Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 112)

MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MINGOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.

MINIMS.

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

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

MINISTRY. MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

MINNE.

See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

—————MINNESOTA: Start————

MINNESOTA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

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

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

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

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

—————MINNESOTA: End————

MINNETAREES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

—————MINORCA: Start—————

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

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

{2187}

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

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

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

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

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

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

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

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

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

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

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

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

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

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

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

—————MINORCA: End—————

MINORITES, The.

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

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

MINQUAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.

MINSIS, MUNSEES, MINISINKS.

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

MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MINUTE-MEN.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

MINYI, The.

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

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

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

MIR, The Russian.

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

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

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

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

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

MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.

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

MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.

See THUNDERING LEGION.

MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.

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

MIRANHA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).

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

MISCHIANZA, The.

See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MISCHNA, The.

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

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

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

See, also, TALMUD.

MISE OF AMIENS, The.

See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

MISE OF LEWES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MISENUM, Treaty of.

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

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MISR.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MISSI DOMINICI.

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

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

See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.

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

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

—————MISSISSIPPI: Start————

MISSISSIPPI: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.

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

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

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

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

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

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

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

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

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

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

{2189}

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

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

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

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

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

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

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

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

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

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————MISSISSIPPI: End————

—————MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start————

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

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

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

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

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

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

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

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End————

{2190}

MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.

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

—————MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start————

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

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

—————MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End————

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

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

—————MISSOURI: Start————

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

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

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

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

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1819. Arkansas detached.

See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

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

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

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

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

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

The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other munitions of war which it was known to contain. … Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. … Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time, whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his commander) were watching each other, the federal government awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th of February, the day of the election of delegates to the convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession, there were between four and five hundred men behind the arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the department and presumably familiar with its condition, under date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. … Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to write his name indelibly in the history of the State. … Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon, who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.' The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. … Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not accept the decision of the February election as final. … Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert measures for arming the militia of the State. … {2191} To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline. … Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills; it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word, it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley firing, which is said to have been executed with precision considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the Confederate army."

L. Carr, Missouri, chapter 14.

When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which placed the whole military power of the State in the hands of the Governor. Armed with this authority, Jackson proceeded to organize the Militia of Missouri as a secession army. Meantime Captain Lyon had been superseded in command by the arrival at St. Louis of General Harney, and the latter introduced a total change of policy at once. He was trapped into an agreement with Governor Jackson and Sterling Price, now general-in-chief of the Missouri forces, which tied his hands, while the cunning rebel leaders were rapidly placing the State in active insurrection. But the eyes of the authorities at Washington were opened by Blair; Harney was soon displaced and Lyon restored to command. This occurred May 30th. On the 15th of June Lyon took possession of the capital of the State, Jefferson City, the Governor and other State officers taking flight to Boonville, where their forces were being gathered. Lyon promptly followed, routing and dispersing them at Boonville on the 17th. The State Convention which had taken a recess in March was now called together by a committee that had been empowered to do so before the convention separated, and a provisional State government was organized (July 31) with a loyal governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, at its head.

J. G. Nicolay, The Outbreak of the Rebellion, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: T. L. Snead, The Fight for Missouri.

J. Peckham, General Nathaniel Lyon and Missouri in 1861.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (July-September). Sigel's retreat from Carthage. Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek. Siege of Lexington. Fremont in command.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

A. D. 1861 (August-October). Fremont in command. His premature proclamation of freedom to the Slaves of rebels. His quarrel with Frank P. Blair. The change in command.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (January-March). Price and the Rebel forces driven into Arkansas. Battle of Pea Ridge.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (July-September). Organization of the loyal Militia of the state. Warfare with Rebel guerrillas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (September-December). Social effects of the Civil War. The Battle of Prairie Grove.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (August). Quantrell's guerrilla raid to Lawrence, Kansas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (October). Cabell's invasion.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1864 (September-October). Price's raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

—————MISSOURI: End————

MISSOURI COMPROMISE, The. Its Repeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court against it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821; 1854; and 1857.

{2192}

MISSOURI RIVER: Called the River St. Philip by the French (1712).

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSOURIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MITCHELL, General Ormsby M.: Expedition into Alabama.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862(APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA); and (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

MITHRIDATIC WARS, The.

A somewhat vaguely defined part of eastern Asia Minor, between Armenia, Phrygia, Cilicia and the Euxine, was called Cappadocia in times anterior to 363 B. C. Like its neighbors, it had fallen under the rule of the Persians and formed a province of their empire, ruled by hereditary satraps. In the year above named, the then reigning satrap, Ariobarzanes, rebelled and made himself king of the northern coast district of Cappadocia, while the southern and inland part was retained under Persian rule. The kingdom founded by Ariobarzanes took the name of Pontus, from the sea on which it bordered. It was reduced to submission by Alexander the Great, but regained independence during the wars between Alexander's successors (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301; and SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224), and extended its limits towards the west and south. The kingdom of Pontus, however, only rose to importance in history under the powerful sovereignty of Mithridates V. who took the title of Eupator and is often called Mithridates the Great. He ascended the throne while a child, B. C. 120, but received, notwithstanding, a wonderful education and training. At the age of twenty (B. C. 112) he entered upon a career of conquest, which was intended to strengthen his power for the struggle with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. Within a period of about seven years he extended his dominions around the nearly complete circuit of the Euxine, through Armenia, Colchis, and along the northern coasts westward to the Crimea and the Dniester; while at the same time he formed alliances with the barbarous tribes on the Danube, with which he hoped to threaten Italy.

G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 4, period 3, part 4.

"He [Mithridates] rivalled Hannibal in his unquenchable hatred to Rome. This hatred had its origin in the revocation of a district of Phrygia which the Senate had granted to his father. … To his banner clustered a quarter of a million of the fierce warriors of the Caucasus and the Scythian steppes and of his own Hellenized Pontic soldiers; Greek captains, in whom he had a confidence unshaken by disaster—Archelaus, Neoptolemus, Dorilaus—gave tactical strength to his forces. He was allied, too, with the Armenian king, Tigranes; and he now turned his thoughts to Numidia, Syria, and Egypt with the intention of forming a coalition against his foe on the Tiber. A coin has been found which commemorated an alliance proposed between the Pontic king and the Italian rebels. … The imperious folly of M'. Aquillius, the Roman envoy in the East, precipitated the intentions of the king; instead of contending for the princedom of Bithynia and Cappadocia, he suddenly appealed to the disaffected in the Roman province. The fierce white fire of Asiatic hate shot out simultaneously through the length and breadth of the country [B. C. 88]; and the awful news came to distracted Rome that 80,000 Italians had fallen victims to the vengeance of the provincials. Terror-stricken publicani were chased from Adramyttium and Ephesus into the sea, their only refuge, and there cut down by their pursuers; the Mæander was rolling along the corpses of the Italians of Tralles; in Caria the refined cruelty of the oppressed people was butchering the children before the eyes of father and mother, then the mother before the eyes of her husband, and giving to the man death as the crown and the relief of his torture. … Asia was lost to Rome; only Rhodes, which had retained her independence, remained faithful to her great ally. The Pontic fleet, under Archelaus, appeared at Delos, and carried thence 2,000 talents to Athens, offering to that imperial city the government of her ancient tributary. This politic measure awaked hopes of independence in Greece. Aristion, an Epicurean philosopher, seized the reins of power in Athens, and Archelaus repaired the crumbling battlements of the Piræus. The wave of eastern conquest was rolling on towards Italy itself. The proconsul Sulla marched to Brundisium, and, undeterred by the ominous news that his consular colleague, Q. Rufus, had been murdered in Picenum, or by the sinister attitude of the new consul Cinna, he crossed over to Greece with five legions to stem the advancing wave. History knows no more magnificent illustration of cool, self-restrained determination than the action of Sulla during these three years." He left Rome to his enemies, the fierce faction of Marius, who were prompt to seize the city and to fill it with "wailing for the dead, or with the more terrible silence which followed a complete massacre" [see ROME: B. C. 88-78]. "The news of this carnival of democracy reached the camp of Sulla along with innumerable noble fugitives who had escaped the Marian terror. The proconsul was unmoved; with unexampled self-confidence he began to assume that he and his constituted Rome, while the Forum and Curia were filled with lawless anarchists, who would soon have to be dealt with. He carried Athens by assault, and slew the whole population, with their tyrant Aristion [see ATHENS: B. C. 87-86], but he counted it among the favours of the goddess of Fortune that he, man of culture as he was, was able to save the immemorial buildings of the city from the fate of Syracuse or Corinth. Archelaus, in Piræus, offered the most heroic resistance. … With the spring Sulla heard of the approach of the main army from Pontus, under the command of Taxiles. 120,000 men, and ninety scythed chariots, were pouring over Mount Œta to overwhelm him. With wonderful rapidity he marched northwards through friendly Thebes, and drew up his little army on a slope near Chæronea, digging trenches on his left and right to save his flank from being turned. He showed himself every inch a general, he compelled the enemy to meet him on this ground of his own choice, and the day did not close before 110,000 of the enemy were captured or slain, and the camp of Archelaus, who had hastened from Athens to take the command, was carried by assault. We have before us still, in the pages of Plutarch, Sulla's own memoirs. If we may believe him, he lost only fifteen men in the battle. By this brilliant engagement he had restored Greece to her allegiance, and, what was even better, the disaster aroused an the savagery of Mithradates, the Greek vanished in the oriental despot. {2193} Suspicious and ruthless, he ordered his nearest friends to be assassinated; he transported all the population of Chios to the mainland, and by his violence and exaction stirred Ephesus, Sardes, Tralles, and many other cities, to renounce his control, and to return to the Roman government. Still, he did not suspect Archelaus, but appointed him, together with Dorilaus, to lead a new army into Greece. The new army appeared in Bœotia, and encamped by the Copaic Lake, near Orchomenos. Before the raw levies could become familiar with the sight of the legions, Sulla assaulted the camp [B. C. 85], and rallied his wavering men by leading them in person with the cry, 'Go, tell them in Rome that you left your general in the trenches of Orchomenos;' the self-consciousness was sublime, for nothing would have pleased the people in Rome better; his victory was complete, and Archelaus escaped alone in a boat to Calchis. As the conqueror returned from the battle-field to reorganize Greece, he learnt that the Senate had deposed him from command, declared him an outlaw, and appointed as his successor the consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The disorganization of the republic seemed to have reached a climax. Flaccus conducted his army straight to the Bosphorus without venturing to approach the rebel proconsul Sulla; while Mithradates, who began to wish for peace, preferred to negotiate with his conqueror rather than with the consul of the republic. To complete this complication of anarchy, Flaccus was murdered, and superseded in the command by his own legate, C. Flavius Fimbria; this choice of their general by the legions themselves might seem significant if anything could be significant or connected in such a chaos. But Sulla now crossed into Asia, and concluded peace with Mithradates on these conditions: The king was to relinquish all his conquests, surrender deserters, restore the people of Chios, pay 2,000 talents, and give up seventy of his ships. Fimbria … remained to be dealt with. It was not a difficult matter: the two Roman armies confronted one another at Thyatira, and the Fimbrians streamed over to Sulla. After all, the legionaries, who had long ceased to be citizens, were soldiers first and politicians after; they worshipped the felicity of the great general; and the democratic general had not yet appeared who could bind his men to him by a spell stronger than Sulla's. Fimbria persuaded a slave to thrust him through with his sword. His enemies were vanquished in Asia, but in Rome Cinna was again consul (85 B. C.), and his colleague, Cn. Papirius Carbo, out-Cinnaed Cinna. Yet Sulla was in no hurry. He spent more than a year in reorganizing the disordered province. … He even allowed Cinna and Carbo, who began to prepare for war with him (84 B. C.), to be re-elected to the consulship; but when the more cautious party in the Senate entered into negotiations with him, and offered him a safe conduct to Italy, he showed in a word what he took to be the nature of the situation by saying that he was not in need of their safe conduct, but he was coming to secure them."

R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 26.

Plutarch, Sulla.

After a second and a third war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63), Mithridates was finally (B. C. 65) driven from his old dominions into the Crimean kingdom of Bosporus, where he ended his life in despair two years later. The kingdom of Pontus was absorbed in the Roman empire. The southern part of Cappadocia held some rank as an independent kingdom until A. D. 17, when it was likewise reduced to the state of a Roman province.

MITLA, The Ruins of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

—————MITYLENE: Start————

MITYLENE.

The chief city in ancient times of the island of Lesbos, to which it ultimately gave its name.

See LESBOS.

MITYLENE: B. C. 428-427. Revolt from Athenian rule. Siege and surrender. The tender mercies of Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

MITYLENE: B. C. 406. Blockade of the Athenian fleet. Battle of Arginusæ.

See GREECE: B. C. 406.

—————MITYLENE: End————

MIXES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIXTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIZRAIM.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MOABITES, The. The Moabite Stone.

As related in the Bible (Genesis xix. 37), Moab was the son of Lot's eldest daughter and the ancient people called Moabites were descended from him. They occupied at an early time the rich tableland or highlands on the east side of the Dead Sea; but the Amorites drove them out of the richer northern part of this territory into its southern half, where they occupied a very narrow domain, but one easily defended. This occurred shortly before the coming of the Israelites into Canaan. Between the Moabites and the Israelites, after the settlement of the latter, there was frequent war, but sometimes relations both peaceful and friendly. David finally subjugated their nation, in a war of peculiar atrocity. After the division of the kingdoms, Moab was subject to Israel, but revolted on the death of Ahab and was nearly destroyed in the horrible war which followed. The Biblical account of this war is given in 2 Kings III. It is strangely supplemented and filled out by a Moabite record—the famous Moabite Stone—found and deciphered within quite recent times, under the following circumstance. Dr. Klein, a German missionary, travelling in 1869 in what was formerly the "Land of Moab," discovered a stone of black basalt bearing a long inscription in Phœnician characters. He copied a small part of it and made his discovery known. The Prussian government opened negotiations for the purchase of the stone, and M. Clermont-Ganneau, of the French consulate at Jerusalem, made efforts likewise to secure it for his own country. Meantime, very fortunately, the latter sent men to take impressions—squeezes, as they are called—of the inscription, which was imperfectly done. But these imperfect squeezes proved invaluable; for the Arabs, finding the stone to be a covetable thing, and fearing that it was to be taken from them, crumbled it into fragments with the aid of fire and water. Most of the pieces were subsequently recovered, and were put together by the help of M. Clermont-Ganneau's squeezes, so that an important part of the inscription was deciphered in the end. It was found to be a record by Mesha, king of Moab, of the war with Israel referred to above.

A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 4.

{2194}

The Moabites appear to have recovered from the blow, but not much of their subsequent history is known.

G. Grove, Dictionary of the Bible.

ALSO IN: J. King, Moab's Patriarchal Stone.

See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY, and JEWS: UNDER THE JUDGES.

MOAWIYAH, Caliph (founder of the Omeyyad dynasty), A. D. 661-679.

Moawiyah II., Caliph, A. D. 683.

—————MOBILE: Start————

MOBILE: A. D. 1702-1711. The founding of the city by the French.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MOBILE: A. D. 1763. Surrendered to the English.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (JULY).

MOBILE: A. D. 1781. Retaken by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

MOBILE: A. D. 1813. Possession taken from the Spaniards by the United States.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MOBILE: A. D. 1864. The Battle in the Bay. Farragut's naval victory.

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

MOBILE: A. D. 1865 (March-April). Siege and capture by the National forces.

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

—————MOBILE: End————

MOBILIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOCOVIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

—————MODENA: Start————

MODENA, Founding of.

See MUTINA.

MODENA: A. D. 1288-1453. Acquired by the Marquess of Este. Created a Duchy.

See ESTE, THE HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1767. Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

MODENA: A. D. 1796. Dethronement of the Duke by Bonaparte. Formation of the Cispadane Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MODENA: A. D. 1801. Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

MODENA: A. D. 1803. The duchy acquired by the House of Austria.

See ESTE, HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1815. Given to an Austrian Prince.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1831. Revolt and expulsion of the Duke. His restoration by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

MODENA: A. D. 1848-1849. Abortive revolution.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MODENA: A. D. 1859-1861. End of the dukedom. Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

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

—————MODENA: End————

MODIUS, The.

See AMPHORA.

MODOCS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

MOERIS, Lake.

"On the west of Egypt there is an oasis of cultivable land, the Fayum, buried in the midst of the desert, and attached by a sort of isthmus to the country watered by the Nile. In the centre of this oasis is a large plateau about the same level as the valley of the Nile; to the west, however, a considerable depression of the land produces a valley occupied by a natural lake more than ten leagues in length, the 'Birket Kerun.' In the centre of this plateau Amenemhe [twelfth dynasty] undertook the formation of an artificial lake with an area of ten millions of square metres. If the rise of the Nile was insufficient, the water was led into the lake and stored up for use, not only in the Fayum, but over the whole of the left bank of the Nile as far as the sea. If too large an inundation threatened the dykes, the vast reservoir of the artificial lake remained open, and when the lake itself overflowed, the surplus waters were led by a canal into the Birket Kerun. The two names given in Egypt to this admirable work of Amenemhe III. deserve to be recorded. Of one, Meri, that is 'the Lake,' par excellence, the Greeks have made Moeris, a name erroneously applied by them to a king; whilst the other, P-iom, 'the Sea,' has become, in the mouth of the Arabs, the name of the entire province, Fayum."

M. Mariette, quoted in Lenormant's Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 2.

MŒSIA, MÆSIA.

"After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss [Theiss] and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks, the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mœsia and Dacia, the latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. … On the right hand of the Danube, Mœsia, … during the middle ages, was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and Bulgaria."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 1.

Mœsia was occupied by the Goths in the 4th century.

See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381; and 376.

MOESKIRCH, Battle of (1800).

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

MŒSO-GOTHIC.

See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

MOGONTIACUM.

"The two headquarters of the [Roman] army of the Rhine were always Vetera, near Wesel, and Mogontiacum, the modern Mentz. … Mogontiacum or Mentz, [was] from the time of Drusus down to the end of Rome the stronghold out of which the Romans sallied to attack Germany from Gaul, as it is at the present day the true barrier of Germany against France. Here the Romans, even after they had abandoned their rule in the region of the upper Rhine generally, retained not merely the tête-de-pont on the other bank, the 'castellum Mogontiacense' (Castel), but also that plain of the Main itself, in their possession; and in this region a Roman civilisation might establish itself. The land originally belonged to the Chatti, and a Chattan tribe, the Mattiaci, remained settled here even under Roman rule."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4 (The Provinces, volume 1).

MOGUL EMPIRE. THE GREAT MOGUL.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MOHACS, Battle of (1526).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

MOHACS, Second Battle of (1687).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

MOHAMMED, The Prophet of Islam.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

Mohammed, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1104-1116.

Mohammed I., Turkish Sultan, 1413-1421.

Mohammed II., Turkish Sultan, 1451-1481.

Mohammed III., Turkish Sultan, 1595-1603.

Mohammed IV., Turkish Sultan, 1649-1687.

Mohammed Mirza, Shah of Persia, 1577-1582.

Mohammed Shah, sovereign of Persia, 1834-1848.

MOHARRAM FESTIVAL, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

MOHAVES, MOJAVES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

{2195}

MOHAWKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

MOHAWKS, The, of Boston and New York.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1773; and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

MOHAWKS, MOHOCKS, of London.

See MOHOCKS. [Third item below.]

MOHEGANS, MAHICANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HORIKANS, and STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS; also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MOHILEF, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOHOCKS, The.

"This nocturnal fraternity met in the days of Queen Anne: [1707] but it had been for many previous years the favourite amusement of dissolute young men to form themselves into Clubs and Associations for committing all sorts of excesses in the public streets, and alike attacking orderly pedestrians, and even defenceless women. These Clubs took various slang designations. At the Restoration they were 'Mums,' and 'Tityre-tus.' They were succeeded by the 'Hectors' and 'Scourers,' when, says Shadwell, 'a man could not go from the Rose Tavern to the Piazza once, but he must venture his life twice.' Then came the 'Nickers,' whose delight it was to smash windows with showers of halfpence; next were the 'Hawkabites'; and lastly the 'Mohocks.' These last are described in the 'Spectator,' No. 324, as a set of men who have borrowed their name from a sort of cannibals, in India, who subsist by plundering and devouring all the nations about them. … Their avowed design was mischief, and upon this foundation all their rules and orders were framed. They took care to drink themselves to a pitch beyond reason or humanity, and then made a general sally, and attacked all who were in the streets. Some were knocked down, others stabbed, and others cut and carbonadoed. … They had special barbarities which they executed upon their prisoners. 'Tipping the lion' was squeezing the nose flat to the face and boring out the eyes with their fingers. 'Dancing-masters' were those who taught their scholars to cut capers by running swords through their legs. The 'Tumblers' set women on their heads. The 'Sweaters' worked in parties of half-a-dozen, surrounding their victims with the points of their swords. … Another savage diversion of the Mohocks was their thrusting women into barrels, and rolling them down Snow or Ludgate Hill. … At length the villanies of the Mohocks were attempted to be put down by a Royal proclamation, issued on the 18th of March, 1712: this, however, had very little effect, for we soon find Swift exclaiming: 'They go on still and cut people's faces every night!' … The Mohocks held together until nearly the end of the reign of George I." [1727]

J. Timbs, Clubs and Club Life in London, pages 33-38.

MOIRA, Lord (Marquis of Hastings), The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MOJOS, MOXOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS; also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MÖKERN, Battle of (1813).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

MOLAI, Jacques de, and the fall of the Templars.

See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314; and FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.

MOLASSES ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

MOLDAVIA. MOLDO-WALLACHIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MOLEMES, The Abbey of.

See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

MOLINISTS, The.

See MYSTICISM.

MOLINO DEL REY, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MOLINOS DEL REY, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

MOLLWITZ, Battle of (1741).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

MOLOSSIANS, The.

See HELLAS; and EPIRUS.

MOLTKE'S CAMPAIGNS.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840; GERMANY: A. D. 1866; FRANCE: A. D. 1870, and 1870-1871.

MOLUCCAS: Secured by Spain (1524).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MONA.

The ancient name of the island of Anglesea. It was the final seat of the Druidical religion in Britain. Taken by the Romans under Suetonius, A. D. 61, the priests were slain, the sacred groves destroyed and Druidism practically exterminated.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

See MONAPIA.

MONACANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

MONAPIA.

"The name of Monapia first occurs in Pliny, and must be unquestionably identified with the Isle of Man; though the name of the latter would dispose us at first to consider it as representing Mona. But the Mona of the Romans, which was attacked by Suetonius Paulinus and Agricola, was certainly Anglesea."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography., chapter 24, section 2, foot-note.

MONASTERY. MONASTICISM. CONVENT. ABBEY. PRIORY.

"Monasticism was not the product of Christianity; it was the inheritance of the Church, not its invention; not the offspring, but the adopted child. The old antagonism between mind and matter, flesh and spirit, self and the world has asserted itself in all ages, especially among the nations of the East. The Essenes, the Therapeutæ, and other Oriental mystics, were as truly the precursors of Christian asceticism in the desert or in the cloister, as Elijah and St. John the Baptist. The Neoplatonism of Alexandria, extolling the passionless man above him who regulates his passions, sanctioned and systematized this craving after a life of utter abstraction from external things, this abhorrence of all contact with what is material as a defilement. Doubtless the cherished remembrance of the martyrs and confessors, who in the preceding centuries of the Christian era had triumphed over many a sanguinary persecution, gave a fresh impulse in the fourth century to this propensity to asceticism, stimulating the devout to vie with their forefathers in the faith by their voluntary endurance of self-inflicted austerities. … The terms monastery, originally the cell or eave of a solitary, laura, an irregular cluster of cells, and cœnobium, an association of monks, few or many, under one roof and under one control, mark the three earliest stages in the development of monasticism. {2196} In Syria and Palestine each monk originally had a separate cell; in Lower Egypt two were together in one cell, whence the term 'syncellita,' or sharer of the cell, came to express this sort of comradeship; in the Thebaid, under Pachomius of Tabenna, each cell contained three monks. At a later period the monks arrogated to themselves by general consent the title of 'the religious,' and admission into a monastery was termed 'conversion' to God. … The history of monasticism, like the history of states and institutions in general, divides itself broadly into three great periods, of growth, of glory, and of decay. … From the beginning of the fourth century to the close of the fifth, from Antony the hermit to Benedict of Monte Casino, is the age of undisciplined impulse of enthusiasm not as yet regulated by experience. … Everything is on a scale of illogical exaggeration, is wanting in balance, in proportion, in symmetry. Because purity, unworldliness, charity, are virtues, therefore a woman is to be regarded as a venomous reptile, gold as a worthless pebble; the deadliest foe and the dearest friend are to be esteemed just alike. Because it is right to be humble, therefore the monk cuts off hand, ear, or tongue, to avoid being made bishop, and feigns idiocy, in order not to be accounted wise. Because it is well to teach people to be patient, therefore a sick monk never speaks a kind word for years to the brother monk who nursed him. Because it is right to keep the lips from idle words, therefore a monk holds a large stone in his mouth for three years. Every precept is to be taken literally, and obeyed unreasoningly. Therefore monks who have been plundered by a robber run after him to give him a something which has escaped his notice. Self-denial is enjoined in the gospel. Therefore the austerities of asceticism are to be simply endless. One ascetic makes his dwelling in a hollow tree, another in a cave, another in a tomb, another on the top of a pillar, another has so lost the very appearance of a man, that he is shot at by shepherds, who mistake him for a wolf. The natural instincts, instead of being trained and cultivated, are to be killed outright, in this abhorrence of things material. … The period which follows, from the first Benedict to Charlemagne, exhibits monasticism in a more mature stage of activity. The social intercourse of the monastery, duly harmonized by a traditional routine, with its subordination of rank and offices, its division of duties, its mutual dependence of all on each other, and on their head, civilized the monastic life; and, as the monk himself became subject to the refining influences of civilization, he went forth into the world to civilize others. … Had it not been for monks and monasteries, the barbarian deluge might have swept away utterly the traces of Roman civilization. The Benedictine monk was the pioneer of civilization and Christianity in England, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Sweden, Denmark. The schools attached to the Lerinensian monasteries were the precursors of the Benedictine seminaries in France and of the professional chairs filled by learned Benedictines in the universities of mediæval Christendom. With the incessant din of arms around him, it was the monk in his cloister, even in regions beyond the immediate sphere of Benedict's legislation, even in the remote fastnesses, for instance of Mount Athos, who, by preserving and transcribing ancient manuscripts, both Christian and pagan, as well as by recording his observations of contemporaneous events, was handing down the torch of knowledge unquenched to future generations, and hoarding up stores of erudition for the researches of a more enlightened age. The first musicians, painters, farmers, statesmen, in Europe, after the downfall of Imperial Rome under the onslaught of the barbarians, were monks."

I. Gregory Smith, Christian Monasticism, introduction.

"The monastic stream, which had been born in the deserts of Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread itself by a thousand channels over an entire world which had to be covered and fertilised." Athanasius, who was driven twice by persecution to take refuge among the hermits in the Thebaid, Egypt, and who was three times exiled by an imperial order to the West, "became thus the natural link between the Fathers of the desert and those vast regions which their successors were to conquer and transform. … It was in 340 that he came for the first time to Rome, in order to escape the violence of the Arians, and invoke the protection of Pope Julius. … He spread in Rome the first report of the life led by the monks in the Thebaid, of the marvellous exploits of Anthony, who was still alive, of the immense foundations which Pacome was at that time forming upon the banks of the higher Nile. He had brought with him two of the most austere of these monks. … The narratives of Athanasius … roused the hearts and imaginations of the Romans, and especially of the Roman women. The name of monk, to which popular prejudice seems already to have attached a kind of ignominy, became immediately an honoured and envied title. The impression produced at first by the exhortations of the illustrious exile, was extended and strengthened during the two other visits which he made to the Eternal City. Some time afterwards, on the death of St. Anthony, Athanasius, at the request of his disciples, wrote the life of the patriarch of the Thebaid; and this biography, circulating through all the West, immediately acquired there the popularity of a legend, and the authority of a confession of faith. … Under this narrative form, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, he promulgated the laws of monastic life. The town and environs of Rome were soon full of monasteries, rapidly occupied by men distinguished alike by birth, fortune and knowledge, who lived there in charity, sanctity, and freedom. From Rome the new institution, already distinguished by the name of religion, or religious life, par excellence, extended itself over all Italy. It was planted at the foot of the Alps by the influence of a great bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli. … From the continent the new institution rapidly gained the isles of the Mediterranean, and even the rugged rocks of the Gargon and of Capraja, where the monks, voluntarily exiled from the world, went to take the place of the criminals and political victims whom the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither. … Most of the great leaders of the cenobitical institution had, since St. Pacome, made out, under the name of Rule, instructions and constitutions for the use of their immediate disciples; but none of these works had acquired an extensive or lasting sway. In the East, it is true, the rule of St. Basil had prevailed in a multitude of monasteries, yet notwithstanding Cassianus, in visiting Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, found there almost as many different rules as there were monasteries. {2197} In the West the diversity was still more strange. Each man made for himself his own rule and discipline, taking his authority from the writings or example of the Eastern Fathers. The Gauls especially exclaimed against the extreme rigour of the fasts and abstinences, which might be suitable under a fervid sky like that of Egypt or Syria, but which could not be endured by what they already called Gallican weakness; and even in the initial fervour of the monasteries of the Jura, they had succeeded in imposing a necessary medium upon their chiefs. Here it was the changing will of an abbot; there a written rule; elsewhere, the traditions of the elders, which determined the order of conventual life. In some houses various rules were practised at the same time, according to the inclination of the inhabitants of each cell, and were changed according to the times and places. They passed thus from excessive austerity to laxness, and conversely, according to the liking of each. Uncertainty and instability were everywhere. … A general arrangement was precisely what was most wanting in monastic life. There were an immense number of monks; there had been among them saints and illustrious men; but to speak truly, the monastic order had still no existence. Even where the rule of St. Basil had acquired the necessary degree of establishment and authority—that is to say, in a considerable portion of the East—the gift of fertility was denied to it. … In the West also, towards the end of the fifth century, the cenobitical institution seemed to have fallen into the torpor and sterility of the East. After St. Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Augustine, who died in 430, after the Fathers of Lerins, whose splendour paled towards 450, there was a kind of eclipse. … Except in Ireland and Gaul, where, in most of the provinces, some new foundations rose, a general interruption was observable in the extension of the institution. … If this eclipse had lasted, the history of the monks of the West would only have been, like that of the Eastern monks, a sublime but brief passage in the annals of the Church, instead of being their longest and best-filled page. This was not to be: but to keep the promises which the monastic order had made to the Church and to the new-born Christendom, it needed, at the beginning of the sixth century, a new and energetic impulse, such as would concentrate and discipline so many scattered, irregular, and intermittent forces; a uniform and universally accepted rule; a legislator inspired by the fertile and glorious past, to establish and govern the future. God provided for that necessity by sending St. Benedict into the world."

Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, volume 1, pages 381-387 and 512-515.

"The very word monastery is a misnomer: the word is a Greek word, and means the dwelling-place of a solitary person, living in seclusion. … In the 13th century … a monastery meant what we now understand it to mean—viz., the abode of a society of men or women who lived together in common—who were supposed to partake of common meals; to sleep together in one common dormitory; to attend certain services together in their common church; to transact certain business or pursue certain employments in the sight and hearing of each other in the common cloister; and, when the end came, to be laid side by side in the common graveyard, where in theory none but members of the order could find a resting-place for their bones. When I say 'societies of men and women' I am again reminded that the other term, 'convent,' has somehow got to be used commonly in a mistaken sense. People use the word as if it signified a religious house tenanted exclusively by women. The truth is that a convent is nothing more than a Latin name for an association of persons who have come together with a view to live for a common object and to submit to certain rules in the ordering of their daily lives. The monastery was the common dwelling-place; the convent was the society of persons inhabiting it; and the ordinary formula used when a body of monks or nuns execute any corporate act—such as buying or selling land—by any legal instrument is, 'The Prior and Convent of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Norwich;' 'the Abbot and Convent of the Monastery of St. Peter's, Westminster;' 'the Abbess and Convent of the Monastery of St. Mary and St. Bernard at Lacock,' and so on. … A monastery in theory then was, as it was called, a Religious House. It was supposed to be the home of people whose lives were passed in the worship of God, and in taking care of their own souls, and making themselves fit for a better world than this hereafter. … The church of a monastery was the heart of the place. It was not that the church was built for the monastery, but the monastery existed for the church. … Almost as essential to the idea of a monastery as the church was the cloister or great quadrangle, inclosed on all sides by the high walls of the monastic buildings. … All round this quadrangle ran a covered arcade, whose roof, leaning against the high walls, was supported on the inner side by an open trellis work in stone—often exhibiting great beauty of design and workmanship—through which light and air was admitted into the arcade. … The cloister was really the living place of the monks. Here they pursued their daily avocations, here they taught their school. … 'But surely a monk always lived in a cell, didn't he?' The sooner we get rid of that delusion the better. Be it understood that until Henry II. founded the Carthusian Abbey of Witham, in 1178, there was no such thing known in England as a monk's cell, as we understand the term. It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was first introduced it was regarded as a startling novelty for any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour in England. … At the time of the Norman Conquest it may be said that all English monks were professedly under one and the same Rule—the famous Benedictine Rule. The Rule of a monastery was the constitution or code of laws, which regulated the discipline of the house, and the Rule of St. Benedict dates back as far as the 6th century, though it was not introduced into England for more than 100 years after it had been adopted elsewhere. … About 150 years before the Conquest, a great reformation had been attempted of the French monasteries, … the reformers breaking away from the old Benedictines and subjecting themselves to a new and improved Rule. {2198} These first reformers were called Cluniac monks, from the great Abbey of Clugni, in Burgundy, in which the new order of things had begun. The first English house of reformed or Cluniac monks was founded at Lewes, in Sussex, 11 years after the Conquest. … The constitution of every convent, great or small, was monarchical. The head of the house was almost an absolute sovereign, and was called the Abbot. His dominions often extended, even in England, over a very wide tract of country, and sometimes over several minor monasteries which were called Cells. … The heads of these cells or subject houses were called Priors. An Abbey was a monastery which was independent. A priory was a monastery which in theory or in fact was subject to an abbey. All the Cluniac monasteries in England were thus said to be alien priories, because they were mere cells of the great Abbey of Clugni in France, to which each priory paid heavy tribute."

A. Jessopp, The Coming of the Friars, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, chapter 6.

J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christ. Ch., book 7, chapter 3, sections 11-14.

I. G. Smith, Christian Monasticism, 4-9th Centuries.

See, also, CŒNOBIUM; LAURAS; MENDICANT ORDERS; BENEDICTINE; CISTERCIAN; CARMELITE, and AUSTIN CANONS.

MONASTERIES, The English, Suppression of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

MONASTIC LIBRARIES.

See LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL.

MONASTIC ORDERS.

See AUSTIN CANONS; BENEDICTINE ORDERS; CAPUCHINS; CARMELITE FRIARS; CARTHUSIAN; CISTERCIAN; CLAIRVAUX; CLUGNY; MENDICANT ORDERS; RECOLLECTS; SERVITES; THEATINES; TRAPPISTS.

MONÇON, MONZON, Treaty of (1626).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONCONTOUR, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

—————MONEY AND BANKING: Start————

MONEY AND BANKING: Nature and Origin of Money.

"When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour us he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. But when the division of labour first began to take place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the different productions of their respective trades, and the butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case, be made between them. … In order to avoid the inconveniency of such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry. Many different commodities, it is probable, were successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the common instrument of commerce; and, though they must have been a most inconvenient one, yet in old times we find things were frequently valued according to the number of cattle which had been given in exchange for them. The armour of Diomede, says Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an hundred oxen. Salt is said to be the common instrument of commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in some parts of the coasts of India; dried cod at Newfoundland; tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies; hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is at this day [1775] a village in Scotland where it is not uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of money to the baker's shop or the alehouse. In all countries, however, men seem at last to have been determined by irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this employment, to metals above every other commodity."

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, chapter 4, book 1 (volume 1).

"There is … no machine which has saved as much labor as money. … The invention of money has been rightly compared to the invention of writing with letters. We may, however, call the introduction of money as the universal medium of exchange … one of the greatest and most beneficent of advances ever made by the race. … Very different kinds of commodities have, according to circumstances, been used as money; but uniformly only such as possess a universally recognized economic value. On the whole, people in a low stage of civilization are wont to employ, mainly, only ordinary commodities, such as are calculated to satisfy a vulgar and urgent want, as an instrument of exchange. As they advance in civilization, they, at each step, choose a more and more costly object, for this purpose, and one which ministers to the more elevated wants. Races of hunters, at least in non-tropical countries, usually use skins as money; that is the almost exclusive product of their labor, one which can be preserved for a long period of time, which constitutes their principal article of clothing and their principal export in the more highly developed regions. Nomadic races and the lower agricultural races, pass, by a natural gradation, to the use of cattle as money; which supposes rich pasturages at the disposal of all. {2199} If it were otherwise, there would be a great many to whom payments of this kind had been made, who would not know what to do with the cattle given them, on account of the charges for their maintenance. … That metals were used for the purpose of money much later than the commodities above mentioned, and the precious metals in turn later than the non-precious metals, cannot by any means be shown to be universally true. Rather is gold in some countries to be obtained by the exercise of so little skill, and both gold and silver satisfy a want so live and general, and one so early felt, that they are to be met with as an instrument of exchange in very early times. In the case of isolated races, much depends on the nature of the metals with which the geologic constitution of the country has furnished them. In general, however, the above law is found to prevail here. The higher the development of a people becomes, the more frequent is the occurrence of large payments; and to effect these, the more costly a metal is, the better, of course, it is adapted to effect such payments. Besides, only rich nations are able to possess the costly metals in a quantity absolutely great. Among the Jews, gold as money dates only from the time of David. King Pheidon, of Argos, it is said, introduced silver money into Greece, about the middle of the eighth century before Christ. Gold came into use at a much later period. The Romans struck silver money, for the first time, in 209 before Christ, and, in 207, the first gold coins. Among modern nations, Venice (1285) and Florence seem to have been the first to have coined gold in any quantity."

W. Roscher, Principles of Political Economy, book 2, chapter 3, sections 117-119 (volume 1).

MONEY AND BANKING: Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.

"Money seems to us now so obvious a convenience, and so much a necessity of commerce, that it appears almost inconceivable that a people who created the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the temples of Ipsamboul and Karnac, should have been entirely ignorant of coins. Yet it appears from the statements of Herodotus, and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that this was really the case. As regards the commercial and banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely without information. Their standard of value seems to have been the 'outen' or 'ten' of copper (94-96 grammes), which circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings, resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said to have been employed in Ireland down to the 12th century, and still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it wanted what the Roman lawyers called 'the law' and 'the form.' Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very inconvenient, but after all It is not very different from that which prevails in China even at the present day. The first money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the Greek and Phœnician merchants than of the natives, was by the Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken by weight and verified by the balance like any other merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded us some interesting information as to the commercial arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, &c. These were engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M. Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five principal types:

1. Simple obligations. 2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment. One he gives which had 79 days to run. 3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party. 4. Obligations payable to a third person. 5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. …

These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of things could not pass by endorsement, because, when the clay was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price. Several documents and records belonging to this family are in the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighbourhood of Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib, about 700 B. C. This family has been traced during a century and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers, in our sense of the word."

Sir J. Lubbock, The History of Money (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

"We have an enormous number of the documents of this firm, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar the Great, and going on for some five generations or so to the time of Darius. The tablets are dated month after month and year after year, and thus they afford us a sure method of fixing the chronology of that very uncertain period of history. There is a small contract tablet in the Museum at Zürich, discovered by Dr. Oppert, dated in the 5th year of Pacorus, king of Persia, who reigned about the time of Domitian. There is a little doubt about the reading of one of the characters in the name, but if it is correct, it will prove that the use of cuneiform did not fall into disuse until after the Christian Era. … Some have tried to show that Egibi is the Babylonian form of Jacob, which would lead one to suspect the family to have been Jews; but this is not certain at present."

E. A. W. Budge, Babylonian Life and History, page 115.

{2200}

"It is in the development of trade, and especially of banking, rather than in manufactures, that Babylonia and Chaldæa were in advance of all the rest of the world. The most cautious Assyriologists are the least confident in their renderings of the numerous contract tablets from which, if they were accurately interpreted, we should certainly be able to reconstruct the laws and usages of the world's first great market place. … The following account of Babylonian usages is derived from the text of M. Revillout's work. … It is confirmed in essentials by the later work of Meissner, who has translated over one hundred deeds of the age of Hammurabi and his successors. In Chaldæa every kind of commodity, from land to money, circulated with a freedom that is unknown to modern commerce; every value was negotiable, and there was no limit to the number and variety of the agreements that might be entered into. … Brick tablets did not lend themselves readily to 'bookkeeping,' as no further entry could be made after baking, while the first entry was not secure unless baked at once. Each brick recorded one transaction, and was kept by the party interested till the contract was completed, and the destruction of the tablet was equivalent to a receipt. Babylonian law allowed debts to be paid by assigning another person's debt to the creditor; a debt was property, and could be assigned without reference to the debtor, so that any formal acknowledgment of indebtedness could be treated like a negotiable bill—a fact which speaks volumes for the commercial honesty of the people. A separate tablet was, of course, required to record the original debt, or rather to say that So-and-so's debt to Such-an-one has been by him sold to a third party. Such third party could again either assign his claim to a bank for a consideration, or if the last debtor had a credit at the bank, the creditor could be paid out of that, a sort of forecast of the modern clearing-house system. The debtor who pays before the term agreed on has to receive a formal surrender of the creditor's claim, or a transfer of it to himself. The Babylonian regarded money and credit as synonymous, and the phrase, 'Money of Such-an-one upon So-and-so,' is used as equivalent to A's credit with B. … In ancient Babylonia, as in modern China, the normal effect of a loan was supposed to be beneficial to the borrower. In Egypt, judging from the form of the deeds, the idea was that the creditor asserted a claim upon the debtor, or the debtor acknowledged a liability to the man from whom he had borrowed. In Babylonia the personal question is scarcely considered; one person owes money to another—that is the commonest thing in the world—such loans are in a chronic state of being incurred and paid off; one man's debt is another man's credit, and credit being the soul of commerce, the loan is considered rather as a part of the floating negotiable capital of the country than as a burden on the shoulders of one particular debtor."

E. J. Simcox, Primitive Civilizations, volume 1, pages 320-322.

MONEY AND BANKING: China.

"Not only did the Chinese possess coins at a very early period, but they were also the inventors of bank notes. Some writers regard bank notes as having originated about 119 B. C., in the reign of the Emperor Ou-ti. At this time the Court was in want of money, and to raise it Klaproth tells us that the prime minister hit upon the following device. When any princess or courtiers entered the imperial presence, it was customary to cover the face with a piece of skin. It was first decreed then, that for this purpose the skin of certain white deer kept in one of the royal parks should alone be permitted, and then these pieces of skin were sold for a high price. But although they appear to have passed from one noble to another, they do not seem ever to have entered into general circulation. It was therefore very different from the Russian skin money. In this case the notes were 'used instead of the skins from which they were cut, the skins themselves being too bulky and heavy to be constantly carried backward and forward. Only a little piece was cut off to figure as a token of possession of the whole skin. The ownership was proved when the piece fitted in the hole.' True bank notes are said to have been invented about 800 A. D., in the reign of Hiantsoung, of the dynasty of Thang, and were called 'feytsien,' or flying money. It is curious, however, though not surprising, to find that the temptation to over-issue led to the same results in China as in the West. The value of the notes fell, until at length it took 11,000 min, or £3,000, to buy a cake of rice, and the use of notes appears to have been abandoned. Subsequently the issue was revived, and Tchang-yang (960-990 A. D.) seems to have been the first private person who issued notes. Somewhat later, under the Emperor 'Tching-tsong (997-1022), this invention was largely extended. Sixteen of the richest firms united to form a bank of issue which emitted paper money in series, some payable every three years. The earliest mention, in European literature, of paper, or rather cotton, money appears to be by Rubruquis, a monk, who was sent by St. Louis, in the year 1252, to the Court of the Mongol Prince Mangu-Khan, but he merely mentions the fact of its existence. Marco Polo, who resided from 1275 to 1284 at the court of Kublai-Khan, … gives us a longer and interesting account of the note system, which he greatly admired, and he concludes by saying, 'Now you have heard the ways and means whereby the great Khan may have, and, in fact, has, more treasure than all the kings in the world. You know all about it, and the reason why.' But this apparent facility of creating money led, in the East, as it has elsewhere, to great abuses. Sir John Mandeville, who was in Tartary shortly afterwards, in 1322, tells us that the 'Emperour may dispenden als moehe as he wile with outen estymacioum. For he despendeth not, ne maketh no money, but of lether emprented, or of papyre. … For there and beyonde hem thei make no money, nouther of gold nor of sylver. And therefore he may despende ynow and outrageously.' The great Khan seems to have been himself of the same opinion. He appears to have 'despent outrageously,' and the value of the paper money again fell to a very small fraction of its nominal amount, causing great discontent and misery, until about the middle of the sixteenth century, under the Mandchu dynasty, it was abolished, and appears to have been so completely forgotten, that the Jesuit father, Gabriel de Magaillans, who resided at Pekin about 1668, observes that there is no recollection of paper money having ever existed in the manner described by Marco Polo; though two centuries later it was again in use. It must be observed, however, that these Chinese bank notes differed from ours in one essential—namely, they were not payable at sight. {2201} Western notes, even when not payable at all, have generally purported to be exchangeable at the will of the holder, but this principle the Chinese did not adopt, and their notes were only payable at certain specified periods."

Sir J. Lubbock, The History of Money (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

ALSO IN: W. Vissering, On Chinese Currency.

MONEY AND BANKING: Coinage in its Beginnings.

"Many centuries before the invention of the art of coining, gold and silver in the East, and bronze in the West, in bullion form, had already supplanted barter, the most primitive of all methods of buying and selling, when among pastoral peoples the ox and the sheep were the ordinary mediums of exchange. The very word 'pecunia' is an evidence of this practice in Italy at a period which is probably recent in comparison with the time when values were estimated in cattle in Greece and the East. 'So far as we have any knowledge,' says Herodotus, 'the Lydians were the first nation to introduce the use of gold and silver coin.' This statement of the father of history must not, however, be accepted as finally settling the vexed question as to who were the inventors of coined money, for Strabo, Aelian, and the Parian Chronicle, all agree in adopting the more commonly received tradition, that Pheidon, King of Argos, first struck silver coins in the island of Aegina. These two apparently contradictory assertions modern research tends to reconcile with one another. The one embodies the Asiatic, the other the European tradition; and the truth of the matter is that gold was first coined by the Lydians in Asia Minor, in the seventh century before our era; and that silver was first struck in European Greece about the same time. The earliest coins are simply bullets of metal, oval or bean-shaped, bearing on one side the signet of the state or of the community responsible for the purity of the metal and the exactness of the weight. Coins were at first stamped on one side only, the reverse showing merely the impress of the square-headed spike or anvil on which, after being weighed, the bullet of hot metal was placed with a pair of tongs and there held while a second workman adjusted upon it the engraved die. This done, a third man with a heavy hammer would come down upon it with all his might, and the coin would be produced, bearing on its face or obverse the seal of the issuer, and on the reverse only the mark of the anvil spike, an incuse square. This simple process was after a time improved upon by adding a second engraved die beneath the metal bullet, so that a single blow of the sledge-hammer would provide the coin with a type, as it is called, in relief on both sides. The presence of the unengraved incuse square may therefore be accepted as an indication of high antiquity, and nearly all Greek coins which are later than the age of the Persian wars bear a type on both sides. … Greek coin-types may be divided into two distinct classes: