494 mints
France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century
(Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979).
mints SeeMONEY AND MINTS.
miracle plays SeeMYSTERY AND MIRACLE PLAYS.
miracles and collections of miracles Miracles were
believed to be of divine origin and contrary to the laws of
nature. Jesus Christ himself worked many miracles.
Faced with the difficulties of life in the Middle Ages, peo-
ple often invoked divine aid through the intermediary of
the saints, in their roles as intercessors between human
beings and GOD. Certain living holy men, and to a far
lesser extent holy women, were held to be endowed with
magical or miraculous powers, including the gift of heal-
ing, clairvoyance, and ensuring protection.
It was mainly after DEATH, through the intermediary
of their RELICS, that the saints worked miracles. Healings
were the most frequent miracles, but miracles involving
the deliverance of prisoners, preservations from various
dangers, and other favorable interventions such as recov-
ery of lost objects or multiplication of food or drink were
considered common enough. Some saints were much
more effective in these events and their cult grew accord-
ingly. Miracles of a more negative or revenging nature
could also occur when God or his saints were insulted or
not respected adequately. The saints could even play
jokes of a cautionary or warning kind. The lives of saints
and hagiographical traditions demanded and emphasized
miracles as proof of holiness. Saints had to be careful,
however, in dispensing the miraculous. God was consid-
ered their actual source. Saints were not empowered to
perform MAGIC. There was also the possibility that the
DEVILor Satan might act in the world and perform mira-
cles for his own nefarious ends.
For the Orthodox Church, every sign of God’s direct
or indirect intervention was considered a miracle.
Unusual events could be logical responses of God to the
impiety or the credulous faith of the believer. The mirac-
ulous is nothing but a revelation of the supernatural
always present to those who deserve it. For the Ortho-
dox, the miracle was a sign of sanctity, a mark of a divine
choice rather than divine intervention.
See alsoHAGIOGRAPHY.
Further reading:Benedicta Ward, Miracles and the
Medieval Mind: Theory, Record, and Event, 1000–1215
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982);
Carolyn L. Connor, Art and Miracles in Medieval Byzan-
tium: The Crypt at Hosios Loukas and Its Frescoes(Prince-
ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991); Ronald F.
Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in
Medieval England(London: J. M. Dent, 1977); William D.
McCready, Signs of Sanctity: Miracles in the Thought of
Gregory the Great(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediae-
val Studies, 1989); Raymond Van Dam, Saints and Their
Miracles in Late Antique Gaul(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1993).Mirandola, Giovanni Pico della(1463–1494) Italian
Neoplatonic philosopher
Pico was born in 1463, the son of the prince of Miran-
dola, near FERRARA. Unlike other Florentine Platonists he
was primarily interested in a synthesis of Christian THE-
OLOGYand diverse philosophies, including Jewish Kab-
balism and the Arabic doctrines of IBN RUSHD or
Averroës. He was a friend of Marsilio FICINO. In 1486, he
defended the conclusions of certain suspect philosophers;
but some of these theses were later condemned by the
PAPACYand he had to flee to FRANCE. His interest in the
Jewish KABBALAwas deemed highly suspicious by Pope
Innocent VIII (r. 1484–92). At the intervention of
Lorenzo de’ MEDICI(1449–92), he was allowed to return
and remained in FLORENCEuntil his early death. His Ora-
tion of the Dignity of Manexalted human dignity and the
freedom of the individual to influence his or her own
spiritual development. He died quite young in 1494.
Further reading:Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, On
the Dignity of Man,trans. Charles Glenn Wallis (Indi-
anapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965); Giovanni Pico della
Mirandola, Commentary on a Poem of Platonic Love,trans.
Douglas Carmichael (Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 1986); William G. Craven, Giovanni Pico della
Mirandola: Symbol of His Age, Modern Interpretations of a
Renaissance Philosopher(Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1981);
Charles B. Schmitt, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola
(1469–1533) and His Critique of Aristotle (The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1967).Mirror of Princes Mirrors of Princes were didactic
works intended for kings or future kings. They sought to
teach morality and the art of governing. Oriented toward
theory, they presented a conventional model for a perfect
prince. They listed the virtues a ruler should cultivate
and possess to rule a kingdom justly.
Their origins can be found in the manuals on govern-
ment produced in Greek and Roman antiquity. From the
fourth century C.E., they became Christian and were usu-
ally written by clerics. AUGUSTINE’s City of Godcan be
seen to offer an early portrait of the ideal Christian prince.
By the Carolingian period, they were common and explic-
itly moral in intent. In the 12th century JOHN OF
SALISBURY’s Policraticus(1159) was a true political treatise.
Giles of Rome’s (d. 1316) De regimine principumfrom
1285 was intended for King PHILIPIV THEFAIRof France.
It was influenced by Aristotelian theoretical political ideas
and was translated many times. Such works of the later
Middle Ages became more intended for a broader audi-
ence. They transcended the perspective of the prince and