Chapter IV: , VII (177)

"On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
election established Juarez as President, and order and
progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
a man of great strength of character and capacity for
government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
… During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
of President for another term of four years.
{2179}
The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
his office to his legally elected successor. … The
administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

_S. Hale,
The Story of Mexico,
chapter 41-42._

"At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one
railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running
in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers
(about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines
in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000
kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which
aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …
message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is
gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the
financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …
Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect
$9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The
revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past
twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are
estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of
President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one
of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations
are being made in favor of another term."

_W. Butler,
Mexico in Transition,
pages 284-287._

President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19._

----------MEXICO: End----------

MIAMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

MICESLAUS I.,
King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

MICHAEL
The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

----------MICHIGAN: Start----------

MICHIGAN:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.
Traversed by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.
The founding of the French post at Detroit.

See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.
The surrender to the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.
Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.
Detached from Indiana Territory and
distinctly named and organized.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.
Tecumseh and his League.
Battle of Tippecanoe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.
The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory
to the British arms by General Hull.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.
Recovery by the Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.
The founding of the University of Michigan.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.
Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,
and then beyond.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
Admission into the Union as a State.
Settlement of Boundaries.

A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
but primarily upon the great
Ordinance of 1787.
{2180}
It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
sought being those established by the article in question.
That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
possesses to-day."

_R. G. Thwaites,
The Boundaries of Wisconsin
(Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
volume 11, pages 456-460)._

ALSO IN:
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 17._

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.
Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

----------MICHIGAN: End----------

----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------

MICHIGAN, Lake:
The Discovery.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MICHIGAN, Lake:
Navigated by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------

MICHIGANIA,
The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

See MACKINAW.

MICHMASH, War of.

One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this
name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash
and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

_I. Samuel XIV._

_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 21 (volume 2)._

MICKLEGARTH.

"Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of
Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,
to Byzantium, the New Rome.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]
which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,
when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian
world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town
of towns,' of the northern legends."

_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 6._

MICMACS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

MIDDLE AGES.

"The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed
between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the
great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion
of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era
[see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the
Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages, author's preface._

"It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;
… though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in
a general point of view, to constitute that period."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages, preface to first edition._

"We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
at different dates in the different lines of
advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
or modern history, the additions which were made during the
middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
most important of them fall within the last part of the
period, and they are really indications that the age is
drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
unless there can be found running through all its confusion
some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
general meaning of the age.
{2181}
The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
had taken possession of the ancient world and become
everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

_G. B. Adams,
Civilization During the Middle Ages,
introduction._

"We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of
the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must
deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity
when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building
age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.
Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the
happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of
1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,
reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all
men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful
buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In
presence of this manifestation of free and productive
intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and
utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the
expressive and constructive force of the spirit of
Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we
examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the
conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a
sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient
Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of
our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its
flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom
the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the
Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the
first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen
masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor
in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a
third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their
territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of
intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a
universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.
Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain
after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the
term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects
the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the
Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is
perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these
questions, that the instinct of our physical science and
naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and
democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is
essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,
regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the
Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine
though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in
Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

_B. Bosanquet,
The Civilization of Christendom,
chapter 3._

"'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really
forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I
have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he
came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages
of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody
allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what
do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally
used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in
a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I
could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I
was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the
sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to
remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …
Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark
to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind
the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from
shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that
we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see
what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree
of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as
to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in
them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal
exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what
are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew
nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we
deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;
but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they
were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

_S. R. Maitland,
The Dark Ages,
introduction._

"In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that
which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay
dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was
woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.
Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,
people, party, family, or corporation—only through some
general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all
the things of this world became possible. The subjective side
at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;
man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as
such."

_J. Burckhardt,
The Renaissance in Italy,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

See, also,
EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

MIDDLEBURG:
Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

{2182}

MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

MIDIANITES, The.

"The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the
tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was
extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the
Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 15 (volume 1)._

MIGDOL.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

MIKADO.

"Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows
the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan
itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese
have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such
alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or
Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'
His designation in the official translations of modern public
documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the
word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the
current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a
'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …
The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's
Court as well as the monarch himself."

_B. H. Chamberlain,
Things Japanese,
page 229._

MIKASUKIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MILAN, King, Abdication of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

----------MILAN: Start--------

MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
Taken by the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MILAN: A. D. 268.
Aureolus besieged.

During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor
Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,
Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to
place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle
fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that
city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege
a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and
he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier
Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted
it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was
forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11._

MILAN: A. D. 286.
The Roman imperial court.

"Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who
fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the
provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]
was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,
at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than
that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the
motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the
splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as
numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished
and liberal."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13._

MILAN: A. D. 313.
Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

See ROME: A. D. 313.

MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
The Ambrosian Church.

The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly
originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their
Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner
constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and
splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and
his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and
pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by
St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief
aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from
all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to
397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as
a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such
was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior
dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the
Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose
a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated
by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those
which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To
the singing in divine service, which was then artless and
rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies
still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation
of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the
Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the
grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of
worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards
becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through
the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was
brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.
… St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and
hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most
sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar
and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that
his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion
prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,
ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

_G. B. Testa,
History of the War of Frederick I.
against the Communes of Lombardy,
pages 23-24._

MILAN: A. D. 404.
Removal of the Imperial Court.

See ROME: A. D.404-408.

MILAN: A. D. 452.
Capture by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452.

MILAN: A. D. 539.
Destroyed by the Goths.

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.