christian 

 writers from the earliest age, and by its place in the ancient versions. 

 But many critics have doubted the genuineness of the lir.st and second 

 chapters, chiefly on account of the difference between the genealogy of 

 Christ in the first chapter, and that given by St. Luke (iii.), and other 

 discrepancies between these chapters and Luke's account of the early 

 life of Christ, and other internal difficulties, and also on the ground 

 that they were omitted in the copies used by the Nazarenes and 

 Ebionites, which however were undoubtedly corrupt. The chief argu- 

 ments on the other side are, that these chapters are contained in all 

 the ancient MSS. and versions, that they are referred to and quoted 

 by several of the Fathers, that the particle 5e at the beginning of the 

 third chapter shows that something had gone before, and that the 

 style of these two chapters agrees with that of the rest of the 

 Gospel, especially in the manner of quoting the prophecies of the Old 

 Testament. 



St. Matthew was an Apostle and an eye-witness of the acts of Jesus, 

 at least of those which were after his call. His narrative has therefore 

 the highest degree of credibility. His style of narration is simple and 

 effective, and he relates the discourses of Christ with clearness, and 

 often with great energy. 



(Lardner's Credibility and Lives of the Apostles and Evanyeliata ; 

 Cave's Lira of the Apostles ; Kuinoel, Comment, in Lib. Hut. N. T. 

 Prole'j. in Matt. ; Dr. Kitto's lntrodwctv/n to St. Matthew, in Pictorial 

 Bible, edit. 1849 ; and the Introductions of Michaelis, Eichhorn, De 

 Wette, Hug, and Home.) 



MAUNDY THURSDAY, the Thursday preceding Easter, on 

 which the king or queen distributes alms to a certain number of poor 

 persons at Whitehall ; so named from the maunds, or baskets, in which 

 the gifts were formerly contained. It was also called Shere Thursday, 

 aa we read in the ' Festival ' of 1 511 ; because anciently " people would 

 that day shere theyr hedes and clypp theyr berdes, and so make them 

 honest agenst Easter-day." 



The custom of the maundy is of considerable antiquity. Augustine, 

 according to Du Cange, is first quoted for it. It was a charitable 

 custom, and instituted in imitation of our Saviour's pattern of humility. 

 Originally the bestower of the maund also washed the feet of a certain 

 number of the recipients of the charity. This ceremony is still con- 

 tinued by the Pope in Rome. In England at least it was not entirely 

 confyied to royalty. In the earl of Northumberland's ' Household 

 Book,' begun in 1512, fol. 354, we have an enumeration of " Al maner 

 of things yerly yeven by my lorde of his maundy, ande my laidis, and 

 his lordshippi's childeren." 



James II. was the last of our kings who performed the ceremony of 

 washing the feet in person. The queen's royal alms are now distributed 

 on Saturday at the almonry office, to the maundy men and women 

 placed on the supernumerary lists, owing to the difference of the ages 

 between the late king and her present Majesty. Both men and 

 women receive 21. 10., and as many silver pennies as the queen has 

 numbered years. To the men, woollen and linen clothing, shoes, and 

 stockings are given ; and to the women, in lieu of clothing, II. 15*. 

 each. The maundy men and women also receive 12. 10*., a commu- 

 tation instead of the provisions heretofore distributed) 



ARTS AJfO IC1. DIT. VOL. v, 



Dr. E. D. Clarke, in his ' Travels in Russia,' 4to. Cambr., 1810, gives 

 an account of the ceremonial of washing the feet of the apostles, as it 

 is called, on this day at Moscow. " This," he says, " we also witnessed. 

 The priests appeared in their most gorgeous apparel. Twel re monks, 

 designed to represent the twelve apostles, were placed in a semicircle 

 before the archbishop. The ceremony is performed in the cathedral, 

 which is crowded with spectators. The archbishop performing all, 

 and much more than is related of our Saviour in the 13th chapter of 

 St. John, takes off his robes, girds up his loins with a towel, and pro- 

 ceeds to wash the feet of them all until he comes to the representative 

 of St. Peter, who rises, and the same interlocution takes place as 

 between our Saviour and that apostle." 



(Brand's Popular Antiq., edit, by Sir H. Ellis, 1841 ; Fosbrooke's 

 Encyclopedia of Antiquities, p. 702.) 



MAUR, ST., CONGREGATION OF, a celebrated society of Bene- 

 dictines in France, who professed to follow the primitive rule of that 

 order. It was first established in 1618. Pope Gregory XV., at the 

 instance of Louis XIII., gave it his approval by his brief dated 17th 

 May, 1621 ; and Urban VIII. granted it new privileges by a bull dated 

 21st January, 1627. The report of the sanctity of this congregation 

 induced several bishops, abbots, and monks to submit their monasteries 

 to the direction of its superior, so that the congregation at last became 

 divided into six provinces, of which each contained about twenty 

 religious houses. The most considerable were, St. Denys, St. Germain- 

 des-Pre"s, St. Remi at Rheims, Marmoustier, St. Pierre de Corbie, 

 Fleuri or St. Benoit sur Loire, Fescamp, and the Trinite' de VendSme. 

 The monks, beside the rule of St. Benedict, had other particular 

 statutes and constitutions, and were governed by a general-superior, 

 assistants, and visitors, who held a general chapter every three years 

 at Marmoustier. Those who have any acquaintance with the history 

 and progress of learning in Europe will readily acknowledge the 

 advantages which letters have derived from this famous congregation, 

 whose researches took in the whole circle of sciences, philosophy 

 excepted. Among its more eminent members in the 17th century 

 may be enumerated Hugh Menard, Luc d'Acheri, Jean Mabillon, 

 Thierri Ruinart, and Bernard de Montfaucon. Moreri gives a list of 

 the general-superiors of this congregation from 1630 to 1756. 



(Moreri, Diction. Hiitorique, torn. vii. ; Ilistoire Litteraire de la Con- 

 gregation de Saint Maur, 1770, by Dom Tassin.) 



MAUSOLEUM, is the general term applied to a sepulchral edifice. 

 Originally, however, Mausoleum (Mau<ro\eioj') designated the magnificent 

 structure erected at Halicarnassus, B.C. -352, by Artemisia, as the 

 sepulchre of her husband, Mausolus, king of Caria. So far did this 

 surpass in magnificence all similar structures, that in the time of 

 Pausanias, mausoleum had come to be the generic term for a costly 

 tomb. Recent researches have invested the Mausoleum of Halicar- 

 nassus with a new interest. 



Pliny gives a somewhat minute description of the building (xxxvi., 

 5), from which it appears to have been oblong in plan, the north and 

 south sides extending 63 feet, the ends or fronts being shorter. The 

 pteron was, he says, surrounded by thirty-six lofty columns, above 

 which, and of equal height, rose by steps a pyramidal roof, the apex of 

 which was surmounted with a quadriga. The entire height was 

 140 feet : the entire circuit 411 feet. Pythis and Satyrus were the 

 architects. The sculptures with which it was adorned were the work 

 of Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus, and Leochares, each of whom executed 

 the frieze of one of the sides : the quadriga being the work of Pythis. 

 All the ancient writers who refer to it do so in terms of unbounded 

 admiration ; and in the time of Pliny, and for centuries after, it was 

 regarded as one of the " wonders of the world." Gradually, however, 

 it appears to have become ruinous ; in part at least it was probably 

 thrown down by an earthquake, and its destruction was nearly com- 

 pleted when, in 1404, the Knights of Rhodes took possession of Halicar- 

 nassus and employed the materials of the Mausoleum in the erection of 

 the castle, or fortress, of San Pietro. Twice, within little more than a 

 century, was the castle repaired or enlarged, the Mausoleum still serv- 

 ing as a quarry ; yet until the last occasion (1522) a large portion of 

 the lower part of the building, including much of the sculpture, must 

 have remained standing, as it is particularly described (from the narra- 

 tive of one De la Tourrette who was present at its final destruction) in 

 the ' Funerailles des Remains, Grecs, &c.,' of Guichard (Lyon, 1581, aa 

 quoted by Messrs. Newton and Hawkins). Eventually Halicarnassus 

 passed into the hands of the Turks, who gave to the place the name of 

 the castle, which they corrupted into Budrum, and the very site of 

 the famous sepulchre was forgotten. Archjeologists, indeed, at various 

 times, published their conjectures, and travellers once and again 

 visited the spot in the hope of verifying them ; but until within 

 the last few years all was uncertainty. 



The researches of Sir Charles Fellows in Asia Minor having called 

 Attention once more to the subject, the English government directed 

 ;heir ambassador at Constantinople, Sir Stratford Canning, if possible 

 to secure the sculptures still existing in the Castle of Budrum from 

 further injury ; and he, having obtained a firman from the Sultan, 

 caused them to be carefully removed and forwarded to the British 

 Vluseum. They consisted of two or three mutilated statues and eleven 

 slabs, which proved to be a portion of the frieze described by Pliny as 

 containing the Amazonomachia, or Battle of the Amazons with the 

 3reeks, a work of exceeding interest in the history of Greek art. Mr. C, 



