Encyclopaedia Britannica_ 11th Edition_ _Magnetite_ to _Malt_ Various 1096 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th
Edition, "Magnetite" to "Malt"
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Magnetite" to "Malt"

Author: Various

Release date: June 1, 2013 [eBook #42854]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42854

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "MAGNETITE" TO "MALT" ***

Transcriber’s note: A few typographical errors have been corrected. They
appear in the text like this, and the explanation will
appear when the mouse pointer is moved over the
marked passage. Sections in Greek will yield a

transliteration when the pointer is moved over them,
and words using diacritic characters in the Latin
Extended Additional block, which may not display in
some fonts or browsers, will display an unaccented
version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in
other EB volumes will be made available when the
respective volumes are introduced online.

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES,
LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XVII SLICE IV

Magnetite to Malt

Articles in This Slice

MAGNETITE MAJOR, JOHN
MAGNETOGRAPH MAJOR
MAGNETOMETER MAJORCA
MAGNETO-OPTICS MAJORIAN
MAGNOLIA MAJORITY
MAGNUS, HEINRICH GUSTAV MAJUBA
MAGNY, CLAUDE DRIGON MAKALAKA
MAGO MAKARAKA
MAGPIE MAKART, HANS
MAGWE MAKING-UP PRICE
MAGYARS MAKÓ

MAHABALESHWAR MAKRAN
MAHAFFY, JOHN PENTLAND MAKSOORA
MAHALLAT MALABAR
MAHAN, ALFRED THAYER MALABARI, BEHRAMJI
MAHANADI MALABON
MAHANOY CITY MALACCA
MAHAR MALACHI
MAHARAJPUR MALACHITE
MAHĀVAṂSA MALACHOWSKI, STANISLAW
MAHAYANA MALACHY, ST
MAHDI MALACOSTRACA
MAHDIA MALAGA (province of Spain)
MAHÉ MALAGA (city of Spain)
MAHESHWAR MALAKAND PASS
MAHI MALALAS, JOHN
MAHI KANTHA MALAN, SOLOMON CAESAR
MAHMUD I. MÄLAR
MAHMUD II. MALARIA
MAHMUD NEDIM PASHA MALATIA
MAHMUD OF GHAZNI MALAYALAM
MAHOBA MALAY ARCHIPELAGO
MAHOGANY MALĀIR
MAHOMET MALAY PENINSULA
MAHOMMED AHMED IBN SEYYID MALAYS
ABDULLAH
MAHOMMEDAN INSTITUTIONS MALAY STATES (British)
MAHOMMEDAN LAW MALAY STATES (Siamese)
MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION MALCHIN
MAHONY, FRANCIS SYLVESTER MALCOLM
MAHOUT MALCOLM, SIR JOHN
MAHRATTAS MALDA
MAHSEER MALDEN
MAI, ANGELO MALDIVE ISLANDS
MAIA MALDON

MAIDA MALEBRANCHE, NICOLAS
MAIDAN MALER KOTLA
MAIDEN MALESHERBES, CHRÉTIEN
GUILLAUME DE LAMOIGNON DE
MAIDENHAIR MALET, LUCAS
MAIDENHEAD MALHERBE, FRANÇOIS DE
MAID MARIAN MALIBRAN, MARIE FÉLICITÉ
MAIDSTONE MALIC ACID
MAIHAR MALIGNANT
MAIL MALIK IBN ANAS
MAILLY, LOUISE JULIE MALINES
MAIMANA MALLANWAN
MAIMAND MALLARMÉ, FRANÇOIS RENÉ
AUGUSTE
MAIMBOURG, LOUIS MALLARMÉ, STÉPHANE
MAIMING MALLECO
MAIMON, SALOMON MALLEMUCK
MAIMONIDES MALLESON, GEORGE BRUCE
MAIN (river of Germany) MALLET, DAVID
MAIN (power or strength) MALLET, PAUL HENRI
MAINA and MAINOTES MALLET, ROBERT
MAINE, ANNE LOUISE BÉNÉDICTE MALLET DU PAN, JACQUES
DE BOURBON
MAINE, SIR HENRY JAMES MALLING, EAST and WEST
SUMNER
MAINE (French province) MALLOCK, WILLIAM HURRELL
MAINE (U.S. state) MALLOW (town of Ireland)
MAINE DE BIRAN, FRANÇOIS- MALLOW (botanical genus)
PIERRE-GONTHIER
MAINE-ET-LOIRE MALMEDY
MAINPURI MALMESBURY, JAMES HARRIS
MAINTENANCE MALMESBURY, JAMES HOWARD
HARRIS
MAINTENON, FRANÇOISE MALMESBURY
D’AUBIGNÉ
MAINZ MALMÖ

MAIRET, JEAN DE MALMSEY
MAISTRE, JOSEPH DE MALOCELLO, LANCILOTO
MAISTRE, XAVIER DE MALOLOS
MAITLAND, EDWARD MALONE, EDMOND
MAITLAND, FREDERIC WILLIAM MALONE
MAITLAND, SIR RICHARD MALONIC ACID
MAITLAND, WILLIAM MALORY, SIR THOMAS
MAITLAND, EAST and WEST MALOT, HECTOR HENRI
MAITREYA MALOU, JULES ÉDOUARD XAVIER
MAIWAND MALOUET, PIERRE VICTOR
MAIZE MALPIGHI, MARCELLO
MAJESTY MALPLAQUET
MAJLÁTH, JÁNOS MALSTATT-BURBACH
MAJOLICA MALT

MAGNETITE, a mineral forming the
natural magnet (see Magnetism), and important
also as an iron-ore. It is an iron-black, opaque
mineral, with metallic lustre; hardness about 6,
sp. gr. 4.9 to 5.2. When scratched, it yields a
black streak. It is an oxide of iron having the
formula Fe3O4, corresponding with 72.4% of
metal, whence its great value as an ore. It may be
Fig. 1.
regarded as a ferroso-ferric oxide, FeO·Fe2O3, or
as iron ferrate, Fe″Fe2″′O4. Titanium is often present, and occasionally the
mineral contains magnesium, nickel, &c. It is always strongly magnetic.

Magnetite crystallizes in the cubic system, usually in octahedra, less commonly
in rhombic dodecahedra, and not infrequently in twins of the “spinel type” (fig.
1). The rhombic faces of the dodecahedron are often striated parallel to the
longer diagonal. There is no distinct cleavage, but imperfect parting may be
obtained along octahedral planes.

Magnetite is a mineral of wide distribution, occurring as grains in many
massive and volcanic rocks, like granite, diorite and dolerite. It appears to have
crystallized from the magma at a very early period of consolidation. Its presence
contributes to the dark colour of many basalts and other basic rocks, and may
cause them to disturb the compass. Large ore-bodies of granular and compact
magnetite occur as beds and lenticular masses in Archean gneiss and crystalline
schists, in various parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Urals; as also in the
states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan, as well as in
Canada. In some cases it appears to have segregated from a basic eruptive
magma, and in other cases to have resulted from metamorphic action. Certain
deposits appear to have been formed, directly or indirectly, by wet processes.
Iron rust sometimes contains magnetite. An interesting deposit of oolitic
magnetic ore occurs in the Dogger (Inferior Oolite) of Rosedale Abbey, in
Yorkshire; and a somewhat similar pisolitic ore, of Jurassic age, is known on the
continent as chamoisite, having been named from Chamoison (or Chamoson) in
the Valais, Switzerland. Grains of magnetite occur in serpentine, as an alteration-
product of the olivine. In emery, magnetite in a granular form is largely
associated with the corundum; and in certain kinds of mica magnetite occurs as
thin dendritic enclosures. Haematite is sometimes magnetic, and A. Liversidge
has shown that magnetite is probably present. By deoxidation, haematite may be
converted into magnetite, as proved by certain pseudomorphs; but on the other
hand magnetite is sometimes altered to haematite. On weathering, magnetite
commonly passes into limonite, the ferrous oxide having probably been
removed by carbonated waters. Closely related to magnetite is the rare volcanic
mineral from Vesuvius, called magnoferrite, or magnesioferrite, with the
formula MgFe2O4; and with this may be mentioned a mineral from Jakobsberg,
in Vermland, Sweden, called jakobsite, containing MnFe2O4.

(F. W. R.*)

MAGNETOGRAPH, an instrument for continuously recording the
values of the magnetic elements, the three universally chosen being the
declination, the horizontal component and the vertical component (see
Terrestrial Magnetism). In each case the magnetograph only records the
variation of the element, the absolute values being determined by making
observations in the neighbourhood with the unifilar magnetometer (q.v.) and
inclinometer (q.v.).

Declination.—The changes in declination are obtained by means of a
magnet which is suspended by a long fibre and carries a mirror,
immediately below which a fixed mirror is attached to the base of the
instrument. Both mirrors are usually concave; if plane, a concave lens is
placed immediately before them. Light passing through a vertical slit falls
upon the mirrors, from which it is reflected, and two images of the slit are
produced, one by the movable mirror attached to the magnet and the other
by the fixed mirror. These images would be short lines of light; but a piano-
cylindrical lens is placed with its axis horizontal just in front of the
recording surface. In this way a spot of light is obtained from each mirror.
The recording surface is a sheet of photographic paper wrapped round a
drum which is rotated at a constant speed by clockwork about a horizontal
axis. The light reflected from the fixed mirror traces a straight line on the
paper, serving as a base line from which the variations in declination are
measured. As the declination changes the spot of light reflected from the
magnet mirror moves parallel to the axis of the recording drum, and hence
the distance between the line traced by this spot and the base line gives, for

any instant, on an arbitrary scale the difference between the declination and
a constant angle, namely, the declination corresponding to the base line.
The value of this constant angle is obtained by comparing the record with
the value for the declination as measured with a magnetometer. The value
in terms of arc of the scale of the record can be obtained by measuring the
distance between the magnet mirror and the recording drum, and in most
observations it is such that a millimetre on the record represents one minute
of arc. The time scale ordinarily employed is 15 mm. per hour, but in
modern instruments provision is generally made for the time scale to be
increased at will to 180 mm. per hour, so that the more rapid variations of
the declination can be followed. The advantages of using small magnets, so
that their moment of inertia may be small and hence they may be able to
respond to rapid changes in the earth’s field, were first insisted upon by E.
Mascart,1 while M. Eschenhagen2 first designed a set of magnetographs in
which this idea of small moment of inertia was carried to its useful limit,
the magnets only weighing 1.5 gram each, and the suspension consisting of
a very fine quartz fibre.

Horizontal Force.—The variation of the horizontal force is obtained by
the motion of a magnet which is carried either by a bifilar suspension or by
a fairly stiff metal wire or quartz fibre. The upper end of the suspension is
turned till the axis of the magnet is at right angles to the magnetic meridian.
In this position the magnet is in equilibrium under the action of the torsion
of the suspension and the couple exerted by the horizontal component, H,
of the earth’s field, this couple depending on the product of H into the
magnetic moment, M, of the magnet. Hence if H varies the magnet will
rotate in such a way that the couple due to torsion is equal to the new value
of H multiplied by M. Since the movements of the magnet are always
small, the rotation of the magnet is proportional to the change in H, so long
as M and the couple, θ, corresponding to unit twist of the suspension
system remain constant. When the temperature changes, however, both M
and θ in general change. With rise of temperature M decreases, and this
alone will produce the same effect as would a decrease in H. To allow for

this effect of temperature a compensating system of metal bars is attached
to the upper end of the bifilar suspension, so arranged that with rise of
temperature the fibres are brought nearer together and hence the value of θ
decreases. Since such a decrease in θ would by itself cause the magnet to
turn in the same direction as if H had increased, it is possible in a great
measure to neutralize the effects of temperature on the reading of the
instrument. In the case of the unifilar suspension, the provision of a
temperature compensation is not so easy, so that what is generally done is
to protect the instrument from temperature variation as much as possible
and then to correct the indications so as to allow for the residual changes, a
continuous record of the temperature being kept by a recording
thermograph attached to the instrument. In the Eschenhagen pattern
instrument, in which a single quartz fibre is used for the suspension, two
magnets are placed in the vicinity of the suspended magnet and are so
arranged that their field partly neutralizes the earth’s field; thus the torsion
required to hold the magnet with its axis perpendicular to the earth’s field is
reduced, and the arrangement permits of the sensitiveness being altered by
changing the position of the deflecting magnets. Further, by suitably
choosing the positions of the deflectors and the coefficient of torsion of the
fibre, it is possible to make the temperature coefficient vanish. (See Adolf
Schmidt, Zeits. für Instrumentenkunde, 1907, 27, 145.) The method of
recording the variations in H is exactly the same as that adopted in the case
of the declination, and the sensitiveness generally adopted is such that 1
mm. on the record represents a change in H of .00005 C.G.S., the time scale
being the same as that employed in the case of the declination.

Vertical Component.—To record the variations of the vertical component
use is made of a magnet mounted on knife edges so that it can turn freely
about a horizontal axis at right angles to its length (H. Lloyd, Proc. Roy.
Irish Acad., 1839, 1, 334). The magnet is so weighted that its axis is
approximately horizontal, and any change in the inclination of the axis is
observed by means of an attached mirror, a second mirror fixed to the stand
serving to give a base line for the records, which are obtained in the same

way as in the case of the declination. The magnet is in equilibrium under
the influence of the couple VM due to the vertical component V, and the
couple due to the fact that the centre of gravity is slightly on one side of the
knife-edge. Hence when, say, V decreases the couple VM decreases, and
hence the north end of the balanced magnet rises, and vice versa. The chief
difficulty with this form of instrument is that it is very sensitive to changes
of temperature, for such changes not only alter M but also in general cause
the centre of gravity of the system to be displaced with reference to the
knife-edge. To reduce these effects the magnet is fitted with compensating
bars, generally of zinc, so adjusted by trial that as far as possible they
neutralize the effect of changes of temperature. In the Eschenhagen form of
vertical force balance two deflecting magnets are used to partly neutralize
the vertical component, so that the centre of gravity is almost exactly over
the support. By varying the positions of these deflecting magnets it is
possible to compensate for the effects of changes of temperature (A.
Schmidt, loc. cit.). In order to eliminate the irregularity which is apt to be
introduced by dust, &c., interfering with the working of the knife-edge, W.
Watson (Phil. Mag., 1904 [6], 7, 393) designed a form of vertical force
balance in which the magnet with its mirror is attached to the mid point of a
horizontal stretched quartz fibre. The temperature compensation is obtained
by attaching a small weight to the magnet, and then bringing it back to the
horizontal position by twisting the fibre.

The scale values of the records given by the horizontal and vertical force
magnetographs are determined by deflecting the respective needles, either
by means of a magnet placed at a known distance or by passing an electric
current through circular coils of large diameter surrounding the instruments.

The width of the photographic sheet which receives the spot of light
reflected from the mirrors in the above instruments is generally so great that
in the case of ordinary changes the curve does not go off the paper.
Occasionally, however, during a disturbance such is not the case, and hence
a portion of the trace would be lost. To overcome this difficulty

Eschenhagen in his earlier type of instruments attached to each magnet two
mirrors, their planes being inclined at a small angle so that when the spot
reflected from one mirror goes off the paper, that corresponding to the other
comes on. In the later pattern a third mirror is added of which the plane is
inclined at about 30° to the horizontal. The light from the slit is reflected on
to this mirror by an inclined fixed mirror, and after reflection at the
movable mirror is again reflected at the fixed mirror and so reaches the
recording drum. By this arrangement the angular rotation of the reflected
beam is less than that of the magnet, and hence the spot of light reflected
from this mirror yields a trace on a much smaller scale than that given by
the ordinary mirror and serves to give a complete record of even the most
energetic disturbance.

See also Balfour Stewart, Report of the British Association, Aberdeen,
1859, 200, a description of the type of instrument used in the older
observatories; E. Mascart, Traité de magnétisme terrestre, p. 191; W.
Watson, Terrestrial Magnetism, 1901, 6, 187, describing magnetographs
used in India; M. Eschenhagen, Verhandlungen der deutschen
physikalischen Gesellschaft, 1899, 1, 147; Terrestrial Magnetism, 1900, 5,
59; and 1901, 6, 59; Zeits. für Instrumentenkunde, 1907, 27, 137; W. G.
Cady, Terrestrial Magnetism, 1904, 9, 69, describing a declination
magnetograph in which the record is obtained by means of a pen acting on
a moving strip of paper, so that the curve can be consulted at all times to
see whether a disturbance is in progress.

The effects of temperature being so marked on the readings of the
horizontal and vertical force magnetographs, it is usual to place the
instruments either in an underground room or in a room which, by means of
double walls and similar devices, is protected as much as possible from
temperature changes. For descriptions of the arrangements adopted in some
observatories see the following: U.S. observatories, Terrestrial Magnetism,
1903, 8, 11; Utrecht, Terrestrial Magnetism, 1900, 5, 49; St Maur,
Terrestrial Magnetism, 1898, 3, 1; Potsdam, Veröffentlichungen des k.

preuss. meteorol. Instituts, “Ergebnisse der magnetischen Beobachtungen in
Potsdam in den Jahren 1890 und 1891;” Pavlovsk, “Das Konstantinow’sche
meteorologische und magnetische Observatorium in Pavlovsk,” Ausgabe
der kaiserl. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu St Petersburg, 1895. (W. Wn.)

1 Report British Association, Bristol, 1898, p. 741.

2 Verhandlungen der deutschen physikalischen Gesellschaft, 1899, 1, 147; or Terrestrial
Magnetism, 1900, 5, 59.

MAGNETOMETER, a name, in its most general sense, for any
instrument used to measure the strength of any magnetic field; it is, however,
often used in the restricted sense of an instrument for measuring a particular
magnetic field, namely, that due to the earth’s magnetism, and in this article the
instruments used for measuring the value of the earth’s magnetic field will alone
be considered.

The elements which are actually measured when determining the value of the
earth’s field are usually the declination, the dip and the horizontal component
(see Magnetism, Terrestrial). For the instruments and methods used in
measuring the dip see Inclinometer. It remains to consider the measurement of
the declination and the horizontal component, these two elements being
generally measured with the same instrument, which is called a unifilar
magnetometer.

Fig. 1.—Unifilar Magnetometer, arranged to indicate declination.

Measurement of Declination.—The measurement of the declination
involves two separate observations, namely, the determination of (a) the
magnetic meridian and (b) the geographical meridian, the angle between
the two being the declination. In order to determine the magnetic meridian
the orientation of the magnetic axis of a freely suspended magnet is
observed; while, in the absence of a distant mark of which the azimuth is

known, the geographical meridian is obtained from observations of the
transit of the sun or a star. The geometrical axis of the magnet is sometimes
defined by means of a mirror rigidly attached to the magnet and having the
normal to the mirror as nearly as may be parallel to the magnetic axis. This
arrangement is not very convenient, as it is difficult to protect the mirror
from accidental displacement, so that the angle between the geometrical
and magnetic axes may vary. For this reason the end of the magnet is
sometimes polished and acts as the mirror, in which case no displacement
of the reflecting surface with reference to the magnet is possible. A different
arrangement, used in the instrument described below, consists in having the
magnet hollow, with a small scale engraved on glass firmly attached at one
end, while to the other end is attached a lens, so chosen that the scale is at
its principal focus. In this case the geometrical axis is the line joining the
central division of the scale to the optical centre of the lens. The position of
the magnet is observed by means of a small telescope, and since the scale is
at the principal focus of the lens, the scale will be in focus when the
telescope is adjusted to observe a distant object. Thus no alteration in the
focus of the telescope is necessary whether we are observing the magnet, a
distant fixed mark, or the sun.

The Kew Observatory pattern unifilar magnetometer is shown in figs. 1
and 2. The magnet consists of a hollow steel cylinder fitted with a scale and
lens as described above, and is suspended by a long thread of unspun silk,
which is attached at the upper end to the torsion head H. The magnet is
protected from draughts by the box A, which is closed at the sides by two
shutters when an observation is being taken. The telescope B serves to
observe the scale attached to the magnet when determining the magnetic
meridian, and to observe the sun or star when determining the geographical
meridian.

Fig. 2.—Unifilar Magnetometer, arranged to show deflexion.

When making a determination of declination a brass plummet having the
same weight as the magnet is first suspended in its place, and the torsion of
the fibre is taken out. The magnet having been attached, the instrument is
rotated about its vertical axis till the centre division of the scale appears to
coincide with the vertical cross-wire of the telescope. The two verniers on
the azimuth circle having been read, the magnet is then inverted, i.e. turned
through 180° about its axis, and the setting is repeated. A second setting
with the magnet inverted is generally made, and then another setting with
the magnet in its original position. The mean of all the readings of the
verniers gives the reading on the azimuth circle corresponding to the
magnetic meridian. To obtain the geographical meridian the box A is

removed, and an image of the sun or a star is reflected into the telescope B
by means of a small transit mirror N. This mirror can rotate about a
horizontal axis which is at right angles to the line of collimation of the
telescope, and is parallel to the surface of the mirror. The time of transit of
the sun or star across the vertical wire of the telescope having been
observed by means of a chronometer of which the error is known, it is
possible to calculate the azimuth of the sun or star, if the latitude and
longitude of the place of observation are given. Hence if the readings of the
verniers on the azimuth circle are made when the transit is observed we can
deduce the reading corresponding to the geographical meridian.

The above method of determining the geographical meridian has the
serious objection that it is necessary to know the error of the chronometer
with very considerable accuracy, a matter of some difficulty when
observing at any distance from a fixed observatory. If, however, a
theodolite, fitted with a telescope which can rotate about a horizontal axis
and having an altitude circle, is employed, so that when observing a transit
the altitude of the sun or star can be read off, then the time need only be
known to within a minute or so. Hence in more recent patterns of
magnetometer it is usual to do away with the transit mirror method of
observing and either to use a separate theodolite to observe the azimuth of
some distant object, which will then act as a fixed mark when making the
declination observations, or to attach to the magnetometer an altitude
telescope and circle for use when determining the geographical meridian.

The chief uncertainty in declination observations, at any rate at a fixed
observatory, lies in the variable torsion of the silk suspension, as it is found
that, although the fibre may be entirely freed from torsion before beginning
the declination observations, yet at the conclusion of these observations a
considerable amount of torsion may have appeared. Soaking the fibre with
glycerine, so that the moisture it absorbs does not change so much with the
hygrometric state of the air, is of some advantage, but does not entirely
remove the difficulty. For this reason some observers use a thin strip of

phosphor bronze to suspend the magnet, considering that the absence of a
variable torsion more than compensates for the increased difficulty in
handling the more fragile metallic suspension.

Measurement of the Horizontal Component of the Earth’s Field.—The
method of measuring the horizontal component which is almost exclusively
used, both in fixed observatories and in the field, consists in observing the
period of a freely suspended magnet, and then obtaining the angle through
which an auxiliary suspended magnet is deflected by the magnet used in the
first part of the experiment. By the vibration experiment we obtain the
value of the product of the magnetic moment (M) of the magnet into the
horizontal component (H), while by the deflexion experiment we can
deduce the value of the ratio of M to H, and hence the two combined give
both M and H.

In the case of the Kew pattern unifilar the same magnet that is used for
the declination is usually employed for determining H, and for the purposes
of the vibration experiment it is mounted as for the observation of the
magnetic meridian. The time of vibration is obtained by means of a
chronometer, using the eye-and-ear method. The temperature of the magnet
must also be observed, for which purpose a thermometer C (fig. 1) is
attached to the box A.

When making the deflection experiment the magnetometer is arranged as
shown in fig. 2. The auxiliary magnet has a plane mirror attached, the plane
of which is at right angles to the axis of the magnet. An image of the ivory
scale B is observed after reflection in the magnet mirror by the telescope A.
The magnet K used in the vibration experiment is supported on a carriage L
which can slide along the graduated bar D. The axis of the magnet is
horizontal and at the same level as the mirror magnet, while when the
central division of the scale B appears to coincide with the vertical cross-
wire of the telescope the axes of the two magnets are at right angles. During
the experiment the mirror magnet is protected from draughts by two
wooden doors which slide in grooves. What is known as the method of

sines is used, for since the axes of the two magnets are always at right
angles when the mirror magnet is in its zero position, the ratio M/H is
proportional to the sine of the angle between the magnetic axis of the
mirror magnet and the magnetic meridian. When conducting a deflexion
experiment the deflecting magnet K is placed with its centre at 30 cm. from
the mirror magnet and to the east of the latter, and the whole instrument is
turned till the centre division of the scale B coincides with the cross-wire of
the telescope, when the readings of the verniers on the azimuth circle are
noted. The magnet K is then reversed in the support, and a new setting
taken. The difference between the two sets of readings gives twice the angle
which the magnetic axis of the mirror magnet makes with the magnetic
meridian. In order to eliminate any error due to the zero of the scale D not
being exactly below the mirror magnet, the support L is then removed to
the west side of the instrument, and the settings are repeated. Further, to
allow of a correction being applied for the finite length of the magnets the
whole series of settings is repeated with the centre of the deflecting magnet
at 40 cm. from the mirror magnet.

Omitting correction terms depending on the temperature and on the
inductive effect of the earth’s magnetism on the moment of the deflecting
magnet, if θ is the angle which the axis of the deflected magnet makes with
the meridian when the centre of the deflecting magnet is at a distance r,
then

r³H P Q
sin θ = 1 + + + &c.,
2M r r²

in which P and Q are constants depending on the dimensions and magnetic
states of the two magnets. The value of the constants P and Q can be
obtained by making deflexion experiments at three distances. It is, however,
possible by suitably choosing the proportions of the two magnets to cause
either P or Q to be very small. Thus it is usual, if the magnets are of similar
shape, to make the deflected magnet 0.467 of the length of the deflecting
magnet, in which case Q is negligible, and thus by means of deflexion

experiments at two distances the value of P can be obtained. (See C.
Börgen, Terrestrial Magnetism, 1896, i. p. 176, and C. Chree, Phil. Mag.,
1904 [6], 7, p. 113.)

In the case of the vibration experiment correction terms have to be
introduced to allow for the temperature of the magnet, for the inductive
effect of the earth’s field, which slightly increases the magnetic moment of
the magnet, and for the torsion of the suspension fibre, as well as the rate of
the chronometer. If the temperature of the magnet were always exactly the
same in both the vibration and deflexion experiment, then no correction on
account of the effect of temperature in the magnetic moment would be
necessary in either experiment. The fact that the moment of inertia of the
magnet varies with the temperature must, however, be taken into account.
In the deflexion experiment, in addition to the induction correction, and that
for the effect of temperature on the magnetic moment, a correction has to
be applied for the effect of temperature on the length of the bar which
supports the deflexion magnet.

See also Stewart and Gee, Practical Physics, vol. 2, containing a
description of the Kew pattern unifilar magnetometer and detailed
instructions for performing the experiments; C. Chree, Phil. Mag., 1901 (6),
2, p. 613, and Proc. Roy. Soc., 1899, 65, p. 375, containing a discussion of
the errors to which the Kew unifilar instrument is subject; E. Mascart,
Traité de magnétisme terrestre, containing a description of the instruments
used in the French magnetic survey, which are interesting on account of
their small size and consequent easy portability; H. E. D. Fraser, Terrestrial
Magnetism, 1901, 6, p. 65, containing a description of a modified Kew
pattern unifilar as used in the Indian survey; H. Wild, Mém. Acad. imp. sc.
St Pétersbourg, 1896 (viii.), vol. 3, No. 7, containing a description of a
most elaborate unifilar magnetometer with which it is claimed results can
be obtained of a very high order of accuracy; K. Haufsmann, Zeits. für
Instrumentenkunde, 1906, 26, p. 2, containing a description of a

magnetometer for field use, designed by M. Eschenhagen, which has many
advantages.

Measurements of the Magnetic Elements at Sea.—Owing to the fact that the
proportion of the earth’s surface covered by sea is so much greater than the dry
land, the determination of the magnetic elements on board ship is a matter of
very considerable importance. The movements of a ship entirely preclude the
employment of any instrument in which a magnet suspended by a fibre has any
part, so that the unifilar is unsuited for such observations. In order to obtain the
declination a pivoted magnet is used to obtain the magnetic meridian, the
geographical meridian being obtained by observations on the sun or stars. A
carefully made ship’s compass is usually employed, though in some cases the
compass card, with its attached magnets, is made reversible, so that the
inclination to the zero of the card of the magnetic axis of the system of magnets
attached to the card can be eliminated by reversal. In the absence of such a
reversible card the index correction must be determined by comparison with a
unifilar magnetometer, simultaneous observations being made on shore, and
these observations repeated as often as occasion permits. To determine the dip a
Fox’s dip circle1 is used. This consists of an ordinary dip circle (see
Inclinometer) in which the ends of the axle of the needle are pointed and rest in
jewelled holes, so that the movements of the ship do not displace the needle. The
instrument is, of course, supported on a gimballed table, while the ship during
the observations is kept on a fixed course. To obtain the strength of the field the
method usually adopted is that known as Lloyd’s method.2 To carry out a
determination of the total force by this method the Fox dip circle has been
slightly modified by E. W. Creak, and has been found to give satisfactory results
on board ship. The circle is provided with two needles in addition to those used
for determining the dip, one (a) an ordinary dip needle, and the other (b) a
needle which has been loaded at one end by means of a small peg which fits into
one of two symmetrically placed holes in the needle. The magnetism of these
two needles is never reversed, and they are as much as possible protected from
shock and from approach to other magnets, so that their magnetic state may
remain as constant as possible. Attached to the cross-arm which carries the

microscopes used to observe the ends of the dipping needle is a clamp, which
will hold the needle b in such a way that its plane is parallel to the vertical circle
and its axis is at right angles to the line joining the two microscopes. Hence,
when the microscopes are adjusted so as to coincide with the points of the
dipping needle a, the axes of the two needles must be at right angles. The needle
a being suspended between the jewels, and the needle b being held in the clamp,
the cross-arm carrying the reading microscopes and the needle b is rotated till
the ends of the needle a coincide with the cross-wires of the microscopes. The
verniers having been read, the cross-arm is rotated so as to deflect the needle a
in the opposite direction, and a new setting is taken. Half the difference between
the two readings gives the angle through which the needle a has been deflected
under the action of the needle b. This angle depends on the ratio of the magnetic
moment of the needle b to the total force of the earth’s field. It also involves, of
course, the distance between the needles and the distribution of the magnetism
of the needles; but this factor is determined by comparing the value given by the
instrument, at a shore station, with that given by an ordinary magnetometer.
Hence the above observation gives us a means of obtaining the ratio of the
magnetic moment of the needle b to the value of the earth’s total force. The
needle b is then substituted for a, there being now no needle in the clamp
attached to the microscope arm, and the difference between the reading now
obtained and the dip, together with the weight added to the needle, gives the
product of the moment of the needle b into the earth’s total force. Hence, from
the two observations the value of the earth’s total force can be deduced. In an
actual observation the deflecting needle would be reversed, as well as the
deflected one, while different weights would be used to deflect the needle b.

For a description of the method of using the Fox circle for observations
at sea consult the Admiralty Manual of Scientific Inquiry, p. 116, while a
description of the most recent form of the circle, known as the Lloyd-Creak
pattern, will be found in Terrestrial Magnetism, 1901, 6, p. 119. An
attachment to the ordinary ship’s compass, by means of which satisfactory
measurements of the horizontal component have been made on board ship,
is described by L. A. Bauer in Terrestrial Magnetism, 1906, 11, p. 78. The

principle of the method consists in deflecting the compass needle by means
of a horizontal magnet supported vertically over the compass card, the axis
of the deflecting magnet being always perpendicular to the axis of the
magnet attached to the card. The method is not strictly an absolute one,
since it presupposes a knowledge of the magnetic moment of the deflecting
magnet. In practice it is found that a magnet can be prepared which, when
suitably protected from shock, &c., retains its magnetic moment
sufficiently constant to enable observations of H to be made comparable in
accuracy with that of the other elements obtained by the instruments
ordinarily employed at sea.
(W. Wn.)

1 Annals of Electricity, 1839, 3, p. 288.

2 Humphrey Lloyd, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 1848, 4, p. 57.

MAGNETO-OPTICS. The first relation between magnetism and
light was discovered by Faraday,1 who proved that the plane of polarization of a
ray of light was rotated when the ray travelled through certain substances
parallel to the lines of magnetic force. This power of rotating the plane of
polarization in a magnetic field has been shown to be possessed by all refracting
substances, whether they are in the solid, liquid or gaseous state. The rotation by
gases was established independently by H. Becquerel,2 and Kundt and Röntgen,3
while Kundt4 found that films of the magnetic metals, iron, cobalt, nickel, thin
enough to be transparent, produced enormous rotations, these being in iron and
cobalt magnetized to saturation at the rate of 200,000° per cm. of thickness, and
in nickel about 89,000°. The direction of rotation is not the same in all bodies. If

we call the rotation positive when it is related to the direction of the magnetic
force, like rotation and translation in a right-handed screw, or, what is
equivalent, when it is in the direction of the electric currents which would
produce a magnetic field in the same direction as that which produces the
rotation, then most substances produce positive rotation. Among those that
produce negative rotation are ferrous and ferric salts, ferricyanide of potassium,
the salts of lanthanum, cerium and didymium, and chloride of titanium.5

The magnetic metals iron, nickel, cobalt, the salts of nickel and cobalt,
and oxygen (the most magnetic gas) produce positive rotation.

For slightly magnetizable substances the amount of rotation in a space
PQ is proportional to the difference between the magnetic potential at P and
Q; or if θ is the rotation in PQ, ΩP, ΩQ, the magnetic potential at P and Q,
then θ = R(ΩP − ΩQ), where R is a constant, called Verdet’s constant, which
depends upon the refracting substance, the wave length of the light, and the
temperature. The following are the values of R (when the rotation is
expressed in circular measure) for the D line and a temperature of 18° C.:—

Substance. R × 105. Observer.
1.222 Lord Rayleigh6 and Köpsel.7
Carbon bisulphide
1.225 Rodger and Watson.8
.377 Arons.9
Water
.3808 Rodger and Watson.8
Alcohol .330 Du Bois.10
Ether .315 Du Bois.10
Oxygen (at 1 atmosphere) .000179 Kundt and Röntgen (loc. cit.)
Faraday’s heavy glass 1.738

The variation of Verdet’s constant with temperature has been determined
for carbon bisulphide and water by Rodger and Watson (loc. cit.). They find

if Rt, R0 are the values of Verdet’s constant at t°C and 0°C. respectively,
then for carbon bisulphide Rt = R0 (1 − .0016961), and for water Rt = R0 (1
− .0000305t − .00000305t²).

For the magnetic metals Kundt found that the rotation did not increase so
rapidly as the magnetic force, but that as this force was increased the
rotation reached a maximum value. This suggests that the rotation is
proportional to the intensity of magnetization, and not to the magnetic
force.

The amount of rotation in a given field depends greatly upon the wave
length of the light; the shorter the wave length the greater the rotation, the
rotation varying a little more rapidly than the inverse square of the wave
length. Verdet11 has compared in the cases of carbon bisulphide and
creosote the rotation given by the formula

c² di
θ = mcγ
λ² ( c − λ dλ )
with those actually observed; in this formula θ is the angular rotation of the
plane of polarization, m a constant depending on the medium, λ the wave
length of the light in air, and i its index of refraction in the medium. Verdet
found that, though the agreement is fair, the differences are greater than can
be explained by errors of experiment.

Verdet12 has shown that the rotation of a salt solution is the sum of the
rotations due to the salt and the solvent; thus, by mixing a salt which produces
negative rotation with water which produces positive rotation, it is possible to
get a solution which does not exhibit any rotation. Such solutions are not in
general magnetically neutral. By mixing diamagnetic and paramagnetic
substances we can get magnetically neutral solutions, which, however, produce a
finite rotation of the plane of polarization. The relation of the magnetic rotation
to chemical constitution has been studied in great detail by Perkin,13
Wachsmuth,14 Jahn15 and Schönrock.16

The rotation of the plane of polarization may conveniently be regarded as
denoting that the velocity of propagation of circular-polarized light travelling
along the lines of magnetic force depends upon the direction of rotation of the
ray, the velocity when the rotation is related to the direction of the magnetic
force, like rotation and translation on a right-handed screw being different from
that for a left-handed rotation. A plane-polarized ray may be regarded as
compounded of two oppositely circularly-polarized rays, and as these travel
along the lines of magnetic force with different velocities, the one will gain or
lose in phase on the other, so that when they are again compounded they will
correspond to a plane-polarized ray, but in consequence of the change of phase
the plane of polarization will not coincide with its original position.

Reflection from a Magnet.—Kerr17 in 1877 found that when plane-polarized
light is incident on the pole of an electromagnet, polished so as to act like a
mirror, the plane of polarization of the reflected light is rotated by the magnet.
Further experiments on this phenomenon have been made by Righi,18 Kundt,19
Du Bois,20 Sissingh,21 Hall,22 Hurion,23 Kaz24 and Zeeman.25 The simplest case
is when the incident plane-polarized light falls normally on the pole of an
electromagnet. When the magnet is not excited the reflected ray is plane-
polarized; when the magnet is excited the plane of polarization is rotated
through a small angle, the direction of rotation being opposite to that of the
currents exciting the pole. Righi found that the reflected light was slightly
elliptically polarized, the axes of the ellipse being of very unequal magnitude. A
piece of gold-leaf placed over the pole entirely stops the rotation, showing that it
is not produced in the air near the pole. Rotation takes place from magnetized
nickel and cobalt as well as from iron, and is in the same direction (Hall). Righi
has shown that the rotation at reflection is greater for long waves than for short,
whereas, as we have seen, the Faraday rotation is greater for short waves than
for long. The rotation for different coloured light from iron, nickel, cobalt and
magnetite has been measured by Du Bois; in magnetite the direction of rotation
is opposite to that of the other metals. When the light is incident obliquely and
not normally on the polished pole of an electromagnet, it is elliptically polarized

after reflection, even when the plane of polarization is parallel or at right angles
to the plane of incidence. According to Righi, the amount of rotation when the
plane of polarization of the incident light is perpendicular to the plane of
incidence reaches a maximum when the angle of incidence is between 44° and
68°, while when the light is polarized in the plane of incidence the rotation
steadily decreases as the angle of incidence is increased. The rotation when the
light is polarized in the plane of incidence is always less than when it is
polarized at right angles to that plane, except when the incidence is normal,
when the two rotations are of course equal.

Reflection from Tangentially Magnetized Iron.—In this case Kerr26 found: (1)
When the plane of incidence is perpendicular to the lines of magnetic force, no
rotation of the reflected light is produced by magnetization; (2) no rotation is
produced when the light is incident normally; (3) when the incidence is oblique,
the lines of magnetic force being in the plane of incidence, the reflected light is
elliptically polarized after reflection, and the axes of the ellipse are not in and at
right angles to the plane of incidence. When the light is polarized in the plane of
incidence, the rotation is at all angles of incidence in the opposite direction to
that of the currents which would produce a magnetic field of the same sign as
the magnet. When the light is polarized at right angles to the plane of incidence,
the rotation is in the same direction as these currents when the angle of
incidence is between 0° and 75° according to Kerr, between 0° and 80°
according to Kundt, and between 0° and 78° 54′ according to Righi. When the
incidence is more oblique than this, the rotation of the plane of polarization is in
the opposite direction to the electric currents which would produce a magnetic
field of the same sign.

The theory of the phenomena just described has been dealt with by Airy,27 C.
Neumann,28 Maxwell,29 Fitzgerald,30 Rowland,31 H. A. Lorentz,32 Voight,33
Ketteler,34 van Loghem,35 Potier,36 Basset,37 Goldhammer,38 Drude,39 J. J.
Thomson,40 and Leatham;41 for a critical discussion of many of these theories
we refer the reader to Larmor’s42 British Association Report. Most of these
theories have proceeded on the plan of adding to the expression for the

electromotive force terms indicating a force similar in character to that
discovered by Hall (see Magnetism) in metallic conductors carrying a current in
a magnetic field, i.e. an electromotive force at right angles to the plane
containing the magnetic force and the electric current, and proportional to the
sine of the angle between these vectors. The introduction of a term of this kind
gives rotation of the plane of polarization by transmission through all refracting
substance, and by reflection from magnetized metals, and shows a fair
agreement between the theoretical and experimental results. The simplest way of
treating the questions seems, however, to be to go to the equations which
represent the propagation of a wave travelling through a medium containing
ions. A moving ion in a magnetic field will be acted upon by a mechanical force
which is at right angles to its direction of motion, and also to the magnetic force,
and is equal per unit charge to the product of these two vectors and the sine of
the angle between them. For the sake of brevity we will take the special case of
a wave travelling parallel to the magnetic force in the direction of the axis of z.

Then supposing that all the ions are of the same kind, and that there are n
of these each with mass m and charge e per unit volume, the equations
representing the field are (see Electric Waves):—

dX0 dξ dβ
K0 + 4πne = ;
dt dt dz
dX0 dβ
= ;
dz dt
dY0 dη dα
K0 + 4πne =−
dt dt dz
dY0 dα
=− ;
dz dt
d²ξ dξ 4π dη
m
dt²
+ R1
dt + aξ = X (0+
3 neξ e + )
He dt
d²η dη 4π dξ
m
dt²
+ R1
dt + aη = Y(0+
3 neη e − )
He dt
;

where H is the external magnetic field, X0, Y0 the components of the part of
the electric force in the wave not due to the charges on the atoms, α and β
the components of the magnetic force, ξ and η the co-ordinates of an ion,
R1 the coefficient of resistance to the motion of the ions, and α the force at
unit distance tending to bring the ion back to its position of equilibrium, K0
the specific inductive capacity of a vacuum. If the variables are
proportional to εl(pt−qz) we find by substitution that q is given by the
equation

4πne²p²P 4πne³Hp³
q² − K0p² − =± ,
P² − H²e²p² P² − H²e²p²

where

P = (a − 4⁄3πne²) + R1ιp − mp²,

or, by neglecting R, P = m (s² − p²), where s is the period of the free ions. If,
q1², q2² are the roots of this equation, then corresponding to q1 we have X0
= ιY0 and to q2 X0 = −ιY0. We thus get two oppositely circular-polarized
rays travelling with the velocities p/q1 and p/q2 respectively. Hence if v1, v2
are these velocities, and v the velocity when there is no magnetic field, we
obtain, if we neglect terms in H²,

1 1 4πne³Hp
= + ,
v1² v² m² (s² − p²)²
1 1 4πne³Hp
= − .
v2² v² m² (s² − p²)²

The rotation r of the plane of polarization per unit length

1 1 2πne³Hp²v
= ½p ( v1
−
v2 ) = m² (s² − p²)² .

Since 1/v² = K0 + 4πne²/m (s² − p²), we have if µ is the refractive index for
light of frequency p, and v0 the velocity of light in vacuo.

µ² − 1 = 4πne²v0² / m (s² − p²).
(1)

So that we may put

r = (µ² − 1)² p²H / sπµnev0³.
(2)

Becquerel (Comptes rendus, 125, p. 683) gives for r the expression

e H dµ
½ ,
m v0 dλ

where λ is the wave length. This is equivalent to (2) if µ is given by (1). He
has shown that this expression is in good agreement with experiment. The
sign of r depends on the sign of e, hence the rotation due to negative ions
would be opposite to that for positive. For the great majority of substances
the direction of rotation is that corresponding to the negation ion. We see
from the equations that the rotation is very large for such a value of p as
makes P = 0; this value corresponds to a free period of the ions, so that the
rotation ought to be very large in the neighbourhood of an absorption band.
This has been verified for sodium vapour by Macaluso and Corbino.43

If plane-polarized light falls normally on a plane face of the medium
containing the ions, then if the electric force in the incident wave is parallel
to x and is equal to the real part of Aεl(pt−qz), if the reflected beam in which
the electric force is parallel to x is represented by Bεl(pt+qz) and the reflected
beam in which the electric force is parallel to the axis of y by Cεl(pt+qz),
then the conditions that the magnetic force parallel to the surface is
continuous, and that the electric forces parallel to the surface in the air are
continuous with Y0, X0 in the medium, give

A B ιC
= =
(q + q1) (q + q2) (q² − q1q2) q (q2 − q1)

or approximately, since q1 and q2 are nearly equal,

ιC q (q2 − q1) (µ² − 1) pH
= = .
B q² − q1² 4πµneV0²

Thus in transparent bodies for which µ is real, C and B differ in phase by
π/2, and the reflected light is elliptically polarized, the major axis of the
ellipse being in the plane of polarization of the incident light, so that in this
case there is no rotation, but only elliptic polarization; when there is strong
absorption so that µ contains an imaginary term, C/B will contain a real
part so that the reflected light will be elliptically polarized, but the major
axis is no longer in the plane of polarization of the incident light; we should
thus have a rotation of the plane of polarization superposed on the elliptic
polarization.

Zeeman’s Effect.—Faraday, after discovering the effect of a magnetic field on
the plane of polarization of light, made numerous experiments to see if such a
field influenced the nature of the light emitted by a luminous body, but without
success. In 1885 Fievez,44 a Belgian physicist, noticed that the spectrum of a
sodium flame was changed slightly in appearance by a magnetic field; but his
observation does not seem to have attracted much attention, and was probably
ascribed to secondary effects. In 1896 Zeeman45 saw a distinct broadening of the
lines of lithium and sodium when the flames containing salts of these metals
were between the poles of a powerful electromagnet; following up this
observation, he obtained some exceedingly remarkable and interesting results, of
which those observed with the blue-green cadmium line may be taken as typical.
He found that in a strong magnetic field, when the lines of force are parallel to
the direction of propagation of the light, the line is split up into a doublet, the
constituents of which are on opposite sides of the undisturbed position of the
line, and that the light in the constituents of this doublet is circularly polarized,
the rotation in the two lines being in opposite directions. When the magnetic
force is at right angles to the direction of propagation of the light, the line is
resolved into a triplet, of which the middle line occupies the same position as the
undisturbed line; all the constituents of this triplet are plane-polarized, the plane
of polarization of the middle line being at right angles to the magnetic force,

while the outside lines are polarized on a plane parallel to the lines of magnetic
force. A great deal of light is thrown on this phenomenon by the following
considerations due to H. A. Lorentz.46

Let us consider an ion attracted to a centre of force by a force
proportional to the distance, and acted on by a magnetic force parallel to the
axis of z: then if m is the mass of the particle and e its charge, the equations
of motion are

d²x dy
m + αx = − He ;
dt² dt
d²y dx
m + αy = He ;
dt² dt
d²z
m + ax = 0.
dt²

The solution of these equations is

x = A cos (p1t + β) + B cos (p2t + β1)
y = A sin (p1t + β) − B sin (p2t + β1)
z = C cos (pt + γ)

where

α − mp1² = − Hep1
α − mp2² = Hep2

p² = α / m,

or approximately

p1 = p + ½ He , p2 = p − ½ He .

m m

Thus the motion of the ion on the xy plane may be regarded as made up of
two circular motions in opposite directions described with frequencies p1
and p2 respectively, while the motion along z has the period p, which is the
frequency for all the vibrations when H = 0. Now suppose that the
cadmium line is due to the motion of such an ion; then if the magnetic force
is along the direction of propagation, the vibration in this direction has its
period unaltered, but since the direction of vibration is perpendicular to the
wave front, it does not give rise to light. Thus we are left with the two
circular motions in the wave front with frequencies p1 and p2 giving the
circularly polarized constituents of the doublet. Now suppose the magnetic
force is at right angles to the direction of propagation of the light; then the
vibration parallel to the magnetic force being in the wave front produces
luminous effects and gives rise to a plane-polarized ray of undisturbed
period (the middle line of the triplet), the plane of polarization being at
right angles to the magnetic force. The components in the wave-front of the
circular orbits at right angles to the magnetic force will be rectilinear
motions of frequency p1 and p2 at right angles to the magnetic force—so
that they will produce plane-polarized light, the plane of polarization being
parallel to the magnetic force; these are the outer lines of the triplet.

If Zeeman’s observations are interpreted from this point of view, the
directions of rotation of the circularly-polarized light in the doublet observed
along the lines of magnetic force show that the ions which produce the luminous
vibrations are negatively electrified, while the measurement of the charge of
frequency due to the magnetic field shows that e/m is of the order 107. This
result is of great interest, as this is the order of the value of e/m in the negatively
electrified particles which constitute the Cathode Rays (see Conduction,
Electric III. Through Gases). Thus we infer that the “cathode particles” are
found in bodies, even where not subject to the action of intense electrical fields,
and are in fact an ordinary constituent of the molecule. Similar particles are
found near an incandescent wire, and also near a metal plate illuminated by

ultra-violet light. The value of e/m deduced from the Zeeman effect ranges from
107 to 3.4 × 107, the value of e/m for the particle in the cathode rays is 1.7 × 107.
The majority of the determinations of e/m from the Zeeman effect give numbers
larger than this, the maximum being about twice this value.

A more extended study of the behaviour of the spectroscopic lines has
afforded examples in which the effects produced by a magnet are more
complicated than those we have described, indeed the simple cases are much
less numerous than the more complex. Thus Preston47 and Cornu48 have shown
that under the action of a transverse magnetic field one of the D lines splits up
into four, and the other into six lines; Preston has given many other examples of
these quartets and sextets, and has shown that the change in the frequency,
which, according to the simple theory indicated, should be the same for all lines,
actually varies considerably from one line to another, many lines showing no
appreciable displacement. The splitting up of a single line into a quartet or sextet
indicates, from the point of view of the ion theory, that the line must have its
origin in a system consisting of more than one ion. A single ion having only
three degrees of freedom can only have three periods. When there is no
magnetic force acting on the ion these periods are equal, but though under the
action of a magnetic force they are separated, their number cannot be increased.
When therefore we get four or more lines, the inference is that the system giving
the lines must have at least four degrees of freedom, and therefore must consist
of more than one ion. The theory of a system of ions mutually influencing each
other shows, as we should expect, that the effects are more complex than in the
case of a single ion, and that the change in the frequency is not necessarily the
same for all systems (see J. J. Thomson, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 13, p. 39).
Preston49 and Runge and Paschen have proved that, in some cases at any rate,
the change in the frequency of the different lines is of such a character that they
can be grouped into series such that each line in the series has the same change
in frequency for the same magnetic force, and, moreover, that homologous lines
in the spectra of different metals belonging to the same group have the same
change in frequency.

A very remarkable case of the Zeeman effect has been discovered by H.
Becquerel and Deslandres (Comptes rendus, 127, p. 18). They found lines in
iron when the most deflected components are those polarized in the plane at
right angles to the magnetic force. On the simple theory the light polarized in
this way is not affected. Thus the behaviour of the spectrum in the magnetic
field promises to throw great light on the nature of radiation, and perhaps on the
constitution of the elements. The study of these effects has been greatly
facilitated by the invention by Michelson50 of the echelon spectroscope.

There are some interesting phenomena connected with the Zeeman effect
which are more easily observed than the effect itself. Thus Cotton51 found that if
we have two Bunsen flames, A and B, coloured by the same salt, the absorption
of the light of one by the other is diminished if either is placed between the poles
of a magnet: this is at once explained by the Zeeman effect, for the times of
vibration of the molecules of the flame in the magnetic field are not the same as
those of the other flame, and thus the absorption is diminished. Similar
considerations explain the phenomenon observed by Egoroff and
Georgiewsky,52 that the light emitted from a flame in a transverse field is
partially polarized in a plane parallel to the magnetic force; and also Righi’s53
observation that if a sodium flame is placed in a longitudinal field between two
crossed Nicols, and a ray of white light sent through one of the Nicols, then
through the flame, and then through the second Nicol, the amount of light
passing through the second Nicol is greater when the field is on than when it is
off. Voight and Wiechert (Wied. Ann. 67, p. 345) detected the double refraction
produced when light travels through a substance exposed to a magnetic field at
right angles to the path of the light; this result had been predicted by Voight from
theoretical considerations. Jean Becquerel has made some very interesting
experiments on the effect of a magnetic field on the fine absorption bands
produced by xenotime, a phosphate of yttrium and erbium, and tysonite, a
fluoride of cerium, lanthanum and didymium, and has obtained effects which he
ascribes to the presence of positive electrons. A very complete account of

magneto- and electro-optics is contained in Voight’s Magneto- and Elektro-
optik.

1 Experimental Researches, Series 19.

2 Comptes rendus, 88, p. 709.

3 Wied. Ann. 6, p. 332; 8, p. 278; 10, p. 257.

4 Wied. Ann. 23, p. 228; 27, p. 191.

5 Wied. Ann. 31, p. 941.

6 Phil. Trans., A. 1885, Pt. 11, p. 343.

7 Wied. Ann. 26, p. 456.

8 Phil. Trans., A. 1895, Pt. 17, p. 621.

9 Wied. Ann. 24, p. 161.

10 Wied. Ann. 31, p. 970.

11 Comptes rendus, 57, p. 670.

12 Comptes rendus, 43, p. 529; 44, p. 1209.

13 Journ. Chem. Soc. 1884, p. 421; 1886, p. 177; 1887, pp. 362 and 808; 1888, p. 561; 1889,
pp. 680 and 750; 1891, p. 981; 1892, p. 800; 1893, pp. 75, 99 and 488.

14 Wied. Ann. 44, p. 377.

15 Wied. Ann. 43, p. 280.

16 Zeitschrift f. physikal. Chem. 11, p. 753.

17 Phil. Mag. [5] 3, p. 321.

18 Ann. de chim. et de phys. [6] 4, p. 433; 9, p. 65; 10, p. 200.

19 Wied. Ann. 23, p. 228; 27, p. 191.

20 Wied. Ann. 39, p. 25.

21 Wied. Ann. 42, p. 115.

22 Phil. Mag. [5] 12, p. 171.

23 Journ. de Phys. 1884, p. 360.

24 Beiblätter zu Wied. Ann. 1885, p. 275.

25 Messungen über d. Kerr’sche Erscheinung. Inaugural Dissert. Leiden, 1893.

26 Phil. Mag. [5] 5, p. 161.

27 Phil. Mag. [3] 28, p. 469.

28 Die Magn. Drehung d. Polarisationsebene des Lichts, Halle, 1863.

29 Electricity and Magnetism, chap. xxi.

30 Phil. Trans. 1880 (2), p. 691.

31 Phil. Mag. (5) 11, p. 254, 1881.

32 Arch. Néerl. 19, p. 123.

33 Wied. Ann. 23, p. 493; 67, p. 345.

34 Wied. Ann. 24, p. 119.

35 Wied. Beiblätter, 8, p. 869.

36 Comptes rendus, 108, p. 510.

37 Phil. Trans. 182, A. p. 371, 1892; Physical Optics, p. 393.

38 Wied. Ann. 46, p. 71; 47, p. 345; 48, p. 740; 50, p. 722.

39 Wied. Ann. 46, p. 353; 48, p. 122; 49, p. 690.

40 Recent Researches, p. 489 et seq.

41 Phil. Trans., A. 1897, p. 89.

42 Brit. Assoc. Report, 1893.

43 Comptes rendus, 127, p. 548.

44 Bull. de l’Acad. des Sciences Belg. (3) 9, pp. 327, 381, 1885; 12 p. 30, 1886.

45 Communications from the Physical Laboratory, Leiden, No. 33, 1896; Phil. Mag. 43, p.
226; 44, pp. 55 and 255; and 45, p. 197.

46 Arch. Néerl. 25, p. 190.

47 Phil. Mag. 45, p. 325; 47, p. 165.

48 Comptes rendus, 126, p. 181.

49 Phil. Mag. 46, p. 187.

50 Phil. Mag. 45, p. 348.

51 Comptes rendus, 125, p. 865.

52 Comptes rendus, pp. 748 and 949, 1897.

53 Comptes rendus, 127, p. 216; 128, p. 45. (J. J. T.)

MAGNOLIA, the typical genus of the botanical order Magnoliaceae,
named after Pierre Magnol (1638-1715), professor of medicine and botany at
Montpellier. It contains about twenty species, distributed in Japan, China and the
Himalayas, as well as in North America.

Magnolias are trees or shrubs with deciduous or rarely evergreen foliage.
They bear conspicuous and often large, fragrant, white, rose or purple flowers.
The sepals are three in number, the petals six to twelve, in two to four series of
three in each, the stamens and carpels being numerous. The fruit consists of a
number of follicles which are borne on a more or less conical receptacle, and
dehisce along the outer edge to allow the scarlet or brown seeds to escape; the
seeds however remain suspended by a long slender thread (the funicle). Of the
old-world species, the earliest in cultivation appears to have been M. Yulan (or
M. conspicua) of China, of which the buds were preserved, as well as used
medicinally and to season rice; together with the greenhouse species, M. fuscata,
it was transported to Europe in 1789, and thence to North America, and is now
cultivated in the Middle States. There are many fine forms of M. conspicua, the
best being Soulangeana, white tinted with purple, Lenné and stricta. Of the
Japanese magnolias, M. Kobus and the purple-flowered M. obovata were met
with by Kaempfer in 1690, and were introduced into England in 1709 and 1804
respectively. M. pumila, the dwarf magnolia, from the mountains of Amboyna, is
nearly evergreen, and bears deliciously scented flowers; it was introduced in
1786. The Indian species are three in number, M. globosa, allied to M. conspicua
of Japan, M. sphenocarpa, and, the most magnificent of all magnolias, M.
Campbellii, which forms a conspicuous feature in the scenery and vegetation of
Darjeeling. It was discovered by Dr Griffith in Bhutan, and is a large forest tree,

abounding on the outer ranges of Sikkim, 80 to 150 ft. high, and from 6 to 12 ft.
in girth. The flowers are 6 to 10 in. across, appearing before the leaves, and vary
from white to a deep rose colour.

Magnolia grandiflora, shoot with flower; rather less than ½ nat. size.

1. Flower after removal of the sepals and petals, showing the indefinite stamens, s, and carpels, c.
2. Fruit—the ripe carpels are splitting, exposing the seeds, some of which are suspended by the long
funicle.
3. Floral diagram, b, bract.

The first of the American species brought to Europe (in 1688 by John
Banister) was M. glauca, a beautiful evergreen species about 15 ft. high with

obtuse leathery leaves, blue-green above, silvery underneath, and globular
flowers varying from creamy white to pale yellow with age. It is found in low
situations near the sea from Massachusetts to Louisiana—more especially in
New Jersey and the Carolinas. M. acuminata, the so-called “cucumber tree,”
from the resemblance of the young fruits to small cucumbers, ranges from
Pennsylvania to Carolina. The wood is yellow, and used for bowls; the flowers,
3 to 4 in. across, are glaucous green tinted with yellow. It was introduced into
England from Virginia about 1736. M. tripetala (or M. umbrella), is known as
the “umbrella tree” from the arrangement of the leaves at the ends of the
branches resembling somewhat that of the ribs of an umbrella. The flowers, 5 to
8 in. across, are white and have a strong but not disagreeable scent. It was
brought to England in 1752. M. Fraseri (or M. auriculata), discovered by John
Bartram in 1773, is a native of the western parts of the Carolinas and Georgia,
extending southward to western Florida and southern Alabama. It grows 30 to
50 ft. high, has leaves a foot or more long, heart-shaped and bluntly auricled at
the base, and fragrant pale yellowish-white flowers, 3 to 4 in. across. The most
beautiful species of North America is M. grandiflora, the “laurel magnolia,” a
native of the south-eastern States, and introduced into England in 1734. It grows
a straight trunk, 2 ft. in diameter and upwards of 70 ft. high, bearing a profusion
of large, powerfully lemon-scented creamy-white flowers. It is an evergreen
tree, easily recognized by its glossy green oval oblong leaves with a rusty-brown
under surface. In England it is customary to train it against a wall in the colder
parts, but it does well as a bush tree; and the original species is surpassed by the
Exmouth varieties, which originated as seedlings at Exeter from the tree first
raised in England by Sir John Colliton, and which flower much more freely than
the parent plant. Other fine magnolias now to be met with in gardens are M.
cordata, a North American deciduous tree 40 to 50 ft. high, with heart-shaped
leaves, woolly beneath, and yellow flowers lined with purple; M. hypoleuca, a
fine Japanese tree 60 ft. high or more, with leaves a foot or more long, 6 to 7 in.
broad, the under surface covered with hairs; M. macrophylla, a handsome
deciduous North American tree, with smooth whitish bark, and very large
beautiful green leaves, 1 to 3 ft. long, 8 to 10 in. broad, oblong-obovate and

heart-shaped at the base; the open sweet-scented bell-shaped flowers 8 to 10 in.
across, are white with a purple blotch at the base of the petals; M. stellata or
Halleana, a charming deciduous Japanese shrub remarkable for producing its
pure white starry flowers as early as February and March on the leafless stems;
and M. Watsoni, another fine deciduous Japanese bush or small tree with very
fragrant pure white flowers 5 to 6 in. across.

The tulip tree, Liriodendron tulipifera, a native of North America, frequently
cultivated in England, is also a member of the same family. It reaches a height of
over 100 ft. in a native condition, and as much as 60 to 80 ft. in England. It
resembles the plane tree somewhat in appearance, but is readily recognized by
lobed leaves having the apical lobe truncated, and by its soft green and yellow
tulip-like flowers—which however are rarely borne on trees under twenty years
of age.

For a description of the principal species of magnolia under cultivation
see J. Weathers, Practical Guide to Garden Plants, pp. 174 seq., and for a
detailed account of the American species see C. S. Sargent, Silva of North
America, vol. i.

MAGNUS, HEINRICH GUSTAV (1802-1870), German
chemist and physicist, was born at Berlin on the 2nd of May 1802. His father
was a wealthy merchant; and of his five brothers one, Eduard (1799-1872),
became a celebrated painter. After studying at Berlin, he went to Stockholm to
work under Berzelius, and later to Paris, where he studied for a while under
Gay-Lussac and Thénard. In 1831 he returned to Berlin as lecturer on
technology and physics at the university. As a teacher his success was rapid and

extraordinary. His lucid style and the perfection of his experimental
demonstrations drew to his lectures a crowd of enthusiastic scholars, on whom
he impressed the importance of applied science by conducting them round the
factories and workshops of the city; and he further found time to hold weekly
“colloquies” on physical questions at his house with a small circle of young
students. From 1827 to 1833 he was occupied mainly with chemical researches,
which resulted in the discovery of the first of the platino-ammonium compounds
(“Magnus’s green salt” is PtCl2, 2NH3), of sulphovinic, ethionic and isethionic
acids and their salts, and, in conjunction with C. F. Ammermüller, of periodic
acid. Among other subjects at which he subsequently worked were the
absorption of gases in blood (1837-1845), the expansion of gases by heat (1841-
1844), the vapour pressures of water and various solutions (1844-1854), thermo-
electricity (1851), electrolysis (1856), induction of currents (1858-1861),
conduction of heat in gases (1860), and polarization of heat (1866-1868). From
1861 onwards he devoted much attention to the question of diathermancy in
gases and vapours, especially to the behaviour in this respect of dry and moist
air, and to the thermal effects produced by the condensation of moisture on solid
surfaces.

In 1834 Magnus was elected extraordinary, and in 1845 ordinary professor at
Berlin. He was three times elected dean of the faculty, in 1847, 1858 and 1863;
and in 1861, rector magnificus. His great reputation led to his being entrusted by
the government with several missions; in 1865 he represented Prussia in the
conference called at Frankfort to introduce a uniform metric system of weights
and measures into Germany. For forty-five years his labour was incessant; his
first memoir was published in 1825 when he was yet a student; his last appeared
shortly after his death on the 4th of April 1870. He married in 1840 Bertha
Humblot, of a French Huguenot family settled in Berlin, by whom he left a son
and two daughters.

See Allgemeine deutsche Biog. The Royal Society’s Catalogue
enumerates 84 papers by Magnus, most of which originally appeared in
Poggendorff’s Annalen.

MAGNY, CLAUDE DRIGON, Marquis de (1797-1879), French
heraldic writer, was born in Paris. After being employed for some time in the
postal service, he devoted himself to the study of heraldry and genealogy, his
work in this direction being rewarded by Pope Gregory XVI. with a marquisate.
He founded a French college of heraldry, and wrote several works on heraldry
and genealogy, of which the most important were Archives nobiliaires
universelles (1843) and Livre d’or de la noblesse de France (1844-1852). His
two sons, Edouard Drigon and Achille Ludovice Drigon, respectively comte and
vicomte de Magny, also wrote several works on heraldry.

MAGO, the name of several Carthaginians, (1) The reputed founder of the
military power of Carthage, fl. 550-500 b.c. (Justin xviii. 7, xix. i). (2) The
youngest of the three sons of Hamilcar Barca. He accompanied Hannibal into
Italy, and held important commands in the great victories of the first three years.
After the battle of Cannae (216 b.c.) he sailed to Carthage to report the successes
gained. He was about to return to Italy with strong reinforcements for Hannibal,
when the government ordered him to go to the aid of his other brother,
Hasdrubal, who was hard pressed in Spain. He carried on the war there with
varying success in concert with the two Hasdrubals until, in 209, his brother

marched into Italy to help Hannibal. Mago remained in Spain with Hasdrubal,
the son of Gisco. In 207 he was defeated by M. Junius Silanus, and in 206 the
combined forces of Mago and Hasdrubal were scattered by Scipio Africanus in
the decisive battle of Silpia. Mago maintained himself for some time in Gades,
but afterwards received orders to carry the war into Liguria. He wintered in the
Balearic Isles, where the harbour Portus Magonis (Port Mahon) still bears his
name. Early in 204 he landed in Liguria, where he maintained a desultory
warfare till in 203 he was defeated in Cisalpine Gaul by the Roman forces.
Shortly afterwards he was ordered to return to Carthage, but on the voyage home
he died of wounds received in battle.

See Polybius iii.; Livy xxi.-xxiii.; xxviii., chs. 23-37; xxix., xxx.; Appian,
Hispanica, 25-37; T. Friedrich, Biographie des Barkiden Mago; H.
Lehmann, Der Angriff der drei Barkiden auf Italien (Leipzig, 1905); and
further J. P. Mahaffy, in Hermathena, vii. 29-36 (1890).

(3) The name of Mago is also attached to a great work on agriculture which
was brought to Rome and translated by order of the senate after the destruction
of Carthage. The book was regarded as a standard authority, and is often referred
to by later writers.

See Pliny, Nat. Hist, xviii. 5; Columella, i. 1; Cicero, De oratore, i. 58.

MAGPIE, or simply Pie (Fr. pie), the prefix being the abbreviated form of
a human name (Margaret1), a bird once common throughout Great Britain,
though now nearly everywhere scarce. Its pilfering habits have led to this result,
yet the injuries it causes are exaggerated by common report; and in many

countries of Europe it is still the tolerated or even the cherished neighbour of
every farmer, as it formerly was in England if not in Scotland also. It did not
exist in Ireland in 1617, when Fynes Morison wrote his Itinerary, but it had
appeared there within a hundred years later, when Swift mentions its
occurrences in his Journal to Stella, 9th July 1711. It is now common enough in
that country, and there is a widespread but unfounded belief that it was
introduced by the English out of spite. It is a species that when not molested is
extending its range, as J. Wolley ascertained in Lapland, where within the last
century it has been gradually pushing its way along the coast and into the
interior from one fishing-station or settler’s house to the next, as the country has
been peopled.

Since the persecution to which the pie has been subjected in Great Britain, its
habits have altered greatly. It is no longer the merry, saucy hanger-on of the
homestead, but is become the suspicious thief, shunning the gaze of man, and
knowing that danger may lurk in every bush. Hence opportunities of observing it
fall to the lot of few, and most persons know it only as a curtailed captive in a
wicker cage, where its vivacity and natural beauty are lessened or wholly lost.
At large few European birds possess greater beauty, the pure white of its
scapulars and inner web of the flight-feathers contrasting vividly with the deep
glossy black on the rest of its body and wings, while its long tail is lustrous with
green, bronze, and purple reflections. The pie’s nest is a wonderfully ingenious
structure, placed either in high trees or low bushes, and so massively built that it
will stand for years. Its foundation consists of stout sticks, turf and clay, wrought
into a deep, hollow cup, plastered with earth, and lined with fibres; but around
this is erected a firmly interwoven, basket-like outwork of thorny sticks, forming
a dome over the nest, and leaving but a single hole in the side for entrance and
exit, so that the whole structure is rendered almost impregnable. Herein are laid
from six to nine eggs, of a pale bluish-green freckled with brown and blotched
with ash-colour. Superstition as to the appearance of the pie still survives even
among many educated persons, and there are several versions of a rhyming
adage as to the various turns of luck which its presenting itself, either alone or in

company with others, is supposed to betoken, though all agree that the sight of a
single pie presages sorrow.

The pie belongs to the same family of birds as the crow, and is the Corvus
pica of Linnaeus, the Pica caudata, P. melanoleuca, or P. rustica of modern
ornithologists, who have recognized it as forming a distinct genus, but the
number of species thereto belonging has been a fruitful source of discussion.
Examples from the south of Spain differ slightly from those inhabiting the rest
of Europe, and in some points more resemble the P. mauritanica of north-
western Africa; but that species has a patch of bare skin of a fine blue colour
behind the eye, and much shorter wings. No fewer than five species have been
discriminated from various parts of Asia, extending to Japan; but only one of
them, the P. leucoptera of Turkestan and Tibet, has of late been admitted as
valid. In the west of North America, and in some of its islands, a pie is found
which extends to the upper valleys of the Missouri and the Yellowstone, and has
long been thought entitled to specific distinction as P. hudsonia; but its claim
thereto is now disallowed by some of the best ornithologists of the United
States, and it can hardly be deemed even a geographical variety of the Old-
World form. In California, however, there is a permanent race if not a good
species, P. nuttalli, easily distinguishable by its yellow bill and the bare yellow
skin round its eyes; on two occasions in the year 1867 a bird apparently similar
was observed in Great Britain (Zoologist, ser. 2, pp. 706, 1016).
(A. N.)

1 “Magot” and “Madge,” with the same origin, are names, frequently given in England to the
pie; while in France it is commonly known as Margot, if not termed, as it is in some districts,
Jaquette.

MAGWE, a district in the Minbu division of Upper Burma. Area, 2913
sq. m.; pop. (1901), 246,708, showing an increase of 12.38% in the decade.
Magwe may be divided into two portions: the low, flat country in the
Taungdwingyi subdivision, and the undulating high ground extending over the
rest of the district. In Taungdwingyi the soil is rich, loamy, and extremely fertile.
The plain is about 45 m. from north to south. At its southern extremity it is about
30 m. wide, and lessens in width to the north till it ends in a point at Natmauk.
On the east are the Pegu Yomas, which at some points reach a height of 1500 ft.
A number of streams run westwards to the Irrawaddy, of which the Yin and the
Pin, which form the northern boundary, are the chief. The only perennial stream
is the Yanpè. Rice is the staple product, and considerable quantities are exported.
Sesamum of very high quality, maize, and millet are also cultivated, as well as
cotton in patches here and there over the whole district.

In this district are included the well-known Yenangyaung petroleum
wells. The state wells have been leased to the Burma Oil Company. The
amount of oil-bearing lands is estimated at 80 sq. m. and the portion not
leased to the company has been demarcated into blocks of 1 sq. m. and
offered on lease. The remaining land belongs to hereditary Burmese owners
called twinsa, who dig wells and extract their oil by the rope and pulley
system as they have always done. Lacquered wood trays, bowls and
platters, and cart-wheels, are the only manufactures of any note in the
district.

The annual rainfall averages about 27 inches. The maximum temperature
rises to a little over 100° in the hot season, and falls to an average minimum
of 53° and 54° in the cold season.

The town of Magwe is the headquarters of the district; pop. (1901), 6232.
It is diagonally opposite Minbu, the headquarters of the division, on the
right bank of the Irrawaddy.

MAGYARS, the name of the dominant race in Hungary, or Hungarians
proper. Though they have become physically assimilated to the western peoples,
they belong in origin and language to the Finno-Ugrian (q.v.) division of the
Ural-Altaic race. They form barely half of the population of Hungary, but are by
far the largest and most compact of all its racial groups. Magyar is the official
language of Hungary, the official name of which (Magyarorzág, or “country of
the Magyars”) enshrines the Magyar claim to predominance. While all Magyars
are properly Hungarians, all Hungarians are not necessarily Magyars.
“Hungarian” may be used as a generic term covering all the various races of
Hungary, while “Magyar” is strictly specific to a single group. The Magyars
themselves, indeed, sometimes apply the name Magyarorzág to Hungary
“proper,” excluding Croatia-Slavonia, the whole kingdom being called
Magyarbirodalom, the Magyar monarchy or realm. See Hungary.

MAHABALESHWAR, or Malcolmpeth, a hill station in Satara
district, and the principal sanatorium in the Bombay presidency, India. Pop.
(1901), 5299. It is reached by carriage from Wathar railway station (39 m.) or by
motor car from Poona (119 m.). Mahabaleshwar occupies the summit of a ridge
of the Western Ghats, with a general elevation of 4500 ft. above sea-level. It was

established in 1828 by Sir John Malcolm, governor of Bombay, who obtained
the site from the raja of Satara in exchange for another patch of territory. The
superior elevation of Mahabaleshwar renders it much cooler than Matheran
(2460 ft.), a sanatorium about 50 m. E. of Bombay, but its heavy rainfall (292 in.
annual average) makes it almost uninhabitable during the rainy season. The
mean annual temperature is 67° F. In the hottest season (March-April) an
extreme of a little over 90° is reached during the day. Mahabaleshwar forms the
retreat usually during spring, and occasionally in autumn, of the governor of
Bombay, and the chief officers of his establishment, and has the usual public
buildings of a first-class sanatorium.

MAHAFFY, JOHN PENTLAND (1839- ), Irish classical
scholar, was born in Switzerland on the 12th of July 1839. He received his early
education in Switzerland and Germany, and later at Trinity College, Dublin,
where he held the professorship of ancient history. Mahaffy, a man of great
versatility, published numerous works, some of which, especially those dealing
with what may be called the Silver age of Greece, became standard authorities.
The following deserve mention: History of Classical Greek Literature (4th ed.,
1903 seq.); Social Life in Greece from Homer to Menander (4th ed., 1903); The
Silver Age of the Greek World (1906); The Empire of the Ptolemies (1896);
Greek Life and Thought from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (2nd ed., 1896);
The Greek World under Roman Sway from Polybius to Plutarch (1890). His
translation of Kuno Fischer’s Commentary on Kant (1866) and his own
exhaustive analysis, with elucidations, of Kant’s critical philosophy are of great
value. He also edited the Petrie papyri in the Cunningham Memoirs (3 vols.
1891-1905).

MAHALLAT, a province of central Persia, situated between Kashan and
Irak. Pop. about 20,000; yearly revenue about £2500. Until 1890 it was one of
the five “central provinces” (the other four being Irak, Ferahan, Kezzaz, and
Savah), which were under a governor appointed by the shah; since then it has
formed part of the Isfahan government. It is traversed by the Anarbar or Kum
River, and comprises the city of Mahallat, divided into upper and lower, or
Rivkan and Zanjirvan, and twenty-two flourishing villages. It was known in
former times as Anar, the Anarus of Peutinger’s tables. The city, capital of the
province, is situated at an elevation of 5850 ft. in 33° 51′ N., 50° 30′ E.; pop.
about 9000.

MAHAN, ALFRED THAYER (1840- ), American naval
officer and historian, was born on the 27th of September 1840 at West Point,
New York. His father, Dennis Hart Mahan (1802-1871) was a professor in the
military academy, and the author of textbooks on civil and military engineering.
The son graduated at the naval academy in 1859, became lieutenant in 1861,
served on the “Congress,” and on the “Pocahontas,” “Seminole,” and “James
Adger” during the Civil War, and was instructor at the naval academy for a year.
In 1865 he was made lieut.-commander, commander in 1872, captain in 1885.

Meanwhile he saw service in the Gulf of Mexico, the South Atlantic, the Pacific,
and Asia, and did shore duty at Boston, New York and Annapolis. In 1886-89 he
was president of the naval war college at Newport, Rhode Island. Between 1889
and 1892 he was engaged in special service for the bureau of navigation, and in
1893 was made commander of the “Chicago,” of the European squadron. In
1896 he retired from active service, but was a member of the naval board of
strategy during the war between the United States and Spain. He was a member
of the peace congress at the Hague in 1899. This long and varied service gave
him extensive opportunities for observation, which he supplemented by constant
study of naval authorities and reflection on the interpretation of the problems of
maritime history. His first book was a modest and compact story of the affairs in
The Gulf and Inland Waters (1883), in a series of volumes by various writers,
entitled The Navy in the Civil War; in 1890 he suddenly acquired fame by the
appearance of his masterly work entitled The Influence of Sea Power upon
History, 1660-1783. Having been impressed by the failure of historians to allow
for the influence of sea power in struggles between nations, he was led to make
prolonged investigations of this general theme (see Sea Power). The reception
accorded the volume was instant and hearty; in England, in particular, it was
deemed almost an epoch-making work, and was studied by naval specialists,
cabinet ministers and journalists, as well as by a large part of the general public.
It was followed by The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and
Empire (2 vols. 1892); The Life of Nelson, the Embodiment of the Sea Power of
Great Britain (1897); and Sea Power in its Relations to the War of 1812 (1905).
The author’s general aim in these works—some of which have been translated
into French, German and Japanese—was to make the consideration of maritime
matters paramount to that of military, political or economic movements, without,
however, as he himself says “divorcing them from their surroundings of cause
and effect in general history, but seeking to show how they modified the latter,
and were modified by them.” He selected the year 1660 as the beginning of his
narrative, as being the date when the “sailing-ship era, with its distinctive
features, had fairly begun.” The series as a whole has been accepted as finally
authoritative, supplanting its predecessors of similar aim, and almost—in the

words of Theodore Roosevelt—founding a new school of naval historical
writing.

Other works by Mahan are a Life of Admiral Farragut (1892); The
Interest of America in Sea Power (1897); Lessons of the War with Spain
(1899); The Story of the War with South Africa and The Problem of Asia
(1900); Types of Naval Officers drawn from the History of the British Navy
(1901); Retrospect and Prospect, studies of international relations (1902).

MAHANADI, or Mahanuddy (“The Great River”), a river of India.
It rises in 20° 10′ N., 82° E., 25 m. S. of Raipur town, in the wild mountains
of Bastar in the Central Provinces. At first an insignificant stream, taking a
northerly direction, it drains the eastern portion of the Chhattisgarh plain,
then a little above Seorinarayan it receives the waters which its first great
affluent, the Seonath, has collected from the western portion of the plain;
thence flowing for some distance due E., its stream is augmented by the
drainage of the hills of Uprora, Korba, and the ranges that separate
Sambalpur from Chota Nagpur. At Padampur it turns towards the south, and
struggling through masses of rock, flows past the town of Sambalpur to
Sonpur. From Sonpur it pursues a tortuous course among ridges and rocky
crags towards the range of the Eastern Ghats. This mountain line it pierces
by a gorge about 40 m. in length, overlooked by forest-clad hills. Since the
opening of the Bengal-Nagpur railway, the Mahanadi is little used for
navigation. It pours down upon the Orissa delta at Naraj, about 7 m. west of
Cuttack town; and after traversing Cuttack district from west to east, and
throwing off numerous branches (the Katjori, Paika, Biropa, Chitartala,
&c.) it falls into the Bay of Bengal at False Point by several channels.

The Mahanadi has an estimated drainage area of 43,800 sq. m., and
its rapid flow renders its maximum discharge in time of flood second to
that of no other river in India. During unusually high floods 1,500,000
cub. ft. of water pour every second through the Naraj gorge, one-half of
which, uncontrolled by the elaborate embankments, and heavily laden

with silt, pours over the delta, filling the swamps, inundating the rice-
fields, and converting the plains into a sea. In the dry weather the
discharge of the Mahanadi dwindles to 1125 cub. ft. per second. Efforts
have been made to husband and utilize the vast water supply thrown
upon the Orissa delta during seasons of flood. Each of the three
branches into which the parent stream splits at the delta head is
regulated by a weir. Of the four canals which form the Orissa irrigation
system, two take off from the Biropa weir, and one, with its branch,
from the Mahanadi weir. On the 31st of December 1868 the
government took over the whole canal works from the East Indian
Irrigation Company, at a cost of £941,368. The canals thus taken over
and since completed, are the high-level canal, the Kendrapara canal,
the Taldanda canal and the Machgaon canal, irrigating 275,000 acres.

MAHANOY CITY, a borough of Schuylkill county,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 56 m. N.E. of Harrisburg. Pop. (1890), 11,286;
(1900), 13,504, of whom 3877 were foreign-born, mostly Slavs; (1910
census) 15,936. It is served by branches of the Lehigh Valley and the
Philadelphia & Reading railways. The borough is situated in the valley of
Mahanoy Creek, and has an elevation of 1240 ft. above the sea; Broad
Mountain (1795 ft.), a ridge extending through Schuylkill county, overlooks
it on the S.E. The valley is a part of the anthracite coal region of
Pennsylvania, fire clay abounds in the vicinity, and the borough’s principal
industries are the mining and shipping of coal, and the manufacture of shirts

and foundry products. Mahanoy City, originally a part of Mahanoy
township (pop. in 1910, 6256), was incorporated as a borough in 1863.

MAHAR, the name of a servile caste in the Deccan, India. Their
special function, apart from that of scavenger, is to act as village watchman,
as guardian of the village boundaries, and as public messenger. In some
parts they are also weavers of coarse cotton cloth. In 1901 their total
number in all India was just under three millions.

MAHARAJPUR, a village in Gwalior state, Central India. Pop.
(1901), 366. It was the scene of a battle (Dec. 29, 1843) in which Sir Hugh
Gough, accompanied by the governor-general, Lord Ellenborough, defeated
the insurgent army of the Gwalior state.

MAHĀVAṂSA, the Great Chronicle, a history of Ceylon from
the 5th century b.c. to the middle of the 5th century a.d., written in Pali
verse by Mahānāma of the Dīghasanda Hermitage, shortly after the close of
the period with which it deals. In point of historical value it compares well
with early European chronicles. In India proper the decipherment of early
Indian inscriptions was facilitated to a very great extent by the data found
only in the Mahāvaṃsa. It was composed on the basis of earlier works
written in Sinhalese, which are now lost, having been supplanted by the
chronicles and commentaries in which their contents were restated in Pali in
the course of the 5th century. The particular one on which our Mahāvaṃsa
was mainly based was also called the Mahāvaṃsa, and was written in
Sinhalese prose with Pali memorial verse interspersed. The extant Pali work
gives legends of the Buddha and the genealogy of his family; a sketch of
the history of India down to Asoka; an account of Buddhism in India down
to the same date; a description of the sending out of missionaries after
Asoka’s council, and especially of the mission of Mahinda to Ceylon; a
sketch of the previous history of Ceylon; a long account of the reign of
Devānam-piya Tissa, the king of Ceylon who received Mahinda, and
established Buddhism in the island; short accounts of the kings succeeding
him down to Duṭṭha Gāmīin (Dadagamana or Dutegemunu); then a long
account, amounting to an epic poem, of the adventures and reign of that
prince, a popular hero, born in adversity, who roused the people, and drove
the Tamil invaders out of the island. Finally we have short notices of the

subsequent kings down to the author’s time. The Mahāvaṃsa was the first
Pali book made known to Europe. It was edited in 1837, with English
translation and an elaborate introduction, by George Turnour, then colonial
secretary in Ceylon. Its vocabulary was an important part of the material
utilized in Childer’s Pali Dictionary. Its relation to the sources from which
it drew has been carefully discussed by various scholars and in especial
detail by Geiger. It is agreed that it gives a reasonably fair and correct
presentation of the tradition preserved in the lost Sinhalese Mahāvaṃsa;
that, except in the earliest period, its list of kings, with the years of each
reign, is complete and trustworthy; and that it gives throughout the view, as
to events in Ceylon, of a resident in the Great Minster at Anurādhapura.

See The Mahāvaṃsa, ed. by Geo. Turnour (Colombo, 1837); ed. by
W. Geiger (London, 1908); H. Oldenberg, in the introduction to his
edition of the Dīpavamsa (London, 1879); O. Franke, in Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (1907); W. Geiger,
Dīpavamsa und Mahāvamsa (Leipzig, 1905, trans. by Ethel M.
Coomaraswamy, Colombo, 1908).
(T. W. R. D.)

MAHAYANA (“Great Vehicle”), the name given to the later
Buddhism, the popular religion which embraced all the people and had its
pantheon of Buddhas and Bodhisatvas, with attendant deities and demons,
spacious temples and images, pompous ceremonial and noisy festivals. It

was thus contrasted with the Hinayana (“Little Vehicle”) of the primitive
Buddhism which had been only for the select few. (See Buddhism.)

MAHDI (Arab. “he who is guided aright”), a title assumed by the
third Abbasid caliph (see Caliphate: Abbasids, § 3). According to Moslem
traditionists Mahomet declared that one of his descendants, the imam of
God, who would fill the earth with equity and justice, would bear the name
of al-mahdi. The Sunnis hold that this mahdi has not yet appeared. The
name of mahdi is also given by the Shi’ite Mahommedans to the last of the
imams of the house of ‘Ali. It was under the name of al-mahdi that Mokhtar
proclaimed ‘Ali’s son Mahommed as the opponent of the caliph
Abdalmalik, and, according to Shahrastani, the doctrine of the mahdi, the
hidden deliverer who is one day to appear and fill the oppressed world with
righteousness, first arose in connexion with a belief that this Mahommed
had not died but lived concealed at Mount Radwā, near Mecca, guarded by
a lion and a panther. The hidden imam of the common Shi‘ites is, however,
the twelfth imam, Mahommed Abu‘I-Qasim, who disappeared mysteriously
in 879. The belief in the appearance of the mahdi readily lent itself to
imposture. Of the many pretenders to this dignity known in all periods of
Moslem history the most famous was the first caliph of the Fatimite dynasty
in North Africa, ‘Obaidallah al-Mahdi, who reigned 909-933. After him was
named the first capital of the dynasty, the once important city of Mahdia
(q.v.). Another great historical movement, headed by a leader who
proclaimed himself the mahdi (Mahommed ibn Abdallah ibn Tumart), was

that of the Almohades (q.v.). In 1881 Mahommed Ahmed ibn Seyyid
Abdullah (q.v.), a Dongolese, proclaimed himself al-mahdi and founded in
the eastern Sudan the short-lived empire overthrown by an Anglo-Egyptian
force at the battle of Omdurman in 1898. Concurrently with the claim of
Mahommed Ahmed to be the mahdi the same title was claimed by, or for,
the head of the Senussites, a confraternity powerful in many regions of
North Africa.

MAHDIA (also spelt Mehdia, Mehedia, &c.), a town of Tunisia, on
the coast between the gulfs of Hammamet and Gabes, 47 m. by rail S.S.E.
of Susa. Pop. about 8000. Mahdia is built on a rocky peninsula which
projects eastward about a mile beyond the normal coast line, and is not
more than a quarter of a mile wide. The extremity of the peninsula is called
Ras Mahdia or Cape Africa—Africa being the name by which Mahdia was
designated by Froissart and other European historians during the middle
ages and the Renaissance. In the centre of the peninsula and occupying its
highest point is a citadel (16th century); another castle farther west is now
used as a prison and is in the centre of the native town. The European
quarter and the new port are on the south-west side of the peninsula. The
port is available for small boats only; steamers anchor in the roadstead
about a quarter of a mile from the shore. On the south-east, cut out of the
rock, is the ancient harbour, or cothon, measuring about 480 ft by 240 ft.,
the entrance being 42 ft. wide. There are manufactories of olive oil, but the
chief industry is sardine fishing, largely in the hands of Italians.

Mahdia occupies the site of a Phoenician settlement and by some
authorities is identified with the town called Turris Hannibalis by the
Romans. Hannibal is said to have embarked here on his exile from
Carthage. After the Arab conquest of North Africa the town fell into decay.
It was refounded in 912 by the first Fatimite caliph, ‘Obaidallah-al-Mahdi,
after whom it was named. It became the port of Kairawan and was for
centuries a city of considerable importance, largely owing to its great
natural strength, and its position on the Mediterranean. It carried on an
active trade with Egypt, Syria and Spain. The town was occupied by the
Normans of Sicily in the 12th century, but after holding it for about twelve
years they were driven out in 1159 by the Almohades. In 1390 a joint
English and French force vainly besieged Mahdia for sixty-one days. In the
early part of the 16th century the corsair Dragut seized the town and made it
his capital, but in 1550 the place was captured by the Spaniards, who held it
until 1574. Before evacuating the town the Spaniards dismantled the
fortifications. Under the rule of the Turks and, later, the beys of Tunis
Mahdia became a place of little importance. It was occupied by the French
in 1881 without opposition, and regained some of its former commercial
importance.

During 1908 numbers of bronzes and other works of art were
recovered from a vessel wrecked off Mahdia in the 5th century a.d.
(see Classical Review, June 1909).

MAHÉ, a French settlement in the Malabar district of Madras, India,
situated in 11° 43′ N. and 75° 33′ E., at the mouth of a river of the same
name. Area, 26 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 10,298. It is the only French possession
on the west coast of India, and is in charge of a chef de service, subordinate
to the governor-general at Pondicherry. It is now a decaying place.

MAHESHWAR, a town in Indore state, Central India, on the N.
bank of the Narbada (Nerbudda). Pop. (1901), 7042. Though of great
antiquity and also of religious sanctity, it is chiefly noted as the residence of
Ahalya Bai, the reigning queen of the Holkar dynasty during the last half of
the 18th century, whose ability and munificence are famous throughout
India. Close by her cenotaph stands the family temple of the Holkars.

MAHI, a river of western India, which rises in Central India and, after
flowing through south Rajputana, enters Gujarat and falls into the sea by a
wide estuary near Cambay; total length, 300 m.; estimated drainage area,
16,000 sq. m. It has given its name to the Mahi Kantha agency of Bombay,

and also to the mehwasis, marauding highlanders often mentioned in
Mahommedan chronicles.

MAHI KANTHA, a political agency or collection of native states
in India, within the Gujarat division of Bombay. Over half the territory is
covered by the native state of Idar. There are eleven other chiefships, and a
large number of estates belonging to Rajput or Koli thakurs, formerly
feudatories of Baroda. Several of the states are under British administration.
Total area, 3125 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 361,545, showing a decrease of 38% in
the decade, due to famine; estimated revenue, £76,000; tribute (mostly to
the gaekwar of Baroda), £9000. Many of the inhabitants belong to the wild
tribes of Bhils and Kolis. In 1897 a metre-gauge railway was opened from
Ahmedabad through Parantij to Ahmednagar. At Sadra is the Scott College
for the education of the sons of chiefs on the lines of an English public
school. There are also Anglo-vernacular schools at Sadra, Idar and Mansa.
The famine of 1899-1900 was severely felt in this tract.

MAHMUD I. (1696-1754), sultan of Turkey, was the son of
Mustafa II., and succeeded his uncle Ahmed III. in 1730. After the
suppression of a military revolt the war with Persia was continued with
varying success, and terminated in 1736 by a treaty of peace restoring the
status quo ante bellum. The next enemy whom Turkey was called upon to
face was Russia, later joined by Austria. War went on for four years; the
successes gained by Russia were outweighed by Austria’s various reverses,
terminating by the defeat of Wallis at Krotzka, and the peace concluded at
Belgrade was a triumph for Turkish diplomacy. The sultan, throughout
desirous for peace, is said to have been much under the influence of the
chief eunuch, Haji Beshir Aga. In 1754 Mahmud died of heart-disease when
returning from the Friday service at the mosque. He had a passion for
building, to which are due numberless kiosques, where nocturnal orgies
were carried on by him and his boon companions. In this reign the system
of appointing Phanariote Greeks to the principalities of Moldavia and
Wallachia was instituted. (See Phanariotes.)

MAHMUD II. (1785-1839), sultan of Turkey, was the son of Abu-
ul-Hamid I., and succeeded his brother, Mustafa IV., in 1808. He had shared
the captivity of his ill-fated cousin, the ex-sultan, Selim III., whose efforts
at reform had ended in his deposition by the janissaries. Mahmūd was thus
early impressed with the necessity for dissembling his intention to institute
reforms until he should be powerful enough to carry them through. The
reforming efforts of the grand vizier Bairakdar, to whom he had owed his

life and his accession, broke on the opposition of the janissaries; and
Mahmud had to wait for more favourable times. Meanwhile the empire
seemed in danger of breaking up. Not till 1812 was the war with Russia
closed by the treaty of Bucharest, which restored Moldavia and the greater
part of Wallachia to the Ottoman government. But though the war was
ended, the terms of the treaty left a number of burning questions, both
internal and external, unsettled. This was notably the case with the claim of
Russia to Poti and the valley of the Rion (Phasis), which was still
outstanding at the time of the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) and
prevented the question of a European guarantee of the integrity of Turkey
from being considered.

Meanwhile, within the empire, ambitious valis were one by one
attempting to carve out dominions for themselves at the expense of the
central power. The ambitions of Mehemet Ali of Egypt were not yet fully
revealed; but Ali (q.v.) of Jannina, who had marched to the aid of the sultan
against the rebellious pasha Pasvan Oglu of Widdin, soon began to show his
hand, and it needed the concentration of all the forces of the Turkish empire
to effect his overthrow and death (1822). The preoccupation of the sultan
with Ali gave their opportunity to the Greeks whose disaffection had long
been organized in the great secret society of the Hetaeria Philike, against
which Metternich had in vain warned the Ottoman government. In 1821
occurred the abortive raid of Alexander Ypsilanti into the Danubian
principalities, and in May of the same year the revolt of the Greeks of the
Morea began the war of Greek Independence (see Greece: History). The
rising in the north was easily crushed; but in the south the Ottoman power
was hampered by the defection of the sea-faring Greeks, by whom the
Turkish navy had hitherto been manned. After three abortive campaigns
Mahmud was compelled, infinitely against his will, to summon to his
assistance the already too powerful pasha of Egypt, Mehemet Ali, whom he
had already employed to suppress the rebellious Wahhabis in Arabia. The

disciplined Egyptian army, supported by a well organized fleet, rapidly
accomplished what the Turks had failed to do; and by 1826 the Greeks were
practically subdued on land, and Ibrahim was preparing to turn his attention
to the islands. But for the intervention of the powers and the battle of
Navarino Mahmud’s authority would have been restored in Greece. The
news of Navarino betrayed Mahmud into one of those paroxysms of rage to
which he was liable, and which on critical occasions were apt fatally to
cloud his usual good sense. After in vain attempting to obtain an apology
for “the unparalleled outrage against a friendly power” he issued on the
20th of December a solemn hatti sheriff summoning the faithful to a holy
war. This, together with certain outstanding grievances and the pretext of
enforcing the settlement of the Greek Question approved by the powers,
gave Russia the excuse for declaring war against Turkey. After two hardly
fought campaigns (1828, 1829) Mahmud was at length, on the 14th of
September 1829, compelled to sign the peace of Adrianople. From this
moment until his death Mahmud was, to all intents and purposes, the
“vassal of Russia,” though not without occasional desperate efforts to break
his chains. (For the political events of the period between the first revolt of
Mehemet Ali (Sept. 1832) and the death of Mahmud see Mehemet Ali.) The
personal attitude of the sultan, which alone concerns us here, was
determined throughout by his overmastering hatred of the upstart pasha, of
whom he had stooped to ask aid, and who now defied his will; and the
importance of this attitude lies in the fact that, as the result of the success of
his centralizing policy, and notably of the destruction of the janissaries
(q.v.), the supreme authority, hitherto limited by the practical power of the
ministers of the Porte and by the turbulence of the privileged military caste,
had become concentrated in his own person. It was no longer the Porte that
decided, but the Seraglio, and the sultan’s private secretary had more
influence on the policy of the Ottoman empire than the grand vizier.

This omnipotence of the sultan in deciding the policy of the government
was in striking contrast with his impotence in enforcing his views on his
subjects and in his relations with foreign powers. Mahmud, in spite of—or
rather because of—his well-meant efforts at reform, was hated by his
Mussulman subjects and stigmatized as an “infidel” and a traitor to Islam.
He was, in fact, a victim to those “half-measures” which Machiavelli
condemns as fatal to success. Ibrahim, the conqueror of Syria, scoffed at the
sultan’s idea “that reform consisted in putting his soldiers into tight trousers
and epaulettes.” The criticism is not entirely unjust. Mahmud’s policy was
the converse of that recommended by Machiavelli, viz. in making a
revolution to change the substance while preserving the semblance of the
old order. Metternich’s advice to Mahmud to “remain a Turk” was sound
enough. His failure to do so—in externals—left him isolated in his empire:
rayahs and true believers alike distrusted and hated him. Of this hatred he
was fully conscious; he knew that his subjects, even many of his own
ministers, regarded Mehemet Ali as the champion of Islam against the
“infidel sultan;” he suspected the pasha, already master of the sacred cities,
of an intention to proclaim himself caliph in his stead. This, together with
the weakness due to military reforms but recently begun, drove him to rely
on foreign aid; which, in the actual conditions of Europe, meant the aid of
Russia. The long tradition of French friendship for Turkey had been broken,
in 1830, by the conquest of Algiers. Austria was, for the time, but the
faithful ally of the tsar. On the 9th of August 1832 Mahmud made, through
Stratford Canning, a formal proposal for an alliance with Great Britain,
which Palmerston refused to consider for fear of offending France.
Mahmūd bitterly contrasted the fair professions of England with the offers
of effective help from Russia. His old ally having deserted him, he accepted
the aid of his hereditary foe. The Russian expedition to the Bosporus, the
convention of Kutaiah, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July 8, 1833)
followed. Mahmud was under no illusion as to the position in which the

latter placed him towards Russia; but his fear of Mehemet Ali and his desire
to be revenged upon him outweighed all other considerations. He resented
the action of France and England in forcing the settlement of Kutaiah upon
him, and remained shut up in his palace, inaccessible to all save his
favourites and the representative of Russia. With his single aim in view he
busied himself with the creation of a national militia, with the aid of Moltke
and other German officers. In 1834 the revolt of Syria against Ibrahim
seemed to give him his opportunity. He pleaded the duty of a sultan to go to
the aid of his subjects when oppressed by one of his servants; but the
powers were obdurate, even Russia, much occupied in affairs nearer home,
leaving him in the lurch. He was astute enough to take advantage of the
offence given to the powers by Mehemet Ali’s system of monopolies, and in
1838 signed with Great Britain, and afterwards with others, a commercial
treaty which cut at the root of the pasha’s system. A few months later his
passionate impatience overcame his policy and his fears. The hand of death
was upon him, and he felt that he must strike now or never. In vain the
powers, now united in their views, warned him of the probable
consequences of any aggressive action on his part. He would rather die, he
exclaimed, or become the slave of Russia, than not destroy his rebellious
vassal. On his sole initiative, without consulting his ministers or the council
of the empire, he sent instructions to Hafiz Pasha, commanding the
Ottoman troops concentrated at Bir on the Euphrates, to advance into Syria.
The fatal outcome of the campaign that followed he did not live to hear.
When the news of Ibrahim’s overwhelming victory at Nessib (June 24,
1839) reached Constantinople, Mahmud lay dying and unconscious. Early
in the morning of the 1st of July his proud and passionate spirit passed
away.

Mahmud II. cannot be reckoned among the great sultans, neither had he
any of the calculating statecraft which characterized Abd-ul-Hamid II.; but
his qualities of mind and heart, none the less, raised him far above the mass

of his predecessors and successors. He was well versed in state affairs and
loyal to those who advised and served him, personally brave, humane and
kindly when not maddened by passion, active and energetic, and always a
man of his word. Unhappily, however, the taint of the immemorial
corruption of Byzantium had fallen upon him too, and the avenue to his
favour and to political power lay too often through unspeakable paths. In
view of the vast difficulty of the task before him at his succession it is less
surprising that he failed to carry out his ideas than that he accomplished so
much. When he came to the throne the empire was breaking up from within;
one by one he freed the provinces from the tyrannical rulers who, like Ali of
Jannina, were carving out independent, or quasi-independent, empires
within the empire. If he failed in his wider schemes of reform, this was only
one more illustration of a truth of which other “enlightened” sovereigns
besides himself had experienced the force, namely, that it is impossible to
impose any system, however admirable, from above on a people whose
deepest convictions and prejudices it offends.

There is a great deal of valuable material for the history of Mahmud
and his policy in the unpublished F.O. records (1832-1839), volumes of
correspondence marked Turkey.—From Sir Stratford Canning.—From
Mr. Mandeville.—From Lord Ponsonby. See further works mentioned
under Turkey: History; and Mehemet Ali.
(W. A. P.)

MAHMUD NEDIM PASHA (c. 1818-1883), Turkish
statesman, was the son of Nejib Pasha, ex-governor-general of Bagdad.
After occupying various subordinate posts at the Porte he became
successively under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, governor-general of
Syria and Smyrna, minister of commerce, and governor-general of Tripoli;
minister successively of justice and of marine (1869); grand vizier from
1871 to 1872 and from 1875 to 1876. He was high in favour with Sultan
Abd-ul-Aziz and fell much under the influence of General Ignatiev, the
forceful Russian ambassador before the war of 1877-78, his subserviency to
Russia earning for him the nickname of “Mahmudoff.” His administration
was most unsuccessful from every point of view, and he was largely
responsible for the issue of the decree suspending the interest on the
Turkish funds. He was minister of the interior from 1879 to 1883.

MAHMUD1 OF GHAZNI (971-1030), son of Sabuktagīn,
Afghan conqueror, was born on the 2nd of October 971. His fame rests
chiefly on his successful wars, in particular his numerous invasions of
India. His military capacity, inherited from his father, Nasir-ud-din
Sabuktagīn, was strengthened by youthful experience in the field.
Sabuktagīn, a Turki slave of Alptagīn, governor of Khorasan under
Abdalmalik I. b. Nuḥ of the Samanid dynasty of Bokhara, early brought
himself to notice (see Samanids). He was raised to high office in the state
by Alptagīn’s successor, Abū Ishāk, and in a.h. 366 (a.d. 977), by the choice
of the nobles of Ghazni, he became their ruler. He soon began to make

conquests in the neighbouring countries, and in these wars he was
accompanied by his young son Mahmud. Before he had reached the age of
fourteen he encountered in two expeditions under his father the Indian
forces of Jaipal, raja of Lahore, whom Sabuktagīn defeated on the Punjab
frontier.

In 994 Mahmud was made governor of Khorasan, with the title of Saif
addaula (ud-daula) (“Sword of the State”) by the Sāmānīd Nūh II. Two
years later, his father Sabuktagīn died in the neighbourhood of Balkh,
having declared his second son, Ismail, who was then with him, to be his
successor. As soon as Ismail had assumed the sovereignty at Balkh,
Mahmud, who was at Nishapur, addressed him in friendly terms, proposing
a division of the territories held by their father at his death. Ismail rejected
the proposal, and was immediately attacked by Mahmud and defeated.
Retreating to Ghazni, he there yielded, and was imprisoned, and Mahmud
obtained undisputed power as sovereign of Khorasan and Ghazni (997).

The Ghaznevid dynasty is sometimes reckoned by native historians to
commence with Sabuktagīn’s conquest of Bost and Kosdār (978). But
Sabuktagīn, throughout his reign at Ghazni, continued to acknowledge the
Sāmānid suzerainty, as did Mahmud also, until the time, soon after
succeeding to his father’s dominions, when he received from Qādir, caliph
of Bagdad (see Caliphate, C. § 25), a khilat (robe of honour), with a letter
recognizing his sovereignty, and conferring on him the titles Yamiīn-
addaula (“Right hand of the State”), and Amīn-ul-Millat (“Guardian of the
Faith”). From this time it is the name of the caliph that is inscribed on
Mahmud’s coins, together with his own new titles. Previously the name of
the Sāmānid sovereign, Mansūr II. b. Nūh is given along with his own
former title, Saif addaula Mahmūd. The earliest of those of the new form
gives his name Mahmūd bin Sabuktagīn. Thereafter his father’s name does
not appear on his coins, but it is inscribed again on his tomb.

The new honours received from the caliph gave fresh impulse to
Mahmud’s zeal on behalf of Islam, and he resolved on an annual expedition
against the idolaters of India. He could not quite carry out this intention, but
a great part of his reign was occupied with his Indian campaigns. In 1000 he
started on the first of these expeditions, but it does not appear that he went
farther than the hill country near Peshawar. The hostile attitude of Khalaf
ibn Ahmad, governor of Seistan, called Mahmud to that province for a short
time. He was appeased by Khalaf’s speedy submission, together with the
gift of a large sum of money, and further, it is said, by his subdued opponent
addressing him as sultān, a title new at that time, and by which Mahmud
continued to be called, though he did not formally adopt it, or stamp it on
his coins. Four years later Khalaf, incurring Mahmud’s displeasure again,
was imprisoned, and his property confiscated.

Mahmud’s army first crossed the Indus in 1001, opposed by Jaipāl, raja
of Lahore. Jaipāl was defeated, and Mahmud, after his return from this
expedition, is said to have taken the distinctive appellation of Ghāzi
(“Valiant for the Faith”), but he is rarely so-called. On the next occasion
(1005) Mahmud advanced, as far as Bhera on the Jhelum, when his
adversary Anang-pāl, son and successor of Jaipāl, fled to Kashmir. The
following year saw Mahmud at Multan. When he was in the Punjab at this
time, he heard of the invasion of Khorāsan by the Ilek Khan Nasr I. ruler of
Transoxiana whose daughter Mahmud had married. After a rapid march
back from India, Mahmud repelled the invaders. The Ilek Khan, having
retreated across the Oxus, returned with reinforcements, and took up a
position a few miles from Balkh, where he was signally defeated by
Mahmud.

Mahmud again entered the Punjab in 1008, this time for the express
purpose of chastising Sēwah Pāl, who, having become a Mussulman, and
been left by Mahmud in charge of Multan, had relapsed to Hinduism. The

Indian campaign of 1009 was notable. Near the Indus Mahmud was
opposed again by Anang-pāl, supported by powerful rajas from other parts
of India. After a severe fight, Anang-pāl’s elephants were so terror-struck by
the fire-missiles flung amongst them by the invaders that they turned and
fled, the whole army retreating in confusion and leaving Mahmud master of
the field. Mahmud, after this victory, pushed on through the Punjab to
Nagar-kōt (Kangra), and carried off much spoil from the Hindu temples to
enrich his treasury at Ghazni. In 1011 Mahmud, after a short campaign
against the Afghans under Mahommed ibn Sūr in the hill country of Ghur,
marched again into the Punjab. The next time (1014) he advanced to
Thanēsar, another noted stronghold of Hinduism, between the Sutlej and the
Jumna. Having now found his way across all the Punjab rivers, he was
induced on two subsequent occasions to go still farther. But first he
designed an invasion of Kashmir (1015), which was not carried out, as his
progress was checked at Lōh-kōt, a strong hill fort in the north-west of the
Punjab. Then before undertaking his longer inroad into Hindustan he had to
march north into Khwārizm (Khiva) against his brother-in-law Mamūn,
who had refused to acknowledge Mahmud’s supremacy. The result was as
usual, and Mahmud, having committed Khwārizm to a new ruler, one of
Mamūn’s chief officers, returned to his capital. Then in 1018, with a very
large force, he proceeded to India again, extending his inroad this time to
the great Hindu cities of Mathra on the Jumna and Kanauj on the Ganges.
He reduced the one, received the submission of the other, and carried back
great stores of plunder. Three years later he went into India again, marching
over nearly the same ground, to the support, this time, of the raja of Kanauj,
who, having made friendship with the Mahommedan invader on his last
visit, had been attacked by the raja of Kalinjar. But Mahmud found he had
not yet sufficiently subdued the idolaters nearer his own border, between
Kabul and the Indus, and the campaign of 1022 was directed against them,

and reached no farther than Peshawar. Another march into India the
following year was made direct to Gwalior.

The next expedition (1025) is the most famous of all. The point to which
it was directed was the temple of Somnath on the coast of the Gujarāt
peninsula. After an arduous journey by Multan, and through part of
Rajputana, he reached Somnath, and met with a very vigorous but fruitless
resistance on the part of the Hindus of Gujarāt. Moslem feet soon trod the
courts of the great temple. The chief object of worship it contained was
broken up, and the fragments kept to be carried off to Ghazni. The story is
often told of the hollow figure, cleft by Mahmud’s battle-axe, pouring out
great store of costly jewels and gold. But the idol in this Sivite temple was
only a tall block or pillar of hewn stone, of a familiar kind. The popular
legend is a very natural one. Mahmud, it was well known, made Hindu
temples yield up their most precious things. He was a determined idol-
breaker. And the stone block in this temple was enriched with a crown of
jewels, the gifts of wealthy worshippers. These data readily give the
Somnath exploit its more dramatic form. For the more recent story of the
Somnath gates see Somnath.

After the successes at Somnath, Mahmud remained some months in India
before returning to Ghazni. Then in 1026 he crossed the Indus once more
into the Punjab. His brilliant military career closed with an expedition to
Persia, in the third year after this, his last, visit to India. The Indian
campaigns of Mahmud and his father were almost, but not altogether,
unvarying successes. The Moslem historians touch lightly on reverses. And,
although the annals of Rajputana tell how Sabuktagīn was defeated by one
raja of Ajmere and Mahmud by his successor, the course of events which
followed shows how little these and other reverses affected the invader’s
progress. Mahmud’s failure at Ajmere, when the brave raja Bisal-deo
obliged him to raise the siege but was himself slain, was when the Moslem

army was on its way to Somnath. Yet Mahmud’s Indian conquests, striking
and important in themselves, were, after all, in great measure barren, except
to the Ghazni treasury. Mahmud retained no possessions in India under his
own direct rule. But after the repeated defeats, by his father and himself, of
two successive rajas of Lahore, the conqueror assumed the right of
nominating the governors of the Punjab as a dependency of Ghazni, a right
which continued to be exercised by seven of his successors. And for a time,
in the reign of Masa‘ud II. (1098-1114), Lahore was the place of residence
of the Ghaznevid sovereign.

Mahmud died at Ghazni in 1030, the year following his expedition to
Persia. He is conspicuous for his military ardour, his ambition, strong will,
perseverance, watchfulness and energy, combined with great courage and
unbounded self-reliance. But his tastes were not exclusively military. His
love of literature brought men of learning to Ghazni, and his acquaintance
with Moslem theology was recognized by the learned doctors.

The principal histories of Mahmud’s reign are—Kitāb-i-Yamīnī
(Utbi); Tarīkh-us-Subuktigīn (Baihaki); Tabakāt i Nasiri (Minhāj el-
Sirāj); Rauzat-us-Safa (Mir Khond); Habīb-us-Sivar (Khondamir). See
Elliot, History of India; Elphinstone, History of India; and Roos-
Keppel’s translation of the Tarīkh-i-Sultan Mahmūd-i-Ghaznavi (1901).

1 The name is strictly Maḥmūd.

MAHOBA, an ancient town in India, in Hamirpur district of the
United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 10,074. As the capital of the Chandel
dynasty, who ruled over Bundelkhand from the 9th to the 13th century, the
neighbourhood is covered with architectural antiquities, prominent among
which are artificial lakes, formed by banking up valleys with masonry
dams. The largest of these is more than 4 m. in circuit.

MAHOGANY, a dark-coloured wood largely used for household
furniture, the product of a large tree indigenous to Central America and the
West Indies. It was originally received from Jamaica; 521,300 ft. were
exported from that island in 1753. It is known botanically as Swietenia
Mahogani, and is a member of the order Meliaceae. It bears compound
leaves, resembling those of the ash, and clusters of small flowers, with five
sepals and petals and ten stamens which are united into a tube. The fruit is a
pear-shaped woody capsule, and contains many winged seeds. The dark-
coloured bark has been considered a febrifuge, and the seeds were used by
the ancient Aztecs with oil for a cosmetic, but the most valuable product is
the timber, first noticed by the carpenter on board Sir Walter Raleigh’s ship
in 1595 for its great beauty, hardness and durability. Dr Gibbons brought it
into notice as well adapted for furniture in the early part of the 18th century,
and its use as a cabinet wood was first practically established by a cabinet-
maker named Wollaston, who was employed by Gibbons to work up some
mahogany brought to England by his brother. It was introduced into India in
1795, and is now cultivated in Bengal and as far north as Saharunpur.

The timber of species of Cedrela and Melia, other members of the
order Meliaceae, are used as Mahogany, and the product of the West
African Khaya senegalensis is known as African mahogany. There is
some confusion between the product of these various trees. Herbert
Stone (The Timbers of Commerce, 1904) says: “The various species of
mahogany and cedar are so confusing that it is difficult to make precise
statements as to their structure or origin. I know of no convincing proof
that any of the American kinds met with on the English market are the
wood of Swietenia Mahogani, nor that those shipped from Africa are
the wood of Khaya senegalensis. These two genera are very nearly
allied to Cedrela and Melia, and it is difficult to separate any of the
four from the rest by the characters of the wood. After giving the most
careful attention to every detail, I lean to the view that most if not all of
the mahoganies commonly met with are Cedrelas.”

Kiggelaria Dregeana (natural order Bixineae), a native of South
Africa, is known as Natal mahogany.

MAHOMET (strictly Muḥammad, commonly also Mohammed),
founder of the religious system called in Europe after him
Mahommedanism, and by himself Islam or Ḥanifism. He died, according to
the ordinary synchronism, on the 7th of June 632 (12 Rabia, a.h. 11), and
his birthday was exactly sixty-three or sixty-five years earlier, the latter
number being evidently an interpretation in lunar years of a number thought

to refer to solar years. The lunar system was introduced into Arabia by
Mahomet himself quite at the close of his career; that which existed before
was certainly solar, as it involved a process of intercalation—which,
however, seems to have been arbitrarily manipulated by priests, whence
certain synchronisms cannot be got for the events in the Prophet’s career.
The number 63 for the years of his life may rest on tradition, though it is
unlikely that such matters were accurately noted; it can also be accounted
for by a priori combination. A Meccan, it is said, became a full citizen at the
age of 40; this then would be the age at which the mission might be started.
The Medina period (of which count was kept) lasted ten to eleven years; for
the Meccan period ten years would seem a likely length. Finally it was
known that for some years—about three—the mission had been conducted
secretly. The only event in contemporary history to which the Koran alludes
in its earlier parts is the Persian conquest of Palestine in 616. Clearly
Mahomet had begun to prophesy at that date.

Before the rise of Islam, Mahomet’s native place, Mecca, appears to
figure nowhere in historical records, unless there be a reference to it in the
“valley of Baca” (Psalm lxxxiv. 6). Its sacred, and therefore archaic, name
is Bakkah; hence the identification of the name with that
His Country. of the sanctuary Makoraba, known to the Greek
geographers, is not philologically tenable; although so
eminent a linguist as Dozy evolved a theory of the origin of the city from
this name, which appears to be South Arabian for “sanctuary,” and has no
connexion with Hebrew (as Dozy supposed). In the 3rd century of Islam the
mythology of Mecca was collected and published in book form, but we
learn little more from it than names of tribes and places; it is clear that there
was no record of the mode in which the community inhabiting the place had
got there, and that little was remembered with accuracy of the events which
preceded the rise of its prophet. The city had a sanctuary, called the Cube
(ka‘ba), of which the nucleus was the “Black Stone,” probably to be

identified with Allah, the god of the community; both still exist, or rather
their legitimate substitutes, as the Ka‘ba has been repeatedly reconstructed,
and the original Black Stone was stolen by the Carmathians in the 4th
century of Islam; they afterwards returned one, but it may or may not have
been the same as that which they removed. At some time in the 6th century
—said to have been the birth-year of the Prophet, but really much earlier—
an Abyssinian invader raided Mecca with the view of abolishing this
sanctuary; but for some reason had to desist. This expedition, known as the
“Raid of the Elephant,” one of these animals being employed in it, seems to
be of great importance for explaining the rise of Islam; for a sanctuary
which can repel an invader acquires tremendous reputation. Some verses in
the Koran which are perhaps not genuine, record the miracle whereby Allah
repelled the “People of the Elephant.” The sanctuary was apparently in the
possession of the tribe Koreish (Quraish), the origin of whose name is
unknown, said to have come originally from Cutha in Mesopotamia. They
were known (we are told) as the people of Allah, and, by wearing a badge,
were sacrosanct throughout Arabia. If this be true, it was probably a
privilege earned by the miraculous defence of the Ka‘ba, and is sufficient to
account for the rise of Meccan commerce of which we hear much in the
biography of the Prophet, and to which some verses of the earliest part of
the Koran allude; for merchants who were safe from attacks by bandits
would have an enormous advantage. The records seem, however, to be
inconsistent with this assertion; and the growth of the Meccan commerce is
sufficiently accounted for by the fact that after the Abyssinian invasion
pilgrimage to the Ka‘ba became the practice of numerous Arab tribes, and
for four months in the year (selected by Meccan priests) raiding was
forbidden, in order to enable the pilgrimage to be safely made. In addition
to this it would seem that all Mecca counted as sanctuary—i.e. no blood
might under any circumstances be shed there. The community lived by

purveying to pilgrims and the carrying trade; and both these operations led
to the immigration of strangers.

There seems to be no doubt that Mahomet was himself a member of the
tribe Koreish, and indeed too many of his relatives figure in history to
permit of his parentage being questioned. His cousin ‘Ali, fourth caliph,
was the son of Abū Ṭālib, whose name attests the
Mahomet’s Family. historical character of the kindred name ‘Abd al-
Moṭṭalib, Mahomet’s grandfather: for the fact that this
name is in part enigmatical is certainly no argument against its genuineness.
In the 3rd century of Islam a document was shown in which a man of San’a
in Yemen acknowledged that he had borrowed from ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib 1000
silver dirhems of the Hudaida standard, and Allāh with the two “angels”
(probably a euphemism for the goddesses Al-lāt and al-‘Uzzā) served as
witness; it is difficult to see why such a document should have been forged.
The name Hāshim (for ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib’s father) may or may not be
historical; here, as in the ascending line throughout, we have subjects
without predicates. The name of ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib’s son, who was
Mahomet’s father, is given as ‘Abdallāh; the correctness of this has been
questioned, because “Servant of Allah” would seem to be too appropriate,
and the name was often given by the Prophet to converts as a substitute for
some pagan appellation. This, however, is hypercritical, as the name of the
father could not easily be altered, when relatives abounded, and it would
seem that at one time the Prophet made no theological use of the name
Allah, for which he intended to substitute Raḥmān. The name of his mother
is given as Āminah, and with this one of his own titles, Amīn, agrees;
although the Arabs do not appear to bring the two into connexion. Her
father’s name is given as Wahb, and she is brought into relation with a
Medinese tribe called the Banū ‘Adī b. al-Najjār, to whom she is said to
have brought her son in his early infancy. The circumstances may have been
suggested by his later connexion with that place; yet in what seems a

historical narrative her grave is mentioned as known to be at Abwa, midway
between the two cities, whence this early bond between the Prophet and his
future home may have really existed.

His own name is given in the Koran in the forms Aḥmad and the familiar
Muḥammad; in contemporary poetry we also find the form Maḥmūd.
Similar variation between derivatives from the same root is found in proper
names which occur in early poetry; the meaning of all would be “the
praised,” if the root be given its Arabic signification—“the desired” if
interpreted from the Hebrew.

The form Muḥammad (ordinarily transliterated Mohammed;
Mahomet, Mehmet, &c., represent the Turkish pronunciation) is found
in a pre-Islamic inscription, and appears to have been fairly common in
Arabia. In Hag. ii. 7 a derivative of the Hebrew equivalent root occurs
in the prophecy “and the desired of all nations shall come,” and this
passage has suggested the idea that the name may have been taken by
the Prophet as the equivalent of “Messiah,” while the Moslems
themselves find its equivalent in the Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel,
though this identification requires more ingenuity. His kunyah (i.e. the
Arab title of respect, in which a man is called after his son) is Abu‘l-
Qāsim; other names by which he is called are titles of honour, e.g.
Muṣṭafā “chosen.” (See further the genealogical table, ad fin.)

In the Koran, Allah says that He found the Prophet an orphan, poor and
astray; it is possible that all these expressions should be understood
figuratively, like the “poor, naked, blind” of Christian hymns; the Arabs,
however, take them literally, and Mahomet is said to
Early Life. have been a posthumous child, whose mother died a few
months or years after his birth, and who was brought up
first by his grandfather, and then by his uncle Abū Ṭālib, one of the poorer
members of the family; in the controversy between the Alid and Abbasid

pretenders of the 2nd century of Islam the Abbasid Manṣūr claims that his
ancestor fed the ancestor of ‘Ali, i.e. Abū Ṭālib, otherwise he would have
had to beg. There was evidently an apparent inconsistency between
Mahomet’s being a poor orphan and the favourite grandchild of the eminent
and wealthy ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib; and it was solved in this way. There was a
tradition that in his early years he was sent into the desert to acquire the
habits and the language of the Bedouins; and this seems to have been
attested by the Prophet himself. In a tribal fight he is said to have acted as
armour-bearer to one of his uncles, Zubair. There seems no doubt that he
often accompanied Meccan caravans to the countries with which the
Meccans had trade relations; such especially were Syria and south Arabia,
and perhaps Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is conceivable that he may have
visited Abyssinia by sea. For though accurate knowledge is nowhere to be
found in the Koran, it exhibits a large amount of miscellaneous information,
such as a trader might well pick up. His career as a caravan-conductor
appears to have terminated with his marriage to Khadīja, daughter of
Khuwailid, represented by the tradition as a wealthy widow, fifteen years
his senior and forty years of age at the time of the union. As she became the
mother of a numerous family, a special rule was discovered by Moslem
physiologists extending the child-bearing period of Korashite women
beyond that of others. Since it is claimed for Mahomet that he first gave
Arab women the right to inherit property, the difficulty noticed is not the
only one connected with this marriage; and Robertson Smith has called
attention to some others, unconnected with his theory of “marriage and
kinship in early Arabia.” After his marriage Mahomet appears to have been
partner in a shop in Mecca; where he apparently sold agricultural produce.
His style is strongly marked by phrases and metaphors drawn from trade,
though as a statesman he never displayed any financial ability.

Writing in the monumental script of South Arabia had been known for
centuries in the peninsula; and shortly before the rise of Islam a cursive

script—the parent of the ordinary Arabic character—had been started in the
Christian state of Hira, with which the beginnings of
Education. modern Arabic literature are connected. A modification
of this had been introduced into Mecca, and was
probably used for contracts and similar documents. The word ummī,
literally “popular” or “plebeian” (according to one etymology), applied to
Mahomet in the Koran, is said to mean “one who can neither read nor
write,” and the most generally accepted view is that he could do neither, a
supposition which enters into the doctrine of the miraculous nature of the
Koran. According to another interpretation the word means “Meccan,” i.e.
native of “the Mother of the Villages” (Umm al-Qura); and the most
probable theory is that he could do both, but unskilfully. Indeed on one
historic occasion he erased certain words in a document; and where in the
Koran he rebuts the charge of “taking notes,” he does not employ the
obvious retort that he could not write, but gives a far less convincing
answer. For poetry, which seems to have been cultivated in Arabia long
before his time, he possessed no ear; but we have little reason for supposing
that either writing or versification had yet entered into Arabian education.
The former would be acquired by those who needed it, the latter was
regarded as a natural gift. There is reason for thinking the language of the
Koran incorrect and ungrammatical in parts, but as it afterwards became the
ultimate standard of classical Arabic, this point is not easy to prove. On the
whole then his early life seems to have been such as was normal in the case
of a man belonging to one of the more important families in a community
which had not long been started on a career of prosperity.

Of the organization of that community we unfortunately know very little,
though we hear of a council-chamber, and, as has been seen, of an age-
qualification for admission to it. It is, however, certain that the theory of
decision by majority was absolutely unknown to Mahomet’s second
successor, whence we learn little from this tradition (even if it be authentic)

of the mode whereby the tribes who together formed the
Social System. Meccan population managed their common concerns,
whether commercial or political. The form of
government seems to have been a rudimentary oligarchy, directed by some
masterful individual; before the Flight we read of various prominent
personages, after the Flight and the battle of Badr (a.h. 2) one chieftain,
Abū Sofiān (see Caliphate, ad init.), appears to take the lead whether in war
or in policy. It would seem, however, that the right of independent action
belonged to the individual tribes, even to the extent of refusing to take part
in a campaign. For the settlement of ordinary disputes recourse was had (it
appears) rather to soothsayers, near or distant, than to any regularly
constituted authority or tribunal. On the other hand we are furnished with a
list of officials who were concerned with different parts of the festal
performances and the ordinary worship. Of these we may mention the
Custodian of the Ka‘ba, and the official whose duty was siqāyah
(“watering”), said to mean furnishing the pilgrims with water, but more
ingeniously interpreted in recent times as “rain-bringing,” a function which
even in the 2nd century of Islam the governor in some places was supposed
to exercise.

Of Arabian paganism we possess no trustworthy or complete account;
since we hear of no theological literature belonging to it, probably no such
account could have been given. There were doubtless a variety of practices,
many of which have been continued to this day in the
Beginnings of the ceremonies of the pilgrimage, and offerings of different
Mission. sorts to various deities, interpreted variously by the
worshippers in accordance with their spiritual,
intellectual and moral levels; e.g. as actual stones, or as men (or more often
women) residing in the stones or otherwise connected with them, or bearing
a similar relation to trees, or stars, &c. In general every tribe had its patron
of the kind, and where there were aggregations of tribes, connexions were

established between these deities, and affiliation-theories excogitated; hence
the theory attributed in the Koran to the Meccans that the goddesses
al-‘Uzzā, &c. were the daughters of Allah, may well represent the outcome
of such speculation. These, however, were known to few, whereas the
practices were familiar to all. Some of these were harmless, others
barbarous; many offensive, but not very reprehensible, superstitions.

Before Mahomet’s time Arabian paganism had already been attacked
both from the outside and from the inside. On the one hand the northern
tribes had gradually been christianized, owing to the influence of the
Byzantine empire; on the other hand south Arabia had
External fallen successively under Jewish, Abyssinian and Persian
Influences. influence; and the last, though little is known of Persian
rule, is unlikely to have favoured pagan cults.
Christianity had also some important representation in Najran far south of
Mecca, while Jewish settlements were prospering north of Mecca in the
Prophet’s future home Yathrib and its neighbourhood. Power, civilization
and learning were thus associated with monotheism (Judaism), dualism
(Mazdaism) and tritheism (as the Arabs interpreted Christianity); paganism
was the religion of ignorance (jāhiliyyah, interpreted by Goldziher as
“barbarism,” but the difference is not very considerable). Mecca itself and
the neighbouring and allied Ṭāif are said to have produced some
monotheists or Christians, who identified the Allah of Mecca with the
Allāhā or God of the Syrian Christians, called by the Abyssinian Christians
“Lord of the Regions,” and by the Jews “the Merciful” (Raḥmānā); one
such is said to have been a cousin of Khadija, Mahomet’s wife; his name is
given as Waraqah, son of Naufal, and he is credited with copying or
translating a Gospel. We even hear of flagellant monks and persons vowed
to total abstinence among the precursors of Islam.

With these persons Mahomet had little in common, since they do not
appear to have claimed to enforce their views upon others, or to have
interfered with politics. He appears mainly to have been struck by the
personality of the founders of the systems dominant in the civilized world,
and to have aspired from the first to occupy the place of legislator or
mouthpiece of the Deity; and that he was this was and is the main
proposition of the Mahommedan creed. The “Prophet” or “Apostle” (at
different times he employed both the Jewish and the Christian phrase) was
the divinely appointed dictator of his community; if he were not obeyed,
divine vengeance would overtake the disobedient. At this proposition
Mahomet arrived by induction from the records of the Biblical prophets, as
well as others who seem to have figured in Arabian mythology, e.g. the
destruction of the tribe Thamūd (mentioned by Pliny, and therefore
historical) for their disobedience to their prophet Ṣāliḥ, and of ‘Ad
(probably mythical) for their similar treatment of Hūd. The character of the
message did not affect the necessity for obedience; at times it was
condemnation of some moral offence, at others a trivial order. Divine
vengeance overtook those who disobeyed either.

This is the theory of the prophetic office which pervades the Koran,
wherein the doctrine is formulated that every nation had its divine guide
and that Mecca before Mahomet’s time had none. This place, then,
Mahomet felt a divine call to fill. But we are never likely
The Prophet’s to ascertain what first put the idea into his mind. The
Call. fables which his biographers tell on this subject are not
worth repeating; his own system, in which he is brought
into direct communication with the Deity, though at a later period the angel
Gabriel appears to have acted as intermediary, naturally leaves no room for
such speculations; and since his dispensation was thought to be absolutely
new, and to make a tabula rasa of the pagan past, his first followers, having
broken with that past, left no intelligible account of the state of affairs

which preceded their master’s call. Some generations therefore elapsed
before that past was studied with any sort of sympathy, and details could
not then be recovered, any more than they can now be supplied by
conjecture.

So far as Mahomet may be said from the first to have formulated a
definite notion of his work, we should probably be right in thinking it to be
the restoration of the religion of Abraham, or (as the Koran calls him)
Ibrahim. Though we have no reason for supposing the name of Abraham or
Ishmael to have been known in Mecca generally before Mahomet’s time,
the Biblical ethnology was not apparently questioned by those who were
told of it, and there are stories, not necessarily apocryphal, of precursors of
Mahomet going abroad in search of the “religion of Abraham.” One feature
of that system, associated in the Bible with the name of Ishmael as well,
was circumcision, which was actually observed by the Meccan tribes,
though it would appear with technical differences from the Jewish method;
the association of monotheism with it would seem reasonable enough, in
view of Jewish traditions, such as Mahomet may have heard on his travels;
why the doctrine of the future life should be coupled with it is less obvious.
That the Meccan temple and its rites had been founded by these two
patriarchs appears to have been deduced by Mahomet himself, but perhaps
at a later stage of his career. That these rites, so far as they were idolatrous,
were in flagrant defiance of the religion of Abraham must have struck any
one who accepted the accounts of it which were current among Jews and
Christians. The precursors, however, appear to have felt no call to reform
their fellow-citizens; whereas it is evident that Mahomet regarded himself
as charged with a message, which he was bound to deliver, and which his
God would in some way render effective.

As it was obvious that the claim to be God’s mouthpiece was to claim
autocracy, Mahomet employed the utmost caution in his mode of asserting

this claim; on the question of his sincerity there have been different
opinions held, and it is not necessary to take any view on this matter. For
three years his followers were a secret society; and this period appears to
have been preceded by one of private preparation, the first revelation being
received when the Prophet was in religious retirement—a ceremony called
taḥannuth, of which the meaning is uncertain, but which can have no
connexion with the Hebrew teḥinnōth (“supplications”)—on Mount Ḥirā,
near Mecca.

If the traditional dates assigned to the suras (chapters) of the Koran (q.v.)
are correct, the earliest revelations took the form of pages or rolls which the
Prophet was to read by the “grace of God,” as Joseph Smith, the founder of
the Mormon community, said of the power given him to
The Koran. read the “Egyptian” characters on the gold plates which
he had found. The command to read is accompanied by
the statement that “his most generous Lord had taught man by the pen
(calamus) that which he did not know.” Waraqah, to whom the event is said
to have been communicated by Khadija, called these communications “the
Greater Law (nomos).” The Prophet was directed to communicate his
mission at the first only to his nearest relatives. The utterances were from
the first in a sort of rhyme, such as is said to have been employed for
solemn matter in general, e.g. oracles or prayers. At an early period the
production of a written communication was abandoned for oral
communications, delivered by the Prophet in trance; their delivery was
preceded by copious perspiration, for which the Prophet prepared (in
accordance with instructions found in the Koran) by wrapping himself in a
blanket. Trusty followers were instructed to take these utterances down, but
the phenomena which accompanied their delivery at least in one case
suggested imposture to the scribe, who apostatized in consequence. It is
extraordinary that there is no reason to suppose that any official record was
ever kept of these revelations; the Prophet treated them somewhat as the

Sibyl did her leaves. This carelessness is equally astounding whether the
Prophet was sincere or insincere.

If the matter afterwards collected in the Koran be genuine, the early
revelations must have been miscellaneous in content, magical, historical
and homiletic. To some strange oaths are prefixed. Apparently the purpose
to be compassed was to convince the audience of their miraculous origin.
The formulation of doctrines belongs to a later period and that of
jurisprudence to the latest of all. In that last period also, when Mahomet
was despot of Medina, the Koran served as an official chronicle, well
compared by Sprenger to the leading articles on current events in a
ministerial organ. Where the continuous paragraph is substituted for the
ejaculation, the divine author apologizes for the style.

Certain doctrines and practices (e.g. washing of the person and the
garments) must have been enjoined from the first, but our authorities
scarcely give us any clear notion what they were. The doctrines to which
the Prophet himself throughout assigned most value seem to have been the
unity of God and the future life, or resurrection of the body. The former
necessitated the abandonment of the idolatrous worship which formed part
of the daily life of Mecca, and in which Mahomet and Khadija had been
accustomed to take their part. Yet it seems to have been due to the initiative
of the proselytes themselves rather than to the Prophet’s orders that the
Meccan worship was actually flouted by them; for the anecdote which
represents the Prophet and his young cousin attempting to pull down the
images in or about the Ka’ba appears to be apocryphal. The first Moslem
ceremony would appear to have been the religious meeting for the purpose
of hearing the delivery of revelations, of which after the Prophet’s death the
sermon (khuṭbah) took the place. After various provisional meeting-places,
the house of one al-Arqam on Mt. Safa was adopted for this purpose; and
here proselytes were initiated.

The names which the new community received from its founder are both
philological puzzles; for the natural sense of Moslem (Muslim) appear to be
“traitors,” and to this a contemporary war-song of Mahomet’s enemies
alludes; while Ḥanīf (especially applied in the Koran to
Growth of the Abraham) seems to be the Hebrew word for “hypocrite.”
Early Community. The former is explained in the Koran to mean “one who
hands over his face or person to God,” and is said to have
been invented by Abraham; of the latter no explanation is given, but it
seems to signify from the context “devotee.” Since the divine name
Raḥmān was at one time favoured by Mahomet, and this was connected
with one Maslama of the tribe Ḥanīfa, who figures in politics at the end of
Mahomet’s career but must have been a religious leader far earlier, it has
been suggested that the names originally belonged to Maslama’s
community. The honour of having been Mahomet’s first convert is claimed
for three persons: his wife Khadīja, his cousin Ali, who must have been a
lad at the commencement of the mission, and Abū Bekr, son of Abū
Quḥāfah, afterwards Mahomet’s first successor. This last person became
Mahomet’s alter ego, and is usually known as the Ṣiddiq (Heb. word
signifying “the saint,” but to the Arabs meaning “faithful friend)”. His
loyalty from first to last was absolutely unswerving; he was selected to
accompany Mahomet on the most critical occasion of his life, the Flight
from Mecca; Mahomet is said to have declared that had he ever made a
confidant of any one, that person would have been Abū Bekr; implying that
there were things which were not confided even to him. The success of the
Prophet’s enterprise seems to have been very largely due to the part played
by this adherent, who possessed a variety of attainments which he put at
Mahomet’s service; who when an intermediary was required was always
ready to represent him, and who placed the commendation of the Prophet
above every other consideration, private or public. The two appear to have
regularly laid siege to those persons in Mecca whose adherence was

desirable; and the ability which many of the earlier converts afterwards
displayed, whether as statesmen or generals, is a remarkable testimony to
their power of gauging men. It seems clear that the growth of wealth in
Mecca had led to the accentuation of the difference between persons of
different station, and that many were discontented with the oligarchy which
governed the city. Converts could, therefore, be won without serious
difficulty among the aliens and in general those who suffered under various
disqualifications. Some members of the Jewish community seem also to
have joined; and some relics of the Abyssinian expedition (i.e. descendants
of the invaders). Among the most important converts of the Meccan period
were Mahomet’s uncle Ḥamza, afterwards for his valour called “the Lion of
God”; ‘Abd al-Raḥman (Abdar-raḥman) son of ‘Auf; Othman, son of
‘Affān, who married two of the Prophet’s daughters successively, and was
Mahomet’s third successor; and, more important than any save Abū Bekr,
Omar, son of al-Khattāb, a man of extraordinary force of character, to
whom siege seems to have been laid with extraordinary skill. At some time
he received the honourable title Fārūq (“Deliverer”); he is represented as
regularly favouring force, where Abū Bekr favoured gentle methods; unlike
Abū Bekr, his loyalty was not always above suspicion. His adherence is
ascribed to the period of publicity.

The secrecy which marked its early years was of the greatest value for
the eventual success of the mission; for when Mahomet came forward
publicly he was already the head of a band of united followers. His own
family appear to have been either firm adherents, or violent enemies, or
lukewarm and temporizing—this is the best which can be said for ‘Abbās,
eponymus of the Abbasid dynasty; or finally espousers of his cause, on
family grounds, but not as believers.

Rejecting accounts of Mahomet’s first appearance as a public preacher,
which are evidently comments on a text of the Koran, we have reason for

supposing that his hand was forced by ardent followers, who many times in
his career compelled him to advance. The astute rulers of
First Period of the community perceived that the claim made by
Publicity. Mahomet was to be dictator or autocrat; and while this
was naturally ridiculed by them, some appear to have
been devoted adherents of the gods or goddesses whom he attacked. The
absence of dated documents for the period between this open proclamation
(which in any case commenced before 616) and the Flight to Medina in 622
renders the course of events somewhat conjectural, though certain details
appear to be well established. Apparently there was a war of words,
followed by a resort to diplomacy and then to force; and then a period in
which Mahomet’s attention was directed to foreign conversions, resulting in
his being offered and accepting the dictatorship of Yathrib.

Of the war of words we have an imperfect record in the Meccan suras of
the Koran, which occasionally state the objections urged by the opponents.
In the course of the debate the theological position of both parties seems to
have shifted, and the knowledge of both was probably increased in various
ways. The miracle of the Koran, which at first consisted in its mode of
production, was transformed into a marvel connected with its contents; first
by Mahomet’s claiming to tell historical narratives which had previously
been unknown to him; afterwards by the assertion that the united efforts of
mankind and Jinn would be unable to match the smallest passage of the
Koran in sublimity. Probably the first of these claims could not be long
maintained, though A. J. Davis, “the Seer of Poughkeepsie,” in our own
time brought a similar one in regard to his Principles of Nature. Indeed both
parties evidently resorted to external aid. To those who undertook to name
the man who dictated stories of the ancients to Mahomet day and night, he
replied that the individual whom they had in mind was a foreigner, whereas
the Koran was in pure Arabic. This was obviously a quibble, for it was
scarcely asserted that he delivered the matter dictated to him without

alteration. The purity of the Arabic also appears to have been very
questionable; for several expressions appear to be Ethiopic rather than
Arabic, and the person whom the Meccans had in mind is likely to have
been an Abyssinian Christian, since the Christian technicalities of the Koran
are mainly derived from the Ethiopic Gospels and Acts. On one occasion
when some questions suggested by learned foreigners had been propounded
to the Prophet he required a fortnight’s delay before the revelation which
solved them came; the matter contained in his reply was certainly such as
required research. His sources of information seem at all times to have been
legendary rather than canonical; and the community which seemed to his
opponents to agree best with his views was that of the Sabians or
Mandaeans (qq.v.).

It has been suggested that Mahomet first threatened the Meccans with
temporal punishment, and only when this threat failed to take effect resorted
to the terrors of the Day of Judgment and the tortures of Hell; it seems
however a mistake to distinguish between the two. These threats provided
the Prophet with his most powerful sermons. The boasts of incomparable
eloquence which the Koran contains are evidence that his oratorical power
was effective with his audiences, since the more successful among the
Arabic poets talk of their compositions somewhat in the same way. These
discourses certainly led to occasional conversions, perhaps more frequently
among women than men.

The diplomatic war seems to have been due to the Prophet’s increasing
success, which led to serious persecution of Mahomet’s less influential
followers, though, as has been seen, no blood could be shed in Mecca. Abū
Ṭālib, moreover, prevented him from being exiled,
The Exiles in though he probably had to endure many personal insults.
Axum. Something however had to be done for the persecuted
Moslems, and (perhaps at the suggestion of his

Abyssinian helper) Mahomet endeavoured to find a refuge for them in the
realm of Axum. Abyssinia was doubtless connected in every Meccan mind
with the “Expedition of the Elephant”; and such an alliance secured by
Mahomet was a menace to the existence of the Meccan community. A
deputation was therefore sent by the Meccan leaders to demand extradition
of the exiles; and as chief of this expedition the future conqueror of Egypt,
‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ (see ‘Amr ibn el-Ass), first figures in history. To frustrate
his efforts Mahomet sent his cousin Ja’far armed with an exposition of the
Prophet’s beliefs and doctrines afterwards embodied in the Koran as the
Sura of Mary (No. XIX.; though with the addition of some anti-Christian
matter). The original document contained an account of the Nativity of
Christ with various miracles not known to either the canonical or even the
apocryphal gospels which have been preserved, but which would be found
edifying rather than unorthodox by a church one of whose most popular
books is The Miracles of the Virgin Mary. To this there were added certain
notices of Old Testament prophets. The Abyssinian king and his
ecclesiastical advisers took the side of Mahomet and his followers, whom
they appear to have regarded as persecuted Christians; and an attempt made
probably by the astute ‘Amr to embroil them with the Abyssinians on the
difficult question of the Natures of Christ failed completely. There seems
reason for thinking that the Abyssinian king contemplated bringing back the
exiles by force, but was diverted from this purpose by frontier wars;
meanwhile they were safely harboured, though they seem to have suffered
from extreme poverty. The want of an Abyssinian chronicle for this period
is a serious disadvantage for the study of Islamic origins. The sequel shows
that regular correspondence went on between the exiles and those who
remained in Mecca, whence the former were retained within the fold of
Islam, with occasional though rare apostasies to Christianity.

Mahomet’s diplomatic victory roused the Meccan leaders to fury, and
they decided on the most vigorous measures to which they could rise; Abū

Ṭālib, Mahomet’s protector, and the clan which acknowledged him as
sheikh, including the Prophet and his family, were blockaded in the quarter
which they occupied; as in other sanctuaries, though blood might not be
shed, a culprit might be starved to death. That this did not occur, though the
siege appears to have lasted some months at least, was due to the weak
good nature of the Meccans, but doubtless also to the fact that there were
enlisted on Mahomet’s side many men of great physical strength and
courage (as their subsequent careers proved), who could with impunity defy
the Meccan embargo. After a time however the besieged found the situation
intolerable, and any assistance which they might have expected from the
king of Axum failed to come. The course adopted by Mahomet was
retractation of those of his utterances which had most offended the
Meccans, involving something like a return to paganism. A revelation came
acknowledging the effectiveness of the Meccan goddesses as well as Allah,
and the Meccans raised the siege. News of the reconciliation reached the
Abyssinian exiles and they proceeded to return.

By the time they reached the Arabian coast the dispute had
recommenced. The revelation was discovered to be a fabrication of the
Devil, who, it appears, regularly interpolates in prophetic revelations; such
at least is the apology preserved in the Koran, whence the fabricated verses
have been expunged. Since our knowledge of this episode (regarded as the
most disgraceful in the Prophet’s career) is fragmentary, we can only guess
that the Prophet’s hand had once more been forced by the more earnest of
his followers, for whom any compromise with paganism was impossible.
The exiles went back to Abyssinia; and about this time both Abū Ṭālib and
Khadīja died, leaving the Prophet unprotected.

He fled to the neighbouring oasis of Ṭāif, where wealthy Meccans had
possessions, and where the goddess al-‘Uzza was worshipped with special
zeal—where she is said still to exist in the form of a block of stone. He had

but little success there in proselytizing, and indeed had to cease preaching;
but he opened negotiations with various Meccan magnates for a promise of
protection in case of his return. This was at last obtained with difficulty
from one Moṭ‘im b. ‘Adi. It would appear that his efforts were now
confined to preaching to the strangers who assembled at or near Mecca for
the ceremonies connected with the feasts. He received in consequence some
invitations to come and expound his views away from Mecca, but had to
wait some time before one came of a sort which he could wisely accept.

The situation which led to Mahomet’s Flight (hijra, anglicized
incorrectly hejira, q.v.) was singularly favourable to Mahomet’s enterprise,
and utilized by him with extraordinary caution and skill. At the palm
plantation called Yathrib, afterwards known as al-
The Flight to Medina, Medina, “the City” (i.e. of the Prophet), there
Yathrib. were various tribes, the two most important, called Aus
and Khazraj, being pagan, and engaged in an internecine
feud, while under their protection there were certain Jewish tribes, whose
names have come down to us as Qainuqā, Naḍīr and Quraiza—implying
that the Israelites, as might be expected, imitated the totem nomenclature of
their neighbours. The memory of these Israelites is exclusively preserved by
the Moslem records; the main stream of Jewish history flowed elsewhere.
In the series of combats between the Aus and Khazraj the former had
generally been worsted; the Jews, as usual, had avoided taking any active
part in the fray. Finally, owing to an act of gross perfidy, they were
compelled to fight in aid of the Aus; and in the so-called battle of Bu‘āth the
Aus aided by the Jews had won a victory, doubtless attributed to the God of
the Jews. As has been seen, the divine name employed by Mahomet
(Raḥmān) was one familiar to the Jews; and the Yathribites who visited
Mecca at feast-time were naturally attracted by a professed representative
of al-Raḥmān. The first Yathribite converts appear to have been Khazrajites,
and one As‘ad, son of Zurarah, is the most prominent figure. Their idea may

have been in the first place to secure the aid of the Israelitish Deity in their
next battle with the Aus, and indeed the primary object of their visit to
Mecca is said to have been to request assistance for their war. For this the
plan was substituted of inviting the Prophet to come to Mecca as dictator, to
heal the feud and restore order, a procedure to which Greek antiquity offers
parallels. The new converts were told to carry on secret propaganda in
Yathrib with this end in view. At the next feast some of the rival faction
embraced Islam. A trusty follower of Mahomet, Mus’ab b.’Umair, who
resembled Mahomet in personal appearance, was sent to Yathrib to assist in
the work. The correspondence between this person and the Prophet would,
if we possessed it, be of the greatest value for the study of Islamic antiquity.
We first hear at this time of the conditions of Islam, i.e. a series of
undertakings into which the convert entered: namely, to abstain from
adultery, theft, infanticide and lying, and to obey Mahomet in licitis et
honestis. The wholesale conversion of Yathrib was determined by that of
two chieftains, Usaid b. Ḥuraith and Sa‘d b. Mu’adh, both Ausites. The
example of these was quickly followed, and iconoclasm became rife in the
place. At the next Meccan feast a deputation of seventy Yathribites brought
Mahomet a formal invitation, which he accepted, after imposing certain
conditions. The interviews between Mahomet and the Yathribites are known
as the ‘Aqabah (probably with reference to a text of the Koran). The attitude
of the Jews towards the project appears to have been favourable.

Among the conditions imposed by Mahomet on his new adherents
appears to have been the protection and harbouring of the older proselytes,
whom Mahomet most wisely determined to send before him to Yathrib,
where, in the event of the Yathribite loyalty wavering,
The Refugees. they could be counted on with certainty. The welcome
given these refugees (muhājirūn), as they were from this
time known in contra-distinction to the helpers (anṣār) or allies from
Yathrib, is said to have been of the warmest; a Helper with two wives would

hand one over to a wifeless Refugee. A yet more important condition which
preceded the Flight was readiness to fight men of all colours in defence of
the faith.

Although the transactions with the people of Yathrib had been carried on
with profound secrecy, the nature of Mahomet’s contract with his new
adherents was somewhat divulged to the Meccan magnates, and the danger
of allowing an implacable enemy to establish himself on the high-road of
their north-bound caravans flashed upon them. The rule which forbade
bloodshed in the sacred city had at last to be suspended; but elaborate
precautions were to be taken whereby every tribe (except Mahomet’s own
clan) should have their share in the guilt, which would thus be spread over
the whole community fairly. When the committee appointed to perpetrate
the crime reached Mahomet’s house, they found that it was too late;
Mahomet had already departed, leaving Ali in his bed.

The actual Flight from Mecca to Yathrib has naturally been a favourite
subject for romance, and indeed appears to have been executed with the
greatest cunning. Accompanied by Abū Bekr only, Mahomet took refuge in
a cave of Mt Thaur, in the opposite direction to that which he intended to
take finally, and there remained for three days; provision had been made of
every requisite, food, powerful camels, a trusty and competent guide. The
date at which he reached Kuba, on the outskirts of Yathrib, where there was
already some sort of Moslem oratory, is given as 8 Rabia I., of the year a.h.
1; the fact that he arrived there on the Jewish Day of Atonement gives us
the date September 20, 622. The Meccans, who had employed professional
trackers to hunt down the fugitives, proceeded to confiscate the houses and
goods of Mahomet and of his followers who had fled.

The safe arrival of Mahomet at his destination marks the turning-point in
his career, which now became one of almost unbroken success; his
intellectual superiority over both friends and enemies enabling him to profit

by defeat little less than by victory. His policy appears to
Mahomet as have been to bind his followers to himself and them to
Despot of Yathrib. each other by every possible tie; he instituted
brotherhoods between the Refugees and Helpers, which
were to count as relationships for legal purposes, and having himself no
sons, he contracted numerous marriages partly with the same end in view;
e.g. with the infant daughter of Abū Bekr, Ayesha (‘A’ishah), whose ability
he appears to have discerned; and the unamiable Ḥafṣa, daughter of Omar.
Of his own daughters three were given to faithful allies, the one by whom
his line is supposed to have been continued to our time, Fāṭima, was
reserved for his cousin Ali. Owing to his efforts the alliance between the
Refugees and Helpers resisted numerous attempts on the part of enemies to
break it up, and only towards the end of the Prophet’s life, when he
appeared to favour Meccans unduly, do we hear of any bitterness between
the two communities.

The population of Yathrib, or, as it may now be called, Medina, soon
divided into three groups: Mahomet’s united followers; the Jews; and a
party known as the “Hypocrites,” i.e. professing Moslems, who were
lukewarm, or disaffected, among whom the most
The Medina prominent is ‘Abdallah b. Ubayy, a Khazrajite chieftain,
Community. who is said to have himself aspired to be despot of
Yathrib, and who till nearly the end of Mahomet’s career
figures somewhat as a leader of the opposition; of his importance there is no
question, but the reason for it and the mode whereby he made it felt are
often obscure. It would seem that the pagans remaining in Yathrib speedily
adopted Islam after the Prophet’s arrival, whence we hear little of serious
opposition on their part. Coming in the capacity of prophet of the Israelitish
God, Mahomet at first seems to have courted alliance with the Jews, and to
have been ready to adopt their system with very slight modifications—
similar to those which, according to his opinion, Jesus had come to

introduce. The Jews met these advances by submitting him to examination
in the intricacies of the Torah, and, finding him very poorly equipped,
proceeded to denounce him as an imposter; one of his examiners is said to
have even translated the Torah into Arabic with a view of convicting him of
ignorance and imposture. They are’ further charged with exercising their
magical arts on the Prophet and his followers, and to have succeeded
thereby in producing barrenness among the Moslem women. Their conduct
must not of course be judged by the statement of their enemies; it is
however clear that Mahomet soon found that there was no possibility of
compromising with them on religious questions, or of obtaining their loyal
support; meanwhile he discovered that they were incapable of united and
persistent action, and useless as warriors except against each other. He
therefore resolved on their extermination. His ruthlessness in their case
compared with his patience and forbearance in the case of the “Hypocrites”
was consistent with his principle (always faithfully observed) that no
inquiry was permissible into the motives of conversion, and with his
division of mankind into the two antagonistic factions Believers and
Unbelievers. The latter principle, as will be seen, was somewhat modified
before the end of his life.

Mahomet’s failure to effect a compromise with the Jews caused a
reaction in his mind towards paganism, and after about a year’s residence at
Medina the direction of prayer, which had till then been towards Jerusalem,
was turned southward to the pagan temple at Mecca.
Development of With this change we may perhaps couple the adoption of
Islam. the name Allah for the Deity; in the Moslem formula “in
the Name of Allah the Raḥmān the Merciful,” the
translation attached to the word Raḥmān, and the prefixing to it of the name
Allah furnish clear evidence of theological transition, though the stages are
not recorded; we know, however, that the Meccans approved of the name
Allah, but objected to the name Raḥmān. Prayer (ṣalāt), said to have been

prescribed on the occasion of the Prophet’s ascent into heaven after a
miraculous journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, began to assume a
stereotyped form in the place of assembly built by Mahomet immediately
after his arrival; the attitudes of prayer in use among many communities
(e.g. the Jewish standing, the prostration of some Christian sects) were
combined. In general it was Mahomet’s principle, while taking over a
practice from some other sect, to modify it so as to render the Moslem
method absolutely distinct; thus when a summons to prayer became
requisite, a new mode (by the voice of a crier called muaddhin or muezzin)
was preferred to the Christian hammer; a new sacred day was adopted, in
lieu of the Jewish Saturday and the Christian Sunday, in the weekday on
which he had safely reached Kuba, Friday; but the sanctity was reduced to
the actual time occupied by public worship. On the subject of food he was
satisfied with the regulations of the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts
xv.; which were observed by few if any Christian sects. The prohibition of
wine, which was enacted in a.h. 3, is said to have been occasioned by the
riotous conduct of one of his followers when under the influence of liquor;
Palgrave saw in it (perhaps with justice) a deliberate attempt to prevent
harmony between Moslems and Christians, in whose most sacred rite wine
is used. The Fast of Ramaḍān, in which food both liquid and solid is
forbidden from sunrise to sunset, is said to be a pagan or semi-pagan
institution; its importance for military training and discipline is not likely to
have been overlooked by the Prophet. When the direction of prayer was
altered, it is probable that Mahomet already intended to introduce into his
system the whole of the pagan pilgrimage with its antique ceremonial (with,
of course, a new interpretation); before this he is supposed to have aimed at
the abolition of the Ka‘ba and all that appertained to it.

The difference between religious and civil law has never been recognized
by Islamic jurists, whose manuals deal equally with the law of contract and
the amount of the body to be washed before prayer; the Prophet’s

ordinances on both subjects were suggested by the occasion in each case,
and it would seem that the opinions of trusted advisers were regularly heard
before a revelation was issued. Even when this had been done the ordinance
might be cancelled by an abrogating revelation; it being “easy for Allah” to
substitute for a text already revealed another that was better or at least as
good.

As Islam began to spread outside the limits of Medina both conversion to
Islam and persistence therein were reduced to simple tests; the
pronunciation of the double formula of belief in Allah and Mahomet was
sufficient to indicate conversion, whilst payment of an income-tax, called
by the Jewish names for alms (zakāt and ṣadaqah), was evidence of loyalty.
This income-tax, of which the definite assessment perhaps belongs to a later
period, was for the support of necessitous converts—an element in the
community whose presence accounts for the mode in which the
development of the Islamic state proceeded.

The industries in which the Meccan Refugees had been engaged were not
of a sort which they could exercise at Medina, where the palm took the
place of the camel as the basis of society. Moreover the Prophet seems to
have given some disastrous advice on the subject of
First Campaigns palmiculture, and thereby to have accentuated the
of Mahomet. poverty of the place. He had, therefore, to find some
fresh source of revenue in order to deal with this
difficulty, and one of the Helpers is said to have suggested the plan which
he adopted, viz. of attacking the Meccan caravans. With this view he
organized a series of expeditions, taking the lead himself sometimes, while
at others he gave it to one of his veteran followers; and at first only
Refugees took part in them. The leaders of the caravans, however, were
expert in evading attacks of this sort, which were doubtless regularly
attempted by the desert tribes; and in the first year of his despotism

Mahomet did not score a single success of the kind intended. The attempts
were not wholly fruitless; for while on the one hand he accustomed his
followers to campaigning, on the other he made a series of agreements with
the chieftains of the tribes through whose territory the caravans ordinarily
passed. Finding continued failure intolerable, he resolved to take advantage
of his power to bind and to loose by sending an expedition of seven men
under his cousin ‘Abdallah b. Jaḥsh to attack a caravan at the beginning of
the sacred month Rajab, when, as raiding during such a season was
unknown, success was practically certain. The commander on this, the
Nakhlah raid, was given sealed orders, to be opened after two days’ march;
the men were then to be given the option of retiring, if they disapproved. Of
this no one seems definitely to have availed himself, and the raid ended
successfully, for considerable booty was captured, while of the four persons
who escorted the caravan two were made prisoners, one escaped, and one,
‘Amr b. al-Ḥaḍrami, was killed; he was the first person slain fighting
against an Islamic force. The violation of the sacred month seems to have
caused considerable scandal in Arabia, but led to no serious consequence;
on the other hand the shedding of blood created a feud between the people
of Mecca and the Refugees, with whom the Meccans long declined to
identify the people of Medina. The fact that the man who had been killed
was a client, not a citizen, made no difference. The circumstance that booty
had been actually acquired appears to have helped the Prophet’s cause very
considerably.

Both these consequences, the Meccan desire to avenge the blood that had
been shed and the anxiety of the Medinese to take part in a successful raid,
manifested themselves a few months later, when an expedition was
organized by Mahomet to attack a caravan returning
Attack on Meccan from Syria, which had escaped him the previous year.
Caravan. Many desired to take part in the raid, and finally some
300 persons were selected, including a large number of

“Helpers.” The leader of the caravan learned somehow that an attack was
being organized by Mahomet on a large scale, and sent to Mecca for aid,
while hurrying home by forced marches. This is the first historical
appearance of Abū Sofiān (the leader of the caravan), who now for some
years played the part of president in the Meccan opposition to Mahomet,
and whose son was destined to found the second Mahommedan dynasty
(see Caliphate, B). The day before the battle to be fought at Badr, near the
point where the northern road leaves the coast to turn eastwards to Mecca,
the Moslem army learned that the Meccan succour (some 1000 strong) was
near, but that the caravan had escaped. The Meccans, it is asserted, would
have returned home now that their object was secured, but the patrons of
the man who had been killed in the former raid were compelled to strike for
vengeance.

The battle (Ramaḍān 19, a.h. 2, usually made to synchronize with March
17, 624) ended in a complete victory for Mahomet, whose followers killed
seventy of the enemy and took seventy prisoners—if we may trust what
seem to be round numbers; it was attributed by him to divine co-operation,
taking the form of an illusion wrought on the enemy, and the despatch of a
regiment of angels to the assistance of the Believers, while on the other
hand the treachery of the Devil did mischief to the Meccans. The popular
tradition attributed it to the prowess of some of Mahomet’s followers,
especially his uncle Ḥamza and his cousin Ali. In the narratives which have
come down and which seem to be authentic the result is amply accounted
for by the excellence of the Moslem discipline and the complete absence of
any on the Meccan side. Mahomet himself is said to have fainted at the first
sight of blood, and to have remained during the battle in a hut built for him
to which swift camels were tied, to be used in case of a defeat; yet these
accounts make him responsible for the tactics, whilst assigning the credit
for the strategy to one Ḥobab b. al-Mondhir. Several of Mahomet’s old
enemies and friends of Meccan days perished on this occasion; notably one

Abu Jahl, his uncle, but represented as an implacable enemy; another
hostile uncle, Abu Lahab, who is cursed in the Koran, was not present but
died shortly after the battle.

The day is called in the Koran by a Syriac expression the “Day of
Deliverance,” and both for internal and external politics it was of
incalculable advantage to Islam. The booty and the ransoms of the prisoners
provided the means for dealing with distress; the story of supernatural aid
soothed the feelings of the defeated Meccans and had a tendency to disarm
resistance elsewhere; whilst Mahomet in the popularity acquired by his
victory was able to strike forcibly at his enemies in Medina. One of the
sequels to the victory was a series of assassinations whereby critics of his
actions were removed.

The defeat at Badr naturally led to efforts on the part of the Meccans to
avenge their dead and besides to secure the commerce, by which they lived,
from an enemy who was gradually getting all the seaboard that lay between
Jeddah and Yanbo within his sphere of influence; and the
The Taking of year after Badr (a.h. 3) Abū Sofiān was able to lead a
Mecca. force said to be three times as great as that which had
been defeated, and so numbering some 3000 men,
against Medina itself; part of it was under Khālid b. al-Walid, one of the
greatest of Arab captains, afterwards conqueror of Syria. It is said that
Mahomet’s plan was to remain in Medina itself, and leave it to the Meccan
commander to discover some way of taking the place; but that his hand was
forced by his more ardent followers. Others, however, assign this advice to
Abdallah b. Ubayy, and make the Prophet anxious to fight from the first. A
battle was in consequence fought under Mt Uḥud (or Ohod), north-west of
Medina, wherein Khālid succeeded in inflicting a severe defeat on
Mahomet’s forces; his uncle Ḥamza, hero of Badr, was killed on this
occasion. Fortunately for the Moslems, the Meccans considered that they

had finished their task when they discovered that they had killed a number
of the former equal to those who had fallen at Badr on their own side;
instead therefore of pursuing their victory they went home. The immediate
effect on Arabia appears to have been to dissipate the illusion that the
Prophet could count on supernatural assistance in his wars; and we hear of
some blows being dealt him from outside. Meanwhile his relations towards
the Medinese Jews had grown more and more hostile, and these are credited
with doing their best to rouse the Meccans to a sense of the danger which
threatened them in the continuance of the Prophet’s power, and in general to
stir up hostility against him in Arabia. Whether this part was played by them
or not, in the fifth year of the Prophet’s stay at Medina a fresh invasion of
the territory took place by a vast confederate force of Meccans with their
allies, the tribes Fazarah, Asad, Murrah, &c., to the number, it is said, of
10,000. This time the intention of the leaders was undoubtedly to stamp out
Islam. For the first time in Arab warfare Mahomet resorted to the expedient
of defending his city by a trench, called by a Persian name, and suggested
by a Persian convert. But he also employed agents to sow dissension among
the confederates, and succeeded with this no less than with the other
expedient. After a brief stay, and scarcely striking a blow, the confederacy
dispersed, leaving the Jews who still remained in Medina to the summary
vengeance of the Prophet. The want of records written from the Meccan
standpoint renders the abortiveness of this last attempt at storming the
Prophet’s stronghold scarcely intelligible.

From this time, however, the road towards the eventual taking of Mecca
became easy, and we are told that such was the importance attached to that
city throughout Arabia that its acquisition meant for the Prophet the
acquisition of the whole peninsula. The next year (a.h. 6) he deemed it
advisable to make a truce with the Meccans (the Truce of Ḥodaibiyah),
whereby he secured for his followers the right of performing the pilgrimage
in the following year; on this occasion he even consented to forgo his title

“Prophet of Allah,” when the Meccans refused to sign a deed in which it
was employed, greatly to the scandal of his more earnest followers,
including Omar; they were however too deeply committed to Islam to be
able to defy the Prophet. When the pilgrimage was performed (a.h. 7),
Mahomet not only won important converts in the persons of Khālid and the
no less able ‘Amr b. al-‘Aṣ, but in general impressed the population with
the idea that his was the winning side. An excuse was easily found for
invading Mecca itself in the following year, when Abū Sofiān took the
opportunity of embracing Islam before it was too late. Very little resistance
was now made by the Meccans, whose chiefs were already in Mahomet’s
camp, and Mahomet used his victory with great moderation; his
proscription list was finally reduced to two. The theory that all offences
were cancelled by conversion was loyally observed. Moreover the Prophet
incurred the displeasure of his Medinese friends by the anxiety which he
displayed to soothe the feelings of his former enemies and antagonists. The
Medinese, however, prevailed upon him to maintain their city as his
political capital, while making Mecca the religious centre of his system; and
this arrangement accounts perhaps more than anything else for the
persistence of the system amid so many dynastic changes.

In the main he appears to have introduced little alteration into the
government of Mecca, and it is said that he even declined to retaliate on
those who had confiscated the possessions of the Refugees. Even the Ka‘ba
was left in the keeping of its former custodian, though of course its interior
as well as its precincts were cleansed of all that could offend monotheists.
In the following year the pilgrimage was for the first time conducted by a
Moslem official, Abū Bekr. A proclamation was made on that occasion,
forbidding idolaters in future to take part in the pilgrimage, and giving all
Arabs who were not as yet converted four months’ grace before force was
to be brought to bear upon them. In the following year Mahomet conducted
the Pilgrimage himself. This solemn occasion (the “Farewell Pilgrimage”)

was also employed for the delivery of an important proclamation, wherein
the Prophet declared that God had completed their religion. The principle
whereon he specially insisted was the brotherhood of Islam; but there is
some difficulty in enucleating the original sermon from later additions.

It would seem that Mahomet’s enterprise originally comprised the
conversion of Mecca only, and that he thought of himself as sent to his
fellow-citizens only, as had been the case with earlier prophets, whose
message was for their “brethren.” His views took a
Conquest of somewhat different direction after his brief exile to Ṭāif,
Arabia. and the conquest of Arabia was in a way forced upon him
in the course of his struggle with the Meccans. It is not
indeed perfectly clear by what process he arrived at the resolution to
exclude paganism from Arabia; at first he appears to have tolerated it at
Medina, and in some of his earlier contracts with neighbouring tribes he is
represented as allowing it, though some of our texts make him reserve to
himself the right of enforcing Islam if he chose; only the Meccans were at
first, according to the most authentic documents, excluded from all truce or
treaty. At the battle of Badr he appears to have formulated the rule that no
one might fight on his side who had not embraced Islam; and when once he
had won fame as a successful campaigner, those who wished to share his
adventures had to pass the Islamic test. After the battle of Uhud (Ohod) we
hear of a tribe demanding missionaries to instruct them in Islamic
principles; and though in the case recorded the demand was treacherous, the
idea of sending missionaries appears not to have been unfamiliar even then,
albeit the number sent (70), if rightly recorded, implies that the Prophet
suspected the good faith of the applicants. After the taking of Mecca,
whereby the chief sanctuary at any rate of north Arabia had been cleared of
all idolatrous associations, and consecrated to monotheism, paganism in
general was conscious of being attacked; and the city had scarcely been
brought under the new régime before the Prophet had to face a

confederation of tribes called Hawāzin and Thaqīf. The battle which
ensued, known as the Day of Honain, was near ending disastrously for
Islam; some of Mahomet’s sturdiest followers fled; but the terrible danger
of a defeat in the neighbourhood of recently conquered Mecca roused the
Prophet and Ali to heroism, and they saved the day. Emissaries were now
sent far and wide demanding the destruction of idols, and only Ṭāif appears
to have made any considerable resistance; against this place for the first
time the Prophet made use of siege artillery, such as was employed by the
Byzantines; though compelled by the bravery of the inhabitants to raise the
siege, he was afterwards able to take the city by capitulation. It has been
observed that here only do we read of much attachment to the old deities; in
most places they were discarded with few regrets when once their
impotence had been found out. After the taking of Mecca and the victory of
Honain there appears to have been a general desire, extending even to the
extreme south of Arabia, to make the best terms with the conqueror so soon
as possible; iconoclasm became general. Flatterers of various kinds,
including poets, came to seek the favour of the sovereign; and a mock war
of words appears to have been substituted by some tribes for more serious
fighting, to terminate in surrender. For warfare of his sort Mahomet had a
powerful helper in the poet Ḥāssan b. Thābit, for whose effusions a pulpit
was erected in the Medina mosque, and whose verses were said to be
inspired by the Holy Spirit; though, as has been seen, Mahomet was not
himself able to judge of their artistic merit. It was not, however, found easy
to enforce the payment of the alms on these new converts; and this taxation
caused an almost general revolt so soon as Mahomet’s death had been
ascertained.

Although the central portions of the peninsula in Mahomet’s time were
practically independent, large portions of the north-west and south-east
were provinces of the Byzantine and Persian empires respectively, whence
any scheme for the conquest of Arabia would necessarily involve the

conqueror in war with these great powers. The conquest
Plan of World- of Persia is said to have been contemplated by the
conquest. Prophet as early as a.h. 5, when the famous Trench was
being dug; but it was not till the year a.h. 7, on the eve of
the taking of Mecca, that the Prophet conceived the idea of sending
missives to all known sovereigns and potentates, promising them safety if,
but only if, they embraced Islam. The text of these letters, which only
varied in the name of the person addressed, is preserved (doubtless
faithfully) by the Moslem Oral Tradition; in the middle of the last century a
French explorer professed to discover in Egypt the original of one of them
—addressed to the mysterious personage called the Muqauqis (Muḳauḳis)
of Egypt—and this, it appears, is still preserved amid other supposed relics
of the Prophet in Constantinople, though there is little reason for believing
it to be genuine. The anecdotes dealing with the reception of these letters by
their addressees are all fabulous in character. Two appear to have sent
favourable replies: the king of Axum, who now could send the exiles whom
he had so long harboured to their successful master; and the Egyptian
governor, who sent Mahomet a valuable present, including two Coptic
women for his harem. The emperor Heraclius is claimed as a secret convert
to Islam, on whom pressure had to be put by his advisers to conceal his
convictions. The Persian king is said to have sent orders to have Mahomet
arrested; his messengers arrived in Medina, but were unable to carry out the
commands of their master, who died while they were there. Two of the
letters are said to have had important results. One was addressed to the
Himyarite chiefs (called by the south Arabian appellation qail) in Yemen,
and effected their conversion; another to the governor of Bostra in Roman
Arabia, who put the bearer of this insolent message to death; a force was
despatched by Mahomet immediately afterwards (beginning of a.h. 8) to
avenge this outrage; and though the Moslems were defeated in their first
encounter with the Byzantine forces at Mutah, they appear to have given a

good account of themselves; it was here that Ja‘far, cousin of the Prophet,
met his death. In a.h. 9 a successful expedition was led by the Prophet
himself northward, in which, though no Byzantine force was encountered, a
considerable region was withdrawn from the Byzantine sphere of influence,
and made either Islamic or tributary to Islam. At the time of his death (of
fever, after a short illness) he was organizing an expedition for the conquest
of Syria.

The Prophet claimed throughout that his revelation confirmed the Jewish
and Christian Scriptures, and this claim is on the whole reasonable, though
his acquaintance with both was in the highest degree vague and inaccurate.
Still he reproduced the Old Testament as faithfully as he
Jewish and could, and though he patriotically endeavours to shed
Christian some lustre on his supposed ancestor Ishmael, he does
Communities. not appear to have questioned the Biblical theory
according to which the founder of the north Arabian
nations was the son of a slave girl. On neither the truth of the Biblical
history and miracles nor the validity of the Mosaic legislation does he
appear to have cast any doubt. He even allows that Israel was the chosen
people. The Gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and
heretical sources, which cannot certainly be identified; but he accepted the
doctrine of the Virgin-birth, the miracles of healing the sick and raising the
dead, and the ascension; the crucifixion and resurrection were clearly
denied by the sect from whom he had received his information, and rejected
by him, though certainly not because of any miracle which the latter
involved. His quarrel with the Jews at Medina appears to have been by no
means of his own seeking, but to have arisen unavoidably, owing to his
particular view of his office being such as they could not accept; and his
attempt to discredit, not the Mosaic Law, but the form in which they
presented it, was an expedient to which he resorted in self-defence. An
attempt was made shortly after his arrival at Medina to settle the relations

between the two communities by a treaty, according to which, while their
equality was guaranteed there should be little interference between the two;
this, however, was found unworkable, and each victory of Mahomet over
the Meccans was followed by violent measures against the Medinese
Israelites. When experience had shown him their military incompetence he
appears to have been unable to resist the temptation to appropriate their
goods for the benefit of his followers; and his attack on the flourishing
Jewish settlement of Khaibar, after the affair of Ḥodaibiyah, appears to have
been practically unprovoked, and designed to satisfy his discontented
adherents by an accession of plunder. Yet the consciousness that this
process was economically wasteful suggested to him an idea which Islamic
states are only now abandoning, viz. that of a tolerated caste, who should
till the soil and provide sustenance for the Believers who were to be the
fighting caste. Whereas then his former plan in dealing with Israelites had
been to banish or massacre, he now left the former owners of Khaibar (who
had survived the capture of the place) in possession of the soil, of whose
produce they were to pay a fixed proportion to the Islamic state. The same
principle was adopted in the case of later conquests of Jewish settlements.

Disputes with Christians occur somewhat later in the Prophet’s career
than those with Jews, for neither at Mecca nor Medina were the former to
be found in any numbers; individuals are likely to have been found in both
cities, and we hear of one Medinese “Abu’Amir the Monk,” who after
Mahomet’s arrival at Medina branded him as an impostor, and, going
himself into exile, made many an abortive attempt to discredit and injure
Mahomet’s cause. The notices of him are meagre and obscure. Mahomet’s
manifesto to the world, about the time of the taking of Khaibar, appears to
represent his definite breach with Christianity; and when in the “year of the
embassies” the Christians of Najran sent a deputation to him, they found
that the breach between the two systems was not to be healed. Of the three
alternatives open to them—conversion, internecine war, and tribute, they

chose the last. The Christian tribes of north Arabia showed greater
inclination towards the first. The Prophet’s policy was to give Christians
lighter terms than Jews, and though the Koran reflects the gradual adoption
by the Prophet of an attitude of extreme hostility to both systems, its tone is
on the whole far more friendly to the former than to the latter. Some other
communities are mentioned in the Koran, but merely in casual allusions:
thus we know that Mahomet’s sympathy was with the Byzantines in their
struggle with Persia, but in his most tolerant utterance the Magians or
Mazdians as well as the Sabians (with whom his followers were identified
by the Meccans) are mentioned with respect.

The financial requirements of Mahomet’s state were of the simplest kind,
for there is no trace of any form of governmental department having been
instituted by him, even when he was master of the peninsula; nor can we
name any permanent officials in his employ except his
Mahomet’s muaddhin Bilal, and perhaps his court-poet Hassān. A
Administration. staff of scribes was finally required both to take down his
revelations and to conduct correspondence; but although
he encouraged the acquisition of penmanship (indeed some of the prisoners
at Badr are said to have been allowed to ransom themselves by teaching it
to the Medinese), we know of no regular secretaries in his employ. As
despot of Medina he combined the functions of legislator, administrator,
general and judge; his duties in the last three capacities were occasionally
delegated to others, as when he appointed a governor of Medina during his
absence, or leaders for expeditions, with provision for successors in case of
their falling, but we hear of no permanent or regular delegation of them. Till
near the end of his career at Medina he maintained the principle that
migration to that city was a condition of conversion; but when, owing to the
extension of his power, this was no longer practicable, his plan was in the
main to leave the newly converted communities to manage their internal
affairs as before, only sending occasional envoys to discharge special

duties, especially instruction in the Koran and the principles of Islam, and
to collect the Alms; quite towards the end of his life he appears to have sent
persons to the provinces to act as judges, with instructions to judge
according to the Koran, and where that failed, the practice (sunna), i.e. the
practice of the community, for which a later generation substituted the
practice of the Prophet. There were, therefore, no regular payments to
permanent officials; and the taxation called Alms, which developed into an
income-tax, but was at first a demand for voluntary contributions, was
wholly for the support of the poor Moslems; it might not be used for the
maintenance of the state, i.e. Mahomet and his family. For them, and for
public business, e.g. the purchase of war material and gratuities to visitors,
provision was made out of the booty, of which Mahomet claimed one-fifth
(the chieftain’s share had previously, we are told, been one-fourth), while
the remainder—or at least the bulk of it—was distributed among the
fighting men; the Prophet appears to have prided himself on the justice of
his distribution on these occasions, and doubtless won popularity thereby,
though we hear occasionally of grumbling; for difficulties occurred when a
defeated tribe embraced Islam, and so could claim equality with their
conquerors, or when portions of the spoil were irregularly employed by
Mahomet to allay resentment: the persons whose allegiance was thus
purchased were euphemistically termed “those whose hearts were united.”
What afterwards proved the main source of revenue in Islamic states dates
from the taking of Khaibar; for the rent paid to the state by tolerated
communities for the right to work their land developed long after
Mahomet’s time into a poll-tax for Unbelievers (see Caliphate, e.g. B. § 8
and Mahommedan Institutions), and a land-tax for all owners of land.
Immediately after the taking of Khaibar certain communities, of which the
most notable was Fadak, sent tribute before they had been attacked and
reduced; their land was regarded by Mahomet as his private domain, but
after his death it was withdrawn from his heirs by his successor Abū Bekr,

in virtue of a maxim that Prophets left no inheritance, which in the opinion
of Fāṭima was contrary to Koranic doctrine, and invented by Ayesha’s father
expressly for the purpose of excluding her and her husband from their
rights; and this is likely to have been the case.

As a military organizer Mahomet, as has been seen, was anxious to adopt
the most advanced of contemporary methods, and more than once is said to
have scandalized the Arabs by foreign innovations, as at a later time the
Moslem chiefs who first used gunpowder scandalized their co-religionists.
The unit in his armies seems to have been, as of old, the tribe, under its
natural leader; that he introduced no more scientific division, and nothing
like a hierarchy of officers was perhaps due to the difficulty of reconciling
such a system with the equality of all Moslems.

As has been seen, the Koran only assumed the character of a civil code as
the need for one arose; and for some time after Mahomet’s arrival at
Medina old-fashioned methods of settling disputes continued in use, and
doubtless in accordance with precedent where such was known. For
difficult cases, even in Arab opinion, divine inspiration was required; and
since Mahomet naturally claimed to be in sole enjoyment of this, his
utterances soon became the unique source of law, though he did not at first
think of organizing a code. Such a plan is said to have occurred to him, and
he even wished to dictate a code upon his deathbed; but his friends
supposed or professed to suppose him to be delirious. A table regulating the
“Alms” was left by him, it is said, in the possession of Abū Bekr; but other
traditions assign another origin to this document.

Just as there were no regular officials for the arrangement of business, so
there were none for its execution; when punishment was to be administered,
any follower of Mahomet might be called upon to administer it. In the case
of the massacre of the Banū Quraiẓah care was taken to see that some of the
heads were struck off by their former allies, in order that the latter might be

unable at any time to bring a demand for vengeance. The Prophet hoped by
the mere terror of his name to make complete security reign throughout
Arabia, and there is no evidence that any system of policing either it or even
Medina occurred to him.

Until the death of Khadija the Prophet’s private life seems to have
been normal and happy, for though the loss of his sons in infancy is
said to have earned him a contemptuous epithet, he was fortunate in his
adoption of Zaid b. Ḥarithah, apparently a prisoner
Domestic Life. ransomed by Khadija or one of her relatives, who
appears as dutiful almost to excess and competent in
affairs. The marriages of his daughters seem all to have been happy,
with, curiously, the exception of that between Fatima and Ali. His
domestic troubles, to which an unreasonable amount of space seems to
be devoted, even in the Koran, began after the Migration, when,
probably in the main for political reasons, he instituted a royal harem.
One of these political motives was the principle which long survived,
that the conquest of a state was consummated by possession of the
former monarch’s wife, or daughter; another, as has been seen, the
desire to obtain the securest possible hold on his ministers. In his
marriage with the daughter of his arch-enemy Abū Sofiān, before the
latter’s conversion, we can see a combination of the two. Few,
therefore, of these marriages occasioned scandal; yet public morality
seemed to be violated when the Prophet took to himself the wife of his
adopted son Zaid, whose name has in consequence the honour of
mention in the Koran in the revelation which was delivered in defence
of this act. Its purpose was, according to this, to establish the difference
between adoptive and real filiation. Serious trouble was occasioned by
a charge of adultery brought against the youthful favourite Ayesha, and
this had to be refuted by a special revelation; the charge, which was
backed up apparently by Ali, seems to have been connected with some

deeper scheme for causing dissension between the Prophet and his
friends. Yet another revelation is concerned with a mutiny in the harem
organized by Omar’s daughter Hafsa, owing to undue favour shown to
a Coptic concubine (Mary, mother of a son called Ibrahim, who died in
infancy; his death was marked by an eclipse, January 27, 632); and
various details of factions within the harem are told us by Mahomet’s
biographers.

Of the members of this harem the only prominent one is Ayesha,
married to the Prophet shortly after the Flight, when she had scarcely
passed the period of infancy, but who appears to have been gifted with
astuteness and ambition that were quite beyond her years, and who
maintained her ascendancy over the Prophet in spite of the fact that
many carping criticisms of his revelations are attributed to her. Some of
this may have been due to the obligations (including pecuniary
obligations) under which her father had laid Mahomet; but her
reputation seems to have been greatly enhanced by the sending down
of a revelation to exonerate her (a.h. 6), for which she thanked God and
not the Prophet. Each accession to the harem rendered the building of a
house or room necessary for the newcomer’s accommodation; a fact in
which Robertson Smith perhaps rightly saw a relic of the older system
whereby the tent was the property of women. The trouble noticed
above seems to have arisen from the want of a similar arrangement in
the case of slave girls, with whom Mahomet’s system permits
cohabitation. When Mahomet, whether in consequence of the fatigue
incurred by the “Farewell Pilgrimage,” or, as others thought, by the
working of some poison put into his food some years before by a
Jewess of Khaibar, was attacked by the illness which proved fatal, it
was to the house of Ayesha that he was transferred (from that of
another wife) to be nursed; and he apparently died in the arms of the

favourite, on whose statements we have to rely for what we know of
his last hours.

The traditional description of Mahomet is “of middle height, greyish,
with hair that was neither straight nor curly; with a large head, large
eyes, heavy eyelashes, reddish tint in the eyes, thick-bearded, broad-
shouldered, with thick hands and feet”; he was in the
General habit of giving violent expression to the emotions of
Characteristics. anger and mirth. The supposition that he at any time
suffered from physical weakness seems absolutely
refuted by his career as a leader of difficult, dangerous and wearisome
expeditions, from his migration to Medina until his death; indeed,
during his last years he exhibited a capacity for both physical and
intellectual activity which implies a high degree of both health and
strength; and without these the previous struggle at Mecca could
scarcely have been carried on. The supposition that he was liable to fits
(epileptic or cataleptic) was intended to account for certain of the
phenomena supposed to accompany the delivery of revelations; some
of these however rest on very questionable authority: and the greater
number of the revelations give evidence of careful preparation rather
than spontaneity.

The literary matter ascribed to the Prophet consists of (1) the Koran
(q.v.); (2) certain contracts, letters and rescripts preserved by his
biographers; (3) a number of sayings on a vast variety of topics,
collected by traditionalists. The references in the Koran to a form of
literature called “Wisdom” (ḥikmah) suggest that even in the Prophet’s
time some attempts had been made to collect or at least preserve some
of the last; the general uncertainty of oral tradition and the length of
time which elapsed before any critical treatment of it was attempted,
and the variety of causes, creditable and discreditable, which led to the

wilful fabrication of prophetic utterances, render the use to which No. 3
can be put very limited. Thus the lengthy description of the journey to
heaven which Sprenger was inclined to accept as genuine is regarded
by most critics as a later fabrication. It is very much to be regretted that
the number of pièces justificatives (No. 2) quoted by the biographers is
so small, and that for these oral tradition was preferred to a search for
the actual documents, some of which may well have been in existence
when the earliest biographies were written. Their style appears to have
been plain and straightforward, though the allusions which they contain
are not always intelligible.

In his personal relations with men Mahomet appears to have been
able to charm and impress in an extraordinary degree, whence we find
him able to control persons like Omar and Khalid, who appear to have
been self-willed and masterful, and a single interview seems to have
been sufficient to turn many an enemy into a devoted adherent. Cases
(perhaps legendary) are quoted of his being able by a look or a word to
disarm intending assassins.

Although the titles which he took were religious in character, and his
office might not be described as sovereignty, his interests appear to
have lain far more in the building up and maintenance of empire than
in ecclesiastical matters. Thus only can we account for the violent and
sudden changes which he introduced into his system, for his temporary
lapse into paganism, and for his ultimate adoption of the cult of the
Black Stone, which, it is said, gave offence to some of his sincere
adherents (e.g. Omar), and seems hard to reconcile with his tirades
against fetish-worship. The same is indicated by his remarkable
doctrine that the utterance of the creed constituted a Moslem and not its
cordial acceptance, and his practice of at times buying adhesion. Even
an historian so favourable to the Prophet as Prince Caetani recognizes

that ultimately what he regarded as most important was that his
subjects should pay their taxes. And in general his system was not
favourable to fanaticism (al-ghulū fi‘l-dīn); he repeatedly gave
permission for concealment of faith when the profession of it was
dangerous; he took care to avoid institutions which, like the Jewish
Sabbath, interfered seriously with military expeditions and the conduct
of business, and permitted considerable irregularity in the matters of
prayer and fasting when circumstances rendered it desirable. In his
theory that Koranic texts could be abrogated he made wise provision
against the danger of hasty legislation, though some of its usefulness
was frustrated by his failure to provide for such abrogation after his
death.

As has been seen, Mahomet claimed to introduce a wholly new
dispensation, and a maxim of his law is that Islam cancels all that preceded
it, except, indeed, pecuniary debts; it is not certain that even this exception
always held good. Hence his system swept away a
Mahomet’s number of practices (chiefly connected with the camel)
Reforms. that were associated with pagan superstitions. The most
celebrated of these is the arrow-game, a form of
gambling for shares in slaughtered camels, to which poetic allusions are
very frequent. More important than this was his attitude towards the blood-
feud, or system of tribal responsibility for homicide (whether intentional or
accidental), whereby one death regularly led to protracted wars, it being
considered dishonourable to take blood-money (usually in the form of
camels) or to be satisfied with one death in exchange. This system he
endeavoured to break down, chiefly by sinking all earlier tribal distinctions
in the new brotherhood of Islam; but also by limiting the vengeance to be
demanded to such as was no more than the equivalent of the offence
committed, and by urging the acceptance of money-compensation instead,
or complete forgiveness of the offence. The remembrance of pre-Islamic

quarrels was visited by him with condign punishment on those who had
embraced Islam; and though it was long before the tribal system quite broke
down, even in the great cities which rose in the new provinces, and the old
state of things seems to have quickly been resumed in the desert, his
legislation on this subject rendered orderly government among Arabs
possible.

Next in importance to this is the abolition of infanticide, which is
condemned even in early Suras of the Koran. The scanty notices which we
have of the practice are not altogether consistent; at times we are told that it
was confined to certain tribes, and consisted in the burying alive of infant
daughters; at other times it is extended to a wider area, and said to have
been carried out on males as well as females. After the taking of Mecca this
prohibition was included among the conditions of Islam.

In the laws relating to women it seems likely that he regulated current
practice rather than introduced much that was actually new, though, as has
been seen, he is credited with giving them the right to inherit property; the
most precise legislation in the Koran deals with this subject, of which the
main principle is that the share of the male equals that of two females. Our
ignorance of the precise nature of the marriage customs prevalent in Arabia
at the rise of Islam renders it difficult to estimate the extent to which his
laws on this subject were an improvement on what had been before. The
pre-Islamic family, unless our records are wholly misleading, did not differ
materially from the Islamic; in both polygamy and concubinage were
recognized and normal; and it is uncertain that the text which is supposed to
limit the number of wives to four was intended to have that meaning. The
“condition of Islam” whereby adultery was forbidden is said to have been
ridiculed at the time, on the ground that this practice had never been
approved. Yet it would seem that certain forms of promiscuity had been
tolerated, though the subject is obscure. Against these services we must set

the abrogation of some valuable practices. His unfortunate essay in
astronomy, whereby a calendar of twelve lunar months, bearing no relation
to the seasons, was introduced, was in any case a retrograde step; but it
appears to have been connected with the abrogation of the sanctity of the
four months during which raiding had been forbidden in Arabia, which, as
has been seen, he was the first to violate. He also, as has been noticed,
permitted himself a slight amount of bloodshed in Mecca itself, and that
city perhaps never quite recovered its sacrosanct character. Of more serious
consequences for the development of the community was his
encouragement of the shedding of kindred blood in the cause of Islam; the
consequences of the abrogation of this taboo seem to have been felt for a
great length of time. His assassinations of enemies were afterwards quoted
as precedents in books of Tradition. No less unfortunate was the recognition
of the principle whereby atonement could be made for oaths. On the
question how far the seclusion of women was enjoined or countenanced by
him different views have been held.

Besides the contemporary documents enumerated above (Koranic
texts, rescripts and authentic traditions) many of the events were
celebrated by poets, whose verses were ostensibly incorporated in the
standard biography of Ibn Isḥāq; in the abridgment
Sources. of that biography which we possess many of these
are obelized as spurious, and, indeed, what we know
of the procedure of those who professed to collect early poetry gives us
little confidence in the genuineness of such odes. A few, however, seem
to stand criticism, and the diwan (or collection of poems) attributed to
Ḥassan b. Thābit is ordinarily regarded as his. Though they rarely give
detailed descriptions of events, their attestation is at times of value, e.g.
for the story that the bodies of the slain at Badr were cast by the
Prophet into a pit. Besides this, the narratives of eyewitnesses of
important events, or of those who had actually taken part in them, were

eagerly sought by the second generation, and some of these were
committed to writing well before the end of the 1st century. The
practice instituted by the second Caliph, of assigning pensions
proportioned to the length of time in which the recipient had been a
member of the Islamic community, led to the compilation of certain
rolls, and to the accurate preservation of the main sequence of events
from the commencement of the mission, and for the detailed sequence
after the Flight, which presently became an era (beginning with the
first month of the year in which the Flight took place). The procedure
whereby the original dates of the events (so far as they were
remembered) were translated into the Moslem calendar—for something
of this sort must have been done—is unknown, and is unlikely to have
been scientific.

Mahomet’s conduct being made the standard of right and wrong,
there was little temptation to “whitewash” him, although the original
biography by Ibn Isḥāq appears to have contained details which the
author of the abridgment omitted as scandalous. The preservation of so
much that was historical left little room for the introduction of
miraculous narrations; these therefore either belong to the obscure
period of his life or can be easily eliminated; thus the narratives of the
Meccan council at which the assassination of Mahomet was decided, of
the battles of Badr, Uḥud and Ḥonain, and the death of Sad‘b. Mu ‘adh,
would lose nothing by the omission of the angels and the devil, though
a certain part is assigned the one or the other on all these occasions. We
should have expected biographies which were published when the
‘Abbasids were reigning to have falsified history for the purpose of
glorifying ‘Abbās, their progenitor; the very small extent to which this
expectation is justified is a remarkable testimony to their general
trustworthiness.

Relatives of the Prohet1

1. Family of ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib, Mahomet’s maternal grandfather:—
*‘Abbās (d. a.h. 32 or 34), *Ḥamza (d. a.h. 3), ‘Abdallah, father of the
Prophet, *Abū Ṭālib (said to be named ‘Abd Manāf), ? *Zubair, Ḥārith,
Ḥajal, Moqawwam, Ḍirār, *Abū Lahab (said to be named ‘Abd
al-‘Uzzā, d. a.h. 2), *Ṣafiyyah (d. a.h. 20), Umm Ḥakīm, al-Baiḍā,
‘Ātikah, Umaimah, Arwā, Barrah.

2. Family of Abū Tālib:—*‘Aqīl (d. after a.h. 40), *Ja‘far (d. a.h. 8),
Ṭālib, Ṭulaiq, ‘Alī, the caliph, Umm Hāni’, Jumānah, Raiṭah.

3. Family of Mahomet. Wives:—*Khadīja (Children:—Qāsim; ?
‘Abd Manāf (Ṭāhir, Tayyib); *Zainab m. Abu’l-‘Ās b. Rabī’, d. a.h. 7;
*Ruqayyah, m. ‘Othmān b. ‘Affān, d. a.h. 2; *Umm Kulthūm m.
‘Othmān b. ‘Affān, d. a.h. 9; *Fāṭimah, m. ‘Alī, d. a.h. 11): *Saudah
bint Zam‘ah,? d. a.h. 54, *‘A’ishah (Ayesha) bint Abī Bekr (d. a.h. 56),
*Hafṣa bint ‘Omar (d. a.h. 45 or 47), *Zainab bint Khuzaimah, d.
before a.h. 11, *Zainab bint Jaḥsh, d. a.h. 20, *Umm Salimah, d. a.h.
59, *Maimūnah, d. a.h. 38, *Juwairiyah, d. a.h. 56, *Umm Ḥabībah
Ramlah bint Abī Sofiān, d. a.h. 44.

Concubines:—*Ṣafiyyah bint Ḥuyyay, d. a.h. 36, *Raiḥānah bint
Zaid, *Māriyah the Copt, d. a.h. 15 or 16, mother of Ibrāhim. (Other
names given by Ibn Sa‘d, vol. viii.)

Chronological Table of Chief Events in the Life of Mahomet.2

? 570 Birth.

? 595 Marriage with Khadīja.

? 610 Commencement of call.

? 613 Public appearance. 616 Persian conquest of the nearer East.

? 617 Flight of his followers to Abyssinia.

? 618-619 Siege in Mecca. Retractation and subsequent
repudiation. Death of Abū Talīb and Khadija.

? 620 Flight to Ṭāif.

622 July 16. Beginning of the Moslem era. Sept. 20. Arrival at
Kuba after the Flight.

632 Jan. 27. Death of his son Ibrāhīm.

632 June 7. Death of Mahomet.

The following dates are given by the Arabic historians according to
their own calendar. For the reasons which have been seen it is
impossible to obtain certain synchronisms.

a.h.

2. Rajab 1. Raid of ‘Abdallah b. Jaḥsh to Nakhlah.
Ramaḍān 19. Battle of Badr.
Shawwāl 15. Attack on the Banū Qainuqā.

3. Rabīa I. 14. Assassination of Ka‘b b. al-Ashraf.
Shawwāl 7. Battle of Uḥud.

4. Ṣaphar. Massacre of Mahomet’s 70 missionaries at Bi’r
Ma‘ūnah.
Rabīa I. Attack on the Banu Naḍīr.
Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Abortive raid called “the lesser Badr.”

5. Shaabān 2. Attack on the Banu’l-Muṣṭaliq (according to
Wāqidī).

Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Battle of the Trench.
Massacre of the Banū Quraiẓah.

6. Jomādā i. Capture of a caravan by Zaid b. Ḥārithah.
Futile attempt to assassinate Abū Sofiān.
Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Affair of Ḥodaibiyah.

7. Jomādā i. Taking of Khaibar. Mission extended to the
world.
Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Pilgrimage to Mecca (called ‘umrat al-
qaḍiyyah)

8. Jomādā i. Expedition to Mūtah.
Ramaḍān 20. Taking of Mecca.
Shawwāl. Battle of Ḥonain.
Attack on Ṭā‘if.

9. Muḥarram. Tax-gatherers sent over Arabia.
Rajab. Expedition to Tabūk.
Rival Mosque built at Kubā, destroyed on
Mahomet’s return to Medina.
Dhu’l-Ḥijja. Pilgrimage conducted by Abu Bekr.
Abolition of idolatry in Arabia.

10. Ramaḍān. Expedition of ‘Alī to Yemen.
Dhu’l-Qa‘da. “Farewell Pilgrimage.”

11. Ṣaphar. Expedition ordered against the Byzantines.

Companions of the Prophet.

The saḥābah, as they are called, are the subject of a vast literature,
and the biographical dictionaries devoted to them, of which the best

known are the Usd ul-ghāba of the historian Ibn Athīr and the Iṣābah
of Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalāni, enumerate many thousands. The following
two lists are of special groups.

(a) Naqībs, i.e. leaders selected by Mahomet from the Medinese
tribes: i. Khazrajites:—As‘ad b. Zurārah, Sa‘d b. al-Rabī‘, ‘Abdallah b.
Rawāḥah, al-Barā’ b. Ma‘rūr, ‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. Ḥarām, ‘Ubādah b.
al-Ṣāmit, Sa‘d b. ‘Ubādah, al-Mondhir b. ‘Amr; ii. Ausites: Usaid b.
Ḥuḍair, Sa‘d b. Khaithamah, Rifā‘ah b. ‘Abd al-Mondhir.

(b) Commanders of Expeditions: names occurring in (a) are not
repeated: ‘Abdallāh b. Jaḥsh, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān b. ‘Auf, Abū Bekr, Abū
Qatādah, Abū ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrāḥ, ‘Ali, ‘Alqamah b. Mujazziz, ‘Amr
b. al-‘Āṣ (ibn el-Ass), Bashīr b. Sa‘d, Ḍaḥḥāk b. Sofiān, Ghālib b.
‘Abdallāh, Ibn Abi’l-Aujā, Ka‘b b. ‘Umair, Khālid b. al-Walīd, Kurz b.
Jābir, Marthad b. Abī Marthad, Muḥammad b. Maslamah, Quṭbah b.
‘Āmir, Sa‘d b. Abī Waqqāṣ, Sa‘d d. Zaid, Salama b. ‘Abd al-Asad,
Shujā‘ b. Wahb, ‘Ubaidah b. al-Ḥārith, ‘Ukkāshah b. Miḥṣan, ‘Umar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, Usamah b. Zaid, ‘Uyainah b. Ḥiṣn, Zaid b. Ḥārithah.

Authorities.—The biography of Ibn Isḥāq was before the world
long before the two chief causes for the falsification of tradition had
begun to have serious effects; these were the need for legal precedents,
and the concept of saintliness, combining those of asceticism and
thaumaturgy. These gave rise to the classical works on the Evidences of
Mohammed’s Mission by Abū Nu‘aim (d. a.d. 1012-1013) and Baihaqī
(d. a.d. 1066).

Lives of the Prophet († indicates that the work is lost); †‘Urwah b.
Zubair (d. 712-713); † Musa b. ‘Ukbah (d. 758-759); † Mohammed b.
Isḥāq (d. 768); Mohammed b. Hishām (d. 828-829), ed. Wüstenfeld
(Göttingen, 1860); reprinted in Egypt by Zubair Pasha, a series of

excerpts from the last; Mohammed b. Omar al-Wāqidī (d. 823), portion
published by Kremer (Calcutta, 1855), abridged trans. of a fuller copy
by Wellhausen, Muhammad in Medina (Berlin, 1882); Mohammed b.
Sa‘d (d. 844-845), an encyclopaedic work on the history of Mahomet
and his followers, called Ṭabaqat, ed. Sachau and others (Berlin, foll.);
Mohammed b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (see Tabari). Many more writers on this
subject are enumerated in the Fihrist, cf. Sprenger’s Leben
Muhammads, iii. 54-76.

Among the most popular compilers of later times are: Ibn al-Athir
(q.v.) al Jazarī, the historian (d. 1233); Aḥmad b. Ali al Kasṭalānī (d.
a.d. 1517), whose al-Mawāhib al-Laduniyyah was published with

commentary (Cairo, 1278); Ḥosain b. Mohammed al Diyarbakrī (d.
1574) whose work Ta’rikh al-Khamīs was published in Cairo, a.h.
1382; ‘Ali b. Burhān al-dīn al-Ḥalabī (d. a.d. 1634), whose biography
called Insān al-‘uyūn was published in Cairo, a.h. 1292. To these must
be added all the collections of Tradition.

Modern Authorities.—The critical study of the Life of Mahomet
begins in Europe with the publication by Th. Gagnier in 1723 of the
Life by Abulfeda (q.v.). Presently there appeared an apologetic
biography by Henri Cmte. de Boulainvilliers (2nd ed., Amsterdam,
1731), to which Gagnier replied in 1732 (La Vie de Mahomet, traduite,
&c. ibid.). The next considerable advance in the treatment of the
subject is marked by the biography of G. Weil (Muhammed der
Prophet, Stuttgart, 1843), which is wholly without religious bias; the
popular life by Washington Irving (London, 1849) is based on this.
That by J. L. Merrick (the Life and Religion of Mohammed, Boston,
U.S.A., 1850) rests on Shi‘ite sources. The search for MSS. in India
conducted by A. Sprenger led to the discovery of fresh material, which
was utilized by Sprenger himself in his unfinished Life of Mohammad

(Pt. 1, Allahabad, 1851), and his more elaborate Das Leben und die
Lehre des Mohammad (Berlin, 1861-1865), and by Sir William Muir in
his Life of Mahomet, (London, 1858-1861) 4 vols.: afterwards abridged
in one volume and reprinted. These are still the standard treatises on
the subject; the pro-Christian bias of Muir is very marked, while
Sprenger has hazarded numerous conjectures on subjects with which he
had little familiarity. The biography by S. W. Koelle, Mohammed and
Mohammedanism (London, 1889), is pro-Christian, the popular work
of Syed Ameer Ali The Spirit of Islam, (London, 1896) an apology for
Mahommedanism. Later treatises, resting on original authorities, are
those by H. Grimme Mohamed, (Münster, 1892, and Munich, 1904), F.
Buhl, Mohameds Liv (Copenhagen, 1903—Danish: since translated
into German), D. S. Margoliouth Mohammed and the Rise of Islam
(N.Y., 1905, &c.), and Prince Caetani Annali del Islam, i. ii. (Milan,
1905-1907). For the direction of public opinion in Mahomet’s favour
the Lecture on The Hero as Prophet in Carlyle’s Heroes and Hero-
worship (London, 1846) was singularly effective; his views were
enforced by R. Bosworth Smith Mohammed and Mohammedanism,
(London, 1873, &c.). A somewhat similar line was taken in France by
J. Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire, Mahomet et le Coran, (Paris, 1865), while
the Vie de Mahomet d’après la Tradition of E. Lamairesse and G.
Dujarric (Paris, 1897) is written entirely from the Moslem standpoint.

See further Caliphate, ad init.; Mahommedan Institutions;
Mahommedan Law; Mahommedan Religion.

( )

1 * is prefixed to names which figure on occasions which seem to be historical. Female
names are in italics.

2 Dates are given a.d.

MAHOMMED AHMED IBN SEYYID
ABDULLAH (1848-1885), Sudanese tyrant, known as “the Mahdi,”
was born in Dongola. His family, known as excellent boat-builders, claimed
to be Ashraf (or Sherifs), i.e. descendants of Mahomet. His father was a fiki
or religious teacher, and Mahommed Ahmed devoted himself early to
religious studies. When about twenty years old he went to live on Abba
Island on the White Nile about 150 m. above Khartum. He first acquired
fame by a quarrel with the head of the brotherhood which he had joined,
Mahommed asserting that his master condoned transgression of the divine
law. After this incident many dervishes (religious mendicants) gathered
round the young sheikh, whose reputation for sanctity speedily grew. He
travelled secretly through Kordofan, where (with ample justification) he
denounced to the villagers the extortion of the tax-gatherer and told of the
coming of the mahdi who should deliver them from the oppressor. He also
wrote a pamphlet summoning true believers to purify their religion from the
defilements of the “Turks” i.e. the Egyptian officials and all non-native
inhabitants of the Sudan. The influence he gained at length aroused the
anxiety of the authorities, and in May 1881 a certain Abu Saud, a notorious
scoundrel, was sent to Abba Island to bring the sheikh to Khartum. Abu

Saud’s mission failed, and Mahommed Ahmed no longer hesitated to call
himself al-Mahdi al Montasir, “The Expected Guide.” In August he
defeated another force sent to Abba Island to arrest him, but thereafter
deemed it prudent to retire to Jebel Gedir, in the Nuba country south of
Kordofan, where he was soon at the head of a powerful force; and 6000
Egyptian troops under Yusef Pasha, advancing from Fashoda, were nearly
annihilated in June 1882. By the end of 1882 the whole of the Sudan south
of Khartum was in rebellion, with the exception of the Bahr-el-Ghazal and
the Equatorial Provinces. In January 1883 El Obeid, the capital of
Kordofan, was captured. In the November following Hicks Pasha’s force of
10,000 men was destroyed at Kashgil, and in the same year the mahdi’s
lieutenant, Osman Digna, raised the tribes in the eastern Sudan, and
besieged Sinkat and Tokar, near Suakin, routing General Valentine Baker’s
force of 2500 men at El Teb in February 1884. The operations undertaken
by Great Britain in face of this state of affairs are narrated under Egypt:
Military Operations. It need only be added that General Gordon (q.v.) was
besieged at Khartum by the mahdi and was killed there when the town was
captured by the mahdists on the 25th-26th of January 1885. The mahdi
himself died at Omdurman a few months later (June 22, 1885), and was
succeeded in power by his khalifa Abdullah.

When he announced his divine mission Mahommed Ahmed adopted the
Shi‘ite traditions concerning the mahdi, and thus put himself in opposition
to the sultan of Turkey as the only true commander of the faithful. To
emphasize his position the mahdi struck coins in his own name and set
himself to suppress all customs introduced by the “Turks.” His social and
religious reforms are contained in various proclamations, one of which is
drawn up in the form of ten commandments. They concern, chiefly, such
matters as ritual, prayers, soberness in food and raiment, the cost of
marriage and the behaviour of women. How far the mahdi was the
controller of the movement which he started cannot be known, but from the

outset of his public career his right-hand man was a Baggara tribesman
named Abdullah (the khalifa), who became his successor, and after his
flight to Jebel Gedir the mahdi was largely dependent for his support on
Baggara sheikhs, who gratified one of his leading tastes by giving him
numbers of their young women. In the few months between the fall of
Khartum and his death the mahdi, relieved from the incessant strain of toil,
copied in his private life all the vices of Oriental despots while maintaining
in public the austerity he demanded of his followers. His death is variously
attributed to disease and to poisoning by a woman of his harem. On the
occupation of Omdurman by the British (Sept. 1898) the mahdi’s tomb was
destroyed, his body burnt and the ashes thrown into the Nile (see Sudan:
Anglo-Egyptian).

See Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan by F. R. Wingate (1891); Ten
Years’ Captivity in the Mahdi’s Camp (1882-1892) from the MS. of
Father Joseph Ohrwalder by F. R. Wingate (1892) and Fire and Sword
in the Sudan (1879-1895) by Slatin Pasha (trans. F. R. Wingate, 1896).
Both Ohrwalder and Slatin were personally acquainted with the mahdi,
and their narratives contain much first-hand information. Wingate
prints many translations of the proclamations and correspondence of
the mahdi.

MAHOMMEDAN INSTITUTIONS. Of all the
institutions of Islam the caliphate is the oldest, the most fundamental, and in

essence the most enduring. For its history see Caliphate; the present subject
is its origin and nature. Mahomet enjoyed absolute rule over his people as a
divinely inspired and guided prophet. He led the public prayers; he acted as
judge; he ruled. If he consulted with others or paid attention to public
feeling or local usage, it was as a matter of policy; the ultimate decision lay
with himself. He was the state. On his death a leader was put in his place of
similar authority, though without the divine prophetic guidance. He was
called the “successor” (khalīfa, caliph) of the Prophet, later also the amīr-
al-mu’minīn, commander of the faithful, and was elected
The Caliphate. by the Moslems, just as the Arab tribes had always
elected their chiefs. He was thus an absolute ruler, but
was democratically elected; and such is the essence of the caliphate among
Sunnite Moslems to this day. For them it has been a matter of agreement
(see Mahommedan Law) from the earliest times that the Moslem community
must appoint such a leader (see Imām). The Shi‘ites, on the other hand, hold
that the appointment lies with God, and that God always has appointed,
though his appointment may not always have been known and accepted.
Their position may be called a legitimist one. Some few heretical sects have
held that the necessity of a leader was based on reason, not on the
agreement of the community. But, for all, the rule of the leader thus
appointed is absolute, and all authority is delegated from him and, in theory,
can be resumed by him at any time. Just as God can require unreasoning
obedience from his creatures (his “slaves” in Arabic), so can the caliph, his
representative on earth.

But Abu Bekr, the first caliph, nominated his successor, Omar, and that
nomination was accepted and confirmed by the people. So a second
precedent was fixed, which was again carried a step farther, when Moawiya
I., the first Omayyad caliph, nominated his son, Yazīd I., as his successor,
and caused an oath of allegiance to be taken to him. The hereditary
principle was thus introduced, though some relics of the form of election

persisted and still persist. The true election possible in the early days of the
small community at Medina became first a formal acceptance by the
populace of the capital; then an assertion, by the palace guard, of their
power; and now, in the investiture of the sultans of the Ottoman Turks, who
claim the caliphate, a formal ceremony by the ‘ulemā (q.v.) of
Constantinople. The Ottoman claim is based on an asserted nomination by
the last Abbasid, who died in exile in Egypt in 1538, of the Ottoman sultan,
Suleiman the Great, as his successor. Such a nomination in itself was a
perfectly legal act, but in this case had a fatal flaw. It is an absolute
condition, laid down in tradition, that the caliph must be of the tribe of
Koreish (Quraish), that of the Prophet.

The duties of this democratically elected autocrat are, in theory, generally
stated as follows. He shall enforce legal decisions and maintain the divinely
revealed restrictive ordinances; guard the frontiers and equip armies;
receive the alms; put down robberies, thieving, highwaymen; maintain the
Friday services and the festivals; decide disputes and receive evidence
bearing on legal claims; marry minors, male and female, who have no
guardians; divide booty. He must be a free, male, adult Moslem; must have
administrative ability; must be an effective governor and do justice to the
wronged. So long as he fulfils these conditions he is to be absolutely
obeyed; private immorality or even tyranny are not grounds for deposing
him. This is a position reached by Islam practically. But a caliph who
openly denied the faith would be as impossible as an unbelieving pope. The
caliph, therefore, is the highest executive officer of a system assumed to be
definite and fixed. He, in a word, administers Islam; and the content of
Islam is determined by the agreement of the Moslem people, expressed
immediately through the ‘ulemā, and ultimately, if indirectly and half-
consciously, by the people. To depose him a fatwā (see Mufti) would be
required—in Turkey from the Sheikh-ul-Islām—that he had violated some

essential of the Moslem faith, and no longer fulfilled the conditions of a
caliph.

But it was impossible for the caliph personally to administer the
affairs of the empire, and by degrees the supreme office was gradually
put into commission, until the caliph himself became a mere figure-
head, and vanished into the sacred seclusion of his
The Dīwāns. palace. The history of the creation of government
bureaus (dīwāns; see Divan) must therefore now be
sketched. The first need which appeared was that of a means of
regulating and administering the system of taxation and the revenues of
the state. Immense sums flowed into Medina from the Arab conquests;
the surplus, after the requirements of the state were met, was
distributed among the believers. All Moslems had a right to a certain
share of this, which was regarded as booty. Omar, the second caliph,
regulated this distribution and also the system of taxation, and the
result was the first divan and the constitution of Omar, looked back to
now by all Sunnite Moslems as an ideal. The sources of revenue were
(i) the poor-rate (zakāt), a tithe paid by every Moslem; (ii) the fifth of
all booty; (iii) the poll-tax (jizya) on non-Moslems; and (iv) the land-
tax (kharāj) also on non-Moslems. Thus the constitution determined
the position of all non-Moslems in a Moslem state. The ideal was that
the Moslems should be kept apart as a superior, fighting caste, and that
the non-Moslems should support them (cf. Caliphate, B. § 8, on the
reign of Omar II.). The Moslems, therefore, were forbidden to acquire
land in conquered countries. The non-Moslems must retain their lands,
cultivate them and pay the land-tax (the Arabic word is also used of
revenue from the work of a slave) and the poll-tax (the Arabic word
means also “ransom”), and give contributions in kind to support the
local Moslem garrisons which were massed in great camp-cities at
strategic points. If a non-Moslem embraced Islam he entered the ruling

caste; his land was distributed among his non-Moslem fellows, and he
no longer paid the land-tax but rather received support from the public
funds. The amount of these pensions varied with the standing of the
pensioner from 10,000 dirhems (a dirhem equalled about a franc) to the
widows and relations of the Prophet down to 300. This bureau had,
therefore, not only to keep the books of the state, but also to maintain a
list of all Moslems, classified genealogically and socially. Its registers
were kept by Greeks, Copts and Persians; the Arabs, it may be said in
general, adopted the method of administration which they found in the
captured countries and drew upon the trained services of their
inhabitants.

Such a system led naturally to wholesale conversions to Islam; and
the consequent decline in revenue, combined with large donations of
lands by Othman, the third caliph, to his own family, gradually broke it
down. The first patriarchal period of conquest, unearned wealth and the
simple life—called by Moslems the period of the “four rightly guided
caliphs,” and very happily by Sachau, ein mönchisches Imperium—
passed rapidly into the genuinely Arab empire of the Omayyads, with
whom came an immediate development of organization in the state.
The constructive genius in this was Moawiya, the first Omayyad
caliph. Under him the old simplicity vanished. A splendid and
ceremonious court was maintained at Damascus. A chamberlain kept
the door; a bodyguard surrounded the caliph, and even in the mosque
the caliph, warned by the murder of Othman and of Ali, prayed in a
railed-off enclosure. The beginning of the seclusion of the caliph had
come, and he no longer walked familiarly among his fellow Moslems.
This seclusion increased still further when the administration of the
state passed by delegation into other hands, and the caliph himself
became a sacrosanct figure-head, as in the case of the later Abbasids;
when theories of semi-divine nature and of theocratic rule appeared, as

in the case of the Fatimites; and finally when all the elaborate court
ritual of Byzantium was inherited by the Ottoman sultans.

But Moawiya I. was still a very direct and personal ruler. He
developed a post-system for the carrying of government despatches by
relays, and thus received secret information from and kept control of
the most distant provinces. He established a sealing-bureau by which
state papers were secured against change. He dealt arbitrarily with the
revenues of the state and the pensions of the Moslems. Governors of
provinces were given a much freer hand, and were required to turn over
to the central treasury their surplus revenue only. As they were either
conquerors or direct successors of conquerors they had an essentially
military government, and were really semi-independent rulers,
unhampered except by direct action of the caliph, acting on information
sent by the postmaster, who was his local spy. Being thus the heads of
armies of occupation, they were not necessarily charged with the
control of religious ritual and of justice. These, like every other
function, inhered in the office of the caliph and he generally appointed
in each province independent cadis over the courts and imāms to be in
charge of religious services. Yet the governor was sometimes permitted
to hold these two other offices (see Cadi; Imām).

Further administrative developments came with the Abbasids. They
created a new city, Bagdad, between the Tigris and the Euphrates, where the
three races, Syrian, Arab and Persian, met and sought with Bagdad as a
capital to consolidate the empire. The Arab empire, it is true, had passed
away with the Omayyads; yet there might be a chance to create a world-
empire of all the Moslem peoples. But not even the genius and
administrative skill of the early Abbasids could hold together that unwieldy
mass. The semi-independent provinces soon became fully independent, or
at most acknowledged the caliph as a spiritual head and paid a nominal

tribute. His name might stand on the coinage and prayers be offered for him
in the Friday service, the two signs of sovereignty to this day in Islam. With
this crumbling of the empire went a more elaborate organization; bureaus
took the place of principles and of the energy of individual rulers. As the
system of Moslem law was built on that of the Roman codes, so was the
machinery of administration on that of Persia. And with the Abbasids the
chance of the Persians had come. Abū ‘l-Abbās, the first Abbasid caliph,
was the first to appoint a vizier (wazīr, “helper,” so
The Vizierate. Aaron is wazīr to Moses in the Koran), a confidential
minister to advise him and come between him and the
people. Advisers the caliphs had had before; but not a definite adviser with
this name. He must, we are told, have a strain of the ruler in him and a
strain of the people to be able to work with both. He must know how to be
acceptable; fidelity and truthfulness are his capital; sagacity, firmness,
generosity, clemency, dignity, effectiveness of speech are essential. It is
plain that the vizier became as important as the caliph. But Abū ’l-Abbās
was fortunate in early securing as his vizier the grandfather of the house of
the Barmecides (q.v.). On this Persian family the fortunes of the Abbasids
hung, and it secured for them and for Islam a short golden age, like that of
the Antonines, until the jealous madness of Hārūn al-Rashīd cast them
down. Thereafter the vizierate had many vicissitudes. Technically a vizier
could be either limited or unlimited. The limited vizier had no initiative; he
carried out the commands of the caliph. The unlimited vizier, often
afterwards called the grand vizier, exercised full authority and was the alter
ego of the caliph, to whom he was required only to report. Naturally the
formal distinction is a later theorizing of history; for a weak ruler his vizier
became absolute, for a strong ruler his vizier remained subordinate. Here, as
with regard to all Moslem institutions, a marked distinction must be made
between the historic facts and the speculative edifices raised by
constitutional theorizers. Compare especially Mahommedan Law. Until the

time of Rāḍī (934-940) the vizierate thus fluctuated in importance. In that
caliphate the vizier lost all authority, and in his place came the amīr al-
omarā—equivalent to the major domus of the Franks—the head of the
Turkish bodyguard, in terror of whom the caliph now stood. When in 945
the Būyids captured Bagdad and the caliph became a purely spiritual
sovereign, they took the title “vizier” for their own chief minister, and the
caliphs retained only a secretary (see Caliphate, C. § 22). Under the
Seljuks, however, they regained their viziers and some real authority.
Elsewhere, also the vizierate had its vicissitudes. Under the Mamelukes the
vizier fell to be merely the court purveyor. Under the Omayyads of Spain
the title was given to several responsible officers of the state, but their chief
was called ḥājib, chamberlain. Under the Almohades the chamberlain was
called vizier. In the modern Turkish empire the grand vizier (called
generally ṣadr A‘ẓam) is the sultan’s representative in secular matters, and
nominally stands between the sovereign and all the other officials. He is the
president of the council of ministers, but Abd-ul Hamid II. deprived the
office of almost all its importance.

Under the early Abbasids the four most important ministers were the
chief cadi, the chief of police or head of the life guards, the minister of
finance and the postmaster, who was the head of the system of
information and espionage which covered the
Other Ministers. empire. But at different times the different bureaus
varied greatly. Under Motawakkil we find the
bureau of taxes and finance; bureau of the crown estates; bureau of
state book-keeping; bureau of war, i.e. of hired troops; bureau which
kept reckoning and control of the pensions of the clients and slaves of
the ruling family; bureau of the post system; bureau of expenditures.
But in spite of this elaborate system, no Moslem government has,
except sporadically, been highly centralized. Provided the taxes are
paid, a large measure of local autonomy has always been enjoyed by

the country districts. Under the Abbasids almost the only exception was
the necessarily centralized control of the irrigation system of the Tigris
and Euphrates. And similarly elsewhere.

In the case of all these offices, we have delegation by the caliph,
under necessity, of his too heavy burdens. But one duty of an Oriental
ruler he could not so easily lay aside. It had always to be possible for
the oppressed to come into his presence and claim justice; he must sit
in the gate and judge. Therefore, when the caliph found it necessary to
delegate the ordinary administration of justice, he found it also
necessary to set up a special court of oppressions, which developed, to
a certain extent, into a court of appeals. The first to establish such a
separate court was Abdalmalik the Omayyad (685-705), and his
example was followed by the more vigorous of the caliphs up to the
time of Mohtadī the Abbasid (869-870). If any other than the caliph
presided over this court it had to be a man whose dignity, independence
and authority commanded respect. He was not bound by strict rules of
evidence, method and literal application of law as was the cadi. Rather,
he applied a system of equity suited to the absolute source of authority
which he represented.

As the chief of police, mentioned above, was rather the head of the
caliph’s bodyguard, there was also a police system after our ideas, but
more thoroughgoing. The muhtasib had charge in the broadest sense of
public order and morals in the streets, and had oversight as to weights,
measures and adulterations; but had no right to interfere privately or
enter houses save in the clearest and most necessary cases. He had a
summary jurisdiction in all minor cases where no trial was necessary;
but where witnesses and oaths entered the case must go to the cadi.
Slaves and beasts of burden were under his guardianship; he prevented
public scandals, such as the sale of wine; he regulated the public

conduct of Jews and Christians. In the interest of public morals he had
to find suitable husbands for widows and see that they did not marry
before the legal time; questions of paternity also he had to investigate.
The outdoor costume of the people he could regulate. It should, of
course, be remembered that the canon law of Islam covers minutely all
sides of life (see Mahommedan Law).

It is impossible in Islam to separate logically from the mass of
institutions those which we should call religious, as Islam on all sides is for
the Moslem equally religious. But perhaps the following may practically be
separated under that rubric. Islam, runs a tradition, is built on five things:
testimony that there is no god save Allah, and that Mahomet is the apostle
of Allah; prayer; the poor-rate; pilgrimage; fasting. For these see
Mahommedan Religion.

The law and usage of religious foundations in perpetuity (waqf,
mortmain) became as important in Islam as monastic endowments in
medieval Europe, and such foundations tended similarly to absorb the
greater part of the national wealth. It was the only safe way of
providing for posterity. A pious foundation could be erected in such a
way that either so much from its funds would be paid yearly in
perpetuity to the descendants of the erector, or those descendants would
be employed as officials of the foundation.

When it became impossible for the caliph to lead the people
personally in prayer in the mosque, he delegated that part of his duties
to another, hence called imām (q.v.). Naturally, then, the appointment
of the imām would lie with the supreme ruler. This
The Imām. holds of the daily prayers in the principal mosque
(al-masjid al-jāmi‘) supported by the ruler where the
Friday service is held, but in the separate smaller mosques built by
each community the community chooses its own imām. With regard to

the Friday service, the schools of law disagree as to the necessity of the
presence of an imām appointed by the chief ruler. But the imām should
certainly make mention of the ruler in his sermon and pray for him. At
the occasional prayers, such as those for rain, &c., the presence of an
imām appointed by the ruler is not necessary. The imām appoints the
muaddhin, the announcer of the hour of prayer from the minaret, and
both have a claim on the state treasury.

Another office exercised when possible by the caliph, but very
frequently delegated to some high dignitary, such as the heir to the
caliphate or a prince, was the leadership of the pilgrimage caravan to
Mecca and back. Sometimes this official, called amīr-al-ḥajj, was
appointed imām as well. He then led all the pilgrimage ceremonies at
Mecca. When outside of towns where there was a cadi he exercised
also over the caravan the rights of a judge.

Mahommedan law (q.v.) is treated separately. Here, again, as judging
is a duty of the caliph, a cadi is the delegate, or, when appointed by a
vizier or governor, a delegate of his delegate. He examines into
disputes brought before him and enforces his
The Cadi. judgments, he names administrators of the estates of
minors, the insane, &c.; he supervises the waqf
property of mosques and schools in his district and inspects highways
and public buildings; he watches over the execution of wills; he inflicts
the due legal penalties for apostasy, neglect of religious duties, refusal
to pay taxes, theft, adultery, outrages, murder; he can inflict the
penalties of imprisonment, fine, corporal punishment, death; if there is
no imām, he can perform his duty, as in fact can anyone who has the
requisite knowledge. But it should be noticed that all this holds only of
the un-europeanized Moslem state.

For the existence of an army in Islam, there are two grounds, the holy
war (jihād, q.v.) against unbelievers without the state and the suppression of
rebellion within. Under the ordinance of Omar the entire community was
preserved and used as a weapon for the subduing of the
The Army. world to Islam, and every able-bodied male Moslem was
theoretically a fighting man, part of the national militia.
This army was divided into corps situated in the conquered lands, as armies
of occupation, where they eventually came to form military colonies in
great camp-cities. The occupied countries had to support them, and they
were bound to render military service at any time. But as the ideal of Omar
broke down before facts the use of mercenary and slave troops finally
increased; although there has always continued in Moslem armies acting
against unbelievers a proportion of volunteers not paid a fixed wage but
subsidized by the state from the poor-rate and alms funds. The generals
were appointed by the caliph, and had either unlimited authority to act as
his representatives, concluding peace, acting as cadi and imām, distributing
booty; or were restricted within limits, e.g. to simple leading of the troops
and carrying on military operations. They, in turn, appointed their
subordinates; this principle of giving a head full powers and full
responsibility was very generally applied in Islam. It was controlled of
course by the espionage of the postal system. As war by a Moslem power is
essentially sacred war, the regulations of jihad must be considered here.
Unbelievers must first be invited to embrace Islam and, if they follow a
sacred book and are not idol-worshippers, are given a choice between (a)
becoming Moslems; or (b) submitting to the Moslems and entering on a
treaty with them of protection and tribute; or (c) fighting. If they accept
Islam, their lives, families and property are secure, and they form
henceforth part of the Moslem community. The ability of Islam to create a
common feeling between highly different races is one of its most striking
features. If they submit and enter on treaty relations, they pay a poll-tax, for

which their personal safety is assured, and assume a definitely inferior
status, having no technical citizenship in the state, only the condition of
protected clients (dhimmīs). If they elect to fight, the door of repentance is
open, even when the armies are face to face. But after defeat their lives are
forfeit, their families are liable to slavery, and all their goods to seizure. It is
open to the sovereign either to put them to death; or to enslave them; or to
give them their liberty; or to exchange them for ransom or against Moslem
prisoners. The sovereign will choose that which is best for Islam. As for
their families and wealth, the sovereign can release them only with consent
of the army that has captured them. Apostates must be put to death. Four-
fifths of the booty after a battle goes to the conquering army.

The technical art of war seems to have been little studied among
Moslems; they have treatises on archery but very little upon tactics. Their
writers recognize, however, the essential difference between the European
and Persian methods of charging in solid lines and holding the ground
stubbornly, and the Arab and Berber method of flying attacks and retreats
by clouds of cavalry. Therefore, one explained, the custom grew of using a
mass of European mercenaries as a fixed nucleus and rallying-point. The
early Moslem armies, too, had used the solid, unyielding charge, which may
have been the secret of their success. For one of the greatest puzzles of
history is the cause which changed the erratic, untrustworthy swarms of
Arab horsemen with their childish strategy into the ever-victorious legions
of the first caliphs. They certainly learned rapidly. Byzantium and Persia
taught them the use of military engines and the entrenched camp. Before
that they had been, at the best, single knights with mail-shirt, helmet, sword
and lance. Bowmen, too, they used, but the principal use of the bow seems
to have come with the Turks.

The glory of Moslem education was its university system, which fed
the higher learning and did not serve everyday needs. Its primary

system was very poor, almost non-existent; and technical education has
never been recognized in Islam. Primary teachers
Education. were despised as ignorant and foolish. Apparently, if
we may trust the many stories of how ignorant men
set up for themselves, there was no control of them by the state. Their
pupils were young only; they taught the rudiments of reading, Koran,
catechism, prayer, writing and arithmetic, but very little of the latter.
Technical education was given by the gilds through their apprentice
system, teaching mechanical arts and crafts. This was genuine
instruction, but was not so regarded; it was looked upon rather as are
the mysteries and secrets of operative masonry. It produced artisans of
independent character, but not artists. Thus there was no distinction
between architect and builder; there was no sculpture; and painting, so
far as it went, was like carving, a craft. All Moslem university
education, like all Moslem science, revolved round theology. There
were, apparently, only two outstanding exceptions to this rule, the
academy of Mamun (813-833) at Bagdad, and the hall of wisdom of
the Fatimites at Cairo (1004-1171); both of these are explained by their
environment. From the earliest times, independent scholars instructed
classes in mosques—the common places of meeting for the community
—and gave their pupils personal certificates. Their subjects were the
reading and interpretation of the Koran; the body of traditions from the
Prophet; the thence deduced system of theology; the canon law. But the
interpretation of the Koran involved grammatical and lexicographical
studies of early Arabic, and hence of the early Arabic literature.
Theology came to involve metaphysical and logical studies. Canon law
required arithmetic and mensuration, practical astronomy, &c. But
these last were strictly ancillary; the object of the instruction was
primarily to give knowledge of value for the life of the next world, and,
secondarily, to turn out theologians and lawyers. Medicine was in

Jewish and Christian hands; engineering, architecture, &c., with their
mathematical bases, were crafts. Then this instruction was gradually
subsidized and organized by the state, or endowed by individuals. How
early this took place is uncertain. But the individual teacher, with his
certificate, remained the object of the student; there was nothing
corresponding to our general degrees. Thirdly, educational institutions
came to be equipped with scholarships of money or in kind for the
students. The first instance of this is generally ascribed to Nishapur
(Naisābūr) in 1066; but it soon became general in the system and
afforded a means of control and centralization. A final, and most
important, characteristic was the wide journeying of the students “in
search of knowledge.” Aided by Arabic as the universal language of
learning, students journeyed from teacher to teacher, and from
Samarkand to the Atlantic, gathering on their way hundreds of personal
certificates. Scholars were thus kept in touch all over the Moslem
world, and intellectual unity was maintained.

To the democratic equality of Islam, in which the slave of to-day may be
the prime minister of to-morrow, there is one outstanding exception. The
descendants of the Prophet and of his relatives (the family of Hāshim)
formed and form a special class, held in social reverence,
The Sayyids. and guarded from contamination and injury. These are
the sayyids (lords), and genealogical registers of them are
carefully preserved. They are of all degrees of wealth and poverty, but are
guarded legally from mésalliances with persons of ignoble origin or
equivocal occupation. Their influence is very great, and in some parts of the
Moslem world they have the standing and reverence of saints.

See Von Kremer, Culturgeschichte des Orients, based largely on
Māwardī’s Aḥkām, trans. in part by Ostrorog; McG. de Slane’s trans. of
Ibn Khaldūn, Prolégomènes; Lane, Manners and Customs of the

Modern Egyptians; R. F. Burton, Pilgrimage to Mekka; Snouck
Hurgronje, Mekka; Hughes, Dictionary of Islam; Juynboll, De
Mohammedaansche Wet; Macdonald, Development of Muslim
Theology, &c. For women in Islam, see Harem. (D. B. Ma.)

MAHOMMEDAN LAW. The legal situation in the Moslem
world is of the highest complexity, and can be made intelligible only by
tracing its historical development. First came the system (fiqh, sharī‘a)
which takes the place in Islam of canon law in Roman Christendom. It
begins with Mahomet sitting as judge over the primitive Moslem
community at Medina. He was the Prophet of God, and judged, as he ruled,
absolutely; any decision of his was valid. But he found it, in general,
advisable and fitting to follow the local law or usage of Medina when the
new faith did not require a change. It thus came about that his decisions
followed, at one time, the usage of the Arab tribes of Medina; at another, the
law respected by the Jewish tribes there—a rabbinic development of the law
of Moses, deeply affected by Roman law; at another, the more developed
commercial law of Mecca, known to his followers who had fled thence with
him; or, finally, his own personal judgment, stated it might be as his own
sense of right or as the decision of Allah and even incorporated in the
Koran. In his use of these he was an eclectic opportunist, and evidently,
except as regards such frequently recurring subjects as inheritance,
marriage, &c., had no thought of building up a system or code. At his death
he left behind only a few specific prescriptions in the Koran and a mass of

recorded decisions of cases that had come before him. He had used himself,
in our terms, common law, equity, legislation; to guide his followers he left
his legislative enactments and the record of his use of common law. Since
his death there has been no new legislation in orthodox Islam.

With the death of Mahomet began the development and codification of
Moslem law. It was at first entirely practical. Cases had to be decided, and
to decide them there was, first, the Koran; secondly, if nothing ad rem was
found in the Koran, there were the decisions of the Prophet; thirdly, if these
failed, there was the common law of Medina; and, fourthly, if it, in turn,
failed, the common sense of the judge, or equity. A knowledge of the
decisions of Mahomet came thus to be of great importance, and records of
such decisions were eagerly sought and preserved. But this was simply a
part of a much wider movement and tendency. As among primitive peoples
in general, custom and usage have always been potent among the Arabs.
The ways of the fathers, the old paths, they love to tread. Very early there
arose a special reverence for the path and usage (sunna) of Mahomet.
Whatever he did or said, or left unsaid or undone, and how he did it, has
become of the first importance to the pious Moslem, who would act in
every way as did the Prophet. There is evidence that for this purpose the
immediate companions of Mahomet took notes, either in memory or in
writing, of his table talk and wise sayings, just as they took down or learned
by heart for their private use the separate fragments of the Koran. His
sayings and doings, manners and customs, his answers to questions on
religious life and faith, above all his decisions in legal disputes, came to be
recorded on odd sheets in private notebooks. This was the beginning of the
enormous literature of traditions (ḥadīth) in Islam. The collecting and
preserving of these, which was at first private, for personal guidance and
edification, finally became one of the most powerful weapons of political
and theological propaganda, and coloured the whole method and fabric of
Moslem thought. All knowledge tended to be expressed in that form, and

each element of it to be traced back to, and given in the words of, some
master or other through a chain of transmitters. Above all there grew up an
enormous mass of evidently forged sayings put into the mouth of Mahomet.
At every important political or theological crisis each party would invent
and put into circulation a tradition from him, supporting its view. By a study
of these flatly opposed “sayings” it is possible to reconstruct the different
controversies of Islam in the past, and to discover what each party regarded
as the essence of its position.

The first collecting of traditions was for private purposes, and the
first publication dealing with them was legal. This was the Muwaṭṭa’ of
Malik ibn Anas (d. 795), a corpus juris based partly on traditions, and a
protest in its methods against the too speculative character of the books
of canon law which preceded it. Thereafter came collections of two
different types. The earlier kind was arranged according to the
companions of Mahomet, on whose authority the traditions were
transmitted; after each companion came the traditions going back to
him. The best known example of this kind is the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn
Ḥanbal. The other kind, called Muşannaf (classified), contains
traditions arranged in chapters according to their subject matter. That of
Bukhārī is the most famous, and is arranged to give a traditional basis
for a complete system of canon law; its rubrics are those of such a
system. Another is that of Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, who paid less attention
to legal aspects and more to minute accuracy. There are many others of
more or less acceptance and canonicity. Bukhārī’s book enjoys a
reverence only second to that of the Koran. But in all these publications
the primary object was to purify the mass of traditions of forged
accretions and to give to the believer a sound basis for his knowledge
of the usages of the Prophet, whether for his personal or for public use.
These two kinds were a natural development. In the Moslem
community there were from the first students of tradition proper whose

interest lay in collecting, testing and transmitting, not in combining,
systematizing and elucidating; whose preference was to take a single
statement from the Prophet and apply it to a case, without reasonings or
questionings. And there were students of canon law who were
interested rather in the system and results, and who, while they used
traditions, used them only to an end and insisted on the free application
of speculative principles. The conflict of the future was to be between
these traditionalists, on the one hand, and rationalists, on the other; and
the result was to be a compromise.

With the wide sweep of Moslem conquest another element came into the
development. This was Roman law, which the Moslem jurist found at work
in the conquered Roman provinces and in the law courts of which they went
to school. It is to be remembered that the Arab armies were not devastating
hordes; they recognized the need of law and order wherever they went, and
it was the policy of their leaders to take over the administrative systems of
the countries which they seized. Even the Arabic legal nomenclature shows
evident signs of literal translation from Latin, and many Moslem principles
can be traced to the Roman codes. One important development was plainly
influenced by the liberty involved in the Responsa prudentium of Roman
lawyers, and by the broad conception of the law of nature in the Edict of the
Praetor. In its earliest stages Moslem law recognized in the judge a liberty
of opinion (ra’y) which went beyond even that of the Responsa and became
plain equity, in the English sense, and one school (the Hanifite) established
as a basis the right of preference (istiḥsān) even when the analogy of the
code dictated otherwise; while another (the Malikite) used the term istiṣlāḥ,
“a seeking of (general) benefit” to the community, in a similar situation. But
these developments were bitterly contested, and the liberty of opinion was
in the end narrowed down to a principle of analogy (qiyās), the nearest
approach to which in Western law is legal fiction.

It is necessary now to return to the first successors of Mahomet. “For
thirty years after my death,” he is said to have declared, “my people will
tread in my path (sunna); thereafter will come kings and princes.” This
tradition crystallizes the later feeling of Islam. The first thirty years were a
golden age; the centre of the state was the Prophet’s own city of Medina;
the conditions of the state continued in close conformity to those of his own
time. The study of tradition, i.e. of his usage, went hand in hand with the
study of law. They were vital functions of the state, and it encouraged both.

Then came the great débâcle. The ancien régime, a semi-monkish,
theocratic empire, went down, and the Omayyad dynasty, kings and princes
of the old Arab type, took its place (see Caliphate, B). The public life of the
state was no longer deeply religious; the pious said that it was godless.
Under these conditions law was indeed still needed; but it had to be
opportunist. Its development went on, but became speculative. The study of
tradition was now private, and its students were more and more the
personally pious. There were, thus, two results. On the one hand, the
framers of systems of canon law—as it now was—no longer lived in
contact with reality; hypothetical and ideal structures were reared which
could never stand the touch of the practical law-court. And on another,
traditions and law, even this hypothetical law, came to take separate roads.
The interest of the students of tradition became the gathering of traditions
for their own sake, going no farther than a striving to regulate each detail of
life by some specific, concrete, prophetic dictum. They had no use for
systems that went beyond the mere registering of these dicta. The feeling
also became widespread that any system of government which did not
simply reproduce the patriarchal form of Medina was of the world and the
devil—a thing with which no religious man could have aught to do. At
every turn he would have to peril his soul.

Here we must place the transition of this law with which we have hitherto
dealt from being the law of the land to being in essence a variety of canon
law. It was always broader than any western secular law. It regulated all the
aspects of life—duty to God, to one’s neighbour, to one’s self. It was really
a system of duties, ethical, legal, religious. It did not limit itself to defining
the forbidden (ḥarām); but designated actions also as required (farḍ, wājib),
recommended (mandūb, mustaḥabb), indifferent (jā‘iz, mubāḥ), disliked
(makrūh). It played the part of, or rendered necessary, a religious director
quite as much as a lawyer. And for a time at Medina it was really the law of
the land. But from the Omayyad period on it has held the position of the
canon law of the Roman Church in countries that will not recognize it and
yet dare not utterly reject it. It governs, in one or other of its four schools,
the private lives of all pious Moslems; it regulates some semi-public
relationships—e.g. marriage, divorce, inheritance; it compels respect, if not
acceptance, from the state; and by its ideal standard the world, filled with
righteousness by the Mahdi, will be ruled in the Moslem millennium.

The rise of the Abbasids brought a change, but not a great one. They had
promised a return to the old religious attitudes, and the promise was
formally kept. But in substance they were as much as the Omayyads, and
though the state was outwardly on a pious footing, and the religious
sentiment of the people was respected, the old, absolute canon law was not
restored. It was made possible for more theologians and lawyers to work
with the state, but an irreconcilable party still remained, and the situation
was fixed as it is to this day. It is true that the struggle to adapt such a single
and detailed system to all the varying conditions, climates and times of the
great empire was impossible; but the failure marked the great rent in the
supposed unity of Islam between the church and the world, religion and
law.

Yet the Abbasids did, in their way, encourage legal studies, and under
them processes and results, long pursued in private, became public. Almost
within the first century of their dynasty the four legal schools, or rites, were
formed and the principles established which survive to this day.

The first school to take definite form was the Hanifite, founded by
Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 767), who left behind him a definite system and many
enthusiastic pupils. He was a man of means, in touch with commercial,
but not with practical legal life, a speculative or philosophical jurist.
Being of non-Arab origin, the usage of Medina had small interest for
him. He therefore used few traditions, and preferred to go back to the
Koran, and extract from it by reasoning the rulings which fitted his
ideas. This he called the use of analogy (qiyās); but, in his hands, it
became practically legal fiction, the application of a law in some sense
undreamed by its first imposer. But he had another, and still freer
instrument. The effect of differences in local conditions had been early
observed and admitted in general terms. Abū Ḥanīfa reduced it to a
subjective formula. Under such conditions he claimed the right of
preference (istiḥsān) of a ruling suited to the local needs, even when
the strict analogy indicated otherwise. This met and meets with
vehement protest when formally stated, but the usage of Islam has
practically accepted it. His system, finally, was not developed through
the exigencies of actual cases, but was worked out as a system of
casuistry, though in a good sense. He tried, that is, to construct a
system of rules to answer any conceivable question. After his death his
pupils elaborated it still further, and accepted public office. The
‘Abbāsids adopted his school, and threw their influence on its side; its
philosophic breadth and casuistic possibilities evidently commended it
to them. Later, the Ottoman Turks also adopted it, and it may be said to
hold now a leadership among the four legal rites. Its influence has
undoubtedly tended to broaden and humanize Moslem law.

Twenty-eight years after Abū Ḥanīfa, Malik ibn Anas, the founder of
the Malikite school, died at Medina. In many points his situation was
precisely opposite to that of Abū Ḥanīfa, and yet his results were very
similar. He was a working jurist, in practical touch with actual life; he
was in the centre of the tradition of the usage of the Prophet, in the line,
one might say, of the apostolic succession. He, therefore, used
traditions much more generally than did Abū Ḥanīfa, and when he,
under pressure, took refuge in opinion, he certainly felt that he, under
his conditions, had a better right to do so than any outsider. But two of
his principles marked a distinct advance and showed that he was no
mere traditionalist. For one, he laid down the conception of public
advantage (istiṣlāḥ); when a rule founded on even a valid analogy
would work a general injury it was to be set aside; justice must not be
overcome by logic. And, for the other, he laid stress on the conception
of the agreement (ijmā‘), an idea which was to have indefinite
importance in the future. When the surviving companions of the
Prophet, after his death, agreed upon any point as belonging to their
store of tradition and experience, their agreement was accepted as final.
In the first instance they agreed that such had been the statement of the
Prophet. That easily passed over into an agreement that such was the
true Moslem view, and finally into an acceptance of the principle that
the Moslem Church, when unanimous, could formulate truth—
practically as in the canon of Vincent of Lérins, Quod semper, quod
ubique, quod ab omnibus. But such a broadly catholic position was still
in the future, and for Malik, juristic agreement meant the agreement of
Medina, though there are signs that he permitted the same latitude to
other places also. It was a way of allowing for local conditions rather
than of reaching the voice of the Church. His law book, the Muwaṭṭa’,
the earliest in our possession written by the founder of a school, has
already been mentioned. It is a collection of about seventeen hundred

traditions of juristic importance, arranged according to subject, with
appended remarks on the usage of Medina and on his own view of each
matter.

So far opinion and local usage had fully held their own, and the
philosophical jurist had been free to work out his system. The
difference between the istiḥsān of Abū Ḥanīfa and the istiṣlāḥ of Malik
was not great; students attended the lectures of both and combined their
systems. But a reaction now began, and the traditionalist party finally
made itself felt. We have the inevitable rivalry between the historical-
empirical and the speculative-philosophical schools of jurisprudence,
rendered all the more bitter in that the historical lawyers believed, in
this case, that they were defending a divine institution. There resulted,
first, one of the most important schools, the Shāfi‘īte; secondly, an
extremely literal school for which ash-Shāfi‘ī did not go far enough,
and which has now vanished; and thirdly, the Ḥanbalite school, still
surviving in small numbers, more moderately traditional than the last.

The school founded by ash-Shāfi‘ī (d. 820), a pupil of Malik, came
first in order of time. The others were really revolts against the
mildness of his compromise. His characteristics were a broad-minded,
steady grasp of means and ends, a perception of what could and what
could not be done, a willingness to admit all the tried principles in due
balance, and, at one point especially, the insight of genius as to the
possibilities of these principles. He laid great stress on tradition; a
clear, authentic tradition he regarded as no less valid than the Koran
itself. If the tradition was chronologically later than a Koranic passage
and corrected that passage, he followed the tradition. But in this he was
only regulating a fixed tendency. The Koran may be regarded
theoretically as the first of all the sources of law and theology;
practically its clear statements have been over-ridden in many cases.

Most important of all, the principle of agreement (ijmā‘) came finally
with him to its full rights. The agreement of the Moslem peoples was to
be the voice of God. “My people,” said a tradition from Mahomet,
“will never agree in an error.” And so, over traditions and over the
Koran itself, the agreement tacitly or explicitly ruled and rules. It
stamps as authoritative that which the other principles lay down. At the
head of each section of a Shāfi‘īte law book we read, “The basis of
this, before the agreement, is such and such.” But with the aid of a
principle of this breadth it was easy to reject the opinion which was so
objectionable to the traditionalist party. In its place he took analogy
(qiyās), which, discreetly used, could serve almost the same purpose.
The Koranic passage or the tradition with which an analogy was
suggested should, he taught, be examined to see if there was a reason
clearly stated for the command. If so, that reason would give a basis for
the analogy. Analogy based on the mechanical or external could not
hold.

The four bases thus laid down by ash-Shāfi‘ī—Koran; prophetic
usage as expressed in traditions; analogy; agreement—have come to be
accepted by all existing schools. This applies to all spheres of life,
ethical, social, theological, legal, and it should never be forgotten that
the Koran is only one of the sources for Moslem faith and conduct.

Few words are needed for the other, reactionary schools. One, now
long extinct, was founded by a certain Dā‘ūd uẓ-Ẓāhirī, “David the
Literalist,” born three or four years before the death of ash-Shāfi‘ī, and
so called because he insisted upon an absolutely literal interpretation of
his texts—Koran or tradition—without account of context or metaphor.
In consequence he had to reject analogy, and limited agreement to that
of the companions of Mahomet; the Church of Islam was to have no
constructive authority. In one point he showed great sanity of

judgment, namely in his rejection of the principle jurare in verba
magistri, otherwise regnant in Islam. His school had long and
interesting consequences, mostly theological, but is now extinct, and
never took rank with the others. The Moslem world found his positions
too impossible, and now no one swears to his words. The other, the
Ḥanbalite school, was founded by the scholars of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal
after his death in 885. He himself would never have revolted against
his master, ash-Shāfi‘ī, but it was soon felt that his system, so far as he
had any, was in essential opposition. He had been no lawyer, but a
theologian and a collector and student of traditions. All his life had
been a protest against speculation in divine things. Where the Koran
and traditions were silent, he, too, had been silent. For this agnostic
principle he had witnessed and suffered, and his standing with the
people was that of a saint. Naturally, then, the last still existent school
of traditionalist protest was launched in his name. It minimizes
agreement and analogy, is literal in its interpretations, and is now by far
the smallest of the four surviving schools. Its external history is that of
a testifying and violent minority.

Other men, such as Ṭabarī, the historian and commentator, have had
dreams that they, too, might join the Four Imāms (see Imām) as
founders of legal rites, but none has succeeded. The Four remain the
ultimate exponents of this canon law, and under the banner of one or
other of them every Moslem must range himself. As there is a principle
of unity in Islam, expressed in the alleged prophetic saying, “My
people will never agree in an error,” so there is a principle of variety,
also expressed in an alleged prophetic saying, “The disagreement of
my people is a mercy from God.” The four rites may differ upon many
points, yet the adherents of one never dream of regarding the adherents
of the others as outside the Church of Islam; they are not “dissenters”
in the English sense. God is merciful to his creatures, and gives them

so much liberty of choice. Yet in practice this liberty is not great. The
principle of swearing to the words of the master is a dead hand laid
upon Islam. A man’s legal rite is generally settled by the place and
other conditions of his birth, and after he has once accepted a rite, he
must, if good and pious, follow it in all its details. Only the avowed
sceptic or the recognized eccentric can be an eclectic.

The geographical distribution of the rites is roughly as follows:
Moslems in Central Asia and northern India and the Turks everywhere
are Hanifites; in Lower Egypt, Syria, southern India and the Malay
Archipelago they are Shāfi‘ītes; in Upper Egypt and in north Africa,
west of Egypt, they are Malikites; only the Wahhābis (q.v.) in central
Arabia are Ḥanbalites. But the will of the sovereign has also had a
powerful influence and has frequently dictated the legal, as well as the
theological, affiliations of his subjects. The Turks, for example, have
thrown their weight almost everywhere on the Hanifite side. Their
policy is to appoint only Hanifite judges (see Cadi), although for
private and personal questions they appoint and pay Muftis (q.v.) of the
other rites. In other cases, with a population of mixed legal adherence,
the government has been known to appoint judges of different rites.

The Shī‘ite canon law is dealt with separately, but some mention of
two outstanding sects is here in place. The Ibāḍites (see Mahommedan
Religion: Sects) have a system of canon law which in essentials is of
older codification than that of any of the orthodox schools, going back
to Abdallah ibn Iḅād himself, of the first century of the Hijra (Hejira).
Its basis is above all the Koran, then a sparing use of traditions, natural
to their early origin, and finally the agreement of their own learned
men, again natural to an extreme dissenting sect, and it still rules the
Ibāḍite communities at Oman, Zanzibar and the Mzab in southern
Algeria. At all these places they, the last descendants of the Khārijites,

hold severely apart, while the other Moslems shrink from them as
heretics of the worst. Not nearly so far from ordinary Islam, but still of
an extreme self-conscious Puritanism are the Wahhābis. They are really
Ḥanbalites, but apply the rules of that school with uncompromising,
reforming energy. The doctrine of the agreement of the Church of
Islam they reject; only that of the immediate companions of Mahomet
is valid. The people of Mahomet can err and has erred; each man must,
on his own responsibility, draw his doctrine from the Koran and the
traditions. Here they follow the Ẓāhirites.

All these schools of law administer a scheme of duties, which, as has
already been remarked, comes nearest to the canon law of the Roman
Church, and which for centuries has had only a partial connexion with the
real legal systems of the Moslem peoples. Among the Wahhābis and
Ibāḍites alone is it the whole of law. Elsewhere, since the Omayyad period,
its courts have been in great part pushed aside by others, and its scheme has
come to be regarded as an expression of impossible theory, to be realized at
best with the coming of the millennium. The causes and methods of this
change call now for detailed notice.

As Islam spread beyond the desert and the conditions in which the life of
Mahomet and his companions had been cast, it came to regions, climates,
customs, where the Arabian usages no longer held. Not only were the
prescripts of Medina ill adapted to the new conditions; the new people had
legal usages of their own to which they clung and which nothing could
make them abandon. It was rather the Moslem leaders who were compelled
to abandon their ideas and for the sake of the spread of Islam to accept and
incorporate much that was diametrically opposed to the original legislation
either of the Koran or of Mahomet’s recorded decisions. As in religion the
faiths of the conquered peoples were thinly veneered with Moslem phrases,
so in law there grew up a customary code (‘ādāt) for each country, differing

from every other, which often completely obscured and annulled the
prescriptions of the canon law. The one was an ideal system, studied and
praised by the pious learned; the other was the actual working of law in the
courts.

But besides the obstinate adherence of various peoples to their old paths,
the will of individual rulers was a determining factor. When these ceased to
be saints and students of divine things, and came to be worldly statesmen
and opportunists, followers of their own objects and pleasures, no system
could hold which set a limit to their authority. The Oriental ruler must rule
and judge on his own initiative, and the schools of canon law tended to
reduce everything to an academic fixedness. There thus arose a new and
specific statute law, emanating from the sovereign. At first he judged in the
gate as seemed good in his eyes and as was his right and duty (cf. “court of
oppressions”; see Mahommedan Institutions); later, his will was codified as
in the Turkish statute law (qawānīn) derived from various European codes.
Thus there has grown up in almost every Moslem country at least two
systems of courts, the one administering this canon law, and taking
cognisance of private and family affairs, such as marriage, divorce,
inheritance, its officials also giving rulings on purely personal religious
questions, such as details of the ritual law, the law of oaths and vows, &c.;
the other, the true law courts of the land, administering codes based on local
custom and the decrees of the local rulers.

A rift almost as important entered the legal life of the Moslem lands on
another side. Non-Moslem communities, settled in Moslem territory, have
been uniformly permitted to administer and judge themselves according to
their own customs and laws. Save when they come into direct contact and
conflict with Moslems, they are left to themselves with a contemptuous
tolerance. The origin of this attitude in Islam appears to be threefold: (i) The
Islam of theory cannot conceive of a mixed state; it takes account, only, of a

state containing none but Moslems, and its ideal is that the whole world
will, in the end, form such a state. In practice, then, Moslems try to shut
their eyes to the existence of non-Moslems in their midst and make no
provision for them until compelled. That a non-Moslem should have the
same civil position as a Moslem is unthinkable. (ii) This, of course,
produces an attitude of extreme contempt. The only citizens are Moslems
and all others are to be looked down upon and left to themselves. What they
do or think among themselves does not matter; they are outside the ring-
fence of Islam. (iii) A different, but equally important, cause is the Moslem
indolence. When the Arabs conquered, they knew that they must administer
the conquered lands, and they, very wisely, sought help from the machinery
which they found in operation. But besides the ordinary organization of the
state, they found also various ecclesiastical organizations, Christian and
Jewish, and to these they gave over the administration of the non-Moslem
sections of the community, making their rabbis and bishops their
responsible heads and the links of contact with the Moslem rulers. They,
unquestionably, found the same method in use by the Byzantine
government; but in Moslem hands it went so far as to make a number of
little states (millet, milal) within the state and effectually to preclude the
possibility of ever welding all the inhabitants of the land into one corporate
life.

But this indolence, when applied to resident aliens, had consequences
still more serious, because external as well as internal. Following the same
method of leaving the unbeliever to settle his affairs for himself, the
European merchant, living and trading in the East, was put first by usage
and finally by treaty under the jurisdiction and control of his own consul.
Thus there grew up the extra-territorial law of the capitulations and
conventions, by which the sanctity of the person and household of an
ambassador is extended to every European. And this in turn, has reacted on
the status of the non-Moslem subject races, and has come to be the indirect

but chief support on which they lean. Through it, an element has developed
which makes it practically impossible for a Moslem state to introduce legal
changes even remotely affecting its non-Moslem population, alien or
subject, without the consent of the European embassies. Any change may be
upset by their refusal to accept it as incompatible with the capitulations and
conventions. The embassies have thus, as interpreters of a part, at least, of
the constitution, come to hold a position remarkably, if absurdly, like that of
the Supreme Court of the United States (see Young, Corps de droit
Ottoman, passim).

There may be said, then, in short, to be three elements in the legal life of
a Moslem state: the sacred and fixed canon law of Islam; the civil law,
based on the usages of the different peoples, Moslem and non-Moslem, and
on statutes going back to the will of rulers; the international law of the
capitulations, with a contractual sanction of its own. The hope for the future
in Islam, there can be little doubt, lies in the principle of the agreement of
the Moslem people, with its conception of catholic unity, and its ability,
through that unity, to make and abrogate laws. As the Moslem peoples
advance, their law can, thus, advance with them, and the grasp of the dead
hand of the canon law be gradually and legally released.

See I. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, I. and II. (Halle a.S.,
1889-1890); Zahiriten (Leipzig, 1884); E. Sachau, Zur ältesten
Geschichte des muhammedanischen Rechts (Vienna Akad., 1870) and
Muhammedanisches Recht (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1897); Snouck
Hurgronje, review of preceding in Z.D.M.G. liii. 125 seq. and “Le droit
musulman” (Rev. de l’hist. des religions, xxxvii. 1 seq. and 174 seq.);
Juynboll, Handleiding tot de Kennis von de mohammedaansche Wet
(Leiden, 1903); Von Kremer, Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den
Chalifen, i. 470 seq. (Vienna, 1875-1877); Hughes, Dictionary of
Islam, pp. 285 seq. (London, 1896); D. B. Macdonald, Development of

Muslim Theology, &c., pp. 65 seq. (New York, 1903); Bukhari, Les
Traditions islamiques traduites ... par O. Houdas et W. Marcel (Paris,
1906); N. B. E. Bailie, Digest of Moohummadan Law (2 vols., London,
1875-1887). A good bibliography appeared in the Bulletin of the New
York Public Library for January 1907. (D. B. Ma.)

MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION. The Mahommedan religion
is generally known as Islam—the name given to it by Mahomet himself—
and meaning the resigning or submitting oneself to God. The participle of
the same Arabic verb, Muslim (in English usually spelt Moslem), is used for
one who professes this religion. The expression “Mahommedan religion”
has arisen in the West probably from analogy with “Christian religion,” but
is not recognized as a proper one by Moslem writers. Islam claims to be a
divinely revealed religion given to the world by Mahomet, who was the last
of a succession of inspired prophets. Its doctrine and practices are to be
found in (i) the Book of God—the Koran—which was sent down from the
highest heaven to Gabriel in the lowest, who in turn revealed it in sections
to Mahomet; (2) the collections of tradition (ḥadīth) containing the sayings
and manner of life (sunna) of the Prophet; (3) the use of analogy (qiyās) as
applied to (i) and (2); and (4) the universal consent (ijmā’) of the believers.
The worship of Islam consists in (1) the recital of the creed; (2) the recital
of the ordained prayers; (3) the fast during the month of Ramadhān; (4)
alms-giving; (5) the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. The theology of Islam
finds its first public expression among the orthodox in the teaching of al-

Ash‘arī (d. after 932), but had its real beginning among the sects that arose
soon after the death of Mahomet.

Islam is the latest of the so-called world-religions, and as several of the
others were practised in Arabia at the time of Mahomet, and the Prophet
undoubtedly borrowed some of his doctrines and some of his practices from
these, it is necessary to enumerate them and to indicate the extent to which
they prevailed in the Arabian world.

Relations with Other Religions.—The religions practised in Arabia at the
time of Mahomet were heathenism, Judaism, Christianity, and
Zoroastrianism.

i. Heathenism was the religion of the majority of the Arabs. In the
cities of south Arabia it was a survival from the forms represented in
the Sabaean, Minaean and Himyaritic inscriptions of south Arabia (see
Arabia: Antiquities). The more popular form current among the
nomads is known very imperfectly from the remains of pre-Islamic
poetry and such works as the Kitāb ul-Aṣnām contained in Yaqūt’s
geography, from Shahrastānī’s work on the sects, and from the few
references in classical writers. From these we have mostly names of
local deities (cf. J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, 2nd ed.,
Berlin, 1897) and ancient religious customs, which remained in part
after the introduction of Islam (cf. W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of
the Semites, Edinburgh, 1889, and Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia, Cambridge, 1885). From these sources we learn that Arabian
religion was a nature-worship associated with fetishism. Sun, moon
and stars were worshipped, some tribes being devoted to the worship of
special constellations. Certain stones, wells and trees were regarded as
sacred and as containing a deity. Many (perhaps most) tribes had their
own idols. Hobal was the chief god of the Ka‘ba in Mecca with its
sacred stone, but round him were grouped a number of other tribal

idols. It was against this association (shirk) of gods that Mahomet
inveighed in his attempt to unify the religion and polity of the Arabs.
But there were features in this heathenism favourable to unity, and
these Mahomet either simply took over into Islam or adapted for his
purpose. The popularity of the Ka‘ba in Mecca as a place of resort for
worshippers from all parts of Arabia led Mahomet not only to institute
the hajj as a duty, but also to take over the customs connected with the
heathen worship of these visits, and later to make Mecca the qibla, i.e.
the place to which his followers turned when they prayed. The name of
Allah, who seems to have been the god of the Koreish (cf. D. S.
Margoliouth, Mohammed, p. 19, London, 1905), was accepted by
Mahomet as the name of the one God, though he abandoned the
corresponding female deity Al-lāt.

2. Judaism had long been known in Arabia at the time of the
Prophet. Whether Hebrews settled in Arabia as early as the time of
David (cf. R. Dozy, Die Israeliten zu Mecca, Leipzig, 1864), or not, is
of little importance here as Judaism cannot be said to have existed until
the end of the 5th century b.c. The Seleucid persecutions and the
political troubles that ended with the fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70)
probably sent many Jews to Arabia. In the 5th and 6th centuries the
history of south Arabia and of Nejrān is largely that of the strife
between Jews and Christians. In the north-west the Jews possessed
Temā, Khaibar, Yathrib (Medina), Fadak, and other smaller settlements.
In these they lived as self-contained communities, not seeking to
proselytize but working at their trades, especially concerned with
money and jewelry. Mahomet seems to have expected their help in his
proclamation of monotheism, and his first qibla was Jerusalem. It was
only when they refused to accept him as prophet that he turned in anger
against them. They had, however, supplied him with much material
from the Old Testament, and the stories of creation, the patriarchs and

early kings and prophets occur continually in the Koran, told evidently
as they were recited by the common people and with many mistakes
caused by his own misunderstanding.

3. Christianity, though later than Judaism, had a sure footing in
Arabia. It had suffered persecution in Nejrān and had been supported in
the south by the Abyssinian invasions. The kingdom of Hira was
largely Christian; the same is true of the north Arabian tribes of Bakr
and Taghlib, and east of the Jordan and on the Syrian boundary as well
as in Yemāma Christianity had made progress. Pre-Islamic literature
contains many allusions to the teaching and practices of Christianity.
Of the time of its introduction little is known; little also of the form in
which it was taught, save that it came from the Eastern Church and
probably to a large extent through Monophysite and Nestorian sects.
Tradition says that Mahomet heard Christian preaching at the fair of
Ukaz, and he probably heard more when he conducted the caravans of
Khadija. Gospel stories derived apparently from uncanonical works,
such as the Gospel of the Nativity, occur in the Koran. The asceticism
of the monks attracted his admiration. A mistaken notion of the Trinity
was sharply attacked by him. It is curious that his followers in the
earliest times were called by the heathen Arabs, Sabians (q.v.), this
being the name of a semi-Christian sect. In the time of the Omayyads
Christianity led to some of the earliest theological sects of Islam (see
below).

4. Zoroastrianism was known to the Arab tribes in the north-east, but
does not seem to have exercised any influence in Mecca or Medina
except indirectly through Judaism in its angelology. As soon, however,
as the armies of Islam conquered Mesopotamia it began to penetrate
the thought and practices of Islam (see below).

Sources of Authority.—Islam, as we have said, is founded on: (1) the
Koran; (2) the tradition or rather the sunna (manner of life of Mahomet)
contained in the tradition (Ḥadith); (3) ijmā‘; the universal agreement; (4)
qiyās (analogy).

1. The Koran1 (properly Qur’ān from qara’a to collect, or to read, recite)
is the copy of an uncreated original preserved by God (see below), sent
down from the seventh heaven to Gabriel in the first heaven, and revealed
to Mahomet in sections as occasion required. These revelations were recited
by the Prophet and in many cases written down at once, though from ii. 100
it would seem that this was not always the case. God is the speaker
throughout the revelations. It seems probable that the whole Koran was
written in Mahomet’s lifetime, but not brought together as a whole or
arranged in order.

As it exists now the Koran consists of 114 chapters called suras
(from sura, a row of bricks in a wall, a degree or step). The first is the
Fātiḥa (opening), which occupies the place of the Lord’s Prayer in
Christianity. The others are arranged generally in order of length, the
longest coming first, the shortest (often the earliest in date) coming at
the end. Certain groups, however, indicated by initial unvowelled
letters, seem to have been kept together from the time of the Prophet.
At the head of each sura is a title, the place of its origin (Mecca or
Medina) and the number of its verses (āyāt) together with the formula,
“In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate” (except in sura
9). For liturgical purposes the whole book is divided into 60 sections
(aḥzāb) or into 30 divisions (ajzā), each subdivided into a number of
prostrations (ruk‘a or sajda). The origin of the collected and written
Koran is due to Omar, who in the caliphate of Abū Bekr pointed out
that many possessors of suras were being slain in the battles of Islam
and their property lost, that there was a danger in this way that much of

the revelation might disappear, and that men were uncertain what was
to be accepted as genuine revelation. Accordingly Zaid ibn Thābit who
had been secretary to Mahomet, was commissioned to collect all he
could find of the revelation. His work seems to have been simply that
of a collector. He seems to have done his work thoroughly and made a
copy of the whole for Abū Bekr. The collection was thus chiefly a
private matter, and this copy passed after Abū Bekr’s death into the
hands of Omar, and after his death to Ḥafṣa, daughter of Omar, a
widow of Mahomet. In the caliphate of Othman it was discovered that
there were serious differences between the readings of the Koran
possessed by the Syrian troops and those of the Eastern soldiers, and
Othman was urged to have a copy prepared which should be
authoritative for the Moslem world. He appointed Zaid ibn Thābit and
three members of the tribe of Koreish (Quraish) to do the work. Each
of these made a copy of Abū Bekr’s collection, carefully preserving
Koreishite forms of words. How far the text was amended by the help
of other copies is doubtful; in any case the mode of procedure was
undoubtedly very conservative. The four similar manuscripts were sent,
one each to Medina, Cufa (Kufa), Basra and Damascus, and an order
was issued that all differing copies should be destroyed. In spite of the
personal unpopularity of Othman this recension was adopted by the
Moslem world and remains the only standard text. A few variant
readings and differences of order of the suras in the collections of
Ubay ibn Ka‘b and of Ibn Mas‘ūd were, however, known to later
commentators. The only variants after the time of Othman were owing
to different possible ways of pronouncing the consonantal text. These
are usually of little importance for the meaning. As the text is now
always vowelled, variations are found in the vowels of different copies,
and the opinions of seven leading “readers” are regarded as worthy of
respect by commentators (see Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorāns, pp.

279 seq., Göttingen, 1860). Various characteristics enable one to
establish with more or less certainty the relative chronological order of
the suras in the Koran, at any rate so far as to place them in the first or
second Meccan period or that of Medina. The form of the sentences is a
guide, for the earliest parts are usually written in the saj‘ form (see
Arabia: Literature). The expressions used also help; thus the “O ye
people” of the Meccan period is replaced in the Medina suras by “O ye
who believe.” The oaths in the first Meccan period are longer, in the
second shorter, and are absent in the Medinan. In the earliest period the
style is more elevated and passionate. Occasionally the time of origin is
determined by reference to historical events. In accordance with such
principles of criticism two leading scholars, Nöldeke (loc. cit.) and H.
Grimme (in his Mohammed Zweiter Teil. Einleitung in den Koran.
System der koranischen Theologie, Münster, 1895), have arranged the
suras as follows:—

Order of Suras in Koran.

Nöldeke.
Mecca.
1st to 5th yr. (a). 96. 74. 111. 106. 108. 104. 107. 102. 105.
92. 90. 94. 93. 97. 86. 91. 80. 68. 87.
95. 103. 85. 73. 101. 99. 82. 81. 53.
84. 100. 79. 77. 78. 88. 89. 75. 83. 69.
51. 52. 56. 70. 55. 112. 109. 113. 114.
1.
5th and 6th yr. 54. 37. 71. 76. 44. 50. 20. 26. 15. 19. 38.
(b). 36. 43. 72. 67. 23. 21. 25. 17. 27. 18.
7th yr. to Flight 32. 41. 45. 16. 30. 11. 14. 12. 40. 28. 39.
(c). 29. 31. 42. 10. 34. 35. 7. 46. 6. 13.

Medina. 2. 98. 64. 62. 8. 47. 3. 61. 57. 4. 65. 59.
33. 63. 24. 58. 22. 48. 66. 60. 110. 49.
9. 5.
Grimme.
Mecca, 2 In old saj‘ form: 111. 107. 106. 105. 104.
(1). 103. 102. 101. 100. 99. 108. 96. 95.
94. 93. 92. 91. 90. 89. 88. 87. 86. 85.
84. 83. 82. 81. 80. 79. 78. 77. 76. 75.
74. 73. 70. 69. 68. 114. 113. 36. 55.
54. 53. 52. 51. 50. 15. 22. 14.
In loosened saj‘ form: 46. 72. 45. 44. 41.
(2). 97. 40. 39. 38. 37. 36. 35. 34. 32. 31.
67. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26. 71. 25. 20. 23.
43. 21. 19. 1. 42. 18. 17. 16. 13. 12.
11. 10. 7. 6. 98. (112. 109).
Medina.
From the Flight 2. 62. 515.88.108-120. 47 and some
to Badr. interpolations in Meccan suras.
From Badr to 8. 24. 59.
Ohod
From Ohod to 3. 291-12. 4. 57. 64. 61. 60. 58. 65. 33. 63.
capture of 49. 110. 48. 51-14. 66. 91-24.
Mecca.
After capture of 925-124.
Mecca.

On the supposition that the arrangements given above are at any rate
approximately correct, it is possible to trace a certain development in the
teaching of the Koran on some of the chief dogmas. It must, however, be

borne in mind that orthodox Islam recognizes the Koran
Theology. as the work not of Mahomet but of God. Yet Moslem
theologians recognize that some revelations are
inconsistent with others, and so have developed the doctrine of nāsikh and
mansūkh (“abrogating” and “abrogated”), whereby it is taught that in
certain definite cases a later revelation supersedes an earlier. A critical study
of the Koran shows in the earlier revelations the marks of a reflective mind
trained under the influence of Arabian education and stirred by an
acquaintance (somewhat imperfect) with Judaism and Christianity. The later
revelations seem to be influenced by the now dominant position of the
Prophet and a desire after the capture of Mecca to incorporate such heathen
religious ceremonies as are national. God is one and universal from the
beginning. His unity is emphasized as against the mistaken conception of
the Christian Trinity. At first his might is taught by the name Rabb (Lord)
which is generally used with an attribute as “the highest Lord,” “Lord of the
worlds,” “Lord of men,” “Lord of heaven and earth,” “Lord of the East and
West,” or “our Lord.” Then he is identified with the god Allah (see above)
and the first part of the later Moslem creed is announced—la ilaha illa-
llaha, “there is no god but Allah.” But every act of creation is a proof not
only of God’s power but also of his beneficence (xiv. 37), and so he
becomes known as ar-Raḥmān, “the Compassionate.” The attributes of God
may all be arranged in the three classes of his power, unity and goodness.
They are expressed by the ninety-nine “beautiful names” applied to him in
the Koran (see E. H. Palmer, The Quran in “Sacred Books of the East,” vol.
vi., Introd. pp. 67-68, Oxford, 1880). In the Medina period of Mahomet’s
life the nature of God is not so clear, and the description of it varies
according to the moods of the Prophet.

Beside God are two other uncreated beings: (1) the original of the Koran,
the “mother of the Book” (xliii. 3) on a “preserved tablet” (lauḥ maḥfūẓ)
(lxxxv. 22), in accordance with which God acts, and (2) the throne (kursī)

(ii. 256). When the heavens are created, God sits on his
Spirits. throne in the seventh heaven; around him are angels,
pure, sexless beings, some of whom bear the throne,
while some are engaged in praising him continually. They are also his
messengers and are sent to fight with the believers against the heathen.
Some are the guardian angels of men, others are the watchmen of hell.
Mediate beings between God and man are the “word” (amr) and from it the
“spirit” (rūḥ) or “holy spirit” (rūḥ ul-qudus). Another manifestation of God
to the believers only is the “glory” (sakīna).

God created the world in six days according to the plan of the Book.
Each new life was created by God’s breathing into it a soul. The duality of
soul and body is maintained. In each man is a good and a bad impulse. The
bad impulse which was latent in Adam was roused to
Cosmology. action by Satan (Iblīs). Adam by his fall lost the grace of
God, which was restored to him solely by the gracious
choice of God. Between men and angels in their nature are the genii (jinn)
male and female, inhabitants of desert places, created from smokeless fire.
They had been accustomed to spy round heaven, but in Mahomet’s time
could learn no more of its secrets. Some of them were converted by the
Prophet’s teaching. Lowest of creation in his estate is Satan (Shaitān), who
was an angel but was expelled from heaven because he refused to worship
Adam at his Lord’s command. God has revealed himself to man by (1)
writing (kitāb), and (2) prophets. As he had given to the Jews the Law
(Taurāt) and to the Christians the Gospel (Injīl) so he revealed to Mahomet
the Koran (Qur‘ān, known also by other names, e.g. al-Furqān, at-Tafṣīl,
&c.), each single revelation being called an aya. With his revelation God
has also sent an apostle or prophet to each people. Several of these are
mentioned in the Koran, Moses the prophet of the Jews, Jesus (Īsā) that of
the Christians. Mahomet is not only the apostle of the Moslems but the
“seal of the prophets,” i.e. the final member of the class. His mission at first

was to warn men of imminent judgment. Later he became more of a teacher.
At first he seems to have relied for the salvation of men on his natural
faculties, but later announced the doctrine of God’s election. The ethics of
the Koran are based on belief (imān) and good works, the
Ethics. latter alone occurring in the early Meccan suras. Fear of
the judgment of God was a motive of action; this is
followed by repentance and turning to God. A complete surrender to God’s
will (islām) is the necessary condition of religious life and is expressed in
the phrase so common in everyday speech among the Moslems—inshallah,
“if God will.” God has full power to overlook evil deeds if he will.
Unbelievers can acquire no merit, however moral their actions. A short
account of the chief ethical requirements of the Koran is given in xvii. 23-
40:—

“Put not God with other gods, or thou wilt sit despised and forsaken.
Thy Lord has decreed that ye shall not serve other than Him; and
kindness to one’s parents, whether one or both of them reach old age
with thee, and say not to them, ‘Fie,’ and do not grumble at them, but
speak to them a generous speech. And lower to them the wing of
humility out of compassion, and say, ‘O Lord! have compassion on
them as they brought me up when I was little!’ Your Lord knows best
what is in your souls if ye be righteous, and, verily, He is forgiving
unto those who come back penitent.

“And give thy kinsman his due and the poor and the son of the road;
and waste not wastefully, for the wasteful were ever the devil’s
brothers, and the devil is ever ungrateful to his Lord.

“But if thou dost turn away from them to seek after mercy from thy
Lord, which thou hopest for, then speak to them an easy speech.

“Make not thy hand fettered to thy neck, nor yet spread it out quite
open, lest thou shouldest have to sit down blamed and straightened in
means. Verily, thy Lord spreads out provision to whomsoever He will
or He doles it out. Verily, He is ever well aware of and sees His
servants.

“And slay not your children for fear of poverty; we will provide for
them; beware! for to slay them is ever a great sin.

“And draw not near to fornication; verily, it is ever an abomination,
and evil is the way thereof.

“And slay not the soul that God has forbidden you, except for just
cause; for he who is slain unjustly we have given his next of kin
authority; yet let him not exceed in slaying; verily, he is ever helped.

“And draw not near to the wealth of the orphan, save to improve it,
until he reaches the age of puberty, and fulfil your compacts; verily, a
compact is ever enquired of.

“And give full measure when ye measure out, and weigh with a right
balance; that is better and a fairer determination.

“And do not pursue that of which thou hast no knowledge; verily, the
hearing, the sight and the heart, all of these shall be enquired of.

“And walk not on the earth proudly; verily, thou canst not cleave the
earth, and thou shalt not reach the mountains in height.

“All this is ever evil in the sight of your Lord and abhorred.”
(E. H. Palmer’s translation.)

The eschatology of the Koran is especially prominent in its earlier parts.
The resurrection, last judgment, paradise and hell are all described. At death
the body again becomes earth, while the soul sinks into a state of sleep or

unconsciousness. At a time decreed, known as “the hour”
Eschatology. (as-Sa‘a), “the day of resurrection” (yaum ul-qiyyāma),
“day of judgment” (yaum-ud-dīn), &c., an angel will call
or will sound a trumpet, the earth will be broken up, and the soul will rejoin
the body. God will appear on his throne with angels. The great book will be
opened, and a list of his deeds will be given to every man, to the good in his
right hand, to the evil in his left (sura 69). A balance will be used to weigh
the deeds. The jinn will testify against the idolaters. The righteous will then
obtain eternal peace and joy in the garden (al-janna) and the wicked will be
cast into the fiery ditch (Jahannam), where pains of body and of soul are
united.

2. The Tradition.—The revelation of God is twofold—in a writing and by
a prophet. The former was contained in the Koran, the latter was known
from the actions of Mahomet in the different circumstances of life. The
manner of life of the Prophet (sunna) was contained in the tradition (al-
ḥadith). The information required was at first naturally obtained by word of
mouth from the companions and helpers of Mahomet. These in turn
bequeathed their information to their younger companions, who quoted
traditions and gave decisions in their names.

For long these traditions circulated orally, the authority of each
depending on the person who first gave it and the reliability of the
chain (isnād) of men who had passed it on from him. At first this
tradition was regarded as explanatory of, or at the most supplementary
to, the teaching of the Koran. Early Moslem teachers pointed to the
Jews as having two law-books—the Taurāt and the Mishna—while
Islam had only one—the Koran. But opinion changed, the value of
tradition as an independent revelation came to be more highly
esteemed until at last it was seriously discussed whether a tradition
might not abrogate a passage of the Koran with which it was at

variance. The writing of traditions was at first strongly discouraged,
and for more than a century the stories of the Prophet’s conduct passed
from mouth to mouth. Had all the narrators been pious men, this might
have been tolerable, but this was not the case. The Omayyad dynasty
was not a pious one. Men who were not religious but wished to appear
so invented traditions to justify their manner of life. The sectarians did
not hesitate to adopt the same means of spreading their own teaching.
Many Moslem writers testify to the fact that forged traditions were
circulated, and that religious opinion was confused thereby. The need
for some sort of authoritative collection seems to have been felt by the
one pious Omayyad caliph, Omar II. (717-720), who is said to have
ordered Ibn Shihāb uz-Zuhrī to make such a collection. Of this work, if
it was carried out, we know nothing further. It was, however, by a man
born during this reign that the first systematic collection of traditions
was made—the Muwatta‘ of Mālik ibn Anas (q.v.). Yet this work is not
a book of tradition in the religious sense, it is really a corpus juris and
not a complete one. The object of Mālik was simply to record every
tradition that had been used to give effect to a legal decision. The work
of sifting the vast mass of traditions and arranging them according to
their relation to the different parts of religious life and practice was first
undertaken in the 3rd century of Islam (a.d. 815-912). In this century
all the six collections afterwards regarded as canonical by the Sunnites
(orthodox) were made. By this time an immense number of traditions
was in circulation. Bukhārī in the course of sixteen years’ journeying
through Moslem lands collected 600,000, and of these included 7275
(or, allowing for repetitions, 4000) in his work. The six collections of
tradition received by the Sunnites as authoritative are: (i) The Kitāb ul-
jāmī‘ uṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī (q.v.) (810-870). This is the most respected
throughout the Moslem world and most carefully compiled (ed. L.
Krehl and T. W. Juynboll, Leiden, 1862—and frequently in the East;

also with many commentaries. French translation by O. Houdas and W.
Marcais, Paris, 1903 sqq.). (ii) The Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim (817-875) with an
introduction on the science of tradition (ed. Calcutta, 1849, &c.). (iii)
The Kitāb uṣ-Sunan of Abū Dā‘ūd (817-888) (ed. Cairo, 1863,
Lucknow, 1888, Delhi, 1890). (iv) The Jāmi‘ uṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ of Tirmidhī
(q.v.). (v) The Kitāb uṣ-Sunan of Nasā‘ ī (830-915) (ed. Cairo, 1894).
(vi) The Kitāb uṣ-Sunan of Ibn Māja (824-866) (ed. Delhi, 1865 and
1889). The last four are not held in the same repute as the first two.

3. Ijmā‘ is the universal consent which is held to justify practices or
beliefs, although they are not warranted by the Koran or tradition, and may
be inconsistent with the apparent teaching of one or both of these. These
beliefs and practices, which had often come from the pre-Islamic customs
of those who had become believers, seem to have escaped notice until the
Abbasid period. They were too deeply rooted in the lives of men to be
abolished. It became necessary either to find a tradition to abrogate the
earlier forbidding one, or to acknowledge that ijmā‘ is higher than the
tradition. The former expedient was resorted to by some later theologians
(e.g. Nawāwī) by a fiction that such a tradition existed though it was not
found now in writing. But in earlier times some (as Ibn Qutaiba) had
adopted the latter alternative, saying that the truth can be derived much
earlier from the ijmā‘ than from the tradition, because it is not open to the
same chances of corruption in its transmission as the latter. Tradition itself
was found to confirm this view, for the Prophet is related to have said, “My
people does not agree to an error.”

But ijmā‘ itself has been used in different senses: (i) The ijmā‘ of
Medina was used to indicate the authority coming from the practices of
the people of Medina (see below). (ii) The ijmā‘ of the whole
community of Moslems is that most commonly recognized. It was used
to support fealty to the Abbasid dynasty. By it the six books of tradition

mentioned above are recognized as authoritative, and it is the
justification of the conception of Mahomet as superhuman. (iii) Some
of the more thoughtful theologians recognize only the ijmā‘ of the
doctors or the teachers of Islam (the mujtahidūn), these being restricted
by the orthodox to the first few generations after Mahomet, while the
Shi‘ites allow the existence of such up to the present time.

4. The fourth basis of Islam is qiyās, i.e. analogy. It is that process by
which a belief or practice is justified on the ground of something similar but
not identical in the Koran, the tradition or ijmā‘. Originally it seems to have
been instituted as a check upon the use of private opinion (ra’y) in the
teaching of doctrine. The extent to which it may be used is a subject of
much discussion among theologians. Some would apply it only to a
“material similarity,” others to similarity of motive or cause as well.

Worship and Ritual.—The acts of worship required by Islam are five in
number: (i) the recital of the creed; (ii.) observance of the five daily
prayers; (iii) the fast in the month of Ramadhān; (iv) giving of the legal
alms; (v) the pilgrimage to Mecca.

i. The creed is belief—“la ilaha illa-llahu, Muḥammad rasūl allahi,”
“there is no god but God (Allah), Mahomet is the apostle of God.” It is
required that this shall be recited at least once in a
Creed. lifetime aloud, correctly, with full understanding of
its meaning and with heartfelt belief in its truth. It is
to be professed without hesitation at any time until death.

ii. Every man who professes Islam is required in ordinary life to pray
five times in each day. In the Koran these prayers are commanded,
though four only are mentioned. “Wherefore glorify God, when the
evening overtaketh you, and when ye rise in the
Prayer. morning, and unto Him be praise in Heaven and

earth; and in the evening and when ye rest at noon” (xxx. 16-17), but
commentators say the “evening” includes the sunset and after sunset.
The five times therefore are: (1) Dawn or just before sunrise, (2) just
after noon, (3) before sunset, (4) just after sunset, and (5) just after the
day has closed. Tradition decides within what limits the recitals may be
delayed without impairing their validity. Prayer is preceded by the
lesser ablution (waḍū) consisting in the washing of face, hands (to the
elbows) and feet in prescribed manner. Complete washing of the body
(ghusl) is required only after legal pollution. In prayer the worshipper
faces the qibla (direction of prayer), which was at first Jerusalem, but
was changed by the Prophet to Mecca. In a mosque the qibla is
indicated by a niche (miḥrab) in one of the walls. The prayers consist
of prescribed ejaculations, petitions, and the recital of parts of the
Koran, always including the first sura, accompanied by prostrations of
the body. Detailed physical positions are prescribed for each part of the
worship; these vary slightly in the four orthodox schools (see below).
On a journey, in time of war or in other special circumstances, the set
form of prayers may be modified in accordance with appointed rules.
Besides these private prayers, there is the prayer of the assembly,
which is observed on a Friday (yaum ul-jam‘a, “the day of assembly”)
in a mosque, and is usually accompanied by an address or declamation
(khutba) delivered from a step of the pulpit (minbar). Special prayers
are also prescribed for certain occasions, as on the eclipse of the sun or
the moon, &c. Among the Sūfis special attention is given to informal
prayer, consisting chiefly in the continual repetition of the name of God
(dhikr) (see Sufi‘ism). This is still a characteristic of some of the
dervish (q.v.) communities.

iii. The command to fast begins with the words, “O ye who believe!
There is prescribed for you the fast, as it was prescribed for those
before you.” The expression “those before you” has been taken to refer

to the Jews, who fasted on the day of atonement, but
Fasting. more probably refers to the long fast of thirty-six
days observed by the Eastern Christians. In the
passage of the Koran referred to (ii. 179-181) Moslems are required to
fast during the month of Ramadhān, “wherein the Koran was
revealed,” but if one is on a journey or sick he may fast “another
number of days,” and if he is able to fast and does not, “he may redeem
it by feeding a poor man,” but “if ye fast, it is better for you.” This fast
was probably instituted in the second year at Medina. At that time the
corrected lunar year was in use and Ramadhān, the ninth month, was
always in the winter. A few years later Mahomet decreed the use of the
uncorrected lunar year, which remains the standard of time for the
Moslem world, so that the month of fasting now occurs at all seasons
of the year in turn. The fast is severe, and means entire abstinence from
food and drink from sunrise to sunset each day of the month. The fast
is associated with the statement that in this month God sent down the
Koran from the seventh heaven to Gabriel in the lowest that it might be
revealed to the Prophet.

iv. Alms are of two kinds: (1) the legal and determined (zakāt), and
(2) voluntary (ṣadaqāt). The former were given in cattle, grain, fruit,
merchandise and money once a year after a year’s possession. For
cattle a somewhat elaborate scale is adopted. Of
Alms. grain and fruit a tenth is given if watered by rain, a
twentieth if the result of irrigation. Of the value of
merchandise and of money a fortieth is prescribed. In the early days of
Islam the alms were collected by officials and used for the building of
mosques and similar religious purposes. At the present time the
carrying of these prescriptions is left to the conscience of the believers,
who pay the alms to any needy fellow-Moslem. A good example of a

ṣadaqā is found in a gift to an unbeliever (see C. M. Doughty, Arabia
deserta, i. 446, ii. 278, Cambridge, 1888).

v. The fifth religious duty of the Moslem is the pilgrimage (hajj) to
Mecca, which should be performed once by every Moslem “if he is
able,” that is if he can provide or obtain the means to support himself
on pilgrimage and his family during his absence, and
Pilgrimage. if he is physically capable. The pilgrimage is made
at one time of the (Moslem) year, namely, from the
7th to the 10th of the month Dhu’l-Hijja. For the arrangements for the
journey from various countries to Mecca see Caravan. When the
pilgrim arrives within five or six miles of the holy city he puts off his
ordinary dress after ablution and prayer, and puts on the two seamless
wrappers which form the dress of the pilgrim (the ihrām), who goes
without head-covering or boots or shoes. He must not shave at all, or
trim the nails or anoint the head during the ceremonial period. The
chief parts of the ceremonial are the visit to the sacred mosque (masjīd
ul-ḥarām), the kissing of the black stone, the compassing of the Ka‘ba
(the Ṭawāf) seven times, three times running, four times slowly, the
visit to the Maqām Ibrahīm, the ascent of Mount Ṣafā and running from
it to Mount Marwa seven times, the run to Mount ‘Arafāt, hearing a
sermon, and going to Muzdalifa, where he stays the night, the throwing
of stones at the three pillars in Minā on the great feast day, and the
offering of sacrifice there (for the localities see Mecca). After the
accomplishment of these ceremonies the ordinary dress is resumed, the
pilgrimage is finished, but the pilgrim usually remains another three
days in Mecca, then visits Medina to pay his respects to the tomb of
Mahomet. Beside the hajj (great pilgrimage) Islam also recognizes the
merit of the ‘umra (or lesser pilgrimage), i.e. a religious visit to Mecca
at any time accompanied by most of the ceremonies of the hajj.

The ceremonies of the hajj have been described by several European
travellers who have witnessed them, such as J. L. Burckhardt in 1814,
Sir Richard Burton in 1853 (see bibliography to Mecca). A concise
account of them is given in T. P. Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism
(3rd ed., London, 1894). Details in vol. i. of Bukhārī’s traditions
(Houdas and Marcais’s French translation, i. 493-567).

The Development of Islam.—The battle of Siffīn (657) between ‘Ali and
Moawiya was the occasion of the first breach in the unity of Islam, and the
results remain to this day. The occasion was in the first case political, but
politics were at that time too intimately connected with religion to be
considered apart from it. After the battle (see Caliphate) ‘Alī was
practically compelled to submit his claims to arbitration, whereupon a
number of his supporters broke away from him, saying that there should
have been no appeal save to the Book of God. These men were for the most
part country Arabs, and, inspired by the free spirit of the desert, were
democratic, claiming that the caliph should be elected by the whole
community from any family (and not from the Koreish alone), and that the
caliph might be deposed for sin. A few extremists were republicans and
would do without a caliph altogether. The whole party was known as the
Kharijites (Khārijiyya or Khawārij). The Moslems who disagreed with them
were regarded by them as renegades and were to be put to death. They were
soon divided into extremists and moderates. The former put to death the
children of unbelievers and refused to hold intercourse in daily life with
unbelievers. The moderates, who came to be known as Ibadites (from their
leader ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Ibād), would allow the children of unbelievers to
grow up, and would then deal with them according to their choice. In
ordinary life they would mix with all men, but marriage with other
Moslems outside their own ranks was forbidden. These still remain in
Oman, parts of Algeria and East Africa.

Another party, consisting mainly of city Arabs infected with Persian ideas
as to the divinity of the ruler, clung to ‘Alī with inconvenient affection.
They regarded ‘Alī and his descendants as the only legitimate caliphs, and
came to be known as Shi‘ites (q.v.). They remain to-day the largest part of
Islam outside orthodoxy. During the Omayyad caliphate (661-750) there
were three centres of religious thought and influence; students and teachers
often passed from one to the other, thus making universal the teachings
which in their origin were due to local circumstances. These centres were
Damascus (the seat of the caliphate), Medina and the East (Irak, &c.). In
Damascus the court was worldly and indifferent to the interests of Islam.
The early Omayyads were distinguished for their striving after dominion
(mulk). Instead of attempting to propagate Islam, they tolerated other
religions and favoured Christians who were distinguished as poets (e.g.
Akhtal) or officials (John of Damascus), or men likely to be of use to them
in any way. The doctrines of Christianity began to influence even serious
Moslems and to affect their way of stating Moslem belief. John of
Damascus (d. before 767), the Greek theologian, and his pupil, Theodorus
Abucara (d. 826), have written controversial works on Islam, from which it
seems probable that disputations on subjects pertaining to religion were
held between Christians and Moslems. Two schools of heretical Moslem
sects arose under these influences—that of the Murjiites and that of the
Qadarites. The Murjiites (“postponers”) were so called because they
postponed the judgment of human actions until the Day of Judgment. In
politics they accepted the Omayyads as de facto rulers, since they were
Moslems, and left the judgment of their actions to God. As theologians they
taught that religion consists in belief (imān) in the unity of God and in his
apostle, and in that alone, consequently no one who held this faith would
perish eternally, though he had been a sinner. This was opposed to the
Khārijite doctrine that the unrepentant sinner would perish eternally, even
though he had professed Islam.

The Qadarites were concerned with the doctrine of predestination and
free-will. So long as Moslems were fighting the battles of Islam they
naturally paid most attention to those revelations which laid stress on the
absolute determination of a man’s destiny by God. They fought with great
bravery because they believed that God had foreordained their death or life
and they could not escape His will. In the quieter realm of town and court
life and in their disputations with Christians they were called upon to
reconcile this belief with the appeals made in the Koran to man’s own self-
determination to good, to courage, &c. Mahomet was not a systematic
theologian and had done nothing to help them. The Qadarites declared that
man had power over his own actions. But the teaching of predestination had
gained too great a hold on Moslems to be thus displaced. The teaching of
the Qadarites was held to be heresy, and one of its first professors, Ma‘bad
ul-Juhānī, was put to death in 699.3 During this period Medina was the
home of tradition. Those who had been in closest relation with the Prophet
dwelt there. The very people of the city derived a certain splendour and
authority from the fact that Mahomet had lived and was buried there. Free
thought in religion had little chance of arising, less of expressing itself, in
the holy city. But the Koran was diligently studied, traditions were collected
(and invented) though not yet written in books, and innovation (bid‘a) was
resolutely avoided. At the same time it really did contribute a new element
to religious practice, for the custom (ijmā‘, see above) of Medina gained a
certain authority even in Syria and the East.

In the East, on the other hand, there was more mental activity, and the
religious teachers who came from Medina had to be prepared to meet with
many questions. The wits of the Moslems were sharpened by daily contact
with Christians, Buddhists, Manichaeans and Zoroastrians. Ḥasan ul-Baṣrī
(q.v.), who has been claimed as one of the first mystics, also as one of the
first systematic theologians of Islam, was remarkable alike for his personal
piety and his orthodoxy. Yet it was among his pupils that the great

rationalist movement originated. Its founder was Wāṣil ibn ‘Atā, who
separated himself (whence his followers were called Motazilites, strictly
Mu‘tazilites, “Separatists”) from his teacher and founded a school which
became numerous and influential. The Mu‘tazilites objected to the attributes
of God being considered in any way as entities beside God; they explained
away the anthropomorphisms used in speaking of the deity; they regarded
the Koran as created and as a product of Mahomet writing under the divine
influence. Briefly, they asserted the supremacy of reason (‘aql) as distinct
from faith received by tradition (naql). They also called themselves “the
people of justice and unity” (Ahl ul-‘adl wat-tauḥīd). Such a faith as this
naturally found favour rather with the thinking classes than with the
uneducated multitude, and so went through many vicissitudes. At the time
of its appearance and until the reign of Ma‘mūn its adherents were
persecuted as heretics. After discussions among the theologians Ma‘mūn
took the decided step of proclaiming that the Koran was created, and that a
belief in this dogma was necessary. Other Mu‘tazilite doctrines were
proclaimed later. Mu‘tazilites were appointed to official posts, and an
inquisition (mīḥna) was appointed to enforce belief in their doctrines. This
movement was strongly opposed by the orthodox and especially by Aḥmad
ibn Hanbal (q.v.). By him the founding of theology on reason was rejected,
and he suffered persecution for his faith (see W. N. Patton, Aḥmed ibn
Hanbal and the Miḥna, Leiden, 1897). Mu‘tazilism retained its sway until
849, when the caliph Motawakkil again declared the Koran uncreate and
restored orthodoxy. It was during the early years of the Abbasid rule that the
four legal schools of Abū Hanīfa (d. 767), Mālik ibn Anas (d. 795), ash-
Shāfi‘ī (d. 819) and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) came into existence (see
Mahommedan Law). As the bases of religion and law were the same, so the
methods applied in the treatment of the one affected the other. Abū Hanīfa
depended little on tradition, but referred back to the Koran, making use of
individual opinion (ra‘y) as controlled by analogy (qīyās) with a written

ordinance. Mālik Ibn Anas supplemented the Koran and Sunna by
customary law founded largely on the custom (ijmā‘) of Medina, and by
what he conceived to be for the public good (istiṣlāh). Shafi‘ī recognized
tradition as equal to the Koran, and even as being able to supersede its
ordinances, while he also recognized the universal custom (ijmā‘) of the
Moslem world as divine and binding. His four bases of religion—Koran,
sunna, qiyās and ijmā‘—have been generally accepted in Islam (see above).
Ibn Hanbal’s position has been already mentioned. All these four schools
are reckoned orthodox, and all orthodox Moslems belong to one or another
of them. Another teacher of this time, who founded a school which did not
succeed in being recognized as orthodox, was Dā‘ūd uz-Ẓāhirī. Trained as a
Shafi‘ite, he became too strict for this school, rejected analogy, restricted
ijmā‘ to the agreement or custom of the companions of Mahomet, and
accepted the whole of the Koran and tradition in the most literal and
external sense. His followers were called Ẓāhirites (i.e. externalists). After
Ash‘arī’s time these principles were applied to theology by Ibn Hazm (q.v.)
see I. Goldziher, Die Zahiriten, ihr Lehrsystem und ihre Geschichte
(Leipzig, 1884).

Before turning to the reform of Ash‘arī and the introduction into
orthodox theology of scholastic philosophy it is necessary to notice another
phase of religious life which became the common property of orthodox and
heretics. This was the introduction of asceticism in religions practice and of
mysticism in religious thought. Sufi‘ism (q.v.), which combined these two,
is rightly not counted among the sects of Islam. Asceticism seems to have
won a certain amount of approval from Mahomet himself, who much
respected the Christian monks. The attention paid in early Islam to the joys
and punishments of the future life led to self-denial and simple living in this
world. An Arabian writer, speaking of the simplicity of manners of the first
four caliphs, says that their affairs were conducted with more consideration
of the future life than of this world. Many Moslems went even farther than

these caliphs, and gave up all concern as far as possible with the affairs of
this world and lived in poverty, in wanderings or in retirement (see
Dervish). For the historical development of this movement, with its
accompanying mysticism, see Sufi‘ism. Ash‘arī (d. before 942) was for
forty years a Mu‘tazilite, then became orthodox (see Ash‘arī), and at once
applied rational methods for the support and interpretation of the orthodox
faith. Before him, reason had not been allowed any scope in orthodox
theology. He was not the first to use it; some teachers (as al-Junaid) had
employed it in teaching, but only in secret and for the few. The methods of
scholastic philosophy were now introduced into Moslem theology. The
chief characteristic of his religious teaching was the adoption of the via
media between materialistic grossness and the ideas of pure speculative
philosophy. Thus he taught, as to the attributes of God, that they exist, but
are not to be compared with human attributes; as to His visibility, that He
can be seen but without the limitations of human sight. As to the great
question of free will, he denied man’s power but asserted his responsibility.
So he passed in review the doctrines of God, faith, the Koran, sin,
intercession, &c., and for the first time in the history of Islam produced a
systematic theology. The teaching of Ash‘arī was taken up and propagated
by the Buyids soon after his death, and was developed and perfected by
Abū Bekr ul-Bāqilānī, the Cadi (d. 1012), but up to the middle of the 5th
century of Islam (c. a.d. 1058) was suspected elsewhere and confounded
with Mu‘tazilism. The Ash‘arīte al-Juwainī (known as Imām ul-Haramain)
was persecuted under Toghrul Beg (c. 1053) and exiled, but was restored
under Alp Arslan by the vizier Niẓām ul-Mulk, who founded an Ash‘arite
college (the Niẓāmiyya). In the West, Ibn Hazm (q.v.) fiercely opposed the
system, but Ghazālī established its orthodoxy in the East, and it spread from
Persia to Syria and Egypt under the Ayyūbites and Mamelukes and thence
to the Almohades in Africa under Ibn Tumart (1130). It remains the
predominating influence to the present day, its only serious rival being the

theological system of al-Matāridī, a Hanifite (d. 945), whose creed as
represented in that of an-Nasafī is still used largely by the Turks. Since the
12th century no great theological movement has been made in Islam. The
quiet of religious life has twice been broken, once by Wahhābism (q.v.) in
Arabia, once by Bābism (q.v.) in Persia.

The Sects

According to an early tradition Mahomet said that Islam would be
divided into seventy-three parties (sects),4 of which seventy-two would
perish and one would be saved. The orthodox Arabian writers on heretical
sects of Islam feel compelled by this tradition to make up their number to
seventy-two, and, as different writers adopt different divisions or are
familiar with different parties, the names of sects amount to some hundreds.
Each writer, however, adopts certain main classes under which he attempts
to group the others. Abū Muṭī‘ Makhūl at the beginning of the 10th century
in his “Refutation” (MS. in Bodleian Library) has six such chief classes:
Ḥarūrites (i.e. Khārijites), Rāfiḍites (i.e. Shi‘ites), Qadarites, Jabarites,
Jahmites and Murjiites. Ibn Hazm (q.v.) adopts four classes: Mu‘tazilites
(Motazilites), Murjiites, Shi‘ites and Khārijites. Shahrastānī (q.v.)
complains of the want of system in earlier writers, and suggests as bases of
classification the position of parties with regard to the doctrines as to (1) the
divine attributes, (2) predestination and free-will (3) promises and threats,
faith and error, (4) revelation, reason, the imāmate. In one part of his
preface he gives as the chief parties the Qadarites, Ṣifātites, Khārijites and
Shi‘ites, proposing to divide these classes according to leaders who agreed
with the main doctrines of their class but differed in some points. In another
place he mentions four opposite pairs of sects: (1) the Qadarites with their
doctrine of free-will, and the Jabarites, who are necessitarians; (2) the
Ṣifātites, who maintain the eternal nature of the attributes of God, and the
Mu‘tazilites, who deny it; (3) the Murjiites, who postpone judgment of

actions until the Last Day, and the Wā‘idites, who condemn in this life; (4)
the Khārijites, who consider the caliphate a human institution, and the
Shi‘ites, who deify their ruler. In his detailed treatment of the sects
Shahrastānī arranged them under the headings: Mu‘tazilites, Jabarites,
Ṣifātites, Khārijites, Murjiites and Shi‘ites. About the same time as
Shahrastānī two other Arabian writers wrote on the sects—Ṭāhir ul-Isfarainī
(d. 1078), whose MS. is in the Berlin library, and ‘Abd ul-Qādir ul-Jīlānī
(1078-1166) in his Kitāb ul-Ghanīyya li-Tālibī Tarīq il-Haqqi (Cairo,
1871). Both adopt as main classes Rāfiḍites (or Shi‘ites), Qadarites (or
Mu‘tazilites), Khārijites, Murjiites, Najjārites, Dirārites, Jahmites,
Mushabbiha, to which Ṭāhir adds Bakrites, Karrāmites, and a class
including those sects which are not reckoned as Moslem though they have
sprung from Islam. Jīlānī adds to the eight the Kilābites.

The following list is not a complete list of names of sects but is founded
on that of Shahrastānī.5

Afṭaḥites.—Shi‘ites of the Imāmite class, who ascribe the imāmate to
‘Abdallah ul-Afṭaḥi, the son of Ṣādiq.

Ajārida.—Khārijites, followers of Ibn ‘Ajarrad, who agreed for the
most part with the Najadāt (below), considered grave sins as equivalent
to unbelief, but remained friendly with those who professed Islam but
did not fight for it. They rejected sura 7 as a fable. Shahrastānī
enumerates seven divisions of this sect.

Akhnasites.—A section of the Tha‘āliba not so strict in treatment of
those who fear to fight for Islam.

Ash‘arites.—Followers of Ash‘arī (q.v.) who are counted by
Shahrastānī among the Ṣifātites.

Aṭrāfites.—A division of the ‘Ajārida who agree with the Ḥamzites
except that they excuse the lower classes for inaction when they are
ignorant of the law.

Azraqites.—Khārijites who followed al-Azraq in the days of Ibn
Zubair. They held ‘Ali to be an unbeliever; those who did not fight
were unbelievers; the children of unbelievers were to be put to death
and went to hell. Sin is unbelief.

Bahshamites.—Mu‘tazilites akin to the Jubbā‘ites.

Baihasites.—Khārijites, followers of Abu Baihas ul-Haitham, who
was put to death by the caliph Walīd. They asserted the necessity of
knowledge for religion.

Bāqirites.—Shi‘ites who followed Abū Ja‘far ul-Bāqir, the fifth
imām, and looked for his return.

Bāṭinites.—Isma‘ilites, so called because they believe that every
external has an internal (bātin), and every passage in the Koran has an
allegoric meaning.

Bishrites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Bishr ibn Mu‘tamir, one of the
most learned men of his party. His teaching was philosophical and was
distinguished by his doctrine of “origination” (tawallud).

Bunānites.—Kaisānites, followers of Bunān ibn Sim‘ān un-Nahdī,
who claimed that the imāmate passed from Abū Hāshim to himself and
that he had also acquired the divine element of ‘Alī.

Butrites.—Zaidites, followers of Kathīr un-Nawā ul-Abtar, who
agreed with the Suleimanites (Sulaimānites) except that he suspended
judgment as to whether Othmān was a believer or not.

Ḍirārites.—Jabarites who empty God of his attributes, and assert
that man has a sixth sense by which he will see God on the day of
resurrection. The actions of man are “created” and acquired by him. A
caliph need not be chosen from the Koreish.

Ghāliites (Ghulā) are the extreme Shi‘ites (q.v.) in ascribing deity to
the imāms. Their heresies are said to be four in number: (1) Making
God resemble man, (2) ascribing change of mind to God, (3) looking
for the return of the imām, (4) metempsychosis. They are divided by
Shahrastānī into ten classes.

Ghassānites.—Murjiites, followers of Ghassān ibn ul-Kufī, who say
that faith consists of knowledge of God, his apostle, and the Koran in
general not in detail, and that faith increases but is not diminished.

Ḥabities = Ḥāyitites (below).

Ḥadathites (Ḥudabites) are Mu‘tazilites, followers of Faḍl ibn ul-
Ḥadathī, who agreed with the Ḥāyitites (below).

Ḥafṣites.—Ibāḍites, followers of Ḥafṣ ibn abī-l-Miqdām, who
distinguished between idolatry (shirk) and unbelief (kufr).

Ḥamzites.—‘Ajārida, followers of Hamza ibn Adrak in Sijistān.
They agree with the Maimūnites, but condemn the children of
unbelievers to hell.

Ḥārithites.—Ibāḍites who differ from others in holding the
Mu‘tazilite doctrine of free-will.

Ḥarūrites.—A name given to the first Khārijites, who rebelled
against ‘Āli, and met in Ḥarūra near Kufa.

Hāshimites.—Shi‘ites who supported Abū Hāshim, son of
Mahommed ibn ul-Ḥanafiyya, although they held that his father had

gone astray.

Hāshwiites.—A party who asserted the eternity even of the letters of
the Koran. They are not mentioned as a separate sect by Shahrastānī;
cf. van Vloten, “Les Hachwia et Nabita,” in the Acts of the 11th
Oriental Congress (Paris, 1899), pt. iii., pp. 99 sqq.

Ḥāyiṭites.—Mu‘tazilites who agreed with the Naẓẓāmites, but added
three heresies of their own: (1) the divinity of the Messiah, (2)
metempsychosis, (3) the interpretation of all references to the vision of
God as referring to the “first Reason” or “creative Reason.”

Hishāmites.—A name given to two sects: (1) Mu‘tazilites, strong in
their assertion of man’s free-will, even opposing the statement of the
Koran. (2) Shi‘ites of the extreme kind, who attributed to God a body
with quantities (measurements) and qualities.

Ḥudabites.—See Ḥadathites.

Hudhailites (Hodhailites).—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Abū-l Hudhail
Ḥamdān, who was a leading teacher of his party and developed the
philosophical side of its teaching. Ten of his main doctrines are given
by Shahrastānī.

Ibaḍites.—Khārijites of moderate tendencies (see above).

Ilbāites.—Ghāliites who put ‘Alī above Mahomet and blamed the
latter because he called men to himself instead of to ‘Alī.

Imāmites.—One of the chief divisions of the Shi‘ites (q.v.).

Isḥāqites.—Ghāliites agreeing with the Nuṣairites except that they
incline to speak of the imams’ participation in the prophetic office
rather than of their divinity.

Isma‘īlites.—This name is applied to all who consider Isma‘īl ibn
Ja‘far the last imām, some believing that he did not die but will return,
others, that at his death his son Mahommed became imām (see
Assassins); it is also used as equivalent to the Bāṭinites.

Ithna‘asharites.—Imāmites who accept the twelve imāms (see
Shi‘ites).

Jabarites.—Those who deny all actions and power to act to man and
ascribe all to God (see above).

Ja‘farites.—Imāmites who carry the imāmate no farther than Ja‘far
uṣ-Ṣadīq.

Jāhizites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of the celebrated writer Jāhiẓ
(q.v.), who indulged in philosophical speculations, believed in the
eternity of matter, and was regarded as a naturalist (ṭaba‘ī) rather than a
theist (allahī).

Jahmites.—Jabarites, followers of Jahm ibn Ṣafwān, who was put to
death at Merv toward the close of the Omayyad period. He was
extreme in his denial of the attributes of God.

Jārūdites.—Zaidites who held that Mahomet designated ‘Alī as
imām, not by name but by his attributes, and that the Moslem sinned by
not taking sufficient trouble to recognize these attributes.

Jubbā‘ites.—Mu‘tazilites who followed the philosophical teaching
of Abu ‘Alī Mahommed ul-Jubbā‘i of Basra.

Kaisānites.—A main class of the Shi‘ites (q.v.).

Kāmilites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū Kāmil, who condemned the
companions (Anṣār) because they did not do allegiance to ‘Alī, and
‘Alī because he surrendered his claims.

Karrāmites.—Ṣifātites, followers of Ibn Karrām, who went so far as
to ascribe a body to God, and assimilated his nature to human nature.

Kayyālites.—Ghāliites, followers of Ahmad ibn Kayyāl, who, after
supporting a propaganda for an Aliite, claimed to be the imām himself
on the ground of his power over the spheres.

Khalafites.—‘Ajārida of Kermān and Multān, who believed that God
wills good and evil, but condemned the children of unbelievers to hell.

Khārijites.—One of the earliest sects of Islam (see above).

Khārimites.—‘Ajārida, agreeing mostly with the Shu‘aibites and
teaching that the relation of God to a man depends on what he
professes at the end of his life.

Khaṭṭābites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū-l Khaṭṭāb, who was put to
death by Ibn Mūsā at Kufa. He was a violent supporter of Ja‘far uṣ-
Ṣādiq, who however disowned him.

Khayyātites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Abū-l Ḥosain ul-Khayyāt, a
teacher in Bagdad, part of whose philosophical teaching was that the
non-existent is a thing.

Ma‘badites.—Tha‘labites who differed from the Akhnasites on the
question of the marriage of believing women and from Tha‘lab on the
question of taking alms from slaves.

Maimūnites.—‘Ajārida, followers of Maimūn ibn Khālid, who
believed that God wills good only and that man determines his actions.

Majhūlites.—Tha‘labites, agreeing generally with the Khārimites,
but teaching that he who knows some names and attributes of God and
is ignorant of some knows God.

Ma‘lūmites.—Tha‘labites agreeing generally with the Khārimites but
alleging that a believer must know all the names and attributes of God.

Manṣūrites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū Manṣūr ul-‘Ijlī, who at
first supported al-Bāqir, but, rejected by him, claimed the imāmate for
himself. He was crucified by the caliph Hishām ibn ‘Abd ul-Mālik
(Abdalmalik).

Mu‘ammarites.6—Mu‘tazilites who strongly denied the
predestination of God, and affirmed that God created bodies only, and
that the accidents spring naturally from them.

Mufaḍḍalites.6—The same as the Mūsāites (q.v.).

Mughīrites.6—Ghāliites, followers of Mughīra ibn Sa‘īd ul-‘Ijlī, who
claimed the imāmate and prophetic office and held extremely gross
views of God.

Muhakkima6 (the first).—Another name for the Ḥarūrites (above).

Mukarramites.6—Tha‘labites who taught that sin consists in
ignorance of God.

Mukhtārites.6—Kaisānites, followers of al-Mukhtār ibn ‘Ubaid, who
held to Mahommed ibn ul-Ḥanafīyya but was disowned by him. He
allowed the possibility of change of mind on the part of God.

Murjiites.—Those who postponed judgment of actions until the Day
of Judgment. See above.

Mūṣāites.—Imāmites who held to the imāmate of Mūsā ibn Ja‘far,
who was imprisoned by Harun al-Rashid and poisoned.

Mushabbiha.6—Ṣifātites who compared God’s actions with human
actions. They said that the Koran was eternal with all its letters, accents

and written signs.

Mu‘tazilites.6—The rationalists of Islam. See above, cf. also H.
Steiner, Die Mu‘taziliten oder die Freidenker im Islām (Leipzig, 1865).

Muzdārites.6—Mu‘tazilites, followers of al-Muzdār, a pupil of Bishr
(cf. Bishrites) whose teaching he developed further. He taught that God
has power to do evil, but, if he acted thus, would be an evil God; also
that man can produce the equal of the Koran.

Najadat (also known as ‘Adhirites).—Kharijites, who followed
Najda ibn ‘Āmir of Yemāma as he went to join the Azraqites but
withdrew from these, being more orthodox than they. He held that fear
of fighting was not sin.

Nāwisites take their name from a person or a place. They are
Ja‘farites who believe in Ṣādiq as the mahdi.

Nazzāmites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Ibrahīm ibn Sayyār un-
Nazzām, who was an extremist in his teaching of man’s free-will and
other philosophical doctrines.

Nu‘mānites.6—Ghāliites agreeing in some points with Hishāmites,
but holding that God is a light in the form of a man, yet not a body.

Nuṣairites.6—Ghāliites who agree with the Isḥāqites except that they
lay more stress on the incorporation of the deity.

Qadarites.—The upholders of free-will (see above).

Qata‘ites.—Mūsāites who regard the rank of the imāms as closed
with the death of Mūsā.

Rāfiḍites.—A term used by some writers to denote the Shi‘ites as a
whole; by others given to a class of the Shi‘ites who forsook Zaid ibn

‘Alī because he forbade them to abuse the Companions.

Rashīdites.—Tha‘labites, followers of Rashīd ut-Tūsi, sometimes
called ‘Ushrites (“tithers”) because they differed from others on the
question of tithing the produce of land watered by rivers and canals.

Rizāmites.—Kaisānites of Khorasān at the time of Abū Muslim, to
whom they ascribed the imāmate and the Spirit of God. They also
believed in metempsychosis.

Saba‘ites.—Ghāliites, who followed ‘Abdallah ibn Sabā (see
Shi‘ites).

Ṣāliḥites.—(a) Zaidites, followers of al-Hasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, who agreed
with the teachings of the Butrites (above); (b) Murjiites, followers of
Ṣāliḥ ibn Amr, who united with the doctrines of their own party those
of the Qadarites.

Ṣaltites.—‘Ajārida who had nothing to do with the children of
believers until they had grown up and professed Islam.

Shaibānites.—Tha‘labites, followers of Shaibān ibn Salama, who
was killed in the time of Abū Muslim (Moslem). They arose chiefly in
Jorjān and Armenia and agreed in doctrine with the Jahmites.

Shamīṭites.—Ja‘farites, followers of Yaḥyā ibn Abū Shamīṭ.

Shi‘ites.—See separate article.

Shu‘aibites.—‘Ajārida who said that God creates the actions of men,
and men appropriate them.

Ṣifātites are those who ascribe eternity to all the attributes of God,
whether they denote essence or action, or are of the class called
descriptive attributes.

Ṣifrites, the same as Ziyādites (below).

Sulaimānites (Suleimanites).—Zaidites, followers of Suleimān ibn
Jarīr, who held that the appointment to the imāmate was a matter of
consultation and that the imāmates of Abū Bekr and Omar were legal
although ‘Alī had a better claim.

Tha‘labites.—A party of the Khārijites, followers of Tha‘lab ibn
Amir, who agreed with the ‘Ajārida except that he was friendly with
children until they actually denied the faith. He also took alms from
slaves when they were rich, and gave alms to poor slaves.

Thaubānites.—Murjiites who said that faith consists in the
knowledge and confession of God and His apostle, and what the
intellect is not capable of doing. What the intellect can do (or leave) is
not of faith.

Thumāmites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Thumāma ibn Ashras in the
days of Mamūn, who taught that all non-Moslems would become dust
on the day of resurrection.

Tūmanites.—Murjiites who taught that faith depends on obedience
rather to the principles than to the commands of Islam.

‘Ubaidites.—Murjiites who believed that anything but idolatry
might be forgiven, and that if a man died professing the unity of God
his sins would not hurt him.

Wa‘īdites.—Those who, opposed to the Murjiites, pronounced
judgment in this life; they are not counted as a separate sect by
Shahrastānī (see above).

Wāṣilites.—A name given to those who followed Wāṣil ibn ‘Atā, the
founder of Mu‘tazilitism, who denied the attributes of God, asserted

the power of man over his own actions, taught the existence of a
middle place between heaven and hell, and despised the parties of
Othman and ‘Alī alike.

Yazīdites.—Ibāḍites who said that they followed the religion of the
Sabians in the Koran, and believed that God would send an apostle
from the Persians.

Yūnusites.—Murjiites who taught that faith consists in knowledge of
God, subjection to Him, abandonment of pride before Him, and love in
the heart. Obedience apart from knowledge is not of faith.

Zaidites.—The moderate Shi‘ites (see Shi‘ites).

Ziyādites.—Khārijites, followers of Ziyād ibn ul-Aṣfar, who did not
regard those who abstained from fighting for Islam as unbelievers, and
did not kill the children of idolaters or condemn them to hell.

Authorities.—For the philosophy and theology of Ash‘arī see M. A.
F. Mehren, Exposé de la réforme de l’Islamisme par Abou-‘l Hasan Ali
el-Ash‘arī (Leiden, 1878); W. Spitta, Zur Geschichte Abu-l Hasan al-
Ash‘arīs (Leipzig, 1876); M. Schreiner, Zur Geschichte des
Ash‘aritenthums (Leiden, 1891); D. B. Macdonald, Development of
Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (London,
1903). The last work contains translations of the creeds of Ash‘arī and
Nasafī (Matāridite). A further bibliography of works on the faith and
outlook of Islam will be found in D. B. Macdonald’s Muslim Theology.

The text of the Koran has been edited by G. Flügel, Leipzig, various
dates; and by G. M. Redslob, Paris, 1868 and 1880. There are also
hundreds of Eastern editions. Concordances have been published by G.
Flügel, Leipzig, 1842 (several times reprinted), also in Egypt, Palestine
and India. A dictionary and glossary were published by J. Penrice,

London, 1873. English translations have been made by G. Sale,
London, 1734 (the fullest edition is that with notes by E. M. Wherry, 4
vols., London, 1882-1886); by J. M. Rodwell with notes, London, 1861
and 1876; and by E. H. Palmer in vols, vi. and ix. of the “Sacred Books
of the East,” Oxford, 1880-1882. Among the best or best-known Arabic
commentaries are those of Ṭabarī (q.v.), Zamakhsharī (q.v.), Baidhawī
(q.v.), the Jalalain (see Suyuti), and such later ones as the Mafātiḥ ul-
Ghaib of ar-Rāzī (d. 1210). The composition and theology of the Koran
are treated in the works of Nöldeke and Grimme referred to above.

On the eschatology of Islam see M. Wolff, Muhammedanische
Eschatologie (Leipzig, 1872); and on the doctrine of revelation. Otto
Pautz, Muhammeds Lehre von der Offenbarung (Leipzig, 1898).

( )

1 See also Koran.

2 Underlined = with interpolations.

3 For the doctrines of these two sects see Shahrastānī’s Book of Sects, and for the Qadarites,
A. de Vlieger’s Kitāb ul-Qadr, matériaux pour servir à l’étude de la doctrine de la
prédestination dans la théologie musulmane (Leiden, 1903).

4 For the origin and significance of this number see M. Steinschneider, “Die kanonische
Zahl der muhammedanischen Secten und die Symbolik der Zahl, 70-73,” in Zeitschr. d.
deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, iv., 145-170 (1850); and I. Goldziher, “Le Denombrement des
sectes mohamétanes” in Revue de l’hist. des religions, xxvi. 129-137 (1892).

5 The names are given throughout in the anglicized form on the analogy of Shi‘ites, which
is recognized in common usage. The strict termination according to the scheme of
transliteration adopted in this work is iyya, or iya, e.g. Hishāmiyya for Hishāmites. For
information regarding the important sects see separate articles and the preceding portion of this
article.

6 All these names are alternatively spelt Mo- instead of Mu-.

MAHONY, FRANCIS SYLVESTER (1804-1866), known as
“Father Prout,” Irish priest and author, son of a woollen manufacturer, was
born in Cork in 1804. His classical education was chiefly obtained at a Jesuit
college at Amiens, and after studying in Paris he entered the Jesuit college at
Rome and was admitted into the Society of Jesus. He served in Switzerland
and at Clongoweswood, Ireland, where he was prefect of studies and
subsequently master of rhetoric. Here he was involved in scandals that led to
his resignation. On going to Italy he was told at Florence that he was expelled
from the Society. He succeeded, however, in obtaining priest’s orders at Rome
in 1832, and returned to Ireland, but subsequently went to London, officiating

for some time in the chapel of the Bavarian Legation. While there he fell in
with William Maginn, and about 1834 began to contribute his celebrated
“Prout Papers” to Fraser’s Magazine. These consist of episodes in the life of
the parish priest “Father Prout,” and dialogues after the model of “Christopher
North,” varied by translations of well-known English songs into Latin, Greek,
French and Italian verse, which he humorously represents as being the true
originals from which the English authors had merely plagiarized them.
Mahony’s translations have been universally admired for the extraordinary
command which they display of the various languages into which his
renderings are made, and for their spirit and freedom both of thought and
expression. His original verse tends chiefly to show that with all his sarcastic
and cynical wit his genius had also its tender, serious and sentimental side. His
“Bells of Shandon” has always been greatly admired. In 1846 Mahony became
correspondent at Rome to the Daily News, and his letters from that capital gave
very vivid pictures of the first years of the reign of Pius IX. The last twelve or
fifteen years of his life were spent in Paris, whence he supplied the Globe with
a series of piquant letters on the incidents of the day. He died in Paris on the
18th of May 1866.

The Reliques of Father Prout were collected from Fraser’s Magazine
and published in two volumes in 1836; The Final Reliques of Father
Prout, chiefly extracted from the Daily News and the Globe, were edited
by Blanchard Jerrold in 1876, and an edition of his works, edited by
Charles Kent, was published in 1881.

MAHOUT (Hind. mahāwat), an elephant-driver. The mahout sits on the
elephant’s neck and directs him by voice and by the use of a goad called ankus.

MAHRATTAS, a people of India, inhabiting the district known by the
ancient name of Maharashtra (Sans. “great kingdom or region”). This large
tract, extending from the Arabian Sea on the west to the Sātpura mountains in
the north, comprises a good part of western and central India, including the
modern provinces of the Konkan, Khandesh, Berar, the British Deccan, part of
Nagpur, and about half the nizam’s Deccan.

The etymology of the word Mahratta (Marāthā) is uncertain. The name does
not indicate a social caste, or a religious sect; it is not even tribal. Strictly, it is
confined to the upper class from whom Sivaji’s generals were mostly drawn,
and who sometimes claim a Rajput origin. In a wider sense it may be extended
to include all who inhabit Maharashtra and speak Mahratti as their mother-
tongue. In 1901 the total number of speakers of Mahratti in all India exceeded
18 millions.

The Mahrattas have always been a separate nation or people, and still regard
themselves as such, though nowadays they are almost all under British or
Mahommedan jurisdiction; that is, they belong either to British India or to the
nizam’s dominions. There are indeed still three large native states nominally
Mahratta: that of Sindhia near the borders of Hindustan in the north, that of
Holkar in Malwa in the heart of the Indian continent, and that of the gaekwar
in Gujarat on the western coast. But in these states the prince, his relatives and
some of his ministers or officials only are Mahrattas; the mass of the people

belong to other sections of the Hindu race. These states then are not to be
included in the Mahratta nation, though they have a share in Mahratta history.

In general terms the Mahrattas, in the wider sense, may be described
under two main heads: first the Brahmans, and secondly the low-caste
men. The Mahratta Brahmans possess, in an intense degree, the qualities
of that famous caste, physical, intellectual and moral. They have generally
the lofty brow, the regular features, the spare upright figure, and the calm
aspect which might be expected in a race maintained in great purity yet
upon a broad basis. In modern times they have proved themselves the
most able and ambitious of all the Brahmans in the Indian Empire. They
are notably divided into two sections: the Konkanast, coming from the
Konkan or littoral tract on the west coast below the Western Ghāt
mountains; and the Deshast, coming from the uplands or Deccan, on the
east of the mountains. Though there have been many distinguished
Deshasts, yet the most remarkable of all have been Konkanasts. For
instance, the pēshwas, or heads of the Mahratta confederation which at
one time dominated nearly all India, were Konkanast Brahmans. The
birthplaces of these persons are still known, and to this day there are
sequestered villages, nestling near the western base of the Ghāts, which
are pointed to as being the ancestral homes of men who two centuries ago
had political control over half India.

Apart from the Brahmans, the Mahrattas may be generally designated
as Sūdras, the humblest of the four great castes into which the Hindu race
is theoretically divided. But the upper classes claim to be Kshattriyas or
Rajputs. They probably are aborigines fundamentally, with a mixture of
what are now called the Scythian tribes, which at a very early time
overran India. The ordinary Mahrattas, who form the backbone of the
nation, have plain features, an uncouth manner, short stature, a small but
wiry frame. Though not powerful physically as compared with the
northern races of the Punjab and Oudh, they have much activity and an
unsurpassed endurance. Born and bred in or near the Western Ghāt

mountains and the numerous tributary ranges, they have all the qualities
of mountaineers. In recent times they enter military service less and less,
betaking themselves mainly to cultivation and to the carrying business
connected with agriculture. As husbandmen they are not remarkable; but
as graziers, as cartmen, as labourers, they are excellent. As artisans they
have seldom signalized themselves, save as armourers and clothweavers.

In the Konkan there are some superior proprietors termed Khots. With
this and perhaps some other exceptions, there are not in the Mahratta
country many large landlords, nor many of the superior tenure-holders
whose position relatively to that of the peasantry has caused much
discussion in other parts of India. There are indeed many Mahratta chiefs
still resident in the country, members of the aristocracy which formerly
enjoyed much wealth and power. They are sometimes in the position of
landlords, but often they are the assignees of the land revenue, which they
are entitled under special grants to collect for themselves instead of for
government, paying merely a small sum to Government by way of quit-
rent. Under them the cultivators are by British arrangements placed in the
position of peasant proprietors. The village community has always existed
as the social unit in the Mahratta territories, though with less cohesion
among its members than in the village communities of Hindustan and the
Punjab. The ancient offices pertaining to the village, as those of the
headmen (patel), the village accountant, &c., are in working order
throughout the Mahratta country.

The Mahratta peasantry possess manly fortitude under suffering and
misfortune. Though patient and good-tempered in the main, they have a
latent warmth of temper, and if oppressed beyond a certain limit they
would fiercely turn upon their tormentors. As a rule they are orderly and
law-abiding, but traditions of plunder have been handed down to them
from early times, and many of them retain the predatory instincts of their
forefathers. The neighbourhood of dense forests, steep hill-sides, and
fastnesses hard of access offers extraordinary facilities to plunderers for

screening themselves and their booty. Thus gang robbery is apt to break
out, gains head with rapidity, and is suppressed with difficulty. In times of
peace it is kept under, but during war, or whenever the bands of civil order
are loosened, it becomes a cause of anxiety and a source of danger. The
women have frankness and strength of character; they work hard in the
fields, and as a rule evince domestic virtue.

The peasantry preserve a grave and quiet demeanour, but they have
their humble ideas of gaiety, and hold their gatherings on occasions of
births or marriages. They frequently beguile their toil with carols. They
like the gossiping and bartering at the rural markets and in the larger fairs,
which are sometimes held in strikingly picturesque localities. They are
superstitious, and worship with hearty veneration any being or thing
whose destructive agency they fear. They even speak of the tiger with
honorific titles. They are Hindus, but their Hinduism is held to be of a
non-Aryan type. They are sincerely devout in religion, and feel an awe
regarding “the holy Brahmans,” holding the life and the person of a
Brahman sacred, even though he be a criminal of the deepest dye. They of
course regard the cow as equally sacred. There are two principal sects
among modern Hindus—those who follow Vishnu, and those who follow
Siva. The Mahrattas generally follow Siva and his wife, a dread goddess
known under many names. The Mahratta war-cry, “Har, Har, Mahadeo,”
referred to Siva. All classes high and low are fond of the religious
festivals, the principal of which, the Dasahra, occurs in October, when the
first harvest of the year has been secured and the second crops sown. This
has always been held with the utmost pomp and magnificence at every
centre of Mahratta wealth and power. The people frequently assemble in
bowers and arbours constructed of leafy boughs to hear kathas recited.
These recitations are partly religious, partly also romantic and quasi-
historical. After them national resolves of just resistance or of aggressive
ambition have often been formed.

Apart from the Mahratta Brahmans, as already mentioned, the Mahratta
nobles and princes are not generally fine-looking men. There is general
truth in what was once said by a high authority to the effect that, while
there will be something dignified in the humblest Rājpūt, there will be
something mean in the highest Mahratta. Bluff good-nature, a certain
jocoseness, a humour pungent and ready, though somewhat coarse, a hot
or even violent disposition, are characteristics of Mahratta chieftains.
They usually show little aptitude for business or for sedentary pursuits;
but, on the other hand, they are born equestrians and sportsmen. Mahratta
ladies and princesses have often taken a prominent part, for good or evil,
in public affairs and dynastic intrigues.

Though they have produced some poetry, the Mahrattas have never
done much for literature. Nor have they been distinguished in industrial
art. Their architecture in wood, however, was excellent; and the teak
forests of their country afforded the finest timber for building and for
carving. They had also much skill in the construction of works for the
supply of drinking water on a large scale and for irrigation.

The range of the Western Ghāts enabled the Mahrattas to rise against their
Mahommedan conquerors, to reassert their Hindu nationality against the whole
power of the Mogul Empire, and to establish in its place an empire of their
own. It is often stated that in India British conquest or annexation succeeded
Mahommedan rule; and to a considerable extent this was the case. But, on the
other hand, the principal power, the widest sovereignty, which the British
overthrew in India was that of the Mahrattas.

During the earlier Moslem invasions in 1100 and in subsequent years, the
Mahrattas do not seem to have made much resistance. They submitted to
several Mahommedan kings under the changing circumstances of those times.
It was against the Mahommedan king of Bijapur in the Deccan that Sivaji, the
hero of Mahratta history, first rebelled in 1657. Sivaji and his fighting officers
were Mahrattas of humble caste, but his ministers were Brahmans. When the

Mogul Empire absorbed the Bijapur kingdom he defied the emperor. He
imparted a self-reliant enthusiasm to his countrymen, formed them into an
army, and organized them as a political community; his mountaineer infantry,
though limited in numbers, proved desperately courageous; his cavalry was
daring and ubiquitous. The Moslems, having once overcome the Hindus in
almost all parts of India, had not for centuries met with any noteworthy
uprising. Sivaji, however, planned their expulsion, and before the end of his
restless life made much progress in the execution of that design. The new state
which he founded was maintained under various vicissitudes after his death.
Mahratta resistance, once aroused by him, was never extinguished, and the
imperial resources were worn out by ceaseless though vain efforts to quell it.
The great Mogul emperor’s impoverished and enfeebled successor was fain to
recognize the Mahratta state by a formal instrument. The Mahratta king, a
descendant of Sivaji, had become a roi fainéant, and the arrangement was
negotiated by his Brahman minister, whose official designation was the
pēshwa. The office of pēshwa then became hereditary in the minister’s family,
and grew in importance as the Mahratta kingdom rose, while the king sunk into
the condition of a puppet. Thus the Mahratta power was consolidated
throughout nearly the whole of Maharashtra under the Brahman pēshwa as
virtual sovereign, with his capital at Poona, while the titular Mahratta raja or
king had his court at the neighbouring city of Satara. Despite his political
importance, however, the raja was still venerated as the descendant of Sivaji.

Then several chiefs carved out principalities of their own from among the
ruins of the Mogul Empire. Thus Raghoji Bhonsla established himself in the
tracts lying underneath the southern base of the Satpura range (namely, Nagpur
and Berar), overran Orissa and entered Bengal. Damaji Gaekwar descended
from the Western Ghāts upon the alluvial plains of Gujarat around Baroda;
Tukoji Holkar subdued the uplands of Malwa beyond the Vindhya range on the
north bank of the Nerbudda; and Mahadji Sindhia obtained possession of large
tracts immediately south of Agra and Delhi, marched into Hindustan and
became virtually the master of the Mogul emperor himself (see Gwalior).

Sivaji’s own father had founded a dominion at Tanjore in the extreme south,
which, however, never had relations with the central power at Poona. The same
may be said of the state of Kolhapur, allotted to a younger branch of Sivaji’s
family.

But these principalities, though independent respecting internal
administration, and making war or peace with their neighbours according to
opportunity, owned allegiance to the pēshwa at Poona as the head of the
Mahratta race. On state occasions heads of principalities would visit Poona by
way of acknowledging the superior position of the pēshwa. On the other hand,
the pēshwa was careful to obtain the sanction of his nominal sovereign at
Satara to every important act of state. Thus a confederation was formed of
which the Brahman pēshwa or head was at Poona, governing the adjacent
territories, while the members, belonging to the lower castes, were scattered
throughout the continent of India. Such was the Mahratta Empire which
supplanted the Mogul Empire. The Mahratta power grew and prospered till it
embraced all western and most of central India. Its culminating point was
reached about 1750, or about a century after Sivaji first rebelled against his
Mahommedan sovereign.

Its armies drew soldiers from all parts of India. The infantry was not of good
quality; but its cavalry was really an enormous force, numbering fully a
hundred thousand in all. The horsemen were splendidly audacious in riding for
long distances into the heart of a hostile country, without support, striking
some terrific blows, and then returning rapidly beyond reach of pursuit. They
could truly boast of having watered their horses in every Indian river from the
Cauvery to the Indus. If attacked, however, in a competent manner, they would
not stand; and afterwards, in conflict with the British, whole masses of them
behaved in a dastardly manner. As their ambition grew the chiefs began to
organize their troops after the system learnt from the English and French. In
this way several Frenchmen—Benoit de Boigne, Perron and others—rose in
the Mahratta service to a position dangerous to the British. But the new system
was unsuited to the Mahratta genius; it hampered the meteoric movements of

the cavalry, which was obliged to manœuvre in combination with the new
artillery and the disciplined battalions. Mahratta elders hence uttered
predictions of military disaster which were in the end more than fulfilled.

The rapid and amazing success of the Mahratta confederation rendered it the
largest Hindu power that ever existed in India. But it lacked the elements of
true greatness. It was founded by plundering expeditions, and its subsequent
existence was tainted by the baseness of this predatory origin. With the
exception of the pēshwas, its chiefs were little more than free-booting warriors,
for the most part rude, violent and unlettered. Their custom was to offer their
neighbours or victims the alternative of paying chouth, that is, one-fourth of
the revenue, or being plundered and ravaged. Thus the Mahratta chouth came
to have an ominous significance in Indian history. Desultory efforts were made
to establish a civil government, but in the main there was no administration
formed on statesmanlike principles. The pēshwas, on the other hand, as
Brahmans, were men of the highest education then possible in India. But they
were absorbed by the direction of military and political combinations, and by
intrigues for the preservation of their own power; and, even allowing for all
this, they failed to evince the civil capacity which might have been anticipated.
While several displayed commanding abilities, and some possessed many
virtues, one alone attempted to conduct an administration in an enlightened
manner, and he died prematurely.

There were at the same time powers existing in India to keep the Mahrattas
in check, and some parts of India were excepted from their depredations. The
English power was rising at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The nascent Sikh
power prevented Mahratta incursions from being permanently successful in the
Punjab. As the Mogul Empire broke up, some separate Mahommedan powers
rose upon its ruins. The nizam of the Deccan established himself at Hyderabad,
comparatively near the headquarters of the pēshwa. Hyder Ali was proclaimed
sultan of Mysore in the south. Ahmed Shah Abdali burst upon India from
Afghanistan. The Mahrattas bravely encountered him at Panipat near Delhi in
1761, and were decisively defeated. The defeat, however, did not essentially

shake the Mahratta confederation. It was collision with the English that broke
that wonderful fabric to pieces.

The first collision with the English occurred in 1775, arising from a disputed
succession to the pēshwaship. The English government at Bombay supported
one of the claimants, and the affair became critical for the English as well as
for the Mahrattas. It was at this conjuncture that Warren Hastings displayed his
political genius and rendered signal service to his country, by succouring from
Bengal the defeated Bombay army and negotiating a peace (in 1782) that
restored the status quo.

The next collision happened in 1803. The pēshwa had fallen into grave
difficulties with some of the principal members of the Mahratta confederation.
He therefore placed himself under British protection, and this led to the great
Mahratta War, in which the Marquis Wellesley displayed those talents for
military and political combination which rendered him illustrious. It was
during the campaigns which ensued that General Arthur Wellesley defeated
Sindhia and the Bhonsla raja at Assaye, and General Lake won the victories of
Farrukhabad, Dīg and Laswari over Sindhia and Holkar. The three
confederates, Sindhia, Holkar and the Bhonsla, concluded peace with the
British government, after making large sacrifices of territory in favour of the
victor, and submitting to British control politically. It was during these events
that the British won the province of Orissa, the old Hindustan afterwards part
of the North-Western Provinces, and a part of the western coast in Gujarat.

The third collision came to pass between 1816 and 1818, through the
conduct, not only of the confederates, but also of the pēshwa (Baji Bao)
himself. During the previous war the pēshwa had been the protégé and ally of
the British; and since the war he had fallen more completely than before under
British protection—British political officers and British troops being stationed
at his capital. He apparently felt encouraged by circumstances to rebel. Holkar
and the Bhonsla committed hostile acts. The predatory Pindaris offered a
formidable resistance to the British troops. So the pēshwa ventured to take part

in the combination against the British power, which even yet the Mahrattas did
not despair of overthrowing. After long-protracted menaces, he attacked the
British at Kirkee, but failed utterly, and fled a ruined man. Ultimately he
surrendered to Sir John Malcolm, and was sent as a state pensioner to Bithūr,
near Cawnpore. The British, however, released the raja of Satara from the
captivity in which he had been kept during the pēshwa’s time, and reinstated
him on the throne, with a limited territory. Owing to these events the British
government became possessed of the Konkan and of the greater part of the
Deccan.

It remains to mention briefly the fortunes of each remaining member of the
once imperial confederation. The principality of Satara was held to have lapsed
in 1848 by the death of the raja without lineal heirs, and was annexed by the
British government. The Bhonsla raja of Nagpur died without lineal heirs in
1853, and his territory was likewise annexed. The house of Holkar remained
faithful to its engagements with the British government, and its position as a
feudatory of the empire was maintained. In Sindhia’s territory, by reason of
internal feuds, the British had to undertake measures which were successfully
terminated after the battles of Maharajpur and Panniar in 1843. But on the
whole the house of Sindhia remained faithful. Sindhia himself was actively
loyal during the Mutiny. The gaekwar gradually fell under British control
towards the close of the 18th century, and his house never engaged in
hostilities with the British government. The ex-pēshwa lived to old age at
Bithur, and died in 1857. His adopted son grew up to be the Nana Sahib, of
infamous memory, who took a leading part in the Mutiny.

See J. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas (3 vols., 1826); T. D.
Broughton, Letters written in a Mahratta Camp (1813); M. G. Ranade,
Rise of the Maratha Power (Bombay, 1900).
(R. T.; J. S. Co.)

MAHSEER, or Mahaseer (Barbus mosal), a kind of barbel, abundant
in the rivers of India, especially in pools of the upper and more rapid streams
where they issue from the mountainous part of the country. It is one of the
largest species of the Cyprinid family, attaining to a length of 3 to 5 ft., and
sometimes exceeding a weight of 70 ℔. Its body is well-proportioned, rather
elongate, and somewhat like that of the European barbel, but covered with very
large scales, of which there are only twenty-five or twenty-seven placed along
the lateral line; the dorsal fin is armed with a long and strong spine, and the
mouth provided with four slender and short barbels. The lips are sometimes
produced into fleshy lobes. To the fisherman in India the mahseer affords the
same kind of sport as the salmon in the British Isles, and it rivals that fish as
regards size, strength and activity. Its flesh is likewise much esteemed.

MAI, ANGELO (1782-1854), Italian cardinal and philologist, was
born of humble parents at Schilpario in the province of Bergamo, Lombardy,
on the 7th of March 1782. In 1799 he entered the Society of Jesus, and in 1804
he became a teacher of classics in the college of Naples. After completing his
studies at the Collegium Romanum, he lived for some time at Orvieto, where

he was engaged in teaching and palaeographical studies. The political events of
1808 necessitated his withdrawal from Rome (to which he had meanwhile
returned) to Milan, where in 1813 he was made custodian of the Ambrosian
library. He now threw himself with characteristic energy and zeal into the task
of examining the numerous MSS. committed to his charge, and in the course of
the next six years was able to restore to the world a considerable number of
long-lost works. Having withdrawn from the Society of Jesus, he was invited
to Rome in 1819 as chief keeper of the Vatican library. In 1833 he was
transferred to the office of secretary of the congregation of the Propaganda; on
the 12th of February 1838 he was raised to the dignity of cardinal. He died at
Castelgandolfo, near Albano, on the 8th of September 1854.

It is on his skill as a reader of palimpsests that Mai’s fame chiefly rests. To
the period of his residence at Milan belong: Fragments of Cicero’s Pro Scauro,
Pro Tullio, Pro Flacco, In Clodium et Curionem, De aere alieno Milonis, De
rege (Alexandrino (1814); M. Corn. Frontonis opera inedita, cum epistolis
item ineditis, Antonini Pii, Marci Aurelii, Lucii Veri et Appiani (1815; new ed.,
1823, with more than 100 additional letters found in the Vatican library);
portions of eight speeches of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus; fragments of
Plautus; the oration of Isaeus De hereditate Cleonymi; the last nine books of
the Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and a number of other works. M.
Tullii Ciceronis de republica quae supersunt appeared at Rome in 1822;
Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, e vaticanis codicibus edita in 1825-1838;
Classici scriptores e vaticanis codicibus editi in 1828-1838; Spicilegium
romanum in 1839-1844; and Patrum nova bibliotheca in 1845-1853. His
edition of the celebrated Codex vaticanus, completed in 1838, but not
published (ostensibly on the ground of inaccuracies) till four years after his
death (1858), is the least satisfactory of his labours and was superseded by the
edition of Vercellone and Cozza (1868), which itself leaves much to be desired.
Although Mai was not as successful in textual criticism as in the decipherment
of manuscripts, he will always be remembered as a laborious and persevering

pioneer, by whose efforts many ancient writings have been rescued from
oblivion.

See B. Prina, Biografia del cardinale Angelo Mai (Bergamo, 1882), a
scientific work, which gives a full and, at the same time, a just
appreciation of his work; Cozza-Luzi, Epistolario del card. Angelo Mai
(Bergamo, 1883); life by G. Poletto (Siena, 1887).

MAIA, in Greek mythology, the eldest of the Pleiades, the seven
daughters of Atlas and the Oceanid Pleïone. She and her sisters, born on Mt
Cyllene in Arcadia, are sometimes called mountain goddesses. In a cave of
Cyllene Maia became by Zeus the mother of the god Hermes. The story is told
in the Hymn to Hermes attributed to Homer. She was identified by the Romans
with Maia Majesta, an old Italian goddess of spring, to whom a sacrifice was
offered on the 1st of May by the priest of Vulcan.

MAIDA, a town of Calabria, Italy, in the province of Catanzaro, from
which it is 30 m. W.S.W. direct, and 12 m. N.N.E. of Pizzo by rail (the station
is 8 m. W. of the town). Pop. (1901), 5190. The town gives its name to the

plain of Maida, where in 1806 British troops under Sir John Stuart defeated the
French under Regnier. The names Maida Hill and Maida Vale in London are
derived from this battle.

MAIDAN, an Indian term for any open plain. The Maidan is the name
of the park in Calcutta, surrounding Fort William, where society people drive
in the afternoon. The name is also applied to one of the valleys in the Afridi
country of Tirah, and to the plateau portion of the state of Mysore.

MAIDEN, or Maid, a young unmarried girl. “Maid” is a shortened form
of “maiden,” O. Eng. maegden, which represents a diminutive of a Teutonic
word meaning “young person,” of either sex. An old English word “may,”
meaning a kinsman or kinswoman, and also a virgin or girl, represents the
original. In early usage “maiden” as meaning “virgin” is frequently applied to
the male sex, thus, in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, Sir Percyvale is called a
“parfyte clene megden.” Apart from the direct applications of the word to the
unmarried state, such as “maiden name,” “maiden lady,” &c., the word is used
adjectivally, implying the preservation of the first state of an object, or

indicating a first effort of any kind. Probably a “maiden” fortress is one which
has never fallen, though the New English Dictionary suggests that the various
“maiden castles” in England, usually ancient earthworks, may have been so
called from being so strong that they could be defended by maidens, and points
out that Edinburgh Castle, called “maiden-castle” by William Drummond of
Hawthornden (Speech for Edinburgh to the King), is styled Castrum
puellarum, the “castle of the maidens,” in Geoffrey of Monmouth. A “maiden”
assize, circuit or session is one at which there are no prisoners for trial; a
“maiden over” or “maiden” in cricket is an over from which no runs are
scored. A “maiden speech” is the first speech made by a member of parliament
in the house. In the Annual Register for 1794 (quoted in N.E.D.) the
expression, with reference to Canning’s first speech, is said to be “according to
the technical language of the house.” “Maiden” is applied to several objects, to
a movable framework or horse for drying and airing of linen, to a
washerwoman’s “dolly” or wooden beater, to the “kirnbaby” formed of the last
sheaf of corn reaped which formerly figured in the Scottish harvest homes, and
to the beheading instrument, known as the “Scottish maiden” (see below).
“Maid,” apart from its primary sense of an unmarried woman, is chiefly used
for a domestic female servant, usually with a qualifying word prefixed, such as
“housemaid,” “parlour-maid,” &c.

The title of “Maid of Honour” is given to an unmarried lady attached to the
personal suite of a queen. The custom of sending young girls of noble or good
birth to the court of a prince or feudal superior, for the purpose, primarily, of
education, goes back to early feudal times, and is parallel with the sending of
boys to act as pages and squires to the feudal castles. The regular establishment
of maids of honour (filles d’honneur) appears first in the royal court of France.
This has usually been attributed to Anne of Brittany, wife of Charles VIII.; she
had a group of unmarried girls of high rank at her court as part of her
household, in whom she took a lively and parental interest, educating them and
bestowing a dowry upon them on their marriage. A slightly earlier instance,
however, has been found. When the young Margaret of Austria came to France

on her espousal to Charles VIII., broken by his marriage to Anne of Brittany,
there were in her train several filles d’honneur, whose names appear in the
Comptes d’argenterie de la reine Marguerite d’Autriche, from 1484-1485 and
1488-1489 (Archives de l’empire K. K. 80 and 81 quoted by A. Jal,
Dictionnaire critique de biographie et d’histoire). It is from the days of Francis
I. that the chroniques scandaleuses begin which circle round the maids of
honour of the French court. The maids of Catherine de Medici, celebrated as
the “flying squadron,” l’escadron volant, are familiar from the pages of Pierre
de l’Estoile (1574-1611) and Brantôme. Among those whose beauty Catherine
used in her political intrigues, the most famous were Isabelle de Limeuil, Mlle
de Montmorency-Fosseux, known as la belle Fosseuse, and Charlotte de
Baune. The filles d’honneur, as an institution, were suppressed in the reign of
Louis XIV., at the instigation of Mme de Montespan—who had been one of
them—and their place was taken by the dames de palais. In the English court,
this custom of attaching “maids of honour” to the queen’s person was no doubt
adopted from France. At the present day a queen regnant has eight maids of
honour, a queen consort four. They take precedence next after the daughters of
barons, and where they have not by right or courtesy a title of their own, they
are styled “Honourable.”

The Scottish Maiden was an instrument of capital punishment formerly
in use in Scotland. It is said to have been invented by the earl of Morton,
who is also said to have been its first victim. This, however, could not
have been the case, as the maiden was first used at the execution of the
inferior agents in the assassination of Rizzio (1561) and Morton was not
beheaded till 1581. The maiden was practically an early form of
guillotine. A loaded blade or axe moving in grooves was fixed in a frame
about ten feet high. The axe was raised to the full height of the frame and
then released, severing the victim’s head from his body. At least 120,
suffered death by the maiden, including the regent Morton, Sir John
Gordon of Haddo, President Spottiswood, the marquis and earl of Argyll.

In 1710 it ceased to be used; it is now preserved in the museum of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, in Edinburgh.

MAIDENHAIR, in botany, the common name for a fern, Adiantum
Capillus-Veneris, characterized by the spreading hairlike branches of the frond,
the ultimate pinnules of which are ½ to 1 in. long with a rounded crenate outer
edge and repeatedly forked veins; the sori (or masses of spore-capsules) are in
the crenatures of the pinnules, and are protected by a kidney-shaped involucre.
The plant is widely distributed in temperate and tropical regions, and is
occasionally found in the western counties of England, the Isle of Man, and
west Ireland, growing on damp rocks or walls especially near the sea. The
genus Adiantum is a large one containing many handsome species both tropical
and temperate, well known in greenhouse and hothouse cultivation.

Maidenhair-tree is a popular name for Ginkgo biloba, a remarkable
and handsome gymnospermous tree, the fan-shaped leaves of which with
their forked veins recall those of the maidenhair (see Gymnosperms).

MAIDENHEAD, a market town and municipal borough in the
Wokingham parliamentary division of Berkshire, England; 24½ m. W. of
London by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901), 12,980. Area, 2125 acres. It
is pleasantly situated on and above the west (right) bank of the Thames, and is
much in favour as a residential town and a resort of boating parties. Though of
high antiquity it is wholly modern in appearance, and a large number of
handsome houses have been built in its vicinity. A beautiful timbered house of
the 15th century, however, survives in Ockwells, a short distance south of the
town. The stone bridge carrying the London road over the Thames dates from
1772; but the crossing is of ancient importance. Maidenhead has trade in malt
and grain. The borough is under a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors.

The history of Maidenhead (Maydenhutt, Maydenhith) is bound up with that
of the ancient bridge. It is not mentioned in Domesday. Edward I. (1297) gave
a grant of pontage in aid of the bridge, which was almost broken down; similar
grants to the “bailiffs and good men of Maydenhithe” were made by
succeeding sovereigns. In 1451 Henry VI. incorporated the gild of the Brethren
and Sisters of Maydenhith to provide certain necessaries for the celebration of
Mass and to keep the bridge in order: the gild, dissolved at the Reformation,
was revived by Elizabeth, who, however, later (1581) substituted for it a
corporation consisting of a warden, bridgemaster, burgesses and commonalty:
the governing charter until the 19th century was that of James I. (1685)
incorporating the town under the title of the mayor, bridgemaster and
burgesses. In 1400 Thomas Holand, earl of Kent, held the bridge in the
interests of the deposed Richard II., but was eventually forced to retire. In 1643
a meeting took place in the town between Charles I. and three of his children.
In the 18th century a considerable trade was done in carrying malt, meal and
timber in barges to London: at that time three fairs were held which have now
practically disappeared. The Wednesday market is held under a charter of
Elizabeth (1582).

MAID MARIAN, a personage incorporated in the English legend of
Robin Hood. There is no evidence that she had originally any connexion with
the Robin Hood cycle. She seems to have been an essential feature of the
morris dance, and in the may-game was paired sometimes with Robin-Hood,
but oftener with Friar Tuck. The well-known pastoral play of Adam de la Hale,
Jeu de Robin et Marion, and the many French songs on the subject, account for
the association of the names. In the ballads on Robin Hood her name is twice
casually mentioned, but there is a late ballad, by a certain S. G. (F. J. Child,
English and Scottish Ballads, i. 219), which tells how Maid Marian sought
Robin in the forest disguised as a page, and fought with him for an hour before
she recognized him by his voice. S. G. was perhaps acquainted with the two
plays, written in 1598, of The Downfall and The Death of Robert Earl of
Huntingdon, by Anthony Munday and Harry Chettle. In The Downfall Matilda
Fitz Walter escapes from the persecution of King John by following her lover
to Sherwood Forest, where they took the names of Robin Hood and Maid
Marian, and lived apart until they could be legally united. Perhaps this tale has
some connexion with the romance of the outlaw Fulk Fitz Warin. Matilda or
Mahaud, widow of Theobald Walter, escaped from John’s solicitations by
marrying the outlawed Fulk and following him to the forest. There were in
semi-historical legends three Matildas pursued by King John, of whom
particulars are given by H. L. D. Ward in his Catalogue of Romances (i. 502).
Their several histories were fused by the Elizabethan dramatists, and
associated with the Maid Marian of the morris dance, who up to that time had
probably only a vague connexion with Robin Hood.

MAIDSTONE, a market town and municipal and parliamentary
borough, and the county town of Kent, England, 41 m. E.S.E. of London by
the South Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. (1901), 33,516; area, 4008 acres. It
lies principally on the eastern bank of the river Medway, the modern part
spreading over the western slopes of a picturesque valley, which is intersected
and environed by orchards and hop gardens, this being the richest agricultural
district of Kent. The hop grounds form the so-called middle growth of Kent,
and the town has the principal grain market in the county. Archbishop Boniface
in 1260 established a hospital here (Newark hospital) for poor pilgrims, the
chapel of which, with modern additions, is now St Peter’s Church. The parish
church of St Mary, which had existed from Norman times, was demolished in
1395 by Archbishop Courtenay, who erected on the site the present church of
All Saints. This fine Perpendicular building contains, besides many excellent
monuments, the richly carved sedilia and the twenty-eight oak seats used by
the collegiate priests. Courtenay also founded a college of secular canons, the
ruins of which are an interesting specimen of 14th-century architecture. From
the reign of John until the Reformation the archbishops had a residence here, at
which Stafford and Courtenay died. This Perpendicular building, with its
Elizabethan east front, was acquired by the corporation as a memorial of
Queen Victoria’s Jubilee in 1887, and houses the school of science and art. The
rectory, with the manor, passed into lay hands at the Reformation; and, having
been a perpetual curacy for three hundred and twenty years, the living became
a vicarage in 1866. The grammar school was founded in 1549, and endowed
with the estates of the local Corpus Christi fraternity, then dissolved; the hall in
which the gild assembled remains, but the school is established in modern

buildings on a new site. There are oil-mills, rope, sacking and twine factories,
and cement, lime, and brick works. There is a considerable carrying trade on
the Medway. A museum, with public library, was opened in 1858, in an
interesting building of the early part of the 16th century. This is the
headquarters of the Kent Archaeological Society, founded by the Rev. L. B.
Larking in 1858. In 1890 an art gallery was added. The West Kent and General
hospital, the county ophthalmic hospital, county gaol and barracks may be
mentioned among other institutions. From Saxon times down to 1830
condemned malefactors were executed, and all the great county meetings were
held, on Penenden Heath, a common situated about a mile north-east of the
town, and enclosed by the corporation as a public recreation ground. The
parliamentary borough of Maidstone returns one member. The town is
governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors.

There is evidence of a Roman settlement at Maidstone. The name Maidstone
(Medwegestun, Meddestane, Maydestan), probably meaning Medway Town, is
presumably of Saxon origin. At the time of the Domesday Survey it belonged
to the archbishop of Canterbury, and from the reign of John the archbishops
had a residence there. Its position in the centre of Kent gave it an early
importance; the shire-moot was held on Penenden Heath in the 11th century,
and Maidstone was an assize town in the reign of Edward I. In 1537 Cranmer
exchanged the manor of Maidstone with the king, and it was granted by
Edward VI. to Sir Thomas Wyatt. Edward also incorporated the town by the
title of the mayor, jurats and commonalty; it had formerly been governed by a
portreve and 12 “brethren.” This charter was forfeited through Wyatt’s
rebellion; a second charter was granted by Elizabeth in 1559 and confirmed by
subsequent sovereigns. A new charter constituting a governing body of a
mayor, 12 jurats and 40 common councilmen was given at the petition of the
inhabitants by George II. in 1747, and remained the governing charter until
1835. Four fairs were granted by the charter of 1559; these are now held on the
13th of February, the 12th of May, the 20th of June and the 17th of October. A
Thursday market was granted by Henry III. to Archbishop Boniface, and a

market every second Tuesday in the month by charter of George II. A corn
market on Tuesday and a cattle market on Thursday are still held. The
manufacture of linen and woollen goods was introduced by Walloons, who
settled here in 1567. This was succeeded by paper-making, now the chief
industry of the town. The cultivation of hops has been carried on since the 17th
century.

Maidstone has been associated with various incidents of general history. Wat
Tyler broke into the prison, liberated John Ball the rebel preacher, and
committed various depredations. Several of the leading inhabitants joined Jack
Cade’s rising. The rising of the Kentish Royalists in 1648 collapsed at
Maidstone, where on the 1st of June Fairfax, after five hours’ obstinate
fighting, captured the town at midnight.

See Victoria County History, Kent; I. M. Russell, History of Maidstone
(1881).

MAIHAR, a native state of Central India, in the Baghelkhand agency.
Area, 407 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 63,702; estimated revenue, £4700. The state,
which is watered by the Tons river, consists mainly of alluvial soil covering
sandstone, and is fertile except in the hilly district of the south. A large area is
under forest, the produce of which provides a small export trade. The chief,
whose title is raja, claims descent from the Kachwaha Rajput clan. The state
suffered severely from famine in 1896-1897. The town of Maihar (pop. 6802)
is on the East Indian railway, 97 m. N. of Jubbulpore. Extensive ruins of

shrines and other buildings in its neighbourhood indicate a former much
greater extent of the place.

MAIL. (1) (Through Fr. maille, from Lat. macula, a spot or hole, the
mesh of a net), properly a metal ring or link which, joined closely with other
links, formed the fabric of body and other armour in the middle ages, till it was
superseded by plate-armour. The word “mail,” properly applied to this form of
chain-armour, is also used of armour generally, whether plate or chain, and is
also transferred to the horny defensive coverings of animals, such as the
tortoise, crab, &c. (see Arms and Armour). (2) (O. Eng. mál, speech; probably
the same as O. Saxon mahal, assembly; in meaning connected with O. Norse
mále, stipulation), a Scots law term meaning rent, tax. “Mails and duties” are
the rents, whether in kind or money, of an estate. In English the word only
survives in “blackmail” (q.v.). (3) (Through O. Fr. male, mod. malle, a
Teutonic word surviving in Dutch maal), properly a bag, especially one used in
travelling; this word, which appears in Chaucer, is now applied chiefly to the
despatch and delivery of postal matter. In this sense “mail” is properly the bag
in which such matter is conveyed, and hence is applied to the contents of the
mail, postal matter collectively, and to the train, carts, or other means used in
the despatch and delivery of the same. In general usage “mail” is confined to
the “foreign” as opposed to the “inland” despatch of letters, &c., and to which
the word “post” is chiefly applied; in official language, the word refers to the
inland despatch. The word appears also in “mail-coach,” a coach used for
conveying the mails, and in “mail-cart,” a cart similarly employed. This word
is also applied to a light low vehicle propelled or drawn by hand, suitable for

young children. The “mail phaeton” is a type of phaeton with high seat for two
persons and drawn by a pair of horses.

MAILLY, LOUISE JULIE, Comtesse de (1710-1751), mistress
of Louis XV. of France, was the daughter of Louis, marquis de Nesle. She was
the eldest of three sisters who succeeded one another as favourites of the king.
In 1726 she married her cousin, Louis Alexandre de Mailly. Although Louis
XV. had paid her attentions from 1732, she did not become titular mistress
until 1738. She did not use her position either to enrich herself or to interfere in
politics. She was supplanted by her sister, the duchess of Châteauroux, and
obliged to leave court in 1742.

See E. and J. de Goncourt, La Duchesse de Châteauroux et ses sœurs
(1879); Toussaint, Anecdotes curieuses de ... Louis XV. (2 vols., 1905); J.
B. H. R. Capefigue, Mesdemoiselles de Nesle et la jeunesse de Louis XV.
(1864).

MAIMANA, a town and khanate of Afghan Turkestan. The town is
situated 100 m. S.W. of Balkh, and only some 25 m. from the frontier of

Russian Turkestan. It is about two-thirds the size of Herat, square built and
surrounded by a ruined wall and moat. The khanate was for long in dispute
between Bokhara and Kabul, but in 1868 Abdur Rahman laid siege to the
town, and it was compelled to come to terms. Its political status as an Afghan
province was definitely fixed by the Russo-Afghan boundary commission of
1885. The inhabitants are chiefly Uzbegs.

MAIMAND, a town in the province of Fars, Persia, a few miles east of
Firuzabad and about 70 m. from Shiraz. It has a population of about 5000,
almost wholly occupied with the manufacture and sale of rose-water, which is
largely exported to many parts of Persia as well as to Arabia, India and Java.
The district also produces great quantities of almonds. The rose gardens cover
several square miles. In 1349 a great part of Maimand and of three little
villages belonging to it became wakf (pious endowment) of the shrine at Shiraz
of Mïr Ahmed, surnamed Shah Chiragh, a son of Musa Kazim, the seventh
imām of the Shiahs, and the remainder of the Maimand grounds was given to
the shrine by Mīr Habbib Ullah Sharifi and by Shah Ismail in 1504; the
administration of the Maimand property as well as the guardianship of the
shrine is still with the descendants of Mīr Habbib Ullah.

MAIMBOURG, LOUIS (1610-1686), French Jesuit and historian,
was born at Nancy. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of sixteen, and
after studying at Rome became a classical master in the Jesuit college at
Rouen. He afterwards devoted himself to preaching, but with only moderate
success. After having taken some part in minor controversies he threw himself
with energy into the dispute which had arisen as to the Gallican liberties; for
his Traité historique sur les prérogatives de l’Église de Rome (1682) he was by
command of Innocent XI. expelled from the Society, but rewarded by Louis
XIV. with a residence at the abbey of St Victor, Paris, and a pension. He died
on the 13th of August 1686. His numerous works include histories of Arianism,
the iconoclastic controversy, the Greek schism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and
of the pontificates of Leo I. and Gregory I.; they are mere compilations, written
indeed in a very lively and attractive style, but inaccurate and untrustworthy.

The History of Arianism was published in English (1728-1729) by
William Webster, with an appendix on the English writers in the Socinian
and Arian controversies.

MAIMING, mutilation, a physical injury which involves the loss of, or
incapacity to use, a bodily member. The verb “to maim,” in M. E. maynhe,
mahayme, mayme, &c. was adopted from O. Fr. mahaignier: cf. It. magagnars,
Med. Lat. mahemiare, mahennare, &c. (see Du Cange, Gloss., s.v.
“Mahamium”). Maiming or mutilation is and has been practised by many races
with various ethnical and religious significances, and was a customary form of
punishment on the principle of an “eye for an eye” (see Mutilation). In law
“maiming” is a criminal offence; the old law term for a special case of
maiming of persons was “mayhem” (q.v.), an Anglo-French variant form of the
word. Maiming of animals by others than their owners is a particular form of
the offences generally grouped as “malicious damage.” For the purpose of the
law as to this offence animals are divided into cattle, which includes horses,
pigs and asses, and other animals which are either subjects of larceny at
common law or are usually kept in confinement or for domestic purposes. The
punishment for maiming of cattle is three to fourteen years’ penal servitude.
Malicious injury to other animals is a misdemeanour punishable on summary
conviction. For a second offence the penalty is imprisonment with hard labour
for over twelve months. (Malicious Damage Act 1861.) Maiming of animals
by their owner falls under the Cruelty to Animals Acts.

MAIMON, SALOMON (1754-1800), German philosopher, was
born of Jewish parentage in Polish Lithuania, and died at Nieder-Siegersdorf
on the 22nd of November 1800. He married at the age of twelve, and studied
medicine in Berlin. In 1770 he severed his connexion with his orthodox co-
religionists by his critical commentary on the Moreh Nebuḥim of Maimonides,

and devoted himself to the study of philosophy on the lines of Wolff and
Moses Mendelssohn. After many vicissitudes he found a peaceful residence in
the house of Count Kalkreuth at Nieder-Siegersdorf in 1790. During the
ensuing ten years he published the works which have made his reputation as a
critical philosopher. Hitherto his life had been a long struggle against
difficulties of all kinds. From his autobiography, it is clear that his keen critical
faculty was developed in great measure by the slender means of culture at his
disposal. It was not till 1788 that he made the acquaintance of the Kantian
philosophy, which was to form the basis of his lifework, and as early as 1790
he published the Versuch über die Transcendentalphilosophie, in which he
formulates his objections to the system. He seizes upon the fundamental
incompatibility of a consciousness which can apprehend, and yet is separated
from, the “thing-in-itself.” That which is object of thought cannot be outside
consciousness; just as in mathematics √−1 is an unreal quantity, so “things-in-
themselves” are ex hypothesi outside consciousness, i.e. are unthinkable. The
Kantian paradox he explains as the result of an attempt to explain the origin of
the “given” in consciousness. The form of things is admittedly subjective; the
mind endeavours to explain the material of the given in the same terms, an
attempt which is not only impossible but involves a denial of the elementary
laws of thought. Knowledge of the given is, therefore, essentially incomplete.
Complete or perfect knowledge is confined to the domain of pure thought, to
logic and mathematics. Thus the problem of the “thing-in-itself” is dismissed
from the inquiry, and philosophy is limited to the sphere of pure thought. The
Kantian categories are, indeed, demonstrable and true, but their application to
the given is meaningless and unthinkable. By this critical scepticism Maimon
takes up a position intermediate between Kant and Hume. Hume’s attitude to
the empirical is entirely supported by Maimon. The casual concept, as given by
experience, expresses not a necessary objective order of things, but an ordered
scheme of perception; it is subjective and cannot be postulated as a concrete
law apart from consciousness. The main argument of the
Transcendentalphilosophie not only drew from Kant, who saw it in MS., the

remark that Maimon alone of his all critics had mastered the true meaning of
his philosophy, but also directed the path of most subsequent criticism.

Maimon’s chief works, in addition to the above quoted, are Philos.
Wörterbuch (1791); Streifereien im Gebiete der Philos.(1793); Über die
Progresse der Philos. (1793); Die Kategorien des Aristoteles mit
Anmerkungen erläutert (1794); Versuch einer neuen Logik (1794 and
1798); Kritische Untersuchungen über den menschl. Geist (1797). See S.
Maimons Lebensgeschichte von ihm selbst beschrieben (1792, ed. K. P.
Moritz; Eng. trans. by J. C. Murray, 1888); Wolff, Maimoniana (1813);
Witte, S. Maimon (1876).

MAIMONIDES, the common name of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon
(1135-1204), also known from the initials of these last words as Rambam,
Jewish philosopher. His life falls into three epochs, which may be typified by
the towns in which they were passed, viz. Cordova, Fez and Cairo. He was
born in Cordova on the 20th of March 1135, the eve of Passover; he had a
brother, David, and one sister. His early years were spent in his native town,
which had then just passed the zenith of its glory. The Arab rulers had fostered
the development of science, art, medicine, philosophy, literature and learning.
All these influences played their part in the education of Maimonides, whose
father, besides training him in all branches of Hebrew and Jewish scholarship,
implanted in the youth a sound knowledge of these secular studies as well. In
1148 Cordova was taken from the last Fatimite caliph by the victorious
Almohades, who had spread over Spain from N. Africa. These militant
revivalists strove to re-establish Islam in what they considered its primitive

simplicity. They laid great stress on the unity of God, and tolerated neither
schism within the faith nor dissent without. The position of the orthodox
Spanish Jews became intolerable, and Maimon, after ten years of hardships,
wanderings and escapes, decided to take his family out of the country. He
settled in Fez. The years which Maimonides spent there (1160-1165) were
memorable for his friendship with Abdul Arab Ibn Muisha—a Moslem poet
and theologian—and for the commencement of his literary activity. His
energies were diverted towards stimulating the religious feelings of his
brethren and combating assimilation. In consequence he became alarmed for
his own safety, and in 1165 left for Egypt, where he settled after a passing visit
to the Holy Land. Cordova taught him the humanities; Fez humanity. Cairo,
besides giving him prominence at court and in the Jewish community, was the
centre of the almost world-wide influence which he exercised over Jewry by
his monumental writings and dominant personality. By 1177 Maimonides was
the recognized chief of the Cairene congregation and consulted on important
matters by communities far and wide. Here he was joined by his most famous
disciple, Joseph Aknin. But his early life in Egypt was fraught with deep
sorrow. His father died soon after their arrival, and Maimonides himself
suffered severely from prostration and sickness. His brother David, jointly with
whom he carried on a trade in gems, was shipwrecked in the Indian Ocean.
With him perished the entire fortune of the family. Forced to earn a livelihood,
Maimonides turned to medicine. The fame of his skill eventually brought him
the appointment of body physician to Saladin, to whom, it is said, he was so
attached that when Richard I. wrote from Ascalon, offering him a similar post
at the English court, Maimonides refused. He married the sister of Ibn al Māli,
one of the royal secretaries. In 1186, his son Abraham was born. His remaining
years were spent in ceaseless activity and in controversy, which he sought to
avoid. He died amidst universal sorrow and veneration.

The works of Maimonides fall into three periods: (a) To the Spanish
period belong his commentary on the whole Talmud (not fully carried
out), a treatise on the calendar (Maamar ha-ibbur), a treatise on logic

(Milloth Higgayon), and his commentary on the Mishnah (this was called
Siraj or Maor, i.e. “Light”: begun 1158, completed 1168 in Egypt). (b)
While he was in Fez, he wrote an essay on the Sanctification of the Name
of God (Maamar Kiddush Hashem, Iggereth Hashemad). (c) The works
written in Egypt were: Letter to the Yemenites (Iggereth Teman or Pethaḥ
Tiqvah); Responsa on questions of law; Biblical and Rabbinical Code
(Misnheh Torah or Yad Hahazaka, completed 1180); Sepher hamitzvoth,
an abbreviated handbook of the preceding; and his great philosophical
work Moreh Nebuḥim or “the guide of the perplexed” (1190). To these
must be added certain portions of the Mishnah commentary, such as the
“Eight Chapters,” the discussion on reward and punishment and
immortality, the Jewish Creed, which have acquired fame as independent
works.

The influence of Moses ben Maimon is incalculable. “From Moses unto
Moses there arose not one like Moses,” is the verdict of posterity. Maimonides
was the great exponent of reason in faith and toleration in theology. One of the
main services to European thought of the “Guide” was its independent
criticism of some of Aristotle’s principles. His codification of the Talmud was
equally appreciated in the study of the scholar and in practical life. Christian
Europe owed much to Maimonides. Not only did his “Guide” influence
scholasticism in general, but it was from his Code that the Church derived its
medieval knowledge of the Synagogue.

A complete bibliography will be found in Maimonides, by David Yellin
and Israel Abrahams (London, 1903); the final chapter of that work gives
a summary of the influence of Maimonides on Christian philosophers
such as Aquinas, and Jewish such as Spinoza. The “Guide” has been
translated into English by M. Friedlander (1881-1885; new ed., 1905). See
also Jewish Encyclopedia, articles s.v., and the volumes edited by
Guttmann, Moses ben Maimon (Leipzig, 1908, &c.).
(H. Le.)

MAIN (Lat. Moenus), a river of Germany, and the most important right-
bank tributary of the Rhine. It has two sources, the Weisse Main (White Main),
which rises in the Fichtelgebirge on the east side of the Ochsenkopf, and the
Rote Main (Red Main), which, rising on the eastern slope of the Frankish Jura,
flows past Bayreuth. They unite 3 m. below Kulmbach, 920 ft. above the sea.
Hence the river, already of considerable size, pursues a north-westerly
direction, skirting the spurs of the Frankish Jura in a pleasant valley. At
Lichtenfels the river takes a south-westerly course, which it retains until
entering the fertile basin of Bamberg. Here it receives from the south-east the
waters of its chief tributary, the Regnitz, and enters upon its middle course. Its
direction is now again north-west, and meandering through pleasant vales and
pastures it passes Hassfurt and reaches Schweinfurt. Its course is now almost
due south to Ochsenfurt, when it again proceeds north-west. Continuing in this
direction amid vine-clad hills, it washes the walls of the university city of
Würzburg, and thence, dividing the forest-clad ranges of the Spessart and the
Odenwald, reaches Gemünden. Here it is joined from the right by the Frankish
Saale and, turning abruptly south, receives at Wertheim the beautiful Tauber.
Feudal castles and medieval towns now crown its banks, notably, Freudenberg
and Miltenberg. From the latter it proceeds due north to Aschaffenburg,
whence passing Frankfort it pours its yellow waters into the green waters of
the Rhine just above Mainz. The Main has a total length of 310 m. and drains a
basin of approximately 11,000 sq. m. It is navigable from the confluence of the
Regnitz, 240 m. from its mouth, for barges and other small craft, and through
the Ludwig Canal is connected with the Danube.

See Ulrici, Das Maingebiet in seiner natürlichen Beschaffenheit
(Kassel, 1885); E. Faber, Zur Hydrographie des Maingebiets (Munich,
1895), and Lill, Mainthal, Main und Mainschiffahrt (Berlin, 1904).

MAIN (from the Aryan root which appears in “may” and “might,” and
Lat. magnus, great), a word meaning properly power or strength, especially
physical. This use chiefly survives in the expression “with might and main.”
The word is more common as a substantival elliptical use of the adjective,
which usually has the sense of principal or chief in size, strength, importance,
&c. Thus “the main,” the high open sea, is for “main sea,” cf. “mainland,” the
principal part of a territory excluding islands and sometimes far-projecting
peninsulas. The expression “the Spanish main” properly meant that part of the
main land of the N.E. coast of South America stretching from the Orinoco to
the Isthmus of Panama, and the former Spanish possessions in Central America
bordering on the Caribbean Sea, but it is often loosely used, especially in
connexion with the buccaneers, of the Caribbean Sea itself. The term “main” is
also thus used of a principal pipe or cable for conducting gas, water, electricity,
&c. The elliptical use does not appear, however, in such expressions as main
road, line, stream. Another use of the word “main” has a somewhat obscure
history. It appears as a term in the game of hazard, and also in cock-fighting. In
the last it is used for a match, and for the cocks engaged in a match. In hazard
it is the number called by the “caster” before the dice are thrown; this may be
any number from five to nine inclusive. The usual derivation is from the
French main, a hand, but according to the New English Dictionary there is no
evidence for this, and the more probable explanation is that it is an adaptation

of “main” meaning principal or chief. From this use of the word in hazard the
expression “main chance” is derived. “Main,” a shortened form of domain or
demesne, only now survives in Scotland, usually in the plural “mains” for a
home farm.

MAINA (or Mani) and MAINOTES, a district and people of the
Peloponnesus, the modern Morea. Maina is the country occupied by the
mountain range of Taygetus from Sparta to Cape Matapan, the ancient
Taenarum. It is now divided between the modern districts Oetylos and
Gythion. Before the organization of the present kingdom of Greece, Maina was
subdivided into Εξω Μάνη, Outer Maina, from the frontier of Kalamata, on
the Gulf of Messenia, to Vitylo (Oetylos) and inland to the summit of
Taygetus; Κάτω Μάνη, Lower Maina, from Vitylo to Cape Matapan; and
Μέσα Μάνη, or Inner Maina, on the east, and on the Gulf of Laconia as far as
the plain of Elos. It contained over a hundred villages. The country is
mountainous and inaccessible, a formation to which it owes its historical
importance. The Mainotes claim to descend from the Spartans, and probably
represent the Eleuthero, or free, Laconians who were delivered by Rome from
the power of Sparta, as is suggested by the traces of ancient Greek in their
dialect and by their physical type. Their country being a natural fortress, they
were able to defend themselves against the Byzantine emperors, the barbarians
who broke into the empire, the Latin princes of Achaea of the house of
Villehardouin, and the Turks. As their country is also poor and maritime, they
were early tempted to take to piratical adventure. Gibbon says that “in the time
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus they had acquired the name of Mainotes,

under which they dishonour the claim of liberty by the inhuman pillage of all
that is shipwrecked on their rocky shore.” Their neighbours gave their country
the name of “Kakaboulia”—the land of wicked counsels. The passes of their
mountains were elaborately fortified and their villages were full of fortified
towers (pyrgoi) from which they formed their own favourite epithet, Maina
Polypyrgos—many-towered Maina. On the western side it also contains the
remains of feudal keeps, erected by William II. de Villehardouin (1245-1278)
and other Latin princes of Achaea. The Mainotes did not become Christians till
the 9th century. From the 15th till the 17th century they recognized a family
which claimed to belong to the Comneni of Trebizond as head chiefs. But the
real power was in the hands of the chiefs of the different families and villages,
who formed a turbulent and martial aristocracy. Enduring and ferocious feuds
were common among them. In the course of the 18th century the family of
Mavromicheli (Black Michael), which belonged to lower Maina, established a
general headship over the Mainotes after much strife and many murders. When
Russia endeavoured to promote a rising against the Turks in the Morea in 1770
the Mainotes acted with her, and the strength of their country enabled them to
escape the vengeance of the Turks when the Christians were cynically deserted
by the Russians. In 1777 their practical independence was recognized by the
sultan’s officers. During the Greek war of independence the Mainotes were
chiefly led by Petros (Petro Bey) Mavromicheli, known to his countrymen as
the king of Maina, who undoubtedly cherished the hope of establishing a
principality for himself. The freedom of Greece, for which he had fought in his
own way, proved the ruin of his ambition. He found the new order less
compatible with his schemes than the Turkish dominion. Petro Bey was
imprisoned by the Greek president Capodistrias (see Capo d’Istria, Count.),
who was in revenge murdered by the Mavromichelis. The family were finally
content to become courtiers and officials in the reign of King Otto I. In the
19th century Maina was but little affected by civilization, except in so far as
the efficiency of modern navies debarred the Mainotes from their old resource
of piracy.

See W. Martin Leake, Travels in the Morea (1830); M. E. Yemeniz, “La
Maina,” in Revue des deux mondes (March 1, 1865); and Philipson, “Zur
Ethnographie des Peloponnes,” in Petermanns Mittheilungen, vol. 36
(Gotha).

MAINE, ANNE LOUISE BÉNÉDICTE DE
BOURBON, Duchesse du (1676-1753), daughter of Henri Jules de
Bourbon, prince de Condé and Anne of Bavaria, was born on the 8th of
November 1676. On the 19th of March 1692 she married Louis Auguste de
Bourbon, duc du Maine, son of Louis XIV. and Mme de Montespan. The
duchesse du Maine held a little court at Sceaux, where she gave brilliant
entertainments and immersed herself in political intrigues. Displeased with the
action of the regent Orleans in degrading the illegitimate children of Louis
XIV. from their precedence above the peers of France, she induced her
husband to join in the Cellamare conspiracy for the transference of the regency
to the king of Spain. The plot, however, was discovered, and she was
imprisoned in 1719. The following year she returned to Sceaux, where she
resumed her salon and gathered round her a brilliant company of wits and
poets. She died in Paris on the 23rd of January 1753.

See Général de Piépape, La Duchesse du Maine (1910).

MAINE, SIR HENRY JAMES SUMNER (1822-1888),
English comparative jurist and historian, son of Dr James Maine, of Kelso,
Roxburghshire, was born on the 15th of August 1822. He was at school at
Christ’s Hospital, and thence went up to Pembroke College, Cambridge, in
1840. At Cambridge he was one of the most brilliant classical scholars of his
time. He won a Craven scholarship and graduated as senior classic in 1844,
being also senior chancellor’s medallist in classics. Shortly afterwards he
accepted a tutorship at Trinity Hall. In 1847 he was appointed regius professor
of civil law, and he was called to the bar three years later; he held this chair till
1854. Even the rudiments of Roman law were not then included in the ordinary
training of English lawyers; it was assumed at the universities that any good
Latin scholar could qualify himself at short notice for keeping up such tradition
of civilian studies as survived. Maine cannot have known much Roman law in
1847, but in 1856 he contributed to the Cambridge Essays the essay on Roman
law and legal education, republished in the later editions of Village
Communities, which was the first characteristic evidence of his genius.
Meanwhile he had become one of the readers appointed by the Inns of Court,
in the first of their many half-hearted attempts at legal education, in 1852.
Lectures delivered by Maine in this capacity were the groundwork of Ancient
Law (1861), the book by which his reputation was made at one stroke. Its
object, as modestly stated in the preface, was “to indicate some of the earliest
ideas of mankind, as they are reflected in ancient law, and to point out the
relation of those ideas to modern thought.” Within a year of its publication the
post of legal member of council in India was offered to Maine, then a junior
member of the bar with little practice, few advantages of connexion, and no

political or official claims. He declined once, on grounds of health; the very
next year the office was again vacant. This time Maine was persuaded to
accept, not that his health had improved, but that he thought India might not
make it much worse. It turned out that India suited him much better than
Cambridge or London. His work, like most of the work done by Englishmen in
India in time of peace, was not of a showy kind—its value is shown by the fact
that he was asked to prolong his services beyond the regular term of five years,
and returned to England only in 1869. The subjects on which it was his duty to
advise the government of India were as much political as legal. They ranged
from such problems as the land settlement of the Punjab, or the introduction of
civil marriage to provide for the needs of unorthodox Hindus, to the question
how far the study of Persian should be required or encouraged among
European civil servants. On the civil marriage question in particular, and some
years earlier on the still more troublesome one of allowing the remarriage of
native converts to Christianity, his guidance, being not only learned but
statesmanlike, was of the greatest value. Plans of codification, moreover, were
prepared, and largely shaped, under Maine’s direction, which were carried into
effect by his successors, Sir J. Fitzjames Stephen and Dr Whitley Stokes. The
results are open to criticism in details, but form on the whole a remarkable
achievement in the conversion of unwritten and highly technical law into a
body of written law sufficiently clear to be administered by officers to many of
whom its ideas and language are foreign. All this was in addition to the routine
of legislative and consulting work and the establishment of the legislative
department of the government of India on substantially its present footing.

Maine’s power of swiftly assimilating new ideas and appreciating modes of
thought and conduct remote from modern Western life came into contact with
the facts of Indian society at exactly the right time, and his colleagues and
other competent observers expressed the highest opinion of his work. In return
Maine brought back from his Indian office a store of knowledge which
enriched all his later writings, though he took India by name for his theme only
once. This essay on India was his contribution to the composite work entitled

The Reign of Queen Victoria (ed. T. H. Ward, 1887). Not having been
separately published, it is perhaps the least known of Maine’s writings; but its
combination of just perception and large grasp with command of detail is not
easily matched outside W. Stubbs’s prefaces to some of the chronicles in the
Rolls series, and (more lately) F. W. Maitland’s monographs. As vice-
chancellor of the university of Calcutta, Maine commented, with his usual
pregnant ingenuity, on the results produced by the contact of Eastern and
Western thought. Three of these addresses were published, wholly or in part, in
the later editions of Village Communities; the substance of others is understood
to be embodied in the Cambridge Rede lecture of 1875, which is to be found in
the same volume. The practical side of Maine’s experience was not long lost to
India; he became a member of the secretary of state’s council in 1871, and
remained so for the rest of his life. In the same year he was gazetted a K.C.S.I.
In 1869 Maine was appointed to the chair of historical and comparative
jurisprudence newly founded in the university of Oxford by Corpus Christi
College. Residence at Oxford was not required, and the election amounted to
an invitation to the new professor to resume and continue in his own way the
work he had begun in Ancient Law. During the succeeding years he published
the principal matters of his lectures in a carefully revised literary form: Village
Communities in the East and the West (1871); Early History of Institutions
(1875); Early Law and Custom (1883). In all these works the phenomena of
societies in an archaic stage, whether still capable of observation or surviving
in a fragmentary manner among more modern surroundings or preserved in
contemporary records, are brought into line, often with singular felicity, to
establish and illustrate the normal process of development in legal and political
ideas.

In 1877 the mastership of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where Maine had
formerly been tutor, became vacant. There were two strong candidates whose
claims were so nearly equal that it was difficult to elect either; the difficulty
was solved by a unanimous invitation to Maine to accept the post. His
acceptance entailed the resignation of the Oxford chair, though not continuous

residence at Cambridge. Ten years later considerations of a somewhat similar
kind led to his election to succeed Sir William Harcourt as Whewell professor
of international law at Cambridge. His all too short performance in this office
is represented by a posthumous volume which had not received his own final
revision, International Law (1888).

Meanwhile Maine had published in 1885 his one work of speculative
politics, a volume of essays on Popular Government, designed to show that
democracy is not in itself more stable than any other form of government, and
that there is no necessary connexion between democracy and progress. The
book was deliberately unpopular in tone; it excited much controversial
comment and some serious and useful discussion.

In 1886 there appeared in the Quarterly Review (clxii. 181) an article on the
posthumous work of J. F. M’Lennan, edited and completed by his brother,
entitled “The Patriarchal Theory.” The article, though necessarily unsigned (in
accordance with the rule of the Quarterly as it then stood), was Maine’s reply
to the M‘Lennan brothers’ attack on the historical reconstruction of the Indo-
European family system put forward in Ancient Law and supplemented in
Early Law and Custom. Maine was generally averse from controversy, but
showed on this occasion that it was not for want of controversial power. He
carried the war back into the invader’s country, and charged J. F. M‘Lennan’s
theory of primitive society with owing its plausible appearance of universal
validity to general neglect of the Indo-European evidence and misapprehension
of such portions of it as M‘Lennan did attempt to handle.

Maine’s health, which had never been strong, gave way towards the end of
1887. He went to the Riviera under medical advice, and died at Cannes on the
3rd of February 1888. He left a wife and two sons, of whom the elder died
soon afterwards.

An excellent summary of Maine’s principal writings may be seen in Sir
Mountstuart Grant Duff’s memoir. The prompt and full recognition of Maine’s

genius by continental publicists must not pass unmentioned even in the briefest
notice. France, Germany, Italy, Russia have all contributed to do him honour;
this is the more remarkable as one or two English publicists of an older school
signally failed to appreciate him. Maine warned his countrymen against the
insularity which results from ignorance of all law and institutions save one’s
own; his example has shown the benefit of the contrary habit. His prominent
use of Roman law and the wide range of his observation have made his works
as intelligible abroad as at home, and thereby much valuable information—for
example, concerning the nature of British supremacy in India, and the position
of native institutions there—has been made the property of the world of letters
instead of the peculiar and obscure possession of a limited class of British
public servants. Foreign readers of Maine have perhaps understood even better
than English ones that he is not the propounder of a system but the pioneer of a
method, and that detailed criticism, profitable as it may be and necessary as in
time it must be, will not leave the method itself less valid or diminish the worth
of the master’s lessons in its use. The rather small bulk of Maine’s published
and avowed work may be explained partly by a fine literary sense which would
let nothing go out under his name unfinished, partly by the drawbacks incident
to precarious health. Maine’s temperament was averse from the labour of
minute criticism, and his avoidance of it was no less a matter of prudence. But
it has to be remembered that Maine also wrote much which was never publicly
acknowledged. Before he went to India he was one of the original contributors
to the Saturday Review, founded in 1855, and the inventor of its name. Like his
intimate friend Fitzjames Stephen, he was an accomplished journalist, enjoyed
occasional article-writing as a diversion from official duties, and never quite
abandoned it. The practice of such writing probably counted for something in
the freedom and clearness of Maine’s style and the effectiveness of his
dialectic. His books are a model of scientific exposition which never ceases to
be literature.

See Sir A. Lyall and others, in Law Quart. Rev. iv. 129 seq. (1888); Sir
F. Pollock, “Sir Henry Maine and his Work,” in Oxford Lectures, &c.

(1890); “Sir H. Maine as a Jurist,” Edin. Rev. (July 1893); Introduction
and Notes to new ed. of Ancient Law (1906); Sir M. E. Grant Duff, Sir
Henry Maine: a brief Memoir of his Life, &c. (1892); Notes from a Diary,
passim; L. Stephen, “Maine” in Dict. Nat. Biog. (1893); Paul Vinogradoff,
The Teaching of Sir Henry Maine (1904). (F. Po.)

MAINE, an old French province, bounded N. by Normandy, E. by
Orléanais, S. by Touraine and Anjou, and W. by Brittany. Before the Roman
Conquest the region occupied by this province was inhabited by the Aulerci
Cenomanni and the Aulerci Diablintes; under the Roman empire it consisted of
two civitates comprised in the Provincia Lugdunensis Tertia—the Civitas
Cenomannorum and the Civitas Diablintum, whose chief towns were Le Mans
and Jublains. These two civitates were united during the barbarian period and
formed a single bishopric, that of Le Mans, suffragan to the metropolitan see of
Tours. Under the Merovingians and Carolingians the diocese of Le Mans
corresponded to the Pagus Cenomanensis, and in the feudal period to the
county of Maine. In the 16th century the county of Maine, with the addition of
Perche, formed a military government—the province of Maine. Since 1790 this
province has been represented approximately by the departments of Sarthe and
Mayenne, the respective capitals of which are Le Mans and Laval. In 1855 the
bishopric of Laval was separated from that of Le Mans. Maine was
evangelized in the 3rd century by St Julian. After forming part of the kingdom
of Syagrius, it was conquered by Clovis at the end of the 5th century. Owing to
the scarcity of documents the history of Maine until the end of the 9th century
is merged in the history of the bishops of Le Mans, which has come down to us

in the Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium (ed. Busson-Ledru, Le
Mans, 1901), composed under the direction of Bishop Aldric (832-857). Roger
(c. 892-c. 898) was perhaps the first hereditary count of Maine; the counts
whose existence is certain are Hugh I. (c. 939-before 992), Hugh II. (before
992-1015), Herbert I. (1015-1032 to 1036), Hugh III. (1032 to 1036-1051),
Herbert II. (1051-1062), William the Bastard (1063-1087), Robert Curthose
(1087-1091), Hugh IV. (1091-1092) and Helias (1092-1110). Maine, which
was in the vassalage of Anjou as early as the 9th century, was united to Anjou
in 1110 by the marriage of Count Helias’s daughter to Fulk V., count of Anjou,
and passed to the English crown in 1154, when Henry Plantagenet (who was
born at Le Mans) became king of England. In 1204, after the confiscation of
the estates of John of England, Maine was united to France; in 1246 it was
separated from France by Louis IX., who handed it over to his brother Charles,
count of Provence. Again united to France in 1328, it was given in 1356 as an
apanage to Louis, second son of King John II., and did not definitely return to
the French crown until 1481, after the death of Charles II., count of Maine.
During the Hundred Years’ War Maine was taken in 1425 by the English, who
lost it in 1448.

See Histoire de l’église du Mans, by Dom Piolin (Paris, 1851-1858),
which is useful but out of date; Revue historique et archéologique du
Maine (1876); La Province du Maine (1893); B. Hauréau, Histoire
littéraire du Maine (1870-1877).

MAINE, a North Atlantic state of the United States of America, the most
north-easterly state in the Union, and the largest of the New England group. It

lies between 43° 4′ and 47° 27′ 33″ N., and between 66° 56′ 48″ and 71° 6′ 41″
W. It is bounded N.W. by the Canadian province of Quebec; N. and E. by the
Canadian province of New Brunswick, from which it is separated in part by the
natural barriers of the Saint John River, the Grand (or Schoodic) Lakes, the
Saint Croix River, and Passamaquoddy Bay; S.S.E. by the Atlantic Ocean; and
W. by New Hampshire, the Piscataqua and Salmon Falls rivers being the
natural boundary lines at the S.W. The area of the state is 33,040 sq. m., 3145
sq. m. being water surface.

Maine attracts more summer visitors than any other state in the Union. This
is due to the cool and refreshing summer climate; the picturesque coast and its
many islands, which are favourite grounds for camps and summer cottages; the
mountains, and the beautiful lakes and rivers, many of which afford
opportunities for good fishing and canoeing. Among the more widely known
resorts are Mount Desert Island, on which is Bar Harbor, a fashionable summer
place of great beauty; Long Island, Orr’s and other islands in Casco Bay; Old
Orchard, with a gently sloping white sand sea-beach 9 m. long, Rangeley and
Moosehead Lakes, favourite resorts of fishermen and hunters; Mt Katahdin, in
the heart of the moose country; and Poland Springs (38 m. by rail from
Portland) in Androscoggin county, near lake Anasigunticook. About 1870,
camps, summer cottages, summer hotels and boarding houses began to
multiply throughout the state. The needs of this summer population gave a new
impulse and a new turn to agriculture; and the demand for souvenirs revived
among the Indians basket-weaving, moccasin-making, and such crafts.

Physical Features.—The surface is a gently rolling upland, forming a
part of the “New England uplands,” above which rise isolated mountain
peaks and clusters of peaks, and below which are cut numerous river
valleys.1 The highest peak is Mt Katahdin (5200 ft.), a little N.E. of the
centre of the state in Piscataquis county, which rises from a comparatively
level upland. South-west of Katahdin, in Franklin county, are most of the
other high peaks of the state: Saddleback Mountain (4000 ft.), Mt

Abraham (3388 ft.), Mt Bigelow (3600 ft.), and Mt Blue (3200 ft.). A little
N. of this line of mountain peaks is the water-parting which divides the
state into a north slope and a south slope. The north slope descends gently
both to the N. and to the E.; although quite hilly in the middle and western
portions it is so poorly drained that swamps abound in all sections. The
south slope which contains nearly all the mountains and is generally more
hilly, has a mean descent toward the sea of about 7 ft. to the mile, the fall
being greater in the W., where the mountains are high at the N. and the
shore low at the S., and less to the E., where the water-parting is lower
and the shore high and rocky.

After the uplift which caused the rivers to cut below the general
“uplands,” and develop well marked valleys for themselves, came the
period of the great continental glaciation. The glacier or ice sheet overran
all Maine, irregularly scouring out the bed rock to produce rock basins,
damming up many river valleys with glacial deposits and completely
disarranging the drainage lines. When the ice melted, the rock basins and
the dammed-up valleys filled with water to produce lakes. This is the
origin of the numerous lakes of Maine, which give it some of its most
beautiful scenery, and help to make it a holiday resort in summer. These
lakes are about 1600 in number, are scattered in all parts of the state, are
especially numerous at high elevations, and have an aggregate area of
more than 2000 sq. m. Few other regions have so many large lakes so
variously situated, and with such beauty of aspect and surroundings. They
contribute largely to a constant supply of water power for which the
course of the rivers of S.W. Maine are exceptionally well adapted, many
of them abound in trout, salmon, togue, black bass and pickerel; and near
them there is still much game. Moosehead Lake (about 120 sq. m.; 35 m.
long and from 2 m. to 10 m. wide), on the boundary between Piscataquis
and Somerset counties, is the largest in Maine and the largest inland body
of water wholly in New England; the Kennebec River is its principal
outlet and Mt Kineo rises abruptly to about 1760 ft. above the sea (about

700 ft. above the lake) on its eastern shore. Other lakes, such as the
Rangeley Lakes,2 Chesuncook and Twin Lakes on the Penobscot, and the
Grand or Schoodic Lakes, in the western boundary at the head waters of
the Saint Croix River, equal or surpass Moosehead in picturesqueness.
The glacier or ice sheet, above referred to, deposited till or boulder clay,
which was compacted under the enormous pressure of the ice sheet to
form the “hard-pan” referred to later. The glaciation is also responsible for
the poor soil of most of the state, for, although the rocks are the same
crystallines which give good soils further south in unglaciated regions, all
the decayed portions of the Maine rocks have been removed by glacial
erosion, revealing fresh, barren rock over great areas, or depositing the
rather sterile hard-pan as a thin coating in other places.

After the uplift came a period of subsidence, during which this region
sank one or more thousand feet, allowing the sea to encroach on the land
and run far inland into the previously made river valleys. This depression
probably occurred during the glacial period, perhaps toward its close, and
is responsible for the second most important feature of Maine
physiography, the embayed coast. To this subsidence are due the
picturesque coastal scenery, the numerous islands and bays, the good
harbours and the peculiar coast-line.

The shortest distance between the N.E. and the S.W. extremities of the
coast is only 225 m.; but, on account of projections and indentations, the
coast-line measures not less than 2500 m. The headlands, the deep
indentations and the numerous islands in the bays and beyond produce a
beautiful mingling of land and sea and give to the whole ocean front the
appearance of a fringed and tasselled border; west of the mouth of the
Kennebec River are a marshy shore and many low grassy islands; but east
of this river the shore becomes more and more bold, rising in the
precipitous cliffs and rounded summits of Mt Desert and Quoddy Head,
1527 and 1000 ft. high respectively. All along the coast-line there are

capacious and well-protected harbours, Casco, Penobscot, Frenchman’s,
Machias and Passamaquoddy bays being especially noteworthy.

After the subsidence came another period of uplift, possibly still in
progress. This uplift has brought up submarine deposits of sand, &c., to
form little coastal plains at some points along the coast, providing good
land for settlement and clay for brick and pottery. Further evidence of this
uplift is found in old beach lines now well above sea-level.

The principal river systems of Maine are the Saint John on the north
slope, and the Penobscot, the Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco
on the south slope. The mean height of the basin of the St John is
exceeded only by that of the Androscoggin, but the fall of the St John
River through the greater part of its course in Maine is only sufficient to
give a sluggish or a gentle current. The Penobscot, Kennebec,
Androscoggin and Saco have numerous falls and rapids.

Fauna.—The animal life of Maine shows a mixture of northern and
southern forms, and very little that is peculiar as compared with
surrounding regions. The state has moose, caribou and deer, especially in
the northern part. The black bear, wolf, catamount, wolverine, wild cat,
fox, beaver, racoon, marten, sable, woodchuck, skunk, otter, mink, rabbit
and squirrel are also found. Geese, ducks and other water fowl frequent
the lakes and bays in the migratory season, and eagles, gulls, hawks,
kingfishers, owls, plover, woodcock, “partridge” (ruffed grouse), robins,
orioles, bobolinks, blue birds, swallows, sparrows, and many other
insectivorous birds are common. In the inland waters salmon, trout, togue
(Salvelinus namaycush), pickerel and bass abound; along the shore there
are lobsters, clams and scallops (Pecten irradians); and off the shore are
herring, alewives, mackerel, cod, halibut, haddock, smelts, hake,
menhaden, porgies and porpoises. The game in the North Woods attracts
large numbers of sportsmen during the autumn season.

(Click to enlarge top section.)

(Click to enlarge bottom section.)

Flora.—Maine was formerly covered with forests, principally of white
pine and spruce, but mixed with these were some hemlock, tamarack,
cedar, and, on the south slope, birch, poplar, oak, maple and beech.

Chestnut and walnut are rare and are found only near the south-west
border. In 1900 about 21% of the state’s area was cleared, and much
besides had once been cleared, but not being suited to agriculture had
become reforested. Of fruit trees the chief is the apple. The plum, cherry
and pear also thrive. The peach grows well only in the south-west near the
border. Species of grape, gooseberry and currant are native, and others are
cultivated with advantage. The blackberry, raspberry, blueberry and
strawberry grow wild in profusion throughout the state.

Climate.—The climate of the state is moist and, for its latitude, cold.
Extremes of temperature are not so great as farther inland in the same
latitude; for the summer heats are tempered by the sea and the cool north
winds, and the winter cold is so constant as to be less severely felt than
the changing temperature of more southern districts. The summers are
short, there being only about 4½ months between frosts even in the
southern sections, and the mean summer temperature is about 62° F. The
mean winter temperature is approximately 20° F., and the mean annual
temperature for the entire state is 42° F., that for the north slope being
about 5° F. less than that for the south slope. Although the temperature
remains pretty steadily below the freezing point for at least three months
of the year, many of the harbours remain unobstructed; for the tides and
the prevailing off-shore winds break up and drive off the ice. The
precipitation is about 42 in. annually, and is distributed very evenly
throughout the year, 10-11 in. of rain or its equivalent in snow falling each
season. During 4½ months about 44% of the precipitation is in the form of
snow; but the snow-fall varies from about 60 in. on the coast to more than
100 in. on the north slope. The winds are variable; at no season of the year
is it usual for them to blow from the same direction for many days in
succession. But, with the exception of those from the west, they are
maritime and consequently moisture-bearing. In summer, especially in the
latter part of it, the cool and moist N. or N.E. winds often cause a

considerable part of the state to be enveloped in fog for several days in
succession.

Agriculture.—The soil is for the most part glacial drift, containing a
large mixture of clay with sand or gravel, and the subsoil is mostly “hard-
pan,” i.e. mingled clay and boulders which have been so much
compressed by glacial action as to make the mixture hard and ledge-like.
Except in the valley of the Aroostook and along the Kennebec, the
Penobscot, and some other rivers, the soil is generally unfit for
cultivation, there being too little alluvium mixed with it to make it fertile.
In the Aroostook valley, however, is the largest undivided area of good
arable land in all New England, the soil being a deep, porous, yellow loam
well adapted to the growth of cereals and to market gardening. The most
sterile regions are on the mountains and along the coast. Because of the
cold climate, the large areas in which there is little or no good arable land,
the growing demand for timber land, and the large and constant supply of
water-power afforded by the principal rivers, agriculture in Maine, as in
all the other New England states except Vermont, is a smaller industry
than manufacturing; in 1900 there were 87,932 people engaged in
manufacturing and only 76,932 engaged in agriculture. Only 32.9% of the
state’s land area was in that year included in farms, only 37.9% of this
farm land was improved, and only 16.3% of the improved land was in
crops other than hay and forage. Nevertheless, as indicated by the
unusually large proportion of farmers who either own their farms or pay
cash rent for them, farming usually is profitable. The number of farms in
1900 was 59,299; of these 18,644 contained between 50 and 100 acres
and 17,191 contained between 100 and 175 acres, the average size being
106.2 acres; 54,263 (or 91.5%) were operated by their owners, 775 were
operated by part owners, 2030 by cash tenants, and only 745 by share
tenants. Beginning with the middle of the 19th century, the increasing
competition of the more productive soils of the West, the growth of urban
population in the state, and the number of summer visitors effected the

reforesting of much poor land and the more intensive cultivation of the
better arable land. The cultivation of cereals, for example, has given way
to a marked extent in nearly all the farming districts except in Aroostook
county to market gardening, dairying, and egg and poultry production.
The number of dairy cows increased from 157,240 in 1890 to 183,000 in
1908, and the annual production of milk increased from 57,969,791
gallons in 1890 to 99,586,188 gallons in 1900. The number of other neat
cattle (180,878 in 1900; 151,000 in 1908) decreased during every decade
from 1860 to 1900; the number of sheep in 1900 was 427,209 (31.9% less
than in 1890), and in 1908 it was 267,000; but the number of horses in
1890 and 1900 was about the same (140,310 in 1960, but only 116,000 in
1908). Hay is still by far the largest crop, the acreage of it and of forage in
1899 being 1,270,254 acres, or 76.5% of that of all crops, and the yield
was 1,133,932 tons; in 1907 the acreage was 1,400,000 acres, and the crop
was 2,100,000 tons. The acreage of cereals decreased from 187,013 in
1880, when agriculture in Aroostook county was little developed, to
166,896 in 1899, when the cereal acreage in Aroostook county alone was
82,069. Maine potatoes are of a superior quality, and the acreage of this
crop increased from 49,617 in 1889 to 118,000 in 1907. Sweet Indian
corn, cabbages, turnips, cucumbers and tomatoes are grown in large
quantities. The fruit crop consists very largely of apples and strawberries
(1,421,773 bushels of apples and 1,066,860 quarts of strawberries in
1899). The output of eggs increased from 9,369,534 dozen in 1889 to
13,304,150 dozen in 1899. The most productive dairy section of the state
is a belt extending from the south-west corner N.E. entirely across the
state and embracing the whole or parts of the counties of York, Oxford,
Cumberland, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Penobscot and Aroostook.

Lumber Industry.—Except in the remote parts, the valuable white pine,
for which Maine was long noted, has been cut; but the woodland of the
state was estimated in 1900 at 23,700 sq. m. or 79% of its area. The
tendency is for this area to increase, for the establishment between 1890

and 1900 of large paper and pulp mills on some of the principal rivers of
the south slope greatly increased the value of forests, especially those of
spruce and poplar. The state makes large appropriations for preventing and
extinguishing forest fires, and in 1903 established a department of forestry
in the university of Maine. Good spruce, which is by far the most valuable
timber in the state and is used most largely for the manufacture of paper
and pulp, stands in large quantities in the St John, Penobscot,
Androscoggin and Kennebec basins. Poplar, also used for the manufacture
of paper, abounds in several sections of the south slope, but is most
abundant in the basin of the Kennebec. White birch, used largely for the
manufacture of spools, is found throughout a wide belt extending across
the middle of the state. There is much cedar on the north slope. Oak,
maple and beech are rather scarce. A new growth of white pine and other
timber is gradually becoming valuable. The value of the timber product
increased from $11,849,654 in 1890 to $13,489,401 in 1900, and to
$17,937,683 in 1905.

Fisheries.—Fishing has always been an important industry in Maine.
From 1901 to 1904 inclusive, the average annual catch amounted to
195,335,646 ℔, and its average value was $5,557,083. In 1908, according
to state reports, the catch was 185,476,343 ℔, valued at $3,849,900.
Herrings are caught in largest quantities (in 1908, according to state
reports, 68,210,800 ℔, valued at $450,665), and Maine is noted for the
canning of the smaller herrings under the name of “sardines.” In 1908,
according to state reports, the take of lobsters was 17,635,980 ℔ valued at
$1,558,252. Maine markets more clams than any other state in the Union,
and the catches of cod, hake, haddock, smelt, mackerel, swordfish, shad,
pollock, cusk, salmon, alewives, eels and halibut are of importance. The
scallop fishery is becoming more and more valuable. For the protection
and promotion of the lobster fishery the United States government has
established a lobster hatchery at Boothbay Harbor; and the state
legislature enacted a law in 1895 prohibiting the taking of lobsters less

than 10-1/2 in. in length (one effect of this law being to drive the lobster-
canning industry from the state) and another law in 1903 for the
protection of lobsters with eggs attached. This latter law directs the state
fish commissioner to purchase such lobsters whenever caught and either
to liberate them or to sell them to the United States for keeping in a fish
hatchery.

Minerals.—The principal mineral products are granite, limestone, slate,
clay products and mineral waters. In 1905 Maine held first rank among
the states of the Union as a producer of granite, the value of the output
being $2,713,795. In 1907 Maine’s granite was valued at $2,146,420, that
of Massachusetts at $2,328,777, and that of Vermont at $2,693,889. The
stone is of superior quality, and the largest part of it is used for building
purposes; much of it is used as paving blocks and some for monuments. It
abounds all along the coast east of the Kennebec and on the adjacent
islands, and is found farther inland, especially about the Rangeley lakes in
Franklin and Oxford counties, and, near Mt Katahdin, in Penobscot and
Piscataquis counties. The principal quarries, however, are situated in
positions most convenient for shipment by water, in the vicinity of
Penobscot bay and in Kennebec county, and these have supplied the bulk
of the material used in the construction of many prominent buildings and
monuments in the United States. The Fox Island granite comes from the
quarries on Vinalhaven Island and the surrounding islands, and on
Vinalhaven were quarried monolithic columns 51.5 to 54 ft. long and 6 ft.
in diameter for the Cathedral of St John the Divine in New York City.
Black granite was quarried in 1907 at 12 quarries, in York, Lincoln,
Waldo, Penobscot and Washington counties. Limestone abounds,
especially in the south-east part of the state, but it is quarried chiefly in
Knox county. As its colour—blue and blue-black streaked with white—
renders it undesirable for building purposes, nearly all of it is burned into
lime, which has become a very important article of manufacture in the city
of Rockland; the industry dates back to 1733 in Knox county. In 1907 the

quantity of lime burned in Maine was 159,494 tons and its value was
$747,947. Slate is quarried chiefly in Piscataquis county, most of it being
used for roofing, but some for blackboards; in 1907 the amount quarried
in Maine was valued at $236,106. About 1896 some remarkably white and
pure feldspar began to be quarried in Androscoggin, Oxford and
Sagadahoc counties, but afterwards the spar mined in Maine was of less
excellent quality; in 1907 the production in Maine was valued at
$157,334, the total for the entire country being $499,069. Clay is obtained
in various places, and in 1905 the total value of the clay products was
$619,294. In Oxford county tourmaline, spodumene (or kunzite) and beryl
occur, the tourmaline crystals being notably large and beautiful. Mineral
water occurs in many localities, particularly in Androscoggin, York,
Cumberland and Oxford counties; the most famous springs are the Poland
Springs in Androscoggin county. Most of the mineral waters bottled in the
state are chalybeate and slightly alkaline—saline; their average
temperature is about 43°. In 1908 27 springs were reported, their
aggregate sales amounting to 1,182,322 gallons. Copper, gold alloyed
with platinum, iron ore, barytes, graphite and lead occur in small
quantities in the state. In 1908 the total mineral product of the state was
valued at $7,044,678.

Manufactures.—Although Maine has no coal and only a very small
amount of iron ore within her borders for the encouragement of
manufacturing, yet the abundance of fine timber and the numerous coves,
bays and navigable streams along or near the coast promoted ship-
building from the first, and this was the leading industry of the state until
about the middle of the 19th century, when wooden ships began to be
supplanted by those of iron and steel. Until about the same time, when the
Maine liquor law was passed, the manufacture of rum from molasses,
received in exchange for lumber and fish in the West Indies, was also an
important industry. It was not until early in the 19th century that the large
and constant supply of water power afforded by the rivers began to be