Chapter LXXX: Part 80

When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of
Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D.
538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city,
hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It
was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to
the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths
appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians
who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius
despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals
in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly
resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of
starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance
was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if
the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to
300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the
Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services.
The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time
that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of
Lombardy."

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 5, chapter 11._

See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.

{2183}

"The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the
destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and
opulence."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 41._

MILAN: 11th Century.
Acquisition of Republican independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MILAN: A. D. 1162.
Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

MILAN: A. D. 1167.
The rebuilding of the city.

See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
The rise and the reign of the Visconti.
Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.
The downfall of their House.

"The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of
the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General
of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop
of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of
his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his
relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his
nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and
by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed
the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent
Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded
in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A.
D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son
Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft,
and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a
general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more
cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as
became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce
enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less
fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The
Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion
of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330],
and only released him at the intercession of his friend
Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing
tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office
delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo]
bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar,
from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was
thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to
fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which
he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he
consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in
1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in
1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was
poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a
general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and
made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left
sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was
succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande
and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was
one of the most notable characters of the 14th century.
Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to
the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong
enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to
the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having
established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the
north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona,
Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop
Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti.
They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della
Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made
sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide
extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on
force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged;
and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal
houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons
were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left
three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of
the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo.
Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of
Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be
ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way
by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at
Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter
married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward
III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France.
"Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion
of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was
able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of
treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of
his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with
this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter
in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the
Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of
Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino,
the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona,
the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi,
the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled
at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while
the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian
Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala
dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial
authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline
general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of
the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished
the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before
approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house
began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest;
of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in
1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of
these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards
fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of
Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara
family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the
Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall.
{2184}
He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation
of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his
territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year
possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was
then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had
committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the
Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of
Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian
Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues
of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of
Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their
ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole
of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His
next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa
had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish
policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would
profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the
Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their
head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and
then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the
Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague
came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of
Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he
was now able to take possession of those cities. There
remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence
and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to
withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D.
1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed
to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole
of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of
independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with
fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged
55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The
generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such
portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily
acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to
pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see
ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained
(see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the
death of the last of them, in 1447.

_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 2._

"At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's]
informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor
Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged
duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually
gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all
the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had
formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia
indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate
being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy
granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both
sides of the lake of Garda."

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 4._

_G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym),
History of Italy,
chapters 4-5 (volume 1)._

_T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2)._

MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.
Wars with Florence and with the Pope.
Dealings with the Free Companies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

MILAN: A. D. 1422.
The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.

See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.
The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.
War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,
Savoy, and other states.

John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a
daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of
the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke
of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage
contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that,
upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the
duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine
and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year
1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of
Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession.
Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on
the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti.
Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will
made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that,
upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti,
the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be
re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with
the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the
Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master,
and established a republican form of government. But during
the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which
they contended was seized by one from whom none of them
apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of
Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated
from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and
powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his
father in the command of the adventurers who followed his
standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of
Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a
title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he
supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on
the ducal throne."

_W. Robertson,
History of Charles the Fifth:
View of the Progress of Society,
section 3._

"Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by
treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century
the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,
was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered
its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the
formation of a political system which, however great its
weakness, was the most reasonable under existing
circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'
Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had
recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a
close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose
between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:
either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the
Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.
In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally
on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote
in Sforza's favour. …
{2185}
Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to
maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,
which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against
the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.
And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city
which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself
with Florentine money till he had established his position and
re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and
Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to
one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and
defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and
Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,
four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the
Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,
successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to
prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than
all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,
Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,
more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy
possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent
Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,
1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with
Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,
Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The
king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not
ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The
States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an
alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

_A. von Reumont,
Lorenzo de' Medici,
book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_W. P. Urquhart,
Life and Times of Francesco Sforza._

_A. M. F. Robinson,
The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti._

_The French Claim to Milan._

MILAN: A. D. 1464.
Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.

See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.
The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.
His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.
The French invasion of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.
Conquest by Louis XII. of France.
His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

MILAN: A. D. 1501.
Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke,
by the Emperor Maximilian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

MILAN: A. D. 1512.
Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.

Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their
struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope
Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold
their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France,
and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem
possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile
state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time
grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the
proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano
Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project
the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the
cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining
in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword.
The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely
galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest
difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved
none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of
Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the
year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan,
with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part
of the people."

_Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 37 (volume 2)._

MILAN: A. D. 1515.
French reconquest by Francis I.
Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

MILAN: A. D. 1517.
Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522.
The French again expelled.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525.
Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.
Renewed attack of the French king.
Its disastrous end.
Renunciation of the French claim.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

MILAN: A. D. 1544.
Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.
The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638.
Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

MILAN: A. D. 1713.
Cession of the duchy to Austria.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MILAN: A. D. 1745.
Occupied by the Spaniards and French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

MILAN: A. D. 1746.
Recovered by the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

MILAN: A. D. 1796.
Occupation by the French.
Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1799.
Evacuation by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1800.
Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1805.
Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
Insurrection.
Expulsion of the Austrians.
Failure of the struggle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MILAN: A. D. 1859.
Liberation from the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------MILAN: End----------

MILAN DECREE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

MILANESE, MILANESS, The.

The district or duchy of Milan.

MILESIANS, Irish.

In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came
from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races
which colonized Ireland.

_T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

----------MILETUS: Start----------

{2186}

MILETUS.

Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern
extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest
anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and
Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic
families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city
anew.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her
rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other
rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished.
Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of
wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated
tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large
multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in
an increasing measure to demand importation from without of
all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary
to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade
even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the
so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian
enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the
Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the
Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at
Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the
Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they
were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when
that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt
failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by
Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was
destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not
been identified with certainty;

MILETUS: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

----------MILETUS: End----------

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

See HOSPITALLERS;
TEMPLARS;
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;
and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

MILL SPRING, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

MILLENIAL YEAR, The.

"It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was
a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in
the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been
subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi,
and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be
still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the
tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world,
however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle
age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of
Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of
Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

_R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
pages 101-102._

MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

MILTIADES:
Victory at Marathon.
Condemnation and death.

See GREECE: B. C. 490;
also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.

MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).

See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MINA.

See TALENT;
also, SHEKEL.

MINCIO, Battle of the.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

MINDEN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MING DYNASTY, The.

See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.;
and 1294-1882.

MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MINGOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.

MINIMS.

"Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most
remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or
Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by
Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of
Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France
gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that
their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him,
Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new
religious society, the members of which, not content with the
name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of
utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."

_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 8, pages 369 and 224._

MINISTRY. MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

MINNE.

See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

----------MINNESOTA: Start--------

MINNESOTA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803.
Part of the state, west of the Mississippi,
acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1849-1858.
Territorial and State organizations.

Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted
to the Union as a State in 1858.

----------MINNESOTA: End--------

MINNETAREES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

----------MINORCA: Start----------

MINORCA: 13th Century.
Conquest by King James of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

{2187}

MINORCA: A. D. 1708.
Acquisition by England.

In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon,
and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English
expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who
afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming
Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the
best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England
was rated above that of Gibraltar.

_Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 10._

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and
remained under the British flag during the greater part of the
18th century.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
Taken by the French.

At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was
great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and
"the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the
King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread
was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in
the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being
collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing
Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and
Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it.
Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with
16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled
General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw
into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On
the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of
Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was
still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La
Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who
apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his
second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called
a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his
position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of
Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry,
roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle,
trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral,
hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court
martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict
instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a
verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on
the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power
Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular
favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the
King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to
be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that
fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to
look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the
House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was
shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth
(March 14, 1757)."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1021-1022._

MINORCA: A. D. 1763.
Restored to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MINORCA: A. D. 1782.
Captured by the Spaniards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

MINORCA: A. D. 1802.
Ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

----------MINORCA: End----------

MINORITES, The.

The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri
Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

MINQUAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.

MINSIS, MUNSEES, MINISINKS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;
and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MINUTE-MEN.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

MINYI, The.

"The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with
a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian
people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes
includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians
and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in
the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats
of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other
words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread
both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the
fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of
the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low
southern coast they founded a new city at the western
extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge
juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its
farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At
the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu.
Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of
wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky
staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a
castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called
Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat
which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a
proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only
a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths
of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet
high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The
ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of
which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the
superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in
these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of
Orchomenus sung by Homer."

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

See, also, BŒOTIA;
and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

MIR, The Russian.

"The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and
of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.
In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly
to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is
divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its
special economic administration, whilst the civil and police
administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number
of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may
vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The
'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or
several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in
it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for
its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates
even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the
right to shift about the 'dvors.' …
{2188}
Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:
fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the
improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended
for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields
or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various
things must be distributed among the members of the commune,
must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a
fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years
hence, because in some families the number of members will
have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,
therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a
long time this equalization can be brought about by partial
sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private
persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general
redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.
It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles
that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the
circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition
fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance
with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any
work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or
the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself
with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an
administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï
starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to
do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the
communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any
measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,
new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only
adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the
peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the
women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,
is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right
to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The
assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."

_L. Tikhomirov,
Russia, Political and Social,
book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,
chapter 1 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_D. M. Wallace,
Russia,
volume 1, chapter 8._

_W. T. Stead,
The Truth about Russia,
book 4, chapter 2._

_A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars,
part 1, book 8._

MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY). to 1790-1791.

MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.

See THUNDERING LEGION.

MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800;
and COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

MIRANHA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES.

MISCHIANZA, The.

See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MISCHNA, The.

Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about
A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He
embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional
Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the
traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents
of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the
Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the
Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had
superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was
grounded,
1. On the Written Law of Moses.
2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.
3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.
4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the
schools were divided, and which still remained open.
5. Ancient usages and customs.

The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious
exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious
and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the
authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life.
The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving,
ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or
subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by
the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs,
grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; …
whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or
wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler
words."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 19._

See, also, TALMUD.

MISE OF AMIENS, The.

See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

MISE OF LEWES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MISENUM, Treaty of.

The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually
admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the
triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MISR.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MISSI DOMINICI.

"Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl
[Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies,
called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the
palace to oversee and inspect the various local
administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers
each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the
counties every three months, and held there the local assizes,
or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not
exempted from this scrutiny."

P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 17.

See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.

MISSIONARY RIDGE:
Its position, and the battle fought on it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

----------MISSISSIPPI: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1732.
Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.
Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;
and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

{2189}

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783-1787.
Partly in dispute with Spain.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
The Territory constituted and organized.

"The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish
authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude,
with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was
erected into a territory of the United States by act of
Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the
amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and
authorizing the establishment of a government in the
Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new
organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced
that portion of country between the Spanish line of
demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the
Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its
western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The
organization of a territorial government by the United States
was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil,
which was left open for future negotiation between the State
of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of
Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands
south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive
$1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in
said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive
territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi
Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the
Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within
its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi
Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south,
and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the
Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and
comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of
Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District
between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this
extensive territory were in the possession of the four great
southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the
Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about
75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions
of this territory to which the Indian title had been
extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width,
on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in
length, and a small district on the Tombigby."

_J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the
Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2)._

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1803.
Portion acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813.
Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory
and possession taken.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.
Constitution as a State and admission into the Union.

The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original
Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last
almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth
Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal
struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of
1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State
constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the
slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817,
which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December
10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and
satisfactory."

_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 3, page 100._

At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which
forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected
into the Territory of Alabama.

See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
The taking of Corinth by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (May-July).
First Union attempts against Vicksburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (September-October).
The battles of Iuka and Corinth.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-May).
Grierson's raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-July).
Federal siege and capture of Vicksburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (July).
Capture and destruction of Jackson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1864 (February).
Sherman's raid to Meridian.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
Wilson's raid.
The end of the Rebellion.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional government set up under
President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865-1870.
State reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------MISSISSIPPI: End--------

----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1519.
Discovery of the mouth by Pineda, for Garay.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.
Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.
Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1673.
Discovery by Joliet and Marquette.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.
Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1712.
Called the River St. Louis by the French.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803.
The question of the Right of Navigation
disputed between Spain and the United States.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800, and 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1861-1863.
Battles and Sieges of the Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;
1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW

Madrid and Island No. 10;
1862 (APRIL), New Orleans;
1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack;
1862 (JUNE), Memphis;
1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack;
1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY),

Siege and capture of Vicksburg;
1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.

----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End--------

{2190}

MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.
Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.
Purchase of the western side by the United States.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End--------

MISSOLONGHI, Siege and capture of (1825-1826).

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------MISSOURI: Start--------

MISSOURI: A. D. 1719-1732.
First development of lead mines by the French.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.
French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.
The founding of St. Louis.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1803.
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.
Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.
The changing of its name to Missouri.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1819.
Arkansas detached.

See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.
Admission to the Union.
The Compromise concerning Slavery.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1854-1859.
The Kansas Struggle.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).
The baffling of the Secessionists.
Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.
The capture of Camp Jackson.
Battle of Boonville.
A loyal State Government organized.