Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of
Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not
a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the
flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or
means to establish his government. Being driven out of the
capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of
the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.
There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional
government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected
at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the
knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the
Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,
Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing
his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or
more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was
enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival
governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at
Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of
December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave
the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of
Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of
his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the
27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be
executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were
closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious
orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that
from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured
$20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving
any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate
another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country
was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from
Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,
was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years
payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time
amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,
and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.
England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was
comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been
founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French
claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the
decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three
creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with
Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a
plan which had for some time occupied his mind."
A. H. Noll,
Short History of Mexico,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
and volume 9 (6), chapter 1.
See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.
MEXICO: A. D. 1853.
Sale of Arizona to the United States.
The Gadsden Treaty.
See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
The French intervention.
Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.
The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint
undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed
object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican
authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well
as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their
Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who
had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this
time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in
exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the
extent to which the intervention of England would go. England
would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of
seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the
foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or
imposing any European system on the Mexican people.
Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the
contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition
of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in
the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to
prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to
constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of
the French, however, had already made up his mind that he
would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had
long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind
concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the
very time when he signed the convention with the pledge
contained in its second article, he had already been making
arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have
ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its
head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been
too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke
Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The
Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently
wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some
hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint
expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle
ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first
instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced
immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the
command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to
find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much
suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims
set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims
were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule
as our own Pacifico claims had been.
{2178}
A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former
Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that
Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez
came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for
$15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He
offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,
but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the
sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a
subject of France, and the French Government took up his
claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had
resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the
French Government became evident to the English and Spanish
Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the
Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild
road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of
Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and
desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th
of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the
capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as
Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.
Against all this the United States Government protested from
time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing
just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied
that the United States were going to pieces, and that the
Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received
the protests of the American Government with unveiled
indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The
Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee
surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United
States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American
Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be
inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw
his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American
troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,
was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was
nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …
The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last
of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian
endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself
against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all
the courage which might have been expected from his race, and
from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for
himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a
French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted
his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this
monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,
taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the
invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The
Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done
to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,
was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned
and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of
this Mexican failure."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 44.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14.
H. M. Flint,
Mexico under Maximilian.
F. Salm-Balm,
My Diary in Mexico (1867).
S. Schroeder,
The Fall of Maximilian's Empire.
Count E. de Keratry,
The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian.
J. M. Taylor,
Maximilian and Carlotta.
U. R. Burke,
Life of Benito Juarez.
MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.
The restored Republic.
"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,