divided, usually according to the number of males at the last census, being redistributed whenever necessary, Each family receives meadow, forest, and arable land, the meadow being sometimes kept in common and only the grass divided. The mir, or village commune, as a body is assessed for taxes by the Central Government, and the burden of taxation is distributed among the heads of families, according to the amount of land occupied by each. Each mir is self-governing with elected officers, and adjoining mirs may be grouped in volasts or small cantons. The system is very old, but is gradually chang ing, as a mir may now go over to private ownership of land and inheritance of property on vote of two-thirds of its members. Consult: Wallace, Russia (London, 1877); Keussler, Zur Geschich te und Kritik des bäuerlichen Gemeindebesitzes in Russland (Saint Petersburg, 1876-87). MIRABEAU, mê'rå'bo', GABRIEL HONORÉ RIQUETI, Count de (1749-91). A French writer, orator, and statesman. He was the second son of Victor Riqueti, Marquis de Mirabeau, a celebrated economist, and was born at Bignon, near Nemours, March 9, 1749. After several years under a tutor, the young Mirabeau was placed (1767) in a fashionable military school in Paris, where he became proficient in languages and in the accomplishments of good society. In 1767 he joined the Berry cavalry regiment and the next year he received a second lieutenant's commission, but his freaks of conduct and his love affairs, one of which brought him into rivalry with his colonel, caused his imprisonment in the citadel of the island of Ré, from which

he was released, at his father's instigation,

in March, 1769. The condition of his release was that he should join the expedition to Corsica, and as a member of the Legion of Lorraine he served with credit in the subjugation of that

island. In 1771 he was commissioned captain

of dragoons, and in 1772 he was married at Aix

to Marie Emilie de Covet, only daughter of the Marquis de Marignane. Of this union one son, Victor, was born in 1773, but he died in 1778. Debts, quarrels with his father and wife, and an altercation with the Marquis de VilleneuveMonans, led to his imprisonment by lettre de cachet in the Castle of If in 1774, whence he was transferred to the Castle of Joux, near Pontarlier, the next year. Being at freedom to visit Pontarlier, he made the acquaintance of the Marquis de Monnier, an old man of seventy, and his twenty-two-year-old wife, Marie Thérèse Richard de Ruffey. Forgetful of his obligations to the Marquis, Mirabeau fell violently in love with the young Marquise; trouble ensued, and Mirabeau finally escaped to Switzerland, where he was joined by Sophie, as he called his mistress, and in October, 1776, they settled in Amsterdam, where Mirabeau gained a livelihood as a hack writer. In the meantime, the French courts passed sentence upon the runaway lovers, who were arrested in May, 1777, and brought to Paris, where Sophie was kept under close surveillance, while Mirabeau was imprisoned at Vincennes. For three years and a half he was kept in close confinement, but through his guard, a brother Freemason, he was able to carry on his famous correspondence with Sophie. These letters mark the culmination of Mirabeau wild and vicious career. As a prisoner he devoted himself to the

translation of numerous classics, and to the production of various original works, some of which were later published. After his release in December, 1780, he forsook Sophie, who, after another love affair, committed suicide in 1789. Then he returned to Pontarlier, secured the revocation of the death sentence, which had been passed on him for the seduction of Sophie, and later went to Aix, where, after a trial in which he ably conducted his own suit, he was legally separated from his wife in 1783.

Because of his suits at Pontarlier, he found it advisable to leave France for a few months, which he spent at Neuchâtel, where he met the Genevese Liberals Clavière and Duroveray, and where he published his Des lettres de cachet et des prisons d'état, the best known of his earlier writings. From September, 1783, to August, 1784, he was in Paris, where he seems to have begun his life-long intimacy with Henriette van Haren, a young woman of nineteen, known as Madame de Nehra, whose influence over Mirabeau was exerted entirely for his good. In August, 1784, he withdrew to London to allow another storm to blow over. In England he met his old of Minto), Mr. (later Sir) Samuel Romilly, Lord schoolfellow, Sir Gilbert Elliot (later first Earl there wrote the Considérations sur l'ordre de Lansdowne, and other well-known men. He Cincinnatus, which caused a sensation in the United States. After nine months in England, the intercessions of Madame de Nehra tered into intimate relations with the Genevese enabled him to return to Paris, where he enexiles and other Liberals, like Brissot, and tions, published during 1785. These were followed wrote numerous pamphlets on financial queshis criticisms on Necker's administration of the (1787-1789) by his attacks on stock-jobbing and finances. In the meantime, he had twice visited

Prussia, once on a secret mission for the Govern

ment. On his first visit (December, 1785, to

May, 1786) he was received by Frederick the Great, whose death occurred during his second visit at Berlin (July, 1786, to January, 1787). In 1787 he failed in an attempt to secure the position of Secretary to the Assembly of Nota

bles, and his attacks on Necker drove him to take refuge in Prussia. Returning from this third visit to Berlin, he published in 1788 his most famous work, De la monarchie prussienne sous Frédéric le Grand (8 vols. and atlas, London, 1788). In October, 1788, Mirabeau once more was reconciled with his father, and in January, 1789, he arrived at Aix to participate in the elections to the States-General. In April, having been ejected by his own order, the nobility, he was elected by the Third Estate both of Aix and of Marseilles to the States-General, and he chose to represent the former city. He was in Paris in time to publish on May 2, 1789, the first number of his newspaper, which, after some changes of title, finally took the name of Courrier de Provence, and a few days later to be present at the opening of the States-General at Versailles. He never had a following upon whom he could depend in the States-General, where his success was always a result of his ability to take advantage of temporary enthusiasm or excitement-an ability which gave him a reputation for boldness, for knowing his own mind, for oratorical powers, and for many of the arts of the demagogue. The true greatness of Mirabeau was not revealed

until the publication of his works, and especially his correspondence with La Marck, many years after his death. From the first Mirabeau saw that the royal and ministerial scheme of financial reform would be insufficient to cure the existing evils, but he likewise saw that reforms could be successfully carried out only by a strong Government. From the opening of the States-General until his death two years later, Mirabeau was undeniably the most important figure in public life in France, and the story of his life is that of the Revolution. He took part in the debates concerning the status of the members of the Third Estate, and his bold attitude as their spokesman at the royal session of June 23d marked him as the champion of the Third Estate in the struggle which ended in the reorganization of the States-General as the National Assembly. He protested vigorously against the attempt to overawe the Assembly by the mobilization of troops around Paris, but his father's death on July 13th prevented his participation in the stirring events of the following day when the Bastille was stormed and destroyed by the populace of Paris. The protracted debates on the rights of the individual, and the reckless haste in the destruction of the old order by the Assembly on August 4th, called forth his protests. Still he recognized the importance of the proposed Declaration of the Rights of Man, and took an active part in framing it. Mirabeau, however, saw that neither theoretical nor destructive, but constructive statesmanship was the need of the hour. One by one he brought forward his favorite constitutional measures and defended them with all his powers of logic, eloquence, and persuasion, only to see them voted down. After the failure of his proposition to choose the royal Ministers from the members of the National Assembly, on November 7, 1789, Mirabeau strove earnestly to put his great abilities at the service of the King, whom he had attempted to advise as early as October 15th. He tried to work with Lafayette and Necker, but everywhere he was viewed with suspicion, his advice was never followed, and his assistance was rejected entirely or accepted with ill grace. Finally in May, 1790, he abandoned his attempts to cooperate with Necker and Lafayette, and, through La Marck, entered into regular relations with the King and Queen, for whom he wrote his famous series of notes of advice. This change was marked in the Assembly by his speech in favor of the royal prerogative, especially in questions of peace and war, which directed suspicion toward him, and caused a temporary outburst of popular indignation against him. He was largely responsible for Necker's resignation in September, 1790, and for the appointment of Clavière in his place. In July he had been placed on the Diplomatic Committee of the Assembly, and, in cooperation with his old friend Montmorin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, had dealt with the perplexing questions of foreign relations, such as the annexation of Avignon and the maintenance of the Family Compact with Spain. He insisted that no other country should interfere in the internal affairs of France; that other countries must keep their agreements with France; and that France must respect her agreements with other countries. On November 30, 1790, he was elected president of the Society of the Friends of the Constitution, popularly known as the Jacobin Club, and on January 29, 1791, he

received the coveted honor of election as president of the National Assembly. His last note to the Court, through La Marck, was sent on February 3d. His last appearance in the Assembly was on March 27th. On April 2, 1791, he died in the Rue de la Chaussée d'Antin in Paris. He was buried in the Church of Sainte-Geneviève (the Pantheon), but three years later his remains were removed to make room for those of Marat. The greatness of Mirabeau has been generally recognized, but in estimating the details of his life and policy there has been the widest divergence of opinion. French republicans have condemned him unsparingly for his monarchical sympathies, but most of all because in return for his services the Court paid his debts and supplied him with funds. In his defense it must be said that Mirabeau regarded himself as de facto prime minister, charged with the duty of saving France, a task to which he felt he alone was equal. The keynote of his advice to the Court was that the King should transfer the Court and the Assembly from Paris to Fontainebleau, or Compiègne, or some other small town of Central France, where the influence of the mob of Paris would cease to control the Assembly, and the King and the Assembly would be free to give France a strong monarchical constitution. Mirabeau had great power over men, and made those who came under his fascination willing to merge their personalities in his and allow him to take all the credit for their labors. The Souvenirs of Etienne Dumont, one of his collaborators, first showed fully Mirabeau's methods of work, and the way in which he made regular use of the services of Dumont, Reybaz, Pellenc, and even better known persons like Clavière and the Abbé Lamourette. In Mirabeau everything was on a colossal scale; in personal appearance and moral character he was almost a monster; in intellect and powers of endurance he was a titan. In his personality all that was noblest and best of the French Revolution seemed combined with the greatest of its characteristic evils. The philosophers of history have mourned Mirabeau's death, because they believed that had he lived he would have saved France from the excesses of the Reign of Terror. It would be safe to say that he was the only one who might have rendered France that service, but it is to be doubted whether even the man whose character can best be summed up in the word excess could have saved his nation from the evil of excess. Alike terrible in their greatness, Mirabeau and Napoleon were the greatest men of the French Revolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Mirabeau, Euvres (9 vols., Paris, 1825-27), is the most complete collection of his writings, but lacks the Monarchie prussienne. Mémoires de Mirabeau écrits par luimême, par son père, son oncle, et son fils adoptif (9 vols., Paris, 1834-35), is still the most important authority, in spite of many defects. Willert, Mirabeau (London, 1898), is the only recent life in English, but may be supplemented by Morse Stephens, The French Revolution; Carlyle, The French Revolution; and Von Holst, The French Revolution Tested by Mirabeau's Career (Chicago, 1894). For Mirabeau's relations with the Court, consult Correspondance entre le Comte de Mirabeau et le Comte de La Marck pendant les années 1789, 1790, et 1791 (Paris, 1851). For Mirabeau as an orator, see Aulard, L'éloquence parlementaire pendant la Révolu

tion française (ib., 1882); for his methods of work, Dumont, Souvenirs; and Reybaz, Un collaborateur de Mirabeau (ib., 1874); for his election to the States-General, Guibal, Mirabeau et la Provence (ib., 1887-91); for his career in the Assembly, Reynald, Mirabeau et la Constituante (ib., 1872). The best lives are Stern, Das Leben Mirabeaus (Berlin, 1889); Mézières, Vie de Mirabeau; and Loménie, Les Mirabeaux (5 vols., Paris, 1889-91).

MIRACLE PLAY (OF., Fr. miracle, from Lat. miraculum, miracle, from mirari, to wonder, from mirus, wonderful; connected with Gk. dav, meidan, Skt. smi, to smile). Strictly, the second stage in the development of the modern drama under religious auspices, though it is sometimes confounded with the first, for which, and for a general account of this development, see MYSTERY. The distinction between the two, where it is made, is based on the fact that whereas the mysteries proper took their subjects from the Scripture narrative, centring about the life of Christ, the miracle plays were taken rather from the lives of the saints. The significant features of this change were that by getting away from the sacred text of the Scriptures greater latitude was gained, and a greater range of characters; a nearer approach to a representation of contemporary life was thus also permitted, and a freer introduction of the comedy element than reverence would allow in the earlier form. Matthew Paris mentions a miracle play, Ludus de Sancta Katharina, that was performed at Dunstable about 1110, under the direction of a certain Geoffrey, afterwards Abbot of Saint Albans. Again, William Fitz-Stephen, in his Life of Thomas Becket (about 1182), writes approvingly of London plays on the miracles and sufferings of martyrs and confessors. Other miracle plays, based on the lives of Saint Fabian, Saint Sebastian, Saint Botolph, Saint George, and Saint Crispin, were performed in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. Very few texts of English miracle plays have been preserved; but from numerous Continental specimens, it may be inferred that they were in aim and structure similar to the mysteries. For bibliography, see MYSTERY.

MIRACLES. The view to be taken of these extraordinary events is very largely a question of what definition of them is presupposed. A miracle was for a long time held to be "a violation or suspension of, or an interference with, the laws of nature." A later typical definition makes it "an extraordinary operation cognizable by the senses, which has its course not in the order of nature, as known to us, but in God." Another, not antagonistic to this, but perhaps more in accordance with the most recent scientific and religious thought, understands a miracle as "a revelation of a higher life, the prophecy of a new stage in the development of creation." The old definition upon which Hume trained his intellectual artillery has disappeared with the eighteenth century Deism which gave it birth. Hume's argument and the replies of the Christian apologists of his day are no longer factors in the discussion of the miraculous. The theory of special creations has been supplanted by that of organic growth. The divine being is recognized as immanent as well as transcend ent. He is neither banished from the world nor buried in it. As a result, God and man

are closer together. The line of demarcation between the natural and the supernatural is finer. Some writers even insist that the common distinction between the two is unreal and misleading. We are told that there are not and cannot be any divine interpositions in nature, for God cannot interfere with Himself. His creative activity is everywhere present.

Man, though made in the image of God, is not the measure of God. If he were, nothing would be more supernatural to him than the visible and known course of things is now. To men thinking along these lines miracles are no longer interferences with or violations of the fixed laws of nature. They are but the manifestations of a Higher Life-the expression among the lower sequences of life of that which a larger vision may one day make our own. Man himself, by the exercise of his personality, works wonders among the laws or forces of the natural world which are brought under his control. Men of scientific training effect changes in physical things which are miracles to other men. Grownup people perform miracles in the sight of children. A distinction, moreover, has been made between 'known' and 'unknown' laws. The old laws formerly designated as 'the laws of nature' are not violated or suspended. All natural processes go on, but they are counteracted or interacted by a new kind of nature working by a new law with a new power. The 'fixity of law' in the physical world is no longer an indispensable factor in biological phraseology. It is contended that modern science, in enlarging its horizon, has discovered and labeled some of the principles by which an immanent God effects His beneficent purposes, but that beyond and above these are other, and to man, as yet, 'unknown' and higher

laws.

Further: the great First Cause who, Christianity assumes, is behind all the evolutionary processes of nature has another kingdom. He is the author and controller of the moral as well as the natural order of the universe. Embodied in the doctrine of the divine immanence is the unity of a divine purpose throughout the moral and the physical world. The natural and the moral are not two opposing spheres of which the one dominates the other, but the one conjoint revelation of the moral nature of God, the lower of which prepares for and leads on to the higher. Or, in other words, the moral and the material world are obviously and incontestably part and Hence, parcel of one and the same system. our definition may be enlarged to make a miracle not only the prophecy of a new state in the development of creation, but "an event. in physical nature which makes unmistakably⚫ plain the presence and direct action of God working for a moral end." This view eliminates • the Kantian dualism, and makes the Bible miracles not detached and meaningless portents, but part of a preparatory dispensation in the divine evolution. Displays of miraculous power are but the manifestations to man in his imperfection of that for which he hungers, and toward which he struggles-the perfection of the moral king of the universe.

To the unbiased thinker along these lines the rationale of miracles is at once apparent, and their possibility or even probability presents no serious difliculty. But the credibility of the so-called miraculous events can be estab

.

lished only by satisfactory evidence. Faith is not credulity, and it presents a reasonable demand for proofs. The Apostles clearly had no prejudice in favor of the resurrection and ascension of their master. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain, from a worldly point of view, by sticking to their stories. So the Gospel evidence cannot be simply ignored. New Testament criticism, moreover, seems unable to find any theory by which the miraculous can be entirely eliminated, and the historicity of the Gospels still preserved.

Passing from the Gospels to the Epistles, the great authority in support of the resurrection is held to be Saint Paul, especially I. Cor. xv., the genuineness of which is unchallenged by impartial criticism. His citation of the manifestation of the risen Christ to "above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part re. main unto this day," remains a strong argument. Owing to the proximity of Corinth to the Syrian coast, it could easily have been challenged, but it does not appear that it was. It would follow, then, that within twenty-five years after the Crucifixion there were living over two hundred and fifty persons who had seen Christ alive after His death at one time and place.

The evidence for apostolic miracles, as contained especially in a number of passages of the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, is of a kind which, for the special purpose for which it was written, is particularly valuable. This evidence, which gains force from being incidental and not didactic, shows (in Sanday's words) that the Apostle "was conscious of the power of working miracles, and that he had actually wrought them; and it shows that he assumed the existence of the same power in others besides himself, and that he could appeal to it without fear of being challenged." The evidential value of miracles does not hold so prominent a place in Christian apologetics as it once did. The tendency to-day is to put Jesus Christ and His claims to recognition as a Teacher and Saviour in the forefront of the Christian position. He was His own greatest miracle, an evidence of Christianity the force of which can be estimated without special critical train: ing. His miracles were according to the law of His being 'in rational sequence' with the character of His person and mission. Works (pya) and powers (duvaμes) were natural to Him, as "the unique manifestations of His unique personality." Hence, we are told that the unique revelation of God made in the person of Jesus Christ must be its own evidence. The appeal is made to men to believe in the Christ primarily on moral and spiritual grounds. His miracles are not credentials: they are manifestations of and inseparable from Himself. Belief in His person and character will ultimately lead to a belief in His miracle-working. The fact that miracles are of the very substance of the Gospels is but the reflection of the deeper fact that they are of the very essence of Christ's manifestation of Himself.

The apostolic miracles may be viewed from the same standpoint, as the flashing forth after Pentecost of the more glorious divine life when an opening was made for it. They were coupled with and the power to work them was transmitted by the "laying on of hands," and it is

widely held that no real miracles have been performed since the death of the last of those upon whom the Apostles laid their hands. To take this position, however, is to challenge the genuineness if not to deny the possibility of what are known as 'ecclesiastical' miracles. Some of their advocates admit that the great mass of them were a new dispensation, but insist that no strong antecedent improbability can be entertained against such a dispensation, because the Scripture miracles had already borne the brunt of hostile attacks and 'broken the ice' for their successors. It may fairly be said, too, that the claim for the cessation of miracles in subapostolic days, or, as some hold, after the Church was established by the civil power under Constantine, and, therefore, did not need supernatural assistance, is but a part of the now generally exploded idea that miracles were given for evidential purposes. On the other hand, it is noticeable that during the second and third centuries Christian writers have comparatively little to say about contemporary wonder-working, except in three forms, viz. curing disease, casting out demons, and prophesying. They seem to recognize that the extensive powers resident in Christ and the Apostles have ceased to operate. But in the fourth century, and on through the Middle Ages, constant reference is made to miracles of all kinds and full descriptions of their occurrence are given. The schoolmen bent their energies to setting forth the doctrine of the Church with regard to these records of the supernatural, and reconciling them with what was then believed concerning the world and God. Thomas Aquinas taught that a miracle is something altogether outside the natural order, while Albertus Magnus held that God has woven the miraculous into the order of nature, as one of its possibilities. Abélard freely criticised the accounts of alleged miracles in the age in which he lived, yet he believed that divine power might alter even the nature of things, whence miracles were possible. The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained that the 'spiritual gift' of working miracles (cf. I. Cor. xii. 10) has not ceased, but resides in the Church forever. does not, however, require a belief in the truth of any particular one of these later miracles, leaving the evidence in the individual case to be the criterion. Proof of the power to work miracles is an essential prerequisite to canonization.

It

In conclusion, then, all real miracles may be regarded as sacraments of divine working-outward and visible signs' of the inner and unbroken unity of the natural and moral kingdoms of the Supreme Love. In this sense they were parts of a great whole-normal and fitting vehicles of a. revelation. They were in themselves "the revelations of a higher life, the prophecies of a new stage in the development of creation." But in them, as in all so-called 'miraculous' manifestations, the moral as well as the historical circumstances must be fully grasped and clearly presented before a hearty and loyal recognition can be secured.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. For older discussions of the subject, consult: Butler, Analogy (London, 1736); Hume, Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (ib., 1748); Paley, Eridences (ib., 1794). For modern treatment: Newman, Two Lectures on Miracles, (1) Biblical, (2) Ecclesiastical (ib., 1843); Duke of Argyll, Reign of Law (ib., 1866); Arnold, Literature and Dogma (ib.,

1873); Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (ib., 1846); Mozley, On Miracles, Bampton Lectures (ib., 1876); Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural (new ed., New York, 1876); Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World (ib., 1883), and two answers to Drummond-Cockburn, The Laws of Nature and the Laws of God (ib., 1886); Laing, Modern Science and Modern Thought (ib., 1885); Moore, Science and the Faith (ib., 1889); Liddon, Some Elements of Religion, Bampton Lectures (ib., 1872); Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief (Edinburgh, 1874); Westcott, The Gospel of Life (London, 1893); Illingworth, Divine Immanence (ib., 1898); Bender, Der Wunderbegriff des neuen Testaments (Frankfort, 1871); Lias, Are Miracles Credible? (London, 1883); McCosh, The Supernatural in Relation to the Natural (ib., 1862); Westcott, Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles (Cambridge, 1859); Sternmeyer, The Miracles of Our Lord in Relation to Modern Criticism (Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1875); Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief (New York, 1883); Bormiot, Wunder und Scheinwunder (Regensburg, 1897); Taylor, The Gospel Miracles in Their Relation to Christ and Christianity (New York, 1880); Müller, Natur und Wunder, ihr Gegensatz und ihre Harmonie (Freiburg, 1892); id., Das Wunder und die Geschichtswissenschaft (ib., 1898); Hogan, Clerical Studies (Boston, 1898); Temple, The Relation Between Religion and Science, Bampton Lectures (London, 1884); Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (ib., 1887); Row, Christian Evidences Viewed in Relation to Modern Thought (ib., 1877); Abbott, The Kernel and the Husk (ib., 1886); Huxley, “The Value of Witness to the Miraculous," in Christianity and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (ib., 1896).

MIRAFLORES, mē'rå-flō'râs, MANUEL DE PANDO, Marquis, and Count of Villapaterna (1792-1872). A Spanish statesman. He was born at Madrid, was sent as ambassador to London in 1834, and was ambassador at Paris in 1838-40. In 1846 he was Premier, and in 1863 again filled the same office. He was ambassador to Vienna in 1860, and was several times presi

dent of the Senate. He wrote a number of works which are of value for the political history of Spain in the nineteenth century. The most important is a History of the First Seven Years of the Reign of Isabella II. (1843-44).

MIRAGE, mi-räzh' (Fr., from mirer, to gaze). A phenomenon extremely common in certain localities, and due to conditions existing in the atmosphere. As a result of a deviation of the rays of light caused by refraction and reflection, objects seen with the eye appear in unusual positions and often multiple or inverted. One cause of mirage, such as occurs in a desert, is a diminution of the density of the air near the surface of the earth, often produced by the radiation of heat from the earth, the denser stratum being thus placed above, instead of, as is usually the case, below the rarer. Now, rays of light from a distant object, situated in the denser medium (i.e. a little above the earth's level), coming in a direction nearly parallel to the earth's surface, meet the rarer medium at a very obtuse angle, and (see LIGHT) instead of passing into it, they are reflected

back to the dense medium, the common surface of the two media acting as a mirror. The image produced by the reflected rays will appear inverted, and below the real object, just as an image reflected in water appears when observed from a distance. If the object is a cloud or portion of sky, it will appear by the reflected rays as lying on the surface of the earth, and bearing a strong resemblance to a sheet of water; also, as the reflecting surface is irregular, and constantly varies its position, owing to the constant communication of heat to the upper stratum, the reflected image will be constantly varying, and will present the appearance of a water surface ruffled by the wind. This form of mirage is of common occurrence in the arid deserts of Lower Egypt, Persia, Turkestan, etc. In the case of mirage at sea the denser layers of air are next to the surface of the water, and the reflection takes place from the rarer atmosphere above. Consequently we have the object appearing in the air suspended and inverted. Sometimes images of objects are seen not above one another, but side by side, caused by the existence of bodies of air of different densities in proximity.

In particular states of the atmosphere reflection of a portion only of the rays takes place at the surface of the dense medium, and thus double images are formed, one by reflection, and the other by refraction-the first inverted and the second erect. The phenomena of mirage are frequently much more strange and complicated, the images being often much distorted and magnified, and in some instances occurring at a considerable distance from the object, as in the case of a tower or church seen over the sea, or a vessel over dry land, etc. The particular form of mirage known as looming is very frequently observed at sea, and consists in an excessive apparent elevation of the object. Consult Müller, Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (Brunswick, 1896).

MIRAMAR, mēʼrå-mär'. An imperial palace and public pleasure resort on the Gulf of Triest, six miles northwest of Triest (q.v.).

second largest river in New Brunswick, Canada. MIRAMICHI (mir'à-mê-she') RIVER. The It is formed by the junction of the northwest and southwest Miramichi (Map: New Brunswick, C3). It flows, after a course of about 100 miles, into the Bay of Miramichi, a part of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Pine woods abounding with game line the banks of the river, which is navigable for vessels of modern size for a distance of 40 miles from its mouth. The fishing is excellent, salmon and trout abound, and there is a State fish breeding establishment on one of the tributaries.

MIRAMÓN, meʼrå-mōn', MIGUEL (1832-67). A Mexican general, of French descent, born in the City of Mexico. He was educated for the army, and fought against the United States at Molino del Rey and Chapultepec. He saw much active service during the fifties, and was promoted to be a lieutenant-colonel in 1855. He was one of the leaders of the opposition to Comonfort (q.v.) in 1856, and supported Zuloaga, the representative of the clerical and reactionary party, in the movement which forced Comonfort to retire to the United States in 1858. Later in the same year he was chosen acting President by a Junta de Notables, but, contrary to the expectations of the junta apparently, he turned the office over to Zuloaga