Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "L" to "Lamellibranchia" (part 4)

LALAING, JACQUES DE (c. 1420-1453), Flemish knight, was originally in the service of the duke of Cleves and afterwards in that of the duke of Burgundy, Philip III., the Good, gaining great renown by his prowess in the tiltyard. The duke of Burgundy entrusted him with embassies to the pope and the king of France (1451), and subsequently sent him to put down the revolt of the inhabitants of Ghent, in which expedition he was killed. His biography, Le Livre des faits de messire Jacques de Lalaing, which has been published several times, is mainly the work of the Burgundian herald and chronicler Jean le Fèvre, better known as Toison d’or; the Flemish historiographer Georges Chastellain and the herald Charolais also took part in its compilation.

LALANDE, JOSEPH JÉRÔME LEFRANÇAIS DE (1732-1807), French astronomer, was born at Bourg (department of Ain), on the 11th of July 1732. His parents sent him to Paris to study law; but the accident of lodging in the Hôtel Cluny, where J. N. Delisle had his observatory, drew him to astronomy, and he became the zealous and favoured pupil of both Delisle and Pierre Lemonnier. He, however, completed his legal studies, and was about to return to Bourg to practise there as an advocate, when Lemonnier obtained permission to send him to Berlin, to make observations on the lunar parallax in concert with those of N. L. Lacaille at the Cape of Good Hope. The successful execution of his task procured for him, before he was twenty-one, admission to the Academy of Berlin, and the post of adjunct astronomer to that of Paris. He now devoted himself to the improvement of the planetary theory, publishing in 1759 a corrected edition of Halley’s tables, with a history of the celebrated comet whose return in that year he had aided Clairault to calculate. In 1762 J. N. Delisle resigned in his favour the chair of astronomy in the Collège de France, the duties of which were discharged by Lalande for forty-six years. His house became an astronomical seminary, and amongst his pupils were J. B. J. Delambre, G. Piazzi, P. Mechain, and his own nephew Michel Lalande. By his publications in connexion with the transit of 1769 he won great and, in a measure, deserved fame. But his love of notoriety and impetuous temper compromised the respect due to his scientific zeal, though these faults were partially balanced by his generosity and benevolence. He died on the 4th of April 1807.

Although his investigations were conducted with diligence rather than genius, the career of Lalande must be regarded as of eminent service to astronomy. As a lecturer and writer he gave to the science unexampled popularity; his planetary tables, into which he introduced corrections for mutual perturbations, were the best available up to the end of the 18th century; and the Lalande prize, instituted by him in 1802 for the chief astronomical performance of each year, still testifies to his enthusiasm for his favourite pursuit. Amongst his voluminous works are Traité d’astronomie (2 vols., 1764; enlarged edition, 4 vols., 1771-1781; 3rd ed., 3 vols., 1792); Histoire céleste française (1801), giving the places of 50,000 stars; Bibliographie astronomique (1803), with a history of astronomy from 1781 to 1802; Astronomie des dames (1785); Abrégé de navigation (1793); Voyage d’un françois en Italie (1769), a valuable record of his travels in 1765-1766. He communicated above one hundred and fifty papers to the Paris Academy of Sciences, edited the Connoissance des temps (1759-1774), and again (1794-1807), and wrote the concluding 2 vols. of the 2nd edition of Montucla’s Histoire des mathématiques (1802).

See Mémoires de l’Institut, t. viii. (1807) (J. B. J. Delambre); Delambre, Hist. de l’astr. au XVIIIe siècle, p. 547; Magazin encyclopédique, ii. 288 (1810) (Mme de Salm); J. S. Bailly, Hist. de l’astr. moderne, t. iii. (ed. 1785); J. Mädler, Geschichte der Himmelskunde, ii. 141; R. Wolf, Gesch. der Astronomie; J. J. Lalande, Bibl. astr. p. 428; J. C. Poggendorff, Biog. Lit. Handwörterbuch; M. Marie, Hist. des sciences, ix. 35.

LALÍN, a town of north-western Spain, in the province of Pontevedra. Pop. (1900) 16,238. Lalín is the centre of the trade in agricultural products of the fertile highlands between the Deza and Arnego rivers. The local industries are tanning and the manufacture of paper. Near Lalín are the ruins of the Gothic abbey of Carboeiro.

LA LINEA, or La Linea de la Concepcion, a town of Spain, in the province of Cadiz, between Gibraltar and San Roque. Pop. (1900) 31,802. La Linea, which derives its name from the line or boundary dividing Spanish territory from the district of Gibraltar, is a town of comparatively modern date and was formerly looked upon as a suburb of San Roque. It is now a distinct frontier post and headquarters of the Spanish commandant of the lines of Gibraltar. The fortifications erected here in the 16th century were dismantled by the British in 1810, to prevent the landing of French invaders, and all the existing buildings are modern. They include barracks, casinos, a theatre and a bull-ring, much frequented by the inhabitants and garrison of Gibraltar. La Linea has some trade in cereals, fruit and vegetables; it is the residence of large numbers of labourers employed in Gibraltar.

LALITPUR, a town of British India, in Jhansi district, United Provinces. Pop. (1901) 11,560. It has a station on the Great Indian Peninsula railway, and a large trade in oil-seeds, hides and ghi. It contains several beautiful Hindu and Jain temples. It was formerly the headquarters of a district of the same name, which was incorporated with that of Jhansi in 1891. The Bundela chiefs of Lalitpur were among those who most eagerly joined the Mutiny, and it was only after a severe struggle that the district was pacified.

LALLY, THOMAS ARTHUR, Comte de, Baron de Tollendal (1702-1766), French general, was born at Romans, Dauphiné, in January 1702, being the son of Sir Gerard O’Lally, an Irish Jacobite who married a French lady of noble family, from whom the son inherited his titles. Entering the French army in 1721 he served in the war of 1734 against Austria; he was present at Dettingen (1743), and commanded the regiment de Lally in the famous Irish brigade at Fontenoy (May 1745). He was made a brigadier on the field by Louis XV. He had previously been mixed up in several Jacobite plots, and in 1745 accompanied Charles Edward to Scotland, serving as aide-de-camp at the battle of Falkirk (January 1746). Escaping to France, he served with Marshal Saxe in the Low Countries, and at the capture of Maestricht (1748) was made a maréchal de camp. When war broke out with England in 1756 Lally was given the command of a French expedition to India. He reached Pondicherry in April 1758, and at the outset met with some trifling military success. He was a man of courage and a capable general; but his pride and ferocity made him disliked by his officers and hated by his soldiers, while he regarded the natives as slaves, despised their assistance, and trampled on their traditions of caste. In consequence everything went wrong with him. He was unsuccessful in an attack on Tanjore, and had to retire from the siege of Madras (1758) owing to the timely arrival of the British fleet. He was defeated by Sir Eyre Coote at Wandiwash (1760), and besieged in Pondicherry and forced to capitulate (1761). He was sent as a prisoner of war to England. While in London, he heard that he was accused in France of treachery, and insisted, against advice, on returning on parole to stand his trial. He was kept prisoner for nearly two years before the trial began; then, after many painful delays, he was sentenced to death (May 6, 1766), and three days later beheaded. Louis XV. tried to throw the responsibility for what was undoubtedly a judicial murder on his ministers and the public, but his policy needed a scapegoat, and he was probably well content not to exercise his authority to save an almost friendless foreigner.

See G. B. Malleson, The Career of Count Lally (1865); “Z’s” (the marquis de Lally-Tollendal) article in the Biographie Michaud; and Voltaire’s Œuvres complètes. The legal documents are preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale.

LALLY-TOLLENDAL, TROPHIME GÉRARD, Marquis de (1751-1830), was born at Paris on the 5th of March 1751. He was the legitimized son of the comte de Lally and only discovered the secret of his birth on the day of his father’s execution, when he resolved to devote himself to clearing his father’s memory. He was supported by Voltaire, and in 1778 succeeded in persuading Louis XVI. to annul the decree which had sentenced the comte de Lally; but the parlement of Rouen, to which the case was referred back, in 1784 again decided in favour of Lally’s guilt. The case was retried by other courts, but Lally’s innocence was never fully admitted by the French judges. In 1779 Lally-Tollendal bought the office of Grand bailli of Étampes, and in 1789 was a deputy to the states-general for the noblesse of Paris. He played some part in the early stages of the Revolution, but was too conservative to be in sympathy with all even of its earlier developments. He threw himself into opposition to the “tyranny” of Mirabeau, and condemned the epidemic of renunciation which in the session of the 4th of August 1789 destroyed the traditional institutions of France. Later in the year he emigrated to England. During the trial of Louis XVI. by the National Convention (1793) he offered to defend the king, but was not allowed to return to France. He did not return till the time of the Consulate. Louis XVIII. created him a peer of France, and in 1816 he became a member of the French Academy. From that time until his death, on the 11th of March 1830, he devoted himself to philanthropic work, especially identifying himself with prison reform.

See his Plaidoyer pour Louis XVI. (London, 1793); Lally-Tollendal was also in part responsible for the Mémoires, attributed to Joseph Weber, concerning Marie Antoinette (1804); he further edited the article on his father in the Biographie Michaud; see also Arnault, Discours prononcé aux funérailles de M. le marquis de Lally-Tollendal le 13 mars 1830 (Paris); Gauthier de Brecy, Nécrologie de M. le marquis de Lally-Tollendal (Paris, undated); Voltaire, Œuvres complètes (Paris, 1889), in which see the analytical table of contents, vol. ii.

LALO, EDOUARD (1823-1892), French composer, was born at Lille, on the 27th of January 1823. He began his musical studies at the conservatoire at Lille, and in Paris attended the violin classes of Habeneck. For several years Lalo led a modest and retired existence, playing the viola in the quartet party organized by Armingaud and Jacquard, and in composing chamber music. His early works include two trios, a quartet, and several pieces for violin and pianoforte. In 1867 he took part in an operatic competition, an opera from his pen, entitled Fiesque, obtaining the third place out of forty-three. This work was accepted for production at the Paris Opéra, but delays occurred, and nothing was done. Fiesque was next offered to the Théâtre de la Monnaie, Brussels, and was about to be produced there when the manager became bankrupt. Thus, when nearly fifty years of age, Lalo found himself in difficulties. Fiesque was never performed, but the composer published the pianoforte score, and eventually employed some of the music in other works. After the Franco-German war French composers found their opportunity in the concert-room. Lalo was one of these, and during the succeeding ten years several interesting works from his pen were produced, among them a sonata for violoncello, a “divertissement” for orchestra, a violin concerto and the Symphonie Espagnole for violin and orchestra, one of his best-known compositions. In the meanwhile he had written a second opera, Le Roi d’Ys, which he hoped would be produced at the Opéra. The administration offered him the “scenario” of a ballet instead. Lalo was obliged to be content with this, and set to work with so much energy that he fell ill, the last scenes of the ballet being orchestrated by Gounod. Namouna, the ballet in question, was produced at the Opéra in 1882. Six years later, on the 7th of May 1888, Le Roi d’Ys was brought out at the Opéra Comique, and Lalo was at last enabled to taste the sweets of success. Unfortunately, fame came to him too late in life. A pianoforte concerto and the music to Néron, a pantomimic piece played at the Hippodrome in 1891, were his last two works. He had begun a new opera, but had only written the first act when, on the 23rd of April 1892, he died. This opera, La Jacquerie, was finished by Arthur Coquard, and was produced in 1895 at Monte Carlo, Aix-les-Bains and finally in Paris. Lalo had distinct originality, discernible in his employment of curious rhythmic devices. His music is ever ingenious and brilliantly effective.

LA MADDALENA, an island 2½ m. from the N.E. coast of Sardinia. Pop. (1901) 8361. Napoleon bombarded it in 1793 without success, and Nelson made it his headquarters for some time. It is now an important naval station of the Italian fleet, the anchorage being good, and is strongly fortified. A bridge and an embankment connect it with Caprera. It appears to have been inhabited in Roman times.

LĀMĀISM, a system of doctrine partly religious, partly political. Religiously it is the corrupt form of Buddhism prevalent in Tibet and Mongolia. It stands in a relationship to primitive Buddhism similar to that in which Roman Catholicism, so long as the temporal power of the pope was still in existence, stood to primitive Christianity. The ethical and metaphysical ideas most conspicuous in the doctrines of Lāmāism are not confined to the highlands of central Asia, they are accepted in great measure also in Japan and China. It is the union of these ideas with a hierarchical system, and with the temporal sovereignty of the head of that system in Tibet, which constitutes what is distinctively understood by the term Lāmāism. Lāmāism has acquired a special interest to the student of comparative history through the instructive parallel which its history presents to that of the Church of Rome.

The central point of primitive Buddhism was the doctrine of “Arahatship”—a system of ethical and mental self-culture, in which deliverance was found from all the mysteries and sorrows of life in a change of heart to be reached here on earth. This doctrine seems to have been held very nearly in its original purity from the time when it was propounded by Gotama in the 6th century B.C. to the period in which northern India was conquered by the Huns about the commencement of the Christian era. Soon after that time there arose a school of Buddhist teachers who called their doctrine the “Great Vehicle.” It was not in any contradiction to the older doctrine, which they contemptuously called the “Little Vehicle,” but included it all, and was based upon it. The distinguishing characteristic of the newer school was the importance which it attached to “Bodhisatship.” The older school had taught that Gotama, who had propounded the doctrine of Arahatship, was a Buddha, that only a Buddha is capable of discovering that doctrine, and that a Buddha is a man who by self-denying efforts, continued through many hundreds of different births, has acquired the so-called Ten Pāramitās or cardinal virtues in such perfection that he is able, when sin and ignorance have gained the upper hand throughout the world, to save the human race from impending ruin. But until the process of perfection has been completed, until the moment when at last the sage, sitting under the Wisdom tree acquires that particular insight or wisdom which is called Enlightenment or Buddhahood, he is still only a Bodhisat. The link of connexion between the various Bodhisats in the future Buddha’s successive births is not a soul which is transferred from body to body, but the karma, or character, which each successive Bodhisat inherits from his predecessors in the long chain of existences. Now the older school also held, in the first place, that, when a man had, in this life, attained to Arahatship, his karma would not pass on to any other individual in another life—or in other words, that after Arahatship there would be no rebirth; and, secondly, that four thousand years after the Buddha had proclaimed the Dhamma or doctrine of Arahatship, his teaching would have died away, and another Buddha would be required to bring mankind once more to a knowledge of the truth. The leaders of the Great Vehicle urged their followers to seek to attain, not so much to Arahatship, which would involve only their own salvation, but to Bodhisatship, by the attainment of which they would be conferring the blessings of the Dhamma upon countless multitudes in the long ages of the future. By thus laying stress upon Bodhisatship, rather than upon Arahatship, the new school, though they doubtless merely thought themselves to be carrying the older orthodox doctrines to their logical conclusion, were really changing the central point of Buddhism, and were altering the direction of their mental vision. It was of no avail that they adhered in other respects in the main to the older teaching, that they professed to hold to the same ethical system, that they adhered, except in a few unimportant details, to the old regulations of the order of the Buddhist mendicant recluses. The ancient books, preserved in the Pāli Pitakas, being mainly occupied with the details of Arahatship, lost their exclusive value in the eyes of those whose attention was being directed to the details of Bodhisatship. And the opinion that every leader in their religious circles, every teacher distinguished among them for his sanctity of life, or for his extensive learning, was a Bodhisat, who might have and who probably had inherited the karma of some great teacher of old, opened the door to a flood of superstitious fancies.

It is worthy of note that the new school found its earliest professors and its greatest expounders in a part of India outside the districts to which the personal influence of Gotama and of his immediate followers had been confined. The home of early Buddhism was round about Kosala and Magadha; in the district, that is to say, north and south of the Ganges between where Allahabad now lies on the west and Rajgir on the east. The home of the Great Vehicle was, at first, in the countries farther to the north and west. Buddhism arose in countries where Sanskrit was never more than a learned tongue, and where the exclusive claims of the Brahmins had never been universally admitted. The Great Vehicle arose in the very stronghold of Brahminism, and among a people to whom Sanskrit, like Latin in the middle ages in Europe, was the literary lingua franca. The new literature therefore, which the new movement called forth, was written, and has been preserved, in Sanskrit—its principal books of Dharma, or doctrine, being the following nine: (1) Prajñā-pāramitā; (2) Gaṇḍa-vyūha; (3) Daśa-bhūmīś-vara; (4) Samādhi-rāja; (5) Lankāvatāra; (6) Saddharma-puṇḍarīka; (7) Tathāgata-guhyaka; (8) Lalita-vistara; (9) Suvarṇa-prabhāsa. The date of none of these works is known with any certainty, but it is highly improbable that any one of them is older than the 6th century after the death of Gotama. Copies of all of them were brought to Europe by Mr B. H. Hodgson, and other copies have been received since then; but only one of them has as yet been published in Europe (the Lalita Vistara, edited by Lofmann), and only two have been translated into any European language. These are the Lalita Vistara, translated into French, through the Tibetan, by M. Foucaux, and the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka, translated into English by Professor Kern. The former is legendary work, partly in verse, on the life of Gotama, the historical Buddha; and the latter, also partly in verse, is devoted to proving the essential identity of the Great and the Little Vehicles, and the equal authenticity of both as doctrines enunciated by the master himself.

Of the authors of these nine works, as of all the older Buddhist works with one or two exceptions, nothing has been ascertained. The founder of the system of the Great Vehicle is, however, often referred to under the name of Nāgārjuna, whose probable date is about A.D. 200.

Together with Nāgārjuna, other early teachers of the Great Vehicle whose names are known are Vasumitra, Vasubandhu, Āryadeva, Dharmapāla and Guṇamati—all of whom were looked upon as Bodhisats. As the newer school did not venture so far as to claim as Bodhisats the disciples stated in the older books to have been the contemporaries of Gotama (they being precisely the persons known as Arahats), they attempted to give the appearance of age to the Bodhisat theory by representing the Buddha as being surrounded, not only by his human companions the Arahats, but also by fabulous beings, whom they represented as the Bodhisats existing at that time. In the opening words of each Mahāyāna treatise a list is given of such Bodhisats, who were beginning, together with the historical Bodhisats, to occupy a position in the Buddhist church of those times similar to that occupied by the saints in the corresponding period of the history of Christianity in the Church of Rome. And these lists of fabulous Bodhisats have now a distinct historical importance. For they grow in length in the later works; and it is often possible by comparing them one with another to fix, not the date, but the comparative age of the books in which they occur. Thus it is a fair inference to draw from the shortness of the list in the opening words of the Lalita Vistara, as compared with that in the first sections of the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka, that the latter work is much the younger of the two, a conclusion supported also by other considerations.

Among the Bodhisats mentioned in the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka, and not mentioned in the Lalita Vistara, as attendant on the Buddha are Mañju-śrī and Avalokiteśvara. That these saints were already acknowledged by the followers of the Great Vehicle at the beginning of the 5th century is clear from the fact that Fa Hien, who visited India about that time, says that “men of the Great Vehicle” were then worshipping them at Mathura, not far from Delhi (F. H., chap. xvi.). These were supposed to be celestial beings who, inspired by love of the human race, had taken the so-called Great Resolve to become future Buddhas, and who therefore descended from heaven when the actual Buddha was on earth, to pay reverence to him, and to learn of him. The belief in them probably arose out of the doctrine of the older school, which did not deny the existence of the various creations of previous mythology and speculation, but allowed of their actual existence as spiritual beings, and only deprived them of all power over the lives of men, and declared them to be temporary beings liable, like men, to sin and ignorance, and requiring, like men, the salvation of Arahatship. Among them the later Buddhists seem to have placed their numerous Bodhisats; and to have paid especial reverence to Mañju-śrī as the personification of wisdom, and to Avalokiteśwara as the personification of overruling love. The former was afterwards identified with the mythical first Buddhist missionary, who is supposed to have introduced civilization into Tibet about two hundred and fifty years after the death of the Buddha.

The way was now open to a rapid fall from the simplicity of early Buddhism, in which men’s attention was directed to the various parts of the system of self-culture, to a belief in a whole pantheon of saints or angels, which appealed more strongly to the half-civilized races among whom the Great Vehicle was now professed. A theory sprang up which was supposed to explain the marvellous powers of the Buddhas by representing them as only the outward appearance, the reflection, as it were, or emanation, of ethereal Buddhas dwelling in the skies. These were called Dhyāni Buddhas, and their number was supposed to be, like that of the Buddhas, innumerable. Only five of them, however, occupied any space in the speculative world in which the ideas of the later Buddhists had now begun to move. But, being Buddhas, they were supposed to have their Bodhisats; and thus out of the five last Buddhas of the earlier teaching there grew up five mystic trinities, each group consisting of one of these five Buddhas, his prototype in heaven the Dhyāni Buddha, and his celestial Bodhisat. Among these hypothetical beings, the creations of a sickly scholasticism, hollow abstractions without life or reality, the particular trinity in which the historical Gotama was assigned a subordinate place naturally occupied the most exalted rank. Amitābha, the Dhyāni-Buddha of this trinity, soon began to fill the largest place in the minds of the new school; and Avalokiteśwara, his Bodhisat, was looked upon with a reverence somewhat less than his former glory. It is needless to add that, under the overpowering influence of these vain imaginations, the earnest moral teachings of Gotama became more and more hidden from view. The imaginary saints grew and flourished. Each new creation, each new step in the theory, demanded another, until the whole sky was filled with forgeries of the brain, and the nobler and simpler lessons of the founder of the religion were hidden beneath the glittering stream of metaphysical subtleties.

Still worse results followed on the change of the earlier point of view. The acute minds of the Buddhist pandits, no longer occupied with the practical lessons of Arahatship, turned their attention, as far as it was not engaged upon their hierarchy of mythological beings, to questions of metaphysical speculation, which, in the earliest Buddhism, are not only discouraged but forbidden. We find long treatises on the nature of being, idealistic dreams which have as little to do with the Bodhisatship that is concerned with the salvation of the world as with the Arahatship that is concerned with the perfect life. Only one lower step was possible, and that was not long in being taken. The animism common alike to the untaught Huns and to their Hindu conquerors, but condemned in early Buddhism, was allowed to revive. As the stronger side of Gotama’s teaching was neglected, the debasing belief in rites and ceremonies, and charms and incantations, which had been the especial object of his scorn, began to spread like the Bīrana weed warmed by a tropical sun in marsh and muddy soil. As in India, after the expulsion of Buddhism, the degrading worship of Śiva and his dusky bride had been incorporated into Hinduism from the savage devil worship of Āryan and of non-Āryan tribes, so, as pure Buddhism died away in the north, the Tantra system, a mixture of magic and witchcraft and sorcery, was incorporated into the corrupted Buddhism.

The founder of this system seems to have been Asanga, an influential monk of Peshāwar, who wrote the first text-book of the creed, the Yogāchchāra Bhūmi Śāstra, in the 6th century A.D. Hsüan Tsang, who travelled in the first half of the 7th, found the monastery where Asanga had lived in ruins, and says that he had lived one thousand years after the Buddha. Asanga managed with great dexterity to reconcile the two opposing systems by placing a number of Śaivite gods or devils, both male and female, in the inferior heavens of the then prevalent Buddhism, and by representing them as worshippers and supporters of the Buddha and of Avalokiteśvara. He thus made it possible for the half-converted and rude tribes to remain Buddhists while they brought offerings, and even bloody offerings, to these more congenial shrines, and while their practical belief had no relation at all to the Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path, but busied itself almost wholly with obtaining magic powers (Siddhi), by means of magic phrases (Dhārani), and magic circles (Maṇḍala). Asanga’s happy idea bore but too ample fruit. In his own country and Nepāl, the new wine, sweet and luscious to the taste of savages, completely disqualified them from enjoying any purer drink; and now in both countries Śaivism is supreme, and Buddhism is even nominally extinct, except in some outlying districts of Nepāl. But this full effect has only been worked out in the lapse of ages; the Tantra literature has also had its growth and its development, and some unhappy scholar of a future age may have to trace its loathsome history. The nauseous taste repelled even the self-sacrificing industry of Burnouf, when he found the later Tantra books to be as immoral as they are absurd. “The pen,” he says, “refuses to transcribe doctrines as miserable in respect of form as they are odious and degrading in respect of meaning.”

Such had been the decline and fall of Buddhism considered as an ethical system before its introduction into Tibet. The manner in which its order of mendicant recluses, at first founded to afford better opportunities to those who wished to carry out that system in practical life, developed at last into a hierarchical monarchy will best be understood by a sketch of the history of Tibet.

Its real history commences with Srong Tsan Gampo, who was born a little after 600 A.D., and who is said in the Chinese chronicles to have entered, in 634, into diplomatic relationship with Tai Tsung, one of the emperors of the Tang dynasty. He was the founder of the present capital of Tibet, now known as Lhasa; and in the year 622 (the same year as that in which Mahomet fled from Mecca) he began the formal introduction of Buddhism into Tibet. For this purpose he sent the minister Thumi Sambhota, afterwards looked upon as an incarnation of Mañju-śrī, to India, there to collect the sacred books, and to learn and translate them. Thumi Sambhota accordingly invented an alphabet for the Tibetan language on the model of the Indian alphabets then in use. And, aided by the king, who is represented to have been an industrious student and translator, he wrote the first books by which Buddhism became known in his native land. The most famous of the works ascribed to him is the Mani Kambum, “the Myriad of Precious Words”—a treatise chiefly on religion, but which also contains an account of the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet, and of the closing part of the life of Srong Tsan Gampo. He is also very probably the author of another very ancient standard work of Tibetan Buddhism, the Samatog, a short digest of Buddhist morality, on which the civil laws of Tibet have been founded. It is said in the Mani Kambum to have fallen from heaven in a casket (Tibetan, samatog), and, like the last-mentioned work, is only known to us in meagre abstract.

King Srong Tsan Gampo’s zeal for Buddhism was shared and supported by his two queens, Bribsun, a princess from Nepāl, and Wen Ching, a princess from China. They are related to have brought with them sacred relics, books and pictures, for whose better preservation two large monasteries were erected. These are the cloisters of La Brang (Jokhang) and Ra Moché, still, though much changed and enlarged, the most sacred abbeys in Tibet, and the glory of Lhasa. The two queens have become semi-divine personages, and are worshipped under the name of the two Dārā-Eke, the “glorious mothers,” being regarded as incarnations of the wife of Śiva, representing respectively two of the qualities which she personifies, divine vengeance and divine love. The former is worshipped by the Mongolians as Okkin Tengri, “the Virgin Goddess”; but in Tibet and China the rôle of the divine virgin is filled by Kwan Yin, a personification of Avalokiteśvara as the heavenly word, who is often represented with a child in her arms. Srong Tsan Gampo has also become a saint, being looked upon as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara; and the description in the ecclesiastical historians of the measures he took for the welfare of his subjects do great credit to their ideal of the perfect Buddhist king. He is said to have spent his long reign in the building of reservoirs, bridges and canals; in the promotion of agriculture, horticulture and manufactures; in the establishment of schools and colleges; and in the maintenance of justice and the encouragement of virtue. But the degree of his success must have been slight. For after the death of himself and of his wives Buddhism gradually decayed, and was subjected by succeeding kings to cruel persecutions; and it was not till more than half a century afterwards, under King Kir Song de Tsan, who reigned 740-786, that true religion is acknowledged by the ecclesiastical historians to have become firmly established in the land.

This monarch again sent to India to replace the sacred books that had been lost, and to invite Buddhist pandits to translate them. The most distinguished of those who came were Śānta Rakshita, Padma Sambhava and Kamala Śīla, for whom, and for their companions, the king built a splendid monastery still existing, at Samje, about three days’ journey south-east of Lhasa. It was to them that the Tibetans owed the great collection of what are still regarded as their sacred books—the Kandjur. It consists of 100 volumes containing 689 works, of which there are two or three complete sets in Europe, one of them in the India Office library. A detailed analysis of these scriptures has been published by the celebrated Hungarian scholar Csoma de Körös, whose authoritative work has been republished in French with complete indices and very useful notes by M. Léon Feer. These volumes contain about a dozen works of the oldest school of Buddhism, the Hīnayāna, and about 300 works, mostly very short, belonging to the Tantra school. But the great bulk of the collection consists of Mahāyāna books, belonging to all the previously existing varieties of that widely extended Buddhist sect; and, as the Sanskrit originals of many of these writings are now lost, the Tibetan translations will be of great value, not only for the history of Lāmāism, but also for the history of the later forms of Indian Buddhism.

The last king’s second son, Lang Darma, concluded in May 822 a treaty with the then emperor of China (the twelfth of the Tang dynasty), a record of which was engraved on a stone put up in the above-mentioned great convent of La Brang (Jokhang), and is still to be seen there. He is described in the church chronicles as an incarnation of the evil spirit, and is said to have succeeded in suppressing Buddhism throughout the greater part of the land. The period from Srong Tsan Gampo down to the death of Lang Darma, who was murdered about A.D. 850, in a civil war, is called in the Buddhist books “the first introduction of religion.” It was followed by more than a century of civil disorder and wars, during which the exiled Buddhist monks attempted unsuccessfully again and again to return. Many are the stories of martyrs and confessors who are believed to have lived in these troublous times, and their efforts were at last crowned with success, for in the century commencing with the reign of Bilamgur in 971 there took place “the second introduction of religion” into Tibet, more especially under the guidance of the pandit Atīsha, who came to Tibet in 1041, and of his famous native pupil and follower Brom Ston. The long period of depression seems not to have been without a beneficial influence on the persecuted Buddhist church, for these teachers are reported to have placed the Tantra system more in the background, and to have adhered more strongly to the purer forms of the Mahāyāna development of the ancient faith.

For about three hundred years the Buddhist church of Tibet was left in peace, subjecting the country more and more completely to its control, and growing in power and in wealth. During this time it achieved its greatest victory, and underwent the most important change in its character and organization. After the reintroduction of Buddhism into the “kingdom of snow,” the ancient dynasty never recovered its power. Its representatives continued for some time to claim the sovereignty; but the country was practically very much in the condition of Germany at about the same time—chieftains of almost independent power ruled from their castles on the hill-tops over the adjacent valleys, engaged in petty wars, and conducted plundering expeditions against the neighbouring tenants, whilst the great abbeys were places of refuge for the studious or religious, and their heads were the only rivals to the barons in social state, and in many respects the only protectors and friends of the people. Meanwhile Jenghiz Khān had founded the Mongol empire, and his grandson Kublai Khān became a convert to the Buddhism of the Tibetan Lāmas. He granted to the abbot of the Sākya monastery in southern Tibet the title of tributary sovereign of the country, head of the Buddhist church, and overlord over the numerous barons and abbots, and in return was officially crowned by the abbot as ruler over the extensive domain of the Mongol empire. Thus was the foundation laid at one and the same time of the temporal sovereignty of the Lāmas of Tibet, and of the suzerainty over Tibet of the emperors of China. One of the first acts of the “head of the church” was the printing of a carefully revised edition of the Tibetan Scriptures—an undertaking which occupied altogether nearly thirty years and was not completed till 1306.

Under Kublai’s successors in China the Buddhist cause flourished greatly, and the Sākya Lāmas extended their power both at home and abroad. The dignity of abbot at Sākya became hereditary, the abbots breaking so far the Buddhist rule of celibacy that they remained married until they had begotten a son and heir. But rather more than half a century afterwards their power was threatened by a formidable rival at home, a Buddhist reformer.

Tsongkapa, the Luther of Tibet, was born about 1357 on the spot where the famous monastery of Kunbum now stands. He very early entered the order, and studied at Sākya, Brigung and other monasteries. He then spent eight years as a hermit in Takpo in southern Tibet, where the comparatively purer teaching of Atīsha (referred to above) was still prevalent. About 1390 he appeared as a public teacher and reformer in Lhasa, and before his death in 1419 there were three huge monasteries there containing 30,000 of his disciples, besides others in other parts of the country. His voluminous works, of which the most famous are the Sumbun and the Lam Nim Tshenpo, exist in printed Tibetan copies in Europe, but have not yet been translated or analysed. But the principal lines on which his reformation proceeded are sufficiently attested. He insisted in the first place on the complete carrying out of the ancient rules of the order as to the celibacy of its members, and as to simplicity in dress. One result of the second of these two reforms was to make it necessary for every monk openly to declare himself either in favour of or against the new views. For Tsongkapa and his followers wore the yellow or orange-coloured garments which had been the distinguishing mark of the order in the lifetime of its founder, and in support of the ancient rules Tsongkapa reinstated the fortnightly rehearsal of the Pātimokkha or “disburdenment” in regular assemblies of the order at Lhasa—a practice which had fallen into desuetude. He also restored the custom of the first disciples to hold the so-called Vassa or yearly retirement, and the public meeting of the order at its close. In all these respects he was simply following the directions of the Vinaya, or regulations of the order, as established probably in the time of Gotama himself, and as certainly handed down from the earliest times in the piṭakas or sacred books. Further, he set his face against the Tantra system, and against the animistic superstitions which had been allowed to creep into life again. He laid stress on the self-culture involved in the practice of the pāramitās or cardinal virtues, and established an annual national fast or week of prayer to be held during the first days of each year. This last institution indeed is not found in the ancient Vinaya, but was almost certainly modelled on the traditional account of the similar assemblies convoked by Asoka and other Buddhist sovereigns in India every fifth year. Laymen as well as monks take part in the proceedings, the details of which are unknown to us except from the accounts of the Catholic missionaries—Fathers Huc and Gabet—who describe the principal ceremonial as, in outward appearance, wonderfully like the high mass. In doctrine the great Tibetan teacher, who had no access to the Pāli Piṭakas, adhered in the main to the purer forms of the Mahāyāna school; in questions of church government he took little part, and did not dispute the titular supremacy of the Sākya Lāmas. But the effects of his teaching weakened their power. The “orange-hoods,” as his followers were called, rapidly gained in numbers and influence, until they so overshadowed the “red-hoods,” as the followers of the older sect were called, that in the middle of the 15th century the emperor of China acknowledged the two leaders of the new sect at that time as the titular overlords of the church and tributary rulers over the realm of Tibet. These two leaders were then known as the Dalai Lāma and the Pantshen Lāma, and were the abbots of the great monasteries at Gedun Dubpa, near Lhasa, and at Tashi Lunpo, in Farther Tibet, respectively. Since that time the abbots of these monasteries have continued to exercise the sovereignty over Tibet.

As there has been no further change in the doctrine, and no further reformation in discipline, we may leave the ecclesiastical history of Lāmāism since that date unnoticed, and consider some principal points on the constitution of the Lāmāism of to-day. And first as to the mode of electing successors to the two Great Lāmas. It will have been noticed that it was an old idea of the northern Buddhists to look upon distinguished members of the order as incarnations of Avalokiteśvara, of Mañju-śrī, or of Amitābha. These beings were supposed to possess the power, whilst they continued to live in heaven, of appearing on earth in a Nirmāna-kāya, or apparitional body. In the same way the Pantshen Lāma is looked upon as an incarnation, the Nirmāna-kāya, of Amitābha, who had previously appeared under the outward form of Tshonkapa himself; and the Dalai Lāma is looked upon as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara. Theoretically, therefore, the former, as the spiritual successor of the great teacher and also of Amitābha, who occupies the higher place in the mythology of the Great Vehicle, would be superior to the latter, as the spiritual representative of Avalokiteśvara. But practically the Dalai Lāma, owing to his position in the capital, has the political supremacy, and is actually called the Gyalpo Rinpotshe, “the glorious king”—his companion being content with the title Pantshen Rinpotshe, “the glorious teacher.” When either of them dies it is necessary for the other to ascertain in whose body the celestial being whose outward form has been dissolved has been pleased again to incarnate himself. For that purpose the names of all male children born just after the death of the deceased Great Lāma are laid before his survivor. He chooses three out of the whole number; their names are thrown into a golden casket provided for that purpose by a former emperor of China. The Chutuktus, or abbots of the great monasteries, then assemble, and after a week of prayer, the lots are drawn in their presence and in presence of the surviving Great Lāma and of the Chinese political resident. The child whose name is first drawn is the future Great Lāma; the other two receive each of them 500 pieces of silver. The Chutuktus just mentioned correspond in many respects to the Roman cardinals. Like the Great Lāmas, they bear the title of Rinpotshe or Glorious, and are looked upon as incarnations of one or other of the celestial Bodhisats of the Great Vehicle mythology. Their number varies from ten to a hundred; and it is uncertain whether the honour is inherent in the abbacy of certain of the greatest cloisters, or whether the Dalai Lāma exercises the right of choosing them. Under these high officials of the Tibetan hierarchy there come the Chubil Khāns, who fill the post of abbot to the lesser monasteries, and are also incarnations. Their number is very large; there are few monasteries in Tibet or in Mongolia which do not claim to possess one of these living Buddhas. Besides these mystical persons there are in the Tibetan church other ranks and degrees, corresponding to the deacon, full priest, dean and doctor of divinity in the West. At the great yearly festival at Lhasa they make in the cathedral an imposing array, not much less magnificent than that of the clergy in Rome; for the ancient simplicity of dress has disappeared in the growing differences of rank, and each division of the spiritual army is distinguished in Tibet, as in the West, by a special uniform. The political authority of the Dalai Lāma is confined to Tibet itself, but he is the acknowledged head also of the Buddhist church throughout Mongolia and China. He has no supremacy over his co-religionists in Japan, and even in China there are many Buddhists who are not practically under his control or influence.

The best work on Lāmāism is still Köppen’s Die Lamaische Hierarchie und Kirche (Berlin, 1859). See also Bushell, “The Early History of Tibet,” in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1879-1880, vol. xii.; Sanang Setzen’s History of the East Mongols (in Mongolian, translated into German by J. Schmidt, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen); “Analyse du Kandjur,” by M. Léon Feer, in Annales du Musée Gaimet (1881); Schott, Ueber den Buddhismus in Hoch-Asien; Gutzlaff, Geschichte des Chinesischen Reiches; Hue and Gabet, Souvenirs d’un voyage dans la Tartarie, le Tibet, et la Chine (Paris, 1858); Pallas’s Sammlung historischer Nachrichten über die Mongolischen Völkerschaften; Bābu Sarat Chunder Das’s “Contributions on the Religion and History of Tibet,” in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, 1881; L. A. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet (London, 1895); A. H. Francke, History of Western Tibet (London, 1907); A. Grünwedel, Mythologie des Buddhismus in Tibet und der Mongolei (Berlin, 1900).

(T. W. R. D.)

Watters’s Yūan Chwāng, edited by Rhys Davids and Bushell, i. 210, 356, 271.

Published with facsimile and translation and notes in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1879-1880, vol. xii.

This statement representing the substantial and historical position, is retained, in spite of the crises of March 1910, when the Dalai Lāma took refuge from the Chinese in India, and of 1904, when the British expedition occupied Lhasa and the Dalai Lāma fled to China (see Tibet).

LAMALOU-LES-BAINS, a watering-place of southern France in the department of Hérault, 53½ m. W. of Montpellier by rail, in a valley of the southern Cévennes. Pop. (1906) 720. The waters, which are both hot and cold, are used in cases of rheumatism, sciatica, locomotor ataxy and nervous maladies.

LAMA-MIAO, or Dolon-nor, a city of the province of Chih-li, China, 150 m. N. of Peking, in a barren sandy plain watered by the Urtingol, a tributary of the Shang-tu-ko. The town proper, almost exclusively occupied by Chinese, is about a mile in length by half a mile in breadth, has narrow and dirty streets, and contains a population of about 26,000. Unlike the ordinary Chinese town of the same rank, it is not walled. A busy trade is carried on between the Chinese and the Mongolians, who bring in their cattle, sheep, camels, hides and wool to barter for tea, tobacco, cotton and silk. At some distance from the Chinese town lies the Mongolian quarter, with two groups of lama temples and villages occupied by about 2300 priests. Dr Williamson (Journeys in North China, 1870) described the chief temple as a huge oblong building with an interior not unlike a Gothic church. Lama-miao is the seat of a manufactory of bronze idols and other articles of ritual, which find their way to all parts of Mongolia and Tibet. The craftsmen work in their own houses.

LAMAR, LUCIUS QUINTUS CINCINNATUS (1825-1893), American statesman and judge, was born at the old “Lamar Homestead,” in Putnam county, Georgia, on the 17th of September 1825. His father, Lucius Q. C. Lamar (1797-1834), was an able lawyer, a judge of the superior court of Georgia, and the compiler of the Laws of Georgia from 1810 to 1819 (1821). In 1845 young Lamar graduated from Emory College (Oxford, Ga.), and in 1847 was admitted to the bar. In 1849 he removed to Oxford, Mississippi, and in 1850-1852 was adjunct professor of mathematics in the state university. In 1852 he removed to Covington, Ga., to practise law, and in 1853 was elected a member of the Georgia House of Representatives. In 1855 he returned to Mississippi, and two years later became a member of the National House of Representatives, where he served until December 1860, when he withdrew to become a candidate for election to the “secession” convention of Mississippi. He was elected to the convention, and drafted for it the Mississippi ordinance of secession. In the summer of 1860 he had accepted an appointment to the chair of ethics and metaphysics in the university of Mississippi, but, having been appointed a lieutenant-colonel in the Confederate Army in the spring of 1861, he resigned his professorship. The colonel of his regiment (Nineteenth Mississippi) was killed early in the battle of Williamsburg, on the 5th of May 1862, and the command then fell to Lamar, but in October he resigned from the army. In November 1862 he was appointed by President Jefferson Davis special commissioner of the Confederacy to Russia; but he did not proceed farther than Paris, and his mission was soon terminated by the refusal of the Confederate Senate to confirm his appointment. In 1866 he was again appointed to the chair of ethics and metaphysics in the university of Mississippi, and in the next year was transferred to the chair of law, but in 1870, Republicans having become trustees of the university upon the readmission of the state into the Union, he resigned. From 1873 to 1877 he was again a Democratic representative in Congress; from 1877 to 1885 he was a United States senator; from 1885 to January 1888 he was secretary of the interior; and from 1888 until his death at Macon, Ga., on the 23rd of January 1893, he was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Congress Lamar fought the silver and greenback craze and argued forcibly against the protective tariff; in the department of the interior he introduced various reforms; and on the Supreme Court bench his dissenting opinion in the Neagle Case (based upon a denial that certain powers belonging to Congress, but not exercised, were by implication vested in the department of justice) is famous. But he is perhaps best known for the part he took after the Civil War in helping to effect a reconciliation between the North and the South. During the early secession movement he strove to arouse the white people of the South from their indifference, declaring that secession alone could save them from a doom similar to that of the former whites of San Domingo. He probably never changed his convictions as to the righteousness of the “lost cause”; but he accepted the result of the war as a final settlement of the differences leading to it, and strove to restore the South in the Union, and to effect the reunion of the nation in feeling as well as in government. This is in part seen from such speeches as his eulogy on Charles Sumner (27th of April 1874), his leadership in reorganizing the Democratic party of his own state, and his counsels of peace in the disputed presidential election of 1876.

See Edward Mayes, Lucius Q. C. Lamar: His Life, Times and Speeches (Nashville, Tenn., 1896).

LAMARCK, JEAN BAPTISTE PIERRE ANTOINE DE MONET, Chevalier de (1744-1829), French naturalist, was born on the 1st of August 1744, at Bazantin, a village of Picardy. He was an eleventh child; and his father, lord of the manor and of old family, but of limited means, having placed three sons in the army, destined this one for the church, and sent him to the Jesuits at Amiens, where he continued till his father’s death. After this he would remain with the Jesuits no longer, and, not yet seventeen years of age, started for the seat of war at Bergen-op-Zoom, before which place one of his brothers had already been killed. Mounted on an old horse, with a boy from the village as attendant, and furnished by a lady with a letter of introduction to a colonel, he reached his destination on the evening before a battle. Next morning the colonel found that the new and very diminutive volunteer had posted himself in the front rank of a body of grenadiers, and could not be induced to quit the position. In the battle, the company which he had joined became exposed to the fire of the enemy’s artillery, and in the confusion of retreat was forgotten. All the officers and subalterns were killed, and not more than fourteen men were left, when the oldest grenadiers seeing there were no more French in sight proposed to the young volunteer so soon become commandant to withdraw his men. This he refused to do without orders. These at last arrived; and for his bravery he was made an officer on the spot, and soon after was named to a lieutenancy.

After the peace, the regiment was sent to Monaco. There one of his comrades playfully lifted him by the head, and to this it was imputed that he was seized with disease of the glands of the neck, so severe as to put a stop to his military career. He went to Paris and began the study of medicine, supporting himself by working in a banker’s office. He early became interested in meteorology and in physical and chemical speculations of a chimerical kind, but happily threw his main strength into botany, and in 1778 published his Flore française, a work in which by a dichotomous system of contrasting characters he enabled the student with facility to determine species. This work, which went through several editions and long kept the field, gained for its author immediate popularity as well as admission to the Academy of Sciences.

In 1781 and 1782, under the title of botanist to the king, an appointment obtained for him by Buffon, whose son accompanied him, he travelled through various countries of Europe, extending his knowledge of natural history; and on his return he began those elaborate contributions to botany on which his reputation in that science principally rests, namely, the Dictionnaire de Botanique and the Illustrations de Genres, voluminous works contributed to the Encyclopédie Méthodique (1785). In 1793, in consequence of changes in the organization of the natural history department at the Jardin du Roi, where he had held a botanical appointment since 1788, Lamarck was presented to a zoological chair, and called on to lecture on the Insecta and Vermes of Linnaeus, the animals for which he introduced the term Invertebrata. Thus driven, comparatively late in life, to devote his principal attention to zoology instead of botany, he had the misfortune soon after to suffer from impaired vision; and the malady resulted subsequently in total blindness. Yet his greatest zoological work, the Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, was published from 1815 to 1822, with the assistance, in the last two volumes, of his eldest daughter and of P. A. Latreille (1762-1833). A volume of plates of the fossil shells of the neighbourhood of Paris was collected in 1823 from his memoirs in the Annales des Muséums. He died on the 18th of December 1829.

The character of Lamarck as a naturalist is remarkable alike for its excellences and its defects. His excellences were width of scope, fertility of ideas and a pre-eminent faculty of precise description, arising not only from a singularly terse style, but from a clear insight into both the distinctive features and the resemblances of forms. That part of his zoological work which constitutes his solid claim to the highest honour as a zoologist is to be found in his extensive and detailed labours in the departments of living and fossil Invertebrata. His endeavours at classification of the great groups were necessarily defective on account of the imperfect knowledge possessed in his time in regard to many of them, e.g. echinoderms, ascidians and intestinal worms; yet they are not without interest, particularly on account of the comprehensive attempt to unite in one great division as Articulata all those groups that appeared to present a segmented construction. Moreover, Lamarck was the first to distinguish vertebrate from invertebrate animals by the presence of a vertebral column, and among the Invertebrata to found the groups Crustacea, Arachnida and Annelida. In 1785 (Hist. del’ Acad.) he evinced his appreciation of the necessity of natural orders in botany by an attempt at the classification of plants, interesting, though crude and falling immeasurably short of the system which grew in the hands of his intimate friend A. L. de Jussieu. The problem of taxonomy has never been put more philosophically than he subsequently put it in his Animaux sans vertèbres: “What arrangement must be given to the general distribution of animals to make it conformable to the order of nature in the production of these beings?”

The most prominent defect in Lamarck must be admitted to have been want of control in speculation. Doubtless the speculative tendency furnished a powerful incentive to work, but it outran the legitimate deductions from observation, and led him into the production of volumes of worthless chemistry without experimental basis, as well as into spending much time on fruitless meteorological predictions. His Annuaires Météorologiques were published yearly from 1800 to 1810, and were not discontinued until after an unnecessarily public and brutal tirade from Napoleon, administered on the occasion of being presented with one of his works on natural history.

To the general reader the name of Lamarck is chiefly interesting on account of his theory of the origin of life and of the diversities of animal forms. The idea, which appears to have been favoured by Buffon before him, that species were not through all time unalterable, and that the more complex might have been developed from pre-existent simpler forms, became with Lamarck a belief or, as he imagined, a demonstration. Spontaneous generation, he considered, might be easily conceived as resulting from such agencies as heat and electricity causing in small gelatinous bodies an utricular structure, and inducing a “singular tension,” a kind of “éréthisme” or “orgasme”; and, having thus accounted for the first appearance of life, he explained the whole organization of animals and formation of different organs by four laws (introduction to his Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, 1815):—

1. “Life by its proper forces tends continually to increase the volume of every body possessing it, and to enlarge its parts, up to a limit which it brings about.

2. “The production of a new organ in an animal body results from the supervention of a new want (besoin) continuing to make itself felt, and a new movement which this want gives birth to and encourages.

3. “The development of organs and their force of action are constantly in ratio to the employment of these organs.

4. “All which has been acquired, laid down, or changed in the organization of individuals in the course of their life is conserved by generation and transmitted to the new individuals which proceed from those which have undergone those changes.”

The second law is often referred to as Lamarck’s hypothesis of the evolution of organs in animals by appetence or longing, although he does not teach that the animal’s desires affect its conformation directly, but that altered wants lead to altered habits, which result in the formation of new organs as well as in modification, growth or dwindling of those previously existing. Thus, he suggests that, ruminants being pursued by carnivora, their legs have grown slender; and, their legs being only fit for support, while their jaws are weak, they have made attack with the crown of the head, and the determination of fluids thither has led to the growth of horns. So also the stretching of the giraffe’s neck to reach the foliage he supposes to have led to its elongation; and the kangaroo, sitting upright to support the young in its pouch, he imagines to have had its fore-limbs dwarfed by disuse, and its hind legs and tail exaggerated by using them in leaping. The fourth law expresses the inheritance of acquired characters, which is denied by August Weismann and his followers. For a more detailed account of Lamarck’s place in the history of the doctrine of evolution, see Evolution.

LA MARGHERITA, CLEMENTE SOLARO, Count del (1792-1869), Piedmontese statesman, was born at Mondovi. He studied law at Siena and Turin, but Piedmont was at that time under French domination, and being devoted to the house of Savoy he refused to take his degree, as this proceeding would have obliged him to recognize the authority of the usurper; after the restoration of the Sardinian kingdom, however, he graduated. In 1816 he entered the diplomatic service. Later he returned to Turin, and succeeded in gaining the confidence and esteem of King Charles Albert, who in 1835 appointed him minister of foreign affairs. A fervent Roman Catholic, devoted to the pope and to the Jesuits, friendly to Austria and firmly attached to the principles of autocracy, he strongly opposed every attempt at political innovation, and was in consequence bitterly hated by the liberals. When the popular agitation in favour of constitutional reform first broke out the king felt obliged to dispense with La Margherita’s services, although he had conducted public affairs with considerable ability and absolute loyalty, even upholding the dignity of the kingdom in the face of the arrogant attitude of the cabinet of Vienna. He expounded his political creed and his policy as minister to Charles Albert (from February 1835 to October 1847) in his Memorandum storico-politico, published in 1851, a document of great interest for the study of the conditions of Piedmont and Italy at that time. In 1853 he was elected deputy for San Quirico, but he persisted in regarding his mandate as derived from the royal authority rather than as an emanation of the popular will. As leader of the Clerical Right in the parliament he strongly opposed Cavour’s policy, which was eventually to lead to Italian unity, and on the establishment of the kingdom of Italy he retired from public life.

LA MARMORA, ALFONSO FERRERO (1804-1878), Italian general and statesman, was born at Turin on the 18th of November 1804. He entered the Sardinian army in 1823, and was a captain in March 1848, when he gained distinction and the rank of major at the siege of Peschiera. On the 5th of August 1848 he liberated Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, from the Milan revolutionaries, and in October was promoted general and appointed minister of war. After suppressing the revolt of Genoa in 1849, he again assumed in November 1849 the portfolio of war, which, save during the period of his command of the Crimean expedition, he retained until 1859. Having reconstructed the Piedmontese army, he took part in the war of 1859 against Austria; and in July of that year succeeded Cavour in the premiership. In 1860 he was sent to Berlin and St Petersburg to arrange for the recognition of the kingdom of Italy, and subsequently he held the offices of governor of Milan and royal lieutenant at Naples, until, in September 1864, he succeeded Minghetti as premier. In this capacity he modified the scope of the September Convention by a note in which he claimed for Italy full freedom of action in respect of national aspirations to the possession of Rome, a document of which Visconti Venosta afterwards took advantage when justifying the Italian occupation of Rome in 1870. In April 1866 La Marmora concluded an alliance with Prussia against Austria, and, on the outbreak of war in June, took command of an army corps, but was defeated at Custozza on the 23rd of June. Accused of treason by his fellow-countrymen, and of duplicity by the Prussians, he eventually published in defence of his tactics (1873) a series of documents entitled Un po’ più di luce sugli eventi dell’ anno 1866 (More light on the events of 1866) a step which caused irritation in Germany, and exposed him to the charge of having violated state secrets. Meanwhile he had been sent to Paris in 1867 to oppose the French expedition to Rome, and in 1870, after the occupation of Rome by the Italians, had been appointed lieutenant-royal of the new capital. He died at Florence on the 5th of January 1878. La Marmora’s writings include Un episodio del risorgimento italiano (Florence, 1875); and I segreti di stato nel governo constituzionale (Florence, 1877).

See G. Massani, Il generale Alfonso La Marmora (Milan, 1880).

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE MARIE LOUIS DE PRAT DE (1790-1869), French poet, historian and statesman, was born at Mâcon on the 21st of October 1790. The order of his surnames is a controversial matter, and they are sometimes reversed. The family of Lamartine was good, and the title of Prat was taken from an estate in Franche Comté. His father was imprisoned during the Terror, and only released owing to the events of the 9th Thermidor. Lamartine’s early education was received from his mother. He was sent to school at Lyons in 1805, but not being happy there was transferred to the care of the Pères de la Foi at Belley, where he remained until 1809. For some time afterwards he lived at home, reading romantic and poetical literature, but in 1811 he set out for Italy, where he seems to have sojourned nearly two years. His family having been steady royalists, he entered the Gardes du corps at the return of the Bourbons, and during the Hundred Days he sought refuge first in Switzerland and then at Aix-en-Savoie, where he fell in love, with abundant results of the poetical kind. After Waterloo he returned to Paris. In 1818-1819 he revisited Switzerland, Savoy and Italy, the death of his beloved affording him new subjects for verse. After some difficulties he had his first book, the Méditations, poétiques et religieuses, published (1820). It was exceedingly popular, and helped him to make a position. He had left the army for some time; he now entered the diplomatic service and was appointed secretary to the embassy at Naples. On his way to his post he married, in 1823, at Geneva a young English lady, Marianne Birch, who had both money and beauty, and in the same year his Nouvelles méditations poétiques appeared.

In 1824 he was transferred to Florence, where he remained five years. His Last Canto of Childe Harold appeared in 1825, and he had to fight a duel (in which he was wounded) with an Italian officer, Colonel Pepe, in consequence of a phrase in it. Charles X., on whose coronation he wrote a poem, gave him the order of the Legion of Honour. The Harmonies poétiques et religieuses appeared in 1829, when he had left Florence. Having refused an appointment in Paris under the Polignac ministry, he went on a special mission to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. In the same year he was elected to the Academy. Lamartine was in Switzerland, not in Paris, at the time of the Revolution of July, and, though he put forth a pamphlet on “Rational Policy,” he did not at that crisis take any active part in politics, refusing, however, to continue his diplomatic services under the new government. In 1832 he set out with his wife and daughter for Palestine, having been unsuccessful in his candidature for a seat in the chamber. His daughter Julia died at Beirut, and before long he received the news of his election by a constituency (Bergues) in the department of the Nord. He returned through Turkey and Germany, and made his first speech shortly after the beginning of 1834. Thereafter he spoke constantly, and acquired considerable reputation as an orator,—bringing out, moreover, many books in prose and verse. His Eastern travels (Voyage en Orient) appeared in 1835, his Chute d’un ange and Jocelyn in 1837, and his Recueillements, the last remarkable volume of his poetry, in 1839. As the reign of Louis Philippe went on, Lamartine, who had previously been a liberal royalist, something after the fashion of Chateaubriand, became more and more democratic in his opinions. He set about his greatest prose work, the Histoire des Girondins, which at first appeared periodically, and was published as a whole in 1847. Like many other French histories, it was a pamphlet as well as a chronicle, and the subjects of Lamartine’s pen became his models in politics.

At the revolution of February Lamartine was one of the first to declare for a provisional government, and became a member of it, with the post of minister for foreign affairs. He was elected for the new constituent assembly in ten different departments, and was chosen one of the five members of the Executive Committee. For a few months indeed Lamartine, from being a distinguished man of letters, an official of inferior rank in diplomacy, and an eloquent but unpractical speaker in parliament, became one of the foremost men in Europe. His inexperience in the routine work of government, the utterly unpractical nature of his colleagues, and the turbulence of the Parisian mob, proved fatal to his chances. He gave some proofs of statesmanlike ability, and his eloquence was repeatedly called into requisition to pacify the Parisians. But no one can permanently carry on the government of a great country by speeches from the balcony of a house in the capital, and Lamartine found himself in a dilemma. So long as he held aloof from Ledru-Rollin and the more radical of his colleagues, the disunion resulting weakened the government; as soon as he effected an approximation to them the middle classes fell off from him. The quelling of the insurrection of the 15th of May was his last successful act. A month later the renewal of active disturbances brought on the fighting of June, and Lamartine’s influence was extinguished in favour of Cavaignac. Moreover, his chance of renewed political pre-eminence was gone. He had been tried and found wanting, having neither the virtues nor the vices of his situation. In January 1849, though he was nominated for the presidency, only a few thousand votes were given to him, and three months later he was not even elected to the Legislative Assembly.

The remaining story of Lamartine’s life is somewhat melancholy. He had never been a rich man, nor had he been a saving one, and during his period of popularity and office he had incurred great expenses. He now set to work to repair his fortune by unremitting literary labour. He brought out in the Presse (1849) a series of Confidences, and somewhat later a kind of autobiography, entitled Raphael. He wrote several historical works of more or less importance, the History of the Revolution of 1848, The History of the Restoration, The History of Turkey, The History of Russia, besides a large number of small biographical and miscellaneous works. In 1858 a subscription was opened for his benefit. Two years afterwards, following the example of Chateaubriand, he supervised an elaborate edition of his own works in forty-one volumes. This occupied five years, and while he was engaged on it his wife died (1863). He was now over seventy; his powers had deserted him, and even if they had not the public taste had entirely changed. His efforts had not succeeded in placing him in a position of independence; and at last, in 1867, the government of the Empire (from which he had perforce stood aloof, though he never considered it necessary to adopt the active protesting attitude of Edgar Quinet and Victor Hugo) came to his assistance, a vote of £20,000 being proposed in April of that year for his benefit by Émile Ollivier. This was creditable to both parties, for Lamartine, both as a distinguished man of letters and as a past servant of the state, had every claim to the bounty of his country. But he was reproached for accepting it by the extreme republicans and irreconcilables. He did not enjoy it long, dying on the 28th of February 1869.

As a statesman Lamartine was placed during his brief tenure of office in a position from which it would have been almost impossible for any man, who was not prepared and able to play the dictator, to emerge with credit. At no time in history were unpractical crotchets so rife in the heads of men as in 1848. But Lamartine could hardly have guided the ship of state safely even in much calmer weather. He was amiable and even estimable, the chief fault of his character being vanity and an incurable tendency towards theatrical effect, which makes his travels, memoirs and other personal records as well as his historical works radically untrustworthy. Nor does it appear that he had any settled political ideas. He did good by moderating the revolutionary and destructive ardour of the Parisian populace in 1848; but he had been perhaps more responsible than any other single person for bringing about the events of that year by the vague and frothy republican declamation of his Histoire des Girondins.

More must be said of his literary position. Lamartine had the advantage of coming at a time when the literary field, at least in the departments of belles lettres, was almost empty. The feeble school of descriptive writers, epic poets of the extreme decadence, fabulists and miscellaneous verse-makers, which the Empire had nourished could satisfy no one. Madame de Staël was dead; Chateaubriand, though alive, was something of a classic, and had not effected a full revolution. Lamartine did not himself go the complete length of the Romantic revival, but he went far in that direction. He availed himself of the reviving interest in legitimism and Catholicism which was represented by Bonald and Joseph de Maistre, of the nature worship of Rousseau and Bernardin de Saint Pierre, of the sentimentalism of Madame de Staël, of the medievalism and the romance of Chateaubriand and Scott, of the maladie du siècle of Chateaubriand and Byron. Perhaps if his matter be very closely analysed it will be found that he added hardly anything of his own. But if the parts of the mixture were like other things the mixture itself was not. It seemed indeed to the immediate generation so original that tradition has it that the Méditations were refused by a publisher because they were in none of the accepted styles. They appeared when Lamartine was nearly thirty years old. The best of them, and the best thing that Lamartine ever did, is the famous Lac, describing his return to the little mountain tarn of Le Bourget after the death of his mistress, with whom he had visited it in other days. The verse is exquisitely harmonious, the sentiments conventional but refined and delicate, the imagery well chosen and gracefully expressed. There is an unquestionable want of vigour, but to readers of that day the want of vigour was entirely compensated by the presence of freshness and grace. Lamartine’s chief misfortune in poetry was not only that his note was a somewhat weak one, but that he could strike but one. The four volumes of the Méditations, the Harmonies and the Recueillements, which contained the prime of his verse, are perhaps the most monotonous reading to be found anywhere in work of equal bulk by a poet of equal talent. They contain nothing but meditative lyrical pieces, almost any one of which is typical of the whole, though there is considerable variation of merit. The two narrative poems which succeeded the early lyrics, Jocelyn and the Chute d’un ange, were, according to Lamartine’s original plan, parts of a vast “Epic of the Ages,” some further fragments of which survive. Jocelyn had at one time more popularity in England than most French verse. La Chute d’un ange, in which the Byronic influence is more obvious than in any other of Lamartine’s works, and in which some have also seen that of Alfred de Vigny, is more ambitious in theme, and less regulated by scrupulous conditions of delicacy in handling, than most of its author’s poetry. It does, however, little more than prove that such audacities were not for him.

As a prose writer Lamartine was very fertile. His characteristics in his prose fiction and descriptive work are not very different from those of his poetry. He is always and everywhere sentimental, though very frequently, as in his shorter prose tales (The Stone Mason of Saint-Point, Graziella, &c.), he is graceful as well as sentimental. In his histories the effect is worse. It has been hinted that Lamartine’s personal narratives are doubtfully trustworthy; with regard to his Eastern travels some of the episodes were stigmatized as mere inventions. In his histories proper the special motive for embellishment disappears, but the habit of inaccuracy remains. As an historian he belongs exclusively to the rhetorical school as distinguished from the philosophical on the one hand and the documentary on the other.

It is not surprising when these characteristics of Lamartine’s work are appreciated to find that his fame declined with singular rapidity in France. As a poet he had lost his reputation many years before he died. He was entirely eclipsed by the brilliant and vigorous school who succeeded him with Victor Hugo at their head. His power of initiative in poetry was very small, and the range of poetic ground which he could cover strictly limited. He could only carry the picturesque sentimentalism of Rousseau, Bernardin de Saint Pierre and Chateaubriand a little farther, and clothe it in language and verse a little less antiquated than that of Chênedollé and Millevoye. He has been said to be a French Cowper, and the parallel holds good in respect of versification and of his relative position to the more daringly innovating school that followed, though not in respect of individual peculiarities. Lamartine in short occupied a kind of half-way house between the 18th century and the Romantic movement, and he never got any farther. When Matthew Arnold questioned his importance in conversation with Sainte-Beuve, the answer was, “He is important to us,” and it was a true answer; but the limitation is obvious. In more recent years, however, efforts have been made by Brunetière and others to remove it. The usual revolution of critical as of other taste, the oblivion of personal and political unpopularity, and above all the reaction against Hugo and the extreme Romantics, have been the main agents in this. Lamartine has been extolled as a pattern of combined passion and restraint, as a model of nobility of sentiment, and as a harmonizer of pure French classicism in taste and expression with much, if not all, the better part of Romanticism itself. These oscillations of opinion are frequent, if not universal, and it is only after more than one or two swings that the pendulum remains at the perpendicular. The above remarks are an attempt to correct extravagance in either direction. But it is difficult to believe that Lamartine can ever permanently take rank among the first order of poets.

The edition mentioned is the most complete one of Lamartine, but there are many issues of his separate works. After his death some poems and Mémoires inédits of his youth were published, and also two volumes of correspondence, while in 1893 Mlle V. de Lamartine added a volume of Lettres to him. The change of views above referred to may be studied in the detached articles of MM. Brunetière, Faguet, Lemaître, &c., and in the more substantive work of Ch. de Pomairols, Lamartine (1889); E. Deschanel, Lamartine (1893); E. Zyrowski, Lamartine (1896); and perhaps best of all in the Preface to Emile Legouis’ Clarendon Press edition of Jocelyn (1906), where a vigorous effort is made to combat the idea of Lamartine’s sentimentality and femininity as a poet.

(G. Sa.)

LAMB, CHARLES (1775-1834), English essayist and critic, was born in Crown Office Row, Inner Temple, London, on the 10th of February 1775. His father, John Lamb, a Lincolnshire man, who filled the situation of clerk and servant-companion to Samuel Salt, a member of parliament and one of the benchers of the Inner Temple, was successful in obtaining for Charles, the youngest of three surviving children, a presentation to Christ’s Hospital, where the boy remained from his eighth to his fifteenth year (1782-1789). Here he had for a schoolfellow Samuel Taylor Coleridge, his senior by rather more than two years, and a close and tender friendship began which lasted for the rest of the lives of both. When the time came for leaving school, where he had learned some Greek and acquired considerable facility in Latin composition, Lamb, after a brief stay at home (probably spent, as his school holidays had often been, over old English authors in Salt’s library) was condemned to the labours of the desk—“an inconquerable impediment” in his speech disqualifying him for the clerical profession, which, as the school exhibitions were usually only given to those preparing for the church, thus deprived him of the only means by which he could have obtained a university education. For a short time he was in the office of Joseph Paice, a London merchant, and then for twenty-three weeks, until the 8th of February 1792, he held a small post in the Examiner’s Office of the South Sea House, where his brother John was established, a period which, although his age was but sixteen, was to provide him nearly thirty years later with materials for the first of the Essays of Elia. On the 5th of April 1792, he entered the Accountant’s Office in the East India House, where during the next three and thirty years the hundred official folios of what he used to call his true “works” were produced.

Of the years 1792-1795 we know little. At the end of 1794 he saw much of Coleridge and joined him in writing sonnets in the Morning Post, addressed to eminent persons: early in 1795 he met Southey and was much in the company of James White, whom he probably helped in the composition of the Original Letters of Sir John Falstaff; and at the end of the year for a short time he became so unhinged mentally as to necessitate confinement in an asylum. The cause, it is probable, was an unsuccessful love affair with Ann Simmons, the Hertfordshire maiden to whom his first sonnets are addressed, whom he would have seen when on his visits as a youth to Blakesware House, near Widford, the country home of the Plumer family, of which Lamb’s grandmother, Mary Field, was for many years, until her death in 1792, sole custodian.

It was in the late summer of 1796 that a dreadful calamity came upon the Lambs, which seemed to blight all Lamb’s prospects in the very morning of life. On the 22nd of September his sister Mary, “worn down to a state of extreme nervous misery by attention to needlework by day and to her mother at night,” was suddenly seized with acute mania, in which she stabbed her mother to the heart. The calm self-mastery and loving self-renunciation which Charles Lamb, by constitution excitable, nervous and self-mistrustful, displayed at this crisis in his own history and in that of those nearest him, will ever give him an imperishable claim to the reverence and affection of all who are capable of appreciating the heroisms of common life. With the help of friends he succeeded in obtaining his sister’s release from the lifelong restraint to which she would otherwise have been doomed, on the express condition that he himself should undertake the responsibility for her safe keeping. It proved no light charge: for though no one was capable of affording a more intelligent or affectionate companionship than Mary Lamb during her periods of health, there was ever present the apprehension of the recurrence of her malady; and when from time to time the premonitory symptoms had become unmistakable, there was no alternative but her removal, which took place in quietness and tears. How deeply the whole course of Lamb’s domestic life must have been affected by his singular loyalty as a brother needs not to be pointed out.

Lamb’s first appearance as an author was made in the year of the great tragedy of his life (1796), when there were published in the volume of Poems on Various Subjects by Coleridge four sonnets by “Mr Charles Lamb of the India House.” In the following year he contributed, with Charles Lloyd, a pupil of Coleridge, some pieces in blank verse to the second edition of Coleridge’s Poems. In 1797 his short summer holiday was spent with Coleridge at Nether Stowey, where he met the Wordsworths, William and Dorothy, and established a friendship with both which only his own death terminated. In 1798, under the influence of Henry Mackenzie’s novel Julie de Roubigné, he published a short and pathetic prose tale entitled Rosamund Gray, in which it is possible to trace beneath disguised conditions references to the misfortunes of the author’s own family, and many personal touches; and in the same year he joined Lloyd in a volume of Blank Verse, to which Lamb contributed poems occasioned by the death of his mother and his aunt Sarah Lamb, among them being his best-known lyric, “The Old Familiar Faces.” In this year, 1798, he achieved the unexpected publicity of an attack by the Anti-Jacobin upon him as an associate of Coleridge and Southey (to whose Annual Anthology he had contributed) in their Jacobin machinations. In 1799, on the death of her father, Mary Lamb came to live again with her brother, their home then being in Pentonville; but it was not until 1800 that they really settled together, their first independent joint home being at Mitre Court Buildings in the Temple, where they lived until 1809. At the end of 1801, or beginning of 1802, appeared Lamb’s first play John Woodvil, on which he set great store, a slight dramatic piece written in the style of the earlier Elizabethan period and containing some genuine poetry and happy delineation of the gentler emotions, but as a whole deficient in plot, vigour and character; it was held up to ridicule by the Edinburgh Review as a specimen of the rudest condition of the drama, a work by “a man of the age of Thespis.” The dramatic spirit, however, was not thus easily quenched in Lamb, and his next effort was a farce, Mr H——, the point of which lay in the hero’s anxiety to conceal his name “Hogsflesh”; but it did not survive the first night of its appearance at Drury Lane, in December 1806. Its author bore the failure with rare equanimity and good humour—even to joining in the hissing—and soon struck into new and more successful fields of literary exertion. Before, however, passing to these it should be mentioned that he made various efforts to earn money by journalism, partly by humorous articles, partly as dramatic critic, but chiefly as a contributor of sarcastic or funny paragraphs, “sparing neither man nor woman,” in the Morning Post, principally in 1803.

In 1807 appeared Tales founded on the Plays of Shakespeare, written by Charles and Mary Lamb, in which Charles was responsible for the tragedies and Mary for the comedies; and in 1808, Specimens of English Dramatic Poets who lived about the time of Shakespeare, with short but felicitous critical notes. It was this work which laid the foundation of Lamb’s reputation as a critic, for it was filled with imaginative understanding of the old playwrights, and a warm, discerning and novel appreciation of their great merits. In the same year, 1808, Mary Lamb, assisted by her brother, published Poetry for Children, and a collection of short school-girl tales under the title Mrs Leicester’s School; and to the same date belongs The Adventures of Ulysses, designed by Lamb as a companion to The Adventures of Telemachus. In 1810 began to appear Leigh Hunt’s quarterly periodical, The Reflector, in which Lamb published much (including the fine essays on the tragedies of Shakespeare and on Hogarth) that subsequently appeared in the first collective edition of his Works, which he put forth in 1818.

Between 1811, when The Reflector ceased, and 1820, he wrote almost nothing. In these years we may imagine him at his most social period, playing much whist and entertaining his friends on Wednesday or Thursday nights; meanwhile gathering that reputation as a conversationalist or inspirer of conversation in others, which Hazlitt, who was at one time one of Lamb’s closest friends, has done so much to celebrate. When in 1818 appeared the Works in two volumes, it may be that Lamb considered his literary career over. Before coming to 1820, and an event which was in reality to be the beginning of that career as it is generally known—the establishment of the London Magazine—it should be recorded that in the summer of 1819 Lamb, with his sister’s full consent, proposed marriage to Fanny Kelly, the actress, who was then in her thirtieth year. Miss Kelly could not accept, giving as one reason her devotion to her mother. Lamb bore the rebuff with characteristic humour and fortitude.

The establishment of the London Magazine in 1820 stimulated Lamb to the production of a series of new essays (the Essays of Elia) which may be said to form the chief corner-stone in the small but classic temple of his fame. The first of these, as it fell out, was a description of the old South Sea House, with which Lamb happened to have associated the name of a “gay light-hearted foreigner” called Elia, who was a clerk in the days of his service there. The pseudonym adopted on this occasion was retained for the subsequent contributions, which appeared collectively in a volume of essays called Elia, in 1823. After a career of five years the London Magazine came to an end; and about the same period Lamb’s long connexion with the India House terminated, a pension of £450 (£441 net) having been assigned to him. The increased leisure, however, for which he had long sighed, did not prove favourable to literary production, which henceforth was limited to a few trifling contributions to the New Monthly and other serials, and the excavation of gems from the mass of dramatic literature bequeathed to the British Museum by David Garrick, which Lamb laboriously read through in 1827, an occupation which supplied him for a time with the regular hours of work he missed so much. The malady of his sister, which continued to increase with ever shortening intervals of relief, broke in painfully on his lettered ease and comfort; and it is unfortunately impossible to ignore the deteriorating effects of an over-free indulgence in the use of alcohol, and, in early life, tobacco, on a temperament such as his. His removal on account of his sister to the quiet of the country at Enfield, by tending to withdraw him from the stimulating society of the large circle of literary friends who had helped to make his weekly or monthly “at homes” so remarkable, doubtless also tended to intensify his listlessness and helplessness. One of the brightest elements in the closing years of his life was the friendship and companionship of Emma Isola, whom he and his sister had adopted, and whose marriage in 1833 to Edward Moxon, the publisher, though a source of unselfish joy to Lamb, left him more than ever alone. While living at Edmonton, whither he had moved in 1833 so that his sister might have the continual care of Mr and Mrs Walden, who were accustomed to patients of weak intellect, Lamb was overtaken by an attack of erysipelas brought on by an accidental fall as he was walking on the London road. After a few days’ illness he died on the 27th of December, 1834. The sudden death of one so widely known, admired and beloved, fell on the public as well as on his own attached circle with all the poignancy of a personal calamity and a private grief. His memory wanted no tribute that affection could bestow, and Wordsworth commemorated in simple and solemn verse the genius, virtues and fraternal devotion of his early friend.

Charles Lamb is entitled to a place as an essayist beside Montaigne, Sir Thomas Browne, Steele and Addison. He unites many of the characteristics of each of these writers—refined and exquisite humour, a genuine and cordial vein of pleasantry and heart-touching pathos. His fancy is distinguished by great delicacy and tenderness; and even his conceits are imbued with human feeling and passion. He had an extreme and almost exclusive partiality for earlier prose writers, particularly for Fuller, Browne and Burton, as well as for the dramatists of Shakespeare’s time; and the care with which he studied them is apparent in all he ever wrote. It shines out conspicuously in his style, which has an antique air and is redolent of the peculiarities of the 17th century. Its quaintness has subjected the author to the charge of affectation, but there is nothing really affected in his writings. His style is not so much an imitation as a reflexion of the older writers; for in spirit he made himself their contemporary. A confirmed habit of studying them in preference to modern literature had made something of their style natural to him; and long experience had rendered it not only easy and familiar but habitual. It was not a masquerade dress he wore, but the costume which showed the man to most advantage. With thought and meaning often profound, though clothed in simple language, every sentence of his essays is pregnant.

He played a considerable part in reviving the dramatic writers of the Shakesperian age; for he preceded Gifford and others in wiping the dust of ages from their works. In his brief comments on each specimen he displays exquisite powers of discrimination: his discernment of the true meaning of his author is almost infallible. His work was a departure in criticism. Former editors had supplied textual criticism and alternative readings: Lamb’s object was to show how our ancestors felt when they placed themselves by the power of imagination in trying situations, in the conflicts of duty or passion or the strife of contending duties; what sorts of loves and enmities theirs were.

As a poet Lamb is not entitled to so high a place as that which can be claimed for him as essayist and critic. His dependence on Elizabethan models is here also manifest, but in such a way as to bring into all the greater prominence his native deficiency in “the accomplishment of verse.” Yet it is impossible, once having read, ever to forget the tenderness and grace of such poems as “Hester,” “The Old Familiar Faces,” and the lines “On an infant dying as soon as born” or the quaint humour of “A Farewell to Tobacco.” As a letter writer Lamb ranks very high, and when in a nonsensical mood there is none to touch him.

Editions and memoirs of Lamb are numerous. The Letters, with a sketch of his life by Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd, appeared in 1837; the Final Memorials of Charles Lamb by the same hand, after Mary Lamb’s death, in 1848; Barry Cornwall’s Charles Lamb: A Memoir, in 1866. Mr P. Fitzgerald’s Charles Lamb: his Friends, his Haunts and his Books (1866); W. Carew Hazlitt’s Mary and Charles Lamb (1874). Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Hazlitt have also both edited the Letters, and Mr Fitzgerald brought Talfourd to date with an edition of Lamb’s works in 1870-1876. Later and fuller editions are those of Canon Ainger in 12 volumes, Mr Macdonald in 12 volumes and Mr E. V. Lucas in 7 volumes, to which in 1905 was added The Life of Charles Lamb, in 2 volumes.

(E. V. L.)

LAMB (a word common to Teutonic languages; cf. Ger. Lamm), the young of sheep. The Paschal Lamb or Agnus Dei is used as a symbol of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God (John i. 29), and “lamb,” like “flock,” is often used figuratively of the members of a Christian church or community, with an allusion to Jesus’ charge to Peter (John xxi. 15). The “lamb and flag” is an heraldic emblem, the dexter fore-leg of the lamb supporting a staff bearing a banner charged with the St George’s cross. This was one of the crests of the Knights Templars, used on seals as early as 1241; it was adopted as a badge or crest by the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple using another crest of the Templars, the winged horse or Pegasus. The old Tangier regiment, now the Queen’s Royal West Surrey Regiment, bore a Paschal Lamb as its badge. From their colonel, Percy Kirke (q.v.), they were known as Kirke’s Lambs. The exaggerated reputation of the regiment for brutality, both in Tangier and in England after Sedgmoor, lent irony to the nickname.

LAMBALLE, MARIE THÉRÈSE LOUISE OF SAVOY-CARIGNANO, Princesse de (1749-1792), fourth daughter of Louis Victor of Carignano (d. 1774) (great-grandfather of King Charles Albert of Sardinia), and of Christine Henriette of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rothenburg, was born at Turin on the 8th of September 1749. In 1767 she was married to Louis Alexandre Stanislaus de Bourbon, prince of Lamballe, son of the duke of Penthièvre, a grandson of Louis XIV.’s natural son the count of Toulouse. Her husband dying the following year, she retired with her father-in-law to Rambouillet, where she lived until the marriage of the dauphin, when she returned to court. Marie Antoinette, charmed by her gentle and naïve manners, singled her out for a companion and confidante. The impetuous character of the dauphiness found in Madame de Lamballe that submissive temperament which yields to force of environment, and the two became fast friends. After her accession Marie Antoinette, in spite of the king’s opposition, had her appointed superintendent of the royal household. Between 1776 and 1785 the comtesse de Polignac succeeded in supplanting her; but when the queen tired of the avarice of the Polignacs, she turned again to Madame de Lamballe. From 1785 to the Revolution she was Marie Antoinette’s closest friend and the pliant instrument of her caprices. She came with the queen to the Tuileries and as her salon served as a meeting-place for the queen and the members of the Assembly whom she wished to gain over, the people believed her to be the soul of all the intrigues. After a visit to England in 1791 to appeal for help for the royal family she made her will and returned to the Tuileries, where she continued her services to the queen until the 10th of August, when she shared her imprisonment in the Temple. On the 19th of August she was transferred to La Force, and having refused to take the oath against the monarchy, she was on the 3rd of September delivered over to the fury of the populace, after which her head was placed on a pike and carried before the windows of the queen.

See George Bertin, Madame de Lamballe (Paris, 1888); Austin Dobson, Four Frenchwomen (1890); B. C. Hardy, Princesse de Lamballe (1908); Comte de Lescure, La Princesse de Lamballe ... d’après des documents inédits (1864); some letters of the princess published by Ch. Schmidt in La Révolution française (vol. xxxix., 1900); L. Lambeau, Essais sur la mort de madame la princesse de Lamballe (1902); Sir F. Montefiore, The Princesse de Lamballe (1896). The Secret Memoirs of the Royal Family of France ... now first published from the Journal, Letters and Conversations of the Princesse de Lamballe (London, 2 vols., 1826) have since appeared in various editions in English and in French. They are attributed to Catherine Hyde, Marchioness Govion-Broglio-Solari, and are apocryphal.

LAMBALLE, a town of north-western France, in the department of Côtes-du-Nord, on the Gouessant 13 m. E.S.E. of St Brieuc by rail. Pop. (1906) 4347. Crowning the eminence on which the town is built is a beautiful Gothic church (13th and 14th centuries), once the chapel of the castle of the counts of Penthièvre. La Noue, the famous Huguenot leader, was mortally wounded in 1591 in the siege of the castle, which was dismantled in 1626 by Richelieu. Of the other buildings, the church of St Martin (11th, 15th and 16th centuries) is the chief. Lamballe has an important haras (depot for stallions) and carries on trade in grain, tanning and leather-dressing; earthenware is manufactured in the environs. Lamballe was the capital of the territory of the counts of Penthièvre, who in 1569 were made dukes.

LAMBAYEQUE, a coast department of northern Peru, bounded N. by Piura, E. and S. by Cajamarca and Libertad. Area, 4614 sq. m. Pop. (1906 estimate) 93,070. It belongs to the arid region of the coast, and is settled along the river valleys where irrigation is possible. It is one of the chief sugar-producing departments of Peru, and in some valleys, especially near Ferreñafe, rice is largely produced. Four railways connect its principal producing centres with the small ports of Eten and Pimentel, viz.: Eten to Ferreñafe, 27 m.; Eten to Cayalti, 23 m.; Pimentel to Lambayeque, 15 m.; and Chiclayo to Pátapo, 15 m. The principal towns are Chiclayo, the departmental capital, with a population (1906 estimate) of 10,500, Ferreñafe 6000, and Lambayeque 4500.

LAMBEAUX, JEF (Joseph Marie Thomas), (1852-1908), Belgian sculptor, was born at Antwerp. He studied at the Antwerp Academy of Fine Arts, and was a pupil of Jean Geefs. His first work, “War,” was exhibited in 1871, and was followed by a long series of humorous groups, including “Children dancing,” “Say ‘Good Morning,’” “The Lucky Number” and “An Accident” (1875). He then went to Paris, where he executed for the Belgian salons “The Beggar” and “The Blind Pauper,” and produced “The Kiss” (1881), generally regarded as his masterpiece. After visiting Italy, where he was much impressed by the works of Jean Bologne, he showed a strong predilection for effects of force and motion. Other notable works are his fountain at Antwerp (1886), “Robbing the Eagle’s Eyrie” (1890), “Drunkenness” (1893), “The Triumph of Woman,” “The Bitten Faun” (which created a great stir at the Exposition Universelle at Liége in 1905), and “The Human Passions,” a colossal marble bas-relief, elaborated from a sketch exhibited in 1889. Of his numerous busts may be mentioned those of Hendrik Conscience, and of Charles Bals, the burgomaster of Brussels. He died on the 6th of June 1908.

LAMBERMONT, AUGUSTE, Baron (1819-1905), Belgian statesman, was born at Dion-le-Val in Brabant on the 25th of March 1819. He came of a family of small farmer proprietors, who had held land during three centuries. He was intended for the priesthood and entered the seminary of Floreffe, but his energies claimed a more active sphere. He left the monastery for Louvain University. Here he studied law, and also prepared himself for the military examinations. At that juncture the first Carlist war broke out, and Lambermont hastened to the scene of action. His services were accepted (April 1838) and he was entrusted with the command of two small cannon. He also acted as A.D.C. to Colonel Durando. He greatly distinguished himself, and for his intrepidity on one occasion he was decorated with the Cross of the highest military Order of St Ferdinand. Returning to Belgium he entered the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 1842. He served in this department sixty-three years. He was closely associated with several of the most important questions in Belgian history during the last half of the 19th century—notably the freeing of the Scheldt. He was one of the very first Belgians to see the importance of developing the trade of their country, and at his own request he was attached to the commercial branch of the foreign office. The tolls imposed by the Dutch on navigation on the Scheldt strangled Belgian trade, for Antwerp was the only port of the country. The Dutch had the right to make this levy under treaties going back to the treaty of Munster in 1648, and they clung to it still more tenaciously after Belgium separated herself in 1830-1831 from the united kingdom of the Netherlands—the London conference in 1839 fixing the toll payable to Holland at 1.50 florins (3s.) per ton. From 1856 to 1863 Lambermont devoted most of his energies to the removal of this impediment. In 1856 he drew up a plan of action, and he prosecuted it with untiring perseverance until he saw it embodied in an international convention seven years later. Twenty-one powers and states attended a conference held on the question at Brussels in 1863, and on the 15th of July the treaty freeing the Scheldt was signed. For this achievement Lambermont was made a baron. Among other important conferences in which Lambermont took a leading part were those of Brussels (1874) on the usages of war, Berlin (1884-1885) on Africa and the Congo region, and Brussels (1890) on Central African Affairs and the Slave Trade. He was joint reporter with Baron de Courcel of the Berlin conference in 1884-1885, and on several occasions he was chosen as arbitrator by one or other of the great European powers. But his great achievement was the freeing of the Scheldt, and in token of its gratitude the city of Antwerp erected a fine monument to his memory. He died on the 7th of March 1905.

LAMBERT, DANIEL (1770-1809), an Englishman famous for his great size, was born near Leicester on the 13th of March 1770, the son of the keeper of the jail, to which post he succeeded in 1791. About this time his size and weight increased enormously, and though he had led an active and athletic life he weighed in 1793 thirty-two stone (448 ℔). In 1806 he resolved to profit by his notoriety, and resigning his office went up to London and exhibited himself. He died on the 21st of July 1809, and at the time measured 5 ft. 11 in. in height and weighed 52¾ stone (739 ℔). His waistcoat, now in the Kings Lynn Museum, measures 102 in. round the waist. His coffin contained 112 ft. of elm and was built on wheels. His name has been used as a synonym for immensity. George Meredith describes London as the “Daniel Lambert of cities,” and Herbert Spencer uses the phrase “a Daniel Lambert of learning.” His enormous proportions were depicted on a number of tavern signs, but the best portrait of him, a large mezzotint, is preserved at the British Museum in Lyson’s Collectanea.

LAMBERT, FRANCIS (c. 1486-1530), Protestant reformer, was the son of a papal official at Avignon, where he was born between 1485 and 1487. At the age of 15 he entered the Franciscan monastery at Avignon, and after 1517 he was an itinerant preacher, travelling through France, Italy and Switzerland. His study of the Scriptures shook his faith in Roman Catholic theology, and by 1522 he had abandoned his order, and became known to the leaders of the Reformation in Switzerland and Germany. He did not, however, identify himself either with Zwinglianism or Lutheranism; he disputed with Zwingli at Zürich in 1522, and then made his way to Eisenach and Wittenberg, where he married in 1523. He returned to Strassburg in 1524, being anxious to spread the doctrines of the Reformation among the French-speaking population of the neighbourhood. By the Germans he was distrusted, and in 1526 his activities were prohibited by the city of Strassburg. He was, however, befriended by Jacob Sturm, who recommended him to the Landgraf Philip of Hesse, the most liberal of the German reforming princes. With Philip’s encouragement he drafted that scheme of ecclesiastical reform for which he is famous. Its basis was essentially democratic and congregational, though it provided for the government of the whole church by means of a synod. Pastors were to be elected by the congregation, and the whole system of canon-law was repudiated. This scheme was submitted by Philip to a synod at Homburg; but Luther intervened and persuaded the Landgraf to abandon it. It was far too democratic to commend itself to the Lutherans, who had by this time bound the Lutheran cause to the support of princes rather than to that of the people. Philip continued to favour Lambert, who was appointed professor and head of the theological faculty in the Landgraf’s new university of Marburg. Patrick Hamilton (q.v.), the Scottish martyr, was one of his pupils; and it was at Lambert’s instigation that Hamilton composed his Loci communes, or Patrick’s Pleas as they were popularly called in Scotland. Lambert was also one of the divines who took part in the great conference of Marburg in 1529; he had long wavered between the Lutheran and the Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper, but at this conference he definitely adopted the Zwinglian view. He died of the plague on the 18th of April 1530, and was buried at Marburg.

A catalogue of Lambert’s writings is given in Haag’s La France protestante. See also lives of Lambert by Baum (Strassburg, 1840); F. W. Hessencamp (Elberfeld, 1860), Stieve (Breslau, 1867) and Louis Ruffet (Paris, 1873); Lorimer, Life of Patrick Hamilton (1857); A. L. Richter, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh. (Weimar, 1846); Hessencamp, Hessische Kirchenordnungen im Zeitalter der Reformation; Philip of Hesse’s Correspondence with Bucer, ed. M. Lenz; Lindsay, Hist. Reformation; Allgemeine deutsche Biographie.

(A. F. P.)

LAMBERT, JOHANN HEINRICH (1728-1777), German physicist, mathematician and astronomer, was born at Mulhausen, Alsace, on the 26th of August 1728. He was the son of a tailor; and the slight elementary instruction he obtained at the free school of his native town was supplemented by his own private reading. He became book-keeper at Montbéliard ironworks, and subsequently (1745) secretary to Professor Iselin, the editor of a newspaper at Basel, who three years later recommended him as private tutor to the family of Count A. von Salis of Coire. Coming thus into virtual possession of a good library, Lambert had peculiar opportunities for improving himself in his literary and scientific studies. In 1759, after completing with his pupils a tour of two years’ duration through Göttingen, Utrecht, Paris, Marseilles and Turin, he resigned his tutorship and settled at Augsburg. Munich, Erlangen, Coire and Leipzig became for brief successive intervals his home. In 1764 he removed to Berlin, where he received many favours at the hand of Frederick the Great and was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin, and in 1774 edited the Berlin Ephemeris. He died of consumption on the 25th of September 1777. His publications show him to have been a man of original and active mind with a singular facility in applying mathematics to practical questions.

His mathematical discoveries were extended and overshadowed by his contemporaries. His development of the equation xm + px = q in an infinite series was extended by Leonhard Euler, and particularly by Joseph Louis Lagrange. In 1761 he proved the irrationality of π; a simpler proof was given somewhat later by Legendre. The introduction of hyperbolic functions into trigonometry was also due to him. His geometrical discoveries are of great value, his Die freie Perspective (1759-1774) being a work of great merit. Astronomy was also enriched by his investigations, and he was led to several remarkable theorems on conics which bear his name. The most important are: (1) To express the time of describing an elliptic arc under the Newtonian law of gravitation in terms of the focal distances of the initial and final points, and the length of the chord joining them. (2) A theorem relating to the apparent curvature of the geocentric path of a comet.

Lambert’s most important work, Pyrometrie (Berlin, 1779), is a systematic treatise on heat, containing the records and full discussion of many of his own experiments. Worthy of special notice also are Photometria (Augsburg, 1760), Insigniores orbitae cometarum proprietates (Augsburg, 1761), and Beiträge zum Gebrauche der Mathematik und deren Anwendung (4 vols., Berlin, 1765-1772).

The Memoirs of the Berlin Academy from 1761 to 1784 contain many of his papers, which treat of such subjects as resistance of fluids, magnetism, comets, probabilities, the problem of three bodies, meteorology, &c. In the Acta Helvetica (1752-1760) and in the Nova acta erudita (1763-1769) several of his contributions appear. In Bode’s Jahrbuch (1776-1780) he discusses nutation, aberration of light, Saturn’s rings and comets; in the Nova acta Helvetica (1787) he has a long paper “Sur le son des corps élastiques,” in Bernoulli and Hindenburg’s Magazin (1787-1788) he treats of the roots of equation and of parallel lines; and in Hindenburg’s Archiv (1798-1799) he writes on optics and perspective. Many of these pieces were published posthumously. Recognized as among the first mathematicians of his day, he was also widely known for the universality and depth of his philological and philosophical knowledge. The most valuable of his logical and philosophical memoirs were published collectively in 2 vols. (1782).

See Huber’s Lambert nach seinem Leben und Wirken; M. Chasles, Geschichte der Geometrie; and Baensch, Lamberts Philosophie und seine Stellung zu Kant (1902).

LAMBERT [alias Nicholson], JOHN (d. 1538), English Protestant martyr, was born at Norwich and educated at Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. and was admitted in 1521 a fellow of Queen’s College on the nomination of Catherine of Aragon. After acting for some years as a “mass-priest,” his views were unsettled by the arguments of Bilney and Arthur; and episcopal persecution compelled him, according to his own account, to assume the name Lambert instead of Nicholson. He likewise removed to Antwerp, where he became chaplain to the English factory, and formed a friendship with Frith and Tyndale. Returning to England in 1531, he came under the notice of Archbishop Warham, who questioned him closely on his religious beliefs. Warham’s death in August 1532 relieved Lambert from immediate danger, and he earned a living for some years by teaching Latin and Greek near the Stocks Market in London. The duke of Norfolk and other reactionaries accused him of heresy in 1536, but reforming tendencies were still in the ascendant, and Lambert escaped. In 1538, however, the reaction had begun, and Lambert was its first victim. He singled himself out for persecution by denying the Real Presence: and Henry VIII., who had just rejected the Lutheran proposals for a theological union, was in no mood to tolerate worse heresies. Lambert had challenged some views expressed by Dr John Taylor, afterwards bishop of Lincoln; and Cranmer as archbishop condemned Lambert’s opinions. He appealed to the king as supreme head of the Church, and on the 16th of November Henry heard the case in person before a large assembly of spiritual and temporal peers. For five hours Lambert disputed with the king and ten bishops; and then, as he boldly denied that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, he was condemned to death by Cromwell as vicegerent. Henry’s condescension and patience produced a great impression on his Catholic subjects; but Cromwell is said by Foxe to have asked Lambert’s pardon before his execution, and Cranmer eventually adopted the views he condemned in Lambert. Lambert was burnt at Smithfield on the 22nd of November.

See Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.; Foxe’s Acts and Monuments; Froude, History; Dixon, Church History; Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation, Dict. of Nat. Biog. and authorities there cited.

(A. F. P.)

LAMBERT, JOHN (1619-1694), English general in the Great Rebellion, was born at Calton Hall, Kirkby Malham, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His family was of ancient lineage, and long settled in the county. He studied law, but did not make it his profession. In 1639 he married Frances, daughter of Sir William Lister. At the opening of the Civil War he took up arms for the parliament, and in September 1642 was appointed a captain of horse in the army commanded by Ferdinando, Lord Fairfax. A year later he had become colonel of a regiment of horse, and he distinguished himself at the siege of Hull in October, 1643. Early in 1644 he did good service at the battles of Nantwich and Bradford. At Marston Moor Lambert’s own regiment was routed by the charge of Goring’s horse; but he cut his way through with a few troops and joined Cromwell on the other side of the field. When the New Model army was formed in the beginning of 1645, Colonel Lambert was appointed to succeed Fairfax in command of the northern forces. General Poyntz, however, soon replaced him, and under this officer he served in the Yorkshire campaign of 1645, receiving a wound before Pontefract. In 1646 he was given a regiment in the New Model, serving with Fairfax in the west of England, and he was a commissioner, with Cromwell and others, for the surrender of Oxford in the same year. “It is evident,” says C. H. Firth (Dict. Nat. Biog.), “that he was from the first regarded as an officer of exceptional capacity and specially selected for semi-political employments.”

When the quarrel between the army and the parliament began, Lambert threw himself warmly into the army’s cause. He assisted Ireton in drawing up the several addresses and remonstrances issued by the army, both men having had some experience in the law, and being “of a subtle and working brain.” Early in August 1647 Lambert was sent by Fairfax as major-general to take charge of the forces in the northern counties. His wise and just managing of affairs in those parts is commended by Whitelocke. He suppressed a mutiny among his troops, kept strict discipline and hunted down the moss-troopers who infested the moorland country.

When the Scottish army under the marquis of Hamilton invaded England in the summer of 1648, Lambert was engaged in suppressing the Royalist rising in his district. The arrival of the Scots obliged him to retreat; but Lambert displayed the greatest energy and did not cease to harass the invaders till Cromwell came up from Wales and with him destroyed the Scottish army in the three days’ fighting from Preston to Warrington. After the battle Lambert’s cavalry headed the chase, pursuing the defeated army à outrance, and finally surrounded it at Uttoxeter, where Hamilton surrendered to Lambert on the 25th of August. He then led the advance of Cromwell’s army into Scotland, where he was left in charge on Cromwell’s return. From December 1648 to March 1649 he was engaged in the siege of Pontefract Castle; Lambert was thus absent from London at the time of Pride’s Purge and the trial and execution of the king.

When Cromwell was appointed to the command of the war in Scotland (July 1650), Lambert went with him as major-general and second in command. He was wounded at Musselburgh, but returned to the front in time to take a conspicuous share in the victory of Dunbar. He himself defeated the “Protesters” or “Western Whigs” at Hamilton, on the 1st of December 1650. In July 1651 he was sent into Fife to get in the rear and flank of the Scottish army near Falkirk, and force them to decisive action by cutting off their supplies. This mission, in the course of which Lambert won an important victory at Inverkeithing, was executed with entire success, whereupon Charles II., as Lambert had foreseen, made for England. For the events of the Worcester campaign, which quickly followed, see Great Rebellion. Lambert’s part in the general plan was carried out most brilliantly, and in the crowning victory of Worcester he commanded the right wing of the English army, and had his horse shot under him. Parliament now conferred on him a grant of lands in Scotland worth £1000 per annum.

In October 1651 Lambert was made a commissioner to settle the affairs of Scotland, and on the death of Ireton he was appointed lord deputy of Ireland (January 1652). He accepted the office with pleasure, and made magnificent preparations; parliament, however, soon afterwards reconstituted the Irish administration and Lambert refused to accept office on the new terms. Henceforward he began to oppose the Rump. In the council of officers he headed the party desiring representative government, as opposed to Harrison who favoured a selected oligarchy of “God-fearing” men, but both hated what remained of the Long parliament, and joined in urging Cromwell to dissolve it by force. At the same time Lambert was consulted by the parliamentary leaders as to the possibility of dismissing Cromwell from his command, and on the 15th of March 1653 Cromwell refused to see him, speaking of him contemptuously as “bottomless Lambert.” On the 20th of April, however, Lambert accompanied Cromwell when he dismissed the council of state, on the same day as the forcible expulsion of the parliament. Lambert now favoured the formation of a small executive council, to be followed by an elective parliament whose powers should be limited by a written instrument of government. Being at this time the ruling spirit in the council of state, and the idol of the army, there were some who looked on him as a possible rival of Cromwell for the chief executive power, while the royalists for a short time had hopes of his support. He was invited, with Cromwell, Harrison and Desborough, to sit in the nominated parliament of 1653; and when the unpopularity of that assembly increased, Cromwell drew nearer to Lambert. In November 1653 Lambert presided over a meeting of officers, when the question of constitutional settlement was discussed, and a proposal made for the forcible expulsion of the nominated parliament. On the 1st of December he urged Cromwell to assume the title of king, which the latter refused. On the 12th the parliament resigned its powers into Cromwell’s hands, and on the 13th Lambert obtained the consent of the officers to the Instrument of Government (q.v.), in the framing of which he had taken a leading part. He was one of the seven officers nominated to seats in the council created by the Instrument. In the foreign policy of the protectorate he was the most clamorous of those who called for alliance with Spain and war with France in 1653, and he firmly withstood Cromwell’s design for an expedition to the West Indies.

In the debates in parliament on the Instrument of Government in 1654 Lambert proposed that the office of protector should be made hereditary, but was defeated by a majority which included members of Cromwell’s family. In the parliament of this year, and again in 1656, Lord Lambert, as he was now styled, sat as member for the West Riding. He was one of the major-generals appointed in August 1655 to command the militia in the ten districts into which it was proposed to divide England, and who were to be responsible for the maintenance of order and the administration of the law in their several districts. Lambert took a prominent part in the committee of council which drew up instructions to the major-generals, and he was probably the originator, and certainly the organizer, of the system of police which these officers were to control. Gardiner conjectures that it was through divergence of opinion between the protector and Lambert in connexion with these “instructions” that the estrangement between the two men began. At all events, although Lambert had himself at an earlier date requested Cromwell to take the royal dignity, when the proposal to declare Oliver king was started in parliament (February 1657) he at once declared strongly against it. A hundred officers headed by Fleetwood and Lambert waited on the protector, and begged him to put a stop to the proceedings. Lambert was not convinced by Cromwell’s arguments, and their complete estrangement, personal as well as political, followed. On his refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the protector, Lambert was deprived of his commissions, receiving, however, a pension of £2000 a year. He retired to his garden at Wimbledon, and appeared no more in public during Oliver Cromwell’s lifetime; but shortly before his death Cromwell sought a reconciliation, and Lambert and his wife visited him at Whitehall.

When Richard Cromwell was proclaimed protector his chief difficulty lay with the army, over which he exercised no effective control. Lambert, though holding no military commission, was the most popular of the old Cromwellian generals with the rank and file of the army, and it was very generally believed that he would instal himself in Oliver’s seat of power. Richard’s adherents tried to conciliate him, and the royalist leaders made overtures to him, even proposing that Charles II. should marry Lambert’s daughter. Lambert at first gave a lukewarm support to Richard Cromwell, and took no part in the intrigues of the officers at Fleetwood’s residence, Wallingford House. He was a member of the parliament which met in January 1659, and when it was dissolved in April under compulsion of Fleetwood and Desborough, he was restored to his commands. He headed the deputation to Lenthall in May inviting the return of the Rump, which led to the tame retirement of Richard Cromwell into obscurity; and he was appointed a member of the committee of safety and of the council of state. When the parliament, desirous of controlling the power of the army, withheld from Fleetwood the right of nominating officers, Lambert was named one of a council of seven charged with this duty. The parliament’s evident distrust of the soldiers caused much discontent in the army; while the entire absence of real authority encouraged the royalists to make overt attempts to restore Charles II., the most serious of which, under Sir George Booth and the earl of Derby, was crushed by Lambert near Chester on the 19th of August. He promoted a petition from his army that Fleetwood might be made lord-general and himself major-general. The republican party in the House took offence. The Commons (October 12th, 1659) cashiered Lambert and other officers, and retained Fleetwood as chief of a military council under the authority of the speaker. On the next day Lambert caused the doors of the House to be shut and the members kept out. On the 26th a “committee of safety” was appointed, of which he was a member. He was also appointed major-general of all the forces in England and Scotland, Fleetwood being general. Lambert was now sent with a large force to meet Monk, who was in command of the English forces in Scotland, and either negotiate with him or force him to terms. Monk, however, set his army in motion southward. Lambert’s army began to melt away, and he was kept in suspense by Monk till his whole army fell from him and he returned to London almost alone. Monk marched to London unopposed. The “excluded” Presbyterian members were recalled. Lambert was sent to the Tower (March 3rd, 1660), from which he escaped a month later. He tried to rekindle the civil war in favour of the Commonwealth, but was speedily recaptured and sent back to the Tower (April 24th). On the Restoration he was exempted from danger of life by an address of both Houses to the king, but the next parliament (1662) charged him with high treason. Thenceforward for the rest of his life Lambert remained in custody in Guernsey. He died in 1694.

Lambert would have left a better name in history if he had been a cavalier. His genial, ardent and excitable nature, easily raised and easily depressed, was more akin to the royalist than to the puritan spirit. Vain and sometimes overbearing, as well as ambitious, he believed that Cromwell could not stand without him; and when Cromwell was dead, he imagined himself entitled and fitted to succeed him. Yet his ambition was less selfish than that of Monk. Lambert is accused of no ill faith, no want of generosity, no cold and calculating policy. As a soldier he was far more than a fighting general and possessed many of the qualities of a great general. He was, moreover, an able writer and speaker, and an accomplished negotiator and took pleasure in quiet and domestic pursuits. He learnt his love of gardening from Lord Fairfax, who was also his master in the art of war. He painted flowers, besides cultivating them, and incurred the blame of Mrs Hutchinson by “dressing his flowers in his garden and working at the needle with his wife and his maids.” He made no special profession of religion; but no imputation is cast upon his moral character by his detractors. It has been said that he became a Roman Catholic before his death.

LAMBERT OF HERSFELD (d. c. 1088), German chronicler, was probably a Thuringian by birth and became a monk in the Benedictine abbey of Hersfeld in 1058. As he was ordained priest at Aschaffenburg he is sometimes called Lambert of Aschaffenburg, or Schafnaburg. He made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and visited various monasteries of his order; but he is famous as the author of some Annales. From the creation of the world until about 1040 these Annales are a jejune copy of other annals, but from 1040 to their conclusion in 1077 they are interesting for the history of Germany and the papacy. The important events during the earlier part of the reign of the emperor Henry IV., including the visit to Canossa and the battle of Hohenburg, are vividly described. Their tone is hostile to Henry IV. and friendly to the papacy; their Latin style is excellent. The Annales were first published in 1525 and are printed in the Monumenta Germaniae historica, Bände iii. and v. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826 fol.). Formerly Lambert’s reputation for accuracy and impartiality was very high, but both qualities have been somewhat discredited.

Lambert is also regarded as the author of the Historia Hersfeldensis, the extant fragments of which are published in Band v. of the Monumenta of a Vita Lulli, Lullus, archbishop of Mainz, being the founder of the abbey of Hersfeld; and of a Carmen de bello Saxonico. His Opera have been edited with an introduction by O. Holder-Egger (Hanover, 1894).

See H. Delbrück, Über die Glaubwürdigkeit Lamberts von Hersfeld (Bonn, 1873); A. Eigenbrodt, Lampert von Hersfeld und die neuere Quellenforschung (Cassel, 1896); L. von Ranke, Zur Kritik frankisch-deutscher Reichsannalisten (Berlin, 1854); W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen Band ii. (Berlin, 1906) and A. Potthast, Bibliotheca Historica (Berlin, 1896).

LAMBESSA, the ancient Lambaesa, a village of Algeria, in the arrondissement of Batna and department of Constantine, 7 m. S.E. of Batna and 17 W. of Timgad. The modern village, the centre of an agricultural colony founded in 1848, is noteworthy for its great convict establishment (built about 1850). The remains of the Roman town, and more especially of the Roman camp, in spite of wanton vandalism, are among the most interesting ruins in northern Africa. They are now preserved by the Service des Monuments historiques and excavations have resulted in many interesting discoveries. The ruins are situated on the lower terraces of the Jebel Aures, and consist of triumphal arches (one to Septimius Severus, another to Commodus), temples, aqueducts, vestiges of an amphitheatre, baths and an immense quantity of masonry belonging to private houses. To the north and east lie extensive cemeteries with the stones standing in their original alignments; to the west is a similar area, from which, however, the stones have been largely removed for building the modern village. Of the temple of Aesculapius only one column is standing, though in the middle of the 19th century its façade was entire. The capitol or temple dedicated to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, which has been cleared of débris, has a portico with eight columns. On level ground about two-thirds of a mile from the centre of the ancient town stands the camp, its site now partly occupied by the penitentiary and its gardens. It measures 1640 ft. N. to S. by 1476 ft. E. to W., and in the middle rise the ruins of a building commonly called, but incorrectly, the praetorium. This noble building, which dates from A.D. 268, is 92 ft. long by 66 ft. broad and 49 ft. high; its southern façade has a splendid peristyle half the height of the wall, consisting of a front row of massive Ionic columns and an engaged row of Corinthian pilasters. Behind this building (which was roofed), is a large court giving access to other buildings, one being the arsenal. In it have been found many thousands of projectiles. To the S.E. are the remains of the baths. The ruins of both city and camp have yielded many inscriptions (Renier edited 1500, and there are 4185 in the Corpus Inscr. Lat. vol. viii.); and, though a very large proportion are epitaphs of the barest kind, the more important pieces supply an outline of the history of the place. Over 2500 inscriptions relating to the camp have been deciphered. In a museum in the village are objects of antiquity discovered in the vicinity. Besides inscriptions, statues, &c., are some fine mosaics found in 1905 near the arch of Septimius Severus. The statues include those of Aesculapius and Hygieia, taken from the temple of Aesculapius.

Lambaesa was a military foundation. The camp of the third legion (Legio III. Augusta), to which it owes its origin, appears to have been established between A.D. 123 and 129, in the time of Hadrian, whose address to his soldiers was found inscribed on a pillar in a second camp to the west of the great camp still extant. By 166 mention is made of the decurions of a vicus, 10 curiae of which are known by name; and the vicus became a municipium probably at the time when it was made the capital of the newly founded province of Numidia. The legion was removed by Gordianus, but restored by Valerianus and Gallienus; and its final departure did not take place till after 392. The town soon afterwards declined. It never became the seat of a bishop, and no Christian inscriptions have been found among the ruins.

About 2 m. S. of Lambessa are the ruins of Markuna, the ancient Verecunda, including two triumphal arches.

See S. Gsell, Les Monuments antiques de l’Algérie (Paris, 1901) and L’Algérie dans l’antiquité (Algiers, 1903); L. Renier, Inscriptions romaines de l’Algérie (Paris, 1855); Gustav Wilmann, “Die röm. Lagerstadt Afrikas,” in Commentationes phil. in honorem Th. Mommseni (Berlin, 1877); Sir L. Playfair, Travels in the Footsteps of Bruce (London, 1877); A. Graham, Roman Africa (London, 1902).

LAMBETH, a southern metropolitan borough of London, England, bounded N.W. by the river Thames, N.E. by Southwark, E. by Camberwell and W. by Wandsworth and Battersea, and extending S. to the boundary of the county of London. Pop. (1901) 301,895. The name is commonly confined to the northern part of the borough, bordering the river; but the principal districts included are Kennington and Vauxhall (north central), Brixton (central) and part of Norwood (south). Four road-bridges cross the Thames within the limits of the borough, namely Waterloo, Westminster, Lambeth and Vauxhall, of which the first, a fine stone structure, dates from 1817, and is the oldest Thames bridge standing within the county of London. The main thoroughfare runs S. from Westminster Bridge Road as Kennington Road, continuing as Brixton Road and Brixton Hill, Clapham Road branching S.W. from it at Kennington. Several thoroughfares also converge upon Vauxhall Bridge, and from a point near this down to Westminster Bridge the river is bordered by the fine Albert Embankment.

Early records present the name Lamb-hythe in various forms. The suffix is common along the river in the meaning of a haven, but the prefix is less clear; a Saxon word signifying mud is suggested. Brixton and Kennington are mentioned in Domesday; and in Vauxhall is concealed the name of Falkes de Breauté, an unscrupulous adventurer of the time of John and Henry III. exiled in 1225. The manor of North Lambeth was given to the bishopric of Rochester in the time of Edward the Confessor, and the bishops had a house here till the 16th century. They did not, however, retain the manor beyond the close of the 12th century, when it was acquired by the see of Canterbury. The palace of the archbishops is still here, and forms, with the parish church, a picturesque group of buildings, lying close to the river opposite the majestic Houses of Parliament, and to some extent joining with them to make of this reach of the Thames one of the finest prospects in London. The oldest part of the palace remaining is the Early English chapel. The so-called Lollard’s Tower, which retains evidence of its use as a prison, dates c. 1440. There is a fine Tudor gatehouse of brick, and the hall is dated 1663. The portion now inhabited by the archbishops was erected in 1834 and fronts a spacious quadrangle. Among the portraits of the archbishops here are examples by Holbein, Van Dyck, Hogarth and Reynolds. There is a valuable library. The church of St Mary was rebuilt c. 1850, though the ancient monuments preserved give it an appearance of antiquity. Here are tombs of some of the archbishops, including Bancroft (d. 1610), and of the two Tradescants, collectors, and a memorial to Elias Ashmole, whose name is preserved in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford University, to which he presented the collections of his friend the younger Tradescant (d. 1662). In the present Westminster Bridge Road was a circus, well known in the later 18th and early 19th centuries as Astley’s, and near Vauxhall Bridge were the celebrated Vauxhall Gardens.

The principal modern pleasure grounds are Kennington Park (20 acres), and Brockwell Park (127 acres) south of Brixton, and near the southern end of Kennington Road is Kennington Oval, the ground of the Surrey County Cricket Club, the scene of its home matches and of other important fixtures. Among institutions the principal is St Thomas’ Hospital, the extensive buildings of which front the Albert Embankment. The original foundation dated from 1213, was situated in Southwark, and was connected with the priory of Bermondsey. The existing buildings, subsequently enlarged, were opened in 1871, are divided into a series of blocks, and include a medical school. Other hospitals are the Royal, for children and women, Waterloo Road, the Lying-in Hospital, York Road, and the South-western fever hospital in Stockwell. There are technical institutes in Brixton and Norwood; and on Brixton Hill is Brixton Prison. In the northern part of the borough are numerous factories, including the great Doulton pottery works. The parliamentary borough of Lambeth has four divisions, North, Kennington, Brixton and Norwood, each returning one member. The borough council consists of a mayor, 10 aldermen and 60 councillors. Area, 4080.4 acres.

LAMBETH CONFERENCES, the name given to the periodical assemblies of bishops of the Anglican Communion (Pan-Anglican synods), which since 1867 have met at Lambeth Palace, the London residence of the archbishop of Canterbury. The idea of these meetings was first suggested in a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury by Bishop Hopkins of Vermont in 1851, but the immediate impulse came from the colonial Church in Canada. In 1865 the synod of that province, in an urgent letter to the archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Longley), represented the unsettlement of members of the Canadian Church caused by recent legal decisions of the Privy Council, and their alarm lest the revived action of Convocation “should leave us governed by canons different from those in force in England and Ireland, and thus cause us to drift into the status of an independent branch of the Catholic Church.” They therefore requested him to call a “national synod of the bishops of the Anglican Church at home and abroad,” to meet under his leadership. After consulting both houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, Archbishop Longley assented, and convened all the bishops of the Anglican Communion (then 144 in number) to meet at Lambeth in 1867. Many Anglican bishops (amongst them the archbishop of York and most of his suffragans) felt so doubtful as to the wisdom of such an assembly that they refused to attend it, and Dean Stanley declined to allow Westminster Abbey to be used for the closing service, giving as his reasons the partial character of the assembly, uncertainty as to the effect of its measures and “the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church.” Archbishop Longley said in his opening address, however, that they had no desire to assume “the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England,” but merely to “discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action.” Experience has shown how valuable and wise this course was. The resolutions of the Lambeth Conferences have never been regarded as synodical decrees, but their weight has increased with each conference. Apprehensions such as those which possessed the mind of Dean Stanley have long passed away.

Seventy-six bishops accepted the primate’s invitation to the first conference, which met at Lambeth on the 24th of September 1867, and sat for four days, the sessions being in private. The archbishop opened the conference with an address: deliberation followed; committees were appointed to report on special questions; resolutions were adopted, and an encyclical letter was addressed to the faithful of the Anglican Communion. Each of the subsequent conferences has been first received in Canterbury cathedral and addressed by the archbishop from the chair of St Augustine. It has then met at Lambeth, and after sitting for five days for deliberation upon the fixed subjects and appointment of committees, has adjourned, to meet again at the end of a fortnight and sit for five days more, to receive reports, adopt resolutions and to put forth the encyclical letter.

I. First Conference (September 24-28, 1867), convened and presided over by Archbishop Longley. The proposed order of subjects was entirely altered in view of the Colenso case, for which urgency was claimed; and most of the time was spent in discussing it. Of the thirteen resolutions adopted by the conference, two have direct reference to this case; the rest have to do with the creation of new sees and missionary jurisdictions, commendatory letters, and a “voluntary spiritual tribunal” in cases of doctrine and the due subordination of synods. The reports of the committees were not ready, and were carried forward to the conference of 1878.

II. Second Conference (July 2-27, 1878), convened and presided over by Archbishop Tait. On this occasion no hesitation appears to have been felt; 100 bishops were present, and the opening sermon was preached by the archbishop of York. The reports of the five special committees (based in part upon those of the committee of 1867) were embodied in the encyclical letter, viz. on the best mode of maintaining union, voluntary boards of arbitration, missionary bishops and missionaries, continental chaplains and the report of a committee on difficulties submitted to the conference.

III. Third Conference (July 3-27, 1888), convened and presided over by Archbishop Benson; 145 bishops present; the chief subject of consideration being the position of communities which do not possess the historic episcopate. In addition to the encyclical letter, nineteen resolutions were put forth, and the reports of twelve special committees are appended upon which they are based, the subjects being intemperance, purity, divorce, polygamy, observance of Sunday, socialism, care of emigrants, mutual relations of dioceses of the Anglican Communion, home reunion, Scandinavian Church, Old Catholics, &c., Eastern Churches, standards of doctrine and worship. Perhaps the most important of these is the famous “Lambeth Quadrilateral,” which laid down a fourfold basis for home reunion—the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, the two sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate.

IV. Fourth Conference (July 5-31, 1897), convened by Archbishop Benson, presided over by Archbishop Temple; 194 bishops present. One of the chief subjects for consideration was the creation of a “tribunal of reference”; but the resolutions on this subject were withdrawn, owing, it is said, to the opposition of the American bishops, and a more general resolution in favour of a “consultative body” was substituted. The encyclical letter is accompanied by sixty-three resolutions (which include careful provision for provincial organization and the extension of the title “archbishop” to all metropolitans, a “thankful recognition of the revival of brotherhoods and sisterhoods, and of the office of deaconess,” and a desire to promote friendly relations with the Eastern Churches and the various Old Catholic bodies), and the reports of the eleven committees are subjoined.

V. Fifth Conference (July 6-August 5, 1908), convened by Archbishop Randall Davidson, who presided; 241 bishops were present. The chief subjects of discussion were: the relations of faith and modern thought, the supply and training of the clergy, education, foreign missions, revision and “enrichment” of the Prayer-Book, the relation of the Church to “ministries of healing” (Christian Science, &c.), the questions of marriage and divorce, organization of the Anglican Church, reunion with other Churches. The results of the deliberations were embodied in seventy-eight resolutions, which were appended to the encyclical issued, in the name of the conference, by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 8th of August.

The fifth Lambeth conference, following as it did close on the great Pan-Anglican congress, is remarkable mainly as a proof of the growth of the influence and many-sided activity of the Anglican Church, and as a conspicuous manifestation of her characteristic principles. Of the seventy-eight resolutions none is in any sense epoch-making, and their spirit is that of the traditional Anglican via media. In general they are characterized by a firm adherence to the fundamental articles of Catholic orthodoxy, tempered by a tolerant attitude towards those not of “the household of the faith.” The report of the committee on faith and modern thought is “a faithful attempt to show how the claim of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Church is set to present to each generation, may, under the characteristic conditions of our time, best command allegiance.” On the question of education (Res. 11-19) the conference reaffirmed strongly the necessity for definite Christian teaching in schools, “secular systems” being condemned as “educationally as well as morally unsound, since they fail to co-ordinate the training of the whole nature of the child” (Res. 11). The resolutions on questions affecting foreign missions (20-26) deal with e.g. the overlapping of episcopal jurisdictions (22) and the establishment of Churches on lines of race or colour, which is condemned (20). The resolutions on questions of marriage and divorce (37-43) reaffirm the traditional attitude of the Church; it is, however, interesting to note that the resolution (40) deprecating the remarriage in church of the innocent party to a divorce was carried only by eighty-seven votes to eighty-four. In resolutions 44 to 53 the conference deals with the duty of the Church towards modern democratic ideals and social problems; affirms the responsibility of investors for the character and conditions of the concerns in which their money is placed (49); “while frankly acknowledging the moral gains sometimes won by war” strongly supports the extension of international arbitration (52); and emphasizes the duty of a stricter observance of Sunday (53). On the question of reunion, the ideal of corporate unity was reaffirmed (58). It was decided to send a deputation of bishops with a letter of greeting to the national council of the Russian Church about to be assembled (60) and certain conditions were laid down for inter-communion with certain of the Churches of the Orthodox Eastern Communion (62) and the “ancient separated Churches of the East” (63-65). Resolution 67 warned Anglicans from contracting marriages, under actual conditions, with Roman Catholics. By resolution 68 the conference stated its desire to “maintain and strengthen the friendly relations” between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and “the ancient Church of Holland” (Jansenist, see Utrecht) and the old Catholic Churches; and resolutions 70-73 made elaborate provisions for a projected corporate union between the Anglican Church and the Unitas Fratrum (Moravian Brethren). As to “home reunion,” however, it was made perfectly clear that this would only be possible “on lines suggested by such precedents as those of 1610,” i.e. by the Presbyterian Churches accepting the episcopal model. So far as the organization of the Anglican Church is concerned, the most important outcome of the conference was the reconstruction of the Central Consultative Body on representative lines (54-56); this body to consist of the archbishop of Canterbury and seventeen bishops appointed by the various Churches of the Anglican Communion throughout the world. A notable feature of the conference was the presence of the Swedish bishop of Kalmar, who presented a letter from the archbishop of Upsala, as a tentative advance towards closer relations between the Anglican Church and the Evangelical Church of Sweden.

See Archbishop R. T. Davidson, The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878 and 1888 (London, 1896); Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion, Encyclical Letter, &c. (London, 1897 and 1908).

LAMBINUS, DIONYSIUS, the Latinized name of Denis Lambin (1520-1572), French classical scholar, born at Montreuil-sur-mer in Picardy. Having devoted several years to classical studies during a residence in Italy, he was invited to Paris in 1650 to fill the professorship of Latin in the Collège de France, which he soon afterwards exchanged for that of Greek. His lectures were frequently interrupted by his ill-health and the religious disturbances of the time. His death (September 1572) is said to have been caused by his apprehension that he might share the fate of his friend Peter Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée), who had been killed in the massacre of St Bartholomew. Lambinus was one of the greatest scholars of his age, and his editions of classical authors are still useful. In textual criticism he was a conservative, but by no means a slavish one; indeed, his opponents accused him of rashness in emendation. His chief defect is that he refers vaguely to his MSS. without specifying the source of his readings, so that their relative importance cannot be estimated. But his commentaries, with their wealth of illustration and parallel passages, are a mine of information. In the opinion of the best scholars, he preserved the happy mean in his annotations, although his own countrymen have coined the word lambiner to express trifling and diffuseness.

His chief editions are: Horace (1561); Lucretius (1564), on which see H. A. J. Munro’s preface to his edition; Cicero (1566); Cornelius Nepos (1569); Demosthenes (1570), completing the unfinished work of Guillaume Morel; Plautus (1576).

See Peter Lazer, De Dionysio Lambino narratio, printed in Orelli’s Onomasticon Tullianum (i. 1836), and Trium disertissimorum virorum praefationes ac epistolae familiares aliquot: Mureti, Lambini, Regii (Paris, 1579); also Sandys, Hist. of Classical Scholarship (1908, ii. 188), and A. Horawitz in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyclopädie.

LAMBOURN, a market town in the Newbury parliamentary division of Berkshire, England, 65 m. W. of London, the terminus of the Lambourn Valley light railway from Newbury. Pop. (1901) 2071. It lies high up the narrow valley of the Lambourn, a tributary of the Kennet famous for its trout-fishing, among the Berkshire Downs. The church of St Michael is cruciform and principally late Norman, but has numerous additions of later periods and has been considerably altered by modern restoration. The inmates of an almshouse founded by John Estbury, c. 1500, by his desire still hold service daily at his tomb in the church. A Perpendicular market-cross stands without the church. The town has agricultural trade, but its chief importance is derived from large training stables in the neighbourhood. To the north of the town is a large group of tumuli known as the Seven Barrows, ascertained by excavation to be a British burial-place.

LAMECH למך, the biblical patriarch, appears in each of the antediluvian genealogies, Gen. iv. 16-24 J., and Gen. v. P. In the former he is a descendant of Cain, and through his sons the author of primitive civilization; in the latter he is the father of Noah. But it is now generally held that these two genealogies are variant adaptations of the Babylonian list of primitive kings (see Enoch). It is doubtful whether Lamech is to be identified with the name of any one of these kings; he may have been introduced into the genealogy from another tradition.

In the older narrative in Gen. iv. Lamech’s family are the originators of various advances in civilization; he himself is the first to marry more than one wife, ‘Adah (“ornament,” perhaps specially “dawn”) and Zillah (“shadow”). He has three sons Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal, the last-named qualified by the addition of Cain (= “smith”). The assonance of these names is probably intentional, cf. the brothers Hasan and Hosein of early Mahommedan history. Jabal institutes the life of nomadic shepherds, Jubal is the inventor of music, Tubal-Cain the first smith. Jabal and Jubal may be forms of a root used in Hebrew and Phoenician for ram and ram’s horn (i.e. trumpet), and underlying our “jubilee.” Tubal may be the eponymous ancestor of the people of that name mentioned in Ezekiel in connexion with “vessels of bronze.” All three names are sometimes derived from יבל in the sense of offspring, so that they would be three different words for “son,” and there are numerous other theories as to their etymology. Lamech has also a daughter Naamah (“gracious,” “pleasant,” “comely”; cf. No’mân, a name of the deity Adonis). This narrative clearly intends to account for the origin of these various arts as they existed in the narrator’s time; it is not likely that he thought of these discoveries as separated from his own age by a universal flood; nor does the tone of the narrative suggest that the primitive tradition thought of these pioneers of civilization as members of an accursed family. Probably the passage was originally independent of the document which told of Cain and Abel and of the Flood; Jabal may be a variant of Abel. An ancient poem is connected with this genealogy:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;

Ye wives of Lamech, give ear unto my speech.
I slay a man for a wound,
A young man for a stroke;
For Cain’s vengeance is sevenfold,
But Lamech’s seventy-fold and seven.”

In view of the connexion, the poem is interpreted as expressing Lamech’s exultation at the advantage he expects to derive from Tubal-Cain’s new inventions; the worker in bronze will forge for him new and formidable weapons, so that he will be able to take signal vengeance for the least injury. But the poem probably had originally nothing to do with the genealogy. It may have been a piece of folk-song celebrating the prowess of the tribe of Lamech; or it may have had some relation to a story of Cain and Abel in which Cain was a hero and not a villain.

The genealogy in Gen. v. belongs to the Priestly Code, c. 450 B.C., and may be due to a revision of ancient tradition in the light of Babylonian archaeology. It is noteworthy that according to the numbers in the Samaritan MSS. Lamech dies in the year of the Flood.

The origin of the name Lamech and its original meaning are doubtful. It was probably the name of a tribe or deity, or both. According to C. J. Ball, Lamech is an adaptation of the Babylonian Lamga, a title of Sin the moon god, and synonymous with Ubara in the name Ubara-Tutu, the Otiartes of Berossus, who is the ninth of the ten primitive Babylonian kings, and the father of the hero of the Babylonian flood story, just as Lamech is the ninth patriarch, and the father of Noah. Spurrell states that Lamech cannot be explained from the Hebrew, but may possibly be connected with the Arabic yalmakun, “a strong young man.”

Outside of Genesis, Lamech is only mentioned in the Bible in 1 Chron. i. 3, Luke iii. 36. Later Jewish tradition expanded and interpreted the story in its usual fashion.

(W. H. Be.)

The text of Gen. iv. 22 is partly corrupt; and it is possible that the text used by the Septuagint did not contain Cain.

Gen. x. 2, Ezek. xxvii. 13.

Genesis, in Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament on iv. 19, cf. also the notes on 20-22, for Lamech’s family. The identification of Lamech with Lamga is also suggested by Sayce, Expository Times, vii. 367. Cf. also Cheyne, “Cainites” in Encyc. Biblica.

Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis, in loco.

LAMEGO, a city of northern Portugal, in the district of Vizeu and formerly included in the province of Beira; 6 m. by road S. of the river Douro and 42 m. E. of Oporto. Pop. (1900) 9471. The nearest railway station is Peso da Regoa, on the opposite side of the Douro and on the Barca d’Alva-Oporto railway. Lamego is an ancient and picturesque city, in the midst of a beautiful mountain region. Its principal buildings are the 14th-century Gothic cathedral, Moorish citadel, Roman baths and a church which occupies the site of a mosque, and, though intrinsically commonplace, is celebrated in Portugal as the seat of the legendary cortes of 1143 or 1144 (see Portugal, History). The principal industries are viticulture and the rearing of swine, which furnish the so-called “Lisbon hams.” Lamego was a Moorish frontier fortress of some importance in the 9th and 10th centuries. It was captured in 1057 by Ferdinand I. of Castile and Leon.

LAMELLIBRANCHIA (Lat. lamella, a small or thin plate, and Gr. βράγχια, gills), the fourth of the five classes of animals constituting the phylum Mollusca (q.v.). The Lamellibranchia are mainly characterized by the rudimentary condition of the head, and the retention of the primitive bilateral symmetry, the latter feature being accentuated by the lateral compression of the body and the development of the shell as two bilaterally symmetrical plates or valves covering each one side of the animal. The foot is commonly a simple cylindrical or ploughshare-shaped organ, used for boring in sand and mud, and more rarely presents a crawling disk similar to that of Gastropoda; in some forms it is aborted. The paired ctenidia are very greatly developed right and left of the elongated body, and form the most prominent organ of the group. Their function is chiefly not respiratory but nutritive, since it is by the currents produced by their ciliated surface that food-particles are brought to the feebly-developed mouth and buccal cavity.

The Lamellibranchia present as a whole a somewhat uniform structure. The chief points in which they vary are—(1) in the structure of the ctenidia or branchial plates; (2) in the presence of one or of two chief muscles, the fibres of which run across the animal’s body from one valve of the shell to the other (adductors); (3) in the greater or less elaboration of the posterior portion of the mantle-skirt so as to form a pair of tubes, by one of which water is introduced into the sub-pallial chamber, whilst by the other it is expelled; (4) in the perfect or deficient symmetry of the two valves of the shell and the connected soft parts, as compared with one another; (5) in the development of the foot as a disk-like crawling organ (Arca, Nucula, Pectunculus, Trigonia, Lepton, Galeomma), as a simple plough-like or tongue-shaped organ (Unionidae, &c.), as a re-curved saltatory organ (Cardium, &c.), as a long burrowing cylinder (Solenidae, &c.), or its partial (Mytilacea) or even complete abortion (Ostraeacea).

The essential Molluscan organs are, with these exceptions, uniformly well developed. The mantle-skirt is always long, and hides the rest of the animal from view, its dependent margins meeting in the middle line below the ventral surface when the animal is retracted; it is, as it were, slit in the median line before and behind so as to form two flaps, a right and a left; on these the right and the left calcareous valves of the shell are borne respectively, connected by an uncalcified part of the shell called the ligament. In many embryo Lamellibranchs a centro-dorsal primitive shell-gland or follicle has been detected. The mouth lies in the median line anteriorly, the anus in the median line posteriorly.

Both ctenidia, right and left, are invariably present, the axis of each taking origin from the side of the body as in the schematic archi-Mollusc (see fig. 15). A pair of renal tubes opening right and left, rather far forward on the sides of the body, are always present. Each opens by its internal extremity into the pericardium. A pair of genital apertures, connected by genital ducts with the paired gonads, are found right and left near the nephridial pores, except in a few cases where the genital duct joins that of the renal organ (Spondylus). The sexes are often, but not always, distinct. No accessory glands or copulatory organs are ever present in Lamellibranchs. The ctenidia often act as brood-pouches.

A dorsal contractile heart, with symmetrical right and left auricles receiving aerated blood from the ctenidia and mantle-skirt, is present, being unequally developed only in those few forms which are inequivalve. The typical pericardium is well developed. It, as in other Mollusca, is not a blood-space but develops from the coelom, and it communicates with the exterior by the pair of renal tubes. As in Cephalopoda (and possibly other Mollusca) water can be introduced through the nephridia into this space. The alimentary canal keeps very nearly to the median vertical plane whilst exhibiting a number of flexures and loopings in this plane. A pair of large glandular outgrowths, the so-called “liver” or great digestive gland, exists as in other Molluscs. A pair of pedal otocysts, and a pair of osphradia at the base of the gills, appear to be always present. A typical nervous system is present (fig. 19), consisting of a cerebro-pleural ganglion-pair, united by connectives to a pedal ganglion-pair and a visceral ganglion-pair (parieto-splanchnic).

A pyloric caecum connected with the stomach is commonly found, containing a tough flexible cylinder of transparent cartilaginous appearance, called the “crystalline style” (Mactra). In many Lamellibranchs a gland is found on the hinder surface of the foot in the mid line, which secretes a substance which sets into the form of threads—the so-called “byssus”—by means of which the animal can fix itself. Sometimes this gland is found in the young and not in the adult (Anodonta, Unio, Cyclas). In some Lamellibranchs (Pecten, Spondylus, Pholas, Mactra, Tellina, Pectunculus, Galeomma, &c.), although cephalic eyes are generally absent, special eyes are developed on the free margin of the mantle-skirt, apparently by the modification of tentacles commonly found there. There are no pores in the foot or elsewhere in Lamellibranchia by which water can pass into and out of the vascular system, as formerly asserted.

The Lamellibranchia live chiefly in the sea, some in fresh waters. A very few have the power of swimming by opening and shutting the valves of the shell (Pecten, Lima); most can crawl slowly or burrow rapidly; others are, when adult, permanently fixed to stones or rocks either by the shell or the byssus. In development some Lamellibranchia pass through a free-swimming trochosphere stage with pre-oral ciliated band; other fresh-water forms which carry the young in brood-pouches formed by the ctenidia have suppressed this larval phase.

Fig. 1.—Diagrams of the external form and anatomy of Anodonta cygnea, the Pond-Mussel; in figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 the animal is seen from the left side, the centro-dorsal region uppermost. (1) Animal removed from its shell, a probe g passed into the sub-pallial chamber through the excurrent siphonal notch. (2) View from the ventral surface of an Anodon with its foot expanded and issuing from between the gaping shells. (3) The left mantle-flap reflected upwards so as to expose the sides of the body. (4) Diagrammatic section of Anodon to show the course of the alimentary canal. (5) The two gill-plates of the left side reflected upwards so as to expose the fissure between foot and gill where the probe g passes. (6) Diagram to show the positions of the nerve-ganglia, heart and nephridia.

Letters in all the figures as follows:

a, Centro-dorsal area.

b, Margin of the left mantle-flap.

c, Margin of the right mantle-flap.

d, Excurrent siphonal notch of the mantle margin.

e, Incurrent siphonal notch of the mantle margin.

f, Foot.

g, Probe passed into the superior division of the sub-pallial chamber through the excurrent siphonal notch, and issuing by the side of the foot into the inferior division of the sub-pallial chamber.

h, Anterior (pallial) adductor muscle of the shells.

i, Anterior retractor muscle of the foot.

k, Protractor muscle of the foot.

l, Posterior (pedal) adductor muscle of the shells.

m, Posterior retractor muscle of the foot.

n, Anterior labial tentacle.

o, Posterior labial tentacle.

p, Base-line of origin of the reflected mantle-flap from the side of the body.

q, Left external gill-plate.

r, Left internal gill-plate.

rr, Internal lamella of the right inner gill-plate.

rg, Right outer gill-plate.

s, Line of concrescence of the outer lamella of the left outer gill-plate with the left mantle-flap.

t, Pallial tentacles.

u, The thickened muscular pallial margin which adheres to the shell and forms the pallial line of the left side.

v, That of the right side.

w, The mouth.

x, Aperture of the left organ of Bojanus (nephridium) exposed by cutting the attachment of the inner lamella of the inner gill-plate.

y, Aperture of the genital duct.

z, Fissure between the free edge of the inner lamella of the inner gill-plate and the side of the foot, through which the probe g passes into the upper division of the sub-pallial space.

aa, Line of concrescence of the inner lamella of the right inner gill-plate with the inner lamella of the left inner gill-plate.

ab, ac, ad, Three pit-like depressions in the median line of the foot supposed by some writers to be pores admitting water into the vascular system.

ae, Left shell valve.

af, Space occupied by liver.

ag, Space occupied by gonad.

ah, Muscular substance of the foot.

ai, Duct of the liver on the wall of the stomach.

ak, Stomach.

al, Rectum traversing the ventricle of the heart.

am, Pericardium.

an, Glandular portion of the left nephridium.

ap, Ventricle of the heart.

aq, Aperture by which the left auricle joins the ventricle.

ar, Non-glandular portion of the left nephridium.

as, Anus.

at, Pore leading from the pericardium into the glandular sac of the left nephridium.

au, Pore leading from the glandular into the non-glandular portion of the left nephridium.

av, Internal pore leading from the non-glandular portion of the left nephridium to the external pore x.

aw, Left cerebro-pleuro-visceral ganglion.

ax, Left pedal ganglion.

ay, Left otocyst.

az, Left olfactory ganglion (parieto-splanchnic).

bb, Floor of the pericardium separating that space from the non-glandular portion of the nephridia.

As an example of the organization of a Lamellibranch, we shall review the structure of the common pond-mussel or swan mussel (Anodonta cygnea), comparing it with other Lamellibranchia.

The swan-mussel has superficially a perfectly developed bilateral symmetry. The left side of the animal is seen as when removed from its shell in fig. 1 (1). The valves of the shell have been removed by severing their adhesions to the muscular areae h, i, k, l, m, u. The free edge of the left half of the mantle-skirt b is represented as a little contracted in order to show the exactly similar free edge of the right half of the mantle-skirt c. These edges are not attached to, although they touch, one another; each flap (right or left) can be freely thrown back in the way carried out in fig. 1 (3) for that of the left side. This is not always the case with Lamellibranchs; there is in the group a tendency for the corresponding edges of the mantle-skirt to fuse together by concrescence, and so to form a more or less completely closed bag, as in the Scaphopoda (Dentalium). In this way the notches d, e of the hinder part of the mantle-skirt of Anodonta are in the siphonate forms converted into two separate holes, the edges of the mantle being elsewhere fused together along this hinder margin. Further than this, the part of the mantle-skirt bounding the two holes is frequently drawn out so as to form a pair of tubes which project from the shell (figs. 8, 29). In such Lamellibranchs as the oysters, scallops and many others which have the edges of the mantle-skirt quite free, there are numerous tentacles upon those edges. In Anodonta these pallial tentacles are confined to a small area surrounding the inferior siphonal notch (fig. 1 , t). When the edges of the mantle ventral to the inhalant orifice are united, an anterior aperture is left for the protrusion of the foot, and thus there are three pallial apertures altogether, and species in this condition are called “Tripora.” This is the usual condition in the Eulamellibranchia and Septibranchia. When the pedal aperture is small and far forward there may be a fourth aperture in the region of the fusion behind the pedal aperture. This occurs in Solen, and such forms are called “Quadrifora.”

The centro-dorsal point a of the animal of Anodonta (fig. 1 ) is called the umbonal area; the great anterior muscular surface h is that of the anterior adductor muscle, the posterior similar surface i is that of the posterior adductor muscle; the long line of attachment u is the simple “pallial muscle,”—a thickened ridge which is seen to run parallel to the margin of the mantle-skirt in this Lamellibranch. In siphonate forms the pallial muscle is not simple, but is indented posteriorly by a sinus formed by the muscles which retract the siphons.

It is the approximate equality in the size of the anterior and posterior adductor muscles which led to the name Isomya for the group to which Anodonta belongs. The hinder adductor muscle is always large in Lamellibranchs, but the anterior adductor may be very small (Heteromya), or absent altogether (Monomya). The anterior adductor muscle is in front of the mouth and alimentary tract altogether, and must be regarded as a special and peculiar development of the median anterior part of the mantle-flap. The posterior adductor is ventral and anterior to the anus. The former classification based on these differences in the adductor muscles is now abandoned, having proved to be an unnatural one. A single family may include isomyarian, anisomyarian and monomyarian forms, and the latter in development pass through stages in which they resemble the first two. In fact all Lamellibranchs begin with a condition in which there is only one adductor, and that not the posterior but the anterior. This is called the protomonomyarian stage. Then the posterior adductor develops, and becomes equal to the anterior, and finally in some cases the anterior becomes smaller or disappears. The single adductor muscle of the Monomya is separated by a difference of fibre into two portions, but neither of these can be regarded as possibly representing the anterior adductor of the other Lamellibranchs. One of these portions is more ligamentous and serves to keep the two shells constantly attached to one another, whilst the more fleshy portion serves to close the shell rapidly when it has been gaping.

In removing the valves of the shell from an Anodonta, it is necessary not only to cut through the muscular attachments of the body-wall to the shell but to sever also a strong elastic ligament, or spring resembling india-rubber, joining the two shells about the umbonal area. The shell of Anodonta does not present these parts in the most strongly marked condition, and accordingly our figures (figs. 2, 3, 4) represent the valves of the sinupalliate genus Cytherea. The corresponding parts are recognizable in Anodonta. Referring to the figures (2, 3) for an explanation of terms applicable to the parts of the valve and the markings on its inner surface—corresponding to the muscular areas already noted on the surface of the animal’s body—we must specially note here the position of that denticulated thickening of the dorsal margin of the valve which is called the hinge (fig. 4). By this hinge one valve is closely fitted to the other. Below this hinge each shell becomes concave, above it each shell rises a little to form the umbo, and it is into this ridge-like upgrowth of each valve that the elastic ligament or spring is fixed (fig. 4). As shown in the diagram (fig. 5) representing a transverse section of the two valves of a Lamellibranch, the two shells form a double lever, of which the toothed-hinge is the fulcrum. The adductor muscles placed in the concavity of the shells act upon the long arms of the lever at a mechanical advantage; their contraction keeps the shells shut, and stretches the ligament or spring h. On the other hand, the ligament h acts upon the short arm formed by the umbonal ridge of the shells; whenever the adductors relax, the elastic substance of the ligament contracts, and the shells gape. It is on this account that the valves of a dead Lamellibranch always gape; the elastic ligament is no longer counteracted by the effort of the adductors. The state of closure of the valves of the shell is not, therefore, one of rest; when it is at rest—that is, when there is no muscular effort—the valves of a Lamellibranch are slightly gaping, and are closed by the action of the adductors when the animal is disturbed. The ligament is simple in Anodonta; in many Lamellibranchs it is separated into two layers, an outer and an inner (thicker and denser). That the condition of gaping of the shell-valves is essential to the life of the Lamellibranch appears from the fact that food to nourish it, water to aerate its blood, and spermatozoa to fertilize its eggs, are all introduced into this gaping chamber by currents of water, set going by the highly-developed ctenidia. The current of water enters into the sub-pallial space at the spot marked e in fig. 1 (1), and, after passing as far forward as the mouth w in fig. 1 (5), takes an outward course and leaves the sub-pallial space by the upper notch d. These notches are known in Anodonta as the afferent and efferent siphonal notches respectively, and correspond to the long tube-like afferent inferior and efferent superior “siphons” formed by the mantle in many other Lamellibranchs (fig. 8).

Fig. 5.—Diagram of a section of a Lamellibranch’s shells, ligament and adductor muscle. a, b, right and left valves of the shell; c, d, the umbones or short arms of the lever; e, f, the long arms of the lever; g, the hinge; h, the ligament; i, the adductor muscle.

Whilst the valves of the shell are equal in Anodonta we find in many Lamellibranchs (Ostraea, Chama, Corbula, &c.) one valve larger, and the other smaller and sometimes flat, whilst the larger shell may be fixed to rock or to stones (Ostraea, &c.). A further variation consists in the development of additional shelly plates upon the dorsal line between the two large valves (Pholadidae). In Pholas dactylus we find a pair of umbonal plates, a dors-umbonal plate and a dorsal plate. It is to be remembered that the whole of the cuticular hard product produced on the dorsal surface and on the mantle-flaps is to be regarded as the “shell,” of which a median band-like area, the ligament, usually remains uncalcified, so as to result in the production of two valves united by the elastic ligament. But the shelly substance does not always in boring forms adhere to this form after its first growth. In Aspergillum the whole of the tubular mantle area secretes a continuous shelly tube, although in the young condition two valves were present. These are seen (fig. 7) set in the firm substance of the adult tubular shell, which has even replaced the ligament, so that the tube is complete. In Teredo a similar tube is formed as the animal elongates (boring in wood), the original shell-valves not adhering to it but remaining movable and provided with a special muscular apparatus in place of a ligament. In the shell of Lamellibranchs three distinct layers can be distinguished: an external chitinous, non-calcified layer, the periostracum; a middle layer composed of calcareous prisms perpendicular to the surface, the prismatic layer; and an internal layer composed of laminae parallel to the surface, the nacreous layer. The last is secreted by the whole surface of the mantle except the border, and additions to its thickness continue to be made through life. The periostracum is produced by the extreme edge of the mantle border, the prismatic layer by the part of the border within the edge. These two layers, therefore, when once formed cannot increase in thickness; as the mantle grows in extent its border passes beyond the formed parts of the two outer layers, and the latter are covered internally by a deposit of nacreous matter. Special deposits of the nacreous matter around foreign bodies form pearls, the foreign nucleus being usually of parasitic origin (see Pearl).

Let us now examine the organs which lie beneath the mantle-skirt of Anodonta, and are bathed by the current of water which circulates through it. This can be done by lifting up and throwing back the left half of the mantle-skirt as is represented in fig. 1 (3). We thus expose the plough-like foot (f), the two left labial tentacles, and the two left gill-plates or left ctenidium. In fig. 1 (5), one of the labial tentacles n is also thrown back to show the mouth w, and the two left gill-plates are reflected to show the gill-plates of the right side (rr, rq) projecting behind the foot, the inner or median plate of each side being united by concrescence to its fellow of the opposite side along a continuous line (aa). The left inner gill-plate is also snipped to show the subjacent orifices of the left renal organ x, and of the genital gland (testis or ovary) y. The foot thus exposed in Anodonta is a simple muscular tongue-like organ. It can be protruded between the flaps of the mantle (fig. 1 ) so as to issue from the shell, and by its action the Anodonta can slowly crawl or burrow in soft mud or sand. Other Lamellibranchs may have a larger foot relatively than has Anodonta. In Arca it has a sole-like surface. In Arca too and many others it carries a byssus-forming gland and a byssus-cementing gland. In the cockles, in Cardium and in Trigonia, it is capable of a sudden stroke, which causes the animal to jump when out of the water, in the latter genus to a height of four feet. In Mytilus the foot is reduced to little more than a tubercle carrying the apertures of these glands. In the oyster it is absent altogether.

Fig. 9.—View from the ventral (pedal) aspect of the animal of Arca noae, the mantle-flap and gill-filaments having been cut away. (Lankester.)

a, Mouth.

b, Anus.

c, Free spirally turned extremity of the gill-axis or ctenidial axis of the right side.

d, Do. of the left side.

e, f, Anterior portions of these axes fused by concrescence to the wall of the body.

g, Anterior adductor muscle.

h, Posterior adductor.

i, Anterior labial tentacle.

k, Posterior labial tentacle.

l, Base line of the foot.

m, Sole of the foot.

n, Callosity.

The labial tentacles or palps of Anodonta (n, o in fig. 1 , ) are highly vascular flat processes richly supplied with nerves. The left anterior tentacle (seen in the figure) is joined at its base in front of the mouth (w) to the right anterior tentacle, and similarly the left (o) and right posterior tentacles are joined behind the mouth. Those of Arca (i, k in fig. 9) show this relation to the mouth (a). These organs are characteristic of all Lamellibranchs; they do not vary except in size, being sometimes drawn out to streamer-like dimensions. Their appearance and position suggest that they are in some way related morphologically to the gill-plates, the anterior labial tentacle being a continuation of the outer gill-plate, and the posterior a continuation of the inner gill-plate. There is no embryological evidence to support this suggested connexion, and, as will appear immediately, the history of the gill-plates in various forms of Lamellibranchs does not directly favour it. The palps are really derived from part of the velar area of the larva.

The gill-plates have a structure very different from that of the labial tentacles, and one which in Anodonta is singularly complicated as compared with the condition presented by these organs in some other Lamellibranchs, and with what must have been their original condition in the ancestors of the whole series of living Lamellibranchia. The phenomenon of “concrescence” which we have already had to note as showing itself so importantly in regard to the free edges of the mantle-skirt and the formation of the siphons, is what, above all things, has complicated the structure of the Lamellibranch ctenidium. Our present knowledge of the interesting series of modifications through which the Lamellibranch gill-plates have developed to their most complicated form is due to R. H. Peck, K. Mitsukuri and W. G. Ridewood. The Molluscan ctenidium is typically a plume-like structure, consisting of a vascular axis, on each side of which is set a row of numerous lamelliform or filamentous processes. These processes are hollow, and receive the venous blood from, and return it again aerated into, the hollow axis, in which an afferent and an efferent blood-vessel may be differentiated. In the genus Nucula (fig. 10) we have an example of a Lamellibranch retaining this plume-like form of gill. In the Arcacea (e.g. Arca and Pectunculus) the lateral processes which are set on the axis of the ctenidium are not lamellae, but are slightly flattened, very long tubes or hollow filaments. These filaments are so fine and are set so closely together that they appear to form a continuous membrane until examined with a lens. The microscope shows that the neighbouring filaments are held together by patches of cilia, called “ciliated junctions,” which interlock with one another just as two brushes may be made to do. In fig. 11, A a portion of four filaments of a ctenidium of the sea-mussel (Mytilus) is represented, having precisely the same structure as those of Arca. The filaments of the gill (ctenidium) of Mytilus and Arca thus form two closely set rows which depend from the axis of the gill like two parallel plates. Further, their structure is profoundly modified by the curious condition of the free ends of the depending filaments. These are actually reflected at a sharp angle—doubled on themselves in fact—and thus form an additional row of filaments (see fig. 11 B). Consequently, each primitive filament has a descending and an ascending ramus, and instead of each row forming a simple plate, the plate is double, consisting of a descending and an ascending lamella. As the axis of the ctenidium lies by the side of the body, and is very frequently connate with the body, as so often happens in Gastropods also, we find it convenient to speak of the two plate-like structures formed on each ctenidial axis as the outer and the inner gill-plate; each of these is composed of two lamellae, an outer (the reflected) and an adaxial in the case of the outer gill-plate, and an adaxial and an inner (the reflected) in the case of the inner gill-plate. This is the condition seen in Arca and Mytilus, the so-called plates dividing upon the slightest touch into their constituent filaments, which are but loosely conjoined by their “ciliated junctions.” Complications follow upon this in other forms. Even in Mytilus and Arca a connexion is here and there formed between the ascending and descending rami of a filament by hollow extensible outgrowths called “interlamellar junctions” (il. j in B, fig. 11). Nevertheless the filament is a complete tube formed of chitinous substance and clothed externally by ciliated epithelium, internally by endothelium and lacunar tissue—a form of connective tissue—as shown in fig. 11, C. Now let us suppose as happens in the genus Dreissensia—a genus not far removed from Mytilus—that the ciliated inter-filamentar junctions (fig. 12) give place to solid permanent inter-filamentar junctions, so that the filaments are converted, as it were, into a trellis-work. Then let us suppose that the interlamellar junctions already noted in Mytilus become very numerous, large and irregular; by them the two trellis-works of filaments would be united so as to leave only a sponge-like set of spaces between them. Within the trabeculae of the sponge-work blood circulates, and between the trabeculae the water passes, having entered by the apertures left in the trellis-work formed by the united gill-filaments (fig. 14). The larger the intralamellar spongy growth becomes, the more do the original gill-filaments lose the character of blood-holding tubes, and tend to become dense elastic rods for the simple purpose of supporting the spongy growth. This is seen both in the section of Dreissensia gill (fig. 12) and in those of Anodonta (fig. 13, A, B, C). In the drawing of Dreissensia the individual filaments f, f, f are cut across in one lamella at the horizon of an inter-filamentar junction, in the other (lower in the figure) at a point where they are free. The chitinous substance ch is observed to be greatly thickened as compared with what it is in fig. 11, C, tending in fact to obliterate altogether the lumen of the filament. And in Anodonta (fig. 13, C) this obliteration is effected. In Anodonta, besides being thickened, the skeletal substance of the filament develops a specially dense, rod-like body on each side of each filament. Although the structure of the ctenidium is thus highly complicated in Anodonta, it is yet more so in some of the siphonate genera of Lamellibranchs. The filaments take on a secondary grouping, the surface of the lamella being thrown into a series of half-cylindrical ridges, each consisting of ten or twenty filaments; a filament of much greater strength and thickness than the others may be placed between each pair of groups. In Anodonta, as in many other Lamellibranchs, the ova and hatched embryos are carried for a time in the ctenidia or gill apparatus, and in this particular case the space between the two lamellae of the outer gill-plate is that which serves to receive the ova (fig. 13, A). The young are nourished by a substance formed by the cells which cover the spongy interlamellar outgrowths.

A. Section across the axis of a ctenidium with a pair of plates—flattened and shortened filaments—attached.

i, j, k, g, Are placed on or near the membrane which attaches the axis of the ctenidium to the side of the body.

a, b, Free extremities of the plates (filaments).

d, Mid-line of the inferior border.

e, Surface of the plate.

t, Its upper border.

h, Chitinous lining of the plate.

r, Dilated blood-space.

u, Fibrous tract.

o, Upper blood-vessel of the axis.

n, Lower blood-vessel of the axis.

s, Chitinous framework of the axis.

cp, Canal in the same.

A, B, Line along which the cross-section C of the plate is taken.

B. Animal of a male Nucula proxima, Say, as seen when the left valve of the shell and the left half of the mantle-skirt are removed.

a, a, Anterior adductor muscle.

p.a, Posterior adductor muscle.

v.m, Visceral mass.

f, Foot.

g, Gill.

l, Labial Tentacle.

l.a, Filamentous appendage of the labial tentacle.

lb, Hood-like appendage of the labial tentacle.

m, Membrane suspending the gill and attached to the body along the line x, y, z, w.

p, Posterior end of the gill (ctenidium).

C. Section across one of the gill-plates (A, B, in A) comparable with fig. 11 C.

i.a, Outer border.

d.a, Axial border.

l.f, Latero-frontal epithelium.

e, Epithelium of general surface.

r, Dilated blood-space.

h, Chitinous lining (compare A).

A, Part of four filaments seen from the outer face in order to show the ciliated junctions c.j.

B, Diagram of the posterior face of a single complete filament with descending ramus and ascending ramus ending in a hook-like process; ep., ep., the ciliated junctions; il, j., interlamellar junction.

C, Transverse section of a filament taken so as to cut neither a ciliated junction nor an interlamellar junction. f.e., Frontal epithelium; l.f.e′., l.f.e″., the two rows of latero-frontal epithelial cells with long cilia; ch, chitinous tubular lining of the filament; lac., blood lacuna traversed by a few processes of connective tissue cells; b.c., blood-corpuscle.

Other points in the modification of the typical ctenidium must be noted in order to understand the ctenidium of Anodonta. The axis of each ctenidium, right and left, starts from a point well forward near the labial tentacles, but it is at first only a ridge, and does not project as a free cylindrical axis until the back part of the foot is reached. This is difficult to see in Anodonta, but if the mantle-skirt be entirely cleared away, and if the dependent lamellae which spring from the ctenidial axis be carefully cropped so as to leave the axis itself intact, we obtain the form shown in fig. 15, where g and h are respectively the left and the right ctenidial axes projecting freely beyond the body. In Arca this can be seen with far less trouble, for the filaments are more easily removed than are the consolidated lamellae formed by the filaments of Anodonta, and in Arca the free axes of the ctenidia are large and firm in texture (fig. 9, c, d).

f, Constituent gill-filaments.

ff, Fibrous sub-epidermic tissue.

ch, Chitonous substance of the filaments.

nch, Cells related to the chitonous substance.

lac, Lacunar tissue.

pig, Pigment-cells.

bc, Blood-corpuscles.

fe, Frontal epithelium.

lfe′, lfe″, Two rows of latero-frontal epithelial cells with long cilia.

lrf, Fibrous, possibly muscular, substance of the inter-filamentar junctions.

A, Outer gill-plate.

B, Inner gill-plate.

C, A portion of B more highly magnified.

o.l, Outer lamella.

i.l, Inner lamella.

v, Blood-vessel.

f, Constituent filaments.

lac, Lacunar tissue.

ch, Chitonous substance of the filament.

chr, Chitonous rod embedded in the softer substance ch.

Diagram of a block cut from the outer lamella of the outer gill-plate and seen from the interlamellar surface. f, Constituent filaments; trf, fibrous tissue of the transverse inter-filamentar junctions; v, blood-vessel ilj, Inter-lamellar junction. The series of oval holes on the back of the lamella are the water-pores which open between the filaments in irregular rows separated horizontally by the transverse inter-filamentar junctions.

Fig. 15.—Diagram of a view from the left side of the animal of Anodonta cygnaea, from which the mantle-skirt, the labial tentacles and the gill-filaments have been entirely removed so as to show the relations of the axis of the gill-plumes or ctenidia g, h. (Original.)

a, Centro-dorsal area.

b, Anterior adductor muscle.

c, Posterior adductor muscle.

d, Mouth.

e, Anus.

f, Foot.

g, Free portion of the axis of left ctenidium.

h, Axis of right ctenidium.

k, Portion of the axis of the left ctenidium which is fused with the base of the foot, the two dotted lines indicating the origins of the two rows of gill-filaments.

m, Line of origin of the anterior labial tentacle.

n, Nephridial aperture.

o, Genital aperture.

r, Line of origin of the posterior labial tentacle.

If we were to make a vertical section across the long axis of a Lamellibranch which had the axis of its ctenidium free from its origin onwards, we should find such relations as are shown in the diagram fig. 16, A. The gill axis d is seen lying in the sub-pallial chamber between the foot b and the mantle c. From it depend the gill-filaments or lamellae—formed by united filaments—drawn as black lines f. On the left side these lamellae are represented as having only a small reflected growth, on the right side the reflected ramus or lamella is complete (fr and er). The actual condition in Anodonta at the region where the gills begin anteriorly is shown in fig. 16, B. The axis of the ctenidium is seen to be adherent to, or fused by concrescence with, the body-wall, and moreover on each side the outer lamella of the outer gill-plate is fused to the mantle, whilst the inner lamella of the inner gill-plate is fused to the foot. If we take another section nearer the hinder margin of the foot, we get the arrangement shown diagrammatically in fig. 16, C, and more correctly in fig. 17. In this region the inner lamellae of the inner gill-plates are no longer affixed to the foot. Passing still farther back behind the foot, we find in Anodonta the condition shown in the section D, fig. 16. The axes i are now free; the outer lamellae of the outer gill-plates (er) still adhere by concrescence to the mantle-skirt, whilst the inner lamellae of the inner gill-plates meet one another and fuse by concrescence at g. In the lateral view of the animal with reflected mantle-skirt and gill-plates, the line of concrescence of the inner lamellae of the inner gill-plates is readily seen; it is marked aa in fig. 1 (5). In the same figure the free part of the inner lamella of the inner gill-plate resting on the foot is marked z, whilst the attached part—the most anterior—has been snipped with scissors so as to show the genital and nephridial apertures x and y. The concrescence, then, of the free edge of the reflected lamellae of the gill-plates of Anodon is very extensive. It is important, because such a concrescence is by no means universal, and does not occur, for example, in Mytilus or in Arca; further, because when its occurrence is once appreciated, the reduction of the gill-plates of Anodonta to the plume-type of the simplest ctenidium presents no difficulty; and, lastly, it has importance in reference to its physiological significance. The mechanical result of the concrescence of the outer lamellae to the mantle-flap, and of the inner lamellae to one another as shown in section D, fig. 16, is that the sub-pallial space is divided into two spaces by a horizontal septum. The upper space (i) communicates with the outer world by the excurrent or superior siphonal notch of the mantle (fig. 1, d); the lower space communicates by the lower siphonal notch (e in fig. 1). The only communication between the two spaces, excepting through the trellis-work of the gill-plates, is by the slit (z in fig. 1 (5)) left by the non-concrescence of a part of the inner lamella of the inner gill-plate with the foot. A probe (g) is introduced through this slit-like passage, and it is seen to pass out by the excurrent siphonal notch. It is through this passage, or indirectly through the pores of the gill-plates, that the water introduced into the lower sub-pallial space must pass on its way to the excurrent siphonal notch. Such a subdivision of the pallial chamber, and direction of the currents set up within it do not exist in a number of Lamellibranchs which have the gill-lamellae comparatively free (Mytilus, Arca, Trigonia, &c.), and it is in these forms that there is least modification by concrescence of the primary filamentous elements of the lamellae.

A, Shows two conditions with free gill-axis.

B, Condition at foremost region in Anodonta.

C, Hind region of foot in Anodonta.

D, Region altogether posterior to the foot in Anodonta.

a, Visceral mass.

b, Foot.

c, Mantle flap.

d, Axis of gill or ctenidium.

e, Adaxial lamella of outer gill-plate.

er, Reflected lamella of outer gill-plate.

f, Adaxial lamella of inner gill-plate.

fr, Reflected lamella of inner gill-plate.

g, Line of concrescence of the reflected lamellae of the two inner gill-plates.

h, Rectum.

i, Supra-branchial space of the sub-pallial chamber.

m, Mantle-flap.

br, Outer, b′r′, inner gill-plate—each composed of two lamellae.

f, Foot.

v, Ventricle of the heart.

a, Auricle.

p, p′, Pericardial cavity.

i, Intestine.

In the 9th edition of this Encyclopaedia Professor (Sir) E. R. Lankester suggested that these differences of gill-structure would furnish characters of classificatory value, and this suggestion has been followed out by Dr Paul Pelseneer in the classification now generally adopted.

The alimentary canal of Anodonta is shown in fig. 1 (4). The mouth is placed between the anterior adductor and the foot; the anus opens on a median papilla overlying the posterior adductor, and discharges into the superior pallial chamber along which the excurrent stream passes. The coil of the intestine in Anodonta is similar to that of other Lamellibranchs. The rectum traverses the pericardium, and has the ventricle of the heart wrapped, as it were, around it. This is not an unusual arrangement in Lamellibranchs, and a similar disposition occurs in some Gastropoda (Haliotis). A pair of ducts (ai) lead from the first enlargement of the alimentary tract called stomach into a pair of large digestive glands, the so-called liver, the branches of which are closely packed in this region (af). The food of the Anodonta, as of other Lamellibranchs, consists of microscopic animal and vegetable organisms, brought to the mouth by the stream which sets into the sub-pallial chamber at the lower siphonal notch (e in fig. 1). Probably a straining of water from solid particles is effected by the lattice-work of the ctenidia or gill-plates.

The heart of Anodonta consists of a median ventricle embracing the rectum (fig. 18, A), and giving off an anterior and a posterior artery, and of two auricles which open into the ventricle by orifices protected by valves.

A, Pericardium opened dorsally so as to expose the heart and the floor of the pericardial chamber d.

B, Heart removed and floor of the pericardium cut away on the left side so as to open the non-glandular sac of the nephridium, exposing the glandular sac b, which is also cut into so as to show the probe f.

C, Ideal pericardium and nephridium viewed laterally.

D, Lateral view showing the actual relation of the glandular and non-glandular sacs of the nephridium. The arrows indicate the course of fluid from the pericardium outwards.

a, Ventricle of the heart.

b, Auricle.

bb, Cut remnant of the auricle.

c, Dorsal wall of the pericardium cut and reflected.

e, Reno-pericardial orifice.

f, Probe introduced into the left reno-pericardial orifice.

g, Non-glandular sac of the left nephridium.

h, Glandular sac of the left nephridium.

i, Pore leading from the glandular into the non-glandular sac of the left nephridium.

k, Pore leading from the non-glandular sac to the exterior.

ac, Anterior.

ab, Posterior, cut remnants of the intestine and ventricle.

Fig. 19.—Nerve-ganglia and Cords of three Lamellibranchs. (From Gegenbaur.)

A, Of Teredo.

B, Of Anodonta.

C, Of Pecten.

a, Cerebral ganglion-pair (= cerebro-pleuro-visceral).

b, Pedal ganglion-pair.

c, Olfactory (osphradial) ganglion-pair.

Fig. 20.—Otocyst of Cyclas. (From Gegenbaur.)

c, Capsule.

e, Ciliated cells lining the same.

o, Otolith.

The blood is colourless, and has colourless amoeboid corpuscles floating in it. In Ceratisolen legumen, various species of Arca and a few other species the blood is crimson, owing to the presence of corpuscles impregnated with haemoglobin. In Anodonta the blood is driven by the ventricle through the arteries into vessel-like spaces, which soon become irregular lacunae surrounding the viscera, but in parts—e.g. the labial tentacles and walls of the gut—very fine vessels with endothelial cell-lining are found. The blood makes its way by large veins to a venous sinus which lies in the middle line below the heart, having the paired renal organs (nephridia) placed between it and that organ. Hence it passes through the vessels of the glandular walls of the nephridia right and left into the gill-lamellae, whence it returns through many openings into the widely-stretched auricles. In the filaments of the gill of Protobranchia and many Filibranchia the tubular cavity is divided by a more or less complete fibrous septum into two channels, for an afferent and efferent blood-current. The ventricle and auricles of Anodonta lie in a pericardium which is clothed with a pavement endothelium (d, fig. 18). It does not contain blood or communicate directly with the blood-system; this isolation of the pericardium we have noted already in Gastropods and Cephalopods. A good case for the examination of the question as to whether blood enters the pericardium of Lamellibranchs, or escapes from the foot, or by the renal organs when the animal suddenly contracts, is furnished by the Ceratisolen legumen, which has red blood-corpuscles. According to observations made by Penrose on an uninjured Ceratisolen legumen, no red corpuscles are to be seen in the pericardial space, although the heart is filled with them, and no such corpuscles are ever discharged by the animal when it is irritated.

The pair of renal organs of Anodonta, called in Lamellibranchs the organs of Bojanus, lie below the membranous floor of the pericardium, and open into it by two well-marked apertures (e and f in fig. 18). Each nephridium, after being bent upon itself as shown in fig. 18, C, D, opens to the exterior by a pore placed at the point marked x in fig. 1 (5) (6). One half of each nephridium is of a dark-green colour and glandular (h in fig. 18). This opens into the reflected portion which overlies it as shown in the diagram fig. 18, D, i; the latter has non-glandular walls, and opens by the pore k to the exterior. The renal organs may be more ramified in other Lamellibranchs than they are in Anodonta. In some they are difficult to discover. That of the common oyster was described by Hoek. Each nephridium in the oyster is a pyriform sac, which communicates by a narrow canal with the urino-genital groove placed to the front of the great adductor muscle; by a second narrow canal it communicates with the pericardium. From all parts of the pyriform sac narrow stalk-like tubes are given off, ending in abundant widely-spread branching glandular caeca, which form the essential renal secreting apparatus. The genital duct opens by a pore into the urino-genital groove of the oyster (the same arrangement being repeated on each side of the body) close to but distinct from the aperture of the nephridial canal. Hence, except for the formation of a urino-genital groove, the apertures are placed as they are in Anodonta. Previously to Hoek’s discovery a brown-coloured investment of the auricles of the heart of the oyster had been supposed to represent the nephridia in a rudimentary state. This investment, which occurs also in many Filibranchia, forms the pericardial glands, comparable to the pericardial accessory glandular growths of Cephalopoda. In Unionidae and several other forms the pericardial glands are extended into diverticula of the pericardium which penetrate the mantle and constitute the organ of Heber. The glands secrete hippuric acid which passes from the pericardium into the renal organs.

Nervous System and Sense-Organs.—In Anodonta there are three well-developed pairs of nerve ganglia (fig. 19, B, and fig. 1 (6)). An anterior pair, lying one on each side of the mouth (fig. 19, B, a) and connected in front of it by a commissure, are the representatives of the cerebral and pleural ganglia of the typical Mollusc, which are not here differentiated as they are in Gastropods. A pair placed close together in the foot (fig. 19, B, b, and fig. 1 (6), ax) are the typical pedal ganglia; they are joined to the cerebro-pleural ganglia by connectives.

Posteriorly beneath the posterior adductors, and covered only by a thin layer of elongated epidermal cells, are the visceral ganglia. United with these ganglia on the outer sides are the osphradial ganglia, above which the epithelium is modified to form a pair of sense-organs, corresponding to the osphradia of other Molluscs. In some Lamellibranchs the osphradial ganglia receive nerve-fibres, not from the visceral ganglia, but from the cerebral ganglia along the visceral commissure. Formerly the posterior pair of ganglia were identified as simply the osphradial ganglia, and the anterior pair as the cerebral, pleural and visceral ganglia united into a single pair. But it has since been discovered that in the Protobranchia the cerebral ganglia and the pleural are distinct, each giving origin to its own connective which runs to the pedal ganglion. The cerebro-pedal and pleuro-pedal connectives, however, in these cases are only separate in the initial parts of their course, and unite together for the lower half of their length, or for nearly the whole length. Moreover, in many forms, in which in the adult condition there is only a single pair of anterior ganglia and a single pedal connective, a pleural ganglion distinct from the cerebral has been recognized in the course of development. There is, however, no evidence of the union of a visceral pair with the cerebro-pleural.

a, Prae-corneal epithelium.

b, Cellular lens.

c, Retinal body.

d, Tapetum.

e, Pigment.

f, Retinal nerve.

g, Complementary nerve.

h, Epithelial cells filled with pigment.

k, Tentacle.

The sense-organs of Anodonta other than the osphradia consist of a pair of otocysts attached to the pedal ganglia (fig. 1 (6), ay). The otocysts of Cyclas are peculiarly favourable for study on account of the transparency of the small foot in which they lie, and may be taken as typical of those of Lamellibranchs generally. The structure of one is exhibited in fig. 20. A single otolith is present as in the veliger embryos of Opisthobranchia. In Filibranchia and many Protobranchia the otocyst (or statocyst) contains numerous particles (otoconia). The organs are developed as invaginations of the epidermis of the foot, and in the majority of the Protobranchia the orifice of invagination remains open throughout life; this is also the case in Mytilus including the common mussel.

A, When free swimming, shows the two dentigerous valves widely open.

B, A later stage, after fixture to the fin of a fish.

sh, Shell.

ad, Adductor muscle.

s, Teeth of the shell.

by, Byssus.

a.ad, Anterior adductor.

p.ad, Posterior adductor.

mt, Mantle-flap.

f, Foot.

br, Branchial filaments.

au.v, Otocyst.

al, Alimentary canal.

Anodonta has no eyes of any sort, and the tentacles on the mantle edge are limited to its posterior border. This deficiency is very usual in the class; at the same time, many Lamellibranchs have tentacles on the edge of the mantle supplied by a pair of large well-developed nerves, which are given off from the cerebro-pleural ganglion-pair, and very frequently some of these tentacles have undergone a special metamorphosis converting them into highly-organized eyes. Such eyes on the mantle-edge are found in Pecten, Spondylus, Lima, Pinna, Pectunculus, Modiola, Cardium, Tellina, Mactra, Venus, Solen, Pholas and Galeomma. They are totally distinct from the cephalic eyes of typical Mollusca, and have a different structure and historical development. They have originated not as pits but as tentacles. They agree with the dorsal eyes of Oncidium (Pulmonata) in the curious fact that the optic nerve penetrates the capsule of the eye and passes in front of the retinal body (fig. 21), so that its fibres join the anterior faces of the nerve-end cells as in Vertebrates, instead of their posterior faces as in the cephalic eyes of Mollusca and Arthropoda; moreover, the lens is not a cuticular product but a cellular structure, which, again, is a feature of agreement with the Vertebrate eye. It must, however, be distinctly borne in mind that there is a fundamental difference between the eye of Vertebrates and of all other groups in the fact that in the Vertebrata the retinal body is itself a part of the central nervous system, and not a separate modification of the epidermis—myelonic as opposed to epidermic. The structure of the reputed eyes of several of the above-named genera has not been carefully examined. In Pecten and Spondylus, however, they have been fully studied (see fig. 21, and explanation). Rudimentary cephalic eyes occur in the Mytilidae and in Avicula at the base of the first filament of the inner gill, each consisting of a pigmented epithelial fossa containing a cuticular lens. In the Arcidae the pallial eyes are compound or faceted somewhat like those of Arthropods.

A, Blastula stage (one-cell-layered sac), with commencing invagination of the wall of the sac at bl, the blastopore.

B, Optical section of a somewhat later stage, in which a second invagination has begun—namely, that of the shell-gland sk.

bl, Blastopore.

en, Invaginated endoderm (wall of the future arch-enteron).

ec, Ectoderm.

C, Similar optical section at a little later stage. The invagination connected with the blastopore is now more contracted, d; and cells, me, forming the mesoblast from which the cœlom and muscular and skeleto-trophic tissues develop, are separated.

D, Similar section of a later stage. The blastopore, bl, has closed; the anus will subsequently perforate the corresponding area. A new aperture, m, the mouth, has eaten its way into the invaginated endodermal sac, and the cells pushed in with it constitute the stomodaeum. The shell-gland, sk, is flattened out, and a delicate shell, s, appears on its surface. The ciliated velar ring is cut in the section, as shown by the two projecting cilia on the upper part of the figure. The embryo is now a Trochosphere.

E, Surface view of an embryo at a period almost identical with that of D.

F, Later embryo seen as a transparent object.

m, Mouth.

ft, Foot.

a, Anus.

e, Intestine.

st, Stomach.

tp, Velar area of the prostomium. The extent of the shell and commencing upgrowth of the mantle-skirt is indicated by a line forming a curve from a to F.

N.B.—In this development, as in that of Pisidium (fig. 25), no part of the blastopore persists either as mouth or as anus, but the aperture closes—the pedicle of invagination, or narrow neck of the invaginated arch-enteron, becoming the intestine. The mouth and the anus are formed as independent in-pushings, the mouth with stomodaeum first, and the short anal proctodaeum much later. This interpretation of the appearances is contrary to that of Horst, from whom our drawings of the oyster’s development are taken. The account given by the American William K. Brooks differs greatly as to matter of fact from that of Horst, and appears to be erroneous in some respects.

Fig. 24.—Embryo of Pisidium pusillum in the diblastula stage, surface view (after Lankester). The embryo has increased in size by accumulation of liquid between the outer and the invaginated cells. The blastopore has closed.

Generative Organs.—The gonads of Anodonta are placed in distinct male and female individuals. In some Lamellibranchs—for instance, the European Oyster and the Pisidium pusillum—the sexes are united in the same individual; but here, as in most hermaphrodite animals, the two sexual elements are not ripe in the same individual at the same moment. It has been conclusively shown that the Ostrea edulis does not fertilize itself. The American Oyster (O. virginiana) and the Portuguese Oyster (O. angulata) have the sexes separate, and fertilization is effected in the open water after the discharge of the ova and the spermatozoa from the females and males respectively. In the Ostrea edulis fertilization of the eggs is effected at the moment of their escape from the uro-genital groove, or even before, by means of spermatozoa drawn into the sub-pallial chamber by the incurrent ciliary stream, and the embryos pass through the early stages of development whilst entangled between the gill-lamellae of the female parent (fig. 23). In Anodonta the eggs pass into the space between the two lamellae of the outer gill-plate, and are there fertilized, and advance whilst still in this position to the glochidium phase of development (fig. 22). They may be found here in thousands in the summer and autumn months. The gonads themselves are extremely simple arborescent glands which open to the exterior by two simple ducts, one right and one left, continuous with the tubular branches of the gonads. In the most primitive Lamellibranchs there is no separate generative aperture but the gonads discharge into the renal cavity, as in Patella among Gastropods. This is the case in the Protobranchia, e.g. Solenomya, in which the gonad opens into the reno-pericardial duct. But the generative products do not pass through the whole length of the renal tube: there is a direct opening from the pericardial end of the tube to the distal end, and the ova or sperms pass through this. In Arca, in Anomiidae and in Pectinidae the gonad opens into the external part of the renal tube. The next stage of modification is seen in Ostraea, Cyclas and some Lucinidae, in which the generative and renal ducts open into a cloacal slit on the surface of the body. In Mytilus the two apertures are on a common papilla, in other cases the two apertures are as in Anodonta. The Anatinacea and Poromya among the Septibranchia are, however, peculiar in having two genital apertures on each side, one male and one female. These forms are hermaphrodite, with an ovary and testis completely separate from each other on each side of the body, each having its own duct and aperture.

Fig. 25.—B, Same embryo as fig. 24, in optical median section, showing the invaginated cells hy which form the arch-enteron, and the mesoblastic cells me which are budded off from the surface of the mass hy, and apply themselves to the inner surface of the epiblastic cell-layer ep. C. The same embryo focused so as to show the mesoblastic cells which immediately underlie the outer cell-layer.

Fig.26.—Diagram of Embryo of Pisidium. The unshaded area gives the position of the shell-valve. (After Lankester.)

m, Mouth.

x, Anus.

f, Foot.

br, Branchial filaments.

mn, Margin of the mantle-skirt.

B, Organ of Bojanus.

The development of Anodonta is remarkable for the curious larval form known as glochidium (fig. 22). The glochidium quits the gill-pouch of its parent and swims by alternate opening and shutting of the valves of its shell, as do adult Pecten and Lima, trailing at the same time a long byssus thread. This byssus is not homologous with that of other Lamellibranchs, but originates from a single glandular epithelial cell embedded in the tissues on the dorsal anterior side of the adductor muscle. By this it is brought into contact with the fin of a fish, such as perch, stickleback or others, and effects a hold thereon by means of the toothed edge of its shells. Here it becomes encysted, and is nourished by the exudations of the fish. It remains in this condition for a period of two to six weeks, and during this time the permanent organs are developed from the cells of two symmetrical cavities behind the adductor muscle. The early larva of Anodonta is not unlike the trochosphere of other Lamellibranchs, but the mouth is wanting. The glochidium is formed by the precocious development of the anterior adductor and the retardation of all the other organs except the shell. Other Lamellibranchs exhibit either a trochosphere larva which becomes a veliger differing only from the Gastropod’s and Pteropod’s veliger in having bilateral shell-calcifications instead of a single central one; or, like Anodonta, they may develop within the gill-plates of the mother, though without presenting such a specialized larva as the glochidium. An example of the former is seen in the development of the European oyster, to the figure of which and its explanation the reader is specially referred (fig. 23). An example of the latter is seen in a common little fresh-water bivalve, the Pisidium pusillum, which has been studied by Lankester. The gastrula is formed in this case by invagination. The embryonic cells continue to divide, and form an oval vesicle containing liquid (fig. 24); within this, at one pole, is seen the mass of invaginated cells (fig. 25, hy). These invaginated cells are the arch-enteron; they proliferate and give off branching cells, which apply themselves (fig. 25, C) to the inner face of the vesicle, thus forming the mesoblast. The outer single layer of cells which constitutes the surface of the vesicle is the ectoderm or epiblast. The little mass of hypoblast or enteric cell-mass now enlarges, but remains connected with the cicatrix of the blastopore or orifice of invagination by a stalk, the rectal peduncle. The enteron itself becomes bilobed and is joined by a new invagination, that of the mouth and stomodaeum. The mesoblast multiplies its cells, which become partly muscular and partly skeleto-trophic. Centro-dorsally now appears the embyronic shell-gland. The pharynx or stomodaeum is still small, the foot not yet prominent. A later stage is seen in fig. 26, where the pharynx is widely open and the foot prominent. No ciliated velum or pre-oral (cephalic) lobe ever develops. The shell-gland disappears, the mantle-skirt is raised as a ridge, the paired shell-valves are secreted, the anus opens by a proctodaeal ingrowth into the rectal peduncle, and the rudiments of the gills (br) and of the renal organs (B) appear (fig. 26, lateral view), and thus the chief organs and general form of the adult are acquired. Later changes consist in the growth of the shell-valves over the whole area of the mantle-flaps, and in the multiplication of the gill-filaments and their consolidation to form gill-plates. It is important to note that the gill-filaments are formed one by one posteriorly. The labial tentacles are formed late. In the allied genus Cyclas, a byssus gland is formed in the foot and subsequently disappears, but no such gland occurs in Pisidium.

After Drew, in Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology. (A. & C. Black.)

An extraordinary modification of the veliger occurs in the development of Nucula and Yoldia and probably other members of the same families. After the formation of the gastrula by epibole the larva becomes enclosed by an ectodermic test covering the whole of the original surface of the body, including the shell-gland, and leaving only a small opening at the posterior end in which the stomodaeum and proctodaeum are formed. In Yoldia and Nucula proxima the test consists of five rows of flattened cells, the three median rows bearing circlets of long cilia. At the anterior end of the test is the apical plate from the centre of which projects a long flagellum as in many other Lamellibranch larvae. In Nucula delphinodonta the test is uniformly covered with short cilia, and there is no flagellum. When the larval development is completed the test is cast off, its cells breaking apart and falling to pieces leaving the young animal with a well-developed shell exposed and the internal organs in an advanced state. The test is really a ciliated velum developed in the normal position at the apical pole but reflected backwards in such a way as to cover the original ectoderm except at the posterior end. In Yoldia and Nucula proxima the ova are set free in the water and the test-larvae are free-swimming, but in Nucula delphinodonta the female forms a thin-walled egg-case of mucus attached to the posterior end of the shell and in communication with the pallial chamber; in this case the eggs develop and the test-larva is enclosed. A similar modification of the velum occurs in Dentalium and in Myzomenia among the Amphineura.

Classification of Lamellibranchia

The classification originally based on the structure of the gills by P. Pelseneer included five orders, viz.: the Protobranchia in which the gill-filaments are flattened and not reflected; the Filibranchia in which the filaments are long and reflected, with non-vascular junctions; the Pseudolamellibranchia in which the gill-lamellae are vertically folded, the inter-filamentar and interlamellar junctions being vascular or non-vascular; the Eulamellibranchia in which the inter-filamentar and interlamellar junctions are vascular; and lastly the Septibranchia in which the gills are reduced to a horizontal partition. The Pseudolamellibranchia included the oyster, scallop and their allies which formerly constituted the order Monomyaria, having only a single large adductor muscle or in addition a very small anterior adductor. The researches of W. G. Ridewood have shown that in gill-structure the Pectinacea agree with the Filibranchia and the Ostraeacea with the Eulamellibranchia, and accordingly the order Pseudolamellibranchia is now suppressed and its members divided between the two other orders mentioned. The four orders now retained exhibit successive stages in the modification of the ctenidia by reflection and concrescence of the filament, but other organs, such as the heart, adductors, renal organs, may not show corresponding stages. On the contrary considerable differences in these organs may occur within any single order. The Protobranchia, however, possess several primitive characters besides that of the branchiae. In them the foot has a flat ventral surface used for creeping, as in Gastropods, the byssus gland is but slightly developed, the pleural ganglia are distinct, there is a relic of the pharyngeal cavity, in some forms with a pair of glandular sacs, the gonads retain their primitive connexion with the renal cavities, and the otocysts are open.

Order I. Protobranchia

In addition to the characters given above, it may be noted that the mantle is provided with a hypobranchial gland on the outer side of each gill, the auricles are muscular, the kidneys are glandular through their whole length, the sexes are separate.

Fam. 1. Solenomyidae.—One row of branchial filaments is directed dorsally, the other ventrally; the mantle has a long postero-ventral suture and a single posterior aperture; the labial palps of each side are fused together; shell elongate; hinge without teeth; periostracum thick. Solenomya.

Fam. 2. Nuculidae.—Labial palps free, very broad, and provided with a posterior appendage; branchial filaments transverse; shell has an angular dorsal border; mantle open along its whole border. Nucula. Acila. Pronucula.

Fam. 3. Ledidae.—Like the Nuculidae, but mantle has two posterior sutures and two united siphons. Leda. Yoldia. Malletia.

Fam. 4. Ctenodontidae.—Extinct; Silurian.

The fossil group Palaeoconcha is connected with the Protobranchia through the Solenomyidae. It contains the following extinct families.

Fam. 1. Praecardiidae.—Shell equivalve with hinge dentition as in Arca. Praecardium; Silurian and Devonian.

Fam. 2. Antipleuridae.—Shell inequivalve. Antipleura; Silurian.

Fam. 3. Cardiolidae.—Shell equivalve and ventricose; hinge without teeth. Cardiola; Silurian and Devonian.

Fam. 4. Grammysiidae.—Shell thin, equivalve, oval or elongate; hinge without teeth. Grammysia; Silurian and Devonian. Protomya; Devonian. Cardiomorpha; Silurian to Carboniferous.

Fam. 5. Vlastidae.—Shell very inequivalve; hinge without teeth. Vlasta; Silurian.

Fam. 6. Solenopsidae.—Shell equivalve, greatly elongated, umbones very far forward. Solenopsis; Devonian to Trias.

Order II. Filibranchia

Gill-filament ventrally directed and reflected, connected by ciliated junctions. Foot generally provided with a highly developed byssogenous apparatus.

Sub-order I.—Anomiacea.

Very asymmetrical, with a single large posterior adductor. The heart is not contained in the pericardium, lies dorsad of the rectum and gives off a single aorta anteriorly. The reflected borders of the inner gill-plates of either side are fused together in the middle line. The gonads open into the kidneys and the right gonad extends into the mantle. Shell thin; animal fixed.

Fam. 1. Anomiidae.—Foot small; inferior (right) valve of adult perforated to allow passage of the byssus. Anomia; byssus large and calcified; British. Placuna; byssus atrophied in adult. Hypotrema. Carolia. Ephippium. Placunanomia.

Sub-order II.—Arcacea.

Symmetrical; mantle open throughout its extent; generally with well developed anterior and posterior adductors. The heart lies in the pericardium and gives off two aortae. Gills without interlamellar junctions. Renal and genital apertures separate.

Fam. 1. Arcidae.—Borders of the mantle bear compound pallial eyes. The labial palps are direct continuations of the lips. Hinge pliodont, that is to say, it has numerous teeth on either side of the umbones and the teeth are perpendicular to the edge. Arca; foot byssiferous; British. Pectunculus; foot without byssus; British. Scaphula; freshwater; India. Argina. Bathyarca. Barbatia. Senilia. Anadara. Adacnarca.

Fam. 2. Parallelodontidae.—Shell as in Arca, but the posterior hinge teeth elongated and parallel to the cardinal border. Cucullaea; recent and fossil from the Jurassic. All the other genera are fossil: Parallelodon; Devonian to Tertiary. Carbonaria; Carboniferous, &c.

Fam. 3. Limopsidae.—Shell orbicular, hinge curved, ligament longer transversely than antero-posteriorly; foot elongate, pointed anteriorly and posteriorly. Limopsis. Trinacria; Tertiary.

Fam. 4. Philobryidae.—Shell thin, very inequilateral, anterior part atrophied, umbones projecting. Philobrya.

Fam. 5. Cyrtodontidae.—Extinct; shell equivalve and inequilateral, short, convex. Cyrtodonta; Silurian and Devonian. Cypricardites, Silurian. Vanuxemia; Silurian.

Fam. 6. Trigoniidae.—Shell thick; foot elongated, pointed in front and behind, ventral border sharp; byssus absent. Trigonia; shell sub-triangular, umbones directed backwards. This genus was very abundant in the Secondary epoch, especially in Jurassic seas. There are six living species, all in Australian seas. Living specimens were first discovered in 1827. Schizodus; Permian. Myophoria; Trias.

Fam. 7. Lyrodesmidae.—Extinct; shell inequilateral, posterior side shorter; hinge short, teeth in form of a fan. Lyrodesma; Silurian.

Sub-order III.—Mytilacea.

Symmetrical, the anterior adductor small or absent. Heart gives off only an anterior aorta. Surface of gills smooth, gill-filaments all similar, with interlamellar junctions. Gonads generally extend into mantle and open at sides of kidneys. Foot linguiform and byssiferous.

Fam. 1. Mytilidae.—Shell inequilateral, anterior end short; hinge without teeth; ligament external. Mantle has a posterior suture. Cephalic eyes present. Mytilus; British. Modiola; British. Lithodomus. Modiolaria; British. Crenella. Stavelia. Dacrydium. Myrina. Idas. Septifer.

Fam. 2. Modiolopsidae.—Extinct; Silurian to Cretaceous; adductor muscles sub-equal. Modiolopsis.—Modiomorpha. Myoconcha.

Fam. 3. Pernidae.—Shell very inequilateral; ligament subdivided; mantle open throughout; anterior adductor absent. Perna. Crenatula; inhabits sponges. Bakewellia. Gervilleia; Trias to Eocene. Odontoperna; Trias. Inoceramus; Jurassic to Cretaceous.

Sub-order IV.—Pectinacea.

Monomyarian, with open mantle. Gills folded and the filaments at summits and bases of the folds are different from the others. Gonads contained in the visceral mass and generally open into renal cavities. Foot usually rudimentary.

Fam. 1. Vulsellidae.—Shell high; hinge toothless; foot without byssus. Vulsella.

Fam. 2. Aviculidae.—Shell very inequilateral; cardinal border straight with two auriculae, the posterior the longer. Foot with a very stout byssus. Gills fused to the mantle. Avicula; British. Meleagrina. Pearls are obtained from a species of this genus in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, &c. Malleus. Several extinct genera.

Fam. 3. Prasinidae.—Shell inequilateral, with anterior umbones and prominent anterior auricula; cardinal border arched. Prasina.

Fam. 4. Pterineidae.—Extinct; Palaeozoic.

Fam. 5. Lunulicardiidae.—Extinct; Silurian and Devonian.

Fam. 6. Conocardiidae.—Extinct; Silurian to Carboniferous.

Fam. 7. Ambonychiidae.—Extinct; Silurian and Devonian. The last two families are dimyarian, with small anterior adductor.

Fam. 8. Myalinidae.—Extinct; Silurian to Cretaceous; adductors sub-equal.

Fam. 9. Amussiidae.—Shell orbicular, smooth externally with radiating costae internally. Gills without interlamellar junctions. Amussium.

Fam. 10. Spondylidae.—Shell very inequivalve, fixed by the right valve which is the larger. No byssus. Spondylus; shell with spiny ribs, adherent by the spines. Plicatula.

Fam. 11. Pectinidae.—Shell with radiating ribs; dorsal border with two auriculae. Foot byssiferous. Mantle borders with well developed eyes. Pecten; shell orbicular, with equal auriculae; without a byssal sinus; British. Chlamys; anterior auricula the larger and with a byssal sinus; British. Pedum. Hinnites. Pseudamussium. Camptonectes. Hyalopecten; abyssal.

Sub-order V.—Dimyacea.

Dimyarian, with orbicular and almost equilateral shell; adherent; hinge without teeth and ligament internal. Gills with free non-reflected filaments.

Fam. Dimyidae.—Characters of the sub-order. Dimya; recent in abyssal depths and fossil since the Jurassic.

Order III. Eulamellibranchia

Edges of the mantle generally united by one or two sutures. Two adductors usually present. Branchial filaments united by vascular inter-filamentar junctions and vascular interlamellar junctions; the latter contain the afferent vessels. The gonads always have their own proper external apertures.

Sub-order I.—Ostraeacea.

Monomyarian or with a very small anterior adductor. Mantle open; foot rather small; branchiae folded; shell inequivalve.

Fam. 1. Limidae.—Shell with auriculae. Foot digitiform, with byssus. Borders of mantle with long and numerous tentacles. Gills not united with mantle. Lima; members of this genus form a nest by means of the byssus, or swim by clapping the valves of the shell together. Limaea.

Fam. 2. Ostraeidae.—Foot much reduced and without byssus. Heart usually on the ventral side of the rectum. Gills fused to the mantle. Shell irregular, fixed in the young by the left and larger valve. Ostraea; foot absent in the adult; edible and cultivated; some species, as the British O. edulis, are hermaphrodite.

Fam. 3. Eligmidae.—Extinct; Jurassic.

Fam. 4. Pinnidae.—Shell elongated, truncated and gaping posteriorly. Dimyarian, with a very small anterior adductor. Foot with byssus. Pinna; British. Cyrtopinna. Aviculopinna; fossil, Carboniferous and Permian. Pinnigena; Jurassic and Cretaceous. Atrina; fossil and recent, from Carboniferous to present day.

Sub-order II.—Submytilacea.

Mantle only slightly closed; usually there is only a single suture. Siphons absent or very short. Gills smooth. Nearly always dimyarian. Shell equivalve, with an external ligament.

Fam. 1. Dreissensiidae.—Shell elongated; hinge without teeth; summits of valves with an internal septum. Siphons short. Dreissensia; lives in fresh water, but originated from the Caspian Sea; introduced into England about 1824.

Fam. 2. Modiolarcidae.—Foot with a plantar surface; the two branchial plates serve as incubatory pouches. Modiolarca.

Fam. 3. Astartidae.—Shell concentrically striated; foot elongate, without byssus. Astarte; British. Woodia. Opis; Secondary. Prosocoelus; Devonian.

Fam. 4. Crassatellidae.—Shell thick, with concentric striae, ligament external; foot short. Crassatella. Cuna.

Fam. 5. Carditidae.—Shell thick, with radiating costae; foot carinated, often byssiferous. Cardita. Thecalia. Milneria. Venericardia.

Fam. 6. Condylocardiidae.—Like Carditidae, but with an external ligament. Condylocardia. Carditella. Carditopsis.

Fam. 7. Cyprinidae.—Mantle open in front, with two pallial sutures; external gill-plates smaller than the internal. Cyprina; British. Cypricardia. Pleurophorus; Devonian to Trias. Anisocardia; Jurassic to Tertiary. Veniella; Cretaceous to Tertiary.

Fam. 8. Isocardiidae.—Mantle largely closed, pedal orifice small; gill-plates of equal size; shell globular, with prominent and coiled umbones. Isocardia; British.

Fam. 9. Callocardiidae.—Siphons present; external gill-plate smaller than the internal; umbones not prominent. Callocardia; abyssal.

Fam. 10. Lucinidae.—Labial palps very small; gills without an external plate. Lucina; British. Montacuta; British. Cryptodon.

Fam. 11. Corbidae.—Shell thick, with denticulated borders; anal aperture with valve but no siphon; foot elongated and pointed. Corbis. Gonodon; Trias and Jurassic. Mutiella; Upper Cretaceous.

Fam. 12. Ungulinidae.—Foot greatly elongated, vermiform, ending in a glandular enlargement. Ungulina. Diplodonta; British. Axinus; British.

Fam. 13. Cyrenellidae.—Two elongated, united, non-retractile siphons; freshwater. Cyrenella. Joanisiella.

Fam. 14. Tancrediidae.—Shell elongate, sub-triangular. Extinct. Tancredia; Trias to Cretaceous. Meekia; Cretaceous.

Fam. 15. Unicardiidae.—Shell sub-orbicular, nearly equilateral, with concentric striae. Extinct, Carboniferous to Cretaceous. Unicardium. Scaldia. Pseudedmondia.

Fam. 16. Leptonidae.—Shell thin; no siphons; foot long and byssiferous; marine; hermaphrodite and incubatory. Kellya; British. Lepton; commensal with the Crustacean Gebia; British. Erycina; Tertiary. Pythina. Scacchia. Sportella. Cyamium.

Fam. 17. Galeommidae.—Mantle reflected over shell; shell thin, gaping; adductors much reduced. Galeomma; British. Scintilla. Hindsiella. Ephippodonta; commensal with shrimp Axius. The three following genera with an internal shell probably belong to this family:—Chlamydoconcha. Scioberetia; commensal with a Spatangid. Entovalva; parasitic in Synapta.

Fam. 18. Kellyellidae.—Shell ovoid; anal aperture with very short siphon; foot elongated. Kellyella. Turtonia; British. Allopagus; Eocene. Lutetia; Eocene.

Fig. 28.—Lateral view of a Mactra, the right valve of the shell and right mantle-flap removed, and the siphons retracted. (From Gegenbaur.)

br, br′, Outer and inner gill-plates.

t, Labial tentacle.

ta, tr, Upper and lower siphons.

ms, Siphonal muscle of the mantle-flap.

ma, Anterior adductor muscle.

mp, Posterior adductor muscle.

p, Foot.

c, Umbo.

Fam. 19. Cyrenidae.—Two siphons, more or less united, with papillose orifices; pallial line with a sinus; freshwater. Cyrena. Corbicula. Batissa. Velorita. Galatea. Fischeria.

Fam. 20. Cycladidae.—One siphon or two free siphons with simple orifices; pallial line simple; hermaphrodite, embryos incubated in external gill-plate; freshwater, Cyclas; British. Pisidium; British.

Fam. 21. Rangiidae.—Two short siphons, shell with prominent umbones and internal ligament. Rangia; brackish water, Florida.

Fam. 22. Cardiniidae.—Shell elongated, inequilateral. Extinct. Cardinia; Trias and Jurassic. Anthracosia; Carboniferous and Permian. Anoplophora; Trias. Pachycardia; Trias.

Fam. 23. Megalodontidae.—Shell inequilateral, thick; posterior adductor impression on a myophorous apophysis. Extinct. Megalodon; Devonian to Jurassic. Pachyrisma; Trias and Jurassic. Durga; Jurassic. Dicerocardium; Jurassic.

Fam. 24. Unionidae.—Shell equilateral; mantle with a single pallial suture and no siphons; freshwater; larva a glochidium. Unio; British. Anodonta; British. Pseudodon. Quadrula. Arconaia. Monocondylea. Solenaia. Mycetopus.

Fam. 25. Mutelidae.—Differs from Unionidae in having two pallial sutures; freshwater. Muleta. Pliodon. Spatha. Iridina. Hyria. Castalia. Aplodon. Plagiodon.

Fam. 26. Aetheriidae.—Shell irregular, generally fixed in the adult; foot absent; freshwater. Aetheria. Mulleria. Bartlettia.

Sub-order III.—Tellinacea.

Mantle not extensively closed; two pallial sutures and two well-developed siphons. Gills smooth. Foot compressed and elongated. Labial palps very large. Dimyarian; pallial line with a deep sinus.

Fam. 1. Tellinidae.—External gill-plate directed upwards; siphons separate and elongated; foot with byssus; palps very large; ligament external. Tellina; British. Gastrana; British. Capsa. Macoma.

Fam. 2. Scrobiculariidae.—External gill-plates directed upwards; siphons separate and excessively long; foot without byssus. Scrobicularia; estuarine; British. Syndosmya; British. Cumingia.

Fam. 3. Donacidae.—External gill-plate directed ventrally; siphons separate, of moderate length, anal siphon the longer. Donax; British. Iphigeneia.

Fam. 4. Mesodesmatidae.—External gill-plate directed ventrally; siphons separate and equal. Mesodesma. Ervilia; British.

Fam. 5. Cardiliidae.—Shell very high and short; dimyarian; posterior adductor impression on a prominent apophysis. Cardilia.

Fam. 6. Mactridae.—External gill-plate directed ventrally; siphons united, invested by a chitinous sheath; foot long, bent at an angle, without byssus. Mactra; British (figs. 28, 29). Mulinia. Harvella. Raeta. Eastonia. Heterocardia. Vanganella.

Sub-order IV.—Veneracea.

Two pallial sutures, siphons somewhat elongated and partially or wholly united. Gills slightly folded. A bulb on the posterior aorta. Ligament external.

Fam. 1. Veneridae.—Foot well developed; pallial sinus shallow or absent. Venus; British. Dosinia; British. Tapes; British. Cyclina. Lucinopsis; British. Meretrix. Circe; British. Venerupis.

Fam. 2. Petricolidae.—Boring forms with a reduced foot; shell elongated, with deep pallial sinus. Petricola. P. pholadiformis, originally an inhabitant of the coast of the United States, has been acclimatized for some years in the North Sea.

Fam. 3. Glaucomyidae.—Siphons very long and united; foot small; shell thin, with deep pallial sinus; fresh or brackish water. Glaucomya. Tanysiphon.

Sub-order V.—Cardiacea.

Two pallial sutures. Siphons generally short. Foot cylindrical, more or less elongated, byssogenous. Gills much folded. Shell equivalve, with radiating costae and external ligament.

Fam. 1. Cardiidae.—Mantle slightly closed; siphons very short, surrounded by papillae which often bear eyes; foot very long, geniculated; pallial line without sinus; two adductors, Cardium; British. Pseudo-kellya. Byssocardium; Eocene. Lithocardium; Eocene.

Fam. 2. Limnocardiidae.—Siphons very long, united throughout; shell gaping; two adductors; brackish waters. Limnocardium; Caspian Sea and fossil from the Tertiary. Archicardium; Tertiary.

Fam. 3. Tridacnidae.—Mantle closed to a considerable extent; apertures distant from each other; no siphons; a single adductor; shell thick. Tridacna. Hippopus.

Sub-order VI.—Chamacea.

Asymmetrical, inequivalve, fixed, with extensive pallial sutures; no siphons. Two adductors. Foot reduced and without byssus. Shell thick, without pallial sinus.

Fam. 1. Chamidae.—Shell with sub-equal valves and prominent umbones more or less spirally coiled; ligament external. Chama. Diceras; Jurassic. Requienia; Cretaceous. Matheronia; Cretaceous.

Fam. 2. Caprinidae.—Shell inequivalve; fixed valve spiral or conical; free valve coiled or spiral; Cretaceous. Caprina. Caprotina. Caprinula, &c.

Fam. 3. Monopleuridae.—Shell very inequivalve; fixed valve conical or spiral; free valve operculiform; Cretaceous. Monopleuron. Baylea. The two following families, together known as Rudistae, are closely allied to the preceding; they are extinct marine forms from Secondary deposits. They were fixed by the conical elongated right valve; the free left valve is not spiral, and is furnished with prominent apophyses to which the adductors were attached.

Fam. 4. Radiolitidae.—Shell conical or biconvex, without canals in the external layer. Radiolites. Biradiolites.

Fam. 5. Hippuritidae.—Fixed valve long, cylindro-conical, with three longitudinal furrows which correspond internally to two pillars for support of the siphons. Hippurites. Arnaudia.

Sub-order VII.—Myacea.

Mantle closed to a considerable extent; siphons well developed; gills much folded and frequently prolonged into the branchial siphon. Foot compressed and generally byssiferous. Shell gaping, with a pallial sinus.

Fam. 1. Psammobiidae.—Siphons very long and quite separate; foot large; shell oval, elongated, ligament external. Psammobia; British. Sanguinolaria. Asaphis. Elizia. Solenotellina.

Fam. 2. Myidae.—Siphons united for the greater part of their length, and with a circlet of tentacles near their extremities; foot reduced; shell gaping; ligament internal. Mya; British. Sphenia; British. Tugonia. Platyodon. Cryptomya.

Fam. 3. Corbulidae.—Shell sub-trigonal, inequivalve; pallial sinus shallow; siphons short, united, completely retractile; foot large, pointed, often byssiferous. Corbulomya. Paramya. Erodona and Himella are fluviatile forms from South America.

Fam. 4. Lutrariidae.—Mantle extensively closed; a fourth pallial aperture behind the foot; siphons long and united; shell elongated, a spoon-shaped projection for the ligament on each valve. Lutraria; British. Tresus. Standella.

Fam. 5. Solenidae.—Elongated burrowing forms; foot cylindrical, powerful, without byssus; shell long, truncated and gaping at each end. Solenocurtus; British. Tagelus; estuarine. Ceratisolen; British. Cultellus; British. Siliqua. Solen; British. Ensis; British.

Fam. 6. Saxicavidae.—Mantle extensively closed, with a small pedal orifice; siphons long, united, covered by a chitinous sheath; gills prolonged into the branchial siphon; foot small; shell gaping. Saxicava; British. Glycimeris. Cyrtodaria.

Fam. 7. Gastrochaenidae.—Shell thin, gaping widely at the posterior end; anterior adductor much reduced; mantle extensively closed; siphons long, united. Gastrochaena; British. Fistulana.

Sub-order VIII.—Adesmacea.

Ligament wanting; shell gaping, with a styloid apophysis in the umbonal cavities. Gills prolonged into the branchial siphon. Mantle largely closed, siphons long, united. Foot short, truncated, discoid, without byssus.

Fam. 1. Pholadidae.—Shell containing all the organs; heart traversed by the rectum; two aortae. Shell with a pallial sinus; dorsal region protected by accessory plates. Pholas; British. Pholadidea; British. Jouannetia. Xylophaga; British. Martesia.

Fam. 2. Teredinidae.—Shell globular, covering only a small portion of the vermiform body; heart on ventral side of rectum; a single aorta; siphons long, united and furnished with two posterior calcareous “pallets.” Teredo; British. Xylotrya.

Sub-order IX.—Anatinacea.

Hermaphrodite, the ovaries and testes distinct, with separate apertures. Foot rather small. Mantle frequently presents a fourth orifice. External gill-plate directed dorsally and without reflected lamella. Hinge without teeth.

Fam. 1. Thracidae.—Mantle with a fourth aperture; siphons long, quite separate, completely retractile and invertible. Thracia; British. Asthenothaerus.

Fam. 2. Periplomidae.—Siphons separate, naked, completely retractile but not invertible. Periploma. Cochlodesma. Tyleria.

Fam. 3. Anatinidae.—Siphons long, united, covered by a chitinous sheath, not completely retractile. Anatina. Plectomya; Jurassic and Cretaceous.

Fam. 4. Pholadomyidae.—Mantle with fourth aperture; siphons very long, completely united, naked, incompletely retractile; foot small, with posterior appendage. Pholadomya.

Fam. 5. Arcomyidae.—Extinct; Secondary and Tertiary. Arcomya. Goniomya.

Fam. 6. Pholadellidae.—Extinct; Palaeozoic. Pholadella. Phytimya. Allorisma.

Fam. 7. Pleuromyidae.—Extinct; Secondary. Pleuromya. Gresslya. Ceromya.

Fam. 8. Pandoridae.—Shell thin, inequivalve, free; ligament internal; siphons very short. Pandora; British. Coelodon. Clidiophora.

Fam. 9. Myochamidae.—Shell very inequivalve, solid, with a pallial sinus; siphons short; foot small. Myochama. Myodora.

Fam. 10. Chamostraeidae.—A fourth pallial aperture present; pedal aperture small; siphons very short and separate; shell fixed by the right valve, irregular. Chamostraea.

Fam. 11. Clavagellidae.—Pedal aperture very small, foot rudimentary; valves continued backwards into a calcareous tube secreted by the siphons. Clavagella. Brechites (Aspergillum).

Fam. 12. Lyonsiidae.—Foot byssiferous; siphons short, invertible. Lyonsia; British. Entodesma. Mytilimeria.

Fam. 13. Verticordiidae.—Siphons short, gills papillose; foot small; shell globular. Many species abyssal. Verlicordia. Euciroa. Lyonsiella. Halicardia.

Order IV. Septibranchia

Gills have lost their respiratory function, and are transformed into a muscular septum on each side between mantle and foot. All marine, live at considerable depths, and are carnivorous.

Fam. 1. Poromyidae.—Siphons short and separate; branchial siphon with a large valve; branchial septum bears two groups of orifices on either side; hermaphrodite. Poromya; British. Dermatomya. Liopistha; Cretaceous.

Fam. 2. Cetoconchidae.—Branchial septum with three groups of orifices on each side; siphons short, separate, branchial siphon with a valve. Cetoconcha (Silenia).

Fam. 3. Cuspidariidae.—Branchial septum with four or five pairs of very narrow symmetrical orifices; siphons long, united, their extremities surrounded by tentacles; sexes separate. Cuspidaria; British.

Authorities.—T. Barrois, “Le Stylet crystallin des Lamellibranches,” Revue biol. Nord France, i. (1890); Jameson, “On the Origin of Pearls,” Proc. Zool. Soc. (London, 1902); R. H. Peck, “The Minute Structure of the Gills of Lamellibranch Mollusca,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xvii. (1877); W. G. Ridewood, “On the Structure of the Gills of the Lamellibranchia,” Phil. Trans. B. cxcv. (1903); K. Mitsukuri, “On the Structure and Significance of some aberrant forms of Lamellibranchiate Gills,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xxi. (1881); A. H. Cooke, “Molluscs,” Cambridge Natural History, vol. iii.; Paul Pelseneer, “Mollusca,” Treatise on Zoology, edited by E. Ray Lankester, pt. v.

(E. R. L.; J. T. C.)