Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Lefebvre, Tanneguy" to "Letronne, Jean Antoine" (part 2)

A mile S.E. of the links lies the ancient village of Restalrig, the home of the Logans, from whom the superiority of Leith was purchased in 1553 by the queen regent. Sir Robert Logan (d. 1606) was alleged to have been one of the Gowrie conspirators and to have arranged to imprison the king in Fast Castle. This charge, however, was not made until three years after his death, when his bones were exhumed for trial. He was then found guilty of high treason and sentence of forfeiture pronounced; but there is reason to suspect that the whole case was trumped up. The old church escaped demolition at the Reformation and even the fine east window was saved. In the vaults repose Sir Robert and other Logans, besides several of the lords Balmerino, and Lord Brougham’s father lies in the kirkyard. The well of St Triduana, which was reputed to possess wonderful curative powers, vanished when the North British railway was constructed.

LEITMERITZ (Czech, Litoměřice), a town and episcopal see of Bohemia, 45 m. N. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900) 13,075, mostly German. It lies on the right bank of the Elbe, which becomes here navigable for steamers and is spanned by an iron bridge 1700 ft. in length. The fine cathedral, founded in 1057, was built in 1671 and contains some valuable paintings. The library of the episcopal palace, built between 1694 and 1701, possesses the oldest maps of Bohemia made in 1518 by Nicolaus Claudianus of Jung-Bunzlau. Of the other churches that of All Saints dates from the 13th century. The town-hall, with its remarkable bell tower, dates from the 15th century. Leitmeritz is situated in the midst of a very fertile country, called the “Bohemian Paradise,” which produces great quantities of corn, fruit, hops and wines. The beer brewed here enjoys a high reputation. On the opposite bank of the river, where the Eger discharges itself into the Elbe, lies Theresienstadt (pop. 7046), an important garrison town. It was formerly an important fortress, erected in 1780 by the emperor Joseph II. and named after his mother Maria Theresa, but the fortress was dismantled in 1882.

Leitmeritz was originally the castle of a royal count and is first mentioned, in 993, in the foundation charter of the convent of St Margaret near Prague. In 1248 it received a town charter, and was governed by the laws of Magdeburg until the time of Ferdinand I., having a special court of jurisdiction over all the royal towns where this law obtained. The town reached its highest degree of prosperity under Charles IV., who bestowed upon it large tracts of forest, agricultural land and vineyards. In the Hussite wars, after its capture by the utraquist, Leitmeritz remained true to “the Chalice,” shared also in the revolt against Ferdinand I., and suffered in consequence. It was still more unfortunate during the Thirty Years’ War, in the course of which most of the Protestant inhabitants left it; the property of the Bohemian refugees being given to German immigrants. The present bishopric was established in 1655.

LEITNER, GOTTLIEB WILHELM (1840-1899), Anglo-Hungarian orientalist, was born at Budapest in 1840. He was the son of a physician, and was educated at Malta Protestant college. At the age of fifteen he acted as an interpreter in the Crimean War. He entered King’s College, London, in 1858, and in 1861 was appointed professor of Arabic and Mahommedan law. He became principal of the government college at Lahore in 1864, and there originated the term “Dardistan” for a portion of the mountains on the north-west frontier, which was subsequently recognized to be a purely artificial distinction. He collected much valuable information on Graeco-Buddhist art and the origins of Indian art. He spoke, read and wrote twenty-five languages. He founded an oriental institute at Woking, and for some years edited the Asiatic Quarterly Review. He died at Bonn in 1899.

See J. H. Stocqueler, Life and Labours of Dr Leitner (1875).

LEITRIM, a county of Ireland in the province of Connaught, bounded N.W. by Donegal Bay, N.E. by Fermanagh, E. by Cavan, S.E. by Longford, S.W. by Roscommon and W. by Sligo. The area is 392,381 acres, or about 613 sq. m. The northern portion of the county consists of an elevated tableland, of which the highest summits belong to the Truskmore Hills, reaching 1712 ft.; with Benbo, 1365 ft. and Lackagh, 1446 ft. In the southern part the country is comparatively level, and is generally richly wooded. The county touches the south coast of Donegal Bay, but the coast-line is only about 3 m. The principal river is the Shannon, which, issuing from Lough Allen, forms the south-western boundary of the county with Roscommon. The Bonnet rises in the north-west and flows to Lough Gill, and the streams of Drones and Duff separate Leitrim from Donegal and Sligo. Besides Lough Allen, which has an area of 8900 acres, the other principal lakes in the county are Lough Macnean, Lough Scur, Lough Garadice and Lough Melvin. The scenery of the north is wild and attractive, while in the neighbourhood of the Shannon it is of great beauty. Lough Melvin and the coast rivers afford rod fishing, the lough being noted for its gillaroo trout.

This varied county has in general a floor of Carboniferous Limestone, which forms finely scarped hills as it reaches the sea in Donegal Bay. The underlying sandstone appears at Lough Melvin, and again on the margin of a Silurian area in the extreme south. The Upper Carboniferous series, dipping gently southward, form mountainous country round Lough Allen, where the name of Slieve Anierin records the abundance of clay-ironstone beneath the coal seams. The sandstones and shales of this series scarp boldly towards the valley of the Bonnet, across which rises, in picturesque contrast, the heather-clad ridge of ancient gneiss which forms, in Benbo, the north-east end of the Ox Mountains. The ironstone was smelted in the upland at Creevelea down to 1859, and the coal is worked in a few thin seams.

The climate is moist and unsuitable for grain crops. On the higher districts the soil is stiff and cold, and, though abounding in stones, retentive of moisture, but in the valleys there are some fertile districts. Lime, marl and similar manures are abundant, and on the coast seaweed is plentiful. The proportion of tillage to pasture is roughly as 1 to 3. Potatoes are grown, but oats, the principal grain crop, are scanty. The live stock consists chiefly of cattle, pigs and poultry. Coarse linens for domestic purposes are manufactured and coarse pottery is also made. The Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties railway, connecting Sligo with Enniskillen, crosses the northern part of the county, by way of Manor Hamilton; the Mullingar and Sligo line of the Midland Great Western touches the south-western boundary of the county, with a station at Carrick-on-Shannon; while connecting with this line at Dromod is the Cavan and Leitrim railway to Ballinamore and Arigna, and to Belturbet in county Cavan.

The population (78,618 in 1891; 69,343 in 1901) decreases owing to emigration, the decrease being one of the most serious shown by any Irish county. It includes nearly 90% of Roman Catholics. The only towns are Carrick-on-Shannon (pop. 1118) and Manor Hamilton (993). The county is divided into five baronies. It is within the Connaught circuit, and assizes are held at Carrick-on-Shannon, and quarter sessions at Ballinamore, Carrick-on-Shannon and Manor Hamilton. It is in the Protestant diocese of Kilmore, and the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ardagh and Kilmore. In the Irish House of Commons two members were returned for the county and two for the boroughs of Carrick-on-Shannon and Jamestown, but at the Union the boroughs were disfranchised. The county divisions are termed the North and South, each returning one member.

With the territory which afterwards became the county Cavan, Leitrim formed part of Brenny or Breffny, which was divided into two principalities, of which Leitrim, under the name of Hy Bruin-Brenny, formed the western. Being for a long time in the possession of the O’Rourkes, descendants of Roderick, king of Ireland, it was also called Brenny O’Rourke. This family long maintained its independence; even in 1579, when the other existing counties of Connaught were created, the creation of Leitrim was deferred, and did not take place until 1583. Large confiscations were made in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., in the Cromwellian period, and after the Revolution of 1688.

There are “druidical” remains near Fenagh and at Letterfyan, and important monastic ruins at Creevelea near the Bonnet, with several antique monuments, and in the parish of Fenagh. There was a flourishing Franciscan friary at Jamestown. The abbeys of Mohill, Annaduff and Drumlease are converted into parish churches. Among the more notable old castles are Manor Hamilton Castle, originally very extensive, but now in ruins, and Castle John on an island in Lough Scur. There is a small village named Leitrim about 4 m. N. of Carrick-on-Shannon, which was once of enough importance to give its name to a barony and to the county, and is said to have been the seat of an early bishopric.

LEIXÕES, a seaport and harbour of refuge of northern Portugal; in 41° 9′ 10″ N., 8° 40′ 35″ W., 3 m. N. of the mouth of the Douro. Leixões is included in the parish of Matozinhos (pop. 1900, 7690) and constitutes the main port of the city of Oporto (q.v.), with which it is connected by an electric tramway. The harbour, of artificial construction, has an area of over 220 acres, and admits vessels of any size, the depth at the entrance being nearly 50 ft. The transference of cargo to and from ships lying in the Leixões basin is effected entirely by means of lighters from Oporto. In addition to wine, &c., from Oporto, large numbers of emigrants to South America are taken on board here. The trade of the port is mainly in British hands, and large numbers of British ships call at Leixões on the voyage between Lisbon and Liverpool, London or Southampton.

LEJEUNE, LOUIS FRANÇOIS, Baron (1776-1848), French general, painter, and lithographer, was born at Versailles. As aide-de-camp to General Berthier he took an active part in many of the Napoleonic campaigns, which he made the subjects of an important series of battle-pictures. The vogue he enjoyed is due to the truth and vigour of his work, which was generally executed from sketches and studies made on the battlefield. When his battle-pictures were shown at the Egyptian Hall in London, a rail had to be put up to protect them from the eager crowds of sightseers. Among his chief works are “The Entry of Charles X. into Paris, 6 June 1825” at Versailles; “Episode of the Prussian War, October 1807” at Douai Museum; “Marengo” (1801); “Lodi,” “Thabor,” “Aboukir” (1804); “The Pyramids” (1806); “Passage of the Rhine in 1795” (1824), and “Moskawa” (1812). The German campaign of 1806 brought him to Munich, where he visited the workshop of Senefelder, the inventor of lithography. Lejeune was so fascinated by the possibilities of the new method that he then and there made the drawing on stone of his famous “Cossack” (printed by C. and T. Senefelder, 1806). Whilst he was taking his dinner, and with his horses harnessed and waiting to take him back to Paris, one hundred proofs were printed, one of which he subsequently submitted to Napoleon. The introduction of lithography into France was greatly due to the efforts of Lejeune. Many of his battle-pictures were engraved by Coiny and Bovinet.

See Fournier-Sarlovèze, Le Général Lejeune (Paris, Libraire de l’art).

LEKAIN, the stage name of Henri Louis Cain (1728-1778), French actor, who was born in Paris on the 14th of April 1728, the son of a silversmith. He was educated at the Collège Mazarin, and joined an amateur company of players against which the Comédie Française obtained an injunction. Voltaire supported him for a time and enabled him to act in his private theatre and also before the duchess of Maine. Owing to the hostility of the actors it was only after a struggle of seventeen months that, by the command of Louis XV., he was received at the Comédie Française. His success was immediate. Among his best parts were Herod in Mariamne, Nero in Britannicus and similar tragic rôles, in spite of the fact that he was short and stout, with irregular and rather common features. His name is connected with a number of important scenic reforms. It was he who had the benches removed on which privileged spectators formerly sat encumbering the stage, Count Lauragais paying for him an excessive indemnity demanded. Lekain also protested against the method of sing-song declamation prevalent, and endeavoured to correct the costuming of the plays, although unable to obtain the historic accuracy at which Talma aimed. He died in Paris on the 8th of February 1778.

His eldest son published his Mémoires (1801) with his correspondence with Voltaire, Garrick and others. They were reprinted with a preface by Talma in Mémoires sur l’art dramatique (1825).

LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY (1824-1903), American author, son of a merchant, was born at Philadelphia on the 15th of August 1824, and graduated at Princeton in 1845. He afterwards studied at Heidelberg, Munich and Paris. He was in Paris during the revolution of 1848, and took an active part in it. He then returned to Philadelphia, and after being admitted to the bar in 1851, devoted himself to contributing to periodicals, editing various magazines and writing books. At the opening of the Civil War he started at Boston the Continental Magazine, which advocated emancipation. In 1868 he became known as the humorous author of Hans Breitmann’s Party and Ballads, which was followed by other volumes of the same kind, collected in 1871 with the title of Hans Breitmann’s Ballads. These dialect poems, burlesquing the German American, at once became popular. In 1869 he went to Europe, and till 1880 was occupied, chiefly in London, with literary work; after returning to Philadelphia for six years, he again made his home in Europe, generally at Florence, where he died on the 20th of March 1903. Though his humorous verses were most attractive to the public, Leland was a serious student of folk-lore, particularly of the gipsies, his writings on the latter (The English Gypsies and their Language, 1872; The Gypsies, 1882; Gypsy Sorcery and Fortune-telling ..., 1891, &c.) being recognized as valuable contributions to the literature of the subject. He was president of the first European folk-lore congress, held in Paris in 1889.

His other publications include Poetry and Mystery of Dreams (1855), Meister Karl’s Sketch-book (1855), Pictures of Travel (1856), Sunshine in Thought (1862), Heine’s Book of Songs (1862), The Music Lesson of Confucius (1870), Egyptian Sketch-book (1873), Abraham Lincoln (1879), The Minor Arts (1880), Algonquin Legends of New England (1884), Songs of the Sea and Lays of the Land (1895), Hans Breitmann in Tyrol (1895), One Hundred Profitable Acts (1897), Unpublished Legends of Vergil (1899), Kuloskap the Master, and other Algonquin Poems (1903, with J. Dyneley Prince).

See his Memoirs (2 vols., 1893), and E. R. Pennell, C. G. Leland (1906).

LELAND (Leyland or Laylonde), JOHN (c. 1506-1552), English antiquary, was born in London on the 13th of September, probably in 1506. He owed his education at St Paul’s school under William Lilly, and at Christ’s College, Cambridge, to the kindness of a patron, Thomas Myles. He graduated at Cambridge in 1521, and subsequently studied at All Souls College, Oxford, and in Paris under François Dubois (Sylvius). On his return to England he took holy orders. He had been tutor to Lord Thomas Howard, son of the 3rd duke of Norfolk, and to Francis Hastings, afterwards earl of Huntingdon. Meanwhile his learning had recommended him to Henry VIII., who presented him to the rectory of Peuplingues in the marches of Calais in 1530. He was already librarian and chaplain to the king, and in 1533 he received a novel commission under the great seal as king’s antiquary, with power to search for records, manuscripts and relics of antiquity in all the cathedrals, colleges and religious houses of England. Probably from 1534, and definitely from 1536 onwards to 1542, he was engaged on an antiquarian tour through England and Wales. He sought to preserve the MSS. scattered at the dissolution of the monasteries, but his powers did not extend to the actual collection of MSS. Some valuable additions, however, he did procure for the king’s library, chiefly from the abbey of St Augustine at Canterbury. He had received a special dispensation permitting him to absent himself from his rectory of Peuplingues in 1536, and on his return from his itinerary he received the rectory of Haseley in Oxfordshire; his support of the church policy of Henry and Cranmer being further rewarded by a canonry and prebend of King’s College (now Christ Church), Oxford, and a prebend of Salisbury. In a Strena Henrico (pr. 1546), addressed to Henry VIII. in 1545, he proposed to execute from the materials which he had collected in his journeys a topography of England, an account of the adjacent islands, an account of the British nobility, and a great history of the antiquities of the British Isles. He toiled over his papers at his house in the parish of St Michael le Querne, Cheapside, London, but he was not destined to complete these great undertakings, for he was certified insane in March 1550, and died on the 18th of April 1552.

Leland was an exact observer, and a diligent student of local chronicles. The bulk of his work remained in MS. at the time of his death, and various copies were made, one by John Stowe in 1576. After passing through various hands the greater part of Leland’s MSS. were deposited by William Burton, the historian of Leicestershire, in the Bodleian at Oxford. They had in the meantime been freely used by other antiquaries, notably by John Bale, William Camden and Sir William Dugdale. The account of his journey in England and Wales in eight MS. quarto volumes received its name The Itinerary of John Leland from Thomas Burton and was edited by Thomas Hearne (9 vols., Oxford, 1710-1712; other editions in 1745 and 1770). The scattered portions dealing with Wales were re-edited by Miss L. Toulmin Smith in 1907. His other most important work, the Collectanea, in four folio MS. volumes, was also published by Hearne (6 vols., Oxford, 1715). His Commentarii de scriptoribus Britannicis, which had been used and distorted by his friend John Bale, was edited by Anthony Hall (2 vols., Oxford, 1709). Some of Leland’s MSS., which formerly belonged to Sir Robert Cotton, passed into the possession of the British Museum. He was a Latin poet of some merit, his most famous piece being the Cygneo Cantio (1545) in honour of Henry VIII. Many of his minor works are included in Hearne’s editions of the Itinerary and the Collectanea.

For accounts of Leland see John Bale, Catalogus (1557); Anthony à Wood, Athenae Oxonienses; W. Huddesford, Lives of those eminent Antiquaries John Leland, Thomas Hearne and Anthony à Wood (Oxford, 1772). A life of Leland, attributed to Edward Burton (c. 1750), from the library of Sir Thomas Phillipps, printed in 1896 contains a bibliography. See also the biography by Sidney Lee, in the Dict. Nat. Biog.

Re-edited in 1549 by John Bale as The laboryeuse Journey and Serche of J. Leylande for Englandes Antiquitees geven of him for a Neu Yeares Gifte, &c., modern edition by W. A. Copinger (Manchester, 1895).

LELAND, JOHN (1691-1766), English Nonconformist divine, was born at Wigan, Lancashire, and educated in Dublin, where he made such progress that in 1716, without having attended any college or hall, he was appointed first assistant and afterwards sole pastor of a congregation of Presbyterians in New Row. This office he continued to fill until his death on the 16th of January 1766. He received the degree of D.D. from Aberdeen in 1739. His first publication was A Defence of Christianity (1733), in reply to Matthew Tindal’s Christianity as old as the Creation; it was succeeded by his Divine Authority of the Old and New Testaments asserted (1738), in answer to The Moral Philosopher of Thomas Morgan; in 1741 he published two volumes, in the form of two letters, being Remarks on [H. Dodwell’s] Christianity not founded on Argument; and in 1753 Reflexions on the late Lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the Study and Use of History. His View of the Principal Deistical Writers that have appeared in England was published in 1754-1756. This is the chief work of Leland—“most worthy, painstaking and commonplace of divines,” as Sir Leslie Stephen called him—and in spite of many defects and inconsistencies is indispensable to every student of the deistic movement of the 18th century.

His Discourses on various Subjects, with a Life prefixed, was published posthumously (4 vols., 1768-1789).

LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY, near Palo Alto, California, U.S.A., in the beautiful Santa Clara valley, was founded in 1885 by Leland Stanford (1824-1893), and by his wife Jane Lathrop Stanford (1825-1905), as a memorial to their only child, Leland Stanford, Jr., who died in 1884 in his seventeenth year. The doors were opened in 1891 to 559 students. The university campus consists of Stanford’s former Palo Alto farm, which comprises about 9000 acres. From the campus there are charming views of San Francisco Bay, of the Coast Range, particularly of Mount Hamilton some 30 m. E. with the Lick Observatory on its summit, of mountain foothills, and of the magnificent redwood forests toward Santa Cruz.

The buildings, designed originally by H. H. Richardson and completed by his successors, Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge, are of soft buff sandstone in a style adapted from the old California mission (Moorish-Romanesque) architecture, being long and low with wide colonnades, open arches and red tiled roofs. An outer surrounds an inner quadrangle of buildings. The inner quadrangle, about a court which is 586 by 246 ft. and is faced by a continuous open arcade and adorned with large circular beds of tropical plants and flowers, consists of twelve one-storey buildings and a beautiful memorial church. Of the fourteen buildings of the outer quadrangle some are two storeys high. A magnificent memorial arch (100 ft. high), adorned with a frieze designed by John Evans, representing the “Progress of Civilization in America,” and forming the main gateway, was destroyed by the earthquake of 1906. Outside the quadrangles are other buildings—a museum of art and archaeology, based on collections made by Leland Stanford, Jr., chemical laboratories, engineering work-shops, dormitories, a mausoleum of the founders, &c. There is a fine arboretum (300 acres) and a cactus garden. The charming views, the grace and harmonious colours of the buildings, and the tropic vegetation make a campus of wonderful beauty. The students in 1907-1908 numbered 1738, of whom 126 were graduates, 99 special students, and 500 women. The university library (with the library of the law department) contained in 1908 about 107,000 volumes. A marine biological laboratory, founded by Timothy Hopkins, is maintained at Pacific Grove on the Bay of Monterey. The university has an endowment from its founders estimated at $30,000,000, including three great estates with 85,000 acres of farm and vineyard lands, and several smaller tracts; but the endowment was very largely in interest-bearing securities, income from which was temporarily cut off in the early years of the university’s life by litigation. The founders wished the university “to qualify students for personal success and direct usefulness in life; to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There are no inflexible entrance requirements as to particular studies except English composition to ensure a degree of mental maturity, the minimum amount of preparation is fixed as that which should be given by four years in a secondary school, leaving to the applicants a wide choice of subjects (35 in 1906) ranging from ancient history to woodworking and machine shop. In the curriculum, liberty perhaps even greater than at Harvard is allowed as to “electives.” Work on some one major subject occupies about one-third of the undergraduate course; the remaining two-thirds (or more) is purely elective. The influence of sectarianism and politics is barred from the university by its charter, and by its private origin and private support. At the same time in its policy it is practically a state university of the most liberal type. Instruction is entirely free. The president of the university has the initiative in all appointments and in all matters of general policy. Within the university faculty power lies in an academic council, and, more particularly, in an advisory board of nine professors, elected by the academic council, to which all propositions of the president are submitted. The growth of the university has been steady, and its conduct careful. David Starr Jordan was its first president.

See O. H. Elliot and O. V. Eaton, Stanford University and thereabouts (San Francisco, 1896), and the official publications of the university.

Stanford was born in Watervliet, New York; studied law in Albany; removed to California in 1852 and went into business at Michigan Bluff, Placer county, whence he removed to Sacramento in 1856; was made president in 1861 of the Central Pacific railroad company, which built the first trans-continental railway line over the Sierra Nevada; was governor of California in 1862-1863, and United States senator in 1885-1893; and was owner of the great Vina farm (55,000 acres) in Tehama county, containing the largest vineyard in the world (13,400 acres), the Gridley tract (22,000 acres) in Butte county, and the Palo Alto breeding farm, which was the home of his famous thoroughbred racers, Electioneer, Arion, Sunol, Palo Alto and Advertiser.

The number of women attending the university as students in any semester is limited by the founding grant to 500.

President Jordan was born in 1851 at Gainesville, New York; was educated at Cornell, where he taught botany for a time; became an assistant to the United States fish commission in 1872; in 1885-1891 was president of the university of Indiana, where from 1879 he had been professor of zoology; and in 1891 was elected president of Leland Stanford Jr. University. An eminent ichthyologist, he wrote, with Barton Warren Evermann (b. 1853), of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Fishes of North and Middle America (4 vols., 1896-1900), and Food and Game Fishes of North America (1902); and prepared A Guide to the Study of Fishes (1905).

LELEGES, the name applied by Greek writers to an early people or peoples of which traces were believed to remain in Greek lands.

1. In Asia Minor.—In Homer the Leleges are allies of the Trojans, but they do not occur in the formal catalogue in Iliad, bk. ii., and their habitat is not specified. They are distinguished from the Carians, with whom some later writers confused them; they have a king Altes, and a town Pedasus which was sacked by Achilles. The name Pedasus occurs (i.) near Cyzicus, (ii.) in the Troad on the Satnioeis river, (iii.) in Caria, as well as (iv.) in Messenia. Alcaeus (7th-6th centuries B.C.) calls Antandrus in the Troad Lelegian, but Herodotus (5th century) substitutes Pelasgian (q.v.). Gargara in the Troad also counted as Lelegian. Pherecydes (5th century) attributed to Leleges the coast land of Caria from Ephesus to Phocaea, with the islands of Samos and Chios, placing the “true Carians” farther south from Ephesus to Miletus. If this statement be from Pherecydes of Leros (c. 480) it has great weight. In the 4th century, however, Philippus of Theangela in south Caria describes Leleges still surviving as serfs of the true Carians, and Strabo, in the 1st century B.C., attributes to the Leleges a well-marked group of deserted forts, tombs and dwellings which ranged (and can still be traced) from the neighbourhood of Theangela and Halicarnassus as far north as Miletus, the southern limit of the “true Carians” of Pherecydes. Plutarch also implies the historic existence of Lelegian serfs at Tralles in the interior.

2. In Greece and the Aegean.—A single passage in the Hesiodic catalogue (fr. 136 Kinkel) places Leleges “in Deucalion’s time,” i.e. as a primitive people, in Locris in central Greece. Not until the 4th century B.C. does any other writer place them anywhere west of the Aegean. But the confusion of the Leleges with the Carians (immigrant conquerors akin to Lydians and Mysians, and probably to Phrygians) which first appears in a Cretan legend (quoted by Herodotus, but repudiated, as he says, by the Carians themselves) and is repeated by Callisthenes, Apollodorus and other later writers, led easily to the suggestion of Callisthenes, that Leleges joined the Carians in their (half legendary) raids on the coasts of Greece. Meanwhile other writers from the 4th century onwards claimed to discover them in Boeotia, west Acarnania (Leucas), and later again in Thessaly, Euboea, Megara, Lacedaemon and Messenia. In Messenia they were reputed immigrant founders of Pylos, and were connected with the seafaring Taphians and Teleboans of Homer, and distinguished from the Pelasgians; in Lacedaemon and in Leucas they were believed to be aboriginal. These European Leleges must be interpreted in connexion with the recurrence of place names like Pedasus, Physcus, Larymna and Abae, (a) in Caria, and (b) in the “Lelegian” parts of Greece; perhaps this is the result of some early migration; perhaps it is also the cause of these Lelegian theories.

Modern speculations (mainly corollaries of Indo-Germanic theory) add little of value to the Greek accounts quoted above. H. Kiepert (“Über den Volksstamm der Leleges,” in Monatsber. Berl. Akad., 1861, p. 114) makes the Leleges an aboriginal people akin to Albanians and Illyrians; K. W. Deimling, Die Leleger (Leipzig, 1862), starts them in south-west Asia Minor, and brings them thence to Greece (practically the Greek view); G. F. Unger, “Hellas in Thessalien,” in Philologus, Suppl. ii. (1863), makes them Phoenician, and derives their name from λαλάζειν (cf. the names βάρβαρος, Wälsche). E. Curtius (History of Greece, i.) distinguished a “Lelegian” phase of nascent Aegean culture. Most later writers follow Deimling. For Strabo’s “Lelegian” monuments, cf. Paton and Myres, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xvi. 188-270.

(J. L. M.)

LELEWEL, JOACHIM (1786-1861), Polish historian, geographer and numismatist, was born at Warsaw on the 22nd of March 1786. His family came from Prussia in the early part of the 18th century; his grandfather was appointed physician to the reigning king of Poland, and his father caused himself to be naturalized as a Polish citizen. The original form of the name appears to have been Lölhöffel. Joachim was educated at the university of Vilna, and became in 1807 a teacher in a school at Krzemieniec in Volhynia, in 1814 teacher of history at Vilna, and in 1818 professor and librarian at the university of Warsaw. He returned to Vilna in 1821. His lectures enjoyed great popularity, and enthusiasm felt for him by the students is shown in the beautiful lines addressed to him by Mickiewicz. But this very circumstance made him obnoxious to the Russian government, and at Vilna Novosiltsev was then all-powerful. Lelewel was removed from his professorship in 1824, and returned to Warsaw, where he was elected a deputy to the diet in 1829. He joined the revolutionary movement with more enthusiasm than energy, and though the emperor Nicholas I. distinguished him as one of the most dangerous rebels, did not appear to advantage as a man of action. On the suppression of the rebellion he made his way in disguise to Germany, and subsequently reached Paris in 1831. The government of Louis Philippe ordered him to quit French territory in 1833 at the request of the Russian ambassador. The cause of this expulsion is said to have been his activity in writing revolutionary proclamations. He went to Brussels, where for nearly thirty years he earned a scanty livelihood by his writings. He died on the 29th of May 1861 in Paris, whither he had removed a few days previously.

Lelewel, a man of austere character, simple tastes and the loftiest conception of honour, was a lover of learning for its own sake. His literary activity was enormous, extending from his Edda Skandinawska (1807) to his Géographie des Arabes (2 vols., Paris, 1851). One of his most important publications was La Géographie du moyen âge (5 vols., Brussels, 1852-1857), with an atlas (1849) of plates entirely engraved by himself, for he rightly attached such importance to the accuracy of his maps that he would not allow them to be executed by any one else. His works on Polish history are based on minute and critical study of the documents; they were collected under the title Polska, dzieje i rzeczy jej rozpatrzywane (Poland, her History and Affairs surveyed), in 20 vols. (Posen, 1853-1876). He intended to write a complete history of Poland on an extensive scale, but never accomplished the task. His method is shown in the little history of Poland, first published at Warsaw in Polish in 1823, under the title Dzieje Polski, and afterwards almost rewritten in the Histoire de Pologne (2 vols., Paris, 1844). Other works on Polish history which may be especially mentioned are La Pologne au moyen âge (3 vols., Posen, 1846-1851), an edition of the Chronicle of Matthew Cholewa (1811) and Ancient Memorials of Polish Legislation (Ksiegi ustaw polskich i mazowieckich). He also wrote on the trade of Carthage, on Pytheas of Marseilles, the geographer, and two important works on numismatics (La Numismatique du moyen âge, Paris, 2 vols., 1835; Études numismatiques, Brussels, 1840). While employed in the university library of Warsaw he studied bibliography, and the fruits of his labours may be seen in his Bibliograficznych Ksiag dwoje (A Couple of Books on Bibliography) (2 vols., Vilna, 1823-1826). The characteristics of Lelewel as an historian are great research and power to draw inferences from his facts; his style is too often careless, and his narrative is not picturesque, but his expressions are frequently terse and incisive.

He left valuable materials for a just comprehension of his career in the autobiography (Adventures while Prosecuting Researches and Inquiries on Polish Matters) printed in his Polska.

I.e. the three first books of the Historia Polonica of Vincentius (Kadlbek), bishop of Cracow (d. 1223), wrongly ascribed by Lelewel to Matthaeus Cholewa, bishop of Cracow. See Potthast, Bibliotheca hist, med. aev., s.v. “Vincentius.”

LELONG, JACQUES (1665-1721), French bibliographer, was born at Paris on the 19th of April 1665. He was a priest of the Oratory, and was librarian to the establishment of the Order in Paris, where he spent his life in seclusion. He died at Paris on the 13th of August 1721. He first published a Bibliotheca sacra (1709), an index of all the editions of the Bible, then a Bibliothèque historique de la France (1719), a volume of considerable size, containing 17,487 items to which Lelong sometimes appends useful notes. His work is far from complete. He vainly hoped that his friend and successor Father Desmolets, would continue it; but it was resumed by Charles-Marie Fevret de Fontette, a councillor of the parlement of Dijon, who spent fifteen years of his life and a great deal of money in rewriting the Bibliothèque historique. The first two volumes (1768 and 1769) contained as many as 29,143 items. Fevret de Fontette died on the 16th of February 1772, leaving the third volume almost finished. It appeared in 1772, thanks to Barbaud de La Bruyère, who later brought out the 4th and 5th volumes (1775 and 1778). In this new edition the Bibliothèque historique is a work of reference of the highest order; it is still of great value.

LELY, SIR PETER (1617-1680) English painter, was born at Soest, Westphalia, in 1617. His father, a military captain and a native of Holland, was originally called van der Vaes; the nickname of Le Lys or Lely, by which he was generally known, was adopted by his son as a surname. After studying for two years under Peter de Grebber, an artist of some note at Haarlem, Lely, induced by the patronage of Charles I. for the fine arts, removed to England in 1641. There he at first painted historical subjects and landscape; he soon became so eminent in his profession as to be employed by Charles to paint his portrait shortly after the death of Vandyck. He afterwards portrayed Cromwell. At the Restoration his genius and agreeable manners won the favour of Charles II., who made him his state-painter, and afterwards knighted him. He formed a famous collection, the best of his time, containing drawings, prints and paintings by the best masters; it sold by auction for no less than £26,000. His great example, however, was Vandyck, whom, in some of his most successful pieces, he almost rivals. Lely’s paintings are carefully finished, warm and clear in colouring, and animated in design. The graceful posture of the heads, the delicate rounding of the hands, and the broad folds of the draperies are admired in many of his portraits. The eyes of the ladies are drowsy with languid sentiment, and allegory of a commonplace sort is too freely introduced. His most famous work is a collection of portraits of the ladies of the court of Charles II., known as “the Beauties,” formerly at Windsor Castle, and now preserved at Hampton Court Palace. Of his few historical pictures, the best is “Susannah and the Elders,” at Burleigh House. His “Jupiter and Europa,” in the duke of Devonshire’s collection, is also worthy of note. Lely was nearly as famous for crayon work as for oil-painting. Towards the close of his life he often retired to an estate which he had bought at Kew. He died of apoplexy in the Piazza, Covent Garden, London, and was buried in Covent Garden church, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. Pepys characterized Lely as “a mighty proud man and full of state.” The painter married an English lady of family, and left a son and daughter, who died young. His only disciples were J. Greenhill and J. Buckshorn; he did not, however, allow them to obtain an insight into his special modes of work.

(W. M. R.)

LE MAÇON (or Le Masson), ROBERT (c. 1365-1443), chancellor of France, was born at Château du Loir, Sarthe. He was ennobled in March 1401, and became six years later a councillor of Louis II., duke of Anjou and king of Sicily. A partisan of the house of Orleans, he was appointed chancellor to Isabella of Bavaria on the 29th of January 1414, on the 20th of July commissary of the mint, and in June 1416 chancellor to the count of Ponthieu, afterwards Charles VII. On the 16th of August he bought the barony of Trèves in Anjou, and henceforward bore the title of seigneur of Trèves. When Paris was surprised by the Burgundians on the night of the 29th of May 1418 he assisted Tanguy Duchâtel in saving the dauphin. His devotion to the cause of the latter having brought down on him the wrath of John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, he was excluded from the political amnesty known as the peace of Saint Maur des Fossés, though he retained his seat on the king’s council. He was by the dauphin’s side when John the Fearless was murdered at the bridge of Montereau on the 10th of September 1419. He resigned the seals at the beginning of 1422; but he continued to exercise great influence, and in 1426 he effected a reconciliation between the king and the duke of Brittany. Having been captured by Jean de Langeac, seneschal of Auvergne, in August of the same year, he was shut up for three months in the château of Usson. When set at liberty he returned to court, where he staunchly supported Joan of Arc against all the cabals that menaced her. It was he who signed the patent of nobility for the Arc family in December 1429. In 1430 he was once more entrusted with an embassy to Brittany. Having retired from political life in 1436, he died on the 28th of January 1443, and was interred at Trèves, where his epitaph may still be seen.

See C. Bourcier, “Robert le Masson,” in the Revue historique de l’Anjou (1873); and the Nouvelle biographie générale, vol. xxx.

(J. V.*)

LE MAIRE DE BELGES, JEAN (1473-c. 1525), French poet and historiographer, was born at Bavai in Hainault. He was a nephew of Jean Molinet, and spent some time with him at Valenciennes, where the elder writer held a kind of academy of poetry. Le Maire in his first poems calls himself a disciple of Molinet. In certain aspects he does belong to the school of the grands rhétoriqueurs, but his great merit as a poet is that he emancipated himself from the affectations and puerilities of his masters. This independence of the Flemish school he owed in part perhaps to his studies at the university of Paris and to the study of the Italian poets at Lyons, a centre of the French renascence. In 1503 he was attached to the court of Margaret of Austria, duchess of Savoy, afterwards regent of the Netherlands. For this princess he undertook more than one mission to Rome; he became her librarian and a canon of Valenciennes. To her were addressed his most original poems, Epistres de l’amand verd, the amant vert being a green parrot belonging to his patroness. Le Maire gradually became more French in his sympathies, eventually entering the service of Anne of Brittany. His prose Illustrations des Gaules et singularitez de Troye (1510-1512), largely adapted from Benoît de Sainte More, connects the Burgundian royal house with Hector. Le Maire probably died before 1525. Étienne Pasquier, Ronsard and Du Bellay all acknowledged their indebtedness to him. In his love for antiquity, his sense of rhythm, and even the peculiarities of his vocabulary he anticipated the Pléiade.

His works were edited in 1882-1885 by J. Stecher, who wrote the article on him in the Biographie nationale de Belgique.

LEMAÎTRE, FRANÇOIS ÉLIE JULES (1853- ), French critic and dramatist, was born at Vennecy (Loiret) on the 27th of April 1853. He became a professor at the university of Grenoble, but he had already become known by his literary criticisms, and in 1884 he resigned his position to devote himself entirely to literature. He succeeded J. J. Weiss as dramatic critic of the Journal des Débats, and subsequently filled the same office on the Revue des Deux Mondes. His literary studies were collected under the title of Les Contemporains (7 series, 1886-1899), and his dramatic feuilletons as Impressions de théâtre (10 series, 1888-1898). His sketches of modern authors are interesting for the insight displayed in them, the unexpectedness of the judgments and the gaiety and originality of their expression. He published two volumes of poetry: Les Médaillons (1880) and Petites orientales (1883); also some volumes of contes, among them En marge des vieux livres (1905). His plays are: Révoltée (1889), Le député Leveau, and Le Mariage blanc (1891), Les Rois (1893), Le Pardon and L’Age difficile (1895), La Massière (1905) and Bertrade (1906). He was admitted to the French Academy on the 16th of January 1896. His political views were defined in La Campagne nationaliste (1902), lectures delivered in the provinces by him and by G. Cavaignac. He conducted a nationalist campaign in the Écho de Paris, and was for some time president of the Ligue de la Patrie Française, but resigned in 1904, and again devoted himself to literature.

LE MANS, a town of north-western France, capital of the department of Sarthe, 77 m. S.W. of Chartres on the railway from Paris to Brest. Pop. (1906) town, 54,907, commune, 65,467. It is situated just above the confluence of the Sarthe and the Huisne, on an elevation rising from the left bank of the Sarthe. Several bridges connect the old town and the new quarters which have sprung up round it with the more extensive quarter of Pré on the right bank. Modern thoroughfares are gradually superseding the winding and narrow streets of old houses; a tunnel connects the Place des Jacobins with the river side. The cathedral, built in the highest part of the town, was originally founded by St Julian, to whom it is dedicated. The nave dates from the 11th and 12th centuries. In the 13th century the choir was enlarged in the grandest and boldest style of that period. The transepts, which are higher than the nave, were rebuilt in the 15th century, and the bell-tower of the south transept, the lower part of which is Romanesque, was rebuilt in the 15th and 16th centuries. Some of the stained glass in the nave, dating from the first half of the 12th century, is the oldest in France; the west window, representing the legend of St Julian, is especially interesting. The south lateral portal (12th century) is richly decorated, and its statuettes exhibit many costumes of the period. The austere simplicity of the older part of the building is in striking contrast with the lavish richness of the ornamentation in the choir, where the stained glass is especially fine. The rose-window (15th century) of the north transept, representing the Last Judgment, contains many historical figures. The cathedral also has curious tapestries and some remarkable tombs, including that of Berengaria, queen of Richard Cœur de Lion. Close to the western wall is a megalithic monument nearly 15 ft. in height. The church of La Couture, which belonged to an old abbey founded in the 7th century by St Bertrand, has a porch of the 13th century with fine statuary; the rest of the building is older. The church of Notre-Dame du Pré, on the right bank of the Sarthe, is Romanesque in style. The hôtel de ville was built in 1756 on the site of the former castle of the counts of Maine; the prefecture (1760) occupies the site of the monastery of La Couture, and contains the library, the communal archives, and natural history and art collections; there is also an archaeological museum. Among the old houses may be mentioned the Hôtel du Grabatoire of the Renaissance, once a hospital for the canons and the so-called house of Queen Berengaria (16th century), meeting place of the historical and archaeological society of Maine. A monument to General Chanzy commemorates the battle of Le Mans (1871). Le Mans is the seat of a bishopric dating from the 3rd century, of a prefect, and of a court of assizes, and headquarters of the IV. army corps. It has also tribunals of first instance and of commerce, a council of trade-arbitrators, a chamber of commerce, a branch of the Bank of France, an exchange, a lycée for boys, training colleges, a higher ecclesiastical seminary and a school of music. The town has a great variety of industries, carried on chiefly in the southern suburb of Pontlieue. The more important are the state manufacture of tobacco, the preparation of preserved vegetables, fish, &c., tanning, hemp-spinning, bell-founding, flour-milling, the founding of copper and other metals, and the manufacture of railway wagons, machinery and engineering material, agricultural implements, rope, cloth and stained glass. The fattening of poultry is an important local industry, and there is trade in cattle, wine, cloth, farm-produce, &c. The town is an important railway centre.

As the capital of the Aulerci Cenomanni, Le Mans was called Suindinum or Vindinum. The Romans built walls round it in the 3rd century, and traces of them are still to be seen close to the left bank of the river near the cathedral. In the same century the town was evangelized by St Julian, who became its first bishop. Ruled at first by his successors—notably St Aldric—Le Mans passed in the middle ages to the counts of Maine (q.v.), whose capital and residence it became. About the middle of the 11th century the citizens secured a communal charter, but in 1063 the town was seized by William the Conqueror, who deprived them of their liberties, which were recovered when the countship of Maine had passed to the Plantagenet kings of England. Le Mans was taken by Philip Augustus in 1189, recaptured by John, subsequently confiscated and later ceded to Queen Berengaria, who did much for its prosperity. It was several times besieged in the 15th and 16th centuries. In 1793 it was seized by the Vendeans, who were expelled by the Republican generals Marceau and Westermann after a stubborn battle in the streets. In 1799 it was again occupied by the Chouans.

The battle of Le Mans (10th-12th January 1871) was the culminating point of General Chanzy’s fighting retreat into western France after the winter campaign in Beauce and Perche (see Franco-German War). The numerous, but ill-trained and ill-equipped, levies of the French were followed up by Prince Frederick Charles with the German II. Army, now very much weakened but consisting of soldiers who had in six months’ active warfare acquired the self-confidence of veterans. The Germans advanced with three army corps in first line and one in reserve. On the 9th of January the centre corps (III.) drove an advanced division of the French from Ardenay (13 m. E. of Le Mans). On the 10th of January Chanzy’s main defensive position was approached. Its right wing was east of the Sarthe and 3-5 m. from Le Mans, its centre on the heights of Anvours with the river Huisne behind it, and its left scattered along the western bank of the same river as far as Montfort (12 m. E.N.E. of Le Mans) and thence northward for some miles. On the 10th there was a severe struggle for the villages along the front of the French centre. On the 11th Chanzy attempted a counter-offensive from many points, but owing to the misbehaviour of certain of his rawest levies, the Germans were able to drive him back, and as their cavalry now began to appear beyond his extreme left flank, he retreated in the night of the 11th on Laval, the Germans occupying Le Mans after a brief rearguard fight on the 12th.

LE MARCHANT, JOHN GASPARD (1766-1812), English major-general, was the son of an officer of dragoons, John Le Marchant, a member of an old Guernsey family. After a somewhat wild youth, Le Marchant, who entered the army in 1781, attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel in 1797. Two years before this he had designed a new cavalry sword; and in 1801 his scheme for establishing at High Wycombe and Great Marlow schools for the military instruction of officers was sanctioned by Parliament, and a grant of £30,000 was voted for the “royal military college,” the two original departments being afterwards combined and removed to Sandhurst. Le Marchant was the first lieutenant-governor, and during the nine years that he held this appointment he trained many officers who served with distinction under Wellington in the Peninsula. Le Marchant himself was given the command of a cavalry brigade in 1810, and greatly distinguished himself in several actions, being killed at the battle of Salamanca on the 22nd of July 1812, after the charge of his brigade had had an important share in the English victory. He wrote several treatises on cavalry tactics and other military subjects, but few of them were published. By his wife, Mary, daughter of John Carey of Guernsey, Le Marchant had four sons and six daughters.

His second son, Sir Denis le Marchant, Bart. (1795-1874), was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, and was called to the bar in 1823. In 1830 he became secretary to Lord Chancellor Brougham, and in the Reform Bill debates made himself exceedingly useful to the ministers. Having been secretary to the board of trade from 1836 to 1841, he was created a baronet in 1841. He entered the House of Commons in 1846, and was under secretary for the home department in the government of Lord John Russell. He was chief clerk of the House of Commons from 1850 to 1871. He published a Life of his father in 1841, and began a Life of Lord Althorpe which was completed after his death by his son; he also edited Horace Walpole’s Memoirs of the Reign of George III. (1845). Sir Denis Le Marchant died in London on the 30th of October 1874.

The third son of General Le Marchant, Sir John Gaspard Le Marchant (1803-1874), entered the English army, and saw service in Spain in the Carlist War of 1835-37. He was afterwards lieutenant-governor of Newfoundland (1847-1852) and of Nova Scotia (1852-1857); governor of Malta (1859-1864); commander-in-chief at Madras (1865-1868). He was made K.C.B. in 1865, and died on the 6th of February 1874.

See Sir Denis Le Marchant, Memoirs of General Le Marchant (1841); Sir William Napier, History of the War in the Peninsula (6 vols., 1828-1840).

LEMBERG (Pol. Lwów, Lat. Leopolis), the capital of the crownland of Galicia, Austria, 468 m. N.W. of Vienna by rail. Pop. (1900) 159,618, of whom over 80% were Poles, 10% Germans, and 8% Ruthenians; nearly 30% of the population were Jews. According to population Lemberg is the fourth city in the Austrian empire, coming after Vienna, Prague and Trieste. Lemberg is situated on the small river Peltew, an affluent of the Bug, in a valley in the Sarmatian plateau, and is surrounded by hills. It is composed of the inner town and of four suburbs. The inner town was formerly fortified, but the fortifications were transformed into pleasure grounds in 1811. Lemberg is the residence of Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Armenian archbishops, and contains three cathedrals. The Roman Catholic cathedral was finished by Casimir IV. in 1480 in Gothic style; near it is a chapel (1609) remarkable for its architecture and sculpture. The Greek cathedral, built in 1740-1779 in the Basilica style, is situated on a height which dominates the town. The Armenian cathedral was built in 1437 in the Armenian-Byzantine style. The Dominican church, built in 1749 after the model of St Peter’s at Rome, contains a monument by Thorvaldsen to the Countess Dunin-Borkowska; the Greek St Nicholas church was built in 1292; and the Roman Catholic St Mary church was built in 1363 by the first German settlers. The town hall (1828-1837) with a tower 250 ft. high is situated in the middle of a square. Also notable are the hall of the estates (1877-1881), the industrial museum, the theatre, the palace of the Roman Catholic archbishop and several educational establishments. There are many beautiful private buildings, broad and well-paved streets, numerous squares and public gardens. At the head of the educational institutions stands the university, founded in 1784 by Joseph II., transformed into a lycée in 1803, and restored and reorganized in 1817. Since 1871 the language of instruction has been Polish, and in 1901 the university had 110 lecturers, and was attended by 2060 students. There are also a polytechnic, gymnasia—for Poles, Ruthenians and Germans respectively—seminaries for priests, training colleges for teachers, and other special and technical schools. In Lemberg is the National Institute founded by Count Ossolinski, which contains a library of books and manuscripts relating chiefly to the history and literature of Poland, valuable antiquarian and scientific collections, and a printing establishment; also the Dzieduszycki museum with collections of natural history and ethnography relating chiefly to Galicia. Industrially and commercially Lemberg is the most important city in Galicia, its industries including the manufacture of machinery and iron wares, matches, stearin candles and naphtha, arrack and liqueurs, chocolate, chicory, leather and plaster of Paris, as well as brewing, corn-milling and brick and tile making. It has important commerce in linen, flax, hemp, wool and seeds, and a considerable transit trade. Of the well-wooded hills which surround Lemberg, the most important is the Franz-Josef-Berg to the N.E., with an altitude of 1310 ft. Several beautiful parks have been laid out on this hill.

Leopolis was founded about 1259 by the Ruthenian prince Leo Danilowicz, who moved here his residence from Halicz in 1270. From Casimir the Great, who captured it in 1340, it received the Magdeburg rights, and for almost two hundred years the public records were kept in German. In 1412 it became the see of a Roman Catholic archbishopric, and from 1432 until 1772 it was the capital of the Polish province of Reussen (Terra Russia). During the whole period of Polish supremacy it was a most important city, and after the fall of Constantinople it greatly developed its trade with the East. In 1648 and 1655 it was besieged by the Cossacks, and in 1672 by the Turks. Charles XII. of Sweden captured it in 1704. In 1848 it was bombarded.

LEMERCIER, LOUIS JEAN NÉPOMUCÉNE (1771-1840), French poet and dramatist, was born in Paris on the 21st of April 1771. His father had been intendant successively to the duc de Penthièvre, the comte de Toulouse and the unfortunate princesse de Lamballe, who was the boy’s godmother. Lemercier showed great precocity; before he was sixteen his tragedy of Méléagre was produced at the Théâtre Français. Clarissa Harlowe (1792) provoked the criticism that the author was not assez roué pour peindre les roueries. Le Tartufe révolutionnaire, a parody full of the most audacious political allusions, was suppressed after the fifth representation. In 1795 appeared Lemercier’s masterpiece Agamemnon, called by Charles Labitte the last great antique tragedy in French literature. It was a great success, but was violently attacked later by Geoffroy, who stigmatized it as a bad caricature of Crébillon. Quatre métamorphoses (1799) was written to prove that the most indecent subjects might be treated without offence. The Pinto (1800) was the result of a wager that no further dramatic innovations were possible after the comedies of Beaumarchais. It is a historical comedy on the subject of the Portuguese revolution of 1640. This play was construed as casting reflections on the first consul, who had hitherto been a firm friend of Lemercier. His extreme freedom of speech finally offended Napoleon, and the quarrel proved disastrous to Lemercier’s fortune for the time. None of his subsequent work fulfilled the expectations raised by Agamemnon, with the exception perhaps of Frédégonde et Brunéhaut (1821). In 1810 he was elected to the Academy, where he consistently opposed the romanticists, refusing to give his vote to Victor Hugo. In spite of this, he has some pretensions to be considered the earliest of the romantic school. His Christophe Colomb (1809), advertised on the playbill as a comédie shakespirienne (sic), represented the interior of a ship, and showed no respect for the unities. Its numerous innovations provoked such violent disturbances in the audience that one person was killed and future representations had to be guarded by the police. Lemercier wrote four long and ambitious epic poems: Homère, Alexandre (1801), L’Atlantiade, ou la théogonie newtonienne (1812) and Moïse (1823), as well as an extraordinary Panhypocrisiade (1819-1832), a distinctly romantic production in twenty cantos, which has the sub-title Spectacle infernal du XVIe siècle. In it 16th-century history, with Charles V. and Francis I. as principal personages, is played out on an imaginary stage by demons in the intervals of their sufferings. Lemercier died on the 7th of June 1840 in Paris.

LEMERY, NICOLAS (1645-1715), French chemist, was born at Rouen on the 17th of November 1645. After learning pharmacy in his native town he became a pupil of C. Glaser’s in Paris, and then went to Montpellier, where he began to lecture on chemistry. He next established a pharmacy in Paris, still continuing his lectures, but in 1683, being a Calvinist, he was obliged to retire to England. In the following year he returned to France, and turning Catholic in 1686 was able to reopen his shop and resume his lectures. He died in Paris on the 19th of June 1715. Lemery did not concern himself much with theoretical speculations, but holding chemistry to be a demonstrative science, confined himself to the straightforward exposition of facts and experiments. In consequence, his lecture-room was thronged with people of all sorts, anxious to hear a man who shunned the barren obscurities of the alchemists, and did not regard the quest of the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life as the sole end of his science. Of his Cours de chymie (1675) he lived to see 13 editions, and for a century it maintained its reputation as a standard work. His other publications included Pharmacopée universelle (1697), Traité universel des drogues simples (1698), Traité de l’antimoine (1707), together with a number of papers contributed to the French Academy, one of which offered a chemical and physical explanation of underground fires, earthquakes, lightning and thunder. He discovered that heat is evolved when iron filings and sulphur are rubbed together to a paste with water, and the artificial volcan de Lemery was produced by burying underground a considerable quantity of this mixture, which he regarded as a potent agent in the causation of volcanic action.

His son Louis (1677-1743) was appointed physician at the Hôtel Dieu in 1710, and became demonstrator of chemistry at the Jardin du Roi in 1731. He was the author of a Traité des aliments (1702), and of a Dissertation sur la nature des os (1704), as well as of a number of papers on chemical topics.

LEMERY, a town of the province of Batangas, Luzon, Philippine Islands, on the Gulf of Balayan and the Pansipit river, opposite Taal (with which it is connected by a bridge), and about 50 m. S. of Manila. Pop. of the municipality (1903) 11,150. It has a fine church and convent. Lemery is situated on a plain in a rich agricultural district, which produces rice, Indian corn, sugar and cotton, and in which horses and cattle are bred. It is also a port for coasting vessels, and has an important trade with various parts of the archipelago. The language is Tagalog.

LEMGO, a town of Germany, in the principality of Lippe, in a broad and fertile plain, 9 m. N. from Detmold and on the railway Hameln-Lage. Pop. (1900) 8840. Its somewhat gloomy aspect, enhanced by the tortuous narrow lanes flanked by gabled houses of the 15th century, has gained for it among countryfolk the sobriquet of the “Witches’ nest” (Hexen-Nest). It is replete with interest for the antiquarian. It has four Evangelical churches, two with curiously leaning, lead-covered spires; an old town-hall; a gymnasium; and several philanthropic and religious institutions. Among the latter is the Jungfrauenstift, of which a princess of the reigning house of Lippe-Detmold has always been lady superior since 1306. The chief industry of Lemgo is the manufacture of meerschaum pipes, which has attained here a high pitch of excellence; other industries are weaving, brewing and the manufacture of leather and cigars. The town was a member of the Hanseatic league.

LEMIERRE, ANTOINE MARIN (1733-1793), French dramatist and poet, was born in Paris on the 12th of January 1733. His parents were poor, but Lemierre found a patron in the collector-general of taxes, Dupin, whose secretary he became. Lemierre gained his first success on the stage with Hypermnestre (1758); Térée (1761) and Idoménée (1764) failed on account of the subjects. Artaxerce, modelled on Metastasio, and Guillaume Tell were produced in 1766; other successful tragedies were La Veuve de Malabar (1770) and Barnavelt (1784). Lemierre revived Guillaume Tell in 1786 with enormous success. After the Revolution he professed great remorse for the production of a play inculcating revolutionary principles, and there is no doubt that the horror of the excesses he witnessed hastened his death, which took place on the 4th of July 1793. He had been admitted to the Academy in 1781. Lemierre published La Peinture (1769), based on a Latin poem by the abbé de Marsy, and a poem in six cantos, Les Fastes, ou les usages de l’année (1779), an unsatisfactory imitation of Ovid’s Fasti.

His Œuvres (1810) contain a notice of Lemierre by R. Perrin and his Œuvres choisies (1811) one by F. Fayolle.

LEMIRE, JULES AUGUSTE (1853- ), French priest and social reformer, was born at Vieux-Berquin (Nord) on the 23rd of April 1853. He was educated at the college of St Francis of Assisi, Hazebrouck, where he subsequently taught philosophy and rhetoric. In 1897 he was elected deputy for Hazebrouck and was returned unopposed at the elections of 1898, 1902 and 1906. He organized a society called La Ligue du coin de terre et du foyer, the object of which was to secure, at the expense of the state, a piece of land for every French family desirous of possessing one. The abbé Lemire sat in the chamber of deputies as a conservative republican and Christian Socialist. He protested in 1893 against the action of the Dupuy cabinet in closing the Bourse du Travail, characterizing it as the expression of “a policy of disdain of the workers.” In December 1893 he was seriously injured by the bomb thrown by the anarchist Vaillant from the gallery of the chamber.

LEMMING, the native name of a small Scandinavian rodent mammal Lemmus norvegicus (or L. lemmus), belonging to the mouse tribe, or Muridae, and nearly related, especially in the structure of its cheek-teeth, to the voles. Specimens vary considerably in size and colour, but the usual length is about 5 in., and the soft fur yellowish-brown, marked with spots of dark brown and black. It has a short, rounded head, obtuse muzzle, small bead-like eyes, and short rounded ears, nearly concealed by the fur. The tail is very short. The feet are small, each with five claws, those of the fore feet strongest, and fitted for scratching and digging. The usual habitat of lemmings is the high lands or fells of the great central mountain chain of Norway and Sweden, from the southern branches of the Langfjeldene in Christiansand stift to the North Cape and the Varangerfjord. South of the Arctic circle they are, under ordinary circumstances, confined to the plateaus covered with dwarf birch and juniper above the conifer-region, though in Tromsö amt and in Finmarken they occur in all suitable localities down to the level of the sea. The nest, under a tussock of grass or a stone, is constructed of short dry straws, and usually lined with hair. The number of young in each nest is generally five, sometimes only three occasionally seven or eight, and at least two broods are produced annually. Their food is entirely vegetable, especially grass roots and stalks, shoots of dwarf birch, reindeer lichens and mosses, in search of which they form, in winter, long galleries through the turf or under the snow. They are restless, courageous and pugnacious little animals. When suddenly disturbed, instead of trying to escape they sit upright, with their back against a stone, hissing and showing fight in a determined manner.

The circumstance which has given popular interest to the lemming is that certain districts of the cultivated lands of Norway and Sweden, where in ordinary circumstances they are unknown, are, at uncertain intervals varying from five to twenty or more years, overrun by an army of these little creatures, which steadily and slowly advance, always in the same direction, and regardless of all obstacles, swimming streams and even lakes of several miles in breadth, and committing considerable devastation on their line of march by the quantity of food they consume. In their turn they are pursued and harassed by crowds of beasts and birds of prey, as bears, wolves, foxes, dogs, wild cats, stoats, weasels, eagles, hawks and owls, and never spared by man; even domestic animals, as cattle, goats and reindeer, join in the destruction, stamping them to the ground with their feet, and even eating their bodies. Numbers also die from diseases produced apparently from overcrowding. None returns, and the onward march of the survivors never ceases until they reach the sea, into which they plunge, and swimming onwards in the same direction perish in the waves. These sudden appearances of vast bodies of lemmings, and their singular habit of persistently pursuing the same onward course of migration, have given rise to various speculations, from the ancient belief of the Norwegian peasants, shared by Olaus Magnus, that they fall down from the clouds, to the hypothesis that they are acting in obedience to an instinct inherited from ancient times, and still seeking the congenial home in the submerged Atlantis, to which their ancestors of the Miocene period were wont to resort when driven from their ordinary dwelling-places by crowding or scarcity of food. The principal facts regarding these migrations seem to be as follows. When any combination of circumstances has occasioned an increase of the numbers of the lemmings in their ordinary dwelling-places, impelled by the restless or migratory instinct possessed in a less developed degree by so many of their congeners, a movement takes place at the edge of the elevated plateau, and a migration towards the lower-lying land begins. The whole body moves forward slowly, always advancing in the same general direction in which they originally started, but following more or less the course of the great valleys. They only travel by night; and, staying in congenial places for considerable periods, with unaccustomed abundance of provender, notwithstanding the destructive influences to which they are exposed, they multiply excessively during their journey, having families more numerous and frequent than in their usual homes. The progress may last from one to three years, according to the route taken, and the distance to be traversed until the sea-coast is reached, which in a country so surrounded by water as the Scandinavian peninsula must be the ultimate goal of such a journey. This may be either the Atlantic or the Gulf of Bothnia, according as the migration has commenced from the west or the east side of the central elevated plateau. Those that finally perish in the sea, committing what appears to be a voluntary suicide, are only acting under the same blind impulse which has led them previously to cross shallower pieces of water with safety. In Eastern Europe, Northern Asia and North America the group is represented by the allied L. obensis, and in Alaska, by L. nigripes; while the circumpolar banded lemming, Dicrostonyx torquatus, which turns white in winter, represents a second genus taking its name from the double claws on one of the toes of the forefeet.

For habits of lemmings, see R. Collett, Myodes lemmus, its habits and migrations in Norway (Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs Forhandlinger, 1895).

(W. H. F.; R. L.*)

LEMNISCATE (from Gr. λημνίσκος, ribbon), a quartic curve invented by Jacques Bernoulli (Acta Eruditorum, 1694) and afterwards investigated by Giulio Carlo Fagnano, who gave its principal properties and applied it to effect the division of a quadrant into 2.2m, 3.2m and 5.2m equal parts. Following Archimedes, Fagnano desired the curve to be engraved on his tombstone. The complete analytical treatment was first given by Leonhard Euler. The lemniscate of Bernoulli may be defined as the locus of a point which moves so that the product of its distances from two fixed points is constant and is equal to the square of half the distance between these points. It is therefore a particular form of Cassini’s oval (see Oval). Its cartesian equation, when the line joining the two fixed points is the axis of x and the middle point of this line is the origin, is (x2 + y2)2 = 2a2(x2 − y2) and the polar equation is r2 = 2a2 cos 2θ. The curve (fig. 1) consists of two loops symmetrically placed about the coordinate axes. The pedal equation is r3 = a2p, which shows that it is the first positive pedal of a rectangular hyperbola with regard to the centre. It is also the inverse of the same curve for the same point. It is the envelope of circles described on the central radii of an ellipse as diameters. The area of the complete curve is 2a2, and the length of any arc may be expressed in the form ∫ (1 − x4)−1/2dx, an elliptic integral sometimes termed the lemniscatic integral.

The name lemniscate is sometimes given to any crunodal quartic curve having only one real finite branch which is symmetric about the axis. Such curves are given by the equation x2 − y2 = ax4 + bx2y2 + cy4. If a be greater than b the curve resembles fig. 2 and is sometimes termed the fishtail-lemniscate; if a be less than b, the curve resembles fig. 3. The same name is also given to the first positive pedal of any central conic. When the conic is a rectangular hyperbola, the curve is the lemniscate of Bernoulli previously described. The elliptic lemniscate has for its equation (x2 + y2)2 = a2x2 + b2y2 or r2 = a2 cos2θ + b2 sin2θ (a > b). The centre is a conjugate point (or acnode) and the curve resembles fig. 4. The hyperbolic lemniscate has for its equation (x2 + y2)2 = a2x2 − b2y2 or r2 = a2 cos2θ − b2 sin2θ. In this case the centre is a crunode and the curve resembles fig. 5. These curves are instances of unicursal bicircular quartics.

LEMNOS (mod. Limnos), an island in the northern part of the Aegean Sea. The Italian form of the name, Stalimene, i.e. ἐς τὴν Λῆμνον, is not used in the island itself, but is commonly employed in geographical works. The island, which belongs to Turkey, is of considerable size: Pliny says that the coast-line measured 112½ Roman miles, and the area has been estimated at 150 sq. m. Great part is mountainous, but some very fertile valleys exist, to cultivate which 2000 yoke of oxen are employed. The hill-sides afford pasture for 20,000 sheep. No forests exist on the island; all wood is brought from the coast of Rumelia or from Thasos. A few mulberry and fruit trees grow, but no olives. The population is estimated by some as high as 27,000, of whom 2000 are Turks and the rest Greeks, but other authorities doubt whether it reaches more than half this number. The chief towns are Kastro on the western coast, with a population of 4000 Greeks and 800 Turks, and Mudros on the southern coast. Kastro possesses an excellent harbour, and is the seat of all the trade carried on with the island. Greek, English and Dutch consuls or consular agents were formerly stationed there; but the whole trade is now in Greek hands. The archbishops of Lemnos and Ai Strati, a small neighbouring island with 2000 inhabitants, resides in Kastro. In ancient times the island was sacred to Hephaestus, who as the legend tells fell on Lemnos when his father Zeus hurled him headlong out of Olympus. This tale, as well as the name Aethaleia, sometimes applied to it, points to its volcanic character. It is said that fire occasionally blazed forth from Mosychlos, one of its mountains; and Pausanias (viii. 33) relates that a small island called Chryse, off the Lemnian coast, was swallowed up by the sea. All volcanic action is now extinct.

The most famous product of Lemnos is the medicinal earth, which is still used by the natives. At one time it was popular over western Europe under the name terra sigillata. This name, like the Gr. Λημνία σφραγίς, is derived from the stamp impressed on each piece of the earth; in ancient times the stamp was the head of Artemis. The Turks now believe that a vase of this earth destroys the effect of any poison drunk from it—a belief which the ancients attached rather to the earth from Cape Kolias in Attica. Galen went to see the digging up of this earth (see Kuhn, Medic. Gr. Opera, xii. 172 sq.); on one day in each year a priestess performed the due ceremonies, and a waggon-load of earth was dug out. At the present time the day selected is the 6th of August, the feast of Christ the Saviour. Both the Turkish hodja and the Greek priest are present to perform the necessary ceremonies; the whole process takes place before daybreak. The earth is sold by apothecaries in stamped cubical blocks. The hill from which the earth is dug is a dry mound, void of vegetation, beside the village of Kotschinos, and about two hours from the site of Hephaestia. The earth was considered in ancient times a cure for old festering wounds, and for the bite of poisonous snakes.

The name Lemnos is said by Hecataeus (ap. Steph. Byz.) to have been a title of Cybele among the Thracians, and the earliest inhabitants are said to have been a Thracian tribe, called by the Greeks Sinties, i.e. “the robbers.” According to a famous legend the women were all deserted by their husbands, and in revenge murdered every man on the island. From this barbarous act, the expression Lemnian deeds, Λήμνια ἔργα, became proverbial. The Argonauts landing soon after found only women in the island, ruled over by Hypsipyle, daughter of the old king Thoas. From the Argonauts and the Lemnian women were descended the race called Minyae, whose king Euneus, son of Jason and Hypsipyle, sent wine and provisions to the Greeks at Troy. The Minyae were expelled by a Pelasgian tribe who came from Attica. The historical element underlying these traditions is probably that the original Thracian people were gradually brought into communication with the Greeks as navigation began to unite the scattered islands of the Aegean (see Jason); the Thracian inhabitants were barbarians in comparison with the Greek mariners. The worship of Cybele was characteristic of Thrace, whither it spread from Asia Minor at a very early period, and it deserves notice that Hypsipyle and Myrina (the name of one of the chief towns) are Amazon names, which are always connected with Asiatic Cybele-worship. Coming down to a better authenticated period, we find that Lemnos was conquered by Otanes, one of the generals of Darius Hystaspis; but was soon reconquered by Miltiades, the tyrant of the Thracian Chersonese. Miltiades afterwards returned to Athens, and Lemnos continued an Athenian possession till the Macedonian empire absorbed it. On the vicissitudes of its history in the 3rd century B.C. see Köhler in Mittheil. Inst. Athen. i. 261. The Romans declared it free in 197 B.C., but gave it over in 166 to Athens, which retained nominal possession of it till the whole of Greece was made a Roman province. A colony of Attic cleruchs was established by Pericles, and many inscriptions on the island relate to Athenians. After the division of the empire, Lemnos passed under the Byzantine emperors; it shared in the vicissitudes of the eastern provinces, being alternately in the power of Greeks, Italians and Turks, till finally the Turkish sultans became supreme in the Aegean. In 1476 the Venetians successfully defended Kotschinos against a Turkish siege; but in 1657 Kastro was captured by the Turks from the Venetians after a siege of sixty-three days. Kastro was again besieged by the Russians in 1770.

Homer speaks as if there were one town in the island called Lemnos, but in historical times there was no such place. There were two towns, Myrina, now Kastro, and Hephaestia. The latter was the chief town; its coins are found in considerable number, the types being sometimes the Athenian goddess and her owl, sometimes native religious symbols, the caps of the Dioscuri, Apollo, &c. Few coins of Myrina are known. They belong to the period of Attic occupation, and bear Athenian types. A few coins are also known which bear the name, not of either city, but of the whole island. Conze was the first to discover the site of Hephaestia, at a deserted place named Palaeokastro on the east coast. It had once a splendid harbour, which is now filled up. Its situation on the east explains why Miltiades attacked it first when he came from the Chersonese. It surrendered at once, whereas Myrina, with its very strong citadel built on a perpendicular rock, sustained a siege. It is said that the shadow of Mount Athos fell at sunset on a bronze cow in the agora of Myrina. Pliny says that Athos was 87 m. to the north-west; but the real distance is about 40 English miles. One legend localized in Lemnos still requires notice. Philoctetes was left there by the Greeks on their way to Troy; and there he suffered ten years’ agony from his wounded foot, until Ulysses and Neoptolemus induced him to accompany them to Troy. He is said by Sophocles to have lived beside Mount Hermaeus, which Aeschylus (Agam. 262) makes one of the beacon points to flash the news of Troy’s downfall home to Argos.

See Rhode, Res Lemnicae; Conze, Reise auf den Inseln des Thrakischen Meeres (from which the above-mentioned facts about the present state of the island are taken); also Hunt in Walpole’s Travels; Belon du Mans, Observations de plusieurs singularitez, &c.; Finlay, Greece under the Romans; von Hammer, Gesch. des Osman. Reiches; Gött. Gel. Anz. (1837). The chief references in ancicnt writers are Iliad i. 593, v. 138, xiv. 229, &c.; Herod. iv. 145; Str. pp. 124, 330; Plin. iv. 23, xxxvi. 13.

LEMOINNE, JOHN ÉMILE (1815-1892), French journalist, was born of French parents, in London, on the 17th of October 1815. He was educated first at an English school and then in France. In 1840 he began writing for the Journal des débats, on English and other foreign questions, and under the empire he held up to admiration the free institutions of England by contrast with imperial methods. After 1871 he supported Thiers, but his sympathies rather tended towards a liberalized monarchy, until the comte de Chambord’s policy made such a development an impossibility, and he then ranged himself with the moderate Republicans. In 1875 Lemoinne was elected to the French Academy, and in 1880 he was nominated a life senator. Distinguished though he was for a real knowledge of England among the French journalists who wrote on foreign affairs, his tone towards English policy greatly changed in later days, and though he never shared the extreme French bitterness against England as regards Egypt, he maintained a critical attitude which served to stimulate French Anglophobia. He was a frequent contributor to the Revue des deux mondes, and published several books, the best known of which is his Études critiques et biographiques (1862). He died in Paris on the 14th of December 1892.

LEMON, MARK (1809-1870), editor of Punch, was born in London on the 30th of November 1809. He had a natural talent for journalism and the stage, and, at twenty-six, retired from less congenial business to devote himself to the writing of plays. More than sixty of his melodramas, operettas and comedies were produced in London. At the same time he contributed to a variety of magazines and newspapers, and founded and edited the Field. In 1841 Lemon and Henry Mayhew conceived the idea of a humorous weekly paper to be called Punch, and when the first number was issued, in July 1841, were joint-editors and, with the printer and engraver, equal owners. The paper was for some time unsuccessful, Lemon keeping it alive out of the profits of his plays. On the sale of Punch Lemon became sole editor for the new proprietors, and it remained under his control until his death, achieving remarkable popularity and influence. Lemon was an actor of ability, a pleasing lecturer and a successful impersonator of Shakespearian characters. He also wrote a host of novelettes and lyrics, over a hundred songs, a few three-volume novels, several Christmas fairy tales and a volume of jests. He died at Crawley, Sussex, on the 23rd of May 1870.

LEMON, the fruit of Citrus Limonum, which is regarded by some botanists as a variety of Citrus medica. The wild stock of the lemon tree is said to be a native of the valleys of Kumaon and Sikkim in the North-West provinces of India, ascending to a height of 4000 ft., and occurring under several forms. Sir George Watt (Dictionary of Economic Products of India, ii. 352) regards the wild plants as wild forms of the lime or citron and considers it highly probable that the wild form of the lemon has not yet been discovered.

1, Flowering shoot.

2, Flower with two petals and two bundles of stamens removed; slightly enlarged.

3, Fruit.

4, Same cut across.

5, Seed.

6, Same cut lengthwise.

The lemon seems to have been unknown to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and to have been introduced by the Arabs into Spain between the 12th and 13th centuries. In 1494 the fruit was cultivated in the Azores, and largely shipped to England, but since 1838 the exportation has ceased. As a cultivated plant the lemon is now met with throughout the Mediterranean region, in Spain and Portugal, in California and Florida, and in almost all tropical and subtropical countries. Like the apple and pear, it varies exceedingly under cultivation. Risso and Poiteau enumerate forty-seven varieties of this fruit, although they maintain as distinct the sweet lime, C. Limetta, with eight varieties, and the sweet lemon, C. Lumia, with twelve varieties, which differ only in the fruit possessing an insipid instead of an acid juice.

The lemon is more delicate than the orange, although, according to Humboldt, both require an annual mean temperature of 62° Fahr. Unlike the orange, which presents a fine close head of deep green foliage, it forms a straggling bush, or small tree, 10 to 12 ft. high, with paler, more scattered leaves, and short angular branches with sharp spines in the axils. The flowers, which possess a sweet odour quite distinct from that of the orange, are in part hermaphrodite and in part unisexual, the outside of the corolla having a purplish hue. The fruit, which is usually crowned with a nipple, consists of an outer rind or peel, the surface of which is more or less rough from the convex oil receptacles imbedded in it, and of a white inner rind, which is spongy and nearly tasteless, the whole of the interior of the fruit being filled with soft parenchymatous tissue, divided into about ten to twelve compartments, each generally containing two or three seeds. The white inner rind varies much in thickness in different kinds, but is never so thick as in the citron. As lemons are much more profitable to grow than oranges, on account of their keeping properties, and from their being less liable to injury during voyages, the cultivation of the lemon is preferred in Italy wherever it will succeed. In damp valleys it is liable like the orange (q.v.) to be attacked by a fungus sooty mould, the stem, leaves, and fruit becoming covered with a blackish dust. This is coincident with or subsequent to the attacks of a small oval brown insect, Chermes hesperidum. Trees not properly exposed to sunlight and air suffer most severely from these pests. Syringing with resin-wash or milk of lime when the young insects are hatched, and before they have fixed themselves to the plant, is a preventive. Since 1875 this fungoid disease has made great ravages in Sicily among the lemon and citron trees, especially around Catania and Messina. Heritte attributes the prevalence of the disease to the fact that the growers have induced an unnatural degree of fertility in the trees, permitting them to bear enormous crops year after year. This loss of vitality is in some measure met by grafting healthy scions of the lemon on the bitter orange, but trees so grafted do not bear fruit until they are eight or ten years old.

The lemon tree is exceedingly fruitful, a large one in Spain or Sicily ripening as many as three thousand fruits in favourable seasons. In the south of Europe lemons are collected more or less during every month of the year, but in Sicily the chief harvest takes place from the end of October to the end of December, those gathered during the last two months of the year being considered the best for keeping purposes. The fruit is gathered while still green. After collection the finest specimens are picked out and packed in cases, each containing about four hundred and twenty fruits, and also in boxes, three of which are equal to two cases, each lemon being separately packed in paper. The remainder, consisting of ill-shaped or unsound fruits, are reserved for the manufacture of essential oil and juice. The whole of the sound lemons are usually packed in boxes, but those which are not exported immediately are carefully picked over and the unsound ones removed before shipment. The exportation is continued as required until April and May. The large lemons with a rougher rind, which appear in the London market in July and August, are grown at Sorrento near Naples, and are allowed to remain on the trees until ripe.

Candied lemon peel is usually made in England from a larger variety of the lemon cultivated in Sicily on higher ground than the common kind, from which it is distinguished by its thicker rind and larger size. This kind, known as the Spadaforese lemon, is also allowed to remain on the trees until ripe, and when gathered the fruit is cut in half longitudinally and pickled in brine, before being exported in casks. Before candying the lemons are soaked in fresh water to remove the salt. Citrons are also exported from Sicily in the same way, but these are about six times as expensive as lemons, and a comparatively small quantity is shipped. Besides those exported from Messina and Palermo, lemons are also imported into England to a less extent from the Riviera of Genoa, and from Malaga in Spain, the latter being the most esteemed. Of the numerous varieties the wax lemon, the imperial lemon and the Gaeta lemon are considered to be the best. Lemons are also extensively grown in California and Florida.

Lemons of ordinary size contain about 2 oz. of juice, of specific gravity 1.039-1.046, yielding on an average 32.5 to 42.53 grains of citric acid per oz. The amount of this acid, according to Stoddart, varies in different seasons, decreasing in lemons kept from February to July, at first slowly and afterwards rapidly, until at the end of that period it is all split up into glucose and carbonic acid—the specific gravity of the juice being in February 1.046, in May 1.041 and in July 1.027, while the fruit is hardly altered in appearance. It has been stated that lemons may be kept for some months with scarcely perceptible deterioration by varnishing them with an alcoholic solution of shellac—the coating thus formed being easily removed when the fruit is required for household use by gently kneading it in the hands. Besides citric acid, lemon juice contains 3 to 4% of gum and sugar, albuminoid matters, malic acid and 2.28% of inorganic salts. Cossa has determined that the ash of dried lemon juice contains 54% of potash, besides 15% of phosphoric acid. In the white portion of the peel (in common with other fruits of the genus) a bitter principle called hesperidin has been found. It is very slightly soluble in boiling water, but is soluble in dilute alcohol and in alkaline solutions, which it soon turns of a yellow or reddish colour. It is also darkened by tincture of perchloride of iron. Another substance named lemonin, crystallizing in lustrous plates, was discovered in 1879 by Palerno and Aglialoro in the seeds, in which it is present in very small quantity, 15,000 grains of seed yielding only 80 grains of it. It differs from hesperidin in dissolving in potash without alteration. It melts at 275° F.

The simplest method of preserving lemon juice in small quantities for medicinal or domestic use is to keep it covered with a layer of olive or almond oil in a closed vessel furnished with a glass tap, by which the clear liquid may be drawn off as required. Lemon juice is largely used on shipboard as a preventive of scurvy. By the Merchant Shipping Act 1867 every British ship going to other countries where lemon or lime juice cannot be obtained was required to take sufficient to give 1 oz. to every member of the crew daily. Of this juice it requires about 13,000 lemons to yield l pipe (108 gallons). Sicilian juice in November yields about 9 oz. of crude citric acid per gallon, but only 6 oz. if the fruit is collected in April. The crude juice was formerly exported to England, and was often adulterated with sea-water, but is now almost entirely replaced by lime juice. A concentrated lemon juice for the manufacture of citric acid is prepared in considerable quantities, chiefly at Messina and Palermo, by boiling down the crude juice in copper vessels over an open fire until its specific gravity is about 1.239, seven to ten pipes of raw making only one of concentrated lemon juice. “Lemon juice” for use on shipboard is prepared also from the fruits of limes and Bergamot oranges. It is said to be sometimes adulterated with sulphuric acid on arrival in England.

The lemon used in medicine is described in the British pharmacopoeia as being the fruit of Citrus medica, var. Limonum. The preparations of lemon peel are of small importance. From the fresh peel is obtained the oleum limonis (dose ½-3 minims), which has the characters of its class. It contains a terpene known as citrene or limonene, which also occurs in orange peel: and citral, the aldehyde of geraniol, which is the chief constituent of oil of roses. Of much importance is the succus limonis or lemon juice, 1 oz. of which contains about 40 grains of free citric acid, besides the citrate of potassium (.25%) and malic acid, free and combined. Ten per cent. of alcohol must be added to lemon juice if it is to be kept. From it are prepared the syrupus limonis (dose ½-2 drachms), which consists of sugar, lemon juice and an alcoholic extract of lemon peel, and also citric acid itself. Lemon juice is practically impure citric acid (q.v.).

Essence or Essential Oil of Lemon.—The essential oil contained in the rind of the lemon occurs in commerce as a distinct article. It is manufactured chiefly in Sicily, at Reggio in Calabria, and at Mentone and Nice in France. The small and irregularly shaped fruits are employed while still green, in which state the yield of oil is greater than when they are quite ripe. In Sicily and Calabria the oil is extracted in November and December as follows. A workman cuts three longitudinal slices off each lemon, leaving a three-cornered central core having a small portion of rind at the apex and base. These pieces are then divided transversely and cast on one side, and the strips of peel are thrown in another place. Next day the pieces of peel are deprived of their oil by pressing four or five times successively the outer surface of the peel (zest or flavedo) bent into a convex shape, against a flat sponge held in the palm of the left hand and wrapped round the forefinger. The oil vesicles in the rind, which are ruptured more easily in the fresh fruit than in the state in which lemons are imported, yield up their oil to the sponge, which when saturated is squeezed into an earthen vessel furnished with a spout and capable of holding about three pints. After a time the oil separates from the watery liquid which accompanies it, and is then decanted. By this process four hundred fruits yield 9 to 14 oz. of essence. The prisms of pulp are afterwards expressed to obtain lemon juice, and then distilled to obtain the small quantity of volatile oil they contain. At Mentone and Nice a different process is adopted. The lemons are placed in an écuelle à piquer, a shallow basin of pewter about 8½ in. in diameter, having i a lip for pouring on one side and a closed tube at the bottom about 5 in. long and 1 in. in diameter. A number of stout brass pins stand up about half an inch from the bottom of the vessel. The workman rubs a lemon over these pins, which rupture the oil vesicles, and the oil collects in the tube, which when it becomes full is emptied into another vessel that it may separate from the aqueous liquid mixed with it. When filtered it is known as Essence de citron au zeste, or, in the English market, as perfumers’ essence of lemon, inferior qualities being distinguished as druggists’ essence of lemon. An additional product is obtained by immersing the scarified lemons in warm water and separating the oil which floats off. Essence de citron distillée is obtained by rubbing the surface of fresh lemons (or of those which have been submitted to the action of the écuelle à piquer) on a coarse grater of tinned iron, and distilling the grated peel. The oil so obtained is colourless, and of inferior fragrance, and is sold at a lower price, while that obtained by the cold processes has a yellow colour and powerful odour.

Essence of lemon is chiefly brought from Messina and Palermo packed in copper bottles holding 25 to 50 kilogrammes or more, and sometimes in tinned bottles of smaller size. It is said to be rarely found in a state of purity in commerce, almost all that comes into the market being diluted with the cheaper distilled oil. This fact may be considered as proved by the price at which the essence of lemon is sold in England, this being less than it costs the manufacturer to make it. When long kept the essence deposits a white greasy stearoptene, apparently identical with the bergaptene obtained from the essential oil of the Bergamot orange. The chief constituent of oil of lemon is the terpene, C10H16, boiling at 348°.8 Fahr., which, like oil of turpentine, readily yields crystals of terpin, C10H163OH2, but differs in yielding the crystalline compound, C10H16 + 2Cl, oil of turpentine forming one having the formula C10H16 + HCl. Oil of lemons also contains, according to Tilden, another hydrocarbon, C10H16, boiling at 3.20° Fahr., a small amount of cymene, and a compound acetic ether, C2H3O·C10H17O. The natural essence of lemon not being wholly soluble in rectified spirit of wine, an essence for culinary purposes is sometimes prepared by digesting 6 oz of lemon peel in one pint of pure alcohol of 95%, and, when the rind has become brittle, which takes place in about two and a half hours, powdering it and percolating the alcohol through it. This article is known as “lemon flavour.”

The name lemon is also applied to some other fruits. The Java lemon is the fruit of Citrus javanica, the pear lemon of a variety of C. Limetta, and the pearl lemon of C. margarita. The fruit of a passion-flower, Passiflora laurifolia, is sometimes known as the water-lemon, and that of a Berberidaceous plant, Podophyllum peltatum, as the wild lemon. In France and Germany the lemon is known as the citron, and hence much confusion arises concerning the fruits referred to in different works. The essential oil known as oil of cedrat is usually a factitious article instead of being prepared, as its name implies, from the citron (Fr. cédratier). An essential oil is also prepared from C. Lumia, at Squillace in Calabria, and has an odour like that of Bergamot but less powerful.

1, Flowering shoot.

2, Fruit.

3, Same cut transversely.

4, Seed.

5, Seed cut lengthwise.

6, Seed cut transversely.

7, Superficial view of portion of rind showing oil glands.

The sour lime is Citrus acida, generally regarded as a var. (acida) of C. medica. It is a native of India, ascending to about 4000 ft. in the mountains, and occurring as a small, much-branched thorny bush. The small flowers are white or tinged with pink on the outside; the fruit is small and generally round, with a thin, light green or lemon-yellow bitter rind, and a very sour, somewhat bitter juicy pulp. It is extensively cultivated throughout the West Indies, especially in Dominica, Montserrat and Jamaica, the approximate annual value of the exports from these islands being respectively £45,000, £6000 and £6000. The plants are grown from seed in nurseries and planted out about 200 to the acre. They begin to bear from about the third year, but full crops are not produced until the trees are six or seven years old. The ripe yellow fruit is gathered as it falls. The fruit is bruised by hand in a funnel-shaped vessel known as an écuelle, with a hollow stem; by rolling the fruit on a number of points on the side of the funnel the oil cells in the rind are broken and the oil collects in the hollow stem—this is the essential oil or essence of limes. The fruits are then taken to the mill, sorted, washed and passed through rollers and exposed to two squeezings. Two-thirds of the juice is expressed by the first squeezing, is strained at once, done up in puncheons and exported as raw juice. The product of the second squeezing, together with the juice extracted by a subsequent squeezing in a press, is strained and evaporated down to make concentrated juice; ten gallons of the raw juice yield one gallon of the concentrated juice. The raw juice is used for preparations of lime juice cordial, the concentrated for manufactures of citric acid.

On some estates citrate of lime is now manufactured in place of concentrated acid. Distilled oil of limes is prepared by distilling the juice, but its value is low in comparison with the expressed oil obtained by hand as described above. Green limes and pickled limes preserved in brine are largely exported to the United States, and more recently green limes have been exported to the United Kingdom. Limalade or preserved limes is an excellent substitute for marmalade. A spineless form of the lime appeared as a sport in Dominica in 1892, and is now grown there and elsewhere on a commercial scale. A form with seedless fruits has also recently been obtained in Dominica and Trinidad independently. The young leaves of the lime are used for perfuming the water in finger-glasses, a few being placed in the water and bruised before use.

LEMONNIER, ANTOINE LOUIS CAMILLE (1844- ), Belgian poet, was born at Ixelles, Brussels, on the 24th of March 1844. He studied law, and then took a clerkship in a government office, which he resigned after three years. Lemonnier inherited Flemish blood from both parents, and with it the animal force and pictorial energy of the Flemish temperament. He published a Salon de Bruxelles in 1863, and again in 1866. His early friendships were chiefly with artists; and he wrote art criticisms with recognized discernment. Taking a house in the hills near Namur, he devoted himself to sport, and developed the intimate sympathy with nature which informs his best work. Nos Flamands (1869) and Croquis d’automne (1870) date from this time. Paris-Berlin (1870), a pamphlet pleading the cause of France, and full of the author’s horror of war, had a great success. His capacity as a novelist, in the fresh, humorous description of peasant life, was revealed in Un Coin de village (1879). In Un Mâle (1881) he achieved a different kind of success. It deals with the amours of a poacher and a farmer’s daughter, with the forest as a background. Cachaprès, the poacher, seems the very embodiment of the wild life around him. The rejection of Un Mâle by the judges for the quinquennial prize of literature in 1883 made Lemonnier the centre of a school, inaugurated at a banquet given in his honour on the 27th of May 1883. Le Mort (1882), which describes the remorse of two peasants for a murder they have committed, is a masterpiece in its vivid representation of terror. It was remodelled as a tragedy in five acts (Paris, 1899) by its author. Ceux de la glèbe (1889), dedicated to the “children of the soil,” was written in 1885. He turned aside from local subjects for some time to produce a series of psychological novels, books of art criticism, &c., of considerable value, but assimilating more closely to French contemporary literature. The most striking of his later novels are: L’Hystérique (1885); Happe-chair (1886), often compared with Zola’s Germinal; Le Possédé (1890); La Fin des bourgeois (1892); L’Arche, journal d’une maman (1894), a quiet book, quite different from his usual work; La Faute de Mme Charvet (1895); L’Homme en amour (1897); and, with a return to Flemish subjects, Le Vent dans les moulins (1901); Petit Homme de Dieu (1902), and Comme va le ruisseau (1903). In 1888 Lemonnier was prosecuted in Paris for offending against public morals by a story in Gil Blas, and was condemned to a fine. In a later prosecution at Brussels he was defended by Edmond Picard, and acquitted; and he was arraigned for a third time, at Bruges, for his Homme en amour, but again acquitted. He represents his own case in Les Deux consciences (1902), L’Île vierge (1897) was the first of a trilogy to be called La Légende de la vie, which was to trace, under the fortunes of the hero, the pilgrimage of man through sorrow and sacrifice to the conception of the divinity within him. In Adam et Ève (1899), and Au Cœur frais de la forêt (1900), he preached the return to nature as the salvation not only of the individual but of the community. Among his other more important works are G. Courbet, et ses œuvres (1878); L’Histoire des Beaux-Arts en Belgique 1830-1887 (1887); En Allemagne (1888), dealing especially with the Pinakothek at Munich; La Belgique (1888), an elaborate descriptive work with many illustrations; La Vie belge (1905); and Alfred Stevens et son œuvre (1906).

Lemonnier spent much time in Paris, and was one of the early contributors to the Mercure de France. He began to write at a time when Belgian letters lacked style; and with much toil, and some initial extravagances, he created a medium for the expression of his ideas. He explained something of the process in a preface contributed to Gustave Abel’s Labeur de la prose (1902). His prose is magnificent and sonorous, but abounds in neologisms and strange metaphors.

See the Revue de Belgique (15th February 1903), which contains the syllabus of a series of lectures on Lemonnier by Edmond Picard, a bibliography of his works, and appreciations by various writers.

LEMONNIER, PIERRE CHARLES (1715-1799), French astronomer, was born on the 23rd of November 1715 in Paris, where his father was professor of philosophy at the collège d’Harcourt. His first recorded observation was made before he was sixteen, and the presentation of an elaborate lunar map procured for him admission to the Academy, on the 21st of April 1736, at the early age of twenty. He was chosen in the same year to accompany P. L. Maupertuis and Alexis Clairault on their geodetical expedition to Lapland. In 1738, shortly after his return, he explained, in a memoir read before the Academy, the advantages of J. Flamsteed’s mode of determining right ascensions. His persistent recommendation, in fact, of English methods and instruments contributed effectively to the reform of French practical astronomy, and constituted the most eminent of his services to science. He corresponded with J. Bradley, was the first to represent the effects of nutation in the solar tables, and introduced, in 1741, the use of the transit-instrument at the Paris observatory. He visited England in 1748, and, in company with the earl of Morton and James Short the optician, continued his journey to Scotland, where he observed the annular eclipse of July 25. The liberality of Louis XV., in whose favour he stood high, furnished him with the means of procuring the best instruments, many of them by English makers. Amongst the fruits of his industry may be mentioned a laborious investigation of the disturbances of Jupiter by Saturn, the results of which were employed and confirmed by L. Euler in his prize essay of 1748; a series of lunar observations extending over fifty years; some interesting researches in terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric electricity, in the latter of which he detected a regular diurnal period; and the determination of the places of a great number of stars, including twelve separate observations of Uranus, between 1765 and its discovery as a planet. In his lectures at the collège de France he first publicly expounded the analytical theory of gravitation, and his timely patronage secured the services of J. J. Lalande for astronomy. His temper was irritable, and his hasty utterances exposed him to retorts which he did not readily forgive. Against Lalande, owing to some trifling pique, he closed his doors “during an entire revolution of the moon’s nodes.” His career was arrested by paralysis late in 1791, and a repetition of the stroke terminated his life. He died at Héril near Bayeux on the 31st of May 1799. By his marriage with Mademoiselle de Cussy he left three daughters, one of whom became the wife of J. L. Lagrange. He was admitted in 1739 to the Royal Society, and was one of the one hundred and forty-four original members of the Institute.

He wrote Histoire céleste (1741); Théorie des comètes (1743), a translation, with additions of Hailey’s Synopsis; Institutions astronomiques (1746), an improved translation of J. Keill’s text-book; Nouveau zodiaque (1755); Observations de la lune, du soleil, et des étoiles fixes (1751-1775); Lois du magnétisme (1776-1778), &c.

See J. J. Lalande, Bibl. astr., p. 819 (also in the Journal des savants for 1801); F. X. von Zach, Allgemeine geog. Ephemeriden iii. 625; J. S. Bailly, Hist. de l’astr. moderne, iii.; J. B. J. Delambre. Hist. de l’astr. au XVIIIe siècle, p. 179; J. Mädler, Geschichte der Himmelskunde, ii. 6; R. Wolf, Geschichte der Astronomie, p. 480.

LEMOYNE, JEAN BAPTISTE (1704-1778), French sculptor, was the pupil of his father, Jean Louis Lemoyne, and of Robert le Lorrain. He was a great figure in his day, around whose modest and kindly personality there waged opposing storms of denunciation and applause. Although his disregard of the classic tradition and of the essentials of dignified sculpture, as well as his lack of firmness and of intellectual grasp of the larger principles of his art, lay him open to stringent criticism, de Clarac’s charge that he had delivered a mortal blow at sculpture is altogether exaggerated. Lemoyne’s more important works have for the most part been destroyed or have disappeared. The equestrian statue of “Louis XV.” for the military school, and the composition of “Mignard’s daughter, Mme Feuquières, kneeling before her father’s bust” (which bust was from the hand of Coysevox) were subjected to the violence by which Bouchardon’s equestrian monument of Louis XIV. (q.v.) was destroyed. The panels only have been preserved. In his busts evidence of his riotous and florid imagination to a great extent disappears, and we have a remarkable series of important portraits, of which those of women are perhaps the best. Among Lemoyne’s leading achievements in this class are “Fontenelle” (at Versailles), “Voltaire,” “Latour” (all of 1748), “Duc de la Valière” (Versailles), “Comte de St Florentin,” and “Crébillon” (Dijon Museum); “Mlle Chiron” and “Mlle Dangeville,” both produced in 1761 and both at the Théâtre Français in Paris, and “Mme de Pompadour,” the work of the same year. Of the Pompadour he also executed a statue in the costume of a nymph, very delicate and playful in its air of grace. Lemoyne was perhaps most successful in his training of pupils, one of the leaders of whom was Falconnet.

LEMPRIÈRE, JOHN (c. 1765-1824), English classical scholar, was born in Jersey, and educated at Winchester and Pembroke College, Oxford. He is chiefly known for his Bibliotheca Classica or Classical Dictionary (1788), which, edited by various later scholars, long remained a readable if not very trustworthy reference book in mythology and classical history. In 1792, after holding other scholastic posts, he was appointed to the head-mastership of Abingdon grammar school, and later became the vicar of that parish. While occupying this living, he published a Universal Biography of Eminent Persons in all Ages and Countries (1808). In 1809 he succeeded to the head-mastership of Exeter free grammar school. On retiring from this, in consequence of a disagreement with the trustees, he was given the living of Meeth in Devonshire, which, together with that of Newton Petrock, he held till his death in London on the 1st of February 1824.

LEMUR (from Lat. lemures, “ghosts”), the name applied by Linnaeus to certain peculiar Malagasy representatives of the order Primates (q.v.) which do not come under the designation of either monkeys or apes, and, with allied animals from the same island and tropical Asia and Africa, constitute the suborder Prosimiae, or Lemuroidea, the characteristics of which are given in the article just mentioned. The typical lemurs include species like Lemur mongoz and L. catta, but the English name “lemur” is often taken to include all the members of the suborder, although the aberrant forms are often conveniently termed “lemuroids.” All the Malagasy lemurs, which agree in the structure of the internal ear, are now included in the family Lemuridae, confined to Madagascar and the Comoro Islands, which comprises the great majority of the group. The other families are the Nycticebidae, common to tropical Asia and Africa, and the Tarsiidae, restricted to the Malay countries. In the more typical Lemuridae there are two pairs of upper incisor teeth, separated by a gap in the middle line; the premolars may be either two or three, but the molars, as in the lower jaw, are always three on each side. In the lower jaw the incisors and canines are directed straight forwards, and are of small size and nearly similar form; the function of the canine being discharged by the first premolar, which is larger than the other teeth of the same series. With the exception of the second toe of the hind-foot, the digits have well-formed, flattened nails as in the majority of monkeys. In the members of the typical genus Lemur, as well as in the allied Hapalemur and Lepidolemur, none of the toes or fingers are connected by webs, and all have the hind-limbs of moderate length, and the tail long. The maximum number of teeth is 36, there being typically two pairs of incisors and three of premolars in each jaw. In habits some of the species are nocturnal and others diurnal; but all subsist on a mixed diet, which includes birds, reptiles, eggs, insects and fruits. Most are arboreal, but the ring-tailed lemur (L. catta) often dwells among rocks. The species of the genus Lemur are diurnal, and may be recognized by the length of the muzzle, and the large tufted ears. In some cases, as in the black lemur (L. macaco) the two sexes are differently coloured; but in others, especially the ruffed lemur (L. varius), there is much individual variation in this respect, scarcely any two being alike. The gentle lemurs (Hapalemur) have a rounder head, with smaller ears and a shorter muzzle, and also a bare patch covered with spines on the fore-arm. The sportive lemurs (Lepidolemur) are smaller than the typical species of Lemur, and the adults generally lose their upper incisors. The head is short and conical, the ears large, round and mostly bare, and the tail shorter than the body. Like the gentle lemurs they are nocturnal. (See Avahi, Aye-Aye, Galago, Indri, Loris, Potto, Sifaka and Tarsier.)

(R. L.*)

LENA, a river of Siberia, rising in the Baikal Mountains, on the W. side of Lake Baikal, in 54° 10′ N. and 107° 55′ E. Wheeling round by the S., it describes a semicircle, then flows N.N.E. and N.E., being joined by the Kirenga and the Vitim, both from the right; from 113° E. it flows E.N.E as far as Yakutsk (62° N., 127° 40′ E.), where it enters the lowlands, after being joined by the Olekma, also from the right. From Yakutsk it goes N. until joined by its right-hand affluent the Aldan, which deflects it to the north-west; then, after receiving its most important left-hand tributary, the Vilyui, it makes its way nearly due N. to the Nordenskjöld Sea, a division of the Arctic, disemboguing S.W. of the New Siberian Islands by a delta 10,800 sq. m. in area, and traversed by seven principal branches, the most important being Bylov, farthest east. The total length of the river is estimated at 2860 m. The delta arms sometimes remain blocked with ice the whole year round. At Yakutsk navigation is generally practicable from the middle of May to the end of October, and at Kirensk, at the confluence of the Lena and the Kirenga, from the beginning of May to about the same time. Between these two towns there is during the season regular steamboat communication. The area of the river basin is calculated at 895,500 sq. m. Gold is washed out of the sands of the Vitim and the Olekma, and tusks of the mammoth are dug out of the delta.

See G. W. Melville, In the Lena Delta (1885).

LE NAIN, the name of three brothers, Louis, Antoine and Mathieu, who occupy a peculiar position in the history of French art. Although they figure amongst the original members of the French Academy, their works show no trace of the influences which prevailed when that body was founded. Their sober execution and choice of colour recall characteristics of the Spanish school, and when the world of Paris was busy with mythological allegories, and the “heroic deeds” of the king, the three Le Nain devoted themselves chiefly to subjects of humble life such as “Boys Playing Cards,” “The Forge,” or “The Peasants’ Meal.” These three paintings are now in the Louvre; various others may be found in local collections, and some fine drawings may be seen in the British Museum; but the Le Nain signature is rare, and is never accompanied by initials which might enable us to distinguish the work of the brothers. Their lives are lost in obscurity; all that can be affirmed is that they were born at Laon in Picardy towards the close of the 16th century. About 1629 they went to Paris; in 1648 the three brothers were received into the Academy, and in the same year both Antoine and Louis died. Mathieu lived on till August 1677; he bore the title of chevalier, and painted many portraits. Mary of Medici and Mazarin were amongst his sitters, but these works seem to have disappeared.

See Champfleury, Essai sur la vie et l’œuvre des Le Nain (1850), and Catalogue des tableaux des Le Nain (1861).

LENAU, NIKOLAUS, the pseudonym of Nikolaus Franz Niembsch von Strehlenau (1802-1850), Austrian poet, who was born at Csatád near Temesvar in Hungary, on the 15th of August 1802. His father, a government official, died at Budapest in 1807, leaving his children to the care of an affectionate, but jealous and somewhat hysterical, mother, who in 1811 married again. In 1819 the boy went to the university of Vienna; he subsequently studied Hungarian law at Pressburg and then spent the best part of four years in qualifying himself in medicine. But he was unable to settle down to any profession. He had early begun to write verses; and the disposition to sentimental melancholy acquired from his mother, stimulated by love disappointments and by the prevailing fashion of the romantic school of poetry, settled into gloom after his mother’s death in 1829. Soon afterwards a legacy from his grandmother enabled him to devote himself wholly to poetry. His first published poems appeared in 1827, in J. G. Seidl’s Aurora. In 1831 he went to Stuttgart, where he published a volume of Gedichte (1832) dedicated to the Swabian poet Gustav Schwab. Here he also made the acquaintance of Uhland, Justinus Kerner, Karl Mayer and others; but his restless spirit longed for change, and he determined to seek for peace and freedom in America. In October 1832 he landed at Baltimore and settled on a homestead in Ohio. But the reality of life in “the primeval forest” fell lamentably short of the ideal he had pictured; he disliked the Americans with their eternal “English lisping of dollars” (englisches Talergelispel); and in 1833 he returned to Germany, where the appreciation of his first volume of poems revived his spirits. From now on he lived partly in Stuttgart and partly in Vienna. In 1836 appeared his Faust, in which he laid bare his own soul to the world; in 1837, Savonarola, an epic in which freedom from political and intellectual tyranny is insisted upon as essential to Christianity. In 1838 appeared his Neuere Gedichte, which prove that Savonarola had been but the result of a passing exaltation. Of these new poems, some of the finest were inspired by his hopeless passion for Sophie von Löwenthal, the wife of a friend, whose acquaintance he had made in 1833 and who “understood him as no other.” In 1842 appeared Die Albigenser, and in 1844 he began writing his Don Juan, a fragment of which was published after his death. Soon afterwards his never well-balanced mind began to show signs of aberration, and in October 1844 he was placed under restraint. He died in the asylum at Oberdöbling near Vienna on the 22nd of August 1850. Lenau’s fame rests mainly upon his shorter poems; even his epics are essentially lyric in quality. He is the greatest modern lyric poet of Austria, and the typical representative in German literature of that pessimistic Weltschmerz which, beginning with Byron, reached its culmination in the poetry of Leopardi.

Lenau’s Sämtliche Werke were published in 4 vols. by A. Grün (1855); but there are several more modern editions, as those by M. Koch in Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur, vols. 154-155 (1888), and by E. Castle (2 vols., 1900). See A. Schurz, Lenaus Leben, grösstenteils aus des Dichters eigenen Briefen (1855); L. A. Frankl, Zu Lenaus Biographie (1854, 2nd ed., 1885); A. Marchand, Les Poètes lyriques de l’Autriche (1881); L. A. Frankl, Lenaus Tagebuch und Briefe an Sophie Löwenthal (1891); A. Schlossar, Lenaus Briefe an die Familie Reinbeck (1896); L. Roustan, Lenau et son temps (1898); E. Castle, Lenau und die Familie Löwenthal (1906).

Karl Friedrich Hartmann Mayer (1786-1870), poet, and biographer of Uhland, was by profession a lawyer and government official in Württemberg.

LENBACH, FRANZ VON (1836-1904), German painter, was born at Schrobenhausen, in Bavaria, on the 13th of December 1836. His father was a mason, and the boy was intended to follow his father’s trade or be a builder. With this view he was sent to school at Landsberg, and then to the polytechnic at Augsburg. But after seeing Hofner, the animal painter, executing some studies, he made various attempts at painting, which his father’s orders interrupted. However, when he had seen the galleries of Augsburg and Munich, he finally obtained his father’s permission to become an artist, and worked for a short time in the studio of Gräfle, the painter; after this he devoted much time to copying. Thus he was already accomplished in technique when he became the pupil of Piloty, with whom he set out for Italy in 1858. A few interesting works remain as the outcome of this first journey—“A Peasant seeking Shelter from Bad Weather” (1855), “The Goatherd” (1860, in the Schack Gallery, Munich), and “The Arch of Titus” (in the Palfy collection, Budapest). On returning to Munich, he was at once called to Weimar to take the appointment of professor at the Academy. But he did not hold it long, having made the acquaintance of Count Schack, who commissioned a great number of copies for his collection. Lenbach returned to Italy the same year, and there copied many famous pictures. He set out in 1867 for Spain, where he copied not only the famous pictures by Velasquez in the Prado, but also some landscapes in the museums of Granada and the Alhambra (1868). In the previous year he had exhibited at the great exhibition at Paris several portraits, one of which took a third-class medal. Thereafter he exhibited frequently both at Munich and at Vienna, and in 1900 at the Paris exhibition was awarded a Grand Prix for painting. Lenbach, who died in 1904, painted many of the most remarkable personages of his time.

See Berlepsch, “Lenbach,” Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte (1891); Bégouen, Les Portraits de Lenbach à l’exposition de Munich (1899); K. Knackfuss, Lenbach, and Franz von Lenbach Bildnisse (1900).

LENCLOS, NINON DE (1615-1705), the daughter of a gentleman of good position in Touraine, was born in Paris in November 1615. Her long and eventful life divides into two periods, during the former of which she was the typical Frenchwoman of the gayest and most licentious society of the 17th century, during the latter the recognized leader of the fashion in Paris, and the friend of wits and poets. All that can be pleaded in defence of her earlier life is that she had been educated by her father in epicurean and sensual beliefs, and that she retained throughout the frank demeanour, and disregard of money, which won from Saint Évremond the remark that she was an honnête homme. She had a succession of distinguished lovers, among them being Gaspard de Coligny, the marquis d’Éstrées, La Rochefoucauld, Condé and Saint Évremond. Queen Christina of Sweden visited her, and Anne of Austria was powerless against her. After she had continued her career for a preposterous length of time, she settled down to the social leadership of Paris. Among her friends she counted Mme de la Sablière, Mme de la Fayette and Mme de Maintenon. It became the fashion for young men as well as old to throng round her, and the best of all introductions for a young man who wished to make a figure in society was an introduction to Mlle de Lenclos. Her long friendship with Saint Évremond must be briefly noticed. They were of the same age, and had been lovers in their youth, and throughout his long exile the wit seems to have kept a kind remembrance of her. The few really authentic letters of Ninon are those addressed to her old friend, and the letters of both in the last few years of their equally long lives are exceptionally touching, and unique in the polite compliments with which they try to keep off old age. If Ninon owes part of her posthumous fame to Saint Évremond, she owes at least as much to Voltaire, who was presented to her as a promising boy poet by the abbé de Chateauneuf. To him she left 2000 francs to buy books, and his letter on her was the chief authority of many subsequent biographers. Her personal appearance is, according to Sainte-Beuve, best described in Clélie, a novel by Mlle de Scudéry, in which she figures as Clarisse. Her distinguishing characteristic was neither beauty nor wit, but high spirits and perfect evenness of temperament.

The letters of Ninon published after her death were, according to Voltaire, all spurious, and the only authentic ones are those to Saint Évremond, which can be best studied in Dauxmesnil’s edition of Saint Évremond, and his notice on her. Sainte-Beuve has an interesting notice of these letters in the Causeries du Lundi, vol. iv. The Correspondance authentique was edited by E. Colombey in 1886. See also Helen K. Hayes, The Real Ninon de l’Enclos (1908); and Mary C. Rowsell, Ninon de l’Enclos and her century (1910).

LENFANT, JACQUES (1661-1728), French Protestant divine, was born at Bazoche in La Beauce on the 13th of April 1661, son of Paul Lenfant, Protestant pastor at Bazoche and afterwards at Châtillon-sur-Loing until the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when he removed to Cassel. After studying at Saumur and Geneva, Lenfant completed his theological course at Heidelberg, where in 1684 he was ordained minister of the French Protestant church, and appointed chaplain to the dowager electress palatine. When the French invaded the Palatinate in 1688 Lenfant withdrew to Berlin, as in a recent book he had vigorously attacked the Jesuits. Here in 1689 he was again appointed one of the ministers of the French Protestant church; this office he continued to hold until his death, ultimately adding to it that of chaplain to the king, with the dignity of Consistorialrath. He visited Holland and England in 1707, preached before Queen Anne, and, it is said, was invited to become one of her chaplains. He was the author of many works, chiefly on church history. In search of materials he visited Helmstädt in 1712, and Leipzig in 1715 and 1725. He died at Berlin on the 7th of August 1728.

An exhaustive catalogue of his publications, thirty-two in all, will be found in J. G. de Chauffepié’s Dictionnaire. See also E. and S. Haag’s France Protestante. He is now best known by his Histoire du concile de Constance (Amsterdam, 1714; 2nd ed., 1728; English trans., 1730). It is of course largely dependent upon the laborious work of Hermann von der Hardt (1660-1746), but has literary merits peculiar to itself, and has been praised on all sides for its fairness. It was followed by Histoire du concile de Pise (1724), and (posthumously) by Histoire de la guerre des Hussites et du concile de Basle (Amsterdam, 1731; German translation, Vienna, 1783-1784). Lenfant was one of the chief promoters of the Bibliothèque Germanique, begun in 1720; and he was associated with Isaac Beausobre (1659-1738) in the preparation of the new French translation of the New Testament with original notes, published at Amsterdam in 1718.

LENKORAN, a town in Russian Transcaucasia, in the government of Baku, stands on the Caspian Sea, at the mouth of a small stream of its own name, and close to a large lagoon. The lighthouse stands in 38° 45′ 38″ N. and 48° 50′ 18″ E. Taken by storm on New Year’s day 1813 by the Russians, Lenkoran was in the same year formally surrendered by Persia to Russia by the treaty of Gulistan, along with the khanate of Talysh, of which it was the capital. Pop. (1867) 15,933, (1897) 8768. The fort has been dismantled; and in trade the town is outstripped by Astara, the customs station on the Persian frontier.

The District of Lenkoran (2117 sq. m.) is a thickly wooded mountainous region, shut off from the Persian plateau by the Talysh range (7000-8000 ft. high), and with a narrow marshy strip along the coast. The climate is exceptionally moist and warm (annual rainfall 52.79 in; mean temperature in summer 75° F., in winter 40°), and fosters the growth of even Indian species of vegetation. The iron tree (Parrotia persica), the silk acacia, Carpinus betulus, Quercus iberica, the box tree and the walnut flourish freely, as well as the sumach, the pomegranate, and the Gleditschia caspica. The Bengal tiger is not unfrequently met with, and wild boars are abundant. Of the 131,361 inhabitants in 1897 the Talyshes (35,000) form the aboriginal element, belonging to the Iranian family, and speaking an independently developed language closely related to Persian. They are of middle height and dark complexion, with generally straight nose, small round skull, small sharp chin and large full eyes, which are expressive, however, rather of cunning than intelligence. They live exclusively on rice. In the northern half of the district the Tatar element predominates (40,000) and there are a number of villages occupied by Russian Raskolniks (Nonconformists). Agriculture, bee-keeping, silkworm-rearing and fishing are the principal occupations.

LENNEP, JACOB VAN (1802-1868), Dutch poet and novelist, was born on the 24th of March 1802 at Amsterdam, where his father, David Jacob van Lennep (1774-1853), a scholar and poet, was professor of eloquence and the classical languages in the Athenaeum. Lennep took the degree of doctor of laws at Leiden, and then settled as an advocate in Amsterdam. His first poetical efforts had been translations from Byron, of whom he was an ardent admirer, and in 1826 he published a collection of original Academische Idyllen, which had some success. He first attained genuine popularity by the Nederlandsche Legenden (2 vols., 1828) which reproduced, after the manner of Sir Walter Scott, some of the more stirring incidents in the early history of his fatherland. His fame was further raised by his patriotic songs at the time of the Belgian revolt, and by his comedies Het Dorp aan de Grenzen (1830) and Het Dorp over de Grenzen (1831), which also had reference to the political events of 1830. In 1833 he broke new ground with the publication of De Pleegzoon (The Adopted Son), the first of a series of historical romances in prose, which have acquired for him in Holland a position somewhat analogous to that of Sir Walter Scott in Great Britain. The series included De Roos van Dekama (2 vols., 1836), Onze Voorouders (5 vols., 1838), De Lotgevallen van Ferdinand Huyck (2 vols., 1840), Elizabeth Musch (3 vols., 1850), and De Lotgevallen van Klaasje Zevenster (5 vols., 1865), several of which have been translated into German and French, and two—The Rose of Dekama (1847) and The Adopted Son (New York, 1847)—into English. His Dutch history for young people (Voornaamste Geschiedenissen van Noord-Nederland aan mijne Kindern verhaald, 4 vols., 1845) is attractively written. Apart from the two comedies already mentioned, Lennep was an indefatigable journalist and literary critic, the author of numerous dramatic pieces, and of an excellent edition of Vondel’s works. For some years Lennep held a judicial appointment, and from 1853 to 1856 he was a member of the second chamber, in which he voted with the conservative party. He died at Oosterbeek near Arnheim on the 25th of August 1868.

There is a collective edition of his Poetische Werken (13 vols., 1859-1872), and also of his Romantische Werken (23 vols., 1855-1872). See also a bibliography by P. Knoll (1869); and Jan ten Brink, Geschiedenis der Noord-Nederlandsche Letteren in de XIXe Eeuw (No. iii.).

LENNEP, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, 18 m. E. of Düsseldorf, and 9 m. S. of Barmen by rail, at a height of 1000 ft. above the level of the sea. Pop. (1905) 10,323. It lies in the heart of one of the busiest industrial districts in Germany, and carries on important manufactures of the finer kinds of cloth, wool, yarn and felt, and also of iron and steel goods. It has an Evangelical and a Protestant church, a modern school and a well-equipped hospital. Lennep, which was the residence of the counts of Berg from 1226 to 1300, owes the foundation of its prosperity to an influx of Cologne weavers during the 14th century.

LENNOX, a name given to a large district in Dumbartonshire and Stirlingshire, which was erected into an earldom in the latter half of the 12th century. It embraced the ancient sheriffdom of Dumbarton and nineteen parishes with the whole of the lands round Loch Lomond, formerly Loch Leven, and the river of that name which glides into the estuary of the Clyde at the ancient castle of Dumbarton.

On this river Leven, at Balloch, was the seat of Alwin, first earl of Lennox. It is probable that he was of Celtic descent, but the records are silent as to his part in history; that he was earl at all is only proved from the charters of his son, another Alwin, and he died some time before 1217. The second Alwin was father of ten sons, one of whom founded the clan Macfarlane, famous in the annals of the district, while another was ancestor of Walter of Farlane, who married the heiress of the 6th earl of Lennox. Maldouen, the 3rd earl, eldest of the sons of Alwin the younger, is an historical personage; he was a witness to the treaty between Alexander II., king of Scotland, and his brother-in-law the English king Henry III., at Newcastle in 1237, concerning the much disputed northern counties of England. His grandson, Malcolm, successor to the title, swore fealty to Edward I. in 1296; it was apparently his son, another Malcolm, the 5th earl, who was summoned by Edward to parliament and entrusted with the important post of guarding the fords of the river Forth. But the 5th earl soon after gave his services to the party of Bruce, the cause of that family having been embraced by his father as early as 1292. As a result the English king bestowed the earldom on Sir John Menteith, who was holding it in 1307 while the real earl was with King Robert Bruce in his wanderings in the Lennox country. For his services he was rewarded with a renewal of the earldom and the keeping of Dumbarton Castle; he fell fighting for his country at Halidon Hill in 1333. His son Donald, the 6th earl, an adherent of King David II., left a daughter, Margaret, countess of Lennox, who was married to her kinsman the above-mentioned Walter of Farlane, nearest heir male of the Lennox family.

In 1392, on the marriage of their grand-daughter Isabella, eldest daughter of Duncan, 8th earl, with Sir Murdoch Stewart, afterwards duke of Albany, the earldom was resigned into the hands of the king, who re-granted it to Earl Duncan, with remainder to the heirs male of his body, with remainder to Murdoch and Isabella and the heirs of their bodies begotten between them, with eventual remainder to Earl Duncan’s nearest and lawful heirs. In 1424, when Murdoch, then duke of Albany, succeeded in ransoming the poet king James I. from his long English captivity, the aged Earl Duncan went with the Scottish party to Durham. The next year, however, he suffered the fate of Albany, being executed perhaps for no other reason than that he was his father-in-law. The earldom was not forfeited, and the widowed duchess of Albany, now also countess of Lennox, lived secure in her island castle of Inchmurrin on Loch Lomond until her death. Of her four sons, none of whom left legitimate issue, the eldest died in 1421, the two next suffered their father’s fate at Stirling, while the youngest had to flee for his life to Ireland. Her daughter Isobel appears to have been the wife of Sir Walter Buchanan of that ilk.

It was from Elizabeth, sister of the countess, that the next holders of the title descended. She was married to Sir John Stewart of Darnley (distinguished in the military history of France as seigneur d’Aubigny), whose immediate ancestor was brother of James, 5th high steward of Scotland. Their grandson, another Sir John Stewart, created a lord of parliament as Lord Darnley, was served heir to his great-grandfather Duncan, earl of Lennox, in 1473, and was designated as earl of Lennox in a charter under the great seal in the same year. Thereafter followed disputes with John of Haldane, whose wife’s great-grandmother had been another of the three daughters of Duncan, 8th earl of Lennox, and in her right he contested the succession. Lord Darnley, however, appears to have silenced all opposition and for the last seven years of his life maintained his right to the earldom undisputed. Three of his younger sons were greatly distinguished in the French service, one being captain of Scotsmen-at-arms, another premier homme d’armes, and a third maréchal de France. Their elder brother Matthew, 2nd earl of this line, fell on Flodden Field, leaving by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of James, earl of Arran, and niece of James III., a son and successor John, who became one of the guardians of James V. and was murdered in 1526. His son Matthew, the 4th earl, played a great part in the intrigues of his time, and by his marriage with Margaret Douglas allied himself to the royal house of England as well as strengthening the ties which bound his family to that of Scotland; because Margaret was the daughter and heir of the 6th earl of Angus by his wife, Margaret Tudor, sister of King Henry VIII. and widow of King James IV. Though his estates were forfeited in 1545, Earl Matthew in 1564 not only had them restored but had the satisfaction of getting his eldest son Henry married to Mary, queen of Scots. The murder of Lord Darnley, now created earl of Rosse, lord of Ardmanoch and duke of Albany, took place in February 1567, and in July his only son James, by Mary’s abdication, became king of Scotland. The old earl of Lennox, now grandfather of his sovereign, obtained the regency in 1570, but in the next year was killed in the attack made on the parliament at Stirling, being the third earl in succession to meet with a violent death.

The title was now merged in the crown in the person of James VI. the next heir, but was soon after granted to the king’s uncle Charles, who died in 1576, leaving an only child, the unfortunate Lady Arabella Stewart.

Two years later the title was granted to Robert Stewart, the king’s grand-uncle, second son of John, the 3rd earl, but he in 1580 exchanged it for that of earl of March. On the same day the earldom of Lennox was given to Esme Stewart, first cousin of the king and grandson of the 3rd earl, he being son of John Stewart (adopted heir of the maréchal d’Aubigny) and his French wife, Anne de la Queulle. In the following year Esme was created duke of Lennox, earl of Darnley, Lord Aubigny, Tarboulton and Dalkeith, and other favours were heaped upon him, but the earl of Ruthven sent him back to France where he died soon after. His elder son, Ludovic, was thereupon summoned to Scotland by James, who invested him with all his father’s honours and estates, and after his accession to the English throne created him Lord Settrington and earl of Richmond (1613), and earl of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and duke of Richmond (1623), all these titles being in the peerage of England. After holding many appointments the 2nd duke died without issue in 1624, being succeeded in his Scottish titles by his brother Esme, who had already been created earl of March and Lord Clifton of Leighton Bromswold in the peerage of England (1619) and was seigneur d’Aubigny in France. Of his sons, Henry succeeded to Aubigny and died young at Venice; Ludovic, seigneur d’Aubigny, entered the Roman Catholic Church and received a cardinal’s hat just before his death; while the three other younger sons, George, seigneur d’Aubigny, John and Bernard, were all distinguished as royalists in the Civil war. Each met a soldier’s death, George at Edgehill, John at Alresford and Bernard at Rowton Heath. James, the eldest son and 4th duke of Lennox, was created duke of Richmond in 1641, being like his brother a devoted adherent of Charles I.

With the death of his little son Esme, the 5th duke, in 1660, the titles, including that of Richmond, passed to his first cousin Charles, who had already been created Lord Stuart of Newbury and earl of Lichfield, being likewise now seigneur d’Aubigny. Disliked by Charles II., principally because of his marriage with “la belle Stuart”—“the noblest romance and example of a brave lady that ever I read in my life,” writes Pepys—he was sent into exile as ambassador to Denmark, where he was drowned in 1672. His wife had had the Lennox estates granted to her for life, but his only sister Katharine, wife of Henry O’Brien, heir apparent of the 7th earl of Thomond, was served heir to him. Her only daughter, the countess of Clarendon, was mother of Theodosia Hyde, ancestress of the present earls of Darnley.

The Lennox dukedom, being to heirs male, now devolved upon Charles II., who bestowed it with the titles of earl of Darnley and Lord Tarbolton upon one of his bastards, Charles Lennox, son of the celebrated duchess of Portsmouth, he having previously been created duke of Richmond, earl of March and Lord Settrington in the peerage of England. The ancient lands of the Lennox title were also granted to him, but these he sold to the duke of Montrose.

His son Charles, who inherited his grandmother’s French dukedom of Aubigny, was a soldier of distinction, as were the 3rd and 4th dukes. The wife of the last, Lady Charlotte Gordon, as heir of her brother brought the ancient estates of her family to the Lennoxes; the additional name of Gordon being taken by the 5th duke of Richmond and of Lennox on the death of his uncle, the 5th duke of Gordon. In the next generation further honours were granted to the family in the person of the 6th duke, who was rewarded for his great public services with the titles of duke of Gordon and earl of Kinrara in the peerage of the United Kingdom (1876).

See Scots Peerage, vol. v., for excellent accounts of these peerages by the Rev. John Anderson, curator Historical Dept. H.M. Register House; A. Francis Steuart and Francis J. Grant, Rothesay Herald. See also The Lennox by William Fraser.

LENNOX, CHARLOTTE (1720-1804), British writer, daughter of Colonel James Ramsay, lieutenant-governor of New York, was born in 1720. She went to London in 1735, and, being left unprovided for at her father’s death, she began to earn her living by writing. She made some unsuccessful appearances on the stage and married in 1748. Samuel Johnson had an exaggerated admiration for her. “Three such women,” he said, speaking of Elizabeth Carter, Hannah More and Fanny Burney, “are not to be found; I know not where to find a fourth, except Mrs Lennox, who is superior to them all.” Her chief works are: The Female Quixote; or the Adventures of Arabella (1752), a novel; Shakespear illustrated; or the novels and histories on which the plays ... are founded (1753-1754), in which she argued that Shakespeare had spoiled the stories he borrowed for his plots by interpolating unnecessary intrigues and incidents; The Life of Harriot Stuart (1751), a novel; and The Sister, a comedy produced at Covent Garden (18th February 1769). This last was withdrawn after the first night, after a stormy reception, due, said Goldsmith, to the fact that its author had abused Shakespeare.

LENNOX, MARGARET, Countess of (1515-1578), daughter of Archibald Douglas, 6th earl of Angus, and Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII. of England and widow of James IV. of Scotland, was born at Harbottle Castle, Northumberland, on the 8th of October 1515. On account of her nearness to the English crown, Lady Margaret Douglas was brought up chiefly at the English court in close association with the Princess Mary, who remained her fast friend throughout life. She was high in Henry VIII.’s favour, but was twice disgraced; first for an attachment to Lord Thomas Howard, who died in the Tower in 1537, and again in 1541 for a similar affair with Sir Charles Howard, brother of Queen Catherine Howard. In 1544 she married a Scottish exile, Matthew Stewart, 4th earl of Lennox (1516-1571), who was regent of Scotland in 1570-1571. During Mary’s reign the countess of Lennox had rooms in Westminster Palace; but on Elizabeth’s accession she removed to Yorkshire, where her home at Temple Newsam became a centre for Catholic intrigue. By a series of successful manœuvres she married her son Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, to Mary, queen of Scots. In 1566 she was sent to the Tower, but after the murder of Darnley in 1567 she was released. She was at first loud in her denunciations of Mary, but was eventually reconciled with her daughter-in-law. In 1574 she again aroused Elizabeth’s anger by the marriage of her son Charles, earl of Lennox, with Elizabeth Cavendish, daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury. She was sent to the Tower with Lady Shrewsbury, and was only pardoned after her son’s death in 1577. Her diplomacy largely contributed to the future succession of her grandson James to the English throne. She died on the 7th of March 1578.

The famous Lennox jewel, made for Lady Lennox as a memento of her husband, was bought by Queen Victoria in 1842.

LENO, DAN, the stage-name of George Galvin (1861-1904), English comedian, who was born at Somers Town, London, in February 1861. His parents were actors, known as Mr and Mrs Johnny Wilde. Dan Leno was trained to be an acrobat, but soon became a dancer, travelling with his brother as “the brothers Leno,” and winning the world’s championship in clog-dancing at Leeds in 1880. Shortly afterwards he appeared in London at the Oxford, and in 1886-1887 at the Surrey Theatre. In 1888-1889 he was engaged by Sir Augustus Harris to play the Baroness in the Babes in the Wood, and from that time he was a principal figure in the Drury Lane pantomimes. He was the wittiest and most popular comedian of his day, and delighted London music-hall audiences by his shop-walker, stores-proprietor, waiter, doctor, beef-eater, bathing attendant, “Mrs Kelly,” and other impersonations. In 1900 he engaged to give his entire services to the Pavilion Music Hall, where he received £100 per week. In November 1901 he was summoned to Sandringham to do a “turn” before the king, and was proud from that time to call himself the “king’s jester.” Dan Leno’s generosity endeared him to his profession, and he was the object of much sympathy during the brain failure which recurred during the last eighteen months of his life. He died on the 31st of October 1904.

LENORMANT, FRANÇOIS (1837-1883), French Assyriologist and archaeologist, was born in Paris on the 17th of January 1837. His father, Charles Lenormant, distinguished as an archaeologist, numismatist and Egyptologist, was anxious that his son should follow in his steps. He made him begin Greek at the age of six, and the child responded so well to this precocious scheme of instruction, that when he was only fourteen an essay of his, on the Greek tablets found at Memphis, appeared in the Revue archéologique. In 1856 he won the numismatic prize of the Académie des Inscriptions with an essay entitled Classification des monnaies des Lagides. In 1862 he became sub-librarian of the Institute. In 1859 he accompanied his father on a journey of exploration to Greece, during which Charles Lenormant succumbed to fever at Athens (24th November). Lenormant returned to Greece three times during the next six years, and gave up all the time he could spare from his official work to archaeological research. These peaceful labours were rudely interrupted by the war of 1870, when Lenormant served with the army and was wounded in the siege of Paris. In 1874 he was appointed professor of archaeology at the National Library, and in the following year he collaborated with Baron de Witte in founding the Gazette archéologique. As early as 1867 he had turned his attention to Assyrian studies; he was among the first to recognize in the cuneiform inscriptions the existence of a non-Semitic language, now known as Accadian. Lenormant’s knowledge was of encyclopaedic extent, ranging over an immense number of subjects, and at the same time thorough, though somewhat lacking perhaps in the strict accuracy of the modern school. Most of his varied studies were directed towards tracing the origins of the two great civilizations of the ancient world, which were to be sought in Mesopotamia and on the shores of the Mediterranean. He had a perfect passion for exploration. Besides his early expeditions to Greece, he visited the south of Italy three times with this object, and it was while exploring in Calabria that he met with an accident which ended fatally in Paris on the 9th of December 1883, after a long illness. The amount and variety of Lenormant’s work is truly amazing when it is remembered that he died at the early age of forty-six. Probably the best known of his books are Les Origines de l’histoire d’après la Bible, and his ancient history of the East and account of Chaldean magic. For breadth of view, combined with extraordinary subtlety of intuition, he was probably unrivalled.

LENOX, a township of Berkshire county, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Pop. (1900) 2942, (1905) 3058; (1910) 3060. Area, 19.2 sq. m. The principal village, also named Lenox (or Lenox-on-the-Heights), lies about 2 m. W. of the Housatonic river, at an altitude of about 1000 ft., and about it are high hills—Yokun Seat (2080 ft.), South Mountain (1200 ft.), Bald Head (1583 ft.), and Rattlesnake Hill (1540 ft.). New Lenox and Lenoxdale are other villages in the township. Lenox is a fashionable summer and autumn resort, much frequented by wealthy people from Washington, Newport and New York. There are innumerable lovely walks and drives in the surrounding region, which contains some of the most beautiful country of the Berkshires—hills, lakes, charming intervales and woods. As early as 1835 Lenox began to attract summer residents. In the next decade began the creation of large estates, although the great holdings of the present day, and the villas scattered over the hills, are comparatively recent features. The height of the season is in the autumn, when there are horse-shows, golf, tennis, hunts and other outdoor amusements. The Lenox library (1855) contained about 20,000 volumes in 1908. Lenox was settled about 1750, was included in Richmond township in 1765, and became an independent township in 1767. The names were those of Sir Charles Lennox, third duke of Richmond and of Lennox (1735-1806), one of the staunch friends of the American colonies during the War of Independence. Lenox was the county-seat from 1787 to 1868. It has literary associations with Catherine M. Sedgwick (1789-1867), who passed here the second half of her life; with Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose brief residence here (1850-1851) was marked by the production of the House of the Seven Gables and the Wonder Book; with Fanny Kemble, a summer resident from 1836-1853; and with Henry Ward Beecher (see his Star Papers). Elizabeth (Mrs Charles) Sedgwick, the sister-in-law of Catherine Sedgwick, maintained here from 1828 to 1864 a school for girls, in which Harriet Hosmer, the sculptor, and Maria S. Cummins (1827-1866), the novelist, were educated; and in Lenox academy (1803), a famous classical school (now a public high school) were educated W. L. Yancey, A. H. Stephens, Mark Hopkins and David Davis (1815-1886), a circuit judge of Illinois from 1848 to 1862, a justice (1862-1877) of the United States Supreme Court, a Republican member of the United States Senate from Illinois in 1877-1883, and president of the Senate from the 31st of October 1881, when he succeeded Chester A. Arthur, until the 3rd of March 1883. There is a statue commemorating General John Paterson (1744-1808) a soldier from Lenox in the War of Independence.

See R. de W. Mallary, Lenox and the Berkshire Highlands (1902); J. C. Adams, Nature Studies in Berkshire; C. F. Warner, Picturesque Berkshire (1890); and Katherine M. Abbott, Old Paths and Legends of the New England Border (1907).

LENS, a town of Northern France, in the department of Pas-de-Calais, 13 m. N.N.E. of Arras by rail on the Déûle and on the Lens canal. Pop. (1906) 27,692. Lens has important iron and steel foundries, and engineering works and manufactories of steel cables, and occupies a central position in the coalfields of the department. Two and a half miles W.S.W. lies Liévin (pop. 22,070), likewise a centre of the coalfield. In 1648 the neighbourhood of Lens was the scene of a celebrated victory gained by Louis II. of Bourbon, prince of Condé, over the Spaniards.

LENS (from Lat. lens, lentil, on account of the similarity of the form of a lens to that of a lentil seed), in optics, an instrument which refracts the luminous rays proceeding from an object in such a manner as to produce an image of the object. It may be regarded as having four principal functions: (1) to produce an image larger than the object, as in the magnifying glass, microscope, &c.; (2) to produce an image smaller than the object, as in the ordinary photographic camera; (3) to convert rays proceeding from a point or other luminous source into a definite pencil, as in lighthouse lenses, the engraver’s globe, &c.; (4) to collect luminous and heating rays into a smaller area, as in the burning glass. A lens made up of two or more lenses cemented together or very close to each other is termed “composite” or “compound”; several lenses arranged in succession at a distance from each other form a “system of lenses,” and if the axes be collinear a “centred system.” This article is concerned with the general theory of lenses, and more particularly with spherical lenses. For a special part of the theory of lenses see Aberration; the instruments in which the lenses occur are treated under their own headings.

The most important type of lens is the spherical lens, which is a piece of transparent material bounded by two spherical surfaces, the boundary at the edge being usually cylindrical or conical. The line joining the centres, C1, C2 (fig. 1), of the bounding surfaces is termed the axis; the points S1, S2, at which the axis intersects the surfaces, are termed the “vertices” of the lens; and the distance between the vertices is termed the “thickness.” If the edge be everywhere equidistant from the vertex, the lens is “centred.”

Although light is really a wave motion in the aether, it is only necessary, in the investigation of the optical properties of systems of lenses, to trace the rectilinear path of the waves, i.e. the direction of the normal to the wave front, and this can be done by purely geometrical methods. It will be assumed that light, so long as it traverses the same medium, always travels in a straight line; and in following out the geometrical theory it will always be assumed that the light travels from left to right; accordingly all distances measured in this direction are positive, while those measured in the opposite direction are negative.

Theory of Optical Representation.—If a pencil of rays, i.e. the totality of the rays proceeding from a luminous point, falls on a lens or lens system, a section of the pencil, determined by the dimensions of the system, will be transmitted. The emergent rays will have directions differing from those of the incident rays, the alteration, however, being such that the transmitted rays are convergent in the “image-point,” just as the incident rays diverge from the “object-point.” With each incident ray is associated an emergent ray; such pairs are termed “conjugate ray pairs.” Similarly we define an object-point and its image-point as “conjugate points”; all object-points lie in the “object-space,” and all image-points lie in the “image-space.”

The laws of optical representations were first deduced in their most general form by E. Abbe, who assumed (1) that an optical representation always exists, and (2) that to every point in the object-space there corresponds a point in the image-space, these points being mutually convertible by straight rays; in other words, with each object-point is associated one, and only one, image-point, and if the object-point be placed at the image-point, the conjugate point is the original object-point. Such a transformation is termed a “collineation,” since it transforms points into points and straight lines into straight lines. Prior to Abbe, however, James Clerk Maxwell published, in 1856, a geometrical theory of optical representation, but his methods were unknown to Abbe and to his pupils until O. Eppenstein drew attention to them. Although Maxwell’s theory is not so general as Abbe’s, it is used here since its methods permit a simple and convenient deduction of the laws.

Maxwell assumed that two object-planes perpendicular to the axis are represented sharply and similarly in two image-planes also perpendicular to the axis (by “sharply” is meant that the assumed ideal instrument unites all the rays proceeding from an object-point in one of the two planes in its image-point, the rays being generally transmitted by the system). The symmetry of the axis being premised, it is sufficient to deduce laws for a plane containing the axis. In fig. 2 let O1, O2 be the two points in which the perpendicular object-planes meet the axis; and since the axis corresponds to itself, the two conjugate points O′1, O′2, are at the intersections of the two image-planes with the axis. We denote the four planes by the letters O1, O2, and O′1, O′2. If two points A, C be taken in the plane O1, their images are A′, C′ in the plane O′1, and since the planes are represented similarly, we have O′1A′:O1A = O′1C′1:O1C = β1 (say), in which β1 is easily seen to be the linear magnification of the plane-pair O1, O′1. Similarly, if two points B, D be taken in the plane O2 and their images B′, D′ in the plane O′2, we have O′2B′:O2B = O′2D′:O2D = β2 (say), β2 being the linear magnification of the plane-pair O2, O′2. The joins of A and B and of C and D intersect in a point P, and the joins of the conjugate points similarly determine the point P′.

If P′ is the only possible image-point of the object-point P, then the conjugate of every ray passing through P must pass through P′. To prove this, take a third line through P intersecting the planes O1, O2 in the points E, F, and by means of the magnifications β1, β2 determine the conjugate points E′, F′ in the planes O′1, O′2. Since the planes O1, O2 are parallel, then AC/AE = BD/BF; and since these planes are represented similarly in O′1, O′2, then A′C′/A′E′ = B′D′/B′F′. This proportion is only possible when the straight line E′F′ contains the point P′. Since P was any point whatever, it follows that every point of the object-space is represented in one and only one point in the image-space.

Take a second object-point P1, vertically under P and defined by the two rays CD1, and EF1, the conjugate point P′1 will be determined by the intersection of the conjugate rays C′D′1 and E′F′1, the points D′1, F′1, being readily found from the magnifications β1, β2. Since PP1 is parallel to CE and also to DF, then DF = D1F1. Since the plane O2 is similarly represented in O′2, D′F′ = D′1F′1; this is impossible unless P′P′1 be parallel to C′E′. Therefore every perpendicular object-plane is represented by a perpendicular image-plane.

Let O be the intersection of the line PP1 with the axis, and let O′ be its conjugate; then it may be shown that a fixed magnification β3 exists for the planes O and O′. For PP1/FF1 = OO1/O1O2, P′P′1/F′F′1 = O′O′/O′1O′2, and F′F′1 = β2FF1. Eliminating FF1 and F′F′1 between these ratios, we have P′P′1/PP1β2 = O′O′1·O1O2/OO1. O′1O′2, or β3 = β2·O′O′1·O1O2/OO1·O′1O′2, i.e. β3 = β2 × a product of the axial distances.

The determination of the image-point of a given object-point is facilitated by means of the so-called “cardinal points” of the optical system. To determine the image-point O′1 (fig. 3) corresponding to the object-point O1, we begin by choosing from the ray pencil proceeding from O1, the ray parallel with the axis, i.e. intersecting the axis at infinity. Since the axis is its own conjugate, the parallel ray through O1 must intersect the axis after refraction (say at F′). Then F′ is the image-point of an object-point situated at infinity on the axis, and is termed the “second principal focus” (German der bildseitige Brennpunkt, the image-side focus). Similarly if O′4 be on the parallel through O1 but in the image-space, then the conjugate ray must intersect the axis at a point (say F), which is conjugate with the point at infinity on the axis in the image-space. This point is termed the “first principal focus” (German der objektseitige Brennpunkt, the object-side focus).

Let H1, H′1 be the intersections of the focal rays through F and F′ with the line O1O′4. These two points are in the position of object and image, since they are each determined by two pairs of conjugate rays (O1H1 being conjugate with H′1F′, and O′4H′1 with H1F). It has already been shown that object-planes perpendicular to the axis are represented by image-planes also perpendicular to the axis. Two vertical planes through H1 and H′1, are related as object- and image-planes; and if these planes intersect the axis in two points H and H′, these points are named the “principal,” or “Gauss points” of the system, H being the “object-side” and H′ the “image-side principal point.” The vertical planes containing H and H′ are the “principal planes.” It is obvious that conjugate points in these planes are equidistant from the axis; in other words, the magnification β of the pair of planes is unity. An additional characteristic of the principal planes is that the object and image are direct and not inverted. The distances between F and H, and between F′ and H′ are termed the focal lengths; the former may be called the “object-side focal length” and the latter the “image-side focal length.” The two focal points and the two principal points constitute the so-called four cardinal points of the system, and with their aid the image of any object can be readily determined.

Equations relating to the Focal Points.—We know that the ray proceeding from the object point O1, parallel to the axis and intersecting the principal plane H in H1, passes through H′1 and F′. Choose from the pencil a second ray which contains F and intersects the principal plane H in H2; then the conjugate ray must contain points corresponding to F and H2. The conjugate of F is the point at infinity on the axis, i.e. on the ray parallel to the axis. The image of H2 must be in the plane H′ at the same distance from, and on the same side of, the axis, as in H′2. The straight line passing through H′2 parallel to the axis intersects the ray H′1F′ in the point O′1, which must be the image of O1. If O be the foot of the perpendicular from O1 to the axis, then OO1 is represented by the line O′O′1 also perpendicular to the axis.

This construction is not applicable if the object or image be infinitely distant. For example, if the object OO1 be at infinity (O being assumed to be on the axis for the sake of simplicity), so that the object appears under a constant angle w, we know that the second principal focus is conjugate with the infinitely distant axis-point. If the object is at infinity in a plane perpendicular to the axis, the image must be in the perpendicular plane through the focal point F′ (fig. 4).

The size y′ of the image is readily deduced. Of the parallel rays from the object subtending the angle w, there is one which passes through the first principal focus F, and intersects the principal plane H in H1. Its conjugate ray passes through H′ parallel to, and at the same distance from the axis, and intersects the image-side focal plane in O′1; this point is the image of O1, and y′ is its magnitude. From the figure we have tan w = HH1/FH = y′/f, or f = y′/tan w; this equation was used by Gauss to define the focal length.

Referring to fig. 3, we have from the similarity of the triangles OO1F and HH2F, HH2/OO1 = FH/FO, or O′O′1/OO1 = FH/FO. Let y be the magnitude of the object OO1, y′ that of the image O′O′1, x the focal distance FO of the object, and f the object-side focal distance FH; then the above equation may be written y′/y = f/x. From the similar triangles H′1H′F′ and O′1O′F′, we obtain O′O′1/OO1 = F′O′/F′H′. Let x′ be the focal distance of the image F′O′, and f′ the image-side focal length F′H′; then y′/y = x′/f′. The ratio of the size of the image to the size of the object is termed the lateral magnification. Denoting this by β, we have

β = y′/y = f/x = x′/f′,

(1)

and also

xx′ = ff′.

(2)

By differentiating equation (2) we obtain

dx′= −(ff′/x2) dx or dx′/dx = −ff′/x2.

(3)

The ratio of the displacement of the image dx′ to the displacement of the object dx is the axial magnification, and is denoted by α. Equation (3) gives important information on the displacement of the image when the object is moved. Since f and f′ always have contrary signs (as is proved below), the product −ff′ is invariably positive, and since x2 is positive for all values of x, it follows that dx and dx′ have the same sign, i.e. the object and image always move in the same direction, either both in the direction of the light, or both in the opposite direction. This is shown in fig. 3 by the object O3O2 and the image O′3O′2.

If two conjugate rays be drawn from two conjugate points on the axis, making angles u and u′ with the axis, as for example the rays OH1, O′H′1, in fig. 3, u is termed the “angular aperture for the object,” and u′ the “angular aperture for the image.” The ratio of the tangents of these angles is termed the “convergence” and is denoted by γ, thus γ = tan u′/tan u. Now tan u′= H′H′1/O′H′ = H′H′1/(O′F′ + F′H′) = H′H′1/(F′H′ − F′O′). Also tan u = HH1/OH = HH1/(OF + FH) = HH1/(FH − FO). Consequently γ = (FH − FO)/(F′H′ − F′O′), or, in our previous notation, γ = (f − x)/(f′ − x′).

From equation (1) f/x = x′/f′, we obtain by subtracting unity from both sides (f − x)/x = (x′ − f′)/f′, and consequently

f − x = − x = − f = γ.

f′ − x′ f′ x′

(4)

From equations (1), (3) and (4), it is seen that a simple relation exists between the lateral magnification, the axial magnification and the convergence, viz. αγ = β.

In addition to the four cardinal points F, H, F′, H′, J. B. Listing, “Beiträge aus physiologischen Optik,” Göttinger Studien (1845) introduced the so-called “nodal points” (Knotenpunkte) of the system, which are the two conjugate points from which the object and image appear under the same angle. In fig. 5 let K be the nodal point from which the object y appears under the same angle as the image y′ from the other nodal point K′. Then OO1/KO = O′O′1/K′O′, or OO1/(KF + FO) = O′O′1/(K′F′+ F′O′), or OO1/(FO − FK) = O′O′1/(F′O′− F′K′). Calling the focal distances FK and F′K′, X and X′, we have y/(x − X) = y′/(x′− X′), and since y′/y = β, it follows that 1/(x − X) = β/(x′− X′). Replace x′ and X′ by the values given in equation (2), and we obtain

1 = β / ( ff′ − ff′ ) or 1 = −β xX .

x − X x X ff′

Since β = f/x = x′/f′, we have f′ = −X, f = −X′.

These equations show that to determine the nodal points, it is only necessary to measure the focal distance of the second principal focus from the first principal focus, and vice versa. In the special case when the initial and final medium is the same, as for example, a lens in air, we have f = −f′, and the nodal points coincide with the principal points of the system; we then speak of the “nodal point property of the principal points,” meaning that the object and corresponding image subtend the same angle at the principal points.

Equations Relating to the Principal Points.—It is sometimes desirable to determine the distances of an object and its image, not from the focal points, but from the principal points. Let A (see fig. 3) be the principal point distance of the object and A′ that of the image, we then have

A = HO = HF + FO = FO − FH = x − f,
A′ = H′O′ = H′F′ + F′O′ = F′O′ − F′H′ = x′ − f′,

whence

x = A + f and x′ = A′ + f′.

Using xx′ = ff′, we have (A + f)(A′ + f′) = ff′, which leads to AA′ + Af′ + A′f = O, or

1 + f′ + f = O;

A′ A

this becomes in the special case when f = -f′,

1 − 1 = 1 .

A′ A f

To express the linear magnification in terms of the principal point distances, we start with equation (4) (f − x)/(f′ − x′) = −x/f′. From this we obtain A/A′ = -x/f′, or x = −f′A/A′; and by using equation (1) we have β = −fA′/f′A.

In the special case of f = −f′, this becomes β = A′/A = y′/y, from which it follows that the ratio of the dimensions of the object and image is equal to the ratio of the distances of the object and image from the principal points.

The convergence can be determined in terms of A and A′ by substituting x = −f′A/A′ in equation (4), when we obtain γ = A/A′.

Compound Systems.—In discussing the laws relating to compound systems, we assume that the cardinal points of the component systems are known, and also that the combinations are centred, i.e. that the axes of the component lenses coincide. If some object be represented by two systems arranged one behind the other, we can regard the systems as co-operating in the formation of the final image.

Let such a system be represented in fig. 6. The two single systems are denoted by the suffixes 1 and 2; for example, F1 is the first principal focus of the first, and F′2 the second principal focus of the second system. A ray parallel to the axis at a distance y passes through the second principal focus F′1 of the first system, intersecting the axis at an angle w′1. The point F′1 will be represented in the second system by the point F′, which is therefore conjugate to the point at infinity for the entire system, i.e. it is the second principal focus of the compound system. The representation of F′1 in F′ by the second system leads to the relations F2F′1 = x2, and F′2F′ = x′2, whence x2x′2 = f2f′2. Denoting the distance between the adjacent focal planes F′1, F2 by Δ, we have Δ = F′1F2 = −F2F′1, so that x′2 = -f2f′2/Δ. A similar ray parallel to the axis at a distance y proceeding from the image-side will intersect the axis at the focal point F2; and by finding the image of this point in the first system, we determine the first principal focus of the compound system. Equation (2) gives x1x′1 = f1f′1, and since x′1 = F′1F2 = Δ, we have x1 = f1f′1/Δ as the distance of the first principal focus F of the compound system from the first principal focus F1 of the first system.

To determine the focal lengths f and f′ of the compound system and the principal points H and H′, we employ the equations defining the focal lengths, viz. f = y′/tan w, and f′ = y/tan w′. From the construction (fig. 6) tan w′1 = y/f′1. The variation of the angle w′1 by the second system is deduced from the equation to the convergence, viz. γ = tan w′2/tan w2 = −x2/f′2 = Δ/f′2, and since w2 = w′1, we have tan w′2 = (Δ/f′2) tan w′1. Since w′ = w′2 in our system of notation, we have

f′ = y = yf′2 = f′1·f′2 .

tan w′ Δ tan w′1 Δ

By taking a ray proceeding from the image-side we obtain for the first principal focal distance of the combination

f = −f1f2/Δ.

In the particular case in which Δ = 0, the two focal planes F′1, F2 coincide, and the focal lengths f, f′ are infinite. Such a system is called a telescopic system, and this condition is realized in a telescope focused for a normal eye.

So far we have assumed that all the rays proceeding from an object-point are exactly united in an image-point after transmission through the ideal system. The question now arises as to how far this assumption is justified for spherical lenses. To investigate this it is simplest to trace the path of a ray through one spherical refracting surface. Let such a surface divide media of refractive indices n and n′, the former being to the left. The point where the axis intersects the surface is the vertex S (fig. 7). Denote the distance of the axial object-point O from S by s; the distance from O to the point of incidence P by p; the radius of the spherical surface by r; and the distance OC by c, C being the centre of the sphere. Let u be the angle made by the ray with the axis, and i the angle of incidence, i.e. the angle between the ray and the normal to the sphere at the point of incidence. The corresponding quantities in the image-space are denoted by the same letters with a dash. From the triangle O′PC we have sin u = (r/c) sin i, and from the triangle O′PC we have sin u′ = (r/c′) sin i′. By Snell’s law we have n′/n = sin i/sin i′, and also φ = u′ + i′. Consequently c′ and the position of the image may be found.

To determine whether all the rays proceeding from O are refracted through O′, we investigate the triangle OPO′. We have p/p′ = sin u′/sin u. Substituting for sin u and sin u′ the values found above, we obtain p′/p = c′ sin i/c sin i′ = n′c′/nc. Also c = OC = CS + SO = −SC + SO = s − r, and similarly c′ = s′ − r. Substituting these values we obtain

p′ = n′(s′ − r) , or n(s − r) = n′(s′ − r) .

p n(s − r) p p′

(6)

To obtain p and p′ we use the triangles OPC and O′PC; we have p2 = (s − r)2 + r2 + 2r(s − r) cos φ, p′2 = (s′ − r)2 + r2 + 2r(s′ − r) cos φ. Hence if s, r, n and n′ be constant, s′ must vary as φ varies. The refracted rays therefore do not reunite in a point, and the deflection is termed the spherical aberration (see Aberration).

Developing cos φ in powers of φ, we obtain

p2 = (s − r)2 + r2 + 2r(s − r) { 1 − φ2 + φ4 − φ6 + ... },

2! 4! 6!

and therefore for such values of φ for which the second and higher powers may be neglected, we have p2 = (s − r)2 + r2 + 2r(s − r), i.e. p = s, and similarly p′ = s′. Equation (6) then becomes n(s − r)/s = n′(s′ − r)/s′ or

n′ = n + n′ − n .

s′ s r

(7)

This relation shows that in a very small central aperture in which the equation p = s holds, all rays proceeding from an object-point are exactly united in an image-point, and therefore the equations previously deduced are valid for this aperture. K. F. Gauss derived the equations for thin pencils in his Dioptrische Untersuchungen (1840) by very elegant methods. More recently the laws relating to systems with finite aperture have been approximately realized, as for example, in well-corrected photographic objectives.

Position of the Cardinal Points of a Lens.—Taking the case of a single spherical refracting surface, and limiting ourselves to the small central aperture, it is seen that the second principal focus F′ is obtained when s is infinitely great. Consequently s′ = -f′; the difference of sign is obvious, since s′ is measured from S, while f′ is measured from F′. The focal lengths are directly deducible from equation (7):—

f′ = −n′r / (n′ − n)

(8)

f = nr / (n′ − n).

(9)

By joining this simple refracting system with a similar one, so that the second spherical surface limits the medium of refractive index n′, we derive the spherical lens. Generally the two spherical surfaces enclose a glass lens, and are bounded on the outside by air of refractive index 1.

The deduction of the cardinal points of a spherical glass lens in air from the relations already proved is readily effected if we regard the lens as a combination of two systems each having one refracting surface, the light passing in the first system from air to glass, and in the second from glass to air. If we know the refractive index of the glass n, the radii r1, r2 of the spherical surfaces, and the distances of the two lens-vertices (or the thickness of the lens d) we can determine all the properties of the lens. A biconvex lens is shown in fig. 8. Let F1 be the first principal focus of the first system of radius r1, and F1′ the second principal focus; and let S1 be its vertex. Denote the distance F1 S1 (the first principal focal length) by f1, and the corresponding distance F′1 S1 by f′1. Let the corresponding quantities in the second system be denoted by the same letters with the suffix 2.

By equations (8) and (9) we have

f1 = r1 , f′1 = − nr1 , f2 = − nr2 , f′2 = r2 ,

n − 1 n − 1 n − 1 n − 1

f2 having the opposite sign to f1. Denoting the distance F′1F2 by Δ, we have Δ = F′1F2 = F′1S1 + S1S2 + S2F2 = F′1S1 + S1S2 − F2S2 = f′1 + d − f2. Substituting for f′1 and f2 we obtain

Δ = − nr1 + d + nr2 .

n − 1 n − 1

Writing R = Δ(n − 1), this relation becomes

R = n(r2 − r1) + d(n − 1).

We have already shown that f (the first principal focal length of a compound system) = −f1f2/Δ. Substituting for f1, f2 and Δ the values found above, we obtain

f = r1r2n = r1r2n ,

(n − 1)R (n − 1) {n (r2 − r1) + d(n − 1)}

(10)

which is equivalent to

1 = (n − 1) { 1 − 1 } + (n − 1)2 d .

f r1 r2 r1r2n

If the lens be infinitely thin, i.e. if d be zero, we have for the first principal focal length.

1 = (n − 1) { 1 − 1 }.

f r1 r2

By the same method we obtain for the second principal focal length

f′ = f′1f′2 = − nr1r2 = −f.

Δ (n − 1)R

The reciprocal of the focal length is termed the power of the lens and is denoted by φ. In formulae involving φ it is customary to denote the reciprocal of the radii by the symbol ρ; we thus have φ = 1/f, ρ = 1/r. Equation (10) thus becomes

φ = (n − 1) (ρ1 − ρ2) + (n − 1)2 dρ1ρ2 .

n

The unit of power employed by spectacle-makers is termed the diopter or dioptric (see Spectacles).

We proceed to determine the distances of the focal points from the vertices of the lens, i.e. the distances FS1 and F′S2. Since F is represented by the first system in F2, we have by equation (2)

x1 = f1f′1 = f1f′1 = − nr12 ,

x′1 Δ (n − 1)R

where x1 = F1F, and x′1 = F′1F2 = Δ. The distance of the first principal focus from the vertex S, i.e. S1F, which we denote by sF is given by sF = S1F = S1F1 + F1F = −F1S1 + F1F. Now F1S1 is the distance from the vertex of the first principal focus of the first system, i.e. f1 and F1F = x1. Substituting these values, we obtain

sF = − r1 − nr12 = − r1 (nr1 + R) .

n − 1 (n − 1)R (n − 1)R

The distance F′2F′ or x′2 is similarly determined by considering F′1 to be represented by the second system in F′.

We have

x′2 = f2f′2 = − f2f′2 = nr22 ,

x2 Δ (n − 1)R

so that

sF′ = x′2 − f′2 = r2 (nr2 − R) ,

(n − 1)R

where sF′ denotes the distance of the second principal focus from the vertex S2.

The two focal lengths and the distances of the foci from the vertices being known, the positions of the remaining cardinal points, i.e. the principal points H and H′, are readily determined. Let sH = S1H, i.e. the distance of the object-side principal point from the vertex of the first surface, and sH′ = S2H′, i.e. the distance of the image-side principal point from the vertex of the second surface, then f = FH = FS1 + S1H = −S1F + S1H = −sF + sH; hence sH = sF + f = −dr1/R. Similarly sH′ = sF′ + f′ = −dr2/R. It is readily seen that the distances sH and sH′ are in the ratio of the radii r1 and r2.

The distance between the two principal planes (the interstitium) is deduced very simply. We have S1S2 = S1H + HH′ + H′S2, or HH′ = S1S2 − S1H + S2H′. Substituting, we have

HH′ = d − sH + sH′ = d(n − 1) (r2 − r1 + d)/R.

The interstitium becomes zero, or the two principal planes coincide, if d = r1 − r2.

We have now derived all the properties of the lens in terms of its elements, viz. the refractive index, the radii of the surfaces, and the thickness.

Forms of Lenses.—By varying the signs and relative magnitude of the radii, lenses may be divided into two groups according to their action, and into four groups according to their form.

According to their action, lenses are either collecting, convergent and condensing, or divergent and dispersing; the term positive is sometimes applied to the former, and the term negative to the latter. Convergent lenses transform a parallel pencil into a converging one, and increase the convergence, and diminish the divergence of any pencil. Divergent lenses, on the other hand, transform a parallel pencil into a diverging one, and diminish the convergence, and increase the divergence of any pencil. In convergent lenses the first principal focal distance is positive and the second principal focal distance negative; in divergent lenses the converse holds.

The four forms of lenses are interpretable by means of equation (10).

f = r1r2n .

(n − 1) { n (r2 − r1) + d(n − 1)}

(1) If r1 be positive and r2 negative. This type is called biconvex (fig. 9, 1). The first principal focus is in front of the lens, and the second principal focus behind the lens, and the two principal points are inside the lens. The order of the cardinal points is therefore FS1HH′S2F′. The lens is convergent so long as the thickness is less than n(r1 − r2)/(n − 1). The special case when one of the radii is infinite, in other words, when one of the bounding surfaces is plane is shown in fig. 9, 2. Such a collective lens is termed plano-convex. As d increases, F and H move to the right and F′ and H′ to the left. If d = n(r1 − r2)/(n − 1), the focal length is infinite, i.e. the lens is telescopic. If the thickness be greater than n(r1 − r2)/(n − 1), the lens is dispersive, and the order of the cardinal points is HFS1S2F′H′.

(2) If r1 is negative and r2 positive. This type is called biconcave (fig. 9, 4). Such lenses are dispersive for all thicknesses. If d increases, the radii remaining constant, the focal lengths diminish. It is seen from the equations giving the distances of the cardinal points from the vertices that the first principal focus F is always behind S1, and the second principal focus F′ always in front of S2, and that the principal points are within the lens, H′ always following H. If one of the radii becomes infinite, the lens is plano-concave (fig. 9, 5).

(3) If the radii are both positive. These lenses are called convexo-concave. Two cases occur according as r2 > r1, or < r1. (a) If r2 > r1, we obtain the mensicus (fig. 9, 3). Such lenses are always collective; and the order of the cardinal points is FHH′F′. Since sF and sH are always negative, the object-side cardinal points are always in front of the lens. H′ can take up different positions. Since sH′ = −dr2/R = −dr2/{n (r2 − r1) + d(n − 1)}, sH′ is greater or less than d, i.e. H′ is either in front of or inside the lens, according as d < or > {r2 − n(r2 − r1)}/(n − 1). (b) If r2 < r1 the lens is dispersive so long as d < n(r1 − r2)/(n − 1). H is always behind S1 and H′ behind S2, since sH and sH′ are always positive. The focus F is always behind S1 and F′ in front of S2. If the thickness be small, the order of the cardinal points is F′HH′F; a dispersive lens of this type is shown in fig. 9, 6. As the thickness increases, H, H′ and F move to the right, F more rapidly than H, and H more rapidly than H′; F′, on the other hand, moves to the left. As with biconvex lenses, a telescopic lens, having all the cardinal points at infinity, results when d = n(r1 − r2)/(n − 1). If d > n(r1 − r2)/(n − 1), f is positive and the lens is collective. The cardinal points are in the same order as in the mensicus, viz. FHH′F′; and the relation of the principal points to the vertices is also the same as in the mensicus.

(4) If r1 and r2 are both negative. This case is reduced to (3) above, by assuming a change in the direction of the light, or, in other words, by interchanging the object- and image-spaces.

The six forms shown in fig. 9 are all used in optical constructions. It may be stated fairly generally that lenses which are thicker at the middle are collective, while those which are thinnest at the middle are dispersive.

Different Positions of Object and Image.—The principal points are always near the surfaces limiting the lens, and consequently the lens divides the direct pencil containing the axis into two parts. The object can be either in front of or behind the lens as in fig. 10. If the object point be in front of the lens, and if it be realized by rays passing from it, it is called real. If, on the other hand, the object be behind the lens, it is called virtual; it does not actually exist, and can only be realized as an image.

When we speak of “object-points,” it is always understood that the rays from the object traverse the first surface of the lens before meeting the second. In the same way, images may be either real or virtual. If the image be behind the second surface, it is real, and can be intercepted on a screen. If, however, it be in front of the lens, it is visible to an eye placed behind the lens, although the rays do not actually intersect, but only appear to do so, but the image cannot be intercepted on a screen behind the lens. Such an image is said to be virtual. These relations are shown in fig. 11.

By referring to the equations given above, it is seen that a thin convergent lens produces both real and virtual images of real objects, but only a real image of a virtual object, whilst a divergent lens produces a virtual image of a real object and both real and virtual images of a virtual object. The construction of a real image of a real object by a convergent lens is shown in fig. 3; and that of a virtual image of a real object by a divergent lens in fig. 12.

The optical centre of a lens is a point such that, for any ray which passes through it, the incident and emergent rays are parallel. The idea of the optical centre was originally due to J. Harris (Treatise on Optics, 1775); it is not properly a cardinal point, although it has several interesting properties. In fig. 13, let C1P1 and C2P2 be two parallel radii of a biconvex lens. Join P1P2 and let O1P1 and O2P2 be incident and emergent rays which have P1P2 for the path through the lens. Then if M be the intersection of P1P2 with the axis, we have angle C1P1M = angle C2P2M; these two angles are—for a ray travelling in the direction O1P1P2O2—the angles of emergence and of incidence respectively. From the similar triangles C2P2M and C1P1M we have

C1M : C2M = C1P1 : C2P2 = r1 : r2.

(11)

Such rays as P1P2 therefore divide the distance C1C2 in the ratio of the radii, i.e. at the fixed point M, the optical centre. Calling S1M = s1, S2M = s2, then C1S1 = C1M + MS1 = C1M − S1M, i.e. since C1S1 = r1, C1M = r1 + s1, and similarly C2M = r2 + s2. Also S1S2 = S1M + MS2 = S1M − S2M, i.e. d = s1 − s2. Then by using equation (11) we have s1 = r1d/(r − r2) and s2 = r2d/(r1 − r2), and hence s1/s2 = r1/r2. The vertex distances of the optical centre are therefore in the ratio of the radii.

The values of s1 and s2 show that the optical centre of a biconvex or biconcave lens is in the interior of the lens, that in a plano-convex or plano-concave lens it is at the vertex of the curved surface, and in a concavo-convex lens outside the lens.

The Wave-theory Derivation of the Focal Length.—The formulae above have been derived by means of geometrical rays. We here give an account of Lord Rayleigh’s wave-theory derivation of the focal length of a convex lens in terms of the aperture, thickness and refractive index (Phil. Mag. 1879 (5) 8, p. 480; 1885, 20, p. 354); the argument is based on the principle that the optical distance from object to image is constant.

“Taking the case of a convex lens of glass, let us suppose that parallel rays DA, EC, GB (fig. 14) fall upon the lens ACB, and are collected by it to a focus at F. The points D, E, G, equally distant from ACB, lie upon a front of the wave before it impinges upon the lens. The focus is a point at which the different parts of the wave arrive at the same time, and that such a point can exist depends upon the fact that the propagation is slower in glass than in air. The ray ECF is retarded from having to pass through the thickness (d) of glass by the amount (n − 1)d. The ray DAF, which traverses only the extreme edge of the lens, is retarded merely on account of the crookedness of its path, and the amount of the retardation is measured by AF − CF. If F is a focus these retardations must be equal, or AF − CF = (n − 1)d. Now if y be the semi-aperture AC of the lens, and f be the focal length CF, AF − CF = √(f2 + y2) − f = ½y2/f approximately, whence

f = ½y2 / (n − 1)d.

(12)

In the case of plate-glass (n − 1) = ½ (nearly), and then the rule (12) may be thus stated: the semi-aperture is a mean proportional between the focal length and the thickness. The form (12) is in general the more significant, as well as the more practically useful, but we may, of course, express the thickness in terms of the curvatures and semi-aperture by means of d = ½y2 (r1−1 − r2−1). In the preceding statement it has been supposed for simplicity that the lens comes to a sharp edge. If this be not the case we must take as the thickness of the lens the difference of the thicknesses at the centre and at the circumference. In this form the statement is applicable to concave lenses, and we see that the focal length is positive when the lens is thickest at the centre, but negative when the lens is thickest at the edge.”

Regulation of the Rays.

The geometrical theory of optical instruments can be conveniently divided into four parts: (1) The relations of the positions and sizes of objects and their images (see above); (2) the different aberrations from an ideal image (see Aberration); (3) the intensity of radiation in the object- and image-spaces, in other words, the alteration of brightness caused by physical or geometrical influences; and (4) the regulation of the rays (Strahlenbegrenzung).

The regulation of rays will here be treated only in systems free from aberration. E. Abbe first gave a connected theory; and M. von Rohr has done a great deal towards the elaboration. The Gauss cardinal points make it simple to construct the image of a given object. No account is taken of the size of the system, or whether the rays used for the construction really assist in the reproduction of the image or not. The diverging cones of rays coming from the object-points can only take a certain small part in the production of the image in consequence of the apertures of the lenses, or of diaphragms. It often happens that the rays used for the construction of the image do not pass through the system; the image being formed by quite different rays. If we take a luminous point of the object lying on the axis of the system then an eye introduced at the image-point sees in the instrument several concentric rings, which are either the fittings of the lenses or their images, or the real diaphragms or their images. The innermost and smallest ring is completely lighted, and forms the origin of the cone of rays entering the image-space. Abbe called it the exit pupil. Similarly there is a corresponding smallest ring in the object-space which limits the entering cone of rays. This is called the entrance pupil. The real diaphragm acting as a limit at any part of the system is called the aperture-diaphragm. These diaphragms remain for all practical purposes the same for all points lying on the axis. It sometimes happens that one and the same diaphragm fulfils the functions of the entrance pupil and the aperture-diaphragm or the exit pupil and the aperture-diaphragm.

Fig. 15 shows the general but simplified case of the different diaphragms which are of importance for the regulation of the rays. S1, S2 are two centred systems. A′ is a real diaphragm lying between them. B1 and B′2 are the fittings of the systems. Then S1 produces the virtual image A of the diaphragm A′ and the image B2 of the fitting B′2, whilst the system S2 makes the virtual image A″ of the diaphragm A′ and the virtual image B′1 of the fitting B1. The object-point O is reproduced really through the whole system in the point O′. From the object-point O three diaphragms can be seen in the object-space, viz. the fitting B1, the image of the fitting B2 and the image A of the diaphragm A′ formed by the system S1. The cone of rays nearest to B2 is not received to its total extent by the fitting B1, and the cone which has entered through B1 is again diminished in its further course, when passing through the diaphragm A′, so that the cone of rays really used for producing the image is limited by A, the diaphragm which seen from O appears to be the smallest. A is therefore the entrance pupil. The real diaphragm A′ which limits the rays in the centre of the system is the aperture diaphragm. Similarly three diaphragms lying in the image-space are to be seen from the image-point O′—namely B′, A″, and B′2. A″ limits the rays in the image-space, and is therefore the exit pupil. As A is conjugate to the diaphragm A′ in the system S1, and A″ to the same diaphragm A′ in the system S2, the entrance pupil A is conjugate to the exit pupil A″ throughout the instrument. This relation between entrance and exit pupils is general.

The apices of the cones of rays producing the image of points near the axis thus lie in the object-points, and their common base is the entrance pupil. The axis of such a cone, which connects the object point with the centre of the entrance pupil, is called the principal ray. Similarly, the principal rays in the image-space join the centre of the exit pupil with the image-points. The centres of the entrance and exit pupils are thus the intersections of the principal rays.

For points lying farther from the axis, the entrance pupil no longer alone limits the rays, the other diaphragms taking part. In fig. 16 only one diaphragm L is present besides the entrance pupil A, and the object-space is divided to a certain extent into four parts. The section M contains all points rendered by a system with a complete aperture; N contains all points rendered by a system with a gradually diminishing aperture; but this diminution does not attain the principal ray passing through the centre C. In the section O are those points rendered by a system with an aperture which gradually decreases to zero. No rays pass from the points of the section P through the system and no image can arise from them. The second diaphragm L therefore limits the three-dimensional object-space containing the points which can be rendered by the optical system. From C through this diaphragm L this three-dimensional object-space can be seen as through a window. L is called by M von Rohr the entrance luke. If several diaphragms can be seen from C, then the entrance luke is the diaphragm which seen from C appears the smallest. In the sections N and O the entrance luke also takes part in limiting the cones of rays. This restriction is known as the “vignetting” action of the entrance luke. The base of the cone of rays for the points of this section of the object-space is no longer a circle but a two-cornered curve which arises from the object-point by the projection of the entrance luke on the entrance pupil. Fig. 17a shows the base of such a cone of rays. It often happens that besides the entrance luke, another diaphragm acts in a vignetting manner, then the operating aperture of the cone of rays is a curve made up of circular arcs formed out of the entrance pupil and the two projections of the two acting diaphragms (fig. 17b).

If the entrance pupil is narrow, then the section NO, in which the vignetting is increasing, is diminished, and there is really only one division of the section M which can be reproduced, and of the section P which cannot be reproduced. The angle w + w = 2w, comprising the section which can be reproduced, is called the angle of the field of view on the object-side. The field of view 2w retains its importance if the entrance pupil is increased. It then comprises all points reached by principal rays. The same relations apply to the image-space, in which there is an exit luke, which, seen from the middle of the exit pupil, appears under the smallest angle. It is the image of the entrance luke produced by the whole system. The image-side field of view 2w′ is the angle comprised by the principal rays reaching the edge of the exit luke.

Most optical instruments are used to observe object-reliefs (three-dimensional objects), and generally an image-relief (a three-dimensional image) is conjugate to this object-relief. It is sometimes required, however, to represent by means of an optical instrument the object-relief on a plane or on a ground-glass as in the photographic camera. For simplicity we shall assume the intercepting plane as perpendicular to the axis and shall call it, after von Rohr, the “ground glass plane.” All points of the image not lying in this plane produce circular spots (corresponding to the form of the pupils) on it, which are called “circles of confusion.” The ground-glass plane (fig. 18) is conjugate to the object-plane E in the object-space, perpendicular to the axis, and called the “plane focused for.” All points lying in this plane are reproduced exactly on the ground-glass plane as the points OO. The circle of confusion Z on the plane focused for corresponds to the circle of confusion Z′ on the ground-glass plane. The figure formed on the plane focused for by the cones of rays from all of the object-points of the total object-space directed to the entrance pupil, was called “object-side representation” (imago) by M von Rohr. This representation is a central projection. If, for instance, the entrance pupil is imagined so small that only the principal rays pass through, then they project directly, and the intersections of the principal rays represent the projections of the points of the object lying off the plane focused for. The centre of the projection or the perspective centre is the middle point of the entrance pupil C. If the entrance pupil is opened, in place of points, circles of confusion appear, whose size depends upon the size of the entrance pupil and the position of the object-points and the plane focused for. The intersection of the principal ray is the centre of the circle of confusion. The clearness of the representation on the plane focused for is of course diminished by the circles of confusion. This central projection does not at all depend upon the instrument, but is entirely geometrical, arising when the position and the size of the entrance pupil, and the position of the plane focused for have been fixed. The instrument then produces an image on the ground-glass plane of this perspective representation on the plane focused for, and on account of the exact likeness which this image has to the object-side representation it is called the “representation copy.” By moving it round an angle of 180°, this representation can be brought into a perspective position to the objects, so that all rays coming from the middle of the entrance pupil and aiming at the object-points, would always meet the corresponding image-points. This representation is accessible to the observer in different ways in different instruments. If the observer desires a perfectly correct perspective impression of the object-relief the distance of the pivot of the eye from the representation copy must be equal to the nth part of the distance of the plane focused for from the entrance pupil, if the instrument has produced a nth diminution of the object-side representation. The pivot of the eye must coincide with the centre of the perspective, because all images are observed in direct vision. It is known that the pivot of the eye is the point of intersection of all the directions in which one can look. Thus all these points represented by circles of confusion which are less than the angular sharpness of vision appear clear to the eye; the space containing all these object-points, which appear clear to the eye, is called the depth. The depth of definition, therefore, is not a special property of the instrument, but depends on the size of the entrance pupil, the position of the plane focused for and on the conditions under which the representation can be observed.

If the distance of the representation from the pivot of the eye be altered from the correct distance already mentioned, the angles of vision under which various objects appear are changed; perspective errors arise, causing an incorrect idea to be given of the depth. A simple case is shown in fig. 19. A cube is the object, and if it is observed as in fig. 19a with the representation copy at the correct distance, a correct idea of a cube will be obtained. If, as in figs. 19b and 19c, the distance is too great, there can be two results. If it is known that the farthest section is just as high as the nearer one then the cube appears exceptionally deepened, like a long parallelepipedon. But if it is known to be as deep as it is high then the eye will see it low at the back and high at the front. The reverse occurs when the distance of observation is too short, the body then appears either too flat, or the nearer sections seem too low in relation to those farther off. These perspective errors can be seen in any telescope. In the telescope ocular the representation copy has to be observed under too large an angle or at too short a distance: all objects therefore appear flattened, or the more distant objects appear too large in comparison with those nearer at hand.

After von Rohr.

After von Rohr. After von Rohr.

After von Rohr.

From the above the importance of experience will be inferred. But it is not only necessary that the objects themselves be known to the observer but also that they are presented to his eye in the customary manner. This depends upon the way in which the principal rays pass through the system—in other words, upon the special kind of “transmission” of the principal rays. In ordinary vision the pivot of the eye is the centre of the perspective representation which arises on the very distant plane standing perpendicular to the mean direction of sight. In this kind of central projection all objects lying in front of the plane focused for are diminished when projected on this plane, and those lying behind it are magnified. (The distances are always given in the direction of light.) Thus the objects near to the eye appear large and those farther from it appear small. This perspective has been called by M von Rohr “entocentric transmission” (fig. 20). If the entrance pupil of the instrument lies at infinity, then all the principal rays are parallel and the projections of all objects on the plane focused for are exactly as large as the objects themselves. After E. Abbe, this course of rays is called “telecentric transmission” (fig. 21). The exit pupil then lies in the image-side focus of the system. If the perspective centre lies in front of the plane focused for, then the objects lying in front of this plane are magnified and those behind it are diminished. This is just the reverse of perspective representation in ordinary sight, so that the relations of size and the arrangements for space must be quite incorrectly indicated (fig. 22); this representation is called by M von Rohr a “hypercentric transmission.”

(O. Hr.)

M von Rohr, Zeitschr. für Sinnesphysiologie (1907), xli. 408-429.

LENT (O. Eng. lencten, “spring,” M. Eng. lenten, lente, lent; cf. Dut. lente, Ger. Lenz, “spring,” O. H. Ger. lenzin, lengizin, lenzo, probably from the same root as “long” and referring to “the lengthening days”), in the Christian Church, the period of fasting preparatory to the festival of Easter. As this fast falls in the early part of the year, it became confused with the season, and gradually the word Lent, which originally meant spring, was confined to this use. The Latin name for the fast, Quadragesima (whence Ital. quaresima, Span. cuaresma and Fr. carême), and its Gr. equivalent τεσσαρακοστή (now superseded by the term ἡ νηστεία “the fast”), are derived from the Sunday which was the fortieth day before Easter, as Quinquagesima and Sexagesima are the fiftieth and sixtieth, Quadragesima being until the 7th century the caput jejunii or first day of the fast.

The length of this fast and the rigour with which it has been observed have varied greatly at different times and in different countries (see Fasting). In the time of Irenaeus the fast before Easter was very short, but very severe; thus some ate nothing for forty hours between the afternoon of Good Friday and the morning of Easter. This was the only authoritatively prescribed fast known to Tertullian (De jejunio, 2, 13, 14; De oratione, 18). In Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century it was already customary to fast during Holy Week; and earlier still the Montanists boasted that they observed a two weeks’ fast instead of one. Of the Lenten fast or Quadragesima, the first mention is in the fifth canon of the council of Nicaea (325), and from this time it is frequently referred to, but chiefly as a season of preparation for baptism, of absolution of penitents or of retreat and recollection. In this season fasting played a part, but it was not universally nor rigorously enforced. At Rome, for instance, the whole period of fasting was but three weeks, according to the historian Socrates (Hist. eccl. v. 22), these three weeks, in Mgr. Duchesne’s opinion, being not continuous but, following the primitive Roman custom, broken by intervals. Gradually, however, the fast as observed in East and West became more rigorously defined. In the East, where after the example of the Church of Antioch the Quadragesima fast had been kept distinct from that of Holy Week, the whole fast came to last for seven weeks, both Saturdays and Sundays (except Holy Saturday) being, however, excluded. In Rome and Alexandria, and even in Jerusalem, Holy Week was included in Lent and the whole fast lasted but six weeks, Saturdays, however, not being exempt. Both at Rome and Constantinople, therefore, the actual fast was but thirty-six days. Some Churches still continued the three weeks’ fast, but by the middle of the 5th century most of these divergences had ceased and the usages of Antioch-Constantinople and Rome-Alexandria had become stereotyped in their respective spheres of influence.

The thirty-six days, as forming a tenth part of the year and therefore a perfect number, at first found a wide acceptance (so Cassianus, Coll. xxi. 30); but the inconsistency of this period with the name Quadragesima, and with the forty days’ fast of Christ, came to be noted, and early in the 7th century four days were added, by what pope is unknown, Lent in the West beginning henceforth on Ash Wednesday (q.v.). About the same time the cycle of paschal solemnities was extended to the ninth week before Easter by the institution of stational masses for Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima Sundays. At Constantinople, too, three Sundays were added and associated with the Easter festival in the same way as the Sundays in Lent proper. These three Sundays were added in the Greek Church also, and the present custom of keeping an eight weeks’ fast (i.e. exactly 8×5 days), now universal in the Eastern Church, originated in the 7th century. The Greek Lent begins on the Monday of Sexagesima, with a week of preparatory fasting, known as τυροφάγια, or the “butter-week”; the actual fast, however, starts on the Monday of Quinquagesima (Estomihi), this week being known as “the first week of the fast” (ἑβδομὰς τῶν νηστειῶν). The period of Lent is still described as “the six weeks of the fast” (ἓξ ἑβδομάδες τῶν νηστειῶν), Holy Week (ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη ἑβδομάς) not being reckoned in. The Lenten fast was retained at the Reformation in some of the reformed Churches, and is still observed in the Anglican and Lutheran communions. In England a Lenten fast was first ordered to be observed by Earconberht, king of Kent (640-664). In the middle ages, meat, eggs and milk were forbidden in Lent not only by ecclesiastical but by statute law; and this rule was enforced until the reign of william III. The chief Lenten food from the earliest days was fish, and entries in the royal household accounts of Edward III. show the amount of fish supplied to the king. Herring-pies were a great delicacy. Charters granted to seaports often stipulated that the town should send so many herrings or other fish to the king annually during Lent. How severely strict medieval abstinence was may be gauged from the fact that armies and garrisons were sometimes, in default of dispensations, as in the case of the siege of Orleans in 1429, reduced to starvation for want of Lenten food, though in full possession of meat and other supplies. The battle of the Herrings (February 1429) was fought in order to cover the march of a convoy of Lenten food to the English army besieging Orleans. Dispensations from fasting were, however, given in case of illness.

During the religious confusion of the Reformation, the practice of fasting was generally relaxed and it was found necessary to reassert the obligation of keeping Lent and the other periods and days of abstinence by a series of proclamations and statutes. In these, however, the religious was avowedly subordinate to a political motive, viz. to prevent the ruin of the fisheries, which were the great nursery of English seamen. Thus the statute of 2 and 3 Edward VI., cap. 9 (1549), while inculcating that “due and godly abstinence from flesh is a means to virtue,” adds that “by the eating of fish much flesh is saved to the country,” and that thereby, too, the fishing trade is encouraged. The statute, however, would not seem to have had much effect; for in spite of a proclamation of Queen Elizabeth in 1560 imposing a fine of £20 for each offence on butchers slaughtering animals during Lent, in 1563 Sir William Cecil, in Notes upon an Act for the Increase of the Navy, says that “in old times no flesh at all was eaten on fish days; even the king himself could not have license; which was occasion of eating so much fish as now is eaten in flesh upon fish days.” The revolt against fish had ruined the fisheries and driven the fishermen to turn pirates, to the great scandal and detriment of the realm. Accordingly, in the session of 1562-1563, Cecil forced upon an unwilling parliament “a politic ordinance on fish eating,” by which the eating of flesh on fast days was made punishable by a fine of three pounds or three months’ imprisonment, one meat dish being allowed on Wednesdays on condition that three fish dishes were present on the table. The kind of argument by which Cecil overcame the Protestant temper of the parliament is illustrated by a clause which he had meditated adding to the statute, a draft of which in his own handwriting is preserved: “Because no person should misjudge the intent of the statute,” it runs, “which is politicly meant only for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and not for any superstition for choice of meats; whoever shall preach or teach that eating of fish or forbearing of flesh is for the saving of the soul of man, or for the service of God, shall be punished as the spreader of false news” (Dom. MSS., Elizabeth, vol. xxvii.). But in spite of statutes and proclamations, of occasional severities and of the patriotic example of Queen Elizabeth, the practice of fasting fell more and more into disuse. Ostentatious avoidance of a fish-diet became, indeed, one of the outward symbols of militant Protestantism among the Puritans. “I have often noted,” writes John Taylor, the water-poet, in his Jack a Lent (1620), “that if any superfluous feasting or gormandizing, paunch-cramming assembly do meet, it is so ordered that it must be either in Lent, upon a Friday, or a fasting: for the meat does not relish well except it be sauced with disobedience and comtempt of authority.” The government continued to struggle against this spirit of defiance; proclamations of James I. in 1619 and 1625, and of Charles I. in 1627 and 1631, again commanded abstinence from all flesh during Lent, and the High Church movement of the 17th century lent a fresh religious sanction to the official attitude. So late as 1687, James II. issued a proclamation ordering abstention from meat; but, after the Revolution, the Lenten laws fell obsolete, though they remained on the statute-book till repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863. But during the 18th century, though the strict observance of the Lenten fast was generally abandoned, it was still observed and inculcated by the more earnest of the clergy, such as William Law and John Wesley; and the custom of women wearing mourning in Lent, which had been followed by Queen Elizabeth and her court, survived until well into the 19th century. With the growth of the Oxford Movement in the English Church, the practice of observing Lent was revived; and, though no rules for fasting are authoritatively laid down, the duty of abstinence is now very generally inculcated by bishops and clergy, either as a discipline or as an exercise in self-denial. For the more “advanced” Churches, Lenten practice tends to conform to that of the pre-Reformation Church.

Mid-Lent, or the fourth Sunday in Lent, was long known as Mothering Sunday, in allusion to the custom for girls in service to be allowed a holiday on that day to visit their parents. They usually took as a present for their mother a small cake known as a simnel. In shape it resembled a pork-pie but in materials it was a rich plum-pudding. The word is derived through M. Lat. simenellus, simella, from Lat. simila, wheat flour. In Gloucestershire simnel cakes are still common; and at Usk, Monmouth, the custom of mothering is still scrupulously observed.

LENTHALL, WILLIAM (1591-1662), English parliamentarian, speaker of the House of Commons, second son of William Lenthall, of Lachford, Oxfordshire, a descendent of an old Herefordshire family, was born at Henley-on-Thames in June 1591. He left Oxford without taking a degree in 1609, and was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1616, becoming a bencher in 1633. He represented Woodstock in the Short Parliament (April 1640), and was chosen by King Charles I. to be speaker of the Long Parliament, which met on the 3rd of November 1640. According to Clarendon, a worse choice could not have been made, for Lenthall was of a “very timorous nature.” He was treated with scanty respect in the chair, and seems to have had little control over the proceedings. On the 4th of January 1642, however, when the king entered the House of Commons to seize the five members, Lenthall behaved with great prudence and dignity. Having taken the speaker’s chair and looked round in vain to discover the offending members, Charles turned to Lenthall standing below, and demanded of him “whether any of those persons were in the House, whether he saw any of them and where they were.” Lenthall fell on his knees and replied: “May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.” On the outbreak of the great rebellion, Lenthall threw in his lot with the parliament. He had already called attention to the inadequacy of his salary and been granted a sum of £6000 (9th of April 1642); and he was now appointed master of the rolls (22nd of November 1643), and one of the commissioners of the great seal (Oct. 1646-March 1648).

He carried on his duties as speaker without interruption till 1647, when the power of the parliament had been transferred to the army. On the 26th of July a mob invaded the House of Commons and obliged it to rescind the ordinance re-establishing the old parliamentary committee of militia; Lenthall was held in the chair by main force and compelled to put to the vote a resolution inviting the king to London. Threats of worse things came subsequently to Lenthall’s ears, and, taking the mace with him, he left London on the 29th to join the army and Fairfax. Lenthall and Manchester, the speaker of the Lords, headed the fugitive members at the review on Hounslow Heath on the 3rd of August, being received by the soldiers “as so many angels sent from heaven for their good.” Returning to London with the army, he was installed again by Fairfax in the chair (6th August), and all votes passed during his absence were annulled. He adhered henceforth to the army party, but with a constant bias in favour of the king.

At the Restoration he claimed to have sent money to the king at Oxford, to have provided the queen with comforts and necessaries and to have taken care of the royal children. But he put the question for the king’s trial from the chair, and continued to act as speaker after the king’s execution. He still continued to use his influence in favour of the royalists, whenever this was possible without imperilling his own interests, and he saved the lives of both the earl of Norwich (8th March 1649) and Sir W. D’Avenant (3rd July 1650) by his casting vote. The removal of the king had left the parliament supreme; and Lenthall as its representative, though holding little real power, was the first man in the state.

His speakership continued till the 20th of April 1653, when the Long Parliament was summarily expelled. Cromwell directed Colonel Harrison, on the refusal of Lenthall to quit the chair, to pull him out—and Lenthall submitted to the show of force. He took no part in politics till the assembling of the first protectorate parliament, on the 3rd of September 1654, in which he sat as member for Oxfordshire. He was again chosen speaker, his former experience and his pliability of character being his chief recommendations. In the second protectorate parliament, summoned by Cromwell on the 17th of September 1656, Lenthall was again chosen member for Oxfordshire, but had some difficulty in obtaining admission, and was not re-elected speaker. He supported Cromwell’s administration, and was active in urging the protector to take the title of king. In spite of his services, Lenthall was not included by Cromwell in his new House of Lords, and was much disappointed and crestfallen at his omission. The protector, hearing of his “grievous complaint,” sent him a writ, and Lenthall was elated at believing he had secured a peerage. After Cromwell’s death, the officers, having determined to recall the “Rump” Parliament, assembled at Lenthall’s house at the Rolls (6th May 1659), to desire him to send out the writs. Lenthall, however, had no wish to resume his duties as speaker, preferring the House of Lords, and made various excuses for not complying. Nevertheless, upon the officers threatening to summon the parliament without his aid, and hearing the next morning that several members had assembled, he led the procession to the parliament house. Lenthall was now restored to the position of dignity which he had filled before. He was temporarily made keeper of the new great seal (14th of May). On the 6th of June it was voted that all commissions should be signed by Lenthall and not by the commander-in-chief. His exalted position, however, was not left long unassailed. On the 13th of October Lambert placed soldiers round the House and prevented the members from assembling. Lenthall’s coach was stopped as he was entering Palace Yard, the mace was seized and he was obliged to return. The army, however, soon returned to their allegiance to the parliament. On the 24th of December they marched to Lenthall’s house, and expressed their sorrow. On the 29th the speaker received the thanks of the reassembled parliament.

Lenthall now turned his attention to bring about the Restoration. He “very violently” opposed the oath abjuring the house of Stuart, now sought to be imposed by the republican faction on the parliament, and absented himself from the House for ten days, to avoid, it was said, any responsibility for the bill. He had been in communication with Monk for some time, and on Monk entering London with his army (3rd February 1660) Lenthall met him in front of Somerset House. On the 6th of February Monk visited the House of Commons, when Lenthall pronounced a speech of thanks. On the 28th of March Lenthall forwarded to the king a paper containing “Heads of Advice.” According to Monk, he “was very active for the restoring of His Majesty and performed many services ... which could not have been soe well effected without his helpe.” Lenthall notwithstanding found himself in disgrace at the Restoration. In spite of Monk’s recommendation, he was not elected by Oxford University for the Convention Parliament, nor was he allowed by the king, though he had sent him a present of £3000, to remain master of the rolls. On the 11th of June he was included by the House of Commons, in spite of a recommendatory letter from Monk, among the twenty persons excepted from the act of indemnity and subject to penalties not extending to life. In the House of Lords, however, Monk’s testimony and intercession were effectual, and Lenthall was only declared incapable of holding for the future any public office. His last public act was a disgraceful one. Unmindful now of the privileges of parliament, he consented to appear as a witness against the regicide Thomas Scot, for words spoken in the House of Commons while Lenthall was in the chair. It was probably after this that he was allowed to present himself at court, and his contemporaries took a malicious glee in telling how “when, with some difficulty, he obtained leave to kiss the king’s hand he, out of guilt, fell backward, as he was kneeling.”

Lenthall died on the 3rd of September 1662. In his will he desired to be buried without any state and without a monument, “but at the utmost a plain stone with this superscription only, Vermis sum, acknowledging myself to be unworthy of the least outward regard in this world and unworthy of any remembrance that hath been so great a sinner.” He was held in little honour by his contemporaries, and was universally regarded as a time-server. He was, however, a man of good intentions, strong family affections and considerable ability. Unfortunately he was called by the irony of fate to fill a great office, in which governed constantly by fears for his person and estate, he was seduced into a series of unworthy actions. He left one son, Sir John Lenthall, who had descendants. His brother, Sir John Lenthall, who, it was said, had too much influence with him, was notorious for his extortions as keeper of the King’s Bench prison.

See C. H. Firth in the Dict. Nat. Biog.; Wood (ed. Bliss), Ath. Oxon. iii. 603, who gives a list of his printed speeches and letters; Foss, Lives of the Judges, vi. 447; and J. A. Manning, Lives of the Speakers of the House of Commons. There are numerous references to Lenthall in his official capacity, and letters written by and to him, in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, and in various MSS. calendared in the Hist. MSS. Commission Series. See also D’Ewes’s Diary, in the Harleian Collection, British Museum, some extracts from which have been given by J. Forster, Case of the Five Members, 233 sq.; and Notes and Queries, ser. iii., vii. 45 (“Lenthall’s Lamentation”), viii., i. 165, 338, 2, ix., xi. 57.

LENTIL, the seed of Lens esculenta (also known as Ervum Lens), a small annual of the vetch tribe. The plant varies from 6 to 18 in. in height, and has many long ascending branches. The leaves are alternate, with six pairs of oblong-linear, obtuse, mucronate leaflets. The flowers, two to four in number, are of a pale blue colour, and are borne in the axils of the leaves, on a slender footstalk nearly equalling the leaves in length; they are produced in June or early in July. The pods are about ½ in. long, broadly oblong, slightly inflated, and contain two seeds, which are of the shape of a doubly convex lens, and about 1⁄6 in. in diameter. There are several cultivated varieties of the plant, differing in size, hairiness and colour of the leaves, flowers and seeds. The last may be more or less compressed in shape, and in colour may vary from yellow or grey to dark brown; they are also sometimes mottled or speckled. In English commerce two kinds of lentils are principally met with, French and Egyptian. The former are usually sold entire, and are of an ash-grey colour externally and of a yellow tint within; the latter are usually sold like split peas, without the seed coat, and consist of the reddish-yellow cotyledons, which are smaller and rounder than those of the French lentil; the seed coat when present is of a dark brown colour. Considerable quantities of lentils are also imported into the United States.

The native country of the lentil is not known. It was probably one of the first plants brought under cultivation by mankind; lentils have been found in the lake dwellings of St Peter’s Island, Lake of Bienne, which are of the Bronze age. The name ‘adas (Heb. עדש) appears to be an original Semitic word, and the red pottage of lentils for which Esau sold his birthright (Gen. xxv. 34) was apparently made from the red Egyptian lentil. This lentil is cultivated in one or other variety in India, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Nubia and North Africa, and in Europe, along the coast of the Mediterranean, and as far north as Germany, Holland and France. In Egypt, Syria and other Eastern countries the parched seeds are exposed for sale in shops, and esteemed the best food to carry on long journeys. Lentils form a chief ingredient in the Spanish puchero, and are used in a similar way in France and other countries. For this purpose they are usually sold in the shelled state.

The reddish variety of the lentil (lentillon d’hiver) is the kind most esteemed in Paris on account of the superior flavour of its smaller seeds. It is sown in autumn either with a cereal crop or alone, and is cultivated chiefly in the north and east of France. The large or common variety, lentille large blonde, cultivated in Lorraine and at Gallardon (Eure-et-Loir), and largely in Germany, is the most productive, but is less esteemed. This kind has very small whitish flowers, two or rarely three on a footstalk, and the pods are generally one-seeded, the seeds being of a whitish or cream colour, about 3⁄8 of an inch broad and 1⁄8 in. thick. A single plant produces from 100 to 150 pods, which are flattened, about ¾ in. long and ½ in. broad. Another variety, with seeds similar in form and colour to the last, but of much smaller size, is known as the lentillon de Mars. It is sown in spring. This variety and the lentille large are both sometimes called the lentille à la reine. A small variety, lentille verte du Puy, cultivated chiefly in the departments of Haute Loire and Cantal, is also grown as a vegetable and for forage. The Egyptian lentil was introduced into Britain in 1820. It has blue flowers. Another species of lentil, Ervum monanthos, is grown in France about Orleans and elsewhere under the name of jarosse and jarande. It is, according to Vilmorin, one of the best kinds of green food to grow on a poor dry sandy soil; on calcareous soil it does not succeed so well. It is usually sown in autumn with a little rye or winter oats, at the rate of a hectolitre to a hectare.

The lentil prefers a light warm sandy soil; on rich land it runs to leaf and produces but few pods. The seeds are sown in March or April or early in May, according to the climate of the country, as they cannot endure night frosts. If for fodder they are sown broadcast, but in drills if the ripe seeds are required. The pods are gathered in August or September, as soon as they begin to turn brown—the plants being pulled up like flax while the foliage is still green, and on a dry day lest the pods split in drying and loss of seed takes place. Lentils keep best in the husk so far as flavour is concerned, and will keep good in this way for two years either for sowing or for food. An acre of ground yields on an average about 11 cwt. of seed and 30 cwt. of straw. The amount and character of the mineral matter requisite in the soil may be judged from the analysis of the ash, which in the seeds has as its chief ingredients—potash 34.6%, soda 9.5, lime 6.3, phosphoric acid 36.2, chloride of sodium 7.6, while in the straw the percentages are—potash 10.8, lime 52.3, silica 17.6, phosphoric acid 12.3, chloride of sodium 2.1.

Lentils have attracted considerable notice among vegetarians as a food material, especially for soup. A Hindu proverb says, “Rice is good, but lentils are my life.” The husk of the seed is indigestible, and to cook lentils properly requires at least two and a half hours, but they are richer in nutritious matter than almost any other kind of pulse, containing, according to Payen’s analysis, 25.2% of nitrogenous matter (legumin), 56% of starch and 2.6% of fatty matter. Fresenius’s analysis differs in giving only 35% of starch; Einhoff gives 32.81 of starch and 37.82% of nitrogenous matter. Lentils are more properly the food of the poor in all countries where they are grown, and have often been spurned when better food could be obtained, hence the proverb Dives factus jam desiit gaudere lente. The seeds are said to be good for pigeons, or mixed in a ground state with potatoes or barley for fattening pigs. The herbage is highly esteemed as green food for suckling ewes and all kinds of cattle (being said to increase the yield of milk), also for calves and lambs. Haller says that lentils are so flatulent as to kill horses. They were also believed to be the cause of severe scrofulous disorders common in Egypt. This bad reputation may possibly be due to the substitution of the seeds of the bitter vetch or tare lentil, Ervum Ervilia, a plant which closely resembles the true lentil in height, habit, flower and pod, but whose seeds are without doubt possessed of deleterious properties—producing weakness or even paralysis of the extremities in horses which have partaken of them. The poisonous principle seems to reside chiefly in the bitter seed coat, and can apparently be removed by steeping in water, since Gerard, speaking of the “bitter vetch” (E. Ervilia), says “kine in Asia and in most other countries do eat thereof, being made sweet by steeping in water.” The seed of E. Ervilia is about the same size and almost exactly of the same reddish-brown colour as that of the Egyptian lentil, and when the seed coat is removed they are both of the same orange red hue, but the former is not so bright as the latter. The shape is the best means of distinguishing the two seeds, that of E. Ervilia being obtusely triangular.

Sea-lentil is a name sometimes applied to the gulfweed Sargassum vulgare.

LENTULUS, the name of a Roman patrician family of the Cornelian gens, derived from lentes (“lentils”), which its oldest members were fond of cultivating (according to Pliny, Nat. Hist. xviii. 3, 10). The word Lentulitas (“Lentulism”; cf. Appietas) is coined by Cicero (Ad Fam. iii. 7, 5) to express the attributes of a pronounced aristocrat. The three first of the name were L. Cornelius Lentulus (consul 327 B.C.), Servius Cornelius Lentulus (consul 303) and L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (consul 275). Their connexion with the later Lentuli (especially those of the Ciceronian period) is very obscure and difficult to establish. The following members of the family deserve mention.

Publius Cornelius Lentulus, nicknamed Sura, one of the chief figures in the Catilinarian conspiracy. When accused by Sulla (to whom he had been quaestor in 81 B.C.) of having squandered the public money, he refused to render any account, but insolently held out the calf of his leg (sura), on which part of the person boys were punished when they made mistakes in playing ball. He was praetor in 75, governor of Sicily 74, consul 71. In 70, being expelled from the senate with a number of others for immorality, he joined Catiline. Relying upon a Sibylline oracle that three Cornelii should be rulers of Rome, Lentulus regarded himself as the destined successor of Cornelius Sulla and Cornelius Cinna. When Catiline left Rome after Cicero’s first speech In Catilinam, Lentulus took his place as chief of the conspirators in the city. In conjunction with C. Cornelius Cethegus, he undertook to murder Cicero and set fire to Rome, but the plot failed owing to his timidity and indiscretion. Ambassadors from the Allobroges being at the time in Rome, the bearers of a complaint against the oppressions of provincial governors, Lentulus made overtures to them, with the object of obtaining armed assistance. Pretending to fall in with his views, the ambassadors obtained a written agreement signed by the chief conspirators, and informed Q. Fabius Sanga, their “patron” in Rome, who in his turn acquainted Cicero. The conspirators were arrested and forced to admit their guilt. Lentulus was compelled to abdicate his praetorship, and, as it was feared that there might be an attempt to rescue him, he was put to death in the Tullianum on the 5th of December 63.

See Dio Cassius xxxvii. 30, xlvi. 20; Plutarch, Cicero, 17; Sallust, Catilina; Cicero, In Catilinam, iii., iv.; Pro Sulla, 25; also Catiline.

Publius Cornelius Lentulus, called Spinther from his likeness to an actor of that name, one of the chief adherents of the Pompeian party. In 63 B.C. he was curule aedile, assisted Cicero in the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy, and distinguished himself by the splendour of the games he provided. Praetor in 60, he obtained the governorship of Hispania Citerior (59) through the support of Caesar, to whom he was also indebted for his election to the consulship (57). Lentulus played a prominent part in the recall of Cicero from exile, and although a temporary coolness seems to have arisen between them, Cicero speaks of him in most grateful terms. From 56-53 Lentulus was governor of the province of Cilicia (with Cyprus) and during that time was commissioned by the senate to restore Ptolemy XI. Auletes to his kingdom (see Ptolemies). The Sibylline books, however, declared that the king must not be restored by force of arms, at the risk of peril to Rome. As a provincial governor, Lentulus appears to have looked after the interests of his subjects, and did not enrich himself at their expense. In spite of his indebtedness to Caesar, Lentulus joined the Pompeians on the outbreak of civil war (49). The generosity with which he was treated by Caesar after the capitulation of Corfinium made him hesitate, but he finally decided in favour of Pompey. After the battle of Pharsalus, Lentulus escaped to Rhodes, where he was at first refused admission, although he subsequently found an asylum there (Cicero, Ad Att. xi. 13. 1). According to Aurelius Victor (De vir. ill. lxxviii., 9, if the reading be correct), he subsequently fell into Caesar’s hands and was put to death.

See Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 15-23, iii. 102; Plutarch, Pomp. 49; Valerius Maximus ix. 14, 4; many letters of Cicero, especially Ad Fam. i. 1-9.

Lucius Cornelius Lentulus, surnamed Crus or Cruscello (for what reason is unknown), member of the anti-Caesarian party. In 61 B.C. he was the chief accuser of P. Clodius (q.v.) in the affair of the festival of Bona Dea. When consul (49) he advised the rejection of all peace terms offered by Caesar, and declared that, if the senate did not at once decide upon opposing him by force of arms, he would act upon his own responsibility. There seems no reason to doubt that Lentulus was mainly inspired by selfish motives, and hoped to find in civil war an opportunity for his own aggrandizement. But in spite of his brave words he fled in haste from Rome as soon as he heard of Caesar’s advance, and crossed over to Greece. After Pharsalus, he made his way to Rhodes (but was refused admission), thence, by way of Cyprus, to Egypt. He landed at Pelusium the day after the murder of Pompey, was immediately seized by Ptolemy, imprisoned, and put to death.

See Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 4, iii. 104; Plutarch, Pompey, 80.

A full account of the different Cornelii Lentuli, with genealogical table, will be found in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie, iv. pt. 1, p. 1355 (1900) (s.v. “Cornelius”); see also V. de Vit, Onomasticon, ii. 433.

LENZ, JAKOB MICHAEL REINHOLD (1751-1792), German poet, was born at Sesswegen in Livonia, the son of the village pastor, on the 12th of January 1751. He removed with his parents to Dorpat in 1759, and soon began to compose sacred odes, in the manner of Klopstock. In 1768 he entered the university of Königsberg as a student of theology, and in 1771 accompanied, as tutor, two young German nobles, named von Kleist, to Strassburg, where they were to enter the French army. In Strassburg Lenz was received into the literary circle that gathered round Friedrich Rudolf Salzmann (1749-1821) and became acquainted with Goethe, at that time a student at the university. In order to be close to his young pupils, Lenz had to remove to Fort Louis in the neighbourhood, and while here became deeply enamoured of Goethe’s friend, Friederike Elisabeth Brion (1752-1813), daughter of the pastor of Sesenheim. Lenz endeavoured, after Goethe’s departure from Strassburg, to replace the great poet in her affections, and to her he poured out songs and poems (Die Liebe auf dem Lande) which were long attributed to Goethe himself, as was also Lenz’s first drama, the comedy, Der Hofmeister, oder Vorteile der Privaterziehung (1774). In 1776 he visited Weimar and was most kindly received by the duke; but his rude, overbearing manner and vicious habits led to his expulsion. In 1777 he became insane, and in 1779 was removed from Emmendingen, where J. G. Schlosser (1739-1799), Goethe’s brother-in-law, had given him a home, to his native village. Here he lived in great poverty for several years, and then was given, more out of charity than on account of his merits, the appointment of tutor in a pension school near Moscow, where he died on the 24th of May 1792. Lenz, though one of the most talented poets of the Sturm und Drang period, presented a strange medley of genius and childishness. His great, though neglected and distorted, abilities found vent in ill-conceived imitations of Shakespeare. His comedies, Der Hofmeister; Der neue Menoza (1774); Die Soldaten (1776); Die Freunde machen den Philosophen (1776), though accounted the best of his works, are characterized by unnatural situations and an incongruous mixture of tragedy and comedy.

Lenz’s Gesammelte Schriften were published by L. Tieck in three volumes (1828); supplementary to these volumes are E. Dorer-Egloff, J. M. R. Lenz und seine Schriften (1857) and K. Weinhold, Dramatischer Nachlass von J. M. R. Lenz (1884); a selection of Lenz’s writings will be found in A. Sauer, Stürmer und Dränger, ii.; Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur, vol. lxxx., (1883). See further E. Schmidt, Lenz und Klinger (1878); J. Froitzheim, Lenz und Goethe (1891); H. Rauch, Lenz und Shakespeare (1892); F. Waldmann, Lenz in Briefen (1894).

LEO, the name of thirteen popes.

Leo I., who alone of Roman pontiffs shares with Gregory I. the surname of the Great, pope from 440 to 461, was a native of Rome, or, according to a less probable account, of Volterra in Tuscany. Of his family or early life nothing is known; that he was highly cultivated according to the standards of his time is obvious, but it does not appear that he could write Greek, or even that he understood that language. In one of the letters (Ep. 104) of Augustine, an acolyte named Leo is mentioned as having been in 418 the bearer of a communication from Sixtus of Rome (afterwards pope) to Aurelius of Carthage against the Pelagians. In 429, when the first unmistakable reference to Pope Leo occurs, he was still only a deacon, but already a man of commanding influence; it was at his suggestion that the De incarnatione of the aged Cassianus, having reference to the Nestorian heresy, was composed in that year, and about 431 we find Cyril of Alexandria writing to him that he might prevent the Roman Church from lending its support in any way to the ambitious schemes of Juvenal of Jerusalem. In 440, while Leo was in Gaul, whither he had been sent to compose some differences between Aetius and another general named Albinus, Pope Sixtus III. died. The absent deacon, or rather archdeacon, was unanimously chosen to succeed him, and received consecration on his return six weeks afterwards (September 29). In 443 he began to take measures against the Manichaeans (who since the capture of Carthage by Genseric in 439 had become very numerous at Rome), and in the following year he was able to report to the Italian bishops that some of the heretics had returned to Catholicism, while a large number had been sentenced to perpetual banishment “in accordance with the constitutions of the Christian emperors,” and others had fled; in seeking these out the help of the provincial clergy was sought. It was during the earlier years of Leo’s pontificate that the events in Gaul occurred which resulted in this triumph over Hilarius of Arles, signalized by the edict of Valentinian III. (445), denouncing the contumacy of the Gallic bishop, and enacting “that nothing should be done in Gaul, contrary to ancient usage, without the authority of the bishop of Rome, and that the decree of the apostolic see should henceforth be law.” In 447 Leo held the correspondence with Turribus of Astorga which led to the condemnation of the Priscillianists by the Spanish national church. In 448 he received with commendation a letter from Eutyches, the Constantinopolitan monk, complaining of the revival of the Nestorian heresy there; and in the following year Eutyches wrote his circular, appealing against the sentence which at the instance of Eusebius of Dorylaeum had been passed against him at a synod held in Constantinople under the presidency of the patriarch Flavian, and asking papal support at the oecumenical council at that time under summons to meet at Ephesus. The result of a correspondence was that Leo by his legates sent to Flavian that famous epistle in which he sets forth with great fulness of detail the doctrine ever since recognized as orthodox regarding the union of the two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. The events at the “robber” synod at Ephesus belong to general church history rather than to the biography of Leo; his letter, though submitted, was not read by the assembled fathers, and the papal legates had some difficulty in escaping with their lives from the violence of the theologians who, not content with deposing Flavian and Eusebius, shouted for the dividing of those who divided Christ. When the news of the result of this oecumenical council (oecumenical in every circumstance except that it was not presided over by the pope) reached Rome, Leo wrote to Theodosius “with groanings and tears,” requesting the emperor to sanction another council, to be held this time, however, in Italy. In this petition he was supported by Valentinian III., by the empress-mother Galla Placidia and by the empress Eudoxia, but the appeal was made in vain. A change, however, was brought about by the accession in the following year of Marcian, who three days after coming to the throne published an edict bringing within the scope of the penal laws against heretics the supporters of the dogmas of Apollinaris and Eutyches. To convoke a synod in which greater orthodoxy might reasonably be expected was in these circumstances no longer difficult, but all Leo’s efforts to secure that the meeting should take place on Italian soil were unavailing. When the synod of Chalcedon assembled in 451, the papal legates were treated with great respect, and Leo’s former letter to Flavian was adopted by acclamation as formulating the creed of the universal church on the subject of the person of Christ. Among the reasons urged by Leo for holding this council in Italy had been the threatening attitude of the Huns; the dreaded irruption took place in the following year (452). After Aquileia had succumbed to Attila’s long siege, the conqueror set out for Rome. Near the confluence of the Mincio and the Po he was met by Leo, whose eloquence persuaded him to turn back. Legend has sought to enhance the impressiveness of the occurrence by an unnecessarily imagined miracle. The pope was less successful with Genseric when the Vandal chief arrived under the walls of Rome in 455, but he secured a promise that there should be no incendiarism or murder, and that three of the oldest basilicas should be exempt from plunder—a promise which seems to have been faithfully observed. Leo died on the 10th of November 461, the liturgical anniversary being the 11th of April. His successor was Hilarius or Hilarus, who had been one of the papal legates at the “robber” synod in 449.

The title of doctor ecclesiae was given to Leo by Benedict XIV. As bishop of the diocese of Rome, Leo distinguished himself above all his predecessors by his preaching, to which he devoted himself with great zeal and success. From his short and pithy Sermones many of the lessons now to be found in the Roman breviary have been taken. Viewed in conjunction with his voluminous correspondence, the sermons sufficiently explain the secret of his greatness, which chiefly lay in the extraordinary strength and purity of his convictions as to the primacy of the successors of St Peter at a time when the civil and ecclesiastical troubles of the civilized world made men willing enough to submit themselves to any authority whatsoever that could establish its right to exist by courage, honesty and knowledge of affairs.

The works of Leo I. were first collectively edited by Quesnel (Lyons, 1700), and again, on the basis of this, in what is now the standard edition by Ballerini (Venice, 1753-1756). Ninety-three Sermones and one hundred and seventy-three Epistolae occupy the first volume; the second contains the Liber Sacramentorum, usually attributed to Leo, and the De Vocatione Omnium Gentium, also ascribed, by Quesnel and others, to him, but more probably the production of a certain Prosper, of whom nothing further is known. The works of Hilary of Arles are appended.

Leo II., pope from August 682 to July 683, was a Sicilian by birth, and succeeded Agatho I. Agatho had been represented at the sixth oecumenical council (that of Constantinople in 681), where Pope Honorius I. was anathematized for his views in the Monothelite controversy as a favourer of heresy, and the only fact of permanent historical interest with regard to Leo is that he wrote once and again in approbation of the decision of the council and in condemnation of Honorius, whom he regarded as one who profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est. In their bearing upon the question of papal infallibility these words have excited considerable attention and controversy, and prominence is given to the circumstance that in the Greek text of the letter to the emperor in which the phrase occurs the milder expression παρεχώρησεν (subverti permisit) is used for subvertere conatus est. This Hefele in his Conciliengeschichte (iii. 294) regards as alone expressing the true meaning of Leo. It was during Leo’s pontificate that the dependence of the see of Ravenna upon that of Rome was finally settled by imperial edict. Benedict II. succeeded him.

Leo III., whose pontificate (795-816) covered the last eighteen years of the reign of Charlemagne, was a native of Rome, and having been chosen successor of Adrian I. on the 26th of December 795, was consecrated to the office on the following day. His first act was to send to Charles as patrician the standard of Rome along with the keys of the sepulchre of St Peter and of the city; a gracious and condescending letter in reply made it still more clear where all real power at that moment lay. For more than three years his term of office was uneventful; but at the end of that period the feelings of disappointment which had secretly been rankling in the breasts of Paschalis and Campulus, nephews of Adrian I., who had received from him the offices of primicerius and sacellarius respectively, suddenly manifested themselves in an organized attack upon Leo as he was riding in procession through the city on the day of the Greater Litany (25th April 799); the object of his assailants was, by depriving him of his eyes and tongue, to disqualify him for the papal office, and, although they were unsuccessful in this attempt, he found it necessary to accept the protection of Winegis, the Frankish duke of Spoleto, who came to the rescue. Having vainly requested the presence of Charles in Rome, Leo went beyond the Alps to meet the king at Paderborn; he was received with much ceremony and respect, but his enemies having sent in serious written charges, of which the character is not now known, Charles decided to appoint both the pope and his accusers to appear as parties before him when he should have arrived in Rome. Leo returned in great state to his diocese, and was received with honour; Charles, who did not arrive until November in the following year, lost no time in assuming the office of a judge, and the result of his investigation was the acquittal of the pope, who at the same time, however, was permitted or rather required to clear himself by the oath of compurgation. The coronation of the emperor followed two days afterwards; its effect was to bring out with increased clearness the personally subordinate position of Leo. The decision of the emperor, however, secured for Leo’s pontificate an external peace which was only broken after the accession of Louis the Pious. His enemies began to renew their attacks; the violent repression of a conspiracy led to an open rebellion at Rome; serious charges were once more brought against him, when he was overtaken by death in 816. It was under this pontificate that Felix of Urgel, the adoptianist, was anathematized (798) by a Roman synod. Leo at another synod held in Rome in 810 admitted the dogmatic correctness of the filioque, but deprecated its introduction into the creed. On this point, however, the Frankish Church persevered in the course it had already initiated. Leo’s successor was Stephen IV.

Leo IV., pope from 847 to 855, was a Roman by birth, and succeeded Sergius II. His pontificate was chiefly distinguished by his efforts to repair the damage done by the Saracens during the reign of his predecessor to various churches of the city, especially those of St Peter and St Paul. It was he who built and fortified the suburb on the right bank of the Tiber still known as the Civitas Leonina. A frightful conflagration, which he is said to have extinguished by his prayers, is the subject of Raphael’s great work in the Sala dell’ Incendio of the Vatican. He held three synods, one of them (in 850) distinguished by the presence of Louis II., who was crowned emperor on the occasion, but none of them otherwise of importance. The history of the papal struggle with Hincmar of Reims, which began during Leo’s pontificate, belongs rather to that of Nicholas I. Benedict III. was Leo’s immediate successor.

Leo V., a native of Ardea, was pope for two months in 903 after the death of Benedict IV. He was overthrown and cast into prison by the priest Christopher, who installed himself in his place.

Leo VI. succeeded John X. in 928, and reigned seven months and a few days. He was succeeded by Stephen VIII.

Leo VII., pope from 936 to 939, was preceded by John XI., and followed by Stephen IX.

Leo VIII., pope from 963 to 965, a Roman by birth, held the lay office of protoscrinius when he was elected to the papal chair at the instance of Otto the Great by the Roman synod which deposed John XII. in December 963. Having been hurried with unseemly haste through all the intermediate orders, he received consecration two days after his election, which was unacceptable to the people. In February 964, the emperor having withdrawn from the city, Leo found it necessary to seek safety in flight, whereupon he was deposed by a synod held under the presidency of John XII. On the sudden death of the latter, the populace chose Benedict V. as his successor; but Otto, returning and laying siege to the city, compelled their acceptance of Leo. It is usually said that, at the synod which deposed Benedict, Leo conceded to the emperor and his successors as sovereign of Italy full rights of investiture, but the genuineness of the document on which this allegation rests is more than doubtful. Leo VIII. was succeeded by John XIII.

Leo IX., pope from 1049 to 1054, was a native of Upper Alsace, where he was born on the 21st of June 1002. His proper name was Bruno; the family to which he belonged was of noble rank, and through his father he was related to the emperor Conrad II. He was educated at Toul, where he successively became canon and (1026) bishop; in the latter capacity he rendered important political services to his relative Conrad II., and afterwards to Henry III., and at the same time he became widely known as an earnest and reforming ecclesiastic by the zeal he showed in spreading the rule of the order of Cluny. On the death of Damasus II., Bruno was in December 1048, with the concurrence both of the emperor and of the Roman delegates, selected his successor by an assembly at Worms; he stipulated, however, as a condition of his acceptance that he should first proceed to Rome and be canonically elected by the voice of clergy and people. Setting out shortly after Christmas, he had a meeting with abbot Hugo of Cluny at Besançon, where he was joined by the young monk Hildebrand, who afterwards became Pope Gregory VII.; arriving in pilgrim garb at Rome in the following February, he was received with much cordiality, and at his consecration assumed the name of Leo IX. One of his first public acts was to hold the well-known Easter synod of 1049, at which celibacy of the clergy (down to the rank of subdeacon) was anew enjoined, and where he at least succeeded in making clear his own convictions against every kind of simony. The greater part of the year that followed was occupied in one of those progresses through Italy, Germany and France which form a marked feature in Leo’s pontificate. After presiding over a synod at Pavia, he joined the emperor Henry III. in Saxony, and accompanied him to Cologne and Aix-la-Chapelle; to Reims he also summoned a meeting of the higher clergy, by which several important reforming decrees were passed. At Mainz also he held a council, at which the Italian and French as well as the German clergy were represented, and ambassadors of the Greek emperor were present; here too simony and the marriage of the clergy were the principal matters dealt with. After his return to Rome he held (29th April 1050) another Easter synod, which was occupied largely with the controversy about the teachings of Berengarius of Tours; in the same year he presided over provincial synods at Salerno, Siponto and Vercelli, and in September revisited Germany, returning to Rome in time for a third Easter synod, at which the question of the reordination of those who had been ordained by simonists was considered. In 1052 he joined the emperor at Pressburg, and vainly sought to secure the submission of the Hungarians; and at Regensburg, Bamberg and Worms the papal presence was marked by various ecclesiastical solemnities. After a fourth Easter synod in 1053 Leo set out against the Normans in the south with an army of Italians and German volunteers, but his forces sustained a total defeat at Astagnum near Civitella (18th June 1053); on going out, however, from the city to meet the enemy he was received with every token of submission, relief from the pressure of his ban was implored and fidelity and homage were sworn. From June 1053 to March 1054 he was nevertheless detained at Benevento in honourable captivity; he did not long survive his return to Rome, where he died on the 19th of April 1054. He was succeeded by Victor II.

Leo X. [Giovanni de’ Medici] (1475-1521), pope from the 11th of March 1513 to the 1st of December 1521, was the second son of Lorenzo de’ Medici, called the Magnificent, and was born at Florence on the 11th of December 1475. Destined from his birth for the church, he received the tonsure at the age of seven and was soon loaded with rich benefices and preferments. His father prevailed on Innocent VIII. to name him cardinal-deacon of Sta Maria in Dominica in March 1489, although he was not allowed to wear the insignia or share in the deliberations of the college until three years later. Meanwhile he received a careful education at Lorenzo’s brilliant humanistic court under such men as Angelo Poliziano, the classical scholar, Pico della Mirandola, the philosopher and theologian, the pious Marsilio Ficino who endeavoured to unite the Platonic cult with Christianity and the poet Bernardo Dovizio Bibbiena. From 1489 to 1491 he studied theology and canon law at Pisa under Filippo Decio and Bartolomeo Sozzini. On the 23rd of March 1492 he was formally admitted into the sacred college and took up his residence at Rome, receiving a letter of advice from his father which ranks among the wisest of its kind. The death of Lorenzo on the 8th of April, however, called the seventeen-year-old cardinal to Florence. He participated in the conclave which followed the death of Innocent VIII. in July 1492 and opposed the election of Cardinal Borgia. He made his home with his elder brother Piero at Florence throughout the agitation of Savonarola and the invasion of Charles VIII. of France, until the uprising of the Florentines and the expulsion of the Medici in November 1494. While Piero found refuge at Venice and Urbino, Cardinal Giovanni travelled in Germany, in the Netherlands and in France. In May 1500 he returned to Rome, where he was received with outward cordiality by Alexander VI., and where he lived for several years immersed in art and literature. In 1503 he welcomed the accession of Julius II. to the pontificate; the death of Piero de’ Medici in the same year made Giovanni head of his family. On the 1st of October 1511 he was appointed papal legate of Bologna and the Romagna, and when the Florentine republic declared in favour of the schismatic Pisans Julius II. sent him against his native city at the head of the papal army. This and other attempts to regain political control of Florence were frustrated, until a bloodless revolution permitted the return of the Medici on the 14th of September 1512. Giovanni’s younger brother Giuliano was placed at the head of the republic, but the cardinal actually managed the government. Julius II. died in February 1513, and the conclave, after a stormy seven day’s session, united on Cardinal de’ Medici as the candidate of the younger cardinals. He was ordained to the priesthood on the 15th of March, consecrated bishop on the 17th, and enthroned with the name of Leo X. on the 19th. There is no evidence of simony in the conclave, and Leo’s election was hailed with delight by the Romans on account of his reputation for liberality, kindliness and love of peace. Following the example of many of his predecessors, he promptly repudiated his election “capitulation” as an infringement on the divinely bestowed prerogatives of the Holy See.

Many problems confronted Leo X. on his accession. He must preserve the papal conquests which he had inherited from Alexander VI. and Julius II. He must minimize foreign influence, whether French, Spanish or German, in Italy. He must put an end to the Pisan schism and settle the other troubles incident to the French invasion. He must restore the French Church to Catholic unity, abolish the pragmatic sanction of Bourges, and bring to a successful close the Lateran council convoked by his predecessor. He must stay the victorious advance of the Turks. He must quiet the disagreeable wranglings of the German humanists. Other problems connected with his family interests served to complicate the situation and eventually to prevent the successful consummation of many of his plans. At the very time of Leo’s accession Louis XII. of France, in alliance with Venice, was making a determined effort to regain the duchy of Milan, and the pope, after fruitless endeavours to maintain peace, joined the league of Mechlin on the 5th of April 1513 with the emperor Maximilian I., Ferdinand I. of Spain and Henry VIII. of England. The French and Venetians were at first successful, but on the 6th of June met overwhelming defeat at Novara. The Venetians continued the struggle until October. On the 19th of December the fifth Lateran council, which had been reopened by Leo in April, ratified the peace with Louis XII. and registered the conclusion of the Pisan schism. While the council was engaged in planning a crusade and in considering the reform of the clergy, a new crisis occurred between the pope and the king of France. Francis I., who succeeded Louis XII. on the 1st of January 1515, was an enthusiastic young prince, dominated by the ambition of recovering Milan and Naples. Leo at once formed a new league with the emperor and the king of Spain, and to ensure English support made Wolsey a cardinal. Francis entered Italy in August and on the 14th of September won the battle of Marignano. The pope in October signed an agreement binding him to withdraw his troops from Parma and Piacenza, which had been previously gained at the expense of the duchy of Milan, on condition of French protection at Rome and Florence. The king of Spain wrote to his ambassador at Rome “that His Holiness had hitherto played a double game and that all his zeal to drive the French from Italy had been only a mask”; this reproach seemed to receive some confirmation when Leo X. held a secret conference with Francis at Bologna in December 1515. The ostensible subjects under consideration were the establishment of peace between France, Venice and the Empire, with a view to an expedition against the Turks, and the ecclesiastical affairs of France. Precisely what was arranged is unknown. During these two or three years of incessant political intrigue and warfare it was not to be expected that the Lateran council should accomplish much. Its three main objects, the peace of Christendom, the crusade and the reform of the church, could be secured only by general agreement among the powers, and Leo or the council failed to secure such agreement. Its most important achievements were the registration at its eleventh sitting (19th December 1516) of the abolition of the pragmatic sanction, which the popes since Pius II. had unanimously condemned, and the confirmation of the concordat between Leo X. and Francis I., which was destined to regulate the relations between the French Church and the Holy See until the Revolution. Leo closed the council on the 16th of March 1517. It had ended the schism, ratified the censorship of books introduced by Alexander VI. and imposed tithes for a war against the Turks. It raised no voice against the primacy of the pope.

The year which marked the close of the Lateran council was also signalized by Leo’s unholy war against the duke of Urbino. The pope was naturally proud of his family and had practised nepotism from the outset. His cousin Giulio, who subsequently became Clement VII., he had made the most influential man in the curia, naming him archbishop of Florence, cardinal and vice-chancellor of the Holy See. Leo had intended his younger brother Giuliano and his nephew Lorenzo for brilliant secular careers. He had named them Roman patricians; the latter he had placed in charge of Florence; the former, for whom he planned to carve out a kingdom in central Italy of Parma, Piacenza, Ferrara and Urbino, he had taken with himself to Rome and married to Filiberta of Savoy. The death of Giuliano in March 1516, however, caused the pope to transfer his ambitions to Lorenzo. At the very time (December 1516) that peace between France, Spain, Venice and the Empire seemed to give some promise of a Christendom united against the Turk, Leo was preparing an enterprise as unscrupulous as any of the similar exploits of Cesare Borgia. He obtained 150,000 ducats towards the expenses of the expedition from Henry VIII. of England, in return for which he entered the imperial league of Spain and England against France. The war lasted from February to September 1517 and ended with the expulsion of the duke and the triumph of Lorenzo; but it revived the nefarious policy of Alexander VI., increased brigandage and anarchy in the States of the Church, hindered the preparations for a crusade and wrecked the papal finances. Guicciardini reckoned the cost of the war to Leo at the prodigious sum of 800,000 ducats. The new duke of Urbino was the Lorenzo de’ Medici to whom Machiavelli addressed The Prince. His marriage in March 1518 was arranged by the pope with Madeleine la Tour d’Auvergne, a royal princess of France, whose daughter was the Catherine de’ Medici celebrated in French history. The war of Urbino was further marked by a crisis in the relations between pope and cardinals. The sacred college had grown especially worldly and troublesome since the time of Sixtus IV., and Leo took advantage of a plot of several of its members to poison him, not only to inflict exemplary punishments by executing one and imprisoning several others, but also to make a radical change in the college. On the 3rd of July 1517 he published the names of thirty-one new cardinals, a number almost unprecedented in the history of the papacy. Some of the nominations were excellent, such as Lorenzo Campeggio, Giambattista Pallavicini, Adrian of Utrecht, Cajetan, Cristoforo Numai and Egidio Canisio. The naming of seven members of prominent Roman families, however, reversed the wise policy of his predecessor which had kept the dangerous factions of the city out of the curia. Other promotions were for political or family considerations or to secure money for the war against Urbino. The pope was accused of having exaggerated the conspiracy of the cardinals for purposes of financial gain, but most of such accusations appear to be unsubstantiated.

Leo, meanwhile, felt the need of staying the advance of the warlike sultan, Selim I., who was threatening western Europe, and made elaborate plans for a crusade. A truce was to be proclaimed throughout Christendom; the pope was to be the arbiter of disputes; the emperor and the king of France were to lead the army; England, Spain and Portugal were to furnish the fleet; and the combined forces were to be directed against Constantinople. Papal diplomacy in the interests of peace failed, however; Cardinal Wolsey made England, not the pope, the arbiter between France and the Empire; and much of the money collected for the crusade from tithes and indulgences was spent in other ways. In 1519 Hungary concluded a three years’ truce with Selim I., but the succeeding sultan, Suliman the Magnificent, renewed the war in June 1521 and on the 28th of August captured the citadel of Belgrade. The pope was greatly alarmed, and although he was then involved in war with France he sent about 30,000 ducats to the Hungarians. Leo treated the Uniate Greeks with great loyalty, and by bull of the 18th of May 1521 forbade Latin clergy to celebrate mass in Greek churches and Latin bishops to ordain Greek clergy. These provisions were later strengthened by Clement VII. and Paul III. and went far to settle the chronic disputes between the Latins and Uniate Greeks.

Leo was disturbed throughout his pontificate by heresy and schism. The dispute between Reuchlin and Pfefferkorn relative to the Talmud and other Jewish books was referred to the pope in September 1513. He in turn referred it to the bishops of Spires and Worms, who gave decision in March 1514 in favour of Reuchlin. After the appeal of the inquisitor-general, Hochstraten, and the appearance of the Epistolae obscurorum virorum, however, Leo annulled the decision (June 1520) and imposed silence on Reuchlin. The pope had already authorized the extensive grant of indulgences in order to secure funds for the crusade and more particularly for the rebuilding of St Peter’s at Rome. Against the attendant abuses the Augustinian monk Martin Luther (q.v.) posted (31st October 1517) on the church door at Wittenberg his famous ninety-five theses, which were the signal for widespread revolt against the church. Although Leo did not fully comprehend the import of the movement, he directed (3rd February 1518) the vicar-general of the Augustinians to impose silence on the monks. On the 30th of May Luther sent an explanation of his theses to the pope; on the 7th of August he was cited to appear at Rome. An arrangement was effected, however, whereby that citation was cancelled, and Luther betook himself in October 1518 to Augsburg to meet the papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan, who was attending the imperial diet convened by the emperor Maximilian to impose the tithes for the Turkish war and to elect a king of the Romans; but neither the arguments of the learned cardinal, nor the dogmatic papal bull of the 9th of November to the effect that all Christians must believe in the pope’s power to grant indulgences, moved Luther to retract. A year of fruitless negotiation followed, during which the pamphlets of the reformer set all Germany on fire. A papal bull of the 15th of June 1520, which condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther’s teachings, was taken to Germany by Eck in his capacity of apostolic nuncio, published by him and the legates Alexander and Caracciola, and burned by Luther on the 10th of December at Wittenberg. Leo then formally excommunicated Luther by bull of the 3rd of January 1521; and in a brief directed the emperor to take energetic measures against heresy. On the 26th of May 1521 the emperor signed the edict of the diet of Worms, which placed Luther under the ban of the Empire; on the 21st of the same month Henry VIII. of England sent to Leo his book against Luther on the seven sacraments. The pope, after careful consideration, conferred on the king of England the title “Defender of the Faith” by bull of the 11th of October 1521. Neither the imperial edict nor the work of Henry VIII. stayed the Lutheran movement, and Luther himself, safe in the solitude of the Wartburg, survived Leo X. It was under Leo X. also that the Protestant movement had its beginning in Scandinavia. The pope had repeatedly used the rich northern benefices to reward members of the Roman curia, and towards the close of the year 1516 he sent the grasping and impolitic Arcimboldi as papal nuncio to Denmark to collect money for St Peter’s. King Christian II. took advantage of the growing dissatisfaction on the part of the native clergy toward the papal government, and of Arcimboldi’s interference in the Swedish revolt, in order to expel the nuncio and summon (1520) Lutheran theologians to Copenhagen. Christian approved a plan by which a formal state church should be established in Denmark, all appeals to Rome should be abolished, and the king and diet should have final jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes. Leo sent a new nuncio to Copenhagen (1521) in the person of the Minorite Francesco de Potentia, who readily absolved the king and received the rich bishopric of Skara. The pope or his legate, however, took no steps to remove abuses or otherwise reform the Scandinavian churches.

That Leo did not do more to check the tendency toward heresy and schism in Germany and Scandinavia is to be partially explained by the political complications of the time, and by his own preoccupation with schemes of papal and Medicean aggrandizement in Italy. The death of the emperor Maximilian on the 12th of January 1519 had seriously affected the situation. Leo vacillated between the powerful candidates for the succession, allowing it to appear at first that he favoured Francis I. while really working for the election of some minor German prince. He finally accepted Charles I. of Spain as inevitable, and the election of Charles (28th of June 1519) revealed Leo’s desertion of his French alliance, a step facilitated by the death at about the same time of Lorenzo de’ Medici and his French wife. Leo was now anxious to unite Ferrara, Parma and Piacenza to the States of the Church. An attempt late in 1519 to seize Ferrara failed, and the pope recognized the need of foreign aid. In May 1521 a treaty of alliance was signed at Rome between him and the emperor. Milan and Genoa were to be taken from France and restored to the Empire, and Parma and Piacenza were to be given to the Church on the expulsion of the French. The expense of enlisting 10,000 Swiss was to be borne equally by pope and emperor. Charles took Florence and the Medici family under his protection and promised to punish all enemies of the Catholic faith. Leo agreed to invest Charles with Naples, to crown him emperor, and to aid in a war against Venice. It was provided that England and the Swiss might join the league. Henry VIII. announced his adherence in August. Francis I. had already begun war with Charles in Navarre, and in Italy, too, the French made the first hostile movement (23rd June 1521). Leo at once announced that he would excommunicate the king of France and release his subjects from their allegiance unless Francis laid down his arms and surrendered Parma and Piacenza. The pope lived to hear the joyful news of the capture of Milan from the French and of the occupation by papal troops of the long-coveted provinces (November 1521). Leo X. died on the 1st of December 1521, so suddenly that the last sacraments could not be administered; but the contemporary suspicions of poison were unfounded. His successor was Adrian VI.

Several minor events of Leo’s pontificate are worthy of mention. He was particularly friendly with King Emmanuel of Portugal on account of the latter’s missionary enterprises in Asia and Africa. His concordat with Florence (1516) guaranteed the free election of the clergy in that city. His constitution of the 1st of March 1519 condemned the king of Spain’s claim to refuse the publication of papal bulls. He maintained close relations with Poland because of the Turkish advance and the Polish contest with the Teutonic Knights. His bull of the 1st of July 1519, which regulated the discipline of the Polish Church, was later transformed into a concordat by Clement VII. Leo showed special favours to the Jews and permitted them to erect a Hebrew printing-press at Rome. He approved the formation of the Oratory of Divine Love, a group of pious men at Rome which later became the Theatine Order, and he canonized Francesco di Paola.

As patron of learning Leo X. deserves a prominent place among the popes. He raised the church to a high rank as the friend of whatever seemed to extend knowledge or to refine and embellish life. He made the capital of Christendom the centre of culture. Every Italian artist and man of letters in an age of singular intellectual brilliancy tasted or hoped to taste of his bounty, while yet a cardinal, he had restored the church of Sta Maria in Domnica after Raphael’s designs; and as pope he built S. Giovanni on the Via Giulia after designs by Jacopo Sansovino and pressed forward the work on St Peter’s and the Vatican under Raphael and Chigi. His constitution of the 5th of November 1513 reformed the Roman university, which had been neglected by Julius II. He restored all its faculties, gave larger salaries to the professors, and summoned distinguished teachers from afar; and, although it never attained to the importance of Padua or Bologna, it nevertheless possessed in 1514 an excellent faculty of eighty-eight professors. Leo called Theodore Lascaris to Rome to give instruction in Greek, and established a Greek printing-press from which the first Greek book printed at Rome appeared in 1515. He made Raphael custodian of the classical antiquities of Rome and the vicinity. The distinguished Latinists Pietro Bembo (1470-1547) and Jacopo Sadoleto (1477-1547) were papal secretaries, as well as the famous poet Bernardo Accolti (d. 1534). Writers of poetry like Vida (1490-1566), Trissino (1478-1550), and Bibbiena (1470-1520), writers of novelle like Bandello, and a hundred other literati of the time were bishops, or papal scriptors or abbreviators, or in other papal employ. Leo’s lively interest in art and literature, to say nothing of his natural liberality, his nepotism, his political ambitions and necessities, and his immoderate personal luxury, exhausted within two years the hard savings of Julius II., and precipitated a financial crisis from which he never emerged and which was a direct cause of most of the calamities of his pontificate. He created many new offices and shamelessly sold them. He sold cardinals’ hats. He sold membership in the “Knights of Peter.” He borrowed large sums from bankers, curials, princes and Jews. The Venetian ambassador Gradenigo estimated the paying number of offices on Leo’s death at 2150, with a capital value of nearly 3,000,000 ducats and a yearly income of 328,000 ducats. Marino Giorgi reckoned the ordinary income of the pope for the year 1517 at about 580,000 ducats, of which 420,000 came from the States of the Church, 100,000 from annates, and 60,000 from the composition tax instituted by Sixtus IV. These sums, together with the considerable amounts accruing from indulgences, jubilees, and special fees, vanished as quickly as they were received. Then the pope resorted to pawning palace furniture, table plate, jewels, even statues of the apostles. Several banking firms and many individual creditors were ruined by the death of the pope.

In the past many conflicting estimates were made of the character and achievements of the pope during whose pontificate Protestantism first took form. More recent studies have served to produce a fairer and more honest opinion of Leo X. A report of the Venetian ambassador Marino Giorgi bearing date of March 1517 indicates some of his predominant characteristics:—“The pope is a good-natured and extremely free-hearted man, who avoids every difficult situation and above all wants peace; he would not undertake a war himself unless his own personal interests were involved; he loves learning; of canon law and literature he possesses remarkable knowledge; he is, moreover, a very excellent musician.” Leo was dignified in appearance and elegant in speech, manners and writing. He enjoyed music and the theatre, art and poetry, the masterpieces of the ancients and the wonderful creations of his contemporaries, the spiritual and the witty—life in every form. It is by no means certain that he made the remark often attributed to him, “Let us enjoy the papacy since God has given it to us,” but there is little doubt that he was by nature devoid of moral earnestness or deep religious feeling. On the other hand, in spite of his worldliness, Leo was not an unbeliever; he prayed, fasted, and participated in the services of the church with conscientiousness. To the virtues of liberality, charity and clemency he added the Machiavellian qualities of falsehood and shrewdness, so highly esteemed by the princes of his time. Leo was deemed fortunate by his contemporaries, but an incurable malady, wars, enemies, a conspiracy of cardinals, and the loss of all his nearest relations darkened his days; and he failed entirely in his general policy of expelling foreigners from Italy, of restoring peace throughout Europe, and of prosecuting war against the Turks. He failed to recognize the pressing need of reform within the church and the tremendous dangers which threatened the papal monarchy; and he unpardonably neglected the spiritual needs of the time. He was, however, zealous in firmly establishing the political power of the Holy See; he made it unquestionably supreme in Italy; he successfully restored the papal power in France; and he secured a prominent place in the history of culture.

Authorities.—The life of Leo X. was written shortly after his death by Paolo Giovio, bishop of Nocera, who had known him intimately. Other important contemporary sources are the Italian History of the Florentine writer Guicciardini, covering the period 1492-1530 (4 vols., Milan, 1884); the reports of the Venetian ambassadors, Marino Giorgi (1517), Marco Minio (1520) and Luigi Gradenigo (1523), in vol. iii. of the 2nd series of Le Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti, edited by Alberi (Florence, 1846); and the Diarii of the Venetian Marino Sanuto (58 vols., 1879-1903). Other materials for the biography are to be found in the incomplete Regesta edited by Joseph Cardinal Hergenröther (Freiburg-i-B., 1884 ff.); in the Turin collection of papal bulls (1859, &c.); in Il Diario di Leone X. dai volumi manoscritti degli archivi Vaticani della S. Sede connote di M. Armellini (Rome, 1884); and in “Documenti risguardanti Giovanni de’ Medici e il pontifice Leone X.,” appendix to vol. 1 of the Archivio storico Italiano (Florence, 1842).

See L. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste im Zeitalter der Renaissance u. der Glaubensspaltung von der Wahl Leos X. bis zum Tode Klemens VII. part 1 (Freiburg-i.-B., 1906); M. Creighton, History of the Papacy, vol. 6 (1901); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton, vol. viii., part 1 (1902); L. von Ranke, History of the Popes, vol. i., trans. by E. Foster in the Bohn Library; Histoire de France, ed. by E. Lavisse, vol. 5, part 1 (1903); Walter Friedensburg, “Ein rotulus familiae Papst Leos X.,” in Quellen u. Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven u. Bibliotheken, vol. vi. (1904); W. Roscoe, Life and Pontificate of Leo X. (6th ed., 2 vols., 1853), a celebrated biography but considerably out of date in spite of the valuable notes of the German and Italian translators, Henke and Bossi; F. S. Nitti, Leone X. e la sua politica secondo documenti e carteggi inediti (Florence, 1892); A. Schulte, Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523 (2 vols., Leipzig, 1906); and H. M. Vaughan, The Medici Popes (1908).

(C. H. Ha.)

Leo XI. (Alessandro de’ Medici) was elected pope on the 1st of April 1605, at the age of seventy. He had long been archbishop of Florence and nuncio to Tuscany; and was entirely pro-French in his sympathies. He died on the 27th day of his pontificate, and was succeeded by Paul V.

See the contemporary life by Vitorelli, continuator of Ciaconius, Vitae et res gestae summorum Pontiff. Rom.; Ranke, Popes (Eng. trans., Austin), ii. 330; v. Reumont, Gesch. der Stadt Rom. iii. 2, 604; Brosch, Gesch. des Kirchenstaates (1880), i. 350.

Leo XII. (Annibale della Genga), pope from 1823 to 1829, was born of a noble family, near Spoleto, on the 22nd of August 1760. Educated at the Accademia dei Nobili ecclesiastici at Rome, he was ordained priest in 1783, and in 1790 attracted favourable attention by a tactful sermon commemorative of the emperor Joseph II. In 1792 Pius VI. made him his private secretary, in 1793 creating him titular archbishop of Tyre and despatching him to Lucerne as nuncio. In 1794 he was transferred to the nunciature at Cologne, but owing to the war had to make his residence in Augsburg. During the dozen or more years he spent in Germany he was entrusted with several honourable and difficult missions, which brought him into contact with the courts of Dresden, Vienna, Munich and Württemberg, as well as with Napoleon. It is, however, charged at one time during this period that his finances were disordered, and his private life not above suspicion. After the abolition of the States of the Church, he was treated by the French as a state prisoner, and lived for some years at the abbey of Monticelli, solacing himself with music and with bird-shooting, pastimes which he did not eschew even after his election as pope. In 1814 he was chosen to carry the pope’s congratulations to Louis XVIII.; in 1816 he was created cardinal-priest of Santa Maria Maggiore, and appointed to the see of Sinigaglia, which he resigned in 1818. In 1820 Pius VII. gave him the distinguished post of cardinal vicar. In the conclave of 1823, in spite of the active opposition of France, he was elected pope by the zelanti on the 28th of September. His election had been facilitated because he was thought to be on the edge of the grave; but he unexpectedly rallied. His foreign policy, entrusted at first to Della Somaglia and then to the more able Bernetti, moved in general along lines laid down by Consalvi; and he negotiated certain concordats very advantageous to the papacy. Personally most frugal, Leo reduced taxes, made justice less costly, and was able to find money for certain public improvements; yet he left the finances more confused than he had found them, and even the elaborate jubilee of 1825 did not really mend matters. His domestic policy was one of extreme reaction. He condemned the Bible societies, and under Jesuit influence reorganized the educational system. Severe ghetto laws led many of the Jews to emigrate. He hunted down the Carbonari and the Freemasons; he took the strongest measures against political agitation in theatres. A well-nigh ubiquitous system of espionage, perhaps most fruitful when directed against official corruption, sapped the foundations of public confidence. Leo, temperamentally stern, hard-working in spite of bodily infirmity, died at Rome on the 10th of February 1829. The news was received by the populace with unconcealed joy. He was succeeded by Pius VIII.

Authorities.—Artaud de Montor, Histoire du Pape Léon XII. (2 vols., 1843; by the secretary of the French embassy in Rome); Brück, “Leo XII.,” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, vol. vii. (Freiburg, 1891); F. Nippold, The Papacy in the 19th Century (New York, 1900), chap. 5; Benrath, “Leo XII.,” in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, vol. xi.-(Leipzig, 1902), 390-393, with bibliography; F. Nielsen, The History of the Papacy in the 19th century (1906), vol. ii. 1-30; Lady Blennerhassett, in the Cambridge Modern History, vol. x. (1907), 151-154.

(W. W. R.*)